Western Civ. 1-50:

The Aeneid is an epic poem written by Virgil that is widely considered one of the greatest literary works in Western literature. It tells the story of Aeneas, a Trojan hero, and his journey to establish a home in Italy. However, the Aeneid is not only a literary masterpiece, but also a work of political propaganda from the Augustan era. Commissioned by Augustus Caesar, the first Roman emperor, it served to legitimize his reign and promote an idealistic vision for the new Empire. This essay explores the basic story of the Aeneid and examines what makes it such a remarkable work of literature. In addition, it must consider how the poem's civic message reflects the ideals of the Augustan settlement, including the emphasis on piety, duty, and the ideal ruler. By understanding the historical context in which The Aeneid was written, we can gain a deeper appreciation of its literary and historical significance.

The Aeneid begins after the Trojan War, with Aeneas and his fellow Trojans fleeing the destroyed city. They embark on a long journey across the Mediterranean seeking their own home. Throughout the journey, they face various trials and tribulations, including run-ins with gods and goddesses, battles with monsters, and unexpected setbacks. Finally, Aeneas and his followers land in Italy, where they face off against the native inhabitants. Aeneas emerges victorious and is ultimately recognized as the rightful ruler of the land. The poem ends with a prophetic vision of Rome's future, portraying Aeneas as a crucial figure in the city's founding.

To truly understand the Aeneid, it is crucial to both acknowledge its impressive plot and its role as political propaganda. Written during the Augustan settlement, the emperor sought to cement his reign and legitimize the balance of power in the Roman government. Following years of civil war and political turmoil, the poem aimed to re-establish a sense of national pride and unity among the people. Through Aeneas's journey, Virgil crafted a narrative of a hero seeking his new home and bringing peace and prosperity to the land. This message reflects Augustus's desire to create a more stable, prosperous Rome after years of chaos. All throughout, Octavian is cast as the new Aneas. Even the trials and tribulations he faces are meant to reflect the epic life story of his acclaimed descendant.

Aeneas's selflessness is also evident in his commitment to fulfilling his mission, even when it requires personal sacrifice. He is willing to endure physical pain, emotional trauma, and spiritual struggle to fulfill his destiny and establish the Romans in their own home. This portrayal of Aeneas as a dedicated, resolute leader was correlted with Augustus' own commitment to his vision for Rome. It mirrors the Roman journey and search for an empire abroad. Like Aeneas, Augustus was determined to endure hardships and challenges to achieve his goals. Unwavering commitment to his mission symbolizes the Roman people's resolve to overcome their challenges.

Moreover, Aeneas's portrayal as a virtuous leader highlights the importance of duty and loyalty in Roman society. Aeneas's loyalty to his mission and his people is a key element of his character. It is through this loyalty that he overcomes the many obstacles he faces on his journey. This emphasis on loyalty and duty was a significant part of Augustus' vision for a new Rome that was unified and strong. By emphasizing loyalty and duty, Augustus encouraged the Roman people to put the community's needs above their own desires. In this way, the Aeneid served as a powerful tool for political propaganda. It promoted the values Augustus believed were essential to his regime's success.

The character of Aeneas in The Aeneid is not only a reflection of Augustus' ideals of virtuous leadership. It also presents Augustus himself as the successor to Aeneas. Just as Aeneas was a selfless leader who put the needs of his people above his own desires, Augustus claimed to be a leader who only sought the good of the Roman people above all. This message is further reinforced through artistic depictions of Augustus, such as the statue 'Augustus of Prima Porta'. In this statue, Augustus is portrayed as a heroic figure, wearing armor and standing with one arm raised. This suggests that he is an outstanding warrior and leader. The figure of Cupid at his feet, holding a dolphin, represents Augustus' divine lineage. The depiction of Aeneas in his armor refers to the idea that Augustus is the new Aeneas leading Rome into the next era of greatness. Through both literature and art, Augustus interpreted Virgil's story to legitimize his own rule. Overall, he presented himself as a leader worthy of the Roman people's admiration and loyalty.

In summary, Virgil's The Aeneid is an epic poem that combines literary excellence with political propaganda. It tells the story of Aeneas, a Trojan hero who overcomes great struggles in pursuit of his people's destiny. In doing so, it reflects the political message of the Augustan settlement. The poem legitimized Augustus's reign and presented him as a worthy ruler of Rome. By portraying Aeneas as a virtuous and selfless leader, the poem sought to create a sense of national pride and unity among Rome's people. The Aeneid's legacy extends beyond it's own time; it is a seminal work in western literature even up to the modern day. As the key work in epic Latin poetry, it helped shape Rome's image as an impressive empire. Despite any alternitive motives is essential to recognize the poem's historical influence and significant contribution to Rome's legacy.

Western Lit. 1-45: Agamemnon: Hubris, Fate, and Moral Law

The Trojan War was one of the key events in Greek mythology and perhaps the most central event in Greek culture. Over the centuries, it has inspired countless works of art, literature, and philosophy, profoundly shaping the way people view the world with the insights derived from the legend. Among countless writers and poets who explored the themes and lessons of this war, Aeschylus stands out as a master of tragedy and insight. His play "Agamemnon" offers a powerful and complex portrayal of the war and its aftermath, exploring themes such as hubris, fate, justice, and the will of the gods. This essay examines Aeschylus' view of the Trojan War as presented in Agamemnon. Through his play "Agamemnon", Aeschylus presents a multifaceted view of the Trojan War that highlights the destructive consequences of human hubris and the inescapable power of fate. He emphasizes the need for moral law and the possibility of redemption and reconciliation in the face of tragedy. Perhaps the greatest way this tragedy manifests itself is through heavenly envy invoked by hubris.

The poet Aeschylus depicts the downfall of a mighty king who succumbs to his own pride and ambition. As the leader of the Greek forces, Agamemnon sacrificed his own daughter to the gods to secure a favorable wind for his fleet. Oddly, the play describes this as "the harsh yolk of necessity". The true moral abhorrence of this act stems from the king's attitude. His ambition and pride made him ambivalent about his daughter's life and his wife's. His disregard for the consequences of the war he waged in pride took the same toll everywhere. The king sacrificed her not because he had to, but because he wanted to act with impunity toward others. With his conquest of Troy, the treatment of his men, and the abandonment of his people he proves that he is conceited to the core. His act of ungodly hubris and arrogance unleashes a furious chain of events that leads to his own destruction and his family's ruin. Aeschylus shows us that no one is above moral laws. Even the most powerful rulers must be held accountable for their actions.

Agamemnon emphasizes humility and self-restraint. Aeschylus warns us that seeking too much power or glory can provoke envy and resentment from others, leading to disastrous consequences. After Agamemnon conquers Troy, he returns without any spoils from the war, and having only barely gained victory. In fact, he still fails to credit those who won it for him. Instead, he speaks of the gods with fleeting recognition and accuses his men of jealousy for his own valor. Upon reaching the palace, he hesitates for a moment when his wife boasts arrogantly and spreads a red carpet for him. He realizes, even for a moment, that such honors are only fitting for gods. This man's inability to control his self-indulgence secured his fate. Treading the carpet means accepting all his wife's boasts, flaunting his jealous victory before a long-suffering people. Tension mounts as he marches across the carpet to his fate in damnation's castle. This walk is symbolic of the broader pattern of his life; for a decade he commanded an immense force defying the gods to conquer a city for pride. This is the disposition shared by all elites, warmongers, and self-righteous rulers. Aeschylus suggests that crossing a certain threshold of aggrandized abandon in pursuit of glory leads to tragedy. When his wife murders him in revenge, her real motivation is hatred for his egoistic recklessness. The wisest of kings and mighty men shy away from prideful boasting. They should be wary of envy rules. For them, it is far better to remain innocent in peace than to be damned in victory.

Greek myth is based on the conflict between sovereign fate and mortal authority. Agamemnon is no exception. It skillfully illustrates the power of both the gods and the furies over mortal affairs and establishes a causal system for these sanctions. Aeschylus portrays a world in which divine justice always punishes those who transgress nature and moral laws. The furies, in particular, are a fearsome force that haunts and torments those who commit crimes or offenses against the gods. Aeschylus thus suggests that even the most powerful mortals are ultimately subject to the gods' will. They must be careful not to defy the sovereign mandate. Each man must consider the possibility that his words will produce lightning from heaven. War's morality is derived from its natural consequences. Violence provokes violence, boasting breeds envy, etc. The central thing is to know what the sovereign is, and what its laws are to reduce conflict. The ideal life is not to live all the rage, but to be at peace with gods and men.

A related theme is fate and destiny. In the play, the conflict between mortal destiny and will in war is deeply intriguing, and Agamemnon plays a key role in exploring these themes. Aeschylus elevates fate's role in determining the outcome of events. However, he also portrays the importance of will in shaping their inevitable destiny. It is not only the will, but the actions that stem from the will that seal one's fate. Agamemnon is portrayed as a leader with significant power and will. However, it is his moral ineptitude that ultimately led to his tragic downfall. The decision to sacrifice his daughter is both an example of his powerful will and a microcosm of the decisions led up to his assassination. Blinded by his ego, the king is woefully unable to escape his tragic fate or see it coming. What it is also implied is that his wife, Clytemnestra, was more than a passive instrument of fate. Instead, she was an actor whose will and choices shaped the play's outcome. In this way, Aeschylus presents a nuanced view of the interplay between fate and individual will in shaping mortals' final destiny, especially in times of war.

Perhaps the greatest tragedies of the play are hardly discussed. But what could be more horrible than a dynastic calamity? Even in the modern day, no, especially in the modern day, it is more comfortable to forget the impact of war on families and communities. Leaving out the specifics says more about the horror of this tragedy than anything else. For many, moving on and forgetting is the only way to handle it, but some things cannot be forgotten. The war has immutably changed the lives of countless people including the massacred citizens of Troy, the drowned soldiers of the lost fleet, the families at home with no bodies to mourn, the children raised without fathers, the old men who feel useless and emasculated, and the women who have grown old without a husband. But perhaps the ones hurt most of all are the wives abandoned for a war they never wanted and whose bitterness is unbearable in silence. Aesychelles highlights the bitterness and strife that arise in the aftermath of war, including the lingering trauma that persists for generations after the fact. In the House of Atreus, this manifests itself in a vicious cycle of revenge and violence. The tragic circumstances of the play illustrate the human experience of war and its consequences. Both the spoken word and what is unsaid work to illustrate the true cost of armed conflict. This is not just in terms of human life but also the emotional toll it takes on those left behind. The old and the widows, the wives and children of soldiers abroad all suffered alike for victory.

In Agamemnon, Aeschylus masterfully explores domestic violence and revenge. The central conflict of the play and the foreshadowed curse of Atreus' house envisage behaviors that perpetuate destructive cycles of hatred and pride. The tragic downfall of Agamemnon's family serves as a cautionary tale. With its symphonic rhythm, the play shows us how history repeats itself through this bloodline. The tale intertwines the family's inevitable fate with the impulses of vengence that motivate them. Ultimately, it illustrates the devastating effects of allowing these violence patterns to persist, urging viewers to recognize and break the cycle. The question on everyone's mind is how to do that, forshadowing the final resolution of the play in The Eumenides.

Despite the seemingly bleak outlook of mortal fate and the recurring theme of violence, Aeschylus also offers a glimmer of hope for a more peaceful future. While the characters in Agamemnon cannot break with fate, the play hints at the possibility of redemption and reconciliation. Aeschylus suggests that despite the human tendency to perpetuate patterns of conflict and strife, there is always potential for change and growth. In the final lines of the play, the chorus reflects on the human condition, hinting at the promise of a better future ahead.

In conclusion, Aeschylus' Agamemnon presents a multifaceted and intricate portrayal of the Trojan War and its aftermath. The play delves into the psychological and emotional impact of war on both the victors and the defeated. It highlights the complexities of the human experience in times of conflict. Moreover, it raises crucial ethical questions concerning violence, revenge, and human life taking. Aeschylus demonstrates the moral law as a guiding force. He warns against the dangers of hubris, the destructive nature of revenge, the power of moral accountability, and the inevitability of fate. The play's enduring legacy lies in its ability to provoke contemplation and reflection on these timeless themes of war and conflict. This makes it a cornerstone of Western literature and a testament to tragedy's enduring power. Aeschylus leaves us with a message of hope. He suggests that even in the face of the most bitter conflict, there is always potential for redemption and a better future.

Western Civ. 1-50: The Augustan Settlement: A Critical Analysis of Augustus’ Reforms

Augustus Caesar's reign marked a crucial turning point in Rome's history. Known as the Augustan Settlement, Augustus' reforms during his long and prosperous rule transformed Rome from a Republic to an Empire. This essay critically analyzes the Augustan Settlement, focusing on its impact on Roman politics, society, and culture. Specifically, it will examine the political and social context in which the Settlement was introduced, the main components of the reforms, and their long-term implications. Through this, the reader will gain valuable perspectives into the nature of power and its relationship to liberty.

The Augustan settlement was the result of Augustus' recognition of the need for changes in the Roman political system to ensure its survival and stability. The reforms followed over a century of political instability and civil war, when peace was desired. His reforms aimed to create a new and unified balance of power by placing the emperor at the head of a unified imperial state. With the defeat of the Ptolemies in Egypt, he got his chance. In 27 BC, Augustus established his principate, a form of government in which he held supreme power as princeps, or first citizen. A vast number of previously collegiate titles and powers granted Augustus immense authority and prestige. This played a vital role in his efforts to centralize power in the Roman Empire. He reformed the Senate, reducing its size and increasing its power relative to populist assemblies. In addition, he granted more authority to the magistrates and the army, placing them almost exclusively under his control.

To avoid public backlash, Augustus took the sly approach of preserving the Republic's appearance while holding a multitude of powerful titles. These titles included Imperator Caesar Divi Filius, Augustus, Princeps Civitatis, Pontifex Maximus, Pater Patriae, Tribune of the Plebs, and Consul, among others. These titles granted him various powers, including Imperium Maius, which gave him control over all other officials and the ability to make decisions on matters of war and peace. He also had Imperium Proconsulare, which gave him authority over all Roman provinces. Additionally, he held the power of Imperator, which allowed him to command the Roman military, and Dominus, symbolizing his absolute authority over the Roman state. It was this collection of powers which stabilized the empire from civil war. However, this concentration of power inevitably led to abuses, such as persecutions and horrid tyranny not possible under a more decentralized system.

Another key aspect of Augustus' cultural reforms was his focus on the traditional Roman family structure. Through these, he aimed to create a sense of order and stability in a society ravaged by war and plagued by decadence. He encouraged marriage and family formation and promoted the idea of the paterfamilias, or the head of the household, as a cornerstone of Roman society. Augustus saw the family unit as the foundation of Roman society and believed that strong families would contribute to social stability and economic prosperity. He also introduced legal reforms aimed at encouraging marriage and family formation, such as the Lex Papia Poppaea. This provided incentives for couples to marry and have children, and harshly punished adulterers and profligates. Augustus' promotion of a moral revival and celebration of traditional Roman family structures reinforced social order and hierarchy. Their objective was to encourage a return to the traditional Roman virtues of piety, loyalty, and discipline, which were believed to be essential to the stability and prosperity of the Roman state.

Another key aspect of Augustus' cultural reforms was his patronage of the arts. He commissioned a vast array of public works, including buildings, sculptures, literature, and other forms of art. These works celebrated Rome's grandeur and imperial power. The Forum Augustum, ordered in 20 BCE, was a massive public space that served as a center of political and cultural life in Rome. The Forum was a testament to Rome's power and wealth, and it showcased Roman architecture and engineering grandeur and sophistication. Despite the impressiveness of these achievements, it should be noted how architecture and the finance of significant projects shape our thinking about the world and our culture's legacy. When art is patronized by the state, it risks compromising the creative and moral integrity of the work in the interests of the client in a way that cannot be said of private commissions. As a consequence, Roman art became both dependent on and subservient to the power of the state. The clearest example of this is Augusta of Prima Porta which is a monument to his imperial majesty

Augustus' promotion of traditional Roman values and customs had a significant impact on Roman society and culture. While it restored some positive aspects of Roman life, it also cracked down on personal liberties. Augustus and his successors implemented strict moral codes that regulated everything from marriage and family life to personal conduct. These moral codes were enforced through a powerful bureaucracy, which monitored and punished any deviations from the norm. Despite his sincere intentions, it seems these laws were unnecessary and unnecessarily harsh. The underlying cause of degeneracy is ethical, which is a much deeper problem. Treating decadence with the law is like treating Herpes with an anti-inflamation cream. A more sophisticated look at the problem would uncover many other issues with this reactionary sentiment. For example, prolonging a harmful secular cycle in society.

The Augustan settlement had a profound impact on Roman society and culture. It brought stability and unity to Rome, ending civil wars and ushering in a period of peace and prosperity known as the Pax Romana. But the reforms also cemented the power of the emperor and the imperial family, creating an established political and social hierarchy that lasted for centuries. Moreover, the Settlement established a cultural foundation for Western civilization, influencing art, literature, and architecture for centuries to come.

However, this stability and prosperity came at a cost. The concentration of power in the hands of the emperor and his advisors inevitably led to abuses, such as the persecution of political dissidents and religious minorities. The Augustan Settlement also entrenched a system of imperial rule that prioritized the interests of the ruling elite over those of the people. This lack of representation and accountability led to corruption and the tyranny of incompetent dictators, undermining the empire's long-term stability.

From a libertarian perspective, while Augustus' reforms aimed to create stability and security, they ultimately resulted in an authoritarian government that trampled on individual liberty. The creation of the principate and the elevation of the emperor to god-like status concentrated power in the hands of one individual, paving the way for later emperors to wield nearly absolute authority over the Roman people. The establishment of a cult of personality around the emperor further eroded traditional Roman values of civic virtue and duty, encouraging blind obedience and loyalty to the state rather than personal autonomy and responsibility. As such, the Augustan Settlement can be seen as a cautionary tale about the dangers of centralized power and the importance of individual liberty.

In conclusion, the Augustan Settlement marked a pivotal moment in the history of the Roman Republic, transforming it into an empire that would dominate the Mediterranean for centuries to come. Augustus' reforms enabled stability and prosperity in Rome. Many of his initiatives, such as the construction of public buildings and monuments, contributed to the empire's cultural and architectural legacy in the west. Despite this, the settlement's authoritarian nature and consequences cannot be ignored. The concentration of power in the hands of the emperor and his advisors ultimately led to abuses of power and the erosion of individual liberties. The next many centuries of Roman rule would be haunted by the ghost of its most influential emperor.

From a libertarian perspective, the Augustan Settlement serves as a warning about the dangers of unchecked power. In order to safeguard personal freedom and secure property rights, it is crucial to limit the power of the state or anyone else who might try to control it. The legacy of the Augustan Settlement should prompt us to reflect on the balance between stability and freedom in any political system, and the dangers of sacrificing freedom to the public good. Ultimately, the Augustan Settlement reminds us that the price of security can often be the loss of individual liberty. Paradoxally, the ultimate of security is national autophagy. We must remain vigilant in safeguarding our freedoms in the face of any attempt by the state to consolidate power with itself lest we succumb to the same fate. 

Gov. 1A-45: Voluntary Arrangements and People in Distress

Pick any chapter in How to Argue, and write 250 words on this: "How could voluntary arrangements solve this problem if the state did not impose the politics of plunder?" 31. “If government doesn’t relieve distress, who will?”

In times of distress and disaster, people often turn to the government for aid and relief. After all, if the state didn’t relieve their distress, who would? This view, however, is missing something. It gives undue credit to the politics of plunder underlying state-imposed solutions but ignores the power of voluntary arrangements. This essay explores the benefits of voluntary arrangements, both charitable and businesslike as a solution to distress and how they provide a superior alternative to state intervention. By the end the reader should understand why private aid is a more practical and morally superior alternative to state mandates. By understanding the benefits of private assistance, we can gain a better understanding of how to effectively help those in need. This knowledge must include an understanding of existing activities, their alignment with individual freedom and liberty, and their practical advantages. Overall, voluntary arrangements are the solution to disasters because they are morally and practically superior for the people concerned.

When considering solutions that affect millions of people, it is imperative to take their moral considerations into account. Voluntary arrangements align with individual freedom and liberty by allowing individuals to decide how they want to contribute to relief efforts. Political solutions, on the other hand, rely on coercion and force to take resources from some groups to distribute to others. Charity is only charity if it is done voluntarily, otherwise it is brutish and amoral. Political redistribution violates the rights of countless individuals regardless of their so-called voted consent. Such a policy undermines the principles of individual liberty and self-expression. Voluntary arrangements maintain the moral principles of individual freedom and avoid the coercion inherent in state-imposed solutions.

The moral claim is all well and good, but statists may object that private aid can't be relied upon, and that sometimes you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. On the contrary, private aid, such as insurance and charity, provides compelling incentives for anyone to contribute to relief efforts. Insurance companies have a strong financial incentive to operate efficiently and effectively ensuring the safety of their clients as they must compete with other providers in a free market. Similarly, charities rely on the goodwill and donations of their supporters to continue operating. This creates a strong need to use donations effectively and ensure they are making a real difference in the lives of those they seek to help. In contrast, state programs are aligned with political pressures and are rarely held accountable for inefficiency or wasting precious resources. Moreover, reliance on the maternal state reduces the public's sense of responsibility and commitment to relief efforts. This generates a crippling dependency on unilateral extortion to pay for mutual aid. Voluntary arrangements allow individuals to allocate resources according to their knowledge and preferences, creating a sense of ownership and commitment that minimizes waste and increases efficiency. In summary, private aid, such as insurance and charity, can be relied upon to operate effectively. They provide excellent incentives for providing effective relief and aid to those in need.

Throughout history, there have been numerous successful examples of voluntary arrangements providing effective relief and aid without the need for state intervention. Mutual aid societies, covenant communities, insurance agencies, and private fire departments are just a few examples of these organizations. For instance, mutual aid societies were prevalent in the United States during the late 1800s and early 1900s, where members of communities would band together to support each other during times of distress. In the absence of state aid, these societies provided a safety net for their members in times of crisis. Another example is the Amish community's covenant community, which operates a system of mutual aid and charity that helps members with medical expenses, funeral costs, and other expenses related to family crises. This system is based on a sense of shared responsibility and commitment to the community, rather than state intervention. Moreover, private insurance agencies are another example of how voluntary arrangements can operate efficiently and effectively. These agencies are subject to market forces and must compete with other providers, driving them to offer better services at lower prices. Private fire departments also provide a compelling example of how voluntary arrangements can work. In the early days of the United States, private fire departments were prevalent, and they competed with each other to provide better services to their clients. By examining these examples, we can gain a comprehensive understanding of how voluntary arrangements can provide efficient and effective aid and relief solutions than state-imposed beuracracy. These organizations are freestanding examples of distress relief that can operate independently and successfully without state intervention. As a result, voluntary arrangements can be a reliable and effective alternative to government aid.

The practicality of voluntary arrangements is undeniable. While government intervention can be sluggish and bureaucratic, leading to frustrating delays in relief efforts, voluntary arrangements are often more nimble and flexible, able to rapidly respond to the needs of those affected by disasters. And what's more, voluntary arrangements have the advantage of being based on consent, not force. People are free to choose whether or not to participate, and can opt out at any time. It's a level of freedom that state-imposed solutions simply can't match.

But the benefits of voluntary arrangements don't stop there. They're also incredibly cost-effective compared to state alternatives. Government intervention often comes with a hefty price tag, one that taxpayers are all too familiar with. In contrast, voluntary arrangements often provide relief and aid at a fraction of the cost. The principle of mutual aid means that members pool their resources to help each other, achieving more together than they could alone. It's a powerful approach that simply can't be replicated by state-imposed solutions. So not only are voluntary arrangements more moral, but they're also more practical and cost-effective.

Voluntary arrangements offer a superior alternative to state-imposed solutions for providing relief and aid during times of distress and disaster. Rather than relying on coercion and violating individual freedom, voluntary arrangements align with these principles, allowing individuals to choose how they want to contribute to relief efforts. Incentives for efficient and effective operation abound in a free market, and mutual aid societies and covenant communities offer a sense of shared responsibility and commitment to the community. Voluntary arrangements are also more nimble and flexible than government intervention and often provide relief and aid at a fraction of the cost. Understanding the benefits of private assistance can lead to more effective ways to help those in need. Therefore, it is crucial to consider voluntary arrangements as a reliable and practical solution to distress and disaster. As a people we should all work together to support the power of the free market and individual choice by exploring and participating in voluntary arrangements that can effectively alleviate distress and support those in need.

Western Lit. 1-40: Hesiod: Mankind's Past and Future

    The ancient Greek poet Hesiod provides a unique perspective on mankind's past and future in his epic poem, "Works and Days." In this work, Hesiod explores the relationship between the gods and man, and the importance of a moral code in shaping the future. The relevance of Hesiod's view of the past and future lies in its enduring influence on Western literature, philosophy, and theology. This essay analyzes Hesiod's view of the past and future through the five points of the covenant outlined in Works and Days. Each point is uncovered through a close reading of the text, and an exploration of the historical and cultural context in which it was written. Ultimately, this essay argues that Hesiod's view of the past and future is one that emphasizes the cyclical nature of history and the importance of maintaining a moral code to ensure a prosperous future.

    The first point of the covenant, God, is a central theme throughout Hesiod's work. In the poem, Zeus is the supreme god who judges in terms of justice. However, he is not always predictable, and the consequences of his temperament can be mitigated by keeping track of time and conditions. Additionally, farmers must pray to Demeter for a bountiful harvest, recognizing the unpredictable nature of the soil. Overall, the ethical code for living is to submit your actions to the will of the heavens without complaint, as proper ethics will be rewarded.

    Regarding the second point of the covenant, Man, Hesiod argues that the current generation of men is "an iron generation. In a metaphor illustrating five generations of men as metals, the current generation is the least of all men, but the hardest and sharpest. Men must forge themselves with the fire of civilization into useful tools. Prometheus, who gave fire to man, represents rebellion against the sovereign power and the consequences for men who dare to advance civilization. The fire itself triggered a new age of cultural and technological progress in man. But because of their rebellion, Zeus sent Pandora, representing feminine chaos, suffering and death, but also salvation by hope for a better future. The need to master chaos and impose order in one's life is a theme throughout the poem. Hesiod warns of the dangers of the uncontrolled feminine, while also acknowledging the blessings of the gods on men, even through women.

    The third point of the covenant, Law, is a higher law that represents justice. Hesiod recognizes that the courts are corrupt with bribery and bad will and that real justice is harmony without conflict. Justice is the daughter of Zeus. Because of her Father, following an ethical code of living and avoiding violating justice is wise. Additionally, there are laws of regularity in nature that vary, but omens regularly convey changes. Reverence to nature and accepting fate without struggle is a component of good ethics. But Ethics themselves are composed in 'living well', which is construed by Hesiod as a productive and self-sufficient life.

    Sanctions, the fourth point of the covenant, relate to the consequences of cause and effect in history. Through his daughters, and the rest of the pantheon, Zeus brings justice in history. This argumentative demonstrates that sins against nature (Greek ethics) have real consequences. The poem also reinforces that the wisdom, education, and incentives of the ruling class are grounded in the wisdom of the muses, the inspiration of the arts, who teach princes judgments through wisdom. In the agricultural context of the poem, timing is everything, and omens, signs, and festivals are important for success, but for Hesiod prosperity itself is an ethical matter sanctioned by higher powers. To sum it up, The poem demonstrates an awareness of an ineffectual and uniform system of causation. Within the worldview of a farmer good ethics must consist of managing works and days in accordance with this system, what else matters?

    The fifth point of the covenant, Inheritance, is where Hesiod discusses the past and future of mankind. He predicts that the gods will destroy man for having an ungrateful and troublesome spirit, and that only sorrow will be left. The ethical rebellion of man against the right order will destroy them. This is partly a call for Perses to return what he did not rightfully earn, the inheritance. Owing to the nature of this religion, Hesiod has no hope for a future, and this must have been painfully apparent during conflicts like the Peloponnesian war. There is no hope for the ultimate inheritance of man, which is death, pain and suffering. However, at the bottom of Pandora's jar is hope, hope that men can live in relative peace with nature and the gods, but never for salvation. Even by preserving their household and living virtuously, men cannot hope for much but a peaceful life, a little bread, a cheese, and a short nap in the summer breeze.

    In conclusion, Hesiod's epic poem, "Works and Days," provides a unique insight into the nature of reality, the gods, and man's place in the world. Through his account of the Five Ages of Man, Hesiod outlines a view of mankind's past and future. He depicts humanity's descent from a Golden Age of abundance and harmony to a current state of turmoil and suffering, with a bleak future predicted in the form of the final Iron Age. Hesiod's work shows an awareness of the cosmic reality of humanity and the importance of living a virtuous life in accordance with the divine order. His emphasis on hard work, justice, and respect for the gods reflects the values of his time and provides a moral framework for later generations. Overall, "Works and Days" is a timeless masterpiece that offers a wealth of insights into the human condition and the eternal struggle to find meaning in a constantly changing world.

Western Civ. 1-40: Alexander the Great: How Great?

 3. What, in Plutarch's opinion, makes a "great man"? Is Alexander great?

    What makes a "great man"? According to Plutarch, the Greek biographer and philosopher, greatness comes from the combination of natural ability and education. Plutarch believed that great men are born with innate talents and characteristics, such as courage, intelligence, and ambition, but that these traits must also be cultivated through education and training. Plutarch's views on greatness are best exemplified in his biography of Alexander the Great, who he considered to be one of the greatest men in history. This essay explores Plutarch's ideas on what makes a great man, and examines how he applied these ideas to his portrayal of Alexander the Great.

    Plutarch believed that a great man must possess certain innate qualities, such as courage and intelligence, which set him apart from ordinary people. He argued that these qualities were not enough on their own, however, and that great men must also have a strong desire to achieve greatness and the ability to act on that desire. Alexander the Great exemplified these traits, as he was known for his fearlessness in battle and his strategic genius on the battlefield. Indeed, He was said to be driven by a grand worldview of noble revenge and the diffusion of Greek culture throughout the world. Like his father, he dreamed of unifying the Greeks and conquering the Persians, a desire he made manifest. But it was his courage and intelligence which allowed him to carry on some 50 campaigns over more than a decade without loosing a single battle.

    In addition to natural ability, Plutarch believed that education and training were essential for cultivating greatness. He argued that great men must be well-rounded and have knowledge in a variety of fields, including philosophy, politics, and the arts. Alexander the Great was a product of his education, tutored by Aristotle and exposed to a wide range of ideas and cultural influences. This education contributed to his ability to pacify a vast empire and foster cultural exchange between different peoples. He took on foreign customs, first of his Greek neighbors, then the Egyptians and Persians. Eventually, he and his men even took Persian wives. Eventually though, practices such as forcing his men to bow alienated them from his cause.

    Another important characteristic of a great man, according to Plutarch, is the ability to make difficult decisions and take risks. He believed that great men must be willing to take bold actions in order to achieve their goals, even if those actions are unpopular or risky. Alexander the Great demonstrated this quality in his decision to pursue an aggressive military campaign that ultimately resulted in the conquest of much of the known world. It seemed he wasn't afraid of death, battle, or much of anything really. It is said that he wanted to conquer all the way to the 'distant waters' of the pacific ocean. Apparently his men didn't share his drive, as they mutinied at the Hyphasis river in 326 BC.

    In conclusion, Plutarch's views on what makes a great man are exemplified in his biography of Alexander the Great. According to Plutarch, a great man must possess innate qualities, such as courage and intelligence, but must also receive a well-rounded education and be willing to take risks in order to achieve greatness. Alexander the Great embodied all of these qualities, making him one of the most celebrated figures in history. By examining Plutarch's ideas on greatness and their application to Alexander, we gain a deeper understanding of what it takes to be a truly great individual.

Western Civ. 1-40: The Liberty of Moderns Compared with that of the Ancients

The concept of liberty has been a fundamental issue for philosophers throughout history, Benjamin Constant's "The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns" provides significant insight into this debate. Constant argued that ancient liberty was characterized by political participation and direct democracy, a focus on public life and the common good, and subordination of the individual to the state. Modern liberty, on the other hand, emphasizes individual freedom and autonomy, private life and civil society, and limits on the power of the state. In this essay, the focus will be on analyzing the differences between ancient and modern liberty, the benefits and drawbacks of each, and the necessity of self-government as the final evolution of modern liberty.

To understand the differences between ancient and modern liberty, it is essential to provide historical context. Ancient liberty originated in the classical civilizations of Greece and Rome, where political participation and state sovereignty were central to the idea of liberty. Classical liberty was about a sense of community and belonging, shared purpose, and solidarity. It was marked by free and active participation in public life facilitated by the small and direct nature of the state. Men with liberty, that is to say property-owning men, had the ability to pursue politics in their own polis, and because of the scale, participation had a real effect on the community. This kind of political liberty has drawbacks, including tyranny and oppression, limited individual freedom and autonomy, and a tendency towards conformity and groupthink. Sparta and Rome serve as examples of how excessive emphasis on political freedom leleadso the decay of society through the suppression of individual rights and the growth of oppressive regimes.

Modern liberty, on the other hand, can be traced back to the Enlightenment era. It emphasizes individual freedom and autonomy, a plurality of perspectives, and the limitation of state power for the protection of individual rights. Constant was particularly concerned about the potential for mob rule in democratic societies. He argued that in large, developed states, political participation was no longer possible for the average free man. As a result, the population could become isolated, alienated, and egotistic. When individuals lose control over their own political life, they are easily tempted to make rash decisions that serve their own interests. This, in turn, could lead to the rise of demagogues who exploit the fears and prejudices of the population to gain power. Constant feared that without proper checks and balances, individualism could lead to the tyranny of the majority, the suppression of minority voices, and the erosion of social order.

One of the crucial aspects of Constant's argument is the relationship between economic liberty and political liberty. He argues that economic liberty is necessary for political liberty to exist. Without economic liberty, individuals would not have the means to exercise their political rights. In this sense, economic liberty is a precondition for political liberty. However, Constant still feared that unfettered liberty could lead to inequality, social unrest, and the erosion of social cohesion. His ideas led him to believe a compromise must be found between ancient and modern ideas, manifested in the form of a representative republic. He had no idea that modern republics would inherit all the worst qualities of both systems without any of their benefits. Fortunately, there is a way to solve this paradox.

Unfortunately, Constant doesn't take his point far enough to get us there. We are all products of our times, and he was no different. The French revolution had made him fear mob rule, and rightly so. If only he had considered his point further. Commerce promotes personal responsibility, accountability, and innovation. In the ancient world, the condition of commercial freedom was best exemplified by the city of Athens. Now, the public spiritedness that Constant was looking for relies on individual virtue. It is true that commerce nourishes one's virtue, but it is even more true that liberty makes one love one's independence. Self-government relies on true liberty, but the power of commerce enforces self-government and reduces the need for the state to provide.

Trading reduces the need for force to secure individual prosperity, but it also encourages public virtue and the love of liberty. The very basis of success in the market is not mob rule, but personal virtue. If something were not deemed socially virtuous, it would not be encouraged by the market, and the market is the purest form of democracy, producing exactly what consumersneed. Self-government solves the problem of mob rule without compromising to the barbarism of the ancients. It is the ultimate solution to the question of liberty. The importance of balancing individual freedom and social responsibility is paramount for self-government to succeed, but this is done spontaneously through the expedient market. The need for active and engaged citizenship in modern society is crucial to prevent extremists like Robespierre from taking power. Commercial liberty solves this by putting force and demagougery to the side in favor of virtue.

In conclusion, the difference between ancient and modern liberty is vast, with each system emphasizing different values and priorities. The ancient model valued political participation and the common good, while the modern model emphasizes individual freedom, autonomy, and the limitation of state power. Moderns would find lacking in ancient liberty the protection of individual rights, the plurality of opinions, and economic freedom. Modernity is often criticized for its tendency towards conformity and groupthink. However, the evolution of modern liberty towards individual freedom and autonomy is essentially progress in the human condition. Conservatives are more concerned with social consequences of progress, not progress itself. Constant's argument for a republican compromise falls flat in the face of history, but the solution lies in self-government. Market darwinism encourages social virtue, and the production of social goods. The progress of modern liberty relies on the economic power of commerce to enforce self-government and reduce the need for the state to provide. In other words, balancing individual freedom and social responsibility is the self-defeating task of the republic, but commercial liberty solves the problem of mob rule spontaneously by dismissing what society does not value. The ultimate goal is to achieve a balance between personal liberty and social cohesion, and self-government provides the best solution to this challenge.