TRHS AP Euro

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Lord Byron: The Isles of Greece

This poem is perhaps one of the biggest examples of early 19th century nationalism. Contrast what you know about both Lord Byron (even do a little extra research) and the Greek quest for independence with De Maistre's piece about conservatism.

Due: MIDNIGHT, Thursday, Nov. 30

posted by RJS at 7:54 AM

7 Comments:

  • Lord Byron lists gods, music, locales, and pretty much anything else associated entirely with Greece. He seems to be saying look at what all used to identify you as Greeks that you let wither and die under a foreign ruler. Nationalism associates itself with the idea that large groups of persons who share an ethnicity should govern themselves and retain their unique culture, rather than become another shade of grey. Lord Byron also echoes a nationalist idea by saying sure you've had tyrants for leaders, but at least they were Greek tyrants, saying that countries should be run by people from those countries, not by foreign influence. Maistre and Lord Byron's writings compare in that they both hold the past quite dear. Maistre writes about the 10 commandments while Lord Byron goes on about the various gods and tradtions the Greeks used to revere. Both encourage a glance to the past to see how to steer forward. Maitre, however, encourages obedience from rulers, while Lord Byron advocates rebellion.

    By Blogger laura, at Thursday, November 30, 2006 6:48:00 PM  

  • Men do not serve their time by mooning for dead pasts. What was it Proffessor Dumbledore said to Harry? "It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live." Byron's writing is tainted with the voice of a child bragging that his father is the best at everything. Byron has never witnessed the so-called great Athenian democracy. His goal of resurrecting Greece is both pointless and self-destructive. The past is past. While we may mourn, we do better to focus on changing for the future. And rarely does the future command a repeat of the past. If the past was so perfect, why did it fall?
    Both authors appeal to ancient and revered legends( Moses and Greece) to garner support for their argument. And both distort the ancient truth to fit present times while claiming to twist present times to fit ancient past.
    Byron plays emotions, Maistre plays morality. Both could use some lessons.

    By Blogger ThomasBatson, at Thursday, November 30, 2006 7:34:00 PM  

  • Lord Byron's support for Greece was self-destructive, but not because he only sat in England "pinin' for the fjords" (Python reference, sorry, doesn't really fit) until he died of depression. He was doing more than he should have to support Greece. He was going to attack Lepanto at the head of a rebel army, despite having no military experience much at all. The thing that was perfect about Greece was a great diversity of noble, good, brave governments who had all kind of differences, but united to keep their land under native control against Cyrus and Xerxes of Persia at Salamis, Marathon, and Thermopylae. The past eventually fell because the people were found to be split up after Alexander's death and fell prey to Romans taking advantage of their temporary situation. His entire point is that Greece is great as a united people, accomplishing tasks together. He does not praise any war between Athens and Sparta, that was a foolish turn in the past that made them fall. Maistre is the one doing nothing, because he's conservative, and is against these radical ideas and changes, instead wanting to even turn back the clock to a backwards theocracy. Lord Byron is active, striving for a goal with everything he's got, but unfortunately was best at poetry, not leading an army without dying of a cold. Who knows which one would have been more succesful?

    By Blogger Unknown, at Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:37:00 PM  

  • Lord Byron's poem is entirely in the past tense, implying that these things no longer happen. He says to look back on all of these wonderful things such as gods, and music, and freedom, and the land, and to try to regain it from the Ottomans. He is telling the Greeks to think of their ancestors and if they would have wanted Greece to be enslaved. Byron speaks as though recounting a dream wistfully to an audience that he wants to impress. The audience being Greece. He wants Greece to realize what a wonderful country and culture they used to have and could still regain if they over threw the Ottomans.
    De Maistre, on the other hand, is saying that we shouldnt remember how things used to be (with the exception of the 10 commandments) but to focus on the new laws that are being passed now. Not to worry about what the laws used to be. He also speaks of the past but in saying that the only historical quasi-constitution is the 10 commandments and that they are the only thing from the past to be thought of.
    Most people of this time period saw religion as pretty much the final law, so De Maistre is saying obey this law. While Byron is saying cast off the shackles of Ottoman opression. They are opposite radicals.
    and congratulations to dave for the Harry Potter refrence.

    By Blogger manxomefoe, at Thursday, November 30, 2006 11:15:00 PM  

  • The nationalist overtones of Lord Byron's piece (romantic elements putting forth noble causes, ideals and people to fight for) definitely contrast with the piece of De Maistre's (advocating that everyone stay the course and follow God without any changes bigger than a new haircut, and even then, not one of those mohawks) on the basis of political connotation and principle. But their motives were different also. Lord Byron was Dionysan, and deeply interested in the wars of Greek independence because of how he revered the land he viewed as mythical, a land which he visited during the time of his seat as a liberal in the house of lords. In the final years of his life he sought to participate in those wars, joining the insurgents, armed with his poetry. This square though, De Maistre, had purely political motives as a senator and an aristocrat and wanted to uphold the principles of traditional government above all, obviously against overthrowing the Ottoman empire's rule.

    By Blogger Victoria, at Friday, December 01, 2006 1:05:00 AM  

  • Part of me wants to agree with Thomas in that Lord Byron had next to no idea what the true Greece was like, but part of me likes that poem. He talks about it like a kind of trophy that someone has let crack and tarnish. As Byron talks about the state and it's heart, DeMaistre talks about a state in general, and a government in general. Byron doesn't mention a constitution, and DeMaistre mentions one often. DeMaistre stresses the importance of the union of God and State much of the time during the section. Byron simply romanticizes about the Greek state. Though they speak of completely different topics, both seem far too preocupied with the past to talk about the present.

    By Blogger TeganLove, at Monday, December 04, 2006 8:45:00 PM  

  • I tried my level best for best explanation of "THE ISLES OF GREECE" by LORD BYRON but I did't find the satisfactory materials.If some one please tell me please.

    By Blogger palwasha, at Friday, June 15, 2012 8:09:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home