Between Two Worlds: Charles Eastman

The life of Charles Eastman is, in many respects, no different than that of any other great American. Men like Andrew Carnegie and Benjamin Franklin, like Eastman, brought themselves up from modest means through education and hard work. Eastman’s story in particular is similar to that of Olaudah Equiano or Frederick Douglass in that despite their status as minorities (and even as sub-human) they were able to achieve greatness.  Charles Eastman was born a Sioux Indian living in Canada in opposition to the white government of the United States. By the end of his life, Eastman was a well respected man among both Indians and whites while always teetering between two very different worlds and belonging barely to either.

At many points in his narrative Charles Eastman references times when he turned his back to his Indian ways and turned toward the ways of the white man. He credits his father for allowing that change to happen when he suddenly reemerged after a number of years to take his son back to his homestead across the American-Canadian border.  Eastman’s father was much changed from the man he remembered in his youth.  In particular Eastman references his father’s acceptance of Christianity as the largest change in his father.  Eastman said of his father’s religion, “It was his Christian faith and devotion which was perhaps the strongest influence toward my change of heart and complete change of my purpose in life.”[1] But throughout his life Eastman would see both the good and the bad of the white man’s religion.  Eastman’s father had incredible influence over his son, and one may say that as a proper Indian Eastman had no choice but to follow the will of his father. In many ways it was a result of his father that Eastman would continuously straddle the fence between Indian and white man without ever clearly stepping fully into either world. Through is father’s insistence and his grandmother’s disapproval Eastman attends his first school near his father’s homestead in Minnesota.  As Eastman described his first day in school one cannot help but think that his first day might seem similar to anyone’s first day of school. His resistance to the ways of the white man is quickly changed and upon returning to school he has cut his hair and devoted himself to following the path his father has laid out for him.  However, in his first day of school Eastman recounts the story years later and seems distant to the events.  By the time he wrote his story he was no longer the Indian boy who walked into the small prairie school house and the events seem like a distant event that he was only a spectator to. In particular Eastman wrote, “He rose silently…did not dare to do or say anything….”[2] his retelling is entirely in the third person as though a piece of fiction rather than a historical event.  The first time in which Eastman tells his reader that his heart was moved toward “civilization” was with his father and in those first days of school. But the first acceptance of this new life came not from the heart, but “were logical enough on the whole, although almost entirely from the outside….”[3]

The second instance in which Eastman tells of his decision to abandon his early ways for the ways of the white man come when he his travelling to his first boarding school. The Santee Agency in Nebraska was where Eastman first began to live up to his potential intellectually. While on the way to Santee he and a travel companion stopped to hunt and trap for food. The companion decided that he will stay there and continue living as their ancestors had once before. Eastman decided to obey his father’s wishes, still to this point they decision was not wholly his own but rather what his father willed, and continue on for the Santee Agency.  He was sixteen at the time and left to travel from his father’s home to Nebraska on his own. It is in the recounting of a story of his first experience in dealing with white men that Eastman tells of a second conversion to accept the ways of the white man. Tired and hungry from the road the young Eastman approached a farm house and begged to be fed. The farmer and his family accepted his plea and offered him food and a place to stay. In return Eastman, unfamiliar with money, offered the farmer money his father had given him. The farmer rejected the offer and it is with this gesture that Eastman wrote, “Then and there I loved civilization and renounced my wild life.”[4] The school at the agency was a struggle for Eastman.  At one point while in class a professor pulled out a globe and showed the Indian boys the world and Eastman remarked years later, “I felt that my foot hold was deserting me. All my savage training and philosophy was in the air, if these things were true.”[5] While at Santee Eastman continued his transformation into the world of the white man, but still held on to the world of the Indian.

At the same time period while he was at Santee his Sioux brethren were waging a war against the United States Government.  He indicates that it was during his time at Santee that the Battle of Little Big Horn took place. [6] The struggle Eastman had in living as an Indian in the world of the white man was made harder by the actions of his tribesmen. As Eastman wrote, he saw his own blood as “hostile” but Custer and his men as “gallant”. Yet at the same time, while at Beloit College he “was followed on the streets by gangs of little white savages…”[7] His struggle for self identity was not something unfamiliar in a time of such great change in America.

And it was while at Beloit College, during summer vacation that Eastman enjoyed yet another conversion experience to the ways of the white man, and his religion. While working for a farmer he had his eyes, “opened intelligently to the greatness of Christian civilization…” but he was still not converted in his heart to the ways of the white man.  While still working for the farmer Eastman “renounced finally [his] bow and arrows for the spade and the pen….” This was yet another time that he was able to have a conversion to the ways of the white man. He recommitted himself to the trail his father had laid out for him years before in Minnesota. And it was also here that Eastman, “gained [his] first conception of the home life and domestic ideals of the white man” through interactions with American college girls. Years later he would once again make a step toward transforming into a white man by marrying a white woman. But as was a common theme in Eastman’s life, he did not stay at Beloit very long. Instead he moved on to Dartmouth College. Dartmouth was originally established for the education of Indians, a fact for which Eastman was proud.  It was at Dartmouth that the final conversion seems to have taken place, for he believed, “it was here that I had the most of my savage gentleness and native refinement knocked out of me.”[8] From this point forward Eastman had the knowledge of two worlds to judge both according to their merits. His experiences with the white man through his days of education were generally good, but while a doctor at the Pine Ridge Reservation and thereafter he began to see the bad nature of the white man.

While Eastman was the doctor at the Pine Ridge Reservation he had the opportunity to engage in a number of aspects of the management of the reservation. He was a well respected man among both the whites and Indians and that gave him great influence over both at various points. His view on the Ghost Dance can be summed up as “watch and wait”, which the white leaders of the Reservation did not agree with.  The massacre at Wounded Knee served as an example of the white man’s malice for Eastman, who had not seen it up close as he had avoided such circumstances in the past.  All the while at the reservation Eastman defended the white man to his Indian brethren. That is, until he was asked to witness the issuing of allowances to Indians on the reservation. When it became clear that government officials were short changing those Indians too naïve to know any better, Eastman was steadfast in his refusal to remain silent on the issue. He was ultimately forced out of his job as a doctor to the Indians on behalf of the United States government. While he returned to his father’s homeland in Minnesota he opened a shop and realized that the white man was all too willing to cut corners and skirt the law. An opportunity with the Y.M.C.A presented itself to Eastman who agreed to go to the Indians and establish Y.M.C.A chapters. He successfully was able to preach the Protestant Christian belief system to the Indians he encountered and established numerous chapters of the Y.M.C.A. From this he began speaking to groups of white men about the place of Native Americans in American History.

Charles Eastman’s legacy deserves to be given two places, one with the world of the white man as a great ambassador to his own people on the white man’s behalf. The other is with the Indian world as their great ambassador of the Indian to the white man. But ultimately this only goes to demonstrate that Charles Eastman was continuously caught between two worlds while never really in either. He routinely underwent conversions to the ways of the white man, only to be disillusioned by the actions of the white man years later. He rejected the ways of the Indian numerous times, only to be an ambassador for the importance of the Indian in American History.


[1] Eastman, Charles A. From the Deep Woods to Civilization. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1977. pg. 10


[2] Ibid. 23

[3] Ibid. 29

[4] Ibid. 39

[5] Ibid. 47

[6] “It must be remembered that this was September, 1876, less than three month’s after Custer’s gallant command was annihilated by the hostile Sioux.” Ibid 53.

[7]Ibid 53

[8] Ibid. 67

Evil men do not understand justice

What recourse does one have when a King, who rules by Divine Right, is deposed and usurped by another? The Heavens who have chosen the now usurped King cannot be thought to sit idly by while an illegitimate sovereign now reigns. Shakespeare’s second installment of his Second Tetralogy explores how the Heavens resolve the problem of the illegitimate sovereign. In particular the First Part of Henry IV explores how the Heavens attempted to solve the question of the illegitimate King. The first act of the play demonstrates that an uprising of supporters of the slain King Richard II is underway and both Prince Hal and his friend Falstaff discuss the relation of the Moon’s power to govern the affairs of men. It appears that the Law, which governs the Heavenly Bodies and men, is personified by Shakespeare in the First Part of Henry IV as a means of gaining satisfaction against King Henry IV for his usurpation of God’s chosen King, Richard II.

Some have seen Henry IV, Part One[1] as a play about the creation of a Prince and King in the character of Prince Hal; however, the play focuses on the career of a usurper.[2] Falstaff and Prince Hal discuss the new situation that they find themselves in. Falstaff says to Hal, “let men say we be men of good government, being governed, as the sea is by our noble and chaste mistress the moon, under whose countenance we steal.” (Act 1, scene 2, lines 28-31.) The moon has the power to make the ocean rise and fall at will and that same power governs men according to Falstaff. The moon is governed by God, and therefore the moon appears with water, the prominent literary image of redemption and a new beginning.  The moon will be used by God to cleanse the Kingdom of England by stirring the passions of the people into a outright rebellion.   The rebellion of the Welsh seems to be caused by stirrings of the moon in accordance with Falstaff’s belief of the moon’s power over mankind. The Prince responds to Falstaff by saying, “Thou sayest well, and it holds well too, for the fortune of us that are moon’s men doth ebb and flow like the sea, being governed, as the sea is, by the moon.” (Act 1, scene 2, lines 32-35) The question that Prince Hal now must face is how to protect stability in England despite the wrath of Heaven against his father. Yet, to demonstrate to the Heavens that he, Prince Hal, is deserving of the throne his father stole, Hal acknowledges, “And pay the debt I never promised” (Act 1 scene 2, 216) This prophetic statement by Hal indicates that his father will in fact be saved from Divine justice, instead the Prince and the English people will be forced to pay for the sins of Henry IV.

Having disposed the King, Richard II, Henry Bolingbroke is prepared to turn his attention to the restoration of time and the kingdom of England; he proposes a crusade to the Holy Land. However, as King Henry IV, Bolingbroke faces his first threat from the Welsh, who as supporters of the late King Richard II are prepared to revolt against the usurper King.[3] Because of threats to his throne the crusade must be put on hold.  The play of the First Part of Henry IV focuses around the hostilities the new king faces in the aftermath of his execution and disposition of the previous king. In particular, a theme of the play is posed by the King’s son Hal; he will be forced to pay for the actions of his father in taking the thrown. The play looks to the relationship of the Heavenly Bodies and political affairs; England’s political affairs throughout the play are chaotic. Something seems to be seeking retribution for the deposing of God’s chosen monarch. The Law appears in various forms throughout the play, each seeking retribution against the King. The threat of a Welsh uprising is also an indication that Shakespeare plans for Part 1 of Henry IV how the Heavens handle usurpers.  Henry’s rule has ushered in a period of lawlessness in England that will last until the last of the Lancaster Monarchs has reigned. As Falstaff states, “I am accursed to rob in that thief’s company.”(2, 2, 10) The only way to restore the rule of law and order in England is restore the monarchy to a King who represents lawfulness rather than lawlessness. Henry’s choice to overthrow his cousin Richard plays out in the play to show the consequences of his choice: England and his family will suffer Divine justice.

The final element of the story of Divine Justice against King Henry IV is the war against the Welsh.[4] Falstaff says, “Rebellion lay in his way….” (5.1.29.)  The rebellion, a result of the moon’s power over the passions of men, symbolizes the Divine Justice against King Henry and as Falstaff indicates the rebellion was predestined when Henry usurped Richard. Rebellion by the Welsh calls into question the English Constitution under Henry IV and even his successors; primarily the weakness and irresponsibility of the King. Prince Hal comes into his own during the war as his plan expressed in his soliloquy in the first act. He draws others to himself, much like a jeweler places a diamond against a black background. And by executing his plan, and taking part in the war, Hal has made himself the object Divine Justice will aim toward.[5] This is evident by the action of Part II of Henry IV as Henry IV is terminally ill rather than dying from an external condition. Prince Hal kills the rebel leader Hotspur at the end of the play; and if the rebellion is the heavens seeking Divine Justice upon Henry then Hotspur must be the chief sword for that Divine Justice. This action places Hal, and not Henry, in the sights of the heavens as they seek retribution for the death of their legitimate, Divine Right King Richard.  As the Kingdom is taking account of what has happened in the rebellion, the King observes, “Thus did rebellion find rebuke…”(5.5.1) The divinely ordained rebellion was rebuked by the son of the man who disobeyed the Lord’s command that Richard be King of England. The theme at the beginning of the play, the restoration of time and the Kingdom, alludes to the words of Henry after the rebellion has been put down. Time represents a temporal order, indicating that Henry has restored a temporal monarchy after a period of Divine monarchs.

Many Shakespearean critics claim that the story of the play Part I of Henry IV is the story of Prince Hal and his career on the path to becoming king of England. Yet, the story of the play focuses on the Divine Justice planned out by the heavens against the usurper King Henry IV. The Prince interferes with this plan of the heavens by intersecting himself in the rebellion and killing the leader of the rebel army. The movement of the play does involve the establishment of Hal as the true and proper heir of Henry IV but in the sense that Hal becomes the focus of Divine Justice throughout Part II of Henry IV and Henry V where Hal becomes King Henry V. The rebellion is the main object of the play whereby Prince Hal reveals himself as the proper heir to the lawless, usurper King Henry IV. Rather than being good, this event actually shows the inevitable downfall of one of Shakespeare’s most important characters.

[1] All quotes from the play taken from Folger Shakespeare Library: Henry IV, Part 1. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks: New York, 1994.

[2] David Berkeley and Donald Eidson, “The Themes of Henry IV, Part I” Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Winter, 1968), pp. 25-31 accessed from on 5/1/10. The authors argue in “The Themes of Henry IV, Part I” that one of the themes in Henry IV, part One is the education of a prince. However, they ignore that the play also demonstrates Divine justice on usurpers. More importantly they fail to notice that Prince Hal, while “learning” to become King models himself on his father who is a lawless usurper in the eyes of the heavens. Thus, the Prince’s education is complete when he kills the leader of the divinely ordained rebel army, Hotspur.

[3] Trafton, Dain A. “Shakespeare’s Henry IV, A New Prince in a New Principality” in Shakespeare as a Political Thinker edited by John E. Alvis & Thomas G. West, (ISI Books: Wilmington, DE. 2000) pg. 94-104. This article is similar in the argument that I make in that the story of Henry IV is about Henry IV despite other underlying storylines. In addition, Trafton argues that Henry IV Parts 1 & 2 demonstrate the consequences of Henry’s decision to overthrow the Divine Right King Richard II.

[4]Leggatt, “Henry IV, Part 1: A Modern Perspective” in Folger Shakespeare Library: Henry IV, Part 1. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks: New York, 1994. Similar to the argument made by Berkely and Eidson, Alexander Leggatt in his essay “Henry IV, Part 1: A modern perspective” argues that the movement of the play is towards the establishment of Hal as the true heir to Henry. However, his focus is on the battle of Shrewsbury where Hal proves himself the heir by killing Hotspur. This point I do not disagree with, as Hal’s killing of Hotspur shows him the proper object of Divine Justice.

[5] In Hal’s soliloquy at act 1 scene 2 he hatches a plan to make himself appear as the proper heir to Henry’s thrown. He says, “I’ll so offend to make offense a skill….”(1.2.223) Indicating that he will throw off attention on his father, making himself appear as “the sun.”

Shakespeare’s Account of Rome through Coriolanus

At the end of the Roman Republic it was necessary for Caesar Augustus to continue to support the Republican form of Rome while having the substance of an Empire. Yet, necessity of this devotion to the Republican form under the Empire  makes one wonder whether the Roman Republic was ever a Republic in substance or simply a Republic in form.  William Shakespeare’s Coriolanus ponders this same question through an examination of both the life of Coriolanus and his relationship to the Republic; and so by looking at the play, at least in this one instance, one may be able to understand the nature of the Roman Republic. Through the examination of the people of Rome as portrayed by Shakespeare, the relationship of the people to their rulers and the city, and the general comments made about the city and the constitution one may better understand whether  Rome was a Republic both in form and substance.

The beginning of Coriolanus shows a mass of people crowded around two primary speakers identified  as First and Second Citizen.[1] They have gathered to discuss the question of Caius Martius and whether  he should be put to death as an enemy of the  Roman people for his part in restricting access to grain. The crowd seems willing to go along with the plan for execution, yet they are further provoked by First Citizen. First Citizen presents the problem of democratic political power and whether the people are necessary for law, or if  they can simply use the law to hurt each other. In the Roman Republic the people were of high importance as they alone could held the power to elect consuls and sentence people to death. The very existence of Roman political power depended on a politically active populace. First Citizen is able to play upon the people’s devotion to the Republic, and also their distrust of Caius.

When Second Citizen asks, “Consider you what services he has/done for his country?”[2] First Citizen responds, “I say unto you, what he hath done/ famously he did it to that end. Though soft/conscienced men can be content to say it was for/his country, he did it to please his mother….”[3] Rome’s people expect the same devotion to the city and it’s constitution as they expect from themselves. First Citizen wins out and the masses head to the capitol where they are confronted by a patrician named Menenius Agrippa. First Citizen notices one approaching and calls out for who it is; Second citizen informs him that it is Menenius, “one that hath always loved the people.”[4] To which First Citizen responds, “He’s one honest enough. Would all the/rest were so!”[5] The sentiments expressed by First Citizen indicate that for some of the people of Rome the Patricians have less care for the city and it’s people than they should have. Menenius calls the mass his, “masters, my good friends, and mine honest/neighbors….”[6] As a Patrician Menenius is a class above the mass of people, yet as the people have the power in Rome they are his masters. To indicate a common bond and a sense of equality with the Plebian mass, he infers that they are his friends and neighbors. Menenius then goes on to explain the relationship of the Patricians to the Plebians:

I tell you, friends, most charitable care

Have the patricians of you. For your wants,

Your suffering in this dearth, you may as well

Strike at the heave with your staves as lift them

Against the Roman state, whose course will on

The way it takes, cracking ten thousand curbs

Of more strong link asunder than can ever

Appear in your impediment. For the dearth,

The gods, not the patricians, make it, and

Your knees to them, not arms must help. Alack,

You are transported by calamity

Thither where more attends you, and you slander

The helms o’the’state, who care for you like fathers,

When you curse them as enemies.[7]

Shakespeare argues from the Patrician point of view that Rome is a Republic in substance as well as form; however the Plebeians counter Menenius’s speech. Second Citizen says, “Care for us? True, indeed! They ne’er cared for us yet,”[8] And  complaints that the Plebeians urge against  Patricians and their supposed care for the people of the city.  The Plebeians see themselves as guardians against the encroachments of an ambitious Patrician such as they see in Caius Martius Coriolanus.

At the same time the Plebeians seek to not only gain access to corn and to execute Coriolanus for treason, but also to introduce a democratic element into the Roman Constitution through the creation of two Tribunes. This change would allow the form of the Republic to remain, but would change the substance of the Roman Constitution. Menenius attempts to dissuade the Plebs in his conversation with Second Citizen explaining that the Patricians have always protected the Plebs even in the time of the Kingship. He equates the Plebeians and Coriolanus to the belly of the ancient kingship. Menenius says, “There was a time when all the body’s members/ Rebelled against the belly….”[9] And he goes on to say, “Not me this, good friend;/ Your most grave belly was deliberate,/ Not rash like his accusers…”[10] The belly is Coriolanus, who according to Menenius was deliberate in his actions unlike the accusers who have not though their actions through.

Yet, the Patricians in turn see themselves as the guardians of Rome’s Constitution against Rome’s Plebeians.  Coriolanus sums up the fear of the Plebeians gaining power by calling them a “Hydra”[11]. The distrust in Coriolanus by the Plebs is no less than the distrust Coriolanus has in the Plebs. He says about allowing the Plebs any political power, “You are plebeians,/ If they be senators; and they are no less/ When, both your voices blended,/ the great’st taste/ Most palates theirs.”[12] Coriolanus fears the same fate for Rome as Greece should the people be granted equal authority over the city as the Patricians. Of Greece Coriolanus states, “Though there [Greece] the people had more absolute power,/I say they nourished disobedience, fed/ The ruin of the state.”[13] The quality that makes Rome’s Constitution superior to the Greek Constitution for Coriolanus is the position of the Patricians over the Plebs. The organized masses of the Athenian Democracy were far more dangerous than the unorganized, leaderless Plebs of Rome. In addition to fearing the masses of people, Coriolanus fears the creation of Plebeian Tribunes who Coriolanus believes could be more powerful than the Consuls. At the end of his speech Coriolanus states concerning the creation of Tribunes, “To know, when two authorities are up,/ Neither supreme, how soon confusion/ May enter ‘twixt the gap of both and take/The one by th’ other.”[14] Like many Patricians, Coriolanus is fearful of allowing a democratic element from being introduced to the Roman Republic.

In a similar manner, Menenius fears allowing the people a larger role in the Republic, instead arguing for a small deliberative body that handles the governing of the city. As the ruling class, the Patricians were a truly aristocratic class who sought out honors through both valor in war and deliberation in politics. By allowing the people a share in the rule of the city, then they can share in the honors of the aristocracy.  To protect their station and to protect the liberty of the city the Patrician aristocrats treated the people as lowly as they could get away with. Their devotion to the Roman Constitution as it is, while rooted in selfish reasons, exemplifies the lack of respect both Coriolanus and the Plebeians have for the Roman Republic.

Yet, ultimately, Coriolanus does not support the Roman Constitution as he chooses personal honor over defending the city. Coriolanus’s choice demonstrates that he in fact was not a Roman. Coriolanus receives this dedication to familial and personal honor from his mother Volumia. Unlike other Patricians, Coriolanus places less emphasis on the honor acquired by his ancestors and like Hector wants personal honor over what is best for his city. In this way, Coriolanus is an enemy of Rome in many ways that the Plebeians threatening revolution are enemies of Rome’s unique Constitution. Shakespeare departs from Plutarch’s account of Coriolanus and has Coriolanus die in Coriolus, the city where Coriolanus received his honorific name to demonstrate his choice for personal honor over what is best for the city.

Shakespeare presents Rome at this critical period in her history, within the same generation as Lucrecia sacrificed herself for Rome’s freedom, in order to show what it meant to be a Roman. Coriolanus is represented by Shakespeare as the greatest enemy of Rome because his concern is not with res publica, but instead with his familial and personal honor. Yet if devotion to Rome’s constitution is what makes one a Roman, then the Plebeians can also be charged with not being Roman. Shakespeare presents the Plebs at the beginning of the play on their way to execute Caius Martius Coriolanus because he has prevented them access to corn; however at the same time the Senate is contemplating the addition of Plebeian Tribunes. Through the introduction of the Tribunes to represent the democratic element of Rome, the Constitution of Rome would fundamentally be altered. The Plebeians appear less concerned with the Roman constitution than with the changing of the constitution under threat of rebellion. Both Coriolanus and the Plebeians seem more concerned with the form of Republicanism, than with the substance.

[1] Shakespeare, William. Coriolanus, edited by Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine (Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, New York, 2009.)  Act 1 scene 1.

[2] 1.1.29-30

[3] 1.1.35-40

[4] 1.1.51-52

[5] 1.1.53-54

[6] 1.1.63-65

[7] 1.1.67-80

[8] 1.1.81-82

[9] 1.1.98-99

[10] 1.1.134-136

[11] 3.1.125

[12] 3.1.133-136

[13] 3.1.150-152

[14] 3.1.141-144

Published in: on February 10, 2011 at 20:07  Comments (2)  

The Measure of Love: She’s Out of My League

We’re all familiar with the age old saying that you ought to marry within your means. There is something to be said about marrying someone who is within one’s means. Often times when people of completely different worlds come together they find that love isn’t enough to keep them together, but rather they are faced with numerous problems. But is physical appearance one of those things that should exclude the possibility of a relationship between two people, or is it something that can be over looked under the right circumstances? It’s not totally uncommon for one describe a member of the opposite sex as being a perfect 10, or a 0 or whatever other number we can devise. In the movie She’s out of My League, now out in wide release, we find yet another example of where it is assumed a relationship won’t work because of the differences in physical appearance. Yet, this movie demonstrates the very principles that show looks are not the only thing that matters when it comes to a relationship.

As is mentioned in the Communization of Thought it is sometimes necessary to indoctrinate people into a certain way of thinking in order to allow for the peaceful coexistence of man in society. One of those unfortunate indoctrinations is the question of beauty and ugliness. From the time we are in elementary school we already exercise our knowledge of the beautiful and the ugly in a game of cooties. Children go around claiming that each other have cooties, typically in a class room setting this is done with the children who are some what lacking in beauty by those who are not. By the time high school hits those going into athletics or cheerleading must date each other, and those joining the chess team and band must date each other. We allow our physical characteristics to interfere with our ability to have a meaningful relationship with someone of the opposite sex, or friendship with someone of the same sex. It is an unfortunate defect of our indoctrination that we fall into this trap of rating each other based on our looks.

In She’s Out of My League this classification of beauty continues and this code is enforced even amongst a group of less than attractive nerds who are friends with each other. When Kirk meets Molly, who has left her phone in one of those bins you’re expected to place your belongings in while being violated by TSA, Kirk’s friend Stainer believes that they shouldn’t be dating because he is a “5” and she is a “hard 10.” Stainer’s belief is that Kirk should only date another 5, a 7, 6, 4, or 3 but nothing more than 7 because his looks aren’t able to compensate past that. Like wise, Molly shouldn’t attempt to date anyone below an 8 because her looks are too much for someone below that. Of course looks alone don’t determine one’s ranking for Stainer, because if you drive a cool car, have a cool job, or have a cool hobby like playing in a band that can elevate one’s ranking (after all we know that the ugliest of musicians and actors/actresses can still land the most attractive of people…) Stainer enforces the code so much against his friend that Kirk finds himself looking for a defect in Molly to justify their being together. To his misfortune, attempting to find a defect only drives Molly away.

Yet Stainer isn’t the only one guilty of enforcing a silly code on his friend. Patty, Molly’s best friend, believes that Molly’s interest in Kirk can’t be real. Instead, after being hurt by her ex boyfriend Cam, Molly is only dating Kirk because he is safe (namely, he wouldn’t do something like cheat because who would go for Kirk) as Patty believes it to be. Her belief is something shared by us all as well; we see a beautiful woman or a handsome man with someone far less attractive than them then it must be a charity case or a safe move. Patty goes so far as to insist Molly will want the “rescue” phone call on her andKirk’s first solo date. To her shock and disbelief Molly ignores her phone call. And despite all of Kirk’s foibles and mess ups, Molly keeps going back to him despite the logic Patty is certain is flawless. While Molly may have in fact originally pursued Kirk because she thought he might be safe, she ends up taking him back even after he hurts her time and again.

The beliefs spouted by Stainer and Patty in She’s Out of My League invariably lead to the same outcome as the movie demonstrates. When one believes that they aren’t worthy of being with someone else, they do whatever it takes to find a reason. Those who date someone because they think it safe while they recover from a bad break up often find themselves in a rebound situation where they have to intentionally break the hurt of their safety net because they find themselves falling for that net. She’s Out of My League does a remarkable job of showing the flaws in believing that person A can’t be with person B because of things like looks. It also shows that when we put aside our prejudices, we can find remarkable people on the other side of what we were indoctrinated to not like.

Roman Foreign Policy between 264 and 146 B.C: Why They Fought

From the First Punic War through the Third Punic War there was much change in the reasoning for Rome going to war.  Roman conquest of Italy in the years leading up to the First Punic War gave the Romans confidence about their military power. Their success at unifying most of Italy under the Roman banner must have given them an adrenaline rush to spur them into a war with Carthage in an attempt to take Sicily. Successive wars appear to have been encouraged by Roman desire to dominate trade throughout the Mediterranean world.

Roman involvement in the First Punic War was spurred on by ambition to add Sicily to their territory. The Second Punic War and the wars with Greece were brought on primarily through a desire to dominate trade.  The wars with Spain and the Third Punic War, however, appear to harken back to the desires which spurred on the First Punic War and the Italian wars.

According to Polybius, the First Punic War marked the first time the Romans engaged in sea warfare. Whether or not this is completely true or not does not detract from how important such an idea is to the motives of going to war. There is little doubt that the Romans probably engaged in at least some minimal trade prior to this war. Yet Polybius’ account of the construction of wartime vessels demonstrates that the Romans most likely had not yet engaged in naval battles[1]. If this account is true then the motives for going to war over Sicily were not about trade, at least not entirely. To some degree Rome must have sought to have dominion over Sicily and to remove foreign influence in Italy all together. Polybius’ account of the treaty between Rome and Carthage, which ended the First Punic War, gives further credence to the idea Rome was not fighting for the sole purpose of trade. Polybius says, “’The Carthaginians to evacuate the whole of Sicily…. The Carthaginians to give up to the Romans all prisoners without ransom. The Carthaginians to pay to the Romans by installments in twenty years 2,200 Euboen talents’’[2] Polybius also accounts that the Roman people demanded, “they reduced the time of the payment by one half, added 1,000 talents to the indemnity, and demanded the evacuation by the Carthaginians of all islands lying between Sicily and Italy.”[3] These accounts given by Polybius support the belief that Rome’s first conquest outside of Italy was spurred on by a desire to continue unifying Italy, or at least to expand the territory they possessed.

The Second Punic War and the wars subsequently with Greece on the other hand were almost entirely about improving trade and Roman economic status. The Second Punic War was triggered by Carthaginian interference with a Roman ally in Spain. While the sources concerning the war do not directly demonstrate that this war was about economic gain through trade, it is clear through the terms of the treaty that the war was at least on some level about trade. Polybius once again demonstrates, “they were to surrender their ships of war, with exception of ten triremes.”[4] Without their former naval power the Carthaginians would be hard pressed to continue trading on such a scale as they once enjoyed. This left Rome as the most dominate naval power in the Western Mediterranean both militarily and trade wise. Without war ships the Carthaginians could not protect their trading vessels from pirates and other warring states.

With the Western Mediterranean locked up Rome focused her attention on the Eastern half. Rome’s attempt to subdue the Eastern Mediterranean was not so much like their attempts in the West. Unlike the West, the Romans did not seek to have dominion over the East. Instead the Romans sought to dismantle the alliances and empires throughout the Eastern Mediterranean. By doing this Rome was successful in destroying the economic power of the East. Their tactics with the East resemble in some manner their attempts in Italy to subdue the Latin tribes.

The Third Punic War and the wars with Spanish tribes appear to be more about revenge and expansion of the Empire than about acquisition of wealth. Carthage had been the nail in the Roman’s side for better part of a century. When they finally broke the Treaty of Zama the Romans found the opportunity to finally put Carthage away for good. With Carthage completely destroyed the Romans were able to take dominion over all of North Africa and eliminated the only threat to Roman dominance in the Western Mediterranean for good. If for nothing else the Roman destruction of Carthage demonstrated for her enemies that Rome could, if brought to bear, annihilate any and all foes. The Third Punic War demonstrates an almost entirely unique episode in Roman foreign policy between 264 and 146 B.C. It was not about acquisition of land, nor of furthering trade. Rather the Third Punic War was about revenge for the Romans.

In Spain however, the attempts by the Romans were almost entirely over conquest of land. Unlike Carthage and the Eastern Mediterranean, Spain was not governed by formal empires or kingdoms. With the ever expanding population in Italy, the Romans needed more space for citizens. Spain was the prime location after the Second Punic War. Unfortunately for the Romans the Spanish tribes were troublesome and required a full on assault to attempt to subdue Spain; even then, the Spanish tribes were not completely subdue until the time of Caesar Augustus. Yet Rome’s conquests in Spain were necessary in order to provide more land for her citizens. Not only was this, but Spain was rich in minerals, specifically in silver which was important to the Romans.  However, the Roman desire to conquer Spain was not primarily out of a desire to exploit Spain but rather to incorporate it.

Rome’s foreign policy from 264-146 B.C. was spurred on by two primary motives: expansion and trade. Ultimately, however, the Romans desired to create a Mediterranean wide empire. The true motive behind the Roman foreign policy was simply and purely imperialism. While their foreign policy began with an attempt to have more sovereignty, such as in the First Punic War, it ultimately landed on the need and desire for more territory as was the case in the Spanish wars.

[1] Naphatali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold, Roman Civilization, vol. 1, Selected ReadingsThe Republic and the Augustan Age, 3rd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990), 159-160

[2] Lewis 161.

[3] Lewis, 162.

[4] Lewis, 180

Alienation in Post World War America

World War II ended with the surrender of the Japanese Empire in August 1945 leaving a wake of destruction on almost every continent. America was elated, not only had they defeated the Nazis but the Japanese were defeated as well. Yet, America’s place in the world changed as a result of the war in a way very few people would have thought possible. Only an up and coming nation in the last World War, the United States emerged from World War II as the preeminent world power. Amidst the jubilation of victory in both theaters of war, Americans had to come to grips not only with America’s new place in the world, but with what had happened in the war to America. The story of Holden Caulfield in The Catcher in the Rye demonstrates the alienation some particular Americans felt in the aftermath of the Second World War.

The beginning of The Catcher in the Rye takes the reader to a boarding school and a character named Holden Caulfield. Holden is arguably one of the most controversial characters in literature, but his story is an important one as it is the story of America after World War II. Holden’s alienation from the rest of the world is central in his story. Throughout most of the story Holden is unable to find the good in the world and insists that everyone he knows or meets is a phony. Holden is a confused young man who is attempting to reconcile the world of his childhood with the world of his young adulthood. At sixteen when the story takes place, Holden was born two years after the stock market crashed and was still too young when the United States entered the Second World War in December, 1941. America, in a lot of ways, has grown up rapidly in the span of Holden’s short life.

The main antagonists in Holden’s life are his roommate Stradlater, his neighbor Ackley, a friend from home Sally, and a pimp and a prostitute he meets while staying in New York. In each case, the antagonists choose to ignore the realities of life by distracting themselves with sex, money or theater. Holden faults each character for being a phony, and considers his dead brother Allie, and his younger sister Phoebe as two of the only real people he has ever met. Holden has been affected by the war and its aftermath and maintains a child-like opinion of the world. In fact, he states, “Certain things they should stay the way they are. You ought to be able to stick them in those big glass cases and just leave them alone.”[1] Holden is alienated from those who are his age, or close because of his own inability to grow up. The various encounters Holden ha leave him more alienated than before. In the case of Sally, Holden contacts her and makes a date only to alienate himself from her by saying:  “You give me a royal pain in the ass…”[2] Holden is completely unable to maintain friendships and continues to draw further and further away from the world.

As Holden is unable to maintain friendships with anyone he meets, he is also a contradiction. At the beginning of the book he states, “If there’s one thing I hate, it’s the movies.”[3] And yet he goes to see a movie at Radio City after his date with Sally. He goes into the bar at his hotel and has a low opinion of everything about it from where they seat him, to the band, to the patrons.[4] Holden constantly belittles people, places and things only to turn around and immerse himself in them. This further alienates him from the world and people around him as they view him as an immature person.[5] His sense of superiority, which results in his alienation, prevents Holden from having any meaningful relationships with anyone aside from his sister and dead brother Allie.

Holden is so disillusioned with the world around him that the only thing he can think to do is protect those who he views as innocent. Holden’s depression is lifted whenever he is around kids. The first instance the reader sees this is in the streets of New York. On his way to find a record store open on Sundays, Holden follows a family of three. The parents are on the sidewalk and immediately gain the disapproval of Holden when he says, “They looked sort of poor, which implies that Holden views the family, at least the parents, as beneath him. The child, however, entertains Holden as he is walking behind the family. The child is in the street singing, “‘If a body catch a body coming through the rye.’” The child and song make Holden, “feel better. It made me feel not so depressed any more.”[6] Holden is not alienated from children the way he is from those closer in age to him because he is able to find a truth in children that doesn’t exist for him in his contemporaries.

Holden’s alienation goes even further, to a desire to remove himself completely from society. At first, Holden pleads with Sally to, “drive up to Massachusetts or Vermont….We’ll stay in these cabin camps and stuff like that till the dough runs out…I could get a job somewhere and we could live somewhere with a brook and all….I could chop wood in the wintertime and all.”[7] His feeling of superiority has alienated him not only from any meaningful relationships but also a desire to quit society almost all together. Later on he says, “Everybody’d think I was just a poor deaf-mute bastard and they’d leave me alone. They’d let me put gas and oil in their stupid cars, and they’d pay me a salary and all for it, and I’d build me a little cabin somewhere with the dough I made and live there the rest of my life.”[8] Both times, Holden suggests leaving society to live away from a world he doesn’t fully believe he belongs to.

Holden’s alienation also drives him to attempt to save those he believes he cares most about. In his first desire to leave society, he invites Sally to go with him only to alienate himself from her when she refuses to go with him. Holden also feels a need to assist a roommate at a previous school before he ultimately rejects him. His roommate Dick Slagle is poorer than Holden and doesn’t have as fancy of luggage as he has. As Holden describes the situation: “The thing is, it’s really hard to be roommates with people if your suitcases are much better than theirs…”[9] But he goes on to clarify, “You think if they’re intelligent and all, the other person, and have a good sense of humor, that they don’t give a damn whose suitcases are better, but they do.”[10] Holden both creates his own alienation, as in the case of Sally, and is a victim of society’s mandated alienation as was the case with the former roommate. Yet in both cases, Holden attempts to save that person from the phony world as Holden perceives it.

Finally, Holden’s struggle not to care about what others think or do and his desire to save people from their phoniness comes to a head. His sister Phoebe questions whether or not Holden actually likes anything, or if he simply hates everything.[11] As he avoids Phoebe’s questions, she finally prompts him, “All right, name something else. Name something you’d like to be.”[12] And it is here that Holden admits to his desire to protect children and to allow them to maintain their innocence when he tells Phoebe, “I’d just be the catcher in the rye and all.”[13] Holden’s alienation from friends closer in age; his hatred of cars and movies all stem from his own desire to return and protect the innocence of childhood.

Yet, it takes Holden until he has nearly broken down psychologically that he realizes he can’t protect everyone from everything. While on the way to  deliver a note to Phoebe at her school, Holden notices writing on the walls outside the school. He desires to protect the innocence of the children from the writing  and dreams of killing the person responsible for writing obscenities on the school’s walls. The second time he finds the obscenities, however, he realizes that it has been craved into the wall.[14] It is at this point that Holden comes to the realization, “If you had a million years to do it in, you couldn’t rub out even half the ‘Fuck you’ signs in the world. It’s impossible.”[15] He finally realizes that things won’t return to how they were when he was a child and life was simpler. Holden recognizes that the world is full of things he hates and wants to protect others from but it is a fool’s mission to try to protect the world from all the bad.

The story of Holden Caulfield could be analogous to the story of the United States after World War II. Like Holden, the United States was alienated from the rest of the world, including our allies. As the most powerful nation in the world, the United States had a responsibility not shared by her allies. Both the Soviet Union and the allies of the United States differed from the U.S.and did not seem to share many beliefs held by America. The United States, as well as Holden, had to come to grips with the reality of the world. Holden was never going to achieve living in a world where people were to be exactly as he wanted to be more ready to believe exactly what he believed. Holden is defined by his alienation from the world and weather he is finally able to reconcile himself with both the world and people around him.

[1] Salinger, J.D. The Catcher in the Rye(Boston: Little Brown and Company 1951) page 122.

[2] Ibid. 133

[3] Ibid. 2

[4] “they gave me a lousy table anyways…”, “The band was putrid”, “show-offy-looking guys with their dates.” Ibid. 69

[5] “Same old Caulfield. When are you going to grow up?” Ibid, 144

[6] Ibid. 115

[7] Ibid. 132

[8] Ibid. 199

[9] Ibid. 109

[10] Ibid.

[11] “You don’t like anything that’s happening.” Ibid. 169

[12] Ibid. 172

[13] Ibid. 173

[14] “I saw something that drove me crazy…”, “I went down by a different staircase….” Ibid. 201, 202

[15] Ibid.


Considerations on the Religion of Numa on the Roman People

For many ancient peoples religion was a connection to the past. Above anything else, religion was supreme in the city. Everything focused on religion and the worship of the city’s gods. For the Roman people this was no different and like other ancient peoples their religion began when their founder died. Romulus was said to have been taken into the sky and deified. The Romans worshipped Romulus (named Quirinus) as the god of agriculture. However, it was not Romulus who succeeded in creating the Roman state religion; rather that honor went to Numa Pompilius (here after simply Numa). Niccolo Machiavelli states, “It will also be seen by those who pay attention to Roman history, how much religion helped in the control of armies, in encouraging plebs, in producing good men, and in shaming the bad.”[1] Certainly this importance was due to Numa rather than Romulus as the former is credited with the foundation of religion in Rome. Numa based the Roman religion on the physical world. Unlike their better known Greek counterparts, the Roman gods were based on the things of nature. It was possibly this distinct difference which led the Roman religion to dominate state affairs in such a way until the Second Punic War when Rome was invaded by Greek thought and religion. Until the Second Punic War, the Romans were dominated by a religion created by Numa with the intent to subdue a savage spirit introduced by Romulus. Numa’s importance is certainly clear as both the founder of the state religion and the law giver for the Romans; his religion would go on to play a vital role in three ways for the Roman people: the calendar, daily life and war. Even into the Second Punic War, when the traditional religion of Rome was nearly eliminated the strands of Numa’s religion still held onto the Roman people. In the Roman state during the regal and republican years, the religion introduced by Numa served as a significant influence on the affairs of the state and of the people.

Rome’s founding is hidden amongst fables, myths and legend. Whether or not there ever was a Romulus or Numa is a matter of dispute. What is not a matter of dispute, however, is that their supposed influences on the people of Rome made it the most dominate city the world has ever seen. Based on Plutarch’s account of Numa’s life, he was roughly forty years old at the time he was offered kingship of Rome[2]. Numa’s example would ultimately affect the Roman people in general. Plutarch records:

He banished all luxury and softness from his own home, and while citizens alike and strangers found in him an incorruptible judge and counselor, in private he devoted himself not to amusement or lucre, but to the worship of the immortal gods, and rational contemplation of their divine power and nature.[3]

His character alone was enough of an example on the Roman people; however he did more upon accepting the office of King. Before accepting the kingship, even, Numa requested that the auguries be taken to show that the gods did in fact favor his rule.[4] In his second act as King, Numa, “add[ed] two priests of Jupiter and Mars a third, in honour of Romulus, whom he called Flamen Quirinalis.” [5] Thus, having won the favor of the people, Numa began to subdue the harsh Roman spirit in favor of a more gentle nature. He introduced religion as a means of tempering the soul, as Plutarch explains, “Wherefore Numa, judging it no slight undertaking to mollify and bend to peace the presumptuous and stubborn spirits of the people, began to operate upon them with the sanctions of religion.”[6] Numa is said to have received the Roman religion from the goddess Egeria, whom he conversed with by the river.

Numa introduced a number of new offices, which were of religious significance; among these offices was Pontifex Maximus whose job it was to declare divine law and to rule over sacred ceremonies; the Pontifex Maximus was fifth in the religious hierarchy behind “the rex sacrorum and three great flamens.” [7] In like manner, Numa concerted a temple to the goddess Vesta who was the oldest of all Roman goddesses and a symbol of purity. Her priestesses, called Vestal virgins, were given the task of keeping lit the sacred flame. The virgins were to remain as such for thirty years, if they broke their vow of chastity or allowed the sacred flame to go out the offending virgin would be buried alive. This office was the most sacred of all holy offices within the Roman state. The Pontifex Maximus lead the six Vestal virgins.[8] The first ten years of a Vestal’s service were spent in training, the second ten were spent performing her duties while the final three were spent training new Vestals. The Vestal Virgins were so important that it is said when another official passed one that they would order the fasces lowered.

The second god to receive such high favor was Janus, Vesta’s counterpart. Janus was the Roman god of doors and beginnings and his priest was first in the hierarchy, the rex sacrorum. It is with Janus, in Numa’s attempt to further temper the spirits of the Romans that he established the month of January. Janus was closely related with Juno and unlike Vesta was a creator. The rex sacrorum holds a specific place of honor in the Republic as being the only office to bear the title of rex, which according to many Roman historians was loathed by the Roman people. The great gates of the city were in honor of Janus, when they were open the city was at war and while they were closed the city was at peace. During Numa’s entire reign as king the gates were never opened. Plutarch specifically mentions two other priesthoods founded by Numa, “the Salii and Fecials.” [9] Both of these other priesthoods will be discussed at a later point when it is appropriate.

The influence of the offices of the Vestals and Janus priests dealt with the daily lives of the Roman people. Numa successfully diverted the attention of the people away from war towards religion. He demanded the utmost respect towards religion by the people, as Plutarch describes “Numa, in like manner, wished that his citizens should neither see nor hear any religious service in perfunctory and inattentive manner, but, laying aside all other occupations, should apply their minds to religion as to a most serious business…”[10] Cicero concurs with Plutarch by state, “He desired the performance of religious rituals to be difficult but the equipment for them to be very simple: he required many things to be learned and performed, but he made them inexpensive; he thus added effort to religious observances but removed the cost.”[11] There certainly were plenty of occasions for the people to turn their attention away from other occupations. He is credited with organizing the people into guilds based on their occupations. Plutarch once again describes:

So distinguishing the whole people by the several arts and trades, he formed the companies of musicians, goldsmiths, carpenters, dyers, shoemakers, skinners, braziers, and potters; and all other handicraftsmen he composed and reduced into a single company, appointing everyone their proper courts, councils, and religious observances. [12]

Their placement according to their occupation created structure within the Roman state and made each guild responsible for certain aspects of their daily lives. This helped to divert their attention away from war by focusing on the daily tasks at hand.

Numa’s greatest accomplishment came in the ordering of the calendar. In order to remedy the differences between the lunar solar orbits, Numa instituted an intercalary month. This month would consist of twenty-two days and according to Plutarch was called, “Mercedinus.” Numa also changed the orders of the months: March went from being the first month to the third, January went from being the eleventh month to the first and February went from last to second. Numa added the months of January and February as Plutarch accounts “for in the beginning they had had a year of then months.”[13] The month of February comes from februa; the month was a purification month filled with offerings to the dead. Plutarch explains Numa’s decision to place January first as, “he wished to take every opportunity of intimating that the arts and studies of peace are preferred before those of war.”[14] In order to do so, Numa instituted festivals and games for the people, “He also began markets and games and all sorts of occasions for gatherings and festivals. By these institutions he restored to humane and gentle behavior the minds of men who had become savage and inhuman through their love of war.”[15] Among the festivals fixed to the calendar, Jupiter and Mars had the most festivals held in their honor but Mars had the most between the two gods. Jupiter had two major festivals of a political nature, Regifugium on February 24th and Poplifugium on July 5th. Mars had one festival on two separate dates connected with war, Equiria on February 27th and March 14th both of these were connected horses who were sacrificed to Mars. Quinquartrus on March 19th and Tubilustrum on March 23rd saw arms and trumpets dedicated to the god. October saw the end of the military campaign season and two feasts held in honor of Mars: equus october on October 15th and the purification of arms (Armilustrum) on October 23rd.[16] Festivals to the gods occupied much of the Roman calendar, mostly in hopes of diverting the war like nature of the Romans towards more peaceful endeavors.

As a major portion of daily life, Numa altered some aspects. As well as being the founder of the state civil religion in Rome, Numa is credited with being the law giver to the Romans. His office as law giver works closely with his duties as founder of the civil religion. For instance, Numa repealed the “law which gave power to the fathers to sell their children…”[17] Plutarch continues by explaining, “he exempted such as were married, conditionally that it had been with the liking and consent of their parents; for it seemed a hard thing that a woman who had given herself in marriage to a man whom she judged free should afterwards find herself living with a slave.” [18] These are significant changes insofar as Numa has changed pater familias, or father of the family, which gave rule over the family completely to the eldest male member. Numa also changed the governance of burials; he required the Romans to worship Libitina, who presided over all burial ceremonies. He regulated the days in which mourning could take place, Plutarch outlines, “a child of three years was not to be mourned at all; the longest time of mourning for any person whatsoever was not to exceed the term of ten months….”[19] Any woman who remarried before the end of ten month mourning period ended was required to sacrifice a pregnant cow.  The Romans were especially concerned with belief in life after death, “maintained by sacrifices and libations, and governed by strict observance of rites the neglect of which brought terrible dangers to those who failed to keep them up.”[20] The Romans also believed in a deity called Manes, who would come back for retribution if the proper rituals were not kept up by their decedents. Many feasts were held in honor of the dead, the feast of the Lemuria took place on the 9th, 11th, and 13th of May.  The pater familias was required in the middle of the night to run through each silent room barefoot snapping his fingers to ward off the spirits of the dead. He was then to wash his hands three times in running water, “and took black beans in his mouth, which he spat over his shoulder, he cried nine times: ‘I spit out these beans and with them I redeem me and mine.’” He would then purify himself once more and strike “his hands on a bronze vessel, saying nine times: ‘Manes of my fathers, begone!’”  The extent in which religion touched on the private life was significant in Rome. Numa insured that the religion would be preserved both in the private and public.

After all these great accomplishments, Numa finally perished of old age after living roughly eighty years. Numa’s reign lasted forty-three years versus Romulus impressive thirty-seven year reign. According to Livy, “When Numa died, Rome by the twin disciplines of peace and war was as eminent for self-mastery as for military power.”[21] Numa’s legacy on the Roman people lead them to become prosperous, Machiavelli writes, “All things considered, therefore, I conclude that the religion introduced by Numa was among the primary causes of Rome’s success, for this entailed good institutions; good institutions lead to good fortune; and from good fortune arose the happy results of undertakings.”[22] His institution of religion allowed the Romans the good fortune they experienced for the next few centuries. The people were diverted from military conquest by the religion; their belief that the gods took part in human affairs caused great alarm against breaking the law. Numa succeeded in his quest to subdue the Roman spirit. Numa became the Roman par excellence for the people. Machiavelli explains, “Marvelling, therefore, at Numa’s goodness and prudence, the Roman people accepted all his decisions.”[23] Machiavelli goes so far as to say that the Roman people were more indebted to Numa than to Romulus.

However, despite his attempts to temper the Roman spirit away from war it was inevitable that the Romans would once again take up arms. As a result of Numa’s influence, even war was regulated by the priests. The Fecials were charged as guardians of peace and would be dispatched by the Romans to receive satisfaction from injury by another city. If that city refused to provide satisfaction for the injury the Fecials declared war by calling the gods and their country as witnesses. [24] The Salii have their origin from the eight year of Numa’s reign, Plutarch elaborates:

A terrible pestilence, which traversed all Italy, ravaged likewise the city of Rome; and the citizens being in distress and despondent, a brazen target, they say, fell from the heaven into the hands of Numa, who gave them this marvelous account of it: that Egeria and the Muses had assured him it was sent from heaven for the cure and safety of the city, and that, to keep it secure, he was ordered by them to make eleven others, so like in dimensions and form to the original that no thief should be able to distinguish the true from the counterfeit….The keeping of these targets was committed to the charge of certain priests, called Salii….[25]

The Salii priests would carry the shields through the city in March. They wore “short frocks of purple, grit with a broad belt studded with brass; on their heads they wear a brass helmet, and carry in their hands short daggers…”[26] Both of these priesthoods represent the lengths that Romans went to ensure that they were always in the right, specifically the Fecials.

In her first major conquest, Rome took the city of Veii through influences of religion. Machaivelli explains,

During the year, the Alban lake had risen in an extraordinary way, and the Roman solders, tired of the long siege, were desirous of returning to Rome when it was discovered that Apollo and certain other oracles had said that the city of Veii would be taken in the year in which Lake Alba overflowed.[27]

Religion had so conquered the minds of the people that it was able to be used against them as it was in the battle for Veii. The soldiers wishing to leave were swayed to remain in the siege despite their fatigue. After a ten year siege the Romans finally took Veii when Camillus was made dictator. The civil religion demonstrated it’s usefulness in controlling the people ultimately leading to the victory.

Throughout Roman conquest of peninsular Italy the Romans were able to maintain their religion and culture as the Italians had similar religious and cultural views. Yet with the advent of Roman expanisionism, even within Italy itself, the Roman religion began to slowly change although the changes were not as visible as later on beginning with the First Punic War.  Along the way they adapted the gods of various other peoples into their own catalogue of gods. Their conquests lead to the evolution of their gods form primarily Etruscan to a more Greek concept of the deities. Mercury was introduced into Roman society around 494 B.C. as the god of commerce. A century later Hercules was introduced into the pantheon of Roman gods. This Hellenistic tendency of the Romans would continue until the traditional Roman religion founded by Numa was all but a shadow of her former self. This adaptation was used in all situations in order to present the best possible view point. For example, Alan Wardman explains:

The war against Hannibal shows how religious institutions were adapted or borrowed as the Romans faced the most serious invasion in their history. The civil conflicts, including the civil wars, after 113 B.C., provide evidence that the civic gods could be manipulated by both sides…[28]

Rome faced crises that resulted in the expansion of their mythology concerning their gods and in some cases the use of religion against itself as in the civil war.

While Rome added to their catalogue of gods starting with the conquests of the Veii and other Italians, they were in some ways able to maintain their religious identity as given to them by Numa. However, by the time of the First Punic War the Roman religion began to make a major fundamental shift unlike the changes which occurred during the conquest of peninsular Italy. There are two major schools of thought which attempt to describe this change, one is present by Alan Wardman and the other by Alain Hus.

By the late Republic religion had become more political than ever before. Festivals were used by politicians to demonstrate their greatness instead of supplicating the gods. Expansion in the Roman games was enormous; Alan Wardman explains why, “it is a process of adding to religious forms because the politician can make use of them to express his superiority not to the gods but to his would-be peers.” [29] Wardman’s view of the religious changes in Rome is not as serve as other writers. Wardman accounts the changes in Roman Religion with the changes of the political atmosphere of Rome beginning with the Second Punic War. Wardman views the changes in Roman religion as a result of warfare. He states, “Other gods came from towns which Rome had defeated in war….”[30] The changes that occurred around the time of the Second Punic War should be viewed with the changes in politics during the same time period. Rome’s religion was very closely related to their politics and thus any changes within their political structure were bound to have an effect on the religious aspects of the society.

The opposing view on the changes of Rome’s official religion starting during the Second Punic War is presented by Alain Hus. Hus argues that the changes did not occur so much because of Rome’s conquests but because Greek thought had invaded the Roman culture.  The changes in the religious attitude of Rome were perpetuated by the Second Punic War as Hus describes, “The change that was taking place in the religious psychology of the Romans was accelerated by the crisis of exceptional seriousness produced by the Second Punic War.” [31] Greek gods and philosophy were more wildly accepted by the Romans during the Second Punic War especially during the early years when it looked as though Hannibal might succeed in conquering Rome. As a result of the impending doom many abandoned the traditional Roman gods and religion for that of the Hellenistic Greeks. However the problem that existed with this scenario is explained by Hus, “Greek religion was officially substituted for the ancestral Roman religion, just at the time when its preservation in Greece itself was half artificial.” [32] Thus, the Roman people were abandoning their own religion for a religion on the decline in Greece. As a result, like in Greece, the Romans began to turn to cults. Hus explains once more:

The success of these cults and their doctrines, the importance of which during the Republican period should not be exaggerated, bears witness to the inability of the Roman religion, even when Hellenized, to fulfill the spiritual needs of the Romans in these strangely new times.[33]

The official religion was also being directly attacked by the Roman senate when in 181 B.C. they ordered the books of Numa to be destroyed. Religion, while still important to the Romans, had become a skeleton of itself. “Superstition”, Hus argues, “flourished.” [34] Many prominent Romans began to openly question religion and skepticism ran ramped throughout the city.  General disrespect was very prominent in the city during the Second Punic War, as Hus describes, “In the middle of the Second Punic War we find Claudius Pulcher turning up his nose at the sacred hens, and Flaminius proclaiming the futility of supplications to the gods….”[35] The Second Punic War presented a problem for the Romans that they had yet to face in their history. As a result they were more than willing to abandon the gods of the fathers for the gods of the Greeks.

And yet both of these arguments pointing towards a similar point of view; Rome’s expansion into foreign lands, customs and religions lead to a change in their own cultural customs and religion. This was partially precipitated by Rome’s need to govern her new acquisitions, allowing citizens of Rome to become free of Roman authority and develop new ideas. When these provincial governors returned to the city they introduced problems into the Roman constitution, which had been avoided for centuries. This was most evident during the Second Punic War.  Political upheaval as a result of the Second Punic War lead to fear among the Romans, which gave to the belief that their  gods were not longer looking out for them and ultimately lead them to abandon their gods for those of the Greeks. The political situation within Rome was certainly changing slowly during the Second Punic War and after the war. The political and religious aspects of the city were intentionally connected to each other by Numa as previously explored. Religion played a key role in the regal and Republican periods and it is clear by the abandonment of the traditional religion by the Romans that the Romans still viewed religion as important during crisis of the Second Punic War. If this had not been the case then for what reason would the Romans have to accept new gods rather than just simply abandoning religion all together? Certainly there were some who openly were skeptical of religion and disrespect towards the gods was rampant throughout the city. However, the fact Greek religion was imported to Rome during the Second Punic War, and widely accepted by the Roman people, demonstrates that their connection to religion was still strong and that the important role religion played in Roman daily and state life was nevertheless still very strong. Whether or not either side is truly correct is probably never going to be discovered. However, both sides of the argument can be viewed in connection with each other and not in opposition to each other. Rome at the time of the Second Punic War and after was remarkably changed from the time previous to the war. The war played a significant role in the development of both the political and religious life of the city.

Ultimately, the impact of religion on the Roman people following the reign of Romulus is clear. Numa’s foresight that without religion the Roman people would be a brutal city that favored war over peace is remarkable. His religion affected the lives of the Roman people and the city itself throughout the regal and Republican periods. Republican Rome owes much of its prosperity and relative peace to the institution of religion by Numa. The introduction of the gods themselves provided the Romans with a distraction from the earthly. Numa’s additions to the calendar and the introduction of many festivals allowed for the Romans to be preoccupied with the gods even more. Reverence to the gods went so far as to make it near impossible for the Romans to wage war unless it was clearly viewed as a defensive rather than offensive war. Laws regulating morality helped to create a much more humane and civilized people than what had existed during the time of Romulus. Even with the problems of the Second Punic War the importance of religion is still clear to see. For the average person religion was everything and the politicians clearly knew that by providing funds to build more temples or adding more days of festivals to the calendar. Daily and civil life revolved around religion. Without religion it is impossible to know how the Romans would have turned out, or if they would have merely become a footnote for another civilization on its way to historical immortality. Certainly the biggest contribution religion made to the Roman people was in making them able to govern themselves. The Roman Republic certainly survived in part because of the fear of the gods. Without the influence the gods had on the Roman people the Republic could certainly have failed or never been started to begin with. Machiavelli is right when he observes, “So that if it were a question of the ruler to whom Rome was more indebted, Romulus or Numa, Numa, I think, should easily obtain the first place.” [36] Romulus gave the world the city of Rome, but Numa gave a people an identity and soul through religion. Therefore it is Numa, not Romulus who gave us the Roman state that we are familiar with today.

[1] Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Discourses. Translated  by Leslie J. Walker, S.J. New York, New York: Penguin Putnam, 2003.  Book I section 11 pg. 140

[2] Plutarch. Lives: Volume 1. Translated by John Dryden. Edited by Arthur Hugh Clough. New York: Random House, Inc., 2001.  pg. 85.

Numa’s age at the time he became King is disputed. Cicero places his age at 39.

[3] Plutarch,  83

[4] Livy. The Early History of Rome. Translated by Aubrey de Selincourt. New York, New York: Penguin Putnam, Inc. , 1960.

[5] Plutarch. pg. 87

[6] Plutarch. 2001. pg. 87

[7] Hus, Alain. Greek and Roman Religion. Translated  by S.J. Tester. New York: Hawthorn Books, 1962. pg. 103

[8] Hus, 103

[9] Plutarch,  91

[10] Plutarch,  94

[11] Cicero. On the Commonwealth and On the Laws. Edited by James E. G. Zetzel. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. pg. 41

[12] Plutarch, 96

[13] Plutarch, 97

[14] Plutarch, 98

[15] Cicero, 41

[16] Hus, 109-110

[17] Plutarch,  97

[18] Plutarch,  97

[19] Plutarch, 91

[20] Hus, 100

[21] Livy, 56

[22] Machiavelli,  141 Book I section 11

[23] Machiavelli,  141 Book I section 11

[24] Plutarch, 92

[25] Plutarch, 92-93

[26] Plutarch, 93

[27]Machiavelli, 146 Book II section 13.

[28] Wardman, Alan. Religion and the Statecraft Among the Romans. Baltimore, Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press, 1982.  pg. 22

[29] Wardman, 24

[30] Ibid.  3

[31] Hus, 135

[32] Ibid. pg. 135

[33] Ibid. pg. 137

[34] Ibid . pg. 136

[35] Ibid. pg 137

[36] Machiavelli, Book I section 11 pg. 140.

Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark.

My friend Ashok asked that I provide a commentary on Hamlet.

As a student of Political Philosophy and American Studies I may not seem like the proper person to provide a commentary on William Shakespeare’s epic play Hamlet. However, this semester in pursuance of my Master of American Studies, I am taking a class on the playwright.

 Hamlet begins with a question; more importantly, it is a challenge by a watchman. The question is returned with yet another question, or challenge, by a second watchman. The Kingdom of Denmark is on alert after the King’s untimely demise.  Questions and challenges play an important role in Hamlet, some of the questions penetrate throughout the entire play. How did the King die? Is Claudius, the new king and the dead king’s brother, the cause of the king’s death? Is the dead king’s wife Gertrude guilty as her new husband, the new king? Is Hamlet, the son of the dead King, truly insane or is he simply putting on an antic-disposition? All of these questions riddle throughout the play, but there are even greater esoteric questions that one can ask.

In the second act of the play, Prince Hamlet is charged by the ghost of his dead father to kill his uncle. Thus presents our first question, is it right for a Christian to commit tyrannicide? Is it right for a Prince to commit tyrannicide? And if it is right, under what circumstances can a Christian or a Prince commit tyrannicide? Hamlet spends the play in contemplation, in fact he spends more time in contemplation than any other Shakespearean character. Yet he spends very little time contemplating the justice in his charge to commit tyrannicide. Instead, Hamlet spends his time contemplating the meaning of life. His time thinking causes him to delay in his charge, yet at other times (death of Polonius) Hamlet acts quickly and almost without any thought.

Before we can answer the key question of whether or not he has a right to commit tyrannicide, we have other questions that  must be asked. Hamlet has to have a justification for tyrannicide, even in Protestant thought tyrannicide is only acceptable with a just cause. As it stands in the play only two people know for a fact that Claudius killed Hamlet the elder…Claudius and Hamlet. Hamlet the younger only knows this fact through a ghost, which he doesn’t know if the Ghost is a belligerent or not. As Hamlet himself admits only, “Heaven and Hell” know whether or not the Ghost can truly be trusted. And since no other character attests to having heard the Ghost, Hamlet is left alone to defend his actions based on the information of a Ghost. As a result, Hamlet does have legitimate cause to delay in his cause so that Claudius has a chance to incriminate himself. But before Hamlet can even consider killing Claudius, he must be prepared to take the throne once the deed is done. This brings us to our first problem of committing tyrannicide. Hamlet is considered by other characters in the play a competent leader. Ophelia in her sentiments supports the theory that Hamlet is capable of being king. He also appears to be capable in foreign policy, but he doesn’t appear thrilled to become King.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas Tyrannicide is acceptable in two situations, when there is a Tyrant by Usurpation or a Tyrant by Oppression. In this instance, is Claudius a Tyrant by Usurpation? Did he usurp the legitimate king and take his throne? In Denmark the monarchy is elected, albeit for life. The first time we see Claudius we find that he had the support of the people for his reign and in this instance Hamlet cannot legitimately commit Tyrannicide. But is Claudius a Tyrant by Oppression? Again, Claudius appears to have the support of the Danish people. He also doesn’t seem to be an oppressive ruler, and only resigns to become such towards Hamlet once it becomes clear Hamlet seeks to murder him. And so at least in the Catholic understanding, Hamlet does not have just cause to commit tyrannicide.

The first question of the play then, whether or not Hamlet is entitled and justified in committing Tyrannicide, is answered in the negative at every turn. Hamlet is not prepared to take the throne, and Claudius is neither a usurper nor an oppressive ruler.

The second major question then is found throughout Hamlet’s soliloquies. Hamlet has more soliloquies than any other Shakespearean character with seven. The soliloquies are important, because throughout the play, with the exception of his first appearance, Hamlet is putting on his antic disposition. As a result, Hamlet’s true thoughts and feelings come through in his soliloquies. As such, to what extent is Hamlet’s concern with Fortune and Honor in contest with his charge to commit tyrannicide?

The first soliloquy is the most unique because it comes before Hamlet decides to put on an antic disposition and even before the Ghost appears to him. The first theme found in the soliloquies is suicide. Hamlet contemplates suicide so that the, “sullied flesh would melt away.” In this instance, flesh can mean either the actual physical human flesh that covers the body, or it could mean the passions. Flesh is another theme found throughout Hamlet’s soliloquies and it seems that it is constantly connected to the theme of Fortune. Finally, in the first soliloquy Hamlet does what he does throughout, he generalizes. In this instance, Hamlet generalizes about life through the particulars of his own. He also generalizes about women through his mother Gertrude. In his generalizations about women he comes to feel that they are weak and fragile and this is something he ultimately generalizes about Ophelia.

The struggle for Hamlet about tyrannicide is deeper than it’s proper justice. Like in his thoughts of suicide, Hamlet is concerned with saving all from the flesh and in particular Claudius. He doesn’t want to send Claudius to Hell, he wants to save him from his passions or his flesh. Flesh and passions are connected to Fortune and as a result Reason is connected with God. Passion and Fortune govern the affairs of men, and neither Reason or God can rule over them and this upsets Hamlet to the point that he wants to be released and wants to release everyone else. Hamlet’s anger over the inability to govern the Passions and Fortune are expressed in the recitation of Aeneas’s story to Dido about the Fall of Troy. Hamlet sees himself as Pyrrhus, the son of Achilles who wants to murder Priam to avenge his father. But like Hamlet, Pyrrhus is unwilling to do what he must to avenge Achilles.

Hamlet contemplates this speech in his third soliloquy, where he is aware of his father’s death but cannot bring himself to perform the murder. As a result, instead of action Hamlet decides to catch Claudius in speech. He does this in part to find if the Ghost is from heaven or hell. Hamlet authors lines to insert into the play within the play to convince Claudius to admit the murder. What is odd about the lines is that Hamlet doesn’t create the lines to bring out Claudius’s guilt, but rather to torment his mother over her disgrace. Her frailty has been a point of contention for Hamlet throughout the play.

The typical reading of Hamlet’s fourth Soliloquy, the famous “To be or not to be” soliloquy, is that it is about suicide. Hamlet begins the soliloquy generalizing about life itself, “being or not being.” Again fortune and flesh play a key role in Hamlet’s thoughts. The passions are always in concert with fortune, and reason can never rule over them and so it makes life unbearable for Hamlet. He sees death as a passageway to Heaven, which is our native country; but like the famous Hotel California, once you check in you may never leave. It is also in this soliloquy where Hamlet admits clearly that the passions do not submit to reason.

The problem with reason for Hamlet is that he sees it as two functions: the faculty that has the ability to understand events and actions and the faculty which governs the passions.Hamlet strives to see them both as one but cannot; the play itself is about these two functions of reason. The ability to control the passions with the ability to understand. Hamlet must be able to rise above his passion to kill Claudius to avenge his father, and use the ability to understand to do it.

The final soliloquy before the end of the play concerns itself with one basic premise of the play. Hamlet’s deliberation always resolves down tot he futility of action, in particular political action. Yet Hamlet admits that he has, “cause, and will, and strength, and means to [kill Claudius.]” The final soliloquy focuses around the concept of honor, and like the first soliloquy it stands unique. The final soliloquy centers around Hamlet recovering himself and is no ready to do what his dead father charged him to do. What prompted this change is difficult, was it the encounter with Fortenbras’s men? Or was it Ophelia who saved him? If it was Fortenbras, does Hamlet want to be like him? Fortenbras seems to be the timocratic man to a fault.

Finally, Hamlet finally resolves to kill Claudius only after he himself has become Claudius. His murder of Polonius has caused the suicide of Ophelia, and now his unwillingness to take responsibility for the destruction of Polonius’s family will bring about the destruction of Laertes.

So to conclude, the play Hamlet is about the justice of tyrannicide, and overcoming the passions.

How the Constitution provides for energy and stability while maintaining liberty and republicanism through separation of powers.

Energy and stability have been the greatest questions in government since the ancients first developed the polis. Prior to the United States, no country made better efforts to perfect the art of separation of powers than England has made. Publius describes in Federalist 37 the need for stability and energy in the new government, while at the same time protecting the liberty of the people and the republican way of life. The Constitution of 1787 achieves these aims through a separation of powers between the three branches of the Federal government and the specific make up of the departments.

In order to understand Publius’ argument better, it would be best to take his argument in Federalist 37 first, followed by his discussion of the relationship between the three branches of government. Lastly I will view his discussion of the specific make up of the various branches of the United States Government.

Publius argues for the necessity of a separation of powers in the new government in order to provide for the necessary stability and energy in government while protecting liberty and republicanism. In order to do this he argues that there most be present a separation of powers between the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of government. Furthermore, there must be a separation of powers between that of the States and Federal governments. Publius says, “Among the difficulties encountered by the convention, a very important one must have lain in combining the requisite stability and energy in government with the inviolable attention due to liberty and to republican form.”[1] The first attempt at creating a republic with the Articles of Confederation failed due to a lack of energy and stability within the government, thus it was pertinent to create in the new government fixes for these problems. Publius then goes on to explain:

The genius of republican liberty seems to demand on one side not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those intrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people by a short duration of their appointments; and that even this short period the trust should be placed not in a few, but in a number of hands.[2]

This is the genius of the new Constitution according to Publius, it has attained the short periods of appointment and dividing the government among many hands. In order that the liberty of the people is not offended, they must remain the source of power for the government.

Yet this is not enough, in order to understand how this present in the Constitution Publius explains further in papers 47-51. In the first of these papers, Publius addresses the allegations by opponents of the proposed plan that it lacks a separation of powers. Publius explains Montesquieu’s argument for the separation of powers by saying, “he did not mean that these departments ought to have no partial agency in, or no control over, the acts of each other.”[3] The magistrate must have the authority to not only enforce the laws passed by the legislative, but also to veto laws that violate the Constitution, and the judicial cannot create laws but can advise the legislative.[4] Publius then goes on to demonstrate that the various Constitutions of the states provide for more blending of the branches of government than the proposed Federal Constitution.

And then in Federalist 48 Publius describes how the Federal Constitution provides a defense through a moderate blend of the branches of government. At first he argues:

But in a representative republic where the executive magistracy is carefully limited, both in the extent and duration of his power, and where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly, which is inspired by a supposed influence over the people with an intrepid confidence in its own strength; which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude, yet not so numerous as to be incapable of pursuing the objects of its passions by means which reason prescribes; it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people out to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions.[5]

So in order to prevent the encroachments of the legislative on the rights and liberties of the people, the executive and judicial branches must have authority to reign in the power of the legislative. The legislative is also apt to encroach on the power and freedom of the other branches through pay[6], and thus they must be limited on how they are able to alter the pay of these other branches. Publius provides examples of Virginia and Pennsylvania where the powers of the legislative were not protected against and the judicial and executive branches were usurped by the authority of the legislative. Having demonstrated the dangers of allowing unbridled power to exist within the legislative branch, Publius goes on to explain how it might be possible to prevent the encroachments of one branch on the power of another.

Federalist 49 provides for this explanation and Publius defines that the people alone are the source of charter for the Constitution and its parts. Thus the people alone should be consulted when the powers of the Constitution are in question as to demolishing them, or creating a new power.[7] Appeals to the people are necessary in order to prevent the encroachments of power by the various branches. Yet frequent appeals are insufficient in protecting the freedom of the society. Not only this but it is impossible, as Publius explains, “The members of the executive and judiciary departments are few in number, and can be personally known to a small part only of the people.”[8] Yet the legislative is many in number and can be known by a larger number of the people.[9] Thus the legislative would be most likely to take advantage of the appeals from the people and thus encroach on the various powers of the other branches. As such frequent appeals of the people could turn out to be bad for the stability, energy and liberty of the society as the legislative might take their appeals as a mandate. And so how this can be moderated is discussed next by Publius.

Publius states at the beginning of Federalist 50, “It may be contended, perhaps, that instead of occasional appeals to the people, which are liable to the objections urged against them, periodical appeals are proper…”[10] In order to achieve this, Publius argues that a fixed period for appeals to the people could be detrimental to the purpose of those appeals. If they are too close together Publius argues, “the measures to be reviewed and rectified will have been of recent date, and will be connected with all the circumstances which tend to vitiate and pervert the result of occasional revisions.”[11] Yet by the same token, if they are too far apart then the people are likely not to know each other and to be unaware of the circumstances which lead to the need for revisions. [12] To demonstrate his point, Publius once again looks to the states for an example. He tells of how in Pennsylvania there had been a meeting of censorial council to remedy the defects of their Constitution. He elucidates however that the members of the council were prominent citizens who were members of the parties within the state. Secondly, some of the members of the council had served in the legislative and executive departments. Third, the proceedings of the council were disrupted by the factionalism of the members themselves. And finally, the council either did not understand the limits placed on the legislative and executive, or the legislative completely ignored the changes made by the censorial council.[13] Publius demonstrates properly the difficulty of having occasional or frequent appeals to the people for the remedy of the defects for the Constitution.

And so Publius goes on to discuss in Federalist 51 the structure of the government in regards to checks and balances. He states, “it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others.”[14] The importance of each department having its own will is demonstrated in the preceding papers, where Publius demonstrates the likely chances of an encroachment and usurpation by the legislative. In order to achieve this, Publius also states, “It is equally evident that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others for the emoluments annexed to their offices.”[15] Thus the departments must have a will of their own and should not be made dependent on the other departments for their pay. But at the same time Publius argues that the members of the various departments must be given the constitutional means and personal motives to protect against the encroachment of another department on their own.[16] Publius argues, “The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It must be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.”[17] However, Publius also reminds the reader that the legislative must be predominant in republics. In order to properly control the legislative against usurpation Publius argues:

The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.[18]

By dividing the authority of the legislative, a republic is capable of controlling the growth of power and influence of the legislative. Yet this is not enough, as Publius points out it is important in a “compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments.”[19] By dividing the legislative, you weaken its ability to encroach on the authority of the other branches. But by dividing the government into two different governments and allotting them different powers a republic can prevent the creation of a tyranny.

However, one question still remains and that is how the different bodies of government are erected for the purposes presented in Federalist 51. The various branches must be provided with different powers so that no one branch can consolidate that power. The branches must also have varying degrees of separation from the people, so that the passions of the majority cannot rule in society. In regards to the legislative branch, the branch should be split into two distinct houses with one having more of a dependence and response to the people than the other. As the legislative branch is closest to the people, and thus lays one of legislative threats, it is proper that it be divided so as to limit this closeness with the people. The first branch of the legislative Publius discusses is thus the House of Representatives, which is designed to be the department most dependent on the people. Publius describes, “As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people.”[20] The House of Representatives will only share in the legislative authority of the government and will be able to respond to the passions of the people while the upper house will be able to filter out the reason. This great authority constitutes a need for a shorter duration of power as Publius states, “It is a received and well-founded maxim that where no other circumstances affect the case, the greater the power is, the great out to be its duration…”[21] Further, the House of Representatives will be watched not only by the people through its direct dependence on them, but also by the collateral branch of the legislative.

Next Publius discusses the Senate, which serves as the connection between the States and the Federal government as directed by the un-amended Constitution.  On this Publius states, “It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.”[22] So that the States retain some type of authority under the new Constitution, it is important that they be given the authority to appoint the members of the Senate. The advantage of this stands that now law cannot be passed without the consent of both the people and the States.[23] And it also serves as a way to prevent members of the legislative body from forgetting their constituents by requiring the laws to be passed by both distinct bodies. Publius goes on to say:

The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by the factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions.[24]

The Senate’s mutability is important as well, so that the members restrain their passions and tyrannical nature. By having the Senate elected by the States, the States have their own elections for government offices. By changing the government representatives in the States, the Senate will be apt to change and thus opinions will be changed. Their length of office will allow the Senate the opportunity to learn the laws of the nation as well, and so that they are not constantly changing and that the opinions and measures remain some what consistent.[25] The importance of the Senate within the make up of checks and balances and separation of powers is clear. It serves as a check on the passions of the people, while balancing the representation of the States within the Federal government. Further the two branches of the legislative provide for stability and energy in the new government by removing the passions of the people and allowing for competition within the branches.

Thus next Publius discusses the executive branch, by far the most controversial of the day and most in need of defense by Publius. Publius discusses the mode of electing the President in Federalist 68. As with the legislative, the mode of electing the President must have a way of preventing the passions of the majority from ruling. Thus the Electoral College was devised as a way of preventing the encroachments of the people’s passions from entering into the election of the President. Publius describes, “It was equally desirable that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation.”[26] By doing this the Electoral College is made up of a small number of individuals so that deliberation is permitted in the election of the new President. Publius says, “This process of election affords a moral certainty that the office of the President will seldom fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”[27] As for the proper place of the executive in the stability and energy of government, he is of the most importance. As Publius says, “A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory must be, in practice, a bad government.”[28] The executive must be strong and energetic in order to properly execute the laws he is charged to enforce. Publius calls “united; duration; an adequate provision for its support; and competent powers”[29] to be what constitutes an energetic executive. Energy is found in unity as in a single person the powers of the executive can be carried out quickly without delay. If the executive power were divided among more than one person, it would be subject to deliberation which will prevent an energetic executive. [30] Likewise, the President’s tenure of office is important for his energy. The duration of office is also an important element in the stability of the executive. If he stays too long, then he is apt to be too firm and possibly encroach on the powers of the legislative. Yet if he is tenure is too short then he is apt to fall prey to the legislative.[31] Shortness in the tenure of office is also likely to prevent the interest of the executive from performing his duties. This is also the argument used by Publius in Federalist 72 in regards to the reelection of an executive; by allowing him to run for reelection, he will watch how he acts in office so that the people look upon him favorably.[32] These are the aspects which allow for an energetic and stable executive, without which the government as a whole would lack stability and energy.

Lastly, Publius discusses the importance of the Judiciary in the make up of the new Constitution. Publius calls the Federal judiciary, “the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.”[33] The purpose of the Federal judiciary he proposes is to prevent “the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body.”[34] Publius counters the fears of judicial usurpation by asserting that the Federal judiciary will be the weakest of all the branches as it lacks power over the purse and sword. Publius further argues:

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.[35]

The Judicial branch will have no authority over the purse or over the sword, but instead only over judgment.[36] It will thus be able to prevent against legislative and executive encroachments by striking down laws which are contrary to the Constitution and the laws and treaties of the United States. The separation of the judicial from the legislative is also important so as to allow the judges to exercise their judgment without fear of reprisal by the legislative branch. Thus, the salaries of the judges cannot be lowered so as not to influence their opinions.[37] Their tenure of office also allows for freedom of judgment in judicial matters. Their appointment is for during good behavior, which prevents their judgment from being dependent on reelection, which may have a negative effect on their opinions. Thus through the judicial department is called upon to be safeguard against the encroachments of the representative and executive bodies. It will further only have the power of judgment, not the power of the purse or the sword. And it will further lack dependence on the legislative branch because their salaries cannot be lowered and their tenure of office is during good behavior, not apt to reelection.

The Federalist lays out a discussion of how energy and stability will be present in the new Constitution without violating the principles of republican government and the liberties of the people. As such, the basic necessity to ensure this requires a separation of powers. Publius describes how the various departments of the new government participate and uphold the principles of the separation of powers. He further demonstrates how the people and States partake in the controlling of the new government by their participation in the election of the houses of the legislative. Publius properly upholds his argument in Federalist 37 in his discussion of the following papers.

[1]Federalist 37, in Alexander Hamilton et al., The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter, introduction and notes by Charles R. Kesler (New York: New American Library, Mentor, 1999), 194.

[2] Federalist 37, 195

[3] Federalist 47, 270

[4] Federalist 47, 271

[5] Federalist 48, 277

[6] “as the legislative department alone has access to the pockets of the people…”Federalist 48, 278

[7] “As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power…” Federalist 49, 281-282

[8] Federalist 49, 284

[9] “The members of the legislative department…” Federalist 49, 284

[10] Federalist 50, 285

[11] Federalist 50, 286

[12] “If the periods be distant from each other…” Federalist 50, 286

[13] “Pennsylvania in 1783 and 1784, was, as we have seen….” Federalist 50, 286

[14] Federalist 51, 289

[15] Federalist 51, 289

[16] “But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several…” Federalist 51, 289

[17] Federalist 51, 290

[18] Federalist 51, 290

[19] Federalist 51, 291

[20] Federalist 52, 295

[21] Federalist 52, 298

[22] Federalist 62, 345

[23] Federalist 62, 346

[24] Federalist 62, 347

[25] “The mutability in the public councils…” Federalist 62, 348

[26] Federalist 68, 380

[27] Federalist 68, 382

[28] Federalist 70, 391

[29] Federalist 70, 392

[30] Federalist 70, 392

[31] “Duration in office has been mentioned…”Federalist 71, 399

[32] “The first is necessary to give the officer himself….” Federalist 72, 404

[33] Federalist 78, 433

[34] Federalist 78, 433

[35] Federalist 78, 433

[36] Federalist 78, 433

[37] Federalist 79, 441

John Locke and The Subjection of Eve.

Quotes taken from John Locke’s Two Treatises on Government

edited by Peter Laslett.

Up to this point John Locke has spoken against Sir. Filmer on the accounts of Adam’s claim to sovereignty by Donation, Creation, and Paternal & Regal authority. And at this point Locke turns his attention to the subject of Adam’s authority by way of Subjection of Eve. Filmer’s assertion, according to Locke, is based on the sixteenth passage of the third chapter of the book of Genesis, “And thy desire shall be to they Husband, and he shall rule over thee.”(Gen. 3:16.) Thus Filmer has established not only that monarchy is the only legitimate form of rule, but that patriarchal monarchy is the only legitimate form of rule. However, Locke asserts that God cannot violate the laws of speech, and therefore we must interpret what is said as though a human is speaking. This is especially true when Locke states , “he vouchsafes to speak to Men.” In this case, it cannot seem logical that God would chastise and degrade Eve for her disobedience when Adam himself also took part in the sin. In fact, God lowers Adam’s station by making him a day laborer and forcing him out of paradise. And so it would seem odd, Locke asserts, that on the same day that this happens, God grants Adam the prerogatives, privileges, dignity, authority, dominion and monarchy as well.

Here I must diverge for a moment to address Locke’s list. He specifically states, “granting Adam Prerogatives, and Privileges, investing him with Dignity and Authority, Elevating him to Dominion and Monarchy.” Prerogatives, Dignity, and Dominion all go together as they are something all men and women are capable of sharing in. All humans are given dignity because we are human, and made in the image of God. By granting us free will God has granted us prerogative as well. And finally all men, in the charge given to Adam by God, share in the dominion of the world and eventually their private lands. As such, it would be odd for God to grant only these to Adam when it is clear that we all possess them. As for the other three, Privileges, Authority and Monarchy, these are specific powers. Only those capable of ruling are possessed of these three powers, and according to Aristotle only he who is capable of sharing in the rule of the polis is called a citizen. As such, if Adam is being lowered because of his part in the disobedience against God, it would seem clear he is not capable of sharing in the rule (though this is what is meant when the Bible says God made man in his own image.) If Eve, therefore, is not included in the granting of all these powers, then neither can Adam for the first three are common to all men while the last only to those with the faculty to use them.

And so we are clear that Adam and Eve both possess either all or none of these powers, since both are guilty of the same sin. Further, we cannot change the understanding of a directive spoken to humans by God simply because it comes from God. Our understanding must remain consistent because God himself cannot break the laws of speech. Looking at the quote we will soon realize that God is speaking directly at Eve, not at Adam, and that God never uses a plural and so it cannot be assumed to apply to all women. Eve alone is subject to her husband, not all women. However, it can and has been taken as a statement to all women about their position to their husbands. Though, it is not a law just as it is not a law that all women must bring their child forth in sorrow and pain since there is a remedy for this. And if there is a remedy, it cannot be considered law. This is not a law placed on women or a grant given to men, but rather a mere observation of how nature has been ordered by God. The lot of women is to bring forth children in sorrow and pain, and to be subject to their husbands. The latter is evident by the mere fact that every nation has the custom that women are subject to their husbands. But as Locke asserts, would Queens Elizabeth or Mary be subject to their husbands politically? In modern times, Queen Elizabeth II is politically superior to her husband. The lot of women to bring forth children in sorrow and pain cannot be an indication of their inferior nature, it is a punishment for disobeying God’s command. As for the latter, Eve is subject to Adam because she is his wife, not because she is a woman. Man and Woman retain their equality, but within the familial the wife is subject to the husband. Consequently, neither directive from God can be seen as political since the former is merely punishment, and the latter is an isolated condition of women.

Locke then also demonstrates that political power is the power over life and death. If we look at the Bible it tells us that God made man in his own image; though we are not told what that image is. We can infer the answer through other Biblical passages. God tells both Adam and Eve to go forth and procreate, indicating that they have been given authority over life. Upon completion of the flood God tells Noah and his sons, “For if man sheds the blood of man, then by man shall his blood be shed.” (Genesis 9:6.) Indicating that God has given man the authority over death. Like God, man is sovereign of his world. However, Locke warns at the end that the authority of man over animals or the relationship between man and woman are both apolitical. Why is this? In the first case, political rule is the rule over rational animals. Animals are not rational, therefore man’s authority over animals is not political (it is more like master-slave, which according to Aristotle is also apolitical.) The relationship between husband and wife is that between equals; Adam is not superior to Eve and vice versa. As such Adam cannot hold the power of life and death over Eve and she cannot over him. This is a divergence from Aristotle because he asserts that the relationship of the husband and wife is political. The reason for this differing in opinion stems from the definition of political rule. For Locke it has been stated the political rule is that of life and death, while for Aristotle political rule is between equals. Thus the relationship to husband and wife for Locke is apolitical because it does not concern itself with life and death, but for Aristotle it is political.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 221 other followers