Tales of Times Forgotten

What Was the First Novel?

There seems to be a lot of confusion about when the novel as a literary form developed. Many people think that the novel arose at some point during the Early Modern Period (lasted c. 1450 – c. 1750). Many works dating to this period, such as Robinson Crusoe, Don Quixote, and Le Morte d’Arthur are often cited as “the first novel.” The popular perception, however, is incorrect.

The novel as a literary form definitely dates at least as far back as the second century BC and probably dates to long before that. Not a single one of the works usually cited as “the first novel” is even close to being old enough to actually be “the first novel.”

The fact is, we don’t know exactly what the first novel was, but, since we have record of works that can only be described as novels dating as far back as at least the second century BC, anything written within the past 2,200 years can’t possibly be “the first novel.”

What Really Happened to the Athena Parthenos?

The Athena Parthenos, a colossal gold and ivory statue of the goddess Athena created between 447 and 438 BC by the renowned ancient Athenian sculptor Pheidias (lived c. 480 – c. 430 BC) that originally stood in the naos of the Parthenon on the Athenian Akropolis, is one of the most famous of all ancient Greek statues.

Unlike the Venus de Milo, which, as I talk about in this article from September 2019, wasn’t famous in antiquity and is mostly only famous today because of a French propaganda campaign in the nineteenth century, the Athena Parthenos really was famous in antiquity. In fact, it is only famous today because of its ancient reputation, since the statue itself has not survived.

Many people have wondered what happened to the Athena Parthenos, but its ultimate fate is actually far less mysterious than many people have been led to believe. The story of how the Athena Parthenos was destroyed, recreated, and destroyed again is as fascinating as any story from the ancient world.

The Problem with Percy Jackson

The book series Percy Jackson and the Olympians by Rick Riordan, originally published from 2005 to 2009, is one of the most popular series of children’s fantasy novels of the twenty-first century so far. According to the Wikipedia article on it (which may or may not be reliable here since the source it cites is a Fox Business article from 2010 with a dead link), over sixty-nine million copies of books in the series have been sold worldwide.

In case you haven’t read the series, the basic premise is that the Greek gods are real, they live in the United States, and their demigod offspring live among us. According to the series, these demigods have special powers that they have inherited from their parents. The main character of the series is Percy Jackson, the demigod son of Poseidon and a mortal woman. Major supporting characters introduced in the first book include Annabeth Chase (a daughter of Athena), Grover Underwood (a satyr), Luke Castellan (a son of Hermes), and Chiron (a wise centaur).

I first read the series when I was in late elementary school and, at the time, I loved it—although I never quite got as obsessed with it as I did with Harry Potter or The Spiderwick Chronicles (probably because I read it at a significantly older age). As I grew older, though, there was something about the series that really started to bother me. I was in around seventh grade when I really started to notice it and, ever since then, it is something that I have found very disturbing about the series and the message that it sends.

This article will be just as much an account of my personal experience with the books and how they have affected me, as well as an assessment of them and a reflection on how my sentiments towards them have changed over the years.

How Did Greek Philosophers Support Themselves?

A lot of people have wondered how on Earth Greek philosophers made their living. It is hard for a person to earn a livable wage as a professional “philosopher” in the modern age and it would have been even more difficult in classical Greece, since there were no universities as we would think of them at that time that could hire philosophers.

As it turns out, though, most ancient Greek philosophers did not make their money from philosophy. Many of them were from wealthy families and therefore didn’t need to work. Many of them also had wealthy patrons who paid for their expenses. Other philosophers found other ways to survive, which included working day jobs, starting cults, and even literally living off the streets through begging.

If You Like Ancient Greek Texts, Thank the Byzantines for Preserving Them

There is a widespread belief among members of the general public that ancient Greek texts were mostly only preserved by the Arabs through Arabic translations. The Byzantine Empire is rarely mentioned in the context of the preservation of classical texts. When the Byzantines are mentioned in this context, it is usually by writers who see them as ignorant fundamentalist Christian obscurantists.

Contrary to what popular culture would lead you to believe, however, the Byzantine Empire did retain Greco-Roman knowledge. In fact, the vast majority of ancient Greek texts that have survived to the present day are primarily known from Greek manuscripts that were either copied in the Byzantine Empire or copied from texts that were copied in the Byzantine Empire.

The idea that the majority of ancient Greek texts have only been preserved because they were translated by Arabic scholars is largely a misconception. There are a few lesser-known classical Greek texts that have been preserved only through Arabic translations, but the vast majority of the really famous texts that people still study today have actually been preserved in the original Greek.

The widespread ignorance of the Byzantines’ role in the preservation of classical Greek and Roman texts is just one small part of a centuries-old, systematic effort by westerners to marginalize the Byzantine Empire and minimize its importance in European history.

What Merit Is There Really to the Strauss-Howe Generational Hypothesis?

The Strauss-Howe generational hypothesis is a non-scientific hypothesis that was first set forth in 1991 by the American authors William Strauss and Neil Howe in their book Generations. It was later expanded in their 1997 book The Fourth Turning. Although William Strauss died in 2007 of pancreatic cancer, Neil Howe has continued expanding and revising the hypothesis while giving lectures on it across the country.

Essentially, in its most basic form, the hypothesis holds that there is a recurring cycle of four generations that recurs roughly every eighty to ninety years, a period which Strauss and Howe call a “saeculum.” The cycle always begins with a period of crisis. Then there is a period of prosperity, known as a “high.” Then there is an “awakening.” Finally, there is an “unraveling,” leading to another crisis.

According to the hypothesis, as part of this cycle, there are four generations. Each generation is supposedly shaped by the events that were happening when members of that generation were growing up and, supposedly, these events result in each generation belonging to a certain recurring “archetype.”

All in all, I find the hypothesis amusing and kind of fun to read about in a crackpot sort of way, but it has virtually no credible evidence whatsoever to support it and it is mostly pseudoscience. Indeed, the kinds of predictions it makes are actually strongly reminiscent of astrology in a lot of ways, since they are vague enough that they sound meaningful without actually being meaningful.

Here’s What Movies and Television Shows Get Wrong about Medieval Swordfights

By this point, most of my readers are probably aware that movies and television shows aren’t a very good place to get your historical information from. These works are made purely for entertainment purposes by people who generally aren’t historical experts. Consequently, they are inevitably full of inaccuracies. Even films that are supposedly based on historical events often greatly distort the history to suit their own ends. (Think, for instance, of the movie 300, which I debunked in this article from November 2019.)

In this article, I want to debunk a few common inaccuracies I have noticed seem to recur in swordfight scenes from films and television shows set in medievalesque worlds. Cinematic fight scenes are always extremely unrealistic and governed solely by the “Rule of Cool” rather than by what is actually realistically possible in a combat situation. Here are a few major inaccuracies I have noticed:

The So-Called “Vatican Secret Archive” Isn’t Very Secret

There are all kinds of conspiracy theories floating around about what the Roman Catholic Church might be hiding in the notorious Vatican Secret Archive. Many people believe that the Secret Archive may hide secret, incriminating information about the origins of Christianity—or certainly at least shocking revelations about the history of the Catholic Church.

As it turns out, though, there’s not really anything “secret” about the so-called “Vatican Secret Archive”; its location is shown on every map of the Vatican and it is actually surprisingly easy to gain access to it. Indeed, thousands of scholars and journalists are allowed to access it every year. To gain access, you just have to prove your qualifications and provide a decent explanation for why you want access.

Is Stoicism a Useful Philosophy for the Modern World?

In case you haven’t heard, the ancient Greek philosophy of Stoicism seems to be having a bit of a cultural moment right now. It is the philosophy of choice for Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, football stars, and ordinary people. There is a whole plethora of websites promoting Stoicism as a philosophy for the modern world, including “Daily Stoic,” “How to Be a Stoic,” “Modern Stoicism,” and “Traditional Stoicism.”

There are also countless other resources for aspiring Stoics, including YouTube channels and bestselling books like The Daily Stoic: 366 Meditations on Wisdom, Perseverance, and the Art of Living, The Beginner’s Guide to Stoicism: Tools for Emotional Resilience and Positivity, Stoicism: A Stoic Approach To Modern Life, and countless others. There are even events for aspiring Stoics to gather and talk about Stoicism like Stoicon.

All this enthusiasm over Stoicism has left some people wondering what Stoicism is, how modern Stoicism differs from ancient Stoicism, and whether either ancient or modern Stoicism is useful for modern life. I am neither a Stoic nor an ardent critic of Stoicism, but rather an outsider who happens to know a bit about Stoicism. In my view, there are quite a few things we can learn from Stoicism, but Stoicism also has some serious pitfalls that are worth taking into account.

Is There Really a Scene in the ‘Iliad’ Where Achilles Calls Hektor Out of Troy to Face Him?

If you ask someone who has never read the Iliad to name one scene from it, chances are, the first scene that person will probably name is the scene with the Trojan Horse. The Trojan Horse, though, is actually never even mentioned in the Iliad. The Iliad ends with the funeral of Hektor, long before the fall of Troy. The story of the Trojan Horse is first told in flashback by the blind bard Demodokos in Book Eight of the Odyssey.

If you tell the person that the Iliad ends with the funeral of Hektor and ask them to name another scene, then they’ll probably tell you the iconic scene where Achilles goes to the gates of Troy and calls for Hektor to come out and face him. It’s a scene that appears in nearly every adaptation of the Trojan War made in the past two decades. That scene, though, doesn’t appear in the Iliad at all either. In fact, it doesn’t appear in any ancient source whatsoever; it is purely an invention of Hollywood.