This topic is for *use by all students relating to discussion in Term 1
seminars* ('Democracy and Literature' and the 'Old Oligarch'). The *
panaboard and voting systems*results from our seminar discussions in the
Teaching Grid will also be posted here.
Democracy and Imperialism Discussion Forum 2013-4
Democracy and Imperialism Discussion Forum 2013-4
Term 1 Seminars
You need to be logged in to post in this topic.
-
0 likes
-
Attached are the THOUGHT BOARDS for the week 5 Seminar 1 (reading Herodotus, Aristophanes, Euripides, Thucydides). Group 1: 2.30-3.30 Monday Group 2: 3.30-4.30 Monday Group 3: 3-4 Thursday Group 4: 4-5 Thursday Please look at other group's thought boards and post your comments comparing the ideas generated / adding ideas where the text discussed was not discussed in your seminar.0 likes
-
GROUP 1:0 likes
-
GROUP 2:0 likes
-
GROUP 3:0 likes
-
GROUP 4:0 likes
-
The Aristophanes extract is very peculiar as the demos are all represented by one single figure. The character Demos does not seem to contemplate or debate his decisions which suggests that the demos in real life were completely harmonious in their decision making as they all acted as one unit. This can obviously not be true as there were often conflicting views in the assembly. Therefore why did Aristophanes choose to conflate all of the individual members of the populace and assembly into one character? It could be because he wanted to present the demos as a unit in order to present everyone as responsible for corruption and accepting flattery and bribery. Although Aristophanes has turned the entire populace into one harmonious unit, the other texts all suggest that the demos were united with the exception of the Herodotus which implies that the people are not fit to rule and monarchy is the best option.0 likes
-
How similar are /democratia/ and /isonomia/ made out to be in these passages? In the Herodotus they are seemingly alike, as the name given to "the rule of the many" (which should actually be/democratia/, power to the people) is given as isonomia. Was legal equality seen as the same as giving power to the people?0 likes
-
I think one of the most interesting and important things to note is the type of sources we are dealing with. For example, Aristophanes, as a comedy writer, was writing his plays to entertain rather than to inform, whereas Herodotus was writing an epic history, so should be more reliable. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case, as Aristophanaic comedy, and indeed all comedy, must have an element of truth for the satire to be funny, and rational thinking and logic suggests not all of Herodotus is 100% fact. However, on the whole, the content of these sources is severely altered depending on the reasins behind writing them.0 likes
-
I think that one of the most interesting aspects of these sources is the idea that the idea of a fully functional Athenian-type Democracy being placed in situations that they would never have existed in. For example, Herodotus has the Persians debating (a curious event in itself) whether democracy (how the Athenians would have recognised it only in the late 5th century after its evolution and change had begun to slow) was the best course for them, and Euripides had the mythical hero of Theseus describing his democractic city.0 likes
-
I think that one of the more interesting extracts that we looked at was the passage from Herodotus'/The Histories /3.80 - 82. In which we have Persians discussing the different types of political/ rulin systems from oligarchy to democracy. It is partly interesting to see Herodotus potray a Persian thinking that democracy is the best option to choose - though it may only be just one Persian still strange for 'the barbarian' to have this point of view. Obviously, Darius chooses monarchy but what would have been interesting is how this was portrayed to the audience of the time. A mixture of people from all over Greece would have Herodotus speaking his Histories, and all being from a place that has different systems from one another, and so for the individual it leaves them thinking about how their home city is ruled. If under oligrachical rule, did they think that this was best for them or might they be better off under monarchy or democracy instead?0 likes
-
The Herodotus passage, showing the Persian debate, was what I prepared for most. It shows the different views that could be taken (by ancient Greeks, of course, not really by Persians) towards different ruling systems. But taken in the context of Darius' potential cheating to win the kingship in the next passage, it does seem to be a subtle criticism of monarchy and tyranny, despite this being the most popular view in the Persian arguments.0 likes
-
The Knights by Aristophanes is very interesting as it is overtly very critical of Athenian democracy and more importantly demagogues in general. The fact it won first prize at the Lenaia shows its univeral sense of truth recognisable to the demos and therefore points to criticism of democracy from the demos rather than the intelectual elite such as Herodotus and Thucyidides. Thucydides in particular can be be quite critical of democracy but this may be because in order to seem intellectual they had to be critical or that the only way to air their views of democracy had to be written down rather than said in fear of prosecution.0 likes
-
In this post <> Thomas Sinden wrote: > I think one of the most interesting and important things to note is the > type of sources we are dealing with. For example, Aristophanes, as a comedy > writer, was writing his plays to entertain rather than to inform, whereas > Herodotus was writing an epic history, so should be more reliable. > Unfortunately, this isn't always the case, as Aristophanaic comedy, and > indeed all comedy, must have an element of truth for the satire to be funny, > and rational thinking and logic suggests not all of Herodotus is 100% fact. > However, on the whole, the content of these sources is severely altered > depending on the reasins behind writing them. > > This is basically what I was going to say, so I thought I would just add on to this. I completely agree with Tom, and as classicist we must always be wary of bias in our sources, but I quite enjoyed seeing the views of contemporaries put across in a more creative manner, and perhaps they show a more truthful account of peoples own views on the democracy and other ways of ruling. Putting them across in this way, in the form of comedies, tradgedies and the like, stopped them having to conform so much to the accepted ways of viewing such infrastructures (although it doesnt mean that they were not judeged and ridiculed for their writings) and so perhaps could be seen in some cases, such as that of Aristophanes, as being more truthful than the more 'factual' accounts of Herodotus, whose work would have been the product of more official sources and propaganda.0 likes