Roman Historian admits Augustus was a Monarch

[Onasander]

New form?

 

As opposed to the old Etruscan Monarchy? Or the monarchy of Persia, or Egyptians, Babylonians, Gauls?

 

What made it "a new form", in terms of divergent characteristics?

 

I'm nitpicking only due to the fact students and authors view this site a lot, a phrase of that can spawn a theory of some new form of monarchism among historians that other sociologists will someday scratch their heads at.

 

Monarchies, especially dynastic ones, don't always begin squeaky clean in line with the presumptions of the population, customs, or even constitutions. Take for example, how many young princes have been placed under a regency of a older uncle, general, or minister and they later on launched a coup or the young prince mysteriously died? Or Marxist and Anarchist Kingdoms in North Korea and formerly Libya.

 

I don't think there is anything too special about Augustus and Caesar that merits giving them their own special subcategory within monarchy, other than the farce carried on that they were not a monarchy.... which is understandable given the Roman adversion to outright accepting a return to monarchism, as it hurt their apecial identity as a republic. But Greeks had parallels prior, and plenty of societies since. Rome does play as a arvhetype, a important one, but not special in and of itself in giving it a separate status for political theorists to nitpick.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Onasander

[C. Fabius Lupus]

I wanted to say "new" in comparison to the Tarquinian kings, not new in the history of monarchies.

The Tarquinians were still hated even in the time of Caesar and Octavian. So they had to be careful to avoid the title rex or any formal similarities with the former monarchy. It would have been political suicide. This is why it tok so long to establish the formal framework of the principate.

[caldrail]

There was no formal framework to the Principate. The traditional Roman government still existed, the Senate, which still flexed its muscles, albeit with some circumspection for obvious reasons. What Augustus did was establish rule by domination and military support. He excused this by extending the client/patron social system to place him above all else - which was why he was calling himself 'First Citizen'. This did of course set a sort of acceptable precedent that others followed after him, and notice how impatient the politicians of Rome got with most of the Julio-Claudians. Nothing in Roman law said how a new ruler was to be chosen, or what qualified him. There was nothing in Roman society that actually maintained a Roman Caesar was necessary to run Rome.

 

For those studying Roman history there are plenty of descriptions of 'Roman emperors', or 'Roman monarchs', but this is simply categorisation by the modern world using frames of reference that are ahistorical in regard to Roman society. We livve in a world where we usually read about rulers officially accepted by the state, or the people themselves. In the case of the Roman Caesars, Augustus created a precedent for using the legions as an excuse for political power - and indeed, Cassius Dio says as much.

[Onasander]

Augustus didn't just create a pattern of hierarchial support like the Medici did via favors, he actively cultivated the senatorial classes' youth, actively giving out rewards and acknowlesgement, and provided for a higher degree of culture and learning accessible to said youth.

 

Hence the libraries and importation of philosophers, as well as the active encouragement of local poets. He was making Rome the new Alexandria and Athens, accessible locally. He also went through substantial efforts to stabilize marriage and hereditary lines. Orgies or elicit sex with roman women was discouraged (unless your name was Augustus, so exceptions were made).

 

Its obvious he didn't just set himself above and over as a monarch, but also took very active interest in the lineage of the Roman nobility, trying to better stritify it on a political framework akin to Aristotle's outlook. He was planning longterm, in no way was this a short term dictatorship.

 

However, even though he did inherit a philosophical framework (likely from Arius Didymus), his actual going about it was rather disappointing. He was, after all, a roman of the old roman system of sexual-political morals. Its laughable to say the roman senate could still flex its muscles when Augustus systemmatically atrophied its chief muscles, the Consulship, mocking it a way those a few generations easiler would of been sickened and dismayed at the site of.

 

I wouldn't begin to claim his dynasty built a constitutional monarchy either. All Romans knew what a monarchy was, Rome was surrounded by societies that had been monarchies, and had them in its own history. Fairly simple system. Just they never could outright admit to it it seems as long as Rome was the capital.

 

They did eventually abandon this farce however once the capitals began to move. Any long lasting civilization switches its capital on occasion, for whatever reasons. The most obvious thing I see with the Roman Senate after it switched away was how Emperor conscious the Senate in Rome remained, until the very end when the only emperor lived in the east in Constantinople and they had little reason to be attached at that point. During Sulla to Augustus, they had to face down more conservative, Republic minded generals who fought the tin pot dictators tooth and nail. Yet, at the far end of Roman History, what seems to of made a population Roman was its adherence under a Emperial Despot or Emperor. Holding Rome, or Constantinople didn't much matter in the sense it did for Marius or Sulla, Octavian or Anthony. That Urb was essential, as was the control of A SENATE (they made a 300 member senate in Spain as a replacement of sorts).

 

Hence Augustus wasting away in mockery the actual power of the senate. Didn't much matter to him, but he found the bloodlines and achievements of said members as crucial. He even preserved Marc Anthony's offspring. He had a conscious outlook as to what Roman Nobility was, and his state was built around this. This of course, went to hell in the end, but left its mark on future systems heavily. Its only now that its falling apart by the left in the west. We extended the idea morally to everyone under Christianity via marriage as the cornerstone to society. Ancient political theorists, all pagan (save for a few Jews in Alexandria who also would of) political philosophers would of recognized this and applauded us. Its very, very questionable where we will go ultimately however now.

 

Augustus embraced Aristotle that the Family was the root all society was built from, as the smallest institution all other institions were firmly built on. Now we are swinging morally to an early Stoic model that the political body is bounded together (and thus groomed and discriminated via hate against) by universal love. Its hard to say which is more painful and discriminatory objectively, but this latter is obviously more prone to fascism, rape, pedophilua, and brutality. The Spartans were built upon such a system, and its prone just as much, if not more, to illogic and demogaguery via rhetorical pronouncements.

 

We think we live in a modern age, but we don't. We are merely switching from Augustus' Aristotelian system to a wild and unstable Stoic Zenonian System. A monarchy, as well as a republic, can exist in both, and in a sense, inevitably incorporate elements of the other into it for its preferred classes, but the transition can be hell, and its only a portion of the world's population and territory doing this switch. Africa, via Christianity is pursuing the Aristotelian model, while China remains Confucian (not too dissimilar). However, most modern intellectual ideas and technology the west uses favors the older, more stable system and mindset.

 

We have Augustus to thank for that stability. He was a tyrant, but did earn his reputation for ending the civil wars. The entirety of his system fell apart, but did manage to survive to the near present, and we can see it dying all around us.

 

For Caldrail, how long do you link a stable concept of nobility and monarchy, based on family values can possibly last as the population of England increasingly swings away into unabashed atheism and socialism, where father and mother are antagonistic, love is free and property is held in suspicion when amassed and put to good works? Right down the drain, huh?

 

You can see Augustus' system a bit now more clearly.

 

There is a PDF on the net, Google this:

 

 

[PDF]aristotle and arius didymus on household and polis

www.rhm.uni-koeln.de › Nagle

[Onasander]

Also compare this analysis of Kim Jung Un's "Court Economy" to this Dynasty, especially Augustus' rule:

 

http://www.nkeconwatch.com/2010/04/28/more-on-kim-jong-ils-court-economy/

[C. Fabius Lupus]

I think you are overinterpreting this issue a little bit. The family system was important to Augustus, but he cannot be credited for inventing it. And certainly the Stoics would not feel properly represented by the current social changes in the modern Western world.

You have for sure touched an important issue, but it is not really connected with the topic of the monarchy during the Principate.

 

However you made an interesting observation regarding the switch from the Principate to the Dominate and how it coincides with Rome losing its status as capital.

[caldrail]

Wasting away the power of the Senate? I don't think so. It is true that the Senate tends to be seconbdary in the sources after Augustus, but then it would. The Caesars are celebrity rulers and much more newsworthy. The majority of senators were not especially forward and many prefeered a quiet life. Nonetheless, the Senate was holding the reins briefly after CValigula was assassinated. Only the Praetorian Guard imaintained the rule of the Julio-Claudians by threat of violence. Again, the Senate declared Nero an enemy of the state, effectively deposing him. The common themes of Augustus as a ruler are far more aligned toward modern conceptions of office that ignore the peculiarities of the Roman social system. I don't argue for a moment that Augustus was out to rule - his own wife knew him as a control freak - but the balance between official power and social control is not what people normally assume. Cassius Dio is in no doubt. He declares that Augustus was as good as a monarch - but that description does infer thsat he wasn't in actuality, nor could Augustus afford to be. I also agree he wanted a dynasty - that again satisifies Roman sensibilities, since the wealthy elite liked nothing more than 'chips off the old block', but in that he was thwarted. The Romans themselves acknowledged that Augustus riuled as Imperator, or military commander, having assumed ownership of the legions as a whole, and this woul;d remain the primary source of eligibility to rule - it did not come from the state nor the people, but would always remain opportunism and popularity.

[Onasander]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longinus_(literature)

 

I haven't read this work yet, its interesting as its from Caesar or Augustus' reign, quotes Genesis, and eyes the slippage into the stupid era on the principate. I'm guessing this obviously would fall prior to building the libraries under Augustus in Rome, but experiencing a retardation in actual classical roman political oratory skills for the more showy and polished rhetoric or the Greek philosophical schools.

 

Lupus... early stoics would be opposed to the concept of marriage that we have.

 

There is a book "The Stoic Idea of the City". I strongly recommend reading it, as I doubt I can better phrase his explanations of the debates between the early stoa and the skeptics.... and bit a Christian philosopher in site to upset any prejudiced sensibilities.

 

I also recommend looking over the Arius Dudymys link. It may horrify you to know were merely transitioning between two Roman philosophical systems in the modern era, in what in America is the conservative vs liberal battle. I'm sure it looks purely christian vs enlightened everyone else to you. I am of course stereotyping you unfairly, but I fill the void with the general pagan attitudes I encounter on philosophy boards.

 

The two systems aren't very compatible, and Zeno's System of universal love was modeled off the Spartan state. He was also quite twisted in that all vices in his Vice/Unworthy scheme seem to be based off the psychological disorder ADHD, and he nails the behaviorism down rather well. Christianity inherited his system of Vices and Virtues as our deadly sins (via Chryssipus, and many modifications by church fathers, was originally 8).

 

You probably know as well Jews were polygamists. They had a system of "household management", which is the very topic we are dealing with here, which was what Aristotle dealt with too. He built his system up from bottom to top, from the unity if man and woman making a household. Zeno didn't use a fully alienated system, there are points of compatibilities. But the ultimate systems do not end exactly the same. I know very well from experience. I'm not just a Christian, but also a Cynic, though I've been becoming more and more of a Stoic as time goes by. I've seen how chaotic and twisted mentalities can be in these 'communities if love'. Yeast infections are quite common, as well as drug use and getting bitten by dogs. I can give you travel directions to study it first hand if you wish. One thing I noticed though was how juvenile and fast groups were to erect bias and engadge in hatred.

 

The upper class attraction to epicurian philosophy in Rome is easy to understand, as it happened in closed villas. You could get away with it. However, Augustus (via likely Arius Didymus, who was a expert on both Zeno and Aristotle) seemed rather obsessed with this. Marriage did become the basis of his state. Though Feudalism didn't exist then, he did lay the basic framework for its political cohesion of house built upon house. But his system was still more than it. The idea from that Korean link on Kim Jung In and "Court Economies", its a rather new phrase, but a very old and discernable behavior among monarchies. I could fill a book with parallels between monarchies using variations on that theme (so will from now on use Court Economy as a concept on this forum, unless someone knows a better name.) Augustus had certain advantages over the DPRK, in that it was a actual empire with a robust internal economy. He could make or break "political careers", whatever that was worth. In the case if consuls, not worth diddly squat if viewed from a traditional morale of the dignity and importance of the office, but in terms of showing how loyal and badassed you were, and open to overt political bribery in buying the office and fleecing entire provinces, then yeah, it was worth it. Most of the executive powers of any worth got stripped from the senate, and I wouldn't even say it was piecemeal. It went through the rituals of consigning offices, etc.... but the obvious powers, Caesar and Augustus, were in charge all along.

 

Certain conservative points however, they could successfully protest, such as Marc Anthony becoming a priest to Caesar's cult. He wasn't yet a proper member of the senatorial class due to his marriage ceremony which disqualified him for priestly office. When he remarried, he made certain to qualify. This sorta crap wasn't a roadblock for Augustus as he understood it, and took control of it.

 

Hence, why Christians use the Roman system of Roman marriage. Augustus was quite successful, and Christians generally were Roman, and recognized non-christian marriages of converts. You head to Africa, the One-Man One-Woman rule isn't as solidly enforced, as the Christianity which developed there hadnt the string roman influence. Charlegmange had several wives too. Polygamy lasted a long while, and we couldn't even get the Roman incest rules enforced till the 11-12th century. These were quite pagan ideas originally, and the very cream of roman political philosophy of its highest era. History can be a rather sloppy thing, doesn't always abide to our ideological expectations of it.

[C. Fabius Lupus]

Monogamy is a pattern of European culture. We find it in Greece (including Sparta, inspite of its institutionalized pederasy) as well as in the Gallic and Germanic tribes and of course in Rome. Even the Stoics had to comply with the legal framework of monogamous marriage, no matter what utopic theories they were developing.

Monogamy is not as common among the barbarians. This includes the Middle East and Africa.

When Charlemagne practiced polygamy, then it was based on what he had read in the "Old Testament", a book written by Middle Eastern barbarians, whose primimitive religious practices had spread in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire through a radical Jewish sect known as Christians.

European culture is the basis of the monogamous family, not Octavian, not Aristotle and not the Christians.

It should not come as surprise that today's crisis of the monogamous family in the West coincides with a new wave of barbarian invaders from the East and South, the unchecked spread of their culture and the postmodern relativism that has undermined European identity.

 

P.S.: I am sorry, if my language is not politically correct, but rectitud politica is not really a Roman virtue.

[caldrail]

 

 

Certain conservative points however, they could successfully protest, such as Marc Anthony becoming a priest to Caesar's cult. He wasn't yet a proper member of the senatorial class due to his marriage ceremony which disqualified him for priestly office. When he remarried, he made certain to qualify. This sorta crap wasn't a roadblock for Augustus as he understood it, and took control of it.

Not sure what you mean, because Caear did not have his own cult as such. Caesar had become Pontifex Maximus which made him head of the Roman religion, whilst Antony was given a lesser office to do with interpretuing the will of the gods.

 

Antony had four wives as far as I know, none of whom appear to have disqualified him for senatorial status - indeed, the only woman who would have disqualified him by virtue of assuming monarchial status was Cleopatra. Although she eventually agreed to marriage, they both committed suicide before this was done.

 

Marc Antony was viwed as a potential tyrant after the death of Caesar due his manoeverings, whereas Octavian supported the Senatorial faction, although Octavian was also in trouble over land confiscatiobns.

[Onasander]

Do you have any sources for that info? Its been a while since I've read about Mark Anthony not being qualified to be a priest in Caesar's cult (and I recall seeing lists of said priests, four if I recall, Anthony being the first) and Augustus had one or two before they merged the two cults together.

 

Anthony was essentially blocked because the marriage to the first wife (I presume first wife) had the wrong kind of marriage ritual. When he remarried, he did it right and so got to fulfill Caesar's wish as the priest in his cult.

 

I really hope he wasn't in the habit of dispensing spiritual wisdom. I guarantee you any religious manual he used likely had penis' scribbled in the margins, and stick figures LOL'in the hijinks of one another.

 

I however wasn't even aware he married four times, I only knew of two wives and then Cleopatra. Can't say all your facts are wrong, but I can't imagine I got the role of priest wrong, he definitely seems to of been one, no matter how absurd that idea of him occupying a priestly role in seriousness is. It be like making Pauly Shore the US Secretary of State, staring down Iran and Russia and ISIS.... nobody would take him seriously, but that is apparently what Caesar wanted.

 

 

Lupus.... digging back even farther into my memory, touching memories with lacunas in them, I believe it was Romulas who established the Roman marriage laws. Apparently no one even divorced for 40 or 140 years after he established them, or a ruler very shortly after Romulas. The Greeks could only legally marry one woman at a time, and this was for legal offspring that could inherit, but the wife usually had to have a qualified status too for full civic inheritance (citizenship, voting rights).

 

Celts had marriage, but it was a sexual free for all, all the men in the small house could bang the wife, but the husband legally was father whatever the result.... I saw that in a documentary, not a book. Was a long time ago.... but this isn't too different from the Romans just prior and even after Augustus. We know the upper class women were sluts, to borrow the feminist diction, and loved their orgies. Yet you also have the contrast with The Rape of Lucretia, of the chaste and 'good' husband wife relationship. I wouldn't be too thrilled if my wife killed herself for me or some sense of virtue if she nor I was at fault. Greek men could only have one wife, but the could have female concubines, slaves, household massuses, etc.

 

There was of course some oddities happening in Africa, certain sex cults that could fit your bill. I don't know about Egyptian practices, they SEEM monogamous if their religion is any insight.... marriages seem stable enough.... though the guts liked to cum on one another's head, which can suggest outside hanky panky with the guys could happen outside marriage (if they had nob royal marriage, I really don't know). Jews had stable polygamy. I don't know about mesopotamia at all. I don't know about the Germans. Asia Minor.... dunno. Its allowed in Islam 4 wives. A free for all in India. China could have more than one wife if emperor, but general trend was monogamy.

 

The Stoics and Atristotlians did knock off their religious homosexuality and child rape practices later on. I don't have much evidence Diogenes carried it far, not even certain if he met Crates, sources are mixed, and Crates seemed to of been in a stable relationship, and looked down on certain sexual excesses (such as a female murderer who got off in court because she was so beautiful that her defendant ripped her top off.... the male jury refused to execute her, Crates found this upsetting, it be like Jodi Arias showing her breasts off to get out of her murder charge).

 

I think Coptic Christians do have monogamous relations. The Christians living in the maghrib until the 15th century would of been, as well as the many Jewish tribes there till near modern times. Most Muslims have only one. I don't know about the Etruscans or Spanish tribes. I don't know about Carthage. I don't think I can say it was just Europeans or just Romans. Seems other groups have this claim too, but the data I read over the years haven't filled in all my gaps. All those houses of prostitutes in Pompeii signify a less than monogamous paradise. Heck, Hoover's stintbin the FBI suggests the US at the height of its religious emphasis on monogamy and stable cultural living was prone to affairs, he had dirt on every politician, a lot undoubtedly sexual links and affairs. He was a closet gay and cross dresser, so he knew the power such information could gave when held over others head. Monogamy admittedly isn't in full accord with our desires or impulses, and a overemphasis can backfire, as Augustus found with his own slutty daughter.

[C. Fabius Lupus]

Onasander, did you want to prove my point or did you want to disprove me by changing the definition of monogamy (moving the goalposts fallacy)?

All your examples confirm that formal legal marriage was in Europe only between one man and one woman, while among Non-Europeans it was often not. The Christians adopted this custoom due to their fusion with Roman culture. Hence the Copts are monogamous. Informal extramarital affairs (concubines, mistresses, slaves, secret lovers etc.) do not qualify as polygamy, just as successive marriages after divorce or death do not. Only simultanous legal marriages do.

Of course not all men in a polygamous society have the chance to marry several women, since there are not enough women available. Normally there are not more female babies born than male babies.

Egypt was not strictly monogamous by the way. The best known example might be Ramses II who had eight known royal wives, of which seven are known by name: Nefertare, Istnofret, Bint-Anath, Aerytamun, Nebettawy, Henutmire, Maathomeferure and an unknown Hittite princess that he married after the peace treaty with the Hittites.

 

To summarize my point again: Neither Aristotle nor Octavian nor the Christians established monogamy. It is a cultural pattern of the European peoples (Greeks, Romans, Germans, Celts).

Edited April 16, 2015 by C. Fabius Lupus

[caldrail]

 

 

Can't say all your facts are wrong, but I can't imagine I got the role of priest wrong, he definitely seems to of been one, no matter how absurd that idea of him occupying a priestly role in seriousness is.

That's because your view of a priest is defined by modern christian convention. The role for Romans was less formal , even temporary, but with as much social importance. Also bear in mind the very close connection between religion and warfare which had been the case since Rome's earliest history. For a man with patrician status the roles of military commander or priest were part of his potential responsibilities. Clearly however by giving Antony the post in the College of Augurs, Caesar was looking to appoint a right hand man whilst he continued as Pontifex Maximus.

 

Regarding his marriages, Cicero mentions Antony's first wife, Fadia, the daughter of a freedman. Cicero was very critical, almost abusive, toward Antony and no doubt pounced on this bit of info. Cicero is also the only source for that but in fairness I haven't studied the Phillipics in detail. However, I don't know that it formally removed him from senatorial qualification. Being named a traitor by the Senate in 31BC when the Second Triumivrate collapsed definitely would.

[Onasander]

I just checked his wikipage, he apparently had five wives, so you were closer, but both of us were wrong. He wasnt a patrician till he became a priest, his family was plebian, says so right on his wiki. Both he and Octavian started out as plebs.

 

His wiki claims he may of been a priest of some cult I don't recall hearing of, Lupercal.

 

He was appointed also to the college of augers. This is a priestly office, but we don't have a equivalent for it in modern Roman Catholicism (Hugh emphasis on Roman there Caldrail).

 

 

Also says he wasade high priest of Caesar's cult. His wiki doesn't mention however when he legally switched from Plebian to the Senatorial order, just links the close proximity to his remarriage chronologically. I'm late on my break, gotta get back to work.

 

You got some explaining to do in how a Roman Catholic isn't gonna grasp the status of a officially appointed roman priest to a state cult. Christianity started off independent of the Roman state, but the religion definitely merged and adopted the features of the roman priesthood. Its quite a incredible stretch on your part.

[Onasander]

I didn't prove your point, nor argue for or against it. Furthermore, and this isn't the first time I've stated this, I'm opposed to the concept of "logical fallacies", as it retards the nature of debate and favors only a handful of neuro feedback loops in the brain, usually favoring a handful of stable personality types, usually based out of the Thalamus. Its been argued that most teachers and professors are of this type, but those same theorists admit that they aren't the best teachers or even the smartest. My approach typically is to assume all men are naturally philosophical, and that all forms of thought are factually based, just the schema we present some facts in are incompatible with how we present other kinds of facts. Its why I put heavy emphasis on the anatomy of facts at the forefront of my understanding of rhetoric. I've been known to accept tangential arguments and outright lies as part of a debate even when others have declared fallacy on their part if for nothing more that to see how the dialectic unfolds. People tend to gravitate towards certain patterns of thinking, I accept this as a cosmopolitan aspect of philosophy. I'm very cautious of limiting replies, even when it turns to cursing and slurs. It took me several years to convince a moderator staff of this on a philosophy site, and only convinced them of it when I could show two guys fighting tooth and nail were using different neurochemicals in their arguments, but that the objections everyone offered to their mutual violence was uncalled for, since the neurochemicals they were so separate in are known to mix and make a positive attitude, in a higher level of thinking. They were in fact the best prescription for one another.

 

That is debate, the dialectic, philosophy at its crux.

 

Now, you see me as holding a singular position, proving or disproving. I was never of such a mentality. I take a aggressive and combative stance in debate, but its the natural style of rhetoric a Cynic always has taken. Name one enemy of Diogenes and Crates? None, yet they argued constantly. They were propelled foreward in search of a greater search for truth.

 

In your case, I can point to several "fallacies", presuming several societies were or were not monogamous. A legal marriage does not equal monogamy if the husband and wife constantly fucks around. Greeks were not monogamous. Latins, its questionable. It seems they had this concept that we inherited the bias of, but how well? I seriously doubt they were truely monogamous till well after Augustus started his reforms. Christians undoubtedly jumped on that bandwagon, but can't say it was just him.

 

Likewise, as I'm taking a cosmopolitan outlook, I can't rule out any society having these two traits I've put on Aristotle and the early Stoa.... it seems rather obvious to me Arius Didymus was the transmitter of the former idea to Octavian, but I can't say this wasn't a force already at play in every society.

 

I expect some pharaohs to of been polygamist. I'm talking about Egypt as a whole, where son inherited the fathers land for generations, over thousands of years. A farmer civilization based on the Nile and barren desert. Not alot of degree for flexibility. I assume monagamy, but can be certain.

 

I simply lack data, and your clearly not getting that marriage isn't the real of sexual mobagamy, its a reference to real fucking. If your a guy, and your mating with several women, in your household, you got multiple mates. All the marriage did was confirm transfer of property and status of certain offspring. This varied alot, from city to city, civilization to civilization.

 

And Europeans in your definition doesn't match mine. I include all Europeans, not just romans.

 

My position is studying the information and theorizing. I'll always seek out the contradictions and give evidence that might advance or negate a argument. I have a love of the dialectic itself. I rarely stop where everyone else feels statisfied that the end of an idea has come, I push on. There are a lot of cranial nerves in the brain, I like to know how a idea, fact, theory relates to the webbing of each one. I've given a duality for a stage of Roman history, and how it parallels in function today. But I still ponder how universal it is. Would this apply to the middle ages or a thousand years from now? I don't quite know. Just know it applied to the Romans then, and a great extent now. Still pondering it.