Why do we have a Facebook and not a Voicebook?

I just realized something. Over the centuries the human cultures have always preserved visual depictions such as paintings and portraits quite well. Even better we have 3D visual representations of humans such as sculptures, busts and statues. We have lifelike representations of Greek and Roman men and women in painting and sculpture, although several other civilizations (Persia, China, India) can claim similar achievements. Below and on the left I show a mosaic of a Mycenaean woman, a roman copy of an ancient Greek original now called the Borghese Ares, and another roman copy of the Aphrodite by the Greek sculptor Praxiteles. In all of these representations the movement and expression are so bursting with life that we feel the sculptures are about to walk and touch us. And yet such perfect images always have a certain sadness, since we know they are unable to speak. All statues therefore look like beautiful figures of mutes, perfect in their looks and yet forever trapped in their inability to speak, to scream what they feel.

But the truth is that humanity was unable to preserve voice and sounds for most of its history. We know the written language of Homer, Sappho and Pindar, and the meaning of their poems, but no one knows how their language sounded. Some scholars speculate their language had no accent on the syllables and that it may have sounded like a flowing rhythm as some French poets speak in modern days. Only in the late 19th century did Edison invent the sound recording. However, in the late 20th century it is quite easy for us to make sound recordings or even video recordings of ourselves, therefore mixing both sound and image as memories.

But how many of us do indeed preserve sound as a memory? For decades most families collect photo albums as a sort of memory book. High schools and college graduates would keep books with photographs of their classmates, either as individuals or together in a group photo. But how many of us preserved sound recordings of our family? Or of our classmates?

Even more troubling. Why do we now have on Facebook photo memories of all our friends' special moments, their family, beach vacations, travels and even dinner events? Why don't we have sound memories or recordings kept on a sort of Voicebook? Humans are the only animal that can speak and sing. Many birds, cats and dogs look beautiful, yet none of them speak. Words and emotions of grief, passion and empathy, are what makes us special and unique.

Is it because we have plenty of interest in looking at each other as eye-candy and yet we have nothing to say? Maybe that explains why we all feel misunderstood and unheard. Not even a thousand of photos of us at the gym, beach or touristic spots, will ever make a single word heard! Maybe we should go beyond just looks and listen more. We have dreams, hopes and pains to speak. I finish my thoughts with one of my favorite poems by Cavafy. It really makes my heart beat, because the poet has forgotten how his loved one looked like, yet the impression of his voice, his words still fills him with memories, meaning and sound.

"December, 1903" (Translated by Edmund Keeley/Philip Sherrard)
And if I cannot speak about my love—
if I do not talk about your hair, your lips, your eyes,
still your face that I keep within my heart,
the sound of your voice that I keep within my mind,
the days of September that rise in my dreams,
give shape and color to my words, my sentences,
whatever theme I touch, whatever thought I utter.

A peaceful emperor haphazardly started the first Jewish genocide and their European diaspora

Hadrian is the Roman emperor associated with the longest period of peace. Although the definition of peace is somewhat difficult to define in an empire with such large borders, Hadrian made serious attempts to make peace in the East with the Parthian empire and strengthened the defensive borders along Scotland, the Rhine and the Danube. In general Hadrian’s reign was marked by an absence of major conflicts and the Roman army was so peaceful that Hadrian decided to create fake alarms and drills to keep the soldiers disciplined and to signal that the army was always alert to possible invaders. Imperial policy was also benevolent towards business, including trade relations with the Arabs and the Parthians.

However, while Hadrian (see his bust on the left) is often labelled as one of the “five good emperors”, it is nevertheless true that his reign witnessed a brutal war between Romans and Jews, which resulted in over half a million victims (according to Dio Cassio, although some modern historians believe this number to be exaggerated) and the general depopulation of Judea. There were large numbers of victims caused by both sides, including internecine fights among opposing parties of Jews. After the 2nd century Hadrian became the prototype of the antisemitic Evil King in every Jewish tale and in the teachings of rabbis, which often mention “Hadrian, may his bones be crushed”. However, most modern historians believe that the idea of an antisemitic Hadrian is an anachronistic image written well after the events and that the war started due to bad planning and communication of the Roman authorities. Using a bit of an anachronistic example I would suggest Hadrian’s mistake was trying to impose a pagan Hellenistic culture (which was tolerant of naked sports, homosexual love, and all sorts of religious rituals with drugs and animals such as serpents) upon a conservative, traditional and monotheistic population. Just imagine how people would react nowadays if a powerful politician would announce the building of an arena for drugs, sex, and rock n’roll, right in front of a major church and a sanctuary of holy ground. Such was the mistake of Hadrian almost 2000 years ago. I make this remark as a metaphor and do not intend it to be either a criticism of modern culture or a precise description of the Roman-Jewish conflict.

After the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, which lasted from 132 to 136 AD, the majority of the Jewish population of Judea was killed, exiled, or sold into slavery, and Jewish religious and political authority was suppressed. Archaeological remains show that the depopulation impact of Hadrian’s Jewish War was much worse than the First Roman-Jewish War fought by Vespasian and Titus. Jerusalem was rebuilt as a purely Roman city. Hadrian forbid the Jews and Christians from entering Jerusalem, and his persecutions started the Jewish diaspora towards other Roman provinces. In order to erase any relationship between Jews and the land, Hadrian changed the name of Judea to Syria-Palestina. Several historians view the Roman actions as so brutal that these should be classified as genocide. Jews disappeared from history as a political nation until the 20th century and remained only as a religious-ethnic community.

Unfortunately, there are few reliable historical documents about how and why both sides started the war. The scanty Greco-Roman texts are either too brief (as in the case of Dio Cassius’ book) or tainted by the stain of untrustworthiness (as in the case of Historia Augusta). Cassius Dio, 69, 12, 1, relates: “At Jerusalem Hadrian founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the god he raised a new temple to Jupiter. This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration, for the Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign religious rites planted there”. There are also several ancient Jewish and Christian documents mentioning Hadrian’s hatred of Jews, but such texts were written one century or more after the events.

There is archaeological evidence that Hadrian visited Israel in 130 AD, just 2 years before the war, therefore it is quite possible that the rebellion erupted after some measures he proposed then. However, some modern historians believe this particular passage of Cassius Dio was modified by the late Byzantine author Xiphilinus. Building a pagan temple on top of the Holy Temple of Jerusalem would have been an obvious catalyst for war, since the traditional Jews would have rebelled against it. This plan is therefore judged to be highly unlikely to be part of Hadrian and the Romans’ intentions. Hadrian had at his disposal plenty of examples of the Jewish sensitivity to the presence of idolatrous cults or simply images on the Temple site. Also, Hadrian’s was more inclined to peace rather than provoking wars.

Some modern historians speculate that Hadrian's real plan may have been to rebuild Jerusalem as a Roman colony. Perhaps Hadrian expected that a new Roman colony would have been well received by the Jewish population, since these colonies had honorific and tax privileges. Several wealthy Jews and business men may have seen benefits in a better Roman administration. However, the local Jewish population in these Roman colonies could be recruited as soldiers and even be used to fight against their countrymen. Epigraphic texts show that Jewish citizens from Caesarea Maritima (see images above) fought in favor of the Roman army during the Roman-Jewish wars of 66 and 132. Another aspect of a Roman colony in Jerusalem which could have offended the traditional Israelites is the introduction of pagan and imperial cults in the future city, even if standard Roman policy exempted Jews from participating in Roman religious rituals.

Also, perhaps some of the younger generations and the more liberal minded may actually have enjoyed the Roman and Hellenistic culture, with its temples and baths where men would exercise mostly naked. Archeological and numismatic evidence shows that Hadrian’s policy gained some approval because of its privileges and benefits, which is particularly clear in the ruins of cities such as Tiberias (see image on the left) and Sepphoris (see images below) in Galilee where a majority of the population was Jewish. In these cities elegies were dedicated to the cult of the emperor Hadrian. This evidence demonstrates the rationality of Hadrian’s project which was not a mere provocative act against Israel, but could have met some approval.

Another sign of local Roman support is that the Jewish rebel leader, Simon Bar Kokhba, punished severely any Jew and Christian who refused to join his ranks, applying mutilation of fingers and hands to the disobedient. The images below are of the Cave of Letters which was found in the Judean desert in 1960. In this cave they found a tied bundle letters from Bar-Kokhba, next to a woman's belongings: wool, cosmetic tools, beads, a perfume flask and a mirror. Most of the Bar-Kokhba letters are orders to punish and steal the crops of wealthy Jewish landowners who refused to cooperate with him. Therefore not all Jews were against Rome.

Some historians also speculate that Hadrian may have been driven by a religious syncretism policy in an attempt to unify the imperial religions as a support for his autocracy. Roman-Greco culture rejected circumcision as a violence exercised on a perfect human body and also because circumcision was seen as a political symbol of hostility towards the Roman-Hellenic world. Hadrian may have therefore implemented harsher measures against circumcision in an attempt to impulse Israelite assimilation. Historian Giovanni Bazzana compares Hadrian’s policies to Saint Paul’s suggestion of abandoning circumcision in order for Christianity to be accepted in the wider world. Saint Paul's ideals were successful because they were only about social and religious precepts and not about a new political order.

Hadrian had already tried to unite the traditional Greek cults by creating a coherent belief system that could be spread across the whole empire, a project that had already been devised earlier by Hellenized Jewish intellectuals such as Philo. In Judaea there was already a Hellenized Jewish population, the Samaritans, which integrated their religious rites with Hellenistic ones such as the worship of Zeus. Although nowadays the Samaritans are only a few thousands of people, there were around one million Samaritans in Roman times, which can be easily confirmed by the large number of times a Samaritan appears in the New Testament or in the ancient Jewish literature. This attempt at conciliation between Judaism and Hellenism foundered when faced with strict Jewish traditions and monotheism, which caused the uprising against Rome.

Perhaps the biggest historical surprise is that Christianity became the Roman Empire’s dominant religion less than 200 years after Hadrian’s visit to Israel. Undoubtedly, Hadrian saw Jews and Christians as backward fanatics, which were destined to disappear in the middle of an enlightened Hellenistic-Roman era. My bet is that almost all Romans and pagan scholars shared Hadrian’s opinion that Jewish-Christianity was a backward and dwindling faith. Who would have guessed then that almost two thousand years later both Christianity and the Jewish religion represent the most vibrant communities of the western world? Even more surprising is that such different and opposing sources merged so well that our entire law systems are now jointly supported by these three pillars: Jewish-Christian faith and love, Hellenistic philosophy and knowledge, and Roman legislation. And as Saint Paul would say in his Epistle to the Corinthians, from all of these pillars the greatest and most important one is Love.

Inflation and Unpaid Wages destroyed the Roman Empire

Historians still debate the decline and end of the Roman Empire, a subject which inspired Edward Gibbon’s masterpiece, perhaps the most widely read history books ever. This blog will just add my personal views on a topic that has been covered many times by other authors. Many hypothesis have been proposed for the Roman decline. Some point to Christianity as a source of imperial Rome's weakness. However, the Eastern Empire was also Christian and remained a strong power until the 12th century at least. Others point out that too much lead in the water supplies was slowly poisoning the Roman population. However, it feels to me that the barbarians that penetrated the Roman empire, such as the Vandals and Visigoths, were also getting water from the same sources as the Romans, therefore I feel this to be a weak explanation.

The Roman Empire started a slow decline after the Antonine plague, which some estimate killed five million people or more than 10% of the empire’s population. The plague ended the period of greatest economic prosperity of the Roman Empire. It happened just at the climax of the greatest political and military influence of the Empire, since their major rivals, the Parthians, had been repeatedly defeated by the Romans. However, a plague does not always imply the decline of a civilization. In the late middle ages the Black Plague killed a substantial part of the European population and some economic historians say that this disease increased the wages of workers (since now there were fewer people than land) and this increase in wages may have given impulse to new industries and the long term development of Europe.

The reason why the Roman Empire may have declined and eventually disintegrated is therefore probably not due to a plague nor due to military defeats. Urban populations after a plague can employ new workers at higher wages and find new arts and industries in order to recover their wealth and splendor. Also, the Roman Empire had suffered defeats far worse than the famous disaster of Adrianopole in the late 4^th century. In particular, it is easy to argue that the military defeats against Hannibal during the Punic wars, the disasters against the Teutons around 105 BC, or the rebellion of the Italian provinces during the Social War of 88 BC, were far bigger than the battle of Adrianopole. The long lasting nature of the Romans was not that their armies were always invincible, but their ability to persuade their citizens to form a new army even after suffering major defeats. Presumably, persuading your citizens to join the military effort was easier in an oligarchy or autocracy that had some respect for citizen rights. However, after the 2^nd century the Romans became a military regime in which only the generals and their troops counted for something, a bit like the Soviet Union which had the largest army in the world and yet was unable to produce decent products such as toilet paper or bread. In such a military regime probably the citizens were afraid of their Roman oppressors as much as of their barbarian invaders. After a military defeat in the 4^th or 5^th century few Romans would cooperate with their generals and authorities, because Roman generals feared that their fellow citizens could be rivals in the competition for power and therefore even if the new generals were successful these could be murdered afterward when they were no longer convenient. This meant that the late Roman authorities would find few allies and would lose power easily after military defeats.

In my view perhaps a decisive moment in Roman history were the budget and monetary policies adopted by a very successful emperor Septimius Severus. Severus is one of the few generals in history who won large battles in three continents: Europe, Asia and Africa. Some historians believe that the battle of Lugdunum in which Severus confirmed his power was the bloodiest battle in all of roman history. Severus then enlarged the army in order to make further wars in Asia, Africa and Britain. He also increased the wage of each soldier by 30% in order to guarantee their loyalty. Above I show a picture of me and my twin brother – I am the one with longer hair – on top of the Roman wall in the city of York, England, which was where Severus died in sickness while planning to conquer Scotland. Below I show a picture of the roman theater in the African home town of Severus, Leptis Magna.

In order to pay for this large army expenses, Severus debased the coins and started an inflationary period from which Rome never recovered. As economists know, debasing the currency and creating rampant inflation is the worst possible way for a government to make revenues. It is much better to raise taxes, since the more inflation you make to pay something then you need even more inflation in the future to pay for the same things. The inflation process can go out of control and the government is unable to use money anymore. Also, ordinary business men and people stop using money and lose their confidence in the government. Inflation was already understood as a bad decision even in ancient times. Severus only adopted this bad measure because he came to power as a military dictator and only valued his soldiers. In fact Severus famous last words to his sons in York were: "Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, and scorn all other men". Being unable to persuade the Senate to cooperate, Severus was limited to the worst policy option to finance his wars, which was inflation.

During the  3^rd and 4^th centuries it was clear that inflation was damaging the roman economy and their government system. Laws were passed authorizing generals to directly seize products and valuables for use of the army, therefore ordinary taxes paid in money fell out of use. Also, since workers and business men did not want to work in industries that were more easily “taxable” or “seized”, the Roman authorities ended up passing laws obliging people to stay in the area where they had been born and to work in the same occupation as their parents. Feudalism had started. The free and vibrant economy had been replaced by a planned and rigid system.

The Roman army was never actually defeated by the barbarian invaders. Even after losses such as Adrianopole the Roman leaders were able to persuade the “winners” to become cheap mercenaries for them. Therefore the barbarians could be described as a form of cheap labor in the official Roman army. Some historians, such as Peter Heather, even argue that these cheap Barbarian soldiers were actually what kept the Roman Empire running well and efficiently during the 5^th century. However, the Western Roman Empire was dependent on revenues from the large olive oil fields and other agricultural farms in modern day Tunisia. When a corrupt province governor and a group of barbarians, the Vandals, managed to occupy Tunisia, then Roman emperors lost a major source of revenue. After a few decades and an exhaustive war with the Huns, the Western Roman Empire was out of revenue and the Barbarian soldiers employed by the Emperor decided to rebel and simply run Italy as a kingdom for themselves. Therefore one could say that mismanagement in the form of inflation to pay for a military dictatorship and a lack of money to pay the wages of soldiers was the end of the Roman Empire. The Eastern Roman Empire was much more urbanized, had a stronger economy, and was therefore able to resist invasions from the Balkans, the Middle East and from Central Asia for several centuries more.

La influencia de Safo en Enrique Bunbury

El cantante español Enrique Bunbury retira inspiración de diversas fuentes musicales (sonidos latinos, árabes, Elvis Presley, Pink Floyd) e literarias. Entre las obras literarias que han inspirado sus canciones están piezas teatrales de Wilde y Antonio Vallejo, la filosofía de Nietzche, novelas de Kafka, Dickens y Jules Verne, o la poesía de Rimbaud, Baudelaire, Alberti y Kipling. El cantante-compositor hizo una carrera de música con contenido e influencias diversas, pero siempre sellada por su forma personal de sentir.

«Enrique Bunbury en concierto en 2012: Carlos Delgado; CC-BY-SA»

Pero hoy me gustaría señalar una influencia algo desconocida de los inmensos admiradores de Bunbury que es como la influencia de Safo se insinúa de forma tan sutil en la canción El Rescate del álbum El Viaje a Ninguna Parte. No debería, sin embargo, ser sorpresa que Bunbury haya buscado inspiración en la poetisa griega de Lesbos, una vez que los temas gay-lesbianos son parte integral de la carrera del cantante desde su inicio. El propio nombre artístico Bunbury proviene de un personaje de La importancia de llamarse Ernesto de Oscar Wilde, cuyo significado es deliberadamente ambiguo. Muchos lectores y estudiosos de Wilde, incluyendo su amigo Aleister Crowley, creen que el personaje Bunbury representa la vida doble de Oscar Wilde, ocultando un amor homosexual y secreto del escritor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNHzoDWiat4

Safo tiene un impacto muy particular en la historia de la literatura, ni que sea solo porque hubo muy pocas mujeres escritoras hasta los últimos dos siglos. En la antigüedad los poetas eran casi todos hombres y también su audiencia eres masculina. Los poemas y canciones eran acompañados de música y cantados durante las cenas extravagantes donde hombres comían en exceso y se emborrachaban de vino. Las únicas mujeres presentes en estos simposios eran danzarinas, flautistas y prostitutas o cortesanas, destinadas al entretenimiento de los invitados. Dado que toda la poesía antigua tenía interpretes masculinos y audiencia masculina no es de sorprender que sus temas incidían sobre la guerra, la búsqueda de gloria, la fuerza del deseo masculino o el amor homosexual. Safo probablemente enseñaba poesía y canciones a otras mujeres antes que estas se casasen con sus hombres. Los poemas de Safo abordaban materias bien distintas y representan una autora que valoraba el amor más que todas las cosas. También son poemas particularmente sensibles al sufrimiento y con un lenguaje muy directo y simple, pero que al mismo tiempo apelan a emociones poderosas, sentimientos y obsesiones imposibles de ignorar. Por eso es muy fácil reconocer la influencia directa de Safo en mucha de la poesía erótica u amorosa de otros autores, desde los romanos como Catulo y Ovidio hasta los escritores Anglo-saxones del siglo 19 como Thomas Hardy, Byron, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Swinburne, Lord Tennyson y William Carlos Williams.

El Rescate tiene como tema el precio a pagar por el amor apasionado que uno dedica a alguien que nos desprecia. Es una canción de extremada vulnerabilidad y el compositor se revela como alguien desesperado, consciente de que sus esfuerzos son inútiles, pero que paradojalmente valora más al amor que cualquier bien material del mundo, sea dinero o casas grandiosas. Abajo presento el refrán  de la canción y en seguida explico cómo Bunbury se inspiró directamente en dos poemas de Safo. Ni siquiera es una casualidad que en el mismo año del lanzamiento del disco de Bunbury fue publicada una traducción completa de los poemas de Safo en español de la autoría de Aurora Luque y que fue un éxito literario.

“No hay dinero, ni castillos, ni avales, ni talonarios,

no hay en este mundo, -aunque parezca absurdo-,

ni en planetas por descubrir, lo que aquí te pido.

Y no te obligo a nada que no quieras.

Las fuerzas me fallan, mis piernas no responden;

te conocen, pero no llegan a ti.”

Bueno, la enumeración de El Rescate es extraordinariamente similar al poema 16 de Safo, que habla que ni la riqueza, poder y los ejércitos tan valorados por los hombres, ni ninguna cosa sobre la tierra, nada de eso vale nada relativamente a la persona de la cual se está enamorada. No es un acaso que Enrique Bunbury menciona lo mismo en una forma más moderna “ni dinero, castillos, avales, talonarios”. La lista de Safo de cosas inútiles apreciadas por los reyes y generales es una imagen de la antigüedad, pero la lista de Bunbury es válida para todos los hombres ricos y pobres de espirito que viven en los días de hoy. Repárese además que el título de la canción de Bunbury es “El Rescate” y el poema de Safo refiere claramente que ninguna promesa de gloria o de bienes materiales, ni siquiera la amenaza de guerra, sirvió para pagar el rescate más famoso de la historia que fue el rapto de Helena de Troya.  Una tercera similitud entre la canción rock y el poema griego es que ambos tratan de amantes que están lejos y ausentes, Anactoria en el caso de Safo y un arrebatador amor anónimo en el caso de Bunbury.

Poema-Fragmento 16 de Safo

“Hay quienes dicen que los hombres montados a caballo,

o un ejército de soldados o una flota de naves,

son lo más hermoso sobre la tierra negra,

pero yo digo que es aquello de lo que una está enamorada.

Es muy fácil que todos comprendan esto,

pues la bella Helena abandonó a su esposo,

el mejor de los príncipes, se fue navegando hacia Troya,

y no se acordó de su hija ni de sus queridos padres.

Ahora recuerdo a Anactoria que no está presente.

Yo quisiera ver su amable paso y el resplandor radiante de su rostro

más que los carros de los lidios y los soldados de armaduras relucientes.”

Pero la influencia sáfica no acaba aquí, porque existe una cuarta característica de la canción de Bunbury inspirada muy claramente en otro poema de Safo. Es muy difícil a un hombre admitir su debilidad, pero Enrique confiesa que sus fuerzas le fallan al extremo “Las fuerzas me fallan, mis piernas no responden”. La mayoría de las canciones y poemas masculinos inciden sobre la belleza del cuerpo femenino o sobre la gran confianza del hombre que es más bello, fuerte y seductor que los otros. Por lo tanto es muy raro que Enrique – un hombre de éxito, admirado por el mundo, con una imagen de cowboy y macho duro – hable que no tiene piernas ni fuerza. En verdad esa vulnerabilidad extrema de Bunbury es algo muy bien capturado y de una expresión femenina muy evidente. Nadie mejor que Safo expresó la palidez que le causa a uno mirar la persona que se ama y perder la voz, la vista, y sentir las piernas flaquear, con un pulso acelerado como si estuviésemos enfermos y a punto de morir.

Poema-Fragmento 31 de Safo

“Igual a los dioses se me parece

ese hombre que, sentado frente a ti,

de cerca escucha tu dulce voz y tu risa adorable;

ello me ha dado un vuelco al corazón dentro del pecho;

pues apenas te miro, ya hablar no me es posible

sino que mi lengua se quiebra, un leve

fuego al punto me corre bajo la piel,

nada pueden ver mis ojos, me zumban los oídos

me cubre el sudor, un temblor me posee toda,

me siento más pálida que la hierba

y a mí misma me parece que estoy cerca de morir.”

El poema-fragmento 31 es quizá el poema más conocido de Safo y ha sido imitado por inmenso autores de diversas lenguas al largo de los últimos siglos. La frase “Las fuerzas me fallan, mis piernas no responden” tiene realmente una similitud enorme no solo con el poema original de Safo, pero además con los poetas inspirados por esta, tal como el homenaje de John Hollander al fragmento 31 de Safo “my tongue collapses, my legs flag”.

Enrique Bunbury es realmente un compositor de una sensibilidad fabulosa, porque en 2500 años de poemas y canciones no hubo nadie a capturar de forma más actual, tan linda y sensible estos sentimientos. La poetisa griega es linda, porque al leer sus palabras siento una emoción absurda, como si alguien que conociera me escribiera una carta enviada a través de  un océano y muchos siglos de distancia. El cantante español es el más original de todos los poetas-cantantes que alguna vez se han inspirado en Safo, una vez que su canción no es una copia de sus poemas griegos. Los poemas de Safo son tan impecablemente hermosos, tan poderosos y difíciles de mejorar, que mismo los mejores escritores han casi copiado palabra por palabra los poemas originales, solamente restando una línea o dos. Bunbury es el único que hizo su propia versión con una actualidad poderosísima y una belleza increíbles. ¡Hasta creo que Safo diría que su discípulo masculino logró cantar tan bien o mejor que el original! Aquí queda mi homenaje a mi canción preferida del rock n’ roll español y a mi escritora preferida. Feliz Pascua.

Post scriptum:
Inmensas gracias a Enrique Bunbury por haber compartido el blog en su página oficial de Twitter, Instagram, GooglePlus y Facebook:

https://twitter.com/bunburyoficial/status/803253830863364097

https://www.instagram.com/p/BNW7eA1DbSh/?hl=en   

https://www.facebook.com/bunburyoficial/posts/10153876358075806

https://plus.google.com/+Enriquebunburyoficial/posts/2u9yqtuLnzC

Chariot Racing and Sports Stars in the Ancient World

(Neither Messi, Ronaldo, Federer, Jordan, Schumacher or Tiger Woods are the best paid sports player in history. In fact Cristiano Ronaldo is not even the top athlete in Portuguese history! The top earnings prize goes to a Lusitanian (old Portuguese) chariot racer born in 104 AD. Also, in Roman Races even a dead man could win if his horses finished the race, a true posthumous glory! And fights among ancient “hooligans” reached a violence far above today.)

The predecessors of most sports started as Funeral Games in Ancient Greece. All of the Pan-Hellenic Games – the Olympics, Pythian, Nemean and Isthmian festivals – honored a patron god and a deceased human hero. Homer in the Iliad describes how sports in the Bronze Age were already a tradition during funerals of great warriors. In a previous post I wrote how Alexander the Great paid for an elaborate set of athletic games for his deceased friend Hephaestion.

The Olympic Games were the oldest of the four festivals and according to tradition begun in 776 BC. Some of the games played by the Hellenic peoples still exist such as wrestling, boxing, foot races, long jump, discus throw and the pentathlon. Chariot racing was perhaps the most popular of all ancient sports. While chariot races no longer exist it is easy to imagine them as a close predecessor to some modern sports, such as equestrian races and car races such as Formula 1. Chariot races in Greece and Rome were done at special venues, the hippodromes, which resemble quite well the elliptical shapes of modern horse or car race circuits. Above I show a modern recreation in France of how a roman chariot race could have been like. Another pic shows a gymnasium in Olympia where Hellenic athletes would train to improve their skill.

In Greece and Rome the owner and driver of the chariot were different persons, since the drivers were often slaves or men of low birth. Even nowadays in equestrian races the owners are often more prestigious than the jockeys. Races were risky events where drivers and horses would often crash or be trampled to death by the other competitors. Women were not allowed to drive, but they could own the cart and horses, a prominent case being Cynics, daughter of a Spartan King. Unlike other Hellenic sports which were practiced by males in the nude, charioteers wore sleeved garments and a leather helmet to protect themselves from the dust and the crashes. Below I show a mosaic with a Roman charioteer. Greeks and Romans no longer used chariots for battle at this time, since they were unstable and riders could be thrown out of their cart. However, the most enthusiastic moments of these races were really the round turns when the spectators could expect incredible crashes with deadly results for both horses and driver, sometimes of several cars in a row as competitors would knock and crush into each other around the post.

The largest hippodrome ever built was the Circus Maximus in Rome which could seat up to 250,000 people. In this circus you could do extensive betting on the winners of a race. There was an extensive market of bookies and professional betters willing to take advantage of the naïve and greedy. Some people would lose their fortunes and even their freedom from lost bets. Rules of winning were tricky at times, because the winner of the race was the first chariot passing the finishing line – even if the man had been trampled to death way behind. Nowadays we celebrate deceased athletes, but the Roman racers could actually claim a truly posthumous glory for their victory! In the center of the race there was a series of pillars with sculptures and engravings on top. These pillars and adornments increased the number of crashes (the Romans called these accidents, naufragia or "shipwrecks"). and the death risk of the races. Racers would want to be as close as possible to the center of the track in order to reduce space and pass their opponents, but the closer to the center the riskier their moves were. In general the bravest and most intelligent horse had to be the one closest to the center of the track, since his movements would be the ones to either lead him to glory or to death. Above I show a picture of the Circus Maximus in Rome which is pretty much an abandoned field nowadays and below I show the hippodrome of Constantinople which forms part of the city center of Istambul. There were four teams disputing the championship of races in ancient Rome and Constantinople, with their identities being given by their colors – Red, Blue, White and Green. Fanatics of these teams often descended into violence and hooliganism and their power was enough to topple down big politicians. In 532 AD the Nika riots started as a dispute between different chariot teams and threatened the reign of emperor Justinian, ending up with half of Constantinople burnt and tens of thousands of people killed.

Finally, no modern athlete, neither Messi, Ronaldo, Federer, Jordan, Schumacher nor Tiger Woods can claim to be the best paid sports player in history, since even the richest of these have only earned slightly more than 1 billion USD. In fact Cristiano Ronaldo is not even the top athlete in Portuguese history! The top earnings prize goes to Gaius Appuleius Diocles, a Lusitanian (the roman name for the ancient Portuguese people) chariot racer born in 104 AD. Diocles earned the sum of 35,863,120 sesterces which amounts to roughly 15 billion USD and all of these winnings came from race prizes, not advertising revenues. Diocles was known for being a strong finisher, who would wait for an opportunity and then pass his opponent from behind at the finish line.  He won 1,462 of his 4,257 races and finished second 861 times. Through his long career Diocles raced for three teams – White, Green and Red – and retired at 42 years of age, still quite able to enjoy a good life. His supporters erected him a monument in Rome detailing his victories. Most of the chariot champions died young, with one example being Scorpus who won over 2000 races before dying in a collision at 27 years of age. As a finish note, Cristiano Ronaldo does not have to mind being passed by his Portuguese ancestor. I am a Portuguese and a fan of Sporting, therefore he is still my big hero.

The Curse of Memory: how the first Christian emperor erased his family from history

The greatest punishment in Roman law was not the death penalty, but the damnatio memoriae: a mix of a death execution, the seizure of the person’s property, and the removal of all traces and memory of his life. Such a sentence implied that statues of the condemned person could be destroyed, his face would be erased from paintings and his name could be erased or blotted out from written documents, coins and even from the stone inscriptions in monuments.

Many of the “evil” emperors such as Caligula, Domitian or their relatives (such as Livilla, the daughter-in-law of Emperor Tiberius, and Geta, the brother of Emperor Caracalla) suffered damnatio memoriae sentences. Above and below I show pictures of a stone pillar in Spain where the name of Emperor Domitian was erased after his death and a portrait of the Severus imperial family where Caracalla’s brother Geta was erased from the painting. I also show a cameo portrait of Livilla, daughter-in-law of Emperor Tiberius, who was executed in 31 AD because of accusations that she had conspired with her lover Sejanus to kill Emperor Tiberius and take over the imperial throne. Also, Livilla’s own mother accused her of having poisoned her husband (Emperor Tiberius’ son) and that perhaps her children were the result of adulterous liaisons. The Senate removed all mentions of Livilla after her death, so there are no absolutely certain portraits of her, but some scholars think that this cameo fits her description and could be a rare portrait that survived the harsh legal sentence.

The term damnatio memoriae was actually created in the 16th century by the German legal scholar Christoph Schreiter in a thesis of 1689. In practice the Romans applied several different measures to reach the joint effect that the condemned individual would lose all the honors of being a Roman citizen and its memory. For example, the removal of all the written inscriptions of the name of the condemned was a sentence called the abolitio nominis. For the Romans the removal of memory was the opposite of the Apotheosis, which represented the glorification of a deceased person (such as an emperor or empress) to divine honors. Since Roman society stressed the importance of honor, respectability and fame, then erasing one's memory was the most severe punishment of all.

The Roman emperor who became perhaps the biggest user of the “curse of memory” sentence was Constantine the Great, the first Christian emperor. In particular Constantine I applied the damnatio memoriae to several of his family members who at certain point aroused his anger or stood in his path to power. While Christianity is a religion that values forgiveness, apparently such teachings do not preclude erasing the memory of your enemies and relatives. Perhaps if one simply forgets their hated memory, then it is not really necessary to forgive them at all.

Constantine lived one of the most turbulent periods in history, since those were the decades in which Christianity was on the point of being either the largest minority religion of the Empire or its major religion. This was a breaking point at both the political and social levels. At the political level the Empire was divided among four co-emperors and each one resented the power of its colleagues. Each single emperor was waiting for a moment of weakness from its rivals in order to invade its territory and stripe away his powers. Constantine started as the weakest of the co-emperors, being in charge only of Britain and Gaul. These territories were weak in terms of economic resources and armies, and were also continuously threatened by invasions of Scottish and Germanic tribes. Therefore Constantine was the weakest of the four co-emperors and the most likely candidate to be humiliated and eliminated from the political scheme. However, Constantine and also his eldest son Crispus were extraordinarily good generals. Constantine won wars against each of his co-emperors which had much larger armies and stronger navies. Even if Constantine was not known today as the first Christian emperor, he would certainly be remembered as a general of the same importance as Caesar or Alexander the Great. Below I show a picture of myself and my twin brother in front of Constantine’s bronze statue in York, England, where he was first acclaimed as Emperor in 306 AD. In the next few years Constantine would often receive messages and ultimatums from his co-emperors asking him to resign himself to a lower imperial role. However, in less than twenty years Constantine would have taken over all the territories of his rival co-emperors and by 324 AD he was the complete master of the Roman Empire. In 337 AD Constantine was planning a big war against the powerful Persian emperor Shapur II, justified as a crusade to protect the Christian followers in the Persian Empire.

At the social level the Roman Senate and its old aristocratic families now realized the traditional pagan cults were irrelevant to most of the population and were only practiced at official ceremonies which no one cared about. Think of those boring speeches that politicians give nowadays on TV and then no one remembers a single sentence in the next day? Well, that was how the top pagan priests felt like around 300 AD. Besides Christianity other sun religions such as Mithraism were now popular all over the Empire and clearly the traditional Roman paganism was withering away rapidly. Traditionally, Rome was a state with complete religious liberty (as long as its religious supporters did not defy the imperial laws and paid their taxes). One could even think of Ancient Rome as a “market of religions”. There were temples of all sorts of deities standing side by side. One could go worship a snake fertility god or go listen to an Egyptian cat-goddess speak through a statue (with a hollow space inside where a priest or priestess could hide and speak). Others would participate in the mysteries of obscure eastern religions with different grades of tests designed to evaluate their worshippers’ worth as they climbed the orders of their religion. It was during Constantine’s adolescence that the main Roman Emperor Diocletian launched the greatest persecution of Christians during Roman history. Most of the stories of Christian martyrdom come from this time period. Some estimate that the Diocletian’s persecution could have made around 3,000 victims, which was a significant number by Roman standards (although much less than the 20^th century religious and political conflicts).

Constantine lived through turbulent times, therefore he hit his adversaries as hard as he could even if these were close family members. Constantine first applied a damnatio memoriae to his father-in-law (and also his step-grandfather), the old co-emperor Maximian. Actually, Constantine had good reasons for such a measure. Constantine had treated well his father-in-law and given him some powers with his army, but a few months later Maximian decided to rebel and support his own son against Constantine. After this Constantine quickly won against Maximian and forced him to commit suicide. However, some years later, after Constantine had won the war against Maximian’s son, the co-emperor Maxentius, he re-habilitated Maximian’s memory and gave great honors to his deceased father-in-law. Later Constantine started a war against his powerful co-emperor in the East, Licinius, who was also his brother-in-law. After Constantine and his eldest son Crispus won several large scale battles, he became the undisputed master of the Roman world and issued a damnatio memoriae against Licinius, accusing him of killing the families of other co-emperors and of the persecution of Christians. Modern evidence shows that Licinius in fact supported Christian rights, had a Christian wife and may even have been a Christian himself, therefore Licinius was a victim of Constantinian propaganda.

Just two years after Constantine became master of the world, he ordered the execution of his eldest son Crispus by “cold poison” and a damnatio memoriae against Crispus, his wife and his only grandson. This must have been a big surprise to all of the world, since Crispus had been a good and reliable general of Constantine and was his only adult son, therefore his most plausible future heir. One month later Constantine also ordered the execution of his own wife, Fausta, by an “overheated bath” and her damnatio memoriae. Fausta was the mother of three male children and one daughter of Constantine, therefore again this must have been a hard decision. Also, Constantine had Fausta in high esteem and had given her the divine honors of Augusta just three years before. Below I show a coin with Crispus image and a bust of Fausta.

Historians speculate that the death of Crispus and Fausta are related, but no one knows exactly how since the “curse of memory” erased historical records that would have been essential for our understanding. Crispus was Constantine’s son from a previous marriage, therefore Fausta was only his step-mother. Ancient historians Zosimus, the anonymous work Epitome de Caesaribus, the 8^th century fiction Passion of Artemius, and the 12^th century scholar Joannes Zonaras, say that Fausta wanted her own children to become the future emperors and told Constantine that Crispus wanted to rape her or begin an adulterous affair. In this possible version of the story Constantine orders in rage the execution of his eldest son and after one month realizes that Fausta lied and kills her too. However, other historians point out that an “overheated bath” could indicate an attempted abortion and therefore a possible adulterous affair between Fausta and Crispus which resulted in an unwanted pregnancy. Significantly, Fausta’s sons later became Roman Emperors after Constantine’s death and none of them tried to rehabilitate their mother’s reputation, therefore this points out that they believed her to be guilty of something.

There is, however, a third possible explanation of this story. An article by historian Patrick Guthrie in 1966 suggests that Constantine ordered both deaths on political reasons. Constantine wanted to build a dynasty for his children, but that created difficulties in managing their ambitions. Therefore he orders the death of Crispus to prevent his ambition and remove a threat against the three sons of Fausta. Then he orders the death of Fausta as a signal to his other children and relatives that Constantine is firmly in the grasp of absolute power and that he would not hesitate to kill anyone if he deems it necessary. While this explanation may sound a bit off, we must remember the ancient world often had harsh struggles for power. The previous rulers of the Seleucid or Ptolemaic empires often had to order the deaths of their siblings to keep power. Also, many Roman emperors before Constantine and also his Byzantine successors often ordered the imprisonment and death of husbands, wives and sons, in order to keep their power. Therefore it is not impossible that Constantine himself feared treason from inside his own family. Whatever happened the erasing of memory leaves a lot to our imagination for solving this mystery novel.

Socialism versus Capitalism in Ancient Rome: finding an old Allende and Pinochet

Some days ago I watched the news about the Chilean government demanding a monetary restitution from the widow of the deceased dictator Augusto Pinochet. In 1973 Chile was divided in a brutal conflict between a popular left party seeking wealth redistribution and an elitist conservative group that made a coup and gained power. The left wing leader Salvador Allende had actually been responsible for a big career boost of Augusto Pinochet, the right wing general who led the coup, since Allende had no idea of the true political views of his appointed general. The picture on the right shows Allende and Pinochet together in the presidential palace in Chile. Now and in old times no friendship survives a political conflict. Historian Plutarch and the novels of Aussie writer Colleen McCullough portray a real historical conflict that mirrors the class struggles in the 20^th century and how old friendships are broken for the sake of power.

Santayana said those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. In my view there are at least two aspect in which the Chilean 70’s conflict parallels the Roman Republic of 100 BC. One, ancient Rome had a sharp conflict between the Optimates (the party of those who defended the old traditions and privileges of the rich) and the Populares (those who defended the redistribution of agrarian lands and the extension of political votes to the masses). There were several strands in each group, with moderate Populares and also more radical branches that defended a real dictatorship based on popular acclaim. The political rivalry between Optimates (right wing) and Populares (left wing) explains much of roman history between 133 BC and 44 BC, when Julius Caesar, a general who capitalized the anger of the Populares to gain absolute military and political power, was assassinated by members of the Optimates.

Two, just like in Chile where President Allende believed – until it was too late – that general Pinochet would be a possible ally, the Roman left wing between 110 BC and 88 BC had a charismatic leader, Gaius Marius (left pic above), who unwittingly promoted the career of his friend, Lucius Cornelius Sulla (right pic above), who would become the Optimates leader and his most fierce enemy! These two former allies fired up all the class struggles in Rome and neither gave up until the former friend and all of his supporters were brutally killed.

Gaius Marius was a Roman general and politician who won two wars between 108 and 101 BC. The first war was in North Africa around 108 BC in the area of modern Argelia. The second war between 103 and 101 BC was against teutonic peoples who migrated from Germany to invade north Italy. This Teutonic invasion was one of the worst crisis in Roman history and there was a generalized fear in the Italian population that their civilization would be beaten and destroyed. To win this war Marius decided to recruit poo men for the Roman army, something unthinkable until then! This decision broke the political power that the wealthy had over the army and in the future decades armies were more loyal to their generals than to the political institutions. Over the short term the decision saved Rome. Over the long term this measure created endless revolutions in which generals used their armies to become new dictators!

Marius also introduces many innovations in terms of the organization and equipment of the legions and turns the legionnaire into professionally trained soldiers. The classic image of a professional and extremely organized Roman army that we see in Hollywood movies was only made real by Gaius Marius! Above I show a painting of Marius leading his newly trained armies to fight a much larger Teutonic army in the forests of northern Italy.

Marius became the most powerful politician of his time and certainly one the most relevant in the entire history of Rome. The most important political office of the Republic was consul and Marius was elected consul seven times, while before him none had been consul more than three times.

Sulla was possibly an in-law of Marius and started his career as Marius' trusted second in command. However, during a brief mission in Asia, Sulla consulted a fortune seer who foretold his death would come at the peak of his fame and glory. Sulla returns to Rome and becomes one of the generals fighting the Social War, a large conflict in which Rome fought rebellions in many Italian regions. In this war Sulla won the Grass Crown, the most important prize of valor given in Ancient Rome. In all of Roman history only eight men won the grass crown, since this trophy was only given to a man that by his courage had saved an entire army!

Sulla was then elected consul and nominated general for the war against Mithridates of Pontus, a western nation in northern Turkey which was threatening the roman territories of Greece and west Asia. Sulla's success triggered a conflict with his former friend Gaius Marius. Marius, then an old man, remained popular with the crowds and dreamed of being the commander in the new war. Marius used his prestige and wealth to finance popular mutinies and rebellions against his former friend. Sulla is persecuted by fanatics through the streets of Rome and saves his life by seeking refuge in Marius’ home. Marius agrees to save Sulla’s life from the raging crowd, but only if he promises to support Marius’ party and his nomination for the war. Sulla pretends to agree, escapes from Rome and then returns with his loyal army. Sulla does the unthinkable by marching upon Rome, something that was forbidden by the sacred laws of Rome. In Rome’s previous six centuries of history no one had broken this rule. Sulla enters Rome and his army kills several of the Populares and Marius’ supporters. Afterwards, he leaves for Asia and wins surprising battles against the greek-asian enemies of Rome. Sulla becomes famous among his followers as a mad genius, one who makes elaborate plans that always work. Sulla destroys the forests around Athens to build catapults and siege engines to destroy the city. Then he wins two battles against much bigger armies. In the first battle he orders the building of trenches and palisades which rumble his enemy's organization. In the second battle, Sulla orders the building of water dams and then floods the plain in front of the opposing army. His opponents are stranded with horses and men in the mud and unable to move are slaughtered. Sulla gains a reputation of invincibility against all odds and becomes one of the most famous generals in world history.

While Sulla stayed in Asia, Marius returned to Rome and then orders the murder of many of Sulla’s supporters. The Populares take control of Rome and send several armies against Sulla. But all of the armies sent by the Populares are useless, because Sulla had gained the fame of an invincible commander. No army wants to fight Sulla and his adversaries end up surrendering and joining him. Marius dies sick in Rome just 17 days after he became consul for a 7^th and last time. Plutarch relates that Marius was by then a deluded old man, bragging to people about his accomplishments and then behaving crazy as if he was in charge of battles in Asia.

Sulla returns to Rome in 83 BC and publishes a long list of his enemies, whom he convicts to death without a trial. Sulla promises to pardon the people who cooperate with his executions. Some men are executed by their own wives and children who are then allowed to keep the family estate. Sulla rewards his friends and punishes his enemies. The young Julius Caesar is included in the death lists of Sulla, since Caesar was related by marriage to Marius. Sulla lets the young Caesar live, but warns that he sees in the young man “the ambition of many Marius”.

Sulla was Dictator (then a real office which gave its holder the power to decree martial law and act as he pleased for a limited period) of Rome for two years of political terror. At the end of his dictatorship, Sulla leaves Rome for his countryside villa to write his memoirs. Sulla lives a dissipated life with a young wife and a male actor called Metrobius who had become his lover a long time ago. He still intervenes with politics, but remains open to discuss his policies with any man who approaches him. Sulla dies of old age, a mysterious man for all who knew him. It was said he could drink and party with the poorest and simplest persons, celebrating with great joy, but then would change to be a tyrant ordering deaths with no cause at all. It is estimated that around 1000 persons died from Sulla’s political persecutions. I wonder what the ancient Romans would have thought of the 20^th century dictators who murdered far more people.