Life of K'inich Pacal I (the Great) of Lakam-Ha (Palenque)

Pacal's name in Glyphic form

603 - 683 C.E.

March 26, 603 C.E.

Pacal I was born on this date, during the reign of his great-grandmother Incal. his parents were Zak-Kuk the daughter of Incal's younger son Pacal and Kan-B'alam-Mo' a member of an important family that had served the dynasty for generations. Pacal I was named Pacal in honor of his grandfather Pacal. The circumstances of his birth were not auspicious.

Sculptured Head of Pacal has a young man

A few years earlier on April 21, 599 C.E.

The city is been sacked by Kalak'mul (Kan - meaning Snake) the leader of an enemy alliance that fought an alliance headed by Tikal (Mutul - meaning bundle of hair) that Palenque (Lakam-Ha - meaning big water) was a member of. His great-grandmother had came to throne in disastrous circumstances and had, had great difficulty in holding things together. Even the very fact of her accession was unusual and in the normal course of things Pacal I becoming king was not very likely given that his grandfather Pacal could have other sons and Ac-Kan, Incal's eldest son was also before him.

Map of the Mayan Area

November 7, 604 C.E.

Incal died on this date. This death marked the beginning of a period of crisis during which things went from bad to worst for the kingdom and dynasty.

January 4, 605 C.E.

Ac-Kan formally accedes to throne on this day. During this year or the next one Bonampak, an ally of Kalak'mul (Kan) successfully raids Lakam-Ha, (Palenque). Apparently Ac-Kan has far less success than his mother, Incal, in holding the kingdom together.

April 11, 611 C.E.

Kalak'mul (Kan) in alliance with various city states like Tonina and Pomona, sacks Lakam-Ha (Palenque) even more thoroughly than the last time on this date. Apparently several members of the royal family are killed and/or captured and sacrificed. Palenque (Lakam-Ha) is humiliated and forced to pay tribute. In subsequent years Lakam-Ha is raided and humiliated again and again.

March 9, 612 C.E.

Pacal, Pacal I's grandfather dies suddenly and probably violently on this date. Pacal has no surviving sons and his heir is probably his daughter Zak-Kuk. Pacal I now becomes a contender for the throne but only if his uncle Ac-Kan should die without children then the heir will be Pacal I's mother Zak-Kuk.

August 11, 612 C.E.

Ac-Kan dies on this date. again, like his brother Pacal, rather suddenly and possibly violently as Palenque's enemies close in to finish off the royal family.

October 12, 612 C.E.

Muwaan Mat accedes to the throne on this date. possibly actually Zak-Kuk, Pacal's mother who takes the throne like her grand mother Incal, or the person is an unknown male relative or entirely fictive. (To symbolize retrospectively a new beginning.) Whoever it is, accedes to the throne in difficult circumstances. Only in this case they may have been even more serious than before. The city is badly damaged. The royal family decimated so that Zak-Kuk was likely the only adult member left. The kingdom is weak, and her enemies many. It is uncertain but it appears that Zak-Kuk was the power behind the throne at this time if she was not reigning herself.

July 29, 615 C.E.

On this date Pacal was crowned, at the age of 12, by his mother Zak Kuk, K'inich, ruler of the kingdom of Bak, (meaning bone), in the city of Lakham-Ha (Palenque). Years later Pacal has carved a plaque commemorating the event. The plaque was fixed into a wall of the palace and all future rulers of Bak were crowned and enthroned underneath it. After possibly ruling alone for 2 1/2 years Zak-Kuk makes sure her son will rule by crowning him in her lifetime. At the same time she deliberately leaves her own position ambiguous. The kingdom is weak and Zak-Kuk makes sure her position remains ambiguous.

The Plaque of Zak-Kuk crowning Pacal I

615 - 640 C.E.

This period is what amounts to the joint reign of Pacal I and his mother Zak-Kuk. during this period Pacal erects no monuments and records no known wars. Inscriptions at Palenque, (Lakam-Ha) and other sites do not record any disasters happening to the kingdom of Bak. It seems safe to conclude that Zak-Kuk was successful in keeping things together and beginning the process of recovery of the kingdom. Pacal later in his reign records that his mother was unable to make the proper sacrifices because the gods were damaged.

?March 22, 626 C.E.

On this date Pacal marries lady Ahpo-Hel. Pacal is 22 years old and will turn 23 on March 26, 626 C.E., the marriage, at least politically, is a great success. Since Pacal would record this event has one of the 5 most significant events of his reign it seems safe to conclude that lady Ahpo-Hel came from a significant family and city.

January 27, 633 C.E.

On this date Zak-Kuk celebrates a katun, (twenty year) anniversary. This anniversary also probably celebrates the twenty, plus a few months since she took power.

May 23, 635 C.E.

On this date, Kan B'alam II was born to Pacal and lady Ahpo-Hel. This son would eventually follow Pacal as king of Palenque, (Lakam-Ha) in 683 C.E. It is possible that Pacal had sons born before Kan B'alam who did not survive their father. Pacal is 32 years old.

September 12, 640 C.E.

Pacal becomes sole ruler of Palenque, (Lakam-Ha) on this date, when his mother Zak-Kuk dies. Pacal is now well established as ruler because since his mother's possible accession to the throne there has been peace and stability and gradual recovery. However little if any building activity has been done, and Lakam-Ha still has many dangerous enemies. Pacal is 37 years old.

Map of Downtown Lakam-Ha (Palenque)

June 17, 641 C.E.

On this date Pacal holds a ritual and ceremony to officially designate his son, Kan B'alam II, age 6, his heir. This further solidifies Pacal's position and the security of the dynasty.

January 1, 643 C.E.

Kan-B'alam-Mo', Pacal's father dies, on this date. With his fathers death the last strings of parental control are removed.

644 C.E.

Pacal begins a war with the nearby city of Tortuguero. This is Pacal's first major war. Tortuguero is an ally of Kalak'mul (Kan) and a enemy of Palenque (Lakam-Ha) and Palenque's ally Tikal, (Mutul).

November 5, 644 C.E.

On this date, Kan-Xul II was born to Pacal and lady Ahpo-Hel. This son would eventually follow his older brother Kan B'alam II as king of Palenque, (Lakam-Ha) in 702 C.E. It is possible that Pacal had other sons who did not survive their father.

January 31, 645 C.E.

Pacal sacks a city, perhaps an ally of Tortuguero. This is Pacal's first great military achievement. The name of the city is unknown but Pacal extends his control into the east of his kingdom.

647 C.E.

Pacal dedicates his first great building project, the temple Olividado. This temple is of a radically different design from earlier ones, with a double-galleried hall, much thinner walls than usual, and many doors and vaults. This temple apparently celebrated the rival of the power and prestige of Palenque, (Lakam-Ha).

?November 18-25, 649 C.E.

Pacal takes and sacks Tortuguero.The eastern frontier of the kingdom is now stabilized. Pacal turn his attention to the western frontier of the kingdom.

April 19, 653 C.E.

Pacal performs a ritual dance to appease the gods and ensure the safety of Lakam-Ha, (Palenque).

November 654 C.E.

Dedication of the subterrean passages below house E in the Palace.

September 10, 655 C.E.

An event of some importance occurs involving Pacal's wars in the west. The exact nature of the event is not known.

650-658 C.E.

Pacal constructs the Temple of the Count, and houses, E, B, in the palace. The architecture continues to be innovative and continues to indicate the revival of Palenque (Lakam-Ha).

August 7, 659 C.E.

Pacal captures Nuun Ujol Chahk king of Santa Elena. Six days later this king and his lieutenants are presented at Palenque (Lakham-Ha).

August 16, 659 C.E.

Nun-Bak-Chak king of Tikal (Mutul) and ally of Pacal visits him in Lakam-Ha. Nun-Bak-Chak had been driven out of Mutul by an alliance of Kalak'mul and Dos Pilas. The visit was probably both a high level meeting to discuss strategy and an affirmation of Pacal's support for the alliance between Lakam-Ha and Mutul. The very fact that Pacal would thus defy Kalak'mul, which had twice taken Lakam-Ha in 60 years, indicates the significant revival of Lakam-Ha's fortunes. Also it indicates very clearly Pacal's continuation of the long-standing alliance with Mutul. This long-standing conflict was by now at least a century old. The conflict would carry on long after Pacal's death. This event was considered by Pacal one of the most important events in his life and he made sure it was prominently recorded. Pacal is 56 years old.

659 C.E.

Pacal dedicates house C in the palace. This is the last of Pacal's construction work until close to his death.

662 C.E.

Several unknown prisoners are displayed at this time by Pacal.

662 C.E.

Pacal appoints a nobelman Aj Sul to th position of Yajawk'ahk (Lord of Fire), probably a military position.

c.664 C.E.

Nun-Bak-Chak king of Tikal (Mutul) regains control of Mutul. Apparently Pacal has a hand in this. The reestablishment of Nun-Bak-Chak probably removes for the time being any worries about Kalak'mul

c.672 C.E.

Nun-Bak-Chak takes Dos-Pilas with the assistance of his allies including Lakam-Ha (Palenque). It is possible Pacal was there when the city was taken.

November 16, 672 C.E.

Lady Ahpo-Hel wife of Pacal and mother of two future kings, Kan B'alam II & Kan-Xul II, dies on this day. Ahpo-Hel and Pacal had been married 46 years. This event is also prominently recorded by Pacal. Pacal is now 69 years old and probably feeling his age.

October 20, 675 C.E.

Pacal performs a ritual associated with the creation of this universe and the mayan hero twins. This was a ritual to insure the safety of both the dynasty and the kingdom.

677 C.E.

Kalak'mul and the deposed king of Dos Pilas, Balah-Kan K'wail retake Dos Pilas. This a considerable set back for the alliance headed by Tikal (Mutul). Whether or not Pacal is involved in this defeat is not known.

679 C.E.

Nun-Bak-Chak king of Tikal, (Mutul) is captured and sacrificed by Balah-Kan K'wail king of Dos Pilas. This is a major disaster for the alliance. We do not know if Pacal was involved. It is very likely that this disaster involving a man that Pacal knew personally would have shaken Pacal. Also it would seem that this would create a serious threat to Pacal and his kingdom. Amazingly Pacal and his kingdom escape unscathed from the disaster. How? We do not know.

January 26, 679 C.E.

Pacal organizes and lays out the succession among his three sons.

c. 680-683 C.E.

Pacal builds the Temple of the Inscriptions to honor the gods and inside the temple, at its base, builds a truly remarkable tomb. Pacal records in the tomb two "king" lists and a third in the temple on the top of the pyramid. Pacal's son Chan Bahlam II finishes the temple and dedicates it on july 6, 690 C.E. The temple itself with its stucco carvings, stone sculpture, beautiful and architecture, is considered by many the most beautiful building ever built by the Mayans. The world would first see Pacal from the beautiful image of him on the incredible sarcophagus lid found in the tomb when it was opened by Ruz in 1952.

Temple of the Inscriptions

August 31, 683 C.E.

Pacal dies, apparently suddenly, at the age of 80. Pacal has reigned 68 years. Shortly after he dies he is buried in the Temple of the Inscriptions. His son Kan B'alam II formally succeeds him on January 10, 684 C.E. It is said that the emperor Augustus when he lay dying asked "have I conducted myself well in this farce called life?". The historian Suetonius said "yes". If Pacal had been asked this question, the reply would have been the same.

Sarcophagus of Pacal I

The Sources for this life are:

Schele, Linda, Wars of Pacal, on September 29th 1995 at the Palenque Round Table, Palenque Mexico. Notes from the talk Here.

Martin, Simon, Grube, Nikolai, Chronicle of the Mayan Kings and Queens, 2nd edition, Thames and Hudson, London 2008, pp. 155-175.

Schele, Linda, Mathews, Peter, The Code of Kings, Touchstone, New York, 1998, pp. 95-132.

Schele, Linda, Freidel, David, A Forest of Kings, William Morrow and Company Inc., New York, 1990. pp. 216-261.

Stuart, David & Stuart, George, Palenque, Thames and Hudson, London, 2008, pp. 147-184.

Mathews, Peter, Who’s Who in the Classic Maya World - K'inich Janab' Pakal I, From the FAMSI website Here.

Pierre Cloutier

Reference "Bites"

Scene After the Battle of Waterloo

Large reference works that try to cover a particular area over a long period of time have a big task before them in terms of trying to be accurate everywhere. It’s a tall order and sometimes the effort falls flat in places. Here I’ll examine one particular book. In this case The Encyclopedia of Military History.1

The book contains some errors of fact and some errors of interpretation that illustrate the pitfalls in relying on such omnibus works. As the title suggests the work is an encyclopedic look at world wide military history arranged chronologically. It contains a great deal of useful and interesting material unfortunately it also contains misinformation and error.

For example:

Abel er-Rahman led a Moslem army of unknown strength (probably about 50,000) into Aquitaine. slipping past the western flank of the Pyrenees at Irun.2

Well our authors should have quit when they were ahead with “unknown strength”, the figure is absurd for a raiding, cavalry army of that time period 5,000 or less is more reasonable.3 Simply put finding fodder for such a horde of horses would have impossible at that place and time. The passage then goes on to talk about it being a decisive battle of the world, at Poitiers. One of the usual “Western” army defeats “Oriental” horde type battles that are a perennial of western historical literature since the Greeks fought the Persians. The implication being that somehow the “Oriental” horde, (which always hugely outnumbers the gallant “Western” army), represents the forces of darkness.

Contemporary accounts would seem to indicate that it was the defeat of a large raiding party and nothing earth shaking. Unlike the siege of Constantinople in 717-718, a vastly more important event. But going against centuries of Occidental wisdom was a bit too difficult I guess.4

Some distortions are less innocent however:

1890, December 20, Battle of Wounded Knee. Leadership of the Sioux now devolved on Chief Big Foot, he was defeated by the 7th Cavalry, which thus gained revenge for its defeat on the Little Big Horn (see p. 906) This was the last major Indian conflict.5

Lets see Chief Big Foot was extremely ill and on a stretcher, unarmed and was riddled with bullets has he lay there in the camp which was surrounded by the 7th cavalry. Over 200 at least and probably 300 Sioux men, women and children were killed. The great majority of 7th cavalry dead and wounded were caused by their own bullets and artillery. This is why virtually everyone calls Wounded Knee a massacre. But then to some people it is required to save the honour of the American Army that this sordid episode be called a battle.6

The previous pages also contain similar distortions about the Indian wars. For example:

The refusal of the Northern Sioux tribes to go onto their assigned reservations led to the most serious Indian uprising since that of Tecumseh.7

Well first of all it was not the most serious Indian uprising since Tecumseh, the Seminole Indian war, 1835-1842, was worst for one. Secondly Tecumseh was leading not an uprising but resistance against invasion. The Indian tribes did not for one accept that they were subjects of the United States so they were not revolting against the authority of the United States. Thirdly the cause of Sioux was not simply a refusal to go back onto the reservations, which many could not do and was an illegal order that they were not bound to obey anyway. Finally this remark ignores the real issue the attempt by the U.S. government to seize the Black hills over the opposition of the Sioux.8

On the next page we read:

1876, June 17, Battle of the Rosebud. Crook again caught up with Crazy Horse, who had now assembled a force of 4000 – 6000 warriors. Against odds of at least 5-1 Crook fought a bitterly contested drawn battle.9

Well first of all Crazy Horse was just one of a number of war chiefs. At most the Indians at the Rosebud had 1200 warriors and the actual number was probably c. 1000. Crook had c. 1300 men. If anything he outnumbered the Indians. Yes the battle was a tactical draw but Crook retired afterwards and did not move for a month. So if anything he lost. But then I suppose it is necessary to beef up the reputation of the American military for what is frankly an embarrassing result.10

One the next page we read:

Comment. Chief Joseph must be ranked among the great American military leaders.11

Chief Joseph was not a military chief, he left that to others. Military decisions were made by a collective of military chiefs among the Nez Perce Indians not by one paramount leader.12

In a few pages we have quite a collection of mistakes. Some like the one about Chief Joseph indicate simple ignorance. The others seem to be based on a desire to save the reputation of the U.S. government and army and are thus examples of official received wisdom.

Another relatively innocent error is:

1391-1399. Ottoman Siege of Constantinople.13

Well the siege was actually 1394-1402. After Tamerlane defeated the Ottoman Turks in the battle of Angora the siege was lifted. In fairness many books have these years for the siege.14

On another by page we read: “Syria never recovered from Tamerlane’s devastation”.15 Sorry to say this but Syria rapidly recovered. The phrase is simple puffery.

On one page we read:

1423, September-October. Ziska's invasion of Hungary. This failed, despite initial success.16

This is simply wrong Ziska did not invade Hungary, although there was a Hussite invasion of Hungary in 1431, which Ziska was not involved with Ziska having died in 1424. It appears that the 1431 invasion was back dated to 1423.17

An example of compound error is:

1213-1226. Conclusion of the Crusade. Muret was the last important engagement of the crusade, but the heretics persisted for more than a decade while the crusaders systematically seized one fortified stronghold after another and ruthlessly put most of the heretics to the sword. Simon was killed during a siege of a stronghold near Toulouse (1222). But his successors carried on; the last embers of heresy were stamped out (1226).18

The above is a farrago of error. Well to go in order. Muret was not the last important engagement of the Crusade. The main opposition to Simon and the Crusaders was local thoroughly Catholic nobility and people who resented Simon and his Crusaders attempt to use a Crusade has a precept to dispossess them. Resistance did not just persist for a decade, (actually 16 years) after Muret but was successful in driving out the Crusaders. Simon was killed in besieging Toulouse, not a stronghold nearby, which had revolted against him. Simon was killed in 1218 not 1222. His successors did indeed carry on and were defeated. Simon’s son gave up all his “rights” to the French king. The French King intervened in 1226 and finally after severe fighting forced the submission of Languedoc in 1229, (not 1226). And it took about a century to stamp out “heresy” in Languedoc after 1226.19

Some times the text contradicts itself and in this case on the same page!

Supported by Nadir Kuli Beg, an obscure Khorasan chieftain, Tahmasp conquered Meshed and Heart (1728).

…

1730. Conquest of Meshed. Nadir marched on Meshed where an independent Afghan chieftain, Malik Mahmud, had established himself (1722) and now refused to submit to the new shah. Nadir defeated Malik outside the city, which he then captured through treachery.

…

With Nadir occupied in the west, there were outbreaks in Khorasan, largely inspired and exploited by the Abdali Afghans of Heart. Nadir raised the siege of Eviran, marched 1,400 miles east, defeated the Abdalis, invested and captured Herat (1732).20

Well what happened was it 1728 or 1730 / 1732? Just how did the editor miss that one?

And there is of course the old “Oriental” horde cliche. For example we read that Xerxes assembled an army of 200,000 men in 480 B.C.E., that there were 50,000 Persians at Marathon and 100,000 at Plataea.21 All those figures can be dismissed without more ado as nonsense. In the same spirit we have the old cliche of the Ottoman Turkish horde for example 200,000 at the siege of Rhodes (1522). 70-80,000 at the battle of Mohacs (1526).22 Of course that is only some of the “Oriental” horde exaggerations that exist throughout the book. In fact it appears that the size of Ottoman Turk armies are almost always exaggerated in the book.

The stereotype of the small European army fighting the huge “oriental” army is a cliche with a long tradition in the west. It probably is related to ideas of innate western superiority and the desire to inflate western accomplishments but it still annoying to see a reference work peddle this sort of nonsense.

The book also when it comes to more recent time periods is marred by a rather obvious political / ideological bias. For example:

All ethical standards of western civilization were scorned by the Communists.23

Really? One doesn’t have to approve of the very bad Chinese / North Korean treatment of prisoners to realize that this statement is simply agitation propaganda. One could of course discuss some of the standards of “Western Civilization” to realize that things are not quite so Manichean or to realize perhaps it would have been better to say, “many of the standards of civilized treatment of prisoners of war were violated by the Communists” i.e., the Geneva Conventions, which is true but doesn’t have quite the same Manichean sense of the original phrase.24

The section on the Vietnam war,25 manages to state in a particularly concise manner the common shibboleth that the U.S. had won the war by the middle of 1972 and that they were deprived of victory through treachery and being stabbed in the back. The similarity of this fantasy with the old German legend of being stabbed in the back and therefore losing the First World War is interesting and it is of course of equal validity.26

The book also suffers from an excessive concentration of the west in terms of history that leads to a very distorted idea of the importance of events elsewhere. For example the amount of attention devoted to the American Civil war (37 pages) as against the Taiping Rebellion in China (less than a page).27

So the conclusion is that this particular reference work should be used with great care and its facts double checked if you are going to rely on them. Also very unfortunately these sorts of errors of fact and interpretation are far too common is such works.

1. Dupuy, R. Ernest & Dupuy, Trevor N., The Encyclopedia of Military History, Revised Edition, Harper and Row Pub., New York, 1977.

2. Ibid. p. 204.

3. Kennedy, Hugh, The Great Arab Conquests, Orion Books Ltd., London, 2007, pp. 319-322, and Lewis, Bernard, The Muslim Discovery of Europe, W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 1982, pp. 18-20.

4. Ibid. Lewis, Kennedy, pp. 330-332.

5. Dupuy & Dupuy, p. 907.

6. Brown, Dee, Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee, Bantam Books, New York, 1971, pp. 389-419.

7. Dupuy and Dupuy, p. 905.

8. Brown, pp. 261-296, Gray, John S., Centennial Campaign, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman OK., 1976, pp. 9-34.

9. Dupuy & Dupuy,. p. 906.

10. Gray, pp. 119-138, gives a figure of 750 warriors at p. 120, Sarf, Wayne Michael, The Little Big Horn Campaign, Combined Pub., Conshohocken PENN., 1993, pp. 87-115, gives a figure of 1500 on page 90, which however includes all the warriors in the camp not just those who had gone to fight Crook.

11. Dupuy & Dupuy, p. 907.

12. Beal, Merrill D., “I Will Fight No More Forever”, Ballantine Books, New York, 1963, pp. 277-280.

13. Dupuy & Dupuy,. p. 388.

14. Nicol, Donald M., The Last Centuries of Byzantium, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993, pp. 302-317.

15. Dupuy & Dupuy, p. 390.

16. Dupuy & Dupuy, p. 433.

17. Dupuy & Dupuy, p. 368.

18. Fudge, Thomas A., The Crusade against Heretics in Bohemia, 1418-1437, Ashgate Pub. Ltd., Aldershot, England, 2002, p. 336.

19. O’Shea, Stephen, The Perfect Heresy, Douglas & McIntyre, Toronto, 2000, pp. 157-190, Oldenbourg, Zoe, Massacre at Montsegur, Phoenix Press, London, 1961, pp. 177-253.

20. Dupuy & Dupuy, p. 649.

21. Dupuy & Dupuy, p. 25, 23, 27. for a critique of these figures see Delbrück, Hans, Warfare in Antiquity: History of the Art of War, Volume I, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln NB., 1990.

22. Dupuy & Dupuy. p. 496, 497. Turkish Chronicles give a maximum of 46,000 for Mohacs for example, see Lamb, Harold, Suleiman The Magnificent, Bantam Books, 1951, p. 87.

23. Dupuy& Dupuy, p. 1251.

24. See Hastings, Max, Korean War, Simon and Shuster, New York, 1988.

25. Dupuy & Dupuy, p. 1209-1221.

26. For a version of this stab in the back mythos see Colby, William, McCargar, James, Lost Victory, Contemporary Books, New York, 1989. For an altogether more accurate view see Bergerud, Eric M., The Dynamics of Defeat, Westview Press, Oxford, 1991. For a review of the role of the media, and refutation of the myth of the “Liberal” media stabbing in the back see Hallin, Daniel, The “Uncensored War”, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA., 1986.

27. Dupuy & Dupuy, p. 868-905, The Taiping Rebellion in pieces over the following pages 862-864.

Pierre Cloutier

Simon de Montfort
Some Thoughts

Between 1209 C.E., and 1229 C.E., the south of France was convulsed with the war known as the Albigensian Crusade. The Crusade was formally against the so called Cathar heretics of southern France1 but turned rapidly into a mass pillaging campaign in which northern French nobility sought to gain fortune and fame.

The main leader of the Crusaders during the first part of this Crusade was Simon de Montfort, (1160-1218 C.E.). Simon was born near Paris and was the inheritor of the Montfort estates near Paris upon his fathers death in 1181 C.E. Simon de Montfort went on the infamous 4th Crusade although he did not reap much benefit from his participation.2

Drawing of a Stained Glass Portrait of Simon de Montfort

Simon’s great claim to fame is his military leadership of the Crusade against the Cathar heretics in southern France, which turned into a campaign of conquest and looting of the southern French nobility.

Map of Southern France before the Crusade

Simon’s extraordinary military ability was in evidence through much of this time period along with his iron determination to succeed. His greatest victory was his incredible victory in the Battle of Muret in 1213, which he achieved over Pedro II of Aragon, (who was killed) and the southern nobility and city militia of Toulouse.3

To quote:

(466) After this – and the death of about twenty thousand of the enemies of the faith, some by drowning, some by the sword – our most Christian Count walked barefoot from the place where he had dismounted to the church, to render thanks to Almighty God for the victory He had been granted, since he recognized that this miracle had been wrought by God’s grace and not the efforts of men His horse and his armour he gave as alms for the poor.4

So speaks Peter about his near “perfect” Christian hero after the battle.

Unfortunately Simon’s great military ability was not matched by much ability in the realm of statecraft or administration and the organized looting, disinheriting and exploitation of the domains that Simon conquered soon earned Simon a great deal of hatred and the almost extraordinary brutality of the crusade did not help. For example:

(227) Soon Aimeric, the former lord of Montreal, of whom we spoke above, was led out of Laveur with up to eighty other Knights. The noble Count [Simon] proposed that they all should be hanged from fork-shaped gibbets. However, after Aimeric, who was taller than the others, had been hanged, the gibbets started to fall down, since through excessive haste they had not been properly fixed in the ground. The Count realized that to continue would cause a long delay and ordered the rest to be put to the sword. The crusaders fell to this task with great enthusiasm and quickly slew them on the spot. The Count had the Dame of Laveur, sister of Aimeric and a heretic of the worst sort, thrown into a pit and stones heaped on her. Our Crusaders burnt innumerable heretics, with great rejoicing.

Another account of the same event.

(ch. 16) Having thus achieved the unconditional surrender of Laveur. Count Simon had the noble lord Aimeric hanged, together with a few knights; he put to the sword some other nobles and certain others who had mingled with them in the hope that knights would be spared, about eighty in all. He consigned about three hundred robed heretics to everlasting fire by having them consumed by the flames of the material world. He had Giraude the mistress of Laveur thrown into a pit and stones heaped on her. The ordinary people were spared, on conditions.

A final account of the same events.

(s. 71) They had taken this place, [Laveur] as the book says. There they burned at least four hundred evil heretics, heaping them all onto one great funeral pyre. Sir Aimery was hanged, along with many other knights – four Score they hanged there like thieves on the gibbets, some here, some there. Lady Girauda was taken and she shrieked and screamed and shouted. They held her across a well and dropped her into it, I know this for certain, and threw stones on top of her. This caused great dismay. But the other noblewomen were all set free by a kind and courteous Frenchman.5

What makes those reports even more damning is that they are from sources that approved of that sort of horror, and thought of Simon has a great hero. Unfortunately this sort of atrocity was hardly unusual but very common indeed during the Crusade.6 Indeed Peter especially is notorious for excusing and exalting in the murderous, vile atrocities of the Crusaders but if the southerners respond in kind he is quite indignant and angry. A rather interesting example of hypocrisy, but one so blatant and barefaced that I doubt that Peter was even aware in any sense of it being hypocrisy. After all his attitude seems to have been its all right if my side does it but utterly evil and wrong if the other side does it. William of Puylaurens seems to have been if pro-crusader much less of an apologist for their crimes and aware that excesses didn’t help the crusader cause.

Well sometimes in human affairs the wicked are punished, Despite Papal approval of the dispossession of Count Raymond of Toulouse, Raymond VI and his son, who became Raymond VII, continued to fight back. Toulouse, despite capitulating, to Simon was restive under his rule. Previously to quell the inhabitants of Toulouse Simon had sacked the city and razed its walls to the ground.

On the 13th of September 1217 C.E., Count Raymond VI with a tiny group of supporters entered Toulouse after a long ride from the border of Aragon. Toulouse rose in rebellion in support of the Count. To quote a contemporary account:

(s. 182) When the count [Raymond VI] entered through the arched gateway all the people flocked to him. Great and small, lords and ladies, wives and husbands, they knelt before him and kissed his clothing, his feet and legs, his arms and fingers. With tears of delight and joy they welcomed him, for joy regained bears both flower and fruit.

...

“Now we have Jesus Christ!” They said to each other, “now we have the morning star risen and shining upon us! This is our lord who was lost! Through him worth and paratge are freed from their graves, are healed and restored, and our whole kinship regains power for ever!”7

Page from a Manuscript of The Song of the Cathar Wars

Thus speaks an unabashed supporter of the southerners. Peter has a different view of the matter.

(s. 600) For at this time the citizens of Toulouse – perhaps we should say “the deceivers” - were inspired by the Devil to secede from god and the Church and revolt against the Count de Montfort. They welcomed into their city Raymond, their erstwhile Count and lord, who had been deservedly deprived of his possessions and exiled on the authority of the Pope and the Second Lateran Council.8

In October of 1217 C.E., Simon appeared in front of Toulouse and he besieged the city for eight months. The siege was fought with great determination on both sides. The Toulousians amazingly where able to rebuild their walls to a defensible state in the short time before Simon arrived.9

Despite repeated attempts Simon fails to take Toulouse and in the meantime his grip on his possessions throughout the south is slipping. On June 25 1218 C.E., while fighting a sortie from Toulouse Simon is killed. To quote The Song of the Cathar Wars:

(s. 205) As Sir Guy [Simon’s brother] was speaking and beginning to shout and yell, there was in the town a mangonel built by a carpenter and dragged with its platform from St. Sernin. This was worked by noblewomen, by little girls and men’s wives, and now a stone arrived just where it was needed and struck Count Simon on his steel helmet, shattering his eyes, brains, back teeth, forehead and jaw. Bleeding and black, the count dropped dead on the ground.

...

But a messenger brought the news [Count Simon’s death] into Toulouse and such was the joy that all over the town they ran to the churches and lit candles in all the candlesticks and cried out, “Rejoice! God is merciful and paratge shines forth, victorious forever! The cruel and murderous count is dead, dead unshriven because he was a man of blood!” Trumpets, horns and universal joy, chimes and peals and clamouring bells in belfries, drums, tabors and slender clarons rang through the town tell every paving-stone re-echoed.10

An allegoric painting of the Lamb of the Languedoc killing the Lion of de Montfort

A popular ballad was composed at this time by the southerners and it goes as follows:

Montfort
Es mort
Es mort
Es mort!
Viva Tolosa
Ciotat gloriosa
et poderosa!
Tornan lo paratge et l'onor!
Montfort
Es mort!
Es mort!
Es mort!

A translation into English is:

Montfort
Is dead
Is dead
Is dead!
Hooray for Toulouse
Glorious city
and powerful!
Honour and paratge return!
Montfort
Is dead!
Is dead!
Is dead!11

Peter, not surprisingly, has a different response to Simon’s death and composed the following epitaph.

(612) Suddenly a stone from an enemy mangonel struck Christ’s knight on the head. The blow was lethal. Twice beating his breast he commended his soul to God and the Blessed Virgin. Like St. Stephen – and stoned to death in that Saint’s city – he went to rest in the lords keeping. Before he received the fatal wound the Lords brave knight – say rather, if we are not mistaken, his most glorious martyr – was five times wounded by the enemy archers, like the Saviour for whom he now patiently accepted death, and by whose side he now lives in sublime peace, as we believe.12

William of Puylaurens says the following:

(ch. 28) So, the man who inspired terror from the Mediterranean to the British sea fell by a blow from a single stone; at his fall those who had previously stood firm fell down. In him, who was a good man, the insolence of his subordinates was thrown down. I affirm that later I heard the Count of Toulouse (the last of his line) generously praise him – even though he was the enemy – for his fidelity, his foresight, his energy and all the qualities which befit a leader.

God then gave a signal that those who arrogantly sought to govern unwilling subjects and gave no thought to purging the land of heresy (for which the whole enterprise had been started), had departed from his way.13

That is the semi-positive verdict of William of Puylaurens who is also, we must not forget, a whole hearted supporter of the inquisition and hater of heretics / heresy.

In the end despite the subsequent recovery by the southerners of virtually everything from the Crusaders and the abandonment of the whole enterprise by Simon de Montfort’s son it was all for naught. The intervention of the King the France beginning in 1226 finally broke southern resistance and in 1229 C.E., forced the Count of Toulouse, Raymond VII son of Count Raymond VI, (who had died in 1222 C.E.,) to sign a humiliating peace, (Peace of Paris 1229 C.E.,). Subsequently the Inquisition was introduced into the south and Catharism brutally suppressed. In the end the lands of the Count of Toulouse were incorporated into the royal domain of the French king.14

So in the end all did not turn out well but an alternative epitaph exists for Simon de Montfort and it is entirely appropriate unlike the epitaphs of William of Puylaurens or Peter. Both of whom, especially Peter, are far too enamored of the brave fighter against heresy. It is from the Anonymous contributor to The Song of the Cathar Wars, that we get the words that damn Simon de Montfort for all time, and they go as follows:

(s. 208) Straightway they bore him to burial in Carcassonne, and celebrated the funeral service at the monastery of Saint-Nazaire. And those who can read may learn from his epitaph that he is a saint and a martyr; that he is bound to rise again to share the heritage, to flourish in that state of unparalleled felicity, to wear a crown and have his place in the Kingdom. But for my part I have heard tell that the matter must stand thus: if one may seek Christ Jesus in this world by killing men and shedding blood by the destruction of human souls; by compounding murder and hearkening to perverse counsel; by setting the torch to great fires; by destroying the Barons and dishonouring Parage; by winning lands through violence, and working for the triumph of vain pride; by fostering evil and snuffing out good; by slaughtering women and slitting children’s throats – why, then he must needs wear a crown, and shine resplendent in Heaven.15

Tombstone of Simon de Montfort at Carcassonne16

1. For accounts of the Cathar “heresy” see The Perfect Heresy, Stephen O’Shea, Douglas and McIntyre, Vancouver, 2000, pp. 17-31, Massacre at Montsegur, Zoe Oldenbourg, Phoenix Press, London, 1961, pp. 28-81, The Cathars, Malcolm Lambert, Blackwell Pub. Ltd., London, 1998, pp. 131-170, The Cathars, Malcolm Barber, The Cathars, Longman, Toronto, 2000, pp. 6-33, 71-126, The Origins of European Dissent, 2d edition, R. I. Moore, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1985, pp. 197-240, The Medieval Manichee, Steven Runciman, The Viking Press, New York, 1947, pp. 116-170. See also The Birth of Popular Heresy, R. I. Moore, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1995, pp. 9-26, 113-154. for an interesting collection of essays about aspects of "Heresy" and "Crusading" see Crusaders and Heretics, 12th - 14th Centuries, Malcolm Barber, Variorum, Aldershot, Britain, 1995.

2. See Wikipedia article Simon de Montfort, 5th Earl of Leicester at Here.

3. For contemporary accounts of the battle see The History of the Albigensian Crusade, Peter de Les Vaux-de-Cernay, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, England, 1998, pp. 206-219, (s. 453-486). (Peter accompanied Simon on the Crusade has a chronicler). A copy in Latin can be found Here. The Song of the Cathar Wars, William of Tudela & Anonymous, Scolar Press, Aldershot England, 1996, pp. 67-71, (s. 133-141). (This is from the part written by Anonymous who is very anti-Crusader and almost certainly attached to the court of the Counts of Toulouse) A copy can be found in French Here. The Chronicle of William of Puylaurens, William of Puylaurens, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, England, 2003, pp. 43-49, (ch. 20-21) (William of Puylaurens was an aide to Bishop Fulk of Toulouse and then to Fulk's successor in the period 1225-1260.) A copy can be found in Latin Here. Modern accounts are O’Shea, pp. 132-149, Oldenbourg, pp. 165-170.

4. Peter, p. 213.

5. The Three quotes in order are from, Peter, p. 117, Williams of Puylaurens, p. 40, Song of the Cathar Wars, William of Tudela section, p. 42. Laveur fell in 1211 C.E.

6. See O’Shea and Oldenbourg for more of the disgusting details.

7. Song of the Cathar Wars, Anonymous section, p. 122-123.

8. Peter, p. 270.

9. The best account of this siege is in Song of the Cathar Wars, pp. 122-176, (s.182-207).

10. Song of the Cathar Wars, Anonymous, p. 172.

11. Oldenbourg, p. 201. Translation by Pierre Cloutier.

12. Peter, p. 277.

13. William of Puylaurens, pp. 61-62.

14. For the unpleasant story see William of Puylaurens, pp. 64-125, (ch. 30-50), For the Treaty of Paris, 1229, a copy can be found in Chronicle of William of Puylaurens, pp. 138-144, For more discussion of these events see Oldenbourg, pp. 207-309, O’Shea, pp. 179-238.

15. I use the translation of this passage from Oldenbourg, pp. 199-200, which I like the best. The passage can also be found in Song of the Cathar Wars, Anonymous, pp. 176. The passage can be found on the website Languedoc at Here. Positive accounts of Simon de Montfort are few and far between An example of this is Simon de Montfort (1165-1218), His Life and Work: A Critical Study and Evaluation based on the Sources, Robert John Kovarik, Phd, St Louis University, 1963, a copy can be found Here. Aside from excusing, rationlizing Simon's behavior and attitudes. (The old saw about the "times" etc., ignoring the tolerance of the South for example). The author quite selectively uses data. For example he quotes (p. 348), the first part of Anonymous' epitath but excludes all of the stuff from "But for my part..." The author also manages to elide all the stuff indicating the great hatred with which Southerners regarded Simon de Montfort.

16. The body of Simon de Montfort is no longer there. Simon's son removed it in 1224 C.E., to prevent it from being violated by the resurgent southerners. See Oldenbourg, p. 207.

Pierre Cloutier

The Population of Ancient Rome

In popular books (and far too many scholarly books) is the statement that ancient Rome had a population of 1,000,000 (one million).1 This is likely mistaken for the reasons outlined below.

Map of Ancient Rome

A) Size and situation of Ancient Rome

The Rome described here is the Rome bounded by the Aurelian walls. This Rome covered an area of c. 1,230 hectares2 or c.13.86 sq. km.3 Within the walls of ancient Rome were large areas of dense housing called insulae “apartments” (c. 46,602) and domus “palaces”, (c. 1,760).4 There were also extensive public areas such as the various forums, public buildings, the Imperial palace and gardens and especially near the area of the walls, (which were not built until the reign of the Emperor Aurelian, c. 270 C.E.), large areas of open space.5

B) Population Density of Ancient Rome if Population One Million and Implications

If the Population density of Ancient Rome was 1,000,000, (one million) the following density of population is achieved; a density of c. 813 per hectare or c. 72,150 per sq. km.6

What are the implications of this figure? The most important implication of this figure is that Rome had an incredibly high density of population. Moreover in terms of the actual density of population if we calculate in that a minimum of 25% of the area within the area of the Aurelian walls was public areas, empty space etc., than the population density goes up to c. 1,084 per hectare or c. 96,200 per sq. km. Are these figures realistic?7

The Round Temple in Forum Boarium

C) Comparisons

Some authors have tried to compare ancient Rome with modern cities by citing the incredibly high populations and densities of modern cities. For example:

If we assume a population of about a million, we must conclude that Rome in the early principate was one of the most densely populated cities the world has ever known – as crowded, probably, as modern day Bombay or Calcutta.8

If Bombay and especially Calcutta have become modern day examples of horrific urban congestion the aptness of this comparison is somewhat weakened when the actual population density of Bombay (c. 1980) is found to be c. 18,796 per sq. km., and Calcutta density (c. 1988) is found to be c. 31,779 per sq. km.9

The Colisseum

In fact modern cities seem to have lower population densities than pre-industrial cities because they cover much larger areas. The mean density of a modern city works out to c. 5,991 per sq. km. and median density works out to c. 3,790 per sq. km.10 Regarding a comparison with pre-industrial cities the densities work out to a mean of c. 16,661 per sq. km., and a median of c. 12,897 per sq. km. Regarding figures for cities from the Roman period the mean density works is c. 13,607.11 Of Course given our lack of “hard” information for cities of the Middle ages and the Ancient world the density figures for cities of that time period are not set in stone. The Margin of error is very large.

Another comparison is with the population of modern Rome at various times. In 1901 Rome had an estimated population of c. 538,000 which covered an area of 1,411 hectares with a density of c. 381 per hectare or c. 33,360 per sq. km. And this Rome used far more of the space of ancient Rome for housing.12

Map of Rome in 1902

Finally a comparison with the excavated city sites such as Ostia and Pompeii and the use of modern counting procedures lead to a density of c. 18,000 per sq. km. for Pompeii and c. 32,000 per sq. km. for Ostia. Applying these figures to Rome leads to a population of c. 249,480 if the Pompeii figure is used. If the Ostia figure is used Rome’s population is c. 443,520.13

Temple of Vesta

D) Conclusion

The implications of the above analysis is that a figure for 1,000,000 (one million) for ancient Rome is rather unlikely, given the density called for if the population had been 1,000,000 (one million). Also the fact that Rome would not achieve a population of 1,000,000 (one million) until well into the twentieth century. Further that it is rather unlikely that Rome had such an unprecedented density of population for a pre-industrial city as 72,150 per sq. km.14

Comparison with the ancient excavated cities of Ostia and Pompeii along with comparison with the recent modern population of Rome suggest a figure of 400,000 – 500,000 people for the population of ancient Rome.15

Map of Ancient Rome

1. For example see Daily Life in Ancient Rome: The People and City at the height of the Empire,J. Carcopino, Yale University Press, New Haven, CONN., 1940.

2. The End of the Ancient World and the Beginnings of the Middle Ages, Ferdinand Lot, Harper and Row, New York, 1961, p. 70.

3. The Population of Ancient Rome, Glenn R. Storey, Antiquity, v. 71, 1997, pp. 966-978, p. 966.

4. Footnote 2, at 70.

5. Ibid.

6. See Footnote 3 p. 966, for persons per km. Figure per hectare is my own calculation.

7. Calculations are my own.

8. The Ancient Roman City, J. E., Stambaugh, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore Maryland, 1988, p. 90.

9. Footnote 3, p. 976.

10. Ibid., p. 975-976.

11. Ibid.

12. Footnote 2, at 70. Calculation of population density per hectare and km. is my own.

13, Footnote 3, pp. 973-975. Calculations of total population are my own.

14 Footnote 3, p. 966.

15. Footnote 3, p. 975, see also Footnote 2.

Pierre Cloutier

Notes on 1984

1984 is more of a cultural phenomena than a work of great literature, but since a generation has past since the actual 1984 perhaps it can be examined without political / mythological blinders.

I can remember that when 1984, the year, arrived we were treated to a deluge of books and articles, TV specials etc., about the book and the phenomena, and it had been steadily growing for years. I can remember when 1984 references were much more common than they are now. The year has come and gone and it lost its “cachet” so to speak. In fact I took the novel in High School, (Grade 12)!

Still from 1954 BBC Film of 1984

There are not very many critiques of 1984 from the point of view of Science Fiction, but there are a myriad of critiques from a political point of view.

To get this out of the way first. It is a wearying, but basically an omnipresent view that Orwell’s novel is an attack on Socialism. This view is of course has been and is very “Politically Correct”, and depends on a studied, deliberate and willful effort to ignore what Orwell said about his novel. The mental discipline required to hold this opinion is quite formidable and depends on a carefully cultivated ignorance into which contrary facts may not intrude. For example:

1984, like Animal Farm, was a deep embarrassment to
leftists. Orwell, a socialist disgusted and disillusioned by the excesses of Stalin's regime, wrote both works in protest. Despite many attempts to re-spin 1984 as being "really about the alienation in all modern societies," the references to socialism in 1984 are pervasive. Oceania (the Americas and British Empire) is ruled by a system called Ingsoc (English Socialism), and Eurasia (Russia and Europe) is ruled by Neo-Bolshevism. The lessons of 1984 might be applicable to any totalitarian system, but the novel is first, last, and foremost about socialism.1

No doubt what Orwell had to say is irrelevant since our quoted writer “knows” that the “the novel is first, last, and foremost about socialism”. No doubt hoping that by repeated emphatic, statements to convince himself and his readers. Our author forgets that Orwell died a convinced Socialist. Would it not be more accurate to say that “the novel is first, last, and foremost about Stalinism”? One of the reasons that the novel is a “deep embarrassment to leftists” is that certain intellectuals insisted and still insist that it is a deep embarrassment to the entire left of the political spectrum, but of course deny that Nazism and such novels as The Iron Heel are a “deep embarrassment” to the right of the political spectrum, or to capitalism. This is obviously pure polemics, and its use is to score debating points.

Orwell’s comments in the novel about systems of exploitation and ruling classes in the past are of course ignored, including the rather frightening idea that to Orwell the society of 1984 is the “perfect” class rule, in which the ruling class has apparently found a “perfect” way to stay in power forever. O’Brien seems to be almost frighteningly clear eyed about what this new society is actually trying to do. Just how is that “Socialist”?

I’m referring to all that stuff about staying in power, the endless crushing of people; boot in the face forever stuff. Sounds not very “Socialist”, but has certain affinities to Fascist ideas about endless struggle, and only struggle making life worth while.

In 1949 in a letter to the New York Times about his novel Orwell said:

"My recent novel [1984] is NOT intended as an attack on Socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a supporter) but as a show-up of the perversions ... which have already been partly realized in Communism and Fascism. ...The scene of the book is laid in Britain in order to emphasize that the English-speaking races are not innately better than anyone else and that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere.”2

But then Orwell’s novel, like his work Animal Farm, served an extremely useful purpose in the Cold War of being used not just to attack Stalinism but the “left” in general, (which could include anyone to the left of extreme conservatives). That Orwell was less than enamored with capitalism was of course forgotten down the memory hole. (How Orwellian!)3

A side issue is why Orwell named the novel 1984. One story is that Orwell originally was going to call it 1948 but was talked into calling it 1984 to give it an less immediate and more prophetic tone. Another story was that Orwell was debating whether to call the novel The Last Man in Europe or 1984 and was told to go with what was then considered a more marketable title. Its also possible that the title was a tribute to the Jack London novel The Iron Heel, which is about a Fascist like movement taking power, in 1984!, and delaying the onset of a Socialist world for centuries. Which casts an interesting light on the supposed anti-socialism of Orwell’s novel.4

Regarding the prophetic value of 1984. Well let’s just say 1984 is not very prophetic. The society described in 1984, with its run down buildings, shortages of everything, like razor blades, shoelaces, and its dreadful gin and tobacco is obviously modeled on a view of Stalinist Russia, although it also carries more than a small resemblance to ration ridden Britain of the war and post war period. So much for seeing what the real 1984 would be like.

As Isaac Asimov said in a review of 1984:

Orwell had no feel for the future, and the displacement of the story is so much more geographical than temporal. The London in which the story is placed is not so much moved 35 years forward in time, from 1949 to 1984, as it is moved a thousand miles east in space to Moscow.5

The story in the novel is a repeat of the Russian Revolution, with Big Brother having a moustache like Stalin, and Emmanuel Goldstein not just being a version of Leon Trotsky but looking like him complete with goatee. In fact Orwell has a real difficulty imagining a realistic future, in this case everything is always breaking down and everything including electricity is intermittent and rationed. And there is an omnipresent black market, shades of not just Stalinist Russia but wartime and post war Britain. In other words it is indeed 1948 and its Stalin’s Russia.

A classic example of that is this from 1984:

Winston fitted the nib into the penholder and sucked it to get the grease off. The pen was an archaic instrument, seldom used even for signatures, and he had procured one, furtively and with some difficulty, simply because of a feeling that the beautiful creamy paper deserved to be written on with a real nib instead of being scratched with an ink pencil.6

This is of course the exact reverse of the truth. Old style pens scratch and the “ink pencil”, probably a ball point pen, does not! This passage does of course indicate a sort of nostalgia for the “good old days”.

Certain criticisms by Asimov do not work for example Asimov’s statement that no can be observing everyone through the two way telescreen at all times is irrelevant. The point is that at any one time someone COULD be observing you doing whatever and you can not be sure when you are being viewed or not viewed. So you would not need to be viewed all the time. So the argument that you would need c. five people to view each person and hence the system would be unworkable doesn't wash. All you would need is each person thinking that they might be being watched at any time. This would require a small group of watchers watching people randomly so that no one could be sure they wern't being watched at any particular time. Orwell was perfectly aware of this. This could potentially be very effective has a means of oppression.

As for Asimov’s criticism that having a system of volunteer spies not working because everyone would eventually report everyone is beside the point. The fact is Stalinist Russia had such a system and so did Nazi Germany and also the Stasi of former East Germany had something similar; so it can work. Asimov is right though in all those cases the system had a tendency to create an overwhelming amount of paperwork and files that tended to bog down the work of the secret police.

As for prophecy Orwell seems to be unable to conceive of computers for record keeping and the writing machines he does conceive of are rather crude for the real 1984. Orwell’s people use razor blades for example: electric razors don’t seem to exist.

Orwell doesn't seem to have been aware that such systems that he described in 1984 are by their very nature self destructive. For example it appears that corruption is rampant and everything either doesn't work or breaks down. Yet amazingly the telescreens work perfectly and the Thought Police and various ministries work without corruption. We now know that corruption, nepotism was very common and got increasingly common over time in the Communist party of Russia; indeed it got common in all Communist one party states to say nothing of regimes like Nazi Germany.

Orwell’s idea about Newspeak, a language that constricts meaning to the point of making heretical thought impossible is of interest. It is also extremely unlikely. Just how do you prevent the meaning of words being modified or changed over time? How would you for example prevent the technical vocabulary of Newspeak from bleeding into everyday words? Just how would you enforce rigid definitions of words and prevent modification through everyday use? It won’t work.

Then there is of course O’Brien’s fulminations. We are supposed to be awed by O’Brien’s statements and be terrified by their “awesome” implications.

For example:

When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will.7

This after O’Brien has began to torture him and of course Winston afterwards “freely” converts after extensive hideous physical and mental torture. O’Brien thus proves that the possession of virtually unlimited power over someone provides an ample scope to inflict these sorts of intellectual stupidities on helpless victims.

Or another example:

O’Brien silenced him by a movement of the hand. “We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull. You will learn by degrees, Winston. here is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation – anything. I could float off this floor like soap bubble if I wished to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it. You must get rid of those nineteenth-century ideas about laws of nature. We make the laws of nature."

...

“Nonsense. The earth is as old as we are, no older. How could it be older? Nothing exists except through human consciousness”8

O’Brien has a whole string of similar stupidities all dependent on the fact that Winston is his helpless victim. Of course O’Brien cannot really believe his idiocies otherwise he would be insane with monomania. It is to be wondered at, if O’Brien really believes this nonsense why is he torturing Winston? If reality is all in the head, why bother?

O’Brien’s philosophical justification for his stupidities is the notion of doublethink the idea of holding two contradictory notions in your head at the same time. Of course people do that sort of thing all the time. But in extreme cases such contradictory thinking would produce disordered thinking even insanity. In O’Brien’s case he uses the notion of doublethink to excuse extreme disordered thinking i.e., willful stupidity. The fact that he has to torture Winston to make Winston accept his insane pontifications is proof that O’Brien’s idea of reality being all in your head is wrong. O’Brien is able to inflict such nonsense on Winston only because he has extreme coercive power over him, if O’Brien was the victim would he magically be able to wish the torture away has being all in his head? I think not! Of course O’Brien never explains how doublethink enables you to not just have two contradictory notions in your head at the same time; but how do you avoid tension between them? How do you avoid situations about having to choose one idea over the other?

O’Brien’s verbal vomit is only terrifying because he has power over another human being and is able to terrorize that human if he refuses to accept his ravings. Otherwise it is intellectually empty.

At the end after torturing Winston most hideously O’Brien breaks him, which is hardly surprising. O’Brien makes some idiot comment about Winston no longer being human because of the way he, Winston, looks physically. This is of course shoddy nonsense. It is O’Brien who has done this to Winston which of course means that O’Brien is less than human. It is fascinating that O’Brien continually says that Winston is responsible for what is happening to himself and that he, O’Brien, is carrying out the "Party's" will. What a fascinating evasion of responsibility. Why such cowardice? After all this is from a man who claims reality is all in the head.

It is curious that Orwell in his novel seemed to be unable to conceive of people being able to resist the tortures of the Thought Police even though the techniques used are very similar to techniques attributed to the NKVD and Gestapo,9 which some people were able to resist. Orwell seems to have a pretty negative view of people.

The aim of the Thought Police torture to convert the unbeliever seems to be similar to the arguments and ideas of the Moscow Show trials of the 30’s where the accused confessed their guilt and admitted their crimes and at the same time said they believed that the Party / Stalin was always right. Once again Orwell does not predict the future but recapitulates the recent past.

Of course Orwell didn't anticipate that after Stalin died the whole system would thaw. It appears that O’Brien’s vision of a boot stamping into a human face forever could not be maintained without tearing everything apart and generating to much instability. The systems rulers decided to turn down the pressure by several notches in order to have some stability instead of risking an explosion.

Its of interest that in Orwell’s novel the “Proles” are looked upon with barely disguised contempt by everyone including the author, yet they are left relatively, (at least compared to party members), “free”. This is obviously going to be a source of future conflict because given the continual terror in the “Party”, the rampant shortages and corruption to say nothing of the overall general decay just how is the emergence of some sort of “middle layer” to be avoided that would eventually challenge the “Party”. Despite O’Brien’s philosophical idiocies nothing he says indicates that the “Party” is immune to decay or that it can avoid presiding over a decaying and failing regime.

Regarding the idea that the regime needs war to burn up surplus production? Well building pyramids would do the same thing, to say nothing of a simple steady increase in population or another of a myriad of substitutes that are more easily controlled.

The idea that a society would need to endlessly rewrite history and spend enormous effort to do so is a simple waste of resources. It is of course simply not necessary people simply don’t require that degree of manipulation to be convinced. This of course owes itself to the Stalinist Russian practice of writing people out of history. For example removing Trotsky from photographs. However the massive continual effort portrayed in 1984 to rewrite history is a simple waste of time.

The fact is has Asimov says:

He [Orwell] did not have the science fictional knack of foreseeing a plausible future and, in actual fact, in almost all cases; the world of 1984 bears no relation to the real world of the 1980’s.10

1. Two Literary Non-Mysteries, Steven Dutch, Here

2. 1984, Wikipedia, Here

3. See The Cruel Peace, Fred Inglis, HarperCollins Pub., New York, 1991, pp. 103-106, for a overview of the Cold War uses of 1984.

4. Ibid. Footnote 2.

5. Asimov on Science Fiction, Isaac Asimov, Avon Books, New York, 1981, p. 249.

6. 1984, George Orwell, The New American Library, New York, 1949, pp. 9-10.

7. Ibid., p. 210.

8. Ibid., p. 218.

9. The Russian and German Secret Police during the Stalinist and Nazi eras.

10. Asimov, p. 259.

Pierre Cloutier