Written by Ed Whalen, Contributing Writer, Classical Wisdom
Many women have made an important contribution to philosophy, and one of the most famous—or indeed infamous—female philosopher is Hipparchia (fl. 300 B.C.). Married to a leading Cynic philosopher, Hipparchia greatly contributed to the development of Cynicism and helped popularize it in the Classical World.
Detail of a fresco showing Hipparchia of Maroneia c. 1st century CE, Museo delle Terme, Rome, image credit: Carole Raddato
What Were The Teachings Of The Cynics?
One of the founders of Cynicism was Diogenes of Sinope, who infamously lived in a barrel. Cynics sought ‘peace of mind’ by living according to nature. They rejected contemporary civilization and society and also all comforts and amenities. Living a natural life was the only way to live ethically because they believed that civilization was corrupt. They taught that humans only needed the basics required for survival.
Cynics abandoned all material possession and only wore simple clothes and begged for their food, mocking those who lived a conventional lifestyle, especially the rich. They aimed to live their philosophy, and in so doing teach people to live in accordance with nature. Many believe they influenced the development of Stoicism.
Hipparchia’s Life
Engraving, 1580
Hipparchia was born sometime between 340-320 BC. Her family hailed from Maroneia, which is in Thrace, and were members of the local aristocracy. According to ancient sources, which may have sensationalized her life, she refused to conform and was something of a rebel. Her younger brother Metrocles was sent to Athens to study rhetoric and philosophy. He became attracted to the Cynic school and introduced his sister to it. Hipparchia embraced their doctrines.
Around this time she came into contact with Crates, an Athenian, who is widely seen as one of the greatest of all the cynic thinkers. Hipparchia fell madly in love with Crates; she was completely enamored by mind and his physique. She demanded they marry, which was very unconventional. He was reluctant and he only agreed to marry her when she threatened suicide.
Engraving of Hipparchia and Crates from Jacob Cats’ Touchstone of the Wedding Ring. The picture shows Crates, dressed in 17th-century clothing, attempting to dissuade Hipparchia from her affections by showing her how unattractive he is
According to one source, the couple consummated their marriage in public, which was in keeping with the Cynics’ call to live naturally. The marriage was unconventional because, contrary to Greek norms, Hipparcia appeared with her husband in public and was very independent. She had several children with Crates and also managed the household.
Hipparchia also attended public debates and argued for the equality of the sexes. In many ways, she was a liberated woman in a society that was patriarchal and even misogynistic. It is believed she raised her children to live according to Cynic teachings, Her date of death is not known. She was famous in her own time, Diogenes urging her native city of Maroneia to change its name to Hipparchia in her honor.
The Philosophy Of Hipparchia
It is recorded that Hipparchia wrote many philosophical works, but they have all been lost. Indeed, almost all we know about this remarkable female philosopher comes from later Greek and Byzantine sources. It appears that Hipparchia helped to refine important aspects of Cynic thought.
She was known for her brilliant use of the rhetorical trope known in Greek as spoudogeloion. This was a syllogism that used humor to reveal some idea or argument and was often used to discredit conventional beliefs. Hipparchia used these to refute arguments about the natural inferiority of women.
The philosopher was also famous for her promotion of the Cynic concept of anaideia (shamelessness). The Cynics believed that shamelessness was necessary so that people could overcome conventions and live as natural as animals and birds. Hipparchia embodied the concept of anaideia, as she refused to act like a ‘respectable’ woman. A good example of her anaideia was when she won a debate and her opponent tried to strip her naked. She did nothing and was quite happy to be seen naked, which was contrary to all social norms. Hipparchia came to personify the Cynic doctrines and her commitment to poverty and a life of simplicity won her many admirers even among those who denounced the philosophies.
The Influence Of Hipparchia
Writers from her own time and later were fascinated by the female philosopher. She was an example for those who favored free-love and gender equality. She did a lot to promote the teachings of the Cynics.
Her views on the need to live in harmony with nature influenced Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism. Zeno was reported to have praised the wife of Crates in one of his lost writings. The Stoic school went on to become tremendously influential in Hellenistic and later Roman civilization. The life and thought of Hipparchia has inspired female philosophers, especially in the 20th and 21st century.
A butterfly, Hipparchia, has been named in her honor.
The butterfly named after Hipparchia
Conclusion
Hipparchia proved that philosophy was not a male pursuit in the Classical World. The female philosopher made an important contribution to the development of Cynicism. She embodied the very essence of the teaching and she challenged the conventions of the time. She not only wrote philosophy but lived it—making her a unique figure in the history of ideas and civilization.
References:
Dudley, R. (1937), A History of Cynicism from Diogenes to the 6th Century A.D. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Text by Pyrrhonist philosopherSextus Empiricus (c. 160 – c. 210 AD) translated by Richard Bett, Contributing Writer, Classical Wisdom
Since most people have declared that god is a most active cause, let’s first examine god, with this preface—that following ordinary life without opinions, we say that there are gods and we worship gods and we say that they show providence; it’s against the rashness of the dogmatists that we say the following things.
[Note: ordinary Greek religion recognized a huge number of different gods, often at odds with one another. But philosophers, even if they recognized numerous distinct divine beings, tended to conceive of the divine as united in a single character and a single purpose. Hence it makes sense that Sextus uses the plural “gods” in speaking of his adherence to ordinary religion, but the singular when discussing dogmatic views.]
When we conceive objects, we ought to conceive their being—for example, whether they are bodies or incorporeal. But also their forms; no one could conceive a horse without first having learned the form of a horse. Also, what is conceived ought to be conceived as somewhere.
Well, since some of the dogmatists say that god is a body, others that he is incorporeal; and some that he is human in form, others not; and some that he is in a place, others not; and of those who say he is in a place, some say this is within the universe, some outside it; how are we going to be able to gain a conception of god, if we don’t have any agreement on his being, or his form, or a place he occupies?
God the Father, by Guercino
They should first agree on a common view, that god is such-and-such; only then, after giving us an outline of him, should they expect us to gain a conception of god. As long as they are in unresolved dispute, we don’t have from them any agreement on what we are to conceive.
But they say, once you have conceived something imperishable and blessed, consider that to be god. But this is silly. The person who doesn’t know Dion [note: often used as the name of an arbitrary person, like our Jane or John Doe] cannot conceive of his attributes, either, as those of Dion; in the same way, since we do not know the being of god, we also won’t be able to learn or conceive his attributes.
And aside from that, they should tell us what “blessed” is—is it what acts according to virtue and shows providence toward those things ranked below it, or is it what is inactive and neither has any trouble itself nor produces any for others? [Note: These are the Stoic and Epicurean conceptions of god respectively.] In fact, since they are in an unresolved dispute about this too, they have made us unable to conceive what’s blessed, and therefore also god.
But even allowing that god is conceived, it is necessary to suspend judgment on whether he exists or does not exist (as far as the dogmatists are concerned). That god exists is not clear on its face. If he came to our attention all by himself, the dogmatists would be of one voice on what he is, and of what kind, and where; but the unresolved dispute has made him seem to us to be unclear and in need of a demonstration.
Depiction of Sextus Empiricus.
Well, the person who demonstrates that there is a god demonstrates this either by means of something clear on its face or by means of something unclear. And there’s no way it can be by something clear on its face; for if what demonstrates that there is a god was clear on its face, then since what is demonstrated is conceived in relation to what does the demonstrating, and for that reason is grasped together with it, as we established, it will also be clear on its face that there is a god—that will be grasped together with what demonstrates it, which is clear on its face. [Note in reference to ‘as we have established’: this can be found in the discussion of demonstration in book II, which I have not included. But the very same point is made about signs at II.125; see n.5 in chapter 4. (The argument is just as fishy here.)]
But it is not clear on its face, as we mentioned; therefore it is not demonstrated by means of something clear on its face. But not by something unclear either. For the unclear thing that has the job of demonstrating that there is a god will be in need of demonstration. If it is said to be demonstrated by something clear on its face, it will no longer be unclear but clear on its face. The unclear thing that has the job of demonstrating it is therefore not demonstrated by something clear on its face.
But not by something unclear either; for the person who says this will fall into an infinite regress—we’ll always be asking for a demonstration of the unclear point brought up as a demonstration of the one offered the previous time.
Therefore it cannot be demonstrated that there is a god from something else. But if it’s neither clear on its face by itself, nor is it demonstrated by something else, we will not be in a position to grasp whether there is a god.
There is also this to be said. The person who says that there is a god says either that he has providence for the things in the universe, or that he does not; and if he does have providence, it’s either for everything or for just some things. But if he had providence for everything, there wouldn’t be anything bad or any flaw in the universe; yet they say that everything is full of flaws; therefore god won’t be said to have providence for everything.
Painting of god, author unknown
But if he has providence for just some things, why does he have providence for these things and not those? For either he both wants and is able to have providence for everything; or he wants to but is not able to; or he is able to but doesn’t want to; or he neither wants nor is able to. But if he both wanted to and was able to, he would have providence for everything; but he doesn’t have providence for everything, given what was just said; therefore it’s not that he both wants and is able to have providence for everything.
If he wants to but is not able to, he is weaker than what causes him to be unable to have providence for the things he doesn’t have providence for; but it goes against the conception of god for him to be weaker than anything. If he can have providence for everything, but doesn’t want to, he must be considered to be malicious. And if he neither wants to nor can, he is both malicious and weak; but people who say that about god are impious. Therefore god does not have providence for the things in the universe.
Source: Wikimedia
But if he doesn’t show providence for anything, and he doesn’t do any work or accomplish anything, one will not be able to say how it is grasped that there is a god, seeing that he is neither apparent by himself nor is grasped by means of some accomplishments. For these reasons too, therefore, we are not in a position to grasp whether there is a god.
From these points we reckon that those who say with full commitment that there is a god are probably forced into impiety. If they say that he has providence for everything, they will be saying that god is a cause of bad things, while if they say that he has providence for just some things, or even for nothing, they will be forced to say that god is either malicious or weak—and people who say these things are quite clearly impious.
This extract from the book “How to Keep An Open Mind” (Princeton University Press, 2021) was published with the permission of the author.
Written by Ed Whalen, Contributing Writer, Classical Wisdom
Cicero (106-43 BC) is perhaps one of the most remarkable figures in the history of Rome. He was an important politician and statesman who attempted to defend the Republic.
Cicero was also a great philosopher and writer whose works greatly influenced the development of Roman oratory and literature. His works had a profound impact on the history of Western Civilization.
Early Life and Career
Bust of Cicero in the Capitoline Museums, Rome, dated to the first century AD
Marcus Tullius Cicero was born into a wealthy equestrian order in the town of Arpinum, which was some 50 miles to the south of Rome. His family, while influential, would not have been regarded as part of the elite. Cicero was sent to Rome along with his younger brother to study philosophy and oratory. He was a brilliant student and after a brief period of military service, he studied law. In 81 BC, Cicero successfully defended a man accused of parricide and this made him famous. During the case, he coined the famous legal term ‘Cui Bono’ which means ‘who benefits.’
Cicero entered politics and soon became Quaestor (75 BC), then Praetor (66 BC). As Praetor, he prosecuted the corrupt governor of Sicily Verres and this increased his popularity and earned him a reputation for honesty. Finally, he was elected to the highest office in Rome: Consul (66 BC).
During his consulship, populist leader Catiline plotted to overthrow the government of Rome and its institutions. Cicero acted decisively to expose and suppress the conspiracy. As Consul, he ordered the execution of Catiline, who escaped and was later killed in battle. Cicero’s execution order was controversial – many members of the poor regarded Catiline as a hero – and was even seen as illegal by high-ranking figures like Julius Caesar. Despite not belonging to the senatorial class, Cicero became a passionate defender of the old regime in Rome.
Alliances, Civil War and Exile
“Clodius Pulcher, elected tribune, forces Cicero to go into exile; twenty thousand young gentlemen, dressed as in a time of public mourning, escort him on horseback.” Illustration from the year 1500, author unknown, source: National Library of the Netherlands
Cicero was invited by Julius Caesar to join the Triumvirate in 60 BC. This was an alliance between Caesar, Pompey and Crassus that came to dominate Rome. In 59 BC, the consul and demagogue Clodius tried to prosecute Cicero for his role in ordering the execution of Catiline.
Clodius’ followers threatened to kill Cicero and he fled into exile. It appears that he was abandoned by most of his allies and friends. Cicero later returned to Rome and praised the First Triumvirate. He was no longer a figure of any political importance.
In 51 BC, Cicero became governor of Cilicia and was active in the operations against the Parthians in the aftermath of the disaster of Carrhae (55 BC). In 49 BC, Cicero joined the Pompeiians in the civil war with Caesar. After the defeat of Pompey at Pharsalus, he refused to take command of the Pompeian forces and was later pardoned by Caesar. He returned to Rome and used his power of oratory to persuade Caesar to respect Republican institutions. Increasingly, Cicero devoted himself to his literary work.
The Death of Caesar
The Assassination of Caesar
In 44 BC, Caesar was assassinated. It appears that Cicero took no part in the conspiracy. Later he tried to influence Octavian (the future Augustus), but without success. Octavian, Lepidus and Mark Anthony entered into an alliance known as the Second Triumvirate.
To establish their hold on power, they proscribed their enemies. Mark Anthony hated Cicero for denouncing his ambition and character in numerous speeches. Cicero was killed by a centurion. It was later reported that his head was brought to Mark Anthony, whose wife stuck pins in the dead orator’s tongue in revenge for his attacks on her husband.
Cicero’s Literary Genius
Cicero
Cicero was such an excellent orator his name became a byword for eloquence. His speeches are still regarded as masterpieces of Latin prose. They have inspired orators from ancient times to the 19th century.
Cicero’s ideas on liberty and the nature of political representation have been profoundly influential, particularly during the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. Cicero’s letters to his friend Atticus were widely admired and still read to this day. In these, he discusses politics, personal matters, and his views on life.
Cicero was also interested in philosophy. However, he was not an original thinker and much of his thought was borrowed from Greek philosophy. Nevertheless, his works are a source for many lost writings and he introduced many Greek philosophical ideas into Roman culture. He greatly influenced many early Christian thinkers and leaders who regarded him as a ‘righteous pagan’.
During the Renaissance, his works were rediscovered by humanists such as Petrarch. Cicero’s works helped to popularize the works of the Classical era and this was crucial in the evolution not only of the Renaissance but also the modern Western world.
Conclusion
Cicero was a major political figure during an era that saw Rome transition from a Republic to an empire. However, he was not a capable political operative and was often out-maneuvered by his enemies. At times he tried to defend the traditional liberties but at other times he made accommodations with those who were destroying them, such as Octavian and Caesar.
Even so, he became a symbol for those who believed in freedom and democracy. His literary works were immensely important. Cicero was a master of rhetoric and his speeches are masterpieces of Latin prose. He helped popularize Greek philosophy and his works influenced both early Christians and Renaissance humanists.
References:
Anthony Everitt (2003). Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome’s Greatest Orator. Random House
Cicero, Marcus Tullius, Cicero’s letters to Atticus, Vol, I, II, IV, VI, Cambridge University Press, Great Britain, 1965
Written by Ed Whalen, Contributing Writer, Classical Wisdom
There are many remarkable figures in the history of Greece. Too often, the focus is on the Golden Ages of Greece and Rome. However, even in Late Antiquity when the Graeco-Roman world was in decline, there were many significant figures—Eunapius among them. This famous Greek sophist, historian, and a dogged foe of Christianity is very representative of Late Antiquity thought and culture, particularly in regards to Classical ideas and values.
The Life of Eunapius
Despite being a man of letters, Eunapius left no record of his life. It appears that he was born in 347 AD in the Greek city of Sardis, which is in modern-day Turkey. At the time, Sardis was a rich and cultured city. It is likely that Eunapius, who studied with a famous in-law by the name of Chrysanthius, came from an affluent family.
Temple of Artemis at Sardis
Chrysanthius was a famous sophist and a high priest highly esteemed by, among others, Emperor Julian the Apostate and even Christians. Undoubtedly a brilliant student, Eunapius eventually went to Athens for further education, where he studied under the renowned Christian Armenian sophist Prohaeresius. It appears that Eunapius greatly esteemed his teacher. In Athens, the young man from Sardis studied rhetoric, philosophy, and medicine.
Despite the fact that his teacher and mentor was a dedicated Christian, Eunapius remained a pagan. At the time, the Roman Empire was becoming increasingly Christian. Eunapius became initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries, a cult that was dedicated to Demeter. It is recorded that he was initiated into the mysteries by its last high priest. It seems that Eunapius was still living during the reign of Theodosius II (408-450 AD), the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire.
The Works of Eunapius
Eunapius was famous in his own time and beyond for his work The Lives of the Sophists. This was a collection of the biographies of leading sophists and philosophers of the 4th century AD, including Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus and Eunapius’ teachers Chrysanthius and Prohaeresius. In total, Eunapius recorded the lives of twenty-three philosophers and teachers and discussed their ideas.
Eunapius’ work shows the dynamism and richness of intellectual life during Late Antiquity. It is also the only source for many leading Neoplatonist thinkers’ lives and schools of thought. Neoplatonism was a reinterpretation of Plato and is often considered rather mystical.
The School of Plato, by Jean Delville, 1898
Eunapius was also a historian, continuing the work of the famous author and general Dexippus (3rd century AD). Sadly, this work is mostly lost, but it was an important source for later historians. Eunapius’ work was never popular and did not have a wide readership, partly because he was a poor stylist. Nevertheless, he was influential among professional rhetoricians and philosophers. Today many scholars see him as an important source on the Late Roman Empire as it was transitioning to the Byzantine Empire.
Eunapius and the Pagans
What is most remarkable about Eunapius was his paganism. At the time, pagans were under attack and even persecuted. Thus it was rather daring of Eunapius to openly defy the Christian Church and criticize its followers in his works. Even more so as Eunapius was probably writing after Theodosius I had made Christianity the official religion of the Empire in 380 AD.
Theodosius I Repulsed from the Church by Saint Ambrose, by Allesandro Magnasco. Source: Kent Baldner/ CC BY NC SA 2.0
In fact, the Lives of the Sophists could be seen as an attempt to promote Neo-Platonism as an alternative to Christianity in the spirit of Emperor Julian the Apostate in his failed attempt to revive Classical religion. Eunapius demonstrates that Classical beliefs were still held by some, even though the Roman empire was officially Christian. A class of conservative aristocrats and pagan intellectuals continued to preserve the traditions of the old world. Indeed, they kept the philosophy of Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates alive until the 6th century AD, when Justinian the Great closed the Academy in Athens.
Eunapius’ works were censored after his death and passages that criticized Christ excised. Given the increasing intolerance of Christians at the time, it is fortunate that his works were not burned.
Conclusion
Eunapius and his works show us that the Classical world during Late Antiquity was not an intellectual wasteland. Rather, it was a dynamic and vigorous time. Eunapius was not a great writer or thinker, but he was an important historian. His life and writings show us how paganism and Classical values survived in a Christianized Graeco-Roman world.
Reference:
Wright, Wilmer Cave France (1922) Philostratus and Eunapius: the lives of the Sophists. London: Heinemann
Written by Tom G. Hamilton, Contributing Writer, Classical Wisdom
The Roman historian Tacitus tells us that the Celts made no distinction of sex when appointing their commanders and in western Iberia. According to the Greek historian Strabo, women fought alongside men. For the Celts, a woman could not only wage war—she was also a warrior herself.
But first: what were the Celts doing in western Iberia? After all, the first countries that come to mind when one thinks of Celtic culture are not Spain and Portugal, which principally comprise the Iberian peninsula (along with a small area of southern France and Gibraltar). But the Celts did indeed live there—and had for a long time. In fact, DNA studies link Celtic roots to the Iberian peninsula. In ancient times, Celtic culture was associated with all of Atlantic Europe—an area that encompasses the British Isles, Portugal, Belgium, parts of Spain, France and northern Germany—creating a major cultural division between Atlantic and Central Europe.
This divide can be seen in many areas. For example, unlike other European cultures, in the Celtic world, domestic roles went out the window in the event of war. In conflict situations Celtic women dropped what they were doing and took up arms.
It was no surprise then that Celtic Queen Boudica, who is known to history for leading a revolt against Rome, had been initiated into the elite warrior class. She rose quickly in the army’s ranks until she had earned the respect of invading Roman legionaries and generals alike. Boudica came very close to changing Rome’s ambitions about Britain forever.
Credit: Claire Legacy Art
The tribal confederation of Queen Boudica were known as the Vettones. They were a warrior people, and indeed the word Vetton comes from the Celtic roots UEK–TI meaning “warrior.” War was their default mode of existence, and it included women.
The Vetton female warriors were hardly an anomaly in Celtic culture—on the contrary, many Celtic women were skilled fighters. Indeed, an unknown Roman soldier allegedly once said: “A Celtic woman is often the equal of any Roman man in hand-to-hand combat. She is as beautiful as she is strong. Her body is comely but fierce. The physiques of our Roman women pale in comparison.”
Further descriptions of these Celtic women in hand-to-hand combat are even more detailed and should not be omitted from our attention. Greek historian Appian of Alexandria, describing Sextus Junius Brutus’ campaigns against the Celtic tribes in Lusitania, writes:
“Here he found the women fighting and perishing in company with the men with such bravery that they uttered no cry even in the midst of slaughter.” (Appian, The Spanish Wars, 15: 71,72)
Regarding Gaulish women, the Roman soldier and historian Ammianus Marcellinus writes:
“A whole band of foreigners will be unable to cope with one [Gaul] in a fight, if he calls in his wife, stronger than he by far and with flashing eyes; least of all when she swells her neck and gnashes her teeth, and poising her huge white arms, begins to rain blows mingled with kicks, like shots discharged by the twisted cords of a catapult.” — Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman Antiquities, Book XV – 12
Celtic lore and legend celebrated women as valiant and warlike. Take Aoife and Scathach, two rival female warriors from folklore, for example.
Scáthach, teacher of fighters on the the Isle of Skye @HowardDavid Johnson
Scathach had taught Cú Chulainn, the Irish mythological demigod and great warrior in Irish and Scottish legends. He insisted on taking Scathach’s place in a one-to-one combat challenge called by Aoife. In the combat she reduced his sword to a stump but he, knowing beforehand that her most precious things were her two horses and chariot, distracted her attention by saying her horses and chariot were falling off a distant cliff. Aoife turned back and in that moment Cú managed to overpower her. According to the story, they ended up as lovers and she bore Cú a son.
Whilst motherhood and nurturing were considered sacred feminine qualities in the Celtic tradition, courage and ability to fight in close combat were considered equally important. Celtic spirituality and warfare were not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, they were intertwined. A similar fluidity can be seen in gender roles. Being a man in Celtic society and culture had no macho overtone. Calling on your wife as equal—or even superior—to assist you wasn’t considered a weakness. What’s more, a woman could train a man in the art of warfare.
Perhaps Aoife and Scathach really existed and the legend was based upon truth, or maybe it was just apocryphal. Regardless, such stories portray the Celtic woman as both warriors and mothers—and such is our Boudica.
Back in Iberia, the Romans described the women as having a small shield upon which they beat a rhythm. This, almost assuredly, was the adufe, or square frame drum still played by the women today in Beira Baixa. These rhythms, played exclusively by women even now, strongly resemble the sound of a horse. In this way, music also played a part in the pre-battle ceremony.
Female adufe players from Monsanto, Portugal. Made of goatskin and laranjeira (orange tree) wood, this instrument is traditionally played only by women. It is unique to Beira Baixa, which is located in modern-day Portugal, home to Boudica’s Vetton tribe. Photo credit: Tom G. Hamilton
Adufe player, photo credit: Tom G. Hamilton
It’s likely such drums were heard when Boudica, who had assumed the role of a spiritual authority as well as military leader, was giving a speech to her fellow warriors to prepare them for the final conflict and battle against the Romans. She invoked the name of the female Andrasta, the goddess of the Iceni, whilst taking a hare from inside her cloak and releasing it as part of a shamanic prophecy of coming victory.
In Beira Baixa, land of the Vettones, this deity was called Trebaruna, which means house of mystery. Boudica had grown up in a hillfort, considered the sacred high places of the Celts. Warrior training took place within the hillfort culture, and Boudica would have been accustomed to a level of personal discipline that would challenge most of us to the core. This was part of her warrior elite training, although training is perhaps not the most suitable word—it was more of an initiation.
Epigraph with Vetton-Lusitanian goddess Trebaruna. Photo credit: Museum of Fundao, Portugal.
The initiate into the Celtic warrior elite became another person altogether. The would-be warriors were initiated into the world of death. They were driven to the limits of endurance, to the edges of their own personal tolerance of pain and hardship. The initiate would then, at the end, possess another version of themselves. They would come out from the realms of death into a new life as a warrior. The Ver Sacrum part of this warrior initiation prepared them for leaving home. Thus, it was perfectly natural for Boudica to leave her Iberian homeland.
The future queen had been taught how to survive in extreme conditions. She learned to be frugal, to live off nature’s most simple provisions of roots and berries, to deal with extremities of the natural world, of heat and cold, and to handle pain itself. Her formation had given her all this, along with weapons training and, being a Vetton—the Vettones were famed for their horsemanship—she had a natural command over horses.
A woman carrying an adufe and riding a Lusitanian horse in famous Celtic hillfort of Argemela, Portugal, in the shadows of which a Boudica epigraphical stone was found.Photo credit: Tom G. Hamilton
Her skills did not go unnoticed. Boudica had been chosen to represent Rome in the region along with her husband Tagus. They enjoyed the perks and had become somewhat wealthy—until Boudica decided that Rome’s greediness had gone too far.
As an elite ALAE (Alae Vettonum Hispanorum, the Vetton Winged Cavalry) Boudica would have fought alongside the Roman legions, flanking them to one side on her horse. This must have been a source of intrigue and fascination to the Roman foot-soldiers, giving them an inside view into the secret world of the Celtic warrior elite. They evidently knew her habits and even observed how she dressed—or as Tacitus described it, her “invariable attire.” (Cassius Dio, Roman History, LXII:1-2)
The Romans would have been familiar with her battle cries and with her god. Her voice was described as strong, authoritative, expressing her conviction and character, and equally impressive as her physical presence. However, we should not confuse this with sexuality. There are no sexual overtones in the description of Boudica by the classical writers. Rather, the tone was one of awe of her person, her warrior’s bearing, and her courage.
The modern idea of the Celtic warrior princess has been sexualized. These depictions were created to entertain men’s fantasies—big-breasted, tall, imposing and heavily-armed vixens designed as characters within the virtual-reality war video games market.
This, however, has no historical basis. Boudica apparently filled her Roman admirers with profound respect. Perhaps she made them question their own Roman sexist moral attitudes. In truth, the two cultures were worlds apart. Here was proof that a woman could ride a horse and wield deadly weapons alongside Roman generals. These women could create legends and inflict deadly wounds on their enemies.
But it is not only modern audiences that have reinvented the Celtic warrior. Medieval writers often had an issue with what they considered to be Boudica’s acts of violence. They seem too extreme, too cruel, so some writers in the early Middle Ages tried to divide her in two. Petruccio Ubaldini in La vite del donne illustri del Regno D’Inghliterra, e del regno di Scotia (1591) split Boudica into two queens, Voadicia the “good” queen, and Bunduica, the “bad” one. He talks about her as being cruel and degrading, and lacking in compassion in her treatment of the prisoners.
In a sense, there were two Boudicas—but not as the medieval writers proposed. There was the Boudica that served the Romans—and the Boudica that turned on the Romans. In her lifetime, Rome’s ever-expanding empire came, saw, and relentlessly conquered the known world. It crushed whatever people and culture that dared stand in the way, often with great cruelty.
Boudica was singularly brave in standing up to Roman power at its height. Not only did she confront Rome, she fought back with intelligence, cunning and precision, as Celtic warrior women of her day were trained to do. She gave Rome a good beating. Stung, Rome retreated only to return with no mercy, but Boudica lived on in the hearts and lore of the Celts, where she is revered to this day.
References:
The Cultural and Ideological Significance Of Representations of Boudica During the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I, by Samantha Frénée-Hutchins, p. 22.
Written by Nicholaos Jones, Contributing Writer, Classical Wisdom
Ancient Greek philosophy begins in Miletus, an illustrious Greek colony along the eastern shore of the Aegean Sea. Before the Milesian philosophers, however, there were the mythic poets. The history of ancient Greek philosophy is, in some sense, a history of breaking with the strategy these poets use to explain why things are they way they are.
Homer (c. 750 BCE) is the best known of the mythic poets. For purposes of comparison with the Milesians, however, Hesiod (c. 700 BCE) is more relevant. Hesiod’s Theogony offers an account for the origin of the gods—from the beginning of the world, through various battles among the gods, to the rise of Zeus and the birth of Zeus’ children. The explanatory strategy is genealogical.
First there is Chasm, a yawning gap or void space.
Chaos, by George Frederic Watts, around 1875
Earth appears as a flat disk within this gap, and the underworld appears beneath as an enclosed space to contain the roots of what might grow upon the surface. Love appears as well, a procreative force responsible for generating offspring from parents.
Bosch’s Creation of the World, by Wolfe von Lenkiewicz
Then Chasm and Earth undergo parthenogenesis, reproduction without fertilization. From Chasm come Gloom and Night. From Earth, at first, comes Sky; then, soon after, Hills and Sea. Love’s intervention prompts incestuous union between Chasm and Night, begetting Brightness and Day. Earth and Sky give birth to the encircling Ocean and the brute, uncontrollable titanic forces that shape the land contained therein.
Chaos, The Genesis, by Ivan Aivazovsky, 1841
The titans, in time, beget the gods and goddesses. The divinities, in turn, intervene within the realm of mortals, enacting their whimsical and capricious wills.
Hesiod’s account is not scientific, in our sense of scientific. But it is systematic, because each begotten individual has its own powers and its own domain of rule. It is also explanatory; these powers account for phenomena such as earthquakes (Poseidon shaking the earth below the sea) and storms (Zeus hurling thunderbolts).
Mythical depiction, artist unknown
The history of ancient Greek philosophy is, in some sense, a history of breaking with Hesiod’s explanatory strategy. The first Greek philosopher whose writing we actually have is the Milesian Anaximander (610 BCE – 546 BCE).
Anaximander offers an account of the origins of the world that illustrates a new style of explanation—a philosophical, and perhaps even scientific, style. Unlike Hesiod, Anaximander does not invoke interactions among divine entities. Instead, he restricts himself to interactions among natural processes.
Wood-inlay image representing chaos magnum, the “great gulf” (Luke 16:26), in the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore in Bergamo, Italy. By Giovan Francesco Capoferri, based on a design by Lorenzo Lotto.
Anaximander calls the original state of the world apeiron. This he defines as a primordial stuff that secretes, or separates out, polarities such as hot and cold. These powers, unlike the primordial stuff, are definite and bounded. Because each one has a definite identity that excludes its contrary, these powers are thereby bounded (or limited) by its opposite. The apeiron, in contrast, excludes nothing and therefore has no definite identity or function.
After the apeiron secretes the contraries, it steers (kubernein) them into a structured order—akin to the way a pilot steers a ship in a specific direction, or a leader steers a group into a team. The result is a muddy nucleus surrounded by a layer of air and, further out, a shell of fire. When this structured mass bursts, the fire separates into a series of concentric rings of flame. The outermost ring is the sun; the middle, the moon; the inner rings, stars. Air surrounds the rings, making them mostly invisible. But the air contains holes. Fire from the outermost ring of the sun passes through the largest of these holes, separating the muddy nucleus into earth and sea. The holes also move, and their motion explains the regular appearance and disappearance of the celestial bodies.
Anaximander’s cosmogony retains significant parallels with Hesiod’s. According to Hesiod, creation proceeds from Chasm to Gaia, then onward to opposing powers which beget the separation of the celestial and terrestrial realms, and from there the structures of the earth. Although Anaximander abandons Hesiod’s mythological posits, he retains the general structure of Hesiod’s explanatory sequence, conceptualizing creation as proceeding from the apeiron to the separation of air from earth, onward to rings of fire and their separation into heavenly bodies, and finally to the separation of air from sea.
Despite this general similarity, there are significant dissimilarities of detail. For example, according to Hesiod, Chasm is dark, surrounds its creation, and persists within the creation. By contrast, according to Anaximander, the apeiron is none of these. Hesiod also conceptualizes three basic forces—Chasm, Gaia, and Eros. By contrast, Anaximander replaces Chasm with boundless, yet orderly, erotic attraction (Eros).
Moreover, Hesiod presents his account as authoritative because it comes from the Muses. Anaximander’s account, by contrast, derives its authority from the capacity of others to follow his reasoning, to assent or demur from the intelligibility of his conclusions without regard for divine inspiration.
We are prone nowadays to treat scientific inquiry as radically different from mythology. Comparing Hesiod and Anaximander reveals intimations of these differences. Hesiod grounds his inquiries upon private inspiration, and his explanations appeal to divine action. Anaximander, by contrast, grounds his inquiries upon public reason, and his explanations appeal to impersonal forces. Yet comparing Hesiod and Anaximander also reveals that Anaximander’s scientific approach is continuous with Hesiod’s mythological approach. Anaximander’s explanatory concerns closely resemble Hesiod’s, and the structure of Anaximander’s explanations imitates the structure of Hesiod’s. This is, perhaps, some reason for treating scientific inquiry as mythology matured rather than mythology abandoned.
