How to Be Greek

The core of the Hellenistic kingdoms were the new cities founded by Alexander or, later, by the Hellenistic monarchs. The largest was Alexandria in Egypt, but there were equivalently grandiose cities in the other kingdoms. The new cities were built on grid-pattern streets with various Greek amenities like public forums, theaters, and temples. Likewise, citizenship, which had been the basic unit of political currency in the ancient poleis, became instead a mark of elite membership that could be won in multiple cities at the same time.

Many Greeks and Macedonians emigrated from home during the 4th and 3rd centuries, we do not know how many, but the evidence we have suggests a significant number. This was a type of colonizing impulse. Greek and Macedonian migrants also sought dreams of prosperity and adventure by going abroad. They served in the highest levels of administration in both Ptolemaic and Seleucid realms. But locals also served in these governments, providing good will and information to the new Greek rulers regarding the peoples they had conquered. Colonists also served as the core of the militaries, though by the 2nd century natives were also serving, receiving land, tax breaks, and the right to call themselves Hellenes or Greeks.

Here we see how Greek migrants, and those who they colonized, took advantage of a new definition of being Greek that began to emerge during Alexander’s conquests. Disappointed by the narrow and self-destructive localism of the Greek city-states, and truly how this localism had ripped them apart at the end of the 5th century via the Peloponnesian War, some thinkers began to seek a wider horizon and definition of Greek identity. They promoted the idea that Greece was not a collection of city-states in a specific geographic location, but a civilization. One philosopher wrote “The people we call Hellenes are those who have the same culture as us, not the same blood.” This new definition and ideal of Greek culture made it easier for colonists who left Greece to maintain a Greek identity. For that matter it was now possible for foreigners to become Greek by learning the Greek language, literature, philosophy, and general culture. The number of Hellenized foreigners was relatively small, yet there very existence marked a break from the Classical polis, where even a resident genius such as Aristotle could not obtain Athenian citizenship because he was not of Athenian descent.

The Greek language, in particular, served as a common denominator and unifier (along with Aramaic) becoming the language of trade and politics in the eastern Mediterranean. By the 2nd century, most people with even a little bit of education could speak Greek. In fact it is directly due to the conquest of Egypt by Alexander that we can understand/translate Egyptian hieroglyphics. Before the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, a granodiorite stele inscribed with a decree on behalf of King Ptolemy V, no one could decipher hieroglyphics. The decree appears in three scripts: the upper text is Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, the middle portion Demotic script, and the lowest Ancient Greek. Because it presents essentially the same text in all three scripts, it provided the key to the modern understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphs.

One of the most important artifacts of the Ptolemaic era is the Rosetta Stone, the object that enabled the translation of Egyptian hieroglyphics. Written during Ptolemaic rule, the stone consists of a single royal proclamation from 196 BCE in two hieroglyphic alphabets as well as ancient Greek.

Although it is believed to have originally been displayed within a temple, possibly at nearby Sais, the stone was probably moved during the early Christian or medieval period and was eventually used as building material in the construction of Fort Julien near the town of Rashid (Rosetta) in the Nile Delta. It was rediscovered there in 1799 by a soldier, Pierre-François Bouchard, of the Napoleonic expedition to Egypt. When the British defeated the French, they took the stone to London where it remains to this day on display in the British Museum.

Despite these novel ideas about expanding citizenship and mixing of cultures, there were still ongoing problems for the Hellenistic ruling class, the most important of which was the continued stratification between Greeks and their non-Greek subjects. Greeks in the Hellenistic kingdoms felt that they were the heirs to Alexander’s conquests and that they were thus justified in occupying most, if not all, of the positions of political power. Especially in places like Egypt and Mesopotamia that had enormous non-Greek populations, resentment could easily turn into outright rebellion. Various works emerged among the subjects of the Hellenistic kingdoms predicting the downfall of their Greek rulers; Mesopotamian priests, Zoroastrians in Persia, and Egyptian religious leaders all wrote works of prophecy claiming that the Greeks were in league with evil forces and would eventually be deposed. The Jews also struggled with their Greek overlords, a problem exacerbated by the fact that they were ruled first by the Ptolemies and then by the Seleucids. While the Ptolemaic kingdom remained relatively stable until its takeover by the Romans in 30 BCE, both the Antigonid and Seleucid kingdoms lost ground over the years, largely due to a failure to quell native revolts, ultimately ruling over a fraction of their former territories by the time the Romans began encroaching in the second century BCE.

Unrelated to the struggle between Greeks and non-Greeks, the Hellenistic period saw a significant shift in gender relations. Simply put, the Greek obsession with maintaining not just a strict sexual hierarchy but an attempt to separate men and women socially that reached its zenith in Classical Athens loosened enormously in the Hellenistic age. Women were praised for fulfilling social and familial duties, for carrying out religious ceremonies, borrowing and lending money, and even for their political savvy in the case of noteworthy queens (like Alexander’s mother Olympias or, much later, the famous Cleopatra VII).

The general pattern appears to be that women in Greece itself faced greater legal restrictions than those living in Greek colonies elsewhere in the Hellenistic world, which is unsurprising since the older Greek poleis had centuries of both law and tradition in place enforcing sexual divisions. The Macedonian society represented by Alexander and his companions had always been less restrictive, with women exercising much more autonomy than in the Greek poleis to the south, and that cultural value was clearly imprinted along with Macedonian rule itself across the Hellenistic world. Back in Greece, Sparta stood apart as the one polis that exceeded even Macedonian gender standards: Spartan women were fully autonomous economically, owning two-fifths of the land overall, and asserting considerable political influence.

As usual when discussing gender in the pre-modern period, however, it is necessary to provide some caveats about greater periods of freedom and autonomy for women. With very few exceptions (once again, Cleopatra VII is the outstanding example), men continued to control politics. The laws of the Hellenistic kingdoms did protect and recognize women in various ways, but men were always given the greater legal role and identity. Analysis of birth rates suggests that infanticide was common, with girl babies often left to die both out of a general preference for boys and because the dowry the girl would have to be provided with at marriage was a burdensome expense for the family. Most male intellectuals continued to insist on the desirability of female submission, and with a few great exceptions, the bulk of the literature and philosophy from the period was written by men.

Hellenistic Philosophy and Science

Hellenistic philosophy largely shifted away from the concerns of Greek philosophers of the Classical Age. Because philosophers were discouraged from studying politics, as had Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, they turned instead to investigations of personal ethics, of how to live one’s life to be happy, even if a larger kind of social justice remained elusive. All of the major schools of Hellenistic philosophy shared the same pursuit, albeit in different ways: to live in pleasure and tranquility. Three are of particular note: the Epicureans, Stoics, and Cynics.

The Epicureans, named after their founder Epicurus, believed that humans ought to turn their backs on the pointless drama of politics and social competition and retire to a kind of inner contemplation. Epicurus taught that even if gods existed, they clearly had no interest in human affairs and thus did not need to be feared. Death was final and total, representing release and peace, not an afterlife of torment or work, so there was no need to worry about it, either. In short, the Epicureans believed in a virtuous renunciation of earthly cares and an indulgence in pleasure. Pleasure was not about overindulgence, however (which led to suffering – think of indigestion and hangovers), but a refined enjoyment of food, drink, music, and sex, although one interesting aspect of this philosophy was the idea that sexual pleasure was fine, but emotional love was to be avoided since it was too likely to result in suffering. To this day, the word “epicurean” as it is used in English means someone who enjoys the finer things in life, especially in terms of good food and wine.

The Cynics believed that social conventions were unfortunate byproducts of history that distracted people from the true source of virtue and happiness: nature. In turn, the only route to happiness was a more aggressive rejection of social life than that espoused by the Epicureans (who, again, were quite sedate). They advocated a combination of asceticism and naturalism, indulging in one’s physical needs without regard to social convention. Practically speaking, this involved deliberately flouting social mores, sometimes in confrontational or even disgusting ways: Diogenes, founder of the Cynics, notoriously masturbated and defecated in public. Most Cynics were slightly more restrained, but took great pleasure in mocking people in positions of political authority, and they also belittled the members of other philosophical schools for their overly rigid systems of thought. One story had it that Alexander sought out Diogenes and found him lying in the street in a suburb of the polis of Corinth, asking him what he, the king, might do for him, the philosopher. The Cynic replied “stop standing in my sunbeam.”

Originally an offshoot of the Cynics, the Stoics became philosophers of fate and rationality. Unlike the Epicureans, Stoics believed that humans had an obligation to engage in politics, which formed part of a great divine plan, something linked to both fate and nature. As participants in the natural order, humans ought to learn to accept the trials and tribulations of life rationally, without succumbing to emotion (hence the contemporary meaning of the word “stoic”: someone who is indifferent in the face of pain or discomfort). The Stoics accepted the necessity of being part of a society and of fulfilling social obligations, but they warned against excesses of pride and greed. Instead, a Stoic was to do his duty in his social roles without the distraction of luxury or indulgence. They were one possible version of a philosophy that believes in the existence of fate, of accepting one’s place in a larger scheme instead of resisting it, and they also celebrated the idea that the rational mind was always more powerful than emotional reactions.

What these three schools of philosophy had in common, despite their obvious differences, is that they all represented different approaches to accepting the (political) status quo. The Epicureans avoided politics, the Stoics supported existing political structures, and the Cynics mocked everything without offering positive suggestions for change. This was a far cry from the earnest inquiry of a Socrates, a Plato, or an Aristotle in trying to establish a virtuous form of politics. While Greek culture enjoyed a period of unprecedented influence during the Hellenistic period, its experiments in rational (let alone democratic) political analysis were not a major component of that influence.

While political philosophy did not enjoy a period of growth during the Hellenistic period, there were significant accomplishments in science and mathematics. The most important Hellenistic mathematicians were Euclid and Archimedes. Euclid was the inventor of the mathematical discipline of geometry. He was the first to use obvious starting points called axioms – for instance, the idea that two parallel lines will never intersect – to be able to deduce more complex principles called theorems. Euclid’s work on geometry, The Elements, was still used as the standard textbook in many courses on mathematics well into the twentieth century CE, thousands of years after it was composed. Archimedes was also a geometrician, best remembered for his applications of geometry to engineering. He discovered the principle of using the displacement of water to calculate the specific gravity of objects, and he devised a number of complex war machines used against Roman forces when his home city of Syracuse, in Sicily, was under attack (including, according to some accounts, a giant mirror used to focus the sun’s rays on Roman ships and set them on fire). He also first calculated the approximate value of pie (the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter).

Hellenistic thinkers also made important discoveries in astronomy, most notably the fact that certain astronomers determined that the sun was the center of the solar system. Hellenistic astronomers also refined the calculations associated with the size of the Earth; one astronomer named Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth that was only off by 200 miles. Another astronomer named Hipparchus created the first star charts that included precise positions for stars over the course of the year, and to help keep track of their positions he created the first system of longitudes and latitudes.

Hellenistic medicine also thrived in Alexandria. Both Greece and Egypt had long-established medical traditions. Egyptian drugs, and possibly Egyptian doctors’ knowledge of the eye as well as their emphasis on measurement, helped stimulate Alexandrian medical progress, as no doubt did the mere fact of cross-cultural fertilization. The key to medical advance was the dissection of human cadavers in Alexandria, a first in the history of science. In Greece, as in many ancient societies, religious tradition demanded that dead bodies not be mutilated. But in the frontier atmosphere of early Alexandria, this traditional taboo lost much of its force. Although Egyptians did not practice dissection, they did practice embalming, which may have helped Alexandrian Greeks overcome the prohibition against cutting open the human body. Ever supportive of research, the Ptolemies provided corpses to Greek scientists for dissections. Indeed, they had condemned criminals sent from prison for LIVE dissection by scientists. The practice was only a short-lived experiment, as many philosophers and even doctors wrote against it, describing it as an atrocity. But, before the practice was disavowed, the scientists discovered that the Brain was the center of the nervous system, not the heart.

Perhaps the most memorable achievement in scholarship during the period was the institutional form it took at the Library of Alexandria and its associated Mouseion, often considered to be the first research university in the western world. Funded directly by the Ptolemaic government, the Library collected and translated every scrap of available scholarship from the Hellenistic world and played host to scholars who based their own work on its archives. It housed lecture halls as well, representing the preeminent site of learning in the Hellenistic world as a whole. It was eventually destroyed, although to this day there are competing versions of who was to blame for its destruction (ranging from the forces of Julius Caesar during his involvement in an Egyptian civil war to either Christian or Muslim crusaders centuries later).

Hellenistic Art & Architecture

Hellenistic art is richly diverse in subject matter and in stylistic development. It was created during an age characterized by a strong sense of history. For the first time, there were museums and great libraries, such as those at Alexandria and Pergamon. Hellenistic artists copied and adapted earlier styles, and also made great innovations. Representations of Greek gods took on new forms. The popular image of a nude Aphrodite, for example, reflects the increased secularization of traditional religion. Also prominent in Hellenistic art are representations of Dionysus, the god of wine and legendary conqueror of the East, as well as those of Hermes, the god of commerce. In strikingly tender depictions, Eros, the Greek personification of love, is portrayed as a young child.

One of the immediate results of the new international Hellenistic milieu was the widened range of subject matter that had little precedent in earlier Greek art. There are representations of unorthodox subjects, such as grotesques, and of more conventional inhabitants, such as children and elderly people. These images, as well as the portraits of ethnic people, especially those of Africans, describe a diverse Hellenistic populace; regular people not just gods and/or royalty. These statues and sculptures also depicted people’s emotions for the first time. Art was meant to show internal feelings and not just physical perfection.

Beyond the new focus on secular and diverse subjects, featuring emotions, Hellenistic art demonstrated the mixing of ideas and religions. Two of the most popular of these new, mixed or syncretized cults were the Hellenized Egyptian cults of Serapis and of Isis. Created under Ptolemy I, Serapis was meant to combine Osiris, the Egyptian god of the afterlife with Apis, the god of the Nile flood. Serapis also suggested Pluto, the Greek god of the underworld. Serapis was even named in the official descriptions of Alexander’s death. Hence Serapis was an early example of the common Hellenistic practice of religious syncretism. As the Hellenistic kingdoms grew and evolved, the mixing of ideas and religions became even more widespread. A perfect example is Greco-Buddhist art that developed in a northern province of present day India (Gandhara) combining Buddhism and Greek culture beginning around 200 BCE.

In addition to the new types and themes of sculpture and painting, Hellenistic architecture reached new heights and innovations. This is best seen in the innovative type of architecture, Monumentalism. The revolutionary sculptures and buildings were meant to showcase the wealth and success of the new Hellenistic leaders. By and large they also reinforced Greek identity and cultures, promoting the story of Alexander as supreme conqueror, and his successors as superior to locals. Thus, the monuments were to inspire awe in their viewers while also legitimizing the rule of new Hellenistic kings, showing the gods’ support of the Hellenistic rulers.

An excellent example of Monumental architecture was the Colossus of Rhodes, a statue of the Greek titan-god of the sun Helios, erected in the city of Rhodes, on the Greek island of the same name in 280 BCE. It is considered one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. The statue was constructed to celebrate Rhodes’ victory over the ruler of Cyprus, Antigonus I, whose son unsuccessfully besieged Rhodes in 305 BCE. The construction began in 292 BCE. Ancient accounts, which differ to some degree, describe the structure as being built with iron tie bars to which brass plates were fixed to form the skin. The majority of the building materials were repurposed from the weapons abandoned in the wake of the battle or siege of Rhodes. The interior of the structure, which stood on a 15-meter (49-foot) high white marble pedestal near the harbor entrance, was then filled with stone blocks as construction progressed. Other sources place the Colossus on a breakwater in the harbor. The statue itself was over 30 meters (98 feet) tall. Upper portions were built with the use of a large earthen ramp. During the building, workers would pile mounds of dirt on the sides of the colossus. Upon completion all of the dirt was removed and the colossus was left to stand alone. After twelve years, in 280 BC, the statue was completed.

Unfortunately, the structure did not stand the test of time and was destroyed, at least partially in an earthquake in 226 BCE. Under stress from the shaking earth, the statue broke at the knees and fell over onto land. Ptolemy III offered to pay for the reconstruction of the statue, but the Oracle of Delphi made the Rhodians fear that they had offended the god Helios. Their punishment then was the destruction of the statue among other structures during the earthquake, and fearing further retribution, they declined to rebuild it. The remains then lay on the ground for over 800 years and, even broken, they were so impressive that many travelled to see them.

One such visitor was Greek geographer, philosopher, and historian Strabo. In approximately 64 BCE he described the city and the remains of the Colossus as the following:

The city of the Rhodians lies on the eastern promontory of Rhodes; and it is so far superior to all others in harbors and roads and walls and improvements in general that I am unable to speak of any other city as equal to it, or even as almost equal to it, much less superior to it. It is remarkable also for its good order, and for its careful attention to the administration of affairs of state in general; and in particular to that of naval affairs, whereby it held the mastery of the sea for a long time and overthrew the business of piracy, and became a friend to the Romans and to all kings who favoured both the Romans and the Greeks. Consequently, it not only has remained autonomous but also has been adorned with many votive offerings, which for the most part are to be found in the Dionysium and the gymnasium, but partly in other places. The best of these are, first, the Colossus of Helius, of which the author of the iambic verse says, “seven times ten cubits in height, the work of Chares the Lindian”; but it now lies on the ground, having been thrown down by an earthquake and broken at the knees. In accordance with a certain oracle, the people did not raise it again. This, then, is the most excellent of the votive offerings. (Strabo, Geography, Book XIV)

Another example of Monumentalist architecture was the Lighthouse at Alexandria. The lighthouse was constructed in the 3rd century BCE. After Alexander the Great died mysteriously at age 32, the first Ptolemy announced himself king in 305 BCE, and commissioned its construction shortly thereafter. The building was finished during the reign of his son, Ptolemy II. It took 12 years to complete and served as a prototype for all later lighthouses in the world. The light was produced by a furnace at the top and the tower was said to have been built mostly with solid blocks of limestone. When complete the lighthouse stood between 393 and 450 ft (120 and 137 m) tall. It was one of the tallest man-made structures on Earth for many centuries, and, like the Colossus was regarded as one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. It too suffered damage by not one, but three earthquakes between 956 and 1323 CE, finally abandoned in the 14th century. It was the third longest surviving ancient wonder (after the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus and the still extant Great Pyramid of Giza). In 1994, French archaeologists discovered some remains of the lighthouse on the floor of Alexandria’s Eastern Harbor.

While Alexander the Great is a well-known figure from ancient history, the Hellenistic period as a whole is not. The reason for that relative neglect (in popular culture and in many history surveys, at least those at the pre-college level) is that the Hellenistic age is overshadowed by what was happening simultaneously to the west: the rise of Rome. In precisely the same period in which Alexander and his successors first conquered then ruled the territories of the former Persian Empire, Rome was in the process of evolving from a town in central Italy to the center of what would eventually be one of the greatest and longest-lasting empires in world history. That is the subject of the next few chapters.