Home Blog

Pliny the Younger’s Perfectly Round, Sacred Lake With Floating Cows

By
thehistorianshut
-

Pliny the Younger (c. 61/62-113), like his uncle Pliny the Elder (c. 23-79), was a man of well-rounded scholarly interests, including natural history. The younger Pliny, when he was not practicing law, or offering professional financial advice, or serving as an administrative official of the Roman Empire, he often passed his free time by writing letters to his friends and acquaintances, regaling them about his interests, including the aforementioned subject of natural history. He liked to emphasize Italy’s own natural wonders, and in his opinion, one such wonder of nature resided in his own extended family’s property.

Pliny the Younger, through his wife’s grandfather, became responsible for a body of water known then as Lake Vadimon, near the ancient Italian locale of Ameria (approximately the modern Amelia region of Umbria). The lake was located to the northwest of what is now the town of Orte. Back in Pliny’s day, the body of water was an impressive sight. As a sacred place, people believed that the water had healing properties. But, most strikingly, the lake appeared to be perfectly round to the naked eye. The environment there was noticeably marshy in nature, with water-plants thriving on the lake, creating buoyant masses that looked like floating islands. Pliny the Younger proudly described his family’s sacred lake, comparing it to exotic overseas natural attractions. He wrote:

“My wife’s grandfather had asked me to look at his property in Ameria. While going round I was shown a lake at the foot of the hills called Lake Vadimon, and at the same time told some extraordinary facts about it. I went down to look at it, and found it was perfectly round and regular in shape, like a wheel lying on its side, without a single irregular bend or curve, and so evenly proportioned that it might have been artificially shaped and hollowed out. It is subdued in colour, pale blue with a tinge of green, has a smell of sulphur and a mineral taste, and the property of healing fractures. It is of no great size but large enough for the wind to raise waves on its surface. There are no boats on it, as the waters are sacred, but floating islands, green with reeds and sedge and the other plants which grow more profusely on the marshy ground at the edge of the lake. Each island has its peculiar shape and size, and all have their edges worn away by friction, as they are constantly knocking against each other and the shore…The small islands often attach themselves to the larger, like small boats to a merchant ship, and both large and small sometimes appear to be racing each other; or they are all driven to one side of the lake to create a headland where they cling to the shore” (Pliny the Younger, Letters, 8.20).

Despite the sacred nature of the lake, the surrounding fields were evidently home to roving cattle, which could result in comical sights. According to Pliny, it was not uncommon for cows to wander their way onto the beached water-plant islands, and the floating masses had enough buoyancy to carry an unsuspecting cow out for a journey on the lake. Pliny reported, “Cattle are often known to walk on the islands while grazing, taking them for the edge of the lake, and only realize that they are on moving ground when carried off from the shore as if forcibly put on board ship, and are terrified to find themselves surrounded by water; then, when they land where the wind has carried them, they are no more conscious of having ended their voyage than they were of embarking on it” (Pliny the Younger, Letters, 8.20).

Unfortunately, in the current day, there is very little water left above ground at the site of the lake. Back in Pliny’s day, he wrote of how, “Another feature of the lake is the river leading from it, which is visible for a short distance before it enters a cave and continues its course at a great depth” (Letters, 8.20). It seems that, over the millennia, the majority of the lake water has flowed down into those deepening underground caves, decreasing the size of the lake as the outflow outpaced the replenishing inflow. Given its greatly reduced size, the lake can no longer sustain the great floating plant masses that once carried cattle across the water.

Written by C. Keith Hansley

Picture Attribution: (Cropped Lake Albano and Castel Gandolfo, by Camille Corot (1796–1875) [Public Domain] via MET, with A Cow by Jan Vrolijk, dated 1879, [Public Domain] via Creative Commons and Rijksmuseum).

Sources:

  • The Letters of Pliny the Younger, translated by Betty Radice. New York: Penguin Classics, 1963, 1969.

Muse Of Lyric Poetry, By Henry Siddons Mowbray (c. 1858–1928)

By
thehistorianshut
-

This artwork, by the American artist Henry Siddons Mowbray (c. 1858–1928), depicts the Muse of Lyric Poetry and it is part of a series of paintings devoted to different Muses of arts and sciences. Mowbray’s series expanded beyond historical muses, but this particular Muse of Lyric Poetry is a figure that is grounded in traditional Greek and Roman mythology. Namely, the Muse of Lyric Poetry was a goddess called Erato, whose name goes back at least to the 8th century BCE. A scholar named Diodorus Siculus (c. 1st century BCE) wrote of the evolution of Muse worship, stating:

“The majority of the writers of myths and those who enjoy the greatest reputation say that they were daughters of Zeus and Mnemosyne; but a few poets, among whose number is Alcman, state that they were daughters of Uranus and Gê. Writers similarly disagree also concerning the number of the Muses; for some say that they are three, and others that they are nine, but the number nine has prevailed since it rests upon the authority of the most distinguished men, such as Homer and Hesiod and others like them…To each of the Muses men assign her special aptitude for one of the branches of the liberal arts, such as poetry, song, pantomimic dancing, the round dance with music, the study of the stars, and the other liberal arts” (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, 4.7).

Hesiod (c. 8th century BCE), who was mentioned by Diodorus Siculus, is thought to have been the first to name the nine canonical Muses of the Greco-Roman religious worldview. He wrote, “the Muses sang, who dwell in Olympus, the nine daughters born of great Zeus, Clio and Euterpe and Thaleia and Melpomene, Terpsichore and Erato and Polyhymnia and Urania, and Calliope, who is chief among them all” (Hesiod, Theogony, approximately lines 76-79). On Erato and her name, the scholar Diodorus Siculus (c. 1st century BCE) wrote, “For the name of each Muse, they say, men have found a reason appropriate to her…Erato [lovely one], because she makes those who are instructed by her…desired and worthy to be loved” (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, 4.7). Focusing in on the concepts of love and desire, Erato and her lyrical sphere of influence encompassed poetry on love and erotic themes. Plato (c. 427-347 BCE), referencing this, made mention of “Erato for the lovers” or “Erato for the poets of love” in his Phaedrus (Plato, Phaedrus, section 259). Given her musical qualities, Erato was also associated with the lyre.

It is this goddess, Erato, the Muse of Lyric poetry and songs, that Henry Siddons Mowbray re-creates in his painting. Erato can be seen wearing clothing dyed in red and pink hues, which are appropriate for her poetic themes of love and eroticism. Additionally, in details that signal her influence over verse and music, the goddess wears the headpiece of a poet and can be seen strumming on the strings of her lyre.

Written by C. Keith Hansley

Sources:

Herbert Krause

By
thehistorianshut
-

Herbert Krause (c. 1905-1976)

“I guess we never learn from the troubles of other folks; we learn only from our troubles; and then—then it’s too late, too late. Nothing is gleaned from yesterday’s grief. Each must suffer and weep before he knows that he is crying yesterday’s tears.”

  • From The Thresher (Part 3, section 18) by Herbert Krause (published by The Bobbs-Merril Company, 1946).

Did You Know? Ancient Iberian Warrior Tombs Were Reportedly Adorned With Spikes

By
thehistorianshut
-

Ancient Greeks observed that Iberian warriors received special burial monuments in their native land and culture. For full disclosure, the ancient Greek sources (such as Aristotle (c. 384-322 BCE)) could be vague about which Iberian peoples—Spanish or Anatolian—they were addressing. In this case, however, comments on the burial monuments were likely in reference to the Iberian Peninsula. The Greek observers noticed that the monuments were individually unique, with each buried warrior receiving varying numbers of spike-like objects adorning their resting place. The nature of these spikes remains debated, with some suggesting they were spears, while others argue they were stelae or small pointed stones, and the objects also, in a more literal sense, could have been actual spikes or large nails. Whatever the case, some buried warriors received more of these objects, while others had less. After some investigation, ancient Greek inquirers concluded that the spikes represented the number of foes that the buried warrior slew in battle. This observation and conclusion was recorded by the ancient philosopher and scholar, Aristotle, who wrote, “Among the Iberians, a warlike race, the tombs of their warriors have little spikes around them showing the number of enemy slain” (Aristotle, The Politics, Bekker page 1324b). Curiously, archeological investigations into the ancient inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula have, indeed, resulted in evidence that the Iberians made use of spears, nails, and other spiked/pointed objects in their ancient burial practices. Aristotle approved of these burial monuments, believing that the gesture incentivized a battle-ready society and honored warriors who put their lives on the line for the interests of their people.

Written by C. Keith Hansley

Picture Attribution: (Assortment of Iberian items, labeled Cigarralejo003, photographed by Extrema dorii, [Public Domain] via Creative Commons and Wikimedia Commons).

Sources:

The Destruction of the Temple of Ashtoreth, Chemosh and Milcom, by Philips Galle (c. 1537 – 1612) after Maarten van Heemskerck (1498 – 1574)

By
thehistorianshut
-

This engraved print was produced by the Dutch artist Philips Galle (c. 1537 – 1612) after a design by Maarten van Heemskerck (1498 – 1574). Their art illustrates a scene of King Josiah of Judah (r. 640–609 BCE) cracking down with an iron fist against the worship of deities from the Canaanite pantheon of gods and goddesses. Curiously, the king’s realm was a target-rich environment for his religious oppression, as many of Josiah’s predecessors had been tolerant, and even supportive of, the worshippers of particular deities from the Canaanite (or West Semitic) religious pantheon. That religious and cultural tradition was loosely shared by the peoples of ancient Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria, who were linguistically and literarily similar to the Hebrews. The most ancient and foundational Hebrew kings (like Saul, David, Solomon, and others) had enigmatic ties to Canaanite religious entities (such as the high-god El, the storm-god Baal, the consort goddess Asherah, and the fertility goddess Astarte). Kings Saul (said to have ruled approximately c. 1021–1000 BCE) and David (flourished c. 1000 BCE), the first and second kings of Israel, both had children with names that referenced Baal. Wise King Solomon (said to have ruled in the 10th century BCE) was reported to have built shrines to the gods Chemosh, Moloch/Molech, Milcom, and the goddess Astarte. King Ahab (flourished 9th century BCE) built shrines for Baal and Asherah, as did King Manasseh (said to have reigned c. 686 to 642 BCE). Such was the long tradition that King Josiah began to undo when he started his ruthless campaign to stamp out the worshippers, priests and shrines in his land that were not devoted to Yahweh. On this, the Bible stated: “The king defiled the high places that were east of Jerusalem, to the south of the Mount of Destruction, which King Solomon of Israel had built for Astarte the abomination of the Sidonians, for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. He broke the pillars in pieces, cut down the sacred poles, and covered the sites with human bones” (2 Kings 23:13-14). It is this scene of King Josiah defiling the shrines of Astarte/Ashtoreth, Chemosh and Milcom that Philips Galle and Maarten van Heemskerck re-create with their art.

Written by C. Keith Hansley

Sources:

Euripides

By
thehistorianshut
-

Euripides (c. 485-406 BCE)

“If a man cannot unlock a pure heart
and respect his friends,
may he perish without reward.
He will never be a friend of mine.”

  • From Euripides’ Medea (approximately between lines 660-670), translated by James Morwood in Medea and Other Plays (Oxford University Press, 1997, 1998, 2008).

Sentenced To Marry Her Cook? Emperor Justinian II’s Bizarre Punishment Of A Rebel’s Wife

By
thehistorianshut
-

Yes, according to medieval chronicles, Emperor Justinian II of Constantinople (r. 685-695, 705-711) sentenced the wife of a rebel to marry her household cook. Specifically, a chronicler named Theophanes (c. 750s-818) stated that Justinian “made her marry her own cook, who was an Indian” (Theophanes, Chronographia, entry for Annus Mundi 6203 [Sep 711-Aug 712]). The bizarre situation resulted from a tragic and complicated series of events that spanned decades. Mind the emotional whip-lash as the tale is recounted.

Emperor Justinian II, within decades of his death, was predominantly remembered by his countrymen as a man consumed with anger, wrath, cruelty, paranoia and madness. Executions were rampant in the second period of his rule, and his deadly rage extended to the children and wives of those who wronged him. How truly insane he may have been is debatable, but Justinian II definitely lived a tortured existence that drove him to act in an increasingly bitter, unforgiving, and merciless manner. One can attempt to glimpse into the mind of the emperor by looking at how many times he faced betrayal and treachery. Such traumatic incidents may have compounded into a psychological quagmire.

In his early reign, he was betrayed by an army of relocated Slavic warriors—a personal project of his—whose defection to the enemy cost him dearly at the disastrous Battle of Sebastopolis (c. 692 or 692) against the Arabs in Anatolia. He faced treachery from the head of his religion, Patriarch Callinicus (r. 693-705), who was the top church official of Constantinople and its empire. He was also betrayed by Leontios, the general he hand-picked to command the forces of Greece. Leontios and Patriarch Callinicus, with other conspirators, launched a coup against Emperor Justinian II in 695, in which the emperor was arrested, paraded through the streets, and his face was mutilated in a public spectacle. The emperor’s top lieutenants and ministers were executed, and Justinian (then nose-less and slit-tongued) was banished to Crimea. In exile, he married his wife, Theodora, the sister of the Khazar Khaganate leader, but Justinian faced an additional betrayal from his new brother-in-law, for the Khazars became complicit in a plot by agents of Constantinople to assassinate Justinian II. Successfully escaping the threat, Justinian fled to the Bulgarians, and with their help he reclaimed his throne in Constantinople against the then ruler, Tiberius III (r. 698-705). Back in power after a decade of exile, betrayals continued into his second round as emperor. Justinian faced treachery from Helias, his hand-chosen governor for Cherson, who was given a large expeditionary force by the emperor. A key ally of Helias was a man named Bardanes Philippikos, who had been exiled by Tiberius III, but was subsequently allowed by Justinian II to return to the empire and the military. Helias and Philippikos became leaders of a rebellion against Justinian II in the year 711—in effect, Justinian was betrayed by the large expeditionary force he had personally dispatched to Cherson. Adding insult to injury, Justinian’s meddlesome in-laws, the Khazars, were once again treacherous toward the emperor, this time giving Helias and Philippikos aid in their uprising.

It was this series of paranoia-inducing events that shaped Justinian’s thoughts and actions, contributing to his most gruesome deeds. The treachery he faced in his first period as emperor, and the subsequent assassination attempt during his exile, ratcheted up a murderous rage in Emperor Justinian II, which he unleashed on his empire when he returned to power in 705. He executed the two usurpers, Leontios and Tiberius III, who had ruled during his banishment. He executed Tiberius’ brother, Herakleios, and blinded and banished Patriarch Callinicus of Constantinople, who had conspired with Leontios against Justinian in 695. He punished and purged to varying degrees those who wronged him in deed or perception. Justinian’s expeditionary force to Cherson had similar directives given to them. Helias and Bardanes Philippikos, while they were still loyal, were charged with executing members of the population there and to send others back to Constantinople as captives. Emperor Justinian’s bloodlust was reportedly at its height when Helias and Philippikos made their fateful decision to lead their forces in rebellion against the emperor.

Helias’ commitment to the rebellion came at a huge personal cost, as he had been unable to move his family out of the emperor’s grasp by the time that the revolt was launched. Justinian II quickly seized Helias’ wife and children—not an uncommon move by a medieval ruler—but he did not use the hostages as a bargaining chip. Rather than utilize the captured family members in an effort to coerce Helias into standing down, Justinian instead skipped straight to imposing punishments on the rebel’s wife and children. This is the context behind the odd tale of the rebel’s wife being forced to marry her cook. The chronicler Theophanes (c. 750s-818), writing about the wife of Helias, stated that Justinian “made her marry her own cook, who was an Indian” (Chronographia, entry for Annus Mundi 6203 [Sep 711-Aug 712]). Peculiarity and eccentricity aside, this is a tragedy, not a comedy, and Justinian’s next victims were Helias’ children. As written by Theophanes, “He killed the spatharios Helias’ children on their mother’s breast…” (Chronographia, entry for Annus Mundi 6203). With the death of the children, Helias committed himself to avenging their deaths.

Justinian II, ironically, fixated on the wrong leader of the rebels. While the emperor vented his rage on the family of Helias, it was actually Helias’ fellow rebel leader, Bardanes Philippikos, who became the foremost figure of the revolt. Nevertheless, Helias remained a prominent leader, and leaving the politics to Philippikos, Helias was able to focus on his singular goal—revenge. From then on, the rebellion began to snowball into strength, and after a questionable decision by Justinian II to personally go gather intelligence around Damatrys, near Chalcedon, Bardanes Philippikos was able to use that opportunity to march into Constantinople without a fight. Following the fall of the capital, Bardanes Philippikos had Justinian’s son, Tiberius, executed. And, of course, Helias personally led the manhunt for the emperor. He found Justinian still in the environs of Damatrys, and it was there that he achieved his revenge for his slain children. According to Theophanes, “the spatharios Helias angrily burst forward and seized Justinian’s neck. He cut off his head with the dagger with which he was girded and sent it to Philippikos by way of the spatharios Romanos.” (Chronographia, entry for Annus Mundi 6203). With Justinian II and his son dead, Emperor Bardanes Philippikos (r. 711-713) assumed the imperial throne in Constantinople. As for Helias’ fate, Theophanes was silent. Unfortunately, he made no more mention about the spatharios, his wife, or the Indian cook.

Written by C. Keith Hansley

Picture Attribution: (Miniature from a Byzantine Bible, c. 11th century, [Public Domain] via Creative Commons and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven).

Sources:

  • Theophanes, The Chronicle of Theophanes, translated by Harry Turtledove. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982.
  • The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, edited by Oliver Nicholson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.

The Destruction of the Temple of Baal and the Slaughter of his Priests, by Philips Galle (1537–1612) after Maarten van Heemskerck (1498–1574)

By
thehistorianshut
-

This engraved print, by Philips Galle (1537–1612) and Maarten van Heemskerck (1498–1574), depicts the brutal and ruthless crackdown by King Josiah of Judah (r. 640–609 BCE) against the worship of Canaanite gods and goddesses in his kingdom. Interestingly, there was actually a large number of such applicable worshippers for him to target, because many of Josiah’s kingly predecessors had long been tolerant, if not supportive, of particular deities from the Canaanite religious tradition. This Canaanite (or West Semitic) pantheon, including figures like the high-god El, the storm-god Baal, the consort goddess Asherah, and the fertility goddess Astarte, was loosely shared by peoples of ancient Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria, who had notable linguistic and literary similarities. Intriguingly, the most ancient and foundational Hebrew kings (like Saul, David, Solomon, and others) had enigmatic ties to the Canaanite pantheon. Kings Saul (said to have ruled approximately c. 1021–1000 BCE) and David (flourished c. 1000 BCE), the first and second king of Israel, both had children with names that referenced Baal. King Solomon (said to have ruled in the 10th century BCE), famous for his wisdom, was reported to have built shrines to the gods Chemosh, Moloch/Molech, Milcom, and the goddess Astarte. King Ahab (flourished 9th century BCE) built shrines for Baal and Asherah, as did King Manasseh (said to have reigned c. 686 to 642 BCE). This tradition of tolerance and interaction with the Canaanite religion is what King Josiah was credited with undoing. In his crackdown, he demolished shrines, executed worshippers, and defiled the sites of Canaanite worship with taboo uncleanliness. On Josiah’s efforts to crush the worship of anything other than God, and God alone, the Second Book of Kings reported:

“The king commanded the high priest Hilkiah, the priests of the second order, and the guardians of the threshold to bring out of the temple of the Lord all the vessels made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host of heaven; he burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of the Kidron and carried their ashes to Bethel. He deposed the idolatrous priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained to make offerings in the high places at the cities of Judah and around Jerusalem, those also who made offerings to Baal, to the sun, the moon, the constellations, and all the host of the heavens. He brought out the image of Asherah from the house of the Lord, outside Jerusalem, to the Wadi Kidron, burned it at the Wadi Kidron, beat it to dust, and threw the dust of it upon the graves of the common people. He broke down the houses of the illicit priests who were in the house of the Lord, where the women did weaving for Asherah.  He brought all the priests out of the towns of Judah and defiled the high places where the priests had made offerings… Moreover, Josiah removed all the shrines of the high places that were in the towns of Samaria that kings of Israel had made, provoking the Lord to anger; he did to them just as he had done at Bethel. He slaughtered on the altars all the priests of the high places who were there and burned human bones on them.” (2 Kings 23.4-8, 19-20).

Such is the scene of carnage that Philips Galle and Maarten van Heemskerck depict in their art. It shows the destruction of the shrines, the removal of any objects of Canaanite worship, and the execution of the religious leaders who had tended to the sites. King Josiah can be seen wearing his crown, directing the destruction from the temple steps.

Written by C. Keith Hansley

Sources:

Aeschylus

By
thehistorianshut
-

Aeschylus (c. 525-456 BCE)

“Never too old to learn; it keeps me young.”

  • From Aeschylus’ Agamemnon (approximately between lines 575-580), translated by Robert Fagles. New York: Penguin Classics, 1979.

Aristotle On Being Kind To Foreigners

By
thehistorianshut
-

Aristotle (c. 384-322 BCE), the famous philosopher and mentor of Alexander the Great (r. 336-323 BCE), acknowledged that open and accessible societies could face threats and danger from the presence of foreigners. Some of these dangers included the accumulation of land by foreign buyers, cultural clashes in centers of commerce, foreign interference in government, and other forms of troublesome machinations. Despite the recognition of these concerns, Aristotle was in no way a xenophobe. Instead, he openly criticized people who exhibited inhospitable and malicious reactions to foreigners. Countering this, Aristotle advocated that a person should show a kind disposition toward guests in one’s lands. In his text, The Politics, Aristotle wrote, “harshness to strangers is, I think, quite wrong; one ought not to behave thus to anyone, and fierceness is not a mark of natural greatness of mind except towards wrongdoers” (Aristotle, The Politics, Bekker page 1327b). Curiously, Aristotle’s pupil, Alexander the Great, seemed to take the message of cultural tolerance to heart. Rather than look at foreigners as barbarians, Alexander welcomed them both culturally and intimately. The polygamous king kept a mistress named Barsine, daughter of the Persian satrap Artabazus II, and he went on to marry Roxana, daughter of the Persian vassal, Oxyartes, and also married Stateira and Parysatis, daughters of the Persian kings Darius III and Artaxerxes, respectively. Alexander tried to bridge the cultural divide between the Greeks and the peoples of the new lands he had conquered. In this regard, he experimented with hybridizing his royal court’s fashion and ceremonial processes, much to the dislike of his longest serving lieutenants. Such cultural clashes with unhappy Greeks ultimately led Alexander to execute his disgruntled biographer and propagandist, Callisthenes (d. 327 BCE)—who, ironically, was a nephew and fellow student of Aristotle.

Written by C. Keith Hansley

Picture Attribution: (Cropped section of Orestes and Pylades Disputing at the Altar, Painted By Pieter Lastman (c. 1583-1633), [Public Domain] via Creative Commons and the Rijksmuseum).

Sources

123...370Page 1 of 370

RECENT POSTS

POPULAR