For this week I decided to focus on the Documents on Greek Slavery as I feel like it opened a can of worms--questions to what slavery was like in Ancient Greece. As a historian, we are prone to know the horrors of slavery as it rips humanity away from the person who is enslaved. The same is seen in Ancient Greece as the passage shows how trapped foreigners or losers of war are put under slavery by 'the victors'. In the same sense, these foreigners would be stripped of their humanity as they would be seen as women slaves for men to come home to, placed as prostitutes to be offered and dedicated to the Gods, and were even represented like cattle. These forms of slavery are disgusting in my opinion but they reveal how the Greeks punished those who tried to conquer their lands and as the saying goes "to the victors goes the spoils". But the last passage stood out to me the most as it conveyed that people are 'slaves to nature'. In this sense, it seemed that it wasn't necessarily talking about slaves and slavery but the idea that common people are always fond of or stick to servitude regardless of the era. It is mentioned that "both of reason and fact. For that, some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for the rule...Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind." This is what made the reading interesting as it casts slavery as something prone to nature in mankind. We are born to be ruled because we have allowed other people to rule under the iron of servitude. In our modern-day society, this is apparent as everyone always follows the go to school, get a job, work to pay bills, and retire when you're old; this cycle is continuous and makes it so no one is truly free. This reading makes one wonder what life was like during this era, were people truly slaves to the State, or was this something that came naturally to everyone? Was there someone who tried to teach this belief out of nature or was this form of living something that humanity has to endure? In the end, this passage is right, that we are all slaves to the world.

For this week's reading, I chose the account from Thucydides about Harmodius and Aristogiton-two figures that became iconic in Athens for their challenging tyranny from the descendants of Pisistratus. I chose it because of the mixture of personal and political motives within the story, especially the ways that love and insult catalyzed their rebellion. One of the interesting details in the story is that initially, the wrongs felt by Harmodius and Aristogiton against Hipparchus were not based on some general political ideal but rather on personal offense. This gives this famous act of defiance an intimate human dimension and underlines how personal relationships can fuel great historical events. Thucydides describes how the tension escalated: "After this, the tyranny pressed harder on the Athenians, and Hippias, now grown more fearful, put to death many of the citizens." In that respect, this passage contains a poignant portrayal of how the personal resentments of a few individuals can tear outward, capturing the general public, and the pain of tyranny increases within the community.

Thucydides seems to convey that larger political movements cross with personal interest. He reminds one that not always do historical events come inspired by purely ideological motivations. This text represents those times in Athens when there was oppressive rule and the growing desire of the Athenians for freedom that ultimately opened the door to democratic ideals. By highlighting such intervention on the part of the Lacedaemonians, Thucydides gives a hint about the geopolitical dynamics at play with Athens at the time. Unlike some portrayals of rebellion as purely noble, Thucydides' account adds complexity by focusing on the personal grievances behind the resistance. In this direction, I want to try and explain how, in further history, the story of Harmodius and Aristogiton had been explained and idealized, and what love and loyalty meant for Athenians to better understand such motives.

I chose Antiphon’s Arguments in an Accidental Homicide as my reading for this week. As someone acquainted with Plato, I became interested in it since I’d never actually read anything written by an ancient Sophist before. One passage from it which left an impression on me is found in the second speech for the prosecution, as I believe it contains the message Antiphon was trying to convey. Reacting to the defense’s first rhetorical efforts to shift the blame for the accidental homicide to the victim himself, the prosecution counters by saying, “do not, I beg of you, let worthless subtleties of speech induce you to disregard plain facts and treat the truth as false; for such subtleties result in a tale more plausible than true, whereas the truth, when told, will be less guileful and therefore less convincing”. They way I interpreted the reading was that the proper use of the art of rhetoric can turn the weaker of two arguments into the stronger argument. In addition, it also implies the dangerous power of rhetoric to distort the truth, and even take advantage of the law if used with ill-intent. Furthermore, it gives some insight into the power of the Sophists in the fifth century, and why they were sought out by the elite to tutor their son’s rhetoric to prepare them for a career in politics. One thing I’d like to learn more about how much influence of the Sophists had on the elite and politics around the Hellenic world, excluding Athens.

The reading I picked for this Week was, Documents on Greek Slavery by Various. The reason why chose this reading was because of the title. Immediately I knew it was about the slavery in Hellas and that is something I wanted to learn more about. The passage that jumped out to me the most was in Aristotle's politics. in this passage he says, “There is a slave or slavery by law as well as by nature.”  Aristotle is saying that not all slavery is natural or based on people's abilities. Some slavery happens just because of war, where the winners take the losers as slaves. This document is telling us that ancient Greece was a society where slavery was a normal part of life. However, people were also thinking about whether slavery was right or fair. It was a society focused on power and control. This document relates to previous documents as it shows how in Hellas, only excellence was considered to be part of society. If you weren’t good to be a leader, you were meant to take orders and serve. I would like to know more about how the slaves felt during this period. Did they rather being slaved or die. 

The reading I picked this week was On the Athenian Constitution. The reason I chose this reading was because after reading Solon and the Rule of Law it sparked my interest as to how Athenians organized themselves legally and politically. The Athenian Constitution has a very ambivalent approach when dealing with the different elements of their society. It allows for the poor to be involved in their form of democracy but with certain limits. A passage that caught my attention was " They do not think that they ought to have a share through the lot in the supreme commands or in the cavalry commands, for the poor realize that they reap greater benefit by not having these offices in their own hands, but by allowing men of standing to hold them. All those offices, however, whose end is pay, and family benefits the poor do seek to hold". The author is expressing he is an oligarch and is safe for him to limit the access of the poor to certain institutions. This document gives us a glimpse of the Athenian context of the time. Being inhabited by an eclectic group of citizens it was in their best interest to have some form of inclusion. I find this document to be somewhat similar, yet different to Solon's. Whereas Solon builds a case for both rich and poor and is successful with both, the author of this document's case is more of practical solution to ha he sees as a problem, the poor. I would like to know more about the different opinions that this document may have given birth to, since the author seems well versed and has very clear ideas.

1. The reading in particular that interested me was the one about the slaves , because I know already in some Greek city states such a Sparta and Athens , enslavement was common
2. The particular line that stood out to me was the line in Demosthenes: Against Timocrates. c. 350 BCE you will find that the biggest difference is that the body of a slave is made responsible for all his misdeeds, whereas corporal punishment is the last penalty to inflict on a free man. To my understanding this line is depicting how violence vs slaves was normalized while violence against free men was frowned upon.
3. I think the author was trying to communicate how much the Greeks relied on slavery and how normalized it was , relationships between masters and  slaves . Also the author was explaining how Greek religion uses slaves extensively ( Strabo  Geographia ).
4. In my opinion it tells me that , the time period was far more cruel and harsh as the one we are living in today , due to the simple fact that such atrocities could be normalized. Social conditioning among the Greeks made slavery easy to digest 
5. In other documents specifically one about labor , the importance of work is emphasized and even in that document slave women specifically are mentioned as a necessity. Sparta in particular I know relied extremely heavily on slaves to carry out many task in their daily lives .
6. I’d like to learn more about slave treatment in Ancient Greek society compared to that of the treatment of slaves in the Atlantic slave trade .

I chose to read this week Pericles and Cimon because I want to know more about the politics of democracy. The ostracism they had upon people and their reaction to all this avoidance. I thought when I read “From Delian League to Athenian Empire” how Cimon and his allies fought to spell the Persian they did not want them to “establish the naval bases in Ionia.” It was an interesting fight. Cimon went on fighting to banish the annoying pirates in the northeast. The author implies that people were in the middle of chaos, but there will always be a good heart to fight for a lost cause. It is how he shows Cimon as an aristocrat, yet he is sympathetic to others. This document tells us that in Ancient Greece there were wars that folks fought to defend their territories and we still see today people fighting for their right to live. This document supports our readings and it is related to. It would be like how to find out more about the political laws and its democracies and how they abolished their slaves. 

The reading I picked for this week is Documents on Greek Slavery. I chose this document because I was interested in finding out more information on Greek slaves. The passage that stood out to me was the passage by Strabo: Geographia. This passage is about the thousand temple slaves- prostitutes, that belonged to the temple of Aphrodite at Corinth. Based on the title of this passage, I believe the author was communicating how geographically, the temple was in a significant location. It was in the center of trade routes where there was always large crowds. A lot of people meant a lot of money, especially for the temple slaves, which caused the city to grow rich. This document is telling us that the slaves in this passage were an important instrument in Greek’s economy. Overall, this document informs us that slave’s treatment and employment varied from city to city, and century to century. In this document, we learn that during this time, slaves had different experiences than those in Sparta. As we discussed in class, the use for helots were solely for agricultural and military purposes.

The reading I chose this week were the readings on Greek slavery.  I chose this reading because although there is a lot to say when talking about slavery related to the Civil Rights era, it’s interesting how slavery was used in Greek timelines. One passage that jumped out to me was how the politics of slavery worked in Ancient Greece. The politics on slavery in Ancient Greece is mandated by nature. The readings are trying to communicate slavery laws to the audience. This document tells us about the treatment of Greeks, and what laws were put into place. I can't think of any documents we learned prior to this that would relate to these readings.  I would like to find out more about if slavery that happened in Ancient Greece would connect to slavery in the South many years later as Greek slavery is a very interesting law that was discovered.

The reading I chose to pick was the documents on Greek slavery. The particular detail that stood out to me was where Aristotle says “the use made of slaves and the taming of animals are not very different and both with their bodies minister to the needs of life”. Aristotle including this in the meaning of Greece needing slaves is to show that there is a distinct difference between a free man and slaves. What I believe the various authors was trying to communicate is how essential having a slave in their society is for Greek citizens. Slaves represent wealth for those families in power and represented a status symbol amongst others. Slaves also were essential in the upkeep in labor and to help keep farming afloat. What I believe the document is telling about the time and place it comes from is how normalized slavery was in Ancient Greece to where the people from this time seen it as a justifiable and to make distinct differences between an slave and a free man as to why slaves were born to be made into slaves. 

This week I read Pericles and Cimon an excerpt from Plutarch. What interested me about this passage is that it implies a delicate balance one needs to walk to be a successful politician in Athens. A detail that stuck out to me is even though Cimon was ostracized he still came back to fight with his brother against Spartan aggression, in hopes of shedding the reputation that got him ostracized, yet because this was a violation of the law of ostracism Pericles removed him from the battlefield before relenting due to the public support of Cimon still fighting for Athens. I think Plutarch was trying to show how smart Pericles is, he uses the public to his own advantage but knows when to submit to their wishes to keep his own position safe. The document gives us an impression of the tightrope that public relations were, the tides can shift quickly and a smart politician submits to it. I would like to learn more about Pericles, he seems like a very interesting figure.

I chose this primary resource because I was curious how democracy actually worked in Athens. Procedurally it was a democracy, conceptually it was a democracy. However, in reality it was not actually quite like that. Athens was perceived as imperial by their rivals and that certainly has credibility considering their foreign policy. (I consider anything outside of Athens proper as foreign) We also see how the macro elite just by virtue of living close to the big city and having quite bit of free time, had their interests overly represented and championed in the Athenian democracy and the expense of the majority. So, I was curious how this Athenian Constitution would work in theory and in practice. Pseudo-Xenophon claims the Athenian constitution overly favors and represents the poor and thieves. The poor and thieves cannot be counted on to make the proper decisions. Unlike the rich and educated who do not commit crimes and make poor decisions. In essence, it's almost a "look but do not touch" policy with the poor in democracy according to Pseudo-Xenophon. They can be a part of democracy but, they cannot be put in decision making positions or positions of authority.

The reading that I picked was “On the Athenian Constitution” by Pseudo- Xenophon. The reason this reading interested me is because I wanted to know more about the law system for the Athenians. The detail that jumped out to me as I went through the reading is the fact that the lawmakers favor the poor rather than the wealthy. They prefer the poor to be in control without caring for disorderliness. This is so that democracy, or the many people have control. If the elite or wealthy had control there wouldn’t be a democracy full of the common people. This document is telling us that the time and place that this comes from the wealthy and elite had complete dislike and disapproval for democracy. The part in the reading where it states that the Athenians have a large number of skilled traders supports other readings from this time and place. I recall in our Ancient Greece text the Athenians were known for their well rounded and skilled citizens. I would like to find out more about whether or not this constitution style helped the Athenians to achieve their ideal society, or if it harmed them.