The Symology Of Autochthony, By Vincent Rosivach

In this paper, I intend to show that ancient Athenian democracy influenced western political thought, specifically, western democracies. By influencing such modern day democracies, ancient Greek culture remains a presence in contemporary life.

Action from necessity is a constantly recurring theme in Thucydides’ The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War. A sentiment used to explain the growth of the Athenian Empire which some Athenians espoused to an assembly at Sparta best quantifies necessity, “. . . we were necessarily compelled at first to advance the hegemony to where it is—especially by fear, and then by honor, and later by benefit.” (Selected Passages 1.75.3). This claim, referred to as the Athenian Thesis, is used to advance the two following implications: all states act with the motivations of fear, honor and interest and no one can condemn a state for doing so. The Athenian Thesis influences the way many of the Athenian elite structure their patterns of reasoning in both noticeable and subtle ways.

The most distinctive feature of Greek political culture lay in the extent of popular participation in political life that occurred within the city-states. This participation was based on the unique ideas of “citizenship,” of free people running the affairs of state, and of equality for all citizens before the law. Political participation in Greek city-states was much wider than in Persia, but it varied considerably between city-states and over time. Early in Greek history, only the wealthy and wellborn had the rights of full citizenship, but middle- and lower-class men gradually obtained these rights in some city-states.

A reading of Thucydides’, Pericles’ Funeral Oration and The Melian Dialogue uncovers both contrasting and comparable viewpoints on Athenian politics, power, aims of war, and empire. Thucydides presents two differing characteristics of Athens, one as the civilizer in Pericles’ funeral oration and the other as an tyrant in the Melian dialogue. In the funeral oration delivered by Pericles during the first year of the war, the Athenian leader emphasizes the idealized personal image of the Athenians in regard to their constitution and good character. Pericles goes on to praise the Athenian democratic institution of Athens that contributes to their cities greatness; in Pericles’s own words, “The Athenian administration favors the many instead of few… they afford equal justice to all of their differences” (112, 2.37). This quote emphasizes the good character of the Athens’ to coax and encourage the Athenians to preserve and better their great empire into the future. On the other hand, in the Melian dialogue, this notion of justice and equality is irrelevant; one, because Athens compared to Melos, is the stronger of the two and thus, is more powerful. Further, Athens, will continue to acquire absolute power and build its empire by conquering Melos and whomever else stands in its way. Through Pericles’ funeral oration and the Melian dialogue, the following conclusions/themes will demonstrate both the changing and somewhat stable nature of Athenian policy with regards to empire,

“Polis is a term that is used to describe a tight knit small community of Ancient Greek citizens who agreed on certain rules and customs. Usually a polis was centered on a small town and the countryside the surrounded it” (Deering). The polis defined a public and communal space, the Agora, for the purpose of leading public affairs. The affairs of men and affairs were included as these had essentials parts to the entire community’s affairs. The Ancient Greek poleis are among the first recorded democratic governments in the world. The term polis has been translated into city-state as there was typically only one city and because an individual polis was independent from other poleis in terms of political, judicial, legal, religious and social institutions and practices (Cartwright). A polis offered security for its inhabitants and gave organization to government through structure, function and hierarchy.

One of the basic themes of the book is that the thought and the art of classical Athens is full of meaning for people of later generations. It is the full of meaning for nations, cultures and societies beset by broad-scale and profound social and political change and the accompanying confusion and fear produced in the minds and souls of human beings.

The subject matter of the “Republic” is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the “republic” contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground of mistaken or inadequate accounts of justice in order to make room for the new theory. Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those

The idea of sacrificing the needs of the individual Athenian for the benefit of everyone in Athens was at the core of the inner workings of its democracy, thus, a distinct privilege was placed on engaging in the political atmosphere. (Of course, said privilege of voting and serving on juries was only afforded to male natural-born citizens, but that is beside the point.) “Our public men have, besides politics, their

De Fabianis, Valeria Manferto, ed. Ancient Rome: History of a Civilization that Ruled the World. New York: Stewart, Tabori & Chang, 1996Grant, Michael. The Founders of the Western World: A History of Greece and Rome. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, Maxwell Macmillan Int., 1991Martin, Thomas R. Ancient Greece: From Prehistoric to Hellenistic Times. New Haven, Eng.: Yale University Press,

As one of the most significant works in philosophy, The Republic has been one of the most historically and intellectually influential basis of many political theories and philosophical approaches since its first appearance. It is also crucial to mention that the book contains both Plato’s and Socrates’ arguments of life and the view of the Athenian Democracy in the ancient Greek world. Therefore, it can be confusing and complicated to decide to which philosopher the arguments belong. The main focus of the book is to find the definition and the whereabouts of order, justice and to establish a just state, as well as to prove that a just man is happier than the unjust man by providing examples. The true importance of The Republic lies in the fact that everything has meaning in it, not only the arguments, but also the people who act as metaphors for the different kind of roles, which they fulfill in the Athenian society, furthermore the way they speak symbolizes those roles and every one of them embodies a part of the soul and the city-state. Even though it is not obvious, Plato / Socrates criticizes the Athenian society and tries to establish a new, ideal one with the different people he meets and talks to in the book.

What one can take away from both the implicit and explicit criticisms given by Xenophon and Aristotle is that political life is incredibly messy and problematic and, moreover, the best regime, the telos of political life, may not be unattainable. Both works indicate that virtue must be a main component of the regime, yet it appears human beings have difficulty remaining virtuous in the face of 1) material wealth and 2) the allure of

The Republic is divided into many books. Book 1 is set typically in the form of an early dialogue. The central theme of our study begins in Book 2 wherein Socrates attempts to hash out an elaborate positive theory of justice which continues till the end of The Republic. In particular, in Book VIII, Socrates prepares to discuss four types of unjust constitutions, namely, timocracy, democracy, oligarchy and tyranny. These arguments are

Very few civilizations have had as profound an influence on the world as those of ancient Greece. The Greeks laid the foundations for fields varying from philosophy to political theory to war tactics. However, this influence was not just due to their intelligence or success, but their widespread presence in the Mediterranean. Greek culture was spread throughout their known world in two distinct manners, the foundation of apoikia in the Archaic Age (8th century to 500 B.C. ) and imperialists by poleis, primarily Athens of the Classical Age (490 - 323 B.C ). Though the culture of a mother city (mētropolis) may have spread through two very different manners of “colonization.” The word is not used in the literal sense, but rather hereafter used to mean “spreading of culture”, as the former can hardly be described using the contemporary definition of colonization and the latter was through Athenian empire-building. These developments had a significant impact on ancient Greece and our modern perception thereof. Like most of the ancient world, we can best analyze these methods of colonialism through extant artifacts. I will analyze an inscription of the foundation oath of Cyrene, which recounts the decision and manner in which the island of Thera sent its citizens to the form a new polis, and the fragments of the Lapis Primus, a marble monolith that documented tributes to Athens when the city was at the peak of its imperial age, evidencing the magnitude of their power and influence in the Greek region.

The sources I will utilize in this investigation will range from primary sources such as Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and Euclid’s six books entitled Euclid’s elements to secondary sources from scholars and experts who have studied Greek Mythology/philosophy. I will also supplement my research with preliminary research from the internet, which will answer questions that my print sources cease to answer. While some of my research manifests from the ideals of Greek philosophy, other aspects of my

The first section of this piece will attempt to explore the conflicts that occurred between the aristocrats and the peasants in Solon’s Athens on the basis of land and slavery, and the solutions that Solon posed in the form of laws, as well as the effects that they had on the citizens of the time. There were city of Athens was divided into three parts; there was the Hill, the Plain, and the Shore (Plutarch: Solon, 54). Each division contained it’s own people with different political views. The Hill supported an extreme democracy, whereas the Plain supported an extreme oligarchy, and the Shore wanted a government that wasn’t quite an oligarchy, and wasn’t quite a democracy. The Shore wanted a government that was modeled after, and was a mix of both democracy and oligarchy (Plutarch: Solon 54). The presence of this third party made it very difficult for either extreme party to rise above the other (Plutarch: Solon 54). The land quality of the peasants was very poor and it was located in the barren part of the city, however the rich owned vast amounts of good quality land (Trumbach). It was very common to find peasants in debt to the aristocrats because of their bad quality land. Many times, commoners would cultivate on the land owned by the aristocrats, and pay them one-sixth of the produce that was harvested (Plutarch: Solon, 54). It was also apparent that peasants would use themselves as collateral, and were often seized as debt slaves by their