Tuesday, December 6, 2016

Non-Review of Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid

I stopped reading this book after finishing the 3rd of its 20 chapters, hence the title of this post.

I first learned about GEB from a Slashdot discussion around 1999. Everyone praised it to the skies, so I added it to my imaginary pile of books to read some day.

The Escher of the title is the guy who drew pictures of this sort:

GEB seems to be mostly about bits of math that confound expectations in a similar way. Things that are true and false at the same time, things that are their own causes and consequences, things that get smaller as they increase, etc.

Now, I think of those pictures as mildly amusing tricks. Hofstadter considers them profound. He claims that mathematical parallels of such trickery can explain consciousness, the thing that separates human intelligence from the artificial sort. My intuition tells me that this is unlikely to be true.

I'd like to learn more math, but only of the sort that's useful in the hard sciences, in understanding the real world. Cute paradoxes for their own sake are boring to me.

I plead guilty to having engaged in some cutesy verbal trickery myself. But I don't think much of it. Hofstadter points out that Bach engaged in a lot of cutesy musical trickery. But that's not what made his music great. It was like Maradona juggling a football with his shoulders for the crowd before matches - a bit of showing off, but not what he was actually about, not why he was important within football.

It's possible that I'm dismissing GEB too easily, but life is short, and there's lots of books I'd like to read that seem more likely to contain interesting to me insights.

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Review of The Literature of Ancient Sumer

The Literature of Ancient Sumer, Jeremy Black, Graham Cunningham, Eleanor Robson, Gabor Zolyomi, 2005. Glossy's rating: 4/10.

This is a collection of Sumerian texts which, along with early Egyptian writings, constitute the oldest literature that has survived to our days.

It's heavily religious in character. Some of this book's chapters are titled "Love and Sex", "The Natural Order" and "Scribes and Learning", but this is a bit misleading because in reality almost all of these 70-odd pieces are primarily about Sumerian gods.

The mental leap made by some classic-era Greeks which allowed them to discuss history, politics, nature, etc. without recourse to the supernatural seems especially impressive to someone who's just finished reading this book, or just had a long conversation with a low-IQ person.

Yet like all normal religions the Sumerian one must have been enormously helpful to the propagation of its believers. Here is one god describing the underworld to another:

`Did you see him who had one son?'
`I saw him.'
`How does he fare?'
`He weeps bitterly at the wooden peg which was driven into his wall.'....
`Did you see him who had seven sons?'
`I saw him.'
`How does he fare?'
'As a companion of the gods, he sits on a throne and listens to judgments.'
'Did you see the palace eunuch?'
`I saw him.'
`How does he fare?'
`Like a useless alala stick he is propped in a corner.'
`Did you see the woman who never gave birth?'
`I saw her.'
`How does she fare?'
`Like a ... pot, she is thrown away violently, she gives no man joy.'
`Did you see the young man who never undressed his wife?'
`I saw him.'
`How does he fare?'
'You finish a rope, and he weeps over the rope.'
`Did you see the young woman who never undressed her husband?'
`I saw her.'
`How does she fare?'
`You finish a reed mat, and she weeps over the reed mat.'
'Did you see my little stillborn children who never knew existence?'
'I saw them.'
`How do they fare?'
'They play at a table of gold and silver, laden with honey and ghee.'

Almost all of these texts are highly repetitive:

"'What does your king have to tell me, what does he have to add to me? What does En-suljgir-ana have to tell me, what does he have to add to me?" "This is what my king said, what he added, this is what En-suhgir-ana said, what he added."'

This is at least partly because many of them were meant to be sung to musical accompaniment. It's natural for lyrics to have refrains. But even if one takes that into the account, the narratives still sound extremely monotonous in the specific way that annoys you when you hear one modern dull person try to explain something to another. Lots of simple points are made many times over in different ways.

Some of these stories are like modern children's fairy tales with talking animals and sentient garden implements. Except that they're raunchier:

"...after father Enki had lifted his eyes across the Euphrates, he stood up full of lust like a rampant bull, lifted his penis, ejaculated and filled the Tigris with flowing water."

"She placed mascara which is called `Let a man come, let him come' on her eyes. She pulled the pectoral which is called `Come, man, come' over her breast..."

Both of these quotes are about Sumerian gods. There is a description of "sacred marriage", a ceremony where a king copulates with a goddess on a platform in front of the people:

"The king goes to her holy thighs with head held high,° he goes to the thighs of Inana with head held high. Ama-usumgal-ana lies down beside her and caresses her holy thighs°. After the lady has made him rejoice with her holy thighs on the bed, after holy Inana has made him rejoice with her holy thighs on the bed, she relaxes (?) with him on her bed: `Iddin-Dagan, you are indeed my beloved!'"

The editors say it's impossible to know whether king Iddin-Dagan actually did it on a stage with a stand-in for the goddess Inana (a priestess of hers, for example), or whether the ceremony was handled in a more symbolic way in real life.

The preface to one of the stories says that only heterosexual kind of love is ever talked about in Sumerian literature, yet there is a mention of male prostitutes parading in front of the crowd before the above-mentioned sacred marriage performance.

In one story king Gilgamesh, trying to lure out the monster Huwawa, offers him his "big sister" En-me-barage-si in marriage. Huwawa doesn't know that En-me-barage-si is actually the king of Kish and the father of Gilgamesh's enemy Aga. The editors say this is a joke and I believe them - people still joke like that today.

Some of the cultural associations used in these tales clash with ours though. For example, when Sumerians compared a beautiful goddess to a cow or a fearsome god to a donkey, they weren't trying to insult them.

Sumerians' chief name for themselves was "the black-headed people". Black-headed as opposed to whom? Modern Swedes sometimes call foreigners svartskallar (black skulls), obviously in contrast to themselves. In less politically correct times there was some controversy over whether or not Gutians, a barbaric tribe that overran Sumer in the late 3rd millennium BC, were light-haired. And there are statues with blue eyes from the Near East of this period.

In this collection Sumerians call Gutians "an unbridled people, with human intelligence but canine instincts' and monkeys' features..." "who do not resemble other people, who are not reckoned as part of the Land."

I was surprised that none of the stories in this book mention conflict between Sumerians and Semitic Accadians whose language ended up replacing Sumerian. Most of these texts are known from clay tablets of the 18th century BC and later, when spoken Sumerian was probably already dead. Maybe after Akkadian culture won Sumerian texts disparaging Akkadians were destroyed? And maybe any texts disparaging Sumerians would be in Akkadian, which would put them outside the scope of this book?

My favorite text here was The Instructions of Shuruppag, one of the two oldest pieces of Sumerian literature that survived to our day. It's about 4,500 years old, and its opening line says:

"In those days, in those far remote days, in those nights, in those faraway nights, in those years, in those far remote years..."

It's a collection of advice, which this document (one of the oldest ones on Earth if we disregard accounting tables and the like) already called ancient.

"Although the number of unhappy days is endless (?), yet life is better than death .."
"At harvest time, at the most priceless time, collect like a slave girl, eat like a queen." The modern English equivalent is "work hard, play hard."
"You should submit to the respected; you should be humble before the powerful. My son, you will then survive (?) against the wicked."
"Without suburbs a city has no centre either."
"What flows in is never enough to fill it, and what flows out can never be stopped - don't envy the king's property!"
"When you bring a slave girl from the hills, she brings both good and evil with her. The good is in the hands; the evil is in the heart."
"My son, you should not use violence (?); .... You should not commit rape on someone's daughter; the courtyard will learn of it." A hint that the Sumerians were a shame-based, not a conscience-based people.
"You should not have sex with your slave girl: she will chew you up."

The receiver of all this advice is Zi-ud-sura, the Noah of the Sumerian flood story, which was the original source of the Biblical story everyone now knows. Archeologists did discover evidence of a catastrophic river flood in Sumer around 2900 BC. The Sumerian king list includes a chronological list of cities which led Sumer before the flood. The first one is Eridu, which this book calls Eridug. Archeologists determined that it was indeed the first city in the region - the king list had that right - and that it was founded around 5400 BC. So if you want to know how far back humanity's historical memory goes, 5400 BC is one possible answer. Which I think is pretty impressive.

Sunday, November 27, 2016

The Current Nationalist Trend

For several years now there's been a definite nationalist trend in global politics. I've only seen three explanations for it: the Internet, Putin and the global economic crisis which began in 2008. I'll try to examine each one.

The Internet theory starts with the fact that the Net has cut into TV's near-monopoly on shaping public opinion. For most of the TV age it was very difficult to start a TV station. Public discourse was dominated by a small number of powerful corporations and states which owned all the media that mattered. The Internet democratized this system. The revolt of the comment sections, etc.

Humans are tribal by nature. The left-liberal belief system is an unnatural imposition. If it's removed, politics should be expected to become more explicitly tribal.

The biggest argument against this explanation for the current nationalist trend is that the WWW went big in 1995, more than 15 years before politics started to turn in this direction. Why didn't the democratizing effect of the Internet make politics more populist by 2000, 2005 or 2010?

The Putin explanation says that having watched the neocons and their NGO allies foment color revs all around him, having watched them turn public opinion against him in neighboring countries, Putin decided to try his hand at this too, and succeeded.

One argument against this explanation is that the current nationalist trend seems to affect countries in which Putin has no interest. For example it's my impression that Modi is the most Hindu-nationalist prime minister India has ever had. And isn't Abe the most nationalist post-WWII Japanese prime minister? There's Duterte in the Philippines. I think Erdogan is more populist-nationalist than past Turkish leaders, and he's fought on the anti-Putin side in the Syrian war, even shooting down a Russian military jet.

The second argument against the Putin theory has to do with the Ukraine. We're supposed to believe that it's easier for Putin to change public opinion in Wisconsin than in the Kiev Region. If he can make pro-Russian politicians win in America (and seemingly now in France), why can't he do it in the Ukraine, where most of the population is genetically and culturally indistinguishable from Russians?

The biggest argument against the third, economic explanation is that the countries that were most affected by the 2008 crisis don't seem to be more receptive to populism than the world at large. Remember PIIGS? Spain and Portugal have no far right parties of note, Greece has gone in the populist direction and the others are neither here nor there. If economic misery was the reason, I think we'd see more from that uncharitably-named group.

If Putin is eventually succeeded by a Gorby-like "reformer" (Medvedev or someone else), then one of these theories will be seriously tested. If global populism withers after he's gone, we'll know it was him all along. Lacking that I really don't know what the cause is.

Sunday, October 23, 2016

Review of The Golden Empire by Hugh Thomas

The Golden Empire: Spain, Charles V and the Creation of America by Hugh Thomas, 2011. Glossy's rating: 8/10.

This is the second book of Hugh Thomas's trilogy about the early Spanish Empire. The most important conquest described here is that of Peru. I will quote extensively from Thomas's comparison of Mexico and Peru, pre-Columbian America's two most powerful states, which according to him knew nothing of each other at the time of European contact:

"Both had settled capital cities—in Tenochtitlan and in Cuzco—something that at that stage Spain had not.

The two monarchies were both absolute ones: The power of the ruler was unquestioned. Both rulers were in constant touch, it was said, with the sun. The popular adulation attached to the monarch was exorbitant, and protest or dissent unthinkable.

Both societies liked alcohol and some drugs: The Peruvians had chicha, a mild beer made from maize, while the Mexica had pulque, made from the agave cactus; the Incas enjoyed coca rather than the elaborate range of hallucinogenic drugs available to the Mexica from mushrooms.

There were, of course, differences between these two indigenous societies. The most important one was that ancient Peru had no commercial life, while Mexico enjoyed a lively one: Mexican merchants also played an important part in informing the rulers, the “Emperors,” about other places, as if they were secret agents. A related difference was that there was no private landholding in Peru. The peasants farmed elaborate, productive, and even beautiful terraces, but they were held in common. Never was there a more pervasive government than that of the Incas. Personal liberty was practically nonexistent. Blind obedience and unquestioning self-abnegation had forever to be accorded. But if much was demanded of the subject, much was done for him. Marxists have talked of “Inca communism,” and they may have been correct thus to designate the Peruvian social structure, in which almost everything was supervised by officials.

Aztec society was much less controlled. Montezuma’s remark about the necessity of dealing harshly with his people if they were going to be ruled effectively is well known.

Another difference was that the Peruvians had sails on their rafts and canoes, which the Mexica and Mesoamerican people, such as the Maya, do not seem to have had. The Peruvians used the sea as a means for trade more than the Mexica did."

This was really surprising to me because Mexico faces the Caribbean with its huge islands. Mesoamericans had places to go, yet didn't. In fact, Thomas mentioned in his first volume that they seem to have never visited Cuba, Hispañola, etc.

"The Inca built magnificent roads and suspension bridges, far superior to anything then found in ancient Mexico—or, thought the Sevillano chronicler Pedro de Cieza de León, in old Europe.
The Mexica had remarkable artistic achievements to their credit: for example, their painting, poetry, and sculpture, monumental and tiny, relief and in the round. In these matters, the Peruvians were more limited, and no pre-Hispanic poetry is known from Peru.

Both had a process for creating metals of quality out of ore. But the Peruvians created more elaborate gold ornaments than the Mexica did.

Based on a straightforward worship of the sun, Inca religion was simpler than that of Mexico. Human sacrifices occurred but on a much lesser level than in ancient Mexico—the victims in Peru being usually beautiful boys and girls, often prisoners of war. Still, the death or investiture of a ruler could inspire the sacrifice of hundreds."

If the Incas achieved more political control over their subjects with less violence than the Aztecs, then perhaps the people of pre-Columbian Peru were tamer than Mesoamericans by nature? And one would normally expect a tamer people to be less artistically gifted.

The Spaniards who went to the New World were the opposite of tame. The number and extent of conflicts among them was shocking. For example, when Cortés set out to conquer Mexico, he was in revolt against his superior, the governor of Cuba. Some time after capturing Mexico City he left it to punish a revolt by one of his subordinates, so guess what happened - the Spaniards he left in charge in the capital revolted against him. And this was typical.

Extremeños, a wild bunch, were the most overrepresented type of Spaniards among the conquistadors. Catalans, who seem to be the most core-European of Iberians, were the most underrepresented.

Of course Indians fought each other all the time too, but on the whole, from the big picture perspective, instinctive loyalties predictably tended to align with genetic distances:

“This was the most dreadful and cruel war … Between Christians and Moors, there is usually some fellow feeling and it is in the interests of both sides to spare those whom they take alive, because of the ransom. But in this Indian war there is no such fellow feeling. We give each other the most cruel deaths we can imagine.”

Except for one familiar pattern: the converso Bartolomé de las Casas consistently took the side of the Indians against the Spaniards. He persuaded Charles V to issue a new set of laws which prohibited the enslavement of Indians and abolished the encomienda system of feudal-like land holding in Spanish America.

It's important to note here that Las Casas was not motivated by humanitarianism. In fact he's quoted here saying that the Spaniards who opposed the new laws should have been hanged, drawn and quartered.

These laws produced a large-scale rebellion of Spanish colonists in Peru, led by Gonzalo Pizarro, the brother of the deceased conqueror Francisco. Some of Gonzalo's supporters advised him to declare independence from Spain, marry a woman from the Inca royal house and make himself king.

He was eventually defeated by forces loyal to the Spanish crown. Before Gonzalo was executed, the royal governor reproached him for his ingratitude. The king of Spain sent the Pizarro brothers to Peru, gave them all these honors, etc., and what did they do in return?

Gonzalo answered that Francisco Pizarro and his followers conquered Peru on their own and that the king did not raise them up from dust because "the Pizarros have been noblemen and gentlemen with our own estates since the Goths came to Spain."

I found it very interesting that the Spanish gentry of the 16th century considered themselves to be descended from the Goths. What would have been the alternatives? The Romans or claims of being entirely autochthonous.

Back to Las Casas: he had a public debate with a scholar named Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda about the nature of the Indians.

"Sepúlveda’s arguments for the legality of the conquests were, first, on account of the gravity of the sins committed by the Indians, especially their idolatries and their sins against nature; second, on account of the rudeness of the Indians’ nature which obliged them to serve the Spaniards. Here Aristotle could be cited, recalling his observation that some people are inferior by nature. The Indians were as different from Spaniards as monkeys are from men.

Compare then those blessings enjoyed by Spaniards, of prudence, genius, magnanimity, temperance, humanity and religion, with those of the “hombrecillos” among whom you will scarcely find even a vestige of humanity, who not only possess no science but who also lack letters and preserve no monument of their history except certain vague and obscure reminiscences in some paintings. Neither do they have written laws, but barbaric institutions and customs. They do not even have private property."

It must be said that the Mayans did have a writing system, but its use went into decline before the Spaniards arrived. Thomas says that at the time of contact they did not use their characters for writing letters or contracts.

Fray Domingo de Betanzos, another opponent of Las Casas, wrote that Indians should not have been encouraged to study “since no benefit could be expected for a long time … Indians are not stable persons to whom one can entrust the preaching of the Holy Gospel. They do not have the ability to understand correctly and fully the Christian faith nor is their language sufficient and copious enough to be able to express our faith without great improprieties, which can easily result in great errors.” So no Indian should be ordained a priest"...

"He added that he, like Bishop Zumárraga, "longed to go to China, where apparently the “natives were so much more intelligent than those of New Spain.”

Las Casas countered this in a very modern leftist fashion by saying that the Indians were as smart as the ancient Greeks and Romans and more civilized than Spaniards. He even tried to justify their human sacrifices.

Thomas says that Las Casas ended up winning the intellectual argument in Spain but that the situation on the ground in the Indies remained largely unchanged.

The real audience of Las Casas's and Sepulveda's debate was the king-emperor Charles V, a very important figure in this book. I was surprised to learn that the name Carlos was almost unknown in Spain before his reign began. This reminded me of the fact that the Greek name Phillip, born by Charles's successor, was brought to Western Europe by a daughter of the Russian prince Yaroslav the Wise, who was married to the king of France and who gave it to one of her sons, who eventually became king.

Charles V is shown here as an earnest, well-meaning man. He twice challenged Francis I, the king of France, to single combat to settle their differences without war. Unfortunately these duels did not end up occurring.

Charles was by far the most powerful European ruler of his day. In 1522, in an apparent attempt to get into his good graces the cardinals elected his trusted advisor and former tutor Adrian pope. Being Dutch, he was the last non-Italian pope until John Paul II in the late 20th century.

"He caused consternation by refusing to countenance nepotism." A placard placed on a door in the Vatican "denounced the cardinals who had elected Adrian as “robbers, betrayers of Christ’s blood” and asked, “Do you not feel sorrow to have surrendered the Vatican to German fury?”...

Ludwig von Pastor, the historian of the popes, wrote that “Adrian’s single-hearted anxiety to live exclusively for duty was to Italians of that age like an apparition from another world, beyond the grasp of their comprehension.”

Thomas also informs us that Adrian was denounced by Romans for preferring beer to wine.

As always, I was fascinated by all the old ethnic stereotypes mentioned in this book. For example, Thomas says that Greeks were often employed as artillery specialists in Spanish armies, including in the Americas.

The following reads bizarrely today: "Black slaves were thought to work harder than Indians, something especially noticeable in the hot climate."

In contrast to the Indian situation, the question of the morality of enslaving Blacks seems to have never come up.

"If these monarchs gave the matter any thought at all, they would have supposed that a slave in Christian hands would be much better off than a free African in Africa."

At one point Thomas writes that there is no evidence that anyone in pre-Colombian Mexico or Peru "had a sense of humor, whereas the Spaniards were always laughing." This must have seemed especially alien to a Brit like him. I can read Spanish, so I sometimes asked myself "why am I reading about Spanish and Latin American history in English?" Well, it's very hard to imagine anyone but a Brit writing about history with such great style and such subtle humor as Hugh Thomas. I recommend this volume highly.

Monday, October 17, 2016

Thoughts on the Election

First, I'd estimate Trump's IQ to be in the 105 to 110 range. That's below the IQ of the average congressman, governor or past president. Both of the Clintons are probably around 140. I'll be voting for Trump, but it would be silly to claim that he knows a lot of facts, has good taste or possesses a long attention span.

How could someone with a 105 to 110 IQ have become a billionaire? He's a natural alpha and his father's fortune must have given him a head start.

Most of his political opinions are typical of working-class, non-Jewish real New Yorkers - white ethnics whose ancestors came here in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In the popular imagination these people are Irish and Italian, but reality is, as always, more complicated, and I've known a few with German last names as well.

Why would a son of a multimillionaire be culturally working-class? The above-mentioned IQ issue. Also, his natural machismo.

If you ask an Italian-American elevator mechanic from Jersey or Staten Island about law and order, free trade or immigration, you'll hear the same things that are coming out of Trump. These people were pro-war in the aftermath of 9/11, but turned anti-war in the middle of the Iraq disaster. And they're still anti-war today.

Such people's opinions of Putin and Russia are much more negative than Trump's though. Does that mean that the TrumPutin conspiracy theory is correct? I don't know. It's fun to accuse Hillbots online of peddling a conspiracy theory, but I'll vote for Trump regardless of whether or not he's actually in touch with the Kremlin. Hillary is supported by lots of non-American forces and, what's more important, she'll be much worse for America and the world.

I'm not a pacifist because I sympathize with individuals and groups who defend themselves, but I don't think that America's current military involvements have anything to do with self-defense. In fact, I think that America would be safer if it withdrew from the Middle East.

I like both of the countries in which I've lived, so the idea of peaceful relations between them is very attractive to me.

I don't think that a nuclear exchange or a direct conventional war between Russia and the US is possible because if it was, it would have probably already happened. The USSR acquired nuclear weapons in 1949. Think of all the crises that have happened since then, of all the changes of personnel at the top. What does the absence of direct conflict tell us? That MAD works.

However, Hillary is likely to start new conventional proxy wars with Russia. The Korean, Vietnam, Central American and Afghanistan wars were the largest proxy wars of Cold War I. The Georgian, Donbass and Syrian wars have been the largest proxy wars of Cold War II. These conflicts kill enormous numbers of people, so any humanitarian should be opposed to those who promote them.

Trump is an erratic guy, and along with a large number of dovish statements he's made some not so dovish ones. How do I resolve this problem? First, I go by volume. His peaceful statements have been more numerous. Second, I look at the behavior of the people with the largest stake in this issue. Both the neocons and Putin are acting as if they think that Trump will be a non-interventionist. As I said above, I don't know if the Kremlin is helping Trump with his campaign, but I follow Russian media, and the pro-Kremlin parts of it are indeed pro-Trump.

Even though I'm an immigrant, I support Trump's immigration stance. I freely admit that this is hypocritical. What can I say, I'm comfortable here.

As should be evident from my blog, I'm fascinated by a wide variety of cultures, by their languages, histories, stereotypes and genetics. There are people who spend a lot of energy defending endangered species of frogs or butterflies, and I sympathize with them, but not as much as with the people who are trying to preserve human cultural and biological diversity. I see the prospect of the melting down of humanity into one big, undifferentiated grey mass as a tragedy that should be avoided.

Ever since the Industrial Revolution all of the world's rising powers have had manufacturing economies. England, Germany, America, the USSR, Japan, now China. Deindustrialization is historically linked with declining living standards and loss of international influence. I think that anyone who wishes this country well and who has a realistic, non-libertardian view of economics, would be a protectionist like Trump.

I'm with Trump on the issue of law and order. I think that the Ferguson Effect is real and that national stop & frisk would save a lot of lives.

Finally, and unfortunately, I've never expected Trump to win. Almost the entire power structure hates him, and it's foolish to bet against it. I'm guessing that soft methods will work for the powers that be this time, but if they don't, they'll resort to hard ones.

Wednesday, October 5, 2016


Italian names are famously euphonious. The book about Florentine history that I recently reviewed here contained thousands of them. Did I have a favorite? Of course. Clarice Orsini, the wife of Lorenzo the Magnificent. You have to pronounce it in the Italian way though.

Continuing with the theme of cool-sounding word combinations, I learned from Hugh Thomas's first book about the early Spanish empire that Ferdinand of Aragon, Isabella's husband, signed all his letters with the phrase "yo, el rey". That sounds great no matter what language I translate it to.

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Anton van den Wyngaerde

I'm reading the second book of Hugh Thomas's trilogy about the early Spanish empire. He mentions a Flemish artist named Anton van den Wyngaerde who "sketched most of the towns of Castile - so carefully that in 1572 he retired to Madrid with his hands crippled."

That made me curious, so I looked him up. His are the best city panoramas I've ever seen. While reading about Florentine history I naturally wanted to see what old Florence looked like, and the best that I could find on the Internet was this. Wyngaerde's stuff is better. This is just beautiful, as are this and this.

Whenever I look at walled cities or castles, I immediately imagine them being taken by an army. The best cinematic portrayal of that I have seen is contained in Andrei Tarkovsky's movie Andrei Rublev.

There is an album of Wyngaerde's sketches on sale. I'm guessing that there's more stuff there than is available online, but I haven't yet decided if I want to splurge on it.

Monday, October 3, 2016

A New Quatrain for the Credo Poem

This past Saturday I wrote another quatrain for my big Credo poem:

Every modern recreation
Of morality from scratch,
On a rational foundation,
Has some flaw, some fatal catch.

The entire work in progress can be seen here. In this part I'm trying to make the point that I laid out in the 4th and 5th paragraphs of this book review. It will take a few more quatrains to do it fully. I'm sure that lots of people have thought of this stuff before me, but the goal of expressing it in verse as well as I can is attractive to me.

This quatrain, the 22nd that I wrote for this poem, took more time and effort than any of the others. I didn't expect that going in and I'm sure that someone looking at the poem wouldn't think that this was the hardest part to write. The reason is a mystery to me.

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Review of A History of Florence, 1200 - 1575

A History of Florence, 1200 - 1575, by John Najemy, 2008. Glossy's rating: 4.5/10.

This is mostly a book about the politics of Florence's golden age, with some discussion of its economics and family life.

In 1115, after the death of Matilda, the margravine of Tuscany, the cities of the region successfully repulsed her successors' attempts to establish control over them, setting up independent republics instead. During the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries Florence gradually rose in importance among these cities, eventually conquering most of Tuscany.

Throughout this period Florence's politics was dominated by a conflict between powerful aristocratic families called the grandi on the one hand, and the commercial and artisanal middle class called the popolo on the other hand. The popolo was a misleading term because there were lots of people below it - free manual laborers, slaves, indigents and others.

The grandi started as a military and landowning aristocracy, but as the textile industry, international trade and banking took off in the later Middle Ages, they went into business, competing with the lower-born popolo.

The popolo criticized the grandi for being an extremely fractious bunch addicted to blood feuds, which sometimes snowballed into wars which occasionally destroyed large parts of the city. No duels were mentioned in this book, but like the dueling aristocracies of other places and periods, this was clearly a people bred for war. I loved the description of one of their leaders, Corso Donati, given by an enemy of his, a contemporary historian of middle class background named Dino Compagni:

"His mind was always set on evildoing"... [He] "lived dangerously and died reprehensibly. He was a knight of great spirit and renown, noble in blood and behavior, and very handsome in appearance even in his old age, of fine form with delicate features and white skin. He was a charming, wise, and elegant speaker, and always undertook great things. He was accustomed to dealing familiarly with great lords and noble men, and had many friends, and was famous throughout all Italy. He was the enemy of the popolo and of popolani, and was loved by his soldiers; he was full of malicious thoughts, cruel and astute...."

All Florentine historians of that period were popolani, meaning middle class. The literary genre preferred by the grandi was courtly love poetry.

Popolani writers looked to the ancient Roman republic for models of civic virtue, personal moderation and rule of law. In fact, the similarities between the two societies were numerous. The grandi/popolani conflict recalls the struggle between Roman patricians and plebeians. As Florence became more and more successful, it, like Rome, gradually morphed from a republic into a monarchy, with its rulers denying this for a long time, until finally admitting the obvious and donning a crown. In both cases the first monarchy sprang from the old aristocracy and not from the middle class.

With time the Florentine grandi got tamer, with civil courts replacing blood feuds and mercenaries replacing the native elite as the city's cavalry. I'm guessing that their martial nature was gradually diluted by intermarriage with rich popolani, though Najemy gives a different explanation.

While Najemy never mentions Marx, he consistently interprets Florentine politics through the framework of class struggle, sympathizing with the popolo (middle class) against the grandi and with laborers against the popolo.

I think that politics has always been mostly about tribalism, with people favoring those genetically closer to them. I think that Marxism is as wrong as libertarianism, though it doesn't trigger me like libertarianism does because Marxism has long been on the defensive. Lies and misconceptions are much more annoying when they're winning.

I would guess that the medieval Italian aristocracy was genetically more Lombard, Gothic, etc. than the middle and lower classes, and that their distinctive culture as well as their solidarity against the popolani had something to do with that.

From the late 13th till the early 16th centuries Florence was pretty much the intellectual and artistic capital of the world. Why? This book does not deal with this question, but I can't resist musing about it.

For much of this period Florence was the chief city of Tuscany. Maybe language wasn't the only highly unusual thing about the ancient Etruscans. Maybe they had some unusual talents too.

Republicanism in northern Italy seems to have peaked in the 12th and 13th centuries, gradually declining afterwards. At first city states were tiny and numerous, but they soon began to gobble each other up. The emergent small empires enriched leading families, which increased their role in government.

Booming trade and finance created private fortunes which acted in the same way. The Medici got enormously rich through their bank. They used that money to create the largest patronage network in Florence, which later helped them seize power. Lots of people owed them favors.

Also, the city had to pay for its constant wars, and the Medici skillfully leveraged their lending ability to gain power over the government.

It should be said though that in Florence republicanism declined slower than in most of its regional rivals. It survived longer in Venice, but Florence's politics was more turbulent, with more revolutions, coups and civil wars and with larger swings between the extremes of democracy and despotism.

Florence is an obstacle for anyone trying to argue that political stability is important for civilizational progress. In spite of their intense patriotism several Florentine politicians and writers are quoted in this book admitting that Venice's political system was preferable because it was more stable.

Florence isn't located on a coast, and its imperial endeavors were entirely land-based, directed towards other Tuscan cities. Venice and Genoa had far-flung overseas empires, but made a much smaller intellectual impact. There may not be any relationship between these facts, but if you want to think about the causes of the Florentine miracle, you have to start with listing the most important ways in which Florence differed from its neighbors and rivals.

"If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" is a question that's sometimes asked in life. Well, while prominent, Florence was never the most powerful Italian state. And Italy as a whole was often invaded by Germans, Spaniards and the French during this period.

The gap in civilizational progress, in innovation, between Florence and everywhere else was largest in the late 15th century. This was a time when the republican tradition was dying in the city, but when the ruling family, the Medici, still denied this, still feeling the need to pretend to be regular citizens.

Najemy says that by 1300 a large majority of Florence's men and a sizable minority of its women could read and write. In 1330, when the city's population was about 90,000, 68% to 75% of the children were in school. I don't know how this compared to other Italian cities of that time though.

Like most cities throughout history medieval and renaissance Florence was a population sink. Infections in the densely-packed town were common and the death rate was high. The birth rate was low, and to maintain its size the city needed a continuing flow of newcomers from the countryside.

The upper crust had more children than the lower and middle classes though. First, they could afford to feed as many kids as they wanted. Second, their women could be pregnant more often because they hired wet nurses.

Marriages within the elite were arranged in the most business-like way imaginable. Najemy quotes a letter in which one man asked someone belonging to a family with which he wanted to acquire connections to pick a bride for him from among his relatives. Dowries were negotiated for months.

Florentine women married around the age of 17, men around 30. This seems eugenic because the share of men who died before 30 must have been considerable in those centuries.

On sodomy:

"Long-term relationships were rare, occasional encounters the norm. Those who engaged in homosexual acts generally divided into two distinct age groups with different sexual roles. Young men between the ages of roughly eighteen and thirty took the dominant, or active, role in encounters in which they penetrated, but were not penetrated by, passive partners who were largely adolescents and teenaged boys. Among those accused of sodomy, 90% of passive partners were eighteen or younger and 83% of active partners nineteen or older.

As boys passed the threshold of their eighteenth or nineteenth year, most gave up the passive role and became active partners with younger boys. And as young men went past the age of thirty, and especially if they married, most abandoned the homosexual practices of their youth. Homosexual relations between adult men were less common, but not exactly rare.

Homosexual practices were not an alternative, and certainly not a permanent, sexual preference: the vast majority of those who engaged in them did not do so to the exclusion of sex with women or for their whole lives."

Sodomy was condemned by the church and sometimes punished by the state, but the penalties weren't heavy, so its practice continued. It's unclear to me how common it was. Najemy says that about 200 people a year were accused of it in Florence, but what percentage of the sodomites were ever accused?

The whole thing seems similar to the ancient Greco-Roman situation though. Richard Burton included Italy in his Sotadic Zone, but was pederasty really still common there in his time? It isn't now. When exactly did it stop being common in Italy?

In the Middle East and around the Mediterranean women have for a long time been less available for casual relationships than in most of Europe or in Africa. Families guarded them for arranged marriages instead. One might think that this was why men looked for casual sex with boys, and that 19th and 20th century women's lib, more than Christianity, put an end to widespread pederasty in southern Europe by freeing up young women.

However, there were lots of slave girls and prostitutes in ancient Rome. And according to this book, there were some in medieval Florence too. So causation is, as usual, unclear.

Both of Florence's most famous artists, Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci, are presumed to have been life-long homosexuals. By the way, they're barely mentioned in this book. Dante and Machiavelli get more space, but only because they had some involvement in the city's politics.

I don't blame the author for that - Florentine politics is very interesting - but his pomo-like writing style typical of modern social science clashes rudely with the beauty that most people associate with Florence. I'll give you an example:

"Artistic production reflected the social, economic, and contractual contexts of interactions between producers and consumers, who came from different classes, as well as the religious and aesthetic dimensions of consumer demand."

There's no good reason for history, not even for the economic kind, to be written like that.

Forget the Renaissance, the Middle Ages were beautiful too. The look of medieval cities with their narrow cobbled streets and shingled roofs, the cathedrals, the castles and towers, the weapons and armor, the guilds, the music - all of this is highly romantic to me and to millions of others. You get some glimpses of that world from reading this book, but only through a layer of colorless social-science gibberish.

Monday, September 12, 2016

The Movie "Boyhood"

I saw Richard Linklater's movie Boyhood over the weekend. It's realistic, well-intentioned and boring. The depiction of childhood was done better in Terence Malick's Tree of Life.

Even though I'm closer in age to Linklater than to Malick, my own boyhood was more like Malick's. This is because the 1960s only came to the USSR in the 1990s. I spent more time outdoors playing more dangerous games than Linklater's protagonist, but everything to do with sex came into my and my friends' lives much later. For related reasons my parents didn't split and I've never had to see my mom arrange dates with men. Even typing that last phrase felt sacrilegious and ewwey. I owe you so much, fate, for sparing me that.

When this movie came out the biggest criticism wasn't that it was boring but that everyone was white in it. Actually the protagonist's sister, supposedly a daughter of Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette, looks Mexican. The Wikipedia reveals that she was born in Mexico and is a child of Linklater's - presumably adopted.

Linklater was obviously trying to do his own story here, so he needed to cast a 6-year old boy who'd later look realistic as an artsy teen. So he found a son of a musician, and 12 years later the plan totally worked. We are our parents.