Jesus to the Renaissance - Day 7

Good evening, everyone. Thank you for your prayer, Sonia, especially remembering Dominic. I hope you're all well, especially in these difficult times when people are not only being affected by COVID but also by the challenges of being locked down, mental health issues, and the pressure and stress it puts on relationships and livelihoods. It's a very difficult time, but at the same time, we're fortunate to have this chance to meet together. If it hadn't been for this corona crisis, I don't think we would have discovered Zoom.

I'm going to carry on where I left off. Quite often, I find that after the discussions and lectures, some interesting questions come up. Somebody asked me about the place of the Roman Empire. Was it best for Israel to be part of the Roman Empire? To backtrack a little, this is the empire of Alexander the Great, a huge empire he created in an incredibly short space of time. He died relatively young, but you can see it stretched all the way to India. It wasn't just a military campaign; it was also a cultural campaign. Along with the army came the spread of Hellenism, Greek philosophy, culture, ideas, and political thoughts. A lot of it was absorbed readily because it was highly developed.

Alexander the Great himself had Aristotle as his tutor. Aristotle is one of the greatest Greek philosophers. He gave Alexander a very good education, except that Alexander didn't pay too much attention because Aristotle said empires are not a good thing. So, he went on and created the largest empire in the ancient world up until that time. After he died, the empire was divided into parts. There was Macedonia, Greece, Asia Minor, now Turkey, the Seleucid Empire in the east, and the Ptolemaic Empire in Egypt and parts of the Middle East. Israel started off as part of the Ptolemaic Empire, but then the Seleucids pushed the Ptolemies out of Judea and Samaria about 200 years before Christ was born.

There was a period of internal disunity among the different Jewish groups. Some embraced Hellenism, thinking it was modern and scientific, while others were very conservative and fundamentalist. This internal disunity expressed itself politically in terms of who would get power, who would be the high priest, and who would exert political and religious influence. Antiochus, a Seleucid ruler, moved down to fight against Egypt but was heavily defeated. After his defeat, the conservative Jews thought that was the end of Antiochus and Hellenization, so they overthrew the Hellenizing high priest and put someone else in power. When Antiochus heard about this, he came back to take revenge on the Jews.

This led to mass slaughter; he ordered his army to slaughter everyone in Jerusalem and banned Jewish rituals to try to completely Hellenize the Jews. He banned circumcision, which from a Greek point of view was seen as abusing the human body. He attacked the Jews on the Sabbath when they couldn't fight, erected a statue of Zeus in the temple, and sacrificed pigs there, which was incredibly offensive. The Jews rebelled, and this is known as the Maccabean Revolt, celebrated today by Jews during Hanukkah, which is around the time of Christmas.

The Parthian Empire was another group in northeast Iran towards Afghanistan. They invaded the Seleucid Empire and overcame it. The Parthians were culturally heterogeneous and religiously pluralistic. They moved west and defeated the Romans in 53 BC, capturing the Levant and appointing a king in Judea. In 37 BC, Anthony, a Roman general, invaded and installed Herod as king. The Romans later defeated the Parthians and tried to move the border east, but they struggled. Personally, I think it would have been better for Israel to be part of the Parthian Empire because they were more culturally heterogeneous and would have allowed for more religious toleration than the Romans, who were harsh and militaristic.

Picking up where we left off on Tuesday, I mentioned that God doesn't know who will make the foundation to receive the Messiah. God hopes that many different people will try to do that, which involves creating a foundation of faith and a spiritual community where there is the rule of law, freedom of religion, and religious tolerance. This principle identifies the unity of Hellenism and Hebraism, which are two cultural spheres. It's not just about the unity of Cain and Abel as individuals but the unity of the Hebraic and Hellenistic cultural spheres. This is very important, and that's what happened two thousand years ago.

We looked a bit at the beginnings of Islam last Tuesday. Following the death of Muhammad, there was disagreement about who should inherit the authority and leadership of the Muslim community, the Ummah. Muhammad was born in Mecca but migrated to Medina, where he died. The majority of the Muslim community lived in Medina, but his closest followers migrated with him from Mecca. The day after he died, there was conflict about who should be the successor. Should it be one of his closest followers or someone from his family? They had to come up with a compromise candidate, and the argument was about who should be the most capable person.

Some thought it should be Abu Bakr, who was related through marriage to Muhammad, while others believed it should be someone from Muhammad's family, proposing Ali, the husband of Fatima, Muhammad's daughter. As a compromise, Abu Bakr became the first caliph. However, this split led to a division in Islam that exists today, with Shia believing the ruler should be from the family of the prophet and Sunni believing any qualified person could be the ruler. This split occurred within a day of Muhammad's death and gradually developed, with Abu Bakr becoming the first caliph, followed by Uthman, who had been an enemy of Muhammad but converted to Islam, and finally Ali, who was reluctant to take the title due to the circumstances surrounding it.

The Muslim form of government is essentially an empire, and that's how the Middle East has generally been ruled—one empire after another. The first Islamic empire was the Sunni Arab dynasty, with its capital moved to Damascus, which became incredibly well designed. This was followed by the Abbasid dynasty, a mixture of Sunni and Shia, with the capital in Baghdad. The power became fractured among different regions, succeeded by the Ottoman Empire, which lasted until the end of the First World War, and a smaller Safavid dynasty based in Persia, one of the fragments from the Abbasid dynasty.

The Khalif Umar, the first caliph after Abu Bakr, conquered Palestine and Jerusalem from the Byzantines in 638. As we look at the map, we can see how rapidly the Muslim Arab armies spread and conquered the Middle East, Byzantium, and North Africa. You might wonder how they were able to make such incredible conquests.

Progress against the Romans led to the establishment of the Eastern Roman Empire, later known as the Byzantine Empire. Constantinople was referred to as the second Rome, established by Constantine. The success of the Byzantine Empire during the reign of Justinian can be attributed to various factors, including the Justinian Plague, a devastating pandemic that wiped out about a quarter of Europe's population. This plague was similar to the bubonic plague that struck Europe in the 17th century. As a result, many cities and towns in Byzantium were depopulated, leaving them abandoned. The plague did not reach Arabia due to the natural barrier of the desert, which meant that by the time the Arab armies expanded, the population in Byzantium had not had the opportunity to repopulate or form new armies.

The rapid expansion of the Arab army can also be attributed to the perception of Islam as a reform movement within Christianity. This context is crucial when considering the historical timeline, as the Arab armies were able to take advantage of the weakened state of the Byzantine Empire, which was still recovering from the effects of the plague. Historical records indicate that this expansion occurred approximately 100 to 120 years after Justinian's reign. The concern over plagues in ancient times is evident, as one of the major reasons for the collapse of Greece and Athens was also due to a plague that decimated their population. Similarly, the Black Death during the Middle Ages had a devastating impact on Europe.

The Al-Aqsa Mosque was built on the site of the Temple Mount, where, according to Muslim tradition, Muhammad ascended to heaven and conversed with God. During this journey, he encountered various prophets, including Jesus, Moses, and John the Baptist. Interestingly, Abraham was found to be the highest among them. Upon returning, Moses advised Muhammad to negotiate with God regarding the number of daily prayers, which initially was set at fifty. After some negotiation, it was reduced to five times a day, a more manageable requirement for the followers of Islam. The Dome of the Rock was constructed later on the same site, believed to be where Abraham was called to sacrifice Isaac, and it holds significant religious importance.

The Umayyad dynasty, which was Sunni Arab, established its capital in Damascus and was influenced by the advanced architecture and technology of the Byzantine Empire. Upon encountering these remarkable structures, the Umayyads embraced and adapted Greek architectural styles, incorporating a Muslim flavour into their designs. This led to a significant expansion of Islamic lands, which continued until the Abbasid dynasty took over in 1031. The Abbasids, a mix of Sunni and Shia Arabs and Persians, established Baghdad as their capital. However, power eventually fragmented, culminating in the sack of Baghdad by the Mongols, who were pagans. Despite this, the period is often regarded as a golden age of Islam, marked by significant cultural and scientific advancements.

As the Arab armies expanded, they encountered advanced civilizations and sought to assimilate their knowledge. Muhammad encouraged the pursuit of knowledge, stating that one should seek it wherever it can be found. This led to the early Muslim community absorbing knowledge from various cultures, including the Greeks, Christians, Indians, and Chinese. The founding of Baghdad in 762 marked the beginning of a world centre for education and culture, lasting for 500 years. This city became a hub for the translation of Greek and other texts, as scholars recognised the beauty of the Quran and sought to preserve and expand upon the knowledge of previous civilizations.

Baghdad was home to many libraries, universities, hospitals, and museums, becoming a centre of knowledge during a time when Europe was in the dark ages. The invention of paper in China facilitated the writing and publishing of books, allowing authors to make a living from their writings for the first time in history. The contributions of Muslim scholars to world culture, particularly in science, were significant. The term 'alchemy' originates from Arabic, and the development of mathematics, including algebra and the introduction of Arabic numerals, revolutionised the field. The advancements in medicine, geography, and commerce during this period were remarkable, with trade flourishing along the Silk Road and other routes.

In Spain, the Caliphate of Cordoba represented a high point of European civilization, lasting for about 700 years. Following the Visigothic rule, Muslim armies invaded from the south, establishing a caliphate that thrived for a century. This period was marked by incredible advancements in culture, science, art, architecture, and philosophy. The Great Mosque of Cordoba, built a thousand years ago, exemplifies the architectural beauty of the time. When Christian armies later reoccupied Spain, they struggled with what to do with these magnificent structures, often converting them into churches. Despite the changes, there was a relatively tolerant atmosphere for Jews and Christians during this period, fostering an environment of intellectual development and learning.

The unity of the Hebraic tradition and the Hellenistic tradition during this time created a unique opportunity for spiritual and intellectual growth. The coexistence of diverse ideas and philosophies may suggest that this was a time when the Messiah could have emerged. The relative tolerance of Jews and Muslims during this period, as indicated in the Quran, highlights the respect for 'people of the book' and the potential for unity among different faiths.

Jews and Christians are regarded as people of the book, and in Muslim tradition, it is believed that God sent a prophet to every group or tribal society, bringing them a book of revelation. As long as these groups observe their respective revelations, they can continue practicing their religions. However, they must acknowledge the superiority of Islam and accept Islamic power. Those without a book were considered pagans and were given a choice: either convert to Islam or face death. During the time when Jews and Christians lived in Spain, they had to recognise the superiority of Islam and pay a special tax to the Muslim rulers. While they were not called upon to serve in Muslim armies, they were required to pay this extra tax to support various initiatives. Additionally, they were not allowed to commit blasphemy or attempt to convert Muslims, under penalty of death, and they had to adhere to numerous restrictions, including wearing special badges to identify themselves as Jews or Christians.

This status is known as dhimmitude. A dhimmi, whether Jew or Christian, was not permitted to marry a Muslim woman, although a Muslim man could marry a Jewish or Christian woman. This is because, in Islam, religious lineage is passed through the male line, while in Judaism, it is passed through the female line. Consequently, if a Muslim man married a Jewish or Christian woman, their children would be raised as Muslims. Furthermore, dhimmis could not give evidence in Islamic courts and faced various other restrictions. However, compared to the ancient world and the treatment of Jews in Christian countries, the treatment of Jews and Christians under Muslim rule was relatively liberal. For instance, they were not forced to live in ghettos and could reside wherever they chose, provided they were identifiable as non-Muslims. They were not enslaved, which was a common practice in the ancient world when one tribe conquered another.

Unlike many conquered peoples who were enslaved, Jews and Christians were allowed to follow their faith and were not compelled to convert or die. They were not banned from specific professions, although they often took on jobs that Muslims shunned, such as tanning and butchery, as well as more respectable roles in banking and dealing with gold and silver. Muslims and Catholic Christians were prohibited from charging interest, which meant that Jews became one of the few groups allowed to engage in banking. When we compare this historical context to the modern world, it may seem harsh, as society was sharply divided along ethnic and religious lines, with Arab tribes at the top of the hierarchy, followed by Berbers, converts, and at the bottom, the dhimmi Christians and Jews. However, Muhammad's last sermon emphasised absolute equality within Islam, stating that Arabs are not superior to non-Arabs.

Despite this teaching, the reality was that many Arabs believed their linguistic and cultural ties to the Prophet placed them at the top of the social order. All spiritual communities face similar temptations, but in contrast to Christian anti-Semitism, the Muslim attitude towards non-Muslims is characterised more by contempt than by hate or fear. Muslims looked down upon Christians and Jews, but their relationship was not as complicated as that between Christians and Jews. Now, I want to explore how Islamic thought developed, particularly in the context of creating a foundation to receive the Messiah. One significant figure in this development was Al-Farabi, who is thought to have originated from Central Asia or Persia. He was known as the 'second teacher' in the Muslim world, with Aristotle being the first.

When the Arabs encountered Byzantium, they translated many Greek texts into Arabic. Al-Farabi moved to Baghdad, where he played a crucial role in the preservation and translation of these texts. His conclusion was that revelation, as found in the Quran, and philosophy, particularly the works of Plato and Aristotle, are two different paths to the same truth. He believed that truth is singular and that these different paths should be synthesised and harmonised. Al-Farabi made significant contributions to logic, mathematics, music, philosophy, psychology, and education, establishing himself as one of the founding thinkers in the Muslim world. Following him was Avicenna, a physician from what is now Uzbekistan, who is regarded as the father of early modern medicine. His medical textbooks were translated into European languages and formed the basis of medical education for centuries.

Avicenna's contributions to surgery and medicine were incredibly advanced for his time, often surpassing European practices for hundreds of years. He was a philosopher, scientist, musician, psychologist, and sociologist, making substantial contributions to logic, theology, mathematics, physics, and poetry. Avicenna sought to develop a synthesis between Islam and Aristotle, while Al-Farabi was more inclined towards Plato. Later, another influential philosopher, Al-Ghazali, emerged from Persia. He was a Sunni philosopher, theologian, jurist, logician, and mystic who systematised Sufism and integrated it with Islamic thought. Al-Ghazali was so esteemed that he was referred to as the 'proof of Islam.' Despite his deep study of Greek philosophy, he became disillusioned with it and critiqued both Greek philosophy and earlier Islamic philosophers like Al-Farabi.

Al-Ghazali's work, 'The Incoherence of the Philosophers,' argued that philosophers were incoherent and that there was nothing to learn from Greek philosophy. He rejected Plato and Aristotle, asserting that all knowledge necessary for understanding the world is contained within the Quran. This fundamentalist perspective is not unique to Islam; similar tendencies can be observed in various spiritual traditions. Al-Ghazali's dominance in Islamic philosophy marked a significant turning point, as he shifted the focus away from the philosophical inquiries of Aristotle and Plato. He posited that all causal events are not the result of material conjunctions but rather the immediate will of God. This perspective led to a form of absolute predestination, suggesting that every event is a direct act of divine intervention, akin to miracles.

Al-Ghazali's assertion that natural laws are merely the will of God meant that scientific explanations were rendered irrelevant. For instance, he argued that cotton burns when it comes into contact with fire not because of natural laws but because God wills it. This perspective created a framework where every event, no matter how mundane, was seen as miraculous. Al-Ghazali's rejection of Aristotle and Plato marked a significant shift in Islamic philosophy, leading to a more dogmatic approach to knowledge. Meanwhile, in Spain, during this golden age of Islamic thought, figures like Averroes emerged. Born in Cordoba, Averroes was another brilliant polymath who sought to reconcile Islam with Aristotle while critiquing Plato. He believed that earlier philosophers had been overly influenced by Plato and considered Aristotle to be the greater philosopher.

Averroes wrote a response to Al-Ghazali's 'Incoherence of the Philosophers,' titled 'The Incoherence of the Incoherence.' He disagreed with Al-Ghazali's perspective, but the reality was that the course of Islamic thought had already been set by Al-Ghazali's dominance. Despite Averroes being a great philosopher, he fell out of favour with the political leadership and faced condemnation from conservative members of the Islamic community. His ideas, which sought to synthesise Hebraic and Hellenistic views, were rejected, leading to his exile and the destruction of his works. It wasn't until the 19th century that scholars began to rediscover Averroes and recognise the issues that arose from Al-Ghazali's dominance in Islamic philosophy.

Correctness leads to one particular strand of thought or philosophy becoming a dominant framework within which everyone must operate. This creates a situation where one individual becomes the figure that everyone looks up to. However, when many different philosophers compete with each other or contribute to the conversation within philosophy, it is not a problem. Increasingly, we can see in the world today a trend towards eliminating philosophers with controversial ideas. Avarice himself had a huge impact on Judaism and Christianity, particularly in Spain. In Spain, as in Baghdad, Greek texts were translated from Greek into Arabic, which then influenced the Golden Age in Spain. Avarice read these texts and wrote commentaries on Aristotle, Plato, and others. These books were later translated from Arabic into Latin, allowing Greek philosophers to re-enter European culture.

In Europe, Avarice was referred to as 'the commentator.' Aquinas acknowledged him as the one whose interpretations of Aristotle he took seriously, despite not agreeing with everything he said. Avarice was also a father of rationalism in Europe. However, this intellectual exchange left the Muslim world, leading to a later empire, the Ottoman Empire, which expanded significantly. The Ottomans were pushed out of Spain in the late 15th century by Christians and moved back into North Africa. They eventually reached modern-day Turkey, which was once part of Byzantium, a Christian area. The Ottoman Empire extended into mainland Europe, and many countries did not gain independence until the 19th and 20th centuries. The Ottomans even laid siege to Vienna on two occasions, illustrating their reach.

The question arises: did Islam lay the foundation to receive the Messiah? I would argue that it did. During the time of synthesis and integration of Hellenism and Hebrewism, Islamic scholars engaged with philosophical strands, inheriting many good things while also developing critiques. However, when they rejected these ideas, it became problematic. This led to limited religious freedom and freedom of thought. Following a change in dynasty in Spain, a more fundamentalist Muslim dynasty took over, resulting in persecution of Jews and Christians. One of the greatest Jewish scholars, Maimonides, fled Spain due to this persecution and moved to the Holy Land. Consequently, there was no longer a foundation to receive the Messiah.

Today, Muslim countries remain incredibly religious, but individuals who propose controversial ideas can easily be accused of blasphemy and face severe consequences. This mirrors the situation in medieval Europe, where heretics faced death. Since that time, the Muslim world has lacked a foundation to receive the Messiah. More educated and intelligent Muslim scholars recognise that this period marked the beginning of cultural, economic, and political decline in Islam. During the Muslim Golden Age, Islam was far ahead of Europe in culture, economics, technology, and literature, but the fatal change of direction led to gradual decline and the rise of Islamic extremism. One significant issue for the Muslim world today is its engagement with modernity. Muslims once viewed themselves as superior, and for a thousand years, they were, but they eventually fell behind. The shock of being overtaken by Christians in Europe during the 19th century was profound, especially as the Ottoman Empire was invaded and broken up after the First World War.

Muslims historically accepted Christians and Jews as long as they acknowledged Islam's superiority and accepted their second-class citizenship. However, it is challenging for Muslims to accept being a minority in a Christian-majority or Western-majority country, as it contradicts their self-understanding. This struggle contributes to the rise of Muslim extremism that we experience today. Returning to the earlier discussion, we see how God's providence develops rapidly but can easily change, leading to a loss of foundational beliefs. We previously discussed how God raised up the Germanic tribes as a new chosen people. In studying the late Roman Empire, we observe that it became totalitarian, lacking a foundation to receive the Messiah, even though it was religiously Christian. This form of totalitarianism is not ideal either.

The Germanic tribes were very decentralized, as noted by the Roman historian Tacitus, who described them living in forests and small family groups. They were primarily agrarian farmers who banded together only for defense against attacks. When the Romans invaded, a great German warrior named Arminius united the tribes to drive them out. However, the idea of remaining united was unpopular, leading to his poisoning by his own people. This decentralisation is still evident in Germany today, where there is no single dominant city like in France or Italy. The Germanic tribes were not literate, leaving behind only runes, which remain largely undeciphered. They experienced what is known as the Great Migration, as the Huns moved west from Central Asia, leading to significant upheaval in Europe.

The Huns attacked the Visigoths, one of the Germanic tribes, forcing them to negotiate with the Romans for entry into the Roman Empire. The Visigoths converted to Arian Christianity but felt uncomfortable in their new surroundings. They eventually sacked Rome in 410 and continued their migration into Spain. The Huns, meanwhile, did not directly affect the Roman Empire but attacked both the Eastern and Western Roman Empires. This period resulted in massive destruction of infrastructure built by the Romans, including roads, bridges, and buildings, as well as a significant loss of cultural heritage, including monasteries and places of learning. The Visigoths were not interested in living in cities, which explains why the Anglo-Saxons did not settle in London when they arrived in Britain.

The Germanic tribes are considered the new chosen people because they lived outside of cities. In the Bible, the first city was built by Cain, while the chosen people were primarily shepherds. Figures like Abel, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and King David were all shepherds. Shepherds are independent, responsible for their own decisions, and spend time alone with their sheep, often communicating with God. In contrast, city dwellers are busy and often lack time for spiritual reflection. This independence and desire for freedom were characteristic of the Germanic tribes, who valued their autonomy and resisted being ordered around. This desire for freedom may explain why Arminius was poisoned; his people did not want someone dictating their actions. As we explore these migrations further, we see the Visigoths and other tribes settling in various regions, leading to the formation of modern Europe. The Frankish kingdom became France, while the Germanic tribes established their presence across the continent, pushing the Slavs further west as they sought new lands.

The result of what went on one and a half thousand years ago, when the Huns came in, was that everybody got pushed around and had to be resettled. This is why we have such a mixture of different groups, linguistic and tribal, and national groups to this day. Different racial groups and those conflicts are still ongoing today in the 21st century. Long ago, these Slavic tribes settled here, and then we had some Germanic tribes that got pushed out. There was nowhere to go; when you have the sea, you get in your boats, cross over, and go to this island called Britain. This was a Roman island; well, part of it was Roman. The Romans got as far as Hadrian's Wall, which was built along here. They weren't able to conquer what is now called Scotland or Wales, but they conquered basically what is now called England. In 410, the Romans had to withdraw because they needed troops back in Rome, and thus Roman protection of Britain was withdrawn.

After the Romans left, Anglo-Saxon tribes moved over, including the Saxons and the Angles. You can see where these tribes settled; for example, East Anglia is named after the East Angles. This area is divided into two: Norfolk, meaning the North Folk, and Suffolk, meaning the South Folk. They were all basically Angles. The Saxons moved over as well, and today we still have the names: the West Saxons, known as Wessex; the East Saxons, known as Essex; and the South Saxons, whose counties are still called Sussex. The Jutes settled in Kent and had a very distinctive identity. The men of Kent did not get as far as Cornwall, so from an English point of view, Cornwall, even though geographically and politically it is now part of England, is inhabited by Celts, whose languages and genetics are quite different from those of the English.

As time went on, we ended up with seven Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. The Celts were pushed over, and everybody moved around. Different kingdoms rose to power at different times; sometimes Northumbria was the most powerful, sometimes Mercia, and sometimes Wessex. Winchester was the capital of England for a long time before London. To understand the governance of the Germanic tribes, I will focus on England, as I don't know much about the Germanic tribes in Germany. The governance of the English was derived from the customs of the Germanic tribes. The English were a nation of freeholders living in homesteads, families in small villages. They did not settle in London or any of the big Roman cities; they lived in their own homesteads. A group of these homesteads formed a village, and occasionally, the heads of the families would meet to make decisions about various matters.

They would have a village moot, where the heads of different families would choose someone to be called the village reeve, akin to what we now call the mayor. A hundred or so villagers would gather, and their mayors would meet, constituting a hundred, which is a political unit that still exists today. The village also had a meeting presided over by an elder, where they managed their own affairs. This reflects the Germanic tradition of governance, which was very bottom-up, not top-down like in the Roman tradition. A number of hundreds formed a shire, which is what we still have today in Britain, called counties like Wiltshire and Derbyshire. These names go back one and a half thousand years and were presided over by an alderman, similar to an aristocrat or baron appointed by the king.

The kingdom was made up of these shires, and the governance was very democratic. The king was made up of these shires, and the Germanic tribes had a similar structure. The English system of governance was unusual; the kingdom was ruled by the Witenagemot, a meeting of wise men who could elect and depose a king. This is akin to what we now call a parliament. The Witenagemot was a council of elders that would elect and remove the king if necessary. They usually decided that to prevent civil wars, the king should be someone from the royal family, but they would choose the wisest and most capable son to become king. This system is similar to the Germanic tradition until the 19th century, where electors decided who would be the German emperor.

The Witenagemot had the authority to make decisions about war and peace, meaning the king could not unilaterally declare war without their consent. The king's role was to lead the army, but he needed the support of the Witenagemot to make decisions about war. Only the Witenagemot could make or amend laws; the king could not change the law but was responsible for upholding it. This reflects a biblical tradition where the king did not have the authority to alter the law. In England, the king was supposed to be a descendant of Woden, a Norse god, and was greatly respected but could not alter the law. Only parliament could make or change laws, and the king could not raise taxes without the Witenagemot's approval.

The Witenagemot also confirmed the appointment of bishops and aldermen and settled disputes, functioning as a court. The king, being a descendant of Woden, was expected to uphold the law, which was customary law that informed the basis of common law. Customary law means there are established customs that dictate how people are expected to behave, creating a sense of obligation and duty. These customs became the basis of common law, which prescribed social conduct and was enforced by ordinary royal courts. The source of authority for law was tradition and custom, not the state or the emperor, which is a stark contrast to the Roman tradition.

In England, the law was not written down but was customary law. The authority of parliament rests upon custom; there is no written constitution in Britain. The system works based on tradition and custom, and while it may seem irrational or illogical, it functions effectively. The role of the court was not to make the law but to ensure that those who broke the law were punished. The procedure of trial by jury was established, meaning that the king did not have the authority to decide if someone had broken the law. Instead, a jury of twelve honest, respected individuals from the local community would determine guilt or innocence.

The judge acted as an umpire to ensure that proceedings were conducted fairly. If someone was prosecuted, they had the right to defend themselves, and the jury would decide the outcome. This system guarantees freedom; as long as there is trial by jury, a person cannot be punished arbitrarily. Historically, there have been instances where the rich landed aristocracy sought harsh punishments for poachers, but juries have refused to convict based on unfair laws. This is the essence of the guarantee of freedom. When trial by judge is in place, the judge, appointed by politicians, may be influenced by those who control the system. The supremacy of law, as I mentioned, was not made by the state but discovered through tradition and custom, handed down through generations.

The English are quite a unique group of people, particularly the Anglo-Saxons, who were individualists. If you examine the English language, you'll notice a word that doesn't exist in the same way in any other language: the word 'I'. In French, for example, you have 'je', but in English, 'I' stands alone. This singularity reflects the English sense of self and identity, which is very much centred on the individual. The letter 'I' is right in the middle of the alphabet, while in Russian, 'ya' serves a similar purpose but is positioned at the very end. This distinction is quite interesting.

The Anglo-Saxons arrived in England as individuals rather than families. They were young men seeking more land, who banded together as a group of brothers under a voluntarily chosen leader. They made a conscious decision to form this brotherhood and invade England, severing ties with their families and tribes. This voluntary aspect of their society had a significant influence on English culture, leading to a sense of individualism where following a leader is a matter of personal choice, free from compulsion.

This individualistic tradition contrasts sharply with the Germanic tribes, who were more family-oriented. In Germany, families tended to stay together, with the father maintaining considerable authority. Anthropologists studying English family structures note a distinct separation between fathers and sons. In typical English families, there is often a desire for children to grow up and leave home, and once they reach adulthood, parents have little power over them. There is no strong sense of obligation to follow parental guidance, which further emphasises the individualistic nature of English society.

Moreover, English society exhibits a considerable amount of inequality, with no strict rules governing inheritance. This individualism is a hallmark of the English family structure, setting it apart from the more cohesive family dynamics found in Germanic tribes. The Anglo-Saxon influence has thus created a unique cultural landscape in England, characterised by personal freedom and a departure from traditional familial ties.