In an earlier posting I explored the origins of the Yarab surname, tracing it back to the Slovak surname Jaráb, which is related to the Czech word for crane, jeřáb. That essay also discussed the Eurasian crane, significant in Slovak culture, and explored the symbolic traits associated with cranes across various cultures. Such traits include wisdom, vigilance, mercy, and grace. Cranes also feature prominently in the mythology and folklore of many civilizations, including the Bashghirds, Arabs, Greeks, Koreans, and Japanese. After investing so much time in the research, I decided to write a poem, or lyrics, and set it to music using Udio.com. The result is above. For a detailed understanding of the various references in the lyrics of the song, please visit the posting at On The Origins of the Yarab Surname.
Category: History
Echoes of Self: Confronting Hyper-Individualism and Materialism in America
Introduction
The erosion of civility and community values that once formed the bedrock of American society has been mirrored by the rise of politicians, judges, and business leaders who champion hyper-individualism, greed, and materialism under the guise of pseudo-American values. These values, far from being genuinely American, are more akin to the adolescent, poorly thought-out, morally bankrupt principles espoused by Ayn Rand. After witnessing several recent judicial decisions by unprincipled U.S. Supreme Court Justices, state court justices, and local judges, as well as unhinged remarks and rants by national, state, and local politicians and candidates, I was inspired to write the lyrics to “Echoes of Self” to critique these troubling trends and the philosophies that are leading us astray.
The Loss of Civility and Community
Historically, American values have been rooted in a sense of community, mutual respect, and collective responsibility. The concept of “we the people” signifies a collective identity and shared purpose. Granted, we as a nation started out poorly by excluding many people from our great promise based on color and sex, and have periodically excluded others based on national origin. But we have made great efforts to overcome these national deficiencies and to meet the American promise for all Americans.
However, in recent decades, and most especially in recent years, there has been a noticeable shift towards celebrating hyper-individualism and personal gain at the expense of community and civility. This shift is evident in the rhetoric of certain politicians and business leaders who glorify self-interest and material success while disregarding the broader societal impacts of their actions.
The Rise of Hyper-Individualism and Materialism
The ascension of figures like Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Peter Thiel epitomizes this new wave of hyper-individualism. These individuals, along with their enabling politicians, promote a worldview that prioritizes personal success and wealth accumulation over community welfare and ethical and moral considerations. This mindset is often cloaked in pseudo-American values, presenting themselves as champions of freedom and opportunity. In reality, these values are foreign to the traditional American ethos of shared responsibility and social cohesion. Feigned outrage over manufactured crises and boogeymen distracts from issues both real and critical to the health of the commonweal.
The Influence of Ayn Rand’s Philosophy
The philosophy of Ayn Rand, particularly her emphasis on “rational self-interest” (the greed is good society) and minimal government, has played a significant role in shaping this new value system. Rand’s ideas, which celebrate the individual’s pursuit of their own happiness above all else, have found a resurgence among the billionaire class and their supporters. However, these ideas are fundamentally flawed and contrary to both traditional American values as well as Catholic social doctrine (which I mention as having been raised Catholic but find so many “conservative” American Catholic bishops and “believers” abandoning in the MAGA era). It has saddened me that even some Catholic friends have embraced Ms Rand’s adolescent, mis-guided philosophy of greed and self-interest.
Critique of Ayn Rand’s Philosophy
Ayn Rand’s Objectivism prioritizes individual achievement and self-interest, often at the expense of empathy and community. Here are key points of critique:
- Lack of Empathy and Social Responsibility: Rand’s philosophy dismisses the importance of empathy and altruism, viewing them as weaknesses. In contrast, traditional American values and Catholic social doctrine emphasize the importance of caring for the less fortunate and fostering a sense of community.
- Hyper-Individualism: Rand’s extreme individualism undermines the social fabric by promoting a “survival of the fittest” mentality. This is antithetical to the principles of solidarity and the common good that are central to Catholic teaching and the American democratic tradition.
- Minimal Government: Rand’s advocacy for minimal government intervention fails to address systemic inequalities and the need for collective action to support the vulnerable. In contrast, both American civic values and Catholic social teaching recognize the role of government in promoting justice and protecting the rights of all citizens.
- Economic Inequality: Rand’s acceptance of economic inequality as a natural outcome of individual differences ignores the structural barriers that prevent equal opportunity. Addressing these barriers through governmental policies is essential for a just society. It is clear from various economic analyses that income and wealth have become unconscionably concentrated in the hands of very few individuals. This cannot be explained by merit alone; the system has been rigged with billionaires essentially buying politicians who write laws that favor the extremely wealthy, allowing them to avoid taxes that others cannot.
Inspiration for “Echoes of the Self”
“Echoes of the Self” is a reflection of my deep concerns about American civil society. It was directly inspired by watching recent speeches of Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance, reading the words of Mr. Musk, reading about how Mr. Thiel financed the election of a U.S. senator from Ohio, and reading multiple recent judicial decisions where the words in statutes or constitutions were disregarded when judges had an ideological agenda to fulfill.
(Statement to the press on August 21, 2019)
Conclusion
Through “Echoes of Self,” I aim to highlight the dangers of adopting Ayn Rand’s philosophy as a guiding principle for our society. Perhaps as a society, we will find our way back to the values of civility, community, and shared responsibility, fostering a more compassionate and just society. And, perhaps, I will have time to produce a more interesting video to accompany this song, but for now, this will have to suffice.
Vincent of Beauvais and the Evolution of Book Indexing
Conveniences commonplace today were once novel. In this regard, today let us remember with gratitude Vincent of Beauvais, who died in 1264 AD, for making access to to the content of books easier. He is credited as having been the first writer to systematically provide indexes for his works, a trend which others eventually followed. He added an index to every single book of his Speculum historiale after 1244. This kind of apparatus only spread more widely in the field of historical writing during the fourteenth century, beginning with the Tabula secundum litterarum ordinem alphabeti on the same work by Vincent, composed by Jean Hautfuney in Avignon around 1320. Thank you, Vincent!
Source: Kujawiński, J. (2015). Commenting on historical writings in medieval Latin Europe: A reconnaissance. Acta Poloniae Historica, Volume 112, 169. Especially see footnote 26, which states the following: “See the study and edition by Monique Paulmier, ‘Jean Hautfuney, Tabula super Speculum historiale fratris Vincentii’, Spicae. Cahiers de l’Atelier Vincent de Beauvais, Nouvelle série, 2 (1980), 19–263 (on Vincent’s indexes, see 20–3), and ibidem, 3 (1981), 5–208. Both Vincent’s and Jean’s indexes are discussed within the history of medieval historiography by Guenée, Histoire et culture historique, 232–7, and within the history of medieval indexes by Olga Weijers, ‘Les index au Moyen Âge sont-ils un genre littéraire?’ in Leonardi, Morelli, Santi (eds.), Fabula in tabula, 11–22, here: 20–1, and il. 5.”
From Obfuscation to Enlightenment: Addressing Narcissism in Scholarly and Artistic Communication
The act of writing for others is often fundamentally narcissistic, driven by the desire to impress or profit. Academic scholars and artists are cited as examples of this tendency, with their use of language and prose serving to elevate their own status rather than effectively communicate with diverse audiences. This points to a broader issue within academic and artistic discourse, reflecting a deeper narcissism that pervades all writing and creative work. The challenge lies in balancing inherent self-focus with a genuine commitment to clarity and accessibility, ultimately creating works that are intellectually enriching and broadly impactful.
Writing for others is, except in the most exigent of circumstances, a fundamentally narcissistic act. The words we compose for others may be necessary, convenient, expedient, pleasing to the reader, and otherwise desirable. However, ultimately, writing for others is an act of narcissism, akin to all creative endeavors by which we seek to express ourselves, profit, or impress others.
If one writes with style, erudition, clarity, and aplomb, while simultaneously instilling a semblance of humility within that writing, one has grasped a technique that few have contemplated and fewer still have mastered. In a previous posting, it was noted that the Ursuline sisters early on admonished me and the other students at St. Luke Elementary School to avoid the perpendicular pronoun, and other first-person personal pronouns, at or near the beginning of sentences. Thus, contemplation of humility in writing persists, though I am fairly confident that I have not grasped this technique with any modicum of success.
The above is a precursor to commentary on some academic writing that I have observed in the past several weeks.
The first example is the most recent I have encountered and served as motivation to write this post. The text reads as follows:
“Or consider Matthäus Schwarz of Augsburg, who while still a child, at the age when the young Dürer painted his first known self-portrait, conceived the ambition of writing an autobiography, an ambition that would become a reality fifteen years later, after he had become chief financier for the Fuggers at age twenty-five. At that time he wrote an account of his private life entitled The Way of the World and simultaneously painted watercolors of himself in various costumes. A more narcissistic project can hardly be imagined. This brilliant mind, this confidant of one of the most powerful men of his time, led a full life yet deliberately chose to indulge himself by concentrating his attention on appearances and frivolities. Having achieved success, the adult cast an eye back on his childhood. His sentimental and mordant commentary suggests what feelings the men of the Renaissance, after generations of self-absorbed literature, harbored toward their youth.” (Braunstein, P. (1988). Towards intimacy: The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. In G. Duby & P. Ariès (Eds.), A history of private life: Revelations of the medieval world (A. Goldhammer, Trans., Vol. II, pp. 555-556). Harvard University Press.)
How extraordinary it is that Professor P. Braunstein, a Frenchman writing in an age dominated by photography, high couture fashion, vapid celebrities, and best-selling autobiographies of such celebrities, could pen such a paragraph while seemingly unaware that his own writing—signed, no less—in the liberal arts, particularly medieval history, could likewise be called a frivolous indulgence and a narcissistic undertaking. Today, many would label the good professor an unproductive idler while viewing Schwarz of Augsburg as critical to economic prosperity as the accountant for one of the most important merchant and financier families of the era.
The second example, in two parts from another professor, comes from the first volume of the work cited above. After noting the Roman urban nobility’s preference for idleness and its adherence to rigid class distinctions, the author observes:
“True, we believe that work is respectable and would not dare to admit to idleness. Nevertheless, we are sensitive to class distinctions and, admit it or not, regard workers and shopkeepers as people of relatively little importance. We would not want ourselves or our children to sink to their station, even if we are a little ashamed of harboring such sentiments.” (Veyne, P. (1987). The Roman Empire. In P. Ariès & G. Duby (Eds.), A History of Private Life: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium (Vol. I, pp. 118). Harvard University Press. (A. Goldhammer, Trans.).)
The same author, reflecting the peculiarities of his class and profession, later indulges in sweeping generalizations, as evidenced by this statement:
“Apart from this proverbial wisdom of the people, Rome had an oral tradition of common sense, a tradition shared by all classes of society and pertinent to every sort of problem. It was a veritable philosophy, like Marxism or psychoanalysis, the two varieties of common sense most prevalent in the West today.” (Veyne, P. (1987), p. 178.)
Professor Veyne displays remarkable narcissism in both extracted statements, presuming that the reader shares his class prejudices against shopkeepers and workers, and embraces his social biases favoring Marxism and psychoanalysis. He scarcely considers that the reader may come from a different class or social background than his own, which is likely the case for the volumes translated into English. This vanity is compounded further when these assumptions are inserted without thought or hesitation into a scholarly work, which should strive to reflect objectivity rather than the exclusivity of social and class status, bias, and prejudice.
The third, and final, example is of a different sort—academic jargonistic exclusionist vocabulary. Or perhaps it is just muddled, unedited writing. In any event, the Cleveland Museum of Art (CMA) issues Cleveland Art: The Cleveland Museum of Art Members Magazine quarterly to communicate information about its exhibits and calendar events. Curators with appropriate academic backgrounds write many of the articles. One such article recently caught my attention due to the density and near inaccessibility of its prose for the average reader. The article discussed an art project which will be exhibited in the CMA’s atrium, which has been “activated with contemporary art at various points.” The latest project, and the artist selected for it, was discussed by the curator:
“Her signature ceramic figures represent a bold intervention in colonial legacies of dependency, erasure, and assimilation. The influence of her identity as a Native woman is evident in her work, but she balances her deep rootedness in her heritage with modern methods, materials, and processes, incorporating elements like metal and Pumice-Crete along with clay.” (Fellah, N. R. (2024). Rose B. Simpson’s Strata. Cleveland Art: The Cleveland Museum of Art Members Magazine, 65(2), 9.)
Academic concepts such as dependency, erasure, and assimilation within colonial legacy are not self-explanatory, and those with different educational experiences than the curator or artist may not grasp the meaning of the above, though they could hope to understand it were the presentation less muddled. For my undergraduate honors thesis, I researched and wrote on the socio-political-economic theory of dependency, and I found myself tripping over the excerpt, rereading it at least three times to discern the intent.
Given that the Cleveland Museum of Art has among its organizational values the statement, “Build an audience-centered culture,” and it states in its summary of its strategic plan that, “We must continue to enhance the visitor experience, affirming the welcome we extend to everyone who walks through our doors and providing joyful and enriching encounters with art for schoolchildren, teens, college and university students, families, and older adults,” it is peculiar that it would use highly academic, almost inaccessible language in a general publication. How much more accessible would it have been to write the above in a more straightforward, less narcissistic “I am an academic with a degree” style, such as:
“Her unique ceramic figures make a strong statement against the negative effects of colonialism, such as making people dependent, erasing their cultures, and forcing them to assimilate. You can see her identity as a Native woman in her artwork, where she mixes her deep connection to her heritage with modern techniques and materials. She uses things like metal and Pumice-Crete, along with clay, to create her pieces.”
The above rewrite may not fully explain the concepts of dependency, erasure, and assimilation, or the effects of colonialism, to readers not wholly familiar with them, but I suspect they would have a better sense of the meaning after reading the above than the original excerpt.
While scholarship and creativity inherently involve a degree of self-expression, they should not devolve into exercises in vanity that alienate the very individuals they purport to enlighten. If institutions like the Cleveland Museum of Art truly aim to build an audience-centered culture and enhance visitor experiences across all demographics, then it is incumbent upon them to adopt more accessible language. This shift would not only foster greater inclusivity but also ensure that the profound messages and insights contained within their works are appreciated by all, not just a select few.
The examples provided illustrate a broader issue within academic and artistic discourse: the propensity for language that obfuscates rather than clarifies, and for prose that serves to elevate the writer’s own status rather than communicate effectively with a diverse audience. This tendency reflects a deeper narcissism that pervades all writing, and much scholarly and creative work, where the desire to impress often overshadows the imperative to inform.
In revisiting the notion that writing for others is fundamentally a narcissistic act, it becomes evident that the true challenge lies in balancing this inherent self-focus with a genuine commitment to clarity and accessibility. The measure of effective writing lies in its ability to resonate deeply and universally, transcending the bounds of the page and embracing a shared human experience. By mitigating narcissistic tendencies, we can create works that are not only intellectually enriching but also broadly impactful and inclusive.
Aristonicus of Pergamum: Rise And Fall
The content details the historical events surrounding the rise and fall of Eumenes III, also known as Aristonicus, in the kingdom of Pergamum. It explores the political turmoil and power struggles involving Rome, rebellions, and military confrontations. The narrative also touches upon the potential for a compelling play or opera based on these events, with a focus on the character development of key figures. The text is supplemented with an excerpt from a possible libretto, where Aristonicus reflects on his fate. Overall, it provides rich material for dramatic storytelling, combining historical significance with personal introspection.
The Roman Prequel: Tiberius Gracchus and the Bequest of Attalus III
In the late 130s BC, Tiberius Gracchus, serving as a tribune in Rome, emerged as a polarizing figure through his vigorous advocacy for the passage of the lex agraria. This legislation aimed to redistribute land from the affluent elite to the impoverished masses, engendering substantial animosity among the propertied interests. Reflecting the entrenched hostility of these interests, the Roman Senate obstructed the law’s implementation by withholding the requisite funding, thus stymying Gracchus’ reformist agenda.
In 133 BC, the political tensions reached a crescendo when Tiberius Gracchus “accepted” the bequest of Attalus III of Pergamum. Upon his death, Attalus III bequeathed his kingdom, personal treasure, and royal estates to the Roman people. This testament explicitly excluded the city of Pergamum, other Greek cities with their respective territories, and temple lands from the bequest. Gracchus sought to employ this newfound wealth to finance his agrarian reforms, viewing it as an opportunity to alleviate social inequalities. However, his opponents perceived this maneuver as an audacious encroachment upon the Senate’s prerogatives and an exacerbation of the threat to property rights and societal propriety.
The Kingdom of Pergamum, located in Asia Minor, was ruled by the Hellenistic Attalid Dynasty. This dynasty was founded by Philetairos, who ruled from approximately 282 to 263 B.C. In 188 B.C., the kingdom greatly benefited from the Treaty of Apamea, whereby the Roman Senate granted Pergamum extensive territories formerly held by the defeated Seleucid Empire.
In the wake of these escalating tensions, Gracchus’ adversaries felt justified in resorting to extralegal measures. In a purported “defense” of property and societal order, they orchestrated the murder of Tiberius Gracchus and unceremoniously disposed of his body in the Tiber River. A subsequent purge of his followers from the political sphere ensued, marking a dark chapter in Rome’s history. This brutal response underscored the lengths to which the conservative elite were willing to go to preserve their privileges and stifle reformist efforts.
The Challenge to Attalus III’s Bequest in Pergamum: Rise of Aristonicus
Meanwhile, in Pergamum, Aristonicus, the half-brother of Attalus III and son of Eumenes II and a harpist or lyre-player from Ephesus, declared his intention to seize the throne of Pergamum by right of his lineage, irrespective of the intentions of Attalus III and the Romans. Adopting the regnal name Eumenes III, Aristonicus garnered significant support, amassing both troops and ships, and commenced his campaign to conquer the kingdom of Pergamum. Initially, he achieved notable successes both on land and at sea. He raised the standard of uprising at Leucase, Phocaea joined him, and he conquered Colophon, Notium, Samos, and Myndus. His efforts were further bolstered by his ability to secure sufficient precious metals and strike them into coinage, as evidenced by the cistophorus illustrated below. The coinage series, and its significance, is discussed in an interesting 2021 article written by Lucia Carbone, “A New-ish Cistophorus for the Rebel Aristonicus.”
Roots and Support of Aristonicus’ Uprising
Aristonicus’ uprising was fundamentally rooted in the succession crisis following the death of Attalus III. As an illegitimate son of Eumenes II, Aristonicus claimed the throne of Pergamon under the name Eumenes III, challenging the Roman claim based on Attalus III’s testament. His campaign can be viewed through several lenses:
- Dynastic Claim: Aristonicus presented himself as the rightful heir to the Pergamene throne, contesting the Roman-imposed transition. This dynastic legitimacy resonated with certain segments of the population who were loyal to the Attalid lineage.
- Social and Economic Grievances: The uprising tapped into widespread discontent among various social groups, including disenfranchised citizens, slaves, and other marginalized populations. Aristonicus’ promise of social reform and liberation found a receptive audience among those dissatisfied with the existing social and economic order.
- Anti-Roman Sentiment: There was considerable resentment towards Roman interference and the impending direct control over Pergamon. Aristonicus’ resistance symbolized a broader opposition to the expansionist policies of Rome and its impact on local autonomy.
Support Base
Aristonicus’ supporters came from diverse backgrounds, reflecting the multi-faceted nature of the uprising:
- Disenfranchised Individuals and Slaves: A significant portion of Aristonicus’ forces consisted of slaves and lower-class citizens. The promise of freedom and a more equitable society motivated these groups to join the uprising. Aristonicus’ vision of a utopian society, often referred to as “Citizens of the Sun” (Heliopolitae), aimed to create an egalitarian state that resonated with these marginalized groups [Recent scholarship provides ample grounds to re-evaluate the significance and meaning of the Heliopolitae titulature and the role of slaves/disenfranchised individuals. (see Daubner in sources below)].
- Local Greek Cities: While some Greek cities in Asia Minor supported Rome, others were sympathetic to Aristonicus, driven by a desire to preserve their autonomy and resist Roman dominance. These cities provided crucial support in terms of resources and manpower.
- Mercenaries and Soldiers: Aristonicus also attracted professional soldiers and mercenaries who saw an opportunity in the conflict. Their military expertise was vital in the early successes of the uprising.
Eumenes III (Aristonicus): The Struggle for Support and Survival
Eumenes III (Aristonicus) faced significant challenges in his bid to consolidate power. Despite his initial successes, he failed to win over many citizens of the city of Pergamum itself and was unable to conquer the city. It is plausible that the citizens believed they would be better off freed from royal governance and trusted that the Romans would honor Attalus III’s will by not incorporating them directly under Roman rule. Furthermore, Eumenes III did not gain the support of the kings of neighboring Hellenistic kingdoms, all of whom marched against him at Rome’s behest. These neighboring monarchs, wary of Aristonicus’ revolutionary ideals and eager to maintain favorable relations with Rome, aligned themselves against him.
Despite this formidable opposition, Rome’s local allies initially struggled to subdue Eumenes III. His forces proved resilient and capable, inflicting notable casualties on their adversaries. A significant moment in the conflict was the death of Ariarathes V of Cappadocia, who perished in battle against Aristonicus’ forces, underscoring the intensity and ferocity of the resistance. The support Aristonicus garnered from disenfranchised groups, including slaves and lower-class citizens, played a crucial role in sustaining his campaign against the combined might of Rome and its allies.
By 131 BC, the Romans were compelled to dispatch an army under the command of the consul Publius Licinius Crassus Mucianus to confront the challenge posed by Eumenes III and secure the legacy bequeathed to them by Attalus III. However, Crassus Mucianus was captured by Eumenes’ forces and, after striking one of his captors, was killed. His decapitated head was sent to Eumenes III, marking a grim turn in the conflict. This event underscored the determination and ferocity of Aristonicus’ resistance, significantly alarming Rome and its allies.
The Beginning of the End for Aristonicus
Although the defeat of a Roman army could have signaled the beginning of success for Eumenes III, it was, in fact, the onset of his decline. This turn of fortune came not at the hands of the Romans, but from Ephesus. Unsettled by the new king’s numerous naval victories and conquests, Ephesus armed a fleet and engaged Eumenes III in battle off the coast of Cyme in Aeolis. The outcome was decisive, forcing Eumenes to abandon the coast and withdraw into the interior.
This defeat also marked a transformation in the character of Eumenes III’s reign. In an effort to broaden his appeal and replenish his forces, he called upon peasants from royal domains, slaves, and others whom historians characterize as underprivileged. To the slaves, he promised freedom; to the others, economic relief. His appeal was successful, and multitudes responded to his call. He named his new followers Heliopolitae [Ἡλιοπολῖται], Citizens of the Sun.[1] This utopian vision of a society based on equality and justice resonated deeply with those disenfranchised by the existing order.
Ideological Influences: Blossius of Cumae and the Heliopolitae
One must wonder if Eumenes was motivated in the “social program” of his recruitment campaign (e.g., emancipation and economic relief) by his reported association at this point with the Stoic philosopher Blossius of Cumae, a devoted ally of Tiberius Gracchus. Blossius had fled Rome after Tiberius’ murder and attached himself to Eumenes. Some historians perceive Blossius’ ideological influence in the Heliopolitae movement. Blossius, having been a proponent of the Gracchan reforms, likely brought with him a philosophical foundation that emphasized social justice and the alleviation of inequality. His presence in Eumenes III’s court suggests a continuity of the radical ideas that had stirred Rome, now transplanted to Asia Minor and adapted to the local context.
The Final Defeat and Capture of Eumenes III
In the wake of Crassus’ defeat in 130 B.C., the Roman Senate dispatched the consul Marcus Perperna to subdue Eumenes III and secure the Kingdom of Pergamum for Rome. Perperna promptly arrived, assembled his troops, and marched into the interior, where he decisively defeated Eumenes. Aristonicus had expanded his campaign inland, focusing on regions such as Lydia and Mysia, including the strategic city of Kyzikos. His efforts in these areas were marked by a combination of military engagements and political maneuvering to gain the support of local populations. Despite these efforts, Eumenes was ultimately outmatched by the superior Roman forces. Following his defeat, he fled to the city of Stratonicea, where the Romans besieged him. The siege was marked by a protracted struggle, as the Romans systematically cut off supplies, starving the city and its defenders into submission. Ultimately, Eumenes was captured and sent to Rome in chains. In 129 B.C., the Senate decreed his execution by strangulation, thus extinguishing his challenge to Roman authority.
Consolidation of Roman Rule and the Fate of the Heliopolitae
Following the capture of Eumenes III, the Romans proceeded to organize the new province of Asia, despite ongoing resistance from the remnants of the Heliopolitae. These remnants, inspired by the egalitarian ideals of Aristonicus, continued to resist Roman domination. However, their defiance was brutally quashed by the Romans, who resorted to poisoning the water supplies of their impregnable strongholds—a tactic even they considered disgraceful. By 129 B.C., or 127 B.C. at the latest, the Romans had likely secured their Attalid inheritance, fully integrating the territory into the Roman Republic.
Is there a libretto or play in the story above?
This exposition is recited with confidence that it provides rich source material for a compelling play or opera. Indeed, I have begun work on such a project, sketching the broad outlines of a libretto—acts and scenes—and have already written substantial portions. Recognizing my weaknesses in character development, I am focusing on refining this aspect. However, I am pleased with one section I have written. After Aristonicus has been captured and is in chains, he contemplates his situation. Below is a scene I have written, set to music so I have a sense of the possibilities:
Aristonicus in Chains
Setting: A dark Roman dungeon. Aristonicus, bound in chains, reflects on his fate and the enduring spirit of his cause.
Aristonicus (Recitative):
Oh fate, thou art a cruel mistress,
To wrest my dreams and cast them low.
Yet here I stand, though bound in chains,
My spirit soars, untouched by woe.
Aristonicus (Aria):
In chains, my spirit stands free,
No Roman yoke shall master me.
For in my heart, a kingdom lives,
A beacon bright, the Sun still gives.
Oh, Citizens of the Sun,
Your hope was mine, our battle won,
Not in the fields where we did fall,
But in the hearts that heeded our call.
From Pergamum’s hills to the wide sea,
Our dream of freedom shall always be.
Though walls of stone around me rise,
The Sun shall never set on skies.
Oh, Perpernas, behold my fate,
A king unbowed by Roman hate.
For even in this darkest hour,
My will remains, my soul has power.
(Bridge):
To the poor and enslaved, my voice shall reach,
In every heart, our cause I’ll teach.
No chains can hold what is divine,
Our struggle, our dream, forever shine.
(Aria da capo):
In chains, my spirit stands free,
No Roman yoke shall master me.
For in my heart, a kingdom lives,
A beacon bright, the Sun still gives.
Oh, Citizens of the Sun,
Your hope was mine, our battle won,
Not in the fields where we did fall,
But in the hearts that heeded our call.
(Recitative):
So take me now, to Rome’s great halls,
But know this truth, as empire falls:
A dream once born, can never die,
In chains, my spirit soars the sky.
SOURCES:
Africa, T. W. (1961). Aristonicus, Blossius, and the City of the Sun. International Review of Social History, 6(1), 110-124.
Daubner, F. (2006). Bellum Asiaticum: Der Krieg der Römer gegen Aristonikos von Pergamon und die Einrichtung der Provinz Asia (2nd ed., Quellen und Forschungen zur Antiken Welt 41). München: Herbert Utz Verlag. [*Daubner’s work is the current definitive study on the Aristonicus uprising and the establishment of the Roman province of Asia. It challenges many of the outlines of the traditional scholarship over the past century (including much presented in my post above) and concludes that there is extraordinarily little evidence to suggest that he was the utopian social reformer that earlier scholars feared or lionized in their writings. In a sense, his scholarship is sober prose based on all the current and continuously emerging evidence whereas what came before (and what I write above) is akin to romantic poetry based on the then sparse antiquarian fragments. Yet, some scholars still adhere to the older interpretations of Aristonicus as a social reformer. See the work by Mesihović , below, as an example.]
Hochard, P.O. (2021). Quand Aristonicos s’écrit avec un E. Bulletin De La Société Française De Numismatique, 76(02), 47–54.
Magie, D. (1950). Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Vol. 1). Princeton University Press, 147-158.
Mesihović, S. (2017). Aristonik i država Sunca (Drugi dio: Aristonicus Solis Reform). Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Sarajevu, Knjiga XX, 2017.[Mesihović, without taking note of – let alone attempting to address – Daubner’s scholarship, reiterates the argument that Aristonicus’s movement was fundamentally reform-oriented and revolutionary. He iterates that the movement aimed to challenge the existing social and political structures by advocating for social and democratic reforms, thereby attracting support from the lower classes and slaves. He stresses that Aristonicus’ movement was not merely a struggle for control of the Attalid kingdom but had a significant ideological dimension, seeking to establish an egalitarian and communal society, which posed a substantial threat to the established order of both local elites and the Roman authorities. The views encompassed in this work serve as the basis for an operatic libretto, as it is poetic, but may have been superseded as scholarship.]
Thonemann, P. (2013). Attalid Asia Minor: Money, International Relations and the State. Cambridge University Press. [Of particular note is how Thonemann’s first chapter characterizes the Attalid state as an innovative and unique monarchy that emerged in the second century BC. The Attalids transformed their kingdom from a small city-state into a major territorial power, characterized by a non-charismatic and decentralized style of rule. They implemented a federative model, portraying their state as a coalition of free cities rather than a centralized monarchy, and emphasized civic participation and local governance. This approach was reflected in their economic policies, such as the introduction of the cistophoric coinage, which supported the kingdom’s administrative and fiscal autonomy. The expansion of the state was largely a result of the Treaty of Apameia in 188 BC, which redistributed Seleukid territories to the Attalids, significantly enlarging their realm and elevating their political status.]
[1] The Heliopolitae (Citizens of the Sun)
The concept of the Heliopolitae, or “Citizens of the Sun,” is a central theme in understanding Aristonicus’ revolt. This term embodies the utopian and revolutionary ideals that Aristonicus promoted to garner support from various disenfranchised groups.
- Symbolism and Ideals: The name “Heliopolitae” is symbolic of Aristonicus’ vision for a new society based on equality and justice. It represents a community united under the metaphor of the Sun, which signifies enlightenment and purity. This ideological framework was used to attract slaves, the poor, and other marginalized groups by promising them freedom and a better social order.
- Historical Accounts: Strabo and Diodorus provide key historical accounts that describe how Aristonicus retreated into the interior regions of Lydia after a naval defeat and rallied the oppressed classes, including slaves, around his cause. Strabo mentions that Aristonicus promised freedom to these groups, who then became known as the Heliopolitae.
- Scholarly Debate: The article highlights the debate among scholars regarding the nature and significance of the Heliopolitae. Some view it as evidence of a broader social revolution, akin to other slave revolts in antiquity, while others argue it was a strategic move by Aristonicus to consolidate his power. The text suggests that while there is evidence to support both views, the primary aim was likely to use ideological rhetoric to strengthen Aristonicus’ claim and unify his diverse followers.
- Religious and Utopian Context: The term “Heliopolitae” also carries religious connotations, linking the movement to solar worship and the Hellenistic tradition of divine kingship. This religious aspect provided additional legitimacy to Aristonicus’ rule and helped create a cohesive identity among his supporters. The use of the term is compared to other utopian experiments, but the article emphasizes that Aristonicus’ movement was distinct in its context and execution.
Northcoast Antiquarian 