Nascent Liberalism in Antiquity and the Medieval Ages

This is part five from a forthcoming book called Collected Essays: Volume Two.

*****************************

 Nascent Liberalism in Antiquity and the Medieval Ages

Liberalism emerged in the 18^th century during the Enlightenment. Its first exponent was John Locke whose ideas gained traction in Great Britain after the Glorious Revolution. Although these ideas have been highly influential since then, earlier societies placed a lot more emphasis on community than the individual. Earlier societies espoused these views, but one of the main principles of liberalism was anti-authoritarianism and that tyrannical majorities should not enforce their dogmas on others. The purpose of this essay is to look at ancient Greece and Rome and the medieval ages. It will establish the what these societies believed in and, following this, will introduce thinkers from these eras. Although these thinkers might not be outright liberals, they do evince traces of ‘nascent liberalism.’ It will look at Cicero, Pericles, Diogenes and Marcus Aurelius for the section on antiquity and it will look at St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas for the section on the medieval ages.

Like all ideologies, ‘liberalism’ is a diffuse term. Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises called themselves liberals, but so did William Beveridge and John Maynard Keynes. Some liberals support a welfare state whilst others call themselves ‘anarcho-capitalists’ and want no state involvement in the economy whatsoever. However, there are principles which all liberals espouse and this essay will start by identifying these principles. According to John Gray, liberalism is individualistic, egalitarian, melioristic and universal (1998). It is individualistic because it sees the individual as the prime unit of society and not as part of a collective. It is egalitarian because it believes in the equal worth of each individual, everyone should be treated equally and not be discriminated against. It is melioristic because it believes in progress and that things develop and change. It is universal because it believes that these principles are universal to everyone, regardless of their nationality or tribe. Additionally, liberals are neutral about the good life as long as no-one is harmed and do not prescribe a worldview to others. A liberal would go out of his way to defend a lifestyle that he disapproves of. Liberalism defends tolerance, human rights, civil liberties, democracy, a market economy, property rights, equality before the law, a free press and personal freedom. All in all, Hayek, Mises, Beveridge and Keynes, whilst they might be opposites in other ways, would all agree with these principles. However, classical liberals want to restrict the role of the state as much as possible. Meanwhile, ‘modern’ or ‘social’ liberalism grants a role for a role for the welfare state and believes that protecting individual liberty means promoting social justice. The poor, the disabled, the mentally ill and other disenfranchised groups do not have the opportunities to enjoy freedom. The market does not assist them adequately, so the state should step in to assist them.

            As the introduction recognised, earlier societies placed more emphasis on the community than the individual. However, Rene Descartes signalled a change with his book Meditations on First Philosophy, which was published in 1641. It includes the famous phrase ‘I think therefore I am’: ‘The proposition that “I am, I exist” is necessarily true whenever it is, stated by me or my own mind’ (1998, p. 24). Descartes continuously uses the first person singular ‘I’ throughout his treatise. He tries to be sceptical about everything about him and even doubts the existence of the world around him. He is only certain that his own mind exists and that God exists. This is because humans acquire everything through the senses, which are highly unreliable (p. 19). This kind of pure metaphysical speculation is radically sceptical of the material world and Descartes doubts if it exists. It is almost solipsistic, let alone idealistic, as it seems to be sceptical of the existence of other minds that are not his own. This kind of introspection is radically different from the rigid communitarianism of earlier centuries.

            However, Descartes’ Meditations was hardly an attempt to construct a liberal philosophy. Liberalism emerged in the late 17^th century with John Locke. Prior to the advent of liberalism, Europe had been engulfed in religious wars. The Thirty Years war was a conflict between Protestants and Catholics and it included Bohemia, Sweden, Denmark, Protestant German princes and Catholic France against the Habsurg Empire. (France joined the Protestants because they were worried about a Habsurg hegemony in Europe.) (Bonney 2011, p. 7). The war ravaged the economies of Europe and left a large death toll. Liberalism emerged at the end of this century and it celebrated tolerance of different religious creeds and beliefs. It emerged during the Glorious Revolution, when English peers were opposed to the Catholic policies of King James II. They wrote to Prince William of Orange to intervene (Vallance 2006, p. 2). Once he settled, he created a document called ‘Declaration of Rights,’ which established parliamentary government (p. 3) and affirmed the illegality of the independent exercise of royal power (p. 176). The High Commission could not levy money without parliamentary consent and could not order the army without the consent of parliament (p. 176). It asserted the right of petitioning, the need for the free election of MPs, privileged freedom of speech and debate in parliament and the need for frequent parliaments (p. 176-77). Additionally, the government created the Toleration Act in the 1690s, which tolerated a plurality of religious beliefs and moved closer to the radical ideas of John Locke (p. 316).   

            John Locke laid the foundations for liberalism. Indeed, the European Enlightenment effectively starts with John Locke (Dunne 1984, p. 21). Locke wrote that religious freedom meant being religious in one’s own way – not, as the atheist James Toland would have it, to be completely indifferent to religion (Dunne, p. 17). The individual was free to worship God as he individually saw fit (p. 20). For Locke, each individual is responsible for his own actions and should not submit to an authoritarian sovereign. He thought that rulers should be restrained as much as possible (p. 20). Another early exponent of early Enlightenment values was Benedict de Spinoza who stated the following: ‘Each individual has the sovereign right to do all that he can’ (1951, p. 200). Spinoza emphasised the use of reason rather than emotion. He prescribed equality before the rule of law, but he also wanted to protect minorities and to stop the state from becoming tyrannical (p. 207). Crucially, he prioritised the needs of the individual over the needs of the community and this once more signals a shift away from the communitarian past: ‘Wrong is conceivable only in an organised community, nor can it ever accrue to subjects from any act of the sovereign who has the right to do what he likes’ (p. 208). For centuries, communities had oppressed the individual and forced him to submit to customs and traditions. Spinoza is saying here that the individual does not have to submit to the customs of the majority. He is entitled to lead his life as he individually sees fit and can use his reason to pursue his life projects. This is one of the reasons why the Enlightenment was so revolutionary, as it rejected the values which had been prevalent for centuries.

            Having examined the origins of liberalism, this essay will examine ‘nascent’ liberalism in ancient antiquity and the medieval ages. It will start by outlining what societies were like in these times and, following this, will introduce thinkers who exhibit signs of ‘nascent liberalism.’ It will start by outlining the structure of society in Ancient Greece. Society in Ancient Greece was governed by strict norms. Society was not conceived as an association of individuals, it was conceived as an association of families (Siedentop 2014, p. 7). The father was a God in preparation, the wife was subordinated to the husband and the authority of the father meant that he could kill his wife or children if he wanted to (Siedentop, p. 15). He exercised his authority ‘on the basis of beliefs shared by the family’ (Siedentop, p. 15). All the members of the family were descended from a common ancestor and bound together by blood (Bury 1920, p. 53). The family owned a plot of land where their ancestors were buried and the family worshiped their ancestors on a continual basis. This was done so as to prevent the ancestors from ‘being cast into oblivion’ (Siedentop, p. 15). Each family buried the dead in their own domain and one of the highest duties was to protect the tombs of the fathers (Bury, p. 54). Property belonged to the family, not to any particular individual (Siedentop, p. 16). The Greeks and the Romans, unlike us, made no distinction between private and public spheres, they made a distinction between public and domestic spheres. The domestic sphere was the sphere of the family, not of individuals endowed with rights. It was also very unequal in terms of roles, as women and slaves had no rights (Siedentop, p. 18). Several families would group themselves together into a society called ‘phatra,’ a brotherhood. Indeed, Homer said that he who has no brothers has no hearth (Bury, p. 54). Prior to the advent of the city, and a more sophisticated political and legal structure, the families were led by a king. He was the chief priest and war-lord of the tribe (Bury, p. 54). The king pronounced judgements, dealt with justice and led the hosts to war (p. 55). He was a protecting deity and he was revered as a God (p. 58). This confederation of families gradually became a city, however ancient citizenship left no space for individual choice (Siedentop, p. 21). Strict rules permeated dress, deportment, marriage, sport, education and conversation. If an individual deviated from them, he would be deported (Siedentop, p. 22). The welfare of the city was considered more important than the rights of the individual. Patriotism was the highest virtue for the Greeks and someone who retreated from patriotism and the ideal of the city was an ‘idiot’ (Siedentop, p. 25). Indeed, Aristotle went as far as saying that the life of the citizen was the only life worth living (Siedentop, p. 25). Each city had its own God, but Greeks from different cities did not mingle with each other. There was no notion of individual rights and there was no liberty of thought or action. Participation in the assembly and the magistrate was obligatory and enforced for citizens (Siedentop, p. 28). People were born into casts and this inequality was considered natural (Siedentop, p. 51). The citizens were a small minority, but women, slaves and plebs were barred from participating in the political process. Indeed, these strict social roles were stifling and any slight deviation from them was punished. One of the most famous examples of this was Socrates, who was chastised for ‘corrupting the youth of Athens.’

            Having established what society was like in Ancient Greece, this essay will look at four figures from Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome and will attempt to detect traces of ‘nascent liberalism.’ It will start by looking at Cicero whose ideas on property closely resemble classical liberalism. In Ancient Greece and Rome, property belonged to the family so that they could worship their ancestors (Siedentop, p. 16). Plato says the following in Laws: ‘Thou who art only a pilgrim here below does it belong to thee to decide such affairs? Thou art the master neither of thy property nor of thyself, thou and thy estate, all these things belong to thy family; that is to say, to thy ancestors and to thy posterity (Siedentop, p. 17). Interfering with property meant interfering with the family and domestic religion (p. 17). However, Cicero argued in favour of property rights and argued that property should belong to individuals. Justice for Cicero meant respecting property and taking property away from someone is the gravest violation. He also opposed state-mandated redistribution, since he argued that if you had the right to something, you should not take it away from them (Nussbaum 2019, p. 55). The taking of private property, for Cicero, was a grave injustice, as it violated ‘the law of fellowship’ (Nussbaum, p. 25). Alternatively, the Stoics at the time argued that property should be commonly owned (p. 56). In other words, they were prototypical socialists. Cicero argued that taking property rights away from someone means using someone as a tool for someone’s convenience (p. 27). This is very similar to Immanuel Kant’s views on ethics, as he argued that individuals are ends in themselves and should be able to determine their own actions. Individuals are ends in themselves and should not be used as means by others to satisfy a pattern. Indeed, Cicero was a big influence on Kant (Nussbaum, p. 28). The first liberal thinker, John Locke, stressed the importance of property rights and it was one of the most important liberal tenets. Classical liberalism opposes the redistribution of wealth, but later ‘modern’ liberals do support a modest redistribution of wealth. Cicero’s arguments also mirror the ideas of 20^th century libertarian Robert Nozick. Nozick opposed the redistribution of wealth, as he argued that it uses individuals as means to specific ends. Nozick even sees personal taxation as an infringement on liberty. Despite this similarity to later liberal thinkers, Cicero held communitarian views. He championed the public life and he argued that true potential can only be realised in the community: ‘The primary reason for its coming together is not so much weakness as a sort of innate desire on the part of human beings to form communities. For our species is not made up of solitary individuals or lonely wanderers’ (year, p. 19). The emphasis is very much on the public sphere and on community, something that the Enlightenment and thinkers like Spinoza later questioned.

            This essay will now look at Pericles, Greece’s democratic leader. Initially, liberalism was sceptical of democracy, as thinkers like John Stuart Mill thought that it might lead to the ‘tyranny of the majority’ and to ‘mob rule.’ Pericles also spoke about ‘the people,’ which might also seem illiberal as it speaks about an abstract entity that does not exist. Indeed, the founders of the United States were sceptical of Pericles as they thought that democracy meant ‘mob rule.’ However, liberalism and democracy have since been fused together and they are seen as complementary. Still, the alternative to democracy at the time was aristocracy, oligarchy, Plato’s ‘philosopher kings’ and despotism, which were more illiberal and concentrated power into small groups. Most Athenians lacked Pericles’ education, as they had a poor standard of living. Many members of the small elite that Pericles belonged to opposed democracy, as it meant sharing power with a mass of citizens who were less affluent. It also meant that they had to contribute financial resources so as to provide benefits for the masses (Martin 2016, p. 7). Pericles wanted to strengthen political and financial measures so as to support the majority of his citizens (p. 7). Pericles’ opponents blamed him for the decisions that male citizens made in the democratic assembly and for spending money on expensive public buildings (p. 7). After the Peloponnesian War, when Pericles himself was killed, there was a short period of dictatorship, which Socrates supported. Following the restoration of democracy, Socrates was trialled and killed. Indeed, Pericles and his democratic ideals were anathema to Socrates and Plato who were in favour of ‘philosopher kings.’ Their view of society, however, was more authoritarian. Plato wanted to destroy the family and subject all Athenians to a strict education system. Meanwhile, Pericles wanted to distribute power more widely, which makes him less authoritarian and, hence, more liberal. Pericles was completely committed to freedom (p. 143), the primary liberal value. He was also committed to equality, as he increased democracy. He tried to reduce the political and judicial powers of the Areopagus Council. The members were chosen randomly and juries were made up of hundreds of thousands of people who were chosen by lottery (p. 143). The Areopagus was made up of mandatory annual examinations of financial accounts of officials who held government posts. Former officials would not be determining the guilt or innocence of their colleagues in public office. This reform diminished corruption and made Athenian more egalitarian (p. 143). Of course, transparency and public accountability are liberal ideals, as liberals do not want public officials to abuse power. Laws were made by juries and they were chosen at random. Accountability was in control of the majority, not the social elite. It is disputable whether this was truly liberal, as fifth century Athens was ruled by the will of the majority and liberalism aims to protect minorities against the majority. Indeed, J.B. Bury argues that Pericles ‘ruled as a tyrant’ and that ‘subjects must obey his nod’ (p. 382). However, Pericles was primarily interested in extending freedom to everyone and he was committed to the liberal values of freedom, equality and universalism.

            This essay will now look at Diogenes, whose strange behaviour disconcerted the Greeks. The Polis in Ancient Greece has strict social rules, but Diogenes deviated from that. He did not write tracts, instead he was a philosopher-as-performance-artist. Unlike Socrates, who engaged in dialogue but did not write, Diogenes enacted eccentric theatrics which drew attention to himself. A lot of his act was about authenticity in an age when deviation from norms would brand you an ‘idiot.’ For Diogenes, to become a true individual and a proper human being, one had to reject conventional society and its values. Otherwise, one would simply be a member of a crowd (Hard 2002, p. ix). Whilst this is something that a moody teenager might espouse these days, it was a radical statement in Ancient Greece. In an age of strict social rules, he masturbated in public, wandered around the streets with a lantern in broad daylight asking ‘for an honest man,’ slept in a wooden jar, he was always surrounded by dogs and he went up to one of Plato’s lectures and threw a plucked chicken at him. This was all part of his philosophy, which aimed to disrupt the stultifying staidness of Athenian culture. He did everything in public in a society with strict public norms. He often walked against the flow of the crowd, as he said that people should be ashamed for their wrong direction in life (p. ix). The mass of people, for Diogenes, are anonymous. Members of a crowd are slave and scum (p. ix). He rejected conventionality because he wanted individuals to discover their true nature (p. ix). In a highly permissive age, this might seem like a cliché, but in a society in which only the public realm existed, when there was no private realm, with strict rules on dress, behaviour and comportment, this was radical behaviour.

            Finally, this essay will briefly consider Marcus Aurelius, a Roman emperor. Like Cicero, Aurelius was a Roman stateman and he was deeply involved in its politics. For the most part, like Cicero, Aurelius mainly speaks about community and the common good. He says the following in Meditations: ‘We are born for community’ (2016, p. 41). Indeed, he also says:

Just as you yourself are a complementary part of a social system, so too your every action should complement a life of social principle. If an action of yours, then, does not have direct or indirect relation to the social end, it pulls your life apart and destroys its unity. It is a kind of sedition, like an individual in a democracy unilaterally resigning from common harmony (p. 88).

It is considered ‘sedition’ to do things that have no social end and every action should ‘complement a social principle.’ What would have he have made of Diogenes’ behaviour? However, Aurelius expresses a more liberal philosophy with the following statement: ‘The idea of a polity administered with regard to equal rights, and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed’ (p. 5). Indeed, this leans closer to the kind of philosophy espoused by Spinoza and Locke who thought that the primary aim of governments is to protect the freedom of its citizens. He also wants to protect freedom of speech and he says that all citizens are endowed with equal rights. It is a lot less communitarian and authoritarian than his other statements and it evinces a prototypical liberalism.

            This essay will now look at the medieval period. In the early medieval period, all members of society were part of a clan. They were monogamous and adultery was rare (Thompson and Johnson 1937, p. 69). All members of the clan were liable for an offence committed by just one of its members, including murder (p. 73). Woods, pasture and the waste land were owned by the community, but farm land was owned by individuals (p. 74). Agriculture was a co-operative enterprise (p. 74). Kings were chosen on account of their ancestry and their valour (p. 74). Society in the medieval ages was made up of rigid social classes and each had its own function (p. 74). The first estate was the clergy, the second estate was the nobility and the third was labour. Feudalism was the system which regulated relationships among members of the third estate (p. 309). Freedom of the individual was confined only to aristocracy and there was little individualism in feudal times (p. 311). Like ancient times, community rather the individual was the primary value. Property was commonly owned, but society was strictly stratified and several sections of society lacked rights.

            Indeed, this system was known as ‘feudalism’ and the section in society with fewest rights were called ‘serfs.’ Serfdom was revoked in the 15^th century, which was a big change (Wickham 2006, p. 15), but prior to this serfs could scarcely be differentiated from slaves (p. 329). A serf could not own property (p. 329) and was often sold like a slave, often for less than the price of a horse (p. 329). A serf could appear in court against another serf, but not against a freeman or a lord (p. 329). Serfs always stayed on the same land, even if it was sold, but they were at least protected from unemployment (p. 330). Societies in the medieval ages were more tribal, there was little freedom of the individual and society was stratified. There were no universal human rights, a common value of the liberal Enlightenment, and large sections of society did not have the same rights as others. In ancient times, only citizens had rights and could participate in public affairs, but even there was still no much lee-way for independent thought. They still had to respect customs and gods. At least some of the aristocracy had more freedom in medieval times.

            However, several of the ‘fathers’ in the medieval ages spoke a lot more about free will and autonomy than the ancients did. Indeed, Larry Siedentop argues in Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Modern Liberalism (2014) that Christianity was an individualistic religion. St. Paul conceived of a religion in which the individual finds salvation through Christ. St. Augustine (354-430) developed St. Paul’s philosophy further. He spoke about ‘the will’ and pride of the intellect meant that the human being can determine his own choices (Siedentop 2014, p. 102). St. Augustine, unlike the ancients, did not believe that some people in society were inherently better than others. He believed that all souls were equal (p. 102), which conforms to the egalitarian principle of liberalism, as liberalism argues that all individuals are of equal worth. Souls, according to Augustine, are not inherently superior to one another (p. 102), which rejects the natural inequality of Ancient Greece and Rome. Ancient philosophy emphasised reason – the logos – but Augustine emphasised grace, intellect and feeling, which involves choice (p. 102). Reason has to make sense of a world outside our control and this is made through choice (p. 104). Inwardness of the individual is not a sphere of silence, it is a sphere of dialogue, of conversation with God (p. 105). Augustine puts a lot more emphasis on the inner life of the individual and his individual agency. Whilst there are brief flashes of this in antiquity, the arguments of The Fathers are much closer to the Enlightenment.

            This essay will now look at Thomas Aquinas, who lived during 1225-74, almost a century after Augustine. Once more, Augustine emphasises autonomy: ‘Willing is an internal choice’ (2016, p. 172). However, Aquinas emphasises that, although we have free will, that it is guided by God: ‘God moves us to choose by sort of internal stimulus, infallibly but without comprising our freedom’ (p. 172). The individual is free to choose and this freedom is granted by God. Later liberals such as John Stuart Mill were atheists, although John Locke was not. For Mill, the individual is an autonomous agent. Aquinas also sees the individual as a rational agent, but this freedom is only possible because it is granted by God. For Aquinas, the will is motivated by a goal and the individual usually acts because he is driven towards something: ‘The mover compels what it moves to move’ (p. 174). The individual wills everything himself, he is not driven by something external: ‘I think because I want to, I use all my other abilities and dispositions because I want to’ (p. 177). The will is moved by deliberation, as the individual deliberates about what is best for him and takes facts into consideration (p. 178). This is similar to liberal rationality, as liberals urge others to make informed choices about subjects using facts and logic. Aquinas still clings to God, as he thinks that willing and free choice are stimulated by God. Later Enlightenment thinkers like Spinoza rejected this, as he tried to see the natural world as something fee from divine intervention. However, like the humanists from the Enlightenment, Aquinas sees humans as uniquely different from other animals, as they are equipped with reason (p. 359). Whilst there are some differences between Aquinas and thinkers of the Enlightenment, he places special stress on autonomy, rational choice and the individual much more than the thinkers from Antiquity, who view humans as a social animal. 

            Liberalism places greater emphasis on the individual than the social collective. It is also egalitarian and believes in progress, tolerance and universalism. Rene Descartes showed nascent signs of this when he stated ‘I think therefore I am.’ In the seventeenth century, there had been religious wars between protestants and Catholics. In the end of this century, John Locke argued that governments should promote tolerance of different religious beliefs. However, ancient Greece and the medieval era did not have a liberal ethos. There were strict social norms in ancient Greece, as families lived together and worshipped their ancestors. The patriarch of the family wielded authority and could kill his wife or his children if he wanted to. Following the advent of the city, there were strict roles for citizens and anyone who was not a patriot would be ostracised. These societies also actively promoted inequality, as the aristocracy would rule, but slaves, plebs and women were not citizens. However, Cicero expressed classical liberal ideas on property, as he argued that it should belong to individuals and that states should not take it away from him. In antiquity, property usually belonged to the family. Pericles was a statesman who expanded democracy, freedom and equality. He also tried to make government more transparent, more accountable and less corrupt. Diogenes was an extremely eccentric figure who tried to challenge the strict social norms which were prevalent in Athens. He thought that the masses blindly followed arbitrary norms and he tried to disrupt this with his strange behaviour. Finally, Marcus Aurelius, like Cicero, was a communitarian, but he expressed a liberal opinion when he argued that a society should primarily protect equal rights, freedom of speech and the freedom of its citizens. This also essay also looked at the medieval era, when people lived in oppressive tribes. Medieval societies were also feudal, as serfs lived on a plot of land and were not entitled the same rights as other citizens. However, St. Augustine, early on in the medieval period, argued that all souls are equal. This egalitarian ethos influenced Gregory VI legal reforms, which attempted to make all individuals equal before the law and paved the road to the end of serfdom. Augustine also emphasised individual inwardness and choice. Finally, Thomas Aquinas emphasised that the individual is free to make rational choices, but that this freedom is enabled by God. This is different from Enlightenment thinkers, as they tried to see the natural world as something free from divine intervention. Earlier societies were not liberal, but the thinkers and statemen that this essay look at do show nascent signs of liberalism.

 Works Cited

Aurelius, Marcus. (2006) Translated by Martin Hammond. Meditations. London: Penguin.

Aquinas, Thomas. (2008) Translated by Timothy McDermott. Selected Philosophical Writings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bonney, Richard. (2002) The Thirty Years’ War: 1618-1648. Oxford: Osprey Publishing.

Bury, J. B. (1920) A History of Greece to the Date of Alexander the Great. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Cicero. (2008) Translated by Niall Rudd. The Republic and the Laws. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Descartes, Rene. (1998) Translated by Desmond M. Clarke. Originally published in 1641. Meditations and Other Metaphysical Writings. London: Penguin.

Diogenes the Cynic. (2012) Introduction by Robin Hard. Sayings and Anecdotes with Other Popular Moralists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dunn, John (1984) Locke: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford Publishing Press.

Gray, John. (1986) Liberalism. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Martin, Thomas R. (2016) Pericles: A Biography in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nussbaum. (2021) The Cosmopolitan Tradition: A Noble but Flawed Ideal. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Spinoza, Benedict. (2007) Originally published in 1670. Translated by Jonathan Israel. Theological-Political-Treatise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Siedentop, Larry. (2004). Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism. London: Penguin Books.

Thompson, James Westfall. Johnson, Edgar Nathaniel. (1937) An Introduction to Medieval Europe: 300-1,500. New York Norton & Co.

Wickham, Chris. (2016) Medieval Europe. Yale: Yale University Press.

Vallance, Edward. (2006) The Glorious Revolution: 1688 – Britain’s Fight for Liberty. London: Abacus.

 

My flat

Ahoy Facebook #17

 

New acquisitions.

Seven books: The Republic and the Laws by Cicero, Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, Selected Philosophical Writings by Thomas Aquinas, Medieval Europe by Chris Wickham, Pericles: A Biography in Context, How to be a Conservative by Roger Scruton and Edward Heath: A Biography by John Campbell.

I want to write an essay about 'nascent liberalism in ancient antiquity and the medieval ages.' Liberalism is associated with the start of the enlightenment, and earlier societies placed a lot more emphasis on the community than the individual, but I wanted to find examples of liberalism in these times. I bought books by Cicero, Marcus Aurelius and Thomas Aquinas so as to detect traces of 'nascent liberalism.' I also bought a book about Pericles, an early democrat. I also bought a book about medieval Europe so to include a bit an essay about Medieval culture/society.

I bought this intriguing book by Roger Scruton. Scruton examines liberalism, socialism, conservatism, capitalism, environmentalism and internationalism. This book looks interesting because it seems to unbiased and even-handed, as it examines the strengths and weaknesses of each ideology.

I bought this biography about Edward Heath. I find him interesting as a person, as he was a very shy and awkward man, but he became prime minister. He was also the first prime minister to probably be a virgin, although this was after the start of the age of permissiveness. I also find his period as prime minister very interesting, as he took the UK into Europe and he struggled with industrial unrest, rising unemployment and the end of consensus.

New acquisitions.

Eleven CDs: Third by Soft Machine, Soundtrack of Le Mepris by George Delerue, The Essence of Woody Herman by Woody Herman, The Complete Early Recordings of Skip James by Skip James, Greatest Hits by Abba, An Elpee and two Epees by Ivor Cutler, Jazz in a Silhouette by Sun Ra, The Magic City by Sun Ra, My Favourite Things by John Coltrane, Les Espaces Acoustiques by Gerard Grisey and The Inner Mounting Flame by The Mahavishnu Orchestra.

Jazz fusion, film soundtracks, swing, blues, pop, novelty music, modern jazz, modern classical music.... I like having an eclectic musical taste.

I'm moving into my own - rented - apartment soon.

The Fall - My New House - YouTube

New acquisitions.

Ten DVDs: The Wild Bunch by Sam Peckinpah, Cross of Iron by Sam Peckinpah, Straw Dogs by Sam Peckinpah, Pat Garett and Billy the Kid by Sam Peckinpah, Blind Chance by Krzysztof Kieslowski, The Bridge on the River Kwai by David Lean, The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp/A Matter of Life and Death by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, The Devils by Ken Russell, The Third Man by Carol Reed and The Silence of the Sea by Jean-Pierre Melville.

Sam Peckinpah is an astonishing filmmaker and the images in his films linger in my mind. His films are about violence, honour and revenge. These are four of his films.

This film by Kieslowski was made in communist Poland. It imagines three different scenarios each time the protagonist either misses or catches a train. In one scenario, he becomes a communist activist, in another one he is an anti-communist activist and in another one he is not involved in politics. Kieslowski is one of my favourite filmmakers.

This film by David Lean is an epic about British held soldiers held captive as prisoners of war by the Japanese during WWII. They are subjected to gruelling labour and forced to build a bridge. For my money, it has one of the best endings in the history of cinema.

I bought this classic film by Powell/Pressburger, which offended Churchill so much that he tried to have it banned. It also comes with A Matter of Life and Death and I already own another copy of that.

This film by Ken Russell is surrealistic and has some awesome images. It is about some nuns who claimed to have been possessed by the devil.

This film by Carol Reed is set in Austria after WWII and it has a memorable cameo appearance from Orson Welles.

This film, 'The Silence of the Sea,' is about a Nazi officer who tries to convince this French couple that Germans are good people and that Germany is a good culture. It has a surrealist slant to it.

New acquisition.

A punching bag.

I've been struggling with anger/negative thoughts the past few years. I can start shouting and I can get quite nasty. This isn't who I am, however, as I am sure that I am a decent/nice person. Someone at work suggested that I buy a punching bag, which seemed like a good idea. So, the next time I get irrational/angry thoughts for some unfathomable reason, I'm going to punch the living shit out of this punching bag.

New acquisitions.

Three CDs: Stoner Witch by Melvins, Houdini by Melvins and The Bootlicker by Melvins.

One book: Ritual in the Dark by Colin Wilson.

Melvins are a group that I've enjoyed for a while. They're kind of grungey but quirkier. They were a big influence on Nirvana.

Colin Wilson wrote this novel alongside his non-fiction book The Outsider, which catapulted him to fame age twenty-four. It is a crime thriller about a serial killer.

Meandering Pontification 1/2 *

I am interested in a lot of things… Literature, music, film, philosophy, history, politics… And I’m starting to get interested in science, too. The thing is, though, is that I am not an expert in anything… I admire people who can focus and hyper-specialise… I can’t do that.

I find philosophy very interesting. My interest in it is completely amateurish, though. As I said earlier, I am not an expert in anything – I am an amateurish dilettante.

However, I find a lot of philosophy very infuriating. The philosophers that I find most interesting at the moment are John Rawls, Martha Nussbaum and Karl Popper. They write in crystal clear English/German (they don’t use wanky phrases like ‘the negation of the negation’) and I can comprehend what they are going on about. I find a lot of what Kant and Hegel said very interesting, but the primary texts are a fucking nightmare to read. I’d probably have to wade through dozens of secondary sources before they start to make sense. When I read primary sources, I don’t digest all of it, which probably goes to show what an amateur I am.

I get that there is a need for precision in all this and that you need to use terms, but a lot of the ‘continental’ stuff seems to be deliberately obscured. (I can be extremely imprecise, obscure and vague myself, which is something that I need to work and improve on.) All of the ‘postmodernist’ stuff seems to be a like a waste of time for me. I lost motivation with my MA… I did a module in Comparative Literature and I had to do a presentation on Roland Barthes. I could not find the primary source in the library – all the books had been taken. I cobbled together a presentation from secondary sources that I found in the library… The lecturer said that it was great (or maybe she said that it was shite, she spoke really obscurely) … When it came to writing the 5,000 word essay for that module, I started it three days before it was due and received 58% for it… (Something similar happened with my MA dissertation.) There might be a lot of substance behind all the obscurity, but all the postmodernist philosophy seems to be a whole load of pseudery to me… This might not be true, but I’m glad that I don’t have to deal with it anymore.

Maybe I should have done a degree in philosophy, history, politics or maybe even economics. My BA was really soft… I was reading through one of my essays that received 85% and it made me wonder how such a fluffy little essay could receive such a high mark… (I also threw in loads of Foucault/Deleuze into my undergrad dissertation without really understanding it and received 75% for it… I’d never use that stuff in one of my essays now!!!) It seemed to confirm that grade inflation IS a thing and that my degree was really soft.

* I try to avoid writing about this kind of thing on Facebook because these topics are divisive by their very nature and will piss off a large section of your friends… This is the kind of thing that will make people delete you, but… fuck it.

Meandering Pontification 2/2 *

The world is not fair and just (and it never will be)… so there is every good reason to make it more fair and just. There are good reasons for being a leftist – to make the world a fairer, more just, equal etc. place.

However, I would not want to get involved in left-wing politics… Every time I’d express an original thought that deviates from the party line or ideological orthodoxy, people would shout at me for being a ‘bourgeois individualist.’ I joined the Labour Party, but I let my membership expire for precisely this reason. Anyway, I would not want to spend my free time attending political meetings… I’d rather spend my free time reading books, writing books, watching films and listening to music instead. (Each to their own, though…) Denis Healey said that the Labour Party membership are not representative of Labour Party voters… Labour Party members are more ideological, more left-wing and more inclined to spend their free time attending political meetings. Labour Party voters are less ideological and more moderate, but they are less inclined to spend their free time attending political meetings. Denis Healey was correct.

The more extreme currents of leftist thought are just palpably silly – people like Paul Mason, Aaron Bastani, Grace Blakeley and Ash Sarkar… I can get why you might be an anti-capitalist or some sort of utopian anarchist in your early 20s, but I don’t understand how you can keep adhering to that stuff in your late 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s etc. (Again, each to their own!) I used to find that stuff appealing in my early 20s, but I grew out of it. Bastani’s idea of ‘fully automated luxury communism’ sounds like some sort of Monty Python sketch. Paul Mason goes on about ‘globalised neo-liberalism’ as if we should know what that means. This is his definition of neo-liberalism: ‘By neoliberalism I mean the global capitalist system shaped by a core of neoliberal practices and institutions, themselves guided by a widespread and spontaneously reproduced ideology, and ruled by an elite which acts in a neoliberal way, whatever conflicting and moderating ideas it holds in its head.’ Ok then!

Anyway, there is a good case for social justice, but never when it crushes individual freedom. (People can get a bit silly with social justice and go over the top with it – all those ‘Social Justice Warriors’ etc., but there’s always a good case for it.) It reminds me of the film ‘Dr. Zhivago’ by David Lean… A Russian poet is involved in the Russian revolution because he wants to do something about the injustices in Tsarist Russia… Come the revolution, one of the Soviet commissars addresses him… He says that he admired his poetry very much, but that in the new communist society there is no need for that ‘bourgeois’ nonsense. That’s the problem with leftist politics at its worst – its authoritarianism, its dogmatism and its contempt towards individualism, pluralism, tolerance, diversity, autonomy and personal goals. (In other words, leftist politics is bad when it is illiberal… And a lot of leftists are actively hostile to liberal values…)

As I said earlier, there are good reasons for making the world a fairer and more just place and there are good reasons for being a leftist, but so much of left-wing politics is such a load of crap.

* I try to avoid writing about this kind of thing on Facebook because these topics are divisive by their very nature and will piss off a large section of your friends… This is the kind of thing that will make people delete you, but… fuck it.

Meandering Pontification 3

In literature, music and film I tend to like stuff that is more ‘out there’ and experimental. I do like things that everyone else knows about… I do like Charles Dickens and William Shakespeare, I do like groups like Abba, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, I do like composers like Bach and Beethoven and I do like films like The Godfather and series like Breaking Bad… But there’s something about the stuff that is experimental, pushes boundaries etc. etc. (insert endless cliches here) that appeals to me… It’s hard to explain, as taste is often so emotional and arbitrary.

A composer like Harry Partch certainly belongs to the latter category. An archetypal outsider, he did everything on his own terms. He actively enjoyed being a hobo, he railed against European modes of tuning, he incorporated music from Antiquity and the orient into his music and since he could not have his ‘microtonal’ music performed on conventional instruments, he built his own.

Anyway, I’m trying to buy stuff that I really like on CD/record and to stop streaming stuff. I bought Partch’s ‘Delusion of the Fury’ on vinyl and I tried buying his album ‘Eleven Intrusions’ on CD… It’s been out of print for years, so I ordered a second-hand copy several months ago… And they never delivered it.

So, last night I dreamed that I was at this book/record shop… And I dreamed that I found new editions of Delusion of the Fury (well, I already have that), Eleven Intrusions and The Bewitched on vinyl… And I was overjoyed… And the people who worked there had no idea who Harry Partch was… So, very few people in the world dream about finding new editions of Harry Partch, but… who knows, there might be?

New acquisitions

Two records: Raw Delta Blues by Son House and Easy Rider by Leadbelly

One DVD: Ghost World by Terry Zwigoff.

I really like delta blues from the 1920s... This is also the decade in which jazz first emerged. These musicians really had it rough... Economic hardship, racial injustice... And they made great music out of it.

I really like this film by Terry Zwigoff, mainly because I relate to the character played by Steve Buscemi... Ultimately, a lot of novels/films are about human relationships, not the organisation of society/the nature of reality etc. etc.

New acquisitions.

Four CDs: The Artistry of Christopher Parkening by Christopher Parkening, A Bach Celebration by Christopher Parkening, Strathclyde Concertos Nos. 3 and 4 by Peter Maxwell Davies/Scottish Chamber Orchestra and String Quartets 6 and 15 by Franz Schubert/Kodaly Quartet.

Two books: Solaris by Stanislaw Lem and An Introduction to Medieval Europe: 500-1500 by James Westfall Thompson and Edgar Nathaniel Johnson.

I really like the sound of classical guitar and I really like Bach. Christopher Parkening was one of the most accomplished classical guitarists of all time and he played a lot of Bach, so I bought two discs by him.

I've bought a lot of records by Schubert at charity shops. My second favourite piece by him (after his 'death and the maiden' quartet) is String Quartet No. 15. I thought that I owned a vinyl copy of it, but I don't, so I purchased a copy of it online.

I've always known of the name 'Peter Maxwell Davies' and I always knew that he was the most famous British composer of modern classical music. However, I don't think I'd heard a piece by him before, which is why I bought this disc by him (and I'm hearing it right now).

I wrote a philosophical science fiction novel which was heavily influenced by Tarkovsky's film 'Solaris.' That film was based on a novel, which I've bought so that I can finally read it.

I'm about to start an essay which uses source on medieval history. I saw this at a charity shop and I thought that another book on the topic would be helpful. This is a 1.000 page book and I might read it from cover to cover one day, too.

Ahoy Facebook #16

 

New acquisitions.

Four CDs: Strictly Personal by Captain Beefheart and the Magic Band, Lick my Decals Off Baby by Captain Beefheart and the Magic Band, ESP by Miles Davis and Nefertiti by Miles Davis..

I had been hearing pirated versions of these Beefheart CDs for a very long time. I revisited Strictly Personal recently, which sounded a lot better than I remember, so I thought that I'd finally buy a physical copy. Back in the day, 'Lick my Decals off Baby,' was always out of print and used to cost about £80. I looked it up online and saw that it was for sale for only £9. I was thrilled, as it's easily one of his best albums

I bought two Miles Davis albums, which were made by the 'quintet' that he assembled in the early 60s. Needless to say, I love his music.

Three books: Theologico-Political Treatise by Benedict de Spinoza, Confessions of a Philosopher by Bryan Magee and Arrows of Desire: The Films of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger.

This book by Spinoza is one of the first works from 'the enlightenment.' In this book, Spinoza argues in favour of the separation between church and state, in favour of free speech and he argues that the role of the state and of democracy is to protect the freedom of its citizens. It was very controversial when it came out. I've been wanting to read this book for a while, so I was pleased to find it in a second-hand book shop.

I bought an autobiography by Bryan Magee, a philosopher who had a program about philosophy on TV and are now available on You Tube. Magee would usually interview a philosopher about his own work or the writings of a famous dead philosopher. He would usually explain highly arcane ideas in a lucid way. In this book, he writes about his own life - he was also an MP at one point - and his interest in philosophy.

I bought a book about Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, who have easily become some of my favourite filmmakers.

Two DVDs: La Grand Illusion by Jean Renoir and Rosemary's Baby by Roman Polanski.

La Grand Illusion is a brilliant film. It is set in WWI and depicts French prisoners of war held captive by Germans. Goebbels was repelled by the way in which Renoir depicted Germans.

I watched Rosemary's Baby recently and I enjoyed it so much that I thought that I'd buy a copy of it. It is Polanski's first Hollywood film, after making films in Poland and France. The ending was so predictable as soon as I started watching it, but it was exhilarating to watch.4

Funny.

New acquisitions. 👍 I used to listen this album by The Fall during my second year at university, when I lived right next to the seaside at Herne Bay. (I also listened to a lot of Bach back then - good times.) It is not one of their most lauded albums - it is just another Fall album - but I've always really enjoyed it. I found it at a record shop in Chesterfield, so I decided to buy it with a £20 gift that my grandmother sent to me for my birthday. I received this book about Touissant Louverture as a birthday present from my sister. I've taken an interest in the Haitian revolution, which started with a slave revolt in 1791 and culminated with the first independent black state a few years later. It had been a sugar plantation held by the French and it was the only successful slave insurrection in history. This book is all about the leader of the colony, Touissant Louverture, a former slave.

New acquisitions.

Four CDs: Revolver by The Beatles, Rubber Soul by The Beatles, Glenn Gould Plays Bach: The Goldberg Variations by J. S. Bach/Glenn Gould and Cantatas BWV 21 & 42 by J. S. Bach.

I bought two albums by The Beatles, which of course feature their classic songs. I've always been aware of these albums, but I've never heard them from start to finish, so I thought that I'd buy them.

I also bought two albums by Bach, who is easily my favourite classical composer. He wrote so much music and so much of it so good. One of these albums is a famous performance of the Goldberg variations by Glenn Gould, who was a virtuosic pianist and a bit of an eccentric. I've never heard any of his cantatas, so I thought that I'd buy an album of them to rectify this.

Three books: The Consolations of Philosophy by Boethius, Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Wester Liberalism by Larry Siedentop and Reaganland: America's Right Turn 1976-1980.

This book by Boethius was written in the sixth century AD (year 523). He had been sentenced imprisonment and was possibly facing execution. He thought that this was unjust, but whilst awaiting execution, he wrote this book called 'Consolations of Philosophy.' Boethius examines how evil can exist in a world created by God and other philosophical issues. This book was very important in the medieval ages.

Usually, liberal ideas - such as seeing ourselves as individuals, freedom, equality - are usually associated with the start of the Enlightenment. In this book, Siedentop argues that these ideas originate with the start of Christianity.

'Reaganland' argues that the new economic era of tax cuts, deregulation, low tariffs, etc. was already in motion with the start of the Jimmy Carter administration of 1976-1980. Carter himself was already introducing some of these policies and many of the ideologues of the New Right, such as Milton Friedman, were already highly influential during this period.

I'm such a slow reader that it's going to be ages before I make a start reading these books. Even though I'm a slow reader, I don't take in everything I read either. I should probably improve my reading skills.

Oh dear, my cat has died. 

New acquisitions 1/2. I'm making a concerted effort to solely listen to CDs/records and to never stream anything ever again.

Five CDs: Quartet for the End of Time by Olivier Messiaen/Amici Ensemble, Music for 18 Musicians by Steve Reich, Piano and String Quartet by Morton Feldman/Vicky Ray/Eclipse Quartet, String Quartets Nos. 1 and 5 by Elliott Carter/Pacifica Quartet and String Quartets Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

One record: Delusion of the Fury by Harry Partch.

This piece by Messiaen is a classic. He had it performed in a prisoner-of-war camp under Nazi occupation. I've always found Steve Reich to be a lot more interesting than many of the other minimalists that he is associated with (Phillip Glass, John Adams, etc.) and 'Music for 18 Musicians' is one of his most famous pieces. Morton Feldman is also quite minimalistic and I find his music to be very hypnotic and beautiful. Elliott Carter is the opposite of minimalistic and his string quartets are particularly complex and fascinating. Finally, Harry Partch built his own instruments and his music is incredibly original and powerful. 'Delusion of the Fury' is probably his best pieces, so I just had to buy it - and it was only available on vinyl.

New acquisitions 2/2.

Nine CDs: Frank Zappa Meets The Mothers of Prevention by Frank Zappa, Jazz from Hell by Frank Zappa, The Yellow Shark by Frank Zappa, Code: Selfish by The Fall, Levitate by The Fall, The Unutterable by The Fall, The Real New Fall LP by The Fall, Cuckooland by Robert Wyatt and Comicopera by Robert Wyatt.

One record: The Infotainment Scan by The Fall.

These three albums by Frank Zappa are from the late 80s/early 90s, when he made a lot of music for computers and orchestras. His vocal music around this time became too desiccated and pontifical for my liking, but I still like his instrumental music from this period. The track about his debate in congress is particularly good. A lot of these Fall albums are from the 90s, when they started experimenting with electronic music. I've been streaming/downloading these albums for a while, so it's good to own them. Robert Wyatt is an artist I've loved for a while and these albums by him are great.

New acquisitions.

One CD: Schleep by Robert Wyatt

One book: Harry Partch: A Biography by Bob Gilmore

I ordered this marvellous album by Robert Wyatt. I also ordered a biography about Harry Partch, a wonderfully inventive composer of experimental music. I am currently writing an essay about eccentric musicians and I wanted to consult a book about him, so I forked out £40 for this.