usu studies 1320 civilizations humanities … studies 1320 civilizations humanities western...
TRANSCRIPT
1
USU STUDIES 1320 CIVILIZATIONS HUMANITIES
Western Civilization Utah State University IVC
Spring 2013
John D. Barton, Principal Lecturer
Phone (435) 722-1734
Fax: 435-722-5678
987 E. Lagoon St. 124-9
Roosevelt, UT. 84066
E-mail: [email protected]
Hi. My name is John D. Barton, and I am your instructor for this course of Western Civilizations. I find
our Western society, culture and civilization so interesting and hope that you come to share that interest. I
want you to succeed in this course of study and also want to make myself available to you. Please write,
call, or e-mail me at the above addresses with concerns or questions. Do not assume, due to distance
between student and professor, that I am unavailable or uncaring. For out-of-class communication e-mail
is the method of communication that I recommend either directly on blackboard’s e-mail or with the above
address. I check my e-mail every day that I am in my office and will respond promptly. When you do
contact me please give me your name and the course (USU 1320) you are in. I frequently have students
contact me saying, “I am in your history class.” Since I don’t teach math or biology that is logical, but I
teach several history courses and work with some two-hundred students per semester. Help me help you.
If you have changed your name during the semester and it is different than what you are registered under,
please send assignments in with the name on Canvas class roll rather than a new married name or a nick
name.
Course Objectives: This Utah State University Studies course fills the General Education Humanities
requirement for Civilization. The purpose of this course is to explore a civilization and culture and learn
about the commonality of the human experience, gain understanding of cultures and the interaction of
differing cultures, and deepen your appreciation of lifestyles in other times and places, and to understand
our Western Civilization and Culture. We will also focus on historical methodology, critical thinking, and
analysis.
Required Texts: Marvin Perry, Western Civilization: A Brief History, 10
th Edition. ISBN: 978-1-111-83719-8
Frederic Bastiat, The Law: The Classic Blueprint for a Free Society, ISBN: 978-1-57246-214-4
Extended Syllabus Documents 1 – 37, referred below as D1, D2, etc. found on pages 8 - 74 in the appendix
of this syllabus.
2
Meeting and Reading Schedule: Tuesday 5:15 – 7:45
Note: Exams will be out of class taken on Canvas. Each student is expected to read the material (chapter
and documents) prior to the date so they can participate in discussion.
Jan. 8
th Intro. Introduction to Western Civilizations, Syllabus. Chapter 1. Ancient Near East:
Jan. 15th
Chapter 2. The Hebrews and D1 Hammurabi: Code of Laws. D2. The Call of Abraham, D3. The Ten Commandments.
Jan 22th
Chapter 3. The Greeks D4. Plato: Allegory of the Cave, D5 Aristotle: The Politics.
Jan. 29th
Chapter 4. Rome, D6. The Twelve Tables, D9 Tacitus The End of the Roman Republic Chapter 5. Early Christianity
D7 The Beatitudes, D8 The Resurrection of Christ,
Feb. 5th
Exam 1. Chapters 1 – 5 Test available Feb. 7 - 9. Chapter 6. Rise of Europe, D10 Eusebius: The Conversion of
Constantine, D11 The Nicene Creed. Chapter 7. Medieval Civilizations D12 The Qur’an 1, 47. D13 Valentian: Papal Power
D16 The Magna Carta, D18 Urban II: Speech at Clermont.
Feb. 12th
Chapter 8. Rise of Modernity: Renaissance to Enlightenment. D19 Machiavelli: The Prince, D20 Martin Luther,
D21 Columbus, D22 The Crime of Galileo.
Feb. 19th
No Class Monday Schedule
Feb. 26th
Chapter 9. Political and Economic Transformations. D23 Deism, D24 Rousseau: The Social Contract.
March 5th
Exam 2. Chapters 6 – 10, test available March 7 - 9. Chapter 10. Intellectual Transformations: D25 Newton:
Natural Philosophy. Chapter 11. French Revolution. D26 The Declaration of Independence, D27 Bill of Rights.
March 12th
Spring Break No Class
March 19th
Chapter 12. Industrial Revolution. Chapter 13. Thought and Culture. Chapter 14. Liberalism, Nationalism,
Unification. D28 Marx: The Communist Manifesto,
March 26th
Chapter 15. Thought and Culture in the Mid-Nineteenth Century: D30 Darwin: Origin of Species and Descent
of Man. Chapter 16. Europe in the Late Nineteenth Century
April 2nd
Exam 3. Chapters 11 – 17 test available April 4 - 6. Chapter 17. Modern Consciousness D31 Freud: The Structure
of Unconscious.
April 9th
Essay on The Law Due Chapter 18. W.W. I, D32 The 25 Points: An Early Nazi Program, D33 Himmler speech.
April 16th
Last Day of Class: Chapter 19. Totalitarianism, Chapter 20. World War II. D35God is Dead
April 23rd
Reading Journal Due. Chapter 21. Europe After World War II, Chapter 22. The Troubled Present, D34
Charter of the United Nations. D36 Eisenhower: Military-Industrial Speech, D37 Habeck: Jihadist Strategies.
Exam 4 Chapters 11 – 22, test available April 29 – May 1.
3
Reading and Thinking History:
One of the most significant factors in history is the ability to critically think about the material that you
read and study from. Get familiar with the following questions that should be applied to the books,
articles, and documents that you read for this class. As you do so you may notice that you start applying
the same evaluation to many other things in your life such as the news, or commentary, politics and
politicians, even the movies we watch. No longer do we simply take everything at face value. We
question and analyze what we see and hear. This leads us to make our own interpretations on life not
blindly accepting those that some want to share with you. This doesn’t make us jaded and cynical about
life, just the opposite. We find life filled with a million questions that need to be answered: Why did that
occur? How did that come about? Where did you get that information? Why are you telling me this?
What is the real motive here? How does this relate to ...?
How to read Historic Documents: (Primary or secondary documents).
The major factors in reading and analyzing documents are to question:
1. What was the primary purpose or motive of the author in writing this document? Secondary purpose?
2. Who was the intended audience?
3. What are the author’s biases?
4. What did this document evidence from the time or era? How is this document relevant to gaining an
understanding of the contemporary times and people?
5. What did this document mean in a larger scale of the times? To future generations? To us presently?
Does this document assist us in understanding the human experience? How?
6. Often to understand a document we need to gain an understanding of the history of the time and place to
evaluate the document fairly and accurately. Then we can assess if it is consistent with what is generally
assumed about the time, if it is not, how accurate is it? Why does it contradict what is thought?
Remember History is a series of arguments to be debated not merely a body of facts to be
memorized, therefore, if a document does not agree with other contemporary documents we do not
necessarily throw it out, but carefully analyze it and advance an arguments based on reasonable thought.
7. One of the hardest parts of reading a document is recognizing our own bias. We cannot judge the past
by present standards or our own belief and value system. Are we maintaining objectivity or subjecting the
document to a view colored by our own experience and thoughts that may not be reflective of the time or
place?
As we seek answers to these questions, we then interpret or advance arguments about the significance and
relevance of the document. This is the beginning of critical thinking and analysis, which are key elements
in understanding history.
Good writing is expected on all assignments and the format for writing and annotation of history should
collegiate parenthetical annotation. Include an introduction with a clearly stated thesis. The body of your
paper/essay comes next and should include the narrative of events and your evidence and interpretations of
arguments. Your arguments should be based on evidence not merely your opinion. One on the main points
of college writing is forming informed arguments based on researched evidence and analysis of that
evidence. Use of documents to evidence your arguments is required. The final part of your paper is the
conclusion. This is not the place to introduce new evidence or arguments but to sum up those already
outlined in the body of your paper. Formal writing is expected on all assignments except the reading
4
essays. In formal writing avoid contractions, first and second person pronouns, colloquial expressions and
slang, etc. Students commonly add “I think” or “I feel” to preface statements. This is poor form. First you
had to think it to write it, so it is redundant, and secondly, it weakens your point.
Plagiarism: In historical writing it is acceptable to use information from other people’s work. In fact, most
of the information you will use to write about in your assignments will come from your readings.
However, if you do not cite it in your paper you are stealing others’ ideas. This is a form of theft as
insidious as identity or credit card theft. ANY IDEA, NUMBERS, RESEARCH, WORDS (PARTS OF OR
WHOLE SENTENCES, PARAGRAPHS, PAGES), ETC. THAT DOES NOT ORIGINATE FROM
YOUR MIND, IF NOT SITED TO GIVE CREDIT TO THE SOURCE, IS PLAGIARISM Cite your
sources in all assignments. If the idea did not originate in your mind you owe someone credit for it.
Points will be subtracted from any assignment with the sources not cited. If it is blatant plagiarism severe
penalties will result. For further information on plagiarism see section below.
Tests and Assignments: (For due dates on each of these assignments see the class schedule above).
1. Exams: There will four exams in the class. These are section exams and will include
identification, mapping, and essay questions. 100 points each, total 400 points.
2. Reading Journal: In lieu of pop quizzes or reading quizzes, each student will read and outline each
chapter (1 – 22) in the text Western Civilization. Each Chapter outline should be approximately 1 –
2 pages in length and include: outline of the chapter and a critical response to all of or any part of
the chapter addressing: How is the chapter relevant to us presently? All Journals must be typed.
See questions in Reading and Thinking History above. Worth 200 points.
3. Essay: 100 points possible. This paper should be typed, double spaced with regular 1" margins, and
6 to 8 pages in length. Using the book, The Law, as your source material, write an essay on the
importance of a society based on law and what the greatest threats are to liberty. Editing: What to look
for in editing your paper: (This is the criteria used to grade the paper).
a. Clearly stated thesis and arguments. Is the argument logical? Supported by the document?
b. Is the paper in good form with introduction, body, and conclusion?
c. Are the requirements of the paper met? Length? Conventions of writing?
d. Sources: are the sources cited?
e. Conventions of writing: Punctuation, grammar, spelling, tone, flow, etc.
4. Discussion posts from primary documents, readings and lecture. Each student is expected to read
the documents and chapters in preparation for discussions. Some discussions will take place in
class, however, each student is expected to contribute to discussions on the Canvas Discussion
Board. There are 15 weeks in the semester and there are 5 points per week possible for discussion
posts. You should post a brief discussion on each document, anything you wish to add about the
chapter, lecture, or other student’s postings. Students are encouraged to respond to each other, as
well as the material. Please be kind and respectful, but remember history is about advancing
arguments about the significance of history. 75 points from postings plus 25 for class attendance
total:100 points possible.
5
Grades will be determined from the following criteria:
Exams 400 points possible
Reading Journal 200 points possible
Essay 100 points possible
Discussion and attendance 100 points possible
Total 800 points possible.
Grades are then figured on a percentage basis.
University Grading Scale
A 100-93% A- 92-90% B+ 89-87% B 86-83% B- 82-80% C+ 79-77% C 76-73% C- 72-
70% D 69-60% F 59% and below.
Classroom Civility: Each student is expected to be considerate of fellow students and the instructor, and
assist in making the classroom a non-threatening experience for all. Rude behavior, vulgar expressions,
mocking questions and mannerisms, profanity, lack of courtesy, etc. will not be tolerated. Cell phones and
beepers or pagers should be turned off during class time except for emergency medical personnel.
Academic Honesty- Each student is expected to maintain high standards of academic honesty. Acts of
academic dishonesty which include: cheating of any kind, falsification of work, or plagiarism (trying to
pass someone else’s work off as your own) will result in a failing grade and potentially further action by
the standards office. For further information see the USU undergraduate handbook.
Add/Drop: Every term students try to change their schedules without completing the necessary paperwork.
Entry into any class after the scheduled registration time has passed requires an add card being completed.
Adds can only be done through the third week of class. To withdraw from any class you must complete a
drop card with the front desk. If you do not do so, you will receive a failing grade and still be financially
responsible for the course. The only exceptions after the drop period are medical or family emergencies
and a petition for a late drop form must be completed and approved by the Dean of Continuing Education.
Incomplete grades are solely up to the instructor and are only considered if there are extenuating
circumstances prohibiting a student’s completion of the course; poor performance in class is not an
extenuating circumstance according to the USU Undergraduate Catalogue. I will consider an incomplete
grade if the following criteria are met:
1. A significant percentage of the total course work is successfully completed
(approximately 50%).
2. There is a genuine emergency that prohibits completion of the course during the
semester. Such emergencies include: medical, family, employment. Documentation of
such emergencies may be required.
Late Assignments. Assignments are due on the date shown, no specific time of day. The instructor
reserves the right to refuse to award credit for any late assignments. I will accept a late assignment if there
is a valid reason. For a student to be given credit for a late assignment a written explanation must
accompany the assignment as a preface to the assignment (even if I approve a late assignment on the
phone or by e-mail, you still must add an explanation to the assignment. I work with over 200 students
6
per semester and simply do not remember the specific details for each student). I will evaluate the validity
of the reason, perhaps ask for documentation or further explanation, and make a determination if the
assignment will be accepted for full credit, partial credit, or rejected. If you know you have a conflict
with a due date and make prior arraignments with me I will always work to create an alternative due date.
It is important that each student assume responsibility for their own success. The largest single factor in
most of the failing grades I give is from missed assignments. If your circumstances make it necessary for
you to miss class the day an assignment is due it is your job to clear an alternate date with me.
Assignments may always be turned in early. Valid factors for late work include work, family, or medical
emergency. Documentation of such emergencies may be required.
Academic Freedom and Professional Responsibilities (Faculty Code)
Academic freedom is the right to teach, study, discuss, investigate, discover, create, and publish freely.
Academic freedom protects the rights of faculty members in teaching and of students in learning. Freedom
in research is fundamental to the advancement of truth. Faculty members are entitled to full freedom in
teaching, research, and creative activities, subject to the limitations imposed by professional responsibility.
Faculty Code Policy #403 further defines academic freedom and professional responsibilities:
Academic Integrity - "The Honor System" Each student has the right and duty to pursue his or her
academic experience free of dishonesty. The Honor System is designed to establish the higher level of
conduct expected and required of all Utah State University students.
The Honor Pledge: To enhance the learning environment at Utah State University and to develop student
academic integrity, each student agrees to the following Honor Pledge: "I pledge, on my honor, to conduct
myself with the foremost level of academic integrity." A student who lives by the Honor Pledge is a student
who does more than not cheat, falsify, or plagiarize. A student who lives by the Honor Pledge:1. Espouses
academic integrity as an underlying and essential principle of the Utah State University community;
2. Understands that each act of academic dishonesty devalues every degree that is awarded by this
institution; and
3. Is a welcomed and valued member of Utah State University.
Grievance Process (Student Code)
Students who feel they have been unfairly treated [in matters other than (i) discipline or (ii) admission,
residency, employment, traffic, and parking - which are addressed by procedures separate and independent
from the Student Code] may file a grievance through the channels and procedures described in the Student
Code:
Plagiarism
Plagiarism includes knowingly "representing, by paraphrase or direct quotation, the published or
unpublished work of another person as one's own in any academic exercise or activity without full and
clear acknowledgment. It also includes the unacknowledged used of materials prepared by another person
or agency engaged in the selling of term papers or other academic materials." The penalties for plagiarism
are severe. They include warning or reprimand, grade adjustment, probation, suspension, expulsion,
withholding of transcripts, denial or revocation of degrees, and referral to psychological counseling.
7
Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment is defined by the Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as
any "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a
sexual nature." If you feel you are a victim of sexual harassment, you may talk to or file a complaint with
the Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity Office located in Old Main, Room 161, or call the
AA/EEO Office at 797-1266.
Students with Disabilities:
The Americans with Disabilities Act states: "Reasonable accommodation will be provided for all persons
with disabilities in order to ensure equal participation within the program. If a student has a disability that
will likely require some accommodation by the instructor, the student must contact the instructor and
document the disability through the Disability Resource Center (797-2444), preferably during the first
week of the course. Any request for special consideration relating to attendance, pedagogy, taking of
examinations, etc., must be discussed with and approved by the instructor. In cooperation with the
Disability Resource Center, course materials can be provided in alternative format, large print, audio,
diskette, or Braille."
8
Appendix Readings for USU 1320 Humanities
Civilization John D. Barton
Principal Lecturer Utah State University
The texts below are part of the Internet Modern History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain
and copy-permitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history. Further text preparation
and editing done by John D. Barton.
1. HAMMURABI'S CODE OF LAWS (Circa 1780 B.C.)
Translated by L. W. King
Questions for this document: Why is this significant? How was the law consistent for all people? How does it compare
with other early law codes such as the Ten Commandments? What do we learn of division of labor and class? What is
missing from this law code?
When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land,
assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great
among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom
in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me,
Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the
wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed
people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.
CODE OF LAWS
1. If anyone ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he cannot prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to
death.
9
2. If anyone bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the
river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape
unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take
possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.
3. If anyone bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be
a capital offense charged, be put to death.
6. If anyone steal the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death, and also the one who receives the
stolen thing from him shall be put to death.
7. If anyone buy from the son or the slave of another man, without witnesses or a contract, silver or gold, a male or
female slave, an ox or a sheep, an ass or anything, or if he take it in charge, he is considered a thief and shall be put to
death.
8. If anyone steal cattle or sheep, or an ass, or a pig or a goat, if it belong to a god or to the court, the thief shall pay
thirtyfold therefor; if they belonged to a freed man of the king he shall pay tenfold; if the thief has nothing with which to
pay he shall be put to death.
17. If anyone find runaway male or female slaves in the open country and bring them to their masters, the master of the
slaves shall pay him two shekels of silver.
22. If anyone is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death.
25. If fire break out in a house, and someone who comes to put it out cast his eye upon the property of the owner of the
house, and take the property of the master of the house, he shall be thrown into that self-same fire.
45. If a man rent his field for tillage for a fixed rental, and receive the rent of his field, but bad weather come and destroy
the harvest, the injury falls upon the tiller of the soil.
55. If anyone open his ditches to water his crop, but is careless, and the water flood the field of his neighbor, then he
shall pay his neighbor corn for his loss.
57. If a shepherd, without the permission of the owner of the field, and without the knowledge of the owner of the sheep,
lets the sheep into a field to graze, then the owner of the field shall harvest his crop, and the shepherd, who had pastured
his flock there without permission of the owner of the field, shall pay to the owner twenty gur of corn for every ten gan.
64. If any one hand over his garden to a gardener to work, the gardener shall pay to its owner two-thirds of the produce
of the garden, for so long as he has it in possession, and the other third shall he keep.
102. If a merchant entrust money to an agent (broker) for some investment, and the broker suffer a loss in the place to
which he goes, he shall make good the capital to the merchant.
108. If a tavern-keeper (feminine) does not accept corn according to gross weight in payment of drink, but takes money,
and the price of the drink is less than that of the corn, she shall be convicted and thrown into the water.
10
112. If anyone be on a journey and entrust silver, gold, precious stones, or any movable property to another, and wish to
recover it from him; if the latter do not bring all of the property to the appointed place, but appropriate it to his own use,
then shall this man, who did not bring the property to hand it over, be convicted, and he shall pay fivefold for all that had
been entrusted to him.
117. If anyone fail to meet a claim for debt, and sell himself, his wife, his son, and daughter for money or give them
away to forced labor: they shall work for three years in the house of the man who bought them, or the proprietor, and in
the fourth year they shall be set free.
122. If anyone give another silver, gold, or anything else to keep, he shall show everything to some witness, draw up a
contract, and then hand it over for safe keeping.
128. If a man take a woman to wife, but have no intercourse with her, this woman is no wife to him.
129. If a man's wife be surprised (in flagrante delicto) with another man, both shall be tied and thrown into the water, but
the husband may pardon his wife and the king his slaves.
130. If a man violate the wife (betrothed or child-wife) of another man, who has never known a man, and still lives in her
father's house, and sleep with her and be surprised, this man shall be put to death, but the wife is blameless.
137. If a man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children:
then he shall give that wife her dowry, and a part of the usufruct of field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her
children. When she has brought up her children, a portion of all that is given to the children, equal as that of one son,
shall be given to her. She may then marry the man of her heart.
138. If a man wishes to separate from his wife who has borne him no children, he shall give her the amount of her
purchase money and the dowry which she brought from her father's house, and let her go.
146. If a man take a wife and she give this man a maid-servant as wife and she bear him children, and then this maid
assume equality with the wife: because she has borne him children her master shall not sell her for money, but he may
keep her as a slave, reckoning her among the maid-servants.
153. If the wife of one man on account of another man has their mates (her husband and the other man's wife) murdered,
both of them shall be impaled.
154. If a man be guilty of incest with his daughter, he shall be driven from the place (exiled).
157. If anyone be guilty of incest with his mother after his father, both shall be burned.
194. If a man give his child to a nurse and the child die in her hands, but the nurse unbeknown to the father and mother
nurse another child, then they shall convict her of having nursed another child without the knowledge of the father and
mother and her breasts shall be cut off.
195. If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off.
196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.
11
197. If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken.
198. If he put out the eye of a freed man, or break the bone of a freed man, he shall pay one gold mina.
199. If he put out the eye of a man's slave, or break the bone of a man's slave, he shall pay one-half of its value.
200. If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out.
201. If he knock out the teeth of a freed man, he shall pay one-third of a gold mina.
202. If any one strike the body of a man higher in rank than he, he shall receive sixty blows with an ox-whip in public.
206. If during a quarrel one man strike another and wound him, then he shall swear, "I did not injure him wittingly," and
pay the physicians.
207. If the man die of his wound, he shall swear similarly, and if he (the deceased) was a free-born man, he shall pay half
a mina in money.
208. If he was a freed man, he shall pay one-third of a mina.
209. If a man strike a free-born woman so that she lose her unborn child, he shall pay ten shekels for her loss.
210. If the woman die, his daughter shall be put to death.
211. If a woman of the free class lose her child by a blow, he shall pay five shekels in money.
212. If this woman die, he shall pay half a mina.
215. If a physician make a large incision with an operating knife and cure it, or if he open a tumor (over the eye) with an
operating knife, and saves the eye, he shall receive ten shekels in money.
216. If the patient be a freed man, he receives five shekels.
218. If a physician make a large incision with the operating knife, and kill him, or open a tumor with the operating knife,
and cut out the eye, his hands shall be cut off.
229 If a builder build a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and
kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.
235. If a shipbuilder build a boat for someone, and do not make it tight, if during that same year that boat is sent away
and suffers injury, the shipbuilder shall take the boat apart and put it together tight at his own expense. The tight boat he
shall give to the boat owner.
236. If a man rent his boat to a sailor, and the sailor is careless, and the boat is wrecked or goes aground, the sailor shall
give the owner of the boat another boat as compensation.
242. If anyone hire oxen for a year, he shall pay four gur of corn for plow-oxen.
12
244. If anyone hire an ox or an ass, and a lion kill it in the field, the loss is upon its owner.
245. If anyone hire oxen, and kill them by bad treatment or blows, he shall compensate the owner, oxen for oxen.
249. If anyone hire an ox, and God strike it that it die, the man who hired it shall swear by God and be considered
guiltless.
252. If he kill a man's slave, he shall pay one-third of a mina.
257. If anyone hire a field laborer, he shall pay him eight gur of corn per year.
258. If anyone hire an ox-driver, he shall pay him six gur of corn per year.
259. If anyone steal a water-wheel from the field, he shall pay five shekels in money to its owner.
2. The Call of Abraham Gen. 12
Questions: What people claim Abraham as their father? Why is the Abrahamic Covenant so significant in today’s
world? What land was promised Abraham? Has this led to peace or conflict?
1 The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will
show you.
2 "I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.
3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you."
4 So Abram left, as the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he set out
from Haran. 5 He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated and the people they had
acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan, and they arrived there.
6 Abram traveled through the land as far as the site of the great tree of Moreh at Shechem. At that time the Canaanites
were in the land. 7 The LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring I will give this land." So he built an altar
there to the LORD, who had appeared to him.
3. Exodus 20 (The Ten Commandments)
Questions: How are the 10 Commandments different than Hammurabi’s Code? How are they significant today?
And God spoke all these words: I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
13
1. You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the
waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God,
punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but
showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.
3. You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who
misuses his name.
4. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh
day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter,
nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the
LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.
Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or
maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
4. PLATO: THE ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE
Questions: What can we learn of life from this allegory? What was the level of character of the people bound in the
cave? Why/how is it pertinent for all people regardless of their level of education and understanding? Why did later
Christians consider Plato a “Pre-Christian Saint?”
Compare our nature in respect to education with our condition. Imagine men in an underground cave with an entrance
open toward the light which extends through the whole cave. Within the cave are people who from childhood have had
chains on their legs and their necks so they could only look forward but not turn their heads. There is burning a fire,
above and behind them, and between the fire and the chains is a road above, along which one may see a little wall built
along, just as the stages of conjurers are built before the people in whose presence they show their tricks. . . . Imagine
then by the side of this little wall men carrying all sorts of machines rising above the wall, and statues of men and other
animals wrought in stone, wood, and other materials, some of bearers probably speaking, others proceeding in silenced. .
. . [Do you think] that such as these [chained men] would have seen anything else of themselves or one another except
the shadows that fall from the fire on the opposite side of the cave? How can they . . . if indeed they are forced to always
keep their heads unmoved? . . . . Such persons would believe that truth was nothing else but the shadows of the
exhibitions. Let us inquire then, as to their liberation from captivity, and their cure for insanity. . . . [What if one of these
chained persons was] let loose and obliged immediately to rise up, and turn round his neck and walk, and look upwards
to the light, and doing all this still feel pained, and be disabled by the dazzling form seeing those things of which he
formerly saw the shadows. What would he say if anyone were to tell him that he formerly saw mere empty visions, but
now saw more correctly, as being nearer to the real thing, and turned toward what was more real. Then, what if you
specially pointing out to him, and made him tell you the nature of what he saw. Do you think that he would be
embarrassed? Do you think that he would think now that what he saw before was truer than what he sees now?
Even if a person could force him to look at the light itself, would he not have pain in his eyes and look away? And then,
would not he turn to what he really could see [without pain] and think that these are really more clear than what had just
been shown to him? But if a person was then to forcibly drag him out of the cave without stopping, until he was in the
light of the sun, would he not be pained and indignant? Would not he, while in this light and having his eyes dazzled
14
with the splendor, be able to see anything that he thought was true? No, he could not, at that moment. He would need to
get some degree of practice if he would see things above him. First, he would most easily perceive the shadows, and then
the images of men and other animals in the water, and after that the things themselves. And then he would more easily
see the things in heaven, and heaven itself, by night, looking to the light of the stars and the moon, than after daylight to
the sun and the light of the sun. How else? Finally, he might be able to perceive and contemplate the nature of the sun,
not as respects its images in water or any other place, but itself by itself in its own proper place.
5. Aristotle: from The Politics, c. 340 BCE
Questions: Are Aristotle’s arguments and observations on Democracy and Government still valid? Do his
criticisms of Democracy fit into our present times?
Book III: He who would inquire into the essence and attributes of various kinds of governments must first of all
determine "What is a state?" A state is composite, like any other whole made up of many parts; these are the citizens,
who compose it. It is evident, therefore, that we must begin by asking, who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the
term? … the citizen whom we are seeking to define is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such exception can
be taken, and his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices. He who has the
power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizen of that state; and,
speaking generally, a state is a body of citizens sufficing for the purposes of life.
This community is the constitution; the virtue of the citizen must therefore be relative to the constitution of which he is a
member. A constitution is the arrangement of magistracies in a state, especially of the highest of all. The government is
everywhere sovereign in the state, and the constitution is in fact the government. For example, in democracies the people
are supreme, but in oligarchies, the few; and, therefore, we say that these two forms of government also are different: and
so in other cases.
First, let us consider what is the purpose of a state, and how many forms of government there are by which human
society is regulated. We have already said, in the first part of this treatise, when discussing household management and
the rule of a master, that man is by nature a political animal. And therefore, men, even when they do not require one
another's help, desire to live together; not but that they are also brought together by their common interests in proportion
as they severally attain to any measure of well-being. This is certainly the chief end, both of individuals and of states.
And also for the sake of mere life (in which there is possibly some noble element so long as the evils of existence do not
greatly overbalance the good) mankind meet together and maintain the political community....
The words constitution and government have the same meaning, and the government, which is the supreme authority in
states, must be in the hands of one, or of a few, or of the many. The true forms of government, therefore, are those in
which the one, or the few, or the many, govern with a view to the common interest; but governments which rule with a
view to the private interest, whether of the one or of the few, or of the many, are perversions. Of forms of government in
which one rules, we call that which regards the common interests, monarchy; that in which more than one, but not many,
rule, aristocracy (and it is so called, either because the rulers are the best men, or because they have at heart the best
interests of the state and of the citizens). But when the citizens at large administer the state for the common interest, the
government is called a polity.
Of the above-mentioned forms, the perversions are as follows: of monarchy, tyranny; of aristocracy, oligarchy; of polity,
democracy. For tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only; oligarchy has in view
the interest of the wealthy; democracy, of the needy: none of them the common good of all. Tyranny, as I was saying, is
monarchy exercising the rule of a master over the political society; oligarchy is when men of property have the
15
government in their hands; democracy, the opposite, when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the
rulers....Then ought the good to rule and have supreme power? But in that case everybody else, being excluded from
power, will be dishonored. For the offices of a state are posts of honor; and if one set of men always holds them, the rest
must be deprived of them. Then will it be well that the one best man should rule? Nay, that is still more oligarchical, for
the number of those who are dishonored is thereby increased....The discussion of the first question shows nothing so
clearly as that laws, when good, should be supreme; and that the magistrate or magistrates should regulate those matters
only on which the laws are unable to speak with precision owing to the difficulty of any general principle embracing all
particulars.
Book VII:
Now it is evident that the form of government is best in which every man, whoever he is, can act best and live
happily....If we are right in our view, and happiness is assumed to be virtuous activity, the active life will be the best,
both for every city collectively, and for individuals. In what remains the first point to be considered is what should be the
conditions of the ideal or perfect state; for the perfect state cannot exist without a due supply of the means of life...In size
and extent it should be such as may enable the inhabitants to live at once temperately and liberally in the enjoyment of
leisure. And so states require property, but property, even though living beings are included in it, is no part of a state; for
a state is not a community of living beings only, but a community of equals, aiming at the best life possible.
Let us then enumerate the functions of a state, and we shall easily elicit what we want: First, there must be food;
secondly, arts, for life requires many instruments; thirdly, there must be arms, for the members of a community have
need of them, and in their own hands, too, in order to maintain authority both against disobedient subjects and against
external assailants; fourthly, there must be a certain amount of revenue, both for internal needs, and for the purposes of
war; fifthly, or rather first, there must be a care of religion which is commonly called worship; sixthly, and most
necessary of all there must be a power of deciding what is for the public interest, and what is just in men's dealings with
one another. These are the services which every state may be said to need. For a state is not a mere aggregate of persons,
but a union of them sufficing for the purposes of life; and if any of these things be wanting, it is as we maintain
impossible that the community can be absolutely self-sufficing. A state then should be framed with a view to the
fulfillment of these functions. There must be farmers to procure food, and artisans, and a warlike and a wealthy class, and
priests, and judges to decide what is necessary and expedient.
Source: From: Thatcher, ed., Vol. II: The Greek World, pp. 364-382; The Politics of Aristotle, trans. Benjamin Jowett,
(New York: Colonial Press, 1900)
6. The Twelve Tables, c. 450 BCE Rome
Questions: Why were these significant then? What do we learn of Roman Culture? Would you like to be
governed under the 12 Tables? How do they compare to Aristotle? Moses? Hammurabi? Which seems the
most advanced? Why?
Cicero, De Oratore, I.44: Though all the world exclaim against me, I will say what I think: that single little book of the
Twelve Tables, if anyone look to the fountains and sources of laws, seems to me, assuredly, to surpass the libraries of all
the philosophers, both in weight of authority, and in plenitude of utility.
Table I.
16
1. If anyone summons a man before the magistrate, he must go. If the man summoned does not go, let the one
summoning him call the bystanders to witness and then take him by force.
2. If he shirks or runs away, let the summoner lay hands on him.
3. If illness or old age is the hindrance, let the summoner provide a team. He need not provide a covered carriage with a
pallet unless he chooses.
4. Let the protector of a landholder be a landholder; for one of the proletariat, let anyone that cares, be protector.
6-9. When the litigants settle their case by compromise, let the magistrate announce it. If they do not compromise, let
them state each his own side of the case, in the comitium of the forum before noon. Afterwards let them talk it out
together, while both are present. After noon, in case either party has failed to appear, let the magistrate pronounce
judgment in favor of the one who is present. If both are present the trial may last until sunset but no later.
Table II.
2. He whose witness has failed to appear may summon him by loud calls before his house every third day.
Table III.
1. One who has confessed a debt, or against whom judgment has been pronounced, shall have thirty days to pay it in.
After that forcible seizure of his person is allowed. The creditor shall bring him before the magistrate. Unless he pays the
amount of the judgment or someone in the presence of the magistrate interferes in his behalf as protector the creditor so
shall take him home and fasten him in stocks or fetters. He shall fasten him with not less than fifteen pounds of weight
or, if he choose, with more. If the prisoner choose, he may furnish his own food. If he does not, the creditor must give
him a pound of meal daily; if he choose he may give him more.
2. On the third market day let them divide his body among them. If they cut more or less than each one's share it shall be
no crime.
3. Against a foreigner the right in property shall be valid forever.
Table IV.
1. A dreadfully deformed child shall be quickly killed.
2. If a father sell his son three times, the son shall be free from his father.
3. As a man has provided in his will in regard to his money and the care of his property, so let it be binding. If he has no
heir and dies intestate, let the nearest agnate have the inheritance. If there is no agnate, let the members of his gens have
the inheritance.
4. If one is mad but has no guardian, the power over him and his money shall belong to his agnates and the members of
his gens.
5. A child born after ten months since the father's death will not be admitted into a legal inheritance.
17
Table V.
1. Females should remain in guardianship even when they have attained their majority.
Table VI.
1. When one makes a bond and a conveyance of property, as he has made formal declaration so let it be binding.
3. A beam that is built into a house or a vineyard trellis one may not take from its place.
5. Usucapio of movable things requires one year's possession for its completion; but usucapio of an estate and buildings
two years.
6. Any woman who does not wish to be subjected in this manner to the hand of her husband should be absent three nights
in succession every year, and so interrupt the usucapio of each year.
Table VII.
1. Let them keep the road in order. If they have not paved it, a man may drive his team where he likes.
9. Should a tree on a neighbor's farm be bend crooked by the wind and lean over your farm, you may take legal action for
removal of that tree.
10. A man might gather up fruit that was falling down onto another man's farm.
Table VIII.
2. If one has maimed a limb and does not compromise with the injured person, let there be retaliation. If one has broken a
bone of a freeman with his hand or with a cudgel, let him pay a penalty of three hundred coins If he has broken the bone
of a slave, let him have one hundred and fifty coins. If one is guilty of insult, the penalty shall be twenty-five coins.
3. If one is slain while committing theft by night, he is rightly slain.
4. If a patron shall have devised any deceit against his client, let him be accursed.
5. If one shall permit himself to be summoned as a witness, or has been a weigher, if he does not give his testimony, let
him be noted as dishonest and incapable of acting again as witness.
10. Any person who destroys by burning any building or heap of corn deposited alongside a house shall be bound,
scourged, and put to death by burning at the stake provided that he has committed the said misdeed with malice
aforethought; but if he shall have committed it by accident, that is, by negligence, it is ordained that he repair the damage
or, if he be too poor to be competent for such punishment, he shall receive a lighter punishment.
12. If the theft has been done by night, if the owner kills the thief, the thief shall be held to be lawfully killed.
18
13. It is unlawful for a thief to be killed by day....unless he defends himself with a weapon; even though he has come
with a weapon, unless he shall use the weapon and fight back, you shall not kill him. And even if he resists, first call out
so that someone may hear and come up.
23. A person who had been found guilty of giving false witness shall be hurled down from the Tarpeian Rock.
26. No person shall hold meetings by night in the city.
Table IX.
4. The penalty shall be capital for a judge or arbiter legally appointed who has been found guilty of receiving a bribe for
giving a decision.
5. Treason: he who shall have roused up a public enemy or handed over a citizen to a public enemy must suffer capital
punishment.
6. Putting to death of any man, whosoever he might be unconvicted is forbidden.
Table X.
1. None is to bury or burn a corpse in the city.
3. The women shall not tear their faces nor wail on account of the funeral.
5. If one obtains a crown himself, or if his chattel does so because of his honor and valor, if it is placed on his head, or
the head of his parents, it shall be no crime.
Table XI.
1. Marriages should not take place between plebeians and patricians.
Table XII.
2. If a slave shall have committed theft or done damage with his master"s knowledge, the action for damages is in the
slave's name.
5. Whatever the people had last ordained should be held as binding by law.
Source: Oliver J. Thatcher, ed., The Library of Original Sources (Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co., 1901),
Vol. III: The Roman World, pp. 9-11.
7. Matthew 5 The Beatitudes
Questions: Documents 7 and 8 are the basis of Christianity’s Doctrines. Christianity is the major religion of
Western Civilization. Do modern people believe and live these teachings? Why or why not? How do these
19
compare with other religious/secular laws or codes? Why have they persisted for over 2,000 years? Which
peoples in society are most likely to embrace these teachings? Why?
Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to
teach them saying: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for
they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for
righteousness, for they will be filled. Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. Blessed are the pure in
heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. Blessed are those who are
persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you,
persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your
reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
8. 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 The Resurrection of Christ
Questions: What message did the Romans receive from the resurrection of Jesus? How does this differ
from other religious accounts from non-Christians? Why is this so significant?
1 Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken
your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have
believed in vain. 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according
to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he
appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same
time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the
apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
9. Tacitus: The End of the (Roman) Republic
Questions: What, then, according to Tacitus brought about the fall of Rome? Are there any pertinent parallels
to present-day western nations? What lessons can we learn from the fall of Rome?
Tacitus begins the Annals by describing how the civil war and proscriptions (mass executions of political opponents) had
destroyed the Republic.
Rome at the beginning was ruled by kings. Freedom and the consulship were established by Lucius Brutus. Dictatorships
were held for a temporary crisis. The power of the decemvirs did not last beyond two years, nor was the consular
jurisdiction of the military tribunes of long duration. The despotisms of Cinna and Sulla were brief; the rule of Pompey
and of Crassus soon yielded before Caesar; the arms of Lepidus and (Mark) Antony before Augustus; who, when the
world was wearied by civil strife, subjected it to empire under the title of "Prince." But the successes and reverses of the
old Roman people have been recorded by famous historians; and fine intellects were not wanting to describe the times of
Augustus, till growing sycophancy scared them away. The histories of Tiberius, Caius (Caligula), Claudius, and Nero,
while they were in power, were falsified through terror, and after their death were written under the irritation of a recent
hatred. Hence my purpose is to relate a few facts about Augustus- more particularly his last acts, then the reign of
Tiberius, and all which follows, without either bitterness or partiality, from any motives to which I am far removed.
When after the destruction of Brutus and Cassius there was no longer any army of the Republic, when Pompey was
crushed in Sicily, and when, with Lepidus pushed aside and (Mark) Antony slain, even the Julian faction had only Caesar
20
left to lead it, then, dropping the title of triumvir, and giving out that he was a Consul, and was satisfied with a tribune's
authority for the protection of the people, Augustus won over the soldiers with gifts, the populace with cheap corn, and
all men with the sweets of repose, and so grew greater by degrees, while he concentrated in himself the functions of the
Senate, the magistrates, and the laws. He was wholly unopposed, for the boldest spirits had fallen in battle, or in the
proscription, while the remaining nobles, the readier they were to be slaves, were raised the higher by wealth and
promotion, so that, aggrandised by revolution, they preferred the safety of the present to the dangerous past. Nor did the
provinces dislike that condition of affairs, for they distrusted the government of the Senate and the people, because of the
rivalries between the leading men and the rapacity of the officials, while the protection of the laws was unavailing, as
they were continually deranged by violence, intrigue, and finally by corruption.
Source: Tacitus: Annals, Book 1., Translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb.
10. Eusebius: The Conversion of Constantine
Questions: What impact on Christianity did Constantine’s conversion have? Why was this so significant to
developing western civilizations? Why would Constantine embrace the Beatitudes as a ruling philosophy? Do
you think he believed in them?
CHAPTER XXVII.
Being convinced, however, that he needed some more powerful aid than his military forces could afford him, on account
of the wicked and magical enchantments which were so diligently practiced by the tyrant, he sought Divine assistance,
deeming the possession of arms and a numerous soldiery of secondary importance, but believing the co-operating power
of Deity invincible and not to be shaken. He considered, therefore, on what God he might rely for protection and
assistance. While engaged in this enquiry, the thought occurred to him, that, of the many emperors who had preceded
him, those who had rested their hopes in a multitude of gods, and served them with sacrifices and offerings, had in the
first place been deceived by flattering predictions, and oracles which promised them all prosperity, and at last had met
with an unhappy end, while not one of their gods had stood by to warn them of the impending wrath of heaven; while
one alone who had pursued an entirely opposite course, who had condemned their error, and honored the one Supreme
God during his whole life, had formal I him to be the Saviour and Protector of his empire, and the Giver of every good
thing. Reflecting on this, and well weighing the fact that they who had trusted in many gods had also fallen by manifold
forms of death, without leaving behind them either family or offspring, stock, name, or memorial among men: while the
God of his father had given to him, on the other hand, manifestations of his power and very many tokens: and
considering farther that those who had already taken arms against the tyrant, and had marched to the battle-field under
the protection of a multitude of gods, had met with a dishonorable end (for one of them had shamefully retreated from
the contest without a blow, and the other, being slain in the midst of his own troops, became, as it were, the mere sport of
death (4) ); reviewing, I say, all these considerations, he judged it to be folly indeed to join in the idle worship of those
who were no gods, and, after such convincing evidence, to err from the truth; and therefore felt it incumbent on him to
honor his father's God alone.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
ACCORDINGLY he called on him with earnest prayer and supplications that he would reveal to him who he was, and
stretch forth his right hand to help him in his present difficulties. And while he was thus praying with fervent entreaty, a
most marvelous sign appeared to him from heaven, the account of which it might have been hard to believe had it been
related by any other person. But since the victorious emperor himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this
history, when he was honored with his acquaintance and society, and confirmed his statement by an oath, who could
21
hesitate to accredit the relation, especially since the testimony of after-time has established its truth? He said that about
noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the
heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, CONQUER BY THIS. At this sight he himself was struck with
amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle.
CHAFFER XXIX.
He said, moreover, that he doubted within himself what the import of this apparition could be. And while he continued to
ponder and reason on its meaning, night suddenly came on ; then in his sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the
same sign which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a likeness of that sign which he had seen in
the heavens, and to use it as a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.
CHAPTER XXXI.
Now it was made in the following manner. A long spear, overlaid with gold, formed the figure of the cross by means of a
transverse bar laid over it. On the top of the whole was fixed a wreath of gold and precious stones; and within this, the
symbol of the Saviour's name, two letters indicating the name of Christ by means of its initial characters, the letter P
being intersected by X in its centre: and these letters the emperor was in the habit of wearing on his helmet at a later
period. From the cross-bar of the spear was suspended a cloth, a royal piece, covered with a profuse embroidery of most
brilliant precious stones; and which, being also richly interlaced with gold, presented an indescribable degree of beauty to
the beholder. This banner was of a square form, and the upright staff, whose lower section was of great length, bore a
golden half-length portrait of the pious emperor and his children on its upper part, beneath the trophy of the cross, and
immediately above the embroidered banner.
The emperor constantly made use of this sign of salvation as a safeguard against every adverse and hostile power, and
commanded that others similar to it should be carried at the head of all his armies.
Moreover, he made the priests of God his counselors, and deemed it incumbent on him to honor the God who had
appeared to him with all devotion. And after this, being fortified by well-grounded hopes in Him, he hastened to quench
the threatening fire of tyranny.
From the Library of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 2nd series (New York: Christian Literature Co., 1990), Vol I, 489-
91
11. Nicene Creed The Synod at Nice set forth this Creed.
Questions: In short, the Nicene Creed the most commonly accepted definition of God, Christ, and the Holy
Ghost. What was the significance of the Nicene Creed then? Now? How does this definition of Deity compare
with other religion’s view of God? Why is the concept of one God so important?
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the
Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very
God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in
heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made
man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the
quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of
God was not, or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a
22
different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion--all that so
say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.
From The Seven Ecumenical Councils, ed. H. Percival, in the Library of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 2nd series
(New York: Charles Scribners, 1990), Vol XIV, 3
12. The Qu'ran - 1, 47
Questions: This is the basis of belief for millions of Muslims today. Islam is the second major religion of
Western Civilization. How are these verses from the Qu’ran similar and different than the 10
Commandments? The Nicene Creed? Why was this significant then? Now?
The Qur'an [or Koran], is a collection of the speeches made by Muhammad, remembered by his followers, and collected,
written down and edited after his death. For Muslims Muhammad is in no way the author of the Qur'an, which is
understood as the direct word of God given to Muhammad. The message of Muhammad was not difficult to grasp - stark
and absolute monotheism, the evil of sin, the revelation of God in the Qur'an and through Muhammad, and the creation
of a new Muslim community. Given here, from the text translated by Maulvi Sher Ali, edited by Malik Ghulam Farid, and
made available on the internet, are Surah 1, and Surah 47.
Surah 1: 1. In the name of ALLAH, the Gracious, the Merciful.
1: 2. All praise is due to ALLAH alone, Lord of all the worlds.
1: 3. The Gracious, the Merciful.
1: 4. Master of the Day of Judgment.
1: 5. THEE alone do we worship and THEE alone do we implore for help.
1: 6. Guide us in the straight path,
1: 7. The path of those on whom THOU hast bestowed THY favours, those who have not incurred THY displeasure and
those who have not gone astray.
Surah 47: 1. In the name of ALLAH, the Gracious, the Merciful.
47: 2. Those who disbelieve and hinder men from the way of ALLAH - HE renders their works vain.
47: 3. But as for those who believe and do righteous deeds and believe in that which has been revealed to Muhammad -
and it is the truth from their Lord - HE removes from them their sins and sets right their affairs.
47: 4. That is because those who disbelieve follow falsehood while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord.
Thus does ALLAH set forth for men their lessons by similitudes.
47: 5. And when you meet in regular battle those who disbelieve, smite their necks; and, when you have overcome them,
by causing great slaughter among them, bind fast the fetters - then afterwards either release them as a favour or by taking
ransom - until the war lays down its burdens. That is the ordinance. And if ALLAH had so pleased, HE could have
punished them Himself, but HE has willed that HE may try some of you by others. And those who are killed in the way
of ALLAH - HE will never render their works vain.
47: 6. HE will guide them to success and will improve their condition.
47: 7. And will admit them into the Garden which HE has made known to them.
47: 8. O ye who believe ! if you help the cause of ALLAH, HE will help you and will make your steps firm.
47: 9. But those who disbelieve, perdition is their lot; and HE will make their works vain.
47: 10. That is because they hate what ALLAH has revealed; so HE has made their works vain.
47: 11. Have they not traveled in the earth and seen what was the end of those who were before them ? ALLAH utterly
destroyed them, and for the disbelievers there will be the like thereof.
47: 12. That is because ALLAH is the Protector of those who believe, and the disbelievers have no protector.
23
47: 13. Verily, ALLAH will cause those who believe and do good works to enter the Gardens underneath which streams
flow; While those who disbelieve enjoy themselves and eat even as the cattle eat, and the Fire will be their last resort.
47: 14. And how many a township, mightier than thy town which has driven thee out, have WE destroyed, and they had
no helper.
47: 15. Then, is he who takes his stand upon a clear proof from his Lord like those to whom the evil of their deeds is
made to look attractive and who follow their low desires ?
47: 16. A description of the Garden promised to the righteous: Therein are streams of water which corrupts not; and
streams of milk of which the taste changes not; and streams of wine, a delight to those who drink; and streams of
clarified honey. And in it they will have all kinds of fruit, and forgiveness from their Lord. Can those who enjoy such
bliss be like those who abide in the Fire and who are given boiling water to drink so that it tears their bowels ?
47: 17. And among them are some who seems to listen to thee till, when they go forth from thy presence, they say to
those who have been given knowledge, `What has he been talking about just now ?' These are they upon whose hearts
ALLAH has set a seal, and who follow their own evil desires.
47: 18. But as for those who follow guidance, HE adds to their guidance, and bestows on them righteousness suited to
their condition.
47: 19. The disbelievers wait not but for the Hour, that it should come upon them suddenly. The Signs thereof have
already come. But of what avail will their admonition be to them when it has actually come upon them.
47: 20. Know, therefore, that there is no god other than ALLAH, and ask protection for thy human frailties, and for
believing men and believing women. And ALLAH knows the place where you move about and the place where you stay.
47: 21. And those who believe say, `Why is not a Surah revealed ?' But when a decisive Surah is revealed and fighting is
mentioned therein, thou seest those in whose hearts is a disease, looking towards thee like the look of one who is fainting
on account of approaching death. So woe to them !
47: 22. Their attitude should have been one of obedience and of calling people to good. And when the matter was
determined upon, it was good for them if they were true to ALLAH.
47: 23. Would you not then, if you are placed in authority, create disorder in the land and sever your ties of kinship ?
47: 24. It is these whom ALLAH has cursed, so that HE has made them deaf and has made their eyes blind.
47: 25. Will they not, then, ponder over the Qur'an, or, is it that there are locks on their hearts ?
47: 26. Surely, those who turn their backs after guidance has become manifest to them, Satan has seduced them and holds
out false hopes to them.
47: 27. That is because they said to those who hate what ALLAH has revealed, `We will obey you in some matters, and
ALLAH knows their secrets.
47: 28. But how will they fare when the angels will cause them to die, smiting their faces and their backs ?
47: 29. That is because they followed that which displeased ALLAH, and disliked the seeking of HIS pleasure. So HE
rendered their works vain.
47: 30. Do those in whose hearts is a disease suppose that ALLAH will not bring to light their malice ?
47: 31. And if WE pleased, WE could show them to thee so that thou shouldst know them by their marks. And thou shalt,
surely, recognize them by the tone of their speech. And ALLAH knows your deeds.
47: 32. And WE will, surely, try you, until WE make manifest those among you who strive for the cause of ALLAH and
those who are steadfast. And WE will make known the true facts about you.
47: 33. Those, who disbelieve and hinder men from the way of ALLAH and oppose the Messenger after guidance has
become manifest to them, shall not harm ALLAH in the least; and HE will make their works fruitless.
47: 34. O ye who believe ! obey ALLAH and obey the Messenger and make not your works vain.
47: 35. Verily, those who disbelieve and hinder people from the way of ALLAH, and then die while they are disbelievers
- ALLAH certainly, will not forgive them.
47: 36. So be not slack and sue not for peace, for you will, certainly, have the upper hand. And ALLAH is with you, and
HE will not deprive you of the reward of your actions.
47: 37. The life of this world is but a sport and a pastime, and if you believe and be righteous, HE will give you your
rewards, and will not ask of you your wealth.
47: 38. Were HE to ask it of you and press you, you would be niggardly, and HE would bring to light your malice.
24
47: 39. Behold ! You are those who are called upon to spend in the way of ALLAH; but of you there are some who are
niggardly. And whoso is niggardly, is niggardly only against his own soul. And ALLAH is Self-Sufficient, and it is you
who are needy. And if you turn your backs, HE will bring in your place another people; then they will not be like you.
13. Valentian 1: Decree on Papal Power 445
Questions: How did the rise of Papal Power impact western nations? Kings? Western Christianity verses Eastern
Christianity?
The following edict was issued by the western emperor, during Leo I's pontificate:
Since, then, the primacy of the Apostolic See is established by the merit of St. Peter (who is the chief among the
bishops), by the majesty of the city of Rome, and finally by the authority of a holy council, no one, withot inexcusable
presumption, may attempt anything against the authority of that see. Peace will be secured among the churches if every
one recognize his ruler.
[After a reference to the independent action of certain prelates of Gaul, the edict continues.] Lest even a slight
commotion should arise in the churches, or the religious order be disturbed, we herewith permanently decree that not
only the bishops of Gaul, but those of the other provinces, shall attempt nothing counter to ancient custom without the
authority of the venerable father [Papa] of the Eternal City. Whatever shall be sanctioned by the authority of the
Apostolic See shall be law to the, and to every one else ; so that if one of the bishops be summoned to the judgment of
the Roman bishop and shall neglect to appear, he shall be forced by the moderator of his province to present himself. In
all respects let the privileges be maintained which our deified predecessors have conferred upon the Roman church.
Translated in J. H. Robinson, Readings in European History, (Boston: Ginn, 1905), pp. 72
14. Einhard: Life of Charlemagne
Questions: Why is Charlemagne so important to medieval times? What impacts did he have on later nations?
Why did Einhard depict him in such glowing terms?
Charlemagne [i.e. Charles the Great] is the most discussed political leader of the 8th and 9th centuries. He became rule
of a vast empire in Western Europe, and from 800 on held the title of Roman Emperor. The most extensive account of his
life is by his friend and courtier, Einhard. Later on Charlemagne acquired an almost divine status, both as a Catholic
saint, and as the hero of French epics and Romances.
#22. [Charles' Appearance.] Charles was large and strong, and of lofty stature, though not disproportionately tall (his
height is well known to have been seven times the length of his foot); the upper part of his head was round, his eyes very
large and animated, nose a little long, hair fair, and face laughing and merry. Thus his appearance was always stately and
dignified, whether he was standing or sitting; although his neck was thick and somewhat short, and his belly rather
prominent; but the symmetry of the rest of his body concealed these defects. His gait was firm, his whole carriage manly,
and his voice clear, but not so strong as his size led one to expect. His health was excellent, except during the four years
preceding his death, when he was subject to frequent fevers; at the last he even limped a little with one foot. Even in
those years he consulted rather his own inclinations than the advice of physicians, who were almost hateful to him,
because they wanted him to give up roasts, to which he was accustomed, and to eat boiled meat instead. In accordance
25
with the national custom, he took frequent exercise on horseback and in the chase, accomplishments in which scarcely
any people in the world can equal the Franks. He enjoyed the exhalations from natural warm springs, and often practised
swimming, in which he was such an adept that none could surpass him; and hence it was that he built his palace at Aixla-
Chapelle, and lived there constantly during his latter years until his death. He used not only to invite his sons to his bath,
but his nobles and friends, and now and then a troop of his retinue or body guard, so that a hundred or more persons
sometimes bathed with him.
#23. [Charles' Clothing] He used to wear the national, that is to say, the Frank, dress-next his skin a linen shirt and linen
breeches, and above these a tunic fringed with silk; while hose fastened by bands covered his lower limbs, and shoes his
feet, and he protected his shoulders and chest in winter by a close-fitting coat of otter or marten skins. Over all he flung a
blue cloak, and he always had a sword girt about him, usually one with a gold or silver hilt and belt; he sometimes
carried a jewelled sword, but only on great feast-days or at the reception of ambassadors from foreign nations. He
despised foreign costumes, however handsome, and never allowed himself to be robed in them, except twice in Rome,
when he donned the Roman tunic, chlamys, and shoes; the first time at the request of Pope Hadrian, the second to gratify
Leo, Hadrian's successor. On great feast-days he made use of embroidered clothes, and shoes bedecked with precious
stones; his cloak was fastened by a golden buckle, and he appeared crowned with a diadem of gold and gems: but on
other days his dress varied little from the common dress of the people.
#24. [Charle's Manner] Charles was temperate in eating, and particularly so in drinking, for he abominated drunkenness
in anybody, much more in himself and those of his household; but he could not easily abstain from food, and often
complained that fasts injured his health. He very rarely gave entertainments, only on great feast-days, and then to large
numbers of people. His meals ordinarily consisted of four courses, not counting the roast, which his huntsmen used to
bring in on the spit; he was more fond of this than of any other dish. While at table, he listened to reading or music. The
subjects of the readings were the stories and deeds of olden time: he was fond, too, of St. Augustine's books, and
especially of the one entitled "The City of God."
He was so moderate in the use of wine and all sorts of drink that he rarely allowed himself more than three cups in the
course of a meal. In summer after the midday meal, he would eat some fruit, drain a single cup, put off his clothes and
shoes, just as he did for the night, and rest for two or three hours. He was in the habit of awaking and rising from bed
four or five times during the night. While he was dressing and putting on his shoes, he not only gave audience to his
friends, but if the Count of the Palace told him of any suit in which his judgment was necessary, he had the parties
brought before him forthwith, took cognizance of the case, and gave his decision, just as if he were sitting on the
Judgment-seat. This was not the only business that he transacted at this time, but he performed any duty of the day
whatever, whether he had to attend to the matter himself, or to give commands concerning it to his officers.
#25 [Charles' Education] Charles had the gift of ready and fluent speech, and could express whatever he had to say with
the utmost clearness. He was not satisfied with command of his native language merely, but gave attention to the study of
foreign ones, and in particular was such a master of Latin that he could speak it as well as his native tongue; but he could
understand Greek better than he could speak it. He was so eloquent, indeed, that he might have passed for a teacher of
eloquence. He most zealously cultivated the liberal arts, held those who taught them in great esteem, and conferred great
honours upon them. He took lessons in grammar of the deacon Peter of Pisa, at that time an aged man. Another deacon,
Albin of Britain, surnamed Alcuin, a man of Saxon extraction, who was the greatest scholar of the day, was his teacher in
other branches of learning. The King spent much time and labour with him studying rhetoric, dialectics, and especially
astronomy; he learned to reckon, and used to investigate the motions of the heavenly bodies most curiously, with an
intelligent scrutiny. He also tried to write, and used to keep tablets and blanks in bed under his pillow, that at leisure
hours he might accustom his hand to form the letters; however, as he did not begin his efforts in due season, but late in
life, they met with ill success.
26
#27[Charles and the Roman Church] ... He cherished the Church of St. Peter the Apostle at Rome above all other holy
and sacred places, and heaped its treasury with a vast wealth of gold, silver, and precious stones. He sent great and
countless gifts to the popes; and throughout his whole reign the wish that he had nearest at heart was to re-establish the
ancient authority of the city of Rome under his care and by his influence, and to defend and protect the Church of St.
Peter, and to beautify and enrich it out of his own store above all other churches. Although he held it in such veneration,
he only repaired to Rome to pay his vows and make his supplications four times during the whole forty-seven years that
he reigned.
#28 [Charles' Coronation] The Romans had inflicted many injuries upon the Pontiff Leo, tearing out his eyes and cutting
out his tongue, so that he had been comp lied to call upon the King for help. Charles accordingly went to Rome, to set in
order the affairs of the Church, which were in great confusion, and passed the whole winter there. It was then that he
received the titles of Emperor and Augustus, to which he at first had such an aversion that he declared that he would not
have set foot in the Church the day that they were conferred, although it was a great feast-day, if he could have foreseen
the design of the Pope. He bore very patiently with the jealousy which the Roman emperors showed upon his assuming
these titles, for they took this step very ill; and by dint of frequent embassies and letters, in which he addressed them as
brothers, he made their haughtiness yield to his magnanimity, a quality in which he was unquestionably much their
superior.
From: Einhard, Life of Charlemagne, S. E. Turner, trans. (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1880), pp. 56-62, 51-54, 64-
66.
15. William of Malmesbury, d. 1143?:
The Battle of Hastings, 1066
Questions: What do we learn of the British, Vikings, French/Normans from this document? Why was the
Battle of Hastings so significant? What changes did Norman rule have on England?
The courageous leaders mutually prepared for battle, each according to his national custom. The English, as we have
heard, passed the night without sleep, in drinking and singing, and in the morning proceeded without delay against the
enemy. All on foot, armed with battle-axes, and covering themselves in front by the juncture of their shields, they formed
an impenetrable body which would assuredly have secured their safety that day had not the Normans, by a feigned flight,
induced them to open their ranks, which till that time, according to their custom, had been closely compacted. King
Harold himself, on foot, stood with his brothers near the standard in order that, so long as all shared equal danger, none
could think of retreating. This same standard William sent, after his victory, to the pope; it was sumptuously embroidered
with gold and precious stones, and represented the figure of a man fighting.
On the other hand, the Normans passed the whole night in confessing their sins, and received the communion of the
Lord’s body in the morning. Their infantry, with bows and arrows, formed the vanguard, while their cavalry, divided into
wings, was placed in the rear. The duke, with serene countenance, declaring aloud that God would favor his as being the
righteous side, called for his arms; and when, through the haste of his attendants, he had put on his hauberk the hind part
before, he corrected the mistake with a laugh, saying "The power of my dukedom shall be turned into a kingdom." Then
starting the Song of Roland, in order that the warlike example of that hero might stimulate the soldiers, and calling on
God for assistance, the battle commenced on both sides, and was fought with great ardor, neither side giving ground
during the greater part of the day.
27
Observing this, William gave a signal to his troops, that, feigning flight, they should withdraw from the field. By means
of this device the solid phalanx of the English opened for the purpose of cutting down the fleeing enemy and thus
brought upon itself swift destruction; for the Normans, facing about, attacked them, thus disordered, and compelled them
to fly. In this manner, deceived by a stratagem, they met an honorable death in avenging their enemy; nor indeed were
they at all without their own revenge, for, by frequently making a stand, they slaughtered their pursuers in heaps. Getting
possession of an eminence, they drove back the Normans, who in the heat of pursuit were struggling up the slope, into
the valley beneath, where, by hurling their javelins and rolling down stones on them as they stood below, the English
easily destroyed them to a man. Besides, by a short passage with which they were acquainted, they avoided a deep ditch
and trod underfoot such a multitude of their enemies in that place that the heaps of bodies made the hollow level with the
plain. This alternating victory, first of one side and then of the other, continued so long as Harold lived to check the
retreat; but when he fell, his brain pierced by an arrow, the flight of the English ceased not until night.
In the battle both leaders distinguished themselves by their bravery. Harold, not content with the functions of a general
and with exhorting others, eagerly assumed himself the duties of a common soldier. He was constantly striking down the
enemy at close quarters, so that no one could approach him with impunity, for straightway both horse and rider would be
felled by a single blow. So it was at long range, as I have said, that the enemy=s deadly arrow brought him to his death.
One of the Norman soldiers gashed his thigh with a sword, as he lay prostrate; for which shameful and cowardly action
he was branded with ignominy by William and expelled from the army.
William, too, was equally ready to encourage his soldiers by his voice and by his presence, and to be the first to rush
forward to attack the thickest of the foe. He was everywhere fierce and furious; he lost three choice horses, which were
that day killed under him. The dauntless spirit and vigor of the intrepid general, however, still held out. Though often
called back by the kind remonstrance of his bodyguard, he still persisted until approaching night crowned him with
complete victory. And no doubt the hand of God so protected him that the enemy should draw no blood from his person,
though they aimed so many javelins at him.
This was a fatal day to England, and melancholy havoc was wrought in our dear country during the change of its lords.
For it had long adopted the manners of the Angles, which had indeed altered with the times; for in the first years of their
arrival they were barbarians in their look and manner, warlike in their usages, heathens in their rights. After embracing
the faith of Christ, by degrees and, in process of time, in consequence of the peace which they enjoyed, they relegated
arms to a secondary place and gave their whole attention to religion. I am not speaking of the poor, the meanness of
whose fortune often restrains them from overstepping the bound of justice; I omit, too, men of ecclesiastical rank, whom
sometimes respect for their profession and sometimes the fear of shame suffers not to deviate from the true path; I speak
of princes, who from the greatness of their power might have full liberty to indulge in pleasure. Some of these in their
own country, and others at Rome, changing their habit, obtained a heavenly kingdom and a saintly intercourse. Many
others during their whole lives devoted themselves in outward appearance to worldly affairs, but in order that they might
exhaust their treasures on the poor or divide them amongst monasteries.
What shall I say of the multitudes of bishops, hermits, and abbots? Does not the whole island blaze with such numerous
relics of its own people that you can scarcely pass a village of any consequence but you hear the name of some new
saint? And of how many more has all remembrance perished through the want of records?
Nevertheless, the attention to literature and religion had gradually decreased for several years before the arrival of the
Normans. The clergy, contented with a little confused learning, could scarcely stammer out the words of the sacraments;
and a person who understood grammar was an object of wonder and astonishment. The monks mocked the rule of their
order by fine vestments and the use of every kind of food. The nobility, given up to luxury and wantonness, went not to
church in the morning after the manner of Christians, but merely, in a careless manner, heard matins and masses from a
hurrying priest in their chambers, amid the blandishments of their wives. The commonalty, left unprotected, became a
28
prey to the most powerful, who amassed fortunes, either by seizing on their property or by selling their persons into
foreign countries; although it is characteristic of this people to be more inclined to reveling than to the accumulation of
wealth. . .
Drinking in parties was a universal practice, in which occupation they passed entire nights as well as days. They
consumed their whole substance in mean and despicable houses, unlike the Normans and French, who live frugally in
noble and splendid mansions. The vices attendant on drunkenness, which enervate the human mind, followed; hence it
came about that when they engaged William, with more rashness and precipitate fury than military skill, they doomed
themselves and their country to slavery by a single, and that an easy, victory. For nothing is less effective than rashness;
and what begins with violence quickly ceases or is repelled.
The English at that time wore short garments, reaching to the mid-knee; they had their hair cropped, their beards shaven,
their arms laden with gold bracelets, their skin adorned with tattooed designs. They were accustomed to eat till they
became surfeited, and to drink till they were sick. These latter qualities they imparted to their conquerors; as to the rest,
they adopted their manners. I would not, however, had these bad propensities ascribed to the English universally; I know
that many of the clergy at that day trod the path of sanctity by a blameless life; I know that many of the laity, of all ranks
and conditions, in this nation were well-pleasing to God. Be injustice far from this account; the accusation does not
involve the whole, indiscriminately; but as in peace the mercy of God often cherishes the bad and the good together, so,
equally, does his severity sometimes include them both in captivity.
The Normans---that I may speak of them also---were at that time, and are even now, exceedingly particular in their dress
and delicate in their food, but not so to excess. They are a race inured to war, and can hardly live without it; fierce in
rushing against the enemy, and, where force fails of success, ready to use stratagem or to corrupt by bribery. As I have
said, they live in spacious houses with economy, envy their superiors, wish to excel their equals, and plunder their
subjects, though they defend them from others; they are faithful to their lords, though a slight offense alienates them.
They weigh treachery by its chance of success, and change their sentiments for money. The most hospitable, however, of
all nations, they esteem strangers worthy of equal honor with themselves; they also inter-marry with their vassals. They
revived, by their arrival, the rule of religion which had everywhere grown lifeless in England. You might see churches
rise in every village, and monasteries in the towns and cities, built after a style unknown before; you might behold the
country flourishing with renovated rites; so that each wealthy man accounted that day lost to him which he had neglected
to signalize by some munificent action.
Source. From: James Harvey Robinson, ed., Readings in European History, 2 Vols. (Boston: Ginn & Co., 1904-06),
Vol. I: From the Breaking up of the Roman Empire to the Protestant Revolt, pp. 224-229
16. Magna Carta 1215
Questions: Who gained specific and detailed rights under the Magna Carta? Why was the signing of the
Magna Carta by John I, considered a large step toward constitutional government in England? How does this
compare to other legal systems we have considered?
John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the
archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciars, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and
liege subjects, greeting. Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul, and those of all our ancestors
and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of holy church, and for the reform of our realm, by advice of
our venerable fathers, Stephen archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and cardinal of the holy Roman Church,
29
Henry archbishop of Dublin, William of London, Peter of Winchester, Jocelyn of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh of
Lincoln, Walter of Worcester, William of Coventry, Benedict of Rochester, bishops; of master Pandulf, sub-deacon and
member of the household of our lord the Pope, of brother Aymeric (master of the Knights of the Temple in England), and
of the illustrious men William Marshall earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warenne, William
earl of Arundel, Alan of Galloway (constable of Scotland), Waren Fitz Gerald, Peter Fits Herbert, Hubert de Burgh
(seneschal of Poitou), Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip d' Aubigny, Robert of
Roppesley, John Marshall, John Fitz Hugh, and others, our liegemen.
1. In the first place we have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs for ever that
the English church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus
observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential
to the English church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain
the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III., before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this
we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever. We have also granted to all freemen
of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of
us and our heirs forever.
2. If any of our earls or barons, or others holding of us in chief by military service shall have died, and at the time of his
death his heir shall be of full age and owe "relief" he shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient relief, namely
the heir or heirs of an earl, 100 pounds for a whole earl's barony; the heir or heirs of a baron, 100 pounds for a whole
barony; the heir or heirs of a knight, 100 shillings at most for a whole knight's fee; and whoever owes less let him give
less, according to the ancient custom of fiefs.
6. Heirs shall be married without disparagement, yet so that before the marriage takes place the nearest in blood to that
heir shall have notice.
7. A widow, after the death of her husband, shall forthwith and without difficulty have her marriage portion and
inheritance; nor shall she give anything for her dower, or for her marriage portion, or for the inheritance which her
husband and she held on the day of the death of that husband; and she may remain in the house of her husband for forty
days after his death, within which time her dower shall be assigned to her.
8. No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she prefers to live without a husband; provided always that she
gives security not to marry without our consent, if she holds of us, or without the consent of the lord of whom she holds,
if she holds of another.
9. Neither we nor our bailiffs shall seize any land or rent for any debt, so long as the chattels of the debtor are sufficient
to repay the debt; nor shall the sureties of the debtor be distrained so long as the principal debtor is able to satisfy the
debt; and if the principal debtor shall fail to pay the debt, having nothing wherewith to pay it, then the sureties shall
answer for the debt; and let them have the lands and rents of the debtor, if they desire them, until they are indemnified for
the debt which they have paid for him, unless the principal debtor can show proof that he is discharged thereof as against
the said sureties.
13. And the city of London shall have all its ancient liberties and free customs, as well by land as by water; furthermore,
we decree and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall have all their liberties and free customs.
17. Common pleas shall not follow our court, but shall be held in some fixed place.
30
20. A freeman shall not be amerced for a slight offense, except in accordance with the degree of the offense; and for a
grave offense he shall be amerced in accordance with the gravity of the offense, yet saving always his "contenement;"
and a merchant in the same way, saving his "merchandise;" and a villin shall be amerced in the same way, saving his
"wainage"--if they have fallen into our mercy: and none of the aforesaid amercements shall be impsedexcept by the oath
of honest men of the neighborhood.
21. Earls and barons shall not be amerced except through their peers, and only in accordance with the degree of the
offense.
22. A clerk shall not be amerced in respect of his lay holding except after the manner of the others aforesaid; further, he
shall not be amerced in accordance with the extent of his ecclesiastical benefice.
23. No village or individual shall be compelled to make bridges at river-banks, except those who from of old were legally
bound to do so.
24. No sheriff, constable, coroners, or others of our bailiffs, shall hold pleas of our Crown.
27. If any freeman shall die intestate, his chattels shall be distributed by the hands of his nearest kinsfolk and friends,
under supervision of the church, saving to everyone the debts which the deceased owed to him.
30. No sheriff or bailiff of ours, or other person, shall take the horses or carts of any freeman for transport duty, against
the will of the said freeman.
31. Neither we nor our bailiffs shall take, for our castles or for any other work of ours, wood which is not ours, against
the will of the owner of that wood.
32. We will not retain beyond one year and one day, the lands of those who have been convicted of felony, and the lands
shall thereafter be handed over to the lords of the fiefs.
35. Let there be one measure of wine throughout our whole realm; and one measure of ale; and one measure of corn, to
wit, "the London quarter;" and one width of cloth (whether dyed, or russet, or "halberget"), to wit, two ells within the
selvages; of weights also let it be as of measures.
38. No bailiff for the future shall, upon his own unsupported complaint, putany one to his "law," without credible
witnesses brought for this purpose.
39. No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in anyway destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor
send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
63. Wherefore it is our will, and we firmly enjoin, that the English Church be free, and that the men in our kingdom have
and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably, freely and quietly, fully and wholly, for
themselves and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all respects and in all places for ever, as is aforesaid. An oath,
moreover, has been taken, as well on our part as on the part of the barons, that all these conditions aforesaid shall be kept
in good faith and without evil intent. Given under our hand--the above-named and many others being witnesses--in the
meadow which is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June, in the seventeenth year
of our reign. Note: translated in Albert Beebe White and Wallce Notestein, eds., Source Problems in English History
(New York: Harper and Brothers, 1915).
31
17. Urban I I: Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095,
Questions: What did Urban II’s speech begin? Why did so many western monarchs join the Crusades? Were
the Crusades successful? Why or why not? How did the Crusades impact Western Civilization?
[adapted from Thatcher] In 1094 or 1095, Alexios I Komnenos, the Byzantine emperor, sent to the pope, Urban II, and
asked for aid from the west against the Seljuq Turks, who taken nearly all of Asia Minor from him. At the council of
Clermont Urban addressed a great crowd and urged all to go to the aid of the Greeks and to recover Palestine from the
rule of the Muslims. The acts of the council have not been preserved, but we have four accounts of the speech of Urban
which were written by men who were present and heard him. Here is the one by the chronicler Fulcher of Chartres. Note
how the traditions of the peace and truce of God - aimed at bringing about peace in Christendom - ties in directly with
the call for a Crusade.
Most beloved brethren: Urged by necessity, I, Urban, by the permission of God chief bishop and prelate over the whole
world, have come into these parts as an ambassador with a divine admonition to you, the servants of God. I hoped to find
you as faithful and as zealous in the service of God as I had supposed you to be….Happy indeed will you be if he finds
you faithful in your stewardship. You are called shepherds; see that you do not act as hirelings. But be true shepherds,
with your crooks always in your hands. Do not go to sleep, but guard on all sides the flock committed to you. For if
through your carelessness or negligence a wolf carries away one of your sheep, you will surely lose the reward laid up
for you with God….You must especially let all matters that pertain to the church be controlled by the law of the church.
And be careful that simony does not take root among you, lest both those who buy and those who sell [church offices] be
beaten with the scourges of the Lord through narrow streets and driven into the place of destruction and confusion. Keep
the church and the clergy in all its grades entirely free from the secular power….
"Although, O sons of God, you have promised more firmly than ever to keep the peace among yourselves and to preserve
the rights of the church, there remains still an important work for you to do. Freshly quickened by the divine correction,
you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your
brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often
been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered
the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is
called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome
them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire.
If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by
them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all
people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy
that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent.
Moreover, Christ commands it.
"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of
sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and
base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious
with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess
the Christian religion! Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go
against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago. Let those who for a long time,
have been robbers, now become knights. Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight
in a proper way against the barbarians. Let those who have been serving as mercenaries for small pay now obtain the
eternal reward. Let those who have been wearing themselves out in both body and soul now work for a double honor.
Behold! on this side will be the sorrowful and poor, on that, the rich; on this side, the enemies of the Lord, on that, his
32
friends. Let those who go not put off the journey, but rent their lands and collect money for their expenses; and as soon
as winter is over and spring comes, let them eagerly set out on the way with God as their guide."
Source: From Bongars, Gesta Dei per Francos, 1, pp. 382 f., trans in Oliver J. Thatcher, and Edgar Holmes McNeal,
eds., A Source Book for Medieval History, (New York: Scribners, 1905), 513-17
18. THOMAS AQUINAS ON LAW
Questions: What were the basis of Aquinas’ writings? How does Aquinas compare with Aristotle? Why didn’t
the earlier western scholars consider the Greek philosophers? How are Aquinas’ views on law different than
earlier Christian views? Why is this so significant to the Roman Church? To Western Nations and Monarchs?
What did Aquinas’ writings eventually result in?
Whether law is something pertaining to reason
Law is a rule and measure of actions through which one is induced to act or restrained from acting. Lex, "law," is derived
from ligare, "to bind," because it binds one to act. The rule and measure of human activity is reason, however, for it is the
first principle of human acts. Indeed, it is the function of reason to order to an end, and that is the first principle of all
activity according to Aristotle. That which is the first principle in any genus is the rule and measure of that genus, e.g.,
unity in the genus of number or first movement in the genus of movement. Thus it follows that law is something
pertaining to reason.
Whether law is always ordered to the common good
Law pertains to that which is the principle of human acts because it is a rule and measure. Just as reason is the principle
of human acts, however, there is something in reason which is principle of all the rest. It is to this that law principally and
mostly pertains. The first principle in activity, the sphere of practical reason, is the final end. The final end of human life
is happiness or beatitude. Thus law necessarily concerns itself primarily with the order directing us toward beatitude.
Furthermore, since each part is ordered to the whole as imperfect to perfect, and since each single man is a part of the
perfect community, law necessarily concerns itself particularly with communal happiness. Thus Aristotle, in defining
legal matters, mentions both happiness and the political community, saying, "We term 'just' those legal acts which
produce and preserve happiness and its components within the political community." For the state is a perfect
community, as he says in his Politics.
In any genus, that which is called "most of all" is the principal of everything else in that genus, and everything else fits
into the genus insofar as it is ordered to that thing. For example, fire, the hottest thing, is cause of heat in mixed bodies,
which are said to be hot insofar as they share in fire. Thus, since law is called "most of all" in relation to the common
good, no precept concerning action has the nature of law unless it is ordered to the common good.
Whether anyone can make laws
Law principally and properly seeks the common good. Planning for the common good is the task of the whole people or
of someone ruling in the person of the whole people. Thus lawmaking is the task of the whole charge of the whole
people; for in all other matters direction toward an end is the function of him to whom the end belongs.
Whether promulgation is an essential part of law
Law is imposed on others as a rule and measure. A rule and measure is imposed by being applied to those who are ruled
and measured. Thus in order for a law to have binding power - and this is an essential part of law - it must be applied to
33
those who ought to be ruled by it. Such application comes about when the law is made known to those people through
promulgation. Thus such promulgation is necessary if a law is to have binding force.
Thus from the four preceding articles we arrive at a definition of law: Law is nothing other than a certain ordinance of
reason for the common good, promulgated by him who has care of the community.
Whether there is an eternal law
A law is nothing more than a dictate of the practical reason emanating from a ruler who governs some perfect
community. Assuming that the world is ruled by divine providence, however, it is clear that the whole community of the
universe is governed by divine reason. Thus the very idea of the governance of all things by God, the ruler of the
universe, conforms to the definition of a law. And since, as we read in Proverbs 8:23, the divine reason's conception of
things is eternal and not subject to time, a law of this sort can be called eternal.
Whether there is a natural law in us
Since law is a rule or measure, it can be in something in two ways: As that which regulates and measures, or as that
which is regulated and measured, for insofar as something participates in a rule or measure it is itself regulated and
measured. Since everything subjected to divine providence is regulated and measured by eternal law, it is clear that
everything participates in the eternal law in some way. That is, everything inclines to its own proper acts and ends
because such an inclination is impressed on it through eternal law.
The rational creature is subject to divine providence in a more excellent way than other beings, however, for he is a
participant in providence, providing both for himself and for others. Thus he is a participant in that eternal reason through
which he has a natural inclination to his proper act and end, and this participation of the rational creature in eternal law is
called "natural law."
Thus the psalmist says, "Offer a sacrifice of justice" (Ps. 4:6) and then, as if someone were asking him what the works of
justice are, he adds, "Many say, 'Who shows us good things?'" He replies, "The light of your countenance is impressed
upon us, Lord," thus implying that the light of natural reason, by which we discern what is good and bad (which is the
function of natural law), is nothing else than an impression of the divine light upon us.
Thus it is clear that natural law is nothing other than the rational creature's participation in the eternal law.
Whether there is a human law
Law is a certain dictate of practical reason. The process is the same in the case of practical and speculative reason. Each
proceeds from certain premises to certain conclusions. Accordingly it must be said that, just as in speculative reason we
draw from naturally known, in demonstrable principles the conclusions of various sciences, and these conclusions are not
imparted to us by nature but discovered by the work of reason, so it is that human reason starts from the precepts of
natural law as from certain common and in demonstrable premises, proceeding from them to more particular
determinations of certain matters.
These particular determinations devised by human reason are called "human laws," provided that all the other conditions
included in the definition of "law" are observed. Thus Tully says that "justice took its start from nature, then certain
things became customary because of their usefulness. Later the things which started in nature and were approved by
custom were sanctioned by fear and reverence for the law."
Whether it was necessary that there should be a divine law
It was necessary for the direction of human life that, beyond natural and human law, there should be a divine law. There
are four reasons for this need.
34
First, it is through law that man is directed to the acts which are proper to him in view of his ultimate end. If man were
ordered only to an end which did not exceed his natural faculties, it would not be necessary for him to have any rational
direction beyond natural law and that human law derived from it. Since, however, man is ordered to the end of eternal
beatitude, which exceeds natural human faculties, it was necessary that he be directed to this end by divinely-given law
in addition to natural and human law.
Second, due to the uncertainty of human judgment, particularly regarding contingent and particular things, there tend to
be differing judgments regarding human acts, from which proceed diverse and contrary laws. Therefore, in order for man
to be secure in the knowledge of what should be done and what avoided, it was necessary that his acts be directed by a
divinely-given law which cannot err.
Third, man can make laws in those areas where he is competent to judge. His judgment does not extend to interior acts
which lie hidden, however, but only to exterior acts which are apparent. Nevertheless, perfect virtue involves
righteousness in both. Thus human law was unable to curb and direct internal acts sufficiently, and it was necessary that
divine law supervene in this task.
Fourth, as Augustine says, human law cannot punish or prohibit all things that are evil, for in the process of removing
evil it would also eliminate much that is good and impede the advancement of the common good, thus hurting society.
Thus, in order to leave no evil unprohibited and unpunished, a divine law, through which all sins are punished, had to
intervene.
These four causes are touched upon in the Psalm, where it is said (Ps. 18:8), "The law of the Lord is unspotted" (that is,
permitting no foulness of sin), "converting souls" (because it directs not only exterior but also interior acts), "the
testimony of the Lord is sure" (due to certainty of truth and rectitude), "giving wisdom to little ones" (insofar as it orders
man to a supernatural and divine end).
Whether the eternal law is the supreme pattern of all things existing in the mind of God
Just as the pattern of something made by an artist pre-exists in the artist's mind, so in the mind of any governor there pre-
exists a pattern of the things to be done by his subjects. Moreover, just as the pattern of things to be made through art is
called the art or exemplar, so the governors pattern for the activity of his subjects takes on the nature of law provided that
the other above-mentioned characteristics of law are also present.
God, through his wisdom, is creator of all things and related to them as artist to work of art. He is also governor of all
actions and activities found in individual creatures. Thus, just as the divine wisdom, insofar as all things were created by
it, has the character of art, exemplar or idea, so also divine wisdom as moving all things to their proper end has the
character of law. Accordingly the eternal law is nothing other than the pattern of divine wisdom according to which it
directs all acts and motions.
Whether the eternal law is known to all
A thing can be known in two ways: First, in itself; second, in its effect, in which some likeness of it is found, just as
someone who does not see the sun in its substance may at least know it by its rays. Thus it must be said that only God
and the blessed who see God in his essence can know the eternal law as it is in itself; yet every creature knows it
according to some of its greater or lesser radiations.
Every knowledge of truth is a certain radiation of and participation in the eternal law, which is the unchangeable truth, as
Augustine says. Everyone knows the truth to some extent, since at least the common principles of natural law are
available to him. As for the rest, people know it in greater or lesser degree and thus know more or less of the eternal law.
35
19. Niccolo Machiavelli: The Prince [excerpts], 1513
Questions: Sum up Machievelli’s views on politics. What portion of his views should be considered in modern
politics, business interactions, and personal relationships? What authority is specifically left out of this
document?
Niccolo Machiavelli, a diplomat in the pay of the Republic of Florence, wrote The Prince in 1513 after the overthrow of
the Republic forced him into exile. It is widely regarded as one of the basic texts of Western political science, and
represents a basic change in the attitude and image of government.
That Which Concerns a Prince on the Subject of the Art of War The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and
discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who
are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank. And, on the contrary, it is seen that
when princes have thought more of ease than of arms they have lost their states. And the first cause of your losing it is to
neglect this art; and what enables you to acquire a state is to be master of the art. Francesco Sforza, though being martial,
from a private person became Duke of Milan; and the sons, through avoiding the hardships and troubles of arms, from
dukes became private persons. For among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised, and
this is one of those ignominies against which a prince ought to guard himself, as is shown later on.
Concerning Things for Which Men, and Especially Princes, are Blamed It remains now to see what ought to be the rules of conduct for a prince toward subject and friends. And as I know that
many have written on this point, I expect I shall be considered presumptuous in mentioning it again, especially as in
discussing it I shall depart from the methods of other people. But it being my intention to write a thing which shall be
useful to him to apprehends it, it appears to me more appropriate to follow up the real truth of a matter than the
imagination of it; for many have pictured republics and principalities which in fact have never been known or seen,
because how one lives is so far distant from how one ought to live, that he who neglects what is done for what ought to
be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation; for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue
soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil.
Hence, it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not
according to necessity. Therefore, putting on one side imaginary things concerning a prince, and discussing those which
are real, I say that all men when they are spoken of, and chiefly princes for being more highly placed, are remarkable for
some of those qualities which bring them either blame or praise; and thus it is that one is reputed liberal, another
miserly...; one is reputed generous, one rapacious; one cruel, one compassionate; one faithless, another faithful.... And I
know that every one will confess that it would be most praiseworthy in a prince to exhibit all the above qualities that are
considered good; but because they can neither be entirely possessed nor observed, for human conditions do not permit it,
it is necessary for him to be sufficiently prident that he may know how to avoid the reproach of those vices which would
lose him his state...
Concerning Cruelty and Clemency, and Whether it is Better to be Loved than Feared Upon this a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one
should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved,
when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful,
fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you successed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood,
property, life, and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you.
And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships
36
that are obtained by payments, and not by nobility or greatness of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured,
and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is
feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity
for their advantage; but fear preserved you by a dread of punishment which never fails.
Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can
endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his
citizens and subjects and from their women.
From: Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, ed. W. K. Marriott. London: J. M. Dent and Sons, 1908, pp. 117-118, 129-131.
20. Martin Luther
Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation
(1520)
Questions: What changes to Western Civilizations occurred when Martin Luther broke from the Roman
Church? How did this impact Christian religion? Why was he so critical of the Pope? Was it the Pope himself
or the office? How did Luther impact Western Monarchies?
The Romanists have, with great adroitness, drawn three walls round themselves, with which they have hitherto protected
themselves, so that no one could reform them, whereby all Christendom has fallen terribly.
First, if pressed by the temporal power, they have affirmed and maintained that the temporal power has no jurisdiction
over them, but, on the contrary, that the spiritual power is above the temporal.
Secondly, if it were proposed to admonish them with the Scriptures, they objected that no one may interpret the
Scriptures but the Pope.
Thirdly, if they are threatened with a council, they pretend that no one may call a council but the Pope ...
Now may God help us, and give us one of those trumpets that overthrew the walls of Jericho, so that we may blow down
these walls of straw and paper, and that we may set free our Christian rods for the chastisement of sin, and expose the
craft and deceit of the devil, so that we may amend ourselves by punishment and again obtain God's favour.
Let us, in the first place, attack the first wall.
It has been devised that the Pope, bishops, priests, and monks are called the spiritual estate; princes, lords, artificers, and
peasants, are the temporal estate. This is an artful lie and hypocritical device, but let no one be made afraid by it, and that
for this reason: that all Christians are truly of the spiritual estate, and there is no difference among them, save of office
alone. As St. Paul says (i Cor. xii), we are all one body, though each member does its own work, to serve the others, This
is because we have one baptism, one Gospel, one faith, and are all Christians alike; for baptism, Gospel, and faith, these
alone make spiritual and Christian people.
37
As for the unction by a pope or a bishop, tonsure, ordination, consecration, and clothes differing from those of laymen-all
this may make a hypocrite or an anointed puppet, but never a Christian or a spiritual man. Thus we are all consecrated as,
priests by baptism, as St. Peter says: 'Ye are a royal priesthood, a holy nation (i Pet. ii. 9); and in the book of Revelation:
'and hast made us unto our God (by Thy blood) kings and priests' (Rev. v. io). For, if we had not a higher consecration in
us than pope or bishop can give, no priest could ever be made by the consecration of pope or bishop, nor could he say the
mass or preach or absolve. Therefore the bishop's consecration is just as if in the name of the whole congregation he took
one person out of the community; each member of which has equal power, and commanded him to exercise this power
for the rest; in the same way as if ten brothers, co-heirs as king's sons, were to choose one from among them to rule over
their' inheritance, they would all of them still remain- kings and have equal power, although one is ordered to govern.
And to put the matter more plainly, if a little company of pious Christian laymen were taken prisoners and carried away
to a desert, and had not among them a priest consecrated by a bishop, and were there to agree to elect one of them and
were to order him to baptise, to celebrate the mass, to absolve and to preach, this man would as truly be a priest, as if all
the bishops and all the popes had consecrated him. That is why, in cases of necessity, every man can baptise and absolve,
which would not be possible if we were not all priests. This great grace and virtue of baptism and of the Christian estate
they have quite destroyed and made us forget by their ecclesiastical law . . .
Since then the temporal power is baptized as we are, and has the same faith and Gospel, we must allow it to be priest and
bishop, and account its office an office that is proper and useful to the Christian community. For whatever issues from
baptism may boast that it has been consecrated priest, bishop, and pope, although it does not beseem everyone to exercise
these offices. For, since we are all priests alike, no man may put himself forward or take upon himself without our
consent and election, to do that which we have all alike power to do. For if a thing is common to all, no man may take it
to himself without the wish and command of the community. And if it should happen that a man were appointed to one
of these offices and deposed for abuses, he would be just what he was before. Therefore a priest should be nothing in
Christendom but a functionary; as long as he holds his office, he has precedence of others; if he is deprived of it, he is a
peasant or a citizen like the rest. Therefore a priest is verily no longer a priest after deposition. But now they have
invented characteres indelibiles, and pretend that a priest after deprivation still differs from a simple layman. They even
imagine that a priest can never be anything but a priest-that is, that he become a layman. All this is nothing but mere
ordinance of human invention.
It follows then, that between laymen and priests, princes and bishops, or, as they call it, between spiritual and temporal
sons, the only real difference is one of office and function, and not of estate. . . .
. . .Therefore I say, Forasmuch as the temporal power has been ordained by God for the punishment of the bad and the
protection of the good, we must let it do its duty throughout the whole Christian body, without respect of persons,
whether it strike popes, bishops, priests, monks, nuns, or whoever it may be....
Whatever the ecclesiastical law has said in opposition to this is merely the invention of Romanist arrogance. . . .
Now, I imagine the first paper wall is overthrown, inasmuch the temporal power has become a member of the Christian
body; although its work relates to the body, yet does it belong to the spritual estate. . . .
The second wall is even more tottering and weak: that they end to be considered masters of the Scriptures. . . . If of our
faith is right, 'I believe in the holy Christian church,' the Pope cannot alone be right; else we must say, 'I believe in the
Pope of Rome,' and reduce the Christian Church to one man, which is a devilish and damnable heresy. Besides that, we
are all priests, as I have said, and have all one faith, one Gospel, one Sacrament ; how then should we not have the power
of discerning and judging what is right or wrong in matters of faith ? ...
38
The third wall falls of itself, as soon as the first two have fallen; for if the Pope acts contrary to the Scriptures, we are
bound to stand by the Scriptures to punish and to constrain him, according to Christ's commandment . 'tell it unto the
Church' (Matt. xviii. 15-17). . . . If then I am to accuse him before the Church, I must collect the Church together. . .
.Therefore when need requires, and the Pope is a cause of offence to Christendom, in these cases whoever can best do so,
as a faithful member of the whole body, must do what he can to procure a true free council. This no one can do so we as
the temporal authorities, especially since they are fellow-Christians, fellow-priests. . . .
21. Christopher Columbus Letter to Lord Raphael Sanchez
14 March 1493
Questions: Columbus is credited with discovery of the American Continent. In what ways is that correct?
Incorrect? How did he view the Native People? How did his world view influence this meeting of Europe and
America?
Letter addressed to the noble Lord Raphael Sanchez, Treasurer to their most invincible Majesties, Ferdinand and
Isabella, King and Queen of Spain, by Christopher Columbus, to whom our age is greatly indebted, treating of the
islands of India secently discovered beyond the Ganges, to explore which he had been sent eight months before under the
auspices and at the expense of their said Majesties.
KNOWING that it will afford you pleasure to learn that I have brought my undertaking to a successful termination, I
have decided upon writing you this letter to acquaint you with all the events which have occurred in my voyage, and the
discoveries which have resulted from it. Thirty-three days after my departure from Cadiz I reached the Indian sea, where
I discovered many islands, thickly peopled, of which I took possession without resistance in the name of our most
illustrious Monarch, by public proclamation and with unfurled banners. To the first of these islands, which is called by
the Indians Guanahani, I gave the name of the blessed Saviour (San Salvador), relying upon whose protection I had
reached this as well as the other islands; to each of these I also gave a name, ordering that one should be called Santa
Maria de la Concepcion, another Fernandina, the third Isabella, the fourth Juana, and so with all the rest respectively.
As soon as we arrived at that, which as I have said was named Juana, I proceeded along its coast a short distance
westward, and found it to be so large and apparently without termination, that I could not suppose it to be an island, but
the continental province of Cathay. Seeing, however, no towns or populous places on the sea coast, but only a few
detached houses and cottages, with whose inhabitants I was unable to communicate, because they fled as soon as they
saw us, I went further on, thinking that in my progress I should certainly find some city or village. At length, after
proceeding a great way and finding that nothing new presented itself, and that the line of coast was leading us northwards
(which I wished to avoid, because it was winter, and it was my intention to move southwards; and because moreover the
winds were contrary), I resolved not to attempt any further progress, but rather to turn back and retrace my course to a
certain bay that I had observed, and from which I afterwards dispatched two of our men to ascertain whether there were a
king or any cities in that province. These men reconnoitered the country for three days, and found a most numerous
population, and great numbers of houses, though small, and built without any regard to order: with which information
they returned to us.
In the mean time I had learned from some Indians whom I had seized, that that country was certainly an island: and
therefore I sailed towards the east, coasting to the distance of three hundred and twenty- two miles, which brought us to
the extremity of it; from this point I saw lying eastwards another island, fifty-four miles distant from Juana, to which I
39
gave the name of Espanola: I went thither, and steered my course eastward as I had done at Juana, even to the distance of
five hundred and sixty-four miles along the north coast.
This said island of Juana is exceedingly fertile, as indeed are all the others; it is surrounded with many bays, spacious,
very secure, and surpassing any that I have ever seen; numerous large and healthful rivers intersect it, and it also contains
many very lofty mountains. All these islands are very beautiful, and distinguished by a diversity of scenery; they are
filled with a great variety of trees of immense height, and which I believe to retain their foliage in all seasons; for when I
saw them they were as verdant and luxuriant as they usually are in Spain in the month of May,--some of them were
blossoming, some bearing fruit, and all flourishing in the greatest perfection, according to their respective stages of
growth, and the nature and quality of each: yet the islands are not so thickly wooded as to be impassable. The nightingale
and various birds were singing in countless numbers, and that in November, the month in which I arrived there. There are
besides in the same island of Juana seven or eight kinds of palm trees, which, like all the other trees, herbs, and fruits,
considerably surpass ours in height and beauty. The pines also are very handsome, and there are very extensive fields and
meadows, a variety of birds, different kinds of honey, and many sorts of metals, but no iron.
In that island also which I have before said we named Espanola, there are mountains of very great size and beauty, vast
plains, groves, and very fruitful fields, admirably adapted for tillage, pasture, and habitation. The convenience and
excellence of the harbours in this island, and the abundance of the rivers, so indispensable to the health of man, surpass
anything that would be believed by one who had not seen it. The trees, herbage, and fruits of Espanola are very different
from those of Juana, and moreover it abounds in various kinds of spices, gold, and other metals.
The inhabitants of both sexes in this island, and in all the others which I have seen, or of which I have received
information, go always naked as they were born, with the exception of some of the women, who use the covering of a
leaf, or small bough, or an apron of cotton which they prepare for that purpose. None of them, as I have already said, are
possessed of any iron, neither have they weapons, being unacquainted with, and indeed incompetent to use them, not
from any deformity of body (for they are well-formed), but because they are timid and full of fear. They carry however in
lieu of arms, canes dried in the sun, on the ends of which they fix heads of dried wood sharpened to a point, and even
these they dare not use habitually; for it has often occurred when I have sent two or three of my men to any of the
villages to speak with the natives, that they have come out in a disorderly troop, and have fled in such haste at the
approach of our men, that the fathers forsook their children and the children their fathers. This timidity did not arise from
any loss or injury that they had received from us; for, on the contrary, I gave to all I approached whatever articles I had
about me, such as cloth and many other things, taking nothing of theirs in return: but they are naturally timid and fearful.
As soon however as they see that they are safe, and have laid aside all fear, they are very simple and honest, and
exceedingly liberal with all they have; none of them refusing anything he may possess when he is asked for it, but on the
contrary inviting us to ask them. They exhibit great love towards all others in preference to themselves: they also give
objects of great value for trifles, and content themselves with very little or nothing in return. I however forbad that these
trifles and articles of no value (such as pieces of dishes, plates, and glass, keys, and leather straps) should be given to
them, although if they could obtain them, they imagined themselves to be possessed of the most beautiful trinkets in the
world.
It even happened that a sailor received for a leather strap as much gold as was worth three golden nobles, and for things
of more trifling value offered by our men, especially newly coined blancas, or any gold coins, the Indians would give
whatever the seller required; as, for instance, an ounce and a half or two ounces of gold, or thirty or forty pounds of
cotton, with which commodity they were already acquainted. Thus they bartered, like idiots, cotton and gold for
fragments of bows, glasses, bottles, and jars; which I forbad as being unjust, and myself gave them many beautiful and
acceptable articles which I had brought with me, taking nothing from them in return; I did this in order that I might the
more easily conciliate them, that they might be led to become Christians, and be inclined to entertain a regard for the
40
King and Queen, our Princes and all Spaniards, and that I might induce them to take an interest in seeking out, and
collecting, and delivering to us such things as they possessed in abundance, but which we greatly needed.
They practice no kind of idolatry, but have a firm belief that all strength and power, and indeed all good things, are in
heaven, and that I had descended from thence with these ships and sailors, and under this impression was I received after
they had thrown aside their fears. Nor are they slow or stupid, but of very clear understanding; and those men who have
crossed to the neighbouring islands give an admirable description of everything they observed; but they never saw any
people clothed, nor any ships like ours.
On my arrival at that sea, I had taken some Indians by force from the first island that I came to, in order that they might
learn our language, and communicate to us what they knew respecting the country; which plan succeeded excellently,
and was a great advantage to us, for in a short time, either by gestures and signs, or by words, we were enabled to
understand each other. These men are still travelling with me, and although they have been with us now a long time, they
continue to entertain the idea that I have descended from heaven; and on our arrival at any new place they published this,
crying out immediately with a loud voice to the other Indians, "Come, come and look upon beings of a celestial race":
upon which both women and men, children and adults, young men and old, when they got rid of the fear they at first
entertained, would come out in throngs, crowding the roads to see us, some bringing food, others drink, with astonishing
affection and kindness.
Each of these islands has a great number of canoes, built of solid wood, narrow and not unlike our double- banked boats
in length and shape, but swifter in their motion: they steer them only by the oar. These canoes are of various sizes, but
the greater number are constructed with eighteen banks of oars, and with these they cross to the other islands, which are
of countless number, to carry on traffic with the people. I saw some of these canoes that held as many as seventy-eight
rowers.
In all these islands there is no difference of physiognomy, of manners, or of language, but they all clearly understand
each other, a circumstance very propitious for the realization of what I conceive to be the principal wish of our most
serene King, namely, the conversion of these people to the holy faith of Christ, to which indeed, as far as I can judge,
they are very favourable and well-disposed.
I said before, that I went three hundred and twenty-two miles in a direct line from west to east, along the coast of the
island of Juana; Judging by which voyage, and the length of the passage, I can assert that it is larger than England and
Scotland united; for independent of the said three hundred and twenty-two miles, there are in the western part of the
island two provinces which I did not visit; one of these is called by the Indiane Anam, and its inhabitants are born with
tails.
These provinces extend to a hundred and fifty-three miles in length, as I have learnt from the Indians whom I have
brought with me, and who are well acquainted with the country. But the extent of Espanola is greater than all Spain from
Catalonia to Fontarabia, which is easily proved, because one of its four sides which I myself coasted in a direct line, from
west to east, measures five hundred and forty miles. This island is to be regarded with especial interest, and not to be
slighted; for although as I have said I took possession of all these islands in the name of our invincible King, and the
government of them is unreservedly committed to his said Majesty, yet there was one large town in Espanola of which
especially I took possession, situated in a remarkably favourable spot, and in every way convenient for the purposes of
gain and commerce.
To this town I gave the name of Navidad del Senor, and ordered a fortress to be built there, which must by this time be
completed, in which I left as many men as I thought necessary, with all sorts of arms, and enough provisions for more
than a year. I also left them one caravel, and skilful workmen both in ship-building and other arts, and engaged the favor
41
and friendship of the King of the island in their behalf, to a degree that would not be believed, for these people are so
amiable and friendly that even the King took a pride in calling me his brother. But supposing their feelings should
become changed, and they should wish to injure those who have remained in the fortress, they could not do so, for they
have no arms, they go naked, and are moreover too cowardly; and that those who hold the said fortress, can easily keep
the whole island in check, without any pressing danger to themselves, provided they do not transgress the directions and
regulations which I have given them.
As far as I have learned, every man throughout these islands is united to but one wife, with the exception of the kings and
princes, who are allowed to have twenty: the women seem to work more than the men. I could not clearly understand
whether the people possess any private property, for I observed that one man had the charge of distributing various things
to the rest, but especially meat and provisions and the like. I did not find, as some of us had expected, any cannibals
amongst them, but on the contrary men of great deference and kindness. Neither are they black, like the Ethiopians: their
hair is smooth and straight: for they do not dwell where the rays of the sun strike most vividly,--and the sun has intense
power there, the distance from the equinoctial line being, it appears, but six-and-twenty degrees. On the tops of the
mountains the cold is very great, but the effect of this upon the Indians is lessened by their being accustomed to the
climate, and by their frequently indulging in the use of very hot meats and drinks. Thus, as I have already said, I saw no
cannibals, nor did I hear of any, except in a certain island called Charis, which is the second from Espanola on the side
towards India, where dwell a people who are considered by the neighbouring islanders as most ferocious: and these feed
upon human flesh. The same people have many kinds of canoes, in which they cross to all the surrounding islands and
rob and plunder wherever they can; they are not different from the other islanders, except that they wear their hair long,
like women, and make use of the bows and javelins of cane, with sharpened spear-points fixed on the thickest end, which
I have before described, and therefore they are looked upon as ferocious, and regarded by the other Indians with
unbounded fear; but I think no more of them than of the rest. These are the men who form unions with certain women,
who dwell alone in the island Matenin, which lies next to Espanola on the side towards India; these latter employ
themselves in no labour suitable to their own sex, for they use bows and javelins as I have already described their
paramours as doing, and for defensive armour have plates of brass, of which metal they possess great abundance. They
assure me that there is another island larger than Espanola, whose inhabitants have no hair, and which abounds in gold
more than any of the rest. I bring with me individuals of this island and of the others that I have seen, who are proofs of
the facts which I state.
Finally, to compress into few words the entire summary of my voyage and speedy return, and of the advantages derivable
therefrom, I promise, that with a little assistance afforded me by our most invincible sovereigns, I will procure them as
much gold as they need, as great a quantity of spices, of cotton, and of mastic (which is only found in Chios), and as
many men for the service of the navy as their Majesties may require. I promise also rhubarb and other sorts of drugs,
which I am persuaded the men whom I have left in the aforesaid fortress have found already and will continue to find; for
I myself have tarried nowhere longer than I was compelled to do by the winds, except in the city of Navidad, while I
provided for the building of the fortress, and took the necessary precautions for the perfect security of the men I left
there. Although all I have related may appear to be wonderful and unheard of, yet the results of my voyage would have
been more astonishing if I had had at my disposal such ships as I required. But these great and marvellous results are not
to be attributed to any merit of mine, but to the holy Christian faith, and to the piety and religion of our Sovereigns; for
that which the unaided intellect of man could not compass, the spirit of God has granted to human exertions, for God is
wont to hear the prayers of his servants who love his precepts even to the performance of apparent impossibilities. Thus
it has happened to me in the present instance, who have accomplished a task to which the powers of mortal men had
never hitherto attained; for if there have been those who have anywhere written or spoken of these islands, they have
done so with doubts and conjectures, and no one has ever asserted that he has seen them, on which account their writings
have been looked upon as little else than fables. Therefore let the king and queen, our princes and their most happy
kingdoms, and all the other provinces of Christendom, render thanks to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who has
granted us so great a victory and such prosperity. Let processions be made, and sacred feasts be held, and the temples be
42
adorned with festive boughs. Let Christ rejoice on earth, as he rejoices in heaven in the prospect of the salvation of the
souls of so many nations hitherto lost. Let us also rejoice, as well on account of the exaltation of our faith, as on account
of the increase of our temporal prosperity, of which not only Spain, but all Christendom will be partakers.
Such are the events which I have briefly described.
Farewell.
Lisbon, the 14th of March.
CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS,
Admiral of the Fleet of the Ocean.
22. The Crime of Galileo: Indictment and Abjuration of 1633
Questions: Why was Galileo so significant to the Renaissance? Why did the Church believe Copernicus had to be
incorrect? Why did Galileo adjure his belief in Copernicus? What does this document reveal about the state of affairs
during the Renaissance? How does this document demonstrate the extreme care Enlightened thinkers had to exercise in
regards to science and religion?
Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei, of Florence, aged seventy years, were denounced in 1615, to this
Holy Office, for holding as true a false doctrine taught by many, namely, that the sun is immovable in the center of the
world, and that the earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; also, for having pupils whom you instructed in the same
opinions; also, for maintaining a correspondence on the same with some German mathematicians; also for publishing
certain letters on the sun-spots, in which you developed the same doctrine as true; also, for answering the objections
which were continually produced from the Holy Scriptures, by glozing the said Scriptures according to your own
meaning; and whereas thereupon was produced the copy of a writing, in form of a letter professedly written by you to a
person formerly your pupil, in which, following the hypothesis of Copernicus, you include several propositions contrary
to the true sense and authority of the Holy Scriptures; therefore (this Holy Tribunal being desirous of providing against
the disorder and mischief which were thence proceeding and increasing to the detriment of the Holy Faith) by the desire
of his Holiness and the Most Emminent Lords, Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions
of the stability of the sun, and the motion of the earth, were qualified by the Theological Qualifiers as follows:
1. The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false,
and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.
2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal
action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.
Therefore . . . , invoking the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Most Glorious Mother Mary, We
pronounce this Our final sentence: We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo . . . have rendered
yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is
false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move
from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world; also, that an opinion can be held and
supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture, and, consequently,
that you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated in the sacred canons and other general
and particular constituents against delinquents of this description. From which it is Our pleasure that you be absolved,
43
provided that with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in Our presence, you abjure, curse, and detest, the said error and
heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome. 1630 A.D.
23. Deism
Questions: Why was Deism a natural outgrowth of the Renaissance? How does it reflect Greek thought but not
Greek religion? Does religion hinder personal, scientific, political growth? Why did people fear religion? Do
we still?
Deism is belief in God based on the application of our reason on the designs/laws found throughout Nature. The designs
presuppose a Designer. Deism is therefore a natural religion and is not a "revealed" religion. The natural
religion/philosophy of Deism frees those who embrace it from the inconsistencies of superstition and the negativity of
fear that are so strongly represented in all of the "revealed" religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. (These
religions are called revealed religions because they all make claim to having received a special revelation from God
which they pretend, and many of their sincere followers actually believe, their various and conflicting holy books are
based on.) When enough people become Deists, reason will be elevated over fear and myth and its positive qualities will
become a part of society as a whole. Then, instead of having billions of people chasing after the nonsensical violence
promoting myths of the "revealed" religions, people will be centered on their God-given reason which will lead to
limitless personal and societal progress!
24. Jean Jacques Rousseau: The Social Contract, 1763
Questions: What is the Social Contract? Does it hold true if the contract is not written down into a
constitution? How does he reconcile personal will and public will? Who did Rousseau’s writings impact?
Jean-Jacques Rousseau stresses, like John Lockem the idea of a social contract as the basis of society. Locke's version
emphasised a contact between the governors and the governed:
Origin and Terms of the Social Contract
Man was born free, but everywhere he is in chains. This man believes that he is the master of others, and still he is more
of a slave than they are. How did that transformation take place? I don't know. How may the restraints on man become
legitimate? I do believe I can answer that question....
At a point in the state of nature when the obstacles to human preservation have become greater than each individual with
his own strength can cope with . . ., an adequate combination of forces must be the result of men coming together. Still,
each man's power and freedom are his main means of self preservation. How is he to put them under the control of others
without damaging himself . . . ?
This question might be rephrased: "How is a method of associating to be found which will defend and protect-using the
power of all-the person and property of each member and still enable each member of the group to obey only himself and
to remain as free as before?" This is the fundamental problem; the social contract offers a solution to it.
44
The very scope of the action dictates the terms of this contract and renders the least modification of them inadmissible,
something making them null and void. Thus, although perhaps they have never been stated in so man) words, they are
the same everywhere and tacitly conceded and recognized everywhere. And so it follows that each individual
immediately recovers hi primitive rights and natural liberties whenever any violation of the social contract occurs and
thereby loses the contractual freedom for which he renounced them.
The social contract's terms, when they are well understood, can be reduced to a single stipulation: the individual member
alienates himself totally to the whole community together with all his rights. This is first because conditions will be the
same for everyone when each individual gives himself totally, and secondly, because no one will be tempted to make that
condition of shared equality worse for other men....
Once this multitude is united this way into a body, an offense against one of its members is an offense against the body
politic. It would be even less possible to injure the body without its members feeling it. Duty and interest thus equally
require the two contracting parties to aid each other mutually. The individual people should be motivated from their
double roles as individuals and members of the body, to combine all the advantages which mutual aid offers them....
Individual Wills and the General Will
In reality, each individual may have one particular will as a man that is different from-or contrary to-the general will
which he has as a citizen. His own particular interest may suggest other things to him than the common interest does. His
separate, naturally independent existence may make him imagine that what he owes to the common cause is an incidental
contribution - a contribution which will cost him more to give than their failure to receive it would harm the others. He
may also regard the moral person of the State as an imaginary being since it is not a man, and wish to enjoy the rights of
a citizen without performing the duties of a subject. This unjust attitude could cause the ruin of the body politic if it
became widespread enough.
So that the social pact will not become meaningless words, it tacitly includes this commitment, which alone gives power
to the others: Whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be forced to obey it by the whole body politic, which means
nothing else but that he will be forced to be free. This condition is indeed the one which by dedicating each citizen to the
fatherland gives him a guarantee against being personally dependent on other individuals. It is the condition which all
political machinery depends on and which alone makes political undertakings legitimate. Without it, political actions
become absurd, tyrannical, and subject to the most outrageous abuses.
Whatever benefits he had in the state of nature but lost in the civil state, a man gains more than enough new ones to make
up for them. His capabilities are put to good use and developed; his ideas are enriched, his sentiments made more noble,
and his soul elevated to the extent that-if the abuses in this new condition did not often degrade him to a condition lower
than the one he left behind-he would have to keep blessing this happy moment which snatched him away from his
previous state and which made an intelligent being and a man out of a stupid and very limited animal....
Property Rights
In dealing with its members, the State controls all their goods under the social contract, which serves as the basis for all
rights within the State, but it controls them only through the right of first holder which individuals convey to the State....
A strange aspect of this act of alienating property rights to the state is that when the community takes on the goods of its
members, it does not take these goods away from them. The community does nothing but assure its members of
legitimate possession of goods, changing mere claims of possession into real rights and customary use into property....
45
Through an act of transfer having advantages for the public but far more for themselves they have, so to speak, really
acquired everything they gave up....
Indivisible, Inalienable Sovereignty
The first and most important conclusion from the principles we have established thus far is that the general will alone
may direct the forces of the State to achieve the goal for which it was founded, the common good.... Sovereignty is
indivisible ... and is inalienable.... A will is general or it is not: it is that of the whole body of the people or only of one
faction. In the first instance, putting the will into words and force is an act of sovereignty: the will becomes law. In the
second instance, it is only a particular will or an administrative action; at the very most it is a decree.
Our political theorists, however, unable to divide the source of sovereignty, divide sovereignty into the ways it is applied.
They divide it into force and will; into legislative power and executive power; into the power to tax, the judicial power,
and the power to wage war; into internal administration and the power to negotiate with foreign countries. Now we see
them running these powers together. Now they will proceed to separate them. They make the sovereign a being of
fantasy, composed of separate pieces, which would be like putting a man together from several bodies, one having eyes,
another arms, another feet-nothing more. Japanese magicians are said to cut up a child before the eyes of spectators, then
throw the pieces into the air one after the other, and then cause the child to drop down reassembled and alive again. That
is the sort of magic trick our political theorists perform. After having dismembered the social body with a trick worthy of
a travelling show, they reassemble the pieces without anybody knowing how....
If we follow up in the same way on the other divisions mentioned, we find that we are deceived every time we believe
we see sovereignty divided. We find that the jurisdictions we have thought to be exercised as parts of sovereignty in
reality are subordinate to the [one] sovereign power. They presuppose supreme wills, which they merely carry out in
their jurisdictions . . . .
Need for Citizen Participation, Not Representation
It follows from the above that the general will is always in the right and inclines toward the public good, but it does not
follow that the deliberations of the people always have the same rectitude. People always desire what is good, but they do
not always see what is good. You can never corrupt the people, but you can often fool them, and that is the only time that
the people appear to will something bad....
If, assuming that the people were sufficiently informed as they made decisions and that the citizens did not communicate
with each other, the general will would always be resolved from a great number of small differences, and the deliberation
would always be good. But when blocs are formed, associations of parts at the expense of the whole, the will of each of
these associations will be general as far as its members are concerned but particular as far as the State is concerned. Then
we may say that there are no longer so many voters as there are men present but as many as there are associations. The
differences will become less numerous and will yield less general results. Finally, when one of these associations
becomes so strong that it dominates the others, you no longer have the sum of minor differences as a result but rather one
single [unresolved] difference, with the result that there no longer is a general will, and the view that prevails is nothing
but one particular view....
But we must also consider the private persons who make up the public, apart from the public personified, who each have
a life and liberty independent of it. It is very necessary for us to distinguish between the respective rights of the citizens
and the sovereign and between the duties which men must fulfill in their role as subjects from the natural rights they
should enjoy in their role as men.
46
It is agreed that everything which each individual gives up of his power, his goods, and his liberty under the social
contract is only that part of all those things which is of use to the community, but it is also necessary to agree that the
sovereign alone is the judge of what that useful part is.
All the obligations which a citizen owes to the State he must fulfill as soon as the sovereign asks for them, but the
sovereign in turn cannot impose any obligation on subjects which is not of use to the community. If fact, the sovereign
cannot even wish to do so, for nothing can take place without a cause according to the laws of reason, any more than
according to the laws of nature [and the sovereign community will have no cause to require anything beyond what is of
communal use]....
Government . . is wrongly confused with the sovereign, whose agent it is. What then is government? It is an intermediary
body established between the subjects and the sovereign to keep them in touch with each other. It is charged with
executing the laws and maintaining both civil and political liberty.... The only will dominating government ... should be
the general will or the law. The government's power is only the public power vested in it. As soon as [government]
attempts to let any act come from itself completely independently, it starts to lose its intermediary role. If the time should
ever come when the [government] has a particular will of its own stronger than that of the sovereign and makes use of
the public power which is in its hands to carry out its own particular will-when there are thus two sovereigns, one in law
and one in fact-at that moment the social union will disappear and the body politic will be dissolved.
Once the public interest has ceased to be the principal concern of citizens, once they prefer to serve State with money
rather than with their persons, the State will be approaching ruin. Is it necessary to march into combat? They will pay
some troops and stay at home. Is it necessary to go to meetings? They will name some deputies and stay at home.
Laziness and money finally leave them with soldiers to enslave their fatherland and representatives to sell it....
Sovereignty cannot be represented.... Essentially, it consists of the general will, and a will is not represented: either we
have it itself, or it is something else; there is no other possibility. The deputies of the people thus are not and cannot be its
representatives. They are only the people's agents and are not able to come to final decisions at all. Any law that the
people have not ratified in person is void, it is not a law at all.
Sovereignty and Civil Religion
Now then, it is of importance to the State that each citizen should have a religion requiring his devotion to duty;
however, the dogmas of that religion are of no interest to the State except as they relate to morality and to the duties
which each believer is required to perform for others. For the rest of it, each person may have whatever opinions he
pleases....
It follows that it is up to the sovereign to establish the articles of a purely civil faith, not exactly as dogmas of religion but
as sentiments of social commitment without which it would be impossible to be either a good citizen or a faithful
subject.... While the State has no power to oblige anyone to believe these articles, it may banish anyone who does not
believe them. This banishment is not for impiety but for lack of social commitment, that is, for being incapable of
sincerely loving the laws and justice or of sacrificing his life to duty in time of need. As for the person who conducts
himself as if he does not believe them after having publicly stated his belief in these same dogmas, he deserves the death
penalty. He has lied in the presence of the laws.
The dogmas of civil religion should be simple, few in number, and stated in precise words without interpretations or
commentaries. These are the required dogmas: the existence of a powerful, intelligent Divinity, who does good, has
foreknowledge of all, and provides for all; the life to come; the happy rewards of the just; the punishment of the wicked;
47
and the sanctity ol` the social contract and the laws. As for prohibited articles of faith, I limit myself to one: intolerance.
Intolerance characterizes the religious persuasions we have excluded.
From JeanJacques Rousseau, Contrat social ou Principes du droit politique (Paris: Garnier Frères 1800), pp. 240332,
passim. Translated by Henry A. Myers.
25. Isaac Newton:
The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy [Excerpts]
Questions: How did Newton and other enlightened scientists draw on the Greek philosophers? How can
Newton’s rules be easily summed up? Why is Newton still considered significant in science?
[The Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy]
RULE 1
We are to admit no more causes of natural things, than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
To this purpose the philosophers say, that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain, when less will serve; for
Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.
RULE II
Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
As to respiration in a man, and in a beast; the descent of stones in Europe and in America; the light of`our culinary fire
and of the sun; the reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets
RULE III
The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intension nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all
bodies within reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
For since the qualities of bodies are only known to us by experiments, we are to hold for universal, all such as universally
agree with experiments; and such as are not liable to diminution, can never be quite taken away. We are certainly not to
relinquish the evidence of experiments for the sake of dreams and vain fictions of our own devising; nor are we to recede
from the analogy of Nature, which is wont to be simple, and always consonant to itself. We no other way know the
extension of bodies, than by our senses, nor do these reach it in all bodies; but because we perceive extension in all that
are sensible, therefore we ascribe it universally to all others, also. That abundance of bodies are hard we learn by
experience. And because the hardness of the whole arises from the hardness of the parts, we therefore justly infer the
hardness of the undivided particles not only of the bodies we feel but of all others. That all bodies are impenetrable we
gather not from reason, but from sensation. The bodies which we handle we find impenetrables and thence conclude
48
impenetrability to be a universal property of all bodies whatsoever. That all bodies are moveable, and endowed with
certain powers (which we call the forces of inertia) or persevering in their motion or in their rest, we only infer from the
like properties observed in the bodies which we have seen. The extension, hardness, impenetrability, mobility, and force
of inertia of the whole result from the extension, hardness, impenetrability, mobility, and forces of inertia of the parts:
and thence we conclude that the least particles of all bodies to be also all extended, and hard, and impenetrable, and
moveable, and endowed with their proper forces of inertia. And this is the foundation of all philosophy. Moreover, that
the divided but contiguous particles of bodies may be separated from one another, is a matter of observation; and, in the
particles that remain undivided, our minds are able to distinguish yet lesser parts, as is mathematically demonstrated. But
whether the parts so distinguished, and not yet divided, may, by the powers of nature, be actually divided and separated
from one another, we cannot certainly determine. Yet had we the proof of but one experiment, that any undivided
particle, in breaking a hard and solid body, suffered a division, we might by virtue of this rule, conclude, that the
undivided as well as the divided particles, may be divided and actually separated into infinity.
Lastly, if it universally appears, by experiments and astronomical observations, that all bodies about the earth, gravitate
toward the earth; and that in proportion to the quantity of matter which they severally contain; that the moon likewise,
according to the quantity of its matter, gravitates toward the earth; that on the other hand our sea gravitates toward the
moon; and all the planets mutually one toward another; and the comets in like manner towards the sun; we must, in
consequence of this rule, universally allow, that all bodies whatsoever are endowed with a principle of mutual
gravitation. For the argument from the appearances concludes with more force for the universal gravitation of all bodies,
than for their impenetrability, of which among those in the celestial regions, we have no experiments, nor any manner of
observation. Not that I affirm gravity to be essential to all bodies. By their inherent force I mean nothing but their force
of` inertia. This is immutable. Their gravity is diminished as they recede from the earth.
RULE IV
In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as
accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other
phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.
This rule we must follow that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.
Isaac Newton, The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, trans. A. Motte (London, 1729). [Capitalization and
spelling have been modernized.]
26. A Declaration of Independence
Questions: What political and philosophical theories shaped the Declaration of Independence? While
significant to the United States, why is the Declaration of Independence important to the development of other
western cultures? What does the document attempt to justify? How is it clearly an Enlightenment document?
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for a people to advance from that subordination in which
they have hitherto remained, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the equal and independent station to which
the laws of nature and of nature's god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the change
We hold these truths to be [sacred and undeniable] self evident, that all men are created equal and independent; that from
that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and inalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty
49
and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the
right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. prudence,
indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes: and
accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right
themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. but when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
begun at a distinguished period, and pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to [subject] reduce them to
arbitrary power, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future
security. --
Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to expunge
their former systems of government. the history of his present majesty is a history of unremitting injuries and
usurpations, among which no fact stands single or solitary to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest, all of which have in
direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states… to prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid
world, for the truth of which we pledge a faith yet unsullied by falsehood.
27. The Ten Original Amendments: The Bill of Rights. Passed by Congress September 25, 1789.
Ratified December 15, 1791.
Questions: How does the Bill of Rights compare to earlier legal systems? Which of the many past peoples
does the Bill of Rights compare best with? Why? What were the fears of the Founding Fathers as they wrote
the Bill of Rights?
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government
for a redress of grievances.
2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed.
3. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in
a manner to be prescribed by law.
4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a
Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or
public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall
be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State
and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law,
and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
7. In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be
preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to
the rules of the common law.
8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
50
9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people.
10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.
28. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: The Communist Manifesto (1848)
Questions: What does Marx advocate with his Communist Manifesto? How would you define a communist?
What social conditions were prevalent to lead him to these extreme views? Why, according to Marx, was
capital in the hands of an individual evil? Was he correct? How was Marx received in his lifetime? What were
the long-term impacts of Marx writings? What are the strengths of communism? The potential hazards? Although it at first had little or no impact on the widespread and varied revolutionary movements of the mid-19th
century Europe, the Communist Manifesto was to become one of the most widely read and discussed documents of the
20th century. Marx sought to differentiate his brand of socialism from others by insisting that it was scientifically based
in the objective study of history, which he saw as being a continuous process of change and transformation. Just as
feudalism had naturally evolved into mercantilism and then capitalism, so capitalism would inevitably give way to its
logical successor, socialism (a term which in Marx's usage includes its most advanced form, communism) as the
necessary result of class struggle. Marx's insistence that tough-minded realism should replace the utopian idealism of
earlier socialists had profound consequences: it enabled revolutionaries like Lenin to be put it into action, but it also
tended to encourage its followers to accept ruthless means to justify what they believed were historically necessary ends.
Radical politics were being much more widely discussed than the small number of radicals justified; but Marx uses this
fact to his advantage by proclaiming that any ideology so feared must be important and worth explaining clearly. In the
notes, "Marx" is used as shorthand for both Marx (the theoretician) and Engels (the more eloquent writer of the two).The
Manifesto was originally issued in several languages, including this English version.
Prologue
A specter is haunting Europe--the specter of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance
to exorcise this specter: Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police spies.
Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where the
Opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition part-ies,
as well as against its reactionary adversaries?
Two things result from this fact:
I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power.
II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their
tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the specter of communism with a manifesto of the party itself.
Part I: Bourgeois And Proletarians
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
51
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and
oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight
that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending
classes.
In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a
manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages,
feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate
gradations.
The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society, has not done away with class
antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old
ones.
Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: It has simplified the class
antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes
directly facing each other--bourgeoisie and proletariat. . . .
Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has
given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its
turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the
same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed
down from the Middle Ages.
We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of
revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.
Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An
oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, it became an armed and self-governing association in the medieval
commune; here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany), there taxable "third estate" of the monarchy (as in
France); afterwards, in the period of manufacture proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a
counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general--the bourgeoisie has at last,
since the establishment of modern industry and of the world market conquered for itself, in the modern representative
state, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of
the whole bourgeoisie.
The bourgeoisie has played a most revolutionary role in history.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has
pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors," and has left no other bond
between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment." It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies
of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It
has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set
up that single, unconscionable freedom--Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political
illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
Part II: Proletarians and Communists
52
What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material
production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.
When people speak of ideas that revolutionize society, they do but express the fact that within the old society the
elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of
the old conditions of existence.
When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas
succumbed in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death-battle with the then revolutionary
bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience, merely gave expression to the sway of free
competition within the domain of knowledge.
"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religion, moral, philosophical and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of
historical development. But religion morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."
"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But
communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new
basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."
What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class
antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.
But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society
by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it
displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total
disappearance of class antagonisms.
The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development
involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.
Part IV: Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties
In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political
order of things.
In all these movements they bring to the front, as the leading question in each case, the property question, no matter what
its degree of development at the time.
Finally, they labor everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the
forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The
proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite!
53
29. V. I. Lenin
Questions: Did Lenin see himself Marx’s heir? How did he differ from Marx? What role should capital play in
a society according to Lenin? What did he believe would be the result of unhindered capitalism? Are his views
valid today? Many claim the U.S. is moving, along with most of Western Europe toward a socialistic society.
What would be the benefits of this? The hazards?
Imperialism and the Split in Socialism
Is there any connection between imperialism and the monstrous and disgusting victory opportunism (in the form of
social-chauvinism) has gained over the labour movement in Europe?
This is the fundamental question of modern socialism. And having in our Party literature fully established, first, the
imperialist character of our era and of the present war, and, second, the inseparable historical connection between social-
chauvinism and opportunism, as well as the intrinsic similarity of their political ideology, we can and must proceed to
analyse this fundamental question.
We have to begin with as precise and full a definition of imperialism as possible. Imperialism is a specific historical stage
of capitalism. Its specific character is threefold: imperialism is monopoly capitalism; parasitic, or decaying capitalism;
moribund capitalism. The supplanting of free competition by monopoly is the fundamental economic feature, the
quintessence of imperialism. Monopoly manifests itself in five principal forms: (1) cartels, syndicates and trusts—the
concentration of production has reached a degree which gives rise to these monopolistic associations of capitalists; (2)
the monopolistic position of the big banks—three, four or five giant banks manipulate the whole economic life of
America, France, Germany; (3) seizure of the sources of raw material by the trusts and the financial oligarchy (finance
capital is monopoly industrial capital merged with bank capital); (4) the (economic) partition of the world by the
international cartels has begun. There are already over one hundred such international cartels, which command the
entire world market and divide it “amicably” among themselves—until war redivides it. The export of capital, as distinct
from the export of commodities under non-monopoly capitalism, is a highly characteristic phenomenon and is closely
linked with the economic and territorial-political partition of the world; (5) the territorial partition of the world (colonies)
is completed.
Imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism in America and Europe, and later in Asia, took final shape in the period
1898–1914. The Spanish-American War (1898), the Anglo-Boer War (1899–1902), the Russo-Japanese War (1904–05)
and the economic crisis in Europe in 1900 are the chief historical landmarks in the new era of world history.
The fact that imperialism is parasitic or decaying capitalism is manifested first of all in the tendency to decay, which is
characteristic of every monopoly under the system of private ownership of the means of production. The difference
between the democratic-republican and the reactionary-monarchist imperialist bourgeoisie is obliterated precisely
because they are both rotting alive (which by no means precludes an extraordinarily rapid development of capitalism in
individual branches of industry, in individual countries, and in individual periods). Secondly, the decay of capitalism is
manifested in the creation of a huge stratum of rentiers, capitalists who live by “clipping coupons”. In each of the four
leading imperialist countries—England, U.S.A., France and Germany—capital in securities amounts to 100,000 or
150,000 million francs, from which each country derives an annual income of no less than five to eight thousand million.
Thirdly, export of capital is parasitism raised to a high pitch. Fourthly, “finance capital strives for domination, not
freedom”. Political reaction all along the line is a characteristic feature of imperialism. Corruption, bribery on a huge
scale and all kinds of fraud. Fifthly, the exploitation of oppressed nations—which is inseparably connected with
54
annexations—and especially the exploitation of colonies by a handful of “Great” Powers, increasingly transforms the
“civilised” world into a parasite on the body of hundreds of millions in the uncivilised nations. The Roman proletarian
lived at the expense of society. Modern society lives at the expense of the modern proletarian. Marx specially stressed
this profound observation of Sismondi. Imperialism somewhat changes the situation. A privileged upper stratum of the
proletariat in the imperialist countries lives partly at the expense of hundreds of millions in the uncivilised nations.
It is clear why imperialism is moribund capitalism, capitalism in transition to socialism: monopoly, which grows out of
capitalism, is already dying capitalism, the beginning of its transition to socialism. The tremendous socialisation of
labour by imperialism (what its apologists-the bourgeois economists-call “interlocking”) produces the same result.
Advancing this definition of imperialism brings us into complete contradiction to K. Kautsky, who refuses to regard
imperialism as a “phase of capitalism” and defines it as a policy “preferred” by finance capital, a tendency of “industrial”
countries to annex “agrarian” countries. Kautsky’s definition is thoroughly false from the theoretical standpoint. What
distinguishes imperialism is the rule not of industrial capital, but of finance capital, the striving to annex not agrarian
countries, particularly, but every kind of country. Kautsky divorces imperialist politics from imperialist economics, he
divorces monopoly in politics from monopoly in economics in order to pave the way for his vulgar bourgeois reformism,
such as “disarmament”, “ultraimperialism” and similar nonsense. The whole purpose and significance of this theoretical
falsity is to obscure the most profound contradictions of imperialism and thus justify the theory of “unity” with the
apologists of imperialism, the outright social-chauvinists and opportunists.
We have dealt at sufficient length with Kautsky’s break with Marxism on this point in Sotsial-Demokrat and Kommunist.
Our Russian Kautskyites, the supporters of the Organising Committee (O.C.), headed by Axelrod and Spectator,
including even Martov, and to a large degree Trotsky, preferred to maintain a discreet silence on the question of
Kautskyism as a trend. They did not dare defend Kautsky’s war-time writings, confining themselves simply to praising
Kautsky (Axelrod in his German pamphlet, which the Organising Committee has promised to publish in Russian) or to
quoting Kautsky’s private letters (Spectator), in which he says he belongs to the opposition and jesuitically tries to
nullify his chauvinist declarations.
It should be noted that Kautsky’s “conception” of imperialism—which is tantamount to embellishing imperialism—is a
retrogression not only compared with Hilferding’s Finance Capital (no matter how assiduously Hilferding now defends
Kautsky and “unity” with the social-chauvinists!) but also compared with the social-liberal J. A. Hobson. This English
economist, who in no way claims to be a Marxist, defines imperialism, and reveals its contradictions, much more
profoundly in a book published in 1902. This is what Hobson (in whose book may be found nearly all Kautsky’s pacifist
and “conciliatory” banalities) wrote on the highly important question of the parasitic nature of imperialism.
Written in October 1916
Published in Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata No. 2, December 1916. Signed: N. Lenin. Published according to the Sbornik
text.
Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1964, Moscow, Volume 23, pages 105-120.
Translated: M. S. Levin, The Late Joe Fineberg and and Others
Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive 1996(z), 2000(bb,dw), 2002 (2005). You may freely copy, distribute, display
and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as
your source.
30. Charles Darwin: The Origin of Species (1859)
55
Questions: Were Darwin’s ideas a natural outgrowth resulting from the Enlightenment? What role did religion
play in Darwin’s theses? How was it received at the time? Now? Is evolution proven to the satisfaction of all
scientists presently? Why is evolution v. creation still such an issue in modern thinking? Are they mutually
exclusive? How could it be argued that Darwin’s ideas contributed to the death of millions of people in
WWII?
Charles Darwin (1809-1882), an English biologist was one of a number of scientists considering theories of evolution.
He published On the Origin of Species, in 1859 and set forth his theory that animals evolved through variation and
natural selection of those most fit to survive in particular environments. In The Descent of Man (1871) he applied his
theory directly to the question of human beings.
As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations, it can produce no great or
sudden modifications; it can act only by short and slow steps. Hence, the canon of "Natura non facit saltum," which
every fresh addition to our knowledge tends to confirm, is on this theory intelligible. We can see why throughout nature
the same general end is gained by an almost infinite diversity of means, for every peculiarity when once acquired is long
inherited, and structures already modified in many different ways have to be adapted for the same general purpose. We
can, in short, see why nature is prodigal in variety, though niggard in innovation. But why this should be a law of nature
if each species has been independently created no man can explain.
30a. Charles Darwin:
The Descent of Man, 1871
The main conclusion here arrived at, and now held by many naturalists who are well competent to form a sound
judgment, is that man is descended from some less highly organised form. The grounds upon which this conclusion rests
will never be shaken, for the close similarity between man and the lower animals in embryonic development, as well as
in innumerable points of structure and constitution, both of high and of the most trifling importance, - the rudiments
which he retains, and the abnormal revisions to which he is occasionally liable, - are facts which cannot be disputed.
They have long been known, but until recently they told us nothing with respect to the origin of man. Now when viewed
by the light of our knowledge of the whole organic world their meaning is unmistakable. The great principle of evolution
stands up clear and firm, when these groups of facts are considered in connection with others, such as the mutual
affinities of the members of the same group, their geographical distribution in past and present times, and their geological
succession. It is incredible that all these facts should speak falsely. He who is not content to look, like a savage, at the
phenomena of nature as disconnected, cannot any longer believe that man is the work of a separate act of creation. He
will be forced to admit that the close resemblance of the embryo of man to that, for instance, of a dog - the construction
of his skull, limbs and whole frame on the same plan with that of other mammals, independently of the uses to which the
parts may be put - the occasional re-appearance of various structures, for instance of several muscles, which man does
not normally possess, but which are common to the Quadrumana - and a crowd of analogous facts - all point in the
plainest manner to the conclusion that man is the co-descendant with other mammals of a common progenitor.
We have seen that man incessantly presents individual differences in all parts of his body and in his mental faculties.
These differences or variations seem to be induced by the same general causes, and to obey the same laws as with the
lower animals. In both cases similar laws of inheritance prevail. Man tends to increase at a greater rate than his means of
subsistence; consequently he is occasionally subjected to a severe struggle for existence, and natural selection will have
effected whatever lies within its scope. A succession of strongly-marked variations of a similar nature is by no means
56
requisite; slight fluctuating differences in the individual suffice for the work of natural selection; not that we have any
reason to suppose that in the same species, all parts of the organisation tend to vary to the same degree.
By considering the embryological structure of man, - the homologies which he presents with the lower animals, - the
rudiments which he retains, - and the reversions to which he is liable, we can partly recall in imagination the former
condition of our early progenitors; and can approximately place them in their proper place in the zoological series. We
thus learn that man is descended from a hairy, tailed quadruped, probably arboreal in its habits, and an inhabitant of the
Old World. This creature, if its whole structure had been examined by a naturalist, would have been classed amongst the
Quadrumana, as surely as the still more ancient progenitor of the Old and New World monkeys. The Quadrumana and all
the higher mammals are probably derived from an ancient marsupial animal, and this through a long line of diversified
forms, from some amphibian-like creature, and this again from some fish-like animal. In the dim obscurity of the past we
can see that the early progenitor of all the Vertebrata must have been an aquatic animal, provided with branchiæ, with the
two sexes united in the same individual, and with the most important organs of the body (such as the brain and heart)
imperfectly or not at all developed. This animal seems to have been more like the larvæ of the existing marine Ascidians
than any other known form.
The high standard of our intellectual powers and moral disposition is the greatest difficulty which presents itself, after we
have been driven to this conclusion on the origin of man. But every one who admits the principle of evolution, must see
that the mental powers of the higher animals, which are the same in kind with those of man, though so different in
degree, are capable of advancement....
The moral nature of man has reached its present standard, partly through the advancement of his reasoning powers and
consequently of a just public opinion, but especially from his sympathies having been rendered more tender and widely
diffused through the effects of habit, example, instruction, and reflection. It is not improbable that after long practice
virtuous tendencies may be inherited. With the more civilised races, the conviction of the existence of an all-seeing Deity
has had a potent influence on the advance of morality. Ultimately man does not accept the praise or blame of his fellows
as his sole guide though few escape this influence, but his habitual convictions, controlled by reason, afford him the
safest rule. His conscience then becomes the supreme judge and monitor. Nevertheless the first foundation or origin of
the moral sense lies in the social instincts, including sympathy; and these instincts no doubt were primarily gained, as in
the case of the lower animals, through natural selection.
The belief in God has often been advanced as not only the greatest but the most complete of all the distinctions between
man and the lower animals. It is however impossible, as we have seen, to maintain that this belief is innate or instinctive
in man. On the other hand a belief in all-pervading spiritual agencies seems to be universal, and apparently follows from
a considerable advance in man's reason, and from a still greater advance in his faculties of imagination, curiosity and
wonder. I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument for His
existence. But this iS a rash argument, as we should thus be compelled to believe in the existence of many cruel and
malignant spirits, only a little more powerful than man; for the belief in them is far more general than in a beneficent
Deity. The idea of a universal and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been
elevated by long-continued culture....
I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who
denounces them is bound to shew why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by descent
from some lower form, through the laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual
through the laws of ordinary reproduction. The birth both of the species and of the individual are equally parts of that
grand sequence of events, which our minds refuse to accept as the result of blind chance. The understanding revolts at
such a conclusion, whether or not we are able to believe that every slight variation of structure, - the union of each pair in
marriage, - the dissemination of each seed, - and other such events, have all been ordained for some special purpose.
57
Sexual selection has been treated at great length in this work, for, as I have attempted to shew, it has played an important
part in the history of the organic world. I am aware that much remains doubtful, but I have endeavoured to give a fair
view of the whole case. In the lower divisions of the animal kingdom, sexual selection seems to have done nothing: such
animals are often affixed for life to the same spot, or have the sexes combined in the same individual, or what is still
more important, their perceptive and intellectual faculties are not sufficiently advanced to allow of the feelings of love
and jealousy, or of the exertion of choice. When, however, we come to the Arthropoda and Vertebrata, even to the lowest
classes in these two great Sub-Kingdoms, sexual selection has effected much....
Sexual selection depends on the success of certain individuals over others of the same sex, in relation to the propagation
of the species; whilst natural selection depends on the success of both sexes, at all ages, in relation to the general
conditions of life. The sexual struggle is of two kinds; in the one it is between the individuals of the same sex, generally
the males, in order to drive away or kill their rivals, the females remaining passive; whilst in the other, the struggle is
likewise between the individuals of the same sex, in order to excite or charm those of the opposite sex, generally the
females, which no longer remain passive, but select the more agreeable partners....
The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely that man is descended from some lowly organised form, will, I
regret to think, be highly distasteful to many. But there can hardly be a doubt that we are descended from barbarians. The
astonishment which I felt on first seeing a party of Fuegians on a wild and broken shore will never be forgotten by me,<
for the reflection at once rushed into my mind - such were our ancestors. These men were absolutely naked and bedaubed
with paint, their long hair was tangled, their mouths frothed with excitement, and their expression was wild, startled, and
distrustful. They possessed hardly any arts, and like wild animals lived on what they could catch; they had no
government, and were merciless to everyone not of their own small tribe. He who has seen a savage in his native land
will not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins. For
my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to
save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his
young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs - as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody
sacrifices, practises infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the
grossest superstitions.
Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen, though not through his own exertions, to the very summit of
the organic scale; and the fact of his having thus risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed there, may give him
hope for a still higher destiny in the distant future. But we are not here concerned with hopes or fears, only with the truth
as far as our reason permits us to discover it; and I have given the evidence to the best of my ability. We must, however,
acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased,
with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect
which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system - with all these exalted powers - Man still
bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin.
From Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (New York: Appleton and Co., 1883), pp. 7,
609, 612-614, 618-619.
31. Sigmund Freud, "The Structure of the Unconscious"
Questions: Why is Freud considered the “Father of Psychology?” On a first reading are Freud’s
conclusions logical? Flawed? Is psychology a form of science? How did it stem from the Enlightenment
as did Newton’s ideas?
58
[CONSCIOUS, UNCONSCIOUS, PRECONSCIOUS]
The starting point for this investigation is provided by a fact without parallel, which defies all explanation or description-
-the fact of consciousness. Nevertheless, if anyone speaks of consciousness, we know immediately and from our own
most personal experience what is meant by it. Many people, both inside and outside the science of psychology, are
satisfied with the assumption that consciousness alone is mental, and nothing then remains for psychology but to
discriminate in the phenomenology of the mind between perceptions, feelings, intellective processes and volitions. It is
generally agreed, however, that these conscious processes do not form unbroken series which are complete in
themselves; so that there is no alternative to assuming that there are physical or somatic processes which accompany the
mental ones and which must admittedly be more complete than the mental series, since some of them have conscious
processes parallel to them but others have not. It thus seems natural to lay the stress in psychology upon these somatic
processes, to see in them the true essence of what is mental and to try to arrive at some other assessment of the conscious
processes. The majority of philosophers, however, as well as many other people, dispute this position and declare that the
notion of a mental thing being unconscious is self-contradictory.
But it is precisely this that psychoanalysis is obliged to assert, and this is its second fundamental hypothesis. It explains
the supposed somatic accessory processes as being what is essentially mental and disregards for the moment the quality
of consciousness....
We are soon led to make an important division in this unconscious. Some processes become conscious easily; they may
then cease to be conscious, but can become conscious once more without any trouble: as people say, they can be
reproduced or remembered. This reminds us that consciousness is in general a very highly fugitive condition. What is
conscious is conscious only for a moment. If our perceptions do not confirm this, the contradiction is merely an apparent
one. It is explained by the fact that the stimuli of perception can persist for some time so that in the course of it the
perception of them can be repeated. The whole position can be clearly seen from the conscious perception of our
intellective processes; it is true that these may persist, but they may just as easily pass in a flash. Everything unconscious
that behaves in this way, that can easily exchange the unconscious condition for the conscious one, is therefore better
described as "capable of entering consciousness," or as preconscious. Experience has taught us that there are hardly any
mental processes, even of the most complicated kind, which cannot on occasion remain preconscious, although as a rule
they press forward, as we say, into consciousness. There are other mental processes or mental material which have no
such easy access to consciousness, but which must be inferred, discovered, and translated into conscious form in the
manner that has been described. It is for such material that we reserve the name of the unconscious proper.
Thus we have attributed three qualities to mental processes: they are either conscious, preconscious, or unconscious. The
division between the three classes of material which have these qualities is neither absolute nor permanent. What is
preconscious becomes conscious, as we have seen, without any activity on our part; what is unconscious can, as a result
of our efforts, be made conscious, though in the process we may have an impression that we are overcoming what are
often very strong resistances. When we make an attempt of this kind upon someone else, we ought not to forget that the
conscious filling up of the breaks in his perceptions--the construction which we are offering him--does not so far mean
that we have made conscious in him the unconscious material in question. All that is so far true is that the material is
present in his mind in two versions, first in the conscious reconstruction that he has just received and secondly in its
original unconscious condition.
[ID, EGO, SUPER-EGO]
[The id is] . . . a chaos, a cauldron of seething excitement. We suppose that it is somewhere in direct contact with somatic
processes, and takes over from them instinctual needs and gives them mental expression, but we cannot say in what
substratum this contact is made. These instincts fill it with energy, but it has no organisation and no unified will, only an
59
impulsion to obtain satisfaction for the instinctual needs, in accordance With the pleasure-principle. The laws of logic--
above all, the law of contradiction--do not hold for processes in the id. Contradictory impulses exist side by side without
neutralising each other or drawing apart; at most they combine in compromise formations under the overpowering
economic pressure towards discharging their energy. There is nothing in the id which can be compared to negation, and
we are astonished to find in it an exception to the philosophers' assertion that space and time are necessary forms of our
mental acts. In the id there is nothing corresponding to the idea of time, no recognition of the passage of time, and (a
thing which is very remarkable and awaits adequate attention in philosophic thought) no alteration of mental processes
by the passage of time. Conative impulses which have never got beyond the id, and even impressions which have been
pushed down into the id by repression, are virtually immortal and are preserved for whole decades as though they had
only recently occurred. They can only be recognised as belonging to the past, deprived of their significance, and robbed
of their charge of energy, after they have been made conscious by the work of analysis, and no small part of the
therapeutic effect of analytic treatment rests upon this fact.
It is constantly being borne in upon me that we have made far too little use of our theory of the indubitable fact that the
repressed remains unaltered by the passage of time. This seems to offers us the possibility of an approach to some really
profound truths. But I myself have made no further progress here.
Naturally, the id knows no values, no good and evil, no morality. The economic, or, if you prefer, the quantitative factor,
which is so closely bound up with the pleasure- principle, dominates all its processes. Instinctual cathexes seeking
discharge,--that, in our view, is all that the id contains. It seems, indeed, as if the energy of these instinctual impulses is
in a different condition from that in which it is found in the other regions of the mind. It must be far more fluid and more
capable of being discharged, for otherwise we should not have those displacements and condensations, which are so
characteristic of the id and which are so completely independent of the qualities of what is cathected....
As regards a characterization of the ego, in so far as it is to be distinguished from the id and the super-ego, we shall get
on better if we turn our attention to the relation between it and the most superficial portion of the mental apparatus;
which we call the Pcpt-cs (perceptual-conscious) system. This system is directed on to the external world, it mediates
perceptions of it, and in it is generated, while it is functioning, the phenomenon of consciousness. It is the sense-organ of
the whole apparatus, receptive, moreover, not only of excitations from without but also of such as proceed from the
interior of the mind. One can hardly go wrong in regarding the ego as that part of the id which has been modified by its
proximity to the external world and the influence that the latter has had on it, and which serves the purpose of receiving
stimuli and protecting the organism from them, like the cortical layer with which a particle of living substance surrounds
itself. This relation to the external world is decisive for the ego. The ego has taken over the task of representing the
external world for the id, and so of saving it; for the id, blindly striving to gratify its instincts in complete disregard of the
superior strength of outside forces, could not otherwise escape annihilation. In the fulfilment of this function, the ego has
to observe the external world and preserve a true picture of it in the memory traces left by its perceptions, and, by means
of the reality-test, it has to eliminate any element in this picture of the external world which is a contribution from
internal sources of excitation. On behalf of the id, the ego controls the path of access to motility, but it interpolates
between desire and action the procrastinating factor of thought, during which it makes use of the residues of experience
stored up in memory. In this way it dethrones the pleasure- principle, which exerts undisputed sway over the processes in
the id, and substitutes for it the reality-principle, which promises greater security and greater success.
The relation to time, too, which is so hard to describe, is communicated to the ego by the perceptual system; indeed it can
hardly be doubted that the mode in which this system works is the source of the idea of time. What, however, especially
marks the ego out in contradistinction to the id, is a tendency to synthesise its contents, to bring together and unify its
mental processes which is entirely absent from the id. When we come to deal presently with the instincts in mental life, I
hope we shall succeed in tracing this fundamental characteristic of the ego to its source. It is this alone that produces that
high degree of organisation which the ego needs for its highest achievements. The ego advances from the function of
60
perceiving instincts to that of controlling them, but the latter is only achieved through the mental representative of the
instinct becoming subordinated to a larger organisation, and finding its place in a coherent unity. In popular language, we
may say that the ego stands for reason and circumspection, while the id stands for the untamed passions....
The proverb tells us that one cannot serve two masters at once. The poor ego has a still harder time of it; it has to serve
three harsh masters, and has to do its best to reconcile the claims and demands of all three. These demands are always
divergent and often seem quite incompatible; no wonder that the ego so frequently gives way under its task. The three
tyrants are the external world, the super-ego and the id. When one watches the efforts of the ego to satisfy them all, or
rather, to obey them all simultaneously, one cannot regret having personified the ego, and established it as a separate
being. It feels itself hemmed in on three sides and threatened by three kinds of danger, towards which it reacts by
developing anxiety when it is too hard pressed. Having originated in the experiences of the perceptual system, it is
designed to represent the demands of the external world, but it also wishes to be a loyal servant of the id, to remain upon
good terms with the id, to recommend itself to the id as an object, and to draw the id's libido on to itself. In its attempt to
mediate between the id and reality, it is often forced to clothe the Ucs. commands of the id with its own Pcs.
rationalisations, to gloss over the conflicts between the id and reality, and with diplomatic dishonesty to display a
pretended regard for reality, even when the id persists in being stubborn and uncompromising. On the other hand, its
every movement is watched by the severe super-ego, which holds up certain norms of behaviour, without regard to any
difficulties coming from the id and the external world; and if these norms are not acted up to, it punishes the ego with the
feelings of tension which manifest themselves as a sense of inferiority and guilt. In this way, goaded on by the id,
hemmed in by the super-ego, and rebuffed by reality, the ego struggles to cope with its economic task of reducing the
forces and influences which work in it and upon it to some kind of harmony; and we may well understand how it is that
we so often cannot repress the cry: "Life is not easy." When the ego is forced to acknowledge its weakness, it breaks out
into anxiety: reality anxiety in face of the external world, normal anxiety in face of the super- ego, and neurotic anxiety
in face of the strength of the passions in the id.
I have represented the structural relations within the mental personality, as I have explained them to you, in a simple
diagram, which I here reproduce.
You will observe how the super-ego goes down into the id; as the heir to the Oedipus complex it has, after all, intimate
connections with the id. It lies further from the perceptual system than the ego. The id only deals with the external world
through the medium of the ego, at least in this diagram. It is certainly still too early to say how far the drawing is correct;
in one respect I know it is not. The space taken up by the unconscious id ought to be incomparably greater than that
given to the ego or to the preconscious. You must, if you please, correct that in your imagination.
And now, in concluding this certainly rather exhausting and perhaps not very illuminating account, I must add a warning.
When you think of this dividing up of the personality into ego, super-ego and id, you must not imagine sharp dividing
lines such as are artificially drawn in the field of political geography. We cannot do justice to the characteristics of the
mind by means of linear contours, such as occur in a drawing or in a primitive painting, but we need rather the areas of
colour shading off into one another that are to be found in modern pictures. After we have made our separations, we must
allow what we have separated to merge again. Do not judge too harshly of a first attempt at picturing a thing so elusive as
the human mind. It is very probable that the extent of these differentiations varies very greatly from person to person; it
is possible that their function itself may vary, and that they may at times undergo a process of involution. This seems to
be particularly true of the most insecure and, from the phylogenetic point of view, the most recent of them, the
differentiation between the ego and the superego. It is also incontestable that the same thing can come about as a result of
mental disease. It can easily be imagined, too, that certain practices of mystics may succeed in upsetting the normal
relations between the different regions of the mind, so that, for example, the perceptual system becomes able to grasp
relations in the deeper layers of the ego and in the id which would otherwise be inaccessible to it. Whether such a
procedure can put one in possession of ultimate truths, from which all good will flow, may be safely doubted. All the
61
same, we must admit that the therapeutic efforts of psycho-analysis have chosen much the same method of approach. For
their object is to strengthen the ego, to make it more independent of the super- ego, to widen its field of vision, and so to
extend its organization that it can take over new portions of the id. Where id was, there shall ego be.
From An Outline of Psychoanalysis [l940], translated from the German by James Strachey, London and New York,
1949, pp. 34-5, 37-9. Copyright 1949 by W. W. Norton & Co. Inc.; reprinted by permission of W. W. Norton & Co., and
The Hogarth Press Ltd.
32. The 25 Points 1920: An Early Nazi Program
Questions: Are these 25 points a result of Nietzsche and Darwin? Is this a rejection or acceptance of
Enlightenment thinking? How could rational and decent people accept such programs? What were the results
of this? What portion of these points were based on race and what portion were based on socialism?
[This text is a summary of the points, and not the full text, which were not given in the order below. Some readers have
expressed concern that there was an effort at distortion here. As a result, the full text of the 25 points, as translated in
Document No. 1708-PS of the Nuremburg Trials, and mounted at
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/document/nca_vol4/1708-ps.htm has been added.]
Combines extreme nationalism, racism and some socialist concepts.
1. Unification of Greater Germany (Austria + Germany)
2. Land + expansion
3. Anti-Versailles - abrogation of the Treaty.
4. Land and territory - lebensraum.
5. Only a "member of the race" can be a citizen.
6. Anti-semitism - No Jew can be a member of the race.
7. Anti-foreigner - only citizens can live in Germany.
8. No immigration - ref. to Jews fleeing pograms.
9. Everyone must work.
10. Abolition of unearned income - "no rent-slavery".
11. Nationalisation of industry
12. Divison of profits
13. Extension of old age welfare.
14. Land reform
15. Death to all criminals
16. German law, not Roman law (anti- French Rev.)
17. Education to teach "the German Way"
18. Education of gifted children
19. Protection of mother and child by outlawing child labour.
20. Encouraging gymnastics and swimming
21. Formation a national army.
22. Duty of the state to provide for its volk.
23. Duty of individuals to the state
24. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of
a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be
62
members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published.
They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German
publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the
immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good
are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our
national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.
25. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its
existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive
Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit
within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the
framework: common utility precedes individual utility.
For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of
the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession
chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of
the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above
without consideration.
33. Excerpts from the speech given by Heinrich Himmler to about 100 SS Group Leaders in
Posen, occupied Poland. Heinrich Himmler - October 4, 1943
Questions: Following the 25 points, Himmler follows more of the same doctrines into an extreme program.
How was this received by the SS? By the German people? How is the holocaust still pertinent in the public
debate? Does the holocaust compare, in any scale, to modern events?
"It is absolutely wrong to project our own harmless soul with its deep feelings, our kindheartedness, our idealism, upon
alien peoples….
One principle must be absolute for the SS man: we must be honest, decent, loyal and friendly to members of our blood
and to no one else. What happens to the Russians, what happens to the Czechs, is a matter of utter indifference to me.
Such good blood of our own kind as there may be among the nations we shall acquire for ourselves, if necessary by
taking away the children and bringing them up among us.
Whether the other races live in comfort or perish of hunger interests me only in so far as we need them as slaves for our
culture; apart from that it does not interest me. Whether or not 10,000 Russian women collapse from exhaustion while
digging a tank ditch interests me only in so far as the tank ditch is completed for Germany.
We shall never be rough or heartless where it is not necessary; that is clear. We Germans, who are the only people in the
world who have a decent attitude to animals, will also adopt a decent attitude to these human animals, but it is a crime
against our own blood to worry about them and to bring them ideals.
I shall speak to you here with all frankness of a very serious subject. We shall now discuss it absolutely openly
among ourselves, nevertheless we shall never speak of it in public. I mean the evacuation of the Jews, the
extermination of the Jewish race.
63
It is one of those things which is easy to say. 'The Jewish race is to be exterminated,' says every party member.
'That's clear, it's part of our program, elimination of the Jews, extermination, right, we'll do it.'
And then they all come along, the eighty million good Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. Of course the others
are swine, but this one is a first-class Jew. Of all those who talk like this, not one has watched, not one has stood up to it.
Most of you know what it means to see a hundred corpses lying together, five hundred, or a thousand. To have gone
through this and yet - apart from a few exceptions, examples of human weakness - to have remained decent fellows, this
is what has made us hard. This is a glorious page in our history that has never been written and shall never be written…
for we know how difficult we should have made it for ourselves, if - with the bombing raids, the burdens and the
depravations of war - we still had Jews today in every town as secret saboteurs, agitators and trouble-mongers. We would
now probably have reached the 1916/17 stage when Jews were still in the national body.
We have taken from them what wealth they had. I have issued a strict order, which SS-Obergruppenführer Pohl has
carried out, that this wealth should, as a matter of course, be handed over to the Reich without reserve.
We had the moral right, we had the duty to our people, to destroy this people which wanted to destroy us.
Altogether, however, we can say, that we have fulfilled this most difficult duty for the love of our people. And our spirit,
our soul, our character has not suffered injury from it."
64
33.Introduction to the Charter of the United Nations 1947
Questions: What were the ideas and philosophies that led to the U.N.? With the benefit of hindsight, has the U.N. met its objectives? Has is helped or hurt the
furtherance of toleration and peace? elimination of world suffering?
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, AND FOR THESE ENDS to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an internal.
34. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (October 15, 1844 – August 25, 1900)
Questions: why did Nietzsche believe that God is dead? How was this a result of Enlightenment thinking? What role did his views have in his day? In the 19th century? Presently? From a scientific standpoint is Nietzsche correct?
That Nietzsche is relating is that God is dead in the hearts of modern men - killed by rationalism and science. This same God however, before becoming dead in men's hearts and minds, had provided the foundation of a "Christian-moral" defining and uniting approach to life as a shared cultural set of belief fully within which people had lived their lives.
Christianity as antiquity.-- When we hear the ancient bells growling on a Sunday morning we ask ourselves: Is it really possible! This, for a jew, crucified two thousand years ago, who said he was God's son? The proof of such a claim is lacking. Certainly the Christian religion is an antiquity projected into our times from remote prehistory; and the fact that the claim is believed - whereas one is otherwise so strict in examining pretensions - is perhaps the most ancient piece of this heritage. A god who begets children with a mortal woman; a sage who bids men work no more, have no more courts, but look for the signs of the impending end of the world; a justice that accepts the innocent as a vicarious sacrifice; someone who orders his disciples to drink his blood; prayers for miraculous interventions; sins perpetrated against a god, atoned for by a god; fear of a beyond to which death is the portal; the form of the cross as a symbol in a time that no longer knows the function and ignominy of the cross -- how ghoulishly all this touches us, as if from the
65
tomb of a primeval past! Can one believe that such things are still believed?
Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I am looking for God!" As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances. "Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto." Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling - it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars - and yet they have done it themselves." It has been further related that on that same day the madman entered divers churches and there sang a requiem. Led out and quietened, he is said to have retorted each time: "what are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchres of God?”
66
35. Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961 Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040
Questions: What background did Eisenhower have to make these observations? What was
the Military-Industrial Complex? In the decades since, were his observations and predictions
correct? What impact has this thinking had on American History? World History? What role
has America played in world events since WWII? Were they justified in this role? How does
fear shape public policy?
My fellow Americans:
Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the
responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my
successor.
This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with
you, my countrymen.
Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the
coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.
Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the
wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.
My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of
the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-
war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.
In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to
serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation
should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude
that we have been able to do so much together.
II. We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great
nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the
most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet
realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches
and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.
III. Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to
foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among
nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance,
or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and
abroad.
67
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It
commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic
in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of
indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory
sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint
the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite
every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a
recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all
current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to
cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other
possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and
among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and
hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between
our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance
between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and
progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main,
understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in
kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.
IV. A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for
instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or
indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of
plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency
improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast
proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense
establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States
corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American
experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house,
every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must
not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very
structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought
or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists
68
and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should
take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the
huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and
liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the
technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A
steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in
laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free
ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the
huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every
old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power
of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal
and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within
the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
V. Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we --
you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease
and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our
grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to
survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
VI. Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing
smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of
mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same
confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though
scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to
compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and
apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of
disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows
that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over
69
thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so
much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world
advance along that road.
VII. So -- in this my last good night to you as your President -- I thank you for the many opportunities you
have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as
for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.
You and I -- my fellow citizens -- need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal
of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power,
diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.
To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:
We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those
now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its
spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who
are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will
be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in
a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.
70
37. Jihadist Strategies in the War on Terrorism
Mary R. Habeck, Ph.D.
November 8, 2004
Heritage Lecture #855
Questions: What is a jihad? What role has jihad thinking impacted the modern world? If unchecked,
what might jihad mean on a global basis? To the Middle East? To Western Culture? Compare and
contrast jihadist culture with Nazism. How does jihad thinking fit with Eisenhower’s views? Why is
the U.S. seen as such a threat to jihadists? What is the best means of defeating jihad strategies?
I am going to be talking about a group of people who are generally known as fundamentalists, extremists,
or (as I have grown to call them) "jihadis." The term jihad suggests what they believe their lives are
about--holy war that is directed against people they believe are their enemies and the enemies of their
way of life.
Yet there is more to what they are doing than simple warfare. In fact, I believe they are involved in a war
that has a definite strategy behind it, not simply the sort of random attacks that people talk about all the
time. However, if you watch the news it is really hard to see that. You look at the news and you see
Muslims being killed, you see churches being attacked, you see Jews being killed. You see all sorts of
people being targeted and attacked, and in some cases those attacks seem to be counterproductive. After
all, it does not make sense to kill the Muslims that you are trying to win over to your side of the
argument. It does not make sense to target churches or other places of worship when all this does is win
sympathy for the victims of these attacks.
There are also things like the Madrid attack, which, while it seemed to attain their ends, was
accompanied by a second plan for a second attack on April 2--an attack that, if it had been carried out,
would have had nothing to do with the elections, or with Spanish participation in Iraq. In fact, it could
not have been sold as anything except an apparently random attack--a counterproductive attack on the
Spanish. It might have convinced the Spanish themselves to get re-involved in Iraq, or at least (in some
way) with the war on terrorism.
However, I am going to argue that, in fact, this is not true. These are not random attacks; they are not
entirely counterproductive. They do have strategies that are rational, systematic, and followed rigorously.
Unlike other groups--such as the Anarchists of the late 19th and early 20th century (which really did
seem to carry out pretty random attacks), or the Communists (whose pragmatism allowed them to pretty
much get away with anything as long as they could make some sort of argument that it was helping the
cause)--these new terrorists believe that they have an ideology that is so important that it must be
followed rigorously. There are many different groups and each one of them is carrying out its own
rational systematic strategy.
To understand each attack, therefore, you have to get into the mindset of the group that carried out that
attack and not try to make broad generalizations about jihadis, extremists, or fundamentalists. These are
71
very different people and very different groups with very different arguments about how they should be
carrying out their warfare. To understand their arguments and attacks you have to understand their
ideology, and in some cases understand theological arguments that they are having with the rest of the
Islamic world.
Levels of Strategy
I am going to differentiate in this talk between four different levels of strategy or tactics. First, there are
grand strategies; then there are military strategies; operations (or operational art, as some people call it);
and then there are tactics. I am only going to be talking about the first two levels here--that is, grand
strategies and military strategies.
Grand strategy is basically the same for almost every jihadi group. This is, I think, the only place where
you can say that there is something unifying these groups and holding them together. The objective is,
almost across the board, the same. They want to restore the greatness of their vision of Islam by defeating
every rival to its power. The means by which they are going to attempt this are also the same and fit into
this grand strategic vision. They are hoping to create an Islamic state. They all argue about what that
means and how it is going to be created, but somewhere they want to create an Islamic state. They also
want to defeat all of their rivals through military means--that is, through violence of some sort.
Additionally, they hope to win over the rest of the Islamic world to their vision of what Islam is about
and how to restore Islam to greatness.
Those three things are the same across the board. If you take a look at these extremist groups, they all
agree, at least on those basic principles. The result of this grand strategic vision is that they must take on
an immense number of enemies. They must take on, in fact, what they call "The West" (or as some of
them say, "the Jewish crusaders"); "the agent rulers" (that is, the rulers in almost every single one of the
Muslim states); "the apostates and the heretics," (which means any Muslim that doesn't agree with them
as well as the Shi'a groups--because most of the groups I'll be talking about are Sunni). They also have to
take on what they call "oppressors," but this is a term that they use in a very specific way and has little to
do with the socialist or leftist use of this term. For instance, "oppressors" include all the Hindus in the
world.
The military strategies, unlike this grand strategic vision, seem more random. However, the extremists do
not attack all of these groups simultaneously. They have, in fact, prioritized which one of these groups
has to be attacked first, second, and third; which is the most important; which is the most dangerous; how
they are going to carry out these attacks. In other words, they have definite strategies, but differing
definite strategies, even about how to carry out these military attacks. Behind the seeming randomness
then, even of the military strategies, there are a few basic principles which will help you to understand,
when you see on the news that this or that group has carried out an attack on X, Y, or Z, why they might
have chosen them and why they might be choosing another group next.
Turning to the Past
Generally, these military strategies are based on something extremists call the "Method of Mohammad."
This term comes from a lot of interpretation of the Qur'an and Hadith, but it also comes from something
called the Sirah, which are not well known in the West, but are very widely known in the Islamic world.
72
The Sirah are essentially sacralized biographies of Mohammad's life. They tell the story of Mohammad
in chronological fashion and provide the kind of historical background and continuous narrative that is
missing from both the Qur'an and the Hadith.
In the Sirah, Mohammad is portrayed as the perfect man. Because he is the perfect man, he will have the
perfect method for applying Islam. In fact, some believe that his early successes were miraculous--so
miraculous that they could only have been supported and helped by God. Therefore, the logic goes, if
followers want to experience the same successes, they have to follow his footsteps exactly, precisely
following the "Method of Mohammad." In other words, the strategies that I am going to look at today
were taken from an attempt to recreate, precisely, Mohammad's life and what he did in order to make
Islam successful 1,400 years ago.
The First Stage. What is this method? It begins where Mohammad began, which was in the city of
Mecca, a place that was hostile to his message and that persecuted the early Muslims. This was the place
where he began what was called the Da'wah--the call to Islam, the call to repent, to turn to God, and to
follow the commandments of God. There was no violence allowed at this stage. Mohammad created a
very small group, a jama'a which met in secret for fear of persecution, but was slowly inculcated into
Islam as a way of life. It became, in fact, a small vanguard with an "Amir"--a leader. In this case, that
meant Mohammad.
As you can see, this easily translates into the modern world--the creation of a small vanguard that will
lead the rest of the world to the light of Islam (or at least some people's vision of Islam). This vanguard
will not, at first, practice violence, but will instead be inculcated into the true Islam, and what the true
Islam entails for their lives. It consists of "true believers," a small vanguard that always has a leader.
There is a Hadith from the traditions of Mohammad that says, "Wherever there are three Muslims, there
must be an Amir." There must be a leader and they take this literally. Wherever there are three of these
extremists together, they truly believe that one of them must be the Amir. Notice also, that in their vision,
this is done in secrecy. Therefore, you are allowed to do this in secrecy, away from the prying eyes of the
unbelieving world. That is the first stage.
The Second Stage. The second stage in Mohammad's life and in their method is the Hijrah, the
migration away from Mecca (an unbelieving place) to Medina (a place that was more accepting and open
to the message of Islam). Once there is a dedicated vanguard, in other words, you have to migrate away
from the unbelieving society to someplace where there is already an Islamic society or you must create
one yourself, because that is what Mohammad was forced to do (i.e., use a small vanguard to create the
perfect Islamic society). Therefore the argument is, "We must do exactly the same thing. The vanguard of
true believers must migrate away from the unbelieving society to someplace that is either more open to
our ideas, where there is already an Islamic society, or we must create one of our own to become
stronger."
The Hijrah is taken so seriously that there are several groups that have named themselves after those
people who immigrated--the Muhajiroon. They call themselves this in several different countries. Osama
bin Laden talked about this stage and believed that when he was leaving Saudi Arabia to go first to
Sudan, and then to Afghanistan, he was taking part in this stage of the "Method of Mohammad." He
believed he was migrating away from the unbelieving Saudi Arabia to the perfect Islamic state in
Afghanistan. Other groups have been no less certain about this. Some have migrated within an Islamic
country (for instance, within Egypt or within Algeria) to set up their own mini-Islamic state in those
73
countries.
The Third Stage. The third stage is Medina, a stage that includes the creation of an Islamic state and the
permission to use violence. Almost immediately after Mohammad arrived in Medina, he set up, with the
help of his small vanguard of dedicated believers, an Islamic state that would implement the new creed of
Islam fully. Today there are various places that might act as that Islamic state. And several extremist
groups believe that you must create an Islamic state before you can proceed to the next part of the
Medinan state, which is jihad .
In this part of the third stage, the belief goes, Muslims are allowed to take part in violence for the sake of
Islam. This is what happened in Mohammad's life. It was at Medina that he was first allowed to use
violence against the unbelievers, those who had been oppressing him, those who had been persecuting
him, and then gradually those people against whom he was allowed to carry out this warfare included
most of the unbelievers in the Arab peninsula.
Many of the groups that we hear about on the news believe that they have created this Islamic state and
that they are now allowed to carry out this jihad against people in the West and elsewhere. It is here that
you find the biggest split among these groups and the strategies that they are willing to follow because
once you have decided to carry out violence, the question becomes who exactly you should be carrying
this violence out against.
Who Are the Targets?
There are basically three different strategies that have been adopted by these groups. If you look at all the
groups out there and who they have decided to attack, the targets fit into one of these three groups.
The first group has decided that we need to attack the "near enemy" first, followed by the "far enemy."
The second group has decided to attack the "greater unbelief" first, followed by the "lesser unbelief." The
third group has decided to attack the "apostates" first, followed by the "unbelievers." All of these come
from the "Method of Mohammad." All of them can be read into the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sirah.
The "Near Enemy." Who is the "near enemy" and who is the "far enemy"? This is where you have
people disagreeing. When Mohammad was deciding who he was first going to confront with violence, he
was surrounded by people who did not support him, and it was those people he was first forced to engage
with violence--those people who lived directly around him. Later, he was allowed to carry out violence
elsewhere in order to spread the message of Islam.
Who is today's "near enemy" according to these groups that use this particular strategy? It is anyone in
the Islamic lands--those who have occupied Islamic lands, those who have taken away Islamic territory,
and even the rulers of some of these countries who call themselves Muslims. It encompasses those
enemies that are directly inside these countries. They must be taken on first and defeated, and then
afterwards, we can spread the message of Islam--without violence if possible, but with violence if
necessary--to the rest of the world.
The "Greater Unbelief." The second strategy attacks the "greater unbelief" first, followed by the "lesser
unbelief." The "greater unbelief" becomes that major enemy that has worn many guises over the
74
centuries and which was embodied first by the Romans, then by the Greeks, and finally by the United
States. The U.S. is considered that "greater unbelief" that must be taken on and defeated, whether its
citizens are in Islamic countries or elsewhere. Once they are defeated, it is believed, all the rest of the
"unbelievers" will fall into line. Terrorists then believe they can take on the "lesser unbelief"--all the
other enemies of their vision of Islam--after the U.S. is gone.
"Apostates." The third strategy attacks the "apostates" first, followed by other "unbelievers." The
"apostates," as I mentioned, include the heretics within the Muslim world (e.g., the Shi'a). There are
groups that are dedicated to the idea of a systematic, rational strategy to first defeat all the apostates,
whether they are the rulers like Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf or whether they are groups of
people who follow a vision of Islam that terrorists do not agree with (such as the Shi'a, the Ahmadi or
others). The idea is to defeat them first and then go outside of these Islamic countries and take on the rest
of the "unbelievers."
If you look at what is going on in the world today, every single one of these terrorist groups subscribes to
one of these strategies and uses it in order to pinpoint who and when they will attack.
After the Jihad
After his triumphal stay in Medina, Mohammad was able to leave and return to Mecca and take the city
without a fight. It became a part of the Islamic state without a fight or a battle--the doors were open and
he was welcomed in.
These people also believe the same thing. They believe that once they begin this jihad and once they set
up this Islamic state and carry this fight to the "unbelievers," that all of the places that have been the
centers of unbelief in the Islamic world (especially Saudi Arabia) will open up and become part of their
Islamic state. The belief insists that one by one, they will all join with the extremists as they show
success in other countries.
These strategies define what is happening in the world today. If you look at the attacks that are going on,
this is how you can tell precisely which group you are dealing with and which strategy they are
following. Listen to what they are saying. I have been amazed by the things they are willing to say, the
things they are willing to put on a Web site (in what are called khutab--the preaching on Friday
afternoon). Throughout the Islamic world you have people who are willing to say exactly what they
believe, even if they are in the most extremist vein. You do not have to translate, decode, or decrypt these
things--they are perfectly willing to share their strategies with the rest of the world.
Recent Attacks Explained
I encourage you to take a look at these English jihadi sites and see for yourself. It now makes sense why
Madrid was attacked on March 11. After all, the terrorists had been talking about that attack long before
anything had happened in Iraq (and long before Spain had decided to go to Iraq). The jihadis were talking
about carrying out some sort of huge attack on Spain.
Why? Because Spain has been occupying "Islamic land" for the past 600-700 years. These terrorists
believe that they are actually beginning with the "near enemy" by taking on Spain and occupying
75
Andalusia. They believed that by carrying out these attacks they would win over the Muslims within
Spain and North Africa, who would then join up with them to return Andalusia to the Islamic fold. From
this standpoint, it also makes sense that they do not care about other Muslims being killed To people with
this mindset everyone who does not agree with them is an apostate or a heretic. Otherwise, they would
have joined up with them. Therefore, it does not matter if other Muslims are killed because in the long
run they believe the grand strategic vision and military strategies will eventually bring success.
Using this logic, it makes sense to attack the United States, because if you can destroy the United States
(the "greater unbelief"), then terrorists who follow this particular strategy believe they will not only have
eliminated their greatest enemy, but will then be able to return in triumph to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and
elsewhere and win over the rest of the Islamic world without a fight.
Mary R. Habeck, Ph.D., is an associate professor of history at Yale University.