Feel free to remove this, mods, if it’s too tangential to modern science, but I thought the community might find this early nature vs. nurture hypothesis amusing
Feel free to remove this, mods, if it’s too tangential to modern science, but I thought the community might find this early nature vs. nurture hypothesis amusing
Am I the only one who interpretes this as “well, they died”?
It sounds to me it’s saying you had to do things like clap your hands to get their attention, gesture to communicate what you wanted them to do, and that you had to do so kindly and patiently or else they may not respond well. Alternatively, maybe it was the children who had to clap their hands and gesture, but then I’m not sure how they’d speak blandishments (kind, gentle encouragements, like “good job!”) to others.
Just looked it up. They all died quickly. It’s literally just “they couldn’t live without it.”
No, this passage is describing the care they needed.
It doesn’t make any sense as an interpretation to jump right to death if you look at what the passage actually says. They died because they couldn’t clap their hands? They died because they or their caretakers didn’t smile enough (gladness of countenance)? They died because they didn’t get enough gentle encouragement from their caretakers (blandishments)?
This was from a list of fucked up things Frederick II did written by a guy who hated him. If the kids had died as a result of the experiment, surely it’d say so. It’s just saying the experiment was a a failure (labors were in vain) because of course they did not spontaneously start speaking Hebrew, Greek, Latin and instead had to rely on nonverbal communication.
If someone says “I can’t live without my phone,” they aren’t going to literally drop dead one day if they forget it at home.
If you have a source laying around for info on the kids’ deaths, I’d take it.
Iirc, they did, yes
I would be very impressed of any of them were still alive 800 years later