April 25, 1932
I FEAR I must tire you and perplex you often enough with these letters. Especially my last two letters about the Roman Empires must be a trial for you. I have gone backwards and forwards through thousands of years and across thousands of miles, and if I have succeeded in creating some confusion in your mind, the fault is entirely mine. Don't be downhearted. Carry on. If you do not follow what I say at any place, do not trouble about it, but go on. These letters are not meant to teach you history, but just to give you glimpses of it and to awaken your curiosity.
You must be rather tired of the Roman Empires I confess I am. But we shall bear with them a little more to-day, and then take leave of them for a while.
You know that there is a great deal of talk now-a-days of nationalism and patriotism—the love of one's country. Nearly all of us in India to-day are intense nationalists. This nationalism is quite a
new thing in history, and perhaps we may study its beginning and growth in the course of these letters. There was hardly any
95
such feeling at the time of the Roman Empires. The Empire was supposed to be one great State ruling the world. There never has been an empire or State which has ruled the whole world, but, owing to ignorance of geography, and the great difficulty of transportation and travelling across long distances, people often thought in olden times that such a State did exist. Thus, in Europe and round the Mediterranean the Roman State even before it became an empire was looked up to as a kind of super-State to which all the others were subordinate. So great was its prestige that some countries, like Pergamum, the Greek State in Asia Minor, and Egypt were actually presented to the Roman people by their rulers. They felt that Rome was all-powerful and
irresistible. And yet, as I have told you, whether as a republic or as an empire, Rome never ruled over much more than the Mediterranean countries. The "barbarians" of the north of Europe' would not submit to it, and it did not care much about them. But whatever the extent of Rome's authority might have been, it had the idea of a World-State behind it, and this idea was accepted by most people of the day in the West. It was because of this that the Roman Empires survived for so long, and their name and prestige were great even when there was no substance behind them.
This idea of one great State dominating over the rest of the world was not peculiar to Rome. We find it in China and India in the old days. As you know, the Chinese State was often a vaster one than the Roman Empire, extending right up to the Caspian Sea. The Chinese Emperor, " the son of Heaven " as he was called, was considered by the Chinese as the Universal Sovereign. It is true there were tribes and people who gave trouble and who did not obey the Emperor. But they were the "barbarians", just as the Romans called the north Europeans "barbarians".
In the same way in India from the earliest days you find references to these so-called universal sovereigns—Ghakravarti Rajas. Their idea of the world was very limited, of course. India itself was so enormous that it seemed the world to them, and the overlordship of India appeared to them to be the overlordship of the world. The others outside were the " barbarians", the mlechchhas. The mythical Bharat who has given his name to our country—Bharatvarsha—is supposed by tradition to have been such a chakravarti sovereign. Yudhishthira and his brothers fought, according to the Mahabhadrata, for this world-sovereignty. The ashwamedha—the great horse-sacrifice—was a challenge and symbol of world-dominion. Ashoka probably aimed at it before, overcome by remorse, he stopped all fighting. Later on you will see other imperialist sovereigns of India, like the Guptas, who also aimed at this.
You will thus see that in the old days people often thought in terms of universal sovereigns and World-States. Long afterwards came nationalism and a new kind of imperialism, and between the two they have played sufficient havoc: in this world. Again there is talk to-day of a World-State, not a great empire, or a universal sovereign, but a kind of World-Republic which would prevent the
96
exploitation of one nation or people or class by another. Whether or not anything like this will take place in the near future, it is difficult to say. But the world is in a bad way, and there seems to be no other way to get rid of its illness.
I have referred repeatedly to the " barbarians " of northern Europe. I use the word because they are referred to as such by the Romans. These people, like the nomads and other tribes of Central Asia, were certainly less civilized than their neighbours in Rome or in India. But they were more vigorous, as they lived an open-air life. Later they became Christians, and even when they conquered Rome they did not come, as a rule, as ruthless enemies. The modern nations of
northern Europe are descended from these " barbarian " tribes—the Goths and Franks and others.
I have not given you the names of the Roman Emperors. There were crowds of them and, barring a few, they were bad enough Some were monsters of evil. You have no doubt heard of Nero, but there were many far worse than he was. One woman, Irene, actually killed her own son, who was emperor, in order to become empress. This was in Constantinople.
One Emperor of Rome stands out above the others. His name was Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.
He is supposed to have been a philosopher, and a book of his, containing his thoughts and meditations, is well worth study. To make up for Marcus Aurelius, his son, who succeeded him, was one of the worst villains that Rome produced.
For the first 300 years of the Roman Empire, Rome was the centre of the western world. It must have been a great city, full of mighty buildings, and people must have come to it from all over the Empire and even beyond it. Numerous ships brought dainties from distant countries—rare foods and costly stuffs. Every year, it is said, a fleet of 120 ships went from an Egyptian port in the Red Sea to India. They went just in time to take advantage of the monsoon winds, and this helped them greatly. Usually they went to South India. They loaded their precious goods and returned, with the help again of the prevailing winds, to Egypt. From Egypt the goods were sent overland and by sea to Rome.
But all this trade was largely for the benefit of the rich. Behind the luxury of the few was the misery of the many. For over 300 years Rome was supreme in the West, and afterwards, when Constantinople was founded, it shared supremacy with it. It is curious that during this long period it did not produce anything great in the realm of thought, as ancient Greece did in a short time. Indeed, Roman civilization seems to have been in many respects a pale shadow of Hellenic civilization. In one thing Romans are supposed to have given a great lead. This is law. Even now lawyers in the West have to learn Roman Law, as it is said to be the foundation of a great deal of law in Europe.
The British Empire is often compared with the Roman Empire— usually by the English, to their own great satisfaction. All empires are more or less similar. They fatten on the exploitation of the 97
many. But there is one other strong resemblance between the Romans and the English people—
they are both singularly devoid of imagination ! Smug and self-satisfied, and convinced that the world was made specially for their benefit, they go through life untroubled by doubt or difficulty.