In the Zuo Zhuan, China’s earliest surviving historical text, one can see the emergence of Chinese cultural consciousness about how to organize an “international political system,” in this case the system that existed in the feudal (Confucian) era of warring states. (more…)
Self-Inflicted Wounds
After vanquishing its external foes, the late Roman republic had every reason to be satisfied with its global position; domestically, too, the basic facts were highly favorable: relatively strong economy, unified society, and high esteem for the rule of law had laid the foundation for a political organization that would have passed for a fairly modern democracy. But within a few generations, elite irresponsibility had turned Rome into a corrupt and militaristic dictatorship. Sallust focuses on a key turning point, the years following a burst of military adventurism (under Marius and Sulla) and preceding Julius Caesar’s final overthrow of the Republic:
Never in its history–it seems to me–had the empire of Rome been in such a miserable plight. From east to west all the world had been vanquished by her armies and obeyed her will; at home there was profound peace and abundance of wealth, which moral men esteem the chiefest of blessings. Yet there were Roman citizens obstinately determined to destroy both themselves and their country….A deadly moral contagion had infected all their minds….although all disturbers of the peace in this period put forward specious pretexts, claiming either to be protecting the rights of the people or to be strengthening the authority of the Senate, this was mere pretence: in reality, every one of them was fighting for his personal aggrandizement. –Sallust, The Conspiracy of Catiline (Penguin Classics), pp.37-39.
Institutional Defense of Democracy
Describing the collapse of Roman freedoms in the years leading up to Julius Caesar, Appian noted:
“…neither freedom, nor democracy, nor law, nor reputation, nor office, were of any help any longer to anybody when the holders of the tribunate, which had come into existence for the prevention of injustice and the protection of ordinary people, and was sacred and inviolate, both committed and suffered such wrongs.”–Appian, The Civil Wars (Penguin Classics, 19)
Friendship or Subjugation
Trying to make peace with the North African enemy King Bocchus, Roman officer Lucius Sulla told the king:
“…no friendship is more advantageous than ours: in the first place, because the distance between us will minimize occasions of quarrel, while not diminishing the effectiveness of our support; secondly, because we already have plenty of subjects, whereas neither we nor anyone else ever had enough friends.”–Sallust, The Jugurthine War/The Conspiracy of Catiline (Penguin Classics, pp.138-139)
Violence Begets Violence
The Roman historian Appian had a nice sense of the dynamics by which a cycle of intensifying violence can lead to the destruction of social order. Perhaps our modern advocates of bombing the enemy into submission should take a look at the old histories…
In this way the episodes of civil strife escalated from rivalry and contentiousness to murder, and from murder to full-scale war; and this was the first army composed of Roman citizens to attack their own country as though it were a hostile power. From this point onwards their conflcits continued to be settled by military means and there were frequent attacks on Rome, and sieges, and every sort of incident of war, because nothing remained, neither law, nor political institutions, nor patriotism, that could induce any sense of shame in the men of violence. – Appian, The Civil Wars (Penguin Classics, 33-34)
Those who believe short-term accomplishments justify the establishment of dangerous precedents, take heed.
Cultural Richness
In the “neat phrases from literature” category, I just found this one amusing:
es un oficio bastante malo
An aging and not too health army officer in love with a 19-year-old beauty who also loved him, said this to his beauty in sympathy for her predicament. [Ernest Hemingway, Across the River and Into the Trees, ch 9.]
Like the hero of the novel, we should all speak numerous languages and decide which one is best for expressing which thought, because one size does not fit all.
Trusting Lackeys
At one point during Julius Caesar’s Gallic campaign, when the Aeduan tribe was allied with Rome, the question of whether or not to break the alliance and join Vercingetorix’s “rebellion”–what today might be called Gaul’s “national liberation movement.” The Aeduan leader had recently been confirmed in his position through the personal intervention of Caesar, who had ruled in accordance with Aeduan laws. The Aeduan leader observed,
It is true that I am under some obligation to Caesar – though the justice of my case was so apparent that he could hardly help deciding in my favor. but the cause of national liberty outweighs any such consideration. Why should we call Caesar in to adjudicate questions involving our rights and the interpretation of our laws? We do not expect him to submit questions of Roman law to our arbitration? (Caesar, The Conquest of Gaul. London: Penguin Classics, pp.173-4.)
With that, the lackey declared his independence and led the Aeduans into revolt.
Peace, Freedom…& Responsibility
“Down to the destruction of Carthage, the people and Senate shared the government peaceably and with due restraint, and the citizens did not compete for glory or power; fear of its enemies preserved the good morals of the state. But when the people were relieved of this fear, the favourite vices of prosperity – licence and pride – appeared as a natural consequence. Thus the peace and quiet which they had longed for in time of adversity proved, when they obtained it, to be even more grievous and bitter than the adversity. For the nobles started to use their position, and the people their liberty, to gratify their selfish passions, every man snatching and seizing what he could for himself. So the whole community was split into parties, and the Republic, which hitherto had been the common interest of all, was torn asunder….The people were burdened with military service and poverty, while the spoils of war were snatched by the generals and shared with a handful of friends.” — Sallust, The Jugurthine War/The Conspiracy of Catiline, pp. 77-78 (Tr. S.A.Handford), Penguin Books, 1963.
Democracy and the Freedom to Criticize
Three millennia ago the ancient dynasty ruling the then-emerging Chinese state had a bulletin board – not for the regime to post notices to the people but for the people to post criticism of the regime! Time passed, governance declined, and by the fall of the Ch’in dictatorship, this wonderfully modern democratic practice had been replaced by laws against “slander and magic incantations”—laws so severe that they scared even officials into silence. (Sima Qian, Emperor Wen)
When Liu B led his army to overthrow the Ch’in and set up the new Han dynasty, this man-of-action focused on the immediate military needs of reestablishing peace and evidently gave little thought to the issue of freedom of speech. The more reflective emperor Wen who headed the post-rebellion generation, however, gave serious thought to the quality of governance…
Slippery Slope: Government Undermining of Civil Liberties
“Clematius, an utterly innocent man, was put to death without being allowed to open his mouth or speak.
After this act of wickedness, which, now that cruelty had been given free rein, aroused fears that it would be repeated in other cases, a number of people were found guilty and condemned through mere misty suspicion. Of these some were put to death; others suffered confiscation of their property and were driven into exile from their homes; left with no resource but complaints and tears they supported life on the charity of others, and when what had been a just constitutional government was transformed into a gloody despotism many rich and noble houses shut their doors. In the past savage emperors had often preserved the appearance of legality by preferring charges against their victims in the courts of law, but now even a counterfeit accusation was felt to be superfluous; as one mischief was heaped upon another whatever the implacable Caesar had resolved was immediately put into effect, as if it had all the force of a deliberate legal decision.“–Ammianus Marcellinus The Later Roman Empire (AD 453-378)(Tr. Walter Hamilton), London: Penguin Classics, 2004).
Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman military officer and historian, chronicled the decline of the superpower of his day.
