#aristotle

When Alexander the Great died, legends about his life sprang up like weeds. Aristotle, being a major character in his life, was given a legendary role. He was no longer the sober, empirical, tutor to a great military mind. He was cast as Alexander’s court wizard, a font of occult insight who taught cosmic secrets to a legendary hero. Plus, if you wrote something, and you wanted it to have some real clout, you could just lie and say Aristotle wrote it. This trick would be pulled for several hundred years. Thus, pseudo-Aristotle became equally as influential as the actual historical Aristotle. 

I taught myself these things. If you live in America you will probably not get much out of the average politics course bc they’re meant to train campaign managers and bureaucrats rather than to educate insightful political theorists. I’ll make a course to teach what I think a beginner should read and why below

Introduction:

Modern Politics (1960) by C.L.R. James

Explains the basics of political theory and traces the history of democracy in Western politics from the Ancient Greeks to the 20th century workers’ movement.

Basics:

Han Feizi (200s BCE) by Han Fei

One of the earliest works of political theory that gives advice on how to rule a state, explains the concept of authority, and argues that political power is based on force and manipulation instead of being virtuous or following the course of things.

Plato’s Five Dialogues (400s-300s BCE)

Goes through the basic concepts of political theory in Ancient Greece and gives accounts of Socrates’ doctrines as interpreted by Plato.

Politics (300s BCE) by Aristotle

Shows how politics begin with addressing and defining the common good of the citizens. Argues that a polity is made up of the nature of each citizen taken together, although you’ll see that Aristotle’s concept of nature is not as simple as later interpretations assume. Identifies different kinds of governments and how they transition between each other. Unlike Han Fei, argues for the role of virtue in politics.

Works of Mengzi (300s BCE) by Mengzi

Argues that an authority’s legitimacy rests on their ability to care for the common good of their people. Explains the concept of the Mandate of Heaven and argues that people can overthrow their governments and replace them with new ones if they lose their legitimacy. Explains how our natural tendency to mutual cooperation and recognition, including the use of shame, makes virtue precede and supersede the existence of the state.

Modern Political Philosophy:

The Prince (1532) by Niccolò Machiavelli

Similar to Han Fei, but gives much more detail about how states compete over space. If you like this book you should also read his Discourses on Livy where he argues that society (“the multitude”) is what keeps the state alive and that for that reason the many are more important and creative than the aristocratic few, even if he thinks the conflict between both is necessary for a republic.

Discourse on Voluntary Servitude (1577) by Étienne de la Boétie

Explores the issue of why people submit to authority even when their conditions are unbearable and argues that people can free themselves from tyranny if they stop submitting, disobey, and learn to choose for themselves.

The Leviathan (1651) by Thomas Hobbes

Explains how a state develops out of society’s need for peace and security. Explores how and why a state makes up a single entity. Argues that “the multitude” (society) enters a contract with authorities in order to preserve their own lives from each other and to make the permanent ownership of property possible, which forges them into a people/nation/polity where they no longer have any right to resist the will of the state. Supports a monarchy on the basis of seeing authority as maintained through patrilineal descent, which he traces back to Adam. One of the most important works of political philosophy in modern history.

John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government (1689)

Unlike Hobbes, argues that every social association begins with people wanting to protect their already-existing claims to property, which they secure through changing the world around them with labor. As a bourgeois liberal, makes the sovereignty of the property owner (including the enslaver) the basis of all states, and argues that the legislature is superior to all other branches of government for this reason. Argues in favor of a revolt of civil society if the state authorities infringe on the rule of law. You could probably get away with skipping the first treatise because it’s a polemic about how our descent from Adam doesn’t justify the state being a patrilineal monarchy.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality (1755)

Repeats a lot of what Hobbes says about “the state of nature,” that people are born equal, free, without the concept of property, but goes a different direction with his argument. Shows how the development of civilization and the state leads to unhappiness and unfreedom and at the end begins arguing for a democratic republic as the way to reclaim the original freedom of association in the higher form of a social contract where each participant becomes part of a single, general, national will.

Thomas Paine’s The Rights of Man (1791)

One of the best works of the liberal revolutions. Defends the French Revolution and the right to revolt against undemocratic states. Usually treated as just summing up the ideas of John Locke and others, but has a lot of original concepts, including arguing that society is so superior to the state that as people learn to cooperatively take care of their needs for themselves the state bureaucracy will wither away.

Critiques of Modern Political Philosophy:

The Communist Manifesto (1848) by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

Should be read in the context of the liberal and democratic revolutions (1776-1848) against monarchies and aristocracies. Think of Marx and Engels as the “ultraleft” of those democratic revolutions and you’ll get a lot more out of reading this as a critique of even the progressives in history and a call for a universal social revolution.

W.E.B. Du Bois’s Darkwater: Voices from within the Veil (1920)

Explains the implications of his concept of the “color line” between the white world and the dark world. Shows how Europe has been built through the exploitation of the dark world. Argues for a global socialist movement as the only thing that can emancipate people from racism and colonialism.

The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam (1930) by Muhammad Iqbal

Argues that many of the concepts people attribute to modern European philosophers already existed in Islam (and those people were almost all influenced by Islamic philosophers like Ibn Rushd or Ibn Tufayl). Demonstrates how Islam endorses a kind of “spiritual democracy” of the community of believers.

The Sexual Contract (1988) by Carole Pateman

Critiques classical contract theory (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau) for ignoring the fact that the patriarchal family precedes the formation of a state. Argues that this means that the formal equality of all citizens in a modern liberal state, even in a democratic republic, actually veils the real inequality between men and women and the arbitrary authority of the men. Explores all the consequences of this in everyday life.

Taiaiake Alfred’s Peace, Power, Righteousness (1999)

I've said it before, and I will testify under oath - the study of mythical creatures is the study of people, not animals.

There is a persistent misconception (mythconception?) that medieval explorers were going out there, seeing weird animals, and, struggling to comprehend them, came up with all kinds of silly stories.

The truth is more complicated. In a lot of cases it's not about actually misconstruing real things, but recopying Classical accounts over and over until the become unrecognizable. In the process, we'll get to explore how language affects creature accounts, how mistakes become real, and how seemingly good-faith additions snowball. And, of course, the importance of primary sources.

Instead of looking at something well-known like dragons or unicorns, let's take a look at the cahab, whose origin was explored in detail by Gauvin et al. (2013).

If you've ever read Rose's Giants, Monsters, and Dragons (and if you read this blog, chances are you're familiar with it), you might have seen this.

SAHAB The Sahab was a sea monster said to inhabit the North Sea and the beaches around the coasts of Norway. It was described as having a huge body with a long, extended foot by which it fed itself; the other feet were like those of a cow. The Sahab was reported in the works of Olaus Magnus in the sixteenth century from an apparent sighting of one found beached on the Norwegian shores. (Rose, 2000)

Hmm, alright, that's interesting. Sounds like it could be a beached whale? Neat! Where did this story come from? Rose (2000) mentions Olaus Magnus but only cites Barber and Riches (1971). Their entry for this is as follows.

Sahab Described by Olaus Magnus in the sixteenth century as a sea-beast with small cow's feet and a large body found off the Norwegian coast. One long foot was used as a hand for feeding and for self-defence. It was amphibious, breathing in in the water and out in the air. It could also spout like a whale. (Barber & Riches, 1971)

The first thing I'd like to point out is what I like to call "detail drift", or the "stands-to-reason additions", or "snowballing details". A "large body" becomes a "huge body". Details of being amphibious, of spouting are lost. Instead we are told it was based on an "apparent sighting". I mean, stands to reason, right? It makes sense. Surely that was what was behind it.

Where did Barber and Riches (1971) get it from? This one leads directly to a primary source, Olaus Magnus himself. The English translation of Olaus Magnus' Compendious History tells us the following.

There is also another Sea-Monster, called Sahab which hath small feet in respect of its great body, but he hath one long one, which he useth in place of a hand to defend all his parts; and with that he puts meat into his mouth, and digs up grass. His feet are almost gristly, and made like the feet of a Cow or Calf. This Creature swimming in the water breathes, and when he sends forth his breath, it returns into the Ayr, and he casts Water aloft, as Dolphins and Whales do. (Olaus Magnus, 1658)

Makes about as much sense as anything! So clearly silly old Olaus Magnus had seen something bizarre out at sea and explained it the best way he knew how. Because medieval explorers or whatever. Case closed!

... right?

Don't look at how long this post is, keep reading

Something is fishy about this. And I don't mean it as a pun, either. The thing is, Olaus Magnus was more than happy to populate Scandinavia with creatures plagiarized borrowed from other, older authors. And the first clue is in the name.

The French version of Olaus Magnus' work gives it a different name.

Il y a un autre monstre marin, appelé Cahab, lequel a de fort petits piés, pour la proportion du cors... (Olaus Magnus, 1561)

Huh. So it's called Cahab here. Is the English name a typo? It may well be. The Latin text starts like this.

Est & aliud monstru marinu secundu Alber. lib. XXIII l. de animal. Cahab dictum, pedes parvos habens respectu magnitudinis corporis sui... (Olaus Magnus, 1555)

Yeah that tracks, so it is Cahab in the original too and

wait what

Est & aliud monstru marinu secundu Alber. lib. XXIII l. de animal.

Are you saying the English and French translations literally cut out the part where he tells us where he got this from???????

See what I mean? There are layers to this.

So, following Gauvin et al. (2013), who track this bizarre transformation, Olaus Magnus never did see or claimed to see a cahab. He merely borrowed it from Albertus Magnus, who had this to say.

Cahab animal marinum esse perhibetur parvos habens pedes respectu corporis sui... (Albertus Magnus, 1920)

But the trail isn't getting cold yet. Gauvin et al. (2013) indicate that Albertus Magnus got this from Thomas de Cantimpré, who instead refers to the caab.

Caab animal marinum est, ut dicit Aristotiles, parvos habens pedes respectu corporis sui, quod utique magnum est... (Cantimpré, 1280)

In other words, "Caab is a sea animal, as says Aristotle, whose legs are small in proportion to its body, which is huge”. Once again, a citation has been lost by someone repeating it.

The caab in Cantimpré's Liber de Natura Rerum, accessed here.

So where did this thing comes from? He does say it's from Aristotle, but Aristotle doesn't mention caabs, does he?

Would you believe an elephant?

As Gauvin et al. (2013) explain, Cantimpré is the origin point of the caab/cahab/sahab, and it originated in a misreading of Aristotle.

Specifically, a misreading of a Latin translation of Aristotle by Michael Scot, which had been translated from an Arabic translation of Aristotle from the original Greek.

Now! Listen carefully Bond...

Scot retained Arabic words in his translation (maybe he didn't know what they meant? Or thought they just looked better? Can't blame him). In this case:

et habet duo cahab parva respect magnitudinis corporis sui (cited in Gauvin et al. (2013))

He's saying, in the description of the elephant, that it has two "cahab" that are short compared to the rest of its body. Cahab is a transliteration of كعب, which is a bone in the ankle. So in other words, elephants have small ankle bones.

Except!

When Cantimpré read this, according to Gauvin et al. (2013), he did not recognize the word cahab. Instead, he interpreted it as the subject of the verb "habet". So instead of "and has two ankle bones that are small", it became "and the caab has... feet I guess? That are small".

Then he combined previous details about the elephant - it has a trunk that it uses to spout water! - to create his caab. Which then got transplanted into the ocean around Norway. Somehow.

And there you have it, a supposed "apparent sighting" of a "beached" animal that in reality is a bunch of snowballing translation errors. Olaus Magnus never saw one, and neither did anyone else.

Of course, when I painted my cahab, I had to make it as much like a floppy elephant as possible. :3

References

Aristotle, Cresswell, R. trans. (1862) Aristotle’s History of Animals. Henry G. Bohn, London.

Barber, R. and Riches, A. (1971) A Dictionary of Fabulous Beasts. The Boydell Press, Ipswich.

de Cantimpré, T. (1280) Liber de natura rerum. Bibliothèque municipale de Valenciennes.

Cuba, J. (1539) Le iardin de santé. Philippe le Noir, Paris.

Gauvin, B.; Jacquemard, C.; and Lucas-Avenel, M. (2013) L’auctoritas de Thomas de Cantimpré en matière ichtyologique (Vincent de Beauvais, Albert le Grand, l’Hortus sanitatis). Kentron, 29, pp. 69-108.

Magnus, A. (1920) De Animalibus Libri XXVI. Aschendorffschen Verlagbuchhandlung, Münster.

Magnus, O. (1555) Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus. Giovanni M. Viotto, Rome.

Magnus, O. (1561) Histoire des pays septentrionaus. Christophle Plantin, Antwerp.

Magnus, O. (1658) A compendious history of the Goths, Swedes, and Vandals, and other Northern nations. J. Streater, London.

Rose, C. (2000) Giants, Monsters, and Dragons. W. W. Norton and Co., New York.