The Rise and Fall of Western Civilisation- Professor James Hankins

After four decades of teaching at Harvard, you decided to leave. I was banging my head against the wall for years and years and years. Trying to get the university to go on supporting the teaching of Western civilization. And we have a treasury of Western civilization that has been preserved through the golden thread of tradition over 25-100 years. It's a story of rise and fall. It's a story of virtue followed by achievement, followed by corruption. It's a story of collapse and chaos. It's a story of corruption and reform. That's what real human history is like. We have to keep it going. It's up to us. Many of you have commented that you are seeing too many ads in our videos. We've listened to your feedback and disabled YouTube ads in the middle of our interviews. Can we ask you a favor in return? According to our analytics, most of you who watch our show are not subscribed to the channel. Please help us to continue bringing you fantastic content by subscribing today, hitting that like button and leaving a comment with your thoughts on this video. Professor James Hankens, welcome to Trigonometry. Thank you for inviting me. It's a great pleasure to have you. We want to talk about this beautiful book you covered about the history of Western civilization. Two volumes actually. I have both at home. But first of all, I would love to hear a little bit more about you and your background. Of course, there was a pivotal moment where after four decades of teaching at Harvard, you decided to leave. Which I imagine is a very difficult decision for someone with tenure at such a prestigious university and such a long history to do. But you did it because you felt that the university was no longer doing the thing that it was supposed to do in your field. Is that right? That's exactly right. I actually decided to retire in 2020. The year of George Floyd, the year of COVID, and I just didn't want to do it anymore because they created such a terrible atmosphere. And they wanted the professors to lecture with Masksong, which I refused to do. And I took advantage of the power of the glass of water because you knew when you went, you were wearing a mask during the COVID era, you were allowed to take the mask off when you went to a restaurant and you were served a glass of water. So when I lectured, I brought a glass of water with me and I took the mask off and drank some water and then lectured. And no one died. Shocking, really. But I didn't want to go on doing that. And I decided I would retire. And I got into a forum, I got into a retirement rhythm. But the other real reason I was retiring is because I was banging my head against the wall for years and years and years, trying to get the university to go on supporting the teaching of Western civilization. Which had been a mainstay of the university from its very beginning. We always taught Greeks and Romans and medieval Christendom and European history. But my department went global in the 1990s and they basically took the new positions out of the height of Western Civ topics. We last hired someone to teach Western Civ, European history in 2008. We lost eight historians after that date. So it was evident to me that someone had made a decision to zero out Western Civ. And certainly to zero out positions that were only concentrated in the Western Civ. So you could teach the French Empire and all its evils in the 19th century, but you couldn't teach the French Revolution. You couldn't teach the French monarchy. In England, you could teach the British Empire, but you weren't going to teach Magna Carta. You weren't going to teach the Reformation, the English Civil War. All the things that used to be taught as a matter of course. So I was very upset and discouraged frankly. I just didn't want to go year after year trying to get our topics covered by other professors. So I thought I was going to retire. I'm going to go to Italy, have a good time, live on the winnings. And then later I got an offer from the Hamilton School of Classical and Civic Education, which is a school founded by the, by basically Governor Santos and the Florida State Legislature. And it was a great decision for me to join up with them. I'm officially going to be there in August. So I will get to teach the Western Civilization there. We're going to start a program in Western Civilization and MA. It's one of these new institutions where you can do things. No, at Harvard, if I wanted to start an MA in Western Civil, it would be five years of committee work followed by no. At this place, I went in with my buddy Alan Gelsow, with her to this book. We had a two-page summary of what we wanted to do. We talked to Director of Canada for about 20 minutes. And said, "Fine, I'll call the president." So we're starting an MA in Western Civil 2020. That being the case, it seems to me you are very well placed to answer the question that Francis and I love asking on the show. First of all, what is Civilization? And then the follow-up to that is what is Western Civilization and how does it make that different from others? Well, I think Civilization is a, you know, the Western golden thread is the story of four Civilizations that are connected by a thread of tradition. That's what we call the Western tradition. I believe David Boerfield made the same point in a recent interview with you, and I said, "He's taking that from my book." He's a friend, he's a good guy. He's a brilliant guy in his own right, so he may have come up with it by himself. It's possible. You seem skeptical. It's possible. No, he's a friend, he's reviewed the book, actually. But it's a civilization. I think you can look at it as a treasury, as a collection of great achievements, and there can be histories, there can be poetry, philosophy, art, literature. And we have a treasury of Western Civilization that has preserved food tradition through the golden thread of tradition over 25 hundred years. And people have always felt that that stuff is too valuable to let go. Somebody loved it. Somebody said, "I want my children to learn this. I want my country to remember these things, their valuable lessons." So there's that sort of civilization, a deposit of great achievement, human achievements. But there's also civilization in the sense of civilizing, as a process, as something that happens to you, as you get older and you get more educated. So you start in the family, your family teaches you to treat your brothers and sisters well, respect your parents, respect your elders. It's easy, this noise happens, obviously, to learn how to get out, along with neighbors, introduces you maybe to a school or a church where you learn social skills. But at a certain point, you need to mature beyond that. And that means learning how to be a civilized person, learning good manners, but also learning the right things to say. And to be enough educated so that you can interact with people at a very high level. So you learn high level communication skills. It's not simply being able to order your meal over uber eats. You need to be able to understand how this is something that strikes me as a real mistake of modern humanistic studies. It's so important to communicate in our world. It's so important to communicate at a very high level. I heard recently someone saying that the language of international scholarship is pitch in English. But if you are involved in a tradition, the Greeks had this, the Romans had this, and all the modern European nations had this idea of communication at a very high level, being able to communicate very subtle feelings and intuitions and poetic insights and sublimity. All these levels of communication are developed by a civilization. So that's part of educating you to be a not just a citizen, but a member of society where you interact with people at the most very profound and subtle level. And then you're able to understand music. It's not automatic that people will understand classical music. My wife is from Thailand doesn't really like classical music very much because she wasn't brought up to understand it. When I go to China and I listen to Chinese opera, my first instinct is to run screaming from the room and go, you know, it's an acquired taste. So in order to acquire a taste for classical music or for classical jazz, which I like a lot, you have to be brought up. You have to be educated in that. You have to have people who communicate their love of something to you, teachers or enthusiasts. So if you want to be able to take advantage of the treasury of civilization, if you want to understand Michelangelo or Beethoven or you know. Medieval drama or something like that, or Dante. I mean Dante is somebody who requires an education to himself. That is the civilizing process. That is enabling you to take advantage of the richness of civilization and to communicate at a very high level and to participate. Ultimately, if you're being well taught, the first thing that happens, at least to an ambitious young person, is going to be, "I want to do that, too." Man sees Michelangelo. Man says, "Either, that's hopeless. I never would be that good," or the person says, "I want to be as good as I can be." That's amazing. I want to do that, too. Civilization is not just invigilating over the past. It's not just bowing down before precedent, or pastiche of putting together an element, it's inspiration. It feeds the desire to create and to pass down and to bring your most subtle and your most brilliant and your most profound feelings in different forms, art, music, literature, what have you. That's what I think Civilization is. It's a very long answer. It's almost like it's a living thing that reproduces itself in an ideal world. What I take it stopped happening at Harvard and across academia, is that instead of teaching the next generation in that duty of passing down and reproducing civilization, instead there was a focus on tearing apart, destroying, undermining, critiquing, deconstructing, you might say. This I think that's very true, and it began, of course, well, we won't talk about art since, because that will be a very complicated discussion. But we just talk about the hostility to the west that's come up in the last 40, 50, 60 years. That has come out of the multiculturalism and the post-colonial movement, where the west is the enemy. And the all the sufferings of the world are explained because of Western imperialism, or colonialism, or what have you. And we have this very unbalanced story of what the west is and has been. And it's usually not properly contextualized. It's not properly compared with the achievements of other civilizations. That's how it gets politicized, right? That people have a political goal in their scholarship, which is to show that their civilization is as good as the west, and the west isn't very good at all. There's this kind of hostility to the west, to build into global history and to post-colonial history. So that has been highly destructive. And one of the things I'm trying to do with this book is to give a little balance. Yes, we had slavery. No, we were not the worst slave society in history. The Romans were probably the worst slave society of antiquity, but the slave societies of Islam were much worse in many ways. And all of the things that the west is blamed for are violence, militarism. Yes, there's an album of truth to that, but there's also people who want to subordinate militarism, military virtue to good purposes, defensive of your country, and defensive of your people and your goods, and so forth. So this is very simplistic thinking that is behind a lot of the criticisms of the west. So we're trying to show that. And the other thing that's in the book, which isn't quite so obvious, is that I'm very interested in Chinese history. I've been studying Chinese history for a long time. And I got to China quite often. And I thought Chinese students over there who are very interested in the comparison between western Chinese. And I have great respect for Chinese civilization. But I've really learned a lot about the west from studying China. I have, in the book, there's a lot of subtle comparisons, and maybe not so subtle comparisons with China. And not all of them to the western's favor of mine, mind you. But I think that we need more comparative study. So my current idea is, we're trying to promote this idea in various contexts in Hamilton School and other places. It's that you should learn world history. You should learn comparative history. But you should learn western history first. You should learn your national history before a western history. And then learn world history. It should be a ladder. You shouldn't just start off with world history and then use that as a whipping tool to show that it's better or worse or is suffered from western intent. And that's a highly politicized version. Well, can I just agree with you there because you're the expert and I'm not. But I would argue. I will crush you, by the way. Yeah, absolutely. Our audience will enjoy that very much me getting crushed. I would argue the context of global history is incredibly important. And if actually it was taught accurately and properly, it would only serve to emphasize the uniqueness and special nature of western civilization. The problem I would put to you is we're not taught global history accurately and instead we're simply taught the global history and other people are good and we are bad. I think that's where the problem is, isn't it? Well, I can't crush you if you agree with me. Yeah. Yes, I agree. But you know, I have three nephews who teach in secondary school. And one of them teaches global history in the sixth grade. Right, they haven't had any US history, they haven't had or little stories they have. They haven't had any western history. So day one, they learn about textiles in Central Asia. And day two, they learn about weaving and. Okay, but that's not history. They learn about, you know, Roman Toga. And that's world history. That's not learning much. No, that's not. What I mean by global history is like, let's say we're looking at the issue of slavery, which is obviously highly topical, et cetera. Okay, let's look at where the slavery first appears. Which society's practices, which empires practice it and what ways? Where, you know, who captures the slaves and how do people become enslaved? These are all important contextual items to map how the full picture of this issue. And then you eventually chronologically arrive at the West's history of slavery. And by this point, you are armed with the understanding that this was a human thing that humans have always done. This is how, you know, European powers did it. Here's why they ended it, unlike pretty much everybody else. And that, then that world history of that issue gives you a rounded understanding of slavery. And that the same could be applied to empire, to war, to all sorts of other things. And that context, I would argue, is how you give people a rounded understanding of our history in the context of human history. Well, then you're teaching topical history, you're teaching, of course. And I think that would be a great university course. I wish there were people who could teach it fairly that way. But you're not teaching that narrative. So in history, we always say there's diacronic versus synchronic. So diacronic is the history in chronological order, and synchronic is where you told comparative story. And I taught comparative history, and I agree entirely. I taught comparative history with the Chinese historian of meritocracy, Chinese versus Western meritocracy. And you're right, absolutely illuminating. We've got a much better sense of actually how much better the Chinese were doing meritocracy than we were in the West for a long time. So that came out in Chinese favor. But what we're trying to do in the book, what we think is what we think is really primary, is tell the story. It's very hard to tell a story over 2,500 years. That's sort of what I'm proudest of in this book. Not a single reviewer has mentioned this so far. I'm trying to counteract the progressive narrative of inevitable march towards utopia powered by the forces of history. And the past is corrupt, and it's feudalism, and slavery, and it's all the bad things, it's all the Western things. And getting away from the West and becoming more global, more international, more scientific is the way into the future. It's a beautiful story, it's a nice fairy tale. It's science fiction, but it's not history. And the real history of the world, not just the Western civilization, is not a history of inevitable climbing towards an illimitable future powered by science and aggressivism and so forth. It's a story of virtue, followed by achievement, followed by corruption. It's a story of collapse and Renaissance. That's what real human history is like, and it doesn't fit the progressive model at all. So, and this is something else we're trying to do in this book, is to say, yes, the West is a very long history, it has a very checkered history. done some horrible things, especially when we took over the new world. There were some really horrible things that went on, and for very bad reasons. There were some idealist behind the conquest of the new world by Spain, but a lot of it was just simply great. Okay. But that was overcome, in a sense. When the conquistadors started to oppress the Native peoples of Central and South America, someone stopped them, and that was Catholic Church, and the religious audience. They were not able to go full barbarian on the peoples of the new world. So there's light and shade. And what we're trying to do is to explain that it is possible to become corrupt and to fall apart and to get factionalized and to get tyrannized. That has happened many times to us in the past. But it's also possible to stop it, and we have stopped it. And that's what we should be doing now. We should be having a run-sense. We should be having reforms. We should be fighting tyranny, whether it comes from Silicon Valley or from governments, fine. So that's what my main argument against your synchronic idea, which I agree would be a great cultural crisis. That's not what we should be doing at the basic level of teaching Western civ. James, the danger that comes when we're not teaching our history is that if you don't teach the history of a country, that people won't know who they are. Yes, exactly. I mean, that's what's happened to young men, I think, in around America and the Western world that they don't know who they are. They're told the story that they really don't like. They're told that they're oppressors. And they don't have anything in their heads to stop the myths and lies they're being told. You need to have something between your ears. If you're going to stop the people who are telling you lies, that's how you know you're being told lies. You have something between your ears. If you have no history and someone comes along and says, "US history is history of racism." What are you going to say? You're the professor. He's the teacher. He's telling me history of the US history of racism. What do I know? What do I have between my ears that's going to give me some resistance against that story? I entirely agree with you, friends. I think this is a major problem for cause of civilization or breakdown that people just don't know the past. They don't know the great achievement to their country. They're fed a lot of lies. They have a politicized history departments and history programs and unions who, I don't know, attack unions, but let's say public education, which is heavily politicized by education schools. And they're not given the means to really resist that. I had a friend recently from Cambridge who had a 14-year-old daughter. She loved England already because of her English education. She came to Boston. She wanted to study English literature in high school. There wasn't a single major private school in Boston that taught any English literature before the year 2000. When the reason was, they didn't want to infect the minds of the young with the colonialism that's implicit in the thought of Jane Austen or Christianity or some other thing that was considered bad from the Western past. They wanted to teach young adult novels between 2000 and current date that they considered ideologically sound. So my friend, who's a professor of Harvard, ended up taking his kid out to a Benedictine school an hour away from Cambridge just so he could keep his kid out of this stuff. This is the kind of thing that I think is so poisonous. This is one of the reasons I've got involved with the classical education movement. I saw people who really loved their past and who wanted to teach it. They had learned something as parents. They had learned something as students. They wanted to keep it going and they saw they couldn't do it in the public schools, at least not all public schools. There are lots of good public schools, but especially in sort of wealthy suburban areas, there are lots of very highly performing good sound public schools. But in many places, they're not. That's how these classical school movement got started. People who love our Western past, love our American past, and they want to make sure it's not poisoned by politics. You read the news and think you're informed. You're actually just selectively informed. Modern media doesn't just report the news. It quietly decides which stories you never even hear about. Your blind spots are unaccident. There's someone else's decisions. That's why I use ground news. Every day they gather thousands of stories from across the political spectrum. Compare how different outlets are covering the same story side by side and contextualize it, including specific differences in how each side is reporting it. That's how you see what whole audiences are not being told. My favorite feature is their blind spot feed. Every day it flags upwards of 20 stories that are being ignored by either the left or the right. Let's look at some examples. Follow along at ground.new slash trigonometry. Take this story. A pure research survey found that 56% of Americans now support banning social media for anyone under 16 with a majority of Republicans and a majority of Democrats behind it. Genuine bipartisan agreement is rare enough to be newsworthy on its own, and yet coverage came almost entirely from the right. The left barely touched on it. On the other hand, look at this. An AP poll found that 66% of Americans now say democracy is central to what it means to be American down from 80% five years ago. That is a serious story about how the country sees itself, especially on its 250th anniversary. And it got three times more coverage from the left than it did from the right. Ground news puts all of this in one place. Headline comparisons, bias breakdowns, ownership insights and context so you can actually understand what's going on. Not just react to what you're told. Go to ground.new slash trigonometry or click the link in the description of this episode. Get 40% of their vantage plan the same one that we use and stop being managed by the media. From my more conspiratorial moments, James, I see this as a process of demoralization. Do you think that's hyperbolic or do you think that's actually a pretty fair assessment? Yes. Well, there's demoralization in the sense of interpreting events and natural, well, just to say events and things like laws and legal systems as purely social science phenomenon that are to be understood outside any kind of context of value. I think that's the way history is largely taught today. In fact, people, the way I was taught when I was studying history is that it's bad to report your moral judgments, right? And you shouldn't write history that way. You should be somewhere above the moon, you know? And you're observing from the moon. You have no attachments. You have no loyalties. You have no things that you think are more important than other things. You're driven by fashion. We can do that. But yes, I think that's a real problem. And I'm afraid that a lot of what I've written in the recent past has been regarded as unprofessional by people because I take sides. I think that some things are good and some things are bad and some things are morally profitable and some things are evil. No, the Western tradition, another metaphor I like for is garden. It's a garden where we're trying to grow beautiful things and we have to follow the laws of nature and other to do that. But there are also lots of weeds and parasites and things that get into the garden, they have to be killed. So if you have a demoralizing civilization is one that's not making any distinction between the parasites and the diseases and the fertilizer and the water. That's the way I would put it, maybe it's a stretch of illustration. But you have to tend to garden. You have to understand what nature wants. You have to understand which is natural moral principles, which I think everybody has. We won't go into the whole metaphysics or natural health, please, because I'm not very good at that. But I do think that people have natural moral understandings and you can't be constantly telling people that their natural moral understandings are not scientific. That there are people over in lower Borneo who have different moral impressions about polygamy or something. Therefore, you used to be this reference we're called the encyclopedia ethics, encyclopedia ethics where they went through all the world ethical systems. Oddly enough, what they found is that most societies don't like stealing or lying. And the worst successful societies have been monogamous and not polygamous. Don't tell that to the Mormons, but I think that's true. That there are certain patterns in moral practice. These were observed by Aristotle in the 4th century BC. That's how he built up his ethics. by taking a kind of empirical view, but what societies actually prefer, right? And I think that you're right that if you try to see things through some kind of scientific lens where all moral principles are equal, all societies are equal, all cultures are equal, you can't possibly give young people a sense of moral direction in their lives. - Well, we've talked about teaching the thing and how it's not taught and whatever. Why don't we actually talk about Western civilization itself or the Western tradition, as I think you prefer to call it? What is the Western tradition? What is its journey? Where does it come from? - I'm just asking this question about half an hour ago at the conference, and not to mean you're unoriginal, but it's a very good question and needs to be asked. The gentleman was asked me, why did I start with the Egyptians or the Babylonians, and why we start with the Greeks? And the answer is that we have a tradition which comes from language, and the languages have been learned by later periods. So we start with the Greeks. And if you wanted to be civilized in the ancient world, you had to know Greek. And the Romans, the most cultured, learned Greek, or they tried to translate Greek things into autumn. And what we have from the past, which is what the book is about, are traditions. We have traditions of philosophy that begin in the sixth century BC, and the same questions are still being debated today. Not because there's no progress, but because there are meaningful questions. We have artistic traditions, all the genres of literature that we use today, all invented by the Greeks, naturalistic painting, naturalistic sculpture, science, well, most of the major scientific principles are in the tip of the Greeks. You know, the ancient Egyptians had medicine. They have books full of medicine millennia before the Greeks even come on the scene. But it's not scientific medicine. It's medicine that's interwoven as religious beliefs and with the gods, and there's some good remedies that can be found in that, but they didn't have a method, right? What hypocrites inventes the method? We're going to organize all the symptoms. We're going to describe diseases. We're going to figure out the etiology of diseases. And we're going to find remedies. And we're going to use only empirical evidence. We're not going to talk about what the gods say in Murakalau have that type of religious medicine. So, and the same thing happens in mathematics. There are other civilizations, early civilizations, the Babylonians who can calculate. The ancient Chinese can calculate. They have all the astrofatic mobile divide. They can do all that. But they don't have proof. They don't have mathematical proofs. The Greeks invented mathematical proofs, which, in a way, is an outgrowth of the whole idea of rationality. And that's what comes from, I think, is the real contribution of ancient Greek democracy. Because the ancient Greeks did not have a monarch. It's a famous historian of science, G.E.R. Lloyd, who said that the Greeks did not have a monarch. So, they made reason their monarch. And that makes perfect sense in terms of Greek democracy. Because the Greeks, in order to have a pluralistic society, which is not based on violence, you have to persuade people. So, the Greeks invent logic and rhetoric. Logic, the art of accurate reasoning, rhetoric, the art of persuasive reasoning. Because they had a society that demanded that they talk to each other and that they debate with each other and they persuade each other in order to do anything. They couldn't take any decisions if there's more than one decision-making. In monarchy, the default setting of human society is monarch. There is no other society, and I know people will contest this. They'll say the Phoenicians had this, but it's not true. There's no other society that was ruled pluralistically. I don't mean necessarily democratically, but ruled by, let's say, a small class of the wealthy or a small class of the militarily powerful like the Spartans. And those people had to come up with some type of way of settling quarrels and questions. And that's where rationality really comes from. Modern Western style of rationality, which is to make arguments to advance proof, to allow disagreements. So the gaps in your argument can be exposed and to identify fallacies. All this is systematized by Aristotle, but he was doing on the basis of the Greek love of arguments. And so this isn't contrast with prior human history, which is essentially about a single authority predicated on power. Is that the contrast you're painting? Is that to crude, to destroy me now or whatever, or crush me, whatever it was? I'm not really in that business. Well, I think that the earliest societies were based on, simply on power and on maybe religious manipulation of religious fear. Going back to the earliest records we have in some volume BC. But after the axial period, the period of Socrates, Buddha, Confucius, the Jewish prophets, there is an idea that power has to justify itself in terms of some natural principle that's available to everyone. So you have this kind of tripartite structure where you have the source of moral principle, which is above human beings. It's the logos. It's the Dharma. It's the Tao. And then you have human beings who feel-- they have authority, which has to orient itself towards the Tao. And then you have human beings who are trying to improve themselves morally. And those things work together. People who become dissatisfied with their own moral nature. The famous example is Ashoka, right? The founder of Buddhist kingship in India. So he's a man who spent the only part of his life slowing large numbers of people, millions of people. And at a certain point, he had a conversion. He just got self-disgust. He couldn't bear himself anymore. He felt the need to make restitution in some way. He found the message of the Buddha. And he decided to create a Buddhist civilization. So I think the West did not invent that. And I think as a human-- part of the story of human development as a whole, what the West really invents, I think, is the idea that the authority, which is going to establish the established as law and custom, but more importantly, as law, under the authority of the Tao, that comes from human beings in the mass, where at least large number of human beings-- there's something in human nature, which in itself authorizes-- has the power to authorize a government, maybe this a little bit too abstract. I'm not even sure I'm asking you a question now. A little. I guess what I'm asking is-- you were pointing out that the Greeks come up with a particular framing of power and how it should be administered. And I was curious about what makes that special and differentiates that from what other people had done previously and what other people were doing around the world at that same time. Yes, my idea of citizenship is key. That the Greeks thought of their societies as a club, a membership. And you had to contribute. And then as a result of your contributions, you received political power. And the fundamental one in Greek society was fighting in the failings. That you're a male citizen, old enough to defend the city, you should be able to have power. If you're even a lower class, you might be a teacher, a rower in the fleet. If you're rowing in the fleet, even so, even if you're a very poor person, you need to be able to have a voice in the government, councils of government. And the reason is very simple. If you're in the assembly and you vote for more. Two weeks later, you're standing in a line in 54 pounds of bronze armor holding a shield in a spear. And you're covering the guy next to you, and you depend on each other. And it's a very belligerent, belligerent information, the failings, because there are no heroes in the failings. Everybody marches together. And sometimes they run together towards the enemy. So that is, I think, a tremendous force for a belligerentism in Greek society, but also for the idea that people need a voice. The state will, with Paulus, the state will not be well defended unless people feel that they have a stake in the system in some way. I mean, it's so funny you talk about it. Because I often think that many of the problems of the modern time. And I'm not original in this thought, either. are caused by the fact that people are able to vote on things that they don't answer for and have no consequence of. And so the Greeks come up with this idea that because you offer a service to the city, the city owes you an opportunity to express your wishes and be heard about what the city should therefore do. So it's a kind of two-way accountability system almost. That's for the Greeks. The Roman system is quite different. How is it different? So the Romans have a different system. They start out exactly like the Greeks. You're in the army, you pay taxes, you show up at the assembly, you have the right to vote. They have a slightly different system in that they give, this is what differs how a republic differs from a democracy, they give preponderant power, decision-making power to the experienced generals, the members of the Senate who come many cases in old families, they have more wealth, they have more stake in the system, just in economic terms. So they get more decision-making power, which is not true of Greek democracy. But everyone ultimately gets a veto in the form of an assembly. However, the people are kept rather weak as a group. But what the Romans are very good at is recognizing merit. They did away with the idea that political power should belong to particular families of old residents. That's a typical barbarian idea. And they decided that if you contribute to this state, get more power. And you get more responsibility, the more you spend, for armor and for weapons, and for this is the so-called "serving" and "constitution" which was passed under King Servius Tallis. If you have more stake in the system, you have more experience, you've been a general maybe or been caught in the army, and you've held office, then you deserve to have more weight than the other people. So Roman Senate consists of former magistrates, which is what we should do in the U.S. So if you're a billionaire, you can't buy yourself a presidency, right? As former magistrates, as people who have governing and military experience. And the people are protected under law. So everyone has equality under law. In principle, of course, the many violations in reality, as you would expect. But in principle, the people have equality under the law. But power in this state is proportioned to genius tasks, dignity. And dignity in Roman sense means rank, that you enjoy rank because of your contribution to society you've been a magistrate, you've been a soldier officer, and so forth. So that's different from the democratic system, and it's the Republican system that has really inspired most of the pluralistic governments in the West down to the founders of the American Constitution, who are founding a republic, and not a democracy. I just wanted to make that point, and so you were, and now I've lost the thread again. Well, we were just talking about the Greek and Roman systems and how they administer power in contrast with purely who is strongest, who's tribe is the most powerful, et cetera. Now that's the barbarian system, which is now being advocated by many people, that the head man who runs the tribe has his great generals or heads of the great clans, and he takes all the loot from the battle and distributes it, and he gets power from that, and he gets support from the people to whom he distributes, and then all the heads of the clan, it's the spoil system, as we say in America, it's the ethnic spoil system, if you roll the tribal spoil system. The Romans started out with something like that. They had a king and they had something like a spoil system, who was never perfectly barbarian among the Romans, but eventually they got the system of recognizing merit, and also the idea of legal equality is tremendously important. The Greeks were very bad at giving anything to people outside their palace. They wanted to make a strong distinction between their state and everybody else, and the Romans were very good at giving citizenship to people who were helping the Roman cause, and it goes right back to the Romans, or it goes right back to the foundation of the Roman kingdom, the kingship, before they had the Romans, republic they had a Roman kingship, that you are defended by, your rights are defended, not only so far as I'm not getting very confused after it's thrown on. The Roman idea that everyone should be protected by the law goes back to the period of extreme violence in Rome, at the end of the second century BC, and the first century when they had four decades of civil war, and people saw powerful generals backed by armies, teasing the property and even exile and saving the property of political enemies. The idea of rule by law is that the law is above politics, that's the fundamental idea, that no matter what happens, the law will protect you against anyone who tries to take away your property just on sheer power. This is, I think, articulated best by Cicero in the first century, but it goes back a century earlier. It's a very powerful idea, and it's fundamentally a protection of property, a protection of citizen rights against powerful individuals. But ultimately the Romans, as I said, were very good at sharing legal equality with other groups. First, they shared it with their allies in the area around Rome, and then they shared it with the Italian peninsula. Everyone got citizenship towards the end of the second century BC and the social wars. And ultimately in 2012, AD, the entire population of the Roman Empire were considered citizens protected by Roman law. That's really, I think, the fundamental glory of the Roman Empire is the idea of protection of all citizens by law and recourse to a magistrate in cases where you're not protected by law. And that's an ideal. It's an ideal, it was often respected and sometimes not respected, and it's unfair to say, look at this case, look at that case where the system didn't work. But it's a tremendous idea, which is very powerful in Western history down to the present day. And the idea that there are some citizens who have more power than others in the legal system that some people are legal inequality by procedural means and law fair, all this kind of thing we have today is a huge violation of the Western tradition of equality under the law, and the law doesn't, there's no respecter of persons. I'm trying not to pound on the table. No, it's good. It shows passion. It's great. James, there is this idea and shoot it down if you believe it's completely false. But I'd be very interested to hear your opinion on it, that the Greeks were the true innovators. They were the ones who created the ideas. They were the ones who had all, like we talked about rhetoric and logic and everything like this. The Romans weren't the innovators. They took the ideas, perfected them and then spread them throughout the globe, well, the known world as it was at the time. Is that unfair? If you're on gold, you probably bought it for the same reason I did, because you looked at what central banks are doing to currencies and decided you wanted something they can't print. It's good reasoning. But here's the thing nobody talks about after you make that decision. Your gold is just sitting there. It's not doing anything. You're paying to store it. You're paying to ensure it. And in the meantime, it earns precisely nothing. Until now, what you're about to hear is not a normal gold advert. Today's sponsor is Monetary Metals. They've figured out something that once you hear it seems obvious, but almost nobody in the gold world is doing it. Monetary Metals connects gold owners with productive businesses, refiners, jewelers, companies that actually need physical gold to operate. Those businesses lease your gold and pay you a yield, not in dollars, not in pounds, in gold. So instead of your gold sitting in a vault, costing you money, it's out in the real economy doing something useful. And you're earning more ounces of gold for it, up to 4% annual yield paid in gold. If you already own gold, this is the logical next step. Visit Monetary-metals.com/triggeronmetry or click the link in the description. See how your gold can stop costing you money and start earning you more gold. That's Monetary-metals.com/triggeronmetry. They took the ideas, perfected them and then spread them throughout the globe at the known world as it was at the time. Is that unfair? Yes, true answer. I think I saw your video with David Battlefield, he was saying, if you put all the Greek achievements on one side and on the other side, the Greeks would just break the scale. I think that that is to privilege innovation over development. And I think it's not necessarily the case that the best Greeks were undowally bright. You know, I accept most of David's argument. I think he's right that the Greeks are incredibly brilliant. The more brilliant than any other ethnic group you can possibly imagine, with the possible exception of the Jews when it comes to law, although that's just clearly something special. And to me, very remarkable that the most talkative people's of antiquity are the Jews and the Greeks, and the most disputacious people's of antiquity. Some things never change. Some things never change, right? I think it's true that the Greeks are tremendously geniuses and trinity's geniuses in things like the arcs, and the Romans never quite caught up with them, with the exception of architecture. Because the Romans had the advantage of cement, at some time around the time of Augustus, they discovered cement, and it just raised the whole possibilities of architecture tremendously. The Romans had the arcs, of course, and they, if you look at Roman architecture and look at Greek architecture, Greek architecture is pretty boring. I mean, it's beautiful, but to build a whole city from the three others of Greek architecture and to have columns and temple fronts and so forth, it's just boring. I mean, Hitler liked it. Yeah, as I said. That's actually quite true that the more uniform, you see all these government buildings today that looked like they were designed by perverted Greeks, essentially, Greeks, on closed Greeks. But the Romans had tremendous fertility of invention, granted that many of their architects were of Greek origin, but nevertheless, it occurred in Roman times. The Romans, of course, were, I think, emancipated way in advance of the Greeks when it comes to law. And I know my friends who are in history of law will argue with this and say, no, the Greeks invented everything, and the Romans just systematized, but it's not true. The Romans developed a system of adjusting the interests of the individual citizen caught in a legal problem with the interests of the state and legal reasoning. Legal reasoning is the Roman invention. You can read-- there are books filled with-- small books filled with stories of Greek cases. And we have the Greek archers who are often defending legal cases, but the public law cases, which are property cases. And there's lots of interesting reasoning, they're very clever. But the Romans had this way of developing a case. And they really invented the whole-- if you meet someone who really has a legal mind, that person's a Roman. That's the surest way I can put it. And legal reasoning is different from logical reasoning, as we all know. It's different from philosophical reasoning, it's different from scientific reasoning. It's its own thing. It's different from historical reasoning, which is also its own thing. And it means weighing interests, and this is why I'm not a lawyer because I can't prescribe it well. My mother wanted me to be a lawyer. It means an application of practical wisdom to a case. It's a complex algorithm, a way of applying different law, applying the law, applying-- adjusting it to the case, figuring out what the good of the individualism, what the good of the state is. It's-- you see it every day and being discussed a few fall in any of these legal debates in Mar-o-Marga, that lawyers just don't think like the rest of us. But lawyers are thinking in a way that's immensely constructive, I think. It's not all pedophagy, right? It's not all trying to get away with things, trying to get people off. That's what we tend to think of as legal reasoning. People are trying to get people off of-- trying to cheat people in a legal way. But there is a high calling, a noble calling, of a law which the Romans really invented. And they had a series of great jurists in the late second and third century who basically founded Roman law, who systematized Roman legal thinking. And the book in which preserves their thinking, called the Digest of Roman law, it's a collection of legal opinions by Roman lawyers. That book taught legal reasoning to the west. And it used to be taught even in law schools today, fewer and fewer law schools teach it. But there are still many law schools that teach Roman law as a way of teaching legal reasoning. So I think the Romans really should get credit for that. There are continuators. The Greeks were not very good at empire, not compared to the Romans. The Greeks, longest Greek empire, made of lasted 300 years, something like that. Some of the successors of Alexander lasted maybe 300 years. But the Romans, they had a great military tradition. This is something also that the Greeks were not good at. Where the Greeks invented the failings, they invented a military formation that could defeat any other civilization in Central Asia, Egyptians, forget that the Greeks could beat them. But the Romans could beat the Greeks. That's fair enough. Come to a battle, what you're saying is that the Romans would basically destroy the Greeks. Well, they learned how to do it. The Romans were, and just amazing military nation, they first of all really believed in military virtue. But they beat every kind of army. They could win failings to armies because they had the Roman legion, which is superior to the failings. But they also fought mercenary armies. They fought irregular armies. They fought on land. They fought on sea, every possible situation you can think of, the Romans could beat you. They had tremendous system of supply. They knew everything about making fortresses. They had a military empire, which is just impregnable if they just had people to defend it. Military logistics were a Roman feature. Many armies couldn't stay in the field for very long because they were dependent on ravaging. Right. And the Romans had military supply. They had uniform weaponry. It was just an amazing military nation. And there were high ideals behind it. So this is a level of military superiority that the Greeks could never master. That's really one of the main reasons for the success of the Romans over 2,000 years. If you consider Roman history traditional dates, 743 BC, but the actual dates probably some month in the 600s, down to the end of the Fall of the Roman Empire in 476 AD, the West Moon Roman Empire, okay, that's 1,000 years. But then if you consider that the East Roman Empire was the Roman Empire, a continuation of it, echoes on for another 1,000 years, right, it goes down to 1453, the Fall of Constantinople. So really you're talking about an imperial system that lasts for 2 millennia. There's no other empire that has lasted that long. The Chinese take all the Chinese dynasty together, you've got 2,000 years. So those are the most long-lived civilizations that we have. And for good reason, because they had, you know, they had civilizational strengths that other, you know, lesser civilizations never, I say lesser in a sense, less long-lived civilizations never mastered. And we've spoken about the Greeks, we've spoken about the Romans. We touched on the Holy Roman Empire. The Greeks obviously gave us reason and logic, as you said, and the arts and theater, literature and all of that. The Romans with the architecture, their knowledge of war, the law. And then we've got the other component, which is of course religion. And obviously the Greeks and the Romans were religious, but when we talk about the West, immediately what we light upon is Christianity. So let's talk about the birth of Christianity, how it was incorporated into the Roman Empire, and then how it came to flourish right the way through the West. So we've done, what have the Romans ever done for us? We've done what have the Greeks have ever done for us, and now we're doing what? Have the Christians ever done for us? Absolutely, which I'm sure is being taught in Harvard at this point. Yes, well, I have four more days until I retire, and then it's not being taught, I'm sorry to say, all right, that's an exaggeration I'm taking too much. But anyway, we're going from Athens to Rome to now Jerusalem. Okay. Good. So Christianity is a religion that worships a person executed by the Roman state. It's a prophetic movement. Jesus Christ in some ways, the last of the Hebrew prophets, he is prophesying a future state of perfection when God's kingdom will come back. And he tells his followers that they have to behave perfectly because only when they behave perfectly, will God bring back kingdom, which is why God hasn't brought back the kingdom as Christ and so on, they're perfect. Anyway. Christianity is a. It's a very small sect within Judaism. There's a very controversial estimate that there are only 8,000 Christians by the end of the 1st century AD, which I think is too small, but even if it's off by a order of magnitude and there are 8,000 Christians, you still got a very, very small group of people there, if they're two or three million Jews by comparison. And then it's persecuted, Christians refuse to engage in the Roman rights. They can't hold offices, magistrates because they have to sacrifice to the gods. They can't be full members of society, they tend to be living in small ghettos or communities that are trying to hide from the authorities and they're persecuted various times. And then, suddenly in the late 3rd century, Christians start becoming really numerous. And it's because of the breakdown of Roman order. There's a number, there's, you know, they have this so-called crisis of the 3rd century when the Romans can't keep an emperor on his throne for more than a few months in many cases and sometimes a few days. I forget how many Roman emperors there are in the late 3rd century, but they're 30 or 40 emperors. They just can't. Times like modern burden. This statement sounds like, but it used to sound like Italy, but Italy is now better than modern burden, I think, more stable. So it's extremely unstable. The Empire is unstable. It's hit by troubled plagues. There's an economic collapse because every emperor wants to have an army, every army has to have money to be paid. The taxes are growing up massively. They debase the coinage. The coinage is just completely worthless by the end of the 3rd century. And then, finally, Rome pulls itself together. But by this time, the Christians are incredibly numerous, which means that maybe 5% of the population that would be a big estimate. So they're in the millions. And they've gotten into the army. They've gotten into legislatures, they've gotten into the aristocracy, even in some cases. And the mission comes along, I always do this. The tetrarchy comes along, diocletian sorry, diocletian, I forget the mission of diocletian mixed up, which shows that I'm not a real Roman historian, I'm hallowed with. So diocletian comes along, creates the new Roman system. Which lasts for a couple of centuries. And the Christians are, he thinks, his toe emperors, he took Caesar's thing, is a good threat. So we've got to get rid of them. They try to destroy them, try to wipe them out, in a series of great persecution. But at a certain point, they realize that they're creating work, this always happens when you try to persecute a large number of people. It doesn't work, right? And it creates more sympathy for them than was thought. So the Christians suddenly, from becoming a, from having been a persecuted minority worshiping a Roman criminal, they run the state, Constantine converts Christianity, he clears Christianity, the official religion of his dynasty. And so Christians are suddenly in charge. So the first three actually, many Christians says, great, we're in charge, kill the other way. Kill the bastards, you know, lambs into lions, right? That's the story. So they want to wipe out the Roman civilization, because Roman civilization is bad. It's full of people who have slaves, it's full of people who have, you know, who are violent, military people, they're cruel, they screw their slaves, you know, the men, there's absolutely no punishment for men who take sexual advantage of their slaves. They, there, there's all sorts of things morally wrong with Rome. So some of the early Christians are saying, let's just wipe them out and take over. Problem is they're 5% of the population, and you can't do that, right? So it takes a century for the, for the Christians to really get some kind of legal control over the Roman state, which they finally do in the three 90s. And by that time, their wives or people in the Christian ranks, like St. Augustine, St. Jerome, the Greek church fathers, they say, look, we can't get on without being able to write. You know, it would be nice to go on being able to write and to have grammar and to have, you know, we're giving sermons to the people, well, maybe we should learn some rhetoric, some of the art of public speaking. So they preserve Roman culture, Greco-Roman culture, we really have to say. And they, you know, they want to have their own, their own version of it, which emphasizes the next life and so forth. But they're basically preserving Greco-Roman culture, but they want to change it too. So you have this complex transformation of the Greco-Roman heritage, and it is intertwined with the Judeo-Christian tradition. And that is really the basis of Western civilization right there. They enter the splicing together of these two traditions, and, you know, they're quite different, morally speaking, and it's very difficult to take centuries, maybe even going on today in a certain way, for these two, these complex elements in our civilization to figure out who's in charge, what's the best way of ruling. The Romans create the first confessional state, that's what I call it in this book. One state is one that has official religion, and other religions have disabilities of various kinds. So they don't do what the Muslims do, they don't, you know, kill the postates, they just take away all the money. But, you know, there are second class citizens in the Christian professional state, Jews, pagans. They're usually not persecuted with some few exceptions, but they're using not persecuted but they make it very clear that Christians aren't charged, that you can't really hold off as you can, but they created an alternative, they created a new power structure, let me just put it that way, and the process of trying to negotiate between Greco-Roman values, which values things like honor and glory and contribution to the country, and all these noble Roman values and Greek values come up, bump up against the Christian idea of humility. Christians are supposed to be humble, the Romans don't really value humility that much. They, you know, Cicero is the most popular Roman author of the Middle Ages, it's not a humble guy. He's very vain, in fact. So, but Cicero is a canonical author, and if a canonical, you have a canonical author, you're supposed to imitate the person, right? There's supposed to be a moral model. So the long discussion between the Christian and the Greco-Roman is, I think, just part of the civilization, it's never resolved. We finally get rid of confessional states in the 18th century, and the idea that a state should have its own dominant religion doesn't go to the 18th century, so it's a long period, but the 18th century is still fighting over Greeks and Romans versus Judeo-Christians. A lot of the enlightenment is about trying to privilege the Greco-Roman heritage, especially the rationalism of the Greco-Roman heritage over dogmatic versions of religion. So, but I don't think it's fair to say, or correct to say, that the Greco-Roman tradition ends in the Judeo-Christian month begins. This is the great mistake, I think, of people like Volterran, the Enlightenment, who wanted to paint the Middle Ages as a period of superstition, ignorance, violence, you know. But just Middle Ages is not that way. So, Middle Ages, evil scholasticism places more value on rationalism than any previous society. They have elements that come, obviously, from faith that are not provable by reason, but there's also a tremendous reliance on law and reason. They have the Civil Law of the Romans, which they elaborate into grand new structures, and they have the canon law of the church, they have theology, and they're trying to create this gigantic model of order based on reason, authority, weaving together reason and authority. So, it's a highly rationalistic age, and Renaissance, which I get into at the end of this book, is in a way revolting against the hyperrationalism of scholasticism, they're saying, you know, use scholastics can beat us in argument, you can beat everybody in argument, that's what you do, that's what scholastics do, they argue, you produce scholastic together, they argue, and no one's convinced, really, in some time you're defeated, but, you know, they get up the next day and make the same argument, if you want to change society, you have to affect peoples. imagination. You have to affect their emotions. You have to give them a vision of what a good society would look like. You need to have, you need to have a literary imagination. You need to have eloquence and eloquence in your language. That's how you you change people. So that's what the Renaissance is. When the Renaissance tries to bring back classical antiquity and Christian antiquity, that's what they are trying to do. They're trying to, in a way, give through the weapons of the imagination, give through the weapons of beauty. And there's the schostics. You know, you can say that schostics had beautiful arguments, the way you have beautiful mathematical arguments. You need to acquire it sometimes to say, "Wow, that's really good." I mean, that's just effectuous. Something that's just really brilliant to the point of giving you a sense of beauty. But most of the time not. Most of the time not. And the Renaissance is deeply concerned with beauty and with goodness and virtue. All those things which had been neglected in medieval education. Right. Let's talk underwear. Admittedly not the topic I expected to be discussing when we started this show, but here we are. Turns out most men are wearing genuinely bad underwear and have just decided that's fine. It's not fine. That's why I want to talk about sheath. S-H-E-A-T-H. Sheath.com. It's underwear built around a dual pouch system. What that means in plain English, everything stays where it should be. No sticking, no chafing, no shifting around mid-sentence, whilst trying to maintain air of gravitas, the fabric breathes. The design separates. There is apparently a technical term for what this creates, and that term is zen-like separation. Which sounds ridiculous, but is also completely accurate. It was developed by a veteran on his second tour, which means it was designed under conditions where comfort was not a luxury. Over 10,000 five-star reviews from people who aren't messing about. I've been wearing them for a few months, and the difference to my day-to-day comfort is bigger than I'm comfortable telling you about on a politics podcast. If you know, you know. Go to sheath.com. That's S-H-E-A-T-H.com. Use code, trigonometry, or check out for 20% off. First pair comes with a full money bank guarantee, so there's no reason not to try them. Sheath.com. Once you go sheath, you won't go back. Sheath.com. And you mentioned the Judeo-Christian tradition. Somewhat a contested term. Some people think it's useful, some not. What role, other than providing Jesus, what role did Jews and Jerusalem play in the history of the Western tradition? Well, Jesus is an entire philosophy. Well, not all of it, but a good deal of his theology, if you can call it that, his religious reform movement is based on Jewish tradition. I mean, Jesus is constantly citing the Bible, right? You can, I mean, there are people who have gone through all the statements of Jesus and found Old Testament sources from them all. He has new elements in his-- Is that right? I think so. That's really interesting. I never heard anyone say that. Oh, come on. Generally. That's just a showcase in my ignorance of nothing else, but I-- So you're saying what Jesus was teaching was based on the Old Testament? Yes. Fascinating. But he thinks that the Old Testament is going to be replaced by the kingdom of God. But he says it won't change a jot or a title, which means they're not going to change the punctuation of the Old Testament. It's going to be perfectly preserved. But he's predicting a future age when it will be transcended in some way, because he thinks that his message is in some way perfects the law. So he'll say that I give you a new commandment, and you hear the sharp intake of breath from all the Jews present, a new commandment. Guess where the other 10 came from, guy? So what, you're God? You know, give me a new commandment. And he thinks he has at least the authority of the prophets. He's a Messiah, and he has a particular interpretation of that. So he's a radical. He's a theological radical. He's a question about that. But he's a radical within the Jewish tradition. But all of the-- He's always trying to essentialize the Jewish tradition. He says, what's the fundamental thing is? Love God, love your neighbor. Those are the two things. You really have to remember. Just do your honor to me. All right. It's there, but if you just see like a, you need an instant person's guide to being a good, a good Jew, you should just love God, and love God, and love your neighbor. That's all you really need to know. And you will naturally do whatever you want. So he's a real radical. But I think it's quite-- You start to realize how dependent early Christianity is in Judaism when you look at the sacred books. The early Christians love the Psalms, and rightly so, the Psalms are incredibly beautiful. Sometimes they're incredibly ugly and jarring, but they're often incredibly beautiful. And they survive translation. That's the amazing thing about them. You can read a good translation of the Psalms into English. It's deeply moving in a way that literally translated from other languages often is not. And there were people like Marcian who wanted to get rid of Judaism. I think they want to have a Christianity. He's a heretic. Pied through H.S. So, everyone's clear. He's a heretic. So, Marcian wanted to do a way with Judaism and just have a Christianity that is dependent on Christ's message. And there are other people who wanted to say, let's make Greek or Roman, the Greek or Roman philosophy-- Greek philosophy is part of Christian message. But the Christians, you know, they settled down in the second century A.G. and they said, we are not Jews, we are Christians, but we are based-- Our New Testament is based on the Old Testament. The Old Promises have been superseded by the New Promises of God and the New Testament. So, they have a very strong and it's difficult to say because there's so much friction between Jews and Christians because they are a heretical movement from the point of Jews. So, there are lots of nasty things that Christians say about Jews. And Jerome, who's a great defender of studying the hebraic or veritas, the truth of the Hebrews, he's really anti-Semitic. So, they have this respect for the Jewish Old Testament without having respect for modern Jews, right? They think modern Jews have not listened to Christ's message. They're people who are stiff-knacked, right? But they won't change. They should change. They should hear the truth of Christ. And if they don't change, there's something wrong with them. Maybe there's a demon inside them. Maybe they're just proud of something. They have some kind of moral problem. So, there's that kind of hatred that goes on, but there's also the recognition that the Jews have had a message from God too. And the fact that they're not listening to our message doesn't take that away. Okay. And then where do we go from Jerusalem? Complete the story for us. So, I'm trying to understand what you mean by that. Well, what I mean is you've got Athens, then Rome, then Christianity comes along. How do we get from that to the modern day and the narrative of the West? And that's in volume too. I have my views on that too. Well, I think that the reformation changes everything. Reformation, what is the reformation? Another question that I can answer. Well, the reformation is briefly a result against the ecclesiastical polity of the Middle Ages. What is ecclesiastical? So, in Middle Ages, you developed this very strange form of dual government where you had one authority over the human soul and one authority over the human body. So, the Pope is in charge of the church, which has his own laws, his own tax system, his own hierarchy. It's a complete government and it exists in every, every Christian state. It's in the only international institution aside from the empire. And then you have lay society which governs the body, this life as opposed to the next life. It has its laws, its government, its hierarchy, its tax system. No. So, it's a parallel government. It's a very strange situation. I have looked in vain for any other part of the world that has the same situation. I'm coming up to a major point. So, what happens in the reformations that get rid of the ecclesiastical hierarchy in positive countries, and they make the king, or the secular government, the authority over religion. Ultimately, religion is privatized, you know, in the 18th century, but in this period, we're talking about 16th, 17th, 18th, and early 18th century, the state rules religion. So what happens? This is one of the big messages of the book, okay. So what does the medieval Cleozeaastical hierarchy have charge of in the Middle Ages thought? That means doctrine. When it's taught in the university, when it's taught in the school about religion, it's the job of the church to oversee that. Family, sex, religion, and herons, all those laws having to do with the regulation of human sexuality and marriage and adoption and inheritance. All those rules are controlled by the church. Third thing, economic life, right? How you conduct moral transactions, what's considered a user, what's not considered a user, how you can lend money to people without committing a sin of user, how you can pass down money between generations, the organization of financial institutions, the church has charged over early banking, for example, the banking system, both the commercial banking system and the private banking system that's all under control of the church. So what happens in pros and cons, when you take all those authorities away, liberalism, right? That's for freedom, freedom of sexuality and family, economic freedom. So that's my big contribution to the art, the origins of modernism, that reformation has a lot to do with liberalism, which precedes the revival of democracy in the late 18th century. So the modern world is shaking off the bonds of religious law and making religious law for itself, first that falls under the power of the secular state. But the secular state is, of course, deeply involved with private interests and is really unable to come up with universal rules of conduct in things like userry and it's highly penetrural by the influence of wealthy people and so forth. So the economic freedom of the modern world, the sexual and family law of modern world, and the intellectual freedom of modern world come out of the reformation only, which is then radicalized by the enlightenment. I was astonished recently when I was investigating this stuff with my class and I discovered that adoption is only legally permitted in the 19th century in France, the early 20th century. I forget exactly the date, but I thought adoption, that everybody has adoption, the Roman set adoption, but the medieval law prohibits adoption. So that has a huge impact on the way society is organized, right? And it means that they prohibit cousin marriage and also to thing that has a huge impact on this. And if you've seen this book called The Weirdest People in the World, I forget the name of the author. He says of Heinrich, is that? That's right. He's a colleague of mine and I think one of the other schools and he says that you can't, the origin of civil society is the church's prohibition of, or the person's prohibition of cousin marriage and the ability to inherit wealth and to get help from your family. If you can't get help from your family, you've got to get help from civil society in some way. And I would add the church, right? Because if you're a family trying to preserve its wealth and you can't marry your cousin or you can't have your brother marry your dead brother's wife, which the Romans also did. That's also prohibited by Canada law. Then you have to find some other way to preserve your wealth when we do it is to turn the church into, you know, get one of your kids into the church. So how power can help you, right? So it's a very interesting social transformation that takes place as a result of the, of, of medieval Christianity. But I'm not really an expert on that. I know enough to write a textbook about it, but there, I had, there's a bibliography that people are interested in, they go further, but anyway, but that's where I put the origins of the modern world, and of course, the radicalization of politics and egalitarianism is also a Christian thing because the ancient West, but egalitarianism basically comes from Jewish thought, right? From, from the Jewish, from tyranny, where there's an equaling of, of a sort of more distributive than egalitarian. There's a redistribution every few years, every Sabbath, and then every 50 years, every 49 years of property within the Jewish people. So then there's of course the early Christian ideas of equality, it's in the Bible, you know, but that stays within radical Christian communities. That type of egalitarian, as applied to social life, stays within radical Christian communities. The equality if the Romans have, and the Greeks have, as equality of citizenship, equality under the law, it's a different type of equality altogether. So what happens in the 17th century is that some of the radical Protestant groups adopt a social system based on egalitarianism, and that feeds it this way, you know, lock through locking some other people into the Western system of this radical egalitarianism where everything has more and more and more and more equal. It's become a process of making equal. So that I think is also a Christian margin. And that's how we've got to where we are. James, I wish we had another three hours to talk about it, but our time is up. Thank you so much for coming on. Final question is always what's the one thing we're not talking about that we should be? The fragility of the golden friend. It's absolutely amazing how close we got to losing major parts of our tradition. The works of Aristotle that we read today survived in a single box of scrolls down to the first century BC. If that had burned up, no Aristotle. And it was only because some people figured out that it was valuable that they started copying it again. I mentioned before the digest of Roman law, okay, that's the most important source for our knowledge of legal thinking in the Roman Empire, the basis of all Western legal thinking. That was down to one manuscript in the 11th century. And it became the basis of legal education in the 12th century was to just rediscover and studied, copied, but it almost was lost. There are many works like this, there are three copies of Plato left and complete works of Plato left in the 14th century. There's one copy of Catalyst left in the 14th century. What happens is that somebody realized they were valuable and wanted to save them. There were scholars out there who said that this is something we need to keep going. This is something which will help us to revive our civilization, something that will help us to have revenge on, so a reformation. We need this thing now, and they were scholars who, and people of goodwill who said the traditions valuable, we have to keep it going, let's copy the manuscript, let's teach it, let's teach people to love these texts again. Let's teach people to love Catalyst and Horus and Virgil again, because if we don't think you will lose it, we'll lose it. It's not just the text itself, it's the love of the text and the ability to read the text and understand the text. So that's what I think I would like to end on, is the idea that we have to keep it going. It's up to us. James, thank you so much for coming on the show. It's been a pleasure.