For Tuesday, February 19,

Read, in The Democratic Idea,

#4: Democratic Judgment and the "Middling" Constitution, (Aristotle) pp. 11-14

We'll play catch-up, to begin with, discussing the materials which we missed because of the cancellation of class on Friday.  I want to spend part of the time discussing the differences between Athens and Sparta as two different models of what constitutes a "good society".  I expect that at least part of the period will be devoted into dividing you into "Athenians" and "Spartans," asking you to explain your cultures to each other.

Then we'll proceed to a discussion of Aristotle's views on what the translator calls "democratic judgement."   Aristotle looks at democracy from as a philosopher rather than a political figure.  As we will discover, he applies the rules of philosophical thinking called "reason" to the issue. We will return again and again to a consideration of the "R" word, Reason.  Aristotle's general philosophical position strives for balance and moderation.  You will probably notice that he generally sets out alternatives as polar opposites and then strives to find a middle ground between them.You already have a pretty good idea about the content of S & S #2. However, the essay by Aristotle may raise new questions in your mind. Once you have some sense of what you need in terms of additional context, scan Chapter 2 once more.

Our discussion will turn our attention to some questions of the relationship between the Greek Democratic Idea and the American Democratic Idea. Among the many ideas we may need to consider are these: In what ways are Greek ideas attractive to us today in what ways unattractive? What differences are there between classic Greece and contemporary America which make Greek Democracy inapplicable in its original form? What types of modifications could be made to retain the best of the Greek Idea while adapting it to American conditions?
 
 

For Friday, February 22

George Washington's Real Birthday

 
Read, in The Democratic Idea,

#5. "The Republican Constitution at its Height" (Polybius) pp.  15-18
#6. "On the Laws" (Cicero) pp.  19-24

Speaking of the Roman political system Polybius says "...it was impossible even for a native to pronounce with certainty whether the whole system was aristocratic, democratic, or monarchical" To understand him fully you'll need to make sure you know a little about what the terms, aristocracy, monarch, and democracy mean.  If you're not certain, don't run to a dictionary at the outset.  Rather, see if the context provides a clue

Polybius describes what we might call a "mixed" system of government.  Three different agencies contribute... the consul, the Senate, and the people, organized into tribes and represented by ribunes.  Be sure you understand the roles and responsibilities of each agency.  Does Polybius give you any insight into why power was distributed in the way it was distributed?

"On the Laws" by Cicero is presented as a dialogue, actually something of a "trialogue" with three characters.  Atticus sets up the topic for discussion and once he's preformed that function we see him no more.  Quintus acts as a straight man, feeding questions to Marcus, the philosopher of the law whose words make up the preponderance of the essay.  This is an ancient rhetorical device.  You encountered something similar in the writing by Euripides, but there is a subtle difference here.  Cicero uses the secondary characters rather like we use paragraph punctuation: to introduce a new idea or a qualification of an  old idea.  Use Quintus to help you stay organized as you think about what Marcus has to say.  Put most of your mental energy into understanding Marcus' ideas.  You've perhaps heard the riddle with no answer: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"  Cicero, through Marcus, looks at a similar conundrum.  Do the laws determine right and wrong, or does right and wrong determine the law?  Or, "Which comes first, right and wrong, or law?  Can there be right and wrong if there is no law?