Glimpses of World History

by Jawaharlal Nehru

  The Jews expected a messiah, and perhaps they had hopes of Jesus. But they were soon disappointed. Jesus talked a strange language of revolt against existing conditions and the social order. In particular he was against the rich and the hypocrites who made of religion a matter of certain observances and ceremonial. Instead of promising wealth and glory, he asked people to give up even what they had for a vague and mythical Kingdom of Heaven. He talked in stories and parables, but it is clear that he was a born rebel who could not tolerate existing conditions and was out to change them. This was not what the Jews wanted, and so most of them turned against him and handed him over to the Roman authorities.

  The Roman people were not intolerant so far as religions went, for the Empire tolerated all religions, and even if someone chose to blaspheme or curse any of the gods, he was not punished. As one of the emperors, Tiberius, said: “If the gods are insulted, let them see to it themselves.” The Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, before whom Jesus was produced, could not therefore have worried about the religious aspect of the matter. Jesus was looked upon as a political, and by the Jews as a social, rebel; and as such he was tried and sentenced and crucified at Golgotha. In the hour of his agony even his chosen disciples deserted him and denied him, and by their betrayal made his suffering almost unbearable, so that, before he died, he uttered those strangely moving words: “My God! My God! why hast thou forsaken me?”

  Jesus was quite young, being only a little over thirty when he died. We read in the beautiful language of the Gospels the tragic story of his death, and are moved. The growth of Christianity in after ages has made millions revere the name of Jesus, although they have seldom followed his teachings. But we must remember that when he was crucified, he was not widely known outside Palestine. The people in Rome knew nothing about him, and even Pontius Pilate must have attached little importance to the incident.

  The immediate followers and disciples of Jesus were frightened into denying him, but soon after his death a newcomer, Paul, who had not seen Jesus himself, started spreading what he considered to be the Christian doctrine. Many people think that the Christianity that Paul preached was very different from the teachings of Jesus. Paul was an able and learned person, but he was not a social rebel such as Jesus was. Paul succeeded, however, and Christianity gradually spread. The Romans attached little importance to it to begin with. They thought Christians were a sect of the Jews. But the Christians became aggressive. They were hostile to all other religions and they refused absolutely to worship the Emperor’s image. The Romans could not understand this mentality and, as it appeared to them, narrow-mindedness. They considered the Christians therefore as cranks who were pugnacious and uncultured and opposed to human progress. As a religion, they might have tolerated Christianity, but the Christian refusal to pay homage to the Emperor’s image was looked upon as political treason and was made punishable with death. The Christians also strongly criticized the gladiatorial shows. Then followed the persecution of the Christians, and their property was confiscated and they were thrown to the lions. You must have read stories of these Christian martyrs and perhaps you have also seen cinema films of them. But when a person is prepared to die for a cause, and indeed to glory in such a death, it is impossible to suppress him or the cause he represents. And the Roman Empire wholly failed to suppress the Christians. Indeed, it was Christianity that came out triumphant in the conflict, and early in the fourth century after Christ one of the Roman emperors himself became a Christian, and Christianity became the official religion of the Empire. This was Constantine, who founded Constantinople. We shall come to him later.

  As Christianity grew, violent disputes arose about the divinity of Jesus. You will remember my telling you how Gautama the Buddha, who claimed no divinity, came to be worshipped as a god and as an avatar. Similarly, Jesus claimed no divinity. His repeated statements that he was the son of God and the son of man do not necessarily mean any divine or superhuman claim. But human beings like to make gods of their great men, whom, having deified, they refrain from following! Six hundred years later the Prophet Mohammad started another great religion, but, profiting perhaps by these instances, he stated clearly and repeatedly that he was human, and not divine.

  So, instead of understanding and following the teachings of Jesus, the Christians argued and quarrelled about the nature of Jesus’ divinity and about the Trinity. They called each other heretics and persecuted each other and cut each other’s heads off. There was a great and violent controversy at one time among different Christian sects over a certain diphthong. One party said that the word Homo-ousion should be used in a prayer; the other wanted Homoi-ousion—this difference had reference to the divinity of Jesus. Over this diphthong fierce war was raged and large numbers of people were slaughtered.

  These internal disputes took place as the Church grew in power. They have continued between various Christian sects till quite recent times in the West.

  You may be surprised to learn that Christianity came to India long before it went to England or western Europe, and when even in Rome it was a despised and proscribed sect. Within 100 years or so of the death of Jesus, Christian missionaries came to South India by sea. They were received courteously and permitted to preach their new faith. They converted a large number of people, and their descendants have lived there, with varying fortunes, to this day. Most of them belong to old Christian sects which have ceased to exist in Europe. Some of these have their headquarters now in Asia Minor.

  Christianity is politically the dominant religion today, because it is the religion of the dominant peoples of Europe. But it is strange to think of the rebel Jesus preaching non-violence and ahimsa and a revolt against the social order, and then to compare him with his loud-voiced followers of today, with their imperialism and armaments and wars and worship of wealth. The Sermon on the Mount and modern European and American Christianity— how amazingly dissimilar they are! It is not surprising that many people should think that Bapu is far nearer to Christ’s teaching than most of his so-called followers in the West today.

  32

  The Roman Empire

  April 23, 1932

  I have not written to you for many days, my dear. I have been disturbed and thrilled by news from Allahabad, and, above all, by news of Dol Amma, your old grandmother. And I have chafed a little at my comparative comfort in gaol when my mother, frail and weak, has had to face and receive the lathi blows of the police. But I must not allow my thoughts to run away with me and to interfere with my story.

  We shall go back to Rome, or Romaka as the old Sanskrit books have it. You will remember that we have talked of the end of the Roman Republic and of the coming of the Roman Empire. Octavian, the adopted son of Julius Caesar, became the first monarch, under the name of Augustus Caesar. He did not call himself king, partly because the title was not considered big enough for him, and partly because he wanted to keep up the outward forms of the Republic. He therefore called himself “Imperator” or commander. This word imperator thus came to be the highest title, and, as you perhaps know, the English word “emperor” comes from it. So the early empire in Rome gave two words, which were long coveted and used by monarchs all over the world almost— emperor and Caesar or Kaiser or Tsar. Originally, it was supposed that there could only be one emperor at one time, a kind of boss of the whole world. Rome was called Mistress of the World, and people in the West thought that the whole world was overshadowed by Rome. This was of course incorrect and only displayed ignorance of geography and history. The Roman Empire was largely a Mediterranean empire and never went beyond Mesopotamia in the east. There were bigger and more powerful and more cultured States in China and India from time to time. None the less, so far as the Western world was concerned, Rome was the sole empire, and as such represented a kind of world-empire to the ancients. It had tremendous prestige.

  The most wonderful thing about Rome is this idea behind it—the idea of world-dominion, of the headship of the world. Even when Rome fe
ll, this idea protected it and gave it strength. And the idea persisted even when it was cut off completely from Rome itself. So much so that the Empire itself vanished and became a phantom, but the idea remained.

  I find it a little difficult to write of Rome and of its successors. It is not easy to pick and choose what to tell you, and my mind is, I am afraid, a bit of a jumble of ill-assorted pictures gathered from old books that I have read, largely in prison. Indeed, one of the famous books on Roman history I would probably not have read if I had not come to prison. The book is so big that it is difficult to find time, in the midst of other activities, to read it right through. It is called The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and is by an Englishman named Gibbon. It was written quite a long time ago—about 150 years—on the shores of Lac Leman in Switzerland, but it makes fascinating reading even now, and I found its story, given in somewhat pompous but melodious language, more engrossing than any novel. Nearly ten years ago I read it in Lucknow District Gaol, and for over a month I lived with Gibbon for a close companion, wrapped up in the images of the past that his language evoked. I was suddenly discharged before I had quite finished the book. The charm was broken, and I found some difficulty in finding the time and the mood to go back to ancient Rome and Constantinople and read the hundred or so pages that remained.

  But this was nearly ten years ago and, of course, I have forgotten a very great deal of what I read then. Still, enough remains in my mind to fill it and confuse it, and I do not want the confusion to pass on to you.

  Let us, first of all, cast a look at the Roman Empire or Empires through the ages. Later perhaps one may try to fill in the picture a little.

  The Empire begins with Augustus Caesar on the eve of the Christian era. For a little while the Emperors pay deference to the Senate, but almost the last traces of the Republic disappear soon enough, and the Emperor becomes all-powerful, a wholly autocratic monarch—indeed, almost a god. During his lifetime he is worshipped as semi-divine. After his death he becomes a full god. All the writers of the day endow most of the early Emperors with every virtue—specially Augustus. They call it the Golden Age, the Age of Augustus, when every virtue flourished and the good were rewarded and the wicked punished. That is the way writers have in despotic countries, where it is obvious that the praise of the ruler pays. Some of the most famous of Latin authors—Virgil, Ovid, Horace—whose books we had to read at school, lived about this time. It is possible that after the civil wars and troubles which took place continually during the latter days of the Republic, it was a great relief to have a period of peace and respite when trade and some measure of civilization could flourish.

  But what was this civilization? It was a rich man’s civilization, and these rich were not even like the artistic and keen-witted rich of ancient Greece, but a rather commonplace and dull crowd, whose chief job was to enjoy themselves. From all over the world foods and articles of luxury came for them, and there was great magnificence and show. The tribe of such people is not extinct even yet. There was pomp and show and a succession of gorgeous processions and games in the circus and gladiators done to death. But behind this pomp was the misery of the masses. There was heavy taxation which fell on the common people chiefly, and the burden of work fell on the innumerable slaves. Even their doctoring and philosophizing and thinking the great ones of Rome left largely to Greek slaves! There was exceedingly little attempt to educate or to find out facts about the world of which they called themselves the masters.

  Emperor followed emperor, and some were bad and some were very bad. And gradually the army became all-powerful and could make and unmake emperors. So it came about that there was bidding to gain the favour of the army and money was squeezed from the masses or from conquered territories to bribe the army. One of the great sources of revenue was the slave-trade, and there were regular organized slave-hunts by Roman armies in the East. Slave merchants accompanied the armies to buy up the slaves on the spot. The island of Delos, sacred to the old Greeks, became a great slave-market, where sometimes as many as 10,000 slaves were sold in a day! In the great Colosseum of Rome, a popular emperor used to display as many as 1200 gladiators at a time— slaves who were to die to provide sport for the emperor and his people.

  Such was Roman civilization in the days of the Empire. And yet our friend Gibbon writes that: “If a man were called upon to fix the period in the history of the world when the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus”—this means the eighty-four years from 96 AC to 180 AC. I am afraid Gibbon, with all his learning, has said something with which most people will certainly hesitate to agree. He talks of the human race, meaning thereby the Mediterranean world chiefly, for he could have had little or no knowledge of India or China or ancient Egypt.

  But perhaps I am a little hard on Rome. It must have been a pleasant change to have some measure of peace within the Roman dominions. There were frequent wars on the frontiers, but within the Empire there was, during the early days at least, the Pax Romana—the Roman Peace. There was some security, and this brought trade. Roman citizenship was extended to the whole Roman world—but remember that the poor slaves had nothing to do with it. And also remember that the Emperor was all-powerful and the citizen had few rights. Any discussion on politics would have been considered treason against the Imperator. For the upper classes there was a measure of uniform government and one law. This must have been a great gain to many people who had previously suffered under worse despotisms.

  Gradually the Romans became too lazy or otherwise unfit even to fight in their own armies. The farmers in the countryside became poorer under the burdens they had to carry, and so did the people in the city. But the emperors wanted to keep the city-folk pleased, so that they might not give trouble. For this purpose free bread was given to the people of Rome and free games in the circus to amuse them. Thus they were kept in good humour, but this free distribution could only take place in a few places, and even this was done at the cost of misery and suffering to the slave populations in other countries like Egypt, who provided the free flour.

  As the Roman people did not readily join the armies, people from outside the Empire—“barbarians” as they were called—were enlisted, and the Roman armies came largely to consist of people who were allied or related to the “barbarian” enemies of Rome. On the frontiers these “barbarian” tribes continually pressed and hemmed in the Romans. As Rome grew weaker the “barbarians” seemed to grow stronger and more daring. From the east especially there was danger, and as this frontier was far from Rome, it was not easy to defend it. Three hundred years after Augustus Caesar, an emperor named Constantine took a great step which was to have far-reaching consequences. He actually shifted the seat of his empire from Rome to the East. Near an old city called Byzantium on the shores of the Bosphorus, between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, he founded a new city, which he called, after himself, Constantinople. Constantinople, or New Rome as it was also called, became then the capital and seat of the Roman Empire. Even today in many parts of Asia Constantinople is known as Rum or Roum.

  33

  The Roman Empire Splits up and Finally Becomes a Ghost

  April 24, 1932

  We shall continue today our survey of the Empire of Rome. Early in the fourth century of the Christian era—in 326 AC— Constantine founded the city of Constantinople, near the site of old Byzantium, and he shifted the capital of his empire all the way from old Rome to this New Rome on the Bosphorus. Have a look at the map. You will see that this new city of Constantinople stands on the edge of Europe looking out towards mighty Asia; it is a kind of link between the two continents. Many great trade-routes passed through it, both by land and sea. It is a fine position for a city and for a capital. Constantine chose well, but he or his successors had to pay for this change of capital. Just as old Rome was a bit too far from Asia Minor and the East, so the new eastern capital was
too far from the western countries, like Gaul and Britain.

  To get over this difficulty for a while there were joint emperors, one sitting in Rome, the other in Constantinople. This led to a regular division of the Empire into the Western and the Eastern. But the Western Empire, which had Rome for its capital, did not long survive the shock. It could not defend itself against those whom it called the “barbarians”. The Goths, a Germanic tribe, came and sacked Rome, and then came the Vandals and the Huns, and the Western Empire collapsed. You must have heard the word Hun used. During the last Great War it was commonly applied by the English to the Germans in order to make out that the Germans were very cruel and barbarous. As a matter of fact in war-time everybody, or almost everybody, loses his head and forgets all that he has learnt of civilization and good manners and behaves cruelly and barbarously. The Germans behaved in this way; so did the English and the French. There was little to choose between them in this respect.

  The word Hun has become a terrible term of reproach. So also has the word Vandal. Probably these Huns and Vandals were rather coarse and cruel and did a lot of damage, but we must remember that all the accounts of them that we have got are from their enemies the Romans, and one can hardly expect them to be impartial. Anyhow, the Goths and the Vandals and the Huns knocked down the Western Roman Empire like a house of cards. One of the reasons why they succeeded so easily was probably because the Roman peasantry were so utterly miserable under the Empire, and were so heavily taxed and so much in debt, that they welcomed any change. Just as the poor Indian peasant today would welcome any change in his terrible poverty and misery.