cstoll

[cstoll]

Aeneid=Odyssey+Iliad

[cstoll]

Epi-Curious

I was interested in Lucretius’ writing De Rerum Natura, particularly as it pertains to the atom. While the creator of epicurianism, Epicurius, did not think up the concept of the atom, I was interested in why he was so able to popularize the concept within his philosophy. The atom was conceptualized a couple centuries earlier by the Greek philosophers Leucippus and his protege Democritus. What it seems that Epicurius did, then, was apply the concept of the atom to quotidian life and how one should live. In the first few books of our reading Lucretius spends lots of time of fear. Regarding death in book 3, he claims that “we, like children frightened of the dark, are sometimes frightened in the light- of things no more to be feared than fears that in the dark distress a child.” This same sentiment is repeated nearly word for word in the second book, as well. Lucretius’ writing asserted that in epicureanism, the presence of matter also means that things made of matter have an essential nature about them, which makes them do things. Because of this, Lucretius’ sentiments may be summarized as the assertion that fear is merely not knowing the nature of a thing.

It also interested me that his work and character would be so criticized by religious figures in the following centuries. The tenets of epicureanism state that the universe has no beginning nor end, and thus that something cannot be created from nothing; the purpose of life, additionally, is pleasure, yet not in a hedonistic sense. While this contradicts the monotheistic tenets of God creating the universe and the purpose of life as dedicating oneself to prayer and repentance, the schools of thought nonetheless share some essential connections. The similarity which was most glaring to me is the nature of the world in that everything has an essential purpose and that fear is not knowing. Although this does not coincide with the later Christian belief of deism, I believe that it was shared by both Lucretius and his critics.

[cstoll]

Shakespeare obviously copied Catullus

During our assignment for Wednesday, we were to read Catullus’ corpus of poems called Carmina. From the very beginning of the assignment, particularly beginning with poem 5, I had a strange sense of deja vu in reading his work. Eventually, I began to see the blatant parallels between Catullus and Shakespeare. Poem 5, regarding myriad kisses, harkened me back to reading Shakespeare’s Venus and Adonis. In the very beginning of the epic poem, the end of the third stanza and the entirety of the fourth stanza seem to be a paraphrase of Catullus’ work. Shakespeare writes “Here I come and sit where never serpent hisses/ And being set, I’ll smother thee in kisses” and continues “And yet not cloy thy lips with loathed satiety/ But rather famish them amid their plenty,/ Making them red and pale with fresh variety-/ Ten kisses short as one, one long as twenty./ A summer’s day will seem but short,/ Being wasted in such time-beguiling sport”.

Both poems add numerical values to the kissing, only for the numbers to lose their meaning aside from the sheer amount of them, being too large to count. Furthermore, while sitting in others’ lap may have been a common trope, one would be blind to ignore the parallels between Shakespeare’s comment at the end of stanza 3 to Catullus’ poem 37 as well as others.

The structure of Catullus’ corpus is also similar to Shakespeare’s sonnets. Both authors focus their poetry on primarily a woman as the subject of their love and adoration but secondarily and also importantly a man. Both women and both men go by pseudonyms, though Shakespeare’s are infinitely more vague than Catullus’. Both female characters are the objects of the poets’ lustful urges and are on the whole less restrained than the poems about the men.

Your comment on Wednesday about the possible influence of Catullus on the setting of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet only further confirmed my suspicions.

[cstoll]

Sulla and Law

In the historical figures that we have studied in the past week, I have noticed a recurring lack of respect and usurpation of the law. Of course, laws have never applied to the most powerful in society to some capacity. However, why would these powerful consuls and dictators put laws in place to restrict future consuls and dictators from doing the same corrupt things that allowed them to come into power. In other words, why would a consul bother to write laws that they know will not be followed? How could the leaders be so hypocritical?

One example of this is L. Cornelius Sulla, who revived a law which commanded that there are three years between holding the same office of the Magistrate and ten years for holding the same office of consul. This is strange considering that Sulla invaded Rome and killed the people in power at the time. Further, Sulla declared himself dictator from 82-79. However, by law dictators were only to have terms of 6 months at a time. This, in itself, despoiled the logos of the position. If he wrote laws for term limits, why did he not abide to a term limit to his own power, as well?

If Sulla came into opposition in the senate or politics in general, he would just kill them. This was because of his Proscription list where he would write down the name of someone and they would immediately have a bounty on their head. This, too, conflicts with the laws that Sulla passed, as one of his more notable laws was in upholding the institution of law. Sulla passed a law making it such that only senators could adjudicate lawsuits. This was presumably because senators were more knowledgeable. Sulla’s proscription list, however, juxtaposed with this law because nobody on the list went through appropriate legal channels or were given the opportunity to defend themselves.

Sulla should have known that a state corrupt enough to allow him into power would not abide by the laws that he wrote. In fact, when Caesar put himself into power, declaring himself Dictator for Life, he was truly just following the precedent set by Sulla. 

[cstoll]

The Gracchi and Bernie

Tiberius Graccus, Gaius Gracchus, and Bernie Sanders all share similar traits. I feel that comparing them and contrasting them is very politically relevant. Most notably, the Gracchi and Sanders gained political momentum because of their populist appeal. While Tiberius appealed to the masses with his lex agraria, or “land law;” Bernie Sanders’ magnum opus may perhaps be Medicare for All, or universal healthcare; Gaius tried to fix the judicial system in Rome. All three of these measures have disparate effects on the population that they effect. Most prominently, they disadvantage those at the top of the social hierarchy. The land law took land away from the powerful few, fixing the judicial system would have prevented those same powerful few from bribing judges and tipping rulings in their favor, and abolishing private health insurance would provide the rich with a worse quality of care than they currently have. The above results, of course, are why populist laws are so rarely enacted. Their benefits, however, lie all within the underprivileged masses. The lex agraria helped the urban poor who had lost their land due to high rent or slave labor (the same urban poor that Gaius Marius later was able to mobilize during the Jugurthine War), fixing the roman judicial system would have given the poor justice in court cases against the elite, and the medicare for all plan would theoretically allow those who currently have no insurance or high-deductible insurance to afford care.

Differences between the Gracchi and Sanders is that the Gracchi came from a lineage of rulers and great men, and were raised to inherit a role of power and influence. Sanders, by contrast, was not. It’s not as if Sanders is a Kennedy. As to whether Sanders or the Gracchi are more in touch with their population, it is difficult to tell. It seems to me that Sanders seeks out those with his political views while the Gracchi followed the role of the “reluctant politician” in responding to a discontent in the population. These differences, however, are difficult to distinguish and a fair argument could be made for the opposite.

[cstoll]

Roman and American Consitutions

The centrality of religion in Rome’s constitution and structure seems to be one of the only aspects of the nation not adopted by the United States in the construction of its own constitution. Many of the other aspects of the nation are analogous to U.S. structures, but with regard to religion the U.S. has decided to abide by secularism. The President and Vice President are analogous to consuls, and extended wartime powers of the president are similar to the position of dictator. Similarly, The House of Representatives and Congress seem to be akin to plebian magistrates in that they are elected by citizens. There are even important positions in the United States that are chosen by a small group rather than the public, such as censors were in Rome. However, when it comes to religion, its influence refuses to be as clairvoyant as it was in Rome’s structure. Being so central to Rome’s function, it seems strange that Americans do not have an ethical code connected with law in the same way that religion was. This concept of an agnostic state puzzled Polybius, as well, who remarked that states “who want to abolish religion are acting far more thoughtlessly and foolishly” because citizens without such strict moral covenants “are driven by lawless impulses, blind anger, and violent passion” (Histories 6.56).

The American solution to this conundrum is to adopt a moral consequentialist set of laws. For example, to sway people away from immoral deeds, laws are made which make it illegal to kill or maim others, to steal or embezzle money, and to lie under oath. Moreover, church still has a significant undercurrent in politics. All previous American Presidents have been Christian, at least in upbringing, which serves as evidence of how deeply religion is embedded in our modern society, if not by religious fides then by social pressure to conform.

[cstoll]

Copycats

In our recent readings, there have been multiple instances of individuals being sent to fight on behalf of entire armies during war. The practice is very intriguing because, while the process seems gruesome, it prevents the loss of life that combatting armies incur. The first example that we studied of this practice was the battle of the Horatii and the Curiatii, and the more recent example was that of Titus Manlius fighting the giant Gaul. In both examples, the fighters appeal to their superiors for permission to fight: the Horatii, once asked by king Tullus Hostillius to fight, appeal to their father; Malius, similarly, appeals to the consul for permission to fight. In both scenarios the Roman fighters win and, surprisingly, are both charged with death afterward. The difference, of course, is that Horatius was acquitted by the public while Manlius never had the option of acquittal. For killing the commander of the enemy army Manlius was sentenced by the consul, his father, to death. Interestingly, the public eye was in favor of both fighters, implying the connotation of great honor with those who represent their nation-states in this practice.

It seems that the reason Manlius was put to death while Horatius was acquitted depended upon the ruling of the father. Because Horatius’ father only had a duty to his family, he could pardon Horatius with a clear conscience. Manlius’ father, however, had a higher duty to the state than to his own family. Because of this he had to sentence his own son to death. The act of a consul sentencing his own children to death because of a higher duty of service to the state is also seen by Brutus during the Tarquin conspiracy to reinstate a kingship in Rome.

[cstoll]

Falling for you

Beyond Brutus’ hidden intelligence, other factors of his character, as told by Livy, foreshadow him to be a destined and benevolent ruler. In Livy’s recounting of the story of the Tarquins at Delphi, he remarks on Brutus’ wit. Brutus pretended to slip in order to fall and kiss the earth, mother of all, as a means to fulfill the oracle’s prophecy. While this was a surreptitious way of fulfilling the prophecy, it more importantly shows the larger scope of Brutus’ thoughts. Whereas the Tarquin brothers took the prophecy to mean their literal mother, Brutus refused to think narrow-mindedly. This foreshadows his rule of Rome. In this sense, it is befitting that a ruler with lofty ambitions serves as the catalyst to Rome’s Republic period, which saw rapid expansion. Brutus also had the foresight to implement the government structure laid out by Servius Tullius, allowing for a form of government which could handle such a great empire.

Brutus also capitalized on the moment with Lucretia’s rape and suicide. Instead of only appealing to his fellow Romans’ sense of logos, he had Lucretia’s husband and her father as testaments to the atrocities of king Tarquinius, which effectively lent a sense of pathos to his argument.

[cstoll]

“Write about me like one of your historical figures”

Although we are less than a week into our Rise of Rome class, a recurring theme that I have seen is the Romans’ ready willingness to embellish in their historical accounts. In Cicero’s letter to Lucceius, Cicero’s request is no different. Cicero requests Lucceius to “give in to [his] affection for [Cicero] a little bit more than the truth will allow.” Later on in the letter, he tries to disguise his pretension by appealing to Lucceius’ authority. In this analogy, Cicero calls himself Alexander the Great to Lucceius’ Apelles. Within the analogy, Cicero presents himself as a great leader of the public while appealing to Lucceius as a master in his own craft.

Even more disturbing is Cicero’s threat to Lucceius if he was not written about favorably. If this did not happen, Cicero threatened to write his biography himself. He even admits that those who write autobiographies must “do so in a more restrained way when praise is required, and they must pass over whatever requires criticism.” This, effectively, is a threat to misconstrue history for the sake of his own ego.