Cover Letter

Posted on by
Reply

Dear Portfolio Committee,

Coming into English 101: College Writing I thought of myself as a fairly decent writer. Throughout high school I received praise from English and History teachers alike on almost every essay or research paper I turned in, beginning with my freshman year essay on the morality of Atticus Finch in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, which is still (despite its numerous flaws) something I am proud of today. However I learned from this class that loquacious words and artful prose alone do not make for good writing. My passion in life is history and history is made up of stories alongside facts, neither excluding the other. This class helped me understand that the substance – not the smooth skin – of my work will be the driving factor on how it is judged.

My first essay is a memoir focusing on a particular event in my life which involved the notion of persistence in some way or other. I chose to write about the time I spent at Ft. Benning, GA during which I officially became a United States Army dropout. The essay is personal to me because I detail a tough journey in my life when my planned future shifted beneath my feet and sent me tumbling back home with my tail between my legs. However I chose to emphasize the positive side of this time and focused strongly on the growing relationship between myself and a battle buddy of mine, Adam Taylor. For instance I quote myself in writing, “Taylor turned the bleak and hopeless summer ahead of me into the best of my life.” I follow this up with examples from my time at Ft. Benning when Taylor and I would break, bend, and ignore enough rules to earn each of us the distinct “honor” of being personally known by our Company Commander. This essay, I think, shows that I can blend an interesting narrative with nicely crafted sentences and if nothing else can at least tell a fairly attractive anecdote.

My second submission is an annotation project in which I was charged with choosing an image and then writing several research based paragraphs on questions the image brings to mind. For my image I chose a photograph of a statue commonly believed to have been of the 4th century Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate. I chose this image because Julian, as the last non-Christian emperor, epitomized the dying romanticism of classical history which I hold dear and find endlessly fascinating. As Gore Vidal wrote, Julian was one of the “brightest yet briefest lights of the Roman Empire”. This project shows that I can do the necessary research behind such a work and keep it focused on my main subject whilst also branching off into several anecdotes of ancient history which the image calls to mind (e.g. sculpture, the fall of Rome, mythicized events).

My third and final article is an argumentative research paper where I picked an issue and took a stance on it, using research and facts to prove my side had the best argument. For this I chose to argue that democracy is dangerous and destructive to western society, along with simply being a subpar form of government. I chose this issue simply because it is controversial and I wanted to challenge a commonly held notion of our society. In my argument I thought it would be effective to detail what the American founding fathers had to say about democracy and of the quotes I used I think the most effective was from our 3rd President, Thomas Jefferson where he argues that “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine”. Other moments I am proud of in this essay include when I refute the argument that democracy fosters creativity by taking into account the Renaissance and Imperial Rome. My final submission to you proves my ability to use resources to their full extent and extract the most winning arguments from each, even from sources which do not agree with my conclusion. It also demonstrates my skill at arguing an unpopular point in a very logical and well-prepared fashion, whilst not giving ground or watering it down with concessions.

In conclusion I would like to repeat my main arguments in my own favor. I believe I have proven I can aptly build an essay, keep said essay focused and devoid of tediousness, organize each paragraph and sentence soundly, properly use research sources, and lastly to create a pleasing blend of attractive style and substantial opinions.

I hope you enjoy reading what I certainly enjoyed writing, and I thank you for your consideration of my portfolio.

 

Sincerely,

Jordan Goneau-Goncalves

Julian: Apostate or Philosopher (Annotation)

Posted on by
Reply

In the fourth century C.E. a man rose to power who would try to fight a losing war and turn back the rising tide of Christianity in the Roman Empire. This man was Julian the Apostate (a.k.a. Julian the Philosopher). Julian was born and raised a Christian in the Roman Empire’s first Christian dynasty nonetheless, but rejected the faith in favor of the traditional Roman state religion. He converted to his ancestral faith as a young man after the massacre of his family by a Christian cousin who was then Emperor of Rome (Murdoch). Not only was Julian a devout worshiper of the old gods but he was also seen by some as a persecutor of Christians: whom he disdainfully referred to as “Galileans” (Bowersock). Most historians however agree that there was no true persecution of Christianity under Julian, (as seen in the days of Diocletian and Galerius) merely a retraction of privileges granted to a specific faith by Julian’s predecessors (Gibbon). Despite his philosophical attitude towards the world Julian undoubtedly despised the Christians and sought to force all Christian influence out of his government and the upper class of Rome, by not only taking away the privileges of the clergy but also encouraging factional disputes within the church and banning Christian teachers from teaching classic texts (Murdoch). For these reasons and others such as his mocking of Christians, his strong advocacy of traditional faith, and his impassioned arguments on these subjects he has been labeled by some as a fanatic and a “puritanical” zealot (Bowersock). Many of Julian’s admirers (past and present) have argued that had Julian been a more violent or ambitious man then he may have succeeded and today we would live in a far different world (Vidal).

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

In the time period of the third and fourth centuries it was common for an emperor to take power in Rome by force: typically having his legions declare him emperor and then marching on Rome to usurp power (Murdoch). Julian however was an anomaly amidst so much ambition and blood-lust. Unlike almost all of his predecessors Julian did not desire the “purple”, instead the young man wished to live out his life in Athens as a student of philosophers such as Maximus of Ephesus, Priscus of Epirus, and Libanius the “great rhetorician” of Antioch (Gibbon). Julian was instead proclaimed emperor by his legions in Gaul (apparently seeming just another usurper) but Julian then made history when he declined and told his men he would not betray his cousin Constantius, the very man who murdered his family. The soldiers of Julian’s Gallic Legions would not accept this for an answer and even threatened to kill their commander if he did not comply and take up the purple (Hoeber). Such a man grew to be a legend in the ancient world, “The Reluctant Ruler” and became shrouded in myth, many even thought he was Rome’s first emperor, Augustus, brought back from the dead to restore his empire (Murdoch).

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

The sculpture pictured above is almost universally agreed upon to be Julian however so few statues exist of the “Apostate” emperor that no one can be certain. In fact many ancient statues have been deconstructed and reconstructed so many times that hundreds of the surviving statues are actually patchwork makings of meager sculptors who stole their creations from past prodigies (Murdoch). One famous example was the statue of himself kept in the forum of Constantinople by the first Christian emperor, Constantine. The statue had the head of Constantine but the sculptor stole the body from a temple of Apollo in Greece to better please his emperor. This did not end well when the sculptor could not manage the process of melding the head to the body and the finished piece had a dark streak separating the head of the emperor from the body of the god. The citizens of Constantinople would come to refer to this famous statue as “old dirty neck” (Vidal).

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“Thou hast won, O Galilean!” These words have been immortalized in history as having been the last of the emperor, Julian. The legend (which arose two centuries after the emperor’s death) states that while Julian was campaigning against the Sassanid monarch in Persia he was betrayed by a man in his own army. The eastern churches named the man Saint Mercurius and the legend goes that he was visited by the Christian god in his dreams and told to slay his emperor. The man complied and struck Julian down in the midst of a battle (Murdoch). Whilst this is almost certainly a simple folk tale to appease the poor of the eastern empire and reinvigorate their espousal of the Christian faith it is interesting to note that the Sassanid’s also attributed Julian’s death to divine intervention. In a stone carved relief the Sassanid’s depicted the dead emperor lying at the feet of the Sassanid king Shapur, whilst their primary deity Ahura-Mazda stood on Julian’s head: signifying it was not Shapur who defeated Julian but the god himself (Murdoch).

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

The religion of the Roman Empire during the mid-fourth century had become increasingly mystical and esoteric from the original conservative faith of the Romans. These late Romans had been enraptured by wave after wave of eastern “mystery religions” which promised salvation after death if one complied with their various rituals and rites (Bowersock). Historians often label Christianity as one of these “mystery religions” for its similarities with Mithraism and the mysteries of Eleusis, Cybele, and Isis. The century was one of increasing religious devotion and declining philosophic adherence, with the rise of the arcane Neo-Platonists who replaced the ancient Stoics and Epicureans (Murdoch). Many emperors, including the philosophic and studious Julian, became swept up in these faiths and began practicing their many mysteries. In fact Julian was noted for declaring that he would become an initiate in every mystery of the empire (Vidal).

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Often has the question been asked, “Did Christianity cause the fall of Rome?” The view was most vociferously espoused by the famous historian Edward Gibbon who seemed to place blame and fault on the various Christian emperors of Rome while crediting the classical ones (such as Hadrian, Diocletian, and Julian) with saving it (Gibbon). While other factors are to blame such as the weakening of the empires military, the increasingly defiant Germanic tribes, high inflation caused by second-rate emperors, and an almost eternal state of civil war, Christianity can be said to have a place on this list. Christian theology replaced centuries of Greco-Roman philosophy which focused on bettering the human condition with their own version of salvation: namely preparation for life after death (Murdoch). This shift of focus from the world of the living to that of the dead could be said to have caused the disillusionment of the citizens of Rome and created a lack of loyalty to the empire which had kept them safe for centuries (Gibbon).

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

WORKS CITED

Bowersock, G.W. Julian the Apostate. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1978. Print.

Hoeber, Karl. “Julian the Apostate.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 1. Apr. 2014.

Murdoch, Adrian. The Last Pagan: Julian the Apostate and the Death of the Ancient World. Stroud: Sutton, 2003. Print.

Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Abridged ed. New York: Modern Library, 2003. Print.

Vidal, Gore. Julian: A Novel. Vintage International ed. New York: Vintage Books, 2003. Print.

Democracy: The Most Destructive Idea Of Western Society (Research Argument)

Posted on by
Reply

Democracy is a term the modern world equates with freedom and justice, we use it hand-in-hand with equality and everything we consider “good” in our world. This is possibly the most ignorant and dangerous notion of the western world since the rise of fascism in Europe. Democracy is not and has never been a just or free system of government; it is instead exactly what it says, “Rule of the people” or in other words the tyranny of the fifty one percent.

Now let me make one traditionally unpopular point (whose unpopularity makes it no less true). “The People”, or the mass of average every day voters who govern our society from their ballot boxes, are not generals, they are not accountants nor economists, and they certainly are not diplomats. Why then do we let ourselves be ruled by a vast mob of amateurs at nation ruling? The answer is an over attachment and romantic notion of what most men believe to be the views of our founding fathers. The average American believes that the founding fathers themselves wanted a democracy of the people for their fledgling nation but this was not the case: instead they wished to create a republic, a nation where every man works for the good of the state and is governed by intelligent men in much the same way as they pictured the Roman Republic to have been (Chu).

Many of the American founding fathers had sharp criticisms of democracy – a system of government considered all but dead since ancient times. Benjamin Franklin, perhaps the most educated and cultured of the founding fathers said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” (qtd. in Chu). Franklin was not completely opposed to the idea of democracy but he did see that without the temperance of liberty it would become a tyranny like any other government. Likewise Thomas Jefferson, a founding father and the 3rd US President, said, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine” (qtd. in Chu).

Even in what is considered the basis for modern US democratic dialogue, the American Constitution, there isn’t a single reference to democracy and instead it “stipulates that ‘The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government’”(Chu). The views of the founding fathers on democracy are perhaps best put by the son of a high-ranking Taiwanese diplomat and contributor to LewRockwell.com, Bevin Chu who says, “The Founding Fathers considered the distinction between a democracy and a republic to be the distinction between freedom and slavery, between civilization and barbarism, between prosperity and poverty” (Chu).

Now without the idealization often draped over democracy let’s take a look at what it has truly done for the modern world. While it can be argued that democracy has created the environment necessary for the creative and industrial boom of the western world I would refute this by comparing it to the even greater cultural revolution of the Renaissance in Republican Florence and Venice or the golden age of Imperial Rome. What democracy has done is enable the rise of tyrants and dictators such as Adolph Hitler and Bashar Al-Assad.

To portray the faults of democracy I like the anecdote used in Mary Renault’s historical novel The Last of the Wine which is a conversation between two Athenian lovers, Alexias and Lysis, both students of Socrates. Lysis starts off the dialogue by questioning his lover,

“Tell me, is it better for all the citizens to be unjust, or only a few?” – “A few surely, Lysis.”– “Is it better to suffer evil, or to do it?” – “Sokrates says to do it is worse.” – “Then an unjust democracy must be worse than an unjust oligarchy, mustn’t it?” I thought it over. “What is democracy, Lysis?” – “It is what it says, the rule of the people. It is as good as the people are, or as bad.” (Renault 211)

This narrative brings into question not only the logical implications but also the philosophy of democracy. If the human race must be ruled by tyranny is it not better that only a handful of evil men govern us rather than a horde?

More proof of democracies failures are found in recent world events such as the Egyptian Arab Spring or the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The former has shown modern society (which has so quickly forgotten the lessons of a pre-Cold War world) that democracy is not universally a positive thing with the election of Islamist Mohamed Morsi. Many simply take it for granted that democratically elected leaders will be democratically inclined when this has been proven to be false time and time again (Fish). The case of Ukraine shows that democracy doesn’t take the best route for humanity but instead enables corruption and breeds political fracturing and extremism (“What’s Gone Wrong with Democracy”).

Next I turn to China. China is ruled by a Communist elite and the western world views their government as oppressive and controlling, a view which is not inaccurate but it’s best to look at the whole picture before labeling the Chinese as tyrants and Americans as upholding freedom. “The Chinese elite argue that their model—tight control by the Communist Party, coupled with a relentless effort to recruit talented people into its upper ranks—is more efficient than democracy and less susceptible to gridlock” (“What’s Gone Wrong with Democracy”). Is it not more helpful to the human race as a whole to uplift our best and brightest while avoiding the gridlock and tit-for-tatting of American democracy? This effectiveness of a “rule by the few” is shown in a 2013 Pew Survey of Global Attitudes which, “showed that 85% of Chinese were “very satisfied” with their country’s direction, compared with 31% of Americans” (“What’s Gone Wrong with Democracy”). This is no surprise to those who watch what China is doing to modernize and get ahead of the western world. Among Asian nations it has given pause to those who would pursue democracy when they see that “India’s chaotic democracy produces rotten infrastructure while China’s authoritarian system produces highways, gleaming airports and high-speed trains” (“What’s Gone Wrong with Democracy”). While the people of China may not be happy with their system of government as a whole it’s perks and strengths are undeniable.

Another problem with democracy is as old as the form of government itself. While citizens of a democratic nation are noted for their reluctance to go to war they are also easily riled into a blood-frenzy and quick to blame any party for their misfortune. The leaders of democratic nations are also quick to use the “upholding liberty” mantra when it suits their foreign interests. As such democracy is often a fig leaf of imperialism of all sorts, from the US War in Iraq all the way back to the Delian League of Athens (“What’s Gone Wrong with Democracy”).

In an ideal world where the people and leaders of humanity are educated, compassionate, and brave maybe democracy would be the best form of government. We don’t live in that world. We live in the world where the man credited with saving England during World War II, Winston Churchill says of his own people, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter” (qtd. in Chu). So I would like to end with another anecdote which sums up the tragic flaw of democracy.

During an interview with BBC for a series of programs and films titled “Why Democracy?” Stanley Fish was asked ten questions about democracy. “The final question put to me was, ‘Whom would you vote for as President of the World?’ I know whom I’d like to vote for. Someone wise, learned, strong, courageous, compassionate, authoritative, incorruptible, inspiring, capable and good-looking. No one living (or dead) came to mind, so I settled for a fictional character, Atticus Finch” (Fish).

 

WORKS CITED

Chu, Bevin. “Democracy, the Worst Form of Government Ever Tried.”LewRockwell. LewRockwell.com, 31 Aug. 2005. Web. 28 Apr. 2014.

“What’s Gone Wrong with Democracy.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 19 Feb. 2014. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.

Fish, Stanley. “Why Democracy?” Opinionator. New York Times, 7 Oct. 2007. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.

Plato. The Republic. Trans. Desmond Lee. London: Penguin, 1955. Print.

Renault, Mary. The Last of the Wine. New York: Vintage Books, 1975. Print.

Democracy: The Most Destructive Idea of Western Society

Posted on by
1

Democracy is a term the modern world equates with freedom and justice, we use it hand-in-hand with equality and everything we consider “good” in our world. This is possibly the most ignorant and dangerous notion of the western world since the rise of fascism in Europe. Democracy is not and has never been a just or free system of government; it is instead exactly what it says, “Rule of the people” or in other words the tyranny of the fifty one percent.

Now let me make one traditionally unpopular point (whose unpopularity makes it no less true). “The People”, or the mass of average every day voters who govern our society from their ballot boxes, are not generals, they are not accountants nor economists, and they certainly are not diplomats. Why then do we let ourselves be ruled by a vast mob of amateurs at nation ruling? The answer is an over attachment and romantic notion of what most men believe to be the views of our founding fathers. The average American believes that the founding fathers themselves wanted a democracy of the people for their fledgling nation but this was not the case: instead they wished to create a republic, a nation where every man works for the good of the state and is governed by intelligent men in much the same way as they pictured the Roman Republic to have been (Chu).

Many of the American founding fathers had sharp criticisms of democracy – a system of government considered all but dead since ancient times. Benjamin Franklin, perhaps the most educated and cultured of the founding fathers said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” (qtd. in Chu). Franklin was not completely opposed to the idea of democracy but he did see that without the temperance of liberty it would become a tyranny like any other government. Likewise Thomas Jefferson, a founding father and the 3rd US President, said, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine” (qtd. in Chu).

Even in what is considered the basis for modern US democratic dialogue, the American Constitution, there isn’t a single reference to democracy and instead it “stipulates that ‘The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government’”(Chu). The views of the founding fathers on democracy are perhaps best put by the son of a high-ranking Taiwanese diplomat and contributor to LewRockwell.com, Bevin Chu who says, “The Founding Fathers considered the distinction between a democracy and a republic to be the distinction between freedom and slavery, between civilization and barbarism, between prosperity and poverty” (Chu).

Now without the idealization often draped over democracy let’s take a look at what it has truly done for the modern world. While it can be argued that democracy has created the environment necessary for the creative and industrial boom of the western world I would refute this by comparing it to the even greater cultural revolution of the Renaissance in Republican Florence and Venice or the golden age of Imperial Rome. What democracy has done is enable the rise of tyrants and dictators such as Adolph Hitler and Bashar Al-Assad.

To portray the faults of democracy I like the anecdote used in Mary Renault’s historical novel The Last of the Wine which is a conversation between two Athenian lovers, Alexias and Lysis, both students of Socrates. Lysis starts off the dialogue by questioning his lover,

“Tell me, is it better for all the citizens to be unjust, or only a few?” – “A few surely, Lysis.”– “Is it better to suffer evil, or to do it?” – “Sokrates says to do it is worse.” – “Then an unjust democracy must be worse than an unjust oligarchy, mustn’t it?” I thought it over. “What is democracy, Lysis?” – “It is what it says, the rule of the people. It is as good as the people are, or as bad.” (Renault)

This narrative brings into question not only the logical implications but also the philosophy of democracy. If the human race must be ruled by tyranny is it not better that only a handful of evil men govern us rather than a horde?

More proof of democracies failures are found in recent world events such as the Egyptian Arab Spring or the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The former has shown modern society (which has so quickly forgotten the lessons of a pre-Cold War world) that democracy is not universally a positive thing with the election of Islamist Mohamed Morsi. Many simply take it for granted that democratically elected leaders will be democratically inclined when this has been proven to be false time and time again (Fish). The case of Ukraine shows that democracy doesn’t take the best route for humanity but instead enables corruption and breeds political fracturing and extremism (“What’s Gone Wrong with Democracy”).

Next I turn to China. China is ruled by a Communist elite and the western world views their government as oppressive and controlling, a view which is not inaccurate but it’s best to look at the whole picture before labeling the Chinese as tyrants and Americans as upholding freedom. “The Chinese elite argue that their model—tight control by the Communist Party, coupled with a relentless effort to recruit talented people into its upper ranks—is more efficient than democracy and less susceptible to gridlock” (“What’s Gone Wrong with Democracy”). Is it not more helpful to the human race as a whole to uplift our best and brightest while avoiding the gridlock and tit-for-tatting of American democracy? This effectiveness of a “rule by the few” is shown in a 2013 Pew Survey of Global Attitudes which, “showed that 85% of Chinese were “very satisfied” with their country’s direction, compared with 31% of Americans” (“What’s Gone Wrong with Democracy”). This is no surprise to those who watch what China is doing to modernize and get ahead of the western world. Among Asian nations it has given pause to those who would pursue democracy when they see that “India’s chaotic democracy produces rotten infrastructure while China’s authoritarian system produces highways, gleaming airports and high-speed trains” (“What’s Gone Wrong with Democracy”). While the people of China may not be happy with their system of government as a whole it’s perks and strengths are undeniable.

Another problem with democracy is as old as the form of government itself. While citizens of a democratic nation are noted for their reluctance to go to war they are also easily riled into a blood-frenzy and quick to blame any party for their misfortune. The leaders of democratic nations are also quick to use the “upholding liberty” mantra when it suits their foreign interests. As such democracy is often a fig leaf of imperialism of all sorts, from the US War in Iraq all the way back to the Delian League of Athens (“What’s Gone Wrong with Democracy”).

In an ideal world where the people and leaders of humanity are educated, compassionate, and brave maybe democracy would be the best form of government. We don’t live in that world. We live in the world where the man credited with saving England during World War II, Winston Churchill says of his own people, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter” (qtd. in Chu). So I would like to end with another anecdote which sums up the tragic flaw of democracy.

During an interview with BBC for a series of programs and films titled “Why Democracy?” Stanley Fish was asked ten questions about democracy. “The final question put to me was, ‘Whom would you vote for as President of the World?’ I know whom I’d like to vote for. Someone wise, learned, strong, courageous, compassionate, authoritative, incorruptible, inspiring, capable and good-looking. No one living (or dead) came to mind, so I settled for a fictional character, Atticus Finch” (Fish)

 

WORKS CITED

Chu, Bevin. “Democracy, the Worst Form of Government Ever Tried.”LewRockwell. LewRockwell.com, 31 Aug. 2005. Web. 28 Apr. 2014.

“Democracy.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 19 Feb. 2014. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.

Fish, Stanley. “Why Democracy?” Opinionator. New York Times, 7 Oct. 2007. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.

Plato. The Republic. Trans. Desmond Lee. London: Penguin, 1955. Print.

Renault, Mary. The Last of the Wine. New York: Vintage, 1975. Print.

ARGUMENTATIVE RESEARCH IDEAS

Posted on by
Reply

By their very natures Oligarchy is superior to Democracy/(and or) Democracy is harmful to a civilized nation.

The Abrahamic faiths are dangerous and subversive, causing harm to society and destroying civilization.

Western civilization is superior to Eastern or Mid-Eastern.

 

Three topics off the top of my head that I think are all decently controversial and that I could be interested in writing about.

Annotation Rough Draft

Posted on by
1

 

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Julian was born and raised a Christian – in the imperial family of the Roman Empire’s first Christian dynasty nonetheless – but rejected that faith in favor of the traditional Roman state religion. He converted to his ancestral faith as a young man after the massacre of his family by a Christian cousin (Murdoch). During his reign as Emperor Julian fought a losing battle in an attempt to turn the tide backwards and reverse the Christianization of his Empire (Bowersock). Ancient temples were restored to their former glory, cults banned by his predecessors were reestablished, and he even made an attempt to unify the pagan beliefs of his subjects into an organized religion. It was most likely the influence of the Christian Church in his early life which led him to attempt this consolidation – which ended in failure (Murdoch).

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Not only was Julian a devout worshipper of the old gods but he was also seen by some as a persecutor of Christians – whom he disdainfully referred to as “Galileans” (Bowersock). Many historians however agree that this was no true persecution of Christianity as seen in the days of Diocletian, merely it was the retraction of privileges granted to a specific faith by his predecessors (Gibbon). Despite this Julian undoubtedly despised the Christian faith and actively sought to force all Christian influence out of his government by not only taking away the priveleges of the clergy but also by encouraging factional disputes within the new faith (Murdoch). For these reasons and others such as his mocking of Christians, his strong advocacy of traditional faith, and his impassioned arguments on these subjects he has been labeled by some as a fanatic and a “puritanical” zealot (Bowersock).

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Julian was one in a handful of Emperors of Rome who did not desire nor actively seek the position. Instead he was proclaimed Emperor by his soldiers in the province of Gaul – which he commanded – and set off with these troops in hopes of reaching a compromise with the current Emperor Constantius (Murdoch). Constantius however rejected any terms and demanded that Julian relinquish his claim and all titles, unconditionally. Neither Julian’s soldiers nor the citizens of the Empire would agree to this and thus Julian prepared for battle. Before civil war erupted however the Emperor passed away and left Julian as his legitamte heir. (Hoeber)

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

“Thou hast won, O Galilean!” These were Julian’s reputed last words when he was struck through the abdomen with a spear on the field of battle in Mesopotamia during the last year of his reign. Whether or not these were truly his last words is a mystery and will likely always remain one – giving rise to the legends and folk tales about his death. In the 6th century C.E. a legend arose stating that a Christian soldier in Julian’s own army had received a vision from Christ and was ordered to strike down his Emperor. Meanwhile in the Sassanid Empire – the enemy whom Julian had been campaigning against – a stone carved relief depicted a dead Julian with the Sassanid monarch Shapur II and the Zoroastrian god Ahura-Mazda, but what is strange is that it was not Shapur who conquered Julian but the god – signifying that the Sassanids claimed divine intervention ended Julian also (Murdoch).

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Works Cited

Bowersock, G. W. Julian the Apostate. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1978. Print.

Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Abridged ed. New York: Modern Library, 2003. Print.

Hoeber, Karl. “Julian the Apostate.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 1 Apr. 2014

Murdoch, Adrian. The Last Pagan: Julian the Apostate and the Death of the Ancient World. Stroud: Sutton, 2003. Print.

Vidal, Gore. Julian: A Novel. Vintage International ed. New York: Vintage Books, 2003. Print.

Sample Annotation Questions

Posted on by
1

 

WPSWWTXE

 

What is the significance of the Roman Empire to human history?

What does SPQR mean? What does it stand for?

What does the eagle represent to civilized society?

How did one of the greatest (if not the greatest) civilizations of human history fall? Why? Who? When?

What contributions to modern civilization did the Romans make?

What was their culture like? Law? Architecture? Military? Religious? Political?

Symbolism of this picture? Eagle? SPQR? Laurel wreath? Gold and Red?

“High Point of Human Civilization”? Time when “human race was most happy and prosperous”?

 

CCP – Essay 2

Posted on by
Reply

Is discipline the key to persistence through suffering and hardship? From the dawn of humanity throughout its numerous growths and declines one truth about human nature has proven itself certain, that a strong and disciplined mind is the key to true endurance and happiness.

A strong mind is more powerful and useful to the human experience than a strong body as while a physically fit form can make many things easier it is the psyche which gives you the resilience to persevere through adversity. No human has ever gone through life free of adversity therefore learning discipline alleviates the human condition and invigorates survival.

No matter how strong the body is it will always be easily shattered by the universe, other people and even ourselves. The mind is a completely different creature however with a far more complicated nature, giving it the distinct ability to only be destroyed by itself – and without discipline the mind will with certainty and predictability turn on itself when faced with the obstacles in life.

Pessimistic thinking can poison not only your mental state and emotions but can drive your body into decadence and lethargy. When a mind is softened by irresolute thoughts, persistence and the ability to weather difficulty are the first casualties.

Marcus Aurelius, the second century Roman Emperor who oversaw an era of peace and stability – and was remembered as one of the Five Good Emperors – says it better than I. “Take care not to be Caesarified, or dyed in purple: it happens. So keep yourself simple, good, pure, serious, unpretentious, a friend of justice, god-fearing, kind, full of affection, strong for your proper work. Strive hard to remain the same man that philosophy wished to make you. Revere the gods, look after men. Life is short.”  (Aurelius 6.30.1)

Marcus also makes a good point on how resentment and refusal of inevitability can turn a man to disobedience and make persevering through adversity nigh impossible. “The soul of a man harms itself first and foremost, when it becomes (as far as it can) a separate growth, a sort of tumor on the universe: because to resent anything that happens is to separate oneself in revolt from Nature.” (Aurelius 2.16) Griping and demanding more than one has been given degrades the human spirit and turns even the most generous man into a fickle being of ambition and greed. Accepting ones lot in life with a disciplined mind enables a person to persist through even the darkest times and emerge the same man – albeit with more experience under his belt.

The mind without a body is an ethereal thing, something which we can only dream of, a creature that to all effects would seem a true god; whereas a body without a mind is a vessel of suffering and toil lacking pride and acting solely on base instincts. Therefore it is true perseverance to accept each hurdle in life with calm and overcome them without complaint. One can only do so if they have a disciplined mind trained to accept and endure.

 

Works Cited:

Aurelius, Marcus. Meditations. Trans. Martin Hammond. Penguin, 2006. Print.

Writer’s Autobiography

Posted on by
Reply

The two most memorable essays I’ve written were both from high school English classes. The first was my sophomore essay on the morality of Atticus Finch in Harper Lee’s novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, which is the first thing I’ve written that I’m still proud of and where I consider my writing to have evolved from mediocre to something I think is decent. The second was my senior research project I did on Willie Nelson and how he helped shape modern country music and the subculture around it. My writing hasn’t been as plentiful in the past year as it was at one point, but I still occasionally write something to keep myself entertained. Writing’s a way for me to get out my feelings that I can’t do with spoken words. My weaknesses as a writer and reader are procrastination, holding back on public pieces, my disorganized thought process, and being easily distracted from a topic I have no interest in. I would like to work on better organizing my thoughts and writing and also learning to do my best on essays that other people will read.