Note on some Nonsense and the Dark Ages

Book Cover

The following is a expanded version of a comment I left on the website Skeptical Humanities.1 It concerns some thoughts on pseudo-scholarship and the dark ages.

Its been almost 30 years since I’ve read Holy Blood, Holy Grail,2 and it has got to be one of the most flagrant examples pseudo-scholarship ever. What is remarkable is that the bibliography in the book is actually pretty good; but the main purpose of that bibliography is to support massive woo. What I found especially annoying was on one page they would introduce, tentatively, some far out speculation and then pages later would treat that speculation as a “fact” and use it to support some even more far our speculation and then pages later use….. And so forth.

The pseudo-scholarship in the book is used to give a aura of respectability to fantasy and out of control conspiratorial thinking, with virtually no evidence to support it. What I especially loved was how our authors danced the fact that there is NO early evidence that Jesus married Mary Magdalene at all. There is plenty of early evidence, from Gnostic sources, about Mary Magdalene being regarded as a Disciple of Jesus; but being married to him, not a sliver.3 In fact the earliest evidence I know of the belief that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene is from anti-Cathar writings of the 13th century that attributed this belief to the Cathars.4 I note this is c. 1200 years after Jesus’ death! None of the Church fathers seem to know of such a belief and since they accused the Gnostics of believing all sorts of stuff that they the Church fathers found offensive. I would think they would have included this one if it had existed.

If you think Holy Blood, Holy Grail, is bad than don’t read The Jesus Papers,5 by one of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Michael Baigent. In the book the author asks us to take seriously papers which he has seen, but which he can’t read, (The documents are in Aramaic), but which he assures us will rock the foundations of Christianity. Oh and the owner won’t let them be examined by scholars or studied. We can’t even get pictures of the documents. But we must take them seriously. ORLY!?

The Dark Ages are an interesting period. There is this bias that goes back to the Renaissance that regards The Greeks and the Romans as “like us” and in a sense our contemporaries and regards the period between as an age of obscurantist darkness.6 Well in many ways this is just nonsense. The foundations of modern Europe were laid in the “Middle Ages”,7 and frankly it is careless and in my opinion distorted thinking and writing that leads people to think that the Greeks and the Romans were “like us”.

I have found, for example, it a lot easier to get into the mind of Thomas Aquinas, despite the fact I’m a secularist and agnostic, than the mind of Cicero despite the fact that I share many of Cicero’s beliefs.

The Classicalist M.I. Finley wrote a brilliant essay called Desperately Foreign, (Its in a collection of essays he wrote called Aspects of Antiquity,8.), that describes the world of the Greeks and the Romans as only superficially like our own and in the end “Desperately Foreign”. This tendency of “modernizing” the Greeks and the Romans produces a mindset that sees kindred spirits in the thinkers and doers of antiquity and one that emphasizes the strangeness and irrationality of the Dark Ages / Middle Ages. The cultic, irrational elements of Greco-Roman culture are thus either down played or bluntly ignored. Thus we read that until the third century B.C.E., Greek art had, “nothing vulgar, coarse, or debasing”.9 This statement is simply, and utterly wrong. As any half decent examination of just vase paintings of the 6th and 5th century B.C.E., would reveal. The fondness of the Greeks and Romans for Mystery Cults, arcane mystical speculation, and their reputation in antiquity for frenzy and extreme behavior have to be ignored in the distorted view of them being modern rationalists.10

In fact in many ways the European world of the “Middle Ages” is less “Foreign” than the world of the Greeks and the Romans. To cite an example the pervasive influence of the Bible, given that our society is still in many respects Bible saturated, makes the “Middle Ages” more comprehensible to us, or me at least. Also much of European law and attitudes about law and the enforcement of law are related to Germanic and Customary law from the Dark Ages / Middle ages.11

As an interesting side note it appears likely that for the mass of the population their standard of living may have improved(!) with the fall of the Roman Empire. So that this great disaster which is still seen has a great retreat of civilization may have benefited most people.12

Thank you Michael Baigent for bringing back memories of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, that example of “scholarship” as cow muck.

1. See Here.

2. Baigent, Michael, Leigh, Richard, Lincoln, Henry, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Jonathan Cape, London, 1982.

3. See Pagels, Elaine, The Gnostic Gospels, Vintage Books, New York, 1979.

4. For example Peter de les Vaux-de-Cernay says concerning Cathar beliefs that:

Further, in their secret meetings they said that the Christ who was born in the earthy and visible Bethlehem and crucified at Jerusalem was “evil”, and that Mary Magdalene was his concubine – and that she was the woman taken in adultery who is referred to in the scriptures;… (From de les Vaux-de-Cernay, Peter, The History of the Albigensian Crusade, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge Sussex, 1998, s. 11, p. 11.)

5. Baigent, Michael, The Jesus Papers, Harper Collins Pub., New York, 2006.

6. To give but one example of this bias. See Gibbons The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. The chapter on the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire in the first volume is especially revealing of this attitude. Given that copies of The Decline … are so easy to find on the web I will not be posting links to it.

7. A couple of books that go into the establishment of Europe during the Middle Ages are, Heather, Peter, Empires and Barbarians, Pan Books, London, 2009, Lewis, David Levering, God’s Crucible, W. W. Norton, New York, 2008, Wickham, Chris, The Inheritance of Rome, Penguin Books, London, 2009, Heer, Fredrich, The Medieval World, Mentor Book, New York, 1962, Herrin, Judith, The Formation of Christendom, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 1987, Moore, R. I., The First European Revoolution, Blackwell Pub., Oxford, 2000.

8. Finley, M. I., Aspects of Antiquity, Second Edition, Penguin books, London, 1977. The essay Desperately Foreign can be found on pp. 11-15.

9. The Sociologist Sorokin quoted in Muller, Herbert J., The Uses of the Past, Mentor Book, New York, 1952, p. 115.

10. A good start on correcting this view is Dodds, E.R., The Greeks and the Irrational, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA., 1951.

11. See the books listed in Footnote 7 for more details.

12. See Wickham, pp. 203-231, Moore, pp. 30-47.

Pierre Cloutier

Pictures of the Garden in Winter

January 2011

Pierre Cloutier

The “Unbearable” Treaty

Germany after the Treaty of Versailles

Shows land lost

It is sometimes stated that the Treaty of Versailles, (1919) was the cause of World War II, because it was brutal and that it inspired Hitler, because of its brutality to avenge Germany. This is to put it politely a myth.1

If you read Mein Kampf, the part were Hitler describes his life altering decision to enter politics and avenge a "betrayed" Germany he talks about when he learned Germany had been defeated, i.e., requested an armistice. Hitler indulges in some purple prose polemics there. This is many months before the treaty of Versailles. The fact is even before the Treaty the ultra-nationalist press was screaming about "betrayal". Hitler says the following about what happened after he was informed on November 10, 1918 of Germany's defeat:

As for myself, I broke down completely when the old gentleman tried to resume his story by informing us that we must now end this long war, because the war was lost, he said, and we were at the mercy of the victor. The Fatherland would have to bear heavy burdens in the future. We were to accept the terms of the Armistice and trust to the magnanimity of our former enemies. It was impossible for me to stay and listen any longer. Darkness surrounded me as I staggered and stumbled back to my ward and buried my aching head between the blankets and pillow. 

I had not cried since the day that I stood beside my mother's grave. Whenever Fate dealt cruelly with me in my young days the spirit of determination within me grew stronger and stronger. During all those long years of war, when Death claimed many a true friend and comrade from our ranks, to me it would have appeared sinful to have uttered a word of complaint. Did they not die for Germany? And, finally, almost in the last few days of that titanic struggle, when the waves of poison gas enveloped me and began to penetrate my eyes, the thought of becoming permanently blind unnerved me; but the voice of conscience cried out immediately: Poor miserable fellow, will you start howling when there are thousands of others whose lot is a hundred times worse than yours? And so I accepted my misfortune in silence, realizing that this was the only thing to be done and that personal suffering was nothing when compared with the misfortune of one's country.

…

What a gang of despicable and depraved criminals!

The more I tried then to glean some definite information of the terrible events that had happened the more my head became afire with rage and shame. What was all the pain I suffered in my eyes compared with this tragedy?

The following days were terrible to bear, and the nights still worse. To depend on the mercy of the enemy was a precept which only fools or criminal liars could recommend. During those nights my hatred increased--hatred for the originators of this dastardly crime.

During the following days my own fate became clear to me. I was forced now to scoff at the thought of my personal future, which hitherto had been the cause of so much worry to me. Was it not ludicrous to think of building up anything on such a foundation? Finally, it also became clear to me that it was the inevitable that had happened, something which I had feared for a long time, though I really did not have the heart to believe it.

Emperor William II was the first German Emperor to offer the hand of friendship to the Marxist leaders, not suspecting that they were scoundrels without any sense of honour. While they held the imperial hand in theirs, the other hand was already feeling for the dagger.

There is no such thing as coming to an understanding with the Jews. It must be the hard-and-fast 'Either-Or.'

For my part I then decided that I would take up political work.2

Further when you read Mein Kampf Hitler's aims were NOT just a revision of the injustices of Versailles but getting hegemony over Europe and turning Eastern Europe into a vast colonial empire with a subject serf population. As for democracy Hitler hated it on principle. Versailles was good propaganda for Hitler but it was not what he was angry about. What made his blood boil, (aside from his anti-Semitic ravings) was that Germany was not in its naturally dominant position. The far greater brutality of the treaty of Brest Litovsk didn't bother Hitler because it was nothingless than what "inferior" Slavs deserved.3

So some still believe that the Treaty was uniquely harsh and terrible; despite the fact it left Germany the most powerful, (economically speaking) state in Europe, and in some way improved its position because the war caused the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.4

Aside from the reparations part of the Treaty, (which were carried out in a very limited fashion in reality), the Treaty was not the horrible Carthaginian peace it was made out to be. Many of its provisions were actually quite reasonable. I note many critics also ignore the context of the Treaty in terms of allied aims and needs, and also the context of German war aims. The allies were perfectly aware of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the Treaty of Bucharest, both of which were vastly harsher than Versailles. It did not make them inclined to be generous.5

It is also heavily documented that ultra-nationalists made much hay from the Treaty of Versailles by wild exaggeration, lying and other flagrant tactics. For example the parts of the Treaty that awarded parts of Eastern Germany to the new Polish state and called for referendums in some places, were bitterly resented by the ultra-nationalists, for reasons that can only be called racist. The fact that Posen and the Polish corridor region were over 80% Polish made no difference. The idea of "German" land being given to @$%^^&&**$ Poles infuriated them. Ditto for Danish areas returned to Denmark, (by referendum). And of course the return of Alsace/Lorraine to France bothered them despite the fact the inhabitants had since 1871 wanted to be back in France. All this was greeted by the ultra-nationalists with, what at times, can be described as hysterical fury.6

Regarding what the ultra-nationalists and pan-Germans wanted during the war, Fritz Fischer's Germany's War Aims in the First World War, goes into great detail about war aims of these rather foolish men. Described are plans to annex Belgium, large areas of France, along with huge reparations. And Fischer describes the savage, punitive nature of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk and its lesser known companion the treaty of Bucharest. Both savage and ruthless. There also described are the plans to create a vast colonial empire in eastern Europe. There are also described in detail how the Germans violated Brest-Litovsk soon after signing it and forced the Russians to sign further subsequent treaties.7

These extremists played a powerful role in aiding Germany to defeat, by antagonizing their enemies and chaining German policy to unrealistic aims.

It is simply true that after the war the same ultra-Nationalists and pan German fools who propagated unrealistic aims during the war did in fact blame the treaty of Versailles for all Germany's woes and did mightily help to propagate the myth of the stab in the back.8

In the fall of 1919 the Reichstag held hearing about what happened in October - November 1918. In one of the most shameful abdications of responsibility, Ludendorf and Hindenburg stated in their testimony that the German army had been undefeated but had been stabbed in the back. Given that they knew the real story this blatant lying can only condemned.9

On the German right it became de-rigure to condemn the treaty and to blame, liberals, socialists etc., for the "stab in the back". The judiciary during the Weimar years covered itself with disgrace by its tendency to whitewash and excuse right wing violence. For example its treatment of the Kapp coup. Also their treatment of Hitler during his trial in 1924 was disgracefully lenient and the sentence a joke.10

During the period 1919-1922 there were almost 400 political assassinations in Germany of those 354 with right wing and 22 left wing. The victims came from all walks of life. Of the 354 right wing murders 326 were unpunished / unsolved. Of those right wing assassins convicted they got an average of 4 months in jail. Of the left wing assassins 10 were executed and those jailed got an average of 15 years in jail. I could here mention also the murder of Rathenau, a patriotic German, by a right wing death squad for being soft on Versailles and being a Jew. The assassins were treated by large elements of the ultra-Nationalist right wing as heroes.11

In point of fact the post war environment was economically very bad, From Portugal to Romania, authoritarian movements flourished, it wasn't just Germany. The Great Depression pushed many societies over the edge. If Italy, one of the victorious allies, could turn Fascist shortly after the war it is not surprising that authoritarian movements sprung up through out Europe. (In 1926 Poland became a Dictatorship for example).

It was to a large extent a matter of perception, the extremist right-wing chattering classes never tired of blaming the Treaty for just about every problem Germany had, which was false, while at the same time promoting the "stab in the back" lie. This continual propaganda campaign certainly was very effective, but it was based on a deliberate misperception of the Treaty and events. Finally it is a fact that the Nazi party had 2.6% of the popular vote in the last election before the Great Depression. Considering the rapid rise in voting power the Nazi's had during the early part of the Great Depression (in 1930 18.3%, in 1932, 37.4% then 33.1%), I would say the depression was the great factor in getting the Nazi's to power, but even so it was not a certainty and relied on good deal of backroom intrigue. If there had been no great depression there would have been no out of control fire. As it was by the time Hitler got into power much of the Treaty of Versailles had ceased to have any real world applicability.12

That the ultra-Nationalists led Germany to disaster in World War I is amply documented by Fischer among others. That they refused to take responsibility is also amply documented. Let me give one example of their foolishness, the declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917 which brought the US into the war, owed a lot to ultra nationalist nonsense and the decisive persons pushing for it were Ludendorf and Hindenburg. At the time the decision was foolish has anyone looking at US economic production figures could see. After this some of the ultra nationalists dreamed of reparations from the US!13

In the end a irresponsible set of Nationalist fools peddling myths combined with bad luck brought the Nazis to power. The results are too well known.

1. The works that peddle this myth are legion. One could start with the works of J.F.C. Fuller. See for example his The Conduct of War, Da Capo Press, New York, 1961, pp. 217-225.

2. Hitler, Adolf, Mein Kampf, pp. 175-176, from a Internet pdf. copy. Last two pages of chapter called Chapter 7: The Revolution.

3. IBID, pp. 61-111, (chapter 3), 521-541, (chapter 14).

4. Weinberg, Gerhard L., Germany Hitler & World War II, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, pp. 11-22.

5. IBID. Watt, Richard M., The Kings Depart, Penguin Books, London, 1968, pp. 555-588, Evans, Richard J., The Coming of the Third Reich, Penguin Books, London, 2003, pp. 62-76, 148, 179, Craig, Gordon A., Germany 1866 – 1945, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1978, pp. 424-432, Fischer, Fritz, Germany’s Aims in the First World War, W. W. Norton and Co. Inc., New York, 1967, pp. 247-279, 475-638.

6. Footnote 4, Craig, pp. 488-495, Weiss, Ideology of Death, Elephant Paperbacks, Chicago, 1996, pp. 206-225.

7. Footnote 5, Fischer.

8. IBID, pp. 636-638, Weiss, 222-238, Weinberg, pp. 11-22, Watt, Footnote 5.

9. Fischer, p. 637.

10. I'm not overstating the right wing sympathies of the Weimar judiciary see Hitler's Justice, by Ingo Muller, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MASS, 1991, pp. 10-24.

11. Jones, Nigel, The Birth of the Nazis, Robinson, London, 1987, p. 228, and 203-229.

12. Evans, p. 446 and 156-230, Watt, pp. 515-517. 

13. Fischer, pp. 280-309.

Pierre Cloutier

Diffusionistic Fantasies IV

Bearded Strangers, Bearded Indians

One of the most boring traditions in alternative archaeology is the “White Gods” mythos. The whole returning white God nonsense which is almost entirely a post European discovery of Americas concoction.1 Part of this mythos is the bearded myth. The idea that since Indians can not grow beards than any story about a bearded individual, and any picture, sculpture of a bearded man must be ipso facto a picture of a non-Indian.

Thus writer after writer have used Indian stories and legends about bearded individuals as evidence of contact with peoples from the old world that pre dates Columbus and of course all depictions of bearded individuals are of non-Indians. Thor Heyerdahl was only the most prominent of the users of the bearded non-Indian story proving contact.2

Thus we get the story of the white Quetzalcoatl, with a beard. I'm also aware that it is a post conquest concoction. As time past from the Spanish conquest Quetzalcoatl got whiter and his beard longer.3

It is another myth that all Indian men can't grow beards. Cortes describes Montezuma has having thin, neat beard for example.4 In fact Diaz gives the following description of Montezuma:

The great Montezuma was about 40 years old, of good height, well proportioned, spare and slight, and not very dark, though of the usual Indian complexion. He did not wear his hair long but just over the ears, and he had a short black beard, well-shaped and thin.5

It appears that after all some Indians can grow beards, just like some Indians have straight noses. The people who came over the Bering strait were not a homogeneous bunch but varied in terms of hairiness, skin color and shape of nose etc.6

Why do so many find it so hard to believe that some Indian men without "white" ancestry could grow beards. Some Chinese and Japanese men can grow beards and they are related to the ancestors of modern Indians of the Americas. So there is no need to postulate "white" ancestry to explain portraits of bearded men in pre-Colombian art. But then these writers "know" that Indian men cannot grow beards but if they do it is because of white ancestry and if portraits of Indian men with beards exist before Columbus that only proves that white men were there in large numbers. There is not any possibility in these peoples minds, not even the smallest, that some Indian men without white ancestry could grow beards given that Japanese and Chinese men sometimes can to say nothing of the Ainu of Northern Japan? I stand amazed!7

None of this implies that all male Indians could grow beards. All that is required is that some male Indians, given the natural variation in hairiness could grow beards. The result being that there is no need to explain the depictions of men with beards in the Americas by postulating “white” immigrants. The assumption that if a Indian has a beard it indicates ”white” ancestry is wrong. To repeat beards appear among the Chinese and Japanese, who are definitely related to the indigenous peoples of the Americas. If recent evidence is anything to go by some the earliest people in the Americas were people like the Ainu of Japan the men of whom can most definitely grow beards. (I am thinking of Kennick man) some diffusionistic authors seem to categorically assume that Indians could not grow beards. (No exceptions). That is simply not true.

The depictions used as evidence and interpreted has belonging to "white" people, (could we be more specific!?). Like the allegedly Negroid Olmec heads, the people depicted are probably Native Americans. Like every human group there is variety in hairiness, head shape and skin color. So some natives were probably paler than others for example the Inca nobility tended to stayed out of sun to distinguish them selves from the peasantry so they would be paler.

From Prescott (Conquest of Mexico, Conquest of Peru) to Thor Heyerdahl (Early Man and the Ocean, etc.), Hancock, and on and on, we hear and read endless variations of the "White God" Ancient American myth. According too which the peoples of the Americas had a myth that a white bearded god (Virachocha, Quetzalcoatl, Votan etc.) brought civilization to them. And also that they believed that this "white god" would return.

This belief has become the equivalent of an "urban legend" that no amount of debunking seems to end. Instead like a rubber ball it keeps bouncing back.

Davies in his book Voyagers to the New World rather sarcastically entitles a chapter White Gods with Black Faces, and effectively demolishes this notion.

It seems that the Native Americans did not originally have a myth of "bearded white gods" bringing culture at all and the myth of return may in fact be largely Spanish in origin.

So in fact the original myths provide no such support at all. So why is this "urban legend" continually recycled? Why do its promoters continue to rely on the same outdated, inaccurate sources? I guess a little more knowledge just might blow up their theories.

It seems that these people are speaking in a closed circle and repeating what they hear from each other with no understanding that their theory is flawed, or at least this bit of evidence.

Since East Asians, Chinese and Japanese who live in the area that the natives of the Americas came from sometimes can and do grow beards and also that different people with different degrees of hairiness may have settled the Americas. There is no need to postulate “white immigrants before Columbus. For this more recent settlement, although pre-Columbus, by peoples of the Old World were is the evidence? Depictions of men with beards occur throughout the Americas; beards do exist among modern day Inuit and West Coast Indians in Canada. I could also mention the native Mexican codex's which show men with beards and of course some Mayan statutes. Diffusionists will claim that this only shows immigration in the past. Were is the evidence of such immigration?8

In the end the fantasy of the bearded white traveller is nothing more than a myth and fantasy of Europeans and those of European descent. It appears that the people that the Indians were depicting in their art and talking about in their myths and legends were other Indians.

To close here are some pictures from the famous photographer of Indians Curtis and yes these Indians have facial hair.

1. Reece, Katherine, The Spanish Imposition, In The Hall of Maat Here. Townsend, Camilla, Burying the White Gods, American Historical Review, Vol. 108, no. 3, June 2003, In the Hall of Maat Here.

Davies, Nigel, Voyagers to the New World, William Morrow and Co. Inc., New York, 1979, pp. 125-139. Wauchope, Robert, Lost Tribes and Sunken Continents, University of Chicago press, Chicago, 1962. Gardner, Brant, The Impact of the Spanish on the Record of Native Oral Tradition, 1998a, Ancient Middle America Here. (link to article no longer works. Article not available. I have copy and will send copy to anyone who requests it.).

2. For examples see Heyerdahl, Thor, Early Man and the Ocean, Vintage Books, New york, 1980, pp. 93-126. Irwin, Constance, Fair Gods and Stone Faces, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1963. Marx, Robert F., & Marx, Jennifer, In Quest of the Great White Gods, Crown Publishing Group, New York, 1992. Hancock, Graham, Fingerprints of the Gods, Three Rivers Press, New York, 1995.

3. Reece, Davies, Gardner, 1998b Quetzalcoatl as a White Man, 1998c The Bearded Quetzalcoatl Ancient Middle America Here. (link to article no longer works. Article not available. I have copy will send copy to anyone who requests it.).

4. Diaz, Bernal, The Conquest of New Spain, Penguin Books, London, 1973, p. 224. Davies, Gardner, 1998c.

5. Ibid, Diaz, p. 224. Here are a few more quotes about Indians with beards:

We have the following quote from a French Traveller:

A group of "wild people" live there, that are named Igniris; they go with their body completely naked and they have beards, which is different from all Indians, who pull out the hair as soon as it comes.

From Caribbean Consulting Here.

From Captain John Smith of Jamestown fame:

[The Powhatans are] generally tall and straight, of a comely proportion, and of a colour browne...Their haire is generally black, but few have any beards.

From First People: The Early Indians of Virgina Here.

From a Catholic Encyclopedia:

Physically the Mixe are of good height and strongly built, not handsome in features, but hardy and active, and notable burden carriers. Many wear beards.

From New Advent Here.

The following is about a tribe of Brazillian Indians:

Despite believing that if they grew beards or had their hair long at the front 'they might be seized and captured by these', some Tupinambá emulated the appearance of their French allies by growing beards. However, they plucked out all other facial and body hair.

From Wargames Foundry Here. (website now defunct).

For the above quotes thank you Doug Weller.

And how about a picture. This is one of a Yanomamo Indian.

6. Davies, pp. 21-48, Macgowan, Kenneth, & Hester, Joseph A., Early Man in the New World, Anchor Books, New York, 1962, pp. 207-232.

7. Davies, Gardner, 1998b, 1998c.Steibing, William H., Ancient Astronauts, Cosmic Collisions and Other Popular Theories About Man’s Past, Prometheus Books, Buffalo NY, 1984, pp. 140-141.

8. Davies, Macgowan, Meltzer, David J., First Peoples in a New World, University of California Press, Berkeley CA, 2009.

Pierre Cloutier

Notes on Pythagoras

Painting Pythagoras' Hymn to the Sun

The following story is told concerning Pythagoras the ancient Greek thinker.

It is related that while observing the stars one night he encountered a young man befuddled with strong drink and mad with jealousy who was piling faggots about his mistress' door with the intention of burning the house. The frenzy of the youth was accentuated by a flutist a short distance away who was playing a tune in the stirring Phrygian mode. Pythagoras induced the musician to change his air to the slow, and rhythmic Spondaic mode, whereupon the intoxicated youth immediately became composed and, gathering up his bundles of wood, returned quietly to his own home.1

The Greeks and Romans told lots of stories about Pythagoras most of them folkloric and amusing. The great majority were to indicate that Pythagoras was a strange wise man.

This story is a particular example of Greek and Roman beliefs about Pythagoras and how brilliant but strange he was. The point of the story is to indicate that Pythagoras was so brilliant and strange that he doesn't do the obvious thing and physically stop the man but instead adopts a solution based on his brilliance and strangeness.

It is unlikely that the real Pythagoras did anything like this. We know very little about the real Pythagoras. The sum total of anything like reliable information about him and his beliefs could be printed on less than 10 pages. All sorts of discoveries were attributed to him after his death along with a large corpus of folkloric stories that tend to grow around wise men.

It appears that Pythagoras wrote nothing and that he was the founder of religious cult that was obsessed with numerology, in southern Italy.

Pythagoras was later in antiquity credited with visiting Egypt and later still being educated into Egyptian secret knowledge. At least one account has him then going to Mesopotamia and getting educated there. The problem with this is that not only are the sources for this much later than Pythagoras' time but also that what we now about Pythagoras' actual beliefs do not show much influence from Egypt or for that that matter Mesopotamia, certainly nothing that indicates a comprehensive education in either of those places. Since Pythagoras was from Samos and Samos traded with Egypt it is possible he visited Egypt. But it is only a possibility. Herodotus for example discusses Pythagoras and also devotes an entire book to discussing Egypt. Even though Herodotus was big on detecting Egyptian influence on Greece he does not mention Pythagoras visiting Egypt. Herodotus does in fact think that the Pythagoreans got the idea of the transmigration of souls from Egypt. The problem with that is that it appears that the Egyptians did not apparently believe in the transmigration of souls or reincarnation. It appears rather unlikely that Herodotus would have failed to mention Pythagoras visiting, or being educated, in Egypt if Herodotus had known that Pythagoras had done so.

The first mention of Pythagoras being in Egypt is from one of the orations, Busiris, written by the Athenian Isocrates in c. 370 B.C.E. In that oration Isocrates is trying to drum up support for Athenian / Greek support for an Egyptian king against the Persians. Its historical validity is dubious. Isocrates speech the Busiris is like all of his speeches a rhetorical exercise. Isocrates reputation as a source of historically accurate information is not good. In this case he is referring to figures who lived more than a century and a half before his time.

Later it became a real cottage industry to have all sorts of revered figures from Greco-Roman antiquity visit Egypt. From King Numa of Rome, to Thales and even such figures as Plato who were all said to have visited Egypt and learned ancient wisdom. In one tale Pythagoras was supposed to have met the Persian Prophet Zarathustra. It is all dubious and more interesting as folklore than history.

The ancient Greeks and Romans claimed that Thales, Pythagoras, Eudoxus, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Democritis, Plato, visited Egypt along with many others to learn wisdom. In all the above cases it is dubious. For example did Democritis get his idea of atoms from Egypt? Almost certainly not.

The fact is both Thales and Pythagoras became shortly after their deaths the center of all sorts of tales concerning their lives, Pythagoras in fact became almost a supernatural figure of whom all sorts of miracle tales were attributed. As for Egyptian influence on their thought many later Greeks attributed the Pythagorean belief in reincarnation to alleged Egyptian influence. (Apparently starting with Herodotus, although he doesn't mention Pythagoras directly.) The problem is the Egyptians apparently didn't believe in reincarnation. Opps!

One story was that Pythagoras was in Egypt in 525 B.C.E., when Heliopolis was sacked, though it appears Pythagoras moved from Samos to southern Italy in c. 540 B.C.E.

During the life time of Pythagoras history writing was nonexistent and in fact writing of any kind was new to the Greeks. Even during the life of Herodotus the writing of "History" was a very new phenomena, written sources were few and far between for someone to use and it appears that neither Pythagoras or Thales wrote anything, certainly nothing as survived. This situation was ready made for people to fill in the gaps with "plausible" events that never happened.

The fact is Herodotus who is the earliest source for many of the Ionian philosophers did not report any such contact with Egypt by either Thales or Pythagoras or them meeting each other, which was another later story. The fact is both of these philosophers became associated with a large body of mythological / legendary material. The facts about either are frankly elusive. The later legends written about both by the Greeks are very poor guides to what they said and did.

Regarding Pythagoras the story of him going to Egypt apparently originated from his doctrine of reincarnation which Herodotus stated that the Egyptians had. Herodotus is apparently wrong and there is apparently not much of a indication of Egyptian influence in Pythagoras thought, in so far has we can make out what he taught from that of his successors.

Later this was elaborated by later writers to get the following fantasy:

In about 535 BC Pythagoras went to Egypt. This happened a few years after the tyrant Polycrates seized control of the city of Samos. There is some evidence to suggest that Pythagoras and Polycrates were friendly at first and it is claimed that Pythagoras went to Egypt with a letter of introduction written by Polycrates. In fact Polycrates had an alliance with Egypt and there were therefore strong links between Samos and Egypt at this time. The accounts of Pythagoras's time in Egypt suggest that he visited many of the temples and took part in many discussions with the priests. According to Porphyry Pythagoras was refused admission to all the temples except the one at Diospolis where he was accepted into the priesthood after completing the rites necessary for admission.

It is not difficult to relate many of Pythagoras's beliefs, ones he would later impose on the society that he set up in Italy, to the customs that he came across in Egypt. For example the secrecy of the Egyptian priests, their refusal to eat beans, their refusal to wear even cloths made from animal skins, and their striving for purity were all customs that Pythagoras would later adopt. Porphyry says that Pythagoras learnt geometry from the Egyptians but it is likely that he was already acquainted with geometry, certainly after teachings from Thales and Anaximander.

In 525 B.C.E. Cambyses II, the king of Persia, invaded Egypt. Polycrates abandoned his alliance with Egypt and sent 40 ships to join the Persian fleet against the Egyptians. After Cambyses had won the Battle of Pelusium in the Nile Delta and had captured Heliopolis and Memphis, Egyptian resistance collapsed. Pythagoras was taken prisoner and taken to Babylon.2

Both Porphyry and Iamblichus for example not only wrote more than 700 years after the life of Pythagoras but neither are considered to be reliable sources of historical information although they tell us a lot about what people of their time believed to be true. The biographer Diogenes Laertius also wrote more than 700 years after Pythagoras and is basically uncritical and unreliable.

The sources for the Egyptian trips of both of Pythagoras are very late and part of a tradition attributing all sorts of feats to him. The fact is written source material from the fifth is meagre concerning Pythagoras. And the first material alleging the Egyptian visit is from the early 4th century more than a century after their deaths. Although it is of interest that Plato does not mention such a visit. Written source material from the 6th century B.C. was quite minuscule and concerning Pythagoras apparently next to nothing survived. Some Greeks simply assumed Pythagoras, and others, went to Egypt filling in the gaps of their lack of knowledge of his life with "plausible" material.

The consensus of experts on the pre-Socratics is in fact that Pythagoras probably did not visit Egypt however much some may dislike their conclusion. There is no reason to accept late derivative sources over early sources which with the exception of Isocrates do not mention such a trip. Isocrates reputation for accuracy is not very good; he is notorious for sacrificing fact to rhetorical effect and proving some sort of connection between Egypt and Greece fit the rhetorical purpose of that oration.

The fact is evidence for going to Egypt by either is late and nothing in the philosophical material attributed to Pythagoras compels a conclusion that he went to Egypt to say nothing of being taught there. And since Pythagoras is not alleged to have been merchant why would he go? Of course there is the tourist thing and the student thing, both of which are of late development in the traditions and myths concerning Pythagoras.

Herodotus who is our earliest source about either says very little about Pythagoras and does not mention him going to Egypt.

The "extensive body of texts" some rely on are overwhelmingly late sources of dubious value. The fact is modern researchers and experts in this area believe Pythagoras never went to Egypt. There is no evidence in the surviving beliefs attributed to Pythagoras of much direct or frankly indirect Egyptian influence. I see nothing in the philosophy attributed to Pythagoras, (Who apparently wrote nothing.), that necessarily requires Egyptian influence and some that indicates non-Egyptian influences.

The Greeks / Romans became rather found of attributing all sorts of "trips" to the pre-Socratic philosophers, all of which are shall we say dubious.

Since Pythagoras apparently said anything indicating a trip to Egypt and in fact the one thing Pythagoras was supposed to have got from Egypt he did not; there is no need to assume a trip to Egypt for him. Herodotus although he mentions Pythagoras on more than one occasion does not mention him going to Egypt neither does he mention it despite his great interest in Egypt. And in fact he is not adverse to saying the Greeks took things from the Egyptians.

Given that Pythagoras apparently wrote nothing and little was known about him and he very soon after his death, began to acquire a "magical" reputation. It is likely that the Egyptian story was a invention like a lot of the stories about Pythagoras.

Regarding Pythagoras the contemporary consensus is has follows:

1, Pythagoras did not write anything. (The ancient authorities are divided about this but not a single scrap of his writing seems to have survived if he wrote anything, and considering how much the Greeks and Romans wrote about him and his school if he had written anything, that is rather strange.)

2, He was born on the Island of Samos c. 570 B.C.E.

3, About thirty years later, c. 540 B.C.E., he emigrated to the city of Croton in south Italy.

4, Pythogoras founded a school of thought at Croton.

5, Pythogoras became involved in politics in Croton and had to leave for the nearby city of Metapontum were he died.

6, He died c. 500 B.C.E.

That is about it.

After he died all sorts of beliefs, stories, miracles were attributed to him all of similar dubiousness.

1. NWO Library Here. 

2. Pythagoras of Samos Here.

For a collection of the fragments of the Pythagorans see The First Philosophers, Oxford World Classics, Robin Waterfield, 2000, p. 87-115, and Early Greek Philosophy, Second Revised Edition, Penguin Books, Jonathan Barnes, 2001, p. 28-35, also Kirk, G.S., & Raven, J.E., Schofield, M., The Presocratic Philosophers, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983, pp. 214-238.

Herodotus in his Histories, refers to Pythagoras in Book 4, s. 95-96, and indirectly in Book 2, s. 123. Isocrates mentions Pythagoras in his oration Busiris, s. 28-29.

Pierre Cloutier