Review of Gogol's "Dead Souls"

In September of 2022 it was my turn to host a book club meeting, which meant I had the privilege of selecting the book. I chose Gogol’s Dead Souls because it was given to me as a gift by a former student with whom I have kept in touch over the years, and I felt morally obligated to read the book; of course, I was also looking forward to reading another classic by a 19th century Russian author, given how much I have enjoyed reading the work of his contemporaries such as Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and Pushkin. As usual, while reading the text I underlined important passages and commented in the margins, mostly with the aim of discovering a connecting thread or an overarching theme which would provide me with a general impression upon which I would base my evaluation. 

That’s not what I discovered in Dead Souls. There is a main plot (see below) and a key character, but his adventures and exploits do not seem to convey a deeper and singular truth; in this blogpost, therefore, I will briefly summarize the plot, and highlight the jumble of themes to which it is connected, which appears to be a rickety assemblage of contradictory elements about Russian identity and Russian society in the mid-19th century. Adding to the sense of general lack order—but not necessarily lack of artistic quality—is Gogol’s strange writing style, in which the story does not unfold in a chronologically logical sequence of events. Rather, there are several detours and multiple twists and turns. Throughout the text, moreover, Gogol periodically seems to engage in a kind of Freudian free association directly with reader, as if in the process of writing, there arose sudden and urgent needs for cathartic releases which spontaneously found their way onto the text and which remained in the published version.

Russia: A Riddle, Wrapped in a Mystery, Inside an Enigma 

The context of the story is early 19th century Russia, and it revolves around the personage of Chichikov, who is on a mission to purchase dead souls, by which it is meant serfs who had died but who still existed on paper for the purposes of paying taxes. Landowners were obliged to pay taxes on their serfs, and the census was done infrequently; in the interim, between officials’ collection and updating of information about estates in the realm, many serfs died, while the owner was obligated to pay taxes on the assumption that they were capital generating agricultural value. When the reader meats Chichikov, he or she knows nothing about him other than the fact that he is trying to purchase the title to the dead serfs. The reader accompanies Chichikov as he meets various landowners and tries to convince them to make the sale for the lowest price, and they, as well as the reader, suspect it is a swindle with some nefarious purpose. Nonetheless, they have an incentive to make the transaction, given they are paying taxes for non-physically existing serfs. 

Halfway through the text, Chichikov accumulates 400 dead souls, but the reader is left hanging, as it were, about the overall objective. Is it simply to get rich? The suspicions of the townsfolk only add to the general uncertainty. They suspect he needs it as capital and as part of a scheme to seduce the beautiful daughter of the town’s governor; others suspect more sinister and supernatural motives, such as Chichikov being Napoleon in disguise. To contemporary readers this may sound ridiculous but it actually reflects the fact that Dead Souls was written in 1842, that is, in the shadow of the French invasion and occupation of Russia, which was a historically and nationally defining moment of cosmic importance, perhaps comparable to September 11th, 2001 for contemporary readers. These events tend to produce bizarre narratives and interpretative schemes about the significance of what occurred, which tend to reappear particularly in novel situations which do not fit into general patterns. 

In Dead Souls, the relatively recent French invasion is frequently connected to a theme about the nefarious influence of France and Western Europe on Russia’s supposedly more morally pure culture, a pattern which is still visible almost 200 years later (more on this below). In several scenes, the reader encounters soliloquies about the glories of Russian feudalism, and how attachment to the land, and closeness with nature, helps to forge the best of elements of Russian character. This is juxtaposed with the enervating and spiritually shallow consequences of liberal ideas emanating from the West and particularly France, ideas that many Russians themselves attempted to export to the motherland. Here, there are echoes of Tolstoy, who also posited an existential clash between Russia and France (my review of Tolstoy’s War and Peace which touches upon this theme can be found here).

But—and here is one area where the text is very contradictory—Dead Souls also highlights the corruption at the heart of the Russian system which is what ultimately pressured Chichikov to carry out his big swindle. The first clue is that the authorities continued to tax peasants even after they had died; this inefficient bureaucracy gave owners an incentive to sell them to Chichikov. The second is the development of financial instruments which created opportunities to use peasants, even dead ones, to generate revenue. What is more, Dead Souls highlights how even those who were well off, and did not need more wealth, were driven by ambition and avarice to increase profits, and this often involved greasing the wheels of the system in one way or another, via bribes, or intrigues, or cheating. In other words, another lesson of Dead Souls is that Russian society was corrupt from top to bottom. A consequence of this corrupt system is those without the fortune to be born in well-to-do families must cut corners to get ahead, and so Chichikov’s swindle was not out of place; indeed, it was in many ways, less harmful than other scams frequently occurring. After all, he did not steal any peasants. All transactions were mutually voluntary, and he was helping landowners to lighten their tax burden, which was in any case based on non-existing peasants. He used the title to generate capital which would ultimately be used in actual productive investment which would generate more revenue for public coffers, and which allowed Chichikov to be a good husband and father. In fact, with the help of the capital generated via the dead souls, he gets married, has 11 happy and healthy children, and lives comfortably as a noble on his estate.

Where, then, is the crime here? Perhaps the question mark is precisely the point—there is no straight answer, leaving much ambiguity about what Gogol’s purpose his, or whether he even wrote the book with a broader purpose in mind.

It is midway through the text—and not, as I would have expected, at the beginning—that Gogol paints a portrait of Chichikov which gives some biographical clues about other potential motivations for the big swindle. Gogol tells the reader that Chichikov’s parents belonged to the nobility “but whether to the ancient or the personal nobility God only knows.” He had a sickly mother and a cynical, bitter father, neither of whom showed him much love. From his father Chichikov learned “your friend and comrade will cheat you, and in adversity he will betray you, but money will never betray you.” In school he was taught by violent and cruel teachers, and the one exception, a loving and inspiring instructor, died young. Chichikov eventually becomes a bureaucrat and is presented with opportunities to get rich via accepting bribes. As most others in his position are doing it, so does Chichikov, and he eventually amasses a considerable amount of wealth, but because of a petty dispute with a colleague, he loses most of it. This leads to an existential crisis: “why do I exist? Why has misfortune overwhelmed me? Who cares about his duties nowadays?...I have not plundered the widow…why do others thrive while I descend as food to the worm?” Part 1 of the book (there are 2) ends on this note, with the reader finally having some of the personal details which help to understand Chichikov’s motivation.

In book 2, we learn that Chichikov gets caught for his crimes, and is imprisoned. He is now facing the possibility of execution and has an epiphany which leads him to realize that ambition and avarice have led to his predicament. He pleads with God to save him, promising that he’ll change his ways. At this point, the reader expects some divine intervention leading to Gogol’s release, and his renouncing the material seductions of the world while going to live in a monastery, perhaps becoming a saint. Chichikov is indeed saved, but by the machinations of lawyers and the payment of bribes; perhaps it shows how God works in mysterious ways, or that the corruption which led to Chichikov’s demise also saves him from an early death. In the final section of the book, the reader encounters Chichikov as a member of the nobility, and the main scene is a summit or meeting of the feudal aristocracy. Here, the reader discovers that not only are his aristocratic peers corrupt; some are worse and have been accused of theft and murder. 

Gogol’s Perplexing Prose

It would be worthwhile to briefly reflect on Gogol’s strange writing style, which is of a kind I cannot recall encountering elsewhere. Calling some of the elements a “technique” suggests a strategy with an ultimate purpose, but it is not clear to me that that’s what Gogol is doing. For example, in chapter 6 of book 1, the reader is suddenly and unexpectedly treated to a soliloquy about aging:

“…Now I approach every strange village with indifference, and glance indifferently at its tasteless exterior; it is displeasing to my cold gaze: that which would, in former years, have called forth a lively movement in the muscles of my face, laughter and endless remark, is no longer amusing to me; it now slips by me, and my motionless lips preserve an interested silence. Oh, my youth! Oh, my youth!”

This harangue is written in the voice of Gogol and not that of Chichikov or any other character of the book; it appears utterly disconnected to what preceded it, and when it ends the reader is abruptly re-introduced to Chichikov’s quest to purchase dead souls. It is as if, in the process of writing, Gogol spontaneously wanted to momentarily deviate from the story to speak directly with readers.  One encounters this frequently in the text, as at the beginning of chapter 7, when the reader is offered some Freudian associations about the nature of happiness, reflections which do not flow, logically or sequentially, from the content which preceded, and ends with Gogol exclaiming “to my tale! To my tale! Away with the wrinkle which has intruded itself on my brow, and the dark gloom on my face! Let us fling ourselves with…and observe what Chichikov is doing.” And the story resumes. Or on pg. 238, when Gogol ponders if “it is very doubtful whether the hero of our choice [Chichikov] has pleased the reader,” and on pg. 261, “there still lives in the author’s mind the invincible conviction that readers might have been pleased with this same hero, with this very Chichikov.” 

I am a political scientist by training and so I do not have the expertise to theorize this literary approach, but I can speak to the effect, which is that it creates a sense of weirdness, or that it is discombobulating. At the same time, it leads to a sense of directly communicating with the author, which in a strange way induces the impression that he is telling a true story about a real flesh and blood human being who lived at this moment in history. If this is the purpose—and it’s a big if—I admit it is very effective in helping to blur the boundaries between fact and fiction, story and reality, a novel and a documented history. 

Another possibility is that this effect is purely unintentional as the writing style reflects Gogol’s disordered and unstable mind rather than any strategic literary genius. After all, he did suffer from mental illness and died very young. 

Finally, Gogol’s Dead Souls can also be read as a kind of anthropological treatise on the content of the Russian soul. There is plenty of content on this theme, and, like much else in the text, it is contradictory (perhaps because national identities inevitably are). Over here, we are told “Russians do not like to die in bed,” over there, that “a Russian man is capable of anything and can adapt himself to all climates.” In one scene we learn that “Russian ingenuity only makes itself known in cases of emergency,” and in another, referring to the character General Betrishchev, “good qualities and a multitude of defects, as is usual with Russians, were mingled in a sort of picturesque disorder. In decisive moments he displayed magnanimity, valor, wisdom, unbounded generosity, caprices of ambition, petty personal touchiness.” Elsewhere, we hear that “a Russian man is a lost being. You want to do everything and can do nothing.”

What to make of this jumble of observations? One plausible hypothesis is that Gogol spent half his life abroad, and in fact Dead Souls was written while he sojourned in Italy. As is often the case, distinctive national traits become visible when one encounters and lives among foreigners. As the proverb goes, it is through others that the self is discovered, and this is no less true between groups than it is among individuals. 

In the text Gogol’s repeated assertions on the character of the Russian soul bestride the content on Russian identity which is connected to an existential cultural chasm between Russia and the West. At the time, it was the ideas on progress and equality emerging out of the French revolution which did not sit well with Russia’s glorification of the land, romanticisation of ruggedness, its religious rootedness, and morally pure pastures. In the 21st century, the vocabulary has changed, but one can still detect this clash in the conflict between the West and Russia, when Westerners disparage the country as backward and authoritarian, while Russian leaders, mostly notably Vladimir Putin, warn against importing the West’s moral decay, decadence, and hedonism.  The fact that this clash continues, almost 200 years after Dead Souls was written, highlights that one of the benefits of reading the book is to deepen one's  historical knowledge about trends which have been present for centuries and which re-emerge in the human pageant under new guises and banners. 

Reflections on Madrid and Spain during the Spring and Summer of 2022.

I spent the Spring and Summer of 2022 in Madrid, Spain, in total for a period of four months. The main reason for the trip was to carry out research for several forthcoming publications, all of which are about Populism and Foreign Policy in Southern Europe. During the first 6 weeks I stayed at a place close to Plaza De Espana, and for the rest in the very centre of town, Puerta del Sol. During the day on weekdays I did my work at the National Library, but I also engaged in many social activities which led to the development of meaningful friendships and to a relatively deep integration into society in Madrid. Moreover, I visited several of the country’s historical treasures, inside and beyond the capital city. These experiences were extraordinarily enriching and will be the focus of this blog post, with particular attention on the general impressions of the city, the country, its language, and culture.

In 2021 the Canadian Foreign Policy Journal published an article I wrote called “Populist Foreign Policy: The Case of Italy” (the article can be found here). Little did I know at the time that academic publishers would become very interested in the theme, and as a result, shortly after the article was released, I was presented with two opportunities to publish on populism and foreign policy in Southern Europe, including Spain. For the past several years my work has focused mainly on France and Italy, and to develop expertise on Spain I would have to travel to the country, consult texts unavailable elsewhere, interview locals, and master the language. With these objectives in mind, I arrived in April and stayed until the first week of August. 

For the most part, I would spend my days in the National Library, which itself is an architectural jewel, with neoclassical designs both in the interior and the façade, adorned with impressive statues of Spain’s illustrious thinkers. The library contains many rare and valuable texts, and some have been stolen in the past; consequently, gaining access to the library requires obtaining permission, which involves submitting documents confirming one’s nationality, address, and status as a researcher, then waiting one week to obtain the access card. All sources must be booked online before they can be physically consulted, and the client must wait for the confirmation that the sources are available, after which access is granted. To enter the premises, one must pass through security, leave personal belongings in a separate room, pass through another layer of security, go to the main room to obtain the sources, and then go to an allotted desk in the main reading hall where the books can be read and analysed.

Initially I found this process annoying and excessive, but as in most things, I got used to it. After spending the day in the library, in the evenings I would engage in social activities which can be found on the popular app “Meetup.” During the first few months, the main one was language exchange events, where native Spanish speakers can meet Anglophones and practice their native tongues with one another, ideally in a manner that allows improvement (for example, correcting each other's mistakes). Doing this was extraordinarily valuable, especially since I had learned, and was used to, the Spanish spoken in Latin America, and needed to adapt to the castellano spoken in Spain. As well as the different accent, there are some non-trivial differences in vocabulary, and a few examples will illustrate: when saying “right now”, Latinos say “ahorita”, while in Spain they say “ahora mismo”. “Congratulations” is usually expressed as “felicitades” by Latinos and “enhorabuena” in Spain. “llevar” is commonly used in Spain to mean “bring,” “carry,” “going,” "getting along," or “have been”; when I was in Mexico, I don't recall hearing “llevar” used in so many different contexts despite almost two months of full immersion. 

One of the more enchanting aspects of Spanish—and this is true both in Latin America and in Spain—is how frequently the diminutive is used, as in “una cerveza” (a beer) often becomes “una cervez-cita,” or “un euro” (one euro) becomes “un euro-cito”. One finds the diminutive in the most unlikely places, such as (my personal favourite) “covid-cito”. When directly translating to English, these words—little euro, little beer, little covid—lack the full breadth of meaning in their Spanish expressions, and one reason is that the diminutive itself has multiple meanings. It is not only “less” in the quantitative or material sense, but also in the psychological one, as in emotionally less burdensome. It is also a conscious attempt to minimize a suggestion or question the hope of making it more acceptable. In some contexts it seems to have a similar function as baby-talk, as when adults change the tone and texture of words and sentences while communicating with children.

Participating in language-exchange events was rather easy, because almost everyone, often unconsciously, adapts their communication to their language-learning interlocutors, meaning that words are clearly, fully, and loudly pronounced . It was more difficult to attend social events where there were exclusively Spaniards, and I would be the only foreigner. I waited about one month before going to these latter types of events, and initially it was challenging, because when native speakers talk among themselves, the pitch is faster, more words are truncated, and local colloquialisms are more common. As I participated in these conversations, over a period of approximately two months I went from understanding roughly 80% to 98% of what was being said, and naturally this created opportunities for me to be an active participant in these events, most of which were discussions or debates on philosophical or spiritual themes.  Doing this allowed me to make the leap to a much more advanced level of Spanish, and it also gave me a deeper understanding about the people who live and work in Madrid (whereas language exchange events are often filled with travellers). Many became friends with whom I developed genuine affective bonds. In comparison with the many countries I have visited and lived in, I can confidently say that people in Madrid are among the most friendly and welcoming I have ever encountered. I am a bit puzzled about the cultural origins of this tendency, although I suspect it’s a mix of the city’s cosmopolitanism, Catholic universalism and Mediterranean sociability.

A noticeable feature of Madrid is its demographic composition, which is very different from the other major cities—Rome, Paris, Toronto, New York—that I am familiar with. All these cities are very diverse in the sense that there are large numbers of blacks and Asians as well as whites; in contrast, in Madrid the vast majority of non-Spaniards are from Latin America, whom, of course, are very diverse, from the Indigenous, to white, to mixed race, and black. At many of the events which I attended, up to half of the participants were from Latin America, mainly Columbia and Argentina, although Uruguay and Peru are also highly represented. Many have been in Madrid for a long time, and so they are fully integrated, a process made easier by the shared language and culture. 

Plenty of the local friends I made are originally from Latin America, and out of curiosity I asked them whether they had ever experienced discrimination. Several replied that they had occasionally received condescending or disparaging comments from former employers, but that overall, they had smoothly integrated. This response fit with my own experiences of closely observing how Spaniards and Latinos interacted as friends, lovers, or co-workers; sharing the same language and a similar culture blurred the national differences between them or, in many contexts, made them utterly irrelevant or trivial. It was noticeably different from my own experience in Toronto, growing up in an immigrant family with a language and culture--Italian--different from the host country's; my mom, for example, would often contemptuously refer to “i canadesi” (“the Canadians) to refer to Anglo-Saxon members of the country even though by then she had already obtained Canadian citizenship. One reason was that she had never really integrated into Canadian society—her friends and partner were Italian, as was the media she consumed, and so her contact with Anglophone Canadian society was very minimal.

One of the unique aspects of Spain is the Islamic influence, which is unambiguously visible in the physical characteristics of the people, the architecture, and the language. Spaniards are considered “white” Europeans, but upon close inspection it becomes clear that many are the descendants of the Arabs who ruled the peninsula for 8 centuries. This is unsurprising, given that, after the Reconquista, Arabs, who numbered around 300 thousand, were given the option to convert to Catholicism and stay, or to go and live in Islamic territories. Estimates are that around half took the former option, meaning that they assimilated into the broader population. In the process, not only did they contribute Arabic physical features to the ethnic make-up of the country, they also strongly influenced the language, such that many habitual Spanish expressions are Arabic in origin. The most common one is “Ojala” which means “hopefully” and comes from the Arabic word for God Willing, or Inshalla. Another common word is “hasta” which means “until” and comes from the Arabic “hatta.” 

The enchanting Arabic influence can be seen in the resplendent buildings and cathedrals which combine Roman, Gothic, and Arabic architectural styles. In Madrid, which itself was founded by the Umuyad Emir Mohamed the First, very little visible Islamic influence remains, but in nearby Toledo, the cathedral, which is easily one of the most beautiful I have ever seen, contains the well-preserved remains of the medieval mosque. The same is true in Segovia, where Arab styles can be seen in most of the prominent buildings, whether secular or religious, even though many were built after Muslims were expelled, highlighting that Arabs continued to influence the architecture even after the collapse of their empire. This influence is most evident, of course, in Andalucía, in Southern Spain, which the Arabs called Al-Andalus. Granada and Cordoba were Arab centres of power and culture during Islam’s golden age, when Christians, Jews, and Muslims coexisted under Muslim rule, leading to a flourishing of science, philosophy, and architecture. Visiting these two cities was easily one of the highlights of the trip, given that this has been on my bucket list for years. Words cannot do justice to how beautiful and intriguing these cities are, and so hopefully the pictures below give a better sense.

Alhambra (Granada)

Cordoba

Inside mosque-cathedral Cordoba

Alhambra 

View of Cordoba

Inside mosque-cathedral of Cordoba. It was 40 degrees that day.

Entrance to mosque-cathedral of Cordoba

Finally, and moving to a completely unrelated theme, I would characterize this trip to Spain as my first post-pandemic travel, even though the virus continues to circulate. Since the beginning of the Covid plague, I have travelled many times—to Paris, Barcelona, Naples, Havana, and Tulum—and the trip to Madrid was the first one where I finally had the sensation of pre-pandemic normality. At the events described above, I would be in locations packed with unmasked people,  where greetings occurred with the typical Mediterranean affection gesture of the double kiss. Most importantly was doing this without the fear that the other person was a carrier of some deadly virus, and this was felt even though  a “seventh wave” of Covid occurred in July 2022, when I was in Madrid. The difference with last summer is astonishing. I went to Barcelona in July 2021, and the “fifth wave” occurred while I was there. While in Barcelona I was exposed to the virus twice, and this led to panic in part because of rules on mandatory isolation after exposure. The situation was so tense that I decided to leave Barcelona earlier than planned. In Madrid in July 2022, I was exposed to Covid several times, and not only did I not catch it, but most importantly, it did not cause any paralyzing fear. How liberating after the terror of the past two years! 

Review of Arthur Miller's "The Crucible"

Arthur Miller’s The Crucible tells the story of the Salem witch trials, which occurred in the year 1692. A collective hysteria developed in the town after several children fell ill, and many babies died at birth. The reigning authorities’ explanation was witchcraft, and evidence for this included the discovery that young girls were surreptitiously dancing in the forest, which was interpreted to mean that they were secretly communicating with the devil. This belief system spread like a virus and eventually became the unquestioned orthodoxy of the courts, which had supreme authority to identify the innocent and guilty. Arthur Miller was inspired to write the text because he was a victim of the collective hysteria of his time, namely McCarthyism, a period in which witch hunts were carried out against those suspected of having communist sympathies. The more sinister aspect of McCarthyism, as in the Salem witch trials, was that authorities, who are supposed to serve the common good, became agents of division and tribalism which destroyed the bonds of civil society. In both cases, as in other mass hysterias, independent thinkers who raised legitimate questions about government policy were scandalously punished, ostracized, and persecuted.

The text is a masterpiece which should be required reading for students of politics, because it shows how power operates during those periods when certain beliefs become orthodoxies among people who occupy the highest echelons of the state’s bureaucratic apparatus. A small minority is able to recognize the political psychosis, and The Crucible is also a story about these types of semi-heroic figures. It is not the most educated; on the contrary, The Crucible demonstrates how the educated class plays a pivotal role as transmitters and perpetuators of the hysteria. Rather, it is the rule breakers, or those whose livelihood is independent of the authorities, who can see what is actually occurring. But even for them, dissent carries a high price, and an inflection point is reached when they must either choose the path of conformity, which brings material comfort and security, or their conscience, which brings pain, exclusion and persecution. 

In the opening scene, the reader encounters Betty, who is delirious and unresponsive, lying on her bed, surrounded by her father, the Protestant Pastor Parris, convinced that she is possessed. The devil is stalking Salem, preying on victims, particularly vulnerable young girls like Betty, and evidence for this, Parris and others believe, is that the girls were dancing in the forest (dancing was banned in Salem). When this belief takes hold, the accused are pressured to confess their crimes and renounce the devil; this would expiate their sins and make them “pure” enough to re-enter the community. Those who refused to confess were publicly hanged. Understandably, many dishonestly complied, as lying and betraying oneself seemed like a small price to pay to avoid an untimely, humiliating, and excruciating death. It was Salem’s highest authorities—lawyers, judges, and Harvard-educated theologians—who were the agents of this charade. Most others went along out of a combination of sincere belief and fear of both the invisible enemy (witches) and of the awesome power of the authorities who arrogated to themselves the right to monopolize how this enemy would be interpreted, understood, judged, and acted upon.

But not everyone fell into line. One of The Crucible’s main characters is John Proctor, a strong, hard-working independent farmer. He does not work for the state and hence his livelihood is not dependent on accepting its narratives. He is a “sinner”, but in the moral not criminal sense: while his wife was sick, he committed adultery with Abigail. The latter, in turn, is participating in the hysteria, claiming to be in communication with the devil, whom, we are told, reveals to Abigail his agents in Salem. Abigail says that Mary Warren, John Proctor’s wife, is among those whom Satan is using to curse the good people of the town. Proctor can see what the real motives are: Abigail desires Proctor, but his wife Mary Warren stands in the way. If the latter were to be tried and executed for witchcraft, Abigail could marry the man she covets. Thus, Proctor’s regrettable betrayal of his saintly wife also allowed him to see that, below the hysteria, other motives were at play. Once that bubble has been punctured, it becomes easy to see sinister motives elsewhere. For example, a farmer Putnam had a property dispute with his neighbour, and the Salem witch trials represented an opportunity to exploit the hysteria for material gain. 

A striking feature about the witch trials is that the authorities were utterly blind to these ulterior motives despite the evidence being in front of their eyes. There is an exception: Hale, the brilliant theologian, arrives in Salem from Boston to help the authorities deal with devil’s machinations, but after a series of interviews and observations, he recognizes that many of the accusers are lying. His voice of reason is drowned out by those of other authorities who, by then, had already executed dozens of suspected witches, and could not fathom that they may have been wrong.

When the pregnant and saintly Mary Warren is arrested because of Abigail’s false testimony, Proctor must convince the court that her accuser is a liar, and so he must confess his marital infidelity. While he is questioned, he also reveals his belief to the authorities and the public that the witch trials are a farce. He is arrested and languishes in jail for three months. On the day of his execution, he is given the opportunity to confess the sin of witchcraft and, in so doing, avoid the hanger’s noose. For average men, going along with the lie would have been easy, but Proctor is a man of integrity and conscience, and hence must struggle. The pressure on him was immense, because his pregnant wife is present, and she needs him to remain alive to feed the family (they already have three children). He buckles and dishonestly vocally confesses, but then, the judge asks him to put it in writing. Proctor could not proceed and destroys the document he was supposed to sign, while yelling the truth to the judge that the whole thing was nonsense. Shortly after, he is hanged.

The Crucible is a timely reminder that societies periodically experience collective hysterias, and despite differences in culture and historical epoch, they share certain patterns. One is that everyone’s attention becomes focused on some external, malign, and invisible force, such as witches or communists, which are perceived to cause some sort of pathology. Subsequently, an elite class of actors, usually politicians but also judges and experts, arrogates to itself the right to save the community from this mortal threat by monopolizing how it will be interpreted and acted upon. Their actions, in turn, help to fixate everyone’s attention and fuel the hysteria. Saints and sinners are created by the authorities because they categorize those who go along with their narrative as “good”, and those who dissent as “bad”. The latter face many punishments, from execution to unemployment to ostracism. Interpersonal and civic bonds are destroyed, sometimes irreparably. One of the more pernicious aspects of these events is that authorities become so entangled and invested in the orthodoxy that, when evidence emerges that they may be wrong, they double down rather than critically question their own beliefs. The most cynical reason is that they are saving their skin, as they are fully aware that admitting they may be wrong would mean publicly recognizing that all the pain and suffering was pointless and cruel. Although they may escape justice, history is never kind to these petty tyrants, while heroes like Proctor are vindicated because their perspicacity, courage and integrity prevented them from following the herd.

Review of Tolstoy's War and Peace

Tolstoy’s War and Peace is an extraordinary text, and often leaves an impression memorable and intense. It recounts the Napoleonic wars, particularly the invasion of Russia, and in the process, the reader learns lessons such as, how war can be a spiritual activity, an observation that grates the modern proclivity, to believe war is always immoral. With the latter Tolstoy might agree, but from his personal experiences fighting in Crimea, also noticed that fighting, devotion, patriotism, and soldierly bonding can be a panacea, for the pettiness of life, or at least some elements of which it is comprised: rivalries, jealousies, insults, economic insecurities, ego-driven fears; all melt away, as it were, when facing an enemy and one hears, bullets whizzing and shrieking, penetrating those pointlessly seeking, to avoid this cruel fate. 

 

An important lesson of War and Peace is the many manifestations of love, at times it is carnal and ego-driven, at others it rises above, ones’ mere wishes and desires, and transcends lust’s extinguishable fires. Lastly, the reader learns these timeless lessons while gaining knowledge about a crucially important time in human history: the French revolution, Napoleon’s subsequent attempts to establish a new Rome centered in Paris as the eternal, cosmopolitan capital city, and the failure of this grand project partly, or mainly, because of Russia’s resistance, equally valiant, sacrificial, and bloody. I’ll conclude this blogpost with some personal reflections on the period during which I read War and Peace, the summer of 2021, while I was in Spain and Italy, in the middle of the 4^th wave of Covid-19, when I had many close calls with this devil of a plague. 

 

War and Human Psychology

 

Inter-group violence is a constant in the human past, regardless of political units including ones which encompass, empires, tribes, gangs, cities, nations, religions; all, at one time or another, engaged in, war and violence. Thinkers have approached this subject from a scholarly perspective, trying to understand what causes war; others from a legal and moral point of view, ascertaining whether law can render the evil of killing no more. In the 20^th century at least, the latter view has prevailed, in legal instruments, political efforts and cultural symbols, many of which entailed, the idea—alien to our ancestors—that war is wrong and should, like other forms of violence, be ended, or could, be allowed only in limited circumstances, like those intended, to prevent invasion and ensure territory is defended. 

 

This approach, judging by the violence of the 20^th century, has clearly failed to materialize. Nonetheless, at the level of law and culture, there is little doubt that war is not a legitimate way to realize, glory and prestige, as it was in the past. Now, professional sports, economic competition, and scientific achievement are the routes to national glory; this shows how, culturally at least, humans have developed other ways to imbue their national stories, with triumph and victory. War and Peace challenges contemporary sensibilities because it presents war as enjoyable, even spiritual, in its capacity to create deep and lasting bonds between soldiers and with the fatherland; in the process, the ego is deflated, as it as were, subsumed to something greater, which reveals how petty most human concerns actually are. The pain of unrequited love, the frustration of economic insecurity, betrayal induced rage; all turn to oblivion when in sacrifice the soldier is engaged. 

 

This tendency is clearly demonstrated in the lives of many of the text’s main characters, particularly Andrei Bolkonsky. Handsome, intelligent, and wealthy; one would think he has all it takes to be happy. And yet he is miserable, in part because he is in a loveless union, with the beautiful Liza, needy, demanding, fearful and who soon will, bear his child. Her needs entail, for Andrei, a loss of freedom that is unbearable, but there is a way out of a situation he finds so terrible: he is a member of the Russian nobility, and hence is imbued with the values of military duty. He jumps at the opportunity, therefore, to fight Napoleon’s forces, in Austria, at the infamous battle of Austerlitz. Russia and its German ally attempt to defeat the French, despite great acts of heroism and sacrifice, they could not wrench, victory from this decisive battle; history has ultimately saddled, says Tolstoy, responsibility on the Germans for this humiliating defeat. But I digress, and return to the figure of Andrei, whom, despite being a rich nobleman with a lot to lose, charges against the enemy forces, who are firing mercilessly, on foot or while riding on their horses. Andrei is gravely wounded and profusely bleeds, while on the ground looking at the sky the following he perceives:

 

How quiet, calm, and solemn…the way the clowds creep across this lofty, infinite sky. How is it I haven’t seen this lofty sky before? And how happy I am that I’ve finally come to know it…nothing, nothing is certain, except the insignificance of everything I can comprehend and the grandeur of something incomprehensible but most important! 

 

Andrei recovers, and extraordinary acts of bravery are recognized and hence encouraged, by those in the highest echelons, including the Emperor Alexander. Andrei is not so lucky during the next great confrontation, the Battle of Borodino, which occurs on Russian soil; Napoleon himself was present to encourage his men, but his plans were destined to spoil, by the great sacrifices of the Russian forces, which were unwilling to surrender despite horrendous losses. Half of their men perished, while the French lost a quarter. The latter’s attempts to conquer Europe were gravely wounded, as was Andrei, by exploding cannonball. He did not die immediately, and was transported to Moscow, but this city had to be evacuated quickly, because Napoleon’s forces were on the prowl, for new conquests, and Russia’s eternal city was soon swarming, like the pest, with foreign bodies. 

 

Pierre Bezukhov also figures prominently in the text under examination. The illegitimate son of Count Vladimirovich is rich, intelligent, and often distracted, intellectual, somewhat ridiculous, and goodness often refracted, through this extraordinary character; he marries the lovely Helene, but could not share with her, his destiny. Their motives were impure, and both would bear the brunt, of failure arising because she wanted his wealth, and he desired her [expletive]. Predictably, they are miserable, and their pain is relieved via satisfying their baser appetites; she is unfaithful, while he drinks excessively and passes sleepless nights, gambling, womanising  and finding temporary release, from the misery and hollowness which does not cease. Pierre tries to escape in religion and joins the Masons; he gives much to charity, fights a duel, but none of this provides the peace he is seeking.

 

The Masons preach against the evils of war, and so Pierre is constrained from fighting, for, doing so would betray his deeply held beliefs; all that changed, however, when Napoleon seeks, to conquer all of Mother Russia. Pierre is forced to reconsider, and also sees an opportunity to escape his deeply bitter, existence characterized with a loveless marriage and frequent licentiousness; he therefore decides to join the fight without any pretentiousness, about how successful he would be. In the battle of Borodino, this wealthy and miserable nobleman goes to the front lines, where cannon and bullets are mowing down his comrades by the nines; by chance alone does he escape the death which descended on others in the prime of their lives, cut down in youth’s blossom when it mostly thrives. He feels, during these dramatic scenes, that 

 

The deeper he immersed himself in that sea of troops, the more he was overcome by anxious restlessness and a new joyful feeling he had never experienced before…it was a feeling of the need to undertake something and sacrifice something…he now experienced a pleasant sense of awareness that everything that constituted people’s happiness, the comforts of life, wealth, even life itself, is nonsense…the sacrificing itself constituted a new, joyful feeling for him.

 

His adventures do not end there; Napoleon must not be allowed to triumph in Moscow thinks Pierre. And so as others are evacuating the city, he remains and plots assassination, a suicidal mission to tear, through Napoleon’s head a single bullet while approaching him deceptively; certain death would occur inevitably.  Pierre with other Russians is captured, and so his plan fails; the French firing squad begins to plaster, the wall behind them with blood and entrails. At the last second, Pierre is spared, and is taken back to the jail. Shortly after Napoleon realizes that he will fail, to conquer Russia, and so begins the French retreat. Pierre, meanwhile, has a new perspective on life; all the things that cut his heart like knife—Helene’s unfaithfulness, alcoholism, gambling—seem, after these experiences, utterly trifling, devoid of significance or importance, even amusing, as one disinterestedly observes, an unruly child finally snoozing, in his relieved mother’s arms. An important lesson of Pierre’s discovery of freedom from his troubles, however, is that it was unsought; he decided to join the battle, not to escape painful thoughts, but to pursue heroism and sacrifice. Pierre’s liberation from his self-imposed chains was the unintended consequence, not the aim.

 

Finally, Nikolai Rostov, Natasha’s brother, also experiences sorrow; he is in love with Sonya, his cousin, but could not envisage a better tomorrow, enveloped in her warm embrace. The reason is that she does not have a dowry, and hence cannot bring, badly needed money, to Nikolas and their potential offspring. What is more, the Rostov’s are in economic dire straits, in part because of Count Rostov and Nikolas’s unfortunate tastes, for gambling. Unquenched desire and economic insecurity, singularly or together, produce misery, but Nikolas finds release in the army, as he and his comrades, with their unbreakable bonds and collective mission, endeavor to liberate the fatherland from the French. During the intense fighting, Nikolas “had the happy air of a schoolboy called up before a large public at an examination in which he is sure he will distinguish himself.” As bullets and cannon whizzed by and mowed down his compatriots, “the sun began to hide itself behind the clouds. Ahead of Rostov, another stretcher [for the wounded] appeared. And his fear of death and the stretcher, and his love of life and the sun—all merged into one painfully disturbing impression.” 

 

The many kinds of love in War and Peace

 

Love, like death, frustrates our efforts to understand, forces in the universe we often have little hand, in when or how they occur. Their mystery invites the pondering, of the mystical, unfathomable, and eternal. War and Peace does not skirt these puzzling questions, and via the lives of the main characters teaches us lessons, such as that there is no singular kind of love. It comes in many forms, some at the level of, some above, earthly considerations of desire and lust. The higher form is, so to speak, closer to the divine even if, in some circumstances, it cannot be consummated, while the lower form can bring much pleasure provided it is placated, within the confines of family and commitment. Between these extremes exist many different kinds, some of which through War and Peace’s characters the reader finds.

 

For example, after the death of Liza during childbirth, Andrei and Natasha fall in love with each other. This love gave Andrei a “vivid awareness of the terrible opposition between something infinitely great and indefinable that was in him, and something narrow and fleshy that he himself, and even she, was.” Both are youthful, attractive, wealthy, and imagine, with justification, the happiness of marriage and toddlers. These plans fall apart after Natasha’s betrayal; subsequently, misery, sorrow, and despair, could not fail, to pollute their existence equally, even though she holds primary responsibility. But during the retreat from Moscow, an unexpected miracle occurs, they reunite while she has recovered from the emotional injury, and he gravely wounded from an exploding canon during the battle of Borodino. Their love is reignited as she tends to him, providing comfort and relief from the pain on his festering, wound; akin, to a never ceasing object violently penetrating fragile skin. During his final moments on this earth he is surrounded, by Natasha’s pure love which is founded, on forgiveness, care, on the recognition of fragility, and not on carnal desire, with its potentially warping intensity.

 

Pierre, as mentioned above, was unlucky in love, and paid dearly for the mistake, in terms of misery and hate, for his pathetic union with a woman depraved. But she, like Andrei, is destined to an early grave, making Pierre an eligible bachelor; Natasha has a similar status, giving Pierre the opportunity to flatter her. In reality, little effort is needed, because their union is natural, destined, and perhaps seeded, by something greater than their mere wishes and desires, legitimate and normal, for the pleasures of matrimonial fires. This occurs despite some important differences; she is gorgeous and unpretentious, he is fat, absent-minded, and somewhat ridiculous. But he has a heart of gold, as does she; their motives are pure, and neither want to be free, from the responsibilities and duties associated with marriage and family, even though Pierre—unlike Natasha— has already tasted the forbidden fruits of the carnal tree.

 

Rostov falls in love with Sonya, the feeling is reciprocal. The reader is led to believe that their wishes will be fulfilled, an impression which remains until, certain obstacles get in the way. One is that Rostov’s family is broke and unable to pay, debts accumulated from badly managed finance, meaning Rostov’s marrying a rich woman is their only chance, to escape the pain and humiliation of economic insecurity, a fall from grace worsened by the Rostovs ancestral nobility. Nikolai’s inability to consummate his passion with the beautiful Sonya, plus his family’s desperate economic situation, is too much to bear, and to escape he goes and fights to prevent Napoleon’s attempt to tear, apart the Russian motherland. He performs valiantly and is promoted, loved by his men, happy to fight, and he has largely forgotten, the natural desire for Sonya’s delights. 

 

His fate was destined with someone else. Marya, less pretty, very rich, and extremely devout, wants to leave Moscow, but cannot, because her peasants refuse to abandon their fertile plots, to Napoleon’s hungry soldiers. Nikolai arrives on her estate and discovers her plight, and the intransigent peasants would not dare put up a fight, with this battle-hardened warrior. Marya is saved from a fate much scarier, than she could contemplate, and in the process, a spark ignites which leads to her fate, of marriage with Nikolai. She is not as pretty as Sonya, but other qualities are ideal, on top of, her wealth, which saves the Rostovs from the bad hand dealt, to their economic fortunes. 

 

Lessons of History

 

One of things that makes War and Peace a pleasure to read, is that one learns not only of the above characters’ deeds, but also an important period in history, namely, Napoleon’s attempt to establish a new Rome, an imperial republic with Bonaparte as ruler enthroned. Determining the destiny of Europe, perhaps the planet, seduced millions, and not only the French, which is why in Napoleon’s army was entrenched, with many nationalities, united in their reverence, for the sovereign emperor, his mere presence, was sufficient to drive them into paroxysms of furor. Napoleon would achieve, in his own words, a condition where:

 

Europe would become truly one people, and each person, traveling everywhere, would always have found himself in a common fatherland. It would have called for all rivers to be navigable for everyone, the commonality of the seas, and that the great standing armies be henceforth reduced to nothing but guards…on returning to France—great, strong, magnificent, peaceful, glorious—I would have proclaimed its limits immutable…I would have associated my son with the Empire; my dictatorship would have ended, and his constitutional reign would have begun…Paris would have been the capital of the world, and the French the envy of nations!

 

 

The reader witnesses Napoleon’s triumph, in the battle of Austerlitz, allowing the occupation of Vienna and the emperor’s unchallenged prominence, in Austria. Russia was next on the list, of countries and peoples to fall under Napoleon’s fist, and the emperor had grounds to believe, that in this endeavor he would succeed: mainly the Austrian, German, and Russian inability failure to stem, the power of the French Revolutionary forces’ canon, launched in the name of liberty, equality, fraternity, even as blood splattered among those on the receiving end. 

 

The Battle of Borodino is one of the more riveting scenes of the book; Napoleon himself was present, although safely ensconced, far from the battlefield, where ferocious fighting occurred, between Napoleonic and Russian soldiers, half of the latter later interred, to an early grave. Technically the French won the fight, because eventually the Russians were in flight, allowing the latter to occupy the capital like a thief in the night. But it was a pyric victory as this proceeded losses, so large almost incredible among the French forces. They found Moscow empty of most of its citizens, who preferred the misery of escape and hunger rather than, being subjected to the rule of foreigners; moreover, to deny them the fruits of victory, the remaining Russians burned their sacred city. This scorched earth policy, as it came to be known, was another blow to the already weakened French, as was shown, by their deaths from disease and starvation. Under these conditions, and the approaching brutal Russian winter, the only hope for Napoleon’s forces to avoid huge losses and the sinister, relegation to history’s failures, was to return to French soil; and so they left. Despite all the blood, sweat, and toil, they were forced to leave their most prized possession, hoping to salvage what they could, in utter desperation. Very few survived when they finally reached France, the overwhelming majority stood no chance, against the cruel hands of fate; walking thousands of miles in freezing weather with nothing on their plates. Hunger, disease, and fatigue left many too weak to escape, and as they dropped, their young bodies were left to waste. 

 

This was ultimately, says Tolstoy, the most important contributor, to the destruction of Napoleon’s attempt to become the emperor, of Europe, a design which would have destroyed all the other sovereigns, subjecting peoples to a vision that’s foreign, to their distinctive histories and nationalities. War and Peace takes a position, on the perennial debate between those who envision, a political order organized around the rights of man; on the other side are those who believe this is a mistaken plan, as nations—with their distinct cultures, languages, histories—cannot be erased; attempting to do so provokes displaced, peoples to respond with all available means, to defend their homeland from foreign invaders keen, to destroy, pillage, and violate, all in the name of freedom, and after much loss and sacrifice, the nationalists almost always beat them. 150 years after the publication of War and Peace, the debate between nationalists and universalists still inflames, public discourse although it goes by different names, such as liberal and conservative, highlighting how these disputes have not arrived at a definitive, denouement. Rather, the underlying ideas can still motivate movements, from Brexit to populists who denounce, liberals’ attempts to pounce, on national sovereignty, which, nationalists believe, must have absolute primacy, over attempts to open borders—to trade, ideas, migration—or at least make them porous.

 

The distinctive character of nations plays a major role in the text under discussion: Italians, Germans, but particularly French and Russian, nationalities are examined with Tolstoy’s analytical eye, and some of his observations are quite amusing, and this quote shows why:

 

[German general] Pfuel was one of those hopelessly, permanently, painfully self-assured men as only Germans can be, and precisely because only Germans can be self-assured on the basis of an abstract idea—science, an imaginary knowledge of perfect truth. A Frenchman is self-assured because he considers himself personally, in mind as well as body, irresistibly enchanting for men as well as women. An Englishman is self-assured on the grounds that he is a citizen of the best-organized state in the world, and therefore always knows what he must do, and knows that everything he does is unquestionably good. An Italian is self-assured because he is excitable and easily forgets himself and others. A Russian is self-assured precisely because he does not know anything and does not want to know anything, because he does not believe it possible to know anything fully. A German is self-assured worst of all, and most firmly of all, and most disgustingly of all, because he imagines that he knows the truth, science.

 

I am of Italian origin, and it is not difficult to say, that, as a people we are “excitable”. It is hard to deny the general thrust, of his claim that the differences between nations go deeper than the outer crust, of nationalist rhetoric. Despite the French represented as the main villain, they are not, in War and Peace, the main target of Tolstoy’s opprobrium. Rather, it is the Germans, who are presented in ways, that have a tendency to leave a rather bad taste, in one’s mouth. As many readers know, during the Napoleonic wars, Germans allied with Russians to defeat this scourge, that threatened them both with extinction, but despite their common purpose there was much friction. The Germans were supremely logical and scientific, but all their brilliant strategizing could not prevent, the humiliating defeat at the battle Austerlitz, which ultimately permitted Napoleon to continue his campaign to inflict, submission on Europe’s peoples. 

 

The Russians, in contrast, were sentimental; intuitive, mystical, traits embodied in General Kutuzov’s elliptical, comments during his leadership of the battle of Borodino, which was decisive, in fatally weakening French forces at the time precisely, when they were on the cusp of achieving final victory against the enemy. This Russian general takes up a lot of space in the text, he a heroic, almost mythical figure, but not because he flexed, his muscles as did the French, like a baboon banging its chest. No; Kutuzov was aware of a much higher power, that was beyond the fetish for reason and which towered, above mere human designs. Calling it fate, God, or destiny, does not matter, for Kutuzov, it was real and could shatter, man’s greatest conceit, such as Napoleon’s vision that he could complete, the conquest of Europe. He was destined to lose, it was written in the stars, and so Kutuzov’s approach to fighting these wars, was not brilliant strategizing or military science; it was effort and sacrifice but included an alliance, with the detested Germans, who were not ideal partners, just less bad than, the hated French.

 

I’ll conclude this blogpost with some thoughts on the summer of 2021, in which I read War and Peace, all 1200 pages, while travelling in Europe and visiting many places. I accomplished the task by devoting a few hours a day, to the text while in Italy and Spain, in cities where I would stay, for several weeks at a time. First Salerno, then Barcelona, then Naples, and then my family’s ancestral town, characterized my travels during summer from June all the way down, to the end of August. It was exciting and dramatic for many different reasons, one of which was I landed in Spain just as the tourist season, took off, leading to an explosion of cases, of Covid 19 in many of the places, where I was. 

 

This led to many close calls; in Barcelona I was informed, that three people I had interacted with several days before, were sick with Covid, and one can imagine my relief, when I tested negative; but nonetheless, after this episode it was my belief, that Spain was not safe, and so I returned to Italy, where I have citizenship, friends, and family. While there I felt at ease, partly because I was with people I love, who were pleased, that I was healthy and unharmed despite, being in Spain while Covid-19 infections ravaged through the night, of the nation’s hospitals. The commitment to read War and Peace was not easy, because while in Italy I was engaged in many other enjoyable activities: going to the beach, visiting friends, hiking, yoga, cultural events, and visits with family. What is more, War and Peace is not a text one can skim or read quickly; its philosophical depth and analytical profundity, not to mention the value derived from its historiography, mean that it is advisable to go slowly. Therefore, I took my time, doing my best to go over each and every line, sometimes twice or thrice, so that I could be sure, that I absorbed all the meaning Tolstoy wanted to confer. Doing this daily for several hours, allowed me to appreciate Tolstoy’s literary powers, which have placed him in the pantheon of history’s great thinkers, who shows how man’s conceit, such as Napoleon’s attempt to tinker, with the natural order will inevitably fail, while helpfully reminding readers that even the great are ephemeral and frail. 

 

 

Salerno in the summer of 2021

I have been coming to Italy every few years since I was a kid, and each summer for the past 15 years. Last year was an exception; while I was in France in the summer of 2020, I had wanted to go to Italy, but my relatives were concerned about having contact with someone who was travelling internationally. This year, I wanted to return to visit friends and family, and also to be immersed in the culture of a country which has been so central to my life—on top of the strong bonds with many people, I have written and published extensively about the politics of Italy, particularly in relation to Europe. Additionally, the epidemic had, by late-Spring 2021, significantly improved, even though the country’s reopening began in April. During the final weeks of June, for example, Italy had fewer than one thousand new Covid-19 cases per day, which is very low for a country of over sixty million people, while intensive care beds were mostly devoid of Covid patients. However, my relatives were still concerned about having contact with someone travelling internationally, particularly since one of them is eighty-five years old and relatively fragile. For this reason, I decided to rent a place for a month rather than, as I always did in the past, stay with family. This decision, it turns out, would make the experience of coming to Italy very different, mostly for the better, as this blog post hopefully will show.

 

Salerno

First, it may be helpful to briefly discuss some family history and the associated geography of the region where I stayed. Both my parents were Italian immigrants; my mom is from a small village in the province of Salerno, and my dad is from a small village in Calabria. Since my brothers and I were raised by our mom, we have been closer to the relatives in the former part of the country, and hence Salerno is the region I have been coming to frequently all these years. The old house where my mom was born and raised is still in the family’s possession, and is about 50 metres from the newer place where my close relatives live. Typically, I’d sleep in the old house, while spending the day and evening with relatives in the new house. Occasionally, I would go to the city of Salerno to visit friends or do some shopping, which I always enjoyed, but limited public transportation imposed significant constraints. It is a 45 minute bus ride to the city centre, and the last one returns at 7 pm; therefore, many activities, particularly ones which involved returning home late in the evening, were not possible.

Main Street of Salerno

 

Lodging in the city of Salerno not only meant I no longer had said constraints; unexpectedly, it opened up a whole new range of experiences which I had not imagined. First, being close to the centre of the town meant walking through it frequently for even the most mundane activities, like grocery shopping. Doing this allowed me to appreciate the medieval buildings, particularly in the old part of town. A feature which stood out was that many buildings have ancient Greek columns embedded to the façade, or to the corners to provide added support. One reason for this is that Southern Italy, including Salerno, was once part of greater Greece, and so there were—and are—many Greek ruins close by. Builders in the middle ages had access to them and decided to use the materials in the construction. From the perspective of a history buff in 2021, the effect is pretty dramatic. The medieval buildings already possess a certain charm, in part because they are mainly Roman in style and architecture, particularly the huge entrances with elaborately designed arches; the ancient Greek columns attached add the halo of Greece’s golden age, as well as the luster and prestige of their exquisitely crafted style. It also creates a sense of a continuity with the ancient past. Salerno, like other parts of Italy, has been invaded and settled by Etruscans, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Normans, Spanish, and French, but I am highly confident that many of the city’s inhabitants are descendants of the Greeks who once lived and thrived in the city, and who built temples and other public buildings with the timeless and universal beauty of the classical style, elements of which can still be seen on many buildings.

Greek column embedded in a building

 

Another exciting feature of staying in Salerno was being so close to Amalfi Coast, one of the most beautiful places in the world (quite literally). When staying with my family, I would occasionally take the bus to this location, or we would go together by car. From where I was lodging in the summer of 2021, Vietri, one of the pretty little towns on the coast, was only a 15-minute walk away, while others were easily accessible by bike. Cycling on the Amalfi coast was like seeing it for the first time, even though I have gone there frequently for decades, because more of the senses are stimulated. The winding and hilly road upon which I rode is embedded into the rock facing the sea, and there is much vegetation above and below. As a consequence, the air is fresh and clean, and there are pleasant odours emanating from the various plants and trees. The Mediterranean is always visible, but on some stretches one can literally hear the waves splashing on the beaches and rock formations below. And when biking through one of the beautiful little towns, one can easily stop to soak in the landscape, grab an expresso, or walk through one of the tiny medieval streets (a video of this adventure can be found here).

 

Another discovery during my sojourn was that there are groups in Salerno which organize outdoor activities on a regular basis, and for a decent price. The first activity I participated in was hiking, on a location called Sentiero Degli Dei (Path of the Gods). It is an appropriate name, since it is near the top of the mountains which bestride the Amalfi Coast, and the view is quite extraordinary; from the path one sees the vast horizon of the Mediterranean, with its azure waters seamlessly blending with the sky. The little towns mentioned above are also clearly visible, but from a greater distance and higher altitude, they seem to be small colourful settlements surrounded by, on one side, the sea, and on the other, the vivacious green of the mountain’s vegetation. And these views are visible while walking along a well-trodden path, although some parts are dangerous because there are no barriers between the path and steep rocks below; one slip and it would be all over.    

Hiking

 

Another activity I discovered was yoga. I have been doing mindfulness meditation since November, and am well-are of the health benefits of the types of practices associated with disciplined breathing. And so when I learned that there were outdoor yoga classes, I jumped at the opportunity. One session was particularly memorable because we were on the beach, and began around sunset. We did the extremely calming breathing exercises as the sun was setting, which bathed the landscape—the shore, sand, and trees behind—in soft and fading light while the sound of the waves gently splashing, plus the odd squeak of a seagull, helped to create a sense of oneness or unity between body and nature. The other yoga sessions were not as memorable in part because they occurred in a more mundane place, i.e., a park. But this experience taught me how these kinds of practices can be very beneficial, and also an excellent way to make new friends (which I did).

 

Kayaking was another sport I did in Salerno, and it allowed me to see the Amalfi coast from a different angle. We departed from Salerno, and paddled by the coast to two adjacent towns—Vietri and Cetara. On the way, we stopped on stunningly beautiful beaches that are inaccessible on foot; they can only be reached via the water, and hence either by boat or swim. Consequently, there are very few people. The greenish-bluish tint of the water, which reminds one of beaches in the Caribbean, is surrounded by rock formations that provid shade if one needs relief from the piercing midday sun. Unlike activities above, however, I had a negative experience while kayaking: on the way back, I experienced sea sickness. The water was choppy because of the many boats in the vicinity, and for some reasons unknown to me, it triggered dizziness, nausea, and muscle weakness. Consequently, the guide had to tie his kayak to mine so that he could drag me back, which was very humbling given that I was the youngest person in the group; some were decades older and for them, the sport seemed like a breeze (although they are seasoned participants, while it was my first time kayaking on the sea). 

 

Finally, I had the fortune to be in the city during the Festival of Literature, which is a week-long event where scholars and thinkers from across the country—and a few international ones too—discuss their research or their latest books. Despite coming to this part of Italy frequently, I never knew that this event existed. I discovered it via an advertisement that was posted by a park I passed by whenever walking to the old part of town. The poster piqued my curiosity, and so I decided to attend the events, and they were very enjoyable. There were talks on everything from Plato to Dante to more present concerns associated with Italian history and the pandemic. Moreover, these talks occurred in some of the city’s prettiest buildings, like the Medieval cathedral, Il Duomo, in the centre of town. The exterior courtyard—where the talks occurred—is surrounded by ancient Greek columns which, as mentioned above, were likely part of ruins nearby and were included to the construction materials. Attending a talk in such an illustrious location greatly enriched the experience.

 

 

Nicolas Taleb's Skin in the Game

I read Nicholas Taleb’s Skin in the Game while in Havana during the Winter holidays of 2020. I am familiar with his ideas because I’ve encountered them frequently in the press—many intellectuals whose work I read, like John Gray, often cite him, and his books are often reviewed in the periodicals, like the Economist, that I subscribe to. I have been meaning to read one of his books in their entirety for a while, but other commitments got in the way. I decided to finally accomplish the task while in Havana, because while I was there, I could devote the early hours of the morning to reading (while spending the rest of the day and the evenings out and about). The effort was worth it, as Skin in the Game provides a fresh and provocative perspective which goes a long way towards explaining one of the key features of the present era (and about which I have published), namely, the rise of populism. 

 

The main concept in the book’s eponymous title, skin in the game, has a seemingly simple meaning: the value or seriousness of ideas or beliefs is directly proportionate to the risk incurred for holding or promoting them. This places a special responsibility on elites, because it is them, and not the masses, who develop, propagate, and apply new ideas. During pre-modernity, the logic of skin in the game was the norm. Taleb cites the examples of bad Roman emperors, ones who harmed the interests or the people of the empire; most were killed by the praetorian guard. The benefits of this system, says Taleb, is that it helped to filter out bad leaders and select ones who were willing to make major sacrifices for their beliefs. Another way Taleb helpfully demonstrates the idea is with doctors and pilots in the modern world. Both pay dearly for their mistakes, and this tight link between the ideas in their heads, and actual consequences in the real world, ensures that, over time, good practices flourish and spread, while harmful ideas and the people who hold them are pruned by reality. 

 

In the modern world, many categories of people at the non-elite level—barbers, mobsters, cooks, etc.—have skin in the game in the sense described above. If they harm others, they pay a price in terms of lost income, employment, or reputation. The same cannot be said about many contemporary elites, says Taleb, particularly politicians, bankers, and journalists. Many in these categories hold and promote ideas and policies and pay no price if they are wrong or cause harm. The example Taleb cites repeatedly is those politicians and journalists who endorsed regime change policies in the Middle East, and particularly Libya in 2011. There were sound theoretical and empirical reasons for expecting this to be a disaster for Libyans, which is exactly what it turned out to be, and yet political decision-makers and their promoters in major newspapers paid no price for the harm caused by the policy they helped to actualize. In other fields, in contrast, like medicine and aviation, or among average people, being so disastrously wrong would have produced severely negative, even career destroying, consequences. Another example Taleb cites is finance. Bankers responsible for the crisis of 2007 not only did not pay a price for their mistakes; they were rewarded with tax-payer bailouts even as the consequences of their decisions were offloaded to ordinary members of society. And politicians which were decisive in providing these bailouts were subsequently rewarded by the very firms they saved.

 

These examples highlight how the absence of skin in the game is a major cause of corruption in the contemporary world. Many are aware of it but are afraid to speak out, and this leads us to another important observation in the book under review: the tension between ethical decision-making and worldly attachments. More prosaically, in Taleb’s words it is hard to speak out when one has a mortgage and kids; the risk of harming the interests of loved ones is simply to high, and hence salaried professionals—in major firms, academia, or media—who see the corruption at the heart of the system are silent. Taleb, of course, does not fall into this category; although he is a scholar, he is independently wealthy and hence possesses what he calls “fuck you money”, the freedom to challenge powerful interests or groups. 

 

A number of important implications flow from these arguments. One is that it is important to pay attention, not to what people say, but to what they do and how much they are willing to risk for their ideas. Professional members of the commentariat who regularly bloviate their policy prescriptions in polished, verbose, and Ivey-League inflected English should be ignored; those who actually risk something if they are wrong have more credibility. 

 

There are also implications for policy. In order to restore integrity, systems need to be designed so that those in power have skin in the game. Taleb might say that we need to rehabilitate the best features of the Roman model, whereby leaders who decide on war actually participate in the fighting (as Julian the Apostate did); those who cause harm to innocents would be swiftly punished. This would increase the likelihood that virtuous leaders would be selected, ones who valued cautiousness and prudence, and whose interests were aligned with those on the receiving end of their decisions.

 

Lastly, Taleb endorses more entrepreneurial activity so that more people can develop a level of economic independence which permits them to denounce corruption without a devastating loss of income. There is a need for a corrective mechanism when the system goes off the rails—defined by Taleb as one where powerful people do not have sufficient amount of skin in the game—and this is less likely when one cannot, at risk of being unable to pay the mortgage, criticise those in power.

 

It is hard to say whether these prescriptions would fix the problems that afflict modern democracy, of which the most salient symptom is the rise of populist parties, some of whom reject the system outright and want to overthrow it. Taleb is undoubtedly correct that among the most important instances of corruption in recent history were the failed humanitarian interventions and the financial crisis. There is nothing particularly original about this observation, but Taleb’s analysis adds depth by shedding light on the underlying reality of the absence of skin in the game as a major cause of these debacles and the consequent harms done to average people. Had there been skin in the game, promoters and executors of these policies would have been punished, creating a sense of justice and weakening the support for radicals who promised to bring the system crashing down. At the same time, those with leadership aspirations would think twice about their proposals and reforms in the knowledge that if they are wrong, they will pay a heavy price. Perhaps this would help to stitch together the ruptured bond between leaders and the public.