[HN Gopher] What caused the hallucinations of the Oracle of Delphi? ___________________________________________________________________ What caused the hallucinations of the Oracle of Delphi? Author : mediocregopher Score : 92 points Date : 2022-05-30 15:53 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (dynomight.net) (TXT) w3m dump (dynomight.net) | sfvisser wrote: | Language shaping the way you think always feels off to me. Most | languages are pretty much universal and unbiased and are capable | of expressing an infinite amount of concepts. As easily as their | negations, subtle variations, contextual dependencies, nuances, | etc. | s1artibartfast wrote: | Relatedly, there are known neurological differences in the | brains of different language speakers impacting how they | process information and where. | | Stokes in the same location can have different impacts based on | the language of the speaker. | | This suggests there are architectural and processing | differences. | kergonath wrote: | > Most languages are pretty much universal and unbiased and are | capable of expressing an infinite amount of concepts. | | Yes, most of them are (or can be, with the addition of a couple | of neologisms or borrowings). Just like you can do anything | with any Turing-complete language. Languages and cultures still | have biases and built-in world views. | | For example, to most Europeans, the idea that you would need to | estimate your social rank to properly address someone is | utterly alien. In the best case, there is a polite form, which | we also use for people we don't know. So we don't even think | about social status when we ask someone what time it is. But | there are languages where that isn't the case at all, and this | tends to make you constantly aware of the social status of the | people around you. So it definitely does affect how tou think | about things. | | It does not mean that Europeans are incapable of understanding | these things, just that it is not something they implicitly | care about. | User23 wrote: | > For example, to most Europeans, the idea that you would | need to estimate your social rank to properly address someone | is utterly alien. | | German is well known for having different pronouns based on | social rank and familiarity. | hprotagonist wrote: | > For example, to most Europeans, the idea that you would | need to estimate your social rank to properly address someone | is utterly alien. | | A phenomenon that is, at best, about a century old. Maybe. | | That there aren't grammatical forms or special declensions of | words that signal rank relationships (as there are in, say, | japanese) does not for an instant mean that we do not | consciously choose linguistic styles based on social | structure. Especially in Europe. | kmonsen wrote: | In Norwegian you still have to address the king with a more | polite pronoun, my grandmother would use this pronoun | generally for richer people. | | As I understand in Swedish you still need to know someone's | progression to address them politely "how would the | software engineer like his coffee?" | | Edit: also in Norway most women would wear head coverings | when outside 100 years ago. We are not that far from having | a culture most of us despise today. | s_dev wrote: | SQL and HTML/CSS and C and bash are all Turing complete. | However we can easily see some languages are a better suited to | expressing certain types of ideas than others. | | If this is true for formal languages -- why would wouldn't this | phenomena be accentuated at the natural language level. | anbende wrote: | The hard version of this, sometimes called Strong Whorfianism | (after the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) is relatively easy to | discredit. Imagine a system of gears. Turn them and adjust them | in your mind. You're thinking in images rather than language. | | The soft version of this, that our thinking is influenced by | the limits of language is almost certainly true. To give a very | HN example, think about the work done in different programming | languages or stacks. The way you think about a problem and how | to solve it will be influenced by the language and tools you | use (and know). You learn to think in a particular language or | tool set. That doesn't mean that you can't think outside of it, | but it does mean that there is a tendency to stay inside of it, | inside the structures you know. | | In the same way, some languages lend themselves more readily to | certain culturally prevalent concepts. More nuanced words for | snow or love, different color boundaries, different emotion | words or nuances, etc. | | I ran into this often when learning French as an emotion | researcher. I'd try to express a scientific conception of a | mood or emotion from English, and the French speaker would | suggest a translation but it clearly didn't mean exactly what I | was going for. And the way the French speaker would push back | was interesting, "we wouldn't say it like that, we'd say it | like this". But the "this" and "that" were not exactly the | same. I was watching us both be constrained by our language | context. It could be pushed through, but the tendency was to | just move forward as if we'd reached common ground but hadn't | fully. | sfvisser wrote: | The fact that some things are more easily -- or better, | directly -- expressable in some languages doesn't necessarily | imply your thinking is changed or that you can't internalize | the concept without access to that language. | | I don't have twenty different words for specific shades of | green or types of snow, but can still easily recognize them | and use them in my thinking. | s1artibartfast wrote: | Yes, but think about languages that don't have the concept | of green, but only a shade of blue that we would call | green. | | This would not stop your ability to describe it, but would | change how you relate it to other colors. | ArnoVW wrote: | I tended to agree with the soft version. But I just realized, | what it's saying is that you need to know about a concept. | The language is not necessary. | | In theory you can imagine a concept, not give it a name, and | still use it. You can't communicate it through, which | severely limits it's use. And somehow I suspect that naming | the concept makes it easier to manipulate, so perhaps that is | a 'weak' version of the theory? | kergonath wrote: | It also would not be propagated along with the culture, | which is the hypothesis at its core: not that people of one | given language are incapable of understanding some | concepts, but rather that their cultural bagage tends to | bias them and shape their way of thinking (which I would | think is obviously true to anyone who's ever lived in a | foreign country or read literature or news articles in a | foreign language). | Retric wrote: | The constant creation of new words for new things and | concepts seems to limit that idea. | | Only dead languages are static, otherwise they can all | adapt to new ideas as long as their sufficiently useful. | krisoft wrote: | > Imagine a system of gears. Turn them and adjust them in | your mind. You're thinking in images rather than language. | | How is this demonstrating anything? Can someone do the same | who doesn't know what a gear is? | mcphage wrote: | The idea is that it an example of explicitly non-linguistic | thinking--hence not all thinking can be defined or limited | by linguistic structures. | hprotagonist wrote: | a counterpoint is that this example begs the question; it | assumes a priori that "thinking about gears" is not a | language itself. | | which, who knows, it might be! | JackFr wrote: | Extra points for a rare completely appropriate use of | "begs the question." | JackFr wrote: | I see your point but I feel it's a little bit weakened by the | fact that you're limited to using words to describe it. | | Can you conceive of a thought experiment that is impossible | to put into words? Yes or no is acceptable, but if the answer | is yes I guess I'll have to take your word for it. | lukeschlather wrote: | It depends on what you mean by "conceive" and "thought | experiment." If the thought experiment can be expressed, | you can come up with a word to describe the expression of | the idea. I think I could imagine some inexpressible ideas | (this seems like it would logically follow from the proof | that some things are not computable.) | | Of course, when you deal with real language your language | itself is constrained. If you need to invent a bunch of new | words does that count? | krisoft wrote: | > Moreover, ethylene in the concentrations that cause trances is | extremely flammable, and there's no historical record of any | explosions or fires. | | That doesn't seem to be true. Herodotus 2.180: | | "When the Amphictyons paid three hundred talents to have the | temple that now stands at Delphi finished (as that which was | formerly there burnt down by accident), it was the Delphians' lot | to pay a fourth of the cost." [1] | | I'm not a student of the Classics so I can't verify from the | original. This source [2] seems to imply that the world choice | implies as if the place burnt down on its own. | | 1: | http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%... | | 2: https://erenow.net/ancient/delphi-a-history-of-the-center- | of... | MonkeyClub wrote: | With apologies for hastiness, rushed day - | | Greek: "o gar proteron eon autothi automatos katekae" | | (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%.. | .) | | Literal translation: "because the one [= the temple] that | previously existed in the same place completely burned down on | its own" | | The crux here is on "automatos", for which see LSJ: | http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=au%29to%2Fmatos&... | CobrastanJorji wrote: | "There is no historical record of..." is an interesting | assertion. On the one hand, it's easy to make and sort of | requires no citation because there wouldn't be one. "There is | no historical record of Caesar's fondness for juggling." But on | the other hand, it's a dangerous claim because it's extremely | falsifiable, like in your example. But I suppose it's easy to | say "whoops, I read all of the historical records but forgot | about Histories book 2, good find!" | Mathnerd314 wrote: | A stronger claim is to limit yourself to some sources: "There | is no record of X in A's history of B or C's history of D." | If you read the sources it is unlikely to be falsified, and | the reader who wants to debate you at least knows where not | to look. | benibela wrote: | Too much pressure? | goto11 wrote: | The final point about positivism is important. Geeks love | naturalistic explanations of mythological ideas, however far | fetched. Trolls are really cultural memory of Neanderthals. | Dragons are dinosaurs. The witch craze was due to ergot poisoning | etc. | | If anyone is interested in what _actual_ historians think about | such theories, read for example this: | https://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2018/06/delphic-oracle.ht... | Tl/dr: The oracle speaking cryptic prophetic verses from a trance | is a literary construction. So the ethylene theory is a trying to | provide a naturalistic explanation for a fiction. | andi999 wrote: | How can dragons be memories of dinosaurs? Or do you think some | skeletons were found? | mensetmanusman wrote: | They found bones. | ProjectArcturis wrote: | The identification of dinosaurs as dragons is a common theory | but I believe the historical evidence for it is extremely | sparse. Still, it is really strange to me that dinosaur bones | were only officially discovered in 1841. | colinmhayes wrote: | I think that's OPs point. It's shoehorned nonsense. | [deleted] | Alex3917 wrote: | There is a good Religion for Breakfast episode about this: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IJfmaGs72c | cassepipe wrote: | Thank you for that. This is an excellent review of the original | theory and its rebuttals. | lordnacho wrote: | Cynical me thinks the simplest explanation is it was all just a | big show they put on. Similar to when my aunt went to a fortune | teller who guessed she had six kids. The fortune teller was | probably just well informed about the local environment. | | If you're running an Oracle business, your customers are already | locked in. It's a long pilgrimage to get there, so you've | probably got something important to ask about. The sales people | will know roughly what kind of relational data is precious to | you, and your branding makes Oracle a natural choice, despite | what the techies of the time might say (it's expensive! There's a | free and open source that we can get high at!). Once they're | there, you keep the magic going by offering associated services. | Maybe a bit if consulting on what the old lady said. Of course | the consulting will always include coming back for more | prophesies. | | Most of the business is knowing what kinds of things people want | to hear, and feeding back a few things you found. After all it's | only once a month there's a seance, the rest of the time can be | spent hanging around finding out what the customers want. | krapp wrote: | If you look into the examples of oracular statements from | Delphi[0], and assume them to be an accurate representation, | many of them are vague enough that a "true" interpretation can | be found in hindsight from various outcomes. | | And it is likely that a lot of those prophecies were informed | by having a unique amount of access to political and social | dealings throughout the Greek world. It helps when all the | kings and all the priests come to you and tell you their | secrets. | | [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oracular_statements_fr | ... | pyuser583 wrote: | Prophesying was a common function for ancient priests. | | The flights of birds, the guts of sacrificial offerings. E All | sorts of things. | | The prophesies were usually very pragmatic and politically | conservative (not edgy). | | It's not hard to do. Many modern magicians do the same thing. | Fortune cookies, etc. | | It's not hard to do this, but being intoxicated makes it harder | not easier. | kogus wrote: | TL;DR: We have no idea if they were real, and if they were what | caused them, and it's ok to be unsure and inconclusive sometimes. | Hayvok wrote: | Clarification: We have no idea if the _hallucinogenic effects_ | of the place were real, if they were mere theater, or something | else altogether. | | That a succession of women served as Oracles in the Temple of | Apollo (for hundreds of years) is well supported. | [deleted] | martimarkov wrote: | That's such a good summary. I should have started with reading | the comments | peatmoss wrote: | I'm not sure I read the same thing. I think this misses the | late point, that if empiricism can have weakness, what is its | alternative? | phdelightful wrote: | Maybe the positivists' antipositivism should just be "not | everything demands an empirical explanation in order for us | to continue functioning well in day-to-day life, and that's | just fine." | kergonath wrote: | > what is its alternative? | | Accepting that we won't know everything (but also accept that | there are things we don't know yet and that will be known in | the future, and that it's ok to change your mind in the face | of new evidence). | | Actually, it's not really an alternative to empiricism, but I | don't thing that empiricism has this particular weakness. | mef wrote: | In this comment section: a hundred people either missing the | point, proving the point, or both! | kwatsonafter wrote: | I think it's worth noting-- there's some serious work exploring | these kinds of things in the ancient world (Temple of Kykeon, | Soma of the Rg Veda, Amrta, Cintamani) and it's still an open | subject. Terence McKenna theorized that Psilocybin mushrooms | might be responsible for, "mystical visions through substance" | but as a practicing, "Hindu" (Chaitanya follower) I've come to | find that in the case of the mystical substances of ancient India | that there's actually a very involved and very profound | philosophical tradition(s) surrounding Amrta (Love of Godhead; | Bhakti) Soma (Moon Juice for The God of Heaven) and Cintamani | (Puranic equivalent of the Philosopher's Stone) that really | doesn't have anything to do with, "psychedelic culture" outside | of being generally mind expanding. | | tl;dr: She was last holy remnant of the age the Hellenic Greeks | idealized about-- The Homeric period before book culture and the | Sophists. The time when magic and unadulterated heroism ruled the | Earth. Think about Tolkien the next time you trip. The magic | isn't in a molecule baby, it's in us! | kordlessagain wrote: | There was a World Day fair at UC Davis a few years back. One | tent had Hari Krishnas in it. I asked one of the Hari Krishnas, | "Do you visualize?", and he replied with a beam, "Oh, yes. I do | visualize and I love it! I see all sorts of wonderful things." | He then pushed a colorful copy of the Rig Veda in my hands and | ran off smiling. | | A bit later I went over to the Zen booth and talked to a young | monk. They had no materials in the booth, only a piece of paper | with the swooshed circle symbol. After talking to him briefly I | asked, "Do you visualize?". He looked at me calmly for just a | moment and then replied, "I practice Zen." I then repeated | myself, asking " Yes, but do you visualize?". Immediately he | replied, "I practice Zen." | | Later I would joke it was at the moment I became enlightened, | but understanding this from a fundamental standpoint is both a | choice of faith and a logical conclusion done by the mind. | | People do visualize, but some people don't. Practicing Zen is | about not adding to things, but living in the moment and being | aware of your surroundings. The monk may have been able to | visualize, but he knew that doing so would pull him out of the | moment so he didn't. | | Conversely, the Hari Krishna visualized at will, by his own | admission when I was asking about it, and allowed it to be a | thing he was aware of in the few moments we spoke. | OnlyMortal wrote: | Fumes. This has been what is assumed for years. | krapp wrote: | Watch the Religion for Breakfast video linked in this thread, | or RTFA. The ethylene fume theory has been pretty thoroughly | debunked. | boxed wrote: | The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral | Mind has a very interesting answer to this question. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in... | SeanLuke wrote: | Which is... | mensetmanusman wrote: | Such a fun theory, we will probably never know how rocks | started thinking... | noasaservice wrote: | I know that magic is poo-pooed and all, but, have you considered | that answer as well? Or perhaps they weren't hallucinations, and | instead divinations. Calling what the Oracle of Delphi had | "hallucinations" puts a bad spin on it from the onset. | | Or lets not get hung up with the word "magic". Lets call it a 5th | type of energy. Mechanical detection don't work, but a number of | humans can feel it. Hard to measure for sure. Some people are | more connected to that energy than others. But again, being | human-centric at this time makes verification hard/impossible. | | What I would adore is a theorem to connect that energy to the 4 | other types of energy (EM, strong, weak, gravity). And then, we | can start scientifically describing all of those "weird" human | issues of stuff we just shouldn't know (I'm thinking of: past | life recollections, feeling someone staring at you, parental | intuitions that something's wrong with a child, etc). | dr_dshiv wrote: | The only picture of the Pythian priestess is a red figure | drinking cup from around 430 BC. She sits on a bronze tripod, | holds laurel leaves and a bowl or water or wine. | | She would, apparently, listen to the rustle of the leaves-- scry | into the ripples of water -- and feel the resonant vibrations of | the tripod. All in order to channel the wisdom of the god Apollo. | | Sources of randomness to support creative inspiration. Seems | plausible. | durpleDrank wrote: | I read a long time ago in a book that it was from the steam/vapor | of the pit that they would hang out around. I forget what | substance was floating out of it but it made them "high". | kingkawn wrote: | The voice of the Gods | itronitron wrote: | >> _Positivist dispositions can lead to the acceptance of claims | because they have a scientific form, not because they are | grounded in robust evidence and sound argument._ | | Interesting that is a form of hallucination itself :) | murbard2 wrote: | This isn't asking the hard question though: how did the oracle | see the future? | quinnjh wrote: | Probably the same way you can construct a data oracle to | project out guesses for what a time series will do? | | The thinking goes: the more, nd better sources of market | intelligence you can feed to the oracle, the better predictions | it can make. | | I would assume the oracle at delphi was being fed the most / | best market intelligence to then prophesize from | jotm wrote: | Same way I can see the future of everyone commenting here with | near 100% accuracy. | | If you're curious, I can see that you will die. | | If you're scared, I can help you avoid death for only $4.99/day | or a war against Lichtenstein, your choice. | | Do as I say, or do you really want to risk dying tomorrow? | asiachick wrote: | Oracle: Lisa, this supplicant has not groveled in the least | | Lisa: Then zot them into oblivion darling | | Oracle: Your groveling is unacceptable! I shall ZOT THEE! | | You have been zotted! | kordlessagain wrote: | According to mystical based beliefs described in _A Textbook of | Theosophy_ by C.W. Leadbeater: | | > _When a man thinks of any concrete object - a book, a house, | a landscape - he builds a tiny image of the object in the | matter of his mental body. This image floats in the upper part | of that body, usually in front of the face of the man and at | about the level of the eyes. It remains there as long as the | man is contemplating the object, and usually for a little time | afterwards, the length of time depending upon the intensity and | the clearness of the thought. This form is quite objective, and | can be seen by another person, if that other has developed the | sight of his own mental body. If a man thinks of another, he | creates a tiny portrait in just the same way. If his thought is | merely contemplative and involves no feeling (such as affection | or dislike) or desire (such as a wish to see the person) the | thought does not usually perceptively affect the man of whom he | thinks._ | | These mental bodies are not considered by the textbook to be | bound by time, given they are "astral bodies" for which, under | certain conditions, time and space don't matter. | mcphage wrote: | I think first it would need to be established that she did in | fact see the future. | tshaddox wrote: | Yes. The explanation "it was all made up by one or more | writers" sufficiently covers not just the precognition, but | also the hallucinations and even the existence of the oracle. | kordlessagain wrote: | This is an example of Positivism. | | I think the primary problem with positivism is the knowledge | about the universe is never fully attained, so it feels more | like a confused reasoning process. The assumption the | scientific method will explain everything someday is | irrational. When is that going to happen? With more work? | What positivism really is, is a commitment to a bunch of work | in the future to "prove" something is this and not that. The | future never arrives. | | Mysticism is the flipside of that. A mystical approach builds | a metaphor to exist that "makes sense" but can't really be | tested or analyzed by scientific methods. Faith takes over | there, where just believing something irrational to be true, | makes it true. Maybe that includes visualizing something over | and over again? | | Between these two extremes sits a philosophy that holds that | there is value in both kinds of knowledge, and that both can | be used to improve our understanding of the world. This | philosophy emphasizes the need for both scientific and | spiritual knowledge in order to create a complete picture of | reality. | | Unfortunately, the scientific method is a bit annoying | sometimes, given it's absolute insistence all things may be | disproved. It's a little like a virus in that regard, growing | without bounds or purpose, other than to try to avoid the | mystical outlooks at all costs. | coeneedell wrote: | Well okay, but when the scientific method produces | knowledge, the voracity of that knowledge can be checked by | an observer. When a mystic convinces a large number of | people that their opinions are in fact, truths, that is not | a process that can be checked by an observer, and the | "knowledge" produced has nothing tying itself back to | reality. | quinnjh wrote: | How do corporations forecast the future? | shkkmo wrote: | Mysticism is a not an "understanding of the world" but a | way of framing our knowledge of the world and coping with | the unknown and the unknowable. | | The realm of the unknown and the unknowable shrinks as our | tools advance but there are very good reasons to think it | will never disappear as there are both provably unknowable | truths amd facts that are practicaly impossible to learn. | | > Faith takes over there, where just believing something | irrational to be true, makes it true. | | This only applies to a limited set of things (the | unknowable), getting enough people to believe the world is | flat won't make that a true belief, no matter how many | people have how much faith. | | The types of things that faith can make true are | subjective, sociocultural or related to our inner lives. | | > Unfortunately, the scientific method is a bit annoying | sometimes, given it's absolute insistence all things may be | disproved. | | In no way, shape or form does the scientific method suggest | this, let alone insist on it. | | There is a long history of faith pairing quite productively | with the scientific method. The network of scientific | knowledge is primarily drive by one thing: curiosity, not | any sort of animus against the mystical. | rapjr9 wrote: | Seems like the author is neglecting the possibility of human | intervention. The priests and priestesses may have found a way to | collect ethylene gas from the stream and released it | intentionally at the right time. A trade secret so to speak. | Hidden secrets in religion are not uncommon. | pbhjpbhj wrote: | > Hidden secrets in religion are not uncommon. // | | It's not clear what you mean here, could you give some | examples? | coeneedell wrote: | Not the person you replied to of course, but when I saw this | the concept of mystery religions comes to mind for me. | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Roman_mysteries They | were even widespread in the same region at the same time. | photochemsyn wrote: | _Our question is: Why did the Pythia go into a frenzy?_ | | The major theory you hear about this is that the Oracle was | ingesting some kind of drug, possibly a psychedelic derived from | rye fungi - but who can say with any certainty? Maybe it was just | similar to the 'speaking in tounges' religious phenomenon, which | has examples from all over the world: | | https://www.skeptical-science.com/religion/speaking-in-tongu... | sdfhdhjdw3 wrote: | Maybe it was just BS. Don't write off the simplest explanation. | GrumpyNl wrote: | Thats what i thought, might al be part of the conception, the | make believe show. | narag wrote: | "Drugs" is simple enough. Actually training naked virgins to | go bananas without some chemical help seems a little more | complicated. | | Something the article doesn't seem to consider is the | possibilty that there was some kind of (natural or built) | chamber where the gas could get trapped and thus | concentration be higher. | sdfhdhjdw3 wrote: | Not training. Maybe she figured out that making up bullshit | gave her power. Seems a lot simpler than "drugs". | t_mann wrote: | The role must have been filled by dozens of different | individuals over the centuries, it seems reasonable to | assume that there was some kind of induction process for | new recruits. | krapp wrote: | I think this is too cynical. This was all religious | practice for the time, and the Oracle probably believed | she was actually receiving visions from Apollo just as | many modern churchgoers believe in visions and prophecies | from God. | throwaway5752 wrote: | People speak in tongues at church because they are expected to, | have seen it before, and they lie about it. It seems that should | be the presumption in the case of Delphi, too, rather than a | biochemical mechanism or "antipositivism". | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaking_in_tongues#Medical_re... | jhap wrote: | I don't think most people "lie about it", at least not | intentionally. | | I think it's more likely they get really caught up in the | moment or something among those lines. I am interested in what | in what it would be like to go to a concert of a bar with one | of these people. | throwaway5752 wrote: | I really don't care what it would be like to go to a social | event with one of those people, nor do I care to deeply plumb | the depths of the distinction between a lie and untruth. | mistrial9 wrote: | _cues hardcore hip-hop_ | pessimizer wrote: | > I don't think most people "lie about it", at least not | intentionally. | | No, they do, and are usually pushed into it by prayer | retreats and a forced lack of sleep (in the stories I've | heard.) It's after they fake it once in order to sleep, then | get into the habit of faking it, that they decide that they | were never actually faking it, retconning the first incident | into an awakening. | | It was once only tiny pentecostal sects that did this (speak | in tongues), but evangelical churches grew out of that | tradition and took over the world. Literally didn't exist 100 | years ago. It's also where we got faith healing and snake- | handling. | | edit: Again, barely older than Scientology or the Nation of | Islam. | cgio wrote: | So they don't lie about it. From their perspective they | reinterpret sleep deprivation as metaphysical labour to | culminate in ecstatic mystical experience. Especially in | puritanical, austere contexts the power to shape an | experienced story, such that there is a communal acceptance | of a form of pleasure, is valuable, and the more | unintentional the reinterpretation the more profound its | influence and expression. | gfody wrote: | our minds are perfectly capable of frenzied hallucinations | without any external substance, especially one trained | specifically for this purpose probably only had to meditate or | chant or indulge some trigger for a moment. | dahlem wrote: | I remember the most exciting book on this topic that I read, was | the book on Constantin (the great) by Jacob Burkhardt. While | maybe being a bit speculative, at least partly, I had the | impression of highly plausible puzzle-solving by someone who | actually read and understood the ancient sources. You will find a | lot of details on questions like this. I find it most | recommendable for anyone who is interested in (the making of) | politics and religion now and then. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-30 23:00 UTC)