orichalcum: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] orichalcum at 03:35pm on 21/03/2007 under
So, I'm planning out my first lecture for Roman Civ next week. One of the things I want to do is stress the differences between Roman society and life and modern American life, and to do this I want to talk briefly about demography. My idea is to use the students themselves as a model and start knocking people off, i.e.:

1. Raise your hand if you're a second or third daughter and you have a brother, or if you're a third or fourth son. OK, your family probably couldn't afford to raise you, and you were tossed out on the dungheap. You're dead.
2. OK, everyone in the back half of the class, you die before the age of 2.
3. Next three rows - you die before the age of 15.
4. OK, half of the women who are left? You die, probably in childbirth, before the age of 30.

And so forth. I think this is a great way to demonstrate the demographic reality, but it might really unnerve students. What do folks think?
location: Evanston
Mood:: 'curious' curious
orichalcum: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] orichalcum at 02:37pm on 07/03/2007 under
On this day, in Roman lore, your personal genius spirit visits you and grants you one wish. However, most people's personal genii aren't very powerful, unless you've gotten other people to make offerings to it, so you must be careful to wish only for something it is capable of granting.

May you have the judiciously appropriate reward of your choice.
Mood:: 'busy' busy
Music:: naptime
location: Evanston
orichalcum: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] orichalcum at 02:30pm on 07/03/2007 under
So, the most interesting realization in teaching Classics and Cinema this year has been comparing the portrayal of Rome in the 1950s films to the portrayal in the last ten years. Consistently, Rome in the 1950s is associated with wickedness, oppression, slavery, corruption, sexual decadence, and a tyranny of the elite. The heroes are the oppressed minority de jour (slaves, Jews, Christians...) rising up to make a stand against the Roman Man. In the last decade, Rome (and to some extent antiquity in general) is represented as a beacon of light, to quote _Gladiator_, the shining civilization bringing culture and order to the barbarians, by force when necessary. It is potentially corrupt and open to abuse, but the basic idea of a civilized, expansionist empire is a good one; it's just the implementation that can be potentially problematic. The oppressed minority, meanwhile, is basically gone, replaced by heroes who rise to power through their own merits and talents, aided by good connections.

And they say what I teach isn't relevant.

The other major discovery, which has now held consistent over both classes, is how much my students love Gladiator. Admittedly, it's a self-selected group of students, but Gladiator was by far their favorite film in the course, and most had seen it multiple times before the course. This includes the athletes, the engineers, the classics majors, and the theater geeks. They think it's Deep and Meaningful. I've gotten to appreciate it more, but I've never had much use for it, certainly not compared to, say, Spartacus. What am I missing? Do I just not see the greatness?

Rome final update: (more ruminations about teaching a LARP to follow) After initially all agreeing in debate to just send a diplomatic mission to the Parthian Empire, rather than going to war, one student gradually talked the other fifteen around until they agreed to launch an offensive war of twelve legions, led by Marcus Antonius, Octavius, and the student who had achieved a military reputation as consul against Spartacus, 30 years before, with Cassius, the only Roman leader with experience fighting Parthians, as an incognito military advisor. I rolled some dice and told them that after some initial successes, the student consul died of heatstroke, Antonius died in battle, and Octavius retreated with the rest of the troops in ignominious defeat. Consequently, they were unable to fund Caesar's construction projects like the Isthmian and Sinai Canals, which they had dearly wanted to, but did agree to keep the fifth month as July and to settle the military veterans on Italian public land and in Gaul.
Mood:: 'sick' sick
location: Evanston
Music:: gurgles
orichalcum: (Default)
I'm reading an article for research, one that got published in recent years on a topic where a similar article of mine was rejected, and come across sentences like these:

"Of course, we must first negotiate the mandatory pessimistic contours which delimit such a recognition of female agency as designed to objectify or sanction or legitimise the testamentary arrangements which benefit the speaker (specifically the patrimonial bequest attributed to Murdia's first husband). Yet, this rationalisation is amenable to incorporation in a broader conceptual topography."

Not only do I have trouble comprehending it, but I'm bored by the end of the first sentence. Sometimes I fear that my articles get rejected because I place too much emphasis on simplicity and clarity rather than theoretical jargon.
Mood:: 'contemplative' contemplative
Music:: silence
location: Evanston
orichalcum: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] orichalcum at 04:02pm on 28/02/2007 under
May the world cooperate with you in all ways today.
Mood:: 'contemplative' contemplative
Music:: silence
location: Evanston
orichalcum: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] orichalcum at 10:20am on 27/02/2007 under
May you have a +32 modifier to everything you do today!
location: Evanston
Music:: silence
Mood:: 'contemplative' contemplative
orichalcum: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] orichalcum at 12:12pm on 26/02/2007 under
So, after reading some articles in the past couple of days about various history departments banning Wikipedia, I've thought about it, and decided to try and incorporate Wikipedia into my Roman Civ class. Specifically, I want students or small groups of students to create Wikipedia entries through doing research on previously unrepresented Roman topics, using multiple sources and citations to bolster their arguments.

So here's the problem. There are 120 students, divided into six sections of 20-25. My initial plan was to have them do Roman provinces, of which there are 52 in the high Roman Empire. They could research the history of that province and detail its economy, its degree of assimilation and Romanization, and its eventual fate and the degree to which Roman culture survived. However, there are a few problems with this plan.

1. Some provinces are easier than other provinces. There's lots of information on, say, Egypt - much less so on Mauretania.

2. Some provinces already have reasonably good Wikipedia articles, whereas others are notably lacking.

3. 52 does not evenly split up well into groups.

So, do folks have solutions/other ideas for research/think this is a totally horrible idea?
Mood:: 'contemplative' contemplative
Music:: silence
location: Evanston

April

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
      1 2
 
3 4
 
5
 
6 7 8 9 10 11
 
12 13 14
 
15
 
16 17 18
 
19 20 21 22 23
 
24 25
 
26 27
 
28
 
29
 
30