Pollution and Encoachment of Coastal habitats in California Essay

Pollution and Encoachment of Coastal habitats in California - Essay Example Policies have been implemented that allow for greater leniency in the granting of permissions for off-shore oil drilling, and with a reduction of personnel in organizations such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the strict guidelines that have survived are not being sufficiently enforced. The increasing number of people inhabiting areas near water sources such as rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands has caused greater pollution due to more runoff, which ultimately contributes to the pollution of harbors and bays. Polluted runoff and the occasional oil spill threaten coastal resources and often cause beach closures, resulting in risks to public health and significant impacts to local economies. With the advent of the deterioration of California’s coastal environment, some specific programs and organizations were created, such as the Critical Coastal Areas program, which delineates specific land areas of the California coast â€Å"where state, federal and local government agencies and other stakeholders have agreed to improve degraded water quality or protect exceptional coastal water quality from the threat of pollution† (CCA Draft Strategic Plan 1), and the California Coastal Commission, established in order to â€Å"protect, conserve, restore, and enhance environmental and human-based resources of the California coast and ocean for environmentally sustainable and prudent use by current and future generations† (California Coastal Commission), to name just a couple. However, the proliferation of such agencies and programs has been insufficient to curb the negative effects of pollution and encroachment by humans on natural coastal habitats. According to an assessment of California’s coastal waters done in the year 2000, 98% of the state’s estuaries and bays were unable to fully support aquatic life, more than 90% carried warnings about eating fish and shellfish, and 86% could not support

European settling in America Essay Example for Free

European settling in America Essay The discovery of the Americas was one of the biggest events in history. But some tend to look over the fact that the discovery of the Americas led also to the discovery of Native American groups who were already settled here. So did the Europeans really have the right to settle in the Americas? The Europeans had every right to settle in the Americas. They had this right because no nation or form of government had been established here. If a nation or government had been established, then it would be a different story. The problem with the Native Americans was that they were so sparsely spread out around the Americas. If they had all been in one large area things possibly could have gone better for them than they did. The Europeans did have every right to settle in the Americas, but they had absolutely no right to dispossess Indians of their land. The Indians had settled here years and years before the discovery of the Americas by the Europeans. The Indians had somehow ventured over to the Americas, just as the Europeans had done, and made a home here. Europeans had no right to take that away from them. The Europeans should have been more compassionate towards the Native Americans. They should have respected the fact that they had settled here first, but human pride got in the way and they wanted what they couldnt have. The Europeans lied, cheated , and stole from the Indians making for a very confrontational accommodation. This is not the way they should have gone about this. Many things could have been done to aid in a more peaceful accommodation. First and foremost, the Europeans could have settled anywhere else in the Americas, whereas it is very large with plenty of land. If they really wanted the specific land the Indians were on they could have coincided with them. They could have lived in peace amongst each other. The two cultures could teach other new things, and help one another. If this still didnt work, the Europeans could have peacefully negotiated with the Indians, no violence or deceit involved. Sadly, the Europeans hearts werent in the right place when they came across the Indians, and most of the Europeans wanted the Indians gone or exterminated. As Christians, we are supposed to help others and be compassionate. Had the Europeans approached the Indians with this mindset things could have been done more peacefully between the two cultures.

Genealogy, History, and Mythology in Olympian 9

Genealogy, History, and Mythology in Olympian 9 From Polis to Oikos At the end of Olympian 9, the ode for Epharmostos, the champion wrestler from Opountian Lokris, Pindar declares phya, his idiosyncratic rendering of physis  (altogether best: Ol. 9.100);[1] he says that the heralds proclamation ought to record that his victor was born (with quick hands, nimble legs, determination in his look), all the natural and inherited endowments necessary for athletic success (Ol. 9.108ff).[2] Despite his emphasis on Epharmostos birth (with divine help he was born), Pindar, unusually, names neither the father of the victor nor acknowledges any family whatsoever. In a genre as concerned with family and identity as epinikian, the omission is striking and potentially troublesome for the rhetoric of epinikian praise. Miller remarks that such an omission would almost certainly only occur at the instruction of the client himself, and thus we should conclude that Epharmostos did not regard family or fathers name as essential to his self-definition.[3] Pindars encomiu m still functions, but the absence of family disturbs many of the regular features of epinikian, especially the standard integration of phya and family.[4] Family, via the fathers name, was an element of the heralds proclamation or angelia and would have been announced after Epharmostos victory.[5] While Pindars epinikian evokes the angelia, it freely includes, excludes, or modifies elements of the proclamation.[6] The modification, or omission, of a component of the angelia therefore serves as an opening for my analysis of the ode: rather than focus on the question of why Pindar did not include the fathers name, this article explains how Pindaric praise, particularly the praise of inherited ability, still functions in an ode that omits a key component of epinikian poetics. Pindar, despite the ostensible absence of family in this ode, nonetheless praises phya through ethnos and polis and with a colonial narrative of early Lokrian and Opountian history. While the focus on the conjunction of the victor with ethnos and polis is certainly not without parallel, Ol. 9 is singular in its emphasis on the correlation of biography and history. The Archaic and early Classical assimilation of genealogy to ethnic and civic history joins such seemingly disparate concepts as inheritance, family lineage, and genealogy with ethnic descent and civic foundation. The polis, one component of the angelia, can replace family, another component, because of the conceiving of ethnic and civic identity as essentially genealogical. In her study of the economy of praise in epinikian, Kurke concludes that the family is crucial not only to the celebration of athletic success but to success itself (1991, 3; cf. Cole 1987, 560). She suggests that the family connection is important enough that we should recognize Pindars (and his victors) different concept of self-identity, which was integrated, to a great degree, with family.[7] In this conceiving of self-identity, personal athletic victory can be understood as a renewal of the family, especially through the metaphors of new birth, marriage, and rites for dead ancestors.[8] Thus, the exclusion of family from Epharmostos ode is unexpected: his victory, while it may have brought fame to his living relatives, is not represented as renewing or reviving the fame of his oikos, since the oikos is absent from the ode; his Olympic victory cannot participate in the common epinikian analogizing of athletic victory to family renewal, since there is no literal family in the poem . This omission is highly unusual in epinikian, which, as Carey points out, memorializes through naming.[9] In only a few odes does Pindar not mention family members: Ol. 1, Ol. 4, Ol. 9, Pyth. 3, Pyth. 12, and Isthm. 3. In a number of these, the paternal and familial absence may be able to be rationalized: the victor is either a ruler or politically or socially prominent and thus the ode focuses attention on them, or at any rate participates in a rather complex political context (Ol. 1 for Hieron; Pyth. 3 for Hieron);[10] in another two cases the fathers name appears in an earlier ode for the same victor, and thus perhaps familial self-identity had been fulfilled   (Hierons fathers name appears in another ode as well: Pyth. 1.79; Ol. 4 for Psaumis of Kamarina, whose father Akron is named at Ol. 5.8, and his sons at 5.23; Isthm. 3 for Melissos of Thebes, whose father is named at Isthm. 4.45). Pythian 12 and Olympian 9 stand out, since they lack any explicit reference to the father, clan, or family of the victor. Pyth. 12 praises the victory of Midas of Akragas in the aulos competition at the Pythian Games; significantly, it is the only extant ode to praise a victor in a musical contest. While Strauss-Clay suggests that the absence of Midas father and family is explained by his professional standing as an aulos player, Maria Pavlou offers a convincing and subtle explanation that situates the absence of family in the context of Akragrantine politics.[11] She suggests that Midas victory is an agalma for the city, since Akragas itself receives an extended encomium (Pyth. 12.1-5), and she argues that Midas victory ode was commissioned by the then-ascendant Emmenidae (perhaps Theron himself), in order to stress their power, and to relate them to a celebration of Akragantine culture. Thus Pythian 12 does not offer evidence that lower-status athletes (if, indeed, Midas was lower- status) would not celebrate their fathers, but rather indicates the potential utility of an epinikian victory to the political program of an aspiring tyrant.[12] Consequently, Ol. 9 is alone in its complete absence of a literal family or ancestry, or at least, it is the only ode in which an obvious explanation does not appear to be forthcoming through the political or social context of the poem, and the lack of fathers name cannot be explained because of any known personal political prominence or a powerful patron. Even if Epharmostos family had not had previous athletic success, family could still appear, since in other odes victory acts retroactively to glorify otherwise obscure ancestors (e.g., Nem. 6.17-29). Aside from Epharmostos, the ode mentions one other apparently historical individual, Lampromachos, whose presence has sparked much ancient and modern discussion.[13] He is introduced as a cause for the poets presence at the celebration of Olympian 9 (82-84): Because of guest friendship and achievement I have come to honor the Isthmian fillets of Lampromachos, when both won their victories in one day. The scholiasts are divided on the meaning of: 123a and 123c regard Lampromachos as a proxenos in the technical sense, while 123d and 123e consider to be equivalent to in this passage; finally, 125c considers Lampromachos a kinsman of Epharmostos.[14] Modern scholarship has been similarly divided.[15] While the institution of proxenia existed in the fifth-century, it is not certain that an institutionalized proxenia has any relevance to Pindars use of the term in Ol. 9.[16] In one of the only accounts to try to rationalize the appearance of proxenos here, Pavlou focuses on the early evidence for proxenia in Lokris specifically; she is skeptical that Pindar would use a technical term so loosely and she contends that by the fifth-century, proxenia was firmly entrenched as an institution.[17] Pavlou follows the opinion of one of the scholiasts and regards Lampromachos as the proxenos of the Thebans at Opous, and thus a relevant personage to Pindars presence and the commissioning of the o de.[18] The Pindaric usage of proxenia and related words, however, suggests that proxenia could also signify vaguer hospitality. Isthm. 4.8, for example, teams proxenia with the adverb which renders it unlikely that the word refers to a contemporary institution; it is probable that appropriate hospitality is simply another component of the praise of the Kleonymidai.[19] In fr. 94b, Pindar uses the plural dative à Ã¢â€š ¬Ãƒ Ã‚ ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ·ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹Ãƒ Ã†â€™ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹describes a tradition of hospitality, which began in the past and extends to the present day (38-45), and once again, it is unlikely that the combination of a temporal adverb referring to the past and proxenia refers to the institution.[20] Nem. 7 has presented its own issues of interpretation, in terms of situating the passage in the larger organization of the poem, but proxenia, nonetheless, likely remains general rather than specific.[21] At Nem. 7.64-65, the reference to proxenia probab ly has little to do with the Achaian man, and rather, proxenia evokes the previous reference to xenia at Nem. 7.61 ( I am a guest-friend).[22] Again, an institutionalized meaning is highly unlikely. In other poetic uses from the early fifth-century, the term can refer to general hospitality: in Aeschylus Suppliant Women, proxenia refers to general protection by a powerful patron (or deity), rather than an institutionalized system of city-sponsored hosting (Aesch. Supp. 420, 491, 919). A fragment of Aeschylus Diktyouloi uses proxenia but then glosses it with the word à Ã¢â€š ¬Ãƒ Ã‚ ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿Ãƒ Ã¢â€š ¬Ãƒ Ã‚ Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ºÃƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬ °Ãƒ Ã‚  champion (TrGF III: fr. 47a.768-770). Therefore, proxenia in Ol. 9, and throughout the Pindaric corpus, can occur as a metaphor for hospitality, guest-friend relations, and philia, rather than a reference to the civic institution; the term is not evidence for a civic commissioning or biographical speculation but rather reinforces the intimate connection of city and victor. Lampromachos opens the victory catalogue two other Isthmian wins are recorded separately in the following line (Ol. 9.86). The mention of Lampromachos is likely a flourish with which to open the catalogue, an instance in which Epharmostos and his countryman both won at a pan-Hellenic festival on the same day. Pindar begins with a special victory, and then proceeds to begin the catalogue-proper of Epharmostos, proceeding, as is normal, from victories in the Crown Games.[23] The victory with Lampromachos is given special prominence (it begins the catalogue) because of its significance to the city of Opous, a city poorly represented in victories at the Crown Games.[24] Considering the odes explicit focus on praise of Opous aswellasEpharmostos, the inclusion of its other stephanitic victor is hardly surprising. It may be strange, in this case, that Pindar does not mention Menalkes (Moretti no. 240), who won at boxing at the same Olympics as Epharmostos, though perhaps the inclusion of a nother Olympic victor would challenge the primacy of Epharmostos praise in the ode Lampromachos lesser Isthmian victory fulfills the function of praising the city without eclipsing the praise of the laudandus. The mythic section of the ode, in which hospitality and guest-friendship not institutionalized proxenia are conjoined, when foreigners are welcomed to the new city of Opous (Ol. 9.67-69), supports my interpretation of proxenia at Lampromachos appearance. In fact, the settlement of foreigners (explicitly xenoi: Ol. 9.67) and the arete of Opous himself (Ol. 9.65-66; and the polis at Ol. 9.16) as well as one of the descendants of the new settlers (Patroklos, Ol. 9.70-76), have already appeared together in the odes narrative. Thus, Pindar comes to Opous because of the same qualities that have already characterized the polis and ethnos in the mythic narrative he, like the xenoi in the myth, is attracted to the presence of the famous residents of the city, and its famous hospitality. Repetition and a cyclical perspective on Lokrian and Opountian history predominate in the structure of the ode, and so the rationale for Pindars visit seems to reinforce the identity of Epharmostos victory with the past history and mythology of his city and ethnos. Lampromachos is not included because of any political office, special relation, or involvement in the commissioning of the ode (all the suggestions of the scholiasts), but simply because of his status as an Opountian pan-Hellenic victor.[25] Regardless of the always vague, and impossible to prove historical circumstances surrounding the commissioning of the ode, the focus is on Opountian achievements in the victory catalogue, first in the single victory of Lampromachos, and then in the longer record of Epharmostos myriad victories this is not proof of a civic commissioning, but rather exemplary of Pindars method of integrating victor with community.[26] Ol. 9 exemplifies the Pindaric tendency to merge oikos and polis epinikian is a form of civic adornment by the wealthy after all. Merger, however, does not fully satisfy in the context of the ode, since the family in Ol. 9 is not simply combined with the polis; that, in athletics, is the normal state of affairs, because the angelia teams together individual, familial, and civic identities. [27] In Ol. 9, in contrast, Epharmostos family is absent, and the ethnos of Lokris and the polis of Opous replace the oikos of the victor. The presence of Lampromachos in the victory catalogue, in a place generally reserved for family achievements, as a result of his civic identity, indicates this replacement: the polis relegates family and positions itself as the family of the seemingly family-less Epharmostos, so that the history of Lokris and Opous becomes the biographyof Epharmostos, the citys putative ancestry replaces the victors actual genealogy. While homeland praise is a commonplace in Pindaric criticism, Kurke notes that the place of neither family praise nor homeland praise in epinikian has ever been questioned.[28] She stresses the public and communal nature of the reception of Pindars art, and comments that Pindar uses foundation myths because of their inherently political quality, since they transform an entire polis into a single family descended from a common mythic ancestor.[29] The public aspect of epinikian, and the function of homeland praise as part of the political performative of epinikian provokes this articles new interpretation of Olympian 9: the recognition of Opous and Lokris standing in as the oikos of this victor allows us to reimagine the connection between Epharmostos Olympic victories and the mythic narrative in the ode in the context of replacement family and substitute ancestry. This reimagining begins by situating the series of foundations and renewals in the performance of the song itself. The respective establishment of ethnos and polis are emphasized in the ode and function to praise Epharmostos by placing him in a continuity of inheritance (Pindaric phya), modulated through civic and ethnic lineage. Although he has no actual family worth mentioning in the ode, the song manufactures a lineage (and inheritance) of great deeds through the telling and re-telling of history and mythology. It is therefore in the two figures who complete great deeds, Deukalion and Opous (ethnic and civic founders, and themselves involved with unusual family), that we should look for the mythic parallels through which Pindar praises his patron, Epharmostos, and the polis, Opous.[30] Pindars narrative in Ol. 9 is one of the earliest, and most complete, Lokrian myths.[31] He begins from the flood, after which Deukalion and Pyrrha descend from Mount Parnassos to found a city and establish its autochthonous inhabitants (Ol. 9.43-46), the Leleges who become the ethnos of the Lokrians;[32] second, the lineage of kings is renewed through the adoption of a son, Opous, descended directly from Zeus (Ol. 9.57-66), through whom the civic identity of Opountians is established.[33] In both cases, foundations are not straightforward. Standard Greek origin stories revolved around autochthony or migration (Hall 2002: 31-35), but in Pindars narrative, colonial-style foundation is coupled with autochthony (Deukalion and Pyrrha) and hereditary inheritance is complicated by adoption (Opous) a productive merger for representing Epharmostos civic and ethnic genealogy. Thus, Pindar finds room in his Lokrian and Opountian creation myths to accommodate all manners of foundation and esta blishment, and in doing so, firmly establishes the Hellenic identity of Epharmostos Lokrian ancestors.[34] The section on Deukalion and Pyrrha opens after Pindars self-recrimination for the Herakles narrative. While the digression accords with Pindars formal use of Abbruchsformeln,[35] the specific rationale for the inclusion of Herakles here has generated debate, and some have compared Herakles stance against the gods (mortal versus immortal) with Epharmostos victory at Marathon, when he was, according to Pindar, incorrectly placed in the mens category (Ol. 9.89-90).[36] Though some audience members may have made this connection, I concur with Gerber, who regards the comparison as inappropriate, since it would claim some glory for doing combat with the gods (surely, un-Pindaric: see Ol. 9.35-41; cf. Ol. 1.35).[37] Rather, the Abbruchsformel, as often, allows Pindar to draw a connection through juxtaposition, where one is logically absent: here, Herakles descent from Zeus and its consequent effect on his abilities (for the general principle of inherited ability and divine grace: Ol. 9.28- 29; for the specific application to Epharmostos, see Ol. 9.100-104) is placed in close contact with the founding story of Opous and the Lokrians, in which Zeus will similarly play a major role and will bequeath abilities to Lokrian and Opountian progeny (Ol. 9.56-65).[38] By the end of the ode, the connection of divinity and ability is made clear in the latest generation, in the object of the odes praise, when Pindar observes that men do poorly à ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒ Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ ÃŽÂ ´Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ² ÃŽÂ ¸ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ¦ (Ol. 9.103). After this apparent interruption, with characteristic self-recrimination (though with the effect generated by the juxtaposition in place), Pindar directs himself to stay to the topic at hand, which is the city of Protogeneia (Ol. 9.41-56): à Ã¢â‚¬  Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ³Ãƒ Ã‚ ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ ÃŽÂ ´Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ² ÃŽÂ  Ãƒ Ã‚ Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬ °Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ³ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ·ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ à ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ãƒ Ã†â€™Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ ÃŽÂ ³ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ »Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ¶Ãƒ Ã†â€™Ãƒ Ã†â€™ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½, à ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã‚ µÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ ÃŽÂ ±Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã‚ °ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ »ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ²Ãƒ Ã‚ Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ³ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ± ΆÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ¸Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ ÃŽÂ ±Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã‚ ´Ãƒ Ã†â€™Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¾Ã‚ ³ ÃŽÂ  Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ »Ãƒ Ã‚ Ãƒ Ã‚ ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ± ΆÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒ Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ºÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ »Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ·Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬ °ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ à Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µ ÃŽÂ  ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±Ãƒ Ã‚ ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±Ãƒ Ã†â€™Ãƒ Ã†â€™ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ¦ ÃŽÂ ºÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ²Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µ ÃŽÂ ´Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ¹ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¼ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ à ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã¢â‚¬ ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¸ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ à Ã¢â€š ¬Ãƒ Ã‚ Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ¶Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½, à ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒ Ã‚  ÃŽÂ ´ ÃŽÂ µÃƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¾Ã‚ ¶Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ à ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¼Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ¹ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ´ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¼ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ 45ÃŽÂ ºÃƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹Ãƒ Ã†â€™Ãƒ Ã†â€™Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ±Ãƒ Ã†â€™ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¸ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ ÃŽÂ »Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ·ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¸ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ ÃŽÂ ³Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ¹ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã¢â‚¬ ¡ ÃŽÂ »ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ¶ ÃŽÂ ´ à ¡Ã‚ ½Ã¢â€š ¬ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ »ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¼ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±Ãƒ Ã†â€™ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¸ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½. à ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã¢â‚¬ ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ³ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹Ãƒ Ã‚  à ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã‚ Ãƒ Ã¢â€š ¬Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ³Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬ °ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ à Ã†â€™Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬  ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ ÃŽÂ ¿Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã‚ ¶ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¼ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½, ÃŽÂ ±Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã‚ ´ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ ÃŽÂ ´Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ² à Ã¢â€š ¬ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ »ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ¸ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ ÃŽÂ ¼Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ²ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ ÃŽÂ ¿Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã‚ ¶ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½, à ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¸ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ± ÃŽÂ ´ à ¡Ã‚ ½Ã¢â‚¬ ¢ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¼ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬ °ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ ÃŽÂ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒ Ã¢â‚¬ °Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ³Ãƒ Ã‚ Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬ °ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½. ÃŽÂ »Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ³ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ³ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ ÃŽÂ ¼Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ 50à Ã¢â‚¬ ¡ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¸Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ¹ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ± ÃŽÂ ¼Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ²ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ ÃŽÂ ºÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ºÃƒÅ½Ã‚ »Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ »Ãƒ Ã†â€™ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ ÃŽÂ ¼Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ³ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ »ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ à ¡Ã‚ ½Ã¢â‚¬ ¢ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ´ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ à Ã†â€™ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¸Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ³ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¡, à ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã¢â€š ¬ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ »ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ »Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ± ÃŽ-ÃŽÂ ·ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ¸Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ à Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ³Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬ ¡ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ à ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã¢â€š ¬ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ±Ãƒ Ã¢â€š ¬Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬ °Ãƒ Ã¢â€š ¬ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ à ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã‚ ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ·Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬  ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ à ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ »ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ à ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã¢â‚¬ËœÃƒÅ½Ã‚ »ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒ ¡Ã‚ ¿-ÃŽÂ ½. ÃŽÂ ºÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ·ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬ °ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ ÃŽÂ ´ à ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã¢â‚¬ Ãƒ Ã†â€™ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ à Ã¢â‚¬ ¡ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ »ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ºÃƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ±Ãƒ Ã†â€™Ãƒ Ã¢â€š ¬ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ´ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ à ¡Ã‚ ½Ã¢â‚¬ËœÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¼Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ³Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒ Ã‚ ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ à Ã¢â€š ¬Ãƒ Ã‚ Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ¹ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ³ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ 55à ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã¢â€š ¬Ãƒ Ã‚ Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬ ¡Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¾Ã‚ ¶ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¸ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½, à ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã‚ ¸ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±Ãƒ Ã¢â€š ¬ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ·ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ´ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ à Ã¢â‚¬  Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ »Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ »ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ ÃŽÂ ºÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ¦Ãƒ Ã‚ ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ ÃŽÂ ºÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿Ãƒ Ã‚ Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¾Ã‚ ¶ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ ÃŽÂ ºÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ¶ à Ã¢â‚¬  ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒ Ã‚ Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ±Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬ °ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ ÃŽÅ ¡Ãƒ Ã‚ ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ´Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¾Ã‚ ¶ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½, à ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã‚ ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ³Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬ ¡Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ½Ãƒ Ã‚ ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ ÃŽÂ ²ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±Ãƒ Ã†â€™ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ »Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¿Ã¢â‚¬  ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ ÃŽÂ ±Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã‚ °ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ · à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦apply your speech to Protogeneias city, where, by decree of Zeus of the bright thunderbolt, Pyrrha and Deukalion came down from Parnassos and first established their home, and, without coupling, founded one folk, an offspring of stone: and they were called people. Awaken for them a clear-sounding path of words; praise wine that is old, but the blooms of hymns that are newer.   Indeed they tell that mighty waters had flooded over the dark earth, but, through Zeus contriving, an ebb tide suddenly drained the floodwater. From them came your ancestors of the bronze shields in the beginning, sons from the daughters of Iapetos race and from the mightiest sons of Kronos, being always a native line of kings, In this passage, Pindar briefly summarizes the end of the flood narrative, which left only Deukalion and Pyrrha alive atop of Mount Parnassos. In Pindars telling, the origin of the flood is left obscure, though Zeus will is the clear cause of its cessation.[39] The significance of 48-49 has been interpreted variously.[40] Despite some attempts to connect this comment to Simonides, the phrase must make sense in the context of its performance and patron, not to mention in re-performance scenarios.[41] The contrast is perhaps best understood in terms of praising the essential qualities of things: antiquity in wine is best (e.g., Od. 2.340), whereas novelty in songs, at least in the context of this ode (which opens, after all, with a contrast between old and new songs: Ol. 9.1), is best. Here I am not arguing for a universal motif in Pindar, but rather, that in thisodeinparticular, Pindar opens by stressing the novelty of his song (the Archilochus song), and thus, in this ode, newness in song is an important element;[42] Pindar buttresses this contention perhaps not so self-evident by the comparison with wine.[43] In fact, since essential qualities generally phya play a major part in the praise of the victor (Ol. 9.100ff), the extension of this opinion to the song that praises that victor makes thematic sense and further strengthens the encomium. If the following myth is unconventional, or stresses unconventional aspects by focusing on the Lokrian and Opountian origin of humanity after the flood, then the statement serves as a self-reference to the poets skill as well as being emphatic about one of the objects of the odes praise.[44] In fact, when Pindar turns to the story of Lokrian and Opountian foundation, he foregrounds the connections amongst ethnos, polis, and Epharmostos (and thus strengthens his case for a continuity of inheritance), by asking for a clear-sounding path of words for them (Ol. 9.47): surely here we read a reference to the whole race of the Lokrians through all the temporal stages of the ode, since for them follows the riddling reference to their name (Ol. 9.45-46). Thus, the whole of 48-49 serves as a transition and, via a short priamel, an explicit way to focus audience attention on the objects of the odes praise, before turning to implicit praise via the mythic narrative.[45] The foundation of Opous, the first human habitation following the destruction of the race, comes about ΆÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ¸Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ ÃŽÂ ±Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã‚ ´Ãƒ Ã†â€™Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¾Ã‚ ³ (by decree of Zeus, Ol. 9.42). ÃŽÂ ±Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã‚ ¶Ãƒ Ã†â€™ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ± is a complicated word in Pindar, though its basic meaning of share or portion often metaphorically denotes fate (s.v. ÃŽÂ ±Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã‚ ¶Ãƒ Ã†â€™ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ± (A), Slater), and, in several instances, ÃŽÂ ±Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã‚ ¶Ãƒ Ã†â€™ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ± is the fate that allows athletic victory to come to fruition: in Nem. 3.16, Aristokleidas strength in the pankration persists ÃŽÂ ºÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ ÃŽÂ ±Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã‚ ¶Ãƒ Ã†â€™ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ (thanks to your [i.e., the Muses] favor); at Nem. 6.13, Alkimidas fortune at Nemea is expressly connected to Zeus favor (ΆÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ¹ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¸ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ ÃŽÂ ±Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã‚ ¶Ãƒ Ã†â€™ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ a fortune from Zeus); in Pyth. 10, it is ÃŽÂ ºÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ ÃŽÂ ±Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã‚ ¶Ãƒ Ã†â€™ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ (duly) that a living man sees his son crowned at the Pythian Games (10.25-26).[46] Ol. 9 points to the necessity of the favor of the gods (above all, Zeus) to athletic victory: à ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒ Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ ÃŽÂ ´Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ² ÃŽÂ ¸ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ¦, à Ã†â€™ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒ Ã†â€™ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ³ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¼Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ³ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ / ÃŽÂ ¿Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚  à Ã†â€™ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ºÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ¹Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒ Ã‚ ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ à Ã¢â‚¬ ¡Ãƒ Ã‚ Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¿Ã¢â‚¬  ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¼ à ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã¢â‚¬ ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ºÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±Ãƒ Ã†â€™Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ (but when god takes no part, each deed is no worse / for being left in silence, 103-104) (also, Ol. 9.28-29); in fact, Zeus is one of the honorees of Epharmostos ode (Ol. 9.6).[47] The involvement of the nous of Zeus in Opountian history connects the distant foundation of ethnos, the legendary establishment of polis, and the present praise of Epharmostos, especially through a word that can be used to describe the role of fate in athletic victory. As Pindar describes it, these three instances are correlative, not through content, but through the aition for each, that is, divine will (and Zeus is particularly attuned to watching over Lokrian history, as this odes mythic narrative demonstrates); they are thematically contiguous despite the vast expanse of time.[48] Deukalion and Pyrrha are the founders of the Lokrian ethnos; their arrival at what will be Opous is characterized less as an arrival at a foreign land and rather as the arrival at their destined home Deukalion and Pyrrha are not alien (although simultaneously not native) to the land of Opous, and it is there that they establish their home (Ol. 9.44; cf. Str. 9.4.2). ÃŽÂ ºÃƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹Ãƒ Ã†â€™Ãƒ Ã†â€™Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ±Ãƒ Ã†â€™ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¸ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ ÃŽÂ »Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ·ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¸ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ ÃŽÂ ³Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ¹ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ suggestively combines foundation language (ÃŽÂ ºÃƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ·ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¶Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬ ° to found) with parentage (ÃŽÂ ³Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ¹ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ offspring); it also evokes Pindars vocabulary for athletic inscriptions (cf. Ol. 7.86: à ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã‚ ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ ÃŽÅ“ÃŽÂ µÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ³Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ±Ãƒ Ã‚ ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹Ãƒ Ã†â€™Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ·ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ à Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ ÃŽÂ ¿Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬ ¡ à ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã¢â‚¬ ¢Ãƒ Ã ¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒ Ã‚ ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ ÃŽÂ »ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¸Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ·ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ± / à Ã‹â€ Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ¾Ã‚ ¶Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬  ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ à ¡Ã‚ ¼Ã¢â‚¬ Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬ ¡ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ ÃŽÂ »Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ¹ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ³ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ while in Megara the record in stone / tells no other tale).[49] Deukalion and Pyrrha begin the replacement of oikos by ethnos and polis: their natural daughter, Protogeneia, evaporates into the city they found (Ol. 9. 41-42);[50] the ÃŽÂ »Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ·ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¸ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ ÃŽÂ »ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ · (stone people) are treated as if their children; the original inhabitants of Opous, their fellow-citizens, are also their descendants. Pindar emphasizes the blurring of oikos and polis: he describes the descendants of the ÃŽÂ »Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ·ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¸ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ ÃŽÂ »ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ · as from them came your ancestors of the bronze shieldsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ (Ol. 9.53-54). The antecedent of ÃŽÂ ºÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ·ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬ °ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ has provoked much discussion among commentators ancient and modern, though rather than stress a specific meaning, ambiguity, as often, renders Pindars verse more, not less understandable; ambiguity exists in the initial description of the city of Protogeneia and the parentage of the ÃŽÂ »Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ·ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¸ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ ÃŽÂ »ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ·.[51] As so often, Pindars verse resists an interpretive straightjacket: the ambiguous demonstrative suggestively begins the replacement of oikos by polis, which is, of course, salient to the encomium of the odes laudandus, Epharmostos. The understanding of à ¡Ã‚ ½Ã¢â‚¬ËœÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¼Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ³Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒ Ã‚ ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ (Ol. 9.54) has proceeded along similarly fraught lines, though again, sensitivity to the theme of replacement and identity of oikos, ethnos, and polis in the ode provides some clarity.[52] à ¡Ã‚ ½Ã¢â‚¬ËœÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¼Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ³Ãƒ Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ µÃƒ Ã‚ ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ can refer to both Epharmostos family and the Opountians generally because Epharmostos family, as represented in the ode, istheOpountians (thus, Epharmostos is like his mythological antecedent, Opous, whose true family are the inhabitants of his eponymous city). Pindars verse, through mythic narrative and purposeful ambiguity completes not a merger of oikos and ethnos and polis, but rather a replacement of one by the others: Deukalions natural daughter becomes an alternative name for a city that is populated by the fellow-citizens (or family) of the descendants of the ÃŽÂ »Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ·ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¸ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¹ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ½ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿ÃƒÅ½  ¹ ÃŽÂ »ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ±ÃƒÅ½Ã‚ ¿Ãƒ ¡Ã‚ ½Ã‚ ·. The appearance of the autochthonous original inhabitants of Opous, the race of stone, evokes colonial motifs, which muddles distinctions between native and foreign, and which stress the rele

Formal Analysis of Hawthornes Young Goodman Brown Essay -- Young Good

A Formal Analysis of Young Goodman Brown Nathaniel Hawthorne's "Young Goodman Brown" is an interesting short story that creatively tells two stories at once. One story is of a man leaving his wife one night and venturing into the woods, and the other is of his struggle with his religious faith. In reading this story, it is beneficial for one to look at it from a formalistic point of view. Formal analysis makes the reader look closely at how a story is written to see its deeper meaning. Hawthorne takes advantage of careful word choice and images to create a picture of one man's journey that can easily parallel our own. The word choice of every story plays a key role in understanding the story. In "Young Goodman Brown" almost every word contains a special meaning. The title Hawthorne gives to his story is simple and informative; it tells the reader right away that the focus of the story is a young man. The use of the name Brown is also significant. The name is universal so that it can relate to anyone (Rhetoric 102L class discussion, January 15 2001). The fact that his title is Goodman, instead of Mister, suggests that it took place around colonial times. The name of his wife, Faith, is a clue held in the opening paragraph of the text that gives the reader and idea of what the story is about. Though out the story Goodman Brown says phrases such as, "Faith kept me back a while," which on the surface looks as though he is talking about his wife; however just below the surface he is talking about how his faith in God that kept him from heading towards the Devil. (HCAL 376). Caref... ...odman Brown goes is also significant. The Puritans believed that the witches and even the Devil lived in the woods, which can be a hint foreshadowing what Goodman Brown will find in the forest. "Young Goodman Brown" is full of carefully selected words. Each place, item, and name described is significant to the story. The word, faith, has two functions, a name and a belief. Images such as the pink ribbons and the staff are useful for more than their everyday function. Hawthorne knows the power of words and chooses wisely, thus creating a story that, when looked at beyond the surface, has a completely new meaning. - (Guerin, Wilfered; Labor, Earle; Morgan, Lee; Reesman, Jeanne; Willingham, John, A Handbook of Critical Appraches to Literature, New York, Oxford University Press, 1999.)

Police Discretion and the Use of Force Essay -- Socia Issues, Discrimi

Discretion is defined as the authority to make a decision between two or more choices (Pollock, 2010). More specifically, it is defined as â€Å"the capacity to identify and to document criminal and noncriminal events† (Boivin & Cordeau, 2011). Every police officer has a great deal of discretion concerning when to use their authority, power, persuasion, or force. Depending on how an officer sees their duty to society will determine an officer’s discretion. Discretion leads to selective enforcement practices and may result in discrimination against certain groups of people or select individuals (Young, 2011). Most police officer discretion is exercised in situations with individuals (Sherman, 1984). Discrimination can lead to legal problems for an officer of the law. If discrimination due to an officer’s use of discretion results in a violation of due process it is a violation of the law (Young, 2010). Due process is the constitutionally mandated procedural steps designed to eliminate error in any governmental deprivation of liberty, life, or property (Pollock, 2010). One of the main concerns with using discretion is the possibility of it leading to a violation of due process by racial profiling. Types of Negative Police Discretion Racial profiling occurs when a police officer uses a â€Å"profile† as reasonable suspicion to stop a person with the intent to obtain consent to search their belongings (Pollock, 2010). These stops are usually traffic stops and the officer is looking to obtain consent to search the individual’s automobile. The â€Å"profile† used is based on race. In these cases, an officer is using their discretion to target minority groups because they believe they are involved in criminal activities... ...rsation among researchers. The problem I see with the topic of conversation is there is not a lot of research done on the actual affects of the individual discretion of each officer compared to a department that has been educated in following policies more than personal discretion. In fact, from what I saw there is not much research on the effects of discretion at all. It seems like it is a topic that is overlooked when researching the effectiveness of a department. I feel like before more solutions are found on how to correct the problem of discretion, more research needs to be done on how discretion plays a role in every day policing. Until this research is conducted, all the articles published are on theories of discretion causing problems, and all of the solutions mentioned are methods to correct a problem that has not even been proven to be an issue yet.

An Analysis of ?The Meanings of Seneca Falls, 1848-1998? :: essays research papers fc

While being born in the modern times, no woman knows what it was like to have a status less than a man’s. It is hard to envision what struggles many women had to go through in order to get the rights to be considered equal. In the essay The Meanings of Seneca Falls, 1848-1998, Gerda Lerner recalls the events surrounding the great women’s movement. Among the several women that stand out in the movement, Elizabeth Cady Stanton stands out because of her accomplishments. Upon being denied seating and voting rights at the World Antislavery Convention of 1840, she was outraged and humiliated, and wanted change. Because of Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s great perseverance, the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848 was a success as well as a great influence on the future of women’s rights. The convention had several attendees with notable assiduousness to the cause. The founders were Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, a highly acclaimed speaker and abolitionist. She was even founder of the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Society and its long-term president! Martha Wright, Jane Hunt, and Mary Ann McClintock were all women who worked in anti-slavery fairs that also wanted women’s rights (203). Among other attendees, Frederick Douglass was also present! With the notable group assembled, a road to change was starting to form. The women had very limited rights compared to men of the time. Women had no voice when it came to the law, they were deprived rights of citizenship, and deprived of their property and wages. They were also discriminated when the matters had to do with payment for work and divorce and were declared civilly dead up on marriage (204)! Finally, women were kept out of professions, and were to be kept as a dependent of the man. Half the population had their rights withheld because of the role that they were born into. The Seneca Falls Convention sought out to have these rights changed so that women could have the freedom that they deserved. The outcome of the meeting had a great effect. The movement started at Seneca Falls requested the concepts by demanding legal, property, civil rights, and changes in gender-role definition and the woman’s rights to her own body (205). At the time, it was known that â€Å"all men are created equal†. When the definition is taken literally, the rights of women are demeaned. However, the women believed that as citizens and members of society, they had the rights to be treated equal as any other man.

Language Analysis the Power of Ink Essay

Helen Day is a part-time journalist and blogger. She maintains her blog entitled Street beat on a variety of current social issues. This blog entry, The Power of Ink, is about tattoos and it has drawn a variety of responses from readers of her blog. In recent years, the practice of ‘inking’ your body, or having tattoos indelibly imprinted on your skin has become almost ‘de rigueur’ for many in our society, especially the young. There is a wide variety of views about this practice and Helen Day, a regular blogger, has her say in her entry ‘The Power of Ink’. Rather than lecturing her substantial audience of followers, Day chooses simply to trace the stages of the history of tattoos, focusing on the changes in their meaning and significance. Her use of examples and language with negative connotations is effective in arguing that people who choose to ‘adorn’ themselves with tattoos are just as much victims or prisoners as those for whom they were originally intended. Her blog attracted four extremely varied responses within the next twenty four hours, showing that this is indeed a contentious issue. Helen Day begins by establishing the ubiquitous nature of tattoos. In a light-hear ted, humorous fashion, she mentions that people from all walks of life, including ‘suburban housewives’, ‘newsreaders and sitcom stars’ have words and pictures ‘draw[n]’ on their skin. Even at this early stage, she mentions ‘prison’ and readers may feel uncomfortable with this reference, which is just what the writer intends. She clearly states her contention that ‘the power of ink has diminished’. Day begins her argument by clearly establishing the original purpose of tattooing, using examples from ‘millennia’ as support. She mentions the origins of the practice where the ‘unconsenting backs of prisoners and slaves’ were marked to show that they were owned, ‘deviant’ or ‘incarcerated’. She goes further to remind readers of the literal and metaphorical ‘indelible cruelty’ of the tattoos forced upon inmates of the Nazi concentration camps during World War 11. Her words are carefully chosen at this stage of her argument to create a feeling of unease and repulsion in her audience at the idea that tattoos represented  Ã¢â‚¬Ëœownership’ or ‘control’ and that those on whom they were imposed were considered to be ‘somewhere between property and machine’. By associating tattoos with lack of free will or self-determination, she predisposes her readers to think negatively of the practice of tattooing, even before she considers what it represents in contemporary society. Day goes on to provide an illustration of how those forced to wear tattoos resented this imposition and how they showed their refusal to be controlled, satirising their ‘owners’ by adopting their own version of an owner’s mark. She connects this act of ‘defiance’ to the motivation behind her decision to demonstrate her ‘feminist’ principles in the 1990s, wryly remarking that her attempt to protest and be unique fell flat because now ‘even’ the British Prime Minister’s wife has an ankle tattoo. The language the writer uses here is quite mocking of her young self. She separates herself from the young Helen, representing her actions as clichà © and immature, in an attempt to position her readers to view it i n the same way. The comment from young ‘Tash’ (written late at night) is a perfect example of such (some might say misguided) youthful impulsiveness. Readers can hear the excitement in ‘Tash’s’ ‘voice’ as she describes how she ‘designed [her] own ankle bracelet’ and how she likes to ‘show it off’. The use of language such as ‘like’ and ‘yeah’, suggests that she is very young and may one day regret her decision just as Helen Day does. The comment from ‘Cleanskin’ also echoes Day’s point that tattoos ‘fade’ and ‘stretch’ over time and may not suit an older person. These responses underline the writer’s message of ‘act in haste, repent at leisure’ and young readers may cringe when reading ‘Tash’s’ enthusiastic comment. Day concludes her blog entry by redefining the social meaning of tattoos in today’s society. She describes them as having been ‘commodified’, that is, just something else to be bought and sold and with no real significance. She use s the expression ‘try hard’, suggesting that people who have tattoos are doing so to create a false image of themselves in order to find acceptance. Readers would certainly not like to be included in this category. By describing tattoos as ‘fashion’s proprietary mark’, she is claiming that those who decide to tattoo themselves are just as much slaves and prisoners as the original bearers of these marks, it is just that their owner is now ‘fashion’. In suggesting that tattoo wearers are still under the control of an outside force, that  fashion trends are dictating their actions, she hopes that readers will review their attitude to the practice. The contrast between the two accompanying images starkly demonstrates the writer’s argument that the meaning of tattoos has changed. The Ta Moko on the arms of the three Maori men clearly mark them as members of the same clan. The three tattoos are identical to each other, suggesting that the design is traditional and has a particular significance for the wearers. ‘Kiwi’s’ indignant description of non-Maoris imitating the ‘sacred’ Ta Moko as ‘identity theft’ would act as a strong disincentive to readers to undertake such a ‘disgraceful and immoral’ action. The other shoulder tattoo of a star, shown on the front cover of Sam de Brito’s 2006 book, might well have been designed by the wearer, but it has none of the c ultural ‘weight’ of the Ta Moko designs. The images reinforce the idea that it may be fashion that is dictating the current trend to tattoo one’s skin. This blog is certainly cause for thought. Although Helen Day sets out to argue that ‘the power of ink has diminished’, she actually argues against this. In establishing the contention that tattoos are still just as powerful a message about ownership, but that the ‘owner’ has changed from government and slave owner to the tyrant of fashion, she prompts her online audience to rethink whether in deciding to ‘ink’ themselves they are actually being a ‘unique’ rebellious individual or just another fashion victim.