A Controversy Over Cleopatra

There are more than a few disputes related to Cleopatra VII, the Cleopatra who was, for a time, Queen of Egypt, was involved with Julius Caesar and Mark Antony after him, and killed herself rather than become the prisoner, or trophy, of the victorious Octavian, to be known as Augustus.  The one I address is one which has arisen in response to the depiction of her as black in a documentary series to be shown on Netflix.

This has served to anger various Egyptians and Greeks, and, as seems inevitable, denizens of the right or alt-right or far-right or whatever the case may be, eager to assert that she wasn't black.  In the case of Egyptians and Greeks, a certain nationalism may be a cause of their ire.  In the case of others, outrage has become a way of life, and this will be one of many to come.

What we know of how Cleopatra looked is relatively limited.  We know that it's very likely she didn't look like Elizabeth Taylor or Vivian Leigh, two women who pretended to be her thanks to Hollywood and whoever it was did the casting for the movie version of George Bernard Shaw's play.  What we know otherwise we know based on coins and busts that have survived since antiquity.  Those don't provide any evidence regarding skin color.  The busts are white, of course; but so are all statutes which remain from ancient times, because the paint on them has worn away.  

This post features a painting which appears in what's called the House of Marcus Fabius Rufus in Pompeii.  It's believed to be a portrait of Cleopatra in the guise of Venus Genetrix, the founding goddess of the Julii, the family of Julius Caesar, based on a statute of her raised by Caesar at the time of the dedication of a temple of the goddess in 46 B.C.E.  If the evidence is accurate, it may be the only contemporaneous depiction of Cleopatra which exists.

Most, including I believe most scholars, would not be surprised if this is the case.  She was a Queen of the Ptolemaic dynasty founded by the general, friend, and possibly half-brother of Alexander the Great which ruled Egypt for approximately two hundred years.  Ptolemy was a Macedonian.  He was not black.  There's no evidence any member of that dynasty was a black person.  We don't know in any detail all of the sexual relations of the Ptolemies over the years, and certainly anything is possible, but royal marriages and status being what they were, it's likely that royal Macedonians wanted Macedonian offspring, or Macedonian/Greek offspring.  But it seems that the Ptolemies intermarried with the Seleucids, other successors to Alexander ruling in what is now Iran, Afghanistan, Syria and other parts of the Mideast, who it seems married high-born nobles of the former Persian Empire now and then.  So, it's possible Cleopatra was of a shared ancestry in that respect, at least.

Why does any of this matter?  These days actors of color play characters who were white or likely white fairly regularly.  It's odd when one sees black actors play Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, both slave owners, as was the case when I saw a production of Hamilton in Chicago.  Something about that seems peculiar, to me at least.  But a show is a show.  Everybody needs work.  Nobody believes George and Tom were black; nobody expects that people will think they weren't white.  Why should this cause offense?

One might point out that the idea of white actors playing characters who aren't white, or are of mixed race, has been considered offensive.  When Jonathan Pryce played the half-French, half-Vietnamese Engineer in Miss Saigon it was claimed that it was insulting for a white actor to be made up as a half-Asian.  Was the make up the cause for offense?  If a white actor had played that character without being made up as Asian or part-Asian, would that have made everything fine?

In the case of Miss Saigon, it also was a show.  Clearly, it's the fact that a white actor was playing a character not entirely white which made a difference, though.

May a white actor play a black fictional character without causing offense?  I would guess not.  What if a white actor played a historical figure who was black?  Frederick Douglass, for example.  Or Shaka Zulu.  It wouldn't end well.

Perhaps this may be attributed to the fact that whites have had their way, and still have their way, at the expense of others and it's insulting when they pretend to be one of those whites have taken advantage of over the years.  Less insulting, perhaps, than when one of those who were taken advantage of pretend to be one of those taking advantage.

Is a puzzlement, as a Russian actor pretending to be King of Siam was made to say.  Did Yul come under attack for his portrayal over so many years?  I can't recall.

I'm not one to express outrage over such a thing as this.  I'm not outraged or offended, but think it's inappropriate, or even disingenuous or dishonest if Cleopatra is claimed to be black when those making the claim know there is no reason to think so beyond the fact that she ruled Egypt in ancient times and Egypt was, and still is, located in Africa.  For me, there's a problem when the word "documentary" is used to describe persons or events which are not supported by facts.  Documentaries are supposed to deal with factual events.  Documentaries are not supposed to be fiction.   If you make a documentary, you should believe that what you depict is fact or has a factual basis.  If it isn't, you shouldn't call it a documentary.

 

The God of Stoicism and Us

 Chrysippus was the third leader of the school of Stoicism, after Zeno and Cleanthes.  It's said that he died while laughing at his own joke.  It seems he made the joke after drinking unmixed wine, and that it related to a donkey eating, or trying to eat, figs from a tree.  Chrysippus supposedly suggested the donkey be given wine to wash down the figs.  

Perhaps this is humorous when rendered in ancient Greek, or perhaps you had to be there, as drunk as Chrysippus is said to have been.  Or, perhaps, the story is apocryphal.  I think it's most likely he died in some other manner, though I admit that the thought of a renowned Stoic philosopher dying while laughing at his own joke has a certain appeal.

I think the story shows Chrysippus to be human, even endearingly so given his reputation as the rigorous thinker who gave Stoicism a firm, rational foundation shorn of the vagaries indulged in by Cleanthes, an inspiring but, it seems, "warm and fuzzy" kind of thinker.  Chrysippus is credited with developing the tools by which Stoics could defend their philosophy from followers of rival schools, quick to chop logic and split hairs in the rough and tumble world of the philosophers of Athens and their students.  

The quote of Chrysippus at the head of this post is one that interests me, as it addresses more or less directly what I think is an issue in Stoicism which isn't addressed much in the popular interest in Stoicism which we see these days.  Some modern proponents of it who take it more seriously, I think, than those who claim it will make us better capitalists or better something or other in a Dale Carnegie fashion and so should be ignored, feel that God need have no place in it.  Think of Lawrence Becker or Massimo Pigliucci.  To a certain extent I think they're correct.  The Epicureans thought of God or the gods as existing but largely irrelevant.  We may look on Stoicism as a source of practical wisdom without considering the ancient Stoics conception of the deity based solely on the fact that it's directives regarding attaining tranquility are effective.

But it seems clear that the ancient Stoics accepted a God of sorts, and why they did so and what sort of God it was/is are legitimate avenues of exploration.  It seems that there are few exploring them, though, at least to the extent that can be judged by what is readily available on these subjects.  I'm currently reading Roman Stoicism by Edward Vernon Arnold, and its seem based on what I've read so far that he intends to explore them, but what I've read has involved a rather breezy discussion and comparison of Stoicism and other religious or quasi-religious movements of antiquity that hasn't (yet) been very enlightening.

I was told by someone on a philosophy forum that a God which isn't personal, which doesn't respond to prayers and petitions and doesn't intervene in our lives and the world is less reasonable than a God which is and does those things.  That isn't at all clear to me, but it may be that more people would find such a personal God more desirable than an impersonal God.   A more desirable (to us) God isn't necessarily reasonable, though.

The God of Stoicism doesn't seem to be a personal God if such a God watches over us (noting and judging our deeds and thoughts), responds to our prayers and petitions, works miracles by altering nature and punishes or rewards us based on our conduct and intentions.  The God of Stoicism isn't Big Daddy, which is what the God of an Abrahamic religion appears to be.  If the universe is God, or God is immanent in the Universe and the creative and intelligent spirit which infuses it, what we may think is contra mundum is necessarily contrary to God.  Earthquakes and natural disasters are not evils, and God, being the universe in which such things take place, isn't going to alter the universe to assure such things don't take place no matter how much we beg and plead.

As may be expected, then, by living "in accordance with nature" we live in accordance with God.  If we fail to do so, however, the God of Stoicism doesn't punish us as would Big Daddy or his equivalent.  What results is bad for us in the sense that it disturbs us, makes us anxious, slaves to our passions, discontented, miserable, covetous, murderous, but not as a result of any action on the part of God/Universe.

If this is the God of Stoicism, leaving aside the question whether it makes any difference, is this God one we would think to be good?  Does it inspire reverence, joy, bliss, awe, love and all the other feelings we associate with God, traditionally and typically?  If it does, how and why?  If it doesn't, can it be considered God?

What is Las Vegas?

 

God help me, but I went there again.  As I make this confession I'm inspired to ask myself--and you by implication--why did I do so?  That would seem to be a question which must be asked of any person who isn't a gambler and isn't even mildly interested in gambling, like myself.  An argument can be made that only those who enjoy gambling should go there.

Las Vegas is a city, yes.  It has many of the characteristics of one, in any case.  But it isn't a city in any normal sense.  It isn't a place where someone lives.  It's a place someone goes to; it's a destination.  There's an expectation that one doesn't stay in Vegas indefinitely.  There's a sense that people who go there will leave, when enough is, as they say, enough.

It's reminiscent of Disneyworld, I would say, though it isn't nearly as ubiquitously branded and isn't owned by a single entity omnipotent in its own domain.  Perhaps it was when it was largely a Mob operation.  Now, though, it isn't though one can see that the powers operating MGM and others have begun to expand their sway over what were once rival hotels and casinos.  But Vegas intends, at least, to provide an appearance of variety lacking in places like Disneyworld.  Self-contained miniatures of Rome, Venice, Paris and other places are on display and open for business, and they succeed in appearing distinct from one another, though not necessarily by accurately copying the real places they purport to be.  They're the same in having casinos, however.

Their mimicry of actual places can be vulgar, it must be said.  But the vulgarity is amusing and even striking.  Caesar's Palace delights me in a strange way, as its vast faux Roman buildings, fountains and forums reminds us of what was vulgar in ancient Rome itself, when the mob was being placated and narcissists and madmen like Nero and Caligula were emperors and devoted themselves to their own glorification.  I don't follow Henry James in thinking that Roman structures were vulgar merely because they were large, however.  Spectacles were important in ancient Rome, and bread and circuses were among the few things available for those not rich and powerful to enjoy without cost.  James was never much concerned with anyone among the "common herd." Vegas is like Rome as it provides spectacles of all kinds and is itself a kind of spectacle.

There's something very American about it.  Other cities and places around the world are rendered into places which can be enjoyed by Americans at a single location, without any of the unfamiliar and disturbing aspects Americans encounter when leaving America (foreign ways, looks, language and currency).

It's not a place which will impress Puritans or Progressives.  It will more likely concern them.  But the delights provided are typically American and are not such as to cause too much concern.  Good food, good drink, good shows, some sex of a kind and in an amount which will not shock Middle-Americans, and money to be made.

It's an American Dream.

Our Lilliputian World

It's remarkable how small, mean and petty we seem, now, in comparison with those who came before.  

Think of past leaders in politics, art, literature; past cultural critics, past scholars.  Think of most anyone who lived before us of any note who were not obviously monsters or notable for their monstrosity and think of those in their position now and, as Ozymandias (as Shelly called him) proclaimed, despair!

Our politicians can barely speak when not reading a script; can barely write without assistance.  Complete sentences are rare in their discourse in most situations.  As for their thoughts, if they express them honestly (something we can't assume) they're unsophisticated at best, bovine or malicious at worst.  Their concerns are, as a matter of necessity to be fair, with the acquisition of money to prolong their status and obtain the influence of  those who have political influence.  This has probably been the case, more or less, for quite some time.  But at least at the higher levels politicians of the past, though they had to make deals, were intelligent and some even principled.   Think of Lincoln, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, the Roosevelts, referring only to Americans.

Focusing again on our Great Republic, what poets do we have to speak of since Wallace Stevens, Robert Frost, Robert Lowell, Langston Hughes, E.E. Cummings or even Carl Sandburg?  Let's throw in Eliot and Auden, who may at least be called Americans of a sort.

Journalism has nobody of status.  Whatever gravitas journalists had died with Edward R. Murrow and Walter Lippman, though people like Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley were deserving of respect.  Now when journalists are not outright whores and hypocrites of the kind we may see every day on a certain network, they're uninspired.

I confess I know little of modern art, the little knowledge I have probably ending in Picasso.  I am fond of the photorealists.  I find the perfection of their mimicry of street scenes and Americana to be charming.  I don't know if I think they're great artists, however.

I won't bore the reader of this post with a review of my opinions on every field of art or culture.  But I'm unable to think of any person who would be a worthy successor of those considered preeminent in their field in years past; sometimes long past.

I suppose this could be considered a mere rant on my part, the typical spiel of an aging man harping on the glory of the "good old days."  But I think the lack of or decrease in the quality of our thought and discourse is evident.  

If I'm right, why this is the case presents an interesting question.  It's likely we're better educated now than in the past.  We certainly have access to information of all kinds that we had no access to not that long ago,  We should be better informed if nothing else.  Those with talent are able to communicate it far more easily than the talented could years ago.  There are tools available that didn't exist 50 years ago.  One doesn't have to catch the attention of a publisher to circulate fiction or nonfiction, or get an art gallery to display one's work, or have someone in what what used to be called the record business introduce our music to the public.  Opportunities are available to all to promote their work, their thoughts, their everything, to everyone.

Perhaps that's the problem, however.  There have always been far more people with little or no talent or ability, or mediocrities, than there have been geniuses or people with great ability.  In the past, we only heard of those who were remarkable.  Now we hear from everyone, good or bad, wise or foolish, able or inept.

As a result, it takes a real effort to discern great artists, writers, painters, musicians amidst all the sound and fury.  As to politics, the need for popularity and money induces politicians to appeal to all they can rather than anyone knowledgeable or thoughtful.  There is no incentive to do otherwise.

There's no incentive to be thoughtful or knowledgeable, for that matter.  There's no arbiter or monitor to review or censor the opinions of anyone.  It isn't clear to me that this is a bad thing.  But the more voices there are the more noise there is, and when it is impossible to distinguish one from the other those worth hearing are not heard, and those who should not be heard or have nothing to say must be heard, by some at least. 

 

Draggin' Rites

The State of Tennessee, famous as the state in which the Scopes "Monkey Trial" took place, has apparently sought once more to display its peculiarity by, supposedly, banning drag shows.   The bill awaits the state governor dragging a pen across it, signing his name to it, at the time I type this post.

Or at least drag shows of a sort.  It's an odd law, which is perhaps appropriate in more than one sense.  It includes among those things described as "adult cabaret performances" those by male and female impersonators, acting in such a way as to arouse a "prurient interest."  Those performances among others deemed adult cabaret performances under Tennessee law may not take place in public, or in an area where they may be seen by minors.

I've been to a few drag shows.  They aroused no "prurient interest" in me.  They aroused no other interest in me either, really.  I found them silly, and occasionally amusing.  I'm not sure why they're popular, as it seems they are to some at least.  Most of all I found them not at all evocative of lust or sexual desire.

One of the odd characteristics of this law is that, since a prurient interest must be aroused in order for the performance to be prohibited, it would (as would be expected) seem to exempt from the law's operation drag shows which fail to do so, and prohibit only those which do.  But performances arousing prurient interest of other kinds are already prohibited under existing law.  It seems, then, that this law accomplishes nothing of substance, unless drag shows are assumed in all cases to arouse prurient interest.

It would be difficult even for the State of Tennessee to maintain that performance in drag arouses prurient interest in and of itself.  A picture of Milton Berle in drag graces this post.  Uncle Miltie dressed himself in women's clothes fairly frequently.  So, for that matter, did Flip Wilson.  Robin Williams impersonated a woman in Mrs. Doubtfire.  Dustin Hoffman did in Tootsie.  Williams and Hoffman impersonated women, via film, a in public place and where minors could see them.  Julie Andrews impersonated a man in Victor/Victoria.  Jack Lemmon and Tony Curtis impersonated women in Some Like it Hot.

Drag performances have, in fact, taken place for centuries.  Shakespeare's Portia; Peter Pan, are roles in which impersonation of male and female is expected to take place.  Women weren't allowed on stage in ancient Greece, so the many female roles in plays written and performed then were played by men.

As this law is seemingly insubstantial, it is to be inferred that it isn't intended to do much more or different from existing law.  Like so much else in our increasingly less Glorious Union, then, it is a stunt; something politicians engage in efforts to impress those they seek to gratify.  

Who would be gratified in this case?  Not someone who actually reads the law, as anyone who does will understand its limits and know it achieves nothing beyond expressly lumping drag shows with other forms of "adult cabaret performances."  More likely it would be those who don't read the law, but believe it to prohibit kinds of performances they think harmful in some sense, particularly to minors.

Given the history of actors and comedians appearing in drag together with the fact that those appearances have generally thought to be funny, the current concern about this can only be explained if some people now consider drag performances as something different from what they've been considered in the past.  Now, they somehow have the potential to harm children.  It's doubtful that Uncle Miltie was thought to be harming them by appearing on TV in drag, or that the many others who did so on the small and large screens over the years were harming as well.

Some of us seem to be fearful that performances by male and female impersonators will influence minors to change their gender, or perhaps sex, or perhaps sexual identity.  There is what appears to be a growing fear of or revulsion against transgenderism (is there such a word?).  Perhaps it's more correct to say fear of or revulsion against transgenders.

However, is there any evidence that drag shows induce or influence anyone to do anything but part with their money, or giggle, or groan, or do several other generally harmless things?  I strongly doubt it.  In the absence of any evidence, why is a law required?

More laws, less justice, to paraphrase Marcus Tullius Cicero and others.  This is a show law, one with no purpose but to assuage prejudices, and law shows are more dangerous than drag shows.