The King Who Exalts Himself

The king referred to in the title to this post appears in the Book of Daniel.  He's sometimes associated with King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon; sometimes with Antiochus Epiphanes of the Seleucid Empire; sometimes with the Antichrist.  As may be expected, he exalts himself above all others, even the gods, is supremely arrogant and devotes himself to self-glorification.  As may also be expected, he comes to a bad end.

There's something peculiar about a person who, being in a position to do so, names places and things after himself.  Or for that matter refers to himself in the third person.  Or finds ways to glorify himself instead of or in place of others. Or at the expense of others.

 There's something very peculiar about someone who does so when it is normally the case that this is done only after the death of the person whose name is used in recognition of great deeds done while he lived.

No other president has indulged in this kind of self-glorification, and for good reason.  They would have been thought close to mad if they did so.  They would have seemed ridiculous, pitiful, unusually needy, risible.  They would be mocked.

This kind of excessive pride in oneself is particularly unbecoming in someone leading a republic.  It is, instead, characteristic of an autocrat or dictator. So, in modern times, such displays of hubris have been indulged in by the likes of Franco, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Kim Jong-il, and the Duvaliers.  In antiquity Nero, Caligula and Elagabalus, among others.  Shelley's Ozymandias is an example from poetry.

The person doing this must be terribly insecure, convinced that he won't be remembered or if remembered will inspire laughter and contempt.  He can't expect he'll be honored by the nation, so instead he must honor himself.  One would think those close to him would warn him of how this makes him appear.

The curious thing is he'll be remembered for exalting  himself.  That's what will be considered remarkable about him.  Not in a good way, however.  Self-promotion will be what he's remembered for, to the point of absurdity.

The Misery Of The Sycophant

 

If we are to believe Suetonius, Gaius Caesar, better known as Caligua, was responsible for various atrocities and absurdities but was lavishly praised by those who served him and were under his dominion, including Senators, though they were fully aware of his malice, cruelty, and even madness.  They knew he was ruining the Roman state but extravagantly praised him and facilitated his sometimes deadly caprices for self- serving reasons--sometimes to curry favor, sometimes to remain alive and unmolested.

They were sycophants, in other words.  Eventually, certain Praetoreans assassinated Caligula, saving the wealthy nobility of Rome from further humiliation (which they accepted and even celebrated) at his hands.

Sycophants flourish whenever and wherever there are persons of great wealth or who have great power.  History is full of them.  More recently, sycophants abounded during the reigns of Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and abound now in North Korea where Kim Jon Un has his worshipers, willing or unwilling.

We have our sycophants today, of course. They fall over each other in their eagerness to acclaim the person they serve.

As a rule, sycophants know those they praise and flatter so assiduously are unworthy of adulation. They may even hold them in contempt.  They may be aware that those they call a genius, or claim to be a savior, or contend are the finest (insert title) ever, are in fact fools or maniacs or the worst (insert title) in history. This doesn't matter, however.  Whether due to fear or in pursuit of personal wealth or power, they will laugh at jokes made, compete in efforts at adoration, though all the time loathing those they hail as gifts God has granted the human race.

Sycophants therefore are contemptible themselves.  But do they deserve pity as well? Imagine the shame today's sychophants must feel for debasing themselves, what little self-esteem they must have. Their excessive accolades are embarrassing. Will they eventually acknowledge their degradation? Or will they, in an unconscious effort to to avoid self-loathing, come to convince themselves that their ridiculous, shameless pandering was right and proper?  We must wait and see.

Benevolent Dictatorship

It seems a growing number of persons in our Great Republic have come to believe it should not be a republic.  They think it may continue to be great, of course, unless they're one of those who believe it isn't great currently, but may be again, once it is no longer a republic.  

Those who think this way apparently favor a form of government more in line with autocracy or dictatorship.  They're certainly not the first to do so.  The belief that there has been or may be such a thing as a benign despot, or benevolent dictator, has a long history in our long, and sad, history.

It's an attractive belief.  We imagine someone holding near absolute or absolute power who would do the thinking for us, act in our interest, for our benefit, dispense what we think is justice, create and maintain prosperity, allow us to do what we think we should be able to do, all without hinderance from opponents or onerous regulations and requirements.  But has there ever been such a ruler, or could there be one?

Pictured above is one person who was considered a benevolent dictator, Lucius Ouinctius Cincinnatus.  He was quite literally a dictator as that was a position one could be appointed to by the Roman Senate.  The Roman dictator had unlimited authority, or imperium, but only for a specified period of time (usually 6 months).  A dictator was appointed in times of emergency.  Cincinnatus held the position twice.  When his term was up, he returned to private life.  In accordance with his legend, he's shown plowing his fields when representatives of the Senate arrive to tell him of his appointment. 

He's a model of the disinterested figure who takes up sole power solely for the benefit of the state and its citizens, and gives it up when his service to the state is done.  George Washington enjoyed being compared with him.

Later dictators weren't necessarily as popularly remembered.  Lucius Cornelius Sulla in particular is remembered as a man who brought his legions into Rome in violation of tradition, during the conflict between him and Gaius Marius, and essentially through force of arms remained dictator as long as he pleased.  During his dictatorship he proscribed all those he considered his enemies and dangerous to the patricians he favored.  He did give up his powers, though, eventually, and lived a comfortable private life until his death.  

Augustus may actually have been something close to a benevolent dictator after he seized supreme power in Rome, but was ruthless in his quest to obtain it.  The later so-called "good" emperors, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, may be called benign at least in comparison to other emperors of Rome.

In more recent history, Frederick the Great was thought of as a benevolent despot but I suspect that was because he was something of a philosopher, learned and cultured, in addition to being a great military leader, and such things played very well in the Age of Enlightenment.  Napoleon was believed to be one as well, at least by some, at least for restoring order and glory to France after the chaos of the French Revolution and the Terror.

Subsequent rulers with great power can't reasonably be considered benevolent, however.  Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Mussolini aren't considered benign by most, and for good reason.  It seems they were considered to be benevolent for quite some time, however.

A dictator must be considered disinterested to be benign, I think.  In other words, the ruler's goals and conduct mustn't be selfish, or favor friends and relatives, or supporters, primarily if not solely.  Likewise, enemies should be punished based on the extent the state is harmed by them.  Although great or absolute power may be exercised, it must be in the service of the state or its citizens.  Otherwise, a ruler is merely self-serving.

But what one considers a benign dictatorship is subjective, now, entirely.  And calls made for it are, sometimes blatantly, dishonest,  Those seeking power for themselves or others do lip service to justice and impartiality and patriotship, but do so in such an inane manner as to bring their credibility in question.  Just listen, and hear.

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Mussolini considered liberal democracy to be a weak and ineffective form of government, too inclined to consider elements they and those like them thought to be foreign or contemptible.  Those who now dream of an autocracy replacing the democratic type of government here think much the same, judging from their comments.  They imagine absolute power applied in their favor and against others.  There's nothing benign about an autocracy which is intolerant and exclusive.  

If there is such a things as a benevolent dictatorship, that's not what's being sought or desired, here and now, and no amount of fear-mongering or misrepresentation can hide that fact.  What's being sought is a government by certain people, for certain people and of certain people.

The Grotesque and the Age of the Ugly

"Grotesque" is one of the words the meaning of which will vary, even significantly, with context.  In the world of art, it may be fanciful and absurd and not necessarily ugly and repulsive in an exaggerated sense.  It need not be disturbing, in other words; it may even be considered playful.  But in other contexts the grotesque is abnormal, monstrous and ugly, malformed.  Which I think is to say disturbing.

The word seems apt to our times and the state of our world when given its darker sense.  Of course we have more than our share of absurdity now, but the absurd is always with us as is war and the poor.  It's part of the nature of our beastliness.  There is nothing remarkable about it. What we also see, though, is ugliness.  This is an ugly time and place.  

The grotesqueness of the 20th century is typified by its monstrous nature.  It was a century of colossal monsters--Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot.  Mass murder by ideologues characterizes that era.  It's quite early yet, of course, but judging from what has taken place in the 21st century we won't have such monsters.  Instead, this century will be full of nasty, spiteful, self-righteous, bigoted, ignorant, loud and vulgur figures.  Ours is the Age of the Ugly.

Consider the picture appearing at the start of this post.  It's one of the grotesque figures appearing in the margins of the remarkable Luttrell Pslater, a version of the Book of Psalms prepared in the 14th century at the behest of Sir Geoffrey Luttrell, lord of the manor in Irnham, England.  This document is considered of great significance for its portrayal of life in medieval times in that area, on parchment.  People are shown engaging in a variety of agricultural and rural pursuits.  Sir Geoffrey appears in full armour.  The delightfull pastime of bear-baiting is shown, chickens are fed, corn harvested; people dance, wrestle, play, work.

Amidst the psalms and the illustrations there appear abnormal, impossible creatures like whatever is shown above.  Perhaps I speak only for myself, but these creatures, made up as they are of the limbs and faces of different animals and peoples, and sometimes other things, may well be absurd and even amusing in a certain sense, but overall have a nightmarish quality to them.  They're creepy.

Illustrators and scribes of medieval times are known to have drawn odd and humorous figures on manuscripts of various kinds.  One can imagine that they would want to add some frivolity to what must have been very difficult work.   But I find it hard to characterize this particular drawing as comic.  I wonder what was the artist thinking, and I doubt he was trying to be funny.

It was a very religious time, a supernatural time, and the work being prepared was religious in nature.  Are such illustrations intended to contrast with the scenes of normal life depicted for the purpose of noting that the unnatural and demonic inhabited the same world and were among us, even though unseen?  Do they in some way mock the people shown, especially the high and the mighty?  Are they intended to reflect people as they in fact are and not as they appear--show normal people to be abnormal, twisted and repulsive if their true characteristics are known?

It's hard to say what kind of art will be created in this century.  I suppose there will be those who actually paint in addition to those who generate computer images of various kinds (at least, I hope there will be such artists).  How will the shoddy, craven, venal people, high and low, we see all about us be portrayed by our artists, if not engaged in gun fights and car chases and sex, all of which seem ubiquitous in our entertainments?  

Artists of the grotesque in this era won't create incredible, fanciful creatures or combinations of them, or even monsters, I think.  Instead I imagine them drawing misshapen, grubby, rat-like characters engaged in mean and petty acts, disgusting rather than disturbing, tiresome instead of fearful, farcical rather than absurd.