Aesop

Aesop conversing with a Dog

Aesop was the semi-legendary teller of fables attributed to him which go by the name of Aesop’s Fables. Lots of children have read those fables as children but in antiquity they were commonly quoted and used by everyone and have since then merged into the collective memory of all mankind.

I mentioned above that Aesop is semi-legendary. I do this because, although it appears that Aesop really did exist much of what passes for his biography and what fables are attributed to him seems to be complete legend.

For example the only surviving “Life” of Aesop from antiquity is an amusing but highly dubious collection of stories called The Life of Aesop.1

Thus the life describes Aesop has:

Aesop (according to Planudes, Cameraius and others) was by Birth, of Ammorius, a Town in the greater Phrygia; (though some will have him to be a Thracian, others a Samian) of a mean Con-dition, and his Person deformed, to the highest degree: Flat-nos'd,hunch-back'd, blobber-lipp'd; a long mishapen Head; his Bodycrooked all over, big-belly'd, badger-legg'd, and his Complexion so swarthy, that he took his very Name from't; for Aesop is the same with Aethiop. And he was not only unhappy in the most scandalous Figure of a Man, that ever was heard of; but he was in a manner Tongue-ty'd too, by such an Impediment in his Speech, that People could very hardly understand what he said.2

According to the tale Aesop by his kindness was healed by the prayers of certain Priests so that he could speak. By his wits he saved some of his fellow slaves from punishment and also pissed off his master so he was sold in Ephesus to the Philosopher Xanthus and taken to live in Samos.3

The account then describes how Aesop by various means outwitted his master and mistress and eventually obtained his freedom. He then proceeded to tour various parts of the Middle East meeting the famous and telling his fables. He adopted a ungrateful young man named Ennus as his son and finally met his death at the hands of the inhabitants of Delphi who unjustly accused him of sacrilege.4 Afterwards the Delphians were punished:

The Delphians soon after this, were visited with Famine and Pestilence, to such a degree, that they went to consult the Oracle of Apollo to know what Wickedness it was had brought these Calamities upon them. The Oracle gave them this Answer, that they were to expiate for the Death of Aesop. In the Conscience of their Barbarity, they erected a Pyramid to his Honour, and it is upon Tradition, that a great many of the most eminent Men among the Greeks of the tragical End of Aesop, to learn the Truth of the History; and found upon Enquiry, that the principal of the Conspirators had laid violent Hands upon themselves.5

How much of this is to be taken seriously? Not very much.

For example although the most common view in antiquity was that Aesop was a Phrygian According to the Greek Philosopher Aristotle and the historian Herodotus he was actually a Thracian from the town of Mesembria. He seems to have lived in the late 7th and first half of the 6th century B.C.E., and may have died c. 564 B.C.E. He does seem to have spent much of his life in Samos and was also probably a slave for some time before being freed. Aesop was also likely misshapen to some extent although the accounts we have likely exaggerate.6

Herodotus mentions that Aesop, probably captured in war, was a slave of a man named Iadmon, not Xanthus, who also owned the notorious courtesan and fellow Thracian Rhodopis. Herodotus also mentions the story of the Delphians killing Aesop.7

It is virtually certain that the story of Aesop’s death given above is an invention and bottom line is we have no idea when and how Aesop died.8

It appears that in life Aesop acted as a clerk / Secretary for his master and negotiated on his behalf, further that he was in the habit of making his points by telling short fables. The wit and cleverness of these tales soon gave Aesop a reputation for intelligence.9

In fact it appears that after he was freed Aesop seems to have been a respected figure in Samos. Aristotle preserves the story that Aesop was called upon to defend a local politician accused of corruption and on trial for his life Aesop told the following story:

Aesop was defending a demagogue at Samos who was on trial for his life when he told this story: ‘A Fox was crossing a river but she got swept by the current into a gully. A long time passed and she couldn’t get out. Meanwhile, there were ticks swarming all over the fox’s body, making her quite miserable. A hedgehog wandered by and happened to see the fox. He took pity on her and asked if he should remove the ticks, but the fox refused. The hedgehop asked the reason why, and the fox replied, “These ticks have taken their fill of me and are barely sucking my blood at this point, but if you take these ticks away, others will come and those hungry new ticks will drink all the blood I have left!” And the same is true for you, people of Samos: this man will do you no harm since he is already wealthy, but if you condemn him to death, others will come who do not have any money, and they will rob you blind!’10

The Politician was spared.

Now it does appear that after Aesop death all sorts of tales and saying were attributed to Aesop. This includes tales from Egypt, Iraq, Asia Minor, India and of course Greece and Italy.11

Now we know from Herodotus and from Aristophanes that knowledge of Aesop’s fables was pretty widespread by the end of the 5th century before Christ in fact Aristophanes mentions Aesop a couple of times in his plays including this section of his play The Birds:

Peisthetaerus: Oh, how I grieve for you birds: once you were kings!
Chorus Leader: Kings? Of what?
Peisthetaerus: Of all creation. Of me, of him, of Zeus himself. Before Kronos and the Titans, before Earth itself, you existed.
Chorus Leader: Before Earth itself?
Peisthetaerus: Yes, indeed.
Chorus Leader: That’s news to me.
Peisthetaerus: Then you must be very unobservant, or very uneducated: you don’t know your Aesop. According to him, surely, the Lark was the first of all the birds to be born, and this was before Earth existed: so when her father took sick and died, what was the poor creature to do, with no Earth to bury him in? He lay in state for four days and then she buried him in her own head.
Euelpides: What a Lark!12

It appears by then that collections of Aesop’s fables were circulating, probably in very small collections of a few fables attributed to him written up.13

The first large collection of Aesop’s Fables was put together in the late 4th century B.C.E., by a Demetrius of Phalerum who wrote a book called the Aisopeia. Although it as not survived it appears to have been the main source for the many anonymous collections of fables that circulated.14

Later Greco-Roman writers like Phaedrus, Babrius, Aphthonius, Avianus compiled collections of Aesop’s Fables. An 11th century C.E. writer called Syntipas also preserved a collection of fables attributed to Aesop.15

The fables themselves in their original form are coarse, full of mockery, derision and gloating over the misfortunes of others. In other words they are frequently very cruel. As one book states:

The underlying ethos of the world of Aesop is ‘you’re on your own, and if you meet people who are unfortunate, kick them while they are down’.16

Another fact to remember is that the moral that appears at the end of most of Aesop’s Fables were added later on and did not exist in any of the original stories.17

A few examples of less familiar Aesop’s Fables:

The Dog and the Hare

A hunting hound seized a hare and attempted both to bite it and lick its chops at the same time. The hare tired of this and said: ‘Hey you, either bite me or kiss me, so that I can know whether you are enemy or friend.’18

The Shepherds, the Lambs, and the Wolf

This is one of Aesop’s fables. A wolf saw some shepherds eating a lamb in their tent. He approached the shepherds and said, ‘Why, what a great uproar there would be if I were to do the same thing!’19

The Bees and Zeus

Begrudging the honey they gave to men, the bees went to Zeus to ask him to give them the power to kill with their stings anyone approaching their honeycombs. Indignant at their envy, Zeus condemned the bees to lose their sting-barbs every time they stung someone, and to die as a result.20

Prometheus and the Tears

This is also something that Aesop said. The clay which Prometheus used when he fashioned man was not mixed with water but with tears. Therefore, one should not try to dispense entirely with tears since they are inevitable.21

It would be of interest to know what sort of tales the real Aesop told, but we are unlikely to know what if any of the tales attributed to him he in fact ever told. Still it is an achievement to be associated with a very large collection of interesting and edifying stories and jokes. I frankly suspect the real Aesop would have been pleased.22

1. A copy of The Life of Aesop can be found Here.

2. IBID, Ch. 1.

3. IBID, Ch. 4.

4. IBID, Ch. 5-19.

5. IBID, Ch. 19.

6. Aesop, Aesop: The Complete Fables, Penguin Books, London, 1998, pp. ix-xi, hereafter called Aesop 1, Aesop, Aesop’s Fables, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, pp. ix-xi, hereafter called Aesop 2, Herodotus, The Histories, Anchor Books, New York, 2007, Book 2, s. 134.

7. IBID, Herodotus.

8. IBID, Note 2.134.4a, See also Aesop 1, Aesop 2, ix-x.

9. IBID, Aesop 1.

10. Aesop 2, Fable 29, pp. 18-19, from Aristotle, Rhetoric, Book 2, s. 20.

11. Aesop 1, pp. xix-xxiii, Aesop 2, xx-xxix, xxxvi-xxxix.

12. Aristophanes, Aristophanes: The Knights / Peace / The Birds / The Assemblywomen / Wealth, Penguin Books, London, 1978, Lines 471-483, pp. 170-171.

13. Aesop 2, pp. x-xi. claims there was no written collections at this time. I find this unlikely I suspect though no large collection of such tales existed only a few collections of a few of the fables, but no large comprehensive collection.

14. Aesop 2, pp. xx-xxi.

15. IBID, pp. xxi-xxv.

16. Aesop 1, pp. xvii.

17. Aesop 2, xiii-xiv.

18. Aesop 1, Fable 182, p. 134. I have decided to exclude the moral and let the tales stand on their own.

19. Aesop 2, Fable 392, p. 183.

20. Aesop 1, Fable 234, p. 173.

21. Aesop 2, Fable 516, p. 238.

22. The two best recent readily available collections of Aesop’s fables are Aesop 1, (358 fables) and Aesop 2, (600 fables). See also Aesopica, Here, and Aesop’s Fables, Here.

Pierre Cloutier

The Pacification

Scales of Justice
One of the most disturbing features of our age is an unreflective nostalgia for the past. Usually it for a past that never existed and those that bemoan the passing away of that past are those that would not ever be caught dead actually living in that past.

One of the most prevalent features of this mindless nostalgia for what never was is the notion that in the past crime was less and we were safer.

This is a myth. Of course if you are talking about say the 1950’s then you would be right the rate of violent crime as in fact gone up considerably since then. However if you go back considerably further you find out something completely different. What you find is interpersonal violence on a truly massive scale.

Thus in Europe c. 1000 C.E. most European societies were characterized by blood feuds and codes of personal vengeance. This was combined with a code of personal honour which made it permissible to punish with violence all sorts of real and alleged violations of personal “honour”.1

Not surprisingly society was characterized by a vast amount of insecurity, instability and interpersonal violence. The lack of over arching institutions tended to create a fragmented society in which groups of individuals were pitted against other groups.

It was in England that we have the clearest picture of the emergence of a powerful set of behavioural and intellectual mores that began to inhibit the use of violence to settle issues of “honour” and real dispute.

A factor in the emergence of these norms was the emergence in pre-Norman times of the idea of the King or Royal government as the fount of the law. In this scenario the idea was that the King was the arbiter of disputes and attempts by private parties to settle disputes outside of this norm were violations of the King’s prerogatives, in effect a form of treason. Of course the spread of the idea of the “King’s Justice” via the system of Shires, local courts, Sheriffs etc., was not because of benevolence but because this provided a potent avenue for the extension of Royal power and just as importantly the extension of the Royal powers of taxation and expropriation. In other words it was good for the Royal treasury. In England the Kings profited by trying homicide cases through fines and confiscation of property.2

Even the rates of violence were by contemporary standards quite astounding. For example in 14th century London the rate was between 36-52 murders per hundred thousand per year. Oxford with its tradition of feuding, brawling and drunken students had a rate of over 100 murders per hundred thousand per year.3

Thus in quarrels with neighbours or drunken brawls some especially if they were male had a good chance of ending up dead, especially in a environment in which all sorts of slights were thought to excuse if not justify violence in response.

What happened was that the gradual process by which the “King’s Justice” was used to curtail violence among the elite, because of its threat to the Kings power and ability to collect revenue gradually percolated through all layers of society. Basically uncontrolled violence was viewed as a threat to both personal safety and the sanctity of property.

It is of interest that in contrast to England this process started much later in most of Europe.4

Now this process could only happen in England because of the emergence of courts and enormous pressure from the Royal administration and bureaucracy to use the courts to settle disputes rather than take personal vengeance or some other violent solution. This was so despite a violent culture that exalted violence as a solution to problems. Despite these problems by 1200 C.E., the government had managed to take one step forward by virtually ending the institutional blood feud. Royal courts were already instituting the practice of legally binding people to keep the peace. Also Royal courts had acquired by then virtually sole jurisdiction to try and punish violent offences or those having violent / severe punishment. Although the nobility might engage in a posture of violence and murderous talk there was already a tendency to use the courts instead and engage in rhetorical violence instead.5

By the 15th century violence was ratcheted to a new lower level. Frankly by then in virtually all of society there was a tendency for friends and neighbours to try to lower the level of violence and to prevent disputes from escalating into a violent resolution. Not simply because violence was considered immoral but because once blood was shed you would get the costly, time consuming intervention of the Royal courts which would hamstring peoples lives for what could seem like an interminable amount of time. The result was the flourishing of an entire culture of postured violence, of rhetoric and bluff all designed to SEEM threatening and violent but really just play acting. This was further redoubled by the ever greater use of the courts to settle disputes. The only acceptable violence was on behalf of God and the authorities all other violence was deemed illegitimate and in effect immoral if not evil.6

By the 17th century in contrast to countries like France were the institutional apparatuses of the State barely penetrated locally, England had a fairly well developed system of governmental authority to impose local order.

In France as indicated above the authorities were not much interested in imposing order unless it interfered with collection of taxes or seemed like incipient rebellion. Flying off the handle and the easy resort to violence to settle disputes were common so was widespread antipathy between different classes. Battles between poachers or gamekeepers occurred. So did extralegal violence to settle disputes. Life was riddled with assaults and homicides.7

In England by then the pacification had proceeded, culture and life was permeated with the idea that while threatening violence was in some cases permissible actually doing it was quite another matter. Instead there were the courts where people were encouraged and frequently coerced to go in order to settle disputes. In fact England by this time had acquired the reputation of being a very litigious society. And even if people did not go to court there was a powerful tendency for people to try to settle matters by informal arbitration before things got out of hand. Cash payments to settle issues was commonplace.

Even more remarkable English criminals had a strong tendency, compared to the continent to NOT accompany their criminal acts with excessive violence. For example beating or killing people you robbed was generally not done and was decidedly less frequent than elsewhere. In effect self policing had become common and people were restraining themselves as part of the effort to impose order.8

In the 18th century the decline continued so that by 1800 C.E., the murder rate was apparently below 2 per hundred thousand.9 The rather horrible list of capital crimes was tempered by procedural rules and juries who were increasingly reluctant to inflict violent punishment. England had for example no routine torture of alleged criminals as part of the process of investigation unlike much of the continent. Despite the truly Draconian penalties in law remarkably few people actually suffered the full legal penalties. According to the best available figures between 1749-1771 only 81 people were convicted of murder in London / Middlesex. Whereas in Rome, ¼ the size of London, in ½ that time period had 4000 murders.10

What the century saw was the emergence of a “Middle Class” ideology that emphasized politeness and civility and frowned upon any sort of violent assertiveness, especially violence. A key part of this was the campaign against duelling which was considered a reversion to barbaric and uncivilized manners and as such to be both opposed and suppressed as murder plain and simple. At the same time English criminals continued their trend of avoiding gratuitous physical violence and were commented on by continental visitors for being “humane” in comparison to continental criminals.11

This was accompanied by the decline and in fact “death” of the concept of personal honour that required the cultivation of status and the punishment of alleged and real slights to ones honour by means of personal action.

In the 19th centuries this developments reached a climax in that the growth of philanthropy, and a culture that frowned quite vigorously on the idea of spur of the moment violence as a solution to problems. Basically more and more people absorbed basic inhibitions to violence that even inhibited spur of the moment behaviour. The idea was that giving into those spur of the moment impulses indicated a failure to control oneself. To commit violence even in the face of provocation was considered a moral failure by the individual who was considered bound to use other non-violent ways of registering his anger or disgust and not just act out. Even criminals had by then absorbed the ethos that violent acting out was unacceptable. The ethos that emerged found displays of violence for entertainment profoundly disturbing and began to ban them even if they involved animals. There was also a climate of respectability and the idea of proper appearance that fostered a lower crime rate.12

The result was by 1900 the English homicide rate was below 1 per hundred thousand.13

Of course all this came at a price in conformity and exploitation but as indicated by reforms of the Victorian period, the continued decline in the homicide rate was not incompatible with significant political and social reforms which however much they diffused economic and political power away from the landed elite did not cause an upsurge in violence.

In most of western Europe they had to wait until the 19th century for the great pacification. In much of eastern Europe until the 20th century. As for 20th century developments there was in England and the in western Europe a rise in the crime rates in the 1960’s and 70’s although contrary to hysteria it was not a rise to unprecedented levels.

The fact is the great pacification worked and is still working at least in England and Europe.

1. Leyton, Elliott, Men of Blood, McClelland & Stewart Inc., Toronto, 1995, pp. 99-101.

2. IBID, pp. 99-103, Moore, R. I., The Formation of a Persecuting Society, 2nd Edition, Blackwell Pub., London, 2007, pp. 102-104, 123-128.

3. Leyton, p. 102. Leyton gives the homicide rate of 13th century England as 10 to 20 times the current rate, p. 103. This works out to 10-20 murders per hundred thousand.

4. IBID, p. 103.

5. IBID, pp. 103-105.

6. IBID, pp. 105-107.

7. IBID, pp. 107-108.

7. IBID, pp. 107-109.

9. IBID, p. 109.

10. IBID, p. 109.

11. IBID, pp. 107-112.

12. IBID, pp. 112-114.

13. IBID, p. 115.

Pierre Cloutier

The Crackup

Books about the Thirty Years War in English are not exactly common which is why the arrival of the above book1 is an occasion for rejoicing. This is especially true in that systematic and decently through scholarly overviews of the entire war are rare in English. In fact until this book systematic overviews of the military events of the war were hard to find. Although most accounts had detailed accounts of certain campaigns.

Things were not so bad as 70+ years ago when C.V. Wedgwood wrote her book on the Thirty Years War because of a almost complete dearth of English accounts.2 It was and remained the the only even remotely comprehensive account in English for quite some time. In fact the book under review may be in fact the account that supersedes it at last. There are are of course other accounts but they are in comparison brief, sketchy and tend to provide great detail on some aspects of the war but none or barely any at all on other aspects.

This account is first of all fairly long with c. 850 pages of text it provides much more detailed coverage of the war especially military events of the last phases of the war than Wedgwood's account. In fact the general tendency is for accounts in most languages to neglect the last 13 years of the war, after France openly declared war on the Habsburgs.

The book has a fairly long section, (265 pages) devoted to giving the background to the conflict, which the author feels was rooted in not just the confessional struggle between Catholics and Protestants, but disputes within the Habsburg family and the debate over the actual powers and prerogatives of the Empire \ Emperors.

The Habsburgs were not simply lords of the lands they controlled they were also Emperors of what was called the Holy Roman Empire. Usually dismissed by modern historians as a collection of independent principalities under the nominal rule of the Habsburg Emperors. The author here of the book under review makes the case that it did have some institutions (like the Reichstag) a system of courts, etc., that functioned with a fair degree of efficiency.

The most telling indication of that efficiency on some level was the peace that existed in much of the Empire. War was basically confined to the peripheries of the empire. This peace had lasted since c. 1552 C.E. The conflict had arisen from the confessional dispute between Catholics and Protestants. Despite the virulent nature of this dispute the compromises worked out then had proven to be successful and the great majority of the Empire had enjoyed 2 generations of peace.

When the crackup happened the results were terrible. Blindly the protagonists blundered into a hellish conflict that that they all seemed incapable of ending.

The Empire in 1618 was not just German it had French, Danish, Czech, Italian speakers also. When the empire plunged into its long night of war it dragged the surrounding countries into it has they sought to take advantage of the internal problems of the Empire. What they generally got was being enmeshed in a costly horrible struggle they could not easily get out of.

The war had a long list of colourful characters such as, Archduchess Isabella of Belgium, Maximilian of Bavaria, Oxenstierna and Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, General Wallenstein, Emperors Ferdinand II and III, Cardinal Richelieu, Count Olivares of Spain. They all got tangled in this interminable war.

In some respects this book as a revisionistic cast. For example it does not engage in the usual writhing about the genius of the Swedish King Gustavus Adolphus, or the usual gasping, awestruck hero worship of the 'Lion of the North'.3 For example going against over a century of conventional opinion the author does not characterize the battle of Lutzen, 1632, during which Gustavus got himself killed, as a great Swedish victory; but correctly describes it has a draw.4 The simple fact is that Gustavus' wars and foreign policy got Sweden involved in several costly wasteful wars that Sweden could ill afford and were well beyond her strength; all in pursuit of grandiose, unrealistic religious and political goals. Only Sweden's ability to plunder Germany for men and money combined with massive French assistance enabled Sweden to carry on at all. Sweden as a great power was an illusion built on bluff and the weakness of her neighbours. Gustavus saddled Sweden with this status that cost Sweden much until the illusion was finally burst at Poltava in 1709.

Within a few years of Sweden entering the war more than two thirds of the soldiers, and usually more than three quarters were non Swedes \ Finns. In fact most were Germans, including the officers. Most of cost of paying for the war was borne by exploiting and pillaging Germany. Even so Sweden was impoverished and suffered heavy losses during the war.5

Aside from the above mentioned fairly detailed descriptions of the last c. 13 years (1635-1648) of the war which are usually covered briefly this book provides fairly detailed coverage of the policies and plans of perhaps the most important personality of the war and probably its most important figure; the french politician, statesman Cardinal Richelieu. Generally known today through bad film adaptions of Alexandre Dumas Musketeers tales as a cardboard villain he was in fact a stunningly capable, cold-blooded practitioner of realistic policy.

It was mainly through Cardinal Richelieu that the forces keeping the anti-Habsburg coalition kept going. In most respects almost from the beginning the struggle was between Bourbon and Habsburg for hegemony in Europe. Cardinal Richelieu was terrified at the prospect of the establishment of effective Habsburg rule over the Empire which would lead in his estimation to Habsburg hegemony in Europe.

In this respect when in 1635 open war between Bourbon and Habsburg finally started, only then did the real point of dispute of the war come into the open. It is of interest that only the at first covert and then open intervention of Catholic France prevent the Protestant powers from defeat. But then Cardinal Richelieu was never one to allow religion to interfere with what he perceived to be the true interests of France.

The confessional aspects of the struggle were in many respects mere window dressing; although useful for propaganda. Although the war ended with significant Protestant retreat in much of central Europe; it also froze the confessional divide and lead to the re-establishment of of toleration in much of the Empire with the exception of most of the Habsburg hereditary lands were Catholicism was imposed by force.

It is of interest that by 1635 the Habsburgs had largely given up their efforts to impose a one sided confessional and constitutional solution on the Empire. That was the year of the Peace of Prague. It was the interference of foreign powers France, Sweden and Spain that prolonged the war for another 13 years. In the end the peace finally agreed to (Wesphalia 1648) was not much different from Prague although France and Sweden got more and the Emperor less.6

In fact one of the myths that this book dispels is the story that the Empire was made impotent and the Emperors weak. In fact this is a exaggeration and the Habsburgs quickly regained a great deal of influence very quickly.7 In fact the idea that the Habsburgs experienced a comprehensive defeat is a myth. The Habsburgs lost but they were not crushed and the peace was in many respects a compromise by enemies who were mutually exhausted.

In the section describing the aftermath, Wilson rightly questions the myth of the all destructive fury of the war. The nonsense about two thirds dying etc. He points out how some areas were devastated repeatedly and other areas escaped u nharmed. How one area might be ravaged and then escape any more devastation and so forth. Still the picture is sombre after all it appears that over all the population of the Empire fell by 15-20%. Some areas suffered much worst like Bohemia and Moravia. That is a frightening picture and much worst than the decline during the Second World War.8

People died not so much of direct violence, although that killed a large number, but of disease, plague and hunger. The devastation, anarchy produced by the fighting, the breakdown of order produced mass death.9 In fact in some places peasant guerrillas emerged that attacked the soldiers of both sides in a desperate effort to achieve some security.10

The negotiations in Westphalia took years and the paroxysms throughout the Empire of joy that greeted the signing of the peace in 1648 are some of the most extraordinary events in European history. Even more remarkable was the rapid economic \ demographic recovery after the war and a long period of peace in most of the Empire.11

The war left an indelible cultural memory of horror in Central Europe which as inspired works of art to this day.12 Only in the first half of the 20th century did horrors on the scale of the Thirty Years War return to Europe.

For a glimpse into a war all too few English speaking people know about I heartily recommend this book.

1. Wilson, Peter H., The Thirty Years War, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MASS., 2009.

2. Wedgwood, C. V., The Thirty Years War, NYRB Classics, New York, 2005, (original pub. 1938).

3. Wilson, pp. 459-511.

4. IBID, pp. 510-511.

5. IBID, pp. 791, gives c. 110,000 Swedish \ Finnish dead during the war. For a country of c. 1.2 million this is quite terrible. Wilson, same page, gives a figure of at least 400,000 for Germans and others who died in Swedish service.

6. IBID, pp. 758-773.

7. IBID, pp. 773-776.

8. IBID, pp. 786-795. Bohemia's population declined from 1,400,000 to 1,000,000, a decline of 29%, Moravia's population declined from 650,000 to 450,000, a decline of 31%. From Wilson, p. 788.

9. IBID.

10. IBID, pp. 532-534.

11. IBID. pp, 805-806.

12. For Example Brecht's Mother Courage and Her Children.

Pierre Cloutier

Christmas Wishes1

Saturnallia Celebrations

Although many people think of Christmas as a Christian festival it is in many ways not Christian. After all it emerged from old pagan celebrations around the Winter Solstice.

I must be mentioned that for men not so long ago the gradual extension of darkness after late June was a source of fear and terror. Then came the cold and the gradual death of plants. There was the fear that the darkness would continue to extend until the whole Earth was encompassed in eternal, never ending darkness and its terrible companion eternal cold. With this eternal darkness and cold would also come the eternal triumph of death and the eventual end of life.

So that when in late december the days began to lengthen again it was a signal that life would come back, that the forces of darkness, cold and death would not triumph but would be forced back; that spring and new life would return and the earth would once again be abundant with life.

Thus once again hte earth would get a reprieve from the triumph of death. Men in those days could not be sure that the darkness would retreat and so when the days did in fact begin to lengthen it wasa source of joy.

This joyeous festival was not surprisingly appropriated by by Christians in that it was very hard to wean Christians from the wonderful goodtimes of this pagan celebration and further there was a built in reason for this festival.

Jesus' birth is simply not known so it was easy to tack it on to the winter solstice and so give Christians an excuse to have a good time and celebrate the return of light and the retreat of darkness.

In what time of year was Jesus' born; well we do not know. If the accounts that referer to Shepherds are anything to go by it is not likely to be late December but more likely March, April.

In point of fact the early Christians did not give much importance to the anniversary of Jesus' birth. However they were concerned with the fact that many if not most Christians continued to celebrate the pagan festivals around the Winter Solstice called Saturnallia so the Christianization of it was eventually done and since Jesus' actual birthdate was not known easy to fit that in.

So in Honour of the Holiday Season and everyone getting over on this December 26th Christmas day hijinks I wish everyone the triumph of light and life and may death and darkness stay far away from your door in the coming year.

1. As a Christmas gift to myself I will not footnote this posting.

Pierre Cloutier

Innkeeper

Hittite relief of the Goddess KuBuba

Sometimes history throws you a loop that is tantalizing but also annoying in its brevity and lack of detail such is the story or should I say lack of Story concerning Kug-Bau (alternative spelling Ku-baba), queen of Kish c. 2400 B.C.E. She is the only Queen mentioned in the Sumerian King List and has such she stands out very much in the list.1

Kish was one of the most important city states of ancient Babylonia / Sumer. In fact the first non-legendary dynasty to be listed in the Sumerian King list is in fact the first dynasty of Kish. In fact when a ruler of one of the many city states of Babylonia / Sumer was claiming some sort of domination over all of Babylonia / Sumer he would frequently title himself “King of Kish“ and try to be crowned there. If the Sumerian King List is anything to go by the rulers of Kish were very frequently the most powerful city state in Babylonia / Sumer, through out this time period.2

Map of Ancient Sumer

One of the most consistent aspects about Kingship in the Mesopotamian world is that it was a very masculine activity. Queens could of course weld considerable power but Queen’s regnant seem to have been very rare indeed.

So just how did this even happen? We do not know! However we do have two sources. The first is the Sumerian King List, which exists in c. 17 versions and in very fragmentary condition,3 which says:

Then Mari was {defeated} {(ms. TL has instead:) destroyed} and the kingship was taken to Kiš. In Kiš, Kug-Bau, the woman tavern-keeper, who made firm the foundations of Kiš, became king; she ruled for 100 years. 1 king; she ruled for 100 years. Then Kiš was {defeated} {(ms. TL has instead:) destroyed} and the kingship was taken to Akšak.

…

{Then Akšak was defeated} {(ms. S has instead:) Then the reign of Akšak was abolished} and the kingship was taken to Kiš. In Kiš, Puzur-Suen, the son of Kug-Bau, became king; he ruled for 25 years.4

Another translation of the above passages is:

Then Mari was defeated and the kingship was taken to Kiš. In Kiš, Ku-Baba, the woman tavern-keeper, who made firm the foundations of Kiš, became king; she ruled for 100 years. One queen ruled for 100 years.

…
Then Akšak was defeated and the kingship was taken to Kiš. In Kiš, Puzur-Sin, son of Ku-Baba, became king; he ruled for 25 years.5

First is must be mentioned that the Sumerian King List is a very problematic document. Only a few of the Kings mentioned in the list have yielded contemporary documents indicating that they existed and some of them like Dumuzi a fertility god seem to be clearly mythological.6

Then it must be realized that the Kings listed are in a chronological order. The first author of the King list who was copied by his successors seems to have assumed that each dynasties in the list ruled over the whole land of Sumer and Akkad. This is almost certainly wrong. It appears that the dynasties recorded were in many respects contemporary with each other. The phrasing that such and such a city was defeated / destroyed and Kingship carried off seems to be nothing more than a stock phrase meaning very little in real terms.7

We have for example in the Sumerian King List itself the following absurdity. We have listed as the son and successor of Puzur-Sin a man named Ur-Zababa, followed by 5 more kings reigning a total of 66 years. Following that Kingship is taken to Uruk whose King reigns for 25 years before Sargon the great takes Kingship to Akkade. Thus a total of 91 years separates Ur-Zababa from the Kingship of Sargon the Great who reigned, supposedly for 56 years.8 The problem is that Sargon the great is describe in the Sumerian King List as “the cupbearer of Ur-Zababa”!9 Also stories describe Ur-Zababa and Sargon as contemporaries.10

Finally the length’s given to the reigns of the Kings in the list are frequently absurd. For example 28,800 years, 1,200 years, and 900 years, and Kug-Bau is given a reign of 100 years and her grandson Ur-Zababa a reign of 400 years.11 Despite the above the Sumerian King List is considered to be fairly accurate as a list of Kings in various city states and their order.12

The first rendition of the Sumerian King List may have been during the reign of Narum-Sin, grandson of Sargon the Great and subsequently rewritten and added to until the end of the dynasty of Isin in the 18th century C.E.13

The other document is the so called Chronicle of the Esaglia (also called the Weidler Chronicle). It purports to list lessons learned by Kings in the past and especially warn of dire consequences for ignoring the cult of Marduk. It dates sometime after 1100 B.C.E.14

The passage goes follows:

38' In the reign of Puzur-Nirah, king of Akšak, the freshwater fishermen of Esagila
39' were catching fish for the meal of the great lord Marduk;
40' the officers of the king took away the fish.
41' The fisherman was fishing when 7 (or 8) days had passed [...]
42' in the house of Kubaba,[3] the tavern-keeper [...] they brought to Esagila.
42a' At that time BROKEN[4] anew for Esagila [...]
43' Kubaba gave bread to the fisherman and gave water, she made him offer the fish to Esagila.
44' Marduk, the king, the prince of the Apsû,[5] favored her and said: "Let it be so!"
45' He entrusted to Kubaba, the tavern-keeper, sovereignty over the whole world.15

Another translation of the same passage goes as follows:

During the reign of King Puzur-Nirah of Aksak, fishermen from the Esaglia caught fish on the banks of […] they caught fish for the meal of the great lord Marduk, but the king’s officers seized them. The fishermen […] Seven days having gone by, the fishermen (again) caught fish, […it] into the home of Ku-Baba, the innkeeper, […] for the large beer vat. They carried […] to the Esaglia as an offering. At this time its foun,dation. (?) BREAK, newly, for the Esaglia, […] Ku-Baba offered bread to the fishermen and offered wine to them, (but) she hurried to [deliver] the fish to the Esaglia. Marduk, the king, the ,son. Of the prince of Apsu, looked benevolently upon her and she said “Let it be so!” Ku-Baba was entrusted with the whole kingship over all the lands.16

Not is this passage late it is obviously a propaganda piece designed to help discourage Kings and that agents from taking goods and merchandise from the Temple of Marduk by claiming that those who do will be punished and those who give the temple what it is entitled to will prosper.

That being the case it does seem to be an interesting indication that even more than 1000 years after Kug-Bau’s reign she was still remembered, with a reputation for piety, and those legends about her were positive.

So what do those the above, very laconic, documents tell us about Kug-Bau? They tell us that she started out in what we call a fairly “middle class” situation. Occupations were usually hereditary among the peoples of ancient Babylonia / Sumer so her parents were probably also Innkeepers also. Since women could own and run businesses in ancient Babylonia / Sumer and Inn keeping seems to have been one of the ones with a fair number of female practitioners.17

This was certainly not the sort of occupation that would lead to becoming ruler; usually. So just what did Kug-Bau do that got her to power? The answer is we do not know. The Esaglia Chronicle would appear to indicate that perhaps Kug-Bau was helped to power in alliance with the local Priesthood, although it would not have been the Priesthood of Marduk but possibly the Priesthood of the Sumerian supreme God An / Anu, or perhaps Enlil.18

Now we know from the Sumerian King list that Kug-Bau was the founder of a dynasty, in this case the third dynasty of Kish. This would seem to indicate that Kug-Bau took power after some sort of calamity or coup seemed to necessitate the replacement of the ruling dynasty. Perhaps some sort of defeat in war? The very fact that Kug-Bau was able to take, hold on to power and establish a dynasty would seem to indicate a very high level of political skill on her part. Certainly given that in ancient Babylonia and Sumer Kingship was regarded as almost entirely outside of a women’s role; we can be assured that Kug-Bau was quite a politician.

The statement Kug-Bau, “who made firm the foundations of Kiš (Kish)”, would appear to indicate that Kug-Bau re-established Kish’s power and greatly strengthened the state, and perhaps also greatly extended Kish’s power and influence throughout Babylonia / Sumer.

The closing section is a bit bizarre. Kish is said to have been defeated and Kingship taken to Aksak for 93 years and then Kingship is restored to Kish and in the hands of Puzur-Sin the son of Kug-Bau who reigned for 25 years. Obviously that is false. Further Kug-Bau is supposed to have reigned after carrying off Kingship from Mari yet according to the Esaglia Chronicle Puzur-Nirah who according to the Sumerian King List was the third King of the dynasty of Aksak that succeeded Kug-Bau!19

It seems to be obvious that the break that the author of the Sumerian King List introduces is an error. Although rather amazingly some people call the list of names staring with Kug-Bau’s son Puzur-Sin as the fourth dynasty of Kish. This is almost certainly a mistake and what as in fact happened is that the author has broken the third dynasty of Kish into two parts.20

So it appears that in fact Kug-Bau’s reign ended simply with her death and the passing of the throne to her son.

Kug-Bau had a curious sort of afterlife, aside from showing up in legends, in that she seems to have become assimilated with a goddess Kubaba / Kububa known later on in Greco-Roman times as Cybebe or Kybebe, a Mother Earth Goddess. As Kubaba this cult spread throughout Mesopotamia, Palestine and Asia Minor; later on under the name Cybebe, / Kybebe this cult spread throughout the Roman Empire.21

It is more likely that Kug-Bau was named after a Goddess than that she inspired the cult by being deified; still it is likely that she had some influence on the cult and was to a degree assimilated to the Goddess. It is also possible that this is another example of a mythological figure, in this case a Goddess, getting into the Sumerian King List. This is rather doubtful given the circumstantial detail of her being an Innkeeper and the rather earthy statement she built up the power of Kish. It appears that Kug-Bau was indeed a real person.22

Certainly there is massive room for speculation and perhaps a few historical novels to put some flesh on the very bare bones facts we have about Kug-Bau.

Did Kug-Bau when she was Queen of Kish sometimes wistfully recall those times when she was a Innkeeper serving her customers another tall cold one? We will likely never know. But the story of the Innkeeper who became a Queen and founded a dynasty will continue to fascinate.

Map of Kish

1. Roux, Ancient Iraq, 3rd Edition, Penguin Books, London, 1992, After p. 498, in the Chronological table the fifth page, Bertman, Stephen, Handbook to Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003, p. 91.

2. Bertman, p. 24, . Saggs, H. W. F., The Greatness that was Babylonia, Mentor Books, New York, 1962, pp. 60-61, Roux, pp. 138-139.

3. Glasser, Jean-Jacques, Mesopotamian Chronicles, Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, 2004, pp. 117-118.

4. From The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL), Sumerian King List, (SKL) Here, Glasser, pp. 118-127, includes translation and transliteration of original Sumerian.

5. From Livius, Sumerian King List, (SKL) Here.

6. Saggs, pp. 55-56, Bertman, p. 50, Khurt, Amelie, The Ancient Near East c. 3000-330 B.C., v. 1, Routledge, New York, 1995, pp. 29-31, Roux, pp. 107-108, 123-125.

7. IBID, Roux, pp. 138-145.

8. ETSCL, SKL, Livius, SKL, Glasser, p. 123.

9. IBID, Glasser.

10. IBID, p. 267. See also story Sargon and Ur-Zababa, ETSCL Here.

11. IBID, pp. 121-123, see also Livius, SKL, and ETSCL, SKL.

12. Roux, pp. 123-124.

13.Glasser, p. 118.

14. IBID, pp. 263-264.

15. Livius, The Weilder Chronicle, (WC) Here.

16. Glasser, p. 267.

17. Hawkes, Jacquetta, The First Great Civilizations, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1973, pp. 104, 114-115.

18. For more about those Gods see Bertman, pp. 116, 118.

19. Glasser, pp. 123, 267, Livius, SKL, WC.

20. For an example of this see Wikipedia, Sumerian King List Here.

21. Wikipedia, Kubaba Here.

22. See Footnotes 6 & 7.

Pierre Cloutier