earthmoss

• 14: The Rise of the Army as Divine Authors of Authority- Bad Faith takes a turn for the worst
• 15: The Rise of the Equestrians
• 16: The Karma of the Hubris of Stick-wielders as Adminstrators and Emperors and Soldiers – Religion must become the Scape-Goat as Godly Authority is lost – Law and violence must hide the shame
• 17: Diocletian and the Tetrachy: The beginning of the Holy Office – the only way to defeat secular warriors of hired virtue- pietas
• 18: Rome – Economics – devaluation of money – lending property and morality – The Bad-faith of the soldiers
• 19: What has happened to the Imperial Cult since Augustus – A quick recap before Rome becomes Christian under Constantine
• 20: The End of Rome – Bad Faith
• 21: Bad-Faith of the Poor who had begun Christianities rise in Rome and been martyred for it – What will there fate be now that Jesus is being authored by aristocracy who collect the taxes and render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s
• 22: Rome

Note: When displayed, this icon indicates ‘Writer’s Voice’ style in text.

01: Introduction

‘The Romans were more vicious than any other tribe in the Mediterranean world. The empire was a cruel and exploitative system.’ – I Caesar

In the last two chapters we have seen the glory of democracy turn into perennial war and not the vaunted peace that is today so preached about this technique of power. We witnessed the being-for-itself create a desert for itself and for all those surrounding it, and for its own children that came afterwards, due to the perceived ‘truth’ that ‘might is right’ and that Nature is not a conscious thing, that provides us with the invisible force of life and consciousness, but is instead a commonwealth to be tamed, in order to achieve our own desires. To do this we saw that the nature of the human-being that this perspective created, needed to have its nature tamed also. The Iliad warrior had to become the subject of the State. The possessor of might is right, became possessed by his rights through his mights or hopes and fears of egoic desire and created a lack- war.

We then saw democracy betray itself and become subject to a God-King-Warrior, Alexander the Great, whose story allowed greater cohesion of peoples to his cause, which upon his demise turned out to be nothing more than the ring of Gyges hiding their own cause, as the reciprocators of Alexander split the empire into their own possession alongside the divine nature of Alexander itself, as they all began to adopt this more efficient technique for controlling and expanding the power of their pyramid.

In this chapter then we begin in a world of God-King-Warriors who have spread across the world, just as the settlers did, ending democracy and turning it into divine hereditary monarchy. In such a worlding of the world, a new story that allows to polis to gain more power than a monarchy can bestow upon them will emerge, but it will not be a democracy it will be a Republic. We will therefore learn the power of the story of Republic, the teleology of a Republic by understanding its constitutive nature, and then see how a Republic holds up against the nature of monarchy. This then is the history of Rome.

The reflective truths of Romes Republic is the thrownness of the present that today we do not call Rome but America a modern day democratic republic, born from rebellion against a monarchy as was Rome. The reason for the Republic, why it came into existence and through which techniques it did so, become therefore highly relevant to our modern day worlding through the power of this modern day power. The only difference between the past of Rome and the present of America is that of the technology of diminishing distances. Where a Roman soldier had to march, the American soldier can sit in a plane, train, boat, tank, and remote controlled vehicle. Where a Roman soldier had to stab with a sword inches from the hated enemy, the American soldier can press a button thousands of miles away, or tens of miles from above, and kill the hated enemies. The story and the reasons are the same. In other words we are about to enter the map of our modern world, and witness the fruit that grows from the ontogenic dna of its constitutional seeds.

In order to look at this progression of Rome to becoming a Republic and then to its foreseen demise, we will be listening to another of the greatest historians that ever lived, Edward Gibbon and also a contemporary historian of Rome Tacitus. Helping us to interprete these histories will be Machiavelli who will show us the ring of Gyges, the Noble Lie that rests within them. Their insights into the conditions of Rome will show the just or unjust nature of that empire, the reasons for its success and for its demise, and the fate of them will be the fate of ourselves under America if we are not willing to change, the only difference is once again, the diminishing distances of technology as described above. Desertification renamed as Global Warming, but still denied by those creating it, and even justified as good, right, and part of God’s fundamental plan, for-itself.

The question that we must always ask is quite simply: Will the takers, the movers and shakers, turn their power into leadership and good for the people in their pyramid, or will they turn the people in their pyramid into good for themselves alone as if they are the sum, the teleology of Romes very existence? In other words, does their organisational theory control the Ring of Gyges or does the Ring of Gyges control their organisational theory. Is it a mythic poetic complex or a complexion of poetic artistic techniques that is a myth of authority? Complex means, ‘interwoven, intricate, together, to twine and hence to bind. Complexion means, ‘appearance, to surround, to entwine. Both of these words come from the root word ‘Ply’ meaning, ‘to bend, to mould as wax (hence, to toil at). From the root word of ‘ply’ we get the words, accomplice, apply, complicate, complicit, deploy, display, exploit, implicate, implicit, pliant, supplicate, and perplex. Therefore we must ask ourselves, if the Republic is a complex of people who are complicit together in bending their own will into a supplication of desires to accomplish their individual desires with their accomplices as an implicit constitution, by deploying the power resultant from this in the form of arms, or, is a Republic a complex of pliant wills exploited by the rulers of the Republic under the complexion of this myth, in order to deploy the power resultant from this in the form of arms. The answer, either way, holds no morality other than might is right, but it does reveal the nature of bad-faith by those reciprocators who believe that they will gain by applying themselves to it and becoming bound by its world. Possessing is possession- possession is possessing.

Will we therefore see the Roman citizen gain its desires or see them lose their desires? Will the property that they possess at the beginning of the Republic in a commonwealth, remain theirs or will it be taken from them by the law that they have bound themselves to and allowed others to author? In like manner we may ask ourselves the same question of American citizens today to find the answer of Rome’s yesterday. Americas answer is of course, that it has just created a global recession, that disenfranchised millions of its own people and made them abject, as it legally fed desire through legal loans at extortionate legal rates of interest, that were legally borrowed by banks that illegally hid their lending debts in financial legalities that spread like a plague across the entire world. Who benefits? The result of this was that the polis paid for losses and then paid to keep the institutions that enacted this loss going, whilst the enacters of this fate, who had been enriching themselves at an exponential rate of increase, were rewarded with bonuses of billions of dollars, once again from the taxpayers pocket.

Let us see this exact same thing, happen in Rome then to see the glorious true nature of a Republic, just as we saw with a democracy. What Rome will teach us is that after the Republic comes something  quite different, neither a Republic or a democracy, or a monarchy. It is something so different that it does not have an institutional name to describe its nature because it is taboo to name it as an institution of the State. What we will see the Roman Republic become will be no different from what it really was at its beginnings, in its prime, and at its demise. We will have to wait a few chapters to reflect this to Americas Republic and Empire today, but reflect it we will.

The second immensely important thrownness that has come out of Rome and the experiences and perspective of this State is its religious super-state, that today we call Christianity. In this chapter we will therefore be exploring how the nature of Rome and its claim to authority was born from its own thrownness of Alexander the Great, how it came to be used by the Emperors, and how finally it became housed within the teachings of Christ as the State religion of Christianity. Who benefits will of course be our guide. It is a remarkable journey of twists and turns woven together into a ply or should I say play of power, a game of thrones, a triumph of being-for-itself, and of course an increase in war for all who exist within this undiscovered country of implicit culling.

Let us begin with citing Machiavelli and his observation about the ontogeny of such people before we begin at the beginning of Rome – That Men who are born in the same Country display throughout the Ages much the same Characteristics

Niccolò Machiavelli Italian diplomat and political and military theorist (1469–1527).

Prudent men are wont to say- and this is not rashly or without good ground- that he who would foresee what has to be, should reflect on what has been, for everything, that happens in the world at any time has a genuine resemblance to what happened in ancient times. This is due to the fact that the agents who bring such things about are men, and that men have, and always have had, the same passions, whence it necessarily comes about that the same effects are produced. It is true that men’s deeds are sometimes more virtuous in this country in that, and in that than in some other, according to the type of education from which their inhabitants have derived their mode of life.

Knowledge of the future based on the past is also facilitated when we find a nation which for a long time has had the same customs, which has been, for instance, consistently grasping or consistently deceitful, or which has had any other such vice or virtue.” (Crick:1979:517-8)

Roman Virtue begins its path to becoming a Virtuous State as a Republic

In 509 B.C. the Romans were poor subjects of one of the monarchical systems of rule under a pyramid of people who were called Etruscans. At a time of weakness for the Etruscans the Romans decided to overthrow this hated monarchy, brought to a head when the son of the Etruscan king Tarquin raped a ‘virtuous’ Roman wife, Lucretia who committed suicide rather than live on in dishonour. By the power of this propaganda play the Roman people were made pliant to rise up in the name of liberty, in order to dis-empower the Etruscans power to gain its desires for sex, drugs, and entertainment, so that they could empower their own desires for sex, drugs, and entertainment, and subject others in like manner in order to empower it. The consequence of this regaining of their power for it-self was the necessity of setting up a cohesive story that would bind the polis together, and the authors of that story were those who were already powerful and wealthy, and had status under the Etruscans whose art of rule, monarchy was seen as a hated institution by the Romans who had been subjected to it.

This is a marked difference to the birth of democracy in Athens where the polis overthrow their own tyrants in their own pyramid. In Rome the taker was outside of the Pyramid, not within it, and this is the experience that forms their super-state and causal nexus of Empire. It is a story framed by the concept of common advantage for the Romans perceived by their coherence in overthrowing the Etruscans collectively, and not the control of advantage being taken from the commons as it was experienced in Athens, and Sparta to form a democracy. It is a perspective that is formed by the experience of liberty, and not luxury as a cohesive principle. Whether it is a Noble Lie or not it is the purpose of this chapter to discover.

As we saw with Athens and the birth of democracy, that overthrew an oligarchy, the karmic reaction of reason was to set up an institution that promised equal power to the polis that had just won it. It is a necessary story to cohere a people who have no higher authority than their own will to power by which to grant authority to an-Other, in order to increase their own through this collective art of civilization.

The second great difference between Athens and Rome that must be discussed in the formation of the Republic and not a democracy is that Rome is born after Alexander the Great, whose divine hereditary monarchy has become the major institutional devise of other pyramids, and whose biography has become the model of tradition. The Greeks had to create an institution in a world of kin leaders who were kings because of the Names adopted by their tribe, the Romans had to create an institution in a world of king leaders who were kings because of the divine Nature of their siring, in a world of sacred de-siring.

The Republic therefore existed in a world of War, plied not as a trade, but as a divine way of traditional life that they had been subjected by. The consequences of betraying this totemic tradition in order to will for one-self in a culture of necessary killing was the same as it was for the Athenians in that the gods have to die as the root to authority, but unlike the Athenians the Romans had to hate the institution of this authority- monarchy. But if monarchs were the traditional state of authority by divine revelation then so were their laws, whilst for the Romans their laws were not divine and therefore contained no moral basis to be grounded upon. For the Romans their constitution was to be one based upon a human idea not a revelation, in a world of revelation that had subjected them to it since its inception. It therefore required a constitution whose purpose was to fight the very gods themselves from a non-moral stance, against a hated divine monarch, heaven sent. It was not therefore just a constitution of collective power as the root of authority (and the control of luxury) but also of the art to focus this power quickly into an arm of power in a world of War against divine authority. The gods would therefore have to be denied more vehemently and the right to war to be claimed more justly in order to survive. The law would be written upon this same subtext to the actual text, upon this same constitution to the regulative dance of desire, that is its pretext.

The memory of a people cohered by the story of their previous subjection is one that is fearful of this same fate returning but hopeful of having gained their freedom. Such a people of desire are cohered by a symbol of individuality, that is formed in art into a ‘Statue of Liberty’ who holds the flame of Prometheus in her hand as her rightful possession, as her very Nature. The fact that she stands upon a real piece of land really taken from others and that she necessarily possesses this land as her true urgrund, in order to stand for anything, is denied, despite the massive group of collective peoples that are shouting at them that they have no right, whilst they willingly turn them into a massive collective of massacred peoples that are no longing shouting at them in the outer world, only echoing their shame in the inner one, that consequently casts them from the Garden of Eden, and into a land of Liberty where ‘ones dreams can become true’- The Great White Hope- that they have no right.

It is the hubris and nemesis of this perspective of man-made Law as authority by reason of liberty, and not by reason of revelation, that we will explore through the history of the Roman Republic, and how this Republic eventually becomes a religion born from the shame of this distance from God, and the true reason for its Laws. The same Laws that are the root of our laws today, by tradition. A tradition that the Romans did not have but became, a tradition that therefore has no authority, but that of arms. Who benefits will be the question that guides us.

As Machiavelli is about to tell us  in greater detail. The new perspective of the Republic born by subjugation is a good perspective by which to go to war and win, because the root of its constitution is a super-state cohered by the fear of subjection, which is now experienced as a ready hate of Others who might take this from you, and the hope of retaining this free state experienced as the love of liberty. It contains no morality behind its subsequent legal authority other than this hope. It is a hope otherwise known as Pandora’s box held up as a guiding light across the ocean of time, by an eternal stone statue of liberty, otherwise known as War for-itself or might is right. Abandon Hope all ye who enter here is the catchphrase constitution of Earthmoss.

The single guiding light or virtue gained by a Republic by which to defeat the divine virtuous Nature of a monarchy therefore is that of the Liberty of the State, in return for the price of war against any other State, it is not virtuous in-itself, for it has no transcendent purpose other than this single state. Its mission, its purpose, its venture is to world Liberty to the World for us to dwell in it, but it contains no morality of what we will all do with our Liberty, just as science contains no morality of what we will all do with our knowledge and technology, because being-for-itself, and the commonwealth that this perspective creates are perceived as being the urgrund of existence, and not being-in-Being. To be a virtuoso means to be a lover of fine art, to be virtuous means to be a lover of morality. Liberty, from the Latin, liber, meaning free, does not hold a morality it merely recognises the state of unfreedom created by war, created by settling, created by hope and fear, created by desire for-itself. Freedom cannot be taken, possessed or framed by any artifice or enclosed within a wall. The canvas must be naked, the garment must be dropped, the artist must become the canvas, the silence of the unspoken unnecessary uncreated word freedom that lived in the real poetic complex for 40,000 years by being-in-Being in the great song of Wakan in harmony with it and not in discord and suffering.

To understand this further and to see how Rome itself is formed around this virtue of the hatred of subjection and to begin the process of telling a story that tries to make this virtue virtuous let us hear how the Republic formed and of its nature as shown to us by Machiavelli. Firstly in how its perceived right to bear arms against another is harnessed in taking Rome for-itself through the power of the idea of Liberty from the Etruscans:

“But when cities or countries are accustomed to live under a prince, and his family is exterminated, they, being on the one hand accustomed to obey and on the other hand not having the old prince, cannot agree in making one from among themselves, and they do not know how to govern themselves. For this reason they are very slow to take up arms, and a prince can gain them to himself and secure them much more easily. But in republics there is more vitality, greater hatred, and more desire for vengeance, which will never permit them to allow the memory of their former liberty to rest; so that the safest way is to destroy them or to reside there.” (Crick:1979:21)

“Even in [Machiavelli’s] The Prince there is this formidable testimony to republican government in chapter 5, headed ‘Concerning the way to govern cities or principalities which lived under their own laws before they were annexed’:

…he who becomes master of a city accustomed to freedom and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed by it, for in rebellion it has always the watchword of liberty and its ancient privileges as a rallying point, which neither time nor benefits will ever cause it to forget. And whatever you may do or provide against, they never forget that name or their privileges unless they are [made] disunited or dispersed, but at every change they rally to them’. (Crick:1979:33)

We have seen then that a Republic is an institution of fear and hatred that is more vengeful, and more hateful, and more cruel than any other institution that existed in the time of the Romans, (even democratic Athens) and was created by these very same institutions as a nemesis to their hubris, as a more successfully exploitative system that it was better to reside in if it couldn’t be destroyed.

If this is the root of a Republic then what is the nature of the human-beings that form a Republic in the first place, and what exactly is a Republic once formed.

02: The Art of Reason in a world War of Desire – The Republic

“It being now my intention to discuss what were the institutions of the city of Rome and what events conduced to its perfection, I would remark that those who have written about states say that there are to be found in them one of three forms of government, called by them Principality, Aristocracy and Democracy, and that those who set up a government in any particular state must adopt one of them, as best suits their purpose.

Others- and with better judgement many think- say that there are six types of government, of which three are very bad, and three are good in themselves but easily become corrupt…. Those that are bad are the other three, which depend on them, and each of them is so like the one associated with it that it easily becomes Tyranny. From Aristocracy the transition to Oligarchy is an easy one. Democracy is without difficulty converted into Anarchy. So that if anyone who is organizing a commonwealth sets up one of the three first forms of government, he sets up what will last but for a while, since there are no means whereby to prevent it passing into its contrary, on account of the likeness which in such a case virtue has to vice.

These variations of government among men are due to chance. For in the beginning of the world, when its inhabitants were few, they lived for a time scattered like the beasts. Then, with the multiplication of their offspring, they drew together and, in order the better to be able to defend themselves, began to look about for a man stronger and more courageous than the rest, made him their head, and obeyed him.

It was thus that men learned how to distinguish what is honest and good from what is pernicious and wicked, for the sight of someone injuring his benefactor evoked in them hatred and sympathy and they blamed the ungrateful and respected those who showed gratitude, well aware that the same injuries might have been done to themselves. Hence to prevent evil of this kind they took to making laws and to assigning punishments to those who contravened them. The notion of justice thus came into being.

In this way it came about that, when later on they had to choose a prince, they did not have recourse to the boldest as formerly, but to one who excelled in prudence and justice.

But when at a yet later stage they began to make the prince hereditary instead of electing him, his heirs soon began to degenerate as compared with their ancestors, and, forsaking virtuous deeds, considered that princes have nought else to do but to surpass other men in extravagance, lasciviousness, and every other form of licentiousness. With the result that the prince came to be hated, and, since he was hated, came to be afraid, and from fear soon passed to offensive action, which quickly brought about a tyranny.

From which, before long, was begotten the source of their downfall; for tyranny gave rise to conspiracies and plots against princes, organized not by timid and weak men, but by men conspicuous for their liberality, magnanimity, wealth and ability, for such men could not stand the dishonourable life the prince was leading. The masses, therefore, at the instigation of these powerful leaders, took up arms against the prince, and, when he had been liquidated, submitted to the authority of those whom they looked upon as their liberators. Hence the latter, to whom the very term ‘sole head’ had become odious, formed themselves into a government. Moreover, in the beginning, mindful of what they had suffered under a tyranny, they ruled in accordance with the laws which they had made, subordinated their own convenience to the common advantage, and, both in private matters and public affairs, governed and preserved order with the utmost diligence.

But when the administration passed to their descendants who had no experience of the changeability of fortune, had not been through bad times, and instead of remaining content with the civic equality then prevailing, reverted to avarice, ambition and to seizing other men’s womenfolk, they caused government by an aristocracy to become government by an oligarchy in which civic rights were entirely disregarded; so that in a short time there came to pass in their case the same thing as happened to the tyrant, for the masses, sick of their government, were ready to help anyone who had any sort of plan for attacking their rulers; and so there soon arose someone who with the aid of the masses liquidated them.

Then, since the memory of the prince and of the injuries inflicted by him was still fresh, and since, having got rid of government by the few, they had no desire to return to that of a prince, they turned to a democratic form of government, which they then organized in such a way that no sort of authority was vested either in a few powerful men or in a prince.

And, since all forms of government are to some extent respected at the outset, this democratic form of government maintained itself for a while but not for long, especially when the generation that had organized it had passed away. For anarchy quickly supervened, in which no respect was shown either for the individual or for the official, and which was such that, as everyone did what he liked, all sorts of outrages were constantly committed. The outcome was inevitable. Either at the suggestion of some good man or because this anarchy had to be got rid of somehow, principality was once again restored. And from this there was, stage by stage, a return to anarchy, by way of the transitions and for the reasons assigned.

This, then, is the cycle through which all commonwealths pass, whether they govern themselves or are governed. But rarely do they return to the same form of government, for there can scarce be a state of such vitality that it can undergo often such changes and yet remain in being. What usually happens is that, while in a state of commotion in which it lacks both counsel and strength, a state becomes subject to a neighbouring and better organized state. Were it not so, a commonwealth might go on for ever passing through these governmental transitions….

It was not so in the case of Solon, who drew up laws for Athens, for he set up merely a democratic form of government, which was so short-lived that he saw before his death the birth of a tyranny under Pisistratus; and though, forty years later, Pisistratus’ heirs were expelled, and Athens returned to liberty because it again adopted a democratic form of government in accordance with Solon’s laws, it did not retain its liberty for more than a hundred years. For, in spite of the fact that many considerations were made whereby to restrain the arrogance of the upper class and the licentiousness of the general public, for which Solon had made no provision, none the less Athens had a very short life as compared with that of Sparta because with democracy Solon had not blended either princely power or that of the aristocracy.

But let us come to Rome….So, when it came to pass that its kings lost their sovereignty, for reasons and in the manner described earlier in this discourse, those who had expelled them at once appointed two consuls to take the place of the king, so that what they expelled was the title of king, not the royal power. In the republic, then, at this stage there were the consuls and the senate, so that as yet it comprised but two of the aforesaid estates, namely, Principality and Aristocracy. It remained to find a place for Democracy. This came about when the Roman nobility became so overbearing for reasons which will be given later- that the populace rose against them, and they were constrained by the fear that they might lose all, to grant the populace a share in the government; the senate and the consuls retaining, however, sufficient authority for them to be able to maintain their position in the republic.

It was in this way that tribunes of the plebs came to be appointed, and their appointment did much to stabilize the form of government in this republic, for in its government all three estates now had a share.”  (Crick:1979:106-113)

“So finally, his own words are better than any paraphrase:

‘From this discussion the following conclusion may be drawn: (i) that, where the gentry are numerous, no one who proposes to set up a republic can succeed unless he first gets rid of the lot; and (ii) that, where considerable equality prevails, no one who proposes to set up a kingdom or a principality, will ever be able to do it unless from that equality he selects many of the more ambitious and restless minds and makes of them gentry in fact and not in name, by giving them castles and possessions and making of them a privileged class with respect both to property and subjects; so that around him there will be those with whose support he may maintain himself in power, and whose ambitions, thanks to him, may be realized. As to the rest they will be compelled to bear a yoke which nothing but force will ever be able to make them endure. (ibid).” (Crick:1979:40-41)

The Conditions of Republican Rule

The threads can now be drawn together. Machiavelli considers that republics can flourish, or that principalities can only be created with extraordinary difficulty, when six conditions exist: (i) that there is a respect for custom and tradition; (ii) that town dominates the country; (iii) that a large middle class exists; (iv) that popular power is institutionalized; (v) that civic spirit or virtue has not decayed; and (vi) that there is a knowledge of these things. If these conditions prevail, he is absolutely clear that men should support republican government and should not, although it is possible, subvert it…Let us say a word about each of the conditions in turn.

(i) A respect for custom and tradition is extremely important. However much stress Machiavelli puts on the prince or the monarch as innovator or restorer, the basic laws and customs of free government have to be there and have to be seen to be there and respected….He simply makes, on a common-sense reading, a practical and rather pessimistic point: you have to build on something. Free institutions are not a bright idea that can be dreamed up and voted in: they must expand upon or restore some traditional institution.

‘This should be noted by all those who contemplate… setting up a new and free form; because, since novelties cause men to change their minds, you should see to it that changes retain as much as possible of what is old, and that, if changes are  made in the number, the authority and the period of office of the magistrates, they should retain the traditional names.

This, as I have said, should be observed by anyone who proposes to set up a political regime, whether by way of a republic or of a monarchy. But he who proposes to set up a despotism, or what writers call a ‘tyranny’, must renovate everything. (Discourses I.25)

(ii) That the town must dominate the country comes out in his contempt for both gentlemen and peasants. ‘Citizen’ is literally the inhabitant of a city, and inhabitants of cities should (if all these conditions prevail) have some voice in the running of their city; and only inhabitants of cities have both the will and the opportunity to do so on some regular basis. It is not true to say that Machiavelli only considered the problems of ‘city states’ and ignored the big kingdoms, if the contrast is then seen as between urban governments and rural landowning. For he was well aware that the most powerful of the Italian city states, like his own Florence, owned large areas of the countryside and that the population of the city itself was usually a minority of the inhabitants of the state. The denunciation of the gentiluomini turns on this point, as does his scorn for the lack of virtú in the peasants. He was not limiting his sights, so much as expressing both a definite value judgement and a definite theory: that civilization itself- morality, civic, spirit, learning, art, science and commerce- was a product of city life; and that only in states with large and politically dominant cities have there ever been republics.

(iii) A large middle class or a substantial equality must exist. This is really to be seen as equality on a narrowly political basis (and then only for some) but also, and more basic, as the absence of inequalities so great as to render men too powerful or too desperate. This has already been discussed, enough to say that the citizen class is not so large as for the state to be exclusively democratic (always republican or mixed government, never the democratic element alone), nor so small as to be able to function as an informal oligarchy….

(iv) Popular power must not dominate, but it must be channelled effectively, it can never be repressed if a republic is to thrive. This, as we have seen, is the heart of his theory of conflict. Each of the two classes has its peculiar characteristic and function- skill and power respectively. What is to be feared is not class strife, which, if nerves are strong and the army is loyal, gives the state its vigour and dynamism, but is faction. Faction is division within classes, particularly among the Ottimati, and this tempts men to try to seize personal power and gives them the opportunity….He is not to be rejected for being against democracy as a form of government, but respected for the clear-headed way in which he recognized the power of the people: a republican government may have to bamboozle them, but it cannot ignore them….

(v) Civic spirit or virtú is the thing most difficult to create, or to destroy. The importance of individual action and the place of politics as the most important and glorious object of human activity, these themes underlie the whole set of the theoretical assumptions of The Discourses- so they will be discussed below. Sufficient here to say that a republic depends upon citizens; in a principality such men either do not exist, or they have to be corrupted or destroyed.

It is not enough that these social relationships exist, they must be known to exist. ‘Knowledge is power’ is, indeed, a glove that fits. There is a rational and conscious knowledge of statecraft to be gained from history and topical examples which does help greatly (but it can never ensure) the preservation of the state, occasionally even the changing of the system of government….But, as we will now see, the knowledge is admittedly not as precise as in the natural sciences and is always conditional. It does not yield any universal methodology for the study of politics, nor any single formula for its conduct: rather, it points to relevant considerations and offers, not iron laws but probable tendencies, not programmes for action but precepts and maxims- and always conditional on someone wishing to take up the Greek gift of power.” (Crick:1979:41-45)

So a Republic is a system of government that is born from city-life, from citizens who have gained by reciprocating the taker of a monarchy but who now wish to take up the ‘gift’ of power for themselves, and are able to do so by establishing a group of reciprocators, the middle class, who will stabilise the system of power gain to the takers by stick-wielding upon the other subjects who, ‘will be compelled to bear a yoke which nothing but force will ever be able to make them endure’, i.e., those who lack in virtue, namely the peasants who grow the food for these citizens. It may have to bamboozle these middle classes and turn them against these peasants in order to do so but it must not stop them having freedom of speech by which to create the opinions of hatred that will make these two opposing camps of town and country, working class and middle class, fight against each other and hate each other. By engineering this hatred within the pyramid then the takers- the aristocracy and principality above them can keep them distracted and keep the authorship of the story of authority amongst themselves:

“The Patriciate, a senatorial nobility formed as early as the seventh century from powerful families who had emerged from the patres (forefathers; the word was also used to designate senators), was a socially coherent body, assured by hereditary title of certain monopolies, notably religious.” (Le Glay et al:2009:45)

In the Etruscan language, the cantonal community was called the ‘spur’, translated into Latin as ‘populus’…

Etruscan society recognised the divine origin of the power of command: the golden crown, the quilted toga with its border of palms, the sceptre, the throne, which was the origin of the Roman ‘sella curalis’, the ceremonial triumph, and the lictors with their ‘fasces’, which included the axe, the Mediterannean symbol of legitimate sovereignty. Latin used the word ‘auctoritas’ for this power of command, and derived from it the term for coercive military power: ‘imperium’.

Etruria changed from a monarchy to an oligarchy in the same way as all the Mediterranean peoples known to us, and probably similar reasons or by example. The king’s power waned as the importance of the upper classes increased through their control of land which had probably been held in the first place as collective property. This gave them the means of arming themselves and maintaining the horses they needed. The Etruscan monarchy was similar in its organisation to the monarchies of all the Mediterranean peoples, Indo-European or not. A class which held power by right of conquest possessed the means of production, land and animals, in common. The subject peoples worked the land and tended the animals on behalf of the rulers. In return they expected to be protected from human and animal attacks, and to benefit to some extent from the more elaborate quests for wealth and booty undertaken by the nobles. …

When the Etruscans had to withdraw west of the Tiber, their monarchy at Rome fell, and with the passing of the ‘laukhume’ the most influential local class came to power. They retained the administrative and cultural structure of the Etruscan ‘spur’, as well as the exterior forms of the legitimate Etruscan sovereignty. The Ruler’s power passed to two magistrates chosen annually from an assembly of nobles. This assembly, which was similar to many others in lands bordering the Mediterranean, believed that it was invested with the same divinely sanctioned authority as the monarchy had been. The senate composed of the clan leaders, who were the military commanders, under the supreme Roman deity, Jupiter Capitolinus, became the repository of the ‘augurium’ from which ‘auctoritas’ was derived.” (Levi:1955:128-31)

“When the consulate became the highest office of the Roman magistrature, the evolution of the state from the Etruscan model reached a significant point. Now the very idea of the ‘people’ was identified with that of the ‘army’. Military service was the single basis of any claim to citizenship, and now the military magistrates took precedence over those with religious or legal functions. Even the development of the public assemblies shows the increasing importance of military forces in their ranks as the basic element of collective life.

Gradually the consulate assumed all the attributes of royal power. The year took its name from the consuls, and either one had the right to veto the action of his colleague and subordinates. Around the city was drawn an imaginary line, the ‘pomerium’. The territory of the state, in which the powers of the ‘numina’, the Roman gods, were felt, and the laws inspired by them were effective, came to an end at this point, and foreign territory began.” (Levi:1955:133)

Writer’s Voice: A culling world of the license to kill of pure imagination called law and a circle of pure imagination that some choose to believe is called reason.

“The political conflicts resulting from changing social conditions in Rome reflected those that had occurred in Attica. Archaic laws on the protection of property and the individual contributed to poisoning the relations between the patrician and the plebeian classes. When precious metals became scarce, and shortages of raw materials led to frequent famines, following the collapse of the prosperous Etruscan domination, the situation worsened. The defaulting debtor was liable to personal enslavement or even death. Such laws as this were evidence of the political supremacy of the wealthy classes. They were incompatible with the increasing importance of the formerly poorer classes who no longer tolerated the existence of privileges which no longer had any justification.

The introduction of compulsory military service for the plebs made it perfectly clear that active participation in the life of the state no longer depended on birth into families of a certain inherited position in the state, but on the possession of a certain income. …

The Romans found it more acceptable to reform their political system by recognising the official leaders of the plebeian community as officers of state. Thus within the territory of Rome there existed two political communities, federated after a fashion, with reciprocal rights and guarantees. The plebs had their assembly, the ‘Concilium Plebis’ their own leaders, called tribunes, who superintended the civil and military activities of the plebs; and administrators of their own temples and cults, which were particularly the three gods of the Aventine, Ceres, Liber and Libera.” (Levi:1955:136-7)

“The timocratic system of the Comitia Centuriata, which gave the wealthiest citizens the greatest voting power, came into conflict with the system of the tribunal assembly, which revived the old Greek idea of one man, one vote, without reference to his birth or wealth. Even in the tribal meetings and the Concilium Plebis, the citizen voted as a member of his tribe, and the influence of the individual vote was limited, since it affected only the majority within one particular tribe, which was the voting unit. The Romans never came to the point of admitting the political function of the individual, for the citizen was seen simply as a soldier, subject to jurisdiction solely on the basis of where he lived and what tactical unit he belonged to.

Once the validity of the plebiscites had been recognized, the deliberations of an assembly where men’s votes did not depend on their incomes were often given greater weight than those of the Comitia Centuriata. The will of the plebs sometimes counted for more than the will of the patricians, and the poor sometimes prevailed over the rich. But in spite of these apparent innovations, Roman public life had nothing in common with Athenian democracy. The institution of the Clientala, and the rules which subdivided citizens into voting units according to tribe and place of residence, ensured that the patricians would always have a prevailing influence over public ballots and so retain effective and exclusive power in the state. They could influence the course of the elections, securing magistratures and seats in the Senate for the supporters of the richest and most powerful families, whether patricians or plebeian.

When the importance of the old patrician-plebian division, reflecting the archaic Roman state, had finally dwindled away, a powerful sector of Roman society took over complete control. Its power came from its wealth and its control of the means of production: land and capital. This new ruling class of patricians and plebians reached a Senate by being born into the right families, or by making a career in public life, and made this assembly into the instrument of its power. No magistrate could ignore its decisions. Its policies were decisive in foreign affairs and financial matters. It was the most influential organ of state whose unity was based on giving the greatest power to the men who, having the greatest wealth at their disposal, carried the most weight in the life of the community.

The privileges conceded to wealth did not weaken the unity of the state, chiefly because wealth brought with it a sufficiently wide range of duties and opportunities to justify the political importance of its possessors.” (Levi:1955:140-41)

The bonds of faith were the nationalist sentiments of the ancient world; men were linked by the same religion rather than by the same place of birth

In many places this resulted in serious exclusiveness; on the one hand were the elect, faithful to the one true God, and on the other hand, reprobates and infidels. Every war was a religious war, and those who did not belong to the community of the elect could never hope to become members, but were always excluded from the position achieved by the rest….

A legend which was very popular among the enemies of Rome in ancient times spoke of the ‘asylum of Romulus’, referring to the variegated and turbid origins of the population of Rome. Whatever the historical value of the legend may be, it certainly underlines a fact which the ancient world considered very important: that the ‘populus’ of Rome was without the common origins and other characteristics on which communities of that time normally prided themselves. The more uncertain the common racial origin, the less exclusive were relations between men and gods, so that the Romans must have given the impression, implicit in the ‘asylum of Romulus’, of a mongrel race without purity of lineage and therefore without nobility. …

The ‘asylum of Romulus’ was more important to Rome’s development than it might at first appear. Even the Romans had their gods, their rites and traditions. But these were borrowed, picked up, invented to meet the spiritual needs of the community but without deep roots in national traditions. The proud Roman patricians, so jealous of their traditions, could not look far back to its origins, or trace its nobility from mythological ancestors, except where genealogies were dreamed up by imaginative mythographers and historians from Sicily and Alexandria….

An aristocracy created by chance, the bond holding them together was one of necessity. They were not the descendants of generations of warrior nobles, united by military exploits and conquests shared, or by a reputation for being in constant contact with the gods or for being heroes, half way between gods and men. They were not the sun-scorched conquerors who had carried their arms and their prestige through the Homeric monarchies had then gained supreme power with the fall of the kings. When the city created by the Etruscan overlords found itself alone and undefended in the midst of enemy races and immanent dangers, in an impossible economic position because of its dependence on the protection of a power which had suddenly declined, it was the important citizens of the past era who united to face the threat hanging over the city. For other peoples the bond uniting them was a common descent from times clouded in legend; for the Roman patricians necessity was the only reason for the survival of the unity created by their vanished masters. The men who gathered in Romulus’ refuge were made into a nation by being made into an army. The common military bond was the origin of the political community: they were an army before they were an army before they were a nation, soldiers before citizens; whereas the Greeks formed an army and became soldiers because of the racial bond and traditions they shared.” (Levi:1955:142-44)

“The Roman gods had never fathered heroes to live among men; they were unknowable forces, who assisted those who had earned their help by their piety, scrupulousness in carrying out their religious obligations, and care in rendering the gods their due. In this community birth could mean little. Every man who did his duty could rely on the gods to give him the power to command and to make decisions. Thus in Rome it was possible to claim, and obtain, equal rights for equal services.

Among the states which rose to historic importance in ancient times, Rome was unique in her concept of the relations between men and gods, which were the basis of every theory of political legitimacy. From this concept sprang possibilities of legal developments unknown to other nations. Since Rome could not impose the sort of racial segregation which had limited even the Athenian revolution, it was much easier for her to assimilate other states by extending to them the rights implicit in membership of her community. …

Although none of the archaic forms of animistic religion and magic could be said to be exclusive to one particular ethnic group, the ready acceptance of foreign gods in Rome corresponded to the unique Roman willingness to extend the membership of the political community wherever it seemed possible and suitable, without considering racial origins.

This Roman practice, separating citizenship from race, and divine protection from the direct link between the gods and one particular community, was an innovation as revolutionary as the Athenian political and philosophical revolution of the fifth century BC. The fact that Rome was such a medley of races made it impossible for any dominant party to claim power on racial grounds, and this was in itself revolutionary. But the conflicts between Rome and her neighbours, their collaboration in alliances or under political and military protection, and above all the long struggle leading to the fusion of plebs and patriciate in a single nomen, were no less important as spurs to Rome’s political development. A transformation was being made in the causes of political conflict. The battle was being found over issues unknown in earlier times.

In the Mediterranean world, so far as archaeological research enables us to say, every form of political organisation had a closed impenetrable group of men who governed the community, and whose only relation with other men were those of enmity, domination, or simply tolerance. When Rome was beginning to develop her own form of civilisation, the example of the Persian empire was still alive and impressive, with its governing class which held complete power and tolerated the religions and customs of its subjects simply because it could not imagine having anything in common with them. The Persian monarchy aimed at universality because of its faith in its divine mission to rule the world. It believed in a community of the ‘elect’, called by the gods to the task of guiding the human race, not in order to convert it or raise it to the level of the elect, but simply to unite it in one flock, obeying the rules and laws laid down for it by its leaders.” (Levi:1955:145-6)

“Roman policy was based on a single political aim, which rose above the usual racial and theocratic prejudices. In common with the Athenians and their ‘archè’, but without their preoccupation with preserving the sacred rights of the Greek citizen, the Romans aimed at securing the collaboration or the neutrality of neighbouring states, and of those which, as the empire expanded, became one after another their neighbours. For the Romans, collaboration between men and gods, in the correct form and on the right occasions, was a guarantee of the validity of the ‘imperium’, a concept which included both the principle of command and of the rightness of decisions reached by the collective will of the community. Roman foreign policy was based on the concept of ‘iustitia’, in the sense that any political action is just so long as there is clear evidence of divine collaboration with man in the action. In such a case the outcome will inevitably be successful, and the gods are always ready to assist the people among whom they dwell. The absence of their co-operation was both a portent of failure and an intimation that the Roman people and their ruling class were failing to realise their common needs and interests.” (Levi:1955:147)

A_This is the Uniting of the United States. This is also the reason, as we shall see cathartically hypocrtitically lied about in countless movies why Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, can’t be faced by America as being unconscious Empire building, as it shows God is not on their side and their entire self-justification for the slaughter of millions of Indians and Others outside of their magic circle no longer magic because God has not trusted in it.

Once these hereditary families have taken control of the story of the right to power and have reciprocated its stick wielders, it uses this story to change the pyramid to gain for itself most efficiently, and to do so it discovers that it requires the lack of virtue as much as it requires the increase in its own virtue, because power is always relative. A Republic recognises the people in order to re-cognise them as objects to be hated as a symbol of lack and feared as an object that one may become, increasing thereby the hatred of them.

In 494 B.C. these hated Plebs rose up in Rome in the first, “struggle of the orders”, that resulted from this system of Republican rule in protest against heavy debts and a lack of representation in the Republican system, just as the Athenians found themselves having to do under an oligarchy of hereditary families. The Plebeians withdrew to the Sacred Mount to complain about their lack of rights to power and the senate responded by setting up the office of the tribune and created agrarian laws that gave the Plebs a more equitable distribution of public land. Unlike Solons remedy to this situation where all were given equal powers, democracy, the Roman republic instead created an office of Plebeian power by which to represent this voice of the Plebs, thereby making them a single object named, experienced and perceived as such, whilst retaining for themselves the important power of the story of authority.

This clever move thereby allowed the subjects freedom of speech but controlled the effects of this speech by placing it in the body of their government in this new office. Today in America this office of tribune is called Congress and it is kept separate from the senate and the principality- the President. The voting system that represents this constant war between the middle classes who fear becoming a pleb and the plebs who fear the middle classes because they wield the sticks are called democrat and republican. When enough of the middle classes are turned into plebs by the taking of the senate and the president and the middle class reciprocators to them, then the country votes for a democracy, as in the case of Barack O’Bama being voted in when a global recession that the middle classes have reciprocated into existence changes the balance of power, or when Roosevelt was voted in in the 1930s when the greatest global recession the world has ever seen occurred, known as the Great Depression.

In this way a Republic of hereditary families can play off the middle classes against the lower classes ad infinitum, whilst enriching themselves, and can also control the system of status that controls this system, so that any middle class or lower class reciprocator that gains power can become an object of the State and continue this game. Let us hear Machiavelli tell us this truth:

03: The Value of Conflict

Until Machiavelli every writer on politics had assumed that states cohere because of some moral unity: to Aristotle the polis was part of nature and existed for the purpose of unfolding the goodness potential in man; this is what Cicero means by saying that a ‘consensus juris’ is a necessary condition for republican rule; and it is at the heart of the Thomist teaching on natural law. Even if Augustine can challenge Cicero and argue that this consensus is not one relating to right and justice, but solely to interest, self-love and pride- ‘states cohere like bands of robbers’, yet this self-interest must still be all of one piece: if the thieves fall to quarrelling among themselves, their society is lost; they must hang together or they will hang separately. Even the realism of Augustine, however, would have strained at Machiavelli’s astonishing contentions that discord can actually strengthen a state and that a republic consists of at least two different ‘vivere’, ways-of-life or communities, not one.

I must quote at length in case I appear to be reading too much into Machiavelli- as is so often the case, particularly on a matter, crucial to social theory, which so few historical commentators seem to notice or to think important. There is no need to go further than the heading of Book I.4: ‘That Discord between the Plebs and the Senate of Rome made the Republic both Free and Powerful.’

He discusses the tumults that broke out in Rome between the end of the Kings and the creation of the Tribunes representative of the people- ignoring the fact, or ignorant of it, that high levels of civil disorder in the streets were typical of Roman politics at almost any period. Many have deplored such disorders, he says. And he would be, as a Florentine citizen, very much aware than we of the presence, the pressure, the threat of the mob; of how it could sometimes break out on its own, but more often be stirred up to support one quarrelling leader against another. He had seen them support the purges of the puritanical monk, Savonarola, and then turn against him, equally savagely. But much as he disliked and feared such violence or constant threats of violence, he saw some advantages flowing from it. Our eighteenth-century ancestors in London might have shared his feelings; it is we now who are exceptionally intolerant of public disorder, both because we dislike it (which is fair enough) and because we think it a threat to the state, something that inevitably ‘escalates’- which may be quite unwarranted theory considering how ritualistic and limited most violence is, rather than explosive and comprehensive.

‘Those who condemn the quarrels between the nobles and the plebs, seem to be,’ he says, ‘cavilling at the very things that were the primary cause of Rome’s retaining her freedom.’ They pay too much attention to the ‘noise and the clamour’ and do not see the good effects produced; ‘nor do they realize that in every republic there are two different dispositions, that of the populace and that of the upper class and that all legislation favourable to liberty is brought about by the clash between them.’

Liberty itself, then, arises from conflicts as did the popular institutions of the Roman constitution: ‘Hence if tumults led to the creation of the tribunes, tumults deserve the highest praise.’ But more than liberty, or as well as liberty, political power: ‘every city should provide ways and means whereby the ambitions of the populace may find an outlet, especially a city which proposes to avail itself of the populace in important undertakings.’ If a city wishes to use its population for war or for great public works, then it must develop strong nerves and realize that constant troubles are inherent- but that the price, compared to weakness or stagnation, may well be worth paying. He sees the connection between Roman military tactics (calling both for great discipline and great individual skill) and her qualifications for citizenship– and he was surely right.” (Crick:1979:33-35)

So a Republic is an institution unlike a democracy in that it nurtures the hatred between those within its own pyramid, and finds that this is a most efficient method by the majority are compelled to bear a yoke which nothing but force will ever be able to make them endure.

The virtue of liberty, as the story of right and therefore good, is experienced as a lack of virtue and hence good and hence a lack of rights to be reciprocated by those who have this virtue, and the art of gaining this virtue is to become not docile as in Athens but instead to become disciplined, to become a disciple to the State.

The institution that won the liberty of Rome and hence its virtue was therefore the army, whose soldiers wielded the sticks upon those lacking in it, and this stick-wielding is experienced as good and right, because of the discipline that is required in order to gain the stick that you wield. This virtuous hatred known as discipline that disciples of the State wish to obtain for the State in-itself, became the invisible force that made Rome great. As Machiavelli tells us through his reading of the history of a contemporary historian of Rome, Titus Livy:

“Although I have said elsewhere that the security of all states is based on good military discipline, and that where it does not exist, there can neither be good laws nor anything else that is good, to repeat this does not seem to me superfluous; for the need for this discipline is apparent on every page in Livy’s history, where one sees that the soldiery cannot be good unless they are in training, and that it is impossible to train them unless they are your own subjects. For, since no soldiery is always at war, nor yet he can be, it is important to train it in time of peace; but this training is impossible on account of the cost except in the case of your own subjects.” (Crick:1979:491)

The lack of morality that this system embodies is symbolised by the resultant distancing of the gods to the State as God, as we have already seen in Babylon and the Iliad of Greece that brought its gift of power, and so in Rome we see that  “Disciplina became a personified figure that was worshipped.” (Le Glay:2009:337), whilst the gods become merely a political vehicle:

“The need for security is the mainspring of all policies of expansion, and their justification. Rome had already waged war in the peninsula to control the lines of communication, gain land on which to settle her own population, secure outlets to the sea for herself, and ward off attacks on these assets. In each case she secured the safety of her conquest by treaties in which the conquered peoples were forbidden to hinder Rome in the achievement of her aims. Persia and Sparta imposed garrisons on the lands they conquered, and sent officials to supervise them. Athens imposed tributes and used repressive measures to intimidate her subjects. Rome imposed treaties of alliance, insisted on guarantees, settled colonies at strategic points, and awarded partial or full rights putting the inhabitants on a par with her own citizens. In each case the agreement was designed to solve the problem of a resurgence of hostility to Rome.

The variety of the solutions found and the elasticity of the imperial bond prevented the Roman supremacy from ever being considered a tyranny. Roman arms reached many areas because their aid was requested, and almost everywhere Roman interests were interpreted to suit the local population, or at least a part of it.” (Levi:1955:147-8)

“The history of the Roman Republic for more than two centuries after its establishment was one of practically annual warfare. At first the Romans were on the defensive because rival cities took advantage of the confusion accompanying the change of regime by invading Roman territory. After Rome managed to ward off these attacks the city began to shift to the offensive; as time went on the Romans steadily conquered all the Etruscan territories and then took over all the Greek cities in the south on the Italian mainland. Not only did the latter conquests add to the Roman domain, they also brought the Romans into fruitful contact with Greek culture. As the Romans conquered new areas they were confronted with revolts of the newly subjected populations; the suppression of these revolts whetted the appetite of the victors for further triumphs. Thus new wars followed each other in relentless succession, until by 265 B.C. Rome had conquered almost the entire Italian peninsula.

This long series of conflicts reinforced both the agrarian and military character of the Roman nation. The acquisition of new lands enabled needy Romans to engage in agricultural pursuits in the Roman colonies. As a consequence Romans saw no need for the development of industry and commerce. In addition, the continual warfare served to confirm among the Romans a steely military ideal. Many of the most familiar Roman legends of martial heroism date from this period…

During this same period of the early Republic, Rome underwent some glacial political evolution. The replacement of the monarchy was about as conservative a political change as it is possible for any political change to be. Its chief effect was to substitute two elected officials called consuls for the king and to exalt the position of the aristocratic Senate by granting it control over the public funds. Although the consuls were chosen by a citizen assembly, the assembly itself was controlled by the aristocracy. The consuls as a result were usually senators who acted as the agents of aristocratic interests. Each consul was supposed to possess the full executive and judicial authority that had previously been wielded by the king, limited by the right each possessed to veto the action of the other. If a conflict arose between them, the Senate might be called upon to decide; or in time of grave emergency a dictator might be appointed for a term not greater than six months.

After the establishment of the Republic the political dominance of the aristocracy, known in the Rome of this period as the patricians, began to be challenged by the plebeians. The latter were mostly small farmers, and occasionally tradesmen, although plebeian ranks also included some wealthy families who were barred from the patriciate because of recent foreign origin. The grievances of the plebeians were numerous. Forced to serve in the army in time of war, they were nevertheless excluded from all office-holding. Moreover, they felt themselves the victims of discriminatory decisions in judicial trials. They did not even know what legal rights they were supposed to enjoy, for the laws were unwritten, and the patricians alone had the power to interpret them. Worst was the oppression that could stem from debt because a debtor could be sold into slavery outside Rome by the creditor.

To obtain a redress of these grievances the plebeians rebelled soon after the beginning of the fifth century B.C.

At that time they forced the patricians to agree to the election of a number of offices known as tribunes with power to protect the plebeians by means of a veto over unlawful patrician acts. This victory was followed by a successful demand for codification of the laws about 450 B.C. The result was the issuance of the famous Law of the Twelve Tables, so called because it was written on tablets (“tables”) of wood. Although this came to be revered by the Romans of later times as a kind of charter of the people’s liberties, it was really nothing of the sort, for it mostly perpetuated ancient custom without even abolishing enslavement for debt. Nevertheless at least there was now clear definition of law. Roughly a generation later the plebeians won eligibility to positions as lesser magistrates, and about 367 B.C. the first plebeian consul was elected. Since ancient custom provided that, upon completing their terms of office, consuls should automatically enter the Senate, the patrician monopoly of seats in that body was broken. The final plebeian victory came in 287 with the passage of law which provided that measures enacted by the citizen assembly (now balanced in its composition between patricians and plebeians) should become binding upon Roman government whether the Senate approved them or not.

All told, the significance of these changes was not great. Their aim was not to gain more liberty for the individual but merely to curb the power of the patriciate and to win for the plebeians a larger share in government. Indeed, as the great Roman historian Theodor Mommsen once put it, the Romans of the early Republic “never really abandoned the principle that the people were not to govern but to be governed.” Because of this attitude the grant of full legislative powers to the assembly was little more than a formality, for the Senate continued to wield the real power. Nor did the admission of plebeians to membership in the Senate have any effect in liberalizing that body. So high was its prestige and so deep the veneration of the Romans for authority, that the new members were soon swallowed up in the conservatism of the old. Moreover, the fact that the magistrates received no salaries prevented most of the poorer citizens from seeking public office….

The Roman religion was decidedly more political. It served not to glorify humanity or establish a comfortable relationship between human beings and their world but to protect the state from its enemies and to augment its power and prosperity. The gods were less human; indeed, it was only as a result of Greek influences that they were made personal deities at all, having previously been worshipped as animistic spirits. The Romans never conceived of their deities as quarrelling among themselves or mingling with human beings after the fashion of Greek divinities. Finally, the Roman religion contained a stronger element of religious interaction with public political life than the Greek. A committee of priests known as pontiffs formed a branch of the government, presiding over public sacrifices and serving as guardians of sacred traditions that they alone were allowed to interpret. It must be stressed, however, that these religious officials were not priests in a professional sense. Instead, they were aristocrats who served as pontiffs for limited terms of office before or after assuming other governmental duties and without having been trained in any specialized manner for a religious calling. Furthermore their role was strictly public, for they heard no confessions, forgave no sins, and administered no sacraments.

The morality of the Romans in this as in later periods had almost no connection with religion. The Romans did not ask their gods to reward them for virtue, but to bestow upon the community and their families material blessings. Morality lay in patriotism and respect for authority and tradition. The chief virtues were bravery, honour, self-discipline, reverence for one’s ancestors, and loyalty to country and family. Loyalty to Rome took precedence over everything else. For the good of the Republic, citizens had to be ready to sacrifice not only their own lives but, if necessary, those of their family and friends.” (Lerner et al: 1993: 165-68)

So the beginning of Rome is the beginning of the art of internal war within the pyramid, as well as the art of external war outside of the pyramid as a means to power. What then was the nature of the aristocracy and patriciate that formed this Republic and kept all of its powers for themselves in regards to the story of religion and authority? Were they lovely wise philosopher kings like Plato recommends or were they takers as critical realism would have us instantly believe?

The Institutions of a Mafia – The real constitution of Rome. That Promises extracted by Force ought not to be kept

When with an army that had been stripped of its arms and had suffered such ignominious treatment, the consuls returned to Rome, the first person to speak in the senate said that the peace made at Caudium ought not to be observed. This was the consul, Spurius Postumius. He said that the Roman people were not bound by it, but that he and the others who had promised peace, were bound by it. Hence, if the people wanted to be free from any obligation, they should send him and all those who had made the promise, back to the Samnites as prisoners. He defended this view with such tenacity that the senate yielded; sent him and the others as prisoners to Samnium, and protested to the Samnites that the peace was invalid. Fortune favoured Postumius in this case, for the Samnites did not keep him, and on his return to Rome he gained more glory in the eyes of the Romans by having surrendered than Pontius gained in the eyes of the Samnites by his victory.

Two things should here be noted. One is that glory can be gained by either kind of action, for it is acquired by victory in the ordinary course, and in defeat it is acquired if you can either show that the defeat was not your fault, or can at once perform some virtuous action which cancels it out. The other is that it is not shameful to fail to keep a promise which you have been forced to make. Forced promises affecting the public will, in fact, always be broken when the force in question is removed, and this without shame to those who break them. Everywhere in history one comes across examples of this of one kind or another, and everyone is aware that it happens also at the present day. And not only are forced promises not observed by princes when the force in question is no longer operative; but we also find that all other promises are broken when the reasons which caused such promises to be made no longer hold good.” (Crick:1979:515-6)

“How would you sum up to some-one what it was like to be in Rome during the Republican era?” Dr. Michael Scott         

“If you can imagine a large mafia which doesn’t use violence between the rival clans, and is also the state, and also has a clientelistic relationship, like the mafia, with the people low down, that sense of the power of the individual families, their competitiveness, their sense of personal honour, their ease of front, and a vast amount of fixing, and money that comes out of it. I think those things are all something that would strike a Greek visitor.” Dr Edward Bispham- University of Oxford

“Polybius took a deterministic and elitist view of Roman success. He explained and, to a large extent, justified Rome’s domination by the excellence of its “mixed” constitution, by the superiority of its army, and by what he saw as the superiority of the Roman state “in the domain of religious concepts”. In the political morality of the ancient world, anyone with superiority whatsoever over his neighbours had the right, if not the duty, to make use of it. International law did not oppose the notion of “might is right”. Thus, in the view of ancient authors… the superiority of the Roman people (maiestas populi Romani) largely legitimized Rome’s domination (imperium populi Romani).” (Le Glay:2009:91)

So, stop me if the incredulity of this is too much, the Roman Republic was the most violent, godless, immoral, mafia-based exploitative system known to mankind at this point in time, whose success was based upon turning war into internal warfare and naming it virtue and discipline, which it made a god for-itself, and then justified it into the art of empire building, that we emulate today in a global race to becoming a democratic republic of individual human rights, where international law does not oppose the notion of “might is right”, because there is no other notion by which authority can be legally claimed. God has left the building and has been replaced by the law of desire. ‘I pledge allegiance to the flag’ of the State of America and its Republic, not to the Ninurga of Wakan but of Daksha. Every citizen of America begins his education, every day of his childhood life with this discipline, standing up in a public space in front of a reciprocator middle class teacher who has been educated in like manner through tradition and law and displaying their loyalty to the Republic. Who benefits from what they are then educated in? Why is it illegal to not send your children to school?

The answer to who benefits and why this education must be impressed or etched into each childs character is one simply word: Liberty. Yes it contains no morality but it is the over-riding desire of those who have been karmically born from oppressive monarchy. It is the true special relationship that America shares with Britain whose oppressive monarchy sired it as its nemesis to its hubris.

In like manner the republic of Rome, not only remembered the Etruscans they were also reminded of their loss of liberty by the Gauls:

“The first half of the fourth century BCE was marked by a historical phenomenon of major political and psychological importance for Rome: the second wave of Celtic invasions. … The first, between 390 and 280, ended in the capture of Rome…The Gauls descended a second time in around 358-354…The wars against the Gauls played an important part in the construction of a Roman national identity, the emergence of leading military men, and the conceptualization of the tumultus Gallicus as a barbarian threat against all established rules. This collective memory was still vivid in Roman political thought in the first century BCE, when Caesar conquered and Romanized Gaul.” (Le Glay et al:2009:51-52)

In like manner we could justifiably say, ‘This collective memory was still vivid in American political thought in the twentieth century AD, when Roosevelt, America’s greatest President, conquered and Americanised Britain’.

Liberty is the reason created for the cohesion of a scared oppressed people, caused by those who scared and oppressed them. It is simply the reasonable karma of a world of war that the being-for-itself has created by its desires to not be scared and oppressed whilst scaring and oppressing others. It is a vicious circle that cannot transcend itself as it has no higher purpose, and therefore has no inner world to grow into, and therefore must instead grow in the outer world. What it would do if the World was actually at liberty is turn into anarchy through its true nature of individuals being-for-itself, which is the true meaning of liberty, ‘I can do what I want’. Fortunately this situation can never come about because the world is finite and the power ‘to do what I want’ is therefore relative, so that my possession of liberty is in fact your lack of liberty and if you don’t believe me then let me just pick up this stick and make you do what I want. As Machiavelli has already told us: Liberty itself, then, arises from conflicts as did the popular institutions of the Roman constitution

Let us just reiterate this once more:

That one’s Country should be defended whether it entail ignominy or Glory, and that it is Good to defend it in any way whatsoever

…This counsel merits the attention of, and ought to be observed by, every citizen who has to give advice to his country. For when the safety of one’s country wholly depends on the decision to be taken, no attention should be paid either to justice or injustice, to kindness or cruelty, or to its being praiseworthy or ignominious. On the contrary, every other consideration being set aside, that alternative should be wholeheartedly adopted which will  save the life and preserve the freedom of one’s country.” (Crick:1979:514-5)

So liberty is a virtue but virtue is not virtuous, this is the State of the Republican State that Machiavelli and Rome and America and many other nation-states today embody, whilst stating on the artifice of their coinage that, ‘in God we trust’, whilst the value in exchange is that of liberty for-itself and oppression of others by controlling this very coinage and using it to train disciplined soldiers of liberty who require payment whilst producing nothing unless at war, thereby creating the necessity of war in order to continue paying them, in order to preserve the States liberty at the expense of others.

Of course the virtue of liberty could be a little more virtuous, and the State could last a lot longer if the soldiers were Spartans, as Machiavelli points out, because desire is controlled by equality, but the reality is that this leads to a lack of power for the takers who wish to have more power than others relatively, and hence to a lack of war as we saw with the Spartans who did not engage in war until the Athenian democracy began to create desire within their ranks and polluted their pyramid with gold and silver, instead of leather coinage.

For a system formed by a hereditary mafia Sparta is not the art of liberty, a Republic is because it does not promote equality, but inequality, and from this artifice finds greater power that it can take for-itself. I’m not saying that the American billionaire Bush family who has had two presidents, both of whom were in the C.I.A which was formed by the Skull and Bones society, which was formed by the rich landowners of America, who got their money by addicting China to Opium under the British Monarchy is a mafia, I am saying that a Republic is the art form that supports and maintains a mafias art. Mafia means, ‘a network of secret societies imposing its own justice instead of the official administration,- a worldwide criminal organization, any clique or exclusive ethnic or nonethnic group with power in a special field.’ Field means, ‘an area of land’. Therefore an exclusive ethnic or nonethnic group that holds power in an area of land is a mafia. The control of citizenship, today known as immigration, is the nonethnic group that is formed by the children born within the State and who will be educated and disciplined with its virtues and made docile, whilst those who are excepted into the family are those who are educated in like manner and can increase the power of the family. This is why the field also can be named as, ‘the field of war’.

A mafia is constantly in war with other families in order to gain its liberty from their power, and it does this by taking over the others territory. There is no morality, ‘no attention should be paid either to justice or injustice, to kindness or cruelty, or to its being praiseworthy or ignominious.’ Or to put it in more familiar Mafia language, ‘let me make you an offer you can’t refuse’.

Someone who is a part of the Mafia is called Mafioso and someone who is a part of the virtue of liberty is called a virtuoso. O so virtuous, o so mafia. Therefore a Republic is a field of war that makes the rich richer by playing off the reciprocators against the unwilling givers- scapegoats- who have now become the very citizens themselves who produce the food on the farms where they settled and became under the power of the stick that has now turned against them but still promises them liberty, equalitie and fraternitie.

This then is the quality of virtue, the idea of a protection racket as a good thing, because it protects you from other people who will not protect you, and from whom we won’t protect you either unless you pay us, and show us due respect and honours. It is a perspective experienced, created and named by soldiers in a violent world, where they see themselves as the best because without them no one would have liberty, and without liberty what hope is there for a State. Of course food is quite necessary too, and Nature, but that is not an experience of the soldier who makes his fortune by his own arms, and takes what food and land he thinks is owed to him for his service from the farmer who fed him, for a commonwealth, that denies the Nature that gave him life and continues to do so. By his very nature as a soldier he is at liberty from such truths to which he is really subject.

What we have here is a paradox. It is quite reasonable to look around you in a world of war, and to exalt oneself for the protection that ones actions are achieving for the pyramid that you are achieving it for. The art of achieving this protection is of course killing others and so this killing must be exalted by the State because if it didn’t then the soldier would not only not reciprocate but would also suffer from a major psychological illness at the injustice of his/her actions as he/she held another lifeless baby to the end of its sword and pushed it through, as the mother of the child bewailed you.

Today in Afghanistan, American soldiers who have been educated about their right to liberty, and their right to kill anyone that even threatens it, are having trouble killing people’s children who had no part in the terrorist activities that didn’t take place in the country they have invaded and didn’t contain the weapons of mass destruction that the CIA and the Senate and the President had told them were there, but instead find themselves protecting oil workers paid relatively greater amounts than them as they take the oil from this land. Most infantry are being assisted in getting past this by being handed out sciences artifice in the form of on average around ten pills each, that fight the psychological repercussions of this in the form of depression, paranoia, fear, aggression, etc, etcetera. Roman virtue contaminated with Christian virtuousness, is not a good mix, in private or in public.         

04: Machiavelli’s Virtuous Paradox – This is My Plate to Peck

Let us hear from Machiavelli about the morality of ‘having virtue’ and its reflection through this religious mirror of ‘being virtuous’, that the Roman world is about to frame under the name of Christianity, that will rename their own empire as Christendom, to better understand the problem of the necessity of virtue and the regulative dance of being virtuous that contaminates it, as the story of Christ enters the Roman World. In other words to understand the necessity of a mafia who will kill Christ in order to keep social cohesion amongst its peoples.

“Better still, perhaps, to admit defeat and to regard the term, in all its rich connotations, as untranslatable. It comes from the Roman ‘vir’ (man) and ‘virtus’ (what is proper to a man). But what is proper to a man? Courage, fortitude, audacity, skill and civic spirit- a whole classical and renaissance theory of man and culture underlies the word: man is himself at his best when active for the common good- and he is not properly a man otherwise, politics is not a necessary evil, it is the very life. It has little or nothing to do with the Christian concept of virtue and virtousness- virtuosity is closer to the mark. Machiavelli, indeed, sees virtú and the Christian doctrines of humility as directly opposed. Usually the word is far from morally neutral. To say ‘life-force’, ‘guts’, ‘will power’, ‘valour’ or ‘high spirit’ helps in understanding its predominant meaning to Machiavelli, but is insufficient….But ordinarily, as must be plain to anyone who reads The Discourses as well as The Prince, virtú to destroy a city. Hence it always implies a political morality. ‘Civic spirit’ is probably the best simple translation– if by ‘spirit’ one means spirited action, like the arête of the early Greeks- as in Homer’s description of Achilles as being ‘a do’er of deeds and a speaker of words’; and in Machiavelli’s relishing and significance of Achilles’ tutor having been a centaur, ‘half-beast and half-man’. Lastly, while he often uses the term in a hortatory way- people should recover their virtú while there is time, or should not have let it idle away into ozio (indolence or corruption) –its force is as often empirical. Does a state have virtú among its inhabitants or not? Are there in a word, citizens?” (Crick:1979:58-9)

“His aim should be to emulate Philip of Macedon, the father of Alexander, who, starting as a little king, by these methods made himself prince of Greece. Of him a writer says that he moved men from province to province as shepherds move their sheep.

Such methods are exceedingly cruel, and are repugnant to any community, not only to a Christian one, but to any composed of men. It behoves, therefore, every man to shun them, and to prefer to live as a private citizen than as a king with such ruination of men to his score. None the less, for the sort of man who is unwilling to take up his first course of well doing, it is expedient, should he wish to hold what he has, to enter on the path of wrong doing. Actually, most men prefer to steer a middle course which is very harmful, for they know not how to be wholly good or wholly bad.’

Such actions may be, in this conditional sense, necessary or, at least, expedient, but Machiavelli will never call them good. They are neither good to Christians nor to any community of men. Better, by both moralities, to retire into private life; but do not think, in such circumstances, that such actions can be avoided by someone. Someone has to take up the dirty work.

But this, of course, is the harshest possible case. Some such ruthlessness, however, he considers is necessary also in the glorious actions, which deserve to be ever memorable, of creating or defending a republic. Here we have- what? A decision to take between two conflicting moralities? Or simply two conflicting moralities? I follow Sir Isaiah Berlin in thinking the latter to be true, and that this is Machiavelli’s terrible originality. He never denies that what Christians call good, is in fact good: ‘humility, kindness, scruples, unworldliness, faith in God, sanctity… But there is also the morality of the pagan world: virtú, citizenship, heroism, public achievement, and the preservation and the cultural enrichment of the city-state.

Father Walker does not put it quite so starkly and pithily, but essentially he agrees. For Machiavelli, he says, never ‘calls right wrong or wrong right. He prefers to state boldly that if security be their aim, there are occasions on which rulers must know how to do wrong…He is perfectly frank, and if his very frankness makes his statements sound more shocking, it at any rate clarifies the issue. His claim is that, in the sphere of politics, a good end justifies what is morally wrong.’

Actions, then, can be morally wrong by Christian standards but morally right by Pagan standards. Like both Villari, in his great biography, and Walker, the modern reader should take Machiavelli’s paganism very seriously. It is in this context that his constant remarks, throughout both works, on the usefulness of religion are to be understood, and on the duty of the prince to make his people fear God. Religion helps mightily in creating civic cohesion and social discipline. But which religion?

He tells us unambiguously:

‘If one asks oneself how it comes about that peoples of old were more fond of liberty than they are today, I think the answer is… due… to the difference between our education and that of bygone times, which is based on the difference between our religion and the religion of those days… The old religion did not beatify men unless they were full of worldly glory: army commanders, for instance, and rulers of republics. Our religion has glorified humble and contemplative men, rather than men of action. It has assigned as man’s highest good humility, abnegation and contempt for worldly things, whereas the other identified it with magnanimity, bodily strength and everything else that tends to make very bold… But though it looks as if the world were to become effeminate and as if heaven were powerless, this undoubtedly is due rather to the pusillanimity of those who have interpreted our religion in terms of laissez faire [l’ozio] not in terms of valour [virtú]. (Discourses II.2)

The ‘old religion’ is best- for the preservation of the state and the encouragement of virtú. But again, as much as Machiavelli rails against the corruption of the Papacy and the Church, he both shows respect for ‘true Christians’ and the ideals of the primitive church,  and uses Christian standards to say that many ‘necessities of state’ are evil actions. They are bad by one standard, but good (or pardonable if successful) by another.

There is thus something far more profound in Machiavelli than simply a distinction between what is right and what is possible, or a reminder of ‘the price’ we may have to pay for ‘seeming good’ actions. Two standards are at work simultaneously. He implicitly challenges the whole traditional view that morality must be of one piece. He is not, strictly speaking, a relativist: he only recognizes two views, but then he only really recognizes two circumstances: historically, the ancient and the modern world, and politically, the republic and the principality, He never shows the slightest wish to reinterpret morality so as to be subordinate to a theory of the state (as did Hobbes and Hegel in their different ways); and nor is he simply taking politics out of morality or putting it above morality. The sense in which, in effect, he advocates a political morality is not in terms of a divorce between ethics and politics, but in terms of the prime and heroic dignity given to politics and political action in classical pagan morality. He sees all the time two moralities side-by-side each making conflicting demands: the morality of the soul and the morality of the city.

Had he been a philosopher, he might have felt bound to try to bridge this gap- in some conventional and perhaps evasive way. But being an extremely free, original and honest mind, he did better: he noticed that in practice nearly everyone is torn in these two directions. And he saw clearly that the best kind of men of action did not simply represent the inferiority of action to morality, but that they pursued different ends which called for- and certainly got- different kinds of justification. True, some men of power were so cruel and so selfish, lacking in either Roman virtues or Christian graces, that they were despicable or damned on both counts. But for most men, it was not a gap between theory and practice, but between two different theories of practice or different practices of theory. The one sought the glory, welfare and safety of the state; the other, the safety of the soul or (even in secular terms) the purity of conscience. The one sought immortality in terms of worthy public deeds that would never be forgotten by free men; the other sought immortality in terms of- to men- the anonymous and unknown transactions of an individual with God.

Certainly, suspended between these two moralities, Machiavelli did achieve a radically secular viewpoint. He laid the basis for a secular study of society, and showed why in the future, more and more, the exercise of power had to be justified in secular and utilitarian terms. Politics itself emerges as a secular activity and it is, in a narrow but clear sense, autonomous, in that one can if one wishes, by the new ‘politic art’, and if one has both skill and will, is both a lion and a fox, change the character of human society or- and politics is the only means to this end- ensure its preservation. But should one wish to do so? This question is just as real to Machiavelli and the answer is quite plain: ‘yes’, by one set of moral standards, and ‘no’ by the other….But precisely because he did not create a new and secular moral synthesis, he left the world with what he found, recognized and dramatized– an uncomfortable and at times almost unbearable dilemma: two sets of traditional standards, often leading in completely opposite directions, but neither of them to be abandoned. There are times when it is necessary to do admittedly evil things for the preservation and the welfare of the political community- and if one is not so willing, one is simply stepping outside politics and incidentally, abandoning it to those who have no scruples. But if one is willing, then, he seems to say, for God and man’s sake, recognize that what for the moment you are doing is evil, and do not fall into calling it good. It is this radical dualism which has made him so acutely disturbing to people who insist on finding a single truth, or who try to reduce all theories and doctrines to particular and contingent events- so disturbing that they plunge into so many different and fervid interpretations of Machiavelli’s ‘real meaning’, all designed to evade this awkward duality, this ultimate incoherence, not in Machiavelli, but in our whole culture- perhaps in the nature of things. ‘Machiavelli’s theory was a sword which was plunged into the flank of the body politic of Western humanity, causing it to cry out and struggle with itself’.” (Crick:1979:62-67)

To understand Machiavelli’s paradox of right and wrong one must be ignorant, as Machiavelli was of the previous 40,000 years that we have discussed in the previous chapters. As we saw Machiavelli, like Hobbes, presumes that the world before civilization was ‘nasty, brutish and short’ as his common sense tells him by the sensory experiences he commonly sees enacted around him, the same experieces that we experience today, and hence find 40,00 years of peace almost unbelievable despite now knowing it quite intimately.

Machiavelli’s paradox then arises from this misconception of man’s nature. He believes that man’s nature is one of desire, a desire for the city life and a desire for the soul life, but these variants of life are always bound around one reality. The reality of the individual, that Greece has so dramatically crafted. In Machiavelli’s world, the individual is the only entity through which to perceive the world and so this paradox stands, but this is the mark of Cain that underpins it and brings it into reality by the magical force of reason, rights and war that produce it.

What we now know is that the paradox does not stand up to reality, in reality. For the being-in-Being who lived with Wakan, in Wakan, with all of Nature, there was no city-life and therefore no concept of the word liberty that it conjures, creating a distance that must be framed by its opposing reality, soul life. We know that city life is a result of settled life, that results in the power to feed the nature of desire that is a part of our human nature. The ability to increase ones possessions and population brought about by settling IS the nature of city life that IS the nature of War that IS the taker of liberty that IS the distance between the soul and God that IS experienced as the Ego as a feeling of lack, fear and hope.

Machiavellis view of the world is that of a being-for-itself who is the urgrund reality that must find its purpose as an Object either of the State or of the Individual Soul that the ego perceives as an individual thing for all eternity, as we saw with the resultant common sense story of heaven and hell. This is Machiavelli’s world and experience which results in a life where, ‘most people try to choose a dual path between them’, a life where in this world they are wealthy and in the next world they have a mansion in heaven for eternity.

From this realty therefore the settled life is not only our right, but, as in Aristotles words, ‘the life that separates us from the animals and our animal spirit of desire’. From this perspective therefore it is reasonable and right to state that, ‘Someone has to take up the dirty work’ of maintaining the power of liberty in order for one to have the power to choose the soul life in the first place. This is a paradox that Christianity will play out from the other side of the same court in the medieval world, as we shall see due to its common experience of an individual soul, and not a State of altjira where the totem, the ancestor and ones own existence are a path of the spirit of Wakan and are not truly separate.

This ‘Altjira’ experience for ourselves today is almost impossible for us to imagine and so it may be very hard to understand why Machiavelli’s paradox is not a paradox at all. There is no virtue in liberty because there is no liberty in liberty, only war. There is no virtuous life to be lived in a State of liberty because liberty itself destroys virtuous goals, such as ‘humility, kindness, scruples, unworldliness, faith in God’, because these virtuous goals are to be attained, to be possessed, because they are distant from us. They are not distant at all because they are within us, within our nature, but have become separate from our experience of them, because we feed the desirous ego of city life and thereby feed the distance that keeps us separate from being humble, kind and unworldly. It is a distance that not only sends us out from the Garden of Eden, in an inner world, but that turns that Garden into a desert in the real world. A desert that we cannot escape because it is real, but that we attempt to run from in flight to a worlding of Liberty for the individuals who can fight to make it. By this logic then, these individuals who fight are to be honoured for the dirty work that they do, but never thought of as good- virtuous.

The mistake that Machiavelli makes is to call this world- the Pagan religion, but as we have seen in Greece and are about to witness in Rome, the Pagan religion has got nothing to do with city life, but is co-opted by the experience of city-life into what Machiavelli understood as the Pagan religion. To the Romans, as we saw above, the gods were of little consequence, whilst to the Greeks we saw them being democratically being egoically removed from their temples and turned into entertainment in the drama triangle of theatre. The goat-song of the true meaning of Pagan religion became the State song of Pagan religion that bore the virtue of liberty from its desires.

In other words, Machiavelli sees the world of being-for-itself and being-for-Others but is completely unaware of the world of being-in-Being and therefore he creates this paradox, a paradox that to many scholars and politicians today still seems to stand upon firm ground because they also make this mistake.

In order to elucidate this from a different angle let us take the word liberty and transform it, as we took the word virtue and transformed it into virtuousness. We will transform it by translating it into the perspective of the being-in-Being from that of the being-for-itself and thereby understand the difference and see beyond the paradox.

In order for us to do this we must once again return to the language of being-in-Being, the perspective of wakan as one spirit. We will return to the goat-song of the uni-verse and try to understand liberation from this perspective and see that the meaning of liberty falls away as an illusion of stick-wielder who believes in his self as an individual who exists inherently without the state of Nature that surrounds him and offers this very liberation which he denies by fighting for his liberty.

The Goat-Song of Wakan

The Hekaloth, a Hebrew esoteric book on the heavenly spheres puts it another way:

“…each time a new soul descends into the ocean of the manifested realm, it generates a vibration which is communicated to the entire cosmic ocean which means all created realms, entirely and heavenly, physical and super-physical. As each of these vibrations brings into resonance a host of consonant tones throughout the universal, their unimaginable interference’s produce globally the symphony of the spheres referred to by Pythagoras. Each Creature… is a crystallization of a part of this symphony of vibration. Thus we are like a sound petrified in solid matter and which continues indefinitely to resound in this matter.” (p.229 The Healing Forces of Music-Randall McClellan PHD)

 The first item on the agenda of this section is an apology from me about the extent of it, or rather its lack of extent, especially in regards to proof by quotes from others as I have promised you, the reader, at the beginning of this book!

I can only promise that my next book will cover all of this section is vast and beautiful quotes from others in order to elucidate what you are about to read. The point that I am trying to make however is not made by me but is a quote from another scholar and so I think that as long as someone else makes the point of this section then perhaps my quick path to it, backed by the promise of greater elucidation of all I am about to say, may be permissible for now.      

In western religions, the goat-song of Dionysus, has become known by the three major monotheistic religions as, the sacred name of God. In Judaism, this name is never to be spoken but is held as the most sacred secret by only the high-priest. At the same time as the Romans existed, so did the Temple of Solomon that housed the Ark of the Covenant in its centre, in a part of the temple called, ‘The Holy of Holies’, that we met earlier in regards to Noah sitting naked in his tabernacle, and the rainbow and the flood. Once a year the high-priest would enter the Holy of Holies and utter the secret name of God. For those completely ignorant of this, I refer you to the Monty Python film, ‘The Life of Brian’ where a man is being stoned for saying the Name of God, Jehovah and to the less well known film ‘Pi’ where the sacred name of God is still trying to be discovered by the Jews who have lost it due to the persecution of the Jews by the Romans who will tear down their sacred temple and kill the high-priest who knew this sacred name. The root of the freemasons comes from the story that the architect of the Temple of Solomon knew this sacred name. So it is a big deal in religion today still.

However, of course, this sacred name was known for thousands and thousands and thousands of years before the Jews, the earliest of these founding faiths, existed, and so there is a whole gamut of documents that tell us what this sacred name is, going back to the oldest written records in the coffin texts of ancient Egypt and the Sumerian Tablets of Babylon around 3,500 B.C. Babylon being the place where the Jews were held captive for generations, where biblical scholars believed that they first wrote down the very beginning words of the bible, the first book of Genesis.

What then is this name and why is God named so?

We have already seen that God cannot be revealed in a form, as the ‘nothing of infinite possibilities’, that it represents cannot be represented as one form, and therefore in Judaism and Islam God is depicted by this very nothing framed within a holy space, whilst in Hinduism God is depicted by a rock that has no form imposed upon it. The Name of God therefore reveals this same truth through language as it is spoken by being a formless sound that transcends the single form of meaning that a word inherently contains. How confusing is that sentence.

To understand this we must understand the dual nature of language construction that the nature of consonants and the nature of vowels impart to it when spoken. All of the consonants are finite sounds that give form to the infinite sounds of vowels. Try continuing the sound of a consonant and you find that you cannot because by its nature it ends. Now try to continue the sound of a vowel and you will find that it can continue forever.

Therefore vowels represent the infinite energy of wakan that science recognises but that can only find evidence for when it is framed by matter, which is represented by the consonants that make these infinite sounds become finite ones that matter, that frame our world in forms of thought and perception as language-traps.

When an infinite sound is encapsulated into a word by framing consonants around it then it becomes defined, Named in its meaning by its purpose. It is given form and can be said to hold that energy and shape it to its purpose. To stop the Nature of God being defined, the Jews chose to keep the name of God undefined by keeping it as a secret only to be spoken within the Holy of Holies, in just the same manner as Noah was naked in the Tabernacle and his sons could not understand him because he was drunk on the spirit of God by intoning this sacred Name.

Due to the violent nature of the birth of the Jewish people, from captivity, and then through war, and then through subjection, this is not a surprising reaction.

In the East however this sacred Name was not at first kept a secret but was freely given to everyone and formed the foundation of all the sacred songs to all the of the gods Natures that were identified and worshipped from this one song, this uni-verse. It was only later on that it was kept back by the priests in order to increase their power and became lost, as we shall see below.

The Name of God is simply the vowels being sung, without any consonants placing form upon the infinite flow of energy that resounds. Whilst this may seem to be a bit trite at first, I will now attempt to get you to experience why it is not rather than prove it through reams of quotes throughout the entire history of mankind as I will in my next book.

Science tells us that all of the universe is in reality energy and that matter is nothing more than the vibration of that energy at different rates that we experience through our senses as light by the eyes, sound by the ears, touch by skin, and taste by the tongue. To extend this common sense reality to a wakan reality, we can therefore say that the entire universe is vibrating and that the human being is like a musical instrument with five strings that resonate to the vibrations of energy that it is tuned to. To elucidate this into reality one needs only to pick up a pitch fork and hold it near another pitch fork of the same key and bang it. This will set of a vibration through the universe that the other pitch fork, being tuned in like manner, will resonate to and it will begin to vibrate in harmony with it through this invisible force, as if by magic.

Therefore if one is to tune ones self to pick up the vibrations of the universe then one must become attuned to it by tightening some areas of ones nature, and slackening others. By attuning oneself one may find that a string of common sense that previously resonated to the song of virtue begins to resonate to the song of virtuous, and a feeling of discord becomes a feeling of harmony through the karmic actions that tightened the string that changed the resonance of the body of the instrument of Wakan.

Let us then hear the reason behind the sacred sound and the name of this sacred sound as it is described non-secretively by the eastern religions, before we take up the experiment and try to sing this song for ourselves. From here we will have attained the experience of the difference between the feeling of liberty and liberation by which to understand the nature of being-in-Being a little more and to understand the truth that unveils the lie of the paradox of Machiavelli’s liberty, where someone HAS to take up the dirty work:

The Magic of Words and the Power of Speech

‘All that is visible, clings to the invisible,

The audible to the inaudible,

The tangible to the intangible,

Perhaps the thinkable to the unthinkable.’

Novalis

“Words are seals of the mind, results- or, more correctly, stations- of an infinite series of experiences, which reach from an unimaginably distant past into the present, and which feel their way into an equally unimaginable distant future. They are ‘the audible that clings to the inaudible’, the forms and potentialities of thought, which grow from that which is beyond thought.

The essential nature of words is therefore neither exhausted by their present meaning, nor is their importance confined to their usefulness as transmitters of thoughts and ideas, but they express at the same time qualities which are not translatable into concepts- just as a melody which, though it may be associated with a conceptual meaning, cannot be described by words or by any other medium of expression. And it is just that irrational quality which stirs up our deepest feelings, elevates our innermost being, and makes it vibrate with others.

The magic which poetry exerts upon us, is due to this quality and the rhythm combined therewith. It is stronger than what the words convey objectively- stronger even than reason with all its logic, in which we believe so firmly. The success of great speakers is not only due to what they say, but how they say it. If people could be convinced by logic and scientific proofs, the philosophers would long since have succeeded in winning over the greater part of humanity to their views.

On the other hand, the sacred books of the great world-religions would never have been able to exert such an enormous influence, because what they convey in form of thoughts is little, compared to the works of great scholars and philosophers. We are therefore justified in saying that the power of those sacred scriptures was due to the magic of the word, i.e., due to its sacred power, which was known to the Wise of the past, who were still near to the sources of language.

The birth of language was the birth of humanity. Each word was the sound-equivalent of an experience, connected with an internal or external stimulus. A tremendous creative effort was involved in this process,, which must have extended over a vast period of time; and it is due to this effort that man was able to rise above the animal.

If art can be called the re-creation and formal expression of reality through the medium of human experience, then the creation of language may be called the greatest achievement of art. Each word originally was a focus of energies, in which the transformation of the human soul- took place. Through these vocal creations man took possession of the world- and more than that: he discovered a new dimension, a world within himself, opening upon the vista of a higher form of life, which is as much beyond the present state of humanity as the consciousness of a civilized man is above that of an animal.

The presentiment of the higher state of existence is connected with certain experiences, which are so fundamental, that they can neither be explained nor described. They are so subtle that there is nothing to which they can be compared, nothing to which thought or imagination can cling. And yet, such experiences are more real than anything else we can see, think of, touch, taste, hear, or smell- because they are concerned with that which precedes and includes all other sensations, and which for that reason cannot be identified with any of them. It is, therefore, only be means of symbols that such experiences may be hinted at, and these symbols again are not invented arbitrarily, but are spontaneous expressions, breaking through the deepest regions of the human mind.

‘The forms of divine life in the universe and in nature break forth from the seer as vision, from the singer as sound, are there in the spell of vision and soun, pure and undisguised. Their existence is the characteristic of the priestly power of the seer-poet (of the kavi, who is drashtar). What sounds from his mouth, is not the ordinary word, the shabda, of which speech is composed. It is mantra, the compulsion to create a mental image, power over that which IS, to be as it really is in its pure essence. Thus it is knowledge. It is the truth of being, beyond right and wrong; it is real being beyond thinking and reflecting. It is “knowledge” pure and simple, knowledge of the Essential, Veda (Greek “oida”, German “wissen”, to know). It is the direct simultaneous awareness of the knower and the known. Just as it was a kind of spiritual compulsion with which the seer-poet was over-powered by vision and word, thus, for all times, wherever there are men who know how to use mantra-words, they will possess the magic power to conjure up immediate reality- be it in form of gods or in the play of forces.

In the words mantra the root man= “to think” (in Greek “menos,” Latin “mens”) is combined with the element tra, which forms tool-words. Thus mantra is a “tool for thinking”, a “thing which creates a mental picture”. With its sound it calls forth its content into a state of immediate reality. Mantra is power, not merely speech which the mind can contradict or evade. What the mantra expresses by its sound, exists, comes to pass. Here, if anywhere, words are deeds, acting immediately. It is the peculiarity of the true poet that his word creates actuality, calls forth and unveils something real. His word does not talk- it acts!”

Thus, the word in the hours of its birth was a centre of force and reality, and only habit has stereotyped it into a mere conventional medium of expression. The mantra escaped this fate to a certain extent, because it had no concrete meaning and could therefore not be made to subserve utilitarian ends.

But while mantras have survived, their tradition has almost died out, and there are but few nowadays who know how to use them. Modern humanity is not even able to imagine how profoundly the magic of word and speech was experienced in ancient civilizations and the enormous influence it had on the entire life, especially in its religious aspects.

In this age of broadcasting and newspapers, in which the spoken and the written word is multiplied a millionfold and is indiscriminately thrown at the public, its value has reached such a low standard, that it is difficult to give even a faint idea of the reverence with which people of more spiritual times or more religious civilizations approached the word, which to them was the vehicle of a hallowed tradition and the embodiment of the spirit.” (Govinda:1977:17-20)

The Origin and the Universal Character of the Sacred Syllable Om

The importance which was attached to the word in ancient India, may be seen from the following quotation:

‘The essence of all beings is earth,

The essence of earth is water,

The essence of water are the plants,

The essence of the plants is man,

The essence of man is speech,

The essence of speech is the Rgveda,

The essence of the Rgveda is the Samaveda,

The essence of the Samaveda is the Udgita (which is OM).

That Udgita is the best of all essences the highest,

Deserving the highest place, the eighth.’

(Chandogya Upanisad)

“Demetrius, the first century BC Alexandrian philosopher, after discussing in his treaty On Style the elision of vowels and hiatus…illustrates the advantages of hiatus with:

“In Egypt the priests sing hymns to the gods by uttering the seven vowels in succession, the sound of which produces as strong a musical impression on their hearers as if flute and lyre were used.”…He does not say what priests they were or to what gods they addressed themselves, but it is safe to guess that they were the gods of the seven-day week, comprising a single transcendent deity, and that the hymn contained the seven vowels with which Simonides provided the Greek alphabet and was credited with a therapeutic effect…We know from Hyginus’s account that Simonides added Omega (long O) and Eta (long E) to the original seven letters AOUEIFH, invented by the Fates, “or some say mercury”, and that he also removed H aspirate from the alphabet by allotting its character to Eta. If he did this for religious reasons, the eight fold name of God. containing the Digamma F (V) and H aspirate- the lofty name which gave Gwion his sense of power and authority- was perhaps: JEHUOVAO, but spelt for security reasons as: JEBUOTAO…and if I have got it right, will be, “the eight-fold city of light” in which the, “Word”, which was Thoth, Hermes, Mercury and for the Gnostics, Jesus Christ was said to dwell…JIEVOAO, the earlier seven-letter form, recalls many guesses at the, “Blessed Name of the Holy One of Israel” made by scholars, priests and magicians in the old days…The Heads of the Phrisaic academies also claimed to know it.

Clement of Alexandria did not know it, but he guessed an original IAOOUE- which is found in Jewish-Egyptian magical papyri, “Zeus Thunderer, King Adonai, Lord Iaooue” -also expanded to IAOUAI and IAOOUAI. The disguised official formula, JEHOWIH or JEHOWAH, written JHWH for short, suggests that by the time of Jesus the Jews had adopted the revised name.” (The White Goddess p279)

In other words: the latent forces and qualities of earth and water are concentrated and transformed into the higher organism of the plant; the forces of the plants are transformed and concentrated in man; the forces of man are concentrated in the faculties of mental reflection and expression by way of sound-equivalents, which through combination produce the inner (conceptual) and outer (audible) forms of speech, by which man distinguishes himself from all lower forms of life.

The most valuable expression of this spiritual achievement, the summary of its experiences, is the sacred knowledge (veda) in form of poetry (Rgveda) and music (Samaveda). Poetry is subtler than prose, because its rhythm produces a higher unity and loosens the fetters of our mind. But music is subtler than poetry, because it carries us beyond the meaning of words into a state of intuitive receptivity.

Finally, both rhythm and melody find their synthesis and their solution (which may appear as dissolution to the ordinary intellect) in the one profound and all-embracing vibration of the sacred sound OM. Here the apex of the pyramid has been reached, ascending from the plane of greatest differentiation and materialization…to the point of ultimate unification and spiritualization, just a s a seed or germ (bija) does. In this sense OM is the quintessence, the seed-syllable (bija–mantra) of the universe, the magic word par excellence (that was the original meaning of the word Brahman), the universal force of the all-embracing consciousness.” (Govinda:1977:21-22)

“The secret of this hidden power of sound or vibration, which forms the key to the riddles of creation and of creativeness, as it reveals the nature of things and of the phenomena of life, had been well understood by the seers of olden times: the Rishis who inhabited the slopes of the Himalayas, the Magi of Iran, the adepts of Mesopotamia, the priests of Egypt, and the mysteries of Greece- to mention only those of whom tradition has left some traces.

Pythagoras, who himself was an initiate of Eastern wisdom and who was the founder of one of the most influential schools of mystic philosophy in the West, spoke of the ‘Harmony of the Spheres’, according to which each celestial body- in fact each and every atom- produced a particular sound on account of its movement, its rhythm, or vibration. All these sounds and vibrations form a universal harmony in which each element, while having its own function and character, contributed to the unity of the whole.

The idea of creative sound was continued in the teachings of the logos, which were partly absorbed by early Christianity, as we can see from the Gospel of St John, which begins with the mysterious words: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word was made flesh…’

If these profound teachings, which were about to link up Christianity with Gnostic philosophy and with the traditions of the East had been able to maintain their influence, the universal message of Christ would have been saved from the pitfalls of intolerance and narrow-mindedness.

But the knowledge of the creative sound lived on in India…Alexandra David-Neel describes in the eighth chapter of her Tibetan Journey a ‘master of sound’, who not only was able to produce all kinds of strange sounds on his instrument, a kind of cymbal, but who- like Pythagoras- explained that all beings or things produce sounds according to their nature and to the particular state in which they find themselves. “This is”, he said, “because these beings and things are aggregates of atoms that dance and by their movements produce sounds…Each atom perpetually sings its song, and the sound create each moment of dense or subtle forms…

This means that the power and effect of a mantra depend on the spiritual attitude, the knowledge and the responsiveness of the individual. The sabda or soud of the mantra is not a physical sound (though it may be accompanied by such a one) but a spiritual one…

Mantras are not ‘spells’, as even prominent Western scholars repeat again and again, nor are those who have attained proficiency (siddhi) in them ‘sorcerers’…Mantras do not act on account of their own ‘magic’ nature, but only through the mind that experiences them. They do not possess any power of their own; they are only the means for concentrating already existing forces- just as a magnifying glass, though it does not contain any heat of its own, is able to concentrate the rays of the sun and to transform their mild warmth into incandescent heat.

This may appear as sorcery to the bushman, because he sees only the effect, without knowing the causes and their inner connexions… And if there have been scholars who tried to discover the nature of mantras with the tools of philological knowledge and came to the conclusion that they were ‘meaningless gibberish’, because they had neither grammatical structure nor logical meaning, then we can only say that such a procedure was like pursuing butterflies with a sledge hammer.

Quite apart from the inadequacy of means, it is astonishing that such scholars, without the slightest personal experience and without every attempting to study the nature and the methods of mantric tradition and practice under a competent spiritual teacher (guru), arrogate to themselves the right to judge and to pronounce opinions.”

(Govinda:1977:25-8)

The Decadence of Mantric Tradition

Mantric knowledge can be called a secret doctrine with as much or as little justification as higher mathematics, physics, or chemistry, which to the ordinary man who is not acquainted with the symbols and formulae of these sciences, appear like a book with seven seals. But just as the ultimate discoveries of these sciences can be misused for purposes of personal or political power and are therefore kept secret by interested parties (like state-governments), in the same way mantric knowledge became a victim of power-politics of certain castes or classes of society at certain times.

In ancient India the Brahmin, the priestly class, made the knowledge of mantras a prerogative or privilege of their caste, thereby forcing all those who did not belong to their class, blindly to accept the dictates of tradition. In this way it happened that what once streamed forth from religious ecstasy and inspiration, turned into dogma, and finally reacted even on the originators of this tradition as irresistible compulsion. Knowledge became mere belief; and belief, without the corrective of experience, turned into superstition.” (Govinda:1977:29-30)

Govinda then tells us that from this state of political power playing secrecy of the Hindu Aryan religion arose Buddhism that re-embraced the original meaning of OM:

“And so it happened that in the moment in which Buddhism became conscious of its world-mission and entered the arena of world-religions, the sacred syllable OM became again the ‘leitmotif’ of religious life, the symbol of an all-embracing urge of liberation, in which the experience of oneness and solidarity are not the ultimate aim but the preconditition of real liberation and perfect enlightenment. It was the symbol for an urge of liberation, which was no more anxiously concerned with one’s own salvation or the union of one’s own soul (atman) with the soul of the universe (Brahman), but which was based upon the understanding that all beings and things are inseparably connected and interwoven with each other, so that all discrimination of ‘own’ and ‘other’ is illusion, and that we first have to destroy this illusion by penetrating to the universal consciousness within us, before we can accomplish the work of liberation.” (Govinda:1977:46)

“OM is the primordial sound of timeless reality, which vibrates within us from the beginningless past and which reverberates in us, if we have developed our inner sense of hearing by the perfect pacification of our mind…

The sound OM if pronounced in the heart and from the lips of a sincere devotee in full faith, is like the opening of the arms to embrace all that lives. It is not an expression of self-expansion, but rather of universal acceptance.” (Govinda:1977:47)

Transformation and the Realization of Completeness

“The experience of infinity which is expressed in the sacred syllable OM…is thus deepened and counterbalanced by the experience of the inner unity and solidarity of all life and consciousness. This unity, which is not brought about by an arbitrary idenitification of one’s own consciousness with that of other living beings (i.e., not from the outside), but which results from the profound knowledge that the conception of ‘self’ and ‘not-self’, ‘I’ and ‘not-I’ ‘own’ and ‘other’ rests on the illusion of our surface consciousness, and that the knowledge and the experience of the equality (samata) of beings consists in the realization of that ultimate completeness which is latent in every being…. The differences in the development of beings are due to the greater or lesser degree of this knowledge or experience…

The Yogacarins, however, who tried to put into practice the teachings of the Vijnanavada- and among them especially the Masters of the Mystic Path, the Siddhas- endeavoured to build a bridge between the ‘here’ and the ‘there’, thus not only spanning the abyss, but investing our earthly life with the aura of the supreme goal towards which this life was directed and thereby making it into an inspired tool of liberation.

‘Selfhood’ and ‘universe’ are only the ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ of the same illusion. The realization of completeness, however, has all the characteristics of universality, without presuming an external cosmos, and has likewise all the characteristics of individual experience without presuming an ego-entity. The idea of the realization of completeness escapes the dualistic concepts of unity and plurality, of ‘I’ and ‘not-I’, or whatever we may call the pairs of opposites, as long as we move on the plane of our empirical consciousness. It is an idea which is applicable to all planes of experience and existence, from the material to the highest spiritual, from the empirically given to the metaphysically sensed. The way of completeness is not one of suppression and annihilation, but the way of development and sublimation of all of our faculties: a way which avoids premature judgement and which examines the fruits.

A Modern Master of the Mystic Path in the West has put this idea into immortal words: ‘Transiency hurls itself everywhere into a deep state of being. And therefore all forms of this our world are not only to be used in a time-bound (time-limited) sense, but should be included in those phenomena of superior significance in which we participate (or of which we are a part). However, it is not in the Christian sense, but in the purely earthly, profoundly earthly, joyfully earthly consciousness, that we should introduce, what we have seen and touched here, into the widest circumference. Not into a “beyond” whose shadow darkens the earth, but into the whole, into the universe. Nature, the things of our daily contact and use, all these are preliminaries and transiencies: however, they are, as long as we are here, our possessions, our friendships, participants of our pain and pleasure, in the same way as they were the trusted friends of our ancestors.

Therefore we should not only refrain from vilifying and depreciating all that belongs to this our world, but on the contrary, on account of its very preliminary nature which it shares with us, these phenomena and things should be understood and transformed by us in the innermost sense. – Transformed?- Yes, because it is our task to impress upon ourselves this preliminary, transient earth in so deep, so painful, so passionate a manner, that its essential nature is “invisibly” resurrected within us. Within us alone can this intimate and constant transformation of the visible into the invisible take place…’ (R.M.Rilke; Letters from Muzot, p.371 f.)” (Govinda;1977:81-2)

How then can the sound OM vibrate our body which is the visible empirical soul of atoms that are all just energy as sound as science agrees and has discovered as true itself through its own sounding out of the truth? It even has a picture of this sound at 300,000 years old and it is called the Cosmic Radioactive Background, that marks the first empirical moment that this sound can be measured.

05: OM – The Sacred Name of God

 “The essence of all beings is earth,

     the essence of earth is water,

     the essence of water are the plants,

     the essence of the plants is man,

     the essence of man is speech,

     the essence of speech is the Rgveda,

     the essence of the Rgveda is the Samaveda,

     the essence of the Samaveda is the Udgita (which is Om)

     That Udgita is the best of all essences, the highest,

     Deserving the highest place, the eighth.”

Chandogya Upanisad

“In other words: the latent forces and qualities of earth and water are concentrated and transformed into the higher organism of the plant; the forces of the plants are transformed and concentrated in man; the forces of man are concentrated in the faculties of mental reflection and expression by way of sound-equivalents, which through combination produce the inner (conceptual) and outer (audible) forms of speech, by which man distinguishes himself from all lower forms of life.

The most valuable expression of this spiritual achievement, the summary of its experiences, is the sacred knowledge (veda) in the form of poetry (Rgveda) and music (Samaveda)…but music is subtler than poetry, because it carries us beyond the meaning of the words into a state of intuitive receptivity.

Finally both rhythm and melody find their synthesis and their solution (which may appear as dissolution to the ordinary intellect) in the one profound and all-embracing vibration of the sacred sound Om. Here the apex of the pyramid has been reached, ascending from the plane of the greatest differentiation and materialization (in the gross elements: mahabhuta) to the point of ultimate unification and spiritualization, which contains the latent properties of all previous stages, just as a seed or germ does. In this sense Om is the quintessence, the seed syllable (bija-mantra) of the universe, the magic word par excellence…”Just as a spider climbs up on its thread and gains freedom, so the yogin climbs towards liberation by means of the syllable Om.” 3

“In the Mandukya Upanisad the sound values of Om and their symbolic interpretation are described in the following manner: ‘O’ is a combination of ‘A’ and ‘U’; the whole syllable, therefore, consists of three elements, namely A-U-M. Since Om is the expression of the highest faculty of consciousness, these 3 elements are explained accordingly as three planes of consciousness: ‘A’ as the waking consciousness (jagrat), ‘U’ as the dream-consciousness (svapna) and ‘M’ as the consciousness during deep sleep (susupti). OM as a whole represents the all-encompassing cosmic consciousness (turiya) on the fourth plane, beyond words and concepts- the consciousness of the fourth dimension.

The expressions, ‘waking consciousness’, ‘dream-consciousness’, and ‘deep-sleep-consciousness’ should however not be taken literally, but as: I. the subjective consciousness of the external world, i.e., our ordinary consciousness; 2. the consciousness of our inner world, i.e., the world of our thoughts, feelings, desires and aspirations, which we may also call our spiritual consciousness; and 3. the consciousness of undifferentiated unity, which is no more split into subject and object and rests completely in itself. …

The fourth and highest state, however (turiya), is described in different ways by different schools of thought, according to their conception of what should be regarded as the highest aim or ideal. To some it is a state of isolation (kevlata), of pure self-existence, to others a merging into a higher being (sayujyatva) or into the impersonal state of the universal Brahman, and again to others it is unqualified freedom and independence (svatantrya), etc. But all agree that it is a deathless, sorrowless state, where there is neither birth nor old age; and the nearer we get… the clearer it becomes that this aim cannot be reached without giving up whatever constitutes our so-called self or ego.

Thus Om is associated with liberation, either as a means to it, or as a symbol of its attainment.., namely to express what is beyond words and forms, beyond limitations and classification, beyond definition and explanation: the experience of the infinite within us, which may be felt as a distant aim, as a mere presentiment, a longing- or which may be known as a growing reality, or realized in the breaking down of limitations and bondage.

There are as many infinities as there are dimensions, as many forms of liberation as there are temperaments. But all bear the same stamp. Those who suffer from bondage and confinement, will experience liberation as infinite expansion. Those who suffer from darkness, will experience it as light unbounded. Those who groan under the weight of death and transitoriness, will feel it as eternity. Those who are restless, will enjoy it as peace and infinite harmony.

But all these terns, without losing their own character, bear the same mark: ‘infinite’. This is important, because it shows us that even the highest attainments may retain some individual taste- the taste of the soil from which they grew- without impairing thereby their universal value. Even in these ultimate states of consciousness there is neither identity nor non-identity in the absolute sense. There is a profound relationship between them, but no dull equality, which can never be an outcome of life and growth, but only a product of lifeless mechanism.

Thus the experience of infinity was expressed by the early Vedas in terms of cosmology, by the Brahmanas in terms of magic ritual, in the Upanisads in terms of idealistic monism, in Jainism in terms of biology, in Buddhism in terms of psychology (based on the experiences of meditation), in Vedantism in terms of metaphysics, in Vaishnavism in terms of bhakti (mystic love and devotion), in Shaivaism in terms of ‘non-duality’ (advaita)  and asceticism, in the Hindu Tantras in terms of the female creative power (sakti) of the universe, and in Buddhist Tantrism in terms of the transformation of psycho-cosmic forces and phenomena by penetrating them with the light of transcendental knowledge (prajna).

This does not exhaust the different possibilities of expression, nor does it exclude their combination and their mutual penetration. On the contrary: generally many of these features are combined, and the different systems of religious thought and practise are not strictly separated, but penetrate each other more or less. However, the emphasis of the one of the other of these features gives to each of these systems its own character and its particular ‘flavour’.

Consequently OM appears to the one as a symbol of a divine universe, to the other as a symbol of infinite power, to the next as boundless space, to another one as infinite being or as eternal life. There are some to whom it represents omnipresent light, others to whom it means universal law, and again others who interpret it as omnipotent consciousness, as all-pervading divinity, or in terms of all-embracing love, cosmic rhythm, ever-present creativeness, or unlimited knowledge, and so ad infinitum.

Like a mirror which reflects all forms and colours, without changing its own nature, so OM reflects the shades of all temperaments and takes the shape of all higher ideals, without confining itself exclusively to any one of them.” (Govinda:1977:23-25)

From this perspective we can quite clearly see, that the worlding of the hunter-gatherer that we previously witnessed with its Wakan spirit, and its equal, fraternal, universal, rites that pervaded all of their consciousness and consequent behaviour, produced a world of purpose ‘here’ on earth, in a consequent Garden of Eden, where any individual who got too big for their boots, was secretly killed in the night or just laughed at.

From the above quote it is evident that the knowledge of sacred vibration was an all pervasive one throughout the world at the very formation of language and that this language was originally formed as a vast mystery of vibration, a vibration that today is known as quantum physics and that has been proven by experiment rather than experience that every single quantum particle in the universe reacts to the movement of every other quantum particle in the universe. For science it is a meaningless accidental truth, for the hunter-gatherer it was a way of life. A way of life that transcended individual life every moment. The experience of this quantum field of vibration as an all encompassing reality is beyond the power of words to frame and any attempt to do so results in a lack of meaning to the definition, just as the rock of the Linga could not be sculpted without denying aspects of its overall reality, just as the space in the KaBa at Mecca cannot be a space without the frame of consonants around this formless infinite vowel sounding space of prayer.

To remind you of the purpose of this journey through our history, it is to ask the cave-man where it is that he would like to dwell in time and space. He has come from a worlding of liberation to a worlding of liberty for some here and not for others there, and has seen it named a virtue by the fact that it has lost all of its virtuous nature. This loss of liberation but gaining of liberty has shifted the meaning of life on earth itself, and has created a heaven in order to replace it, at an eternal distance away, alongside God who awaits us there, in the fourth dimension that encompasses time and space itself, but is yet not within time and space itself as an experience.     Christianity will embrace this loss with the idea of unworldliness as an aim in order to gain this fourth dimension when you die, but some of its followers, known as Gnostics will experience it here on earth, such as some orthodox mystics as John of the Cross, or Francis of Assisi, will claim to have found it here on Earth, and to walk in the Garden of Eden in this space, in this time, and for all eternity as a consequence.  

Islam and Judaism will find the same mystic path through the Sufis and the Hasidim respectively, who will in like manner with the Gnostics, suffer the hands of persecution by their orthodox brothers of their faith for saying such a thing because they could not experience it themselves and therefore could be seen to claim the right to authority that they believed, rather than knew that they deserved, as reflected by their status within the Church, or by the wars of ‘rightness’ that they would produce for all of mankind in a vain attempt to create heaven in heaven for all, by making Earth a battle ground for the soul between the devil and God in an equal fight that we have already seen be manufactured in Persia by the disciples of Zoroastra in order to justify their position of power, and their negative cult of hypocrisy. Do you think that the upholders of liberation had money with ‘in God we trust’ stamped on it, mass produced so that it made trading bits of the world for ones own desires more efficient, as the upholders of liberty do today?

Or to put it another way. When the Statute of Liberty was erected it had an inscription placed upon it to frame the nature of this new God, born from a Republic 2,000 years ago in Rome. This is what it said, ‘Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.’

The golden door of liberty has slammed in the face of many tired and poor huddled masses, whilst behind it they hear the cries of the Republicans and the democrats who all agree that immigration must be controlled if America is to stay great as its virtue of liberty requires. Will we hear the same argument from the Romans I wonder as they also regulate this liberty dance, or is the virtue of their liberty of a higher order? Is it really liberty or a means to cohere people to the power of production to a common advantage that does not seem very advantageous if everyone is let in on it, especially the uneducated, the weak, the poor, of those tost upon the tempest created by such a notion as liberty and virtue? What really is their guiding light behind this closed golden door, patrolled by armed men with electric fences and prisons of deportation where these tempest tost dwell before being thrown down the river? Who benefits?

Some-one call the Police – the Mafia of Rome – The Rise of War – the Barbarian God of Liberty Brings – ‘Peace’?! – and denies it is an Empire

To return to Rome in order to witness the repercussions of liberty and virtue therefore, we have already discovered that the nature of the aristocrats who set up a republic and who kept the authorship of the gods to themselves was an hereditary familist oligarchy at war with each other constantly, as it was with the nobility of Athens and the plebs, who constantly vote for war as the most efficient means by which to gain their desires.

Unlike Athens however, who allowed the senate to have the power, and who used theatre to control the polis and these desires to a common advantage, the Romans allowed the plebs to have the power to control these desires, as well as the Senate, in order to produce greater value to exchange through the value of conflict that this system set up. This they did in the name of liberty, but let us hear Machiavelli in his assessment of why they did so:

“Whether the Safeguarding of Liberty can be more safely entrusted to the Populace or to the Upper Class; and which has the Stronger Reason for creating Disturbances, the ‘Have-nots’ or the ‘Haves’.

Those who have displayed prudence in constituting a republic have looked upon the safeguarding of liberty as one of the most essential things for which they had to provide, and according to the efficiency with which this has been done liberty has been enjoyed for a longer or a shorter time. And, since in every republic there is an upper and a lower class, it may be asked into whose hands it is best to place the guardianship of liberty. By the Lacaedemonians [the Spartans], and in our day by Venice, it was entrusted to the nobles, but by the Romans it was entrusted to the plebs.

It is necessary, therefore, to inquire which of these republics made the better choice. If we appeal to reason arguments may be adduced in support of either thesis; but, if we ask what the result was, the answer will favour nobility, for the freedom of Sparta and of Venice lasted longer than did that of Rome.

Let us deal first with the appeal to reason. It may be urged in support of the Roman view that the guardianship of anything should be placed in the hands of those who are less desirous of appropriating it to their own use…

On the other hand, the defenders of the Spartan and Venetian systems say that to place the guardianship in the hands of the powerful has two good results. First, it satisfies their ambition more, since with this stick in their hands, they play a more important part in the republic, and so should be more contented. Secondly, it prevents the restless minds of the plebs from acquiring a sense of power, which is the cause of endless squabbles and trouble in a republic, and is enough to drive the nobility to desperate measures which in course of time have disastrous results…It must be confessed, then, if due weight be given to both sides, that it still remains doubtful which to select as the guardians of liberty, for it is impossible to tell which of the two dispositions we find in men is more harmful in a republic, that which seeks to maintain an established position or that which has none but seeks to acquire it…

Turning to the question as to which are more harmful in a republic, the ‘have-nots’ who wish to have or the ‘haves’ who are afraid of losing what they have… such disturbances are more often caused by the ‘haves’, since the fear of losing what they have arouses in them the same inclination we find in those who want to get more, for men are inclined to think that they cannot hold securely what they possess unless they get more at the others’ expense. Furthermore, those who have great possessions can bring about changes with greater effect, and greater speed. And yet again their corrupt and grasping deportment arouses in the minds of the ‘have-nots’ the desire to have, either to revenge themselves by desporting them, or that they may again share in those riches and honours in regard to which they deem themselves to have been badly used by the other party.” (Crick:1979:115-18)

“Sparta, as I have said, was governed by a king and by a small senate. It was able to maintain itself in this way for a long time, because in Sparta there were few inhabitants and access to outsiders desirous of coming to dwell there was forbidden. Moreover, it had adopted the laws of Lycurgus and shared in his repute, and, as these laws were observed, they removed all occasion for tumult, so that the Spartans were able to live united for a long time. The reason was that the laws of Lycurgus prescribed equality of property and insisted less on equality of rank. Poverty was shared by all alike, and the plebeians had less ambition, since offices in the city were open but to few citizens and from then the plebs were kept out; nor did it desire to have them since the nobles never ill-treated the plebs. This was due to the position assigned to the Spartan kings, for, since in this principality they were surrounded by the nobles, the best way of maintaining their position was to protect the plebs from injustice. It thus came about that the plebs neither feared it nor desired it, there was no change of rivalry between them and the nobility, nor any ground for disturbances, and they could live united for a long time. It was, however, mainly two things, which brought this union about: (i) the smallness of Sparta’s population, which made it possible for a few to rule, and (ii) the exclusion of foreigners from the state, which gave it no chance either to become corrupt or to become so unwieldy that it could no longer be managed by the few who governed it.

All things considered, therefore, it is clear that it was necessary for Rome’s legislators to do one of two things if Rome was to remain tranquil like the aforesaid states: either to emulate the Venetians and not employ its plebs in wars, or, like the Spartans, not to admit foreigners. Rome did both these things, and, by doing so, gave to its plebs alike strength, increase and endless opportunities for commotion. On the other hand, had the government of Rome been such as to bring greater tranquillity, there would have ensued this inconvenience, that it would have been weaker, owing to its having cut off the source of supply which enabled it to acquire the greatness at which it arrived, so that, in seeking to remove the causes of tumults, Rome would have removed also the causes of expansion….

I am firmly convinced, therefore, that to set up a republic which is to last a long time, the way to set about it is to constitute it as Sparta and Venice were constituted; to place it in a strong position, and so to fortify it that no one will dream of taking it by a sudden assault; and, on the other hand, not to make it so large as to appear formidable to its neighbours. It should in this way be able to enjoy its form of government for a long time. For war is made on a commonwealth for two reasons: (i) to subjugate it, and (ii) for fear of being subjugated by it. Both these reasons are almost entirely removed by the aforesaid precautions; for, if it be difficult to take by assault owing to its being well organized for defence, as I am presupposing, rarely or never will it occur to anyone to seize it. And, if it be content with its own territory, and it becomes clear by experience that it has no ambitions, it will never occur that someone may make war through fear for himself, especially if by its constitution or by its laws expansion is prohibited. Nor have I the least doubt that, if this balance could be maintained, there would be genuine political life and real tranquillity in such a city.” (Crick:1979:120-23)

So Machiavelli tells us that putting power in the hands of the plebs, i.e. by creating a tribune was the cause for an ever desirous increase in possessions, fuelled by the relative possessions of the haves that stoke the power of desire by flaunting their possessions in public. The same problem that Athens suffered from but was unable to stop, as luxury became the cause for its own demise. The same problem that Alexander the Great harnessed and turned into awe and Godliness in order to wage war and create an empire that did not last beyond his own life-time.

The Romans therefore have set up a system that requires no monarch to hold the State together, but that will still require an empire in order to cohere the have-nots to the haves, this is the nature of a Republic.

Let us then see this at present, unconscious nature of empire, become a conscious one, through the history of the Romans, in order to understand how this reality finally emerged into the common sense collective consciousness of the Roman phylogeny through the history of its actions- i.e. its karma.

Unconscious Empire: A Pyrrhic Victory leads to the Necessity of Greater War

The Romans who as we have seen were created by the karma of subjugation and the memory of the Gauls resubjugating them, had become a race of fear, and had therefore spent its first few years in reducing that fear by taking over all of the rival States in Italy. Their only rival left was that of the monarch Pyrrhus king of Epirus. He joined his forces to the last of the Italian States- Tarentum (modern day Tarento) in order to overthrow Rome and indeed defeated Rome twice in battle at Heraclea in 280 BC and at Asculum in 279 BC, but his victories were so hard won that it cost him his army and in the end he ran away to Greece, where he was killed besieging Argos.       This type of victory, a victory that really is a loss of power, as one does not have enough stick-wielders left to enforce ones authority over what one has gained, is therefore known as a Pyrrhic victory.

“After the defeat of Pyrrhus, Rome had no real rival left in Italy…Tarentum received its “liberty” that is, the status of a free town but with a Roman garrison in its citadel. It had to pay heavy compensation, and the triumph of the two consuls in Rome featured a parade of all the statues, paintings, and other marvels seized from the town.” (Le Glay:2009:67-68)

“It is easy to see that the war with Pyrrhus and the capture of Tarentum brought Rome face to face with Carthage, an army face to face with a navy. The First Punic War was simply a matter of time.” (Le Glay:2009:68)

“Essentially, the conflict arose from the clash of economic interests. The Carthaginians wished to protect the maritime and commercial basis of their power while the Romans explored, and increasingly committed themselves to, a policy of expansion outside of Italy.” (Le Glay:2009:73)

This policy of expansionism, that really is the constitutive principle of any democracy of a polis of beings-for-itself who place their desires above a religious morality and therefore disempower the negative cult that curbs desire, therefore first arose over economics, i.e. the power to gain what is valued, and not any moral issue.

If we remember the Peloponnesian wars of the Hellenes we will remember that Athens did not start the war with Sparta but used the pretext of protection and the offer of friendship in order to win its empire and to start the Peloponnesian war in the first place by playing off the enmity between lesser states. How therefore did Rome begin its war with Carthage- The Punic Wars?

“The immediate cause of the war, however, and therefore also of Rome’s first military intervention outside Italy, was the double-dealing of the Mamertines (“sons of Mars”, a group of former Campanian mercenaries who several years earlier had seized control of the strategically located city of Messina, …from which they routinely launched plundering expeditions into Syracusan territory. In 265, the king of Syracuse, Hiero II, responded by attacking the Mamertines, who appealed to Carthage for assistance, and then, fearing that the Carthaginians intended to stay, asked the Roman Senate for both military aid and an alliance. Most of the senators were, according to Polybius, reluctant to agree, not least because they felt that an alliance with the Mamertines would be undignified. Others warned that if the Romans failed to act, the Carthaginians would rapidly conquer Syracuse…The Carthaginians, Polybius has them say, would be “dangerous neighbours for them, surrounding them and threatening all parts of Italy.”. After a long debate, the Senate decided not to honour the Mamertines’ request. But the consul Appius Claudius Caudex took the issue directly to the popular assembly, which voted to help them.

According to Polybius, Appius Claudius persuaded the assembly by reminding them of “the clear and considerable advantage that each individual might expect,” that is, the certain prospect of booty….This defensive imperialism was probably combined with the desire of ambitious aristocrats to win military glory and with a collective demand for spoils and other material gains. A war began that lasted for 23 years.”       (Le Glay:2009:73-74)

“This first Punic War (which the ancients sometimes referred to, more correctly as the Sicilian war) had important consequences….In Carthage, weakened by the defeat and by the payment of a heavy war indemnity, the First Punic War brought in its wake a social revolt. …Rome profited from this war by seizing Sardinia in 238. In 237, to save Carthage and restore its might, the Punic general Hamilcar Barca undertook the conquest of Spain…Hamilcar’s son, Hannibal, took over this territory, organized after the manner of Hellenistic kingdoms, and starting in 221, he began the course which led to the Second Punic War.” (Le Glay:2009:74-75)

“Livy preserves a fanciful story, in which Hannibal’s father, Hamilcar Barca, instills in his young son a burning hatred for Rome, and makes him solemnly swear to avenge Roman treachery.” (Le Glay:2009:75)

“Carthaginian military and diplomatic successes in Spain had brought them, by 220, the region of Sargentum. This was a city allied to Rome by a treaty of mutual protection, but well to the south of the River Ebro, which Rome has declared in 226 as the northern limit of Carthaginian expansion in Spain…It was not until early in the following year, however, after Sargentum had already fallen- the Romans having stood idly by- that the Senate responded, by sending a delegation to Carthage to demand Hannibal’s surrender. The Carthaginians opted for war.” (Le Glay:2009:75)

“This war, lasting 17 years, has often been called the “Hannibalic War” so much was it dominated by the personality and exploits of this great general. Unlike the first war, it was not confined largely to the place where it began- in this case Spain, with the siege of Saguntum- but raged over Italy, which was ravaged for over 15 years by Carthaginian armies living off the land. Then it reached Africa…and terminated…in a final battle, at Zama in 202.” (Le Glay:2009:77)

“The years 210-209 were not free from distress for Rome, but there was also a rallying of support: the treasury was empty; but the senators, appealed to by the consul Laevinus, poured their gold and silver into the public coffers. Meanwhile, the allies began to show signs of weariness: in 209, 12 Latin colonies declared themselves exhausted of both men and money, and refused the loans demanded; but 18 others said they were prepared to make any sacrifice.” (Le Glay:2009:79)

Despite the enormous human losses, the war had important repercussions in the growth of Rome and Italy, reaching far beyond 201

First, it forced Rome to provide itself with a powerful military apparatus. Before 218, it had normally maintained between six and eight legions, or between 25,000 and 33,00 men. Between 217 and 303, it mobilized up to 28 legions, i.e. some 120,000 men, added to which were the troops supplied by allies and the men employed in the navy. This unprecedented military effort understandably brought financial difficulties…

The Senate, which had been the soul of the resistance, now enjoyed immense prestige. Its authority (auctoritas) covered all important decisions and acts in political life… Henceforth, a strict hierarchy was established for recruitment to the Senate: choice was made first, by order of seniority, among former curule magistrates (consuls, praetors), and then among former aediles, tribunes, and quaestors. It thereby became truly an assembly of former magistrates directing the policies of magistrates, thus gaining further prestige.

Also, the war produced magistrates and generals of great worth, men who, often armed with extraordinary powers, had acquired or displayed personal renown, great ability and vast ambition. This was notably so in the case of P.Cornelius Scipio Africanus, who was the first to bear the title of imperator (commander-in-chief, victorious by the grace of the gods). The power of these men, based sometimes on the will of the people more than on that of the Senate, foreshadowed the rise of the great imperatores of the first century BCE.” (Le Glay:2009:80-81)

“In fact, given the composition of the Senate and the attitude of the ruling classes, it would seem that hardly anyone in the governing circles of Rome at the end of the third century envisaged a commitment to a resolutely imperialist policy… The attack made by Rome against Macedon in 200 was the start of a new policy.

But it was still a defensive imperialism, lacking self-awareness: before 148 the only annexations in the eastern Mediterranean were those of Zacynthos (Zante) and Cephellania. Nevertheless, it should be noted that in this period, in 188, the Roman imperialist doctrine was explicitly formulated, thanks to the consul Cn.Manlius Vulso, who campaigned to Asia Minor in 189: in his view it was an urgent and absolute necessity for Rome both to ensure peace on land and at sea and to keep the entire East under surveillance. Livy relates Vulsius’ exhortation directly to his soldiers to campaign against the Galatian Gauls of Asia Minor, and their enthusiastic response to his proposal (Livy 38.12). Rome was to act as a universal “policeman”, a policy which would lead to the establishment of protectorates over towns and of client states– and thence to annexation.

The era of annexations began in 148-146: the reduction of Macedon to a Roman province, the capture of Corinth and annexation of Achaea, and lastly the capture and destruction of Carthage signalled the great watershed. Henceforth a conquering brand of imperialism triumphed, leading, in a little over a century, to the formation of the Roman Empire.” (Le Glay:2009:92-3)

So the consequence of peace is the birth place of fear that leads to the increase in the theatre of war that becomes the theatre of the play of protection, and thence to annexation, under the guise of acting as ‘rightful’ universal “policeman”, as the most efficient Noble lie method of establishing protectorates under this guise and then over time annexing the protected into the Empire that protects it. Annexation means, ‘to take possession of a territory and incorporate it into the whole’ i.e. Rome-for-itself.

Today America’s unconscious empire is controlled by protectorates and military zones in a unconscious defensive imperialism that it still denies whilst claiming that it is the policeman of justice, in like manner. It has recently destroyed Russia the Carthage of its day in a Cold War, and Russia has become a democratic republic formed by the Washington Consensus under the protectorate of the IMF, and Russia is now run by a mafia, as everyone knows. In like manner when America took Italy in World War II its first action was to release 70 members of the Italian mafia from its American prisons and return them to Italy in order to control this new territory, and today Italy is still run by a mafia, as everyone knows. It is this same mafia that used its influence in the election of John F. Kennedy through the union known as ‘The Teamsters’, at the request of the father of John F. Kennedy to Frank Sinatra a Mafioso, the same father who was a part of the great depression under JP Morgan the stockbrokers who profited most from the crash, and who are doing so in like manner today from this most recent global crisis artfully produced by these stockbrokers and senators.

JP Morgan has recently been taken to court by these senators for its illegal activities once again, and it got fined. Unfortunately, the fine didn’t cover the losses suffered by its victims or those suffered by the tax payers of the world that bailed it out of the crisis it had made and then paid for the billions of dollars in bonuses that the leaders of JP Morgan paid themselves from it. I think bad-faith is beginning to leap off of the page, especially if you are one of the millions of homeless Americans who are at liberty in a world of human rights, where right means that you are homeless and they are in one of their mansions here on earth.

Let us now visit this karmic irony through the State of Greece. Remember the Delian League. Remember Philip II of Macedon. Oh what great karmic art they produce for their children

“In 166, the Roman Senate took a decision of major importance: to turn the island of Delos into a free port, granting it to Athens as a colony. Thus it rewarded Athens by giving it the holy island of Apollo, and punished the Rhodians, who had tried to mediate between Rome and Perseus during the Second Macedonian War to protect their maritime trade. Aulus Gellius, writing in the second century CE, provides some additional insight into the motives behind the Roman animosity toward Rhodes. He refers to a speech by Cato the Elder to the Senate, in which he attempted to “defend and save our excellent and most loyal allies, against whom many of the most distinguished senators were intently hostile because they wished to plunder and possess their wealth” (Attic Nights 6.3)…

At any rate, even though Rhodes escaped war, its economy was almost ruined as a result of the Roman actions, while the economic activity on Delos rapidly rose. Indeed… Delos quickly became the centre of trade between the Hellenic East and the Roman West.” (Le Glay:2009:95)

The Second Macedonian War: 200-196 BCE

During the Second Punic War, Rome had struck up friendly relations both with Pergamum and with Rhodes, an important trading centre. Now, the king of Pergamum and the Rhodians warned that Philip V and Antiochus III of Syria had concluded a secret pact of alliance. Alarmed by this prospect of Macedonian imperialism and remembering the war with Pyrrhus, Rome decided, to attack the king of Macedon and drive him out of Greece. Roman policy was to guarantee the security of the Italian peninsula, and to that end it now sought to remove the aggressive king Philip from the Greek peninsula. To do so Rome itself turned aggressor….

In fact, what the Greeks obtained was not total liberty (eleutheria), but rather a range of exemptions. Greece’s status was actually that of a client state, a protectorate, with advantages for Rome. As a centre of espionage, advance post, and buffer state, “free” Greece would act as a main road and a barrier, an arrangement set to guarantee Italy against the ambitions of Hellenistic monarchs.” (Le Glay:2009:94)

So Athens itself becomes yet again, as it was by Philip II of Macedon a puppet State, that acts as nothing more than a buffer zone to Rome. The same fate now shared by Macedon itself.

Let us hear Machiavelli’s prognosis for them now that they have become ‘protected’ by these Universal Policemen of Justice before we see it happen:

“For it is quite certain that, when a prince and a people has acquired such repute that each of the neighbouring princes and peoples is afraid to attack it and fears it, no one will ever assault it unless driven thereunto by necessity; so that it will be open, so to speak, to that power to choose the neighbour on which it seems best to make war, and industriously to foster tranquillity among the rest. In this, owing in part to the respect they have for its power, and in part to their being deceived by the means its takes to lull them to sleep, they readily acquiesce. For other powers, which are farther away and have no intercourse with it, look on the affair as remote from their interests and as no concern of theirs; and in this error they remain until the conflagration is at their doors. Nor, when it arrives, have they any means of stopping it except by their own forces, which will then be inadequate, since the state in question has now become very powerful….

The same thing happened to the Gauls, to Philip, king of Macedon, and to Antiochus as happened to the Carthaginians. Whilst Rome was engaged with some other state, each of them thought the other state would beat Rome, and that they had time enough to protect themselves against her either by peaceful or by warlike methods.” (Crick:1979:272-3)

The Third Punic War and the fall of Carthage: 150-146 BCE

Several months earlier, in April of the same year, 146, Rome similarly destroyed Carthage. Since 195, Massinissa, the king of Numidia, had been increasing his attacks on Punic territories. Rome’s arbitration (under the treaty of 201) had been generally conciliatory toward Carthage, although after 167, doubtless to reward Massinissa for his loyalty, it had been less so- Rome had thus allowed him to gain control of the ports of the Major Syrtis. A Roman embassy led by Cato arrived in the Punic capital in 153 to arbitrate the conflict between Carthage and Massinissa. Struck by the city’s prosperity and its rearmament after the end of the Second Punic War, Cato persistently urged on the Senate that Carthage should cease to exist (Plutarch, Life of Cato the Elder 27).

Following a Carthaginian counter-attack on the Numidians, Rome declared war against Carthage in 149…. In obedience to the Senate’s orders, the inhabitants were reduced to slavery or forced to emigrate, the town was burnt (though not totally, as recent excavations have revealed), and the soil was declared taboo (sacer), pledged to the gods for destruction…

Thus in the space of a few years there was a marked transition from the protectorate system, combined with more or less direct economic control, to a clear and determined pattern of annexation. The protectorate system was, however, by no means abandoned, but continued to grow alongside the system of annexation (the historian Justin relates that Scipio Aemilianus was sent to the East “to inspect the kingdoms of the allies” in 136/135).” (Le Glay:2009:98-99)

“Rome’s foreign relations in the period after 133 were much more openly and self-consciously expansionist, so much so that we could claim that Rome now had a policy of deliberate imperialism.” (Le Glay:2009:100)

06: The Art of Empire

“Rome became a Great City by ruining the Cities round about her, and by granting Foreigners Easy Access to her Honours.

‘Rome meanwhile grows on the ruins of Alba’. Those who plan to convert a city into a great empire should use every available device to fill it with inhabitants; for unless a city has a large male population it cannot do much; There are two ways of acquiring a large population, by friendliness and by force. It is done by friendliness when the road is kept open and safe for foreigners who propose to come and dwell there so that everybody is glad to do so. ….

That this method of providing for expansion and a future empire was both necessary and good is shown by the example of Sparta and Athens, two republics which were very well armed and governed by the best laws, yet never attained the greatness of the Roman empire, though Rome appears to have been more tumultuous and not so well governed as they were. For this reason can be assigned other than that already adduced. For Rome, by pursuing these two ways of enlarging the composition of her city, was able to put under arms two hundred and eighty thousand men, whereas Sparta and Athens could never muster twenty thousand each. This was not due to Rome’s being in a more advantageous position than was theirs, but simply to the difference in their modes of procedure. For Lycurgus, the founder of the Spartan republic, thought nothing more likely to frustrate his laws than the admixture of new inhabitants, and so did everything he could to prevent foreigners having any intercourse with the citizens. Not only was intermarriage forbidden but also the admittance to civic rights and other forms of intercommunication which bring men together. In addition to which he instituted a coinage of leather, so that nobody might be tempted to come there with merchandise or any manufactured goods. Hence it was impossible for the inhabitants of that city ever to grow in number.” (Crick:1979:281-2)

Republics have adopted Three Methods of Expansion

The student of ancient histories will find that there are three ways in which republics have expanded. The first was that which the Tuscans of old adopted, namely, that of forming a league consisting of several republics in which no one of them had preference, authority or rank above the others; and in which, when other cities were acquired, they made them constituent members in the same way as the Swiss act in our times, and as in Greece the Achaeans and the Aetolians acted in olden times….

The second method consists in forming alliances in which you reserve to yourself the headship, the seat in which the central authority resides, and the right of initiative. This was the method adopted by the Romans. The Third method is to make other states subjects instead of allies, as the Spartans and the Athenians did. Of these three methods the last is quite useless, as is seen in the case of the two republics just mentioned. For they came to disaster for the simple reason that they had acquired a dominion which they could not hold. For to undertake the responsibility of governing cities by force, especially such as have been accustomed to self-government, is a difficult and tiresome business. And unless you have armed forces, and they are strong forces, you can neither impose obedience on, nor rule, them. For if this be your plan, it is essential to have allies to assist you, and to increase the population of your own city. Wherefore, since these two cities did neither of these things, their mode of procedure was futile. But, since Rome, which exemplifies the second method, did both, she rose to exceedingly great power. And, since she was the only state that thus behaved, she was the only one that became so powerful. And since, she made many states her allies throughout the whole of Italy, which to a large extent lived under the same laws, and since, on the other hand, she reserved to herself, as has been said, the seat of empire and the right to issue orders, these allies without being aware of it, fell under the yoke and laboured and shed their blood on her behalf.

For when they began to go forth with the armies of Italy and to transform kingdoms into provinces and to make subjects of those who did not mind being subjects since they were accustomed to live under kings, and who, since they had Roman governors and had been conquered by armies bearing the Roman insignia, recognized no superior other than Rome, the result was that Rome’s allies inside Italy found themselves before long encircled by Roman subjects and with an immense city, such as Rome had now become, towering above them; so that, when they realized the mistake they had been making, it was too late to put it right, so great was the authority Rome now exercised over outside provinces and so great the force which lay at her disposal within, since she had a city so enormous and so extremely well armed. And though her allies, to avenge their injuries, formed a league against her, they were soon defeated in war, with the result that their position became worse, for instead of being Rome’s allies, they now became Rome’s subjects. This mode of procedure, as has been said has only been adopted by the Romans. Nor can a republic that wants to expand, adopt any other, for experience has shown that no other is so certain or so sure.

The alternative method of leagues, mentioned above and adopted by Tuscans, the Achaeans, and the Aetolians, and today by the Swiss, is the next best to that of the Romans. For, though by this method it is impossible to expand indefinitely, it had two advantages. First, it does not readily involve you in war; secondly, you can easily hold as much as you take. The reason why such a republic cannot expand is that its members are distinct and each has its own capital; which makes it difficult for them to consult and to make decisions. It means also that they are less keen on acquiring dominion, for, since many communities share in that dominion, they do not appreciate further acquisitions in the same way as does a single republic which hopes to enjoy the whole. Furthermore, a league is governed by a council, which must needs be slower in arriving at any decision than are those who dwell within one and the same circle. Experience shows, too, that such a method of forming a confederation has a fixed limit, and that there is no case which indicates that this limit can be transcended.

Twelve or fourteen communities join together, and beyond that they do not seek to go; for, having attained the stage at which it seems to them they can defend themselves against all comers, they do not try to extend their dominion, whether because necessity does not require them to have more power, or because they see no advantage in acquisitions for the reasons already given. For in that case they would have to do one of two things: either to proceed to get allies, which, owing to their number, would entail confusion; or to make others their subjects, which they do not care to do since in it they see difficulty and in having them no great advantage. Hence, when they have reached the number which appears to promise them security, they devote themselves to two things. (i) They accept and undertake the protection of those who apply for it, and by this means get from all around money which can easily be distributed among them. (ii) They also fight for others and take pay from a prince here and a prince there who is prepared to spend money on his enterprises.” (Crick:1979:283-87)

When we discuss the history of Britain we will see that its Empire fell because it used the method of leagues in order to maintain its empire. We will then see that America used the second method as espoused by Machiavelli in creating allies. What we must ask ourselves is this, How is it that, just as we saw with the work of Thucydides, every political student must read Machiavelli and hence know what we now know, and yet ‘these allies without being aware of it, fell under the yoke and laboured and shed their blood on her behalf’, when we know that, ‘Nor can a republic that wants to expand, adopt any other, for experience has shown that no other is so certain or so sure.’

In Machiavellis time and before in Rome, this unconscious requirement of a Republic to expand into empire may not have been known but today it forms the very basis of political education. The prime minister of England Tony Blair in 1998 a year after coming to power actually went on holiday in Italy and visited Machiavelli’s house! Napoleon read, Stalin read it and made notes in the margin, Mussolini even did his dissertation on it, it was the bedside reading of Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon. Can we really say therefore that allies of America are not aware that they are really buffer states unable to take on America as it has played the game too well and is now too big to pick a fight with? We are told that we are allies of America by politicians that know full well that we are buffer states to America that they are attempting to stop being annexed by America.

If you live in England as I do, our special relationship, espoused by British politicians today is really that we are a ‘first strike’ zone for Russia or China or Pakistan, etc, as we are a nuclear base for American missiles. Our army is not going to do very well under this reality, but it might do very well up until then by being a buffer state for America, and telling its people that it is an ally and not a nuclear blast zone of the first order. This is so well hidden that two people who marched against these nuclear warheads being placed on our soil called their daughter Emily, whilst the project that placed these warheads here and caused them to march was called project Emily. This same Emily is now my wife.

We will see the full extent to this bad-faith later on, but let me just add the teaser that Americas war against Russia, resulted in the possibility of nuclear war at least twice, to such a degree of severity that a single man had the power to press the red button given over to him by the Principate, and that Global Nuclear War was merely one finger push away. The only, and I mean only reason, that we are not living in a nuclear holocaust right now is that each time the man in question refused to press the button that he was ordered to press. If that doesn’t scare you then wait until you find out how each of these incidents came to pass, then you will be.

What Causes commonly give rise to Wars between Different Powers

The cause of the war between the Romans and the Samnites, with whom for a long time they had been in alliance, is one which arises commonly between powerful states. It consists in some incident which is brought about either by chance or by those who are desirous of provoking a war. That which gave rise to war between the Romans and the Samnites was due to chance. For, when the Samnites made war on the Sidicines and then on the Campanians, they had no intention of making war on Rome. But, when the Campanians were attacked and appealed to Rome, which neither the Romans nor the Samnites had expected, the Romans, to whose suzerainty the Campanians had submitted, had to defend them, and so to take on a war which it did not seem to them that they could with honour escape. For, though it did not appear reasonable that they should defend their allies, the Campanians, against their allies, the Samnites, yet, when the former had become their subjects and had accepted their suzerainty, it seemed to them shameful not to defend them; for they thought that, if they did not undertake to defend them, it would put an obstacle in the way of any others who contemplated submitting to their dominion. Since, therefore, Rome was aiming at empire and glory, not at tranquillity, they could not decline to take the matter up.

The same causes were operative at the beginning of the first Punic war, which was due to the Romans having undertaken the defence of the Messinians in Sicily, an undertaking which again was brought about by chance. This was not the case later in the second war which arose between them; for Hannibal, the Carthaginian commander, attacked the Saguntines, who were allies of the Romans, in Spain, not out of hostility to them, but to get the Roman armies to take action, so as to provide him with an opportunity of attacking them and of crossing into Italy.

This method of starting new wars has always been the practice with powerful states who have a certain respect both for treaties and for one another. For, if I want to make war on some prince and between us there is a treaty the articles of which have been observed for a considerable time, rather than attack him, I shall look for some justification and ground for attacking one of his allies, knowing full well that, if his ally be attacked, either he will resent it and I shall get what I want in that war will arise, or, if he takes no notice, he will disclose either his weakness or his unreliability in that he does not defend a dependent state. In either case he will lose his reputation and it will be easier for me to accomplish my designs.” (Crick:1979:298-99)

Men Rise from a Low to a Great Position by Means rather of Fraud than of Force

It is quite true, I think, that seldom, if ever, do men of low position obtain high rank except by force and by fraud, though there are, of course, others to whom rank comes merely by way of gift or inheritance. Nor do I think that force by itself ever suffices, whereas instances can easily be found in which fraud alone has sufficed. Anyone who has read the life of Philip of Macedon or that of Agathocles the Sicilian, for instance, or others of that ilk, will see that, from an extremely low, or at any rate a low position, they rose either to a kingdom or to very great power. Xenophon, in his Life of Cyrus calls attention to the necessity for deceit. For in view of the amount of fraud used in the first expedition Cyrus made against the King of Armenia, and of the fact that it was by means of deceit, not by means of force, that he acquired his kingdom, one cannot but conclude from such actions that a prince who wishes to do great things must learn to practise deceit….

Nor do I think that anyone can be found whose position at the outset was humble, but who subsequently acquired vast power simply by the use of open and undisguised force: but it can quite well be done by using only fraud…And what princes have to do at the outset of their career, republics also must do until such time as they become powerful and can rely on force alone.

Since in all her decisions, whether by chance or by choice, Rome took all steps necessary to make herself great, she did not overlook fraud. She could not at the start have been more deceitful than she was in the means she took, as we were saying just now, to acquire allies, since under this title she made them her servants, as was the case with the Latins and other peoples round about. For she first availed herself of their arms in order to subjugate neighbouring peoples and to build up her reputation as a state, and then, having subdued them, she increased to such an extent that she could beat anyone. Nor would the Latins ever realized that in reality they were mere slaves, if they had not seen the Samnites twice defeated and forced to accept Rome’s terms. Since this victory increased the already great reputation of the Romans with more distant rulers, who thus felt the impact of her name though not of her arms, envy and suspicion were aroused in those who did see and feel the weight of her arms, among them the Latins. So strong became this envy and this dread that not only the Latins, but also the colonies Rome had in Latium, together with the Campanians who a short while before had been defended by Rome, joined in a conspiracy against her.

The Latins provoked this war in the way in which most wars are provoked, as has been pointed out above, namely, not by attacking the Romans, but by protecting the Sidicines against the Samnites, who had made war on them with Rome’s sanction. That the Latins were moved to do this because they recognized the deceit Rome had practised, is shown by the words Titus Livy puts into the mouth of Annius Setinus, the Latin praetor, when speaking before the allied council: ‘For if under cover of a treaty between equals it has been possible to reduce us to servitude’, and so forth.

It is clear, therefore, that, when the power of the Romans was first beginning to grow, they did not fail to use fraud; of which it is always necessary that those should make use who from small beginnings wish to rise to sublime heights, and the better they conceal it, as the Romans did, the less blameworthy it is.” (Crick:1979:310-12)

The result of a constitution of Mafia families based around this perspective of ‘might is right’- The increase in Property, law, slaves, education, theatre and feminism, through War away and inequality at home

Now that we have seen Rome become a conscious empire, and its methods in doing so let us see what the repercussions were upon the polis who gained so much booty and tribute from these annexed and protected states. Will the poor become richer through some process of ‘trickle down’ of the wealth or will they become poorer still. Will there be less abject people because the protectorate of just policemen use their moral nature in order to honour the social contract upon which the Republic is based?

“The wars with Carthage had momentous effects on Rome’s development. Most obvious was an enormous increase in Roman territory. The Roman victories over Carthage led to the creation of overseas provinces in Sicily, North Africa, and Spain. This not only brought Rome great new wealth- above all  from Sicilian and African grain, and Spanish silver- but in the case of Spain was the beginning of a policy of westward expansion that proved to be one of the great formative influences on the history of Europe. Then too the wars brought Rome into conflict with eastern Mediterranean powers and thereby paved the way for still greater dominion. During the Second Punic War, Philip V of Macedon had entered into an alliance with Carthage and was said to have had designs on Egypt. Declaring a disinterested intention to forestall Philip’s moves, Rome sent an army to the East, although the extension of Roman rule was evidently the real item on the Roman agenda. The result was the conquest of Greece and Asia Minor and the reduction of Egypt into a Roman sphere of influence. Thus before the end of the second century B.C. virtually the entire Mediterranean world had been brought under Roman control.

As Roman tentacles stretched out over the Mediterranean, a host of fundamental economic and social changes ensued. One was a huge increase in slavery due to the capture and sale of prisoners of war. We have seen that 55,000 Carthaginians were enslaved in 146 B.C.; not long before, 150,000 Greeks had met the same fate. By the end of the second century about a million slaves toiled in Italy, mainly in the fields, making Rome one of the most slave-based economies known to history. Concomitant with this development was the decline of the small farmer as a result of the establishment of the plantation system based on slave labour and the influx of cheap grain from the provinces. Small farmers, in turn, took refuge in the cities, above all the city of Rome itself, creating a large new urban element. Inevitably this trend, along with the incorporation of overseas areas long oriented to trade, and the need for an administrative apparatus, led to the appearance of a middle class comprising merchants, moneylenders, and men who held government contracts to operate mines, build roads, or collect taxes. Yet the cities were also full of impoverished drifters because Rome never made a transition to industrialism; with slaves to do all the hard work, a great disincentive existed for the technological initiative that might have led to industrialism, and without large-scale manufacture the urban population remained underemployed. Thus a traveller to Italy around 150 B.C. would have found a countryside full of slaves and cities full of disgruntled ex-farmers, living from hand to mouth.

Yet another change that accompanied the acquisition of new territories was a change in the nature of family life and the status of women. In earlier times the Roman family was based on the husband’s legal and financial authority, which gave him nearly absolute powers. The wife was subordinate and served as custodian of the home while the husband managed outside affairs and expected to be treated with reverence. In the second century B.C., however, two legal innovations greatly altered this pattern. One was the introduction of so-called “free marriage”, whereby the wife’s share of her father’s property remained her own instead of passing to her husband and reverted to her father of her father’s heir upon her death. Together with that came new rules for divorce, whereby either side, instead of just the man, could initiate proceedings, and adultery was not needed as the sole justification. Apparently the motive of both legal novelties was to prevent the transfer of property from one family to another, which would diminish the size of the large estates created with the influx of slaves. Yet both changes obviously resulted in giving the wife greater legal independence. In addition, the slave system itself gave wealthier women greater practical independence, for slaves could now take over tasks of child-rearing and household maintenance. Upper-class Roman women accordingly spent more time away from the home and began to engage in a range of social, intellectual, and artistic activities.

Cultivated upper-class life for both men and women had been made possible by a final change attendant on Roman expansion, the introduction of Greek ideas and customs. These flowed more easily to Rome with the conquest of the Hellenic East and were adopted once upper-class Romans began to become really wealthy as a result of their conquests. In particular, children were given much more education, theatre and literature became ever more the mode, and the creature comforts that Hellenistic Greeks had begun to prize in Syria and Egypt became equally prized in turn by the Roman conquerors of the Mediterranean world. Some conservative Roman males viewed such changes with repugnance. For them the “good old Roman ways” with emphasis on family life based on fatherly authority and sober military discipline were giving way to the collapse of the family and the debilitating lures of soft living. But whether they liked it or not, they could not turn the clock back, for Rome had now become irreversibly transformed from a republic of farmers into a complex society with vast gaps between rich and poor and new habits, at least among the well-to-do, of greater personal autonomy.” (Lerner et al: 1993:169-172)

“But it is no easy task to confine luxury within the limits of an empire. The most remote countries of the ancient world were ransacked to supply the pomp and delicacy of Rome. The forest of Scythia afforded some valuable furs. Amber was brought over land from the shores of the Baltic to the Danube; and the barbarians were astonished at the price which they received in exchange for so useless a commodity. There was a considerable demand for Babylonian carpets, and other manufactures of the East; but the most important and unpopular branch of foreign trade was carried on with Arabia and India. Every year, about the time of the summer solstice, a fleet of an hundred and twenty vessels sailed from Myoshormos, a port of Egypt, on the Red Sea. By the periodical assistance of the monsoons, they traversed the ocean in about forty days. The coast of Malabar, or the island of Ceylon, was the usual term of their navigation, and it was in those markets that the merchants from the more remote countries of Asia expected their arrival. The return of the fleet of Egypt was fixed to the months of December or January; and as soon as their rich cargo had been transported on the backs of camels from the Red Sea to the Nile, and had descended that river as far as Alexandria, it was poured, without delay, into the capital of the empire.

The objects of oriental traffic were splendid and trifling: silk, a pound of which was esteemed not inferior in value to a pound of gold; precious stones, among which the pearl claimed the first rank after the diamond; and a variety of aromatics, that were consumed in religious worship and the pomp of funerals. The labour and risk of the voyage was rewarded with almost incredible profit; but the profit was made upon Roman subjects, and a few individuals were enriched at the expense of the public. As the natives of Arabia and India were contented with the productions and manufactures of their own country, silver, on the side of the Romans, was the principal, if not the only, instrument of commerce. It was a complaint worthy of the gravity of the senate that, in the purchase of female ornaments, the wealth of the states was irrecoverably given away to foreign and hostile nations. The annual loss is computed, by a writer of an inquisitive but censorious temper, at upwards of eight hundred thousands pounds sterling.” (Gibbon:1998:44-5)

So the result of these wars was an increase in power and wealth for the haves whilst the settler farmer that began this pyramid way of life from a small insurance policy finds himself destitute and living hand to mouth within the very city walls that have disenfranchised him. The family of kin that he was a head of is now disempowered through the law in order to weaken the family bonds that so threaten the Mafioso families who inherit their power by maintaining these very bonds, and instead of this being seen for what it is by the family, it is seen as a means to power for women, who decide to use that power to leave their children with a slave and go to the theatre and wear luxuries. Today the leading feminist in England, A.S.Byatt called feminism a shameful betrayal of women by rich women who use their power to enslave other women’, and we will see this in greater detail later, however, the roots to it lie in the legal changes that are authored by the senate in order to empower themselves in reality, and Rome is the founder of Law and feminism.

The effect of this new feminism was to split up the property of families who now become merely households and not landed ancestors of kin, who are forced by this reality to live within the city and to adopt its artifice of increase through status and esteem, and this is done, as it is done today by the middle classes through the channels of law, education, entertainment and politics.

What I now wish to do is to break apart these separate elements and reveal how they were produced in Rome, what purposed they served and finally, what was the result of all of this hardwork. Did they gain any further power or lose it? The price as we are beginning to understand through the gap between liberation and liberty must surely be worth it. As Machiavelli’s most famous dictum tells us, ‘The end justifies the means’.

Let us then follow these means and see their ends and therefore see just how wise Machiavelli truly is by following his advice

The first increase that we will discuss is the song of War that Romes empire had necessitated and the resultant Triumph that it produced. How were the victories that made Rome great perceived in Rome by its polis and what was the requisite behaviour to dance this feeling? What was the nature of the god to which they were dancing?

How the Theatre of War changed the Greek God of Theatre. The Dance of Victory- Triumph- the blood drunk universal song of the god  Dionysus- Play the Pipes of Peace – A cornucopia of blood

The best way to understand the way that the concept of liberation changed to the concept of liberty is to understand the change of how the god that represented liberation became represented as the god of liberty, and the best way to understand this is to look at the nature of his goat-song. To do this we will first look at the dance of victory that Rome held when returning from its wars and to whom they were dedicated- The Triumph. What we need to know as we learn about this dance to the song of Triumph is that the word triumph means, ‘a hymn to Bacchus’. That is the same god Bacchus who the Athenians took from his temple and turned into a drama of docility as an education in their theatres. The theatre of war, that is the Roman triumph now takes on dramatic aspects in the same light as that light of individual self-perfection authored for the same purpose as the rich senators of Athens who sponsored them, their own individual glory under the aegis of the gods, in the form of luxury, the true god of being-for-itself.

Spectacles of Military Victory

“From its beginning Rome was a warrior state, with armies of soldier-citizens led by consular generals; and military and political power intertwined in the concept of imperium, the power to command troops given to leaders by the Roman people. Semi-legendary figures (e.g. Horatius, Cincinnatus, Camilius) offered models of heroism, sacrifice, and victory in defense of Rome, and the increase in warfare put ever more emphasis on the notion of just and divinely sanctioned wars and on the leadership of magnificent generals….

In all, Rome witnessed some 300 triumphs, a military track record of conquest and splendour” (Le Glay:2009:103-4)

“In the chariot with the general was a public slave who held a laurel wreath (or gold crown) over his head and regularly reminded him that he was a mortal, that his glory was temporary. The general was to avoid haughtiness and to remember that his success was assisted by divine favour. However ambiguously, the glory belonged to Jupiter as well as to the mortal general.” (Le Glay:2009:104-5)

“Since a triumph, as the pinnacle of military honours, so flattered and lauded a single general, the state was extremely careful about granting one. By tradition, to be eligible, a general, one holding an office with imperium and having taken his own auspices (auspicia) had to have victoriously conducted a legitimate war in his assigned territory against a foreign foe. Also, he must have secured peace, having won and completed the war in which a minimum of 5,000 enemies were killed. Triumphs thus functioned as visible proof of such deaths….

If not granted a triumph in Rome by the state, a general might finance and stage one of his own outside the city, and some generals essentially coerced the Senate into granting triumphs at Rome, whether they met the formal requirements or not. Pompey, for example, held two triumphs without holding the adequate offices, and Julius Caesar held a triumph for defeating the sons of Pompey in what was a civil, not a foreign, war.” (Le Glay:2009:106)

“Since the Republic was almost continuously at war, with more distant and sometimes multiple fronts, the number, scale, and components of triumphs became more elaborate and expensive over time….The consul Lucius Aemilius Paulus celebrated his victory at Pydna over King Perseus of Macedon in 168 with a grand triumph that lasted three days and included an amount of gold and silver worth 120,000,000 sesterces or more (Plutarch, Life of Aemilius Paulus 32-5; Livy 45.40). Regrettably, because generals sought triumphs for personal satisfaction, political prestige, and popularity with the masses, there can be little doubt that at times they provoked attacks and sought out engagements, as in the pacification of Spain, in hopes of accumulating and sought out engagements, as in the pacification of Spain, in hopes of accumulating that requisite “body count”….

As Rome’s frontiers expanded, triumphs came to include the parading of exotic animals from the conquered foreign territories. Soon such animals were exhibited and “hunted” in arenas (in venationes), and increasing numbers of war captives were displayed and forced to fight in shows at Rome. Thus the display of beasts and captives as war booty and symbols of the conquest of foreign enemies and lands led to the creation or elaboration of other forms of spectacles. Paid for by victorious general out of his spoils of war, such shows were put on at the end of triumphal processions, further demonstrating the extent and glory of the victory. Especially by the late Republic, a triumph became an occasion for a great general, enriched by war booty, to offer triumphal games; and triumphal games came to include more forms of entertainment and more lavish distributions of largesse to the people, such as public banquets and distributions of meat.” (Le Glay:2009:106-7)

“But when the arms of the legions were carried to a great distance from Italy, the generals assumed the liberty of directing them against whatever people, and in whatever manner, they judged most advantageous for the public service. It was from the success, not from the justice, of their enterprises, that they expected the honours of a triumph. In the use of victory, especially after they were no longer controlled by the commissioners of the senate, they exercised the most unbounded despotism. When Pompey commanded in the East, he rewarded his soldiers and allies, dethroned princes, divided kingdoms, founded colonies, and distributed the treasures of Mithridates. On his return to Rome he obtained, by a single act of the senate and the people, the universal ratification of all his proceedings. Such was the power over the soldiers, and over the enemies of Rome, which was either granted to, or assumed by, the generals of the republic. They were, at the same time, the governors, or rather monarchs, of the conquered provinces, united the civil with the military character, administered justice as well as the finances, and exercised both the executive and legislative power of the state.” (Gibbon:1998:55)

Bacchus returns but this time he is a Eunuch

Triumphal songs to Bacchus the ithyphallic god of fertility, otherwise known to science as the energy of the Universe, therefore became triumphal songs to triumphal generals who thus glorified became so paranoid about their right to power that the senate had to have a slave repeatedly tell these generals that they were still mortal and not gods. But these warrior gods suffered from the same sickness inherent in a such a society, as we saw happen to Athens. The song of murder couches within it, the feeling of shame and guilt at lauding luxury in the face of blood and calling it not just right, but glorious. The song of liberty couches within it, the feeling of shame and guilt at lauding luxury in the face of those behind the golden door of liberty and calling it not just right, but a virtue.

The stick-wielder who sees the faces of these murder victims and takes the booty to create the abject, and then returns to Rome to see opulent luxury lauded by a few, whilst his family has been disenfranchised from their land, and now live destitute in the city of liberty where there are more abject slaves than citizens finds a bit of psychological damage being done to his soul that the founder gods of Rome, have no means of dealing with. As we saw above, the Romans had to adopt the Greek gods, because they had politicised there own to such a degree that they no longer had any transcendent meaning, and hence no means to catharsis for the warrior.

Concerning the Religion of the Romans

Though the first person to give Rome a constitution was Romulus, to whom, as a daughter, it owed its birth and its education, yet, since heaven did not deem the institutions of Romulus adequate for so great an empire, it inspired the Roman senate to choose Numa Pompilius as Romulus’s successor, so that the things which he had left undone, might be instituted by Numa. Numa, finding the people ferocious and desiring to reduce them to civic obedience by means of the arts of peace, turned to religion as the instrument necessary above all others for the maintenance of a civilized state, and so constituted it that there was never for so many centuries so great a fear of God as there was in this republic.

It was religion that facilitated whatever enterprise the senate and the great men of Rome designed to undertake. Whoever runs through the vast number of exploits performed by the people of Rome as a whole, or by many of the Romans individually, will see that its citizens were more afraid of breaking an oath than of breaking the law, since they held in higher esteem the power of God than the power of man…

It will also be seen by those who pay attention to Roman history, how much religion helped in the control of armies, in encouraging the plebs, in producing good men, and in shaming the bad. So that if it were a question of the ruler to whom Rome was more indebted, Romulus or Numa, Numa, I think, should easily obtain the first place. For, where there is religion, it is easy to teach men to use arms, but where there are arms, but no religion, it is with difficulty that it can be introduced. Thus, one sees that in establishing the senate and introducing other civic and military institutions, Romulus did not find it necessary to appeal to divine authority; but to Numa it was so necessary that he pretended to have private conferences with a nymph who advised him about the advice he should give to the people. This was because he wanted to introduce new institutions to which the city was unaccustomed, and doubted whether his own authority would suffice.

Nor in fact was there ever a legislator who, in introducing extraordinary laws to a people, did not have recourse to God, for otherwise they would not have been accepted, since many benefits of which a prudent man is aware, are not so evident to reason that he can convince others of them. Hence wise men, in order to escape this difficulty, have recourse to God. So Lycurgus did; so Solon, and so have many others done who have had the same end in view.” (Crick:1979:139-41)

What Use the Romans made of Religion in reorganizing the City, in prosecuting their Enterprises, and in composing Tumults

It does not seem to me foreign to my purpose to adduce some examples of how the Romans used religion in reforming their city, and in prosecuting their wars. In Titus Livy there are many example of this, but I shall be content with the following. The Roman people, having created tribunes with consular power, all of whom, save one, were plebeians, there occurred in that year pestilences and famine, and certain prodigies took place. Availing themselves of this opportunity in the next appointment of tribunes, the nobles said that the gods were angry with Rome for having abused the majesty of her authority, and that the only way to placate them was to restore the election of tribunes to its proper position. The result was that the plebs, terrified by this appeal to religion appointed only nobles as tribunes.

One notes also in the siege of the city of Veii how the army leaders used religion in order to keep the troops keyed up for attack. During the year, the Alban lake had risen in an extraordinary way, and the Roman soldiers, tired of the long siege, were desirous of returning to Rome when it was discovered that Apollo and certain other oracles had said that the city of Veii would be taken in the year in which Lake Alba overflowed. This report made the soldiers endure the fatigues of the siege, since they now felt sure that they would capture the town…

I must not omit to add yet another relevant example. There had arisen in Rome a number of tumults occasioned by Terentillus, a tribune, who wanted to propose a certain law, for reasons which will be given later in their proper place. One of the first remedies the nobility used was religion, of which they availed themselves in two ways. First they got someone to look up the Sibylline book, which told them, so they said, that, owing to sedition, the city would be in danger of losing its liberties that very year. Though the tribunes exposed the fraud, it none the less put such fear into the breasts of the plebs that they refrained from following their lead.” (Crick:1979:146-7)

“The Romans split the vote between all free persons living in Roman territory and of their property therefore basing social life on wealth as status. There were five citizen classes of asses (an ‘as’ was originally a pound weight in uncoined copper- this is what later became called money as Roman coinage was minted on the Capitol near the temple of Juno Moneta) 1. 100,000 asses, 2. 75,000, 3. 50,000 4. 25,000, 5. 11,000. The more money you had then the more powerful your place in the military and consequently also in the political organization where the wealthiest held the majority of power. Many of these wealthy belonged to the patrician order, a kind of hereditary nobility, which reserved for itself the priestly offices and land ownership.  When the Etruscan rule was overthrown the Romans destroyed the temple of the Vestal virgin- Vesta meaning fire, the mother of Rome and replaced it with the Regia- the dwelling of the king- “So we have traces of a place of public worship, replaced by the Regia…Obviously, the person of the king was closely associated with religion.” (Le Glay et al:2009:33)

Early Roman religion saw the goat personified by the god Faunus, “and at the time of the Lupercalia (February 15) the priest of Lupercus would run round the Palatine, stripped to the waist, their lower parts covered with a goatskin” (Le Glay et al:2009:34). Greek influence then brought Pythagoreanism in sixth-fifth centuries BCE. This Greek influence changed the Roman gods’ names: “Liber Pater, god of fruitfulness, was assimilated to the Etruscan Fufluns and Thracian Dionysus and thus became Bacchus, god of wine and resurrection. Similarly, Ceres, an expression of the Earth Mother, was assimilated…to Demeter, the goddess of cereal crops and the mysteries. In this way a “national” religion was born, turning Rome into a sacred city, conscious of its religious superiority and adept at using it to its political advantage.” (Le Glay et al:2009:38-39)

“The religious beliefs of the Romans were altered in various ways in the last two centuries of the Republic- again mainly because of Rome’s interaction with the Hellenistic world. Most pronounced was the spread of Eastern mystery cults, which satisfied the craving for a more emotional religion than traditional Roman worship and offered the reward of immortality to the wretched of the earth. From Egypt came the cult of Osiris (or Serapis, as the god was now more commonly called), while from Asia Minor was introduced the worship of the Great Mother, with her eunuch priests and ritualistic orgies. Most popular of all at the end of the period was the Persian cult of Mithraism, which offered awe-inspiring underground rites and a doctrine of the afterlife of the soul.” (Lerner et al:1993:177)

“The Hellenization that so profoundly influenced the material culture of the Roman world flowed into its religion and morals through philosophy. We have already seen that, as early as the third century, Greek gods and rites penetrated into the heart of Italy and Rome. The Second Punic War, and what the Romans saw as the profanation of the Italian land by the Punic enemies, precipitated conspicuous developments in religious sensibilities. Two important developments in that field belong to this time. First, the cult of the Phrygian goddess Cybele was brought from Pessinus into Rome in 205/204 BCE. Second, in 186 BCE, an event known today as the Bacchanalian affair revealed the popularity, influence, and perceived social threat of Dionysian mysticism. Following recriminations surrounding the nocturnal and orgiastic celebrations of Bacchus, the Senate feared, according to Livy, a “domestic conspiracy”. After brief hearings, a senatorial decree was published, calling for the immediate disbandment of the cult, the destruction of all temples and shrines to Bacchus, the denunciation of anyone involved in these rites, and the punishment of those who would attempt to assist them to escape. Livy, who provides a detailed narrative of these events (39.8-19), relates that the male and female victims of this senatorial decree numbered in the thousands, throughout Rome and Italy. Fortunately, we possess a bronze plate documenting this senatorial decree (known as senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus) which allows us a comparison with Livy’s narrative of this affair.

Orphism and Pythagoreanism, doctrines of purity combined with ascetic practices, also enjoyed some success at this time, and similarly suggest the appeal of mysticism in Rome…. Epicureanism rivalled Stoicism and, much like it, promoted the concept of a virtuous contentment. Epicureanism, with its atomistic explanation of the physical universe, achieved success in Rome at the end of the second century, and in the next century with Lucretius’ On the Nature of Things, a didactic epic poem in six books.

These significant shifts and evolutions in the last two centuries of the Republic, the consequence of Rome’s expansion, often shocked ancient authors. The denunciation of indulgence as one of the major causes of republican Rome’s decline became a commonplace in contemporary and later authors such as Polybius, Sallust, Diodorus Siculus, Seneca, and others. Cato the Elder’s opposition to the repeal of the Oppian law is an episode that demonstrates the ambivalence felt about Rome’s increasing wealth. This law had been passed in 215 by the tribune Gaius Oppius, to limit women’s adornment and extravagance during the Second Punic War. Livy (34.2-4) creatively reconstructs a speech by the consul Cato in 195, during the debate regarding the possible repeal of the now antiquated law. There Cato denounces female luxury as the first step toward the political and social dissolution of the Roman state, and vehemently opposes the repeal.

In the same vein, Sallust, in his Conspiracy of Catiline (6-13), provides moral reasons for the decline of the Republic, inveighing against not only the increase of luxury and the lust for pleasure, but also the contempt for the gods and the impious corruption of men in power.” (Le Glay:2009:118-19)

So we see that at first the gods of the Greeks and Persians had to be adopted in order to represent the new imperialist face of Rome and its art of war, and that the triumphal hymn to Bacchus served the senate and the soldiers well, at first. But, as the control of this new wealth won becomes greater power for the aristocracy they control the religion to their advantage, as the Greeks had done, taming the animal spirit of Dionysus, as the Greeks has tamed the Iliad, by banning the alimental communion of the dance of togetherness, and turning it into the dance of lust, and luxury and entertaining triumphs as hymns to the great egoic self. As we have already seen predicted by contemporary authors, this led to the death of the Republic itself, as it also did in Athens to democracy, but first of all thousands will have to be ‘rightly’ slaughtered by the reciprocating soldiers, in order to facilitate this, and we shall see each sword stroke shortly. However for now let us look at the Nature of mysticism as it came to the Romans, cloaked in the mystery cult of Bacchus and his sacred song of OM as discussed above. Under this mystery cult the dance of the pecking pigeons of egoic self was transcended by the rites to this god. This was achieved by consuming vast amounts of spirit and having a lot of sex, but not as lust or entertainment or desire, but as a vehicle by which to transcend oneself.

This dance of togetherness framed by its cunning denigrators as a simple orgy, was not a lustful display of desire for the being-for-itself, but as a means of transcendence of that self by immersing oneself in a collective consciousness of communion of the spirit of Wakan. It was not a fuck-fest of egoic individual love as portrayed by the hippies in the 1970s, that died out because of the true nature that their lie housed.

If we remember the locust and the grasshopper, and how they changed their very Nature by rubbing up against each other, becoming a collective of social beings, then we can see that sex is the human means (as with Binobo chimps) of seeing oneself as a collective spirit of humanity, of Nature, of God. The initiate who therefore sang the true hymn to Bacchus therefore used physical vibration (rubbing) in order to change the note of his instrument (his body) in order to transcend his state into a super-state where the universe was experienced through this unity.

In Eastern religions we still see temples adorned with sexual practices of this same ilk, but the western mind struggles to interpret them without the education of sex as an original sin, and not as a means of transcendence of the self, thereby contaminating their ability to understand it, ‘il poche’, but that does not stop the western mind judging and forming a ‘right’ opinion from its ignorance, in a worlding of pure imagination (opinion without experience- il poche). Tantric sex is a mantric worldless song that transcends thought and with the right intention liberates the soul from the egoic version of sex that thrusts away like an animal of desire in the pornography of the West.

Such experiences of the oneness of us all in the great spirit of the goat-song of Wakan, does not do much to domesticate a people to violence as right, as the Athenians had found out previously and so it was banned by the senators, and adhered to by the soldiers who practiced the art of liberty, whilst claiming to use the authority of a nymph, another Muse of the Greek gods, in order to facilitate it. Without this transcendent experience of the self through others enacted by each individual, the dance of the priest became the silent experience of unity that the polis experience in its place, in just the same manner as the chorus of the polis in the temple of Bacchus in Athens, became the silence of the polis and the authorship of the rich as the chorus of the theatre. This promotes the experience of communing with the polis, and not communing with the universe. The greatest art that comes from this communing by votes and entertainments and triumphs of hatred and violence for gain is called, ‘The Law’, where everyone is treated as an individual unit of utility and not an individual soul in a collective spirit of transcendence, which we will explore in more detail later.

In Rome theatre has escaped the architecture of the theatre and become the very streets themselves in the great play of Liberty. The great penis of Bacchus has been hacked off and replaced with a Holy Lance of War. Liberation becomes Liberty, and of course one can take such a liberty to a god that one is authoring for ones own benefit. And of course, that God will only allow such hubris for a while before its nature creates the nemesis it Naturally deserves.

But if Bacchus is now no longer looked upon as the god to follow in order to kill loads of people and claim that it is right, what part of his nature is the stick-wielder supposed to worship now, in order to provide catharsis for the blood that he sees before him and is unable to wash from his sword or his soul. Who replaced Bacchus, and what is its Nature?

Save. Our. Souls. : Mithra rides to the Rescue with his Bull

“Notwithstanding its low moral tone, the age of the Principate was characterized by an even deeper interest in Salvationist religions than that which had prevailed under the Republic. Mithraism now gained adherents by the thousands, absorbing many of the followers of the cults of the Great Mother and of Serapis. About 40 C.E. the first Christians appeared in Rome. The new sect grew steadily and eventually succeeded in displacing Mithraism as the most popular of the Salvationist faiths.” (Lerner et al:1993:186)

“Exactly when Mithraism became an independent religion is unknown, but it was certainly not later than the fourth century B.C. The cult gained its name from Mithras, a lieutenant of Zoroastrianism’s omnipotent god Ahura-Mazda. At first only a minor deity in Zoroastrianism, Mithras gradually became recognized by many as the god most deserving of worship, probably because of his emotional appeal. He was believed to have lived an earthly existence involving great suffering and sacrifice. He performed miracles giving bread and wine to humanity and ending a drought and also a disastrous flood. He proclaimed Sunday as the most sacred day of the week since the sun was the giver of light. He declared the twenty-fifth of December as the most sacred day of the year because, as the approximate date of the winter solstice, it marked the return of the sun from its long journey south of the Equator. This was the “birthday” of the sun since on that day its life-giving powers began to increase for the benefit of humankind. Drawing its converts mostly from the lower classes of Hellenistic society, Mithraism offered them an elaborate ritual, contempt for life in this world, and a clearly defined doctrine of redemption through Mithras, a personal saviour. Not surprisingly it outlasted the Hellenistic period, becoming after about 100 C.E. one of the most popular religions in the Roman Empire and exerting a slight influence on Christianity.” (Lerner et al:1993:151-52)

If we remember back to the beginning of authority for settlers in the matriarchal line authorised by the life giving nature of the Moon and its cycles reflected in the life giving nature of Woman and her menstruation cycles, controlled by the moon, we will remember the journey that we took where Men were dual kings subservient to this ultimate Nature of Creation, of energy being taken by this Mother Nature and becoming Matter. Today referred to as energy coming into and out of existence through the play of quantum particles whose collective force keeps the very Milky Way galaxy from spinning apart and also the very Universe expanding at an exponential rate, and not slowing down as the second law of thermodyamics dictates that it should. In Ancient times this was described as the god Bacchus (energy or spirit) entering a virgin womb (the universe of matter, i.e. space and time).

We also saw the evolution of the power of the male over the female by placing the emphasis of society upon power, and hence the emphasis of the gods upon power, i.e. the energy as power and no longer the power to transform that energy through matter. Today we worship nuclear power and have nuclear debates with nuclear missiles of liberty that in reality mean destruction and lack in a desert. In ancient times they worshipped the creative power of Nature that in reality meant creation and abundance in a Garden of Eden.

The birth-date of a saviour god, who existed on the Earth but who suffered for us, who is symbolised by partaking of the wine (of Bacchus) as his universal spirit (energy) and the breaking of communal bread as his body (matter), is therefore the 25^th December, winter solstice, the time of year when the power of the energy of creation takes over from the power of destruction, i.e. when winter ends and spring begins and matter becomes full of energy, by being alive. A most sacred dance that does not require plate pecking or reward.

Now many readers will have noticed that Mithras seems to have exactly the same traits as Jesus did even though he existed for thousands of years before Jesus existed. What I wish to now do is to show the vast extent of similarities between Jesus, Mithra, Bacchus and Osiris, that is to say the god of the modern world, the Roman-Persian world, the Greek world, and the Egyptian world, that covers the entire 10,000 years of civilization and all the wars over these different names for gods that all have the same Nature. We are already aware, thanks to the hunter-gatherers myths and way of life and their survival through the aborigines of The Americas and Australia, of the roots of religion, and we are now aware of the role and purpose of priests in a religion through the question of ‘Who Benefits’.

Let us then look at the universal Nature of this male God in more detail before we begin to ask the more serious question, of why exactly did he have to become a saviour warrior God, as indeed Jehovah will become for the Jews born from this same worlding. Why did Ahura-Mazda have to have a son on Earth raised from the ranks of his crusading army of light, that we have already seen began as a whim of a game against a wisp of a devil- Ahriman- but was raised into a great war of right and wrong, light and dark. For those religious Jedi’s out there who might have been smug earlier when they found, ‘The Force’ to be Wakan, you may now ask why George Lucas your saviour here on Earth, who authored the character of Luke SkyWalker the saviour of pure imagination, in order to fight the darkside with his light sabre or holy lance and not with his holy penis and Princess Lay her instead of Princess Laya. Luke skywalker translates as the light that walks the sky, i.e. the sun and princess Laya translates as princess Layla, the goddess of desire and delusion, who is possessed sexually not in a communal orgy of transcendence but in a egoic relationship with someone called Hans Solo, another term for egoic masturbation and for monogamous relationships as defined by a docile state through its Laws, as we just saw Rome achieve by giving more power to women, Princess Layla, the original 1970s feminist. Maybe George was visited by the Muse of revelation when writing this story as was Numa, as was Solon, as was Zoroaster, etc, etc, etcetera or maybe he was just subconsciously embodying the super-state of the 1970’s world by his art form through his psychology, that is an interpretation that is up to you. Who benefits? Well George is a wealthy multi-millionaire, highly esteemed and even worshipped as a super-star, whilst the worshippers of his story visit temples, known as conventions, where they collect sacred relics and touch the rich super-star actors or hypocrites that embody this world of pure imagination, and pay a richly sum to do so, because it makes them feel a part of something good and whole or unifying, otherwise known as holy.

The only thing missing of course is the dark-lord, in order to cohere these people into an actual religion. Fortunately, because it is a scientific religion, this dark force can never be embodied in an actual physical, scientifically provable person, and therefore it remains a comic book vision and not a book that holds the Truth and commands a negative cult. That is achieved by the laws of copyright in the wider secular world that Jedis worship, in this world of pure imagination, CE describes the right to possess pure imagination and not of the time C.E. where the saviour Luke Skywalker walked the actual Earth. That time is relegated into fairy tale language right at the beginning, Once upon a time, in a galaxy far far away, in an eternity of possibilities amongst time in a space beyond our reach amongst the heavens.

Let us then meet this new saviour God with a bit of back story based upon fact and not fairy tale before we witness his necessary transformation into an earthly and solely human form whose purpose is, yes you guessed it, solely for us. The very spirit of God will manifest for us, in order to suffer for us, by our very hand, in order to save us and reward us with eternity in heaven simply by believing in him. A true miracle. Firstly let us look at the Nature of this skywalker of light:

Mithra or Mithras. The god of light of the ancient Persians, one of their chief deities, and the ruler of the universe, sometimes used as a synonym for the sun. The Avestan word (remember the Roman Goddess Vesta above who was ousted from the temple by the king) means ‘friend’ and this deity is so called because he befriends man in this life and protects him against evil spirits after death. As for ABRAXAS, the letters of his name, if written in the Greek form… (Meithras), add up to 365, the solar figure. His ritual was to partake of his blood and body in the form of bread and wine, i.e. the same as the eucharist and this caused the Christians much grievance in the fact that their holy mystery was and had been enacted for at least a few thousands years to portray the Nature of Mithra, who himself as the Sun of God, was sacrificed to save humanity, just as the old sun-king of the matriarchal line of pre-history (Myth) had been, but in order to produce abundance on earth and not in heaven or amongst the stars.

The Eucharist is the main magical ceremony in Catholicism – the inheritor of the Roman state, as we shall see- and so we cannot pass over it so lightly

Where exactly does this rite of breaking the body of Christ or Mithra into pieces and drinking his sanctified blood come from? Did other gods have it before Mithra, and before Christ? Well the answer is that this practice existed before even wine existed itself. This practice was a part of all of civilization going back to the ancient Egyptians and beyond into the dark annals of legend and myth of the hunter-gatherer man, in like manner as we have seen with the Flood and the Garden of Eden, etc. Now the Egyptians taught a Greek named Pythagoras their secret understanding of Nature (NTR) and of their practices in worshipping it, and Pythagoras taught Plato, who as we have seen previously in the first chapter was the father of metaphysics, i.e. of reason in religion becoming philosophy. Remember, for the ancients, when we talk about God, we are talking about a force called wakan that animates matter and is matter. What today scientists call energy an invisible force that animates and forms matter.

This spirit or energy then was seen by the hunter-gatherer as a force that bore the Universe but also that ran through the universe in the form of energy. Science todays calls this energy many different things- time, space, evolution, gravity, matter, etc, etcetera. The ancients also saw this energy manifest itself in different ways and worshipped any aspects of Nature (objects) that could bear witness to this force. Now one of the amazing things about wine is that it transmutes its nature from grape juice into spirit, and as that spirit enters our body it transmutes our nature, changing our perception of the World and hence of our worlding within it, especially when taken in a super-state and alone.  Previously to the invention of wine, which was a luxury of civilization, as we have seen with the change of crops from cereals to grapes in both Athens and Rome now – mead took its place. Mead it a drink made with honey that was produced by little golden bees that walk in the air (fly) imbibing the very nature of the flower produced by the flower following the course of the sun through the sky in an act of alimental communion called worship, whose fruit was a flower of great beauty and a sweet nectar, or manna from heaven, that was then used by these bees in order to transmute it into honey, and then was used by ancient man in order to transmute his nature by fermenting this honey back into pure spirit, imbibing this golden liquid at times of worship of the Sun, in a similar dance as performed by the flower, that contained this spirit of God- wakan, and turned its energy into matter, and hence gave us life. Let us then go back through history into legend and myth and see our return through Christ, to Mithra, to Dionysus, to Osiris, and watch them all perform the same miracle, of transmuting the nature of water- the symbol of consciousness- into a holy spirit that possesses us. Or to put it in Jedi language let us see how many mitochlorians you have in your body by which to sense this force that pervades the entire Universe:

“That there was a dim remembrance of a time when there was no wine is proved by several myths, such as attributing its discovery to Dionysus and others, and another which describes how honey was ousted by wine, under the form of a contest between Dionysus and Aristaeus, the gods adjudging the victory to the former. In the Orphic myth alluded to by Porphyry, Zeus makes Kronos intoxicated by means of honey, for “wine was not”; and the goddess Night also advised him to bind Kronos when he was lying under the oaks, intoxicated by the honey produced by the bee. Plato tells that Porus in the Garden of Zeus was drunk, not with wine, but with nectar, for “wine was not yet known“. Plutarch says that mead was used as a libation before the cultivation of the vine, and “even now those of the barbarians who do not drink wine have a honey-drink”. P.119 The Sacred Bee in Ancient Times & Folklore- Hilda M Ransome

“The likenesses to Christian doctrine were so obvious that they were held by the Church Fathers to have been the work of the Devil. Thus, with reference to the Last Supper, we find Justin Martyr in the second century AD accuses the demon of having wilfully imitated the Christian rites in the mysteries of Mithra, “commanding the same things to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you can either know or can learn”.

The Church Father Tertullian, a little later, had an even more detailed knowledge of Mithraism, and no less believed that, “the Devil, by the mysteries of his idols, imitates even the main part of the divine mysteries…There Mithra sets his mark on the foreheads of his soldiers; he celebrates the oblation of bread: he offers an image of the resurrection, and presents at once the crown and the sword; he limits his chief priests to a single marriage; he even has his virgins and ascetics.” The Essene Odyssey- Hugh Schonfield

Dionysus is more widely known under his Roman name of Bacchus, the God of wine and lechery and as we have seen it is his worship that becomes the educational theatre of democracy and individuality for the Greeks and ourselves today. The lower half of his body is that of a goat, whilst his upper half is human but still bears the horns of the goat upon his head- the Satyr. He is a god of the mystery school of Eleusis and may be compared to Christ in quite a startlingly parallel manner. As we have seen in Greece this half-goat figure was the Satyr that bore the Comedies of Theatre. As we have seen in Rome at its inception, this half-goat figure was ‘Faunus’. In both instances they represent the animal nature of uncivilized man, once seen through the egoic perspective of reason, i.e. the technique of gaining what is desired for-itself- city-life, as Aristotle named it.

Dionysus was born on the 25^th December to a virgin mother named Semele, who was visited by Zeus, the greatest Greek God, in the form of fire- recall Prometheus and his gift of transmutation. In like manner Christ was born on the 25^th December to a virgin mother who was impregnated by the greatest God. Jesus came from the race of Jesse, meaning the race of fire. Also whilst Dionysus is half goat half man so Jesus is born under the sign of Capricorn symbolized by a goat in the stars of the Zodiac that houses twelve animal Natures or spirits or gods, just as Jesus had twelve disciples, and Philip II of Macedon had twelve gods in his circular theatre, born from the twelve gods in the temple of Dionysus. These zodiacal animals are of course those same holy natures that Noah led, two by two into his ark.

This goat may be the same she-goat named Amalthea who fed Zeus the father of Dionysus the milk from her breast whilst bees fed him the honey which later poured from Dionysus’ staff as mead, as it would do from Aarons Rod for the Jews of the exodus as manna whilst they looked for a place to settle in a land of milk and honey! Amalthea is the goat from whence we derive the word ‘cornucopeia’ , meaning- the horn of plenty- i.e. the abundance that has been lost, described otherwise as the garden of Eden. A horn blown through by a pure spirit that resounds the triumph of God, that breaks the walls of Jericho (as we saw one of the oldest civilizations in the world) when its bearers lay down their arms in faith and walk in a sacred circle around this city of Babylon seven times.  To breathe the spirit of god through this Amalthea, to blow that trumpet, is to chorus the goat-song by our actions. To fill the goat-horn with wine or honeyed mead is to become a vessel for this spirit in which it can ferment, and mature as you coalesce with it and grow up together- transcending you earlier egoic state, and vibrating through this alimental communion with the lord of dance into a super-state that feels like walking on air or skywalking or being raised up or resurrected from an egoic state of physical suffering on the cross of matter upon the tree of life where we hang our solely individual human physical self at the centre and lament the tragedy of the suffering that we bear witness to, from this man-made pyramidical hill of death without knowing what we do.*

*The ark of Jedi disciples is the unopened boxes of the Star Wars figures collector who keeps the profane world separate from the sacred hermetically sealed figure within, walled off from the real world in an ontological space of senselessness, only to be momentarily possessed by the look of those chosen to gaze upon it- the initiated, when they enter the Holy of Holies, the games room, were these sacred relics are displayed and worshipped as darpan reflections of the inner world of the collector, who wishes to embody this spirit. Jabba the Hut, the actual body shape of most of these collectors however comes from the Arabic word Jabba meaning compulsion and the Hut is the body that is compelled by desire to cherish its self into such an unfit form that could not enact a single heroic act, as the outer world crushes the actual spirit of heroic honour and higher purpose that this sacred world represents. It is a private religion par excellence that is ridiculed by the outer world due to this parity of reality and pure imagination. The desire to fit in and the reality of being unfit, hermetically sealed within a walled of enclosure temple where the sacred dance of film and video games sing the hymn to the sacred, whose sacred words at the beginning of the film, at its genesis, take up the entire universe and recede into the distance that separates us from them, never to be experienced or touched by to be left in their infinite potential, without common sense, in a world of pure imagination. Oh, and then you die- really.

This staff of Dionysus was wound with ivy and grape vines, whilst from its top flowed forth honey. The ivy around this staff combined with the holly plant of Christmas fare is derived from the Egyptian God, ‘Set’ the brother of Osiris. Set is the Egyptian version of Ahriman who tries to take the Great God Osiris’ power from him, but is unable to do so because Osiris’ son is born on Earth, fights Set in a desert or wilderness, possibly for the same forty days that Jesus later did, and for the same amount of time as Noah will experience the flood. However Horus is defeated and he is buried, only to be resurrected by Hathor, a female lover of this Son of God, who bathes his eyes in gazelles milk poured from an alabaster jar, in order to resurrect Horus, who then goes on to defeat Set in a mystical battle in the heavens, and return his father to the throne. This gazelles milk and this lover can be seen in the Jewish part of the bible, in the Song of Songs, sung by Solomon- Sol meaning sun and OM meaning OM and on meaning a station, i.e. a super-state-on, a place or dwelling that comes from singing this song:

“I am a wall and my breasts are like towers…; Come away, my lover, and be like a gazelle…; Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine…; Your hair is like Royal Tapestry, the King is held captive by its tresses…; May your breasts be like the clusters of the vine, the fragrance of your breath like apples, and your mouth like the best wine…; I have come into my garden, my sister, my bride; I have gathered…I have eaten my honeycomb and my honey; I have drunk my wine and my milk…My lover is like a gazelle or a young stag. Look! There he stands behind our wall, gazing through the windows, peering through the lattice; My lover spoke and said to me, “Arise, my darling, my beautiful one, and come with me…Like a lily among thorns is my darling among the maidens.” The Song of Songs

“Lines that are identical and parallel to those in the Song of Songs are found in a liturgical poem from the cult of the Egyptian goddess Isis, the sister-bride of the mutilated sun god Osiris.” The Woman With the Alabaster Jar- Margaret Starbird p.43

“When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster-jar of perfume, and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them…Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven…Your faith has saved you; go in peace” Luke 7:37-50

So a song to Isis, Osiris’ wife is also the song sung by the king of the Jews Solomon, whose name contains the very song OM. This song describes the Nature of her garment, that contain the apples that we saw in the Garden of Eden, the wine and honey and milk, and the gazelle that resurrected Horus the son of God. To reconcile this with Christ and his lover Mary Magdalene we need only understand the first description of her holy Nature as a tower. We need only look at another section of the Bible in which the Hebrew prophet Micah foresees the restoration of Jerusalem. Jerusalem comes from the Hebraic words ‘Uru-shalim’, meaning the house of peace, after which the city of Jerusalem was named by the Jews once they settled, in like manner to how the Americans named Washington the capital of America after George Washington once they had settled. The place is not holy, the inner world that de-sired it is, and by this desiring, found it, laid its foundations and founded it- or worlded it to use the language that we have been using so far. A world where famously, “all nations shall beat their swords into ploughshares”:

“As for you, O Magdal-eder_, watchtower of the flock,

O Stronghold of the daughter of Zion!

The former dominion will be restored to you;

Kingship will come to the daughter of Jerusalem.

Why do you now cry aloud-

 Have you no King?

Has your counsellor perished,

That pain seizes you like that of a woman in Labor?

Writhe in agony, O daughter of Zion,

Like a woman in labor,

For now you must leave the city

And camp in the open field.

In this prophecy we see the meaning of the name Magdelene as “watchtower of the flock”

To just accentuate this point, let me now remind you of the fairy tale, fairy meaning fate, i.e. the tale of fate in which a woman with golden tresses stares out from her latticed window (the interweaving of energy into matter) in her tower awaiting her prince, who will fall from the tower into a patch of thorns that crown his head and blind him, whereupon he is forced to wander, lost in a wilderness, unable to return to his kingdom, living a life of great suffering until he is almost at deaths door, whereupon Rapunzel his lover who he kisses on the mouth when in this tower, now finds him and with her gazelle like tears washes his eyes and returns his sight whereby both he and her return to the kingdom together as one. That is to say that both energy and matter become one through this perspective. For those interested in the Legend of The Holy Grail or the money-making ignorance of ‘The Da Vinci Code’, we will return to this later on in the next chapter, but to lay at little teasing seed whose fruit we have not yet tasted let me state that the man who claimed to have found the Holy Grail and who was a member of the Priory of Sion he built a dwelling for his esoteric books and called it the Tower of Magdelene.

A lesser known reflective description is also given of Mary Magdalene to the Song of Songs which describes her as breathing the words, “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth- for your love is more delightful than wine” Song of Songs 1- This is refrained in the Gospel of Thomas, a Gnostic gospel that was excised from the Bible, as we shall see in the next chapter, where Mary Magdalene is authored by writer of this gospel as being, the highest of Christs disciples, who knew mysteries that he did not impart to them, and who kissed him frequently on the lips. Today scholars interpret this as meaning something as facile as to indicate that the Son of God was married to a woman, and presumably therefore imparted these mysteries as pillow-talk to his lover. In fact they represent the partaking of the spirit of energy by imbibing them in alimental communion in a mystical rite, where the sacred name of God is breathed outwards from the inner world into the outer to animate it through this Nature. You are what you eat for it possesses you as you possess it- alimental communion.

If we remember the words of Govinda above where he describes the nature of an initiate to the song of OM, not as a secret institution of knowers but as a change of perspective or vibration that allows one to know, i.e. knowledge is revealed that is not normally or commonly sensed- revelation, then one can understand how the mystic can arise in any religion at any time by imbibing this single spirit- wakan and thereby understanding the words of the Bible or Egyptian Coffin Texts, or Babylonian Myths, or fairy-tale, or Holy Grail legend, or Torah or Koran in a different way and thereby know by the seeing these same words transform from meaningless ones into a cohesive body of meaning that he had understood their meaning. They would then begin to be able to speak this language.

This is known as the ‘Green Language’, meaning the language of true Nature (Nature appearing Green to us mostly) or the language of Cant, meaning the language of song, i.e. the goat-song that we have now seen sung across the entire World throughout history in a secret mystical meaning, that it does not serve the Egyptians or Babylonians or Romans or the Greeks to increase by for themselves and so the secret priestly castes who push gambling, whores, loans, drugs, and a negative cult of desire build pyramids in which to dwell, instead of towers by which to rise up without distraction, above the wilderness of desire, to gain the singular through behind the latticed looking glass of space and time, in order to become liberated by ones saviour, who is blind without the tears of suffering that the world of desire creates, that becomes a river of tears containing over 4 and a half billion abject at present count, who starve to death, who are diseased to death, who fight to the death, in a reasonable survival of the fittest, whose authors gain by educating us in it and a universe that becomes a meaningless accident divided into the egoic categories of pleasure and pain, mine and not mine, better known as yours and not yet mine- war, the father of everything. God bless war and pass the ammunition- as my Nation-super-state sings in alimental communion as they sacrifice their lives and await their resurrection in heaven.

Bonaventura tells a story of how the mystic Christian, Francis of Assisi came armed to an audience with Pope Innocent the head of the Catholic institution armed with a parable that we may, understand and recognise, and hence understand the urgrund upon which stood and dwelled, and how his life reflecting it, as opposed to how the Pope stood and dwelled and how his life reflected it. A life that we will actually see in greater detail later on. What is the message of Assisi to this conduit of God:

“There was”, he said, “a rich and mighty king who took to wife a poor but very beautiful woman, who lived in a desert, in whom he greatly delighted and by whom he had children who bore his image. When her sons were grown their mother said to them, “My sons, be not ashamed; ye are the children of a King.” And she sent them to the court, having supplied them with all necessaries. When they came to the King, he admired their beauty; and seeing in them some resemblance to himself, he asked them, “Whose sons are ye? When they replied that they were the sons of a poor woman dwelling in the desert, the King, filled with much joy, said, “Fear not, ye are my sons, and if I nourish strangers at my table, how much more you, who are my legitimate children.” 7

Dionysus has a few interesting titles that bring us closer to his parallel as Christ. The first of these titles is Dionysus Liber meaning “he who frees from guilt”. Just as Christ freed us from sin so does Dionysus. This Capricornian part of his Nature took its form in Judaism as the sacrificial-goat who on the Hebrew Day of Atonement was confessed over by the high priest to take all of their sins, and we have already seen this goat become the seed of theatre in tragedy to enact this catharsis communally. Was this not the same role of Christ who after leaving the wilderness took all of our sins upon him and was then sacrificed as per the Will of God and by the will of the priests, who shared a sacrificial last meal with his disciples in order to nourish them with the bread and wine of his spirit and body. The spirit of a teknon to gain heaven on Earth, and turn swords into ploughshares?

“The early Egyptian Christian Basilides believed that Jesus was baptized on 6^th January, a date which had been celebrated for centuries in Egypt as “the Day of Osiris”. Some Christians commemorated this date as the day on which Christ “sanctified the water”. They offered prayers at midnight on 5^th January and then all rushed with pitchers to a river to obtain water which was believed now to be holy and possess purifying powers. For hundreds of years before Christ Egyptians had been doing exactly the same thing at exactly the same time. The night of 5^th January was said to be a time when the waters of the Nile gained miracle-working powers, through the grace of Osiris…

The night of 5^th January was also the time when Dionysus was believed to miraculously change water into wine. According to Pliny, on the island of Andros a stream of wine flowed in the temple of Dionysus and continued for seven days…

During the Greek festival called Thyia, three empty basins were put into a room in the presence of citizens and foreigners. The room was then locked and sealed, and anyone who wanted to could bring his own seal to add to the seal on the door. On the next day the seals remained unbroken, but those entering the room found that the three basins had miraculously been filled with wine.”  6

In the mystical sect of Islam- Sufism- “The Sufi speaks of wine, the product of the grape, and its secret potential, as his means of attaining “inebriation”. The grape is seen as the raw form of the wine. Grapes, then, mean ordinary religion; while wine is the real essence of the fruit.” 7

“In the tavern are many wines- the wine of delight in colour and form and taste, the wine of the intellects agility, the fine port of stories, and the cabernet of soul singing. Being human means entering this place where entrancing varieties of desire are served. The grapeskin of ego breaks and a pouring begins. Fermentation is one of the oldest symbols for human transformation…But after some time in the tavern, a point comes, a memory of elsewhere, a longing for the source, and the drunks must set off from the tavern and begin their return.” 8

07: The Tearing of Bread as the Body of Christ

“Plutarch writes in his essay On the Ei at Delphi, revealing as much Orphic secret doctrine as he dares: “In describing the manifold changes of Dionysus into winds, water, earth, stars and growing plants and animals, they use the riddling expressions, “render asunder” and, “tearing limb from limb”. And they call the god, “Dionysus” or “Zagreus” (the torn) or “The Night Sun” or “The Impartial Giver”, and record various Destructions, Disappearances, Resurrections and Rebirths, which are their mythographic account of how those changes came about.” 4

Another synchronistic title is found in “Dionysus Sabazius”, a title which leads us into an understanding of yet another Eucharistic practice where a son of Gods body was once again broken apart in the symbolic form of bread. Dionysus Sabazius was in fact the original Jehovah of the Passover and Plutarch, a high priest of the Greek city-state of Delphi, identifies this Jehovah of the Feast of Tabernacles (tabernacle meaning the tent which housed the Holy of Holies) with this same god under his title as Dionysus Liber. In the Festival of Tabernacles the Jews celebrated the gathering of the harvest and of the vintage- the bread and the wine, that formed civilization. This Feast of the Tabernacles was also known as the Festival of Unleavened Bread that lasted for seven days during the festival of the Passover, originally used to worship Dionysus Sabazius.

Sabazius means, ‘breaker in pieces’- and so his bread was broken into pieces- but it is to the significance of the number seven that we must look to see deeper still. Dionysus was torn into seven pieces to represent the Nature of the Universe as himself as energy becoming matter, the seven days of creation, the seven Chakras, the seven colours of the rainbow and the seven days of the Festival of unleavened bread are represented by this number. In likewise the Egyptian god Osiris, who we have already compared to Christ, was torn into fourteen pieces (twice seven), representing day and night, that is to say, the seen and unseen, the external and internal world of energy as matter and the invisible energy in this process.

From the hunter-gatherer perspective of wakan, energy from the sun invisibly enters the Earth and is transformed into matter in the form of wheat

This matter is then added to by our consciousness by adding water- the symbol of consciousness and life (matter animated by gods breathe or logos or spirit)- and more energy in the form of fire which transmutes its nature into unleavened bread. The metaphysical process of energy becoming matter when it comes to making the Universe that contains this son of God- energy- is told mythologically in the story that the son of God was born from a virgin womb, as was Osiris, Dionysus, Mithra, and Christ. It is a virgin womb because there is no matter before energy, therefore energy could not enter the womb of the mother who would transmute its nature into matter (Mother and matter are etymologically linked throughout the language of the ancient civilizations and why they are so in like manner today). In other words there is no egg (universe) that the sperm (energy) can enter into because it is this energy that becomes the matrix of matter- the Universe. There is no chicken before the egg. To put it into scientific language- there was an infinitely small and infinitely dense point that suddenly exploded as energy and began to form into elementary particles, and eventually to us as the remnant atoms created in dying suns of this same energy in space and time.  The universe was not a womb awaiting a seed, the seed and the womb, the time and the space, were one before they became two names for one energy.

Chicken and Egg, Cause and Effect. This point has an ancient name- Fiat- meaning command or will. It was this Fiat that produced the Logos- the energy that became matter, the sound that became willed meaning as word- wakan. In Judaism it is called the Ain Soph meaning the One Wisdom and is represented as a point in a circle showing the big bang and the resultant universe- the universal circle of wakan and its aboriginal rites and seven coloured rainbow obsidian and twelve tribal divisions that became the twelve altar gods of the Dionysian theatre and the signs of the zodiac- the circle of animals- that Noah led into his sacred ark- through energy becoming visible in matter as the Logos, in Judaism named the Ain Soph Ur- meaning the infinite ray of light that came from this One Wisdom- God the centre of all- or as science would say, the centre of the universe is everywhere and everywhen. The word Epiphany comes from the Greek Epiphania meaning, “to manifest or to issue forth”, to show this Great Light- Ur- that is sent forth from God’s will to create the universe in seven days. The Capital of Babylon was called- Ur and it was in Ur that the Jews formed their ideas of the Ain Soph Ur, once they had escaped from the Egyptians who worshipped Osiris that is. To link this back to Alexander let us look at Alexandria an Egyptian territory renamed by Alexander upon its conquest, and the home of one of the great seven wonders of the ancient world along with the Giza Pyramid- the Lighthouse of Pharos:

“The Greek legend that the God Dionysus…who visited Egypt and was entertained by Proteus King of Pharos was Osiris, brother of the Hyksos god Typhon, alias Set…. To judge from the Homeric legend of King Proteus, the earliest Pelasgian settlers in the Delta used Pharos, the lighthouse island off of what afterwards became Alexandria, as their sacred oracular island.”3

We are therefore being told, in the analogy of “tearing limb from limb”, how the Male God, as Energy, is captured by matter and then changed over and over again into different forms as, “winds, water, earth, stars and growing plants and animals”, and have seen that Alexander had means to this knowledge and power. In the same way that Christ is the Sun of God, so are all of the above gods. They all represent energy coming into matter and then forming into the various pieces of matter of the Universe, inside the womb of the virgin. Bread and Wine are ‘matter’ and ‘energy in conscious’ form, respectively, and become sacred once blessed i.e. named in this light, in a super-state above that of egoic reality, only achieved by the sacrifice of that egoic reality. They are then seen through the eyes of Universal reason, and not incarnate, carnal individual reason. According to Plutarch the priest of Delphi and holder of its secrets, (the wine, not the grape) Osiris was in reality, “The common reason which pervades both the superior and inferior regions of the Universe”. We have named it wakan when it has been seen in its most reasonable, peaceful, egalitarian, fraternal, and liberal form for over 40,000 years. Science calls this common reason, energy, Christians call it Christ, Muslims call it Allah- the One God, Jews call it Jehovah, whose secret name cannot be spoken but must remains formless as an uncarved stone, in silence.

Bread in like manner is energy made solid as matter by plants and is transformed by our work upon it into a body that has not yet risen, in bread language unleaven. It therefore is blessed by the conduit of God, the priest, in order for the spirit of Mithra or Christ or Osiris or Dionysus, etc to enter it and transform its nature by its spirit consciously entering into it. The word bless, means, ‘to consecrate’, i.e. by sacrifice or by the sprinkling of blood, as the word can be fairly traced back to blood, from the Middle English blessen. But its root word is Blow, meaning originally, ‘to bloom’, flourish as a flower. In other words, to turn ones head constantly towards god in order to produce a golden fruit of alimental communion that nourishes all of mankind to not just survive but to coalesce, to become a natural embodiment of harmony, a field of reeds from the waters of life, as the Egyptians described their version of heaven, known as the Elysian fields, meaning the field of reeds.

Now Moses, the father of the Jews was famously thrown into a river at birth on a boat made of these reeds, from which he became a fisher of men who were drowning in the waters of life without the true word of God, that was later revealed to him by a piece of nature that was on fire, and whose flames came the spirit of revelation that told Moses of his destiny- to save the Jews, that resulted in his going up a natural mountain, and not a Giza pyramid in Egypt and coming down with the ten commandments or the Natural Law of God that Hobbes described earlier. What then does the word Moses mean? Let us hear the Brewers dictionary of Phrase and Fable gives us it version of the facts:

“The name of Moses is almost certainly Egyptian in origin. According to the Bible, however, when Pharaoh’s daughter adopted the child, ‘She called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water’ (Exodus 2:10). But this is simply a pun on Hebrew Moshe, ‘Moses’ and masho, ‘to pull’, ‘to draw out’. The ses of his name really means ‘son of’, as for Rameses, ‘son of ra’ (the sun god), so that the initial Mo- must equally have been the name of a god. According to Manetho, a priest of Heliopolis in the 3^rd Century BC, Moses was an Egyptian priest named Hosarsiph a statement also made by Josephus in the 1^st century AD.

So the story of Moses’ birth told to a people born in Egypt who understood the truth of the meaning of the Elysian fields would have understood the birth of Hosarsiph upon a bed of reeds upon the river of the Nile as meaning, the priestly truth of initiates or gnostics revealed through revelation interwoven into a religion of salvation from these revelations from divine sprits or muses, by which men can be fished from the waters of life to gain liberty through the transformation of their character through the fire of Jesse, the burning bush, the family tree of the blood-line of Christ, the blessing that blows the fire to feed the flames of transformation, etc, etcetera. Hosarsiph was a mystic like Francis who could not allow the pyramid religion of the Egyptians to continue to create the abject that he saw upon the river Nile, the Leviathan of city-life, and acted to draw them out and then raise them up.

Until the matter of Nature is raised by being blessed, until the bread is leavend  therefore the body of Christ- the nature of energy- is being broken apart- the universe being destroyed and created in a process of fermentation towards perfecting ones spirit as an individual and transmuting ones nature by the blood-line of the race of Jesse, becoming purified of the ego, and serving God- whom does the grail serve- the grail is the holy receptacle of God’s wine- the cornucopeia- you and your ego is the grape-skin that must be crushed under subjection by the soul of your foot and broken in order to experience the spirit that is revealed upon doing so. Il poché, as a method of understanding, being strictly hilarious at this moment. The bread is destroyed in a process by which the worshipper can then possess it and become possessed by it- through eating/partaking- part taking or part-aching. In like manner wine is water containing a holy spirit that can be possessed and nourish that nature that possesses it, it is energy in process as a liquid not solid matter, it is the life-force, the blood that animates the matter- the body- the bread- that surrounds it. Remember the partaking of laser-heart surgery by placebo and its effectiveness here please, and the little placebo pills blessed by the doctor, that work better than the ‘real’ thing, for no scientifically explainable, ‘reason’.

Whether the possession of these natures is imbibed in purely a physical form and becomes just a part of your body and brain or on a higher level and transmutes a higher part of your nature depends upon your will and belief- hope and faith- and as we have seen with Placebo’s versus Prozac, Anaesthetic against water, lazer-heart surgery against a story of lazer heart surgery- this is where the magic happens or not.

The bread is unleaven because it has not risen, in other words it has not returned to God because it is still finite matter in the process of dying and returning back to energy through the process we know as life- In the language of science- it is the accidental second law of thermodynamics- meaningless entropy. It is a symbol of the spirit that has descended into the embodying of the Nature of the phenomena of matter and become an object by entering and becoming the Earth and becoming grain and then willed into the manifestation of bread through the art of fire.

Worshippers of Dionysus partook of such a cake in like manner, named the Makaria meaning blessedness

The worshippers of Demeter,  Rhea Artemis, and Pandora etc would also eat a similar cake called the Bous, meaning ox. This cake, named after an ox, may be directly linked to the Eucharist of the ox god Mithra, whose body was torn apart and shared amongst its worshippers at his same Eucharistic rites. In Christianity this has taken the form of the Epiphany cake, better known as a Hot Cross Bun, which is  a piece of matter now leavened, or in other words that has now risen because it contains the spirit of the risen one within it, depicted by the cross on the top of the bun. The ox is the bull of Mithra made docile to the ploughing of fields by the removal of its penis, just as we saw happen to Bacchus under the Romans, who are about to, by conscious design replace it with a holy lance of war, by the necessity of war, brought about by sacrificing the blood of the bull in order to bless the fields with our desires for a small insurance policy, that will necessitate war, the pyramid, the stick, the carrot and the scape-goat.

In this way we learn that the body of Christ manifests as the bread or cake of which we partake in the spirit of the wine, through the line of Jesse that transmutates our natures to a higher one as did Prometheus. In other words the golden energy of Christ is formed into a physical unrisen form called matter that is torn apart over and over again by creation and destruction as it takes the form of stars, planets, ants, atoms, us, etc. Energy becomes matter and matter becomes energy in a virgin womb of creation called the Universe.

The Sufi speaks of wine, the product of the grape, and its secret potential, as his means of attaining “inebriation”. The grape is seen as the raw form of the wine. Grapes, then, mean ordinary religion; while wine is the real essence of the fruit.”7

“In the tavern are many wines- the wine of delight in colour and form and taste, the wine of the intellects agility, the fine port of stories, and the cabernet of soul singing. Being human means entering this place where entrancing varieties of desire are served. The grapeskin of ego breaks and a pouring begins. Fermentation is one of the oldest symbols for human transformation…But after some time in the tavern, a point comes, a memory of elsewhere, a longing for the source, and the drunks must set off from the tavern and begin their return.” P.1 The Essential Rumi- Idris Shah

“Plutarch writes in his essay On the Ei at Delphi, revealing as much Orphic secret doctrine as he dares: “In describing the manifold changes of Dionysus into winds, water, earth, stars and growing plants and animals, they use the riddling expressions, “render asunder” and, “tearing limb from limb”. And they call the god, “Dionysus” or “Zagreus” (the torn) or “The Night Sun” or “The Impartial Giver”, and record various Destructions, Disappearances, Resurrections and Rebirths, which are their mythographic account of how those changes came about.” p.133 The White Goddess- Robert Graves

In these words we may see the Sanskrit word Kana meaning honey and hence mead, signifying the breaking of the grain of rice, shown as the Egoic breaking of the grapeskin and the fermentation of this Ego as the symbol for human transformation. We may also see the difference between “ordinary religion” as the fruit of embracing Christs exoteric teachings, whilst its fermentation produces the esoteric fruit of wine, as the Spirit of Christ that resides within us as revelation. Let us now hear the words of the Islamic Mystic (Sufi) Rumi whose poetry reveals this truth was handed down to him from these same roots. In it we will see the universality, the one-ness, of the two worlds of the inner and outer world of the magic horse and the iron fish or the universe seen either as a process of consciousness as energy or as a set of objects (phenomena) to be measured and weighed in order to understand it and use the knowledge as personal power. Aletheia contains them both:

The wine we really drink is our own blood.

Our bodies ferment in these barrels.

We give everything for a glass of this.

We give our minds for a sip.

The Many Wines

God has given us a dark wine so potent that,

drinking it, we leave the two worlds.

God has put into the form of hashish a power

to deliver the taster from self-consciousness.

God has made sleep so

that it erases every thought.

God made majnun love Layla so much that

just her dog would cause confusion in him.

There are thousands of wines

that can take over our minds.

Don’t think that all ecstasies

are the same!

Jesus was lost in his love for God.

His donkey was drunk with barley.

Drink from the presence of saints,

not from those other jars.

Every object, every being,

is a jar full of delight.

Be a connoisseur

and taste with caution.

Any wine will get you high.

Judge like a king, and choose the purest,

The ones unadulterated with fear,

or some urgency about “what’s needed.”

Drink the wine that moves you

as a camel moves when it’s been untied,

and is just ambling about.

“And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger.”  John 6:35

“The modern Persian word mihr, derived from Mithra, still means, “the sun” and “mutual love”. The essence of Mithra is that he sacrifices himself, he is the sun-bull which he slaughters himself. The ego, the animal nature, of the process scape-goated for the higher nature of mankind, the super-state that then becomes a part of this process, in harmony with its will, being-in-Being. Mithra then is the precursor of Jesus as the God who sacrificed himself for the sake of Mutual love and peace.” 9

Mithra then is important as a bridge between wakan and the ancient world and Christ, as the ‘latest’ version of this force in the modern world, because it is the last vestige of the animal spirit depicted as a part of God. Mithra is not just the god that slays the bull he is also the bull, they are two objects showing one process, and it is this invisible process of force (a god or scientific law of Nature) that is named Mithra. The bull is the fecunder of the cow and the ox is the castrated bull. Therefore when the animal spirit is fed by desire it becomes the ego, being-for-itself, that creates the problems that civilization has to try and tame and make docile in using the castrated bull to plough the fields to grow the bread that no longer wishes to rise- settling, and sacrifices itself to feeding its power of desire- castration (Jewish and Islamic castration still continues to symbolise this sacred institution of the social contract).

Bread whose nature no longer wishes to be torn asunder and commune alimentally with the Great Spirit of the goat-song – the Universe- but wishes to remain unleaven is egoic bread, to be clothed in this garment of skin, this husk covering the seed, as reality, and this is their consequent experience and hence common sense. The ego that wishes to return as spirit to God through this sacrificial castration of the force of the ego and its (infinite) desires*, in an institutionalised religion partakes of unleavened bread that has now been transmuted by the singing of the sacred goat-song of sacrifice of the ego that creates the perceived division between the animal spirit- wakan- and the human spirit- soul- that is woven into a garment of skin in life and perceives the rest of wakan as the universe, the World, now communes alimentally through this sacrifice of the ego. This then is the rite of Mithra, Osiris, Bacchus, and Christ to name but a few.

To put this into more dramatic language, the ego is the first born son of Abraham that gods demands Abraham sacrifice in order to show this alimental communion. Abraham’s first born son is called ‘Ishmael’: ‘He will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him.’ (Genesis 16:12). By the sacrifice of this son, Abraham becomes the father of the nation of the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims, as God promised in the subsequent covenant.

*Do not covet thy neighbours’ ass.

With Christ the animal spirit is hidden because of the depiction of this son of God as a human only. Christ is forced to ride an ass consequently to symbolise this egoic nature, and it is this egoic donkey that we have seen being offered carrots and sticks to represent the civilization that results from it, the religion of negative cults that create the distance from it, the historic perspective that records it once it has become separated from wakan as God as its roots, and the manner of existence that results from it as war over warfare, and carnal reason- ‘Ishmael’ over the universal reason that existed up until civilization began and in fact still continues in the outback of Australia, where there is nothing for the taker to bother taking for itself.

This is a direct result of the process of individuality, the individualising of the self of the ontological perspective of the ego, the being-for-itself, and the negative cults that it has had to create in the form of religion since settling and creating desertification and over-population, ending the Garden of Eden.

It is no longer possible to worship an animal-god once we adopt Christ, because of this process of individuality and the consequent man-made-mountain (the pyramid) that mans perspective creates that separates him from the animals, named as human-nature, as a thing separate from Nature-in-itself. We will see this god of human-nature become renamed as ‘reason’ by the humanists and forefathers of science, and we will learn of the fruits of their reason and compare them to universal reason.

“In the beginning, sacred beings are conceived in the form of an animal or vegetable, from which the human form is only slowly disengaged. It will be seen below that in Australia, it is animals and plants which are the first sacred beings. Even among the Indians of North America, the great cosmic divinities, which commence to be the object of a cult there, are very frequently represented in animal forms. “The difference between the animal, man and the divine being,” says Réville, not without surprise, “is not felt in this state of mind, and generally it might be said that it is the animal form which is the fundamental one.” To find a god made up entirely of human elements, it is necessary to advance nearly to Christianity. Here, God is a man, not only in the physical aspect in which he is temporarily made manifest, but also in the ideas and sentiments which he expresses. But even in Greece and Rome, though the gods were generally represented with human traits, many mythical personages still had traces of an animal origin: thus there is Dionysus, who is often met with in the form of a bull, or at least with the horns of a bull; there is Demeter, who is often represented with a horse’s mane, there are Pan and Silenus, there are the Fauns, etc. It is not at all true that man has had such an inclination to impose his own form upon things. More than that, he even commenced by conceiving of himself, as participating closely in the animal nature.” (Durkheim:1982:68)

Manas the Reflection of Darshan – not Darpan

To reframe  all of the above into an eastern understanding, as we did with the name of God and the goat song and OM, we need only look to the second word in the most famous of all of the mantras of the East, ‘Om Mani Padme Hum’- Mani. Here we will find this same truth of the sacrifice of the ego and of how this sacred dance creates a different experience, and hence a different vibration through us by which we experience darshan and the seven natures, or the seven earths that make up this body, given life by the breathe of God as he sings this song becomes a part of our experienced Nature, and human-nature, as a concept becomes housed within this greater mansion in which one now dwells. Let us then hear Govinda’s explanation of the word Manas:

The Double Role of the Mind (Manas)

Thus the object of the seventh class of consciousness (manas) is not the sense-world, but that ever-flowing stream of becoming or ‘depth-consciousness’, which is neither limited by birth and death nor by individual forms of appearance. For, since birth and death are only the communicating doors between one life and another, the continuous stream of consciousness flowing through them does not only contain on its surface the causally conditioned states of existence, but the totality of all possible states of consciousness, the sum total of all experiences of a beginningless ‘past’, which is identical with a limitless ‘future’. It is the emanation and manifestation of the basic universal consciousness, which the Vijnavadins called the eighth or ‘Store-Consciousness’ (alaya-vijnana).

In the Lankavatara-Sutra the sixth consciousness (mano-vijnana) is defined as intellectual consciousness, which sorts out and judges the results of the five kinds of sense-consciousness, followed by attraction or repulsion and the illusion of an objective world to which one gets bound by action.The universal consciousness, on the other hand, is compared to the ocean, on the surface of which currents, waves, and whirlpools are formed, while its depth remains motionless, unperturbed, pure and clear. ‘The Universal Mind’ (alaya-vijnana) transcends all individuation and limits. The Universal Mind is thoroughly pure in its essential nature, subsisting unchanged and free from faults of impermanence, undisturbed by egoism, unruffled by distinctions, desires and aversions.’

Mediating between the universal and the individual-intellectual consciousness is the spiritual consciousness (manas), which takes part in both sides. It represents the stabilizing element of the mind, the central point of balance, upholding the coherence of its contents by being the centre of reference. But for the same reason it is also the cause for the conception of egohood in the unenlightened individual, who mistakes this relative point of reference for the real and permanent centre of his personality. This is what the Mahayana-Samparigraha-Sastra called the ‘defiled mind’ (klista manas) the nature of which consists  in an uninterrupted process of ego-creating thought or egocentric discrimination- while the Lankavatara-Sutra shows the positive and intuitive side of manas, consisting in its liberating knowledge:

‘Intuitive mind (manas) is one with Universal Mind (alaya-vijnana) by reason of its participation in Transcendental Intelligence (aryajnana) and is one with the mind-system (the five senses and the intellect) by its comprehension of differentiated knowledge (according to the six classes of vijnana). Intuitive-mind has no body of its own nor any marks by which it can be differentiated. Universal mind is its cause and support but it is evolved along with the notion of an ego and what belongs to it, to which it clings and upon which it reflects.’

When it is said that manas has no body of its own and is one with the universal as well as with the individual empirical consciousness, manas can only be conceived as the ‘overlapping’ of the universal and the individual empirical consciousness. This also explains the double character of manas which, though being without characteristics of its own, becomes a source of error if it is directed from the universal towards the individual or self-consciousness, while in the experience of the opposite direction, from the individual towards the universal, it becomes a source of highest knowledge (arya-jnana).

The difference in the effect of these two directions may be compared to the vision of a man, who observes the manifold forms and colours of a landscape and feels himself different from it (as ‘I’ and ‘here’)- and the vision of another one who gazes into the depth of the firmament, which frees him of all object-perception and thus from the awareness of his own self as well, because he is only conscious of the infinity of space of or ‘emptiness’. His ‘I’ here loses its position through lack of contrast or opposition, finding neither anything to grasp nor from which to differentiate itself.

Manas is that element of our consciousness which holds the balance between the empirical-individual qualities on the one side and the universal-spiritual qualities on the other. It is that which either binds us to the world of the senses or which liberates us from it. It is the ‘base metal’ of the alchemists, which through magic power (siddhi) is turned into gold, the ‘coal’ that is turned into diamond, the poison that is transformed into the Elixir of Life.

The real siddhi, however, consists in inner conversion, in the ‘turning-about in the deepest seat of consciousness’…It is the re-orientation, the new attitude, the turning away from the outside world of objects to the inner world of onesness, of completeness- the all-embracing universality of the mind. It is a new vista, ‘a direction of the heart’ (as Rilke calls it), an enterning into the stream of liberation.” (Govinda:1977:73-5)

The ‘Turning-about in the Deepest Seat of Consciousness’

While Manas reflects the empirical consciousness of this materialized world,  it is felt as the actor and experiencer of this world, as the ‘I’ or self-consciousness. But in the moment in which manas turns away from sense-consciousness and from the intellect and directs its attention upon the primordial cause of its being, upon the universal source of all consciousness, the illusion of the ego-concept becomes apparent and the experience of sunyata reveals itself in all its depth and magnitude.

This revelation does not come about through discursive thought, intellectual analysis, or logical conclusions, but through the complete coming to rest and relinquishing of all thought-activities, whereby we create the necessary conditions under which a direct vision of reality can arise, namely the intuitive experience of the infinity and the all-embracing oneness of all that is: of all consciousness, of all life, or however we may call it. For here end all names and definitions of our three-dimensional conceptual world. Here we become aware of an infinite succession of higher dimensions (in which those we know are contained), for which we have not yet found adequate means of expression, though we may sense the existence of those dimensions and feel them with the yet undeveloped organs of our intuitive consciousness, into which manas it transformed, if it turns away from the activities of the outer senses and the discriminations of the intellect.

These organs can only be developed through meditation, through pacification of our thought-activities (our incessant inner soloquy and reasoning) and the reversal of the direction of our inner vision from the manifold to the unified, from the limited to the unlimited, from the intellectual to the intuitive (in which case the intuitive may be active on all levels, from the sensuous to the highest spiritual experience), from the individual to the universal, from the ‘I’ to the ‘non-I’, from the finiteness of objects to the infinity of space- until we are so pervaded by this boundlessness and universality, that when we return to the contemplation of the small, the single, the individual, we shall never lose the meaning of and the connexion with the whole and shall not fall back into the error of egohood.” (Govinda:1977:77)

Transformation and the Realization of Completeness

The experience of infinity which is expressed in the sacred syllable OM, and which forms the basis and starting-point of the Great Vehicle, is thus deepened and counterbalanced by the experience of the inner unity and solidarity of all life and consciousness. This unity, which is not brought about by an arbitrary identification of one’s own consciousness with that of other living beings (i.e. not from the outside), but which results from the profound knowledge that the conception of ‘self’ and ‘not-self’, ‘I’ and ‘not-I’, ‘own’ and ‘other’, rests on the illusion of our surface consciousness, and that the knowledge and the experience of the equality (samata) of beings consists in the realization of that ultimate completeness which is latent in every being….

‘Selfhood’ and ‘universe’ are only the ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ of the same illusion. The realization of completeness, however, has all the characteristics of universality, without presuming an external cosmos, and has likewise all the characteristics of individual experience without presuming an ego-entity. The idea of the realization of completeness escapes the dualistic concepts of unity and plurality, of ‘I’ and ‘not-I’, or whatever we may call the pairs of opposites, as long as we move on the plane of our empirical consciousness.  It is an idea which is applicable to all planes of experience and existence, from the material to the highest spiritual, from the empirically given to the metaphysically sensed. The way of completeness is not one of suppression and annihilation, but the way of development and sublimation of all our faculties: a way which avoids premature judgement and which examines the fruits.

A modern Master of the Mystic Path in the West has put this idea into immortal words: ‘Transiency hurls itself everywhere into a deep state of being. And therefore all forms of this our world are not only to be used in a time-bound (time-limited) sense, but should be included in those phenomena of superior significance in which we participate (or of which we are a part). However, it is not in the Christian sense, but the purely earthly, profoundly earthly, joyfully earthly consciousness, that we should introduce, what we have seen and touched here, into the widest circumference. Not into a “beyond” whose shadow darkens the earth, but into the whole, into the universe. Nature, the things of our daily contact and use, all these are preliminaries and transiencies: however, they are, as long as we are here, our possessions, our friendships, participants of our pain and pleasure, in the same way as they were the trusted friends of our ancestors. Therefore we should not only refrain from vilifying and depreciating all that belongs to this our world, but on the contrary, on account of its very preliminary nature which it shares with us, these phenomena and things should be understood and transformed by us in the innermost sense.- Transformed?- Yes, because it is our task to impress upon ourselves this preliminary, transient earth in so deep, so painful, so passionate a manner, that its essential nature is “invisibly” resurrected within us. Within us alone can this intimate and constant transformation of the visible into the invisible take place…’ (R.M. Rilke: Letters from Muzot, p.371.f)” (Govinda:1977:81-2)

From the above quotes we can see that the Inner world of the Magic Horse that we began this book with, is not just a story but an entire experience, that science can never reasonably understand or measure or prove to exist empirically. Whilst on the other side, and to take us back to Rome, we can also understand that the God of Wakan is completely useless in order to authorise the Great War of the Electrified Mice, known as civilization.

We can also see that the 40,000 years of existence in the state of manas and not of ego resulted, without the need for stick-wielders or laws or commandments, or prophets of revelation, in a Garden of Eden, where equality and Nature were universal experiences of common sense, told in the myth of walking with God in this garden, and not awaiting to walk with God in a heaven, metaphysically sensed intuitively, that removes the meaning of life from earth, as but a shadow cast upon it (remember the words of the Aborigines earlier about this Christian perspective) of the docile abeyance to a negative cult in leaps of faith and blind hope, and not experiential knowledge through intuitive reason over empirical reason, through sacred rites singing the sacred song of the goat God, etc, etctera, as I will explore in greater detail in my next book.

The true revelation of the Iliad is that the gods are a part of us as much as we are a part of them and our actions change their nature and vice versa. This revelation however was tamed by the animal spirit of the egoic warrior to create Athenian democracy or Spartan Vanity and Roman Virtue under the name of liberty and not liberation, of virtue and not virtuousness. The experience of war, fed by our nature of desire, tamed by civilization into a social contract of ‘common advantage’, changes the nature of the worship of the God Ahura-Mazda or Zeus and becomes Mithra or Hercules respectively, a demi-god, half-man-half-fecund-god, castrated by this covenant with institutionalised religion. The story of Mithras will create the right to the might of Rome for the individual that it produces as a warrior for the state and then Christ, as a warrior for God, will create the right of Rome for the individual that it produces as a priest for the state, but the word that describes the State of Rome itself will have to change to the word ‘Christendom’ in order to tell such a story as this Noble Lie. The language of this new son of god however will have changed from one of warfare as it was in Persia to that of war as it was in Greece and then to Holy War, as it will be, under the Holy Roman Emperors of Christendom. Who benefits by taming the animal nature of Mithras by removing the ox and leaving only the man in the form of Christ? Only the story of reason- history- will reveal that it time, as we shall see.

We will see the evolution of this preter-Jesus from this Mithra form to Jesus, as the Son of God form of perspective, through the end of the republic to the monarchy of Rome and then to the demise of Rome and the rise of Jesus in Christianity and its perspective through this chapter, but let us now return to the other great desires that sired the Roman world of the Republic and see how they spelt its demise, along with Mithras eventually too, by necessity as the effect to these ‘causes’ of desire.

The Siring of slaves from this song of virtue where Bacchus is banned from joining in the Nature of this Chorus

“The first fruits of wars and victories reaped in Rome were economic, followed by social and political developments.

First, the newly captured and controlled territories produced an enormous influx of spoils into Rome. “So numerous were the spoils coming from wealthy nations that Rome was incapable of containing the fruits of its victories,” notes the historian Florus (Epitome 1.18) Tarentum and Syracuse paid a heavy tribute in works of art.

Indemnities imposed on the defeated rulers and the taxes levied on the provinces added to the wealth of spoils. This vast influx of booty and steady flow of gold brought about massive movements of capital in a city hitherto devoted mainly to agricultural activities. They affected wages and the cost of living (generally by an increase at the expense of the poorer classes), but chiefly the financial world (devaluation of the denarius) and overall economic policy.

The long absences of Rome’s citizen-soldiers in distant theatres of war, preventing them for many years at a time from working their lands, as well as the army’s need for vast quantities of cereals, oil, and wine, resulted in profound changes in Italian agriculture. The influx of slaves taken as prisoners of war (e.g. 50,000 on the capture of Carthage, 140,000 Cimbri and Teutons in 104), and of foreign corn newly made available, also left their mark. The poorer peasants (the majority) had little choice in reacting to the increasing availability of foreign corn and the subsequent devaluation of Italian cereals. Some sold their land and moved into urban centres (hence the creation of a potentially volatile body of urban poor, mainly in Rome), while others shifted their production by planting vineyards and olive groves in addition to (or instead of) grain. These, however, were costly replacements. The selling of land resulted in the merging of many smaller properties into a few great ones, to the advantage of the largest beneficiaries of war (generals and negotiators)….

The development of a large trading economy was one of the new features of the second century. The opening up of Rome to the outside world, the activities of businessmen, the monetary influx, and increasing needs connected with the new conditions of living drove Romans and Italians to invest in large commercial operations. As early as 218, a lex Claudia had attempted to prohibit senators from engaging in any lucrative activity based on trade- a law which they got round by doing business through front men, such as their friends in the equestrian class or their own freedmen. Capital investment and financial loans (frequently at extortionate rates) became a major business of the wealthy. Delos emerged as a great trading centre and huge slave market. The Romaioi were actively present in every Mediterranean port, and began forming profitable associations with the companies of tax collectors (publicani). The power and influence of the publicani on the Roman political system, and especially on the Senate, cannot be stressed enough. In the absence of an organized revenue service for the collection of taxes from its provinces, Rome farmed out tax collection to the company that presented it with the highest bid. Once the publicani had paid that amount in advance, they turned to the provincials to make up for it and for additional profit, often using abusive methods to do so. …

In the towns, and particularly in Rome itself, the influx of domestic slaves altered the conditions of family life. In time, slaves were integrated into the urban cultural life, as scribes, doctors, teachers, and other professionals.

Another effect of the conquests, and of the profits they accrued, was the formation of municipal elites in Italy’s towns….

From the second century on, these municipal elites constituted a reservoir from which part of the equestrians (equites) would be recruited, and, in their turn would supply the senatorial order with fresh blood. The struggle between the senatorial and the equestrian classes needs to be introduced here, since another important consequence of the Roman conquests at this time was the rapid social, economic, and political empowerment of the equestrian class in Rome. The equestrian order, whose wealth basis was business rather than land, had formed during the course of the third century between the traditional senatorial nobility (whose prosperity was founded on land-ownership) and the lower classes.

This was not a “middle class” (which did not exist in Rome), but a category of privileged citizens– senators’ sons, officers, rich land-owners, publicans- whose membership was signified by their entitlement to a horse supplied and maintained by the state (they were known as equites equo publico (literally “horsemen by virtue of a public horse”). In the second century, these equestrians, who still played a paramount voting role in the centuriate assembly, aspired to take a more active part in social, and, chiefly, legal affairs. They saw the fact that the courts were in the hands of senators as contrary to their interests….

The class conflict between the senatorial and equestrian classes was aggravated by the fact that the senatorial order itself was undergoing internal changes. Senior offices were increasingly confined to a few families, whose ancestors had also held these offices and who had thus bequeathed their prestige to their descendants, known as the nobiles. This group was comprised at first of former senior magistrates and their descendants, but by the end of the second century, it was limited to the descendants of former consuls. Therefore the same families (gentes) came to monopolize all the high offices. But the appearance of the new senators, the ambitions of the equestrians, and the accumulation of wealth by individuals outside the mobiles (and even the senatorial class) began to immobilize this ruling social group.” (Le Glay:2009:108-110)

If w remember how the soldiers of Philip II of Macedon sold their land and became dependent on the power of the state to increase their power, we may now see the bad-faith of the soldiers of Rome who come back from the wars that have produced this wealth and slave possession, only to find that their land has been sold and consolidated into the private possession of the rich senate families, who now control the law and the religion the land and the wealth that they have gained. By this bad-faith the stick-wielding soldiers have also created a communal ‘trickle down’ effect whereby the Roman farmers, who are their fathers and mothers, and ancestors have been forced to do sell their land by the institutions that they themselves now run as administrators for these same wealthy oligarchical senators, who extort them and their citizens, into indebtedness and a hand to mouth existence, surrounded by slaves, won for themselves through war by these reciprocating equestrians who end up poorer but with an institutional career ladder that promises just some of them the chance for greater gain if they behave with virtue and discipline and wield-sticks upon poor citizens now made poorer by the very benefits of war that they had contracted themselves to in a delusion of ‘common advantage’ by ‘nobiles’ who lied about a liberty that has in reality been taken from those who are conquered, and from those who helped in the conquering, in a protection racket of Mafioso who authored the redacted nature of God in order to do so:

The Safer and Less Scandalous Way to repress the Arrogance of One who has risen to Power in a Republic is to forestall him in the Methods he uses to come by this Power

We have seen in the last chapter what credit the nobility acquired with the plebs by their seeming bounty of granting the soldiers pay, and by the way in which taxes were levied. Had the nobility kept up this practice, they would have prevented a tumult in the city, would have deprived the tribunes of the credit they had with plebs, and so would have deprived them of their authority. For certainly in a republic, and especially in a corrupt republic, there cannot be a better, less scandalous, or easier way of thwarting the ambition of any citizen than by forestalling him in the routes he traverses to get to the goal he proposes to reach.” (Crick:1979:235-6)

Let us see this truth, reflected in the nature of the Law that these Mafioso now authored, and why they did so.

Slaves sire Possession, Possession sire Laws, Laws sire Tribunes, and Tribunes sire-Assassination – The True Course of The Law

“But there is unmistakably at least one connecting strand, which runs without interruption from the texts of Aeschylus to the present day. What is transmitted along this strand is seldom, if ever, firm structures of power or definite institutional practices. What travels along it, often with great vitality, is conceptions of what to value and aim for, and why and how to act on the basis of those conceptions. Conceptions of this kind (values, ideals, visions of life) never determine the outcome of the politics of any community, and change constantly as they shape and reshape purposes along the way. But no community can exist even fugitively, let alone persist and extend across long spans of time, except of courtesy of just such conceptions, and the complicated tissue of institutions and practices which they inform and sustain. (The law of any society is an ideal setting in which to see the weight of this simple consideration: an endless battleground of contending force, but also and just as necessarily a seamless canvas for enquiry and interpretation, the play of intelligence and even the impact of scruple.)” (Dunn:2005:30-31)

As Dunn tells us above, the nature of Law is of dual purpose. The first purpose is the necessity of cohering a large society over time and space. The second is to show a teleology, a value and aim, a hope, a venture of national spirit or great vitality. The lubricating reality of the sub-text is that these subsequent, ‘never determine the outcome of the politics of any community, and change constantly as they shape and reshape this purpose through time and space. In other words, the Law is a good god that can be undefined as well as defined, and this definition can be authored and seen correctly as being right by this process of authorship by changing it to what is seen as ‘right’ relative to the culture of the day. It is a plastic god who can bend over backwards in a great volte face of hypocrisy whenever needed, yet maintain its authority. One can point at one part of its nature and admit that that bit is corrupt and then change it, but the entire body of the law is always seen as a mainstay of traditional precedents that are ‘good’.

Let us therefore look at the Laws of the Romans that were drawn up, in order to answer why they were drawn up, or in other words, what was the venture that Rome aimed for in its hubris and who drew them up, in order to see just how good the nature of the law, the spirit of the body was at its inception:

“It was not until the end of the third century that the massive arrival of slaves and the first consequences of foreign wars contributed to the formation of the first large-scale properties. Nevertheless, as we have seen, as early as the end of the sixth century, the excessive borrowing by small owners had created a massive debt problem for Rome. And, in the middle of the fifth century, the laws of the twelve tablets had intervened in questions of property to defend the rights of citizens against the powerful.” (Le Glay:2009:63-64)

So the laws were created to defend the property rights of settlers who had worked the land for generations but were now losing it to those who they had entrusted their property and lives too. In other words the mafia protection racket truly was a racket and it had been bad-faith to reciprocate their taking. Let us then see how these laws were formed:

“The creation of the decemvirate marked a decisive moment in the history of the Roman institutions and civilization. In order to obtain a written code of law and a status that together would put an end to the arbitrary nature of the consular power and of the privileges of the patricians, the plebeians engaged in a long struggle. According to tradition, they organized their own people’s assembly …. [and] in 462 a tribune Terentilius Harsa, led a campaign to obtain “written laws establishing the “imperium”, in other words, the limits of consular power. In the end, the patricians yielded….The decemvirs thus obtained full powers to draw up a legal code. As they had not completed their task at the end of their annual term, a second decemvirate was elected in May 450 and included plebeians. The integrity of the first group of men was matched by the abuses of the second. In 449, they tried to make their power permanent. Against them, the plebs had to resort to a new secession to the Aventine, and a revolution drove them out of office. The work of the decemvire, now recognized as genuine, was of exceptional importance. Ten tables of law were drawn up in 451; two more in 450…Before the laws were drawn up, it seems that embassies were sent to Greece for consultation and advice. It is extremely probable that the laws were inspired… by Solon’s Athenian legislation.” (Le Glay:2009:47)

“In short, ‘war’ emerged from warfare through the contest, just as it was from murder and the expiation of the act that the conception of Greek law emerged too. In a surviving fragment of his lost play Sisyphus, Euripides whisks us through the development of civilization up to the point where lawlessness has been brought under control by the invention of law (Waterfield, p.37). The first challenge the city faced was to transform vendetta by clans into contests within the law courts.” (Coker:2010:16)

How easily Men may be Corrupted

It should be noted, too, in the affair of the Decemviri how easily men are corrupted and in nature become transformed, however good they may be and however well taught. Consider, for instance, how the young men whom Appius chose as a bodyguard, soon became the friends of tyranny for the sake of the small advantages which accrued; and how Quintus Fabuis, one of the second Ten, though an excellent fellow, was after a while blinded by a little ambition and, under the evil influence of Appius, changed his good habits for bad and became like him.

Due consideration of this will cause all legislators, whether in a republic or a kingdom, to be all the more ready to restrain human appetites and to deprive them of all hope of doing wrong with impunity.” (Crick:1979:217)

So we can clearly see that the Twelve Tablets of Rome that make up Romes Laws were set up by ambitious hypocrites that were created in the first place in order to bring the contests of mafia clans into the law courts and consolidate power into the hands of the mafia who had gained the most slaves and wealth from the previous wars and pogroms of barbarian godless violence, that had been turned by Numa into god-filled violence by the banning of alimental communion through sex and holy spiritual wine and turned it into a triumphal drama to the god of war, a general of the army of light now raised on high as Mithra. The Religion and the Law embody the same spirit- the spirit of increase for the being-for-itself, under the lie of liberty and just war, not liberation and empathic peace.

“Nevertheless, the civilization of Rome exerted a great influence upon later cultures. The form, if not the spirit, of Roman architecture was preserved in the ecclesiastical architecture of the Middle Ages, and survives to this day in the design of many of our governmental buildings. The sculpture of the Augustan Age also lives on in the equestrian statues, the memorial arches and columns, and in the portraits in stone of statesmen and generals that adorn our streets and parks. Although subjected to new interpretations, the law of the great jurists became an important part of the Code of Justinian and was thus handed down to the Middle Ages and modern times. American judges frequently cite maxims originally invented by Gaius or Ulpian. Further the legal systems of nearly all continental European countries today incorporate much of the Roman law. This law was one of the grandest of the Romans’ achievements and reflected their genius for governing a vast and diverse empire.” (Lerner et al:1993:193)

08: The Authors of the Law: Who Benefits? – Oh Give me Land, Lots of Land, AND the Starry Skies Above – Don’t Fence ME In

“How in Corrupt Cities a Free Government can be maintained where it exists, or be established where it does not exist.

…I do not propose to shelve the question. I suppose then an exceedingly corrupt state, whereby the difficulty will clearly be intensified, since in it there will be found neither laws nor institutions which will suffice to check widespread corruption. Because, just as for the maintenance of good customs laws are required, so if laws are to be observed, there is need of good customs. Furthermore, institutions and laws made in the early days of a republic when men were good, no longer serve their purpose when men have become bad. And, if by any chance the laws of the state are changed, there will never, or but rarely, be a change in its institutions. The result is that new laws are ineffectual, because the institutions, which remain constant, corrupt them….

These institutions underwent little or no change in the course of events, whereas there were changes in the laws which kept the citizens in order. There was, for instance, the law concerning adultery, the sumptuary law, a law concerning ambition, and many others. These laws were introduced step by step as the citizens became corrupt. But since the institutions determining its form of government remained unchanged and, when corruption had set in, were no longer good, these modifications of the laws did not suffice to keep men good, though they might have helped had the introduction of new laws been accompanied by a modification of the institutions.

That is true to say that such institutions would not be good in a corrupt state is clearly seen in two important cases, in the appointing of magistrates and in the making of laws. The Roman people had never given the consulate or any other important office in the city except to such as had applied for the post. This institution was at the outset good, because only such citizens applied for posts as judged themselves worthy to fill them, and to be rejected was looked upon as ignominious; so that everybody behaved well in order to be judged worthy. This procedure, when the city became corrupt, was extremely harmful; because not those who had more virtue, but those who had more power, applied for magistracies, and the powerless, though virtuous, refrained from applying through fear. This inconvenience did not come about all at once, but by stages, as is the case with all inconveniences….This drew to that office men who knew better how to get round men, not those who knew better how to conquer enemies. They then turned from those who had more popularity and gave it to those who had more power. Thus owing to the defectiveness of this institution it came about that good men were wholly excluded from consular rank.

Again, a tribune or any other citizen could propose to the people a law, in regard to which every citizen was entitled to speak either in a favour of it or against, prior to a decision being reached. This institution was good so long as the citizens were good, because it is always a good thing that anyone anxious to serve the public should be able to propose his plan. It is also a good thing that everyone should be at liberty to express his opinion on it, so that when the people have heard what each has to say they may choose the best plan. But when the citizens had become perverse, this institution became a nuisance; because only the powerful proposed laws, and this for the sake, not of their common liberties, but to augment their own power. And against such projects no one durst speak for fear of such folk; with the result that the people were induced, either by deceit or by force, to adopt the measures which spelt their own ruin….

It is on account of all this that it is difficult, or rather impossible, either to maintain a republican form of government in states which have become corrupt or to create such a form afresh. Should a republic simply have to be created or to be maintained, it would be necessary to introduce into it a form of government akin rather to a monarchy than to a democracy, so that those men whose arrogance is such that they cannot be corrected by legal process, may yet be restrained to some extent by a quasi-regal power. To try to make them become good in any other way would be either a most brutal or an impossible undertaking- the kind of thing that Cleomenes did, as I said above; for that he might rule alone, he killed his brother and Titus Tatius killed the Sabine, and afterwards both of them made good use of their authority. It should, however, be noted that neither the one nor the other had subjects steeped in corruption, which in this chapter we have taken as the basis of our argument; so that both were able to resolve on such steps, and, having done so, to camouflage their plan.” (Crick:1979:160-64)

He who proposes to change an Old-established Form of Government in a Free City should retain at least the Shadow of its Ancient Customs

He who desires or proposes to change the form of government in a state and wishes it to be acceptable and to be able to maintain it to everyone’s satisfaction, must needs retain at least the shadow of its ancient customs, so that institutions may not appear to its people to have been changed, though in point of fact the new institutions may be radically different from the old ones. This he must do because men in general are as much affected by what a thing appears to be as by what it is, indeed they are frequently influenced more by appearances than by the reality.” (Crick:1979:175)

We have seen therefore that the Roman law that is the basis of all Western Law today, was corrupt at its very inception and was corrupt by the very nature of the civilization that necessitated it. What however did these Laws name as ‘rights’, what was the basis of their moral nature, and who benefited from them:

Roman Law

There is general agreement that one of the most important legacies that the Romans left to succeeding cultures was their system of law. This resulted from a gradual evolution that began roughly with the publication of the Twelve Tables about 450 B.C. In the later centuries of the Republic the law of the Twelve Tables was transformed by the growth of new precedents and principles. These emanated from different sources: from changes in custom, from the teachings of the Stoics, from the decisions of judges, but especially from the edicts of the praetors, magistrates who had authority to define and interpret the law in a particular suit and issue instructions to judges.

Roman law attained its highest stage of development under the Principate. This resulted in part from the extension of the law over a wider field of jurisdiction, over the lives and properties of aliens in strange environments as well as over the citizens of Italy. But the major reason was the fact that Augustus and his successors gave to certain eminent jurists the right to deliver opinions on the legal issues of cases under trial in the courts. The most prominent of the men thus designated from time to time were Gaius, Ulpian, Papinian, and Paulus. Although most of them held high judicial office, they had gained their reputations primarily as lawyers and writers on legal subjects. The responses of these jurists came to embody a science and philosophy of law and were accepted as the basis of Roman jurisprudence.

The Roman law as it was developed under the influence of the jurists comprised three great branches or divisions: the civil law, the law of peoples, and the natural law. The civil law was the law of Rome and its citizens. As such it existed in both written and unwritten forms. It included the statutes of the Senate, the decrees of the princeps, the edicts of the praetors, and also certain ancient customs operating with the force of law. The law of peoples was the law held to be common to all people regardless of nationality. This law authorized slavery and private ownership of property and defined the principles of purchase and sale, partnership, and contract. It was not superior to the civil law but supplemented it as especially applicable to the alien inhabitants of the Empire.

The most interesting and in many ways the most important branch of the Roman law was the natural law, a product not of judicial practice, but of philosophy. The Stoics had developed the idea of a rational order of nature that is the embodiment of justice and right. They had affirmed that all men are by nature equal, and that they are entitled to certain basic rights that governments have no authority to transgress. The father of the law of nature, as a legal principle, however, was not one of the Hellenistic Stoics, but Cicero. “True Law”, he declared, “is right reason consonant with nature, diffused among all men, constant, eternal. To make enactments infringing this law, religion forbids, neither may it be repealed even in part, nor have we power through Senate or people to free ourselves from it.” This law is prior to the state itself, and any ruler who defies it automatically becomes a tyrant. Most of the great jurists subscribed to conceptions of the law of nature very similar to those of the philosophers. Although the jurists did not regard this law as an automatic limitation upon the civil law, they thought of it as an ideal to which the statutes and decrees of men ought to conform.” (Lerner et al: 1993:187-88)

So the law changed, just as Dunn prescribed, under the Principate, that we will soon come to examine in its emergence. For now we need only understand that the Principate was when the Republic became ruled by one man- Augustus- and that that man changed the nature of the Law in order to serve himself. He did this, as we saw above, by controlling the authors of the law, just as the Greek senators sponsored the authors of the didactic plays of Athens:

Magistrates and assemblies

Regular elections for the magistracies were re-established in 28 or 27 BCE. Though there was a shortage of candidates for the minor posts (quaestor, tribune, aedile), the higher offices (praetor, consul) were much sought after. This was because they gave an entry, in effect, to the important offices in the administration of the Empire….

Though he seemed to have restored the freedom of elections, Augustus in fact controlled the pool of magistrates by means of two procedures: the nomination, his acceptance of the candidates’ declaration of candidacy for the various offices, and the commendation, his recommendation of specific candidates for these offices. Augustus’ effective control of elections thus weakened the primary electoral bodies….

Thus Augustus’ initiatives in this field hastened the decline of the comitia, which lost all judicial competence, and also deprived the traditional magistracies of much of their political and constitutional substance.” (Le Glay:2009:227)

Today it is the Prime Minister or President of England and America respectively that authorise the members of the legislature proposed. At this very moment America refuses to join the International Criminal Court, that it had so hailed beforehand as an idea containing great virtue because it cannot control the appointments to this institution, and is setting up its own one, as we shall see. This is the true legacy of the Twelve Tablets of the Roman Law. Who Benefits? To put this truth into the hands of Edward Gibbon, the greatest historian of Rome:

“The principles of a free constitution are irrecoverably lost, when the legislative power is nominated by the executive.” (Gibbon:1998:54)

How therefore did these laws serve to enrich the mafia protection racket at the expense of the plebs who had demanded it in order to protect themselves from these authors of the law and the protection racket?

Divide and Conquer – The True Power of Individual Human Rights

Let us hear from Machiavelli about the true power to the plebs that the law gave them by recognising them, not as a collective single unit, but as individuals within a collective single unit. Those who had property had rights that those without property did not, and this is a very important distinction that belies the art of the device.

The Plebs are not divided by the class system of status, but by the esteem system of wealth in the form of land. Therefore a group of plebs can be divided by whether they are landed plebs or not, and thereby they can be conquered. Not only that, but now that they are divided they can be individually judged and this will divide them further still into a very weak form of individuals who betray the collective for themselves and their families. But families are not a recognised legal entity and so a family may betray a divided group of plebs for-itself but this is not seen as right but as treason or betrayal to the State, which every individual coheres too and turns against that family thereby resurrecting the spirit of Roman unity by destroying either the family in civil war, or the individual scape-goat in a trial in court, thereby weakening the power of the family anyway:

The Plebs United is Strong, but in Itself it is Weak

In consequence of the ruin wrought in their country by the incursions of the Gauls there were many Romans who went to live in Veii, despite the decree and the orders of the senate. To remedy this disorder the senate by public edicts required everyone within a specified time and under specified penalties to return to Rome and to reside there. Those against whom these edicts were proclaimed, at first made fun of them, but, when it came to the point, all of them obeyed. Whereupon Titus Livy makes this remark: ‘As a crowd they were a fierce lot, but, as individuals each was so afraid that he obeyed.’

It would, indeed, scarce be possible to describe better the natural behaviour of a crowd in such circumstances than it is described in this passage. For, in criticizing the decisions of their ruler the masses are often bold; but when they see before their eyes the penalty attached, each mistrusts the others, and they hasten to obey. …

If then an excited crown wants to avoid these dangers, it should at once make one of its members a leader so that he may correct this defect, keep the populace united, and look to its defence; as did the Roman plebs, when, after the death of Virginia they quitted Rome and for safety’s sake appointed twenty of their members as tribunes. If this be not done, what Titus Livy says in the passage quoted above, always comes about i.e. when together all are strong, but when each begins to consider the danger he is in, they become cowardly and weak.” (Crick:1979:250-1)

So the law, which was written at the demand of the plebs, supposedly for the plebs, because property was being taken from the plebs, by those that wrote the laws to protect them, actually served to weaken the voice of the plebs by naming as individuals and not as ‘the plebs’ which had been the source of their strength. A strength that really was in bad-faith in not recognising that it was their subservience and labour that gave the law-writers their power and that was their true power, not the law, just as a soldiers true power is in his stick, and not the words that he uses as he wields it in the outer world, or the god he invokes and communes with karmically in his inner world.

What then is the result of these individual human rights in Rome, and who benefits?

“The status of the citizen. The laws established a distinction between the propertied classes and those without any land or other assets (proletarii) rather than between patricians and plebeians. As regards the latter, the last two law tables prohibited marriage between members of the patriciate and members of the plebs. …This arrangement, which Cicero considered “inhuman”, was revoked in 445 by the Canuleian law” (le Glay:2009:48)

Property rights of citizens were seen as fundamental to the social order but the family was now legally restricted in its powers. “The father of the family ruled no longer the extended family (gens), but only his own household (wife and children); his power was reduced” (Le Glay:2009:47)

So the result of law is that the kin group of Adam, that we saw split into the three races of Noah, and then into the Babylonian Civilization of hereditary kingship over these kin, in order for the leading family to gain the most has now succeeded in taking the power away from lesser ‘plebeian’ kin-groups who as a collective could always rebel and either change allegiance to another kin-group or cause civil war. The Roman law manages to defeat the power of familism, that we met earlier and saw still rules China today, through the power of recognising only individuals and not kin-groups as a basis of right judgement. The actual powerful families who authored this law and had authority over the stick-wielders who had reciprocated themselves into landless powerlessness, now dependent on the State of status, however manoeuvred to keep the power of authorship in their hands as an hereditary right:

Official authority was recognized for plebiscite, gaining them the force of law only after 286 (Hortensian law). One fundamental matter was still not settled: plebeian access to the consulship, the supreme magistracy. Nothing prohibited it- but nothing permitted it. Claiming their right to it by tradition (the mos maiorum or ancestral right), the patricians firmly intended to preserve their monopoly. The plebs, for its part, mobilized to break that monopoly.” (Le Glay et al:2009:49) Conflict lasted until 367 the date of the Licino-Sextian compromise in which one of the two consuls must be a plebeian. A milestone as for the first time, plebeian access to the supreme office was codified. “Immediately after their capitulation to plebeian demands, the patricians reacted by imposing new magistracies, reserved for their own members and endowed with powers taken from the consuls. However, during the following decades, the plebeians managed to obtain access to these too…. The plebs thus ended up in triumph everywhere. By the end of the fourth century all offices were open to both patricians and plebeians.” (Le Glay et al:2009:54-55)

Now the advantages of splitting up the family kin-group is that it becomes no longer a line of ancestors who one experiences as ones centre but instead it becomes a household family unit defined by its property, and its rights to that property as defined by the State, which no becomes the centre of the family. The property and the right of Law, as authored by corrupt families in a protection racket became the heart of the family unit. Hence the end of kin-group relations and the growth of individual desires, spoken today by many an adult in innocence of what they say when they go to work, ‘I’m doing it for the family’, by which, in reality we mean the mortgage payments or the rent as first priority, in order to possess as piece of land for life or for just one more month. In other words property rights end the relationship of the kin-group by creating the feeling of independence by the lack of power that this kin-group now offers, by the nature of the law, which is apparently eternal by the way in recognising only individuals and not the race of Adam or Abraham or Australian Hunter-gatherer Aborigines or Native American Tribes in a universal phratry of peace. Let us hear Machiavelli uncover the power of this perspective of the being-for-itself that we have seen give birth to the power base of families, of pyramids, and now of Law and households eager for property in order to feel safe whilst reciprocating a protection racket of hypocritical families of hereditary power who sit at the top of this pyramid as they divide and conquer it for themselves:

“It is, moreover, to see whence arose that order and how this disorder came about. For it is all due to the independence, which then was and to the servitude which now is. Because, as has been said before, all towns and all countries that are in all respects free, profit by this enormously. For, wherever increasing populations are found, it is due to the freedom with which marriage is contracted and to its being more desired by men. And this comes about where every man is ready to have children, since he believes that he can rear them and feels sure that his patrimony will not be taken away, and since he knows that not only will they be born free, instead of into slavery, but that, if they have virtue, they will have a chance of becoming rulers. One observes, too, how riches multiply and abound there, alike those that come from agriculture and those that are produced by the trades. For everybody is eager to acquire such things and to obtain property, provided he be convinced that he will enjoy it when it has been acquired. It thus comes about that, in competition one with the other, men look both to their own advantage and to that of the public; so that in both respects wonderful progress is made. The contrary of this happens in countries which live in servitude; and the harder the servitude the more does the well-being to which they are accustomed, dwindle.

Of all forms of servitude, too, that is the hardest which subjects you to a republic. First because it is more lasting, and there is no hope of escape; secondly because the aim of a republic is to deprive all other corporations of their vitality and to weaken them, to the end that its own body corporate may increase. A prince who makes you his subjects, does not do this unless he be a barbarian who devastates the country and destroys all that man has done for civilization, as oriental princes do. On the contrary, if his institutions be humane and he behave constitutionally, he will more often than not be equally fond of all the cities that are subject to him, and will leave them in possession of all their trades and all their ancient institutions. So that, if they are unable to increase, as free cities do, they will not be ruined like those that are enslaved.” (Crick:1979:280-1)

“If those City-States which from the Outset have been Free, as Rome was, find it difficult to formulate Laws whereby to maintain Liberty, those which have just been servile are faced with a Quasi-impossibility.

…I say that in the creation of this new magistracy the point to notice is that, if in a state which had been free from the outset and had directed its own affairs, as Rome did, there was great difficulty in devising good laws whereby to maintain liberty, it is no wonder that a city which at the outset was in servitude to another, should find it not merely difficult, but impossible, ever to draw up a constitution that will enable it to enjoy tranquillity in the conduct of its affairs.

This is illustrated by what happened to the city of Florence, which, owing to its having been at the outset under the dominion of the Roman empire, and to its having always lived under foreign rule, remained for a time abject and without thought of its own condition. Later, however, when it got time to breathe, it began to make its own institutions; but found it impossible to make good ones for they were mixed up with the old ones, which were bad. It carried on thus for two hundred years, of which there are reliable records, without ever getting a form of government such as would entitle it rightly to be called a republic. The difficulty which it experienced, all states experience which have had a like beginning. And although time and again, ample authority was given by free and public suffrage to a few of its citizens to reform it, they never used it to draw up a constitution to the common advantage, but always in the interests of their own party; with the result that not order, but greater disorder, was brought about in that city.

Take, for instance, one particular point. I maintain that one of the things that has to be taken into account by one who is drawing up a constitution for a republic, is the question into the hands of what men should authority to inflict punishment on its citizens be placed. Rome’s institution here was a good one, for an appeal to the people was ordinarily allowed, and if an important case arose in which to defer action, pending an appeal, was dangerous, they had recourse to a dictator who dealt with it straightaway; but to this remedy they never had recourse unless driven to it by necessity. Whereas Florence, and other cities which came into being in the same way, being servile, vested this authority in a foreigner, who fulfilled this function as his prince should direct. When, later on, they obtained their freedom, they continued to give this authority to a foreigner whom they called the ‘Captain’; which was a most pernicious practice, seeing how easily such an official could be corrupted by powerful citizens. But later still, owing to a change in the form of government a change took place in this institution and they appointed eight citizens to fulfil the function of the captain. This institution was bad and became worse, for reasons which have been given elsewhere, namely, that the few were always the servants of the few, and those the more powerful men.

Against this abuse the city of Venice has safeguarded itself by having ten citizens who are empowered to punish any citizens without appeal; and, lest the ten should not suffice for the punishing of the powerful, though they have authority to do this, they have set up the tribunal of Forty and, yet further, have decided that the Court of Rogation, which is the Greater Council, shall have power to punish them; so that there is no shortage of judges there to keep the powerful in check, given that there be no shortages of accusers.” (Crick:1979:230-2)

So Machiavelli clearly shows us, as does the history of Rome itself, that the Law was produced from a corrupt source, that demanded a servitude greater than any other to a group of corrupt families in the hope of gain, that in reality ended in servitude and indebtedness and greater work and greater war. The key efficiency to this artifice being the desire for gain itself under a successful technique of institutionalising the ladder rungs to this power to define what is ‘right’  that even the plebs could hope to climb the ladders of by demanding a part in this corrupt legal practice where the property gained by those employed to prevent this practice actually increased.

Along side the power of this hope of gain, which now divided kin-group collective ventures into the hope of the individual household, was the opposite of hope- fear- now seen as a legal right to be instilled and practiced. In other words the fruit of law is Crime and Punishment, as a stick-wielding devise that people who are scared will adhere to and practice and believe to be just, as it appears to protect them, as indeed does the law. It is an artifice of violence to empower the gain of the State for those beings-for-itself who author the State and its Laws, and punish any individual action that might threaten this increase. Or as Dunn said above, ‘Conceptions of this kind (values, ideals, visions of life) never determine the outcome of the politics of any community’:

How necessary Public indictments are for the Maintenance of Liberty in a Republic

No authority more useful and necessary can be granted to those appointed to look after the liberties of a state than that of being able to indict before the people or some magistrate or court such citizens as have committed any offence prejudicial to the freedom of the state. Such an institution has two consequences most useful in a republic. First, for fear of being prosecuted, its citizens attempt nothing prejudicial to the state, and, if they do attempt anything, are suppressed forthwith without respect to persons. Secondly, an outlet is provided for that all feeling which is apt to grow up in cities against some particularly citizen, however it comes about; and, when for such ill feeling there is no normal outlet, recourse is had to abnormal methods likely to bring disaster on the republic as a whole…

This can be shown by numerous examples, and especially one that Titus Livy adduces, namely, that of Coriolanus. Livy tells us that, when the nobility were annoyed with the plebs because it seemed to them that the plebs had too much authority owing to the appointment of tribunes to protect them, and when, besides this, there was a great scarcity of provisions in Rome and the senate had to send to Sicily for corn, Coriolanus, who was hostile to the popular faction, suggested that the time had come to punish the plebs and to deprive them of the authority they had assumed to the prejudice of the nobility. Hence he advised that they should be kept hungry and that the corn should not be disturbed among them. When this came to the ears of the populace, indignation against Coriolanus grew so intense that, as he was leaving the senate, he would have been killed in the tumult if the tribunes had not cited him to appear in his own defence. One notes in this incident what has been said above, namely, how useful and necessary it is for republics to provide a legal outlet of the anger which the general public has conceived against a particular citizen, because when no such normal means are available, recourse is had to abnormal means, which unquestionably have a worse effect than does the normal method….

There is no need to corroborate this view by citing further examples from olden times in addition to that of Coriolanus. In his regard, however, all should reflect on the evils that might have ensued in the Roman republic had he been tumultuously put to death, for this would have given rise to private feuding, which would have aroused fear; and fear would have led to defensive action; this to the procuring of partisans; partisans would have meant the formation of factions in the city; and factions would have brought about its downfall. As, however, the matter was settled by persons vested with the requisite authority, no opening was provided for the evils that might have resulted had the matter been settled by private authority.” (Crick:1979:124-26)

So Punishment is the supreme ‘scape-goat’ devise of a State of Gain. The thief who was once a soldier who came home to find that the authors of law had taken his land, and is now driven destitute into their hands as enters the city in order to receive the dole and live hand to mouth, who then finds his daughter ill and requiring medicine, which the hand outs do not cover the cost of, and so resorts to stealing is to be punished, whilst those who caused his to steal gain in prestige as ‘the guilty’ are judged as wrong and disempowered, thereby reducing the fear of the plebs that this theft will happen again. It will because the authors of the law rely on creating these abject citizens in order to cohere reciprocators in order to take more, that is the Nature of the Roman Law at its inception and of a Republic born from oppression, as Machiavelli tells us, and as Rome has proven, and will continue to do so as this chapter continues.

Now in case all of this hasn’t convinced you about the nature of Law, and its contradistinction to Natural Law as defined by the 40,000 years of its karmic enactment by hunter-gatherers as documented in the Torah, the Bible, the Koran, and Scientific publications, then let us ask another final question.

What happens when the authors of the law find that the law does not serve them?

Assassination – ‘Licenced to Kill’ The Urgrund of Desire IS above the Law

“…certain plebeian families began to stand out, acquiring wealth and authority…This new state of affairs naturally brought its own consequences. The Senate was no longer under firm patrician control. The plebeians had a secure place in it. Plebiscites vested with the authority of the senators… were the equivalent of laws.” (Le Glay:2009:55)

“Compulsorily plebeian originally, tribunes enjoyed a sacrosanct or inviolable person and exercised a major power (only dictators and censors could escape it). Their power of veto could be exercised against any decision by other magistrates, and their power of auxilium allowed them to safeguard any citizen who placed himself under their protection. In the following centuries, as we shall see, tribunes often used their veto and their right to convene the assembly to serve their own political agenda, or that of their patrons.”    (Le Glay:2009:58)

 “Whether they were well-born patricians or overnight millionaires, Rome’s soldiers of fortune wanted to enjoy and display their winnings at home. The result was a land boom everywhere within range of the capital. Peasants were dispossessed and driven onto unsuitable land, with environmental consequences like those that Solon had recognized in Athens. Family farms could not compete against big estates using slave labour; they went bankrupt or were forced to sell out, and their young men joined the legions. The ancient commons of the Roman peasantry were alienated with even less legality. As in Sumer, public land passed quickly into private hands, a situation the Gracchus brothers tried to remedy with land reform in the late second century B.C. But the reform failed, the commons were lost, and the state had to placate the lower orders by handing out free wheat, a solution that became expensive as the urban proletariat increased. By the time of Claudius, 200,000 Roman families were on the dole.” (Wright:2006:89-90)

Above we learned of how the plebs demanded rights and of how tribunes were set up in order to give a voice to their demands, and of how these tribunes became corrupt and turned to reciprocators of the State of Mafia families, and created the Laws. What happens when these tribunes are unbribeable and do not tow the party line of ripping off the Plebs? The answer to this is no better illustrated that by the historical example of the Gracchi:

The reforms introduced by the tribunes Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus in the period 133-121 were intended to solve some of the economic and social problems that had intensified in Italy in the course of the second century, primarily as a result of two developments: an enormous influx of wealth and slaves into Italy after Rome’s conquests, and the ruinous effects of military service on the peasant class. These two problems were interconnected: in every period, the bulk of Rome’s soldiers had been farmers. In the second century, however, when they were required to serve increasingly long periods overseas, many of them returned home to find that their farms had fallen into disrepair, or that, in their absence, their land had been sold off or expropriated by the wealthy. The politically active class, and the well educated, used the wealth generated by Rome’s conquests to buy up property, which, increasingly, they organized into large, plantation-like estates (latifundia) and worked mainly by slave labour. With little work to be found in the countryside, the rural poor began to migrate in large numbers to Rome, where employment was scarce and sporadic.” (Le Glay:2009:111)

The Gracchi: 133-121 BCE

“According to our sources, while travelling through Etruria as quaestor in 137 Tiberius first became aware of the problems experienced by small farmers because of the growing  latifundia. He was elected tribune for 133, and, early in his tribunate, he proposed a law that would make it illegal for any one person to possess more than 500 iugera (roughly 300 acres) of public land, or for any family to have more than 1,000. However much land they possessed below these limits they were to be allowed to keep rent-free, forever…Insofar as it exempted private property, the proposal might have been considered moderate. But those who controlled a lot of public land had a great deal to lose. And many of them were senators…

When word of it reached the Senate, the chief priest (pontifex maximus), Publius Scipio Nasica, gathered together a number of senators and other opponents of Tiberius, and marched to the assembly, where they proceeded to kill Tiberius and about 300 of his followers.” (Le Glay:2009:112)

“Meanwhile an extended conflict between elements of the Roman governing class began in 133 B.C. with the attempts at social and economic reform instituted by the two Gracchi brothers. Though of aristocratic lineage themselves, they proposed to alleviate social and economic stress by granting government lands to the landless. In 133 Tiberuis Gracchus, as tribune, proposed a law that restricted the current renters or holders of state lands to a maximum of 300 acres per citizens plus 150 acres for each child in the family. The excess was to be given to the poor in small plots. Conservative aristocrats bitterly opposed this proposal and engineered its veto by Octavius, Tiberius’s fellow tribune. Tiberius removed Octavius from office, and when his own term expired attempted to stand for re-election. Both of these moves seemed to threaten a dictatorship and offered the conservative senators an excuse for resistance. Armed with clubs, they went on a rampage during the elections and murdered Tiberius and many of his followers.

Nine years later Tiberius’s younger brother, Gaius Gracchus, renewed the struggle. Though Tiberius’s land law had finally been enacted by the Senate, Gaius believed that the campaign had to go further. Elected tribune in 123 B.C., and reelected in 122, he enacted several laws for the benefit of the less privileged. One provided for stabilizing the price of grain in Rome. For this purpose public granaries were built along the Tiber. Another exercised controls on governors suspected of exploiting the provinces for their own advantage. These and similar measures provoked so much anger among the vested interests that they resolved to eliminate their enemy. The Roman Senate proclaimed Gaius Gracchus an outlaw and authorized the consuls to take all necessary steps for the defense of the Republic. In the ensuing conflict Gaius was killed and about 3,000 of his followers lost their lives in vengeful purges.

The Gracchan turbulence demonstrated that the Roman Republic had outgrown its constitution. Over the years the assembly had gained powers almost equal to those of the Senate. Instead of working out a peaceful accommodation to these changes, both sides resorted to violence. By so doing they set a precedent for the use of force by any politician ambitious for supreme power and thereby paved the way for the destruction of the Republic. The Romans had shown a remarkable capacity for organizing an empire and for adapting the Greek idea of a city-state to a large territory, but the narrow conservatism of their upper classes was a fatal hindrance to the health of the state. Regarding all reform as evil, they failed to understand the reasons for internal discord and seemed to think that repression was its only remedy.” (Lerner et al: 1993:172-3)

Here then we learn that the Gracchi attempted to change the laws regarding property and also that of food provision by controlling the grain supply and giving it to the poor at discount in order to help them. Let us hear Machiavelli upon these two factors in order to reveal who benefits and hence why they were so fought for. From there we can understand the result of the end of the Republic and witness its demise:

“On the Troubles to which the Agrarian Laws gave rise in Rome; and how great is the Trouble given in a Republic by passing a Law that is too Retrospective and Contravenes an Ancient Custom of the City.

Ancient writers were of the opinion that men are wont to get annoyed with adversity and fed up with prosperity, both of which passions give rise to the same effects. For, whenever there is no need for men to fight, they fight for ambition’s sake; and so powerful is the sway that ambition exercises over the human heart that it never relinquishes them, no matter how high they have risen. The reason is that nature has so constituted men that, though all things are objects of desire, not all things are attainable; so that desire always exceeds the power of attainment, with the result that men are ill content with what they possess and their present state brings them little satisfaction. Hence arise the vicissitudes of their fortune. For, since some desire to have more and others are afraid to lose what they have already acquired, enmities and wars are begotten, and this brings about the ruin of one province and the exaltation of its rival.

I have made these preliminary remarks because the Roman plebs were not content with having made their position secure in regard to the nobles by the creation of tribunes, which necessity constrained them to demand; but, having acquired them, at once began to quarrel with the nobles out of ambition, and to demand also a share in the distribution of honours and of property that which man esteems nothing more highly….

The provisions made by this law fell under two heads. It provided first that no citizen should be allowed to possess above so many acres of land; and, secondly, that all the lands that were taken from an enemy should be divided among the Roman people. This gave offence to the nobility in two ways; for those who possessed more land than the law allowed- and they were the greater part of the nobility- were to be deprived of the overplus; and the sharing of enemy goods among the plebs put a stop to their chance of enriching themselves. Wherefore, since these provisions gave offence to powerful men, and it seemed to them that, in opposing the law, they were acting in the public interest, whenever the question cropped up the whole city was turned topsy-turvy, as has been said. Patiently and industriously the nobles sought to put the matter off, either by setting out with an army for foreign parts, or by setting up another tribune against the tribune who proposed the law, or sometimes by a partial concession, or again by sending a colony out to the place where the land was to be distributed…

Dissatisfaction with this law or a time went on causing trouble in Rome, until the Romans began to lead their armies to the more remote parts of Italy, and beyond it, when for some time it seems to have ceased. This was because the lands which the enemies of Rome possessed, being far away from where any of its plebs lived and in places where it was not easy to cultivate them, the plebs came to be less keen on having them; and again because the Romans were less severe  in punishing their enemies by such deprivations, and because, when they did despoil a place of the lands in its neighbourhood, they were distributed among colonists. This being so, the Agrarian law lay dormant until the time of the Gracchi, and, when they raised it again, it spelt the complete destruction of Rome’s liberty. For by that time the power of its adversaries was twice as great, and, as a result, the mutual hatred existent between the plebs and the senate was so intense that it led to armed conflict and bloodshed, in which neither moderation nor respect for civic customs was shown. So that, the public magistrates being unable to find a remedy and none of the factions having any longer any confidence in them, recourse was had to private remedies, and each party began to look out for some chief to head and defend it.

In this scandal and disorder the plebs took the first step by staking its reputation on Marius, to such effect that it made him four times consul. His consulship was in fact continuous, except for short intervals, and this enabled him on his own authority to appoint himself consul on three other occasions. As the nobility had no other remedy whereby to counteract this pest, they took to backing Sulla, and, when he was made the head of their party, civil war broke out, and in it, after much bloodshed and many changes of fortune, the nobility got the upper hand.

These animosities were revived in the time of Caesar and Pompey. For, when Caesar became the head of the Marian party and Pompey the head of Sulla’s they came to blows, and Caesar got the best of it, and so became Rome’s first tyrant. After which that city never again recovered its liberties.

Such, then, was the beginning, and such the end of the Agrarian law. Elsewhere we have shown that it was enmity between the senate and populace of Rome that kept Rome free, because it was owing to this that laws were made in favour of liberty. And, though with this conclusion the result of the Agrarian Law may seem to be incompatible, I must confess that I am not on this account inclined to change my opinion, for, so great is the ambition of the great that unless in a city they are kept down by various ways and means, that city will soon be brought to ruin. Hence, if it was fully three hundred years before the Agrarian Law led to the servitude of Rome, it would, perchance, have led to servitude much sooner, had not the plebs by means of this law and by other demands prompted by their appetites, always kept the ambition of the nobles in check.

It is also clear from this that men set much greater store on property than on honours. For the Roman nobility always gave way to the plebs in the matter of honours without causing serious troubles; but, when it came to property, so great was the obstinacy with which they defended it, that in order to satisfy their appetites the plebs had recourse to those irregular means which have been mentioned above.” (Crick:1979:200-04)

A Crowd is useless without a Head; nor should it first use Threats and then appeal for the Requisite Authority

The plebs of Rome, owing to what had happened to Virginia, withdrew under arms to Mon Sacer. The senate sent messengers to inquire by what authority they had deserted their officers and retired to the Mountains; and so great was the respect which the plebs had for the authority of the senate that, since they had none of their leaders with them, no one ventured to reply. Not, says Titus Livy, that they lacked material for a reply, but that they lacked the men to make it. This shows at once how useless a crowd is without a head.

Virginius recognized this confusion and by his instructions twenty military tribunes were elected that the plebs might have leaders who could discuss matters with the senate and come to some agreement. When they asked that Valerius and Horatius should be sent to them that they might explain what they wanted, they declined to go until the Ten had been deprived of their magistracy. When they arrived at the Mountain where the plebs were assembled, they were told that what the plebs wanted was the appointment of plebeian tribunes, the right of appeal from any magistrate to the people, and the handing over to them of all the Ten, whom they proposed to burn alive.

Valerius and Horatius approved their first demands, but deprecated the last as barbarous remarking: ‘you condemn cruelty, yet lapse into cruelty’. They recommended them to drop the question of the Ten, and to look instead to the reestablishment of their own authority and power, for afterwards they would not lack the means of obtaining satisfaction.

This teaches us plainly how stupid and foolish it is, when asking for something, to announce ‘I propose to do such and such a wrong thing with it.’ For one should not declare one’s intentions, but should seek to get what one desires anyhow. There is, for instance, no need in asking someone for a weapon to say ‘I propose to kill you with it’, since you can satisfy your appetite once you have the weapon in your hands.” (Crick:1979:219-220)

To play this Machiavellian story backwards it teaches us plainly that the tribunes of Virginius did not tell the plebs that they would grant them laws in order to take their lands from them, by bribing and corrupting and using their wealth and power to control the election of tribunes or by simply assassinating those tribunes who did not comply to the artifice of bribery and corruption.

What therefore happens when two brothers have to be assassinated because they really are trying to help out the people and not to empower themselves? Well we could ask America after the assassination of the Kennedy brothers, who were attempting to end racial hatred and disempower the army in the 1960s, and the subsequent Nixon era that resulted, and indeed we shall, or we could ask Rome right now. I wonder if the result will be the same? Or should I say, I wonder if the people who are politicians have read the same political texts that I have read, i.e. Thucydides and Gibbon and Machiavelli, and will take their advise that we have just read. Oh yer, didn’t I just say the Nixon and his chief adviser Kissinger kept Machiavelli by their very bedside!

The significance of the Gracchi

Though their enemies routinely branded them as dangerous and careerists, there is really no reason to think that the Gracchi were motivated by anything other than a genuine desire to improve the welfare of the Roman people. It can hardly be denied either that responsibility for the violence that ended their careers rests mainly with the Senate. The Gracchi mark a watershed in the political life of the Roman Republic: henceforth, the political class was divided into two, often mutually hostile, factions, the populares (“populists”) and their rivals, the optimates (“the best ones”)….

The Gracchi are important for another reason: their deaths, obtained on the pretext of national security, opened the door to the widespread and systematic use of violence in public life, a development which, if it did not cause the fall of the Republic, certainly hastened it.” (Le Glay:2009:113-14)

The significance of Marius and Caesar who the experience of the Gracchi sired:

“By declaring themselves the protectors of the people, Marius and Caesar had subverted the constitution of their country. But as soon as the senate had been humbled and disarmed, such an assembly, consisting of five or six hundred persons, was found a much more tractable and useful instrument of dominion. It was on the dignity of the senate that Augustus and his successors founded their new empire; and they affected, on every occasion, to adopt the language and principles of Patricians. In the administration of their own powers, they frequently consulted the great national council, and seemed to refer to its decision the most important concerns of peace and war. Rome and Italy, and the internal provinces were subject to the immediate jurisdiction of the senate. With regard to civil objects, it was the supreme court of appeal; with regard to criminal matters, a tribunal, constituted for the trial of all offences that were committed by men in any public station, or that affected the peace and majesty of the Roman people. The exercise of the judicial power became the most frequent and serious occupation of the senate; and the important causes that were pleaded before them afforded a last refuge to the spirit of ancient eloquence. As a council of state, and as a court of justice, the senate possessed very considerable prerogatives; but in its legislative capacity, in which it was supposed virtually to represent the people, the rights of sovereignty were  acknowledged to reside in that assembly. Every power was derived from their authority, every law was ratified by their sanction. Their regular meetings were held on three stated days in every month, the Calends, the Nones, and the Ides. The debates were conducted with decent freedom; and the emperors themselves, who gloried in the name of senators, say, voted, and divided with their equals.

To resume, in a few words, the system of the Imperial government, as it was instituted by Augustus, and maintained by those princes who understood their own interest and that of the people, it may be defined an absolute monarchy disguised by the forms of a commonwealth. The masters of the Roman world surrounded their throne with darkness, concealed their irresistible strength, and humbly professed themselves the accountable ministers of the senate, whose supreme decrees they dictated and obeyed.” (Gibbon:1998:58-9)

So the result of the Gracchi was that one man took over the entire power of Rome by creating a house of Senators that he discovered held the prestige of the power in the eyes of the people, but were in fact so weak individually as to be tractable enough to control everything under a throne of darkness where the public image of listening to the senate and serving the people gave him the power to everything including the law and its authors, whilst the plebs of the republic gained only in their fears, in a militarised world of a Noble Lie called a Republic, but that was secretly controlled by a secret dynasty of families under the head of Augustus. I can feel the Bush family squirm at their hubris in getting two of their family elected President and revealing themselves to the public, especially now that another intractable war proven to be unjust and manufactured by lies is still being waged as we shall see. Isn’t history a fun subject to learn.

Before we look at the end of the Republic and the birth of these hidden absolutist monarchy we must deal with the other aspects of Republic life in regards to education, art and feminism, that result from the law that resulted from the inequality in property, that resulted from the slaves, that resulted from the wars, that resulted from fear of suppression, that resulted from suppression, that resulted from the desire for gain, that resulted in the written code of gain known as the Noble Lie of the Ring of Gyges of the Law of Rome, that resulted in the Law of all western civilizations today. First let us look at the bad-faith of the soldiers who had won land for the state and lost it for themselves, losing their kin-group and gaining a destitute household now fed by the State.

‘Let the Right One In’- Necessity: The Reason for ‘The Law of the Peoples’ and ‘Civil Law’

Previously we learned that the Roman law consisted of three types. The first of these was Natural Law, which we have discussed in a previous chapter as divine authority and eternal and as the power of Nature taken in order to write a negative cult to the common advantage of gaining ones desires. The other two were ‘Civil Law’ which was a law just for the Romans and ‘The Law of the People’ which was a law for all Peoples within the empire and not just Civil Roman Citizens.

What Machiavelli is about to show us it the ‘necessary reason’ behind these two laws, and who benefits from them. It will help to remember that law is a religion just as much as religion is law in regards to reasons for its authorship. As we saw in regards to the benefits of Zorastrinism and the concept of public and private worship and its subsequent power to the State, so we will now see in regards to the outer pyramid relationship of the law as civil law and the law of the people. With religious tolerance enacted through the private and public face one could cohere any group of religious people to your empire, as Alexander did. Rome now does the same with the law.

Will it be the stick-wielders within the pyramid of Rome or those who have had been beaten with the stick until they enter the pyramid of Rome. Remember that the Law of the People protected slave rights and property rights, whilst the Civil law created the conditions where an increase in rightful war in the name of liberty produced more slaves which produced less property for the soldiers under this ‘civil’ law. Who benefits, will it be the soldiers who put their lives on the line, or their families, or the families of the losers who didn’t put their life on the line but surrendered instead and then stood upon the dead corpses of these Roman soldier mice and became Friends of Rome as they did so?

That a Prudent General should make it absolutely necessary for his own Troops to Fight, but should avoid forcing the Enemy to do so

We have in other discourses shown how useful a part necessity plays in human affairs, and to what glorious deeds it may lead men. As some moral philosophers in their writings have remarked, neither of the two most noble instruments to which man’s nobility is due, his hands and his tongue, would have attained such perfection in their work or have carried man’s works to the height one can see they have reached, if they had not been driven to it by necessity. Since, therefore, army commanders of old were aware of the virtue that lies in necessity, and how steadfast, when necessity drives, the minds of soldiers can become in their resolve to fight, they used every endeavour to put their troops under such constraint and, on the other hand, employed any device that would free the enemy from such constraint. To this end they often left open to the enemy a route they might have closed and closed a route to their own soldiers which they might have left open. If, then, anyone wants a city to be obstinately defended or an army in the field to fight obstinately, he should, first and foremost, seek to instil this necessity into the minds of those who have to do the fighting…

…When a general is attacking a town he should endeavour with all diligence to relieve its defenders of the necessity we have been discussing, and so of their obstinacy; by promoting them pardon if they are afraid of punishment, and, if they fear for their liberty, by explaining that no attack is being made on the common good; but only on a few ambitious citizens. This has often facilitated the attack on, and the taking of, towns. And, though such false colours are easily seen through, especially by men of prudence, the populace is none the less often deceived, for, in its eagerness for a speedy peace it shuts its eyes to any trap which may underlie generous promises. Innumerable cities have by this means been reduced to servile states….

The armies of the Volsci and the Aequi had crossed the Roman frontiers. Against them the consuls were sent. In the course of the battle the Volscian army, commanded by Vettius stockades which the Romans had taken, and the other Roman army. Seeing that he must needs die or use his sword to fight for his life, Vettius Messius said to his soldiers: ‘Follow me. There is neither wall nor rampart in the way, but just armed forces to oppose armed forces. In valour we are equal, but in necessity which is the last weapon and the best of all, you have the advantage.’ Thus Livy calls necessity ‘the last and best of all weapons.’

Camillus, the most prudent of all Rome’s generals, having already got into the city of Veii with his army, in order to facilitate the taking of it and to deprive the enemy of a last necessity to defend it, gave orders within the hearing of the Veientes to the effect that no one should touch those who were without arms. The result was that they threw down their arms and the city was taken almost without bloodshed.” (Crick:1979:440-43)

In the above quote we see that necessity is an artifice produced by the law in order to create greater power to fight within ones own people by driving them to necessity, and lesser power to fight within anothers people by removing this drive. The soldiers who we have seen legally disenfranchised from their lands under civil law, are by necessity forced to put the victory of the Roman State above their own lives, as without it they will necessarily perish themselves. But for those who they are conquering this law of necessity does not hold, they are offered the rights to their land, provided they will pay tribute and taxes and the power to authors the law and right over to Rome, and betray their own constitution, which they will gladly do because they are all in reality being-for-itself under a social contract of common advantage that no longer makes common sense to choose to believe is a commonwealth. Much better to believe that it is a Roman province all of a sudden and that their common law is right, and quite fortunately the law is of such an entity that it can change to accommodate any stance of morality that in the end never changes the political community, that is actually a hereditary mafia running a protection racket that by necessity makes poorer its reciprocators in order to give them greater power.

In other words, civil law is a means by which the mice within the electrified cage can create a greater charge in some parts of it and not others, by laying out a thinner line of corpses at home, than away, using the pain of necessity and the pleasure of betrayal of the kin-group or pyramid or individual as an incentive. It is therefore an invisible stick wielded within the inner world of the experience of the soldier as the fear of the necessity of survival and its alignment with the necessity of the survival of the State for whom he wields his outer stick in this outer world upon others. Each blow to the outer world is a blow in the inner world of fear that is his reality and experience. Fear that he must win if not to lose all, fear that he is not right, fear that it is not really necessary, fear that the necessary reason is fear itself that dwells in the very stick he possesses and the stick-wielders he reciprocates with, which may, by lawful right be turned upon him if he does not fight, and does not win. For the other guy in the other pyramid in the other world of the other law who still owns land and who will still own it when he loses the fight, that is not necessary, is loyalty to the previous authority that granted him it in the first place.

Surely is it is bad-faith for a soldier to fight to win greater rights for the loser than for himself as winner

This is why there was a common law set up that protected property rights and slavery to all people in common.  Today we call this strategy adopted during battle, ‘winning the hearts and minds’ of the enemy in order to secure peace and give them liberty from the theatre of war. In peace time where trade and not booty forms the technique of gain to a common advantage, it is known as ‘Free Trade’ or ‘The Washington Consensus’ more contemporaneously, that wishes to free all trade globally and establish property rights, in order to create ‘equality’, in like manner as that promised by the authors of the law in Rome, i.e. a Noble Lie. As we will see it has done the precise opposite to this claim, more efficiently than ever before, and is about to result in the karmic consequence in Washington of its own demise, more efficiently than ever before. The fairy tale, the tale of fate, the nemesis to this hubris, the karmic embodiment of harmony, has already been written in the very birth of the Republic as we are about to experience in Rome.

To sum this up with one simple framing question: ‘I wonder what the karmic result of rewarding the unloyal and greedy over the loyal and scared will result in for the children of Rome that these fathers of war will sire?’ or contemporaneously,  ‘What is the percentage of the entire money of the world in those free-trading offshore banks where unloyal and greedy bankers keep their wealth, for these children of the Washington Consensus that these fathers of war have sired?’ We shall answer both of these questions.

To put this bad-faith another way around let us hear Machiavelli in regards to the means of necessity being turned into a gift to the soldier in order to gain loyalty from him whilst you in fact take his lands and disempower his family:

A Republic or a Prince should ostensibly do out of Generosity what Necessity constrains them to do

Prudent men always and in all their actions make a favour of doing things even though they would of necessity be constrained to do them anyhow. The Roman Senate made good use of prudence deciding to use public money to pay men on military service. It had been the custom for soldiers to pay their own expenses, but the senate saw that in such case they could not make war for long, and, in consequence, would neither be able to lay siege to towns, nor to lead their armies far afield. Since, therefore, they thought it necessary to be able to do both these things, they decided that the troops should be paid a stipend; but did it in such a way that they made a favour of doing what necessity had constrained them to do.

So acceptable was this gift to the plebs that Rome went mad with delight; for it seemed to them that they had received a great benefaction which they had never expected, and which they would never have asked for themselves. And, though the tribunes tried hard to remove this impression, pointing out that it would increase the burden on the plebs instead of lightening it since it would be necessary to levy taxes to be able to defray the cost; none the less they were quite unable to prevent the plebs welcoming the change. It was made the more welcome, too, by the way in which the taxes were distributed; for those imposed on the nobility were heavier and greater, and they had to be paid first.” (Crick:1979:234-5)

So the plebs actually paid for the soldiers to bring back slaves from farther lands by which to make themselves poorer and the rich richer in the belief that this was to their advantage and a gift from the rich senators who would pay more.

We will see this exact same reaction two thousand years later in the 19th century in regards to education of our children when it becomes a national law, paid for by everyone through taxes, and the real reason for why the State introduced it, later on, as well of course as asking the question, ‘Who benefits’.

Let us therefore look at some other Roman, ‘gifts of the state’ that came about under this same Noble Lie, of how they were received by the plebs and of who benefited from them. By doing so we will understand the demise of the Republic itself, and the beginning of ‘The Return of the King’- again.

10: The Propertyless rights to luxury that gave rise to power of the Army and the End of the Republic

“The clash of personal ambitions did not, of course, date from the end of the second century BCE. Previously, however, it had occurred within the framework of public institutions: in the Senate, personal conflicts influenced or precipitated important decisions; in the assemblies, they steered popular votes to certain magistrates at the time of elections. In the first century, however, those with political ambitions felt themselves less and less subject to institutional rules that were enforced with ever decreased effectiveness. Therefore, they were more disposed to seek their achievement outside the settled arrangements for gaining power within the Republic. It was a matter of time before the army became an instrument of personal advancement at the service of these ambitious men.” (Le Glay:2009:123)

A new Roman army

The whole military organization, as we have seen, was founded on the Servian constitution. The republican army of the early days had been essentially a national militia based on the census and property qualification, drafted for specific campaigns and disbanded once the war was over. Since the third century, however, and especially since the Second Punic War, things had changed. The scope of the wars and the length of those campaigns resulted in the dispossession of the lower classes from their small properties, and, subsequently, their disqualification from military service. Additionally, fear of losing their livelihoods made citizens increasingly reluctant to do their military duty (militia), and, consequently, the number of men who could be mobilized from the five classes had become insufficient for Rome’s campaigns.

Thus, the necessity of lowering the minimum qualification of the fifth class and admitting the proletarii became obvious at the turn of the first century. This development is associated with the military reforms instituted by Gaius Marius in 107…. Volunteers could now enter the legions, to fill the depleted ranks of those drafted according to property qualifications. These volunteer landless or propertyless proletarii would be paid in addition to being entitled to a share in the booty, and they would receive an allocation of land at the end of their service. From now on citizens from the lower classes, and especially those from rural areas, would supply the main body of recruits. Thus the army of rich citizens would be increasingly replaced by an army of landless plebeians. This new demographic make-up had almost immediate consequences in the esprit de corps of the army and in its relations with civilian society at large….

The loyalty of the soldiers to individual generals as opposed to the Roman state is a defining characteristic of this new army,” (Le Glay:2009:123-24)

So we can see that the fate of luxury and gain through war is that slaves increase the experience of luxury and the experience of fear underpinning it, and that slaves also increase the lands of the rich who then no longer wish to risk their own sons in war and pay to escape the draft whilst those dispossessed from their lands are no longer eligible to become soldiers. If we remember the fate of the Spartans, who through bribery suddenly found themselves without enough landed Spartan warriors to defend themselves then it is obvious that the law had to change and these new landless had to be re-accommodated into the soldiery.

In other words Rome knew, as did Sparta, that a soldier is loyal to his land within the State and not the State in-itself, that a soldier is a being-for-itself, before it is a being-for-Others, and that his honour and virtue from the State really come after this consideration. Unable to stop their own greed and power plays amongst themselves, they instead change the law in order to not change the political community- as per Dunn above. The consequence of having soldiers who are promised back the land that they have had taken from them is that they are not loyal to the senate that betrayed them and took their land, but to the general who they serve who will make sure that they get it, and not some lawful excuse at the end of their service.

Does the name of the founders of modern republics and democracies ring any bells here. The General George Washington who founded Americas constitution, Napoleon who inherited Frances, or The Duke of Wellington who became prime minister of Great Britain at the height of Empire after defeating Napoleon. Where did they get their laws from? Where did they get their soldiers from?

“Roman citizens, full members of the civic body, participated in all the state’s activities; they enjoyed the benefit of civil and legal rights; since 167 (after Pydna) they had been free of direct taxation (tributum), and they were entitled to a share in booty, to agrarian allocations, and to distributions of grain. Next came the “Latins”, who held a status half-way between that of citizens and that of the allies. Inhabitants of Latin cities and colonies, the Latins shared the civil and legal rights of citizens (rights of contract, commercial, matrimonial), and were liable for certain fiscal and military dues (serving in auxiliary units). But in other respects, they were more like allies, carrying a Latin name but without all the political rights of citizens: in order to vote, they had to come to Rome and vote in a tribe drawn at random for each ballot. They aspired to full citizens’ rights.

The allies belonged to a third, even less privileged, category. They were peoples connected with Rome by a treaty that outlined their relations with the capital, which, in most cases, exerted close control over them. Although in general they had remained loyal during the Second Punic War, they had received no reward. Quite the reverse: since 177 they had been excluded from the possession of land which they had helped to win for, or restore to, the Romans. They continued to supply the Roman army with contingents that were indispensable to its wars of conquest….

Thus began the Social War, also known as “the war of the allies” or the “Marsian War.” For three years Rome witnesses “the whole of Italy rise up against [it]” (Velleius Paterculus, History of Rome 2.15).

This long and bitter struggle has sometimes been compared to the American Civil War. Great atrocities were committed: at Asculum (Ascoli) in Picenum,…

Pressured by the allies and with an eye always to its interests in Italy, Rome granted the essence of the Italian demands: the lex Julia de Civitate Latinis Danda (90) awarded Roman citizenship to all the Latins and to the allies who had not taken up arms, or were willing to lay them down at that time;…

The allies had thereby won, at least in principle. The question remained of how to integrate the new citizens (novi cives) into the civic body. Given the voting process in the assembly (comitia) and the numbers of new citizens involved, their voting power would increase according to how many Roman tribes they were distributed in. The more tribes they were assigned to, the wider their influence in the elections. Seeing the danger of their presence in all or many of the 35 tribes, the Senate wanted to enroll them in only a few.” (Le Glay:2009:130-31)

So the result of this new method of recruiting the army from people who had been promised gain but were denied it and yet were now required in order to continue to gain was a civil war. A civil war that we have just seen reflected to us above, as one comparable to that of the American Civil War, that came shortly after America became a Republic under a General who had fought off oppression and set up a Republic with Roman Laws. What will be the fate of this country at war, will it be the promise of liberty and peace that ends the Republic and begins a Noble Lie of a familist dynastic oligarchy under the guise of a Republic. Are we talking about America or Rome here, I am no longer sure. Let us see.

Civil-war sires Julius Caesar and the end of Republic – Bad-Faith

“Most of the crimes which disturb the internal peace of society are produced by the restraints which the necessary, but, unequal, laws of property have imposed on the appetites of mankind, by confining to a few the possession of those objects that are coveted by many. Of all our passions and appetites, the love of power is of the most imperious and unsociable nature, since the pride of one man requires the submission of the multitude. In the tumult of civil discord the laws of society lose their force, and their place is seldom supplied by those of humanity. The ardour of contention, the pride of victory, the despair of success, the memory of past injuries, and the fear of future dangers, all contribute to inflame the mind, and to silence the voice of pity.” (Gibbon:1998:75)

“After the downfall of the Graachi, two military leaders who had won fame in foreign wars successively made themselves rulers of the state. The first was Marius, who was elevated to the consulship by the plebeian party in 107 B.C. and reelected six times. Unfortunately, Marius was no statesman and accomplished nothing for his followers beyond demonstrating the ease with which a general with an army at his back could override opposition. Following his death in 86 B.C. the aristocrats took a turn at government by force. Their champion was Sulla, another victorious commander. Appointed dictator in 82 B.C. for an unlimited term, Sulla ruthlessly proceeded to exterminate his opponents and extend the powers of the Senate. Even the senatorial veto over acts of the assembly was revived, and the authority of the tribunes was sharply curtailed. After three years of rule Sulla decided to exchange the pomp of power for the pleasures of the senses and retired to a life of luxury on his country estate.

The actions of Sulla did not stand unchallenged after he relinquished his office, for the effect of his decrees was to give control to a selfish aristocracy. Several new leaders now emerged to espouse the cause of the people. The most famous of them were Pompey (106-48 B.C.) and Julius Caesar (100-44 B.C.). For a time they cooperated in a plot to gain control of the government, but later they became rivals and sought to outdo each other in bids for popular support….The result was a deadly war between the two men. In 49 B.C. Caesar crossed the Rubicon River into Italy (ever since then an image for a fateful decision) and marched on Rome…. Pompey was defeated and soon afterward murdered by schemers in favour of Caesar….No one now dared to challenge his power. With the aid of his veterans he cowed the Senate into granting his every desire. In 46 B.C. he became dictator for ten years, and two years later for life. In addition, he assumed nearly every other title that could augment his power. He obtained from the Senate full authority to make war and peace and to control the revenues of the state. For all practical purposes he was above the law, and rumours spread that he intended to make himself king. Such fears led to his assassination on the Ides of March in 44 B.C. by a group of conspirators, under the leadership of Brutus and Cassius, who hoped to return Rome to republican government.” (Lerner et al:1993:173-4)

The break between Marius and Sulla: 88 BCE

…”Sulla’s march against Rome is a momentous turning-point in Roman history. For the very first time, a Roman general led a state army into the sacred precinct of the city, to ensure the success of his plans. Even though it can be argued that Sulla was merely defending the legitimacy of his initial commission of the Mithridatic War, the fact remains that he set an example of political transgression and abuse of military authority that others would soon follow.

…Sulla gained control of Rome on November 1, at the battle of the Colline gate, just outside the walls of the city. The casualties were between 50,000 and 70,000 in the two armies, and 3,000 were executed among the 12,000 prisoners whom Sulla assembled on the Campus Martius.” (Le Glay:2009:133-34)

Sulla’s dictatorship: 82-79 BCE

Once Sulla had completed the eradication of his enemies, he set about his political program. A lex Valeria conferred the dictatorship on him. The office of dictator, previously voted only in emergencies and with maximum tenure of six months, was first given to Sulla without a time limit. This appointment was considered all the more outrageous because no one had assumed this office for 120 years,” (Le Glay:2009:135)

The Ring of Gyges Caucus race, where the tears of Heraclitus that had got Rome ‘wet’ turn into the torrential river of tears – The Rubicon – I Caesar – Absolute Dictatorship

“It is undeniable that, in opening up central Europe to the Roman civilization, Caesar changed the history of the western world.” (Le Glay:2009:150)

The rise of Julius Caesar is really the replay of all that we have been talking about above, in the arts and techniques of controlling a populous and gaining power, starting with the Greeks and their gift of power.

At an early age Julius Caesar was sent to Rhodes to be taught rhetoric by a Greek scholar but was captured and held for ransom by pirates on the way, who he befriended.  Upon his release he chased them down and condemned them all to crucifixion as punishment, but because they were his friends he ordered that their throats were slit first in order to hasten their deaths, because he quite admired them.

At 21 he saw a statue of Alexander the Great, and was overcome to tears at level of Alexanders achievement at the same age, in comparison to his own meagre ones.

He then marries into some hereditary wealthy family but is not accepted by the elite themselves so in order to gain power through status rather than esteem as wealth he, instead turns to the plebs and begins to campaigns for the poor visiting their slums.

At this time in Rome the poor lived in their own faeces, with no drainage, in shanty towns filled with pestilence and disease. Roman aristocrats held roses to their noses when they walked through these places, but Caesar walked these streets using his Greek learnt skills of rhetoric and his dynastic family wealth in order to gain support and prestige. He then used this subsequent power to get an ideal appointment, ‘responsibility for Romes entertainments’, the very key, as we have discovered above by which to gain prestige and public loyalty and approval.

To pay for these extravagant shows and games Caesar has to borrow vast amount of money at extortionate interest from the rich elite. But he spares no expense putting on even mock sea battles as well as beasts and gladiators. The effect of all this is described by the contemporary historian Suetonius, ‘Men of all classes succumbed to his charm, as did their wives- Suetonius’. Whilst in reality he was, ‘A bully, a mafia thug.’

Aged 36 he used this newly manufactured popularity to run for election as supreme priest of Rome, in order to control the religious loyalty and nature of the people, in like manner to Numa as we saw above.  On polling day, now heavily in debt, he told his mum, that he would return, either a priest or a pauper. But he won the election and used the office to gain further prestige and lay on greater games.

Now that he had status he had the respect of the elite who had to acknowledge him within their great power game, and so in order to consolidate his gains Caesar  sought out a political alliance to become consul with Crassus an aristocrat and Pompey- Romes greatest general. In other words consolidating the power of the religion, with the power of the mafia families and with the army now loyal to a general. To seal this deal Caesar marries his daughter to Pompey. This is known as the First Triumvirate. What was its true nature?

The First Triumvirate: 60-54 BCE

What we call today “the First Triumvirate” is an unofficial and initially covert political alliance among Pompey, Crassus and Caesar. The events that led to this partnership were largely coincidental, but the rampant ambitions that underpinned them had long been in the making.” (Le Glay:2009:145-46)

In 60 BC he achieves Consul alongside Crassus in accordance with the deal that they have struck but he immediately humiliates Crassus publicly, by having him pelted with dung as they leave the senate. From this humiliation Crassus loses face and hence esteem and hence power, as his garment slips from his shoulders and Caesar takes the power of consul for himself alone. He then plunders the treasury for his own benefit and to pay his own debts. At night he behaved as a petty pirate or mafia thug, resorting to violence with hired henchmen roaming the streets along-side him, beating up passers-by or raping women or taking peoples possessions, as he desired. The supreme priest of Desire.

Could there be a better description of Rome than that, just as Alcibiades described the same true state of Athens and its democracy

Under the Consulate of North Western Europe Caesar then proceeded to conquer more foreign peoples than any one had done so before him in order to win prestige and the hoped for Triumph in Rome itself. Indeed it is the hubris of the Triumph that now comes back to haunt Rome itself, for Caesar is so desperate to reach the 5,000 body count and booty required to receive one that he goes to war against the Helvetii as he ordered to by the senate but then continues North without the Senates permission in order to reach his 5,000 target. This egoic campaign of self-glorification is better known as The Gallic Wars.  He conquers all of Gaul (modern day France) in 55 BC and Britain, but realises that Britain isn’t worth conquering and leaves it. From his victories in the Gallic Wars he now has the money and the status and the loyalty of his soldiers, to return to Rome and turn this into a dictatorship. An appetite for which, he had nourished alimentally with his soldiers in Gaul. A taste for absolute power which, he did not want to relinquish it, upon his return to Rome.

He had promised his soldiers land in order to win their loyalty whilst in Gaul, but upon his return the landed elite of the Senate, surprise surprise refused to abide by their own laws, and aware that the seasoned army, loyal to Caesar, now disenfranchised after years of service in good faith, would not take this lying down they persuade their own great general Pompey to punish Caesar for his disobedience ten years ago in continuing North after defeating the Helvetii. A situation they have happily tolerated and sent reinforcements and provisions too for those ten years, whilst receiving the tribute. Pompey agrees and tells Caesar to surrender his army, but he refuses and so starts a civil war to regain his honour lost through this humiliation and loss of virtue. ‘The die is cast’, says Caesar as he crosses the river Rubicon back into Italy. By this turn of phrase he suggests two meanings. Firstly, ‘it is done’ a gamblers term, and secondly, ‘ the die is in the air’ and no body knows where it will fall. Die meaning gambling dice not colourful dye.

“Technically speaking, it was Caesar who was responsible for starting the war. But it is not certain how much either he or Pompey truly wanted it. Conservative senators played a decisive role in egging Pompey on against Caesar. They were led by Cato, who represented the most traditionalist faction of the Senate and would not settle for anything less than its absolute supremacy. His views were often extremely idealistic; Cicero confided to his friend Atticus that “although he [Cato] has the best intentions and supreme loyalty, meanwhile he harms the Republic because he declaims his opinions as if he lived in Plato’s Republic rather than in the cesspool of Romulus” (Letters to Atticus 2.1). However, to an extent, Cato’s principles were legitimate and valid. Despite the heavy blows to its power and prestige, in the collective consciousness the Senate still remained the supreme constitutional authority, identified with the state itself….Certainly it seemed that it was not principles that were at stake, but the honour and prestige of powerful and ambitious men; but we do not have to see their ambitions, wilful delusions, and ideals as mutually exclusive motives for the Civil War.” (Le Glay:2009:152)

So the result of the republic and its legal slaves for all and property for all, was slavery for the majority and property for some, in a Republic now ruled in a secret conspiracy of religion, law, and army, commanded by ambitious men, who sold principle down the river along with the abject that they created as scape-goats to their vain glory or virtue, egged on by war lobbying senators of like spirit who demanded 5,000 to be killed minimum before the song of glory would be sung, and for this their prestige grew as did their authority. A Noble Lie, A bad-faith, a hope, a fear, an Empire at war with itself by its nature perpetually known as a Republic of Mafia families running a protection racket, by controlling the bread and the circus, the fear and the hope, the lie and the faith.

Caesars return to Rome, before Pompeys troops could return from Africa to begin this civil war, was therefore perceived by the Italians as a very very scary prospect knowing that the senate have denied him glory but instead expect to give out punishment, but does Caesar return with violence through Italy once he has crossed the Rubicon or with benefaction in order to cohere the people as he returns to Rome?

Machiavelli I believe has already given us the answer to this above and so it should come as no surprise that Caesar with his experience of laying on public spectacles and games takes up his old skills and treats his countrymen so kindly as he enters their towns that by the time he approaches the towns closer to Rome his good name has come before him and they greet him with open doors, and even begin to treat him like a God upon his arrival, who has come to restore the glory of Rome to the people.

By the time he reaches Rome this popular power of the people, that he had also so skilfully crafted upon his rise to power, has become so rife that the senate realises that its power (which is truly knows is held by the people- as Foucault showed us earlier) to punish Caesar has so diminished that it has run away, just like so many other believers in Democracy before them.

Pompey brings his legions against Caesar from Africa and they meet on the Plain of Pharsallis  where Caesar is outnumbered 2 to 1. Caesar is a better general and wins. Pompey runs away to Egypt but Caesar chases him to Alexandria, the irony of which should not escape the reader by now and Pompey is beheaded.

In Egypt he famously meets Cleopatra. ‘I came I saw I conquered’, taking Egypt and her for himself, before being infected by the same ironic disease that Alexander the Great found himself succumbing too in order to turn a kingship into an Empire, through the religious expedient of private and public worship of the gods. Caesar now takes as dictator of the law and the gods.

In 54 BC he returns to Rome for his long awaited Triumph in a purple toga adorned with suns, and stars, and a huge phallus hung between his legs to celebrate his virility. The Senate respond by making this ithyphallic God that they had previously banned even as an idea of pure imagination, dictator for an unprecedented 10 years, out of fear and respect.

In the name of reason Caesar now makes a new calendar, ending the lunar one and making it a solar one of 365 days, in accordance with the authority of kingship and the paternal nature of the sun, and the numerical significance of Mithra as the Son of God, etc, etcetera that we have discussed above at length. A strategy therefore by which the reason is really to begin his rise to becoming a God in the same light, as was his hero Alexander the Great, who took the Illiad on campaign with him, the very first book translated into latin for the Romans to inherit its nature.

After these ten years Caesar is then elected dictator for life by the people, and the aristocrats see this for what it truly is. The hated kingship from which they escaped under the Etruscans but a few generations ago, and so they secretly decide to use the good old technique that underpins the reality of the law- assassination- in order to regain the Republic, being their reason, whilst regaining the power for themselves (the reason for a Republic in the first place) being their real reason.

But they have to be careful in assassinating him because the people think that he deserves the dictatorship that they have voted for and given him, whilst the aristocrats only see that under a dictatorship there is no way for their families to share power amongst themselves. Caesar is killed in Pompeys stone theatre. Stabbed 23 times. As he dies he pulls his purple toga over his head so that no one would see him die and his true face. He is killed in the name of libertas- as the official story of the aristocrats who assassinate him.

As it turns out they were absolutely right to think this because from this point on all rulers of the republic were to be named Caesar, from where we derive the words Tsar, and Kaiser.

The Return of the King of Fertility – Pass the Cock Baton of Bacchus Caesar – the Birth of Monarchy under the Noble Lie of a Republic – Lesson One: First Divide and Conquer

The reign of Augustus is the end of the Republic, and hence the end of the reason by which the religion, the constitution, the law, the education, the drama, and the authority of this Republic stands. But Augustus cannot just change these institutions over night, he must do it slowly. What we will now do is to look at these changes, find out what they were in greater detail, how they came about and how they changed the nature of the religion, the constitution, the law, etc. By doing so we will take further steps towards understanding the Nature of Christ that is going to emerge from the nature of Mithra, that we have traced back to its true origins in prehistory throughout the World, but which is now going to be claimed as the nature of a Man- Augustus himself.

To understand all of these changes we must understand the history that led up to the reign of Augustus from the demise of Caesar:

“The period 44-31 is framed by two major events: Caesar’s assassination and the victory of Octavian over Antony and Cleopatra at Actium. These two events encompass a time of immense importance in the history of Rome: the end of dictatorship, a 13- year crisis, the end of the Civil Wars, and Octavian’s establishment of a personal regime at the head of which he ruled as the restorer of peace. It was the end of the senatorial Republic, with its boast of libertas, and the advent of a new regime commonly known as the Empire or the Principate. Even though it had been long in the making, the conventional date for its beginning is considered to be January 16, 27, when Octavian was awarded the title “Augustus” by the Senate, as well as extraordinary military and political authority. This event, known as “the settlement of 27 BCE,” inaugurated a new political system, social order, and culture. It is the Principate (of Augustus and his successors) that gave Rome the aesthetic grandeur and cultural importance that it holds to this day.” (Le Glay:2009:159)

“At this time, Cicero deployed his rhetorical skill and experience to champion Octavian’s cause to foil Antony’s power. A harsh exchange between Antony and Cicero in September 44 was followed by 14 invective speeches that Cicero wrote against Antony, denouncing him as an enemy of the state. These speeches abound with Ciceronian stock accusations of Antony’s cruelty, sexual profligacy, and eccentric indulgences, and much of his slander against Antony evokes his portrait of Catiline 20 years previously. Known as Philippics (in imitation of Demosthenes’ speeches against Philip II of Macedonia, father of Alexander the Great), these speeches are heavily biased but nevertheless invaluable sources for Antony’s career under Caesar and the events immediately after Caesar’s death….

Thus he legitimized Octavian’s previously unconstitutional command of his private army composed of Caesar’s veterans. Now an official representative of the Republic, Octavian joined the senatorial army led by the consuls Aulus Hirtius and Gaius Pansa and moved against Antony in Mutina.     

After a series of battles in Apri, Antony was defeated and withdrew to the south of Transalpine Gaul (modern Provence) where he formed an alliance with Lepdius…Now in command of eight legions in total, Octavian was hailed as imperator by his troops. Confident in his strength he marched on Rome, seized the state treasury, which he distributed among his men, organized elections, and got himself elected consul. This was another blow to the already crumbling Republic.” (Le Glay:2009:161)

The Second Triumvirate: 43-32 BCE

To the shock of Cicero and the Senate, Octavian then arranged a private reconciliation with Antony, a remarkable reversal that was facilitated by Lepidus. Following a meeting near Bononia (Bologna) in November, the three men reached an agreement: a triple magistracy was instituted for five years for Antony, Octavian, and Lepidus, to be renewed in 37. This meeting was the basis of what we call “the Second Triumvirate.” Before the end of November, the assembly in Rome voted the Triumvirs supreme legislative and judicial power for five years. The law passed on that day (lex Titia) vested the three men with full authority to reconstitute the state (Triumviri reipublicae constituendae). Thus, whereas the First Triumvirate (in 60) had been a secret and illicit arrangement, the second was publicly sanctioned. The passing of the lex Titia is indicative of how social attitudes were quickly conforming to political developments that were at odds with republican principles.

The immediate consequences of the second Triumvirate were:

• A new proscription. The Triumvirs sent paid assassins with the task of executing 17 opponents in Rome. Antony personally arranged for the murder of Cicero, ordering “the hands that had written the Philippics” to be cut off and displayed in the forum together with his head (Plutarch, Life of Cicero 48). A list was displayed publicly as at the time of Sulla’s proscription. Then there was a second list. There appear to have been 300 victims in all: 150 senators and 150 equestrians. The chief victims were senators, but several more had already left Rome with Brutus and Cassius.
• The division of the Roman world among the Triumvirs. Lepidus received southern Gaul and the Iberian provinces, with three legions; Antony received northern Gaul (Gallia Comata) and Cisalpine Gaul, with 20 legions; and Octavian Africa, Sicily, and Sardinia, with 20 legions. Italy remained undivided, and the East was for the time being in the hands of Brutus and Cassius. (A_balance of power- best game in town)
• War against Caesar’s murderers. In order to recover the East, with its wealth of men and money), Octavian and Antony set out together eastward, by the Via Egnatia. They met the joint armies of Brutus and Cassius near Philippi, Macedonia, and defeated them in October 42. First Cassius and then Brutus committed suicide. Writing more than a century after these events, Tacitus marks succinctly this decisive moment (Annals 1.2): “after the slaughter of Brutus and Cassius there were no more Republican armies.”…certainly the death of Brutus and Cassius mark formally the end of senatorial opposition to the essentially private armies of ambitious generals.” (Le Glay:2009:162)

“Antony soon resumed his efforts to reclaim resources and prestige from his eastern campaigns. In 35 he successfully attacked Armenia, to punish Artavasdes for his desertion the previous year. He annexed Armenia as a Roman province, and returned to Alexandria in 34. There Antony celebrated a triumph for his conquest of Armenia, complete with the parade of the captured Artavasdes in chains. A few days later, Antony and Cleopatra, ceremonially enthroned as king and queen, bestowed titles, territories, and even Roman provinces upon their three children: the twins Alexander Helios and Cleopatra Selene and the two-year-old Ptolemy Philadelphus. Cleopatra and Alexanders son Caesarion were crowned as joint rulers of Egypt, Casearion as “king of kings” and Cleopatra as “queen of kings”. These proclamations and bequests are known as the “donations of Alexandria.”

Antony’s Alexandrian triumph and the donations of Alexandria caused a fatal rift in his relationship with Rome, which was under Octavian’s political and ideological control. A triumph was, above all, a Roman prerogative, a cultural product for the consumption of the urban crowds of Rome. Such a celebration outside Rome was an implicit challenge to the cultural supremacy and the national feeling of the Romans: “this above all distressed them, that he was donating to the Egyptians the fine and formal rituals of their country, for the sake of Cleopatra,” comments Plutarch (Life of Antony 50). Indeed, Antony’s prolonged and public affair with the queen provided constant fodder for his denigration by Octavian’s camp. As the relationship between the two men gradually deteriorated, the spectre of Cleopatra was utilized to warn against the imminent danger posed to Rome by Antony’s “orientalization”. In the war of ideas and representations that followed, Antony was relentlessly presented as Cleopatra’s minion, who wanted to make Alexandria the capital of the Empire and share the East with the queen and their children….

In the following year, Octavian intensified his propaganda against it by formally divorcing Octavia. Octavian responded by getting hold of Antony’s will, which had been left with the Vestals. Some senators protested against Octavian’s blatant disregard of the protocol surrounding such documents, but Octavian proceeded to have the testament read in the Senate. It was then revealed that Antony had made provisions for his children by Cleopatra, and had ordered to be buried at her side. These directives seemed to confirm Octavian’s allegations that Antony wished to move the capital of the Empire to Alexandria.” (Le Glay:2009:166-7)

“At the very idea that Cleopatra might set up an oriental monarchy in Rome, which Octavian’s propaganda had put about, the whole of Italy rose up and gathered around its protector: in 32 it swore an oath of loyalty supporting the Actium campaign. This almost unprecedented act turned all citizens into clients of Octavian.” (Le Glay:2009:194)

“In August 29, as Octavian celebrated his triple in Rome, the world he dominated was no longer the one that had existed two years earlier. There was the Roman world before Actium, and the Roman world after Actium. Was it an official break? Perhaps. Ancient historians, such as Cassio Dio, regarded it as fundamental- an opinion shared by many moderns.” (Le Glay:2009:203)

The war of Actium 32-31 BCE

In July 32, by senatorial decree, war was declared on Cleopatra, and Antony was stripped of all his powers. Both sides prepared. In the East, a powerful army and fleet, mainly Egyptian, were assembled, while intensive propaganda was put out against Octavian. In the West, Octavian had himself elected consul for 31. Then, he obtained, first in Italy and then in the western provinces, the swearing of an oath of loyalty to him (not to the state). This was a gesture of great significance: besides giving him command of the war, this oath committed entire regions to him personally, and essentially made the West his clientele. A no less intensive propaganda on his behalf accused Antony of every possible turpitude….

The two sides clashed in the Adriatic on September 2, 31, at the entrance to the Gulf of Ambracia, at Actium,…In 30, Octavian arrived in Alexandria, blockaded the imperial palace and demanded their surrender. Antony committed suicide, and Cleopatra did the same a few days later to avoid her humiliating display and ceremonial execution in Octavian’s triumph.” (Le Glay:2009:169)

“Cicero recounts that when Antony tried to place the royal diadem on Caesar (the infamous incident of the Lupercalia of 44), there was a loud groan throughout the forum and, when Ceasar refused it, the people shouted their approval. “In this way, criminal, you tested what the Roman people could bear and endure,” Cicero protests (Philippics 2.85). Less than 20 years later, largely the same body politic acquiesced in, and even welcomed, the idea of Octavian as sole ruler.” (Le Glay:2009:169-70)

Augustus the Secret King under a Garment of ‘President of the Republic’

“His father, leading an army through distant lands, went to a sacred grove, seeking prophecy of the boys future. When wine was poured on the altar, flames shot up to heaven. A sign seen only once before by Alexander the Great. The priest declared that Augustus would be the ruler of the world.” Seutonious.

“The extent of the conquests. By the middle of the first century BCE, the Republic had conquered an immense territorial empire, claiming its right to universal domination. But the lack of an organized civil service for the administration of the provinces had led to their rapacious exploitation by governors and tax collectors. Unsurprisingly, provincials felt little attachment, if not bitter resentment, toward Rome. Exhausted by the abuses of their governors, the passivity of the Senate, and the unreliability of Roman laws, the provinces did not object to a centralized government under one man. It is reasonable to think that sooner or later conquests would make the structures of republican government unsuitable. Ancient authors (Strabo, Florus, Cassius Dio) agree that the technical and administrative difficulties resulting from this system, together with the need to stabilize Roman territory and provincial resources, necessitated changes in the nature of government. A solution to the provincial problem became both available and obvious: just as Rome was the centre of power, power could be held only in the hands of a single person.” (Le Glay:2009:210-211)

“Exhaustion of the republican institutions. Torn apart by civil wars, rival generals, and powerless senators, republican institutions had proven incapable of protecting the state and the safety of its people. Cicero’s death at the hands of the second Triumvirate (43) was a major turning-point in the collapse of senatorial authority. After this event, no project, reform, or program had kindled the enthusiasm of supporters of the senatorial Republic. These proposed no remedy other than a return to an earlier state. Even the murderers of Caesar, who claimed to have restored the liberty of the Republic through their act, could not rally popular support. Since the near-extinction of the old republican aristocracy no one, with the exception of Octavian, had been able to call up a popular response to the claim that he was defending liberty. Dating around the events of Actium, Tibullus’ protest against war and his hymn of the peaceful countryside (Elegies 1.10) reflect the collective mistrust of the military values of the Republic which had led to decades of bloodshed.” (Le Glay:2009:211)

The Formation of the Principate

Historians, disagree over the exact moment that the Principate was born. Augustus’ victory at Actium (31 BCE), his triple triumph in Rome (29 BCE), his first and second constitutional settlements with the Senate (27 and 23 BCE) have all been proposed as starting points. Our inability to pinpoint a precise moment reveals the essential nature of Augustus’ monarchical government: operating behind an ambiguous and complex institutional façade, the Principate was not born but emerged progressively, dominating the very core of the republican system, the Senate. Augustus’ successors only built on, and strengthened, what he had put in place during his 44-year reign (starting from Actium). However, even before Augustus established his rule, there were four factors in place that seem to have prepared, and abetted, the formation of his regime.” (Le Glay:2009:209)

The Great Train of Reason: Who Benefits from the Garment of the King

“Concerning the Kind of People the Romans had to fight, and how obstinately they defended their Freedom.

Nothing made it harder for the Romans to conquer the peoples of the central and outlying parts of Italy than the love which in those times many people had for liberty. So obstinately did they defend it that only by outstanding virtue could they ever have been subjugated…

It is easy to see how this affection of peoples for self-government comes about, for experience shows that cities have never increased either in dominion or wealth, unless they have been independent. It is truly remarkable to observe the greatness which Athens attained in the space of a hundred years after it had been liberated from its tyranny of Pisistratus. But most marvellous of all is it to observe the greatness which Rome attained after freeing itself from its kings. The reason is easy to understand; for it is not the well-being of individuals that makes cities great, but the well-being of the community; and it is beyond question that it is only in republics that the common good is looked to properly in that all that promotes it is carried out; and, however much this or that private person may be the loser on this account, there are so many who benefit thereby that the common good can be realized in spite of those few who suffer in consequence.

The opposite happens where there is a prince; for what he does in his own interests usually harms the city, and what is done in the interests of the city harms him. Consequently, as soon as tyranny replaces self-government the least of the evils which this tyranny brings about are that it ceases to make progress and to grow in power and wealth: more often than not, nay always, what happens is that it declines. And should fate decree the rise of an efficient tyrant, so energetic and so proficient in warfare that he enlarges his dominions, no advantage will accrue to the commonwealth, but only to himself, for he cannot bestow honours on the valiant and good citizens over whom he tyrannizes, since he does not want to have any cause to suspect them. Nor yet can he allow the cities he acquires to make their submission to, or to become the tributaries of, the city of which he is the tyrant, for to make it powerful is not to his interest. It is to his interest to keep the state divided so that each town and each district may recognize only him as its ruler. In this way he alone profits by his acquisitions, not his country…

It is no wonder, then, that peoples of old detested tyrants and gave them no peace, or that they were so fond of liberty and held the word itself in such esteem…

Nor is it surprising that peoples are so extraordinarily revengeful towards those who have destroyed their liberty.” (Crick:1979:274-6)

“Augustus was reluctant to seek the ambiance of monarchy, but he held some considerable advantages were he to claim its substance.

• He was the adoptive son of a god, the deified Julius Caesar. This prestigious relationship linked him not only to Caesar, the only divus in Rome, but also to Caesar’s ancestress Venus Genetrix. Augustus strongly promoted this divine lineage. In 29, the temple of the Divine Julius was dedicated in the Forum, and the new curia, the Curia Julia, begun by Caesar, was inaugurated: before the façade of the temple was a platform decorated with the prows (rostra) of the ships captured at Actium; at the far end of the Curia there was a statue of Victory brought back from Tarentum by Octavian, and before it an altar, making it an object of worship. These monuments celebrated the father and at the same time underlined the merits of the son.
• He stood at the head of a formidable and (as Antony’s soldiers had rallied to him) single army of over 60 legions, as well as all the auxiliary troops. Although he quickly demobilized more than half of his legionaries and settled the veterans, his military power remained overwhelming.
• He was immensely rich. His expenditure between 30 and 29 BCE has been estimated at 1,000 million sesterces. That fortune came partly from inheritances from both his natural father and his adoptive father, partly from the confiscation of lands and sales of enemy possessions, and mainly from the Egyptian booty. He was the richest man of his time and could practice a policy of public benefaction on a grand scale. …
• He presented himself simultaneously as a man of victory and a man of peace. Apart from his triumph in 29, a series of initiatives taken by the Senate conferred on him this double merit while he was in the East. On January 1,29, the Senate gave its auctoritas to all his acts up to that date, and on January 11 the doors of the temple of Janus were closed for the third time in the history of Rome, signifying universal peace. In addition, Octavian was saluted with the title “saviour of the state”. An arch in his honour was erected in the Forum, between the temple of the Divus Julius and the temple of Castor. The words Respublica conservata (“Republic sustained”) were inscribed on his triumphal arch.”

“….His political genius lay precisely in his grasp of the fact that, the better to establish his personal power, he had to preserve the Republic, and even to consolidate the veneer of its institutions in order to empty them of their content. Between 28 and 23 BCE, slowly and with pragmatism, an advantageous institutional compromise was pieced together.” (Le Glay:2009:214)

A_How can one be a man of victory and of peace. 29 triumphs means a minimum of 5,000 times 29 people killed, that’s 145,000 murders or victories should I say. What a peaceful, unvengeful, and just feeling the family members of these 145,000 people must have felt. What an unreasonable idea and hence ideal, or idyll. Idea means, the look or semblance of the thing. Idyll means, a pastoral poem- ‘I appear’.  All allied to ‘Wit’, meaning to know, from where we derive the words, bewitch, from wicca, a witch, and wizard. ‘Guise’, meaning way or wise, and disguise, dis meaning, ‘apart’. ‘Wicked’ meaning ‘rendered evil’. Witness meaning, ‘knowledge’ or ‘consciousness’ and ‘testimony’, to bear witness. And finally Twit, meaning ‘to remind of a fault’, from the Anglo Saxon witan, meaning, to blame.

The forms of the compromise

In 28, Octavian inaugurated his sixth consulship, with Agrippa as his colleague. There was no military expedition- the two consuls stayed in Rome the whole year. Vested with censorial powers, they took a census (the last dated back to 70 BCE), in which 4,063,000 citizens were listed. As part of the census, Augustus effected a deep revision of the Senate (lectio senatus). Through this lectio, though the Senate’s numbers still topped 600 members, 190 senators were taken out of the senatorial rolls. Moreover, this lectio had Octavian himself appointed head of the Senate (princeps senatus). He could now steer the Senate’s decisions, since he would be the first to give his opinion when its deliberations got under way. In the same year, several moral and sumptuary laws were enacted, increasing advantages for those who followed political and social conformity….

At least, that is what Octavian proclaimed. On January 13, 27, he “transferred the Republic from [his][ power into that of the Senate and the Roman people” (Res Gestae 34). It was ostensibly an abdication: Octavian handed over all his powers to the Senate- which, however, at once begged him to stay. Historians still wonder about the motives and sincerity of this renunciation: was it a sincere abdication, a clever maneuver, a sense of duty pushed to the point of sacrifice, the conscious fulfilment of a historic mission of restoration, or a piece of collusive role-playing? The possibilities are numerous, and not mutually exclusive. At all events, an accommodation was reached marking a disposition of what was essentially an imperial authority. In response to the Senate’s pleas, Octavian accepted only a special commission vesting him with the authority of a proconsul over certain provinces. But these were the provinces where the bulk of the legions were stationed, so that he now possessed the legal authority he had lacked but with little diminishment in military power. Augustus’ proconsular imperium (the nature of which is still not entirely clear) was specified to last for only 10 years, but in fact it would be renewed seamlessly from one decade to the next, until his death. The Senate, on the other hand, kept the management of mostly pacified provinces with no army. …

On January 16, 27 BCE, three decrees complemented the awarding of the imperium. The first accorded Octavian the title “Augustus”. The titles of “Romulus” and “Quirinus” were originally proposed but turned down, because they carried too strong an evocation of royal power. “Augustus”, by contrast, was a new term, borrowed from religious vocabulary. For Suetonius it was linked with augury; for Livy it was contrasted with humanus. The title achieves its full value when associated with the word auctoritas, signifying thus the holder of supreme authority. Both “Augustus” and auctoritas are connected to the verb augere (“to increase”), implying the idea that Octavian’s authority and intentions were “augmented” by a superior and divine quality, and/or that he himself was the “increaser” of the Empire…In this way, his auctoritas ensured that his powers were superior to those of other magistrates. He thus became Imperator Caesar Divi filius Augustus, indicating his imperium by his praenomen, his divine kinship with his adoptive father, whose cognomen (Caesar) became a family name, and his new quality by the name Augustus.

The second decree awarded him the laurels and the civic crown, to honour his triumph and his role as saviour of his fellow citizens. By virtue of the third decree, a golden shield was hung in the Curia, inscribed with the words virtus (bravery), clementia (leniency), iustitia (justice), pietas (piety, filial duty)…Since the time of Scipio Africanus, those four virtues had been the ideal virtues of the Roman man. Thus, by drawing on various political, philosophical, and religious elements, Augustus was able to present himself merely as the princeps senatus, the “first man” in the senate (appointed so in 28 BCE; see Res Gestae 7), while in reality his power and authority far exceeded that of any leading senator in the Republic.” (Le Glay:2009:215-16)

“The creator of a new regime hallowed by the traditional forms it claimed to have restored, Augustus also aimed at a return to traditional mores, the strengthening of social cohesion, and the re-establishing of state services as a high ideal. The desire to recover the moral order was possibly combined with a concern to bolster the numbers of the established population. To accomplish his ethical, social, and demographical reforms Augustus used legislation.” (Le Glay:2009:224)

“The institutions of the Republic (Senate, magistracies, comitia) remained; Augustus presented himself as merely a citizen. Remaining outside the state’s institutions, he allowed them to continue functioning in their normal manner. But if he thought he should intervene he did so, and decisively. Two administrations and two powers were superimposed, that of the emperor and that of the Senate. But the imperial power always had the last word.” (Le Glay:2009:217)

How to manufacture an invisible Garment that only the wise and clever can see: Part Two – Humility – The Holy Ring of Gyges

Marries Livia who has one child already- Tiberius and is also pregnant with another child. Augustus does actually love her and stays married to her for the rest of his life.

Rome Exhausted by civil war, Octavian sole ruler of Roman Empire. He knew that slowly and carefully he would have to take republic for himself in order to survive. The story he tells is that he has rid Rome of a tyrant- Antony, whilst of course he is now a tyrant. He rewards aristocracy with roles in government and wealth of Egypt is used to buy the army, and games to make the people accept ‘servitude’ Tacitus.  He told a people who wanted no more war, that he respected the republic and brought peace. People wanted to believe this and did, even though they knew they had lost all republican power.

A reward system is set up throughout the Empire and consequently rich senate praises him with name Augustus- the revered one.  Pax Romana-  Roman peace. Peace made money and grandeur was built in Rome and Empire , new towns, aqueducts, baths, built. Trade and agriculture flourished.

He lays down his power in a clever ‘masterstroke’ and senate fearing a return to civil war refuse his resignation, and increase his powers to make him continue his rule. Thereby he is unwilling tyrant in appearance. Took on title Princips- first among equals rather than dictator. Behind the scene he consolidated power in army and put up public works to gain will of people- 82 temples restored- visibly restoring the fabric of the Empire in Roman eyes.

Cultivated an image of a frugal man, eating plain meals and camp-bed until the end of his life. Presenting his family as returning to the past of farming life, pastoral poetry, he liked Livia to weave. Not really sincere

Youthful images, statues, busts, coins of Augusts are issued throughout the Roman world, and he becomes deified. From Actium onwards he doesn’t age in the manner of a God. Summer month is named in his honour August, the health of Augustus and the Empire became surnonimous and sacrifices were held  for him. Horace and Virgil paid to record the wonder of Augustus.

18 BC aged 45 passes laws to return Romans to a family life, making divorce harder to obtain, and telling them to have children and get married. Behind this morality was hypocrisy, he was well known for deflowering virgins in droves in his later years.

Dynasty- No kids from Livia, only Julia from his previous marriage so Julia is married to successive husbands to suit his political ends and to produce a grandson. Agrippa has five children with her before he dies, then is married to Tiberius unwillingly, so she becomes a whore to violate her fathers moral will in vengeance for this forced marriage. She is exiled.

Livia manipulates all of this to get her son Tiberius the empire, and turn her away from Julias children as heirs. Gaius and Lucius his adopted sons of Agrippa’s marriage to Julia both die young, possibly by the manipulations of Livia- see I Claudius.

Tiberius 5 A.D. adopted by Augustus, an imperial dynasty had been established.

“Immortality is a state which is not in our power to possess. But in living nobly and dying nobly we do in a certain measure achieve this condition” – Augustus

Augustus stopped the increase of empire and political strife, into a land of peace and justice as a stable monarchy that continued until the end of Rome. But his successors were a nightmare.

“The Sahara. There is no specific word in Latin to designate this great desert. Latin writers spoke of the “lonely places” or “wilderness”.” (Le Glay:2009:205)

“The Hellenistic model. In the eastern half of the Mediterranean basin, the city-state of Rome had come into contact with the monarchies born out of the division of Alexander’s empire. These kingdoms, with their complex bureaucratic administration, consisted of Greek and eastern elements. Their sovereigns depended on the collective acceptance of their power as absolute and theocratic. As the inhabitants of the eastern side of the Mediterranean were accustomed to the idea of a large empire led by one man alone, Italian soldiers, traders, and civilians at large were also becoming familiar with the monarchic model. The imperators or generals themselves, at least since Scipio Africanus, had remained fascinated by the image of Alexander the Great. As indicated in the episode of Caesar’s weeping before a statue of Alexander in Spain (Suetonuis, Julius Caesar 7), Octavian’s adopted father was no exception to this ambition. While in Alexandria (in 30) Octavian himself placed on public display the coffin containing the body of the great Alexander, which he had removed from its vault, and showed his veneration by laying a crown of gold upon it and scattering flowers…Furthermore, on his return from Egypt, it was on the model of Alexander’s tomb that Octavian undertook the construction of his own mausoleum in the northern part of the Campus Martius… In addition, in his Forum in Rome, two pictures represented episodes from Alexander’s life, and it is thought that a colossal statue of the emperor as Alexander adorned the curia.” (Le Glay:2009:209)

“The evolution of attitudes. People were becoming familiar with monarchical ideas. It was thus agreed that the victors owed their success to their good fortune, a gift from the lord of the gods granted on the intervention of a guardian deity, Venus. And it was right, therefore, that these exceptional men should receive earthly honours that went beyond the customary norms. People began to pray to the gods for well-being of an imperator, as if the well-being of the state and the Roman people depended on that of one man alone. Changes too in notions concerning the ideal life opened the door to a monarchical order. Whereas formerly the citizen had found his happiness in and through public life, henceforward he sought it far from the Forum, in the peace of rural life or by giving up his life to the service of a general. The gradual obliteration of the civic process brought the disappearance of public debates and orators….Furthermore, the traditional concept of inevitable decline, linked with the theory that, like human beings, cities undergo a biological cycle (birth, growth, maturity, decline, death), was countered by the idea that “a city must be formed in such a way that it is eternal” (Cicero, The Republic 3.23) Co-opting such rhetoric, Octavian-Augustus offered hope of a new order that would ensure peace and break the cycle of violence and civil war- a hope shared by all.” (Le Glay:2009:211-12)

Venus or Aphrodite is the seductive goddess of the Egoic perspective of manas and her son is Cupid, not love as is traditionally understood, but desire itself. In myth Venus is famous for deserting her true partner- Hephaestus who is another symbol for the sun, who energy forges new technologies, especially weapons of war- and instead choosing to share her nature with Mars or Ares- the God of War in-itself.

I will extend this egoic analogy to much greater extent in my next book.

The Taker, the Reciprocator and the Giver – The Three Perspectives of Authority

The Egoic alternative of a Saviour: There is no need to be Saved

In a world of war, we have already seen that there is a necessary split in the personality of a human being into that of being-for-itself and being-for-others, and we have seen this split become the appellation of public and private religion under the rule of Alexander the Great in order to consolidate an empire. Under Rome we have seen the nature of religion turn to one of a saviour religion, produced by the guilt and shame of conquest in a culture that we have now seen is aware of its hypocrisy even down to its nature as a Republic, which has been revealed as a mafia family who have forceably taken power. The language-trap of private and public cannot bridge this offence and grant its possessors with a healthy psychology. The only way to reconcile this art of survival back into some embodiment of harmony, as Nature demands, is to either to pray for peace and await salvation from Mithra or to deny that there are gods at all, and therefore no morality by which to feel shame, when enacting the extortion, the land increase, the assassinations, the wars, the political intrigues, that one needs to gain high status. There is however a third way and this is the one that Augustus goes for, as we shall see.

Before we get to this however let us firstly understand the concept of the saviour god, and the godless god through the perspective of the taker and the giver. From there we will be able to understand the popularity of the third choice- the reciprocators choice- Augustus’ choice- and the choice of all divine kings that have come after him.

What was the nature of the people that chose to no longer believe in God or superstition but only in empirical facts by which to live their life by, and hence escape any feelings of guilt or shame or reason to not believe in property rights?

“between the end of the Punic Wars and the death of Julius Caesar Rome came evermore under the influence of Hellenistic civilization. One result was the adoption of Hellenistic schools of thought, especially Epicureanism and Stoicism, by the upper classes, and another was the flowering of intellectual activity. The most renowned of the Roman exponents of Epicureanism was Lucretius (98-55 B.C.), author of a booklength philosophical poem entitled On the Nature of Things. In writing this work Lucretius wished to explain the universe in such a way as to remove all fear of the supernatural, which he regarded as the chief obstacle to peace of mind. Worlds and all things in them, he taught are the result of fortuitous combinations of atoms. Though he admitted the existence of the gods, he conceived of them as living in eternal peace, neither creating nor governing the universe. Everything is a product of mechanical evolution, including human beings, and their habits and beliefs. Since mind is indissolubly linked with matter, death means utter extinction; consequently no part of the human personality can survive to be rewarded or punished in an afterlife.” (Lerner et al:1993:175)

“The teachings of the philosophical schools. More than Platonism, more than Stoicism, more even than the political reflections of Cicero, Epicureanism presented the institution of monarchy as a great development for mankind. The disciples of Epicurus looked on it as a regime in which the citizen, relieved of the concern of participating directly in government, could devote himself entirely to the cultivation of his inner life, avoiding the snares of competition and rivalry that littered the public arena. Several testimonies to that proposition have come down to us. One of the most striking consists of fragments of a political treatise, The Good King according to Homer, written by Philodemus of Gadara, possibly in 45 BCE, arguing that good kings could exist. Enlightened by wise counsellors, it is the duty of the good king to be moderate, to make sure that his personal conduct conforms to the rules of morality, to show himself to be just toward men and pious toward the gods, and to see that unity and peace exist between his subjects.” (Le Glay:2009:212)

A_Morality dies under the reason of atoms, and death becomes meaningless. Life therefore must become the Aristotelian life of the city-state, where animal spirits are deified through this Hellenisation of the individual.

A_Death does not exist under Epicureanism, it has been written out by reason. Death is the end of life, there is no soul, no energy that continues on. The inner life of Epicurus’ soul-less existence is on of Epicureanism, meaning today, ‘one who cultivates and enjoys his taste for the best in food and drink. “He regarded sense perception as the only basis of knowledge and believed that material objects throw off an image which enters our senses. He considered the highest good to be pleasure, but this meant freedom from pain and emotional upheaval, achieved not through sensual indulgence but through the practice of virtue.” Websters dictionary. In other words, whilst enjoying his property rights as a being-for-itself, he separated this nature from that of being-for-others in an ideal where he could be possessed of power, but not possessed by power and the desire to increase it as a lack. The inner world of being-for-itself through a negative cult of instruction in the outer world in order to maintain it. This was loved by the State as it did its job for it in regards to desertification, and made docile those propertied classes who would of course fight to maintain their property rights but no fight internal wars in order to increase their status as a being-for-itself, because this status was seen as a prison of being-for-others. Today many lefty hippies parade around in worship of being-for-itself, whilst renting out their properties to people who have to go to work in order to pay rent to them, by which they then live frugally, volunteering and being seen as ‘good’ people by those they help. In reality they are idealists or hypocrites who deny that the homeless they are feeding are homeless because of property rights, and being fed because someone else is actually working to keep the volunteers rights to that property, not themselves. They have a subject whose object is to earn them their property whilst they earn themselves esteem from other subjects. They are rescuers who deny that the State from which they rescue is the State that they have made, and the abject are a necessary part of that State. It is largesse not charity, to feed a slave and claim you are rescuing it. As we will see in great detail later.

11: The Third Way: The development of the Imperial Cult

“After celebrating a sumptuous triumph in 81, he surrounded himself with a train of 24 lictors (consuls had only 12). In addition to his devotion to Apollo, Sulla advertised himself as the protégé of Venus. In his correspondence with Greeks he used the title Epaphroditus (“protected by Aphrodite-Venus”), translated by the Romans as Felix (“fortunate, blessed by the gods”). By invoking the protection of a divinity to serve his political ideology, Sulla set up an example for future generals (and emperors) to construct their personal relationships with various gods…

The destructive path that Sulla blazed was soon followed by other ambitious generals, notably Gnaeus Pompey and Julius Caesar.” (Le Glay:2009:136)

Writer’s Voice: Remember Hobbes’ term of felicity from this concept of Felix- blessed by the gods.

Intellectual life

One striking feature was the decline in the art of oratory. Hortensius and Cicero, the great representatives of senatorial and court debates, were gone. The circumstances that had given rise to them had changed. Octavian, with his increasingly firm hold on the Senate, gradually rendered senatorial oratory obsolete. There were no more political opportunities for speeches such as Cicero’s scathing Philippics, or even orations such as On the Manilian Law, Cicero’s endorsement of Pompey’s command in the East. Instead, aspiring author’s turned to history (Sallust, Cornelius, Nepos, Livy), science, and erudition (Varro)…

Civil war became more than ever an object of horror. Peace, and above all peace among citizens, was regarded as the supreme good, bringing with it order and prosperity. The deliverer of these blessings would be a “saviour”…

Octavian was fully conscious of this background when he accumulated priesthoods, and he greatly encouraged the perception that he was favoured by the gods. Early in his career, he assumed various religious offices. He was made pontiff in 48 by Caesar, augur between 42 and 40, and a member of the fetiales, of the Arval Brethren, and of the Titian Brethren (sodales Titii;), before being elected pontifex maximus in 12, after Lepidus’ death. He thus sanctified his powers and, through them, his person. As victor at Philippi in 42, he proclaimed that he avenged his adopted father’s death (an act of filial duty, pietas), and he pledged a temple to Mars the Avenger. After his victory over Sextus Pompey in 36, he vowed a temple to Apollo, his appointed protector. Built on the Palatine, this became Rome’s most luxurious temple.

Octavian thus turned to his advantage his contemporaries’ hopes for peace and their anxieties in the face of Antony’s “orientalizing” ambitions. With consummate skill in his self-representation, and with the effective support of his entourage, Octavian appeared in the eyes of all as the protégé of Apollo, the young god of order, the arts, and youth, the complete opposite to Dionysus-Bacchus, Antony’s patron and god of orgiastic excess. Fighting with the West against the East, Octavian established from himself the image of the saviour of traditional Rome, the restorer of ancestral values threatened by the oriental mirages of a “new Dionysus”, the ally of troublesome Egypt. Octavian knew how to play on national feeling and war-weariness.

Writing more than a century after Actium, the senator historian Tacitus summarizes and explicates how Octavians’ pervasive control at all levels of society slowly became monarchical power (Annals 1.2): “when he had seduced the soldiery with gifts, the people with grain, and everyone with the sweetness of leisure, he rose up gradually and drew to himself the duties of the senate, magistrates, and laws- without any adversary.” (Le Glay:2009:183-4)

The miracle of Actium

Immediately after the battle which rendered him master of the world, Octavian had two trophies erected: one in the temple of Apollo guarding the entrance to the Gulf of Ambracia; the other, opposite, on the actual site of his camp. The latter trophy, instead of being placed under the care of Venus or Victory, was raised to Mars, Neptune, and Apollo. It was a way of showing plainly that victory had been won both on land and at sea. Actium became a central part of the ideology surrounding Augustus. It was supported by a series of political and religious measures and was fed by literary and artistic media.” (Le Glay:2009:193

Political and religious measures.

First it was necessary to give thanks to Apollo, Octavian’s guardian deity, so the Senate took the decision to build a temple to Apollo on the Palatine near his residence. Second, facing Actium, the free, autonomous Greek city of Nicopolis (“the town of Victory”) was founded to serve as an immortal monument. The vast territory allotted to it accented its symbolical importance. And near the town, a great shrine was dedicated to Apollo, containing a sacred grove and a stadium and gymnasium intended for the celebration of games that were to be put on an equal footing with the Olympic Games (the first were held in 28). Lastly, coins were minted bearing the figure of Victory carrying trophies.” (Le Glay:2009:193)

Literary and artistic media

As a central part of Augustan ideology, Actium and its aftermath are featured prominently in the works of Virgil, Horace, and Propertius, a poetic triad that reflects complex responses to this event. Virgil (Aeneid 8.675-728) describes Actium as a total victory on land and at sea, an event of cosmic proportions and significance: he portrays Octavian as imposing on the stern of his vessel, a double flame springing from his temples, Caesar’s worthy heir and the saviour of his country. His victory, depicted as a triumph of the orderly West over the chaotic East, has been aided by nature itself (wind, waves, animals) and by the nation’s gods (Venus, Neptune, Minerva, Mars, and, above all, Apollo and Jupiter, whose earthly deputy Octavian is.)…

This ensemble of responses connected with Actium reveals the main themes and challenges of an “Octavian” ideology, holding the idea of victory at its core. This was to be the heart of the imperial mystique. Octavian owed his victory directly to the Olympians and the auspices in his possession. By skilfully emphasizing the defense of Hellenism in the face of Egyptian barbarism, drawing a parallel between Salamis and Actium, Octavian opened up the possibility of reconciling the Greek East and the West. This blending of myth and history, East and West, is a central theme in Virgil’s Aeneid. There Aeneas’s son Ascanius leads the “Trojan games” on the shores of Actium (5.596-603).” (Le Glay:2009:193-94)

Religious Policy

As with all his imperial projects, Augustus’ religious policy was a combination of traditionalism and innovations, the most important of which was the foundation of an imperial cult. It is difficult, and perhaps irrelevant, to establish such a private issue as Augustus’ “real” religious beliefs. Our sources stress his superstitious nature: he disregarded no dream, considered every prodigy and auspice infallible, and considered it a bad omen if he put his right foot into his left shoe in the morning (Sueotonius, Augustus 92). Yet what strikes modern sensibilities as credulous is hardly unique in a world that blended religion, ritual, and superstition as seamlessly as the Romans did. Regardless of the sincerity of his elusive personal beliefs, Augustus exploited rituals and the religious occasions to his ends. For example, he banned Egyptian cults within the pomoerium in 28 BCE after the conflict with Antony and Cleopatra, yet terra-cotta plaques showing Isis between two sphinxes were found in the temple of Apollo Palatine, which abutted on his residence.” (Le Glay:2009:249-50)

A_Prodigy means wonder. Mithridates cult belief change and Dionysus, as with Roman Christianity.

A work of restoration and renewal

Restoration. In order to elevate the dignity of the priesthoods, Augustus assumed the principal ones himself. We know from the Res Gestae (7) that he was pontifex maximus, augur, quindecimvir in charge of sacred ceremonies, septemvir epulonum, and one of the Arval Brethren, the Titian Brethren, and the fetiales. He restored 82 temples (Res Gestae 20), and renewed rites that had fallen into disuse.

Renewal. … The poet Ovid suggests a plausible senatorial and popular response to these practices. Celebrating the dedication of a shrine to the goddess Vesta on the Palatine, he says “Vesta has been received into the house of her relative, thus have the just senators decreed. Apollo holds a part of the house; another part has been given to Vesta; Augustus, third in line, occupies what remains from those two… a single abode houses three eternal gods.” (Fasti 4.949-54).” (Le Glay:2009:250)

“The founding of the imperial cult.

Its origins

The various arguments concerning the sources of the imperial cult run the risk of reducing to a single explanation this complex phenomenon. Three main hypotheses have been proposed regarding its origins:

1. Eastern origins. In the Hellenistic world, kings and heroes had received divine honours. The most obvious model for Rome was Alexander: called “the new Hercules” (neos Herakles) in his lifetime, he was the object of a cult after his death. In the East, Greek cities had paid such divine honours to Romans such as Flamininus, Mucius Scaevola, Lucullus, and of course Caesar. L. Munatius Plancus had proposed the title “Augustus” to Octavian after his return from the court of Alexandria, where he was probably inspired by the theocratic ambiance of Egypt’s rulers. The beginnings of the imperial cult can be traced to attitudes and practices prevalent in the eastern part of the Empire.
2. Roman national origins. Roman legend and history were not unfamiliar with the concept of a deified ruler. Beginning with Romulus, kings had become gods. The Italian and foreign wars of the early Republic had produced quasi-mythical imperatores, exemplifying supernatural accomplishments of divine inspiration. Within the collective memory of Augustus’ subjects, Caesar stood out as an exceptional individual who became divine. Natural phenomena (real or invented) also affected popular belief: the awe inspired by “Caesar’s comet”, observed a few days after his death, exemplifies the blending of religion and superstition that Augustus used to his benefit. As son of the deified Caesar (divi filius) Augustus could claim that he was descended directly from a goddess, Venus. From Caesar too he had the useful example of an oath sworn by the genius of the dictator (44 BCE), a divine privilege.
3. Indigenous origins, in particular Iberian. On January 16, 27 BCE, in the course of an extraordinary meeting of the Senate, a tribune of the plebs vowed himself to Augustus after the fashion of the Iberians and exhorted his compatriots to do the same. It was in the Iberian peninsula that the first municipal altar in the West in honour of Augustus was erected.” (Le Glay:2009:250-253)

Writer’s Voice: Just as we saw Alexander claim the same right from his semi-divine father Philip who was amongst the gods of theatre.

The establishment of an imperial cult

In seeking to understand how and why the imperial cult was established, we must also take into account local initiatives in the various provinces, following the chronology of its manifestations in the various parts of the Empire. From this chronology a few conclusions may be extracted…

• The attitudes of the participants were influenced by factors such as their specific province, their proximity to urban centres, or their social group: there was a great difference between the religious perspectives of populations such as Roman senators, Athenian Greeks, Carian or Egyptian farmers. Consequently the forms of the imperial cult varied: different regions and individuals placed divergent emphasis on issues such as the association between the Goddess Rome and Augustus, his genius, his numen (A divinity’s power of decision; often meant the divinity himself or herself.) the person of Augustus himself, or the soteriological aspect of his birth date. The less a region was Romanized, the more prominent the expressions of his cult.
• In the East, this type of worship eventually became commonplace. The western provinces followed, including Italy. Whatever form it took, imperial cult became a unifying agent surpassing regional differences, and the Empire as a whole regarded Augustus as its saviour. The initial distinction made between a cult for Roman citizens and a cult for natives also dwindled, acting as another means for the disparate communities of the Empire to come together.
• Organized around various local altars, imperial cult is not to be confused with the modern concept of “state religion”. The imperial house permitted or encouraged these demonstrations of adoration and loyalty, receiving the enthusiastic response and initiative of individuals and communities. Municipal worship, which was voluntary, provided opportunities for social activity and often ensured privileges from Rome (e.g. tax relief), In a few instances,  however, Augustus played a more decisive and visible role in the establishment of imperial cult. The alter of the three Gauls, situated at the confluence of the Saône and the Rhône, and the altar of the Ubians on the Rhine (the future Cologne was created around it), are two such examples. In these two cases, political and religious institutions were set up following the emperor’s wishes, in a regional framework with a hierarchical priesthood, a dedicated group of buildings, a special territorial status, and regular festivals.” (Le Glay:2009:253-54)

What have the Romans ever done for us Reg?… Aargh Peace!”

“His political ideas were inspired by the Caesarian legacy and adapted to circumstances in order to win and preserve power. They grew stronger during the course of his reign, and reached their pinnacle in an elevated and austere concept of the function of the state. Yet even before this majestic plane was achieved, an early “Augustan” ideology and mission emerged, which is manifested in literature (mainly Virgil and Horace) and, later, in the arts. Poets, architects, sculptors, and artists of every kind placed themselves at the ruler’s service to celebrate Rome’s second birth, the return of prosperity, the reign of perpetual youth, and the majesty of the Imperator. The themes of this ideology were peace (as expressed in the Ara Pacis Augustae), social order, a return to the four Roman virtues of bravery, leniency, justice, and piety, featured on the golden shield…, the restoration of traditional religion,  the grandeur of Rome, and the defense of libertas. In all styles and at all levels of artistic achievement, these themes appeared again and again: the power of visual and literary imagery was put to use to announce the dawn of a new golden age, when happiness would not be given freely and without cost, but earned by effort and devotion to the affairs of the state.” (Le Glay:2009:219-20)

“Octavian, or Augustus as he was now more commonly called, ruled over Italy and the provinces for forty-four years (31 B.C.-14 C.E.). At the beginning of the period he governed by military powers and by common consent but in 27 B.C. the Senate bestowed upon him the series of offices and titles described above…Above all, Augustus instituted a program of incentives for colonization of the provinces in order to shift the excess free population out of Italy and thereby remove a major source of social tensions and political upheaval. All told, such measures in fact contributed to bringing about the enhancement of local peace.” (Lerner et al:1993:179)

The army

Augustus took particular care of the army, and with good reason. His very regime was the result of military victory, proclaiming him the champion of peace on the domestic and foreign fronts. The princeps could not overlook that body of men on whose loyalty and quality his system depended. Moreover, Augustus himself was personally identified with the army. The soldiers swore to him alone the oath (sacramentum) which, under the Republic, had bound the soldier to his general. It was he who chose the legion’s legates and the governors with troops at their disposal (with the exception of the proconsul of Africa). Every victory and triumph belonged to him alone…. Augustus’ military policy, traditionalist in some ways, innovatory in others, may be roughly summarized under four headings.

Action on behalf of veterans

In the wake of Actium, troop numbers far exceeded both the requirements and the means of Empire. Large reductions were necessary, as was a financial settlement that would keep the newly discharged soldiers satisfied and loyal to their emperor. In several stages, 300,000 men were returned to civilian life. Until 13 BCE, they generally received land in a colony, settled principally in Italy, in the Iberian peninsula, or in southern Gaul; after that date, veterans received a sum of money. In 6 CE, a special fund was created for veterans, the aerarium militare. It provided a retirement pension to a soldier who left the service with an honourable discharge (honesta missio). This amount was 3,000 denarii for a legionary, the equivalent of 13 years’ wages. It funds came from two new taxes: 5 percent paid by Roman citizens on inheritances and legacies (called the “twentieth”, vicesima hereditatum), and 1 percent on sales by auction (called the “hundredth”, centesima rerum venalium).

So the promise of land for the now landless soldiers is yet again shifted and becomes a  State-pension for soldiers paid for by the plebs on their deaths who have not profited in life from these soldiers, is turned into a money making scheme by the equestrian order who have profited from these soldiers but don’t have to pay for them, until they die, who would now profit to an even greater extent from the soldiers in life from the pension schemes for these soldiers by using the money in the bank to buy land for themselves and lend it the plebs at extortionate rates of interest. But this benefaction of the state, just as with the stipend that got the soldiers of the republic to leave their land in order to increase empire, and also take the soldiers land from them is seen as a good thing by the soldiers who have been denied the land that they were promised, because at least now they are getting something and don’t have to worry about their old age. So collective fear of retirement becomes individual hope of retiring. Loyalty to the State was assured with such an individual hope for such a service. Of course, in reality, they were being made poorer, as we will see when we come to the section on the devaluation of money.

A permanent army

Although Augustus did not abolish the principle of obligatory military service for all qualified citizens (there were levies in 6 and 9 CE), voluntary enlistment sufficed to provide the 6,000 recruits to the legions needed each year. The army became a professional body. Length of service reached or exceeded 20 years for legionaries, whose basic pay was 225 denarii a year. The legions included provincials who were Roman citizens, but most recruits were Italian. A standing legionary army was thus eventually formed. These legions each received a number and a name (for example, the Third Augustus, stationed at the time at Haidra, modern Tunisia), and were supported by auxiliary units.

Legions and auxiliary units

The distinction between legion and auxiliary unit as regards recruitment, command, and distribution of missions already existed prior to Augustus but became more precise under him.

The auxiliary corps as a whole equalled the legions in numbers of men, a total of nearly 250,000. The auxiliary units were generally given names corresponding to the tribe or region they were raised from. For instance, the ala Thracum was a cavalry squadron of the Thracians (the cavalry flanked both sides of the legion like wings, alae). When released from service, an auxiliary could have Roman citizenship; his son would therefore be able to enlist in a legion.

Writer’s Voice: A hoped for gain to the familists that were not individuals under the State because they were not citizens of the State, and therefore could not be controlled by the techniques of the State through status. Familism in distant domains therefore remained a means of controlling wielders of sticks for carrots.

Allocation of troops

Here again Augustus introduced innovations. He gathered around him what was in effect the only garrison on the Italian peninsula, and set up a new strategic allocation of his forces in the provinces. By the end of his reign, Augustus relied on various bodies of troops in Rome.

1. There were nine praetorian cohorts, formed in 27 or 26 BCE, to be the emperor’s  escort. The praetorians served for 16 years, earned a wage of 750 denarii a year, and received on their discharge an award of 5,000 denarii. These cohorts were mostly garrisoned not in Rome but in the cities of Latium. Under Tiberius, the praetorians concentrated in Rome itself, and in subsequent decades they played a decisive rile in imperial succession.
2. There were three urban cohorts, created in around 13 CE. They had the job of keeping order in the capital and were under the orders of its prefect. Their activities were not limited to simple daytime policing operations, however; if necessary they could be transformed into combat troops.
3. There were 500 Germani who formed Augustus’ personal bodyguard.” (Le Glay:2009:231-32)

Writer’s Voice: The loyalty of the praetorian guard was assured by greater carrot reward than demotion to basic soldier pay could reward the individual, and this wealth reward was assured by greater wealth, not land, upon retirement. Thereby maintaining loyalty to the State through status and not land.

Still the chance to betray Octavian and become Imperator oneself was a possibility and so Octavian chose 500 Germani, to guard him personally, and not these praetorian cohorts who had a claim to status, that could be converted into a claim for ultimate status, through ‘might is right’. Under the idea of ‘birth-right is right’ the families maintained their protection racket control, and needed to not fear ‘might-is-right’ reason as a technique by which to cohere the populous who were held in awe through dramatic entertainments sponsored by these families. The Noble Lie of the Social Contract revealing itself through the techniques of State-craft.

“The Empire left by Augustus on his death was very similar to that of the third century CE. Later emperors made rearrangements and some further conquests, but the bulk of Roman territories was already in place by 14 CE.” (Le Glay:2009:237)

Italy

Italy, inhabited by between 5 million and 8 million people, enjoyed a special status: its free men were all Roman citizens; they paid no land tax; and, even though it was theoretically under the control of the Senate, it 470 or so municipia were all autonomous. Augustus divided it into 11 regions, no doubt for fiscal purposes, but also so that everyone could vote in his place of origin (until then it had been necessary to come to Rome to take part in the elections of the state’s magistrates). For all that, Augustus scarcely ever intervened in its administration.” (Le Glay:2009:239)

So even though the Republic is a Noble lie, now he divides his conquered lands by that lie into democratic regions, who will believe that they are voting in a Republic as a consequence.

Second- Entertain them with Drama and call it Peace

“Pompey and Julius Caesar: magnificence and munificence.

Pompey’s third and most magnificent triumph, in September of 61 BCE, after his victory over Mithridates of Pontus, celebrated his victory over three continents. Appian provides abundant details on this, the most lavish triumph Rome had yet seen. In the procession were wagons full of gold and treasures, over 300 enemy leaders and generals, and painted scenes of victories. Pompey in a bejewelled chariot wore the supposed cloak of Alexander the Great.

In 55 Pompey dedicated his theatre (Rome’s first stone theatre) in the Campus Martius with several stage and musical shows and athletic performances. He also put on hunts in the Circus Maximus for five days, in which 20 elephants and 500 or 600 lions and some 400 other African beasts died. …Despite Cicero’s supposed reaction, the shows of 55 overall were a popular success, and it would take Julius Caesar to outdo Pompey” (Le Glay:2009:176-77)

“Also in his triumphal spectacles of 46 BCE, Julius Caesar gave the first naumachy (naumachia) or mock sea battle at Rome. The term applied both to the artificial sites and to the spectacles: the large, shallow basins with banks of seats for spectators, and the naval battles (re-enactments with actual ships of famous non-Roman battles) staged thereon with large numbers of forced combatants. Caesar had a special basin dug in the Campus Martius, and 4,000 oarsmen and 2,000 fighters in costume recreated a battle between Tyrians and Egyptians. Rather than harmless military displays or even combats of professional gladiators, these staged battles on water (or on land) were spectacular mass executions of captives.

The escalation of spectacles was seemingly out of control and too much was focused on Caesar himself. After Caesar’s assassination, Augustus faced and dealt with the problem, turning a divisive political competition into a cohesive imperial institution.” (Le Glay:2009:178)

Embellishment by monuments and new building works

Through the restoration and completion of monuments that had been left damaged or uncompleted by neglect or civil war, and through the creation of new works symbolizing the grandeur of the regime and celebrating the Pax Augusta, Augustus aimed to make Rome the most beautiful city in the world. The architectural and artistic imagery of Augustus’ multiple public projects celebrated the new regime. This common thread runs from architectural theory (Vitruvius’ Treatise on Architecture) down to the details of town planning (Augustus was the first to regulate by law the height of private buildings). Furthermore, the emperor’s private domain was merged with public space: grounds belonging to him or his family were built on and given to the Roman people, and, conversely, areas that harked back to common history, like the Palatine, were annexed to the imperial domus. Urban spaces became the setting for the festivals of the new regime. Monuments celebrated visually the new order of things that Augustan poetry glorified in words, providing all with a material imagery of imperial ideology.” (Le Glay:2009:238)

Writer’s Voice: domus meaning domain meaning to subdue or tame, from where we derive dominion, and domino, meaning a master’s dress, a teacher, a game. Runaround where knowledge means points mean prizes, for the twit of wit. Augustus’ last words in AD 14 were, “Since well I have played my part, all clap your hands, and from the stage dismiss me in applause”. Died aged 76 in bed. Eagle released symbolising his soul ascending to the heavens at his funeral. He is then named a God.

Augustus: Showman and Gamesmaster of Rome

Augustus played a pivotal role in Rome’s successful transition from Republic to Principate, and the durability of Rome’s culture (Romanitas), society, and Empire can be traced back to his long rule, which included a very conscious and successful policy on games and spectacles. Suetonius (Augustus 43) says that Augustus “surpassed all his predecessors in the frequency, variety and magnificence of his public shows.”… According to Cassius Dio (52.30), Maecenas advised Augustus to “adorn this capital with utter disregard of expense and make it magnificent with festivals of every kind.” Profoundly aware of the political potential of shows and of his own role-playing in public, Augustus established for future emperors a model of how to finance, produce, control, and preside at games.” (Le Glay:2009:243)

“Interestingly, Rome’s first permanent, stone amphitheatre was built in the Campus Martius by Statilius Taurus, a general at the battle of Actium. Perhaps even Augustus balked at building such an expensive facility, or perhaps Taurus’ ties and loyalty to Augustus were sufficiently flattering. Built in 30 or 29 BCE, Taurus’ amphitheatre was the first major building in Rome to be dedicated after Actium, and it was completed in time for Octavians’ triple triumph of 29.” (Le Glay:2009:245)

“Seating and social order. Suetonius (Augustus 44) shows that the first emperor was attentive to proper seating arrangements- hierarchic by social status– and to decorous behaviour in the stands at shows. Augustus arranged, by senatorial decree, that the first row of seats at any spectacle was for senators only, and he detailed regulations assigning seating arrangements for provincials, soldiers, boys, and other groups. He prohibited women from watching gladiators except from the highest section of seats, not allowing them to sit among the men as they had earlier.” (Le Glay:2009:245-46)

See the Islamic change in role of women in temple take same shape from earlier priestly nature of them.

Greek entertainments

Thorough and insightful, and perhaps associated by Maecenas, Augustus had a culturally inclusive policy on spectacles… he created Greek-style contests, modelled on the Sacred Crown Games of Greece, both in Italy and in Greece. In 28/27 BCE Augustus created Actian Games at Rome and at Nicipolis (held every four years, and added to the Greek Periodos or circuit of Crown Games); and in 2 CE  the Augustan Games (with athletic and musical contests) began at Rome and Naples to honour Augustus. Such actions were consistent with his broad patronage of classical Greek culture to flatter his image and to aid imperial unification.” (Le Glay:2009:246-47)

Arena reforms and regulations: Augustus the ringmaster

Augustus wisely monopolized the symbolic value of arena spectacles for the Principate. … While traditional festivals (ludi) were provided by the state, arena games (munera) traditionally were the personal gift of the producer; but Augustus used munera as another device conjoining his personal patronage as the “father of the country” to the staging of official state performances…Wanting to control the giving of munera, in 22 BCE Augustus limited the praetors to two shows while in office, with a maximum of 120 gladiators. In effect,…Augustus was monopolizing the political value of producing gladiatorial combats, limiting to the imperial family the right to stage legitimized violence in Rome, and demonstrating the hierarchy of the princeps above magistrates. …

In terms of the standardization of rules, equipment, procedures, and facilities through some centralized authority, Augustus can be said to have institutionalized gladiatorial combats as a national (and imperial) Roman sport- a brutal blood sport, yes, but a professional spectator nonetheless….

Games and shows were a form of cultural imperialism that reinforced a general process of Romanization throughout the provinces. Some of the events, especially beast and gladiatorial shows, were held annually in association with the emperor cult. In fact, it was a responsibility of the provincial high priests of that cult, tactfully and widely dispersed by Augustus, to put on such shows at their own expense. Moreover, prominent local provincials voluntarily funded and produced shows or built facilities for shows as benefactions to their communities. By such acts they demonstrated their wealth and character locally, but they also sent a message to Rome that they were culturally suited for promotion and favours.” (Le Glay:2009:247-48)

Conclusion: Augustus as gamesmaster

Augustus utilized an expanded repertoire of games and festivals to distribute largesse (food and entertainment) in a generous and public manner, and personally to dictate and demonstrate proper behaviour for citizens as spectators and for emperors as patrons at spectacles. …By the end of Augustus’ long reign, there was no turning back in terms of politics or spectacles. The Romans expected future emperors to provide entertainment at Rome, and the association between spectacles and Roman culture spread to the fringes of the Empire….Magnificent, properly held games were a necessary if not sufficient condition for the popularity of emperors.” (Le Glay:2009:249)

Today, when the stars of world, get together and perform an entertainment extravaganza for some charitable organisation, in order to, ‘personally dictate and demonstrate proper behaviour for citizens as spectators and for themselves as patrons at these charitable spectacles, it may well behove us to wonder why we are paying for the charitable contributions that their presence demonstrates we are to behave, whilst they are, ‘Profoundly aware of the political potential of shows and of their own role-playing in public.’, because they, like Augustus go home to a palace of riches afterwards, whilst the abject continue to live in the same squalor, disease and faeces that the Roman plebs wooed by Caesar, walked amongst over 2,000 years ago, as master of games and shows. Is Bob Geldof squirming in his nunnery yet?

The Invention of the Ultimate Political Entertainment to produce a silent docile and educated chorus and increase an Empire – Pantomime

Augustus created stability and ended war and this gave birth to a new kind of drama reflecting Augustus’ Empire as a vision of an ‘altar of peace’- a golden age prophesied to become Rome- through Augustus’ rule- a world of peace, united under the power of Rome. “This was to be a world of peace, but also a world in which, every element, every part of Rome’s Empire was united. United under the power of Rome. This was to be a place, and a world unlike any that had been seen before. This united pacified world, gave birth to a new kind of play, one that could cross linguistic and cultural boundaries. It was called pantomime– but not as we know it” Dr. Michael Scott.  Pantomime means,  ‘every mime, a part’. “They were mute dance myths with one person dancing and wearing masks with closed mouth for each character”. The story is inferred from movements and singer sings the story with musicians. Universal medium crossing linguistic and ethnic boundaries. It embodied Augustus’ world united and pacified under his reign.  A shift away from serious drama toward mass entertainment. “Now in age of empire, lavish public entertainments were used to augment the power and status of the emperors and the desire for this kind of spectacle increased.” Dr. Michael Scott.

12: The Principal Legacy of Hubris – Paranoia – Bad Faith – The Reason Why Hereditary Monarchy is Also a Bad Idea

Now that we have seen a man become a God, a bringer of peace, a saviour of Rome and the Republic, as well as a divine monarch of a secret tyranny. Let us see how truly the senate and soldiers believed in the divinity of this vessel dressed in a purple garment, by examining the evidence that they saw before their own eyes, as common sense, and see how they acted consequently. The King has returned, let the fellowship of the Ring of Gyges, first held by the richest king in the world Croesus whose fate we already know, and whose Greek gift, born from Pandoras box, we collectively give over to such men, in a State of paranoia, called settling:

The Succession

In order to secure the survival and development of his political, social, administrative, and religious achievements, Augustus had to secure his succession. This required primarily the transmission of what might seem not transmittable, a power that lay largely in the prestige, the authority, and the personal qualities of Augustus himself. This bequeathing of auctoritas had to be achieved within the narrow margins of the constitutional artifice which Augustus had exploited so advantageously throughout his reign. To appoint a successor publicly was to admit the reality of a monarchy and to found a dynasty, something that he had refused to acknowledge in all his actions…Instead he favoured a system of associating his preferred successor with his government through a marriage or adoption, thus indicating conspicuously where his own choice lay. Through this indirect designation of an heir, Augustus provided a semblance of legality and respect for the constitutional forms.” (Le Glay:2009:254-55)

“By the time of Augustus’ death, the one-man rule was generally acknowledged as necessary, and few questioned the legitimacy of the Principate. Even among those who supported the Republic in principle, hardly anyone proposed its re-establishment. Besides, the collective memory of the late Republic was fading away. “Internally, all was calm, the names of the magistracies were unchanged; the youngest men had been born after the victory of Actium, and even the majority of older men had been born in the middle of the civil wars; how may people were left who had seen the Republic?” wondered Tacitus (Annals 1.3). Dominated by the memory of Augustus, the political life of the Julio-Claudians was largely a matter of how senatorial and public opinion perceived them as compared to him.” (Le Glay:2009:258)

Remember Socrates conversation in the Republic where he questions how long it would take to convince a population of a new story- One generation. Tradition is a trap of ignorance when unquestioned, where right is a docile karmic behaviour of people told a Noble Lie, as the truth. Entertained by its actors- hypocrites to a culture of culling who enact the drama of liberty and peace. The senator Arnold Schwarzenegger who became senator at the machinations of the Greatest Fraud by any corporation in history –Enron- personal friends of the Bush family- has made countless films where he brings peace and liberty to Vietnam, to America, to Russia, to South America, etc, etc, by the means of venus, cupid, and a big ithyphallic cigar hanging from his lips, surrounded by the artistic body of a warrior King- Conan the Barbarian. Didn’t he marry into the Kennedy family as well? And can’t you alimentally nourish yourself at one of his popular chains of fast-food- Planet Hollywood, which he shares in a triumvirate with Sylvester Stallone and Bruce Willis, respectively, the ultimate saviour of Vietnam- that great historical play of American tragedy; and the ultimate policeman of liberty who saves his familial wife as he also saves large corporations- who dwell in an architecture that scrapes the sky, that he takes possession of for America for Liberty- and saves the public from terrorists who are really revealed to be just greedy immoralists who fall from this tower once the truth is revealed, after this saviour has gone through much suffering in order to save us, even bleeding from the souls of his feet in order to get us out of this wilderness and return us to Americas walled enclosure of liberty- just as the prince fell from Rapunzel’s tower of Magdalene. And the words to this song of liberty Bruce sings as his triumphal song to reflect the Americanism of a good-old cowboy tradition, ‘Yippee Ki Ye, Mother Fucker’. Is this where you alimentally nourish your children?

In Planet Hollywood the draw is the sacred relics that you are surrounded by, in the form of actual objects from actual sets from actual films that actors might actually have touched or even used! It is like crawling into the box with the collectable star wars figure and being nourished by it in a community, in a world of stars. It is a theatre of dramatic docility, where the nourishment is sugar, fat, and a lack of anything good for you, that results in obesity, ill health, and probably a good dose of Prozac before you reach 30. As for the ability of this religion to provide any transcendence of the spirit, it is obviously limited, but then again how difficult is it to press a play button and be transported to a surround sound panoramic vision that thrills the senses into a super-state that at least transcends the mundane reality (meaning of this world) of existence as a consumer. Maybe you bought a t-shirt from Planet Hollywood to don their garment and grab some of the esteem of the actors for yourself, that will ferment, in your inner world and nourish your ego no end.

“The vast extent of the Roman empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of four successive emperors, whose characters and authority commanded involuntary respect. The forms of the civil administration were carefully preserved by Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and the Antonines, who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws. Such princes deserved the honour of restoring the republic, had the Romans of their days been capable of enjoying a rational freedom.

The labours of these monarchs were overpaid by the immense reward that inseparably waited on their success; by the honest pride of virtue, and by the exquisite delight of beholding the general happiness of which they were the authors…

These gloomy apprehensions had been already justified by the experience of the Romans. The annals of the emperors exhibit a strong and various picture of human nature, which we should vainly seek among the mixed and doubtful characters of modern history. In the conduct of those monarchs we may trace the utmost lines of vice and virtue; the most exalted perfection and the meanest degeneracy of our own species. The golden age of Trajan and the Antonines had been preceded by an age of iron. It is almost superfluous to enumerate the unworthy successors of Augustus. Their unparalleled vices, and the splendid theatre on which they were acted, have saved them from oblivion. The dark unrelenting Tiberius, the furious Caligula, the stupid Claudius, the profligate and cruel Nero, the beastly Vitellius, and the timid inhuman Domitian are condemned to everlasting infamy. During fourscore years (excepting only the short and doubtful respite of Vespasian’s reign), Rome groaned beneath an unremitting tyrant, which exterminated the ancient families of the republic, and was fatal to almost every virtue and every talent that arose in that unhappy period.

Under the reign of these monsters, the slavery of the Romans was accompanied with two peculiar circumstances, the one occasioned by their former liberty, the other by their extensive conquests, which rendered their condition more wretched than that of the victims of tyranny in any other age or country. From these causes were derived, 1. The exquisite sensibility of the sufferers; and 2. The impossibility of escaping from the hand of the oppressor.” (Gibbon:1998:66-7)

“Falsehood and insincerity, unsuitable as they seem to the dignity of public transactions, offend us with a less degrading idea of meanness than when they are found in the intercourse of private life. In the latter, they discover a want of courage; in the other, only a defect of power; and as it is impossible for the most able statesman to subdue millions of followers and enemies by their own personal strength, the world, under the name of policy, seems to have granted them a very liberal indulgence of craft and dissimulation.” (Gibbon:1998:100)

After Octavian came, Tiberius, a rapist, paedophile who even raped senators wives. Manipulated in to power by Octavians wife who murdered and poisoned and imprisoned all of Octavians other sons in order to make her family the Imperator household upon his death. I Claudius and Claudius the God- Robert Graves.

Gaius (Caligula): 37-41 CE

… His 2.7 billion sesterces, left to him by Tiberius, also added to his capital of popularity… We know that Caligula emptied the treasury’s coffers, annexed Mauretania, remained in control of the governmental and administrative machinery, and demanded that the Jewish people install his statue in the Holy of Holies in the Temple of Jerusalem. He certainly remains an enigmatic persona, an incarnation of imperial cruelty and moral bankruptcy in popular imagination. The mystery that surrounds him allows for alternative and creative interpretations. In his play Caligula, the author and philosopher Albert Camus (1913-1960) envisaged him as representing the systematic and insolent rejection of the falsehoods and hypocrisies of the system up by Augustus.” (Le Glay:2009:262-63)

Claudius 41-54 CE. An involuntary emperor

After Caligula’s assassination, while the Senate was discussing the possibility of restoring the Republic, the praetorians were scouring the palace for a member of the Julio-Claudian family. According to Suetonius (Claudius 10) “ a soldier searching hither and thither having chanced to see his feet (he had hidden in the folds of a hanging placed in front of a door), was curious to discover who it could be, recognized him, dragged him from his hiding-place and as the terrified Claudius threw himself at his feet, hailed him as emperor; he was the first emperor to be invested by the praetorians; and, through fear, he was also the first emperor to try to secure their loyalty by promising them a sum of money (donativum)- 15,000 sesterces each. The political influence of the praetorians, which Sejanus had set in motion, would continue to build up and manifest itself in the succession of future emperors.” (Le Glay:2009:263-64)

“Apotheosis: Ceremony whereby a mortal was admitted to the number of the gods (divus). It was customary under the Empire, decided by the Senate as the prerogative of “good” emperors. “Bad” emperors (those who had persecuted the Senate) were subjected to the condemnation of their memory (damnatio memoriae); their names were struck off inscriptions and their enactments cancelled.” (Le Glay:2009:264)

Writer’s Voice: The God of Daksha, where State memory is immortality, and State immortality is immortality..

Principal events of Claudius’ reign

41. Free practice of the Jewish religion is confirmed; order is restored in Alexandria, with its large Jewish population, following disturbances there brought on by Caligula’s anti-Jewish policy.

43.The Druidic religion is abolished.

44: Judaea once more becomes a Roman province. The Senate’s treasury (aerarium Saturni) is taken from the control of the two praetores aerarii and returned to that of two quaestors who are to be chosen by the emperor. In other words, the aerium comes under imperial control.

54. October 13: Claudius dies, perhaps poisoned by Agrippina. He seems to have placed Britannicus side by side with Nero to succeed him. The Senate decrees Claudius’ deification; Agrippina becomes the priestess of the Divine Claudius, as Livia had been of the Divine Augustus.” (Le Glay:2009:265)

Nero: 54-68 CE The son of Agrippina

Nero – the power and the madness

Agrippina is Sister of Caligula mother of Nero, his father died when he was 4. She was ambitious for her son to become Emperor. Intrigue on all sides at this time in monarchy, poisonings, divorces.

Caligula- assassinated who assassinated Tiberius and named himself and his sister a god.

Claudius becomes emperor, his wife forced to commit suicide after betraying him. Agrippina seduces Claudius to be 4^th wife, opening the way for her son. Britannicus and Octavia are his kids from previous marriage. Agrippina arranges betrothal of Octavia to Lucius and then gets Claudius to adopt Lucius, giving him the name Nero.

Seneca teaches Nero. Clemency, justice and sanctity of human life. to be a good generous ruler. Nero likes this

Agrippina fearful of Britannicus who is about to come of age being named the heir poisons Claudius, later the same day Nero is hailed emperor of Rome.

Nero gets senate on his side by upholding aristocratic values. Agrippina wants to share the power. first coins struck show them standing together, but Nero doesn’t want to share, so Nero gets Seneca on his side and praetorian guard and takes power for himself.

He is a good emperor when young who adhered to Seneca’s teaching. Seneca encourages him to take Rome further afield. Amber comes back from the north.

Nero then gets involved in theatre, consorting with actors, dancers and musicians and takes up these arts himself. This is unsuitable for an emperor and his mother tries to stop it but he won’t. Some believe that he began to give power over to his advisors to run Rome whilst he practised his art for-itself.

He then begins to realise that he can be anything that he likes, and he turns against Seneca’s teaching towards the possibilities of absolute power.

Revels, drinking and amours, become his life-style. ‘He experimented with the limits of autocratic power.’ Flatterers corrupt him through their reciprocation. Nero practised every kind of obscenity. He was caged dressed as a lion who then escaped and attacked the genitalia of those around him, before being despatched by his servant. He would kill and beat people up in the streets at random- an acknowledged sport at the time amongst the youth of the aristocracy.

No longer able to control her son Agrippina seeks out Britannicus. Nero poisons Britannicus saying that it was an epileptic fit, they continued to dine as his body was burnt. The senators went along with it and received rewards afterwards. Nero now turns on Agrippina and expelled her from the palace, and arranged her to be jeered and cat-called at on the streets of Rome, before deciding that she must die.

Invited to a meal he gives her a boat which had been built to collapse and drown her, but she swam to safety, so he sent round his guard to kill her. ‘Strike here’ she said, to them, pointing at her womb- Tacitus- blow after blow fell upon it.

The Romans are having to live a lie at this point. Matricide by someone pretending to be above suspicion- is humiliating- the first shadows of tyranny were cast over Rome.

The Showman- begins Chariot racing with trained slaves- aristocracy appalled- people love it and flock to see it. He is desperate for applause because he just killed his mother, and brother, and hasn’t won a victory as a general, so ‘Nero gives them games, and becomes the act himself.’

AD 60 – new set of games the Neronia- a bit like Olympics with the arts, such as poetry, added- to change tastes and see that aesthetic activities could be worthwhile.

AD 62 – dispensed of his advisors, poisoning one and forced retirement for Seneca.

“In all emperor run systems there is a climate of fear” “A Bitchy secret competitive system, in which fear is pervasive, hypocrisy is pervasive, the very word courtousie- courtesy is a word invented to describe how people behave in courts- they keep their emotions hidden from other people.” , Prof Keith Hopkins- Univ of Cambridge

Nero wants to divorce Octavia who is loved by the people, so he launches a dirt campaign on her sexual behaviour and then exiled. Out of the public eye he has her murdered. He marries Pompeia who was depraved sexually, beautiful and vein. Had a herd of 500 donkeys to bathe in their milk. No heir produced Nero kills all of the relatives of the imperial family to reign alone unchallenged.

The fire of Rome

He is in his villa outside of Rome, when he hears the news. He hurried back to Rome to organise fire fighting and emergency accommodation, corn price was cut and supply assured. But this earnt no gratitude from the people.

This was an empty stage upon which he could design and built a new city- Neropolis.In the centre of Rome was to be green parks around ‘The Golden House’- his palace, with a 120 foot statue of himself, a mile long pillared arcade, a zoo, fretted ivory ceilings with sprinklers for perfume to shower on his guests. “Now I can at last begin to live like a human being”-  says Nero upon its completion- Suetonius. Rumours started that he burnt Rome to make this palace. Scape-goat badly needed- Christians

“A violent power no ruler wields for long” Seneca

Nero returns to his love of theatre but wants to make it public. Aristocracy horrified “In putting on the mask of an actor he threw of the dignity of his sovereignty”- Cassius Dio. “It’s like the queen deciding to do mud wrestling”. People could not leave these performances even when shamming death or giving birth.

Assassination was attempted but discovered. 50 senators and generals killed. Seneca implicated and forced to commit suicide. Even Nero’s wife and her unborn child died by Nero kicking her to death. Fear and suspicion pervaded Rome and spies were rife in every market in every town. He now feels secure enough to go to Greece and force one of his Generals to commit suicide by implication in the plot but really as a message to the generals about loyalty to the emperor, but in reality this causes the generals in Rome to organise together

Gaul then Spain armies rebel but Rhine armies remain loyal. Nero panicked fled Rome in disguise AD 68 9 June hiding in a villa in Roman suburbs hears that Senate has named him a public enemy gets his servant to stab him to death. He lacked the courage to kill himself. “What an artist I die.” Were his final words.

Taken in by his own acting in some kind of Greek tragedy

“It was a disaster in the end, and no amount of beautiful art works can compensate for the deaths of so many people.” Dr Miriam Griffin- University of Oxford

After death of Nero Rome disintegrates into civil war. Nero last descendant of Caesar and Augustus but name of Caesar lives on.

When Nero succeeded Claudius, he was nearly 17 years old, the youngest of the Julio-Claudians to assume the throne. The manner in which his accession took place reveals careful preparation. Claudius’ death was kept secret. Britannicus, Claudius’ son by Messalina, was detained while Nero presented himself to the praetorians, accompanied by their prefect, Afranius Burrus. In return for the promise of a donativum, they acclaimed him emperor. In the afternoon, Nero went before the Senate, and there read out a speech prepared by Seneca in which he took up the Augustan theme of government shared equitably between the emperor and the Senate….Nero was descended from both the Divine Augustus and Antony. And as the adopted son of Claudius, he thus united in his person the two branches of the imperial family, the Julii and the Claudii. According to Suetonius (Nero 6) Nero’s birth, on December 15, 37, at Antium, was surrounded by both positive and ominous presages. These supernatural phenomena (a staple of Greco-Roman biographies of important men) summarize the ambiguity of Nero’s personality, which is inextricably linked with his reign. Although it began under favourable auspices and popular acclaim, his political program quickly became a blend of aesthetic ideals and cruel practices. From his marvellous “golden house” (Domus Aurea), to the persecution of Christians, to fiddling while Rome was burning, these famous “Neroisms” have left an indelible mark on the popular conceptualization of Nero and of Roman emperors in general.” (Le Glay:2009:266-67)

Writer’s Voice: Art as Darpan and not Darshan= cruelty in practice – karma.

The emperor’s personality

Two pictures of Nero emerge from our sources, more supplementary than contrasting. The literary evidence is damning, portraying Nero as an emperor-tyrant in the tradition of Caligula. For these writers, Nero was “the enemy of the human race” (Pliny the Elder), a monster who killed his half-brother, practised incest with his mother before having her killed, eliminated his wife and his tutor, had himself married to one of his freedmen, was a bad actor, played at being a charioteer, and set fire to the capital, not to mention other crimes and excesses. Jewish and Christian writers were even more damning: Nero became an apocalyptic figure, the Beast of the Revelation, the Antichrist. A parallel image is that of the autocrat as artist, his enterprises those of a cultural revolutionary aiming to make the Romans accept a very different mental outlook and scale of values from those they had known until then. The archaeological evidence reveals a lover of painting and sculpture, singing, and music, who enjoyed architectural boldness. He dreamt of renaming Rome “Neropolis” (Suretonius, Nero 55) and possibly modelling it on Alexandria.” (Le Glay:2009:267)

Writer’s Voice: This is the pre-Roman Christians who see the devil as Rome- 666 in Biblical revelation, not the Roman Christians who see the devil everywhere but in Rome, to this present day, even though the conduit of God- the Pope, that presides there, as the head of the Church- Ich bin, has been called the Antichrist in like manner, for coincidentally acting in like manner to Nero, as we shall see. Curious that. Who benefits?

64. July: Rome burns; a new city is planned; the construction of the Domus Aurea begins. Christians are blamed for the fire and punished in various spectacles organized by Nero.

On June 9, declared a public enemy by the Senate, deserted by all but four servants, Nero kills himself shortly before being arrested. He is 30 years old. Galba enters Rome later that year, but is murdered in January of 69 CE. A year-long civil war begins.” (Le Glay:2009:270)

The Divine Monarchy of Runaround blood-lines – Familism in a Republic – The Necessity of Assassins 

Power and the dynastic idea

As we saw, Augustus exploited his relationship to the deified Caesar, and throughout his reign he tried to associate members of his family with the government of the Empire. The dynastic principle was thus already in place, but it had not yet emerged as an acknowledged principle by which a claim to power could be justified. This development came under the Julio-Claudians. With the exception of Tiberius, all the Julio-Claudians were of the blood of the Julii (a line that ended with Nero), evidence that dynastic heredity became more important than imperial “talent”, or even adoption. It was because he did not possess that blood that Tiberius ostentatiously displayed his loyalty to his adoptive father: like Augustus he initially refused the power that was offered to him, similarly affected a “democratic” simplicity, and claimed solemnly that “only Augustus’ mind was capable of shouldering the great weight of the Empire” (Tacitus Annals 1.11). Tiberius’ effort to connect with the Julian side of his family and to celebrate the idea of dynasty is indicated also by non-literary sources….

Unlike Tiberius, his successors Caligula, Claudius, and Nero belonged directly to the Julian side of the dynasty. They based their legitimacy on their relationship- grandson, son, and great-grandson- to Antonia minor, the younger daughter of Antony and Augustus’ sister, Octavia. All three successors clearly affirmed their dynastic policy….Ingeniously exploited by Augustus, public media such as coinage, art, and architecture continued to implant the dynastic idea in the collective consciousness under the Julio-Claudians.” (Le Glay:2009:271-72)

Armies and Assassination: the Only way left to Power in a Republic that is a lie hiding a military poetic complex behind it as the Truth- as we shall now see

Opposition to the imperial regime

Enduring opposition, from the reign of Augustus to that of Nero, came from within two groups: the provincials and the aristocracy of Rome. This conflict took a different form depending on factors such as the geographical proximity to the capital or the social status of the dissenters.

The lower classes of Rome, whose everyday lives had been affected little by the Principate (and, in many cases, had been improved), were less prone to rebel, unless provoked by a specific incident. Survival anxiety was obviously a major motivation: the unreliable grain supply from overseas often became the cause of popular discontent.” (Le Glay:2009:274)

“The aristocracy. Opposition was keenest among the great senatorial families. The Empire had after all been built against them. It was thus within the bosom of the aristocracy that plots and conspiracies were hatched, above all if those families were close to the government. Scions of the Junii Silani, the Silii, the Scribonii Libones, the Calpurnii Pisones, and the Annii were the ones to be found from reign to reign in the opposition lists until the extinction of the family by assassination or suicide. An enduring influence on this opposition was the philosophical school of Stoicism…. Throughout this period, the Roman aristocracy produced a constant stream of opponents, the nature of whose opposition varied little from reign to reign. There was no real will for change; the imperial system as such was not in question, with opponents blaming the emperor, his vices, his entourage, his colleagues, and his freedmen.” (Le Glay:2009:277-78)

Writer’s Voice: A republic made of Mafiosi families is one of assassination and suicides.

Strengthening the role of the military

On the death of Augustus, Tiberius knew that the true source of imperial power rested with the army, and its constitutional mantle with the Senate. He gave orders to the praetorian cohorts and wrote to the provincial armies “as if he already held the Principate,” notes Tacitus, adding: “He never showed any hesitation except when it was his turn to speak in the Senate” (Annals 1.7). During his reign Sejanus reinforced the praetorian cohorts, by adding to them the urban cohorts, and then installed them in the “camp of the praetorians” (castra praetorian), just north-east of Rome. Sejanus was also the first praetorian prefect who gained prestige and political influence with the emperor. His successor, Sutorius Macro, expanded the responsibilities and power of the office, promoting Caligula’s career with Tiberius and his accession after his death. But the support of the praetorian guard was not always guaranteed.

In January 41 the Tribunes and centurions of the praetorian cohorts rebelled, slaughtering Caligula and hailing Claudius as emperor…Again, it was a praetorian cohort that acknowledged Nero after Claudius’ death and carried him in a litter to the camp, where, as Claudius had, he granted a reward to each praetorian (donativum). And it was the rising of the armies of the provinces, followed by the treason of the praetorian prefect Nymphidus Sabinus, that brought about Nero’s flight and suicide. In subsequent decades, praetorian prefects, the praetorian guard, and even the provincial armies (after Nero) would play increasingly important roles in imperial succession. The entry of the army onto the political scene as a separate player and even a “king-maker” was one of the most important new elements in the transformations of the first century.” (Le Glay:2009:278)

The Flavians

The death of Nero opened a period of crisis lasting almost two years. It was serious not only because of its geographical extent, affecting Rome, Italy, Gaul, the Germanies, Spain, Africa, Syria, Judaea, and Egypt, but also because of what was at stake, because of the forces engaged, and because of its possible consequences. The civil war that followed among four imperial pretenders laid bare the contradictions and ambiguities of the system set up by Augustus. In many respects it closely resembled the republican Civil Wars, whose memory was still strong in people’s minds, more that any other episode in the history of the Empire. Certainly, the field of battle was on an Empire-wide scale, but the conflict was motivated by ambitions similar to those that had driven Marius, Sulla, Caesar, Pompey, Octavian, and Antony. The political power, and potential threat, of legions became clear at this time. As Tacitus (Histories 1.4) observes, “the secret of the Empire was laid bare: an emperor could be created elsewhere than in Rome.” The governors and legions who participated in this civil war were Roman citizens, almost all Italian, while the provincials waited for the outcome. One of the results of this war was that it obliterated the idea of the Principate ruled by a long-established Roman family (such as the Julii or the Claudii). The family which re-established peace and a dynasty, as Augustus had done, was that of the Flavii, who belonged to the Italian municipal gentry. The provincials remained on the outside for the time being, but it was clear that the Romans’ exclusive right to the throne had been broken.” (Le Glay:2009:290)

Writer’s Voice: The nemesis of hubris. Rome is a football team with no Romans actually required to be in it. A god-being-without-a-God-Being.

Vespasian 69-79 CE

Biographical traditions seek to foreshadow retroactively Vespasian’s imperial potential. His fate is marked by omens and prophecies long before 69 (Suetonius, Vespasian 5), and even by his performance of miracles while in Alexandria (Tacitus, Histories 4.81).” (Le Glay:2009:295)

“Given the outbreak of civil war after Nero’s death, and Galba’s unpopular adoption of Piso, the promise of a seamless transition of imperial power must have been a powerful incentive for soldiers and civilians in favour of Vespasian.

Unsurprisingly then, even before his assumption of the throne, Titus became Vespasian’s partner and his designated heir. In 69, he was named Ceasar and princeps inventutis. Father and son together assumed the councilship in 70, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, and 79; and in 73-74, they both held the censorship. Titus was included in the tribunician and proconsular powers of the emperor. More importantly, although he was a senator, he became the sole commander. More importantly, although he was a senator, he became the sole commander of Vespasian’s praetorian guard from 71.” (Le Glay:2009:296)

Domitians’ early career: until 81 CE

Vespasian’s second son, Domitian, was born in 51. According to Suetonius (Domitian 1) he spent his early years “in poverty and infamy”, qualities no doubt foreshadowing his later portrait as an abusive and cruel emperor, a sort of “bald Nero” (Juvenal, Satire 4.38).” (Le Glay:2009:296)

“Up until the time of Vespasian, the conferment of titles and powers had been distributed throughout an emperor’s life. Here, all the powers are accorded en masse, with details and new features that emphasize the absolutist aspect of the imperial office. At the same time, the imperial title is fixed in its canonical form: Imp (erator) Caesar Vespasianus Aug(ustus). The first term is abbreviated, like a praenomen; the second links the emperor to the founders of the regime; the third, his personal name, identifies the emperor; the fourth transmits to the title-holder the religious aura of the first Augustus. But unlike Augustus’ powers, which relied primarily on that aura and on the implicit senatorial collusion with the idea of the princeps as the first among equals, the lex de imperio Vespasiani codifies and institutionalizes the emperors’ supremacy as well as his explicit control over senatorial decisions.” (Le Glay:2009:300)

“Connecting with the past. The civil wars that preceded Vespasian’s accession recalled the circumstances of Augustus’ assumption of imperial power. A chronological coincidence accentuated the parallel: 100 years had passed since Augustus’ victory at Actium. Resonating with ancient fatalistic sensibilities, the ideological potential of this coincidence was heavily exploited by the Flavians. Several monetary issues of 70-71 consciously imitated Augustan coinage: while Augustus had been given the title Vindex (champion) of liberty and the Roman people, Vespasian was portrayed as the Adsertor (protector) of public liberty. Like Augustus at the beginning of his Principate, Vespasian occupied the consulship on an almost permanent basis. And just as Augustus had raised an altar to Peace (Ara Pacis), so Vespasian in 71 began a temple to Peace (Templum Pacis), celebrating his victory over the Jews, with its façade facing the Forum of Augustus…

Indeed, throughout the Flavian period, Augustan imagery was exploited and reinvented to celebrate Vespasian’s restoration of a new order….Just as Claudius had done, Vespasian assumed the censorship and extended the pomoerium (a measure not without fiscal repercussions). He also finished the temple to Claudius on the Caelian hill. Construction on this project had stopped when Nero used the platform intended to support the temple as the foundation of a garden grotto (nymphaeum) for his Golden House. By completing and rededicating the original temple to the Divine Claudius, Vespasian made a public gesture of distancing himself from Nero. His anti-Neronian policy was further revealed in the dismantling of the Domus Aurea. Its baths were rearranged to become those of Titus, and its drained lake made way for a gigantic amphitheatre, the now famous Colosseum. Vespasian thus could claim that he handed Rome back to the Romans, and he celebrated this revived Rome in his coinage.” (Le Glay:2009:300-01)

Writer’s Voice: The mirror of darpan – tradition. Leaving the Garden of Eden and distancing oneself from it in order to set up a temple to killing- the coliseum of cull-ture as education, under the Noble lie of giving Rome back to the Romans, just as civilization was given to the being-for-itself, that killed and turned this art to war.

“As we have seen, Vespasian was celebrated as the restorer and champion (adsertor, conservator) of freedom and the state. Both he and Titus were deified soon after their deaths, evidence of their popularity and sound administration. By contrast, upon his assassination Domitian received not a deification but a damnation memoriae, the permanent erasure of his name from all public records and monuments. Our sources almost unanimously condemn Domitian’s rule as a reign of terror, and the restoration of his name has been a long and difficult task.” (Le Glay:2009:305)

Financial reorganization. Suetonius comments that the only fault of Vespasian was his greed (Vespassian 16), but this criticism actually suggests the emperor’s rigorous attention to fiscal policies. He increased revenues by cancelling the tax exemptions’ granted by Nero and Galba, together with the franchises enjoyed by certain free cities; he also increased taxes in the provinces; he created a fiscus Alexandrinus, a fiscus Asiaticus, and a fiscus Judaicus. He instituted new taxes in Rome; when Titus objected to the toll on the city’s urinals, the emperor made the clever repartee that he did not find the smell of those coins offensive (Suetonius, Vespasian 23). He continued to collect in peacetime the exceptional taxes levied in wartime, and even tried to launch a state loan.” (Le Glay:2009:303)

A_The reciprocators of Italy now find their bad-faith as property rights, become the right to tax property. Today we pay income tax that was brought in to pay for WWI, with the promise of stopping it upon the advent of peace, that was over a century ago. All political parties have been voted-in in this time, none have ended it. All of them have launched state loans. So we pay for twice the amount of bad-faith that the Italians did in our free democracy, or military industrial complex, depending upon how you choose to see it.

Domitian and Tyranny: 81-96 CE

Domitian assured the throne after Titus’ mysterious death in 81. Our sources suggest that Domitian murdered Titus, or at least that he was callous toward his brother’s illness (Suetonius, Domitian 2). His indifference perhaps reflects the pressures of imperial expediency: as Titus lay dying, Domitian left him to go to the praetorian’s camp, where he had himself hailed emperor and distributed a donativum (Cassius Dio, 66.26). The next day, September 14, 81, the Senate conferred full imperial powers upon him….

His reign lasted 15 years. On September 18,96, he was stabbed to death. The conspiracy included his wife, Domitia, the two praetorian prefects, members of the palace, and a few senators. One of these senators, M.Cocceius Nerva, had been designated in advance as the new emperor. Domitian’s damnatio memoriae was followed by a scathing denigration from diverse authors (Pliny, Tacitus, Juvenal, Cassius Dio), who portray him as a cruel tyrant. The senatorial authors Pliny and Tacitus began their successful careers under Domitian, a fact that they both admit in their writings, with varying degrees of comfort.” (Le Glay:2009:305-06)

Administration of the provinces

According to Suetonius (Domitian 8), the emperor “put so much zeal into suppressing the intrigues of provincial governors that they were never again more impartial or just, whereas after him we have seen many of them accused of all kinds of crimes.” The epigraphic record concurs with this positive assessment. An inscription from Baetica relates information about a local governor accused of embezzlement, who was sentenced to pay damages to the wronged provincials. The application of this apparently unusual surveillance was perhaps one of the causes of the antagonism between the Senate and the emperor. A number of other testimonies to Domitian’s intervention in the life of the provinces form a similar picture. He actively pursued the renewal of land surveys and settled the issue of unallocated public land (subsiciva) to the satisfaction of the cities….A stone inscription from Pisidian Antioch (dating to 93) records an edict about the measures taken by a governor to ensure the supply of cheap grain to the inhabitants. Edicts on viticulture (dating to about the same time) seem to have aimed at reducing the number of vineyards in order both to increase grain production in Italy and the provinces, and to defend the income and value of lands belonging to the great owners.” (Le Glay:2009:307-08)

Writer’s Voice: Propaganda shown in above above quote, followed by truth. The authors ashamed of their status given  by such a man, who they have authored as such. The shame was hypocrisy, a noble lie to be interpreted as loyalty to the new Emperor, who sponsored it.

“Military policy. For the first time since Augustus, the pay of the praetorians, legionaries, and auxiliaries was increased by a considerable amount (about a third) under Domitian. The legions and praetorians were consequently favourable to him.” (Le Glay:2009:311)

“The status of the cities. With the exception again of Egypt, the inhabitants of the Empire lived in areas belonging to one of three juristically defined types of communities: peregrine cities, municipia, and colonies.

Peregrine (“foreign”) cities.

These were communities and their territories as they had existed before Roman rule, or as the Romans had remodelled them after conquest but without granting the Roman or Latin rights. These cities preserved their own laws, and their inhabitants remained peregrine, although groups of Roman citizens, of course, lived there. At the start of the Empire, these represented the majority of provincial cities and were divided into three categories according to their status with regard to Rome.

• Stipendiary cities: these were the most numerous. They were subject to Rome and paid a tribute (stipendium). In theory, the provincial governor had legal control over all their affairs.
• Free cities: these were theoretically autonomous and juristically outside the provinces. Their rights were conceded by a unilateral act of Rome. Some, though that became increasingly rare, were exempt from paying tribute.
• Federated free cities: these were a minority of free cities which had signed a treaty with Rome putting them on an equal footing with it.”

The municipia

A municipium was a city that developed from a pre-existing community of peregrine (and might even retain some of its institutions) through a grant by Rome to that community of either Roman or Latin rights.

“On the other hand, converts to Judaism, or, less probably, Christianity, within the imperial family were exposed and persecuted by Domitian in 95.” (Le Glay:2009:317)

Peace and Liberty arrive but only by will not by legal act or policing or divine kingship, or religion or education or art- just  a different will under the same laws, soldiers, priests, polis and artisans

Machiavelli: “It is possible, then, to arrive at this conclusion: when the material is not corrupt, tumults and other troubles do no harm, but, when it is corrupt, good legislation is of no avail unless it be initiated by someone in so extremely strong a position that he can enforce obedience until such time as the material has become good. Whether this has ever happened or whether it is possible for it to happen I do not know. For, as I have just said, it is clear that, if in a state which is on the decline owing to the corruption of its material a renaissance is ever to be brought about, it will be by the virtue of some one person who is then living, not by the virtue of the public as a whole, that good institutions are kept up, and, as soon as such a person is dead, they will relapse into their former habits….For corruption of this kind and ineptitude for a free mode of life is due to the inequality it is necessary to take steps which are by no means normal; and this few people either know how to do or are ready to do, a point that will be dealt with in details in another place.” (Crick:1979:159-60)

“After the death of Augustus in 14 C.E. until almost the end of the century, Rome had no really capable rulers, with the single exception of Claudius (41-54). Several of Augustus’ successors, most infamously Caligula (37-41) and Nero (54-68), were brutal tyrants who squandered the resources of the state and kept the city of Rome in an uproar by their deeds of bloody violence. But starting in 96 C.E. a period of strong and stable government returned with the advent of “five good emperors”: Nerva (96-98), and Marcus Aurelius (161-180). These five ruled in harmony with the Senate, displayed great gifts as administrators, and each in turn was able to bequeath a well-ordered and united realm to his designated successor.” (Lerner et al:1993:179-80)

The Antonine Empire 96-192 CE

In the eyes of its contemporaries, it was a golden age, hailed as such by several issues of coinage. Never had the ancient world known its like. “The Universe has become a single city,” exclaimed Aelius Aristides,a Greek-speaking rhetor writing around the middle of the second century. He added, “the whole world is in festive mood. It has abandoned its weapons of war to give itself up to the joy of living.” His Eulogy of Rome sings the praises of this coherent Empire with its perfect administration, which, like a freshly polished wineglass, emits a single note, and which unanimously obeys the “supreme governor, provider of all things.” Appian, his contemporary, a Greek from Alexandria, reflecting on the consequences of the Roman policy of conquest, affirms that “the Capital was rendered far more beautiful, incomes were considerably increased, and a sure and lasting peace instituted to create permanent happiness.” Some years later, an emperor who wanted to prove himself the emperor of peace, Marcus Aurelius, became the emperor of war. In his own words, he hunted the Sarmatians as a spider hunts flies. The subject of war, which had disappeared from artistic production for half a century, now became topical again. But there are great differences to be seen on two monuments of the same kind but separated by this period, the columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius. While Trajan’s column glorifies an offensive battle, that of Marcus Aurelius represents a defensive one. These two structures represent both different challenges to the empire, and changing attitudes toward the Roman army and war in general.” (Le Glay:2009:320)

“The dynasty of the Antonines was formed primarily through sequential adoptions, and the term “Antonine” emerged retrospectively using the name of the fourth emperor. It started with Domitian’s successor, Nerva, continued with Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus, and Marcelus Aurelius, and concluded with Aurelius’ natural son, Commodus. In terms of their “national” origins, the Antoninies could be considered in terms of a Spanish dynasty (Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian) and a Narbonensian dynasty (Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius, Commodus). Trajan’s and Hadrian’s personalities dominate our perception of their reigns, but the second century CE is most defined by collective and quiet shifts, whether they were signs of prosperity or causes of trouble.” (Le Glay:2009:321)

Nerva: 96-98 CE

Even before Domitian’s assassination, Nerva had been designated to succeed him. There was no power vacuum: on the eve of the murder the Senate confirmed the conspirator’s choice. It was a choice without risk; Nerva was reassuring. The childless descendant of the republican family of the Cocceii Nervae from Narnia…

Yet not everyone was content. In 98 the fragility of Nerva’s position was exposed when the praetorians, led by their perfect Casperius Aelianus, blockaded the emperor in his palace, demanding that he avenge Domitian’s death. In many ways this mutiny recalled the praetorian uprising against Galba in 69: it exposed again both the importance of an ensured succession, and the increasing power of the army to “usher emperors in and out, just like actors on the stage” (Plutarch, Galba 1). Nerva neutralized this double threat by a clever maneuver: on October 28, 97, in a ceremony at the Capitol, he announced that he was adopting the legate of Upper Germania, M.Ulpius Traianus (Trajan). The Senate immediately conferred the title of Caesar on Trajan in absentia and awarded him tribunician power, proconsular imperium, and the cognomen of Augustus.” (Le Glay:2009:321)

Writer’s Voice: Recognise etymology in chapter VII Cognise comes from the word Natal, meaning, ‘belonging to one’s birth’, and cognate, means to ‘be-allied-by-birth’. This birth is now re-cognised by the right hand of the law and just meaning ones privileged rights in a Nation from the Latin natus meaning, to be born’, the same root as Natal. The sacred birth right of the being-in-Being, has become the privileged birth-right of the being-for-itself that bore the pyramid that sired the nation, that made the house that Jack built.

Trajan: 98-117 CE

The man. Our sources are unanimously positive on Trajan, presenting him as military man of action, with simple tastes and pastimes such as mountaineering and hunting. Cassius Dio (68.7; see also 68.21) comments uncomfortably on the emperor’s excessive drinking and pederasty, adding that, nevertheless, he remained within the bounds of dignity and never harmed anyone with his practices.” (Le Glay:2009:323-34)

107. 123 days of festival and games to celebrate the second Dacian triumph.

112. Trajan’s sixth consulship. His father and sister are deified.

116. Invasion of Adiabene, a district of Babylonia across the Euphrates. Capture of Seleuceia, Ctesiphon, and Babylon; Trajan reaches the Persian Gulf. He contemplates a province of Assyria and one of Mesopotamia.” (Le Glay:2009:324-5)

The exercise of power

“Here is something that I hear for the first time, that I learn for the first time, that the emperor is not above the law, but that the  law is above the emperor,” Pliny declares in his panegyric for Trajan. It is from the time of Trajan and his government that some modern historians begin to speak of a more liberal Empire, guided by a sort of official Stoicism. One many wonder, however, whether these historians may not have fallen into the verbal trap of arguing in nineteenth century terms such as “liberal” about a period in which those terms have little or no real application. Thus they may have overlooked the fact that the second century emperors (including Trajan) in fact possessed more power than first century emperors, because the very success of the monarchical regime set up by Augustus met with less opposition. We may judge the exercise of this power in four areas.

Emperors and triumphs

The great triumphs of the late Republic were associated with generals who aspired to lead the state, and Augustus himself held a triple triumph in 29 BCE. When Augustus established the emperorship, however, he curtailed the excess popularity of generals with the legions and the people. He and later emperors monopolized the privilege of triumphs for themselves and members of the imperial family. What had been in origin a religious thanksgiving to Jupiter and various individual generals became a ceremony emphasizing the emperor as supreme commander and conqueror.” (Le Glay:2009:385)

“Such callous celebration of the suffering and death of others seems disturbing to us, but we must remember that violence was part of the very fabric of Roman history and society.” (Le Glay:2009:386)

The Games increase

50,000 in Coliseum watching real fighting in gladiatorial battle, means death of theatre.

But Nero produces last flowering of tragedy- Seneca wrote 9 tragic plays in Greek style- what are differences? They were more bloody and violent, but also not very much performed. People performed real blood and violence in gladiatorial battle. Theatre becomes combat filled due to this gladiatorial element in society and performance. Theatres were now used more for gladiators than plays. Nets were strung in front of audience to keep dying gladiators falling onto the front row of senators, and the wild animals out.

Hadrian, a lover of all things Greek, he made a cult of the Greeks and restored Athens, even finishing their temple to Olympian Zeus and added to theatre of Dionysus. But theatre died out when Hadrian died. Literature survives under Hadrians Great Library preserving Greek-ness as a theme park of debate practice, and play. But when you left and went home you became Roman again, not Greek.

“Spectacles and the Roman Empire: A famous quotation from Juvenal (Satire 10.78-81) suggests that the Romans surrendered their freedom to autocracy in exchange for shows and state support: he said that the only things that the people care about were “bread and circuses” (panem et circenses). With such ammunition, and with the moralistic agenda of presenting a warning lesson for today, it has been easy for moderns to see the free food and circuses as the “opiate of the masses,” the means by which the mob was manipulated. However, Juvenal, like other ancient social critics speaking from an elitist, intellectual perspective, does not give a balanced or complete picture of the role of the games, the masses, or the emperor.” (Le Glay:2009:382)

The expansion of games and facilities

To suggest the scale of the phenomenon, some studies calculate the number of state-funded games days within the number of festival days per year; for example, 65 under Augustus and 93 under Claudius out of the 159 days of festivals in the early Empire, and 135 out of 230 under Marcus Aurelius. In the Calendar of Philocalus, of 354 CE, of 200 festival day 176 were show days: 102 theatrical, 64 circus, and only 10 gladiatorial or ventorial. Moreover, normal festival calendars, listing games offered on a regular basis, do not reflect the spontaneous and lavish games irregularly put on for triumphs, coming-of-age celebrations, birthdays, and anniversaries. While Rome continued to have many days of theatrical shows, mainly mimes and pantomimes, which were cheaper and easier to arrange, later ages have been more fascinated with the activities of the amphitheatre and circus: the great chariot races, the gladiatorial combats, and the beast fights.” (Le Glay:2009:383)

A_How hard do we work today to maintain an Empire of desire in comparison. Holidays are individualised to keep us individualised. It is cheaper in regards to entertainment too. Something that we now pay for when on holiday apart from everyone but our family. Social cohesion is a large part of the games.

An entertainment industry

…It is not an overstatement to speak of Rome’s entertainment industry, with stars, fans, and blockbuster shows. With energy and pride, Rome scoured the Empire for victims, built monumental facilities, orchestrated events, and immortalized the performances in art and literature. When resources permitted, emperors put on spectacles as impressively as they could, and the obligation on the leader and the appreciation by the people continued into the late Empire.” (Le Glay:2009:383)

Spectacular facilities

… With capacities of around 150,000 at the Circus Maximus and 50,000 at the Colosseum, there can be no doubt that spectacular mass entertainment was a vital part of life at Rome. Moreover, with Rome as the model, games, spectacles, and the structures to house them spread to the provinces.” (Le Glay:2009:383)

Games across the Empire

Beyond Rome itself, from London to Carthage to Constantinople, distinctively Roman shows and their facilities were compelling, concrete symbols of the power and the ideology of the Roman Empire. Spectacular public entertainments were indelibly associated with Roman culture and society. A city of over a million people, Rome controlled an Empire of perhaps 40 million to 60 million, holding it together not only by military might and a strong political system but also by the unifying force of Roman culture: Romanitas, which included games and shows as well as language and law. The spread of Roman entertainments, the activities involved and the facilities needed, followed the armies to provincial centres; when provincials embraced and adopted the practice, financing the facilities themselves, it was to show how suitably Roman they had become. Like the spread of soccer, cricket, or baseball in modern times, these games were markers of cultural imperialism. Even today, the ruins of their physical settings remind us of the extent and durability of the Empire.” (Le Glay:2009:384)

Emperors and spectacles

The politicization of the games- the use of spectacles and largesse to gain popular support- was well established in the late Republic, and the careers of Julius Caesar and Augustus set the example for imperial history. The key figure at spectacles was the emperor himself. After Augustus, emperors dominated the blood sports in particular in Rome, organizing the shows and providing the resources for the arena. Emperors were prominent spectators in their special boxes in the stands at both the amphitheatre and the circus; and the assembled crowd, feeling safe in their mass anonymity, used the opportunity to view the emperor and to comment on his rule. Wise emperors, understanding the dynamics of such political theatre, attended to the opinions of the citizens at spectacles.” (Le Glay:2009:384)

A_So that’s why the prime minister, president, turns up to sporting events when there is a chance that ‘their’ subject might win, and when everyone will see that subject bow to them, bend their will to theirs.

Spectators and fans

From the emperors who took pride in the productions, to the spectators, noble and lowly, who flocked to the shows, Romans of all classes attended, approved of, and enjoyed the games…People were drawn to spectacles for a multiplicity of reasons: by the allure of violence, by the exotic and erotic sights, by an appreciation of the skill and courage of some participants, or by the anticipation of the harsh but acceptable punishment of others. Some went for the crowd and the gambling as well as the violence, and many perhaps went simply to escape their deplorable living conditions…The performers themselves, from gladiators to charioteers, were often slaves who had little choice but to perform well, but the spectators came to appreciate them for their skills and bravery. Some Stoic and elitist authors criticized the excess and irrational passion of spectators at the games, but there was little humanitarian opposition to the violence or morality of the games themselves.

As social functions, spectacles were occasions, as Tertullian (On the Spectacles 25), said, for “seeing and being seen”, for seeing performances of skill and courage, and for being seen as producers and patrons of games sitting at prominent vantage points, as citizens of status in seats of privilege, as citizen-spectators participating in and sanctioning the rules and rulers of Rome.” (Le Glay:2009:384-85)

Greek games: acceptance and patronage

As the Empire incorporated more and more Greeks and more Hellenistic territories, Greek athletics made inroads, but they never rivalled the chariot races and blood sports for popularity at Rome.” (Le Glay:2009:386)

Beast hunts and executions

Associated mostly with triumphs and the circus under the Republic, under the Empire beast shows increasingly moved to the amphitheatre. Shocking numbers of animal victims are recorded for extraordinary games: 9,000 in 80 CE in Titus’ games to decimate the Flavian amphitheatre, and 11,000 in Trajan’s games of 108-109. The numbers escalated as ambitious emperors put on lavish shows to bolster their popularity and their legitimacy in the emperorship…. As Martial wrote of Titus’ games, ‘even nature yielded to the will of the emperor’…

For a host of crimes Rome punished criminals of low status with aggravated punishments, which included exposure to wild beasts, crucifixion, and burning alive. The victim’s lasting agony and death provided a terrifying and exemplary public spectacle.” (Le Glay:2009:392-93)

To the lions”: exposure to beasts

While the objective of the morning hunts was to show that humans and Roman civilization could triumph over any threats from nature (or the territories symbolised by the exotic beasts), other morning shows used beasts to demonstrate Rome’s ability to punish human beings. Exposure to beasts (damnatio ad bestias) became more widespread under the Empire as a penalty for slaves, foreign enemies, and free men guilty of heinous offences. Criminals were led into the arena almost or fully naked; and, without weapons and sometimes bound to posts or wheeled platforms, they were exposed to aggressive and ferocious beasts, which were forced toward the helpless victims by handlers with whips and fire.” (Le Glay:2009:393)

Mass combats as executions

Lunchtime shows might include mass executions staged as combats. Not to be confused with gladiators who fought duels later in the afternoon, these hopeless, desperate, unskilled criminals were provided with weapons but not armor, and they were forced to fight each other to the death. Seneca’s account leaves no doubt about the lack of artistry and the lack of escape: “now all the trifling is put aside and it is pure murder… In the morning they throw men to the lions and the bears; at noon, they throw them to the spectators” (Epistles 1.7). Despite Seneca’s indignation, such ritualized executions of pathetic victims, like the mass deaths in naumachies, rid Rome, a society not inclined to prisons and rehabilitation, of undesirables. These spectacles also presented an explicit lesson of deterrence for potential lawbreakers.” (Le Glay:2009:393)

A_The sacrifice of the scape-goat becomes entertainment drama rather than sacred ritual. The theatre of the self, becomes the temple of sacrifice to the god Daksha.

Fatal charades

Executions became even more spectacular and dramatic in what Kathleen Coleman calls “fatal charades”, shows in which criminals were forced to play roles in mythological contexts. In such shows the victims usually were killed. For example, under Titus, a certain Laureolus, as the character Prometheus in a play, was crucified and mauled to death by a bear on stage in the amphitheatre. As Martial said, myths and legends became real punishments in the arena.” (Le Glay:2009:393)

Writer’s Voice: The gods themselves become enacted by man, under his control, under the Emperors possession, as they were mauled to death, in front of a crowd baying for their abject blood, as their urgrund right to possess their power. The bread of the gods torn asunder to feed the 50,000 egos, that would later divide the bread and the Christ fish in like manner, through crucifixion, after being bribed by their sponsors to become a chorus of real punishment to their God’s son. As they had been taught to do.

Trajan’s conquests

The three cases (Dacia, Arabia, and Mesopotamia) were different.

1. The causes of the Dacian wars are obscure. The Dacian danger had existed since Domitian. Possibly Decebalus, the Dacian king tried to create an anti-Roman coalition. The alliances he concluded with other barbarian peoples, and perhaps with the Parthians, would lead one to suppose so. It does not appear that Trajan’s principal aim was to alter the Danubian frontier and collect as his prize the gold mines of Dacia (“You do not fear war, nor do you provoke it”, claims Pliny in his Panegyric,16). Fear of the barbarians, a feeling of insecurity, and perhaps a desire for military glory seem to have been the motives for the initial Dacian expedition.
2. The kingdom of the Nabataeans threatened the sole direct land link between Egypt and Judaea, by way of Gaza. Moreover, it imposed a tax on Roman traders on their way to the Red Sea. Here, then, the motive was strategic (to do away with the need to rely on the Gaza corridor), but mainly economic and political.
3. Three kinds of explanation have been proposed for the Parthian wars. For the ancients, it was a matter of Trajan’s personal ambition, his desire to equal the exploits of Alexander and take up his own account the dreams of Caesar and Antony. Strategic considerations were also significant: consolidating that frontier, and creating a protective buffer zone beyond the Euphrates as a safeguard for Syria. Lastly, economic reasons have been suggested among Trajan’s motivations, related to the control of eastern trade routes and large-scale commerce with the Far East.” (Le Glay:2009:326-27)

13: A veritable Peace is organised – but how – and why does it end?

“He ran to excess in the gratification of his desires.”- The Augustan Histories

Hadrian: 117-138 CE

Hadrian- within these walls

AD 76- born. Parents were city elite of Spanish town from proud Italian stock. Father died when he was 9. Second cousin –Trajan- becomes his tutor- he is an important general who takes him with him to Rome aged 9. In Rome he is educated for 5 years in its past.

At 18 returns to Rome to career in imperial administration. After few years joins officer of army.

AD 96 is told that Emperor Domitian had been assassinated by his wife and senate- Nerva had taken his place. Army didn’t like it as Domitian had paid them well. Nerva needed army and turned to Trajan who became co-emperor of Rome. Nerva died within two years and Trajan took over.

Rome had changed through dispersion of political power through rise of middle class- equestrians, but aristocracy were appalled at the idea of one of this class being emperor, but had to concede it.

Hadrian wooed Trajans wife Plotina. Their marriage is childless and so Hadrian is married to Sybina one of her relatives. Hadrian is made a senator. This new member of the Spanish mafia of Rome in the senate provoked a laugh by his provincial accent. Military success won him respect in victories at Dacia, and loyalty from the army later on.

Elected consul eleven years too young for the post, but Trajan quieted senators.

113 AD took on Parthians- basically Persia. They gained the land to the Persian Gulf with Antioch becoming his eastern capital.

Trajan suffers a stroke and dies childless, naming no successor. Plotina reads out Trajans will adopting Hadrian. Hadrian turns to army to see if this will be viable. Eastern legions hail him emperor before any dispute can arise. Promises to respect senatorial privileges and never to put a senator to death. They accede. He pronounces that the Empire shall expand no further. The expense of conquest was too costly. This made absolute sense as there was no advantage to conquer low populations in poor lands. Hadrian decided it was better to consolidate and Romanise the population he had already to cohere them better.

Buffer zone set up with client kings between Eastern Empire and Parthian Empire. King Herod is one of these. Senators were appalled, as they saw increase in empire as the root to wealth and glory, they planned his assassination but were discovered, 4 senators put to death. Had to be done.

Built a massive  fire in the forum and burnt lists of peoples debts, and then put on games. Rome was pacified.

Now the frontiers. Hadrian knew that the legions were his key to power over the senate. He ignored the senate and paid lip service to the provinces. Fearful that a consolidated empire would deny the army of gain through booty, he toured his army along the german border to keep them trained and ready and by his presence show that they were tremendously important. He lived their life and showed them great strength, and lack of luxury even banning it for them, and gave treasures to a few chosen ones. The army was won over.

122 AD Hadrian goes to Britain.  Since 43 Claudius the North had fought so wall was built to keep out these barbarians. Wall is a political statement as much as anything, a symbol of the demarcation of the civilized world. 15,000 auxiliaries manned it, drawn from around the world. Citizenship was the reward for this service. Extremely important in terms of assimilation of Roman ways in order to make peaceful provinces. Toga, bathes, dinner tables come into fashion as people who previously fought now aspire to become Roman citizens through this technique.

Greece- where he had served as a young man- nickname- The Greekling- even his hair and beard were Greek which set the style for emperors to come, and Napoleon, etc.

He was in love with Antoninus a young man, Homosexual practice is strictly taboo. It was a Greek thing, not a Roman thing. Hadrian displayed his relationship publicly. New Aqueduct, temple, library for Athens.

Hadrians Roman court ends intrigue and becomes bourgeois court of luxury and decadence.

Pantheon commissioned by him. Spent nights with philosophers ridiculing them with scorn as they debated, even making them kneel before him in debate.

After less than a year in Rome he embarks on a ‘Grand Tour’ of his Empire of over 4,000 towns. As he travelled this world he brought a retinue that physically possessed the world, and therefore romanised the world by his presence, bringing this world together, through ceremony, speech making, pomp, etc- magic. ‘Divine Saviour of the World’ placed in architecture welcoming him. New towns made such as Avignon in France in his honour. Cultural integration.

AD 130 having travelled everywhere he arrived in Egypt. Antinonus dies on cruise down the Nile, drowning in reeds. Nero is devastated, and declares Antinonus divine, founding a whole city after him and beginning a new religion for Antinonus that still exists today for many homosexuals.

Judea-  Jews rise up as Hadrian had set up a new temple to Jupiter on sight of Solomons temple. Jews are expelled and Judea is abolished being renamed Syria Palestina. This isn’t now true, see other tv programme about this.

Tivoli- few miles east of Rome his specially built villa where he retires- 7 miles in circumference, built as a model of the Roman world, where each part was modelled on Africa, Spain, etc. i.e. the measure of the world and him as centre where he dwells.

‘So much to serve so little purpose’

Hadrian near death becomes paranoid about assassination. Chooses senator Antoninus as heir, as has no children of his own. Emperorship is handed down from one generation to the next not father to son under Hadrians reign. He marks the provincialisation of rule for Rome.

138 AD aged 62 he dies of ill health.

Eagle released at funeral ‘he partakes of the honours of the gods’- Herodian.

He saw life from the perspective of the provinces that brought stability to the Empire.

‘A flourishing of the provinces that will bring a weakening of the centre.’

The accession

On August 8, 117, did Trajan on his deathbed in Selinus, Cilicia, designate Hadrian his successor, as the official version would have us believe? The early authors doubted it. And it is true that the circumstances are elusive.” (Le Glay:2009:330)

Antoninus Pius: 138-161 CE

Stability, prosperity, happiness, harmony: these are the words constantly used to praise the reign of the man who gave his name to the dynasty. Yet this reign, which marked the apogee of the Empire, may seem insipid and lacking in artistic imagination- rather like the image of the man himself, of whom little is really known….

The sources never run short of eulogies on his qualities as a man. What we know of him and his tastes (simple and rustic) is all in the same vein. The idealized portrait of him at the helm of state by Marcus Aurelius (Meditations 1.16) reveals no flaw: the statesman appears to be as one with the private man. All seem to have subscribed to the recommendations Marcus Aurelius set for himself: “In all things act as a disciple of Antoninus: look at his efforts to suit his actions to reason, his equitableness in all things, his piety, his gentleness, his scorn for empty reputation, his desire to grasp reality… May your last hour find you with a conscience as pure as his” (Meditations 6.30). Antoninus died on his Lorium estate on March 7, 161. It is said that one of his last utterances was the watchword given to the tribune of his praetorian guard: “Aequanimitas” (equanimity).

There were few outstanding events in his long and peaceful reign, during which (in 148) he celebrated the 900^th anniversary of Rome’s founding. No senator was put to death, the state’s reserves increased, the various parts of the administrative machinery functioned smoothly (although the four consular governorships of Italy, an unpopular creation from the start, were abolished), eastern cults made headway (the first taurobolium known in the West, as Lyons, is dated to 160) but were linked with the imperial cult, the rise of the jurists continued, and the provinces grew richer.” (Le Glay:2009:339-40)

“taurobolium: Sacrifice of a bull, followed by a “baptism” accomplished by sprinkling the blood in a trench. Practiced in the worship of Cybele.” (Le Glay:2009:339)

A_Mithraism

Marcus Aurelius: 161-180 CE

‘Now, that unto everyone is most profitable which is according to his own constitution and nature; and it is my nature to be rational in my actions and sociably and kindly disposed toward my fellow members of a city and commonwealth; as an Antonine, my city and my country is Rome; and speaking as a man, the whole world. Those things that are expedient and profitable to these cities are the only things that are good and expedient for me.’

There can be nothing more unequivocal than these declarations from the Meditations (6.39). Everyone must submit to the guidance of his conscience; everyone must carry out his duty as his conscience teaches him. And when one is a Roman and an Antonine, one owes it to oneself to be a good Roman and a good Antonine. For Marcus Aurelius, to be emperor was first and foremost a duty…. This sense of duty and concern to maintain order seem to have been the determining factors in the deeds of Marcus Aurelius.” (Le Glay:2009:341-42)

“At 14 he chose to adhere to the principles of Stoicism, and all his life he remained loyal to its moral code, practicing spiritual exercises which he consigned to a collection of notebooks traditionally called the Meditations. Written in Greek, these notebooks are the last great testimony of ancient Stoicism.” (Le Glay:2009:342)

“On his accession, Marcus Aurelius got the Senate to agree that his brother should be associated with him with the same title, except that of pontifex maximus, which could not be shared. This was an original arrangement: for the first time a collegial administration was at the head of the Empire.” (Le Glay:2009:344)

Continuing wars

Since 117, the Empire had lived in almost total peace, but in 161, war returned, brutally and on all fronts. In Britain it was mere unrest, in Raetia and Upper Germania an incursion by the Chatti. But the main event at the beginning of the reign was in the East.” (Le Glay:2009:344)

“War against the Parthians: 161-166 Vologeses III, king of the Parthians, launched a double offensive against Armenia and Syria. The legions were beaten, and one was massacred at Elegeia. In response, three legions were transferred from the Rhine and the Danube to the East under the command of L. Verus, who installed himself at Antioch and entrusted the direction of operations to some remarkable generals, such as Avidius Cassius, a Syrian….In 166, a peace treaty was concluded with the Parthians, and Dura-Europus was reoccupied. This brought two consequences: in the East, a great military command including Egypt was entrusted to Avidius Cassius; and from the East, the army brought back the plague to the West. It ravaged the Empire for 15 years.” (Le Glay:2009:344)

“The Danubian Wars. The various episodes of these wars are not well known, and their chronology is far from certain. However, it is clear that they originated with the slow movements of the Germanic peoples. Probably because of over-population, the Germani from Scandinavia (Gepidi in the second century, Goths before them) had begun to move southward, crowding out of central and eastern Europe the eastern Germani (Burgundi, Vandals, Semnones). They in their turn pushed against the western Germani (Marcomanni, Quadi, Suevi) and the Sarmatian Iazyges. Confined in an inner Germania reduced in size by the advance of the imperial frontier, both groups saw only one solution: to negotiate or force their way into the Empire. Several wars ensued, which may be broadly grouped in two series. They are separated by a precarious interval between the spring of 175 and autumn of 177.” (Le Glay:2009:345)

“The second Germanic war: 177-180. Even less is known about this second series of operations along the Danube. Everything started up again: guerrilla warfare, banditry, insecurity. The situation deteriorated so much that the presence of the emperors became necessary (from January 1, 177, Marcus Aurelius’ son Commodus was co-emperor). They left Rome in August 178 with an impressive staff. The following year a victory was achieved, probably over the Quadi. The barbarians seemed to be wearing themselves out. The Iazyges remained calm and even found advantages by joining Rome’s side; similar overtures were extended to the Marcomanni. Meanwhile, the Quadi were contemplating emigrating northwards. Thus, in the spring of 180, the creation of two new provinces beyond the Danube did not appear quite so utopian. But on March 17, 180, two days before the opening of the new military campaign, Marcus Aurelius died on the Danube, at Vindobona (Vienna). He was almost 59.

We must assess the importance of these wars. Militarily, the breaches of the Empire’s defenses, though serious, were less catastrophic than was then believed. Yet these threatening barbarian invasions, the terrible plague, and the endless wars were such a decisive time in Rome’s history that many historians see the Empire’s crisis as beginning with the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Without entering a debate that turns on one’s approach to the philosophy of history, we can agree that the government had lost impetus, and that there was widespread anxiety. In its most elementary form it showed itself in the persecution of the Christians, who were held responsible for the gods’ anger. This same anxiety may be traced also in art, for instance, in the sarcophagus of Portonaccio (dating from 190, slightly later therefore), which represents a battle against the barbarians. The artist depicts a seething mass of tangled combatants framed by the great figures of the barbarian princes who had been taken prisoner; exhausted, emaciated, and marked by grief and humiliation, they can be seen as born of a new awareness of human frailty. A similar reading can be applied to the deep reliefs of Aurelius’ column, which was completed posthumously, to celebrate the emperor’s Danubian wars. Although it was clearly modelled on Trajan’s column, the orderly and almost peaceful figures populating the Dacian campaigns have been replaced by tangled and suffering bodies. Beginning with Aurelius, it seems that the vulnerability of its frontiers drove home for Rome the sufferings of war.” (Le Glay:2009:345-47)

The end of the Good times, under the same laws, religion, education, art, etc, as before

Commodus: 180-192 CE

“With the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180 C.E. the period of beneficent imperial rule came to an end. One reason for the success of the “five good emperors” was that the first four designated particularly promising young men, rather than sons or close relatives, for the succession. But Marcus Aurelius broke this pattern with results that were to prove fateful. Although he was one of the most philosophic and thoughtful rulers who ever reigned, he was not wise enough to recognize that his son Commodus was a vicious incompetent. Made emperor by his father’s wishes, Commodus indulged his taste for perversities, showed open contempt for the Senate, and ruled so brutally that a palace clique finally had him murdered by strangling in 192. Matters thereafter became worse.” (Lerner et al:1993:188)

The Succession

For the first time an emperor had been born to the purple. Commodus’ education had been meticulous, he had been prepared for his office, and, since 177, he had been co-emperor. On the death of his father, he became sole emperor without any opposition: whatever the new emperor’s defects, he was Marcus Aurelius’ only surviving son.” (Le Glay:2009:348)

The chief events of his reign

182 A plot by Lucilla, Commodus’ sister, with the help of certain senators, almost succeeded. From then on, Commodus distrusted the Senate and lived in fear of assassination. He inaugurated a reign of terror, had friends of Marcus Aurelius executed, and let others govern on his behalf in order to give himself over to debauchery.

182-185 The prefect of the praetorian guard, Tigidus Perennis, became influential. Competent in military matters, he kept an attentive eye on the frontiers, but he also engaged in personal politics; he apparently favoured the equestrians over the senators and even tried to elevate his son to the purple. He was murdered by the soldiers.

185-189 Government was under the chamberlain Cleander, a former slave promoted to the rank of equestrian. While Commodus took no interest in anything but chariot races and gladiatorial fights, Cleander sold offices, debased the Senate, and the magistracies, had important people killed, and had himself appointed praetorian prefect in 189. He was executed on the orders of Commodus, who wished to pacify the starving and rebellious Roman crowd (end of 189 or the spring of 190).

190-192 Conspiracies real or imagined, murders, favourites, concubines (especially Marcia), and intrigues formed the political fabric of these years. Commodus increasingly revealed signs of a religious obsession whose first symptoms had appeared early in his reign. He claimed to be Hercules, refounded the city of Rome as the colonia Commodiana, and gave legions, fleets, the city of Carthage, and the months of the year names that he claimed as his titles, such as Exsuperatorius (“he who prevails over all”), a title reflecting the influence of eastern astrology and Greek theological thought. Posing as the first among the gladiators, he insisted that the ritual procession of January 1, 193, should be transformed into a gladiatorial procession, after which (although this is disputed) various people were to be put to death. Three of his intended victims, including Marcia, stole a march on Commodus-Hercules, poisoning and strangling him on December 31, 192. Cassius Dio (73.18) assured his readers that all of Commodus’ spectacular eccentricities were true, since he himself as a senator had been a witness to the emperor’s public conduct.” (Le Glay:2009:348-49)

The exercise of power

The madness of Commodus had significant repercussions only in the capital; the Empire suffered hardly at all. The administrative machine worked by itself; the imperial council and central offices took decisions and the emperor added his signature. There was one modification, however: the post of praetorian prefect became the most elevated, its holder a sort of vice-emperor who directed the imperial council.” (Le Glay:2009:349)

The economy. The economic decline of Italy during this period, known to the ancients and given varying interpretations in modern times, took different forms according to the region, economic sector, and type of property. It was noticeable as early as the beginning of the second century and was accompanied by the problem of a workforce that had become scarce, expensive, and, according to Pliny, lacking in ability or, as modern historians suggest, not properly used. Generally speaking, those regions of Italy with products in competition with those of the provinces … suffered a decline, while those which preserved a local market (Latium and Rome, for instance) or made gains (such as Cisalpine Gaul with the development of Aquileia and its region) maintained their activities without interruption. Hence, the picture of the Italian economic decline is a fragmented one, since local conditions played a determining role: the Apennine territories, which lived somewhat apart, the rural areas in the south, and those of Campania appear to have been the most affected. In nearly all the regions where the decline was apparent (in Etruria, for example), there was a perceptible retreat into self-sufficiency or economic stagnation rather than a brutal collapse. With the expansion of interprovincial trade, Italy no longer played the role of middleman that it had once enjoyed. It no longer had anything to sell to the East, and had precious little to offer the West.” (Le Glay:2009:351)

Writer’s Voice: So the State sells itself out to efficiency in purchasing goods from other places rather than supporting its own people. The consequence is bad education, lethargy, and consequently few skilled people who could charge a lot for their services, many of whom came from the provinces. Doesn’t that sound like modern day Europe and America, with its foreign doctors, plumbers, engineers, teachers, etc, etcetera. Isn’t this the corner stone of free-trade promulgated by a dying empire of obese people, who still believe in their right to demand tribute.

“The intellectual field. A recess in intellectual activity and creativity became increasingly evident in Italian circles during the century. Authors compiled, summarized, and began to repeat the ideas of former times. There are some memorable names, though in some instances they still belonged to the first century, by virtue of their education: Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius, Juvenal, Aulus Gellius. But it is significant that Marcus Aurelius wrote his Meditations in Greek, the language of philosophy certainly, but also of intellectual renewal. The only area that continued to advance was the law, in which field Roman jurists, despite tough competition from the Greek schools, still preserved their supremacy. In particular, manuals of jurisprudence were written, such as the Institutes of Gaius (perhaps a Greek).” (Le Glay:2009:352)

“The three Gauls: Lugdunensis, Aquitania, Belgica

These compromised about 60 “cities” which gathered once a year, in a sort of federal district at Condat on the slopes of the Croix-Rousse between the Rhône and Saône facing the colony of Lyons, to celebrate the cult of Rome and Augustus, and to deliberate in a Council of the Gauls. …

There is no doubt that the three Gauls were among the richest provinces in the Empire and, because of the diversity and complementary nature of their resources, they were most prepared to live independently. Yet their loyalty to the regime was total. Farmers, traders, artisans, urban notables, and native chiefs were committed to the peace that secured their incomes, protected them from the Germani, and ensured their social position. Paradoxically, therefore, very few Gallo-Romans, originating from these regions, are known to have had the desire to play the political role in the capital. A municipal or guild setting seems to have attracted them much more.” (Le Glay:2009:356)

The rise of the West going East and the East becoming West- Why? Hot baths, Central heating, Softer beds, and the Pleasure of Wine. The reasons for prosperity

The overall expansion of the East to the detriment of the West can be discerned in the second half of the Antonine century. But the reasons for it trace further back. Before we come to these, we must first note that those eastern lands were all countries with ancient civilizations and had never stopped being rich, so great was the capital that still lay in the memory, knowledge, and experience of men in every area (technical, commercial, social, political, economic, and spiritual). It was just that piracy and brigandage, conquest and pillage, civil war and destruction had all weakened and divided these regions, bringing some decline.

The first reason, or cause of this prosperity, was the restoration of confidence following the annexations and alterations of the first century CE….

The second cause of eastern expansion in the second century was the creation by Rome of a policy adapted to the East that encouraged the reinvigoration of its intensely urban life. The extent of the East’s urbanization was remarkable not only in terms of the number of towns and cities to be found there, and of their size (in the Augustan era, Alexandria had over 600,000 inhabitants and Antioch around 300,000, and many in Asia Minor over 50,000), but also in terms of the importance they had achieved, culturally and historically. The city and the town lay at the very heart of the history of the East, where for centuries they had fulfilled administrative, economic, and religious functions…Under Augustus, several eastern cities set about honouring the emperor with monumental buildings, in order to obtain from him advantages that would allow them to outstrip a rival. It then became clear that, confronted with these numerous, heavily populated towns, often haughtily proud of their past, yet also anxious to gain Roman favours and preserve their privileges, Rome could not conduct a policy comparable to the one it had used in the West.

There are too many missing parts for us to know all the aspects of the policy that Rome adopted in the East. It seems to have manifested itself in two complementary ways. First, Rome exercised tolerance of the institutions that had pre-existed Roman government, as long as they supported it. Second, it presented a model state- its own- which could be adjusted to suit different places and circumstances to achieve its full effect…Rome encouraged these villages to provide themselves with more-structured institutions, and granted the largest of them the privileged rank of metrokomia (mother-village). Again, it is revealing that the number of free and autonomous cities (e.g. Laodicea under Hadrian) was far higher in the East than in the West….

The final factor that gives us a better understanding of the East’s expansion in the second century is the attitude of the emperors. As we have seen, once the war with Antony was over, Augustus took care to repair the disastrous consequences of the Civil Wars and to restore friendly relations with Greece and the East. He was drawn along that path by the rapidity with which the eastern cities had greeted his victory and the eagerness with which they promoted the imperial cult (the first sanctuaries of Rome and Augustus were set up at Nicomedia and Pergamum). His attention to eastern provinces (aid for Corinth, for Paphos when it was devastated by an earthquake, for Athens, etc.) was met by evidence of loyalty and enthusiasm on their part (temples, towns that changed their name, etc.)… This change might have seemed no more than a simple form of adulation had it not been accompanied by an architectural reorganization of the town centre, henceforth dominated by buildings connected with the imperial cult. The East increasingly asserted its Roman nature.” (Le Glay:2009:360-62)

“True economic wealth. Although some regions merely struggled to get by (Boetia, eastern Anatolia), the dominant impression of the East during the Antonine period is one of undeniable prosperity, even opulence, in the agricultural, artisanal, “industrial”, and commercial sectors, with the long-distance trade with China and India exclusively eastern and going via Petra, Palmyra, or Alexandria (depending on routes and products). In the commercial sector, the Syrians in particular were very successful. They dominated small- and large-scale commerce, and were found all over the Empire, from Cadiz to Cologne, Ostia to Lyons.” (Le Glay:2009:362-63)

“Intellectual renaissance. In the second half of the Antonine century, the East flourished in all areas of intellectual life. Among these were history, with Philo of Byblos, Plutarch of Chaerona, Arrian of Nicomedia, Appian of Alexandria (and Pausanius, the traveller), and rhetoric, with Herodes Atticus, Dio Chrysostom, Aelius Aristides, Lucian of Samosata, and Maximus of Tyre. The easterners were equally masters in medicine, with Galen; in astronomy, with Ptolemy; and as novelists, with Longus of Lesbos and Philostratus of Athens. Trajan chose as his master architect a Syrian, Apollodorus of Damascus, who built for him a stone bridge over the Danube and his Forum in Rome. Even the field of law, until then the unquestioned domain of the Latin West, was now challenged by eastern schools, such as that of Beirut.” (Le Glay:2009:363)

Romanization

Historians and archaeologists have long debated the nature and extent of the Romanization of the provinces of the Empire. But there is little agreement about how Romanization is to be recognized, or even about what it really means. The process is usually understood to describe the adoption or the imitation of Roman ways of thought, behaviour, construction, or manufacture. Inexact characterization may be unavoidable: few sources record provincial sentiment, especially outside the literate and mostly urban, native elites, who wanted to advertise their connection to the governing power, and for whom Roman material culture represented a means of maintaining or enhancing the prestige of their own positions….

In some ways, at least, Romanization can be readily identified in the material record, in deposits of Roman-made dinnerware beyond the Rhine, for example,… In many parts of the Empire, towns came to be equipped with Roman-style public buildings, including forums, baths, temples, theatres, and amphitheatres. …In many places, local gods were Romanized (or partly so): in north Africa, for example, Shadrapa came to be identified with Bacchus, Melqart with Hercules. There is, however, good evidence also of a continuing attachment to indigenous beliefs. So Saturn, a fairly transparent disguise for the Punic god Baal, seems to have been enormously popular in north Africa, especially among soldiers and the rural poor…The adoption of Latin, especially as a spoken language, or of Roman dress is probably even better evidence of the desire to assimilate Roman patterns of behaviour. It is a tendency that is exemplified by the wealthy Carthaginians who took to wearing togas or to fixing their hair in the styles favoured by the women of the imperial family. The Punic script seems to have disappeared from north African cities by about the end of the second century CE….

What was it, after all, about Roman culture that was inherently desirable? According to the historian Ramsay MacMullen, the answer is “hot baths, central heating, softer beds, and the pleasure of wine.” Nor can it be said that Roman habits were adopted because they were self-evidently superior to the indigeneous….

Put another way, it is difficult to identify those who were, in varying degrees, partially Romanized. It might even be supposed that there existed a second world beneath the one described in our sources, a world that was wholly un-Roman in nature.

All this is not to deny either that Romanization occurred, and on a large scale, or that it had a significant impact on the cultural life of the provinces, especially in the western half of the Empire. It is, rather, to argue against assuming that the mass of ordinary provincials were affected in ways that were either profound or lasting. In Gaul, Spain, and parts of north Africa, cultural patterns were transformed, but mainly, it seems, among the wealthy, urban elites. The rhythms of rural life went on probably much as they always had.” (Le Glay:2009:364-66)

A_So the Roman culture was neither profound or lasting, and when Commodus went off the rails it affected nothing. What is the point of a ruler, his culture, or his unaffected peoples- Hot baths! Mysticism lies underneath state religion.

14: The Rise of the Army as Divine Authors of Authority – Bad Faith takes a turn for the worst

“The power of the sword is more sensibly felt in an extensive monarchy than in a small community. It has been calculated by the ablest politicians that no state, without being soon exhausted, can maintain above the  hundredth part of its members in arms and idleness. But, although this relative proportion may be uniform, its influence over the rest of the society will vary accordingly to the degree of its positive strength. The advantages of military science and discipline cannot be exerted, unless a proper number of soldiers are united into one body, and actuated by one soul. With a handful of men, such an union would be ineffectual; with an unwieldy host, it would be impracticable; and the powers of the machine would be alike destroyed by the extreme minuteness, or the excessive weight, of its springs. To illustrate this observation we need only reflect that there is no superiority of natural strength, artificial weapons, or acquired skill, which could enable one man to keep in constant subjection one hundred of his fellow-creatures: the tyrant of a single town, or a small district, would soon discover that an hundred armed followers were a weak defence against ten thousand peasants or citizens; but an hundred thousand well-disciplined soldiers will command, with despotic sway, ten millions of subjects; and a body of ten or fifteen thousand guards will strike terror into the most numerous populace that ever crowded the streets of an immense capital.

The Praetorian bands, whose licentious fury was the first symptom and cause of the decline of the Roman empire, scarcely amounted to the last mentioned number. They derived their institution from Augustus. That crafty tyrant, sensible that laws might colour, but that arms alone could maintain, his usurped dominion, had gradually formed this powerful body of guards, in constant readiness to protect his person, to awe the senate, and either to prevent or to crush the first motions of rebellion. He distinguished these favoured troops by a double pay and superior privileges….

Such formidable servants are always necessary, but often fatal, to the throne of despotism. By thus introducing the Praetorian guards, as it were, into the palace and the senate, the emperors taught them to perceive their own strength, and the weakness of the civil government; to view the vices of their masters with familiar contempt, and to lay aside that reverential awe which distance only, and mystery, can preserve towards an imaginary power. In the luxurious idleness of an opulent city, their pride was nourished by the sense of their irresistible weight; nor was it possible to conceal from them that the person of the sovereign, the authority of the senate, the public treasure, and the seat of empire were all in their hands. To divert the Praetorian bands from these dangerous reflections the firmest and best established princes were obliged to mix blandishments with commands, rewards with punishments, to flatter their pride, indulge their pleasures, connive at their irregularities, and to purchase their precarious faith by a liberal donative; which, since the elevation of Claudius, was exacted, as a legal claim on the accession of every new emperor.” (Gibbon:1998:91-2)

“The praetorians: at the beginning of the second century, 89 percent were Italian. This figure barely changed under the Antonines. To the extent that it did, Dalmatians and Pannonians were the ones who first entered the praetorian ranks.” (Le Glay:2009:378)

“To ensure that numbers in the whole imperial army were kept up, it was necessary to recruit at least 18,000 men a year (service was voluntary, although in theory the obligation to serve had never been abolished). This seems an easily achievable figure, yet the authorities sometimes had difficulty in assembling such a contingent. Besides the hardships of military life, the length of service perhaps discouraged potential recruits. This was 16 years of praetorians, 25 for the auxiliaries, 26 for the sailors, and 20 years for the legionaries (in theory, but they served more; some stayed in the barracks even after their discharge).” (Le Glay:2009:379)

Strategy, tactics, and training.

When, under the Flavians, the legions were put back on the Rhine, the rudimentary winter camps, built of wood and earth, were replaced by camps built in stone. This change in building methods was perhaps the first evidence of a new strategy. The confident Empire of the Julio-Claudians was being succeeded by a more cautious Empire, defined by its strategy of defending the perimeters by setting up along them a permanent line of defense. There was no thought of further extending the frontiers, or at least none of operating beyond the range of fixed bases. After Trajan’s expeditions, this concept of preventive defense was imposed along all the frontiers (limes), that is to say, 10,200 km including Dacia (9,600 without), plus 4,500 km of coastline.” (Le Glay:2009:379)

A_See Javek re walls being put up in the world today.

“The financial burden. Maintaining such an army was a heavy expense: it was the main charge on the state budget- between 40 and 50 percent. Estimates are only approximate, and are based on pay, but it is calculated that the cost of the army, if the navy cost as much as, or slightly less than, the auxiliaries, would be somewhere between 140 million and 145 million denarii annually (other, lower estimates vary between 80 million and 90 million).” (Le Glay:2009:381)

“The system itself. The Empire’s military strength was first of all a diplomatic instrument: the threat of its use dissuaded potential enemies, who, in the second century, never produced a force likely to worry the legions. But beyond the frontiers it could take only a federation of tribes or another Empire to outface the limes, conceived as a deterrent to threats on a small scale: the extreme overstretching of the units did not allow the detachment of a large part from one front to be sent elsewhere. The system lacked flexibility. What would happen if organized frontier peoples attacked at the same time at two very distant points?” (Le Glay:2009:381-82)

A_America today with its massive arms costs, that it defers by selling its arms to buffer states. England did this before America when it was the super-power.

Severus-The Protected Rise of the Praetorian Gods – Money makes the World Go Round

“What Confederations or Leagues can be trusted most; those made with a Republic or those made with a Prince.

Since it happens every day that a prince forms a league or an alliance with another prince, or a republic with some other republic; and in like manner confederations and agreements are made between a republic and a prince: I should, I think, inquire which contracts are the more stable and on which ought more store to be set, on those made by a republic or on those made by a prince. All things considered, I believe that in many cases they are alike, but that in some there is a difference. Furthermore, I believe that forced agreements will be kept neither by a prince nor by a republic. I believe that when they come to be afraid for the safety of their estate, both the one and the other, rather than lose it, will break their agreement with you, and treat you with ingratitude….

It will be found, then, that where there is fear there is in fact the same attitude towards contracts.” (Crick:1979:257-8)

“This leads one to consider how important it is for every republic and every prince to take account of such offences, not only when an injury is done to a whole people, but also when it affects an individual is grievously offended either by the public of by a private person, and does not receive due satisfaction, he will, if he lives in a republic, seek to avenge himself, even if it lead to the ruin of that republic; and, if he live under a prince and has a spark of manliness, will never rest content till he has in some way or other wreaked vengeance on him even though he see that, in doing so, he will bring disaster on himself.” (Crick:1979:368)

“Just as the death of Nero in 68 was the end of the Julio-Claudians and ushered in a year of civil war, known as “the year of the four emperors”, so the murder of Commodus ended the Antonine dynasty and launched a year of civil war, marked by short-lived reigns and attempted usurpations. The year 193 has justly been called “the year of five emperors” (Helvius Pertinax, Didius Julianus, Pescennius Niger, Clodius Albinus, and Septimus Severus), a modern title aligned with the Romans’ own concept that civil war was a repetitive event within the grand narrative of their national destiny. In any event, the year ushered to the throne the first non-Italian family there: the Severans. This dynasty was founded by the African general Septimius Serverus, and its nine-emperor rule extended from 193 to 235 CE. Although Septimius Severus successfully restored peace following the death of Commodus, his dynasty was disturbed by family conflicts and plots, political turmoil, and external threats, all eventually contributing to what is referred to today as the “crisis of the third century”. (Le Glay:2009:406)

The Crisis of 193-197 CE

On the very night of Commodus’ murder (December 31, 192), conspirators persuaded the reluctant prefect of Rome, P.Helvius Pertinax, to accept the throne, took him to the praetorian camp, and then before the Senate. The praetorians acclaimed him imperator under pressure from the people and on the promise of a donativum; the senators did so in the flush of their deliverance from Commodus, for whose damnatio memoriae they at once voted, and from esteem for Pertinax, who received the imperial titles and, contrary to tradition, immediately assumed that of pater patriae. He was 66 years old. A native of Liguria and the son of a freedman, he had first followed an equestrian career before being admitted by Marcus Aurelius to the Senate among the former praetors, and thanks to his qualities had eventually reached the peak of the senatorial career as prefect of the city. Worried by the condition of the imperial finances, attentive to the economic situation, and anxious about the barbarian threat, the new emperor was determined to apply measures that did not earn him popularity, especially with the praetorians (Herodian, 2.4). On March 28, a party of them broke into the imperial palace and, despite his courage, Pertinax was assassinated. He had ruled for just 87 days. In the words of Cassius Dio, the reason for his assassination was that “he did not realize, though a widely experienced man, that one cannot safely reform everything at once, and that the restoration of a state requires both time and wisdom.” (74.10).

This abrupt mutiny, without any precise aim, had no political pretensions. Uncertain what to do about their crime, and since the Empire could not remain without an emperor, the praetorians let it be known that they would offer the post to the highest bidder. There were two competitors. For 5,000 sesterces per praetorian more than is rival (in all, 25,000 sesterces to each), the rich senator M.Didius Julianus won….However, given a cold welcome by the Senate and jeered at by the people, Julianus, as emperor, could count on no one in Rome except the praetorians. Cassius Dio (74.12-13) describes vividly as an eye-witness the senators’ fear on the night of Julianus’ accession, as well as the popular protests that followed.

Julianus was even less supported in the provinces. At the end of April, he learned that military risings had occurred in Pannonia and Syria, and that L.Septimius Severus and C.Pesecennius Niger, respectively, had been proclaimed emperor by their armies….Yet he had already lost the support of the praetorians, who also feared the advent of Severus. The Senate voted for Julianus’ execution after only 66 days of rule.” (Le Glay:2009:407)

“The civil wars of modern Europe have been distinguished, not only by the fierce animosity, but likewise by the obstinate perseverance, of the contending factions. They have generally been justified by some principle, or at least, coloured by some pretext, of religion, freedom, or loyalty. The leaders were nobles of independent property and hereditary influence. The troops fought like men interested in the decision of the quarrel; and, as military spirit and party zeal were strongly diffused throughout the whole community, a vanquished chief was immediately supplied with new adherents, eager to shed their blood in the same cause. But the Romans, after the fall of the republic, combated only for the choice of masters. Under the standard of a popular candidate for empire, a few enlisted from affection, some from fear, many from interest, none from principle. The legions, uninflamed by party zeal, were allured into civil war by liberal donatives, and still more liberal promises.” (Gibbon:1998:101)

“Although the wounds of civil war appeared completely healed, its mortal poison still lurked in the vitals of the constitution. Severus possessed a considerable share of vigour and ability; but the daring soul of the first Caesar, or the deep policy of Augustus, were scarcely equal to the task of curbing the insolence of the victorious legions. By gratitude, by misguided policy, by seeming necessity, Severus was induced to relax the nerves of discipline. The vanity of his soldiers was flattered with the honour of wearing gold rings; their ease was indulged in the permission of living with their wives in the idleness of quarters. He increased their pay beyond the example of former times, and taught them to expect, and soon to claim, extraordinary donatives on every public occasion of danger or festivity. Elated by success, enervated by luxury, and raised above the level of subjects by their dangerous privileges, they soon became incapable of military fatigue, oppressive to the country, and impatient of a just sub ordination. Their officers asserted the superiority of rank by a more profuse and elegant luxury. There is still extant a letter of Severus, lamenting the licentious state of the army, and exhorting one of his generals to begin the necessary reformation from the tribunes themselves; since, as he justly observes, the officer who had forfeited the esteem, will never command the obedience, of his soldiers. Had the emperor pursued the train of reflection, he would have discovered that the primary cause of this general corruption might be ascribed, not indeed to the example, but to the pernicious indulgence, however, of the commander-in-chief.

The Praetorians, who murdered their emperor and sold the empire, had received the just punishment of their treason, but the necessary, though dangerous, institution of guards was soon restored on a new model by Severus, and increased to four times the ancient number.” (Gibbon:1998:103-4)

“The African emperor: Septimius Severus: 193-211 CE

The victor in the civil war

The conqueror of Didius Julianus. Upon his proclamation by his legions, Severus presented himself as the avenger of Pertinax, whose name he adopted among his own names. From the beginning of the month, he had been in contact with the legates of the neighbouring provinces, with the result that in the following days the 16 legions of the provinces of the Rhine and Danube rallied to his cause. Before he had begun marching on Rome to win over the city and the Senate, he learned that, in Antioch, Pescennius had also been declared emperor, dragging all the East and Egypt into this venture.

In May, Severus left Carnuntum for Rome and marched through Italy without meeting resistance. On June 1, he was at Interamna, about 80 km north of the capital. The Senate acknowledged him as emperor and sent him a delegation. Julianus, abandoned, was killed the same day, and the praetorians guilty of the murder of Pertinax and putting the Empire up for sale were arrested. On June 9, having first dismissed the whole of the praetorian guard, Severus entered Rome at the head of his troops.” (Le Glay:2009:409-410)

The reasons for Severus’ victory

• The African connection played its part, in strengthening ties and granting the support of certain commands. But Clodius Albinus, another African, might equally well have benefited from it.
• Severus’ troops were greater in number and better trained than those of his rivals. (The Danubian legions henceforth also outstripped those of other regions, in particular those of the Germanies, in their strategic and political influence). The military experience of Severus himself was, it seems, modest (according to Cassius Dio, the battle of Lyons was the first big engagement in which he had personally taken part), but he had been able to gather round him some remarkable marshals, the nucleus of a new aristocracy. His determination to be the sole ruler also motivated his efforts.
• Severus made excellent use of imperial propaganda through various media such as coinage, pamphlets, copies of imperial proclamation distributed to the troops and the populace, and the diffusion of prophecies and presages. The use of such means by rivals was not new; it traced back to the war of words, ideas, and imagery between Octavian and Antony.
• Severus outdid the others politically, first by presenting himself as the avenger of Pertinax, and then by playing on the divisions of his enemies. He also had a better appreciation of the scale of the Empire, made use of all the means at his disposal, and was able to inspire a sound team of administrators and generals. Cassius Dio says, and with good reason, that Severus was the most intelligent of all the pretenders to the throne.” (Le Glay:2009:413-14)

“Septimius Severus died on February 4, 211, at his York headquarters. Cassius Dio claims that the emperor left this advice to his sons: “Live in harmony, make the soldiers rich, and don’t give a damn for anything else.” And, touching the urn destined to receive his ashes, he is reported to have said: “You will contain a man whom the universe has been unable to contain.” According to other traditions, however, his last words were somber, foreshadowing ominously the future of this dynasty and the Empire: “When I received the state, it was troubled on every side; I leave it at peace, even in Britain. An old man now, and with crippled feet, I leave to my two Antonini an empire which is strong, if they prove good, but feeble, if they prove bad” (Augustan History, Severus 23).” (Le Glay:2009:416-17)

A military monarchy

1. The organization of the army. In 193, Severus reorganized Rome’s garrison. The praetorian cohorts were brought to a strength of 1,000 men (10,000 in total) and these were no longer recruited in Italy or even in the old Romanized provinces, but rather selected from the best of the provincial legions (Illyrians, Thracians). The numbers of each of the urban cohorts were tripled, from 500 men to 1,500, while the watch cohorts remained unchanged (seven cohorts of 1,000 men). Furthermore, between 193 and 197, Severus recruited from Parthia to raise three additional legions (bringing the number up to 33), all commanded by equestrians, and while two were stationed in Mesopotamia (the First and Third), the Second was based at Albano, near Rome. This means that, if we add to all these forces based in or near Rome, the 1,000 equites singulars Augusti (the emperor’s personal cavalry), charged with the ruler’s close protection, Severus had at his disposal in the heart of Italy an army of 30,000 men (compared with 11,500 formerly). He thus had the means of forestalling any usurper’s plans and of keeping an eye on Rome. Above all, he now possessed the massive reserve force necessary to defend Italy if barbarian elements crossed the frontier. Thus began the concept of a centralized campaign army (in Caracalla’s reign, the praetorian guard and the Second Parthica were both put into combat).
2.  The strategy on the frontiers. The main objective of this strategy was, of course, to secure the Empire’s defense. This required that the safeguarding of one sector be achieved without weakening another, even though resources were limited and the location and intensity of the dangers varied. Hence the series of measures taken by Severus intended to adapt the system more closely to the threats that were presently feared, in the East against the Parthians and on the Danube and Rhine against the Germani. Everywhere, there was a reinforcement of existing fortifications and communication systems (Africa, Rhine, Danube).
3. Military life. An improvement in the soldier’s lot was an essential part of dealing with the continuing recruitment crisis. To make army life seem more attractive and so to encourage recruitment, Severus effected the deepest military reforms since the time of Augustus, bringing social, economic, and honorific benefits to soldiers, and a measure of “democratization” to the army: pay, which had not changed since Domitian’s time, was increased; a military annona was organized (without creating a new tax- part of the old civilian annona was automatically diverted to the army); soldiers were permitted to live with their families outside the camp; and they were accorded the right to form colleges even during their years of service (until then only veterans had had this right); centurions were given direct access to the equestrian order (without, that is, having to go through the office of the primipilus); principales (non-commissioned officers or soldiers exempt from fatigue duties) were allowed to wear a gold ring, formerly, the distinctive right of equestrians; and veterans were given immunity from personal municipal charges.” (Le Glay:2009:417-18)

A_The ring of Gyges. Equestrians now find themselves in a land of peace and so they have administrative powers, but they now lose their exclusive right to these powers, in order to bring hope to the lower centurions, who will reciprocate all the harder as individuals for this opportunity to wear the ring of Gyges.

15: The Rise of the Equestrians

Rome – The etiquette of Violence – equestrian peace – Bureaucracy rise of the middle classes – The problem with Peace

“The Transition from Servitude to Freedom.

It is that the government of a state which has become free evokes factions which are hostile, not factions which are friendly. To such hostile factions will belong all those who held preferment under the tyrannical government and grew fat on the riches of its prince, since, now that they are deprived of these emoluments, each of them, to try to restore the tyranny in order to regain their authority….Furthermore, that common advantage which results from a self-governing state is not recognized by anybody so long as it is possessed- the possibility of enjoying what one has, freely and without incurring suspicion for instance, the assurance that one’s wife and children will be respected, the absence of fear for oneself- for no one admits that he incurs an obligation to another merely because that other has done him no wrong…

He then who sets out to govern the mass, whether in a free state or in a principality, and does not secure himself against those who are hostile to the new order, is setting up a form of government which will be but short-lived….for he who has but the few as his enemies, can easily and without much scandal make himself secure, but he who has the public as a whole for his enemy can never make himself secure; and the greater his cruelty, the weaker does his regime become. In such a case the best remedy he can adopt is to make the populace his friend…

If then, a prince wants to make sure of a populace that might be hostile to him- I speak of such princes as have become tyrants in their own country- what I say is that he ought first to ask what it is that the people desire, and that he will always find that they desire two things: (i) to avenge themselves against the persons who have been the cause of their servitude, and (ii) to regain their freedom. The first of these demands the prince can satisfy entirely, the second in part….

As to the second popular demand- the restoration of freedom, since this the prince is unable to satisfy, he should inquire as to the grounds on which the demand for freedom is based. He will find that a small section of the populace desire to be free in order to obtain authority over others, but that the vast bulk of those who demand freedom, desire but to live in security. For in all states whatever be their form of government, the real rulers do not amount to more than forty or fifty citizens and, since this is a small number, it is an easy thing to make yourself secure in their regard either by doing away with them or by granting them such a share of honours, according to their standing, as will for the most part satisfy them. As for the rest, who demand but to live in security, they can easily be satisfied by introducing such institutions and laws as shall, in conjunction with the power of the prince, make for the security of the public as a whole. When a prince does this, and the people see that on no occasion does he break such laws, in a short time they will begin to live in security and contentment.” (Crick:1979:154-6)

“Men pass from one Ambition to Another, and, having first striven against Ill-treatment, inflict it next upon Others.

When the Roman people recovered its liberty and returned to its pristine state which was now the greater in that many new laws had been made whereby its power was strengthened, it looked as if Rome for the time being would be tranquil. Experience, however, showed that this was not to be, for daily fresh tumults and fresh discords arose. How this came about Titus Livy has cleverly explained. Hence it seems to me relevant to cite here his remarks on this point. He says that either the populace or the nobility always became arrogant when the other party was humbled; that when the plebs was quiet and kept its place, the young nobles began to treat it badly, and that the tribunes could do little to mend matters because violence was being used also against them. On the other hand, though to the rest of the nobility it seemed that their young men were going too far, it was none the less to their liking that, if excesses had to be committed, their own men should commit them rather than the plebs. Thus the desire for liberty caused each party to oppress the other in so far as it got the upper hand. And the sequence in which these events occur us such that men seek first to be free from apprehension, then make others apprehensive, and that the injuries of which they had rid themselves, they proceeded to inflict on others. It was as if it were necessary either to treat others ill or to be ill-treated.” (Crick:1979:223-4)

“The Populace, misled by the False Appearance of Advantage, often seeks its own Ruin, and is easily moved by Splendid Hopes and Rash Promises.

Turning now to the question of what it is easy and what difficult to persuade a people, this distinction may be made. Either that of which you have to persuade it looks at first sight like a sure thing, or it looks like a lost cause, or, again, it may seem to it a bold thing or a cowardly thing to do. When proposals which have been laid before the populace look like sure things, even though concealed within them disaster lies hid, or when it looks like a bold thing, even though concealed within it lies the republic’s ruin, it will always be easy to persuade the masses to adopt such a proposal. And, in like manner, it will always be difficult to persuade them to adopt a course which seems to them cowardly or hopeless, even though safety and security lie hid beneath it.

What I have said is borne out by numerous instances, Roman and non-Roman, modern and ancient. For instance, it was in this way that a poor view came to be taken in Rome of Fabius Maximus, who failed to persuade the Roman people that the republic would do well to go slowly with the war against Hannibal and to act on the defensive instead of attacking him; for that people thought such a course cowardly and saw no advantage in it, nor had Fabius reasons enough to make them see his point. So blind indeed are peoples in matters concerning their own safety that, although the Roman people had made the mistake of authorizing Fabius’s master of horse to attack, contrary to Fabius’s wish, and although by the action, thus authorised, the Roman army would have been routed had not Fabius had the prudence to come to the rescue, yet so little did they profit by this experience that they afterwards made Varro consul, not on the score of merit, but because he had gone about everywhere proclaiming in the squares and public places that he would break Hannibal if they would but give him the command. The result was the battle and rout at Cannae, which almost ruined Rome….

In Greece, in the city of Athens, Nicias, a man both of weight and wisdom, could never persuade the people of that city of the folly of invading Sicily, with the result that against the advice of those who knew better, they took a decision which led to the total ruin of Athens.

When Scipio became consul and was keen on getting the province of Africa, promising that Carthage should be completely destroyed, and the senate would not agree to this because Fabius Maximus was against it, he threatened to appeal to the people, for he knew full well how pleasing such projects are to the populace….

I claim, then, that there is no easier way of bringing disaster on a republic in which the populace has authority, than to engage it in undertakings which appear bold, for, if the populace is of any account, it is bound to be taken up; nor will those who are of a different opinion be able to do anything to stop it. But if this brings ruin to a city it brings ruin still more frequently to the particular citizens put in charge of such an enterprise.”  (Crick:1979:239-41)

Foreign Policy

Narrating the recommendations on matters of foreign policy made by Augustus in his legacy to Tiberius, Cassius Dio (56.33) says that Augustus was of the opinion that they should be content with the present boundaries of the Empire and not in any way seek to extend them; for if they did, he claimed, it would be difficult to keep what was gained, and there would be a risk of losing what they already possessed. The few defeats that Rome had experienced in his time, especially Varus’ disaster in Teutoburg, had demonstrated that there were limits to the enterprise of expansion. This particular disaster weighed heavily with Augustus, who often lamented Varus’ loss of three entire legions (Suetonius, Augustus 23). Augustus’ conservative foreign policy was tripartite: a consolidating rather than expansive military presence at the frontiers, active diplomacy, and the system of client kingdoms. Those three lines were followed in different degrees by the Julio-Claudians.” (Le Glay:2009:275)

“Finances. The tense financial situation that had marked Domitian’s reign continued, despite the acquisition of the booty from the Dacian wars and the gold mines of that country. At the start of Trajan’s reign, outstanding debts to the state and the coronation gold exacted from the provinces on the accession of a new emperor could be remitted, to popular acclaim. But construction work, a larger administration, military expeditions, and soldiers were very expensive.” (Le Glay:2009:329-30)

“Change of strategy. Trajan’s conquests were too widely spread to be held with any success in an Empire whose reserves in terms of manpower were virtually the same as in the Augustan era. So, in the East, Hadrian completed the strategic withdrawal begun at the very end of Trajan’s reign, and the new provinces of Armenia, Assyria, and Mesopotamia were abandoned as early as the end of 117. Elsewhere, Hadrian pursued a policy of consolidation that would enable the Empire to defend itself.” (Le Glay:2009:337)

“Military domain. Until the time of Marcus Aurelius there had been no great troop concentrations in Italy, apart from those stationed in Rome and the ports of the praetorian fleets. The barbarian threat on the Danube frontier compelled troops to be stationed in the northern part of the peninsula, though not permanently. Second, Italians virtually disappeared from the legions. Starting from Hadrian’s time, the movement was very clear, and was to be found at all levels of the military hierarchy. Among the rank-and-file legionaries, Italians became rare (the ones remaining often came from Cisalpine Gaul), and among centurions and those of the rank of primipilus (the senior centurion of each legion and commander of its first cohort), Italians were henceforth the minority. Explicably, Italians who joined the military preferred the Rome garrison.” (Le Glay:2009:351)

Writer’s Voice: Mercenaries are soldiers, so loyalty and fighting force are greatly diminished whilst their cost increases. See Jack Hawkwood in a few centuries time, for same medieval fate, in a land of traders, bankers and priests, not kings.

Social changes in the late Republic

All classes of society found themselves affected by the upheavals. Among the ruling classes, the strongest positions were beginning to be occupied by the “new senators” who had emerged from the municipal elites of Italy and the western provincial elites. These replaced the old aristocracy, which was also decimated by the Civil Wars and proscriptions. This was particularly apparent in the entourage of Octavian: almost all of his consuls were Italians, as was Agrippa, his loyal admiral who had won both Naulochus and Actium for him. The equestrians too now crowded at the top, having advanced continuously since Pompey and Caesar, whose councils had been filled with them. The proscriptions of senators had been the occasion of considerable profit for the equestrians. Maecenas, an Etruscan aristocrat, close friend of Octavian-Augustus, and patron of a literary circle, preferred to remain an equestrian when he could have gained access to the senatorial class. His prestige and satisfaction with his status are indicative of the growing confidence and influence of the equestrian class.

Among the lower classes the changes were equally significant, with centurions promoted to municipal Senates and sometimes even to the equestrian order, and freemen occupying increasingly privileged positions in economic and social life. The career  of the poet Horace is indicative of his social mobility. In a poem from his first collection, published in the mid-30s (Satires 1.6), Horace expresses his gratitude to his patron, Maecanas, for not snubbing him because his father was a humble freedman. The beneficiaries of social advancement would become keen partisans of Octavian, as the rift between him and Antony grew throughout the thirties.” (Le Glay:2009:170)

“From the time of Augustus to that of Diocletian, the Roman princes, conversing in a familiar manner among their fellow citizens, were saluted only with the same respect that was usually paid to senators and magistrates. Their principal distinction was the Imperial or military robe of purple; whilst the senatorial garment was marked by a broad, and the equestrian by a narrow, band or stripe of the same honourable colour. The pride, or rather the policy, of Diocletian engaged that artful prince to introduce the stately magnificence of the court of Persia. He ventured to assume the diadem, an ornament detested by the Romans as the odious ensign of royalty, and the use of which had been considered as the most desperate act of the madness of Caligula. It was no more than a broad white fillet set with pearls, which encircled the emperor’s head. The sumptuous robes of Diocletian and his successors were of silk and gold; and it is remarked, with indignation, that even their shoes were studded with the most precious gems. The access to their sacred person was every day rendered more difficult, by the institution of new forms and ceremonies.

The avenues of the palace were strictly guarded by the various schools, as they began to be called, of domestic officers. The interior apartments were entrusted to the jealous vigilance of the eunuchs; the increase of whose numbers and influence was the most infallible symptom of the progress of despotism. When a subject was at length admitted to the Imperial presence, he was obliged, whatever might be his rank, to fall prostrate on the ground, and to adore, according to the eastern fashion, the divinity of his lord and master. Diocletian was a man of sense, who, in the course of private as well as public life, had formed a just estimate both of himself and of mankind; nor is it easy to conceive that, in substituting the manners of Persia to those of Rome, he was seriously actuated by so mean a principle as that of vanity. He flattered himself that an ostentation of splendour and luxury would subdue the imagination of the multitude; that the monarch would be less exposed to the rude licence of the people and the soldiers, as his person was secluded from the public view; and that habits of submission would insensibly be productive of sentiments of veneration. Like the modesty affected by Augustus, the state maintained by Diocletian was a theatrical representation; but it must be confessed that, of the two comedies, the former was of a much more liberal and manly character than the latter. It was the aim of the one to disguise, and the object of the other to display, the unbounded power which the emperors possessed over the Roman world.

Ostentation was the first principle of the new system instituted by Diocletian. The second was division. He divided the empire, the provinces, and every branch of the civil as well as military administration. He multiplied the wheels of the machine of government, and rendered its operations less rapid but more secure. Whatever advantages, and whatever defects, might attend these innovations, they must be ascribed in a very great degree to the first inventor; but, as the new frame of policy was gradually improved and completed by succeeding princes, it will be more satisfactory to delay the consideration of it till the season of its full maturity and perfection.” (Gibbon:1998:226-7)

“Wearing the laticlave. In 18 BCE, after his reduction of the Senate’s numbers to 600, Augustus forbade the sons of equestrians to wear the laticlave, creating for them the angusticlave (a narrow band of purple). The use of the laticlave was thus reserved exclusively for the descendants of senators: According to Suetonius (Augustus 38), he allowed the sons of senators to wear the laticlave and attend meetings of the Senate immediately after they had received the toga of manhood, and he did this in order to familiarize them more rapidly with public affairs. In the emperor’s eyes, senators’ sons were thus the next generation of senators.” (Le Glay:2009:226-27)

A_Remember how the ideal of social cohesion and the state resulted in no land for the soldiers, well now the equestrians are rewarded for their adherence by having their laticlave narrowed, and hence the power of the senatorial laticlave relatively increased. The aristocrats around Octavia reciprocated and signalled their own ambitions, and Octavia having chosen that Senate made tradition as ‘birth-right’ the author of ‘might is right’ over the equestrian power of ‘might is right’. His authority came from this awe and this birth-right and so it made reasonable common sense to continue this down the pyramid State through Status.

“The institution of a senatorial property qualification. Between 18 and 13 BCE, a senatorial property qualification was fixed. It was now necessary for the sons of senators to have a capital of 1,000,000 sesterces to seek a quaestorship, in order to avoid corruption. For the same reason, if a man who was already a senator fell short of the required amount, he had to give up his senatorial office- unless the emperor made up the deficit. This was a new means of controlling the budding order, in addition to the fact that it did not contain all possible candidates to the Senate. Thus the senatorial order effectively lacked the power and security that such a monopoly would have offered. But the creation of a different and higher rating to that of the equestrian order raised a fresh barrier between equestrians and senators. And the inner coherence of the two orders differed considerably, to the advantage of the new one, for the descendants of senators tended to form a better-defined social group.” (Le Glay:2009:226)

A_How therefore do you narrow the power of the laticlave, now that it has become separate from the equestrian power? Easy, what is it that possessors of laticlaves possess, but possessors of augusticlaves do not? Land. Of course any deficit, or lack, could be made up by the Emperors wealth, and so by raising the property qualification but waiving it whenever it suited him, the Senate lost its power and had to ensure reciprocation to one man- him.  This negative cult or law, therefore stopped the increase in senators and the increase in senators getting rich. You can be a member of the club, provided that another member sponsors you, you have the cash, and the club can see an increase in accepting you. Don’t the mafia own night-clubs, and politicians retire to them in order to make the decisions for the State, behind closed doors, that contain club members only. Are these clubs named after the political parties that they contain, or the political parties named after the clubs that contained them?

The equestrian order

There were several points in common between the equestrian ordo of the republican era and that organized by Augustus: Roman citizenship was a prerequisite; the property qualification of 400,000 sesterces was retained; the annual procession on July 15 was revived; appointments were made on the basis of one’s “worthiness” to receive the title of equestrian, awarded now by the emperor acting in the role of censor. Being an equestrian brought privileges: the right to wear a tunic with a narrow purple band (augusticlave), a gold ring, reserved seats at public spectacles. These equestrian privileges were not hereditary: except for the sons of senators, who wore the laticlave, one was not born an equestrian but became one. The equestrians thus formed a group which, by its nature, was more open than that of the senators. The geographic or social origin of the new equestrian mattered little; what mattered most were his merits and his capacity to serve the state. Through his restructuring of the equestrian ordo, Augustus forged a body of active supporters, ready to uphold the new regime. Equestrians brought over to his side provincial notables and the most enterprising elements from the municipia, and formed an elite of diligent officials who undertook the bureaucratic administration of the Empire.

Of course, not all equestrians (perhaps between 10,000 and 15,000 men in all) entered the emperor’s service, since many chose to forego the obligations and pressures of official appointments. These went on living on their lands or by their commercial enterprises, enjoying their wealth and social status. Inscriptions document their role as “patrons” of their communities. The careers of those who became administrators in the new regime are much better known. Their cursus fell into shape gradually and continued to develop in diverse ways with changing circumstances. Their initial administrative function in the civil sphere was essentially financial, involving mainly the management of Augustus’ possessions or those of the imperial family. The former senior officers or equestrians to whom he seems to have entrusted this task carried the title of procurator (agent or manager). This term was retained as their title even when their business in civil administration became increasingly diverse and of much wider scope. A distinction was made depending on the provinces in which these men worked: in the imperial provinces they were increasingly regarded as state officials; in the senatorial provinces they remained the emperor’s private employees, and kept an eye on the senatorial administration. The number of these procurators was initially limited (fewer than 30 are known to us from the Augustan era). Subsequent emperors developed the imperial civil administration set up by Augustus, in both numbers and organization.

The emperor similarly opened up career prospects for equestrians by devising posts reserved for them…

Thus a pool of candidates was gradually formed to fill the growing range of imperial offices. These included the military posts in which they began their careers, and those connected with the administration of justice and finances (tax farming and companies of tax collectors, though, did not disappear). In sum, Augustus’ new equestrian order was a development of the old one, with elements necessary for the formation of a great body of state employees responsible to the emperor. At first its members were in competition with the traditional senatorial administration, but they gradually replaced it and became incorporated into the first order of society.” (Le Glay:2009:229-30)

A_Pepys and middle class education. The administrators were not hereditary and therefore the power of familism was maintained amongst the aristocracy, who maintained the real power of land, wealth, and arms, whilst the magical power of administration, where the pen is mightier than the sword, was given to individual men of ambition and skill as beings-for-itself. Reciprocator individuals, therefore became an internal buffer state between the subject majority and the Object minority or the aristocracy who familistically handed out status as a ‘birth-right’. Hypocrisy. We will see the same thing happen with priests and Lords in Saxon- German medieval times, with King Otto, and his First Reich.

Through this system social cohesion becomes competition of individuals, who will willingly wield a stick for a carrot-hope, dangled in front of them by the families that own these carrots, and increase their ownership by dangling. Any able individual may therefore be allowed to get a lot of carrots because death, would sort out any problem of power that may have accrued around this individual. For a family in power, the long-term goal is increase, not just the short-term of an individual life. Assassination is a side-effect of this system. I wonder why the Kennedy family had to have two of its brothers assassinated, when their father had become so rich and powerful beforehand through his connections with the administrative organisation of JP Morgan, a corrupt house of stock-brokers that made a killing under the greatest recession known to man, which Jack Kennedy was a part of, as we shall see later. Maybe it was because JFK was elected as President of America by using the mafia to garner more votes, as arranged by his father. Maybe it was because JFK believed in equestrian ideals and not aristocratic familist ideals.

Maybe it was because the possessors of the arms and the arms manufacture who ran a military industrial complex that the previous President had warned about taking over America itself in the near future, was threatened to be decreased in power by JFK. Maybe an equestrian daddy had become too big for his boots in a hubris that necessitated a nemesis of both of his sons being murdered to keep them in their place. We could ask the Bush family who have had two presidents, rather than two assassinated presidents.

Did they have a part to play in the military industrial complex? What is the name of the club that these people play in, we will see it shortly. At first it was called the Skull and Bones club, and existed in the American heart of educating the elite families, but after a while it changed its name to become- the C.I.A.- Bad-faith for any reasonably intelligent human who isn’t born into a real American family, like the Bush family is. How about that Rhodes scholar, Bill Clinton, didn’t he try and get to big for his boots by using his brother in a property scam, where his family would suddenly have great land wealth and not equestrian power as the President for five years. Oh no he had to resign for having his dick sucked, which surprisingly leaked out of this club of loyal soldiers who served him thus. Amazing, that the media didn’t know about it at the time. And what about that famous equestrian Ronald Reagan, the hero of the silver screen. Oh that’s right he was just an actor sponsored by these rich families who own the land and the arms in a land of independence and equal opportunity.

Silly me, I forgot for a moment. Isn’t the right to vote a great thing, in a world of sponsored entertainment channels that produce the news. Doesn’t it feel good to not be living under an American Empire, that is taking us to world war three. Doesn’t it feel bad and powerless to be living in a world of propaganda where reciprocation means greater poverty for those who come after you, your family, your future generations, living in a war-torn, desert of poverty in an abundance of technology paid for by your lives. That’s entertainment. The show must go on. Macbeth is the show by the way, that’s why it is bad-luck to say it before the show of artifice to authority goes on. Macbeth gained the throne by killing his uncle in bed, in his own household, where he dwelled, and hence so do all of we.

The Administration of the Empire

For all its constitutional flexibility, military success, and political inventiveness, the new regime in Rome ultimately depended on its ability to control and administer the immense territories of the Empire, inhabited by approximately 50 million people. The façade of republican tradition which concealed its monarchical nature enabled Augustus to draw on the sense of civic duty and respect for the state that imbue the mos maiorum [ancestral right]. His restructuring of the senatorial and equestrian orders, and the subsequent emulation between the two, provided the human resources, power dynamics, and incentives necessary for his administration. The universal desire for peace, stability, and material gain facilitated his task. … Indifferent to (rather than respectful of) indigenous traditions, Augustan governors also realized that a strict enforcement of conformity to Roman social structures might pressure provincials into undesirable reactions. Thus they settled themselves into administrative and social organizations that predated their own, which they then proceeded to exploit and mold to Roman interests. Their conviction that they served a model civilization, which they knew was imperfect but believed to be the best possible, found a receptive audience among the local elites, who were swiftly won over to this new way of life and coveted Roman citizenship.” (Le Glay:2009:237)

Central Administration

The changes that transformed the administrative apparatus left by Augustus into a true central administration were essentially the work of Tiberius and, chiefly, Claudius.

Claudius. Claudius was the true organizer of the central administration. He entrusted various departments to his freedmen and elevated them with various honours. This was considered by some as evidence of his meekness (Suetonius, Claudius 28). Thanks to his freedmen, however, administrative departments became more like modern state ministries, rendering the emperor independent of the Senate and the equestrians. We know of four freedmen who held great influence with Claudius and were in charge of different departments.

1. Narcissus became the private secretary in charge of imperial correspondence (ab epistulis).
2. Pallas became secretary of finances (a rationales), which were divided between several departments but which Claudius began to dominate by the creation of a central fund, the fiscus Caesaris. Surpluses from provincial revenues were channelled into it. Moreover, the free distributions of grain, formerly funded by the Senate’s finances, were henceforth the responsibility of this fiscus Caesaris.
3. Callistus was in charge of the bureau a libellis, receiving and replying to requests and petitions addressed to the emperor. In fact, he was a sort of minister of justice.
4. Polybius was responsible for the bureau a studiis, which carried out various inquiries and compiled records and files.

These departmental heads were helped by assistants, the adiutores (slaves or freedmen), aided by numerous other employees (scrinarii).” (Le Glay:2009:285-86)

A_Adminstration by poor men was better than by equestrian rich men, because their loyalty was to reciprocate or be abject. Who benefits, not the equestrians but Claudius

Provincial administration

The Julio-Claudians’ experiments with the Augustan system produced satisfactory results in every field. It was a period rich in innovations, trials, errors, and corrections; and one that brought decisive changes on the administrative level. It witnessed the apogee of Italy in relation to the provinces and contained the seeds of future developments: the strength of the army, the conflict with Christianity, and the expansion of the provinces. At its end the vexed question of the succession emerged afresh. But the Republic had been laid to rest. It survived as an idealized and almost legendary past, but no one challenged the necessity and efficiency of the Empire. Still, soon after Nero’s death, the Civil Wars of the late Republic began to haunt the Romans as precedents of contemporary events. The year 69 CE, often referred to as the “year of the four emperors”, was in many ways a compressed replay of the last century of the Republic.” (Le Glay:2009:287)

“Administrative policy. Domitian began the practice of replacing freedmen in the central administration with equestrians. Thus, the management of the departments of imperial correspondence (ab epistulis) and taxation on inheritances (a patrimonio) was transferred to the equestrians. Furthermore, senior officials were provided with an assistant of equestrian rank, who would at the same time keep an eye on them.” (Le Glay:2009:311)

Writer’s Voice: Equestrians once again take the power from the administrative freedmen. Who benefits. See below in regards to increase of equestrian power in provinces. Reason is shown.

The colonies

Unlike the creation of a municipium, the founding of a colony was the creation of a new town, with the introduction of colonists (deduction) into lands seized from conquered cities or peoples. It was most frequently created on a previously uninhabited area. If not, then it had to be religiously and legally severed from the earlier settlement. The colony adopted full Roman rights; and if it also received the privilege of Italic rights (ius Italicum), it was considered Italian soil, and was thus exempt from land tax….

In this way a hierarchy was established and there was emulation between cities for tax benefits and other imperial benefactions. The peregrine cities aspired to become municipia with Latin rights, and the municipia with Latin rights aspired to obtain Roman rights. They also increasingly asked for the title of honorary colony, that is, a colony that had not been ritually founded, and without a settlement of colonists. We do have some evidence for the change of status of various communities.” (Le Glay:2009:311-13)

A_Buffer states becomes competitive buffer states, in a drama triangle of states that linked to a drama triangle of individuals of these states as they tried to gain individual power within the Empire State building in which they dwelled. Only America could build such an architecture of tightly packed mouse states in equal size cages beneath its pyramid capital, which is the tallest in the World at that time, Name it The Empire State Building, and then turn around to the same World and say, ‘we are not worlding an Empire’. The level of denial is described as paranoia or propaganda or idealist, by critical realists.

“The institutions of the municipia and colonies were modelled on those of Rome. The civic body (populus) was defined as a respublica. Citizens were divided into curiae, which assembled in the comitia to elect the city magistrates….

To assist these magistrates, there was a local Senate, the size of which varied according to the importance of the city. Its members, the decurions, were recruited from the former magistrates and wealthy notables, and though formally making up an advisory body, were in reality in charge of all the municipal departments…They also elected the city priest in charge of the imperial cult. Furthermore, they were responsible for the collection of the imperial taxes, and, in the event of a shortfall, they had to make up the deficit from their personal funds. Frequently interconnected by marriage, these local dignitaries formed a pool from which the emperors could draw new members of the equestrian order.” (Le Glay:2009:315)

“The most profound social change of the Flavian era was the rise of the provincials. They moved into the political limelight, which had been dominated by the Italians (these, in turn, now took a place at the very head of the Empire). The emergence of the provincials at this time is due to three factors. First, the peace and the stability ensured by the Flavians allowed the provinces to acquire an economic and cultural strength superior to that of Italy, which had been ravaged by the civil war and its own weary economy. Second, the accelerated Romanization of the western provinces (which for historical, geographical, and political reasons had been favoured since Actium) now became evidently prominent.” (Le Glay:2009:315-16)

Writer’s Voice: So peace, meant that the buffer states got stronger, and could use that along with their education by Rome, to take power for themselves – i.e. the education of Rome – its own nemesis. The equestrians were handed back the tax powers because they were at peace, and could not therefore gain by war, so loyalty had to be cohered through administration once again, as it was under Augustus.

“Relations with the Senate. Trajan exercised both courtesy and control in the Senate, expressed by many attentions on his part (his presence at sittings, his choice of consuls, his allowing the election of magistrates by the Senate, etc.). He emphasized provincial entries into the assembly, so that under him about 45 percent of the senators were provincials. His censorial powers were tacitly acknowledged, and in exceptional circumstances he interfered in senatorial provinces (e.g.  by sending Pliny to Bithynia-Pontus)….

Administration. …Thus, the number of known equestrian procurators went up from 64 under Domitian to 84 under Trajan. Except for the department a libellis et censibus, the great central offices were now all run by equestrians.” (Le Glay:2009:328-9)

Writer’s Voice: Coherence of the outer provinces in a time of peace, and decrease in powers of the Senate in times of peace. See above quotes for same.

“A masterful administration. Under Hadrian, the imperial council became a permanent organ of central government, with jurists, senators, and equestrians. The jurists were divided into two categories according to their remuneration. Under Hadrian too, the equestrians, whose cursus was now established, completed their run of administrative conquests. They supervised all the great offices of the imperial bureaucracy, and obtained new financial posts (such as that of the advocatus fisci, an official charged with representing the interests of the tax administration in lawsuits). With 104 known equestrian officials, organized in a hierarchy that permitted military and civil advancement, the administrative machine worked well. The number of posts was not very high. This efficiency was a direct result of the peace and stability provided by the imperial regime.” (Le Glay:2009:337)

A_ Add to those quotes above re administration.

Italy in Decline, the Provinces Expanding

By giving a new administrative structure to the provinces and Italy, Augustus had changed the traditional relations between the peninsula and its conquests. Until that time the provinces had been exploited for the benefit of the victors. Starting with the Julio-Claudians, the new status of the provinces allowed them to develop in their own way, almost on an equal footing with Italy. But the consequences of this change- the relative decline of Italy and an uneven but general expansion of the provincial world- did not begin to show until the time of the Flavians. Under the Antonines, this provincial advantage was obvious, and it is reflected in the geographical origin of the imperial families.” (Le Glay:2009:350)

“Although the Senate continued to enjoy great social and cultural prestige, it showed many signs of political enfeeblement: Severus’ personal choices and regulations for the previously senatorial office of the city prefect signalled to the Senate the curtailing of its influence….

The acceleration in the Senate’s political decline may equally be observed in the converse ascendancy of the equestrian order. Three new legions and two recent provinces were entrusted to this order. It was granted numerous procuratorial posts, of which there were increasingly more (Severus himself created more than any other emperor- 50 posts between 197 and 211). Because of the administration into it of many centurions, the honours and titles distributed to members of the equestrian order were more numerous than ever. And the position of praetorians prefect, now invariably held by those of equestrian rank, had become the second most important in the Empire: the praetorian prefect, in addition to possessing immense power in virtue of his military functions, was head of the imperial administrative staff and the leading criminal judge in place of the emperor for all Italy (except Rome and central Italy)…

In the hierarchy of equestrian offices the upper and lower ranks were those most affected by Severus’ actions. The clearest example of Severus’ plan to increase social mobility was that of the legionaries. A popular social policy was emerging, one that favoured the less powerful- which again pointed to a rapid political decline of the Senate.” (Le Glay:2009:420-21)

A_In times of peace, where power and wealth are re-consolidated, the land stays the same and so the Senate loses its power to will, but not its prestigious wealth- esteem power, not status power, but the administration and the army are the major forces of growth. Therefore new names must be made up with new dances to attain them, which means an increase in plate pecking and hence an increase in power throughout that artificial institution.

“Society. Senators had lost their political role, although they kept their position in provincial administration and the army. In the imperial council and the important departments of state, their role diminished to the advantage of the equestrians. Moreover, provincial elites were increasingly becoming visible, their members entering the Senate and the equestrian order. In the second century, there were signs of a reaction against this mobility. Another thing that fomented social conflict was the rise of Christianity.” (Le Glay:2009:441)

Writer’s Voice: The house of lords today versus the house of parliament a battle that was fought for over centuries, as a right – oliver Cromwell, magna carta, etc.

“In the fourth century CE more than ever, the Roman Empire remained an absolute monarchy. The fiction of the Principate had been abandoned, and there was no longer any hesitation in speaking openly of the Dominate. The sovereign made himself ubiquitous by means of a meticulous bureaucracy, and the army was still a fundamental instrument of power in his hands. However, in the face of mounting difficulties he was increasingly constrained to share his government and power.” (Le Glay:2009:486)

Central administration

To take his decisions and transmit his orders, the emperor had at his disposal a central administration that was much larger than in preceding centuries and was becoming more militarized, at least as indicated by its vocabulary.

Diocletian made a few innovations in this field. The creation of the Tetrarchy brought in its wake the creation of four councils, already called “sacred”; the emergence and proliferation of the notorious imperial spies known as agentes in rebus dates back to this period; and vice-prefects (vicarii) were appointed to administer the newly created dioceses (groups of provinces). For the rest, Diocletian had retained the praetorian prefects, who were prime ministers and ministers of war simultaneously, and changed their titles… The heads of these departments ruled like despots over their numerous staff.

Constantine did the most in this field: the appearance of new high offices and a new praetorian prefectship, now territorial, date from this time…

Bureaucratic administration was divided into offices (scrinia), each under the command of a head or master (magister). The magister was subordinate to the quaestor of the palace, a person with extensive authority who replaced in this role the old praetorian prefect, and to a primicerius, or superintendent. The quaestor and the primicerius also controlled the “school” (schola) of notaries. The principal departments dealt with archives, correspondence, petitions, and official journeys. The increase and power of the bureaucrats were two characteristics of the new government.

Similarly growing in importance, the police were answerable to the commander of the imperial guard, that is, the master of the offices (magister officiorum). They were furnished by the “school” of agentes in rebus, a cross between imperial courier service and secret intelligence. The agentes monitored mail and other communications from and to the palace, and were entrusted with keeping potential plotters under surveillance.” (Le Glay:2009:488)

A_The fifth column, describe its nature and mix with assassination increases quotes above as a necessary growth of an assassination culture, the side-effect of the Noble Lie.

Limitations

The reinforcement of the imperial power and its administration explains why the sovereign’s authority was exercised with practically no limitations.

Freeborn plebeians were rarely able to have their say. They could barely make themselves heard, except in Rome and Constantinople, and only then by mutterings and demonstrations, for instance at chariot races at the circus…

Of the former Senate nothing remained but its name: the assembly was used only as a municipal council for Rome, or Constantinople. The political ladder (cursus honorum) still survived, but quaestors, aediles, praetors, and consuls did not have much real authority, contenting themselves with bearing titles that were void of power. Under Constantius II, three such career structures led to the consulship: civil, military, and bureaucratic. Valentinian I classified senators in three levels, illustres (illustrious) at the apex, spectabiles, (worthy of respect) in the middle, and clarissimi (honourable) at the lowest, delimiting a strict hierarchy among them. Nevertheless, though not possessing real political power by virtue of their magistracies, some senators possessed great wealth and all were occasionally able to wield a certain moral authority…

It was however, mainly the force of circumstances that set limits on the imperial power. The difficulties linked with the extent of the territory and the barbarian menace often imposed collegiality and cooperation. And even though heredity became increasingly the rule, the question of succession still caused difficulties, so that the emperor had sometimes to tread carefully to guard against covert resentment and open rebellion.

Another element that enfeebled imperial power was the finances, which were still precariously balanced. They were organized on a system that was extremely bureaucratic, and thus not very profitable.” (Le Glay:2009:489-90)

A_Aristocrats split just as the equestrians were to divide and conquer, whilst reciprocating collegiality.

Finances

The army took the lion’s share of the Empire’s budget, followed by the administration, the court, imperial benefaction, and, finally, the projects needed to sustain the lives of the plebeians of Rome, joined now by those of Constantinople. As regards revenues, each reign added a new measure, further complicating a structure that had never been simple.

The annona still existed. The word indicated both a tax and the department responsible for levying it. Originally this land and personal tax, paid at least partly in kind, was intended to assure free men in the capital of the essential minimum of food. The military annona, which could be paid in coin (adaeratio), was the part of that payment hived off for the benefit of the army, beginning from the start of the third century. During the fourth century, yet another part was allocated to administrative staff. In the last two cases, it was hoped to compensate for dwindling salaries. The officer in charge, the prefect of the annona, eventually yielded his power to the praetorian prefect, assisted by the prefect of the city, the association of ship-owners, and a large staff. Under Diocletian, the method of levying such taxes was altered and the system of iugatio-capitatio perfected, extending now to Italy. The iugatio applied to land. But historians are divided about the capitatio: for some it had a strictly personal nature, whereas others consider, perhaps rightly, that it was a land tax calculated on a personal basis (the tax assessor took account of the number of people working on an estate)…Soldiers and veterans benefited from an immunity, but only for part of the capitatio…

Another tax on land, the tribute, also persisted, and Theodosius again demanded that it should be paid in coin. In Constantine’s time, an effort was made for the rich to pay their share. The senators were asked for land (gleba), municipal men for “coronation gold”, which under Valentinian became oligarchy, and merchants for gold and silver (chrysargyre).” (Le Glay:2009:490-91)

A_Property rights are really tax rights or tribute to the State, and capitatio are being-for-itself rights that are really tax rights to the State and oneself becoming a partial scape-goat in a decreasing individual power Roman world. The ladder is designed so that you are hanged from it.

“In the republican era there was no such thing as a senatorial order. The only condition demanded of members of the Senate was the possession of capital equivalent to the equestrian property qualification (400,000 sesterces). The son of a senator was an equestrian. He himself became a senator, if he so desired, on the day he began his first magistracy, the quaestorship. He then returned his public horse to the state. In the case of a “new senator”, that is, a senator not of the senatorial class but with at least an equestrian fortune if not an equestrian himself, entry to the Senate again coincided with his entry into the duties of the quaestorship. Beneath their toga, the members of the Senate wore on their tunic a broad band of purple, the laticlave. In the years after Caesar’s death, the sons of senators and equestrians improperly used the laticlave to signal their ambitions.” (Le Glay:2009:224-25)

A_The magic horse of the prince is now the objective horse of the equestrian who owns this possession for social cohesion and the ideals of the state. In reality, this garment as the laticlave, the purple of purpose hidden beneath this veiled garment, signalled their ambitions.

“Administrative policy. Domitian began the practice of replacing freedmen in the central administration with equestrians. Thus, the management of the departments of imperial correspondence (ab epistulis) and taxation on inheritances (a patrimonio) was transferred to the equestrians. Furthermore, senior officials were provided with an assistant of equestrian rank, who would at the same time keep an eye on them.” (Le Glay:2009:311)

Writer’s Voice: Equestrians once again take the power from the administrative freedmen. Who benefits. See below in regards to increase of equestrian power in provinces. Reason is shown.

“Africans, Syrians, and a Thracian at the head of the Empire: it is obvious that the provinces, and more especially those in the eastern part of the Empire, were providing political and military personnel who aspired to the highest offices. This pre-eminence is also apparent in the intellectual field.” (Le Glay:2009:431)

The Sons of Severus

“The declining health and last illness of Severus inflamed the wild ambition and black passions of Caracalla’s soul. Impatient of any delay or division of empire, he attempted, more than once, to shorten the small remainder of his fathers’ days, and endeavoured, but without success, to excite a mutiny among the troops.” (Gibbon:1998:112)

“Two enemy brothers and an empress mother: Caracalla (211-217 CE), Geta (211-212 CE), Julia Domna

According to our sources, the two brothers (born in 188,189) loathed each other. The elder M.Aurelius Antoninus, had very little taste for intellectual matters, despite having received a thorough education. His main interest was in military life. He was loved by the soldiers, who gave him the nickname “Caracalla” after the Gaulish cloak he liked to wear. The literary tradition portrays Caracalla as a sickly, violent, and irascible devotee of Alexander the Great, who played the roughneck soldier, was hated by the senators, and was a follower of Serapis, in constant search of healing gods and miraculous cures. Conversely, L.Septimius Geta is portrayed as gentle and reflective, a narrative contrast to Caracalla recalling that between the Flavians Domitian and Titus. It appears that the senators were fairly favourable to Geta, and his mother also showed him preference.” (Le Glay:2009:423)

“The funeral ceremonies. The return of Severus’ ashes to Rome and his apotheosis created the illusion of unity between the two brothers. Issues of coinage saluted Concordia between the two Augusti under the approving gaze of Julia Domna. In reality, each was contemplating ridding himself of the other. On February 26, 212, the empress made an attempt to reconcile them. It was in vain: Caracalla had his brother murdered, allegedly in their mother’s very arms (Herodian, 4.4; Cassius Dio, 78.2). He justified himself to the praetorians and the Senate on the grounds that his brother had been plotting against him. And in order to convince them, he promised the praetorians money and the Senate an amnesty for exiles. Executions (20,000 people, according to Cassius Dio) and confiscations took place. Geta’s supporters and other possible competitors (including a grandson of Marcus Aurelius) were eliminated.” (Le Glay:2009:423)

A_The gaze of the Third, the judge of pure imagination, who is blind, another work of pure imagination. The scales are weighted, the judge is constitutionally and docilely biased. The game is rigged, in a mafia familist hereditary god approved, god carnated, protection racket Republic, which is really, in reality a monarchy of powerful families playing the game behind a façade of media, coinage (in God we Trust), and metus- fear. There is no hope. Abandon it. This is progress, hope is a state of denial– see Shah quote in previous chapter. A fundamental urgund of lack. To be bound to nothing greater than oneself is a state of neglect, meaning to not choose a legend or marvellous story, greater than ones-self to be bound to. Individual human rights being the story of the ego par excellence which has a whole institutionalised administration and actors of a media drama to support it.

It is a state of neglect for everything but the ego for-itself. It is the name of a human being by the marvellous story lege, the binding of the legislative who author the legal system that wields the stick of the law of pure imagination of pious (religio) truth, without a god behind it but instead, the highest bidder or the highest briber of the army. “Religion is the opposite of neg-ligens, negligent- Neglect” Wordsworth- Concise Dictionary of  English Etymology. Who benefits? The Gods or the gods of the law who sit in a dramatic hierarchical theatre which contain seats called, the gods, because of how high they are, and how distant in reality to those sitting at the centre of such a circle as the body of the law are to them and also to the occupiers of these seats, the poor mosquito’s of reality, with its blind justice propaganda eternal statue of artifice as its feminine nature, a virgin womb made in man’s pure imagination to justify the egoic right of mine, not mine, and not yet mine, in a commonwealth where the social contract is a debate of missiles licensed to kill, blessed by God, and sanctified by the tradition of these legends in the Name of The Law.

Stop, in the name of the Law, or ‘Stop, in the name of love’. Which groove do you choose. Which karmic pathein do you tread through your actions each day in  this worlding of desire.

“Had the treaty been carried into execution, the sovereign of Europe might soon have been the conqueror of Asia; but Caracalla obtained an easier though a more guilty victory. He artfully listened to his mother’s of peace and reconciliation. In the midst of their conversation, some centurions, who had contrived to conceal themselves, rushed with drawn swords upon the unfortunate Geta. His distracted mother strove to protect him in her arms; but in the unavailing struggle, she was wounded in the hand, and covered with the blood of her younger son, while she saw the elder animating and assisting, the fury of the assassins. As soon as the deed was perpetrated, Caracalla, with hasty steps and horror in his countenance, ran towards the Praetorian camp, as his only refuge, and threw himself on the ground before the statues of the tutelary deities. The soldiers attempted to raise and comfort him. In broken and disordered words he informed them of his imminent danger and fortunate escape, insinuating that he had prevented the designs of his enemy, and declared his resolution to live and die with his faithful troops.

Geta had been the favourite of the soldiers; but complaint was useless, revenge was dangerous, and they still reverenced the son of Severus. Their discontent died away in idle murmurs, and Caracalla soon convinced them of the justice of his cause, by distributing in one lavish donative the accumulated treasures of his father’s reign. The real sentiments of the soldiers alone were of importance to his power of safety. Their declaration in his favour commanded the dutiful professions of the senate. The obsequious assembly was always prepared to ratify the decision of fortune….

The crime went not unpunished. Neither business, nor pleasure, nor flattery, could defend Caracalla from the stings of a guilty conscience; and he confessed, in the anguish of a tortured mind, that his disordered fancy often beheld the angry forms of his father and his brother rising into life, to threaten and upbraid him. The consciousness of his crime should have induced him to convince mankind, by the virtues of his reign, that the bloody deed had been the involuntary effect of fatal necessity. But the repentance of Caracalla only prompted him to remove from the world whatever could remind him of his guilt, or recall the memory of his murdered brother. On his return from the senate to the palace, he found his mother in the company of several noble matrons, weeping over the untimely fate of her younger son. The jealous emperor threatened them with instant death: the sentence was executed against Fadilla, the last remaining daughter of the Emperor Marcus; and even the afflicted Julia was obliged to silence their lamentations, to suppress her sighs, and to receive the assassin with smiles of joy and approbation.

It was computed that, under the vague appellation of the friends of Geta, above twenty thousand persons of both sexes suffered death. His guards and freedmen, the ministers of this serious business, and the companions of his looser hours, those who by his interest had been promoted to any commands in the army or provinces, with the long connected chain of their dependants, were included in the proscription; which endeavoured to reach every one who had maintained the smallest correspondence with Geta, who lamented his death, or who even mentioned his name.” (Gibbon:1998:114-5)

A_bad-faith of reciprocators

“The wise instructions of Severus never made any lasting impression on the mind of his son, who, although not destitute of imagination and eloquence, was equally devoid of judgement and humanity. One dangerous maxim, worthy of a tyrant, was remembered and abused by Caracalla, ‘To secure the affections of the army, and to esteem the rest of his subjects as of little moment.’ But the liberality of the father had been restrained by prudence, and his indulgence to the troops was tempered by firmness and authority. The careless profusion of the son was the policy of one reign, and the inevitable ruin both of the army and of the empire. The vigour of the soldiers, instead of being confirmed by the severe discipline of camps, melted away in the luxury of cities. The excessive increase of their pay and donatives exhausted the state to enrich the military order, whose modesty in peace, and service in war, is best secured by an honourable poverty…

It was impossible that such a character and such a conduct as that of Caracalla could inspire either love or esteem; but, as long as his vices were beneficial to the armies, he was secure from the danger of rebellion.” (Gibbon:1998:116)

217. On April 8, near Carrhae, he was stabbed to death by an officer of the praetorian guard on the orders of its prefect, M.Opellius Macrinus.” (Le Glay:2009:426)

A_The literal ring of Gyges- assassination as might is right.

Macrinus: 217-218 CE: an interlude

After Caracalla’s death at the hands of his praetorian prefect Macrinus, the soldiers, who did not suspect a conspiracy, acclaimed Macrinus emperor. It was the first time an equestrian had attained the throne. Herodian (5.1) relates the contents of a letter that Macrinus wrote to the Senate, in which he openly admitted the inferiority of his equestrian status but boldly asserted his claim to the throne on the basis of his moral virtues….

In order to win the loyalty of partisans of the Severi (especially the soldiers), he took the cognomen Severus, had Caracalla proclaimed divus by the Senate, and bestowed the cognomen Antoninus on his young son Diadumenianus, together with the title of Caesar. But at the same time, in order to win over the opponents of the Severi, he repealed Caracalla’s measures (reducing the inheritance tax to 5 percent once more), paid the Parthian king an indemnity of 200 million sesterces to maintain the Roman-Parthian frontier and unchanged areas of influence (Armenia), and reduced the pay of new recruits by half. This retrenchment brought on disaffection in the ranks of the legions in Syria. Moreover, his obscure origins and his clumsy tactics (his refusal, though justified, to come to Rome, the appointment of his colleague in the praetorian guard to the prefectship of the capital, etc), alienated the little sympathy he gathered in the Senate. He thus found himself quite incapable of opposing the machinations of the Syrian princesses….

On June 8, the armies of Macrinus and Bassianus came face to face near Antioch. Macrinus and his son Diadumenianus were killed. The Severan dynasty retrieved the imperial throne. From being African it had now become Syrian.” (Le Glay:2009:426-27)

Foreign policies

Externally, new threats loomed. In the East, the Sassanid Persians were driving out the Parthians. These nationalists wanted to re-establish the Persian Empire within its former boundaries. They relied on a holy book, the Avesta, to impose the religion of Zoroaster, which was exclusive and intolerant. At their head was a remarkable prince, Ardashir (Artaxerxes). In 211/212, he had seized power in Persia, and since then had striven to recreate the former Achaemenid Empire. In 227, he became the king of Persia. He organized a strong, centralized, even totalitarian state, in which Mazdaism, the religion taught in the Avesta, was the official and compulsory religion, and whose army included an impressive, heavily armoured cavalry, the cataphracts. In 230.231, the Persian invaded Mesopotamia and launched raids into the Syrias and Cappadocia. It was up to the emperor to intervene. He did so, but unwillingly and after attempts at negotiation….

Operations against the Alemanni began in 234. The emperor and his mother were in Mainz, where an army was assembled with numerous auxiliary corps (for the first time, cataphracts are mentioned among them.) A bridge of boats was built on the Rhine, and a few small local successes were achieved, but the emperor vacillated and deferred the launching of a large expedition. Under the leadership of a Thracian trainer, Maximinus, who apparently resented Mamaea’s influence with her son, the soldiers mutinied. Caught by surprise, Severus and his mother were killed in his tent by the mutineers (at some time between February 18 and March 9, 235.) Thus the reign of the Severi, both African and Syrian, came to an end.” (Le Glay:2009:430-31)

“By the time that the last of the Severi died in 235, the Empire had attained a kind of equilibrium (these days it is no longer believed that the accession of Septimius Severus in 193 marked the start of a great and continuing crisis). The alarm and the terrible years of Marcus Aurelius were forgotten, and the difficulties that cropped up here and there were generally perceived as fairly normal and temporary nuisances. As for the pessimism that is to be discerned among writers, it stemmed from a literary commonplace- praise for times gone by. Of course, that equilibrium was in fact threatened; but at the time no one was aware of it, apart from certain cultivated intellectuals who felt they were living in a period of crisis which appeared to them to be both biological and moral.” (Le Glay:2009:440)

16: The Karma of the Hubris of Stick-wielders as Adminstrators and Emperors and Soldiers – Religion must become the Scape-Goat as Godly Authority is lost – Law and violence must hide the shame

“From 235, the Empire plunged into a crisis described by contemporary authors in tragic tones. These ancient descriptions have been so influential that modern historians often refer to this period as “the third-century crisis”. Indeed, there can be no denying its gravity and general nature.” (Le Glay:2009:458)

Sinking into Crisis: 235-260 CE

Senatorial tradition depicts Maximus Thrax (235-238) as a rough soldier who had emerged from the depths of society, “half-barbarian and scarcely speaking Latin, but rather almost pure Thracian” (Augustan History, The Two Maximini 2), a shepherd who became a soldier, then an officer, and then ascended all the ranks of the hierarchy. What is certain is that, having become emperor, he associated with himself his son, also Maximinus, as Caesar; and, having waged a long, hard war against the Alemanni, he installed himself at Sirmium in order to keep a watch on the Dacians and Sarmatians and to prepare for a counter-offensive against them. Some sources also mention his persecution of the Christians, especially church leaders, portraying it as the inadequate response of a feeble mind confronted with a complex problem.

Maximinus also reacted in another way: to cover the expenses of his war he demanded that taxes should be levied very strictly. By doing so, he unleashed the events of 238. It was at first a general rebellion of the Africans, both rich and poor, peasants and town-dwellers alike. At Thysdrus (El-Djem), a demanding procurator was murdered by some young men of good family. Stunned by their own audacity, they could see no salvation except in taking the initiative. They proclaimed the proconsul of the province and his son emperors (we know them as Gordian I and Gordian II). At first, the Third Augustus recognized their legitimacy; then, at the instigation of its legate Capelianus (a senator), it ended the rebellion in a bloodbath of the short-lived emperors and those loyal to them.

Next, Italy rebelled. The senators, appalled by the base origins of Maximinus, and further exasperated by his tax policies, decided to give the provincials their support. They deposed the man they regarded as a tyrant, and mobilized against him all the forces of the peninsula. For good measure, they entrusted the government to two of their own number, Pupenius and Balbinus. Maximinus then had to decide whether to turn his back on the barbarians and immediately march on Rome. When he later met with stout resistance on his way through Italy, the soldiers assumed control of the situation by assassinating Maximinus, his son, and, not long afterwards, Pupienus and Balbinus. According to other traditions, Maximinus committed suicide after he had seen his son murdered by the mutinous soldiers.

Power then fell into the hands of Gordian III (238-244), proconsul of Africa, who was forced to the throne at the insistence of the soldiers;…Gordian II was an acceptable choice to all concerned: to the senators because he was one of their own, grandson of Gordian I and nephew of Gordian II; to the soldiers because, on account of his youth, he was under the thumb of the praetorian prefect, Timesitheus, who was no longer only a war commander but also the emperor’s deputy and head of the entire army. In a way, Gordian III was the candidate of a fairly wide alliance.

In fact, in 241, responsibility for running the Empire fell to Timesitheus, whose daughter the emperor married. There was no shortage of work to be done. In 238, the Carpi and Goths had attempted to cross the Danube. The Goths were again repulsed in 242, while the Persians were defeated in 243. Gordian III was still on the Syrian front, at Dura-Europus, when he was assassinated.

Philip the Arab, Gordian’s deputy who had probably engineered his murder, was then proclaimed emperor (244-249). He made various efforts to consolidate his power….

But war continued to cause increasing difficulties. Philip had hardly become emperor before he had to buy peace with the Persians. In this way he hoped, first, to settle his position among his own followers, and then to gain the opportunity for military intervention elsewhere. For in the same year (244), the Alemanni invaded Alsace on the west bank of the Upper Rhine, and the Carpi and Goths were once again on the lower Danube.

The counter-offensives against the barbarians were impaired because in several places usurpers were declaring themselves emperor: Uranius in Syria, Pacatian in Moesia, Jotapian in Cappadocia, and then Decius, on the lower Danube, where he had repulsed the Goths.

Decius succeeded in seizing power from Philip and his son and keeping it for over two years. To give the impression that all was going well, he had baths constructed on the Aventine in Rome. He also unleashed a wave of persecutions against the Christians, inaugurating a decade of intense suffering for the adherents of the new faith.

In the meantime, the plague spread through the Empire, and Goths flooded the Balkans. In 250, they crossed Lower Moesia, and reached Boroea in Macedonia and Philippopolis in Thrace. Then, during the summer of 251, they subjected the Roman army to a disastrous rout in the Dobruja (eastern Romania). Decius died in the battle confronting the enemy.

The Empire was plunged into crisis. The barbarians became more and more of a threat, and Roman emperors increasingly temporary and unstable. Trebonianus Gallus (251-253) was partnered by his son Volusianus and applied feebly various measures against the Christians, who were rapidly becoming the scapegoats for the distress of the times. Volusainus doubtless had other worries, for by then wars were ravaging even the interior of the Roman world. In an extraordinary exploit in 235, Franks and Alemanni crossed the Rhine, pierced the limes, and pillaged Gaul and then Spain before returning home. And the Goths were embarking on new expeditions in the direction of Greece and Asia.

Let us make brief mention of the Moor Aemilianus (253), the governor of Moesia, who held on as emperor for just three months even though he had been recognized in the East. His attainment of power was evidence of the new importance assumed by his country’s cavalry in the ranks of the Roman army. In fact, consequent upon developments in recruitment and tactics, Moorish horsemen represented an essential element of Rome’s fighting forces. This military role, in a period of military crisis, allowed them to play a political role and favour the promotion of their compatriots.

The Empire experienced its most trying times under Valerian (253-259.260), who, unlike other pretenders of this era, came from a senatorial family. During his reign, foreign assaults were launched on several points along the frontier…. The violent persecution of the Christians in 257 and 258 no more solved the Empire’s problems than did the action of Ingenus, the governor of Pannonia, who proclaimed himself emperor (258-260) after repulsing the Quadi and Marcomanni.

The most tragic phase of the crisis came in around 260, when invasions and usurpations mounted up in a disastrous tally. The Roxolani and Sarmatians descended on Pannonia. The Alemanni invaded Gaul and then threatened Italy, where Gallienus halted them only in the north of the peninsula. Under the sovereignty of  Odaenathus, Palmyra seceded. In the East, again, there were at least two usurpers, Macrianus and Quietus. On the Danube, after defeating the Roxolani, Regalianus proclaimed himself emperor. In Cologne, Postumus also claimed the throne, but confined his empire to Gaul. Valerian the Younger, son and grandson of the official rulers, was assassinated.

But more was to come. The emperor Valerian, who had been captured by the Persians (perhaps in 529), was put to death (in 260 at the latest), and his remains (or the slave’s garment he had been forced to wear) were put on display in the principal towns of Persia.” (Le Glay:2009:459-62)

A_The Drama Triangle of beings-for-itself collapses when all have to democratically give their personal power away. The invisible force of devaluation of the coinage was invisibly accepted by each silent chorus of the polis, but enacting the giving away of the less money by paying taxes, created a visible force of devaluation of adherence. Out comes the visible stick hidden behind the etiquette of administration of taxes and law and rights.

“Theoretically, a governor had to punish any Christian who was denounced eponymously, who proved to be such, and who persisted in his faith. In practice, as the initiative never came from the public authorities, Christians were not generally persecuted or systematically sought out. Each affair was a special case that depended on the state of relations between Christians and non-Christians at that particular place and time and on the attitude of the governor. Like other pagans intellectuals (for example, Celsus, whose True Account was written in about 178), Marcus Aurelius felt no sympathy for Christians. He blamed them for their obstinacy in exposing themselves to death and, far from seeing it as an act of courage, condemned it as fanaticism…. Popular hatred. Not very well known, living apart, the Christians of this anguished period were used as scapegoats for every political and social ill.” (Le Glay:2009:347-48)

The nature and limits of the Crisis

The main characteristics of the third century’s great crisis have long been known.

Military. To a large extent it was a crisis of military origin. For the first time the enemy had attacked persistently and almost simultaneously on two fronts. The Germani had to be driven back in the north, on both the Rhine and the Danube, and the Persians in the east. The emperors continually chased back and forth from one end of the Empire to the other, depleting one province to defend another. This vulnerability on the frontier encouraged peoples to rebel who would otherwise have remained confined in their territories.

Defeat revealed two further weaknesses in the Augustan strategy. First, when they had penetrated the limes, the barbarians met no other obstacles. The army had been deployed in a thin “curtain” separating the Roman from the barbarian world. Second, for both economic and demographic reasons, commanders had no reserves of men at their disposal. The policy of quality in recruitment limited choice and imposed the payment of suitable wages.

Writer’s Voice: The thin red line of Britain that gained its empire through the bayonet of shock and awe, before the maxim gun turned it into pure bloody awful shock for object and abject alike in their inner and outer worlds respectively.

Political. The defeats brought about a political crisis. The foreign war against barbarians was exacerbated by a civil war between Romans. Holding their supreme leader responsible for their woes, the soldiers frequently mutinied. They eliminated the titular ruler and appointed his successor following a familiar procedure: the praetorian prefect had the emperor assassinated, took his place, and appointed a praetorian prefect who, in his turn, became emperor in this way. The Empire, deprived of a dynasty, had become an absolute monarchy tempered by assassination, hence the brevity of the reigns. Moreover, such a situation aroused the desires of ambitious men with troops at their disposal, leading them to proclaim themselves emperor, sometimes successfully- a legitimate emperor was often a victorious usurper. Under these conditions, there could be no continuity necessary for a policy of recovery.

 A_Americans make five year terms because of the nature of their constitution, the very natures of the authors of it, great land-owners with slaves who espouse freedom and human rights, but deny that humans are human, unless they are made in his image. We are the dreamers of dreams, the worlder of worlds, of pure imagination. Assassination is how the world works when the law does not result in the right benefit to ambitious men in a collective party or aristocracy or institution of power. As we shall see in the house of God, the house of Lords, and the house of United Nations, as an institutional technique or art-form. Trained to kill, a train of necessary killers, as warmongers, before they are licensed to kill for those that trained them. The authors of war, the ambitious man who would have been secretly killed in the night, for 40,000 years in order to maintain peace, harmony, abundance, fraternity, equality, in a world of Wakan, is now a God and we fall and worship him in the mirror of darpan, through the looking-glass of reason where nothing makes sense, but to ask the question of evil witch-craft and wit: Who benefits? Otherwise known in its Hellenistic nature, as ‘who is the fairest of them all’, who is the most beautiful individual, the most like Helen, the most in harmony in a world of individuals who perceive the word ‘most’ individually rather than collectively, and judge their collective by these individuals who they worship.

The formless black invisible form of an-other worldly God, becomes an obelisk, a monolith of humanitas, as Progress towards a path of reason, where clubs becomes fire-sticks (Prometheus) of self will, and ‘pens’ of reasoned word cages, of language traps born in Babyl, in an electrified cage of us and them, divide and conquer, supplied by a current from the ontological nature of the being-for-itself, who stands as a priest pressing a button to administer the invisible force that makes us jump in fear and march to war, to gain the pleasure of relieving the pain of existing in a world of desire and lack, where your pain is my pleasure and my pain is your pleasure, in an ever spiralling war of desertification- called civilization, experienced as fear, hope, hate, aloneness, greatness, power, status, and esteem. A cloak and dagger story where the body of the polis is a hand in an iron glove of grasping desire- in the inner world, a fist in the outer. A monkey grasping the branch of desire in order to comprehend the World, through mine, not mine and yet to be mine, who believes his nature is above that of Nature-in-itself, whose very next breathe relies upon it in reality.

The Garden is but a step away, simply open your hand and leave it empty. Oh look your not grasping a weapon that in the mirror of darshan you were always, in reality, using against yourself. Oh look, the cage door is open. Oh look the priestesses results are changed, and the experiment of civilization is over. Clear out the pyramid of dead mice please you legendary heroes, sacrifice your life by your life, not your death, or an-others please. Be bound to a higher God who demands different tools than guns, different techniques than carrots and sticks, different arts than esteem and status, and no garment to be housed in, as an eternal State of pure imagination. A different branch of the tree of knowledge might produce a more mature and hence sweeter fruit than the branch of war that fathers everything, even desertification and nemesis as the sting of hope, felt as lack. Reason alone dictates that there is a more beautiful Nature out their in the woods dwelling with seven little spirits that animate her. I hope she doesn’t get tempted by the desire to bite the apple, that is poisoned, in this fairer tale, that was willed into existence by hunter-gatherers, once upon a real time for 40,000 years, once upon a dream, in a dreamtime where rainbows shining in black rocks were worshipped as Wakan.

Spiritual. These misfortunes, worsened by contemporaries’ perception of them, provoked a spiritual crisis. Not knowing how to ward off fate, people lived in a state of disarray. Their uncertainties were transposed to the religious plane, but very few questioned the will of the gods, still less their existence. The query was simple: “Why don’t the gods give us better protection?” The reply was self-evident: “The peace of the gods has been shattered because in the bosom of the Empire lives an impious sect that does not worship them.” It may be guessed that this referred to the Christians. Hence the persecutions….

Under the influence of Macrianus, his “minister of finance”, Valerian resumed the persecutions. In 257, he banned Christian worship and ordered the members of the church hierarchy to make sacrifices to the gods of the Empire. In 258 he had the refractory dignitaries executed, and stubborn rich Christians were deprived of their possessions. It was in this persecution that St Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, died.” (Le Glay:2009:462-64)

A_Fear makes hatred that makes violence that is cohered by the State into a necessary scape-goat by which to adhere the polis again, and catharsis through drama enactment of psyche of collective chorus of violence as right. Persecuted Roman Christians are the scape-goats of the wealthy of what will become Christendom for the wealthy Jews who will become scape-goats of the wealthy, lying concealed behind a screen of institutions and customs, was revealed with complete openness.

“It is possible that some large land-owners in sheltered provinces were able to profit from the misfortunes of others, selling scarce goods at exorbitant prices. At the end of the crisis, quite a few found themselves richer than when they started. This might explain the origin of certain vast fourth-century fortunes.” (Le Glay:2009:466)

“Sectors of activity. Not all sectors were affected equally. There was some redistribution of wealth. Life changed. Towns surrounded themselves with defensive walls- covering, it is true, an area smaller than in preceding centuries, but the towns were nevertheless able to build them. Moreover, although it did not become marked until the following century, there was an exodus to the countryside, with the powerful installing themselves more permanently in their landed estates. Lastly, despite the persecutions or perhaps because of them, Christianity continued to make progress. In the later third century, Dionysius of Alexandria (who wrote apologetics and pastoral poetry) and the school of Antioch contributed to the deepening of the doctrine. Gnosticism, which first came into prominence in the second century and was now flourishing divided into many sects, may itself be interpreted as a sign of spiritual vigour. Gnosticism set out the perfect knowledge (gnosis in Greek) of a God who was pure spirit, and claimed that the quest for the good leads to the rejection of the material, the source of all evil.” (Le Glay:2009:466)

A_Alcibiades, Diodus (greek democrat guy check spelling).- Gnosticism pure spirit not pure imagination- revelation not authorship sponsored by an institution. Mysticism, fate of Dionysus and Mithridate under Rome is same as fate of Christianity under Rome- docility.

How will the next emperor use religion, economics, law, luxury, status, etc, to recohere Rome’s empire?

17: Diocletian and the Tetrachy: The beginning of the Holy Office – the only way to defeat secular warriors of hired virtue – pietas

Those who fight for Glory’s Sake make Good and Faithful Soldiers

…This shows, among other things, the reason why mercenary troops are useless, for they have no cause to stand firm when attacked, apart from the small pay which you give them. And this reason is not and cannot be sufficient to make them loyal, or to make them so much your friends that they should want to die for you. For in armies in which there is no affection for him for whom they are fighting such as would make them his partisans, it will be impossible for them ever to have virtue enough to withstand even a moderately valorous foe. Since neither the requisite love nor the requisite enthusiasm can be aroused except in your own subjects, it is necessary if one desires to retain a form of state, i.e. desires to uphold either a republic or a kingdom, to arm oneself with one’s own subjects, as it is manifest that all have done who by means of armies have reaped great profit…

Another point to be considered in connection with the above discourse is what a difference there is between a contented army which fights for the glory of the thing and one that is ill disposed and fights to help on someone’s ambition. For, whereas the Roman armies were accustomed to being victorious under the consuls, under the Decemviri they always lost.” (Crick:1979:218)

The two Germanies

These two military provinces formed the shield for the Gauls. Lower Germania, to the north, extended east only to the banks of the Rhine and Ijssel, with Cologne as its capital. Upper Germania overflowed into Switzerland, Burgundy, and Franche-Comté on the left bank of the Rhine, on which bank its capital (Mainz) lay, and covered to the east the Taunus mountains region and the Agri Decumates. In these provinces, the army left its mark everywhere: towns arose from the legionary camps, permanent or temporary; forts and fortresses gave birth to little villages; tanneries, brickfields, farms, and every kind of craftwork all served the army; political life was linked with loyalty to the generals. At the end of the second century, it was no longer a Roman army in the Germanies, but the Roman army of the Germanies. Trade with independent Germani and contacts with the Danubian provinces and Britain all played a part in the area’s development.” (Le Glay:2009:357)

“In fact, Diocletian undertook the creation of a new army. He increased the number of soldiers, chiefly in the frontier army, favouring quantity over quality, created smaller legions, and set up a different hierarchy, placing divisional generals (duces) over the prefects of legions….

He similarly modified the central administration, where posts were created for magistri (heads of department), and he took even greater interest in finance…

The last great persecution of the Christians is also attributed to Diocletian. Its true authors were in fact Maximian and even more Galerius (Constantius Chlorus, on the other hand, proved very moderate). At first, measures targeted the army: an entire Egyptian (Theban) legion was executed on the orders of Maximian, for refusing to sacrifice to pagan gods (in 285-286); isolated martyrs, such as the recruit Maximilian, the veteran Typasius, and the centurion Marcellus, also came from the military. In 302, the soldiers were ordered to offer sacrifices, and in 303 and chiefly in 304, four general decrees were promulgated: confiscation of holy books and destruction of churches; imprisonment of community leaders; freeing of those who recanted; organization of sacrifices throughout the Empire….

After celebrating their 20 years in power (vicennalia) in 303, Diocletian and Maximian, partly pressed by Galerius, abdicated simultaneously on May 1, 305. Diocletian retired to his palace near Salonae.” (Le Glay:2009:475-77)

“The system of Diocletian was accompanied with another very material disadvantage, which cannot even at present be totally overlooked; a more expensive establishment, and consequently an increase of taxes, and the oppression of the people. Instead of a modest family of slaves and freedmen, such as had contented the simple greatness of Augustus and Trajan, three or four magnificent courts were established in the various parts of the empire, and as many Roman kings contended with each other and with the Persian monarch for the vain superiority of pomp and luxury. The number of ministers, of officers, and of servants, who filled the different departments of the state, was multiplied beyond the example of former times; and… ‘when the proportion of those who received exceeded the proportion of those who contributed, the provinces were oppressed by the weight of tributes.’ From this period to the extinction of the empire, it would be easy to deduce an uninterrupted series of clamours and complaints. According to his religion and situation , each writer chooses either Diocletian, or Constantine, or Valens, or Theodosius, for the object of his invectives; but they unanimously agree in representing the burden of the public imposition , and particularly the land-tax and capitation, as the intolerable and increasing grievance of their own times. From such a concurrence, an impartial historian, who is obliged to extract truth from satire as well as from panegyric, will be inclined to divide the blame among the princes whom they accuse, and to ascribe their exactions much less to their personal vices than to the uniform system of their administration.” (Gibbon:1998:228)

The end of Rome by the rise of the equestrians- Byzantine etiquette of court violence is last vestige of Rome

“The period from 284 to 361 was dominated by the three personalities of Diocletian, Constantine, and Constantius II. The measures each took contributed to the birth of a different Roman world, with new institutions, a fresh economy and fresh social structures, and a new civilization. In spite of everything, the dangers, mainly from barbarians, had become less pressing.” (Le Glay:2009:484)

Under Diocletian

Diocletian was the creator of the new army (although we should note that some historians present his reforms as less extensive than those of Constantine).

His actions were inspired by the lessons learned from the failures of the third century. First, quality had to be replaced by quantity as the overriding criterion in the recruitment of soldiers. Second, large defensive projects, mainly walls, were urgently needed. Without going so far as to quadruple the numbers of men, as Lactantius accused him of doing, he certainly considerably increased, and perhaps even doubled, them.

He reorganized the different types of units, to the undeniable advantage of the frontier army. New, smaller legions of no more than 1,000 men were created (some legions, however, retained their 5,000 combatants), and two legions were posted in each frontier province. Their total number at the time went up from 39 to 60. The wings (alae) and detachments (vexillationes) of the cavalry assumed greater importance, from the point of view of numbers and prestige, as revealed in their pay. .. The auxiliary infantry of the cohorts was still active, and agreements were made with neighbouring peoples, who supplied temporary troops (gentiles)….

On the other hand, he found it necessary to build up the navy once more, not only restoring it but even improving it after the decline it had experienced during the third century. It had a presence in the Mediterranean and on the rivers, and a new squadron was installed at Constantinople. Some historians consider that its number reached over 10 percent of the entire Roman army, that is, 45,000 men out of 435,000.

Pay, which helped to ensure the prosperity of military regions, also revealed the lines of the new hierarchy: horsemen of the alae obtained parity with legionaries (1,800 pieces of silver per year), and thus remained well above the cohort infantry men of the auxiliaries (1,200 pieces of silver per year).

The addition to personnel posed the question of recruitment. The principle of compulsory military service remained in force, but, as under the early Empire, volunteers provided the initial source of recruits. When there were not enough of them, it was decided that large land-owners, by virtue of the extent of their estates, should supply men, or, failing that, money (aurum tironicum). Soldiers’ sons, practically born in the camps or near them, formed a good part of the troops, and when there was a shortage of traditional recruits, barbarian volunteers were accepted. These choices suggest that the quantity of recruits was a more important consideration than their quality. Naturally, such a policy impacted the efficiency of the Roman army in the long term….

To make up for the mediocrity of the men, defense works were intensified. The Empire had for a long time erected physical barriers in places where no natural obstacle thwarted the barbarians (the walls of Hadrian and Antoninus in Britain, the so-called “Devil’s Wall” in Germania). Those that already existed were now repaired or brought back into commission, and new ones were constructed.” (Le Glay:2009:492-93)

A_Army gets divided and ameliorated to ensure fear on borders and hope inside borders. Benefit goes to border troops as they are the ones who hold the wall, so alae become as important as legionaries.

Under Constantine

Diocletian’s military measures were completed or, on some points, reversed by those of Constantine.

The different types of units were reorganized. First, a new imperial guard had to be created, after the disbanding of the praetorian cohorts and the equites singulars, both of whom had sided with Maxentius. Thus, a corps of officers was set up, the protectors  et domestici, and the five Palatine “schools” (scholae palatinae).

Gradually a field army (comitatus) was formed, perhaps from what Diocletian had left. This was an army of the interior, very mobile and intended for rapid intervention, comprising of legions and detachments (vexillationes) of horsemen. High standards were applied to its recruitment and training, so that it formed an elite.

By contrast, the frontier army, which was still made up of legions, auxiliaries (alae, cohorts, numeri), and vexillationes, seems to have been neglected….

The new types of units called for a new organization and chain of command. Certain commands were assigned to particular army corps (for example, the comitatus infantry), others to a geographical area (for example, Gaul). This crosschecking of authority, which complicated military operations, must also have hampered excessive ambition and thus attempts at rebellion.

On the other hand, civilian and military powers were definitively and completely separated. Praetorian prefects and vice-prefects or deputies (vicarii) were restricted to purely administrative and judicial functions, and only for parts of the Empire. Similarly, provincial governors were released from all concerns of a military nature.” (Le Glay:2009:493-94)

A_Paranoia involved in an ever goal shifting institution where ambition has to be hampered. Administration becomes separated from the equestrian being and becomes two Objects- separated by an illusion of pen and sword, like pirate and trader, they are the same face, but one is within the border the other is without. Their job is to maintain a pyramid of taking for the benefit of the takers, and reciprocators who wish to become takers themselves.- civilization.

The role of the army

The historical significance of the army cannot, however, be reduced to its purely military function and activities. As under the early Empire, it played an important role in the life of the times.

From the material point of view, the presence of soldiers still had the same consequences (stability, peace, prosperity), but the nature of army pay had changed. The proportion paid in cash, the stipendium, was charged to the central treasury (aerarium), which had it distributed through the financial authorities in the provinces (thesauri) under the aegis of the attendant of the sacred largesses. Distributions in kind, the military annona, were carried out in the name of the praetorian prefect and deducted from the arca. In addition, solders and vetereans benefited from tax exemptions, described on the bronze table found in Pannonia at Brigetio.

In the spiritual field, it appears that the army had developed little and remained one of the bastions of paganism and tradition. Tertullian had already said that Christians were cluttering the camps under Septimius Severus, but he was no doubt exaggerating. And the martyrdom of the Theban legion, which Maximian is supposed to have annihilated to punish it for its faith, needs to be reduced to more modest proportions: probably no more than a cohort was involved in the emperor’s condemnation.” (Le Glay:2009:495)

Writer’s Voice: The largesse of the army soldiers in the communities they ‘protected’ by taking their taxes and paying it to themselves, benefited the communities that administered this pay and who provided the whores, drugs, and entertainment to the soldiers, thereby worlding the community it protected in its image, for its benefit. Its image was better served through the lens of Mithra than Christ, due to the nature of the sacrifice, a fight, not a humiliation, especially at their own hands- nemesis.

“The state had to ensure order on the frontiers and within the Empire. To this end, and in keeping with the Roman attention to law, it restored a complex system of institutions, partly inherited from the early Empire- although the same name often masked a quite different institutional structure….

The governors received the title of praesides. Those in Asia and Africa Proconsulis remained proconsuls, others were called “consulars” or “correctors.” Under Constantine they finally and completely lost their military powers. All that remained to their authority was an important judicial role, which they long performed- their presence is still attested at the beginning of the fifth century, chiefly in Africa.

It was also Diocletian who grouped the provinces into dioceses. Heading each one was a vicarious, an important official who was formally or technically a deputy of the praetorian prefect. The number and composition of these dioceses varied as time went on although the number stayed in the region of 13.

In order to understand the overall structure of the dioceses, one must know that the implication of the expression “prefectship of the praetorium” changed radically. After 324 the title survived, but it covered a completely different function: the holders of this office were now confined to purely administrative and judicial activities, and their areas of responsibility restricted to groups of dioceses, forming territorial prefectures….

The hierarchy of province-diocese-praetorian prefecture no doubt matches a desire for uniformity, which may be taken for rationalization. But this arrangement also expresses the wish of the imperial power not to entrust extensive authority to anyone other than the emperor himself. Here, too, there was a fear of usurpation.” (Le Glay:2009:496-97)

A_The law becomes separate from the soldiers, and the bureaucrat, in guise, as if they didn’t all embody the same body- the pyramid. This kept their powers separate apart from under the arm of the monarch, and also wove a story of the separate nature and distance of the law to the authority that authored it and administered it, and chose its capitals. An illusion that today is still prevalent, and is a Noble Lie, as we shall see. This illusion carries a lot of hope of justice and removes the paranoia about one’s treatment under its hands. Thereby creating a docile polis, who are quite happy to divide any individual from the group through this scape-goat technique that benefits the pyramid.

Morality as the law becomes a judicial negative cult role, perceived as being separate from power plays of increase upon which it is constitutively founded. This moral voice, is the vicar of Christianity that will emerge in its diocese technique, as the Catholic Church. Its armies were reciprocators of taking the right to power through their might, but also through the blessing of God, given, by these vicars, when it benefited them to each others mutual advantage. A Noble lie of hypocrisy as we shall see, for the truth of gaining prestige, power, sex, drugs and rock n’ roll, as well as a good dose of familism of course.

Cities and Municipal Life

The Empire was still an immense body whose cells were the cities. The study of these cells and their activities, municipal life, forms one of the main centres of interest of current research. New evidence and interpretation temper the exaggeratedly pessimistic traditional picture of deserted curiae, impoverished municipal worthies, and the disappearance of autonomy under the weight of bureaucracy.

The two capitals

…In Rome, the Senate,… found itself reduced to the role of a municipal council, and the “treasury of Saturn”, which still existed in the fourth century, was no longer anything more than the city’s funds.

The people of Rome had played no real part in the civic process for a long time. Their expressions of dissatisfaction were confined to demonstrations at public venues such as the circus.

The real administration was in the hands of a range of high officials, the prefects of the city, of the annona, and of the vigils (night police and firemen), as well as such other officials as the curators of the aqueducts and public works. But, among these, the prefect of the city played the leading role. Still very rich, and often from the old aristocracy, he accumulated powers….Constantinople, conceived by its founder as an imitation of Rome, was also endowed with a staff of high officials and a Senate, though this conferred less prestige on its members than the Roman one. Because it was only the second capital of the Empire it received no prefect of the city, but rather a proconsul. As for its plebeians, they were put on an equal footing with those of Rome.” (Le Glay:2009:498)

A_The true nature of a democratic republic

“A variety of municipal posts existed, greater even than under the early Empire. The head of the magistrates, the curator of the city, had become the real mayor of the town, the duumvir serving only as his aide. The aedile and the quaestor no longer did anything much, except, as regards the second, in the financial field. The state also instituted the posts of “defender of the city” and, from 368 CE, “defender of the plebs”, magistrates who had the duty of affording protection against oppressive provincial government. But the best protection lay in the backing of a good patron, especially against the abuses of tax collectors (exactores). Naturally, the most popular choices were priests- flamines, pontiffs, and augurs, and sometimes Christian clergy.” (Le Glay:2009:499)

A_Vicars become trusted through this perceived separation where they no longer require the State, in order to exist, and are therefore better arbitrators. The truth is that they were persecuted by the Romans until they were made docile by the Romans- orthodox- and that the Christians persecuted anyone – Gnostics, etc- that weren’t docile to this Roman authority. They had become the warriors of the State, who killed their own culture for it-self.

“The Empire of the fourth century, like the early Empire, was ruled by an absolute monarchy. But imperial power now was more visible and oppressive. The number of employees in the service of the state certainly increased; bureaucracy became more meticulous and officious; and military men and state officials occupied a growing place in society.” (Le Glay:2009:502)

“Agriculture. Wheat still formed perhaps 90 percent of food consumption, and certainly still employed 90 percent of the agricultural workforce. Vineyards and olive groves, however, made progress….

The change which had the greatest effect on agricultural life was the continuing concentration in the ownership of the land. Historians and sociologists (Max Weber as early as 1896) have long discussed this process. But some of the effects had been noted by the early authors, who lamented the fact that rural areas were becoming deserts and that some apparently productive lands had been abandoned.

There was still great diversity in the way the land was worked. Livestock raising was still partly carried on by semi-nomadic populations. For settled peoples, there was at first a great expansion of the colonist system, which after the third-century crisis became the usual form of working the land. The sons of coloni held onto the land by right of inheritance, but they were still tenants and remained sharecroppers. This entailed their supervision by the master, but at least it enabled them to escape the supervision of the state. Recent research reveals that they were less attached to the land than had once been believed, and notes a decline in the number of smallholdings.” (Le Glay:2009:507-08)

Writer’s Voice: Land becomes owned by a few takers whose might is right belief system corrupts the attachment to the land of the birth-right of the ancestors- familism. The land no longer contains the bones of their ancestors, they are contained by the State in graveyards of prestige and luxury. Hence they belong in death to the State as they did in life. Tenant meaning, ‘to hold’ from tenable- that can be held- tained. The State holds them not the other way around, where the land really did hold them. The land sustained your family, but the rights to it were retained by the State, a State that gave the right to obtain more land by this belief, and extend ones familist power, through slavery. Slaves are not the land that they work as family is in experience. The blood of ink in the veins of bureaucracy that flow through the body of the Leviathan are more binding than the blood of the slave who works the land with his individual body. Slaves are abstained by no right to vote and no right to property, they are abject by the State but still objects on the land. How therefore can the land be a sacred object through this experience- karma. It must be the blood of the family, and the blood of the State that embody ones being-for-others. See result of this below:

Main features

Society in the fourth century was more hierarchical than it had ever been. By means of proliferating laws the emperor defined, with increasing precision, the various hierarchies and the places within them. From the juridical point of view, there was a fundamental contrast between the elite of honestiores and the mass of humiliores, who did not have the right to equal treatment in the courts; for the same crime, the first were less severely punished than the second.

It was also undeniably a class society. The concentration of land properties already mentioned brought about a concentration of riches. An increasingly restricted minority grabbed a growing portion of the available possessions.

But the most striking feature was found elsewhere: the government, by its actions, seemed to be intent on forming a society of castes. The compulsory inheritance of occupation or place imposed by certain laws, for example, tended in this direction. Nevertheless, social mobility still existed, for many were not affected by such legislation, and it was also sometimes possible to evade it. However, bureaucracy, or rather the spying of the notaries, made state control increasingly pervasive and difficult to escape. In the face of pressures imposed by bureaucracy and the tax system, notables sometimes had no alternative but to enter the clergy or flee to the desert. Individual peasants, among others, might gain protection through patronage, entrusting themselves and their possessions to the governor, to high officials, or even to military officers, whose tenant farmers they became. The state attempted to limit this practice, even to ban it, but often in vain.” (Le Glay:2009:511-12)

Writer’s Voice: Fifth column of bureaucracy, desertification of power in rich families, resulting in clergy becoming infected with familist power base. Protection became an individually sought possession through reciprocating a taker, who retained you, because the State certainly wasn’t going to unless you conformed to its role for you as Subject- being. Freedom meant fleeing to the desert, where there was no value in chasing you. See below::

Social elites

A strict hierarchy had always been the defining characteristic of the Roman society, and it continued to be throughout this time. Social elites were defined by their role in the service of the state and by their wealth, which continued to grow.

At the apex was the imperial family, an extremely tiny minority who possessed power, immense fortunes, and various extraordinary honours.

A second exclusive group consisted of the rich, who were mainly land-owners. These were able to extend their influence over several cities and even over several provinces, gathering vast clienteles. Probus, for example, a member of the influential family of the Anicii (who held a praetorian prefectship almost uninterruptedly from 367 to 384) owned estates everywhere. Their vast geographical distribution enabled him to offset the disadvantage of weather hazard, so that he was assured of obtaining at least one good harvest each year.  Quintus Aurelius Symmachus (a pagan senator and author in the predominantly Christian culture of the late fourth century) similarly possessed vast wealth…

Together with the possession of wealth, it was this service to the state in an official capacity which set one up to become a senator. Of course, birth still counted: theoretically, a noblis had to be the son of a noble, although some newcomers had managed to work their way into the circle. Senatorial families still forged connections and alliances among themselves through marriage and adoption….

The senators of Rome were attached to classical culture, which was still based on values such as otium (the refusal to do exacting paid work) and paganism (though Christianity slowly spread among the senatorial families).

An internal hierarchy was expressed in titles. Every senator was addressed as clarissimus (“most illustrious”). Constantine created the non-hereditary dignity of patricius (patrician) for the outstanding among them…

Belonging to the Senate of Constantinople bestowed less prestige. First, the institution was relatively recent, something which mattered a great deal to the collective attitudes of the time. Second, entry to this assembly was comparatively easy….

Belonging to the Senate conferred greater prestige than did membership of the equestrian order. The equestrians had nevertheless assumed a large share in public life. In the course of the third century, and during the crisis, they had monopolized military duties; and at the beginning of the fourth century, when the bureaucracy started to develop on a large scale, they grabbed the posts of heads of department. As a result, under Diocletian, the smooth functioning of the state largely rested with them.

Paradoxically, it was between 312 and 326 CE that the equestrian order vanished. Early in the fourth century, many equestrians attained the rank of senator; and then, in 326, the main equestrian title, vir egregious (“distinguished man”), was abolished. There were then a good many equestrian clarissimi, and although the equestrian title perfectissimus survived, it was reserved for the holders of a few rare offices.

Historians have pondered over the causes of the disappearance of the equestrian order, and some have deemed it inexplicable. In fact, it would seem that it died of its own success and from the desertion of the state by the senatorial elites. The role played by equestrians, from Valerian to Diocletian, forced the state to recognize their merits; and the awarding of a prestigious title, without necessarily adding the material advantages linked with it, enabled the government to escape cheaply.” (Le Glay:2009:512-14)

Writer’s Voice: Senate becomes equestrian, as trade and bureaucracy takes over power of state. The rich senators merely step aside and rely upon their wealth and land to control these equestrians in controlling the state. Like the houses of parliament and the house of Lords, this is a cheap and easy way of getting the traders, and bureaucrats to regulate their own dance upon the Lords land, in order to gain further by doing less work themselves. Self-interest is the true governor of this constitution. Hence the Middle Classes are allowed to come into existence as a ‘title’ of esteem, for now they these Middle Classes are the State as heads of departments and judiciary, etc. These individual reciprocators now work hard to compete against each other and hence make each other poorer collectively by the power of divide and conquer that their debate of words and lies, gives to their retainers- the rich takers who offered the carrot of the political ladder of status and esteem (cursus honorum)

The middle classes

Here, the historian comes up against a methodological difficulty, for the very notion of a “middle” class in modern and raises problems in the absence of ancient statistics. Amount of wealth and participation in local governments are considered criteria for this classification, but they are always to some extent arbitrary.

Among the easily identifiable groups are the curiales (members of a city council or curia), the new name for the former decurions. From the economic point of view, they are defined as land-owners whose estates rarely went beyond a city’s boundaries. Because of that, they had a certain diversity: some lived fairly comfortably, others on the edge of poverty. All one needed to become a curialis was to own 25 jugera (6.25 ha), and the term in the end became a simply synonym for possessor (hereditary owner). Their situation deteriorated because of the burdens laid on them by the tax system, in addition to the consequences of the third-century crisis and obligatory benefaction. In each city, a commission of 10 members from among the decurions (decemprimi in the West, dekaprotoi in the East) had been charged at the end of the second century with the collection of taxes due from their municipality. Members of the assembly ended up being responsible for these payments out of their own pocket, so that they found themselves trapped between the government and their own citizens, who regarded them as “petty tyrants” (according to the fifth-century Chrstian writer Salvian). The honour became a burden, as revealed by a word play on honos (“honour”) and onus (“burden”). Some fled, others entered the Senate or the clergy. Their plight varied greatly according to imperial policy: Constantine persecuted them, but Julian made efforts to lighten their burden.

To counterbalance those duties, prestige and honour accompanied the title of curialis, as is shown in the letters of Libanus, who lived in Antioch. The wealthiest ones, called principales, could enter the senatorial order, or could at least receive the title clarissimus….

Besides the land-owners, the members of other groups belonging to the middle class sometimes entered the curiae. In the lead were those officials who had some learning and were close to the government, which gave them some prestige. It is known that their members were increasing. To these should be added members of the liberal professions, lawyers, doctors, teachers, men esteemed for their culture but usually fairly poor, although the state financed a few professorial chairs…

The last group to be examined here are the soldiers. They served as government auxiliaries, which justified giving them a regular wage and exemption from certain charges. Their importance had grown with their numbers, but the entry of barbarians into the camps proportionately diminished the prestige traditionally attached to their profession. The soldiers belong to what we understand today as the lower strata of society.” (Le Glay:2009:514-16)

Writer’s Voice: As middle class increase and see themselves as separate from the violence of the state by their non-violent experiences of obtaining power, they take the finite esteem and prestige of the State for themselves. The soldiers become divided, ameliorated by barbarous people and hence end up being the lower strata of society. A fine reciprocation for their murderous tradition so previously hailed. Their fathers and fathers fathers, must have been so glad of the fruit of their killing and their own deaths.

“In addition to its intellectual effects, Roman interaction with the Hellenistic world accelerated the process of social change, foremost of which was the cleavage between classes. The Italian people, numbering about eight million on the death of Caesar, had come to be divided into four main social orders: the senatorial aristocracy, the equestrians, the common citizens, and the slaves. The senatorial aristocrats numbered 300 citizens and their families. Most of the aristocrats gained their living as officeholders and as owners of great landed estates. The equestrian order was made up of propertied aristocrats who were not in the Senate. Originally this class had been composed of those citizens with incomes sufficient to enable them to serve in the cavalry at their own expense, but the term equestrian came to be applied to all outside of the senatorial class who possessed property in substantial amount. The equestrians were the chief offenders in the exploitation of the poor. As moneylenders they often charged exorbitant interest rates. By far the largest number of citizens were mere commoners. Most of these were independent farmers, a few were industrial workers, and some were indigent city dwellers who lived by intermittent employment and public relief. When Julius Ceasar became dictator, 320,000 citizens were receiving free grain from the state.

The Roman slaves were scarcely considered people at all but instruments of production like cattle or horses. Notwithstanding the fact that some of them were cultivated foreigners taken as prisoners of war, the standard policy of their owners was to get as much work out of them as possible during their prime until they died of exhaustion or were released to fend for themselves. Although domestic slaves might from time to time have been treated decently, and some slave artisans in the city of Rome were relatively free to run their own businesses, the general lot of the slave was horrendous. Moreover, it is a sad commentary on Roman civilization that most of its productive labour was done by slaves. They produced much of the food supply, for the amount contributed by the few surviving independent farmers was quite insignificant, and did much of the work in the urban shops as well. In addition, slaves were employed in numerous non-productive activities. A lucrative form of investment for the business classes was ownership of slaves trained as gladiators, who could be slaughtered by wild animals for the amusement of the people. The growth of luxury also required the employment of thousands of slaves in domestic service. The man of great wealth insisted on having doorkeepers, his litter-bearers, his couriers (for the government of the Republic had no postal service), his valets, and his tutors for his children. In some great households there were special servants with no other duties than to rub the master down after his bath or to care for his sandals.” (Lerner et al: 1993:176-7)

A new political regime

On November 20, 284, Diocletian, proclaimed Augustus, became emperor. In order to solve military problems and to control the ever-diverging territories of the empire, he was the first to establish the rule of four emperors, which we call the First Tetrarchy. This consisted of two Augusti and two designated heirs, proclaimed Caesares.

In the spring of 285, after defeating his rival, Carinus in battle, Diocletian appointed Maximian first as Caesar and then (April 1, 286) as Augustus, his associate but nevertheless subordinate. In 293, Galerius and Constantius Chlorus both became Caesares. Each of these four received a town of residence, respectively Nicomedia, Milan, Sirmium, and Trier. However, they remained in close contact and were bound together in various other ways. A religiously based hierarchy was instituted: Diocletian, “Jupiterian”, prevailed over Maximian, who was merely “Herculean” (in both cases it was the office that was sacred, not the person). Family links were also forged, through marriage and adoption. The absolutism of power was in no way less than it had been in the preceding centuries, but the two Augusti committed themselves to abdicating simultaneously after 20 years, in favour of the two Caesares, on condition that they then in turn appointed two Caesares in their own place. In principle, this system of the rule of four (Tetrarchy) was an efficient way for a safe and peaceful succession.” (Le Glay:2009:473)

Writer’s Voice: Sorry, it was the office that was sacred not the person. Run that one by me again. The State institution is now named and experienced as The Sacred Object, not the person being that Object. This was an artifice by which to place men in power who could be removed from office whilst maintaining their blood-right authority of the right to office, through these god name labels of administrative etiquette. See etymology of ‘office’ as desire or wish through optative.

The bad-faith of the equestrian classes in the paranoia of being in greater fear of a change of the game. The same happens below in the other equestrian orders, the army and the magistri. Combine these quotes then:

“Dioceltian and the Tetrachy: 284-305 CE

A new political regime

On November 20, 284, Diocletian, proclaimed Augustus, became emperor. In order to solve military problems and to control the ever-diverging territories of the empire, he was the first to establish the rule of four emperors, which we call the First Tetrarchy. This consisted of two Augusti and two designated heirs, proclaimed Caesares.

In the spring of 285, after defeating his rival, Carinus in battle, Diocletian appointed Maximian first as Caesar and then (April 1, 286) as Augustus, his associate but nevertheless subordinate. In 293, Galerius and Constantius Chlorus both became Caesares. Each of these four received a town of residence, respectively Nicomedia, Milan, Sirmium, and Trier. However, they remained in close contact and were bound together in various other ways. A religiously based hierarchy was instituted: Diocletian, “Jupiterian”, prevailed over Maximian, who was merely “Herculean” (in both cases it was the office that was sacred, not the person). Family links were also forged, through marriage and adoption. The absolutism of power was in no way less than it had been in the preceding centuries, but the two Augusti committed themselves to abdicating simultaneously after 20 years, in favour of the two Caesares, on condition that they then in turn appointed two Caesares in their own place. In principle, this system of the rule of four (Tetrarchy) was an efficient way for a safe and peaceful succession.” (Le Glay:2009:473)

The bad-faith of the equestrian classes in the paranoia of being in greater fear of a change of the game. The same happens below in the other equestrian orders, the army and the magistri. Combine these quotes then:

The last great persecution of the Christians is also attributed to Diocletian.

18: Rome – Economics – devaluation of money – lending property and morality – The Bad-faith of the soldiers

“Until the time of Julius Caesar, Rome’s conquests were essentially private enterprises. Roman citizens who went to war came back with booty, slaves, and a flow of tribute exacted by local agents on commission whose techniques included extortion and loansharking. Cicero claims that Brutus lent money to a Cypriot town at an interest rate of 48 per cent- evidently a common practice, and an early precedent of Third World debt.” (Wright:2006:89-90)

A_The global recession of today is the same thing, with the aristocracy and banausoi gaining from it, and the poor suffering. This is the middle class, the plebeian rise and its consequence, and its necessity in taker, reciprocator power art.

“Economic thinking existed among the Romans, but its reasoning was not the same as our own. In Rome, economic thinking was part of an all-encompassing set of beliefs and thoughts whose heart was the state, and it was the moral equilibrium of the state that mattered. There would always be confusion between morality and economy. Thus, the wealth brought by trade could be regarded at the same time as an economic resource, a sign of political domination, and a source of moral corruption.” (Le Glay:2009:366-67)

A_Morality is recognised as corrupted by money.

Agricultural life

The foremost economic activity was agriculture, and the foremost source of wealth was land. Of the Empire;s 50-60 million inhabitants, at least 90 percent made their living from the land. An aristocrat’s resources and social standing were measured in land property: one rich in land was considered an upright, worthy man. Moreover, the emperor was the chief land-owner.” (Le Glay:2009:367)

A_Property rights as the urgrund of power, wealth and labour enslavement. Who benefits?

Movements during the century

Four major developments became evident in agricultural life during the second century, apart from its growing prosperity. First, the huge estate (latifundium) was replaced by small and medium-sized holdings within the framework of large-scale property. The sharecropper colonist thus appeared, and we can follow the development of this kind of colony thanks to Pliny’s letters and three inscriptions from Tunisia (inscriptions of Henchir Mettich, Ain Djemala, and Souk el Khemis). Second, an expansion of cultivated areas is evident- for example, in North Africa, the Agri Decumates, Dacia, and the Fens in England. Third, alongside large-scale farming devoted mainly to the growing of cereals, which was in decline, an intensive and more dynamic type of farming was found, diverse in its products and activities but centred on a principal crop (vineyard, orchards, olive groves) and livestock breeding. Last, the second century seems to have been one of agricultural science. The great land-owners read treatises by agronomists, aspired to the commercialization of their surpluses, and sometimes specialized their products. Land was considered seriously as an investment in its own right rather than merely as a sign of social status.” (Le Glay:2009:369)

Ways of working the land

The ways of working the land depended on the size of the property. In charge of the vast imperial domains (saltus) which went beyond the territory of the cities were procurators, either one or two (equestrian) procurators per province for the imperial possessions in that province, or one procurator (freedman) per great domain. The procurator was assisted by a conductor (farmer general), who leased out land to colonists, the real farmers, who paid rent and were obliged to supply a certain amount of free labour. The domain itself was divided into four parts: one part was cultivated for the procurator, another by the colonists for themselves, the third comprised pasture lands, and the fourth was land left fallow. The organization was the same for a large private estate, but the procurator was replaced by a steward (villicus). At the other end of the scale, the small freeholding was directly worked by the owner (veteran, native inhabitant), with or without the help of slaves. Between these two types of holding was a whole range of others combining the various different elements, and involving also the use of day-labourers.” (Le Glay:2009:370)

A_Desertification halted through fallow land, feudal system of farmers supplying free labour to the equestrian or knight. Commercialization of land by growing rare crops to become wealthy, even meat. Ricardian economics could come in here.

Industry. Industrial production grew without technical progress: improvements were made on what already existed. As it increased, this production diversified and, above all, tended to become less concentrated, in most cases in keeping with the size of the province….Though there were miners who were free men, the majority were slaves and convicts. But these two sources of labour were inadequate for the demand and working conditions and tools did not improve. Thus labour for the mines became increasingly scarce.” (Le Glay:2009:370-71)

Writer’s Voice: No aristocrat looked at improving the tools of the trade for their servants, even when their servants died in these terrible conditions.

“Commerce. Trade was the Empire’s second source of wealth. Ancient routes brought into use again, powerful infrastructures, general peace, and the existence of numerous products all favoured a great expansion in trade. Since the middle of the first century CE, Italian merchants had lost control of the Empire’s trade to easterners (Jews, Egyptians, Syrians), both within the Empire and beyond the frontiers.” (Le Glay:2009:371)

External trade. 4 directions

4. Countries of the Far East and Southern Arabia. This was the supreme example of large-scale trade, which allowed the acquisition of incense from Arabia, silk from China, and pepper from India, with additional merchandise (precious stones, skins). Three routes were used, ending at Antioch and Alexandria, craft centre, transit and export port, the only harbour complex that by its activity could supplant Ostia’s.

This external trade was hardly two-way. Rome paid in gold. For a long time this was described as a “haemorrhage” of gold, but it is now known that such views were built on the Roman tradition of discourse against luxury, and that the 100 million sesterces involved did not put the Empire’s economy in danger.” (Le Glay:2009:373)

A_Propaganda of the traders who had lost out to other traders. We will see the same with England, China tea and opium wars.

Devaluation- the Armies reciprocation upon the Protected

“Caracalla’s reign: February 26, 212, to April 8, 217 CE

The army. With a more easygoing recruitment policy, an increase in pay of perhaps 50 percent, and a raising of retirement gratuitues, soldiers benefited from the reign, to the extent that the state incurred an additional expense, according to Cassius Dio, of some 70 million denarii per annum, which Julia Domna deplored but which must be set against an inflationary background.

Fiscal measures and monetary reform. It seems that, in 194, Severus had carried out a devaluation of the denarius. Its silver content had been lowered in two stages to reach less than 50 percent. This devaluation of the basic currency had been a success. On the death of Severus the state’s coffers were in a healthy condition. However, the new military and administrative expenses, the subsidies to be paid to the barbarian princes for their allegiance, and the expenditure on the large-scale public works that were undertaken (e.g. the Aventine baths, road maintenance) required the adoption of further measures. Certain taxes were increased (those on inheritances and enfranchisement went up from 10 to 50 percent, but these affected only Roman citizens). Extraordinary levies, such as the coronation gold (a “voluntary” contribution theoretically paid at the time of an accession), became more frequent, and the practice of exacting taxes in kind or in labour was extended. These fiscal measures were accompanied by a dual monetary reform. First, the gold coinage was devalued, with the weight of the aureus going down by 17 percent and the aureus itself rated at 50 denarii (25 in the Augustan system). Second, a new coin was created, the Antonianus. This silver coin, heavier than the devalued traditional denarius, but also of low standard (c.50 percent), was worth 2 denarii in use (1.5 in real value) and was struck between 215 and 219. The later drop in its weight and standard (5 percent) explains its disappearance (though this was not permanent).” (Le Glay:2009:424-25)

Writer’s Voice: Now that all of the ranks of peoples can gain the ranks of others and all the land is owned and produces gain through growing luxuries and trading them, and we are still in a world of peace, then something has to give. Some sacrifice must be made. It is a sacrifice that some would call a democratic one, in that it equally effects the power of the people. This is true within the pyramid but not without it, so as the Romans trade with less relative wealth to those with better coinage outside of the pyramid these outsiders becomes the possessors of the wealth. So now comes the legal boundary of Rome increasing by necessity in order to accommodate and accumulate this new demography of rich powerful people in its geography of Empire:

“The Antonine Construction of 212. This enactment (known also as the Edict of Caracalla) extended the right of Roman citizenship to all communities within the Empire. According to Cassius Dio and the jurist Ulpian (our main sources for the edict), Caracalla gave “all foreigners on earth [i.e. in the Roman Empire] the right of Roman citizenship, at the same time safeguarding that of their own cities, except for the dediticii”. In other words, all the free inhabitants of the Roman world who had by this edict become Roman citizens were able to preserve their native rights and customs as long as they wished….This edict, a measure which marked the success of the Romanization policy, did not seek to impose Roman civil law, and did not need to.

The motives behind the Antonine Constitution have been widely argued, all the more so because the early authors had little to say about it. Several reasons underlay the edict. Cassius Dio assumed there was an economic and financial reason: foreigners-turned-citizens had to pay an inheritance tax, the one that had been increased. From an administrative and judicial point of view, an Empire in which the status of the inhabitants was more uniform would lighten the task of the offices and courts. Finally, the emperor’s stated interest in religious unity might well have provided another motive for this grant of universal citizenship.” (Le Glay:2009:425)

Economic. The defeats also brought in their wake an economic crisis. In antiquity it was traditional for invaders to loot. Booty was their main aim, and they destroyed what they could not carry off. Thus, when they had taken everything they could, the barbarians sacked the towns, destroyed the herds, and burned the crops. Increased insecurity about transportation cut the trade routes and the subsequent disorder generated the return of brigandage and piracy.

The development of coinage allows us to trace the development of misfortune- indeed, through the obstruction in trade that they caused, the invasions were a prime factor in inflation, added to which were the rash promises made to soldiers by usurpers, the expenses inherent in long, hard wars, and payments made to the barbarians. But the Empire’s monetary situation had long been unstable. Trading beyond the frontiers had been poor, and the wages paid to the army even in normal times were already devouring most of the state’s budget.

Gold disappeared, hoarded by the wealthy. The silver Antoninianus dwindled in weight and standard. Even the bronze coinage was affected. The usurper Tetricus issued small bronze coins in Gaul which barely covered the little fingernail….

A_Add to devaluation of coinage bit above. And below quote

Social. As might be expected, these economic difficulties resulted in a social crisis. The poor were further impoverished, directly by the invasions, but also by growing tax pressure…Municipal worthies, made responsible for the levying of taxes, at first slowed down and then completely halted their acts of public benefaction. The rich, though not all of them, also had to suffer the misfortunes of the times. Lastly, signs of a period of crisis, brigandage, piracy, and the plague reappeared.

“The first really major reform of the coinage took place under Diocletian in 294. A new system was set up, with new weights and new denominations. (The official maintenance of the bimetallic coinage should not hide the fact that, because of the greater commercial activity of the East, gold, which the East favoured, assumed an increasing role in trade).

The institution of this system provoked a serious financial crisis marked by a general rise in the cost of living. The state made efforts to react. In 300, it had an inquiry held throughout the Empire to establish the value of goods and labour. Then the edict on maximum prices (301), which we know from inscriptions, fixed a minimum for all prices and wages. The text of this edict, in Greek and Latin, was to be displayed in every province, and anyone contravening the regulations contained in it was liable to the death penalty. Whatever commentators may have written, this measure enjoyed some success: the rich were content because it contributed to stabilizing prices, the poor because it readjusted the lowest wages.

The development that followed confirmed the trend that had begun toward the primacy of gold in trade, which was achieved around 309 and then embodied in official practice by Constantine, who decided in 311 to create the gold solidus, a coin of 4.55g (1/72 pound) destined for a long future.

The monetary system of late antiquity stabilized. A sector of natural economy survived in the annona, and the monetary economy, which predominated, remained everywhere officially subject to the rule of the bimetallic system, even though it remained the case that most used precious metals were silver in the West (outside of trade) and gold in the East.

Other conditions accompanied the fourth-century economic recovery. Unsurprisingly, there were few technological innovations. The only advance that deserves mention here is the spread of the water mill.

This advance was perhaps connected with a decline in population in those regions. Early authors frequently bewailed the depopulation that caused shortages of labour. Unfortunately, in the absence of population statistics, it is difficult to know what weight to attach to this stock literary theme of decline.

We have a better knowledge of the system of “colleges” or corporations, a social structure that formed a setting for economic life. A legacy from the early Empire, it underwent two major modifications in the fourth century, due mainly to Constantine: constraint and compulsory inheritance. These decisions are explained by the importance of certain associations, especially that of the ship-owners, for the provisioning of the two capitals. However, numerous workers, even in the towns, eluded this structure; and even in the case of the trade corporations, it is essential to make a distinction between the political intentions, as revealed in the laws, and what really happened.” (Le Glay:2009:506-07)

Writer’s Voice: Put with devaluation of coinage bit. Legal minimum wage is instituted because the takers used this devaluation to increase indebtedness in a world of shortage by decreasing wages to a bear minimum, i.e. the amount that a person can live on in order to work the next day and not starve. A donkey in a quagmire called civilization or an electrified cage by law.

Inheritance of property rights and possessions became compulsory, i.e. ones role to the state was aligned to ones birth-right, as compulsory. You were born an object that you had to become. Today this is called an ‘education’ and is a compulsory inheritance of ‘right-thinking’ as a cultural technique for the power of production of the pyramid, as we shall see. Freedom to think comes after compulsory education in what frames to think in, and then act in- karmically- to produce war and peace- A state of paranoia.

Byzantium – Constantinople I mean

Part One:  Son of sea God Poseidon a greek King named Byzas went to see Delphic oracle, ‘You will build a great city opposite the blind’. Finally understood when he sailed and saw the Greek settlement opposite the land he founded Byzantium on, as a major strategic position.

Nickname: ‘The City of the World’s desire.’

First Millennia it was a fishing port famed for licentious and drunken inhabitants and easy going morals. Renting out bedchambers with wives still in them.

Rome takes control. In 196 AD Severus takes it and rebuilds it in Roman style.

330 AD 11 May at the New Hippodrome at not Byzantine but Constantinople. It was a dedication ceremony to a new god- Christ. statues of Deified emperors were paraded around the Hippodrome. Why did he switch from Rome, because ‘he was a pragmatic power broker’ and thriving heart of Rome was now in the East whilst its chief enemy Persia was also there. So straddling Europe and Asia was perfect place to rule both. But that wasn’t the only reason. Constantines dramatic conversion to Christianity gave him the chance to make a Christian city outside of Rome.

What were his motives? 4^th century the greatest Christian monument built by Constantine as a mausoleum and a church. Around the tomb were 12 niches for the apostles tombs and bang in the middle was a thirteenth tomb- his own sarcophagus. Remember Phillip II wait for king Arthur. There is a theory that he was trying to set himself up to be Christ himself, and his own son had him moved from this central position in order to stop the protests to this. Controversial but may be true.

Alexandria and Antioch had stronger claims to holiness as they were founded by Christs own disciples. 381 AD At this church of Holy Peace a fight broke out. Theodosius a general was elected empire and he wanted to set up ‘one faith or one empire’. Theodosius wishes to set an understanding of the nature of Christ as more god or man, so he calls a meeting of Bishops. The Council of Constantinople.

The city was enthralled by Arius- Arianism, claiming that Christ is a mere human. Constantine II even believed in this version of Christianity. At Constantinople he shits out his own intestines and dies in the street. Theodosious sacks the Aryan bishop of Constantinople and wipes out Arianism throughout the city. Now cleansed of this heresy he persuades the council to raise Constantinople up the hierarchy to second only to Rome itself. This is where Constantinoples status is raised to a level that can challenge Rome. The Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch are not happy, the bishop of Antioch drops dead in the middle of the conference from this news. Theodosius had now consolidated secular and religious power under one city. SO now it needs a sacred landmark- architecture- in order to show this status- Hagia Sophia

Built by Emperor Justinian and Theodora in early 6^th century, they had first built, nicknamed ‘little Hagia Sophia’ because of how it resembles Hagia Sophia it is known as the Church of St Sergius and St Bacchus. ‘Theodora the god crowned adorned with piety. Toils ceaselessly to nourish the destitute.’ Is an inscription around this church to show their piousness. But the truth is that Justinian and Theodora were not pious or holy at all.

Procopius – The Secret History, a 6th century writer shows their true nature.

A court historian of the Imperial couple who wrote of several books of their great deeds. But in the secret history (about 75% true) he says what he really thinks of them. ‘Nave, poltroon, greedy, vindictive and greedy’ is Justinian. “Theodora was born as a daughter of one of the hippodromes bear masters, as a teenager she became a burlesque show girl. She was notorious for her erotic enthusiasm, taking on entire dinner parties of guests, and, Procopius adds, taking on the servants.” Roman law bans senators from marrying actresses so Justinian changes it so that he could marry her.

In 532 bloody rebellion that almost led to their downfall only five years after they had claimed power. At Hippodrome, the Greens and the Blues archenemies of the games fight. Justinian punishes both teams who then unite and revolt. Justinian is besieged in his palace. About to flee Theodora stops him saying, ‘It is better to die in imperial purple than it was to live without it’. With Belasarius they storm the hippodrome and kill 50,000 people to retake the city. “Justinian, the shrewdest of leaders, converted the tragedy into his own triumph. Justinian regarded his victory over the rebels as evidence of his divine providence, and out of the ashes he started to raise the building, that more than any other has come to define the sacred and imperial prestige of the city.”- Hagia Sophia- 537 AD. ‘The church of the Holy Wisdom’. Procopius says, the dome appeared to be ‘suspended from heaven by the fabled golden chain’. For next 900 years this was the supreme orthodoxy and equivalent of Pope in Rome.  Justinian enjoys astonishing success. They recover the lost territories of the Roman empire, even taking Rome itself. Making a Byzantium empire he sees himself as Universal Emperor and Jesus’ regent on Earth. He built more than 40 churches in Constantinople.

In 548 Empress dies and Justinian reigns for another 20 years but he never recovers. The Persians invaded, slavs and huns marauded, his treasury was empty, the empire was over-stretched. He died 83 (38 year reign). ‘He caused nothing but noise and trouble, and should be judged in Hell.’ One commentator says of him.

Early 7th century a saint arrives in Constantinople. The mother of God herself. After justinians death, the empire almost fell apart. Generals seized power in bloody coups, and entire East fell to the Persians. But in 626 AD 29 July greatest threat came-  three armies, by land and sea- The Avars, Persia, and Slavs at the very gate of Constantinople. Surely doomed, Patriach Sergious leads people around the walls begging for the intercession of Virgin Mary. Eye witness accounts suggest that these prayers were answered as she leads their army to victory and a storm arises to defeat the enemy ships. All over the city shrines to this imperial victory are put up to Mary.

“The most monstrous was Justinian II. Notorious for his sadism, degeneracy, and extortion, as well as his rows with Rome. In 795 AD he was overthrown and his punishment typifies the merciless politics and elaborate cruelty that was coming to define Byzantine rule.” Backstage under the Hippodrome Justinian is led in chains his nose is cut off, his tongue amputated. Byzantine emperors were meant to be physically perfect, so the idea was, “that Justinian II should never be allowed to reign again”. But he kept coming back to haunt them. In 705 AD he returned to power, known as ‘Emperor slit nose’ wearing a golden mask  to hide his deformity and a interpreter to translate his tongueless gruntings. He reigned with terror and was overthrown and beheaded. From now on bad emperors would be blinded or beheaded.

“The disorder and destruction of the third century involved the setting up of a fresh order, and allowed the building, or rebuilding, of a different world. Using and systematizing the work of their predecessors, the emperors Diocletian and, later, Constantine reorganized the state, the economy, and society. A new equilibrium was achieved in the mid-fourth century under Constantius II. In the same period, a new empire and a material and spiritual civilization emerged under the influence of Christianity, the Byzantine civilization. Considered for a long time a decline from the “classical” Roman splendour of the western Empire, Byzantium is now recognized as an original and brilliant offshoot of Rome and is studied in its own right.” (Le Glay:2009:472)

Writer’s Voice: Byzantium the administration engine that nourishes the etiquette of the intellect that nourishes the theology of the priests and the state into internal strife and war, then demise, as the power of the word of God, the logos of lect (religious law) to be bound to, becomes the pen that authors the authority of the sword.

19: What has happened to the Imperial Cult since Augustus – A quick recap before Rome becomes Christian under Constantine

“Re-establishing the authority and prestige of the imperial office.

Establishing the present. As we saw above, Vespasian was acclaimed emperor by the legions under the prefect of Egypt on July 1, 69, at Alexandria. This “provincial” and rather informal accession elevated to the throne a competent general who did not even originate from the capital and was a plebeian to boot. As Suetonius says, “Vespasian lacked prestige and a kind of majesty, because of his unexpected and still recent elevation” (Vespasian 7). As we also saw above, a biographical tradition emerged (both contemporary to and later than his reign) which vested him with supernatural qualities, divine premonitions, and miraculous achievements that explained deterministically his accession. Tales about his healing of a blind man and a crippled man in Alexandria, his visit to the temple of Serapis, and an inspired discovery of a cache of ancient vases in Arcadia that displayed his portrait are examples of the mythology surrounding his career before and during 69.” (Le Glay:2009:298-99)

A_Surely only Jesus can do these things, not a Roman general. Et in Arcadia Ego.

“Preparing for the future. With great self-assurance, Vespasian “dared to tell the Senate that his sons would succeed him or he would have no successor at all” (Suetonius, Vespasian 25)….

The better to entrench this restored power, Vespasian made use of the imperial cult, which he developed and organized on the provincial level, at least in the West. Before Vespasian, the imperial cult had not gone beyond the municipal level in the provinces of Baetica, proconsular Africa, and southern Gaul. In each of these, he instituted a chief priest (flamen) at the head of the provincial concilium, whose duty was to celebrate the official cult of the emperor by sacrifices and games. Vespasian’s final quip about becoming a god implies both existential humour and genuine concern about the after-life of his cult. However, Vespasian and his sons also departed from Augustus’ policies. Whereas Augustus had suppressed the Egyptian cults, Vespasian linked them with the destiny of his family. This is an explicable choice, given the role of Egypt in Vespasian’s accession and even in Domitian’s divine protection by Isis during his escape from the Capitol. In fact, on the eve of their Jewish triumph, Vespasian and Titus spent the night in the temple of Isis on the Campus Martius (Josephus, Jewish War 7.123). This temple was represented on the reverse of coins in 71, and was rebuilt by Domitian after its destruction in the great fire of 80,” (Le Glay:2009:301)

Absolutism

According to Suetonius (Domitian 13), Domitian was the first emperor to establish the address to himself as “lord and god” (dominus et deus), beginning his public letters with the formula, “Our lord and god commands the following.” This double title was not official (like, for example, imperator) but it nevertheless codified the emperor’s wish to be no longer merely the first citizen but an absolute monarch, in the eastern style. His massive marble statue outside his temple in Ephesus was the centre of the imperial cult in Asia Minor. He also introduced various eastern rites at his court (the kissing of feet, for example). He avoided any display of familiarity with his subjects and invested his person with a sacred character. These tendencies are suggested by the extraordinary grandeur of the imperial palace… his constant wearing of the triumphal purple, the divine qualities attributed to him by his poets, the placing of his equestrian statue in the centre of the Forum, and the setting of his own statues in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. A century later, such imperial practices were common, but at the time they offended most senators.” (Le Glay:2009:309-10)

Ideology. The Panegyric of Trajan, a speech of thanks delivered by Pliny, and the Discourses on Royalty by Dio of Prusa (later known as Chrysostomos, “Golden Mouth”) set out, in fairly similar terms, the major features of the ideal ruler. This ideal emperor-king is chosen by divine providence and acts in harmony with the supreme god…This formulation of general (and also Stoic) standards may reflect a victory of the cultivated classes in the Empire, for whom the accomplished homo Romanus had become the inhabitant of the orbis Romanus. And in many aspects, the exercise of power by the soldier-king embodied by Trajan matches his model. His virtues in the exercise of political power and his successes in military command suggested to his contemporaries a victorious numen shining in him and forming the basis of his authority over the world.

Echoing Pliny and Dio, the “Jovian” theory of the government instituted by Trajan goes a step further. Inspired by the example of Domitian, but nevertheless setting aside all idea of deifying the living emperor, it claims that, with Trajan, the emperor became the agent on earth of Jupiter, vested with his power and charged with governing all peoples in his name, as the Empire enveloped the whole inhabited world.” (Le Glay:2009:328)

Writer’s Voice: The Son of God as a spirit of victory over the whole world as the basis of authority, of all people in his Eternal Name. Adam oh no Alexander, oh no Octavian, oh no Trajan, oh no Jesus the saviour who defeats the devil himself, and takes his domain for all eternity. What a reflection of the cultivated classes in an Empire, as they get on their horses and chop off our heads in this same Name oh no Names of Sons of God whose victorious numen has so many different ninurga’s, and so many different Names, with only one cause and only one effect. The Carmen perpetuum. The Tragedy play of different warring parties claiming their universal domus as a right to be bound to by the Word.

“In many places, local gods were Romanized (or partly so): in north Africa, for example, Shadrapa came to be identified with Bacchus, Melqart with Hercules. There is, however, good evidence also of a continuing attachment to indigenous beliefs. So Saturn, a fairly transparent disguise for the Punic god Baal, seems to have been enormously popular in north Africa, especially among soldiers and the rural poor…” (Le Glay:2009:364-66)

The role of the emperors

Controlling the priesthoods. Whether it was a matter of appointing someone to an individual priestly office, or of filling places in colleges or sodalities, the emperor, in fact if not in law, could appoint his own choice.” (Le Glay:2009:395)

The century of virtus and pietas

It was not by chance that, even before Trajan made his entry into Rome (summer 99), the Senate issued an as showing Victory with a shield, modelled on the reverse of the coins struck under Augustus. The shield of Augustus was a potent symbol of the victor armed with virtue. It featured both virtus and pietas, virtues which were considerably promoted by the Antonines.

• Virtus, the foremost of the Augustan virtues, manifested itself especially in combat. Under Trajan, it eclipsed fortuna and felicitas. Henceforward, it was no longer these two which ensured victory, but rather the personal virtus of the emperor. With Hadrian, the idea of virtus was altered. The purely military aspect became less prominent, and virtus was tellingly revealed in the hunt: official imagery glorified the emperor’s hunting exploits, likening them to bold displays of virtus on the field of battle….
• Pietas was invoked as early as Nerva’s time. Pliny had praised Trajan for his piety towards his family and the gods. But with Antoninus, pietas reached its zenith. Its imagery appeared in the first issues of coinage in his reign, and the emperor himself chose his cognomen of Pius, for he wanted to advertise and spread his innate virtue.
• Pietas became the ideal proposed by this ruler to his century and the fundamental principle of the regime.” (Le Glay:2009:396-97)

 A_Cognomen means surname- Adam. Familism and Daksha are the pious thing to worship, the two very institutions of the being-for-itself, that maintain the coherence of the State by their nature- lack and desire, hope and fear- paranoia- to be drawn apart- nemesis.

“The Jovian theology of the Principate. Early on, Augustus had discreetly associated himself with Jupiter. Trajan fostered a close association between himself, the first among the Romans, and the first among the gods. Pliny (Panegyric 23) relates that on the day of Trajan’s adventus into Rome, the emperor was hailed by the crowds as Imperator on the Capitoline hill. There too stood a statue to Jupiter Imperator and the largest temple in Rome, dedicated to Jupiter Optimus Maximus. From that time on Jupiter was ever-present in Trajanic imperial ideology. He is represented on the arch of Beneventum delegating his powers to the emperor. An eagle proffers a sceptre to Hadrian, Providentia lends her thunderbolt to Antoninus, and Jupiter himself helps Marcus Aurelius in his struggles against the barbarians. It is no surprise, therefore, to see numerous new temples dedicated to the Capitoline Triad in provincial towns between 150 and 170. Rather than representing a relative weakening of the imperial cult, this marked the complete assimilation of the deified emperors to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the most popular, and political, of all the gods.” (Le Glay:2009:397)

“A popular cult? For a long time, historians doubted the popularity of the imperial cult. It was thought that, because it was official, it could only be superficial. It now seems, on the contrary, that the “love of Augustus” was firmly entrenched in hearts and minds. The divine and quasi-divine attributes of the emperor’s deeds were venerated, sacrifices were made for the emperor’s health, and evidence shows that in both town and country, in both Italy and the provinces, this was more than mere affectation among the Empire’s inhabitants.” (Le Glay:2009:398)

A_Bad- faith, worshipping the man who took Rome for himself, from you under a Noble lie that maintained the Republic through this veil of divinity but in reality was artifice that brainwashed you into worshipping a false god. Remember, if wakan is real, then you have spent your entire life worshipping something else. Maybe the Devil is getting more powerful as the priests of Mithra would have us believe, and by which belief he does indeed get more powerful, using fear and hope, vanity and power, as his weapons. Lucky for us that he doesn’t represent a perspective of our egoic inner world Nature, but is a real Object in a real World of pure imagination, possibly a few real metres beneath us in the Objective World of Reality, where our taught experiences teach us to dwell.

Hadrian’s personality … divides historians. For some he was an inquisitive intellectual, rebelling against authority and tradition, practicing several forms of art though rather as a dabbler, an admirer of the beauties of nature, but as a man vain, cruel, and obstinate. In contrast with this extreme view, numerous other judgements range from an almost unconditional admiration to the adoption of an ancient author’s definition, according to which Hadrian was varius, multiplex, multiformis. …

Hadrian’s personality confounded even his contemporaries, who did not appreciate him greatly. … His admiration of Greece earned him the nickname Graeculus from the Romans. His spiritual concerns took several forms. Besides the usual interest in astrology and respect for traditional religion, he showed great enthusiasm for Greek cults (in particular that of Demeter at Eleusis, and Asclepius at Pergamum), as well as Egyptian cults. In fact Egyptian influences seem to have led him to institute a new cult, that of Antoninus. This was a young slave and lover of the emperor who was drowned in the Nile under mysterious circumstances (Cassius Dio says that despite Hadrian’s claims about Antinous’ accidental death, he himself killed the young man in some sort of sacrifice; 69.11). Afterwards, at the instigation of Hadrian, Antinous was worshiped as a god.” (Le Glay:2009:332-34)

The reasons for prosperity

The overall expansion of the East to the detriment of the West can be discerned in the second half of the Antonine century. But the reasons for it trace further back. Before we come to these, we must first note that those eastern lands were all countries with ancient civilizations and had never stopped being rich, so great was the capital that still lay in the memory, knowledge, and experience of men in every area (technical, commercial, social, political, economic, and spiritual). It was just that piracy and brigandage, conquest and pillage, civil war and destruction had all weakened and divided these regions, bringing some decline.

The first reason, or cause of this prosperity, was the restoration of confidence following the annexations and alterations of the first century CE….

The second cause of eastern expansion in the second century was the creation by Rome of a policy adapted to the East that encouraged the reinvigoration of its intensely urban life. The extent of the East’s urbanization was remarkable not only in terms of the number of towns and cities to be found there, and of their size (in the Augustan era, Alexandria had over 600,000 inhabitants and Antioch around 300,000, and many in Asia Minor over 50,000), but also in terms of the importance they had achieved, culturally and historically. The city and the town lay at the very heart of the history of the East, where for centuries they had fulfilled administrative, economic, and religious functions…Under Augustus, several eastern cities set about honouring the emperor with monumental buildings, in order to obtain from him advantages that would allow them to outstrip a rival. It then became clear that, confronted with these numerous, heavily populated towns, often haughtily proud of their past, yet also anxious to gain Roman favours and preserve their privileges, Rome could not conduct a policy comparable to the one it had used in the West.

There are too many missing parts for us to know all the aspects of the policy that Rome adopted in the East. It seems to have manifested itself in two complementary ways. First, Rome exercised tolerance of the institutions that had pre-existed Roman government, as long as they supported it. Second, it presented a model state- its own- which could be adjusted to suit different places and circumstances to achieve its full effect…Rome encouraged these villages to provide themselves with more-structured institutions, and granted the largest of them the privileged rank of metrokomia (mother-village). Again, it is revealing that the number of free and autonomous cities (e.g. Laodicea under Hadrian) was far higher in the East than in the West….

The final factor that gives us a better understanding of the East’s expansion in the second century is the attitude of the emperors. As we have seen, once the war with Antony was over, Augustus took care to repair the disastrous consequences of the Civil Wars and to restore friendly relations with Greece and the East. He was drawn along that path by the rapidity with which the eastern cities had greeted his victory and the eagerness with which they promoted the imperial cult (the first sanctuaries of Rome and Augustus were set up at Nicomedia and Pergamum). His attention to eastern provinces (aid for Corinth, for Paphos when it was devastated by an earthquake, for Athens, etc.) was met by evidence of loyalty and enthusiasm on their part (temples, towns that changed their name, etc.)… This change might have seemed no more than a simple form of adulation had it not been accompanied by an architectural reorganization of the town centre, henceforth dominated by buildings connected with the imperial cult. The East increasingly asserted its Roman nature.” (Le Glay:2009:360-62)

Romanization

Historians and archaeologists have long debated the nature and extent of the Romanization of the provinces of the Empire. But there is little agreement about how Romanization is to be recognized, or even about what it really means. The process is usually understood to describe the adoption or the imitation of Roman ways of thought, behaviour, construction, or manufacture. Inexact characterization may be unavoidable: few sources record provincial sentiment, especially outside the literate and mostly urban, native elites, who wanted to advertise their connection to the governing power, and for whom Roman material culture represented a means of maintaining or enhancing the prestige of their own positions….

In some ways, at least, Romanization can be readily identified in the material record, in deposits of Roman-made dinnerware beyond the Rhine, for example,… In many parts of the Empire, towns came to be equipped with Roman-style public buildings, including forums, baths, temples, theatres, and amphitheatres. …In many places, local gods were Romanized (or partly so): in north Africa, for example, Shadrapa came to be identified with Bacchus, Melqart with Hercules. There is, however, good evidence also of a continuing attachment to indigenous beliefs. So Saturn, a fairly transparent disguise for the Punic god Baal, seems to have been enormously popular in north Africa, especially among soldiers and the rural poor…The adoption of Latin, especially as a spoken language, or of Roman dress is probably even better evidence of the desire to assimilate Roman patterns of behaviour. It is a tendency that is exemplified by the wealthy Carthaginians who took to wearing togas or to fixing their hair in the styles favoured by the women of the imperial family. The Punic script seems to have disappeared from north African cities by about the end of the second century CE….

What was it, after all, about Roman culture that was inherently desirable? According to the historian Ramsay MacMullen, the answer is “hot baths, central heating, softer beds, and the pleasure of wine.” Nor can it be said that Roman habits were adopted because they were self-evidently superior to the indigeneous….

Put another way, it is difficult to identify those who were, in varying degrees, partially Romanized. It might even be supposed that there existed a second world beneath the one described in our sources, a world that was wholly un-Roman in nature.

All this is not to deny either that Romanization occurred, and on a large scale, or that it had a significant impact on the cultural life of the provinces, especially in the western half of the Empire. It is, rather, to argue against assuming that the mass of ordinary provincials were affected in ways that were either profound or lasting. In Gaul, Spain, and parts of north Africa, cultural patterns were transformed, but mainly, it seems, among the wealthy, urban elites. The rhythms of rural life went on probably much as they always had.” (Le Glay:2009:364-66)

A_So the Roman culture was neither profound or lasting, and when Commodus went off the rails it affected nothing. What is the point of a ruler, his culture, or his unaffected peoples- Hot baths! Mysticism lies underneath state religion.

The Imperial Cult and the Rise of the Equestrians

“A hereditary monarchy. Severus had presented himself as the avenger of Pertinax, as much through opportunity (one of the three legions in Upper Pannonia had been commanded by Pertinax) as from conviction (he had been one of Pertinax’s lieutenants). He delivered Pertinax’s panegyric on the day of his apotheosis, thus formally marking his relationship with the deified emperor. This was the first step he took to legitimize his coup d’etat and consecrate the founding of his power. He also established a connection with the Antonine dynasty, be means of a retroactive adoption. In 195, he declared himself the son of Marcus Aurelius and brother of Commodus. Henceforward, his portraits resemble those of his “ancestors”, and inscriptions trace his genealogy back as far as Nerva, making him the latter’s descendant to the fifth degree. It was then unthinkable that he should long remain the brother of a non-deified emperor, and, in 197, Commodus was duly deified. Securing thus the position of his family in the past, Severus also aimed to gain a place for it in the future. As we have seen, in 195 Caracalla was given the name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, and in the same year was designated Caesar. In 198, he became Augustus, while Geta was raised to the rank of Caesar; and in 209, Geta in his turn became Augustus. There were then three Augusti at the same time, even if, in practice, they were not equal in rank.

This dynastic policy extended to the entire imperial family, the domus divina. As Augusta, Julia Domna was associated with government. Like the emperor, she was called Pia and Felix, but also “mother of the Augusti”, “mother of the camps”, and “mother of the Senate”. With her two children, she accompanied Severus on all his expeditions, to the East as well as to Britain. The images and names of the imperial couple and their sons were on display everywhere, on coins, on monuments in Rome (the arch in the Roman Forum, the arch of the moneychangers in the Forum Boarium) and in the Empire (the four-facaded arch of Leptis Magna), and even on the flaminical crown. Severus and his family emphasized the hereditary aspect of imperial power as the heirs of the Antonines, to whom reference was constantly made, and ushers of a new age, whose birth was marked by the Secular Games of 204….

Severus’ desire to restore the prestige of the Roman state steered the imperial cult in a more absolutist direction, giving new impetus to an institution that was showing signs of decline (in particular, the seviri augustales). The cult of the living emperors thus became more closely linked with that of their dead predecessors. Gold coins of 194 show Jupiter proffering the globe of the world to the emperor; Severus was not regarded as a living god, but he was frequently likened to a god (Jupiter, Helios) in the attitudes and attributes of his figure in his portraits. Together with the rest of the imperial family, he already belonged to the same world as the gods. He had his statue placed in the Augusteum at Ostia beside those of the divine emperors (and his relations by “adoption”) Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, and Lucuis Verus; and by giving his son Caracalla the exact tria nomina of Marcus Aurelius he conferred on him a kind of pre-deification. The qualifications “sacred” and “divine” began to be applied to everything pertaining to the emperor, added to the existing title dominus. Numerous dedications, to various gods, were made “in honour of the divine imperial family” (in honorem domus divinae).

Moreover, astrology, of which Severus was an ardent follower, became more closely linked with the imperial person. In the imperial palace on the Palatine, Severus held audience under a ceiling on which his personal horoscope was painted, thus attributing a cosmic sacredness to his power….In the previous century, an emperor’s active promotion of his divinity  and cult had been considered a sign of a tyrannical or deranged mind (e.g. Caligula, Nero). Now this imperial agenda was accepted by all. The contrast between the Principate (from Augustus and the Julio-Claudians to the Antonines) and the “Dominate” is slightly artificial, but it nevertheless reveals well how attitudes had changed and conformed.” (Le Glay:2009:419-20)

A_Been entertained and contained in this form through Drama-awe. Socrates was right about telling a story to change a nations State in a generation.

“The exercise of power. Vitality, drive, activity- these words recur constantly in descriptions of the achievements of Severus, who, attuned to his era, brought about great changes in the way that imperial power was exercised. In doing so he promoted the military, dynastic, anti-senatorial, and absolutist aspects of the regime.” (Le Glay:2009:417)

“An absolute monarchy. Starting with Severus, the imperial regime’s inherent absolutism, hitherto concealed behind a screen of institutions and customs, was revealed with complete openness. For instance, the emperor’s speeches to the Senate became the official source of law. And the jurists surrounding the ruler put their knowledge to the service of his authority: “What pleased the emperor has the value of law.” “the emperor is above the law”, they said….The number of imperial offices and employees also grew, developing further the bureaucracy of the first century. Thus the administration of the emperor’s personal wealth (res private), swollen by the confiscation of his opponents’ possessions, expanded to the point where it became a department of its own, distinct from the possessions of the crown (the partimonium). Further examples were the development of the services connected with the annona, state intrusion into the organization of trade and craft companies, and the expansion of the phenomenon of peasant associations, all of which necessitated and promoted the growth of the central offices.

The birth of an accustomed style of court life further illustrates the absolutism of Severan power. Whether it was on the move or in one place, his court was characterized by an increasingly meticulous etiquette based on the eastern model: throne, crowns, robes, and attitudes were all codified. The emperor’s formal entry (adventus Augusti) into various cities, especially Rome, unfolded according to a ceremonial of unprecedented formality. This new protocol also marked Severus’ lavish funeral and apotheosis.” (Le Glay:2009:422)

A_meticulous meaning paying or showing scrupulous attention to detail, from the French, ‘metus’ meaning ‘fear’. Etiquette meaning the rules of behaviour in polite society, the rules governing personal conduct, court ceremonial or conventions of official life, from the French meaning, ticket or label.  i.e. being-for-others-for-itself. A willing subject. Etiquette coming from the root word, ‘stick’. Stick meaning ‘to stab, pierce, thrust in which changed by experience of this stick-world to mean to adhere, meaning to stick like glue. The stick world of the administrator where the pen is mightier than the sword is the stick world of black and white ink, or right and wrong, of a double edged sword of judgement that can be rewritten at any moment in a state of paranoia. It does not deal in blood as the stick does but in ink as the carrot does that nourishes these equestrian administrators who draw their pens out of their sheaves every morning. This requires a whole new dance. The dance of the reciprocator pigeon over the dance of the taker pigeon. Each step reveals the scrupulous attention to detail of the language used in the documents, transformed into the governing of personal conduct, to reflect the nature of this worlding of paper and ink from pure imagination now really stuck to like a fly on shit, like a loyal dog on heat, like an artificial Mohammed coming to an artificial mountain, like a ship to water.

Foreign policies

Externally, new threats loomed. In the East, the Sassanid Persians were driving out the Parthians. These nationalists wanted to re-establish the Persian Empire within its former boundaries. They relied on a holy book, the Avesta, to impose the religion of Zoroaster, which was exclusive and intolerant. At their head was a remarkable prince, Ardashir (Artaxerxes). In 211/212, he had seized power in Persia, and since then had striven to recreate the former Achaemenid Empire. In 227, he became the king of Persia. He organized a strong, centralized, even totalitarian state, in which Mazdaism, the religion taught in the Avesta, was the official and compulsory religion, and whose army included an impressive, heavily armoured cavalry, the cataphracts. In 230.231, the Persian invaded Mesopotamia and launched raids into the Syrias and Cappadocia. It was up to the emperor to intervene. He did so, but unwillingly and after attempts at negotiation….

Operations against the Alemanni began in 234. The emperor and his mother were in Mainz, where an army was assembled with numerous auxiliary corps (for the first time, cataphracts are mentioned among them.) A bridge of boats was built on the Rhine, and a few small local successes were achieved, but the emperor vacillated and deferred the launching of a large expedition. Under the leadership of a Thracian trainer, Maximinus, who apparently resented Mamaea’s influence with her son, the soldiers mutinied. Caught by surprise, Severus and his mother were killed in his tent by the mutineers (at some time between February 18 and March 9, 235.) Thus the reign of the Severi, both African and Syrian, came to an end.” (Le Glay:2009:430-31)

“Sectors of activity. Not all sectors were affected equally. There was some redistribution of wealth. Life changed. Towns surrounded themselves with defensive walls- covering, it is true, an area smaller than in preceding centuries, but the towns were nevertheless able to build them. Moreover, although it did not become marked until the following century, there was an exodus to the countryside, with the powerful installing themselves more permanently in their landed estates. Lastly, despite the persecutions or perhaps because of them, Christianity continued to make progress. In the later third century, Dionysius of Alexandria (who wrote apologetics and pastoral poetry) and the school of Antioch contributed to the deepening of the doctrine. Gnosticism, which first came into prominence in the second century and was now flourishing divided into many sects, may itself be interpreted as a sign of spiritual vigour. Gnosticism set out the perfect knowledge (gnosis in Greek) of a God who was pure spirit, and claimed that the quest for the good leads to the rejection of the material, the source of all evil.” (Le Glay:2009:466)

A_Alcibiades, Diodus (greek democrat guy check spelling).- Gnosticism pure spirit not pure imagination- revelation not authorship sponsored by an institution. Mysticism, fate of Dionysus and Mithridate under Rome is same as fate of Christianity under Rome- docility.

The Pagan Easternisation of Religion

“Elagabalus: 218-222 CE: the East in Rome

It is under the name “Elagabalus”, taken from the god of Emesa, that Bassianus is best known. A sculpted and inscribed relief discovered near Emesa (Homs, in Syria) explains it as meaning “mountain god.” At Emesa, religion had a very marked solar nature, so the “mountain god” was also a Sun god known as Sol Elagabalus.

The temple idol was a huge, conical black stone, said to have fallen from the skies, which coins represent with an eagle on the front of it or perched on its summit. God of the summits? Sun god? At all events, in Rome no one knew if he should be regarded as Jupiter or the Sun, and “Elagabalus” was often translated as “Heliogabalus”. Bassianus, as the high priest, would dance before this god to the sound of flutes and trumpets, dressed in a purple and gold Phoenician robe. His embrace of eastern customs and his rejection of Greek and Roman traditions (such as clothing), together with his luxurious ostentation and cruelty, greatly dismayed his subjects (Herodian, 5.5).” (Le Glay:2009:427)

The new emperor’s arrival in Rome

After a short stay in Antioch and a purge of Macrinus’ colleagues in the administration, the Syrian princesses and their offspring set off for Rome. The journey took a year, and assumed the air of a religious procession because of its route and because they brought the black stone with them, since the young emperor did not wish to be parted from his idol. In the summer of 219, Elagabalus made his solemn entry into Rome. He seemed to have only one preoccupation- to install his god.

A Syrian high priest

On the Palatine, near the imperial palace, the emperor had a temple built for his god, the Elagabalium, inaugurated at the latest in 221. Inside, he is said to have assembled the emblems of Rome’s traditional religion… For the first time, a kind of tolerant and inclusive monotheism (henotheism) emerged at the heart of the Empire.” (Le Glay:2009:428-29)

Numerous difficulties

The financial situation deteriorated, the Germani were aggressive once again, the hostility of the army and praetorians to the emperor was added to that of the Senate, and Julia Mamaea plotted in the interest of her son. Moreover, Elagabalus’ provocative behaviour, his excesses, eccentricities, marriages, courtesans, his passion for exotic animals, and his nepotism to his favourites (the prefect of the watch was a former coachman, the prefect of the annona a former hairdresser, and the prefect of the city a former dancer) all offended the Romans, fuelled malicious gossip, and isolated the emperor. A refusal to sacrifice at the Capitol, a plan (real or imagined) to exile the Senate, and attempts to oust his cousin and rival provoked an uprising of the praetorians, plotted, it seems, by Julia Mamaea. Elagabalus, his mother, and those loyal to them were massacred in March 222. Their decapitated bodies were thrown into the Tiber, and their memory damned. Alexander was proclaimed emperor.” (Le Glay:2009:429)

“Severus Alexander: 222-235 CE: the good pupil.

Rejecting the escapades of the preceding reign, the new government subscribed to the Severan tradition, as expressed in the adoption of the cognomen Severus, added to the emperor’s names, M.Aurelius Severus Alexander.” (Le Glay:2009:429)

“Religious reaction. All the statues and emblems that Elagabalus had assembled around the black stone of Emesa were returned to their proper temples: the Palladium went back to the temple of Vesta, Tanit-Dea Caelestis to her temple in Carthage, and even the black stone to its temple at Emesa. The gods of the capital had their rights re-established and Jupiter the Avenger was placed in the former Elagabalium. Severus Alexnander wanted to be seen as welcoming all gods. He is said, though it is doubtful, to have worshipped Alexander the Great, Apollonius of Tyana, Abraham Christ, and Orpheus in the palace shrines to the household gods. It is, however, certain that Julia Mamaea met leading Christian authors such as Origen and Julius Africanus, and that Hippolytus of Rome, a presbyter, dedicated a treatise on the Resurrection to her. Another of the century’s trends, syncretism, thus revealed itself in place of Elagabalus’ henotheism.” (Le Glay:2009:430)

Before Christian Thought was put into effect, there was the causal Thought that effected Christians by how it was put.

“Religious Life

The “easternization” of Roman religion has often been attributed to the Severi, which perhaps credits them with more power than they actually possessed or were willing to exercise in this field. However, it is true that, under the influence of the empresses, the traders, and the jurists of the Severian court, there was a noticeable expansion of the eastern religions in this period….

The trends in religious thinking revealed by these easternizing activities constitute an even clearer connection between imperial policies and eastern cults. Put simply, these trends can be seen as exemplified, respectively, in the two religious policies of Elagabalus and Severus Alexander. Elagabalus promoted the increasingly popular idea of a single god with manifold powers, of whom the other divine figures were merely expressions. The Sun god (Sol, Helios) was the great divinity who benefited from the vast syncretist movement of the third century. With Severus Alexander, another sort of syncretism emerged: it placed the gods on the same level, without favouring one or excluding another, because, as the third-century philosophers saw it, they were all reflections of the higher divinity that they were seeking to define. At the heart of these two trends, the position occupied by philosophers grew ever stronger as philosophies became increasingly imbued with the religious spirit.

Finally, the last aspect of the easternization of religious life was the expansion of Christianity. In 202, Septimius Severus banned Jewish and Christian conversions (Augustan History, Severus 17). This was the first formal legal act directly aimed at the Christians, whose legal situation had not changed since the time of Marcus Aurelius. Was there also a Severan edict of persecution? Despite a passage from the Augustan History, it would not appear so. There were martyrs at this time, in Alexandria and Carthage …, but they were the result of local pogroms (actions by mobs, overzealousness on the part of governors). No Christian author indicates the existence of a general decree authorizing such persecutions. Apart from the measure of 202, the Severi showed notable, and occasionally even benevolent, neutrality toward Christianity. Contemporary testimony reveals the growing number of Christians in every region and every class of society. They took part in economic, even political life, but they also wanted to live as Christians. This caused several problems, over such matters as the use of the baths, attendance at certain spectacles, and the education of their children. On the whole, however, apart from radical elements (like the sectarian movement of the Montanists and the Christian apologist Tertullian, a Romanized African who wrote in Latin) who preached withdrawal from society and urged people to reject every sort of occupation, Christians shared in the daily life of their compatriots.” (Le Glay:2009:432-33)

Writer’s Voice: The formula for dominance and tolerance, i.e monarchical empire building authorised by any god you want to name it doesn’t bother God, that the Persian Zarathustrans did not adopt, and lost their empire accordingly. Philosophy becomes religious, meaning philosophers becomes bound to this perspective from where they will then think, and hence educate those that think after them from this perspective, by which they will then think- a language trap, sired by the revelation of Zarathustra and the Individual Human Right of the Ego sired by the Iliad, and tamed by Greece into philosophy became one in a new story. Christianity.

“The final contribution of the East to the intellectual life of the Empire was the appearance of important Christian literature written in Greek. Such literature had existed since the late first century, but it really flourished at the end of the Antonine’s reign and under the Severi, with four authors: Irenaeus, originally from Asia, the second bishop of Lyons and founder of Catholic theology (who died, probably as a martyr, in the reign of Septimius Severus); Hipploytus, a Roman presbyter (c.170-235), who composed, in Greek, the earliest exegetical treatise to have come down to us; Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.215), who wrote under the Severi, a convert of staggering erudition who did not hesitate, as he said, “to make use of the finest elements of philosophy and culture” (Stromateis, 1.1.15) in order to elaborate what was the first great synthesis of Christianity and philosophy; and Origen, the author of a gigantic opus (perhaps 2,000 books, of which 800 titles have come down to us), exegetist, philosopher, philologist, Biblicist, ascetic, mystic, preacher, and teacher, in short one of the mightiest geniuses of early Christianity. Alongside these giants of Greek Christian literature stands the imposing figure of Tertullian (c.160-240), a writer in Latin. A radical Christian apologist, he was also a remarkable writer and theologian. With these writers, Christianity took on an intellectual dimension.” (Le Glay:2009:434)

Lastly, despite the persecutions or perhaps because of them, Christianity continued to make progress. In the later third century, Dionysius of Alexandria (who wrote apologetics and pastoral poetry) and the school of Antioch contributed to the deepening of the doctrine. Gnosticism, which first came into prominence in the second century and was now flourishing divided into many sects, may itself be interpreted as a sign of spiritual vigour. Gnosticism set out the perfect knowledge (gnosis in Greek) of a God who was pure spirit, and claimed that the quest for the goods leads to the rejection of the material, the source of all evil.” (Le Glay:2009:466)

A_Alcibiades, Diodus (greek democrat guy check spelling).- Gnosticism pure spirit not pure imagination- revelation not authorship sponsored by an institution. Mysticism, fate of Dionysus and Mithridate under Rome is same as fate of Christianity under Rome- docility.

The Reaction of the Imperial Government: 260-284 CE

Gallienus (259/260-268), who in 253 had become a partner in his father’s rule, indeed inherited a disastrous state of affairs, mainly in the military field and in all parts of the Empire. Pirates pillaged the coasts of the North Sea, the Franks had entered Gaul, and the Alemanni had reached northern Italy. There was also unrest in Africa (the Moors) and Egpyt (the Blemmyes). And in the East, after the death of Odaenathus in 267, his widow, Zenobia, assumed power on behalf of their young son, Vaballathus. Palmyra had seceded to defend itself better against Persia, and also to extend its trading ascendancy, but there was a pro-Roman faction, both among the desert Arabs and in the town itself.

But whatever our sources may say about him (“he administered the state similarly to boys who play at holding power”; Augustan History, The Two Gallieni 4), Gallienus was a resolute emperor. He personally took part in campaigns, and above all recognised the army….

Gallienus, the last great ruler to emerge from the aristocracy, considerably strengthened imperial absolutism by imparting to it a theocratic character. This was symbolized by the diadem, which later became an abstract and eternal figure.

This cultured man, who was strongly philhellenic, had been initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries. He lived surrounded by a court led by the empress Salonina, where the neo-Platonist philosopher Plotinus was conspicuous. His reign witnessed a blossoming of culture and the arts..

But there was also soon a fresh internal threat. Aureolus, commander to the troops in Milan, proclaimed himself emperor. Gallienus, besieging him there, was assassinated by his own officers in 268. His successors pursued his work of re-establishing order. These “Illyrian” emperors came mainly from the ranks of the army….

But Aurelian is also remembered as a man of solar theology. His desire was to rebuild the moral unity of the Empire around the Sun god, and in 274 he proposed to his contemporaries a quasi-monotheism, or henotheism, something still alien to collective attitudes, though the forms of the cult remained close to traditional pagan (rites, the institution of priests of the Sun). The Augustan History (Aurelian 44) suggests the ambiguity of biographical traditions on this emperor: “Many place Aurelian among neither the good nor the bad emperors because he lacked mercy, the prime dowry of an emperor.” (Le Glay:2009:467-69)

Writer’s Voice: The similarity of Christ to pagan rites and rituals, and his starring role as the Sun of God, the incarnation of pure energy in matter – the Sun.

The diversity of paganism

The same pantheon was to be found as under the early Empire, with the same rites, though with variations. If indigenous gods and traditional Roman gods (Jupiter) appear to be less venerated, that is perhaps because many of their worshippers lived in rural areas, where the use of inscriptions and sculptures was not as widespread as in urban centres.

The imperial cult persisted and developed, passing through three phases. At first it preserved all its political and religious strength, and was even reinforced under Diocletian. Next, under Constantine, it was maintained, but its content was less clearly defined, although its celebration could still include gladiatorial combats as well as sacrifices. …Lastly, in the official Christian era, imperial cult was emptied of all sacred content and transformed into a civic and social demonstration. Even before then, in the time of Diocletian, the ecclesiastical Council of Elvira which took place in Baetica (dated to 300/303 CE)  had permitted Christians to be pagan priests, allowing them to fulfil the civic, public part of their office, provided they abstained from performing sacrifices. And long after the Christianization of the Empire, flamines and sacerdotales are attested in Africa, up to the time of Vandal domination, although by then those titles meant nothing more than membership to the local social elite….    

The attack on paganism came mainly from a few emperors, and was thus an intensely political phenomenon. Although he did not completely adopt the Christian faith until fairly late, Constantine, in 331 CE, dealt paganism an unobtrusive but much harsher blow than has sometimes been thought. Inspired by piety and/or political expediency, the law of that year ordering an inventory of temple possessions resulted in confiscations that provided the funds for the building of Constantinople. It destroyed paganism’s economic power, a weakening that had considerable consequences.

His son Constantius II was bold enough to attack pagan practices themselves. By a law of 356, he ordered the banning of sacrifices and the closure of certain temples. That decision, however, seems to have applied only to the East…

The imperial measures against paganism do not appear to have met with all the success hoped for, since they had to be renewed. They recur in a group of measures taken by Gratian and chiefly by Theodosius, the great enemy of paganism. In 381, sacrifices involving bloodshed were forbidden once again. In 385, the ban was extended to the reading of entrails. This policy encouraged fanatical Syrian monks who in 386 set about destroying pagan sanctuaries, provoking a protest from Libanius (his discourse On Behalf of the Temples). The Syrians had their imitators in Egypt and Africa. Finally, in 391, the emperor banned the celebration of pagan cults in Rome and Alexandria, and in 392 throughout the Empire….

Similarly, in social terms, some groups showed greater attachment to the pagan past, and thus rejected Christianity. These groups included aristocrats from the highest nobility (Symmachus) and intellectuals (Iamblichus, Libanius), but also humble peasants (the word “pagan” originates with paganus, meaning “country dweller”)…It was the same with the soldiers, especially in the West- Constantine’s army at the “Milvian Bridge” and Julian’s in Gaul certainly did not worship Christ….

Consequently, this pagan resistance was fitful… Julian’s policy, which re-established paganism in 361 and persecuted Christians from 362, did not outlive him.” (Le Glay:2009:527-29)

A_All of the reciprocating priests of paganism now find themselves in bad-faith and powerless, persecuted with revenge by those they persecuted, for the same reasons.

The emperor

Inscriptions and coins bear the range of titles by which the emperor let it be known what he wanted from his sacred power. As under the early Empire, but with even fewer limitations, this was exercised in three principal areas.

1. The emperor intervened personally in civil matters, and he was the law through his edicts, which were applicable throughout the Empire, through his orders to governors, and through his responses to the petitions of private persons as well as to embassies from the towns…
2. As regards the army, which was his main supporter, he was its supreme commander, awarding honours and promotions, and determining the pay. His special charisma assured Rome of victory. Like Mithras, the pagan emperors bore the title invictus (“unconquered”), while from 324 CE Constantine, and from 337 his sons, had themselves called  victor, abandoning only the polytheistic reference.
3. Religion was another fundamental element in the collective attitudes of the times, because success in combat was considered a gift from the gods and the manifestation of celestial support. Also, for the pagans, the safeguarding of Rome and the good fortune of the Empire depended on the “peace of the gods.” The pagan emperors demanded that the sacred nature of their office be recognized, but imposed nothing concerning their person: in principle, people were at liberty to worship them or not, as they pleased. Obviously, the same did not apply to Christian rulers, who considered themselves only God’s “vicars”. This of course did not diminish their authority or even absolutism. The “peace of God” followed on quite easily from the pagan “peace of the gods”….

The strengthening of imperial absolutism was reflected in the elaboration of an etiquette that had already existed under the early Empire. The sovereign no longer had anything in common with ordinary mortals. He lived in a palace and not necessarily in Rome (notably in Milan, Aquileia, Nicomedia, and Antioch). When he made his (epiphanic) appearances, he wore the insignia of his office, a diadem and a cloak adorned with precious stones: and, before any audience, he was separated from the public by a curtain. Later, it was required that he be venerated (“the adoration of the purple” had been demanded since 291 CE) and addressed as “lord”, dominus (this appellation traced back to Domitian, who first institutionalized and intensified the cult of the imperial family, the gens Flavia)” (Le Glay:2009:487-88)

A_Venerable means to be reverenced, from the Latin uenera-ri- to reverence, from uenus to love, the Greek goddess Venus, the ego whose son was cupid the god of desire. Add in Roccocco quote here about the pain of love as a reality. The root word of venerable is venereal, meaning pertaining to Venus. A word that today through original sin, has come to mean according to Websters, ‘adj. (of disease) contracted by sexual intercourse. In other words the desires of the venerated experienced by Augustine in his life, as described in his ‘Confessions’ as a venerated man, became the logic of reason written into his theology, that became the Christian theology of original sin as sex. The world of the Roman worlding that he had witnessed and partaken of and nourished through alimental communion and education with it.

20: The End of Rome – Bad Faith

“Whether Skirmishes are Necessary before a Battle, and how, if one decides to do without them, the Presence of Fresh Enemy Troops is to be discovered.

It would appear that in human affairs as we have remarked in other discourses, there is, in addition to others, this difficulty that, when one wants to bring things to the pitch of perfection, one always finds that, bound up with what is good, there is some evil which is so easily brought about in doing good that it would seem to be impossible to have the one without the other.” (Crick:1979:505)

“There is no easy way to fix a date at which to close a history of Rome. One can but observe a complex process that differed according to the sectors of activity and the regions involved. However, at least the symbolic importance of certain events, and the emergence of a crisis starting in 364 CE, must be noted.” (Le Glay:2009:546)

A new Crisis: 364-395 CE

The period that then began was marked by a crisis similar to that of the third century. Its origins, too, lay in wars. But the fresh wave of invasions was, though there were exceptions, more a matter of slow and gradual infiltrations. The barbarians admired Rome, yet were unable or unwilling to assimilate with it. This situation brought about a division of the Empire; but while the West then foundered in disorder, the East rode out the storm and moulded a new civilization.

The single unifying element came from the dynasty policy that was followed at the time. From 364 until the beginning of the fifth century, the same blood ran through the veins of all the emperors except Theodosius.” (Le Glay:2009:550)

The period of Valentinian I

Valentinian I soon opted for a division: he kept the West, with Milan as its capital, and in 364 entrusted the East to his brother Valens, who installed himself in Constantinople. …

He made efforts to improve the situation of all strata of society. To win over the Senate, he instituted the defensor senatus (“defender of the senate”), who was responsible for the protection of senators in Constantinople from the abuses of tax collectors; but a split developed and this brought executions in its wake, which explains the criticisms levelled at him by the aristocratic Ammianus Marcellinus. He also tried to improve the lot of the curiales by transferring to the state part of their responsibilities in the areas of taxation and the official postal service. He took an equal interest in the plebeians, increasing free food distributions in Rome, and appointed a defensor plebis (“defender of the plebs”), a lawyer protecting the city’s poor from the exaction by powerful citizens. But he was unable to do anything against the owners of great landed estates or against corruption.” (Le Glay:2009:550)

A_The regulative dance and the constitutional reality. Divide and conquer requires conquerors to reciprocate with those that aid him in dividing- constitutively.

The end of Rome?

For historians seeking the end of Rome, the point at which to end a history of Rome, the question “at what moment did it happen?” gives rise to two prior questions. What happened? How did it happen?

Several answers have been given to the first question. Many writers have long talked about decadence. Even in antiquity this idea was a punishment sent by God…

The complexity even forces us to make distinctions and to give our attention to three sets of contrasts.

…The second contrasting pair, town and country, experienced opposing and no longer complementary fortunes. It is widely agreed that there was at least a comparative preservation of the towns, but the unequal distribution of taxes weighed more heavily on rural dwellers than on townspeople, and on the poor more than on the rich. This economic inequality certainly contributed to the “end” of the Roman world, at least in the western provinces.

Lastly, we must distinguish between two cultures, paganism and Christianity, which were certainly not totally alien to each other but had clashed bitterly. Pagan tradition survived in cultural circles, to be sure, but only by becoming the subject of study; it no longer created socio-cultural products, apart from academic works (Martianus Capella). In contrast, Christianity continued to progress, and this expansion was accompanied by new forms of art and thought. Moreover, according to Piganiol, this religion favoured the formation of an internationalist ideology that knew no boundaries.” (Le Glay:2009:554-55)

A_The fate of the Greeks to the Romans in cultural terms- a short term cohesion now reveals itself in religious terms- a long term cohesion.

“The emperor Zeno, in 488, gave Ostrogoth Theodoric the task of reconquering the West; after the assassination of Odoacer in 493, Theodoric made himself master of Rome and Italy, and henceforth the Roman West became in law the barbarian West.

Even the fifth century did not mark the end, for there was a legacy.

In the East, a new Roman Empire was built up, linked with Byzantine civilization, and this lasted until 1453. In the West, the idea of empire remained very strong. This is borne out by the creation of the German Holy Roman Empire and the diffusion of the title “Caesar” which lasted in Russia until 1917 (abdication of “Tsar” Nicholas II), until 1918 in Germany (abdication of “Kaiser” Wilhelm II), and as late as 1946 with the Tsars of Bulgaria.

In the early years of the twenty-first century, what we understand collectively as the “western world” is a largely Roman inheritance bequeathed to modern Europe through the Renaissance. The values, aesthetics, and traditions of the West are in turn spreading rapidly throughout the world through the globalization of technology and communications. Some of the most commonly spoken languages are based on Latin, which is also strongly present in English, today’s global lingua franca. Christianity, another offshoot of the Roman world, also defines the West, while the connections and conflicts between East and West are still timeless and timely cultural issues. Studying the Roman past is a most fruitful way to understand our present, and, in this sense, it is neither sentimentalism nor exaggeration to say that Rome still lives.” (Le Glay:2009:557)

A_America is Rome, the West is its colonies. The law is barbarian.

“The establishment of stable government by Augustus ushered in a period of prosperity for Italy that lasted for more than two centuries. Trade was now extended to all parts of the known world, even to Arabia, India, and China. Manufacturing increased somewhat, especially in the production of pottery, textiles, and articles of metal and glass. In spite of all this, the economic order was far from healthy. Prosperity was not evenly distributed but was confined primarily to the upper classes. Since the stigma attached to manual labour persisted as strongly as ever, production was bound to decline as the supply of slaves diminished. Perhaps worse was the fact that Italy had a decidedly unfavourable balance of trade. The meagre industrial development was by no means sufficient to provide enough articles of export to meet the demand for luxuries imported from the provinces and from the outside world. As a consequence, Italy was gradually drained of its supply of precious metals. By the third century the Western Roman economy began to collapse.” (Lerner et al:1993:186-7)

“Altogether, the Late Roman bureaucracy remained dangerously embedded in the aristocratic values of the ancient world. This new class had to compete with long-established ideas of status. The standard of living of its members always fell below that of the possessors of inherited wealth. Its inflated titles and notorious corruption merely reflect an uphill struggle to maintain its position. Its frontiers were never, for a moment, secure against the encroachments of the traditional upper classes of the Empire.” (Brown:1972:66)

“Jones characterizes the Later Roman Empire as an increasingly ‘top-heavy’ society. For, to the traditional accumulations of landed wealth and the traditional demands of an urban civilization, that had already reached sinister proportions under the Antonines, the Late Roman Emperors added a vastly increased army and bureaucracy, and patronized an established church that absorbed men and wealth like a sponge. The long-term effects of this imbalance were, briefly that land fell out of cultivation and the population slowly receded, because the combined weight of rents and taxes left the peasants unable to rear sufficient children to counterbalance the very high death-rate.” (Brown:1972:67)

“Similar conclusions may be reached for regions of the Eastern Empire in the fifth and sixth centuries. The villages of Syria, for instance, rose to unparalleled affluence in the Late Roman period because of a development of olive-plantations, made possible by the coexistence of great landed wealth and increased consumption by the cities, the bureaucracy, and the army. Archaeological surveys of Palestine, also, may yet reveal a Late Roman society whose thriving agriculture and high technical achievements were directly related to the progressive accumulation of wealth and manpower around the Holy Places.” (Brown:1972:70-1)

Justinian – the last of the Romans

480 AD born in Thracia modern day Serbia. Rome was ruled by Goths, there was no Emperor in the West. Vandals rule Africa. East survived. Justinian goes to Constantinople, as a relative of important man- Justin. They don’t speak in Latin but Greek and wear tunics not togas, they call themselves Romans but aren’t really. He rises through the army as member of military guard and courtier, becoming powerful in court networks between these two faces.

When Emperor dies it is unclear who will become Emperor. Justinian influences this decision and his uncle Justin takes control of city and hence Empire.

Justin was uncouth and boorish, and Constantine used to run the empire as the power behind the throne. Is adopted by Justin and becomes Justinian from Petrus. Family continuity of family of Justin.

A_ Put in bit about adoption and Japanese adoption today. Name becomes for Others, and means nothing in-itself.

At 40 he is elected consul, in late empire this is purely honorific, but it allows his to organise games and marks him out as heir apparent. Popularity therefore increases.

Hippodrome holds 250,000 people. Entertainment has changed away from beast fights and gladiatorial fights, the chief entertainment left is chariot racing. There are 40 teams, the blues, whites, greens and reds, who control the city as gangs. Justinian falls for daughter of one of these circus gangs leaders who keeps the bears and animals. Law is changed so that he can marry Theodora- aristocracy is appalled at this marrying of a ‘circus performer’ so propaganda is spread about that she is a whore to fucking, who even had wheat laid on her skin and then had geese pluck it off of her skin. Circus meaning circle more than tent of entertainment as it became.

527 AD Justin dies and Justinian becomes Emperor and his wife Empress. ‘You hide in you apartments in case men discover that you are mortal’ Sienesius (don’t know how to spell that name) He retreats into secret world of imperial court fearful of assassins, as all his predecessors were. It is a world of intrigue and paranoia.

Writer’s Voice: This leads to Mehmet Constantinople slaughter of fraternity, in a world of inequality and a lack of liberty.

Senators now powerless are forced to prostrate themselves in front of Justinians presence and his circus actor wife. This public humiliation fuelled resentment of nobility who attack Theodora bitterly with propaganda about her self-indulgence and her secret running of the Empire behind Justinians back.

Justinian codifies Roman law, through which Roman Law comes to western Europe. Justinian believed in ‘controlling society’ and Law is his art, with strict Christian morality. Gaming is banned, people who ban it have hands cut off and homosexuals have their genitals removed. Circus’ are then clamped down on but this is too far and mass rioting breaks out, with fires throughout the city started, they call for his death. He prepares to flee but Theodora holds her nerve, ‘Royalty is a good burial shroud’, she says. Either Empress or dead effectively.

Leading General Belasarius shows no mercy against rioters, slaughtering thousands to regain control of streets, 10 to 20,000. ‘No matter how popular, or how loud the crowd shouted, at the end of the day, his power still depended on the power of the sword’-Dr Chris Kelly- University of Cambridge.

Now fights Persians in search of glory- ‘overseas expansionism is last desperate hope of a failing empire’. He bought peace with massive amount of gold from Persia then turned to North Africa to regain it from Vandals. No-one thought it would succeed but it did within two years. Returning in Triumph (A hymn to Bacchus) with defeated vandal king in his procession of booty. This success leads Justinian to decide to take the rest of the western Empire back. First Rome and Italy from the Goths.

Goths are more Roman that the Romans in Constantinople by now

The Goths retreat, in 537 Belasarius takes Rome back. Hagia Sophia built to celebrate this achievement by Justinian. A symbol of a reunited Roman Empire.

Barbarians at the Gates- 540 Belasarius marches on Ravenna, but receives order to return to east as Persia is about to go to war against Constantinople. When he arrived with spoils there was no Triumph to mark his victory, because Justinian is fearful of a military coup, just as he came to power.

Belasarius is then used between east and west for many years but never with enough men to win decisively. Persia takes advantage of this ambivalence and takes Antioch and all of its wealth.

Bubonic Plague arrives, wiping out most of farming community and many in cities. 200,000 said to have perished, which means loss of revenue. Legislation changes to get heirs of dead must pay taxes. 40% of Mediterranean manpower is wiped out. Serious effect on tax laws, especially among the rich. Tax collectors universally hated, stirring up discontent, resenting their money being used to pay off tribes outside of their borders and not armies to destroy them. No matter how poor the harvest or virulent the plague tax had to be paid. If a neighbour died, then his neighbour had to pay his tax for him.

A_Property rights become stick of geography of individuals.

He basically played enemies off of each other and bought peace from others with gifts. Fortresses and defenses increase on borders, but enemies lay within through aristocracy in Rome. A peasant upstart who had made a whore his Empress. To the polis he was a tyrant draining them as a tax collector- hated.

He then proclaimed that entertainments should be closed down through moral attempt at adding some kind of negative cult as a way of cohering the polis. It wouldn’t work.

Theodora dies in 548 of cancer, he is grief-stricken, never recovered and made him more inaccessible in court.

They are perceived as demons by popular writers who have caused the death of millions.

Isolated in his palace he contemplates his actions. He had destroyed the Romans. The Hippodrome lay empty. He spent his last years working upon Christian doctrine. Byzantine east and king-rulers in West.

Lombards another Germanic tribe take Rome and it is never taken back. Classical unity to medieval diversity dominated by Mohammed and Charlemagne.

Persians are defeated by Islam, who also take North Africa. 1453 Rome survives as Byzantium.

Architecture of Empire, Religion, Law and bureaucracy are legacies of Rome. Controlling vast territories by a central government, ‘that has never been surpassed’. Tsars, Kaisers, Emperors are its names.

21: Bad-Faith of the Poor who had begun Christianities rise in Rome and been martyred for it – What will there fate be now that Jesus is being authored by aristocracy who collect the taxes and render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s

“The fourth century experienced an economic recovery accompanied by a reorganization of society, both developments marked by much greater state intervention.” (Le Glay:2009:521)

“For some decades now, historians studying the third and fourth centuries CE have for the most part been reaching the same conclusion: after the crisis of the third century, the limits of which can be put into perspective, we are in the presence not of a decline of civilization, but of a rebirth.” (Le Glay:2009:524)

Boom and decline

In the fields of religion, intellectual life, and the arts, the situation was not as has been described for the economy. Pagans, Jews, and Christians were in opposition to one another, but were also mutually enriched. Without doubt, however, it was paganism and, to a lesser degree, Judaism which were the eventual losers, although their decline was by no means total.” (Le Glay:2009:543-44)

“Education went through four levels: a young man passed through the hands of a litterator, or primary school teacher; a grammaticus, or secondary school teacher; a rhetor, or teacher of rhetoric; and lastly a specialist teacher (law, philosophy, etc.) Students, like those of Libanius, generally belonged to the privileged social groups. Schools multiplied. For rhetoric, there was a choice between numerous centres, both in the West (Rome, Autun, Bordeaux, Milan, Carthage) and in the East (Athens, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria). For law, one still had to go to Rome or Beirut. The state created chairs and granted exemptions.” (Le Glay:2009:525-26)

Writer’s Voice: education is necessary for a bureaucracy to work efficiently, in order for the pen, which is infinite and ubiquitous and self-governing, to beat the sword of the soldier which requires a stick-wielder, an oral tradition of power, and is limited in range. Fear, hope and paranoia now become a part of the inner world, by the possession of knowledge that the State has authored and educated you to now author in order to be authorised to act or not to act out of self-interest- the cage of the ego as Subject.

The lower strata

Slavery persisted, but its role in production had dwindled still further. It provided some farm workers, craftsmen, and tradesmen, as well as domestic servants and prostitutes. The church, which had never condemned the institution of slavery, had eventually resigned itself to its existence, confining itself to recommending masters to practice Christian charity. But harsh treatment increased, as legislation indicates. Heavy lead collars have been found for fugitive slaves who had been recaptured, bearing the inscription: “I am a fugitive slave; return me to my master.”

The periods of crisis drove many men into itinerant groups that made their living without regular employment. Among them one could encounter charlatans, army deserters, landless peasants, magicians, astrologers, vagabonds, and brigands….

Africa witnessed the development of the much-discussed Circumcellio movement. The “Circumcellions” were agricultural day labourers without permanent employment, especially in the slack seasons.” (Le Glay:2009:516-17)

A_Slaves becomes itinerant workers, hunter-gatherer objects of the State, who are hated as abject people with no rights. Mexicans today in America. Harsh treatment of whom increases as walls go up in an ever decreasing world of American power, despite an increase in the regulative dance of the middle class bureaucracy, that occasionally produces the fruit of an attorney from this class who rises up to become a close to the government as district attorney, etc, whereby he can create legislation that will be ignored and prestige for himself. Slavery is more expensive than employment as we shall see later- Adam Smith

Causes for Rome’s decline

“Explanations for Rome’s fall run the gamut- plagues, lead poisoning, mad emperors, corruption, barbarians, Christianity- and Joseph Tainter, in his book on social collapses, has added Parkinson’s Law. Complex systems, he argues, inevitably succumb to diminishing returns. Even if other things remain equal, the costs of running and defending an empire eventually grow so burdensome that it becomes more efficient to throw off the whole imperial superstructure and revert to local forms of organization. By the time of Constantine, the imperial standing army was more than half a million men, an enormous drain on a treasury whose revenue depended mainly on agriculture, especially as many great landowners had been granted tax exemptions.

The government’s solution was to debase the currency used for payrolls; eventually the denarius contained so little silver that it became, in effect, paper money. Inflation of Weimar proportions ensued. A measure of Egyptian wheat that had sold for half a denarius in the empire’s heyday cost 10,000 denarii by A.D. 338. At the beginning of the fourth century, it took 4,000 silver coins to buy one gold solidus; by the end of the century, it took 180 million. Citizens worn down by inflation and unfair taxation began defecting to the Goths.” (Wright:2006:92-3)

As Rome was not built in a day, so it was not lost in one…the Roman Empire endured in the West for two hundred years more and in the East for a millennium. But the restored Roman state differed greatly from the old one- so much so that it is proper to end the story of characteristically Roman civilization here and review the reasons for Rome’s decline….

It is best then to concentrate on Rome’s most serious internal problems. Some of these were political. The most obvious political failing of the Roman constitution under the Principate was the lack of a clear law of succession. Especially when a ruler died suddenly, there was no certainty about who was to follow him. In modern America the deaths of a Lincoln or Kennedy might shock the nation, but people at least knew what would happen next; in imperial Rome no one knew and civil war was generally the result. From 235 to 284 such warfare fed upon itself. Civil war was also nurtured by the lack of constitutional means for reform. If regimes became unpopular, as most did after 180, the only means to alter them was to overthrow them. But the resort to violence always bred more violence. In addition to those problems, imperial Rome’s greatest political weakness may ultimately have been that it did not involve enough people in the work of government. The vast majority of the Empire’s inhabitants were subjects who did not participate in the government in any way. Hence they looked on the Empire at best with indifference and often with hostility, especially when tax collectors appeared. Loyalty to Rome was needed to keep the Empire going, but when the tests came such loyalty was lacking.

Even without political problems the Roman Empire would probably have been fated to extinction for economic reasons. Rome’s worst economic problems derived from its slave system and from manpower shortages. Roman civilization was based on cities, and Roman cities existed largely by virtue of an agricultural surplus produced by slaves. Slaves were worked so hard that they did not normally reproduce to fill their own ranks. Until the time of Trajan Roman victories in war and fresh conquests provided fresh supplies of slaves to keep the system going, but thereafter the economy began to run out of human fuel. Landlords could no longer be so profligate of human life, barracks slavery came to an end, and the countryside produced less of a surplus to feed the towns. The fact that no technological advance took up the slack may also be attributed to slavery. Later in Western history agricultural surpluses were produced by technological revolutions, but Roman landlords were indifferent to technology because interest in it was thought to be demeaning. As long as slaves were present to do the work there was no interest in labor-saving devices, and attention to any sort of machinery was deemed a sign of slavishness. Landlords proved their nobility by their interest in “higher things”, but while they were contemplating these heights their agricultural surpluses gradually became depleted.

Manpower shortages greatly aggravated Rome’s economic problems. With the end of foreign conquests and the decline of slavery there was a pressing need for people to stay on the farm, but because of constant barbarian pressures there was also a steady need for men to serve in the army. The plagues of the second and third centuries sharply reduced the population just at the worst time. It has been estimated that between the reign of Marcus Aurelius and the restoration of strong rule in 284 the population of the Roman Empire was reduced by one-third. …

Enormous dedication and exertion on the part of large numbers might just possibly have saved Rome, but few were willing to work hard for the public good. For this, cultural explanations may be posited. Most simply stated, the Roman Empire of the third century could not draw upon commonly shared civic ideals. By then the old republican and senatorial traditions had been rendered manifestly obsolete. Worse, provincials could hardly be expected to fight or work hard for Roman ideals of any sort, especially when the Roman state no longer stood for benevolent peace but only brought recurrent war and oppressive taxation. Regional differences, the lack of public education, and social stratification were further barriers to the development of any unifying public spirit. As the Empire foundered new ideals indeed emerged, but these were religious, otherworldly ones. Ultimately, then, the decline of Rome was accompanied by disinterest, and the Roman world slowly came to an end not so much with a bang as with a whimper.” (Lerner et al: 1993:190-3)

“To an economist the fall of Rome is straightforward. It can be explained by Mr Micawber: ‘Annual income £20, annual expenditure £19, 19s, 6d, result happiness. Annual income £20, annual expenditure £20, 0s, 6d, result misery.’ Rome was a plunder empire. It started that way in 753 BC, raping the Sabines’ women and stealing their cattle, and, as it expanded, so it continued to finance itself by feeding off its victims. The Romans butchered their way across the Mediterranean. Theirs was, admittedly, intelligent butchery- Rome was clever at recruiting victims to its cause- but Rome’s achievement was essentially military and political.

But when, at its maximum expansion, the empire ran out of lucrative victims, its expenditure exceeded its income, and the result was misery. Because the Romans were not technically inventive (they invented little other than the grotesqueries of the Colosseum), they had few alternative sources of income. The Roman Empire, particularly in the West, basically went bankrupt.” (Kealey:2008:93)

Environmentally Rome caused the death of Ephesus by felling trees for farmland, this caused silt build up, swamps, mosquitoes and malaria, and the migration of malaria throughout the empire by the silting of the river, and the desertion of Ephesus, made valueless by greed. Oldest advert in world in Ephesus is a whore house, with a secret Ring of Gyges tunnel under the library to the whore house.- See Ian Stewart

That the Faults of Peoples are due to Princes

Princes ought not to complain of any fault committed by the peoples whom they govern, because such faults are due either to their negligence or to their being themselves sullied by similar defects. Those who talk about the peoples of our day being given up to robbery and similar vices, will find that they are all due to the fact that those who ruled them behaved in like manner. The Romagna, before Pope Alexander VI got rid of the lords who ruled it, exemplified the very worst types of behaviour, for it was apparent to every one that every least occasion was followed by killings and wholesale rapine. It was the wickedness of the princes that gave rise to this, not the wicked nature of man, as people said. For the princes who were poor, yet desired to live like rich men, of necessity had frequent recourse to robberies of one kind or another. One of the dishonourable means they adopted, was to make laws forbidding this action or that. They were then the first to provide occasion for the non-observance of these laws, but never punished the delinquents until they saw that a considerable number were involved in the same predicament.  They then had recourse to punishment, not out of zeal for the laws they had made, but out of cupidity, that they might collect the fines imposed.

This gave rise to numerous inconveniences, of which the worst was that it impoverished the people without amending them, and that those who were impoverished sought to get the better of their weaker brethren. It was in this way that there arose all the evils mentioned above, and it was the prince who was responsible for them. That this is so Titus Livy shows in the account he gives of the Roman legates who took the gifts of booty from Veii to the temple of Apollo. They were captured by corsairs of Lipari in Sicily, whither they were taken. When Timasitheus, their leader, heard what the gifts were for, whither they were going and who had sent them, though a native of Lipari, he behaved as if he was a Roman, pointing out to the populace that it was impious to seize such gifts; with the result that, with everybody’s consent, he let the legates go with all they had with them. The comment made by the historian is this: ‘Timasitheus instilled religion into the masses, who always resemble their ruler.’ This is confirmed by a remark of Lorenzo de’ Medici, who says:

 ‘What the prince does the many also soon do,

For to their eyes the Prince is ever in view.’ “(Crick:1979:483-4)

A_George Clooney selling the riches of Bill Gates through his fame does not have a chance of getting Bob Geldof out of his nunnery or Inequality, starvation and scape-goats from being created by the desire he creates- hypocrisy.

“Why war can be seen as policing (Tacitus AD 54-120)

‘Men make a wilderness and call it peace’. (Agricola, 30)

“Just as it is the responsibility of the influential citizen, even in a tyranny, to exercise independent moral judgement, so Tacitus is arguing it is the responsibility of all informed observers to pay war the same respect we pay politics: what exactly are we fighting for, or think we are fighting for. In another work he gets the defeated British leader, Caractacus, to say, ‘if you want to rule the world, does it follow that everyone else welcomes enslavement?’ (Annals, xii.36)” (Coker:2010:117)

“Tacitus is really addressing his own countrymen’s vices. As always his warning is addressed to his readers- all of them Romans, not barbarians. He is also employing a typical rhetorical device: inversion. In revealing their own feritas (ferocity) and a complementary lack of humanitas (humanity) he is claiming that the Romans have become warlike by nature. He is making a point. His history after all, shows Romans preying on each other; barbarism, we learn, begins at home.

The concerns of ancient historians are not ours, of course. We prefer to focus on the things they don’t mention such as the poor and slavery, and the things we know really mattered like the economy about which they are largely silent. It may also be asked what has the Roman Empire to do with us- everything has gone, everyone is dead and has been for centuries. But historians know, of course, that this apparent emptiness is an illusion and that the past is still present, if not always visible. And in the case of Tacitus’ reflection we have reason to reflect that if war is a means to peace it is also a form of peace- peace as pacification. It is a product of the state of war, not warfare. And it is still apposite- we continue to pacify the frontiers of the world, the wild zones, the zones grises, the no-go areas or Kalashnikov zones of the developing world (and urban ghettoes of our own).

The main reason why pacification is a theme of his books, Tacitus himself tells us, is that his choice of period gave him no great conquests or triumphs to record- the period was one of consolidation, peacekeeping, and policing. At the beginning of The Histories (1.2), he writes: ‘the work I begin is splendid in disasters, ferocious in battles, anarchic with plots and savage with peace itself’. ‘Savage wars of peace’ was what Kipling, the great songsmith of the British empire, called their own wars of pacification. As Tacitus recognized, his contemporaries might talk of the Roman Peace but the empire was at peace neither with the barbarians nor with itself. Periodically it was convulsed by civil war; it was also permanently at war with the outside world. Violence was always just beneath the surface. The Romans, it should be said, could probably have subdued the German tribes had they really wanted to, but potential taxes from a conquered German province would have paid neither for the costs of the conquest nor for its subsequent garrisoning. Pacification was the cheaper option, not to bring the tribes within the Roman Peace but to keep them in a permanent state of warfare. So when we look at Tacitus’ statement we should see it as an aspect of the nature of war; peace as pacification.” (Coker:2010:118-9)

A_Today the five UN members with the power of the veto, turning other states into tribunes with no power through this technique sired by World War II, sell arms to these states in order to pay for their arms production and arms race, which they then sell to these same States. They then send over fifth columnists who maintain a permanent state of warfare, to the benefit of themselves, especially by training soldiers of the buffer state who may wish to provoke a state of warfare, in the ancient art of the rape of the Sabine women.

“Marcus Aurelius spent over half his life on the frontier. ‘Don’t hope for Plato’s Utopia, but be content to make a very small step forward and reflect that the result even of this is no trifle’ (Meditations, ix, 29). There is a passage in the Meditations in which he tells us without a trace of irony that like the spider which exults when it has caught a fly, and the huntsman who celebrates his success in killing a wild boar, so a general may exult if he has conquered the Sarmatians (as Marcus himself had just done- he took the title ‘Samarticus’ in AD 175 to celebrate his triumph). But he derived no personal pleasure from the victory, or so he tells us. ‘Are  not all robbers alike if you examine their sentiments? The sentiment could have been put in the mouth of one of Tacitus’ barbarian chieftains, if it were not for the stoicism that underlies it. Marcus had no sense of accomplishing anything other than shoring up an empire that was now permanently on the defensive. Empires, writes Robert Kaplan (thinking of his country’s own), are works in progress with necessity rather than glory the instigator of each outward push (Kaplan, 2005, p.6). This was not true of empire builders like Pompey and Caesar, but it was certainly true of the Roman empire by the time of Marcus Aurelius after the ‘push’ had stopped. Rome’s consolidated peace was real but fragile; keeping it together was a constant work in progress; the later empire was in the business of deterrence and credibility, not glory.” (Coker:2010:120)

Writer’s Voice: Use to show the need for the new organisational hierarchies of the equestrian that became those of the aleai soldiers, and then the powerlessness of the senate, etc, as shown above.

“The Stoic philosopher Seneca saw the empire as a moral concept for that reason- the frontier was a moral barrier between people who were born to bring peace to the world and the barbarians who were warlike by nature. The Pax Romana, in other words, was a moral idea. It offered the vision of a world free from war, but a world that had to be constantly pacified. As Greg Woolf writes, we should see the peace not as the absence of violence but providing a carefully balanced economy of violence, i.e. violence channelled to a just or moral end (Woolf, 1993, p.191). In the high Middle Ages the poet Dante took justice to be the key to the distinction between warfare and war: any war undertaken for the common good must be just. The very idea of justice requires a concept of law. Just wars are fought to restore the law of nations, to correct a rupture in the cosmological order, to restore the status quo. Such thinking is entirely alien to warfare, where lawlessness obtains as a condition of existence. In the state of nature injustice is the rule, either because order has broken down or because it has not yet been forged. In Dante’s eyes the conquest of the world by Rome was unquestionably just- it had brought law to the barbarous fringes of the known world by incorporating them in the Pax Romana. If one takes such a view, adds Alberto Manguel, then how can one complain about ‘collateral damage’: creating a desert and calling it peace. Let justice be done though the heavens fall, is the motto.

Can the same be said of the United States today? When it first embarked on the War on Terror it too saw military power as a morally transformative agent. In 2003 it thought it had a mission to pacify the Greater Middle East so that it would no longer provide a breeding ground for terrorists. ‘We have a choice’, Rumsfield reminded the American people a few days after 9/11. ‘Either they change the way we live, which is unacceptable, or we change the way they live, and we choose the latter’ (International Herald Tribune, 22 October 2008). Here was a grand mission for a new century. Out went the duty of containment and deterrence that had been imposed on Americans during the Cold War. In came a new style: shock and awe and preventative pacification. ‘We must extend our peace by advancing our technology’, declared President Bush, which meant spending money on mobility and swiftness of response, and advances in the three-dimensional imaging of battles. ‘The best way to keep the peace is to redefine war on our terms’.

After the disappointments in Iraq the Americans no longer saw the use of force in terms of a civilizing mission; they saw it in terms of risk management. Clausewitz called war a moral contest (i.e. a clash of wills) conducted by physical means (or force) (Clausewitz, 1976, p.127). But pacification can be potentially endless: a country may have constantly to reimpose its will on another. Yet to remain a moral contest, force must be measured. The Romans were masters at imposing their will, especially within the Empire. Tacitus saw it (or encouraged his readers to see it) from the other point of view- just once. He encouraged them to ask ‘what is the message being sent?’ For an empire then at the height of its power, miscalculations did not really matter. Imperial powers recover even from serious setbacks and defeats. But over time an unmeasured use of force will fail, as power weakens, as it did eventually in the case of Rome. In fact, at some point one begins to see life from the other side of the hill, and it is at that point that we may even lose our self-belief. Tacitus, at least, had the consolations of Stoicism. Life was grim. We are not so stoical and we do not have the same self-belief (though the Americans can still claim more than most).

The true impact of Tacitus’ warning could be seen in Iraq when on two separate occasions (April/November 2004) the US Marines tried to pacify the city of Fallujah. The first battle was joined in April after the mutilation of four American contractors evoked a great deal of anger in the US military. The army commanders resolved on the total destruction of the enemy in an act of revenge, or intended intimidation. The result was the destruction of an entire city. About two-fifths of the buildings did not survive the fighting. At times, the house-to-house fighting conjured up the battle of Stalingrad- one Marine company took sixteen hours to capture a single mosque. The Americans soon found that hearts and minds, cannot be won, even in the Middle East, by using Abrams tanks, armoured personnel carriers, fighter bombers and C-130 gunships within the confines of a modern city. A city cannot be reclaimed for the forces of good by flattening it. By the time the second battle took place in November, most of the civilians had already fled- Fallujah was already a desert before fighting began.” (Coker:2010:122)

“’The Bructeri (it is Tacitus who now speaks) were totally  exterminated by the neighbouring tribes, provoked by their insolence, allured by the hopes of spoil, and perhaps inspired by the tutelary deities of the empire. Above sixty thousand barbarians were destroyed, not by the Roman arms, but in our sight, and for our entertainment. May the nations, enemies of Rome, ever preserve this enmity to each other! We have now attained the utmost verge of prosperity, and have nothing left to demand of fortune except the discord of the barbarians.’ These sentiments, less worthy of the humanity than of the patriotism of Tacitus, express the invariable maxims of the policy of his countrymen. They deemed it a much safer expedient to divide than to combat the barbarians, from whose defeat they could derive neither honour nor advantage. The money and negotiations of Rome insinuated themselves into the heart of Germany, and every art of seduction was used with dignity to conciliate those nations whom their proximity to the Rhine or Danube might render the most useful friends as well as the most troublesome enemies. Chiefs of renown and power were flattered by the most trifling presents, which they received either as marks of distinction or as the instruments of luxury. In civil dissensions, the weaker faction endeavoured to strengthen its interest by entering into secret connections with the governors of the frontier provinces. Every quarrel among the Germans was fomented by the intrigues of Rome; and every plan of union and public good was defeated by the stronger bias of private jealousy and interest.” (Gibbon:1998:196)

“Peoples such as these quit their own lands when constrained to do so by necessity, as had been said above; and the necessity is due either to famine or to a war or to hardships undergone in their own country; for in such a case they are constrained to go in search of new lands. And such peoples when they are very numerous and then make a violent incursion into the lands of others, kill the inhabitants, seize their goods, and establish a new kingdom under a new name. This was done by Moses and by the peoples who overran the Roman empire. For the new names now used in Italy and other provinces are due simply to their having been so called by their new conquerors. Thus, Lombardy used to be called Cisalpine Gaul; France used to be called Trans-Alpine Gaul, but got its present name from the Franks, who gave it this name when they occupied it. Slavonia used to be called Illyria; Hungary, Pannonia; England, Britannia; and so of many other provinces with changed names which it would be tedious to recount. So, too, Moses gave the name Judea to that part of Syria which he occupied.” (Crick:1979:296)

Runaround

Writer’s Voice: This is the bad-faith of civilization itself. Who benefits?- Me, is a hubris whose nemesis is waiting around the corner, as we have seen time and time again already in this last few thousand years.

“Confined to the western end of Anatolia, the senatorial province of Asia corresponded to the ancient kingdom of Pergamum. It was one of the richest regions of the Empire, and its level of urbanization reflected its wealth. Besides the capital, Ephesus, where the proconsul resided, other important cities included Pergamum, which produced pergamena (parchment), Miletus, Smyrna, Aphrodisias of Caria, Halicarnassus, and Clazomenae. Agriculture flourished in the coastal plains, the valley of the Menderes, and the islands, particularly on Chios, “the isle of wines”. The textile industry was supplied with its main raw material by sheep-breeding, and the marble mines were still exploited.” (Le Glay:2009:450)

Writer’s Voice: Desertification of Ephesus- see Ian Stewart series.

“Around the times the Romans arrived in Ephesus, the planet was undergoing climate change. The Mediterranean area was becoming warmer and wetter. Ephesus had fertile river valleys which were ideal for farming. And coupled with its easy access to the sea, Ephesus soon became a bread basket for Rome. But as the Roman Empire grew, so did its appetite. More farmland was needed. Ceasing their chance to improve on what Nature had given them, the Romans cleared massive areas of forest to make way for new crops. This was a huge mistake that was going to cut of Ephesus from the sea forever.” Dr Iain Stewart.

“By cutting down trees the Romans had meddled with Nature. The trees had performed the vital function of binding the soil together. With the increased rainfall no longer broken by the forest, water hit exposed ground and took the fertile topsoil with it.” The rivers weren’t strong enough to carry this soil out to sea and as more and more sediment built up the city was cut off from the sea. “It was a disaster. This same problem was hitting other parts of the Roman Empire too. As it’s arteries became clogged up, the empire was brought to the brink of a major heart attack. Marshy sheltered lagoons covered major areas of the Mediterranean coastline. For many ancient cities, these lagoons were the life-blood, they were teaming with fish, but as the rivers dumped sediment at the coast, the lagoons turned to muddy swamps, and the fish disappeared. Navigating these congested rivers, also became a major problem.”

11km away from harbour at Ephesus is the sea, and the city dies economically. The Temple of Artemis, a wonder of the World is at Ephesus. But that is only the half of it because now the marshes turn into muddy swamp plagued by malaria from mosquitoes. “And Ephesus wasn’t alone. As other cities suffered the same fate, the very ships that had once ferried goods and ideas around the Mediterranean now began to spread malaria throughout the Roman Empire. In the end the Romans could no longer keep hold of the land, all around the Mediterranean world the harbours and ports were abandoned behind advancing coasts. Now I know that the fall of the Roman Empire can be put down to many things, but as a geologist I reckon that rivers causing the silting up of harbours and the resultant deadly malaria, must have had a huge impact.”

“Today, centuries after the fall of Ephesus, mismanagement is still causing problems on our coast-lines.” Tourists at Costa del Sol demand sandy beaches but also luxury and so energy consumption has made government build dams in order to provide this electricity. This slows down the flow of rivers and so sediment is not carried down to the beach to become sand. Smart new mariners interrupt the natural movement of Long shore drift, stopping sand moving along the shore and so beaches are disappearing up from these mariners as long shore drift is interrupted.

Bad-faith is the devalution of money, of senatorial then equestrian then farmer status, of Ephesus and plague as desertification, as greed and desire as the coherent modes of state, of religion and dynasty as being anything more than a noble lie to gain authority which is really that of ‘might is right’, or ‘reciprocating to the army’ really.

The decline of violent spectacles

…In mundane terms, gladiatorial combat had been dependent on imperial power and munificence for centuries. As the most expensive and infrequent spectacles, they were vulnerable to the systems collapse of the western Empire. With a few exceptions they ended in the West with the demise of emperorship.” (Le Glay:2009:394)

A_The darpan mirror of a might is right empire seen through the lens of drama in like manner, but with the decline of empire, the dance of catharsis, is no longer felt as a need. They are no longer possessed by its spirit.

“Roman literature of the Principate is conventionally divided into two periods: works of the golden age, written during the reign of Augustus, and works of the silver age, written during the first century C.E. Most of the literature of the golden age was vigorous, affirmative and uplifting. The poetry of greatest of all the Roman poets, Virgil, (70-19 B.C.), was prototypic. In a set of pastoral poems, the Eclogues, Virgil expressed an idealized vision of human life led in harmony with nature. The Eclogues also implicitly extolled Augusts as the bringer of peace and abundance. Virgil’s masterpiece, the Aeneid, is an epic poem about a Trojan hero, Aeneas, understood to have been the distant ancestor of the Roman people and the model of Roman greatness….the Aeneid tells of the founding of a great state by dint of warfare and toil and foretells Rome’s glorious future….

The literature of the silver age was typically less calm and balanced than that of the golden age. Its effects derived more often from self-conscious artifice. The tales of Petronus and Apuleius describe the more exotic and sometimes sordid aspects of Roman life. The aim of the authors is less to instruct or uplift than to tell an entertaining story or turn a witty phrase. An entirely different viewpoint is presented in the works of the other most important writers of this age: Juvenal the satirist (60-140 C.E.), and Tacitus, the historian (55?-117? C.E.), Juvenal wrote under the influence of the Stoics but with narrow vision. Convinced that the troubles of the nation were due to moral degeneracy… A somewhat similar attitude characterized the writing of his younger contemporary Tacitus. The best-known of Roman historians, Tactitus described the events of his age not with a view to dispassionate analysis but largely for the purpose of moral indictment. His description of the customs of the ancient Germans in his Germania served to heighten the contrast between the manly virtues of an unspoiled race and the effeminate vices of the decadent Romans.” (Lerner et al:1993:181-2)

A_The shame of Athens becomes the shame of Rome

“Roman art first assumed its distinctive character during the period of the Principate. Before this time what passed for the art of Rome was really an importation from the Hellenistic East. Conquering armies brought back to Italy wagonloads of statues, reliefs, and marble columns as part of the plunder from Greece and Asia Minor. These became the property of wealthy  businessmen and were used to establish their sumptuous mansions. As the demand increased, hundred of copies were made, with the result that by the end of the Republic Rome came to have a profusion of objects of art that had no more cultural significance that the Picassos in the home of a modern stockbroker….

The arts most truly expressive of the Roman character were architecture and sculpture. Architecture was monumental, designed to symbolize power and grandeur.” (Lerner et al:1993:182-3)

22: Rome

“The emergence of Rome as a world power brought with it profound changes in the political system and class relationships in the city. In particular, the oligarchy lost the firm hold that it had kept throughout the years of war. Before the war the attitude of the soldiers to their leaders had not created any problems, since under the political system then operating the men who hold power were in fact the most important and influential members of society. But the long wars, the longer periods of military service demanded of the contingents, the increasing importance of the commanders’ personal influence with their armies, and of booty as an incentive to the troops, were all bringing about changes in the citizen-soldier’s attitude to his commanders and his fellow citizens.

In the past, the power to command the army and defeat the enemy was seen as the result of collaboration between men and the gods, who guaranteed the powers invested in the elected magistrate. In the course of the long wars, the commanders came to rely more and more on their personal prestige, as if it were their own heroic qualities which made them worthy of divine aid. This new development was accompanied by a change in the citizen’s attitude to military service.

The relationship between the soldier and his leader had always been the normal relationship between citizen and magistrate

The power and indestructibility of the Roman oligarchy had changed all this. Soldiers who had fought for long years together, who had brought their country rich new dominions and allies, who knew that their efforts had defeated the greatest power of the classical world, now realised that their value to the state was greater than their political leaders would acknowledge. The first effect of this new political awareness was the new relationship between the troops and their commanders. The leaders with the tacit consent of their troops, gained for themselves power and prestige far exceeding the bounds of tradition and law. In return, the soldiers attached themselves to their leaders in rather the same way as clients to their patron.

The economic developments which followed the wars increased the distance between the classes. Many small land-owners lost their farms and joined the ranks of the proletarians. This started the process of the concentration of capital in the hands of a few families in the form either of vast estates or of money earned by trade and investment. Any such large inheritance naturally became the focus of a group of smaller fortunes. This situation had its parallel in the world of politics, as the control of the Senate and the magistrates was concentrated in the hands of a few families.

The oligarchic political system created a governing class which had no links with the rest of the population. As the importance of economic and foreign affairs increased, the Comitia Curiata, which was responsible for them, became the principal organ of government, and this increased the power of the oligarchy. The key to the political and constitutional developments of the next decades was the relationship between the Senate and the holders of the highest offices of state. The commanders, with the support of their armies, tended to dominate the Senate, and to break up the unity of the upper classes and the governing body by giving the members of the latter powers exceeding the limits set by the Senate. The Senate did everything in its power to halt this process, which gave individual members of the ‘nobilitas’ great personal power, based on the support of the masses, who up to then had been excluded from politics in spite of their growing importance in the state.

Although the distinction between plebians and patricians was no longer of any importance, a new distinction was appearing, between the men whose wealth was based on land and those who had their money in business; between the senatorial caste and the ‘equites’. The latter took no part in political life, but still exercised a considerable influence on the ruling class. They moved in different social circles from the ‘nobilitas’, and derived their importance to the state from their control of trade throughout the empire, and from the enormous liquid assets at their disposal.” (Levi:1955:155-7)

“Roman interest in Greece put great value on the men and achievements of countries under her own dominion, and so created the impression of a single community in which every member was of equal importance for the life of the whole. It was difficult for the Romans to maintain a position apart, in the belief that their actions alone had the support of the gods, when they could see that their gods were not exclusive to Rome, but shared many characteristics with the gods of the subject races.

When other nations saw that they had gods in common with the Romans, the sacred, mysterious, inevitable character of the Roman domination disappeared, and it now had to rely on the more dubious concept that Rome ruled the world because she was divinely predestined to do so by those same gods who had desired the Macedonian victories over Persia. For many of the subject races the acceptability of Roman sovereignty was dependent on the same doctrine of unlimited conquest and unending victories as Hellenistic sovereignty had been. But this sort of doctrine not only affects the sources of legitimacy and authority, but gradually modifies political relations within the state itself.

In the early days of Rome, as in every other country at the same stage of development, political rights and importance in the state depended on military service

Later on, wealth became more important than military service, but there came a time, with the increasing emphasis placed on victory and conquest and the ever-growing size of the army needed to control the empire, when the military element regained its importance in the Roman state.

A political and social unit as large as the Roman empire inevitably brought many varied interests and influences to bear on the city that was its focus. Roman tradition and Greek culture could not always live side by side without conflicting, even though the influence of Greece was never much more than superficial. The tendency to submit to the influence of Greece and to imitate its cultural patterns, and Rome’s relations with the Hellenistic civilisation, were one of the issues dividing the conservative and radical parties in Roman politics. According to the conservatives, the political situation in Rome ought to preserve the privileges of the leading citizens. This meant that the subject races must not be allowed too much influence in Rome, or it would soon be impossible to treat their countries simply as dominions to be exploited.” (Levi:1955:159-60)

“The equestrian order continued to grow in importance. The number of slaves increased, and so did the number of freedmen who had made fortunes; they were beginning to be a considerable feature of social and economic life. The small-scale land-owner, unable to face ever-rising prices and the loss involved in his long stretch of military service, was selling out to the great landed proprietors, who were growing richer every day on the profits of huge estates run by armies of slaves.

These changes in the pattern of economic life were inevitable, and attempts to restore the position of the small farmer by legislation were doomed to failure. It was an attempt by the political authorities to do this that caused the most serious crisis in the history of the ancient world, a crisis that exposed as an illusion the peace and security spread by the rule of Rome over an area reaching as far as Pergamum.

The ‘Lex Agraria’ was designed to redistribute the public lands, taking them back from the landed proprietors who used them for pasturing their flocks, and restoring them to farmers for cultivation. The landowning capitalists reacted vigorously to the threat, and attempts to put the law into operation met with violent responses from both parties, and unleashed political hopes and grievances which until then had lacked a cause which would give them the strength of unity.

The general disturbance caused by the government’s attempt to introduce economic reforms revealed the inadequacy of the senatorial oligarchy to the task of reorganising Roman political life. In particular the disturbances brought to light the mutinous state of the men who were forced to serve in the armies which had given Rome her power and wealth, and who claimed that their influence in the state bore no relation to their services to it.

The Latin and Italian allies felt that they were excluded from any effective participation in the rights of citizenship, and that their importance in the life of the community was not sufficiently recognized. Even the Roman citizens of the lower classes realised that although in theory they enjoyed full legal rights, in fact this applied only to their rights as private persons, for their position in the census lists prevented them from having an effective part to play in the government of the state. The oligarchs kept all the power in their own hands, and made use of the lower classes as soldiers and labourers while denying them the political representation that their labour had earned them.” (Levi:1955:161-2)

“The Athenian ‘philosophical revolution’ which resulted from the teachings of Anaxagoras, had not been able to impress permanently on the ancient world the idea that human reason, and the will of the people under the guidance of reason, are the source of all theoretical knowledge and moral judgements, and so of the concepts of truth and justice which in those days men looked for in various ways in revelations of the divine will.

After the fall of the Athenian democracy; that is, after the immediate, manifest failure of the Anaxagorean revolution, the rationalist, humanist theory of political authority was forgotten. The Hellenistic world saw the rebirth of the cult of the heroic, divinely inspired leader, strengthened by contact with the Persian concept of ‘fravashi’, which gave divine sanction, and therefore legitimacy, to the principle of royal sovereignty.

The close links of civilisation and descent between the Greeks and the Romans, and the direct and indirect influence of Greece on Roman culture, created a similar situation in Rome

The Romans felt the presence of their gods all around them, watching every action, and beside them every moment of their lives. Their conviction that no decision, no command, no undertaking could be successful without the support and consent of the gods, led them to believe that the gods did not only work impersonally in their relations with the state and its magistrates, who were the bridge between the citizens and their gods: the anthropomorphism which had been superimposed on their primitive animistic religion led them to ascribe human emotions as well as human features to their deities.

At this point in the development of their religious ideas the Romans came into contact with the idea that the gods might have a predilection for certain individuals, and that some man might be endowed with the gift of making himself the instrument with which the gods shaped the future of the state. On the day when the ‘imperium’, the power of political and military command, was seen to belong not to the office of whom the gods had endowed with the gift of shaping the course of events and the wills of men; at the moment when for the first time, on the field of battle, the enemy scattered and the ground strewn with their dead, the troops acclaimed their leader with the title ‘imperator’, the new, Roman concept of legitimacy was born.

The man with an innate capacity for command had gifts and opportunities which he could not fulfil within the traditional oligarchy. Tradition and sacred law could not bind the man whom the gods had chosen and to whom they had given powers equal to those bestowed by the Roman people in all the solemnity of their assemblies. The gods had given him the power of ‘imperium’ as his personal gift; he could do without investiture by the communities of the state. When the troops began to feel that the state had not treated them justly, but made use of their indispensable services without acknowledging their importance, it was to him that they turned to obtain restitution.

The Roman state organisation was incapable of giving the legions the recognition they claimed; it was scarcely capable of tolerating the men whose power and personal authority were too great to be contained within the normal procedures for conferring authority on the officers of state. So in the end the soldiers and all the rest of the poor and dissatisfied turned to the ‘war lords’ as to forces beyond the law and the constitution, who would realise their hopes in spite of conservative opposition.

The fate of the ruling class of landowners and aristocrats was sealed the moment they chose revolution, the denial of the discipline of law, and had recourse to violence rather than make financial concessions which would have meant a personal sacrifice but which would have enabled the valuable class of small farmers to be reconstituted after its destruction by the economic vicissitudes of the long wars. The whole incident was apparently of no great importance, but in fact it proved that the ruling class was not prepared to make any concessions to reality, and was interested only in preserving the privileges that it clung to all the more tenaciously for the knowledge that it no longer had any right to them.” (Levi:1955:165-7)

“The troops were a great deal more than just a military movement to conquer the state. When we speak of ‘the troops’, at a period of Roman history like the one beginning with the end of the Punic wars, we are referring to a great mass of humanity, and impoverished class looking for a way of providing itself with a minimum of economic security for the time when it would be demobilised. The hundreds of thousands of veterans who had returned to civilian life in extreme poverty joined the other army whose feelings and hopes they shared: the army of men whom the vicissitudes of life had deprived of the means to support themselves. This mass of poor, unemployed men and their families thronged the capital, living on public assistance, in the belief that merely to have been born Roman citizens and to live in Rome entitled them to live without working and without the means to support themselves, provided for by the empire which they, the conquering legions, had won for Rome.” (Levi:1955:168)

“The old equality between patricians and plebians, achieved after a struggle which had broken the bonds of the old genetic system of political control, had been invalidated by the formation of an oligarchy of wealth. These men gained complete control of the state at a time when the ownership of land gave real social pre-eminence as well as serious social responsibilities. When the state urgently needed the collaboration and military services of other sectors of the population, a group made up of citizens and non-citizens had appeared, claiming a just reward for its services to the state. In earlier times war had brought with it booty and land, and it had been generally accepted that all the combatants had the right to a share in the spoils of victory. Now that wards were on a much larger scale, the spoils took the form of kingdoms and regular sources of income for the state, and only very rarely did anyone profit apart from the men who meanwhile had seized absolute control of the empire…

The Greek idea of the rights inherent in membership of the Greek community was taken up in Rome in a more precise form in the demand for the personal and economic rights inherent in Roman citizenship. It was more a matter of economics than of personal rights, and as in the Hellenistic world the lower classes were not claiming a share in the actual government of the state, as that had in fifth-century Athens, but simply in the distribution of wealth and in the legal safeguards protecting the individual.

The long civil war of the second century BC was basically the struggle of two groups in the state, one pressing for a broader concept of citizenship, the other defending its privileges. …The declining republic was defended to the bitter end by the conservatives who refused to admit their own decadence or the transformation of the political scene. They were assisted by the widespread hostility to any form of monarchical government, which was considered to deprive the citizens of their legal guarantees, replacing them with a purely personal and arbitrary rule.” (Levi:1955:169-70)

“The beginning of the movement towards a popular monarchy was the return to an old principle: the power of the tribunes to advise and assist the common people, which had resolved the conflict between plebians and patricians. The power ‘auxili ferendi populo’ was given to the tribunes as their election, together with powers equal to those conceded by the committees; but the authority of the tribunes was not circumscribed by the guarantees and protective measures that hedged in the magistrates, for it did not derive from the decision of a committee, and so was not the result of collaboration between men and gods. It was legalised and consecrated by a solemn oath. The gods were called on to recognise the authority of the tribune, and by this means it became ‘sacrosancta’, that is, its force was equal to that of the magistrates elected by the committees. The power to act for the good of the people, which was a recognised right of the ‘princeps’ during the time when the state was turning from a republic into a monarchy, was not derived from investiture by a committee, and so did not have the same character as the power of the magistrate. Its foundation was the official recognition that the characteristics qualifying a man for public office existed only in the personality of the ‘princeps’; that he possessed the ‘auctoritas’ that gives power the seal of legitimacy.

This ‘auctoritas’ was the very foundation of the new sovereignty. This was because it sprang from the recognition that the force that determined divine collaboration with man could reside in some measure in a single individual, and not just in the assemblies of state or in the man who had already been endowed by the state with the power to rule. From this ‘auctoritas’ arose the recognition afforded to some men who were given the title of ‘imperator’, and the power and prestige assumed, often arbitrarily, by individuals in the civil war.

Thus the collaboration between men and gods was thought of more and more as a matter of personalities

This led to the concept of legitimacy founded on the ‘comitatus’ between a man and the gods; a concept that was given a concrete form when statues of the man were erected within the temples of the gods. The Romans revived their ancient national beliefs and added to them the heroic myth which they shared with the Greeks, to create a doctrine of direct co-operation between individuals chosen by the gods, and the gods themselves. This co-operation was the source of ‘auctoritas’, the origin of the power of the ‘princeps’.

The power ‘auxilii ferendi populo’ became the personal endowment of the holder of ‘auctoritas’, like the power to command the army. The possession at the same time of religious, civil and military powers, which was strictly illegal, was possible in the case of the ‘princeps’ because his superiority to other men meant that he was responsible to no one for his actions. The situation was not, however, merely the effect of one man’s personality or of a random display of force, but the result of a long revolution.

The principate that the Romans accepted as their governing organ did not seem to them to have anything to do with the ‘monarchy’ that they feared and hated so deeply, any more than the Hellenistic monarchy can have appeared to the Greeks to be a tyranny. In both cases the monarchy had been able to avoid presenting itself to the people as the triumph of brute force, without the justification of legitimacy, but had stuck to the traditional explanation of the origins of power: the incomprehensible will of the gods. …

This return to first principles’ was not the result of any particular foresight on the part of the Roman conservatives, warning them to renounce a fraction of their privileges at the right moment, and so reach a compromise with the demands of the reformer. The conservatives were saved by the fact that, in spite of their bitter defence of their privileges, and their readiness to go to any lengths to preserve them, the structure of the Roman political system itself gave them the opportunity to come to a compromise; to bow to the inevitable without provoking, by their surrender, the collapse of the state that would have been inevitable in other places and nations.

There were, of course, proscriptions and massacres, but it was not only the revolutionaries who could not do without terrorism and murder; the conservatives were the first to have recourse to these methods. The revolutionary movement had legitimate, realistic objectives, reconcilable with tradition, and important enough to encourage it not to break the continuity of the state organisation, but to adapt itself to the religious and legal precedents.

The principate arose from the collaboration of the ruling class of the old ‘nobilitas’ and the leader, or leaders, of the proletariat which was claiming recognition and greater justice from the state. This collaboration was nothing new; for a century the distinction between the two sides had been far from clear. Both sides had armed the same troops, the same legions and fleets were torn between them, they had both wooed with promises and cajolery the same veterans, offering them rewards that they would only be able to produce by raiding other people’s property. Neither the newly awakened masses, whose power was their indispensability to the state, nor the old, irreplaceable ranks of rulers and organisers, could do anything about their dependence on their opponents.

The final conflict that transformed the state into a monarchy carried within it the seeds of new conflicts, and also the terms of the political struggles of the principate. The conservative leaders of the Senate had been forced, in order to prevent an absolutely centralised monarchy based on military and popular support, which would mean the end of the Senate’s power and privileges, to come to an agreement with one of the contenders for the monarchy, and to provide him with arms and support. This was to sink to the level of the masses in their use of force as a political weapon. After he had won his victory, the winning commander could no longer remain simply the leader of an armed band of marauders, heaping up wealth and power without any concern for justice and legality. He had to find a new regime that would meet the demands on which the revolution was based: to admit a greater number of citizens to the enjoyment of the benefits and privileges formerly the preserve of the few, to find a workable compromise with the nobles, which would allow them an acknowledged superiority while giving to the masses the rights and privileges for which they had been fighting.

The millions of ordinary people, who had become the rulers of the state because of their numerical importance, wanted to benefit from the Roman dominion over the territories of the empire in a way that would ensure them the means of life at the end of their long term of military service. The old governing class had only one ambition: to keep its position in the administration of the empire; a position for which no other sector of the population was qualified. These were the motives behind the next phase of the conflict, and they gave the political history of the empire its particular character. The dominant masses did their best to strip the old ruling class of its wealth and power, while the old ‘nobilitas’ tried to collaborate with the ‘princeps’ in order to defend itself and all the wealthy members of the state against the demands of the soldiers, the proletariat, the mass of the new ‘rerum domini’.

The principate offered, above all, peace and the opportunity of enrichment to friends and enemies alike, making an instrument for itself of the weariness, poverty and misfortunes brought by a century of civil war. To the old oligarchs, the principate offered the protection of its armed forces for their lives and their possessions, and promised them jobs, the opportunity to make money, and a certain share in the executive power of the ruler. To the newly powerful masses, it offered land and employment, food and money. This was not a matter of minor bribery, but introduced the concept first appearing in the fifth-century Athens, that the rulers of the state had a duty to help to support the citizens. Faced with this new concept of citizenship, giving all citizens the right to a share in the wealth of the state, the ‘princeps’ fulfilled the function of a central power for the collection and redistribution of money and property.

Thus the state was restored and refounded on a new basis

For decades past it had failed to carry out its essential job of securing law and order, and safeguarding the vigour of the legal system and the amenities of public and private life. The absence of guarantees that the state will be able to protect the fundamentals of civil life is inevitable in a state where the position of supreme authority is a matter for dispute. The principate restored the effective authority of the state, and performed the task of mediator in a way that enabled the revolutionary class to keep its predominant position without provoking the irreconcilable opposition of the conservatives, and so working towards the reconciliation of the two factions, and the restoration of equilibrium and order.

The conflict between the popular, military class and the conservatives was not resolved, but continued to be the justification of the imperial system of government.” (Levi:1955:170-75)

“Rivalry between the different social and racial groups in the empire was bound to play a part in every political question. Up to the first century BC there was practically no middle class in Roman society. Not only was there no such thing as a well-off, educated, but not capitalist class, but there were no real functions for such a class to fulfil. The principate itself was the result of long struggles between rival families of nobles which ended in the political, economic and military supremacy of one of them. Under the influence of the Hellenstic world, but even more under the pressure of developments in the Mediterranean world, the principate was gradually transformed from a personal dominion into a magisterial office, and at the same time a new class was coming into existence, made up of men with regular employment in the army or in civil life.

Certain institutions, like the Senate, the army and the greater part of the magistrature, preserved the names that they had been given under the republic. But now only the name was the same; the character of all the offices had changed completely. Senators and magistrates had become state employees with fixed salaries; the salaries were generous, and allowed plenty of scope for saving and investment, but the education, the economic status, the way of life and style of house occupied by these men all bore witness to the appearance of a new class, a middle class, with all the characteristics that we associate with the term.

The factors that determined the total transformation of Roman society between the first and second centuries AD were the number of provincials who became Roman citizens, either by manumission or by other means; the number of families of Roman citizens now returning to the capital after generations spent in the provinces, to become leaders in the state; and the social and political importance won by the equestrian order by their almost exclusive control of the state administration. …

Once service in the army had become voluntary, and was no worse paid than many other jobs, the limitation of conscription to the peninsula, where the standard of living was high, meant the most of the conscripts came from the lowest strata of the population. It also meant that the emperor had difficulty in recruiting enough troops for the permanent garrisons needed in the provinces, because in Rome and Italy there was no lack of work that was better paid, more attractive and more respectable than an army career. This led to the conscription of volunteers from the western provinces in ever-increasing numbers, which introduced a new element not only into the army, but into the citizen body.

The legions were now usually stationed in one place for a long time

The fortified encampments, where they lived and kept their supplies, became the centres of attraction of the indigenous population and spread the influence of Rome through intermarriage and the diffusion of Roman culture. Villages and colonies sprang up around the camps and became the established settlements of a mixed racial group, whose children provided new contingents for the imperial armies. Eventually the army was made up almost entirely of ‘barbarians’ from the provinces, while positions in the civil administration and the highest ranks of the army were usually reserved for Italians and Romans….

As the emperor assumed the functions of a magistrate, his administrators became public servants and formed on their own a class made up for the most part of ‘equites’. Clearly the employers were tending to increase the powers of the governing class while extending its privileges and prerogatives beyond the senatorial body to the wealthy merchant class.

The extension of recruitment to the barbarians changed the character of the Roman army, making it a mercenary force like the Punic or Hellenistic armies. Ever-increasing numbers of barbarians gained Roman citizenship by this means, although their assimilation into Roman civilisation was superficial. This fact, which at first seemed unimportant, gained significance when the new citizens became sufficiently numerous to affect the racial balance within the Roman state. Now it was not just the aristocracy who had to be assimilated, but also the masses.

The solutions found by the principate to the political and administrative problems of the early empire no longer applied, since the character of the Roman and Italian citizen body had altered, creating a commercial and industrial middle class like that of the Hellenistic world. The powers and privileges of the landowning oligarchy were diminished, while those of the new middle class increased.” (Levi:1955:183-86)

“The intransigence and intolerance of the conservative oligarchy increased in proportion to the weakness of the ruler, who felt the need to reinforce his precarious dignity by claiming divine honours. This situation led to the conflict which has traditionally been regarded as the most important feature of the history of the empire. The emperors, in the face of a hostility nobility, succumbed to the necessity of using force, or the threat of force, and therefore of relying above all on their armies. Every time this happened, from the time of the decline of the republic, a dangerous imbalance of forces within the empire put the state at the mercy of one particular section of the population, and made the principate incapable of carrying out its chief function.

The decline of the empire began when the principate came to rely above all on its troops to impose order and unity on the province

The army was becoming more and more the concern of the provinces; the levies were exclusively provincial, and the officers who had real, political influence over the troops came from the ranks, whereas the staff officers were usually Romans, and had very little real contact with their men.

The legions, settled permanently far from the centre of the empire, often in the areas from which their troops were drawn, formed closed worlds, with their own ideals and interests, bound by their formal oath of loyalty to the emperor, but often far more closely bound to a commander who had managed to win their trust and respect. Thus, from the first century of the empire, the ruler who relied to more than a very limited extent on the loyalty of his troops risked being imposed upon and defied by the legions and their officers….

The relationship between the power of the emperor and the armed strength of the legions was the fundamental cause of the empire’s weakness. The Praetorian guard, the emperor’s personal detachment of troops, interfered constantly in the politics of the capital and the policies of the emperor. The commanders of legions on the frontiers often took advantage of the loyalty of their troops to further their own ambitions and made a bid for supreme power.” (Levi:1955:186-88)