disturbed. We know from Chinese sources that after about 705 the country was divided into two states which they knew as Land Chen-Ia and Water or Lower Chen-la. Thus the ruler at Banteay Prei Nokor had somehow lost all the northern part of the country, and had indeed very imperfect control even over all Lower Chen-Ia. But as successor to the core of the Fu-nan kingdom, the rich delta region, it was obviously he who would have to take the brunt of any attack designed to deprive Chen-la of its newly won fortunes, an undertaking which must surely have seemed ripe as soon as a rival was ready to strike the blow. Now Java, this Carthage of the southern seas, had suddenly attained prominence in the last quarter of the eighth century A.D., with the appearance of a dynasty known as the Sailendras. These were staunch Mahayana Buddhists, who had forced the old Sivaworshipping rulers to abdicate. The Sailendras have left the surviving memorials of their grandeur in the Barabadur and other magnificent Buddhist monuments of central Java; but for us the important fact is that they had spread their power over the neighbouring kingdom of Srivijaya (Sumatra and Malaya). This enabled them to outflank the Indochinese peninsula in much the same way as Carthage's occupation of the greater part of Sicily offered a threat to the west coast of Italy. Though in the former case the distances apart were greater, this difference was minimized by the fact that during the Chen-la crisis the sea was under the complete domination of the great fleets that answered to the commands of the Sailendra Maharaja. The conquest of Lower Chen-la, which must have taken place towards the end of the eighth century, is known to us from the account of an Arab merchant, Sulayman, who was in these waters in A.D. 851. This account is so obviously one-sided that it must have come from a Javanese source. Here is the greater part of it: "Between Cambodia and Zabag [Java] the distance is ten to twenty days by sea, depending on the weather. They say that formerly there was a Khmer king who was young and rash. One day he was sitting in his palace which overlooked a river resembling the Tigris (from the palace to the sea was a day's journey), and his minister was with him. He was discussing with his minister the grandeur of the kingdom of the Maharaja of Zabag, of its immense population, and of the large number of islands which it comprised. 'I have a desire', said the King, 'that I should like to satisfy'. The minister who was sincerely devoted to his sovereign, and who knew with what rashness he often made up his mind,, replied, 'What is your Majesty's desire?' The latter answered, 'I wish to see the head of the Maharaja, King of Zabag, before me on a plate'. The minister understood that it was jealousy that had suggested this to his sovereign, and said, 'I do not like, your Majesty, to hear my sovereign express such a desire. The peoples of Cambodia and Zabag have as yet shown each other no hatred, and Zabag has done us no harm. It is a distant land, and its king has shown no wish to attack us. No-one must hear about this desire, and it must never be repeated'. The Khmer king was angry with his minister, and, ignoring the advice of his wise and loyal counsellor, repeated the proposal before the generals and courtiers who were present. "The idea spread from mouth to mouth, until it reached the knowledge of the Maharaja of Zabag himself. The latter was an energetic and experienced monarch, who had then reached a mature age. He called his minister and informed him of what he had heard, adding, 'After the proposal that this foolish Khmer king has made in public concerning a desire which is born of his youth, I must take steps in the matter. To take no notice of these insults would be to humble myself before him'. The King ordered his minister to keep this conversation secret, and to go and prepare a thousand ships of moderate size, to equip them, and to put on board arms and as many valiant troops as possible. To explain http://amekhmer.free.fr 2001-2005

31

the situation it was given out that the Maharaja intended to make a tour among the islands of his kingdom; and he wrote to the governors to warn them of the tour that he was going to make. The news spread everywhere, and the governor of each island prepared to receive the Maharaja. "When the King's orders had been executed and the preparations were finished he embarked, and with his fleet set sail for Cambodia. The Khmer king had no suspicion of what was going on until the Maharaja had arrived at the river which led to the capital and had landed his troops. These invested the capital by surprise, surrounded the palace, and seized the King. The people fled before the invaders. But the Maharaja proclaimed by public criers that he guaranteed the safety of everybody; and then he seated himself on the Khmer king's throne and ordered the captive monarch to be brought before him. He said to the Khmer king, 'Why did you formulate a desire which was not in your power to satisfy, which could not have done you any good if it had been satisfied, and which would not even have been justified if it had been possible?' The Khmer king did not reply and the Maharaja continued: 'You wished to see my head before you on a plate. If you had similarly desired to seize my kingdom or to ravage part of it I should have done the same to Cambodia, but as you only wished to see my head cut off I shall confine myself to subjecting you to the same treatment, and then I shall return to my own country without taking anything from Cambodia of value great or small. My victory will serve as a lesson to your successors, so that no-one will be tempted in future to undertake a task beyond his powers, or to desire more than fate has in store for him.' He then had the Khmer king beheaded, and, addressing the Khmer minister, said, 'I am going to recompense you for the good that you tried to do as minister, since I know well that you had wisely advised your master. What a pity for him that he did not listen. Now seek somebody who can be a good king after this madman and put him on the throne instead'. "The Maharaja left at once for his own country, and neither he nor any of his followers took anything away from the Khmer country. When he had returned to his own kingdom he seated himself on his throne, which looked over a lake, and he had the Khmer king's head placed before him on a plate. Then he called together the dignitaries of his kingdom, and told them what had happened and why he had undertaken this expedition against the Khmer king. On learning this the people of Zabag prayed for blessings to be bestowed upon their ruler. The Maharaja then had the Khmer king's head washed and embalmed, and, placing it in a vase, had it sent to the new Khmer king, together with a letter to the following effect: 'I was obliged to act as I did because of the hatred that the former king manifested against me, and we have chastised him to serve as a lesson to those who might wish to imitate him.' When the news of these events reached the kings of India and China the Maharaja rose in their estimation."' Though the main events, recorded so few decades after they happened, seem worthy enough of credence, the disavowal of aggressive intentions would hardly be likely to deceive us in view of Chen-la's weakness at the time. Then it so happens that we have collateral evidence indicating that Java was then in thoroughly aggressive mood. She was quite ready to reap the advantage offered by her own development as an advanced Indianized State in this promising situation. This evidence is provided from the kin dom of Champa where, according to an inscription Of 774, "ferocious, pitiless dark-coloured people who came on board ships" sacked the temple of Po Nagar. In 787 we learn from another inscription that another Cham temple was burnt by the armies of Java, coming in ships. This is surely sufficiently specific to leave no doubt as to the rapacious tendencies of the Javanese, here limited by a more watchful enemy and a less rewarding objective to mere raids to acquire the treasure of coastal temples. However it is not suggested that the http://amekhmer.free.fr 2001-2005

32

young Khmer king, whose name was probably Mahipativarman, was guiltless of harbouring personal ambitions quite beyond his powers to realize, for as we shall see this is very much in accordance with the character of Khmer kingship in the eighth century. And the net result was that the wealthiest part of Chen-la became a vassal of the Javanese Sailendras until revolt brought deliverance in A.D. 802 The inevitable collision between Rome and Carthage was inaugurated in 264 B.C., when Carthage seized Messana on the Sicilian Strait opposite Italian Rhegium, a development intolerable to Rome. We need not trace, even in barest outline, the familiar though fascinating story of the Punic wars, the many years of life-and death struggle, at the end of which Rome finally overcame her deadly rival. One good reason for passing it over, apart from our treatment of history within the framework of culture change, is that since Chen-la failed to put up a fight against Java, there is no basis for comparison. That is the case as regards the struggle itself, but not as to the outcome. Today, when we contemplate the potentialities of modern warfare we speak as though we are announcing a novelty when we say "in a war of the future there will be no distinction between victor and vanquished". For all the glory, such distinction was not always apparent in antiquity. Despite the long years of heroic sacrifice, the unflagging determination which brought Rome final victory and cherished freedom, it was won at a cost from which it has been said that southern Italy has not fully recovered to this day. For the mass of the ordinary Roman citizens their lot during the next hundred years was to be harder to bear than that of the average peasants of temporarily vassal Chen-Ia. In the first place the conquest of Carthaginian Africa and Spain, bringing a renewed mastery of Mediterranean commerce, had made the Senate painfully alive to the possibility of threats from other directions, and determined to avert them. These threats were due to the proximity of other peninsulas, the Balkans and that of Asia Minor. So hardly had Carthage been crushed in 2 11 B.C. than the people, much against their will, were forced into a new war against Philip of Macedon, with the ostensible reason of protecting the greatly respected Greek civilization against the Macedonians. Since the king of Syria was an ally of Philip, this meant the extension of the fighting to Asia Minor. The resultant expansion of the Roman power in the Mediterranean is not to be looked upon as selfassertive imperialism at this stage, although it paved the way for such attitudes; it was rather due to the necessity of self-defence, of gaining assurance that no bitter experience like that of the Punic wars would recur. We have seen too much of war in out own time not to realize how family life, that essential basis of the Roman body politic and character, was undermined by these constant wars. This was a result of the pestilence which followed in the wake of war as much as the consequence of the vast losses in killed and captured. Again, protracted service abroad deprived a family for years of the wholesome influence of the father. Agriculture, the main staple of Italian livelihood in the past, had been grievously impaired during the wars. The number of the working population had fallen so low that the only possible remedy, one which would ultimately do more damage than the ailment, was the importation of slaves from the conquered lands. "Depopulation, decline of agriculture, slavery and its accompanying evils, injustice to the Italian allies and the ever-growing discontent occasioned by it, misgovernment and plunder in the provinces, all these sources of mischief were now accumulating force, and were before long to bring the whole Roman system to the brink of ruin."' The authority of the Senate was deteriorating and, for reasons which we shall consider more fully a little later, individuals were coming to the fore. This might be for better or for http://amekhmer.free.fr 2001-2005

33

worse. The first such a one, Tiberius Gracchus, was a young noble still possessed of the Roman spirit of duty. He did his best in 13 3 B.C. to remedy the condition of agriculture by introducing a land reform bill which the demoralized Senate tried to prevent from passing. His motives being misunderstood by the populace he was slain by the mob. His brother Gaius did his best to carry on his work, but again his unflagging efforts at reform brought as their reward a similar fate. With the fading ideal of the State, inefficiency and corruption were rife, and the army became undisciplined. No wonder subject chiefs took courage to defy Rome: a Numidian defied the Roman forces in Africa, but was brought to book by two great Roman generals Gaius Marius and L. Cornelius Sulla. The latter was of high patrician birth, the former in upstart Italian, and they were destined to become bitter personal enemies. Their interest to us is not on account of their remarkable achievements but because they, and men like them, in putting their own personal interests first, were instrumental to doing so much damage to the Roman traditions of service to the State. In I 13 B. c. migrating German tribes threatened to burst into Italy at the vulnerable eastern end of the Alps, and a consul sent to oppose them was defeated in Carinthia. A determined leader might have led this host into Italy, but it turned to pursue another objective in a westerly direction. In 105, while trying to protect the road to Massilia and thence into Italy, the Romans were as severely defeated as they had been by Hannibal at Cannae, and there was nothing to stop the Gauls from advancing deep into Italy. But again they continued westwards looking for easier prey. One can indeed say that at this juncture it was nothing but good fortune that prevented Rome from falling as low as did the helpless king of Chen-la. But Marius took advantage of three years of grace to remodel and retrain his army; with a now finely disciplined force he won two great victories over the barbarians who had penetrated into northern Italy. The danger had been averted, but at the cost of a destructive change in Roman policy, for it was not by the senatorial government and armies responsible to it that Italy had triumphed. She had triumphed by means of a great highly-disciplined force who owed allegiance to Marius alone; and, against all precedent, he had remained a consul for five consecutive years. Henceforth, until the end of the Republic, such powerful war machines, responsible to this or that general, caused anxiety and danger to the State rather than offering it service. Again, when veterans from these standing armies, often after years of absence on foreign soil, hoped for some reward they got none: they were now dependent on the Senate and the Senate had no love for them. Unrest spread among the mass of Italians, who had been denied Roman citizenship, and this led to the "social war", that terrible civil war in which the peoples of central Italy turned against Rome, and tried to set up a state of their own. Rome was forced in 90 B.c. hastily to ive her citizenship to all who had fought in the wars, and so the city-state idea at last gave way to the concept of in Italian people. This might be expected to have brought internal peace and contentment: instead it started the worst period of Rome's difficulties. The reason is not far to seek, for the war-lords were still in the saddle: "We have to think of a vast slave State, enfeebled by constant warfare, and now given over into the hands of powerful military masters, with hosts of veterans at their beck and call. The State seemed to have lost its claim to loyalty, even to consideration: and in its place were rival generals, leaders also of political factions in these years two, Marius the self-seeking champion of the Italians and the Roman plebs, and Sulla the self-seeking champion of the old aristocracy. All principles were lost on either side in the intensely bitter hatred of the parties and the personal rivalry of the leading men."l

http://amekhmer.free.fr 2001-2005

34

A war threatening in the East, Sulla obtained the command, but no sooner had he left than the supporters of Marius did their best to exterminate the political followers of Sulla. Brutal massacres continued until Sulla's return after defeating the enemy, and he then embarked on a series of massacres to avenge those that had been perpetrated on his supporters. In the course of this internecine strife Italy lost thousands of her ablest sons, in struggles in which loyalty to the State and consideration of its welfare were of no account whatever. Sulla was now triumphant in Rome, but the manner of his rule and the character of his legislation showed that he held the people that he was governing of no worth. Sulla the Fortunate, as he called himself, retired to a villa on the Campanian coast in 79, where after a short period of self-indulgence he died. But his example remained as an encouragement to powerful nobles to try to gratify their ambitions likewise. To sum up conditions as they had developed during the later Republican period, we may say that from top to bottom the Romans had changed their idea of what was right and proper in life. Previously the Roman citizen had acted only as a member of a group, and had not been accustomed to assert himself or speak from a personal point of view in Senate or law-courts. Now this had become the chief means of advancing the new aim of improving one's personal position and riches, so that all activity pivoted on the individual rather than on the State. In the field a general thought not in terms of strategy that would safeguard the State, but some move that would bring him a specious victory, so that he could be sure of enjoying a triumph with its grand procession through the forum, on his return to Rome. But the rank and file themselves were becoming too ill-disciplined, too unwilling to serve far from home, to make it an easy matter to gain any sort of victory or perform any useful work. There was a more deep-seated reason than the effects of war for the decline of Roman family life and sense of duty to the State. We shall have to look rather more carefully into this deep-seated cultural factor because it is in this that we find a close parallel to what seems to have been responsible for the corresponding decay in Chen-la. After the conquest of Magna Graecia and the increase of commercial and other contacts with Greece, the way was open to further Hellenization. At this late date what was introduced was mainly in the form of superstition or scepticism, both well-calculated to undermine the basic Roman concepts of a training in manly conduct (virtus) and sense of duty (pietas). This is not to deny that some of the new Greek philosophical ideas stood for great advances in thought. But of these only Stoicism was capable of adaptation to the profoundly different Roman character with its concentration on action and lack of interest in speculation, or indeed in reflections on any subject except, perhaps, the practical business of life. So among Romans Lucretius remained unique in his attraction to Greek theories about the ultimate meaning of the universe, and his Epicurean attack on the divine was too direct for Roman liking. On the other hand Stoicism could be modified so as to appear to justify the Roman dislike of unprofitable studies, while at the same time giving virtus the appearance of philosophical sanction. So here again the educated Roman chose what he wanted from Greek thought and then modified it to suit his own requirements. For the few, Stoicism was of real value in these changing times, and would bear fruit later on in the life of Marcus Aurelius. For the vast majority it was too intellectual, and could make no popular appeal. Yet its accompanying scepticism could not fail to have a generalized influence: it undermined belief in the gods of mythology, and gave the politicians no compunction about exploiting augury and divination to advance their own personal prospects.

http://amekhmer.free.fr 2001-2005

35

The general indifference to the traditional Roman religion is most dearly shown by the dilapidation into which most of the temples were allowed to fall during the latter part of the Republican period. Augustus placed it on record that he had himself restored eighty-four of them. Owing to the lack of space for building in the capital, and the greed of the property developers, temple land was frequently taken for building. As early as 179 B.C. the censors had to eject squatters from a number of shrines. The theft of statues and other objects from temples is mentioned by Cicero in 75 B.C. Though new temples were founded, the character of their dedications show that the donors had private objectives in view. A number of once important festivals, such as the Agonia, had so long been neglected, that we are in doubt as to the meaning of the word, and as to the nature of the rites performed. The older priesthoods came to be more or less neglected, because being a priest meant staying in Rome, and every member of an upper class family preferred administrative office or military command, the better to further his desires for status and wealth. Only membership of the great colleges of the Pontifices and Augures were still eagerly sought after, because posts in these, now completely secularized, were no bar to social influence and wealth. The Pontifices let the calendar become chaotic, neglected to have the State sacrifices performed, and only kept the art of divination alive so that it could be used for political purposes. By the latter days of the Republic all power to inspire dutiful conduct and to unify the people had gone out of Roman religion; those who were entrusted with its care had lost all belief and honesty of purpose. Concurrently with these negative trends there was introduced a new and positive one in the form of an emotional personal religion: while affording the comfort that traditional Roman religion was now powerless to give, it pandered to the craving for individual distinction. At the close of the wars with Carthage many prisoners had been taken in Magna Graecia, which had largely been in enemy occupation. Here the mystical cult of Dionysus (Bacchus to the Romans), had long been established after introduction there from Greece. At Tarentum alone it is said that 30,Ooo prisoners were taken, and these later worked as slaves in Rome and on plantations to the north and south of the capital. Some of them were liberated and spread their religious beliefs and practices among the lower classes of society. In addition, there were many respectable refugees from South Italy who, cut off for years from the traditional religion, had found solace in the unedifying but exciting Bacchic cult. The devotees organized themselves, as was the custom in the cult's land of origin, in secret societies, and they performed mystical rites which were beyond the comprehension of the Roman authorities. The secret meetings, or Bacchanalia, were at first only held three times a year, and were confined to women. But soon admission was extended to men, and the rites were then celebrated five times a month. According to Livy, whose information may have been somewhat exaggerated, the devotees were responsible for theft, murder and much promiscuity. Not only did gross debaucheries take place, but the meetings provided opportunities -for the planning of serious crimes and political conspiracies. No doubt the magical power supposed to have been acquired in the ritual served as an encouragement to the conspirators to embark on adventures at which they would otherwise have hesitated. Such secret associations, especially of slaves and freedmen, could not be tolerated. A decree of the Senate, known as the Senatus consultum de Baccbanalibus was issued in 186 B.C., and was inscribed on a bronze plate (found in Calabria in 164o), which prohibited the Bacchanalia, except on special occasions. Severe penalties were prescribed for those -who infringed the decree; and vigorous police repression was attempted during the years 18 6- 18 1. The Senate further took steps to root out the evil in allied cities throughout Italy, but mainly aimed at the suppression of the illegal http://amekhmer.free.fr 2001-2005

36

associations, for no Roman would have dared to interfere with the solemn vows that a worshipper made to his god. The Bacchic cult could not be stamped out, for it gave people a real emotional release from the anxieties of the day. We can still see a relatively innocuous aspect of the Bacchic ritual, as practised at Pompeii, preserved in the paintings of the Villa Item there. it has been interpreted as the initiation rites of a bride. The scene is dominated by Dionysus, seated in the lap of Ariadne, the model of wedded bliss. The successive rites depicted, through which the bride must pass, are the reading of certain formulae, a feast and ablution, divination by water of the prospects for the marriage, unveiling of the god's sacred emblems, and finally a rite of flagellation, as fertility magic. Nike, the goddess of success, wields the whip, while the clashing of cymbals drowns the cries of the bride which would be of ill-omen. Then the bride is shown adorning herself, and in the final panel is seated on the marriage couch. To understand more of this strange religion~ and the psychological hold which it gained over the Roman populace, we must go back to its origins in Thrace and Macedonia, whence as early as the tenth century B.C. it had succeeded in infiltrating into Greece proper. There it made Thebes its headquarters, and some time later succeeded in securing a foothold in Delphi, where it won over the priesthood and gained control of the oracle of Apollo. Evidencing the irresistible appeal of the cult of Dionysus in Greece we have Plutarch's story of the three daughters of a king of Orchomenus, in Boeotia. The tradition which he records tells us that the three princesses long despised their humbler countrywomen's zest for participating in the Bacchic orgies. They remained content to sit at home in the palace plying distaff and loom, and scorned to accompany the other women who, wreathed with flowers, and with dishevelled tresses streaming, roamed the hills in ecstasy induced by the wild music of cymbal and tamborine. However, eventually even the royal damsels could no longer resist the call, which reached them even in their cloistered seclusion; it was the insensate desire to taste human flesh, we are told, that got the better of them. The central idea of the cult in its earliest Thracian form was the birth and death of the god, a personified vegetation deity - a concept that could become meaningful to the individual also in terms of rebirth and immortality. Be he incarnated as bull, goat or boy, the god was torn to pieces by his frenzied worshippers. These, by a savage act of communion, the drinking of his blood and devouring of his flesh, there and then acquired miraculous powers. The worshippers, dressed in the skins of the animals in which the god was thought most frequently to incarnate, worked themselves into a state of frenzy by dancing and shouting, accompanied by savage music. The effect was probably intensified by the use of intoxicants or other stimulants, and this brought on an acute state of sexual emotion, as well as the religious enthusiasm which psychologists have thought to be akin to it. The inevitable results, associated with spirit possession everywhere, were particularly noticeable among the women, who in their frenzy exhibited anaesthesia, abnormal strength and endurance, and finished up with fainting and exhaustion. In their ecstasy the devotees felt that they had escaped from their normal limitations, and achieved a union with the god which would even enable them to overcome death. Though such magic may originally have been felt to help the rebirth of vegetation in spring, and to secure the fertility of the crops, it became mainly desired as a means of increasing personal power. With this avowed objective of inducing supernatural personal power in the individual, the cult was ill-adapted to civic life. In Greece it retained much of its distinctive character, and was capable of evoking a mood unknown in the bright Olympic cults that are most typical of Greek thought. Until a late day the savage sacrament, in which the god was eaten in his http://amekhmer.free.fr 2001-2005

37

human or animal incarnation, survived in some Greek islands. With the rise of the Orphic brotherhoods, the religion of Dionysus was raised to a higher spiritual significance, but in this esoteric form its appeal was to the few. Even so, it remained a disruptive force, undermining the social fabric through its individualism. Although Orphism was introduced to the Greek cities of South Italy, it was not this, but the popular Bacchanalia that were so eagerly accepted by the ordinary Italian. That the Roman cult of Bacchus, however toned down since its early savage days, would inevitably be practised in secret is not to be wondered at. This accounts for the paucity of reliable details. But it is known that in this search for an emotional personal religion, the women of Rome and Rome's allies were to the fore. The inevitable result was that there was a serious diminution in the respect for the mother and wife which had been a basic factor in the preservation of Roman moral standards, and hence of respect for the mos maiorum. The absence of moral standards did not necessarily involve lack of control where this was needed to attain an objective. Few women ever schemed more cleverly for power than did Cleopatra, and she was an initiate of Dionysus. But she wore a ring with the goddess Drunkenness engraved on an amethyst, the stone of sobriety, meaning by this that on her hand Drunkenness herself must keep sober. It is not surprising that Cleopatra's co-adventurer Antony, one of several aspirants to emulate Alexander the Great, announced himself to be Dionysus. The superhuman powers which the Bacchic ritual was supposed to induce, must have provided a psychological stimulus to many lesser men of these times anxious to increase their personal influence and wealth. We return to the Khmers, to see if they can show any parallel to this growth of personal, and largely immoral, religion which might, as in the case of Rome, account for the decay of the State at a crucial juncture. But first we may look a little more closely at the history of Chen-la, just prior to its conquest by the Javanese, in order to show the extent of the deterioration of unity and sound government that had taken place when the Sailendra Maharaja thought the time ripe to make his surprise attack. After the death of Jayavarman 1, the latter part of whose reign was clouded by troubles of which the inscriptions do not specify the nature, the country became divided, as we have seen, into Upper and Lower Chen-la. The king's death took place about A.D. 681 and the government was carried on for a time by his widow, who complains in an inscription of her difficulties. It seems that soon even the relatively important Lower Chen-la was divided among a number of self-seeking petty rulers who owed only a nominal allegiance to the successors of Jayavarman, to whom they referred as adbirdjas, that is supreme kings. The adhiraja in the eighth century managed to keep under his direct rule only a strip of territory along the Mekong with the old capital of Banteay Prei Nokor, and they may have kept an outlet to the sea. The adhiraja's chief rival, with a capital perhaps at Angkor Borei, may have succeeded in getting possession of most of the south and western part of the country. Some of these petty kings, and also some of the powerful nobles who were less than kings, are known to us from references in much later inscriptions in which subsequent Khmer kings have traced their genealogy from this or that dynasty which ruled some part of the country when it was thus split up. We know nothing of their activities, but can be sure that it was largely their personal rivalries that brought Chen-la. into a position of complete defencelessness against an invader. That the orthodox Siva worship that had for so long been the principal religion of the country, as well no doubt as the strict rules of duty which governed the conduct of a Hindu monarch to his people, had fallen into neglect, is certainly suggested by the character of the religious statuary of the eighth century. Those that can be dated from this time are http://amekhmer.free.fr 2001-2005

38

comparatively rare, and show a noticeable decline in workmanship. Already in the seventh century we find mention of the somewhat peculiar Saivite sect of the Pasupatis in Chen-la, who we know in India were the subject of much criticism for their extravagant practices, including strange sounds and gestures. By about the same time, Tantrism, affecting primarily the worship of Siva and his consort Durga, was becoming widely disseminated in South-east Asia. Tantrism first made its appearance in North-east India, where Aryan influences had never been strong. At first the Brahmans did not countenance this worship, which had absorbed many primitive ideas from the preAryan inhabitants of Bengal. In this it shows a remarkable parallel to the cool welcome accorded to the cult of Dionysus by the more respectable strata in Greece when that wild Thracian religion first filtered in. One orthodox scripture remarks that Tantrism at best provided an occupation for Brahmans whose sins had made them no longer able to perform the Vedic sacrifices; and it is very likely that the Tantric cults of more popular, appeal were encouraged by priests who had been excommunicated from ministration in the orthodox religion. Tantrism is a very complex subject, and here we can only give some general idea of its nature, especially as regards its more popular aspects. Among some of the more educated Hindus Tantrism had a more highly developed aspect, which featured the higher Hindu ideals of mystical union of the individual with the Supreme Spirit of the Universe, thus closely comparable to the Orphic aspects of the Dionysus cult. But this higher form was still inimical to social duty, although its influence was relatively limited. So Tantrism as it most concerns us here may be described as a kind of religious magic, the object of which is to unite the devotee with the god, indeed to transform himself into the god-all with by no means always other-worldly objectives in view. Much use is made of the mystical syllable om, with which whole pages of writing are sometimes filled. It was thought thereby that magical and supernatural powers could be obtained which the individual devotee could then direct towards the attainment of whatever human aim he had in view. Announcing itself as the dispensation of a new age, and setting aside old rites and customs as too difficult for the latter day, it is easy to see that in its first flood it was likely to prove as damaging to the welfare of the State as was Bacchus worship in Italy. Those Tantrists, known as Saktists, who worshipped more particularly the female energy of the deity, met in secret and admittedly immoral org ies. What they lacked in the emotional frenzies of the Bacchanalians, was compensated for by other niceties. The proceedings took place at midnight, the devotees sitting in a circle, and probably terminated in an indiscriminate orgy. However some Tantric texts discountenance more than moderate drinking and state that indulgence in the wine, flesh, etc. would be sinful if these had not first been dedicated to the goddess. That the full impact in the eighth century of these disturbing innovations in the life of the individual must have proved as disastrous to the well-being of family and State in Chen-la as was the advent of Bacchus in Italy seems very probable: kings and kinglets, imagining themselves to have attained superhuman powers, and regardless of moral sanctions, must have been encouraged to rule as tyrants without thought of their subjects' welfare. But if we are right in suggesting that Tantrism undermined the State in Chen-la, why not also in Java? How was it that the empire of the Maharaja withstood the infection, and appeared a model of well-ordercd prosperity ? The answer may lie in the fact that in Java the Saivite rulers had during the eighth and first part of the ninth centuries been temporarily dispossessed by the great dynasty of the http://amekhmer.free.fr 2001-2005

39

Sailendras, who were fervent Mahayana Buddhists. This Buddhism was orthodox, not Tantric, as was at one time thought, for it is now known that the features thought to be Tantric were in fact a special interpretation of certain doctrines in the light of local ancestor worship. The identification of the supreme Buddha with the founder of the dynasty could be a factor tending to enhance both popular and royal respect for the welfare of the State, as indeed we shall find in the next chapter. So it would seem that, as long as Sailendra rule lasted, the taint of Tantrism, which had everywhere made such rapid headway among the worshippers of Siva, had not as yet spread to Javanese Mahayana Buddhism, at least in sufficient degree to undermine the security of the realm. In concluding this chapter we may sum up as follows: There appear to have been two common features that had brought our adolescent States into social chaos, and within measurable distance of total extinction, during what, as it now seems to us, may be regarded as a period of transition. These were: (i) Attacks by other aspirants, of comparable cultural advancement, to the unfettered mastery of a most attractive environment, and (2) the introduction from the civilizations, whose teachings had previously been beneficial, of a disturbing personal religion which tended to set the interests of the individual before those of family and State. The fact that this religion was often deficient in moral development was an additional disadvantage, but its personal nature was its main source of danger to the State. If the sore straits to which the Romans and Khmers were brought at the comparable juncture were largely due to the destructive later cultural influences emanating from Greece or India, we may well feel astonishment that it could ever have been supposed that whatever of greatness is apparent in the subsequent history of the Roman and Khmer civilizations is mainly attributable to Greek or Indian sources. There will be little enough room left for doubt when we proceed to investigate the direction in which each did in fact turn to overcome the dangers of the transition period.

CHAPTER IV THE QUICKENING OF LOCAL GENIUS WE come now to the foundation of the Roman Empire (27 B.C.) and of the Khmer Empire (A.D. 8oz). As we have seen, the threshold of the last quarter of the first century B.C. was witnessing the apparently inevitable ruin of Roman civilization. The best authorities are emphatic on this. "It became obvious that this great power was in reality on the verge of breaking up. She had abandoned justice and duty, and given herself to greed and pleasure."' It might have been supposed that the Khmer country, left to the care of a puppet whose writ by no means ran throughout all the provinces of the former Lower Chen-la, would soon slip back into an anarchy of divided and tyrannical rule. The Romans were certainly not spared such a lot during the declining decades of the Republic. However in each case a saviour was to appear who would usher in a period of stable and generally peaceful monarchical government that would safeguard "their world" for half a millennium. This saviour, be his name Jayavarman II or Augustus, was not a "great man", a soldier or a hero, of the sort who is beloved of the narrative historian, still more so of the writer of drama and popular romance. Were that the case the treatment envisaged here would be without basis, and for that matter the two empires with which we http://amekhmer.free.fr 2001-2005

40