What is Hellenism. The meaning of the word Hellenism
HELLENISM -a; m. 1. The heyday of Greek-Oriental culture, which came after the conquests of Alexander the Great in the East (from the end of the 4th to the end of the 1st century BC). 2. A word or figure of speech borrowed from ancient Greek. ◁ Hellenistic, -th, -th (1 sign). E-th culture. Explanatory Dictionary of Kuznetsov
HELLENISM, a stage in the history of the countries of the Eastern Mediterranean from the time of the campaigns of Alexander the Great (334-323 BC) to the conquest of these countries by Rome, which ended in 30 BC. e. subjugation of Egypt. The terms "E." introduced into historiography in the 1930s. 19th century German historian I. G. Droysen. Historians of different directions interpret it in different ways. Some bring to the fore the mutual influence of Greek and local, predominantly Eastern, cultures, sometimes expanding the chronological framework of the E. period to the beginning of the Middle Ages. Others focus on the interaction of socio-political structures, emphasize the leading role of the Greek-Macedonians, and modernize economic relations. In Soviet historiography (S. I. Kovalev, A. B. Ranovich, K. K. Zelyin, and others), E. is interpreted as a specific historical stage in the history of the Eastern Mediterranean, characterized by the interaction of Greek and local elements in socio-economic relations, political organization and cultural development at the end of the 4th-1st centuries. BC e.
The emergence of the Hellenistic states (the struggle of the Diadochi) (late 4th - early 3rd centuries BC). By 323 (the year of the death of Alexander the Great), his power covered the Balkan Peninsula, the islands of the Aegean Sea, Egypt, Western Asia, the southern regions of Central Asia, part of Central Asia, up to the lower reaches of the Indus (see the map to the station Alexander the Great). The most important political force of the power of Alexander was the army, which determined the form of government after his death. As a result of a short struggle between the infantry and the hetairoi (selected cavalry), an agreement was reached according to which the state was preserved as a single entity, and Arrhidaeus, the natural son of Philip II and the child expected by Alexander's wife Roxana, were proclaimed heirs. In fact, power was in the hands of a small group of noble Macedonians, who under Alexander held the highest military and court positions; Perdikka actually became regent under the feeble-minded Philip III (Arrhidaeus) and Alexander IV (son of Roxana), control of Greece and Macedonia was left to Antipater and Crater, Thrace was transferred to Lysimachus. In Asia Minor, the most influential position was occupied by Antigonus (Antigon I the One-Eyed, see in the article Antigonides) - the satrap Phrygias, Lycias and Pamphylius. Egypt was transferred to the administration of Ptolemy Lag (Ptolemy I Soter, see Ptolemy's article). Important command posts were occupied by Seleucus (Seleucus I Nicator) and Cassander (son of Antipater). Perdikka tried to consolidate his autocracy with the help of the army. His speeches against Antigonus and Ptolemy Lag marked the beginning of a long period of struggle among the Diadochi. The campaign of Perdikkas in Egypt (321) turned out to be of little success and displeased the army, as a result he was killed by his commanders. After the death of Krater in a clash with the satrap of Paphlagonia and Cappadocia, Eumenes, a new distribution of posts and satrapies took place in Triparadeis (Syria) (321). Antipater became regent, and the royal family was soon transferred to him. Antigonus received the powers of the strategist-autocrat of Asia, and the royal troops stationed there were transferred to his jurisdiction. Seleucus received the satrapy of Babylonia; the war with Eumenes was entrusted to Antigonus. Within two years, Antigonus almost completely ousted Eumenes from Asia Minor. In 319, Antipater died, transferring his powers to Polyperchon, one of the old and loyal commanders of the Macedonian dynasty. He was opposed by Cassander, who had the support of Antigonus. The war of the Diadochi resumed with renewed vigor. Greece and Macedonia became the most important theater of military operations, where the royal house, the Macedonian nobility, and the Greek policies were drawn into the struggle between Polyperchon and Cassander. As a result, the royal dynasty finally lost its significance. Philip III, his wife Eurydice and the mother of Alexander the Great Olympias died, Roxana and her son ended up in the hands of Cassander, who managed to subjugate Macedonia and most of Greece to his power. The struggle between Eumenes and Antigonus moved to Pereida and Susiana; at the beginning of 316 Eumenes was defeated and Antigonus became the most powerful of the Diadochi. This forced Ptolemy, Seleucus and Cassander to make an alliance against Antigonus, and Lysimachus joined them. Fierce battles took place at sea and on land within Syria, Phoenicia, Babylonia, Asia Minor, and especially in Greece. The war went on with varying success and ended in 311 with the conclusion of peace, according to which the Diadochi acted as independent, independent rulers. New wars of the Diadochi began in 307. By this time, the last formal connection between the parts of the former power of Alexander had disappeared: Roxana and Alexander IV were killed by order of Cassander. Military operations in Greece were started by Antigonus, apparently with the aim of taking possession of Macedonia and the Macedonian throne. His son Demetrius managed to expel the Macedonian garrisons from Megara and Athens and depose the protégé Cassander. In 306 Demetrius defeated Ptolemy's fleet near Salamis in Cyprus. After this victory, Antigonus (Antigon I) appropriated royal titles to himself and Demetrius (Demetrius I Poliorket). Other Diadochi also proclaimed themselves kings. In the decisive battle of Ipsus in 301, Lysimachus, Seleucus I and Cassander inflicted a complete defeat on the army of Antigonus I, who died in this battle. Demetrius with the remnants of the army retreated to Ephesus, he still had a strong fleet and some cities of Asia Minor, Greece and Phoenicia at his disposal. The possessions of Antigonus I were divided mainly between Seleucus I and Lysimachus. By this time, the main boundaries of the Hellenistic states were determined: the Ptolemies, the Seleucids, Bithynia and the Pontic kingdom.
The further struggle of the Diadochi unfolded mainly in Greece and Macedonia. After the death of Cassander in 298, a struggle broke out for the Macedonian throne between Demetrius I, Pyrrhus, the king of Epirus, the sons of Cassander and Lysimachus. Demetrius I emerged victorious, but already in 287-286 Lysimachus, in alliance with Pyrrhus, ousted him from Macedonia and subjugated it. In 283, Demetrius I, taken prisoner by Seleucus I, died. In 281, Lysimachus, defeated by Seleucus, died, his state fell apart. In 281 (or 280) Seleucus I was killed. From 283, the king of Macedonia was the son of Demetrius - Antigonus II Gonat, who laid the foundation for a new dynasty that united Thrace and Macedonia under its rule.
The heyday of Hellenism (3rd - early 2nd century BC). Military clashes throughout the 3rd century. did not stop, but were more local in nature. The heirs of Ptolemy I and Seleucus I continued to compete in Syria, Phenicia and Asia Minor (the so-called Syrian Wars). The Ptolemies, who owned the most powerful fleet, contested Macedonian dominance in the Aegean and Greece. Macedonia's attempts to expand its possessions in Greece ran into stubborn resistance from the Greek policies. Pergamum fell away from the Seleucid kingdom in 283, and Cappadocia became independent in 260. Around the middle of the 3rd c. the northeastern satrapies fell away and the independent Parthian kingdom and the Greco-Bactrian kingdom were formed.
The most characteristic feature of the economic development of Hellenistic society was the growth of commodity production and trade. New large trading and craft centers arose - Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch on the Orontes, Seleucia on the Tigris, etc., the handicraft production of which was largely oriented to the external market. In the coastal regions of Asia Minor and Syria, new policies were created, which were both strategic points, and administrative, and economic centers. Regular maritime communications were established between Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece and Macedonia; trade routes were established along the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf and further to India. Trade relations between Egypt and the Black Sea region, Carthage and Rome were established. Money circulation and money transactions expanded, which was facilitated by the coinage of precious metals stored in the treasuries of Persian kings and temples. Policies that arose in V. attracted artisans, merchants, and people of other professions.
The half-century period of struggle between the Diadochi was essentially the period of the formation of a new Hellenistic society with a complex social structure and a new type of state. The established Hellenistic monarchies combined elements of oriental despotism (a monarchical form of power, a standing army and a centralized administrative apparatus) with elements of a polis structure. Land relations characteristic of policies - private property of citizens and city ownership of undivided plots - were complicated by the fact that rural areas with local villages were assigned to cities. The population of these territories did not become citizens of the city, but continued to own their plots, paying taxes to the city or private individuals who received these lands from the king, and then attributed them to the city. On the territory not assigned to the cities, all the land was considered royal. According to the Egyptian papyri, it was divided into two categories: the actual royal and "ceded" lands, which included temple lands, transferred by the king as a "gift" to his close associates and provided by small plots (clairs) to soldiers - cleruchs (see Cleruchii) or kateks. On these lands there could also be local villages, whose inhabitants continued to own their hereditary allotments, paying tribute or taxes.
The complexity of land relations led to the multi-layered social structure of the Hellenistic states. The royal house with its court staff, the highest military and civil administration, the most prosperous townspeople and the highest priesthood made up the top. layer. The middle stratum was more numerous - merchants and artisans, personnel of the tsarist administration, tax-farmers, klerukhs and kateks, local priesthood, teachers, doctors, etc. , cities, workers in the royal workshops (in the handicraft industries monopolized by the king). They were considered personally free, but were attached to their place of residence, to a particular workshop or profession. Below them on the social ladder were the slaves.
The wars of the Diadochi, the spread of the polis system gave a strong impetus to the development of slave-owning relations in their classical ancient form, while maintaining more primitive forms of slavery (duty, self-sale, etc.). But in agriculture (especially on the tsarist lands), slave labor could not, on any noticeable scale, push back the labor of the local population, the exploitation of which was no less profitable.
A different type of social development took place in Greece and Macedonia. Accession to Macedonia did not give the Greek policies significant economic advantages. At the same time, the centuries-old traditions of independence in the Greek city-states were especially strong. Therefore, the expansion of Macedonia encountered stubborn resistance, primarily from the democratic strata, since the introduction of Macedonian garrisons was usually accompanied by the establishment of oligarchic regimes and the deterioration of the position of the demos. Since it was difficult for small policies to defend their independence individually, the process of combining policies into federations took place (the Aetolian Union, which by the end of the 3rd century included almost all of central Greece, Elis and Messenia, as well as some islands of the Aegean Sea; the Achaean Union, arose in 284, by 230 the union consisted of about 60 policies and covered a significant part of the Peloponnese). The oligarchic leadership of the Achaean Union, frightened by the growth of the social movement in Sparta (the reforms of Agis IV and Cleomenes III), turned to the king of Macedonia, Antigonus III Doson, for help. In the Battle of Sellasia (222/221), the combined forces of the Macedonians and Achaeans destroyed the army of Cleomenes III, and the Macedonian garrison was introduced into Sparta. The aggravation of the social struggle forced the nobility of the Greek policies to seek help from Macedonia. The last years of the 3rd c. were the period of the greatest political and economic strengthening of Macedonia. Taking advantage of internal complications in Egypt, the Macedonian king Philip V, in alliance with the Seleucid king Antiochus III, divided the possessions of the Ptolemies outside Egypt: all the policies belonging to the Ptolemies on the coast of the Hellespont, in Asia Minor and along the coast of the Aegean Sea went to Macedonia; Antiochus III, after the victory at Panion (200), took possession of Phoenicia and Syria. Using the slogan of the freedom of the Greek policies, Rome, having subjugated the entire Western Mediterranean by 200, attracted the Aetolian (199) and Achaean (198) alliances to its side, and above all the propertied strata, who saw in the Romans a force capable of ensuring their interests. The wars between Macedonia and Rome ended with the conclusion of peace (197), according to which Macedonia lost all its possessions in Asia Minor, the Aegean Sea and Greece.
Internal complications in Egypt (unrest of troops in 216, an uprising of local dynasts in the Thebaid in 206, court unrest) and the defeat of Macedonia in the war with Rome created favorable conditions for the growth of the political power of the Seleucid kingdom. Around 212-205 Antiochus III made an eastern campaign, repeating the route of Alexander, and forced Parthia and Bactria to recognize dependence on the Seleucids. The war against the Romans, which began in Greece in 192, ended with the defeat of Antiochus III's troops near Magnesia on Sipylus (190), as a result of which he was forced to give up all his possessions in Europe and Asia Minor (to the north of Taurus). After that, Parthia and Bactria fell away from the Seleucids, and Greater Armenia and Sophena, which were dependent on the Seleucids, separated.
The victory of the Romans radically changed the political situation: none of the Hellenistic states could no longer claim hegemony in the Eastern Mediterranean, the importance of small states increased: Bithynia, Cappadocia, Pontus, and especially Pergamum, which relied on the support of Rome.
Decline and submission to Rome (2nd - late 1st centuries BC). The unification of the Western Mediterranean under Roman rule brought about significant changes in Greece's traditional trade ties with Sicily and other Greek colonies in the west and in those established in the third century. links between Egypt and Syria with North Africa and Italy. The process of moving trade routes and economic centers began. The military and economic expansion of the Romans was accompanied by the intensive development of slaveholding relations in Italy and the conquered regions: there was a mass enslavement of the population, the slave trade and the scope of slave labor expanded. These phenomena were reflected in the internal life of the Hellenistic states. The struggle at the top intensified: between layers of predominantly urban nobility (interested in closer ties with the Roman world and in the expansion of slavery) and the nobility associated with the royal administrative apparatus and temples and living mainly due to traditional forms of exploitation of agriculture. This struggle resulted in palace coups, dynastic feuds, and urban uprisings. The movement of the masses against tax oppression, abuses of the state apparatus, usury and enslavement intensified, sometimes developing into a kind of civil war, exhausting the economy and military forces of states, reducing their resistance to Roman aggression. A significant role was played by Roman diplomacy, which in every possible way encouraged the aggravation of contradictions between the Hellenistic states and the dynastic struggle.
Despite the attempts of the Macedonian king Perseus to win over the Greek policies for a joint struggle against Rome, only Epirus and Illyria joined him. As a result, the Macedonian army was defeated by the Romans at Pydna (168), after which Macedonia was divided into 4 isolated districts. In Epirus, the Romans destroyed most of the cities and sold more than 150 thousand inhabitants into slavery; in Greece, they revised the boundaries of policies. The uprisings that broke out in Macedonia in 149-148 and in the Achaean League in 146 were brutally suppressed by the Romans, after which Macedonia was turned into a Roman province, the unions of the Greek policies were dissolved, and oligarchic regimes were established everywhere. Having subjugated Greece and Macedonia, Rome launched an offensive against the states of Asia Minor. Roman merchants and usurers, penetrating the economy of the states of Asia Minor, more and more subordinated their foreign and domestic policy to the interests of Rome. In 133, Pergamon (in accordance with the will of Attalus III) came under the rule of Rome, but only after the suppression of a mass uprising led by Aristonicus (132-129) did the Romans manage to turn it into a Roman province. The center of resistance to Roman aggression in Asia Minor was the Pontic kingdom, which at the beginning of the 1st century. under Mithridates VI, Eupator became a large state, subjugating almost the entire coast of the Black Sea. The wars of Mithridates VI with Rome ended in 64 with the defeat of the Pontic kingdom. While Rome was busy conquering Macedonia, the Seleucid kingdom recovered from the damage caused by the war with Rome. Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 170, then in 168 made successful campaigns in Egypt and besieged Alexandria, but the intervention of Rome forced him to abandon his conquests. The Hellenization policy pursued by Antiochus IV caused uprisings in Judea (171 and 167-160), which escalated into a war against Seleucid domination. Separatist tendencies also manifested themselves in the eastern satrapies, which were oriented towards Parthia. Attempts by Antiochus VII Sidet (139/138-129) to restore the unity of the state (again subjugated Judea and undertook a campaign against Parthia) ended in complete defeat and his death. Babylonia, Persia and Media fell away from the Seleucids. At the beginning of the 1st c. the regions of Commagene (in Asia Minor) and Judea became independent. The territory of the Seleucid state was reduced to the limits of Syria proper, Phenicia, Coele-Syria and part of Cilicia. In 64 the Seleucid kingdom was annexed to Rome as the province of Syria. In 63 Judea was also annexed to Rome.
In Egypt, after the campaigns of Antiochus IV, popular movements began again and at the same time a sharp dynastic struggle, which turned into a real internal war, devastated the country. Meanwhile, the Romans contributed in every possible way to the foreign policy weakening of Egypt. In 96, Cyrenaica was annexed to Rome, in 58 - Cyprus. The Romans came close to the borders of Egypt, only a civil war in Rome itself delayed its submission. In 30 BC e. this last Hellenistic state was conquered. The Hellenistic world as a political system was absorbed by the Roman Empire, but the elements of the socio-economic structure and cultural traditions that developed in the Hellenistic era had a huge impact on the further development of the Eastern Mediterranean and largely determined its specificity (see Hellenistic culture).
A. I. Pavlovskaya.
Great Soviet Encyclopedia. In 30 tons. Ch. ed. A.M. Prokhorov. Ed. 3rd. T. 30. Bookplate - Yaya (+ additions). - M., Soviet Encyclopedia. - 1978. - 632 p.
Literature:
Blavatskaya T. V., Golubtsova E. S., Pavlovskaya A. I., Slavery in the Hellenistic states in the III - I centuries. BC e., M., 1969; Zhebelev S. A., From the history of Athens, 229-31 years BC Khr., St. Petersburg, 1898; Zelyin K. K., Studies on the history of land relations in Hellenistic Egypt II - I centuries. BC e., M., 1960; Zelyin K. K., Trofimova M. K., Forms of dependence in the Eastern Mediterranean of the Hellenistic period, M., 1969; Kovalev S.I., History of ancient society. Hellenism. Rome, L., 1936; Ranovich A. B., Hellenism and its historical role, M. - L., 1950; Pikus N.N., Royal farmers (direct producers) and artisans in Egypt in the 3rd century. BC e., M., 1972; Sventsitskaya I. S., Socio-economic features of the Hellenistic states, M., 1963; Khvostov M. M., History of the Eastern Trade of Greco-Roman Egypt, Kazan, 1907; his, Textile industry in Greco-Roman Egypt, Kazan, 1914; Shoffman A.S., History of ancient Macedonia, part 2, Kazan, 1963; Droyzen I. G., History of Hellenism, trans. from German, vol. 1-3, M., 1890-93; Tarn, V., Hellenistic Civilization, trans. from English, M., 1949; Bevan E., A history of Egypt under the Ptolemaic dynasty, L., 1927; Bikerman, E., Institutions des Seleucides, P, 1938; Gary M., A history of the Greek world from 323 to 146 B. S., L. - N. Y., 1965; Cohen R., La Grece et l "hellenisation du monde antique, nouv. ed., P., 1948; Dasealakis Ap., The hellenism of the ancient Macedonians, Thessalonike, 1965; Kaerst J., Geschichte des Hellenismus, Bd 1- 2, Lpz., 1926-27; Petit P., La civilization hellenistique, P., 1965; Rostovtzeff M., The social and economic history of the Hellenistic world, t. 1-3, Oxf., 1941; Toynbee A. , Hellenism, The history of a civilization, N. Y. - L., 1959; Will E., Histoire politique du monde hellenistique (323-30 av. J. C.), v. 1-2, Nancy, 1966-67.
Hellenism: assessment in historical science
The term "Hellenism" was introduced into scientific circulation in the 30s. 20th century J.G. Droyzen There is no single point of view on the interpretation of the term.
1. J.G. Droysen understood Hellenism as the process of spreading Greek (Hellenic) culture among countries and
peoples of the Mediterranean.
2 M Hadas, J. Starton understood Hellenism as a purely cultural phenomenon, that is, they considered the concepts of Hellenism and Hellenistic culture to be equivalent.
3 M Rostovtsev considered the period of the conquest of the East by the Greek-Macedonians as Hellenism.
4 M Hammond sees in Hellenism a new stage in the political organization of Greek and Roman society, the so-called federal democracy (Achaean and Aetolian leagues).
5 C.A. Robinson, considering through the theory of “consensus”, popular in the USA, considered Hellenism as a special type of society, the so-called “brotherhood of peoples”.
6 A.B Ranovich proposed to consider Hellenism as a stage in the history of slaveholding relations of the ancient world, a period in the history of Greece and the countries of the Eastern Mediterranean from the campaigns of A. Macedon (334-323 BC) to the final conquest of the East by Rome (30 . BC.).
7 KK Zelyin considered Hellenism as a complex socio-economic, political and cultural phenomenon, characterized by a synthesis of Greek and Eastern principles, and as a qualitatively new concrete historical period in the history of the countries of the Eastern Mediterranean.
8 V. I. Kuzishin gave the following definition: Hellenism is the forcible unification of the ancient Greek and ancient Eastern worlds, which previously developed separately, into a single system of states that have similarities in economic, social, political structure and culture.
The concept of "elchinism"», geographical, chronological framework, periodization, types of synthesis
Hellenism, according to the most common point of view now, is the forcible unification of the ancient Greek and ancient Eastern worlds, which previously developed separately, into a single system of states. As a result, a peculiar society and culture was created, which differed both from the Greek proper and from the ancient Eastern social structure and culture proper. It was a synthesis of ancient Greek and ancient Eastern
I civilizations, which gave a qualitatively new socio-economic structure, political superstructure and culture.
Chronological framework Hellenism depend on what point of view on the essence of this phenomenon to share. The classical point of view is the allocation of Hellenism from the campaigns of A. Macedon in 334 BC. until the conquest of the last Hellenistic state (Egypt) by the Romans in 30 BC. That is, Hellenism lasted about 300 years.
Within the framework of the Hellenistic stage, three periods are distinguished:
1) 334-281 BC - the formation of the empire of A. Macedon and its collapse as a result of the wars of the Diadochi; 2) 280 BC - the middle of the 2nd century BC - the period of maturity of Hellenism, the creation of a socio-economic structure, statehood and culture of Hellenism; 3) the middle of the II century. BC. - 30 BC - late Hellenism, the decomposition of the Hellenistic states, their conquest by Rome in the West and Parthia in the East.
Geographical districts Hellenism also depend on the point of view on its essence. In a broad sense, these are all territories from Sicily and Southern Italy in the west to Northwestern India in the east, from the southern shores of the Aral Sea in the north to the first rapids of the Nile in the south. In a narrow sense, these are the territories of the Eastern Mediterranean. The Hellenistic world included small and large state formations: the territory of classical Greece (including Great Greece and the Black Sea region) and the so-called classical East (Egypt, Western and Central Asia (without India and China)) . Within this zone, four regions can be distinguished, similar in terms of both geographical and historical characteristics, with a certain commonality of social and cultural development:
The synthesis of ancient Greek and ancient Eastern principles in each region of the Hellenistic world was not the same in terms of its intensity and the role of the elements involved in it. A different degree of combination of Greek and Eastern principles depended on the specific historical features of the existence of certain Hellenistic societies and states. In some societies, Greek principles prevailed, in others - Eastern ones, in others their ratio was more or less uniform. In some countries, the synthesis embraced to a greater extent public structures, in others - political institutions, in others - the sphere of culture and religion. The most characteristic features of Hellenism as a synthesis of Greek and Eastern principles in all areas of life, production, and culture appeared in Egypt and the Middle East. This region is regarded as an area of classical Hellenism. In Balkan Greece and Macedonia, Magna Graecia and the Black Sea region, that is, on the territory of Ancient Greece itself, on the contrary, synthesis did not exist. The historical development in these areas took place on the basis of ancient Greek civilization. Nevertheless, these regions are attributed to the Hellenistic world for a number of reasons: they were part of the general system of the Hellenistic states as a certain socio-economic, political and cultural entity; Hellenes and Macedonians who emigrated from these regions as warriors, administrators, citizens of Greek cities founded in different parts of the Hellenistic world played an important role in the life of new societies and states.
Hellenism is a whole era in the history of antiquity. Many characterize it as a special stage in the development of ancient Greek culture. Hellenism existed for three centuries and covered almost the entire civilized world.
Historical outline
What does such a complex term mean at first sight? Hellenism is a certain period of time in the history of the Mediterranean, which lasted from the death of Alexander the Great to the conquest of these countries by Rome. (4th century BC - 30 AD.)
It also refers to the ubiquitous spread of the Greek language and culture in general to other parts of the eastern Mediterranean. Hellenistic society was strikingly different from the society of classical Greece.
There are a number of reasons for this:
- The transition from the polis system of power to the monarchy.
- Improvement of individualism.
- Expansion of vertical political as well as economic ties.
- A departure from the sublime and beautiful images of classical Greece in favor of the unique, lyrical and poetic.
The era of Hellenism is a kind of combination of Eastern and ancient Greek elements, which entailed the unification of not only the political system, but also some elements of culture and religion.
Hellenistic Art
The art of the Hellenistic era was directly related to the development of science and technology. At this time, urban development was rapidly developing. The religion and culture of that time also greatly influenced the art and architecture of the Mediterranean countries.
During this period, unsurpassed attention was paid to park architecture. The parks of Alexandria were famous for their special splendor and grace. In the architecture of this era, the size of structures began to increase significantly. Rich and luxurious interior decoration came into fashion. The reason for this was the interest in the private life of slave owners.
As in the classical era, sculpture retained its leading position among other art forms. After the change of the former system, the power acquired the despotic nature of the monarchy. Constant wars and uprisings have destroyed the close connection between the individual and the collective.
Subsequently, a specific worldview arose, which, in turn, brought into the artistic images the details of dissonance and the tragic breakdown of both the individual and society.
Another difference from the classical era is the endowment of the gods with features of hypertrophied majesty and grandiosity. The image of an ordinary person is strongly suppressed.
Greek society created a unique ideal, which they praised in their artistic creations. He was the image of a brave, strong and valiant hero, endowed with incredible beauty. A hero who will save society from any troubles.
Of particular popularity are the statues of Zeus, the Ear of Rhodes and Aphrodite. The Temple of Olympian Zeus was the largest building of the Hellenistic era. The second most important place in architecture was the portrait.
There was no such developed portrait in the Mediterranean classics. If in the "classics" the sculptor tried to express the features of the community, the people, then in Hellenism, on the contrary, the characteristic features of the individual, his individual characteristics and experiences were distinguished.
Summing up, it is worth noting the huge contribution of Hellenism to the era not only of that time, but also of the present. Hellenism was an integral part in the development of realism, and its works of art have been and remain an invaluable treasure for the history of all mankind.
) . The term originally denoted the correct use of the Greek language, especially by non-Greeks, but after the publication of Johann Gustav Droizen's "History of Hellenism" (- years), the concept entered the historical science.
The beginning of the Hellenistic era is characterized by the transition from the polis political organization to hereditary Hellenistic monarchies, the shift of centers of cultural and economic activity from Greece to Africa and Egypt.
Encyclopedic YouTube
-
1 / 5
The Hellenistic era spans three centuries. However, as noted, there is no consensus on the issue of periodization. So, with the filing of some, a report of its beginning can be kept from 334, that is, from the year the campaign of Alexander the Great began.
Three periods are proposed:The term pre-Hellenism is also sometimes used.
Hellenistic states
The conquests of Alexander the Great spread Greek culture to the East, but did not lead to the formation of a world empire. On the territory of the conquered Persian Empire, Hellenistic states were formed, headed by the Diadochi and their descendants:
- The state of the Seleucids centered first in Babylon, and then in Antioch.
- The Greco-Bactrian kingdom separated from the Seleucid state in the 3rd century BC. BC e., whose center was in the territory of modern Afghanistan.
- The Indo-Greek kingdom separated from the Greco-Bactrian kingdom in the 2nd century BC. BC e., whose center was located on the territory of modern Pakistan.
- The Pontic kingdom was formed on the territory of modern northern Turkey.
- The Kingdom of Pergamon also existed in what is now western Turkey.
- The Commagene kingdom separated from the Seleucid state and was located on the territory of modern eastern Turkey.
- Hellenistic Egypt was formed on the territory of Egypt, headed by the Ptolemies.
- The Achaean Union existed on the territory of modern Greece.
- The Bosporan kingdom existed on the territory of the eastern Crimea and the eastern coast of the Sea of Azov, at one time it was part of the Pontic kingdom.
New states are organized according to a special principle, called the Hellenistic monarchy, based on the synthesis of local despotic and Greek polis political traditions. The polis, as an independent civil community, maintains its independence both socially and politically even within the framework of the Hellenistic monarchy. Cities like Alexandria enjoy autonomy and their citizens enjoy special rights and privileges. At the head of the Hellenistic state is usually a king, who has all the full power of state power. Its main support was the bureaucratic apparatus, which carried out the functions of managing the entire territory of the state, with the exception of cities that had the status of policies that owned a certain autonomy.
Compared with previous periods, the situation in the Greek world has seriously changed: instead of many policies at war with each other, the Greek world now consisted of several relatively stable major powers. These states represented a common cultural and economic space, which is important for understanding the cultural and political aspects of that era. The Greek world was a very closely interconnected system, which is confirmed at least by the presence of a single financial system, as well as the scale of migration flows within the Hellenistic world (the Hellenistic era was a time of relatively great mobility of the Greek population, in particular, continental Greece, at the end of the 4th century BC. suffering from overpopulation, by the end of the 3rd century BC began to feel a lack of population).
Culture of the Hellenistic Society
Hellenistic society is strikingly different from that of classical Greece in a number of ways. The actual departure of the polis system into the background, the development and spread of political and economic vertical (rather than horizontal) ties, the collapse of obsolete social institutions, the general change in the cultural background caused serious changes in the Greek social structure. It was a mixture of Greek and Oriental elements. Syncretism manifested itself most clearly in religion and the official practice of deifying monarchs.
They mark the departure in the III-II centuries BC. e. from the sublimely beautiful images of the Greek classics towards the individual and lyrical. In the era of Hellenism, there was a plurality of artistic movements, some of which turned out to be associated with the assertion of inner peace, others with a “severe love of rock”.
Hellenization of the East
During the III-I centuries BC. e. throughout the eastern Mediterranean there was a process of Hellenization, that is, the adoption by the local population of the Greek language, culture, customs and traditions. The mechanism and causes of such a process consisted for the most part in the peculiarities of the political and social structure of the Hellenistic states. The elite of the Hellenistic society was made up mainly of representatives of the Greek-Macedonian aristocracy. They brought Greek customs to the East and actively planted them around them. The old local nobility, wanting to be closer to the ruler, to emphasize their aristocratic status, sought to imitate this elite, while the common people imitated the local nobility. As a result, Hellenization was the fruit of imitation of newcomers by the indigenous inhabitants of the country. This process affected, as a rule, the cities, while the rural population (which was the majority) was in no hurry to part with their pre-Greek habits. In addition, Hellenization affected mainly the upper strata of Eastern society, which, for the above reasons, had a desire to enter the Greek environment.
