The Parthenon

On a previous memoir that I wrote describing my weekend experience in Athens, I mentioned that my visit to the Parthenon merited a write-up of its own. I wanted to write about all of the ways I connected with this structure honoring an ancient culture which represented the power of the people but also how reflecting on its history could bring up memories of rivalry and love which would never be fully realized and only remembered for what it could have been. The Parthenon is a monument to remember not what it was but what it could have been.

It was a monument to Athena, to Athenians, to democracy, and in my opinion, it was a monument to love. Pericles loved his city of Athens. He commissioned the building of the Parthenon not only to honor Athena, as popularly thought, but as a tribute to the people of Athens; to honor the power of the people. Athens was a democratic city and is widely considered to be the cradle of democracy. After all, the word “democracy” is based on the Greek words “dēmos” (common people) and “kratos” (power).

The monument is also a reflection of rivalry. There was a rivalry between the two Greek gods, Athena and Poseidon, both of whom desired the city. The competition to settle who would lay claim to it was held on the rocky outcrop where the Parthenon was built. They both offered gifts. Poseidon struck a rock causing a geyser of salt water to gush out, but Athena offered an olive branch, which was received more favorably, because the olive branch is a promise of peace. Therefore, she laid claim to the city; hence the name “Athens.” Athena is the goddess of wisdom, intellect, war, and peace. She desires peace first but will wreck vengeful havoc on any who cross her. (She once turned an Athenian woman who boasted of her weaving skills into a spider!)

Later on, there was a rivalry between Athens and its neighboring Greek city-state, Sparta, incited by The Delian League, a financial organization that was supposed to be neutral, but a lot of its funds went toward Athenian projects. Eventually this rivalry lead to the Peloponnesian War, which Pericles died at the beginning of, and the full completion of the beloved Parthenon he had envisioned was never seen.

There is a lot of the unknown which comes to mind when observing and studying the Acropolis. Did Pericles use funds from The Delian League to build the Parthenon? Did he take from something that was not actually his or his city’s in order to sponsor this great project that would later be a credit to him and to his city? Was this monument, which was intended to be a tribute to democratic fair society, actually built in the beginning with misappropriated funds? Does it have its historical roots in corruption? Can we still admire what it meant to represent — democracy, strength, and power of the people — in spite of the possible corruption?

Millions of people go to visit the Parthenon every year. Why? Is it to admire a beautiful structure? It is not actually that beautiful of a structure. It might have been and most likely would have been, but right now it is faded and in decay and rubble. In all likelihood, it began with corruption and ended due to war. It is a monument that represents, in addition to aforementioned attributes, unfinished business. The people gave up and lost heart. It is an unfinished work of love.

A metaphorical allegory...

There was a woman with a love story inside of her that was left unfinished. Her own inner Parthenon. She once met a man who might have been her counterpoint. There was a stimulating rivalry between them with palpable tension. And then there was deception and betrayal and then eventually a cold war. Her rival, her Poseidon, walked away out of fear that he would lose the competition and when he could not have her, he tried to destroy her. He struck his trident and spewed a great torrent of distorted truths and outright lies into the community in which they both shared with the intent of drowning her reputation. His aim was to isolate her and effectually protect himself.

Now her temple is in shambles, half standing and half destroyed, but still there. It might’ve been spectacular. No one will come to gaze at her monument and say “I see what you might have been. I can imagine the possibilities. I know the truth, and I still think your story is beautiful. You are beautiful. You are Athena. Goddess of victory and wisdom and peace and gifts.” The spectators of this continuing battle do not know the truth: that she sought peace with her rival and if they could not have love, they could find compromise. He refused to settle for compromise and friendship and instead, he became her enemy. And unlike Athena, she was not able to win over the community of the city that she loved; the community that had at first welcomed her with hospitality and opportunity. It rejected her olive branch of peace and sincere goodwill in favor of his salty lies and manipulative charisma.

A monument is a memory. Love and hate are each built by memory, in small persistent ways. After our first vision of them, and with every subsequent encounter, the persons we care for become composite beings, altered by every interaction as it comes so that they really exist less in the present than in the past, and are embodiments not only of their own but also of our departed days: the nuances of them, from our perspective, are all the occasions, mostly lost in the past and perhaps forgotten, in which our lives were joined, however briefly. The person we love (or hate) now, isn’t the person they are in the present, but the person that they were then. If they walked away from a love that could have been spectacular, then all that is left is an unfinished monument in our hearts that no one visits but ourselves alone. It exists only in the memory of those who contributed to building it.

Why 12 ANGRY MEN Is Such An Important Film

A superbly told story, while entertaining, can also stimulate us to examine ourselves closely. One of the best ways to get a person to reflect upon themselves in such a way is to be relatable. 12 Angry Men is a very relatable film (Dir. Sidney Lumet. Perf. Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley. United Artists 1957).

No matter what your station in life - your gender, your nationality, your religion, your view on politics - you will find some aspect of yourself reflected back in one or more of the characters in this movie. You will see men who are fair, who search for facts, who rely on opinions, who are swayed easily by the crowd, who are prejudiced, who take things too personally. The film reveals how some of the men are moved to change their original viewpoints based on the facts and the realization that they have based their decision on personal feelings, while others’ apparent change seems based upon expectation by their peers.

One of the film’s most compelling scenes involves a man (performed superbly by Ed Begley) fervently imploring the other 11 to echo his opinion. One by one, the others rise from their seats and turn their backs on him. It is the first time we see the majority of the jurors unified for the same reason. The man’s race-based rantings, it is agreed, are not worth sharing and have no place in this room. Humiliated, perhaps ashamed, the lone man slumps into his chair. He utters not a single word again, save to give his last, and sincerely changed, vote of not guilty.

By the end of the movie, I was both satisfied and unsettled. I would like to think that I would be the kind of person to stand against something I feel is wrong, even if my viewpoint is not a popular one. As I watched the movie, however, I felt sympathetic to characters who were in conflict with the man who first stood up against the crowd (perf. Henry Fonda). I related to the few who seemed to want to do the right thing but who at first remained silent out of fear. I also questioned if I would stubbornly stick with the wrong sentiment, because it is influenced by my own personal feelings and experiences. One such example is the man who held onto his vote of “guilty” up until the very last, and we find out that the reason why is because the defendant reminded him of the heartbreak he had for his own estranged son (perf. Lee J. Cobb).

I feel that this movie is important for people to watch, because it compels us to reflect deep within and ask ourselves which man or woman would we be. Who would I be? Would I be the first person to stand up when I feel something is wrong, or would I be apathetic? Would I base my decision on what the facts are? Would I be moved primarily by others’ opinions? I believe these self-reflecting questions are important to ask ourselves and watching this movie is a good incentive to do that.