Western Civilization, Rome and Greece

Document Sample
Western Civilization, Rome and Greece Powered By Docstoc
					January 9, 2009 PLS212 Wilson All right. We're going to get started. This is lecture 3, we'll talk a little about Rome and Greece today, see how far we get. This is very important weekend, you know. Football weekend, I'm sure you'll all be rooting for the Steelers. Raise your hand if you think they'll win. Raise them if you think they'll lose. What about Baltimore and Tennessee? Raise your hand for Baltimore. That's going to be a good game, can't wait. My mind's not on Rome and Greece right now. We'll start off with class announcements, and we'll look at the birth of western civilization, then government in Rome, government in Athens, then looking at some forms of government, vocabulary terms, if we can get that far, which I hope we do. Aims of the lecture, to lay an historical context for the aims of western civilization and the early experiments in democracy, consider the forms o government that emerged in Rome and Athens, and learn some important vocabulary terms to keep in memory. Class announcements. Participation, please remember if you speak today write it down and hand it in. If your name isn't on the sheet, sign on the end of the attendance sheet, don't try to place it in the middle. If you've missed any classes in here you should know my website will have everything you need this weekend. That's what I'm going to do starting today, so you have one page where you can go to and it will have all the PowerPoint slides for this year, all the audio for this year, I'll even give you a class transcript, so you can have everything you need if you've missed, you'll be able to access it on that one page. You'll also have the syllabus. Anyone need the syllabus? Tell you what you do; email me, and I'll send you that right away. I'll go up and send it right to you. Otherwise you can wait until tonight, I'll have all this up on the website. I don't know why I ran out, I printed enough, but some people come in and drop and new people add to the roll. I'll print more next time, sorry about that. I'll send an email when it's done. Oh, there's an error in the syllabus. The holiday's coming up, I believe this Monday. This or next Monday? Next Monday? Whenever it is, I have...My syllabus doesn't recognize it. When I created the syllabus, I didn't put the holiday in there. Obviously we're not having class on that day, but keep working sequentially. Monday's lecture on the holiday will be taught on Wednesday. So we keep working sequentially. That would make it seem like we are behind, but that's okay, we have flex days. Any questions on that? Or on anything at all? Oh, the summaries, yeah. That's an excellent question. Here's the way that would work. If you do a summary, all you have to do is hand the summary in to me. Print it and hand it in to me, then email me that file. So I will set the email up for files. Go ahead and email me the file. The reason why I want the file is someday I want to do something with the summary. I might put it on the web or have it printed out at the bookstore and given to students, I want the students to have as much material as possible. I love these transcripts, I want to take these transcripts and put the slides around 'em, so it'd be exactly the same. That'd be great, you could have that, and if you miss you got everything you need. Any other questions? Any other questions at all? Okay. Let's take a look at western civilization. The West. Why are we doing this, looking at the West? I wanna give you some context. We cannot understand America until we understand the Western world and the way it came to be and is. This is why I do this. Students are taught American government outside of its context. They don't understand how and why it came to be. You need to understand this. To understand American government, we have to give you the story of history, we need to look at other forms of government that influenced the

American framers. The framers were influenced by three societies: Rome, Greece, and England. Really, Rome and England were the big two. So we need to show you more about these, what they did, and why America did what it did. And when we're done with the story and I show you what the framers did closely, you will appreciate this developmentalism. There were three basic influences that combined to create the West. You're basically dealing with Rome, the Greeks, and the Hebrews. You got Jewish traditions, you'll have the Greeks contributing, and the Romans. And all of these cultural things, these cultural happenings, are going to combine. These three cultures will combine in an intricate way to create the West, Western culture. Here you go, your tuition moment. Okay. #1, Rome. What did Rome have as a culture that influenced the West as a culture? Well, order is going to be one. Romans were very orderly, very hierarchical. And they'll have a little order to their culture. Roman values were order, hierarchy, technology, authority, and sport. The Romans basically invented concrete. They'll have interesting uses of technology. They'll create water aqueducts, they'll do interesting things with concrete and architecture. They'll also have a powerful military, and create structures that stress order and hierarchy. The Romans will also be into sport a lot, they'll create the coliseum and people will do things like fight, they'll send a Christian in there with a sword to fight a lion, this is their entertainment. They were ruthless. I use this phrase, not the right thing to say, but as the West goes, the Romans were the first badasses in the world. But our culture, I see a lot of Rome in it today, which is a criticism of America to some extent. When I see Americans watching football, we go to the stadiums, the coliseums, the gladiators are in their equipment and there's a game of territory and there's a wall to protect the territory. This is a Roman ritual if I ever saw it. You don't see it because you don't understand history, but Americans and their love of sport and technology and the way they structure institutional authority, you can say very much the cultural practices of the Romans have an impact on America. Roman culture was defined by military strength, engineering innovations, rigid duties to the state and family, and strong male leadership. When I see a Marine I think of this influence. Don't condemn me for this, I'm just being descriptive. Roman culture, you see the American planes, the American technology, the engineering innovation, the idea of country first, these are Roman practices and values that were in Rome. One of the things Roman culture built was concrete, infrastructure, public aqueducts that Rome is going to build, impressive machinery and buildings. Romans were like engineers and bullies, to some extent. That's what they were like. Now let's contrast them with the Greeks. What do we mean by the Greeks? What we're talking about is we mean Greek intellectual culture. Very fascinating things are happening in intellectual history in Greece during the time of antiquity. Very fascinating things are happening with Greek intellectual culture. Socrates, Plato, the presocratics, all forms of this systematic study of subjects are invented. Basically college is invented. Academia is invented. People go around, and very intellectual ideas, you read Plato and Socrates, very interesting reading even by today's standard. Philosophy, that's where you start. Study the Greeks. Theucydides decided, one day, we have to write our history down now, instead of being an oral tradition, it won't be legacy. And it becomes this journalism across time. That's what history is. And Theucydides is the person who invents this. The Greeks invented science. Botany, for example. I think Aristotle was studying chicken embryos. This is science. Biology. That sort of thing. Basically the Greeks are starting it all. The elite Greeks were intellectuals, invented philosophy. The word philo saves means lovers of wisdom. They also invented important forms of art such as drama, plays, what we today would call sit-coms.

Let me explain that. The Greeks invented drama, plays. Think of the...If you want to think of a stereotype of the Greek intellectual mind, a precocious mind, one that could think about things abstractly, would want to be scientific and also artistic. Plays, and let's have dance and theater. The Romans loved Greek culture. They loved it so much that when they conquered the Greeks they took the culture into their own. Today we put them on television to watch shows. Compare and contrast Romans with Greeks. The Romans, these are stereotypes, but I think they'll help us. Romans saw the Greeks as childlike intellectuals. The Romans would view themselves from the He-Man type thing. Very strong hierarchical male society. They viewed the Greeks as these childlike intellectual. In Roman culture, they pronounced the word virtue "veer-to", and that means, Vir means man's man, homo means man but vir means like an Arnold Schwarzenegger kind of man. So the Romans wanted to show their virtue. But Romans loved Greek culture, so they appropriated it, brought it into the empire, and Greek influences were incorporated into Rome. Rome loved the theater plays, which we today would call sitcoms. The Greeks, however, thought negatively about the Romans. Again, these are stereotypes, but it's okay to try to get the point. The Greeks think of the Romans as being oafs who took over everything but couldn't be intellectual themselves, that they were these dumb, brutish people. So you can see how the Greeks and Romans would think of themselves. The Greeks thought of themselves as refined, the enlightened ones, and the Romans were not. The Romans were the engineers and the fighters, and the Greeks were the artists and lovers of of creative genius. Obviously a generality, but deep within the culture the sentiment would be there. The point--the ideas of the Greeks influenced the West. Western culture is open with discourse. Western culture likes intellectualism, is not closed-minded. We're in college today. What we're doing here today is something that first emerged in Greek culture. The Greeks started this as a cultural practice, so it carried on to the West. The ideas of the Greeks influenced the west, the practices of the Romans did as well. So we have technology, engineering, order, hierarchy, building, and conquest, but we also have genius, creativity, science, philosophy. And this is the culture the West seems to enjoy. It's also probably wrong to equate these things as belonging to the West. If they're good ideas anyone can do them. Just because they emerged in a particular area first for us doesn't...I don't think we should...Here's my problem with it. If you say creativity and genius and philosophy belongs to the West, what belongs to the East? Not doing that? No, they can go anywhere, and be autonomous. Let's look at Hebrew traditions, the third thing that's going to influence the West. Monotheism. The idea that there is only one god. The idea that people are involved in a personal one to one relationship with this being...I want you to understand something. Prior to the Hebrews coming along, and in their culture inventing this god concept, the way that the pagans, the Romans and Greeks thought of the gods is completely different. And this is a radical idea, this idea of God being a personification, a one person. That's what the deity is, and you try to have the relationship with it. Let's contrast this idea with paganism. Pagans did not have God like we think of it today, they had superstitions. Similar to perhaps what native Americans might believe about tree spirits and so forth. The Greeks and Romans had gods for everything. A god of love, a god of war, and so on. If you didn't please these gods, they would do terrible things to you. You would have to pray to the god of rain or the god of sun. For example, the Romans had a sun worshipping holiday. They would worship the god of the sun, and it was right around the time when they, what's it called, winter solstice? Right around Christmas time. December 21, shortest day of the year, that's when the Romans would worship the sun. When the monotheism took over, they chose that time to celebrate Christ's birthday. When that's not when his birthday was, it was something like April. So the Romans which brought Christianity into their empire, that was a sunworshipping day.

Let's talk about two concepts, superstition and destiny. Examples, unwanted children. Say you were Roman, and there's a child that's born, and you don't want the child. What would the Romans do? They would take the child and place it on a raft of some sort, something that floated, and send it down the river. If the child survived, the baby survived, then that meant the gods did not want the baby killed. What would happen, I don't know, maybe someone down the village on the river would say, hey, there's one of those babies, let's save it. But if the baby died, it was that the gods wanted the baby dead. Superstition surrounding certain things. How about Vesta. In Roman culture, if you were from a patrician family, a very wealthy family, they would take your daughter, the father of the family would take the daughter and set the daughter on the path of worshipping Vesta. Vesta was a god. And you were called a Vestal virgin, not allowed to have sex until age 37, old by Roman standards. Today it's just getting started, or whatever. What would happen is that if you violated your covenant with Vesta, and you had sex, you would be buried alive. You'd be given two days' food and buried in for lack of a better word, a coffin. And if you died, it meant Vesta wanted you to die. But if you didn't die, it meant Vesta wanted you to live. Romans couldn't punish the girl, because only Vesta could. And this was what religion was like prior to the Hebrews. Once the Hebrews come along, this changes. Male Student: Would they dig 'em up in two days? Professor: The argument is that she'd be unearthed by the boyfriend. Bottom line is, something had to happen or the ritual wouldn't work. Some of the people had to live, or the ritual wouldn't work. The point is, I don't know. I assume that happened. My point is a very simple point. I want you to understand American culture, the West. And to understand it, we have to understand these influences, and one is what the Hebrews did to the god concept. It was really something. This stuff about superstition and destiny is replaced by a higher metaphysical idea. It's that God is not some sort of policeman, that there's an actual person, it's a personification. You've got a personality, you're like a fallen species. You only have a fraction of it. God is much greater, but each of us is a piece of it. And you're trying to relate to it on a personal level, this character that is like a father to you. This is, metaphysically, radical. And it's going to go into the Roman empire and replace this other form of metaphysics. Monotheism was a revolutionary idea. There's one god, and it's all-knowing. A singular intelligence. And therefore it is not as petty as a Hercules or an Aphrodite. And the whole desires it has are much different. The birth of Christianity. That's another influence, we have to remember that when I'm talking about monotheism, that's half the story. When Christ comes along and further refines this god concept, this really has an effect on the god concept. Portions of what constitute this singular intelligence also constitute us, we are made not in total disregard of the blueprint. We cannot attain true and perfect form until communion in the afterlife. This is a really rich metaphysical idea. And this was transformative upon the culture, and of course in the Hebrew culture itself, but it goes into the Roman empire, gets adopted, goes to the West, comes to America. What we are in America because of those three cultures. Rome, Greece, and Hebrews in some combination. Again, obtaining this communion is a function of kindness to the neighbor. Think of what monotheism and Christianity did to the Roman state. The prime duty is no longer to Romans or agents of authority. Before Christianity came into the Roman empire, the prime duty of the Roman citizen was to country, to state. And then after Christianity comes in, the duty, it redefines what the prime duty is, to the afterlife. The prime duty is getting to the afterlife, something higher, the spirit is the center of Roman life. This is an exaggeration, but this is one thing that helped to undermine the Roman empire, and the Western part of the empire had to be defeated with the influence of Christianity. That's debated, but it's out there.

Now, that is a description of government. Sorry, of culture. In Rome, in Greece, and in the Hebrew traditions. I want to talk about government in Rome and Greece. And again, we can't understand America until we first understand...Showed you that already. Sorry. Government in Rome. The Republic. Rome is going to do something interesting. Around 510 BC through 287 BC is the period concerning us. Rome is going to do something interesting. They'll take a form of new government. Before 510 BC, Rome had kings. Just like everyone else. And the kings will be overthrown in 510 BC, and the Romans will do something different. What are they going to do? They'll form the res publica. Res, in Latin, that means the thing. It's pronounced "race," not "reese." And publica means the public's. The public's business. That's what res publica means, that's where we get the word republic. Comes from res publica, the public's thing. And the key institution in the republic is the senate, meaning the old folks or elders. In another vernacular it might mean the wise ones. Male Student: Is that where they got publius for the federalist papers? Professor: Yeah, Rome is all over those people, the framers. You have a senate, why is it named so? Named right after Rome. When the framers are devising their institutions, the senate is the one institution not elected, they're appointed. The statesmen, the wise people. What does America name this institution? The senate. After Rome. Because Rome did it. So, let's take a look at this. Roman society. Roman society consisted of the following segments, strata, castes, whatever. Patricians, plebians, and slaves. Patricians were the elites in society, they were the people who were higher up in these elite families. I wanna use the word 'aristocrat,' England would call them dukes, earls, or barons. Rome called them patricians. People who were felt to be the father of the country, the duty was to govern. Julians, Julius Caesar was the leader of the Julians. Claudius is the leader of the Claudians. Roman society is very family-oriented. The plebians were the regular people. Laborers, shopkeepers, people who do the dirty work. You can think of them as the regular people, middle to lower classes. There were also slaves in Rome, and it didn't have a racial component in Rome as it did in America. When Rome would conquer other neighbors they would enslave some of the males so there wouldn't be an attack against them later on. And if the culture they took over didn't behave, one of the threats they would use is to enslave people. So anyone can be a slave in Rome, in fact, all different kinds of people were enslaved in Rome. You could also win your freedom in the arena, if a slave won a battle he could in theory be free. Roman culture is a patriarchial society. It involves patrons and clients. I tell you what, I won't teach you Roman culture. I gotta get moving here. Going to go into something else. Hold on. Here's what I wanna do, talk about this. As Roman culture develops, what's going to happen is it's going to change its government. Its government will be composed of some very interesting institutions. #1 is the senate, and the people in the Roman senate are these patricians, nobles, higherups in society. But as time goes on, the middle class is going to want rights and want to be able to participate in the government. And they'll be successful. They'll get this thing called the Assembly of the Plebians. And this is how Roman government evolves up to 287 BC. And 287 BC marks the point when the Assembly of the Plebians gets formed, and it has the power to create laws for the Patricians, that the Patricians have to abide by. What happens is that Plebians, regular people, will want their rights. And what they'll do early on is have the right to an assembly. And their assembly first won't be legal, it's a union hall, doesn't have the power to make laws. So you'll protect themselves against these bosses by being in the union hall. And if the bosses mistreat you, the union calls a strike. And that's what these plebians would do. No farming, no soldiers, no people to police the markets. So these bosses would have to say, let's sit down and strike a deal. And through these strikes, Plebians get the right to make the laws, and that happens in 287 BC.

So now in Rome you have this thing called a senate, the higher ups and the elites, then you have the regular people, the assembly of the plebians. And it looks like the Senate and the House. You see this bicameral institution forms in Rome, and the framers are studying this. They also had something called a consul. In Roman government, you know who the consul was? The consul was the leader of the army. They had two of 'em. Male Student: The Assembly, would that be the Tribune? Professor: No, the Tribune was an officer the people would elect, and that officer would get to sit inside the senate. And before 287 BC, that's the only way they would get power. We make you Tribune, you go into the Senate, and you have the power to block some of the legislation. It's like an important person in the Senate. And after time the Assembly itself gets lawmaking power. Where was I? The Consul. The Consul was leader of the army, and there were two Consuls. One leads one half of the army, the other leads the other half. So you can be commander in chief, and you also can make treaties. You're the head of the state in matters of diplomacy and make treaties. What does this look like to you? This is sort of a protoform of the American government, just missing the judiciary. Lower house, higher house...This is the Roman republic. Sort of a protoform of what's going to happen later on in America. And when the framers sit down and devise their institutions, they'll look at Rome. Let me capture something I think is important. Let me start with the plebs. I told you they used strikes, and they obtain their own assembly, and get access to the senate. But let me talk about this. Law. One thing the plebs first demanded out of Rome is they wanted the law to be stated. Because they were tired of these bosses doing things to them arbitrarily. One day the law was this, then the law was that, at the whim of the boss. One of the things that the plebs wanted was for the law to be stated. State the law and write down the law, we want to be governed by rules, not by arbitrary feelings. Post the law and write it down. And this happens. One of the first examples of written law, what Americans would call statutory law, is the twelve tables, in 451 BC. Stated the laws. There's an earlier form of this, the Code of Hammurabi in 1700 BC, and even further. But the point is it's written down. And in 287 BC, the Assembly of the Plebs got the right to write the laws themselves, and that's called Lex Hortensia, you don't need to know that. Again, the office of the Consul. Two elected annually, could lead the Senatorial army in battle, symbolized the state, could appoint government offices, they had spoils and patronage, and they had the office of the Quistor. We don't need to know about the Quistor. So that explains Roman government. What happened to the Roman republic? Male Student: They had a crisis, and had someone leading them through it, and that happened one last time with Julius Caesar and he died. Professor: Caesar will basically disband the republic in 44 BC, people dispute when it's officially Rome going back to emperors, people think it may be as late as 21 BC, we'll go ahead and use Julius Caesar as the focal point here. The consul got too powerful. I want you to understand something. The framers understood this. All forms of democracy failed prior to America being formed. The only stable form of government is monarchy, and the framers understand this, that the republics failed. And for a long period of time, the monarchy was the only stable form of government. So they'll study Rome and be aware of this. Now we'll go on to Athens and contrast what's going on with Athens. The date we're concerned is 508 to 276 BC. Athens was a city, not a country. The Greeks never attempted to unite all Greek speakers into one political union. The Greeks were focused on city-states, the cities. So you have Athens, and it will do something very interesting. What is it going to do? I want to make a point about language first. Polis refers to the city-state. You see the unit here, politics. You see the root, polis, in the word

politics. City-state, the center of politics. A politician would be someone from the city-state. Let's look at what the Greeks do. They invent this thing called direct democracy. What is different about Athens is it attempted democracy without intermediaries. It's trouble for American to understand it. There's no politicians, no campaigns, and no elections. How do you do that? How do you have a democracy without that? How do you do it? Someone tell me how it works. Female Student: Everyone in the city, basically. They all came together and made decisions. Professor: That's right. Instead of you electing someone to go do the job of governing you, you'll govern yourself. You'll do it, you're the representative, everyone's a representative, so there are no representatives. You'll come together and make laws. People do it directly. The assembly. What'll happen is, if you lived in a country, you had to get up at the crack of dawn to get to the assembly, a rocky hillside within the city gates. In my mind, I always think of this football stadium. At Penn State, there was this high school football team, and the terrain there is a little hilly, mountains and so forth. If you walk in this neighborhood, you see houses and stuff, and very strange, the ground dips. And there's a stadium there. So you're walking on a normal level of the ground, the stadium is like in the ground. Here at WSU you have something similar--you know how you're walking on campus, and there's some structure where it's like a theater, and it goes into the ground, like you can sit on the hillside? What's that called? It has a piece of art, and you can sit outside on the hillside, watch something, and it's like, you know, it's not like a stadium built above ground, it's in the ground. That's what I think of in my mind when I think about the assembly. People would sit on this hillside and participate in democracy. 10,000 men could be accommodated comfortably, 15,000 uncomfortably. Most people just stood. Each meeting lasted a couple of hours. 6,000 citizens constituted a quorum. Imagine 20 to 50% of your fellow citizens voting on proposals, electing magistrates. Any male citizen of age willing to attend the sessions, which were held about every 10 days. That made about 45,000 eligible to attend. They would draw lots for service. Almost all administrative officials were chosen by lot for one year. Usually they were selected in groups of 10 to carry out one specific function, such as policing markets or caring for the streets. You show up and volunteer, and they draw a lottery, okay, you're the policeman for the month. You gotta police the market. Ostracism. Once a year they decided whether to have an ostracism. If yes, they wrote down the person to leave, and who ever received the most votes won, or actually lost. They would banish them for 10 years. And they would ask the assembly, do we need to ostracize, the ayes have it, yes, we need to ostracize. And they would write down the name of the person to ostracize. Why would they do this? To keep out Julius Caesar. Right. To keep the snakes out, the one that's going to take the power away. Because every now and then someone would get too powerful, they need to be banished. It eliminated would-be tyrants and nuisances, people who would be threatening politically. Courts, how did courts work? When do we get out of here? 12:05? Okay, I never know, that's a common question. I ask it several times throughout the year. Courts, 201 to 501 citizens served as jurors and judges. So they pull out of the lottery people who will be the jurors and judges. And the courts were really just committees of the people. Say there's going to be some trial and some punishment to inflict. Imagine you're in this society. What they'll do is just take a committee of the people, say 200 or so, and they'll be the ones to judge you. That was considered their court. Each year a panel of 6000 jurors was drawn from those who volunteered to serve. For each trial a jury of 201 or more was drawn by a complicated system of lots so that bribery and influence would be limited. And those 200 people, imagine. Do we have a class that has 200 or more? There's those freshmen classes, right? They taught in auditoriums? Imagine that. You're judged of a crime, and you have to go to a certain auditorium. And when you get there, there they are. Not students, but

people who sit there and judge you. You plead before them, and make your case. Don't do this to me, this is what happened. And they vote yea or no, and that's what happens. Socrates was killed this way. He addressed his jury, he tells them they're all mistaken, and basically saying they were fools and he was correct, and it wasn't good politics because it didn't work. Each of the two parties had to speak and act for himself, though he could hire a professional speechwriter to compose his speech. Undoubtedly wanted to be careful to appeal to the elders in the community who sat on the jury and determined the majority of the vote. There could be no appeal in this capacity. This was it. In verdicts of capital punishment, one was sometimes able to commit suicide by drinking poison, except those who were guilty of murder who were hung until they died. What's better? Rome or Athens? Which system of government is better? And relatedly, talk to me about Athens, is this a good or bad way to do democracy. Female Student: I'd say Athens. Professor: Were the Romans better or worse off? Female Student: I don't know. Male Student: I think it's like a catch-22, they both have their good and bad qualities. In Athens everybody got a say, but just to imagine how long it took to count that many votes. In a time of crisis that can take forever. But in the time of Julius Caesar, he could make a decision and that was that. Professor: Those are good points, and students always bring up administrative points when they talk about Athens. It would be really hard to administer. Let's assume that it isn't hard to administer, they can count the votes and people get up and go out and go to the assembly. Let me ask you, is it still good then? Male Student: I think Athens would be better, because for one, it's making sure the citizens are well informed about their public, making sure people go out and vote and people participate in their society. Professor: You're saying that Rome's government would be stronger because it would be easier to take action. Yeah, okay. I see. Anyone have any other ideas? Male Student: I would say Rome, for the pure fact that, who would make the unpopular decisions in Athens? They have to be done, and nobody wants to do it, and how would that work across a large empire like Rome? Professor: That's an interesting point. Is there virtue in Athens? And what do you do if something has to be done that's unpopular? Let me ask you this, is it good for majorities to rule? Male Student: It can be, depending on how well informed an individual is. Professor: Let me ask you, are majorities ever bad? Do they ever do bad and terrible things? Do majorities ever oppress? Obviously we can. And one thing about the Athenian model is justice was the mob. Imagine today if you assembled the common denominator, the random people off the street, threw them in a room, do you want to kill this person, yes or no. Imagine if you did it right after 9/11. Look at what America did to the Japanese-Americans after WWII. Look at what this society did to people of African descent, or to women. Sometimes mob rule may not be the best. The most common sentiment may not be the most refined sentiment. When the framers make their government, what they'll do is try to intelligently configure elitism and this sense that certain people know better, with the other model that people should do it. And they'll try to intelligently configure it together so you get things like courts. The court is about what the law says, not what people think. And courts should function like a professional orthodoxy. The lower house, the House of Representatives, is where people have a say in the structure, but there will be other institutions like the Senate which are less democratic. So this will be less democracy and more oligarchy, I'll explain that term later. There's a mix of democratic ideas and oligarchic ideas. And the framers will think Rome is better than Athens, because there is no direct democracy in America. But we'll return to this point about Athens and democracy later in the course, when we know a little more.

But that's it for now. Any questions? We'll see you next time.

Shared By:
Description: Transcripts (in rough form) for lectures given in Philosophy and Development of American Government. See http://ludwig.squarespace.com/amgovcourse-page/