Cicero and Cleopatra

Cicero had written letters to a friend, Atticus, about Cleopatra during her stay in Rome. This primary source did not paint a pleasant view of the Egyptian queen. The letters were written in 44 B.C.E. in various locations throughout Italy and Rome. While Cicero mentioned casual topics that would be discussed amongst two acquaintances like what was going on in his life and where he was staying at the time, he made a point to include his opinion of Cleopatra in the letters as well.

One letter mentions that Cleopatra leaving the city doesn't bother Cicero on 16 April. About a month later he wrote of wishing that Cleopatra had a miscarriage like Gaius Cassius' wife. By June, the battered that Cicero felt toward Cleopatra gee to the point that he wrote "I detest the queen." According to him, she was arrogant while she lived on Julius Caesar's estate.

Jones, Prudence J. Cleopatra: A Sourcebook. Norman: University of Oklahoma (2006) 85-87.

Biographical Evidence: Changing the Perception of History

While sifting through the biographies of Kim, it’s becoming apparent that his life story is fairly enigmatic. The early, more accurate, depictions of Kim have gradually been swept away or hidden among falsities generated from later dynastic generations. Additionally, for those sources we generally take to be factual (those of the USSR elite), there is some dissonance among them; this is most likely due to the senility of those disclosing the information. This makes it difficult to pinpoint the facts of his background and upbringing. For example, the traditional (North Korean) historic retelling of Kim’s parents depicts them as “prominent leaders of the national movement.” His father was cited as a “principal figure in the entire anti-colonial resistance” (Lankov 51). However, this image contrasts with Kim’s original speech given to the Soviet Press, in which he describes his father as a “village teacher”; someone floating between odd jobs and struggling to make ends meet (Lankov 51).

Examples like this one litter the biographical history given to students in North Korea, serving to add power and prestige to the Kim family name. Each instance of deception lends support to Kim’s doctrine of Juche, or self-reliance, which seeks to eradicate the foreign influence on which North Korea was established. An iconic example of this can be seen within the two following photos.

 Images taken from: Stalin's 'hot' War

In this original image during a political rally, you can see that Kim is accompanied by three soviet officials in the background. Additionally, he is seen wearing his Red Army rank (major) on his left breast.

However, in the doctored image below, you'll notice that each of these features have been removed, subsequently retelling the story of that day. The absence of the historical context creates an entirely new imagery. An imagery portraying Kim as a leader wielding confidence and 'juche.'

Lanʹkov, A. N. From Stalin to Kim Il Sung: The Formation of North Korea, 1945-1960. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 2002.

Lashmar, Paul. "Stalin's 'hot' War." New Statesman and Society 9.388 (1996): n. pag. EbscoHost. Web.

The Knowledge-Power Relationship and Its Application to Curricular Change at Drury

As my knowledge of Foucault’s ideas have grown over the last few weeks I have begun to hone in on the application possibilities within education. And I have come to the conclusion, in light of recent events, that I will focus on the conduct of Drury’s very own administration as of late. Formerly, my goal was to analyze the power-knowledge relations related to curriculum and curriculum change; while, this will remain a part of my project, as this is entirely relevant to the composition of liberal arts, my project has gained both specificity and additional elements. By this I mean that as well as looking at how curriculum is related to the student/knowledge, I will be critically analyzing the methods by which curriculums and bodies of knowledge are changing here and now at Drury.

                When reading Foucault’s works a common theme and idea is almost always present. That different time periods can be discussed as having different knowledges, or epistemes. So therein lies several important questions: What is an episteme? And, more importantly, when and how does an episteme change? In other words, why do people think in different ways in different times and what can change how people thing? In Discipline and Punish, Foucault models the change from punishment to discipline in terms of the search for efficiency and effectivity. That is, reformatory prisons are both more effective and less messy when it comes to changing criminals and the public. Although Foucault does make it clear that the modern penal system is limited in many ways. In my project I will be looking to understand the underside and backdrop of the discourses, which make up the current episteme, that are relevant to the changes we as a university are experiencing.

                Upon a cursory look and understanding, it seems that the shift in priorities of the university is most likely an expression of a scientistic cultural shift. This is hardly controversial, as it is obvious that STEM programs are receiving more, or at least not less, funding and attention. However, just as Foucault looks to understand shifting epistemes by analyzing how power is manifested and utilized, I will do the same by looking at how these changes are made.

Due to the nature of my inquiry here it is likely that I will be able offer some possible speculations and estimations on the impacts of curriculum changes at Drury. This means, that with this study I might be able to give a reasonable projection of what knowledge changes in our curriculum might produce. In other words, the result of my study might have implications in what a future Drury student might be like. 

Finding a Niche: Another Source for the Thesis

Last week, I mentioned that in Christopher Toner's article The Logical Structure of Just War Theory, I had begun to find a working thesis for my paper. I mentioned that th critical issue here was the so-called "Dependency Claim," wherein one cannot have in bello without ad bellum justice, a claim that I find to be abhorrent.

This week, after mining Toner's bibliography a bit, I believe I have found a small little sub-niche in the just war literature, wherein it's apparently a rather significant debate as to whether or not this dependency claim is true. Of interest this week is Jeff McMahan's article, The Ethics of Killing in War, wherein McMahan attacks the notion that the two are logically independent concerns by pointing out that practically speaking, most soldiers trust their leaders when they say that they have ad bellum authority and, indeed, it is critical even for an unjust army to maintain this discipline in order to function in bello, lest order be completely lost and the army goes rogue.

More importantly, he brings up a thought experiment: what if you had unjust combatants fighting a just war? What if you had soldiers committing atrocities in what is otherwise an entirely justified instance of warfare? Traditionally, such a scenario would be explained via a resort to the distinction of ad bellum and in bello, but McMahan points out that even if the unjust soldiers at the moment have unjust goals, they still have-in their capacities as soldiers-"subordinate aims" that is still otherwise just; a soldier does not necessarily stop caring about the overall goals of a war when he commits atrocity.

While I need to reread this article (since it's rather technical and I'm not fully sure I understand the argument,) I can tell here that this article is going to be one of the more critical articles to use in my paper. Furthermore, after some more reading, I believe I can reformulate my topic as "Given the entire debate on the distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello, and given that St. Augustine is arguably the father of modern just war theory, what are his beliefs on this distinction, and what influence should that have on this debate?"

McMahan, Jeff. "The Ethics of Killing in War." Ethics 114, no. 4 (2004): 693-733.

Examining Images of the Youth of the Civil War

I believe that a small part of my paper will be dedicated to describing and explain the importance of images depicting combative youths.  The two images I have selected for this blog post are of Johnny Clem age 10 when he first tried to enlist, and Andrew and Silas Chandler, Andrew was 17 when he enlisted and 19 when he was wounded at the Battle of Chickamauga. 

These two images are quite the opposite of each other in several ways.  The most noticeable at first is that Johnny Clem is poised rather regally despite his rather large uniform.  His photograph make him look almost like an officer or graduate of West Point; whereas Andrew and Silas' picture shows two young men armed to the teeth.  In Andrew's picture Andrew has two pistols, and either an Arkansas Toothpick or Bowie Knife and his slave Silas is holding what looks like a double barrel shotgun, a Bowie knife, and has a pistol stuffed into his shirt.  The next difference is the uniform.  Johnny is wearing Union blue and has a very official looking uniform.  Andrew and Silas are wearing Confederate gray, and, although a real uniform, is not displayed as neatly as young Johnny.

Of course their roles were also drastically different during the war as well.  Johnny was a well liked drummer boy from Ohio and Andrew was an infantryman given a rifle and considered just "one of the men."  In some articles on Johnny he is described as being something of a mascot.

The different depictions of youth provide a bit of insight into their role.  Johnny was a very well liked boy and thus he is represented in a flattering matter.  Andrew was just "grunt" and his image shows that clearly even if he is posing with his slave.  

To Be or Not to Be

To be or not to be, while overused and cliché, really is THE question. The ultimate concern, or big question, that each of us has which we give a part of ourselves to and up to our entirety is not without risk. The more we invest in it, the more there is to lose. The anxiety surrounding our being or a lack thereof is so great, that Tillich, in his book The Courage to Be, writes that courage is the most important virtue that all other virtues depend on.

To set the foundation, Tillich describes three types of anxieties in history: anxiety of fate and death, anxiety of guilt and condemnation, and anxiety of emptiness and meaninglessness. In ancient Western history, people were concerned about their fate that “no one could escape” from (Tillich, 6). In the Medieval period, the Catholic Church was known for freeing people from the anxiety of guilt and condemnation with sacraments and confessions. The Protestant churches answered the anxiety with salvation through grace. In recent times, the anxiety of emptiness and meaninglessness has become the question. Harvey Cox, past Hollis Chair of Divinity at Harvard Divinity School, writes in his introduction to the third edition of Tillich’s The Courage to Be that as far as the U.S. goes, the answer is typically through work. We try to cure the anxiety through working a passionate job that changes lives and make a difference. Being is scary and difficult, so to live up to the challenge of a “continuous affirmation of being” (Tillich, 4), similar to Spinoza’s “conatus”, Augustine’s “restlessness” and Nietzsche’s “will to power,” one must have courage. Courage, Tillich argues, is the pinnacle of virtue that is the fundamental to human’s very existence and being.

Tillich, Paul. The Courage to Be. Edited by Harvey Cox. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2014.

Departure from the Good: the Warrior Prince

Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince is the first work of political philosophy to abandon idealism for pragmatism. This is not to suggest a trend in political philosophy. Rather, Machiavelli is an exception to the rule. Contemporaries and moderns did not abandon the ideal. 

Rawls, a contemporary, works with both the ideal, justice, by defining it in a pragmatic way. Rawls' Justice as Fairness is both ideal in that it seeks justice as an ultimate goal yet pragmatic in that it does not advocate for pure equity in that everyone has the same outcomes. For example, Rawls justifies economic inequality if and only if the least off are benefited by the wealth of the best off. He does pursue idealism like Plato did, but he also acknowledges the way the world works like Machiavelli did. 

If this were the paper I would have put the previous paragraph into a footnote, but this is not the paper! 

King Louis XIV was king of France for a very long time, long enough that he led France through five of her wars. These wars were the Franco-Dutch war, the War of the League of Augsburg, War of Spanish Succession, the War of Devolution, and the War of the Reunions. In my research I will examine these wars and the extent to which Louis XIV personally led his armies, determining whether or not he was a warrior as Machiavelli claims any leader must be. 

Why should I, the king, risk my life when I have soldiers who will die for me? The Machiavellian answer is that a general will take your principality away from you and become the new prince. Why can't I just send a general to lead the troops like Presidents do? President Obama is the commander in chief of the United States military, but he delegates leadership to the joint chiefs of staff. The answer is that the United States, and other Western democracies, have popular sovereignty and the people elect their presidents and the soldiers are counted among the people. 

The president is not a prince, and a prince must never rest after securing power. To Machiavelli justice and the right to rule is the will of the stronger. Machiavelli's view is in line with the view of Thucydides, which is that "The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must." Essentially, if you are strong enough you will obtain a principality through force of arms either by fortune or by virtue. Whichever way is irrelevant, what is relevant is that some other strong person will obtain an army through fortune or virtue and take it from you unless you are stronger than he. 

Chapter XIV of The Prince begins with "Thus, a prince should have no other object, nor any other thought, nor take anything else as his art [technical skill] but that of war and its orders and discipline; for that is the only art which is of concern to one who commands. And it is of such virtue that not only does it maintain those who have been born princes but many times it enables men of private fortune to rise to that rank; and on the contrary, one sees that when princes have thought more of amenities than of arms, they have lose their states" (Machiavelli, 58)

Louis XIV had victories and defeats. Louis XIV was successful in acquiring some of the Spanish controlled Netherlands, but he was unable to prevent the Protestant King William III of England from securing the throne after overthrowing the Catholic King James II. Louis XIV's reign was not graced with an undefeated military, but his military was strong. So strong, in fact, that in the war of the League of Augsburg France stood alone against a coalition that encompassed almost the whole military might of Europe.   

In my research I will examine the extent to which Louis XIV was personally a warrior as Machiavelli says a prince must be. 

Sources: 

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. 2nd ed. N.p.: University of Chicago Press, 1985. 58-60. Print.  

http://www.enotes.com/topics/theory-justice  

Quaker Women: Sounding Off in the Name of God

In her book, Words Like Daggers: Violent Female Speech in Early Modern England, Kirilka Stavreva devotes a chapter to the rhetorical and performance power that Quaker women exhibited in the political sphere. The author particularly focuses on addresses, petitions, letters, and visits made by prophets to Whitehall Palace, whether the seat of Cromwell before the restoration or Charles II after. Overall, her argument establishes that Quaker women excelled at targeting their “elite audiences,” employing silence, tone, words, and difference to impact the powerful listeners they spoke to or rather displayed a strategic message to (Stavreva 144). In effect, Quaker women prophets accessed and maintained admittance to a unique stage, one in which the politically influential romped. Moreover, Quaker women did so in an atmosphere that considered the woman prophet to be more dangerous than the male prophet (Stavreva 136). Interestingly, the author also expresses that Quakers achieved a sense of “transgender” in the spiritual exchange, meaning that a given message could be associated with both masculine and feminine ideas at the same time, regardless of the gender of audience or speaker (Stavreva 135). This element of Quaker writing in general will be important to my exploration of how the movement was suited to the assertiveness of female members. On the other hand, as mentioned above, society at large still found the Quaker woman to pose more of a threat to societal norms than male prophets who employed similar narratives. Furthermore, I would like to argue that Quaker women honed their performance techniques first within the Quaker movement, intentionally shaping their spiritual community for the strong participation of women.

                In relation to Stavreva’s argument, I was reminded of a letter from Margaret Fell to Cromwell, in which Fell exhibits a strong admonishment to the leader of England at the time. Although the letter is not necessarily a prophetic text, I believe it reminds of the “rhetorical punch” and possibility for “aural delivery” that Stavreva emphasizes is at the heart of Quaker women’s political impact (Stavreva 133, 137). Written to Cromwell in 1653, Fell states that “the mighty god of power is arisseing [,] the glittering sword of the Lord is drawne to cut downe all fruitelesse trees which hath soe long Cumbred the ground [.]” (Fell, 37). Here, Fell employs rather stark imagery in order to stress the power of the Lord. However, as much as Fell appears as the channel through which God is reaching out to Cromwell, her ministry to the political figure is attuned to his position. She presents an image of a power above the secular, a power that is able to “cut downe all fruitelesse trees,” a hint aimed at Cromwell himself. In this manner, it is easy to see that Quaker women chose their words pointedly, wisely, and in relation to audience. Fell implies an awareness of status, utilizing the harsh visual of a violent God in order to uniquely impact Cromwell as a leader who gained immense power in the midst of and after war. She goes on to urge obedience to the Lord in order to gain a “tender Conscience” (Fell, 37). Therefore, Fell also demonstrates this idea of “transgender speak”, employing both the traditionally masculine, God drawing his sword, and the traditionally feminine, a maternal God instilling tenderness, side by side to present an intense message to Cromwell. Overall, it is clear that Quaker women operated, influenced, and represented ideas in the political arena of seventeenth-century England, reaching people throughout the social and political hierarchy from a position built within the movement itself.

 

Works Cited:

Fell, Margaret. Undaunted Zeal: the Letters of Margaret Fell. Edited by Elsa F. Glines. Richmond, IN:

Friends United Press, 2003.

Stavreva, Kirilka. Words Like Daggers: Violent Female Speech in Early Modern England. Lincoln:

University of Nebraska Press, 2015.

Joan's Second Public Examination

After analyzing the records of the second public examination of Joan, which took place on Thursday, February 22, 1431, I am beginning to further quantify the accusers’ questions posed to Joan. While I have not yet determined an overall pattern of the Trial, the second public examination asked noticeably fewer question than the remaining third, fourth, fifth, and sixth public examinations. Only 11 questions were posed to Joan in the second public examination, however the transcript from the day is relatively lengthy in light of how little was recorded as having been asked. Interestingly enough, Joan is recorded as having given away a multitude of information during the second public examination, including having heard the voice from God beginning at age 13, although she is not asked many questions leaving one to assume Joan willingly afforded her accusers damaging information.  

Of the 11 questions asked within the second public examination, four were concerned with background and childhood information, five asked about religious imagery/visions, one question focused on her allegiance to the French (particularly to King Charles VII), and one regarding her male dress. I will be utilizing this source within the primary source analysis paper as well, in order to better explore its stark differences between the other public examination records.

Primary source: Homer's Iliad

Homer’s Iliad proves to be a powerful primary source to analyze old age in Ancient Greece because of the characters Nestor, the aging King of Pylos, and Odysseus, the most talented commander serving the Achaian army. Though his days of heroism are behind him, Nestor still acts as a counselor for Agamemnon, the commander-in-chief of the Achaian army that is trying to overtake Troy. Odysseus’ role as an advisor also propels the notion that wisdom is desirable, particularly when he settles disputes between Achilles and Agamemnon, who both are egotistical and quick to fight.

While these characters are featured in Book 1, their wisdom begins to come into fruition in Book 2. Homer describes how Zeus implanted a false dream to make Agamemnon believes that Nestor supported a full-force attack. Agamemnon did not take this message lightly. After all, he relies on Nestor’s invaluable worldly wisdom, though his advice doesn’t always lead to the best results. Skeptical of his own army, Agememnon decides to test their will be announcing that they will be returning to Greece. To his disappointment, they enthusiastically return to the ships to head home. At this point, Agememnon realizes that he misjudged the low morale in his troops, but luckily, Odysseus reinvigorates the troops’ desire to defeat the Trojans – something that would not have been possible to do if it wasn’t for Odysseus’ experience in war.

Nestor is also known for his longwinded advice. Later on in the book, he coaches his son, saying:

“Somebody else who trusts in his horses and chariot keeps on

thoughtlessly swerving about, far off to one side and the other;

over the course of his horses are roaming, nor does he control them.

He who is skilled in his craft, though rose are the steeds he is driving,

always eyeing the post, wheels close to it, never forgetting

how at the start with the oxhide reins to keep taut the two horses, rather he steadily holds them and watches the man who is leading.” (Homer, 23.319-325)

With this, it’s evident that years of observation have led Nestor to believe what he believes, and perhaps these also reflect Homer’s intuitions of life.

Homer. The Iliad. Trans. M.S. Silk. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Print.

Termites in the Wood: Flaws Within the Pro-Boycott Ideology

            Fundamentally, the reasoning behind the 1980 Olympic boycott had two main flaws. These problems rotted away at the foundation of the pro-boycott movement until it lost steam and eventually stalled in late March. First, both the Carter administration and Congress were more than willing to rewrite the history of the 1936 Olympics. Second, the American policy makers assumed that attendance of the games equaled acceptance of the policy. Ultimately Carter forced the issue so much that the boycott continued, but without a meaningful reason the support slowly withered away.

            In 1936 the Olympic games were held in Berlin where under the watchful eye of Adolf Hitler, an African-American by the name of Jesse Owens won 4 gold medals. As Colonel Miller, the executive director of the United States Olympic Committee said before a congressional hearing: “…one black American athlete by the name of Jesse Owens did more to debunk the Nazi thesis of a superpower than any other individual” (Congress, 20). How did the members of Congress respond? Representative Jack F. Kemp of New York said “The world shut their eyes and ears to what was happening in fascist Mussolini’s regime as well as Nazi Germany… The decision not to boycott the 1936 games was made within 2 months after the Nazis published the Nuremberg laws… and we said never again” (Congress, 57).  Ultimately the American government was to willing to forget the fact that when faced with a rising fascist threat American athletes did the best they could to disprove the theory of racial superiority, by defeating German athletes on their own turf. Moscow was a chance to do the same, the Olympic games was a chance to face the Soviet lifestyle head to head.

            Next, the administration also thought their attendance would equal acceptance. As Kemp went on to say “I am not suggesting that the Olympic games ratified the actions of Mussolini and Hitler, but it certainly did lend an air of legitimacy to that movement” (Congress, 53). The Americans assumed that their attendance in Berlin had said to the world: America accepts Nazi Germany. The most average observer of foreign affairs would have a hard time believing that a mere sporting event could have befriended the worst of enemies. The same would have been evident during the Cold War of Moscow and Washington.