Not only was the whole of Europe organized into different countries with new alliances and borders, all parts of Europe were left reeling from the dramatic population losses and the return of survivors who were rendered unrecognizable either through the massive sustained injuries and, less visibly although certainly not less important, hard to recognize emotionally following a war that produced mental casualties that are impossible to calculate in numbers. This new paradigm of reorganized borders and population devastation created an entire generation, particularly of young men who were lucky enough to return home following the war.

Unlike in successive wars that were categorized by a different set of class values (this is a concept that will be explored further) and subsequent class participation, the First World War in Europe had heavy involvement of upper and upper-middle class young men, many of whom never returned home and those who were lucky enough to come back, found themselves in difficult situations as they tried to grapple with their experiences and “shell shock.” The issue of shell shock is important in helping to define Europe’s disenfranchised youth returning home and will be given broader attention in future paragraphs. What is important as a preface to the discussion, however, is the very concept of a “lost generation.” This does not simply refer to the massive numbers of casualties across class lines or the population loss that occurred; rather it refers to the more specific condition of a European loss of the future intellectual elite. “Although ever war death was wasteful, the deaths of thousands of educated and privileged young men brought about what was called a ‘Lost Generation’ of future politicians philosophers, and poets who never had the chance to fulfill their promise” (winter lost gen article 466).

According to an analysis of enlistment data, the wealthy were the first to sign up to fight in the Great War and then, upon casualty statistics, were most likely to the first to be killed. There are several explanations for why the he wealthy of Europe, particularly in Britain, were predisposed to join the military effort, one of which was due to simple economic conditions which, when combined with the dominant glorification of going to war for this group of young men, were enough to send them off with little hesitation. Aside from the cultural reasons for going to war which will be address in more detail, there were simple economic reasons that allowed this privileged class of young men to go off and fight. Quite simply, their financial service in their homes was not needed; they were often students or young men with few obligations in terms of earning their families money, thus this “great adventure” was one that was open to them, but not to young men who were needed at home. “Other social groups, even if they shared the same zeal to serve, may have feared the consequences to dependents of long separation on active military service…Others were forbidden or restrained because they were needed on the home front” (Winter Britain Lost Gen: 466).

The term “shell shock” came into being during the First World War and was used to describe the emotional fallout soldiers faced, which has been transcribed into more medical terms in contemporary discussions about war and its emotional devastation by “post-traumatic stress disorder.” The term shell shock, however, is perhaps more appropriate to an analysis of the cultural aftermath of WWI as it explicitly makes references to the actual modes of war damage through the term “shells” and the term “shock” which seems more adequate to describe the unprecedented scope of violence and technology-driven violent acts that created genuine shock throughout all of Europe—not simply on the soldiers themselves. One scholar takes the argument that “the term shell sock was a specifically Anglo-Saxon representation not solely of damaged soldiers, but more generally of central facets of the war itself” (Lost gen article Winter: 467)… “The injury was validated by the term, enabling many people and their families to bypass the stigma associated with terms like “hysteria” which gave the connotation arising out of psychological vulnerability” (Winter Shell Shock article 8).

“It is true enough that in a host of ways Britain never recovered from the shock of the 1914-18 war. The war poets and novelists who wrote of ‘shell shock’ provided a poetic way of making their point… Those works of literary men have lasted; they are part of the history of shell-shock because they have told later generations what it was. Individual memories fade away, but cultural representations endue (Winter Shell Shock Article page 10).

Accord to the Report of the War Office Committee of Enquiry Into Shell-Shock, which was released just following the armistice, their initial assessment of shell-shock was based on the idea that those suffering from complaints upon returning home were simply too close to the actual site of explosions and suffered neurological damage from this proximity. The report states, however, they over time they had to go back and reevaluate this initial supposition. The report states, “It was observed, in fact, that these conditions were perpetually occurring although the patient had not suffered from commotional disturbance of the nervous system caused by bursting shells” (Shell Report 5) Their final assessment was that “the change from civil life brought about my enlistment and physical training was sufficient to cause neurasthenic and hysterical symptoms, and that the wear and tear of a prolonged campaign of trench warfare with its terrible hardships and anxieties, and of attack and perhaps repulse, produced a condition of mind and body properly falling under the term ‘war neurosis’ practically indistinguishable from the forms of neurosis known to every doctor under ordinary conditions of civil life” (Shell Report, 5).

Both essays in their discussions of reasons that support conquest and the effects such conquest have on both parties involve issues of cultural and racial determinism; Montaigne defends the notion that there is no cultural superiority and that through its greedy desire for more land Europeans are no better than those they presume to be barbaric while Sepulveda contends that Europeans are the natural conquerors of a lower people. These are both extreme views in their own right and in a comparison, off little point of balanced analysis.

One of the most immediately striking passages from “Of Cannibals” is that in which the author states, I am afraid our eyes are bigger than our bellies, and that we have more curiosity than capacity; for we grasp at all, but catch nothing but wind” (Montaigne). Although he does have a tendency toward digression in his writing, this can be seen as something as thesis statement for the piece in regards to the motivations behind European expansion. In short, what he is saying through this and some later examples is that Europe expanded for reasons for expansion and greed alone without thought to the implications; blinded by zeal, greed, and an insatiable thirst for conquest for its own sake. Montaigne implicitly criticizes the motivations behind conquest in the New World by making parallels between the perceived barbarism of native peoples and the barbarism that existed in the Western World. He cleverly uses iconic Western literary and philosophical tracts to base his comparison and subtle provide a rather scathing critique of the motivations of Europe. Sepulveda also justifies the motivations behind conquest in terms of Western traditions although unlike his more liberal counterpart, he employs the bible as the deciding element of authenticity to back his claims rather than the Greek and ancient philosophical tradition.

Early in “Of Cannibals” Montaigne talks about several historical circumstances where countries went beyond their limits in their search for new lands out of greed rather than need and also implies that these efforts were always doomed to fail or had other negative associations. For instance, he talks about the efforts to colonize different regions that landed in disaster, using the example of Atlantis, among others. He also provides a stern warning by means of ideas from Aristotle who talked about how there was a prohibition from the senate for new expansion as Carthage was worried that “in process of time they [the migrants] should so multiply as to supplant themselves and ruin their state. Of the greatest importance, Montaigne then compares the “barbarians” of the New World to this (without ever making a single direct reference and instead letting his readers make their conclusions and ties) by saying that “Their disputes are not for the conquest of new lands, for these they already possess are so fruitful by nature, as to supply them without labor or concern, with all things necessary, in such abundance that they have no need to enlarge their borders. And they are moreover, happy in this, that they only covert so much as their natural necessities require…” (Montaigne). Whereas Montaigne draws the strength of his argument from his implicit ties between the Western “high” cultural tradition using authors such as Aristotle and Plato, which are used to point out hypocrisy, Sepulveda too uses literature and philosophy from the west to verify and “legitimize” his assertions. His most effective weapon for his arguments that conquest is best are based on the Bible, which was one of the most credible sources of authority during the time for the majority of Western culture—and certainly for those in power who were funding the conquest. He states, for instance, “If after bring instructed in this way they obey our orders, they are then to be admitted into the faith. And they must be conceded the conditions of a just peace, so that, in the words of Deuteronomy (20:11) they shall be tributaries and shall serve” (Sepulveda 114).

This shift was due to a growing number of advantages the secular authorities possessed—advantages that would eventually topple the supreme authority of the Catholic Church, which ushered in a period of secular change. Furthermore, as cities and towns began to flourish and more artisans and skilled tradesman changed the nature of economics, among other elements in medieval culture, institutions of higher learning that emphasized philosophy and thought began to grow. These produced an ever-increasing din of new voices that were calling into question what it meant to be a subject, and more importantly, what power was most correct to be subject to.

One of the greatest sources of change that signaled a dawn of growing movement toward secularism in the medieval period were the increased assertions by monarchies that political power should rest in the hands of the state and not the Church. In response to what was being seen as an aggressive grab at their historically undisturbed position of power, the Catholic Church, led by Pope Boniface VII, issued a decree that in order to find peace and salvation in heaven, all citizens had to obey and become subjects of the Pope. This was something of an ill-timed and overly aggressive statement at a point when states were consolidating power.

Monarchs such as King Philip IV of France reacted with the most resistance and took broad moves to institute policies of secularism. This sparked a war of policy initiatives between Boniface VII and Philip IV with each taking bold moves to retain authority. For instance, Philip abolished all church personnel and clergymen from his government and no longer granted a tax exemption to the clergy, who were a broad class of men with more wealth than one might associate as appropriate in our modern times. In reaction, a serious of “wars” between the two men; Philip through his refusal to grant money to Rome, and papal bulls declaring god as the supreme ruler over the state culminated in Boniface’s designation as a heretic and Philip’s excommunication. In short, this was the end between any friendly relationship between France and Rome—a severance that would have a significant impact on more than just politics, but would influence society and culture at large.

The advantage of the nation/state and secularism lie in one clear area in particular–money. Taxes accounted for an enormous portion of Rome’s coffers and through their control of the purse strings and the tax changes Philip made, papal authority lost its bite. Without the direct funds from one of the richest nations in Europe, as well as the significant loss of Rome’s political power that occurred when Philip IV eradicated all traces of theology from his political leadership, there were few options the Catholic Church had to restore their once unquestionable power. There is something so implicitly oppositional about this war between the papal and secular that occurred in France—Philip was fighting with tangible power (his influence over tax money and political positions of power) whereas Boniface was fighting with words, bulls and degrees based on concepts which were intangible (statements about God’s supreme power over the state and excommunication). Furthermore, unlike any other monarch in history, Philip IV had several legal professionals at his counsel who aided him in putting policies in action whereas the dwindling papal authority had only the same structure that had guided it for years that could rely on upon threat of excommunication—something that meant very little to the rationality-minded secular king.

Another more general but equally important change was occurring throughout medieval Europe as many new cities began to rise in prominence. Older cities experienced an economic boom and became thriving centers of commerce where distinct class systems began to emerge, which was a rather new event following the ravages of the Crusades and Black Death. With the rise in these localities, all of which had their own developing class systems based on municipal government-like structures that were emerging, came aspects related to open trade of goods and services. People became skilled artisans and laborers, which led to a more even economic system (although certainly still rigidly structured class-wise). This spawned the development of universities and institutions of learning where the arts and sciences began to flourish and add even more fuel to the fire of increasingly bold secular questions about the nature of power and authority. In short, this period produced a new balance power and this rather more egalitarian (in a very cautious, relative sense) balance permitted another main advantage the secular movement had—more numbers overall.

The advantages for the secular movement, which began in earnest with the massive political backlash by Philip IV against the increasingly desperate actions and bulls issued by Boniface VII, were two-fold. First, by depriving the Catholic Church of its funds gained through a system of extreme taxation, as well as by removing the members of the clergy from political appointments, Philip XI was able to singlehandedly take the first steps to secure an advantage over Rome. Without the valuable funds provided through the taxes of the French people and without any political authority left to reverse this, Rome was left defenseless. While it attempted to excommunicate and provide other “supreme” condemnations, the rational and legal-team-led authority of Philip had secured a perfect advantage. This newly secularized state in official terms, coupled with a period of population growth and other advantages that would be addressed if granted more space, allowed for a rise in the population of cities and towns where distinct classes functioned to further the economy in general and allow for institutions of higher learning to develop and disseminate ideas. This new state of learning versus religious doctrine created a world that we recognize now as far different than the one that existed prior to Philip’s succession to the throne and changed the course of Western history forever.

Related Articles

Social Order, Culture and the Epic Form

The Song of Roland : An Analysis of Medieval Lord and Vassal Relationships

13 Definitions from European History Every History Student Should Know

The Role of Women in The Ecclesiastical History of the English People by Bede

As noted, issues related to the incredibly diverse geographical features of Italy attest to its social and cultural disunion and create significant practical barriers to the development of a homogenous national culture. Furthermore, its position between continents and the effects of that on economic conditions, the presence of the vast Alps and other mountainous areas, unpredictable and difficult to navigate rivers and waterways, and even the variances in the suitability for the land in different areas for industries such as agriculture versus manufacturing—all of these complicate any attempts to form a cohesive sense of culture. Dickie also notes that following WWII, many of the problems with cultural unification are also related to the noxious blend of Catholicism and Communism, both of which have geographic connections that are still fiercely adhered to, thus there is also a divide not only in physical geography, but in terms of how ideologies are clustered with these areas, particularly in terms of rural and urban areas.

The language separations in Italy, especially as they pertain to the use of regional dialects, is another significant barrier to achieving a unified, homogenous culture in Italy. While Italian is the official language of the country, this is a relatively new declaration, especially considering that it was rarely spoken prior to unification. Although many thinkers in the region understood the value of a unified language system to be used “as a medium of culture” (Richardson 67) prior to the development of the national language, even with such an official language that is now commonly accepted, there is the question of the loss of heritage inherent to this elimination of dialects. While this might serve to add some degree of homogeneity, the issues that truly impact the divides throughout Italy are more complex and nuanced and cannot be addressed by developing a common language alone.

In addition to the language issue, there is also a significant philosophical divide in the country that is apparent in the nation’s religious and political structures. With firm roots in the Catholic tradition where great power rested in Church authority and the subsequent rise in secularism and political ideologies that were counter to a religious state, divides between religious and secular groups were deep and the revolutionary political movements that emerged on the basis of these differences were even more divisive. There is no party that can claim absolutely majority in Italy and there are several parties, ranging from the Christian Democrats to the fiercely secular Communist-inspired offshoots. In short, there is not only great political difference, the differences that exist are numerous and to radical extremes, which makes the notion of political, philosophical, and generally ideological unification seem like a hopeless goal.

While there is no sense of unified culture in any real sense within Italy and “the open-endedness and internal diversity, [which] continue to this day”(Dickie 18) there is something valuable about such a lack of homogeneity and even though there is no distinct universal concept of Italian culture that fits all regions or views, perhaps this very diversity is the key to defining Italy’s culture.

What are the major subcultures of Italy? Identify them and elaborate on the differences and similarities.
The Catholic culture in Italy is one of the most longstanding and most worthy of commentary, especially as it is at the forefront in terms of reasons for some revolutionary political movements that gave way to even more of the same through the last two centuries. These religious and political subcultures are perpetuated by the complex relationship Italy has with itself as being such a diverse and unsettlingly disjointed culture on a national scale.

Although it has undergone several changes in recent years in terms of its image throughout the rest of the world so that it is “no longer conceived as fundamentally hostile” and can enter into dialogue (Allum 97) the Catholic Church created one of the strongest subcultures in Italy with a base that is still very strong, even if not dominant. Due its slipping grasp on society in the face of secular Liberalism, the Church’s strategy under Leo XIII was to “combine maximum doctrinal rigor with extreme realism. This meant defending Church principles while taking advantage of the political opportunities offered by secular regimes” (Allum 99). New elements of Catholic culture were established, such as Thomism, with its stress upon the supreme domination of man over nature, as well as the associated pillars of family and work—in short, principles rooted in the rational and reason-based, albeit with faith-based underpinnings.

Within this framework, the incredibly large institution of Catholicism, with millions of members of Catholic Action and related groups and their control over many presses and a political party, the Christian Democrats with a considerable amount of power, consolidated its view against atheist movements (such as Communism, for instance) and, with its focus on discipline, obedience, and its “grassroots” structure, Catholicism dominated “the political and cultural orientation of the majority of Italians in the Fascist and Cold War periods (Allum 106). Catholic culture in Italy was, for a long period that was aided by mass action and political positioning, a fierce movement with an almost political emphasis on acceptance and adherence, although due to a change in general culture, it has been more or less forced to abandon the “take no prisoners” approach and instead remain in open dialogue with all persons, emphasizing compassion and righteousness rather than struggling to win hearts and minds.

Despite some similarities that can be suggested on the surface connections between the two, Allum notes that “the Church’s social doctrine explicitly rejected both Liberal capitalism and Marxist Socialism and put strong emphasis on employment rights and another subset of this shift in ideology is reflected in a new glorification of the “noble peasant” as he had a direct relationship to the land. Out of these and newer ideas brought about by the arrival of industry and the development of a strong working class came ideas about socialism and ways to create greater equality and rights. Marxists, as one important element of political culture in Italy, were responding in part to Church doctrine and as an alternative, and this was even more the case with the Communist culture, who were the true villains to Catholic culture.

What these political struggles represented were clashes between the secular and the clerical, and more importantly, the reason and rationality base versus the defense offered by the culture of faith that still clung to the rapidly-changing Catholic Church and the extended culture it created. In the wake of the many “isms” cited by Dombroski such as Reformism and Syndicalism, it was becoming clear that in order to best respond to the new culture of workers, who were an increasing part of the Italian economy and culture more generally, political shifts on a grand scale were required, thus ushering in the phase of the Fascist culture before giving way to globalization, which combines these subcultures that are distinctly Italian with Western culture.

Even within a panoramic study of the ancient Greek economy, some important distinctions need to be made. The most important of these distinctions is that there is a critical line of demarcation that exists between the archaic period and that epoch to which scholars refer as the classical period (Cartledge, Cohen, & Foxhall 16; 50). In the archaic period, the majority of productive economic activity was performed by slaves (Cartledge, Cohen, & Foxhall 159), a fact that was particularly true in Athens. The prevailing attitude and perception was that all “commerce was inherently servile,” and men of class—and the ancient Greeks were indeed preoccupied with class—did not subject themselves to base tasks of farming or manufacturing; even trading was not considered a respectable professional office (Cartledge, Cohen, & Foxhall 110). Instead, “real men” were to busy themselves with education and, above all, with defending and expanding their territory by fulfilling their duties as warriors (Cartledge, Cohen, & Foxhall 110).

Thus, most of the economic life of the archaic period in the great Greek cities was stimulated and made possible by a complex system of enslavement that had many different levels. As Cartledge, Cohen, and Foxhall explained, the archaic period was characterized by a complicated social structure in which notions of class were becoming increasingly important. During this period, which the authors refer to as “Homeric society,”  “dependent peasants [were] supporting a warrior elite” (Carledge, Cohen, & Foxhall 28). This practice, which was so important to the development and success of the Greek economy, did not become any less important during the classical period. While the “citizen community [busied itself by] practising reciprocity,” it was simultaneously perpetuating old patterns by “alienating economic exploitation onto non-citizen slaves” (Cartledge, Cohen & Foxhall 28).

Another important characteristic of the archaic period in Athens and Sparta was a development in the economy which would have resonance and relevance for centuries to come: the development of coinage as a currency (Gill, Postlethwaite & Seaford 6). As Gill, Postlethwaite, and Seaford explained, “the Greek economy was the first in history to be pervaded by coinage….” (6). Coins appeared in Greek culture and came to shape the structures and relationships of the Greek economy as early as fifth century BC (Gill, Postlethwaite, & Seaford 6). In their earliest incarnations, however, coins had not yet assumed their full function as an instrument of monetary currency. Instead, coins were, even into the early classical period, “to some extent embedded… in non-economic social relations and practices” (Gill, Postlethwaite, & Seaford 6; emphasis added).

In fact, in their earliest forms, coins were deployed in the service of the “logic of politics, not the logic of gain” (Cartledge, Cohen & Foxhall 16). Evidence from the written and the archaeological records confirm that the early use of coins was not predominant for the purposes of commerce. Rather, during the late archaic and early classical periods, the information that scholars have suggests that the use of money was “geared towards documenting fines, loans, gifts, tribute, or taxes of relatively large scales” (Cartledge, Cohen & Foxhall 49). Far less common is evidence that would substantiate a claim that coins were used for commercial transactions, at least not on a massive scale or by all members of society (Cartledge, Cohen & Foxhall 49). One of the reasons that have been posited to theorize about the limited use of coins during this transition from the archaic period to the classical period is that the denominations had not yet been made practical for trade. Early coins were typically in large denominations (Cartledge, Cohen & Foxhall 49).

Another reason that has been suggested to explain the restricted circulation of coins at this juncture in ancient Greek history is that “[t]here [was] no one fixed standard of coinage for Greece” (Stearns Davis 95). Each jurisdiction, it seems, was making its own coinage, so what we may think of in modern terms as the exchange rate had not yet been standardized. “Although the coins in Athens [had] very wide acceptance,” wrote historian Stearns Davis, each area had its own unique currency and, in some cities that were bustling with trade, it was not uncommon to conduct business transactions in foreign currencies, including “a great deal of… Persian gold darics” (Stearns Davis 95).

Far more common throughout both the archaic and the classical periods was the practice of reciprocity, a central feature in Greek culture and a defining aspect of the Greek economy Gill, Postlethwaite & Seaford 34). There are numerous reasons why reciprocity was so important, not only for economic activity, but perhaps even more so for the maintenance and preservation of strategic social relationships. First, while we traditionally think of Greek culture as being flush with both goods and wealth, there is compelling evidence which suggests “that in archaic and classical Greece moderation was widely held to be an admirable virtue” (Cartledge, Cohen & Foxhall 20). According to this theory, then, while a man of means could probably obtain any good that he needed or desired, the exercise of restraint by confining his acquisitions to meaningful objects increased his stature and respectability amongst his peers and preserved his reputation in the community (Cartledge, Cohen & Foxhall 20).

The notion of restraint as it is implied by the practice of reciprocity was also important to the ancient Greeks because it propped up spiritual values that were perpetuated in myths and ensured their continued vitality and centrality to Greek life. As Cartledge, Cohen, and Foxhall explained, “If infinite quantities of goods could be produced [and bought], or if human wants were limited in ways that allowed them to be satisfied without much effort, we could all have everything we wanted, rather like Hesiod’s Golden Race” (Cartledge, Cohen & Foxhall 20). It was important, however, to recognize that the gods had “hidden the means of life,” and that man needed to labor to uncover them, even if that labor did not involve the dirtying or effort of his own hands (Cartledge, Cohen & Foxhall 20). The types of labor that were emerging during this period depended upon the continued practice of slavery, for one of the changes that did not occur during the transition from archaic life to classical life in ancient Athens and Sparta was the evolution of the idea that each man needed, with his own hands, to produce the fruits of labor that would sustain him and his family.

Athens and Sparta were remarkably different cities, and a brief consideration of each permits the contemporary scholar to understand how similar economic systems could develop in places that had very little in common. Athens was considered to be the “richest and greatest commercial city of Continental Hellas,” having no close “formidable rival” (Stearns Davis 91). Because of its strategic geographic position as a port city, Athens had remarkable opportunities for developing certain aspects of its economy—most notably, international trade—before other Greek cities (Stearns Davis 91-92). The diversity of manufactured and traded goods in Athens was considerable. Among the items on the market during this period were those goods made in Athens, including tanned leather products, ships, blacksmithed goods, and pottery (Stearns 92). In addition, Athens was developing a brisk and respectable trade in “articles of…various districts…which Athens [was] constantly importing” (Stearns Davis 94). “Bœotia sends chariots; Thessaly, easy chairs; Chios and Miletos, bedding; and Miletos, especially, very fine woolens,” wrote Stearns Davis (94).

Athenian merchants also cast their nets wider, looking to “Syria and Arabia for the much-esteemed spices and perfumes; to Egypt for papyri for the book rolls; [and] to Babylonia for carpets” (Stearns Davis 94). It is worth noting that the Athenian economy depended heavily upon this flow of traded goods, as Athens itself had “extremely few natural products to export” (Stearns Davis 94). Instead, Athens had to make a name for itself by becoming an importer extraordinaire, able to move received goods throughout the Greek empire, a task in which it succeeded handsomely. There were some goods which Athenians farmed or quarried, produced for market consumption, and then offered up for trade. Among the natural goods that Athenians were able to extract from their city were olive oils, honeys, and “her magnificent marbles” (Stearns Davis 94), for which Athens in particular and Greece in general would become world-famous. In addition, to these goods, Athens produced some grain; however, the limited production was not enough to support even its own needs, and “so serious [was] the crisis created by any shortage, that all kinds of measures [were] employed to compel a steady flow of grain from the Black Sea ports into the Peiræus” (Stearns Davis 94).

Compared to Athens, Sparta was, according to Powell equivalent in power, though not in population density” (218). Sparta differed from Athens in many ways, all of them important with respect to the ways in which they impacted the economy. Spartans, perhaps even more than Athenians, were astutely conscious of the way their relationship to labor and money affected the organization of their society (Stearns Davis 246). First, “to be a citizen of Sparta, a man needed a certain income from land,” and the land, of course, was not worked by the landowner himself. Although Sparta became famous—particularly compared to Athens—for its diversity of crops and agricultural products, including cereal, olives, and horses– the fame was deserved by those who worked the land, not those who owned it (Cartledge & Spawforth 170). Those who owned the land were far more concerned about land transfers and the role that these played in inheritance plans, which in turn ensured the longevity of familial wealth (Stearns Davis 246). Such practices, wrote Stearns Davis, “vidently contrasted with Athens, where a wealthy heiress… normally married within the wider family. Under Spartan rules, it seems, money tended to marry money, leaving bride, groom and descendants… rich, while other blood relatives of the bride were impoverished” (246). As Cartledge and Spawforth affirmed, pastoralism played a critical role in “local prosperity [and] [l]and-ownership… always provided the chief source of private wealth at Sparta” (169).

As one begins to discern by examining these patterns, then, farming, manufacture, and trade were all critical components of the ancient Greek economies in Athens and Sparta; however, there are two important caveats that must be offered to understand these in context. First, those who benefited from the economic prosperity of these practices were not the people who pioneered the practices; rather, they were the slaves of the landowners who created wealth for those who were bound by honor and traditional values to leave work to others while they defended their cities and their notions of honor and reputation (Finley 32). Second, the changes that occurred during the transition from the archaic Greek period to the classical Greek period were not particularly significant. Instead, the transition might best be characterized as a continuation of the status quo, with the notable exception being the emergence of coin currency. The economic system of the ancient Greeks may seem antiquated to the modern student or reader, but it is clear that the roots of our own economy can be traced all the way back to these early institutions and patterns. There are striking similarities that confirm that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Works Cited

Cartledge, Paul, Edward E. Cohen, and Lin Foxhall. Money, Labor, and Land. New York: Routledge, 2002.

Cartledge, Paul, and Antony Spawforth. Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: A Tale of Two Cities.New York, Routledge, 2002.

Finley, Moses I. The Ancient Economy. Santa Monica, CA: University of California Press, 1999.

Gill, Christopher, Norman Postlethwaite, and Richard Seaford. Reciprocity in Ancient Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Powell, Anton. Athens and Sparta: Constructing Greek Political and Social History from 478 B.C. New York: Routledge, 2001.

Stearns Davis, William. A Day in Old Athens: A Picture of Athenian Life. New York: Biblo &Tannen, 1960.

History Definition #1 : Justinian Code

Definition of the Justinian Code – The Emperor Justinian was renowned for many things during the Byzantium period. He was responsible for rebuilding the capital, Constantinople and also attempted to recapture the old Roman Empire. The Justinian Code was one such attempt to show the power of the new Roman Empire. The Code combined all of the pre-existing laws into one central book. The laws included legislation on various topics such as religion and previously enforced laws. The Justinian Code was significant because it began a new era of Roman law, affected other Religious law, and made for a more just legal process, as all laws were now in a well-written and organized format.

History Definition #2 : Iconoclasm

Definition of Iconoclasm – Iconoclasm is the destruction of religious figures, statues and other symbols as a method of protest or as a symbol of religious discontent. Iconoclasm usually occurs within the confines of one religion, usually signifying the beginning of a sectarian break and alludes to a desire to return to purer forms of religion. Leo III started the Iconoclasm conflict when he ordered a statue of Jesus to be removed from a public space, and then declared that religious symbols of any sort were not to be displayed. This decree was in effect until the late seventh century, and the declaration began a religious tension that lasted for far longer than the ban itself.

History Definition #3 : Great Schism

Definition of the Great Schism – The Great Schism divided Latin and Greek Christianity into branches. These branches later formed the Roman Catholic Church and The Eastern Orthodox Church. The Schism was a direct result over the legitimacy of Papal authority. The church split over many things, and it’s still in debate over some of these issues hundreds of years later. Issues that were fought over included iconoclasm, the Nicene Creed, the jurisdiction of Eastern and Western churches, some liturgical practices, especially Eucharistic ones, as well as and the authority of the Pope. The Great Schism was important because it had lasting effects on the Catholic Church, which is still suffering from this situation in modern times.

History Definition #4 : Charlemagne

Definition / Importance of Charlemagne – Charlemagne was the Frankish emperor during the mid-eighth century through the early ninth century. He used his militaristic power to gain control of territory through northeastern Spain, Italy and Bavaria. He was crowned by Pope Leo III, which caused problems with other Byzantine emperors; Charlemagne was acknowledging the power of the Pope over the power of the Emperor. Charlemagne is often known as the first Christian Emperor. He attempted to spread Christianity through force in the pagan lands as his military conquered kingdoms, which led to Christianity spreading more quickly throughout his empire. The power of the papacy also helped to keep Roman traditions alive.

History Definition #5 : Manor System

Definition of the Manor System – The Manor system was the primary method of agricultural organization during the period of early medieval society. The manor employed serfs and peasants to take on the physical labor needed for the day-to-day running of the manor. Serfs were tied to their land, and hence they were employed by the same manor until the time of their contractual obligation was fulfilled. Free peasants also often turned over their lands and offered their labor to the lord of the manor for protection. Manors were very self-sufficient communities and it was successful because it offered the manors more land and employable workers, and also offered workers a place of safety in times when danger was easy to come by.

History Definition #6 : Gregory the Great

Definition / Importance of Gregory the Great – Gregory the Great was the first monastic pope, and is considered a Doctor of the Church. He had a huge influence on the early medieval church, and he eventually became an ambassador to the imperial court in Constantinople. He had a large controversy with Patriarch Eutychius. Gregory was proven correct by his peers, and returned home to a papal nomination. He assured the public that he had no designs on the throne of Peter and in fact, he exalted the simplicity of monastic life. While Gregory’s writings and religious teachings had a large impact on the Church, Gregory himself asserted that the Bishop of Rome had the most power in the Catholic Church, a teaching that has lasted until today.

History Definition #7 : Bubonic Plague

Definition of the Bubonic Plague – The Bubonic plague began in Chine in the fourteenth century and had an effect on virtually every aspect of everyday life, from climate to fertility and famine. Over 2/3 of the Chinese population was killed, dropping ten million in only one hundred years. The plague had horrifying symptoms, such as black boils and open sores, and it was highly contagious. The plague traveled west towards Western Europe, and over 25% of the European population was killed, as well as many from Islamic societies. The economic effect was terrifying; there were unprecedented scales of labor shortages and rebellions erupted throughout Europe.

History Definition #8 : Holy Roman Empire

Definition of the Holy Roman Empire – The Holy Roman Empire began in 962 with the crowning of Otto of Saxony by Pope John XII. Also in breaking with tradition, Pope GregoryVIIdemanded the imperial authorities stop appointing church officials and leave the process to the church itself. The Empire was a union of medieval states in Europe and was controlled by the Roman Catholic Church, which gave the Empire power and the ability to influence everything even outside of it’s realm, such as members of the Eastern Hemisphere, due to trade routes and other such means of transportation. Europe had lost its isolation and become a member of the rest of the known world, especially intent on conquering others.

History Definition #9 : Chivalry

Definition of Chivalry – Chivalry was also one of the biggest catalysts for social change in the medieval ages. Chivalry can be described as an ethical and behavioral code, especially targeted towards feudal nobles. The three main tenants of chivalry include knightly virtue, courtly love and honor. However, the clergy took chivalry to be sign of one’s devotion to God and piety. Troubadours were a large part of the chivalric code and they’re poetic ways charmed women quite easily. Chivalry also embodied Christian values, and so with the continuation of chivalry, the Christian doctrine grew ever stronger, and vice versa.

History Definition #10 : Crusades

Definition of The Crusades – Pope Urban II started the crusades in the late eleventh century in Western Europe. The Pope desired the seizure of the Holy Lands, but the crusades were nothing short of disastrous. In he first crusade, the French and Normans helped to play the expedition, and eventually the Crusaders captured Jerusalem. Another Crusade helped to capture Constantinople, however the Crusaders could never take Palestine The Crusades spawned thousands of Arthurian legends, however the reality behind the Crusades was not always so wonderful and included the slaughter of many non-Christians. The Crusades left a lasting influence in the countries that they visited, and they also carried with them the ideas of culture that were gleaned from their travels.

History Definition #11 : Marco Polo

Definition / Importance of Marco Polo – Marco Polo was a traveler from Venice who traveled to Mongolia and spent seventeen years in China at the court of Khubilai Khan. He wrote a best selling travel book on the subject, II Milione that inspired European merchants to travel to Mongolia and discover its treasure for themselves. Polo’s journey was also quite important because of its documentation. This journey was well outlined and may have possibly led to developmental impact in European cartography and future European exploration voyages. Marco Polo also gave Western Europe a legitimate relationship with Mongolia, and a future, tentative ally, and it also introduced the West to produce and various types of food that could only be found or cultivated in the East.

History Definition #12 : Little Ice Age

Definition of the Little Ice Age – The Little Ice Age began circa 1650 when the world reached its first climactic minimum. The Little Ice Age occurred mostly throughout Europe and North America. The Thames and Venetian canals froze over the winter and the Thames even held a frost fair. However, the impact on humanity was astronomic. Besides death caused by starvation, new food gathering and production methods were developed in order for the survival of the human race. The Little Ice Age even left its mark on art and literature from the time period and it is even said that the tone of Stradivari’s violins can be contributed to the Little Ice Age.

History Definition #13 : Hundred Years War

Definition of the Hundred Years War – Occurred between France and England and actually lasted nearly one hundred and twenty years. The war began in a tussle over control of certain French lands. Taxes were forced upon the people to help balance out the cost of the war, and the battle also cemented the power of the central government of the feudal nobility when they were made to fight or donate their serfs to fight for them. However, unfortunately for England, they did not keep a standing army and they had to start from scratch. The Hundred Years War was significantly important due to the militaristic advancements that occurred throughout as both France and England struggled to outdo one another.

So, how did you do? Did a few of these surprise you? Did you find that you had only a very basic idea of what these Western history definitions were but couldn’t quite remember the full significance?

Although heavily colonized already, Africa, the “vast and dark country” (Conrad para. 5) represented an enormous territory that had not been exploited entirely in terms of its land and its natural resources (Stanley para. 4). England and other colonial powers made continued incursions into this continent in an effort to ensure their continued dominance. Indeed, there was a certain sense of obligation and destiny that pushed the colonialists forward: “It is inherent in a great colonial and commercial empire like ours that we go forward” (Lugard para. 1). One of the many examples of the efforts that were initiated at the end of the 19^th century include the deployment of Kayerts and Carlier to a trading outpost in the interior of Africa. These two men, with no particularly outstanding credentials to recommend them, were transferred from government posts at home and sent, like the previous station chief and so many other men, to the unknown country to “civilize” the wilderness and establish viable local markets to stimulate commerce and, of course, the economic machinery that would result in profits to send home. Like the station chief before them, however, their success was limited. Not only were they completely unprepared and unskilled to perform the work expected of them and that which would be necessary to build a successful outpost of progress, they were hobbled by a certain arrogance that arises out of insecurity, the kind of insistence that one is fully capable of fulfilling a task even when he knows full well it is not true.

Kayerts and Carlier also lacked support to perform their duties. They knew nothing about each other and lacked any particular affinity, but the nature of their circumstances drew them together. Conrad wrote, “The two men got on well together in… their stupidity and laziness. Together they did nothing… and enjoyed the sense of the idleness for which they were paid. And in time they came to feel… affection for one another” (Conrad para. 8). Their only helper was a “Sierra Leone nigger,” Makola, who was not only largely indifferent to Kayerts and Carlier, but who used them for his own ends in the trade of the ten station men for ivory tusks. The ten station men from a neighboring tribe had been forced to work and live there in conditions that were inhospitable and untenable to them, and because of their declining physical health and their general attitude, they did little. While Kayerts and Carlier were disgusted with the station men’s laziness and inability to perform tasks, qualities they themselves exhibited, they took pity on the men and treated them with relative kindness, exposing just how complex and contradictory 19^th century colonial dynamics wereKayerts and Carlier were also totally unprepared for the milieu in which they were expected to work. As is consistent with many other colonial accounts, Kayerts and Carlier found the “wilderness” (Conrad para. 5) around them untamed and threatening, not necessarily because of what it contained, but because the viewer did not know what it contained. The “immense forests” hid “fateful complications of fantastic life,” (Conrad para. 15) fantastic both in the sense of incredible beyond the imaginations of the white men, and in the sense that the forest harbored treasures that, while dangerous to procure, could bring the white men inestimable fortune. This wildness of their surroundings also mirrored and amplified the “primitive nature [of] primitive man,” which, like the forest, “brings sudden and profound trouble into the heart” (Conrad para. 5), for the interpretation of his language, his actions, and his very appearance challenges everything that Kayerts, Carlier, and men like them know about humankind.

Despite their obvious shortcomings—consider that the men actually accomplish nothing in their time at the outpost—Kayerts and Carlier console themselves when they read the newspaper “Our Colonial Expansion,” a propagandist piece typical of the era. Kayerts and Carlier consider the possibility that they have played a role, albeit a small one, in the civilization of a territory that may, 100 years forward, have “Quays, and warehouses, and barracks, and–and–billiard-rooms. Civilization, my boy, and virtue–and all” (Conrad para. 15). They are, in fact, proud to think about the possibility that they were the first “civilized” men to live in this hardscrabble outpost that lacks all markers of what they consider to be a civilized society. Their attitude reflects the racist and classist dynamics that underlie the colonialist enterprise, summarized so well, and so offensively, by Pearson: “…[S]truggle and suffering have been the stages by which the white man has reached his present stage of development, and they account for the fact that he no longer lives in caves and feeds on roots and nuts” (Pearson para. 2).This sort of rhetoric was used by the colonial powers to convince its naïve and unprepared representatives that “This dependence of progress on the survival of the fitter race, terribly black as it may seem to some of you, gives the struggle for existence its redeeming features; it is the fiery crucible out of which comes the finer metal” (Pearson para. 2). That metal, of course, was to be collected and its richness enjoyed not by the unfit race, but by the fit one. The work of insignificant men like Kayerts and Carlier, then, was nothing short of fulfilling the destiny of a nation (Scawen Blunt).

The projects of nation-building back on the European continent were, as was the case in the United States, posited on the fundamental belief in the importance of liberty and self-determination (Mill para. 1). The irony and hypocrisy of colonialism in general, and “An Outpost of Progress” in particular, are that in order to secure their own liberty and the right to self-determination, the colonial powers oppressed and repressed others, stealing their own freedom and right to make decisions that affected them. Kayerts and Carlier both come to an unexpected and uneasy conclusion about this distasteful dynamic. Kayerts observes their conditions and makes a clear value statement about slavery being abhorrent, but this knowledge is too late to save the outpost and to save themselves. Carlier provokes the death of himself and of Kayerts when he accuses Kayerts of being a hypocrite slave dealer, including himself in that judgment, and the only way to escape the consequence of that judgment is through death. Symbolically, this death mirrors the decline of colonialism, which began unraveling as the 19^th century gave way to the 20^th.

Other essays and articles in the Literature Archives related to this topic include : Literary Modernism in “Heart of Darkness” by Joseph Conrad and “The Death of Ivan Ilych”

Works Cited

Conrad, Joseph. “An Outpost of Progress.” Retrieved on April 9, 2007 from

http://www.classicreader.com/read.php/sid.6/bookid.305/

Lugard, F.D. “The Rise of Our East African Empire.” Retrieved on April 9, 2007 from www.fordham.edu/ halsall/mod/1893lugard.html

Pearson, Karl. National Life from the Standpoint of Science. Retrieved on April 9, 2007 from

www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1900pearson1.html

Scawen Blunt, Wilfred. My Diaries. Retrieved on April 9, 2007 from

www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1899blunt.html

Stanley, Henry M. How I Found Livingstone. Retrieved on April 9, 2007 from

www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1871stanley.html

Stuart Mill, John. On Liberty. Retrieved on April 9, 2007 from

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_2/mill.html

Although it was not easy to come to a resolution the Peace of Westphalia was signed in 1648 and as a result, Western Europe was changed politically. Because of the war, a number of important geographical consequences occurred; Germany was broken up, the Swiss Confederation and the Netherlands were declared as autonomous nations, but most importantly, the Holy Roman Empire lost power and began to decline from the signing of the Peace until modernity. Another significant development that arose in the wake of the Peace of Westphalia is that France and Sweden came to the forefront of European commerce, pushing Spain out and changing the course of European history up until that point. The Spanish Hapsburgs were no longer the primary power and were eventually forced to declare Dutch and Swiss independence. The political tides changed when the Holy Roman Empire was no longer the center of Europe as other countries began to take over. This would become even more important later with the rise of secularism as a result of the Enlightenment. In addition to the more geographical political changes, other alterations occurred throughout Europe such as a new way of going about warfare. The Thirty Years War required vast armies of mercenary troops and this, although militarily wise, was a large drain on state resources. All parties involved in the war went nearly broke because of the size of their respective armies and this in turn had a devastating impact on the economies as a whole. In addition to this, new bureaucracies were needed to keep up with the increasing demands of state and such changes are still present today in European politics. Also of related importance is the fact that in order to fund these vast armies the states were pressed to collect an increasingly higher number of taxes. This meant more paperwork and of course, more anger on the part of the working people and peasants—those who bore the financial brunt of the costly wars. Such unfair taxation would certainly be called into question as the years wore on, particularly in France, but it is clear that the excessive spending seen during the Thirty Years War had an impact on the economy and thus the peasants. Inward political strife would soon follow based on the external struggles that began before the Thirty Years War.

When discussing the last years of the Thirty Years War it is almost easy to forget that it all began because of religious differences rather than those based on politics and geography. One consequence of the end of the war was that the Holy Roman Empire and the Catholic Hapsburgs would no longer dictate the religious beliefs to a large portion of Europeans. Instead, after the war was over and princes of Germany were allowed to declare their own affiliations, Western Europe changed a great deal. Another important aspect of the Peace of Westphalia in terms of overall European history and its religious struggles, is that after its was agreed upon, all the princes within Germany had the right to declare their provinces as either Catholic, Lutheran or Calvinist. This allowance created divisions throughout Europe based on religious affiliation with the Catholics in the south of Europe, the Lutherans in central Germany, and the Calvinists in the northern part of Europe. While this is not to say that the close of the war mended relations between those of diverse faiths, this separation made it so that this was the last real religious war fought.

Socially, the Thirty Years War caused a significant number of problems, particularly for the peasants and working people. The sizes of the armies required for the prolonged fighting required vast amounts of money and because the fighting went on so long with mercenary troops, the only alternative was to heavily tax the citizens of the states going to war. There were a large number of uprisings throughout Europe, particularly in France, which was a shadow of things to come. The cycle of unfair taxation and the abuse of state bureaucratic power was a major problem for the people of the counties but this was also because times were hard in every aspect of their lives. During the years of the Thirty Years War agricultural production declined significantly. As a result, people who at least worked for enough to eat were having trouble feeding their families. This was made even worse because oftentimes the mercenary troops would lay siege to small and large towns alike, plundering if need be because even they were not given enough. This was compounded by the fact that many of the troops had a large entourage of women, children, and others who came along with them and they too needed to eat as well. These problems were all combined and a long period of disease and general famine swept across  Europe and was particularly bad where the armies passed by. “At times desperate peasants revolted and attacked nearby castles and monasteries. War and intermittent outbreaks of plague cost some German towns one-third or more of their populations. One-third of the inhabitants of Bohemia also perished” For the common people, the number of social ills were stacking up but despite some uprisings, these people were generally not heeded by their governments until much later in history.

Generally speaking, the Thirty Years War began because of religious conflict. While this was one of the main instigators for the ensuing military action, it should also be noted that there was already a great deal of instability throughout Europe, particularly because of the fragmented nature of the individual states and their mixed alliances. With the fall of the Holy Roman Empire and the Hapsburgs, Western Europe changed dramatically as the balance of power shifted from Rome and religion to a more secularly-based set of nations that were more interested in trade, economics, and non-religious affairs. With this in mind, one of the most significant consequences of the Thirty Years War is that is was, essentially, the religious war to end all wars. After this point, religious differences were no longer of primary importance, especially because there was an increasingly unbalanced distribution of wealth between countries in the few years to follow the Peace of Westphalia. Countries that had proven themselves strong (such as Sweden and Denmark, for instance) during the first years of the Thirty Years War were to find themselves in the shadow of wealthier nations such as France. In many ways then, another more general consequence of the War was that it allowed, for the first time in European history, a country to obtain prominence because of trade, economics, and politics rather than because it was the center of a religious hierarchy. In other words, without the events and resolutions of the Thirty Years War Europe and the balance of wealth and power would be dramatically different.

For more essays and articles on this and other historical topics, please visit the history archives *

Works Cited

1) Asch, Ronald G. The Thirty Years’ War: The Holy Roman Empire and Europe, 1618-48. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997.

2) Maland, David. Europe at War, 1600-1650. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1980.

3) Polisenský, Josef V., and Frederick Snider. War and Society in Europe, 1618-1648. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978.

In relation to these ideas and themes in “The Satyricon” by Petronius, it is interesting to explore the ways in which no one is quite what they seem—in other words, the mutability of class depicted in the novel makes it difficult to tell if a character is “true” or born upper class or if they are like Trimalchio and his recently freed companions. On the one hand, there are a few characters, most notably the narrator, who seem able to transcend class boundaries without buying or earning any type of freedom, thus showing that class markers (speech, clothing, education) are just as important as actual wealth. There are also instances which demonstrate that the class system is fluid since there are ex-slaves entering society and working their ways to the upper class, just as there are cases like the one described by a freedman at the dinner party of Trimalchio, who is said to have “eaten like a king” but is now horribly in debt and pursued by creditors. Although there is class mobility on either side of the spectrum, the fact remains that the lives of the poor and enslaved are dramatically different than the excessive and almost grotesque wealth and decadence of the rich.

When Sullivan’s Satyricon opens, the reader is transported into a world of beggars, thieves, whores, and any number of other undesirables. This is the sphere of the poor, whether they are slaves, freedmen, or other impoverished peoples, and it is full of chaos, dark alleys, and shady establishments. The lower classes in Roman society are represented as being cutthroats looking to make money at the cost of others. The street merchants sell discarded beggar’s clothing and are willing to fight over the smallest item and everyone distrusts one another. Even more prominent in this opening depicting the lower classes is the feeling that nothing is what it seems and being undereducated Roman citizens. For example, lost and frustrated, Ascyltus asks someone where his lodgings are and describes what happens as, “then a respectable-looking gentleman came up and very kindly offered to show me the way. He led me down various pitch-dark turnings and brought me to this place” (40). The place he was led to was a dirty and chaotic whorehouse and the “gentleman” was merely a low-class pimp looking to making some cash. This is a disturbing scene because it demonstrates how no one can be trusted. With food shortages and so many poor wandering in the city there is no sense of relief from the constant barrage of tricksters, troublemakers, and con artists. Unfortunately, one can’t discount the narrator, Encolpius, or his friends from the following list since they, much like the other impoverished citizens around them, are also looking for their next meal.

Encolpius has his foot in both worlds of Roman society. Because he is educated and well spoken he is thought to be a member of the higher class, yet by his actions and lack of money he is obviously associated with the lower ones depicted in the opening. Even though he and some of his more educated companions are able to cross class boundaries, it is still important to realize that Encolpius is equally guilty in committing crimes common among those poor people he is surrounded by—even if it is to pay for food. In a poetic response to the world that surrounds him, he ponders, in verse, “What use are laws when money is king / where poverty’s helpless and can’t win a thing…There’s no justice in law—it’s the bidding that counts / and the job of the judge is to fix the amounts” (43). He sees the inequities of the class system around him and in many ways, it almost seems as though he is justifying his own criminal actions by claiming that the leaders do the same thing as they do—that the corruption is at all levels thus his own actions are balanced out.

It is clear that there are some ways of surpassing the class markers—namely education and presenting a refined appearance, but it is also worth nothing that class mobility was certainly possible. Slaves were able to buy their freedom and some of them, Trimalchio for instance, were able to work themselves out of their lowly station. Ascyltus defends his decision to change his station when provoked by the freedmen at Trimalchio’s dinner party by stating, he voluntarily entered into slavery because he “wanted to be a Roman citizen, not a subject with taxes to pay” (73). He also mentions that he purchased his wife’s freedom as well and adds the additional insult of explaining it was so no one could wipe hands on her hair—an overt jab at the decadent Trimalchio who wiped his fingers in his slave’s hair after urinating and washing his hands. This statement is sly but conveys how he really feels about the excessive nature of Trimalchio—especially in regards to his treatment of slaves.

It is hard to reconcile the fact that Trimalchio was once a slave and even he seems to glorify his humble origins through the mural with the story of his rise to power and wealth. After demonstrating his great wealth through vulgar displays of excess, he scolds his guests, “But mind you, don’t look down on the other freedmen here,” and points out a freedman on a couch “it’s not long since he was humping wood on his own back. They say—I don’t know, I’ve heard it—they say he found a hobgoblin’s cap and found its treasure. I don’t begrudge anyone what God has given him. Besides he can still feel his master’s slap and wants to give himself a good time” (58)  (about the almost supernatural implications in acquiring wealth as well as reacting with excess in the face of freedom). This is one of the most remarkable statements about class in the novel for two main reasons. First of all, it exposes the way the supernatural was though to be involved in the process of generating wealth, thus showing that people like Trimalchio considered themselves to be worthy of the god’s protection and divine influence. More importantly, however, it discusses what might be his motivations for displaying his wealth in such gaudy ways since perhaps he too still feels the pain of being of a slave (even though he mentions that he was hard-working). What is ultimately most disgusting about Trimalchio—if one had to choose from the host of possible character traits—is that he was once in the lowly position of slave and now he treats other slaves with the utmost cruelty and even seems to make a great show about how badly he can treat his many slaves. He has several of them perform ridiculous and unnecessary tasks and seems to have hired them on account of their appearance (eunuchs, Ethiopians, boys from Alexandria) as though they were mere adornments. He has become everything that the lower classes consider wrong in Roman society and has completely forgotten about his own history. By his statement, it also seems that Trimalchio is justifying his excessive behavior since he cannot blame anyone for living a life of ease after they have been subjected to the harsh life of a slave.

Trimalchio has several friends that are also freedman that are around his home and while many of them complain about the state of the class system, they are still companions to a man that represents the problem. It is difficult to think that these freedmen are faced upon entry to their “friend’s” house by a large sign that states, “He has a sign on the door that says “Any slave caught leaving the house without his master’s approval will receive one hundred lashes” (51) especially since they are obviously well aware that Trimalchio was once one of those people subject to the lashing. This discrepancy in interests is mostly ignored and although one cannot help but think these freedmen he associates with are merely using him to gain access to food, the fact remains that there are huge class conflicts under the surface. The tension is slightly broken when Trimalchio gets up to use the restroom. The conversation between the freedman, our narrator, and his friends grows more realistic. They begin talking about the food shortages (which is ironic considering the extravagant feast they have just been served) and the basic inequities of the poor classes in Rome. Ganymedes says, “I’ve already sold the clothes off my back for food and if this food shortage continues, I’ll be selling my bit of a house” (63) which has a large impact on the reader since he is surrounded by such luxury (albeit though it belongs to another man) but these sentiments are quickly forgotten in the wake of more extravagant foods and entertainments.

Ultimately, The Satyricon is an excellent historical document in viewing the way class structures functioned in Roman society during Petronius’ time. Even though there are definite moments of unmistakable satire about wealth and class, it seems that the key point in this text is that the rich and poor lived drastically different lives. There didn’t seem to be any middle ground, at least as presented in the novel, and throughout the descriptions of the lives of these opposing classes the modern reader is able to learn much about the lives of Roman citizens, how it society functioned (especially in terms of bondage and freedom) and how one could transgress the line between upper and lower class.

Other essays and articles related to this topic can be found in the Literature Archives at ArticleMyriad •

The Seven Years’ War was fought with Britain for reasons of expanding colonialist enterprises, presumably to garner more riches for the once wealthy state and absolute monarch. However, this war, even though brief in the historical scope of world events, was nonetheless a devastating blow to France’s already weakening economy, which was just seeing the first potential benefits and horrors of industrialization. In order to preserve these colonial interests and keep Britain at bay, more tax dollars were needed and it seemed that every week produced a new reason for high taxes on the French citizens. With a majority of the tax money actually going to this cause, and a constant need for more, the beginning of the end of absolutist monarchy appeared over the horizon. Even though this was the height of Enlightenment though it France, Louis was unsuccessful at positioning himself as an “enlightened absolutist” simply because in trying to create more opportunities for the citizens in terms of these proposed societal ideals, he created more of a bureaucracy around him, which did nothing but eat up more tax dollars.

The war and the subsequent tax hikes are to blame in large part, but the war against this system was being waged among the citizens. While the French military was away fighting the Seven Years War and solidifying Louis XIV’s interests abroad (at the cost of the taxpayers) there was no military force left behind. Thus, as one scholar notes in an essay, “liberal ideas associated with the Enlightenment created a particularly important focal point that galvanized military and constitutional reformers to advocate citizen’s armies as part of a new relationship between citizens and states” (Avant 41). This would eventually lead to the massive force that would take over during the culmination of anger and resentment at the monarchy—the French Revolution. The working class, tired of the effects of the taxes to support a war that they, as common citizens, had nothing to benefit in winning, staged their own coup, thus bringing an end to the French absolute monarchy, once and for all.

Although this may be a sketchy point to argue in this essay, part of the ultimate downfall of the monarchies in both France and Russia as it relates to war had just as much to do with the upper class, the nobility, as it did the peasantry. The war was intended to create vast riches for France (or more appropriately, Louis XIV himself), but even the massive taxation undertakings were too much for nobility that was already growing tired of the system as it was—with just one divinely mandated leader and no chance for mobility. According to one theory stated in a scholarly essay, “the French nobles, having been deprived of their political power under the royal absolutist system, had long ceased to perform their task as an intermediate constitutional power. A comeback was impossible because they had turned into an indolent and apolitical class or, a paralysed corps without movements and actions, and—even worse—without ideas. Powerless and economically isolated due to the dérogeance, French nobles lived an idle and useless life” (Ulrich 141). It is arguable that without the silent backing of some of the nobility in France between 1763 and 1789, the peasants might not have been so successful in overthrowing a monarchy that wasted their taxes on war. Since this nobility was idle (as opposed to actively involved in leading military pursuits and offensives), this made them too feel as though there would be nothing to gain from a long and expensive war. Ultimately, the downfall of the long line of absolutist rulers in France was a result of a series of abuses of power. With nothing for most of the average (and even many noble French) to gain from this battle, which some could says was based in pride—to being won out by the British—this was the last straw. Years of waste and obscene indulgences on the part of the French absolutist system were ended after one waste too many—the Seven Years War.

As this essay makes clear, there are many parallels between the Russian and French revolutions, especially in terms of the events that occurred to overthrow the absolutist monarch, Nicholas, in Russia with what happened in France. The most common factors would be: a) A long program of territory-grabbing led to financial insecurity and problems with the citizens as a result, and b) these wars would not be beneficial to any of the common citizens, thus sparking even more unrest over the taking away of rights, the more extensive system of taxation (albeit in a communist manner in this case), and ignoring the pleas of the people. As a side note, even though many of these deposing events were the result of war and the subsequent effects, each of these periods (both in French and Russian history) were marked by a strong political movement of the working class. In France, it was certainly the ideas of the Enlightenment, and in Russia, Marx brought about the same revolution-inspiring effects. One could easily posit the theory that neither of these movements would have gained so much momentum if not in the midst of wars and higher taxes (both in the human sense and economic) but that must be left aside for speculation another time.

The most remarkable difference in the events leading up to the overthrow in Russia versus France would be the absolutely devastating effect on the general population of the country during WWI. Unlike the French during the Seven Years War, the Russians during this period were able to clearly see the horrible impact of war for the purposes of land grabbing and this sparked revolutions throughout Russia during these years. Considering that “Russia took the heaviest causalities during WWI, 7.5 million by 1917” (Hunt 761) it is easier to see why the anger over war was directed at the absolute monarch, Nicholas. Although the average Frenchman had nothing to gain from the expensive and unwanted invasions abroad at the behest of the absolutist ruler, there was still some distance between the war and the final impact. They were angry because of the high taxes, in Russia, everything was enough to provoke anger—especially the war.

. Even before the actual Great War broke out, there were a number of expensive and in many senses, needless land-grabbing efforts by the monarchy in Asia and Siberia. Although the tax system was different in Russia (as opposed to France) the effects of these costly efforts caused a long series of revolutions, beginning with Bloody Sunday and continuing on until a state of political equilibrium was reached—meaning more power to the common citizen Under the absolutist monarchy of Nicholas, the waste and non-necessity of the Great War was apparent. Since in this case, there was nothing for the average man to gain in war that was ravaging the commoners on every level, there was nothing left to do but take the steps necessary to revoke power from the monarchial institution that had so long kept the ordinary Russian people under its sway. Eventually, the citizens had their way and the wastes of constant wars and spending of both nations, which to the peasants served nothing but to weaken the state, came to an end. “By 1917, some two-thirds of the peasantry had taken steps to gain title to their land and 10 percent had acquired consolidated holdings” (Hunt 766).

Although simple war cannot be attributed to the overthrowing of despotic absolute monarchs in both France and Russia, they were the motivating factors in that they caused citizens to open their eyes to the levels of waste. These wars weakened the monarchs in every sense politically, economically, and socially, and in both cases, were the beginning of the end for France and Russia’s “divinely-chosen” leaders.

Other essays and articles in the History Archives related to this topic include :•  The Historical and Societal Functions of World Revolutions  •  A Comparison and Analysis of the French Versus Russian Revolutions   •    France’s Pre-revolutionary Financial Crisis: The Lead-up to the French Revolution

Works Cited

Avant, Deborah. From Mercenary to Citizen Armies: Explaining Change in the Practice of War.International Organization 54.1 (2000): 41

Lynn, Hunt, Thomas R. Martin, Barbara H. Rosenwein, R P. Hsia, and Bonnie G. Smith. The Making of the West: Peoples and Cultures. Vol. 2. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2001. 760-766.

Ulrich, Adam. Nobility and modern monarchy—J.H.G. Justi and the French debate on commerciall nobility at the beginning of the Seven Years War. History of European Ideas 29.2 (2003): 141.