Lisa M. Lane 2008
The text and audio by Lisa M. Lane is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.
>> Can you see it from the back?
>> Yes? Okay. You can't really read it though, but you do, what page is it on in your book? Because you do actually have it and it might be easier to see obviously in your book. Yes. Page 96. The colors are different, but the idea's the same. This is a little bit more iniquitous. Alexander the great and his empires, what this map shows, there is actually, if it'll come up [inaudible]. You can see the little red line going, can you see that? Okay. Here they go. This is Alexander and his army all the way down through Egypt. They wrap around. They go through [inaudible] and down into Mesopotamia and all the way to the end of [inaudible] valley where his guys start to mutiny because they want to go home. So Alexander says okay, we're going home, but we're going home this way so that we can cover as much territory as possible before we get back. And that's how we get this yellow border there is that they got all the way to the [inaudible] river, which is in modern day Pakistan, made contact with the Indian culture, which your text book is very good at showing the influence of. In fact, it's the first textbook that I've seen that even does that, that actually shows the influence of it. And that's how you get this huge region that you see here in purple. Now after Alexander's death, what happened? He died young. What occurs?
>> Fighting for power.
>> Yes, there's a struggle for power and what happens as a result?
>> The generals carve out different plots of that empire for themselves.
>> Yes, and that's what you see in the upper right hand corner here. It looks like the [inaudible] empire is just huge. I mean they have the bulk of the square miles for sure. But in terms of trade concentration and control of the Mediterranean, that's not the big area, right. So you have his general, Ptolemy, we may or may not get back to Ptolemy today, but General Ptolemy taking over the Egyptian area there. So, let's see here. Yes, it's a little easier to see on page 98. That map has the sections kind of divided up and you can at least see the areas in pink there, the Egyptian areas of the Ptolemaic Empire. So these general's fight, General [inaudible], General Ptolemy, they divide up the large empire into their own zones. However, that said, this should not be considered a military empire. If you compare Alexander's empire to other historic empires, it does not look the same. This is not an area under the control of one military entity. It doesn't work like that. It's not like the Persian Empire or the Arthurian Empire. This is really more of a cultural empire than a military empire. It becomes a commercial empire in some ways, but there's no center to it at all. Alexander in marching through with his army came upon any city that he liked and that was the center of trade and science and named it Alexandria. Modesty is not one of the Greek virtues. So you've got a chain of Alexandria's all over this empire and they all trade with each other. And he's bringing with him scientists and scholars, not just soldiers. Alexander managed to make Greek the administrative language, making it possible for all of these cities to talk to each other using the Greek language as communication and Greek money as the means of exchange. So it's a commercial empire without a middle. It's a cultural empire that doesn't have a center. But it has, as it's basis, the Hellenic Greek culture because Alexander got that from whom? Remember? His teacher?
>> Aristotle, who got it from Plato, who got it from Socrates. Alexander saw himself as spreading the values and culture of the last chapter of ancient Greece and the golden age of Athens even though himself was not Athenian. Right? Where did he come from?
>> He's Macedonian. And sometimes, as I mentioned, somebody who is just outside, just on the edge becomes the biggest fan of the culture of the middle. That's fairly common. So he was. So he spread Greek culture, Greek science, Greek knowledge, the Greek language, the Greek monetary system all through this huge area, which means that the area can be studied as a continuous unit, which is what this chapter did. Even though if you think about it on [inaudible] levels if you actually went back you'd have to think pretty carefully about where you're going to go here because you've got a huge variety of people, languages, religious practices, cultural norms, it's all over the place. This is not a contiguous empire in the military sense or in the sense of their being just one culture. It's just that this one culture, this Greek culture, has touched all of it at the top level, so now you've got trade and communications going on across it where you didn't have that before. That's where we got the Indian influence at the end of the chapter. It's not just through one trade network, but through this whole trade network that he created. And what that means is that these trade networks are connections of cities. And this is where we get the word cosmopolitanism. Cosmopolitanism is a wonderful word because it's a combination of two words that you may already know. What's a cosmos?
>> Like a universe, the cosmos. And what's polis?
>> Like a city.
>> City or city state like we had back in what they call Hellenic times in the golden age of Greece. So you put these two together and you've got a city of the world. A global city. A city that's connected, it's part of a big network. These are the trade network that you can see here with the red lines. They're all over the place. Goods don't just travel by themselves. It's impossible. Ideas travel with the goods. Ideas about religion, ideas about the individual place in the universe, those things travel, too. The stuff just doesn't come by itself, it comes with a set of understandings, things to think about, different ways of doing things so there's intercultural connectedness going on here. And they center in the cities, not just the ones named Alexandria, but all of the cities that are part of this trading network become the place to live and the places to be. People start to migrate there, to those cities, make their livings there, make money there, raise their families there, and the cities, of course become lager and larger and larger as a result. If you've ever moved to a place, let's say you've lived in a small place and moved to a big place, has anybody every done that? Like lived in a small town and moved to a big city. Okay. How do you feel? What happens to you when you make that shift. Yes?
>> Kind of a culture shock.
>> A little bit disoriented. Disoriented, great word, because the inability to physically orient yourself, where am I, what am I doing here? Ultimately you have to start thinking about who you are, right? If I'm not just the me that came from my home town and I have to live in this world and I want to live in this world, then how do I associate myself ? what are my connections? If your connections had been to a particular place, a lot of people in this world, their connections were to their kinship group. A lot of the Greek people in this world, their connections were to their poets. They thought of themselves as being Spartans or Athenians or Macedonians. And yet, in these cities, that didn't always seem to matter so much, where you came from, it was more what you did once you got there. And so people start to think about themselves differently when they're in there cosmopolitans. It changes things. I don't think your chapter dealt with this enough because it's an internal change. Historians are always a little bit uncomfortable whenever anything hits like psychology. But this is almost mass psychology. Hellenistic society starts to focus more and more on the individual instead of the kinship groups, the [inaudible], the poets, when you are alienated in that world, you have to identify yourself a little more. And that's exactly what happened here. A culture trend toward identifying self, individualism. You can see it in the art. Here are a couple of examples. These are not arch type. These are not symbols. I mean, the one on the left here, the statue of Aphrodite the goddess often would be portrayed idealistically. I mean, she's a goddess, right? Shouldn't she look like the perfect woman. She shouldn't look confused or embarrassed or any of those things. And yet here, you get the feeling she's an individual person, not just a model of what Aphrodite should be. She's not just a character who symbolizes a certain thing, she's a human being. Same thing with the boy on the right. I love their hats. They have one of these in your book, too, the [inaudible] hat. Where is it? It's at the beginning, isn't it?
>> Page 102.
>> 102, right. Yes. Very, this is a very similar, they use it to describe objects in their home and how people decorated their home, which is cool, and that's true, but notice the hate, they've got these little flat sun hatty things, that's a [inaudible] thing. But this is an individual boy, this isn't just a symbol of boy, this isn't perfect boy, this isn't kouros, the ideal boy, it's just a boy. A pretty young boy, it looks like, wearing a silly hat to keep the sun off his face. There is individualism there as part of this culture. People start thinking about themselves differently. Why is it so important? Because text books like this, college text books, use, give you Greece, the 5th century B.C., primarily the Athenian view, primarily Spartans are brutes. And then they would take you into Rome where you were supposed to see the perfect manifestation of Greek ideals. And they would just kind of skip the entire Hellenistic world with all of these ideas and communications and the presentation of the individual and yet in terms of western civilization, who we are, don't we think of ourselves as individuals. Do you think of yourself as a member of a kinship clan or a citizen of [inaudible]?
>> It is.
>> We are, we've taken it [inaudible] as part of our cultural heritage, individualism, that's true, but there is a larger western concept of the individual and a great deal of concern in Europe is how you make the society provide what the individual needs. We don't look at it that way. So we look at them as being more group oriented, more collective oriented. It's not really collective orientation. It is an idea that it's the role of republican institutions to provide for the individual. It's a different political socialized unit, but it's still highly individualistic if you compare it to say China and the way that Chinese people think about themselves collectively, as a group. The individual is almost a non entity in Chinese cultural [inaudible]. The group is everything. The individual is completely insignificant. You don't see that in Europe at all. The individual's highly significant. You get that from the Hellenistic experience. Not from the Greek stuff and not from the Roman stuff. You get it here. And it's such an important thing, especially to Americans. And it's not [inaudible] from the Hellenistic cultural empire. The other thing that we get is the mixing of some things that weren't mixed before. Public things and private things are not mixed in the Hellenic world, the world of 5th century B.C. Athens. Public is the agora and all of those adult male Greek citizens arguing about what the government should do. That's public. Private is completely separate. Private life is not something that public people get involved in. Private life tends to be controlled by females, public life tends to be controlled by males. That will be true. That was true in ancient Greece and its going to be true in Rome and it's not really true here in the Hellenistic period. A lot of things that we might consider to me more private concerns were very public and were talked about publicly. The role of the individual in the larger city was discussed. Little tiny things like this. This is a boy getting a thorn out of his foot. Do you think that the Athenian 5th century B.C. artist would have seen that as an appropriate subject for art?
>> Why not?
>> It's just normal.
>> It's just normal. Exactly. It's something you see everyday. I mean, why would you put that in art? What kind of larger, epical thing is this thing? It's not. It's just a guy getting a thorn out of his foot. What larger thing is it saying, though?
>> Yes. Maybe showcasing the artists particular talent. What is the artist saying about their society?
>> We care about.
>> This is our culture. We care about the every day here. We care about the ordinary here. We think it's the ordinary is important enough, the private, the ordinary, is important enough to spend time making a sculpture of it or to spend time decorating our homes of little statues when something happens. We think that private life is important. It's a big deal. You also get male and female roles very much changing. I don't know which is the cause and which is the effect. Do women have more rights and respect in Hellenistic culture because private life is considered just as important as public life or is private life considered just as important as public life because women have more rights and responsibilities and respect in the culture. I don't know which is which, but they're both going on in the Hellenistic empire. Women held public office in Hellenistic cities, particularly in the east. You don't see that, I can't tell you that in Mesopotamia, I can't tell you that in Egypt, I can't tell you that in ancient Greece. It's new here. Women's issues, things that we might consider to be separated were talked about in public and it was acceptable to do that. Women, themselves, discussing politics while shopping, not unusual in the Hellenistic world, a little bizarre back in 5th century Athens. And we've got a society that is aware, they are cognitively aware that they are mixing male and female. This is a statue of hermaphrodite, the idea of a hermaphrodite, somebody who has both male and female, in this case, sexual characteristics in the same individual is an intriguing [inaudible] thing that sort of keeps coming up here and there throughout the Hellenistic empire. Here is a sculpture. They're aware that it is a mix, a blend, that it's different and unusual. The Romans will not have this.
[ Silence ]
>> Sometimes it's considered part of that elevation of the female. Sometimes it's considered just part of the evolution of religious faith, but another element that the Hellenistic empire has, that we haven't seen before, is the goddess as a main figure of worship. There may be some discussion [inaudible] to prehistoric times with elements like the venus figurine that's found all over the place and buried in people's fields. There are many, many stories that suggest that the original religions of many different cultures were goddess religions, based on a female deity, but this is the first time we see it in historic times, in other words times where we have written documents and can actually point to them and say see, here, they were worshipping a goddess. In this case, the goddess then appears in several forms. She's been around a very long time in Egypt where she was called Isis and this is just a classic Egyptian statue of Isis with her wings. Isis was the sister of the god Osiris who was hacked to pieces, killed and hacked to pieces and his pieces were scattered all around the world, and Isis, faithful sister and wife, because this was Egypt, went around the world picking up all of his pieces, puts them back together and brought him back to life again. So she's a life giver going way back in Egyptian culture. And in the Hellenistic world, she's worshipped in many forms throughout that empire that you saw throughout the map. This is one of those forms. The Greek goddess Aphrodite, the goddess of love is sort of [inaudible] to service here and becomes Aphrodite Isis. Sculptures of her everywhere. [Inaudible] like this to her [inaudible]. It doesn't matter whether it's Ptolemais, Egypt, the Celestine Empire, she's there. She's throughout this empire and it's worshipped all over the place. You'll notice she's naked here, and you remember how the Greek tendency during the Hellenic times was to close the females and just see the male body as being the ideal. We start to get this idea here that the female body, as it is, not necessarily idealized, it's cool enough to have a sculpture of. Questions so far? We've gone through quite a bit of cultural change here. Are you sensing that this place is different? It includes the same places that we talked about before but what you've got here is a broadening of cultural perspective. What do you think caused that? Why are ideas getting bigger? Chris?
>> There is a tendency, isn't there? You kind of have two reactions if you meet a bunch of people who aren't like yourself, you either fight them or you figure out how to deal with them. There maybe be a geographic deterministic thing in that huge area of space becase so much of it is flat and easy to travel and transportation had been improving so much that even areas that weren't easy to travel before were getting better. And maybe if it's easier for people to have touch with each other then maybe then they learn to start to get along a little better. Yes. That's possible.
>> They had to, if they wanted to move up.
>> If they wanted to move up. The situation was you could stay right where you were, but if you had any ambition, commercial ambitions or political ambitions, then the only thing to do was learn Greek and get into the system.
>> Yes. And so what's happening is they're really combining more than assimilating, right, because they're not moving into the land where the ideas came from, rather they idea to come to them so they're having to assimilate in the sense that they've got to learn certain things to be able to be successful now, but they don't have to change their previous habits of life that much. So you have here if people want to take advantage of the opportunity they would learn Greek. And they would study a bit and they would get into the system. And if they didn't want to do that, well, then they wouldn't have access to all of those other things. Now you do have a choice at the ordinary human being level, as to whether you want to do this at all. At the upper levels, of course, there's no choice. The generals came through, it was military conquest, they usually forced the top ranking females of each area to marry the general who came in. That's how the Ptolemaic dynasty started in Egypt, the line of pharaohs. Okay? So there were a lot of forced marriages on the upper echelons of politics. This was not a friendly thing. But in the ordinary levels here, you did have a choice as to whether or not you wanted to join the party. Anybody with any intelligence at all joined the party. They got with the program. Yes?
>> [Inaudible]. so like the different cultures [inaudible]. When I was reading the chapter my understanding was that like [inaudible] it was not everything changing, but they kind of just took little pieces of each culture and fused them together and created like a new one.
>> Yes. It's a lot of melding. It doesn't really become a melting pot kind of thing, it isn't really mixed in a way that would make other things disappear. It's more like a salad, you know, everybody's kind of got their thing, but the whole thing's kind of different. There's salad ingredients, but then the salad's something else. So you've got these little bits of culture that are being pieced together and then the things that they don't want touched, that's okay, yes, it's different. The only empire that came anywhere close to it was the Persians. Because the Persians were particularly careful to simply co opt the leadership and leave the people alone. They were really good at that. It just has it's similarities to it. But this one has more of a cultural cohesion than the Persian Empire did. The Persians had to hold the power themselves. Persia had to be central. And they had messengers running all over the place to let them know what was happening every where. There's no center to this, so you don't have that. But you have the same sort of power and the same sort of mixing as you did with the Persians.
>> How many people were in the empire?
>> I'm not sure. That's an excellent question. I do not know. I don't know if anybody's come up with any statistics that would give us any kind of real number about how many people total were in this vast region. Everybody kept their own records their own way and most people only kept them on a city basis and there are still nomadic people and people outside the city.
>> Yes. I don't know. That would involve some serious research to figure out how big this was in terms of population. Good question. You read about the philosophy, right? Now there's two I want you to grab on to. You don't nave to remember every single Hellenistic philosophy and [inaudible]. I'm glad the chapter gave you all of that it's important, but hang on to two. Because these are the two that are going to last. These are the two that are going to be used later on. So the first is stoicism. Stoicism is based on this idea, it's very individualistic. It doesn't seem like it, but it is.
[ Silence ]
>> Here's your and your soul, and the stoics do believe in the soul, the idea that there's an unusual part in every human being. And then out here is the cosmos, here's you, and then in between is a lot of junk, earthly junk, people competing with each other, being nasty to each other, being pleasant to each other, whatever, it's not reality. What matters is the connection here. That matters. And everything else in between, it's not relevant. It isn't even really real.
>> You said earlier that the [inaudible]. That kind of reminds me [inaudible]. And you have to [inaudible].
>> Yes, and it can't come from Confucianism because Confucianism at this stage in history is still very much a philosophy of public behavior, not of private development. Buddhism though by this stage of history is starting to become more of a settling of individual enlightenment. Yes. And yet the goal here is not in any way to expand the individual. The goal here is to simply recognize that you're part of a larger connection. There's a little bit of Hinduism there too, it makes wonder to what extent that was happening, too. But it's also possible that both of those developed in a time of increased cosmopolitism that is just a result of what happens to human beings put in an environment that's too big for them, that's too big for them to center themselves easily so they center themselves in something peaceful beyond [inaudible]. It's going to be really important in Christianity because God's out here in Christianity and you make that connection with something in between that's irrelevant. And this is why the Christians who get killed by the lions in front of the Romans are going to sit there and pray, because they're connect here and the lions and everybody are in here. So stoicism may or may not have some origins in some Indian understandings of the soul. But it's definitely going to be influential with Christianity. I like the little part, the little break down of [inaudible] into epics and metaphysics because people tend to think of the stoics as being very logical, being very reasonable and very, very calm. I think the reason there is obvious, and so there's an internal human nature and that's what I've drawn there at the core. And then there's this external stuff, what doesn't depend upon me, what I can't do anything about, I just have to accept the stuff in here and what gives me the strength to do that is this connection. The stoics were very logical, very calm, thought everything through and were able to have that kind of clarity precisely because the external realities didn't have the significance they might have for other people. [Inaudible] as an example. But Marcus Aurelius, the Roman emperor, was also a stoic. He made his decisions based on the idea that the external reality is important enough to consider, but not important enough to get you all bent out of shape. So questions on that stoic idea? Because it's going to come up, you're going to see it manifest itself again with the Christians. Got the idea there? [Inaudible]. You see how people could misinterpret it to mean lack of responsiveness. I've heard people referred to as [inaudible] kind of they don't really seem to get too emotion about anything or too involved in anything. See why? Why would you invest that kind of emotion in something that wasn't that important? They're not trying to be cold, just things aren't that relevant. Epicurean is completely different. You know, if you want to party with someone, you don't party with a stoic, you party with an epicurean. The ideas in Epicureanism, epicurean's ideas were not hedonistic. Be careful with this. There is a tendency to assume that they are hedonists. Hedonism is the pursuit of pleasure to excess. Epicureanism has, as an element, the avoidance of pain. If you pursue pleasure to an excess, might you experience some pain? Think of an example.
>> Binge drinking.
>> Okay. Binge drinking is a great example. It's fun at first, and then it leads to intense pain. Same thing with overeating. The idea here, then, is that you have to balance. We've still got this Greek moderation idea. Pleasure though, is important to epicureans and should be pursued as a goal in another [inaudible], but pain is to be avoided. Yes?
>> [Inaudible]. like pleasure and simplicity or?
>> Yes, some epicureans were interested in simplicity but other were not. [Inaudible] super, super simplicity in just a minute.
>> Yes. I think you may be jumping to the cynics there, who wanted more of simplicity. There's a section in your book on cynics as well. But no, I would say, because that's why I used the food example here and [inaudible] because the idea is that you want every sensual pleasure to be the most that it possibly can be. So a meal isn't just a meal, it's a spiritual occasion to connect with the pleasure of the body and eating wonderful food, not just any old thing you threw together. Taking the time to prepare something wonderful for your own sensual pleasure, sexuality, obviously, is here too. Again, don't forget the excess, right, that can lead to pain. But the idea of sensual pleasure is the same sort of pleasure that one gets from eating really good food, drinking really good wine, or you know experiencing something that's highly pleasurable to the sense. And that's what the epicureans were in to. The good life. They're all trying to define the good life right? That's what philosophy does. What does it mean to live a good life? What does it mean to be a good person? It's all about that. In cynicism what it means to live a good life is to be connected with [inaudible]. The epicureans, what it means to lead a good life, is to enjoy all the sensual enjoyments you can and avoid as much pain as possible. And that's how you live a good life, a good [inaudible]. Yes?
>> Like their bureaucracy, which one of these is most like [inaudible]?
>> I don't think you can break it down that way. I think the society we're talking about here is so individualistic that you can find examples of both, politically, all over the place. And of course, really, really poor people are not in the position to be able to sit around and [inaudible] and determine whether they want to be stoics or epicureans. This is for people who are already eating okay, you know, and want to be [inaudible]. All right, so the third group. [Inaudible] and Diogenes himself. This is where you get the simplicity idea. An example of Diogenes, he's always shown like this, he's always shown half naked with a dog and a lamp. It's just a symbol of Diogenes, the dog because he was called a dog. Diogenes twisted around a little bit could also mean dog. But he said the reason people call me dog is because I bark at people who are mean to me and I fawn on people who are nice to me and feed me. You know, he felt he was dog like. And the lamp that he carries around with him is for finding a wise man, walking around with his lamp looking for a wise man. And that's why this cartoon has him going to Washington D.C. and going what a waste of time that was.
[ Laughter ]
>> That's what it means. The simplicity thing comes from stories like this where he saw a child drinking out of his hands and so he threw away the cup because the cup was not as simple as the child drinking out of his hands or eating off of a piece of bread instead of a plate. Some little kid had bested me at my game here, which is to be as simple as possible, to need as little as possible. So he's an interesting figure. Very critical of all the other philosophical schools, for sure, including Epicureanism, which he felt had no meaning at all and stoicism, which he felt was basically pretend games, you know, they didn't relate to reality at all. And so the good life to him is the simple life and what's wise to him is a certain kind of simplicity and natural living, ordinariness. He was into that. So he fits right in with the statue of the little boy picking something out of his foot, right? I mean, this kind of morification and the ordinary, just a daily life sort of thing. He personified that. So questions on him or any of these philosophical things?
>> I was just wondering [inaudible].
>> No. The roots are different. Epicure's name was related to it so Epicureanism is the philosophy related to Epicure himself. He was popular right there. Good, good question. Other questions?
[ Silence ]
>> I think this slide kind of speaks for itself. What's going on here? [Inaudible] I've got the same group of ten talking every day. How about someone who hasn't said anything? Want to tackle this slide?
[ Silence ]
>> I think the Hellenistic people are more action oriented.
>> Yes. Action's a great word. So art moves. It moves in Hellenistic art. It's real [inaudible] during the Hellenic period. I tried to have an example of a male and a female here, but it doesn't really matter. The style on the left, the sort of Hellenic style or classical Greek style is static, even though it may be portraying movement. The kouros is strutting forward into the future, everybody always says that about kouros statues, they're strutting forward confidently into the future. It's like yes, but they're doing it, they're still, nothing's moving as they're strutting boldly into the future, physically moving. Almost all Hellenistic sculptures, you can walk into a museum and tell is it Greek, is it Hellenistic? The trickier part is it Roman? Because the Romans took elements of both. That's hard. So you can always tell a Greek work from a Hellenistic work because Hellenistic work moves. It's always in motion. What else is different here in addition to the movement?
>> More sensual.
>> There's a sensuality to it. There's an appreciation of the human form as a sensual body, not just as an ideal. It doesn't always symbolize an ideal. Good. What else is different?
>> Emotion. Terribly important. Not only is the [inaudible] considered as important to the public, but emotion is considered as important as the intellect. Emotion is important. And they show it. She's a little nervous. She's a little ashamed. She's a goddess. She's got no reason to cover up her body, but she is. Somebody walked in on her so she's covering up. She's being tormented up there. She looks like she's being tormented. It's not idealistic. The emotion is present, the movement is present, the artistic value is different because the culture has completely different values.
>> Yes. And they're pulling at him. There's a bunch of these. There's [inaudible] and statues and you have this one in your book, that's why I put this one up here because you actually have it, you can get a much closer look here on page 105.
>> I'm sorry?
>> Yes. It says the Trojan priest and his son being strangled by snakes sent by the gods, which should remind you of the Mesopotamian bow of heaven thing, right? The gods are sending something bad to kill people and it doesn't look like a pleasant experience to me. It doesn't look like fun to be strangled by heavenly snakes. That's a really good picture in your book. That's another thing I like about your book, great pictures, [inaudible] detail. So changes you see in artistic styles can tell you about changes in the culture and what's important to people. Okay. Stories. Oh, Mark Anthony, I only got half of your head. How did that happen? It was so hard to find a bust of him at all and it didn't come through on my slide. That sucks. Here's a story. See if you can find the moral of the story. The other difference between [inaudible] and [inaudible] was that [inaudible] was much more in the Greek tradition of history, whether he was the first historian or not, I think is a false leap because he presented this idea that the only purpose of doing history is because of morality, to teach a moral lesson to people is why you tell about what happened before. Does that make sense? Think about telling a story to your friends of something that happened to you several weeks ago. So think of something that happened to you several weeks ago. It's important. You need to tell somebody about it. Why are you doing that? Why are you telling them?
>> Yes. It taught you something. If you hadn't learned something from it you would have forgot it already. If you're still thinking about something that happened a month or two ago, it's because it changed you somehow. You had to think about it. It made you different. It made you see you'd respond differently later. So you tell somebody that story. You tell them to get it out of you, but you also tell them hoping maybe if they come across something similar maybe they'll learn from your mistake or whatever's still bugging you. It's the same kind of thing. When people pick an historical story out, they're trying to tell you a particular moral. The epic of Gilgamesh, of course, was trying to teach you to kill is moral. All the Greeks are doing it when they choose which historical event they're going to focus on and what they're focus is going to be. The story of Cleopatra. She's a Ptolemy, descended from General Ptolemy. Remember General Ptolemy? What area was this? Right. And he had married into the high ranking females, the royals. Now that means he becomes a pharaoh. He was very into that idea, because that meant what?
>> Gets to be a god.
>> He gets to be a god. And you know, you go from alexander's general to a god, I mean where else could you go from being alexander's general? Right? The only step up was god-dom. So he's god. His desendants are gods. All the way down, 13 generations, to Cleopatra. So she's descended from the Ptolemaic dynasty, from General Ptolemy, which means she's mostly Greek because Ptolemy was Greek, mixed together with the old Egyptian dynasty. In the Egyptian tradition, she had to marry her brother. She hated her brother. He didn't like her either. He was younger than she was. They never hung out together. He sort of disappeared after a while as she became more and more powerful. She decided that the Roman empure, which was just starting to grow beyond the boundaries of italy was a potential threat to her from across the mediteranean. She was queen of a very large Egypt and she did not want to lose it to the romans. She's a nationalist in a lot of ways. She wanted to save Egypt from the outsider. She decided the best way to do that was to stay as close to your enemy as possible. In this case, the enemy was Julius Caesar, who was quickly moving up the ranks in Rome and we'll read about Rome next week, to become something close to the emperor, although he never calls himself that. She invited him to Egypt, they had an affair. It was very important an affair for both of them. They were very, very close. He had a wife back in Rome that he didn't like, some sort of arranged marriage from earlier in his life. And because of her relationship with him, Egypt was pretty much protected from Rome. She got what she wanted, he got what he wanted, everything was great. Trade routes back and forth, super. But then, of course, he gets murdered and he was dead and she doesn't know what to do because it was not immediately apparent who's going to succeed him. There were two candidates for the succession. One of them was Mark Anthony, who was much more a whole man than you see here. And the other was Octavian, Julius Caesars adopted nephew slash son, his adopted son, but he was also his nephew. The two of them, it wasn't clear who was going to come out on top in this. Mark Anthony decided to visit one of Caesars power centers in Egypt and Cleopatra figured this was her chance and she got the whole place dolled up for him and he began a relationship with her. So she thought, okay, I've got it here, because now Anthony will become the new head of Rome and Egypt will stay safe. But actually happened was that Anthony became too enchanted with Egypt and didn't go back to Rome enough to solidify his power. He wanted to stay with her and his judgment was adversely affected. Octavian, in the mean time, never left Rome and solidified his power with the senate and with the military. And ultimately they have at it at the battle of axiom, which is depicted here because it was one of those unusual naval battles in an era of land based battles. A naval battle between the combined ships of Cleopatra and Mark Anthony and those of Octavian coming from Rome to take over Egypt, big battle. It's been done in several movies if you want to see it, usually done pretty well, because the idea was pretty simple. What happened was at a crucial point in the battle, Cleopatra turned her ships around. Now one movie has it that she did this because she thought Anthony was dead. It's possible. We don't have any evidence as to why she turned the ships around, but she did. Anthony decided that she was abandoning either him or the cause, we're not sure exactly what happened there, and he turned his ships around to follow her and got wiped out. Octavian won, Anthony was destroyed, Cleopatra realized that when Octavian landed in Egypt she would be stripped naked and dragged through the street in shame, because that's what they did in those days, and so she killed herself so that wouldn't happen and Rome took over Egypt. Moral?
>> Treat your friends wisely. Ah, that's a good one. Don't get stabbed in the back in the senate on the [inaudible].
>> Don't get too greedy.
>> Don't get too greedy. Don't get beyond yourself. Yes. There's other too. Come on, what are they?
>> Yes. Yes. Avoid rich women with golden [inaudible]. Yes. Okay. Anything bigger? Yes?
>> Yes. Keep the goal in mind. Eyes on the prize. Don't lose your focus. Stories are fun, right? We remember stories better, don't we, than lists of information? Why is that?
>> Images. How many of you, as I was telling the story, I didn't tell it very creatively and I didn't use any descriptive language at all, quite on purpose, were still seeing it in your head somehow? Seeing Cleopatra and seeing Anthony? Yes. Stories do that even if they don't contain anything particularly imaginative or descriptive. We put together the bits in between in our mind. Why do we do that? Why don't we just hear it like a chapter in your text book? Is there a survival mechanism or something? Well?
>> That's a good point. Yes. Stories tend to go in sequence. And the mind can more easily follow something that goes in sequence than something that jumps around. And yet, can't we follow a movie that has a bunch of meanwhile, 10 years later, we can. We are capable of jumping around, but there has to be some sequence there.
>> It helps you, not only does retelling a story help you remember it, but you can put into it different morals every time you tell it. If you tell somebody the Cleopatra story now, notice as you tell it where you change things, where you add things, what point you're trying to make as you tell the story. There are some stories in history, and this is one of them, that get told and retold and retold and retold and every time they're told they have a slightly different point that they're making and there's a reason for that. There's something very, very human there.
[ Inaudible ]
>> Yes. And that helps them deal with the other things, whatever it is that they're relating the story to, it helps them do that. Just like when you tell somebody something that happened to you weeks ago, you're reworking it. Maybe you didn't like the way that it came out, so you're reworking it so it's more comfortable for what your use is, for what you want it for. That's all true. So people haven't changed. Some historians look down here and say oh, people were so different back then, whenever back then was. I won't do that. People have very similar goals when they tell history, when they tell their stories, when they use their historical imaginations, very similar, very similar. Okay, a couple of things we have to do. You have something happening on Wednesday, yes?
>> Quiz. Now what did we think of the format last time? Yes, no, weird?
>> Yes. The textbook, of course, how do you study for the multiple [inaudible] portion of the test?
>> And how closely, those of you who used them last time, used the study guides, how much did they help you?
[ Laughs ]
>> Those of you who were paying attention just then, think about that for a minute, those people who used the study guides extensively feel that they help a lot. Okay? Now the second part, of course, are interpretive questions. And you are free to use the forum, you know the discussion forum, discussion forum where you can hang out, to talk about what would likely be the areas where we would develop interpretive questions. Because I did it last time and I'll do it again. I'll choose the areas where we've spent some time. I don't try to give you some out of left field. If we've spent time on a subject and you have reviewed your notes carefully and you can review, so far we've been able to also review slides and lecture audio and all sorts of stuff. If you do that carefully, you should already know what those interpretive areas are going to be that I'll be asking you about. Yes?
>> The essay questions, exactly, it should be fairly easy to determine what those answers would be.
>> It scores it, doesn't it? Isn't it scoring it for you? It scores it. It don't always score it.
>> Exactly you are.
>> I know.
>> I mean you can estimate it, but it [inaudible].
>> Yes. Right. Yes. Now what it's doing is it's trying to help you determine are you weak overall, do you need to go back and study overall? It's not trying to give you, for obvious, for those of you who studied this last time you know exactly why. I would not be letting you know the exact answer to every question. Yes.
>> Yes. Ok.
>> Let me look into that. Let me look into the program because a limited number of questions and the idea is for you to get an impression, you get to the end of this thing and you go, oh, I wasn't prepared. Let's go back over the material. So it's supposed to give you a larger impression than the individual questions. But I understand what you're saying. Okay. Then I will see you on Wednesday.
[ People talking and moving around ]
==== Transcribed by Automatic Sync Technologies ====