Herodotus, 8: The Battle of Salamis

Retreating after the eventual loss at Thermopylae, the Hellenes try to determine their next course.  The Spartans, Argives, and Achaians build a wall across the Isthmus of Corinth to protect Peloponnesia.  All the residents of Athens are evacuated to the island of Salamis.

The Persian army sacks Athens, while the Persian navy surrounds the island.  Xerxes is advised to simply wait them out, and victory will be his.  Meanwhile, the Hellenes cannot come to an agreement about what to do next.  So Themistokles from Athens secretly sends a messenger to Xerxes, pretending to have changed sides, and encouraging him to begin a final battle he is expected to win.  This message convinces Xerxes to abandon his strategy of patience, and his action then convinces the Hellenes to pull together to fight.

The battle is a massacre in favor of the Greeks, who have well-developed naval tactics while the Persian ships all act at odds with one another.

Xerxes, chastised, leaves an army of 300,000 with the commandor Mardnios and returns to Persia with the rest.  Many die of hunger and sickness on the way home.  At one point, Xerxes was in peril on a ship during a storm, and the helmsman through most of the Persian soldiers overboard to steady the ship.  Xerxes rewarded him with a crown for saving his life, then beheaded him for killing so many soldiers.  (Herodotus seriously doubts this story.)

Mardonios tries to buy off the Athenians without a fight.  They string him along for a bit, long enough for the Spartans, panicking, to send envoys to find out what's going on.  The Athenians calmly tell off the Persians, and tell off the Spartans for good measure (8.143):

The Athenians first answered Alexandros as follows: "We ourselves are already well aware that the forces of the Mede are many times greater than our own, so there is no need to admonish us about that.  Nevertheless, we shall defnd ourselves however we can in our devotion to freedom.  So do not attempt to seduce us into an agreement with the barbarian, since we shall not be persuaded.  Report back to Mardonios that the Athenians say: 'As long as the sun continues on the same course as it now travels, we shall never come to an agreement with Xerxes.  Trusting in the gods and heroes as our allies (for whom he showed no respect when he burned their homes and images), we shall advance against him and defend ourselves.'  As for you, Alexandros, in the future, do not appear before the Athenians with speeches such as this one, nor pretend to be doing us a favor while encouraging us to commit deeds that violate all tradition.  For we would not want you, our proxenos and friend, to suffer anything unpleasant at the hands of the Athenians.

After giving this answer to Alexandros, they turned to address the messengers from Sparta: 'It was quite natural for the Lacedaemonians to fear we would come to an agreement with the barbarian, but nevertheless, we think it disgraceful that you became so frightened, since you are well aware of the Athenians' disposition, namely, that there is no amount of gold anywhere on earth so great, nor any country that surpasses others so much in beauty and fertility, that we would accept it as reward for medizing and enslaving Hellas.'"

Notables: Artemisia was a female commander in Xerxes army.  At one point, her ship was pinned in by the surrounding Persian ships while pursued by a Greek ship.  To escape, she rammed a Persian ship, causing the pursuit to cease while Xerxes looked on, impressed.

8.98:

As Xerxes was doing all this, he also sent a courier to Persia to report his present misfortune.  There is nothing that travels faster, and yet is mortal, than these couriers; the Persians invented this system, which works as follows.  It is said that there are as many horses and men posted at intervals as there are days required for the entire journey, so that one horse and one man are assigned to each day.  And neither snow nor rain nor heat nor dark of night keeps them from completing their appointed course as swiftly as possible.  The first courier passes on the instructions to the second, the second to the third, and from there they are transmitted from one to another all the way through,  just as the torchbearing relay is celebrated by the Hellenes in honor of Hephaistos.  The Persians call this horse-posting system the angareion.

The Persians invented the Pony Express, and Herodotus wrote the U.S. Postal Service Creed.  Son of a bitch.

Herodotus, 7.175-239: The Battle at Thermopylae

First, a word about the badasses from Sparta and Athens.  The Spartans had killed some envoys from Xerxes who were offering a peaceful invasion.  Sparta then sent two messengers to Xerxes, allowing them to be killed in response.  But brought before the king, the messengers refused to bow to him (7.135-136):

[Hydarnes] entertained them by serving them a feast during which he asked them, "Lacedaemonians, why are you trying to avoid becoming the King's friends?  You can see that the King knows how to honor good men when you look at me and the state of my affairs.  This could be the same for you if only you would surrender yourselves to the King, since he would surely think you to be good men and allow each of you Greek territory to rule over."  To this they replied, "Hydarnes, you offer us this advice only because you do not have a fair and proper perspective.  For you counsel us based on your experience of only one way of life, but you have had no experienced of the other: you know well how to be a slave but have not yet experienced freedom, nor have you felt whether it is sweet or not.  But if you could try freedom, you would advise us to fight for it, and not only with spears, but with axes!"

After giving that answer to Hydarnes, they traveled inland to Susa and gained an audience with the King.  At first the King's bodyguards ordered them and actually tried to force them to prostrate themselves before the King; but they refused to do so, saying that they would never do that, even if the bodyguards should try to push them down to the ground headfirst, since it was not their custom to prostrate themselves before any human being, and besides, that was not the reason for which they had come.

When the Hellenes were looking for allies to fight against the invasion, they came to Syracuse for help.  Gelon of Syracuse was willing to help, but only if given command either of the land army or the navy.  The Athenian delegation (7.161):

And now the envoy sent by the Atheneians interjected before the one from the Lacedaemonians could reply: "King of the Syracusans, Helalls did not send us to you because it needed a leader, but rather because it required an army.  But you have given us no indication that you would send an army unless you were to become the leader of Hellas; to command its forces is what strongly attracts you.  Now as long as you were asking to lead the entire force of the Hellenes, we Athenians were content to keep quiet, knowing that the Laconian would be capable of answering for us both.  But now that your leadership over the whole force has been ruled out and you ask to command the fleet, you should know that this is the situation: even if the Laconian yields the command of hte fleet to you, we shall not yield it to you.  For that command belongs to us, unless the Lacedaemonians want it.  Now if they want to lead the fleet, we shall not oppose them, but we shall allow no one else to command it.  For if we yield our leadership to the Syracusans, it would then be all for nothing that we have acquired the greatest naval force of all the Hellenes-- we, the Athenians, who represent the most ancient nation of the Hellenes and are the only ones who did not migrate.  Even Homer the epic poet said that the best man to go to Troy and to draw up and marshal the troops was one of ours, so we cannot be reproached for asserting this claim."

The Greeks scouted the terrain and settled for the narrow pass by the city of Thermopylae to set up their defenses, as it was the only rational path through the mountain ranges to the southern Greek peninsulas.  They set up to fight despite the warnings of the oracles.  They caught a break when a storm smashed a few hundred of the Persian ships.  On top of that, several Persain ships sailed into the wrong harbor and were taken by the Greeks.

Finally, Xerxes' army approached the pass.  On the other side, the defense forces were led by Leonidas of Sparta (a direct descendant of Herakles), and were comprised of several thousand from the different cities.  The first waves of Persian soldiers were slaughtered, as their great numbers were of no use in the narrow terrain.  "Indeed, the Hellenes made it clear to everyone, and especially to the King himself, that although there were many in his army, there were few real men" (7.210.2).  Finally, they sought a different way through, taking the even narrower Anopaia Path through the mountains.

Leonidas learned of their plans, and sent the majority of his soldiers away to avoid the upcoming slaughter, but kept the 300 Spartans to fight on.  Knowing they were fighting to their death, they fought more valiantly than usual, charging unexpectedly into the oncoming waves of Persians.  Leonidas himself was killed and Xerxes had him beheaded.

In response to the battle, the Persians changed their invasion plans, sending the ships to occupy the Spartans from the south while the army continued to subjugate the Greeks cities on their march from the north.

Herodotus 7.34-35

It was from Abydos to this promontory, then, that the bridges were built by those assigned to this task, the Phoenicians working on the white flax bridge and the Egyptians on the papyrus bridge.  The distance between Abydos and the opposite shore here is about 1,350 yards.  But in fact after these bridges had been built, a violent storm descended upon them, broke them up, and tore apart all that work.

Xerxes was infuriated when he learned of this; he ordered that the Hellespont [river] was to receive 300 lashes under the whip, and that a pair of shackles was to be dropped into the sea.  And I have also heard that he sent others to brand the Hallespont.  In any case, he instructed his men to say barbarian and insolent things as they were striking the Hellespont: "Bitter water, your master is imposing this penalty upon you for wronging him even though you had suffered no injustice from him.  And King Xerxes will cross you whether you like it or not.  It is for just cause, after all, that no human offers you sacrifice: you are a turbid and briny river!"  Thus he ordered that the sea was to be punished, and also that the supervisors of the bridge over the Hellespont were to be beheaded.

Xerxes tried to arrest, and then physically and emotionally abused, the river.  Xerxes was nuts.

And a fantastic photo, by "Amy":

Herodotus 6.102-124: The Battle at Marathon

After conquering the Eretrians, the army of King Darius of Persia planned to march on Athens and enslave them as well.  The Athenians got wind of the plan and marched to meet them on the plains of Marathon where the Persian army had landed.  They sent the runner Philippides to Sparta to ask for military assistance.  He ran the 150 miles in one day to deliver the message, but the Spartans would not send aid until the next full moon, 20 days later.

Instead, the Plataeans came to the aid of Athens, having pledged their loyalty in exchange for Athenian protection.  The Athenians confronted them across the plain, with the Athenians on the right flank and the Plataeans on the left, and a weakness of depth in the center.  But they took the Persians by surprise by running to their positions instead of marching.  They drove the Persians back to their boats, losing only 192 men.  The Persians then tried to circle the peninsula and land closer to Athens on the other side, while the Athenians marched quickly home to be ready for a second battle.  But, perhaps having been tipped off by the leaders of the city, the Persians instead turned their ships for their own home.

Later, 2000 Spartans arrived to help.  When told what had happened, they were duly impressed.  Then they went home.

In a break from tradition, the Athenians buried their casualties, not in the city, but on the field where they fell.  The burial mound stands to this day.

-----------------------

OK, so Philippides didn't run from Marathon to Athens.  Instead, he ran from Athens to Sparta.  And he only did it once.  And he didn't die afterwards.  And it didn't help, because Sparta didn't come.

That's all disappointing, but the whole story is still flippin' awesome.  The whole tone of Herodotus seemed to be different for this episode.  Much less speculation, many fewer outrageous claims.  The battle was within his lifetime, within his geographic region, involving people he must have known-- it's all reliable.  Very cool chapter.

Prometheus Bound (Aeschylus)

A late addition, when I decided to make a thorough survey of Greek drama before moving on to Plato.  I really liked the last Aeschylus I read, but this is a different translator (James Scully), so we'll see how it goes.

I got this copy from the Mount Prospect library, and it's due back in two days.

----------------------

Update 4/14: Well, the Scully translation literally read like something I'd write myself.  It reminded me of many of these blog posts, actually.  That's not what I'm going for, so I found a copy of the translation from my old pal Paul Roche (who, it turns out, was at Notre Dame for a time).  Got this on Interlibrary Loan from the Glenview Public Library.

The Eumenides, 3

Athena starts the trial, and Apollo enters for the defense.  The Furies question Orestes, and he admits killing his mother, but under the instructions of Apollo.  He claims justification also because Clytemnestra had killed Agamemnon without suffering from the gods for it.  The trial turns on the question of whether the closeness between son and mother makes the killing automatically a ghastly crime, regardless of circumstances.

Apollo argues to the jury.  He claims his instructions came from Zeus, in part because of the greatness of Agamemnon who was struck down.  He further claims that the child is closer to his father than his mother, who is merely a caretaker even during pregnancy.  As proof, he points to Athena, who was not born of a mother but sprung whole from Zeus.  As fathers are necessary, but mothers are contingent, the weight of the argument is in Orestes' favor.

Athena calls for the jury's verdict.  As the votes come in, trash-talking between the Furies and Apollo.  Athena announces her tie-breaking vote, and it indeed comes down to that: Orestes is acquitted.  Apollo exits, and Orestes praises Athena, pledging devotion to her and to her city of Athens for the remainder of his life.

The Furies are pissed.  Athena tries to calm them down, pointing out that they did well if the verdict came out tied, but they won't hear it.  Athena keeps at it, eventually promising a promotion for them into the keepers and apportioners of justice for the people of Athens [I think].  The Furies, now called the Eumenides, are overjoyed at their new station, and eventually parade out in peace.

---------------------------

This was not how I expected this to end at all.  I was sure the verdict was going the other way.  And upon first reading, I couldn't follow the final conversation between Athena and the Furies.  But the second reading opened it up a bit.

First of all, Athena is heaping much praise on the people of Athens, and their traditions of doing justice to each other and to the gods.  It reads like a whole lot of flattery Aeschylus is heaping on his fellow-citizens.  Perhaps this is how the playwrights won the drama prizes?

But Athena is doing more here when she promotes the Furies.  She is allowing them to dole out punishment, but also to dole out positive justice.  That has been missing from the Furies actions throughout the play-- they chased Orestes to inflict divine retribution, and could not be satisfied until the task was finished.  But as it turns out, that is a very one-sided view of justice.  In fact, that may be the crux of the failure of justice through the entire trilogy.  Each character was seeking revenge, seeking to do violence as the only way to achieve satisfaction.  True justice requires the possibility of other kinds of responses.

Update, 20 minutes later:  Looked up some interpretations.  Nailed it.

Herodotus, 4.42

And so I am astonished by the way some people have delineated the boundaries of Libya, Asia, and Europe; since these lands actually differ quite a bit in size.  In length, Europe stretches out along both the other landmasses, while in width, any attempt to compare it to the others seems futile to me.  For it is clear that Libya is surrounded by water except for where it borders Asia.  The first one we know of to have discovered this fact was Nechos king of Egypt.  After he had stopped excavation work on the canal, which extended from the Nile to the Arabian Gulf, he sent some Phoenicians off on boats with orders to sail around Libya and back through the Pillars of Herakles into the Mediterranean Sea and to return by that route to Egypt.  And so the Phoenicians set out from the Erythraean Sea and sailed the Southern Sea.  Whenever autumn came, they would put in to shore at whatever region of Libya they happened to have reached in order to sow seeds.  There they would wait for the harvest, and after reaping their crops, they would sail on again.  This they did for two years, and in the third, they came around through the Pillars of Herakles and returned to Egypt.  They mentioned something else which I do not find credible, though someone else may: that when they were sailing around Libya, the sun was on their right side as they went.

Wait, so the Phoenicians sailed around Africa in 600 BC?  What the hell?  How come this is the first time I've ever heard about this?  What was the big deal about the Portuguese and the Cape of Good Hope?

The Eumenides, 2

Months later, Orestes enters the temple for Athena at the Acropolis.  He claims to have done penance, and is asking for final cleansing and exoneration from Athena.  The Furies follow him in, and have been dogging him ever since he left Apollo's.  They see him cornered, and are eager to get their final satisfaction.

Orestes makes his final plea, then falls silent.  The Furies tell him his just punishment has arrived, and await a response.  Not getting one, they gleefully sing and boast over their success.  They renew their argument for the justice of their cause, and the importance of the role they play.  They rue their position in the world, their ugliness and ostracization from both humans and gods, but are confident in their righteousness.

Athena arrives to hear the case.  The Furies make their accusation of matricide, and call it an open-and-shut case.  Athena insists on hearing the other side, for only by following proper procedures can justice truly be done.  Orestes makes his usual claims: he has already paid his penance (as witnessed by his now un-bloodstained clothes); he did the deed out of a sense of duty to his father (the great Agamemnon-- you remember him, right Athena?); and he was pressed by Apollo to do so.  Athena sees the merits of both sides, and so calls for a full trial.  Arraignment over.

The Furies are now in a panic over the possibility of losing their case, which they had thought was airtight.  They know it's not just about Orestes himself.  If he gets away with matricide, it opens the door to killings by any agrieved party, against any available victim-- all they'd need is a plausible excuse!  Moreover, if the fear of punishment is taken away, there is nothing holding back the savage nature of man.  But in the end, the Furies re-convince themselves of the strength of their case.  Surely any jury will see the long-lasting consequences of an innocent verdict, and the just punishment will indeed be discharged as they demand.

The Eumenides, 1

At Delphi, the Pythia (oracle) emerges to give her morning blessing.  She pays homage to the pantheon of gods, and especially to Apollo, to whom the temple is dedicated.  Turning to go inside the temple, she is horrified by the sight: a distraught man (Orestes) in blood-stained clothes; and in the corner, asleep, the hideous Furies.  But then she sees Apollo himself, and departs.

Apollo pledges his continued protection to Orestes, who is beseeching him under high anxiety over his fate.  He has been wandering, and chased by the Furies, since the murder of Clytemnestra.  Apollo assures him that he was only doing the express will of the god-- Apollo himself shoulders the murder.  They leave.

The ghost of Clytemnestra arises from Hades, where she's been having a hell of a bad time.  All there look down on her for her own act of murder, none give her sympathy for her son's.  She scolds the Furies for not devoting themselves to the job, and after all the sacrifices she has sent their way [also during her life?].  But she can't even awaken them, as hard as she screams...

Finally the Furies (now the Chorus) awake, and bemoan that they must continue their pursuit of Orestes.  They hate their job.  They can't get it done while he is under the protection of Apollo-- he, a performer of matricide!  But they are avowed to continue.

Apollo confronts the Furies face-to-face, with neither party backing down.  Apollo tries to kick them out of his temple, and makes fun of their grotesque appearance.  All claim righteousness for the part they play: the Furies, for chasing a matricide, blaming Apollo for allowing it to happen; Apollo, for instigating the murder as retribution for Clytemnestra's murder of her husband.  And how come the Furies aren't upset over that, if they chase down the murderers of family blood?  Argument over the familial status of spouses, Apollo claiming that a denial of such is an insult even to Zeus and Hera themselves, and to Aphrodite, and to all that is holy.  They mean to take this disagreement before Athena to be judged.

----------------------------

We have here a huge problem of multiplied duties interfering with one another.  Is this a grand critique of the Greeks' religious system, or will it be resolved properly in the end?  It seems that the rigid system of duties performed out of honor can't help but lead to tighter and tighter contradictions, and even the gods cannot escape the illogic of it all.

The Libation Bearers, 4

Aegisthus enters, not quite believing the news of Orestes' death.  The Chorus push him to meet the stranger and hear for himself.  He does, and is killed offstage.

A servant brings the news, and can't understand the Chorus's calmness in the face of calamity.  Clytemnestra appears, as Orestes comes back and declares his intentions.  She lays the guilt-trip on him, trying to preserve her life.  He won't hear it.  Besides killing Agamemnon, he resents her for sending him away to live with strangers as a child.  She protests, appeals to the Fate she had to follow, tells of her sorrow living while Agamemnon fought abroad.  It doesn't work.  Orestes takes Clytemnestra offstage.

The Chorus ruminates on Fate, and celebrates Justice done.  They see a completed cycle of violence, with the ultimate hero, Orestes, coming out on top. 

The deed done, Orestes comes back out, surveys the bodies, and carries his father's bloody mantle in which he was killed.  He sees Justice done.  Her rues his father's passing, lamenting his fate.  But thinking on it too long, he begins to weep, and starts to lose composure, the enormity of the act finally getting to him.  He declares himself an exile from the land, undeserving to live among the people after his deed.  The Chorus try to settle him, but he quickly gets worse.  Orestes sees the Furies in the room, coming for him.  He's losing control, the Chorus is panicking, the Furies approach, and he flees.

The Chorus is sorrowful again, struck by the apparently continuous curse upon this family.

-----------------------

With all the character focused only on their narrow interests, all were blind to the overall injustice happening around them.  The ultimate lesson from this play is the insufficiency of the old modes of honor and justice.  "An eye for an eye" cannot prevail in the long run.

The Libation Bearers, 3

The Chorus tells of Clytemnestra's dream: that she gave birth to and nursed a serpent that kills her in the end.  Orestes is encouraged by the good omen, seeing success in his plan to kill her.  He hatches his plot: he'll gain entrance to the palace disguised as a traveling stranger.  Then he'll walk up to Aegisthus and kill him.  [Yes, it's really that simple.]

The Chorus contemplates the pattern of history, of women killing the men they're closest to and being killed in return.  Althea, who killed her son; Scylla, who killed her father; the women of Lemnos, who all killed their husbands.  And now the pattern looks to be repeated again.

Orestes, in disguise, enters the palace and is met by Clytemnestra.  He says he brings the message of the death of Orestes to his family.  Clytemnestra appears distraught, and goes to tell the household while the stranger is accommodated.  But the Chorus of women speaks to Orestes' old nurse Cilissa, who says Clytemnestra is secretly pleased, for the one threat against her power is no more.  The Chorus, barely able to contain their excitement, tell her to make sure Aegisthus comes to meet the stranger unarmed, but won't tell what's about to happen next.  Chorus, to themselves: "It's finally happening!  We're about to see the murder we've been waiting for.  Everything is gonna be awesome now!"

About Last Night...
Tags: SOUTH
PARKmore...

Heretics, IV - Mr. Bernard Shaw

It is typical of an artist that he aims to display his work; but it is typical of an orator that he aims to disguise his true thoughts-- see Mark Antony, or Joseph Chamberlain.

Bernard Shaw is often viewed as capricious and flitting from ideal to ideal.  In actuality, he holds himself rigorously to an unchanging standard, and this puts him at odds with both the liberals and conservatives at different moments-- hence the perception.  And his unchanging standard is not to veer from calling things as they are-- no bending the use of words, or backing off of his own perceptions.  He'll call a white wine a yellow wine, and be right in doing so.

But this insistence also means he insists against any traditional ideals or moral standards.  He takes this too far, in the sense that he denies some of man's most central qualities, like giving laws, or making generalizations.

And Shaw's ultimate devotion is to an even worse ideal: he looks down upon Man, but always in comparison to the Superman.  In this, he makes the same grave error as Nietzsche from whom he learned the trick: his point of comparison is to a thing that isn't, rather than seeing and loving and being surprised at the thing that is. 

Better to view the world from a lack of pre-conceptions or expectations.  The man who does this will live a life of joy at the wondrousness of his surroundings.  It is true: the meek shall inherit the earth.

Shaw's way leads to further despair.  When he sees the gulf between humanity and his Superman, between the world and his adopted notion of Progress, he holds tightly to his notion and discards humanity, repudiates the world.  But the things that last have the opposite approach.  The Church was built on the Rock of a man who was an exemplar of the good that is only found against an expectation of nothing, "and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it."

--------------------------

This chapter got really beautiful by the end of it-- and in a hurry, too.  Good technique.

History I had to look up: Boer War (mentioned a few times already) -- British colonial conflict in present-day South Africa in the late 19th century.  Introduced the use of concentration camps by the British.

The Histories (Herodotus)

I was hemming and hawing over reading this for a long time.  I knew I wanted to read Thucydides for the Peloponnesian War, but I didn't want to get bogged down in long, boring histories instead of getting to the literature at the base of the project.  But this is the time for it, and I had to get some Greek drama out of the library anyway, so I picked this up to give it a shot.

As it turns out, Herodotus is really fun!  This particular translation seems to be really informal in its use of idioms, so its really easy to read.  And the action is actually fast-moving so far, jumping from one interesting episode to the next.  I'm enjoying it enough to finish the whole thing.

So this is the longest book on the list by far up to now.  Ironically, thanks to dragging my feet on the Montesquieu, I've got a week-and-a-half to finish it before it's due back at the library.  Gotta fly now.

The other thing I know is that, due to its length and level of detail packed into that length, good notes are going to be virtually impossible to keep.  Don't know what I'm going to do about that yet.

Update, 3/18: Yup, writing notes is impossible.  If you want to know what happens, just read the outline at the beginning of the book.  I shall plow through.

Heretics, III - On Mr. Rudyard Kipling And Making The World Small

In the great argument between the "bores" and the "bored" (the parochial and the cosmopolitan), let us come out on the side of the bores.  For it is they who discover life and substance in the everyday-- they are continually aroused to poetry by what they see around them.  They are as gods, who require to be fascinated by the familiar, for a god is surrounded only by the familiar.

As an example, look at the poetry that can be found in the ordinary: "Smith" (a noble profession battling with the hardest elements, and necessary for all great wars and conquests), "signal-box" (the last line of defense between life and death for the sea-farer), "letter-box" (the ultimate symbol of security and irrevocability).  To regard such things as unpoetical is to be languishing in what you have learned from too much prose.

Give him this, at least Rudyard Kipling has a flare for just this sort of embellishment.  He manages to see the honor in the ordinary.  He is often criticized for his admiration of things military; this is only incorrect insofar as his perception is just as awry as that of his critics.  A strong military is indicative of a weakened culture (else how could the military have gained strength over the populace?)  The organization that Kipling admires in the military could just as easily be admired in any other industry-- as all are necessary for the smoothness we find in our own lives.

Kipling's real problem is his cosmopolitanism.  By being a "citizen of the world", he fails to be a citizen of his country.  And while he thinks this gives him a grander view of the whole, in reality it gives him a feeble view of all.  Only the lover of a country can truly perceive that country, as he has given himself over to the country.  Only a lover can know his beloved; only a devoted religious can understand his religion; and in all these cases that knowledge grows the subject and thus shrinks (and withers? and darkens? and makes and brings suspicion upon?) the outside world. 

Those who belong nowhere can gain facts about many places, but those who belong somewhere occupy and grasp an entire universe.  The moss-covered stone is weighted with life.  The microscope enlarges the world while the telescope shrinks it.  In reality, true devotion infuses meaning into those things we encounter, however few.

--------------------------

I was struck in this chapter at the similarities between Chesterton and Mark Steyn-- and if I gave it any longer thought the similarities would probably multiply.  In this case, though, I'm thinking of Steyn's argument against multiculturalism: the big fraud of the multiculturalist state is that it actually absolves people from knowing anything about any other culture.  Facts are fleeting, and often we don't even bother with the facts, relying instead on portraying the proper sentiment.  What is needed, instead, is a strong cultural identity that citizens are eager to buy into.  Only this can produce true vitality in a populace.

The Libation Bearers, 2

Orestes comes out of hiding and greets his sister, who disbelieves it his him at first.  But they embrace joyfully, Electra now glad she has someone with whom she can share her sorrows.  Their talk moves immediately to avenging their father's death.  On Orestes' part, it is for many reasons: divine justice, the duty of a son, to recapture the royal estate, that the fighters at Ilion might witness the glory they fought for, to cut down the coward Aegisthus.  But most prominently in his mind, it is to avoid the terrible underworld fate that awaits him if he doesn't avenge his father, if he avoids this task.

Orestes and Electra lament together, in alternating stanzas, while the Chorus speaks for Agamemnon from his place in the underworld.  They offer that it would be better if he'd died during the war-- at least his authority would pass to his children lawfully.  They look for divine guidance and aid in their response.  Agamemnon (or the Chorus) fill in information they do not know-- that his body was mutilated further by Clytemnestra before burial.  Orestes and Electra ask for a final blessing.

Suitably riled up, and confident in the righteousness of their course, they are avowed to act.  But suddenly confused, Orestes asks how it is the women have been sent by Clytemnestra to annoint the grave.  It seems she has been having nightmares...

-------------------------

A really effective structure here, with Orestes and Electra reinforcing each other, their stanzas bouncing back and forth until they both think they've been convinced by the other.  I think the role of the Chorus is very ambiguous here.  It's entirely possible that they were actually speaking for themselves, and getting the children to do the evil deed they have no power to perform themselves (or are more than happy to shift the responsibility for onto others).

In the end, in some ways it is necessary that Orestes and Electra are deluding themselves.  Electra especially, not clearly seeing the evil deeds of her own father and how he may have deserved his fate.  And Orestes, searching widely for a pure justification for what he intends to do, but ultimately only getting part-way there.

The conversation also reflects what must have been the discussion between Clytemnestra and Aegisthus before the action of the previous play.  There, too, each had their own reasons for plotting the murder, and together they convinced each other of their righteousness-- only to perform a shocking act of evil that led to terrible consequences for themselves.  Bad move, kids.

The Spirit of Laws, Book XIII - Of The Relation Which The Levying Of Taxes And The Greatness Of The Public Revenues Bear To Liberty

Section 1, quoted in full

1.-- Of the Public Revenues

The public revenues are a portion that each subject gives of his property, in order to secure or enjoy the remainder.

To fix these revenues in a proper manner, regard should be had both to the necessities of the state and to those of the subject.  The real wants of the people ought never to give way to the imaginary wants of the state.

Imaginary wants are those which flow from the passions and the weakness of the governors, from the vain conceit of some extraordinary project, from the inordinate desire of glory, and from a certain impotence of mind incapable of withstanding the impulse of fancy.  Often have ministers of a restless disposition imagined that the wants of their own mean and ignoble souls were those of the state.

Nothing requires more wisdom and prudence than the regulation of that portion of which the subject is deprived, and that which he is suffered to retain.

The public revenues should not be measured by the people's abilities to give, but by what they ought to give; and if they are measured by their abilities to give, it should be considered what they are able to give for a constancy.

Discussion of the Laffer curve.

Argument in favor of progressive tax rates.

Argument in favor of consumption tax at the point of sale, the better to disguise the tax from the consumer.  Possibility of a progressive consumption tax (VAT?).

Long discussion of use and abuse of taxes in various types of regimes, and the danger of gaming the system for private advantage.

------------------------

That was a fun chapter.  Good to end on a high note.

One thing I've discovered from wrestling with this book-- this project needs to stick to genuine literature as much as possible.  The technical stuff is awful.  (I don't know if that will put The Wealth of Nations in danger or not.)  Of course, crossover works like Plato's Republic (and hopefully Thucydides) will still make the cut.

The Libation Bearers, 1

Orestes, home again, attends his father's grave.  Leaves a lock of his own hair as a tribute.  Hears the women (taken from Troy) arriving with their own tribute, and hides to observe their ceremony.

Electra, Orestes' sister, leads them.  The Chorus speaks of the troubles in the palace since the murders-- and especially of a new prophecy, that the underworld is angered and awaiting Aegisthus' and Clytemnestra's demise. 

Electra struggles for words to speak at the grave.  Bring tidings from her mother?  Or bring promises of revenge against her mother?  The Chorus suggests she bring prayers for swift (and fair) revenge, but won't commit to joining her in such prayers. 

Finally, Electra comes out with it: she does seek payback against Aegisthus especially, and hopes for Orestes' swift return.  Leaving, she sees the hair and recognizes it as possibly Orestes'.  Footprints that match his as well.  Could it be?

Heretics, II - On The Negative Spirit

Say what you will about the mystics and their wild devotions, but at least they claim a clear vision of the Good, of an Ideal worth striving for.  Whereas in our current popular ethics, the most we do is point to a failing, to a bad end, and display it as the example of what is to be shunned.  Surely an ethic that only goes so far is lacking... something!

In another case, we hold up examples of diseased bodies to scare people away from the wrong path, rather than holding up examples of virtuous and ideal bodies to draw people to the right path. 

In literature, too, we have fallen into this mode.  Our "realism" literature [e.g. that of Isben] revel in showing bad behavior-- but do so no more than any past moral literature was able to do.  The difference is that current realism lacks any portrayal of the absolute good as a counterpart.  In the way that they only use negative portrayals or actions to make their ethical points, the literary realists are like dynamiting terrorists.  "Both realists and dynamiters are well-meaning people engaged in the task, so obviously ultimately hopeless, of using science to promote morality."

And here is the connection: Rationalism that shuns an orthodox understanding of Truth flails about and gets lost in the details-- for it has nothing else to use.  "Now we have fallen a second time, and only the knowledge of evil remains to us."

Any replacement concept we try to use is merely spinning our wheels.  "Liberty", "Progress", "Education" are all goals of gaining more of... an unknown, undefined, and unevaluated quantity.  H.G. Wells thinks he has located the purpose of man in parenting-- but that merely continues the line of man, toward what end?  Unsaid.  In this sense, Progressivism is a lie-- because unanchored "progress" can be made in any direction.  Without a prior moral doctrine.  "progress" is unmeaning.  And yet that group insists on not adopting a moral doctrine.

The Spirit of Laws, Book XII - Of The Laws That Form Political Liberty, In Relation To The Subject

The previous concerned conditions of liberty in government itself.  The liberty of an individual is a different story altogether.  Philosophically, it involves the ability to exercise one's will.  Politically, it concerns the sense of personal security that is necessary for any such exercise to take place.

The laws that impinge on the individual ought to have that aim in mind.  That requires judicial procedures that are fair, predictable, and modest.  Proportional punishment for wrongdoing; fair rules and procedures for evidence; fair accusations-- no bringing ridiculous, but undefensible, charges like witchcraft.

Crimes against the government are especially tricky to define and fairly prosecute, for they always carry the potential and temptation for abuse.  Too often they are charged merely for political revenge.  They are cast onto bystanders or acquaintances too easily.  They impugn mere passing thoughts, or careless actions, or even satirical writing.

The people's sense of security against loss of liberty is improved by punishment for those who hurl false accusations.  It is improved also by laws against terrible abuse of debtors by owners.

[Long discussion of proper behavior on the part of monarchs.  Booooooring.]

The Spirit of Laws, Book XI - Of The Laws Which Establish Political Liberty With Regard To The Constitution

Liberty, in the realm of government, is the ability to properly pursue the ends of government.  This means setting up systems that inherently prevent the abuse of power.  Most governments are set up for the pursuit of some external goal, that is, external to the government itself.  But the English system is designed for the internal goal of maintaining political liberty-- of sustaining itself.  Any system looking to do this must be moderate in its actions.

Features of the English system, or any system looking to preserve itself:

Separation of power between legislative, executive, and judicial-- to prevent one body or person from amassing self-serving power.

Judicial appointees coming from the common population [jury trial].

Legislative representatives chosen from the best among the people-- possibly even from the nobility.  Or perhaps a combination [bicameral legislature].

Universal suffrage.

Active, nimble, and unitary executive, but one with the legislative power only to reject laws-- and ability of the legislature to override vetoes.

Regular legislative sessions.

Impeachment trials.

Slow-moving government overall-- so that when it does move, it moves in concert.

Legislative taxing power.  Executive control of the military.

Successful monarchies, too, must be organized by a proper division of power.  Much of the political turmoil in ancient history is due to improper, and thus unstable, divisions of power, that had to be corrected again and again.  The Greeks invested too much judicial power in their kings, but not the legislative power for them to be able to correct the problem themselves.  Eventually the entire system gave way.

[Looooooong discussion of the political developments among the Romans.  Highlights-- often the fairest systems arose in times of transition, but were superseded by the new changes.  Initial discussion is of the division between legislative senate and executive king, governor, or appointed dictator.  Later discussion of the organization of the judiciary.  Distinction between discovery of fact and discovery of law-- roles played by different bodies.  Peaceable systems in conquered lands-- often more stable.  Note: a fair separation of powers upholding a stable government that itself exemplifies "liberty" does not guarantee that the people themselves will experience anything resembling personal "liberty".  That's for a later chapter.]

Ends by saying that anyone wanting to explore the development of liberty in any other historical mode of government will have to do the work themselves.  He's done.

----------------------

Ah, the good stuff.  It's pretty remarkable how much of this was incorporated, and is still incorporated, in the American system at the constitutional level.  It may have a been a good idea to read this thing after all.

Heretics, I - Introductory Remarks On The Importance Of Orthodoxy

Once upon a time, men who argued for any conviction whatsoever would claim the mantle of orthodoxy-- for they at least would desire to claim to be right.  But now, men gleefully laugh at adopting the mantle of heresy, for the pursuit of rightness and truth is in itself viewed as misguided.  As a consequence, we hear the most outlandish statements [e.g. "Life is not worth living"] and shrug-- despite the absurdities it contains.

In the recent past, we allowed the exploration and proclamation of heresies, expecting in doing so that me might gain a greater awareness of and appreciation for the real truth.  Instead the very idea of the importance of truth was lost.  And because of that, we are far worse off than before.  Consider the treatment of Oscar Wilde: applauded for daring to publicly ridicule and defy the reigning social mores; jailed for personally living out what he proclaimed-- because his personal conviction of the supreme righteousness of his actions was over the line.

In place of large theories, we think we have found meaning examining the details of art, politics, literature. [Deconstruction?]  Yet it is the strong who look beyond themselves to external goals worth pursuing.  It is the weak who busy themselves with self-maintenance, turning inward and shrinking from the world.  The result of this cultural turn is bad art, bad politics, bad literature.  For the bold, in their boldness, were capable of extraordinary heresy as well [e.g. Milton's Satan]. 

A pursuit of practicality above all else, and the attendant shunning of grand theory, does fail and must fail.  So let us be bold, and have it out!

---------------------

This is so cool.  And the final paragraph is amazing, so I have to quote it in full:

Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down.  A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, 'Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light.  If Light be in itself good--' At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down.  All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmediaeval practicality.  But as things go on they do not work out so easily.  Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil.  Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something.  And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes.  So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light.  Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.

I'm not crazy.  Thanks, Gil.

The Agamemnon, 4

Agamememnon is killed.  The Chorus goes through every possible response in a dozen lines-- confusion, anger, timidity, vindictiveness, reckless bravery.  Finally determine to see for themselves what the situation actually is.

Clytemnestra stands over the body and admits the deed-- for Agamemnon's past sins.  Chorus threatens punishment and banishment, but she points out they did nothing to Agamemnon when he sacrificed his own daughter.  Claims the protection of Aegisthus, who abetted and murdered Cassandra at the same time.

Chorus breaks into internal discussion dealing with their shock and grief, but Clytemnestra keeps interrupting [in contrast to the previous Strophe-Antistrophe format].  Chorus first blames Helen once again.  C: Again?  You keep going back to that well.  Chorus blames the seeming curse on the royal house.  C: Getting closer.  But in that case, consider me the conduit of that curse, and especially the required vengeance for the killing of Iphigenia, and find me personally not guilty.  Chorus: "Never!  On the other hand, it was pretty horrifying what Atreus did, and the punishment seems to have landed on Agaememnon."  [Clytemnestra is winning.]  So how do we grieve?  C: Consider this a family matter.  Let Iphigenia greet her father appropriately.  [Ouch.]  Chorus asks, how can the murderer be put in charge of rectifying justice?  C: No, I've put an end to injustices in this house.

Aegisthus enters, surveys the scene, tells the whole tale of his father: Thyestes, brother of Atreus, banished from the kingdom.  Laid low, he returns to the palace, but is welcomed by Atreus serving him his own children at the meal.  A disgrace.  Aegisthus planned this whole murderous plot as an ultimate revenge.  The Chorus are outraged, but Aegisthus is claiming power and threatening punishment and slavery for any who dare rise against him.  Hot words rise, insults fly, and the room nearly breaks out in violence before Clytemnestra steps between them and orders an end to it.  She committed the murders to quell the violence once and for all.  More insults hurled, as the Chorus hopes for the return of Orestes.

--------------------------

Good stuff.  I like the multiple motivations at play here: Clytemnestra avenging the murder of Iphigenia, Aegisthus avenging the horrible insult of his father at Atreus's hands.  Agamemnon had it coming from two ends.

The interesting thing is that Clytemnestra and Aegisthus seem to be acting unawares of the other's motivation.  Who was playing whom, here?  Aegisthus using Clytemnestra to actually do the deed, then claim power himself?  Or Clytemnestra coaxing Aegisthus into a conspiracy, thus shielding herself while she gets the revenge that has burned within her for ten years?  Probably both.

Furthermore, Clytemnestra seems to think this will be the end of the episode-- that she actually has managed to definitively shut down the cycle of violence.  Great naivete here.  In fact, the truce doesn't last more than an hour before the Chorus is planning an uprising, and plotting to aid Orestes upon his return.

Interesting subtext in the Chorus as well.  Aegisthus is claiming the crown, and threatens violence against the people.  At the moment, they're not having it.  They recognize an illegitimate leader when they see one, and only the threat of widespread violence and slavery holds them back.  That can't last forever.  (Of course.  That's why there's a trilogy.)

The Spirit of Laws, Book V - That The Laws Given By The Legislator Ought To Be In Relation To The Principles Of Government

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.

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.]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

He leads us on the way of wisdom's
Everlasting law that truth
Is only learnt by suffering it.

Preach it.

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.

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:

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."

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.

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):

Homer? Who is Homer?

 

If I'm going to stake a claim one way or the other, I'll say The Iliad and The Odyssey had two different authors.  I suppose much of the language is similar (although I'm obviously not qualified to judge the Greek), and clearly the second author was fully knowledgeable of the first work.  But the literary devices and non-sequential narrative of The Odyssey are so different than the straightforward chronicle of The Iliad.  And as Lattimore pointed out in the introduction, the use of simile and imagery language is more rampant in The Iliad as well.

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:

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.