Supplemental government reading 2012

Supplemental Government Reading

2012-13

The Nature of Athenian Democracy

Nick Ewbank, Dickson College 2009

More than sixty per cent of the readers of this article would have stood no chance of playing a role in Athenian politics! Women, those born overseas (unless by special grant) and adult males with non-Athenian parents were all excluded from citizenship in this supposedly democratic ancient society. Slaves were merely ‘tools with hands’ (Aristotle); no-one in ancient Greece would have given a second thought to their disenfranchisement.

Athens operated on a franchise that today we would find unacceptably narrow. Of the estimated 150 000 residents of the city state of Attica, only about one fifth held the privilege of citizenship. Paradoxically, the segments of society that generated much of the wealth of the state – many of the traders and the laboring and agricultural workers – were excluded from participating in public affairs. Many of those involved in trades were metics (resident foreigners) and much of the laboring workforce was servile. It has been suggested that slaves did not wear distinguishing clothes or uniforms because otherwise it would be seen how they outnumbered the free residents.

The evolution of democracy in Athens

Ancient Athens was an oral society. While some people could certainly write and read, for most people oral/aural communication was the primary mode of transmitting information and opinion. In such a society, personal involvement in politics has a certain sense of urgency. Pericles, the famous Athenian statesman, commented in 431 that;

Our constitution is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the whole people… everyone is equal before the law; when it is a question of putting one person before another in positions of public responsibility, what counts is not membership of a particular class, but the actual ability which the man possesses…

Even for Pericles’ own time, this is not an accurate evaluation of Athenian democracy; it was always subject to the limitations I outlined earlier.

Political ‘progress’ in Athens was more about attempts to limit the powers of particular great families than popular agitation for equality. One exception was the seisachtheia (‘easing of burdens’) introduced by the statesman Solon in the 590s BCE (largely a reform of the law of debt); this was the first notable easing of the inequality between rich and poor. As the sixth century progressed, there was some gradual improvement in the plight of the poor. Paradoxically, this came during the period of the domination of one family – the Peisistratus, who used popular support (or at least middle class support) as a counterbalance to their noble rivals.

In the sixth century the term ‘democracy’ was not used at all. The reforms of Cleisthenes, c510-507BCE, were described as isonomia ('equality of rights’) rather than demokratia (‘rule by the demos' which referred to ‘the whole people’, i.e. adult male citizens). Cleisthenes’ reforms were

1

essentially about breaking the voting power of the rich. This was achieved by changing the composition of the ‘tribes’ (phylai) which were the organizing groupings for the operation of the democracy. (By ensuring that each of the tribes was comprised of citizens from all over Attica, Cleisthenes broke the control of local baronial families over a particular tribe.)

Popular participation

The deme There is a saying that ‘all politics is local’ – this was certainly the case for Athenian citizens. Each citizen belonged to a particular deme (‘neighborhood’) – so important was this concept that a citizen’s full name was so-and-so of X, where X was his familial deme. Each deme had a local council and mayor. There were somewhere between 100 and 200 demes in Attica, so, if we accept the estimate of 30 000 citizens, each deme held between 150 and 300 voters. During a political lifespan of, say forty years (from eighteen onwards), the likelihood that a citizen would be called up to serve in his deme council was therefore extremely high. Therefore, almost every citizen would have some experience of at least local politics, if not service in local government, before the end of his life. Each individual deme also belonged to a particular tribe.

The ecclesia The ecclesia (assembly of all citizens) seems to have had its origins as a court of appeal against the decisions of the state magistrates (archons, see below) as far back as the seventh century BCE. In addition to their participation in local politics, every citizen had the right to attend the ecclesia. The assembly passed all legislation (by simple majority of those present) and annually elected the ten generals (usually one from each tribe). Each undertook the role of polemarch (field marshal) for a month during the year (according to Herodotus) – although there is at least one example of a polemarch handing control to someone he felt to be a better leader (at the Battle of Marathon in 490). Being a strategos had the advantage that, unlike other office holders, they could be re-elected ad infinitum. The pre-eminence of Pericles in the 440s and 430s is shown by his almost unbroken holding of the office of strategos for the best part of two decades.

Voting in the ecclesia was originally by voice; then by ballot. Voting by ballot involved using a white or a black bean or stone (white for yes, black for no – hence the term ‘blackballed’). It’s not clear what the typical attendance at an assembly meeting was – some authorities put it as high as 6000, but it was probably (much) lower. We do know that when the ecclesia was in session, all citizens in the market place were expected to attend. In fact, state-owned slaves went out into the agora with ropes, to herd all the citizens into the meeting. (The irony of having the servile press the free into attendance was apparently lost on the Athenians!)

The most famous act of the assembly was the annual vote on the question of ostracism. (The name comes from the broken potsherds used as writing tablets in the process – ostraka). Citizens were allowed to nominate anyone to be banished from Attica for ten years. For the vote to be valid, at least 5000 citizens had to cast a ballot and a majority of people had to vote for a particular candidate’s banishment before such a banishment could be enforced. While the potential for factional rivalries is clear (indeed, this is evidenced by excavated caches of pre-prepared ostraka, with the same name etched onto the shards), ostracism proved to be a useful ‘safety valve’ to stop one individual exerting too much sway over the state.

2

The courts

It is apparent from the writings of the Athenian playwright Aristophanes (c. 456-386) that jury service became an important aspect of the participation by citizens in their body politic. There were no mechanics of state prosecution - cases were the business of individual citizens to prosecute. Athenian juries were large – 501 in the case of Socrates – and it is clear that many saw jury service as another form of civic duty. However, just who formed the juries is an interesting question.

Selection for jury duty was also by lot. It is here that we encounter one of the most marvelous and weird inventions of the ancient world, the kleroterion. The kleroterion was an advanced form of lottery machine, designed to insure the legal process against fraud. Its invention speaks volumes for both the ingenuity of the Athenians and their determination that bribery and corruption should not subvert the ‘popular’ will.

Other features

After 508 (the reforms of Cleisthenes) the city was divided into the ten tribes (phylai). Of these tribal members, fifty served annually on the boule (state council of 500). In a lifetime, citizens could only serve twice on the boule. Additionally, the fifty to serve each year were by lot, not elected. Every citizen therefore had something like a two in three (sixty seven per cent) chance of serving on the boule if he lived to be sixty. Given their familiarity with local politics and government, these men were reasonably well prepared to serve.

The Athenian year consisted of ten months. For one month a year the fifty representatives of a particular tribe as a group took it in turn to run the Athenian government (the order in which this happened was decided by lot). These representatives were called the prytany, which acted as a form of Executive Council for the month. Even the presidency of the prytany rotated – a day at a time. The prytany’s most important duties were to prepare the agenda for the Assembly and to supervise the civil administration (including holding office-holders to account for their budgets and so on).

Each year, the tribes also nominated ten people from their tribe, again selected by lot, for the ‘top job’ – that of archon. There was, however, a property qualification – only the rich could be nominated. From the field of 100 candidates, nine (plus a secretary) were selected (by lot) – but in this case, there didn’t have to be a representative from each tribe. While the archons were originally the most important officials in the Athenian state, by the middle of the fifth century their power was in retreat. In monthly rotation, the archons presided over the ecclesia, and, upon completing their year in power, they became judges of the Areopagus – the murder court. The greatest honour fell to the archon selected (by lot) to be archon in the first month of the year – the so-called eponymous archon. To him fell the privilege of having the year known by his name (‘the year in which so-and-so was archon’).

Summation

3

Most Athenian citizens (free born adult males only) would have had some experience in government service, at least at the local level. A combination of selection by lot and rotation of offices formed a series of formidable ‘checks and balances’, to prevent domination by one individual or faction. The exception to the rule was the strategoi – the generals – who were elected annually by the Assembly and who could be re-elected year in, year out. (Presumably, the Athenians realized that when fighting, it’s best to have the most able men in charge!) The repeated use of selection by lot suggests that the Athenians saw civic participation as each man’s duty – not a right – and every citizen as being, almost by definition, capable of useful participation in civic life.

So why did democracy fade? While the government of Athens evolved, so did the web it became entangled in that led to democracy’s destruction.

The Persian Wars

Frazer Brown, Dickson College 2009

The Persian invasions of 490 and 480/79 played a major role in the Athenian rise to power and the political climate of Greece, particularly during the inter-bellum period and the second invasion. Unity between Sparta and Athens was also influenced by the invasions. Beginning in a period when fear of Persia was rife and the Greek city-states were constantly quarrelling, the repulsion of the first ‘invasion’[1] , proved the Athenians’ own worth to themselves, and gave prestige to their population. As a result of this new confidence, politics in the inter-bellum period were quite different to the period before the war, which caused the second war to be fought in a different way, and on a different scale. Instead of attempting a naval invasion, Xerxes implemented a land-based attack, supplemented by the Persian Navy rather than following his father’s example by using a fleet. Both the Persians and the Greeks utilized larger armies. Athens gained naval supremacy as a direct result of the second invasion.

The prelude to the ‘invasion’ tells us something quite important about Greek society: that they valued their freedom, even at the expense of human life. Darius “sent out heralds in divers directions round about Greece, with orders to demand everywhere earth and water for the king” [2] . Earth and water was a symbolic token of submission, which meant accepting the role of subordinate ally [3] . Most states complied with this demand out of fear of the Persian army, as Macedon did [4] . Neither Athens nor Sparta complied, however, and this tells us that they valued freedom over life; they would rather have control over their own territory, but with half the original population, than have a full population subjected to Persian hegemony. The Greeks’ view of the Persians, as barbaric in their practices, effeminate, and excessive [5] , meant that Persian control over Greeks would have been offensive and demeaning. This situation tells us that Greek society was by no means homogeneous, as most city-states submitted to the Persians, but not Athens and Sparta. The other states had less to lose by having Persian control than did Athens and Sparta as their system of government was similar to that which the Persians implemented in their subject states. Persia’s policy in Ionia and in other parts of her own Empire

4

indicate that the city-states that submitted on the Greek peninsula would probably have been ruled by either existing pro-Persian Greek tyrants, or by newly appointed tyrants[6] . Athens had, in the recent past, instituted the beginnings of a democratic system. Sparta had a functional system that worked very well for them. The Spartan system of dual kingship had served Sparta well, allowing the Spartans to become truly elite warriors. Having a foreign ruler imposed by a foreign people would have damaged Spartan society, and would have also significantly loosened the Spartan grip on the Peloponnese. The main reason for Spartan and Athenian resistance was that both of their systems would be destroyed if the Persians were allowed the chance to instate tyrants in the Persian fashion [7] .

The first ‘invasion’ itself, particularly, the battle of Marathon, influenced Greece quite significantly. It gave Athens a large confidence boost. The Athenians and Plataeans at Marathon felt that the gods were on their side, and that they had thus won a moral victory, a victory of good over evil [8] . It also demonstrated to the Greeks that Persia could be defeated, and showed them the weaknesses in Persian armor and tactics. This is one of the reasons that the Spartans, upon arriving late for the battle, “viewed the slain” [9] . Many Athenians saw the victory at Marathon as a victory for democracy. The skill of Miltiades and Callimachus (two strategoi, Callimachus was Polemarch) in planning the battle [10] reinforced the concept of meritocracy. As a result, after 487BCE the strategoi were elected by popular vote [11] . One of the outcomes of the enhanced confidence and optimism of the Greeks was that they gained hubris; they became so confident of their abilities that they assumed the Persians were dealt with for good, and continued with their internal quarrels [12] . This ended the first invasion, and began the inter-bellum period.

Shortly before 480, envoys were again sent to the city-states demanding earth and water, this time most complied, only thirty-one states did not, and they became the ‘Greeks’ at the ‘Congress at the Isthmus’ [13] . Athens and Sparta were not approached by envoys at all though, as the two states had killed the envoys ten years earlier [14] which was a grievous offence. They would not be given the chance to redeem themselves but would be ruthlessly punished. The confidence that the Spartans and Athenians had gained from the first invasion was helpful to them. This can be seen from the resolve and enthusiasm shown by the Spartans and allies at the battle of Thermopylae. The battles of Thermopylae and Salamis were momentous events, the latter being the beginning of Athenian naval supremacy, and the moment that tipped the war in Greece’s favour, this is substantiated by their move to offensive strategy, confronting Persia at Plataea and later Mycale. As the Athenians furnished many of the ships used at Salamis, Athens gained the credit for the victory and became a naval power. This gave the Athenians and their close allies the upper hand, and inspired them to go on the offensive, attacking Mycale and Sestos, and freeing the Ionian cities from Persian rule in 479 BCE.

In the first invasion, the Athenians sent to Sparta for help, but were told that they must wait until the end of the festival that the Spartans were celebrating, as it would be sacrilegious to leave it early [15] . Regardless of the veracity of the excuse, it demonstrates the fact that the Spartans were reluctant to act unless they could really see the value of their action[16] . In the case of the first invasion, the threat was in Attica, the territory of their rival city-state, and it was of little significance to them if their rival was defeated. In the second invasion, the Spartans, although still reluctant to act, could see that the Persians were a real threat to them; they had been

5

convinced by the Persian subjugation of central Greece [17] . The Spartans were reluctant to act, preferring to protect the Peloponnese alone [18] . To the Spartans, as in the first invasion, threat to their rival was not important to them, and a festival was given as an excuse [19] . However, the congress decided that Sparta would go and fight. The repeated Spartan reluctance to fight with and for the other city-states reinforces the fact that Greece was not homogenous, and shows that some of the city-states operated in their own interests.

Throughout the course of the Persian invasions of 490 and 480/79 the Athenians rose to great power. They began by becoming aware of their own strength at the battle of Marathon. This strengthened them and made them capable of defeating the Persians again a decade later, after which they became the supreme naval power of the region. The Persian wars also increased the freedom of Greek peoples as a whole, the victory in 479 deterred the Persians from any further attempts at conquest of the peninsula, and the Athenian navy freed the Ionian Greeks from Persian rule. However, Spartan compliance with the wishes of Greece was reluctant, and Greek society was diverse and heterogeneous.

The alliance that the Greeks built seemed to be in their best interest, but after the Persian War, Sparta’s isolationism caused them to withdraw and left Athens as a dominant force. Athens’s evolved democracy seemed enlightened, so when the city appeared as the dominant power left on the Greek stage, the citizens were determined to shine a light on the world, whether or not anyone else wanted them to do so. Athens used the old alliance to build influence and take wealth. A financial tribute to Athens from the other city-states was considered payment for military protection. Weaker city-states that refused to pay tribute or recognize Athenian strength were destroyed.

Peloponnesian War by Rit Nosotro

The main cause of the war was the radically different worldviews between Athens and Sparta. During the thirty-year truce prior to the Peloponnesian War, Athens' supremacy over the sea lead to immense wealth through trade with an increasing number of allies. Corinth, one of Sparta's allies, was a trade rival of Athens. Corinth had colonized Corcyra who, in turn, colonized Epidamus. In 435 B.C., the political factions in Epidamus were disputing so severely, that Epidamus asked for military assistance from Corcyra. As Corcyra did not respond, Epidamus asked Corinth for help, and Corinth sent some troops. Irritated by Corinth's interference, Corcyra, which had an excellent navy, attacked and defeated the Corinthian fleet. After this battle, trade dependent Corinth went to work on another fleet which prompted Corcyra to look for a city-state to ally with. It turned to Sparta's bitter enemy, Athens. The Corinthian delegates passionately protested against this but Athens accepted the proposal of a defensive alliance with Corcyra. This alliance put the Thirty-year Truce in jeopardy.

The first actual blow to the truce came in 433 B.C., when, after two years of rebuilding, the Corinthian fleet went to battle against the Corcyra fleet at Sybota. At the climax of the battle, the

6

Corinthian fleet was on the verge of winning a great victory when Athens's galleys intervened and destroyed any chance of the destruction of the Corcyra fleet. This intervention was the first breach of the Thirty year Truce. The second breach came when the king of Macedon started to sow seeds of discontent among the Athenian allies and, to the extent, that the allies came to the verge of revolt and one of them was a city by the name of Potidea. Potidea (a Corinthian colony) was ordered by Athens to drive out the Corinthian magistrates and burn the city to the ground. This was ordered because Athens did not want any more trouble from its allies. Thus, the second blow to the truce was struck.

The first blood that was drawn in this war, surprisingly, was not in Athens or Sparta but was in Plataea. At night 300 Thebans were treacherously let into Plateae in an attempt to "free" Plataea from Athens. The Plataeans were satisfied with their freedom under Athenian rule and, when the small number of their enemies was discovered, drove out the Thebans. As soon as this was over, Plataea was besieged by a combined force of Sparta and Thebes.

In 431 B.C. when the corn was ripe, King Archidamus with a large Peloponnesian army invaded Attica, in an effort to destroy the Athenian countryside. This he did, causing the country people to flee to the city of Athens. This huge influx of citizens caused an overflow of population and this, in turn, caused a plaque that killed 80,000 Athenians. King Archidamus continued to ravage and pillage the country around Athens. Meanwhile, Athens continued to operate by the sea and attacked Methone with success. In Thrace, Potidea capitulated to Athens, the citizens were driven out, and Athens soon colonized the area. During this time, the Athenians, discouraged by the plague, deposed Pericles, their great leader. To compound the punishment Pericles was fined but in the end the Athenians reelected him, as he was judged to be the best leader. In 429 B.C., Plataea was besieged by King Archidamus and was asked to surrender. Plataea refused to since it was relying on the promises of help from Athens. Athens did not send help. So Archidamus continued to besiege it while Plataea fought fervently back and inflicted severe losses to the armies of Archidamus. Archidamus now realized he would have to blockade Plataea. He built a huge earthen wall around Plataea but this was to no avail as the citizens of Plataea were able to escape through the blockade and made an effort to run to Athens. Only the strongest made it and the Spartans captured many of the physically weaker citizens.

In 427 B.C. Athens countered with an attack on Nisea. Athens, first, built a base at Minoa and used it to enter Nisea. The Athenian army eventually took the city by a blockade and was allowed in at night by conspirators. This was a huge success as Athens had lost Nisea in the Thirty-year Truce with Sparta.

Sparta, however engineered an attack by assigning Brasidas, a Spartan general with daring and decisiveness not usually associated with generalship, to invade Thrace. He possessed oratorical ability, he was just and tolerant, and he had a popularity that made strangers like him. Brasidas was able to convince many Athenian allies to submit to him. He captured Amphipolis by attacking it unprepared and he also took Torone, one of the strongest cities in Thrace. He used a subtle plan by taking seven soldiers to kill the sentinels and let the troops into Torone.

This successful campaign in Thrace caused the Athenians to despair. Swayed by a peace party, Athens sued for peace. A truce was readily agreed to, but just as the war was about to end, a

7

revolt broke out in Scione and they invited Brasidas in and crowned him. This caused Athens to send troops to blockade it, which started even more fighting. Eventually, at the battle of Amphipolis, in March of 422 B.C., the two Athenian generals, Cleon and Nicias (leader of the Athenian peace party) fought Brasidas. Brasidas and Cleon were killed. Brasidas's death removed the main obstacle for peace. In the end Athens was at the mercy of Sparta and this resulted in peace.

With Athens weakened, Sparta had complete supremacy over Greece, particularly after making an alliance with the Persian Empire. Sparta demanded that Athens tear down its walls and surrender all its warships except twelve which were to provide military support for Sparta's battles. However, the revolution in Greece had not finished.

Once Sparta had conquered Athens, Sparta was very tolerant by letting Athens stay as a city rather than totally tearing it down. Sparta, instead, implemented its own weak government which basically consisted of thirty tyrants administrating the city any way they pleased. The government was so bloodthirsty that after less than a year of this tyranny, Athens revolted and drove the tyrants out. After this Athenian revolution, Athens was extremely weak, so Sparta decided to let Athens have its democracy back.

As was mentioned previously, Sparta had a strong military but an inadequate government. Their generals were easily corrupted by wealth and started ruling the new empire with governments based on a military mindset. Through this, Sparta squandered the potential wealth and power that came with ruling an empire because of its lack of solid administration. The end result came when the rest of Greece revolted.

This caused the Greek economy to take a plunge as Greece fought Sparta. This continuing warfare resulted in a major decline in living conditions. This tyrannical government had so severely affected Greece, that more Athenian citizens died during the eight-month rule of the tyrannical Spartan government than in the Peloponnesians (Sparta and her allies) slew in ten years of war.

Unlike the Athenian worldview, Sparta's worldview did not value human life, freedom, and dignity.

As Sparta's warrior-citizens were defending new territory, Sparta itself became populated mainly with Helots (slaves) and few Spartans. Having had enough of tyranny, Thebes and Corinth joined together and defeated the "invincible" Sparta. This surprising victory encouraged Persia to take advantage of Sparta's weakened army.

As soon as Sparta was defeated, there was a leadership vacuum in Greece that brought on years of revolutions. These many wars caused Greece to become very weak until the King Phillip of Macedon conquered Greece.

Sparta's victory in the Peloponnesian war marked the beginning of the end of the Athenian empire and the start of the short Spartan supremacy throughout the whole of Greece.

8

After the destruction and defeat of the powerful Greek polis, philosophers and students of Athens debated the proposition that everyone could participate in government and whether or not the individual was truly enlightened enough.

Western Philosophy, the Beginning

Plato's Republic: Teachings of Socrates and PlatoPlato wrote his work as a dialogue among characters. The main character was Socrates,

who voiced Plato’s ideas. (The real Socrates never wrote down his ideas.) Through the dialogue, Plato was trying to duplicate the way Socrates taught philosophy by engaging his students on significant questions.

The Republic is set in a private home where a small group of Athenians have gathered to have a philosophical discussion with Socrates. The dialogue focuses on two questions: What is justice and why should an individual act justly? The first book of Plato's Republic is Socratic like the earlier dialogs, but the rest of the Republic seems to be more the ideas of Plato than of Socrates. Socrates narrates the long work which begins with a discussion of old age in which they note Sophocles' comment how he felt he had escaped from a raging beast when asked about his service of Aphrodite. When the passions and desires relax, Cephalus believes we are freed of many mad masters. The happiness of old age depends primarily on prudence and cheerfulness. Cephalus also finds that he thinks more about the tales of the afterlife and how wrong-doers may pay the penalty there so that he examines his life more. By living justice in piety he has hope that this is in reality the greatest wealth.

In considering whether justice is paying back what is due, Socrates thinks that it would not be good to give weapons back to someone when he is not in his right mind even if they were his. Then Cephalus suggests the idea of Simonides that justice is giving each his due, which means doing good to friends and evil to enemies. This is modified by questioning to benefiting the just and harming the unjust. However, if one has friends who are unjust or enemies who are just, one may end up harming the just and helping the unjust. The good person will not harm anyone at all. Those who are harmed become more unjust, and the just would never make anyone unjust. Only the unjust make people more unjust.

This conclusion bothers Thrasymachus, who demands Socrates give him a definition of justice without saying it is beneficial, profitable, or advantageous. This is impossible, but Thrasymachus defines justice as the advantage of the stronger, as each form of government enacts laws to its own advantage whether it is democratic or tyrannical. Socrates asks whether sometimes they err and make laws that are not to their advantage which would result in bad for themselves. Socrates asks if each art does not serve its clients rather than the practitioner, who is usually compensated by pay. Thrasymachus uses the example of the shepherd who fattens the flock for his own use, and he points out that the unjust person always gains the advantage over the just. He believes people are not afraid of doing injustice but only of suffering it; if injustice is done on a large enough scale, it can be masterful and advantageous.

9

Socrates disagrees that injustice is more profitable than justice. As each art is for the advantage of the clients, so government is also for the advantage of the governed, which is why governors are paid in money, honor, or should have a penalty for refusing to govern. The latter is the greatest inducement for the good person, as the penalty is to be governed by someone less capable. Although Thrasymachus claims that injustice is a virtue, Socrates is able to argue that the just person is wise and good, while the unjust is bad and ignorant. Those who are unjust will wrong each other and be incapable of cooperation so long as they are unjust, as injustice brings conflicts and hatred. Thus the unjust are enemies to each other as well as to the just and ultimately even to the gods. The unjust cannot accomplish anything except insofar as they act with some justice and cooperation.

Although Thrasymachus gives in to Socrates' arguments based on justice as a virtue, in the second book of the Republic Glaucon and his brother Adeimantus are not satisfied that it was adequately proven even though they do not agree with Thrasymachus but with Socrates, who believes that justice is good not only for its results but for its own sake. They argue that justice was invented, because people fear being wronged more than they gain by wronging; thus people make a compact and laws for everyone. Glaucon tells the story of Gyges, who found a ring that could make him invisible and used it to seduce the queen, kill the king, and take over the kingdom of Lydia. Since people believe there is profit in injustice, Glaucon wants to separate complete injustice from the purely just. Since it is unjust for one to have the reputation for justice along with the power and advantages of injustice, this must be compared to a just person who is treated as the worst criminal. This contrast could not but have reminded Plato's readers of their miserable politicians and how the most just Socrates was executed. Socrates proposes to answer this dilemma by looking at the larger picture of the state to see if they can find out what justice is.

They begin by speculating about the origin of a city with the division of labor necessary for their basic needs. They start with a farmer, builder, weaver, and shoemaker and soon expand it to carpenters, smiths, craftsmen, herders for draft animals, then to merchants, traders, shipbuilders, shopkeepers, and wage-earners. Socrates describes a simple life with a mostly vegetarian diet with some cheese, wine, and moderate relishes. However, Glaucon asks if this is not a life for pigs. He wants couches, tables, and meat. Socrates replies that then he does not want to create a just city but a luxurious one. Socrates suspects that this will lead to the origin of justice and injustice. The healthy state has already been described, but now they are going to create a feverish state. Now a much greater multitude of workers are needed, including many more doctors because of a less healthy diet of meat.

This greater population will require more territory, which must be taken from their neighbors. If they do not limit their desires but abandon themselves to the unlimited acquisition of wealth, then they must go to war. Thus a large army will be needed to march out and fight in defense of all the wealth and luxuries. To have a successful military they must be professional and well trained. These guardians must be able to distinguish their friends from their foes and thus need a good education. This takes the discussion straight into what is the proper education. This section is the turning point from the quest for true justice that Socrates followed to the justification of an unhealthy state that Plato now wants to explore after the Spartan model. Suddenly Socrates is no longer questioning the most basic assumptions but blithely going along even though it is clear

10

that this is not the best state at all. Having just proven that it is not just to harm anyone, now they have accepted an unnecessary army to harm enemies for the sake of luxurious and unneeded wealth.

Next they make various pronouncements about education involving censorship and the perpetration of falsehoods without really questioning whether those policies are good except from one limited point of view. They start the discussion of education with the traditional gymnastics and music, which includes all the cultural arts. Imperiously they are to decide which stories are to be rejected and proceed to recommend censoring the poets and playwrights for portraying the gods as imperfect in virtue. How do they expect to do away with these famous writings? Why don't they teach people to think and question them instead of trying to cover them up and hide them? If the gods are good and truthful, can they not teach that rationally and show the limitations of the poems and stories? Tragically Plato seems to have fallen into an authoritarian approach to justifying the materialistic imperialism of western civilization, which the world has been suffering from that day to this.

The rulers will lie, but it is considered a sin for others to do so. The multitude is expected to obey their rulers just as they practice self-control over their appetites. Music is to be limited to martial tunes that encourage bravery and gentle harmonies that are peaceful. Not only the poets but all the artisans must be carefully controlled. Everyone must do their own work, and the sick should not be coddled by doctors that merely prolong their illnesses. The guardians are to be trained to be good judges by discerning injustice in others but not experiencing it themselves. They are to be gentle, orderly, prudent, and brave. Those who are cowardly and rude and fail to pass the tests of toils and pains are to be rejected. A false myth is to be told of the guardians that they were molded within the earth to rule with golden qualities, while their helpers, the military, are to be considered silver, and the artisans and workers brass and iron. Individuals found to have the wrong qualities should be transferred to another class. They should say an oracle predicted that the state would be overthrown when a man of iron or brass becomes its guardian. The army should make sure that the workers do not become the masters.

The guardians are to live an austere life without any private property, sharing things in common and not using luxuries like gold and silver. While the guardians rule and the army defends the city, all the productive work is to be done by the artisans and workers. This system is supposed in this discussion to be for the greatest happiness of the whole city, but the analogy with an individual unfortunately treats the individuals in this city as parts not wholes themselves in their quest to achieve unity in the state. Even wives and children are to be held in common. The guardians are to be wise, the military brave, and everyone moderate and just. Although self-control can bring an individual freedom, when one class controls another, the result is more like slavery. The guardians are to judge all lawsuits, which are expected to be few because there is no private property; but unfortunately that is no guarantee of equal sharing without disagreements.

Socrates describes the three parts of the psyche that relate to the three classes as the part that learns, what feels anger and emotions, and the appetites of the body. The emotion of anger can support the reason in its struggle with lower desires just as the two highest classes must control the larger third class of workers. They conclude that this city exemplifies justice, though some

11

seriously doubt it. The opposite state of injustice they believe is when these three principles interfere with each other and revolt.

Adeimantus questions the policy of having the women and children in common, since it is such a radical idea. Socrates argues quite rationally that except for the fact that women are weaker and men stronger, there are no differences that should prevent women from getting the same education and performing the same functions as the men. A woman is just as likely to have the mind of a physician as a man, and they have the same capacity for administration. Thus women ought to be guardians and cohabit with those men. Socrates prophetically notes that it is the current practices of sexual discrimination that are actually more unnatural than his utopian scheme. Women can also be soldiers although they should be assigned lighter duties.

However, the plan to have the women and children in common is clearly more problematic, especially when eugenics controlled by the guardians is introduced. To enable the best specimens to have more children the rulers are to deceive them by awarding prizes that seem random but are not. Those considered inferior are to have less chance to procreate. Although by grouping the children by age, the parents can know which group contains their children, brothers and sisters of different ages will surely be unknown. Thus they ask for a dispensation from the Delphic oracle regarding brothers and sisters cohabiting. Socrates argues that they will be more likely to respect their elders not knowing which are their parents, but it could also be argued that the respect in practice would be far less.

By getting rid of the concepts of "mine" and "not mine" they hope to have more unity, but without close family feelings there could be even more chaos and alienation. In most Greek cities of this time the workers would be considered slaves. The hope that there will be no quarrels over property since it is all held in common is naive. Socrates does argue that they ought to treat other Greek cities better than has been the practice in their time by not burning their houses or enslaving their peoples in wars; such treatment is to be reserved for the barbarians who speak other languages. With the exception of equal treatment for the women this does not seem like a just nor a wise society.

Socrates suggests that there will be no cessation of such troubles until philosophers become the rulers or the rulers pursue philosophy seriously. The guardians must be the wisest. Ironically they cite truthfulness as a most essential quality for the rulers after recommending the guardians tell various lies. They must also be prudent, brave, liberal, just, and intelligent with a good memory. To describe the current situation Socrates uses the metaphor of a ship in which the skilled pilot is ignored by the sailors as impractical, because they are able to get the shipmaster to do what they want. Thus the one with the finest spirit and the greatest knowledge of navigation is thought a useless stargazer.

Philosophers are also ignored, because many who call themselves such constantly quarrel and pretend to knowledge they don't have. Socrates criticizes the professional sophists who teach for pay but inculcate the beliefs of the multitudes and confuse the good with what pleases. These people cannot distinguish beauty itself from the many beautiful things. Thus youths of great ability are led astray and filled with ambitious hopes without doing the hard studying necessary, and so such prospects are discouraged from taking up true philosophy. In the current political

12

climate a true philosopher would be destroyed like a man among wild beasts without accomplishing any benefit. The true philosopher is focused on the eternal ideas and does not have the time to engage in the petty strife of envy and hate.

Socrates argues that pleasure cannot be the good, because some pleasures are bad. He tries to describe the offspring of the good as like the light that helps us see. The sun is the greatest source of light that allows us to see the world around us.

The sun ... not only furnishes to visibles the power of visibility but it also provides for their generation and growth and nurture though it is not itself generation. ... In like manner, then ... the objects of knowledge not only receive from the presence of the good their being known, but their very existence and essence is derived to them from it, though the good itself is not essence but still transcends essence in dignity and surpassing power. (509b)

He delineates four ways of perceiving things. Perceiving objects in the visible world gives belief, while their likenesses involve conjecture; in the intelligible world, the ideas are known, while the hypotheses about them involved understanding.

Plato, speaking as Socrates asks us to imagine a line divided into to four parts all together. The segment that runs from A to C represents the physical world while the other segment from C to E represents the intelligible or logical world. Each section is then broke up further into two parts: a lower segment that stands for representation and a higher segment that represents the real. AB contains representations of the physical world such as shadows, reflections, etc. BC represents the actual objects such as a chair or rock. CD represents our ideas about our own reality while DE is the actual truth (which we can only come to conclusions about, not actually experience).

Socrates asks us then to imagine a cave that runs deep and expansive into the earth so that no natural light from the sun is visible. Inside the cave are three shelves or steps in the ground. On the top layer is a giant fire that burns brightly. On the second layer are men that walk back and forth in front of the fire carrying objects and casting shadows onto the rest of the cave. Finally on the bottom layer are prisoners restrained and unable to move. Distantly behind them on this level is the entrance to the cave, but it so far away and inclined above them that the sunlight is totally diffused. They are facing the walls of the cave unable to see the rest of the scene just described. All that is visible to the prisoners are the shadows cast upon the wall, created by the men that walk back and forth carrying objects in front of the fire. Now imagine yourself as one of the prisoners. How would you know what the shadows were? Chained here all of your life you, all you ever knew were these shadows. You might suppose that the entire world is this cave wall and the shadows that cast upon it. Your fellow prisoners would help in making up names for each of the objects. They might see a small circular shadow and one of the prisoners might mutter a made up word. The other prisoners including yourself might repeat that, creating a name for what you think that object is. With names and a language created, how accurate would they be with no writing, reading, teaching, or previous knowledge? Eventually objects are

13

repeated and prisoners make a contest of who can correctly recognize the objects the fastest. Those that can remember the most are heroes and considered intelligent.

Now imagine that you escape and start wandering away from the wall of shadows. Eventually you see a small amount of sunlight and you continue to move toward it. Becoming brighter and brighter, the light begins to sting your eyes as you slow to adjust. Eventually you leave the cave and can see smaller, darker objects. Larger, lighter objects in color then become visible and eventually you can see the sun. For the first time you can see the physical world around you. Realizing that the cave was not genuine and you were a prisoner of a false reality, you venture back into the cave to lead the rest of the prisoners to revolt. Trudging through the cave, your eyes have to readjust to the darkness. When you get to the prisoners, you attempt to release them and lead them to freedom, explaining the real world. You have forgotten the contest and are unable to identify the objects before you since your eyes are not used to the shadows, combined with the overwhelming experience. The other prisoners think you are a stupid fool and are mortified that you want to take them away from their world, so in rage, they kill you.

Many analogies can be drawn between the cave and the world we live. What is the reality and what are the shadows cast before us? Who are the people that trick us with fire and shadows of strange objects? Where is our frustration vented and do we become mad because we have found out the truth or because someone is trying to show us, but we refuse listen?

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/plato.html

Socrates notes that contention for office and power causes strife and results in destruction. Next they discuss the education of the guardians, recommending mathematics, geometry, astronomy, and finally the dialectic of discussing ideas. Socrates explains the relationships between the four levels of consciousness, saying that intellection deals with essence and opinion with generation. As intellection is to opinion, so science is to belief, and understanding is to image making. In contrast to the authoritarian methods already implied, Socrates suggests that the education of the

14

guardians should not be by constraint, because learning by compulsion is ineffective. He recommends that children learn by playing so that their natural capacities can be discerned. The comprehensive and practical education of the guardians is not complete until they reach the age of fifty.

The 8th book of the Republic is a brilliant discussion of the four kinds of government that are inferior to aristocracy in which the best rule by virtue. The first of these is like the constitution of Crete and Sparta and is called timocracy. This tends to degenerate into plutocratic oligarchy, then democracy, and finally tyranny. The forms of government reflect the psychology and values of the citizens. The aristocracy deteriorates into timocracy when honor replaces virtue, as the youths become less cultured and educated. They begin to strive for position which causes conflicts and wars. The ambitious and aggressive in attempting to gain more power and wealth tend to enslave the population around and do not care as much about the good of their subjects. Wanting wealth but not being allowed to possess it openly, they become stingy but prodigal with the wealth of others in order to enjoy pleasures unobtrusively. No longer educated to be virtuous, they become contentious and covetous of honors in war and government. While young they love athletics, hunting, and war preparations; but as they get older, they long for more wealth. The timocratic person develops because his mother and others, dissatisfied with the scant rewards of his father's virtue, encourage the son to be more ambitious.

In the oligarchy called plutocracy wealth becomes dominant, and citizenship depends on holding property; the rich hold office, while the poor are excluded. They find ways to pervert the laws to increase their wealth. The values of virtue, honor, and victory succumb to wealth. This state becomes divided in two between the rich and the poor. Wars are not as successful, because they fear arming the people and are reluctant to spend money. Many of the poor must either beg or become thieves. The son of the timocratic man sees his father's possessions declining in his pursuit of honors and war. So he turns to earning money by hard work and thrift, and he admires the rich and the attainment of wealth. He seeks to satisfy his own desires but is careful not to spend money on attaining honors or helping others. Property becomes greatly esteemed. They encourage prodigals to spend their money by loaning to them so that they can take over their property and become even richer. In this way many who were noble become reduced to poverty. These discontented and impoverished nobles become leaders of revolution, as the rich become idle and soft. Factions arise, and the parties bring in allies from other states until a war results.

When the poor attain victory, they institute a democracy and grant equal citizenship and eliminate property qualifications for offices, many of which are assigned by lot. Freedom becomes the greatest value, and everyone can say what they like and do what they please. Diversity increases; varieties of entertainment abound; and just about everything is tolerated, even crime. Those who say they love the people are elected. Everyone is treated as equal, whether they are equal or not. Liberty and license lead to self-indulgence and the pursuit of pleasures. The desires have overcome the discipline used for money-making. The children of the wealthy indulge themselves, and the poor long for liberty. Such prodigality and the shameless quest for freedom at any cost bring about the democratic revolution.

All values and pleasures are considered equal, as people indulge themselves in whatever suits their fancy - some drinking, others dieting or exercising, sometimes idle and neglectful, other

15

times diligently occupied with philosophy or any other pursuit; they rush from one thing to another. Those who do not govern liberally are accused of being oligarchs, while those who obey are called slaves. In this anarchic mood the rulers resemble the subjects, as the subjects become the rulers. Parents try to be like their children, and the children have no respect for their parents. Even the animals are allowed liberty. Teachers fawn on their students, and students think they need no teachers. The young compete with their elders, and the older people imitate the young. Sex roles become confused and people chafe at any kind of servitude.

Eventually the people find a leader who promises them everything as their champion and protector. In gaining control of the people he may shed some blood while hinting at abolishing debts and land reform. Such a powerful figure may be slain by his enemies or become the leader of the faction fighting the property owners. In danger of being assassinated, he requests a bodyguard to make the state safe for this "friend of democracy." This protector then gradually becomes a tyrant. His leadership is strengthened by stirring up wars he must lead. This gives him an excuse to destroy his enemies and thwart his rivals. Those who criticize him must be silenced, resulting in a negative purge in which the best, instead of the worst elements, are eliminated. This tyranny is then the most unjust and worst form of government.

The tyrant is like the person who has been enslaved by one desire; everything is spent for that one addiction. Then the tyrant must take from others by deceit or violence. If one has the power, the tyrant refrains from no atrocity in this lawless quest, robbing even one's parents or the fatherland. They associate with flatterers and have no real friends, everyone being either a master or a slave. Thus the tyrannical person is enslaved in suffering the disease of unfulfilled desire, full of alarms and terror, always in anguish and insecure, envious, faithless, unjust, friendless, impious, and a vessel of every vice. Thus they conclude that the unjust are the most unhappy, while the just are happy.

Socrates explains that the faculty of reason is best able to judge the pleasures, and so the lover of wisdom will do better than the lover of gain. Many confuse pleasure with the cessation of bodily needs and pains, as gray seems whiter than black even though it is not white. The purest and most lasting pleasures relate to the truth and immortal qualities. The philosophers seek the purest pleasures, while the tyrants and those most enslaved desire the grossest. Socrates likens the reason to a person, the emotional part to a lion, and the appetites to a many-headed monster. The rational human part is most divine and should rule for the best results. To accept gold unjustly, for example, ignores the reason and enslaves one to the worst part. The lion should be controlled by the reason, as also should the effeminate part that might engender cowardice and luxury. If the beast desiring wealth with unbridled lust rules, one becomes more like an ape.

So it is best for the intelligence to rule the individual and for the wisest to rule in the state. Escaping the penalty for wrongdoing is likely to make one worse, while those who are chastened become more moderate and just with wisdom, because the soul is far more precious than the body. Thus the body must be fine tuned by the soul. The wise will work to better themselves and will not allow their reason to be overthrown even though the ideal state may only exist as a model in heaven.

16

Once again Socrates criticizes poetry and fine art for being imitations of things which imitate the true realities. He complains that tragedies and comedies stir up the passions and emotions, and he finds no value in this vicarious experience, although he does leave the argument open for a rebuttal to show that they can benefit people in an orderly society. He then argues for the immortality of the soul based on the idea that its disease, vice, does not kill the soul the way diseases of other things kill or destroy them. Neither does any other evil kill the soul; therefore it must be immortal. The soul in its love of wisdom is most akin to the divine. Now Socrates asks to reinstate the rewards of justice that were taken away in order to prove that justice was good for its own sake even without its rewards. He says that the gods love and help the just, but dislike the unjust. If good things do not come to one just, it is because of sins in a previous life. He notes how the just by the end of a competition will win the prize. Yet the rewards on earth are very limited compared to those that come after death.

Socrates recounts the tale of Er, who revived on a pile of corpses after he was thought dead for several days. This near-death experience describes in elaborate detail what happens to souls after leaving the body and when preparing to come into other ones. Souls who have died go into upper and lower worlds, and souls come from both these regions to be born again. Often those coming from above do not make wise choices, while those having suffered below choose more carefully, so that good and evil often alternate. According to Er, the penalties of wrongdoing are experienced tenfold in the next world, and the worst tyrants may have to suffer even more than a thousand years for their crimes. Thus Socrates points out the importance of studying to learn how to make wise choices regarding good and evil in choosing what to experience in life. Before being born again the souls had to drink from the River of Forgetfulness, but Er was prevented from drinking and so brought back the memory of the other world, hence why his story can be told.

Finally Socrates exhorts his listeners to keep their souls unspotted and follow the upward way in pursuing justice with wisdom always so that they will be dear to the gods in this life and the next.

1. What different definitions of justice are given?2. What do you think of justice? Can you create a definition? 3. How does Socrates use the hypothetical theory of the city to provide examples of justice

and injustice?4. What problems does the author of this summary provide about Plato’s thoughts on

education?5. What enlightened view of women does Socrates’ give?6. Why should philosophers be kings according to Socrates?7. What final plea does Socrates make for us to be wise and just? 8. What do the prisoners represent?9. What does the prisoner who escapes represent?10. What do the shadows on the wall represent?11. What does the allegory of the cave mean?12. Can you relate this allegory to anything today?

17

http://www.san.beck.org/EC21-Socrates.html#29

Socrates taught Plato, Plato instructed Aristotle, and Aristotle tutored Alexander the Great. Alexander led Macedonia and conquered much of the “known” world, spreading the ideals of justice and duty from Athens to much of the Mediterranean region. Taking up the banner of citizenship was the Roman people who evolved in their own way into a powerful state, gobbling up territory, wealth and slaves, but also aspects of Athens. Their large nation demanded a more efficient system of government and so the republic was born with many elected offices to govern the land.

OfficesConsul

-

Head ofState

Dictator-

Ruler inCrisis

PontifexMaximus

Religion-

Censor-

PublicMorality

Praetor-

LawOfficer

Aedile-

PublicWorks

Quaestor-

Treasurer-

AssembliesThe Senate

Patrician Assembly

Comitia Curiata

Ward Assembly

Comitia Centuriata

Military Assembly

Concilium Plebis

Plebeian Assembly

Comitia Tributa

Tribal Assembly

Rome

After the overthrow of the Tarquin monarchy by Junius Brutus in 509 BC, Rome did not revert back to a monarchy for the rest of its history. The era of the great expansion of Roman power and civilization is the era of the Roman Republic, in which Rome is ruled by its Senate and its assembly, which were institutions formed at the beginning of the monarchy. The history of the Republic is a history of continuous warfare; all of the historical stories which the Romans will use as stories of Roman virtue and values date from this tumultuous period of defense and invasion.

The Romans had at the beginning of the Republic a constitution which had laid down the traditions and institutions of government; this constitution, however, was not a formal or even a written document, but rather a series of unwritten traditions and laws. These traditions and laws were based on the institution of a monarchy, so while the Romans did not revive the monarchy, they still invested enormous amounts of power in their officials. At the top were the consuls, who were two patricians elected to the office for one year. These patricians exercised imperium

18

in much the same way the kings had in the Roman monarchy. These consuls initiated legislation, served as the head of the judiciary and the military, and served as chief priests to the nation. They even dressed as monarchs, by wearing purple robes and sitting on the seat traditionally reserved for the monarch: the ivory chair.

However, the power of the consuls were severely limited. First, they only served for one year, at which point they would have to be re-elected or enter into private life again. Second, there were two consuls; either consul could effectively prevent any action or decision by the other consul by simply vetoing him. No consul could act without the other consul in agreement. Third, the consuls would have to serve on the Senate after their term in office; this led them to cultivate assiduously the cooperation of the senate. So the consuls exercised absolute power, imperium , but their power was severely hamstrung by the circumstances of their office. As a result, the consuls did not exercise much initiative or creativity, so Roman government tended to be highly conservative and cautious. This, however, was the intent of the consular system. In 325 BC, however, the consul system was changed to allow for proconsuls, who were consuls whose terms in office were extended because of military campaigns.

   Beneath the consuls were two financial officers called quaestors, and as the Republic evolved, an officical called the praetor was invented. The praetorship was originally a judicial office, but later became a military office; the praetors were essentially the central generals of Rome. The praetorship, like the consulship, was a one-year appointment, but like the consulship could be extended in times of war. In addition, the task of classifying citizens according to wealth and tax status, which was a consular duty, eventually fell to a new pair of officials called censors. It was the job of the censor to draw up the roll of citizens (somewhat like our modern day census; census is the Latin word from which "censor" is derived) and to fix their tax status. As you might imagine, the censors had all kinds of opportunities for bribery and corruption since they were setting tax rates, so after a while the office fell only to the most incorruptible and virtuous men of the Republic: former consuls. Eventually, the office of the censor acquired great powers, such as the power to dismiss senators from the Senate not merely for financial reasons, but any reason at all. By the time of the late Republic, the censors had become some of the most powerful politicians in Rome.

It is immediately evident that the imperium was fully concentrated in the hands of the patricians. The consuls were elected from the patrician class, as were the quaestors and the praetors; the censors, by definition, were always patricians. Because the consul reverted to the Senate, the Senate, composed only of patricians, became the principle power in Rome. The Republic in its early form was largely a transfer of power from the monarch to the wealthiest classes in Rome, and this dominance of Roman law, finances, and foreign policy by the patricians instantly produced resentment among the plebeians; from its inception in 509 BC to its demise at the hands of Caesar in the middle of the first century BC, the political history of the Roman Republic is a tumultuous, chaotic, and often violent conflict between the two classes in Rome vying for political power.

This conflict was called "the struggle of the orders" (the orders of society) and is largely about the patrician class attempting to hold onto power while the plebeians attempted to achieve social and political equality. The patricians found themselves unable to exist without the plebeians: not only did the plebeians produce the food and supply the labor that kept the Roman economy

19

going, they also supplied the soldiers for the Roman military. If the plebeians could act as a group, they could effectively shut down the Roman economy and military; the latter was especially important since Rome was in continual military conflict during the age of the Republic.

In Roman historical tradition, in 494 BC the plebeians withdrew from Rome and occupied the Sacred Mount. There they declared an alternative government. They formed a tribal assembly, modelled after the Roman assembly, which would be headed by tribunes who were heads of their tribes. They declared that these tribunes could veto any decision by a Roman magistrate or official, and could veto any decision or legislation by the Senate. The assembly itself, like the former assembly, voted by tribe, and the decision of the assembly was binding on all plebeians. In other words, the plebeians had won for themselves the right to author their own legislation. Their decisions, however, were not binding on non-plebeians.

In 450 BC, the struggle of the orders produced the Law of the Twelve Tables, which simply formalized and codified Roman law and its constitution. The Romans, however, saw it as a victory for the rights of the citizen for it gave them an instrument to know where they stood as far as the law is concerned. In 445 BC, plebeians acquired the right to marry a patrician, and in 367 the plebeians gained the right to be elected consul, when the first plebeian consul was elected. The Licinian-Sextian laws demanded that at least one consul be a plebeian. After the completion of the term of consular office, the consul became a member of the Senate, so the patrician hold on the Senate had, in part, been broken when the plebeians gained full access to the office of the consul. In 300 BC, plebeians were allowed to serve at all levels of the priesthood, thus making them religiously equal to the patricians. Finally, in the greatest victory of all in terms of power and influence, in 287 BC, the decisions and legislation of the plebeian assembly were not only binding on the plebeians, but on the entire Roman citizenry. These reforms were purchased without any civil war or internal bloodshed; they would not resolve the struggle, but they certainly prevented out and out civil war.

The Romans, then, reformed their government as the need arose rather than pursuing any particular plan of reform or development. At the same time, the Romans built their territorial power with the same lack of planning and purpose. Originally, the wars which the Republic fought were largely defensive wars; the expulsion of the Tarquins provoked many attacks by their allies and by Etruscans. Soon, however, the Romans were moving to gain control over neighboring territory in order to neutralize the threat of attack. Their logic was that control over these territories would obviate any potential attack from the people occupying those territories and at the same time provide a buffer region between themselves and potential attackers. Roman conquest, then, was pursued largely for Roman security; the end result of this process would be, first, the conquest of the entire Italian peninsula by 265 BC, and then the conquest of the world. The Roman Empire was an accident, so to speak; it was formed in the pursuit of other policies, namely, security. Only in its later stages was the Roman Empire a deliberate objective. http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ROME/ Richard Hooker

War with Etruria, the Volscians and Aequians

20

Had Rome rid itself of its Etruscan despots and allied itself with the cities of the Latin League, then now she stood at the head of Latium. But enemies still loomed all around; the Etruscans were still a potent force and Sabellian and Oscan hill tribes (foremost the Volscians and Aequians) threatened the plain of Latium. Rome was therefore always at war, attacked or attacking her Etruscan neighbour Veii, or the Volscians or Aequians, or an occasional Latin foe. Meanwhile the Hernicans (Hernici), who were a Latin tribe wedged between the Aequians and the Volscians, preferred alliance to Rome (486 BC). It was a typical example of the Roman motto 'divide and conquer'.

When the Etruscan sea power was shattered by Hieron of Syracuse at Cumae in 474 BC, the menace from Etruria was so much weakened that for nearly forty years there was no war with Veii. The Aequian and Volscian powers were broken. In all wars of the fifth century BC the balance of victory lay with Rome and her allies. Usually this involved a gain of territory by the victors, the lion's share going to Rome whose strength therefore constantly increased. Aequians in particular suffered when the Romans were victorious. In one incident their army was literally cut piece to piece, no whole body surviving.

One very notable incident of the Aequian wars occured in 457 BC when a Roman army was sent to attack the enemy garrison on Mt Algidus. It marched right into a trap and urgent help was needed to save the survivors of the battle. One consul was trapped with his army and the other seemed to cower in the city. A relief force was quickly organized and handed to one Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, including the powers of dictatorship. During such a time of emergency it was thought most efficient to appoint one man most of the power of Rome and the military. Cincinnatus, having been called from his fields to take up this greta office, led his forces against the Aesquians and managed to force a way through which the trapped army could escape. His job done, Cincinnatus returned, relinquished his power and returned home to tend his farm. It was this which should make this man the 'ideal republican' in many a later Romans eyes. And not merely in Roman eyes, as the existence of the city of Cincinnati in today's United States demonstrates. Cincinnatus was considered a model of Roman virtue. He was a farmer above all, although when called to serve his country he did so without question -- briefly and without ambition.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/rulersleaderskings/p/Cincinnatus.htm

Roman History, Books I-III by Titus Livius

   Rome had begun as a small city-state. It's constitution, its government, its social structure, and its moral values were those of a small, mainly agrarian state. All of these, the constitution, government, social structure, and values, adapted well to the governing of Italy. The Empire, however, which Rome had stumbled into by accident, provoked a profound crisis in Roman society, government, and morals.

21

   In particular, the Second Punic War created vast disparities in wealth. Up until the Second Punic War, the plebeians were farmers, craftsmen, or laborers. They would farm their own land that, even though it was small, was still their property. As laborers or craftsmen, they worked for decent wages (or the equivalent of wages). However, Hannibal of Carthage ( an enemy of Rome) had razed the countryside; while the wealth sat secure within the walls of Rome, thousands of people had their farmlands and houses destroyed. With no land they had no work and so began to flood the cities. The wealthy, who had grown wealthier because of the spoils of war, bought up the farmlands so that by the middle of the second century, Roman agriculture was dominated by large plantations owned by fabulously wealthy landowners. This was only the tip of the iceberg, though. The Punic Wars and the Macedonian Wars flooded Rome and Roman territories with new slaves. Rome had had slave labor before then, but the second century saw a major shift in the Roman economy from a laborer economy to a slave economy. By the end of the second century BC, the majority of the population in Italy were slaves. This severely depressed job opportunities and wages. For slavery is an economic phenomenon more than anything else; slavery is an economic device to keep the remuneration of labor at or slightly below subsistence level. This meant that the poor who were not slaves either couldn't work or had to work at below subsistence wages; it also caused massive migrations of the unemployed into cities. As in most migrations of the unemployed, the result was not necessarily employment in a new place. In Rome, however, it meant the concentration of a large population of poor, disaffected, and angry free Romans. The tinder-box was set to go off.

The GracchiThe poor and the wealthy had been in conflict since the overthrow of the Tarquins in 509 BC; this conflict, however, largely revolved around political power and freedom. In 133 BC, the conflict erupted into civil war. In that year, Tiberius Gracchus was elected as one of the tribunes of the assembly. He proposed that the land ownership be limited to only 640 acres, thus removing much of the land from the hands of the wealthy. If a single person owned more than 640 acres, the excess would be seized by the state and given to the poor. As you might expect, the wealthy in Rome, and the Senate, were as opposed to this procedure as it is possible to be opposed. They controlled one of the tribunes, a man named Octavius, and persuaded him to consistently veto Tiberius's land reform. Fed up with the opposition, Tiberius removed Octavius from office, a manifestly unconstitutional procedure. When his term as tribune expired, he stood for reelection to a second term—another unconstitutional procedure. At the elections a riot erupted and a group of senators assassinated Tiberius: the first civil bloodshed in Roman history.

One can't underestimate the importance of Tiberius Gracchus for Roman history. Although he was ultimately a failure in his reform, he created a new style of politics: appealing to the masses. Up until Tiberius Gracchus, political change had taken place largely in cooperation with and deference to the patrician class. Tiberius Gracchus, however, sought to bring about political change by ignoring the patricians altogether and appealing to the passions of the general populace. This created a new type of politician in Rome; they were called the populares for they attempted to gain power by raising the population in their favor. Against the populares were the optimates ("the best"), who continued to attempt political change by appealing to traditional methods and structures.

The family of the Gracchi were not finished. In 123 BC (and again in 122 BC), Gaius Gracchus was elected tribune. Enormously popular among the people, Gaius managed to push several laws

22

through the assembly. First, he stabilized the price of grain by building storehouses for excess grain. Fixing this price would help small farmers keep their heads above water and keep grain prices from rising so high that the poor could not afford to feed themselves. In his second law, the one that provoked the most opposition, he proposed that citizenship be granted to all Italians (in order to increase his power base).

   The Senate, in 121 BC, then passed a law which ordered the consuls to make the Republic safe and declared Gaius Gracchus an enemy to the state. The consuls hunted him down, and, in their final conflict, Gaius Gracchus killed himself and several thousand of his followers were killed or executed. Thus the Gracchan revolt.

MariusShortly afterwards, Rome began a war with Jugurtha, the king of Numidia (south of Carthage), in 111 BC. This war, the Jugurthine War, was prosecuted with little enthusiasm and the Roman people grew suspicious of the Senate. So in 107 BC, Gaius Marius (157-86 BC) was elected consul and was assigned the province of Numidia by the assembly. He was a brilliant soldier and quickly defeated Jugurtha; but it was Marius' lieutenant, Sulla (138-78 BC) who defeated Jugurtha for good.    Now Sulla was of an old and well-established aristocratic family; although he was relatively poor, he was as blue-blooded as they came in Rome. Marius, on the other hand, was a novus homo , a "new man," who was the first in his family to occupy the consulship. These new men were bitterly resented by the aristocracy, and Sulla felt that Marius was being given credit for work that he, Sulla, had done. The rivalry between these two men would result in civil war in 88 BC.    Marius, however, was an innovator and a maverick. He changed the fundamental make-up of his army by enlisting mainly volunteers. These volunteers were drawn from the poorest (and hence most disaffected and angry) classes, still bitter over the killings of the Gracchi. Marius held out the promise of the spoils of war and land-parcels as payment for their service (this on top of the guarantee of food and shelter for the length of their service). Something new had occurred. Poverty now pushed vast numbers of the poor into the military; these soldiers, however, owed their loyalty and gratitutde not to the state, but to their general who served as a kind of patron. This personal loyalty gave Marius, and future generals, access to civilian power that they had never had before.

SullaIn the 80's BC, Rome was heavily engaged in wars with Italian allies who suffered greatly from the economic inequities. Sulla proved himself to be an astonishing general during these wars and was elected consul in 88 BC, finally getting the recognition he felt he deserved. Unlike Marius, Sulla was firmly in the patrician camp; he defeated Marius in a civil war and the Senate, fearful of the population, seized complete control of the Roman government by appointing Sulla dictator. Now the position of dictator ("one who speaks, one who dictates") was a constitutional position; the Roman government was allowed to hand complete authority, imperium , to a single individual in times of crisis. This imperium would not be shared with another, as it was in the consulship. Sulla promptly set about "reforming" the Roman government over the next three years by restoring power to the Senate and deracinating the authority of the assembly. Sulla, despite his intentions to restore Roman government to what he saw as its original form,

23

nonetheless brought about a revolutionary new way of doing government: as a general, he used his army to kill his opponents (and even some who weren't his opponents). Dangerous new ground had been broken.

The Beginning of the EndSulla's reforms, rather than restoring order to Rome, provoked a violent reaction. After the death of Sulla, the Senate was facing armed rebellion.

The Slaves Revolt

Spartacus had been born in Thrace and received training in a Roman army, probably as an auxiliary, before becoming a slave. He was sold, in 73 B.C., into the service of Lentulus Batiates, a man who taught at a ludus for gladiators in Capua, twenty miles from Mt. Vesuvius in Campania. That same year Spartacus and two Gallic gladiators led a riot at the school. Of about two hundred gladiator slaves, less than eighty escaped, using kitchen tools as weapons.

In the streets they found wagons of gladiatorial weapons and confiscated them. When soldiers tried to stop the band of escaped slaves, the band used their accustomed gladiatorial weapons, easily defeating the soldiers. Then they took the better, military weapons of the beaten soldiers, and set out on their way south to Mt. Vesuvius. Along their route, they picked up rural slaves.

The Praetors Fail

Little realizing how well Spartacus had organized his band of slaves, the praetors made an inadequate attempt to end the revolt. Clodius besieged the Spartacans on a mountain, which had only one narrow path to the top. The rest of the mountain was steep and slippery.

As it turned out, the slippery surface didn't matter to Spartacus. Ample vines on the mountaintop provided suitable material for ropes, which they used to climb down and surprise the Romans. Instead of the Romans putting an end to the slave revolt, the slaves took the Roman camp.

Then the slaves headed towards the Alps, picking up a total of 70,000 slaves along the way. Spartacus intended for his men to disband and head to their pre-slave homes after a quick march to the Alps. He had shown remarkable skill in creating a force capable of defeating Roman legions, but he didn't have what he needed to be a great leader of his men. Many of his men preferred to pillage the countryside. Now the Senate in Rome had to take the slave revolt seriously.Crassus

Crassus was elected praetor and headed to Picenum to put an end to the slave revolt with ten legions, six new and four old. Crassus correctly assumed the slaves would head north to the Alps and so positioned most of his men to block this escape. Meanwhile, he sent his lieutenant Mummius and two new legions south to pressure the slaves to move north. Mummius had been explicitly instructed not to fight a pitched battle. He, however, had ideas of his own, and when he engaged the slaves in battle, suffered defeat.

24

Spartacus routed Mummius and his legions. They lost not only men and their arms, but when they returned to their commander, the survivors suffered the ultimate Roman military punishment -- decimation, by order of Crassus. All the men who had been involved in the disgraceful operation were divided into groups of ten and then drew lots. The unlucky one in ten was then killed.

Meanwhile, Spartacus turned around and headed towards Sicily, planning to escape on pirate ships, which he had hired, not knowing that the pirates had already sailed away. At the Isthmus of Bruttium, Crassus built a wall to block Spartacus' escape. When the slaves tried to break through, the Romans fought back killing about 12,000 of the slaves while losing only seven of their own.

Slaves vs. 3 Roman Armies

When Spartacus learned that Crassus' troops were to be reinforced by another Roman army brought back from Spain, he decided it was time to make a break for it. He and his slaves fled north with Crassus at their heels. His escape route was blocked at Brundisium by a third Roman force recalled from Macedonia. There was nothing left for Spartacus to do but to try to beat Crassus' army in battle. The Spartacans were quickly surrounded and butchered, although many men escaped into the mountains. Only a thousand Romans died.

Six thousand of the fleeing slaves were captured by Pompey's troops and crucified along the Appian Way from Capua to Rome. Spartacus' body was not found.

Because Pompey performed the mopping up operations, he, not Crassus, got credit for suppressing the rebellion. Jealousy and competition between these two rich and powerful men were to lead to changes in the power structure of Rome.

In 70 BC, two highly ambitious men, Crassus and Pompey, were elected consuls and promptly repealed Sulla's constitution. A new political order was emerging: ambitious generals, such as Pompey and Crassus, allied themselves with the tribunes and the disaffected assembly against the Senate and patricians.

   Pompey gained the imperium over the entire Mediterranean region in 67 BC for three years, and this imperium was extended several more years so he could prosecute a war in Asia Minor. By the end of this period, Pompey had become the single most popular leader in Rome. Crassus, however, was frightened of Pompey and, since he was unpopular in both the assembly and the Senate, he allied himself with popular leaders, the most popular of which was a brilliant general, Gaius Julius Caesar (100-44 BC). Julius was from an old, noble family, and had served as a brilliant military leader in Spain and in Gaul.

   When he returned from Spain, he demanded a triumph, that is, a victory parade, through Rome. Denied this triumph by the Senate (who feared his popularity with the masses), Julius convinced Pompey and Crassus to reconcile and the First Triumvirate was established. This triumvirate ("three men") was the beginning of the end of the Republic, for this alliance between

25

these three politicians, two of whom were generals, had as its end the control of the Roman government for the political advantage of the three men.

The First Triumvirate, consisting of Julius Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey, came to power in 59 BC when Caesar was elected consul. The Triumvirate reform program was enacted and Caesar got himself appointed governor of Illycrium and Gaul. The way to power in Rome was through military conquest; this gave the general a loyal army, wealth (from the conquered), and popularity and prestige at home. So the governorship of Illycrium and Gaul allowed Caesar to become the general and conqueror he so desperately desired to become.

   Now the Romans really had no reason to conquer northern and central Europe; the people who lived there, the Germans and the Celts, were a tribal, semi-nomadic people. The province of Illycrium provided enough of a territorial buffer to defuse any threat from these people. But Julius embarked on a spectacular war of conquest anyway. In a series of fairly brilliant campaigns, Julius added a considerable amount of territory to the Roman Empire in northern France, Belgium, and even southern Great Britain, subjugating the Celts in all these territories. When he had finished his conquests, however, the Triumvirate had dissolved. Crassus had died in a war against the Parrhians in the Middle East, and Pompey had turned against Julius and had roused the Senate against him. The Senate declared Julius an enemy of the state and demanded that he hand over his generalship and province. Marc Anthony, friend of Cesar, attempted to stop the legislative action, but was unsuccessful and had to leave Rome. Julius, however, decided on a different course of action. His troops were fiercely loyal to him; so in 49 BC, Caesar ordered his troops to cross the Rubicon River, which separated his province from Italy, thus committing a grave crime against the state. The Civil War started the minute the first of his legions had finished crossing the Rubicon.

   The war was fought between these two great generals, Pompey and Caesar, but in 48 BC, Caesar defeated Pompey at Pharsalus in Greece. Shortly thereafter Pompey was assassinated by the Egyptians among whom he had sought refuge. Caesar then turned his forces towards Asia Minor in a conquest that was so swift that Caesar described it in three words: "Veni, vidi, vici" ("I came, I saw, I conquered").

Caesar returned to Rome in 46 BC and had the Senate appoint him dictator for ten years; he was given imperium over the Roman Empire and was, for all practical purposes, above the law and the constitution. Two years later he was appointed dictator for life, and he quickly assumed all the important offices in the government. He reformed the government in many ways, but these reforms were functionally meaningless considering his absolute power. Caesar's absolute power, imperium for life (which made him imperator , or Emperor, of Rome), looked suspiciously like a monarchy, which, for all practical purposes, it was. The Romans, proud of their Republican tradition, deeply resented his power, and in 44 BC, on the Ides of March (March 15), a group of conspirators, led by Gaius Cassius Longinus and Marcus Junius Brutus, assassinated Caesar as he entered the Senate in his usual manner: with no bodyguards or protection.

26

The conspirators were striking a blow for the Republic, fully confident that the Republic would magically reconstitute itself. Caesar had, after all, ruled Rome for a mere two years. Their dreams, however, disappeared in a brutal civil war that would last for thirteen years. At the end of the war, the Roman Republic would come to a shattering end and never again appear on the stage of history.

Because many had enjoyed the order and efficiency that Julius Cesar had brought, his adopted son Octavian Augustus would be declared the new Cesar. Augustus called himself "princeps," or "first" (from which we get the word, "prince"); his full title that he assumed was "first among equals." So, in language at least, nothing had really changed in Roman freedom and equality. His successors, however, would name themselves after their power, the "imperium," and called themselves "imperator." Augustus, however, was on a mission to restore order and even equity to the Empire, and so in many ways is considered the greatest of all these emperors. He radically reformed the government to curb corruption and ambition; he also extended Roman citizenship to all Italians. While he allowed elections to public office, he rigged those elections so that only the best candidates would fill the office, and so many members of the lower classes entered into government. He resettled his soldiers on farmland, and so agrarian equity was more closely achieved than at any time since the Second Punic Wars. He turned the military from a volunteer army into a standing, professional army; Rome and the provinces became, in essence, a police state. The military presence throughout the Empire spread the Roman language and Roman culture throughout Europe and the Mediterranean. And since Augustus controlled Rome militarily and politically, he put the provinces in the hands of intelligent, less ambitious, and virtuous men; for the first time since Rome began to build its empire, the provinces settled down into peace and prosperity—this peace and prosperity would be the hallmark of the Age of Augustus.

Finally, Augustus began a vast project of building and patronage of the arts, and Roman culture flourished in a boom of creativity that would make the age stand out as the greatest cultural period in the history of Rome. Two ages stand out as the great creative periods in Rome: the age of Cicero near the end of the Republic, and the Age of Augustus and the beginning of Imperial Rome.

   The Age of Augustus is known as the Golden Age of Roman literature, for during this time flourished the greatest poets of Rome. Under Augustus, poets and artists were patronized not by individuals, but solely through the princeps himself. To this end, Augustus appointed a cultural advisor, Maecenas, to aid him in extending patronage to poets. The result was an incredibly powerful system for identifying the best poets who could further the ideology of the Augustan government. http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ROME/ Richard Hooker

27