Cleopatra

I have just finished reading Stacy Schiff's Cleopatra: A Life (2010, Little, Brown and Company).  Of the publications I have written, and occasionally still write for, not a one would be interested in a review by me of this book.  It is not about the martial arts, for one thing, and is about Central, rather than East, Asia.  Most importantly, the subject defies easy characterization - think of Cleopatra and we think of Elizabeth Taylor in her coal black wig, a figure whose most compelling decision of the day seems to be which stunning ensemble to wear (no offense to the late, great Ms. Taylor - I loved the film).

As many reviewers have pointed out, Schiff assesses the same sources that other historians have, but comes to a different set of conclusions.  To take one obvious example, Cleopatra VII did not become the lover of two of the most powerful men in the ancient world because she was stunningly beautiful, or (seriously!) a witch.  Schiff instead suggests that she was not even a great beauty (in the few images we can reliably identify, she has rather a large nose).  What she did have, apparently, was a superb education, high social status (at a time when well-born women of the Rome had no such thing), royal presence, and a very, very quick wit.

She also had an important requirement for getting, and keeping, power: a strong stomach for ruthless acts. She had both her first brother-husband and her sister - contenders for the throne - murdered in order to secure her position as ruler.  Lest we consider this unsettling, Schiff provides numerous examples to illustrate that Egyptian rulers undertook such actions for centuries.  She also notes that Cleopatra's family members would have done the same to her, given the chance.

Cleopatra reminds us of the difficulty of getting credit where it is due.  Her achievements, which included reclaiming some of her empire's lost prizes and (however briefly) reestablishing its glory, were eclipsed, even during her lifetime, by her personal relationships.  Over and over again, Schiff skewers historians and contemporary commentators for their mischaracterizations.  Schiff's barbs, lobbed in the full historical context of ancient Egypt, make the book very gratifying to read.  If you are (a) female, (b) charged with responsibilities, and (c) never recognized for the heroic things you do every day, you will find some sisterly commiseration with the Queen of Egypt, even if you never seriously considered killing off your siblings.

In the end, of course, Cleopatra loses - her life and her kingdom.  Both she and Marc Antony were summarily excised from the official histories, lest the winners be embarrassed by her wealth and power, or Marc Antony's widow suffer embarrassment (an intriguing character in her own right, Octavia - Antony's wife and the sister of Caesar Augustus - raised Cleopatra's children with Antony as her own).  But the story, or more properly, the legend, refused to die.  Schiff has peeled off the layers of hyperbole and given us back an image of Cleopatra as a person, at last, in her own right.

Rendering unto Caesar

Last week I met an eminent martial artist for the first time.  He is a prominent karate teacher who has been teaching for many years.  Prior to this, I had only spoken with him over the phone.  Incredibly, the stars aligned and we had lunch together, however briefly.

At one point, the discussion turned to politics.  I mentioned that one of my teachers kicks our butts when we see him in Japan, which is wonderful and just what we need.  When I saw him late last year, he was gracious enough to take the afternoon off from his job and we had a long, long practice that covered points of technique at a very high level.  When one of my students was able to go to Japan for a month, my teacher also worked with him in the same way.  However, when he comes to the US to teach a seminar with his American students, he allows them to take shortcuts and generally does not correct them on the same level that he did even with my beginning student.  Yet the the teacher of the group he conducted the seminar with has been made the permanent head of the US organization, even though  their practice is lacking.  Why was that, I wondered?

The karate teacher said, simply, that the difference between me and my students and the other group was what we each wanted from our practice.   Our group wants to acquire a skill, perhaps some philosophical insight, an aesthetic and/or historical experience.  The other group is interested in power and control.  If you have power, he explained, you don't need skill (except, I suppose, skill in maintaining power).  He said that we were the more fortunate group, because the Japanese teacher was taking us more seriously as students.  The other group wanted to control everything, and he was giving them what they wanted.  Just keep practicing, the karate teacher said - you get what you want for your students, and the other group gets what it wants as well.

On a certain level, it made sense, but I was still troubled.  It wasn't right, I said, that the mediocre group gets to call the shots for the rest of us in terms of how the organization of American students was run.  Of course not, he said, it's a double standard, but that is how it is.  If we want to study with the teacher, we should simply ignore the membership organization and its leadership and maintain a direct relationship with the dojo in Japan.

And with that, lunch was over, and I had to go back to work.  I am still thinking about our discussion, and pondering if helping my teacher maintain a double standard is really a good idea.