DOCSLIB.ORG

Rethinking Athenian Democracy.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rethinking Athenian Democracy.Pdf Rethinking Athenian Democracy A dissertation presented by Daniela Louise Cammack to The Department of Government in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Political Science Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts January 2013 © 2013 Daniela Cammack All rights reserved. Professor Richard Tuck Daniela Cammack Abstract Conventional accounts of classical Athenian democracy represent the assembly as the primary democratic institution in the Athenian political system. This looks reasonable in the light of modern democracy, which has typically developed through the democratization of legislative assemblies. Yet it conflicts with the evidence at our disposal. Our ancient sources suggest that the most significant and distinctively democratic institution in Athens was the courts, where decisions were made by large panels of randomly selected ordinary citizens with no possibility of appeal. This dissertation reinterprets Athenian democracy as “dikastic democracy” (from the Greek dikastēs, “judge”), defined as a mode of government in which ordinary citizens rule principally through their control of the administration of justice. It begins by casting doubt on two major planks in the modern interpretation of Athenian democracy: first, that it rested on a conception of the “wisdom of the multitude” akin to that advanced by epistemic democrats today, and second that it was “deliberative,” meaning that mass discussion of political matters played a defining role. The first plank rests largely on an argument made by Aristotle in support of mass political participation, which I show has been comprehensively misunderstood. The second rests on the interpretation of the verb “bouleuomai” as indicating speech, but I suggest that it meant internal reflection in both the courts and the assembly. The third chapter begins the constructive part of the project by comparing the assembly and courts as instruments of democracy in Athens, and the iii fourth shows how a focus on the courts reveals the deep political dimensions of Plato’s work, which in turn suggests one reason why modern democratic ideology and practice have moved so far from the Athenians’ on this score. Throughout, the dissertation combines textual, philological and conceptual analysis with attention to institutional detail and the wider historical context. The resulting account makes a strong case for the relevance of classical Athens today, both as a source of potentially useful procedural mechanisms and as the point of origin of some of the philosophical presuppositions on which the modern conception of democracy and its limits depends. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract iii Table of Contents v Abbreviations vi Acknowledgments xi Epigraphs xiv Introduction. Reasons to Rethink Athenian Democracy 1 Chapter 1. Aristotle on the Virtue of the Multitude 53 Chapter 2. Deliberation in Classical Athens: Not Talking But Thinking 94 Chapter 3. The Most Democratic Branch? The Assembly vs. the Courts 132 Chapter 4. Plato and the Construction of Justice 174 Conclusion. Democracy Ancient and Modern 231 Bibliography 242 v ABBREVIATIONS Adapted from M. H. Hansen, Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1999), xiii-xvi. Aeschin. Aischines (c. 390-322), rhētor Aesch. Aischylos (c. 525-456), tragic poet Eum. Eumenides (458) Andoc. Andokides (c. 440-c. 390) Ant. Antiphon (c. 480-411), rhētor and leader of the oligarchical revolution in 411 Ar. Aristophanes (c. 445-c. 385), poet of old Attic comedy Ach. Acharnians (425) Av. Birds (414) Eccl. Assemblywomen (393 or 392) Eq. Knights (424) Lys. Lysistrata (411) Nub. Clouds (423) Pax Peace (421) Plut. Wealth (388) Ran. Frogs (405) Thesm. Thesmophoriazousai (411) Vesp. Wasps (422) Arist. Aristotle (384-22), philosopher vi EE Eudemian Ethics HA History of Animals NE Nichomachean Ethics Pol. Politics Rhet. Rhetoric Dem. Demosthenes (384-22), rhētor Din. Deinarchos (c. 360-290), speech-writer Diod. Diodoros of Sicily (first century BC), author of a world history in forty books Diog. Laert. Diogenes Laertios (second century AD), author of compendium of lives of philosophers in ten books Eur. Euripides (c.485-c.406), tragic poet Heracl. Children of Heracles Med. Medea Supp. Suppliant Women (422?) fr. fragment Hdt. Herodotos (c. 484-c. 425?), author of a history of the Persian Wars in nine books Hom. Homer (date uncertain), epic poet Il. Iliad Od. Odyssey Hyp. Hypereides (c. 390-322), rhētor vii Is. Isaios (c.420-c.350), speech-writer Isoc. Isokrates (436-338), author of rhetorical essays and political pamphlets LSJ H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, rev. H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968) Lycurg. Lykourgos (c.390-24), rhētor Lys. Lysias (c.445-c.380), speech-writer Pl. Plato (427-347), philosopher Alc. 1, 2 Alcibiades 1, 2 Ap. Apology (of Sokrates) Clit. Clitophon Cra. Cratylus Cri. Crito Criti. Critias Def. Definitions Ep. Letters Euthyd. Euthydemus Euthphr. Euthyphro Grg. Gorgias Hipparch. Hipparchus Lch. Laches Lg. Laws Men. Meno viii Menex. Menexenus Phd. Phaedo Phdr. Phaedrus Pol. The Statesman Prt. Protagoras Resp. The Republic Smp. Symposium Thg. Theages Tht. Theaetetus Plut. Plutarch (c.AD45-c.125), author of lives of great men and moral essays Alc. Alkibiades Dem. Demosthenes Lyc. Lykourgos Nic. Nikias Per. Perikles Poll. Pollux (second century AD), professor of rhetoric in Athens and author of a work on Attic vocabulary in ten books Ps. Arist. Pseudo-Aristotle Ath. Pol. Athēnaiōn Politeia or Constitution of the Athenians, composed in Aristotle’s school c.330 Ps. Xen. Pseudo-Xenophon ix Ath. Pol. Athēnaiōn Politeia or Constitution of the Athenians, anonymous political pamphlet composed by an Athenian probably in the 420s R&O Greek Historical Inscriptions 404-323, ed. P. J. Rhodes and R. Osborne (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) schol. Scholia: Hellenistic or Byzantine notes on classical authors, written in the margins of manuscripts or published separately Theophr. Theophrastos (c.370-c.285), pupil of Aristotle and after his death the head of his school Char. Thirty short character sketches Thuc. Thucydides (c.460-c.395), author of a history of the Peloponnesian War down to 411 in eight books Xen. Xenophon (c.425-c.355), historian and essayist Cyn. On Hunting Eq. Mag. The Cavalry Commander Hell. Hellenika, seven books: history of Greece 411-362 Lac. The Constitution of the Lakedaimonians Mem. Memorabilia, four books: recollections of Sokrates Author’s Note: The transliteration of Greek is notoriously vexed. I have tried to follow Greek lettering as closely as possible, except where the result might prove distracting (e.g. Thoukydides for Thucydides). Translations are from the Loeb Classical Library unless otherwise indicated. x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge my debts to the many individuals and institutions who have provided moral, intellectual and financial support during the writing of this dissertation. First I must record my enduring gratitude to Richard Tuck, without whose stimulating teaching, unstinting support, shrewd questioning and sound advice I would not have begun to study political theory, let alone write a dissertation on ancient Greek political thought, a subject about which I knew next to nothing when I started the Ph.D. program at Harvard in 2006. Second, I want to thank Jane Mansbridge, an exemplary teacher and mentor whose unfailing intellectual and personal generosity has been a continual source of profit and inspiration to me since meeting her in 2008. Third, I am greatly indebted to Bryan Garsten, for whose warm personal support and helpful interrogation of my work I already had reason to be grateful before he stepped in, at relatively short notice, to act as the third member of my dissertation committee. I would also like to express warm thanks to the following individuals for the intellectual energy they have invested in my work: Henry Farrell, Eugene Garver, Alex Gourevitch, Katherine Hunt, Sean Ingham, Roland Lamb, Matthew Landauer, Melissa Lane, David Langslow, Adriaan Lanni, Anne Malcolm, Kirsty Milne, Josiah Ober, Siobhan Phillips, Jedediah Purdy, Patrick Riley, Lucas Stanczyk, Ian Simmons, Paul xi Steedman, Sophy Tuck, and Victor Walser. I owe a special debt of thanks to the incomparable George Scialabba, whose kindness and immaculate editing skills have transformed many pages of this dissertation. Needless to say, while these friends deserve thanks for rescuing me from many errors of fact and inadequacies of interpretation and explication, I take full responsibility for all the faults that remain. Earlier versions of Chapter 1, “Aristotle on the Virtue of the Multitude,” were presented at the Harvard Political Theory Workshop and the annual meeting of the Northeastern Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA, November 18, 2011. I thank Matthew Landauer, Jeffrey Dirk Wilson, Thanassis Samaras and Eric Petrie for their comments on these occasions. I would also like to thank the NPSA prize committee for naming this their “Best Paper by a Graduate Student” in 2012 and the NPSA Women’s Caucus for awarding it their prize for “Best Paper by a Woman Political Scientist.” This chapter will be appearing in Political Theory in April 2013: I am grateful to Mary Dietz and two anonymous reviewers for their comments. Earlier versions of Chapter 2, “Deliberation in Classical Athens: Not Talking, But Thinking” were presented at the Harvard Political Theory Workshop and at the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, April 13, 2012. I thank Daniel Betti, Beth Janairo, and Matthew Landauer for their comments at these events. An earlier version of Chapter 3, “The Most Democratic Branch? The Athenian Assembly vs. Its Courts,” was scheduled to be presented at the (eventually cancelled) American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, September 1, 2012. I thank Stefan Dolgert very warmly for his comments. xii An earlier version of Chapter 4, “Plato and the Construction of Justice,” was presented at the annual meeting of the Northeast Political Science Association, Boston, MA, November 17, 2012.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Clitophon's Challenge and the Aporia of Socratic Protreptic* Teruo Mishima
    Clitophon’s Challenge and the Aporia of Socratic Protreptic* Teruo Mishima Before I discuss the text in detail, I would like to briefly sketch the main line of arguments in the Clitophon which I am going to take up, just for the sake of anamnēsis of the readers : In the opening scene Socrates speaks to Clitophon in the third person and tells him that he heard from somebody else that Clitophon, in his conversation with Lysias, has criticised Socratic diatribai (pursuits), whereas he has lavishly praised his synousia (association) with Thrasymachus. Taking Socrates’ words as a sort of disguised criticism or complaint, Clitophon answers that the story was only half true, because although he did on the one hand criticise Socrates, he also on the other hand highly praised him. Then, he explains to Socrates why he must take such an ambiguous attitude towards him. In the first half of his speech he focuses on the aspect of Socratic teaching which he admires unreservedly, namely Socrates’ protreptic speech towards virtues. Here he refers to a lot of Socratic dicta which remind us of well known passages in the early dialogues of Plato. By contrast, in the latter half Clitophon explains where his deep frustration with Socrates lies. He says that, being already converted by Socratic protreptic and resolved to pursue virtues, what he expects now from Socrates is “what comes next”, that is a detailed account of the essence of virtues to be acquired and a piece of concrete advice on how to acquire them. But to these - Clitophon complains - neither Socrates’ company nor Socrates himself gives any convincing answer.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Freed Athens? J
    Ancient Greek Democracy: Readings and Sources Edited by Eric W. Robinson Copyright © 2004 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd The Beginnings of the Athenian Democracv: Who Freed Athens? J Introduction Though the very earliest democracies lildy took shape elsewhere in Greece, Athens embraced it relatively early and would ultimately become the most famous and powerful democracy the ancient world ever hew. Democracy is usually thought to have taken hold among the Athenians with the constitutional reforms of Cleisthenes, ca. 508/7 BC. The tyrant Peisistratus and later his sons had ruled Athens for decades before they were overthrown; Cleisthenes, rallying the people to his cause, made sweeping changes. These included the creation of a representative council (bode)chosen from among the citizens, new public organizations that more closely tied citizens throughout Attica to the Athenian state, and the populist ostracism law that enabled citizens to exile danger- ous or undesirable politicians by vote. Beginning with these measures, and for the next two centuries or so with only the briefest of interruptions, democracy held sway at Athens. Such is the most common interpretation. But there is, in fact, much room for disagree- ment about when and how democracy came to Athens. Ancient authors sometimes refer to Solon, a lawgiver and mediator of the early sixth century, as the founder of the Athenian constitution. It was also a popular belief among the Athenians that two famous “tyrant-slayers,” Harmodius and Aristogeiton, inaugurated Athenian freedom by assas- sinating one of the sons of Peisistratus a few years before Cleisthenes’ reforms - though ancient writers take pains to point out that only the military intervention of Sparta truly ended the tyranny.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy in Ancient Athens Was Different from What We Have in Canada Today
    54_ALB6SS_Ch3_F2 2/13/08 2:25 PM Page 54 CHAPTER Democracy in 3 Ancient Athens Take a long step 2500 years back in time. Imagine you are a boy living in the ancient city of Athens, Greece. Your slave, words matter! Cleandros [KLEE-an-thros], is walking you to school. Your father Ancient refers to something and a group of his friends hurry past talking loudly. They are on from a time more than their way to the Assembly. The Assembly is an important part of 2500 years ago. democratic government in Athens. All Athenian men who are citizens can take part in the Assembly. They debate issues of concern and vote on laws. As the son of a citizen, you look forward to being old enough to participate in the Assembly. The Birthplace of Democracy The ancient Greeks influenced how people today think about citizenship and rights. In Athens, a form of government developed in which the people participated. The democracy we enjoy in Canada had its roots in ancient Athens. ■ How did men who were citizens participate in the democratic government in Athens? ■ Did Athens have representative government? Explain. 54 54_ALB6SS_Ch3_F2 2/13/08 2:25 PM Page 55 “Watch Out for the Rope!” Cleandros takes you through the agora, a large, open area in the middle of the city. It is filled with market stalls and men shopping and talking. You notice a slave carrying a rope covered with red paint. He ? Inquiring Minds walks through the agora swinging the rope and marking the men’s clothing with paint.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Law: Ancient Law Fall 2016 Course
    Lanni, Adrian Comparative Law: Ancient Law Fall 2016 course Comparative Law: Ancient Law Fall 2016 Thurs.-Fri. 10-11:30 Hauser Hall rm. 102 Adriaan Lanni Griswold 500 Assistant: Jennifer Minnich, [email protected]; (617) 384-5428 Email: [email protected] Office hours: Fridays 12-2. There is a link to a sign-up sheet on my HLS website. Sign up for a slot by 5pm on Thursday for the following day’s office hours. General: This course examines topics in ancient law of interest to modern lawyers, including ancient approaches to crime and punishment, the regulation of sexuality (rape, adultery, prostitution, homosexuality), constitutional law, the trial jury, court procedure, international law, and commercial law. The focus will be on the legal systems of classical Athens and Rome. We will also look at other ancient legal systems where relevant to a particular topic. The broader goal will be to explore the role of law in a democratic society. Prior knowledge of ancient history or ancient languages is not required; all readings are in translation and the course is designed to be of interest to those without a background in the ancient world. The focus of the class will be on comparing various ancient and modern approaches to problems faced by all legal systems. Readings and Handouts: The required text is Carey, Trials from Classical Athens (2nd Edition), which should be available at the coop. Two additional required readings-- Aeschylus, Eumenides, and Brickhouse & Smith, The Trial and Execution of Socrates —are on reserve in the library, and can be purchased from amazon or ordered from the COOP if you would like to own them (any translation of Aeschylus will do for our purposes).
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction: Oratory and Law at Athens
    Introduction: Oratory and Law at Athens One of the many intriguing (and unique) aspects of Athenian law is that our information about it comes very largely from speeches composed for delivery in court. These date to the period 420-320,1 and reflect in part the high value the Greeks in all periods placed on effective speaking. Even Achilles, whose fame rested primarily on his martial superiority, was brought up to be “a speaker of words and a doer of deeds” (Iliad 9.443). Great Athenian leaders like Themistocles and Pericles were accomplished public speakers; and epic poetry, tragedy, comedy, and history all made frequent use of set speeches. The formal pleadings of the envoys to Achilles in Iliad Book Nine, the messenger speeches in tragedy reporting events like the battle of Salamis in Aeschylus’ Persians, and Pericles’ funeral oration in Thucydides’ History are but a few indications of the Greeks’ never-ending fascination with the spoken word, and with formal public speaking in particular, which reached its height in the public oratory of the fifth and fourth centuries. I. Oratory2 Originally, oratory was not a specialized subject of study but was learned by practice and example. The formal study of rhetoric as an “art” (technē) began, we are told, in the middle of the fifth century in Sicily with Corax and his pupil Tisias.3 These two are scarcely more than names to us, but another Sicilian, Gorgias of Leontini (c. 490-390), developed a dazzling new style of speech and argument. Gorgias initiated the practice, which continued into the early fourth century, of composing speeches for mythical or imaginary occasions.
    [Show full text]
  • Marathon 2,500 Years Edited by Christopher Carey & Michael Edwards
    MARATHON 2,500 YEARS EDITED BY CHRISTOPHER CAREY & MICHAEL EDWARDS INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON MARATHON – 2,500 YEARS BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 124 DIRECTOR & GENERAL EDITOR: JOHN NORTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONS: RICHARD SIMPSON MARATHON – 2,500 YEARS PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARATHON CONFERENCE 2010 EDITED BY CHRISTOPHER CAREY & MICHAEL EDWARDS INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 2013 The cover image shows Persian warriors at Ishtar Gate, from before the fourth century BC. Pergamon Museum/Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin. Photo Mohammed Shamma (2003). Used under CC‐BY terms. All rights reserved. This PDF edition published in 2019 First published in print in 2013 This book is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0) license. More information regarding CC licenses is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Available to download free at http://www.humanities-digital-library.org ISBN: 978-1-905670-81-9 (2019 PDF edition) DOI: 10.14296/1019.9781905670819 ISBN: 978-1-905670-52-9 (2013 paperback edition) ©2013 Institute of Classical Studies, University of London The right of contributors to be identified as the authors of the work published here has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Designed and typeset at the Institute of Classical Studies TABLE OF CONTENTS Introductory note 1 P. J. Rhodes The battle of Marathon and modern scholarship 3 Christopher Pelling Herodotus’ Marathon 23 Peter Krentz Marathon and the development of the exclusive hoplite phalanx 35 Andrej Petrovic The battle of Marathon in pre-Herodotean sources: on Marathon verse-inscriptions (IG I3 503/504; Seg Lvi 430) 45 V.
    [Show full text]
  • 9/15 JEFFREY JAMES HENDERSON William Goodwin Aurelio Professor
    9/15 JEFFREY JAMES HENDERSON William Goodwin Aurelio Professor of Greek Language and Literature General Editor, Loeb Classical Library Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences Department of Classical Studies 460 Park Drive Boston University Boston, MA 02215 745 Commonwealth Avenue, Rm. 435 (857) 250-4216 Boston, MA 02215 (617) 358-5072 or 2427 email: [email protected] EDUCATION PhD 1972 Harvard University MA 1970 Harvard University BA 1968 Kenyon College (summa cum laude) POSITIONS HELD Visiting Professor Spring 2010 Brown University Aurelio Professor of Greek 2002-- Boston University Dean of Arts and Sciences 2002-07 Boston University Professor and Chair 1991-2002 Boston University Visiting Professor 1986 Univ. California at Los Angeles Professor 1986-91 Univ. Southern California Associate Professor 1983-86 Univ. Southern California Visiting Professor 1982-83 Univ. Southern California Associate Professor 1978-82 Univ. of Michigan (Ann Arbor) Assistant Professor 1972-78 Yale University ACADEMIC HONORS Kenyon College Highest Honors in Classics Brain Prize in Classics Essay Prize in English Phi Beta Kappa Harvard Univ. Bowdoin Prize in Latin Prose Composition PRIZES AND HONORS Raubenheimer Distinguished Faculty Award (1991) University of Southern California Doctor of Humane Letters (1994) Kenyon College Charles J. Goodwin Award of Merit (2002) American Philological Association Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences elected 2011 eProduct/Best in Humanities (2015) for digital LCL American Publishers Awards for Professional and Scholarly
    [Show full text]
  • Archaic Eretria
    ARCHAIC ERETRIA This book presents for the first time a history of Eretria during the Archaic Era, the city’s most notable period of political importance. Keith Walker examines all the major elements of the city’s success. One of the key factors explored is Eretria’s role as a pioneer coloniser in both the Levant and the West— its early Aegean ‘island empire’ anticipates that of Athens by more than a century, and Eretrian shipping and trade was similarly widespread. We are shown how the strength of the navy conferred thalassocratic status on the city between 506 and 490 BC, and that the importance of its rowers (Eretria means ‘the rowing city’) probably explains the appearance of its democratic constitution. Walker dates this to the last decade of the sixth century; given the presence of Athenian political exiles there, this may well have provided a model for the later reforms of Kleisthenes in Athens. Eretria’s major, indeed dominant, role in the events of central Greece in the last half of the sixth century, and in the events of the Ionian Revolt to 490, is clearly demonstrated, and the tyranny of Diagoras (c. 538–509), perhaps the golden age of the city, is fully examined. Full documentation of literary, epigraphic and archaeological sources (most of which have previously been inaccessible to an English-speaking audience) is provided, creating a fascinating history and a valuable resource for the Greek historian. Keith Walker is a Research Associate in the Department of Classics, History and Religion at the University of New England, Armidale, Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • MONEY and the EARLY GREEK MIND: Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy
    This page intentionally left blank MONEY AND THE EARLY GREEK MIND How were the Greeks of the sixth century bc able to invent philosophy and tragedy? In this book Richard Seaford argues that a large part of the answer can be found in another momentous development, the invention and rapid spread of coinage, which produced the first ever thoroughly monetised society. By transforming social relations, monetisation contributed to the ideas of the universe as an impersonal system (presocratic philosophy) and of the individual alienated from his own kin and from the gods (in tragedy). Seaford argues that an important precondition for this monetisation was the Greek practice of animal sacrifice, as represented in Homeric epic, which describes a premonetary world on the point of producing money. This book combines social history, economic anthropology, numismatics and the close reading of literary, inscriptional, and philosophical texts. Questioning the origins and shaping force of Greek philosophy, this is a major book with wide appeal. richard seaford is Professor of Greek Literature at the University of Exeter. He is the author of commentaries on Euripides’ Cyclops (1984) and Bacchae (1996) and of Reciprocity and Ritual: Homer and Tragedy in the Developing City-State (1994). MONEY AND THE EARLY GREEK MIND Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy RICHARD SEAFORD cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521832281 © Richard Seaford 2004 This publication is in copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • Greece • Crete • Turkey May 28 - June 22, 2021
    GREECE • CRETE • TURKEY MAY 28 - JUNE 22, 2021 Tour Hosts: Dr. Scott Moore Dr. Jason Whitlark organized by GREECE - CRETE - TURKEY / May 28 - June 22, 2021 May 31 Mon ATHENS - CORINTH CANAL - CORINTH – ACROCORINTH - NAFPLION At 8:30a.m. depart from Athens and drive along the coastal highway of Saronic Gulf. Arrive at the Corinth Canal for a brief stop and then continue on to the Acropolis of Corinth. Acro-corinth is the citadel of Corinth. It is situated to the southwest of the ancient city and rises to an elevation of 1883 ft. [574 m.]. Today it is surrounded by walls that are about 1.85 mi. [3 km.] long. The foundations of the fortifications are ancient—going back to the Hellenistic Period. The current walls were built and rebuilt by the Byzantines, Franks, Venetians, and Ottoman Turks. Climb up and visit the fortress. Then proceed to the Ancient city of Corinth. It was to this megalopolis where the apostle Paul came and worked, established a thriving church, subsequently sending two of his epistles now part of the New Testament. Here, we see all of the sites associated with his ministry: the Agora, the Temple of Apollo, the Roman Odeon, the Bema and Gallio’s Seat. The small local archaeological museum here is an absolute must! In Romans 16:23 Paul mentions his friend Erastus and • • we will see an inscription to him at the site. In the afternoon we will drive to GREECE CRETE TURKEY Nafplion for check-in at hotel followed by dinner and overnight. (B,D) MAY 28 - JUNE 22, 2021 June 1 Tue EPIDAURAUS - MYCENAE - NAFPLION Morning visit to Mycenae where we see the remains of the prehistoric citadel Parthenon, fortified with the Cyclopean Walls, the Lionesses’ Gate, the remains of the Athens Mycenaean Palace and the Tomb of King Agamemnon in which we will actually enter.
    [Show full text]
  • Days Without End —Mortality and Immortality of Life Cycle— Kumi Ohno
    （83） Days Without End —Mortality and Immortality of Life Cycle— Kumi Ohno Introduction Eugene O’Neill’s Days Without End (herein referred to as “Days” ) was premiered on December 27th, 1933 at Plymouth Theatre in Boston. The play consists of four acts and six scenes. The author tried to excavate the “crisis awareness” against an intrinsic nature of mankind through this play. In Dynamo which was written in 1929, O’Neill introduced four gods: “Puritan god”, “electricity god”, “Dynamo” and “the real god representing the eternal life”. In the story, however, Ruben, the main character, who seeks the salvation from these gods, is unable to find the true answer and commits suicide. In Days, the main character barely but successfully finds out the religious significance of the purpose of life and continues to have hope and the will to live, which is quite different from other O’Neill’s plays. This play was written in 1930s during the great economic depres sion and the anxiety of the people described in Dynamo is inherited by this play, although the subject is dug from the different aspect. However, as seen from the author’s efforts of rewriting the script several times, his attempts to reach the final conclusion was not successful for many years. The play was finally published after rewriting eight times during the period between 1931–1934.1 Days is considered to be the worst play of Eugene O’Neill. Ah, Wilderness!, which was highly acclaimed by the critics and which ran 289 performances, was written almost in the same 1 Doris V.
    [Show full text]
  • Law and Community in Ancient Athens, and the Prosecution of Sokrates
    Revista 20 10/10/17 12:29 Página 249 Ivs Fvgit, 20, 2017, pp. 249-263 ISSN: 1132-8975 LAW AND COMMUNITY IN ANCIENT ATHENS, AND THE PROSECUTION OF SOKRATES Robert WALLACE Northwestern University (Estados Unidos) [email protected] R E S U M E N : Los griegos arcaicos inventaron la ley escrita para proporcionar justicia igual para la ciudadanía (dêmos), sobre todo contra aristócratas abusivos. De allí en adelante, los jurados fueron extraídos de los dêmos, los magistrados de élite tenían poderes limitados, y los casos se decidieron por mayoría de votos (una invención griega). Las leyes eran tomadas en serio, y los expertos (abogados) eran limitados. Como jurados, los ciudadanos comunes y corrientes decidieron lo que significa- ban las leyes. En contraste con el estado de derecho, los discursos de los tribunales a menu- do incluyen consideraciones extra-legales como el servicio militar de un litigante o antepasados patrióticos. En los ensayos de homicidio se excluyó dicho material, y en otros casos los litigantes a menudo se oponen a él. Algunos estudiosos sugie- ren que tales argumentos son relevantes para «el cuadro más amplio» de un caso. Otros creen que los hechos eran de importancia secundaria en los litigios. Sostengo que la mayoría de los argumentos extraños en los discursos legales pertenecen al bienestar comunitario, el objetivo último de la ley griega, mucho más importante que el bienestar de los individuos. Uno de los objetivos principales de la ley estadounidense es proteger a los individuos contra el poder abusivo del estado. Los griegos no tenían «estados pesados» sino sólo comunidades, que las leyes defendían.
    [Show full text]