TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW
Around the year 478 B.C., the city of Sparta sent an expedition to Persia led
by the young Spartan nobleman Pausanias. The city-states of Greece had
recently fought off a mighty invasion from Persia, and now Pausanias,
along with allied ships from Athens, had orders to punish the invaders and
win back the islands and coastal towns that the Persians had occupied.
Both the Athenians and the Spartans had great respect for Pausanias-he
had proven hirnself as a fearless warrior, with a flair for the dramatic.
With amazing speed, Pausanias and his troops took Cyprus, then
moved on to the mainland of Asia Minor known as the Hellespont and
captured Byzantium (modem-day Istanbul). Now master of part of the Persian empire, Pausanias began to show signs of behavior that went beyond
his normal flamboyance. He appeared in public wearing pomades in his
hair and flowing Persian robes, and accompanied by a bodyguard of Egyptians.
He held lavish banquets in which he sat in the Persian manner and
demanded to be entertained. He stopped seeing his old friends, entered
into communication with the Persian King Xerxes, and all in all affected
the style and manner of a Persian dictator.
Clearly power and success had gone to Pausanias's head. His armyAthenians and Spartans alike-at first thought this a passing fancy: He had
always been a bit exaggerated in his gestures. But when he flaunted his disdain for the Greeks' simple way of life, and insulted the common Greek
soldier, they began to feel he had gone too far. Although there was no concrete evidence for this, rumors spread that he had gone over to the other
side, and that he dreamed of becoming a kind of Greek Xerxes. To quell
the possibility of mutiny, the Spartans relieved Pausanias of his command
and called hirn horne.
Pausanias, however, continued to dress in the Persian style, even in
Sparta. After a few months he independently hired a trireme and retumed
to the Hellespont, telling his compatriots he was going to continue the fight
against the Persians. Actually, however, he had different plans-to make
hirnself ruler of all Greece, with the aid of Xerxes hirnself. The Spartans
dedared hirn a public enemy and sent a ship to capture hirn. Pausanias surrendered, certain that he could dear hirnself of the charges of treason. It
did come out during the trial that during his reign as commander he had
offended his fellow Greeks time and again, erecting monuments, for instance, in his own name, rather than in those of the cities whose troops had
fought alongside hirn, as was the custom.
Yet Pausanias proved right: Despite the evidence of his numerous contacts with the enemy, the Spartans
refused to imprison a man of such noble birth, and let hirn go.
Now thinking hirnself untouchable, Pausanias hired a messenger to
take a letter to Xerxes, but the messenger instead took the letter to the
Spartan authorities. These men wanted to find out more, so they had the
messenger arrange to meet Pausanias in a tempIe where they could hide
and listen behind a partition. What Pausanias said shocked them-they
had never heard such contempt for their ways spoken so brazenly by one
of their own-and they made arrangements for his immediate arrest.
On his way horne from the temple, Pausanias got word of what had
happened. He ran to another temple to hide, but the authorities followed
him there and placed sentries all around. Pausanias refused to surrender.
Unwilling to forcibly remove hirn from the sacred temple, the authorities
kept hirn trapped inside, until he eventually died of starvation.
Interpretation
At first glance it might seem that Pausanias simply fell in love with another
culture, a phenomenon as old as time. Never comfortable with the asceticism of the Spartans, he found hirnself enthralled by the Persian love of
luxury and sensual pleasure. He put on Persian robes and perfumes with a
sense of deliverance from Greek discipline and simplicity.
This is how it appears when people adopt a culture in which they were
not raised. Often, however, there is also something else at play: People
who flaunt their infatuation with a different culture are expressing a disdain and contempt for their own. They are using the outward appearance
of the exotic to separate themselves from the common folk who unquestioningly follow the local customs and laws, and to express their sense of
superiority.
Otherwise they would act with more dignity, showing respect
for those who do not share their desires. Indeed their need to show their
difference so dramatically often makes them disliked by the people whose
beliefs they challenge, indirectly and subtly, perhaps, but offensively
nonetheless.
As Thucydides wrote of Pausanias, "By his contempt for the laws and
his imitation of foreign ways he had made hirnself very widely suspected of
being unwilling to abide by normal standards." Cultures have norms that
reflect centuries of shared beliefs and ideals.
Do not expect to scoff at such
things with impunity. You will be punished somehow, even if just through
isolation-a position of real powerlessness.
Many of us, like Pausanias, feel the siren call of the exotic, the foreign.
Measure and moderate this desire. Flaunting your pleasure in alien ways of
thinking and acting will reveal a different motive--to demonstrate your superiority over your fellows.
OBSERVANCE OF THE LAW
During the late sixteenth century, a violent reaction against the Protestant
Reformation erupted in Italy. The Counter-Reformation,
as it was called,
included its own version of the Inquisition to root out all deviations from
the Catholic Church. Among its victims was the scientist Galileo, but an
important thinker who suffered even greater persecution was the Dominican monk and philosopher Tommaso Campanella.
A follower of the materialist doctrine of the Roman philosopher Epicums, Campanella did not believe in miracles, or in heaven and hell. The
Church had promoted such superstitions, he wrote, to control the common
folk by keeping them in fear. Such ideas verged on atheism, and Campanella expressed them incautiously. In 1593 the Inquisition threw hirn
Bene vixit. qui bene
latuit-"He lives weil
who conceals himself
weil. "
OVID,
c. 43 B.C'.-A.D. 18
Wise men [should beJ
like coffers with douhle
bottoms: Which when
others look into, being
opened, they see not all
that they hold.
SIR WALTER RALEIGH,
1 554-161 8
\\ 111<:,\ TIIE \\ ATEHS
\rEHE Cl IA1'.CI·:1J
Once upon a time
Khidr, the teacher of
Moses, cal/ed upon
mankind with a warning. At a certain date,
he said, all the water in
the world which had
not been specially
hoarded, would disappear. It would then be
rcnewed, with different
water, which would
drive men mad.
Only one man listened
to the meaning of this
advice. He colleeted
water and went to a
secure place where he
stored it, and waited for
the water to change its
character.
On the appointed date
the streams stopped
running, the wells wellt
dry, and the man who
had listened, seeing this
LAW 38 319
happening, went to his
retreat and drank his
preserved water.
When he saw, fram his
security, the waterfalls
again beginning to
fiow, this man
descended among the
other sons of men.
He
found that they were
thinking and talking in
an entirely different
way from before; yet
they had no memory of
what had happened,
nor of having been
warned. When he tried
to talk to them, he realized that they thought
that he was mad, and
they showed hostility or
compassion, not understanding.
At first he drank none
of the new water, but
went back to his
concealment, to draw
on his supplies, every
day. Finally, however,
he took the decision to
drink the new water
because he could not
bear the loneliness of
living, behaving and
thinking in a different
way fram everyone
else. He drank the new
water, and became like
the rest. Then he forgot
all about his own store
of special water, and
his fellows began to
look upon him as a
madman who had
miraculously been
restored to sanity.
TALES OF
THE DERVISHES,
I DRIES SHAH,
1 967
320 LAW 38
into prison for his heretical beliefs. Six years later, as a form of partial release, he was confined to a monastery in Naples.
Southem Italy was controlled by Spain at the time, and in Naples
Campanella became involved in a plot to fight and throw out these invaders. His hope was to establish an independent republic based on his
own ideas of utopia. The leaders of the Italian Inquisition, working with
their Spanish counterparts, had hirn imprisoned again. This time they also
tortured hirn, to discover the true nature ofhis impious beliefs: He was subjected to the infamous la veglia, a torture in which he was suspended by his
arms in a squatting position a few inches above a seat studded with spikes.
The posture was impossible to sustain, and in time the victim would end up
sitting on the spikes, which would tear his flesh at the slightest contact.
During these years, however, Campanella leamed something about
power. Facing the prospect of execution for heresy, he changed his strategy: He would not renounce his beliefs, yet he knew he had to disguise
their outward appearance.
To save his life, Campanella feigned madness. He let his inquisitors
imagine that his beliefs stemmed from an incontrollable unsoundness of
mind. For a while the tortures continued, to see if his insanity was faked,
but in 1603 his sentence was commuted to life in prison.
The first four
years of this he spent chained to a wall in an underground dungeon. Despite such conditions, he continued to write--although no longer would he
be so foolish as to express his ideas directly.
One book of Campanella's, The Hispanic Monarchy, promoted the idea
that Spain had a divine mission to expand its powers around the world,
and offered the Spanish king practical, Machiavelli-type advice for achieving this. Despite his own interest in Machiavelli, the book in general presented ideas completely the opposite to his own. The Hispanic Monarchy was
in fact a ploy, an attempt to show his conversion to orthodoxy in the boldest manner possible. It worked: In 1626, six years after its publication, the
pope finally let Campanella out of prison.
Shortly after gaining his freedom, Campanella wrote Atheism Conquered, a book attacking 'free-thinkers, Machiavellians, Calvinists, and
heretics of all stripes. The book is written in the form of debates in which
heretics express their beliefs and are countered by arguments for the superiority of Catholicism. Campanella had obviously reformed-his book
made that dear. Or did it?
The arguments in the mouths of the heretics had never before been
expressed with such verve and freshness. Pretending to present their side
only to knock it down, Campanella actually summarized the case against
Catholicism with striking passion. When he argued the other side, supposedly his side, on the other hand, he resorted to stale dicbes and convoluted
rationales. Brief and eloquent, the heretics' arguments seemed bold and
sincere. The lengthy arguments for Catholicism seemed tiresome and unconvincing.
Catholics who read the book found it disturbing and ambiguous, but
they could not claim it was heretical, or that Campanella should be retumed to prison. His defense of Catholicism, after all, used arguments they
had used themselves. Yet in the years to come, Atheism Conqueredbecame a
bible for atheists, Machiavellians and libertines who used the arguments
Campanella had put in their mouths to defend their dangerous ideas. Combining an outward display of conformity with an expression of his true beliefs in a way that his sympathizers would understand, Campanella showed
that he had learned his lesson.
Interpretation
In the face of awesome persecution, Campanella devised three strategie moves that saved his hide, freed hirn from prison, and allowed hirn to
continue to express his beliefs. First he feigned madness--the medieval
equivalent of disavowing responsibility for one's actions, like blaming
one's parents today. Next he wrote a book that expressed the exact opposite of his own beliefs. Finally, and most brilliantly of all, he disguised his
ideas while insinuating them at the same time. It is an old but powerful
triek: You pretend to disagree with dangerous ideas, but in the course of
your disagreement you give those ideas expression and exposure. You
seem to conform to the prevailing orthodoxy, but those who know will understand the irony involved. You are protected.
It is inevitable in society that certain values and customs lose contact
with their original motives and become oppressive. And there will always
be those who rebel against such oppression, harboring ideas far ahead of
their time. As Campanella was forced to realize, however, there is no point
in making a display of your dangerous ideas if they only bring you suffering and persecution. Martyrdom serves no purpose--better to live on in an
oppressive world, even to thrive in it. Meanwhile find a way to express
your ideas subtly for those who understand you. Laying your pearls before
swine will only bring you trouble.
For a long time I have not said wh at I believed, nOT do l ever believe
what I say, and if indeed sometimes I do happen to tell the truth,
I hide it among so many lies that it is hard to find.
Niccolo Machiavelli. in a letter to Francesco Guicciardini, May 1 7, 1521
KEYS TO POWER
We all tell lies and hide our true feelings, for complete free expression is a
sodal impossibility. From an early age we leam to conceal our thoughts,
telling the prickly and insecure what we know they want to hear, watching
carefully lest we offend them. For most of us this is natural-there are ideas
and values that most people accept, and it is pointless to argue. We believe
what we want to, then, but on the outside we wear a mask.
There are people, however, who see such restraints as an intolerable
infringement on their freedom, and who have a need to prove the superiNever combat any
man 's opinion; for
though you reached the
age of Methuselah, you
would never have done
setting him right upon
all the absurd things
that he believes.
It is also weil to avoid
correcting people :s
mistakes in conversaäon, however good
your intentions may be;
for it is easy to offend
people, and difficult, if
not impossible to mend
them.
If you feel irritated by
the absurd remarks of
two people whose
conversation you
happen to overhear,
you should imagine
that you are listening to
the dialogue of two
fools in a comedy.
Probatum es!.
The man who comes
into the world wirh the
notion that he is really
going to instruct it in
matters of the highest
importance, may thank
his stars if he escapes
wirh a whole skin.
ARTHUR
SCHOPENHAlJER,
1 788-1860
LAW 38 321
Tl IE CITlZE'J .\ 'J 11
TIII·: TIL\H:I.U:H
"Look around YUII, "
said the citizen. "This is
the largest market in
the world. "
"Oh surely not, " said
the traveller.
"Weil, perhaps not
the largest, " said the
citizen, "bllt milch
the best. "
" You are certainly
wrong there, " said the
traveller. "I can tell
yuu ....
They bllried the
stranger in the dllsk.
FAHLES,
ROHERT LOUIS
STEVENSON,
1 850-1894
I[ Machiavelli had had
a prince tor disciple,
the first thing he wOllld
have recommended
him to do would have
been to write a book
against Machiavellism.
VOLTAIRE,
1694-1 778
322 LAW 38
ority of their values and beliefs. In the end, though, their arguments convince only a few and offend a great deal more. The reason arguments do
not work is that most people hold their ideas and values without thinking
about them. There is a strong emotional content in their beliefs: They really do not want to have to rework their habits of thinking, and when you
challenge them, whether directly through your arguments or indirectly
through your behavior, they are hostile.
Wise and clever people learn early on that they can display conventional behavior and mouth conventional ideas without having to believe in
them. The power these people gain from blending in is that of being left
alone to have the thoughts they want to have, and to express them to the
people they want to express them to, without suffering isolation or ostracism. Once they have established themselves in a position of power,
they can try to convince a wider circle of the correctness of their ideas-
perhaps working indirectly, using Campanella's strategies of irony and insinuation.
In the late fourteenth century, the Spanish began a massive persecution of the Jews, murdering thousands and driving others out of the country. Those who remained in Spain were forced to convert. Yet over the next
three hundred years, the Spanish noticed a phenomenon that disturbed
them: Many of the converts lived their outward lives as Catholics, yet
somehow managed to retain their Jewish beliefs, practicing the religion in
private. Many of these so-called Marranos (originally a derogatory term,
being the Spanish for "pig") attained high levels of govemment office, married into the nobility, and gave every appearance of Christian piety, only
to be discovered late in life as practicing Jews. (The Spanish Inquisition
was specifically commissioned to ferret them out.) Over the years they
mastered the art of dissimulation, displaying crucifixes liberally, giving
generous gifts to churches, even occasionally making anti-Semitic
remarks-and all the while maintaining their inner freedom and beliefs.
In society, the Marranos knew, outward appearances are what matter.
This remains true today. The strategy is simple: As Campanella did in writing Atheism Conquered, make a show of bIen ding in, even going so far as to
be the most zealous advocate of the prevailing orthodoxy. If you stick to
conventional appearances in public few will believe you think differently
in private.
Do not be so foolish as to imagine that in our own time the old orthodoxies are gone. Jonas Salk, for instance, thought science had gotten past
politics and protocol. And so, in his search for a polio vaccine, he broke all
the rules-going public with a discovery before showing it to the scientific
community, taking credit for the vaccine without acknowledging the scientists who had paved the way, making hirnself a star. The public may have
loved hirn but scientists shunned hirn. His disrespect for his community's
orthodoxies left hirn isolated, and he wasted years trying to heal the
breach, and struggling for funding and cooperation.
Bertolt Brecht underwent a modem form of Inquisition-the House
Un-American Activities Committee-and approached it with considerable
canniness. Having worked off and on in the American film industry during
World War 11, in 1947 Brecht was summoned to appear before the committee to answer questions on his suspected Communist sympathies. Other
writers called before the committee made a point of attacking its members,
and of acting as belligerently as possible in order to gain sympathy for
themselves. Brecht, on the other hand, who had actually worked stead-
. fastly for the Communist cause, played the opposite game: He answered
questions with ambiguous generalities that defied easy interpretation. Call
it the Campanella strategy. Brecht even wore a suit-a rare event for himand made a point of smoking a cigar during the proceedings, knowing that
a key committee member had a passion for cigars. In the end he charmed
the committee members, who let hirn go scot-free.
Brecht then moved to East Germany, where he encountered a different kind of Inquisition. Here the Communists were in power, and they criticized his plays as decadent and pessimistic. He did not argue with them,
but made small changes in the performance scripts to shut them up. Meanwhile he managed to preserve the published texts as written. His outward
conformity in both cases gave hirn the freedom to work unhindered, without having to change his thinking. In the end, he made his way safely
through dangerous times in different countries through the use of little
dances of orthodoxy, and proved he was more powerful than the forces of
repression.
Not only do people of power avoid the offenses of Pausanias and Salk,
they also leam to play the clever fox and feign the common touch. This has
been the ploy of con artists and politicians throughout the centuries. Leaders like Julius Caesar and Franklin D. Roosevelt have overcome their natural aristocratic stance to cultivate a familiarity with the common man.
They have expressed this familiarity in little gestures, often symbolic, to
show the people that their leaders share popular values, despite their different status.
The logical extension of this practice is the invaluable ability to be all
things to all people. When you go into society, leave behind your own
ideas and values, and put on the mask that is most appropriate for the
group in which you find yourself. Bismarck played this game successfully
for years-there were people who vaguely understood what he was up to,
but not clearly enough that it mattered. People will swallow the bait because it flatters them to believe that you share their ideas. They will not
take you as a hypocrite if you are careful-for how can they accuse you of
hypocrisy ifyou do not let them know exactly what you stand for? Nor will
they see you as lacking in values. Of course you have values-the values
you share with them, while in their company.
