sylviekirsch

[sylviekirsch]

Adopting Ancestors as a means of National Pride

A nation is not formed out of thin air. As obvious as it may seem, I think that myself, as well as others, tend to forget about the foundation of American society when going about our everyday lives; however, it is important to learn about where we came from, and who took the steps for us to get to the present day. 26.34% of Americans claim English ancestry. Even though that is 49 million people, it is still only a small fraction of the population. I know for a fact that I am not related to a colonist. My family is composed of Eastern Jewish and Catholic Belgium descent. Yet my entire family feels a sense of national unity and pride. I feel connected to the Founding Fathers’ fight for liberty and justice. In a way, I claim them as part of my heritage, even though we have nothing to do with each other. 

I took Intro to Jewish civilization last semester, and the goal of the course was to answer “When did Judaism begin?” I immediately answered with the ancient figures of Abraham and Issac, Sarah and Leah, Jacob and Esau, and others. As the class continued, however, I realized that this was completely untrue. Judaism was calcified in its current state after the destruction of the second temple in Jerusalem in 70 BC. So, Abraham, who was born 2,500 years before Judaism came into existence, who would not have had the faintest idea what the Torah was, is considered a Jewish forefather by my people. I then realized that Judaism had adopted these characters into their narrative in order to incorporate them as a sense of national pride and heritage. Connecting ourselves to these biblical figures in a way legitimizes Judaism as if these ancient ties elevate our status. 

This is the same goal that Vergil wished to accomplish with The Aeneid. The epic poem is, at its core, part of the foundation story of Rome, but specifically serves as a way for Augustus to legitimize his rule and the powers of the gens Julia. Aeneas is a Trojan hero who was divinely ordered to continue the Trojan line. His mother is Venus, making him of divine blood. And from Aeneas comes the Kings of Alba Longa, the ancestors of Romulus and Remus. Americans, Jews, Romans - they all found a way to connect their present, a much more complicated and scary time, to a past of heroes. Elevating their status through history is a critical tool for any successful nation. Fake bonds and family connections give these people something to look to, and most importantly made them proud.

[sylviekirsch]

On the Nature of Death and Civil Society

Titus Lucretius Carus, better known as just Lucretius, was an Epicurean poet whose De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things or On the Nature of the Universe) is a philosophical argument against why death should be feared. Maybe we should take Lucretius’s argument with a grain of salt, as according to St. Jerome (c. 347-420 AD), Lucretius wrote his epic poem in intervals of sanity after being driven mad by a love potion. But who knows, maybe those fits of madness helped him create his unique philosophies.

 I found De Rerum Natura very intriguing because it featured a mix of metaphysical and physical premises of Epicureanism as well as an account of the nature of the human soul, psychological phenomena, and the idea of mortality in our world. I was very surprised by how much this ancient text resonated with me, but I guess that’s Lucretius’s main point - death is immortal. De Rerum Natura argues that the universe is material, composed of indestructible matter called atoms and void; however, the compounds these atoms make are just temporary bonds, meaning that death is simply a dissolution of a combination of atoms. Thinking of death in more scientific terms, rather than in an existential-crisisy way, made me feel very calm. Further, in a theory that completely departs from the Roman conception of gods and the afterlife, Lucretius argued in Book 3 that the human soul is mortal. Therefore, death is not to be feared, as there is no chance that one will spend an eternity in punishment for the way they acted while alive. This must have been a scary idea to the Romans, as they perceived the gods as not only real figures with extreme powers but also as moral compasses. The gods, alongside the human government, worked to enforce civil order. Lucretius’s rebuttal of this goes against the foundations of Roman society as they knew it.

[sylviekirsch]

Would Catullus be kicked off of Twitter?

My Latin curriculum during Junior year was centered around translating Catullus’s poetry. The title of the course was “Racy Fresh,” so I knew I was in for a treat; however, I think that my high school censored some of his poetry because what I read for Wednesday’s class was nothing that I could have expected. The language Catullus used to describe some of his enemies was so vulgar that I was honestly shocked by it. Was it naive of me to believe that the Ancient Romans didn’t talk like that? I have always imagined them being very refined, even in real life, probably because I’ve only read speeches by Cicero and histories by Sallust, Livy, and their contemporaries. 

All of this got me thinking. Catullus was pretty famous in his day, not only because his poetry was pretty eye-catching and out there, but also because it was moderately circulated. So, if he was publishing his poems in the 21st century on a social media platform like Twitter, with a much larger outreach, Catullus would most certainly be banned for breaching the community guidelines. Firstly, he slut shames Lesbia just because she won’t requite his affections saying “Let her live and thrive on adulterous men / All three hundred, screwing again and again” in Carmina XI. Then, he berates Aurelius and Furius for betraying him, literally threatening to, for lack of a better description, fuck-face him. Specifically he says “I’ll bugger you, Aurelius, and dick / You, Furius, in the face” in Poem XVI. In modern times we would most certainly call this cyber bullying.

[sylviekirsch]

Was Tiberius Gracchus corrupt?

Even though Tiberius and Cornelius Gracchus were not common men, their entire political lives were dedicated to acting on behalf of the common man. Many of their reforms were specifically designed to help these plebs or those of a lower class; however, the means that Tiberius Gracchus passed one of his most prominent reforms opens room to debate whether he was corrupt. Do the ends justify the means? In this case, the end was the Lex Agraria (”land law” in English). The Lex Agraria reestablished the limit of ager public (”public land”) that an individual could hold. It further redistributed excessive public land to the landless poor who would then be tenants of public land. Tiberius knew that he would face opposition from the senate, especially because this excessive land was being taken primarily from them. Because of this, the Lex Agraria was taken directly before the plebian assembly and not debated by the senate. 

Was Tiberius corrupt for doing this, or was he a just man acting within a corrupt system? Following this tribune, M. Octavius vetoed the bill, TWICE. In retaliation, Gracchus passed a bill that completely removed Octavian from office. At this point, I would argue that Tiberius was corrupt. Even though his action had good intentions, he had been appointed political power within a specific system that he was now abusing. Further, we can see the Republic system of power structure break down with this removal. One last point of contention is the fact that the Lex Agraria was funded by the newly acquired royal treasury from Attalus III, late king of Asia. This is the most straightforward instance of corruption, as this was in direct violation of the royal will. Also, the senate usually decided foreign and fiscal policy, so Tiberius’s actions were in disagreement with the concept of “custom of the ancestors.” Overall, the story of the Lex Agraria shows violations of many political norms and causes debate as to whether Gracchus was corrupt, acting corruptly, or acting justly within a corrupt system. 

[sylviekirsch]

McCarthyism and the Bacchanalian Conspiracy

What do McCarthyism and the Bacchanalian Conspiracy have in common? The answer: mass hysteria. Both the Conspiracy and the Second Red Scare, the latter spearheaded by U.S senator Joseph McCarthy, were characterized by heightened political oppression. Communists and the Bacchic cult were viewed as political threats in some regard because of their non-government sanctioned meeting in large groups. These meetings subverted the political power of the governing body. Further, the values and goals of both parties ran directly against the agenda of the Senatus and the U.S. government respectively. The groups are different, however, because the Bacchic cult was, well, an actual cult that did not value a specific political philosophy but were associated with illicit behaviors. These ranged from revelry, frenzied dancing, and sparagmos in the Southern cult to murder, sexual abuse, and fake wills in the East. The Bacchic philosophy developed from a place where people can ‘let loose’ and do things outside of society's convention. Because of this, prominent Romans such as Livy viewed the Bacchic cult as a foreign disease and expressed xenophobic sentiment towards the cult.

The Communist Party and the fear of the Soviet Union is what created the mass hysteria that allowed McCarthyism to thrive during the 1950s. Accusations were often given the benefit of the doubt and were therefore prosecuted anyways despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person’s communist associations were many times exaggerated. This last point is where the similarities between McCarthyism and the Bacchanalian Conspiracy are most prevalent. These groups were persecuted unjustly because, again, their values ran contradictory to the Republic’s. Many involved were imprisoned (and in the case of the Roman Republic, executed), after their actions and beliefs (which they were for the most part legally allowed to engage in) were deemed threatening to the public. Overall, it is interesting to see how history repeats itself time and time again and makes one question why we don’t remember imperative events that could potentially influence our future decision making.

[sylviekirsch]

Go with the flow or no?

The Roman army was arguably one of the most organized, notorious military operations in human history. Not only was the sheer mass of the army something to be admired, but also how effective it proved in aiding Rome with military victories. Polybius wrote extensively about Rome’s military organization (6.19-42). His most interesting point, however, was how the Roman camp compared to the Greeks. The Romans designed each camp the same way. It was very geometric and regular. Further, the Roman soldiers were able to set up and take down the camp faster because they knew exactly where everything was placed and where all the materials were located. Every man had a specific function, making it a very machine-like operation. This could not have differed more from the Greek system, as their camps were considered on an ad hoc basis based on the terrain. So which system is better? While I believe it’s important for the Greeks to acknowledge the terrain, and the end of the day it adds unnecessary complexity. Further, it wastes valuable time that the soldiers could be using to rest, train, or attack their enemies. Also, because these armies were so large, why wouldn’t one want the extra level of efficiency that having a very precise camp set up provides? I think that the Roman organization of their camp is indicative of their overall level of efficiency. In general, the Roman army was more successful than the Greek one, especially during the middle and late republic.

^ This gif symbolizes how the Roman camps were built. The most important tent was placed in the middle, and from there it created a larger circle.

[sylviekirsch]

The Fluidity of Government

It can be argued that in modern society, especially American society, we view government as a rigid, unchanging institution that citizens must work within the confines already established; however, I believe that the Ancient Romans were more flexible in their outlook on government. Maybe it’s because they had a different conception of freedom and liberty than we do today, but I also believe that the amount of change that took place is indicative of the Roman people’s outlook that systematic change can lead to the positive growth of a city, region, and even empire. This can be seen in the transition from the Regal to the Republic period and the subsequent government systems created.

For example, after the rape of Lucretia (depicted in Livy 1.57-60), the Roman people make it clear that their outrage at Sextus would not go unheard. With Lucius Iunius Brutus as their leader, the people agree that their will never be another king of Rome even though this fundamentally shifts the entire foundation on which Rome is built. In 509 a republic was established with Brutus elected as one of two annual consuls. The idea of a consulship was revolutionary because it shows a shift from hereditary rulers to those whose mindsets and ideals reflected the majority of Roman citizens. Also, the quick terms of the consul again show how the Romans were comfortable with constantly shifting government as it didn’t necessarily indicate instability, but growth and adaptation.

[sylviekirsch]

How to tell history

A lot of our class discussion last week centered around how to tell history, and how much of it was reflective of how the author believed it should be told. For example, in Cicero’s De Orat, he tries to explain to his friend Lucceius how he thinks history should be written. Cicero writes that the earliest Roman historians did not adorn their works in the way that Greek historians did. He argues that while Romans view themselves as “narrators” of events, the Greeks saw themselves as embellishers. This is because, in ancient times, there was a consensus that the embellishment of historical events was ok if it helped to illustrate the severity (whether emotional, physical, political, etc.) of what had happened. 

This difference can be seen in the way Livy writes about the famous three Horatii brothers who fought against the Curiatii brothers on behalf of the Roman people during the reign of king Tullus Hostilius in Ab urbecondita versus Dionysius of Halicarnassus’s Roman Antiquities which was written in Greek. In Livy’s version, there is very little dialogue; however, Dionysis’s version includes many conversations whose primary function is to illustrate the emotional severity of the battle, such as when the Horatii brothers seek out their father for advice as to whether to fight on behalf of Rome or to pass the task off to others. Further, when Livy recounts the aftermath of Horatius killing his sister, he focuses more on how it affected Rome’s justice system (whether and who would try to prosecute Horatius), while Dionysis focuses on the reparations the Romans enacted to appease those who were unhappy with Horatius’s acquittal and the importance of honoring his sister. Overall, even though these two authors narrate the same event, the way they do so is reflective of their local storytelling culture.

[sylviekirsch]

inseparable brothers separated by power.

Brothers Romulus and Remus had it tough from the get-go. For starters, these royal babies, whose mother Rhea Silvia was a vestal virgin and daughter of the former king, Numitor, were immediately perceived as a threat at birth. Numitor had been overthrown by his corrupt brother Amalius, and the current kind viewed Romulus and Remus as threats to his rule. He, therefore, ordered them to be killed, but the twins ended up simply being abandoned on the bank of the river Tiber in hopes that they would die. With such a rough start to life, one would imagine it almost impossible for Romulus and Remus to be split apart by anything; however, the lust for power, especially in the Ancient World, could not be resisted.

When Romulus and Remus were young men, they, in a very quick summary that does not do the full story justice, learned of their true identity, overthrew King Amulius, reinstated their grandfather, and set out to build a city of their own. When they arrived in the area of the seven hills, the brothers could not agree on where to build their new kingdom. Romulus wanted the Palatine Hill while Remus preferred the Aventine hill. This dispute was only complicated by the fact that there was no distinguishable birth order between the twins. After asking for the gods’ approval through what was essentially a bird-watching contest, their dispute was only further. The brothers were split by their small differences and even more so their yearning for power. This rift reached its climax when Remus was killed by either Romulus himself or one of his supporters.

We have seen this brothers-separated-by-power trope within literature and lore since the beginning of time. No - really. One of the earliest stories in the Bible recounts the dispute between Cain and Abel: the first two brothers ever who ended up being split because of a lust for power and the need for approval by the gods (or in this case, God). So what do these lessons teach us? Personally, it reminds me to stay grounded: family is SO much more important than power. Look out for the ones you love, compromise, and don’t be jealous - it’s just not worth it.

[sylviekirsch]

Met Kouros and Unrealistic Beauty Standards in Popular Culture Today

Media today is dominated by the perpetuation of unrealistic beauty standards. A study has shown that people see nearly 5,000 advertisements each day (Donati 2019). Many of those include beautiful men and women whose only purpose is to make you jealous of what they possess and you lack. These people are usually tall, fit, muscular, lean, and wealthy. This phenomenon can also be seen in the art of Ancient Greece.

The Met Kouros is an idealized full-figure statue of a male. Its period is Archaic (ca. 590-580 BC) and was found in Attica. The material it is made out of is Naxian marble. To commission a statue of this caliber, one would have to be incredibly wealthy. Therefore we can conclude that the design of the Met Kouros reflects the ideal perception of male, youthful beauty. The man depicted is athletic, youthful, and has a toned body. His stance (hands at hips, feet positioned one in front of the other, blocky) reinforces this idea. We see these images in popular culture all the time, whether it’s David Beckham in a Calvin Klein advertisement or the Miss America pageant contestants. Obviously, not everyone in society has a six-pack or an athletic figure; however, both American and Ancient Greek culture perpetuate these images. Further, what most normal people forget is that none of these images were created naturally; all were achieved through some level of wealth. What we need to remember is that we are all unique, beautiful and that at the end of the day, money cannot buy happiness.

[sylviekirsch]

Ostrakon and Celebrity Cancel Culture

Ostrakon (pl. ostraka) was a pot shard used by assemblies of the people in Ancient Greece for a very unique societal purpose. Most Greeks supported democracy and therefore opposed tyranny. Every year the members of the assembly would choose a prominent, popular figure that they wanted to ostracize and write that person’s name and some other identifier (ex. their father’s name) on an ostrakon. Whoever had the most pot shards would then be ostracized for 10 years. This was done so that whoever was popular could be prevented from becoming a possible tyrant. When we learned about this in class, it immediately reminded me about the new cultural phenomenon of “cancel culture.” When people say they’re “canceling” a famous person, it means that they want to take away their power or cultural capital and diminish their cultural significance, whether through personal boycotting or public shaming; however, at the end of the day, both ostracization and cancellation have similar consequences: they are only temporary. Celebrities like Taylor Swift, James Charles, and Kanye West have been canceled dozens of times over seemingly small incidents that have outraged the public. What fans and members of the Greek assemblies have in common is that their ostracization of a prominent public figure is not supposed to ruin them forever, but creates a check on their power so that whoever is ostracized realizes that they cannot act however they please without consequences. When the prominent figure reenters society, they do so with more caution now that they understand that the common people can decide how much power they wish to give them essentially. The people are always watching, and the comradery of the internet today helps invoke this ancient Greek tradition daily.

[sylviekirsch]

Greek Gods

What does the portrayal of Greek gods and goddesses tell us about Ancient Greek society itself? For one, the poet Xenophanes deconstructed the ideas that the gods are anthropomorphic. In one fragment entitled If Animals Worshiped Gods (15 D-K), Xenophanes writes that “if oxen and horses and lions had hands / and so could draw and make works of art like men / horses would draw pictures of gods like horses.” This supports the argument that the Greek gods were a direct reflection of the values and structure of Greek society. This can be seen further in the dynamic of Zeus’s family. Like most Greek families, the one of the gods was incredibly patriarchal.

In poems such as the Iliad by Homer, when gods like Hera or Athena even dare to question Zeus’s authority, he immediately threatens them and asserts his dominance as not only a man but also head of the household. Further, stereotypical female attributes or activities such as marriage, sewing, and the hearth were given to goddesses as opposed to gods, who controlled activities such as weapon making and war. This can be seen in real Greek society through activities like lekythos (weaving), which was one of the main tasks that women were responsible for in Ancient Greek. Weaving was often done in the house (oikos), which was traditionally women’s sphere of activity.

[sylviekirsch]

The power of anagnorisis

Anagnorisis, a very technical term coined by Aristotle, is undoubtedly my favorite dramatic device. I have always loved those moments in television shows or books where the main character realizes that his best friend has been working for the enemy the entire time, or that the useless clue he found a few days ago is the key to the entire puzzle. I also see it in real life, like when the young boy looks up from hugging his school mascot and realizes that no, it’s not his gym teacher, but his dad who’s returned from his deployment early. I see it when the woman turns around and realizes her significant other is not taking a photo of her like she’s asked but is down on one knee holding out a diamond ring. 

Another reason that I love anagnorisis is that when used in a negative scenario, it creates a huge sense of heartbreak and pain for not only the characters but the audience. Ignorance is bliss, and the change from ignorance to knowledge can be incredibly painful to watch. For example, in Sophocles's Oedipus Rex, the main moment of anagnorisis occurs when Oedipus is told he is not the son of the King of Corinth but Laius and Jocasta. Sophocles uses this moment of anagnorisis as the main catalyst for the remainder of the play in which everything in Oedipus’s life becomes negative. Overall, anagnorisis is such a powerful device because it can evoke so many emotions through one single action.

[sylviekirsch]

The influence of οικονομικά on Greek and Jewish women

Society in the rabbinic period was sex-segregated and patriarchal, much like Ancient Greece. In both social dynamics, women are for the most part seen as separate but equal. Further, their obligations and responsibilities are different from men’s. Both Greek and Jewish women sphere of power was oikonomia (οικονομικά), defined as “the process of creating order in the house.” These women were responsible for cooking, cleaning, sewing, raising children pleasing their husbands, and a variety of other domestic activity; however, while the prevalence of oikonomia in the life of Greek women was gradually implemented into the norms of society, Jewish women engage in oikonomia because of halakhic (Jewish) laws in the Torah and Mishnah. Further, these women are discouraged from pursuing higher education or religious pursuits, but this seems to be primarily because women who engage in such pursuits might neglect their primary duties as wives and mothers; however, even though Greek upper-class women were mostly confined to the household, they were encouraged to educate themselves through literature and art. Also, Jewish women were exempted from all positive, time-bound commandments because their duties as wives and mothers are so important that they cannot be postponed. Greek women, however, are encouraged to partake fully in religious life. In book 6 of the Iliad, women sacrifice their woven robes to goddesses. This shows the intersection between oikonomia and religion in Greek life, and how it differs from that in Judaism. Overall, even though both groups of women, living in societies very close to one another, were responsible for creating order in the house, their reasons for doing so and their freedom regarding education and religion differed greatly.

[sylviekirsch]

Twitter vs. Poetry

Solon was an Athenian statesman, lawmaker, and poet who is remembered particularly for his efforts to legislate against political, economic and moral decline in archaic Athens. Solon served as chief magistrate (archon) at a time when Athenian society was deeply polarized between a large body of common people (demos) riddled with poverty and disenfranchisement and a very small and wealthy aristocracy. His reforms failed in the short-term, yet he is often credited with having laid the foundations for Athenian democracy. In Solon’s poetry, specifically 2, 4, and 17, he defends his reforms as many were under attack. His language is serious and defensive, using straightforward language but that was meant for the educated. This is where a comparison to President Donald Trump can be drawn. Both Solon and Trump used shorter statements to illustrate their political views and agenda (Solon poetry and Trump Twitter). Further, these two political figures use their short statements to construct ideas of their own identity and craft their public image. Whereas Solon tries to create wisdom poetry that does not name anything specific, just abstract ideas, Trump uses sharp, aggressive, and pointed language to defend his reforms and attack his foes. Even though their execution differs, both Trump and Solon are responding to an incredibly divided political landscape and constant backlash. It is interesting to see how over time, even though specific issues may differ, the medium in which important political figures choose to express themselves has remained similar, taking into account different technologies.  to express themselves has remained similar, taking into account different technologies.

[sylviekirsch]

The Evolution of Asherah

Asherah was an incredibly popular fertility and mother goddess worshiped by ancient Israelites. In mythology and pottery, Asherah is depicted as the consort of El. While she is first represented as two goats feeding on tree branches (or even just a wooden post), Asherah’s motif eventually evolved into a pubic triangle. This relates to the Ancient Greek idea of graphe, or writing. Graphe originally meant lines, markings, or some kind of imagery, but eventually turned into modern-day characters. The idea that writing is a technology used to convey language overtime is most seen in Ancient Phoenicia. Phoenicia, located in modern-day Lebanon, is most famous for being the birthplace of the alphabet, which was subsequently adopted by Greeks when Phonecians would stop in Greek ports to exchange goods and knowledge.

The genealogy of the alphabet originated with the pictogram apis. Afterward, the simplified pictogram was adopted, showing a most abstract symbol of what was formerly a detailed hieroglyphic. Then, a truly abstracted symbol would evolve into what we now recognize to be the Greek alphabet. Because of Ancient Israel’s proximity to Phoenicia, it is safe to hypothesize that they, like the Ancient Greeks, were influenced by this evolving alphabet, as seen in the depiction of Asherah’s symbol from two goats feeding on a tree to a simple triangle similar to the Greek letter delta. Further, the evolution of Ashera’s symbol follows the path of genealogy of the alphabet that the Greeks followed.

[sylviekirsch]

Hipponax and American Anti-Welfare Rhetoric

Hipponax’s sassy and funny poetry is characterized by descriptions of a life that is low-class and shabby. In one of his poems, Hipponax begs the gods for nice winter gear, with his only reasoning being that “For thou hast never granted me a cloak … nor hast thou wrapped my feet in thick fur boots.” 

If Hipponax were alive today, his message would definitely be utilized by conservatives in American politics as proof that their ‘rhetoric of responsibility’ that hurts the Welfare State is justified. For example, in 2014 when Paul Ryan was trumpeting his anti-poverty plan, he stated in a radio interview that “We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work.” This quote falls into the racist “poor people are lazy” rhetoric, and is just one example of the constant conservative argument that poor people are living in poverty because of their individual failings without acknowledging the structural inequality that millions of Americans find themselves trapped in. Hipponax, however, is a perfect example of one not taking responsibility for their own standing: instead of working to escape poverty, Hipponax just prays to the gods, thrusting his fate into their hands. Further, in his poem, Hipponax complains that the anthropomorphized Wealth is “too blind” and has never just handed him “three thousand silver drachmas, and a heap / of other stuff besides.” One can only wonder why Hipponax possessed such an entitlement.