Charles I and the Whig Interpretation of History

Charles I
On January 30 1649 Charles I was executed by being beheaded and since then there has been a persistent tendency to make his death somehow "progressive". This is done by either excusing his execution, i.e., finding the reason solely or largely in the Kings own behavior or by arguing that since in the long term all of this help to lead to constitutional government in England it was somehow a "good" thing.

Part of this pattern is to see in Charles a "Tyrant". For example The Tyrannicide Brief, Geoffrey Robertson, Pantheon Books, London, 2006, which is about John Cooke the Lawyer who served has prosecutor at his trial. Mr. Robertson attempts to justify the trial and verdict and makes a mess of it.

To talk about the Trial on the most basic level of procedure; lets see. The House of Commons was purged before the trial and the House of Lords was not involved. The verdict was decided before hand and the presence of the army ensured a "correct" verdict. John Cooke basically functioned as head prosecutor in a show trial. This trial was nothing more than a dress rehearsal for the Great Purge trials in Russia. Cooke serving in a position similar to Vyshinsky the infamous Chief Prosecutor in the Moscow Trials.

Cromwell and his associates had purged Parliament before the proceedings and, along with the army, were ever present during the Trial and the verdict was discussed and decided before even th first words were spoken during it. The whole thing was a ludicrous, murderous farce. And it appears that several of the "commissioners" were directly coerced into both the guilty verdicts and signing the death warrant. Of course the process by which those "commissioners" were appointed was frankly illegal. (The lords being dismissed by the army and the House of Commons being purged, of at least 1 / 2 its members). Over half of the "commissioners" didn't even bother to show for the trial, even though they were pre-selected by Cromwell and his cronies. In comparison the Trial of Louis XVI during the French Revolution was a model of fairness.

The only proper description of this travesty is Judicial Murder. But wait it gets "better"!

The charges against Charles were shall we say "defective", although "shabby" and "contemptible" are better words. For example, Charles:

... out of a wicked design to erect and uphold in himself an unlimited and tyrannical power to rule according to his will, and to overthrow the rights and liberties of the people, yea, to take away and make void the foundations thereof, and of all redress and remedy of misgovernment, which by the fundamental constitutions of this kingdom were reserved on the people's behalf in the right and power of frequent and successive Parliaments, or national meetings in Council; he, the said Charles Stuart, for accomplishment of such his designs, and for the protecting of himself and his adherents in his and their wicked practices, to the same ends hath traitorously and maliciously levied war against the present Parliament, and the people therein represented, ... 1

Its debatable to say the least who "levied" war against who first in the English Civil war and a case can be easily made that Parliament did so first. And this ignores the fact that just what "Parliament" is being talked about, after all over 40% of the Commons and a even higher percentage of the Lords joined the King and sat at Oxford during the English Civil War.2 The Parliament in London in effect "levied" war against itself.

As for "tyrannical" acts one can make a very long list of the tyranny's of the Parliament in London and of its usurpations. It seems to be incontestable that it was Parliament that was claiming authority without precedent or basis, unpleasant has it is to the Whig interpretation that in Charles' conflict with Parliament over the use of his "prerogatives" Charles' was frankly in the right and Parliament's claims had no lawful basis. As for specific acts of tyranny lets see; The judicial murder of Stafford and the Judicial murder of Archbishop Laud by Parliament are just some of the acts of tyranny to lay on Parliament. Also the various judicial murders of Roman Catholic priests also by Parliament. Mass confiscations of Royalist property etc.

Parliament's claims were revolutionary and based not on legal precedent or law but on force. Such claims by Parliament as control of the Militia, the right to force the King to accept Ministers acceptable to Parliament were revolutionary claims with virtually NO legal basis. Further Parliament did not accept limitations on its own power. So that Parliament's ability to trample down the rights of others was every bit, if not more, unlimited than any claim by Charles' for royal power.

For example Charles is condemned, rightly in my opinion, for the use of violence and coercion to enforce his idea of proper religious practice. This is not a edifying story. But it should be remembered that it was, at the time, considered sound practice to enforce religious uniformity in Europe and violent means were considered perfectly reasonable. In fact religious diversity was looked upon with horror generally. Further Parliament did not oppose this at all, in fact Parliament approved of such methods. What Parliament opposed was the nature of the Religious settlement imposed by Charles. Parliament wanted to impose its own religious settlement, by the same means of course, and regarded toleration with total horror. After all neither Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I, Elizabeth I, or James I had done much differently. Nor had any of those rulers been anything less than as absolute as Charles I.

Here is the end of the Charge sheet against Charles:

All which wicked designs, wars, and evil practices of him, the said Charles Stuart, have been, and are carried on for the advancement and upholding of a personal interest of will, power, and pretended prerogative to himself and his family, against the public interest, common right, liberty, justice, and peace of the people of this nation, by and from whom he was entrusted as aforesaid.

By all which it appeareth that the said Charles Stuart hath been, and is the occasioner, author, and continuer of the said unnatural, cruel and bloody wars; and therein guilty of all the treasons, murders, rapines, burnings, spoils, desolations, damages and mischiefs to this nation, acted and committed in the said wars, or occasioned thereby.3

The same accusations can be made against Parliament. This is show trial justice and simply not fit to be taken seriously. Aside from the rather absurd matter that Charles was basically being accused of treason against himself, along with being charged retrospectively with breaking a law that had not existed when he committed the alleged crimes.

In subsequent years as the army made and unmade Parliaments, by coup after coup, and Cromwell became in effect dictator. With a wave of Witch burnings, other executions and terror the English people learned that personal and legislative tyranny are both very unpleasant. The very arbitrary and brutal nature of "Republican" government eventually brought forth a reaction that produced, amidst massive public rejoicing the return of the Monarchy in 1660. Finally for all of Charles' alleged excesses nothing he ever did even approached for brutality or sheer tyrannical excess the Cromwellian settlement in Ireland, which already in 1641 was much favoured by a large section of Parliament.

In the end the English Civil war helped to develop ideas of freedom and constitutional government,4 but such developments were revolutionary and Charles' whatever his faults, which were many, was no tyrant.

John Cooke was in some respect an admirable man, certainly his belief in some form of "legal aid", the rights of the common man etc., are attractive but those attractive ideas do not change the fact that Charles' trial was a judicial farce. As a trial it is worthy only of contempt. The fact that in the end Charle's trial did help the idea that even rulers were subject to the law does not change that, for the trial also helped set the stage for the modern show trial.

The book The Tyranncide Brief, makes much ado about John Cooke's rather grisly execution. Accusing Charles II, Charles I son, of being vindictive and cruel. Histororical facts say differently. Yes drawing and quartering5 are pretty horrible methods of execution, but then regicide was considered a truly horrific act at the time, worthy of severe punishment of the most extreme sort. Further after the first few executions the remaining regicides who were tried just had their heads chopped off. Charles II was not a vindictive monarch. His clemency when he came to power was clear and amazed at, only a very few suffered punishment of any kind. Charles II contemporaries realized that if Charles had chosen to be vindictive the number of his victims for whom he could, with good cause, have punished would have been very large. Charles also forgave a great many of the regicides who had signed his father's death warrant. In the end less than 30 people alltogether were executed. Charles II has a vindictive man is simply an attempt to heroize John Cooke. It doesn't wash.

Historians should avoid post - hoc justifications because they favour the cause that committed the act.

1. The Charge against the King, Here

2. It is of interest that very little historical work has been done about the doings of this Parliament.

3. See Footnote 1.

4. The idea of at least some degree of Religious tolerance, Catholics excluded, was advocated by Cromwell and the Independents over the opposition of Parliament, and then imposed by force.

5. Drawing and quartering involved hanging someone until they were nearly dead, castrating them, disembowelling them, then burning the entrails in front of them, then cutting out or stabing them in the heart to finally kill them. Every effort would be made to keep the person alive and concious until the end. It was reserved for the most horrible of crimes, like regicide and treason, but even so it was frequently changed to a simple beheading or the person was hanged until they were dead before the mutilations out of simple mercy.

Bibliography

The Trial of King Charle I - Defining Moment for our Constitutional Liberties, Michael Kirby, January 22, 1999, Here

Civil War, Trevor Royle, Abacus, London, 2004.

Tudor and Stuart Britain 1471-1714, Second Edition, Roger Lockyer, Longman, London, 1985.

The King's Peace 1637-1641, C. V. Wedgewood, Collins / Fontana Books, London, 1955.

The King's War 1641-1647, C. V. Wedgewood, Fontana Books, London, 1958.

Pierre Cloutier

Dwellers in the Clouds
The Court of Heian-Kyo

Detail of a twelfth Century Genji Scroll

A thousand years ago in Japan there flourished a rarefied and aesthetic Imperial court at the Imperial Capital of Heian-Kyo, (Meaning "city of Peace" modern day Kyoto.). members of this court called cultivated a very extreme aesthetic of taste. It was a hot house plant of extreme refinement. It was also a cultural golden age.

In court extreme refinement was cultivated to an extent that would make the court of Louis XIV at Versailles seem crude. It was a world in which the colour of your Kimonos and sleeves you had showing meant the loss or attainment of social standing. Where the colour of letters mattered as much as the super refined wit and sophistication of the letters. A world were you perfumed not just yourself but your letters, and the ability to drop an appropriate Haiku at moments notice meant so much. A world where aesthetic refinement meant the ability to write beautifully. Both men and women pampered themselves and their bodies outrageously. Where faces were powdered white and teeth blackened, because white teeth were considered far to garish.

I cannot stand a women who wears sleeves of unequal width. If she has several layers of robes, the added weight on one side makes her costume lop-sided and most inelegant; If she is dressed in thick wadded clothes, the uneven balance prevents them from closing properly in front, and this too is very un-sightly. When a women wears a robe of different width, all her robes must be cut in the same style.

...

The fashion of unequal sleeves is just as unattractive for men as for women, since it produces the same lopsided effect. Yet nowadays everyone seems to have his clothes cut like this, whether he is wearing a fine ceremonial robe or a light summer garment. Fashionable, good-looking people really dress in a most inconvenient way.1

So said the journal keeper Sei Shonagon in her extraordinary Pillow Book, a fascinating collection of thoughts, lists, musings, commentary. Sei Shonagon like so many of her colleagues at the court referred to themselves as "Cloud Dwellers", and indeed in the rarefied atmosphere of the court they were indeed a sort of "Dwellers in the Clouds".

Maps of Heian-Kyo and vicinity

The above series of maps are of the location of Heian-Kyo and maps of the city and the north east quarter.

Heian-Kyo was founded in 793 C.E. to serve has the Imperial capital of Japan and the seat of the Imperial dynasty. It was to serve has the seat for over 1000 years until 1867. During that time The Imperial family would be, most of the time, political ciphers but they would retain immense cultural and social significance to the Japanese. The Imperial court would remain a important cultural center.

Like the previous capitals, (Nara 710-784 C.E., Nagaoka 784-793 C.E.), the capital was designed has a copy of the Tang dynasty, (618-907 C.E.), capital of Chang-an. It was part and parcel of a wholesale borrowing of Chinese culture, philosophy, science, governmental arts etc. This included much Tang Dynasty Court costume and etiquette.

Although the Emperor was in a possession of unchallenged social prestige during this time period actual power was in the hands of the Fujiwara family. By astute intermarriage into the Imperial family, daughters were considered more important than boys, divide and rule tactics, ensuring that Emperors came to the throne young and abdicated young, the Fujiwara family through a series of regents assured themselves domination for centuries. The fact that they made no attempt to undermine the social position of the Imperial family helped, neither did they ever even think of replacing it.

Eventually in the 11th century Fujiwara power wained and in 1068 the Emperor Go-Sanjo acceded to the throne and decisively broke the weakening power of the Fujiwara family. The family managed however to remain a important one at court. It was under the rule of these Fujiwara regents that the Heian-kyo cultural flowering reached its height in the period 950-1050 C.E.

Women's Court Costume

The above is a illustration of a typical Women's court costume of the Heian court. The white make up and black teeth with very long hair, (ideally it trailed to the ground), and plucked eyebrows with black marks instead of brows, added to the look. women in the Heian court lived ideally lives of relative seclusion in their quarters seeing very few men, (in theory only husband and father and sons), and other men only when they were secure behind screens while talking with them. In actuality things were not quite so bad. Women especially women who had official positions, (i.e., Ladies in waiting at the Empresses court for example) had considerable freedom of movement and influence. And women could own, inherit and manage property on their own, even if married, giving them some sort of Independence. Although it does appear that court women could spend a inordinate amount of time being bored and staring into space.

There was, however, the pleasure of having visitors, conducting a love affair, which was a very refined art at court, and reading and writing. Those with the talent for literary pursuits could relieve the tedium with exquisite poetry or acute observation. In Heian times women where generally considered incapable of the higher literary pursuits which involved reading and writing in Chinese, which was considered a masculine activity. Women who had a interest in said activities were considered gauche and even worse lacking in proper taste and decorum. That didn't prevent some women from having a interest in such things. Lady Murasaki Shikibu, author of The Tale of Genji,2 for example had a good knowledge of the Chinese classics.

Since writing "serious" stuff was considered the preserve of men writing in Chinese women with literary aspirations had to write in Japanese using the Japanese Kana syllabic system. The quite unintentional result of that was that the great majority of the great, even good, writers at the Heian court were women. The men also wrote a lot, but the less said about their literary effusions the better, most of which were mediocre to just plain awful.

Heian-Kyo Mansion

The above is a typical mansion of a court noble at Heian-Kyo. Built of wood and paper it was rather hard to keep warm in the winter. (It snowed in the winter at Heian-Kyo), but because it was built on piles in the summer, (which at Heian-Kyo could be very hot and humid), which allowed the wind to blow under the house, it could be rather cool and dry.

Japanese Print of Heian-Kyo Mansion

With its light airiness and gardens and ponds a Heian-Kyo Mansion could be very nice place to stay live except in the winter when one or more braziers were an absolute requirement to keep ones room at least tolerable.

Lady Murasaki Shikibu in her Diary writes concerning the Mansion she lives in:

As autumn advances, the Tshuchimikado mansion looks utterably beautiful. Every branch on every tree by the lake and each tuff of grass on the banks of the stream takes on its own particular colour, which is then intensified by the evening light. The voices in ceaseless recitation of sutras are all the more impressive as they continue throughout the night; in the slowly cooling breeze it is difficult to distinguish them from the endless murmur of the stream.3

Print from an edition of the Tale of Genji

The great masterpiece of Heian literature is considered to be Lady Murasaki Shikibu's Tale of Genji. It is the story of a Japanese prince named Genji who is the son of an Emperor through a concubine and his various love affairs and dealings with people in his life. It is a beautiful but melancholy look at his life. Genji dies about 2 / 3 rds of the way through the novel and the hero role is replaced by the adventures of his son Kaoru, (who is his son through Genji committing adultery with a friends wife), who can best be described has an anti-hero.

The book we have is very long. My translation is 1090 pages.4 Lady Murasaki Shikibu apparently started writing the book c. 1004 C.E., and continued writing it until she died. The novel appears to be incomplete although what we have seems only to be missing at most one or two chapters.

The novel is characterized by a great delicacy of style and an almost extraordinary depth of psychological insight. The characters are complex and the sheer number of characters and their complex connections to say nothing of the convoluted plot are amazing. How Lady Murasaki Shhikibu managed to keep all of this straight is remarkable. (there are virtually no such errors in the novel!!).

To quote:

He wrote (Genji) regularly to Akashi. The time had come, he said firmly, for the lady's removal to the city. She was painfully aware of her humble station however, and she had heard that he made even ladies of the highest rank more unhappy by his way of behaving coolly but correctly than id he had simply dismissed them. She feared that she could expect little attention from him. Her rank could not be hidden, of course, and her daughter would suffer for it. And how painful it it would be, and what an object of derision she herself would be, if she had to sit waiting for brief and stealthy visits. But there was the the other side of the matter: it would not do for her daughter to grow up in the remote countryside, a child of the shadows. So she could not tell Genji that he had behaved badly and be finished with him. Her parents understood, and could only add their worries to hers. The summons from their noble visitor only made them unhappier.5

A spirit of Buddhist resignation of the impermanence of things and the illusionary nature of worldly things permeates the novel. Genji for example becomes a Buddhist monk shortly before he dies along with many other characters who become also become Buddhist monks or nuns.

The New Year came, but spring seemed far away. The silence of the frozen waters seemed to speak with its own sad voice. Though she had turned away in disgust from the prince who found her so "daunting" she thought all the same of the days she had known him.6

Another print from an edition of the Tale of Genji

Even during Murasaki Shikibu's lifetime copies of chapters of her Tale of Genji circulated and generated much interest. To quote:

I was brought up in a distant province which lies farther than the farthest end of the Eastern Road. I am ashamed to think that inhabitants of the Royal City will think me an uncultured girl.

Somehow I came to know that there are such things as romances in the world and wished to read them. When there was nothing to do by day or at night, one tale or another was told me by my elder sister or stepmother, and I heard several chapters about the shining Prince Genji. My longing for such stories increased, but how could they recite them all from memory? I became very restless and got an image of Yakushi Buddha made as large as myself. When I was alone I washed my hands and went secretly before the altar and prayed to him with all my life, bowing my head down to the floor. "Please let me go to the Royal City. There I can find many tales. Let me read all of them." 7

So speaks a young aristocratic women from the provinces about literary life at court.

Flute playing at Court

Music and musical taste were highly esteemed at the Heian court. Virtually ever cultivated man or women was expected to to play an instrument and have considerable knowledge of music, and of course being able to drop a line of appropriate verse at any time.

Then I heard a carriage with a runner before it stop near the house. The man in the carriage called out, "Ogi-no-ha! Ogi-no-ha!" [Reed-leaf, a woman's name or pet name] twice, but no woman made reply. The man cried in vain until he was tired of it, and played his flute [a reed-pipe] more and more searchingly in a very beautiful rippling melody, and [at last] drove away.

Flute music in the night,
"Autumn Wind" sighing,
Why does the reed-leaf make no reply?

Thus I challenged my sister, and she took it up:

Alas! light of heart
Who could so soon give over playing!
The wind did not wait
For the response of the reed-leaf.

We sat together looking up into the firmament, and went to bed after daybreak.8

So writes the author of the The Sarashina Diary. Quite different is Izumi Shikibu probably the greatest Japanese women poet and one of the very greatest of Japanese poets. She wrote seven volumes of poetry; her diary is her only surviving prose work.

An illustration from The Tale of Genji

Izumi Shikibu was born in 974 C.E. She was married in 995 C.E., and was divorced soon after. Her diary is the record of a love affair she had with a Prince Atsumichi. Izumi Shikibu begins the diary, (in 1002 C.E.), shortly after the affair stated. The diary ends in 1005 shortly after the affair ended.

The affair at the beginning had some exchanges of poetry as follows:

It was embarrassing to return an oral message through the page, and the Prince had not written; discontented, yet wishing to make some response, she wrote a poem and gave it to the page:

That scent, indeed, brings memories
But rather, to be
reminded of that other,
Would hear the cuckoo's voice.

The Prince was on the veranda of his palace, and as the page approached him with important face, he led him into an inner room saying, "What is it?" The page presented the poem.

The Prince read it and wrote this answer:

The cuckoo sings on the same branch
With voice unchanged,
That shall you know.

His Highness gave this to the page and walked away, saying, "Tell it to no one, I might be thought amorous." The page brought the poem to the lady. Lovely it was, but it seemed wiser not to write too often [so did not answer].9

Heian bed

After an apparently quite tempestuous affair, characterized by the consternation of court officials and the extreme disapproval of the Prince's wife the affair came to an end.

All hated the lady, (Izumi Shikibu) and he was sorry for her. His Highness suspected what his wife was going to do, and he found his conjecture realized when the sons of his brother-in-law came to fetch her. A lady-in-waiting said to the housekeeper: "The princess has taken important things with her; she is going away." The housekeeper was in great anxiety and said to the Prince: "The Princess is going away. What will the Crown Prince think of it! Go to comfort her."

It was painful to her [the lady] to see these things going on. She was very sorry and pained, yet, as it was an unfit time to say anything, she kept silence. She wanted to get away from this disagreeable place, but thought that also not good. She thought she could never get rid of her trouble if she stayed.10

Izumi Shikibu did not stay she left soon after and ended the affair. Subsequently in later years she returned to court were her poetry gave her high social standing.

Lady Murasaki Shikibu had this to say about Izumi Shikibu:

Now someone who really did carry on a fascinating correspondance was Izumi Shikibu. She does have a rather unsavoury side to her character but has a talent for tossing off letters with ease and seems to make the most banal statement sound special. Her poems are most interesting. although her knowlwdge of the canon and her judgement of other peoples poetry leaves something to be desired, she can produce poems at will and always manages to include some clever phrase that catches attention. Yet when it comes to crticizing or judging the work of others, well, she never really comes up to scratch - the sort of person who relies on a talent for extemporization, one feels. I cannot think of her as a poet of the highest rank.11

Boat Inspection Illustration of Edition of Lady Murasaki Shikibu's Diary

Life in court was livened up by court ceremonials, various yearly celebrations, visiting nearby Buddhist shrines and the whole cycle of Imperial activities.

The following are some more illustrations of life at court.

Ladies listening to a recitation.

Nobleman being seated in a coach

Lady recieves male visitor

Sei Shonagon had this to say concerning male visitors:

I cannot bear men to eat when they come to visit ladies-in-waiting in the Palace. I also object to women who offer food to their male guests. Sometimes these women become quite insistent and say they will do nothing until the man has eaten. In such cases he is bound to give in; after all, he cannot very well put his hand in front of his mouth or turn his head the other way with a look of disgust. For my part, even if a man arrived very late and very drunk. I should never offer him so much as a bowl of watered rice. If he thinks I am heartless and descides not to repeat his visit - well then, let him stay away!

Of course, if I am at home and one of the maids brings my visiter something from the kitchen, there is nothing I can do about it. Yet I find this just has disagreeable.12

Ladies listening in at Court

About Sei Shonagon Lady Murasaki Shikibu says:

Sei Shonagon, for instance, was dreadfully conceited. She thought herself so clever and littered her writings with Chinese characters; but if you examined them closely, they left a great deal to be desired. Those who think of themselves as being superior to everyone else in this way will inevitably suffer and come to a bad end, and people eho have become so precious that they go out of their way to try to capture every moment of interest, however slight, are bound to look ridiculous and superficial. How can the future turn out well for them?13

Traditionally Sei Shonagon is suppposed to have died alone and in poverty. The fact is we don't know what happenned to her, just that she vanishes without a trace by c. 1030 C.E.

Has for Lady Murasaki Shikibu it is vitually certain that she had died by c. 1035 C.E. Where or how she died is not known. It is believed she worked on The Tale of Genji until she died. According to tradition, like so many of the characters of her novel, she became a Buddhist nun before she died.

By 1100 C.E., the golden Heian age was over and the age of Shoguns, Samurai, militarism and intercine violence was begining.

I'll quote Lady Murasaki Shikibu, one last time, who said this about herself:

Thus I do criticize others from various angles - but here is one who has survived this far without having achieved anything of note. I have nothing particular to look forward to in future that might afford me the slightest consolation, but I am not the kind of person to abandon herself completely to despair. And yet, by the same token, I cannot entirely rid myself of such feelings. On autumn evenings, which postively encourage nostalgia, when I go out to sit on the veranda and gaze, I seem to be always conjuring up visions of the past - 'and did they praise the beauty of yore?' Knowing full well that I am inviting the kind of misfortune one should avoid, I become uneasy and move inside a little, while still, of course, continuing to recall the past.14.

One thousand years later people in countries Lady Murasaki Shikibu never heard of, in languages she could not concieve, read her words and learn their melancholy wisdom. Among her countrymen her novel is considered their greatest work of literature. Despite her feelings of failure Lady Murasaki Shikibu is one of the greatest writers who ever lived and the age she lived in one of the great ages of Mankind.

Noblewomen in Court dress

Nobleman in Court dress for hunting

1. The Pillow book of Sei Shonagon, Sei Shonagon, Penguin Books, London, 1967, p. 252. For a list of on line excerpts see Here

2. The Tale of Genji, Murasaki, Shikibu, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1977. The other two translations into English are The Tale of Genji, Penguin Books, London, 2002, and The Tale of Genji, George Allen & Unwin, London, 1926-1933 (in 6 volumes).

3. The Diary of Lady Murasaki, Murasaki Shikibu, Penguin Books, London, 1996, p. 3. For a version on line see Here

4. See Footnote 2.

5.The Tale of Genji, Murasaki Shikibu, p. 318.

6. Ibid. p. 1075.

7. Diaries of Court Ladies of Old Japan, The Sarashina Diary, Houghton Mifflin Co., New York, 1920. pp. 3-4. Translated by Annie Shepley Omori & Kochi Doi. We know the author was a daughter of Fujiwara Takasué and was born in 1009 and that she started the diary in 1021. (Within the lifetime of Murasaki Shikibu) We don't know her name sadly. A copy can be found on the web at Here

8. Ibid. p. 25.

9. Ibid., The Diary of Izumi Shikibu, Izumi Shikibu, p. 150-151.

10. Ibid. pp. 195-196.

11. The Diary of Lady Murasaki, Murasaki Shikibu, pp. 53-54.

12. Sei Shonagon, p. 254.

13. The Diary of Lady Murasaki Shikibu, Murasaki Shikibu, p. 54.

14. The Diary of Lady Murasaki Shikibu, Murasaki Shikibu, p.p. 54-55.

Other Sources for this Essay

Morris, Ivan, The World of the Shining Prince, Penguin Books, London, 1979.

Sansom, George, A History of Japan to 1334, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA, 1958.

Pierre Cloutier

Manetho and a present day writer who should have known better.

An extract from Manetho c. 200 B.C.E.

Sometimes a reputable and very capable Scientist will venture into an area that is not his / her field and make a fool of him / her self. The below is a study of one example. The book is The Future of the Past: Archaeology in the 21st Century,1 and the author is the Geoarchaeologist Eberhard Zagger. In this case Zagger’s use of the ancient historian Manetho is to put it politely questionable.

In the third century B.C.E., the Egyptian priest Manetho wrote a History of Egypt in Greek for the new Greek rulers of Egypt. Volume one of the History consisted of the rule of Gods, demigods and the dynasties down to the end of the 11th dynasty. Volume two covered Dynasty 12 to 19 and volume three consisted of dynasty 20 to 31. Much of Manetho seemed to consist of bare king lists, which mention merely the name and reign length of the king. The rest included a great deal of folklore. What is fascinating though is that his dynastic lists seem to be fairly accurate; certainly Manetho's division of dynasties are the basis for modern ancient Egyptian chronology.

Manetho seems to have been a Priest of Thoth, whose name may have meant "Beloved of Thoth". He apparently came from Sebennytos in the Nile delta and lived c. 300 B.C.E. - 220 B.C.E. He apparently was a Priest of the God Ra at Heliopolis, and was involved in the creation and setting up of the cult of the syncretic god Sarapis. Manetho apparently wrote his History of Egypt, and in greek, in three books to acquaint the new rulers of Egypt with the country they ruled, it appears to have been in imitation of the Babylonica, of Berossos. Manetho was credited in antiquity with the following books. History of Egypt, Against Herodotus, Sacred Book, On antiquity and Religion, On Festivals, On the Preparation of Kyphi, Digest of Physics, and The Book of Sothis. Several of these books like The Book of Sothis, were not by Manetho and Against Herodotus, apparently never existed has a separate book by Manetho but was a collection of excerpts created later.Manetho seemed to be of no great interest in antiquity, which preferred Herodotus and Diodorus, and unfortunately like his contemporary Berossos, a Babylonian priest who wrote a history of Babylonia in Greek, called forth no reaction from either his country men to write and publish research in greek or among Greek speakers to do likewise. The result was that the Greco-Roman intellectual world remained cut off, in my opinion to its detriment, to a large extent from the intellectual riches of Egypt and Babylonia. We owe the survival of Manetho (and Berossos) mainly to the work of Justin Africanus (third century C.E.), who wrote an extensive chronology and Eusebius (4th century C.E.), who did likewise, Unfortunately neither survives in the original form, but we have extensive quotes from George Syncellus and the anonymous Armenian version of Eusibius. It does appear however that to some extent Manetho was mangled by the copyists.2

Mantho’s history thus survives in only a severely truncated mangled version. The writer and Geoarchaeologist Eberhard Zagger has endeavoured to use Manetho to make some pretty far out speculations about ancient history and Atlantis.

In Eberhard Zagger's The Future of the Past: Archaeology in the 21st Century, we read the following concerning the Egyptian priest Manetheo and his History of Egypt:

…Atlantis apparently existed 8000 years before Solon's visit to Egypt,and therefore some eleven thousand years before the present day. The opponents of a historical Atlantis suggest that Plato had set his metaphorical tale in dim and distant prehistory, to emphasize that this was not a truly historical account but a myth. Franz Susemihl, for example, wrote in the year 1855:

"At the same time, however, setting the myth in that extremely far-off time, no historical recollection of which remained, even among the Egyptians, avoids any misunderstanding that a real historical fact was the basis."

Five generations later (and after 150 years of research), historical linguistics continue to rely on arguments from the century before last. The Tubingen scholar Alexander Slezak, for example, recently wrote:

"It does take some literary ignorance to overlook the fact that these statements [about dates] ... are there to simply exclude the questions that may arise concerning any possible historical content of the story."

If, however, we examine the statements of historians from Plato's own time, it is obvious that they employed the same time reckoning. The suggestion that they intended to 'simply exclude' the 'questions that may arise concerning any possible historical content' from their statements, is hardly likely to convince anyone. Herodotus, the 'father of historical writing', maintains that the pharaohs had reigned for 11,340 years. This statement rests, like those of Solon, on discussions with Egyptian temple priests, who claimed that their written records covered this whole period of time.

A completely similar timescale is present in another work of Plato's, namely in the Laws, which was written later. There, the philosopher states that the Egyptian culture is 10,000 years old - and at this point we may absolutely exclude any suggestion that the information is given in a mythological context. One person, who would, after all, be in a position to know best, because he was himself an Egyptian temple priest, was the historical writer Manetho. He also reckoned the age of the Egyptian civilization as either 11,000 or 11,985 years - in other words, his figures are nearly identical to those given by Plato and Herodotus. Manetho, however, states extremely clearly - and not once, but three times - how these apparently incomprehensible numbers arise:

We may assume that in statements about dates we are dealing with lunar years, which consist of thirty days. What we now describe as a 'month', was previously known to the Egyptians as a 'year'.

Overall it was 11,000 years, but this means lunar years, and thus months.

So it thus came about that the times of the Gods who reigned amongst you over six generations in six dynasties, were reckoned in years, each of which was a lunar year, consisting of thirty days. The overall duration in lunar years amounted to 11,985 or 969 solar years.3

I did some research on Manetho and found out the following: The first apparent quote from Manetho is from the Armenian Version of Eusebius Chronica and the same for the second apparent quote. The third apparent quote is from the Chronology of George Syncellus.4

Zagger then argues that:

So the incomprehensibly large figures given by Manetho, Herodotus and Plato are lunar years - that is, months. In Egypt, various calendars were in fact in use simultaneously, and the temple priests were generally in the habit of using the original lunar calendar. To convert the high figures into the chronology normally used nowadays, they should be divided by 12.37.

If, however, we divide the value of 8000 years given by Plato by 12.37, then the cultures described in the Atlantis story occurred at a time 647 years before Solon's visit to Sais, and therefore about 1200 BC. This date agrees perfectly with the state of cultural development described by Plato. It was only at this period that a culture flourished in Greece that simultaneously possessed bronze weapons, chariots, fortifications, and a knowledge of writing; which excelled in handcrafts, art and warfare; and about which heroic epics circulated hundreds of years later ….5

I found out the following interesting tidbits, the 11,985 year list is apparently from The Book of Sothis, which is at best a corruption of Manetho and contradicts other descriptions of Manetho's works. (Waddell in his Introduction writes "The Book of Sothis, is certainly not by Manetho."6) For example the dedicatory letter in front of the Book of Sothis as quoted by Syncellus refers to Ptolemy Philadelphus as Augustus. 7 Fragment 1, from the Armenian Version of Eusebius’ Chronica, reads:

Thereafter, the kingship passed from one to another in unbroken succession down to Bydis (Bites) through 13, 900 years. The year I take, however, to be a lunar one, consisting, that is, of 30 days: what we know call a month the Egyptians used formerly to style a year(Footnote 2).

Waddell says in footnote 2:

There is no evidence that the Egyptian year was ever equal to a month: there were short years (each of 360 days) and long years (see Fr. 49)8

Fragment 49, From the Scholia to Plato reads:

Saites added 12 hours to the month, to make its length 30 days; and he added 6 days to the year, which thus comprised 365 days.9

Why did it seem that this 1 month year was invented? If you read a little further down you find the following (Armenian Version of Eusebius’ Chronica) : Fragment 1,

-the rule of Gods, Demigods, and Spirits of the Dead – is reckoned to have comprised in all 24,900 lunar years, which make 2206 solar years.

5. Now, if you care to compare these figures with Hebrew chronology, you will find that they are in perfect harmony.10

Which answers the question.

What I also found of interest is that George Syncellus, who Zangger apparently quotes, says the following about interpreting Manetho in this fashion:

Mantheo of Sebennytus, chief priest of the accursed temples of Egypt, who lived later than Berossos in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, writes to this Ptolemy, with the same utterance of lies as Berossos, concerning six dynasties or six gods who never existed: these he says, reigned for 11,985 years. The first of them the god Hephaestus, was king for 9000 years. Now some of our historians, reckoning these 9000 years as so many lunar months, and dividing the number of these 9000 lunar months by 365 days in a year, find a total of 727 ¾ years. They imagine that they have attained a striking result, but one must rather say that it is a ludicrous falsehood which they have tried to pit against truth. 11

How Zagger managed to miss Syncellus's dismissal of this idea of the Egyptians ever making a year equal a month is beyond me, esspecially since he seems to quote him.

The other thing is Manetho never said that the figures given were to be interpreted has months, that is an interpretation given his figures latter on.

Frankly Manetho's figures for the length of Dynasties is reduced to nonsense if such a procedure is accepted. For example Manetho apparently gave 263 years for the 18th dynasty, (or 348, Manetho seems to have been mangled in antiquity), well divide by 12.37 and you get 21.26 or28.13. A rather absurd result. 12

It appears that the real aim was to make Manetho's dates work with biblical chronology.

Part of the process by which this was done is out lined as follows:

According to Syncellus, the numbers that the Book of Sothis, had given for those reigns were converted to smaller numbers by Christian chronographers, including by name Panodoros (an Egyptian monk of the late fourth to early fifth century A.D.). ...

What Panodoros did was to regard Sothis's "years" for six reigns of the gods as actually being lunar months (at a rate of ca. 29 and 1/2 days per month) and thus reduce the figures down to solar years.13

Further:

Pandoros' basis for reducing the figures for the nine reigns of demigods was different from the one he used on the preceding six reigns of gods. Instead of assuming that the Book of Sothis' "years" were actually lunar months, he assumed this time that they were in fact quarter years (horai "seasons").14

Panodoros has a lot to answer for.

Earlier in Verbrugghe, the following is said regarding the whole question of Chronology in Manetho:

After a discussion of Berossos, which includes how in antiquity his years were turned into days to make them fit the "correct" chronology of the age of the Earth, the following is said about Manetho:

Similar slight of hand was applied to what passed for Manetho's chronology, although the procedure was more complicated than for Berossus. Since there was no great flood explicit in Mantheo's account, the manipulators hypothesized that Mantheo's initial era with it reigns of "gods, offspring of gods, and spirits of the dead" (See F2a predynastic) represented the antidiluvian age. The manipulators relied on the spurious Book of Sothis, (see chap. 5) in dealing with "Mantheo's account". This first era was, according to the Book of Sothis, subdivided into six dynasties of gods ruling for 11,985 years plus nine dynasties of demigods ruling for 858 years. Manetho's alleged figures for the number of years before the Flood were, plainly also unacceptably large. As with Berossos, the two figures were reduced on grounds that "year" had meant a smaller unit, but for "Mantheo" two different bases of conversion were applied. The 11,985 years of the gods were interpreted as months of 29 and 1/2 days each and thus reduced to 969 solar periods (this conversion was already being used in antiquity: Diodorus 1.26.5); the 858 years of demigods, however were interpreted as quarter years (or "seasons") and so reduced to 214 and 1/2 solar periods (also an ancient conversion: Diodorus Siculus 1.26.5).15

Further regarding the 11,985 or 969 solar years, the following is of interest.

First, the Book of Sothis, from which these figures come from is almost certainly not by Manetho and in fact may date from the 3rd century C.E. 16 Note the Book of Sothis, is known mainly from George Syncellus.

Secondly the figure is for the total number of "years" that the Gods reigned, and is followed by 858 "years" reigned by demigods. Certain writers calculated the God "years" as months and the demigod "years" as quarter years. "Corrected" you got 969 years and 214 1/2 years for a total of 1183 solar years, and this is before Menes becomes Pharoah of Egypt. Zangger ignores the demigod "years" and converts the 11,985 into years before Manetho.17

Thirdly Zagger ignores the amount of time Manetho gives to the Dynasties from Menes to his own time which is more than 3000 years. 18 Converting them to lunar "years" makes nonsense out of this list by reducing reign and Dynasty lengths to tiny spans of time.

Fourthly Zagger ignores that this method of interpreting the "year" was used to explain solely the "years" of Gods and demigods.

Fifth Zagger seems to ignore that there seems to be no evidence that the Egyptians ever thought of the Lunar cycle as a "year".

As for sources of this error I found this in Diodorus, (Book 1, 26):

But since this great number surpasses belief (23,000 years), some men would maintain that in earlier times, before the movement of the sun had been recognized, it was customary to reckon the year by the lunar cycle. Consequently since the year consisted of thirty days, it was not impossible some men lived twelve hundred years; for in our own time, when our year consists of twelve months, not a few men live over one hundred years. A similar explanation they also give regarding those who are supposed to have reigned for three hundred years; for at their time., namely, the year was composed of the four months which comprise the seasons of each year, that is spring, summer, and winter; and it is for this reason that among the Greeks the years are called "Seasons" ("Horoi") and that their yearly records are given the name
"horographs".19

So the one month year is dubious and besides it makes nonsense of Mantheo’s dates.

For example:

The First Dynasty is given a total of 252 years (Syncellus Chronology quoting Justin Africanus)20.

Well divide by 12.37 and you get 20.37 years for the First Dynasty.

Fragment 4, Excerpta Latina Barbari, gives a total of 3620 for the first 17 dynasties. If you divide by 12.37 you get 292.64 years for the first 17 dynasties. 21

Similarily if you do the same for reign dates given by Mantheo:

For example Rampses (Rameses) of the 19th dynasty is given a reign of 66 years (Syncellus Chronology quoting Eusibius) if you divide by 12.37 you get 5.33 years, and the 194 years of the 19th dynasty are reduced to 15.6 years.22

The bottom line is that is that Zagger is simply way wrong on this one. This is still an interesting example of how a Scientist can drift into pseudoscience through lack of detailed knowledge.

1. The Future of the Past: Archaeology in the 21st Century, Eberhard Zagger, Phoenix House, New York,1998
2. Manetho, Loeb Classical Library, Trans, W.G. Waddell, Harvard Universitty Press, Cambridge Mass., 1940, pp. xii-xxvii. Berossos and Manetho, Introduced and Translated, Gerald P. Verbrugghe, John M. Wickersham, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1996, pp. 95-120.
3. Zagger, pp. 190-191.
4. Waddell, Frag. 1, p. 5, Frag. 1, pp. 5-7, Frag. 2, p. 13.
5. Zangger, pp. 191-192.
6. Waddell, pp. xiv-xv.
7. Ibid, p. 211.
8. Ibid, p. 5.
9. Ibid, p. 99.
10. Ibid, p. 7.
11. Ibid, Frag. 3, p. 15.
12. Ibid, pp. 113, 117, 119.
13. Verbrugghe et al, p. 175, footnote 7.
14. Ibid, p. 176 footnote 10.
15. Ibid, p. 126, footnote 15.
16. Waddell, p. 234.
17. Ibid, p. 13.
18. Verbrugghe et al, p. 129 Frag. 2a.
19. Diodorus of Sicily, Loeb Classical Library, Vol. 1, Trans. C.H. Oldfather, G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1932.
20. Waddell, Fragment 7 p. 32.
21. Ibid, pp. 21-23.
22. Ibid, Fragment 56, p. 151.

Pierre Cloutier

"Authoritarian Future"

I read Starship Troopers first when I was 12 years old and I loved it! It was action packed exciting and well written. Later I read about and from Heinlein his Anti-Communist views and a few things began to go together in my mind.

Firstly I did not even at twelve much care for the Human society Heinlein created; it struck me as rather rigid and doctrinaire.

Frankly the story is written from the point of view of a rather callow young man who is quite effectively made into an instrument of his society. In other words he is brainwashed. The Philosophical arguments for this new "Scientific" morality are pretty silly. It reminds me that both Communism and Nazism claimed a "Scientific" basis for their undemocratic rule. The stupidity about disputes being settled by force neglects the obvious rejoinder that what force proves is only that you are stronger than your opponent not that you are right.

It is interesting that Heinlein who was an Anti-Communist, and who had nothing but contempt for liberals for being weak on Communism, should have so fully embraced a Communist-Fascist system even in fiction. Like many ideologues of the cold-war Heinlein’s solution amounted to the destruction of American ideals and the victory of Communist-Fascistic ideals and practice. The society in the book is anti-democratic to the core, despite the lip service to Democratic ideals, no-one has rights by virtue of being human they must be earned. Democracy does not exist. Society is ruled by a caste of soldiers, like ancient Sparta. All other humans are less than fully human. They are civilians, without honor and not worthy of respect.

It seemed to me obvious that this "Democracy" was modeled after Ancient Sparta where a military caste ruled over a large subject population which they regarded with basic contempt. In Heinlein's society the ruling Military elite "votes" like the Spartans, after being suitably "indoctrinated", and therefore very unlikely to upset the status-quo and they are quite programmed to obey orders. That and their sense of "Class" solidarity with each other is hardly democratic. (I'm aware that Heinlein provides avenues for all sorts to enter the elite, but like Spartans promoting Helots it doesn't change the nature of the System).

The old Communist parties that ruled the Soviet Union and other states proclaimed that their unique "selflessness", "sense of duty", etc., entitled them to rule. I take the official propaganda of the State in this book about as seriously. Our hero swallows the whole thing indicating he isn't very bright.

In the book we are supposed to celebrate Rico’s acceptance of his “duty” and his incorporation of the life denying, death-worshiping ideals of his society into his tiny mind. Some celebrate this as Rico no longer being a “callow” young man. I see Rico as being similar to the “idealists” of Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Russia, shallow, callow individuals who tortured, oppressed and slaughtered millions for reasons of “Scientific Morality” and cowardly notions of “Duty”.

The problem of how it is even possible to create a “Scientific Morality” is scarcely addressed by the book. Certainly the society in the book does not allow detailed, critical examinations of its “Scientific Morality”. In that respect it is like Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Russia. Why Heinlein did not see or know that this idea is a centre-piece of both Communism and Fascism is beyond me. Certainly the refusal of Heinlein fans to see this is incredible. If the society in Starship Troopers is indeed based on “Scientific Morality”, I would chose to be “Immoral” and dedicate all my efforts to destroying it. Such a society is evil by definition regardless of whether it is “Scientifically Moral”. If this century has taught us anything it is that when someone talks about “Scientific Morality”, gas-chambers, forced labour, mass executions, terror, and numerous other horrors are waiting to be made real.

Regarding the books celebration of war, which despite denials is what the book does. I can only quote the following "A military man is in the only profession where he hopes not to use his skills". I just found it fascinating how an Anti-Communist replicated a Communist society in so many ways as somehow "ideal". When I was 12 I got the idea, that I still hold that the "icky" bugs were the good guys.

The glorification of violence is a feature of both Nazism and Stalinism both the most extreme and murderous forms of Fascism and Communism. So is the vision of only one true “Scientific morality”. The give and take of contemporary Democratic politics, the distrust of violence as a problem solver, the tolerance of dissent, the “liberal” belief that human freedom is a positive value is treated with contempt. Humans have value if they serve the state. I am amazed that Heinlein fans do not, or cannot see, that Heinlein’s “ideal” society is an abomination to anyone who believes in Liberty and Democracy.

All in all a wonderful read, especially the battle scenes, getting through boot camp, and the wonderfully conceived battle suits that allow the soldiers to devastate and occupy large areas single handed. Mankind’s Alien enemy is an Insect like species with that have a similar level of technology. Both humans and aliens are engaged in a genocidal war against each other. After all since mankind is fighting bugs. Let’s squash them!

Allegedly the society provides for freedom of speech and elections although given the nature of this society I don't take those comments seriously in the novel. Such a society does not allow for real dissent or freedom and the people involved in voting have been, if the book is any guide, quite effectively indoctrinated. I rather doubt that much difference of opinion exist among the various media from the military or that the "electors" are anything less than largely unified in their opinions. And certainly the classroom lectures give a picture of a unified, cohesive and authoritarian society.

Heinlein wrote Starship Trooper as a cautionary fable about how weak the west was, and unable to combat the superior strength of the Communist-Fascist enemy, which Heinlein, at least in this book, so clearly admires. Like so many he feared the west would succumb unless it abandoned its most basic ideals. We now know that the Communist-Fascist enemy was much weaker then us and the very things in the west that were supposed to weaken it, in the eyes of people like Heinlein, were in fact its strength. Heinlein as turned into a false prophet and his prescription, if carried out, would have been a fatal poison.

So do read it just don't take the society described seriously.

Pierre Cloutier