des Esseintes and Latin Literature

One of the most enjoyable books I have in my book case is a very strange but quite fun English translation of the novel A Rebours,1 by J. K. Huysmans, published originally in 1884.

J. K. Huysmans

The book had the distinction of being referred to in Oscar Wilde’s novel The Picture of Dorian Grey,2 and has one of the most bizarrely eccentric “heroes” in all literature. The thoroughly weird Duc Jean Floressas des Esseintes. A man whose taste in furnishings, to give but one example is bizarre.3 The jewel encrusted living tortoise ambling about his living room should give anyone an indication of our “hero’s” taste.

Now my purpose here is not to discuss des Esseintes taste in decoration but his taste in Latin literature. It is one of the most enjoyable essays in Classical literary criticism ever published and our fictional “hero” does not lack in interesting opinions.4

The truth was that the Latin language, as it was written during the period which academics still persist in calling the Golden Age, held scarcely any attraction for him. That restricted idiom with its limited stock of almost invariable constructions; without suppleness of syntax, without colour, without even light and shade; pressed flat along all its seams and stripped of the crude but often picturesque expressions of earlier epochs – that idiom could, at a pinch, enunciate the pompous platitudes and vague commonplaces endlessly repeated by the rhetoricians and poets of the time, but it was so tedious and unoriginal that in the study of linguistics you had to come down to the French style current in the age of Louis XIV to find another idiom so willfully debilitated, so solemnly tiresome and dull.5

Not fair but having read all too much of this stuff while taking Classics at university I can vouch for the fact that this critique contains a great deal of truth. Certainly the fictional des Esseintes is right about the essentially boring nature of much of this literature. Much of it is dull and tedious indeed.

Has for Virgil, supposedly the ultimate genius of this period we have our fictional “hero” say that Virgil:

…impressed him as being one of the most appalling pedants and one of the most deadly bores that Antiquity ever produced;…

…he might in fact have put up with all the indescribable fatuity of this rag-bag of vapid verses; but what utterly exasperated him was the shoddy workmanship of the tinny hexameters, with their statutory allotment of words weighed and measured according to the unalterable laws of a dry, pedantic prosody;…

…and that poverty-stricken vocabulary with its dull, dreary colours, all caused him unspeakable torment.6

That our fictional “hero” is describing here is that supposed “masterpiece” of Latin literature Virgil’s Aeneid. Now the important thing to remember about Virgil’s “great” epic poem is that it is indeed a dreary painful poem to read. It has however an inflated reputation. Virgil supposedly was dissatisfied with what he had written. It was apparently only a first draft, and Virgil in his will requested that it be destroyed. Unfortunately and sadly his request was ignored and the Aeneid joined that large corpus of “masterpieces” whose reputation seems to be based upon the idea that if something causes extreme pain and agony to read through it must be good. The old good medicine tastes bad idea. In this case the poem is simply a grade z variation of the Iliad and Odyssey of Homer and spectacularly inferior to both. I remember being forced to read the Aeneid in a classics course I took and being stunned by its bottomless dullness. It was a torment to read and it was dull in ways that were amazing to me.

Years later I read with joy and pleasure Huysmans’ creation des Esseintes comments about that overrated hack Virgil. At last someone who admitted the sheer boredom of Virgil’s lifeless poem! I do however mourn for the millions of poor students who for over 2000 years been forced to read this “masterpiece”. I also deeply regret that this dull piece of crap survived. It is and remains unalterably sad that Virgil’s last wishes were not carried out.

Ovid’s writing is described has “limpid effusions”7. Any reading of Ovid would indicate that although Ovid was a very good writer; his writing was indeed weak and lacking in backbone. Certainly the writings he did in exile, which consisted of alternating whining about his “suffering” and embarrassing suck ups to the Julio-Claudian dynasty would make anyone want to tell him to “shut the @#$% up!”.

Horace is described has writing “vulgar twaddle”, “stupid patter” and further that Horace:

…simpers at his audience like a painted old clown,8

Having read Horace, who I find very amusing, I find this an unfair criticism but I can certainly see where Huysmans through des Esseintes is coming from. Horace certainly does seem to be playing for the audience and his stuff does read at times like a bad episode of Seinfeld. Certainly a lot of Horace does read like a knowing smirk with an undercurrent of “aren’t we so clever!!”.

Regarding Cicero I must say I fully agree with the following:

In prose, he was no more enamoured of the long-winded style, the redundant metaphors and rambling digressions of old Chick-Pea; [Cicero] the bombast of his apostrophes, the wordiness of his patriotic perorations, the pomposity of his harangues, the heaviness of his style, well-fed and well-covered, but weak-boned and running to fat, the intolerable insignificance of his long introductory adverbs, the monotonous uniformity of his adipose periods clumsily tied together with conjunctions, and finally his wearisome predilection for tautology. All signally failed to endear him to des Esseintes.9

Cicero is one of those overrated figures whose reputation seems to be based on the idea that he should be read and not read at the same time. Thus we are told how brilliant he is even though a reading of his writings reveal a man who, although he is a first class orator and rhetorician, is in most other respects a thoroughly unoriginal, pedantic mind. Cicero did however have a first class ego; he was definitely a legend in his own mind. As revealed in much of his writing; which reads properly has so much mental masturbation and unlimited self-love. Cicero love of himself seems to have been bottomless and so was his admiration for his political skills and abilities. Cicero never tired of telling others how great he was. Unfortunately Cicero was never has great has he thought he was and spent most of his political career on the outside looking in. Cicero was simply outclassed by so many other politicians of his time and rather than realize that he was outclassed whined about how he was not getting his due.

Not surprisingly Cicero ended up getting killed by far more able and ruthless politicians who realized that they were dealing with, at most, an annoying dilettante who unfortunately believed his own self created myth.

I have little to add to Huysmans’ comments through his character des Esseintes concerning Cicero. Cicero’s style is indeed full of the most annoying self satisfaction and is in the end dreary and dull. Cicero’s style can be summed up by the phrase “I love me! I really love me!!”10

Regarding Caesar des Esseintes says:

Nor was Caesar, with his reputation for laconism, anymore to his taste than Cicero; for he went to the other extreme, and offended by his pop-gun pithiness, his jotting-pad brevity, his unforgivable, unbelievable constipation.11

Although I frankly enjoy Caesar’s well crafted laconic style describing it has constipated is in fact fair. Caesar who was affected by a major case of extreme self-love, carefully crafted his writings to give the impression that they were simply reports of events and unbiased. Amazingly many have taken his writings as such. Of course they were in fact extremely well crafted propaganda pieces designed to glorify Caesar and whose laconic style was simply a ploy to hide the obvious propagandistic nature of the pieces.

Finally Huysmans has des Esseintes describes Livy as “pompous and sentimental”12. A characterization which I deem to be entirely fair. Livy’s importance has a historian of Rome has led to outside estimations of his literary talent. Well simply because Livy is important has a historian of early Rome does not mean he was a great writer. In fact Livy was a rather dull writer in most respects. Livy seemed to have a knack, at least in translation, of reducing exciting episodes to a muzak monotone. That and his rather embarrassing, to modern readers, pro-roman slant of his writings makes a lot of what he wrote have an “official” state sanctioned aspect that makes it a history we have to read between the lines of.

That is it for the time being about Huysmans and his character des Esseintes ideas about Latin literature. It was and is good to have someone say publicly that the Emperor indeed has no clothes.

The Comte de Montesquiou who was one of the
models for des Esseintes

1. Translated into English with the title Against Nature, Huysmans, J. K., Penguin Books, 1959. You can find more about Huysmans at Huysmans. Org Here

2. IBID. p. 5.

3. IBID. Chapter 2, pp. 25-39, for the mind bending details.

4. IBID. Chapter 3, pp. 40-52.

5. IBID. p. 40.

6. IBID. pp. 40-41.

7. IBID. p. 41.

8. IBID. p. 41.

9. IBID. p. 41-42.

10. Apologies to Sally Field.

11. Huysmans, p. 42.

12. IBID. p. 42.

Pierre Cloutier

Queen Pharaohs
 

In the world of Ancient Egypt it was considered normal that Pharaohs had to be male. It was viewed that a female Pharaoh was just not in keeping with Maat, (justice); that such a thing was a violation of the natural order of things. That attitude combined with the large harems of Egyptian Kings made it highly unlikely that in the traditional Egyptian State that women would achieve the supreme political position. However a couple of features were unique to Egypt made the possibility of female rulers possible in Egypt. The following essay will look at the following areas. The first section will be a brief look at the position of Queens and Princesses in Egyptian Royalty and society. The second will look at the four undisputed cases of Female Pharaohs, albeit briefly.
 

The Royal Women
 

It used to be thought that in the dynastic system the right to rule went through the female line, and this resulted in men marrying their sisters, mothers, daughters etc. In other words this explained the prevalence of Royal incest. The bottom line is that this idea does not work because there are too many exceptions to this. What appears to be the case is that Egyptian royalty conceived of itself as a divine group like the incestuous divine couples for example the brother sister pair of Osiris / Isis. The result was that the right to rule was dependent not just on the heritage as a divine individual of the Pharaoh but also his wife. The Royal Princesses carried this divinity also. So that a Pharaoh marrying a Royal princess with the right pedigree would improve and reinforce his claim to the throne. The importance placed on this seemed to have waxed and waned over the years and among the different dynasties. Thus a man having the "right" ancestry from both his mother and father would have an advantage over the older son of a Minor Queen of a lesser lineage.1
 

One result of this was that Royal Women had a position and power independent of their position as daughters, wives, sisters etc of royal men. For example Egyptian women were NOT given in marriage to foreign rulers. The reasons for this seem to be a combination of the Egyptian sense of superiority to other societies and the apparent fact that Royal Princesses would NOT marry non-Egyptians but were kept to ensure that the Royal household would continue to be large. Even when Egypt went into serious decline the marriage of Royal women to foreign rulers did not happen. At least we have no record of it until the Ptolemaic period, which was a non-Egyptian Dynasty.2

From the Tell-El-Armana letters we know that Foreign Rulers wrote directly to the Queens of Egypt. Apparently the Queens could engage in diplomacy in their own right. For example the letter of King Tushratta of Mitanni to Queen Tiye, Wife of Amenhotep III and mother of Akhenaton, requesting her assistance. Other such letters exist in the Tell-El-Armana letters. Also we know from the Hittite Archives that this diplomacy could reach a very high level, i.e., when an Egyptian Queen, probably Ankhesenamun the widow of Tutankhamun wrote King Mursilli of the Hittites requesting that he send her one of his sons so she could marry him and make him Pharaoh. Mursilli sent his son Zannanza who was apparently murdered and Ankhesenamun forced to marry Ay who became Pharaoh.3

We know that frequently when a new Dynasty was established the founder of the new Dynasty reinforced his claim to the throne by marrying a Princess of the previous Royal Family. For example the founder of the 2nd Dynasty seems to have married a Princess of the 1st Dynasty. This pattern was repeated by the founders of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 12th, 13th, 18th, 21st, Dynasties and probably by other Dynasties as well. It appears for example that Horemheb, the last Pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty was not a member of the Royal family but that he established his membership of the 18th Dynasty by his marriage to Mutnodjme a sister of Nefertiti and a member of the Royal family. It appears that Horemheb had no suitable sons to succeed him and therefore he appointed his Vizier Rameses to succeed him. Rameses became Rameses I founder of the 19th Dynasty. At the beginning of Egypt's history Narmer who is often identified with Menes the unifier of Egypt apparently cemented his conquest of Lower Egypt by marrying a northern Princess. More than 2,500 years later Ptolomy I initially tried to reinforce his claim to the throne of Egypt by marrying a Princess of the last native Egyptian Dynasty, the 30th. The marriage failed.4

An example of the importance of the Royal women was the position of "Heiress" and "God's Wife". The Chief Queen became the High Priestess of Amun. This position came into being during the reign of Amosis founder of the 18th Dynasty. Until this time the "God's Wife" was a women of rank. During Amosis's reign it became a position held by the chief Queen of the Pharaoh. The position also became hereditary within the Royal family through the female line so that each generation had a chief Queen who was also the "God's Wife". The result was that the Pharaoh had to marry has his chief Queen this Royal woman who was called the "Heiress". The position swiftly acquired great prestige and influence. The first "God's Wife" was Amosis's Queen Ahmose-Nefertari who was either his sister or cousin. All "Heiresses" had to be descendants of her. This gave the Queens of the 18th Dynasty formidable power independent of their position as wives and daughters of the Pharaoh. A Pharaoh was considered to be, hopefully, the son of a Pharaoh and a "God's Wife". If not The Pharaoh was usually married to the "God's Wife" as soon as possible even if the "God's Wife" was his sister.5
 

Later the position of "God's Wife" changed, during the period (c. 750 B.C.E. - 525 B.C.E.) The position was given to the eldest daughter of the Pharaoh. The "God's Wife" at this time was celibate and she resided in Thebes. Her successor would be the eldest daughter of the next Pharaoh, who she would train. By this time the Pharaoh's ruled Egypt from the Delta and the "God's Wife" in effect ruled upper Egypt from Thebes. By making sure their daughters functioned as viceroys for them in Upper Egypt the Saite Pharaoh's helped insure that Upper Egypt did not slip out of their control.6

The Four Queen Pharaohs

Queen Nitocris

Queen Nitocris one of the last rulers of the 6th Dynasty who ruled c. 2180 - 2170 B.C.E. There are many fantastic legends recorded about her in the writings of the Greek historian Herodotus, (5th century B.C.E.), and in the fragments of Mantheo, (3rd century B.C.E.). Herodotus records that Nitocris took power after the murder of the King, her brother, and murdered hundreds of Egyptians in revenge by flooding a chamber she had constructed and then lured them into. According to Herodotus she killed herself by jumping into a room full of ashes. Mantheo records similar fantastic stories and confuses her with the character of Rhodophis the Courtesan.

If we just had these stories it would be tempting to record Queen Nitocris has entirely mythical, given that no contemporary records or other archaeological evidence have been found concerning her. However the Turin Canon papyrus, (dated c. 1600 B.C.E.), that lists the Pharaohs of Egypt, lists her. The Turin Papyrus gives her reign has lasting 2 years, one month and a day. Mantheo gives her a reign of 12 years. Other sources give her a reign of 6 years.

 

It is the suppossed mention of her in the Turin Canon that makes her an historical figure and not a mythical figure. however it appears that the mention of her may in fact be the result of damage to the inscription and her historical status is not entirely secure. Although most Egyptologists accept her as being real. The circumstances of her alleged ascension to the throne are unknown although the stories recorded by Herodotus and Mantheo would seem to indicate that intrigue and the possible murder of her first husband played a role. After her alleged death the First Intermediate Period began with the reign of a few brief Pharoahs.7

Queen Sobeknafou



Queen Sobeknafou was the last ruler of the 12th Dynasty who ruled c. 1790 - 1786 B.C.E. According to the Turin Canon she ruled for a period of 3 years, 10 months and 24 days. She was the daughter of Pharaoh Amenenhat III and sister/wife of Amenenhat IV. Upon the death of Amenenhat IV she assumed the throne. Contemporary inscriptions give her royal titles and indisputably indicate her ruling as Pharaoh.

It appears that Queen Sobeknafou took the throne because no suitable male members of the Royal family were available. There is no evidence that her role of Pharaoh was resented then or later neither was she considered a usurper, as she is listed in later historical accounts as Pharaoh.
 

Queen Sobeknafou apparently selected as her successor the founder of the Egyptian 13th Dynasty. After her death Egypt's middle kingdom went into a serious decline and the Second Intermediate Period began.8

Queen Hatshepsut

Indisputably the greatest of Egyptian Queens and one of the greatest of Egyptian rulers. Hatshepsut was a Pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty who ruled c.1479-1457 B.C.E. She was the daughter of Thutmose I and had married her half brother Thutmose II to secure his hold on the throne.

Hatshepsut was the daughter of Thutmose I by his chief Queen or "God's Wife". As such her "pedigree" was better than that of her husband who was the son of Thutmose I and a concubine. Thutmose II reigned only for about 5 years before dying. Hatshepsut and Thutmose II had one child, a daughter. The inscriptions of the time period give Hatshepsut no unusual prominence over and above that of chief Queen and 'Gods Wife". Upon the death of Thutmose II, Hatshepsut as chief Queen and mother of the next Heiress Queen, her daughter Nemonje becomes regent for Thutmose III, (at most 12 years old at this time), Thutmose II son by a concubine or secondary wife.
 

Regencies like this had happened before but this time a crisis seems to have developed. By the second year of the regency Hatshepsut was emerging from the background and by year seven the transformation was complete, she was Pharaoh, co-ruler with Thutmose III nominally and ruler in fact of Egypt. What has been called a "creeping coup" was a success.

Hatshepsut then embarked on a vast propaganda campaign and an ambitious building program to justify her rule. She claimed to be a daughter of the God Amun and that her father Thutmose I had selected her to succeed him. Hatshepsut emphasized her descent from both Thutmose I and his Chief Queen, thus indirectly emphasizing that her divine ancestry was better than that of both her half brother Thutmose II and her nephew Thutmose III and hence her right to rule.

In fact Hatshepsut backdated the start of her reign to the death of her father Thutmose I. Despite this no effort was made by her to dispose Thutmose III or to exclude him from the nominal symbols of being Pharaoh. It appears possible that Hatshepsut, given her later actions probably did exercise an enormous amount of influence during the reign of her half brother / husband Thutmose II, the written record gives no evidence of this however.
 

During her reign has part of her propaganda campaign Hatshepsut built near the valley of the kings the beautiful and magnificent temple at Deir-el-Bahri and had numerous monuments erected to justify her right to rule. As part of this propaganda campaign she had herself depicted wearing male garb and sometimes wearing a male pharaonic beard, at other times she was depicted as a women.

Hatshepsut as a woman
 

Her foreign policy was one of peace abroad and the pursuit of trade. One of accomplishments was the re-establishment of direct trade with Punt a country located in modern day Somalia. Direct trade had been broken off centuries earlier. At Deir-el-Bahri the walls are covered with inscriptions describing this expedition. Also has part of this campaign Hatshepsut linked herself with the expulsion of the Hyskos from Egypt. Virtually no military campaigns are recorded during her reign.
 

One of the perennial mysteries of Egyptology was how Hatshepsut managed to keep Thutmose III under control, until he was in his early thirties. Thutmose III has been called Egypt's Napoleon and was one of the most formidable soldiers ever to have lived. And aside from being a formidable general was an all round strong Pharaoh. How Hatshepsut was able to take power and to keep it in her hands until Thutmose III was well past the age of ascension, (in Egypt 15 years of age) is a mystery.
 

It used to be though that after Hatshepsut's death, (which in this school of thought may have been arranged by Thutmose III), Thutmose III had her monuments defaced and destroyed in a fit of revenge against his step-mother for usurping the throne and keeping him in the background. It is now known that this attack on Hatshepsut's memory occurred 20 years after Hatshepsut's death. Even more importantly it appears that during the later part of Hatshepsut's reign Thutmose III was apparently in command of the army. It appears likely that Hatshepsut and Thutmose III worked together and that the theory of unbridled hatred by Thutmose III against his step-mother is myth. The reasons for the attack against Hatshepsut's memory apparently had little if anything to do with personal animosity. If this is the case Hatshepsut probably died of natural causes still Pharaoh of Egypt.
 

Hatshepsut was not listed in the list of Egyptian rulers probably because she was considered a sort of usurper. During the reign of her successor, Thutmose III, Egypt became the most formidable military power in the middle east. Hatshepsut's reign was apparently a great success and inaugurated Egypt's Golden Age.9

Queen Twosret

Queen Twosret was the last ruler of the 19th Dynasty and she ruled c. 1193-1185 B.C.E. Twosret was the wife of Seti II and apparently upon the death of her husband made herself co-ruler with Siptah, Seti's son. It is not clear if Sipah was also Twosret's son also. It is clear that Siptah was very young, (less than 10 years old), when his father died.

It appears that Twosret was a member of the Royal family by descent although how closely she was related to her husband is not known. Certainly the ease with which she took the throne indicates this, further she is listed in the official lists of Egyptian rulers, which indicates that her rule was accepted as fully legitimate. Siptah did not live long dying in c. 1191 B.C.E. After Siptah's death Twosret ruled alone, depending on the source, any where from 2 - 6 years, (more likely 6 years).

After the death of Rameses II, (c. 1212 B.C.E.), Egypt was subject to a series of major crises of foreign invasion, drought, a breakdown of law and order and rampant corruption. The reign of his two successors Merenptah and Seti II were both short. It appears that when Seti II died there were no suitable, male, Pharaoh's available so Queen Twosret became Pharaoh as the only suitable member of the Royal family available.

Queen Twosret's tomb in the valley of the kings is imposing in both size and grandeur, and the start of its construction appears to predate her ascension as ruler of Egypt. It appears that even during the reign of her husband Seti II she was a formidable figure.

During the later part of her reign she was involved in a power struggle with her Vizier Bay over the succession and she may have been deposed. This is unlikely given that her chosen successor Sethnakhete came to throne shortly after her death and established the 20th Dynasty. Egypt's long decline was well underway by the time her reign started.10

Two Ambiguous cases

Queen Meryt-Neith

 

Queen Meryt-Neith was the chief Queen of Wadj, the third ruler of 1st Dynasty, c. 3000 B.C.E. Queen Meryt-Neith is poorly known and she is not mentioned as a ruler in any of the Egyptian king lists.

 

What makes some it likely that Meryt-Neith ruled as Pharaoh is that she was buried like a Pharaoh. For example a solar boat was buried with her. An honor reserved for a king. Also Meryt-Neith had a tomb in both Upper and Lower Egypt, which during the 1st and 2nd Dynasty was only done with Pharaohs to symbolize their rule of the two lands. Also buried with Meryt-Neith were 40 attendants who were killed to accompany her into the hereafter, which again was at the time something done only for Pharaohs. If the burial had been of a man it would have been accepted unquestionably as a Pharaoh's tomb. It appears likely that Meryt-Neith was regent for her son the Pharoah Den. Athough she may have ruled alone or co-ruled with her husband.11
 

 

Queen Nefertiti

Queen Nefertiti was the wife of the Pharaoh Akhenaten, called the "Heretic Pharaoh", c. 1350-1334 B.C.E. It appears that she was a member of the Royal family probably a cousin of Akhenaten and not a sister. Due to the contentious nature of reign of Akhenaten and the myriad disputes about virtually every aspect of this period nothing is at all clear about Nefertiti's position. No inscription describes her as Pharaoh however a number of indications have been, reasonably in my view, been interpreted has indicating that Nefertiti may have co-ruled with her husband for a time if not succeeded him for a time has Pharaoh.
 

We know that Nefertiti supported the religious reforms of the period and had with Akhenaten 6 daughters. The art of this time period shows in rather loving and intimate detail a loving relationship between Akhenaten and Nefertiti which as made them attractive to modern tastes.

Among the treasures of world art is the magnificent bust of Nefertiti found in the ruins of Akhenaton's capital at Tell-el-Amarna. It is perhaps the most perfect example of unearthly, divine beauty ever created. It was found in the work shop of the chief sculptor of Tell-el-Amarna, by the name of Thutmose. It purpose was not, as a work of art in its own right but to serve as a model for other sculptors, while working on sculptured reliefs, of how to sculpt the face and head of Queen Nefertiti. The bust now resides in the Berlin Museum where it is considered one of it's greatest treasures. This sculpture more than any other object associated with Nefertiti has made her world famous.
 

The Bust of Nefertiti
 

If the art of the Amarna period is the reason for how well Nefertiti is known to today, modern historians are more interested in the questions concerning her influence and importance. In this there is lots of speculation and few facts.
 

We know that with the ascension of Akhenaton Nefertiti was also elevated to a position of great importance. In the temple that Akhenaton built at Thebes, shortly after his reign started, Nefertiti's image is as prominent has his and more common. Also it appears that certain colossal images that had been thought to portray Akhenaton, with very large hips, thighs and no visible genitalia in a skin tight costume are in fact of Nefertiti. If this is the case, the statutes also have a Pharonic beard like Queen Hatshepsut, the statutes also show Nefertiti holding the Croup and the Flail, Egyptian symbols of Kingship. Later in the reign a relief shows Nefertiti wearing a triple Atef-crown which is usually worn only by Kings. In fact Akhenaton's religious reforms which elevated the Aton, the disk of the sun, into the supreme, and possibly only, God required that his subjects worship the Royal family as divine. Nefertiti in this system was a combination fertility symbol and the wife of the sun. The implication seems to be that sometimes early in the reign of Akhenaton Nefertiti became co-regent with her husband, certainly Nefertiti is shown frequently performing tasks performed usually only by kings.

Inscriptions describing and referring to Nefertiti late in the reign are few and sparse. The old solution to this problem was that Nefertiti was leader of the "radical" Atonists and was exiled to the North Palace at Tell-el-Amarna where she lived until she died. Variations of this idea are used to explain her sudden disappearance in about the 14th year of the reign of Akhenaton. Another idea is that Nefertiti was not exiled but that she reappeared as the mysterious and shadowy Smenkhare, usually thought to be a son of Akhenaton, who was co-ruler with Akhenaton and who briefly survived Akhenaton. A variation of this is that Nefertiti was another character referred to in the inscriptions which is usually thought to be another name for Smenkhare, Ankhheperure who then was co-ruler with Akhenaton. All of this is quite contentious. Recent genetic analysis has provided evidence that Smenkhare was a real figure and not Nefertiti. The simplest solution for the problem of Nefertiti's disappearance, and one supported by some evidence, is that Nefertiti simply died in the 14th year of Akhenaton's reign.

After the death of Akhenaton his new capital was abandoned and his religious reforms were dropped and within one generation an effort was made to erase the memory of the reign of Akhenaton, Smenkhare, Tutankhamen, Ay all of whom were tainted with the heresy of Atonism. In fact the last Pharaoh of the 18th dynasty, Horemheb, considered himself the direct successor to Akhenaton's father Amenhotep III. The reigns of at least 4 Pharaoh's and 5 if Nefertiti was in fact Pharaoh was systematically erased from History. Later Egyptian king lists do not mention any of the Amarna kings or Queens. Until the late 19th and early 20th century this rewriting of history was successful. Nefertiti was only rediscovered after being buried in oblivion for 3000 years.12

Such is an outline of the major native Egyptian Queen Pharoahs.

 

Footnotes

1. Aldred, pp. 134-141, Tyldesley, 1994, pp. 187-203.

2. Tyldesley, 1994, p. 185.

 

3. Aldred, pp. 228-229, Tydesley, 1994, pp. 202-203.

4. Breasted, p. 93, 98, 335, Race, p. 141, 144, see also Ancient Egypt, Here

5. Aldred, pp. 134-145.

6. Ancient Egypt, Here, Tydesley, 1994, pp. 204-206.

7. Tydesley, 1994, pp. 216-218.

8. Tydesley, 1994, pp. 218-220.

9. Breasted, pp. pp. 220-235, Tyldesley, 1994, pp. 220-230, & 1998.

10. Tyldesley, 1994, pp. 237-241, Breasted, p. 339.

11. Tyldesley, 1994, pp. 214-215, Rice, pp. 122-123.

12. Tyldesley, 1994, pp. 231-237, & 1999, Aldred, pp. 219-230.

 

Sources:
 

Tyldesley, Joyce A., Daughters of Isis: Women of Ancient Egypt, Penguin, London, 1994

Tyldesley, Joyce A., Nefertiti: Egypt's Sun Queen, Penguin, London, 1999.

Tyldesley, Joyce A., Hatchepsut: The Female Pharaoh, Penguin, London, 1998.

Kuhrt, Amelie, The Ancient Near East: c. 3000-330 B.C., Vol 1, Routledge, London, 1995.

Kuhrt, Amelie, The Ancient Near East: c. 3000-330 B.C., Vol 2, Routledge, London, 1995.

Aldred, Cyril, Akhenaten: King of Egypt, Thames and Hudson, London, 1988.

Breasted, James Henry, A History of Egypt, Bantam Books, New York, 1964.

Rice, Michael, Egypt's Making, Routledge, London, 1991.

 

Sitek, Dariusz, Ancient Egypt, Here.

 

Pierre Cloutier

A little Democritus

Democritus

The famed philosopher Democritus, who lived in the 5th century B.C.E., is best known to day for his theory of atoms. Hence he is called an atomist. Although many books talk about him in such a manner has to indicate that he was the originator of this idea of everything composed of atoms, i.e., amalgamations of very small particles he did not in fact originate the idea.1

It was in fact the philosopher Leucippus who originated the idea. Unfortunately Leucippus is a very shadowy figure and the tendency for later sources to talk about Leucippus and Democritus together does not make distinguishing them very easy. Further it appears that Leucippus wrote very little.2

Democritus seems to have been a little older than Socrates3, very little is known of his life,4 although he seems to have been a very prolific writer. The writer Diogenes Laertius supplies a very long list of Democritius’ works as follows:

Ethical Works

Pythagoras
On the Disposition of the Wiseman
On the things in Hades
On Manliness / On Virtues
The Horn of Amaltheia
On Contentment
Ethical Commentaries
Well-Being

Natural Science

The Great World-ordering [probably actually by Leucippus]
The Little World-ordering
Description of the World
On the Planets
On Nature
On the Nature of Man / On Flesh
On Thoughts
On the Senses / On the Soul?
On Flavours
On Colours
On Different Shapes
On Changing Shape
Buttresses
On Images / On Providence
On Logic / The Rule
Puzzles

Unordered works

Heavenly Causes
Atmospheric Causes
Terrestrial Causes
Causes Concerned with Fire and Things in Fire
Causes Concerned with Sounds
Causes Concerned with Seeds and Plants and-
Fruits
Causes Concerned with Animals
Miscellaneous Causes
On the Stone

Mathematical Works

On Different Angles / On Contact with Circles and- Spheres
On Geometry
Geometry
Numbers
On Irrational Lines and Solids
Planispheres
The Great Year / Astronomy [Calendar]
Contest of the Water clock
Description of the Heavens
Geography
Description of the Poles
Description of Rays of Light

Literary Works

On Rhythms and Harmony
On Poetry
On the Beauty of Verses
On Euphonious and Cacophonous Letters
On Homer / Correct Diction and Glosses
On Songs
On Verbs
Vocabularies

Technical Works

Prognosis
On Diet / Dietetics
Medical Judgment
Causes concerning Appropriate and Inappropriate- Occasions
On Farming / Farming Matters
On Painting
Tactics
The Use of Arms

Commentaries

On the Sacred Writings of Babylon
On Those in Meroe
Circumnavigation of the Ocean
On History
Chaldaean Account
Phrygian Account
On Fever and Coughing Sickness
Legal Causes
Chamber-pots / Problems5

A very interesting list which indicates the very wide ranging interests of Democritus. Unfortunately soon after Democritus’ death interest shifted from “Natural Philosophy” i.e., “Science” to Ethics and Metaphysics so that later Greek philosophers were far more interested in Democritus’ ethical works and what we now about Democritus’ atomic theory is from bare summaries and not from actual quotations. In fact the great majority of surviving direct quotations of Democritus’ works are in fact from his ethical works.6

In fact Democritus’ idea of atoms lead him to reject the idea of Gods or other supernatural forces controlling men’s lives and the behavior of the universe. Instead it was the material action of atoms that did so. Democritus apparently believed that such material action of atoms was discoverable through the use of human senses. Here was the possible foundations of something like modern “Science”. Alas it was premature and died being born.

So in this respect Democritus, although no Ionian was in fact the last of the Ionian Philosophers in that his main interest was in explaining the world around him. Subsequent generations of thinkers / philosophers were vastly less interested and instead shifted their interest to matters of metaphysics, ethics, the nature of virtue etc., so that Greek science was basically stillborn. Democritus’ skeptical approach was largely abandoned and so was his idea that the senses, although imperfect and sometimes deceiving, did tell us about the world.

In this particular essay I shall not examine Democritus’ “Science” but instead quote a few of his ethical statements and comment on them.

Medicine heals the diseases of the body, and wisdom takes away passions of the soul.7

This illustrates the traditional Greek attitude that passions are dangerous and need to be both understood and controlled. A wise man controls passions that uncontrolled lead to dangerous extreme behavior. Wisdom leads to moderation and that includes moderated passions.

Men enjoy scratching themselves – they get the same pleasure as those who are having sexual intercourse.8

This passage aside from its humorous aspects compares sex to scratching an itch and thus places it has something prosaic and hardly earth shaking. It also places sex as a type of physical pleasure and not has a sort of cosmic metaphor. Further by reducing sex to scratching an itch Democritus was perhaps implying that’s importance was vastly overrated and the wise man could do without.

Do not be eager to know everything lest you become ignorant of everything.9

Similar to the idea of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing or the idea of a dabbler of many trades is a master of none. In this case Democritus’ own prolific output in so many different fields just might indicate that this was a bit of self depreciation directed against himself.

Men fashioned an image of chance as an excuse for their own thoughtlessness; for chance rarely fights with wisdom, and a clear-sighted intelligence sets straight most things in life.10

A variation of God helps those that help themselves and that people make their own luck. This basically optimistic view of life was at variance with the then conventional Greek, and later Greco-Roman view, of fate. In this view men were nothing more than toys being tossed about by capricious “Fortune”. This pessimistic view of life went hand in hand with a depreciation of the virtue of knowledge of the outside world and the idea that anything could really change for the better. The turn inwards of Greek philosophy towards questions of ethics and self –understanding was also accompanied by an quietitude about accepting what happened to you as fate of which little could be done.

The world is a stage, life is our entrance: you came, you saw, you left.11

Yup that’s were Shakespeare got it! This thought goes with Democritus’ basically materialistic view of life. He seemed to think that the soul died with the body. And his vision of life as a play speaks to an awareness of the absurd / silly aspects of life and to the possible pointlessness of the whole enterprise. It also speaks to the idea that pointless or not life is worth living. Although I wonder if Democritus ever thought that if life was a play just who / what is the audience being performed for?

The world is change; life is opinion.12

Of interest in that it goes back to the ideas of the Ionian philosophers that change was continual and such notions as you never step into the same river twice.13 Further Democritus accepted the idea that many of the notions of how we order our lives are just opinion and not fact and we should relate to others through acceptance of that and exercise a measure of tolerance.

It is of interest that the idea of change being a basic property of the universe and essentially neutral was abandoned by later Greek Philosophy. Instead the idea arose that the seeking of permanent, eternal truths and facts was the point of philosophical inquiry. Instead of being a process of inquiry philosophy became a collection of “truthful” axioms. Thus life was no longer “opinion” and world was no longer “change”. Plato for example abominated change which to him meant degeneration. In his eyes what was to be sought was perfect unchanging “Forms”. Change of any description was bad and every effort had to be made to freeze things, to avoid dissention, conflict, disorder. Thus the search for the “perfect” state, “perfect” definitions, “perfect” laws. And the world was viewed as an inferior, decaying world of little real importance.

The cause of error is ignorance of what is better.14

This is similar to Plato’s idea that bad “evil” behavior is the result of ignorance of the “good” and not of innate evil. However in this case the moral attributes given by Plato are absent in that the here the neutral term error is used. This is probably related to philosophical stream of which Democritus was a part that concentrated on practicalities and not innate inward states. Plato was concerned with defining the “good” and could not conceive of men deliberately doing evil. Plato also was in search of absolute “good”. The earlier Ionian Philosophers with their notions of how things were frequently “relative” would have regarded such a search as potentially futile. Although they would have accepted the idea of certain attitudes and behaviors has “good”. Further Democritus seems to have viewed finding norms of behavior in a practical sense not in terms of searching for perfect definitions of concepts.

One should emulate the deeds and actions of virtue, not the words.15

A variation of deeds speak louder than words. Again a piece of practical advice. Rather than argue about what is virtue try to emulate virtue through action not through words. I strongly suspect Democritus would have found later Greek philosophy with its endless digressions about the nature of “virtue” etc., so many words that were nothing more than a substitute for action.

If you exceed the measure, what is most enjoyable will become least enjoyable.16

Similar to the idea of too much of a good thing. This goes with the Greek idea of things in moderation and that excess leads to corruption, satiation, boredom and a general lowering of the quality of life. The idea of indulgence leads to unhappiness is in general related to the notion that excess is a bad thing and that a life of measured moderation leads to happiness.

Men remember wrongs better than benefits. And that is just; for as those who repay their debts should not be praised, whereas those who do not should be blamed and suffer, so too it is with a ruler. For he was chosen not to do wrong but to do right.17

A very interesting point of view. What Democritus is saying is because rulers are expected to do what is right. When they are doing so they are doing nothing more than their jobs and what is expected and so should not expect praise. For by praising them you are saying what they are doing, i.e., doing the right thing is somehow unexpected hence praiseworthy. When it is merely what is expected. However bad acts are not expected and in fact violate the job description and so are worthy of loud denunciation. Democritus’ point is interesting but he seems to forget the all too human need for praise and ego boosting.

He who worthily administers the greatest offices has the greatest share of justice and virtue.18

Considering how Plato and many other Greek Philosophers viewed politics as somehow polluted and corrupting and saw little if any virtue in politicians or statesmen. Unless they were trying to create Plato’s ideal societies. In fact Plato thought Philosophers should avoid such entanglements and instead concentrate on navel gazing about being virtuous and avoiding the corrupt world of the senses. Here Democritus is advocating a connection with the world and the potential for good of political action. With the inward turn of Greek Philosophy this would largely fall by the wayside.

When those in power take it upon themselves to lend to the poor and to aid them and to favour them, then there is compassion and not isolation but companionship and mutual defence and concord among the citizens and other good things too many to catalogue.19.

A passage that illustrates the democratic sympathies of Democritus. I suspect Democritus had in mind the democratic city of Athens which was very successful in maintaining democracy and stability internally and avoiding the disastrous stasis or civil strife that pitted poor citizens against wealthy Aristocrats / Oligarchs in murderous mayhem for centuries. The Athenian democracy interestingly managed to do this and that the main leaders of the democracy were long established Athenian aristocratic families. Later Greek Philosophers including Plato generally abominated Athenian democracy and any attempt to give the poor a voice in government.

Justice is doing what should be done, injustice not doing what should be done but turning away from it.20

This makes a rather interesting contrast with Plato’s definition of “justice” in the Republic, where “justice” is defined as everyone doing what they are best fitted for. How you determine that is not explained except that the wise Philosopher Kings would somehow know through their philosophical speculations. It is interesting that whereas Plato defined “justice” as a property of a whole social system and took it away from the idea of “justice” as actions / omissions, i.e., the idea of “justice” being how people were treated and what was and was not done. Democritus keeps that common notion of “justice” here. Plato’s definition is part of the process by which Greek philosophy retreated from the practical world to the world of metaphysics and airy abstractions.

Democritus is again showing the spirit of the Ionian Philosophers with their emphasis of on practical action. It is also clear that Democritus did not view the idea of “justice” has a problematic concept but something fairly clear to everyone and not in need of obtuse analysis.

I could go on but that is a sample of some of the words of Democritus regarding ethics. For such a prolific writer it is remarkable that so little of what he wrote survived and even his ethical material, which had the most appeal to later Greco-Romans survives only in short quotes and pithy epigrams. It appears that even his ethical material was not that appealing and what generally circulated were collections of sayings. The full actual works were too out of touch with the otherworldly spirit of much Greco-Roman intellectual life after Plato. They lacked the inward focus of later intellectual life and so were little read in the original by later readers.

Democritus represents both the culmination of the Ionian Philosophers and the end. It appears that people preferred to read about his “scientific” books in summaries and amusing anecdotes. Very few seemed to have been interested in reading the originals. Very little work seems to have been done by the later atomist thinkers to build up from Democritus’ foundations. Instead they combined atomism with philosophical resignation and bootless speculation.

Ethically Democritus’ idea that action was both possible and desirable and his apparent rejection of philosophical resignation were ignored.

Thus did the Greco-Roman culture stagnate.

1. Jonathon Barnes Editor, Early Greek Philosophy, 2nd Revised Edition, Penguin Books, London, 2001, pp. 201-253, Waterfield, Robin, Editor, The First Philosophers, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000, pp. 164-171, Kirk, G. S., Raven, J. E., Schofield, M., Editors, The Presocratic Philosophers, 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983, pp. 402-433.

2. IBID.

3. IBID. Kirk et al, p. 404.

4. Barnes, p. 203.

5. IBID. pp. 204-205.

6. IBID. p. 227.

7. IBID. p. 228.

8. IBID. p. 229.

9. IBID. p. 230.

10. IBID. p. 230.

11. IBID. p. 253.

12. IBID. p. 253.

13. IBID. p. 70, Greek Philosopher Heraclitus.

14. IBID. p. 251.

15. IBID. p. 250.

16. IBID. p. 238

17. IBID. p. 243.

18. IBID. p. 243.

19. IBID. p. 242.

20. IBID. p. 242.

Pierre Cloutier

A Fanatic for all Seasons

Thomas More

The play A Man for All Seasons,1 is a most interesting play in that it is of a man who never existed. That man is of course Thomas More. The More in the play is to be polite a lie and fabrication. The heavy handed play and its lugubrious and highly painfully earnest film version are parts of the lie that is the popular mythology about Thomas More that flourishes to this day.

Thomas More was born on February 7, 1478.2 Thomas More studied at the various Inns of Court and became a Lawyer. Thomas More wanted to be a Priest or Monk but decided reluctantly to get married to a woman named Jane Colt. When Jane Colt died in 1511, Thomas More almost immediately married a rich widow by the name of Alice Middleton who survived him. He served as advisor to the great Cardinal Wolsey and made friends with the great Humanist, Renaissance scholar Erasmus with whom he had a life long friendship.3

Of course Thomas More wrote Utopia, 4, (meaning no place), which was published in 1516. Much as been made of the religious tolerance of the Utopians. For example:

…for this is one of their most ancient laws, that no man ought to be punished for his religion. At the first constitution of their government, Utopus having understood that before his coming among them the old inhabitants had been engaged in great quarrels concerning religion, by which they were so divided among themselves, that he found it an easy thing to conquer them, since instead of uniting their forces against him, every different party in religion fought by themselves; after he had subdued them, he made a law that every man might be of what religion he pleased, and might endeavor to draw others to it by force of argument, and by amicable and modest ways, but without bitterness against those of other opinions; but that he ought to use no other force but that of persuasion, and was neither to mix with it reproaches nor violence; and such as did otherwise were to be condemned to banishment or slavery.

This law was made by Utopus, not only for preserving the public peace, which he saw suffered much by daily contentions and irreconcilable heats, but because he thought the interest of religion itself required it. He judged it not fit to determine anything rashly, and seemed to doubt whether those different forms of religion might not all come from God, who might inspire men in a different manner, and be pleased with this variety; he therefore thought it indecent and foolish for any man to threaten and terrify another to make him believe what did not appear to him to be true. And supposing that only one religion was really true, and the rest false, he imagined that the native force of truth would at last break forth and shine bright, if supported only by the strength of argument, and attended to with a gentle and unprejudiced mind; while, on the other hand, if such debates were carried on with violence and tumults, as the most wicked are always the most obstinate, so the best and most holy religion might be choked with superstition, as corn is with briars and thorns.

He therefore left men wholly to their liberty, that they might be free to believe as they should see cause;…5

This passage and several others have been used as evidence that Thomas more was a tolerant man however it ignores that the Utopians were not tolerant of atheists:

…only he [Utopus] made a solemn and severe law against such as should so far degenerate from the dignity of human nature as to think that our souls died with our bodies, or that the world was governed by chance, without a wise overruling Providence: for they all formerly believed that there was a state of rewards and punishments to the good and bad after this life; and they now look on those that think otherwise as scarce fit to be counted men, since they degrade so noble a being as the soul, and reckon it no better than a beast's: thus they are far from looking on such men as fit for human society, or to be citizens of a well-ordered commonwealth; since a man of such principles must needs, as oft as he dares do it, despise all their laws and customs: for there is no doubt to be made that a man who is afraid of nothing but the law, and apprehends nothing after death, will not scruple to break through all the laws of his country, either by fraud or force, when by this means he may satisfy his appetites. They never raise any that hold these maxims, either to honors or offices, nor employ them in any public trust, but despise them, as men of base and sordid minds: yet they do not punish them, because they lay this down as a maxim that a man cannot make himself believe anything he pleases; nor do they drive any to dissemble their thoughts by threatenings, so that men are not tempted to lie or disguise their opinions; which being a sort of fraud, is abhorred by the Utopians. They take care indeed to prevent their disputing in defence of these opinions, especially before the common people; but they suffer, and even encourage them to dispute concerning them in private with their priests and other grave men, being confident that they will be cured of those mad opinions by having reason laid before them.6

Further it is clear from Thomas More’s comments that one of the signs of the Utopians superiority is that they are eager to listen too and be converted to Christianity. Further since the Utopians are non-Christians they would have to be religiously tolerant to be able to more easily receive Christianity.7

There is no question that Thomas More believed utterly and completely in the absolute truth of the Catholic version of Christianity

Perhaps the best indication of the “true” Thomas More is in his myriad writings about heresy.

We have for example the fate of James Bainham. Thomas More while Lord Chancellor of England was involved in his arrest, questioning and imprisonment. James Bainham was charged with heresy and had after his first arrest been given the choice of being burned or recanting. James Bainham had not surprisingly recanted. After all who wants to die? Afterwards, filled with guilt, James Bainham recanted his recantation and soon afterwards was arrested again. As a relapsed heretic he was shortly afterwards burned. Foxe in his Book of Martyrs, claimed that Thomas More, who had been involved in questioning James Bainham, had him tortured and whipped. These claims are doubted today yet Thomas More wrote about the death of Bainham and other “heretics”:

And for heretics as they be, the clergy both denounce them. And they be well worthy, the temporalty doth burn them. After the fire of Smithfield, hell doth receive them where the wretches burn forever.8

Another example of Thomas More’s victims was Thomas Hitton a priest who was sympathetic to various aspects of Protestantism. Thomas More writes that Thomas Hitton was:

…an apostle, sent to and fro betwene our Englysshe heretykes beyonde the see and such as were here at home. The spirit of errour and lyenge hath taken his wretched soul with him strayte from the shorte fyre to ye fyre ever lastyng. And this is lo sir Thomas Hitton, the dyuyls [devil's] stynkyng martyr, of whose burnynge Tyndale maketh boste.9

When a man named John Twekesbury was burned Thomas More stated:

burned as there was never wretche I wene better worthy.10

While he was Lord Chancellor Thomas More violated rules of English law to get at heretics and he continued to rejoice until his own death in the destruction of heretics.11 He carried out until his death a vicious vendetta against William Tyndale the translator of the New Testament into English. Thomas More described William Tyndale as:

beste oute of whose brutyshe bestely mouth cometh a fylthy fome.12

Eventually Thomas More played a role, even though Thomas More was in the tower at the time awaiting his own execution in William Tyndale’s horrible death by fire.13.

The Execution of William Tyndale

Thus does Thomas More crow in hateful joy at the hideous death of other human beings judicially murdered for their opinions.

Thomas More in 1529 published a book called A Dialogue Concerning Heresies,14 In it we find such good words as:

The Author showeth his opinion concerning the burning of Heretics and that it is lawful, necessary, and well done.15

In A Dialogue concerning Heresies, we get such bon mots as this concerning Martin Luther.

…a fond friar, to an apostate, to an open incestuous lecher, a plain limb of the devil, and a manifest messenger of hell.16

For in More’s eyes regarding heresy:

there is no fault that more offendeth God.17

Finally Thomas More wrote in a letter to Erasmus as follows:

...with deep feeling. I find that breed of men [heretics] absolutely loathsome, so much so that, unless they regain their senses, I want to be as hateful to them as anyone can possibly be for my increasing experience with these men frightens me with the thought that the whole world will suffer at their hands.18

Richard Marius says this about Thomas More and his campaign against heresy:

To stand before a man at an inquisition, knowing that he will rejoice when we die, knowing that he will commit us to the stake and its horrors without a moment’s hesitation or remorse if we do not satisfy him, is not an experience much less cruel because our inquisitor does not whip us or rack us or shout at us.

...

But in the same work, [More’s, Apology, 1533] More - by then out of office – exhorted the bishops not to falter in their zeal to suppress heretics by any measures at their command.

His own labour was utterly single-minded and not mitigated by any flash of mercy or tolerance. Heretics were enemies of God, servants of Satan, minions of hell, and beyond all that, they were usually lower-class, people without roots resolved to root out the grand old faith which was the only guarantee of meaning in the universe. More believed that they should be exterminated, and while he was in office he did everything in his power to bring that extermination to pass. That he did not succeed in becoming England’s Torquemada was a consequence of the king’s quarrel with the pope and not a result of any quality of mercy that stirred through More’s own heart.19

Thomas More as a man of tolerance is a myth. The tolerance in his ideal society described in Utopia is a function of the fact that the Utopians are non Christians that More wants to become Christians so of course they are tolerant,; but not of atheism which More abominated. The tolerance of the Utopians tells us zero about More’s own attitudes in this matter. Instead his large corpus of written writings is full of hatred against so-called heretics and zealous in calls for their violent suppression by terror and painful death right to the end of More’s life. All this makes an interesting contrast with More’s friend Erasmus whose tolerance and dislike of violence make it manifest that he would almost certainly have never have overseen the judicial murder of individuals for so-called heresy.

It is ironic that Thomas More who believed it was right to murder men, and had in fact done so, for their opinions was murdered for his own.20

1. Bolt, Robert, A Man for all Seasons, Vintage, New York, 1990, see the following critique, O'Connell, Marvin, A Man for all Seasons: an Historian's Demur, at Here

2. Marius, Richard, Thomas More, Fount Paperbacks, New York, 1984, p. 3.

3. IBID. pp.14-83.

4. A copy of Utopia can be found at the Oregon State website Here.

5. IBID. Utopia, in Book II: Of the Religions Of the Utopians, at Here

6. IBID.

7. IBID. also Marius, pp. 152-183.

8. IBID. Marius quoting Thomas More p. 406.

9. Moynahan, Brian, Thomas More: Zero Tolerance, Part II, at Here, quoting Thomas More.

10. IBID.

11. IBID.

12. IBID. and Moynahan, Brian, Thomas More: Zero Tolerance, Part I, at Here

13. IBID.

14. See More, Thomas, The Complete Works of St. Thomas More; volume 6: A Dialogue Concerning Heresies, ed. Louis A. Schuster, Richard C. Marius, James P. Lusardi and Richard J. Shoeck, Yale University Press, New Haven CT., 1973.

15. Quoted in Marius, p. 347.

16. See More, Dialogue..., p. 346.

17. IBID. p. 407.

18. More, Thomas, St. Thomas More: Selected Letters, ed. by Elizabeth Frances Rogers. Yale University Press, New Haven CT., 1961, pp.180.

19. Marius, p. 406.

20. For more about Thomas More has fanatic see Marius and Ridley, Jasper, The Statesman and the Fanatic, Constable, London, 1982.

Pierre Cloutier

The Fall of the Maya

The Raid
Mural from Bomapak Mexico

The Glory of the Mayan golden age ended with abandoned cities and chaos. Between 800 C.E. and 900 C.E. the great majority of classical Mayan centres were abandoned. Why is one of the great mysteries of Pre-Columbian America.

It should be pointed out that Collapse while rare is not unique it has happened to a number of societies in the course of Human History. For example:

1, The Western Roman Empire 350-500 C.E.

2, Chacoan Culture 1150-1250 C.E.

3, Indus Civilization 1700-1500 B.C.E.

4, Mycenaen Civilization 1250-1150 B.C.E.

5, Easter Island 1500-1700 C.E.

Since Stephens and Catherwood explored and described the Mayan cities there has been much speculation about why the cities were abandoned, much of it totally useless. Unfortunately the Maya seem to attract more then their fair share of weirdoes and cranks. Including a truly large number of the wacky who could not and cannot believe that the ancestors of today’s Maya built the cities. The Erich von Daniken Chariots of the Gods, nonsense for example. Who is mentioned here because von Daniken interprets the image on Pacal’s sarcophagus lid as that of an Astronaut in a spaceship. I wonder what Pacal would think? Mr. Von Daniken’s particular conceit is that the Mayans were expecting the "Gods" to return on a certain date and when they did not the Mayans abandoned their cities.2

To get back to reality theories about why the Mayan collapse happened have included, Earthquakes, Famines, Epidemics, Hurricanes, Unbalanced sex-ratios, Foreign invasions and so on and so forth. All the above theories have in common the following. Lack of evidence, wild speculation and simplicity.3 They are also almost all not just partly wrong but completely wrong.4

Rather more serious is the idea proposed by the Great Mayanologist Sylvanus Morley that the Mayans devastated their environment by practicing slash and burn agriculture that turned large areas of the lowlands into savanna leading to collapse due to inability of agriculture to support the population.5

The Great Mayanologist Erich Thompson proposed that the Collapse occurred when exasperated Mayan peasants, tired of taxes and wars, overthrew the system and sacked the cities.6

Both those theories are believed to have some truth in them however both had a series of flaws. Morley’s Agricultural depletion theory was based on the assumption that the Mayans during the Classic period practiced slash and burn agriculture, (also called swidden and milpa), which involved burning down an area of jungle planting 1-3 crops and then letting it lie fallow for years (10-30) before planting again. Of course the population that could be supported by this system was not large and population densities were assumed to be low and the cities assumed to be ceremonial centres. To put it bluntly this is all wrong. The Mayan region was much more thickly populated, the cities real cities, and intensive agriculture by means of terrace farming and irrigation the norm in the lowlands.7

Regarding the peasant revolt theory it was based on a view of Mayan society has a huge mass of peasant labourers ruled by a tiny class of Aristocrats/Priests residing in ceremonial centres. This is also very wrong. We now know about the existence of a large class of "petty" nobility with a far from insignificant "middle" class. And of course the cities had large populations.8

The lack of evidence for either savanna creation or a mass peasant revolt does not help these theories either.9 This does not mean these theories do not have value. The decipherment of the Glyphs has brought to forth various new theories and the creation of new theories. The following are some things to keep in mind.

Lintel from Yaxchilan Mexico

1, Mayan cities had been abandoned before the best example of this is El Mirador about 100 C.E.

2, The Maya had cyclical view of time expecting things to repeat, at least on a general level each 256 years of the short count.

3, There are clear signs of environmental degradation and population pressure before the collapse.

4, The Mayan city state system was dominated by the city-states of Tikal, (Mutul), and Kalak’mul who engaged in a struggle for dominance lasting centuries.

5, The population did not collapse and did not decline noticeably until several centuries after the collapse.

6, The Maya Collapse is similar to other collapses.10

It now appears that the collapse occurred for a variety of interrelated reasons. The most likely reasons seem to be a combination of environmental degradation and severe competition between the city-states.

It has been suggested that the concept "marginal returns " offers a way of looking at the problem. In marginal returns the idea is for example: 1X effort = 1Z result, however,2X effort = 1 & 1/2 result, not 2Z result. Or to put it another way it costs for example:it costs $100 to build a bridge 10 meters long, however it costs, $300 to build a bridge 20 meters long. The idea is that all systems have "costs" which tend to go up exponentially in relation to their results. Thus a pyramid 40 meters high takes 4 times the effort, cost, etc., of one 50 20 meters high. This applies to all "systems". The "marginal return" tends to get less. In other words you get less bang for your buck the more you try to do. In this concept has Mayan society got more complex, more ornate, has more temples were built, the aristocracy got larger there was a tendency to get less for the effort, cost, in maintaining the whole system. The idea is that in the late 8th century the cost became to great in relation to the returns, and the system radically simplified i.e., collapsed. 11

The Mayan agricultural system of irrigation and terrace agriculture was apparently developed to support a growing population and to provide the economic surplus to support the elite and the cities. For a considerable period of time the system continued to expand fueled by demand for more people for building projects, pay taxes and to provide bodies for intercity competition. In the late 8th century the system was capable of supporting the population but it was having increasing difficulty doing that and supporting the cities. It was the apparent impossibility of doing both by about 800 C.E. that caused the collapse. Certainly there is some evidence of increasing hunger and disease by the late 8th century. Also it appears that the elite was much larger by the late 8th century than before and a greater burden to carry. Further building projects were on average more extravagant/costly than ever. Wars between the city-states were getting worst. 12

Also the system had been under stress for quite sum time because of the inability of the Maya to politically unify resulting in continual wars between the cities. By 400 C.E., the Mayan world was dominated by two "Super" states Kalak’mul and Tikal (Mutul). Each one lead a constellation of vassals and allies who acknowledged the over lordship of one or the other "Super" state. The conflict was never resolved instead both alliances fought themselves into exhaustion. The competition lead to escalating conflict, competition and steadily increasing expense and effort. The result was that beginning in the late 8th century a great simplification began to happen. 13.

For example in Copan the local nobles apparently decided they did not need a King or monumental architecture or the expense of Royal politics and after Yax-Pac died (820 C.E.) made sure they did not have one. In Bonampak the locals may have overthrown the government. In other place like Dos Pilas, Aguateca ex-victims sacked and destroyed them both. In other places the inhabitants simply abandoned the city i.e., Yaxchilan, Palenque. In some places like Kalak’mul the place was occupied for several decades after the collapse but then abandoned. In many place temporary smaller centres were established independent from any control has the city-states disintegrated before they too collapsed. 14

The Maya in the Classic age also apparently knew of and used the short count dating system which placed a date within a 256 recurring period of time. The Maya believed that events in a general sense repeated themselves in each 256-time period. Thus for example Tikal (Mutul) was defeated and sacked by Caracol in 562 C.E.. The katun (20 year period) in which this disaster happened was due to start c. 800 C.E.. The "Hiatus" that resulted from the sack lasted in Tikal and many of its allies for over 100 years. With that date approaching it is possible that many Maya acted accordingly and created, to some extent, a self-fulfilling prophecy?16

In the end the cities were abandoned and left to the jungle while the Maya were left to pick up the pieces for the cost of maintaining a steady escalating complex, expensive system was too much, and besides was not disaster inevitable?

What is remarkable is that it is all too likely that the Maya may have something to teach us about the limits to "endless" growth.

Glyphic Panel from Palenque Mexico

1, The Collapse of Complex Societies, by Joseph A. Tainter, University of Cambridge Press, New York, 1988.

2, Chariots of the Gods, by Erich von Daniken, Bantam Books, New York, 1968.

3, See The Classic Maya Collapse, Ed. T. Patrick Culbert, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, 1973, for more details.

4. IBID.

5, See above 1, & The Ancient Maya, by Sylvanus Morley, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1956.

6. The Rise and Fall of Maya Civilization, (2nd Ed.), by Erich Thompson, University of Oklahoma Press, New York, 1966.

7, Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture, Ed. Peter Harrison & B.L. Turner, University of New Mexico, Albuequerque, 1978.

8, See The Maya (6th Ed.), Michael D. Coe, Thames & Hudson, London, 1998.

9, See Note 3.

10, See The Code of Kings, by Linda Schele & Peter Mathews, Touchstone Books, New York, 1998.

11. See note 1.

12. See Schele, Linda, Freidel, David, A Forest of Kings, William morrow and Co. Inc., New York, 1990 & Fash, William L., Scribes, Warriors and Kings, Rev'd Ed., Thames and Hudson, London, 2001.

13. Martin, Simon, & Grube, Nikolai, Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens, 2nd Ed., Thames and Hudson, London, 2008.

14. See Fash, Schele, Sharer, Robert J., & Traxler, Loa P., The Ancient Maya, sixth Ed., Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2006.

16. IBID. Sharer.

Pierre Cloutier