For instance, it is evident that the country now called Hellas had in ancient times no settled population; on the contrary, migrations were of frequent occurrence, the several tribes readily abandoning their homes under the pressure of superior numbers.
Hellas (Greece) didn’t have a settled population. It was like the sifting sands of a desert. There was much migration, like flocks of birds flying to a more ready food source. Tribes abandoned their homes because armies of a larger number threatened their existence, as a lone scorpion will make away for a horde of superior ants. This was Hellas.
Without commerce, without freedom of communication either by land or sea, cultivating no more of their territory than the exigencies of life required, destitute of capital, never planting their land (for they could not tell when an invader might not come and take it all away, and when he did come they had no walls to stop him), thinking that the necessities of daily sustenance could be supplied at one place as well as another, they cared little for shifting their habitation, and consequently neither built large cities nor attained to any other form of greatness.
These factors explain why Hellas had the characteristics noted above. They had no commerce: no large-scale buying and selling, no market. They couldn’t talk with any of their neighbors, because they didn’t have any ships, and they didn’t have an effective way to travel by land. They cultivated for themselves just what was necessary for them to survive, like a wayfaring pride of lions. They didn’t add onto or expand their territory; like the homeowner who, for the rest of his life, leaves his house as it is, rather than add onto it: no new rooms, no new walls. Only Hellas was worse, for they wouldn’t be considered, as far as territory is concerned, homeowners at all. They’re like a band of homeless nomads using alternating freeway overpasses based on what they need for the moment, or chosen because of the convenience of proximity. And not being in a civilized nation, they might be the constant prey of predatory invaders, much like the ancient Jews were before they found their promised land. They were like the baby turtles hatched on the beach making their frantic quest to the ocean, and all the while, birds of prey would swoop down and take them away. Blessed with reason, though, Hellas knew that this would be their final destination if they stayed put: on or back they must go - to stay is death. Being without the capacity that a China had to build a wall keeping out, or slowing down, the Mongolian hordes, they knew they must be on the constant move, as a shark must be always on the swim, lest it suffocates. Hellas knew enough about the geography to know that what food they found in one place could probably be found in another, so a nomadic existence, while not the best, may not be on that account unreasonable. Because of habitual relocation, a Rome or a New York City was out of the question, for metropolitan cities rise because of a settled habitation, afforded by all the factors Hellas lacked. Hellas, therefore, doesn’t seem destined to be a city on a shining hill.
The richest soils were always most subject to this change of masters; such as the district now called Thessaly, Boeotia, most of the Peloponnese, Arcadia excepted, and the most fertile parts of the rest of Hellas.
All the districts of Hellas had rich and fertile soils besides Arcadia, which is littered with mountains. It looks as if Arcadia is the Switzerland of Greece, for - or for other factors unbeknownst to me - the Alps made conquest of such a territory needlessly cumbersome, and was contrary to tactical superiority, unless a Hannibal was available with a herd of elephants.
The goodness of the land favoured the aggrandizement of particular individuals, and thus created faction which proved a fertile source of ruin. It also invited invasion. Accordingly Attica, from the poverty of its soil enjoying from a very remote period freedom from faction, never changed its inhabitants. And here is no inconsiderable exemplification of my assertion that the migrations were the cause of there being no correspondent growth in other parts.
So, some people used this fertile land for their own gain, which makes sense. But when more than one person has access to such capital, the opportunity - because of sin - for competition and pride comes into play. Factions arise. Oh, how history repeats itself! Even in our own lives, how we duplicate and reenact this theme over and over again! A fertile medium is most readily exploited by smaller natures. Herein maybe lies the mystery behind Christ’s beatitude of assigning blessedness to the poor in spirit, the less fertile in spirit, where fertile might mean ‘blessed with the virtues this world finds appetizing’. Along with Arcadia, another exception is Attica, a land not abounding in good land, but thus abounding in the liberty of togetherness, without partisans favoring one exploitative group over another. Because the tree was planted for a time, it sprang deep roots, the inhabitants lingered, and factions vanished. This corroborates Thucydides’ point that migration leads to no growth, just if you were to keep plucking up a baby tree every day would lead to its stunted growth, or just as the man who moves from woman to woman will never know the true meaning of love, or even sex, compared to the rooted, married man.
The most powerful victims of war or faction from the rest of Hellas took refuge with the Athenians as a safe retreat; and at an early period, becoming naturalized, swelled the already large population of the city to such a height that Attica became at last too small to hold them, and they had to send out colonies to Ionia.
From the Hurricane of war and faction sweeping through Hellas, Athens became a haven, an underground shelter from the funnel cloud of the exploitation of the more powerful. Contrary to what the Latin Americans are doing here in America, the natives of surrounding Hellas were naturalized in the ways of Athens, the glue to a sound nation and culture. The population bubbled over like a fountain and the dam became too short to hold back the building waters of the population. I notice the threatening trends of population growth in the cities close to the Mexican border, but with the failure of naturalization, over-population is mixed with the decadent culture’s failure to adapt, thus threatening the resurrection of the dreaded factions. In Greece, even the whole promontory of Attica became too small to hold the incoming legions, a foreshadowing for America if we would only heed it. Do we have an Ionia to which to send them? Maybe our Ionia is turning haphazardly and unintentionally into America’s southwest? The analogy doesn’t hold because of the point about naturalization.
There is also another circumstance that contributes not a little to my conviction of the weakness of ancient times. Before the Trojan war there is no indication of any common action in Hellas, nor indeed of the universal prevalence of the name; on the contrary, before the time of Hellen, son of Deucalion, no such appellation existed, but the country went by the names of the different tribes, in particular of the Pelasgian.
Lack of common action: a house divided against itself cannot stand. If there is no unity to a body, it cannot run. If one leg doesn’t cooperate in a certain way with the other, movement shall not result. If neurons aren’t directed in a unitive way by the soul, a consistent personality is not likely to emerge. A disorganized orchestra will yield clanging rubbish. We are introduced to Hellen, the son of Deucalion, which may or may not be the one who was born of Prometheus; but Hellen was the George Washington that perhaps reintroduced into Hellas this sought after common action. Before such unity, the body of Hellas was fraught with fractures, the orchestra of Hellas was fraught with disharmony, each tribe a varying nation marching to the beat of its own drummer, an army without a commander, a fleet of ships without a main captain. The Pelasgians are an interesting bunch, preceding the Hellenes, a certain tribe, before the beginnings of the Greek language, resembling the Old English that might have preceded the gradual evolution of the English we speak today. Homer made them the allies of Troy, by the Aegean coast of Turkey. The point is that the Pelasgians were the predominant tribe in Hellas before the era of common action brought by Hellen.
It was not till Hellen and his sons grew strong in Phthiotis, and were invited as allies into the other cities, that one by one they gradually acquired from the connection the name of Hellenes; though a long time elapsed before that name could fasten itself upon all. The best proof of this is furnished by Homer. Born long after the Trojan War, he nowhere calls all of them by that name, nor indeed any of them except the followers of Achilles from Phthiotis, who were the original Hellenes: in his poems they are called Danaans, Argives, and Achaeans. He does not even use the term barbarian, probably because the Hellenes had not yet been marked off from the rest of the world by one distinctive appellation. It appears therefore that the several Hellenic communities, comprising not only those who first acquired the name, city by city, as they came to understand each other, but also those who assumed it afterwards as the name of the whole people, were before the Trojan war prevented by their want of strength and the absence of mutual intercourse from displaying any collective action.
We are told, obviously enough, of the origin of the appellation ‘Hellenes’, for ‘Hellen‘ and ‘his sons’, growing up in Phthiotis, a prefecture in Greece, the term ‘prefecture‘ coming from the word periphery and the style of government then extant in Greece. It took a while, but eventually made its effect known, as prolonged exposure to the sun won’t feel like sunburn until after one has already gone inside thinking one has been spared. As I already mentioned, Thucydides makes it clear: Homer doesn’t call anyone in The Iliad ‘the Hellenes’, and he doesn’t say anyone is from Phthiotis except for the minions of Achilles, who were the original Hellenes, as yellow is already native and original in the color green, since it is more primary. The emergent hue only exists because of ‘after-the-fact‘ contingencies. Homer cordoned off ‘Hellenes‘ with the name ‘Achaeans’. No umbrella term could be used, because it couldn’t be applied. This proves that the Hellenes had no collective action before the Trojan War; the collective action sprung afterwards, with the advent of strength and mutual intercourse, effected by mutual language and rooted location; the blossom of the Hellenes had not sprouted before the Trojan war, because it had no soil in which to draw the necessary nourishment before the Trojan war.
Indeed, they could not unite for this expedition till they had gained increased familiarity with the sea. And the first person known to us by tradition as having established a navy is Minos. He made himself master of what is now called the Hellenic sea, and ruled over the Cyclades, into most of which he sent the first colonies, expelling the Carians and appointing his own sons governors; and thus did his best to put down piracy in those waters, a necessary step to secure the revenues for his own use.
For without such familiarity they’d be doomed, as the lost ship is doomed without a familiarity with the stars. A map of the sea allows for the exploitation of tactics, and with tactics for warfare come the opportunity of defense, retaliation, and proactive conquest. But without collective action, the creation of a map is hard to come by. It is a hard feat just as building a mansion by yourself or with a few people is a hard feat. The cooperation of a mass of people is needed because the project’s subject matter is geographically massive, just as the cooperation of a mass of people is needed in building a mansion, for the mansion is structurally massive. Enter Minos, the antidote for this malady - he created the envied Navy. He became Zeus of the sea. The Cyclades became his private kingdom. The Carians were expelled, and the sons of Minos were appointed over this peppered collection of islands. The fires of piracy were briefly extinguished before the impending back-draft.
For in early times the Hellenes and the barbarians of the coast and islands, as communication by sea became more common, were tempted to turn pirates, under the conduct of their most powerful men; the motives being to serve their own cupidity and to support the needy. They would fall upon a town unprotected by walls, and consisting of a mere collection of villages, and would plunder it; indeed, this came to be the main source of their livelihood, no disgrace being yet attached to such an achievement, but even some glory. An illustration of this is furnished by the honour with which some of the inhabitants of the continent still regard a successful marauder, and by the question we find the old poets everywhere representing the people as asking of voyagers —“Are they pirates?”— as if those who are asked the question would have no idea of disclaiming the imputation, or their interrogators of reproaching them for it. The same rapine prevailed also by land.
Why the temptation to turn pirates? Why by a Joker in the midst of an ordered Gotham? The Hellenes intermingled with the barbarians of the coast and islands. Bad company corrupts good character. Piracy was reinforced with the beams of cupidity and support for the needy, a sort of greedy Robin Hood to steal from the rich and give to the poor, including himself. Communication by sea lead to the plundering of villages. The pirates were red in tooth and claw and preyed on the unprotected like a swarm of locusts. We live in the time of a paganism so no element of Christian judgment checked their action; the label of honor and glory went to the stronger, the spirit of the Ubermench reigned as a foreshadowing menace. Stealing was a virtue, which makes one question the Tao Lewis outlined in The Abolition of Man. But as Chesterton says, the thief doesn’t disrespect property; he only thinks that by stealing it, he can more perfectly respect it. A virtue poked itself up sneakily as a stump among the fog in a movie like Heat, where the livelihood of being a thief is an unspoken virtue, or at least made to look attractive. As with the sea, rapine leaked over onto land, like smoke seeping in underneath the crack of a door.
And even at the present day many of Hellas still follow the old fashion, the Ozolian Locrians for instance, the Aetolians, the Acarnanians, and that region of the continent; and the custom of carrying arms is still kept up among these continentals, from the old piratical habits. The whole of Hellas used once to carry arms, their habitations being unprotected and their communication with each other unsafe; indeed, to wear arms was as much a part of everyday life with them as with the barbarians. And the fact that the people in these parts of Hellas are still living in the old way points to a time when the same mode of life was once equally common to all. The Athenians were the first to lay aside their weapons, and to adopt an easier and more luxurious mode of life; indeed, it is only lately that their rich old men left off the luxury of wearing undergarments of linen, and fastening a knot of their hair with a tie of golden grasshoppers, a fashion which spread to their Ionian kindred and long prevailed among the old men there.
There is nothing new under the sun. Rapine was rampant in present day Hellas as it is under a new guise in modern America, and it is praised in new modes in movies like Wallstreet. Look at the implied action of Hellas to the rampant nature of rapine! Did their government seize their arms? Did Hellas think that by an erasure of weapons the rapine was slowly recede, like the fizz of an agitated soda? No: every bee in the colony was armed with a stinger. As you said: if you outlaw the arms, only the outlaws have arms. As with Hellas, an outlawing of arms implied that the pirates and the barbarians would have free and uninhibited reign to plunder, as rain would have no obstacle to soak a crowd without umbrellas. But why, then, could the Athenians be so foolish as to strip themselves of their armor? I notice the concomitance of those who lay aside weaponry and those you lead lives of luxury. Why, one wonders, do the ones who enact what seem to be the most foolish and suicidal modes of action and thought be the ones who bathe in the hypnotizing, toxic fumes of luxury and wealth? History echoes itself once again! Why can’t they squeeze themselves through the eye of the needle of rationality?
On the contrary, a modest style of dressing, more in conformity with modern ideas, was first adopted by the Lacedaemonians, the rich doing their best to assimilate their way of life to that of the common people. They also set the example of contending naked, publicly stripping and anointing themselves with oil in their gymnastic exercises. Formerly, even in the Olympic contests, the athletes who contended wore belts across their middles; and it is but a few years since that the practice ceased. To this day among some of the barbarians, especially in Asia, when prizes for boxing and wrestling are offered, belts are worn by the combatants. And there are many other points in which a likeness might be shown between the life of the Hellenic world of old and the barbarian of to-day.
But look what happens. The rich adopting a modest style of dress: in athletics, stripping naked and oiling themselves, almost like the modern bodybuilder - all this to support that then-present barbarism mirrored sophisticated Hellas.
And I'll work my way further any chance I get. This has got to be a page turner.
No comments:
Post a Comment