Misconceptions About the Crusades, and the Speech of Pope Urban II

      What are some common misconceptions about the Crusades, and why are they incorrect?
      The Crusades are a well-known piece if Western history, although there are many misconceptions today about what they actually were and what caused them. A popular one claims that they were an unprovoked, unwarranted attack on Muslim nations. The reality was that the Christians and the Muslims had had peace with one another for many years until a more warlike group of Muslims, the Turks, conquered the Muslim lands. These new conquerors were not as peaceful or tolerant of Christian pilgrims as the old Muslims had been. They began assaulting ancient cities in Asia Minor such as Ephesus, Antioch and Nicaea that were important to the Catholics of the West. The Byzantine emperor of the time, Alexios I Komnenos, sent word to then-pope Urban II to beg for help against the Muslim invaders.
     Another common misconception is that the Catholic crusaders were second- or third-born sons of nobles who were not likely to inherit any land from their fathers, and so set off to Muslim countries to conquer and bring back wealth. Recent research shows that this is not actually true; most of the crusaders were actually first-born nobles with plenty of wealth already. A long and costly trip such as a crusade, where victory was not guaranteed and many men and resources would be lost, was not a good idea to attempt if one was simply looking for wealth. Most crusaders returned home poorer than when they had left, if they returned at all.
      A third popular misconception concerning the Crusades is that the Christians' attacks angered the Muslims so much that they were an indirect cause of modern-day terrorism on Western countries. This would be sound reasoning, save that for the Muslims, the Crusades were a tiny blip of their history that were barely even worth mentioning. The Crusades did not have any lasting effect on Muslim history; indeed with the majority of Muslims, for hundreds of years the Crusades were nearly forgotten.



      Based on the different versions of Pope Urban II's speech, discuss the main themes in the Pope's remarks.
      Although there is no official record of what Pope Urban II said in his speech, various people who heard or heard about the speech have written it down in their own versions, so from them we can glean an idea of what the pope's words were. A major theme of his speech seemed to be a charge to punish the Turks, whose atrocities towards Christians Pope Urban listed in graphic detail. This part of the speech appeared designed to incite the crowd to anger, being "filled" as it were with the righteous anger of God.
      But that wasn't the only part of Urban's speech; in fact, most of the sources do not even record it as the longest part. Much more of the pope's words were directed towards encouraging peaceful Christian behavior in kindness towards one another. The pope called out the knights and men-at-arms of the day, saying that they had become plunderers and murderers, using their strength to oppress the weak in contrast to their oaths as knights. Urban rebuked them for this abominable behavior and charged them to turn their energies towards reclaiming the Holy Land. Meanwhile he encouraged those left at home – the elderly and the infirm, women, children and clergymen – to remain at peace with one another and support the crusaders with prayer. Urban was equally occupied with sending soldiers on Crusades and with keeping a holy peace at home.
      Although we have no way of knowing exactly what Urban said, we do know the reaction he received: Upon hearing the words of the pope, the crowd cried out, "It is the will of God! It is the will of God!"
      The pope was so moved by this outcry that he closed his speech by saying, "Let this then be your war-cry in combats, because this word is given to you by God. When an armed attack is made upon the enemy, let this one cry be raised by all the soldiers of God: It is the will of God! It is the will of God!"

The Great Schism, Sacraments and Indulgences

      What was the Great Schism? What factors brought it on?

      The Great Schism was a division between the East and West Christian Churches that occurred because of differences in how they worshiped and lived out their faith. Because of the geographical distance between the two major churches (the Western Church based in Rome and the Eastern Church based in Constantinople), such differences were hard to work out, and each church felt that its example should be the one followed by the majority of Christians. The Great Schism found its beginning when a man of the Eastern Church, named Michael Cerularius, began shutting down churches in the East that worshiped in the Western way. The Pope in the West sent men to try and reason with Celarius, whose refusal to negotiate led the Pope to excommunicate him from the Church. Until that point Christians from both the East and West Churches had seen themselves as one brethren, different in some aspects but united under the same God. Now tensions only escalated between the two Churches, with aggressions on both sides that ultimately led to the Churches separating themselves from each other once and for all. Even today, the Catholic Church in the West and the Orthodox Church in the East do not see themselves as one Christian brethren.

      What are the sacraments?

      According to Roman Catholic religion, the sacraments are "sensible revelations of insensible grace," meaning that they are visible and audible signs of God's nonphysical grace of salvation in a believer. The Roman Catholic Church holds that every sacrament relates to a particular significant event in the life of each believer. The Sacrament of Baptism signifies the washing away of the stain of Original Sin, while the Sacrament of Penance signifies the removal of every successive sin confessed to a priest. The Sacrament of Holy Communion signifies the sacrifice of God's Son on the cross, and the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, or anointing the sick, signifies the washing away of sins in the very old or ill. The sacraments are meant to follow Catholics from their birth to their death; an entire lifetime of signs of God's grace.

      What is an indulgence?

      An indulgence is an often-misunderstood piece of Catholic doctrine introduced in the Early Middle Ages. The widest belief about indulgences is that they are bought by people who want their sins forgiven; therefore, an indulgence is the forgiveness of sins bought with money. This is not, however, what the Catholic Church teaches. To them, one's Original Sin is already washed away at baptism, and every mortal sin thereafter is confessed to a priest, who then gives the sinner penance to wash away these new sins. As long as Catholics are faithful in confessing their sins, the Catholic Church teaches, they are forgiven as a matter of course. No one has to purchase with money what they can get for free in a confessional. Indulgences, then, do not relate to actual sins but to time spent in Purgatory. According to the Catholic Church, if a person dies or is killed before they can complete their next confession of sins, their soul – burdened with unforgiven sins – goes to Purgatory to do penance for those unconfessed sins and wait. Indulgences are granted to shorten the length of a soul's stay in Purgatory, thus quickening their trip to heaven. While indulgences could indeed be bought for money, most indulgences were granted for free to those that the Church deemed worthy. Indulgences could also be acquired for someone already dead, whose friends or family worried that their soul might be in Purgatory, as a kind of last favor to those loved ones who are deceased.

Christian Life From Pliny to Constantine

      What was Christian life like between the famous letter of Pliny until the reign of Constantine?

      Christian life between Pliny's letter and the reign of Constantine was a constant stream of persecution, but the level of persecution through the ages fluctuated from the barely noticeable to the highly dangerous. Pliny's letter to the Emperor Trajan inquired about the empire's legal stance on Christians, how they were to be found, and what kind of punishment they should receive. Trajan's response told Pliny that Christians ought not to be sought out, but if their practices happened to be observed, then Christianity was punishable by death – meaning that the empire had adopted a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding Christianity.

     Later emperors, however, were not so relaxed in their persecutions. There were several emperors, such as the military-appointed Diocletian and the famously mad Nero, who actively sought out Christians and had them tortured and killed for their faith. Diocletian's persecution, which lasted from 303AD to 305AD, became known as the Great Persecution. But even in times of relative peace Christians had to live in a state of constant vigilance, because even when Christians were not actively being sought out for their faith, Christianity was still officially a crime. Christian persecution finally came to an end with the reign of the Emperor Constantine, who believed that he had been told in a dream to carry a cross, the symbol of Christianity, into battle. His victory on the battlefield convinced him that Christianity was the true religion, and his subsequent baptism put an end to the persecutions of Christians throughout the empire.

Christian Teachings vs. Religions of the Past

      How would you compare the teachings of Christianity to the values cherished by earlier civilizations (particularly the Greeks, and the values expressed in Homer's works)? Conversely, can you see anything in common between Christianity and some of the great ancient thinkers we have discussed?

      Christianity is interesting in its teachings because it was one of the very first religions that taught of a single, all-powerful God (as stated clearly in John 1:1-5), whereas most religions before it had been founded on ideas of many gods, each of whom had power over only a handful of aspects of life. The Greek pantheon is an excellent example of this, containing such familiar gods of myth as Apollo (god of the sun), Athena (goddess of wisdom, war, and homemaking), and Zeus (king of the gods). This is the most obvious difference between the teachings of Christianity and the religions of earlier civilizations: the belief in one all-powerful God rather than many lesser gods.

      Another significant difference is the attitudes of the deities themselves. The Greeks believed in gods that were rather childish in their behavior; they were selfish, easily angered, and prone to scheming against each other and the humans they were meant to rule over. Christianity teaches that God is wise, all-knowing, just and fair, and does not give in to the temper-tantrum-like outbreaks that characterized the Greek pantheon.

      There are similarities between Christianity and older religions and beliefs, because Christian teachings embody all that humans value as good and virtuous thinking and behavior. Honesty, love, kindness and charity, as well as many other positive values, are encouraged by both Christianity and several older religions. But while most older religions required strict obedience to a ritualistic set of laws in order to be "right" with one's gods, Christianity teaches that one only has to be saved and made clean by the grace of God – no sacrifices, rituals, or ceremonial laws to keep.

      While similarities between Christianity and older belief systems do exist, I feel that the differences are greater, because there has never been a religion like Christianity since its founding with the birth of Jesus Christ, and there was never one before (save the religion of the Jews, which shared the same teachings and values of Christianity but with more ceremonies and rituals – all of which were made obsolete after the birth of Jesus Christ fulfilled the coming of the Messiah for the Jews).

Seneca's Letters to Lucilius and the Ara Pacis Augustae

      According to Seneca, what is man's unique good? How should a good man conduct himself?
      Seneca wrote in his Letters to Lucilius that he believes man's unique good to be reason, the power to think and to judge. None of the animals or other creatures of earth possess this capability, and for Seneca, that makes it man's defining characteristic and thus his unique good. Seneca writes that a good man must always behave according to reason; a good man must act with honor at all times and must be willing to do things that might be displeasing to him for honor's sake. Seneca believes that reason leads to virtue; thus, a good man is one whose defining characteristic of reason has led him to conduct his life with virtue.



      Read further about one of the Roman works of art you studied, and in about 125 words discuss the additional details you find out.
      The Ara Pacis Augustae (which translates to "Altar of the Augustan Peace), commonly known as the Ara Pacis, is a work of Roman art that was commissioned by the Senate in 13 BC to honor Augustus's military victories, which had brought peace to the Roman public. It was dedicated to the Roman goddess of Peace and the altar served as the location of many sacrifices to Peace. It served as a kind of monument to Roman civil religion, which involved paying homage Rome and her leaders rather than the mythic Greek gods that Rome had also adopted. The walls of the Ara Pacis are decorated with highly detailed relief work, depicting various scenes of Roman peace and prosperity which the altar was meant to commemorate.

The Augustan Settlement and Virgil's Aeneid

      What was the Augustan Settlement?

      The Augustan Settlement was Augustus's way of presenting the idea to the public that under his rule, the Roman Republic was being restored and that there was no single absolute ruler, even though that's precisely what Augustus himself wanted to be. Under the Augustan Settlement, Augustus received ultimate control over a certain number of territories, which were known as "imperial provinces" and whose regional governors were chosen by Augustus himself. In order to maintain the balance, Augustus also had several "senatorial provinces," whose governors were appointed by lot every year. Augustus reserved the right to appoint military tribunes and tax collectors, declare war, and make treaties, in exchange for which he restored power to traditional magistracies and reinstated consular elections. Rome remained primarily under Augustus's power, but he managed it in such a way that, for the Roman public, it seemed as if the Republic of old had indeed made a comeback.

      What is the basic story of The Aeneid? Why do you think this great literary work has also been called an exercise in political propaganda?

      The Aeneid is an epic tale written by Virgil about a man named Aeneas, a citizen of Troy. The Aeneid focuses on Aeneas's life after the destruction of Troy by the Greeks in The Iliad. Aeneas then goes on to found the city of Rome, which eventually becomes a great empire that subjugates the Greeks. Although Virgil during his lifetime did not think that The Aeneid was worthy of being read (and in fact wished it destroyed after his death), Emperor Augustus ordered the work published because he felt that it was a useful piece of political propaganda. The Aeneid casts Rome in a positive light, especially its main character Aeneas, who is a figure very similar to Augustus himself. The Aeneid was meant to make its audience sympathetic to Rome and particularly to Rome's emperor.

The Struggle of the Orders and Tiberius Gracchus

     What specific changes occurred in Roman society as a result of the Struggle of the Orders?
      The Struggle of the Orders was a significant time in Roman history, when society was divided into two major classes: the Plebeians and the Patricians. Patricians were powerful and wealthy and controlled Rome's political scene, while Plebeians were the "servant" class, and the freedoms they were afforded were few and insignificant. There was no shifting between the classes: in order to be a Patrician, you had to be born a Patrician. No matter how hard the Plebeians tried to lobby for their freedoms and rights, the Patricians were only ever concerned with their own affairs over their servants'. The only things that the Plebeians truly owned with which they could effectively rebel were their own bodies – because the lower class greatly outnumbered the upper, the Plebeians decided to peaceably leave Rome altogether, depriving the entire upper class of their servants and subjects.

     Having proven that they did indeed have some sway over the Patricians, who immediately begged for them to return, the Plebeians went back to Rome with a new resolve to change the way they were being treated. Because of this peaceful struggle, some things in Roman society were changed for the Plebeians: Intermarriage between the classes was allowed for the first time, allowing one to enter a class he had not been born into, the practice of enslaving those who owed you debts was abolished, and by the year 342 BC a Plebeian was actually made a Roman consul.

     Why did Tiberius Gracchus attract so much suspicion from the Roman Senate?

      Tiberius Gracchus was a Roman tribune who was fond of doing things the wrong way, meaning that he would do things the way he deemed would be most efficient instead of sticking to traditional means. The first notable instance of this occurred when the soldiers of the Roman military were returning from the Punic Wars, only to find their land ravaged by the struggles of the war. Desperate not to starve, many of these soldiers sold off their land, expecting to find jobs in the cities – not realizing that most of the jobs they would have done were already being done by slaves. Faced with this new joblessness, the veterans tried to re-enlist in the army, only to be told that they could not enlist since they had no land. Rome was left with a lot of poor, hungry, jobless veterans who had nowhere to go and nothing to do. Tiberius Gracchus sought to change this by taking land from wealthy individuals whom he deemed did not need it, and distributing it among the veterans. Not only would the soldiers now have land to work, but their possession of land would make them eligible to join the military again, thus swelling Rome's army with thousands of men who were grateful and indebted to Tiberius Gracchus.

      But instead of going to the Senate with this proposal, as was the traditional route, Tiberius Gracchus went directly to the Concilium Plebis, a move which angered the Senate so much that even when the Concilium Plebis voted to pass the proposal, the Senate refused to fund it. Cut short of funds, it looked as if the plan would have to be dropped – except soon afterward, the kingdom of Pergamum was passed into the control of Rome when its king died. Tiberius Gracchus now decided to tax Pergamum directly in order to fund his project, which made the senate even angrier because he – as a tribune – had no legal power to levy taxes. Tiberius Gracchus's fellow tribune, Marcus Octavius, on a prompt from the Senate, finally decided to veto the project – which only made Tiberius Gracchus see him as an obstacle to be removed. Soon afterward Marcus Octavius was deposed as tribune by Tiberius Gracchus's deciding vote, leaving the path clear for Tiberius's Gracchus's plans.

      The final blow came when Tiberius Gracchus ran for a second term as tribune in order to see his plan carried out, a move which was forbidden by Roman law. The Senate was now fed up with him and the trouble he was causing them. At last, at a political meeting with the tribune, the Senate witnessed Tiberius Gracchus make a gesture which they interpreted as calling for a crown – when in reality he had merely been communicating to his friends that he thought he was in danger by gesturing to his head, but the irate Senate did not see it that way. They broke the legs off chairs and beat Tiberius Gracchus to death with them.

Ancient Liberty and Alexander's Horse

      What is the difference between the liberty of the ancients and the liberty of the moderns? What would moderns find lacking in ancient liberty?

      The ancient view of liberty, that is, the idea of liberty that was prevalent in Greek city-states (most notable Athens) paints a very different picture of liberty than the one that we as modern individuals hold today. In fact, one could say that the ancient Greeks had an idea that is fundamentally opposed to our own ideas on what it means to be free.

      For the ancient Greeks of Athens, freedom and liberty were synonymous with government and community, as in "The freedom of the city to make decisions about its running for itself, and the freedom of the citizens to participate in the city's decisions." Every male citizen of Athens was allowed to play a direct part in the government, allowing every citizen to help rule the community. This was the Greeks' idea of freedom – city-state autonomy, run by the people.

      Our idea of freedom, however, is much different. We believe that every individual has inalienable rights, rights that cannot be taken away by any man or government, and our freedom allows us to do essentially as we please without infringing upon others' rights and freedoms. Our liberty is focused on the individual, while the Greeks' liberty was focused on the community – to the point where a citizen could even be banished from the city, guiltless of any crime, as long as enough citizens with their idea of community freedom decided he was too much of a problem to keep around and voted him out: "The good of the one for the good of the many."

      Plutarch tells about an important episode in Alexander's life. What characteristics is it intended to show?

      Plutarch tells a story about a young Alexander, son of Philip of Macedonia, watching a horse be trained by his father's men, who are unsuccessful even after many attempts to break it. Finally, when Philip's men had given up on the horse and the king had decided to sell it, Alexander stepped up to ask his father if he could try breaking it. Naturally Philip was displeased with Alexander's request, thinking that his son was being arrogant by not heeding the example of his elders, who had all failed to break the horse. Alexander insisted, however, and was given the chance to try training the horse.

      To everyone's astonishment, Alexander succeeded. Philip was amazed and, Plutarch says, told his son to "Seek another kingdom, my son, that may be worthy of thy abilities; for Macedonia is too small for thee."

      Plutarch uses this story to illustrate Alexander's independence and bravery in standing up to his father, which are both important parts of his character that eventually help shape his conquest of the known world.

Greek Art and Religion

 

Choose a piece of Greek art and describe what it is and when it is dated,  along with what period it is from and what the characteristics are of that period, and how this piece represents those characteristics.

      The piece I have chosen to research is from the second half of the 8^th century BC, also known as the Late Geometric Period. It is a grave marker in the form of a large vase, which were common for that era. Depicted on the vase is a funerary procession, perhaps of the deceased person whose grave this vase would mark; it's possible to identify figures representing the deceased's wife and child, who along with other relatives have come to mourn and pay their respects. This piece is identifiable as being from the Geometric Period, noted for its shapes and designs (which are geometrical, as the period's name implies), because of the way the figures on the vase are rendered: people are shown in clear-cut profile (the deceased is painted on his side to provide clarity), and every detail is painted with an eye for geometric pattern and design that are characteristic for the Geometric Period.

 ___

How does ancient Greek religion resemble or differ from the religion of the Hebrews?

 

      Greek religion is very different from Hebrew religion, the most notable difference of course being the pantheon of Greek gods and goddesses, whereas in Hebrew religion there is only one God. The Greek religion in its time was much more characteristic of other religions across the world; the Hebrew religion, on the other hand, was the only religion like it at the time. Other difference between the beliefs of the Greeks and the Hebrews involved how their gods acted and were to be treated. Greeks believed that their gods were petty and childish, like superpowered human beings as opposed to omnipotent, omnipresent beings. Therefore Greeks believed that (and told myths to the effect that) Greek gods could be thwarted if one was clever or strong enough, and Greek mythology is littered with stories about humans thwarting their small-minded gods. Hebrew religion, of course, was very different. Hebrews believed that their God was omnipotent and omnipresent, and that thwarting Him was impossible – but the Hebrew God was not petty or childish. He did not spend His time on pointless wars with other gods or with humans, as the Greek gods were wont to do, because He was and is perfect.

The Persian Wars and the Peloponnesian War

     Describe the circumstances leading to the Persian Wars.  Were they significant events in Western history?

      The seeds were planted for the Persian Wars when Athens had sent ambassadors to the Persian rulers, hoping to make the rising power of Persia a non-threat to the city-state of Athens. Persian officials were open to this kind of relationship with Athens as long as Athens provided them with "token of water and earth" – which the Athenian ambassadors agreed to, not knowing the significance of what they had just done. For the Persians, tokens of water and earth meant that Athens was declaring Persia superior to Athens, essentially giving up Athenian freedom under the control of the Persians. By the time the Athenian ambassadors realized what they had done, it was too late. Persia continued to grow as a world power, and eventually all of the Greek city-states felt threatened enough to want to fight back. They asked Athens for help, and Athens agreed – which led to a furious reaction from the Persians, who believed that Athens was breaking her vows to Persia made with the tokens of water and earth. Athens, however, couldn't care less, and together with the other Greek city-states the Persian Wars were fought. Greece won against all odds, defeating the vastly greater Persian empire thanks to the courage and determination of her city-states. Had they not won, Greece and Greek culture could have been wiped out entirely and changed the whole course of history that followed.

      Why was the Peloponnesian War fought?

      The Peloponnesian War was a civil war in Greece that took place after their victory over the Persians. It was a war which resulted from Athens' growing power following the Persian defeat, a power which made many of the other city-states uneasy. Athens had organized the Greek city-states into an alliance called the Peloponnesian League for the purpose of defending Greece against powerful enemies, such as the Persians. In the League's early days, the other city-states were content with this arrangement, and they were also content to send tributes to Athens in order for Athens to build up a powerful navy to defend against conquering forces. But it wasn't long before the city-states began to realize that most of the money was not being used to build ships but was instead being used to beautify Athens herself, a fact which made one city-state eventually decide to leave the Peloponnesian League – and then Athens retaliated. Once the city-states realized that Athens was no longer in the business of protecting Greece from outsiders, they saw no reason to obey her any more, and the war with Athens began – the Peloponnesian War.

Aristotelian Liberals and Spartan Society

      How have libertarians, or "Aristotelian liberals," argued for liberty on the basis of Aristotle's ideas?

      Although we have no record of Aristotle ever saying or writing anything that directly relates to the libertarian (or "Aristotelian liberal") worldview, and despite the fact that for a long time historians assumed that Aristotle did not believe in libertarian values, arguments have been brought up and considered that Aristotle was, in fact, libertarian-minded. Aristotle's worldview was founded on the belief that happiness is achieved through virtue, and that virtue must be taught in the early years of life but will eventually become a habit that we fall into when faced with any life situation at all. Aristotelian liberals have begun to spread the idea that this worldview illustrates how libertarian Aristotle's thinking actually was, based on the argument that while a man practicing virtue still benefits society, if he is practicing virtue only because he is being threatened with a gun to his head, it is not true virtue because he did not choose to do this himself. Aristotle assumed that all men would practice virtue because it was primarily good for themselves (not to mention to the rest of society), and so a man coerced into virtuous behavior isn't virtuous at all. It has to be his own decision to be virtuous; himself, and no "higher power" in the form of a government or watchdog. Because of this argument, Aristotelian liberals make a very good case that Aristotle did have libertarian ideas.

      What was Spartan society like?
      Spartan society was cruel and hard on its citizens, a warrior society based off the need to have a strong military force to control the vast populations of slaves (called "helots") that the Spartans possessed for labor. Every citizen, make or female, was required to participate and serve the state of Sparta for as long as they lived. Men were trained by separating boys from their families at age seven and taking them away to training camps, where they spent the next thirteen years of their lives being trained and serving in the military. Camp life was hard for these boys. Allowed hardly any clothes and only a single cloak to keep them warm, they suffered trying to stave off the cold and their bitter hunger, for they were only allowed a small amount of food to eat. Stealing was expected of these boys; they were not punished unless they got caught, and if they were caught then punishment was severe. At age 30 men were allowed to return home and marry, and although they could live with their families, all Spartan soldiers were required to eat their meals in a common mess hall in order to reinforce the idea that their fellow soldiers were their real family.
      Girls were also trained in fighting and fitness, being allowed to stay at home with their mothers but also taking part in sports and physical instruction. Childbirth was considered every woman's battle, and a woman who died in childbirth was honored on the same level as a man who died fighting for Sparta. Spartan government was divided into four parts: two kings, a council of elders, a group of five officials known as ephors, and an assembly composed of every Spartan man over the age of 30.
      Although Spartan society was hard on its citizens, it was effective at producing one of the best trained, most dedicated society of soldiers that the world has ever seen.

Socrates and Plato

      What was the disagreement Socrates had with the Sophists?

      Around the time when Socrates was a philosopher in Ancient Greece, there was a school of philosophical thought which called itself the Sophists. Socrates had made it his life's mission to discount the Sophists and their arguments, primarily because he believed the worldview that they taught was twisted and corruptive. The Sophists were a type of school specializing in rhetoric and the art of persuasive argument, which was a highly prized skill in the mob-democracy government of Athens at the time. The Sophists did not, however, teach persuasive argument for the right or truth; instead, they taught how to argue any case from any point and make it sound reasonable, no matter how wrong or untruthful it may be.

      The Sophists were some of the world's first most famous cynics, teaching that there was no such thing as an ultimate "Good", and that all laws and rules of society were mere convention: for example, laws against murder and theft being in place only because a society will run better in an atmosphere without murder or theft. This was the basis upon which Socrates disagreed with the Sophists. He (along with most of Athens) believed the Sophists were corrupting Athenian youth and diluting basic morals, and so Socrates made it part of his life's work to discredit this party.

      What was Plato's point in his allegory of the cave?

      In Plato's Republic, in which he stages a dialogue held between characters in order to get his own views across, he explains his idea of the Forms. Essentially, Plato believed that for every object that exists, a perfect "essence" of that object must also exist on an immaterial plane, and that is how we recognize every object by its nature – for instance, we recognize every chair as a chair, no matter what kind or style of chair it is, because there exists a perfect Form of a chair, encompassing all that it is which makes a chair a chair.

      Plato's allegory of the cave was meant to illustrate his idea of Forms. In the cave, he says, is seated a row of people, who are all chained facing the cave wall, their heads bound in place so they can only look at the wall. Behind them there is a great fire and objects moving in front of the fire, casting shadows upon the wall. Because the people can only see the wall and the shadows that are cast upon it, they begin to name the shadows they see. "That is a book," they say, looking at the shadow of a book as it crosses the wall. Because the person has never seen a real book, they do not know that it is only a shadow of a book that they are seeing, and that the real book is actually in front of the fire that burns behind the chained people.

      This is Plato's idea of Forms. The objects moving in front of the fire, he says, are the Forms – perfect essences of things that exist in the world, but we cannot see them no matter how hard we try because our heads are chained by the ability of our eyes to only see material things. The shadows dancing across the wall that the chained people must face represent the physical things in our world – but in Plato's work, these are only shadows of the perfect Forms.

Homer's Odyssey: Odysseus and the Cyclops

      Read Homer's description of the Cyclopes (plural) in Book 9 of The Odyssey. Would you describe them as having a civilization? Why or why not?

      The Cyclopes described in Book 9 of The Odyssey were a monstrous people that lived together on an island where Odysseus and his men landed. Although the Cyclopes lived together on one island, they cannot really be described as having a proper civilization. They were shepherds, and each Cyclops kept largely to himself, not bothering with his neighbors. There was no central government – no government at all, except for the self-governing practiced by each Cyclops. The Cyclopes, though they lived together and practiced the same occupation, had no real civilization, according to The Odyssey.

___

      What happens between the Cyclops and Odysseus and his men? How does the story end?

      When Odysseus and his men are first trapped by Polyphemus, the Cyclops, Odysseus tries being reasonable – bargaining to let the men go. Polyphemus refuses, and just to punctuate his refusal, he kills and eats two of Odysseus's men. Then Odysseus begins to scheme. Knowing that Polyphemus will never let them go willingly, he has some of his men fetch a great quantity of wine from their ships for Polyphemus to drink. While Polyphemus is getting drunk on Odysseus's wine, the Greek hero has meanwhile been sharpening a great stake, which he heats to a red-hot point in Polyphemus's cookfire. While this is happening, a drunken Polyphemus asks for Odysseus's name, saying he will give him a gift if he answers. Odysseus replies by telling the Cyclops his name is "Noman", or "Nobody", and Polyphemus tells "Nobody" that his gift is that he will be eaten last of all. Then the Cyclops falls into a drunken sleep.

      While Polyphemus is asleep, Odysseus drives the fire-hardened stake into the Cyclops' one eye, blinding him instantly and driving him awake with pain. Polyphemus's neighbors hear his shrieks and call out to find out what is the matter, but when Polyphemus shouts that "Nobody" is hurting him, his fellow Cyclopes decide that it must be divine punishment and advise Polyphemus to pray. Meanwhile, Odysseus has been working on his escape plan. He ties his men into the thick wool on the undersides of Polyphemus's sheep, and ties himself underneath the ram of the flock, so that when the Cyclops lets the beasts out to graze then the men will be free. As Odysseus planned, Polyphemus lets his sheep out to graze, and the men with them. But the Cyclops suspects that all might not be well. Unable to see, he feels the backs of each of his sheep as they leave the cave in case there are men riding atop them. But Odysseus's cleverness pays off as Polyphemus doesn't think to check the beasts' undersides, and the men go free.

Hector of Troy and the History of Minoan Crete

      In book 6 of The Iliad, what do we learn about Hector? What kind of man is he? Why does he fight?

     In book six of The Iliad, Hector is the prince of Troy, the hero of the Trojans much as Achilles is the hero of the Greeks. He is a warrior, a husband, and a father. Before he enters the war in book six, his wife begs him not to go – but Hector tells her that he, as a warrior, cannot shy away from battle. He tells her that his greatest pain would be if Troy lost the war and his wife and child were taken captive by the Greeks. He tells her that he would rather die fighting than see that fate come to pass. From this, we can tell that Hector is a man of honor and immense bravery, who will lay down his own life in an instant for those whom he loves. He fights not just for Troy, but for his family.

___

      Write a summary of the history of Minoan Crete.

     Minoan Crete has a rich and fascinating history, one that was not even discovered until about a hundred years ago. There have been inhabitants on the island of Crete since as early as 7000 BC, but it was not until the Bronze Age began in 2700 BC that Minoan civilization truly began to develop, with tradesmen and artisans taking on a greater social and economic role than in centuries past. After the pre-Bronze Age Prepalatial period, when farming and agriculture were the Minoans' primary support, came the Protopalatial period when Crete's first palaces were built. These great structures may have been for people such as kings or other ruling classes to live in; however, it is more likely that they served as massive complexes where the center of all life on Crete took place, with rooms for trade and storage inside them as well as rooms for living in. The Protopalatial period of Minoan history came to and end around 1700 BC, when the great palaces were destroyed – either by an invading force, perhaps from nearby Anatolia, or a natural disaster such as an earthquake or a volcano.

      Next came the Neopalatial period shortly after this destruction took place. The Minoan people began to rebuild almost instantly, creating even larger and more intricate palaces than before, with a different building structure that would hold up better against earthquakes – which suggests that perhaps it was an earthquake that had destroyed their palaces before. It was during this period that Minoan civilization reached its height. Artifacts showing examples of Minoan artwork from all over the world suggest that the Minoans were extensive traders, and had a trade network stretching over much of the known world at the time. Yet in 1450 BC another disaster struck, this time one that crippled Minoan civilization more than the previous one had. The Minoans carried on during the Postpalatial period until about 1420 BC, when Crete was invaded by Mycenaean Greeks and their palaces occupied. The Mycenaeans, though controlling Minoan government and economy, largely left their culture and art alone, and so Minoan civilization lasted until about 1200 BC, when suddenly it crumbled – probably because of a natural catastrophe, the cause of which is still debated among historians today.

Important Events In Hebrew History From Abraham to Moses

     From Abraham to Moses, there were many important events which all affected Hebrew history in some way. Hebrew history is in fact typically thought to have begun at the time when God commanded Abraham, the head of a very large household in the Mesopotamian city of Ur, to take his family and his property and move to the land which God would show him. Abraham and his wife had never had any children, despite their being almost a hundred years old, yet God promised to them that they would be the beginning of a great and numerous people – a promise which was fulfilled in the birth of their son, Isaac. Abraham trusted God implicitly, and when God commanded him to sacrifice Isaac as a show of his faith, Abraham began to do so without question. At the last minute God stayed Abraham's hand from killing his son and provided a perfect ram as sacrifice instead.

      Isaac was married to Rebekah, a woman whom Abraham had chosen for him as a suitable wife because she came from Abraham's relatives, people who also worshiped the true God. Together Isaac and Rebekah had two sons, Esau and Jacob. Although Esau was the elder son, Jacob tricked his brother into selling Jacob his birthright in exchange for a meal. Esau didn't think much of this "bargain," but Jacob took it very seriously and when Isaac their father lay dying he, with the help of his mother Rebekah, tricked Isaac into giving Jacob the blessing of the oldest son. Fearing Esau's wrath, Jacob fled to Rebekah's brother Laban, for whom he worked for seven years without wage in exchange for the hand of Laban's daughter, Rachel. When the seven years were up, Jacob married whom he thought was Rachel, his beloved – but when the ceremony was completed and the veil was lifted, Jacob realized that he had been tricked into marrying Rachel's older sister Leah instead! Jacob was furious, but agreed to work another seven years without pay, again for Rachel's hand. Finally at the end of fourteen years' unpaid labor, Jacob married the woman he loved, and he took his family and left Laban. On the road with his household and property, Jacob met his brother Esau – and, after so many years, they finally made peace. Jacob also wrestled with an angel of the Lord, who rechristened him Israel, and called him the father of a great nation.

      Jacob had ten sons with Leah and two sons with Rachel. Because Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah, her two sons were Jacob's favorite out of all his twelve sons. Jacob and Rachel's son Joseph was the one whom Jacob loved best, and this was obvious to all of Joseph's brothers, who became very angry and jealous of their father's preference. Finally in retaliation they sold their brother Joseph into slavery and told Jacob that he had been devoured by wild beasts. Joseph, meanwhile, had become a servant of a high-ranking general of Egypt named Potiphar, who eventually came to trust Joseph enough to make him manager over all of Potiphar's property. After a while, however, Joseph was accused of a crime he did not commit, and he was thrown into prison. In prison with the cup-bearer and the baker of the Pharaoh of Egypt, Joseph's God-given talent for dream-interpretation – a skill which was highly prized in the ancient world – brought him to the attention of Pharaoh himself, whose dream Joseph interpreted and predicted a long famine coming for all of Egypt. Pharaoh then made Joseph the ruler of all Egypt, second only to Pharaoh himself, in order to prepare for the famine which Joseph had predicted from Pharaoh's dream. When the famine hit, Egypt became the most well-stocked nation in the ancient world, leading peoples from all over to come to Egypt to buy food. Among those who came were Joseph's own brothers, who did not recognize this high-ranked, powerful Egyptian as the brother they had sold into slavery all those years ago. Joseph revealed himself to his brothers and forgave them for what they had done, and then invited them and their families to come to Egypt to live.

      After many generations, the Hebrew people had become very numerous in the land of Egypt. Joseph and the Pharaoh he had served were both long dead, and the new Pharaoh did not like the Hebrews and was afraid of the threat their numbers posed. Because of this, he put the Hebrews into slavery, and later ordered all Hebrew male children under a year old to be killed, allowing only the females to live. Amidst this infanticide one child was born to Hebrew parents, who hid him from Pharaoh's men for as long as they could, until at last the boy's mother put him into a basket and set him afloat in the Nile, where he was eventually found and adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter, who called him Moses. Moses grew up as a privileged young Egyptian, while his people the Hebrews were still being oppressed under Pharaoh's regime. One day Moses happened upon an Egyptian overseer who was beating a Hebrew worker. Moses was so furious that he killed the Egyptian, and was forced to flee Egypt, having finally accepted his heritage as a Hebrew man. Moses was later commanded by God that he was to lead the Hebrews out of slavery and show them to the Promised Land – the land of Canaan, where Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph had once lived. Pharaoh refused to set the Hebrews free when Moses asked, and in fact even increased their workload, which did not make Moses very popular among the Hebrews. But God sent a number of plagues upon Egypt every time Pharaoh refused to let the Hebrews go, until – after a plague that killed every firstborn son of Egyptian households – Pharaoh agreed. The Hebrews were on their way out of Egypt when Pharaoh changed his mind and sent an army to fetch the Hebrews back, cornering them between the army and the Red Sea. But God used Moses to perform a miracle: parting the waters of the Red Sea down the middle, providing a path of dry land for the Hebrews to walk on. The Hebrews made it safely across to the other side, with Pharaoh's army following, when the Red Sea crashed back into place and drowned the entire army.

      Moses led the people with God's help all the way to the Promised Land, a journey which – thanks to disbelieving, disobedient and dissatisfied Hebrews – lasted forty years, during which time God gave the people the Ten Commandments and a system of laws to live by. Moses was not to enter the Promised Land because of his earlier disobedience to God, but he led the people all the way there, and was personally buried by God when he died. Then the Hebrew people at long last entered the land of their forefathers.