2020 strikes again. We were go rafting in Hell's Canyon this coming week, but a rockslide closed the only direct road to it (from our direction). I've already been to Hell (Grand Caymans) and the Gates of Hell (Stanford campus), so I was looking forward to Hell's Canyon. Hopefully later this year.
On that note, I'll leave you with a song of independence that is a little different from most, but one of my favorites. The lineup has Dave Alvin on guitar and, if I remember correctly, Tony Gilkyson from Lone Justice (both replacing Billy Zoom). This is the lineup the second time I saw them. Which remind me, I have a quote from John Doe's follow-up to Under the Big Black Sun I want to share (and saw a reference to the other evening, strangely enough). One of these days I'll be able to get back to semi-full time blogging...
Saturday, July 04, 2020
Fourth of July, X (1986 Farm Aid)
Thursday, June 18, 2020
Available to watch
From my original post,
"Even though the movie provides many laughs and smiles, a sadness permeates the bucolic setting. Like the stories, alcohol provides a social lubricant as well as an escape. Just what people are trying to escape isn't quite clear, amplifying Hrabal's ambiguous messages, although you wouldn't be far off the mark if you simply answered "their lives." While some things give these characters joy, many things drive their desire to escape, including family, work, government, opportunity, and materialism."
“The screenplay of Larks on a String is based on a book of short stories. All the stories have the same location but different characters. What was important was to make a coherent screenplay based on all those different characters. Hrabal used to say, ‘We have to plait it all into one braid.’” When we were looking for a way to link the separate storylines, how to unite these various characters, I remembered an old political joke from the ‘50s: The workers are ordered to attend a meeting where a comrade gives a lecture explaining, ‘In the present, we have socialism, but in the future we will have communism.’ After the lecture, he asks the workers if they have any questions. One of the workers raises his hand and says, ‘It’s good that we have socialism and will soon have communism, but where is the bread, where is the milk, where is the butter?’ The comrade answers, ‘This is a rather complicated question. Ask me again at the next lecture.’ A week later, the workers are ordered to attend another meeting, and the same thing happens—the comrade extols the virtues of socialism and communism, and afterwards asks if anyone has any questions. Another worker raises his hand and says, ‘It’s good we have socialism and will soon have communism, but where is the bread, where is the milk, where is the butter, and where is the worker who asked about this last time?’ So this old political joke gave us the key to the whole structure of the screenplay."
There's a political feel that is a little too close to today's cancel culture for not towing the party line:
"You wanted to see where the production of steel starts. This is the place, the scrap heap. All that you can see here will be smelted down into high-grade steel. We'll make tractors out of this steel to plough our fields. We'll make more washing machines so you can wash your dirty overalls. [Looking at an idling worker] These are our voluntary workers. Mostly of bourgeois origin. We'll also smelt them down into a new kind of people."
There are several more Czech movies available to watch for no additional fees on Amazon Prime, such as Lemonade Joe, The Good Plumber, and My Sweet Little Village, among others. I don't know how long these movies will be free on Prime so watch them soon if you're interested.
And now for something different, but free online until July 1...
Folger Theatre's Macbeth. From Terry Teachout's review at The Wall Street Journal (no link since it's behind a paywall):
While I’d hesitate to say which of those 13 “Macbeths” I liked best, the one of which I have the most indelibly specific memories is the version co-directed by Aaron Posner and Teller (Penn’s silent partner) in 2008 for New Jersey’s Two River Theater Company and the Folger Theatre in Washington. Fortunately, a live performance from the Washington run was recorded and is now streaming on the Folger’s website. Viewing it has confirmed all my impressions of the show, which I saw twice, once in each city, the second time purely for my pleasure. It is a “Macbeth” of explosive dynamism, a high-speed production running for just over two hours (the text has been extensively but discreetly trimmed) that is both flamboyant and essentially serious. The directors call it “a supernatural horror thriller,” which is true enough but a bit misleading. Stage magic, stage violence, stage blood: All are here in copious quantities, yet all illuminate, rather than obscure, the play’s timeless truths about humankind’s flawed nature.
The above link has both parts of the performance as well as several special features. I'll embed one of the special feature videos once YouTube gives me the link.
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
The Minutemen unplugged
I owe a debt of gratitude to Dangerous Minds for their post Minutemen Unplugged: Punk Legends' Rollicking Acoustic Jam on Cable Access TV, 1985. Their post covers the important points of the short performance, although when I saw them in Dallas earlier that year (1985) their set only lasted a little over an hour...and still had at least 30 songs.
If you're into punk nostalgia, watch the show at Dangerous Minds or from the YouTube embed below this post. A great stroll down amnesia lane.
Monday, September 04, 2017
Currently streaming: Thank You, Friends: Big Star's Third Live... And More (2017)
I'll have to apologize...I'm not up for a history of the band, recordings, etc., but I will say I was a little surprised that the focus for the tour was Third. Fortunately, that focus works well in the film (and I'm sure live, too). Big Star was a group with multiple daemons, and Third captures many of them quite well. It was a recording out of time, out of mind, and out of any type of definition. I believe it was Robert Christgau that asked, about Radio City, if a group could be so twisted and catchy at the same time. The answer, fortunately, is available for everyone to judge, and much easier to access than when I was collecting vinyl records.
The first half of the movie shows performances of Big Star songs from #1 Record and Radio City (and an inclusion of the solo Chris Bell song "I Am the Cosmos"). Most of the songs on Third fill the second half, although without the covers from the various versions (I believe...I'm not committing to anything while I'm still trying out different pain meds). The songs are too self-conscious. They are too eccentric. They are too depressing. And yet I still find them uplifting, in some strange way. OK...not for everyone, but I still highly recommend it.
Friday, June 23, 2017
30 Door Key (based on Ferdydurke) on YouTube
Another week, another trip to the hospital for an infection. Fortunately this was caught early enough that medication may be enough to handle it. On to brighter things...
The above video appears to be the 1991 movie 30 Door Key based on Witold Gombrowicz's book Ferdydurke. I'll be checking it out this weekend. I had posted clips from the movie before, but had been unable to locate the full movie. Hopefully this is it.
Sunday, May 28, 2017
Hugh Kenner on Firing Line
I have had the above video open in a browser for several weeks without watching it. I wanted to see Hugh Kenner, but the topic title, "The Political Responsibility of Artists," put me off. I finally screwed up the courage to watch and found it stimulating...I shouldn't have let the title guide me. Kenner is engaging and there's an obvious comfort-level between host and guest. I highly recommend it for Kenner's comments and responses.
A few background facts on the show, which was recorded on June 28, 1974. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn had been driven out of the Soviet Union earlier that year, making him one of the major topics of the show. Also of relevance was Kenner's resignation from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences after Ezra Pound's Emerson-Thoreau Medal was rescinded by "central committee" (as Buckley put it). The Academy's actions occurred two years earlier, shortly after Kenner had published The Pound Era. A few other writers of note mentioned during the show include Milton, de Sade, and Céline, particularly in discussions about honoring the art but not the artist.
My favorite section of the show was Kenner's discussion on Samuel Beckett and his involvement in the French Resistance during World War II. At the 29-minute mark, Kenner demonstrates why Waiting for Godot may have been inspired by those experiences. After giving a concise overview of the play, Kenner remarks about a few of the play's lines, “Nobody recognizes that is almost a literal transcription of a Resistance anecdote.”
Even funnier is Kenner's observation that the best American literature are essentially instruction manuals. You'll see what I mean in the video. Kenner's renown may have been for Modernist writing, but he demonstrates a wide-ranging knowledge of literature. His comments on the best of politically inspired writing and what helps it transcend potentially narrow strictures are insightful. Again, highly recommended.
Kenner: “The ability to see the realities that politics handles in non-political terms is a gift which the artist can confer on the rest of us. We are so trapped in political categories that we cannot see any others.”
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Firing Line with Eudora Welty and Walker Percy: The Southern Imagination
The good news is that the episode is currently available on Amazon Prime. As the summary mentions, it starts a little slow but it definitely picks up steam as it goes. A summary at Amazon's site can be found here. Highly recommended for fans of Welty and Percy.
Update: A few quotes after having seen this and what stood out in comparison to having read the transcript a few years ago:
- The ghost of William Faulkner haunts the discussion, and one point that Percy and Welty repeatedly drive home is how an author focuses on the individuals in the novel, not the issues. One of my favorite quotes by Percy: “You know, nothing is more difficult to write than a good protest novel. The angrier you are, the worse novel you’re liable to write.”
- Buckley makes a point that any Southerner of my generation (approaching, if not having already entered, old fart territory) will understand, concerning the “entrenched bigotry in other parts of the country that made a living off of moralizing at the expense of the South.” Welty and Percy have some very gracious comments that soften the judgment, but you will note they don’t exactly contradict Buckley.
- More on race relations, and repeated questions of whether either writer felt like leaving the South (with several references to intellectuals leaving 1930’s Nazi Germany…of course with apologies saying that wasn’t the direct comparison they meant): Percy notes that while violence mars the South, “there’s a certain tolerance and civility toward people and their opinions. Maybe it’s because Southerners look on writers as harmless and eccentric. And you’re expected to say strange things. … And do.”
- (Possibly my favorite quote from the whole program): Percy, quoting Flannery O'Connor when she was asked why she had so many freaks in her novels: "And then she said, well, in the South we still recognize freaks, you see...as freaks."
Saturday, February 20, 2016
"Discover Don Quijote de la Mancha" Live Session 2
Live Session 2 - Discover Don Quijote de la Mancha If you're interested in digging more into the topic, check out UFM's New Media YouTube page.
Update (22 Feb 2016): When I posted this session, I couldn't find the first session in English. I have since found it and it can be found here.
Saturday, March 07, 2015
Wolf Hall on PBS premiers April 5
In the meantime I just found out about PBS' upcoming series Wolf Hall, the first episode airing April 5. I wanted to pass this on in case anyone is like I am on usually finding out about events at the last moment. Finally...a little lead time! The fact that I know so few of the actors in the series (Jonathan Pryce and Mark Rylance exempted) says more about me than their achievements and reputation.
The trailer looks like it will be fun, and Hilary Mantel has commented that she liked the adaptation.
On a sidetone: if they really wanted to dominate the ratings, it's not too late to add my visionary adaptation of "I'm Henery the Eighth, I Am" with a Bollywood approach. Have your people contact my people...
Tuesday, March 03, 2015
Leonard Nimoy in "The Balcony"
Yes, that's Peter Falk as the Police Chief and Shelley Winters as Madame Irma. See here for the movie's cast list. Almost as fun as the clips is their comments. Enjoy!
Friday, June 21, 2013
Great Battles Lecture: A Tale of Two City States: Quiriguá's Victory over Copán in 738 CE
Honduran archaeologist Ricardo Agurcia Fasquelle, Executive Director of the Copán Association, presents this inaugural lecture in the Great Battles Series. Until recently scholars depicted the ancient Maya as a peaceful civilization devoid of warfare. This somewhat romantic notion has been overturned by evidence of a starker reality: during the Classic period (ca. 250—900 CE) an array of Maya kingdoms were engaged in a series of major wars that ravaged the heart of the Maya homeland. For much of this era the major kingdom of Copán appears to have escaped these conflicts. Everything changed in 738 CE, however, when Copán was dramatically defeated by its far smaller vassal, Quiriguá.
- This battle hardly seems to qualify as a “great battle,” even if the series uses a very loose definition for both words. Fasquelle admits as much in answer to the first question (“How did this battle change history?”), saying that the study of Mayan history is in its infancy. While much has been uncovered in the past 20 years there is still quite a ways to go in understanding the culture and impact of events. It is important as an example of the warfare that increased toward the end of the Classic period. Even though Copán continued to exist after the battle (although with lesser status), Mayan leaders were seen as deities so the capture and sacrifice of their king probably would have been traumatic. In the end, though, the full impact of this battle is still being studied.
- Robert Sharer was scheduled to deliver the lecture but he passed away a few weeks before the lecture. Ricardo Agurcia Fasquelle did a very good job filling in at the last moment. I mention this fact because at the time of the lecture there was an exhibit at the Penn Museum based on the work of both men and other teams. Because more information was available to lecture attendees only a limited part of the talk was given to historical context. While a lot of information was given about these two city/states was provided, more context of how they fit in with regard to the Mayan civilization, the area (especially with non-Mayan neighbors), the time, and other areas would have been helpful to non-museum attendees.
With those two qualifications out of the way, here are my notes on the talk, including some of the wording from presentation slides.
How we view the ancient Mayans has changed over time. In the 1940s the Mayans were seen as a theocratic society, occasionally sacrificing a virgin, while gazing at the stars and working on their calendars. Since then their glyphs have been deciphered and much more is understood, including the increase in war. The focus of the last point culminates in 2006’s movie Apocolypto showing mostly bloodthirsty savages. The truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. That Mayans engaged in war is clear though depictions in art, frequency of fortifications, and development of weapons (spears, knives, machetes, and atlatls). During the Classic period Maya warfare was mostly about raids and skirmishes instead of big, pitched battles, short in range and duration. The small scale is a function of the limited ability to travel far while carrying weapons and supplies.
Copán was an open (non-walled) city on the banks of the Copán River with a population growing to around 20,000. The acropolis was the only protected area of the city. Quiriguá was also an open city, on the banks of the Montagua River and growing to a population of 3,000. Neither city was built with an eye toward defense. Both city-states are in a region with shared resources (the most valuable being jade), a distance of a 3-day walk between the two. Copán is the largest and oldest of the two cities, the “big” brother in the relationship, although both have shared history and royal families. Both cities were founded by the same person: K’inich Yax K’uk Mo’, a great Tlaloc warrior. The relationship could be described as a ruler (Copán) / client (Quiriguá) arrangement.
In 725 Copán’s 13th king (Waxaklajun Ub’ah K’awil) oversaw accession of his new Quiriguá subordinate, a stele commemorating the appointment. During the Mayan Classic period there were two major powers—Tikal and Calakmul. Copán had been historically allied with Tikal, as was Quiriguá. In 736, though, the leader of Quiriguá (the one mentioned above appointed by the Copán king) struck an alliance with Calakmul, putting it on a collision course with Copán. On April 27, 738 Waxaklajun Ub’ah K’awil was captured by a war party, marched to Quiriguá, and beheaded. His wife may have been part of the betrayal. The leader of Quiriguá begins to call himself the “black Copán lord.”
Quiriguá flourishes in the aftermath, gaining political and economic autonomy. There is new construction, expanding the city while they control the resources (such as the lucrative jade trade) in the Motagua River valley. Quiriguá is now an independent city/state. Copán stumbles but does not fall. The 14th ruler doesn’t do much since he was on the throne for a short period of time. The 15th ruler of Copán finishes construction on the famous hieroglyphic stairway and other projects. Copán’s dynasty continues through the 16th king. On the Quiriguá Acropolis an inscription tells of a cordial visit by Copán’s 16th (and last) ruler Yax Pasaj on June 28, 810—the cities have reconciled. By 830 both rulers were finished and so were the cities, their people meting away into the tropical forest.
Fasquelle talks about the archeological finds that the teams have made. One of the amusing parts of the lecture is that it is clear that the rivalry between the two city-states has carried down to the different archeological teams and how they view the other city. I mentioned the first question in the Q&A session in the first caveat. The second question addressed why the people abandoned their cities. Fasquelle notes a dramatic population collapse around 900, noting that at Copán it is easier to find remains from 200 BC than from 900 AD. While ultimately we don’t know the reason(s) for the collapse there are several factors we do know that could have played a part. Warfare increased during the late Classic period for whatever reason, possibly an increase in population fighting for limited resources. Remains from the late Classic period show malnutrition. Because of the delicate balance with nature any major change—hurricane, drought, etc.—would have a major impact. Making things more complicated is the abandonment of the Mayan cities in the area took place over a great period of time, at least 100 years instead of all at once. This is another area where investigations are focused.
Again, even though it probably doesn't fit in the loose definition of a great battle it's an interesting lecture. Recommended.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Great Battles Lecture: Hannibal’s Secret Weapon in the Second Punic War
Dr. Patrick Hunt, Stanford University, speaks. Hannibal, a Carthaginian commander who lived ca. 200 BCE, is considered one of the greatest military commanders in history. His use of the environment in his warfare against Rome in the Second Punic War—often called the Hannibalic War—set precedents in military history, utilizing nature and weather conditions as weapons to complement his generally smaller forces. This strategic marshaling of nature could be described as a "second, secret army," as demonstrated in his battles at Trebbia, Trasimene, and Cannae. (Lecture given on June 5, 2013)I enjoyed the last Great Battles Lecture from the Penn Museum so much I thought I would continue to post on them as new ones are available. Dr. Hunt’s lecture is on Hannibal’s “secret weapon” in the Second Punic War (218 to 201 BC…all subsequent use of dates will be BC unless otherwise noted). Dr. Hunt gave some background on the growing conflict between Carthage and Rome that led to the Punic wars, explored Hannibal’s background, looked at possible routes over the Alps into Italy, and focused on his strategy and tactics. “Secret weapon” may be reaching a bit, but it is clear (as noted in the above description of the lecture) that Hannibal included the use of weather and nature to his advantage. Instead of a summary like I provided for the previous lecture here are my notes and the content of a few slides from the lecture:
Polybius believed a good historian had to visit the locations he was writing about in order to adequately write about them—this gave him “topographical credibility.”
Hannibal’s strategies have been studied for centuries:
- Know and control the terrain
- Know your enemy
- Exploit your enemy’s weakness (including dual consuls)
- Give your army the best tools (including psychology: encourage your men but be brutal)
- Ambush whenever possible (deception)
- Surprise (do the unexpected)
On #4 and psychology: Andreas Kluth’s Hannibal and Me says that Hannibal’s situation, where the army had to “do or die,” is what drove a lot of Hannibal’s men—as invaders, constantly surrounded by superior numbers, they had to either win or die. Hannibal shared the hardships with his men, building camaraderie, but also wanted to be feared. Machiavelli’s maxim that it is better to be feared than loved captures Hannibal’s approach.
Hannibal’s “secret weapon”: Use Nature to your advantage. It was the equivalent of expanding his arsenal with a secret army). His tactics included the following:
- Cross mountains (Alps in winter)
- Use winter cold and time (Trebia)
- Cross swamps in spring (Arno River)
- Use summer fog (Trasimene)
- Fight at night (Ager Falernus-Volturnus)
- Use dust-blowing wind (Cannae)
Dr. Hunt steps back at this point to look at Carthage in general, then focuses on the 3rd century. First Punic War—Sicily was the battle ground (264-241) as Rome expanded and came into conflict with Carthage’s trading superiority. The Treaty of Lutatius is onerous on Carthage. After the First Punic War, Rome called the Mediterranean Mare Nostrum (“our sea”).
In his 1935 work (title not mentioned—I’m guessing Roman Alpine Routes) Walter Woodburn Hyde says that early Romans are show a fear of mountains in their writings.
Dr. Hunt reviews the debated point of Carthage’s child sacrifice and the tophet. Also covers Hannibal’s mention of his experience having a proxy animal sacrificed in his place. His father, Hamilcar, had a grudge with the way he was treated by Carthage. He went to Spain to build up autonomous resources.
Hannibal received aide in crossing the Alps, after researching it. A maritime crossing into Italy was not feasible—heavily guarded. Valleys within the Alps was the route. From Livy’s History (XXI.32): “The dreadful vision was now before their eyes: the towering peaks, the snowclad pinnacles soaring to the sky, the people with their Wild and ragged hair.” (Livy, unlike Polybius, didn’t visit the locations he wrote about). Dr. Hunt has been exploring possible routes over the Alps, following the valleys and passes and narrowing down the possible routes based on the historian’s descriptions. He provides some of Polybius’ descriptions and shows slides from some of his own trips along the route (around 37:30 is an anecdote about taking Stanford football players on a trip).
Hannibal makes an example of the Taurinian clans (Celts). Polybius (Book 3, 52-53): when Hannibal descends out of the Alps his men are more like beasts than humans—they have suffered so much. Hannibal augments his troops with Celts. Up to 25% of troops at this time are Celts. Up to 10 languages spoken by Hannibal’s troops, a true international force.
Dr. Hunt showed some of the artwork by Angus McBride, drawings of various allies Hannibal absorbed into his army and their unique weaponry. He also displayed pictures from Serge Lancel’s Hannibal to highlight the weapons used by varying groups in his multicultural army, such as the falcate (cleaver). The takeaway from these pictures was that Hannibal had different tools and weapons because of the many backgrounds in his army.
Battle of Trebia: on the winter solstice—shortest day of the year. Hannibal sent his Numidian cavalry across the Trebia River early in the day. Sempronius was in charge of the Roman army because Scipio had been wounded. Hannibal knew the strengths and weaknesses of each general he faced and took advantage of Sempronius being in charge. The forces of Sempronius were lured, unprepared, into the freezing Trebia River while the Numidians had prepared for it. Hypothermia set in before the Romans had crossed the river—Hannibal used the weather as an ally. Romans treated Trebia as an accident, not realizing the tactics Hannibal used to his advantage.
Then Hannibal crossed the Arno—the crossing of a swamp, which was not a happy time for his army, but had the element of surprise. Trasimene saw another hothead, Flaminius, in charge of the Romans. Hannibal took advantage of the fog from the lake that occurred this time of year—Hannibal’s army was hidden in the fog while Flaminius charged into a killing zone. At least 30K Romans and allies killed in this battle.
Fabius Maximus, now commander of the Roman army, declined to engage Hannibal directly. Fabius was nicknamed “the delayer,” which wasn’t intended as a compliment. At Ager Falernus, Hannibal had been bottled up in the valley while Fabius had blocked river crossings and mountain passes. Hannibal escaped and avoided a major battle by using his cattle, alighting bundles of flammable material on their heads and sending them into the hills. Fabius knew it was a trick but his guards chased the cattle, leaving a pass open. Yet another disaster for the Roman army.
At Cannae, wind from off the coast carried dust this time of year, creating a screen for Hannibal. Rome was using many raw recruits, due to previous losses, as well as new leaders that were politically motivated. The terrain has been chosen by Hannibal to make the Roman attempt to fight like a Greek phalanx ineffective. Hannibal has less men but the Roman army was constrained…they could not sweep out, or envelop the Carthaginian army. Combine this with the dust and wind, and once the experienced Roman leaders were killed Carthage was insured the victory. Hannibal’s troops feint and encourage the Romans to rush to their deaths.
Effect of Roman defeat at Battle of Cannae: depending upon the source, it is estimated that 55,000 (Livy) – 70,000 (Polybius) Romans were killed or captured at Cannae. Among the dead were the Roman consul Lucius Aernilius Paullus, as well two counsuls for the preceding year, two quaestors, twenty-nine out of the forty-eight military tribunes, and an additional eighty senators (at a time when the Roman Senate was comprised of no more than 300 men, this constituted 25%-30% of the governing body). Virtually 1 in 5 of very Roman male between 18-40 was killed. Not a single Roman family was unaffected. Hannibal collected 200 gold rings of Eques knights. All this happened in six hours.
At this point Rome lay open to Hannibal but he decided not to lay siege to the city, the hinge-point of the war. From Livy’s History XXII.61: “How much more serious was the defeat of Cannae, than those which preceded it can be seen by the behavior of Rome’s allies; before that fateful day, their loyalty remained unshaken, now it began to waver for the simple reason that they despaired of Roman Power.” Hannibal spent (wasted) a decade in Italy, then Scipio Africanus takes the battle directly to the Cartheginians. Roman military strategy and tactics changed after Hannibal.
Update: More detail on Carthage can be found in my post on Richard Miles’ book Carthage Must Be Destroyed
Friday, May 10, 2013
Great Battles Lecture: Thermopylae: The Battle for Europe?
(From the YouTube description) Dr. Jeremy McInerny [sic], Professor of Classical Studies, examines the tactics and strategy of the Battle of Thermopylae (in present-day Greece) in 480 BCE. Why was the battle fought at this location and was it, as it is often portrayed, a turning point in the confrontation of East and West? This lecture puts the Battle of Thermopylae into the context of the Persian Wars, and examines the battle's significance for the Greeks as well as for Europeans in later periods, in art and poetry.
Professor Jeremy McInerney of the University of Pennsylvania may be familiar to some of you since he has done a few series for The Great Courses. His lecture on Thermopylae is perfect timing for me since it’s a good precursor for Paul Cartledge’s new book After Thermopylae: The Oath of Plataea and the End of the Graeco-Persian Wars (which I hope to post on next week). Since I seem to highly recommend videos that aren't exactly popular (I was viewer 148), this post will combine a semi-summary of his lecture with some occasional fleshing out of the topics he raises.
His talk attempts to put the Battle of Thermopylae in context for what it meant to the Greeks as well as what it meant going forward for the West. He jokingly starts the lecture showing the who, what, when, and where of the battle. He mentions there is a need to “unpack” the battle since so many people have the view that “Western civilization as we know it would not have come about had the Greeks not been victorious at Thermopylae.” He obviously includes much tongue-in-cheek when claiming a Greek victory at Thermopylae. Because of the resonance to the imagination that the battle engenders, though, I don’t think he’s far wrong in turning what was a disaster into a propaganda-like victory. One of the important topics is the “battle of images” that arose after the fact.
Something that stood out in his lecture I don’t think I’ve mentioned in previous posts is that the Greeks try to have it different ways in their characterization of the wars with Persia, depending on what point of comparison is emphasized. The Greeks, though outnumbered by some inflated factor, are often portrayed as an equal to Persia. In looking at the battle of ideas or ideals, Greece is portrayed as far superior. While it’s an obvious point, McInerney shows a map of Persian territory as compared to the combination of Greek city-states around 490 B.C. Greece is the equivalent of a rounding error when compared to the Persian empire. So which is it? Superior, underdog, or equal? Maybe a mix of each?
McInerney raises a point about the Persian empire’s expansion that could apply to other empires of the ancient world:
“We are so conditioned in modern history to look for complex causes, for imperial expansion, economic motives, religious motives and so forth, that we often ignore the brutally simple fact that in the ancient world empires expanded because they could. They simply took more territory when it was available to them.”
The same could be said for many of the Greek cities in the years and conflicts following the Persian wars. McInerney provides a quick overview of the clashes between Persia and Greece, but also notes the cooperation and intermingling between the two, providing detail to support his comment that “The contact between Greeks and Persians culturally goes much deeper than we would often like to admit.” After providing some background on Persia during the time of Darius, McInerney looks at several points of conflict between Athens and Persia, focusing on the Ionian Revolt and the help the Athenians provided. He also goes into detail on the different modes and techniques of warfare between the Greeks and the Persians.
McInerney presents a useful graphic of the Battle of Marathon, highlighting the keys of Greek success. The importance of the victory was great, while the fallout and effects could be seen as out of proportion. “To have defeated that army [of the vast Persian empire] was an accomplishment of superhuman proportions. And it triggered in Athenian culture an astonishing degree of confidence in what they were able to do.”
A decade later when the Greeks learned of the invasion of Xerxes’ army (at least two years in advance), the strategic chokepoint of Thermopylae was the obvious place to slow the Persian advance. Mcinerney looks at Herodotus 7.206 for the purpose of Leonidas and the Spartans (in conjunction with naval engagements). He then reads Herodotus’ account of the third day of battle, after Ephialtes of Trachis betrays the Greeks. Thermopylae was a military disaster while Salamis and Plataea were the victories that stopped the Persian invasion. Why does Thermopylae capture the ancient and modern imagination so much? Calling to mind the celebration of ANZAC day (and he could have mentioned many other examples), he notes “a national identity can be built around a defeat.” What arose, as shown in Herodotus’ account, was a framework pitting East against West, freedom versus slavery. The mythological aspects of the battle began almost immediately.
McInerney presents a slide capturing some of the changes flowing from the battle beyond the celebration of the heroes. Eleutheria [freedom] enters the political discourse where previously it was used only to differentiate between a free man and a slave, Barbarian becomes a term of abuse instead of commenting on how someone spoke or their being non-Greek. Greek confidence leads to a cultural flowering. And while the loss led to a feeling of triumph, it also produced a less-than-attractive triumphalism.
As an example of the last point—whose Xerxes do we talk about? The noble ruler? Or an “eight-foot tall Brazilian metrosexual with more body piercings than you’ll see on South Street on a Saturday night?” In the 2006 movie version of Thermopylae the subtext is so forward that it becomes the text itself—there is a threat coming from the East, and that threat goes beyond the stated freedom versus slavery. The Eurymedon vase, from the 460s B.C. captures what the movie hints at—who buggers who? Herodotus’ noble, heroic account quickly becomes vulgarized and represented by the worst stereotypes.
McInerney looks at the triumphalism of Athens. While mentioning the good things flowing from the triumph, it’s important to keep in mind the people celebrating these heroics would turn allies into enemies. Their assemblies would vote to slaughter all the men of a city revolting against their tyranny. Empires are empires, with all their accompanying traits. Even though Athens helped defeat Persia it effectively becomes an empire, with many of the same traits they portray in their vanquished enemy. This is part of the complicated story of Thermopylae, where things aren’t always black and white.
The lecture ends with the reading of C. P. Cavafy’s poem “Thermopylae”, which chooses to highlight what Athens should have done and been after the battle, not what they did:
define and guard a Thermopylae.
Never betraying what is right,
consistent and just in all they do
but showing pity also, and compassion;
generous when they are rich, and when they are poor,
still generous in small ways,
still helping as much as they can;
always speaking the truth,
yet without hating those who lie.
And even more honor is due to them
when they foresee (as many do foresee)
that in the end Ephialtis will make his appearance,
that the Medes will break through after all.
A quick note on playing the video: it initially cut off for me at the 46:53 point despite showing a length of 53:23. Upon reloading the page and advancing to the 46 minute mark I was able to see the final minutes. I’m not sure if that glitch was on my end or YouTube’s, but I did want to mention it in case it happens to others. Despite the mention of a Q&A session, it was not included in the video.
Another note: while there is much to look at regarding Thermopylae, I focused on the aspects of Homeric epic in my post from The Histories.
Friday, April 05, 2013
Weekend video short: Neil Young, Patti Smith and others perform "Helpless" (1996)
Thank a discussion on Neil Young's Bridge School Benefit for this post, in particular the closing number of the Saturday evening concert of 1996 where Patti Smith joins many of the evening's performers during the closing number "Helpless."
It turns out there is a YouTube video of this performance, which illustrates what I tried to describe. Smith seems a little unsure on her first try but she hits her stride the second time around, making the song all her own.
Now I can watch it again without having to suffer how freaking cold it was that evening. Enjoy!
Thursday, October 01, 2009
But the bestest books
Sunday, September 27, 2009
It's a beautiful day
Sunday, July 26, 2009
I can't tell one from the other
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Whatever happened, I apologize
Sunday, March 22, 2009
What happened to the weekend?
Steeped in Shakespeare
“Shakespeare's plays were ubiquitous in antebellum America. They inhabited the schoolbooks, including Scott's Lessons in Elocution, which Lincoln read as a boy. Dozens of editions circulated through the states and territories. The plays visited rural and urban stages in scenes and declamatory excerpts as well as larger productions, and crystallized a turning point in the Webster-Hayne debate of 1830, in which senators disputing the future of the union and the territories alleged blame for the political crisis by fighting over the significance of Banquo's ghost.”
Who in our political class today even knows who Banquo is? But then I don’t know how to earmark millions of dollars to special interests. So I guess we’ll call it even.
And now for something completely different: