In the parable known as the Blind leading the Blind Jesus uses the image of a blind person leading another blind individual, and both fall together into a pit. This parable is recounted in the Gospels of the New Testament in the Bible, both by Matthew (15:14) and Luke (6:39). It is hence assumed that both evangelists found the saying in the Q source, a hypothetical common source. The saying is also present in the Gospel of Thomas (Logion 34).
Content
In the version from the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is questioned by the Pharisees about why his disciples do not wash their hands before eating. Jesus responds that it is not what enters a person through the mouth that makes them unclean but what comes out of the mouth. When his disciples point out that these words offended the Pharisees, he tells them to leave the Pharisees alone, as they are “blind guides.” He states that if a blind person leads another blind person, both will fall into a pit.
In Luke’s version, the parable is presented in a completely different context within a sequence of various sayings of Jesus. Unlike Matthew, here, the statement is phrased as two rhetorical questions and is introduced by a short introductory sentence (“He also told them a parable: …”). Some interpreters consider the version with two questions as the more original form of the saying.
The Gospel of Thomas presents the saying in the form of a conditional clause, similar to Matthew.
Interpretation
According to Fritz Rienecker, blindness symbolizes the lack of spiritual understanding among the Pharisees. Following them and their deficient spiritual ideas leads to falling into a pit, signifying not entering the Kingdom of God.
” In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus demands that leaders of the disciple community must have sight, as only the sighted can show the way.
Artistic Reception
Various artists have interpreted the parable, with the most famous work being “The Blind Leading the Blind” (1568) by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, displayed at the Museo di Capodimonte in Naples.
Elias Canetti, the Nobel laureate in literature for 1981, provides a description of this painting in the chapter “Simson’s Blindness” in the second volume of his autobiography, “The Torch in My Ear” (page 111). This painting, like Simson’s blindness, serves as a key motif in his novel “Auto-da-Fé.
Writer Gert Hofmann presented a narrative titled “The Blind Leading” (Darmstadt 1985), creating a masterful story inspired by Bruegel’s painting.
Similar Parables in Other Cultures
According to Wiefel, the image of the blind leading the blind has a proverbial character in antiquity and is already known to Plato.
Similar parables about the blind leading the blind are found in Indian religious scriptures. In the Katha Upanishad, it is stated, “So the fools, like the blind led by one who is himself blind, keep running in vain.”
Early Buddhist Sutras in the Pali Canon also employ the parable: “Suppose there were a row of blind men, each in touch with the next: the first sees nothing, the middle sees nothing, and the last sees nothing. In the same way, Bharadvaja, the talk of the Brahmins turns out to be a row of blind men.”
The concept of the Noosphere (from ancient Greek νοῦς meaning “mind” + σφαῖρα meaning “sphere,” literally translated as “sphere of mind”) is a hypothetical sphere of interaction between society and nature. Within its boundaries, human rational activity becomes a determining factor in development. This sphere is also referred to as the “anthroposphere.”
The Noosphere is considered a presumed new and higher stage in the evolution of the biosphere. Its emergence is linked to the development of society, which has a profound impact on natural processes. According to V.I. Vernadsky, “in the biosphere, there exists a great geological, perhaps cosmic force, the planetary action of which is usually not taken into account in conceptions of the cosmos… This force is the reason of man, directed and organized by his will as a social being.”
Origin and Evolution of the Concept
The term “Noosphere” was coined by the Sorbonne mathematics professor Eduard Le Roy, who interpreted it as a “thinking” envelope formed by human consciousness. Le Roy emphasized that he arrived at this idea jointly with his friend, the geologist and evolutionary paleontologist, and Catholic philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Both Le Roy and de Chardin were influenced by lectures on geochemistry given by Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky at the Sorbonne in 1922-1923.
The most comprehensive development of Le Roy’s theory is found in the work of Teilhard de Chardin, who not only shared the idea of abiogenesis (the origin of life from non-living matter) but also believed that the ultimate goal of the development of the Noosphere would be its merging with God. The development of Noospheric doctrine is primarily associated with Vernadsky. According to Professor A.S. Galchinsky of the University of Kiev, “The ideas of the founders of the theory of the Noosphere—V. Vernadsky and P. Teilhard de Chardin—essentially derive from Marx.”
Vladimir Vernadski, 1934.
Le Roy’s Noospheric theory is based on the ideas of Plotinus (205—270) about the emanation of the One (the unknowable First Principle, identified with the Good) into the Mind and the World Soul, with their subsequent transformation back into the One. According to Plotinus, the One first produces the World Mind (nous), containing the world of ideas, then the Mind generates the World Soul, which breaks down into individual souls and creates the sensory world. Matter arises as the lowest step in emanation. When beings in the sensory world reach a certain stage of development, they begin to realize their own incompleteness and strive for union, and ultimately, merger with the One.
Le Roy and Teilhard de Chardin’s evolutionary model echoes the fundamental tenets of Neoplatonism. While the origin of the universe, and the emergence, and development of life on Earth are described in terms of modern science, the conceptual framework aligns with the principles of Neoplatonists. According to Plotinus, humans strive to transcend the Soul into the realm of the Mind, and then, through ecstasy, unite with the One. According to Teilhard de Chardin, humans also seek to enter the realm of reason and dissolve into God.
Le Roy interpreted Plotinus’ ideas in a Bergsonian spirit. Henri Bergson’s influence on the formation of the Noospheric theory primarily lies in his proposition of creative evolution (“L’évolution créatrice,” 1907). According to Bergson, the authentic and primal reality is life as a metaphysical-cosmic process, a creative evolution; its structure is duration, comprehended only through intuition, with various aspects of duration—matter, consciousness, memory, and spirit. The universe lives, grows through the process of creative consciousness, and freely develops in accordance with its inherent inclination towards life—the “vital impulse” (l’élan vital).
Bergson’s influence is also evident in Teilhard de Chardin’s work. In “The Phenomenon of Man,” he refers several times to Bergsonian categories of impulse (l’élan) and duration (durée).
The term “anthroposphere” was introduced into scientific circulation by D.N. Anuchin in 1902.
After the 1972 International Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, the terms “ecology” and “Noosphere” gained popularity due to the threat of an ecological catastrophe.
V.I. Vernadsky on the Noosphere
According to the summaries by F.T. Yanshina, V.I. Vernadsky formulated the following 12 conditions for the future Noosphere:
Human settlement across the entire planet.
Radical transformation of means of communication and exchange between different countries.
Strengthening connections, including political ones, among the states of the Earth.
Human geological role prevailing over other geological processes occurring in the biosphere.
Expansion of the boundaries of the biosphere and venturing into space.
Discovery of new sources of energy.
Equality of all races and religions.
The increased role of the masses in addressing issues and domestic policies.
Freedom of scientific thought and inquiry from the pressure of religious, philosophical, and political constructs, creating conditions in societal and state structures conducive to free scientific thought.
Improvement of the well-being of the working class. Creating real opportunities to prevent malnutrition, hunger, and poverty, and reduce the impact of diseases.
Rational transformation of the Earth’s primary nature to make it capable of satisfying all material, aesthetic, and spiritual needs of the growing population.
Exclusion of wars from human life.
Vernadsky asserted that humanity, in the course of its development, transforms into a new powerful “geological force,” using its thoughts and labor to reshape the face of the planet. Accordingly, for its preservation, humanity will have to take responsibility for the development of the biosphere, transforming it into the Noosphere. This will require a specific social organization and a new ecological and simultaneously humanistic ethics.
V.I. Vernadsky wrote about the Noosphere as both an accomplished reality and an inevitable future. He considered it a new evolutionary state of the biosphere, reworked by the scientific thought of social humans. “Through his labor—and his conscious attitude toward life—man transforms the Earth’s shell—the geological domain of life—the biosphere. He translates it into a new geological state; through his labor and consciousness, the biosphere evolves into the Noosphere… The face of the planet changes profoundly. A stage of the Noosphere is being created.”
Thus, the concept of the “Noosphere” appears in two aspects:
The Noosphere is in the stage of formation, developing spontaneously since the appearance of humans.
The developed Noosphere is consciously shaped by the collective efforts of people for the comprehensive development of humanity as a whole and each individual.
Criticism
While the concept of “living substance” was accepted by Soviet science and the term “biosphere” is occasionally found in post-Soviet scientific texts, the concept of the “noosphere” faces sharp objections in scientific circles and is extremely rarely used in scientific publications. Critics of the theory of the “noosphere” argue that it is ideologized and carries a non-scientific, rather a religious-philosophical character. In particular, F.R. Shtilmark, a prominent Soviet ecologist and Doctor of Biological Sciences, believes: “thoughts about the Noosphere as the Society of Reason… are inherently deeply religious and, for now, remain utopian.”
American environmental historian D. Weiner labels the theory of the noosphere as a “utopian and scientifically untenable idea.”
Criticism of Vernadsky’s “noosphere” is also presented in the monograph by B. Mirkin and L. Naumova.
Philosopher V.A. Kutyryov contends:
“The essence of the renewed view of the noosphere, which we intend to defend here and which, it seems, more adequately responds to the situation, is this: from the very beginning, this theory carried elements of utopia; axiological and ontological approaches intertwine in it without any differentiation… The noosphere as harmony is a scientistic analogue of socio-political utopias like communism and other earlier dreams of paradise.”
Russian ecologist and climatologist A. Pozdnyakov writes:
In the scientific community of Russia, “noosferogenesis” is considered a theory. However, if we understand the theory as a systematic sequence of practical actions necessary to achieve a goal, then this is more of an inadequately grounded utopian stance on the omnipotence of man. At the core of this “theory” lies ordinary human vanity, manifesting as ego- and anthropocentrism…
According to L.L. Prozorova:
…many modern interpretations referring to “Vernadsky’s Teaching on the Noosphere” have a fragmented, primarily socio-political, sometimes speculative nature, without a definite conceptual core. <…> no such doctrine has been created, <…> for the scientific world to accept it as a unified concept for research. In fact, this led to the levity that allowed constructing “their worlds.”
Noospherism and Noospherology
Based on the doctrine of the “noosphere,” the concept of “noospherism” emerged. Legal scholars M.N. Kuznetsov and I.V. Ponkin concluded on the “content of the religious-political ideology of noospherism,” noting the extensive scope of this “quasi-religious ideology” and pointing to close connections between “noospherism” and the occult-religious teachings of “Russian cosmism” and occult-religious groups following the ideas of the Roerichs. However, according to the authors of the conclusion, it does not directly relate to Vernadsky’s legacy, as “noospherism” is a manipulation of Vernadskian ideas and his name.
Russian historian and sociologist N.A. Mitrokhin calls noospherology a “scientistic intellectual tradition, deifying the personality of the late academician V. Vernadsky” and potentially “the most influential of the civil religions in contemporary Russia.”
In Popular Culture
The term “noosphere” has been used several times in the subculture of computer games, albeit with a meaning loosely connected to the original (particularly in games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Metro 2033, and Warhammer 40,000).
The Macrocosm (from the Greek “macro” = long, large) is “the world as an organism analogous to man, a totality whose parts correspond.” In a more modern sense, “macrocosm” refers to a comprehensive view (economically termed “macroscopic vision”). Synonym: “macroscope” (Joël de Rosnay, 1975). Not to be confused with macrosociology and microsociology.
The Word
Etymologically, “macrocosm” means “large world,” from the Greek “macros” (μακρός, “large”) and “cosmos” (κόσμος, “world”). Macrocosm: large world, thus the universe in relation to man, who is a “small world.”
Historical Background
This notion is used in complementarity with the microcosm, mainly in Asian cultures and beliefs, such as Taoist principles or the image of Ganesh, a Hindu god.
In the West, the concepts (not the words) of macrocosm and microcosm can be traced back to Orphism and Pythagoreanism, but also to Plato’s Timaeus. Pythagoras establishes an analogy between the four seasons of the world and the four stages of a man’s life.
“He [Pythagoras] thus divides a man’s life. Child for twenty years; young man for twenty years; middle-aged man for twenty years; old man for twenty years. And the ages correspond to the seasons as follows: child/spring, young man/summer, middle-aged man/autumn, old man/winter.”
The great theorist is Paracelsus (1493–1541), who emphasizes that the microcosm is a small world and the macrocosm is not the entirety of Nature, only the visible level:
“What is this dust from which man was formed? It is the mud of the earth, that is, the large world… From the quintessence that Scripture calls the mud of the earth, this same God, after creating the large world, formed the small world. Man is this small world that contains all the qualities of the large world. That is why he is called a microcosm. Man is the quintessence of the firmament and elements, of heaven and earth… Conception provides an example of this collaboration between external forces and internal forces. The stars of the macrocosm and those of the microcosm form combinations that generate a specific action at the moment of conception…” (Philosophia Sagax, 1571).
Papus, the grand master of neo-occultism:
“A single law governs the constitution of the universe. There is a Small Universe having in itself all the laws of the grand universe, and by analogy, one can rediscover all general laws. This small universe is the microcosmos or Microcosm: it is man. Alongside this summary made in the image of the grand universe, there is this Grand Universe, the Omniverse of Michel de Figanières, or the macrocosm, Macrocosm, or grand universe of the initiatic tradition. The Macrocosm forms the body of God. This body of God, whose suns are the central organs, and the planets, the cells, is no more God himself than our body is our self. It is the support of the divine or astral forces in circulation.”
Legends and tales are also very fertile on the subject, featuring universes containing or contained. Often, the difference lies in their smaller size (world in the pocket, genie in the bottle, Gulliver’s Travels, etc.).
Macrocosmos vs Microcosmos
“Macrocosmos” (“great world,” from the Greek “makrós” meaning “large” and “kósmos” meaning “world,” Latinized as “macrocosmus” or “maior mundus”) is the counterpart to “Microcosmos” (“small world”). It refers to the world as a whole, insofar as it is perceived from a philosophical or religious perspective as an ordered, self-contained unity—a cosmos or world order. The “Microcosmos” is then a delimited part of the “Macrocosmos,” standing in a specific relationship to the whole, such as a relationship of similarity or analogy.
In numerous religious or philosophical doctrines, the Microcosmos is considered an image of the Macrocosmos. Such theories usually assume that the “small world” – for example, the Earth, a state, or a living being – repeats the structure of the universe on a smaller scale, reflecting the “great world.” The human, especially the human body, is often regarded as Microcosmos in this sense, making the Macrocosmos/Microcosmos concept an integral part of many anthropological concepts. It is often claimed that the Microcosmos is composed of the same elements as the Macrocosmos. Behind this idea is the notion of a comprehensive world order, a cosmos harmoniously organized according to uniform principles and, therefore, beautiful.
In such a world model, analogical inferences from a part to the whole or vice versa are generally possible. Following this line of thought, many medieval thinkers considered humans as a principle of knowledge: they believed that the self-knowledge of humans simultaneously provided knowledge of everything that exists; understanding the Microcosmos correctly meant understanding the Macrocosmos as well. Some philosophers presented this thesis as “real correspondence,” meaning a strong interpretation. This suggests that in the Microcosmos, the natures of all things are given, and humans encompass all substances of the Macrocosmos. Weaker versions suggest only a correspondence “in a certain way,” an analogy between humans and the world.
In Goethe’s Faust (Part 1) and also in the Urfaust, Faust mentions the sign of the Macrocosmos in his monologue. In the center of the sign is Mercury, surrounded by Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, the Sun, and the Moon.
Science
More commonly, the terms macroscopic and microscopic are used, denoting observation scales. For example, the molecular agitation at the microscopic level can be translated into the concept of heat at the macroscopic level (which here can correspond to the human scale).
Joël de Rosnay, then director of development and international relations at the City of Science and Industry in La Villette:
“Today, we are faced with another infinity: the infinitely complex… We are bewildered by the number and the prodigious variety of elements, relationships, interactions, or combinations on which the functioning of the large systems, of which we are the cells, if not the cogs, rests… We need a new tool… I call this tool the macroscope (macro, large; and skopein, to observe)…. It is a symbolic instrument, made up of a set of methods and techniques borrowed from very different disciplines… The macroscope filters details, amplifies connections, highlights what brings together. It is not used to see bigger or farther. But to observe what is both too large, too slow, and very complex for our eyes (like human society, this gigantic organism that is totally invisible to us)… Systemic approach is a new approach symbolized by the macroscope. It relies on a comprehensive approach to the problems or systems under study and focuses on the interplay of interactions between their elements.”
The principle of the macrocosm (of a higher organizational level and implicitly distinct) is not excluded from modern sciences. Humanities first (in linguistics, economics, sociology, etc.) introduced notions like holism, and then exact sciences (biology, physics, mathematics, etc.) based on these developed systems thinking. The goal is to generalize the principle of studying subjects within the totality rather than in a perfect virtual system ultimately limited in its interest (see The Macroscope, for example).
However, false consequences are drawn from it. For instance, the chaos theory made famous the image of a butterfly’s wingbeat triggering a hurricane, meaning the random nature of the meteorological macrocosm can trace the triggering factor back to the tiny microcosm of an insect’s movement.
The principle of emergence, on the other hand, considers that characteristics are inherent to a degree of complexity, aligning with the idea of different organizational levels depending on scales, thus supporting the initial sense of an order established at a distant level.
Five Metaelements (“beginnings,” elements) – one of the cosmogonic variants, a pre-scientific attempt at a universal explanation of the world. In the Western European philosophical tradition from antiquity to the modern era, the five metaelements included air, fire, water, and earth (the four primary elements of the sublunary world), as well as ether, which composed the bodies of the superlunary world (stars, wandering stars – planets, and the Sun).
In the framework of Aristotelian physics, each of these elements was attributed natural qualities and movements.
For instance, light elements (air and fire) were associated with upward movement, while heavy elements (earth and water) were linked to downward movement, and the superlunary ether was described as moving in a circular motion. The experimental natural science of the 17th century cast doubt on several tenets of Aristotelian physics, particularly the notions of the natural movements of elements and the inherent “lightness” of air.
The decisive blow to the concept of the five metaelements came with the chemical revolution of the late 18th century, leading to a radical rethinking of the notion of an element.
The previous elements turned out to be complex mixtures, often challenging to describe in new terms, and were replaced by oxygen, hydrogen, and other elements of modern chemistry. The last echoes of this concept, in the form of the theory of the world ether as a special medium for the propagation of electromagnetic vibrations, persisted until the late 19th to early 20th centuries.
In Eastern philosophical systems (India, China, Japan), there were their own notions of elements that compose the world.
In the Western tradition, the Greek philosopher Aristotle added a fifth element to Empedocles’ four elements (earth, water, fire, and air), known as quintessence or ether, constituting celestial bodies. It’s worth noting Luc Besson’s film “The Fifth Element,” which depicts love as the fifth element. In Captain Planet, the fifth element is the heart, guarded by Ma-Ti.
In physics, the term “aether” has encompassed various different notions over time. Physicists have considered different aethers as “subtle substances distinct from matter and capable of providing or transmitting effects between bodies.” These diverse effects include the trajectories of planets (according to Descartes), the transmission of gravitational force (Isaac Newton), the transportation of light (from Descartes and Robert Hooke to Newton and others until the early 20th century), the conveyance of electric and magnetic force, and later, electromagnetism, even involving the creation of electric charge in certain bodies. Additionally, it involves the creation of a repulsive force around bodies, counteracting gravity (as explained by Pierre-Simon de Laplace in the study of gaseous phenomena).
The theoretical study of the luminiferous aether (light transmitter) led to the development of the concept of elasticity. It allowed for the prediction of certain experimental results by considering light as a wave transmitted by an aether viewed as a fluid with various properties (explored by Christian Huyghens, and Augustin Fresnel, among others). This medium, not directly accessible to experimentation, also served as a platform to compare inductive and deductive methods (a debate particularly active between John Stuart Mill and William Whewell).
Once James Clerk Maxwell‘s equations were established, multiple attempts were made to formulate a theory of an aether that mechanically transports these electromagnetic waves (with Maxwell being the first to attempt this). However, none of these attempts succeeded in accounting for all the properties of electromagnetism, even in the simplest cases. The experiments of Michelson and Morley on the optics of moving bodies led to abstract considerations in such theories (explored by Hendrik Lorentz, and Joseph Larmor). The advent of special relativity put an end to these endeavors, relegating questions about the aether to general considerations, particularly regarding fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.
Aether in Antiquity
A square with the four classical elements at the four corners, and the fifth wood in the center: fourth illustration from the Sylva Philosophorum by Cornelius Petraeus (mid-seventeenth century).
Originally, Aether was a primordial god in Greek mythology, personifying the upper parts of the sky and its brilliance. This concept has persisted in classical poetic language, where “aether” is used to describe a pure sky. Empedocles, who introduced the classical theory of four elements, frequently mentions the ether as a distinct entity. Plato, in Timaeus (58d), refers to aether as “the purest form of air.” Aristotle, in his treatise “On the Heavens,” introduces a new element existing only in the celestial sphere, which moves in a circular motion without needing an external force.
“It is absolutely necessary that there exists a simple body whose nature is to move in circular translation, in accordance with its own nature… Beyond the bodies that surround us here below, there exists another body, separated from them, and possessing a nature more noble the more it is distant from those in our world.” — (Aristotle, On the Heavens, I, 2).
This innovation, causing some confusion, eventually became associated with aether, although Aristotle did not use the word to describe it. As the “most noble” element, the celestial element is never referred to by Aristotle as the fifth. During the Hellenistic period, when Aristotle’s texts were more or less withdrawn from circulation, different interpretations merged what he termed “the first body” with aether and also with the substance of the soul. In the early centuries, a sort of consensus confirmed the confusion. For example, according to Sextus Empiricus, the notion of aether dates back to the Pythagorean Ocellus (or possibly Philolaus):
“Ocellus of Lucania and Aristotle, in addition to the four elements, added a fifth body, endowed with circular motion, which they think is the matter of celestial bodies.” — (Sextus Empiricus, Against the Mathematicians, X, 316).
Pseudo-Plutarch gives a similarly approximate version:
“Aristotle holds that the supreme god is a separate form, based on the roundness and sphere of the universe, which is an aethereal and celestial body. He calls it the fifth body: and this celestial body, being divided into several spheres of coherent natures and separated only by intelligence, he considers each of these spheres to be an animal composed of body and soul, of which the body is ethereal, moving in a circular manner, and the immobile rational soul is the cause of movement, according to action.”
The ideas of the Stoics strongly influenced the understanding of aether, and they had a considerable impact on Latin expositions. Cicero (Tusculan Disputations, I, 10) adds that Aristotle argues that the soul “originates” from this fifth element, also called quintessence. The Stoic Cleanthes considers aether to be the supreme god.
A synoptic image of the prevailing confusion has been depicted by André-Jean Festugière: “In the oldest authors, ‘aether’ refers to the sky (Homer, The Iliad, 412; Hesiod, Works and Days, 18)… The word ‘aether’ had already been used by Empedocles, but to denote atmospheric air, as opposed to fog… Anaxagoras was the first to distinguish between air and aether, but what he referred to as aether was fire (fragments 59 A 43, 59 A 73)… From Plato’s Phaedo onward, the space between the air and the fixed sky (the region of fire) becomes aether, the abode of the astral gods. Plato attributes to aether its specific characteristic of being always in motion.
Aether is considered a kind of air, the purest kind. Plato distinguishes three kinds of aether: upper air, atmospheric air, foggy air… It is with the Epinomis and Aristotle’s On Philosophy [an early work], two contemporary works [around 350 BCE], that we see the emergence of the notion of aether as the fifth body. Epinomis mentions aether as the fifth body for the first time (981c6), as a kind of subtler and purer air: aether is not the abode of the stars (that is fire), but, like air, it is the dwelling place of translucent demonic beings, who serve as intermediaries between humans and the visible gods, the stars.
Fragments from Aristotle’s On Philosophy show that the notion of aether as the fifth body holds a significant place. The Ancients unanimously regarded Aristotle as the inventor of the doctrine of aether as the fifth element. Aristotle always follows aether, fire, air, water, and earth, and this order prevails, with aether (not fire) considered the material of the stars and the element where they reside. The soul is in perpetual motion because it is drawn from the aether that is always in motion. Finally, this Aristotelian aether is warmth, the principle of warmth, and thus of life.”
Recent Pythagoreans, in the Pythagorean Memorabilia (3rd century BCE), seem to admit three aethers: 1) the hot (solar, astral, and divine fire), 2) the cold (air), and 3) the dense (water, serum, liquid, blood…), and two kinds of souls: 1) a soul made of warm aether, intellect (corresponding to animal life), and 2) a soul made of a mixture of two aethers, warm and cold, vapor, the vegetative soul (corresponding to non-living, that is, non-sentient and non-mobile).
In the late 1st century, Xenarchus wrote a treatise Against the Fifth Element, the knowledge of which becomes essential in any discussion of aether. Cesare Cremonini wrote a refutation in 1616, and Galileo mentioned it as well. Meanwhile, aether or quintessence became an important concept for alchemists. They interpreted the incorruptible element defined by Aristotle through its absence of a counterpart. Discussions about it continued until the 19th century, particularly among metaphysicians.
Gravitational Aether in Pre-Relativistic Physics
René Descartes developed vortex mechanics to explain that the movement of planets is due to large vortices of aether (a subtle substance composed of tiny transparent globules) filling space and carrying and maintaining them on their trajectories. This qualitative physics justified planetary motion mechanistically, refuting the existence of the void, which he regarded as nothingness. This same aether was supposed to instantly transmit light in the form of pressure.
After rejecting Descartes’ vortex theory around 1680, Isaac Newton formulated his theory of universal gravitation, where the gravitational force is transmitted instantaneously from one body to another, over any distance and through space, whether empty or not.
Newton, while satisfied with the effectiveness of his theory, was not content with a situation where a force is transmitted through a vacuum. In a letter to Richard Bentley in 1692, Newton stated, “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it.”
Thus, in the General Scholium of Book III of the Principia, he conceives a “kind of extremely subtle spirit that permeates all solid bodies,” adding that “it is by the force and action of this spirit that the particles of bodies attract each other”: a mechanical aether filling space and enabling the transmission of gravitational force.
This aether mediates gravitational force but is not subject to it and appears exempt from the characteristics and physical principles stated in the Principia. Newton supported this view based on theological considerations, stating that space is the sensorium Dei, a sort of sensory organ of God that allows him to transmit influences from one body to another. This aether has always remained an underlying hypothesis, not intervening in calculations and having the status of a reassuring assumption regarding the coherence of the theory. For Newton, this aether was the same as the one transmitting light, considered to be composed of particles of different sizes transmitting oscillations to the aether, creating colors.
Luminiferous Aether in Pre-Relativistic Physics
Symbol for aether in Torbern Bergman (1775).
Until the advent of special relativity, physicists developed theories of luminiferous aether, a medium that scatters light and is considered a wave. The challenge was to create a coherent theory accounting for all observations made on light, while no experiment highlighted the properties of the aether considered as a fluid or physical medium.
René Descartes (who did not clearly formulate the notion of waves), Robert Hooke, and Christian Huygens assumed that, like sound in air or waves on the surface of a liquid medium, light propagated through a fluid: the aether. The aether, subtle and undetectable as it did not impede any bodies, was supposed to fill the universe, as the light from the stars reaches us.
Newton considered an aether that met the stringent requirements of transmitting gravitational force: exempt from being subject to the same principles as ordinary matter, endowed with an active role assimilated to God’s intervention in the natural world. This aether was sometimes equated with Hermann Boerhaave’s fire in the early 18th century, an imponderable substance penetrating space and bodies, with a repulsive power opposed to the attractive power of bodies.
In the 18th century, theories of subtle aether were developed, explaining electrical and magnetic phenomena, optics, as well as heat and chemistry, often modeling them on Newton’s and Boerhaave’s ideas. Benjamin Franklin explained the electrification and electrical discharge of bodies by the presence of an aether composed of particles attracted to bodies but repelling each other. For John Canton, the aether was the air itself. For André-Marie Ampère, a universal imponderable aether composed of two oppositely charged electricities explained the ponderomotive force between electrical circuits.
In 1801, Thomas Young developed the interpretation of light as the vibration of an aether to account for phenomena related to diffraction using the interference of waves. However, his model did not explain polarization, and this imponderable aether (like Benjamin Thompson’s for heat and Humphry Davy’s for electrochemistry) did not attract much interest from scientists at a time when many properties were explained by attractive forces between particles of matter (capillarity, solid cohesion, chemical reactions, etc.). Pierre-Simon de Laplace hypothesized an aether called caloric, producing a repulsive force between particles of matter, allowing the corpuscular theory of light to be consistent with Huygens’ double refraction.
From 1830 onwards, Augustin Fresnel’s theory, stating that light is a ripple of an aether, prevailed. To account for polarization, which Young’s theory could not explain, he had to consider the aether as solid and elastic. This model allowed for the prediction of several unexpected effects (such as circular polarization and conical refraction). The study of solid and elastic aethers, whose vibrations form light, became a research theme until the end of the 19th century. Augustin-Louis Cauchy, studying elasticity, found an expression for the speed of propagation of transverse waves (light being a transverse wave in Fresnel’s theory), and James MacCullagh derived the laws of crystal optics from a Lagrange function of the aether.
This elastic body had strange properties: it had to be almost infinitely rigid to transmit light from distant stars, while offering zero resistance to the movement of material objects (since the Earth orbits the Sun without being slowed down). George Gabriel Stokes showed that it was sufficient for the aether to have a slight viscosity to allow bodies to pass through it slowly, and he thus rediscovered the partial entrainment coefficient of the aether by refractive bodies that Fresnel had already proposed to explain aberration. In 1851, Hippolyte Fizeau experimentally verified the value of this coefficient for moving water.
Inspired by magnetism, Hermann Helmholtz and William Thomson proposed aethers with rotational movements. For his work unifying electricity and magnetism, James Clerk Maxwell relied on Michael Faraday’s idea of a force field to eliminate the notion of action at a distance from these domains. The field or lines of force, is a kind of spatial distribution of the influence of a body, awaiting the presence of another body to influence it and changing at a finite speed without a material hypothesis about the aether filling geometric space and carrying this field. Maxwell then proposed an aether model that he wanted compatible with his theory of electromagnetism, especially the electromagnetic waves he had highlighted in his equations and identified with light: this aether was composed of “molecular vortices surrounded by free wheels, whose movement was analogous to electric current.”
Comparing Maxwell’s and MacCullagh’s aethers, George Francis Fitzgerald showed their analogies and refined their properties, making Maxwell’s aether a serious competitor to the solid and elastic luminiferous aether. Heinrich Hertz’s experiments confirmed that Maxwell’s electromagnetic waves were similar in many respects to light waves, and therefore bolstered confidence in Maxwell’s aether. However, it was never successful enough to account for all the properties of optics and electromagnetism, “despite the considerable efforts of scientists.”
In 1887, the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment on the optics of moving bodies contradicted the predictions of all aether theories. Hendrik Lorentz and Joseph Larmor, each in their own way, tried to conceive more abstract aether theories to account for these results. In the early 20th century, physicists’ opinions were divided, with some questioning the existence of the aether, while others—far more numerous—were confident in its reality.
“We care little whether the aether exists in reality; that is the concern of metaphysicians. The essential for us is that everything happens as if it exists, and that this hypothesis is convenient for explaining phenomena. After all, do we have any other reason to believe in the existence of material objects? This is also just a convenient hypothesis; only it will never cease to be so, whereas a day will undoubtedly come when the aether will be rejected as unnecessary.” — Henri Poincaré, Science and Hypothesis (Chapter 12)
Aether After 1905
In 1905, Albert Einstein proposed his theory of special relativity, where the aether is absent, and the speed of light is the same for all inertial frames, stating that there was no need for the concept of aether in physics.
1905: Einstein Denies the Existence of Aether
Before the publication of his early works, Einstein studied Lorentz’s theory of aether through the books of Paul Drude, giving it particular attention. This luminiferous aether remains in absolute rest and constitutes a preferential frame in which electromagnetic phenomena occur, and in which light has a constant speed. Soon, he rejects this concept of a preferential frame because he deems it introduces an unacceptable asymmetry between the laws of mechanics, which do not depend on a frame of reference, and the theory of electromagnetism.
In 1905, Einstein proposed the theory of special relativity, postulating the total equivalence of the laws of physics, including electromagnetics, regardless of the frame of reference. This implies the constancy of the speed of light, regardless of the frame of reference, and renders the concept of aether meaningless. From this moment until 1916, Einstein denied any reality to the concept of aether. However, convincing physicists of the absence of aether proves challenging, especially Lorentz, who remains unconvinced. According to Kostro, it was Lorentz’s insistence that led Einstein to a new position from 1916 onwards. In the meantime, facing opposition in 1909, he attempted to justify the absence of aether with a new argument using a wave-particle duality of light, for which he proposes an improved theory: for him, the energy and momentum of light are carried by an autonomous quantum that needs no support or aether.
In 1913, Einstein developed the general theory of relativity.
Initially, he finds additional reasons in this theory to completely abandon the aether; he writes to Ernst Mach, “It becomes absurd to attribute physical attributes to space,” and the arbitrary way in which space and time variables are chosen “strips space of the last vestiges of reality.” However, Lorentz’s conception of aether, as presented by Drude, precisely implied attributing physical characteristics, and thus a certain “reality,” to space. For Einstein, the case for the aether is settled.
1916: Einstein Admits the Existence of a Certain Form of Ether
However, this position changed from 1916 onwards, influenced by a correspondence with Lorentz and controversies with the German physicist Philipp Lenard. In June 1916, Lorentz sends a long letter to Einstein congratulating him on the discovery of the general theory of relativity, for which he shows great enthusiasm, and tries to demonstrate that this theory can be reconciled with the concept of a stationary aether.
Einstein quickly responds in detail to Lorentz’s arguments, acknowledging for the first time the possibility of introducing a new concept of aether. However, he vigorously rejects the stationary nature of the aether defended by Lorentz, i.e., the conception of a rigid medium with its own reference frame in which it is at rest, as this contradicts the principle of relativity. Instead, he admits the possibility of an aether that is not a medium with a state of motion and therefore does not violate the principle of relativity. This “new aether” would have a state that determines the motion of physical objects, whose metric behavior would be described by the tensor. However, Einstein did not consider these ideas mature enough and published nothing regarding this “new aether” for over two years.
In July 1917, Lenard published an article titled “Principle of Relativity, Aether, Gravitation,” attempting to show that the general theory of relativity has recycled the concept of aether by renaming it “space” and that this theory does not stand without the concept of aether. In response to this article, Einstein published in November 1918 his first article explaining his new positions regarding the aether: “Dialogue Concerning the Accusations Against the Theory of Relativity.” In this response, he concedes to Lenard that the general theory of relativity implies attributing physical properties to space. However, he denies that this signifies a return to Lorentz’s aether, possessing a defined state of motion.
Hermann Weyl summarized in 1922 the fundamental difference between Einstein’s “new aether” and that defended by Lenard and why the “aether” of general relativity is not the same as Lorentz’s: “The old aether of the theory of light was a substantial medium, a three-dimensional continuum, with each point P at any time t at a defined location p in space; the ability to distinguish and track the evolution in space of a certain point in the aether over time is a fundamental point,” … “this aether is now and forever rigid and is not influenced by matter.” The aether of general relativity is a medium but not substantial, lacking “points” whose movement in space can be tracked. It endows space with a “field of states,” possessing physical reality, interacting with matter, and being influenced by it.
1920: Einstein’s “New Aether,” the Leyden Discourse
However, this was not enough to calm the vehement anti-Einstein campaigns, led notably by Lenard and Ernst Gehrcke, which reached their peak during the year 1920. Far from appeasing criticisms against general relativity and the principle of relativity, Einstein’s acceptance of a certain form of aether seems to provide fodder for his adversaries. Pressed by these attacks and encouraged by Lorentz, Einstein decided to officially communicate about his “new aether” during his inaugural address at the University of Leyden on October 17, 1920, titled “Aether and the Theory of Relativity,” which constitutes his first major work on aether.
In this discourse, Einstein begins by presenting the historical reasons that led physicists to imagine the existence of aether, which, according to him, are twofold: the problem of action at a distance and the discovery of the wave properties of light. The problem of action at a distance emerged with Newton’s theory of gravitation, where the inevitable question arises of whether attractive forces propagate instantaneously and at a distance, without a transport medium, or instead gradually through a medium. The second hypothesis implies the existence of an aether.
On the other hand, the development of the theory of electromagnetism by Maxwell and Lorentz also led to imagining the existence of an aether, but no mechanical model proves consistent with experience. Einstein then describes Lorentz’s work on aether, one of the only aether theories compatible with experience.
In this theory, the aether lacks any mechanical property and, present both in matter and in a vacuum, is a mere support for electromagnetic waves. On the other hand, matter is devoid of any electromagnetic property, playing a role in electromagnetism solely because matter particles can possess an electric charge, which is the only thing capable of moving. But Einstein points out that Lorentz strips the aether of all mechanical properties except one: its immobility.
In the second part of the discourse, Einstein then shows that the theory of special relativity removes this last mechanical property of the aether, completing, according to him, the movement initiated by Lorentz. According to this theory, the laws of physics (especially the laws of electromagnetism) are identical in all inertial reference frames moving rectilinearly and uniformly relative to each other. There is, therefore, no physical reason to distinguish a particular reference frame in which the aether is stationary, introducing an asymmetry not justified or detected by any physical experiment. But Einstein admits that he was wrong to conclude the non-existence of the aether:
“But careful consideration teaches us, nevertheless, that the principle of special relativity does not imply denying the existence of the aether. We could admit the existence of an aether; only we must refrain from attributing a state of motion to it, that is, we must abstain from the last mechanical attribute that Lorentz left it.”
Einstein then explains, in the third part of the discourse, that the idea of an aether can return to attribute physical properties (other than mechanical or kinematic) to space, and that space — even devoid of matter — cannot be considered truly empty. Citing the example of Mach’s principle, which attributes inertial forces such as centrifugal force to distant masses, he states the need for a medium to transmit the gravitational interaction of these distant masses, while emphasizing a crucial difference between this medium and all aethers imagined until then:
“This conception of an aether, to which the Machian approach leads, differs in an essential aspect from the aethers of Newton, Fresnel, or Lorentz. Mach’s aether not only conditions the behavior of inert masses but is also conditioned, concerning its state, by them.”
In the last part of the discourse, Einstein explains how these Machian ideas contributed to the development of general relativity and how the notion of aether can evolve with this latter theory. He also describes the relations of this aether with gravitational and electromagnetic interactions. The state of the relativistic aether is entirely determined at each point by its local interaction with matter and with the immediately adjacent points of the aether, following the principle of locality cherished by Einstein. The state of Lorentz’s aether, on the contrary, is defined only by itself and — in the absence of an electromagnetic field — is the same everywhere.
Einstein insists that one cannot imagine a region of space devoid of gravitational potential because it is this potential that locally defines the metric of any region of space according to the theory of general relativity. However, according to Einstein, a region of space can be conceived entirely without an electromagnetic field, and electromagnetism therefore only maintains a secondary, non-fundamental relationship with the aether insofar as (according to Einstein’s theories and reflections at that time on the unification of electromagnetic and gravitational forces) matter particles influencing the relativistic ether are considered condensations of the electromagnetic field.
Einstein concludes his exposition on the aether with the following summary:
“In summary, according to the theory of general relativity, space is endowed with physical properties, and in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the theory of general relativity, a space without aether is inconceivable because, in such a space, not only would there be no propagation of light but also no possibility of existence for a standard space and time (measured by rules and clocks), and therefore no space-time intervals in the physical sense of the term. However, this aether cannot be conceived as endowed with the qualities of ponderable media and as consisting of parts with a trajectory in time. The idea of motion cannot be applied to it.”
Aether in Contemporary Physics
In the 21st century, the perplexing properties or characteristics attributed by contemporary physics to the vacuum (Higgs field, vacuum energy, dark energy) strangely resemble the mysterious properties of aether. However, physicists emphasize that this does not mean a return to hypotheses from before 1905.
The Latin phrase “hic sunt leones” (literally “here be lions”) or “hic sunt dracones” (literally “here be dragons”) is an expression associated with ancient maps to denote the still unexplored zones of Africa. This phrase recurs in historiography and literature but lacks evidence in medieval cartographic documentation and is rarely found in ancient artifacts.
Early world maps often illustrated the space beyond the known world with mythical creatures like sea serpents and sea monsters. On the Hunt-Lenox Globe, one of the oldest surviving globes dating back to the years 1503–1510, the inscription HC SVNT DRACONES is located in the area of eastern Asia below the equator. While this is the only known use of the phrase on a historical map, the expression in Latin, as well as its English translation, “here be dragons,” has gained proverbial significance in the English-speaking world since the 20th century. It serves as a warning about unexplored and perilous territories.
Hunt-Lenox Globe.
Here Be Dragons and Here Be Lions
Only the Cotton Map (10th century AD) includes the mysterious statement “hic sunt leones” between Gog and Magog and the eastern coast of Asia, accompanied by a drawing of the well-known maned feline. Indeed, in that area, there were tigers, leopards, and also lions (a small population still exists in India today). Some maps instead feature the expression “hic sunt dracones.” Additionally, it is not uncommon to come across the indication “hic nascuntur elephantes,” but the latter seems more like information about ivory resources.
There is no historical evidence that the phrase was ever used by a cartographer for Mediterranean Africa. However, a widely spread explanation suggests that originally, the Latin phrase “hic sunt leones” appeared on geographical maps of ancient Rome and later periods, marking the unexplored regions of Africa and Asia. The phrase signified the uncertainty about what lay in those unknown lands, except for the presence of wild beasts, or it referred to territories that could not be conquered.
The Hunt-Lenox globe, close-up on Asia.
Many times, pre-industrial-age cartographers adorned their maps with ornamental drawings, sometimes as per the request of patrons, featuring coats of arms, flags, large portraits of rulers, goods, and more. This was especially true for cartographic schemes intended for scholastic meditation rather than actual travel. Particularly during the late Middle Ages, the coastlines were much more known than the inland territories.
For this reason, even well into the modern era, cartographers placed various illustrations in vast continental areas that could be somewhat curious or interesting, allowing ample space for both imaginary and unreachable places (such as the terrestrial paradise, Gog and Magog, and the realm of Prester John) and various legendary or allegorical beings, including blemmies, cynocephali, elephants, unicorns, rhinoceroses, manticores, and even lions. In reality, uninhabitable areas were defined based on temperature (excessive cold or heat) or the presence of venomous snakes and scorpions (as seen in Leardo), serving as a metaphor for satanic allegories in the Bible.
Today, the phrase is used to indicate a situation or condition requiring particular attention or respect for a certain group of people.
The Phrase in Literature
Inspired by the reading of medieval maps, Marco Polo asserts that lions were abundant in China, likely alluding to tigers since lions never lived in China (zoological classification would only emerge later).
The term is also the title of Stephen King’s horror short story, Here There Be Tygers, which is an allusion to the phrase.
In Umberto Eco’s novel “The Name of the Rose,” the symbolic meaning of this phrase is anachronistically used by one of the protagonists, Jorge da Burgos, in the sentence “There are boundaries beyond which it is not allowed to go. God wanted it written on certain maps: hic sunt leones,” when he and the protagonist, William of Baskerville, were in the secret room of the library called “finis Africae.”
Usage of Here Be Dragons Today
Technology, Science, and Economy
In the source code of applications, the phrase is often inserted as a comment to warn other developers about poorly written code or confusing sections. In the financial world, risk managers use the jargon “T.B.D.” (there be dragons) to indicate risks that are not foreseeable. The Chaos Computer Club had chosen “here be dragons” as the motto for the 26th Chaos Communication Congress. Olle Häggström named a monograph published in 2016 on existential risks and transhumanism after the English translation of the phrase. OpenStreetMap names its servers after fictional dragons.
Pop Culture
Numerous references can also be found in pop culture: In the English original of the series Star Trek: The Next Generation, in Episode 28 “Where Silence Has Lease,” Captain Picard comments on the unknown future with: “Beyond this place there be dragons.” Additionally, in the video game Divinity 2: Ego Draconis, a parchment can be found bearing the inscription “Hic sunt Dracones,” and in the video game Eternal Darkness: Sanity’s Requiem, a document with the words “Hic sunt dracones” is discoverable.
The formulation is also used in the BBC series Sherlock: Mycroft Holmes justifies his statement that Sherlock would be more useful in England than on a potentially deadly intelligence mission in Eastern Europe by saying, “Here be dragons,” to his brother, whom he calls a dragon slayer. In the Syfy series “The Expanse,” taken over by Amazon Prime, the eleventh episode of the second season is titled “Here There be Dragons.” In the video game The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, the phrase is also used to indicate the outskirts of the open world that the titular character cannot venture into.
In this context, the expression has an ironic meaning within the game, as the Witcher hunts monsters but not dragons. Other monsters are often initially introduced as “dragons,” only to be revealed as false.
Related Expressions
Comparable is the meaning of “Hic sunt leones.” This variant is quoted in Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose by William of Baskerville due to its double meaning when he finds the “finis africae” (“End of Africa”).
“Terra incognita” (Latin for “unknown land”) is a historical term in cartography referring to land masses or areas that were not yet mapped or described at the time. The term appears on old sea or land maps of regions that were still unexplored or only partially known. Many maps adorned such areas with dragons or other mythical creatures.
Etymology of Terra Incognita
Terra: Derived from the Latin term for ‘earth’ or ‘land.’ Corresponding English terms encompass terrestrial, territory, and terrain.
Incognita: Originating from the Latin cognoscere, meaning ‘to know’ or ‘be acquainted with,’ with the negation ‘in-‘ as a prefix. This is connected to English words like know and the Greek term γνῶσις (gnosis) for ‘knowledge.’ Relevant English terms linked to this include agnostic, cognition, and gnosticism.
Map of North America from 1566 with Terra Incognita and Mare Incognito (Unknown Sea).
Terra Incognita in History
The most significant region of Terra incognita was Terra Australis (incognita), a large landmass in the Southern Hemisphere postulated in ancient and medieval times as a counterbalance to the northern continents. The continent of Australia, discovered around 1600 by sailors, received its name from this concept.
In 1883, Clements Markham referred to the unknown territory as the “blank of the maps,” a term later translated into other languages such as German as “white spots”. With the increasing exploration and mapping of the Earth, the term has lost its relevance and is now predominantly used in a historical or metaphorical sense. It is overlooked that even today, significant portions of the Earth remain virtually unexplored.
Terra australis incognita.
Retreat of Unknown Lands
Since 1830, explorations have multiplied, and colonial expansion has facilitated the discovery of the last unexplored territories. Explorers, including David Livingstone, explored Central and East Africa and the Congo Basin. With the development of geographical societies in the 19th century, the mention of terra incognita gradually disappeared from maps.
In modern times, it seems that there are no longer truly unexplored territories by humans, except for numerous underground and underwater areas. Consequently, the term is now used more metaphorically. For instance, a subject can be terra incognita for an individual if it exceeds the scope of their knowledge.
Origins of the Expression Terra Incognita
This inscription appeared on geographical maps, especially on world maps, to designate lands located beyond the areas known to Europeans. For a long time, the interior of Africa (particularly the Congo Basin) was considered terra incognita, as were the spaces south of New Zealand (terra australis incognita, “unknown southern land”).
Cartographers harbored numerous myths about these territories, which they transcribed onto their maps.
For instance, they would write on these areas: HIC SVNT DRACONES (“here, there be dragons” in Latin) or simply depict fantastical creatures, such as giant sea serpents.
Terra Incognita Today
Metaphorically, it still represents uncharted or unexplored areas of reality, about which one may have knowledge or suspicions but cannot yet define concretely.
Unexplored areas at the beginning of the 21st century include:
The ocean floor, particularly the Tamu Massif east of Japan, identified in 2009 as the largest volcano on Earth.
Land structures beneath the ice of Antarctica and Greenland.
Some Tepui mountains in Venezuela.
Certain 6000-meter peaks in the eastern Tibetan Himalayas.
The Wakhjir Pass corridor in the Pamir Mountains of Afghanistan.
Some regions of the Sahara.
Remote rainforests in the Amazon Basin.
Parts of the Andes.
Mountains in Papua New Guinea.
Examples of discoveries/explorations since the year 2000 include:
Hodgson Lake (Antarctica, 2000).
Muchimuk Cave System (Venezuela, 2002).
Gocta Waterfall (Peru, 2002).
Somoto Canyon (Nicaragua, 2004).
Erdi-Ma Plateau (Chad, 2005).
Sơn Đoòng Cave (Vietnam, 2009).
World’s Largest Peat Bog, Cuvette Centrale (Democratic Republic of Congo, 2012).
In anthropic geography, the ecumene (in ancient Greek: οἰκουμένη, oikoumene, the passive middle participle of the verb οἰκέω “to inhabit”) is part of the Earth where human beings find suitable conditions to settle. The term originates from ancient Greek, where it indicated the known part of the world, the opposite of which is the wilderness (in ancient Greek: ἔρημος, érēmos). Over time, the term has taken on two meanings: a geographical one describing the known world and a philosophical-religious one indicating belonging to a group particularly attentive to a faith or a philosophical theory.
Ecumene in Ancient Greece
Thanks to his astronomical observations and measurements, Eratosthenes succeeded in measuring the circumference of the Earth with astonishing precision and creating a map of its inhabited part known at the time. Like Aristotle before him, Eratosthenes viewed the ecumene as a gigantic island, surrounded by a single ocean, on the surface of a spherical Earth. Subsequently, Ptolemy attempted to map the ecumene in his work titled Geography.
The layout of the flat map of the world, a distant ancestor of our geography, was done along two orthogonal axes: the metric description (corresponding to our modern latitude) and the periegetic description (longitude). The metric description, relatively precise, involved tracing the meridian from Meroe to Thule over a length of 30,000 stadia. The periegetic description was much less precise, relying solely on disparate materials (accounts of voyages). Eratosthenes’ map was complemented by a topographical description and remarks on human activity and the economy.
The ecumene occupied only a quarter of the Earth’s surface, stretching from the Pillars of Hercules in the west to the Columns of Alexander in the east, covering a distance of approximately 120 to 180°. Around 220 BCE, Eratosthenes described the Earth, well after Eudoxus and Aristotle, divided into five zones parallel to the equator or climates: the tropics, a band centered on the equator, two polar caps (one at each pole), and two temperate zones, situated between the tropics and the polar caps.
Geography
Map of the ecumene based on Strabo’s Geographica.
Since antiquity, the term has defined the territory known and explored by geographers, merchants, and adventurers who, with their “sea voyages” and exploration of lands, and thanks to periploi (coastal navigation), brought news and information about peoples and ethnicities.
The first to draw a map of the Ecumene was Anaximander of Miletus, a student of Thales, in the 5th–6th century BC. Later, a fellow citizen of his, Hecataeus of Miletus, depicted the Ecumene inside a circle, representing Europe, Asia, and Libya, surrounded by the River Ocean. To the north, he placed the mythical people of the Hyperboreans, opposed in the southern sector by the Hypernoti. In the 5th century BC, the Greek historian Herodotus proposed a new representation of the Ecumene, imagining it to be quadrangular instead of circular.
In the Hellenistic age, thanks to achievements in astronomy and geometry, the geographer Eratosthenes arrived at an approximate estimate of the Earth’s circumference by observing the sun on the day of the summer solstice, at the same hour, in Alexandria, Egypt, and Aswan, where it reached the zenith.
During the same period, the historian Polybius, sent to Rome as a hostage and entering the social and cultural environment of the Scipios, becoming a friend and collaborator of Scipio Aemilianus, wrote his Histories with the intention of explaining “how Rome had managed, in less than 53 years,” to become the master of the “ecumene.” Polybius understood the known world as “inhabited or traveled by the Greeks,” beyond which only the “barbarians” existed.
However, he did not limit himself to just history; to obtain firsthand information about historical sites, he embarked on long journeys through the lands bathed by the Mediterranean, thereby expanding the knowledge of the geographical ecumene to the Western lands, still little known in Greece.
Religion and Philosophy
In philosophy and religion, ecumene is the metaphysical state describing all past, present, and future life (and not a common state of religious or cultural unification or coexistence).
The ontology of the ecumene is distinct from multiculturalism or religious pluralism, even though it may contain elements of either or both. Typically, there is a single dominant center used as a reference point for everything else.
In this sense, Ecumene, “the house where all live,” is a philosophical state of being that encompasses those who lived in the past, those living in the present, and those who may live in the future.
The Orthodox Christianity of Constantinople (on a theological and metaphysical level).
The Christian Kingdom of the medieval Catholic Church (politically and economically).
The permitted pantheism in the Roman Empire (conditioned on the respect for the Emperor’s worship).
Examples of social ecumene:
The koinè (Kingdom of Alexander the Great and Hellenism).
The late Roman Empire (with a Catholic religious foundation).
The United Nations.
Ecumene in Christianity
In the New Testament, the word “Oikumene” is often used as a synonym for the whole world or represents the Roman Empire (see Luke 2:1, Matthew 24:14). In Hebrews 2:5, the word denotes a “future world.”
In the Early Church, alongside its political meaning in the Roman Empire, the word also had a religious significance, referring to the entirety of Christians. During the time of Constantine the Great, this distinction became less prominent. The so-called Ecumenical Councils played a significant role, with their decisions intended to apply to the entire Christian community and the entire empire.
After the end of the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire, the word retained only a religious meaning. In the 6th century, the Patriarch of Constantinople referred to himself as “ecumenical” to emphasize his primacy among various Eastern churches. This sparked vehement opposition from Pope Gregory the Great in Rome.
Since the 20th century, the term “ecumenism” has been used for the Christian ecumenical movement, aiming for dialogue and cooperation among denominations, churches, and monotheistic religions.
Literature
Ecumene is used in various works of fantasy by different authors. In a series of novels by the science fiction author Ursula K. Le Guin, the Ecumene (or Ekumene) represents the League of Worlds, an alliance between planets placed at immense distances and connected through the flight of hyper-light starships and communication via the ansible, a device that exploits the gravitational deformation of space-time. The novel series is known as the Hainish Cycle.
In the author’s fantasy, the original meaning of the term is thus preserved, combining both its geographical sense (though adapted to her fantastical vision of the future beyond the Earth) and the more philosophical aspect (referring to the peaceful and benign nature that unites the peoples inhabiting different worlds).
Megaris (ancient Greek: Μέγαρίς) is a historical region in ancient Greece, situated to the northeast of the Isthmus of Corinth. Megaris bordered the lands of Corinth (to the south), Boeotia (to the north), and Attica (to the east). Megaris was a small region in Central Greece, directly adjacent to the Isthmus of Corinth on the southwest. It extended between the Saronic Gulf to the south and the Alcyonian Bay of the Corinthian Gulf to the northwest. The northern boundary of Megaris with Boeotia was formed by the main ridge of Cithaeron, while the northeastern boundary with Attica was marked by one of its spurs ending near the shore of the Saronic Gulf with two peaks known as the Cerata.
Geography
Map showing Megaris in relation to other regions. (W. Commons. cc by sa 3.0)
Almost the entire country was dominated by a massive mountain range, the main part of which, covering the western portion of Megaris and reaching a height of up to 4430 feet, was anciently called Geraneia (Greek: ή Γεράνεια or Geraneia, “Crane Mountains”), now known as Makri Plai. To the west of Geraneia, Onoe-Dry separated itself, forming a peninsula that extended far into the Corinthian Gulf and was called Pieria (or Piraeus, Greek: ή Πειραία). Only in the eastern part of Megaris, between Geraneia and the Cerata Mountains, was a small plain, where the main city of Megara (capital) was situated on two hills.
History
Pediment of the Treasury of Megara. 520 B.C. Archaeological Museum of Olympia.
In the early history of the region, the borders of Megaris were not fixed. During the time of its greatest territorial expansion, it included Megara, Nisea, Peraea, Crommyon, Tripodiscus, Pagae, and Egosthena, possibly Eleusis. In the 8th century BCE, Peraea and Crommyon came under Corinthian control, and in the 7th century BCE, Eleusis was finally annexed to Athens, becoming part of Attica.
According to myths, the first inhabitants of Megaris were the Carian tribes, later followed by the Leleges, who were in turn displaced (and partially assimilated) by the Ionian Greeks. In the 11th to 10th centuries BCE, Megaris was conquered by the Dorians, but the Ionian population remained in place, gradually blending with the newcomers. The region continued to be considered Dorian, but with a strong Ionian influence in culture and language.
In the 9th century BCE, Megaris came under the rule of Megara, and the tribal leadership of smaller settlements was incorporated into the Megarian aristocracy. It served as a crucial link between Central Greece and the Peloponnese and suffered significantly during the Peloponnesian Wars between the Athenians and Phocians. Despite numerous wars and occupations, the unity of Megaris persisted until 192 BCE, when the Romans declared some of its settlements independent participants in the Achaean League. However, in 146 BCE, the entire region was transformed into Roman territory. In the Middle Ages, Megaris typically joined administrative and state unions with Athens, and it gradually began to be considered the western part of Attica.
Economy
Gravestone of Pollis (c. 480 BCE, Megaris, Megara). A funerary stele or gravestone of a hoplite (foot soldier), which was initially painted. (W. Commons, cc by sa 2.0)
Economically, besides Megara with its convenient harbor Nisea, the cities of Pagi (Pagae or Παγαί) and Egosthena on the western coast were known for their harbors. Even the Athenians, who often clashed with the Megarians and considered them rough, uneducated, cunning, and treacherous, acknowledged the industriousness of the people of Megaris and their achievements in navigation.
At the same time, Megaris lacked convenient internal communication routes. Three roads, one along the rocky and mostly inaccessible western coast, another winding through the mountainous middle of the region, and the third along the eastern coast, were equally challenging and could easily be blocked during storms and military conflicts.
The last of the three roads held the most significance, leading through Megara and its plain from one side to Attica and from the other to the most convenient pass over Cithaeron and from there to Phocis. However, in its western part, the road ran along almost perpendicular cliffs of the mountain range, turning into a narrow path. Megarian Polemarch Skiron slightly widened it, but even in the classical era, the path was considered very perilous and traversed on foot. Only during the time of Hadrian was the road reconstructed to make it accessible to contemporary transportation.
Who Were Megarians?
The Megarians were the inhabitants of ancient Megara, an ancient Greek city-state located between Attica and Corinthia. Megara covered the land between the Corinthian Gulf and the Saronic Gulf, giving it the advantage of access to two different seas. The sea was the only outlet for the Megarians as they were surrounded by powerful neighbors, the Athenians to the east and the Corinthians to the west. This geographical constraint led them to establish numerous and distant colonies, mainly in eastern Thrace, the Propontis, the Black Sea, and Sicily.
Their History
The Megarians were of Dorian origin and spoke the Doric dialect. They settled in the Megaris region during the Dorian invasion, displacing earlier Ionian and Boeotian populations that were already established in the area.
During the Archaic and Classical periods, their dominance included five settlements or villages: Megara in the center of the region, Nisaea on the shores of the Saronic Gulf, Pegae on the shores of the Corinthian Gulf, Tripodiscus in the Geraneia Mountains, and Aegosthena at the foot of Mount Cithaeron.
In subsequent years, the Megarians came into conflict with their neighbors, initially with the Corinthians in the 8th century BCE and later with the Athenians in the 6th century BCE. The source of their dispute with the Athenians was the island of Salamis, which the Megarians held from around 640 to 570 BCE. After a twenty-year war between the Athenians and the Megarians, Salamis returned to Athenian control. During the second Greek colonization, the Megarians founded numerous colonies, especially in the Propontis and the Black Sea, including Byzantium, Chalcedon, and Nicomedia.
During the Persian Wars, the Megarians allied with the rest of the Greeks against the Persians. They participated in the naval battle of Salamis with 20 ships and in the Battle of Plataea with 3,000 hoplites. In the following years, the Megarians faced intense competition from Athens in the trade of the eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea. This competition peaked with the “Megarian Decree” issued by Athens, becoming one of the main causes of the Peloponnesian War. During the Peloponnesian War, Megara allied with Sparta. In the years following the end of the Peloponnesian War, Megara lost much of its power, was limited to a local role, and observed events in the Hellenic world without substantial involvement.
The Cities of Megara
Apart from Megara, the other significant cities in Megaris were Nisaea, Pegae, Aegosthena, and Tripodiscus. For a period, they also controlled Heraion, contested by the Argives and Corinthians but eventually falling under Corinthian control. Nisaea was situated on the shores of the Saronic Gulf, close to the city of Megara, essentially serving as Megara’s coastal region on the Saronic.
In contrast, Pegae was located on the shores of the Corinthian Gulf, constituting Megara’s northern coastal region. Nisaea was near present-day Pachi, and Pegae was built in the area now known as Alepochori. Further east, at the foot of Mount Cithaeron, in the location of present-day Porto Germeno, was Aegosthena. This city was close to Boeotian Thespiae and Athenian Oenoe. To the west, on the border with the Corinthians, was Tripodiscus, a mountainous city built on the eastern slopes of Geraneia, possibly near the present-day location of Hani.
Due to limited space and pressure from powerful neighbors, the Megarians resorted to founding numerous colonies. During the second Greek colonization period, the Megarians established many colonies in Eastern Thrace, the Propontis, the Black Sea, and Sicily. In Sicily, they founded the first colony, Megara Hyblaea, followed by Selinus and Heraclea Minoa. In Eastern Thrace, the most significant Megarian colonies were Selymbria, Mesembria, and Nauplchoi on the shores of the Black Sea, as well as Byzantium, which evolved into the capital of the Byzantine Empire at the Bosporus Strait.
Opposite Byzantium, the Megarians founded Chalcedon, and on the southern shores of the Black Sea, they established the notable colony of Heraclea Pontica.
On the shores of the Propontis, they founded Astacus, which developed into a strong city overtime under the name Nicomedia. The Megarians also colonized the distant Crimea Peninsula, establishing the cities of Chersonesus Taurica and Callatis in present-day Romania.
Significant Megarians
Many significant personalities of ancient Greece originated from Megara, including the eminent engineer Eupalinos, whose notable work was the Eupalinian aqueduct in Samos. The philosopher Euclid the Megarian and the renowned elegiac poet Theognis the Megarian also hailed from Megara. Additionally, the great Latin epic poet Virgil passed away in Megara.
During the second half of the 19th century, during the Second French Empire, Paris underwent extensive renovation aimed at modernizing the capital’s architecture. Initially serving as the President of the Republic, Louis Napoleon Bonaparte worked to address the significant issues afflicting Paris. He observed a lack of hygiene, the absence of proper roads, and, notably, the lack of sewage systems. The evolving traffic in the capital, with the advent of motorization and the first automobiles, also prompted a reconsideration of the city’s road organization.
While Napoleon III outlined the initial plans for the New Paris during his presidency, the implementation of this urban overhaul took shape after his coup d’état and his coronation as emperor in 1852.
He then enlisted one of his most loyal advisors turned prefect, Baron Haussmann, to organize the construction and develop the plans for Paris, giving rise to what is now known as Haussmann’s Paris. Despite this, the project faced sharp criticism, particularly from liberals led by Adolphe Thiers. The construction efforts spanned nearly 27 years, from 1853 to 1870.
In Paris, Haussmannian architecture is named after Baron Haussmann, prefect of the Seine during the reign of Emperor Napoleon III. Its aesthetic is highly recognizable: Haussmannian buildings are constructed with cut stone, while the roofing is made of elegant and lightweight blue-gray slate, facilitating easy installation and reducing the load on the framework.
The buildings present distinctive facade lines, contributing to an architectural ensemble and providing more space along the new boulevards, thereby contributing to the modernization of the capital. Parisian urbanism undergoes a transformation!
Louis Napoleon Bonaparte is responsible for the transformations in the city of Paris. In the midst of the 19th-century industrial revolution, the emperor aimed to regulate the city, whose architecture varied across districts and arrondissements.
Seeking assistance, he enlisted Baron Haussmann to contribute to this project of standardizing the capital. The initiatives led by Napoleon III were state-directed, involving public entities, while private entrepreneurs managed the implementation.
Why Was This City Model Chosen?
Georges-Eugène Haussmann and Napoleon III.
Napoleon III observed that France needed modernization, with the capital serving as the vanguard of 19th-century modernity. Before Haussmann’s interventions, Paris suffered from various disjointed projects initiated first by Henri IV and then by Napoleon I. These efforts focused solely on expanding the capital and its bridges to facilitate transportation across the Seine.
Overall, the city retained architecture inherited from the Middle Ages: narrow streets significantly impeded traffic flow. Additionally, waste and water drainage systems were inadequate, leading to serious hygiene issues. Lastly, the absence of gas lamps and lighting infrastructure increased insecurity when night fell.
How Did the Haussmann-style Construction Work Go?
Église Saint-Augustin. Image: Wikimedia, CC BY-SA 3.0.
The state proposed the Haussmannian city model in 1852, thanks to the plans developed by Baron Haussmann. In 1853, he formalized the expropriation of property owners residing in the areas targeted for renovations. Most of the capital’s neighborhoods were gradually demolished, except for the Marais, which retained a significant portion of its infrastructure. The city thus carried out a breakthrough and intersection at Châtelet-Rivoli (1st arrondissement), where commercial areas were concentrated, to facilitate traffic and alleviate congestion. Over forty thousand houses were constructed between 1852 and 1870.
Starting in 1855, the significant north-south and east-west thoroughfare facilitated the movement of populations between the outskirts and the city center. Housing was improved to enhance air quality. Finally, the establishment of sewer systems and an underground water circulation network allowed simplified access to running water while reinforcing the quality of life. Among the major infrastructures, there was the enhancement of the Pantheon, now elevated by the perspective of the Avenue des Gobelins, Boulevard Saint-Germain, Boulevard Sébastopol, Place Louis-Lépine, and the Gare de Lyon constructed for the occasion in 1855, along with the Gare du Nord in 1865.
What Are the Consequences of Haussmann Architecture?
Thanks to Haussmannian architecture, Paris became the symbol of 19th-century aesthetics, characterized by its distinctive facades and balconies, representing modernity. The city served as a preferred backdrop for numerous writers and painters of the time, including Maupassant and Zola, who made modernization a central theme in several of their novels. Monet painted the famous canvas “L’arrivée d’un train en gare de La Ciotat,” depicting the Gare de Lyon.
Paris inspired other European cities, such as England, with the renovation of London, leading to an improved quality of life. However, critics argued that there was a certain monotony due to the standardization of the districts. Jules Ferry criticized the exorbitant expenses of this project in a pamphlet, while locals perceived these changes as purely for security reasons. The reforms and the availability of small rooms in new buildings attracted poorer populations from the provinces, who were poorly regarded by Parisians at the time.
Sunshine and seasonal spirit make for a one-of-a-kind Los Angeles Christmas. Even though it’s becoming warm around Christmastime, Los Angeles is all decked out for this holiday with plenty of events and activities. The city is lit up for Christmas, and there are outdoor movie screenings, lighted strolls through botanical gardens, and festive takeovers of amusement parks. Descanso Gardens’ Enchanted Forest of Light Event, the boat parade at Marina Del Rey, the outdoor holiday films at Yuletide Cinemaland, and the lights at the Los Angeles Zoo are among the highlights. Christmas in Los Angeles is still a lovely time, even when there is no snow.
Christmas Foods in Los Angeles
During the Christmas season, residents of Los Angeles savor many traditional dishes. Here are a few popular meals and menu items from nearby eateries:
Herb-Crusted Grilled Prawns: Grilled prawns with an herb crust are a crowd-pleaser at many eateries in Los Angeles.
Roasted Chestnut Ravioli: Ardor offers roasted chestnut ravioli, a unique and tasty dish.
Chipotle Pinapple-Glazed Ham: At the Front Yard, you may get a delicious meal called Chipotle pineapple-glazed ham.
Birria Leg of Lamb: You can also find the classic Mexican meal birria leg of lamb on the all-you-can-eat menu during Christmas.
Char Sui Pork Chop: One unique supper choice at Jar is the char sui pork chop.
Veal Cutlets in Mustard Cream: You can have veal cutlets served with mustard cream in Los Angeles at Christmas.
Tart, Mousse, Fruitcake: Restaurants offer a variety of desserts, including pear cranberry pie, chestnut praline mousse, and marzipan fruitcake.
Panettone Bread Pudding: One of the most ordered desserts at many restaurants is panettone bread pudding.
Christmas Traditions in Los Angeles
Christmas lights cover “it’s a small world” holiday in Disneyland at Christmas. (HarshLight, cc by sa 2.0)
These are but a few of the many ways that Los Angeles rejoices during the winter holidays. You may get into the Christmas mood in a variety of ways at each event. Natives and tourists to Los Angeles partake in various holiday customs and celebrations.
Hollywood Christmas Parade: One of the longest-running Christmas traditions in Los Angeles is the Hollywood Christmas Parade. On the Sunday after Thanksgiving, floats and marching bands parade down Hollywood Boulevard, and Santa Claus himself makes an appearance every year.
Outdoor Ice Skating: The Downtown on Ice rink was the first of its kind in Los Angeles, and since then, outdoor ice skating has expanded to rinks all throughout the Los Angeles Basin, the Valley, and Orange County.
Disney Christmas Fantasy: Guests are swept into the holiday mood as the park is decorated with breathtaking lights and even creates its own nightly snowfall.
Knott’s Merry Farm: Not only are the rides open 24/7, but there are also a ton of Christmas shows, festive cuisine, one-of-a-kind shopping, beautiful decorations, and entertainment for people of all ages.
Astra Lumina at South Coast Botanic Garden: Fifthly, the 87-acre South Coast Botanic Garden becomes Astra Lumina, a multi-sensory galaxy experience with a kaleidoscope of colors, during Christmastime.
Ice Skating at Charming Ice Rinks: Another seasonal activity at Christmas includes ice skating on an ice rink to the tune of traditional Christmas music and the flashing of lights.
Santa’s Circus: This is a place to really immerse yourself in the holiday atmosphere in Los Angeles which is a spectacular, interactive circus performance showcasing incredible feats of skill, magic, illusion, and humor.
Candlelight Concerts: One of the most renowned Christmas activities, candlelight concerts include exquisite creative exhibits in Los Angeles.
Mexican Christmas Traditions: This is a procession that follows behind a new pair each night as they portray Mary and Joseph, a tradition that is part of Mexican Christmas traditions in Los Angeles. As a family, you’ll have some tamales, a warm, spicy drink called champurado, and midnight mass on Christmas Eve.
Places to Visit in Los Angeles at Christmastime
The Mission Inn at Christmas as viewed from the southwest corner. (Gmasonoz, cc by sa 4.0)
Visiting these spots during the Christmas season in Los Angeles is like no other. Some great spots to visit in this city over the holiday season are as follows:
The Broad: Located on Grand Avenue in Downtown Los Angeles, it is a museum specializing in modern art, a perfect spot for Christmastime meetings.
The Museum of Contemporary Art: Another museum in the Los Angeles area devoted to modern and contemporary art, with two sites.
Los Angeles Zoo & Botanical Gardens: This 133-acre land opened to the public in 1966 and is situated in Southern California.
Hollywood Walk of Fame: Located over 15 blocks of Hollywood Boulevard and 3 blocks of Vine Street, the Hollywood Walk of Fame has over 2,690 five-pointed terrazzo and brass stars set into the sidewalks.
Enchanted: Forest of Light: Descanso Gardens’ annual Christmas tradition, Enchanted: Forest of Light, has ten or more lit works that are sure to amaze visitors at Christmas.
Marina Del Rey Boat Parade: Don’t miss the Marina Del Rey Boat Parade at Christmas in Los Angeles; it will transport you to a charming fishing hamlet.
Yuletide Cinemaland: Street Food Cinema’s Yuletide Cinemaland generally hosts a holiday film series in Heritage Square each year, Los Angeles’s most authentic Dickensian town square.
L.A. Zoo Lights: As part of this charming new spin on its light-up Christmas tradition, the L.A. Zoo is open late on most evenings until January.
A narrative of changing customs and cultural blending is the Los Angeles Christmas story. On December 28, 1854, the Southern Californian—the second-oldest newspaper in Los Angeles—published the first written account of a Christmas celebration in the city. Traditional religious practices, dances, and feasts were highly valued by the city’s mostly Spanish and Mexican residents during that era. New customs, however, emerged as a result of the migration of non-Latino Americans from the northeastern United States, England, and Northern Europe.
In contrast to the communal Hispanic Christmas, these early festivities were more focused on the house and personal family. The arrival of Christmas trees, which were not originally from Mexico, signified the impact of American and European customs on the area. As the holiday became more commercialized, it continued to change in Los Angeles far into the late 19th century. The increasing commercialization of Los Angeles’s Christmas festivities was marked by firms boasting the greatest holiday business ever seen in 1898.
