![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I had a conversation with a classmate the other day about Greek heroes vs. Roman heroes, and how the differences between them were the results of the differences in not only cultural thought patterns, but governmental systems. (Or possibly the way around: government structures arguably rise from cultures. But I suppose it's a complicated feedback system all the way around.)
She held that the striking individualism of Greek heroes was a reflection of Athenian democracy, where individuals are empowered towards making changes, and the nameless communal efforts of Roman heroes were part of what made Rome into an empire. (I'm probably not giving a clear representation of her argument here, as it was several days ago and more nuanced than this.) I held the opposite: Athenian democracy was something of an aberration, and not all that democratic in any meaningful sense, given how much of the population was disenfranchised, and it's not like Athens didn't run around conquering people, too. Greek heroes were a call back to the days when a "king" was the guy in charge of a single town, whereas the Roman heroes that Cato and the like invoke are the effects of a system that's done away with kings.
But you know, on reflection, that's not very accurate either. It's problematic at best to use Cato's examples for anything in this, because the most striking one--where he compares a nameless centurion to a king of Sparta, with their similar actions and different receptions at home afterward--is itself a comparison of his, where he's trying to make a big point of the difference between Greek and Roman character. You can't take an example that someone with a point to make picked out to make that point and go "Oh, yes, that represents what people of Rome considered the standard heroic model." (Or at least I shouldn't.) Which means I find myself trying to work out who the standard Roman heroes are, and coming up a bit empty.
I mean, there are plenty of interesting Romans in various histories, some of them held up more or less as heroic, but it's not the same as a Greek Hero, who was essentially a mythological figure. It's looking like I really need to do more study on Roman culture before it swallowed all that Greek influence--if such a thing is even really possible, and I suspect to an extent it's just not, for my purposes--to work out what the "original" Roman hero is like, if there even is such a thing, before it starts getting into the game of compare and contrast with Greece.
Guess it's a good thing I'm in a class on archaic Latin!
...pity that I really should be reading about five research books right now and really don't have time to research stuff just for fun. Maybe over the summer.
She held that the striking individualism of Greek heroes was a reflection of Athenian democracy, where individuals are empowered towards making changes, and the nameless communal efforts of Roman heroes were part of what made Rome into an empire. (I'm probably not giving a clear representation of her argument here, as it was several days ago and more nuanced than this.) I held the opposite: Athenian democracy was something of an aberration, and not all that democratic in any meaningful sense, given how much of the population was disenfranchised, and it's not like Athens didn't run around conquering people, too. Greek heroes were a call back to the days when a "king" was the guy in charge of a single town, whereas the Roman heroes that Cato and the like invoke are the effects of a system that's done away with kings.
But you know, on reflection, that's not very accurate either. It's problematic at best to use Cato's examples for anything in this, because the most striking one--where he compares a nameless centurion to a king of Sparta, with their similar actions and different receptions at home afterward--is itself a comparison of his, where he's trying to make a big point of the difference between Greek and Roman character. You can't take an example that someone with a point to make picked out to make that point and go "Oh, yes, that represents what people of Rome considered the standard heroic model." (Or at least I shouldn't.) Which means I find myself trying to work out who the standard Roman heroes are, and coming up a bit empty.
I mean, there are plenty of interesting Romans in various histories, some of them held up more or less as heroic, but it's not the same as a Greek Hero, who was essentially a mythological figure. It's looking like I really need to do more study on Roman culture before it swallowed all that Greek influence--if such a thing is even really possible, and I suspect to an extent it's just not, for my purposes--to work out what the "original" Roman hero is like, if there even is such a thing, before it starts getting into the game of compare and contrast with Greece.
Guess it's a good thing I'm in a class on archaic Latin!
...pity that I really should be reading about five research books right now and really don't have time to research stuff just for fun. Maybe over the summer.