| Canonical Contempt Throughout history (excuse the rather trite phrase) great canons have oft been devised to control the populace. Through these devices the social dissidents are weeded out and discarded like pesticides weed out the vulnerable pests. However, unlike pesticides, that kill the susceptible insects, legal codes vary in effect. The range of these treatments spans from gentle reproach to utter torture, the latter of which was preferred by the ancient ones. This contrast is truly exemplified by The Rule of St. Benedict and Plato’s Apology, but with contrast often comes its conjugate, comparison, that is also represented by the aforementioned works. The Rule of St. Benedict had a novel approach to confronting dissidence among its followers, a graduated disciplinary system. The first level of censure was simple “slap on the wrist” or warning in private (Benedict 30). This was used on a delinquent’s first or second minor offence (Benedict 30). If the criminal persisted he would then be subject to calumny in front of his troupe, which was meant to embarrass the poor fellow into making amends (Benedict 30). For greater offences The Rule stipulates that certain levels of excommunication would occur (Benedict 30). The lesser of these offences was chided by various forms of isolation. One who was condemned to this fate was considered unapproachable (not in a good way) and was not to be spoken to at any time. Also, this person would be doomed to eat alone after the rest were finished (Benedict 30). Excommunication in its greater form consisted of eviction from the monastery, and would only be used as a last resort since the duty of a monastery is to help the pious reach Divinity, not cast out the wicked (Benedict 30). And although it would seem that the law abiders would have abject contempt for their crooked brothers, they do not, which is represented by the congregation praying for their strayed brothers’ souls (Benedict 30). Those who could not understand the warnings were not simply subjected to them, but were accommodated by other means for The Benedictine Rule was not haphazardly established. The feeble of mind of whatever age were dealt with in the same manner, physical trauma. It is well known that physical duress will have the effect of curbing undesired behavior if it is administered often, the concept for which Benedict was aiming. Within Benedictine Rule there were many variations on punishment but there were none that were too severe. Contrary to the contemporary religious sect’s enforcement of regulation, ancient Athenian enforcement, epitomized by The Apology, was much more brutal. The prime exemplar of this was the horrid debacle known as “The Trial of Socrates”, which sentenced an innocent man to death. What great offense could this seventy year old man had done to warrant such a punishment? What the philosophes and renaissance men did, enlighten. Apparently Athens considered enlightenment as corruption, as a charge brought against the great proponent of reason was corrupting the youth (Plato 46). And apparently corruption is punishable by death; along with much lesser crimes of the era (Plato 46). Basically any crime against the good of the state was punishable by death. This included not believing in the city’s gods (in which no man of reason would believe) or creating one’s own deities; both were also claims against the great progenitor of reason (Plato 46). His accusers claimed doing so would cause the atrophy of Athenian society, which was known to be a fallacy; all knew it was already in its decline and no “god” could save it from its fate (Plato 54). Now, the actual “trial” of Socrates was really no trial at all. Sure, there was a jury, an extremely partial one, and they heard him out, yet ignored every word he said by finding him guilty (Plato 63). What can one expect from the ignorant masses? Not much more than that. The statutes of Ancient Athens were characterized by “trials” put on simply to call themselves democratic and, much like the McCarthy Era trials, to remove supposed social dissidents to appease the populace. And on a side note: Socrates should not have simply submitted to the will of the public. He should have attempted to destroy his destroyers. Is it not nobler to eliminate your enemies and live, rather than forsake life and submit to your fate? In the Benedictine era emphasis was placed more on the maturation of the individual than the state of the body i.e. the monastery. Offenders were punished solely to further enlighten themselves. An example from The Rule to exemplify (redundancy at its best) this was in the order of events for punitive measures. In all cases the perpetrator, or “perp” (I like the police talk) if you will, received a full explanation of his crime and what the “Word of God” said about it (Benedict 30). This evidently helped the misguided accept the punishment as it would be a means of further enlightenment, not solely chastisement. Of course, those incapable of understanding such explanations, or disliked them, did not find punishments to be so “pleasant”, which may seem to make the measures moot. Although they may seem wasted on those who do not understand, fear or plain antipathy toward them would prevent some law breakers from breaking laws, thus insuring them a place in “The Kingdom of God”. Divine enlightenment i.e. explanations of God’s Word when it was disobeyed, opened the path to God, and where that failed divine reproach opened the path instead. On the contrary, Athens, like the Third Reich, favored the health of the state over that of the individual. The pervasiveness of this came across at various points made by the prosecution that Athens lay in a degraded state due to the propensity of one man, Socrates, to question the moral fiber. One such instance was Socrates’s questioning of the wise (Plato 42). In doing so he found the “great wise men” of Athens were nothing but frauds, the true corrupters (Plato 43). This revelation of truth did not sit well with those in power for they would lose control if the populace came to see the truth. Hence they dispatched their Gestapo (not a literal secret police, but the actions taken were of the same effect) to silence him and release their “truth”, it was that Socrates was a corrupter. This was done at the “trial” by Meletus et al (Plato 46). What good could come from a social dissident such as Socrates who fervently sought rational answers instead of religious mandates? Certainly not the Athens of that time, it would have surely been dissolved if it was a true democracy. And dissolution of state would have caused chaos, which would have been “bad” and whose advance the State so passionately opposed. Therefore, Athens did not want the corruption of their corruption. Benedictine Rule and Athenian canons are undoubtedly two extremes on the edict enforcement continuum and neither can fully bring true justice to fruition today. Of course, if a decision were to be made between the two the choice would quite obviously be Athenian statutes. The severity of its punitive measures is necessary to curb crime. As Machiavellian law states, “[as a ruler] it is better to be feared than loved” (Machiavelli (out of context of course (nor am I exactly sure whether that is the exact quote or not))), which means that fear spawns obedience, and that in turn causes societal tranquility, the goal of any government. The Rule, however, is less likely to be useful in society. It focuses on being good for oneself, which would work if everyone had the same ideals, but that is not the case. Nor does everyone seek enlightenment or the greater good, so chastisement meant to point one in that direction would be spurned and ignored. Also, Benedictine codes allow for many occasions of dissent before any severe consequences would arise. A system with such tolerance would intrinsically fail; especially after seeing harsh legal regulations like the exile of communist dissidents to Siberia have little effect. In spite of this, The Rule would be useful in instilling the followers of a faith, or those who seek enlightenment with the morality necessary to achieve their goals. Therefore, the most effective canon would be an austere social contract (not to be confused with The Social Contract by Rousseau, which was idiotic), similar to the one depicted by Plato in The Apology, which neglect the natural rights of “Life, Liberty, and Property” (Locke) and the entire Bill of Rights, i.e. fascism. In conclusion (trite once again, but I am not very creative) the Athenian legal system exudes strength and power, like Nazi Germany, but was at times cruel and unreasonable, also like Germany under fascism. Unlike the malevolent Athenians, Benedictines were benevolent oppressors and used lesser punishments for crimes. Neither would fare well in the world today where true villains would slaughter those who followed the kind Benedictines mandates, and where idiots think they deserve such things as “Natural Rights” (Locke) and “humane” admonition would eventually revolt against an Athenian-like government. |