Category Archives: People

St Patrick’s Day is celebrated, often riotously, around the world and is popular among both Irish and non-Irish. Yet many are unaware of the dramatic life of this Christian saint who was also a Roman citizen. Fewer still are aware of his importance not only for Irish, but also European history.

We know a great deal about the life of Saint Patrick. His original name was Magonus Saccatus Patricius, and he was born in the 4^th or 5^th century AD in Roman Britain. His family was a member of the Romanized elite; his father may have been a decurion, or possibly a priest, and his mother was allegedly a niece of the Christian saint, Martin of Tours. Patrick was well-educated for the time. There are two surviving Latin works attributed to him: the Confessio (Declaration) and the Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus.

According to the Confessio, he was abducted by Irish pirates when he was 16. He was taken to Armagh, now in Northern Ireland, and was made to herd animals. For six years he lived alone in the valley and mountains, and suffered all kinds of deprivations and cruelties. In the wilderness his faith grew, and one night he heard a voice urging him to escape. He made his way to what is now Wexford, and persuaded a ship’s captain to take him back to Britain. Patrick eventually made his way back to his family, who were astonished that he survived his ordeal.

One night Patrick dreamt of a man he had known in Ireland by the name of Victoranius, who begged him to convert the Irish to Christianity. After some soul-searching, and despite his family’s opposition, Patrick moved to Gaul (France). After years of study at Auxerre, he was ordained as a bishop.

Patrick returned to Ireland and landed in the south-east in 423 AD, but he was not welcomed. He moved north to where he had once been enslaved, and slowly began to gather followers. It should be noted that Patrick was not the first Christian missionary in Ireland, and that there were already Christians on the island. His style of preaching, however, made the teachings of Christ understandable to the ordinary people. In particular, he was able to reconcile the doctrine of the Trinity with the Celtic concept of a deity with a triple aspect. Patrick explained the complex theological concept of the Trinity (that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate entities yet also one) by using the three leaved shamrock. This is why today the shamrock is one of the national symbols of Ireland.

Ireland’s traditional Celtic religion was entrenched in Irish society. Patrick was able to convert the Irish not only with his words, but with his deeds. Later sources in particular stress that Patrick was a miracle worker. One of the most popular stories was that he expelled the snakes from Ireland. This was highly unlikely, and it may symbolically represent the expulsion of the pagans from the island. Many of his best-known miracles related to his contest with the Druids, the learned class who were the guardians of Celtic learning and religious practices. Patrick is shown as contending with the Druids several times at Tara, the stronghold of powerful kings, often regarded as the High-Kings of Ireland. In one account, a Druid tried to turn the king against Patrick. He simply prayed and had the man lifted into the air before he was cast down to his death. Another story relates that Patrick visited an unnamed town where he was confronted by Druids who would not allow him to enter. The bishop blessed the ground and the Druids disappeared under ground, never to be seen again. These tales of miraculous struggles with Druids should be understood to symbolically illustrate the contest between the old Celtic religion and the new religion for the allegiance of the Irish.

Patrick travelled all over the island of Ireland, and he founded many Churches and monasteries. He helped to codify the traditional Brehon law and to an extent Christianized it. Patrick was careful to respect many ancient traditions. This is evident in the fact that he converted many ancient religious sites such as Croagh Patrick for the use of Christians. One of the reasons why Patrick was so successful was that, unlike many other missionaries, he collaborated with women. This is evident in his work with St. Brigid, who was in many ways his successor, as she continued Patrick’s work after his death. Women were included in the Church hierarchy established by the saint, and this reflected the role of women in Celtic society. Patrick retired after he established Armagh as the ecclesiastical center of Ireland, which it remains to this day.

Patrick transformed Ireland into a Christian society, but one that retained many of its Celtic characteristics. The Church that he founded in Ireland is often known as the Celtic Church because of its differences in organization and hierarchy from the orthodox Roman Church. Patrick’s mission was to lead to a cultural and religious flourishing on the island which is often referred to as a Golden Age; Ireland became known as ‘the land of saints and scholars’. The monasteries of Ireland became centres of learning, and helped to preserve the legacy of the classical world, particularly after the fall of Rome. This included works by the like of Homer and Aristotle. Irish missionaries helped to Christianize Scotland and other parts of Northern Europe. Celtic Art also flourished at this time in the monastic centres, and works such as the Book of Kells were produced. These cultural and religious achievements were a direct result of the missionary work of Patrick.

St Patrick was perhaps the single most important person in Irish history, even though he was not Irish!  He established Christianity on the island, and this led to the creation of a new society and culture. One that Christianized other parts of Northern Europe, and helped to preserve the learning and knowledge of ancient Rome and Greece. 

Cahill, T. (1995) How the Irish Saved Civilization. New York: Doubleday.

Bury, John Bagnell (1905). Life of St. Patrick and His Place in History. London: Macmillan.

Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BC – AD 65), Lucius Annaeus Seneca was a (very rich) Roman Stoic philosopher, statesman, and dramatist. He was born in Cordoba in Hispania, and raised in Rome, where he was trained in rhetoric and philosophy (mostly with teachers from the short-lived School of the Sextii, which combined Stoicism with Pythagoreanism).

Interestingly, Seneca’s life and fame really began with his exile. Miriam Griffin says in her biography of Seneca that “the evidence for Seneca’s life before his exile in 41 is so slight, and the potential interest of these years, for social history as well as for biography, is so great that few writers on Seneca have resisted the temptation to eke out knowledge with imagination.”

But what about his exile? It all began when Claudius became emperor in 41 AD. The new empress Messalina accused Seneca of adultery with Julia Livilla, sister to Caligula and Agrippina. Whether the affair actually took place or not is unknown. Indeed, many are dubious of the accusation because Messalina had clear political motives for getting rid of Julia Livilla and her supporters. Seneca was sentenced to death by the Senate, but fortunately for both us and Seneca, Claudius commuted the sentence to mere exile.

Consequently, Seneca spent the next eight years on the island of Corsica, where he wrote two of his earliest surviving works: Consolation to Helvia and Consolation to Polybius. The former was to his poor mother who mourned his exile as if it were his death, and being the good son he was, he tried to console her about the shocking turn of events. The latter, while also a consolation letter, is more known for its flattery of the emperor, which Seneca wrote in the hope that Claudius would recall him from exile.

This finally came to fruition when Agrippina married her uncle Claudius in 49 AD. Through her influence Seneca was allowed to return to Rome, where he gained the praetorship and was given the additional and very important role as tutor to Agrippina’s son, the future emperor Nero.

From AD 54 to 62, Seneca acted as Nero’s advisor, and was appointed suffect consul in 56. Seneca’s influence was said to have been especially strong in the first year, and subsequently Tacitus and Cassius Dio suggest that Nero’s early rule was quite competent. Sadly this did not last.

Ironically, Seneca ensured the exile of consul Publius Suillius Rufus in 58 AD after Sullius had made a series of public attacks on Seneca. In response, Seneca prosecuted Sullius for corruption and half of his estate was confiscated and he was sent into exile.

Seneca’s story does not end well. In AD 65, Gaius Calpurnius Piso, conspired to assassinate Nero, and somehow Seneca was implicated as complicite. While it is unlikely he was involved, Nero nonetheless ordered Seneca to kill himself.

Seneca choose a traditional suicide of bleeding to death. Both Cassius Dio and Tacitus wrote accounts of the event. Cassius Dio, who wished to emphasize the relentlessness of Nero, focused on how Seneca had attended to his last-minute letters before following the tradition of severing his veins, while Tacitius romanticized the events, writing:

“He was then carried into a bath, with the steam of which he was suffocated, and he was burnt without any of the usual funeral rites. So he had directed in a codicil of his will, even when in the height of his wealth and power he was thinking of life’s close.” 

However he died, it was considered a truly stoic death.

Long before Herodotus fathered History and did his best to chronicle the past deeds of humankind, the true recorders of men and Gods were the ancient Greek poets, one of which was Hesiod.

Even though the exact time of his life is unknown, Herodotus’ estimation puts him (as well as Homer) around 400 years before Herodotus’ time, at circa 8th or 7th century BC.

It is hard to know the precise facts of Hesiod’s life, except what we know from his works. As such, we will delve into the poet of Agriculture and Peace through three important figures related to him.

First one is his father, Dius. A native of Cyme in Aeolis (modern day western Turkey), Dius was a seafaring trader and farmer, and generally a poor man. He was forced to leave his native place and move to continental Greece, settling at Ascra near Thespiae in Boeotia (as explained by Hesiod in his “Works and Days“). Dius had two sons, Hesiod, our poet, and Perses, a loafer and prodigal descendant of a hardworking father. After their father died, his land was divided between the sons, but Perses kept the larger share by bribing the corrupt rulers of Thespiae.

It will be easy then to understand why Hesiod’s “Works and Days” revolved around not only myths and legends, but also two major moral precepts. Those are that labor is a universal virtue of Man and that he who is willing to work will always get by, both notions highly valued by the ancients. “Works and Days” also underlines advice and wisdom, emphasizing a life of honest labor, attacking laziness, corrupt rulers and the practice of injustice.

“Works and Days” also lays out the “Five Ages of Man”, the first extant account of the successive ages of mankind. At this point, we start noticing Hesiod’s didactic approach to poetry, chronology, and to an extent, history. The latter of which was, in comparison to Homer’s romanticized versions of past events, respected.

This method was later classified as the Boeotian School of epic poetry. And it was the reason, according to the historian Herodotus, why Hesiod’s retelling of the old stories in “Theogony” became, in spite of all the various different historical traditions, the definitive and accepted version that linked all Greeks in ancient times.

Homer is the third important figure of Hesiod’s, not life, but heritage. If Homer was Dr. Dre, Hesiod was Ice Cube. Homer was all about his poems. He added drama and huge characters, all while romanticizing ancient Greece to the point that every other poet wanted to do the same, with equal effect and celebrated consequences.

Hesiod, modest as he was, talked of ordinary life, the morality of human life, just systems and chronological order of events. Even at the moment of winning the tripod at the contest in Chalcis, Euboea, Hesiod only mentions in “Works and Days” that the only time he sailed in a ship was when he went from Aulis to Chalcis to take part in the funeral games for Amphidamas, a noble of Chalcis. Hesiod there was victorious and he dedicated the prize, a bronze tripod, to the Muses at Helicon. There was no mention of Homer.

But to realize how important both of these poets were to ancient Greece, one must look at the Legend of Certamen. It was a contest of wit and wisdom between Homer and Hesiod, where the latter emerged as the greatest. Even though there is no proof they even met each other, let alone confronted each other poetically at a contest, the fact that the legend exists is meaningful. Moreover, it is important to note why Hesiod was victorious at that apocryphal battle; his work on agriculture and peace is pronounced as more valuable than Homer’s tales of war and slaughter. And then and there, even if it was just a legend, the mic, or in this case the tripod, dropped.

The third important figure known to be part of Hesiod’s biography is a woman. She was not the Muses of Helicon, the ones who inspired all of his works. It was also not the Pythia, the Delphic Oracle, priestess of Apollo, who warned warned Hesiod that he would die in Nemea, which caused him to flee to Locris where he was killed at the local temple to Nemean Zeus, and probably buried there. The fourth figure is the woman he fell in love with, seduced, and eventually was murdered by her brothers as a result. His body, cast into the sea was brought to the shore by dolphins and buried at Oenoe.

Here, we will end the story of Hesiod with a description of his final moments, an epigram by Alcaeus of Messene:

It’s one of the earliest concepts in Greek philosophy.

The arche was first conceived of over 2,500 years ago. While it is hardly scientific, it is still relevant to how we perceive our existence today. It is an elemental life force from which all things emerge, and essentially early philosophy’s answer to the question of what is the true “beginning” of things. It was a major area of concern for the Pre-Socratic philosophers, who spent lot of effort deciding which element was deserving enough to be called the arche and why. The concept of the arche is deeply linked to monism, the belief that all of the universe is made of a single element. Different Pre-Socratics each came to their own conclusions about what exactly this fundamental substance could be. Let’s have a look…

Thales of Miletus, the earliest Greek philosopher, thought the arche to be water, since many things float in water. This was a particularly compelling point, as in ancient times land was believed to float in water as well. Though since disproven, the idea of water as arche was nevertheless intuitive; a certain degree of moisture is always present in food, the air, and ourselves. Life cannot exist without it.

Anaximenes identified air as the arche. Air, he stated, could be modified to create water through condensation, fire through rarefication, and (somewhat less credibly) even earth and stone through further condensation. Given that people breathe much more often than during other voluntary activities—and that people die the fastest when deprived of air—their inextricable link to the substance they breathe informs this choice of arche. Air is essential to life, making it a natural pick for philosophers trying to find the most basic life-giving principle.

That many species breathe air is indisputable, and breathing could be understood as the most basic activity of living. Breathing makes consciousness possible, makes energy, eating, drinking water, and hygienic activities possible. If we rest the world only on human shoulders, this might be the most fitting arche selection

Taking a different approach from Thales (his teacher) and Anaximenes (his student), Anaximander argued that the arche was the apeiron: often translated as indefinite, or as humans understand it, the great unknown. Water could not work, he claimed, because it could not produce fire, its opposite element. Extrapolating this to the other elements, he found that no element could work in creating its opposite in a world where all four were present. Therefore, for his first principle Anaximander turned to the great unknown, from which humans originate and where eventually they will return.

Anaximander’s wisdom comes in endorsing an arche that is difficult to prove or disprove, by virtue of the unknown contained in the great unknown. Humans’ lack of knowledge regarding existence before birth and after death make this quite a palatable theory. One thrills at all of the possibilities: reincarnation, naturalism (the belief that humans return to a state of nothingness when they die), or the religious concept of heaven, among countless others. Life limits people’s observations, and any experience outside the lifespan can be argued for but not proven. By identifying the arche as the indefinite, Anaximander ascribed to the world the following qualities: temporal, changeable, and vast, much like the human lifespan. Yet the indefinite seems to reach beyond humanity, as well—little can escape the unknown—and is objective enough to nominate the best, widest-reaching arche choice of the Milesians.

Each of these ideas is compelling, but they all have their limitations. Perhaps the problem is not with the concept of the arche, but with a strict understanding of monism. Yet a different approach is possible. The key is understanding that priority monism argues that the world is the sum of its parts; each part is dependent on other parts and the overall whole. Fire, water, earth, air, the unknown: any combination of these is present in everyday living. Fire and water mean food, which nourishes in a way it could not if these elements were acting separately. Add water to earth and plants grow. Combine the unknown with any element in a scientific experiment, and with luck and skill new knowledge is revealed.

Each combination is stronger and has more variation than a singular use, and is at its most powerful with all parts acting simultaneously. Thales, Anaximenes, and Anaximander may be ancient philosophers, but their ideas can still be experienced today through simple appreciation of the elements and the unknown—and how all these enhance lives, especially in combination.

Part One can be found HERE.

Alexander the Great was one of the greatest conquerors the world has ever known. Yet he died young, at the age of 32. What exactly caused his shocking, premature death? The main theories are below….

The leading and most widely accepted theory is death by malaria of typhoid fever. Typhoid fever and malaria were especially rife throughout the ancient world, so it is understandable why experts are quick to assume that typhoid took him – especially since he had travelled through swampy, stagnant water and muddy terrain just a few days before.

However, the ‘smoking gun’ of the typhoid/malaria theory comes from the Alexander Romance a dramatic account of the life and times of Alexander the Great that was composed in 338 BC, shortly after his death.

The romance describes Alexander writhing about with severe abdominale pain shortly before his death, which gives credence to the theory – however, there are some problems with the source.

Although the Romance is based on Alexanders’ life, it is a work of fiction. Not to mention the dozens of translations that the work has undergone over the past two centuries which has led to a variety of different works all derived from the original – so there is certainly some room for doubt.

Who would have cause to murder Alexander the Great? Quite a lot of people it seems. Many theorize that one of his wives, his generals, his half brother or even the royal cup bearer slipped Alexander some poison during the great feast at Babylon. However, suspicion mostly falls on Alexanders hosts – the Babylonians themselves.

Shortly after his arrival, an unusual incident took place in the Babylonian Royal Palace that was recorded by authors who were present in Babylon at the time: Cleitarchus, Aristobulus, and Ptolemy.

On that fateful day, Alexander left the palace to get a massage (or inspect troops, or to exercise, depending on the source). During his absence, an escaped prisoner entered the throne room, sat on Alexanders’ throne, and crowned himself with a diadem.

When apprehended and asked what he thought he was doing and how he escaped, the stranger insisted that he had been released by ‘a supreme God’. Alexander’s advisers insisted the man be put to death immediately, as the act of a stranger sitting on one’s throne was a bad omen.

Alexander was undoubtedly troubled by the incident, perhaps even recalling the prior warnings he had received. He began to grow distrustful of those around him. Allegedly he lost faith in all the gods, and become severely depressed and inconsolable.

Although each account differs slightly in details, all three agree that a stranger entered the palace, crowned himself, and was later executed.

Only one account records the prisoner as having been ‘freed by a supreme God’ which points to the clergy of Marduk, the Chaldaean astrologers.

Greek philosophers reported that the Babylonian priests had ‘strange rituals’ which, incidentally, included a ritual called ‘the substitute king’ whereby someone with a mental disability or a prisoner was placed on the throne during an eclipse to protect the true ruler from misfortune or bad omens.

The unfortunate substitute would be removed once the eclipse passed and executed.

But did Babylonians have a motive? According to one source, they did.

According to the Greek philosopher and biographer of Alexander, Arrian of Nicomedia, the Chaldaeans embezzled the money for the Etemenanki temple project and there was no money left for the new ziggurat. He believed that their primary reason for redirecting Alexander’s route to Babylon was not for Alexanders’ safety, but to keep him as far away from the city as possible, which did not work.

So, could it be that the Babylonians poisoned Alexander to prevent him from uncovering their deception?

Although this is one of the most popular theories, it is unlikely. Three cuneiform tablets have since been discovered that give thorough accounts of where Alexander’s temple money was deposited and where it was spent.

Archaeologists later uncovered the demolished remains of the temple, so as far as the records demonstrate, the only thing that prevented the reconstruction of the temple was Alexanders Death shortly after his arrival in Babylon.

Could it be that Alexander died of a naturally occurring illness?

A new ground-breaking new theory has been put forward by Dr Katherine Hall of the Dunedin School of Medicine that Alexander suffered from Guillain-Bare Syndrome, and that his body did not decompose for 6 days simply because Alexander was not dead yet.

Guillain-Bare Syndrome is a rare auto-immune disorder that causes paralysis. While suffering in agony in the days before his death, Alexander complained of severe back pain and a fever that robbed him of his speech.

Eventually, he could not raise his head and experienced extreme thirst, and his physicians were baffled that his body showed no signs of deterioration, and that he maintained a sound mind throughout.

These are all fitting symptoms of GBS, but it must be noted thaat this theory is based on records that come to us centuries later through Plutarch, who wrote his histories on earlier sources that are now lost.

There are many theories as to the death of Alexander, too numerous to mention here. However, they all have one thing in common: no matter which theory is followed, there are gaps in the story and room for doubt. The only truth we have is that without a body, it is impossible to establish the likelihood of one cause over another.

Historians and physicians are left with numerous sources that at times conflict with each other, appear too fantastical or even mystical to accurately interpret, or were written centuries after, based on ‘eye-witness’ accounts that have long since vanished.

Until older texts recovered or Alexanders body is found, there will always be a great mystery hanging over the death the Great King.

Known for his great achievements throughout life, the death of Alexander the Great is just as famous as the man himself.

Considered as one of the greatest military generals the world had ever seen, Alexander the Great established a vast empire that reached from Egypt to India and the Middle East during his short 13-year rule as King of Macedonia.

But how did he die? Alexander’s demise has been the subject of debate for 2,000 years, with many probable causes having been put forward by professional and novice historians alike.

Alexander The Great died in Babylon 323 BC at the age of 32. By official accounts, Alexander most likely died of typhoid or malaria. Historical accounts report that Alexander experienced chills, fatigue, fever, and other typical symptoms of infectious disease in the days leading up to his death.

However, other theories about his death continue to circulate – most notably death from liver disease, poisoning, and new emerging theories that Alexander died from a natural illness.

Perhaps the reason why such speculation surrounds Alexander’s death and why many are not satisfied with infectious disease theory is because of the prophecy of Calanus.

Calanus was a Hindu Naga Sadhu who travelled with Alexanders’ entourage from Punjab after Alexanders’ return from (partly) conquering the region in 323 BC – just a few months before the Great Kings’ death. Calanus was 73 years old when he set off with Alexander and the trip severely weakened the Yogi.

Preferring to die by his own hands than be disabled by the journey, Calanus asked Alexander to build him a pyre, on which he would burn himself alive in sacrifice. Alexander reluctantly ordered Ptolemy to build a funerary pyre in the town of Sasa, where they were stationed at the time.

Allegedly, as Calanus burned, his last words to Alexander were ‘We shall meet in Babylon’. Alexander was puzzled, as he had no plans to travel Babylon at that time, yet he did actually die there within a year of leaving Sasa.

So how did Alexander die in Babylon if he had not intended to go there?

Alexander had not been to Babylon since 331 B.C where he had tasked the Chaldaeans (Sacred Babylonian Astrologers) to rebuild the temple of Etemenanki to appease Marduk, the God of the Babylonians, and win his protection for entering the city.

As far as he knew the temple had not yet been built so he headed to Babylon to oversee new plans to demolish the temple and rebuild a new ziggurat from its foundations.

On his way, a Babylonian astronomer by the name of Belephantes warned that Alexander would be in mortal danger if he entered the city of Babylon. He and the other temple priests tried to dissuade Alexander from entering the city, or at least advised him that at least he must not enter from the west gate and face the setting sun.

This deeply disturbed Alexander, although the final words of Calanus were not yet clear, he had a great admiration of Babylonian astronomers who had successfully predicted his invasion of Mesopotamia and his victory at Gaugamela.

Despite warnings from dying Yogis and Babylonian astrologers, Alexander pushed on to Babylon. He took the priests advice and entered via the Royal gate facing east, which delayed the journey as the terrain was swampy, but he finally arrived in Babylon and settled into the Royal Palace.

It is there, a few days after his arrival, Alexander falls ill following a prolonged banquet and dies 11 days later on 11th or 13th of June 323 BC. On that day the Chaldaean astrologers simply record – ‘the king died. The clouds made it impossible to observe the skies’.

Allegedly, Alexander’s body did not show signs of deterioration for six days, and was later mummified and sent to Egypt, and his tomb was eventually lost to history.

With Alexander’s tomb still missing centuries later, and historians and doctors relying on vague and scattered accounts to produce a likely diagnosis, it is impossible to determine the exact cause of Alexanders’ death, however theories over his demise remain alive and well…

Join us for part two tomorrow!