The Great Ideas ~ The Difference Between Knowledge and Opinion

Posted on by
Reply

The Difference Between Knowledge and Opinion

When considering the distinction between knowledge and opinion there are some questions that need investigation:

  1. What sort of objects are the objects of knowledge, as opposed to the objects about which we can only have opinion?
  2. What is the psychological difference between knowing and opining as acts of the mind?
  3. Can we have knowledge and opinion about one and the same thing?
  4. What is the scope of knowledge?  How much knowledge do we really have as opposed to the kinds of things about which we can only have opinions?  What is the limit or scope of opinion in the things of our mind?

Luckman begs another question to Adler: Does freedom of conscience give a person a right to his own opinion in matters of religion and, if so, are matters of religious belief and religious faith simply matters of opinion rather than knowledge?  Adler responds that this question is contained in the fourth question, as we try to separate the “sphere” of knowledge from the “sphere” of opinion.

Before he begins, Adler investigates the difference between knowledge and “right opinion”.  With knowledge, you have the truth and know that it is true.  With right opinion, you have the truth but you will not understand why it is true.

Public Opinion
George Bernard O’Neill
source ArtUK

It’s Better To Be Ignorant Than Wrong

 

Adler introduces the terms error and ignorance.  In both cases, the person will not have the truth; then how is each term different?  The person in error does not have the truth but does not know that he does not know the truth and, in fact, might think that he has it; whereas the person in ignorance does not have the truth and knows that he does not have it.  Knowledge and right opnion (on the side of truth) are mirror images to ignorance and error (on the side of lack of truth).

Therefore, ignorance is closer to knowledge than error.  In fact, to impart knowledge, one must first correct error to get the person in a state of ignorance so they can then begin to learn.  This method was Socrates’ principle of teaching.  He would go around “cross-examining the pretenders to knowledge and wisdom,” and by this method demonstrate their errors.

Virtue and Nobility Putting
Ignorance to Flight (c. 1743)
Giovanni Battista Tiepolo
source ArtUK

School Children Mainly Learn Opinions

 

Ooo hoo!  This should be a good one!

The Greeks were very concerned about the difference between knowledge and opinion. Plato believed that only knowledge is teachable; right opinion was not teachable because it was not established on reason, and since it had no principles, there was no basis for anything to be demonstrated.

Most of the subjects that children learn in school are right opnion, such as history, geography, etc., compared to geometry which can be rationally taught and learned, and outcomes can be proven based on principles.

Aristotle, however, felt that one man can opine that which the other man knows, one possessing right opinion and the other knowledge about the same thing.  For example, a teacher teaching geometry knows the truth of the Pythagorean Theorem because he has seen the conclusion demonstrated but a student who can only say that it’s true because his teacher said so, only has right opinion of it on the authority of the teacher.

Anyone who argues from authority, holding an opinion or position, he is holding it as a matter of opinion.  (Hold on to your hats for this next quote:)

“And whenever a teacher appeals to his authority to persuade the students to believe something, that teacher isn’t teaching; he’s really only indoctrinating them; he is forming right opinions in their minds.”

Luckman wonders how much, if any knowledge is taught in schools and if it’s even possible to attain knowledge in these institutions.  Alder, while acknowledging that it’s a difficult question, promises to address it by dividing the domain of knowledge from that of opinion.

A School Teacher Explains (1516)
Hans Holbein the Younger
source Wikiart

Opinions Are Accepted Voluntarily

How do we determine the difference between the act of knowing and that of opining? When our compliance is involuntary, caused by the object about which we’re thinking, is knowledge; for example, if someone holds up two apples and then another two apples you are compelled to acknowledge that 2+2=4.  An opinion leaves you free to make up your mind based on authority, your interests, your emotions, your passions, etc. Your opinion is an act of will, which Adler calls wishful thinking, and the emotional content is great; with lack of evidence of facts, one tends to support our opinions with emotions. Adler states schools may teach opinions but they must be substantiated and tested without merely relying on authority or knowledge.  Luckman wants to know of what is taught in school, how much is knowledge and how much is highly probably opinion.

 

Skeptics Deny That We Have Knowledge

Adler responds to Luckman’s question, asserting that there are two answers, one given by the skeptic and the other given by the opponent to the skeptic.  The skeptic believes that we have almost no knowledge, the opponent that we have substantially more knowledge.

The Skeptic

Michel Montaigne represent an extreme of skepticism, stating that everything is a matter of opinion and that man knows nothing.  The illusions of the senses cause us to think we know when in fact, “… we mustn’t be fooled by the feelings which we sometimes have of certainty.”  David Hume exhibits a more moderate skepticism, stating that we do have some knowledge, but it is knowledge based on science and mathematics.  Hume believes that this is the only knowledge of which we’re in possession.  Hume’s famous statement sums up his beliefs:

“If we take in our hand any volume ….. let us ask ‘Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?’, that is, is it a work in mathematics?  Or let us ask, ‘Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matters of fact and existence?’, that is, is it a work in experimental science?  If the answer to both these questions is no, Hume says, ‘Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”

In modern times, we have descended even further into scepticism than Hume.  We question if even mathematics is knowledge based on Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry.

Life’s Illusions (1849)
George Frederick Watts
source Wikiart
Answer To The Skeptic

(ooo, this is good)

Adler first looks at perceptual illusion.  How do we know that there are illusions?  We can only know something as an illusion if “we regard some sense perceptions as accurate,” otherwise we couldn’t categorize others as illusions.  If there are two lines on a paper that look different lengths, but we pick up a ruler and measure each finding that they are the same, we correct an illusory perception.  But if one sees the measurement itself as a perception and not as knowledge, one couldn’t have called the wrong perception an illusion.

With regard to mathematics, the opponent could say that “mathematics is not based only on assumptions but upon axioms, self-evident truths,” as are metaphysics and other branches of philosophical science.

History and experimental science likely fall under the label of highly probable opinion, so perhaps in this case the skeptic and his opponent are in agreement, however experimental science is a type of conditional knowledge, “conditional upon the state of the evidence at a given time.”

One last reply to the skeptic is given, Adler pointing out that even if the extreme skeptic tried to defend his case, he would defeat himself every time because he could not make an argument that did not establish something as knowledge.

 

Religio and Fides (Religion and Faith) [1575-77]
Paolo Vernese
source Wikart
Is Religion A Matter of Opinion?

Luckman still would like Adler to address if religion and matters of faith are knowledge or opinion.  Adler says there are two views of religious faith:

  1. William James asserted that “religious faith is an act of the will to believe and this act of the will to believe takes place when we are beyond the evidence or the evidence is insufficient.”  James believed that faith was strictly opinion.
  2. Thomas Aquinas believed, as James, that faith is an act of will, but unlike James, believed it is an act of will motivated by “the supernatural gift of the grace of God.”  For Aquinas, faith wasn’t knowledge or opinion but somewhere in between.

To expand, Adler quotes Aquinas:

“The intellect assents to a thing in two ways: first, through being moved to assent by its very object which is known either by itself as in the case of first principles or axioms or through something else already known as in the case of demonstrating conclusions.  In either case, you have knowledge, not opinion.  Secondly, the intellect assents to something not through being sufficiently moved to assent by its proper object, but through an act of choice, whereby it voluntarily turns to one side rather than the other.”

If doubt or fear accompany the experience, you have opinion, but if certainly follows, one has faith.  Aquinas continues:  “And this certainty of faith, results from the fact that it is supernatural,” this gift from God, “since man, by assenting to maters of faith, is raised above his nature, this must needs accrue to him for some supernatural principle, moving him inwardly, and this is God.  Therefore faith, as regard to the assent which is the chief act of faith, is from God, moving man inwardly by grace.”

Luckman doesn’t see how Aquinas has proven faith is intermediary, between both knowledge and opinion, rather like both of them, and Adler expands.  Faith is like opinion because it is an act of will (“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”  Hebrews 11:1 NKJV), but it is also knowledge, in that there is a certainty that is even greater than the certainty of ordinary knowledge, but this certainty is based on the supernatural gift of grace.

Next Adler will investigate the problems of opinion in relation to human freedom in Opinion and Human Freedom.

⇐ How To Think About Opinion                              Opinion and Human Freedom ⇒

Herodotus’ The Histories ~ Book III

Posted on by
6

Book III (Thalia)

 

“It was against this Amasis that Cambyses son of Cyrus was preparing to wage war, with an army of his other subjects, including Ionian and Aeolian Hellenes.”

Back to Cambyses, the ruler of the Persians, who was getting ready to attack Egypt. From a number of complex circumstances, Cambyses asked for Amasis, the king of Egypt’s daughter but, not wishing to give his daughter the position of a concubine, Amasis sent a daughter of Apries.  I’m not certain what he was thinking, but of course the daughter exposed Amasis’ ploy, and Cambyses became enraged.  There are other tales about this circumstance, but Herodotus brushes them off with contempt.  At the launching of the campaign against Egypt, a mercenary, Phanes, who was disenfranchised with Amasis, fled to Cambyses while evading capture and revealed Egyptian secrets for a successful offensive. Cambyses was to get permission of the Arabian king to lead his army through Arabian land, as the Egyptians would be expecting them by sea and not by land.  When the two armies met, Amasis was dead and his son, Psammenitos was ruler.  Psammenitos had captured the sons of Phanes, cut their throats over bowls in their father’s sight to pay him for his treachery, and then drank their blood before going into battle.  Quite disgusting, isn’t it?

An interesting tidbit from this battle.  The Egyptian warriors fell on one side of the field and the Persians on the other.  If one examines the skulls of each, the Persian skulls are soft and a small pebble will rupture them, however the Egyptian skulls are so hard, they are difficult to crack with a rock.  Herodotus surmises this is because the Egyptians shave their heads from childhood and the sun thickens the bone; conversely the Persians cover their heads with caps and their heads become soft from the shade. Egyptians also do not go bald; there are fewer bald Egyptians than anywhere else.

A Skull
source ArtUK

After claiming victory over the Egyptians, Cambyses tested the spirit of their conquered king.  He had both Psammenitos’ daughter and son paraded through the street, the former as a slave and the latter to his death along with other prominent children. Although the other fathers wept and lamented, Psammenitos remained silent.  Yet when his former drinking buddy, now a pauper, was paraded before him, Psammenitos sobbed openly.  When questioned, he explained to Cambyses that his family’s misfortune was too dreadful for tears but the beggar had his land taken and fallen into poverty in old age, indeed an affliction worthy of grief.  Impressed by his answer (and Croesus as well, who was with Cambyses), the Persian king pardoned the son of Psammenitos but too late, as he’d already been executed.  If Psammenitos had shown some wisdom, he would have been treated well and left to rule as administrator, but he incited a revolt and was made to drink the blood of a bull, dying soon after.

Slave Market, Cairo (1838)
William James Müller
source ArtUK

Moving on, Cambyses had the corpse of Amasis extracted, then violated it by plucking, stabbing and abusing it.  When it withstood such indecencies, Cambyses had it burned. Stories are told that it was not actually the corpse of Amasis, who had a prophecy beforehand and placed another corpse just inside the door of the tomb, but Herodotus does not believe this story for a moment.

Planning to conquer the Carthaginians, Ammonians and the Ethiopians, Cambyses sent people called the Fish-Eaters to Ethiopia with gifts of a purple robe, a necklace of twisted gold, bracelets, an alabaster pot of perfume, and a jar of Phoenician date-palm wine.  Not to be fooled, the Ethiopians chastized the king, showing contempt for all the gifts except for the wine.  Their censure was strong, berating Cambyses for attempting to send spies and for having set his sights on a country that was not his and for his plans to put their people into slavery.  They returned a bow, saying that when a Persian could draw if as effortlessly as their king, then they should make war, but until then, look elsewhere for their conquests.  When the spies returned with this information, Cambyses was enraged.  He took his army with the intent to crush his enemy, but his troops ran out of food one-fifth of the way and soon began to consume grass and then their pack animals.  When they began to consume each other, Cambyses gave up and returned to Thebes where he found that the part of his army that had set out to subdue the Ammonians had disappeared, some say buried by a tremendous sand storm.  When he arrived back in Memphis, it was the celebration of the epiphany of the god Apis, but the Persian king suspected the people where lauding his embarrassingly ineffectual campaigns and killed everyone who was revelling, while whipping the priests and, stabbing Apis (a calf) in the thigh, killing him.  Already irrational in many of his actions, after this act Cambyses went completely insane.

Women of Phoenicia (1879)
Robert Fowler
source ArtUK

 

First, Cambyses slew his brother, scared that he was going to usurp his throne, then next, one of his two sisters whom he had taken as wives against convention.  Herodotus alludes to Cambyses having “the sacred disease” which is noted as epilepsy.  Next, he directed his insanity toward Prexaspes, his messenger, announcing that he was going to conduct an experiment.  He pointed out Prexaspes’ son standing on the porch and declared if he was able to shoot an arrow through his heart, the Persians were talking nonsense when they declared him insane, but if he missed, the Persians would be telling the truth.  After he shot the boy, he demanded that he be cut open to examine the accuracy of his aim.  Croesus (heavens, this man seems to be everywhere) immediately admonished his behaviour, indicating that if he did not temper it, the Persians might revolt against him whereupon Cambyses tried to shoot him and when he escaped, the king ordered his death.  Yet Croesus had friends who hid him, hoping the king would eventually miss him, which he did, wishing for his return, but upon it he killed the men he had ordered to kill Croesus for their disobedience.  He then desecrated sacred areas, digging up graves and inspecting corpses (Yuck!), which proves to Herodotus that he was absolutely deranged. 

The Final Arrow
Dez Quarréll
source ArtUK

While Cambyses was in Egypt, the Lacedaemonians were warring with Samos and their ruler, Polykrates, to capture the island.  Polykrates’ power had grown so remarkably that it made his ally, king Amasis of Egypt, send him a letter of concern:  no one enjoys complete good fortune so Polykrates must select his most precious possession and dispose of it to balance his fortune, the good with the bad.  Polykrates chooses a precious emerald ring and tosses it into the ocean, but when one of his subjects presents an enormous and beautiful fish to the king, Polykrates finds his ring inside it.  When Amasis read in a letter sent by the king about this surprise, he immediately broke off his alliance so “when severe and dreadful misfortune should finally strike Polykrates, Amasis’ spirit would not be tortured with anguish, as it would be for a friend and ally.”

Hillside, Sparta
Derek Bangham
source ArtUK

Complexities follow, as the Spartans wage war against Polykrates with regard to some Samian exiles for the following reason:  Polykrates had offered Cambyses his troops in his war against Egypt and sent him Samian men who were most likely to revolt against their king, making a pact with Cambyses that they should never return, however the men escaped and sailed back to Samos where they engaged in battle but eventually had to flee to Sparta.  The Spartans agreed to help the Samians since the Samians had helped them once, but they were also irritated about the seizure by the Samians of a breastplate and then a bowl that was supposed to be sent to Croesus.  The Corinthians too had bad feelings toward Samos, for their leader Periandros, had sent 300 sons of Corcyra to be castrated and the Samians gave them sanctuary before returning them to Corcyra. There was ongoing enmity between Corinth and Corcyra and this is why:

After Periandros, king of Corinth, killed his wife Melissa, his two sons were sent to their maternal grandfather and he reveal to them their father’s perfidy.  The younger son, Lykophron, was distraught and refused to utter one word to his father, so Periandros ejected him from the house and he went into exile.  His father, enraged at his behaviour, issued an edict that no one was to give him lodging.  Finally when Lykophron was thin and beggarly, Periandros pleaded for reconciliation, but the boy would not listen and was sent to Corcyra.  More pleading and begging followed but the boy was adamant, although he finally agreed to meet his father in Corcyra, covertly planning to sail to Corinth at the same time, but the Corcyrans did not want Periandros on their land and killed Lykophron instead.  

Samos, Greece
Colin Graham Frederick Hayes
source ArtUK


And so, the Lacedaemonians (Spartans) beseiged Samos for 40 days and then gave up, abandoning the Samian exiles.  More information on these Samians follow and Herodotus reveals that he has given such a length history of them because they achieved three of the greatest engineering feats of the Hellenes: 1) they dug a tunnel through a 900-foot mountain; 2) they built a mole around the harbour in the sea, and; 3) they built the largest of all temples.

Back to Cambyses who had left Smerdis (Guamata), one of two brothers called the Magi, in Persia to govern in his absence, and then finds that he has revolted against him. When this Smerdis had learned that another Smerdis (Bardiya), the son of Cyrus and the brother of Cambyses, had been secretly killed by the advisor of Cambyses, Prexaspes, due to a prophecy, he decided to take this Smerdis’ identity and claim rule as a descendent of Cyrus.  Cambyses, realizing that the prophecy had actually been about this particular Smerdis and not his brother, suddenly became sane in his anguish, but soon died from a spear wound to his thigh that became gangrenous.  The Magi courted Prexaspes to their side, planning to have him announce Smerdis as the son of Cyrus, but instead the advisor revealed the truth and threw himself from the tower, ending his life in honour.  Meanwhile seven Persian men, led by Darius, had also had plans to reveal Smerdis’ status as an imposter.  One of the men’s daughters was a wife of Smerdis and she was to find out whether he had ears or none …… the false Smerdis had had them cut off for an offence by Smerdis, son of Cyrus.  When she found he had none, their plan was put into motion.  They entered the palace and slew both of the Magi, cutting of their heads and then rushed outside with them to proclaim to the Persians the cause of their deeds.  The people were so enraged that they joined in the slaughter of one Magus after another, and to this day there is a celebration day called the Murder of the Magi, where every Magus must stay inside his house.  Otanes, Megabyzos and Darius then argued about the best form of government for Persia to continue under, a democracy, an oligarchy or a monarchy, and the monarchy won out. Darius came up with an amazingly complex and intelligent way of determining their next king: they would ride outside the city at sunrise and the man whose horse made the first noise would be named king.  Brilliant!  ….. Good grief!  One could only hope that Darius did not get chosen, but this man was scheming, if not intelligent, and had his groom trick his horse into neighing first and lo, the kingship was his.  Yikes!  At the same time, thunder and lightning sounded, apparently sealing the decision.  Darius quickly began to organize his empire is a most businesslike way.  Comparing the three Persian rulers, the people say Darius was a retailer and conducted his affairs like a shopkeeper; Cambyses was a master of slaves and harsh and scornful; and Cyrus, a father who was gentle and saw to it that all good things would be theirs.

The Election of Darius (1767-77)
Sawrey Gilpin
source ArtUK

Herodotus goes into detailed accounts of where Darius received his tributes and for how much, then moves to India giving some details of Indian customs.  I can’t wait for your comments when you get to this part, Cirtnecce!  Moving to Arabia, Herodotus talks about vipers and winged serpents and how the Arabians harvest frankincense, having to ward off bat-like creatures.  The harvesting of cinnamon is even more fantastic: huge birds carry the stalks of cinnamon to incorporate into their nests, so the Arabians leave bones of dead donkeys, cattle, etc. under the nests and when the birds take them back, they are so heavy they make the nests crash to the ground and the cinnamon is gathered.  

One of the Persian seven, Intaphrenes, met his death by attempting to see Darius, as per their agreement. When the guards prevented him, he cut off their ears and noses, disturbing Darius who convinced himself Intaphrenes was plotting against him.  He arrested him and his family, but Darius, at the plea of Intaphrenes’ wife, allowed her to release one captive and shockingly she chose her brother, as she could get another husband and children but not another brother.  Pleased with her explanation, Darius released the brother and, as a gift, her eldest son but killed the rest.

A Persian, Oroites, who was the governor of Sardis, lured Polykrates of Samos to Magnesia where he killed him in a most disgusting way and hung him from a stake, fulfilling the nightmares of Polykrates’ daughter.  Yet soon after, Darius sent a man to Sardis who convinced Oroites bodyguards to end his life and thus they did.  

More stories follow telling of Samos, of particular interest how Maiandrios of Samos greeted a Persia envoy led by Orantes, how he allowed his crazy brother, Charilaos, to attack the envoy while he escaped to Lacedaemon.  Maiandrios attempted to dazzle the king of Sparta, Kleomenes, with gifts but the king sensed the danger of his guest and banished him.  Meanwhile, the Babylonians were revolting against poor Darius who, though he tried every trick in the book, including the one by Cyrus (see Book I), could not suppress them.  However, Zopyros’ mule fulfilled a portent that when a mule gave birth, the Persians would take the city, so Zopyros mutilated himself and went to Darius, revealing a plan that included the killing of Darius’ own troops.  Darius agreed and Babylon was taken.  While Cyrus had allowed the city walls and gates to remain intact, Darius destroyed them and killed 3000 of its most important citizens.  However, he was kind enough to bring more wives for those left, as the Babylonians had killed most of theirs so they wouldn’t use up the food.  Zopyros was lauded by Darius all his days.

Babylon Fallen
Gustave Dore
source Wikiart

⇐ Book II (Euterpe)                                                Book IV (Melpomene)⇒

February ~ Baby, It’s Cold ……. or Not ………..

Posted on by
Reply

My new resolution for 2017 is to attempt to journal monthly updates and I almost forgot, only remembering yesterday that it was the last day of the month!  Yikes!

January came and went rather quickly, like a strong breeze coming in one window and whooshing out the other.  Earlier in the month we had unusually cold temperatures for a long time, sometimes dipping to -10 C (14 F) but usually hovering around -3 C (26 F). The lower temperatures were WAAAY too cold and I didn’t want to go out in them, but around -3 C was quite nice.  A huge pond south of us froze so we ended up skating for quite a few days.

Continue reading →

Politics and the English Language by George Orwell

Posted on by
Reply

I haven’t yet read enough of Orwell’s works to decide whether I like him or not, but one thing I have learned in our short acquaintance is that he’s not one to prevaricate or candy-coat his ideas.  If you don’t want his opinions, don’t read him, and if you do, get ready to duck!

Orwell begins his essay, Politics and the English Language, by speculating on the impending collapse of the English Language. Is its demise a mirroring of society’s cultural suicide, simply an innocuous descent that is only natural given the state of our world?  Yet Orwell believes that there is not just a natural cause, but more pointedly, political and economic ones, and even the effects themselves can become causes that reinforce the original cause.  For example:

“A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks.  It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language.  It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to us to have foolish thoughts.”

There is a remedy though: if we clean up our bad habits when applying language to thoughts, our thoughts will become clearer.

A Song Without Words (1919)
John William Godward
source Wikiart

Orwell now gives five writing examples exemplifying problems with how people use language:

  1. an essay by Professor Harold Laski (who uses 5 negatives in 53 words)
  2. a paragraph from Interglossa by Professor Lancelot Hogben (mixed metaphors)
  3. an essay on psychology in Politics (meaninglessness)
  4. a Communist pamphlet (stale phrases)
  5. a letter in the Tribune (words and meaning part company)

The two main problems in all these examples are a “staleness of imagery” and a “lack of precision”.  Modern English prose is ripe with these issues, but they crop up continuously in political writing.   Instead of sticking with concrete thoughts, the abstract creepy in, melting away the valuable meaning of ideas, instead consisting of a stringing together of hackneyed phrases.  He then lists examples of the ways that the adequate construction of prose is habitually avoided.

Dying Metaphors:  These are metaphors between the good and bad, a garbage dump of metaphors that have lost all expressive power and are used only to avoid the trouble of creating new evocative phrases.  Whenever inconsistent phrases are mixed or the original meaning is convoluted, it is evidence that the person is not particularly interested in what they are saying.

Operators of Verbal False Limbs:  Used to avoid choosing correct verbs and nouns but give the appearance of a harmony by expanding the sentence with the use of extra syllables.  Examples of such are: make itself felt, exhibit a tendency to, etc.  In addition, the passive voice is preferred instead of the active, noun constructions are employed instead of gerunds (by examination instead of by examining), verbs are cut down by -ize and de- formations, clichéd statements are presented as intelligent by the not un- formation, clean conjunctions and prepositions are replaced by phrases such as, with respect to, the fact that, etc, and sentence completions are made to sound mundane by such phrases as deserving serious consideration, etc.

Pretentious Diction:  Catch words are used to adorn simple statements to give biased judgements an appearance of scientific authority.  He goes on to describe specific words used in political writings, claiming the result is slovenliness and vagueness, to obscure the real issues.

Meaningless Words:  Passages with a complete dearth of meaning abound in many areas of writing, but principally in art and literary criticism.  Orwell gives a few examples, such as:

“The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far it signifies ‘something not desirable.’  The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another.  In the case of democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides.  It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning.  Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way.  That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.”

In an attempt to show that modern writing does not choose words for meaning nor does it evoke powerful images for clarity, Orwell gives first an example from Ecclesiastes, and then his own modern translation.  His experiment is quite fascinating:

Ecclesiastes:

I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, or yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Modern English:

Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

He then analyzes them to show the weakness of the translation and claims modern writing is lazy, borrowing ideas and phrases and “gumming” them together in order to use minimal mental effort; also there is often an attempt to convey emotional meaning without attention to detail nor the actual point.

Language is Not Transparent
Mel Bochner
source Wikiart

A responsible writer will ask himself the following questions when writing:

What am I trying to say?
What words will express it?
What image or idiom will make it clearer?
Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?
Could I put it more shortly?
Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?

However, Orwell says, most writers are contend to string together cliches, obscuring their meaning even to themselves.

In politics, the writing is particularly dreadful, all the literary mistakes converging and causing the viewers to feel that “one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy,” who is being transformed into a machine by the very words he speaks.  By the constant bombardment of meaningless jargon, people’s consciousness becomes sleepy and allows atrocities to be labelled as pacification, or transfer of population, or elimination of unreliable elements.  This particular phraseology has no metaphor content and therefore images are lacking, allowing the reader/listener to easily dismiss the human connection and thus controlling our emotional response to it.  Inflated euphemisms are used to justify cruelty.

The Treachery of Images (1948)
Rene Magritte
source Wikiart

Yet while thoughts are able to corrupt language, the reverse is also true.  You can catch this impoverished writing, like a disease, and have your mind affected by it.  Orwell admits that in his essay he has committed some of the literary crimes he is attempting to reveal.  The only way to avoid these faults is to continually be on guard against them. We can start by eradicating worn-out phrases and metaphors, but the change must go deeper.  He goes on to explain what these changes do not imply, then gives the reader rules to follow when intuition fails:

  1. Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
  2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
  3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
  4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
  5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
  6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

By applying these rules, one could still write badly, but one could not write the drivel of which he has been speaking or using as examples.  His goal with his essay is not to consider “the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought.”

For:

“Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Young Girl Learning to Write
Camille Corot
source Wikiart

A very powerful essay by Orwell and one that requires time and deep thought to digest. On most points, I agree with him wholeheartedly, but there are a few minor claims that poke at my passion for words.  To use less words that have Greek or Latin roots, seems overly particular.  These words have been in use for centuries and add to the language instead of detracting from it.  And while Orwell didn’t directly say that he takes offence at larger more complex words, the appearance in his examples was to severely diminish them (sorry, if I misread you, George, but that was my impression).  While I certainly do not advocate using complex words to diminish meaning or cloak intent, I do think that they are valuable for enjoyment in reading.  Would one rather have a French seven course dinner, or MacDonald’s?  If one is discerning in the culinary arts, certainly the former.  However, just as the ingredients for the seven course dinner would have to be used with style and attention, so must complex words be, when writing.

My next choice for my Deal Me In Challenge is suppposed to be a children’s classic, The Wolves of Willoughby Chase by Joan Aitken, but I’m having some trouble finding it (yes, those of you who know of my “issue” of losing my DMI choices can laugh at me), so next week might find a different post appearing.  Time shall reveal!

Week 5 – Deal Me In Challenge – Eight of Spades

 

 

Herodotus’ The Histories ~ Book II

Posted on by
10

Book II (Euterpe)

 

“When Cyrus died, the kingship was inherited by Cambyses.”

Upon the death of Cyrus, his son Cambyses took power and immediately led an expedition to Egypt, including the conquered Ionians whom he saw as slaves. Herodotus now falls into a long narrative about Egypt’s land and customs.

Architecture and Art of the great Temple of Karnak
David Roberts
source Wikiart

He claims the Phrygians are the oldest people, citing an experiment done with babies to see what the first word uttered would be, however the Egyptians were the first to discover the year by dividing it into twelve parts and adopt names for the twelve gods. Here begins a lengthy description of the land and terrain, the soil and the flooding of the Nile and its channels.  Herodotus claims the Hellenes have three theories about the Nile’s floods: 1) the Etesian winds cause the flooding, which Herodotus says is ridiculous; 2) the Nile flows from the Ocean and the Ocean surrounds the entire world, which Herodotus states is even more ludicrous, and; 3) the floods are caused by melting snow from Libya which pass through Ethiopia.  The last is the most believable explanation, yet the most erroneous.  Herodotus presents his own theory which has to do with the sun being pushed off course by storms, then in spite of Herodotus’ promise to be brief, he offers a rather complex explanation.

The Nile (1881)
Vasily Polenov
source Wikiart

Next, Herodotus launches into a description of Egyptian customs, claiming they are opposite to the customs of other peoples.  Here are a few for your enjoyment:

 

  • The women go to the market to sell goods, whereas the men stay home and do the weaving.
  • The men carry loads on their heads and the women on their shoulders.
  • Women urinate standing up; men sitting down.
  • They ease themselves (urinate & defacate, I believe he means) inside their houses but eat outside on the streets.
  • Sons do not have to support their parents, but women do.
  • Women cannot be priestesses, only men can be priests
  • They live together with their animals
  • They knead dough with their feet but lift up dung with their hands

….. and so on and so forth.

The Egyptians are pious and Herodotus explains in detail animal sacrifices, then moves on to their understanding of Herakles, which is very different from the understanding of the Hellenes.  In fact, Herodotus proves his dedication for discovering the truth by visiting Tyre in Phoenicia to discover how these people viewed the god, as well as a sojourn in Thaos.  Herodotus finally concludes that the Hellenes myths of Herakles are the most foolish.

The Sanctuary of Hercules (1884)
Arnold Böcklin
source Wikiart

A discussion about where the Hellenes derived the names for their gods follows, and Herodotus is certain most of the names came from barbarians, namely the Egyptians, although Poseidon seems to be borrowed from the Libyans.  As to their origin, Herodotus believes that Hesiod and Homer, who lived no more than 400 years before him (modern scholars believe 200 years before), composed the theogony of the gods along with bestowing them with their attributes, behaviours, skills and descriptions. From there we move to religious rituals and festivals, and the Egyptians care of their animals. Do not intentionally kill an animal or you are sentenced to death.  For the death of a cat, the household will shave its eyebrows, but for the death of a dog they shave their whole body and head.  Many animals get buried in sacred places or tombs.  The crocodile is sacred in some places as is the hippopotamus, and my favourite animal, the otter. Herodotus’s description of the hippopotamus is rather implausible:

” …. it has four feet with cloven hooves like an ox, a blunt snout, a mane like a horse, conspicuous tusks, and a horse’s tail.  It neighs.  It is the size of the largest ox, and its hide is so thick that once it is dried, spear shafts are crafted from it …”

There is a very impolitic footnote stating that obviously Herodotus has never seen a hippopotamus, but honestly who really knows?  I choose to believe him, or at least that he thought he saw one, as later he describes a phoenix but is very careful to reveal that he has never actually seen one.  From this evidence we can conclude that, at the very least, Herodotus is attempting to be accurate and transparent.  In any case, this phoenix carries the body of its father wrapped in an egg of myrrh from Arabia to the sanctuary of Helios when he dies, or so the legend goes.

Hatwell’s Gallopers’: Hippopotamus Hunt
Henry Whiting
source ArtUK

After, Herodotus discusses various themes such as fish, methods of embalming, Egyptian boats, and then begins to share some Egyptian history.  Priests told him that the first Egyptian king was named Min who founded the city of Memphis and dammed the Nile.  After him, 330 kings followed which included one Ethiopian and one woman (Nitokris – different than the Babylonian Nitokris of Book I) who avenged her brother by locking his numerous murderers in a chamber and drowning them before throwing herself into a chamber of ashes to escape retribution.  However, the Egyptians claim these kings were more or less useless except for the last, Moeris (king Amenemhet), who produced a memorial to himself and excavated a lake.  King Sesostris, who came after, marched all over Asia erecting pillars to commemorate his victories and would put on them the genitals of a woman for those whom he thought cowardly.  When his brother plotted his murder, Sesostris used two of his six children as a bridge to cross a flaming pyre, burning them up, and in this way, escaped with the rest of his family.  His son, Pheros, ruled Egypt after him and then came Proteus, with whom Helen and Paris stayed.  Herodotus calls into question Homer’s account of the Trojan War stating in his opinion that Helen was in Egypt the whole time of the war.  After all:

” … considering that if Helen had been in Troy, the Trojans would certainly have returned her to the Hellenes, whether Alexandros (Paris) concurred or not.  For neither Priam nor his kin could have been so demented that they would have willingly endangered their own persons, their children, and their city just so that Alexandros could have Helen.”

 

Thebes Colosseums, Memnon and Sesostris (1856)
Jean-Leon Gerome
source Wikiart

After Proteus, Rhampsinitos assumed kingship, amassing great amounts of silver for which he built a great vault.  But the builder made a secret entrance which he told to his sons upon his death and they began to borrow from the king.  The king discovered the theft and laid traps for the robbers whereupon one of them was caught, but he convinced his brother to behead him so their identity would not be discovered.  The king then took the headless body and hung it as bait but, upon the urging of his mother, the thief made the guards drunk and stole it.  The king then set his daughter up as bait in a brothel to attempt to identify the robber (Herodotus expresses his disbelief at the veractiy of this account), but although the thief confessed his sin while enjoying the daughter’s favours, he offered the arm of a corpse he had brought along with him when she tried to grab him, and once more eluded capture.  So impressed, the king pardoned the man and gave him his daughter in marriage, then King Rhampsinitos descended to Hades to play dice with Demeter. (Yes, seriously!)

While Egypt prospered under Rhampsinitos, the next king, Cheops (Khufu), laid the people under bondage, forcing the people to do labour for him, hauling stones to build causeways and his great pyramid.  His brother, Chephren (Kafre), was not much better and built his pyramid of coloured Ethiopian stone, however, his son, Mykerinos (Menkaure), disliked his father’s policies and enacted change.  He is liked more than any other king but at times his leniency caused him great trouble.  After sexually abusing his daughter who killed herself, an oracle told him that he only had 6 years left to live, therefore he stayed awake twice as long and extended his life to 12 years.  Asychis followed, who built his pyramid of bricks, then a blind king, Anysis, who fled the Ethiopian king who took over, who then fled himself after a dream, whereupon Anysis returned. The Egyptians believe that before the kings, the gods ruled over Egypt.

 

Great Pyramid of Giza
source Wikipedia

After Ethiopian rule, they divided the kingdom into twelve districts and kings ruled each, forming alliances but promising not to depose each other.  To commemorate them all, they had a marvellous labyrinth constructed that Herodotus claims eclipses the pyramids themselves and he would know as he was shown the upper chambers although denied the lower ones.  Yet even with their pact for peace, a mistake brought about dissent. While meeting together, only 11 golden cups were brought out for libation and Psammetichos had to use his helmet.  A horrified hush came over the rest of the kings as they realized the oracles proclamation was coming true: that the one who drank from a bronze vessel would reign over all the kingdoms.  They decided to exile instead of kill him but Psammetichos returned and with the help of the Ionians and Carians, became sole ruler of the kingdoms.  Nechos, the son of Psammetichos, reigned after, constructing a canal and leading military campaigns, before his son, Psammis took over, followed by his son, Apries.  Due to a failed military campaign, the people blamed his poor leadership and Apries had to send an envoy, Amasis, to quiet them, however they crowned Amasis king, so Apries sent Patarbemis to fetch his disloyal envoy.  Amasis (Ahmose II) refused to return, but Patarbemis was able to determine his intent to attack the king.  However, upon return, Apries was so furious that Patarbemis had returned empty-handed, he seized him to cut off his ears and nose before the man could relate his discovery.  Amasis with his foreign army of the Ionians and Carians who had settled in the land, met Apries’ Egyptian army in battle and Apries was eventually captured. Amasis treated him well, however, yet the citizens complained and Amasis turned him over to them at their request, whereupon they strangled and buried him.

Amasis II
source Wikipedia

The people at first despised Amasis because he was merely a common man, but Amasis won them over.  Yet he was not a serious man and enjoyed drinking with his friends.  Concerned about his reputation, his close friends and family admonished him but Amasis answered:

“When archers need to use their bows, they string them tightly, but when they have finished using them, they relax them.  For if a bow remained tightly strung all the time, it would snap and be of no use when someone needed it.  The same principle applies to the daily routine of a human being: if someone wants to work seriously all the time and not let himself ease off for his share of play, he will go insane without even knowing it, or at the least suffer a stroke.  And it is because I recognize this maxim that I allot a share of my time to each aspect of life.”

Egypt prospered under Amasis and he was also friendly to the Hellenes.

⇐  Book I (Clio)                                                                                Book III (Thalia) ⇒

The Tanglewoods’ Secret by Patricia St. John

Posted on by
Reply

“Philip and I lived with our Aunt Margaret in a white house on the side of a hill.”

Philip and Ruth reside with their aunt and uncle while their parents are away.  While Philip is a responsible and thoughtful eleven year old, Ruth, at nine, is impulsive, adventurous and sports a fiery temper.  Her relationship with her aunt is tenuously cordial and often she is disciplined due to some tantrum or neglected chore.  On one of the children’s daily rambles, they meet a poor boy named Terry who knows everything about their favourite pastime, birdwatching, and the three spend some lovely days together.

A chance meeting with Mr. Tandy, a shepherd looking for his lost lamb, gives Ruth a glimpse of the Good Shepherd.  Slowly her perceptions change and she begins to see not only her behaviour in a new light, but those around her.  A new-found grace and understanding pervades her soul, yet Ruth carefully guards this precious secret.  Yet when tragedy strikes and Ruth wonders why the Good Shepherd can’t put things aright if he truly does love them, she finds that her secret is one that needs to be shared.

The Good Shepherd
Frederick James Shields
source ArtUK

This was a lovely, simple little book that demonstrates how the grace of God can change even the most selfish of hearts, and how disinterested selflessness can alter those around us, enacting a tangible transformation within community.

Apparently, the edition of the book I read is a sanitized version that was printed to simplify the language for modern readers.  Blah!  I’d now like to get my hands on the original text.  I’d imagine that the story would be more rich and meaningful without being dumbed down for today’s audience.

Curiously, next week, I’ll be reading George Orwell’s essay, Politics and the English Language, which will address the dumbing down of the English language. Stay tuned!

Week 4 – Deal Me In Challenge – Six of Hearts

 

 

The Comedy of Errors by William Shakespeare

Posted on by
Reply

“A wretched soul, bruised with adversity,
We bid be quiet when we heart it cry.
But were we burdened with like weight of pain,
As much or more we should ourselves complain.”

In a quest to focus on my Shakespeare Project for 2017, I’m reading through some of the plays following the schedule of the A Bard a Month group on Goodreads.  They have The Comedy of Errors listed as the first play of Williams Shakespeare yet my The Life and Works of William Shakespeare has it listed as the 5th.  From the evidence, the only thing that’s certain is that no one knows for sure, right?  In any case, it definitely shows in its structure and method a rather simple presentation of a budding farce that nevertheless manages to capture the audience’s interest and tickle their humour.

Continue reading →

Le Horla by Guy de Maupassant

Posted on by
Reply

“What a wonderful day! – Quelle journée admirable!”

What a lovely start to the story.  The narrator describes himself reclining on the lush grass of his yard under a gorgeous plane tree.  He loves his house and the region of his forebearers close to Rouen. The Seine flows lazily alongside his garden and in early afternoon he spots a parade of ships drawn by a tugboat, including an impressive Brazilian three-mast ship, gleaming white and he is filled with such joy at the sight that he salutes the magnificent vessel.

Continue reading →

Herodotus’ The Histories – Book I

Posted on by
21

 

Book I (Clio)

 

“Herodotus of Halicarnassus here presents his research so that human events do not fade with time.  May the great and wonderful deeds — some brought forth by the Hellenes, others by the barbarians — not go unsung; as well as the causes that led them to make war on each other.”

Immediately Herodotus establishes who he is, that he is conducting an inquiry into events, and that he is an unbiased observer, treating both the Hellenes and barbarians alike, lauding each of their deeds.

He goes on to deal with the cause of the enmity between them:  according to the Persians, those dratted Phoenicians started it all.  They sailed to Argos and kidnapped some women, Io, the daughter of the king being one of them, and that is how she arrived in Egypt.  This version is vastly different than the Io version told by Ovid in his Metamorphoses.  In retaliation, the Hellenes then kidnapped the king’s daughter, Europa, from the Phoenician city of Tyre, again a different version from Ovid’s recounting of Europa’s kidnapping.  Yet not being satisfied with one kidnapping, the Hellenes set out again, this time absconding with the king of Colchis’ daughter, Medea. Now, when Paris, the son of Priam, heard about these kidnappings, he thought nothing of stealing Helen.  Even though the Hellenes were seen as the aggressors who began the hostilities, the Persians thought it plain silly to be so concerned about these women, as they would not have been kidnapped unless they were willing.  Well, okay …..  But to add another twist, the Phoenicians disagree with the Persians, saying that Io had relations with the captain of the Phoenician ship and had to sail away to hide her pregnancy.  Heredotus will not say either way who was right, but he does know the first man to commit unjust acts towards the Hellenes …..

The Abduction of Helen (c.1740-60)
Johann Georg Platzer
source ArtUK

Croesus of Lydia was the first man to subjugate the Hellenes and his rule passed to Kandaules.  Now, Kandaules had a beautiful wife and he insisted on showing her, in all her nakedness, to his servant, Gyges, so he would confirm her loveliness.  Gyges is appalled, but what can he do?  He is told not to allow the queen to know that he has seen her naked, but she spies him slipping out the door and plots her revenge. Confronting Gyges, she says he must either slay Kandaules and become king, or die immediately.  Gyges chooses the former, dedicating much silver as an offering to Delphi, and therefore is able to invade Smyrna and Miletus. Thus runs a list of Lydian rulers and their deeds.

The Imprudence of Candaules (1830)
William Etty
source Wikipedia

Croesus, the son of Alyattes, attacked the Ephesians, the first of the Hellenes to be assailed.  He subdued city-state after city-state: the Lydians, Phrygians, Mysians, Carians, Ionians, Dorians, Aeolians, etc, etc.  At the pinnacle of his wealth, a man named Solon arrived in Sardis with many wise men of Hellas.  He had effected laws for the Athenians at their invitation, then travelled for the ten years the laws were in place so as not to be convinced to repeal any of them.  Croesus was curious as to who was the happiest and most prosperous man in the world, expecting the answer to be him, but Solon frustrated his expectations by naming two others.  When Croesus challenged his answers, he replied that to be considered for this title, it must be judged how a man ends his life; until then he can only be called “lucky”.  Croesus disparaged Solon’s wisdom and was sent a dream that his son, Aryes, would die by an iron spear.  He, with hesitation, allows his son to go on a boar hunt, commissioning Adastos, a slave who he had rescued, to ensure his safety.  Ironically, Adastos accidentally kills Aryes with his spear throw and though Croesus pardons Adastos, the slave kills himself on the tomb of Aryes.

Croesus Showing Solon His Riches (1655)
Casper Casteleyn
source ArtUK

Herodotus relates more stories about Croesus and his ancestors, then returns to the worry of Persia and their possible aggression.  Croesus sends a delegation to Delphi where the god, Apollo, returns his answer, advising him to ally himself with Sparta, and Croesus understands this to mean victory. Finally, he and his Lydian army meet the Persians, led by Cyrus, at Sardis, but the Persians are victorious and Croesus is taken prisoner.  On his pyre, when Croesus recounts the words of Solon, Cyrus has a change of heart and commands his release, but the fire is already raging and only an unexpected storm of rain in answer to Croesus’ prayer to Apollo saves him.  Now friends with Cyrus, Croesus instructs him how to stop the plundering of his city and therefore rescue his army from corruption, then requests the right to question the oracle on his mistaken prophecies, yet he learns that he is the one who had misunderstood and accepts blame.

Priestess of Delphi (1891)
John Collier
source Wikiart

Thus runs more Lydian history and moves to the birth of Cyrus, whose grandfather plotted his death at his birth because of dreams he’d interpreted of Cyrus’ overthrow of him:  Grandfather Astyages discovered that Harpagos, his servant, disobeyed his orders to kill the boy (instead giving him to a herdsman to kill who ended up raising him as his own) under the guise of friendship he gets Harpagos to send him his son, and then serves his son for dinner to the father.  Harpagos unknowingly eats his son, and then all is revealed when Astyages has the son’s head, hands and feet brought in.  This was not a good decision, for, when the wisemen or Magi reveal to Astyages that Cyrus is no longer a problem to his rule and his grandfather allows Cyrus to live in Persia, Harpagos stirs up dissent among the populous who already dislike Astyages’ cruel reign.  The servant contacts Cyrus in Persia and Cyrus raises an army, who defeat the Medes who were not dedicated to fight for their despised leader.  This is how Cyrus became king and later deposed Croesus to rule all of Asia.

King Astyages of Media Orders Harpagos to Kill Young Cyrus (late 18th century)
Jean Charles Nicaise Perrin
source Wikimedia Commons

Herodotus now launches into a monologue of the customs of the Persians.  Fascinating to learn that the Persians will not vomit or urinate in front of anyone.  Good to know. Our sensibilities are all safe.  Fortunately, although they will make business decisions while drunk, they will reconsider the decisions the next day when they’re sober. Strangely though, the decisions they make when they are sober, they will also evaluate while they are drunk.

The Persian (1902)
Vasily Surikov
source Wikiart

Then we swing back to Cyrus: after he conquered the Lydians, the Ionians and Aeolians sent messages asking to be subject to his rule, but since they did not band with him is his battle with Lydia, Cyrus refuses.  Then follows a history of the Ionians, Dorians, etc.  It appears that although these areas are located on the coastline of Asia Minor, the peoples migrated from the Greek city-states, and in fact, Athens is considered an Ionian city although it does not like to be referred to as such.  Halicarnassus, the birthplace of Herodotus (although he does not mention that fact) used to be the sixth Dorian city but now there are only five.

Cyrus not only conquers the Lydians, but conquers all the Ionian coast and we are given more history of the surrounding area.  Next, Cyrus plans to advance on Assyria, and its city of Bablyon is described, including two queens that ruled it, Semiramis and Nitokris. Nitokris is particularly interesting as she made many clever improvements in infrastructure.  She built her tomb in “mid-air” above one of the city gates, saying that if ever a future king was in need of money, he need only open her tomb, but warned that it should only be opened in dire need.  No king dared disturb the tomb until Darius came to power, but instead of money he found a note:

“You would not open up the grave of the dead if you were not so insatiable and shamefully greedy.”

Back to Cyrus who went to war against the son of Nitokris, but before he reached Babylon, he was offended by the River Gyndes that swallowed one of his horses (yes, that’s right, a river) and he spent the whole summer dividing his army in work to destroy it, dividing the river into 360 channels.  Rather childish of him but I suppose he was quite enraged.  Then in spring he marched on Babylon.  He defeated the Babylonian army outside of the city, but many men returned to the city with great stockpiles of food, and Cyrus found himself at an impass.  However, with great guile, he diverted the Euphrates where it entered Babylon, and attacked by the riverbed, taking the inhabitants by surprise and conquering the city.  Herodotus now describes the Babylonian crops and their enormous yields, their boats, their shoes, and their means of marrying off their daughters in an auction for money but if the couple cannot get along, the money is repaid and supposedly the girl returned.  Sadly however, since the Persian capture, the Babylonians are impoverished and prostitute their daughters.  A fascinating custom is that instead of doctors, they carry the sick person to the square and allow others to advise him, very helpful if someone else has had the same sickness and knows of a cure.  Herodotus says that their most disgusting custom is that once per year every woman must sit in the sanctuary of Aphrodite and have intercourse with a stranger.

 

Cyrus the Great’s Siege of Babylon (1819)
John Martin
source Wikimedia Commons

Cyrus now turned his battle-filled eyes to Massagetai which at this time was ruled by a woman named Tomyris.  Refusing his proposal of marriage, seeing it for what it was, she suggested that he return to rule his people and allow her to rule hers, but if he insisted on battle, either come into her territory or let her come onto his.  The generals of Cyrus suggest that they allow Tomyris onto Persian territory but Croesus convinces Cyrus otherwise.  After having a dream that Darius is plotting his overthrow (which is really an omen of his death), the two sides battle and eventually Cyrus is killed.  Tomyris defiles the corpse by placing his head in a wineskin filled with blood.

Head of Cyrus Brought to Queen Tomyris (1622-23)
Peter Paul Ruebens
source Wikiart