Juvenal - Roman Writer of Satire

Satura tota nostra est.Satire is all ours. Some of our favorite television shows and movies are satires. This usually biting form of entertainment owes its creation not to the artistic Greeks, who developed comedy, tragedy, lyric poetry, and more, but to the usually thought of as more practical Romans. Roman verse satire, a literary genre created by the Romans, is personal and subjective, providing insight into the poet and a look (albeit, warped) at social mores. Invective and obscenities, dining habits, corruption, and personal flaws all have a place in it. Juvenal was a master of exposing the foibles of society, with elegance. Roots of Satire What We Dont Know About Juvenal While we must always be leery of assuming the persona (the speaker in the poem) speaks for the poet, in the case of the last and greatest of the Roman satirists, Juvenal, we dont have much choice. He wasnt mentioned by most contemporary poets and is not included in Quintilians history of satire. It wasnt until Servius, in the late 4th century, that Juvenal received recognition. We think Juvenals full name was Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis. Juvenal may have come from near Monte Cassino. His father may have been a rich freedman and rhetorician. This deduction is based on the lack of a dedication in Juvenals satires. Since Juvenal didnt dedicate his work, he probably didnt have a patron, and so may have been independently wealthy, but he may have been very poor. We dont know Juvenals birth or death date. Even the period at which he flourished is debatable. It is possible he outlived Hadrian. What is clear is that he endured the reign of Domitian and was still alive under Hadrian. Topics of Juvenals Satires Juvenal wrote 16 satires -- the last unfinished -- varying in length from (xvi) 60 lines to (vi) 660. Topics, as stated in his opening programmatic satire, include all aspects of real life, past and present. In reality, the topics center on all aspects of vice. Book 1 Satire 1 (In English)Programmatic satire in which Juvenal states that his purpose is to write satire in a world where sinners are men of power.Satire 2 (In English)Satire on homosexuality and the betrayal of traditional Roman values.Satire 3 (In English)Contrasts corruption of modern Rome with the older simple way of life still found in the country.Satire 4Farcical political satire about the meeting of an imperial council to determine how to cook an outlandish fish.Satire 5Dinner party at which the patron continually humiliates his guest client. Book 2 Satire 6A wonder of misogyny, a catalogue of evil, eccentric, and depraved women. Book 3 Satire 7Without patronage in high places, intellectual pursuits suffer privations.Satire 8Aristocratic birth should be accompanied by noble behavior.Satire 9A dialogue in which the author assures Naevolus, a male prostitute, there will always be work for him in Rome. Book 4 Satire 10What should be prayed for is a healthy mind and body ( mens sana in corpore sano)Satire 11Epistolary invitation to a simple dinner.Satire 12Description of sacrifice to be made for the safe escape of a man named Catullus from a storm at sea because he jettisoned his treasures. Book 5 Satire 13Consoles Calvinus on his loss -- of money.Satire 14Parents teach their children the vice of greed by their example.Satire 15Mankind has a tendency towards cannibalism and should follow Pythagoras dietary recommendations.Satire 16Civilians have no redress against military assaults. Sources Michael Coffey: Roman SatireWilliam J. Dominik and William T. Wehrle: Roman Verse Satire   Silver Age Roman Satire †¢ Review: Roman Verse Satire†¢ Satires Origins†¢ E-text of J.W. Mackails Latin Literature Part III. Chapter IV. Juvenal†¢ Juvenal Net Links

Trophic Cascade Essay Example

Essays on Trophic Cascade Essay The paper "Trophic Cascade" is an outstanding example of an essay on environmental studies. A trophic cascade is a profound concept relating to ecology. It begins at the top of the food chain and goes all the way to the bottom. An example is when wolves were introduced in Yellowstone National Park in 1995 because wolves often kill other species in order to eat them and those species have eaten other species that are smaller than them. It is all in regards to the food chain and the roles of predator and prey. However, they also give life to many others.   The number of deer increasing before 1995 occurred in Yellowstone National Park because wolves had been out of that habitat for over 70 years. The deer had continued to reproduce and there were not enough other species above them on the food chain. Because of this, the population of the deer increased and they had eaten much of the vegetation. The wolves killed some of the deer but then also changed the behavior of the deer and the places that had lost vegetation started to revive because the wolves had changed them out of that area. The bears also began to kill the baby deer. The wolves changed the course of the river because there was less erosion. More pools formed. The regenerated forest helped to stabilize the banks of the rivers so that there was less erosion and did not collapse. Because of this, the flow of the river was much more on its steady course. The following is a food web of Yellowstone National Park. It includes the roles of each species after the wolves were release d back into the park after 70 years. In order to stabilize the ecosystem in the UAE, wild hyenas were reintroduced. The rare animal was endangered and one female was found on Sir Bani Yas Island. Seeing the female had a young litter, it was obvious that there was a male too though it was not found. The young were raised in captivity. They were then relocated back to the island in 2008 in order to control the population of antelopes and gazelles because the other top predator on the island was the cheetah. Hyenas feed on the carcasses too so if there happened to be an antelope or gazelle that had fallen sick, the hyenas would be able to prey on these animals and continue to keep the population healthy by eliminating the sick animals from the island.

What Does Clifford Consider to Be the Appropriate Ethical Norm free essay sample

I agree with Clifford’s’ evidentialist view to a point, as in theory it is a good one, however, practically I believe it is not a realistic way to live your life, as it would be near impossible to find time to investigate and sufficient evidence on which to base every single belief that you come across in your life. Evidentialism states that the justification for a belief is based entirely on the evidence supporting that belief, therefore defining the epistemic condition of a belief. This can be summarised by the simple thesis â€Å"For all persons S and propositions p and times t, S ought to believe that p at t if and only if believing p fits Ss evidence at t. † Clifford’s evidentialist principle is extremely similar to this thesis, as the main point of his argument is that â€Å"it is wrong always, everywhere and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence† . From this we can see that he believed that sufficient reason and evidence supports a belief and if counterbalanced then one should withhold assent to that belief, rather than risk believing something based upon inadequate information. One aspect that Clifford emphasises more than the ordinary evidentialist thesis does is the severity of the consequence toward the believer of a false belief, as he uses words such as ‘guilty’ and ‘sin’ to describe the transgressions of these dishonourable men whose judgement was not to be trusted. He places importance on challenging beliefs indoctrinated in you from childhood, instead of neglecting doubts and avoiding educating yourself on the opposition of these beliefs- stating that if you do not do so â€Å"the life of that man is one long sin against mankind†. Another important point that he raises is the repercussions that your ‘false’ beliefs can have on mankind, not only the important decisions made by people in positions of power that obviously and directly affect others, such as the two examples given in The Ethics of Belief; but also the small and seemingly insignificant beliefs made by every man, as he expresses that â€Å"every time we let ourselves believe for unworthy reasons, we weaken our powers of self-control, of doubting, of judicially and fairly weighing evidence† the results of this will be a greater, ethical wrong toward society- â€Å"the danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them; for then it must sink back into savagery. The first example that Clifford provides in The Ethics of Belief is one of a certain ship-owner who sold tickets to emigrant families for a transatlantic voyage. The ship was fairly old and had needed repairs in the past but instead of overhauling and refitting the ship, the owner chose to rather save the money and send the ship to sea with the belief that it would be safe and seaworthy. In Cliffo rd’s story the ship sinks and the ship-owner collects the insurance money without any further consequences. Clifford (who himself once survived a shipwreck, and so must have found this behaviour particularly loathsome ) argues that, although the man had convinced himself that no harm would come to the passengers and was sincere in this conviction, it was a result of him suppressing doubts raised about the seaworthiness of the ship and was not based on investigative evidence. Therefore Clifford states that even if the ship had not sunk, the man would still be guilty, as his belief would still have been a false one, even if it had not resulted in the death of many people. The second example that is used is one of a group of men who lay false charges against a group of citizens, accusing them of harmful religious practices and resulting in a Commision being appointed to investigate the claims. It was found that the accused were in fact innocent, something that the accusers could have seen had they investigated the matter themselves. In this example, Clifford emphasises how wrong the beliefs of these men were- although they honestly believed them to be true- as these beliefs were founded on a suspicion and not sufficient evidence. As he does with his first example, Clifford suggests that had the results of the enquiry been different, and the accused been found guilty, it would in no way validate the beliefs of the accusers, as the belief would still be an unjustified one, giving them no right to believe their accusations. In this argument we must also consider the difference between an epistemic and ethical wrong as Clifford is arguing the ethical norm regulating belief formation. Ethical norms are the unofficial rules or laws determined and constructed by the cultural power of a society and often have a moral connotation. Epistemic means â€Å"of, or relating to knowledge† and an epistemic wrong is when something ‘violates an epistemic principle not overridden by any other epistemic principle’ whereas an ethical wrong is more of a breach of morality and the principles between what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. An example of an epistemic wrong would be â€Å"accepting some proposition on the basis of false, irrelevant or insufficient evidence† , which is one of the main points of Clifford’s argument. An example of an ethical wrong would be to give false information to customers in order to benefit financially. There are three negative consequences for ethical wrongs- ‘the tie to action, the generational wrong and bad habits’ the first deals with the negative results that moral failings can have on the actions of the believer; the second deals with the social dimension of these ethical wrongs which can be inherited by other generations and thus lead to a downward spiral of society along with the third, in which the bad habit of supporting a belief for unworthy reason will create a world in which no-one challenges anything and everything is taken at face value. Clifford argues not only the epistemic importance of inquiring into the validity of all of your beliefs but also the ethical importance in challenging everything. He states that â€Å"we all suffer severely enough from the maintenance and support of false beliefs and the fatally wrong actions which they lead to, and the evil born when one such belief is entertained is great and wide. As a counterargument to Clifford’s Ethics of Belief, a fellow philosopher, William James, wrote The Will to Believe, challenging some of Clifford’s points and I believe that his arguments are valid and provide more of a logical way of looking at belief and the appropriate ethical norm toward belief maintenance. James argues that â€Å"first of all some issues are alive or dead for a person, like live or dead wires for an electrician† meaning that to some, certain choices where two options are provided and neither are acceptable when relating to the believers personal situation are not valid choices, â€Å"secondly, some decisions are forced or avoidable† , such as choosing to turn left or right in your car when getting to a T junction in the road, which is forced, or deciding which ovie to watch- which is avoidable, as you could chose not to watch a movie- â€Å"thirdly some are momentous or trivial† and therefore your decision could be one that would either have a significant effect on the history of the world or the lives of others, such as approving nuclear warfare, or could be a menial choice such as what to eat for lunch. â€Å"Now when Clifford negates all belief without evidence in order to avoid error, he does not recognize that some decisions are forced and mo mentous. Not to make a decision is to make a decision in such a case. Not to choose an option brings about the same loss of the truth or good that could have been experienced. † From this we can see that selection for beliefs is more complicated than it may initially appear in Clifford’s argument and not as simple as just believing anything that has sufficient evidence to support your belief in it. For instance, in some cases one can never have absolute certainty of ones evidence and this makes it fairly difficult to decide when one’s evidence is sufficient or insufficient. Also, an ethical norm is decided on the basis of your moral compass and thus this is very much an instinctual decision, not one made based upon epistemology or knowledge, and this is supported better in James’s argument as he states that â€Å"our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must decide an option between propositions whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds† as opposed to Clifford who states that with patient investigation you can find the appropriate evidence on which to assent or dissent to that belief. In conclusion, I believe Clifford’s Ethics of Belief is a valuable insight into an argument that should be seriously taken into consideration when dealing with both the epistemic and ethical norms surrounding formation and preservation of beliefs, especially if those beliefs are significant ones that could have an impact on the course of your or other people’s life. However, I also feel that it is necessary to take into consideration that as beliefs are often a moral issue the choice to believe can be an emotional as opposed to intellectual one. James provides for this impulsiveness in his argument and allows for a less rigid standpoint in regards to the evidence required to provide someone with the right to a belief. Considering both the view of Clifford and of James I feel that one of the common points recognisable in each is the importance of belief and that instead of taking our beliefs for granted we should truly appreciate and make the most of the opportunity given to us when we are allowed the freedom to choose what we truly believe to be true.

Russell and Lenores Essays Comparison

Essays are a means by which many people have expressed their ideas on a host of issues. It is a means also that affords criticisms for leaderships and governments without necessarily engaging in unlawful acts. It is a means of communication that has been in existence ever since man had evolved to the capacity that he would communicate via writing (Greetham 67). Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Russell and Lenore’s Essays Comparison specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More This paper considers different issues that are presented in two essays by different authors as a critique and a study of the central themes in them. For this paper, the essays that will be considered have been written by Russell Sanders and the other one has been written by Keeshig-Tobias where the humanistic perspective of manhood and womanhood and the relationships between and among them will be of interest in explaining how these genders inter act as discussed by these authors in their respective essays. The essence of manhood is treated differently by Russell Sanders and Lenore Keeshig-Tobias in their essays dubbed The Men we Carry in Our Minds and He was a Boxer respectively. The two writers examine the role of a man in different contexts. These include male to female relationships in a family perspective, the power dynamics between men and women in different social settings, societal expectations of a man and the challenges of living up to those expectations. The role of man’s physical strength is contextually treated differently by Russell Sanders and Lenore Keeshig-Tobias. In Russell’s world, the man’s physical strength is used to advance the family’s economic security. However it is at the cost of his own physical health and emotional wellbeing. He works long hours exposed to elements of weather by having to carry heavy loads and stand for long hours often sustaining physical injuries. I n the evenings and weekends he toils on his land and mends broken roofs (Kay et al. 34). On the other hand, the women work at their own pace in a better environment. They cultivate their social lives around the different errands they have to run. Russell perceives the work dynamics to be in favor of the women. He says he would rather hold a baby that work at the machines. On the other hand, in Lenore’s world, the man’s physical strength has being used to the detriment of the family’s emotional security. Lenore’s father a boxer uses his physical strength and boxing prowess to intimidate the women in his life. There is insecurity as both the mother and daughter as they cower at the sight of him (Kay et al. 335). Russell wants to run from the roles and the expectations of manhood in his poor social setting. He finds the women’s world to be more comfortable and he dreads growing up to these manly roles in his society. He is caught between the two ideas of men in his social setups; the worriers and the toilers. Advertising Looking for essay on gender studies? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The toilers work all the day long at the tiresome manual labor while the worriers work preparing them for war and eventual death. He doesn’t envy any on the roles. In contrast to Russell gender roles discordance, Lenore Keeshig-Tobias embraces the manly role and the societal expectations of the same. This comes as surprising. Her drunkard father had often terrorized her and her mother (Kay et al. 390). Yet she makes excuses for him arguing that her mother must have had something to do with it. She hypothesizes that he is doing right. She enrolls for boxing classes in a bid to understand his world. We see that Russell is running way from his duties as a man out of understanding of what awaits him. However Lenore is embracing the masculine world in order to understand her father an d the world that he has forced her to live in. The men in Russell’s and Lenore’s world confront manhood challenges in different ways. The failure to provide for one’s family is seen as a man’s failure in Russell’s world (Kay et al. 378). The men prevent this by working in deplorable conditions to earn a living. When they get home they work even more to mend broken roofs and till their own land. They confront the challenges through physical work. In Lenore’s world the men run away from their challenges. Lenore’s father is driven into boxing and alcoholisms by the family strains. This explains his tantrums and physical abuse of his wife (Kay et al. 473). Lenore Keeshi-Tobia’s father never graduated from college. This makes him ill prepared to confront the different family challenges that he is undergoing leading him to alcoholism. On the other hand education opens Russell’s eyes to the different dimensions of manhood. His perspectives had been limited to the manual laborers and their bosses. Though television and encounter with male teachers he is exposed to men who work with their brains; the lawyers, the politicians etcetera. He has a change of heart from wanting to hold babies to become this kind of man. His female college-mates challenge him further on the gender roles (Kay et al. 287). He is exposed to the comfort and power of men in a higher social setting. The balance of power and comfort contrast to those of his social setup. In this set up the balance is titled in favor of men.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Russell and Lenore’s Essays Comparison specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Man to man relationship is treated differently in both works of Russell and Lenore. Lenore discusses his father taking his family problems to the boxing ring. This is often to the detriment of his male boxing opponents (Greetham 145). H is driving force are personal and in contrast to the sportsmanship spirit. On the other hand Russell examines the racial relationship between the black male convicts and the white male guards. The convicts are painted as miserable and working in deplorable condition. The guards are painted as being powerful. The bonnets of their guns are said to shine in the sun (Kay et al. 512). While the man in Lenore’s world is using his boxing prowess to dominate over his fellow man, in Russell’s world he is using the gun. In both Russell and Lenore’s essays we find that man is often a victim of his social economic circumstances in his different social setting. The drive, attitude and perceptions of his acts can be digested form those perspectives. While the intensity of the man’s act may vary from man to man, they are often dictated by his environment (Greetham 145). Works Cited Greetham, Bryan. How to Write Better Essays. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Kay et al. Essay Writing for Canadian Students with Readings. 6th Ed. Toronto ON: Pearson Education Canada, 2007. This essay on Russell and Lenore’s Essays Comparison was written and submitted by user Arthur M. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.