Re: Greek Stereotype I found this information on-line and thought it in fit with John and Cindy's information on home's/cities. This information is on Sparta only. From: http://vislab-www.nps.navy.mil/~fapapoul/sparta.html >The ancient city, eve n in its most prosperous days, was merely a group of five >villages with simple houses and a few public buildings. The passes leading into >the valley of the Evr=F3tas were easily defended, and Sparta had no walls until >the end of the 4th century bc. I was very surprised to read this description of Sparta. I had assumed it was this large city similar to Athens. Funny how reading about Athens and seeing pictures of this city, made me stereotype all of Greece powerful cities as being the same. I know th is is a bad assumption to make, but it is difficult to keep an open mind when you have a narrow focus. >...................................life in Sparta was similar to that in other >Greek cities, and art and poetry, particularly choral lyrics, flouris hed From >the 6th century bc on, however, the Spartans looked upon themselves as merely a >military garrison, and all their discipline pointed to war. This of course was already touched on in the Chambers text, but it makes me wonder why the Spartans p ut so much emphasis on war. The Chambers text (pg.45) mentions "Spartan landowners spent their lives in constant military training in order to maintain control over the helots, who outnumbered them by about seven to one." But this seems to be more of a po lice action than military action. If the Spartans were disciplining themselves for war, why were they more content to be a part of the Peloponnesian league than to be aggressive like Persia or Macedonia? Mike ========================== Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 06:56:45 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Mike Subject: Re: Coming to power Cindy brought up the question about military service, so I thought that I would pass this on. >Also, what age did a man join the military? And did the Greeks pay >any particular attention to what skills a man possessed and let him do them or >did they just put him in wherever there was a vacancy? From: http://vislab-www.nps.navy.mil/~ fapapoul/sparta.html >............................... the Spartans looked upon themselves as merely a >military garrison, and all their discipline pointed to war. No deformed child >was allowed to live; boys began military drill at the age of 7 and enter ed the >ranks at 20. Although permitted to marry, they were compelled to live in >barracks until the age of 30; from the ages of 20 to 60 all Spartans were >obliged to serve as hoplites (foot soldiers) and to eat at the phiditia (public >mess). Mike === ======================= Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 07:18:47 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Mike Subject: Re: Alcibiades >From Teresa, >Alcibiades changed loyalties more t han once and, in the end, was murdered by >a Spartan (at Lysander's order). We have come across numerous examples of >traitorous acts and changing of loyalties in this unit. Consider also the >practice of ostracism and the falling from favor of politica l leaders who were >once held in very high esteem. Seems that minds changed rather quickly in >those times, doesn't it? I wonder if this was a small group of influential people who somehow convinced the masses that, depending on the situation, a perso n or group of people were good or bad and may be welcomed with open arms or osctracized. I guess I should look at Alcibiades return to Athens as an ugly wart on what is really a beautiful culture. Mike ========================== Discussion topic #6 rea ds, "What is the stereotype of the Greeks? My impression is that the Greeks lived in a democracy, they were geniuses in science, the founders of philosophy and history ,brilliant in architecture and sculpture and drama. I picture toga-clad Greeks strollin g through spacious and graceful marketplaces, seated in beautiful theatres, and eagerly participating in city politics. How should this picture be modified, if at all?" Even though ancient Greece may be perceived as having been a near-ideal society becau se of its vast intellectual and artistic advancements, it was still a society fraught with injustice. According to our text, Socarates was brought to trial for "worshipping strange gods and corrupting the youth"--in essence, for thinking for himself and encouraging others to do likewise. In addition, Phrynichus was fined for writing a play which bespoke of past Greek battle defeats (Lecture, "The Persian Wars" 6). The birth of democracy was not as immaculate as some imply. Individuals were suppressed for the "betterment" of the state. However, by definition, democracy should give individuals a voice--not take it away. Jason "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." ========================== Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 11:04:42 GMT+7 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Jason Organization: Boise State University Subject: Re: Ancient Perceptions of Plato In response to Jeff Holley's question, "Was Plato cons idered an eccentric or more of an avante-garde figure?" I think to ancient Greeks, the crux of Plato's foundation was that he was anti-democratic; he believed that only those trained in philosophy should have any power in state government. As a result, I believe Plato's ideas were considered potentially fatal to the new Greek democracy. This idea itself, in fact, illustrates one of Plato's points that democracy is governed more by emotion than by rational processes. Of course, now Plato's ideas are se en as having been avante garde in his time period, but to the Greeks of his time, I think his ideas were seen more as rebellion from accepted thought than as avante garde. (Chambers 71-4) Any ideas? ========================== Date: Thu, 1 Feb 19 96 11:25:02 GMT+7 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Jason Organization: Boise State University Subject: Re: Greek Culture as Geniuses I agree with Jade when he says that ancient Gr eek culture cannot really be defined as producing any more intellectual and artistic geniuses than our modern culture. I think the reasons we build up Greek achievements as having been so profound and uncommon are that the Greeks were the first to synthe size their work in writing and other media (not necessarily that they had any more inate genius than any other group in history, but that they recorded it better) and that what the Greeks produced has been unable to be reproduced (thereby implying that we are somehow less gifted than they were). This latter reason can be resolved by anthropology's "superstructure"--that specific ideas, thoughts and insights belong to a culture not to the human race in general. ========================== Date: Thu , 1 Feb 1996 19:33:55 GMT Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Teresa Subject: Re: Greek Culture as Geniuses I don't think anyone in our "modern" culture is slighted by considering th e genius of ancient Greek culture. Considering Greek culture in its historical context, no other civilization was producing intellectually the way the Greeks were; therefore, Greek culture was extraordinary. Certainly our culture is extraordinary as we ll, but we are living in a very different world than the Greeks did. The culture enabled individuals to develop genius. Certain mental abilities are inherent in man, of course, but without the environment to encourage (or even allow) mental pursuits, ge nius cannot be expressed. ========================== Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 13:49:21 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Scott Subject: Jason's thoughts on Plato Jason said: Sender: HY101 From: Scott Subject: Re: Greek Culture as Geniuses I agree with Teresa (Feb 1) that the intellectual accomplishme nts of the Greeks was extraordinary. I see them as pioneers breaking away from super-natural or religion based answers to the world around them. Their study of Philsophy, Astronomy, Mathematics and Physics were very bold first steps in explaining na tural laws. Scott ========================== Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 22:21:00 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: The end o f Greek civilization As everyone knows, Greece came to an end on February 2. That's when the exams were mailed out. Rome starts on Feb. 5. :-) I'm going to have to figure out how to end each section gracefully; I feel a bit like a TV news reporter: th at's very interesting but I'm afraid we're out of time. Everyone is welcome, however, to finish up the conversations currently running, and even to return to one at a later date. But the main topic will turn to Rome next week. I'll mail the exams tomorro w night, and you'll have until Sunday to return them to me. I'm hoping that the weekend will allow us to wrap up the major threads. I intend to post some summary comments on Sunday. I also intend to re-work the Roman discussion topics a bit and perhaps a pproach our discussion a bit differently for the Roman segment. You'll want to check the Web Monday sometime to see what I change. I do want to say that I'm very pleased with the class discussion so far. The level of conversation is thoughtful and analyt ical, and is well above what I've experienced in most live classrooms. I know that some of you are a bit overwhelmed by both the quantity and the quality of the discussion -- I'll address that issue when I introduce the Roman topics next week. Here I sim ply wish to acknowledge the hard work and enthusiasm that has been shown so far. Well begun! Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University elknox@bsu.idbsu.edu - skip@mmicron.net ========================== Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 11:56:43 -0500 Re ply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Frank Subject: Re: Jason's thoughts on Plato At 01:49 PM 2/1/96 -0700, you wrote: >Jason said: > > > >Chambers lead me to believe this to be true, but after searching around on the > web. URL http://www-und.ida.liu.se/~y92bjoch/filosofer/p laton.html >I found some more information. They refer to Plato's Dialogues being divided > into three periods, early (Socrates), middle (he defends the doctrines > commmonly thought of as the Platonism.) The late (copied from above URL...) > "In the lat e works, especially the last and longest dialogue, the Laws, Plato > return to the character of the ideal republic in a more sober manner, with > civic piety and religion take much of the burden of education away from > philosophy." > >It sounds as if Pla to soften his stance on philosopher's ONLY. This observation. Very Interesting Scott: First, I have a copy of the LAWS available to download if you or anyone is interested. It is about 1 meg. I tend to agree with this view; however, it appears Plato contradicts himself when only looking at the 'Law.' In one sense he agrees with this point in the statement "Whereas, that virtue which Tyrtaeus highly praises is well enough, and was praised by the poet at the right time, yet in place and dignity may b e said to be only fourth rate." He is in fact putting down a similar person's views for being uninsightful. A feeling earlier plato, I feel, would never project. At a later time (in the LAW) he states "Nay, I think that we degrade not him but ourselves , IF we imagine that..." Implying that they are the true visionaries and should have the correct view (even if that differs with the states.) Frank ========================== Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 02:43:10 GMT Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Cindy <> Subject: Re: Greek Culture as Geniuses I also agree with both Theresa and Jason that the Greeks were well-deserving of the title "Genius." Not only in being superior sp eakers or fighters but also in their art styles. They liked to do sculptures and paintings of their gods and in fact many of their pieces were religious. They were the first to make the free-standing sculpture (humans). They put extra details into thei r art, like lines on a man's face or a woman's hair flowing. Athena was one of their favorite goddesses to sculpt or paint. And of course, they liked to do Zeus a lot! The reason that I mention sculpting mainly as an art form is because they enjoyed ge tting their hands into the clay and forming different objects, maybe even more so than they enjoyed painting. They constructed many temples to their gods and places called treasuries to hold the offerings that they brought to the gods. Of course, we kno w about the Parthenon built by Ictinos and Callicrates. The mere thought of how they transported those heavy pieces of stone and marble by hand is awesome to me. On both their architecture and their sculptures they liked to paint designs. They even scul pted designs on their buildings, especially temples to the gods. I like art a lot and I thought there might be a person or two in the class who likes it just as well. Cindy ========================== Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 10:27:49 EST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Chad" <> Subject: Impressions of Greek unit I have very much enjoyed this unit on ancient Greek civilization and your comments on its importance today. Not having studied Greek history since high school, this unit has helped me understand better where many of our cultural and political customs and beliefs originated. I have been particularly impressed with the various forms of self-government the Greeks or iginated and the impact this has had on the entire world today. Perhaps some of their ideas no longer in current practice bear reexamination. I'm thinking particularly of their system of selecting representatives by lot for fixed terms. The other aspec t of Greek civilization that has impressed me has been the legacy of the three Greek philosophers, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. I had little idea how much these three individuals have influenced the thinking of the entire Western civilization. ======= =================== Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 22:10:00 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: Greek exam - grading I'm waiting a bit on the exams. Some people had mail problems (problems at BSU) and got the exam late. I expect to take two or three evenings to grade the exams. I'll mail the results back to each of you directly, not to the list (obviously). I'll also let you know ho w you are doing in class participation. Thought you'd all like to know. On to Rome! Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University elknox@bsu.idbsu.edu - skip@mmicron.net ========================== Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 00:32:09 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Darin <> Subject: weekly posting This is still another attempt at weekly posting. It is probably way behind most of you, but I'm trying to fullfill my week ly postings on Greece. I found it very interesting in the online readings of the Persian wars about the popularity/unpopularity of Militades. When he helped Athens in victory against the Persians, Militades was popular and held in high regards by the Athenians. In 489 when he lost against Thrace, he lost his support by the Athenians. In this I see a great similarity between that and our leaders, especially political leaders. When George Bush was President, after Iraq was defeated in the Gulf w ar his approval rating was at its highest ever, in just several years (election time) that high approval rating dropped, and the same people who held him in high regards publicly criticized him. Just an interesting similarity I noticed. Darin B.= ========================= Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 12:52:46 EST Reply-To: Kent <> Sender: HY101 From: Kent <> Subject: Re: Greek Culture as Geniuses >modern culture. I think the reasons we build up Gre ek achievements as having >been so profound and uncommon are that the Greeks were the first to synthesize >their work in writing and other media (not necessarily that they had any more >inate genius than any other group in history, but that they recorded it better) >and that what the Greeks produced has been unable to be reproduced (thereby >implying that we are somehow less gifted than they were). This latter reason >can be resolved by anthropology's "superstructure"--that specific ideas, >thoughts and insights belong to a culture not to the human race in general. Another reason we attribute the "genious" to the Greeks is that we STILL use most of the information. IE: Our Alphabet, etc... The information the Greeks "gave" us, hasn't been replaced, j ust expanded. Kent. ========================== Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 10:48:47 GMT+7 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Jason Organization: Boise State University Subject: Re : weekly posting I think that Darin has made an interesting parallel between ancient Greek perceptions of their leaders and our modern perceptions of U.S. leaders, however I don't think it's entirely accurate. First of all, approval for Militades droppe d mostly because of his loss to Thrace. In George Bush's case, there were many other variables at stake (the economy, education, etc.). Also, in the time of ancient Greece, a country's prowess in war was considered a measure of that country's greatness, so you can imagine what a loss would have indicated (poor leadership, for one). ========================== Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 17:00:33 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Darin <> Subject: Re: weekly posting I agree totally with the comment about my parallel between George Bush and Militades being too simplified, due to time I limited my comments. My observation was upon the Athenians being "fickle", much like we are today with our leaders. Their approval ratings are always in flux and now one never knows what may or may not happen to a leader's public approval from one month or week to the next, despite how popular he or she may be at a certain time. I certai nly believe that we as a society are just as "fickle" about our leaders and beliefs as were the Athenians. ========================== Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 17:08:00 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Frank Subject: Rome vs. Greece Compare Greece with Rome. To make this comparison I want to first answer a question from the Greek Section of the discussion questions. A stereotype I had was that the Greeks were these pea ce loving people pursuing the arts, writing poems, and philosophizing about the world. The Romans on the other hand, were the warlords running around the old world savagely exploiting people. Boy was I wrong. As we already know the Greeks in fact did h ave their golden age and many accomplishments were done; however, they never united their territories. They always had a city-state system that only infrequently united (Persian Wars) and even in these there was disagreements. Alexander the Great did "un ite" Greece under military conquest and he did "create the largest empire the ancient world had known...," but this was a short lived empire that really never united. As soon as Alexander and his troops left things returned to normal. We refer to the Gr eek's Empire as "Athens" or "Sparta" or "Macedonian." The Romans on the other hand had the "Roman Republic" or the "Roman Empire." True the Romans had Scipio and the likes (cruel and harsh.) but for the most part they compromised in order to keep an empir e. The Greeks enslave and for all practical purposes destroyed the people they conquered (except for Alexander who took considerable liberties in Persia.) Rome on the other hand "showed great administrative skill in organizing the conquered communities, by establishing different degrees of privilege and responsibility among them." Brilliant Greece remained, for the most part a series of small democracies; where a citizen of one city had no rights in the other state. Pericles' Citizenship Laws, while considered moderating, were in fact so strict that they disenfranchised his own son. Rome had liberal (by Greek standards) citizenship laws that were expanded under the "Struggle of the Orders." Class limitation, intermarriage, foreign peoples gaining ci tizenship etc. were just the opposite of the Greek society. I believe the practice of Ostracism would not have worked under the Roman Republic - where could one go? This area deserves much more in-depth analysis; however, I am going to save that for a la ter time. I am truly amazed how BACKWARDS I had the two systems. One question I am pondering, it won't leave my mind. In Hannibal's great accomplishments on Italy proper, the fact that Carthage ruled the seas (early in the wars), the Athenian fiasco in Syracuse, the large Greek presence in Magna Graecia and the fact that the Macedonian Wars were fought at the same time as the Punic Wars - WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD ANY GREEK 'CAPTAIN' A SHIP FOR THE ROMANS???? "...they were still hiring Greeks to captain t heir ships--...." Any thoughts? Frank ========================== Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 22:56:00 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" S ubject: Discussion for Rome Here is my first attempt at focusing discussion for this course. The discussion questions that were on the Web I am changing tonight to reflect what I'm bringing up here. That way, even if you lose or delete the e-mail, y ou can revisit the Web site to re-read the topics. Roman history falls readily into the Republic and the Empire. I propose we spend this week and next on the Republic, and spend the third week on the Empire. That gives short shrift to the Empire, but we also have fewer materials (in this course) for the Empire. So. Regarding the Republic. There are three very large topics of importance, and all three are related: 1. the Roman constitution 2. Roman expansion 3. the Roman Revolution (that is, the fall of the Republic). I'll restate these as questions. First, who ruled in the Republic? Who held power, and on what basis or by what right did they rule? What were the threats to their rule? Second, why was Rome so successful in conquering her neighbors both near and far? Was it superior military force? If so, what was it about the Roman army that made it better than any other? Was it superior political organization? If so, what about that organization made it succeed? Third, why and how did it all fall apa rt? What in the later second and the first century BC so strained the Republic that it shook apart? Were there defects from the beginning? As I said, these three topics are inter-related, but let's begin with the first. Who ruled, how, and by what right? That's the Roman constitution. We'll begin with Rome itself. Then we'll look at Roman expansion. Those two topics will be for this week. Next week we'll take on the collapse of the Republic. If anyone has modifications to suggest to the above, please let me know. And stay tuned for some more comments on discussion. Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University elknox@bsu.idbsu.edu - skip@mmicron.net ========================== Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 23:09:00 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: General discussion themes I'd like to make an attempt at carrying certain themes or topics throughout our course. I don't have any thing specifically organized for this, so don't feel compelled to adhere to what I propose here; on the other hand, feel free to address these topics whenever they seem relevant. Politics: who ruled? Who holds power in a society, as an official or as a c lass, and by what right do they claim to rule? What is the role of the military in the political life of th eculture? Who makes law and how? What is this culture's understanding of the nature of law? Society: What role did family play in the society? In what ways did the family unit contribute to social order, and in what ways did it contribute to social disorder? Besides the family, what were the most important forms of social organization and association? What were the sources and manifestations of soc ial status? Economy: What technological innovations of lasting significance were developed by this society? What position did merchants and long-distance trade hold? What were the principles of landholding? Culture: What lasting contributions did this s ociety make in art and literature? What forms did religion take and what were the relations between religious life and the other aspects of this civilization (politics, economics and society)? What were the main characteristics of the dominant religion? General: What were the main turning points in the history of this civilization? What were the big events, the most important individuals or +groups, and the major trends or developments? Oddities: What did you find that seemed exceptional, odd, or exotic ? What would be your nomination for a historical "Believe It or Not"? Well, there you have it. I'll post this on the Web -- I'll hang it directly off the Classroom -- for reference. If this works at all well, I'll make it more formal for the next itera tion of this course. Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net ========================== Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 23:28:00 MST Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Dr. E.L. Skip Knox" Subject: Re: weekly posting Darrin's comparing Miltiades with George Bush illustrates both the strength and the danger of trying to find modern parallels with ancient precedents.O n the one hand, as Jason points out, the parallel often won't stand up to a detailed comparison. On the other hand, attempting such a parallel can help us examine the past from different angles and perhaps gain new insights. For example, why weren't the Romans fickle about their emperors? Or medieval peasants fickle about their kings? Fickleness implies the ability to do something about it. I suggest that people are always fickle about their leaders, but that it is the peculiar characteristic of a democ racy that the fickleness of the common rabble actually has political consequences. Normally, we commoners are simply ignored. I do think this is one reason why Greek history interests us and why the Greeks make sense to us in a way that (for example) the medieval world does not. More on this another time. Dr. E.L. Skip Knox - Boise State University sknox@varney.idbsu.edu -or- skip@mmicron.net ========================== Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 21:41:16 -0500 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: "Linda T." Subject: ROMAN RULE The Chambers' text describes Roman constitution as one that was not written. Instead, it was "a set of carefully observed procedures and customs of rul e". The governing system was originally divided into three main parts: 2 Consuls who were supreme civil and military magistrates; the Senate who handled financial matters and public works; and, the Assemblies. I found it to be real interesting how the Roman constitution and the components of the governing system evolved through compromise, particularly through strengthening the perceived power of common people through the Assembly of Tribes. The power, however always seemed to remain ultimately in the hands of the upper class through such things as restrictions and required Senate sponsorship. The definition of upper class seemed to evolve somewhat but was established by family association. ========================== Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 21:4 0:20 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Mike Subject: Political threats. One of the earlier threats to the "rulers" of the Republic came from the Plebeians during the Stru ggle of the Orders. According to Chambers, they "threatened to secede from the state." This would have been a major blow to the state in the fact that the Plebeians made up a majority of the men available to fight in the army. Another threat to the "r ulers" were their opponents. There are many examples of political mischief and murder during the Republic. Tiberius Gracchus was "clubbed to death" by his opponents. His brother Gaius, committed suicide, when he was threated with execution from his oppone nts. Julius Caesar was murdered by his political enemies. When Sulla left to fight Mithridates, his opponents took control of Roman, but upon his return, he had hundreds of them executed. Octavian turned on Mark Antony after they had invaded Rome toget her, by exploiting rumors of Mark Antony's romance with Cleopatra. Both Antony and Cleopatra committed suicide because Octavian gathered his army and went after Mark Antony. Political opponents appear to have been the biggest threat to the Republics r ulers. This lack of solidarity among the political leaders, was the key to the downfall of the Republic. ========================== Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 22:26:36 -0700 Reply-To: HY101 Sender: HY101 From: Teresa Subject: Roman Constitution In the effort of not repeating Frank's very thorough posting on this date (wow -- a comprehensive analysis), my comments are a little more general. First, it strikes me that the R oman constitution was a fairly balanced system of power shared between the ruling elite and the common people. The ruling elite (dictators, military leaders, upper-class Senators) had the greatest impact, for the most part, with the notable exception of The Struggle of the Orders, wherein the plebians won very vital concessions from the patricians (Chambers 93-94). The Struggle was a long one, but the fact that it succeeded at all is quite exceptional. Obviously, a threatened secession by the p lebians posed a serious enough threat to those in power to encourage their acquiescence, but the text says little about how the further concessions were obtained. It is most notable that ". . . one effect of the struggle of the orders was to make the sta te an even more efficient machine for conquest, since the plebians could now feel that they had a more favorable position within the system and were thus more willing to fight for their country." [Chambers 94]. I wonder if the patricians had this result in mind. . . The other point I would like to make is the fact that the Roman constitution was never a written one but rather an agreed upon system of conventions and customs [Chambers 92]. This must have had a major role in the changes imposed l ater on by usurping factions (Caesar especially, and the two triumvirates) who were able to circumvent custom and seize power. Had their constitution been written, and therefore codified as supreme law (as it is here in the U.S.A.), there would have been a firm foundation upon which to keep the checks and balances in place. ==========================   Ð/;þ r þ ì# /;þ Ð/;þ / þ ;þ ? C þ /;þ S Ð/;þ Y ;þ Ð/;þ k þ y /;þ þ