Showing posts with label Political Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political Science. Show all posts

Saturday, November 14, 2009

The Only Thing We Have to Fear - Unpublished Selections Explained, Med. VII.72



Meditation VII.72 - The Only Thing We Have to Fear - Translated by George Long and rewritten by Russell McNeil


Whatever the rational and political (social) faculty finds to be neither intelligent nor social, it properly judges to be inferior to itself.1

Explanation

(1) If something is "neither intelligent nor social" it is, by inference, irrational and self serving. Marcus does not claim that it is improper to be irrational. Nor does he maintain that the interest of the self ought never be satisfied. The meditation simply notes that whenever irrational and/or self-serving impulses occur, these actions need to be evaluated by reason. For example, there is nothing at all wrong with tending to our irrational or emotional needs. Emotions play a critical role in maintaining our physical well-being. We feel fear when we are in physical danger. It is normal to respond to that emotion by seeking protection. By the same token, satisfying our senses is necessary for the maintenance of physical and psychological well-being. Good food, fine music, warm clothing, safe shelter, and the development of entertaining activities and hobbies are important aspects of living well. We should also get adequate sleep; we should have regular exercise; we should strive to be sexually satisfied. But in all areas of our emotional and physical life there is a second and higher faculty at play, and that is reason, and the activity of reason must always take precedence over emotional and physical demands. Will my actions interfere with my primary duty in life which must always consider the community before the self? If any action prevents me from acting rightly toward others, then that action must be subordinated to the interest of others.

It is interesting to bring this meditation to bear on the political rhetoric employed by television and radio commentators, political bloggers, and politicians seeking elected office. Many of these actors play to the emotional and physical fears of their audiences. This sort of rhetoric is very old, and can be very persuasive. The strategies are at the heart of political propaganda, or political spin. In many cases commentators play on the prejudices of their target audiences using innuendo to stir up racial or class hatred, homophobia, fears of terrorism, fear of economic catastrophe, or fears of an impending environmental disaster. Whatever the messages - and they are employed on all sides of the political spectrum - the listener, viewer, or reader is manipulated to suspend reason - in the interests of an emotional appeal. Testing the validity of these appeals through the filter of this meditation can be revealing. We need only ask ourselves whether the messages are really intelligent, and whether they are really social. Do they meet the needs of all members of the human community? Do they meet the tests of rudimentary logic? Do they meet the tests of truthfulness? Above all else, do these messages lessen our fears by offering constructive stratagems? If the answers to these are no, we have adequate evidence for suspecting that - in Stoic terms - these messages are (like much advertising) both irrational (designed to strike an emotional chord) and designed therefore to serve the interests not of the community at large, but of special interests. In other words, they are neither intelligent nor social.

Russell McNeil, PhD, is the author of The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius: Selections Annotated and Explained by Skylight Paths Publishing. The unpublished selections presented in this Blog are provided as supplemental material to the published selections which are annotated and explained in the book. The published selections are referenced in this Blog by page number and section.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

The Evil of Realpolitik - Unpublished Selections Explained, Med. VIII.05



Meditation VIII.05 - The Evil of Realpolitik - Translated by George Long and rewritten by Russell McNeil


This is the chief thing: Be not perturbed, for all things are according to the nature of the universal;1 and in a little time you will be nobody and nowhere, like Hadrian2 and Augustus.3 In the next place having fixed your eyes steadily on your business look at it,4 and at the same time remembering that it is your duty to be a good person, and to do what human nature demands, do that without turning aside; and speak as it seems to you most just, only let it be with a good disposition and with modesty and without hypocrisy.5

Explanation

(1) Non-Stoics have a rough time with this. That all things are according to a predetermined universal agenda seems to leave human beings powerless. Why bother trying if we have no control over fate? We need to appreciate that Marcus is not speaking about the small particular paths we follow through life or indeed even the duration of these paths. Risk takers will likely die young. But if those risks revolve around making virtuous choices, those risk takers will die in peace. If those risks revolve around making choices around the service of pleasure, those risk takers will die in despair. In either case You are born and you will die. This is certain. You were also born with a set of attributes and potentiality. These are also certain. You also are free to live well (according to nature) or to live badly (in opposition to nature). You will be happy or you will be unhappy - this is within your power. Choose to be good, and things will go well. Choose to be bad and things will not. It's a simple formula really. We have that power.

(2) Emperor Hadrian (76-138) was the third of the so-called good emperors.

(3) Emperor Augustus (63 BCE - 14 CE) ruled Rome during the time of Christ.

(4) Your business is to be good and to harness your talents in the service of humanity.

(5) Stoicism takes no prisoners here. You must be good in all ways and at all times - whatever the consequences - in small things and in big things. It's a simple rule really. Do the right thing. We have evolved a calculus of morality (see Meditation IX.33) in the modern age where many people make shorter term moral decisions in the so-called interests of a larger moral agenda. It's called Realpolitik - politics or diplomacy based primarily on practical considerations, rather than ideological notions and is profoundly immoral in Stoic philosophy. Political actors - even those we greatly admire - do this on a daily basis by acting hypocritically in what appear to be relatively inconsequential matters in order to achieve their goals in what they feel is acting rightly in their bigger decisions. Many of us do this in our personal relationships at home and at the office. We call these inconsequential actions "white lies." A Stoic finds this practice abhorrent. To a Stoic right is right and wrong is wrong. Any decision which is contrary to nature detaches the soul from the human community and is wrong.

Russell McNeil, PhD, is the author of The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius: Selections Annotated and Explained by Skylight Paths Publishing. The unpublished selections presented in this Blog are provided as supplemental material to the published selections which are annotated and explained in the book. The published selections are referenced in this Blog by page number and section.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Blessed be the Peacemakers - Unpublished Selections Explained, Med. VIII.12



Meditation VIII.12 - Blessed be the Peacemakers - Translated by George Long and rewritten by Russell McNeil


When you rise from sleep with reluctance, remember that it is according to your constitution and according to human nature to perform social acts, but sleeping is common also to irrational animals.1 But that which is according to each individual's nature is also more peculiarly its own, and more suitable to its nature, and indeed also more agreeable.2

Explanation

(1) This is a clever meditation. The "sleep" Marcus refers to here is not necessarily biological. He is referring to the kind of awakening we experience when we study nature. Unless we observe real communities and how they are organized and how they progress, we will - like the "irrational animals" mentioned - regard our best interest as resting solely in the self. To the Stoic this is simply not enlightened. It is based on an ignorance of the nature of community. It is a perspective that will lead to a top down ordering of communities with wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, and with the majority exploited and oppressed. Ironically these sorts of self-directed and self-serving political structures do not produce the benefits expected - even to those who exploit others. The oppressors may be rich - but are not happy, in the Stoic sense, with the power and wealth they amass. The simple measure of this assertion is that there is never any stasis in their thirst for more power or more wealth.

It is the duty of a human being to work for the social betterment of the entire human community. This requires that each us us become politically active in the best sense of what it means to be political. The word political always produces mixed feelings. The word is derived from the Greek polis meaning city or city-state and is also the derivative for the English words policy and police. Human beings of course do not always see their prime function in life as directed toward the betterment of others. Many of us - perhaps a majority - regard our first duty as self-directed, and at best will act in the world in the spirit of what we might call enlightened self interest. For this reason words like political, policy and police will be understood according to whether we regard our personal betterment as prior to the social - or visa versa. As a consequence words like politics, policy, and police will convey differing connotations. Stoics regard the self as always subservient to the community. This is a rational observation deduced from careful examinations of social and anthropological science but always difficult to accept subjectively. But most rational human beings would probably accept this ordering on careful reflection. Our role and duty in the world is no different than the role of a good police officer - "to serve and to protect." This is what every citizen in a democratic society expects from its police - providing that the policies (laws) that the police enforce reflect the interests of the community at large and not - as obviously is the case in for example a police state - the interests of a ruling elite.

(2) What is more "agreeable" - as far as Marcus is concerned - is an ordering based upon a rational examination of human nature. Our own peace and serenity is assured and indeed "agreeable" only when we act in concert with the objectives of the larger communities of which we are a part. We will be happy when we think first about what is best for the other. Who are those others? They are our friends and our enemies. They are our partners and workmates. They are our fellow citizens and colleagues. They are those who love us; they are those who oppress us. Our duty in life is to bring the gift of peace to all (although it will at times require we take up the sword - the Stoic ethos is not a Christian ethos), by harnessing and refining what is best in us "according to each individual's nature."

Russell McNeil, PhD, is the author of The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius: Selections Annotated and Explained by Skylight Paths Publishing. The unpublished selections presented in this Blog are provided as supplemental material to the published selections which are annotated and explained in the book. The published selections are referenced in this Blog by page number and section.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Just Do It! - Unpublished Selections Explained, Med. VIII.23



Meditation VIII.23 - Just Do It! - Translated by George Long and rewritten by Russell McNeil


Am I doing anything? I do it with reference to the good of humankind.1 Does anything happen to me?2 I receive it and refer it to the gods, and the source of all things, from which all that happens is derived.3

Explanation

(1) In Stoicism "doing" is equivalent to acting. Routine physical activities such as eating, sleeping, or walking, are really reactions to the physical demands of living. These are clearly necessary for our survival but inconsequential in terms of our role as political actors in the world - our primary responsibility and duty in life. Although the word "political" is somewhat tinged in modern times (because of the abuse of political power), outwardly directed political activity is a Stoic's first responsibility, as long as what we do politically is done "with reference to the good of humankind," and not with reference to ourselves.

(2) In Stoicism the word "happen" references significant actions that impinge on the political reactions to our actions or the actions of others. It does not refer to the various accidents of life. For example, I may happen to win the lottery, or happen to have an accident, or happen to get a new job, or happen to die. These are all matters of Stoic indifference. With the exception of dying, none of these things makes us better or worse as political actors because our political power resides in our capacity for acting virtuously - and this capacity is seated in the mind or soul which is the source of reason, and reason is aways regarded as an invincible power insofar as we remain conscious and alive.

(3) As mentioned elsewhere (see Meditation XII.28) the gods are used as euphemisms for the single concept Logos, the Stoic's nature-based concept of the divine. The force of this meditation is one of acceptance. Whatever happens in life is in a sense predetermined by the forces of nature. There is little we can do to alter the course of events, especially in the long term. We are born and we will die - sooner or later. There is no reason for us to be concerned about how all this will play out for us personally. Our only responsibility is to use whatever opportunities that are presented to us in life to carry out our political role in our community. Just do it - and in so doing we will be happy.

Russell McNeil, PhD, is the author of The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius: Selections Annotated and Explained by Skylight Paths Publishing. The unpublished selections presented in this Blog are provided as supplemental material to the published selections which are annotated and explained in the book. The published selections are referenced in this Blog by page number and section.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Society and Social Collapse VI - The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius - Published Selections Explained, Med. X.33a



Meditation Med. X.33a – Society and Social Collapse VI - Translated by George Long and rewritten by Russell McNeil


Note: Meditation X.33a is published in The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius: Selections Annotated and Explained; McNeil. Russell, PhD, Skylight Paths, Ch. 9 ("Society and Government in Stoicism – Society and Social Collapse VI"), p. 223, 2007

Russell McNeil, PhD, is the author of The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius: Selections Annotated and Explained by Skylight Paths Publishing. The unpublished selections presented in this Blog are provided as supplemental material to the published selections which are annotated and explained in the book. The published selections are referenced in this Blog by page number and section.

Society and Social Collapse VII - The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius - Published Selections Explained, Med. X.33b



Meditation Med. X.33b – Society and Social Collapse VII - Translated by George Long and rewritten by Russell McNeil


Note: Meditation X.33b is published in The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius: Selections Annotated and Explained; McNeil. Russell, PhD, Skylight Paths, Ch. 9 ("Society and Government in Stoicism – Society and Social Collapse VII"), p. 225, 2007

Russell McNeil, PhD, is the author of The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius: Selections Annotated and Explained by Skylight Paths Publishing. The unpublished selections presented in this Blog are provided as supplemental material to the published selections which are annotated and explained in the book. The published selections are referenced in this Blog by page number and section.

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Xenophon (444 BCE-357 BCE)

Sierra Club

Quotation

Wherever magistrates were appointed from among those who complied with the injunctions of the laws, Socrates considered the government to be an aristocracy.

Books

Please browse our Amazon list of titles about Xenophon. For rare and hard to find works we recommend our Alibris list of titles about Xenophon.

AlibrisResearch

COPAC UK: Xenophon
Library of Canada: Xenophon
Library of Congress: Xenophon
Other Library Catalogs: Xenophon

Biographical

Xenophon, whose name literally means "strange sound," was an Athenian knight, an associate of Socrates, who is known for his chronicles of a mercenary expedition against Persia and the subsequent history of Greece. The expedition was led by Cyrus against his older brother, the Persian emperor Artaxerxes II. A battle took place at Cunaxa, where the Greeks were victorious but Cyrus was killed, and shortly thereafter their general, Clearchus of Sparta, was captured and executed. The mercenaries found themselves deep in hostile territory, far from the sea, and without leadership. But they elected new leaders, including Xenophon himself, who led them north through Armenia and back to Greece. This journey is called the Anabasis. Afterwards, Xenophon retired to Athens, but finding the city to be unfriendly, rejoined his comrades and helped the Spartans against Persia. When Athens allied with Persia against Sparta, he was banished, and spent the next few decades at Scillus, where his Anabasis was put together. Later the banishment was revoked, and Xenophon spent his last years at Athens.

Detailed Biography

Greek historian and philosophical essayist, the son of Gryllus, was born at Athens about 430 B.C. He belonged to an equestrian family of the deme of Erchia. It may be inferred from passages in the Hellenica that he fought at Arginusae (406), and that he was present at the return of Alcibiades (408), the trial of the Generals and the overthrow of the Thirty. Early in life he came under the influence of Socrates, but an active life had more attraction for him. In 401, being invited by his friend Proxenus to join the expedition of the younger Cyrus against his brother, Artaxerxes II. of Persia, he at once accepted the offer. It held out the prospect of riches and honour, while he was little likely to find favour in democratic Athens, where the knights were regarded with suspicion as having supported the Thirty. At the suggestion of Socrates, Xenophon went to Delphi to consult the oracle; but his mind was already made up, and he at once proceeded to Sardis, the place of rendezvous. Of the expedition itself he has given a full and detailed account in his Anabasis, or the Up-Country March. After the battle of Cunaxa (401), in which Cyrus lost his life, the officers in command of the Greeks were treacherously murdered by the Persian satrap Tissaphernes, with whom they were negotiating an armistice with a view to a safe return. The army was now in the heart of an unknown country, more than a thousand miles from home and in the presence of a troublesome enemy. It was decided to march northwards up the Tigris valley and make for the shores of the Euxine, on which there were several Greek colonies. Xenophon became the leading spirit of the army; he was elected an officer, and he it was who mainly directed the retreat. Part of the way lay through the wilds of Kurdistan, where they had to encounter the harassing guerrilla attacks of savage mountain tribes, and part through the highlands of Armenia and Georgia. After a five months' march they reached Trapezus [Trebizond] on the Euxine (February 400), where a tendency to demoralization began to show itself, and even Xenophon almost lost his control over the soldiery. At Cotyora he aspired to found a new colony; but the idea, not being unanimously accepted, was abandoned, and ultimately Xenophon with his Greeks arrived at Chrysopolis [Scutari] on the Bosporus, opposite Byzantium. After a brief period of service tmder a Thracian chief, Seuthes, they were finally incorporated in a Lacedaemonian army which had crossed over into Asia to wage war against the Persian satraps Tissaphemes and Pharnabazus. Xenophon, who accompanied them, captured a wealthy Persian nobleman, with his family, near Pergamum, and the ransom paid for his recovery secured Xenophon a competency for life.

On his return to Greece Xenophon served under Agesilaus, king of Sparta, at that time the chief power in the Greek world. With his native Athens and its general policy and institutions he was not in sympathy. At Coroneia (394) he fought with the Spartans against the Athenians and Thebans, for which his fellow-citizens decreed his banishment. The Spartans provided a home for him at Scillus in Elis, about two miles from Olympia; there he settled down to indulge his tastes for sport and literature. After Sparta's crushing defeat at Leuctra (371), Xenophon was driven from his home by the people of Elis. Meantime Sparta and Athens had become allies, and the Athenians repealed the decree which had condemned him to exile. There is, however, no evidence that he ever returned to his native city. According to Diogenes Laertius, he made his home at Corinth. The year of his death is not known; ail that can be said is that it was later than 355, the date of his work on the Revenues of Athens.

Works

The Anabasis (composed at Scillus between 379 and 371) is a work of singular interest, and is brightly and pleasantly written. Xenophon, like Caesar, tells the story in the third person, and there is a straightforward manliness about the style, with a distinct flavour of a cheerful lightheartedness, which at once enlists our sympathies. His description of places and of relative distances is very minute and painstaking. The researches of modern travellers attest his general accuracy. It is expressly stated by Plutarch and Diogenes Laertius that the Anabasis was the work of Xenophon, and the evidence from style is conclusive. The allusion (Hellenica, iii. I, 2) to Themistogenes of Syracuse as the author shows that Xenophon published it under an assumed name.

The Cyropaedia, a political and philosophical romance, which describes the boyhood and training of Cyrus, hardly answers to its name, being for the most part an account of the beginnings of the Persian empire and of the victorious career of Cyrus its founder. The Cyropaedia contains in fact the author's own ideas of training and education, as derived conjointly from the teachings of Socrates and his favourite Spartan institutions. It was said to have been written in opposition to the Republic of Plato. A distinct moral purpose, to which literal truth is sacrificed, runs through the work. For instance, Cyrus is represented as dying peacefully in his bed, whereas, according to Herodotus, he fell in a campaign against the Massagetae.

The Hellenica written at Corinth, after 362, is the only contemporary account of the period covered by it (411 - 362) that has come down to us. It consists of two distinct parts; books i and ii, which are intended to form a continuation of the work of Thucydides, and bring the history down to the fall of the Thirty, and books iii - vii, the Hellenica proper, which deal with the period from 401 to 362, and give the history of the Spartan and Theban hegemonies, down to the death of Epaminondas. There is, however, no ground for the view that these two parts were written and published as separate works. There is probably no justification for the charge of deliberate falsification. It must be admitted, however, that he had strong political prejudices, and that these prejudices have influenced his narrative. He was a partisan of the reactionary movement which triumphed after the fall of Athens; Sparta is his ideal, and Agesitaus his hero. At the same time, he was a believer in a divine overruling providence. He is compelled, therefore, to see in the fall of Sparta the punishment inflicted by heaven on the treacherous policy which had prompted the seizure of the Cadmea and the raid of Sphodrias. Hardly less serious defects than his political bias are his omissions, his want of the sense of proportion and his failure to grasp the meaning of historical criticism. The most that can be said in his favour is that as a witness he is at once honest and well-informed. For this period of Greek history he is, at any rate, an indispensable witness.

The Memorabilia, or Recollections of Socrates, in four books, was written to defend Socrates against the charges of impiety and corrupting the youth, repeated after his death by the sophist Polycrates. The work is not a literary masterpiece; it lacks coherence and unity, and the picture it gives of Socrates fails to do him justice. Still, as far as it goes, it no doubt faithfully describes the philosopher's manner of life and style of conversation. It was the moral and practical side of Socrates' teaching which most interested Xenophon; into his abstruse metaphysical speculations he seems to have made no attempt to enter: for these indeed he had neither taste nor genius. Moving within a limited range of ideas, he doubtless gives us "considerably less than the real Socrates, while Plato gives us something more." It is probable that the work in its present form is an abridgment.

Xenophon has left several minor works, some of which are very interesting and give an insight into the home life of the Greeks.

The Economics (to some extent a continuation of the Memorabilia, and sometimes regarded as the fifth book of the same) deals with the management of the house and of the farm, and presents a pleasant and amusing picture of the Greek wife and of her home duties. There are some good practical remarks on matrimony and on the respective duties of husband and wife. The treatise, which is in the form of a dialogue between Socrates and a certain Ischomachus, was translated into Latin by Cicero.

In the essays on horsemanship (Hippike) and hunting (Cynegeticus), Xenophon deals with matters of which he had a thorough practical knowledge. In the first he gives rules how to choose a horse, and then tells how it is to be groomed and ridden and generally managed. The Cynegeticus deals chiefly with the hare, though the author speaks also of boar-hunting and describes the hounds, tells how they are to be bred and trained, and gives specimens of suitable names for them. On all this he writes with the zest of an enthusiastic sportsman, and he observes that those nations whose upper classes have a taste for field-sports will be most likely to be successful in war. Both treatises may still be read with interest by the modern reader.

The Hipparchicus explains the duties of a cavalry officer; it is not, according to our ideas, a very scientific treatise, showing that the art of war was but very imperfectly developed and that the military operations of the Greeks were on a somewhat petty scale. He dwells at some length on the moral qualities which go to the making of a good cavalry officer, and hints very plainly that there must be strict attention to religious duties.

The Agesilaus is a eulogy of the Spartan king, who had two special merits in Xenophon's eyes: he was a rigid disciplinarian, and he was particularly attentive to all religious observances. We have a summary of his virtues rather than a good and striking picture of the man himself.

The Hiero works out the line of thought indicated in the story of the Sword of Damocles. It is a protest against the notion that the "tyrant " is a man to be envied, as having more abundant means of happiness than a private person. This is one of the most pleasing of his minor works; it is cast into the form of a dialogue between Hiero, tyrant of Syracuse, and the lyric poet Simonides.

The Symposium, or Banquet, to some extent the complement of the Memorabilia, is a brilliant little dialogue in which Socrates is the prominent figure. He is represented as "improving the occasion," which is that of a lively Athenian supper-party, at which there is much drinking, with flute-playing, and a dancing-girl from Syracuse, who amuses the guests with the feats of a professional conjuror. Socrates's table-talk runs through a variety of topics, and winds up with a philosophical disquisition on the superiority of true heavenly love to its earthly or sensual counterfeit, and with an earnest exhortation to one of the party, who had just won a victory in the public games, to lead a noble life and do his duty to his country.

There are also two short essays, attributed to him, on the political constitution of Sparta and Athens, written with a decided bias in favour of the former, which he praises without attempting to criticize. Sparta seems to have presented to Xenophon the best conceivable mixture of monarchy and aristocracy. The second is certainly not by Xenophon, but was probably written by a member of the oligarchical party shortly after the beginning of the Peloponnesian War.

In the essay on the Revenues of Athens (written in 355) he offers suggestions for making Athens less dependent on tribute received from its allies. Above all, he would have Athens use its influence for the maintenance of peace in the Greek world and for the settlement of questions by diplomacy, the temple at Delphi being for this purpose an independent centre and supplying a divine sanction.

The Apology, Socrates's defence before his judges, is rather a feeble production, and in the general opinion of modern critics is not a genuine work of Xenophon, but belongs to a much later period.

Xenophon was a man of great personal beauty and considerable intellectual gifts; but he was of too practical a nature to take an interest in abstruse philosophical speculation. His dislike of the democracy of Athens induced such lack of patriotism that he even fought on the side of Sparta against his own country. In religious matters he was narrow minded, a believer in the efficacy of sacrifice and in the prophetic art. His plain and simple style, which at times becomes wearisome, was greatly admired and procured him many imitators. [This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License and uses material adapted in whole or in part from the Wikipedia article on Xenophon and Encyclopedia Britannica (1911).]

Books from Alibris: Xenophon

Monday, September 17, 2007

al-Mawardi (c 974-1058)

Sierra Club

Quotation

The mushrikun [infidels] of Dar al-Harb (the arena of battle) are of two types: First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them…in accordance with what he judges to be in the best interest of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun… Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger…[I]t is forbidden to…begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached... - Shafi'i jurist , The Laws of Islamic Governance [al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah, (London, United Kingdom.: Ta-Ha, 1996, p. 60)

Books

Please browse our Amazon title about Ali ibn Muhammad Mawardi. For rare and hard to find works we recommend our Alibris list of titles about Ali ibn Muhammad Mawardi.

AlibrisResearch

COPAC UK: al-Mawardi
Library of Canada Search Form
Library of Congress: al-Mawardi
Other Library Catalogs: al-Mawardi

Biographical

Abu al-Hasan Ali Ibn Muhammad Ibn Habib al-Mawardi was born at Basrah. in 972 A.D. He was educated at first in Basrah where, after completion of his basic education, he learned Fiqah (Islamic jurisprudence) from the jurist Abu al-Wahid al-Simari. He then went to Baghdad for advanced studies under Sheikh Abd al-Hamid and Abdallah al-Baqi. His proficiency in jurisprudence Ethics, Political science and literature proved useful in securing a respectable career for him. After his initial appointment as Qazi (Judge), he was gradually promoted to higher offices, till he became the Chief Justice at Baghdad. The Abbasid Caliph al-Qaim bi Amr Allah appointed him as his roving ambassador and sent him to a number of countries as the head of special missions. In this capacity he played a key role in establishing harmonious relations between the declining Abbasid Caliphate and the rising powers of Buwahids and Seljukes. He was favored with rich gifts and tributes by most Sultans of the time. He was still in Baghdad when it was taken over by Buwahids. AL-Mawardi died in 1058 A.D. AL-Mawardi was a great jurist, mohaddith, sociologist and an expert in Political Science. He was a jurist in the school of Fiqah and his book Al-Havi on the principles of jurisprudence is held in high repute.

His contribution in political science and sociology comprises . a number of monumental books, the most famous of which are Kitab al-Ahkam al-Sultania, Qanun al-Wazarah, and Kitab Nasihatal-Mulk. The books discuss the principles of political science, with special reference to the functions and duties of the caliphs, the chief minister, other ministers, relationships between various elements of public and government and measures to strengthen the government and ensure victory in war. Two of these books, al-Ahkam al-Sultania and Qanun al-Wazarah have been published and also translated into various languages. He is considered as being the author/supporter of the 'Doctrine of ' Necessity' in political science. He was thus in favor of a strong caliphate and discouraged unlimited powers delegated to the Governors, which tended to create chaos. On the other hand, he has laid down clear principles for election of the caliph and qualities of the voters, chief among which are attainment of a degree of intellectual level and purity of character.

In ethics, he wrote Kitab Aadab al-Dunya wa al-Din, which became a widely popular book on the subject and is still read in some Islamic countries.

Al-Mawardi has been considered as one of the most famous thinkers in political science in the middle ages. His original work influenced the development of this science, together with the science of sociology, which was further developed later on by Ibn Khaldun. [Adapted from Personalities Noble]

Books from Alibris: Ali ibn Muhammad al-Mawardi

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)

Sierra Club

Quotation

It is necessary for him who lays out a state and arranges laws for it to presuppose that all men are evil and that they are always going to act according to the wickedness of their spirits whenever they have free scope.

Books

Please browse our Amazon list of titles about Machiavelli. For rare and hard to find works we recommend our Alibris list of titles about Machiavelli.

AlibrisResearch

Lecture: Cicero on the Prince (hypothetical)
Lecture: Machiavelli the Hologram
COPAC UK: Machiavelli
Library of Canada Search Form
Library of Congress: Machiavelli
Other Library Catalogs: Machiavelli

Biographical

Niccolo Machiavelli (May 3, 1469 - June 21, 1527) was the author of The Prince, supposed to be an instruction book for rulers. In it, he advocated the theory that whatever was expedient was good. Machiavelli was born in Florence. From 1494 to 1512 he held an official post at Florence which included diplomatic missions to various European courts. Machiavelli was briefly imprisoned in Florence in 1512, was later exiled and returned to San Casciano. Died in Florence on June 21, 1527.

Introduction

Niccolo Machiavelli was born at Florence on 3rd May 1469. He was the second son of Bernardo di Niccolo Machiavelli, a lawyer of some repute, and of Bartolommea di Stefano Nelli, his wife. Both parents were members of the old Florentine nobility.

His life falls naturally into three periods, each of which singularly enough constitutes a distinct and important era in the history of Florence. His youth was concurrent with the greatness of Florence as an Italian power under the guidance of Lorenzo de' Medici, Il Magnifico. The downfall of the Medici in Florence occurred in 1494, in which year Machiavelli entered the public service. During his official career Florence was free under the government of a Republic, which lasted until 1512, when the Medici returned to power, and Machiavelli lost his office. The Medici again ruled Florence from 1512 until 1527, when they were once more driven out. This was the period of Machiavelli's literary activity and increasing influence; but he died, within a few weeks of the expulsion of the Medici, on 22nd June 1527, in his fifty-eighth year, without having regained office.

Youth

Although there is little recorded of the youth of Machiavelli, the Florence of those days is so well known that the early environment of this representative citizen may be easily imagined. Florence has been described as a city with two opposite currents of life, one directed by the fervent and austere Savonarola, the other by the splendour- loving Lorenzo. Savonarola's influence upon the young Machiavelli must have been slight, for although at one time he wielded immense power over the fortunes of Florence, he only furnished Machiavelli with a subject of a gibe in The Prince, where he is cited as an example of an unarmed prophet who came to a bad end. Whereas the magnificence of the Medicean rule during the life of Lorenzo appeared to have impressed Machiavelli strongly, for he frequently refers to it in his writings, and it is to Lorenzo's grandson that he dedicates The Prince. Machiavelli, in his History of Florence, gives us a picture of the young men among whom his youth was passed. He writes: "They were freer than their forefathers in dress and living, and spent more in other kinds of excesses, consuming their time and money in idleness, gaming, and women; their chief aim was to appear well dressed and to speak with wit and acuteness, whilst he who could wound others the most cleverly was thought the wisest." In a letter to his son Guido, Machiavelli shows why youth should avail itself of its opportunities for study, and leads us to infer that his own youth had been so occupied. He writes: "I have received your letter, which has given me the greatest pleasure, especially because you tell me you are quite restored in health, than which I could have no better news; for if God grant life to you, and to me, I hope to make a good man of you if you are willing to do your share." Then, writing of a new patron, he continues: "This will turn out well for you, but it is necessary for you to study; since, then, you have no longer the excuse of illness, take pains to study letters and music, for you see what honour is done to me for the little skill I have. Therefore, my son, if you wish to please me, and to bring success and honour to yourself, do right and study, because others will help you if you help yourself."

Office

The second period of Machiavelli's life was spent in the service of the free Republic of Florence, which flourished, as stated above, from the expulsion of the Medici in 1494 until their return in 1512. After serving four years in one of the public offices he was appointed Chancellor and Secretary to the Second Chancery, the Ten of Liberty and Peace. Here we are on firm ground when dealing with the events of Machiavelli's life, for during this time he took a leading part in the affairs of the Republic, and we have its decrees, records, and dispatches to guide us, as well as his own writings. A mere recapitulation of a few of his transactions with the statesmen and soldiers of his time gives a fair indication of his activities, and supplies the sources from which he drew the experiences and characters which illustrate The Prince. His first mission was in 1499 to Catherina Sforza, "my lady of Forli" of The Prince, from whose conduct and fate he drew the moral that it is far better to earn the confidence of the people than to rely on fortresses. This is a very noticeable principle in Machiavelli, and is urged by him in many ways as a matter of vital importance to princes. In 1500 he was sent to France to obtain terms from Louis XII for continuing the war against Pisa: this king it was who, in his conduct of affairs in Italy, committed the five capital errors in statecraft summarized in The Prince, and was consequently driven out. He, also, it was who made the dissolution of his marriage a condition of support to Pope Alexander VI; which leads Machiavelli to refer those who urge that such promises should be kept to what he has written concerning the faith of princes. Machiavelli's public life was largely occupied with events arising out of the ambitions of Pope Alexander VI and his son, Cesare Borgia, the Duke Valentino, and these characters fill a large space of The Prince. Machiavelli never hesitates to cite the actions of the duke for the benefit of usurpers who wish to keep the states they have seized; he can, indeed, find no precepts to offer so good as the pattern of Cesare Borgia's conduct, insomuch that Cesare is acclaimed by some critics as the "hero" of The Prince. Yet in The Prince the duke is in point of fact cited as a type of the man who rises on the fortune of others, and falls with them; who takes every course that might be expected from a prudent man but the course which will save him; who is prepared for all eventualities but the one which happens; and who, when all his abilities fail to carry him through, exclaims that it was not his fault, but an extraordinary and unforeseen fatality. On the death of Pius III, in 1503, Machiavelli was sent to Rome to watch the election of his successor, and there he saw Cesare Borgia cheated into allowing the choice of the College to fall on Giuliano delle Rovere (Julius II), who was one of the cardinals that had most reason to fear the duke. Machiavelli, when commenting on this election, says that he who thinks new favours will cause great personages to forget old injuries deceives himself. Julius did not rest until he had ruined Cesare. It was to Julius II that Machiavelli was sent in 1506, when that pontiff was commencing his enterprise against Bologna; which he brought to a successful issue, as he did many of his other adventures, owing chiefly to his impetuous character. It is in reference to Pope Julius that Machiavelli moralizes on the resemblance between Fortune and women, and concludes that it is the bold rather than the cautious man that will win and hold them both. It is impossible to follow here the varying fortunes of the Italian states, which in 1507 were controlled by France, Spain, and Germany, with results that have lasted to our day; we are concerned with those events, and with the three great actors in them, so far only as they impinge on the personality of Machiavelli. He had several meetings with Louis XII of France, and his estimate of that monarch's character has already been alluded to. Machiavelli has painted Ferdinand of Aragon as the man who accomplished great things under the cloak of religion, but who in reality had no mercy, faith, humanity, or integrity; and who, had he allowed himself to be influenced by such motives, would have been ruined. The Emperor Maximilian was one of the most interesting men of the age, and his character has been drawn by many hands; but Machiavelli, who was an envoy at his court in 1507-8, reveals the secret of his many failures when he describes him as a secretive man, without force of character--ignoring the human agencies necessary to carry his schemes into effect, and never insisting on the fulfilment of his wishes. The remaining years of Machiavelli's official career were filled with events arising out of the League of Cambrai, made in 1508 between the three great European powers already mentioned and the pope, with the object of crushing the Venetian Republic. This result was attained in the Battle of Vaila (now usually known as the Battle of Agnadello), when Venice lost in one day all that she had won in eight hundred years. Florence had a difficult part to play during these events, complicated as they were by the feud which broke out between the pope and the French, because friendship with France had dictated the entire policy of the Republic. When, in 1511, Julius II finally formed the Holy League against France, and with the assistance of the Swiss drove the French out of Italy, Florence lay at the mercy of the Pope, and had to submit to his terms, one of which was that the Medici should be restored. The return of the Medici to Florence on 1st September 1512, and the consequent fall of the Republic, was the signal for the dismissal of Machiavelli and his friends, and thus put an end to his public career, for, as we have seen, he died without regaining office.

Literature and Death

On the return of the Medici, Machiavelli, who for a few weeks had vainly hoped to retain his office under the new masters of Florence, was dismissed by decree dated 7th November 1512. Shortly after this he was accused of complicity in an abortive conspiracy against the Medici, imprisoned, and put to the question by torture. The new Medicean people, Leo X, procured his release, and he retired to his small property at San Casciano, near Florence, where he devoted himself to literature. In a letter to Francesco Vettori, dated 13th December 1513, he has left a very interesting description of his life at this period, which elucidates his methods and his motives in writing The Prince. After describing his daily occupations with his family and neighbours, he writes: "The evening being come, I return home and go to my study; at the entrance I pull off my peasant- clothes, covered with dust and dirt, and put on my noble court dress, and thus becomingly re-clothed I pass into the ancient courts of the men of old, where, being lovingly received by them, I am fed with that food which is mine alone; where I do not hesitate to speak with them, and to ask for the reason of their actions, and they in their benignity answer me; and for four hours I feel no weariness, I forget every trouble, poverty does not dismay, death does not terrify me; I am possessed entirely by those great men. And because Dante says: Knowledge doth come of learning well retained, Unfruitful else, I have noted down what I have gained from their conversation, and have composed a small work on 'Principalities,' where I pour myself out as fully as I can in meditation on the subject, discussing what a principality is, what kinds there are, how they can be acquired, how they can be kept, why they are lost: and if any of my fancies ever pleased you, this ought not to displease you: and to a prince, especially to a new one, it should be welcome: therefore I dedicate it to his Magnificence Giuliano. Filippo Casavecchio has seen it; he will be able to tell you what is in it, and of the discourses I have had with him; nevertheless, I am still enriching and polishing it."

The "little book" suffered many vicissitudes before attaining the form in which it has reached us. Various mental influences were at work during its composition; its title and patron were changed; and for some unknown reason it was finally dedicated to Lorenzo de' Medici. Although Machiavelli discussed with Casavecchio whether it should be sent or presented in person to the patron, there is no evidence that Lorenzo ever received or even read it: he certainly never gave Machiavelli any employment. Although it was plagiarized during Machiavelli's lifetime, The Prince was never published by him, and its text is still disputable. Machiavelli concludes his letter to Vettori thus: "And as to this little thing [his book], when it has been read it will be seen that during the fifteen years I have given to the study of statecraft I have neither slept nor idled; and men ought ever to desire to be served by one who has reaped experience at the expense of others. And of my loyalty none could doubt, because having always kept faith I could not now learn how to break it; for he who has been faithful and honest, as I have, cannot change his nature; and my poverty is a witness to my honesty." Before Machiavelli had got The Prince off his hands he commenced his Discourse on the First Decade of Titus Livius, which should be read concurrently with The Prince. These and several minor works occupied him until the year 1518, when he accepted a small commission to look after the affairs of some Florentine merchants at Genoa. In 1519 the Medicean rulers of Florence granted a few political concessions to her citizens, and Machiavelli with others was consulted upon a new constitution under which the Great Council was to be restored; but on one pretext or another it was not promulgated. [This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License and uses material adapted in whole or in part from the Wikipedia article on Niccolo Machiavelli.]


Machiavelli the Hologram
Norm Cameron (Copyright 2005)

I am sure you are not fooled. I am not really Machiavelli. I am a hologram called Hi-Mach constructed by Virtual Savant Inc. My program scans an author's works and produces a simulation of the mind behind those works. Earlier versions of my program have been pirated by a certain large corporation. The holograms projected by those imperfect versions are readily recognizable by the many bugs in their source codes -- detectable by you by the poor grasp they have of the meaning of the Prince.

When I wrote the Prince, I had three related goals in mind.

1): To give a realistic assessment of human nature based on a dispassionate observation of actual human beings. The assessment was rather negative.

2): To claim that the only truly moral principle that makes any sense in a Principality is to maximize happiness.

3): To provide a realistic strategy for maximizing happiness that takes human nature into account.

I realize many of you have concluded that I am evil. I assure you this is not so. Allow me to review for you a little about the temper of the times when I wrote this little work.

I will presume that a few of you are aware of the momentous changes that have occurred in my beautiful city of Florence since you had last visited there 200 years ago under the guidance of that good guide Dante. Many changes occurred in those two centruies between 1314 and 1513 that altered radicallythe ways Italians saw themselves, their Church, and their political institutions. Today you call the shifts that occurred then as the Renaissance. And indeed it was, for us, a rebirth of Classical Greco-Roman values. We revered the classical scholars. So great and serious was this interest that our Lorenzo the Magnificent reopened the Academy of Plato right here in Florence. This resurgence of classicism brought a corresponding rejection of medieval modes of thought. In Sir Gawain you say a world in which the way one did things the means -- such as the code of chivalry -- was what mattered. The outcome, the ends, were secondary. In our era, this sort of idealism was seen as inpractical, unrealistic, and bad politics. Results matter. The ends -- if they are good are justified by the means -- at least in real world politics. This is a position that Sir Gawain -- and of course the tradition of Christianity on which the chivilric code rests -- would oppose.

In any event - the code of Chivilry, which had not been all that closely adhered to, even at the best of times, was no longer paid even lip service. In practical terms, chivilry and christianity, served the medieval masters well by ensuring that the weak remained totally subjugated to the strong. Feudal masters valued serfs who complained little about having their heads severed.

But, the feudal system broke down. Towns became cities. A mercantile middle class arose that was far from content with remaining in the middle. A parallel situation is emerging now in modern Canada. In 1973 the top 10 % of the population in Canada earned 21 times more than the bottom 10 %. In 1996 the top 10% in Canada earned 304 times the bottom 10%. The rich get richer -- the poor poorer -- in Renaissance Florence, and in modern Canada.

In Florence parronage took the place of fealty -- allegience -- to the Lord -- including allegiance to the Vatican -- the priinciple seat of Christian/chivilric values. With this, thesre is a shift away from theology to economics. The expansion of the state was fueled no longer by the Church but by the mercantile class. Secular values replaced church values. A parallel in modern Canada is the shift today from government to business. Your universities, for example, are increasingly supported by corporations, and less so by public monies. When the source of money shifts so do the values. In my time it was a shift from theology to economics -- money. In your day it is a shift from democracy to profit.

The church, acting perhaps in the spirit of competition with the rising mercantile class, reacted to the economic forces by playing or attempting to play the same temporal game by abandoning their spiritual priorities. Dante in fact documents this in his Inferno where we meet an extraordinary number of priests and popes who reside in Hell for their abandonment of reason and spirituality to serve their appetite. Martin Luther's reaction to this trend was to create an historic schism in Christianity. He nailed his 95 theses to a church gate in Wittenberg only 4 years after I wrote these words!

There can be no greater proof of papal decadence than the fact that the nearer people are to the Roman Church, the head of their religion, the less religious they are. And whoever examines the principles on which that religion is founded, and sees how widely different from those principles its present practice and application are, will judge that her ruin or chastisement is at hand.

You think me evil. Consider this. One of my greatest friends and influences was a man I know you admire -- Leonardo da Vinci. What did I learn from this wonderful man -- this man of wonder? I learned -- as did he -- that as good as the knowledge of the ancients was -- it was second hand. As renaissance men we could, and we should go further. We could learn much more by observing the book of nature! What Leonardo did with water, anatomy, astronomy, I did with human nature, and applied it to the political arena.

This work, the study of nature -- human nature in particular -- marks the beginning of modern science. A belief struture that arose from this work came to be known as Renaissance humanism. Its basic tenet is that a man's worth is determined NOT by his beliefs, his parentage, or his pious words, by by his works! Goodness is judged NOT prior principles, but by outcomes. As scientists, Leonardo and I, freed as we were, from the contraints of prior moral requirements, believed that we could understand and control nature. In my case understanding human nature would allow the control both of individuals and to social groups.

In looking at an individual or a social group it is the outcome, the end, that is important. Where maximum social pleasure is the desired outcome -- and that outcome flowed directly from Renaissance Humanism, it is permissible, in fact necessary to adjust whatever is necessary to adjust to achieve that end. The happiness and security of the many is thus an end that justifies ANY means necessary to achieve it!

How does this work for me? When I think about the good of my people, the mass of Italians, I abandoned those high handed idealistic sentiments parroted by ancient philosophers and hypocritical churchmen in favor of the good that people actually reallly do seek. And what are those? Security, stability, money, and respect! Look into your own soul and deny that it is these values that really drive your modern aspirations. It makes no sense to me at all to try to provide you with these goods through high sounding virtuous platitudes or moralities that are bound to fail in any real world. Those ends are of such importance to me that any means can be used, and the ultimate means that will always ensure the ends I desire is POWER!

Now as a human I can differentiate between what moralists call good means and bad means -- and as a human would prefer the good means. But as a Renaissance Humanist Scientist, I am obliged to select the best means -- meaning the means that achieves my ends. Here is what I say:

It cannot be called virtue to kill one's fellow citizens. To betray one's friends, to be treacherous, merciless, and irreligious; power may be gained by acting in such ways, but not glory…

Cruel deeds may be called 'well committed' (if one may use the word well of that which is evil) when they are committed at once, because they are necessary for establishing one's power, and are not afterwords persisted in, but changed for measures as beneficial as possible to one's subjects.

if a ruler can keep his subjects united and loyal, he should not woirry about incurring a reputation for cruelty, for by punishing a very few he will really be more merciful than those who permit disorders to develop with resultant killings and plunderings. For the latter usually harm a whole community, whereas the executions ordered by a ruler harm only specific indivisuals.

I recognize that in relying exclusively on the Power of the Prince, you may feel that I fail to see the danger that such Power can become an end in itself -- that Power corrupts. It is true. Princes lust for power. Power is an end-in itself -- for the Prince. But a good Price will recognize this and recognize too that his continuity and survival can be assurred only through good outcomes. Most Princes are narrow self interested fools. But, as fools they are also tools -- means to the good end I desire for the many. I care little for their narrow lusts for power and little for them. They are needed tho. And if they wish to survive -- this is their guide.

I maintain now and then that what I advocate is reasonable -- both in means and in ends. Why then am I so reviled???

There are two reasons:

1: I cite Cesare Borgia as an example of a good Prince
2: My unflattering analysis of human nature.

As for Borgia I do not have time here to defend these points in precise detail. But there is a defence and it too is rooted firmly in the notions I outline. Measure Borgia and his actions not as those of a good man, but as an effective tool.

And as for my idealistic critics: You dream about what ought to be. I describe what is -- and attempt to present for you the best outcome that can be obtained with the resources at our disposal.

how men live is so different from how they should live that a ruler who does not do what is generally done, but persists in doing what ought to be done, will undermine his power rather than maintain it If a ruler who wants always to act humanely is surrounded by many unscrupulous men, his downfall is inevitable. Therefore a ruler who wished to maintain his power must be prepared to act immorally when this becomes necessary.

I believe firmly that human nature is guided exclusively by a desire for security, stability, comfort and respect. Those are our desires and we must choose rulers who will satisfy those desires with as little cost in pain and disorder as possible. The personal goals of the Prince need not concern us as long as we achieve ours! Why should we expect our Princes to be driven by principles and virtues that are alien to us!!!

Those of you who are repulsed by what I say are repulsed ot by me but by my message. I have held a mirror to you and shown you for what you really are. You do not like what you see -- you try to kill the messenger.

I admit that I may have a prediliction for negative generalizations about our nature. But, our glory, as humans comes from recognizing and attempting to overcome our limitations -- not by wishing us to fly with the angels.

These clones here will do their best to protect you from the truth of my observations aboyt human nature and human desire. One will agree that I am right, but will not accept that ends count more than means. The other will suggest that my work is but a jest. A jest in bad taste and not very funny at that.

Those who wish for their own reasons to dull the point of my analysis, suggest that it is a satire -- that it is so exaggerated that it must be a joke. That may seem reassuring to you. But it guarantees that you will go to your graves as children and will be pulled there by those who know full well the truth and reality of ahich I speak.

Its essential contribution to modern political thought lies in Machiavelli's assertion of the then revolutionary idea that theological and moral imperatives have no place in the political arena. "It must be understood," Machiavelli avers, "that a prince ... cannot observe all of those virtues for which men are reputed good, because it is often necessary to act against mercy, against faith, against humanity, against frankness, against religion, in order to preserve the state."

Books from Alibris: Machiavelli

Monday, September 10, 2007

Livy (Titus Livius) (59 BCE-17 CE)

Sierra Club

Quotation

Envy, like fire, soars upward. [Lat., Invidiam, tamquam ignem, summa petere.] - from Annales (VIII, 31)

Books

Please browse our Amazon list of titles about Livy. For rare and hard to find works we recommend our Alibris list of titles about Livy.

AlibrisResearch

COPAC UK: Livy
Library of Canada Search Form
Library of Congress: Livy
Other Library Catalogs: Livy

Biographical

A native of Padua on the Po River in northern Italy, Titus Livius (in English-speaking countries, "Livy"), wrote a monumental history of Rome from its founding in 753 B.C. The book's title, Ab Urbe Condita ("From the Founding of the City"), makes Livy's ambition clear, but not his method. He writes in a mixture of annual chronology and narrative - often having to interrupt a story to announce the elections of new Consuls at Rome. Livy was at least acquainted with Augustus, but is often identified with an attachment to the Roman Republic and a desire for its restoration. [This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License and uses material adapted in whole or in part from the Wikipedia article on Livy.]

Books from Alibris: Livy

Stephen Leacock (1869-1944)

Sierra Club

Quotation

Advertising: the science of arresting the human intelligence long enough to get money from it.

Books

Please browse our Amazon list of titles about Stephen Leacock. For rare and hard to find works we recommend our Alibris list of titles about Stephen Leacock.

AlibrisResearch

COPAC UK: Stephen Leacock
Library of Canada: Stephen Leacock
Library of Congress: Stephen Leacock
Other Library Catalogs: Stephen Leacock

Biographical

The following biographical account of Stephen Leacock's life represents a general synthesis of several biographers' work: Ralph Curry's Stephen Leacock: Humorist and Humanist (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1959); Robertson Davies's Stephen Leacock (Canadian Writers, no. 7. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1970. pp. 7-17); James Doyle's Stephen Leacock: The Sage of Orillia (Toronto: ECW Press, 1992); David Legate's Stephen Leacock: A Biography (Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1978).

Stephen Butler Leacock was born on December 30, 1869, at Swanmore, Hampshire, England, the third of a family of eleven children. His parents were Peter Leacock and Agnes Emma Butler. Peter was 18 and Agnes 22 when they were secretly married on New Year's Day in 1867. The Leacocks and the Butlers had had a long-standing friendship and Peter and Agnes had spent holidays together since infancy. Peter was charming and witty but irresponsible and shiftless, Agnes intelligent and polished. The Leacocks and the Butlers were both well-to-do families. The Leacocks were known as a family in the wine trade. Peter's family was comfortably established in their Oak Hill home on the Isle of Wight. The Butlers, of a distinguished background, had lived in their Bury Lodge home in Hampshire for more than 150 years. Agnes's father was an Anglican minister.

From the time of Agnes and Peter's marriage, the couple and their growing family continually moved from one place to another. Peter tried his hand at farming in Maritzburg (South Africa) and again in Kansas but constantly failed. The Leacock family emigrated to Canada in 1876 and settled on a 100-acre farm just a few miles south of Lake Simcoe near the village of Sutton, Ontario. In his unfinished autobiography, The Boy I Left Behind Me, Leacock said that "our farm with its buildings was, I will say, the damnedest place I ever saw" (p. 58). Stephen, and his ten brothers and sisters, had a strenuous life on the farm. He remembered, for example, the stench of the barns and the stables, the one tallow candle to study by at night, and, on winter nights, the freezing cold of the house.

Agnes Leacock was dissatisfied with the school her children attended (School Section No. 3) and decided to teach the children herself until a private tutor, Harry Park, was engaged. Despite the hardships and the financial difficulties, she was determined to give her children the best education possible.

In the fall of 1878, Peter's brother, E.P. Leacock, visited the farm and convinced Peter to go to Manitoba. Agnes, in the meantime, was left behind with the children. In 1881, the eldest children, Jim and Dick, enrolled at Upper Canada College in Toronto, and a year later Stephen followed. Stephen was a better than average student. He even became joint editor and chairman of the Publishing Committee of the school paper, The College Times, from 1886 to1887. Stephen's brothers left the school in 1884. Jim joined the Northwest Mounted Police and Dick went out West to join his uncle E.P. Leacock.

Stephen graduated as Head Boy from Upper Canada College in 1887. He returned to the farm to find that his father was back from the West, penniless and drinking more and more. During the summer, Peter Leacock came across some money and announced that he was leaving again, with no mention of where he was going and when he would be coming back. Peter never came back.

With Stephen's brothers too far away to be of any assistance, Agnes Leacock relied more and more on her third son to provide the strength and support she needed to keep the family going. Even though the family was having a hard time financially, Stephen entered the University of Toronto in the fall of 1887 as a full-time student. Awarded a small scholarship, he studied modern and classical languages as well as literature. He was very diligent in his studying and was able to complete two years of study in one. Because Leacock's mother needed some financial assistance to help raise the eight children still at home, he could not return to the university. In 1888, he enrolled in a three-month training course at the Strathroy Collegiate Institute in western Ontario to qualify for teaching high school. During his training, an event occurred that would remain with him all his life. One day when the principal of the Institute, James Wetherell, was teaching an English lesson, Leacock was asked to take over. He was very good at mimicking people's voices and mannerisms and taught the lesson as if he himself were Wetherell. Everyone laughed but the principal. From this incident Leacock learned a very valuable lesson, "the need for human kindliness as an element in humour" (The Boy I Left Behind Me, p. 160).

After his training, Leacock was able to find a teaching position as a modern-language teacher at Uxbridge High School in Uxbridge, Ontario. In 1889 he was offered a position as junior language master at Upper Canada College. Leacock loved this offer because it would give him a chance to continue his studies, at least on a part-time basis, at the University of Toronto. With the help of his uncle, E.P. Leacock, he was able to find a teacher to replace him at Uxbridge. He taught at Upper Canada College from February 1889 until July 1899. He disliked the limitations of a schoolmaster. He felt that school teaching was "a dead end into which young men were trapped by the initial chance to make what looked like a good salary, but which lost its gloss as middle age approached, so that the aging teacher was a pitiable creature, short of cash and held in low esteem by the community" (Davies, Stephen Leacock, p. 15). Leacock resumed his university studies on a part-time basis and obtained his honours B.A. from the University of Toronto in 1891. He also received a promotion on the staff at Upper Canada College, becoming housemaster.

During the 1890s, Leacock, in order to supplement his income, began submitting articles to various magazines. His first humorous article was published in the Toronto humour magazine Grip in 1894. Leacock continued to publish humorous sketches in many magazines (e.g., the New York periodicals Truth and Life). As a writer, he attained early success.

Leacock's real interest, however, was in the field of economics and political science. While studying on his own, he came across The Theory of the Leisure Class, a book written by Thorstein Veblen. Influenced by this reading, he decided to pursue graduate studies under Veblen and was accepted at the University of Chicago in 1899.

On August 7, 1900, Leacock married Beatrix (Trix) Hamilton. She was the daughter of Colonel R.B. Hamilton, a Toronto businessman, and was also related to the famous Pellatt family of Toronto. Beatrix spent many summers at her family's cottage on Lake Simcoe near Leacock's. Since the mid-1890s, Leacock had spent most of his summers in Orillia where his mother had bought a house. At the time of their marriage, Beatrix was an aspiring professional actress.

In his third year at the University of Chicago, Leacock accepted a position at McGill University as a special lecturer in political science and history. In 1903 he finished his dissertation "The Doctrine of Laissez-faire" and received his Ph.D. magna cum laude. Leacock believed that "the meaning of this degree [was] that the recipient of instruction is examined for the last time in his life, and is pronounced completely full. After this, no new ideas can be imparted to him" ("Preface" in Sunshine Sketches of a Little Town, p. IX). He was hoping to teach at the University of Toronto but it was not meant to be. Instead, he obtained a position as a full-time assistant professor at McGill University in 190?.

Leacock began public lecturing in 1905. He gave six lectures, primarily on the subject of the British Empire, under the patronage of the May Court Club. In 1906 his first book, Elements of Political Science, was published. It became a standard university textbook for 20 years and was translated into 19 languages. Elements of Political Science was Leacock's most profitable book during his lifetime. In 1907, Earl Grey, Canada's Governor General, asked Leacock to do a lecture tour on behalf of the Cecil Rhodes Trust. Leacock took a one-year leave of absence from McGill and undertook a speaking tour of the British Empire to promote imperial unity.

Leacock was appointed to full professor at McGill University in 1908. He was also appointed William Dow Professor of Political Economy and chair of the Department of Economics and Political Science. He held this position until his retirement 30 years later. With a group of eleven colleagues he founded the University Club of Montreal. In the spring of the same year he bought 33 acres of waterfront property a few miles from Orillia on the southwest side of Lake Couchiching. He called this property "The Old Brewery Bay."

With the financial assistance of his brother George, Leacock published in 1910 his first humorous book, Literary Lapses, which was a compilation of his best previously published writings. The book sold out quickly. John Lane, a British publisher, loved the book so much that he bought the rights to publish it. Literary Lapses helped propel Leacock to become known as one of the most sought-after authors in the English-speaking world. In 1911 Leacock followed up his success with Nonsense Novels, parodies of some of the most popular genres of literature. With his growing success, he bought a house in Montreal near the University, which was situated at the top of Côte-des-Neiges Road.

In 1912 Leacock published his literary masterpiece, Sunshine Sketches of a Little Town. This book, based partly on his many summers spent in Orillia and on his own childhood experiences, was very popular in Canada, the United States, and England. Two years later, he published Arcadian Adventures With The Idle Rich, in which he sharply satirized city life. These two books "suggest Leacock's preference for the 'home town' he freely chose to spend his idyllic summers in, over the city to which he was committed out of professional necessity" (A Critical Edition - Sunshine Sketches of a Little Town, pp. 154-155).

On the academic side, Leacock, with the help of Dr. J.C. Hemmeon, a departmental associate, founded in 1913 the Political Economy Club at McGill University. On August 19, 1915, Leacock's only child, Stephen Lushington, was born. Even with his son's birth, Leacock did not lighten his workload. He continued doing speaking tours in Canada and the United States, where he read from some of his most popular publications to raise money for the Belgian Relief Fund.

He published, for example, Further Foolishness and Essays and Literary Studies in 1916. In 1921 he was a founding member of the Canadian Authors' Association. In the same year he also gave a series of speeches in the United Kingdom. In 1922 he published My Discovery of England, which is considered to be one of his best books.

In the meantime, Beatrix was diagnosed with advanced breast cancer. Leacock did not want to admit defeat and took her to see a specialist, Dr. Blair Bell, in Liverpool, England. Unfortunately, nothing could be done for her and her health deteriorated. Beatrix died on December 15, 1925. Following her death, Leacock contributed generously to cancer research and committed himself to fundraising drives. He also spoke whenever he could on the subject of cancer. He kept his sorrow private and returned to his routine of writing, teaching, and public speaking. He took a great interest in his son's glandular malfunction, which caused the boy to be undersized for his age. Until the end of his life, Leacock was excessively concerned about his son.

In 1927, Leacock invited his niece, Barbara Ulrichson, to be a kind of secretary-housekeeper for him in Montreal and to help look after his son. She held this position until 1937, when she married Donald Nimmo. She eventually became Leacock's literary executor. There was also another friendship that was important to Leacock: Mrs. H.T. (Fitz) Shaw. She had been a close intimate of Beatrix. Even after Beatrix's death, Leacock remained close friends with Mrs. Shaw for many years, greatly valuing her opinions.

In 1928, the cottage at Old Brewery Bay was demolished and Leacock replaced it with a 19-room summer house which included a wine cellar and a billiard room. This house now serves as a museum: the Stephen Leacock Memorial Home.

In the 1930s, Leacock wrote more and spoke more on economics and political issues, publishing in the spring of 1930 Economic Prosperity in the British Empire.

Leacock wrote two biographies of which he was proud: Mark Twain, published in 1932 and Charles Dickens, His Life and Work, in 1933. In 1935, he published Humour: Its Theory and Technique. Leacock loved experimenting and, in 1934, he tried the radio as a new medium for reaching a wider audience. This venture was not successful. He realized that what worked for him when reading his work or giving speeches did not work over the radio.

In 1934, his beloved mother, Agnes Leacock, died. A few years later, on May 31, 1936, because of compulsory retirement at the age of 65, Leacock retired from teaching at McGill University. Not ready for retirement, he put up a fight, but the board of governors would not budge on their decision. Despite his forced retirement, other universities were more than willing to hire him, but he decided to concentrate on his literary career. The years following his retirement were his busiest yet. During the fall of 1936 Leacock went on his last speaking tour, which was in the west of Canada. Through the compilation of notes and speeches made on this month-long journey, he published My Discovery of the West: A Discussion of East and West in Canada, for which he won the Governor General's Award. In the ensuing years, Leacock wrote books on many Canadian topics, including Canada: The Foundations of Its Future (1941); Montreal: Seaport and City (1942); and Canada and the Sea (1944).

Stephen Leacock Jr. graduated from McGill University with a B.A. in 1940. In the same year, Leacock's father died. Peter Leacock, who had left his family in 1887, had never tried to have contact again with his wife or children. He eventually went to the maritime provinces and changed his name to Lewis, settling in Nova Scotia's south shore with his common-law wife.

Leacock published My Remarkable Uncle in 1942. The title sketch was based on his father's brother, E.P. Leacock, for whom Leacock held a fascination during his childhood. In the fall of 1943, Leacock started to work on his autobiography and on another book posthumously published as, Last Leaves. Unfortunately, his health was beginning to fail. He was soon diagnosed with throat cancer. He died on March 28, 1944, in a Toronto hospital. In 1945, two of his books were published: Last Leaves and While There Is Time: The Case Against Social Catastrophe. His unfinished autobiography, The Boy I Left Behind Me, was published in 1946.

Postscript

The "Stephen Leacock Medal for Humour" has been awarded yearly since 1947 to the best humorous book by a Canadian author. A decade after Leacock's death, McGill University named the new addition to the Old Arts building after him. Moreover, the university established a Leacock Room in the Redpath Library. In March 1956, there was a hotel named after him, Stephen Leacock Hotel, on the lakeshore at Couchiching Beach Park. The following year, the town of Orillia purchased the Stephen Leacock home for $25 000. On July 5, 1958, the Stephen Leacock Memorial Home was opened to the public and declared a historic site.

In June 1968, Stephen Leacock's home at Old Brewery Bay was declared a national monument by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. To mark the centenary of Leacock's birth the Government of Canada, issued on November 12, 1969, a six-cent stamp in his honour. A month later, a 150-acre park on the northeast shore of Lake Simcoe was named after Stephen Leacock. In May 1970, the Government of Ontario organized a commemorative ceremony at Swanmore, Hampshire, and a plaque was placed on the house where Leacock was born. A few months later, a mountain in the Yukon's Saint Elias range was named after him. Swanmore Hall was opened on June 17, 1994, not only as a center of archival research but also as a center for visitors. The same year, on June 26, the Old Brewery Bay was designated as a National Historic Site by the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board. In 1998, 94 years after its submission to the University of Chicago, Leacock's Ph.D. dissertation, "The Doctrine of Laissez-faire," was published by the University of Toronto Press. [Reproduced from the National Library of Canada's Website]

Books from Alibris: Stephen Leacock