Pandora's Box and Hope: A Blessing or Curse?

I am a massive nerd for anything historical, but Ancient History and mythology is how a lot of people get into the subject and I really do not blame them; is there any myth that isn’t great? Well, there are probably some, but one that certainly is not is Pandora’s Box. When you are young it is really just a myth about a smoking hot lady, Pandora, who might have done well in the looks department, but not so much in the smarts department; she ends up stumbling across a box that she just has to open, releasing all the evils into the world, leaving only one thing inside: hope. It is kind of hard to believe this all happened so long ago, when so much has happened in 2020 – are we sure they weren’t simply predicting the future?

When I was a child and I read this, I too just believed this to be an interesting myth with an optimistic message at the end. Now, as an adult, I realise how naïve I was (and the rest of this post will show how we should cling on to our naivety a little longer). We could always talk about the beautiful woman without brains who brought evil to the world, because there is a lot to unpack there, but I would rather look at the one thing left in the box.

We are told that hope is left in the box, so humans always have it, despite all the evils left in the world. That is what is in the mythology story books, and that is what most people will recall from the myth, and it is a pleasantly optimistic view. Still, it dawned on me, as it has some scholars, that if hope is in the box, do we have hope? This came on me at a random time because I have found myself with time where I can think about these big questions for absolutely no good reason, and my friends usually get the brunt of my waffling – but now I have this, so you can read it too, out of choice!

Griffith suggests that the myth of Pandora’s Box is not as optimistic as we are taught as children, but that hope is actually a blessing withheld from us, to make our suffering just that much worse. People only began to suffer from evil when Pandora opens the box and releases it into the world, so if hope is left in the box, how would humans have access to it? The reason Pandora was created was to have her open the box and release these evils upon the human race, so might it have been part of the plan to have it slammed shut just before hope got out?

It is a fair interpretation, but there is another possible reason hope was in the box: is hope a bad thing? The original text for the myth has been translated several times, and some have come to the conclusion that the word is ‘hope’, while others have suggested it should be translated rather as ‘deceptive expectation’. Everything in the box was to cause suffering for humanity, and is there anything worse than expecting better only to find out that it will only ever remain an expectation? Is having hope actually causing us more pain than the other evils in the world?

Still, I think we should remain optimistic. Earlier I said we should remain naïve, but it is not naïve to believe that hope is a good thing, or to be optimistic. Without hope, even ‘deceptive expectation’, nothing would be achieved; hope pushes us forward, allowing us to create change ourselves. ‘Deceptive expectation’ is to only believe that someone else will come along and solve our problems and cure us of the evil in the world. Once you create your own path and your actions influence the bettering of the world, even if it is just your world, hope is a blessing.

Did Marco Polo go to China?

Marco Polo is a world-renowned explorer; he is privileged to have a TV series, several films, and an airport in Venice named after and based around his travels. Polo claimed to have travelled to China with his family and ended up working for the Great Khan for seventeen years. Nevertheless, the traveller has met criticism and sparked debate among scholars, particularly Wood who argues the narrative of his time in China is completely false due to his failure to mention Chinese customs.^[1] I believe there is too little evidence to argue either way, and Marco Polo as a figure of history is similar to King Arthur: he is ingrained into history, and to deny what he has done is to destroy mystical belief. I don’t think history is boring, and of course you should try and follow the facts, but allowing the people to believe in these sorts of figures and adventures is what makes history enjoyable.

The main argument going against Marco Polo is the fact that he failed to mention many customs of the Chinese which would most likely interest a foreign traveller. Wood clings to this, saying that his failure to touch upon things like foot-binding, tea drinking, and even the Great Wall, and of course Polo claimed he went to pains to find curious customs of people he met to report to the Great Khan.

However, in my opinion, good historians should never accept omissions as negative evidence, especially when we have none of the original texts or drafts to see what made it into Rustichello’s The Travels of Marco Polo. Plus, we should also remember that contemporaries doubted his accounts because there was too much information, so can it not be theorised that information was then removed from the account, to make it more believable at the time? Additionally, if, as archaeologists have argued, Polo got his information from Persian merchants, does this then mean that they themselves missed, or failed to mention, the customs of the Chinese? Why is it more believable that they omitted it, but not Polo? Furthermore, Polo would have spent a significant amount of time in Mongol circles; he would not have shown such a great interest in Chinese subjects or their customs.

Polo’s omission of the Great Wall cannot be used as negative proof on his claim, considering there is much debate on where he entered China, and whether the Wall was even there when he visited. Waldron argues that the Wall was most likely created under the Ming dynasty in the sixteenth century. Considering most scholars agree with this claim suggests it is quite reliable, thus giving credence to the argument that Polo would not have mentioned the Wall simply because it was not there.

The fact that Polo claims to have worked for the Khan on important business, yet there is no mention of him in any Chinese or Mongol source cause, is evidence for Wood that Polo did not make it to China. She argues that there would be some reference to him somewhere, yet she emphasises that there is none at all.  Nevertheless, this is not reliable enough to definitively claim that Polo was not in China; it does imply, however, that he most likely exaggerated his role in the court of the Great Khan. Polo claims in his account to have been the governor of Yang-chou, although this is highly unlikely considering he did not understand Chinese. In addition to this, he gives an account of his and his family’s aid in the siege of Hsiang-yang, yet the year of his arrival and the years of the siege mean this is highly implausible, and the Chinese sources suggest two Muslim engineers started the construction of catapults for the siege. 

If we consider both pieces of evidence, then the absence of his name from Chinese and Mongol sources should be considered as evidence for the exaggeration on Polo’s part of his status within the court, rather than proof bearing weight on the argument of whether he visited China or not.

The writing of the original work must also be considered, as it is supposed that Polo met his author, Rustichello of Pisa, in a Genoese prison in around 1298. The fact that throughout the book, and right at the beginning, the author is keen to stress the veracity of the claims suggests perhaps there were many claims within which were unbelievable. This strengthens the argument that maybe Polo wanted to omit certain customs purposefully, if he came across them in the first place, because much of the book was already difficult to believe and would be met with distrust. 

The authorship of the book is significant to the question of whether Polo went to China or not, also because Wood highlights that Rustichello was best known for his romantic Arthurian work.  Moreover, there is no clear distinction made within the writing between what was seen and what was heard, and what is the writing of Rustichello and of Polo.  The fact that Rustichello did work in Arthurian texts might have a negative effect on Polo’s work, as it may exaggerate many things and even make false claims in order to create a new legend, perhaps. This is evident if we consider the exaggerations made of Polo’s position and role in China, which would have been able to gain an audience for the story by adding personal interest.

However, there is evidence that Rustichello’s Arthurian work resembles only a minor part of Polo’s work, and not enough to suggest the whole work is a piece of fiction.  Additionally, if this work was a fiction, or another attempt to create a legend like King Arthur, there would more marvels and romance filling the book. That is not the case with Polo’s book, as it is mostly filled with everyday things; such restraint suggests that the work should be taken seriously for its reliability.

Additionally, because we do not have the original text we cannot say for certain what Rustichello has chosen to keep in and leave out; Polo may have reported the fascinating customs of the peoples he came across, but it was up to Rustichello whether to leave them in or censor the book in order to produce it for the general audience. This would also suggest that Rustichello gave Polo the ability to record his travels in China, and without Polo, it is incredibly unlikely that Rustichello would have had such a knowledge on China to create the book; he would not have been able to create the character of Marco Polo, or lie about his going to China, because the information that is given is mostly accurate.  Moreover, because all texts now of Polo’s work have been tinkered with by so many different people, it is difficult to argue that because things are omitted from the text Marco Polo did not go to China. 

It is my belief that Marco Polo did go to China, or at least there is not enough to suggest that he did not. The evidence Wood bases her claims on is flimsy, and to bring down an important historical figure on it is wrong. If she had presented enough concrete evidence, it would be easier to believe and consider, but it seems like Wood holds a grudge against people who believe in his adventures. That makes me wonder about historians, and how some are serious, and some are whimsical: I am certainly one of the whimsical ones. History is of course something we should learn from, but why should we remove any fun from it? If we think of King Arthur for example, it becomes less likely he was real, but to destroy the narrative of him would be disastrous, and there is little information to do so anyway.

Enjoy history, because it is a subject to be learned from, but also to be told as a story.

---

[1] Frances Wood, ‘Did Marco Polo go to China?’, Asian Affairs 27.3 (1996), pp.296–304.

Quarantines and History

The history of medicine, particularly that of quarantines was something I have enjoyed researching in the past; I had never thought I would be experiencing lockdowns or quarantines in my lifetime, but it was never impossible. Now you cannot go anywhere in the world without hearing about this controversial topic (although, perhaps not as much as masks – and I refuse to be baited by anybody who argues against the usage of them), and although I’m nervous about what is happening and what is to come, the historian side of me cannot help but feel interested in how this will be presented in the future – because I’m still thinking about Hamilton my head keeps singing ‘History Has its Eyes on You’, and the statement should be taken to heart by governments all over the world, especially during this crisis. We learn history so that we can avoid mistakes others have made in the past, and the history of quarantines from a ‘history from below’ approach would have been incredibly useful for governments to consider.

The earliest quarantine – that we know of – was created by Italian merchants in the 14^th century following the Black Death, and since then quarantines have held incredible significance in combatting disease, in the narrative of disease, and in government influence over its own people as well as those across nations. Quarantine has always caused controversy and continues to do so, but it is effective in preventing the spread of disease; it was used to defend against the SARS outbreak in 2003, for example. Quarantine as a method is not the only thing that should be employed, and of course on its own cannot combat disease, but it can be used immediately on the frontline; the method is particularly useful when not enough is known about the disease to deploy much other defence against it. The method also has controversy however in its use as a political tool, and as we see in the race for a vaccine, especially in the UK and the US, countries want to use such methods to be the first to win against the disease they face.

A ‘history from below’ approach shows that there is a lack of faith in the usefulness of quarantines also because of the negligence of staff and governments. The quarantine station at Tor to prevent the spread of cholera is a particularly prevalent example of inefficiency. Although the station was adopted to prevent the spread of cholera during the pilgrimage, it was there a new strain of the disease, eponymously named El Tor, developed due to a lack of standardisation of all quarantine stations, poor equipment and inadequate for the pilgrims within; the strain was found present on dead pilgrims inside the station, and it soon caused four outbreaks in Indonesia between 1937 to 1958 resulting in high death rates.

We have moved on now to have more resources and perhaps less negligent staff, but even now there are issues: quarantines at some airports are carried out more efficiently than others, while travel companies see a quarantine as a deterrent for potential customers, pressuring governments to only ask people arriving to quarantine themselves at home. The issues here are clear, relying on people who have their own lives that might be significantly disrupted if they forced themselves to stay inside for two weeks or more. Plus, it is up to them to understand how to effectively quarantine themselves off from the world, meaning some might act more leniently than others. While many are for the use of quarantines, because of the protection they can offer against the spread of disease, governments and public health authorities need to consider the effects of the method on individuals.

Different individuals have different needs: someone who might be all for quarantining themselves after travelling abroad may find themselves unable because they have to go into work and they are not being paid for any time they take off, despite the fact that it is in the interests of public health. Those who go on holidays might find a quarantine for two weeks frustrating if that is all or most of their holiday, and if they then return to a country where they must quarantine again, it will undoubtedly cause issues.

Quarantines also face issues with oppression and racism by the staff inside. Public health officials, doctors, and scientists might find themselves with more power and influence during pandemics – some might feel undermined – and inside quarantines, this can also be the case. In the past, people relied on quarantine staff for many things, including meals; in one quarantine station, Russian Jews were almost starved by staff because they were refused kosher meals. During cholera outbreaks, Indian pilgrims faced discrimination by some officers who described them as “cholera personified”.[1] Even now, there is discrimination against certain groups outside quarantine because of the spread of coronavirus. Countries have blocked tourists and travellers from certain countries from even entering, or request that they quarantine, while letting others in; these decisions are based on the disease, but in many areas are heavily influenced by political and economical factors, which could cause frustrations not only with travellers, but between governments.

To employ such methods as quarantine to prevent the spread of disease is interesting, but the impact of these needs to be fully understood to be able to gain any real benefit from them. As with many things, ignore the history, ignore the people, then you only make the same mistakes made many times before.

---

[1] Nawab K. B. A. M. A. Rahim, Safir-e-Harmain Sharifain wa Jikr-e-Madina Munwarah (Matba Shaukatul Islam, 1914) vol.1, p.84 in S. Mishra Pilgrimage, Politics, and Pestilence: The Haj from the Indian Subcontinent, 1860-1920 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), p.92.

Hamilton and Socrates

The release of the musical Hamilton at the beginning of this month has given some of us at least some respite from the “unprecedented circumstances” we find ourselves in (words I will be happy to see the backend of when this is over); I had heard of the musical before, but never really showed an interest in American history before (sorry). The conflict between Burr and Hamilton interested me though, and I decided to take a look at the history of both men, as well as their duel, the ending of the musical.

Researching both men brought up interesting results (and I would definitely recommend doing so), but it is hard to categorise either of them as ‘good’, and although Burr did kill Hamilton, I find it difficult myself to label him a villain. It is easy to see how the tension culminated eventually, resulting in the death of Hamilton, leaving many questions that probably cannot be answered.

In the musical, Burr shoots first as Hamilton throws away his shot. Hamilton makes a point to give the duel from Burr’s perspective, highlighting that Hamilton wore his glasses at the duel, as well as fiddling with the trigger. In my search for more information on it, I really only came back with more questions: nobody can be sure who shot first, whether Burr accidentally shot Hamilton, or whether Hamilton did in fact throw away his shot. Of course, the witnesses testified that they did not see, having looked away before a shot was made, making it even more difficult to confirm what exactly transpired.

I began to ponder over Hamilton’s beliefs, his insistence on ‘truth’, his reasons for agreeing to the duel against Burr, and I could not help but make parallels with the death of Socrates, a man considered to be a martyr. The song Non-Stop in Hamilton contains the lyric “If not, then I’ll be Socrates/Throwing verbal rocks at these mediocrities,” and I could not help but wonder how close Hamilton modelled himself with Socrates.[1] He shared the idea of an elected monarch system, as Socrates had, and was determined to always share his own truth and stick by it, even if it meant that he must die.[2]

Socrates sacrificed his life for the truth, for himself, as well as for the hope that his country would not fall into the hands of the corrupt. Hamilton was so determined for his country not to suffer the same fate, that he prevented Burr gaining high positions, as well as eventually dying at the man’s hands. He wrote a statement before he faced Burr, explaining that he intended only to face the man because to back out would be to revoke his statements regarding Burr and his suitability for high positions in politics, but he fully intended to throw away his shot.[3] The statement is somewhat reminiscent of the Apology of Socrates, explaining his own reasons for facing execution.

Considering the timing of the duel, it must be noted that Hamilton’s political life was well and truly in decline, and issues in his personal life led to a significant level of damage to his reputation. Not only this, but he also lost his eldest son, Philip, in a duel, a devastating event that left a noticeable impact on the man, who died close to the spot his own son had. It is a wonder, then, if Hamilton was really worried he might not return from the duel. He still had a family to consider, of course, but it was clearly an ambition of his to stand up for his truth more than anything. Did Hamilton care that he might not return?

His actions before and after the duel are revealing, giving the suggestion of a man who at least taunted Burr, if not death; he had chances to avoid the duel altogether, but antagonised Burr into action, only offering vague responses to Burr’s accusations against him and pushing the other man into a corner where the only option to restore his honour was to challenge Hamilton. Then, as the musical shows, Hamilton’s actions during the duel were suspect: he continued to fiddle with the trigger, wearing glasses to inspect it properly, and he did not throw away his shot in the typical manner, but actually shot a tree branch above Burr’s head. While Hamilton had clearly gone to great pains to stress he had no intention of shooting at Burr, the other man would have had no idea this was his plan. Hamilton’s actions before any shot was made would have struck some fear in his opponent, taunting him, making Burr believe that he was going to strike.

When Burr shot Hamilton, his political career, already on the rocks, declined dramatically. There was no hope for Burr when Hamilton died; Hamilton, although he died, still got the better of Burr. The narrative is of a murderer, a villain, shooting a good man, a martyr. It brings the question, to me at least: was this part of Hamilton’s plan?

Hamilton did shoot, perhaps after Burr had already shot (by accident?), but it was not the typical throwaway. The musical portrays Hamilton as an honest man, and by his own account he planned to throwaway his shot. He was adamant to make it known to the world that he was the good man in this duel, he was the martyr. For a man whose life had so far focused on improving his country, facing the decline of his political influence, as well as a great personal loss, he knew there was little chance of dying the death of a martyr as his life went on. Was the duel an opportunity? He certainly taunted Burr, he pushed him into the duel, his actions made his opponent believe he would not be wasting his shot. Burr, a man Hamilton saw as ‘despicable’, as a threat to the country he had helped to build, a threat to his truth.

Picture this:

Hamilton, a good shot by all accounts, shoots first. His shot is not a typical throwaway, but misses Burr. Still Burr hears the shot, sees that it was not the typical waste, and makes his own – but this one hits. Hamilton eventually dies, with notes he left reassuring everyone that he fully intended to throwaway his shot. Maybe his shot was an accident. Either way, he is the one who dies. Meanwhile, Burr is despised for the rest of his life, and his reputation never recovers. The duel grants Hamilton his martyrdom, while dragging down the man he believed could not be trusted in high positions. Two birds…?

Of course, we can never truly know what occurred, and there are many possibilities. This one I considered because of the connections between Hamilton and Socrates, but naturally I do not pretend that it must be accurate, simply something to consider.[4]

Side note: I would definitely recommend listening to the Hamilton soundtrack, as well as Leslie Odom, Jr.'s album Mr.

---

[1] While we do not have Socrates’ own writings, and therefore views presented as his were likely those of Plato and Xenophon, using him as their mouthpiece, for the sake of this post they will be referred to as Socrates’ ideals and beliefs.

[2] Socrates was accused of impiety, a charge with little evidence; when found guilty, he was given the option to denounce his beliefs, his truth, or he would face execution. While his family begged him to take the offer, he refused and was executed. Socrates is considered a martyr because he died for the truth.

[3] Statement on Impending Duel with Aaron Burr, [28 June–10 July 1804]

[4] This post has omitted some information simply because it was already growing and I encourage you to read about both of these men because what you can find is very interesting!

Hello!

Hi, welcome to Facts from the Past!

Perhaps not the best name, but y'know, I'm a novice blogger and I'm only doing this for fun so the name stays. Anyway, it's not about the name, it's about what the name represents. Which, as you probably guessed, is history.

I've decided to make this blog just to fill my spare time; I love history and have finished studying both Ancient and Modern at university, so I miss researching it all and putting that information somewhere! The blog will help me learn more, and it will entertain you guys (hopefully).

The main posts are going to be a mix of things: fun (random) facts, reviewing history books/documentaries/you name it, exploring different themes of history - literally anything I, or you, want. 

Look out for my posts - I'm going to post once a week!