Legislative law, as well, must be directed toward the driving principle of the government. In a republic, virtue means love of the state, and a desire to sustain the state. Since a democracy is sustained by the volunteered will of the people, the law must encourage that action. In a democracy, laws will aim toward equality among the citizens. At the start, this means division of land ownership. After a time, it will mean equitable sharing in marriage and after death. The citizens themselves will act to preserve that equality, sacrificing when need be for the greater good. (Excepting that class of people engaged in commerce, who know their success sustains many.) But even then, the law must treat them in such a way that their activity is sutained. The selection of legislators should also sustain the system-- a permanent class of overarching rule-setters (a senate), and a rotating class to administer day-to-day needs.
In an aristocracy (still a republic), the laws will encourage moderation among that class, to preserve their contact with the underclass.
In a monarchy, honor is the driving principle. Hereditary power is part of this, as is pomp among the ruling class. Laws that respect class distinctions preserve peace among the classes for long periods, as everyone is satisfied with their place.
In a despotic reign, the system is sustained through fear. Whatever laws are decreed attempt only to preserve immediate power, and usually succeed in doing so. But they don't support a sustainable system-- and there is no thought to doing so. Ultimately, though, this leads to rapid turnover within society and in leadership, as different despots take and try to hold the reins of power (for its own sake).
--------------------
I'm starting to remember why I hated reading my philosophy assignments. This is brutal without an additional explanatory text. I think I have to skip ahead to the books that are relevant to America's founding-- the separation of powers part.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Saturday, February 26, 2011
The Spirit of Laws, Book IV - That The Laws Of Education Ought To Be In Relation To The Principles Of Government
Each type of govenment will institute a mode of education suitable to its driving principle. In a monarchy, the point of education is to correctly understand the demands of honor. Education, then, will concern itself with seeking greatness-- even in the little things. Chivalry and gallantry are meant to be a big deal. Truth isn't even the aim of education, except in that a sense of truth bestows an air of boldness.
Despotism concerns itself less with real education, and more with teaching the young their place in the world. More important to understand subservient position than to grasp truth.
In a republic, the aim of education is to instill virtue. But the aim of virtue is proper self-governance. So education teaches the ways of self-governance, which requires a true understanding a love of that system of governance. Education is directed to how things are.
[From here, Montesquieu went off describing something about the cultural institutions of the Greeks, like music/athletics/art, and how they served/undermined their culture. I honestly couldn't follow it at all, and it seems completely unimportant.]
Despotism concerns itself less with real education, and more with teaching the young their place in the world. More important to understand subservient position than to grasp truth.
In a republic, the aim of education is to instill virtue. But the aim of virtue is proper self-governance. So education teaches the ways of self-governance, which requires a true understanding a love of that system of governance. Education is directed to how things are.
[From here, Montesquieu went off describing something about the cultural institutions of the Greeks, like music/athletics/art, and how they served/undermined their culture. I honestly couldn't follow it at all, and it seems completely unimportant.]
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
The Agamemnon, 3
Clytemnestra urges Cassandra to come into the palace for the (thankful) sacrifices to the gods. But she shudders in silence and stays put. The Chorus urges her to go, but in confusion over her state. Clytemnestra leaves in frustration.
At this, Cassandra speaks, and cries out to Apollo over prophetic visions. First recognizing the spilling of much blood in the palace-- past, present, and future. Points the finger especially at a "wretched woman". But she's babbling, and the Chorus can't keep up. They're totally freaked out. She sees Clytemnestra killing her husband. She sees her own death, and rues her fate. She sees the destruction brought on by Paris, her own home, and a similar home by the rivers in Hades. She sees the original ancient familial murders in the palace, and those of Atreus, Agamemnon's father.
The Chorus asks for explanation. Cassandra tells of her seduction by Apollo, then his curse when she wouldn't have his child: she will not be believed in her prophecies.
Now sees specifically the murdered children of Thyestes, murdered by his brother Atreus and then fed to their father. She sees Aegisthus and Clytemnestra plotting Agamemnon's murder in his bed. The Chorus recognize the old story of Thyestes and are amazed, but lost on the rest. She specifically calls Agamemnon's death. She sees Clytemnestra plotting against her, and throws off her wench's clothing in disgust. She sees an ultimate avenger (Orestes) arriving to do in Clytemnestra. She resigns herself to her fate, and moves to enter the palace.
The Chorus ask why the change, and admire her as an "undaunted soul". She rebukes the compliment, saying it is only given to the doomed. She recoils again from entering, predicting future deaths, and stating a final wish before her own death: that her slayers also be put to death.
The Chorus lament Agamemnon's imminent and untimely death, questioning the benefit of being born a king if it leads to such a fate.
----------------------
Once again, it's unclear to me how much of the story is already understood by the audience. Cassandra speaks without naming names, as it were. But I easily picked up on exactly whom she's talking about on every line-- and the footnotes weren't necessary most of the time. Good to see the Chorus isn't entirely stupid-- they caught some of it as well.
Funny line that has gained a ridiculous new connotation:
(Clytemnestra speaking of Cassandra's reluctance to come in): Perhaps she only understands some outlandish twittering.
I really enjoyed Cassandra's scenes. I was hoping to find a video of a really good version of a performance in English somewhere. Instead, this is the best I found. This is creepy as hell.
I don't understand theater at all.
At this, Cassandra speaks, and cries out to Apollo over prophetic visions. First recognizing the spilling of much blood in the palace-- past, present, and future. Points the finger especially at a "wretched woman". But she's babbling, and the Chorus can't keep up. They're totally freaked out. She sees Clytemnestra killing her husband. She sees her own death, and rues her fate. She sees the destruction brought on by Paris, her own home, and a similar home by the rivers in Hades. She sees the original ancient familial murders in the palace, and those of Atreus, Agamemnon's father.
The Chorus asks for explanation. Cassandra tells of her seduction by Apollo, then his curse when she wouldn't have his child: she will not be believed in her prophecies.
Now sees specifically the murdered children of Thyestes, murdered by his brother Atreus and then fed to their father. She sees Aegisthus and Clytemnestra plotting Agamemnon's murder in his bed. The Chorus recognize the old story of Thyestes and are amazed, but lost on the rest. She specifically calls Agamemnon's death. She sees Clytemnestra plotting against her, and throws off her wench's clothing in disgust. She sees an ultimate avenger (Orestes) arriving to do in Clytemnestra. She resigns herself to her fate, and moves to enter the palace.
The Chorus ask why the change, and admire her as an "undaunted soul". She rebukes the compliment, saying it is only given to the doomed. She recoils again from entering, predicting future deaths, and stating a final wish before her own death: that her slayers also be put to death.
The Chorus lament Agamemnon's imminent and untimely death, questioning the benefit of being born a king if it leads to such a fate.
----------------------
Once again, it's unclear to me how much of the story is already understood by the audience. Cassandra speaks without naming names, as it were. But I easily picked up on exactly whom she's talking about on every line-- and the footnotes weren't necessary most of the time. Good to see the Chorus isn't entirely stupid-- they caught some of it as well.
Funny line that has gained a ridiculous new connotation:
(Clytemnestra speaking of Cassandra's reluctance to come in): Perhaps she only understands some outlandish twittering.
I really enjoyed Cassandra's scenes. I was hoping to find a video of a really good version of a performance in English somewhere. Instead, this is the best I found. This is creepy as hell.
I don't understand theater at all.
The Spirit of Laws, Book III - Of The Principles Of The Three Kinds Of Government
Having discussed the three structures of government, time to discuss the animating principles of each type.
A democracy is sustained by the concept of virtue. The people recognize their own responsibility for themselves, and act accordingly. The loss of virtue among the people leads to the downfall of that community-- witness the Greeks. (Conversely, a state that tries to introduce democracy without first inculcating the necessary virtue will fall back to its old ways-- witness England under Cromwell.) The loss of virtue leads instead to the influence of vice, which quickly spins out of control.
An aristocracy (the other type of republic) also requires virtue, but among the ruling class alone. Two types-- either virtue in light of their responsibility for the remaining people (the good kind), or virtue in light of their sense of self-preservation (the not-as-good kind).
Virtue has not the same place in a monarchy. The people instead are regulated by imposition of law. For the ruler (and the class of nobles), the animating principle is honor. The sense of honor determines public action, restrains public behavior, and even has a hold on the monarch himself.
Since despotism have to appeal to pre-existing law, however, it cannot be restrained by honor. Instead, its animating principle is fear. This determines what the people, or the higher classes, choose to try to do in light of what they think they can get away with. If ever the despot loses the sense of fear among his underlings, he is immediately done for. The only restraint on the despot is the opposition of religion-- the only possilble higher power left.
-----------------------
I find it interesting that Montesquieu makes no attempt to actually define "virtue". He gives some examples in passing, but does not dwell on them. Might be because the whole concept of virtue was immediately understood by the readers at the time-- something we've perhaps lost.
A good account of despotism, too. The "loss of fear" pattern is exactly what we've seen in the Middle East protests over the past month. The really bad regimes-- the ones that maintain the fear of the people-- are the ones that stay in power, too.
A democracy is sustained by the concept of virtue. The people recognize their own responsibility for themselves, and act accordingly. The loss of virtue among the people leads to the downfall of that community-- witness the Greeks. (Conversely, a state that tries to introduce democracy without first inculcating the necessary virtue will fall back to its old ways-- witness England under Cromwell.) The loss of virtue leads instead to the influence of vice, which quickly spins out of control.
An aristocracy (the other type of republic) also requires virtue, but among the ruling class alone. Two types-- either virtue in light of their responsibility for the remaining people (the good kind), or virtue in light of their sense of self-preservation (the not-as-good kind).
Virtue has not the same place in a monarchy. The people instead are regulated by imposition of law. For the ruler (and the class of nobles), the animating principle is honor. The sense of honor determines public action, restrains public behavior, and even has a hold on the monarch himself.
Since despotism have to appeal to pre-existing law, however, it cannot be restrained by honor. Instead, its animating principle is fear. This determines what the people, or the higher classes, choose to try to do in light of what they think they can get away with. If ever the despot loses the sense of fear among his underlings, he is immediately done for. The only restraint on the despot is the opposition of religion-- the only possilble higher power left.
-----------------------
I find it interesting that Montesquieu makes no attempt to actually define "virtue". He gives some examples in passing, but does not dwell on them. Might be because the whole concept of virtue was immediately understood by the readers at the time-- something we've perhaps lost.
A good account of despotism, too. The "loss of fear" pattern is exactly what we've seen in the Middle East protests over the past month. The really bad regimes-- the ones that maintain the fear of the people-- are the ones that stay in power, too.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
The Agamemnon, 2
A herald arrives first, ready to announce Agamemnon. He is glad to be home, finally. The Chorus greets him gladly, surprising him somewhat. Given the chance, he complains of the drearyness of soldiering, wondering if the victory was worth the pain.
Clytemnestra enters, brags about being right about the bonfire signals' meaning. Is happy over her husband's return, glad to tell him of her faithfulness while he was gone. A little too eager to tell him that, actually.
Chorus asks of Menelaus. Herald tells how they lost his ship on the journey home. Chorus: So Helen claimed another great man. Just as, through Paris, she claimed an entire great city. She's like a lion cub raised by humans-- seductive, but suddenly turning on them and bringing utter destruction. An argument-- does greatness bring an expectation of (unattainable) greatness, leading to downfall? Or do sins like Pride lead to future wickedness that bring about downfall?
The Chorus welcomes Agamemnon, but worried that their enthusiasm will appear an act. After all, they were quite dismayed when he slaughtered his daughter at the start of his mission.
Agamemnon tells of his triumph. But he's concerned of the people's resentment behind their praise of his success. Promises an open reign so they may build their city together.
Clytemnestra tells of her pain as she waited for her husband's return, hearing constant false reports of his demise. She had to send away their son, Orestes, for his protection. But that's all past, and now is a time for joy. Lay out the purple carpet and tapestries for Agamemnon's entrance!
Back and forth. A: Um, that's not necessary. C: What's the problem? A: I just don't feel like it. C: Come on. Do it for me. This is what I prepared for you.
Agamemnon relents, stepping down from the carriage, and so revealing Cassandra. A: Oh, yeah, her. She came back with me. Never mind. On we go! (But doesn't proceed.)
C: Let's go, honey. All this royal carpet. All for you. You deserve it. Move! (He does.)
Chorus: That was weird. Things aren't nearly as positive as we thought they'd be right now.
---------------------------
Lots of false modesty on Agamemnon's part, and passive aggressiveness from Clytemnestra. I'm digging it.
Since the audience already knows the story again, they must be grinning in anticipation for Clytemnestra's new husband. I sure am.
My first reaction to seeing Cassandra's name in The Iliad is looking pretty silly by now. She's everywhere. I'm an idiot.
More direct criticism of the drudgery of war. Biographical question: Is Aeschylus speaking with first-hand knowledge? What war?
After lookup: In the 490 BC war against the Persians (led by Darius), Aeschylus fought in the battle at Marathon. Also fought against Xerxes in 479 BC. Awesome.
Clytemnestra enters, brags about being right about the bonfire signals' meaning. Is happy over her husband's return, glad to tell him of her faithfulness while he was gone. A little too eager to tell him that, actually.
Chorus asks of Menelaus. Herald tells how they lost his ship on the journey home. Chorus: So Helen claimed another great man. Just as, through Paris, she claimed an entire great city. She's like a lion cub raised by humans-- seductive, but suddenly turning on them and bringing utter destruction. An argument-- does greatness bring an expectation of (unattainable) greatness, leading to downfall? Or do sins like Pride lead to future wickedness that bring about downfall?
The Chorus welcomes Agamemnon, but worried that their enthusiasm will appear an act. After all, they were quite dismayed when he slaughtered his daughter at the start of his mission.
Agamemnon tells of his triumph. But he's concerned of the people's resentment behind their praise of his success. Promises an open reign so they may build their city together.
Clytemnestra tells of her pain as she waited for her husband's return, hearing constant false reports of his demise. She had to send away their son, Orestes, for his protection. But that's all past, and now is a time for joy. Lay out the purple carpet and tapestries for Agamemnon's entrance!
Back and forth. A: Um, that's not necessary. C: What's the problem? A: I just don't feel like it. C: Come on. Do it for me. This is what I prepared for you.
Agamemnon relents, stepping down from the carriage, and so revealing Cassandra. A: Oh, yeah, her. She came back with me. Never mind. On we go! (But doesn't proceed.)
C: Let's go, honey. All this royal carpet. All for you. You deserve it. Move! (He does.)
Chorus: That was weird. Things aren't nearly as positive as we thought they'd be right now.
---------------------------
Lots of false modesty on Agamemnon's part, and passive aggressiveness from Clytemnestra. I'm digging it.
Since the audience already knows the story again, they must be grinning in anticipation for Clytemnestra's new husband. I sure am.
My first reaction to seeing Cassandra's name in The Iliad is looking pretty silly by now. She's everywhere. I'm an idiot.
More direct criticism of the drudgery of war. Biographical question: Is Aeschylus speaking with first-hand knowledge? What war?
After lookup: In the 490 BC war against the Persians (led by Darius), Aeschylus fought in the battle at Marathon. Also fought against Xerxes in 479 BC. Awesome.
The Spirit of Laws, Book II - Of Laws Naturally Derived From The Nature Of Government
There are three natural arrangements for government.
A republic rests supreme power in the people at large-- either in an aristocracy, or with everyone in a democracy. The most important task in a republic is to have a fixed concept of suffrage-- carelessness in this respect led to the downfall of Rome. Different societies would have different natural ways of determining the best method. But even in a full democracy, it becomes necessary for an elected body to direct the passions of the people-- likely an aristocracy.
It is possible for a member of the aristocracy to gain a sudden wealth of great power-- necessary, even, in some cases. Fine, as long as such periods under a magistrate are kept short and well-defined. Better, though, for an aristocracy to lean in the direction of democracy than in the direction of monarchy.
Under a monarchy, power is vested in an individual, who then rules according to a body of law-- either pre-existing, or proposed by a legislative group (possibly, even if informally, the nobility). Whatever the structure of this body, it serves as a check on the capriciousness of the monarch.
In despotic government, there is no body (of persons or of laws) for the supreme ruler to be checked by. In most cases, the despot will appoint a vizier to handle mundane cases-- which only makes things worse. The isolation from the public at large makes a despot even worse of a ruler-- and he doesn't even know it.
-----------------------
I'm getting a very positive vibe out of Montesquieu-- he thinks mankind is doing pretty well, and generally issues have a way of working themselves out for the best. This is a great contrast to what I read in a lot of contemporary debate, where all that gets discussed are the fundamental problems with societal arrangements.
I'm also thinking Montesquieu didn't do a lot of research-- around the world, or extensively historical-- in coming up with his list of possible systems. Maybe every system that's ever been tried would fall into his categories, but it seems more likely that he's just describing the variations in his corner of the world.
A republic rests supreme power in the people at large-- either in an aristocracy, or with everyone in a democracy. The most important task in a republic is to have a fixed concept of suffrage-- carelessness in this respect led to the downfall of Rome. Different societies would have different natural ways of determining the best method. But even in a full democracy, it becomes necessary for an elected body to direct the passions of the people-- likely an aristocracy.
It is possible for a member of the aristocracy to gain a sudden wealth of great power-- necessary, even, in some cases. Fine, as long as such periods under a magistrate are kept short and well-defined. Better, though, for an aristocracy to lean in the direction of democracy than in the direction of monarchy.
Under a monarchy, power is vested in an individual, who then rules according to a body of law-- either pre-existing, or proposed by a legislative group (possibly, even if informally, the nobility). Whatever the structure of this body, it serves as a check on the capriciousness of the monarch.
In despotic government, there is no body (of persons or of laws) for the supreme ruler to be checked by. In most cases, the despot will appoint a vizier to handle mundane cases-- which only makes things worse. The isolation from the public at large makes a despot even worse of a ruler-- and he doesn't even know it.
-----------------------
I'm getting a very positive vibe out of Montesquieu-- he thinks mankind is doing pretty well, and generally issues have a way of working themselves out for the best. This is a great contrast to what I read in a lot of contemporary debate, where all that gets discussed are the fundamental problems with societal arrangements.
I'm also thinking Montesquieu didn't do a lot of research-- around the world, or extensively historical-- in coming up with his list of possible systems. Maybe every system that's ever been tried would fall into his categories, but it seems more likely that he's just describing the variations in his corner of the world.
The Spirit of Laws, Book I - Of Laws In General
Everything in nature is subject to laws. (Otherwise it couldn't have lasted or produced what nature has produced.) The laws of mankind or those needed to achieve a pre-law conception of justice. But the nature of man also has freedom-- that's why it's complicated.
In a primal state, man would be weak, and impotent, and aware of his surroundings, and wary of his powerlessness-- not wanting to confront his neighbors. Therefore, the initial state of man is (contra Hobbes) peaceful. Then, seeing peaceable neighbors, having a natural affinity for company, and natural attraction to the opposite sex, society would start to develop. Having grown strong through society, only then will a state of war emerge, and societal law be necessary. Two types of law: political law, governing relations between man and governing class; and civil law, governing relations between men.
The exact structure and system of laws will come from each society's environment, inclinations, the precise form of their pre-existing relations, etc.
------------------------
The description of primal society is similar to what Paine used in his description. I have a feeling both are borrowing from a still-prior source-- possibly all the way back to Aristotle.
Speaking of Aristotle, I think Montesquieu's metaphysics is Aristotilean. Being pre-Darwin, a lot of the stuff he takes for granted falls differently on our ears-- but none of it can be called wrong yet, I think.
In a primal state, man would be weak, and impotent, and aware of his surroundings, and wary of his powerlessness-- not wanting to confront his neighbors. Therefore, the initial state of man is (contra Hobbes) peaceful. Then, seeing peaceable neighbors, having a natural affinity for company, and natural attraction to the opposite sex, society would start to develop. Having grown strong through society, only then will a state of war emerge, and societal law be necessary. Two types of law: political law, governing relations between man and governing class; and civil law, governing relations between men.
The exact structure and system of laws will come from each society's environment, inclinations, the precise form of their pre-existing relations, etc.
------------------------
The description of primal society is similar to what Paine used in his description. I have a feeling both are borrowing from a still-prior source-- possibly all the way back to Aristotle.
Speaking of Aristotle, I think Montesquieu's metaphysics is Aristotilean. Being pre-Darwin, a lot of the stuff he takes for granted falls differently on our ears-- but none of it can be called wrong yet, I think.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
The Spirit of Laws (Montesquieu)
This is a late addition to my politics list, which puts things a bit out of sequence. But it's still early, so I don't mind. Montesquieu has been cited in more than one place as one of the important influences on the Founding Fathers, and especially as an influence in the writing of the Constitution with its separation of powers. I've most recently heard it referenced in a Milt Rosenberg podcast interview with Paul Rahe, whom I greatly enjoy reading.Since I don't know what I'm getting into quite yet with Montesquieu, I didn't feel compelled to actually buy the book. This is my first book I'm reading strictly from the library, in this case from Mt. Prospect.
I also don't feel compelled to read the whole flippin' thing. According to the introduction, the first thirteen books seem to cover what I want to cover, before Montesuieu gets into the influence of climate on government. Ugh for now, but who knows for later.
The Agamemnon, 1
A watcher in Agamemnon's palace, weary of his assignment, finally sees the beacon telling of the fall of Troy. He happily announces the news to Clytemnestra, Agamemnon's wife.
The Chorus sets the stage: the siege has lasted ten years. Driven by Zeus, or by Fate, the heroes fight. Meanwhile, those left at home have grown old and weaker. But why is Clytemnestra going through the city setting sacrifice fires now?
More scene-setting: As Agamemnon and Menelaus gathered their fleet, the prophet Calchas saw the terrible fate set for them. Artemis would keep their ships in habor, until a terrible sacrifice was made that would unleash the remaining action.
A minor backhanded tribute to Zeus, the greatest, but third (after Ouranos and Cronos), head of gods, and quite silly in his own right.
Calchas announces what needs be done to Agamemnon-- the sacrifice of his daughter, Iphigenia. Agamemnon is agonized over this, but only momentarily. He then does the deed with gusto, expecting honor from his soldiers (who give it). Iphigenia sings and stares down the officers as the fatal blow is struck.
Back to action. Clytemnestra announces the victory at Troy. But how came the news? She explains the courier of flame, the signal fires stretching all the way back to her own palace. She ruminates on the scene in Ilion: weary victors, dragging themselves through a disgraced city. But (slyly) worse is still to come.
Chorus again. Zeus inspired Paris's lust, and his flight back to Ilion. Such a woe this brought on his own people. But such a woe also was felt by the Achaians, with many heroes dead, over Menelaus's wife! Honor is of little consolation. What joy can be felt living on in legend, if they're still dead?
------------------
Holy crap.
A good place to stop, because Agamemnon is about to enter (months, if not years, after this action).
Well, I'm certainly impressed by Aeschylus. The subtext concerning fate, the honor of the gods, the critique of the heroic culture, comes so fast and furious, it's hard to keep up. I read these pages twice just to make sure I was concentrating on it all, but I think I'll be good from here on out.
The biggest change from Homer, so far, is the acknowledgement of the terrible trials of war, and the questioning of whether any honor can be worth that price.
Also of note is the language. This might be an issue of translation. I'm finding Roche to be much more lyric and poetic than Lattimore-- but that might be a reflection of the advancement in poetic style from Homer to Aeschylus. In any case, the play is much more personal and psychologically emotional than the action narrative of Homer. That makes for a much denser reading (in a good way) than before.
Roche also does a good job of evoking what a stage production would look like. I can imagine the two sides of the Chorus wailing over their ten-year struggle, with Clytemnestra watching and plotting in the background.
I really enjoyed the opening scene of the Watcher, too. It's good to get an "everyman's" perspective on this, from a guy who clearly hates his job. Cool.
Love the images of the bonfire signals. Kudos to J.R.R. Tolkein for lifting it, and to Peter Jackson for filming it so well.
One passage that summarizes all tragedy, during the tribute to Zeus and his weakness as a god:
The Chorus sets the stage: the siege has lasted ten years. Driven by Zeus, or by Fate, the heroes fight. Meanwhile, those left at home have grown old and weaker. But why is Clytemnestra going through the city setting sacrifice fires now?
More scene-setting: As Agamemnon and Menelaus gathered their fleet, the prophet Calchas saw the terrible fate set for them. Artemis would keep their ships in habor, until a terrible sacrifice was made that would unleash the remaining action.
A minor backhanded tribute to Zeus, the greatest, but third (after Ouranos and Cronos), head of gods, and quite silly in his own right.
Calchas announces what needs be done to Agamemnon-- the sacrifice of his daughter, Iphigenia. Agamemnon is agonized over this, but only momentarily. He then does the deed with gusto, expecting honor from his soldiers (who give it). Iphigenia sings and stares down the officers as the fatal blow is struck.
Back to action. Clytemnestra announces the victory at Troy. But how came the news? She explains the courier of flame, the signal fires stretching all the way back to her own palace. She ruminates on the scene in Ilion: weary victors, dragging themselves through a disgraced city. But (slyly) worse is still to come.
Chorus again. Zeus inspired Paris's lust, and his flight back to Ilion. Such a woe this brought on his own people. But such a woe also was felt by the Achaians, with many heroes dead, over Menelaus's wife! Honor is of little consolation. What joy can be felt living on in legend, if they're still dead?
------------------
Holy crap.
A good place to stop, because Agamemnon is about to enter (months, if not years, after this action).
Well, I'm certainly impressed by Aeschylus. The subtext concerning fate, the honor of the gods, the critique of the heroic culture, comes so fast and furious, it's hard to keep up. I read these pages twice just to make sure I was concentrating on it all, but I think I'll be good from here on out.
The biggest change from Homer, so far, is the acknowledgement of the terrible trials of war, and the questioning of whether any honor can be worth that price.
Also of note is the language. This might be an issue of translation. I'm finding Roche to be much more lyric and poetic than Lattimore-- but that might be a reflection of the advancement in poetic style from Homer to Aeschylus. In any case, the play is much more personal and psychologically emotional than the action narrative of Homer. That makes for a much denser reading (in a good way) than before.
Roche also does a good job of evoking what a stage production would look like. I can imagine the two sides of the Chorus wailing over their ten-year struggle, with Clytemnestra watching and plotting in the background.
I really enjoyed the opening scene of the Watcher, too. It's good to get an "everyman's" perspective on this, from a guy who clearly hates his job. Cool.
Love the images of the bonfire signals. Kudos to J.R.R. Tolkein for lifting it, and to Peter Jackson for filming it so well.
One passage that summarizes all tragedy, during the tribute to Zeus and his weakness as a god:
He leads us on the way of wisdom'sPreach it.
Everlasting law that truth
Is only learnt by suffering it.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Common Sense, IV - Of The Present Ability Of America, With Some Miscellaneous Reflections - Appendix
Separation between England and America was inevitably going to happen sometime. That time is now. We have enough of an army to fight off the enemy. Yet the different colonies are still dependent enough on each other to form a united front. We have a navy... well, we can build a navy, for we have the materials and know-how in abundance to do so. We'll have to take on debt for the project; all the more reason to win independence, for it is cowardly to burden our children with our debts without such a great result to show for it. [Yikes.]
[Lots more about a navy.]
The continent is now perfectly balanced between space and population to pull this off. We have the energy of youth. And we are just now forming a method of governing ourselves. If we don't commit fully to this, the opportunity will pass and we will fall to some other form of tyranny instead.
[More thoughts on specific form of government-- including a plug for religious liberty.]
Final points: 1) and 2) We can get no aid from friendly nations while under English rule. 3) Without independence, we'll be labelled rebels only. Not a good reputation. 4) A written document of grievances and our remedy sent to foreign powers will establish us as a serious body in the world.
The time is now. Let's roll.
Appendix: Scathing rebuke of "the King's speech", a speech to Parliament in October 1775. Rebuke also to those elements in society cautioning peace and reconciliation. Grow a spine, weenies!
The time is now. In a few decades time, we will have lost the military experience and expertise gained in the French and Indian War. Note also that our independent fate was sealed when mother England fired upon us. From that point, there was no turning back. So onward.
------------------------
Sold! Vive la revolution!
Funny line out of context: "Hemp flourishes even to rankness, so that we need not want cordage."
Awesome passage: "Should an independency be brought about by the first of those means [by 'the legal voice of the people in Congress'], we have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the noblest purest constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the event of a few months." Damn straight.
I'm realizing that I don't have much of a concept of what life in a colonial system is actually like, and how it differs from-- I mean feels different than-- a self-governed system. What is day to day life actually like? How do citizens view their place in the world and the opportunities their lives present them? Stands to reason though-- I hadn't given much thought to what life in our modern political system is actually like until my 20s. Thanks again to the lack of civics classes in school! I gotta read more primary documents.
[Lots more about a navy.]
The continent is now perfectly balanced between space and population to pull this off. We have the energy of youth. And we are just now forming a method of governing ourselves. If we don't commit fully to this, the opportunity will pass and we will fall to some other form of tyranny instead.
[More thoughts on specific form of government-- including a plug for religious liberty.]
Final points: 1) and 2) We can get no aid from friendly nations while under English rule. 3) Without independence, we'll be labelled rebels only. Not a good reputation. 4) A written document of grievances and our remedy sent to foreign powers will establish us as a serious body in the world.
The time is now. Let's roll.
Appendix: Scathing rebuke of "the King's speech", a speech to Parliament in October 1775. Rebuke also to those elements in society cautioning peace and reconciliation. Grow a spine, weenies!
The time is now. In a few decades time, we will have lost the military experience and expertise gained in the French and Indian War. Note also that our independent fate was sealed when mother England fired upon us. From that point, there was no turning back. So onward.
------------------------
Sold! Vive la revolution!
Funny line out of context: "Hemp flourishes even to rankness, so that we need not want cordage."
Awesome passage: "Should an independency be brought about by the first of those means [by 'the legal voice of the people in Congress'], we have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the noblest purest constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the event of a few months." Damn straight.
I'm realizing that I don't have much of a concept of what life in a colonial system is actually like, and how it differs from-- I mean feels different than-- a self-governed system. What is day to day life actually like? How do citizens view their place in the world and the opportunities their lives present them? Stands to reason though-- I hadn't given much thought to what life in our modern political system is actually like until my 20s. Thanks again to the lack of civics classes in school! I gotta read more primary documents.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
The Oresteia (Aeschylus)
I thought it important to read some Greek drama before getting to Plato's Republic, at least to have a feel for the Greek culture at the time or to catch any popular references. I had a couple collections on the shelf-- probably from Freshman Seminar-- but decided to round it out a bit. After some research, selections from Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Aristophanes (in that order) would seem to cover it.This particular copy I purchased at Half Price Books in Palatine-- on my first trip there in late 2010. Nothing special about the translation, as far as I know. I knew I had some Sophocles, and they had a matching pair of a different Sophocles and this Aeschylus, both translated by Paul Roche.
I honestly have no idea what to expect out of this. It would seem that reading Homer was a good idea, though. I already know who Orestes is!
Common Sense, III - Thoughts On The Present State Of American Affairs
To be clear, the choice facing America is already being made, armed hostilities having started. For those who still doubt the proper course, we must consider our current circumstances:
Some say we need always the guidance of Britain. But we have goods and ability enough ourselves to continue prosperous trade.
Some say we owe Britain for our continued protection. But all protection is given only for the benefit of their land, not for ourselves.
Some say our unity comes only from our status as British subjects. But our backgrounds are from all of Europe. And all of Europe will be happy to do commerce with us on our own-- probably even more so when we are independent of the British with whom they still quarrel.
We know our connection is on the brink. Uncertainty in our position can only harm our relations at this point.
To the timid, I point to the suffering in Boston. Consider yourselves lucky if you do not endure what they currently endure.
Even if our current aggravations were repealed, do you not expect more to be imposed in the near future?
Our being ruled from such a great distance is absurd. A full continent being ruled by a small island is more absurd still.
There must be a clean break, as well. It will not due to have some self-government if we are still subject to the ultimate whim of the king afar.
To those who fear independence leading to internal strife and civil war: thus far we behave better than that.
A proposal to those who are wary until a plan of self-government is in place: [Suggested form of government. Temporary Congresses. Presidency rotated among the colonies. 3/5 approval required for laws. Crowning of the Law as king. (Then destroying the crown.)]
The time to act is now-- we have a small opening to do this right, or fall by random chance into a new or bungled tyranny. And this opportunity is from Providence itself. Our continent was discovered when relief from religious oppression was needed most. Our opportunity now is mankind's opportunity for liberty.
-----------------------
Awesome closing paragraph:
Embarrassing history I had to be reminded of: The Battle of Lexington and Concord was April 19, 1775. Bunker Hill was two months later.
Irony alert! "Much hath been said of the united strength of Britain and the colonies, that in conjunction they might bid defiance to the world. But this is mere presumption; the fate of war is uncertain, neither do the expressions mean anything; for this continent would never suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants, to support the British arms in either Asia, Africa, or Europe."
Some say we need always the guidance of Britain. But we have goods and ability enough ourselves to continue prosperous trade.
Some say we owe Britain for our continued protection. But all protection is given only for the benefit of their land, not for ourselves.
Some say our unity comes only from our status as British subjects. But our backgrounds are from all of Europe. And all of Europe will be happy to do commerce with us on our own-- probably even more so when we are independent of the British with whom they still quarrel.
We know our connection is on the brink. Uncertainty in our position can only harm our relations at this point.
To the timid, I point to the suffering in Boston. Consider yourselves lucky if you do not endure what they currently endure.
Even if our current aggravations were repealed, do you not expect more to be imposed in the near future?
Our being ruled from such a great distance is absurd. A full continent being ruled by a small island is more absurd still.
There must be a clean break, as well. It will not due to have some self-government if we are still subject to the ultimate whim of the king afar.
To those who fear independence leading to internal strife and civil war: thus far we behave better than that.
A proposal to those who are wary until a plan of self-government is in place: [Suggested form of government. Temporary Congresses. Presidency rotated among the colonies. 3/5 approval required for laws. Crowning of the Law as king. (Then destroying the crown.)]
The time to act is now-- we have a small opening to do this right, or fall by random chance into a new or bungled tyranny. And this opportunity is from Providence itself. Our continent was discovered when relief from religious oppression was needed most. Our opportunity now is mankind's opportunity for liberty.
-----------------------
Awesome closing paragraph:
O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her. Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.Chills.
Embarrassing history I had to be reminded of: The Battle of Lexington and Concord was April 19, 1775. Bunker Hill was two months later.
Irony alert! "Much hath been said of the united strength of Britain and the colonies, that in conjunction they might bid defiance to the world. But this is mere presumption; the fate of war is uncertain, neither do the expressions mean anything; for this continent would never suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants, to support the British arms in either Asia, Africa, or Europe."
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Common Sense, II - Of Monarchy And Hereditary Succession
The worst part of a monarchy is the unnatural division it places between the king and the people. Even the enormous split between rich and poor can be explained by the rich meriting their wealth-- but clearly no one has merited the power granted the king. Further evidence of the unnaturalness of monarchy comes from the Old Testament, where the Israelites were long warned against, and then punished for adopting a king.
Worse even than the institution of the king is hereditary succession-- a further perversion that binds the descendents forever to the mistakes of their elders. Perhaps hereditary succession began as a matter of convenience-- but then to claim it as a natural right is absurd. And look no further than William the Conquerer to see the dishonor in claiming such a right. Further, those who grow up in the knowledge they will be king naturally grow up unfit to lead the people. We also end up with kings too young or too old to actually lead, and are then at the mercy of scheming ministers. Hereditary succession does not even prevent internal strife-- look at the wars between York and Lancaster, where ultimately allegiance depended on a display of power, not a "natural" claim.
And once a real republic is set up by Parliament, there is less and less for the king even to do. He doesn't lead battle, he doesn't judge conflicts. All that's left is making war and dispersing patronage. Useless!
------------------
Good lines:
(On the Catholic hierarchy withholding the Bible from the commoners, so they don't see the folly of the Israelites): "For monarchy in every instance is the Popery of government." Tee-hee.
"One of the strongest Natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise, she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an Ass for a Lion."
(On William the Conquerer): "A French bastard landing with an armed banditti, and establishing himself King of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original."
(On the diminished, and destructive, current role of the king): "A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain!"
Embarrassing history I had to look up: William the Conquere led the Norman Conquest (from Normandy), winning the Battle of Hastings in 1066. He had a convoluted claim to the throne after the death of the childless Edward the Confessor. He submitted his claim and was granted legitimacy by Pope Alexander II. Defeated Harold II at the Battle of Hastings, partly through the use of many archers. Ruled from Normandy for the most part, introducing a hybrid culture into England.
York and Lancaster: The War of the Roses, over the proper line of succession, from 1455-1485.
Worse even than the institution of the king is hereditary succession-- a further perversion that binds the descendents forever to the mistakes of their elders. Perhaps hereditary succession began as a matter of convenience-- but then to claim it as a natural right is absurd. And look no further than William the Conquerer to see the dishonor in claiming such a right. Further, those who grow up in the knowledge they will be king naturally grow up unfit to lead the people. We also end up with kings too young or too old to actually lead, and are then at the mercy of scheming ministers. Hereditary succession does not even prevent internal strife-- look at the wars between York and Lancaster, where ultimately allegiance depended on a display of power, not a "natural" claim.
And once a real republic is set up by Parliament, there is less and less for the king even to do. He doesn't lead battle, he doesn't judge conflicts. All that's left is making war and dispersing patronage. Useless!
------------------
Good lines:
(On the Catholic hierarchy withholding the Bible from the commoners, so they don't see the folly of the Israelites): "For monarchy in every instance is the Popery of government." Tee-hee.
"One of the strongest Natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise, she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an Ass for a Lion."
(On William the Conquerer): "A French bastard landing with an armed banditti, and establishing himself King of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original."
(On the diminished, and destructive, current role of the king): "A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain!"
Embarrassing history I had to look up: William the Conquere led the Norman Conquest (from Normandy), winning the Battle of Hastings in 1066. He had a convoluted claim to the throne after the death of the childless Edward the Confessor. He submitted his claim and was granted legitimacy by Pope Alexander II. Defeated Harold II at the Battle of Hastings, partly through the use of many archers. Ruled from Normandy for the most part, introducing a hybrid culture into England.
York and Lancaster: The War of the Roses, over the proper line of succession, from 1455-1485.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Common Sense, I - Of The Origin And Design Of Government In General, With Concise Remarks On The English Constitution
Society is a natural developement necessary to the survival and prosperity of man. Government, on the other hand, is necessary only to counter the vices that arise in a natural society. As society grows, the most natural organization for a government is of representatives elected from the various regions or groups that make up society. Of utmost importance is that the Elected do not view themselves as a separate class from the Electors.
The only advantage of an absolute governmental authority is its simplicity of organization. The English system cannot even boast of that, given the complex system of checks between the monarch, the peers in the House of Lords, and the republicans in the House of Commons. The hereditary positions contribute nothing to legitimate government, because they necessarily separate the class of government apart from the governed.
An absurdity: The House of Commons has check on the monarch either because the monarch cannot be trusted, or the commons are wiser than the monarch. Yet somehow the monarch can reject the bills of the commons as well-- even though the monarch is shut off from knowledge of the world. Any investigation of this system leads to the question: Whence the power of the king?
Whatever improvements England has introduced beyond a traditional monarchy are for nought while that question remains unaddressed. IF England is a superior nation, it is due to the superior people, not the superior system. We must now look at the system objectively, so as not to prejudice ourselves against its failings.
------------------------
The American system has the same internal inconsistencies, with every house checking every office. The difference, of course, is the election of every office-- so no part of it is inherently the "first moving power". Likewise, the Presidency possesses the danger of devolving into a tyranny, but for periodic elections of a new President.
New vocabulary: "felo de se" -- a suicide, considered a crime against oneself. Used as a metaphor for the internal contradictions of the English system of checks against the monarch.
Embarrassing history I had to look up: Charles the First
Paine: "For the fate of Charles the first, hath only made kings more subtle-- not more just."
King at the start of the English Civil War in 1642, ultimately over the king's defiance of Parliament. Put on trial for high treason by the Rump Parliament in 1649; defiant, claiming the divine right to rule; beheaded.
In the aftermath, a new republic was declared: the Commonwealth of England. Shortly after, in 1653, Oliver Cromwell was declared Lord Protector of the Commonwealth. Died in 1658. Posthumously beheaded in 1661 after the restoration of the monarchy...
Which led me to this (note: this is ridiculous):
The only advantage of an absolute governmental authority is its simplicity of organization. The English system cannot even boast of that, given the complex system of checks between the monarch, the peers in the House of Lords, and the republicans in the House of Commons. The hereditary positions contribute nothing to legitimate government, because they necessarily separate the class of government apart from the governed.
An absurdity: The House of Commons has check on the monarch either because the monarch cannot be trusted, or the commons are wiser than the monarch. Yet somehow the monarch can reject the bills of the commons as well-- even though the monarch is shut off from knowledge of the world. Any investigation of this system leads to the question: Whence the power of the king?
Whatever improvements England has introduced beyond a traditional monarchy are for nought while that question remains unaddressed. IF England is a superior nation, it is due to the superior people, not the superior system. We must now look at the system objectively, so as not to prejudice ourselves against its failings.
------------------------
The American system has the same internal inconsistencies, with every house checking every office. The difference, of course, is the election of every office-- so no part of it is inherently the "first moving power". Likewise, the Presidency possesses the danger of devolving into a tyranny, but for periodic elections of a new President.
New vocabulary: "felo de se" -- a suicide, considered a crime against oneself. Used as a metaphor for the internal contradictions of the English system of checks against the monarch.
Embarrassing history I had to look up: Charles the First
Paine: "For the fate of Charles the first, hath only made kings more subtle-- not more just."
King at the start of the English Civil War in 1642, ultimately over the king's defiance of Parliament. Put on trial for high treason by the Rump Parliament in 1649; defiant, claiming the divine right to rule; beheaded.
In the aftermath, a new republic was declared: the Commonwealth of England. Shortly after, in 1653, Oliver Cromwell was declared Lord Protector of the Commonwealth. Died in 1658. Posthumously beheaded in 1661 after the restoration of the monarchy...
Which led me to this (note: this is ridiculous):
Saturday, February 05, 2011
Homer? Who is Homer?
A crude and blasphemous comparison: The Iliad is "Cheers", while The Odyssey is "Frasier"-- the first using (and perfecting, and defining for all followers) a classic, repeatable chapter-to-chapter formula; the second establishing its own unique identity while expanding the genre's possibilities in a number of innovative directions (language, narrative structure).
Homer II should have included a special credit: "Based on the character 'Odysseus', created by Homer I."
The Odyssey, Book 24
Hermes leads the souls of the suitors in a chain-gang down to Hades. There, the heroes of Ilion meet and converse. Achilleus regrets the ultimately lowly death of Agamemnon. Agamemnon, meanwhile, tells Achilleus the circumstances and grieving after his own death in battle. Hermes arrives. Agamemnon, to the suitor Amphimedon: "What are you guys doing here?" Amphimedon quickly tells the history of their wooing Penelope, of her deceit with the weaving, and her stalling until the arrival of and slaughter by Odysseus. Agamemnon: "Good for Penelope."
Odysseus and Telemachos arrive at Laertes house. Odysseus approaches alone, playing again the disguise game to see if his father will recognize him. He says he is Eperitos of Alybas, a one-time acquaintance of Odysseus, whom he met in passing five years earlier. Laertes, distraught and not hopeful of his son's survival, wails. Odysseus feels horribly, and reveals himself, showing his scar. Weeping. Telmachos comes in with Dolios, an old servant. More weeping.
Rumor sweeps through the town, spreading news of the slaughter. Eupeithes, father of Antinoos, speaks for all, urging that they chase down Odysseus for striking down so many good men. Medon and the singer (the two Odysseus spared) try to talk them down, saying he was doing the business of the gods, who were there. Eupeithes leads a march anyway.
Athene, to Zeus: "Crap. Now what?" Zeus: "Still your fault, sweetheart. You figure it out." Odysseus sees the marchers coming, and the ten that are there armor up. Athene comes in the form of Mentor to urge valor. She inspires strength in Laertes, who kills Eupeithes with one throw of the spear. Odysseus leads a charge and kills many on the front line, while Athene prompts a retreat. Odysseus tries to chase after, but Zeus strikes the ground in front of him with lightning.
Athene: "All right, sonny. That's enough. Just pack that in."
End.
-------------------------
The final scene really is Monty Python-esque. In case the reference above isn't clear:
Odysseus and Telemachos arrive at Laertes house. Odysseus approaches alone, playing again the disguise game to see if his father will recognize him. He says he is Eperitos of Alybas, a one-time acquaintance of Odysseus, whom he met in passing five years earlier. Laertes, distraught and not hopeful of his son's survival, wails. Odysseus feels horribly, and reveals himself, showing his scar. Weeping. Telmachos comes in with Dolios, an old servant. More weeping.
Rumor sweeps through the town, spreading news of the slaughter. Eupeithes, father of Antinoos, speaks for all, urging that they chase down Odysseus for striking down so many good men. Medon and the singer (the two Odysseus spared) try to talk them down, saying he was doing the business of the gods, who were there. Eupeithes leads a march anyway.
Athene, to Zeus: "Crap. Now what?" Zeus: "Still your fault, sweetheart. You figure it out." Odysseus sees the marchers coming, and the ten that are there armor up. Athene comes in the form of Mentor to urge valor. She inspires strength in Laertes, who kills Eupeithes with one throw of the spear. Odysseus leads a charge and kills many on the front line, while Athene prompts a retreat. Odysseus tries to chase after, but Zeus strikes the ground in front of him with lightning.
Athene: "All right, sonny. That's enough. Just pack that in."
End.
-------------------------
The final scene really is Monty Python-esque. In case the reference above isn't clear:
Thursday, February 03, 2011
The Odyssey, Book 23
Eurykleia fetches Penelope. She disbelieves, repeatedly, that her husband has returned, even when told of the scar on his knee. Finally entering the chamber herself, she views Odysseus carefully for some time, still refusing to believe it is him. Odysseus asks that the others leave the room so they may speak in private; as an aside, he tells Telemachos to get ready, because they've got some explaining to do to the rest of the townspeople about all the dead suitors. They should play music to pretend Penelope is actually having a wedding.
Odysseus bathes and approaches Penelope again. O: "Let's got to bed, and I'll really show I'm your husband." [Whoa.] P: "Sure thing; I'll have a servant bring the bed into this room." O: "Not likely-- I built that bed using an olive tree in the ground as one of the bedposts." Penelope finally knows it is he.
They weep together. Athene extends the night so they might have time together. Odysseus lets on that his journey is not quite over, that Teiresias told him he must travel and make sacrifices to Poseidon before finally returning home. Penelope is confident he will reach old age, though. To bed.
...After, Penelope tells of the constant struggle she endured, and Odysseus relates his whole journey. To recap: defeating the Kikonians, the Lotus-eaters, the Cyclops, Aiolos, Telepylos, Circe, Hades, Sirens, Charybdis and Skylla, cattle of Helios, Kalypso, and finally the Phaiakians. They sleep.
Athene brings the dawn. Odysseus vows to regather the riches the suitors deprived him of. First, he plans a trip with Telemachos to see his father, Laertes.
----------------------
Looks like two chapters of closing action, similar to The Iliad.
xxiii.295-296:
"When she had brought them to the chamber she went back. They then
gladly went together to bed, and their old ritual."
Delicate.
Odysseus bathes and approaches Penelope again. O: "Let's got to bed, and I'll really show I'm your husband." [Whoa.] P: "Sure thing; I'll have a servant bring the bed into this room." O: "Not likely-- I built that bed using an olive tree in the ground as one of the bedposts." Penelope finally knows it is he.
They weep together. Athene extends the night so they might have time together. Odysseus lets on that his journey is not quite over, that Teiresias told him he must travel and make sacrifices to Poseidon before finally returning home. Penelope is confident he will reach old age, though. To bed.
...After, Penelope tells of the constant struggle she endured, and Odysseus relates his whole journey. To recap: defeating the Kikonians, the Lotus-eaters, the Cyclops, Aiolos, Telepylos, Circe, Hades, Sirens, Charybdis and Skylla, cattle of Helios, Kalypso, and finally the Phaiakians. They sleep.
Athene brings the dawn. Odysseus vows to regather the riches the suitors deprived him of. First, he plans a trip with Telemachos to see his father, Laertes.
----------------------
Looks like two chapters of closing action, similar to The Iliad.
xxiii.295-296:
"When she had brought them to the chamber she went back. They then
gladly went together to bed, and their old ritual."
Delicate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)