The
history of literature can be traced to the earliest forms of the arts. Man
danced for joy round his primitive camp fire after the defeat and slaughter of
his enemy. He yelled and shouted as he danced and gradually the yells and
shouts became coherent and caught the measure of the dance and thus the first
war song was sung. As the idea of God developed, prayers were framed. The songs
and prayers became traditional and were repeated from one generation to
another, each generation adding something of its own.
As
man slowly grew more civilized, he was compelled to invent some method of
writing due to three urgent necessities. There were certain things that it was
dangerous to forget and which, therefore, had to be recorded. It was often
necessary to communicate with persons who were some distance away and it was
necessary to safeguard one's property by making appropreiate tools and taking
protective measure in a distinctive manner. So man taught himself to write and
having learned to write, purely for utilitarian reasons, he used this new method
for preserving his war songs and his prayers. Of course, among these ancient
peoples, there were only a very few individuals who learned to write, and only
a few could read what was written.
Q: Man invented writing because he wanted
Democratic
societies from the earliest times have expected their governments to protect
the weak against the strong. No 'era of good feeling' can justify discharging
the police force or giving up the idea of public control over concentrated
private wealth. On the other hand, it is obvious that a spirit of self-denial
and moderation on the part of those who hold economic power will greatly soften
the demand for absolute equality. Men are more interested in freedom and
security than in an equal distribution of wealth. The extent to which
Government must interfere with business, therefore, is not exactly measured by
the extent to which economic power is concentrated into a few hands. The
required degree of government interference depends mainly on whether economic
powers are oppressively used, and on the necessity of keeping economic factors
in a tolerable state of balance.
