History, they tell us, is about the past. But the study of history shows an oft-repeated cycle of events. Since human beings have not changed over thousands of years, they have reacted time after time in the same way to events as we do today. The emphasis in the teaching of history in schools and universities has always tended to be on political history (monarchs, wars, treaties, laws) and has perhaps made us forget that history is about people like ourselves, trying desperately to get on with their lives in spite of what their rulers, neighbours, the climate, etc etc may throw at them.
Today’s world, at least for most of us, is an urbanised, industrialised one, with a sophisticated governmental, social, economic, legal, and educational system. We tend to forget that when the first urban civilisations developed in the Middle East over 5000 years ago they too had to develop systems parallel to our own in order to survive. They experienced the need to have adequate food, clothing and shelter, to plan their environment, to evolve a legal code which enabled society to run efficiently. They were concerned not just with survival but with “getting on” in the world. They deplored the lack of discipline and respect in the “younger generation”. They despaired of the lack of interest in education in the young. They rejected malign “foreign” influence on their lifestyle. As states grew wealthy the “haves” competed with one another for bigger, better, and more beautiful possessions. The “have-nots” either strove to emulate their better-off neighbours or expressed their anger and resentment at those who had done better for themselves. Social classes evolved, usually based on wealth, privilege, birth, and ownership of property, (traditionally land).
Wars took place — sometimes through sheer “need” — at other times through sheer “greed”. Prosperity brought with it all sorts of problems — not least such questions as “who inherits your property after you’re gone?” I.e. — what happens to the share of the children of the original marriage if the mother dies and the father remarries, producing more children? (Pliny’s Letters Ist. Cent. AD).
Modern states have for the most part only just solved, over the last 150 years, the age-old problem of the fact that ownership of land gave one a higher status in society than ownership of, for example, a business. The industrial revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries has put status firmly in the ownership of business, money, and property generally . But has this “solution” made us any happier? Is the power conferred by economic status much different from that once obtained from land? Just how “democratic” is our system today, where on paper in most places everyone has equal rights?
Our ancestors spoke strange languages, wore funny clothes, did not have our present means of transport, communicated by speech and writing without electronic assistance. Yet they faced and tackled the same issues as ourselves in a parallel environment. Intricately carved ornaments and cave paintings of 40,000 years ago show manual and artistic skills even in the less sophisticated societies of that time.
We tend to regard present-day issues, whether personal, national, or international as unique to our current time and situation. This is only natural — and yet the same situations have been affecting people and society for thousands of years. Perhaps it should make us more optimistic when we realise that the human race has survived all this time in spite of such recurrent problem situations. On the other hand some folk may feel depressed that mankind has not yet solved such problems and driven them away for all time — “Will we never learn?”
A few points are worth bearing in mind. The first is that human intelligence over the last, for example, 10,000 years has not changed. Whether a culture is or was more sophisticated or less sophisticated has no relation to the IQ of its members. The second is that human society evolving from the basic family situation shares common elements equally with the early hunter-gatherers and with today’s urban dwellers. Concepts of acceptable behaviour and of right and wrong are permanently and universally valid. Thirdly, human personality, psychology — call it what you will — has remained unchanged for thousands of years.
Many things have changed over the millennia — government in particular has evolved from the tribal assembly to that of the city state, through the nation state, to that of the international community (European Community). But what we tend to forget is that our generation didn’t invent the city, the nation, or even the “empire”. The process of urbanisation began between 4000 and 3000 BC – possibly in Iraq (Mesopotamia), the Indus Valley (north-west India), Iran (Persia), and Egypt. As these areas developed cities they evolved written, legal, government, economic, and religious systems on a par with our own. They handled diplomatic relations, international trade, war, employment, price and quality control, town planning, building standards (to name but a few), on a daily basis. Such areas as religion, recreation and social welfare were all catered for.
From 2000 BC this more sophisticated lifestyle began to spread to the fringes of Europe, with Cretan, Phoenician and Anatolian (Turkish) cultures creating “modern” systems and in particular international trade. By 700 BC in Greece urban areas (city states) began to grow, with a prosperity based on the manufacture and exchange of agricultural and other products. These cities were independent of each other and each set up colonies (mirror images of itself) all around the Mediterranean Sea. These cities — in particular Athens — began to gain a reputation for philosophy, literature, and above all experiments in government (democracy).
It is not always appreciated however that the “classical” Greeks in the time of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle etc. went for their tertiary education to Egypt — providing a link between the early Middle Eastern cultures and Western Europe. (Links between the Cretan culture of 2000 BC and Egypt were strong and Crete influenced Mycenae and Greece).
In the centre of Italy the town of Rome began to expand from around 300 BC, over the centuries taking over Italy, Greece, North Africa, West Asia, and a great part of Western Europe (excluding Ireland, Germany, Scandinavia). This Roman culture produced an international language (Latin) which is still the basis of many European tongues, a legal system on which much modern European law is based, a government system which has been adapted right up to modern times. Many Roman concepts and ideas in themselves were borrowed from Greece.
One point about these cultures over the past 6000 years is that they faced the same problems as we do today. Since they had evolved writing systems we can follow their recognition of these issues which we are still coping with today and their attempts to solve them. Surviving written material is more limited from Egypt and Mesopotamia, much less limited from Greece and Rome. (Even there a vast amount of material was lost during the Dark Ages after Rome fell). Because of the greater amount of source materials is from Greek and Roman sources we tend to make the mistake of thinking that their civilization was in some way on a higher plane than older cultures such as Sumeria.
Nor should we think that urban cultures parallel to our own represent a higher level of intelligence. For example the Celtic tribes of the Upper Danube and Alpine areas had a more rural-based culture which in intellectual achievement was on a par with their neighbours and contemporaries in Greece and Rome. Although literate, they preferred to learn by heart, and to learn through live discussion and argument, rather than via books. This indicates to us that we will probably never learn the real capacity of cultures such as that of Gobekli Tepe in Turkey around 8000 BC. We tend to judge a culture by the amount and quality of three-dimensional material remains it leaves behind. Perhaps the fact that the science of archaeology evolved in the materialistic Victorian Era has a lot to answer for!
Such appeared to be the call from the people of England (as opposed to “Britain”) a few weeks ago. Now that the dust is at least partly settling it is a good time to look at things in a historical context.
First of all, did the English people really make that decision? Britain is, they say, a parliamentary democracy. But here we are reminded of the words of the French political philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau in the mid 1700’s -” democracy is dictatorship by the majority”. OK if, as some would have us believe, the majority is always right. But is it?
What do we mean by the majority? That is a very valid question in this case. The “majority” was small. We are told that the younger generation who would have supported maintaining the European connection didn’t for the most part turn out to vote! So where does that leave us? Again, something that surprises me is that it went on a 50/50 system. I would have thought that such plebiscites usually went on a two-thirds majority to prevent the sort of situation mentioned above.
Historically how does the vote measure up? Britain is an island, and islands historically claim the right to go it alone, manage their own affairs, pull up the drawbridge on foreign interference. Perhaps the larger half of Britain represented by England has a long and deep-rooted desire for independence and a suspicion of foreigners. I am minded of a poem by the Roman poet Horace almost 2000 years ago where he prays that heaven will protect the Emperor Augustus on his visit to the “Stranger-hating Britons”. Such long-standing traditions must be hard to break – and let us stop blaming the Anglo-Saxons who didn’t appear until much later!
Scotland, a virtual “peninsula” of England, has historically much stronger ties with the Continent, going back over centuries. Ireland also, an isolated island, likewise has long-standing European connections. It is possible that both Scotland and Ireland have regarded certain European countries as potential allies against their larger neighbor. England on the other hand has over the centuries cause to regard European countries, particularly from the south and east, as enemies (EG Scandinavia, Holland, France, Spain).
To look at a specific example of this we have only to consider the case of Henry VIII. Henry, in common with other European monarchs, had cause to resent an international system where hostile alliances could be made against them through link between the Pope of the day and other states. Far too much has been made of “religion” in looking at
Henry’s break with Rome. What we see here is an international situation where England’s independence and right to manage its own affairs was under threat.
An island nation has the advantage, given a strong navy, of being able to follow its own destiny without the constant apprehension of attack from a land-neighbor. Ithas the disadvantage of losing cultural and other contact with the rest of the world. When exposed to outside influences suspicion can set in and a phobia may even develop.
The Romans went through this phase as their Empire developed. Juvenal and other writers condemned the decline in traditional Roman standards brought in by Greeks and other races from the east. Sounds familiar?
A factor which may have played some part in the vote would be the growing “Middle Eastern” presence. Probably the last time this happened was around 5000 BC when the first farmers arrived among the hunter-gatherer inhabitants of Britain , coming also from “Middle Eastern” countries. Emigration and resulting tensions never stop, do they? Did they have a brexit vote then? Can’t take the word brexit seriously – still sounds like a new breakfast cereal!
In a recent post (Jan. 3rd.) we looked at the role ideals have played in historical events. Ideals evolve – they can be the culmination of the efforts of thinkers over thousands of years. We mentioned the concepts behind the English Civil War as being particularly significant in modern history, and not just in Europe. It was during this period (mid 1600’s) that the North American colonies were growing apace, and fretting under the heavy hand (relatively) of the mother country. So it is not surprising that in America by the mid 1700’s concepts of greater political freedom, less arbitrary rule, independence, were emerging. Philosophers abounded in the 18th. century – the “Century of Enlightenment”. Voltaire and Rousseau in France, Tom Paine in England were but a few examples. Concepts such as the Rights of Man, civil liberties, etc. were being thrashed out. By the 1770’s in America the die was cast and political discussion of ideals culminated in the use of force. Sad this – it is such fun to argue round the table over ideals – but there is another serious side of the coin when the ideals are taken seriously, and meet determined opposition. The resultant independent United States of America still broadcasts its ideals of that age to the world.
At the period in question France had a long-standing feud with England over trade, colonies and related matters, and somewhat perversely decided to throw in its weight with the American colonists, sending over armies to support the colonists, under such leaders as Lafayette. There was already in France a strong idealistic movement triggered by the writings of such thinkers as Rousseau and Tom Paine. Seemingly arbitrary royal rule, ill-treatment of the “lower orders” by nobility and Church, a desire for change, were opposed by a large element of “the powers that be”. Both officers and men who had sailed from France to support the American colonists often returned to France wondering what all the fuss was about in America – the situation was so much worse in France!
There is a romantic idea that the French Revolution occurred on July 14th. 1789 with the assault on the Bastille. In fact that event gained a lot of publicity in the media of the day. (You couldn’t trust the media then either!) The English poet Wordsworth reacted along the lines of – “WHAT BLISS IT WAS THAT DAY TO BE ALIVE – WHEN TO BE YOUNG WAS VERY HEAVEN”. But revolutions are not made nor are ideals achieved in a single day. As in England in the 1640’s it took several years before it had to be finally decided that the King was not going to reign as a constitutional monarch, and trial and execution proved the only alternative. As in England 150-odd years earlier internal dissent made strong government on military lines necessary to hold the country together, but in France the situation was exacerbated by the development of a concerted attack on the country by its neighbours, determined to reverse the spread of revolutionary ideals. Hence the rise of Napoleon, like Cromwell, the strong military man.
So “bye-bye” to high-flown ideals? Perhaps not – There is still hope. In both France (1815) and in England (1660) “Kings” were restored. But things were never the same again – England first and later France progressed to Parliamentary democracies, the latter emulating the former. The system spread and for all its defects is accepted by mature political societies world-wide.
Other countries have passed through parallel circumstances. Sometimes ideals flare up and fizzle out under outside force. In 1798 Ireland looked to be raising the French revolutionary banner of “Liberty, Equality. Fraternity” under French inspiration and support, but the movement died. Was America luckier than England and France in maintaining the momentum of its revolution? I think not – there was a form of delayed action until the American Civil War erupted in the 19th. century when issues connected with working out a “federal” system came ta head.
Hopefully mankind will never cease to have ideals. Achieving them can be a painful process. Perhaps it can be made less painful if we learn from the lessons of History – BUT WHO EVER “LEARNED FROM HISTORY?” (Now that could be a theme of its own).
In the course of history we are overwhelmed by chains of events. These events are generated by a wide variety of sources. Not a few have their origin in the emergence of ideals, springing from new conceptions of life – what it is – whether it could be changed – how it should be changed. A feeling of malcontent can produce a negative and destructive reaction. Such a reaction can be short-lived and easily put down. It can be a different story however when thinkers come forward and start working out exactly how and under what guiding principles changes can be made. It is here where ideas evolve into ideals, which need to be well ahead of action in order for an agreed unified thinking to precede action.
Half- formed ideals can be non-productive. Actions resulting from them can be inconsistent, and affairs can be in a state of flux and confusing change. This has been the case in many political upheavals over the centuries. Often issues are not simple, but embrace political, social, religious, economic and other aspects of life. Several sets of ideals juggling for space together can be, to say the least, confusing.
One such event was the English Civil War of the 1640’s. On the political front ideas were emerging that arbitrary rule by a non-representative few was not an perfect situation when actions were being taken which could be detrimental to many. Again, it was felt that an already-existing body, Parliament, was better equipped to manage affairs. It could be said that this concept had become an ideal. It was felt, by the way, that there was nothing inconsistent with this ideal working alongside a cooperative monarch.
However, when we create one ideal which affects an important area of life, parallel ideals will emerge to accompany it. Thus in England the ideal of political reform was accompanied in many peoples’ minds by long-standing thoughts of religious reform. Henry VIII and Elizabeth I had evolved a centrally/nationally organised English Church still carrying features of the preceding externally controlled “Roman” Church. There was now a growing feeling among Protestants/Puritans that a more ideal religious system should be more democratic, non-hierarchical, not centrally organised, and not under control of the King. It is interesting we see a merging if both political and religious ideals. It is also worth keeping in mind that many people would favour retaining the religious system and changing the political one. Others would have thought the other way.
The next few years, with evolving ideals and concepts, were a nightmare in retrospect. The King failed to mould his ideals to the prevailing climate, suffering dethronement and execution. The existing Republic failed to become our modern concept of a “Parliamentary Democracy”. The Puritan system of thinking favoured “disintegration” of political authority rather than integration and central control – Democracy if you like but Democracy run riot. Cromwell, proponent of the ideal of Parliamentary Democracy, found it impossible to run the country consistently with a Parliament where every man had a voice – and used it. Cromwell eventually, finding things unworkable, had to sink his ideals and run the country without Parliament. Virtual military dictatorship followed – this is a very important point. In such situations where a chaotic system of ideas/ideals clash firm rule has to be imposed for the general welfare. A break-down in self-discipline leads to the imposition of external discipline. This is not an opinion so much as a statement of historical fact.
One fact I should mention here since it will emerge here in different form is that England was allowed to struggle through its mess without foreign invasion. The nations of Europe were dedicated to the Divine Right of Kings. Parliamentary control was unthinkable. Louis XIV of France was a major follower of the doctrine of Royal Prerogative. Yet he left England alone and seems to have accepted his “brother” Cromwell as England’s Head of State. There was no invasion of England by the massed armies of France, Austria, Spain, Italy etc. to restore the political and religious system. Contrast that with France after its Revolution some 150 years later. One may presume Louis had “other fish to fry” – and the English navy was never far away.
I don’t think it is fully realised how significant the English Civil War was in the history of Europe and indeed of the world. Ideals were evolved, which led to modern systems of Parliamentary Democracy. It certainly led to more examples of “History Repeats Itself”.
Subsequent examples we will look at briefly will include America, Ireland, Russia, with main emphasis on France and Napoleon The theme will be “ideals” – Are they good? Do they work? Can they be made effective? Ideals exist in the mind of man – how successfully can they be translated into reality – and action? A policy is described as “too unrealistic” – How do we correct that?
THOUGHTS INSPIRED BY A BANK FAÇADE
Looking at that photograph of a bank in New Zealand with its Corinthian columns made me think of what Rome was all about.
The fact that the Romans derived that architectural style from Greece and modified it to suit their own concepts is an indication of how ideas flow from one area and period to another. The fact that a couple of thousand years later on another Empire carried the concept some 12,000 miles to its most distant colony gives pause for thought.
It is significant that the building is a bank. In Victorian and Edwardian times banking and finance had a higher and more respected profile than, sadly, they do today. Whether it is the Bank of England in London’s Threadneedle Street or the Bank of New Zealand in Dannevirke, Rome became the obvious model for architectural design. It represented stability, power, achievement, in the Victorian and Edwardian eras. Business and commerce produced great architectural monuments in those periods. We only have to look at the commercial centres (those parts which still survive from that era) in Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham, Melbourne, and Shanghai, to name but a few.
Is this analogy fair to Rome? Perhaps those elements of classical style in commercial architecture have been hijacked from Rome. Rome had vast sources of wealth, not just in land, but in trade, commerce, and manufacture. And yet the greatest examples of Roman architectural achievement are to be seen today not in commercial establishments but in temples, public baths, buildings where political and legal business were transected, and structures to house mass entertainment. In the Roman system business and commerce were consistently kept “under the carpet”. Land gave status in society and political influence. Business created wealth, but the Equites, the class to which the commercial element belonged, no matter how wealthy they became, could rarely rise to the senatorial class in society and government.
How does this compare with the Victorian attitudes to wealth not derived from land? There are signs that the old barriers were breaking down. The nouveaux-riches might be ridiculed over the upper-class dinner table — but by virtue of their marriage to daughters of the less well-to-do leaders in society, and their capacity to make loans and donations to individuals and political groups, many succeeded in entering “high society”. Dickens makes much of this aspect of life in his works.
How strong is the influence of the traditional “landed gentry” in today’s world, would be hard to answer. Public schools in Britain still influence the ranks of Parliament and the civil service, but such traditional power is much diminished. Even in the “democratic” USA, surprisingly, we still see the influence of both wealth and of the traditional universities in politics. Could any citizen who was not very wealthy ever be elected President of the United States nowadays?
One should not forget to examine the influence of the “learned professions”. Of these the law and the Church emerge as the most obvious seats of influence. In the mediaeval period inEurope the Church, containing the educated members of society, had naturally great influence on lay leaders such as monarchs. Thomas a Becket, Cardinals Wolsey, Richelieu, Mazarin, are but a few examples. Echoes of the same temple/church system are to be found in Sumaria and Egypt with clashes between the religious and civil powers.
This tended to change — perhaps as education became more widespread and less ecclesiastically influenced. Greece and Rome seem to have established lay supremacy in government. InRome it would appear that prominent political figures often became priests, rather than the other way round.
In Britain also education, probably by becoming more widespread, reduced ecclesiastical influence on government. Henry VIII provides an interesting example in his making the monarch head of the ecclesiastical establishment, a solution which many Egyptian Pharaohs and later European monarchs would have been glad to find. (With the notable example of Pharaoh Akenaten, who closed down existing centres of worship, taking over control of religion, and creating a new version of God — Aten — something even Henry Tudor did not get round to!)
The role of the legal profession in government has always been important. An understanding of law and of the Constitution is obviously important in political administration. Knowledge of society and of business has often taken second place. Rome does not seem to have had a distinct “legal class”. Young men aspiring to politics often spent some time in the legal field, as well as in the Army, more as a matter of acquiring experience before entering politics. Perhaps the nearest one can get to a specific legal class in more modern times is the Noblesse de Robe in pre-revolutionary France. Perhaps one reason the Revolution of 1789 lost its momentum was because of the endless constitutional debates in the National Assembly carried out by its large quota of lawyers. Lawyers often played a distinguished part in the British Empire but on an individual basis.
Another pressure group which has played a dominant role in politics throughout history is the Army. But this is a whole topic in itself which we will look at again.