West European Studies

Francisco de Goya was born in Fuendetodos, a village in Aragon, Spain, on March 30, 1746. Goya became studying art as an apprentice to Jose Luzan at the age of fourteen and continued his art education in Italy (Franciscodegoya.net). He returned to Spain in 1771 and painted frescoes in local cathedrals which helped establish his artistic reputation. In Madrid, he joined painter brothers Francisco and Ramon Bayeu y Subias and later married their sister (metmuseum.org).
In 1774, he was introduced to the royal workshop, resulting in a lifelong relationship with the Spanish monarchy. Between 1775 and 1792, he painted cartoons or designs for the royal tapestry factory. The period marked an important period of his artistic development as he became a keen observer of human behavior. These tapestry paintings depict human behavior of rich and poor and young and old during their daily activities. Blind Man Playing the Guitar belongs to this period. During this time he was also influenced by neoclassicism, a style which was increasingly gaining favor over the established rococo style.

As he became better known among the Spanish aristocracy, he began receiving more and more commissions to paint the executives and their families. One of these was Count Altamira for whose family Goya painted four portraits. His associations with this powerful family greatly advanced his career. In 1788, Goya painted a portrait of Condesa de Altamira and Her Daughter, a painting which accurately captures the sensitivity of the sitters and the wealth of his patrons. This and several other paintings helped establish him as a portrait painter and in 1786, he became the painter to King Charles III. In 1789, soon after he finished painting the portrait of Condesa de Altamira, he was appointed the court painter under King Charles IV. The hallmark of his paintings was his disinclination to flatter. This is especially apparent in the case of Charles IV of Spain and His Family which is remarkable for its lack of visual discretion. According to Schwartz (2005), Goya disliked working on commission and so while working for his patrons, he would paint in subtle references to human ambiguities.

In 1792, Goya suffered from a serious illness which left him permanently blind. He returned to Madrid in 1793 and 1793, completed and published a collection of eighty aquatinted etchings titled Caprichos. The Caprichos are considered an enlightened critique of 18th century Spain and humanity in general (Wikipedia). The most important work from this collection is titled El sueno de la razon produce monstrous (The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters). The Sleep of Reason Produces Monster is the 43rd plate in the collection which depicts a sleeping portrait of the artists surrounded by owls and bats symbolizing folly and ignorance.

Between 1808 and 1814, during the Spanish invasion of the Napoleonic war, Goya served as the court painter to the French. During this time, he was extremely disturbed by the aristocracies of war and expressed them in a series of etchings titled The Disasters of War, which was not published until 1863.
Sometime around 1800, Goya painted one of his most famous work, The Naked Maja. At the end of the Napoleonic war, while he was pardoned for serving the French, the new king did not like his work and he was summoned by the Inquisition to explain the Naked Maja, which was considered obscene at the time. Goya refused to paint clothes on to the painting and instead painted a new painting of the same woman in the same pose but fully clothed.

From 1819 to 1924, Goya lived in seclusion in a two-storey house outside Madrid named Quinta del Sordo or The Deaf Mans House. During his time there, he painted fourteen paintings, directly in to the wall of the house. These paintings are known as the Black Paintings because of their dark themes. These paintings were not meant for public display and hence were never titled. They were titled by art experts after his death. The most famous of the Black Paintings is called Saturn Devouring His Son. The painting is an extremely dark depiction of the myth wherein the Greek God Saturn eats his son in the fear that the son will overthrow him.

In 1824, Goya went into exile to Bordeaux, France and continued to live there until his death on April 16, 1828.

The history of the Roman Republic could be traced back to the era after the overthrow of Tarquin monarchy led by Junius Brutus at around 509 BC. From that time henceforth Rome has never reverted back to a monarchy. This era signified great expansion, power and civilization of the Roman Republic. Rome was ruled by the senate and assembly which were institutions formed that were formed at the beginning of the monarchy. The Republic was characterized by continuous warfare. The Republic had a constitution that laid down all the institutions and traditions of the government. However, the constitution was neither a formal nor written document but a rather string of unwritten laws and traditions based on the monarchial institution. In its early days, the republic was largely involved in power transfers from the monarchs to the wealthiest classes which were a source of repeated conflicts right from its inception in around 509 BC to its collapse in the middle of the 1st century BC in the hands of Caesar. The political history of the Republic was tumultuous, violent and chaotic which was mainly fought between its two main classes that comprised of the patricians which was the dominant upper class and the Plebeians which ware the standard Roman citizens. This essay will therefore be answering the question that states, was the fall of the Roman Republic inevitable
Before answering this question, it is imperative to understand that the demise of the Republic had more in to it than a single man or event indeed it was a culmination and combination of several individual actions which were coupled and combined with social and economic conditions that weighed heavily on the Roman citizenry in general. (Brunt 64)

In addition to that, the massive and rapid expansionist achievements that Rome had achieved in the 700 years earlier up to the mid 1st century created monumental and massive holes in the government and political capabilities of the senate. Indeed, the collapse of the Republic could not be avoided at all since, during the beginning of the Roman conquest outside Italy and the Punic Wars that was followed by the massive importation of slaves, the appearance of Roman life seemed to be changing far too rapid than the governing body could deal with. Great Romans like Scorpio Africanus, fell victims to political infighting and whims which was one of the major catalysts for the fall of the Republic. The socio-economic instability that resulted from inequities and disproportions in the class system led to the rise of demagogues like the brothers Gracci. Also, the use of citizen assemblies for popular agendas tore the fabric of senatorial power apart.  (Grant 58)

Another reason that made the fall of the Republic to be inevitable was that the financial burden borne by the citizens of the Republic was too much for them to handle. Some of them included the paying of tithes to the government which was a burden to them. This burden was made intolerable by the avaricious behaviors of the Roman tax collectors. In provinces like Lusitania and Spain, rebellions continued throughout the second BC. In addition to that, the Roman senatorial elite were chauvinistically arrogant and also unaccountable for their actions. The efforts by the high minded aristocrats to champion for better institutions as a means of redressing political and socio-economic reforms proved quite futile, since they were blocked by the majority who were unwilling to let go of their privileged position in the society. Furhtermore, most of the wealth acquired from profits of war and booty into Italy did not benefit the plebeians since it was corrupted and abused by the upper class leading to increased misery. (Le 86)

Also, during the period that lasted between 135 and71 BC, Several slave campaigns rose in Rome. One of the reasons for the uprising was that the large pieces of land that was given over for the purposes of slave farming in which the roman masters were greatly outnumbered by the slaves. By the first Century BC, there were at least 12 rebellions and civil wars. That pattern did not relent all through the caesarian era until Octavian later came to end it by successfully challenging the Senates authority and was hence made the emperor (princeps). That was recipe enough for the decline of the Republic. (Crook 20)

 There was the civil war in Rome during the late 2nd century that was instigated by the rivalry between Consuls Marius and Sulla. The war was caused by their continuous disagreements and political ambitions. This contributed immensely to the demise of the Roman Republic because its leaders were increasingly incapable of sharing power. For instance, when Sulla captured Rome, he ensured that all his political opponents were killed and replaced with his appointees.
The breaking point to the survival of Rome was when the rivalry between Julius Caesar and Pompey began. These were two great Roman strategists, with lust for fame and power led to the demise of the Republic. This was mainly because they neither were willing to put aside their differences with one another. After Julius Caesar defeated Pompey in the war he became a dictator and asserted total control over Rome. (Wedd 3)

    In conclusion, the Rome Republic did not die because it was any inefficient but rather because the whole system had been blinded by lots of greed and glory. The irony was that, the very people who meant to be served were exploited instead and at the end they turned against them and led to the Republics ultimate fall. A big lesson was learnt from that experience is that it is important for all to learn about the dangers of greed at the expense of others. 

Peter Abelard (Pierre Ablard) was a French philosopher, theologian and a dialectician. He was born in April 1079 in a small town of Pallet near Nantes, to a noble family of a lord of a village who later became monasteries. He went against the wishes of his parents by opting to pursue education as opposed to joining military profession. In search of his education he moved from one school to another and eventually ended up in Paris (Atkinson, 1998). Here, he undertook to rival the teachings offered by one of the Parisian masters. The challenges he faced propelled him start his own school at Melun. He later became a renowned teacher of dialect and rhetoric.

At one time when he was a theology teacher at Loan, he is known to have harassed a rhetoric and dialect teacher of dialect in Paris. He is famed for among other things, how he explained the problem of universals. The greatest question has been whether the universal characteristics exist independently of particular things that have them or not Abelard took the conceptualistic view of their existence but only at a mentally level in contrast to nominalists who believe that they do not. He gave an explanation to his position by explaining the idea of mental obstruction. He set to clarify the existence of individual things (King, 2004). By focusing on a common characteristic between different objects, he set a focus on this characteristic as a thing of its own right. He laid stress on the aspects of morality of the intention as a clear way of doing away with the objective differentiating between good and evil.

He argued that, the constituent of sin does not solely entail the physical action, or perceived harm to God, but in actual fact the psychological element in the action which is the intention of sinning as a formal contempt of God. Abelard took the principle of reason being of paramount help in ones faith. This conflicted with the common theologians of his time who stressed in faith as an aid to ones reasoning.    One of the most fascinating things about Abelard life is the secret relationship he developed with one of her students named Hlose. Though he often displayed this lady as a teenager, the lady believed she was in her twenties (King, 2004). He married her in secret as being a member of the church monastery, his marriage would have limited his participation in church activities.  Their love story is termed as one of greatest romances in history due to its reality.

His brilliancy is well described in his book Story of My Calamities where he talks of how students used to come to him from every corner of Europe. He was an enigma in the way he articulated himself. In present day, his work has still continued to attract a lot of attention from scholars. He represents the greatest persons of medieval revival of faith and morals. He used logic and had an unwavering faith in reasoning process. He was a man of immense mental wealth, not forgetting his eloquence, daring, and originality in articulating his beliefs (Mews, 2005). His work exceeded any other person in defining the problems and methods of scholasticism in respect to universal matters.
His contribution in formation of scholasticism and in showing the participation of philosophical thought in action puts him ahead of other thinkers of his time. From him we find a person who had anticipated the modern speculation in modern direction. He thought and acted according to his belief. How can we explain his action in having a relationship and even a secret marriage with Heloise The two even had a child together which brings the ideal of a marriage in the church (Eire, 1999). Abelard correspondences with Heloise and the way he felt bored by monastery at one moment shows his inner feelings. In actual fact, he had a comfort zone outside the convectional church teachings of his time. The later acknowledgement of his work by the church shows that his revolutionary view on the teachings of the day was more based on reforms. The present day church is being faced by internal revolutions where some priests are taking a step of acknowledging marriage as a pre-requisite in the life of a man. The opposition faced by them from the church is understandable (Eire, 1999). However, we cannot put them in the foots of Abelard, rather his actions can, without doubt be seen as a contributor to their view of necessity of a marriage even to those serving in the monasteries.

    Every human being has his strength and shortcomings. At the peak of his career, Abelard was carried away by his pride as he felt as if he had the control of his whole world. He confused the attention he was receiving doe to prowess to his fame and he was totally consumed by pride. This could certainly have contributed to his downfall. It took him some years to regain his former glory as a teacher. At this moment one of his publications drew attention from his adversaries who picked his rationalistic interpretation of the Holy Trinity. This work received an official condemnation from the church and he was forced to burn his book. He was later accused and tried of heresy in 1140. His trial was a mastermind of Banard of Clairvaux who could not stand his spirit and wanted to trim his power and influence. Bernard used his power in the church council to influence the condemnation of Abelard (Gilson, 1960). However, Abelard was determined to argue his case out in Rome as he had placed an appeal for his case. It was on his way to Rome to urge his appeal that he collapsed and died some few months later in 1142.
His bones and those of Heloise lies in a well- known tomb in the cemetery of Pere Lachaise at Paris.

    In modern times, Abelard is known for his connection with Heloise. He set forward than any other scholar before him, the scholastic way of philosophizing. He succeeded in presenting a formal and rational expression to the acquired ecclesiastical doctrine.

Unlike the contemporary concept of a constitution, which is the fundamental law of a state that defines the basic policies and principles of the government, the declaration of unity among its citizens and the promotion of their welfare, the establishment of justice, the insurance of peace and order, and the protection of their territory for the end purpose of gaining the national and global recognition of the countrys independence and self governance, the Athenian constitution is a historical account about the Athenians struggle towards democratic governance. It simultaneously provided the contextual background or the experience of the Athenian society in discussing the composition of the Athenian political system and its form of government.  Hence the Athenian constitution does not contain a series of declarations about policies and the political structure, which are subjected to change via amendments, but a historical description of the Athenian democracy, which, nevertheless, reflected the evolving nature of the same. 

Context
Much like any other modern constitution that was established following a series of local conflicts and disorders as well as through active negotiations and compromises among people, the Athenian constitution evolved through the same painstaking process that reflects their unique historical experiences.  The principal difference is that the Athenian constitution was written not after all conflicts had been finally resolved, but during which the Athenian polity was still evolving. Hence, it included a rather explanatory depiction of the course of events.  In particular, the constitution reflected the transition of the Athenian government from the oligarchic government to the constitutional democracy.

In earlier times, before Greece was organized into independent city states, such as Athens, the political landscape was composed of minor monarchs who presided over small groups of neighboring people and controlled territories of their immediate surroundings, comparable to tribal communities. Through mergers, collaborations, intermarriages, wars and other similar methods, some kings were able to expand their territorial rule.  In certain locations, individual kings acquired the power over larger territories. This may be how Theseus congregated the different independent towns of the Attic peninsula as a unified political state under the centralized government at Athens.  Thus, the establishment of the Athenian state was credited to him (Walker, 1995).

From absolute monarchies in its early inception, the government structure in Athens evolved towards oligarchies, in which an inconsiderable number of rich, land-owning aristocrats ruled the land. This was a significant development as the plurality of rulers prevented the governance of the city state from the whims and caprices of a single ruler or dictator, who in earlier times was endowed the title and powers of a god. The oligarchic structure of government or magistrates composed of the King, the Polemarch, and the Archon during the time of Draco is reflected in the first book of the Athenian constitution which served as the starting point for the chronological account of the development of Athenian democracy described in the constitution.  The Athenian constitution primarily paralleled the laws of Solon, which catered and leaned towards the welfare of the masses.  Two of the revolutionary and pro people laws of Solon included the abolition of using a persons freedom as collateral for a debt and the right to appeal in a democratic. Solons regime can essentially be depicted as the alteration from oligarchy to democracy as they contained elements of both government forms. For example, the membership to the Archons was expanded to other wealthy families, although, still limited to aristocrats while ordinary people were given a channel to voice out their sentiments through the Assembly.  However, such conversion was disrupted by the reign of tyrannical rulers that followed until the Athenian constitution which, subtly reinstate the Laws of Solon that served as the foundation to renovate their impaired constitution. 

Objectives of the Writer
Some scholars traditionally attribute the Athenian constitution to be written by Aristotle. Others, however, do not discount the possibility that it was authored by some of his students. Based on the contents of the constitution per se, it can be inferred that the writer intended to make a description of the historical developments of democracy and the political constitution of Athens.  Thus, the detailed account of how laws were made including the historical experience of Athenians, allow readers to deeply and comprehensively understand the context of the progression and culmination of Athenian democracy.

Biases in the Document
Considering that the Athenian constitution described the transition to democracy in a rather narrative manner, it was inevitable for the writer to obliquely criticize and discredit that earlier forms of governance from which the Athenian democratic society evolved, particularly the oligarchic practices which were especially pervasive during the reign of the earlier tyrants.  The laws and changes in the constitution were principally meant to address problems and tribulations that the people suffered. Thus, the text subtly interpreted history in light of contemporary events. For instance, the abolition of freedom as collateral reflected the enslavement of the working class.  One can deduce the proliferation of slavery of the poor including children because of debt. Freedom of the people is a core characteristic of democracy, hence, the abolition of freedom as collateral signaled one of the earlier ways of how freedom is protected and institutionalized which can now be found in the bill of rights in most modern constitutions (Acton, 2007). In other issues, the right to appeal to the jury revealed the lack of equality before the law in society while the creation of the Assembly evinced the utter lack of mechanism for ordinary people to participate in the governance process. Thus, old political structure perpetuated the delineation and abuse of the upper class of the lower class.

Historical significance
The modern western civilization had been founded on the basis of the Greek civilization (Thornton, 2000).  Hence, In providing a historical account of how the classical democracy was established and worked during its time, Athenian constitution imparted the pillars of democracy that world enjoys today. (Aristotle and Rhodes, 1984) Specifically, the Athenian constitution which reflected the classical model of democracy, initially bestowed the framework by which contemporary democracies today are constituted. For one, it reflected the basic framework that elaborates the democratic process in government.  It crudely defined the powers and duties of the three main branches of government namely the executive, legislative and judiciary (Harris, 2006).  In the legislative branch, the presence of the council and assembly is antecedent to the bicameral system while the assembly per se is arguably a precursor of a party list system because it allows representation of the marginalized sectors of society.  More importantly, because the Athenian constitution reflected an evolution rather than an absolute declaration of policies, it showed an unwritten principle of any democratic institution which recognized the limitations in the wisdom of the leaders in framing an absolute law.  As the constitution continues to evolve, it remains open to changes or amendments so that it will continue to be responsive and sensitive to the needs of the citizens.

Germany was involved in the First World War in which it was defeated in 1918. There are various similarities between the defeat of Germany in 1918 and defeat of France in 1871. The similarities of their defeat can be obtained by considering the causes of the war and the end results. There were also dissimilarities between these wars. The dissimilarities can also be ascertained by considering the participants in the war and the consequences of the war.

    The similarities can be attested from the causes of the war. The war against Germany and France was as a result of balance of power within the European nations. In the eve of 1914, the British government declared war against Germany. This was a result of the economic revival in Germany. Germany had developed rapidly. The industrial revolution in Germany created worry within the states competing for balance of power. Britain joined hands with France to fight against Germany. Germany faced defeat as a result of the strong resistance from the French and British armies.  The defeat was also attributed by the intervention of the United States army. United States took side in the war losing the position of a neutral mediator.  The war left Germany in tatters.  The consequences of the war included economy draw back, separated army, hunger and political unrest. Germany was forced to sign a treaty which considered Germany as the contributing factor to the war.

    The Franco-Prussian war left France in a stalemate as Germany defeat in 1918. France entered in to war in 1870 with Prussia due to the prevailing conflict.  France declared war against Prussia due to the conflict between the two sides. The war was aimed towards Prussia alone leaving aside the other German states.  The untargeted German states backed up Prussia.  The German and Prussia armies joined hand to defeat France.  The German Empire was formed by unifying Germany and Prussia. The war ended in a treaty. The Treat of Frankfurt served as the terminating point of the war.  The causes of the Germany war and the Franco-Prussian War were similar. The war was as a result of the balance of power within the European nations.  The Napoleonic Wars left The European states in a state of war for power.  The defeat of France in 1871 forced Napoleon I to exile. Germany gained victory in this war.   The 1871 war left Germany being united.

    There were dissimilarities between the defeat of Germany in 1918 and the defeat of the France in 1871. In 1918 Germany was left in the losing end with Britain gaining victory. Germany was forced to accept the treaty which was initiated by the United States. Germany served a blow since it was forced to bear the consequences of the war. In 1871, Germany gained victory over France. This left Germany a united nation.  The treat of Frankfurt recognized Germany as the victorious while the versatile treaty left Germany at the losing end. In 1870, France declared war against Prussia while in the 1914 war, Britain declared war against Germany.

    In conclusion, the First World War was geared against Germany. This was because of the fight for balance of power within the European nations. Britain was the first nation to be industrialized. It remained in the forefront until the American Revolution.  Germany gained momentum towards industrialization. This made British Government to declare war against Germany. In 1919, the First Germany was forced to sign a treaty in which it was not involved. This left many issues being unresolved.

    The First World War started in 1914. The war was initiated by the imbalance of power within the European nation. The British Empire was the first to undergo industrialization. Industrial revolution began in British. This made British the only European nation served with industries.  British revived policies of ensuring they are the only ones involved in production. The world markets were flocked with products from Britain.  The competing European nations included India and Germany. India was geared towards industrialization.  This made the British Government to formulate strict policies restricting other European nations from venturing in industrialization. The British Empire became the dominating industrious nation. The other European countries provided the raw materials used for the industries in Britain. The raw materials were transformed to finished products. The finished products were then sold to the global world.

    Germany became a competing rival in industrialization. Several industries were set in Germany. Germany produced various products which provided competition to the British products. Many customers in the world preferred products from Germany since they were less costly and of good quality. This acted as a set back to the British economy. The balance of power was an issue of concern within the European nations.  The economy of Germany continued to prosper with its participation in the industrial world. Germany gained much advantage after gaining colonies in Africa. These colonies provided raw materials for their industries. The Germany colonies also provided markets for the products from Germany industries.  The upcoming of Germany was not received well by the British government. This led to plans to bring down the upcoming industries in Germany.

British Government began to float some false allegations towards Germany. The false allegation failed.  The British began to find means of bringing down Germany. In a conversation with the then United States Prime Minister, the British Prime minister was quoted for having plans to declare   war against Germany. The Prime Minister quoted the   competition Germany was offering to his country. The United States prime minister reciprocated by saying that there was no need of attacking a harmless nation. He said that instead of attacking Germany, British should provide a competitive ground.

     In the wake of 1914, British declared war against Germany. Britain joined hands with France to defeat Germany. The Germany allies were weakened by the evident strong force from both the British and French armies. United States intervened to reinforce both the British and the French armies. The intervention of the United States made it lose the position of a neutral mediator. United States led the signing of the treaty in 1919 in which case Germany was configured as the main contributing factor to the war. Germany was blamed for the war.

    From the heightened scenery, it is not fair to blame Germany for what happened in the First World War. This is because Germany did not initiate the war. Germany was in the midst of industrialization. This can be considered as an argument for attacking Germany. Industrial revolution was in the horizon and therefore Germany was on the right track in changing the world economy. The war left Germany in the eve of collapsing. Many issues were issues not solved after the war since Germany was sidelined during the negotiation talks.  It is clear that Germany did not confront any nation. Therefore Germany should take the blame on the happenings of the First World War.

Nationalism is defined as a collection of ideas, sentiments, cultures or social movements which portray patriotism for a certain country. Two great revolutions occurred in France and Germany. The French revolution begun in 1789 and lasted up to the start of the First World War. Therefore, nationalism is a political ideology which gains momentum as a result of improvement of modern technology. Historian Carlton Hayes classified the evolution of nationalism into five major stages humanitarian enlighten, romantic tradition, liberal unification, and integral chauvinistic.

                   Different schools of thoughts have emerged over the last century that explains the rise of European nationalism. Nationalism gained momentum after the French revolution in the18th century and was reinforced by the development of modern television journalism. Hayes further states that nationalism is not a single historical process but multiple occurrences which have helped shape the political culture. Nationalism can be summarized as a form of identity which originates from similar culture, history and mostly a common language. The French troops conquered Germany between 1970s and 1814 and created the initial rise German nationalism. As a result, Germany consolidated its middle sized states leading to the disbanding of the Roman Empire. However, an uprising in 1813 helped to drive napoleon out of Germany.

              To start with, the emergence of nationalism can be traced back to industrialization and modernization of France. Most suggestions compare France modernization to the rise of fascism in Germany. Nationalism is mostly based on progressive rather than reactionary ideology. The development of French nationalism can be traced back to the regime of napoleon lll. He modernized Paris and made it a city that the French people can proudly associate with. His development plans were further enhanced by the industrial revolution which gained momentum by mid century. He further directed France towards a liberal direction by increasing the influence of the French assembly. In the meantime, events occurring in France were being influenced by development in Germany. Despite the fact that Germany was still made up of 38 separate states, economic development was enhanced by the creation of a custom union called Zollverein.

                  Napoleon great influence and control over Germany assisted in the development of German nationalism. Germany was still at its initial stages of development characterized by a weak government and loose cultural bonding. The French sense of identity inspired the Germans to establish a solid political system as well as unifying their culture. Two forms of nationalism were evident during the 19th century. There was the conservative nationalism which occurred before the Napoleon era and it comprised of people who desired the return of old living standards. Liberal nationalism occurred after Napoleon started making reforms leading to creation of self governments and modern economies.

                  There are three concepts of nationalism that links the two countries. Liberal nationalism which emerged from France enabled the establishment of a liberal constitution and was important in emphasizing on citizen rights. Cultural nationalism implied that a countrys unity was more important than the right of a single individual. Lastly, economic nationalism was a major factor in ensuring economic growth and development through the removal of trade barriers. Economic growth in Germany which was influenced by industrial revolution led to establishment of textile and iron industries, coal production and growth of the railway line

              Nationalism also resulted to high population growth, expansion of middle working class and the advancement  of modern education. Moreover, modern military equipment and superior military organization were created as a result of nationalism.