As my study of Roman literature comes to an end, I got the chance to study one last Roman poet; known as Horace. Now Horace was a bit different from the rest of the poets I studied, specifically in their writing topics. Normally, most poets would write about the gods and their history and interactions, but Horace wrote about a certain way of living that he wanted others to follow. His belief was that it was ethically correct, and that it would lead to a full and prosperous life. So today’s question reads as follows, “What was Horace’s concept of personal ethical cause and effect?”
In order to formulate a lifestyle such as this, you would have to have your own personal concept of ethics first in order to discern whether or not it’s beneficial in that regard. You can easily tell what he believes if you read through his Odes (poems per se). What he refers to as the “Golden mean” is basically a way of living life without striving for much of anything, and if you do need something only work for just the right amount; no more no less. Try to live in a way that’s balanced, somewhere in the middle, is what he suggests. This would mean that if blessings were to come, you shouldn’t be too overjoyed to encounter them. As well as the opposite, if you find yourself fallen on hard times you shouldn’t worry, instead trust that everything will work out sooner or later. These kinds of situations throw off the balance of the golden mean, his philosophy states that having too much would make losing it all that more painful, but also having nothing is no way to live either. Living a life where it wouldn’t hurt to lose everything you own, and having just enough wealth to get what you need, is what Horace sees as the ideal life.
In conclusion, the way Horace viewed life makes sense in a hopeless sort of way. If you work all of your life and accumulate wealth, then you have a higher chance of losing it all sooner or later; its like having a target on your back. Also, since you can’t take that money with you to the afterlife there really is no point in working a good high paying job and saving up your money, so playing it safe and settling for bellow average is the ideal strategy in his eyes. While some might not see eye to eye with this philosophy, I suppose in Horace’s mind it made perfect sense.
This week my English course has been talking more about ancient Roman literature, specifically the works of Livy and Ovid. These two men were ancient poets who wrote their works during what is known as, “The Golden Age of Latin Literature.” I was fortunate enough to be able to study these men in both my English and History courses, due to them both covering the ancient poets of Rome recently. But my question for today reads as follows, “Was there any basis for an optimistic view of Rome in Livy and Ovid?”
When it says optimistic, it generally means a positive or somewhat hopeful view of Rome as it was back in the day. After reading through the works of these two men for a good while it seems quite apparent that neither of them had a truly optimistic view of Rome. Livy’s works were comprised of Roman history, and he covered approximately over 700 years of information. One would think that a man who’s seen at least 700 years of a city’s history would know how many good or bad things happened during it’s establishment. Obviously not everything Ovid wrote was negative, and some of the information he documented has been quite useful for a number of historians. But, after documenting many of Rome’s wars, emperors, and it’s government, I think it’s safe to say that Livy didn’t have many reasons to look forward to the upcoming years in Roman history.
While Rome did mature as a city and an empire over time, there are other ways to look at it besides a historical perspective. Ovid’s writings weren’t so much about Rome, but rather about the history of the earth and it’s gods. Ovid wrote about the time in history where man was pure evil, and how this displeased the gods immensely. So for this reason, the gods decided to flood the earth and cleanse it of humanity. As the story goes, only two humans, the only two righteous humans on earth. Ovid viewed Rome as the descendants of these two people, which would be a good reason to have strong hopes for Rome’s future.
So to answer the question, would there be any reason for Livy and Ovid to have an optimistic view of Rome? Well for Livy, seeing how Rome was able to avoid destruction despite being involved in countless wars and invasions would inspire confidence in it’s ability to preserve itself. For Ovid, believing that Rome came from righteous origins would greatly assist him in putting his faith in their ability to make decisions. In the end, we can’t say for sure what their view of Rome was, but it’s safe to say that Rome wasn’t as hopeless as it seemed.
Recently my English course has been talking about Latin literature, specifically a certain type of literature. It’s was utilized in a speech made by a talented speaker named Cicero. He was mostly famous for mastering the art of rhetoric, which is basically a type of persuasive writing. This skill definitely came into play when a man named Catiline wanted Cicero’s seat in the Roman senate, and actually raised up an army to assist him. One of the most famous speeches Cicero ever wrote was given in front of the Roman senate, and was directed at Catiline asking him to back down. But today’s question attacks this series of events from a different angle, “If you had been Catiline, what would you have said to undermine Cicero’s case?”
Well that intro took a while, no matter! To start things off we’ll look at what Cicero’s first speech on Catiline talked about. To be honest, his speech seemed to bounce back and forth between the truth and self-fabricated lies, which weren’t that hard to recognize. One thing Cicero got right was bringing up the army Catiline had assembled and planned to attack Rome with, but then he decided to take it a step further. Later on during his speech he basically stated that Catiline was the living embodiment of Rome’s evil, and that he was the reason things went wrong in Rome. Now obviously one man can’t be responsible for an entire civilization’s problems and wrong-doings, so I would have used this logic to disprove that part of Cicero’s case. Also, a few times in passing he blatantly called Catiline crazy, so that would be another one of his exaggerations that could easily be de-confirmed. Unfortunately, if I was in the position where I really did raise up an army, it would be pretty difficult to convince someone that I’m truly innocent.
Another thing Cicero used to threaten Catiline was none other than the senate he was also speaking to. Often times he would make huge bluffs and claim that the entire senate would fight to stop Catiline, even without confirmation that the senate would even agree to such actions. Furthermore, he also said that the senate did not like Catiline, despite them not even saying anything regarding him. But this is a speech, and the senate couldn’t very well interject right in the middle of his presentation, so they kept quiet. The only way Catiline could have used Cicero’s false accusations against him would have been in a formal trial. Both sides could make an argument and present evidence against the other person, this is what I would have done to get that seat in the senate
What I found most interesting about Cicero’s speech, is that it actually scared Catiline into submission, not long after he was shunned from Rome never to return. This fine tuned example of the use of rhetoric only exists because of a man who recognized it’s viability and utilized it to it’s full “persuasive” potential.
Today’s essay will discuss one of the many works of ancient Greek tragedian, Aeschylus. For those of you who may not know, tragedies were an early form of play writing for the Greeks, and Aeschylus was one of the many authors who practiced writing plays. The one play in particular we are going to be talking about today is called Agamemnon, and is the first of three plays often refereed to as, “The House of Atreus.” Agamemnon is mainly centered around the events of the Trojan War, specifically what happened afterwards. So my question for today is, “What was Aeschylus’s view of the Trojan war?”
In order to create a play that centers around actual historical events, one must have a good comprehension of the events to compose such a story. The Trojan War was the core concept of the play, and had happened more recently for them then it did for us, so the details were still fresh in people’s minds. Aeschylus seemed to view the whole thing as an important event, but also as an act of revenge on a more personal level. Since being a soldier was such an honorable role to play in the Greek culture back then, the concept revenge was fairly common in their world. The play talks about how Paris, the leader of Troy, violated the hospitality of Helen’s husband Menelaus and committed adultery. It goes on to say that this was one of the many reasons why the Trojan’s lost, blaming Troy for its own downfall.
Then who were the ones who cast judgement upon the Trojans,’The gods!’ Well, at least that’s what they said. The gods unleashed their judgement on them using the Greeks merely as a means to carry out their own will, but it wasn’t the easiest thing for the Greeks to do. During their long treacherous journey a great wind prevented them from reaching the city of Troy, and the only way they could get past was to sacrifice the King’s daughter; gruesome isn’t it? If the gods really wanted the Greeks to carry out their work, then why is such an extreme act of sacrifice required to get to Troy. Later on in the play after the initial attack on Troy, Agamemnon’s wife murders him, but she claimed she was only doing what the gods told her to do. Now we have multiple conflicting factors, why would the same gods who helped the Greeks defeat the Trojans, instruct the wife of their King to murder her husband? It seems very unclear who’s side these gods are really on.
So, what exactly was Aeschylus’s view of the Trojan War? In my opinion, I believe he saw it as the act of revenge that is was, but not for or because of the god’s intervention let’s just say. It seems to me that Aeschylus thought that it doesn’t matter how faithful you are to these gods, man will always lose. If two sides of a fight are praying to the same god, I think there’s a pretty good chance that they’re both going home empty handed.
DJ's Education Blog 