Great Books Ep 109. Herodotus - The History - Book 2 (Euterpé), Part 1. Egypt - The Gift of Nile, The Land of Wonders
Reflecting on early childhood development, reduction of toil, who is a citizen, perils of infighting and food restriction customs
“Concerning Egypt itself I shall extend my remarks to a great length, because there is no country that possesses so many wonders, nor any that has such a number of works which defy description.”
~ ‘The History’ by Herodotus (George Rawlinson translation. GB6 - p. 56)
Brief Summary - The History - Book 2 (Euterpé) - Part 1 (Sections 1-60)
The last book ended with the death of Cyrus, and this one picks up from there for a brief moment and then goes off into a detailed portrait of Egypt - its geography, history, customs and religious practices. Herodotus uses empirical observation and critical thinking in every aspect he discusses - how the land was created by deposits from the river, about the source of the river and the reason for floods, Egyptian customs regarding cleanliness and sacrifices, their gods predating those of the Greeks, and so forth. He uses logic to debunk a lot of theories.
Highlights & Thoughts
1 - Who is more ancient? Egyptians or Phrygians?
“Now the Egyptians, before the reign of their king Psammetichus, believed themselves to be the most ancient of mankind. … In consideration of this circumstance the Egyptians yielded their claims, and admitted the greater antiquity of the Phrygians.” (Page 49)
During the time of King Psammetichus, they try to find out if Egyptians were indeed the most ancient of mankind using a strange experiment. The king separates two infants at birth and has them raised in different households, insisting that no one talk to them in any language. This is to find out what word the babies would speak the first time. They both utter the word “becos” which means bread in Phrygian. So the Egyptians agree that the Phrygians are older than them.
Wow! This raised so many questions. Can kids talk if no one talks to them, or if they have never heard anyone talking? Hypothetically, did baby Tarzan, who was brought up in the jungle, ever learn to talk? There are studies that say that if kids are introduced to screens (TV, tablet, phone, etc.), they have speech delays. Kids who spend time with other people who talk to them and other kids speak earlier than kids who don’t have that kind of exposure, right?
2 - The most effortless farmers in the world.
“they obtain the fruits of the field with less trouble than any other people in the world, the rest of the Egyptians included, since they have no need to break up the ground with the plough, nor to use the hoe, nor to do any of the work which the rest of mankind find necessary if they are to get a crop; but the husbandman waits till the river has of its own accord spread itself over the fields and withdrawn again to its bed, and then sows his plot of ground, and after sowing turns his swine into it —the swine tread in the corn — after which he has only to await the harvest.” (page 51)
Herodotus notes that in places other than Egypt, farming required backbreaking labor - clearing land, plowing hard soil, constant weeding, and complex irrigation (he talked about canals in Babylon in the last chapter). In Egypt, the farmer waits for the Nile to overflow and cover the fields. After the river withdraws, leaving behind fertile, soft mud, the farmer simply scatters seeds on the moist soil. Pigs are released to walk over the field, pressing seeds into the mud, and the farmer just waits for the crops to grow and mature.
This made me think that the reduction of toil is the single most reason for the advancement of a civilization. The invention of the steam engine made long distances shorter and not only made the movement of goods faster but also saved time for people and animals. The invention of the washing machine saved time for so many people to do many other productive things. Countries where people don’t have to spend mindless hours toiling away at chores are the ones that advance faster. One optimistically hopes that the AI revolution that is underway is going to bring that - reduce the toil on a lot of Kafka-esque paperwork and analysis that white-collar workers do and focus on interesting inventions.
3 - Is “Egypt where Egyptians live”? Or “Are Egyptians everyone who lives in Egypt”?
“I consider Egypt to be the whole country inhabited by the Egyptians.”
“Egypt was the entire tract of country which the Nile overspreads and irrigates, and the Egyptians were the people who lived below Elephantine, and drank the waters of that river.” (page 52)
These are two contradicting things on the same page! And both are true when you think about it. If a group of Mexicans comes to the US, they bring their culture and customs with them, and hence, the place where they live becomes Mexico. It is all good till there is a conflict. When there is a conflict, you define the country by the characteristics of the place. Everyone in the United States is an American and should follow American customs. In the passage, Libyans eat cow and Egyptians don’t and when they go to the oracle at the shrine of Ammon to settle the dispute, the oracle says that Egypt is where Nile irrigates and everyone who lives there and drinks the water of Nile is an Egyptian and should abide by the rules of Egyptians, who I think are the majority.
The modern era has probably seen the largest and most mingling among different people than any other era in human history. So this issue of “when in Rome, be a Roman” or “I’m a Roman and I carry Rome with me” keeps coming up again and again, resulting in drama and conflicts that may never end, even if humanity ends up colonizing the whole of the solar system and beyond. I think the ground rule should probably be “when in Rome, be a Roman” since this would lead to fewer conflicts in general. But it is not that easy also. Even when you go to a different state and adopt their language, accent and culture, they may still view you as an outsider based on skin color, hair color, or some other differentiating characteristic that you cannot change. Then you’re left in no-man’s land, regretting the change if not migration (since migration is better than the poor conditions that you left). The other aspect is that some cultural aspects may be so deep in someone’s brain that it is almost impossible to change them. In his latest podcast, David Eagleman says that in our brain, there is a region called the insula that gets activated when we’re disgusted and being disgusted at something is totally subjective, shaped by our upbringing.
“disgust is in some part shaped by your culture. In some countries they eat dogs. I have a dog who I love, and that repulses me. Some places eat horses, some don't. Here in America we love to eat cows, but in the majority of states
in India, killing a cow is revolting and illegal. So some amount of our reactions are culturally poured into us, and once they're baked in, they're hard to shake. We don't just say, well that food isn't for me. We say that's gross. We react with our whole bodies.”~ Inner Cosmos with David Eagleman, Episode 114 - Would you eat a self burger? (14:43)
4 - Strangers benefit from infighting
“Arrived in Ethiopia, they placed themselves at the disposal of the king. In return, he made them a present of a tract of land which belonged to certain Ethiopians with whom he was at feud, bidding them expel the inhabitants and take possession of their territory.” (page 55)
In this instance, a group of Egyptian soldiers mutinies and leaves Egypt, arriving in Ethiopia. The king gives land to the guests by taking it from his own people, with whom he had enmity. I think history is full of such examples. When the British came, some Indian kings sought help from them to defeat their enemies. When Europeans came to the Americas, I guess a similar thing happened. Local conflicts and rivalries often create an opening for an external force to intervene, initially as an ally, but with its own long-term interests in mind.
5 - Better to be clean than comely
They are the only people in the world—they at least, and such as have learnt the practice from them who use circumcision. (page 56)
They practise circumcision for the sake of cleanliness, considering it better to be cleanly than comely. (page 57)
At the moment, I think it is mainly Jews and Muslims who practice circumcision, mainly for religious reasons. It was interesting to note that this originated from the Egyptians. Also, it was interesting to note that not doing circumcision is attractive. It made me think of the statue of David and other sculptures.
Egyptians also considered hair to be unhealthy. So the priest shaved their head and body every other day and took a bath four times a day in cold water! I guess shaving the body has become the realm of women now, for the sake of beauty and not cleanliness. I guess it is also a way of asserting luxury. If you have time to shave or take care of your body, you are living a life of luxury, and that is something that everyone should aspire to.
I guess one can also shave off unnecessary thoughts from the mind through meditation or other practices, and that is also a luxury. You’re not toiling away the whole day with a never-ending list of to-dos and the churn of the rat race.
6 - What not to eat
“Fish they are not allowed to eat; and beans —which none of the Egyptians ever sow, or eat, if they come up of their own accord, either raw or boiled —the priests will not even endure to look on, since they consider it an unclean kind of pulse.” (page 57)
“and the Egyptians, one and all, venerate cows much more highly than any other animal.” (page 57)
“The pig is regarded among them as an unclean animal, so much so that if a man in passing accidentally touch a pig, he instantly hurries to the river, and plunges in with all his clothes on.” (page 59)
It was interesting to see that Egyptian priests didn’t like to eat beans, fish, or cow. Why not fish? There would have been plenty of fish in the river. It doesn’t make logical sense. Probably because of smell.
Not eating beans was kind of strange too. There are some Indians who don’t eat any vegetable that grows underground. Some people consider garlic, onions, etc., as ‘tamasik’ foods that cause negative emotions. I also thought that veneration of the cow was exclusively an Indian thing, but it looks like that is not the case. I wonder why the pig was regarded as unclean in most of the Middle East, while it is cherished in the West. I’d written about this in a post related to The Odyssey when Ulysses meets with the swineherd.
