The Nose Puncher
THE NOSE PUNCHER
I.
A SENTENCING SESSION
1. First hearing in an alternative dimension
Nonplussed, I looked at the panel of three hovering above me. The
Chairman looked exactly as He had been depicted by Michelangelo: heavy set,
energetic and very much in command. His eyes, though, were kindly and a ghost
of a twinkle was discernible. The adjudicator sitting to His right wore the
uniform of a judge of the Court of Appeal, including a wig; his tall and gaunt
figure commanded respect and his solemn expression and demeanour made me
shiver. My lifelong friend, Theophil, was sitting to the Chairman’s left. As I
turned my eyes to him, he winked, as if to say: “Don’t worry, Peter’le.”
I was aware that monotheistic religions regarded him as
Satan, as Ashmadeus and as the epitome of evil. My association with him
convinced me that these creeds misjudged him. Doubtless, he often exposed
hypocrisies or ‘ulterior motives’, just as he purported to do in the case of
Job. In general, though, he was not an interventionist. Frequently, the Almighty took his counsel, especially when
it concerned the elevation of incumbents of purgatory to a place in paradise.
All in all, Theophil struck me as resembling the Greek Pan rather than Hades –
the severe and merciless master of the underworld.
“I agree with Matey,” volunteered the Almighty. “You,
Peter’le, need not be alarmed.”
“I understand. But – Dear God – why am I here? I thought
I had a pact to merge with Theophil?”
“You will. But there is a fine point to be settled.
Gabriel will explain.”
“You see, Mr. Peter: pacta
sunt servanda, which means: bargains are to be honoured. So, within a
reasonable time, you will become united with Theophil. But before the bargain
is complete, we – your judges – must consider your case.”
“But why?”
“That’s the law,” Gabriel told me severely.
“It is, rather,” muttered Theophil, “and as we know: the
law is an ass!”
“My poor donkey,” complained the Good Lord. “If he is
such a useless object, why have I created
him?” Turning to Theophil, he added: “And you, Matey, didn’t counsel me to
stop!”
“But who says the ass is useless? A bit of stupidity is often
no worse than a wealth of conventional wisdom,” replied my lifelong friend.
“You have a point there,” agreed the Good Lord, ignoring
Gabriel’s angry look.
The proceedings
struck me as a sham. My decision to join the ranks of the
The law, I knew, was an ass. In contrast, the three
members of my panel were wise. Why would they adhere to mete out an obscure decree?
It made no sense, especially for them.
“It is not as simple as that,” explained Gabriel, who
read my thoughts. “Our task is to do justice before it is too late. Once you are
part of Theo, this becomes impossible.”
“Are you then thinking of sending me for a short spell
to hell?”
“Heavens forbid,” interposed the Good Lord.
“I agree,” nodded Gabriel. “All in all, you led a pretty
decent life.”
“Did I?”
“Your main sins are your failure to respect or accept Him
and the many instances of unkindness you have shown to your poor wife. Further,
you bored your students to tears!”
“Anything else?” I enquired anxiously.
“You told plenty of white lies and, my dear Peter, you
blew up your ‘expenses’ in your income tax returns.”
“Once upon a time, Gabriel was employed by the Inland
Revenue Department,” grinned Theophil.
“Must have been a terrible experience, Lord Gabriel,” I
said humbly.
“No need for the ‘Lord’ or any other human-coined title:
‘Gabriel’ will do. But no, it wasn’t a bore. This experience taught me a great
deal about modern humans and their cultures.”
“Are all of us crooks?”
“Not really, Peter’le,” relented Gabriel, “but all
humans I’ve come across are capable of ‘little dishonesties’ and have a
selective approach to morals.”
“Are you then leaving these irregularities out of my
indictment, Gabriel?”
“If my Honourable Colleagues agree,” he retorted as the
other two panellists nodded.
This meant that my
main fault had been my rejection of Him and the acts of unkindness Gabriel
referred to. All in all, none appeared heinous. The sentence ought to be light.
Still, I had a problem with the indictment.
“I never denied His existence,” I pleaded my defence.
“Right you are,” nodded Gabriel. “But did you accept
Him? Did you worship Him?”
“No, I didn’t. But, then, look at it from my viewpoint.
How could I accept His existence when I doubted the very meaning of
‘existence’?”
“He raised the issue of ‘existence’ with me,” confirmed
Theophil.
“We, too, keep pondering on it,” grinned the Good Lord.
“Here let me show you!”
To my amazement, he transformed himself into a swan, into
Jupiter, into the Shaman and, at long last, into an invisible cloud. Gabriel,
in turn, changed himself into a haughty angel with a beak and wings.
“But, then, even a cloud ‘exists’. What do you really
appear like?” I asked
“If anyone of us showed you his home-image, you wouldn’t
see, hear or sense anything. Even the most powerful microscope, hearing-aid or
computer-radar would be of no use,” explained the Good Lord patiently.
“I told him that,” asserted Theophil. “He didn’t press
the point.”
“But, all the same, I would like to know. Obviously, I
can’t provide the answer on my own. But surely, you, Good Lord, are in the
know!”
“It ain’t that simple,” interposed Gabriel. “Tell me,
Peter’le, does a dream exist?”
“Depends on what you mean by ‘exist’,” I replied.
“So you really ask Him to provide an answer to a
question that is unclear! And how can any being answer an unformulated query?”
The Good Lord agreed benignly: “Spot on. My Matey (whom Gabri calls Theo) is of the same view.”
“But, Dear God, why is my failure to accept your
‘existence’ a sin when I am, to your knowledge, unable to fathom the meaning of
‘exist’?”
“So that’s why you have adopted him,” muttered the Good
Lord, with his gaze fixed on Theophil.
“He has a penchant for raising awkward questions,”
explained Theophil.
“Tut, tut,” interposed Gabriel. “To hear is to obey! So
this ‘existence’ analysis is a red herring.”
“Nonetheless, I never addressed Him directly,” said the
Good Lord.
After a short reflection, I spotted the heart of the
problem. The Good Lord – if He existed – gave mankind free choice. If He
addressed us directly or gave any orders, free choice would be mockery. So He
considered it best not to appear to us.
My meanderings did not shed light on the meaning of
‘existence’. That remained a grey area to humanity. Had They discovered the
answer?
“No: we do not have an all-embracing solution. Perhaps
‘existence’ encompasses different notions,” said my life long friend with
conviction.
“I know you ‘exist’, Theophil.”
“You mean ‘we’ exist. But you doubted the notion for a
long time. In the end I gave in to the human Peter’le and revealed myself to
him. Luckily, he didn’t burst a vessel.”
“I never drop my mask! I let you search for me,” summed
up the Good Lord.
“Then, Good Lord, we ‘indict’ our Peter’le for not
searching,” Gabriel came to life.
“I am afraid so. And also for the other matters you
listed,” He conceded.
“You won’t send me to hell for these?” I pressed
anxiously.
“Of course not.
Yours are sins or perhaps misdemeanours. Hell is for real felons!”
Gabriel spoke on behalf of the panel.
As I kept looking
at them, it dawned on me that They, too, were still searching for answers.
There was no basis for the assumption that They, or in the very least He
Himself, had mastered all knowledge in the universe. In a sense, my realisation
baffled me. If He created the universe, how could it hold onto its mysteries?
“You, Peter’le, assume that my creation was a wilful
act, don’t you?”
“I do. That’s what I’ve been told in school. But, then,
the teachers taught us a lot of rubbish.”
“They did, rather,” interposed Theophil. “We do not know
whether creation or evolution was triggered off wilfully or by chance.”
“This means that there
may be a further dimension above yours?”
“We can’t rule that out,” volunteered Gabriel.
2.Provisional sentence
Most of the pieces in the jigsaw had now been placed.
But where were they going to send me? Hell had been ruled out. As I was a
sinner, heaven was also not on. In any event, it was out of bounds for one of
Theophil’s admirers.
Would I, then, have
to spend a spell in purgatory prior to my full merger with Theophil? And to which ward might I be destined? Hopefully, not
to the Ward of Bores. The very thought passed a shiver through my
dematerialised spine.
“Don’t be childish, Peter’le. That ward has many
sophisticated incumbents. They simply said one thing too often. You have plenty
to learn from them. But, no, the Ward of Bores is not your destination. True,
you used one phrase – letter of credit – too often. But you are not in the same
league as Plato,
“Your task,
Peter’le, will be to punch noses of deserving humans,” supplemented Theophil.
“What do you mean by ‘deserving’?” I wanted to know.
“Individuals who left a lasting mark on humanity and its
development,” explained the Good Lord.
“But I have never punched a nose in my life,” I
protested.
“True,” nodded Theophil. “But once you told me you
wanted to punch Dean Schwitz at Monash. So that gave us the idea. You see,
Peter’le, that’s how your sins rebound on your own head.”
“Poor noses,” I wailed.
“We disagree. Your selection is bound to please them:
you shall make them feel important. Further, some of you humans get great
pleasure from being beaten, tortured or cross-examined by the tax authorities.
The disease is called masochism,” lectured Gabriel.
So my task was to
punch seven selected noses. Still, one detail remained to be settled. Where
would I spend the in-between spells? For just a second, I feared they would
induce Theophil to tie me to a mast in a space ship.
“We are not barbarians. Only a demented Teutonic mind
could dream up such nonsense. And we don’t expect any woman to fall madly in
love with you. You don’t qualify,” said the Good Lord in alarm.
“But then, where will I reside when I am not busy
punching?”
“Matey – I mean, your friend Theophil – will take care
of the arrangements. And don’t you make a mistake. You can punch any human being:
male or female. We are not male chauvinist pigs,” clarified the Good Lord.
“But suppose I want to punch somebody who may not have
existed – like Moses?”
“As far as this exercise is concerned, existence
encompasses everybody in your memory banks: even David and Ivanhoe,” explained Gabriel.
“And the outcome?” I wanted to know.
“We shall reconvene after you have punched seven noses.
If we are satisfied with the performance, you are free to unite with Matey,”
explained the Good Lord.
“And if you are not satisfied?”
“You have to punch another seven noses. It could turn
into a perpetuum mobile,” grinned
Theophil.
3.Temporary accommodation
“Why did you let
this happen?” I asked my mentor when the other two members of the panel
disappeared.
“Gabriel is a nit-picker. But we’ll turn the episode to
our advantage.”
“How?” I wanted to know.
“You’ll be a guest in my favourite ward. With His
consent I established it to accommodate Archie – Archimedes Man of Syracuse –
and Moti the Mammoth. They preferred to remained united rather than be moved to
their respective heavens. A third incumbent – a Tiger – accepted an invitation
to join them. I visit this ward regularly. Still, you’ll have to gain the
inhabitants’ confidence on your own. Here is the hidden door.”
The garden was
beautiful. I was fascinated by the skilfully trimmed shrubs, the neatly mowed
lawn, the river flowing with dignity and the majestic view of mountains in the
distance. The climate was warm and pleasant and the sky was blue and clear.
The tiger, the mammoth
and their companion – a tall lanky fellow – looked stunned as I entered. The
tiger arched his back, gave me a furious look and stepped protectively in front
of the mammoth. The latter got the lanky fellow out of imminent danger. Having
lifted the chap up with his trunk, the mammoth placed him in a picturesque hut
erected on the mammoth’s own back. The
mammoth then stepped forward in my direction.
For a moment I was overcome by trepidation. Then, to my
relief, the tiger relaxed and, unexpectedly, observed: “You were sent to us by
Lord Pan.”
“Lord Pan? And how come you speak English?”
“This is simple. Greek, of course, is the only civilised
language,” interposed the lanky fellow, sliding down the mammoth’s trunk and
holding his hand out to me. “All other languages are barbaric: especially
Latin. Greek, though, is an ancient language. Many modern words were coined
long after Classical Greek ceased to be spoken. For this reason, Lord Pan chose
English. And he has made the dwellers of this ward conversant in it.”
I looked with
interest at the circles of hyperbolas and parabolas this fellow had drawn on the
sand. When my thoughts cleared, I told him with confidence: “So you are really Archimedes,
Man of Syracuse!”
“I am indeed. But all my friends know me as ‘Archie’.
And this big fellow is Moti.”
“You are the biggest fellow I’ve come across. You are
huge. But you are also cute – if you know what I mean.”
To my delight, Moti raised his trunk and trumpeted.
Spontaneously, all of us clapped. Acknowledging the ovation, Moti beamed at us.
“It is an honour to meet you,” I assured the three of them.
“But who is Lord Pan?”
“It’s me,” said Theophil and materialised in front of
us. “That’s the cliché I use when I come to see them here. Well, Peter’le, what
do you think of your haven?
“Magnificent, Maestro!”
“You’ll be happy here. And you have the option of
staying on as long as you like. Just keep punching the wrong noses.” Turning to
the three residents, he explained: “Peter’le is my friend. Please help him to
plan his mission. He’ll tell you all about it.”
Before Theophil exited, Tiger brushed gently against his
robe. Theophil, in turn, stroked him. Archie and Moti beamed at both of them. I
took the scene in with admiration. I knew that
4.Settling down
“Well, what is your mission? If it’s got anything to do
with mathematics, you’re in the right place,” announced Archie somewhat
immodestly.
“I’m afraid it’s got nothing to do with math. I’ve got
to punch noses of people who have left a mark on humanity!”
“I’ve got no nose; only a trunk. Try to punch it,
Peter’le. You’ll break your hand.”
“Sorry, Moti: only human noses are eligible: male and
female.”
“But do you really want to punch female noses?” asked Tiger.
“Most boys like to do other things with girls!”
“That’s because they are dumb,” interjected Archie.
“They think they take whilst being taken. But Peter’le, how are you going to select
these noses. Seven out of infinity: quite a task!”
Archie’s point was crucial. I could think of hundreds,
if not thousands, of noses deserving a punch, including many religious
worthies. The difficulty was to
nominate, or select, just seven. Worse still, both males and females were
eligible. On what criteria was I to base my selection?
“You’ve got to be objective. If your panel detects a bias,
you’ll have an encore. Actually, why don’t you stand on a stage and invite
anybody who wishes to have his or her nose punched to put in an appearance?”
asked Tiger.
“I don’t think we’ll have seven acceptances – even if we
add an RSVP,” I told him.
“Right you are,
Peter’le. We must pick objective criteria to help us select worthy noses. To
start with you must have a representative of each major culture. And make sure
there are enough male and female noses online,” advised Archie.
For the rest of the afternoon we discussed appropriate
criteria. Race and age were discarded. The former was ill-defined and
confusing; the latter was immaterial: most of the eligible candidates were long
dead. An important criterion was pinpointed by Tiger. Punching had to be
carried out in a chronological order. I ought to find a suitable candidate in
each major epoch.
“But where shall I
start? I could start with our own age and move backward or commence at the beginning.”
“Start at the beginning,”
counselled Archie. “If you begin selecting noses from amongst your
contemporaries you’ll be overwhelmed by the number of suitable candidates.”
Late in the evening
Theophil put in another appearance. To start with he commended our research. He
then arranged a suitable resting place for me. Having decided not to erect another
hut on Moti’s back, he simply magnified the size of Tiger’s carpet and provided
a pillow and blankets.
“Please act as
Peterle’s guardian, Tiger’le.”
“I sure will,” Tiger
assured Theophil. “Can I accompany him on his missions?”
“Of course,” said
Theophil magnanimously. “When necessary, I’ll shrink you to an appropriate
size.”
Next morning I woke
up full of energy. I wanted to embark on the task given to me. Still, the
lovely stream was appealing.
“I want to have a
swim before breakfast,” I told Tiger.
“I’ll accompany you
to the riverbank. But I don’t like to immerse myself in water,” muttered Tiger.
“I won’t be long,”
I promised, thinking to myself that Tiger retained his prejudices even after
his physical demise. It then dawned on me that the very same point applied to
me. I had always liked to swim in the morning. In addition, I felt for Tiger
the same fondness I used to have for cats.
Shortly afterwards
I asked the three of them to help me plan my course. I was satisfied that He
had greater influence on humanity than any mortal. Should I then place him at
the head of the queue?
“I thought your
task was to punch human noses,” observed Archie. “Is He then eligible?”
“Archie means to
ask: is he human?” augmented Moti.
“Quite so,”
confirmed the Man of Syracuse.
Tiger, who sat
apart, nodded. It dawned on me that, in a sense, Archie and Moti were closer to
one another than to Tiger. I recalled that Tiger was admitted to the ward long
after Theophil had erected it so as to enable Archie and Moti to remain
together rather than moving each to his respective paradise. Tiger was a
newcomer and accordingly had remained an add-on incumbent. Effectively, my
arrival moved him closer to the centre.
Seeking to
concentrate on the point raised by Archie, I stroked Tiger’s rich fur. He, in
turn, purred with satisfaction and brushed against my trousers.
“A big cat,” I
thought. “Fiercely independent but willing to make friends.”
Turning to Archie,
I mused: “Surely, the answer to your comment is complex. It depends on the
religion you embrace.”
“Please explain,”
said Moti. “You see, we mammoths do not postulate any faith. We are tolerant.”
“Well, most Pagan
religions are anthropomorphic so that Jupiter, for instance, has a nose.
Buddhists, too, worship a human being. In contrast, Islam and Judaism maintain
that the Almighty has no human features. Christianity is less clear on this
point. Their Almighty came down to earth disguised as his own son and, for that
purpose, assumed human form. During his spell with us he had a nose. But after
his crucifixion he was resurrected and merged again with the formless Holy
Spirit.”
“Peter’le,” said
Theophil, who emerged in front of our eyes, “you ought to raise this difficult
legal (or philosophical) question as a preliminary or interlocutory issue with
our panel. I’ll ask Gabri – the Keeper of Records – to convene a meeting.”
5. A preliminary issue respecting eligibility
My three new friends accompanied me to the session. Each
of us was formally dressed. To my amusement, Moti wore a huge bowtie. Was it
organised by Archie, I wondered? In contrast, the three members of the panel
donned comfortable attire and appeared relaxed.
After listening to
our arguments, He took the lead: “Surely, Peter’le, Michelangelo drew me as a
mighty figure with human features.”
“True; but then,
can we trust him? Didn’t he use his artistic freedom (or licence) and
imagination?” asked Tiger.
“Also, all
Renaissance maestros set out to impress. Theirs was not the power of pure
reason,” pontificated Archie.
“Hear, hear!”
exclaimed Moti.
“Furthermore, their
efforts would be in line with just one sect of Christianity: Catholicism,” I
put in.
“We should be able
to clarify the point after a short break,” concluded Theophil on behalf of the
panel.
When they
reconvened, Gabriel delivered their unanimous judgment. My mandate was confined
to punching human noses. It was for me to decide whether a given deity met with
this criterion and, of course, had to consider if activities and standing
brought Him or Her within the range of the seven suitable worthies.
Initially, I felt
disappointed. In reality, the decision threw the issue back to me.
“Actually, we
didn’t,” said Theophil who joined us on the way back to our haven. “We simply
left the onus on you. You must make your own choices and we shall judge whether
or not you have completed your task. If we decide you haven’t, then you get an
encore. Surely, that’s a fine solution.”
II.
E V E
1.Meeting Eve
An adherence to the chronological order seemed a safe procedure.
Accordingly, I went back to the origin.
Eve was an attractive woman in her mid-thirties.
Initially, she was startled by our appearance but soon viewed the tiger with
admiration. Theophil had shrunk him to the size of a Burmese cat. Having
stroked him affectionately, she turned to me: “He is adorable. But who are you?
What brings you here?”
“My name is Peter:
one of your descendants. I’ve come to give you a gift.”
“This cute pussy
cat?”
“I’m not a pussy
cat,” protested Tiger.
Eve gazed with amazement as Theophil metamorphosed Tiger
back to his normal size. To my relief, she was not frightened. Instead, she
lowered herself beside the predator and tickled him behind the ears.
“So you are a real tiger. Fantastic! And you must meet
my best friend: she is a tigress!” For a moment Tiger looked at Eve apprehensively.
Then he turned tail and sped away.
“Why did he flee,
Peter? I thought we were getting on famously?”
“He is allergic to lady tigers.”
“Oh, one of those …
,” she cut herself short as Tiger reappeared.
“What do you think
of my speed?” he wanted to know.
“Most impressive, honestly.
I’m sure you’ll win a marathon. But you, Peter, what have you brought me?”
“This,” I told her
and punched her nose.
“You hit me,” she
screamed, when she found her voice. “You are a hooligan: not a gentleman.”
2.Adam and Theophil step in
“What is going on
here?” asked a broad shouldered, tall and good-looking man, who had just
returned from hunting.
“This nincompoop
punched me in the nose, Adam,” complained Eve angrily.
For a few seconds, Adam took in the scene. He then
rushed towards me. Dreading a skirmish, I stepped back. Tiger, in turn, arched
his back and stood protectively by my side. Our fears, though, were misguided.
Holding out his hand, Adam embraced me and congratulated warmly. I had carried out
a design he had harboured for years. Still, he had not had the courage to go ahead.
“What’s the matter
with you, Adam? For years, I’ve cooked your meals, washed your clothes, kept
our cave clean and bore you two sons and a daughter. And now you shake the hand
of this fellow! Is that how you show your gratitude?”
Adam stopped in his tracks. His expression, though, did
not reflect guilt. He was, simply, out of his depth. I, too, was lost for words.
How could I possibly explain to this striking woman my motivation for an act
that appeared bizarre.
The situation was
saved by the sudden appearance of Theophil. He looked sympathetically at Eve,
bestowed a smile on Adam and then addressed me: “You better explain everything
to Eve, Peter’le. She thinks you’re mad. You started by being nice to her. You
introduced her to Tiger and then, for no apparent reason, you punched her
nose.”
“So he did; and I
thought he was a gent,” wailed Eve. As she raised her arms in protest, her nose
started to bleed. Instantly, Adam offered her a piece of his loincloth, I
proffered my handkerchief and Tiger looked at her with alarm. Graciously,
Theophil produced an alcohol swab and stopped the bleeding.
“That’s better, Mr.
Snake,” she told him. “But I still don’t see why he hit me. Was it because I
partook of the forbidden fruit back there in
“Of course not,
Eve. People who obey orders blindly are often hanged or sent to hell.”
“So why did you
assault me?” she turned to me. “Because I disobeyed that Old Fellow in
“Oh, I still miss Eden,”
interceded Adam. “I had a wonderful time there. Occasionally that Old Fellow –
as you call him – asked me to find names for the animals of his creation. That
required a bit of planning. Still, for most of the time I just loafed about. It
was Utopia! And here I have to work my guts out! Many good fruits were
available in Eden: mangoes, bananas and grapes. Why did you have to taste that
apple?”
“Because I fancied
it!” Eve let her displeasure show.
3.Theophil elaborates; the Almighty opines
To nip the argument in the bud, I asked Theophil to show
them scenes from Man’s long history: the bow and arrow, the thumbscrew, the
pillory, the rawhide and many war instruments. He then displayed some of the
Goya’s Horrors of the War. When he finished,
Eve was aghast.
“But surely, all this has got nothing to do with me?”
“I am afraid it does. All of it was launched when you
decided to take that fruit,” Theophil told her.
“But how?”
“You decided to exercise free choice. So, you disobeyed
His orders. The rest followed when your descendents settled their own agendas.
But don’t you fret. Your decision triggered off some beautiful things. Have a
look.”
The screen now displayed the pyramids, the Acropolis,
St. Sophia and the Taj Mahal. A series of beautiful paintings, sculptures and
ceramics followed. An opera, exciting performances by philharmonic orchestras
and some chamber music ensembles brought the show to its end.
“My disobedience
had far reaching effects,” observed Eve. “But I still don’t see why you hit me,
Mr. Hooligan. Are you a passive follower of rules?”
“Of course not,” I
assured her. “I punched you because you never thought about the effects of your
act. You just went ahead without thinking. The rest followed! Your act lost us
paradise!”
“Precisely,” summed
up my lifelong friend. “Still, existence in
“Suppose you had
foreseen all this, Eve, would you have gone ahead?” I addressed her with
trepidation.
“I would, Mr.
Hooligan – even if I had foreseen your childish prank!”
“But why?” I asked
stunned.
“Because I wanted
Adam,” she told me frankly.
“But you had me in
“You treated me
like a doll or a sister. That was not what I wanted.”
“You could have
seduced … I mean, awakened … me in
“With that Old Fellow
snooping around incessantly? I am a lady, not a slut!”
A white cloud announced the arrival of He Himself. Far
from displaying anger, He smiled at all of sadly but tolerantly.
“So, it was
inadequate planning,” He sighed. “How could we have known that the sexual drive
was incompatible with obedience or even reason, Matey?”
“We couldn’t, Friend,”
agreed Theophil. “None of us has such an urge. Still, if you had not given
mankind a sexual drive, the race would have perished. We’ve got to take the
rough with the smooth.”
Tiger and I took our
leave shortly after the two super-beings retreated to their own dimension.
Before we left, Eve invited us to visit them again, provided I had no further
inappropriate designs. I assured her I had none.
III.FIRST INTERLUDE
1.Assessment of first performance
Archie and Moti welcomed Tiger and me back into the
fold. Moti, though, expressed a reservation.
“Peter’le, why
didn’t you explain things to Eve before you punched her?”
“I thought it best
to proceed without delay.”
“But then you
needed Lord Pan’s help!”
“Moti is right: it
was your mission, Peter’le. So why the need for help?” volunteered Archie.
“But Theophil did
not appear until after the mission had been completed. You see, Archie, he did
not intervene. He simply helped me to explain. Actually, there was no need to
elucidate. By right I was entitled to withdraw the instant I delivered the
punch. In the worst case, Eve would have remained puzzled!”
“Eve is not the
type of lady who remains puzzled for long. She is too forthright,” Tiger
stepped to my aid.
“Oh well,” conceded
Archie. “But now we have to plan your next punch. You must not restrict
yourself to members of one culture!”
2.Planning the next punch
His words made sense. There were, of course, quite a
number of Biblical characters deserving treatment. One was Moses who led his
people astray for forty years in the desert. Another was Samuel, who took
exception to Saul’s refusal to murder Amelekite women and children. Yet another
was the famous Rabbi Gamliel, who applied one set of rules to the people and a
more liberal doctrine to himself.
Still, we had to
move with the times. Dealing with representatives
of different cultures was essential. Initially I looked in the direction of
“But there are so many
deserving noses amongst the Greek!”
“Why don’t you go
quickly through them, Peter’le” opined Tiger.
The first name on my list was Homer. His poetry put the
emphasis on style rather than substance. Others to be considered included Pericles
and Plato. The former convinced his people to press on with a war they were
bound to lose. The latter was a dogmatic thinker, who produced heaps of unreadable
dialogues discussing ‘freedom’, copied laboriously by his slaves. What did these poor scriveners think when they
were ordered to fill their inkpots and reproduce the great man’s Republic?
The full list of
deserving noses appeared endless. As I viewed it with despair, Moti looked with
concern at both Archie and me. Sensing he wanted to convey a discreet message, I climbed up his trunk.
“What are you
worried about?”
“Archie looks
jaundiced. He wonders why you have not selected him.”
“I would never
punch a friend, Moti: you know this.”
“Oh, I know. But
your mission is to punch the most remarkable figures in history. Archie
believes he is one of them. He feels
slighted.”
“What were the two
of you mumbling about?” Archie manifested his chagrin as soon as I slid down
Moti’s trunk.
“Moti thinks I
ought to concentrate on contributors to
“And what would
that be? Philosophy, art, poetry and mathematics reached a height in our
culture.”
“But all of these
progressed further in later periods. The concept of the zero, for instance, originated
in
“You mean we were
just a midwife or, perhaps, a bubble?”
“Peter’le thinks
that
IV.HERODOTS
(484 – 425 BCE)
1.The
punch
Archie and I materialised in a market place in Thurii –
an Athenian colony during the fifth century BCE. It was a sunny late spring
day.
A tall man, with a
balding head and long beard, was surrounded by a group of eager listeners. He
was telling them details of the wars between
He then proceeded to tell them about the wonders of
When the session
was over Herodotus turned to Archie and me with patent curiosity. Did he sense that
neither of us was flesh and blood?
“And who are you
two?” he wanted to know.
“I am Archimedes,
man of
“From where are you
heading?”
“From a haven in
purgatory. Lord Pan transported us back in time so that Peter’le would be able
to keep his rendezvous with you.”
“Lord Pan?”
Herodotus let his surprise show.
“You may have heard
of him,” countered Archie sarcastically, having been stung to the quick because
Herodotus did not recognise his name. Odd to say, Archie ignored the fact that
Herodotus had lived some two hundred years before himself.
“I know who he is;
and you are a rude fellow. Didn’t your mother teach you manners?”
“She told me that
yokels like you ought to be hit before they can turn on innocent beings. And as
to rudeness: you don’t have a monopoly,” retorted an incensed Archie.
“Gentlemen,
gentlemen,” I interceded. “Both of you are amongst the greatest heralds of
Greek culture. You shouldn’t to snarl at one another like hungry wolves. How
could Herodotus have heard your name, Archie? He lived long before you!”
To calm my enraged
friend further, I gave him a biographical sketch of the great historian. Having
been expelled from
“Well put. But who
is he?” Herodotus asked, pointing his finger at Archie.
“The greatest Greek
mathematician.”
“Oh, the sort of
chap who tells schoolchildren that 2 + 2 is 4?”
“Even you can do this, you nincompoop!” yelled Archie.
“What a hot
temper,” grinned Herodotus. “Well, if you can’t even teach, what do you do for
a living?”
“I have worked out
many puzzles,” retorted Archie. “For instance, I can calculate the measures of
a hyperbola and a parabola. Can you do this?”
“Of course not.
And, tell me, you bumpkin: what would I do with the answer? What use would it
be to me or any other sensible man?”
“It might improve
your confused mind,” summed up Archie.
“But can your
calculations be of practical use to anybody?”
“Of course they
can. I worked out a system of mirrors that should have put the Roman Navy on
fire when it attacked
“And did your
strategy save your town?” Herodotus wanted to know.
“It didn’t,”
admitted Archie sadly. “The Roman admiral changed the formation of his ships.”
“So, your
calculations were useless,” pointed out Herodotus, smirking gleefully.
“Gentlemen,
gentlemen,” I stepped in again. “I see no reason for discord. Archie is a
conceptualist and you, Herodotus, are a pragmatist.”
“But who are you?
And why don’t you mind your own business?” bellowed Herodotus, reminding me
that, in real life, an objective observer frequently incurred the two
combatants’ wrath.
“Should I perhaps
attend to my task straightaway?” I asked innocently.
“You might as well,”
prompted Archie. “Why waste time?”
Herodotus nodded.
Without further ado I stepped forward and punched him. For just a second he
clung to a stool but then toppled over with a scream. Instantly, Archie and I
stepped over and helped him back to his feet. Archie, to my delight, brushed
Herodotus’ apparel and spoke to him soothingly.
2.Herodotos’ writings analysed
For a few moments
Herodotus remained speechless. Then, as he recovered his voice, he addressed me
firmly: “Are you a nut? To start with you are ‘Mr Nice’. You try to make peace
between Archie and me. I even begin to think you may be alright. And then, for
no reason, you punch me. Are you out of your mind or did you flush it down this
morning?”
“Isn’t that an
anachronism? I didn’t think you primitives had flush toilets,” I averred.
“We didn’t,”
conceded Archie. “But we were not ‘primitives’!”
“This time Archie
is right,” supplanted Herodotus. “We are Greeks. The rest of the world is
barbarian and hence primitive. Still, you better tell me what twist of mind
motivated your cowardly assault on an old man!”
“It’s my mission!”
“What mission?”
Herodotus’ eyes
opened wide when I explained to him the nature of my assignment. He then wanted
to know what was Archie’s role. He looked relieved when I explained Archie was
a mere observer. He had no mandate to punch anyone.
I thought all was
settled when Archie raised the telling point. He wanted to know why I
considered Herodotus one of the greatest men in human history. Wasn’t a great
mathematician superior to a mere historian? A mathematician was a Master of
Science and a prince of the arts. A historian, in contrast, was a teller of
stories, a base chronicler.
He was appeased
when I explained that Herodotus was not just ‘some historian’. He was the ‘Father
of History’. True, the Bible and the Iliad related events. They even included
some pedigrees. Herodotus, though, was the first person to examine the causes
and effects of sociological and political developments. To discern the causes
of the war between
“But didn’t
Herodotus tell us fairy tales about ‘gold digging, giant ants’ and remarkable
marmots?”
“So he did. And he
told us some strange tales about a Persian monarch. According to Herodotus,
Xerxes lashed the
“He is the ‘Father
of all Lies’,” pointed out Archie. “And you, Peter’le, have elevated him to a
pedestal. He lacks the integrity and objectivity of a pure scientist.”
“But I never
claimed to be a scientist,” protested Herodotus. “I am a logios – a teller of remote events. I must embellish my narrations
with anecdotes and stories bound to appeal to my audience. If I don’t, they may
walk out on me; and I won’t earn a living.
And, you know, I always distinguished between what I was told and what I thought
had actually taken place. I may have been fooled: but I am not a knave!”
“That’s why history
respected him, Archie. Herodotus may have erred on many occasions but he gives
you a sound and, yes, analytical reconstruction of political conflicts and of wars.
I do admire his work. True, Thucydides is great. But isn’t he sometimes vague
and boring?”
“Thanks for your
support, Mr Nose-Puncher. But please tell me about later loggie.
Whose lead did they follow?”
“They pretended to
follow Thucydides’ objectivity but usually were much more biased than you. When
I read your Histories, I wasn’t
certain who was your hero. When I read Lord Macaulay’s History of England, I realised he worshipped William of
Orange. I was aghast when I found out
from other records that, far from standing by the helm of his lead ship,
William was sucking a lemon in his cabin, green with seasickness. And the
Japanese official records conveniently forget all about the massacre of the
population of
“So it is,”
conceded Archie. “So, all in all, you have chosen well.”
“Except that my
nose is painful,” grumbled Herodotus.
V.SECOND INTERLUDE
1.Analysing and discussing anachronism
Tiger and Moti welcomed us back enthusiastically. Moti
was relieved to find his friend in good shape and unharmed. Giving vent to his
joy, he trumpeted. Tiger brushed against Archie’s toga and my slacks. Then,
bursting with curiosity, he asked me to tell them all about our venture.
When I completed my
narration, Tiger raised a point that had baffled him. Archie must have been
aware that Herodotus had lived before his time. Why then had he expected the
historian to be familiar with the name of a mathematician yet to be born?
“I, too, am
confused,” interceded Moti. “But then, Tiger’le, don’t you sometimes confuse
early with late? Peter’le tells me that the composers of the Old Testament did
so regularly.”
“I don’t know
whether they did so intentionally. As to
me, I often make mistakes of this sort,”
conceded Tiger. “But I won’t upbraid a person before I am sure of my premises.
I know that Archie is a hothead – no offence meant of course – but he is rather
rational!”
“Of course I am
rational. But you see, my friends, Herodotus too was a mere image. The days on
earth of Peter’le and of me were over; but so were Herodotus’. So, surely, he
too was shipped back to his own era, or time, by Lord Pan.”
“Well?” I asked
perplexed.
“Archie means that
Herodotus should have identified men of genius of all the periods covered on
his journey back in time,” observed Moti.
“Precisely. You,
Moti, always understand what I mean. You are a treasure.”
“I get the drift,”
interposed Tiger, “but then, why do you say Herodotus travelled back in time?
Lord Pan could have moved Peter’le and Archie back to Herodotus’ genuine epoch:
I mean, his days on earth. Lord Pan didn’t have to transport two segments.”
“Actually, what is
time travel?” asked Moti.
Patiently and thoroughly, Archimedes explained the well-known
nature of the basic three dimensions. He then went on to explain that ‘time’,
too, was a dimension. Every subject-matter known to us fitted into all four
dimensions. If you were able to ‘travel’ along any one of the first three
dimensions, you should also be able to traverse the fourth.
“When was all of this worked out?” asked Moti.
“After many ages of
contemplation and study. In the 20th century a brilliant physicist
proved that, conceptually, it was on.”
“But, practically,
how can it be done? Do you know any time traveller?” asked Tiger sceptically.
“Peter’le and I
have just travelled into the past. But I don’t know how this was done,” said
Archie.
“Neither do I,”
volunteered Theophil, appearing suddenly in front of us. “But I have shown you that it is possible. And the performance of an act proves its
viability.”
“Even if you can’t
explain the cause or method?”
“Precisely,”
grinned Theophil. “If this were not so, how could you establish the very
existence of Acts of God? And, coming to think of it, how could medieval
thinkers believe in witchcraft?”
“You have a point
there,” I conceded when Tiger found no reply. “Well, thanks for the ride,
Maestro.”
“Always happy to
please my friends,” he told us before he departed.
2.Selecting the nest punchee
Having settled these issues, it was time to pick the
next punchee. We agreed that the candidate ought to be a representative of an
Eastern culture. For a while we pondered
Zoroaster (who presumably was active during the 10th
century BC) was, basically, an Iranian poet and philosopher. His doctrine of good and evil, which was developed
by Judaism and Christianity, went through numerous metamorphoses when related
by his disciples. Buddha (273 – 232 BC)
had given up his North Indian throne and became a mendicant teacher. We had no
extant writings of either.
The two men’s traditions, passed to posterity by their disciples,
may not have been authentic. In addition, both
This
took us to the next point. Who deserved a punch? The Yellow King was hard to
identify or fathom. Kuan Yin may – or
may not – have existed. In any event, was she human? Gods were of course out of
bounds. After lengthy contemplations, I decided that only two men were eligible:
Kông Füzî (K’ung-fu-tzu, dubbed Confucius
by the Jesuits, 551 – 479 BC) and Qin
Shi Huang (personal name – Yíng Zhèng;
260 – 210 BC). Both had lived during the long period of the Zhou Dynasty. The
former was active during the era known as Spring and Autumn; the latter came to power during the succeeding Warring
States period and founded the short lived Qin dynasty. Each had left a legacy to posterity.
“Peter’le,”
protested Archie, “you refer to a very long period. Confucius lived three
hundred years before Qin Shi Huang. How can we consider them in one breath?”
“Time was flowing
at a slower rate at that time. And, of course, both of them lived well before
the definitive Han period {202 BC – 220 AD}. Further, each cast his spell on
all later periods of the Heavenly Kingdom.
We can take them together.”
“Peter’le is right,”
approved Tiger. “The Old Testament covers a purportedly longer period. But
didn’t King David and Jeremiah the Prophet follow one and the same lead?”
“I agree with
Tiger,” butted in Moti. “The human race has controlled the Earth for a very
long period. But cruelty, stupidity and greed have been in command throughout.
Technology and styles may have changed; but not human nature.”
For Moti, this was
a long and definitive speech. To my relief Archie agreed. “Well spoken. As
always, Moti makes sense. He is a persuasive fellow.”
Our comparison of
Confucius and Qin Shi Huang led to further arguments. Confucius was a thinker. He
sought to teach his followers good mores, self-control and reserve. His
concepts of ethics were based on ‘righteousness’ – on the notion that do not do to others what you do not want
done to yourself. Yet, he had not initiated a faith. His dogmas continued to co-exist with the
much older cult of ancestor worship and with Buddhism. His preaching related to appropriate day-to-day
conduct.
Confucius’ teachings – compiled in the Analects of Confucius – saw light long
after his death. Did he write them? Indeed, even his involvement with the
classical texts of
3.Qin Shi Huang’s achievements
Qin Shi Huang was a
very different man. He had wrenched control of the whole of
Qin Shi Huang’s main achievement was
the unification of the warring states of
Unsurprisingly, Qin Shi Huang’s sway
was resented by the population. In addition, he had invoked the wrath of the
followers of Confucius. As his absolutism contrasted with their philosophy of
moderation, he burned many of them alive and banished their writings. He became
the subject of their tolerant hatred.
Shortly after Qin Shi Huang’s death,
his dynasty was overthrown. Nevertheless, the innovations introduced by him
ruled the
“Qin Shi Huang was not a thinker,”
argued Archie.
“Perhaps not,” I conceded. “But he
relied on the advice of Li Si (Li Shu): the greatest legalist thinker of the
period. So, Qin Shi Huang knew where to look when he needed guidance. Confucius,
insofar as he looked at all, faced the mirror! Further, Qin Shi Huang was a highly
intelligent man. Confucius was an irresolute dreamer.”
“So you have made your choice, Peter’le,” pronounced Moti.
“I have rather.
But, Moti, how did you know that I had made up my mind?”
“I can read you.
And this time I want to come with you.”
“But your size
Moti? A palace may tumble as you enter it.”
“I’ll ask Lord
Pan to shrink me.”
“Then he might as well
turn me into a gnome.”
“And why not? A
man’s size is best measured by his brains; not by his appearance or sex
appeal,” interceded Tiger.
VI. QIN SHI HUANG
(ORIGINALLY CALLED YÍNG ZHÈNG)
(260 – 210
BCE)
1.Punching Qin Shi Huang
Qin Shi Huang woke from his sleep as soon as the
minimised Moti and Peter Gnome materialised in his comfortable bedroom. For a
few seconds he pinched his massive arms. Still, he soon realised that his
intruders had no physical presence. Otherwise, how could they have dodged the
conscientious troopers guarding the entrance to his quarters?
“Why do you ride on
his back?” he wanted to know after he observed us critically.
“Why ever not? Moti
is my good friend and, truth be told, my legs tire much faster than his! So, he
gives me a lift.”
“So, he is
considerate. Obviously, he is not human,” summed up our host.
“Hear who is
talking,” I challenged.
“I am Qin Shi Huang
– founder of the mighty Qin dynasty. To use your vocabulary, if I showed
consideration to Tom, I should have to treat Dick and Harry in the same way. As
you ought to know, I am a Legalist: all fools are equal in my eyes. And, as far
as I am concerned, everybody is a fool! Fools do not deserve consideration.”
“Aren’t there any
exceptions to the rule?” asked Moti.
“Just one but,
perhaps, Li Si (Li Shu) is the second.”
“Stop being clever,
Yíng Zhèng. Surely, the captain of a ship of fools is the master jackass,” I
proclaimed feelingly.
“Better than being
a dock hand. And don’t you dare use my personal name. Today I am Qin Shi Huang
– the founder emperor – to both foes and friends.”
“But how many
friends do you have?” asked perceptive Moti.
“Need we enter into
this?” asked a much-deflated Qin Shi Huang. Then, with a sudden wish to please,
he tried to stroke Moti’s dwindled trunk.
“You can’t be
touched,” he let his disappointment show.
“True; but I can
touch you,” I advised and patted his flat nose.
“Master Kong’s disciples
would be dismayed. You did to me that which I can’t do to you. And such an
impious act does not make sense. It is stupid. Still, from where do you come?”
“Does it matter?”
asked Moti.
“I want to know: so
it matters!”
2.Postion explained to Qin Shi Huang
Qin Shi Huang was amazed by my revelations. It took me a
while to convince him that time travel was feasible and that the 21st
century was just as real as his forgotten age. When I finished my explanation,
he wanted to know why I had come to see him. My task appeared strange to him.
Who was going to benefit from a series of punches? My decision to select him as
a target appeared natural to him. He had no doubt about his place in history;
but he wanted to know which of his achievements was the greatest. He realised
that, when taken alone, none of them put him on a pedestal.
“Was it the Great
Wall?”
“Not really. The
pyramids were not dwindled by it.”
“The standardising
of currencies, measures and scripts?”
“Not by themselves.
Other great leaders realised the importance of uniformity.”
“What then?”
“The totality of
your achievements. You unified a set of warring states into a single empire.
And you ruled it with an iron fist. You even burned the Confucians and their
books so as to nip opposition in its bud. And you gave your people uniform
measures, characters and a set of splendid roads. But all was given and taken
on your own terms!”
“I see: my intolerance and ruthlessness impressed you
and others.”
“They did: a lesser
leader would not have gone the whole way. Moderation or scruples would have
been in his way.”
“They should not. And
I ignored them. You see, absolutism and ruling by consensus are worlds apart.
The philosopher-ruler is a mirage,” concluded my host.
“Nobody would say
that of your type of absolutism. You were real; and the toughest.”
“I had to be. I
governed on my own. And so I needed no consensus based on the views of lesser
people. Still, I listened to the advice of my subordinates when I asked for
it.”
He paused for a
moment. Then he blurted: “But what am I remembered for – my necropolis?”
“Not so! Your
burial ground was covered by dust accumulated over the ages. Towns were built
on top of it. It was discovered by accident when some farmers dug into the
ground.”
“So, what am I
remembered for?”
“You unified
“I was a tyrant but
not a barbarian.” Pointing at Moti, Qin Shi Huang wanted to know my friend’s real size. It was clear to him that Peter
gnome had been minimised. It followed Moti, too, had to be far more substantial in
real life.
“The entire palace
might collapse if he reverted to his real size!”
“Then we better
leave well alone. In any event, you got what you wanted and you complimented
me. So be gone, my good man.”
“Goodbye then: one
day your necropolis will be unearthed. Farmers will stumble on your terracotta
figures. I saw them: they are great.”
“I did not see them
in place; but your words encourage me,” he summed up.
VII. THIRD INTERLUDE
1.Moving to religions
“Welcome back from your trip to the East,” observed Tiger as we
returned. “What have you achieved?”
“I punched the
greatest tyrant in history and he appreciated my act.”
“He must have been
a smarty.”
“He was!”
“But you are still
in pre-historic times. You know little of that period so that Eve, Herodotus
and Qin Shi Huang are readily selected. How will you find appropriate nominees
in periods known to you from history classes?” asked Archie.
“We’ll cross that
bridge when we come to it!”
“I agree,” opined
Archie, “but now is the time to select the field of interest. You see, you
punched the mother of mankind, the father of history and a super-tyrant. The
three were central to human destiny. What will be the next area and its heroes?”
“My teacher in
secondary school took the view that religion was central to humanity. A
colleague of mine in
“Seems a fair
choice,” opined Archie, who was reclining comfortably on Moti’s huge trunk.
“All the same, you have a problem. Your panel decided that divinity was out of
bounds. If you accept Christianity, Jesus Christ is not legible; but if you do
not accept it, Jesus Christ has been a mortal. He therefore comes within your
parameters. Similarly, if you do not adhere to a pagan religion, their gods are
– from your point of view – mere mortals. Wouldn’t you like to punch Venus or
Vulcan?”
“Bacchus is far
more appealing,” I retorted, “but I don’t think he had an everlasting effect on
humanity. Most drunks succumb without worshiping him.”
“How about the
Buddha or Kông Füzî (Confucius)?” asked Tiger.
“They
did not initiate new religions but, rather, preached a way of life,” I pointed
out. “Neither claimed to be divine.”
“I
agree,” said Archie. “Actually, most religions survived only if an able leader spread
the word!”
His
observation gave me food for thought. Akhenaton preached a form of monotheism,
based on treating the sun disk as the only god. His faith, though, perished
with him. Similarly, some sects of Judaism – like the Sadducees – disappeared
altogether. We read about them only in Josephus’ works and in the Mishna, which disliked them. I
concluded that the spread of religion depended mainly on the preachers’ skill
and perseverance.
2.Opting for St. Paul
“I
agree with Archie,” observed Tiger. “Your best course, Peter’le, is to decide
which faith is the most wide-spread and investigate who was its leading
preacher.”
“The
most populous religion is Christianity,” pointed out Moti. “Islam comes close
but the followers of Christ are more numerous.”
“Does
this hold true in all recent epochs?” I wanted to know.
“I
have no statistics preceding the middle of the 19th century,”
conceded Moti. “Still, as we don’t regard Buddhism a religion, Christianity seems to take the lead since it
spread.”
“In
that case the answer is clear. Jesus Christ is the founder. Regrettably, he
died on the cross. Further, most of his apostles concentrated on spreading the
word to their brethren in faith. Sha’ul of Tarsos, commonly known as
“Then
you have your man, Peter’le,” summed up Archie. “Actually, I am impressed. May
I accompany you?”
“By
all means,” I assured him. “Be my guest on this occasion.”
“But
there is one remaining problem.
“Did
his full potential materialise on that occasion?” asked Tiger.
“Not
really. It was the start of a new journey, a journey which led to his
remarkable attainments.”
“In
that case,” summed up Archie, “he was not as yet worthy of a punch. You better
attend to him when his time on earth was drawing to its close.”
“I
doubt if he, himself, appreciated his place in the history of mankind during
his lifetime,” I mused.
“True,”
replied Archie. “But that applies to each of your punchees.”
VIII. ST. PAUL
(ca. 5 – ca. 64/67 CE)
1.A chat with St. Paul
Sha’ul of Tarsos –
St. Paul to humanity – was surprised when we materialised in front of his eyes
in
“Are
you real or am I seeing things?” he asked
“Depends
on your definition of ‘real’. We are here on a mission prescribed by Him and
his advisers. But neither of us is alive,” I replied.
“Are
you then spirits?”
“I
think we are,” retorted Archie. “I am Archimedes, Man of Syracuse, and my
companion is Peter’le, a Jew who lived in
“This
is really confusing,” grumbled Paul. “You, Archimedes lived before me. I was
told about you. But Peter’le of the 20th
century is an unknown. Yes, it is all very, very confusing.”
“Take
it as a provisional reality,” I put in.
“But
what brings you here – on the eve of my execution?”
Patiently
I explained to him my verdict and task. I went on telling him the identity of
my previous punchees. Paul knew all about Eve and was familiar with Herodotus,
describing him as ‘the father of lies’. He was, in addition, irked by
Herodotus’ failure to explore the intervention of the hidden, divine, hand.
Paul conceded that he had never heard about Qin Shi
Huang and his general ignorance of the Eastern.
“Did any
“I am afraid not.
You see, Paul, East and West were oblivious of each other’s existence. There
was some trade, going through a lengthy route known as ‘The Silk Road’. But
there appears to have been no direct communication between the two worlds.”
“And Peter’le forgot to mention that the Eastern world
did not speak Greek. They were barbarians!” proclaimed Archie.
“Now, now Mr. Archimedes. I grew up in Tarsos, where a
group of people, all Pharisee Jews, spoke Greek and Aramaic and had some
command of Hebrew. And I spent years in
“I refer to my classical Greek,” yelled Archie, “and
that is the only civilised tongue. Your Hellenistic Greek is bastardised.”
“Gentlemen, Gentleman,” I interceded, “we can converse
without difficulty. So, we must have a lingua franca!”
“I simply made you multilingual,” explained Theophil who
surfaced unexpectedly. “Any argument about the superiority of Greek is not to
the point. In legal language we would describe it as obiter.”
“I am still in the dark,” averred Paul. “If you wanted
Peter’le to identify the seven most interesting persons in human history, why
did you ask him to punch them? Why not greet each with a salute?”
“Some time ago, when Peter’le was still alive and
kicking, he dreamt of punching a fellow he didn’t like. That gave us the idea,”
explained Theophil.
“But Jesus Christ teaches us to love our enemies.
Obviously, Peter’le, you did not love the fellow. Was he a non-enemy like a
friend or relative?”
“It was just a whim, Paul. In reality, I never punched a
person in my life,” I hurried to explain. “Still, your argument is
unconvincing. I do not follow your faith and I do hate my enemies.”
“Then why don’t you punch them? Fear?”
“Fear and common sense.” I replied thoughtfully. “Also,
I rejected the notion of vengeance, such as punching an opponent.”
“This should have induced you to ask that the sentence
be modified. Why on earth should you punch people you do not hate but, rather,
admire?”
“You have a point there,” I conceded.
“This is a matter worthy of an interlocutory hearing or
plea. Peter’le could actually argue that the punishment does not fit the crime,
if indeed there was one,” summed up Theophil and vanished.
“Peter’le,” observed Paul, “your choice is strange. Why
did you select me and not Moses or Jesus Christ?”
“I thought about them. Moses was the real founder of a
faith. But it was confined to the Hebrews. Jesus was the cornerstone of
Christianity but he died as a Jew. You opened the new religion to gentiles and
you spread it. Without your efforts, Christianity might not have been embraced
by the Romans. You did for Christianity what Martin Luther did, many years
after your demise, for the Protestant faith.”
“Don’t you think that the Apostle Peter did just as
much?”
“I doubt it, Paul. Remember initially he refused to eat
together with gentiles. You argued the point with him and prevailed.”
“Initially I believed that converts ought to be
circumcised. I persuaded Timothy. Later I changed my view and concluded that
the acceptance of Christ was, in itself, salvation.”
“How about baptism?” I wanted to know.
“The formal act of conversion. Your sins were,
thereupon, absolved.”
“I take your point, Sha’ul …
“ . . . Paul …”, he corrected me.
“… I read your Epistles carefully and noted that
you refer to Christ as the ‘Son of God’. You never refer to him as ‘God’. Why
is that?”
“I spoke metaphorically. The Old Testament often refers
to the Hebrews as the people of God or even uses the word ‘sons’. But Judaism
regarded God as an abstract, non corporeal, being. Thus, He is described as ‘a
still small [thin] voice’ (Kings I, 19:12 and see Job, 4:16).”
“Why, then, did you describe Jesus as the Son of the
Lord? Why didn’t you confine yourself to describing him as the anointed or as
the Saviour?” asked a bewildered Archie. I was pleased to note that his
antagonistic demeanour had waned in parts.
“That’s simple.
Many of my converts were brought up as pagans, whose belief was anchored in
anthropomorphism. In their eyes, God had a human form. They could relate to my message
more readily when I humoured them by describing Jesus as the Lord’s ‘Son’.”
“I understand,” I assured him, reflecting on the fact
that Jesus’ divinity cum human role was debated by different sects of
Christianity until the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (described as ‘the 4th Ecumenical Council’ by the Roman Catholic
Church) in 451 AD.
“Still, Peter’le,” continued Paul, “why have you
accepted Satan (whom you call Theophil) but reject Him?”
“That’s easy, Paul. Theophil revealed himself to me and
He didn’t. Further, you abhor Satan but, to me, Theophil is a strictly
non-interventionist-higher-entity. The arguments about His justice were
expounded by Job.”
2.St. Paul’s the Apostle
For a while, all of us held our peace. Then I assumed
the courage to ask Paul to explain his conversion from Pharisee Judaism to
Christianity on his way from
“Has much been written about this?” Paul wanted to know.
“It has, rather. The Church takes the view that you
experienced a revelation of Christ, who asked you why you were persecuting his
followers.”
“Has anybody related where I broke my journey?”
“Some scholars argue that you met the
“My meeting with their sect opened my eyes. I realised
that they, a sect of Essenes, practised a type of Judaism very different from
the Pharisee orientation I was brought up with. When I continued my journey, I
had my revelation. As you know I was blind for a few days. When Annanias
restored my vision and welcomed me, I reached my decision. I also dropped my
Hebrew name: ‘Sha’ul’.”
“Your three journeys left their impact. You continued to
communicate with converts and called them to task when they wavered. I do
believe that, had it not been for your perseverance, the faith might have
expired.”
“I still don’t fathom why you regard my contribution as
greater than Peter’s.”
“
“Paul,” I asked him, “why did you not travel to
“The reason is simple: I traversed the Roman Roads and
confined my preaching to the people living in the Empire. I did not overlook
the heathens in other parts of the world. I was hoping that my successors would
spread the true faith in alien territories. Also, I usually visited places
where the faith had already been preached. I followed the path trodden by my
predecessors and pursued their good work. You see, in most places I visited
there was a core in existence. I gave it support and made new converts. And
there was the linguistic concern. I could not address pagans who would not be
able to follow my words.”
3.Punching St. Paul
I had nothing to add. All that was left for me was to
punch him. But unlike my other chosen individuals Paul had gained my
admiration. Hurting him was an abhorrent task. Archie, who watched me intently,
appreciated my dilemma.
“Look here, Peter’le, let me punch him on your behalf.
He repels me because his Greek is poor; and he refuses to acknowledge this
shortcoming. He is proud of his boorishness and imperfection.”
“But can I really delegate my mission?”
“Why ever not?” retorted Archie and punched Paul, who
looked at him with genuine surprise.
“I have been assaulted for so many different reasons. I
was flogged and stoned because I failed to accept orthodox Pharisee Judaism.
Then some idiots in
“Just to make sure I follow the prescribed procedure,” I
interceded and touched his nose gently.
Unexpectedly, Paul broke into a sarcastic grin. “And
you, Peter’le, act symbolically so as to make sure you carry out your sentence.
But suppose you don’t. What would then happen to you?”
“They may change my sentence altogether and send me to
purgatory; and I like my present habitat.”
“Can I see it?”
“Be my guest,” said Archie, who – I suspected – regretted
his brutality.
“It is OK with
me,” observed Theophil, who surfaced unexpectedly.
Paul viewed appreciatively the shrubbery, the neat
meadows and the peacefully flowing stream.
“I get the drift, Peter’le. To you this is not just a haven;
it is your heaven. All the same, you remain an enigma.”
“Why?”
“You have not accepted the Good Lord but love your
Theophil. You seek to have it both ways. In your eyes, the Almighty may or may
not exist; but you do have a pact with the other one, whose existence is on the
same level as His.”
“I get your point,” I stammered. “But, somehow, the
pattern suits me.”
“If you were still alive, I should strive to convince you
of your errors. But there is no point in proselytizing to the dead. So, I’ll
take my leave. It was nice meeting you. And you, Mr. Archimedes, don’t assault
people who no longer exist.”
Just for once, Archie was dumbfounded. I sensed that
IX. INTERMEZZO
1.Two interlocutory points
Paul’s departure was followed by a council of war.
Archie, Moti and Tiger urged me to raise two interlocutory points with the
panel. The first concerned my right to delegate the nose punching. The second
was whether I could kowtow to or salute the selected person instead of
delivering a punch.
The panel readily
agreed to the second request. They appreciated that my admiration for
As regards the
first issue, they decided that I had the right to delegate the task when
accompanied by Archie. Moti’s trunk could result in severe damage to the
punchees. Tiger’s claws could lead to blinding.
“But, my Lords, the
chosen persons days on earth are over.”
“True,” explained
Gabriel, who took the lead on this occasion. “But, you see, we are moving in
time to the very era of the person involved. This means that a severe blow or an incurable injury might
change history. We are not prepared to risk such a metamorphosis.”
“Oh God,” I exclaimed.
“Did you address
me?” asked He himself.
“Not really; it was
a mere expression of surprise.”
“Watch your manners
then; and don’t use my name in vain!”
2.Considering future proceedings
Back in our haven, my three colleagues helped me to plan
my next punch. Like me, they sensed that I was running out of options. I had
punched Eve, Herodotus, Qin Shi Huang and
Humanity was
blessed with brilliant musicians, painters, sculptors and writers. There were
also many politicians of genius: Qin, whom I had already punched, was one of
them. If I had to select a statesman of the 19th or 20th
century, I should have opted for Bismarck or Disraeli.
In the event, Tiger raised a convincing point. I had to
select the field and then spot the punchee. Having attended to
At this stage, Moti gave me a useful hint. He wanted to
know what demarcates mankind from the
animal kingdom? My initial response was that the differentiation was
consciousness. This notion was summarily dismissed by Tiger. He opined that all
animals had a will to live, which entailed awareness of surroundings. To this
extent, they were ‘conscious’.
“But that is a simplification. You confuse mere
cognition with the real human trait, which is the search of knowledge for the
sake of it. It involves curiosity which is goes beyond the survival instinct.”
“I agree with Peter’le,” chimed in Archie. “For
instance, how do you explain my interest in parabolas and hyperbolas? My search
and investigation are not triggered by my survival instinct.”
“Neither did this sense motivate your jumping out –
stark naked – from a bathtub and running through the streets of
“Nobody is able to master impulses in every situation,”
Moti stepped in to defend his friend.
“Gentlemen, gentlemen,” chimed Tiger, “we have reached
agreement on mankind’s special attribute: search for knowledge triggered off by
curiosity. Can we also agree on a discipline which deals with the outcome and
nature of this characteristic?”
“I believe it is ‘philosophy,” I stepped in.
“It is, rather,” agreed Archie. “Well, what do we know
about this discipline?”
It did not take us long to agree that the first records
of philosophy came from
Archie then referred
to Pythagoras, who was a mathematical genius. He
developed numerology and believed that the orbit of planets and all moving
things in the universe was based on numbers. Another of Pythagoras’ premises was the transmutation
of souls, a notion he may have picked up during his travels to Mesopotamia and
We then turned to the great trio, comprising Socrates,
Plato and Aristotle. Archie had read Plato’s dialogues and, in consequence, led
the discussion. He pointed out that Socrates had not written any tome. What we
knew about him came from three sources: Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes
(mainly in The Clouds, which is a parody).
Socrates, explained Archie, was the father of
dialectics. He used his often ironic ‘questions and answers’ method to lay the
foundation of ethics and epistemology (the analysis of knowledge as derived
from senses and perception). Archie stressed that Socrates doubted the
democratic government system of
Archie then turned
to Plato, a disciple of Socrates, who founded an Academy in
Plato’s pupil, Aristotle,
was not only a leading philosopher but also a polymath, who covered many
subjects, including physics, biology, zoology, mathematics and, of course
politics and ethics. Archie pointed out that Aristotle, whose writings were
translated to Latin by Boethius, became the very foundation of Western thought.
Notably, the Jewish philosopher Maimonides and Christian philosophers, like
Thomas Acquinas, simply referred to him as “the Philosopher”.
“For a man who
lived in
“I am. Lord Pan
provided all the materials. He also drew my attention to Hypatia, one of the
few women who played a role in the development of philosophy and mathematics.
She was active in
“Weren’t you ever,”
Moti and I spoke in unison. Tiger nodded his approval sagely.
It was my turn to
take over. Patiently I mentioned to them the advent of stoic philosophy. It was founded by Zenon of
Citium (‘Zenon Stoa’), who lived in the 3rd century BCE. Its main
belief concerned personal ethics and the notion that happiness is found in
accepting things in the manner in which they present themselves. According to
it “virtue is the only good”. External matters, such as wealth and health, are
relevant only to the extent that they further a person’s virtue. Successors of
Zeno, such as Seneca and Epictetus, concluded that a true stoic would be
emotionally resilient to misfortunes confronting him. Regrettably, this
approach often led to calamities. Thus, Marcus Aurelius – an adherent of
stoicism – reacted unemotionally to his wife’s infidelities and sanctioned the
taking over of the imperial reins by her son Commodus, who might not have been
fathered by himself. The decline of the
Noting that the
trio was listening to me eagerly, I outlined modern Western philosophy,
referring succinctly to Descartes, Hobbes, John Locke, David Hume and, of
course, to Emmanuel Kant.
When I finished,
Tiger, who had been watching keenly, observed that he sensed that my heart was
not in the discipline. He wanted to know the reason. Moti and Archie nodded
vigorously.
“Well, you see, the
ambit of the discipline keeps changing. Aristo, for instance, dealt, inter
alia, with physics, astronomy, politics and medicine. Each of these topics and
many others became specialised disciplines. To take but one illustration,
physics became a dedicated subject or discipline in its own right. Still, Isaac
Newton, writing in 1687, called his major work Mathematical Principles of
Natural Philosophy. In later eras he was regarded a physicist and the
leading one for that.”
“But has philosophy
retained a core?” asked Tiger.
“It did. As from
the 20th century it deals mainly with issues of consciousness and
existence. It seeks to explain and articulate these two points.”
“Looks to me that
you have a cyclical development. Philosophy started as a discipline which seeks
to investigate issues arising from or based on human curiosity,” observed
Archie. “The same, though, is true about mathematics and the attempt to explain
and measure the property of forms like parabolas and hyperbolas. Don’t you
really talk about the furthering of abstract thinking?”
“I think that’s
correct. Philosophy remains the search; aspects of it become specific areas of
enquiry,” I voiced my agreement.
“In that case why
don’t you turn to a more clearly defined and limited discipline?” Moti spoke
with some hesitation. Nonetheless, his suggestion made sense.
“Moti is right,”
pronounced Archie. “Please make your choice, Peter’le.”
“I am really
interested in rulers who left their impact on humanity,” I confided.
“You already
punched Qin Shi Huang,” pointed out Archie.
“True,” I agreed,
“but his influence and lead were confined to the Eastern World.”
“In that case, why
not opt for a ruler who left his (or her) impact on the Western World,” opined
Tiger and brushed gently against my trousers.
3.Opting for a politician of the West
It took me a while to find a suitable person. One that
came readily to mind was Charles Martel, who stopped the Muslim forces in
Other monarchs who
came to mind were Elizabeth Tudor, Catherine the Great of Russia, Peter the
Great (also of
“Peter’le,” observed
Archie who had listened patiently to my deliberations “isn’t there a person who
laid the foundation of European culture as a whole?”
“Much of it came
from
“Quite so; but then
didn’t our culture and orientation leave its mark on
“It did, rather,” I
conceded.
“So why don’t you
go for the lead person of
It dawned on me
that Tiger was right. Western Civilisation, as known in the 20th
century, had its roots in the
“So, you have
identified your hero,” said Archie.
“It’s not that
simple. Originally, Octavius was a rough and vengeful character. He became a
great and conscientious emperor under the influence of his wife, Livia. The
historian Suetonius tells us that Augustus governed
“Actually, you have
now identified your next candidate,” grinned Tiger. “I should like to accompany
you. I want to meet her and find out if she was as fierce as my Tigla.”
X. LIVIA AUGUSTA
(58
BCE – 29CE)
1.Calling on Livia
I decided to materialise during Livia’s last year on
earth. The once beautiful woman, who captivated Octavius and turned him into the
great Augustus, had become a decrepit old woman. Still, her commanding eyes
retained their glimmer. She was aware that her appointed day was imminent but kept
her natural pride and royal airs.
“Are you a
gladiator?” she wanted to know. “And why do you bring this tiger with you? Is
he tame? Why didn’t you leave him behind, in his cage near the amphitheatre?”
“Tiger’le is my
friend,” I explained, “and we are not of your era. I lived two thousand years
after your time and was teletransported here by one of your Gods, by Lord Pan.”
“But why? And what
induced you to call on me? My days on earth are drawing to their close. And
this Tiger, is he dangerous?”
“I am not
dangerous, Great Lady. I simply accompanied Peter’le on his mission. I wanted to meet you,” said Tiger.
“I am bewildered; and
I am entitled to an explanation.”
It seemed best to
explain to her the nature of my mission and predicament: I found it difficult
to pinpoint the seven most influential individuals in human history.
“But why did you
pick me? What have I achieved?”
“Augustus paved the
way for his successors; and his
“In that case why
didn’t you opt for Augustus? Why me?”
“In plain language:
Augustus ruled Rome, and you were the power behind him.”
For a while, Livia
reflected. Then she broke into a warm smile.
“Is this the way I have
been remembered by history?”
“It is,” I assured
her. “I know you destroyed opponents and that, in the event, you poisoned
Augustus. At the same time, I know that you never put your own interests above
“Who told you
this?”
“I read Suetonius’ The
Twelve Caesars as well as Tacitus, Dio Cassius and some modern writers. Your
place in history was never in doubt.”
“Don’t you flatter
me. I knew what I did and have felt satisfied with the outcome! And how shall I
address you?”
“Please call me
Peter’le. It’s the name by which I am known nowadays. And can I ask you
something?”
“Go ahead; but I
suspect you know all answers.”
“I know most of
them. What is not clear to me is why you divorced your first husband and
married Octavian.”
“Didn’t your
sources discuss this issue?”
“They did; but I
want your confirmation.”
“Very well, then.
As you probably know, I was married and quite happily so. And I had given birth
to Tiberius. But my eyes saw the horrors of the civil war in
“A Greek
philosopher called Plato takes the same view.”
“I have read him,”
she told with a grin, “actually, I am well read; quite an exception in my era.
Well, when I met Octavius I sensed that he could be turned into a wise and good
ruler. So, I made sure to captivate him.”
“How did you lead
him?” asked Tiger and added: “My Tigla made sure she was in charge. On many
occasions she was tough, very tough. I did her bidding but, all the same,
resented her. Still, after she died, I continued missing her, even her sharp
tongue.”
“So that’s why you accompanied
your Peter’le on this trip. You wanted to know how I exerted influence.”
“Precisely,”
conceded Tiger. “Please, let us know.”
“I ruled with
silken gloves. Augustus got used to consulting me and followed my lead willingly.
The mercurial Octavius became the stable and great Augustus: the ‘father’ of
the nation.”
“You must have
enjoyed the harvest,
“There was indeed:
Varus’ defeat. You know about it, don’t you?”
“I do.” I recalled
that Augustus had appointed one Varus as governor of Germania, the small part
of Germany which had become a Roman colony. Believing the false information
about an imminent rebellion, Varus penetrated deeper into
“What did you do?”
asked Tiger.
“I had to stop him
from leading an army to
“I recall that during
your lifetime Germanicus recovered two of the Eagles of the defeated legions.
The third was, eventually, taken back during the reign of a later emperor:
Claudius.”
“Claudius? Did that
imbecile of a grandson of mine take over?”
“He did. And he
wasn’t a fool. He succeeded Caligula, who was declared Imperator after your
son, Tiberius, died in
“I know,” she
muttered.
“You paved the way
for Tiberius, didn’t you?” I asked assertively.
“I did, rather.
Augustus adopted him into his house – the Julian – at my behest. I made sure of
this. Tiberius had to pay a price: I made him divorce the wife he loved –
Vipsania – and marry Augustus’ daughter by his previous wife. Julia was free
with her favours. She held depraved parties all over
“Did you inform
Augustus about her … behaviour?”
“Shall we say that
I saw to it that he got the information,” grinned Livia. “I did not feel sorry
for Julia. She was a whore!”
“Dio Cassius tell
us that you engineered Tiberus’ succession.”
“I did rather. You
see, Augustus’ only other potential heir was Postumus Agrippa. That chap was a
lout and made a nuisance of himself. Augustus had no option but to exile him.
When I discovered that Augustus made a trip to reconcile with Postumus and that
he intended to restore him, I had to act resolutely.”
“Well, what did you
do, Exalted Empress?” asked Tiger.
“I had to avoid a
situation that could lead to a fresh civil war resulting from conflicting
claims by Tiberius and Postumus. I knew that Augustus had become very
suspicious about his food and took only figs which he plucked himself from a
tree. I poisoned them.”
“Slow acting
poison?” I asked.
“Quite so,” she
confirmed and, after a short pause, added, “whilst Augustus was getting
increasingly ill, I arranged to have Agrippa Postumus killed.”
“I can understand
your getting rid of Postumus. But how about Augustus? You were married to him
for many years. Didn’t you love him?”
“I was a good wife
to him. You know that. But I took all the steps needed for a smooth transition
of power.
“Actually, why?” I
asked her.
“I grew up during a
period of turmoil. I experienced the strife brought about by civil war. I was
keen to avoid another one.”
“Couldn’t you
influence Augustus and avoid bloodshed?”
“He started to free
himself from my influence. In a way, he left me no choice.”
“I am still in the
dark,” I told her. “The risk to yourself was minimal, but …”
“You must recall my
background. I was born into an aristocratic and influential family.”
“You feared for the
clan?” I asked in surprise.
“That too,” she
conceded. “My main concern though was for
2.Outlining history
For a while the three of us held our peace. Livia’s
glance shifted from me to Tiger and back. I sensed she was a shrewd observer.
Her next words confirmed this.
“The two of you are
close. Tell me a bit about your life on earth, Peter’le.”
She listened
attentively to my narrative. She then wanted to know how I met Tiger.
“Quite a story,”
she opined when I concluded. “So, by now Tiger and you have become friends. How
do you get on with the other dwellers of your haven?”
“Archie – the
nickname assumed by Archimedes Man of Syracuse – can be presumptuous. He tends
to get annoyed if he encounters any criticism of his standing as a mathematician
and, in addition, venerates Greek culture and language. Moti is his guardian.”
“I have read about
Archimedes,” she confirmed. “Isn’t he the fellow who ran naked through the
streets of
“Quite so; and Moti
looks like a huge elephant. The two of them are as thick as thieves.”
“And Tiger and you
formed a separate unit,” she concluded. “But, please, Peter’le tell me what
happened to
“Wasn’t he
proclaimed emperor whilst you were still around?”
“He was and I
suspect he was unsatisfactory.”
“Wasn’t he ever?
His reign was one of the worst
“But did Roman
hegemony last?” she wanted to know.
“The empire
declined. In due course it was divided into the Western and Eastern Empires.
The Western Empire was destroyed by German invaders; the Eastern Empire, ruled
from
“Were there any
other empires?”
“There were; but
each had its eclipse. I believe that empires have a cycle: they come and go.
Still,
“But how about
religion?”
“A religious sect
developed in
“
“It became a colony
after the reign of Herod the Great. However, Judaism – that is, the Jewish
monotheistic faith – became the cradle of Western religions.”
“You use the
plural,” she let her surprise show. “How many religions were adopted?”
“Basically,
Christianity prevailed. However, it split into sections. Some cruel (and in my
eyes wanton) wars were carried out by competing sects.”
“I am not
surprised,” she concluded sadly. “War and warfare dominated human history right
from the start. I know all about the Peloponnesian and Punic Wars.”
“They were not the
first ones. As you imply, ‘history’ is the narration of warring states. Peace
exists only when one power prevails over all others.”
“I have to agree,”
she told me resignedly. “And even when this takes place, you have local
rebellions.”
“How very true,” I
summed up and spontaneously saluted her. Punching her was, simply, out of
question. My feelings for her were a mixture of admiration and adoration.
Unlike Eve, Livia was wise and perceptive. To carry out my mission, I touched
her nose.
XI. A PLANNING SESSION
1.I do fit in
Archie and Moti
welcomed us back. To my surprise, Archie stepped forward, shook my hand
fervently, and exclaimed: “I sure missed you, Peter’le!”
“How come?”
“You see, originally
this haven was created for Moti and me. We welcomed Tiger when he came for a
visit and, in due course, asked him to join us. He became and has remained a loyal member of our selective clan.”
“So why did you
miss me?” I asked, bewildered.
“You alone come
from a background akin to mine. True, Moti and I have remained very close. His
highly accurate computations, calculations and assistance in my projects are
indispensable. Tiger broadened our horizons. But when you arrived, I had a
friend who was able to bring me back to my origins. For instance, I enjoyed our
chat about philosophy, although you do not speak Greek and to this extent are a
barbarian.”
“I know what you
mean,” I assured him. “But, you know, Tiger and I became a sort of a second
unit in this wonderful place.”
“I know,” he
agreed, “and Tiger enjoys looking after you. He even accompanies you when you
go for a swim, although he does not want to immerse himself in the stream.”
“I understand,
Archie.”
“But now, Peter’le,
you have a serious problem. Your provisional sentence was to punch seven
deserving noses. You have already punched five worthies, which means only two
punches are available.”
“So?” I asked
perplexed.
“Well, you are
still in times long past; and how will you identify the remaining two? Don’t
tell me that modern thinkers or leaders have left no impact. Whilst you were on
your last mission, Lord Pan gave me interesting tomes and lent me his reading
speed. I am now in command of human history. Our race has been prolific. Our
development was influenced by far more than seven people. And you haven’t even
reached the medieval period.”
For a while all of
us were lost in thought. Eventually, Moti broke the silence.
“What happens if
They are not pleased with Peter’le’s selection?”
“Hopefully, They’ll
send him back to us here,” opined Tiger. “Perhaps They will simply order him to
carry on punching and ask Lord Pan to extend the present arrangement.”
“But if They
believe he did not make a serious effort or that he is not up to the task, They
may send him elsewhere,” pointed out Archie, adding “and this will be
disappointing. Peter’le has become one of us and we want him to reside here. It is in our interest to aid him.”
“Well,” I
concluded, “the three of you must help me plan my next moves.”
2.How to proceed
“Perhaps we should turn to the medieval and modern periods,”
opined Archie. “But how will you spot the worthies? The French revolution left
a lasting impact on European history. But who triggered it? Louis XIV with his
extravagances and useless wars? And, in any event, you have already punched two
rulers. The American War of Independence is another significant development in
Western culture; but can you identify a specific person, who left his impact on
this major event?”
“Perhaps we should
identify a field and then opt for a person who distinguished himself in it
during these periods,” suggested Moti.
“Excellent idea,”
Archie showed his enthusiasm. “Well, Peter’le, how about tacticians? Warfare
has been part and parcel of human history. I myself invented devices to be used
against enemies, like setting the enemy’s fleet on fire by the use of mirrors.”
“Did this idea come
to fruition?” Tiger wanted to know.
“Actually, it
didn’t. The enemy arranged his ships in a column; this got me stymied. Still,
other ideas I had bore fruit.”
“It is an interesting
field,” opined Tiger, “and is applicable
to humanity alone. Most animals kill only in the quest for food or fight
when it comes to mating.”
“I have seen cats
killing birds even although they are well fed by their human owners. Also, I am told that some apes and monkeys fight to
protect their territory or to acquire new land,” I observed.
“True,” agreed
Archie, “but we – humans – often fight for the sake of ideology. I know that in
most cases we really compete for power. But warmongers often seek to appeal by
the postulation of an idea, such as race or religion.”
“Archie is right,”
interceded Moti. “Warfare is a human trait. In the animal kingdom wanton
killings are rare. So, we better identify a real master of warfare or an outstanding
field marshal.”
It took us a while
to come up with a name. We considered Suppiluliuma the Hittite. He was a master
of surprise tactics and, arguably, was the first individual known to have used
bacteriological weapons; for instance by presenting infected animals to monarchs
he aimed to fight. Still, very little was known about his battles.
Xerxes led his
infantry successfully along the coast of
“But, Peter’le,”
observed Archie, “you have already punched influential figures of antiquity.
Let us find a more recent candidate.”
His words made
sense. I knew that my own prejudice – the penchant for antiquity – had influenced my initial trend
of thought. To compensate, I mentioned von Manstein, whose master plan,
involving blitzkrieg and surprise tactics, enabled Nazi Germany to defeat the
French army. Still, he was eventually defeated on the Eastern front. Rommel,
too, had his moments but was beaten by
Retracing my steps,
I focused on Napoleon. Again, there could be no doubt about his genius as tactician.
His ability to fight armies superior in numbers by attacking them seriatim
secured his brilliant victories in Marengo and
I was thinking
about the standing of
“Actually, he was a
conqueror, defeating and annexing the neighbouring states one by one. He was an
excellent field marshal,” I pointed out.
“But you have
already visited him. Can we think about another genius?” asked Tiger.
“Actually, there
was one: Genghis [Chenghis] Khan. Like Qin, he was also an empire builder; but
his main achievements were his victories in the field even when the odds were
against him.”
“I think you have
identified your next ‘punchee’,” agreed Archie. “Did you know that his DNA can
be detected in many humans?”
“No, I didn’t know
that,” I conceded, “but then, he slept with aristocratic and common women in
the course of his relentless pursuits and conquests. In plain language, he was
prolific.”
XII. GENGHIS KAHN
(ca.
1155/1166 – 1227)
1.Genghis rise to power
I was satisfied that Genghis left a mark on humanity.
Having unified the warring Mongolian tribes, he beat the Tatars and then
proceeded to conquer the North of China. There could be no doubt about his
brutality and cruelty. These, though, were inflicted on his enemies. His own
mighty horsemen were treated by him with consideration. Unlike Napoleon he
spared his troops. Thus, when he broke through the Great Wall he thought it
best not to storm it. Instead, he waited patiently until one of the defenders
was bribed and opened a gate to him. Genghis demolished part of the wall, paid
the agreed bribe to the defector and then had him killed because traitors were
despicable.
Genghis used the
same approach when he besieged the Chinese capital (modern
Genghis might have
been satisfied with the empire that had by then come under his yoke. Acting in
good faith he offered to establish a trading relationship with the neighbouring
Persian (Khwarazmian) empire. When his emissaries were killed and his
approaches rebuffed, he set out on a punitive expedition. Having divided his
army into three units he crossed the
“Yes,” observed
Theophil who suddenly materialised in front of our eyes, “he needed a guide and
he found one!”
“I thought you were
a non-interventionist, Maestro,” I protested.
“True, but
sometimes – at crucial junctures – I show my hand.”
“So, it was a major
development?” asked Moti.
“It was, indeed,”
explained the ‘Master of Darkness’. “Genghis’ empire was an important step in
bringing Western and Eastern civilizations together. And, amongst other
achievements, he saw to it that the
Genghis’ conquest
of the
“How nasty!”
exclaimed Tiger. Moti nodded. Archie, to my surprise, looked dubious.
“What’s on your
mind, Archie?” asked Theophil, who was still with us.
“Depends on how you
look at it. The human shields protected the first rows of the attacking
Mongols. Genghis protected the lives of his soldiers. It is sad that the
prisoners perished. But then, the Mongols would have slaughtered them in any
event when Bukhara fell.”
Genghis followed
his conquest of the Persian Empire by
subduing many states of Asia, of the Balkan and around the
The Mongol penchant
for sheer brutality is indisputable. Genghis, though, had an open mind. His
approach to warfare and to the administration of the empire were influenced by
the guidance of Yelü Chucai, who became the Khan’s trusted adviser. Having entered Genghis’
service after the conquest of
“Genghis’ main feat
is his victories. He never lost a battle, regardless of whether his troops
outnumbered the enemy or vice versa,” said Theophil. “His influence on the
development of civilisations was a side effect. You picked him on account of
his standing as a warrior.”
2.A lengthy
chat with Genghis
Genghis was known for the hospitality he showed to
foreigners coming in peace or as emissaries. In the circumstances, Tiger did
not feel I needed protection. Further, he was not interested in meeting a hero
whose name inspired awe and terror. Moti took the same view. Archie, though,
was keen to accompany me. He wanted to have a chat with Genghis.
We materialised in Genghis’
headquarters after his victories. By then he had become the ruler of a vast empire,
had already chosen his third son, Ogedei, as successor and trusted that this
new monarch would expand his kingdom. Despite Genghis’ piercing eyes and stern
manner, he did not appear malevolent. He looked at us with patent surprise.
“From where do you
are come?” he wanted to know.
“Archie lived some
one thousand and four hundred years before you; I lived six hundred and fifty
years after you. However, both of us have died and you see our spirits.”
“That is strange,”
retorted Genghis, “what brings you together and what do you want from me?”
Genghis listened
attentively to my story. Archie added that he decided to join me because he
wanted to meet the great tactician. He then explained how he had planned to set
the enemy’s navy on fire by a use of mirrors but failed because the oncoming
vessels were arranged in an unexpected formation.
“I have never
fought a naval battle,” explained Genghis. “My men were horsemen. But I see a
flaw in your tactics. You relied on the way you anticipated the enemy to form
his troops. My method was to form my plan only when I was familiar with my
enemy’s strategy.”
“But in many cases
you had a master plan before you went on the attack,” I felt the need to
intervene. “For instance, you divided your army into three groups before you
crossed the Pamirs.”
“I did,” he
conceded. “But I knew that a pincer movement would annihilate the Shah’s
troops. It was the only feasible way to ensure victory.”
“This means that
when necessary you planned a campaign before it started,” pointed out Archie.
“I did,” he replied
unflinchingly; “but in most battles the odds favoured me.”
“Please explain,”
Archie and I spoke in unison.
“My men and their
horses were hardy. They could fight well during winters. Each soldier had to
provide his outfit and four or five horses, usually mares. The horses had to be
led to grazing pastures but, in the ultimate, fed on seeds still covered with
earth: they dug them out. My men knew how to live off the land. They drank mare’s milk and if needed would
butcher some horses for meat. They ate sparsely and when necessary placed
slices of meat in their saddles.”
“So, this is the
origin of the famed Mongolian steak,” I stepped in.
“It is; and so usually I did not have the problem of
supply lines. And I did not have to train my men. Every Mongolian youth became
a skilful warrior in his late teens. He could fire arrows whilst riding; he
knew how to jump from a tiring horse’s back to a fresh one; and he was keen to
show valour in combat.”
“How were they organised?” I wanted to know.
“Larger groups, split into smaller ones. Usually, six of
each group of ten were light cavalry. Their task was to overwhelm and confuse
the enemy. The four heavy cavalry men were well armed and, basically, destroyed
the remaining enemy troops. When necessary, the cavalry would fight on foot –
as infantry.”
“Were the horses shielded when in action?”
“They had armour. We had to protect them: they were our
fighting tool.”
“I see,” I told
him. “Actually, which were your toughest campaigns?”
“The skirmishes
leading to the unification of the wild tribes of the steppe. Once they made me
their Khakan – their leader – there was nothing to stop me.”
“History books tell
us that you attacked the Persian Empire to avenge the insults which they
inflicted on you when they disgraced your emissaries. But I wonder if you wouldn’t
have set out to conquer them in any event.”
“I cannot be sure.
We became neighbours and, as you know, proximity leads to disputes. Originally,
though, I strove for peaceful coexistence. Also, bear in mind that the
“But once you
decided to fight, you set out to annihilate the Shah’s empire altogether.”
“I did. An enemy
ceases to be dangerous only once he is dead.”
“Did you have to be
so brutal?” asked Archie.
“My name preceded
me: its very mention terrorised those confronted by me. It induced opponents to capitulate. I usually
spared cities which opened their gates to me: they had to pay a ransom.”
“What sort of
tactics did you favour?” I wanted to know.
“My generals often
feigned retreats and lured the enemy into an ambush. When the foe, tired by the
pursuit, confronted the fresh warriors waiting for him, his fate was sealed.”
“One of your
strengths was the spirit and tenacity of your men. What else was a major
factor?”
“I chose my
generals without regard to their background. Both Subutai and Jebei came from
humble origins. I noted their zeal, courage and resourcefulness. I put them in charge of battles. They never
let me down. They merited command.”
“The same yardstick
guided Napoleon Bonaparte: another great tactician. However, his men were not
as accomplished as yours. And he was defeated in
“Tell me about that
battle,” Genghis asked.
He listened
attentively to my description of Napoleon’s march on
“But that was far-fetched,”
opined Genghis. “Why didn’t he lay waste the cities whose harbours were visited
by such vessels?”
“Is this the course
you would have taken?”
“Of course,” he
spoke firmly. “And Subutai or Jebei would have been in charge of the troops.”
“Could you be sure
of victory?”
“With field
marshals like them, the foe would have crumbled, especially if we attacked
during the winter!”
“But how about the
cost of lives?” asked Archie.
“Irrelevant and
unavoidable. The Czar should have honoured the blockade from the very day it
was imposed. I should have regarded his failure to observe it as an affront.”
Genghis was equally
dismissive of
“But did you,
respected Khakan, always have an objective?” asked Archie.
“I did, rather. In
some cases I sought revenge; in others I wanted to expand my territories; and
in others still I simply wished to subjugate a foe. War for the sake of winning
battles is pointless.”
For the sake of
clarity, I told him about von Manstein’s blitzkrieg and the conquest of
“Sounds like a
battle conducted by myself or by my field marshals,” Genghis spoke warmly. “Outflanking
the enemy and advancing from an unexpected angle is good planning. By the time
the opposing troops seek to regroup, they are left far behind.”
“But when the Nazi
troops took the course prescribed by von Manstein, they violated the neutrality
of a neighbouring state,” Archie and I exclaimed.
“What is
‘neutrality’?”
“Declaring that you
support neither of the sides in conflict,” I explained.
“Nonsense,” Genghis
spoke fiercely. “In war you are either with me or against me. If you are with
me, I protect you. If you are against me, I fight you! There is no midway.”
“Our philosophers
saw things differently,” countered Archie.
“Actually, so did
many of ours, as well as international law experts,” I ventured.
Seeing that our
host was not convinced, I told him they way Gandhi liberated the Indian
sub-continent by means of passive resistance, such as hunger strikes. Genghis
was not impressed.
“Such tactics would
not have worked with me. I should have simply let him starve or would have
withdrawn water and let him die of thirst,” advised Genghis.
“Modern European
society would have proscribed this,” I told him.
“Not the men of the
steppe. They were a different breed!”
3.Ghenghis’ civilisation
Genghis’ standing as tactician and warlord were beyond
doubt. Still, I knew that during periods of peace he encouraged men of religion
and of knowledge to visit him, treated them kindly and often listened to them.
Was such tolerance inconsistent with his cruelty and unbending behaviour in
war?
“Surely, the two go
together. When I took the war path, I was a fighter. I wanted to win. When I
was at peace, I had an open mind. I wanted to acquire knowledge and not only on
matters concerning warfare. You ought to know that I did much to enlighten my
people. For instance, I developed a Mongolian writing script.”
“I read that Christian
monks, Muslim preachers, Buddhist thinkers and Taoist philosophers were welcome
in
“My own language
was Mongolian. I had a basic knowledge of Chinese but frequently we used
translators. Some Chinese scholars were multilingual.”
“Actually, what was
your own religion, Khakan?” asked Archie.
“We worshipped the
Gods of Heaven. We called the Gods Tengri and the superior deity in heaven was
the Tenger. The deities could be contacted mainly by shamans (a sort of
priests). These also served as medical advisers. In a sense, they were linked
to our clan’s structure.”
“Did foreign
religions attract you?” I wanted to know.
“I listened to all preaching,”
he told me, “but I kept my own faith. For me it was the best.”
“How about
Buddhism?” I asked.
“It was a way of
life: not Mongol. Taoism was closer to my way of thinking,” he conceded.
“What did you think
of Christianity, Oh Khakan?”
“Strange religion:
their God came down to earth only to be flogged and killed. Not suitable for my
people; and Jews came to my court but would not partake of food I offered them.
This was an insult; I had them
executed.”
For a while we sat
in silence. I was getting ready to leave. Then, unexpectedly, Genghis raised a
question:
“You say you lived
many years after my time. Did your thinkers find the means to become immortal?”
“They did not. We
know for sure that every human being grows old and dies.”
“I sought
immortality. However, the Chinese sage I
consulted said he could extend my life by prescribing some herbs but that death
was inevitable. So, he was right,” Genghis confided in a dejected tone.
“Did you punish
him?” asked Archie.
“Of course not. He
told me the truth. I listened.”
“In a way you
attained immortality, Khakan,” I told him. “Your name and attainments are
recorded and so you are remembered. I read several books about you; they all
recognise your genius as Commander in Chief and great ruler. And your people
elevated you to a Tengri.”
“Did my empire
last?”
It seemed best to
provide an outline of the Mongol Empire. Genghis was not surprised to hear that
it declined and that, some three hundred years after his death, fell. He
sneered when told that his grandson, Kublai, was a hybrid of a Mongol Conqueror
and a Chinese Emperor.
“I see: my
successors became soft,” he said disdainfully. “Did Kublai’s dynasty hold
“Not really. They
were ousted by the local Mings,” I told him truthfully, adding that the Khan of
the Golden Horde was defeated and driven out of
“What are we
remembered for?”
“For your
achievements in the field. Also, the administrative systems you used to govern
the empire.”
“In this aspect I
was guided by Yelü Chucai’s counsel. He convinced me that it was advantageous to tax
defeated foes rather than slaughter populations. He was a philosopher; and he
had the good of the empire at heart. He was a fine and loyal man. I elevated
him although I had defeated the ruler he had served. I was pleased when his
words showed that he respected that regime although a generation earlier it had
defeated his father’s fief.”
“Another feather in your cap is the communications network,
which was of major guidance for future rulers. But your people did not leave a
cultural or religious legacy. They emerged from the steppe and returned to it.”
Even as I spoke it
dawned on me that all empires had a cycle: they were born, then established
themselves and thereafter declined and fell. Some, like the Roman and Habsburg
Empires left a cultural heritage. The Mongols legacy was in their having
encouraged globalisation and trade. They made the East fully aware of the West
and vice versa. Like a midwife, they became redundant when the process they
enhanced came to fruition. Genghis’ heirs extended the Empire’s borders. In the
end, though, they became polarised and the Black Death hastened their downfall.
Before we departed
I saluted Genghis. Archie bowed to him. It was an unexpected gesture and I let
my surprise show.
“The Khakan is a
greater soldier than any Greek warrior. I kowtow to him,” explained Archie.
“Will you, Khakan,
permit me to raise just one more question?” Seeing him nod, I continued: “When
you defeated the Shah’s son – Jalal ad-Din – you could have easily marched on
“The answer is
simple: the rulers of
“I understand and
salute you again. Besides being the greatest warrior in history you were also a
wise and, in your own way, righteous man.”
“Is your assessment
accepted by most scholars?”
“Actually, it
isn’t. Many emphasise the brutality and cruelty of the Mongolian reign. At this
stage, my view is a minority opinion. In the long run, though, I believe it
will prevail.”
“I wonder,” he
summed up.
XIII. A COUNCIL OF WAR
1.Assessment of last encounter
Tiger and
Moti welcomed us back. They listened eagerly
to our account. When we finished, Tiger said that he felt no admiration for Genghis.
Moti nodded and observed that fame based on slaughter was akin to notoriety.
Still, both of them accepted the greatness of Genghis’ tactics and resolution.
They also respected his perseverance.
“If a deer chased
by a tiger eludes him or runs too fast, he gives up. He does not pursue a risky chase. Genghis did that when
he set to cross the
“He took a risk,” I
conceded.
“If it hadn’t paid
off, his name would have been forgotten,” pointed out Archie.
“Great tacticians
tend to take a risk,” interceded Moti.
“They do,” I
agreed. “
2.How to select the remaining punchee
It was time to turn to the next issue confronting me. I
had visited six punchees. This meant that only one was left.
“And you are still
immersed in the ancient and medieval worlds. You must identify a modern candidate,”
proclaimed Archie.
“I agree with you,
Archie, but surely the great men and women of the past left a far more enduring
mark than any person of our own period. For instance, take Jean-Jacques
Rousseau. His writings inspired the perpetrators of the French Revolution and,
much later, his ‘social contract’ paradigm was embraced by a British Premier –
Harold Wilson – of the 20th century. Still, Rousseau derived his
ideas from ancient sources. He simply used and re-interpreted a concept already
manifest in the Bible.”
“In any event,”
countered Archie, “Rousseau was a philosopher and, in a previous discussion,
you concluded that this field was too vaguely defined to constitute a uniform discipline.”
“How very true,”
pointed out Moti.
“Can you come up
with a discipline unique to modernity? One that did not draw on knowledge
imparted by earlier generations?” asked Archie.
“It may be really
difficult,” I muttered. “Most scientific disciplines experienced major
developments in the 20th century but had their roots in the writings
of philosophers of antiquity. Take computer technology. Surely, the root can be
traced back to Aristotle’s writings. Similarly, nowadays we talk about paper
and digitalised currencies; but paper money and the notion of credit were well
understood in antiquity and in the medieval world. I could go on and on; but
what is the use? I really do not know how to proceed.”
“I grasp your
predicament, Peter’le,” said Tiger. “But can’t we change the fundamentals? You
need a punchee of the modern era. Why don’t you stop looking for a discipline
and simply go for somebody who had a major influence in modern times?”
“I think Tiger’le
got it,” exclaimed Archie enthusiastically. “The standing of distinguished
incumbents of antiquity was often not appreciated until well after their time.
“I take the point,”
I conceded. “So now we must identify an individual who left a mark on the
modern era in reliance on his own
thoughts or observations.”
“And you may give a
miss to 20th century inhabitants. You, yourself, lived in that era.
You may select somebody who was outstanding in your epoch but whose influence
might have been just a passing phase. Your views are likely to be more detached
and objective as regards the 18th and 19th centuries.”
“Archie is right,”
said Moti. Tiger nodded. I, too, voiced my agreement but added that the 16th
and 17th centuries were equally relevant.
“Well, let us see
whom you have in mind,” prodded Archie.
“Leonardo da Vinci
lived in the 15th century,” I pointed out, “the early days of the
modern era. He was a great painter, perhaps the greatest of the High
Renaissance, and a polymath, remembered for his phenomenal notebooks and many
of his scientific inventions, including an abortive attempt at aviation. He
strikes me as a suitable candidate.”
“But did he leave a
mark on any discipline other than painting?” asked Archie.
“We can’t be sure,”
I reflected. “How about Martin Luther? He was a major figure in the religious
reformation of
“But you have
already visited
“How about Galileo
Galilei – a great mathematician and the father of modern astronomy? His support
of Copernicus’ heliocentrism invoked the wrath of the Holy Inquisition in 1615.
To my way of thinking he was the father of science in the modern world.”
“I take your point;
and Galileo was great,” consented Archie. “Yet another feather in his cap is
his improving the telescope and using it in astronomic research; but remember,
you have to settle on one person. Let us accept that Galileo is a candidate.”
“How about Isaac
Newton?” I asked.
“There can be no
doubt about him,” agreed Archie. “His Mathematical Principles of Natural
Philosophy, published in 1687, formulated the laws of motion and of universal
gravitation. He also had a hand in the development of calculus, although
Leibniz preceded him.
“Have you
considered Louis Pasteur, Peter’le?”
continued Archie. “The materials given to me by Lord Pan describe
Pasteur as the father of microbiology and his formulation of the germ theory of
diseases and of immunisation were major steps in medicine.”
“He was,
undoubtedly, a major contributor to scientific developments in the 19th
century,” I conceded and added: “I am also considering Adam Smith. His Inquiry
into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of
Nations, published in 1776 [better known as The Wealth of Nations],
laid the foundation of free markets, based on supply and demand; and he developed
the concept of treating labour, rather than materialistic items, as the key of
a nation’s wealth. He was also a leading figure of the enlightenment in
“He may be your
candidate,” conceded Archie; “but up to now you concentrated on significant
individuals in
“I agree with
Archie,” declared Moti.
“I know very little
about
“Who are they?”
asked Tiger, whose head I kept stroking affectionately.
“One is Benjamin
Franklin. I know that he was one of the prime proponents of
“And who is the
second?” asked Moti, who – I sensed – was recording what transpired.
“Abraham Lincoln,
Moti. As the 16th President of the
“Then why don’t you
settle on him?” asked Archie.
“His standing and
influence were recognised mainly in the
“Peter’le,” said
Tiger, “I have observed you carefully. When you discussed leading personalities
of antiquity, you were cool and detached. When you talk about major figures of
the modern epoch you get excited and come up with name after name. Is this
because you, yourself, were a man of the 20th century which was
close to the two preceding ones?”
“Could be,” I
conceded, “although my major interest is antiquity. You see, I have read most
of the works of Julius Wellhausen, the major 19th century contributor
to Bible Critique; but he is hardly known to scholars working in other fields.
I have great respect for him but realise that he was not one of the founding
fathers of our modern culture and ideology. I can’t allow my personal preferences
to influence me in the exercise I have been ordered to carry out.”
“Very well, who
then were in your opinion the main contributors in recent times?” asked Archie.
“I can think of
three: Ludwig van Beethoven, Karl Marx and Charles Darwin. Naturally, I am
leaving out the major novelists because they described rather than innovated.”
“How does Beethoven
fit in?” asked Archie. “He was a composer and not a thinker or innovator.”
“I can’t argue with
that,” I conceded, “although he was an innovator in the sense of bringing
classical music to the people. I mentioned him because his music reflects the
spirit of the Sturm und Drang which typifies the period following the
French Revolution. Beethoven’s predecessor – Mozart – saw the outbreak of this
Revolution but remained detached of politics. You can hear the onset of the
Revolution and of the Napoleonic era in Beethoven’s 4th and 5th
piano concertos. His approach dominated classical music for a long time. Still,
like Wellhausen, his contribution is restricted to a specific discipline.”
“Let us then
consider the remaining two candidates,” suggested Tiger.
“Karl Marx is an
enigma. He started as a disciple of Hegel but broke free. His two major works
are The Communist Manifesto (co-authored by Friedrich Engels) and Das
Kapital. The former, first published just before the outbreak of the 1848
revolutions, presents an analytical approach to the class struggle. It
encourages the working classes – the proletariat – to unite against the middle
class. His proposals comprise the levying of progressive income tax; the
abolition of private property; the proscription of child labour and the provision of free education. The
manifesto advocates a global approach which sees the proletariat as one class, overriding
national boundaries.”
“How about his
other major tome?” asked Moti.
“The subjects of the Manifesto are covered in much
greater detail in Das Kapital, the first volume of which was published
in 1867 and the remaining two posthumously. These were edited by Friedrich
Engels, and hence are far more readable than the first. Marx believed that the
value of labour put into any goods can be measured objectively by the average
number of labour hours required to produce them. On this basis he concluded that
the proletariat was bound to win in due course.”
“But wages differ
from country to country,” observed Archie.
“True,” I willingly
conceded. “Perhaps here is the main flow in Marxism. Karl thought that the
proletariat ought to struggle conjointly, that is, without regard to
nationality, against the bourgeoisie. He argued that in this way the natural
development would lead, in due course, to the proletariat’s victory.”
“Well,” prompted
Archie.
“In reality
nationality takes precedence over class. For instance, the French blue collar
labourer is closer to a French capitalist than to a fellow worker in another
country, say
“A question of
identity?” asked Archie. Moti, who was engrossed in the topic, nodded. After a
short pause, he added: “I agree. A young mammoth is closer to the leader of the
herd than to young mammoths in any other herd.”
“Was Marx’s theory
put to the test?” enquired Tiger.
“I think it was,” I
replied. “For instance, we had the French coalminers’ strikes around 1860. One
of these is vividly described in Zola’s Germinal,
which relates how, at the beginning of the strike, contributions trickled in
from the International Federation. These were inadequate and, in the end, hunger pushed the
strikers back to work. Earlier on there were the strikes of 1848. In
Pausing for a few moments, I added: “The 1848 Revolt was
crushed brutally in
“So, Peter’le, Marxism did not gain momentum in the 19th
century. The working classes of different countries never united and hence did
not defeat capitalism.” Archie spoke emphatically and, I sensed, in command of
the facts. I then recalled that he had read the materials on modern history
provided to him by Theophil.
“What happened to Marx’s theory in the 20th
century?” asked Tiger.
“It was theoretically embraced by Vladimir Lenin and the
Soviet Revolution in
“You tell us that Marxism never prevailed, Peter’le,”
pointed out Tiger. “Why then did you describe Marxism, at the outset, as an
enigma and not as a failure?”
“Many yeas ago – in my youth – I made the effort of
reading Marx. He sounded plausible.
Still, I could see that he overlooked the constant growth of
nationalism. I wondered – am still puzzled by the fact – that he failed to reckon
with this basic point.”
“I can think of two reasons for this,” opined Archie.
“First, Marx himself was a globalist. He lived in
“And the second reason?” I enquired.
“Perhaps he wilfully closed his eyes to the obvious. He
knew that the lot of a British coalminer was closer to a French one than to a
banker or industrialist in his own country. He wilfully ignored the national factor.”
“Archie is right,” said Moti and, to the delight of the
three of us, trumpeted.
“I, too, agree with Archie,” summed up Tiger. “In any
event, Peter’le, you treat him as a failure. I keep wondering: what was his
significance and contribution.”
“Perhaps the preaching of the abolition of private
property. This was applied for a time in the Soviet Union and in
“I take your point, Peter’le,” said Tiger, “but I think that
you do not like Marx. I sensed it whilst you were stroking me. So let us turn
to your third candidate: Charles Darwin, whom I suspect you admire.”
“I do,” I conceded.
“Tell us about him and how you came to admire him,”
asked Moti.
“
“Was Christian doctrine opposed to any notion of
evolution?” asked Tiger.
“Not altogether. Origen (3rd century AD), for
instance, thought that the creation narrative of Genesis should not be taken
literally but allegorically. So did Augustine (4th century AD).
Notably, some Islamic philosophers pointed out that stronger animals often
devour weaker ones and that Man, too, is a predator; and, in 1377, one of them
– Ibn Khaldun – observed that species
transmutate and suggested that humans developed from the ‘world of monkeys’.”
“Let me add that Thomas Aquinas took the view that, by a
natural process ordained by God, forms could move from their imperfect state to
an advanced one,” augmented Archie.
“The current theory of evolution,” I replied, “actually
finds its origin in the writings of Buffon – of the 18th century –
who took the view that modern forms known to us, such as lions, tigers and
leopards, shared a common ancestor. Still, he and some of his contemporaries
thought that adaptation was based on changing circumstances that led to slow
evolution.”
“So now we turn to the 19th century,” said
Archie. “It is the very century preceding the gigantic leaps forward that took
place during the 20th. Still, we agreed to leave this very modern
era alone.”
“Even before the beginning of the 19th
century,” I pointed out, “it was established that some species, such as
mastodons and some forms of birds, were extinct. However, fossil hunters kept
unearthing forms similar to modern creatures. The awareness of catastrophic
episodes – such as the flood, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes (one of which
is mentioned in the Bible) – came to the forefront. This then is Charles
Darwin’s background.”
“He was also familiar with the writings of his
predecessor: Jean-Baptiste Lamarck,”
pointed out Archie. “Lamarck’s Philosophie Zoologique, published in 1809,
postulated that simple forms of life were created continuously by spontaneous
generation and that an ‘innate life force’ drove species to become more complex
over time. He recognised that species adapted to their environment and that the
organs of a being would also adapt periodically. He then concluded that these
changes would be transmitted by inheritance.
This analysis led Lamarck to the belief in a linear ladder of complexity of
organisms. His theory did not invoke the wrath of believers because it did not
require a departure from religious dogma.”
“And
“
“What is so controversial in this?” asked Tiger.
“Natural selection could take place without the hand of
the creator. It was also directly opposed to the traditional creation myth
embraced by religion,” pointed out Archie.
“I think there is more to it than meets the eye,” I
clarified. “If
“Why then was the clergy perturbed?”
“Because Darwin’s ‘bulldog’ – the comparative anatomist
Thomas Henry Huxley – postulated
Darwin’s theory, in an undiluted manner, in debates, in an essay and in Darwinism,
which is actually shorter and more reader friendly than Darwin’s own work.”
“Did
“Far from it. He stuck to his theory and to his
conclusions. This emboldened Huxley, who continued to spread the thesis. Huxley
could not be silenced.”
“Did
“He did,” stepped in Archie. “By the middle of the 20th
century Darwinism was embraced by most naturalists.”
“Quite so,” I
augmented. “The discovery of chromosomes, genes and eventually of DNA supported
the notion of evolution based on natural selection. The ‘hereditary qualities’
postulated by
“Have fossil hunters discovered the missing link – the
creature from which modern apes and humans have branched out?” Tiger queried.
“Not really,” I had to concede. “Still, they established
that we – the homo sapiens – developed
over millennia. They claim that the first step was the change from four legged creatures to bipedal beings. This
evolutionary step freed the hands which were no longer required for walking.
The next step – which may have resulted from bipedalism – was the development
of the human brain, which is much larger than any ape’s. The emerging humans
were herd animals and became tool makers.
Scientists have further established that there were a number of humanoid
races. Ours is just the last step in the evolution of species.”
“Have you then opted for
“He is, rather,” I told them. “Who wants to accompany
me?”
“I want to meet
XIV. CHARLES DARWIN
(1809
– 1882)
1.Calling on Darwin
Archie and I surfaced in 1878. Darwin, who was having an
afternoon nap, looked at us with surprise.
“How on earth did you come to my room? I did not hear
any knocking. And these strange clothes. From where are you?”
“Neither of us is alive. You see our ghosts. This here
is Archimedes Man of Syracuse. I am sure his name in known to you.”
“It is,” confirmed
“My name is Peter Berger but my friends call me
Peter’le. I was born in 1933. A divine panel is now sitting in judgment of me.
For the time being, I am the guest of Archie and his two friends. They live in
a special ward, somewhere between purgatory and paradise.”
“This must be a mirage,” muttered
“It isn’t,” retorted Archie fiercely. “We are as real as
you yourself.”
“This requires a revision of my understanding of the
world,” observed
“My era proved you right. Darwinism is now taught in
many schools and universities,” I consoled him.
“Including
“
“So you are from that other place; and our rowers have
regularly beaten yours!”
“Be this as it may,” I conceded. “Still, I am here on a
mission. Let me tell you all about it.”
It took me a while to convince Charles Darwin that my
undertaking was real. For a long while he looked at me in sheer astonishment.
“Are you then a scientist?”
“No, Mr. Darwin. I spent most of my life teaching and
practising law.”
“So how did you come to know about me?”
“Our Biology Teacher in secondary school was an ardent
admirer of evolution as described by you. Later in life I read two of your
books: On the Origin of the Species and The Descent of
2.Voyage of HMS Beagle
“Basically, that is correct. At the suggestion of Sir
Charles Lyell, author of Principles of Geology, in which he demonstrated
that our earth was of great antiquity, I accepted Captain Fitzroy’s invitation to
engage me as naturalist. Initially, my father objected to my taking such a long
trip. As you may know, we were related to the prominent Wedgwood family, and I
was meant to become a clergyman. After lengthy discussions, he finally agreed
to my trip.”
“Why were there any uncertainties about the assignment?”
I wanted to know.
“The object of the Beagle’s voyage was to survey the
exact position and measurement of vicinities all over the world. A ‘naturalist’
was a sort of an extra observer, concentrating, in addition to the geographical
survey, on biological finds. In a sense, he was a supernumerary. The family
wanted me to proceed with a course of studies. ”
“Did you reach your conclusions on evolution during this
voyage?”
“I did, rather. Frequently, I left the ship and made
excursions inland. I collected fossils and sent them back to
“I believe the Beagle made a stop in Bahiha
Blanca near
“She did and I got most interesting fossils of teeth and
of bones of mammals and seashells, both
in one stratum. I also found fossilised rodent remains. And it appeared that
the layers were deposited over a lengthy time span and not in consequence of an
earthquake or some other catastrophe. We then sailed to the
“Did you conceive your theory at that time,” asked
Archie, who had been listening attentively.
“Not really,” answered
“I believe the Beagle sailed on to
“She did indeed. I admired the Australian marsupials –
the Kangaroo and the Platypus. They differed to such an extent from the fauna
in other continents that it looked as if two separate creators had been at
work. These unusual species provided further fruit for my meanderings.”
For a few moments
3.Writing The Origin of the Species
“Why didn’t you write On the Origin of the Species straightaway?
I know you postponed it until you received Wallace’s letter and realised that
another scholar reached the same conclusion,” I told him. Archie’s nod
indicated that the very same issue concerned him.
“Actually, I was
quite active during the period. I published a work on my basic findings during
the voyage and also dealt with volcanic islands and coral reefs. Still, I was
pondering my conclusions respecting natural selection. Then, Wallace’s
communication convinced me that I was on the right track as regards the
survival of the fittest. We published the joint article. I then went ahead and
wrote the book.”
“Were you startled by the wave of adverse criticism?” I
asked
“Not really,” he conceded. “You see, the system I
advocated could function without divine intervention. Further, I saw in
humanity an apex of evolution and not a separate creation. If the same view had
been expressed by an outsider, he might have got away with it. I had become a
leading man in my field and in geology.”
“Unlike yours, my innovative ideas and major inventions
were appreciated by my contemporaries,” pointed out Archie.
“Of course,” replied
“In the Origin of the Species you did not deal
expressly with the evolution of humans,” observed the well-read Archie.
“Not explicitly but the implication was clear. Orthodox
thinkers picked on this. The difficulty was the formulation of branching
progressions as opposed to Lamarck’s plain or linear line. Furthermore, the
anatomist, Thomas Huxley, became my preacher. I am certain that without his
drive, my work might have been regarded as the scholastic notions of an
eccentric.”
“In your second edition of the Origins you
actually acknowledged the creator’s role,” I reminded him.
“I wasn’t a disbeliever,” he told us. “I regarded God as
the First Mover, who started life on earth. I did not accept that he supervised
each transmutation.”
4.The Decent of Man; scientific theories
“Did your later work, The Descent of Man exacerbate
the situation?”
“It did, Berger.”
“Was this due to your discussion of sexual selection?”
“When I discussed sexual selection in the Origin,
it did not lead to an outcry. I was talking about the kingdom of animals and
how, for instance, competing males sought to impress females with such traits
as attractive manes (in the case of lions) or by colourful tails (in the case of
peacocks). My comments about sexual selection in humanity were criticised by
emerging feminist circles. Are this criticism still echoed today?”
“Not really,” I assured him. “The feminist movement
disputes the views of 20th century opponents. But some stern religious
circles criticise you for saying than Man evolved from monkeys.”
“I never said such a stupid thing. My theory postulated
that Man and modern apes branched off an earlier ancestor, who became extinct
long ago!”
“I know,” said Archie, “and you emphasized that
evolution was a slow process. You also recognised that species adapted on the
basis of environmental changes.”
“The tortoises and mockingbirds convinced me of this.”
“Your method was highly scientific. You started by
ascertaining the facts and then came up with a theory derived from them. Some
philosophers come up with a theory and then conduct experiments to establish
it. My approach was like yours,” Archie spoke passionately.
“Please tell me about your own experiments, Archimedes,”
pleaded
I listened attentively to Archie’s scientific discourse.
Much of it was above my head. In contrast,
“You look bewildered, Berger,” observed
“You discussed living fossils,
“My ideas on the subject were simple. I noted that some
species extant today did not differ from fossils of the same species discovered
in ancient geological strata. I concluded that they may not have had a struggle
with competitors and hence did not undergo a change. Have many of these surfaced?”
“They have rather,” I told him. “Some fish which had
been considered extinct were re-discovered in recent years. Many of these had
minor deviations from the modern species.”
“That is not surprising,” retorted
For a while the three of us remained silent. Then
“You did leave a legacy. For some three decades
following your demise, your theory was unfashionable but, as from about the
1930s, it made a comeback,” explained Archie.
5.Later refinements
He then referred to the work of Gregor Mendel,
“In the 20th century scientists discovered
that the building blocks of all beings were chromosomes and that ‘traits’ were
borne on genes located thereon. Certain diseases were proved to be inherited
mainly because of unsatisfactory changes in the genes. Each species had its own
structure which, however, was subject to mutations.”
“I did not read Mendel’s work,” advised
“He was indeed,” I stepped in. “I believe that scientists
of the 20th century accepted your evolution theory as based on
natural selection and engrafted on it Mendel’s discoveries as amplified by
modern research. But I doubt if they could have ever got a full picture without
relying on your conclusions.”
“Did they also detect the origin of life?”
“They did not. And all their attempts to produce a
living cell in the laboratory have been unsuccessful.”
“I avoided the subject,” explained
“I am pessimistic. Science has come to believe that the
earliest forms of life developed from amino acids; but that is as far as we
have gone.”
“I agree with Peter’le,” stepped in Archie. “I have
studied the topic meticulously in all materials provided to me by Lord Pan. I
am further inclined to think that the very nature of life will remain unknown.
A physician can issue a certificate confirming an individual’s death. In most
cases he is right. But the nature of the force that keeps us alive is unknown
and I fear it will remain so.”
“Your mission, Berger, was to pinpoint the seven people
who left their mark on human history. Do you really believe that I am one of
them?”
“I do,” I assured him, adding as an afterthought, “but I
am not at all certain that the task entrusted to me is feasible. My reflections
go in a different direction: I suspect that our development was the fruit of a
process akin to evolution.”
“I am inclined to agree with Peter’le. By way of
illustration, take mathematics. I benefited from the works of Pythagoras and
Euclid; Galileo advanced the work of Copernicus. Similarly, Aristotle was the
father of physics. Then came the
innovations of Isaac Newton and later still Albert Einstein’s. In both cases
one discerns an evolutionary progression.”
“I have to concede that the same is true in my own
field,” said
“It was,” I told him and saluted him. “You sidestepped
the morass and turned a fresh leaf.”
“I am pleased you think so highly of my work. I did not
like the theological outburst I had to encounter. Fortunately, Thomas Huxley
was prepared to act as an advocate.”
“Luck too is important,” I told him. “I wonder how many
brilliant works were lost to us or never saw light due to external
circumstances.”
“I have to agree,” concurred
“In effect, you concede the role of Fortuna – the
goddess of luck,” I voiced my view.
“Modern genetics confirm that pure chance at conception
cannot, and should never, be ruled out,” summed up well-read Archie.
XV. ASSESSMENT IN OUR HAVEN
1.Archie’s analysis of
evolution
Archie and I
were teletransported back to our ward on a slow moving beacon. On our way,
Archie looked at me thoughtfully.
“Peter’le, why did Darwin and you keep addressing each
other by surnames? Why didn’t he call you Peter or Peter’le?”
“Society was formal in his era. Using a proper name when
addressing a person would imply superiority or familiarity. Darwin and I addressed
one another as equals. I fell in line with the etiquette of his day.”
“I see,” nodded Archie. “But tell me do you really think
that the individual’s role was as limited as you suggested earlier on?”
“I fear that this may be so. I am inclined to think that
each of the seven punchees was a product of his time.”
“How about Genghis Khan?”
“I suspect that if he had not united the Mongols someone
else would have done so.”
“But would he have built an empire?”
“I suspect that once a Mongol leader realised the
potential of the military force he commanded, he was bound to act and conquer.”
“How about Darwin, whom you admire?”
“He came at the right time. I suspect that any reader of
Malthus’ book had the potential of adapting his theory to the world of nature.”
“Basically, Peter’le, you believe that humanity went
through its own process of evolution?”
“It wasn’t a strait line. Humanity had its ups and
downs. Its evolution is a zigzag. Still, all in all, humanity experienced a
progression.
“It would appear that there has been no branching,”
grunted Archie
“Homo Sapiens is the only remaining Homo species. There
were some before us (or possibly even during our own years on earth) but now
they have become extinct.”
“I know,” agreed Archie. “I have read about them. Do you
think that some new species may come into existence?”
“Difficult to
say. Homo Sapiens has been around for a relatively short time. Even so, some
authors talk about a Superman. And remember, Archie, changing circumstances or
major catastrophes can take place at any time. Who knows what sort of turn
evolution might take in its wake.”
“
“it does; but, remember, the future is not ours to see.”
2.A win-win situation
Tiger and Moti welcomed us as soon as we surfaced. At Tiger’s
suggestion I went for a swim. Archie rested comfortably in his small hut on
Moti’s back. The chat with
Later in the day, the four of us had an informal
meeting. Our object was to determine the course to be taken in the forthcoming
meeting with the panel.
“Peter’le, what
would happen if the panel approved your choices?”
“I have no idea. I suppose they may move me to
paradise.”
“But what is wrong in this ward? Aren’t you enjoying
yourself here?” asked Archie. “You have become one of us.”
“Actually, I should hate being moved somewhere else,” I
confirmed.
“In that case isn’t it better if they disapprove?
Surely, they would then ask you to punch some other noses,” observed Tiger.
“And in that case they will allow Lord Pan to make
arrangements for your accommodation. I feel confident that he will send you
back to us,” concluded Archie.
“In other words, it is a win-win situation,” averred Tiger.
“Regardless of the outcome we look forward to your coming back.”
Moti, who had kept silent throughout, trumpeted. It was
an appropriate display of support.
Feeling deeply moved I smiled at the trio. It also
dawned on me that, in reality, the hearing by the panel was bound to be anticlimactic.
Still, I looked forward to it.
XVI. SECOND HEARING
1.The panel refers to Fortuna
Next morning Theophil summoned me to the second hearing
of the panel. To ensure I felt comfortable, Theophil assumed the form of an old
friend of my
“Well, what do you think of my performance,” I asked
with trepidation. Somehow – quite regardless of the verdict – I felt the need
of gaining their approval.
“What made you give a miss to philosophers? Don’t you
think that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza and Kant left a
mark?” asked Gabriel.
“I am sure they did, especially Plato and Socrates. The discipline, though, kept changing. I
tried to play it safe. Have I made a mess?”
“I don’t think so,” replied Gabriel, “but I am not at
all certain that I would have made the same choices.”
“Is it possible that we gave Peter’le an unreasonable
task?” asked Theophil. “We picked the number seven at random. Would your task
have been easier if we had opted for a higher number, say twelve?”
“Well, Peter’le,” prompted the Almighty as I had
remained patently uneasy.
“I have my doubts, Oh Lord.”
“Explain yourself,” interjected Gabriel.
“In the course of my attempt to identify major actors, I
was driven to the conclusion that the role of any individual is limited. It
appeared to me that every candidate was a product of his time.”
“Give us an example,” prompted Theophil.
“
“Care to elaborate?” prompted the Almighty.
“The Romans were pagans. They did not have a theology
that appealed to the sophisticated members of the civilisation of the Empire.
Judaism was spiritual and preached the existence of one God, who was also the
universal creator. The faith, though, was confined to the Jews’ own ethnic
group.
“Give us another case in point,” asked Gabriel.
“Very well,” I replied having gained confidence. “Take
Livia Augusta. The Romans were destined to follow a powerful statesman, like
Sulla. If Livia hadn’t turned her Augustus into an appropriate leader,
“How about Galileo Galilei? I know you have not visited
him. Still, you reflected about his contribution to modern science,” stepped in
my mentor, Theophil.
“Again, we have the right man at the appropriate time.
Fortunately, he discovered Copernicus’ calculations which established that the
earth orbited the sun. He picked these up and rose to support them. He also
refined the telescope, used it to observe the stars and became the father of
modern astronomy. Galileo was a man of the High Renaissance and like his
compatriots put the search for knowledge above the conventional wisdom of his
day.”
“Is there also an element of fortune in the evolutionary
process?” asked Gabriel. Theophil nodded in agreement and the Almighty – the
Head of the panel – looked at me thoughtfully.
“I believe there is. For instance, it was fortunate that
Galileo came across Copernicus’ work, which was actually preserved in the
“Was he also the right man at the right time?” asked
Theophil.
“Wasn’t he ever? Evolution had been debated long before
him. He simply showed how the process worked.”
“I like your articulation,” said He Himself. “You see,
when I created, I assumed the role of a first mover. I then let matters take
their own course. I am a non-interventionist, except that, from time to time, I
see the need for an Act of God.”
“Like the comet that wiped out the dinosaurs?”
“That, too,” He agreed.
“The three major monotheistic religions,” I pointed
out, “depict you as concerned with
humanity. One of them describes you as a God of vengeance, who does not
tolerate His people worshiping other beings. Another religion claims that by
embracing your supremacy and creed, a believer obtains salvation.”
“And do you accept any of these propositions?”
“I have my doubts, Dear God. You see, religions depict
Theophil as a ‘Satan’, who is the epitome of evil. To me he has always been a
kindly mentor. I have come to the conclusion that the portrayal of all
religions is misguided.”
“Please explain yourself,” ordered Gabriel.
“By way of illustration, take a potter. He may go to no
end when he models and fires a piece. Thereafter – when it is complete – he
usually does not track it. In a sense, he no longer has an interest in its
fate.”
“Does the illustration apply?” asked Theophil.
“I cannot be certain. My point is that creation and
future judgment need not be in one hand. However, the fact that our globe
experiences Acts of God, suggests to me that our creator visits us from time to
time.”
“You assume that Acts of God are initiated by the
Creator, don’t you?”
“I suspect I do, Maestro,” I admitted.
“Here is where you jump to conclusions,” replied
Theophil. “Suppose the Creator’s only object is to bring things into existence
and then observe what happens to them.”
“Are Acts of God then initiated by luck?”
“Luck: which you have often described as the Goddess
Fortuna.”
“That’s what was on my mind,” I conceded.
“
2.Provisional judgment
“We better turn to your punchees,” decided the Almighty.
“We need to know whether your choices are supportable.”
“I am sure there is a strong element of bias in my
choices. As pointed out by Gabriel, I have excluded philosophers. If you had
given the task to another individual,
he (or she) might have selected other punchees, concentrating, for instance, on
scientists. I am satisfied that you reckoned with the subjective element in the
exercise given to me.”
“We did indeed,” observed the Almighty. “Still, I am
nonplussed by your having visited Eve. I thought you did not believe in the
creation story of the Bible.”
“True,” I conceded, “but, then, you said that for the
sake of this exercise I could take any person mentioned in the scriptures, or
in literary works, as real.”
“Basically, this is correct,” declared Gabriel.
“Nonetheless, if you do not believe a given person really existed, I don’t see
how you can attribute to him (or her) a major influence on humanity.”
“That’s a
sophistry,” I complained.
“True,” conceded Gabriel, “but then, aren’t you
sophisticated?”
“I suppose I am, although some of my best friends on
earth considered me a simpleton.”
“And you were clever enough to let them hold on to the
image,” grinned Theophil.
“I cannot quarrel with this. Well, what is my sentence?”
“We have decided to ignore your encounter with Eve,”
pronounced the Almighty following a brief consultation with the panel. “This
means, Peter’le, that you have to punch one further nose.”
“That is a very fair and lenient sentence,” I agreed
wholeheartedly.
“But we have determined to attach a string,” advised
Gabriel, seeking to sound severe.
“Surely, you are not going to order me to punch Master
Theophil. I’d rather go to hell than do such an irreverent act.”
“No, that is not your task; and, in any event, Theo is a
non-interventionist so that his direct influence on humanity is minimal.”
“I am relieved. What, then, is the string?”
“You have to punch a person who lived in the 20th
century.”
“I see; but that is also my era,” I let my misgivings
show. “How can I judge members of my own epoch? Am I not bound to have an unshakeable
bias?”
“You must do your best to overcome it,” advised
Theophil.
“Some of the most influential characters of the 20th
century are, at least in my eyes, contemptible.”
“You may, nevertheless, choose one of them,” explained
the Almighty. “We shall reconvene after you have completed your task.”
“How soon do I have to act and where shall I stay in the
meantime?”
“There is no hurry,” the Almighty told me and added:
“Please tell us: are you happy with your present abode?”
“I love it.”
“Then you might as well stay put!”
XVII. SELECTING THE LAST
PUNCHEE
1.How to carry on
My three comrades greeted me warmly: “We feared you may
be sent elsewhere,” said Archie. “In truth, your home is here.”
“I am delighted to
be back,” I confirmed. I then went on and told them all about the hearing.
“So now they want
you to select a prodigy of the 20th century,” said Archie. “Well, I
have read the materials given to me by Lord Pan. The 20th century is
marked by a number of outstanding personalities; and you have to pinpoint one
of them. To start with, you can divide the candidates into two groups: those
you admire and those you detest.”
“Is there no
overlap?” asked Tiger.
“Actually, there
often is. By way of illustration, take Mahatma Gandhi. His passive resistance
philosophy and moral integrity did much for the cause of
“I take your
point,” replied Archie. “It seems to me that the only way to proceed is to
discuss the outstanding humans that come to mind and eventually choose the one
that outshines all others.”
“Hear, hear,” said
Moti and trumpeted. All of us looked at him affectionately. Archie and I
stroked his trunk and Tiger brushed gently against his hind leg.
“So, we are
agreed,” said Archie. “Actually, your task provides an excellent project for us
all. Well, let us start.”
2. Political figures
“The first person
who comes to mind is Sun Yat-sen. His numerous failed revolutionary attempts were
eventually crowned with success in 1911, when the Qing [Manchu] dynasty was
ousted. Chaos prevailed in
“Is he remembered
outside
“I have my doubts.
He is considered the father of the Republic in Taiwan and as a forerunner of the
People’s Republic of China, that is, Communist China (the ‘PRC’). In the long
run, though, he provided the basic ideology of modern
“I agree,” observed
Archie. “We better turn to other personalities of the 20th century.
Let us have a good look at the major political leaders of the era. Vladimir Lenin ought to be considered.”
Tiger nodded and
Moti expressed his consent by stomping his right front foot.
“Lenin is a
difficult case,” I started. “He embarked on his revolutionary exploits whilst
still in his youth. In the event, he spent years in exile, just as his
forerunner Karl Marx. Lenin became a Marxist, asserting that the proletariat in
cities like
“I believe Stalin
took over from him,” observed Archie.
“Lenin appointed
Stalin the General Secretary of the communist party. When Lenin had a
debilitating stroke, Stalin took over the reins. Before long he became a
dictator: probably the most ruthless in his time.”
“What was Lenin’s
main achievement?” asked Tiger.
“He tried hard to
unite the proletariat throughout
“You would not
really pick him as the most interesting performer of the 20th
century,” concluded Tiger. “I think you dislike him, Peter’le.
“I do; and I would
not settle on him.” I agreed. “We have to consider other names.”
“But why do you
dislike Lenin?” persisted Tiger.
“Lenin was a cruel
man. By early 1918, when famine broke out in consequence of poor crops, Lenin
blamed the ‘kulaks’ (the wealthier peasants) of hoarding grain and
requisitioned it. This exacerbated the situation and was counterproductive. The
farmers lost the incentive to produce more than what was needed for themselves.
He also established the Cheka (the brutal secret police) and, in my eyes, is
responsible for the reign of terror.”
“Is that your only
reason, Peter’le?” persevered Tiger. “Livia Augusta, whom you admire, was a murderess.
In the end, she even poisoned her own husband, Augustus. And the less said
about Genghis Khan’s cruelty the better. So why doesn’t Lenin’s cruelty appal
you? Surely, he had an ultimate cause or justification.”
“His object was to
attain the communist dream, which is to satisfy everyone’s needs as based on
individual capacity. This approach would tend to eliminate the competitive
drive which governs humanity. His ideal world would have been a utopia, or,
rather, a dystopia. The danger of this is illustrated in Aldous Huxley’s Brave
New World, where all inhabitants depend on ‘soma’ (or drugs) for
happiness.”
“I take your point,
Peter’le,” summed up Archie. “You tend to regard communism as sanctimonious.”
“I do,” I
confirmed, “and I abhor the brutalities perpetrated in its name!”
“Well, who is next
on the list?” asked Tiger.
“Let us turn to Stalin. He succeeded Lenin and
was even more brutal than his predecessor. He became a dictator and ruled the
“Even so,” observed
Tiger, “you have some grudging admiration for him. You do not despise him the
way you do Lenin.”
“Spot on,” I
admitted. “You see, I learned about Lenin during my secondary school years. He
died in 1924 – long before I was born. I recall Stalin from my years in Tel
Aviv. I accept that he led to the outbreak of WWII, when he signed the
non-aggression pact with Hitler. This bargain encouraged the Nazi’s invasion of
“In reality,
Peter’le, you close an eye to his brutalities because he defeated the Nazis,”
pointed out Archie. Moti nodded his agreement. On reflection I conceded the
point.
“But you know,” I
added as an afterthought, “Stalin was revered by the extreme left in
“Would you then opt
for Stalin?” asked Tiger.
“Not really. After
his demise the
“Millions?” asked
Tiger. “I thought you told us the Red Army defeated the Nazis. Surely,
casualties at war are unavoidable.”
“I am not thinking
of these. Stalin’s reign of terror involved slaughter and imprisonment followed
by the death of many civilians. I also recall how he exiled people. For instance,
he deported two million Tatars from the
“I agree,” opined
Archie. “You better turn to the next candidate. I assume you are going to
discuss other leaders.”
“Spot on,” I admitted. “Let us have a good look at Mao
Tse-Tung [Mao Zedong]. He ruled
“Lord Pan’s materials covered him in detail,” said
Archie. “I recall that he came from a well-off peasant family. Still, from his
early youth he was an agitator. He also adopted the Marxist ideology.
Initially, he collaborated with the Kuomintang (‘KMT’) during the Second
Sino-Japanese War of 1937 to 1945. This collaboration took place after the Long
March of 1934-35, in which Mao’s Red Army withdrew to the
“A neat summary,” I agreed, “but in many ways Mao is an
enigma.”
“Why?” asked Moti, whose brief query opened the floodgates.
“You see, Mao adopted Marxism in a modified manner. Marx
preached the rising of the proletariat. In
“I think you don’t dislike him,” said Tiger, whose head I
kept stroking. “I know you well, Peter’le: you are my charge. You tensed when
we discussed Marx and Lenin but now you have remained calm and detached. Did
Mao have any influence on your personal life?”
“He did, rather. My father-in-law migrated from Amoy (in
Hokkien) to
“Did you know much about Mao before you met your wife?”
asked Moti.
“His name was familiar. You see, after the communists
took over mainland
“A bloody affair,” pointed out Archie, “but let us have
your analysis of it.”
“It was Mao’s second five-year plan. Its mains object
was to make the first move towards urbanisation. Mao formed People Communes,
which owned the land, and he demanded an increased yield of grain. The
collected surpluses were meant to feed the growing working classes in major
towns. In reality, the harvests failed with the result that farmers starved.”
“Was land confiscated?” asked Tiger.
“Mao pressed agricultural collectivization – which
actually meant confiscation. Private farming was proscribed and transgressors
were prosecuted. The end result was a famine throughout
“I believe there was a redeeming feature. Cultivation of
opium and other drugs was rendered illegal and family law was reformed. In
particular, women obtained the right to demand a divorce. It used to be the
monopoly of men,” added Archie.
“In addition,” I told them, “Mao banished most religious
and traditional ceremonies. He adopted Marx’s proverb that ‘religion is the
opium of the people’. In an attempt to industrialize as quickly as possible, he
encouraged the farmers to establish backyard furnaces and use scrap iron so as
to manufacture steel. The quality of the product was poor. Another setback was
the harsh treatment of farmers by the appointed political cadres. The collapse
of poorly constructed dams and flooding exacerbated the situation. All in all, ‘The
Great Leap Forward’ led not only to a catastrophic famine but also to the
greatest destruction of real estate in the country’s history. Notably, despite
the food shortage the communist government continued to export grain to the
“How did Mao make his comeback?” asked Tiger.
“This is not clear to me. Probably Mao was not
neutralised because he remained Chairman of the Communist Party of China. He
must have bided his time and, in 1966, returned to power and led the Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution of China. Officially, it lasted until Mao’s
demise in 1976. In its course Mao eliminated most of his critics by dubbing
them revisionist. His Red Cadres destroyed much of
“You overlook Mao’s motive, Peter’le,” observed Archie.
“Do I really? Did he have any motive other than
self-glorification?” I asked my friend.
“Ostensibly,” replied Archie, “his object was to eliminate
any ‘revision’, that is, an attempt to depart from the course prescribed by
Mao’s Marxist orientation. You know, he was even estranged from the
“Still, in 1972 Mao had a dialogue with Nixon – the
“You are critical of Mao, Peter’le,” observed Tiger.
“Why, then, do you like and consider him?”
“All in all, and despite his tyranny, he restored
“Have you been to
“Not during Mao’s regime. I visited it as tourist during
Deng Xiaoping’s days. I liked it. And the population struck me as proud and
self-assured. Let me relate a telling anecdote which took place when we
travelled to
“You would be attracted to those,” interjected Archie
dismissively. “Chinese scientific advances – like the discovery of gun powder –
are not within your scope of interests. I find them exciting!”
“You have a point there,” I conceded, “but now listen to
the anecdote. The traffic was so chaotic that my wife and I did not dare to
cross the road on our own. Instead, we joined a group of locals, who were about
to embark on this hazardous venture. They formed a phalanx around Pat (my wife)
and me and, when we arrived safely, one of them told Pat in Mandarin: ‘What
wouldn’t we do for such a hapless Mo [a derogatory phrase for Europeans].’ Pat
laughed.”
“Look here,
Peter’le: I suspect you are not going to opt for any of the political leaders
discussed or mentioned by you. Why don’t you turn to some other individuals who
made an everlasting contribution during the 20th century?”
“Tiger is right,” said Moti.
3.Intllectual contributors
“Alright, then,” I said. “Let us start with Sigmund
Freud. He was the founder of psychoanalysis, a method for treating mental
disturbances by a conversation, in which the patient is encouraged to talk
freely to the therapist about the problems he faces and his feelings about
them. Basically, this involves a process of evaluating the sufferer’s internal
monologue, which would enable the ‘shrink’ to diagnose the ailment and to treat
it.”
“I thought hypnosis was the safest remedial tool in such
cases,” interjected Archie.
“Freud, who practised and taught in
“Do you accept this analysis, Peter’le?” asked Tiger.
“There is some truth in it. A child is guided by
instincts and is uninhibited. Later in life the child learns to suppress his
(or her) drives and adapts to the world he (or she) faces. For instance, a very
young child cries when it desires something or simply craves for attention.
Later in life, it asks for or tries to get only things within its moral or
normative reach.”
“Where is your reservation then?”
“Freud asserts that a child has sexual desires. Many
modern thinkers dispute this. I agree with their views, Tiger’le.”
“Do you dispute Freud’s Oedipus Complex theory?” asked
Archie. “I found it interesting but not convincing.”
“Care to elaborate?” I prompted.
“Well, originally the saga refers to a mythological man,
who having been abandoned by his parents, killed the King of Thebes who was,
unbeknown to this Oedipus, his physical father. Oedipus then married Jocasta,
who was the late King’s wife and Oedipus’ mother. Sophocles – a great
playwright – treated the subject in one of his dramas. Freud suggests that
every male child has a hidden desire for his mother and, likewise, a newborn
girl has a hidden desire for the father. If a child has a desire for his same sex
parent, he or she tends to develop a disturbed personality involving,
frequently, homosexuality or bisexuality.”
“Do you think he was right?” I asked Archie.
“Later scholars doubted him,” proclaimed Archie. “Actually,
I cannot take him seriously on this point.”
“Neither can I,” I confirmed. “Equally, I have my doubts
about the five stages of a human’s development postulated by Freud: during the
first, or oral stage, the child has an urge to suck and, through it, develops
trust and comfort centred on the caregiver, usually the mother. When the child
is weaned, it becomes less dependent on others. In Freud’s view, any
disturbance which occurs at this stage may lead to aggressive behaviour on the
child’s part and it may also lead him (or her) to problems with drinking,
eating or nail-biting. The second or anal stage involves bowel and bladder
control. It takes place when the child is between three and five years old. The
major ‘conflict’ at this stage is toilet training, which teaches the child to
control bodily needs. If the parents are too lenient or rigid when training the
child, he (or she) may have personality problems later in life. In the third
stage – when the child is three to six years old – it focuses on the difference
between males and females. A boy develops his Oedipus complex, leading to a
rivalry with the father. Little girls, according to Freud, develop a ‘penis
envy’. Unsurprisingly, this concept is firmly rejected by the feminist lobby.
The fourth or ‘latent’ stage takes place during the age ranging between six
years and puberty. During this period, the super-ego continues to develop
whilst the id energies are suppressed. It is a period of calm during which
children develop social skills and harmonious relationships with peers and
generally with adults. This stage usually commences when children enter school.
It is the period in which an individual develops communication skills and
self-confidence. However, if an individual is ‘stuck’ in this phase he (or she)
may remain immature. In the last stage – from puberty until death – the
person’s libido becomes active again. The individual acquires a strong sexual
interest in the opposite sex. If the earlier phases were completed successfully, he (or she) has developed
into a mature and well-balanced person.”
“Is this theory taken seriously by later researchers
working in the field?” Tiger wanted to know.
“It has remained controversial. One of the reasons is
that it focuses mainly on the development of boys. Another is its failure to
deal conceptually with homosexuality. Freud’s approach to the subject varied
from time to time. In general, he regarded it as a deviation or a departure
from the sexual norm. Later researchers believed that sexual orientation is
largely influenced by biological factors.”
“How about Freud’s work on the interpretation of
dreams?” asked Archie.
“Freud took the view that dreams are produced by a
human’s subconscious. He thought that all dreams are forms of ‘wish fulfilment’
and that a skilful analyst can differentiate between the manifest content of
the dream, that is, the narrative displayed in it, and the latent content,
which relates to the underlying meaning of the dream. He thought that most
dreams relate to the person’s experiences of the previous day. Nowadays,
Freud’s analysis is doubted or plainly rejected.”
“Peter’le, you speak about Freud disdainfully,” observed
Tiger.
“Why?” asked Moti, who had been observing me keenly.
“They have a point,” stepped in Archie. “I have also
noted it. I appreciate that Freud’s theories cannot be verified or put to the
test. Usually, though, you take people we consider seriously and with respect.
What is the cause of the ire you display in this instance? Honestly, my friend,
your body language is very clear indeed.”
“Alright,” I gave in. “You see, Freud wrote a book
entitled Moses and Monotheism. He postulated that Moses was an Egyptian
and not an Israelite. He then discussed the alleged faith of Akhenaten and
suggested that Moses’ faith might have been derived from that Pharaoh’s cult.
He postulated that Moses was assassinated in a rebellion and that his followers
thereafter joined a Midianite tribe that believed in Jehovah. Freud felt
compelled to regard the alleged killing as akin to a son’s hidden wish to kill
his father. Later in life, Freud wrote that religious phenomena are models of
neurotic symptoms.” Stopping for a moment to catch my breath, I added: “as you
know Bible Critique and Egyptology are amongst my hobbies. Freud had no
knowledge of Biblical Hebrew and Mid-Egyptian or of the history of the
“Does this cast doubts on Freud’s other works?” asked
Tiger.
“I cannot state this unequivocally. Still, I wonder if
Freud was just as unreliable in other fields he dealt with. As they say: once a
charlatan always a charlatan!”
“If you have such a view of him, why do you as much as
consider him?” sneered Archie.
“It has to be admitted that he founded the school of
psychoanalysis, which has remained prevalent, especially in the
“Oh well,” grunted Archie. “Let us turn to other famous
personalities of the 20th century.”
“Before we do so I believe two names ought to be
mentioned. Freud’s leading disciple, Carl Jung, took Freud’s psychoanalysis one
step further and actually founded analytical psychology, which was engrafted on
Freud’s basic ideas. Jung did excellent
field and theoretical work explaining extraversion and introversion. Jung’s own
disciple, Erich Neumann, set the work in a philosophical matrix. His best
contribution to the field is The Origin and History of Consciousness, published in
1949. It is marked by a theoretical and philosophical approach. The subject of
consciousness was taken further in The Origin of Consciousness in the
Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, published by Julian Jaynes in 1976, which
argues that a bicameral mentality (viz. search for knowledge and self
awareness) was the state of the
human mind at least for the last three
thousand years. The book had a mixed reception.”
For a few minutes all of us remained silent. I broke it
by observing: “I think we ought to have a close look at the German scholar Oswald
Spengler. He was an autodidactic researcher in the field of history. His best-known
tome is the two volumes on The Decline of the West, published
respectively in 1918 and 1922. Spengler suggests that empires are a ‘super-organism’
with a limited and predictable lifespan. In his opinion the West is entering
its penultimate stage and is likely to go through a period of about two hundred
years of ‘Caesarism’ or, in other words, dictatorships.”
“Was he then a philosopher?” Tiger wanted to know.
“I believe he was,” I replied. “He was a philosopher of
history.”
“Did he support his views with sound arguments?” asked
Archie.
“He did, rather. However, he chose his supportive points
selectively. Toynbee in particular refuted Spengler’s basic theory to the
effect that history tended to repeat itself and hence was predictable. After
all, even an individual’s cycle or span is random. Often an individual fails to
reach maturity. Similarly, whilst empires go through a conventional cycle, the
span may differ considerably.”
“I believe the book was a great success when the first
volume appeared,” pointed out Archie.
“It was indeed. On its basis Spengler was offered a
chair in philosophy by two reputable German universities. He declined, saying
that such an appointment would not leave him adequate time for his research
work. At the same time, criticism was forthcoming. For instance, Max Weber –
himself a distinguished sociologist and historian – described Spengler as an
‘ingenious and learned dilettante’.”
“Actually, why was the book such a success?” asked
Tiger.
“The first volume appeared shortly after the end of WWI.
Germans, who bemoaned the defeat of their country, found solace in the
suggestion that the West as a whole – not only
“Tell us more about his theory,” asked Tiger.
“Spengler drew a distinction between ‘culture’ and
‘civilisation’. A culture takes place during the development phase of the
entity; civilisation is the culmination, or later stage, when a culture becomes
a fully blown-up civilisation. Spengler postulates eight high cultures:
Babylonian; Egyptian; Chinese; Indian; Mesoamerican (encompassing the Mayans
and the Aztecs); Classical (Greek & Roman); Arabian; and European (viz.
Western). Spengler compressed these into three groups: (i) Apollonian (or
classical) covering mainly
“Your view?” prompted Moti.
“During my mid-life, I admired him. Then, as I settled
in the East, it dawned on me that Spengler drew mainly on facts respecting
Western civilisation and cultures. Further, all in all he was a nationalist and
conservative. He doubted democracy.”
“What was his stance on Nazi Germany?” asked Archie.
“He considered Hitler vulgar and told him openly that
the vast empire the Führer postulated would not materialise. Spengler did not live to see
the fall of
“Did he publish other books?” asked Tiger.
“He did. In 1931 he published Man and Techniques. In
this book he warned that in the long run industrialisation posed dangers to
Western culture because it might enable ‘hostile coloured races’ to use it
against the West. In 1934 he published The Hour of Decision attacking
liberalism in general. The book was banned in
“Actually, why do you as much as consider him? You do
not have much regard for him,” pointed out Archie.
“Well, he changed the analysis of history as a
discipline. He studied it as a tool for predictions and not merely as a
narration. In this regard, his work was original. The Decline of the West has
remained one of the leading works of the
20th century. Still, I am now satisfied that it is written from the
viewpoint of a Western philosopher, who spent most of his life in
“Should we consider Bertrand Russell and Ludwig
Wittgenstein?” asked Archie. “The materials I have read describe them as
leading thinkers of the 20th century.”
“I believe they were. In addition, Russell was a leading
pacifist who opposed violence and war. Wittgenstein’s later work – Philosophical
Investigation (published posthumously in 1953) – argues that the meaning of
words is best understood as their use within a given ‘language game’. His
earlier book – the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, published in 1921 – was
concerned with the logical relationship between propositions and the world. He
thought – at that time – that by providing an account of the logic underlying
this relationship, one could solve all philosophical problems. His later work
takes a different stand.”
“Why don’t you treat him as a lead person of the 20th
century?” asked Tiger. “It is clear that you respect his original approach to
problems.”
“I do,” I explained. “However, both Wittgenstein and
Bertrand Russel are giants in a given discipline but have failed to attain
universal fame. For this reason, I believe we have to turn to scientists, whose
names are well known universally.”
“Who do you have in mind?” asked Tiger.
“I am thinking of Albert Einstein, Edwin Hubble and
Marie Curie. I am sure there were other great scientists in the 20th
century but these three are known not only to people working in the field but
to the public in general.”
4.Other non-scientific lead persons
“Let us then stick to them,” suggested Tiger. Moti
nodded his agreement. Archie alone looked dubious: “Peter’le,” he mused, “I
entertain no doubt about the importance of scientists. Nonetheless, before you
turn to them, we need to consider some other persons who shaped the 20th
century as an era.”
“Whom do you have in mind?” I wanted to know.
“I am thinking of Henry Ford, Charlie Chaplin and
Mahatma Gandhi. I suggest we commence with Ford. I know that he was neither a
thinker nor a scientist. But he impacted the development of the 20th
century as an industrialised society. He initiated the mass production of
inexpensive goods that catered for the needs of the middle classes.”
“That is undisputable,” I confirmed. “Nonetheless I have
at least one reservation about him: he was an avid anti-Semite and promoted his
creed through his newspaper – The Dearborn Independent – and his book: The
International Jew.”
“I am aware of this,” responded Archie. “Further, he was
favourably referred to in Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Naturally, I don’t
approve; although – by and large – I am inclined to ignore the prejudices of
barbarians. After all, what can you expect from them? Still, I think Ford
merits analysis: I believe he set the tone for the rise of capitalism.”
“Archie is right, Peter’le,” observed Tiger. “So let us
look at his positive attainments. Please elaborate.”
“It won’t be easy for me. Quite apart from his ingrained
racial prejudices he craved only for material success. To my way of thinking,
this is a blemish. The means become the objective.”
“Please explain,” said Moti.
“You see: money is needed by scientists, artists and by
mankind in general. But normally the money is required for a purpose, for
instance, for the construction of an observatory with a sophisticated telescope
or to further an ideological end close to a leader’s heart.”
“And you think that industrialists and money-hoarders in
general want it as an end or as indicia of success?”
“I do,” I agreed.
“Even so,” observed Archie, “the phenomenon deserves
discussion. Well, tell us what you know or have gleaned about Henry Ford.”
“Ford grew up on his father’s farm. He showed technical
skills early in life. For instance, in his teens he became a skilful watch
repairer. After a spell in
“So, he did not abandon his interest in technology,” pointed
out Archie.
“I agree. He didn’t.
In 1891, he was employed as an engineer by the Edison Illuminating
Company of
“Did the volume of sales increase as dramatically?”
asked Tiger.
“It did,” I confirmed. “By 1916 sales reached 472,000.
Ford introduced the assembly belt, which facilitated mass production. By 1918, half of all the cars sold in the
“How did the public know about its availability?” asked
Moti.
“Ford publicised it widely. Newspapers throughout
“How about luxury cars? Did he produce any?” asked
Tiger, who became engrossed in the subject and kept wondering whether high performance
cars could outrace him.
“Ford was not really interested in them. All the same,
he bought out the Lincoln Motor Company. Ford’s son – Edsel (who became the
chairman of the company in 1918) – wanted to steer the Ford Motor Company into
the upscale market. At his initiative,
“Did he stick to the Model T?” asked Tiger.
“When sales plummeted due to competition by General
Motors, Ford eventually switched in 1927 to the more sophisticated Model A, which remained unchanged until 1931. In the
next year the company started to produce its V8 Model: an eight-cylinder car,
which was upgraded over the years. 1932 saw
yet a further innovation, namely the launching of the Universal Credit
Corporation, which enabled buyers to purchase cars by instalment sales.”
“Did he treat his employees well?” asked Moti.
“He did. He raised the minimum wage to $5.00 per hour –
virtually doubling the prevailing fee structure – and introduced a five-day
working week. He also initiated profit sharing, which was made available to
long serving employees. Further, the reasonable price of Ford cars and the
availability of credit sales meant that many of his employees were able to
afford cars. I believe that Ford and General Motors transformed the
“What was his approach to trade unions?” asked Tiger.
“He opposed them and actually intimidated unionists. He
took the view that ‘labour welfare’ was best administered by employers,
referring to it as ‘welfare capitalism’. In the end, though, Ford Corporation
recognised the United Automobile Workers and, around 1940, submitted to the collective
bargaining power of the union.”
“I have read articles suggesting that the Ford
enterprise led to the Great Depression,” averred Archie. “Do you think this is
correct?”
“It is a controversial subject. Ostensibly, the Great Depression
started with the collapse of the stock market,” I replied. “The more complex
task is to pinpoint the reasons for the downfall. I too read the relevant materials.
My personal conclusion is that a major cause was played by the superfluity resulting from the over production
of goods. Unwanted goods remained in the stockpiles of corporations, which – in
consequence – failed to make profits. This, in turn, led to the devaluation of
the stocks (the shares). We face the domino effect. The entire era is
illuminated in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath. It is noteworthy that the
Great Depression spread to many European countries. It is vividly described in
Remarque’s Black Obelisk.”
“Tell us more about Ford’s life philosophy,” asked
Tiger.
“Ford professed being a pacifist and actually supported
a mission which aimed to bring WWI to an end. Regrettably, he had no success
and the venture was ridiculed. Later on, as from 1918, he supported President
Woodrow Wilson’s initiation of the
“Did he have another go?” asked Tiger.
“He didn’t. Later on a Ford employee won a Senate seat
in
“Peter’le,” enquired Tiger. “Did Henry Ford remain an
anti-Semite to the end?”
“Difficult to say,” I replied. “In 1924, the
Anti-Defamation League supported a defamation action brought against Ford by
Aaron Sapiro, a leading Jewish lawyer. Ford settled the action and, in 1927,
closed his anti-Semitic newspaper – The Dearborn Independent and voiced
his opposition to racial violence and pogroms. Whether he changed his
orientation remains questionable. It is possible that he modified his stance
when he realised that Ford products were shunned by liberals. Still, it is said
that when he saw photographs of German concentration camps after the end of
WWII he had a stroke.”
“Peter’le,” observed Archie, who had looked at me
intently, “I sense that your disregard
for Henry Ford is not just a reaction to his anti-Semitism. It goes even
deeper than this. Please enlighten us.”
“You see,” I replied, “I am repelled by Ford’s business
philosophy. Ford’s enterprises spread from continent to continent. His object
was to introduce his models all over the world. This, in turn, would have led
to the emergence of dystopias of the type lampooned by Aldous Huxley in Brave
New World and by George Orwell in 1984, this is to say, societies
which control the minds and the movements of individuals. Notably, Brave New
World even postulated a calendar starting with AF 1 [viz. Anno Ford 1] – based on Ford’s chronology – and replaced
the title ‘Lordship’ with ‘Fordship’.”
“Actually, why do you oppose this philosophy? Won’t it lead
to the peaceful existence of humanity?” stepped in Tiger. Moti, who had been
following us closely, nodded his approval.
“It might lead to universal peace but, as a by product,
it is bound to stem human enterprise and search for knowledge. It would nip
originality in the bud. This is too high a price to pay!”
“I take your point,” agreed Archie. “I am repelled by
the thought that humanity might no longer be able to produce master works, like
Iphigenia in Aulis or Crime and Punishment (which I read at the
courtesy of Lord Pan). I think we better
turn to your next candidate – Charlie Chaplin. Still, before we do so, you may
wish to explain why you are side stepping inventors like Thomas Alva Edison and
Guglielmo Marconi.”
“They were great inventors and had a major effect on the
development of the 20th century. We have to thank
“I take your point,” conceded Archie. “Let us then turn
to your second representative of the era: Charlie Chaplin.”
“Actually, I
wonder why you opted for him rather than one of the actors or actresses you
favour?” asked Tiger.
“This has
something to do with my background,” I conceded. “You see, when I was a
youngster, people frequented the cinema. Theatre was scarce (and expensive)
and, as you already know, there was no television. Usually, my generation went to the cinema at
least twice a week.”
“I understand,” observed Archie. “But was Chaplin the only
actor warranting consideration. Didn’t other actors and actresses leave a
mark?”
“Of course there
were. Many of them were popular and their films were highly artistic and well
played. Chaplin, though, was special. He left a real impact on the 20th
century as a whole.”
To my surprise, a being materialised in front of our
eyes, assuming an image I had previously seen only on the cinema screen.
“Theophil?” I asked bewildered.
“No, Peter’le. Theo is not the only observer of your
society. I, too, study it keenly.”
“Gabriel?” I asked with trepidation.
“Correct guess. But I am pleased that you recognise the
image I have adopted for the moment. At present, I look like Victor Sjöström in
Wild Strawberries.”
“What made you appear to us … Sir?”
“I see,” he grinned. “You use the title ‘Maestro’ only
when addressing Theo. In reality, though, I have had as much influence on your
life as he! But be this as it may, please tell us why you pinpointed Chaplin
rather than any other actor or film director. Is Chaplin your favourite?”
“Not really,” I assured him.”
“So why did you settle on Chaplin?”
“He alone appealed to the masses all over the world. In
this regard he was unique.”
“Understood,” observed Gabriel and vanished.
“Let us then hear details about Chaplin and his
significance,” said Archie. “I have read about him but have not reviewed him as
methodically as the other persons you have referred to.”
“Chaplin came from a destitute home in
“I believe he co-founded United Artists – which enabled
him to have full control of his films,” volunteered Archie.
“He did,” I confirmed. “In his own way, Chaplin was a
perfectionist. He wrote the screenplays and even the music for many of his
films. And he directed them.”
“What was so special about them?” Tiger wanted to know.
“Each film had a message. The common view is that they
combined slapstick – at which Charlie excelled – with pathos. I know what the
critics mean but I think they are inaccurate. Usually, Chaplin’s pathos is
empathy with the underdog coupled with a message that the show must always go
on. One other innovation was the introduction of sad endings to comedies.”
“Examples?” asked Moti.
“I’ll leave out The Tramp and The Bank,
both of 1915. The first film, which elevated Chaplin from pure slapstick to the
producer of a drama, was The Kid. The film has a sad tone throughout:
the Tramp adopts an illegitimate child abandoned by its mother. There is a
hilarious scene in which the growing kid ‘works’ with the Tramp by throwing
stones to break windows. The Tramp, assuming the role of a glazier, follows and
offers to repair the damage and, in this way, earns a living. There is a
heartbreaking scene in which the kid is taken by the welfare authorities
against the Tramp’s and the Kid’s wishes. The film ends when the kid’s mother –
by then a wealthy and successful woman – finds him and rewards the Tramp.”
“What is so special about this? It strikes me as a
melodrama,” pointed out Tiger.
“In a way, it is. However, the Tramp’s struggle and the
sharp criticism of the welfare authorities display one of the main themes of
Kafka: the harmful nature and callousness of bureaucracy. Another important
film of that period is Gold Rush. Here the Tramp is a prospector
fighting adversity and looking for love. One of the most hilarious themes is
where, driven by hunger, the Tramp eats his own shoe. The ending is sombre: the
Tramp makes a fortune but does not find love. Another film of that period is The
Circus. The Tramp becomes the star of a travelling circus. He leaves it
when his dream- lady marries another actor. The final scene is moving: the
Tramp remains behind whilst the entourage travels on. It is, however, clear
that he has not given up.”
“Up to now, Peter’le, you presented a successful film-producer.
He described the world around him but was he an innovator?” asked Archie.
“I believe that, in a sense, he was. And listen, by the
time Chaplin released The Circus, the silent film was widely replaced by
sound films. Chaplin was sceptical and his next film – City Lights – was
a silent film; but there was a recorded musical score. In this film the Tramp
falls in love with and befriends a blind flower girl. She believes that her
supporter is a wealthy man because she hears the passing of an expensive car
after the Tramp buys her flowers. In the event, the Tramp steals a large amount
of money from his employer to raise the funds needed for an operation to
restore the girl’s eyesight.”
“What is so special about this?” asked Tiger.
“Two scenes elevate the slapstick into drama. The first
is right at the beginning. The mayor of a city unveils a statue aiming to
predict prosperity and a bright future for his community. As it is unveiled, we
see the Tramp slumbering in the statue’s lap. This was Chaplin’s bitter
criticism of the social order of his day: amidst the national wealth loomed
poverty and depredation. The other scene
is at the end of the film, when the girl, who has regained vision and who has
become a flower shop owner, recognises the Tramp, who has served out the prison
term imposed on him: he hands her a flower and she feels his hands. It is, I
believe, an outstandingly well acted scene.”
“I’ll accept your view, Peter’le. But I still cannot see
in Chaplin a leading 20th century personality. But, please, try to
make your case,” said Archie thoughtfully.
“In the next film – Modern Times – the Tramp is a
factory worker employed on an assembly line of the type cherished by Henry Ford.
The monotony of the work and the indignities inflicted upon him lead to a
nervous breakdown. After his release from hospital, he is mistaken for an
industrial agitator and is jailed. Following release, he seeks to go back to
prison; he attempts to take the blame
when a girl named Ellen escapes with a loaf of bread she has stolen from a baker’s shop. A
bystander reveals the truth whereupon the Tramp is cleared. Some time later,
the girl finds him a job as a singer and
waiter. During the floor show, he loses the cuff on which he has written the
words of the song. He ends up by singing sheer gibberish, but the performance
is well received by the audience. All seems well when officers of the welfare
department come to apprehend the girl for her earlier escape. The two flee.
Ellen is desperate; the Tramp, though, convinces her of the need to continue
fighting for a future.”
“Is this a silent film?”
“It is a hybrid. Chaplin remained wary of dialogue. He
felt that it might spoil the Tramp’s impact. Still, the Tramp sings.”
“What is important about this film?” asked Tiger.
“The slapstick is accompanied by a sharp criticism of
capitalist working conditions; it also presents the unemployment that prevailed
during the Great Depression. For the first time, Chaplin incorporated a left-wing
message in his film. Modern Times is a drama cum slapstick; not the
other way round. It is also the last film featuring the Tramp.”
“I get your point, Peter’le,” said Archie. “You better
tell us about Chaplin’s later films.”
“Well; in The Great Dictator Chaplin parodies
Hitler. The Tramp is substituted by a ‘Jewish Barber’ and Chaplin also plays
the role of a ridiculed Hitler. The message is clear: it is a pacifist film and
mocks fascism. The film was released shortly after the breakout of WWII. It was
well received outside
“I take your point,” muttered Archie. “Hitler was a
monster.”
“In his next film – Monsieur Verdoux, which is a
sound film – Chaplin plays the role of a bank clerk, who is dismissed after 30
years of service. To support his family, he becomes a bigamist and serial
killer, who murders women who succumb to him in order to appropriate their
money. At the same time, he shows kindness to and supports a girl who has just
been released from prison. He is eventually apprehended and sentenced to death.
He shows no remorse and says that his felonies are no worse than the slaughter
occasioned by wars. The final touching scene shows the culprit on his way to
the guillotine. When asked by a priest to pray that the Lord take his soul,
Verdoux replies that, as the soul belongs to the Lord, he ought to take what is
his.”
“I can see that such a film would be topical,” observed
Tiger.
“It led to a storm. Chaplin was accused of being a
communist and, in general, critics were harsh. The film was more successful in
Europe than in the
“Did he carry on?” asked Tiger.
“He did. In 1952 he released Limelight. I saw it
when I was still in Tel Aviv. It is the story of a once famous clown who
rescues a dancer, when she attempts to commit suicide because she believes she
has lost command of her legs. The clown nurses her back to life and, in the
process, regains his own self-esteem. The clown, who becomes destitute, joins a
street band. For a short while he regains his reputation but dies in an
accident that takes place during his clowning. The film shows the impoverished
actors of
“Was this his last film?” asked Tiger.
“It wasn’t. Actually, the film had a mixed reception.
Initially, it received an uncomplimentary critique. However, it was revived in
1972 and was highly acclaimed. I consider it Chaplin’s best film. He produced two
other films but they were poor. In the
first, he attacked American politics but his words fell on deaf ears. In the second – which was a colour film –
there was no message at all. It was a sad ending to his lengthy career.”
“Peter’le,” said Tiger, “I sense that you respect
Chaplin but have some misgivings.”
“Tiger’le is right,” said Archie. “Yours is grudging
admiration. Please explain.”
“Do,” added Moti.
“Well, Chaplin was not a nice person. He was a
womaniser, a predator and on one occasion was suspected of murder. He led a
wild and toxic life until he fell in love with Oona O’Neil – the famous
playwright’s daughter – and married her although she was only eighteen years of
age. Oona turned him into a far more responsible person and their marriage was
fruitful and successful. I can see her influence on him in Limelight’s screenplay.
She helped him to bring his ship home!”
“Even so, Peter’le,” said Archie, “it isn’t clear to me
why you rank Chaplin so highly. Ought he to be considered amongst great
political leaders and scientists? Please explain.”
“Chaplin’s films give you a vivid description of the 20th
century. His films expose both the strengths and the weaknesses of the era.
Unlike Spengler, he did not venture to predict things to come. He dealt with
the raw materials he found and came up with a pungent critique.”
“I take your point, Peter’le but I think you are – just
for once – sentimental. I suggest we turn to the last significant
non-scientists.”
“I believe you
refer to the greatest dreamer of the 20th century: Mahatma Gandhi,”
I replied.
“I have read about
him in the materials provided by Lord Pan,” retorted Archie. “I kept wondering
why you failed to mention him amongst political leaders.”
“Gandhi was a
freedom fighter but, unlike Sun Yat-sen and other revolutionaries, he never
became a Head of State. I find it more appropriate to deal with him at this
point.”
“I sense reluctance
on your part,” said Tiger, who had been observing me closely.
“There is,” I
conceded. “You see, I used to admire – perhaps even worship – Gandhi. Recently,
though, it dawned on me that my idol – like most idols – probably had feet of
clay.”
“In that case,
Peter’le,” interceded Moti, “it might be for the best if Gandhi’s attainments
were discussed by Archie.”
“Very well,”
approbated Archie. “I am always happy to take the buck when a barbarian like
our Peter’le wishes to pass it to me.” Tiger and I grinned.
“Mohandas Gandhi
was born in Gujarat and studied law in
University College of London University and then in the Inner Temple.
During his years as student, he became a member of the London Vegetarian
Society, which, in a way, was his first semi- political engagement. He was
called to the Bar in 1891 and returned to
“Did he develop a
successful legal practice there?” asked Moti.
“He didn’t. He was
bothered by the prevailing discriminatory measures and, in 1894, helped to
found the Natal Indian Congress, which opposed a new law confining voting
rights to Caucasians. These efforts failed and the law was passed. Even so,
Gandhi remained a loyalist. During the Boer War, he organised a team of
stretcher bearers, who took wounded English soldiers for treatment.”
“What was his stand
on the plight of Blacks?” queried Tiger. “I thought he was a freedom fighter only
for the cause of Indians.”
“This is true,”
retorted Archie. “By and large, he ignored the plight of the indigenous
population. He embarked on his policy of nonviolent protests in response to
humiliating attitudes and laws affecting Indians, such as their being
prohibited from walking on the pavement, or the steps taken to subject them to
mandatory fingerprinting. Some of his denigrators claim that he was racially
inclined and considered Africans inferior. Still, Nelson Mandela, who fought
and eventually saw the abolition of apartheid, regarded himself as having been
influenced by Gandhi.”
“He was,” I felt
the need to step in. “Basically, he adopted Gandhi’s passive resistance
philosophy. Gandhi, though, returned to
“Quite so,”
consented Archie. “Gandhi had by then gained the reputation of a fighter for
emancipation and acquired the title ‘Mahatma’, which, loosely translated, means
‘venerable’ or ‘saintly’. Gandhi became
a member of the Indian National Congress but – far from joining the ranks of
the wealthy Indians who led the party – he embarked on a trip through
“In other words,”
pointed out Tiger, “he stuck to his pacifist image whilst he encouraged others
to dirty their hands by spilling blood.”
“I cannot argue
with that,” replied Archie, “but be this as it may, Gandhi’s role became
prominent mainly after the end of WWI. In 1918, the district of Kheda was hit
by floods and an ensuing famine. Gandhi’s nonviolent protests and his
followers’ refusal to pay taxes, forced the British authorities to make
concessions.”
“I suspect that, at
this stage, Gandhi was still hoping for a peaceful resolution of differences
with the Raj – the British government of
“This is an
arguable point,” agreed Archie. “The next telling event led to a change in the
Mahatma’s approach.”
“I believe that you
refer to the Amritsar Massacre,” I pointed out.
“Even before it,
Gandhi took issue with the Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act of 1919
(commonly known as the Rowlatt Act), which gave the authorities the power to
imprison political suspects without a trial. On a Hindu festival of that year
Gandhi asked people to stage nonviolent protests and also asked them to burn
British clothes they owned and to boycott goods originating from that country.
The authorities warned him not to enter
“Was he in prison
when the Amritsar Massacre took place?” asked Tiger.
“He was indeed.
Actually, the peaceful assembly at a square in
“What was Gandhi’s
reaction?” asked Moti.
“He went on a
hunger strike with the aim of stopping riots triggered by the massacre. It had
its effect. The British press, though, remained ambivalent at this stage. When
the government in
“Tell us more about
his imprisonment,” asked Tiger.
“Gandhi was found
guilty of sedition in 1922 and sentenced to six years in prison. He was
released after two years and resumed his nonviolent resistance measures. The
highlight was the Salt March in which Gandhi and his followers marched some 388
kilometers to the coast of
“Did this protest
turn the tide?” asked Tiger.
“I believe it did.
It cemented Gandhi’s position as leader, which was further entrenched by his
continuing visits to communities throughout
“I think you may
turn to the ensuing negotiations,” I suggested.
“Very well,” agreed
Archie. “The negotiations were unsuccessful. Gandhi sought independence. The
British offered reforms the effect of which would have been the creation of a
Dominion still governed from
“True,” I
confirmed. “Odd to say, Gandhi resigned from the Congress party in 1934. It is
difficult to pinpoint the reason. In my opinion, his aim was to avoid the rule
of the monetary elite. Indeed, in 1936 – when Nehru (Gandhi’s friend and
follower) – became the Head, Gandhi did not restrain the Congress from
embracing a socialist agenda. Two years later Congress elected a leader, who
doubted Gandhi’s approach of nonviolent protest.”
“Did many British
politicians disregard Gandhi?” asked Tiger.
“Winston Churchill
– the undisputed hero of WWII – took a strong dislike to Gandhi and described
him as a Middle Temple lawyer, posing as a fakir striding half-naked ‘up the
steps of the Vice-regal palace…to parley on equal terms with representatives of
the King-Emperor.’ Many conservative British politicians took a similar view,”
I replied. Archie nodded and continued:
“Gandhi opposed the
provision of any help to the British forces during WWII. On this occasion his words fell on deaf ears.
Over two and a half million Indians enrolled in the British army.”
“Why did Gandhi
oppose any assistance to the Allies? Did he support Nazism?” asked Moti, who
looked genuinely bewildered.
“He didn’t,”
replied Archie. “Gandhi simply opposed all violence and, even during the rage of
WWII, pursued the goal of Indian independence. In 1942, he gave speeches urging
his people to stop all cooperation with
the Imperial government. He was arrested, found guilty of sedition and was
again sentenced to six years prison. Other leaders of the Congress party were
also incarcerated.”
“Did Gandhi stay in
prison for such a long time?” asked Moti.
“He was released in
1944 because of his failing health. By then the political climate had changed.
The Muslim League, headed by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, demanded that the Indian
sub-continent be divided into a
“What was Gandhi’s
reaction?” asked Tiger.
“He opposed the
partition but, in the end, yielded. In 1947, the partition into two independent
states was executed. It involved the migration of thousands of Hindus from
Having caught his
breath after this lengthy exposition, Archie asked whether I wanted to augment
his discourse.
“It is a neat
summary. Nowadays, though, many scholars
denigrate Gandhi. Some even consider him an agent provocateur
and a supporter of
“I sense you have
reservations about Gandhi,” averred Tiger. “Is this by any chance due to your
belief that the maintenance of a single
“This is indeed my
belief. You see, diverse communities can live in harmony and peace.
Unfortunately, a persuasive demagogue can lead to clashes and even civil wars.
One such demagogue was Adolf Hitler and the 20th century saw quite a
few ‘leaders’ of this type. I do think that sheer mayhem might have broken out
in a united
“Is this your only
reservation?” persisted Tiger. “If it were, you would deem Gandhi a dreamer. I
suspect that there is more than this to your feeling of unease.” Archie and
Moti nodded.
“True, I have some
additional hesitation,” I conceded after a pause.
“Does it by any
chance relate to Gandhi’s stand during the Holocaust?” asked Archie.
“It does. Gandhi
showed little sympathy to our people. He persisted in addressing Hitler as a
friend and alleged that the Führer was not a ‘monster’. Gandhi even went so far as to suggest that
“Gandhi described
the Holocaust as the worst 20th century crime against humanity,”
pointed out Archie.
“He did so after
“I understand,”
replied Archie. “However, aren’t you yourself guilty of applying to Gandhi a
measure other than what you adopt in the case of other individuals?”
“Archie is right,”
said Tiger. “I recall how you told us that you liked to listen to Wagner’s
music notwithstanding his overt anti-Semitism; and I recall that Henry Ford’s
racism did not, in itself, lead to your negative assessment of his contribution
to the 20th century.”
“Quite so,” I
assented. “But is it wrong to have great expectations when you deal with a
Mahatma?”
“Peter’le,” Archie
spoke gravely, “you push Gandhi off a pedestal which – in my opinion – he did
not seek to mount; others placed him there!”
“I have to agree,”
I replied after a pause. “In the ultimate he had a vision – a dream – which was
unrealistic and did not materialise.”
“We better turn to
other individuals meriting consideration,” suggested Moti.
“We should,” I
conceded, “but I need to raise one further matter. You see, some scholars
wonder what was Gandhi’s stand on the Hindu caste system. Shortly after his
return to
“What view to you
take, Peter’le?’ asked Archie.
“I am uncertain,” I
replied lamely.
“So we better leave
the point to ‘Gandhi’s scholars’ and turn to the scientists,” proclaimed Tiger
impatiently.
5.Leading scientists
“Shall we start with Albert Einstein?” asked Archie. “I am sure he
is in your list.”
“There can be no doubt about his stature,” I agreed. “Nonetheless,
I encounter a problem: I have read some of Einstein’s articles and, as is to be
expected, many works dealing with him. With the help of a friend in secondary school,
I came to grips with his theory of special relativity. Einstein’s general
theory of relativity baffles me. I suggest that, once again, Archie, who has an excellent scientific mind,
take the lead.”
“I’ll do my best,” grinned Archie. “What don’t we, the
Greeks, do for these hopeless barbarians?”
“Thanks,” I told him. “Please tell us all about the man
and his attainments. As you know, he is considered the greatest genius of our
era.”
“Justifiably so,” said Archie. “Einstein was born into a
wealthy Jewish family in
“Why was this so important?” asked Tiger.
“Newtonian physics, which embodied equations worked out
by Galileo, applies neatly to most moving objects on earth. Einstein worked out
how they would behave if measured in constant movement, including high
velocity,” articulated Archie.
“And general relativity?” I wanted to know.
“It is the geometric theory of gravitation. Einstein
worked it out in 1915. It provides a unified description of gravity as a
geometric property of space and time. Einstein treats time as a fourth
dimension. His theory implies the existence of dark energy and of black holes,
which are regions in which space and time are distorted to such an extent that
nothing, even light, can escape. Well, am I making myself clear?”
“As already mentioned, a friend in secondary school explained
special relativity to me,” I told him. “I think I grasped it, and you have made
it clearer. But when you refer to ‘general relativity’ I cannot help thinking
about a famous American doggerel by Dr. Seuss, in which a fellow called Sam
tries to convince another man to have ‘green eggs and ham’….”
“What?” thundered Archie. “You, Peter, are not just a
barbarian but also a boor! Instead of trying to understand you scoff! You ought
to be ashamed of yourself!”
Archie’s face was contorted, and he looked as if he was
about to throw himself on me. Instantly, Tiger placed himself between the two
of us. I, in turn, took a step back. It was the first time I saw Archie
assuming a menacing demeanour. The situation was saved by Moti, who asked
pointedly: “Green eggs and ham? Are they nice? Did that fellow or you yourself,
Peter’le, try them?”
“He didn’t,” said Archie who managed to relax. “And our
Peter’le is far too conventional to try such an unusual dish.”
Unexpectedly, a being materialised in front of us,
assuming the form of a waiter and carrying four handsome dishes of eggs,
covered with pale green mayonnaise, and ham.
“Will you have them here or there?” he asked with an
ingratiating smile.
“When offered by you, Lord Pan, I’ll have them
anywhere,” Tiger assured him, adding: “But we are decomposed. How can we enjoy
them? We have no physical taste buds.”
“Just this time I’ll see to it,” advised Theophil.
Greedily, Archie partook of one helping. I gave one to
Tiger, who gobbled it up happily. I then held one out for Moti. To my pleasant
surprise he lifted me up with his trunk, looked keenly at the proffered dish (although
it was not vegetarian) and ate it from my hand.
“Now that peace has been restored, you can resume your
discussion,” observed Theophil. “And you, Peter’le, should be grateful to them
for sharing your effort to select the right candidate.”
“I am.”
“Then all is well,” said Theophil and vanished.
As I looked up, I noted that my three comrades – Archie,
Tiger and Moti – looked at me searchingly.
“I suspect, Peter’le, that you do not like Einstein. Is
it partly due to his being a member of your community – the Jews?” asked Tiger.
“The very same question occurred to me,” interjected
Archie. Moti just nodded.
“You have a point there,” I had to admit. “You see, I
expect gifted members of the fraternity to be above board in all regards.”
“I understand,” supported Archie. “I, too, feel this way
when it comes to fellow Greeks. I often excuse errors in the demeanour of
barbarians. I take a far more severe stand when the blunderer is one of my
people.”
“But apart from this prejudgment, why do you have
reservations about Einstein?” queried Tiger.
“Well, I have no doubt that he was a man of genius,” I
conceded. “He was also a political figurehead. He wrote many public letters
denouncing the Nazis and preached pacifism. At the same time, he wrote a letter
urging President Roosevelt to encourage the search for nuclear fission so as to
prevent Germany from getting a lead. I agree with his stand on this point. My
problem relates to his originality and to his treatment of his first wife,
Mileva Mariċ. She studied and worked with him and, it would appear, that his
milestone paper of 1905 was written in collaboration with her.”
“Why didn’t she appear as co-author?” asked Tiger.
“Anti-women prejudices of that time. Einstein and Mileva
thought that a paper was more likely to be accepted for publication if signed
only by a male.”
“Didn’t he compensate her in any way?”
“Well, they had one daughter before they married. Her
fate is unknown. She might have died of scarlet fever or been given up for
adoption. After they married, they had two sons. Thereafter Einstein fell in
love with another woman. In the divorce settlement, he agreed to transfer his
Nobel Prize money to Mileva and left the sons with her. One became
schizophrenic and, in due course, had to be institutionalised. Einstein helped his
divorcee with the financial burden involved but did not leave her any money in
his will.”
“What disturbed you most, Peter’le?” asked Archie.
“Surely, you are not going to discredit a man’s genius in reliance on his love
life and matrimonial affairs?”
“Not really. But the remaining question concerns his
giving credit to others. Bear in mind
how Darwin – whom we discussed before – made sure that Wallace’s contribution
was recognised.”
“I take your point,” conceded Archie. “Still, Einstein’s
name became a household epithet for ‘genius’, even although many people did not
understand a word of what he said. What
became of Mileva?”
“She looked after her son, Eduard (a mentally
incapacitated man), until her death in 1948. The medical expense was
prohibitive. I know that Einstein had to provide financial aid. However, he
ignored his son.”
“The real question,” pointed out Archie, “is whether
Mileva should have shared the honour and respect shown to her ex. This is a
difficult question, Peter’le. Further, even in the case of general relativity
(which you profess not to understand) it has been argued that David Hilbert – a
German mathematician – worked it out before, or at the same time as, Einstein.
This was discussed in detail in 1986 by C.M. Will in Was Einstein Right.
Genius and intellectual superiority are not enough to propel a person to fame.
The skill of PR and self-advertising is also required. Einstein was good at
this. Mileva was a retiring and shy person.”
“Sometime others do this for you,” I added. “Please
recall that
“I couldn’t agree more,” Archie spoke warmly; and, after
pausing for a minute, added: “And there
is a further problem. Lord Pan’s materials indicate that although Einstein and
Mileva were exceptionally bright and intelligent there is no evidence to
support that this trait was passed on to any of their offspring. Eduard, as you
just said, developed schizophrenia; the other son – Hans Albert – became a
highly competent engineer but nobody would have called him a man of genius.”
“The current theory is that intelligence (or IQ) is
often inherited from a gene on one of the X chromosomes, usually passed on to
the offspring by the mother.”
“Well, Mileva was highly intelligent,” pointed out
Archie.
“Quite so,” I conceded, “but it seems to me that even in
this matter much depends on pure luck. A gene passed to the newborn from his
father may dominate and defeat the IQ gene passed by the mother.”
“Well, by now it is clear that Peter’le has grave
misgivings about Einstein. They are based on his assessment that Einstein
basked in the fame he ought to have shared with Mileva and, possibly, with
Hilbert. Let us turn to the next candidate,” prompted Tiger. Moti’s demeanour
manifested consent.
“Edwin Hubble,” I
told them, “did not have as glamorous a career as Einstein. Still, his name is
well known. Archie, you have read all about him. Please enlighten us.”
“Hubble was an American astronomer,” Archie told us. “He
was born in
“So, he did not start life with a view to a career as an
astronomer?” queried Tiger.
“No; he didn’t,” explained Archie. “During his
undergraduate years, he studied Spanish and, for a number of years, taught this
and other subjects at a High School. A few years after his father’s death he
switched to astronomy and obtained his Ph.D. in 1917. During his graduate
studies in astronomy, he had access to the telescope in the Yerkes Observatory
operated by the University of Chicago. This, I think, was a break of good
luck.”
“It was,” I stepped in. “Hubble joined the American army
during WWI. At the end of the war, he spent a year at
“Alright,” agreed Archie. “There is no point in going
through his equations. In papers published, respectively, in 1924 and 1929, Hubble
established that many ‘dust clouds’ or ‘nebulas’ supposed to be encompassed in
the Milky Way (our galaxy) were separate and distant galaxies. Further, he
established that the universe was expanding and that the remoter a galaxy was
from us the faster it receded. He proved this ‘Hubble Law’ mainly in reliance
on calculations based on the red shift of light waves.”
“Did his paradigm agree with Einstein’s theorem?” asked
Tiger.
“Not on one central point,” I told him. “Originally, Einstein
considered the universe a constant. In 1931 he conceded that it was expanding.
This did not affect either general or special relativity.”
“Peter’le,” observed Archie, “You displayed some dislike
for Einstein and, somehow, were not influenced by his work. But you looked
eager when I talked about Hubble’s Law. Why is that?
“Einstein’s
theories taught me that matter and energy could be interchangeable. He also
established that dark matter and black holes prevailed in the universe. Hubble
added an important and, to me, seminal point: the universe was both vast and
expanding.”
“So?” asked Moti.
“He demonstrated that our earth was small; virtually inconsequential.
Every human individual is tiny even in respect of our earth itself. How tiny
are we then in relation to the expanding universe?”
“What is the significance of this realisation?” queried
Tiger.
“If we – mankind as a whole – are such an insignificant
facet in the universe, how can we assume that its creator – if indeed He exists
– would be concerned about our lives and acts? Yet, the three major
monotheistic religions postulate a personal God. In my opinion, Hubble’s Law –
as well as later theorems – militate against these beliefs.”
“What was Hubble’s religion?” asked Tiger.
“He grew up in a Christian home. Later in life, however,
he appears to have become an agnostic, that is, a person who neither believes in
nor denies the existence of God.”
“Sounds a bit like you, Peter’le,” concluded Archie.
“Yes, I know: you want to avoid the burden of proof.”
“You approve of Hubble,” said Tiger. “Have you decided
to choose him?”
“I have my doubts. First, Hubble is not as well known as
Freud or Einstein. During his life he exercised little influence outside his
own field. Secondly, there is a question mark about his originality.”
“Oh,” muttered Moti. “Please explain.”
“Hubble published his Law in 1929. A French astronomer,
Lamâitre, reached a similar conclusion in 1927, and apparently published in a little-known
French periodical. In the English translation, published in 1931, the law is
not stated. Still, on balance it would appear that he verified the translation.
All in all, it appears that Hubble reached his conclusions independently.”
“Peter’le is right,” observed Archie.
“I am glad you agree, Archie. But there is a question which bothers me. Suppose that it
were established that the speed of light advancing through a vacuum was not a
constant. Where would this leave Einstein and Hubble?”
“Hubble’s law would, in all probability, remain intact.
The fact that the universe is expanding and that ‘the recession’ between
galaxies grows in relation to their distance was recalculated many times. The
explanation might then differ but Hubble’s Law would prevail. I am less certain
about relativity. Einstein’s calculations would need to be re-examined. Still,
we must now leave these two and have a good look at the remaining person on the
list: the scientist Marie Curie.”
“Well,” I
started, “Marie Curie was born in
“What induced her to pick
“She joined her sister, who had moved to
“Tell us about her discoveries,” directed Tiger.
“In due course, Marie’s attention focused on radiation
emitted by substances, such as uranium-based compounds. She used the recently
discovered x-ray and an electrometer to investigate the source of the
radiation. Before long both she and her husband concluded that the radiation
was emitted by the atom of a yet undiscovered element to be found in the substances
because these emitted more radiation than uranium on its own. Eventually, the
Curies managed to isolate two new elements: polonium and radium.”
“Did she win the Nobel Prize?” asked Archie. “I read
about it but am not certain.”
“The Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded, jointly, to
Pierre Curie and another scientist in 1902. Initially, Marie was not included
because of prejudices against women. However, Pierre Curie protested and so the
prize was shared between the couple and the other scientist.”
“I recall that her husband was killed in a road
accident,” augmented Archie.
“He was: in 1906. The
“I read about it,” observed Archie. “Hatred of
‘foreigners’ is an old malady.”
“She made major contributions during WWI,” I went on. “Her
mobile field laboratory, which used x-ray equipment, saved many wounded
soldiers from unnecessary amputations. She became the director of a Red Cross
Radiology Service and developed ‘radium emanation’ needles, which injected a
substance called Radon into wounds to sterilise them.”
“I recall that she was warmly received in the
“She was indeed. The
“I recall, Peter’le, that, in 1934, she died of
radiation sickness. She had contracted it during her scientific work with
radioactive isotopes and exposure to x-rays during WWI,” added Archie. “But
look here, I suspect that your admiration for her is emotive. Care to enlighten
us?”
“I watched a film about her, with Greer Garson playing
the title role. It impressed me deeply. But I do think that, by any objective
standards, she is outstanding,” I answered.
“Doubtless,”
volunteered Moti.
“So, you have opted
for her, Peter’le,” summed up Archie.
“What do you think
of my choice, Man of Syracuse?” I wanted to know.
“From your point of
view, she is valid. She made major contributions to science and to humanity,”
replied Archie.
“Wouldn’t she be
your choice?” I asked him.
“I don’t think so.
You are a man of the 20th century, which means that your
determination is, to a certain extent, emotive. For instance, you defer
Einstein because you do not approve of him as a person and also because you entertain
some doubts about his originality. You do not expect his type of behaviour from
a member of your clan. I would be far more detached. There is no doubt that
special and general relativity are landmarks. I would regard the person to whom
they are attributed as the most distinguished person of the century. Still, you
are entitled to make your own decision.”
“How about Curie’s contributions
when she joined the Red Cross during WWI?”
“They are fine
attributes but, in themselves, are not the qualities relevant in respect of our
current investigation. Still, I agree she was a leading scientist.”
“Would she be second or your own list of
preferences?” I wanted to know.
“It would be a toss
between her and a given non-scientist,” he replied.
“Who?” I asked,
bewildered.
“Mahatma Gandhi,”
Archie spoke with confidence. “His philosophy of passive resistance in lieu of
violent struggles was innovative. He was a man of vision! Still, the final
choice must be yours.”
XVIII. MARIE CURIE
(1867 – 1934)
1.Getting
ready for visiting Marie Curie
I decided to visit
Marie Curie in April 1934 (a year after my birth). By then, Marie Curie had
earned all her medals and honours and also knew she was a very sick woman.
In the case of
other punchees, I appeared accompanied by one of my ward-friends and actually
did not change my attire. On this occasion, Archie was not keen to accompany me
and both Moti and Tiger declined. Tiger felt that I did not need protection and
Moti decided to stay behind with Archie.
To the surprise of
all of them I felt the need to dress up.
“But what is wrong
with your informal attire, Peter’le?” asked Archie. “It is very comfortable: a
pair of slacks and a tee-shirt. This is the first time you contemplate
formalities.”
“I agree,” observed
Moti. Tiger nodded.
“But Marie Curie
was a lady. She may not take kindly to my informal appearance,” I explained.
“Wasn’t Livia
Augusta a lady?” persevered Archie.
“She was indeed;
but Marie Curie was virtually a contemporary. She died one year after my birth.
She would appreciate that my comfortable clothes were informal; Livia did not.”
“Oh well,”
interceded Tiger. “Why not ask for Lord Pan’s advice.”
As if he had been
listening, Theophil materialised in front of us. Looking at me critically, he
offered me a tuxedo and dress shirt.
“I don’t want to
overdo things, Maestro,” I told him.
“Oh well,” he
responded and offered me an ordinary suit, a plain shirt and a grey tie. It was
the outfit I used when delivering lectures.
“Can I have a
matching tie?” I asked.
“Sure thing,” he
grinned and proffered a number of ties. Having chosen an elegant red tie, I
looked around with satisfaction.
“And here is a
bunch of flowers: you may as well call on her as a proper gentleman,” chided
Theophil. “But remember, Peter’le: this is a business call – not a social one.”
“I know this,” I
assured him, “but I am sure she’ll appreciate my formal appearance. After all,
they wore the same type of clothes during her lifetime.”
2. A lengthy chat with Marie Curie
Marie Curie looked
out of her depth: “How did you enter
without using the knocker?”
“What you see is a
mere image,” I explained and, noting she remained bewildered, added: “The real
Peter Berger died of old age. You see his replica, looking as he did when
middle aged.”
“Oh well,” she
muttered. “To hear is to believe. But then, what induced you to come to this
place?”
She listened with
curiosity to my explanation. She then pointed out that, in her opinion, the
task set to me was unrealistic. Billions of people lived in our civilisations
from times immemorial. How could anybody pick the seven or eight most
significant individuals out of such a multitude? She felt confident that
progress was a slow process and that useful information must have been lost
over the years.
“Just think about
our own century,” she insisted. “How many important discoveries were made by
pure chance?”
“I agree,” I
confirmed. “But luck and chance are inadequate on their own. You need the right
person at the correct moment. Isn’t it remarkable that gravity was not
recognised until Isaac Newton ‘discovered’ what ought to have been obvious for
generations?”
“I take your
point,” she agreed willingly. “Sometimes, though, you must have the confidence
of your convictions so as to find those who would listen to you.”
“True,” I
agreed. “You imply that somebody may
have realised the existence of gravity but did not have the urge to make his
views known. The same could be true in respect of other mind-shaking
innovations.”
“Precisely,” she
approbated. Then, as if by a flash, she looked at the bunch of flowers I had
brought with me.
“Nowadays I rarely get
flowers. Young men bring them to their sweethearts and men of the older
generation are often afraid of being misunderstood.”
I grinned at the
stale joke whilst she took the flowers and put them in a vase which, I sensed,
had not been used for a while.
“When were you
born?” she wanted to know.
“In April 1933, in
“1933!” she
exclaimed. “That is the very year in which Adolf Hitler came to power.”
“You know about
him, don’t you?”
“I do; I do indeed.
He made the Munich Putsch – a coup d’ètat – about ten years earlier. It failed and
he was convicted of treason. I believe he wrote Mein Kampf in prison.
They let him out after only nine months. I hate him and his ideology.
Anti-Semitism was one of his tenets.”
“Anti-Semitism has
been dominant in
“It was,” she
confirmed. “It was professed in Czarist Russia, a vast empire that engulfed
“
“I know. For generations
“Tolerant havens
frequently become centres of anti-Semitism or any other form of xenophobia when
a minority becomes substantial, fails to mix with the indigenous population and
adheres to its own norms. For at least three
centuries
“I know,” she told
me. “In
“I am familiar with
the event; but – in the very least – Emile Zola published his letter, entitled
‘J’Accuse…!’, which eventually led to Dreyfus’ exoneration and reinstatement.
But why are you so familiar with xenophobia?”
“I was born in
“Why to
“My sister had
already moved there and so I joined her. So, you see, I know all about
prejudices.”
“These did not stop
you from reaching the very top,” I pointed out.
“They didn’t. But I
had a break of good luck when I fell in love with Pierre Curie and married him in 1895. We worked
harmoniously together. Even so, when the
“I know this.
Nonetheless you continued on your own after his demise in 1906.”
“I did; but, you
know, we isolated both elements: polonium and radium in 1895. It was a joint
enterprise. We supported one another. Both elements have a very short half-
life and so the task was complex.”
“Please don’t feel
the need to enter details. I am not a scientist and, in all probability, will
follow you only in parts.”
“Pierre and I noted
that a given compound emitted more radiation than would come from uranium and
thorium and so felt certain there were other elements present. We set ourselves
the task of separating them.”
“That much is easy
to follow. But the details of the process you used would be beyond me,” I told
her.
“We named the first
element ‘polonium’ after my homeland, which alas was at that time partitioned
between Czarist Russia,
“As far as I
remember, there were numerous struggles centred on
“It did; and I was
delighted. But I cannot forgive Lenin for his cruel instigation of wars
surrounding
“He was; but I decided to give him a miss. All in all,
he was a failure: he was unrealistic. His successor, Stalin, was a brute!”
“I know that Stalin
took over the reins. Is it true that he poisoned Lenin?”
“We can’t be
certain. I would not put it past him. Stalin killed anybody who stood in his
way or whom he suspected of disloyalty. His was a reign of terror.”
“Did you consider
him?”
“Overlooking him
would have been unrealistic. I also took notice of Sun Yat Sen and Mao.”
“I do not know much
about them. Who else was on your list?”
“Freud, Spengler, Einstein,
Hubble and Chaplin,” I told her.
“I met Albert
Einstein in the 1911 Solvay Conference in
“So did his
subsequent films but they were made after your time. My favourite is Modern
Times, which was Chaplin’s last semi-silent film.”
“Please tell me
about it.”
She listened with
interest to my narration. I followed it up by telling her about The Great
Dictator.
“What is wrong with
poking fun at Hitler? Don’t tell me that you approve of him.”
“Of course, I
don’t. The very mention of his name passes a shiver down my spine. But there
was nothing ridiculous about him. He was vicious: the epitome of evil. Chaplin
failed to bring out the nasty side of the dictator.”
“Actually, why did
you consider Chaplin?”
“He was a master of
his field: the cinema. His films depict the 20th century with all
its faults.”
“I see,” she
approbated. “Can you also tell me about Hitler’s actions?”
“Go ahead,” I heard
Theophil’s voice in my mind.
“Hitler became the
absolute ruler – Führer – of
“What did the rest
of the world say?”
“Not much: some
politicians fraternised with him and subsequently most turned a blind eye or,
like ostriches, buried their heads in the sand. However, some countries
sheltered Jewish refugees. But, Madame Curie: I do not like to talk about this.
Hitler ‘annexed’
“
“There wasn’t.
“So, there was a
war,” she concluded. “It must have broken out after my time.”
“You can tell her
about it,” my mind heard Theophil’s voice.
“Whom are you
listening to? Is there anyone else in this room?”
“You are
observant,” said Theophil and materialised in front of us, assuming the form of
an ordinary, non-descript, man.
“You look like my
father, Vladyslaw Solokovski; but he died years ago. Who are you?”
“I am Peter’le’s
mentor. Humanity refers to me as Satan, the evil Archangel; but I am a mere
observer and remain invisible unless I show my hand. Today I assumed a form you
could relate to, Marie. And it is easier if I – rather than Peter’le –
enlighten you. But don’t ask me anything respecting the end of your life.”
“I know my days are
numbered,” she told him. “Is it a sickness I picked up from the isotopes we
handled?”
“They and the
x-rays you administered (without the safety of protective shields, such as a lead
belt) when you joined the Red Cross during WWI. These rays and radiation act
slowly.”
“Well, please tell
me about the rest of the 20th century.”
Obligingly,
Theophil related to her the developments
which led to the outbreak of WWII. She looked surprised when he told her how
Hitler took back the
“My poor homeland’s
peace was destroyed once again,” she said bitterly. “I assume the West closed its
eyes!”
“Not so, Marie,”
corrected Theophil. “When Hitler attacked
“Did Adolf Hitler live
in peaceful co-existence with Communist Russia?” she wanted to know.
“He didn’t. In 1941
he launched a surprise attack on
“What happened to
“It became a
communist country; independent in name only. Stalin controlled all of Eastern
Europe and a communist regime sprang up in
“Did it regain
freedom?” she asked anxiously.
“It did,” confirmed
Theophil.
“I am relieved,”
she approbated; “but please tell me more about yourself.”
“What do you want
to know?”
“Are you of this
world?”
“Depends on what
you mean by ‘world’. I exist in another dimension but watching your universe is
my hobby.”
“So ours is not the
only universe?”
“You have to draw
your own conclusions,” said Theophil firmly and vanished.
3. Marie Curie’s later life
Marie Curie looked
at me searchingly. For a few minutes silence prevailed. Then she asked me if I
was familiar with her life after
“I believe you had
a hostile French Press,” I answered.
“I had two nasty
experiences,” she told me unfalteringly. “The first scandal took place in 1910
when I was considered for a vacant seat for physics in the
“I understand that
you reacted by immersing yourself in your research.”
“I did but it was
then discovered that I had a romantic affair with an unhappily married man. A
real scandal erupted in 1911. My lover had been a pupil of my late husband and,
like me, was a devoted physicist. The press went so far as to suggest that I
had carried on with him during
“You must have been
devastated,” I muttered.
“Wasn’t I ever!”
she conceded. “Still, by sheer luck I was at that time awarded my second Nobel
Prize. This was an additional recognition of my discovery of the two elements.
In my acceptance lecture I gave credit to
“And you met
Einstein in
“So I did; and he
sent me an encouraging letter when the scandal broke out, urging me to stand my
ground. I welcomed this warm support. We became family friends. Actually, why
did you select me rather than Einstein or Rutherford?”
“Let us take them
one by one. I did, of course, consider Einstein, but had some doubts about the
way he treated his wife and also in respect of his originality.”
“Are you telling me
that he was not a gentleman or an honest man?” she showed her irritation. “But,
be this as it may, how about Rutherford?”
“He was a great
scientist and I am sure that his splitting of the atom led, directly or
indirectly, to the concept of the atom bombs which the Americans dropped on
Hiroshima and on Nagasaki. This led to Japan’s capitulation. However,
“Is fame the main
criterion? I thought you were searching for the person who exerted major
influence on the 20th century?”
“I do. I appreciate
that
“I understand and
am proud. But, you know, my main contribution was my work for the Red Cross
during WWI. Radon helped to heal wounds, and my field x-ray device saved many soldiers
from unnecessary amputations.”
“I took this into
account. Note that Einstein and Chaplin gave lip service to the war effort but
did not risk their own lives.”
“Aren’t you too
harsh? And, you know, many ordinary men and women risked their lives whilst
serving in the Red Cross.”
“I don’t think I’m
too harsh. I must assess the individuals from all angles. And, yes, I know that
many individuals risked their lives; but their sacrifices did not leave an
impact on the 20th century.”
I sensed that it
was time to end the interview but felt the need to ask for her opinion of
Sigmund Freud and of Oswald Spengler. Marie Curie was forthcoming. She told me
that she had read Freud’s The Interpretation of Dreams but did not find
the tenets of benefit when she tried to rely on them to work out the meaning of
nightmares she had in the wake of the tribulations in her life. She had read The
Decline of the West but wondered whether Spengler’s prophecy materialised.
“The West has
declined,” I told her. “By the end of the century all colonial empires
disappeared. Nonetheless, I have doubts about the accuracy of his system.
History does not repeat itself and the future has remained ‘not ours to see’. Many
events which took place during the second half of the 20th century
were unpredictable during Spengler’s lifetime.”
“Please tell me: what
happened during the last decades of my century?”
“They were marked
by an electronic communications revolution. It was a process: in 1982 I
purchased my first personal computer, which had a word processing system. Later
I acquired a mobile phone.”
“A mobile … what?”
she looked perplexed.
“A telephone you
can carry with you. I am used to taking it with me wherever I go.”
“Sounds
interesting,” she approbated and, as an afterthought, added: “I wonder whether
this is a real experience or a mirage.”
Theophil whisked me
away before I had the time to reply or to bow to her. As if by flash, I was
back in my ward.
XIX. THE VERDICT
1.Back in my haven
Archie, Tiger and
Moti were pleased to see me back. To my surprise Theophil remained with us.
“Why did you spirit
me away, Maestro?”
“What else did you
want to ask her?”
“Actually, I was
done. Still, she is bound to know that my appearance was not a hallucination. She has the flowers.”
“They, too,
vanished. And the vase is back in the place in which she used to keep it.”
“Why?” I wanted to
know.
“As you know,”
explained Theophil. “Her appointed day is close. My object was not to disturb
events. Remember, I am not an interventionist. Also, this way she might think
it had been a pleasant dream.”
“In reality, Lord
Pan, you are humane,” observed Tiger.
“Wrong adjective
or, in the language of computer technology: ‘verb confusion’. You see, I am not
cruel, greedy, vain or condescending.”
“I see,” noted
Tiger. “Still, you do have a sense of humour.”
“I might have
picked it up from mixing with humanity,” retorted Theophil dryly.
“Or perhaps
humanity picked it up from you!” opined Moti. Noting that Theophil and the
three of us grinned supportively, he rose on his hind legs and trumpeted
victoriously.
“Also, if I like a human being,” explained Theophil, “I
try on occasions to do, by non-intervention, a kind act. For instance, I wanted
Marie Curie to believe she had experienced a rewarding mirage.” After a pause,
he added: “In any event, Peter’le: your final meeting with the panel is now
due.”
“I might as well
change back into my comfortable clothes.”
“You better keep
your attire. I am certain that He would approve of your working uniform.”
2.Discussion with the Panel
The panel looked
more welcoming than on previous occasions. For a while, I stared at Gabriel.
“You look like my
teacher in Tichon (my secondary school); but Dr. Frank died years ago.”
“So he did, but
then, today I set out to comfort you; and I want to make a point. Please tell
us, did you like your Dr. Frank? Hasn’t his influence over you lasted for decades?”
“Didn’t it ever? I
was impressed by his brilliant analysis of The Book of Job. I get
engrossed in it at least twice a year; and, actually, I read passages of the
Old Testament every evening. Further, Dr. Frank drew my attention to the
differences in vocabulary between chapters
38 to 41 [God’s reply ‘out of the storm’] and the magnificent poetry of
chapters 3 to 31. He opened my eyes,”
“Well, Eli,” said
Gabriel, using my Hebrew name, “don’t you think that some or perhaps even most
of the persons you selected were subject to an influence of this type, an
influence which might have been exerted by another, occasionally
undistinguished individual?”
“This may very well
be so. Livia Augusta might have taken her inspiration from studying Cleopatra’s
life: she grasped that often a kingdom is governed by the ruler’s consort.
Similarly,
“Precisely,”
replied Gabriel. “Occasionally, a common soul may make a remark or discuss an
issue which strikes a chord in the mind of another person, who becomes a
celebrity.”
“I accept your
conclusion, Gabriel. Further, I wonder if the role of an individual is simply
to come up with a theory or a thought that is timely. In other words, suppose
“What are you telling
us, Peter’le?” asked He himself.
“I am inclined to
think that development is a trend based on historical processes. The
individual’s role is limited. He (or she) must be the right person at the
appropriate time.”
“I see,” He said
supportively; “but suppose the right person does not appear on time? Could a
major development be delayed or simply fail to materialise altogether?”
“It could
definitely be postponed. For instance, if Marcus Aurelius had nominated a
worthy successor, the final decline of the
“How about an
entire change?” He wanted to know.
“I suspect that if Genghis
Khan had been killed before he united the tribes, the onset of the Black Death
might have precluded the rise of a Mongol Empire. Similarly, if Vladimir Lenin
had not had his stroke, Stalin might not have been able to seize power. It is
difficult to predict the course of the 20th century in such a
scenario.”
“Do you then think
that your search was futile?” asked Gabriel.
“I don’t. My task
was to identify the major contributors. I did my best but, in the process,
realised that luck has played a major role: luck and perhaps the common human tendency
to resist change or novel ideas. I do believe that the emergence of the right
individual at the appropriate time has played a major role in mankind’s
history.”
“We are inclined to
agree,” said He Himself. “All in all, you applied yourself in a commendable
manner. At the same time, your approach underwent a change when you reviewed
the 20th century and – to a lesser extent – the 19th
century. In the original stages of selection, you tended to be cool and
distant. You were guided solely by your mind. When you set out to select a
nominee of the 19th and 20th centuries, you were also
guided by emotions. Why is that, Peter’le?”
“The reason is
plain, God Almighty. I am a man of the 20th century. Many events
that took place during it, or the preceding century, had a direct bearing on
me. By way of illustration, take the battle of Stalingrad. When Nazi Germany
was defeated in 1942, I was already nine years of age. I knew that the Nazi’s
failure to take the city was an important and, to me, a positive development.
Similarly, when Rommel took a beating in El Alamain, I knew that our community
in
“We understand,”
said Gabriel. “In a sense, your outlook led to a transformation of our ordinary
proceedings. Usually, Theo acts as prosecutor (or ‘devil’s advocate’) and I
assume the role of counsel for the defence. In view of your close relationship
with Theo we decided to reverse the roles. In the end, though, you won me
over.”
“How?”
“By giving vent to
your feelings. All in all, mankind is governed by emotions. The mind – and an
analysis based only on reason – is alien to human nature. By way of
illustration, take Marie Curie. The discovery of the new elements and her work
on radiation was the fruit of scientific (and hence rational) deductions and
work. Her decision not to take out patents securing her rights over inventions,
was a highly emotive – and to my mind decent – reaction driven by her altruism.
I believe you fathom the trend.”
“I do; and please
explain to me why this met with your approval?”
“You remained true
to form, and, on this basis, I concluded that you performed your task
effectively. Nonetheless, we are baffled by one trend displayed by you. All
individuals considered by you in respect of the 20th century thrived
during its early decades or first half. Most of them were born during the last decades
of the 19th century but were active – and gained recognition – in
the 20th. Isn’t that true?”
“It is,” I conceded
willingly. “However, please consider the matter from my viewpoint. The impact
or achievements of individuals like Stalin, Mao, Einstein, Hubble and Marie
Curie were conveyed to me during my school years. Even a leader like Deng
Xiaoping – who came to power in the People’s Republic of
“So?” asked He Himself.
“The giants or
fiends of the second half – or the last few decades – of the 20th
century are too close to be identified. I am satisfied that a theoretical
physicist like Hawking or political
leaders like Margaret Thatcher will be remembered and have left a legacy. All
the same, it is too early to form a decisive impression. I am amidst things –
not above or detached from them.”
“I take your
point,” said Theophil, who had remained silent until then. “Could you perhaps convey to us your impression of the 20th
century as a whole or, in particular, of
its second half.”
“By and large, I
regard the 20th century as a period of great attainments, both in the
sciences and in the arts. In a way, it was a renaissance. Nonetheless, many
spells of genocide and of sheer mass slaughter took place during it. The
senseless WWI – the war in the trenches – and the horrid WWII remind me of the
Mongol conquests of earlier generations. These events of our modern era dwarf
the cruelties and brutality of earlier onslaughts.”
“Anything special
about the second half?” asked Theophil.
“On the positive
side I am inclined to regard it as the Pax Americana, marked by relative peace
and a drive for globalization. It was also the age of the electronic
revolution. I recall that in my days as a doctoral student I had to take the
train from Oxford to London to have access to the American law reports. Today
these are available online. Cosmology, astronomy and medicine experienced great
leaps forward. So did banking and finance.”
“Tell us a bit
about the latter,” asked Gabriel.
“Most banks have
become multinational. They have offices all over the world. When I first
arrived in
“Has society, too,
undergone a change?” asked my mentor
“I think it has.
First, people are open about and lay great stress on wealth and talk about
money. In the past, it was ‘vulgar’ to discuss money and, further, moguls
tended to become patrons of the arts or of a designated science. Today, they
are far more inclined to show off monetary success than ever before. In a
sense, this is not surprising. Capitalism centres on financial achievements. In the past, class and standing were of
greater significance than cash. Secondly, the newspaper world and the media have
gained strength. Whilst we find their roots in the 16th century,
they gained momentum and influence in our era. The press and the media can make
and break an individual; and in many ways they have become a propaganda tool.
Third, in the Western World, democracy has become the norm. Monarchies are
rare.”
“How about the
Orient?” asked Gabriel.
“Democracy reigns
in
“I agree with your
summary,” said Theophil. “You see, Gabri and I share a hobby: it is the study
of your civilisations. In your favourite tome – The Book of Job – He
asked me from where I came to our meeting, to which I replied ‘From going to
and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down it’ (Job 1:7): an apt
description.”
“How about
Gabriel?” I wanted to know.
“He actually mixes
with you. I already told you that on one occasion he worked in the Inland
Revenue Department. Centuries earlier he was in the court of Suleiman the
Magnificent.”
“As a vizier?”
“No, Peter’le. Like
Theo, I am a non-interventionist: I stick to low profile positions, which enable
me to see and examine without effecting a change. When the two of us compare
our notes we are usually in tandem; and He listens to us.”
“What is so special
about our world and about mankind in particular?”
“The fact that I
was its first mover and that Matey and Gabri like to study it,” explained He Himself
patiently.
“There is one
further issue I want to raise,” I said with trepidation.
“Go ahead,” said He
Himself.
“We tend to think
of history as divided into centuries,” I made my point. “Is this realistic?
Take the 20th century. The period preceding WWI is in most ways an
extension of the milieu of the 19th. Similarly, the 18th
century came to an end with the outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789,
which shattered the feudal world.”
“If you focus on
political developments, your observation is valid,” He replied. “But think
about the progress of science. Albert Einstein and Marie Curie impacted physics
and chemistry during the first decade of the 20th century. Should
you then consider them as 19th century thinkers because they were
born before the turn of the century?”
“Not really. They
were active during the first half of the 20th century,” I replied.
“In reality the
division of history into centuries is a matter of convenience,” augmented
Theophil. “Naturally, there are overlaps. The
Mongol Empire is an excellent example. Genghis launched it in 1206; it
lasted, with variations, till 1480, when Ivan the Terrible drove the Mongols
out of their Golden Horde. All the same, the Empire constituted a power supreme
during three centuries.”
“Yes, Peter’le,”
said Gabriel, “the division of epochs into centuries is a rough dating
yardstick. Further, developments in science and in the arts do not, usually,
coincide with political upheavals. They take their own course.”
“So, all in all, we
can adhere to this recognised criterion,” I agreed. “There is an element of
caprice in it but, in its own way, it constitutes a useful guide.”
“We shall now proceed to consider your case,”
He told me.” There is, nonetheless, one point I want to clarify. You are happy
in your present abode and – directly or indirectly – your work is in tandem
with Matey’s hobby. Do you feel that, in a way, you have already merged with
him?”
“I do, rather,” I
approbated. “Theophil wanders from place to place and gains insights. The
occupants of his ward assist me to analyse developments noted by him.”
“Well said,”
remarked my mentor.
3. The panel delivers final judgment
Without further ado
the three members of the panel vanished. Instantly, I panicked. Was I going to
be left lost in space or in a dimension incomprehensible to me? Then, to my
relief, I heard my mentor’s voice: “Don’t you worry, Peter’le; we shall
reappear soon.”
Right away, I
calmed down and waited patiently. When they reappeared, He Himself took the
lead. Obviously, the delivery of judgements was his task.
“In our opinion,
Peter’le you have carried out your task conscientiously. You are, accordingly,
free to merge with Matey. Still, there are gaps in your analysis. You chose
people who lived during antiquity but the medieval world and the renaissance
are not adequately represented. It is
possible that our having restricted you, originally, to seven punchees was
narrow.”
“This shortcoming
is due to our original decision,” agreed Gabriel, who had retained the image of
Old Frank of my days in secondary school. Then, after a short pause, he added:
“In reality though your work and effort are encompassed in Theo’s hobby or
field of interest.”
“Right you are, Dr.
… I mean, Gabriel,” I consented.
“Dr. Frank, or Old
Frank, would have been just as acceptable. You see, one of the personalities I
assumed during your epoch was that of your old teacher.”
“So, in a manner of
speaking, you paved the way for my link with Maestro: was it a wilful side
effect?”
“Not really,”
explained Gabriel. “It was a sheer coincidence that one of my pupils was to
become an adherent of Theo. Be this as it may, you better listen to the details
of our verdict.”
“Well, Peter’le,”
He Himself spoke judicially, “we have decided to allow you to proceed. Details
are left to be determined by Matey and yourself.”
“Please tell me,
Maestro,” I addressed my mentor, “would it be more effective if I merged with
you and, thus, took part in your travels or do you prefer me to stay in your
ward and be at your service from there?”
“Are you happy
there?” asked Theophil.
“I am, provided I
can occasionally travel to interesting periods or meet individuals deserving
attention.”
“That seals it,”
concluded He Himself. “You may return to Matey’s special ward and come over to
address us as you proceed with your study. Let me tell you: the medieval world
is not entirely dark. Interesting theological and philosophical developments took
place during this poorly researched period.”
Archie, Tiger and
Moti were glad to welcome me back. When I told them that I have returned for
good, Moti rose on his hind legs and trumpeted to his heart’s delight.
Comments
Post a Comment