Penggalan kalimat berikut diambil dari harian Kompas 23 Desember 2006: “Selanjutnya, kekerasan atau violensia bukan hasil logis agresivitas yang kompetitif”. Silahkan hitung berapa banyak kata serapan dari bahasa Inggris dan Belanda yang terkandung dalam kalimat tersebut. Logis, agresivitas, kompetitif adalah kata serapan yang umum dipakai dalam bahasa Indonesia. Tapi Violensia, nah ini baru sekali saya temukan.
Yang akan saya bicarakan bukan banyaknya kata serapan yang digunakan dalam kalimat tersebut (atau seberapa jauh kalimat tersebut bisa dimengerti). Saya setuju dengan pendapat yang menyatakan bahwa bahasa terus berkembang. Tidak ada satu lembaga pun yang punya wewenang untuk menyatakan apa yang boleh dan yang tidak boleh digunakan dalam bahasa Indonesia. Jadi tidak ada salahnya menggunakan kata serapan untuk menggambarkan gejala atau temuan baru yang belum ada padanannya dalam bahasa Indonesia. Semua tergantung kebutuhan saja.
Tapi saya rasa semua juga ada batasnya. Penggunaan kata Violensia tadi misalnya, tidak bisa saya mengerti sama sekali. Bahkan dalam kalimat tersebut ditulis ‘… kekerasan atau violensia’, sehingga jelas sekali padanan kata violensia adalah kekerasan. Mengapa harus menciptakan kata serapan baru? Saya tidak percaya ini karena alasan yang sifatnya praktis. Coba hitung: kekerasan terdiri dari 4 suku kata, violensia terdiri dari 5 suku kata. Pasti lebih mudah menyebut kata ‘kekerasan’ daripada ‘violensia’.
Menjadi tambah mengecewakan karena kata tersebut muncul di harian Kompas. Bukannya menganggap remeh harian yang lain, tapi sebagai harian besar Kompas seharusnya mempunyai penyelia bahasa dengan kemampuan dan jumlah yang cukup sehingga hal seperti ini tidak terjadi. Kenyataannya ini bukan pertama kali Kompas meloloskan kata aneh seperti itu.
Contohnya adalah penggunaan kata ‘selebrasi’, biasanya dalam bagian olahraga khususnya berita sepak bola. Mengapa harus menggunakan kata ‘selebrasi’ bila padanan kata bahasa Indonesianya juga cukup baik dan sudah umum digunakan yaitu ‘perayaan’. Sekali lagi perhatikan, kedua kata tersebut terdiri dari 4 suku kata. Jadi ini juga bukan masalah kepraktisan ataupun penggambaran gejala baru.
Satu kata bentukan lain yang pernah digunakan Kompas adalah ‘menginteli’. Padanan bahasa Indonesianya adalah ‘mematamatai’. Dalam hal ini agak bisa mengerti mengapa yang dipakai adalah kata ‘menginteli’, yaitu karena padanannya dalam bahasa Indonesia cukup panjang. Tapi kata ini sama sekali tidak anggun dan cerdas. Jauh lebih enak menggunakan kata ‘mematamatai’. Kalau dikembalikan ke bahasa Inggris pun seharusnya digunakan kata ‘to spy’ atau turunannya ‘spying’. Kata intel hanya turunan ‘tidak sah’ dari kata serapan ‘intelijen’.
Semua kata padanan tersebut cukup enak didengar dan mudah diucapkan. Jadi, munculnya kata serapan yang tidak perlu tampaknya lebih karena masalah selera. Seperti yang sudah banyak ditulis, ada anggapan bahwa penggunaan bahasa asing memberi kesan cerdas bagi pemakainya. Yang harus dilakukan tampaknya adalah mengikis anggapan tersebut. Harus bisa dibedakan antara mempunyai kemampuan berbahasa asing dan kecerdasan dalam berbahasa Indonesia. Karena pada kenyataannya menyelipkan kata-kata bahasa asing (baik serapan maupun bentuk aslinya) dalam percakapan ataupun tulisan tidak semerta-merta menunjukkan tingkat keterpelajaran pemakainya. Alih-alih ini bisa menimbulkan kebingungan bagi pendengar atau pembaca.
Satu hal lagi, memang tidak mudah untuk mengenalkan padanan kata dalam bahasa Indonesia, terutama untuk hal atau gejala baru. Kata baru seperti tetikus (mouse, untuk komputer), sangkil dan mangkus (effective and efficient), papan kunci (keyboard) bisa dikatakan tidak terlalu berhasil. Tapi sudah mulai banyak juga kata padanan yang dapat diterima di masyarakat, ditilik dari jumlah penggunaannya. Misalnya saja mengunduh (to download), nirlaba (non-profit), cenayang (paranormal), rataan (average) dan lainnya. Media jelas sangat membantu dalam penyebaran kata-kata baru seperti ini.
***
Monday, December 25, 2006
Friday, December 22, 2006
Parenting 101 (Part 4): The Hidden Cost of Cheap Toys
When you have the means, go for the quality. It’s a common belief among parents that since the lil’ uns like to break down their toys and have sort span of attention, don’t bother buy them the expensive ones. True, the inquisitive minds of small children make their toys especially short-lived. But sometimes a better quality toy (still short-lived albeit not so much as a cheaper toy) is worth the money.
Look at this sample [Exhibit 1]. The picture was taken only 18 hours from the time I bought it. A China made toy, it’s supposed to be a Transformer robot and only cost you Rp. 50,000. At first I thought it’s a bargain considering the size and relatively complex mechanism. That should win his interest for a while. But not long after my son started to play with it (with his usual vigor) one of the legs was broken. Apparently the joints were not as sturdy, making them vulnerable under rigorous strain. He cried out of disappointment, and took time for us to calm him down.
Here’s another one [Exhibit 2]. The box says that it’s a transformable car-robot.
Here’s how it looks like in car mode [Exhibit 3].
Again price was the consideration when I purchased this toy. It still can function perfectly, but the problem lies with its design. I run into considerable difficulties explaining the thing for him.
S: What is it dad?
D: It’s a robot
S: Where is the head?
D: This is the head, can’t you see?
S: It’s not a head
D: Here look, these are the eyes. And this is, err… the mouth.
S: It’s not robot. Ugly toy.
And he threw it away, just like that. Judging from the look I guess he is right. Who would recognize this thing as a robot? Only those with extremely imaginative minds can remotely consider this thing as one. You can’t fool little kids with this stupid design.
So the merit of better quality toys to mention a few:
1) Relatively longer life span (instead of 18 hours it can last for, say, 48 hours?)
2) Save you from the trouble explaining the mechanism, function or simply what it is.
There you go, next time don’t be too stingy.
***
Look at this sample [Exhibit 1]. The picture was taken only 18 hours from the time I bought it. A China made toy, it’s supposed to be a Transformer robot and only cost you Rp. 50,000. At first I thought it’s a bargain considering the size and relatively complex mechanism. That should win his interest for a while. But not long after my son started to play with it (with his usual vigor) one of the legs was broken. Apparently the joints were not as sturdy, making them vulnerable under rigorous strain. He cried out of disappointment, and took time for us to calm him down.
Here’s another one [Exhibit 2]. The box says that it’s a transformable car-robot.
Here’s how it looks like in car mode [Exhibit 3].
Again price was the consideration when I purchased this toy. It still can function perfectly, but the problem lies with its design. I run into considerable difficulties explaining the thing for him.
S: What is it dad?
D: It’s a robot
S: Where is the head?
D: This is the head, can’t you see?
S: It’s not a head
D: Here look, these are the eyes. And this is, err… the mouth.
S: It’s not robot. Ugly toy.
And he threw it away, just like that. Judging from the look I guess he is right. Who would recognize this thing as a robot? Only those with extremely imaginative minds can remotely consider this thing as one. You can’t fool little kids with this stupid design.
So the merit of better quality toys to mention a few:
1) Relatively longer life span (instead of 18 hours it can last for, say, 48 hours?)
2) Save you from the trouble explaining the mechanism, function or simply what it is.
There you go, next time don’t be too stingy.
***
Monday, December 18, 2006
Polygyny Justified
I can not help commenting on the polygyny issue being hotly debated recently. What the fuss it’s all about anyway? Islam allows a man to have 4 wives, period. The issue should be whether women have been empowered and protected by law to express their dissatisfaction with their husbands’ decision, by filing for divorce without losing their financial rights and the rights to foster the children. If you can’t keep your man from marrying other woman, let him pay dearly for his decision. That should make him think twice.
But again, I guess you’ve heard enough about that. From other directions, my friend the economist has briefly discussed the rationale behind polygyny. Now I’d like to discuss polygyny from evolutionary biologist position. That is, trying to explain whether there is any functional advantage of polygyny for our species’ continued existence. I based this largely from Jared Diamond’s work.
Jared Diamond, renown for his book “Guns, Germs & Steel”, wrote “The Third Chimpanzee” back in 1991. In this book he argues that since we are just another species of mammal (we share more than 98% of our genes with 2 species of chimpanzee—hence the title) many of our traits can be traced back from our animal heritage. One of these traits is human’s sexuality.
Evolution process has created a unique species, where as a result of language capability and higher intelligence human developed a dependency on tools for its survival. Thus rather than developed claws and fangs to catch its preys, human created tools and organized hunting, resulting in a more effective way to get protein source compared with other carnivorous species.
But it also has its trade-off. Higher intelligence is a result of an increased brain’s size, hence larger capacity of the container (cranium / head) is needed. But there is no way that female pelvis can accommodate a full-grown head during birth. The solution is by getting the infant out when size of the head can still be accommodated by the pelvis. As a consequence, human’s infant needs considerable time to reach maturity compared with other species.
In hunter-gatherer society rearing a child is an expensive activity which can only be done by a team of a father and a mother. The couple needs to stay together for a considerable period to do this. But before that, human father who will invest heavily on the upbringing of his offspring needs to have some confidence in his paternity. This is the rationale behind marriage institution, and it can be concluded that monogamous marriage is the norm for human species.
What about other alternatives? Promiscuousness would not work. In promiscuous environment there is no certainty on the fatherhood and no father would want to rear other’s child. So while promiscuousness maximized the probability of genes passed on, it is not efficient since the survival of a child single handedly raised by the mother can not be guaranteed. Polygyny maximized both the probability of genes passed on and survival rate of the offspring, but it’s very expensive for hunter-gather society. Until our ancestors invented agriculture polgygyny institution is largely unsustainable. Hence for a long period of our history monogamous marriage remains the most efficient way to ensure the continuity of our existence.
Then human re-invented polgyny institution and extra-marital sex. Why? Because sex is fun? Of course sex is always fun, otherwise no one would be interested to do so. But from the evolution theory point of view, the fun part is just an incentive / by-product while the main objective of copulation is to pass on your genes through reproduction. If now human only look for the fun part it’s because human social preference has evolved. Now the by-product has become more important than the objective.
Back to polygyny. Biologically a man potentially can sire far more offspring than a woman. The record lifetime number of offspring for a man is 888 from 500 wives, sired by Emperor Moulay Ismail of Morocco, while the corresponding record for a woman is only 69 (several triplets). In one polyandrous society, the Tre-ba of Tibet, women with 2 husbands average fewer children than women with one husband. In contrast in 19th century American Mormon society, men with one wife averaged only 7 children but men with two wives averaged 16 children, and those with three wives averaged 20. Polygynous Mormon men as a group averaged 2.4 wives and 15 children. Similarly, among the polygynous Temne people of Sierra Leone, a man’s average number of children increases from 1.7 to 7 as his number of wives increases from 1 to 5.
From that it is clear that when number of offspring is the objective, polygyny is superior to monogamous marriage. While the norm is monogamy given the limited resources, polygyny is preferred when things become more affordable. And as I mentioned before, after our ancestors invented agriculture and left the hunter-gatherer way of life, polygyny became more sustainable. At least for kings and nobles initially, but as the world GDP / capita exploded in the last 2000 years more commoners also practicing polygyny, albeit still in smaller percentage compared with monogamous marriage.
What about extra-marital sex? In short it’s cheating. Well, of course it’s cheating, but what I mean, for a man it’s the most economical way to pass on his gene and let other man unconsciously rearing his offspring. As what is the biological incentive for women to be involved in extra-marital sex remains unknown, since most of the time the seed from one man is sufficient for a woman to produce an offspring.
**
As for myself, I’m indifferent towards polygyny, that is I don’t agree nor disagree with the practice. Ethically it is debatable, but what interesting here is to see the nature of polygyny from science point of view. About this issue Jarred Diamond succinctly says:
***
But again, I guess you’ve heard enough about that. From other directions, my friend the economist has briefly discussed the rationale behind polygyny. Now I’d like to discuss polygyny from evolutionary biologist position. That is, trying to explain whether there is any functional advantage of polygyny for our species’ continued existence. I based this largely from Jared Diamond’s work.
Jared Diamond, renown for his book “Guns, Germs & Steel”, wrote “The Third Chimpanzee” back in 1991. In this book he argues that since we are just another species of mammal (we share more than 98% of our genes with 2 species of chimpanzee—hence the title) many of our traits can be traced back from our animal heritage. One of these traits is human’s sexuality.
Evolution process has created a unique species, where as a result of language capability and higher intelligence human developed a dependency on tools for its survival. Thus rather than developed claws and fangs to catch its preys, human created tools and organized hunting, resulting in a more effective way to get protein source compared with other carnivorous species.
But it also has its trade-off. Higher intelligence is a result of an increased brain’s size, hence larger capacity of the container (cranium / head) is needed. But there is no way that female pelvis can accommodate a full-grown head during birth. The solution is by getting the infant out when size of the head can still be accommodated by the pelvis. As a consequence, human’s infant needs considerable time to reach maturity compared with other species.
In hunter-gatherer society rearing a child is an expensive activity which can only be done by a team of a father and a mother. The couple needs to stay together for a considerable period to do this. But before that, human father who will invest heavily on the upbringing of his offspring needs to have some confidence in his paternity. This is the rationale behind marriage institution, and it can be concluded that monogamous marriage is the norm for human species.
What about other alternatives? Promiscuousness would not work. In promiscuous environment there is no certainty on the fatherhood and no father would want to rear other’s child. So while promiscuousness maximized the probability of genes passed on, it is not efficient since the survival of a child single handedly raised by the mother can not be guaranteed. Polygyny maximized both the probability of genes passed on and survival rate of the offspring, but it’s very expensive for hunter-gather society. Until our ancestors invented agriculture polgygyny institution is largely unsustainable. Hence for a long period of our history monogamous marriage remains the most efficient way to ensure the continuity of our existence.
Then human re-invented polgyny institution and extra-marital sex. Why? Because sex is fun? Of course sex is always fun, otherwise no one would be interested to do so. But from the evolution theory point of view, the fun part is just an incentive / by-product while the main objective of copulation is to pass on your genes through reproduction. If now human only look for the fun part it’s because human social preference has evolved. Now the by-product has become more important than the objective.
Back to polygyny. Biologically a man potentially can sire far more offspring than a woman. The record lifetime number of offspring for a man is 888 from 500 wives, sired by Emperor Moulay Ismail of Morocco, while the corresponding record for a woman is only 69 (several triplets). In one polyandrous society, the Tre-ba of Tibet, women with 2 husbands average fewer children than women with one husband. In contrast in 19th century American Mormon society, men with one wife averaged only 7 children but men with two wives averaged 16 children, and those with three wives averaged 20. Polygynous Mormon men as a group averaged 2.4 wives and 15 children. Similarly, among the polygynous Temne people of Sierra Leone, a man’s average number of children increases from 1.7 to 7 as his number of wives increases from 1 to 5.
From that it is clear that when number of offspring is the objective, polygyny is superior to monogamous marriage. While the norm is monogamy given the limited resources, polygyny is preferred when things become more affordable. And as I mentioned before, after our ancestors invented agriculture and left the hunter-gatherer way of life, polygyny became more sustainable. At least for kings and nobles initially, but as the world GDP / capita exploded in the last 2000 years more commoners also practicing polygyny, albeit still in smaller percentage compared with monogamous marriage.
What about extra-marital sex? In short it’s cheating. Well, of course it’s cheating, but what I mean, for a man it’s the most economical way to pass on his gene and let other man unconsciously rearing his offspring. As what is the biological incentive for women to be involved in extra-marital sex remains unknown, since most of the time the seed from one man is sufficient for a woman to produce an offspring.
**
As for myself, I’m indifferent towards polygyny, that is I don’t agree nor disagree with the practice. Ethically it is debatable, but what interesting here is to see the nature of polygyny from science point of view. About this issue Jarred Diamond succinctly says:
In short, we evolved, like other animals to win the reproduction game. That contest has a single aim, to leave as may descendants as possible. Much of the legacy of that game strategy is still with us. But we have also chosen to pursue ethical goals, which can conflict with the goals and methods of the sexual contest. Having that choice among goals represents one of our most radical departures from other animals.
***
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Confession of an Ex-Future Dentist
Have I told you that I went to dentistry school back then? Well, it was a long time ago and it only last for 2 semesters. At the end of the last semester I thought that this is not for me, applied for another major, took the entry exam, and ended up studying economics instead.
Why did I quit? Not because of the environment. Although it’s in Surabaya instead of my hometown Jakarta, I had wonderful friends whose companionship I retained until now, and close relatives who made my life a lot more easier.
I couldn’t keep up with the subjects? Never a straight A student, but with a GPA of 3.0 I wasn’t doing badly. But there’s some truth in there. I was still in my sophomore year hence the lectures I went though were basically pretty generic. But then I saw the major challenge ahead. To be a dentist it’s not enough to be smart, you have to be pretty dexterous with your hands too. The difficulties I saw my seniors had to go through made me weak at the knees.
There was a pragmatic reasoning as well. Once you got your degree you can’t just open a practice. You have to go through “PTT”, kind of drafting in military service, where you have to serve in a puskesmas mostly in remote areas. Only after you completed 2 years of service the health department can give you a license to open your own practice. But not yet, the equipment needed to open a practice is also quite dear. Too long before you can enjoy your money.
As for the reason I chose to study dentistry at the first place, well, what can I say? It’s so unimaginative. Since I spent 2 years majoring in biology at high school why not go to medical or dentistry school, I thought. But then again, medical school is way out of my league. Next thing to do was checking the ratio between seats available vs. numbers of applicants. Most medical school: 1 seat every 5000 or so applicants. Not good. But then “Dentistry, Airlangga University” with 1:200 ratio was a reasonable bet. I wasn’t that desperate though to apply for some major with 1:25 ratio. So you can see there’s no idealistic motive behind the selection. That’s history though.
Recently I met with a good friend of mine who has the guts to continue and completed his study in dentistry. He has his own practice right now, and not doing bad at all. And then there’s another relative of mine who’s also a dentist, once showed me his (yet another) newest car, a latest edition of Benz. He told me, “this is a 3-months worth of work. And can you please tell me again why did you leave your study?” Oh my.
But above all, it’s not the money I envy. You see, that friend of mine (in his own words) is a moderately successful dentist with 5 patients each day on average. He bought his house 3 years ago in cash and his daily itinerary looks like this: work out at fitness centre or softball field in the morning, surf the internet after lunch, play with his kid in the afternoon, open the “business” at 5.00 PM at home. Moreover he’s moonlighting as a pitcher in the national soft ball league (for the fun of it rather than for the money), sometimes leaving his practice for more than 1 month. No boss, respectable job, steady income and enough time to enjoy it. Can you ask for more?
***
Why did I quit? Not because of the environment. Although it’s in Surabaya instead of my hometown Jakarta, I had wonderful friends whose companionship I retained until now, and close relatives who made my life a lot more easier.
I couldn’t keep up with the subjects? Never a straight A student, but with a GPA of 3.0 I wasn’t doing badly. But there’s some truth in there. I was still in my sophomore year hence the lectures I went though were basically pretty generic. But then I saw the major challenge ahead. To be a dentist it’s not enough to be smart, you have to be pretty dexterous with your hands too. The difficulties I saw my seniors had to go through made me weak at the knees.
There was a pragmatic reasoning as well. Once you got your degree you can’t just open a practice. You have to go through “PTT”, kind of drafting in military service, where you have to serve in a puskesmas mostly in remote areas. Only after you completed 2 years of service the health department can give you a license to open your own practice. But not yet, the equipment needed to open a practice is also quite dear. Too long before you can enjoy your money.
As for the reason I chose to study dentistry at the first place, well, what can I say? It’s so unimaginative. Since I spent 2 years majoring in biology at high school why not go to medical or dentistry school, I thought. But then again, medical school is way out of my league. Next thing to do was checking the ratio between seats available vs. numbers of applicants. Most medical school: 1 seat every 5000 or so applicants. Not good. But then “Dentistry, Airlangga University” with 1:200 ratio was a reasonable bet. I wasn’t that desperate though to apply for some major with 1:25 ratio. So you can see there’s no idealistic motive behind the selection. That’s history though.
Recently I met with a good friend of mine who has the guts to continue and completed his study in dentistry. He has his own practice right now, and not doing bad at all. And then there’s another relative of mine who’s also a dentist, once showed me his (yet another) newest car, a latest edition of Benz. He told me, “this is a 3-months worth of work. And can you please tell me again why did you leave your study?” Oh my.
But above all, it’s not the money I envy. You see, that friend of mine (in his own words) is a moderately successful dentist with 5 patients each day on average. He bought his house 3 years ago in cash and his daily itinerary looks like this: work out at fitness centre or softball field in the morning, surf the internet after lunch, play with his kid in the afternoon, open the “business” at 5.00 PM at home. Moreover he’s moonlighting as a pitcher in the national soft ball league (for the fun of it rather than for the money), sometimes leaving his practice for more than 1 month. No boss, respectable job, steady income and enough time to enjoy it. Can you ask for more?
***
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Andronikos Komnenos
Earlier I have posted a short history of Amangkurat I and his bloody legacy. Now I would like to take you further back in time, to the 12th century Constantinople, the capital of Byzantine Empire, to show you that cruelty towards others is not a monopoly of a certain nation, religion, race, ethnic group or tribe.
Warning! My depiction below will be graphic and those who has strong objection is advised not to continue further. And like before please don’t take it too seriously, this is only a popular history. I shamelessly cut and paste the pieces from Wikipedia and roman-emperors.com.
Like many kingdoms before and after it, Byzantine also had its moments of glory and darkness. But under the Komnenos dynasty (1081 – 1185) Contantinople once again reached a new height. With a population of almost 1 million people, and the vast amount of wealth gained from the trades, Constantinople can be considered as the first cosmopolitan city in the history. It didn’t hurt that the first crusade had successfully gained territory in the Middle East, since more trade opportunities arouse from the conquest.
One of the most brilliant kings from this dynasty is Manuel Komnenos. He continued conquering territories enlarging the empire and maintained a solid, well-functioning government to administer the vassals. Manuel had a cousin in the name of Prince Andronikos Komnenos which was very close to him. Andronikos is a fascinating character. He was reportedly handsome and eloquent, but also immoral. He was courageous, a great general and an able politician.
Most of the life of Andronikos was spent on womanizing. He left no chances and slept with all kind of women; from street prostitute to noble ladies, from 12-years old to older women. When he wasn’t busy bedding woman, he was entertaining his imperial ambition by continuously trying to take the throne from his own cousin. As a result, most of his life was also spent in exile far from Constantinople. He avoided harsher punishment only because Manuel’s repeated pardons. But Andronikos was not a man of compassion, as we can see below.
Manuel died in 1180 and left the throne to his 11 years-old son: Alexius II Porphyrogenitus, who ruled under the guardianship of the empress Maria of Antioch and her lover the Protosebastos Alexius. She didn’t rule wisely and her conduct displeased the population, who turned to Andronikos for an alternative, which gave him a pretext to step in.
And then, here’s an excerpt from the chronicle of Nikeas Choniates (1155-1215)
A chilling way to start your reign. Surprisingly Andronikos was a popular ruler among the commoners, because he reformed taxes and continuously provided money for the poor. But to the nobles he was tyrannical and cruel. He was fearful that they might take his throne, no doubt because he had tried similar thing. Those suspected of treason were punished by blinding / gouging, impaling, roasting, mutilating and many other forms of horrendous torture.
His reign didn’t last long. In 1185 a popular noble revolt overthrown him. What awaited Andronikos was horrible. Again, an excerpt from the chronicle of Nikeas.
The graphical account of the cruelty made me dizzy even now, long after the first time I read that. Let me ask you this: have you ever known any other species conduct such cruelties toward their own kind? To torture their own kind out of hatred? Whoever says that human is created in perfection from the image of God must be either wrong (or insane), or has long admitted that there’s a shade of evil in God’s image.
***
Warning! My depiction below will be graphic and those who has strong objection is advised not to continue further. And like before please don’t take it too seriously, this is only a popular history. I shamelessly cut and paste the pieces from Wikipedia and roman-emperors.com.
Like many kingdoms before and after it, Byzantine also had its moments of glory and darkness. But under the Komnenos dynasty (1081 – 1185) Contantinople once again reached a new height. With a population of almost 1 million people, and the vast amount of wealth gained from the trades, Constantinople can be considered as the first cosmopolitan city in the history. It didn’t hurt that the first crusade had successfully gained territory in the Middle East, since more trade opportunities arouse from the conquest.
One of the most brilliant kings from this dynasty is Manuel Komnenos. He continued conquering territories enlarging the empire and maintained a solid, well-functioning government to administer the vassals. Manuel had a cousin in the name of Prince Andronikos Komnenos which was very close to him. Andronikos is a fascinating character. He was reportedly handsome and eloquent, but also immoral. He was courageous, a great general and an able politician.
Most of the life of Andronikos was spent on womanizing. He left no chances and slept with all kind of women; from street prostitute to noble ladies, from 12-years old to older women. When he wasn’t busy bedding woman, he was entertaining his imperial ambition by continuously trying to take the throne from his own cousin. As a result, most of his life was also spent in exile far from Constantinople. He avoided harsher punishment only because Manuel’s repeated pardons. But Andronikos was not a man of compassion, as we can see below.
Manuel died in 1180 and left the throne to his 11 years-old son: Alexius II Porphyrogenitus, who ruled under the guardianship of the empress Maria of Antioch and her lover the Protosebastos Alexius. She didn’t rule wisely and her conduct displeased the population, who turned to Andronikos for an alternative, which gave him a pretext to step in.
And then, here’s an excerpt from the chronicle of Nikeas Choniates (1155-1215)
“Andronikos marched to the capital in 1182. The Protosebastos was blinded and Andronikos took further measures to consolidate his own position: poisoning Maria Porphyrogenita (Alexius II’s older sister) and her husband Kaiser Renier of Montferrat, having Maria of Antioch accused on a charge of treason and strangled. Finally, once he had been declared co-emperor with Alexius II, having the boy throttled with a bowstring. The reign of terror had begun”
A chilling way to start your reign. Surprisingly Andronikos was a popular ruler among the commoners, because he reformed taxes and continuously provided money for the poor. But to the nobles he was tyrannical and cruel. He was fearful that they might take his throne, no doubt because he had tried similar thing. Those suspected of treason were punished by blinding / gouging, impaling, roasting, mutilating and many other forms of horrendous torture.
His reign didn’t last long. In 1185 a popular noble revolt overthrown him. What awaited Andronikos was horrible. Again, an excerpt from the chronicle of Nikeas.
“He was confined in the prison of Anemas. Then he was paraded in front of the new emperor Isaac. His beard was torn out, his head shaved, teeth pulled out and he was made the sport of those who were present, being battered even by women whose husbands he had executed or had blinded.
Finally, his right hand was cut off with an axe, and several days later one of his eyes was gouged out and he was seated on a camel and paraded in the marketplace. Further indignities followed, including blows on the head from clubs and befouling of his nostrils with cow dung and the like. He was pelted with stones and one prostitute poured a pot of hot water over his face. He was led into the arena, and suspended by his feet.
Despite all these indignities, however, Andronicus held up bravely and remained speechless, not uttering a single moan. Worse followed, with assaults on his genitals. Some were trying to put the lump of what had been his right hand into his mouth. And then there was the thrust of a sword down his throat and further wounds, resulting in an agonizing death. The Constantinopolitan populace had by now had their fill of Andronicus' tyranny and cruelty”
The graphical account of the cruelty made me dizzy even now, long after the first time I read that. Let me ask you this: have you ever known any other species conduct such cruelties toward their own kind? To torture their own kind out of hatred? Whoever says that human is created in perfection from the image of God must be either wrong (or insane), or has long admitted that there’s a shade of evil in God’s image.
***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)