By Andrew Rattray

At first glance, the philosophies of Stoicism and Cynicism appear to be two sides of the same coin. Both philosophies are eminently practical, designed as day-to-day practices more than grand ideals, focusing on achieving a state of ‘eudaimonia’ (literally, ‘good spirit’), a state of flourishing and freedom from worry, through self-discipline, sacrifice, and internal reflection. These similarities were also noted by contemporary figures, for example in Juvenal’s Satires (number 13) he jests that the only difference between the Stoics and the Cynics is that the former wear shirts!

I suppose this isn’t surprising given that they share a common history, both stemming ultimately from the teachings of Socrates. In fact, one of the earliest and most prominent Cynic philosophers, Diogenes of Sinope, went on to mentor Crates of Thebes, who in turn mentored Zeno of Citium, widely considered the founder of Stoicism. 

Ultimately, the two philosophies follow the same basic principle; that the key to happiness is to live in accordance with nature. Both posit that humanity has been gifted with the power of rational thought and that through this rationalism we can strive toward the state of ‘eudaimonia’ by not allowing oneself to be controlled by external factors. However, while both philosophies might start their adherents down a similar path, it soon forks, and you will find that in practice the two differ considerably. 

Where the differences start to emerge is in what each philosophy considers to be ‘in accordance with nature’. You see, the Stoics believe that human beings naturally tend toward both ensuring their own success, but also living in harmony with others, and so Stoicism promotes temperance within these natural desires. Stoics believe it is acceptable to wish for wealth, for example, provided one does not damage their virtue in its pursuit, and that it is acceptable to live within the confines of societal expectation, provided that those expectations are just and, once again, do not diminish one's virtues as an individual. 

The Cynics on the other hand placed a far greater value upon one’s personal nature, individual freedom, and self-sufficiency. Interestingly, the name ‘Cynic’ comes from the ancient Greek ‘kunikos’ meaning ‘dog like’. The moniker has many motivations, but it was initially seen to be an insult to Cynic adherents who would often live on the streets like stray dogs, with some even surviving on begging alone. This may seem extreme, but through this process they could not only free themselves of the burdens of materialism, but moreover, by standing apart from societal systems, they were better placed to realise how these systems can lead us away from living in accordance with our true nature and experiencing real freedom and happiness. 

This, I feel, is the key difference between the Cynics and the Stoics. Where the Stoics believe that a good life can be achieved within certain confines of human desires and societal expectations, the Cynics argue that true happiness cannot be achieved without freeing oneself from all limitations, including those imposed by our internal wants, as well as other people. 

For example, the Cynics reject any ideas of wealth or grandeur outright; arguing that we do not need such luxuries to live naturally; claiming that not even a home, or a bed, are truly necessary. The Stoics on the other hand agree that these things are not necessities but argue that things such as a warm bed or a nice home bring with them certain benefits and that it’s okay to utilise these benefits. In a nutshell, the Stoics recognise that these sorts of luxuries don’t inherently make you happy, but they can make life easier, and so they accept their place in our lives, whereas the Cynics reject these things regardless of their uses precisely because they don't make us happy directly. 

The differences in the outlook of the Stoics and Cynics are made even more stark when we contrast two of the most famous adherents of each philosophy; the Stoic Marcus Aurelius, and the Cynic Diogenes of Sinope. 

As many of you know, Marcus Aurelius was a much-lauded Roman Emperor who earned a reputation as a ‘philosopher king’ among historians. In fact, he was described by Herodian of Antioch as “Alone of the emperors, he gave proof of his learning not by mere words or knowledge of philosophical doctrines but by his blameless character and temperate way of life.”. Marcus Aurelius’ personal journals have formed the collection now commonly known as the Meditations.

On his approach to social life, he wrote “When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: the people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own - not of the same blood and birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are unnatural.”

As with other Stoics, Marcus Aurelius accepts that although the people he interacts with may have a negative influence he realises that through his own self-control he can negate this, and that this is in fact a natural way of living, since we are ‘born to work together’.

Diogenes of Sinope, on the other hand, stands in abject contrast with the legacy of Marcus Aurelius, despite their equal adherence to their respective philosophical practice. He was one of the most infamous philosophers of his time and is still widely known today for his extreme behaviour. While Marcus Aurelius was known as ‘the Philosopher’, Diogenes’ moniker was ‘the Dog’. This was, of course, originally intended as an insult but Diogenes seemed to take great pleasure in the jest. In fact, he is quoted by the historian Diogenes Laertius in his work ‘The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers’ as responding, when asked why he was called ‘the Dog’, “Because I fawn upon those who give me anything, and bark at those who give me nothing, and bite the rogues”.

Where Marcus Aurelius was an emperor, Diogenes lived a life of poverty, despite being the son of a well-off banker, he chose to abandon his possessions and lived in a large ceramic pot in the marketplace of Athens. While Marcus Aurelius did much to improve the lives of Roman citizens through legislative action and saw benefits in working together with others, Diogenes would debase the morals and rules of society to point out hypocrisies. Many different historians, such as Dio Chrysostom and Diogenes Laertius, attest that Diogenes would urinate on people he didn’t like, defecate in the theatre, and masturbate in public, all in an effort to demonstrate how social expectations were limiting our freedom.

Indeed, Diogenes lived a life of voluntary adversity by choosing to comport himself in such a confrontational manner. However, despite this adversity some later Stoics, such as Epictetus, considered him to be living in total freedom. Diogenes did what he wanted, when he wanted, and from all we can glean from contemporary texts he was perfectly happy doing so. In no way is this better illustrated than in his conversation with Alexander the Great. Although the validity of the accounts of their meeting have been questioned, both Diogenes Laertius and Plutarch recount the story. Alexander is said to have found Diogenes, excited to meet such a famed philosopher, and offered if he could offer any favour Diogenes need only name it. Diogenes replied simply “Stand out of my sunlight.” .

It’s almost impossible not to be a little jealous of this carefree attitude. How many times have you wished you could tell your boss how you really feel? How many times have you gotten frustrated at being told you can’t do something simply because it’s ‘frowned upon’? But is it a freedom you truly desire, or just a vanishing craving to set the world to rights? Might it not be better to live as Marcus Aurelius did, with a well-measured and tempered response to the adversities in our lives?

While the comparison between the likes of Marcus Aurelius and Diogenes of Sinope is an extreme one, it does help to demonstrate not just the key differences between the Stoics and the Cynics, but also the different perceptions of the two philosophies in practice. Marcus Aurelius, and the Stoics more generally, accepted the benefits of some luxuries and a life lived in harmony with others, whereas Diogenes, and the Cynics, rejected the trappings of wealth and excess and focused instead on their individual freedom, in some cases at the expense of others.  Both philosophies believe freeing oneself from external influence is the key to a good life, but the Stoics believe that one can enjoy certain aspects of life without allowing them to influence you.

Though the development of the two philosophies is deeply intertwined I think it is fair to say that the Stoics refined and tempered many of the tenets of Cynic philosophy into a practice that found more mainstream acceptance whilst still promoting the inward focus on virtue and wisdom as being key to reaching a state of eudaimonia. However, the Cynics paved the way, bringing much of these shared ideals of austerity and forbearance from temptation into the public consciousness. Without the Cynics, there could be no Stoicism, but without the Stoics, the wisdom of such irksome characters as Diogenes may well have been clouded in their extremely oppositional approach to the world and lost to the ages.

By Ed Whelan, Contributing Writer, Classical Wisdom

Traditionally, Ancient Greece is seen as a patriarchal society and women were marginalized and oppressed.  Yet, despite this, some women were able to be independent and play an important role in the Hellenic World. In the Odyssey of Homer, women have a significant role in the 20-year travels of Odysseus as he tried to reach his kingdom in Ithaca. Their roles in the epic in turn reveal the different roles of women in Ancient Greek society and culture and how they were viewed by the male elite.

Goddess Athena

In the Greek Pantheon, there were many female Goddesses. Athena was the Goddess of War, strategy, and craftiness. Athena favors Odysseus because he honors her and she admires his qualities. She is the patron of Odysseus and the two share many of the same personality traits. After Odysseus is shipwrecked in the land of the Phaceians and he is at his lowest point, Athena inspires the young woman Nausciaa to get her people to help him. Homer shows that Odysseus could not have made it home without her intervention.

Nausicaa

Nausicaa was the daughter of the King of the Phaeacians Alcinous and his Queen Arete, who is shown as being the equal of her husband. Nausicaa is only a teenager, and Homer describes her as being as beautiful as a Goddess and very intelligent.  The young woman helps the hero when he was at his lowest ebb, alone and lost in the world. She falls in love with the Greek hero at first sight and she listens fascinated as he recounts his journey and tribulations.  Odysseus’ has feelings for her but does not return her love as he is married and wants to go home. Homer presents Nausicaa as in many ways the ideal of the Greek young women, innocent, caring and virtuous.

Penelope: the perfect Greek wife

Penelope is one of the most important characters in the Odyssey. She is a virtuous wife, and is faithful to her husband and protects his household (or oikos, as the Greeks would have it). Penelope rejects all the offers of marriage from her suitors because they believe that Odysseus died on his way back from the Trojan War. Penelope never gives up hope and believes that her husband is alive. She is not some meek and submissive housewife but is shown to be a strong and independent woman. This is seen in the various strategies that she uses to delay having to marry one of her 108 suitors for twenty long years. Her best known ruse was claiming that she would give her decision on who to marry after she had woven a burial shroud for the supposedly dead Odysseus. Every night she would secretly unravel some of the shroud and in this way, she was able to avoid marrying one of the suitors. In many ways, she shares some of the characteristics of her husband and she was greatly admired by the Greeks and later the Romans.

Circe

Circe was a minor deity and in some myths she was the daughter of the goddess of the realm of death, Hecate. She has the characteristics of a witch; she was infamous for her potions and her staff with magical powers.  She was known to transform her enemies into monsters and beasts. Odysseus visits her, at her home on the island of Aeaea during his wanderings. The Greek heroes’ crewmates offend her, and she turns them into pigs. Odysseus manages to persuade her, with the help of Athena to turn them back and he agrees to stay with her. During his time on the island, he has two sons with her.  Circe advises Odysseus to travel to the Underworld (Hades) so that he can secure the favor of the dead spirits. Upon his return, she tells him of two equally dangerous routes home. Circe was the archetypal predatory woman to the Greeks who were sexually unrestrained and devious. Any woman that was not controlled by males was considered to be a threat to the social order in the Ancient World.

Calypso

Calypso was a nymph (minor Goddess) and when Odysseus visits her, she keeps him prisoner. For seven years he is her lover but they do not have children. Calypso is infatuated with the Greek hero and wants him to become immortal, yet Odysseus is shown by Homer as pinning for his wife Penelope.  Zeus sends Hermes to Calypso and tells her to free Odysseus as mortals cannot become immortals. Without the intervention of Zeus, the King of Ithaca would have never made it home. The story of Calypso shows the Greek belief that women were driven by their sexual desires and were irrational. This type of thinking was used to justified male oppression of females, whom it was believed needed to be controlled and dominated, because of their uncontrollable and dangerous passions.

Conclusion

In the Odyssey women were either a help or a hindrance for the Greek hero on his journey home. The women in Homer offer a fascinating account of male Greeks attitudes and views towards women. They were seen as playing an important part in the family and household. Like Penelope, they were required to be good wives or virtuous like Nausicaa. Independent and sexually liberated women, who lived beyond the control of men were seen as dangerous and this was used to justify their lowly status and general powerlessness.

References

Cohen, B. ed., 1995. The distaff side: representing the Female in Homer's Odyssey. Oxford University Press.

A Storm is A-brewing... Here comes Nicholas! 

A storm is coming. Literally. As I type I regularly check the radar to see what’s happening to Nicholas. 

Currently a tropical storm, Nicholas looms large over the Gulf, gaining momentum and inducing fear. The grocery store was packed and panicked... the streets are slowly becoming deserted.. And the children are enjoying a hurricane home day.

You see, the residents of Houston and Galveston, and all the coastal community nearby are used to this sort of thing. Flooding and natural disasters come with the territory, after all. Everyone knows what they need to do, but they are also terrified because they know just how bad it can be. 

Not only was 2017’s deadly catastrophe - aptly named Harvey - very recent memory, but a good portion of Hurricane Katrina’s long term refugees still call Houston home. 

And that’s not all... the deadliest natural disaster in United States history occurred a mere 55 miles from where I sit right now. In 1900, the great Galveston Hurricane flattened the island. Indeed, for anyone who has happened to tour the coastal resort city, you’ll notice windows buried and oddly located doors. In efforts to make the town higher, they rebuilt again on top of the hurricane’s ruins. 

Of course natural disasters are nothing new... They are momentous black swans, pivotal marks  that often unpredictably change the course of history itself. 

Pompeii obviously springs to mind. So does the Theran Eruption, devastating the Aegean and all the Minoans within. And there was the Rhodes earthquake, which toppled her famous striding statue. The 426 BC Malian Gulf tsunami or the Cymbrian flood, which literally changed forever the coastline of Denmark and instigated the invasion of the sea peoples in the Mediterranean. 

So yes, obviously these catastrophic events are part of life. And while we may smugly look at our radar and our fancy apps and reassure ourselves that technology will be here to save the day, the reality is that nature is still dangerous. 

We can stock up on water and canned goods... make sure we have a full tank of gas and board up the windows... but that is only for the disasters that we know of... or we think we know. This, dear reader, brings me to this week’s question: 

How can we prepare for the worst? Especially when we don’t even know what the worst is? And how can we be mentally ready without living forever in fear and worry? 

As always, you can reply to this email or message me directly at anya@classicalwisdom.com.

Niall Ferguson on Anti-Fragility

by Andrew Rattray

It’s hard to pin the ultimate ending of the Roman Empire to a single cause. Of course there is no single date we can point to but rather a gradual collapse over hundreds of years. In the 3^rd century the Empire was split into East and West, and by the 6^th century the Western portion of the Empire was reduced to a collection of ‘barbarian’ rump states leaving the Eastern Empire to endure alone, eventually coming to be known as the Byzantine Empire, though it’s inhabitants no doubt continued to consider themselves Romans for some time. The rising influence and power of Germanic tribes such as the Visigoths and Ostrogoths, the slave shortage that came after the expansion of the empire slowed in the second century CE (thus damaging the Roman economy), the excess and opulence of the Emperors and the corruption such behaviour encouraged at the highest levels of government, and many more factors all played their part in the decline of the Western Empire, but what of the East? 

Well, there are two factors that had an enormous impact upon the Eastern Empire that are often overlooked and which I believe we should be paying much closer attention to, after all, as George Santayana wrote, ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’

You see, the Roman Empire rose to prominence during a period of warm, wet, temperate weather in Europe which was vital for the necessary agrarian production which allowed the empire to grow to encompass an immense, urbanized population, but so too did the climate play a factor in Rome’s ending. Investigations into the Earth’s ice sheets, known as ice-core research where scientists drill deep into the Earth’s ice caps to investigate climate in ages past, have revealed a large amount of volcanic activity in the 530s and 540s CE. This activity is thought to have triggered what is known as the ‘Late Antique Little Ice Age’ which brought cold temperatures that endured for well over one hundred years. The particulates fired into the atmosphere by these eruptions caused more reflection of the sun’s light and ultimately cooled the climate across the world. This in turn led to years of poor harvests which catalysed a famine across the Eastern Empire just at the time Rome’s enemies were growing bolder. 

Ultimately this sudden shift in climate may not impact us in the same way it did the Eastern Empire in the 6th and 7th centuries, and indeed under the guidance of Emperor Justinian I the Eastern Roman Empire, now Byzantine Empire in the historical record, did have success in reconquering some of the lost lands of the Western Empire, for a while. We have more secure food chains, more robust technology, but will that be enough to weather the changes that we face? Will we be able to overcome the challenges on our own horizon?

Another factor in the decline and ultimate fall of the Empire is the rising influence of pestilence and plague that coincided with the Late Antique Little Ice Age. The highly industrialised and urbanized society of the Empire allowed it to develop a powerful economy needed to fuel its war machine and diplomatic influence, however the high density also created perfect conditions for bacteria and disease to develop and spread. The interconnectedness of the empire too was both a boon and a curse as while it cultivated trade and mobility it also allowed infection to spread more quickly between cities and regions than they may have otherwise. 

In fact, the Empire was rocked by outbreaks of brutal disease and infection in the centuries immediately after the onset of the climatic changes brought on by the Late Antique Little Ice Age in the form of the Antonine Plague, the Plague of Cyprian, and finally an outbreak of Bubonic Plague under the emperor Justinian. While it recovered between each successive outbreak the body-blows took their toll and in the aftermath of each epidemic the Empire found itself a little more wounded, a little more beaten down, than it had been before. 

As Heraclitus of Ephesus was known for espousing, the only constant in life is change. The world today is vastly different to the 6^th century, but we must not be complacent or over-enamoured with our own ideas of power in the face of Western hegemony. We are on the cusp of a new age of change, spurred by climate change and humanity’s growing technological developments. Can we learn from our past to take steps to ensure the security and prosperity of not just Western nations, but humanity all across the globe? Can we adapt to the new normal and still maintain the geopolitical status quo? Consider the balance of power of our modern world, how long do you think it will last? Forever?

by Mariami Shanshashvili        

It is no secret that ancient teachings of Stoicism have seen a massive revival in modern times. From academia to the general public, people have been closely rethinking Stoic philosophy.  One of the primary reasons behind this surging popularity of Stoicism, I would say, is the appeal of exercising a complete control over your mind. It is true that Stoic practices allow us the greater freedom over our psyche and emotions. One area, however, where Stoicism does not spoil us with as much freedom, is the freedom of will.

When it comes to fate and free will in Stoicism, a key debate exists beween what's referred to as the 'Lazy Argument' from critics of Stoicism, and the Stoic Response to the Lazy Argument developed by the Stoic philosopher Chrysippus. By examining this debate we can gain a better insight into the truth of the Stoic understanding of fate and freedom.

Ancient Stoics believed in a causal or 'soft' determinism: a view that maintains that everything that happens has a cause that leads to an effect. Each and every event is a part of the unbreakable chain of cause and effect, which is dictated and steered by the gods' providential plan of fate. Nevertheless Stoics, however, also assert that even in a deterministic world, our actions are ultimately ‘up to us’.

The Lazy Argument attacks this claim by attempting to show the futility of any action in the face of fate. The argument is formulated in the following way:

• If it is fated that you will survive a snakebite, then you will survive whether you go to a hospital or not.
• Likewise, if you are fated to not survive a snakebite, then you will not survive whether you go to a hospital or not.
• One of them is fated.
• On either alternative, it does not matter what you do because the fated outcome will happen anyway.

The essence of the Lazy Argument is to demonstrate how no action matters if every event is fated. And since your life is set to unwaveringly follow a determined track, there is no point to exert any effort or even think about the right course of action. Simply put, the Lazy Argument makes just being lazy an appealing choice.

The Stoic response, attributed to Chryssipus by Cicero in his De Fatō, is designed to show that the Lazy Argument is unsound, and our actions indeed do have a bearing on the outcome of events. According to Chryssipus, not all premises of the Lazy Argument is true. Ancient Stoics accept that everything is fated, but dismiss the rest the argument. To say something is fated to happen does not mean that it will happen regardless of what you do. Rather, to the Stoics it means that this event is a part of the unbreakable cause-effect chain in which some causal elements are crucial for bringing about the effect. Moreover, knowing that the outcome is fated does not give you any insight into what actions lead up to it.

Some events, claims Chryssipus, are co-fated, meaning that they are interconnected and conjoined to the others. The prophecy of Laius, the father of Oedipus, is a telling example of this concept: Laius was warned by the oracle that he would be killed by his own son. But this would not happen if he did not beget a child. Simply put, Laius’ end is co-fated with begetting Oedipus, which is in turn co-fated with having intercourse with a woman. It is not true that Laius will still meet the same end whether or not he has a child.

The course of fate, therefore, does not necessarily dispose of the causal relationship between the events. Quite the opposite, the Stoic fate is remarkably logical: it is operating under the sound logic of 'cause and effect'. Therefore, according to the Stoics, the claim of the Lazy Argument that a certain event will occur no matter what we do grossly overlooks the necessary connections between events. So, to put it another way, if we want to survive the snakebite, we really better go to a hospital.

Some might argue that the objection of whether or not our actions are ‘up to us’ is a completely different objection. The Stoic response is taking the Lazy Argument as a question of mechanical correspondence between cause-effect, while what the argument is actually drawing on is how the absence of agency or choice over our actions renders any choice meaningless.

One way or another, Stoics have much more to say about the choice and agency. Let us consider the Stoic argument through the lens of objection raised by Stoic scholar Keith Seddon:

“Though seeing [two events being co-fated] doesn’t to any degree undermine the fatalist’s position, for just as your recovering was fated (if only you had known it), so was your calling the doctor! This might be how it happened, all right, but if the event of your calling the doctor was caused by prior circumstances (as all events are, according to the theory of causal determinism) then in what sense could you be considered to exercise your free will?” (2004, “Do the Stoics Succeed?”).

Stoics would say that the matter is more complicated, as the same phenomena can have different effects on different agents. Chryssipus illustrates this with the following metaphor: “if you push a cylinder and a cone, the former will roll in a straight line, and the latter in a circle (LS 62C)[1]. Similarly, different men will assent differently to the same push. And assent, just as we said in the case of the cylinder, although prompted from outside, will thereafter move through its own force and nature.”[2] Therefore, our internal nature shapes the way we respond to the external stimuli. Simply put, character is fate, with the further inference being that our character itself is determined.

I think the most successful Stoic response to the Lazy Argument is their dog analogy: “When a dog is tied to a cart, if it wants to follow it is pulled and follows, making its spontaneous act coincide with necessity, but if it does not want to follow it will be compelled in any case. So, it is with men too: even if they do not want to, they will be compelled in any case to follow what is destined.” (Hippolytus, Refutation of all heresies 1.21, L&S 62A). In other words, nothing is up to you, except the way you react to it. A very Stoic thought!

Bibliography

Tim O’Keefe, The Stoics of Fate and Freedom, the Routledge Companion to Free Will, eds. Meghan Griffith, Neil Levy, and Kevin Timpe, 2016.

“A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers (Cambridge, 1987). ”

Cicero, On Fate 

Brennan, T. (2005-06-23). The Lazy Argument. In The Stoic Life: Emotions, Duties, and Fate. : Oxford University Press.

[1] “A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers (Cambridge, 1987). ”

[2] On Fate 42–3 (SVF 2.974; LS 62C(5)–(9)).

by Andrew Rattray

Where does history end and myth begin? It's a question that often doesn't have a clear answer. Even in ancient times, the answer could prove elusive. Such is the case of Horatius and his heroic stand against the Etruscans. It's a story that has endured through the centuries, recurring in all sorts of cultural works, perhaps most notably in Victorian Britain.

In 1842 a young Thomas Babington Macaulay produced a collection of narrative poems while he was serving as a member of the Governor-General of India’s Supreme Council during the period of British rule in the region. The poems are written in the style of ancient ballads and four (from a total of six) recount several heroic and legendary episodes from Rome’s early history. The work captures the essence of ancient ballads, such as the Iliad, in a way few others have. The collection became immensely popular in Victorian Britain and the poems and the themes within have continued to feature in popular culture ever since.

The first of these poems, Horatius, is a retelling of the story of how Publius Horatius Cocles, an officer in the Roman army in the 6^th century BC, held the only bridge across the Tiber during an attack from an Etruscan army under Lars Porsena. It’s a beautiful story of heroism in the face of overwhelming odds and Macaulay’s poem brings it to life in a visceral way. However, there is some contention around the events, and even the existence of the titular hero. I’ve included an exert from the poem below, with the second passage now seen as the most iconic of the poems seventy verses.

But the Consul’s brow was sad,

And the Consul’s speech was low,

And darkly looked he at the wall,

And darkly at the foe.

‘Their van will be upon us

Before the bridge goes down;

And if they once may win the bridge,

What hope to save the town?

Then out spake brave Horatius,

The Captain of the Gate:

"To every man upon this earth

Death cometh soon or late.

And how can man die better

Than facing fearful odds,

For the ashes of his fathers,

And the temples of his Gods.”

It’s impossible not to be roused by such a powerful ideal, but is it just fanciful? An imagined legend? Well, the story itself was not created by Macaulay and in fact is recounted by many ancient historians including; Plutarch, Polybius, Livy, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. However, each telling is slightly different, and each author is several hundred years distant from the stated dates of the events themselves. 

Accounts do agree that, after a battle in the field, the Roman army was forced to retreat across the Sublican Bridge (or Pons Sublicus in Latin) while the Etruscan army pursued. Horatius was a junior officer charged with guarding the bridge and when he realised the Roman army was in full retreat moved to block the Etruscans and defend the span. He didn’t initially fight alone and was joined by two more senior officers, Spurius Larcius and Titus Herminius Aquilinus, though accounts differ on why they joined him, with Livy claiming Horatius shamed the pair into assisting in the defence, with others such as Dionysius indicating they joined him wilfully. 

In either case, all accounts attest that ultimately Larcius and Herminius retreated as the Etruscan army bore down upon the crossing, leaving Horatius alone. Horatius, piling the dead into a wall to help him hold back the Etruscans, demanded that his men destroy the bridge to stop the enemy from crossing. The legend says that all Rome watched on as Horatius defended the span, quilled with arrows and stabbed by spears, until at last the bridge was sufficiently sabotaged that neither the Etruscans, nor Horatius, could cross. The city had been defended and the enemy army waylaid at the expense of Horatius’ life... or so it seemed. For in many accounts (and indeed the poem by Macaulay) Horatius dove into the Tiber and managed, despite his injuries, to swim against the current and arrive safely upon the banks where he went on to be celebrated and venerated by the people of Rome. 

This is where the accounts begin to significantly diverge however, as some recount that Horatius did indeed give his life in sacrifice. For example, in book 6 of his Historiae, Polybius writes “The bridge once cut, the enemy were prevented from attacking; and Cocles [Horatius], plunging into the river in full armour as he was, deliberately sacrificed his life,​ regarding the safety of his country and the glory which in future would attach to his name as of more importance than his present existence and the years of life which remained to him.”

In the accounts where he did survive Horatius was heavily injured in the defence of the city, being hobbled, and losing an eye (which is where he gets his second name, Cocles, meaning one-eye) and was no longer able to serve in the military though he was rightly honoured for his bravery as described in chapter 10 of book 2 of Livy’s ‘History of Rome’. “The state was grateful for so brave a deed: a statue of Cocles was set up in the comitium, and he was given as much land as he could plough around in one day. Private citizens showed their gratitude in a striking fashion, in the midst of his official honours, for notwithstanding their great distress everybody made him some gift proportionate to his means.”

Whether you accept Horatius’ heroic death, or prefer to believe he swam to safety, it is a fantastic story of sacrifice and heroism to be sure, but perhaps a little too fantastic. In fact, there are several historians, ancient and more contemporary, who doubt it’s veracity. Indeed, in chapter 10 of book 1 of Florus’ ‘Epitome of Livy’ he writes “Then appeared those Roman prodigies and wonders, Horatius, Mucius, and Cloelia, who, if they were not recorded in our annals, would now appear fabulous characters”. Even Livy, one of the sources most recounted when discussing the story of Horatius, is ultimately doubtful of the veracity of the legend writing in chapter 10 of book 2 of his ‘History of Rome’ "though many missiles fell over him he swam across in safety to his friends, an act of daring more famous than credible with posterity.”

More interesting still, the 19^th century German historian Barthold Georg Niebuhr considers that not only are the characters of Horatius, Larcius, and Herminius a dramatisation, that they are in fact allegorical. In volume one of his book ‘Historical Lectures: Rome’ Niebuhr writes that “We may safely deny the historical character of all that is told in this war: it has a thoroughly poetical appearance.” before going on to state “Here three Roman heroes stand against them; Horatius Cocles, Sp. Lartius, and T. Herminius, - in all likelihood a personification of the three tribes.”

Niebuhr is referencing the three Romulean Tribes of ancient Rome, the Ramnes, the Tities, and the Luceres. These three tribes represent the three ethnic groups of ancient Rome and were established by Romulus not long after the founding of the city. The Ramnes were the native group to the region, named for Romulus. The Tities were originally the Sabines who entered the city in arms after the abduction of many Sabine women by the Romans. They were led by their King, Titus Tacitus, who, after the interjection of the abducted women, reached a peace with Romulus with the pair jointly ruling Rome for a time where the tribe took on its new name, the Tities, named for Titus Tacitus. The final group, the Luceres, possibly represent the Etruscans though historians are unclear on exactly where the name originates.

Niebuhr, in a passing comment, expresses that the three heroes in the story of Horatius represent each of these tribes, with Horatius, the first and ultimately bravest and most daring of the three, representing the Ramnes, the native Romans. In this way, the whole story could be taken to be allegorical, a retelling of the foundational mythology of Rome, rather than an accounting of true events. This is certainly an interesting take, indeed many of the accounts of early Roman history were written when Rome was ascendant and there is some belief among scholars that these stories are used to justify the later Roman conquests as it could be seen that the Romans were simply righting past wrongs as they expanded their empire. 

What do you think? Is the story of Horatius Cocles one that exceeds credibility, or do you believe the legend start to finish? Is it a recounting of true events, or simply allegory, propaganda, written well after the supposed fact to justify Roman interests? Like so much of history, we may never know for certain.

A conveniently located ancient theatre with impressive acoustics and a view to boot...

And the very spot where one of the most famous statues from antiquity - and arguably of all time - was discovered... sadly marked with a pithy  plaque.

By Justin D. Lyons, Contributing Writer, Classical Wisdom

Today we think of Thucydides as one of the first historians. Yet perhaps that word is a bit misleading, or at least doesn’t paint the full picture.  

In his Poetics, Aristotle distinguishes the historian from the philosopher and the poet. History is not philosophic because it deals with particulars, whereas philosophy deals with the universal. Poetry lies between philosophy and history, dealing with the universal in the particular.

At first glance, Thucydides seems to fall decidedly into the category of historian. The beginning of The Peloponnesian War undermines the exaggerated grandeur attributed to early Greece, built mainly on the authority of Homer. The glory of poetic vision is scrapped for a realistic assessment of early ages. In addition, Thucydides himself remarks that he does not write as the poets do.

Thucydides narrates the history of a particular war, the Peloponnesian War, which occurred between Sparta, Athens, and their allies in the 5^th century B.C. Yet he claims that he has written his work “as a possession for all time” and that it will be an aid to understanding the future. But one must ask how a history of a particular war bound in time and place could so illumine future action.

Just as with the poet, the particular and the universal are interwoven in Thucydides’ work. He describes this war between these two cities at a certain time but reveals the story of mankind.

Thucydides looks to motion and war as most revealing of human nature. This is the difference between Thucydides and the philosophers. Thucydides does not seek the nature of man in the contemplation of a static realm of truth and light; rather, he seeks it in movement and uncertainty. But man in motion is also the favorite theme of the poets. Poetry flourishes in conditions of stable peace, but it portrays man in crisis, man in flux–the bloody field of Ilium, the trials of the homeward journey, the city infected with plague.

The historian is not free, like the poet, to invent, shape, or alter events for dramatic purposes. But Thucydides does. Events must be selected, arranged, and narrated even by the historian. The deeds of the war are edited by Thucydides. Only if they are selected and arranged properly will we get a true picture. No mere chronicler, Thucydides weaves a narrative balance between word and deed.  

There are two great wings to the Peloponnesian War, marked by Pericles’ Funeral Oration and the plague on the one hand, and the Melian Dialogue and the Sicilian expedition on the other. The word is immediately followed by the deed. In each case, the hubris given in word is then terribly punished by what happens. Like a poet, Thucydides creates a narrative balance – an act of hubris and its consequences. Also like a poet, he does not give explicit interpretation of the events, but lets the events themselves present a terrible drama.

In terms of invention, Thucydides admits he does not present the speeches in his history exactly as they were given; they are, in his opinion, what the speakers should have said. In truth, Thucydides composes the speeches himself.

Thucydides does not make explicit judgements on the understandings expressed by the speakers, but rather presents them in all their partiality and partisanship. In doing so he creates, or rather imitates, political drama. Political speeches are necessarily partial because they present a particular policy of a particular city to a particular audience; they are bound by the limited horizon of the political actor. The reader is drawn into the drama through the clash of conflicting views. By allowing the struggle to work itself out before the reader, he presents a poetic imitation of political life.

The most well-known of the speeches, the Periclean Funeral Oration, puts forward a vision of immortal glory. Pericles asserts that the glory of Athens will survive even if Athens is ruined.; it will survive forever. “The admiration of the present and succeeding ages will be ours,” he says, “because the power of Athens has been shown by mighty proofs…We have forced every sea and land to be the highway of our daring, and everywhere, whether for evil or for good, have left imperishable monuments behind us” (PW 2.42).

Thus Athens does not need Homer for a eulogist. Pericles claims the deeds of the city are self-sufficient, they stand by themselves, they do not need the poet’s craft. But it is the craft of Thucydides that continues to breathe life into Periclean Athens.

Thucydides’ presentation of Pericles must bring forward for the reader what is a fundamental underlying question for the entire work: Can the fortune be mastered by human planning?

Pericles counseled the Athenians to shut themselves up within their walls rather than to chance battle in the field, to hold to the impregnable position afforded them by the city and the sea. His plan worked against the Peloponnesians, but it could not defend against the natural force of the plague, which ravaged the city. The terrible suffering of that pestilence emphasized the fragility of life and gave vent to the worst of the passions. “Fear of gods or law of man there was none to restrain them.” (PW 2.53)

This episode demonstrates the two kinds of motion in Thucydides: 1) the motion of natural forces and 2) the motion caused by human passions, both of which are matters of necessity or fortune rather than human planning.

Pericles’ vision of immortal glory is the greatest claim for the durability of human endeavor. But Thucydides contradicts this claim, implicitly, through the work as a whole. The story of human action is presented against a background of earthquakes, tidal waves, solar and lunar eclipses, droughts, floods, famines, and a volcanic eruption. Thucydides emphasizes the forces of nature to point out that not everything can be controlled. Nor are natural forces always spectacular: the silent workings of water and earth can undermine anything wrought by the hands of man.

The force of human passion is also prevalent in Thucydides. He describes the Corcyraean revolution as a great motion which spread until “the whole Hellenic world was convulsed” (PW 3.82). The sufferings were many and terrible: death raged in every shape and there was no limit to the violence. These possibilities are always present in human nature. Passions are kept quiet in peace because men are not confronted with imperious necessities. War lowers character to a level with circumstances, and often lends victory to simple brutality.

Thucydides suggests that every city will finally succumb to necessity, either from natural forces or from a failure to control and moderate the human passions. This is the tragic understanding in Thucydides: Man seeks rest from motion and change through his intelligence, but all of his constructions are subject to chance, necessity will overwhelm his islands of rest— one cannot promise immortal glory. Thucydides views the existence of man through a veil of sadness. His readers feel that universal melancholy because he has drawn it forth from the particulars of history.

“As he rides in his chariot, he shines upon men and deathless gods, and piercingly he gazes with his eyes from his golden helmet. Bright rays beam dazzlingly from him, and his bright locks streaming from the temples of his head gracefully enclose his far-seen face: a rich, fine-spun garment glows upon his body and flutters in the wind: and stallions carry him.”

Written by Lydia Serrant, Contributing Writer, Classical Wisdom

What does LSD have to do with the ancient Greeks? Although they may seem worlds apart, the drug may have played a key role in one of the ancient Greek’s most mysterious religious rituals. But first, a little background…

In 1938 Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann successfully synthesized lysergic acid diethylamide from a naturally occurring fungus known as Ergot.

Ergot is a fungus that grows on barley, rye, and similar crops. It produces alkaloids, a compound responsible for the condition known as ergotism, that causes convulsions, spasms, vomiting, mania, and psychosis if the Ergot is consumed in its raw form.

When Hofmann was experimenting with this dangerous parasitic fungus, he was looking to isolate an effective chemical compound that would stimulate circulatory and respiratory systems, but what he found instead was a highly effective psychedelic drug, known today as LSD. So, what does LSD and Hofmann’s lab have to do with the ancient Greeks?

Recent archaeological evidence has unearthed fragments of Ergot in an ancient Greek ceremonial cup, found at a Mas Castellar des Pontos, in Girona Spain dating back to 300 BC. Remnants of Ergot were also found in the dental calculus of a 25-year-old male, providing evidence that an Ergot-infused drink was consumed at the site at that time.

Mas Castellar is a significant ancient temple. It was dedicated to the goddesses Demeter and Persephone, the chief goddesses associated with the Eleusinian Mysteries, well as Kykeon, the mysterious potion consumed at the famous ritual at Eleusis.

The Kykeon and Eleusis

The Eleusinian Mysteries have puzzled scholars for nearly two millennia. The mysteries of Demeter and her daughter Persephone were an ancient ritual that was observed yearly between 1600 BCE and 392 CE. It was a festival of magnitude that required over a year's worth of preparation.

The initiates, which could number thousands at a time, would embark on a 10-day parade down the scared way to the famous temple, where they would break their 3-day fast with a sip of the sacred Kykeon, which gave way to a night of dancing and a re-enactment of the famous central myth of The Mysteries, Demeter’s quest to save her daughter from the grips of the underworld.

The festival attracted millions around the Greek and Roman empire, with the promise of unveiling the secrets of the afterlife for the initiated. Those who were initiated into the inner sanctum to witness the Greater Mysteries were forbidden to discuss what happened there under pain of death – a harsh penalty that is not precedented in any other Greek festival.

More so, the ingredients of the mysterious Kykeon were shrouded in such secrecy that despite thousands of initiates having experienced the concoction, we are left only with scattered and vague references to what the potion contained.

Besides the mysteries themselves, the Kykeon is perhaps Eleusis’ best-kept secret. The ancient potion is said to be the source of the mysteries and is referenced in literature across the ancient Greek-speaking world.

In Homer's Odyssey, Circe mixes the Kykeon with honey and uses it to turn Odysseus’ men into swine, and in the Iliad it is said to be a mixture made from goats’ cheese, water, and barley.

No one really knows what the Kykeon was and how it was made. The initiates of the inner mysteries were forbidden to share its secrets outside of Eleusis. Plato, Socrates, Sophocles, Cicero, Plutarch, Hadrian, and Marcus Aurelius were all initiates of the Greater Mysteries.

But did the greatest men in western history, the men behind reason, logic, democracy, and science really travel all the way to Eleusis to find themselves mesmerized by a simple honey drink and a good play?

The Psychedelic Enlightenment Hypothesis

Even before the unearthing of the Ergot tainted cup at Mas Castellar, some modern scholars had suspected that the drink contained a psychoactive element due to the detailed accounts from eye-witnesses that had attended the ceremony.

Barley is considered the chief ingredient of the Kykeon, along with other non-psychoactive ingredients. Ergot is a parasitic fungus that thrives on barley, and it was the scourge of the ancient and medieval worlds.

Barley was a highly precious commodity, and to have the harvest infected with Ergot could be society’s ruin. However, had the ancients found a way to use unwanted Ergot growing on their barley corn? Could they have found a method of isolating the psychoactive element of the fungus, just as Dr Hofmann did in 1938?

Comparative Accounts: Ancient Eleusis and Contemporary Psychedelic Studies

To avoid the death penalty, Plato described his experience at Eleusis in cryptic terms. He spoke of Eleusis as ‘the holiest of Mysteries’ where he experienced ‘a state of perfection’ and ‘blessed sight and vision’.

During the climax of the evening, upon the completion of the initiation ceremony, attendees were given the title epoptes which roughly translates as ‘The one who has seen it all’. Initiates claimed that life continued after death, and there was a light waiting for us at the end of the tunnel.

After his initiation, Sophocles claimed that ‘’trice blessed are those among men who, after beholding these rites, go down to Hades. Only for them is their life [after death]; all the rest will suffer an evil lot’’

To put this into context, the ancient Greeks usually approached death with reluctance and gloom. It was generally believed that when one dies, his or her spirit is damned to roam the underworld (Hades) for all eternity. It appears that those who emerged from the ritual at Eleusis left with an alternative attitude towards death and dying. These accounts suggest that what was happening at Eleusis was different from the other religious ceremonies in ancient Greece.

In The Road to Eleusis published in 1978, Albert Hofmann, along with the Classicist Carl Ruck and Mycologist Gordon Wassan, first put forth the hypothesis that the Kykeon contained a psychoactive entheogen by comparing accounts of Eleusis with spiritual ceremonies found in other cultures that used natural psychedelic compounds.

The book received much criticism upon its publication, however, in recent years their work has become more accepted, especially in light of archaeological evidence, like that at Mas Castellar.

The amount of evidence that is slowly emerging has opened doors for further research into the therapeutic uses of psychedelics. The mental health industry is particularly interested in psychedelics as a treatment for depression, anxiety, addiction, and is proving to be especially effective for end-of-life therapy for patients with terminal illnesses.

Dr. Roland R Griffiths of John Hopkins University has conducted several psychedelic studies and surveys on the effect of mind-altering drugs and their relationship with consciousness and perceived reality.

In a 2019 study, Griffiths and his team recorded and compared the experience of psilocybin, LSD, DMT, and ayahuasca users who described their experience as an ‘ultimate reality’.

Griffiths reports that the participants could recall vivid memories that frequently involved direct communication with conscious entities that were “benevolent, intelligent, sacred, eternal and all-knowing” and that approximately half of the participants described their experience as ‘mystical’.

It has not gone unnoticed that these accounts are not dissimilar from those who participated in the ancient Mysteries at Eleusis.

In The Immortality Key: The Secret History of the Cult with No Name (pub. 2020) linguist Brian C. Muraresku details his 20-year deep dive into ancient psychedelic research and the role of Ergot and other possible psychedelic substances in the Eleusinian Mysteries.

The linguist who has never taken a psychedelic drug in his life, argues the possibility that humans have used psychedelic drugs as far back and the stone age, and the Kykeon is a possible precursor for the Christian Eucharist.

However, despite emerging evidence, the jury is still out on whether or not psychedelics played a role in ancient Greek enlightenment.

There is evidence that other cultures, like the Egyptians, grew psychedelics plants but evidence on how they used the plants is still up for debate.

Traditional scholars agree that the states of euphoria felt at Eleusis was more likely caused by the participants arriving in a famished state after a 3-day fast and dancing for several hours – a combination that can stimulate the nervous system and result in self-induced visions and hypnotic trances.

While the traditional explanation of the euphoric effect of The Mysteries is certainly possible and generally accepted, psychedelic researchers and classical linguists cannot ignore the comparative similarity of the accounts given by modern-day psychedelic drug users and initiates of the ancient temples.

Whether or not the ancient Greeks used psychedelics for spiritual purposes, and if they happened upon them on purpose, by accident, or at all, is still unknown. Further research is required, and new technology is helping researchers gain more insight into how ancient societies used medicinal plants and the relationship between consciousness, reality, and nature.

References

Griffiths RR, Hurwitz ES, Davis AK, Johnson MW, Jesse R (2019) Survey of subjective "God encounter experiences": Comparisons among naturally occurring experiences and those occasioned by the classic psychedelics psilocybin, LSD, ayahuasca, or DMT. PLoS ONE 14(4): e0214377. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214377

 Brian C. Muraresku (2020) The Immortality Key: The Secret History of the Religion with No Name

Georgio Samorini, The Oldest Archaeological Data Evidencing the Relationship of Homo Sapiens with Psychoactive Plants: A Worldwide Overview, Journal of Psychedelic Studies, volume 3, issue 2

R.Gordon Wasson, Albert Hofmann and Carl A. P. Ruck (1978) The Road to Eleusis: Unveiling the Secret of the Mysteries North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California

The battle of Marathon has, for millenia now, been firmly planted within the annals of western history. A decisive battle, a clash of cultures, the narrative describes an outnumbered Athenian army staying off the Persian invaders who would see the Greek civilization consumed within their empire. And as we gaze through the looking glass of time, thousands of years into the past, what began as a simple military engagement is now often considered a philosophical war between two cultures. The war for the West, that is what some believe Marathon to be. And if Greece is the cradle of western culture, could Marathon be the stance to defend it?

It all began with the Ionian revolution and Aristagoras, the tyrant of Miletus, who would resign his tyranny and accept a constitutional position in order to dismantle Persian control of the Greek city states in Asia Minor. This was largely done without bloodshed and Aristagoras would attempt to gain support for his endeavor from mainland Greece. After being denied by the Spartan king, Cleomenes, Aristagoras would find support from the Athenian government who viewed the massive Persian empire with suspicion and concern. The Athenians dispatched several naval war vessels to aid the Ionian Greeks in this rebellion.

It would do little good. The rebellion would fail miserably with a decisive naval defeat at the island of Lade, near Miletus. Aristagoras' city would fall. The women and children of Miletus became slaves and the men that were left alive were expelled from their lands. Early in the campaign, the capital city of western Persia, Sardis, had been burned to the ground. And while the Greeks mourned for the loss of Miletus, the birthplace of the philosopher Thales, King Darius of Persia would not soon forget the destruction of Sardis. It was too late for reconciliation. War was coming.

After a failed invasion through northern Greece in 492 BCE, King Darius made plans to dispatch a large invading force across the Aegean to overthrow Athens and capture mainland Greece. Mindful of the fate of Miletus, many city-states, including Thebes and Argos, submitted to the Persian king. It was only Athens and Sparta who stood firmly in defiance.

When the heralds of King Darius appeared at the gates of Athens and Sparta, the messengers were not only denied, but were promptly killed. Legend has it that soldiers of Sparta threw the emissaries into a deep well when the heralds suggested that the Spartans surrender. Did they scream "this is Sparta!" right before they dropped kicked the men into the abyss? We may never know, but I like to think so.

Meanwhile, Athens had a decision to make. The Athenians would be vastly outnumbered if they decided to face the Persians. We do not know the exact numbers, but we do know that Persia possessed a much larger infantry as well as superior cavalry and archers. It was at this time that the Stratego, Miltiades, would play a critical role in the salvation of Athens. Miltiades, a man who spent much of his life ruling in a remote military outpost in the Chersonese, would return to Athens in 493 BCE. He was promptly accused of having been a tyrant during his days as ruler, and was promptly put on trial .

It is difficult to imagine why Athens would concern themselves with one of their own citizens tyrannizing abroad, especially with a massive Persian army at their doorstep. It is not unreasonable to believe Herodotus when he tells us that the persecution of Miltiades originated from the mans political enemies.

Miltiades was a gifted general and had served in the Persian army while living in Asia Minor under Persian control. He would have been familiar with Persian tactics and was most qualified to lead a defense against the invaders. Perhaps it was the thought of Athens burning to the ground that persuaded the Athenians to acquit Miltiades, it would appear they had bigger fish to fry. Miltiades was allowed to attempt to persuade the Polemarch, Callimachus to allow him to go to war. Herodotus offers a stirring rendition of this speech. 

"...It is up to you right now, to enslave Athens or to make her free, and to leave for all future generations of humanity a memorial to yourself such as not even Harmodius and Aristogiton have left. Right now, Athens is in the most perilous moment of her history. Hippias has already shown her what she will suffer if she bows down to the Medes, but if the city survives, she can become the foremost city in all Greece..." -Herodotus (The Histories)

Athens would accept Miltiades into their army and make plans to confront the Persians. Early one morning in late September of 490 BCE, the Athenian army assembled on a hill overlooking where the Persian forces had landed on the beaches of Marathon. Knowing they were severely outnumbered, Miltiades concentrated his forces in a narrow pass that would block the Persian advance to Athens. Layers of bronze shields overlapped among the Greek soldiers and created a phalanx formation that was capable of repelling waves of enemies. 

The Persian army advanced and found themselves crushed against the shields of the better equipped, better prepared Athenian army. With the advantage of longer spears, sturdy shields, and superb tactical placement, the Athenians managed to continuously push back the Persian advance.

The Persian army meanwhile was improperly equipped for such warfare. Many infantrymen possessed wooden shields or shields constructed from wicker. With the Athenian army confined in a narrow  corridor, the Persian cavalry was ineffective and unable to outflank the Greeks. After several days of battle, the Greeks pushed the invaders back to their ships. The Persian army would suffer heavy casualties and be forced to return home.

"Tho' Earth and water in subjection laid, O cruel Minos, thy dominion be, We'll go thro' air; for sure the air is free."

To wing your course along the middle air; If low, the surges wet your flagging plumes; If high, the sun the melting wax consumes:

Beautiful beginnings

Enter the hero

Married life and beyond

Andromeda today

The post Symposium Schedule first appeared on Classical Wisdom Weekly.

What exactly is a citizen?  

The idea of citizenship emerged from the city-states of ancient Greece where the obligations of the citizen were very much part of everyday life.  

It was thought that to be truly human, one had to be an active citizen to the community. As Aristotle once noted: "To take no part in the running of the community's affairs is to be either a beast or a god!"  

But being a citizen was not just being part and parcel of society, it was also an opportunity to prove one’s value. It was a chance to be virtuous, to gain honor and respect.  

You can also watch Victor Davis Hanson, author of many books including: Who Killed Homer? The Demise of Classical Education and the Recovery of Greek Wisdom; The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern; as well as Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power, speak LIVE this Saturday at 1pm EST.  

Hanson will ask why a system of over 1,500 autonomous city-states that had resisted a massive invasion descending into Greece in 480 BC, lost their independent statuses to Macedon150 years later... even when they were far richer and more powerful...  

Make sure to get your tickets (& pay what YOU want) here.

Founder of the Persian Empire: Brute or chosen by God? 

Cyrus the Great was one of the most influential figures in history. A mid-life revolutionary, in the sixth century BC Cyrus founded the Persian Empire, the largest empire known to man at the time. 

But wait a second... I hear you cry... I thought Classical Wisdom was about Ancient Greece and Rome? So why are we talking about Persia? 

Excellent inquiry my astute reader! While our main focus is indeed the Greco-Roman world, we are also fully aware that they did not exist in isolation. 

Just as today, ancient cultures and societies interacted, clashed, combined, or reacted against each other. The melding and separation between peoples is a fascinating tale in and of itself... but we also learn tremendously about the Greeks and Romans by studying their enemies, their friends, their contemporaries as well as their predecessors. 

It’s sort of like learning US history and never studying Russia or the UK. It would be impossible to understand the Cold War or the Revolution without those essential insights!

Moreover, the impact and influence from other superpowers in the region are sometimes so immense that it can be tricky to distinguish what comes from whom. Some of the Persian stories and myths are so... familiar. It makes you wonder where it all began. 

And so we must look to the massively influential power to the east: A land, a peoples, a culture steeped in fascinating history... the very cradle of civilization itself... Persia. 

And what better way to understand this historic location - and its impressive rise and collapse - than with one of the most influential figures in history, the founder of the Persian Empire, Cyrus the Great. 

Cyrus is shown as both a ruthless conqueror and enlightened progressive; famous for liberating the Jews held by the Babylonians, he has even been credited with a human rights creed that influenced Thomas Jefferson and his contribution to the United States Bill of Rights. 

Many other politicians, including Italy’s 15^th century Niccolò Machiavelli, drew inspiration from Cyrus, while in the 20^th century the Shah of Iran and the Islamic State that overthrew the Shah both honored Cyrus. 

In the 21^st century, not only has an Israeli Prime Minister praised Cyrus, onetime overlord of the Jews, Christian evangelicals have favorably compared US President Donald Trump to Cyrus, calling both of them “brutes” chosen to fulfill the will of God. 

So where does the truth lie? 

A brilliant brute? A fearsome conqueror? A ruler unequalled in history for his wisdom, magnanimity and appreciation of human rights? A heathen chosen by God? 

Could Cyrus have been all these things? Was he any of them? 

Essentially, was Cyrus the Great truly great? 

In this first ever modern biography of Cyrus, noted historical biographer and author of 45 books, Stephen Dando-Collins, delves into the real story behind one of history’s most famous founders.

The recent receipt of the Silver Award for Biography in the 2020 Indie Awards in the US, Stephen’s Cyrus the Great, the biography of the founder of the Persian Empire describes Cyrus' fraught youth, his rise to power via rebellion, his dashing military campaigns that destroyed the Median, Lydian and Babylonian empires, and his uniquely magnanimous reign. 

With his usual depth of research and highly readable narrative, Dando-Collins cuts through myth and folklore to deliver a fascinating account of a fascinating life.

Make sure to Get Your Copy of Cyrus the Great Here:

Listen to Stephen Dando-Collins THIS Sunday explore this towering figure and his role in the rise and fall of empires in a presentation that is certainly not to be missed! 

Make sure to get your tickets (& pay what YOU want) Here: https://classicalwisdom-symposium-2021.eventbrite.ie

Remember: You can 'swing by' for an hour, a day or the entire event... it's up to you! As long as you register in advance, you can come and go as you like... and you'll also receive all the recordings afterwards, so you won't miss a thing!

This will truly be a once in a lifetime opportunity...

Make sure to get your tickets via donation here.

by Sean Kelly, Managing Editor, Classical Wisdom

We owe a great deal to the world of Ancient Greece and Rome.

The philosophy, the mythology, not to mention the myriad artworks inspired by it through the centuries.

Much of what we love about that era may have been lost if not for another great epoch... that great period of rebirth: the Renaissance.

A time of radical rethinking about the shared infrastructure of humanity, the nature of government and the role of the individual. But what did the people of the Renaissance truly believe? Have they been misunderstood?

Luckily, we have Dr. James Hankins - a Professor of History at Harvard University, a leading expert on the Renaissance and one of the worlds’ foremost historians - to enlighten us.

He is the author of many books including Plato in the Italian Renaissance, The Recovery of Ancient Philosophy in the Renaissance with Ada Palmer, and he is also the editor of The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Philosophy.

His most recent publication Virtue Politics: Soulcraft and Statecraft in Renaissance Italy explores this most fascinating time period… this time with regards to the government.

These days, it’s easy to be cynical. We all know the cliché of the money grabbing politician just out for themselves. It’s so ingrained, that maybe we’ve just become resigned to it.

Yet Dr. Hankins looks at how some of the most famous Renaissance figures, from Petrarch to Machiavelli, believed that shaping individual morality – soulcraft – was essential for government and statecraft to function correctly.

Dr. Hankins explores the questions that drove this world-changing era. Should a good man serve a corrupt regime? What virtues are necessary in a leader? What is the source of political legitimacy?

In Virtue Politics: Soulcraft and Statecraft in Renaissance Italy Dr. Hankins creates a vivid image of a world at a crucial turning point... a world in the process of laying the foundations for our own times.

Don’t miss your chance to see Dr. James Hankins LIVE at our Symposium this weekend. He will be appearing on a panel alongside historian Niall Ferguson and philosopher Angie Hobbs, where they will be discussing the end of empires and fall of nations; do empires and states die differently? And what can their deaths teach us today? Find out this Saturday at 6pm EST.

Remember if you register in advance, you'll get access to all the recordings.

You can watch for an hour... or the entire two day event... it's up to you!

If you haven't already secured your spot, then make sure to do so before Friday!

Best of all, you can pay what YOU want.

Get your tickets HERE. 

by Sean Kelly, Managing Editor, Classical Wisdom

You know the names…

…but do you know the men behind them?

There are few, if any, names more consequential in the ancient world than Caesar.

Centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire, the name Caesar still means one thing: leader.

As late as the twentieth century, the German head was called the Kaiser, and the Russian title was the Czar… both variations on Caesar.

The name casts a long shadow….as do the men who held it. But who were they? And what can their stories tell us about today?

Barry Strauss, Professor of History and Classics at Cornell University, gives us the untold histories of these ten men and leaders.

Author of eight books on ancient history, including The Death of Caesar, The Battle of Salamis, and The Trojan War: A New History, Barry is the Series Editor of Princeton’s Turning Points in Ancient History.

In his most recent book, Ten Caesars: Roman Emperors from Augustus to Constantine, Barry Strauss takes us on a tour of the most powerful men in Ancient Rome.

From the first Roman Emperor, who “found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marble”…. through to Marcus Aurelius, emperor, philosopher, and author of the still popular Meditations…. to Constantine, the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity….

Learn the stories of their lives, the secrets of their leadership, and how their collective legacies shaped our modern world.

The tales of the Caesars is, quite literally, the story of the Rise and Fall of one of the mightiest empires the earth has ever seen.

If you want to learn even MORE about the history of the Caesars, Barry Strauss' next book The War That Made the Roman Empire: Antony, Cleopatra, and Octavian at Actium will be available next March!

Barry Strauss will also be speaking LIVE at our Symposium this weekend! 

As part of our theme End of Empires and Fall of Nations, he will be discussing Julius Caesar in his talk How Caesar Ruined a Republic and Started an Empire.

Best of all, it's at a price of YOUR choice. Get your tickets now HERE.

A Guide to a Good Life

We write to you today from the Mediterranean, about an hour from the port of Piraeus, en route to the ancient Minoan stomping grounds of Crete. 

It’s hard not to feel inspired by the wine-dark seas, the fading tips of the nearby islands and the gentle rocking of Poseidon’s domain. 

Yes Dear Reader, we have made the journey to Greece in time for our upcoming event next week, to really get into the spirit of the Symposium.

After all, this is the very spot where so many great ideas began... 

In fact, it was during his voyage from Phoenicia to Piraeus, our very point of departure, that Zeno of Citium found himself shipwrecked. The wealthy merchant from Cyprus then did what may seem a bit odd to us now; he went to a local bookseller and found himself with Xenophon’s Memorabilia.

So pleased with the portrayal of Socrates, he sought out philosophers from which he could learn more and ended up under the tutelage of the Cynic, Crates of Thebes. Zeno took up the Cynic way of life as best his native modesty allowed... but with time developed his own way of thinking, creating a new guide to living a good life. 

Zeno taught this approach under the colonnade in the Agora of Athens, known as the Stoa Poikile, in 301 BC... and thus began the origins of the philosophy Stoicism. 

Today, Stoicism is enjoying a revival, helping individuals around the globe find a new perspective with this ancient wisdom, in huge part due to modern philosophers such as William B. Irvine and his wildly successful book, A Guide to a Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy. 

Professor of philosophy at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, USA, and author of eight books that have been translated into more than twenty languages, Dr. Irvine’s work on Stoic Joy illustrates just how applicable and insightful Stoicism is in our modern era. 

Using the psychological insights and the practical techniques of the Stoics, Dr. Irvine offers a roadmap for anyone seeking to avoid the feelings of chronic dissatisfaction that plague so many of us. The book delves into Stoic techniques for attaining tranquility and illustrates how to put these techniques to work in our own life. 

It’s a fantastic read, and also remarkably practical... with tips on how to minimize worry, how to let go of the past and focus our efforts on the things we can control, and how to deal with insults, grief, old age, and the distracting temptations of fame and fortune. 

With Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, as well as the good Phoenician and founder of Stoicism, Zeno of Citium, as your guide, you can find the ancient art of Stoic Joy. 

Get Your Copy of A Guide to a Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy, Here:

You can also watch Dr. Irvine speak LIVE on Sunday, August 22nd, during our second keynote panel discussion, along with Donald Robertson and A.A. Long, on what control we have over the Fall of Nations... and how we can prepare for their evitable end. 

Make sure to get your tickets now - and remember - you can pay what YOU WANT. Reserve your spot here: https://classicalwisdom-symposium-2021.eventbrite.ie