Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant ~ Export

What are our origins? Where are we now? Where are we headed?

Share your thoughts with us!

"I want to know what were the steps by which man passed from barbarism to civilization." (Voltaire)

Volume Three ("Caesar and Christ")
"Four elements constitute Civilization -- economic provision, political organization, moral traditions, and the pursuit of knowledge and the arts. "

"I shall proceed as rapidly as time and circumstances will permit, hoping that a few of my contemporaries will care to grow old with me while learning. "

"These volumes may help some of our children to understand and enjoy the infinite riches of their inheritance."

"Civilization begins where chaos and insecurity ends." "

THE CONSUL

"Caesar began as the secret ally of Catiline and ended as the remaker of Rome."

"His victory was obtained by his clever attachment of Pompey to the liberal cause."

"The Senate was more frightened than pleased at these accomplishments."

"The campaign was bitter, and bribery flourished on both sides."

In this Discussion Group we are not examining Durant. We are examining Civilization but in the process constantly referring to Durant's appraisals.
In this volume Will Durant recounts the flaming pageant of the rise of Rome from a crossroads town to mastery of the world. He tells of its achievements from the Crimea to Gibraltar and from the Euphrates to Hadrian's Wall, of its spread of classic civilization over the Mediterranean and western European world. He relates Rome's struggle to preserve its ordered realm from a surrounding sea of barbarism and its long slow crumbling and final catastrophic collapse into darkness and chaos.

Turning to the eastern Mediterranean, we accompany Christ on his ministry, witness the tragic scenes of the Passion, and sail and walk with Paul on his missionary labors. The Empire attains a new invincibility under the Emperor Aurelian, declines, and finally stiffens into a bureaucratic mold.

This volume, and the series of which it is a part, has been compared with the great work of the French encyclopedists of the eighteenth century. The Story of Civilization represents the most comprehensive attempt in our times to embrace the vast panorama of man's history and culture.
This, then, is about YOU. Join our group daily and listen to what Durant and the rest of us are saying. Better yet, share with us your opinions.

Your Discussion Leader:

Robby Iadeluca

Story of Civilization, Vol III, Part 1

Books main page | B&N Bookstore | Suggest a Book/Discussion
Internet Citation Procedure

Remember to subscribe!

Thanks Jane DeNeve.
And what beautiful hues to remind us to subscribe!
Have a good day!
Bubble

How awful to think of children breaking rocks in a granite pit!! How could children have the strength to break rocks? How could they have the strength to swing a mallet? And how could anyone be so brutal as to make children do this work!!

Good to be here in our new home! Thank you, JANE.

Re TOOKI's question: though I can't be sure, I'd assume that the Durants distinguished between "freemen", those born free, and "freedmen" freed slaves.

Back later.

"The census of 234 listed 270,713 citizens -- i.e. free adult males. The figure fell sharply during the great war, but rose to 258,318 in 189, and 322,000 in 147. We may calculate a population of approximately 1,100,000 souls in the city-state in 189 B.C., of whom perhaps 275,000 lived within the walls of Rome.
"Italy south of the Rubicon had some 5,000,000 inhabitants. Immigration, the absorption of conquered peoples, the influx, emancipation, and enfranchisement of slaves, were already beginning the ethnic changes that by Nero's time wold make Rome the New York of antiquity, half native and half everything."
Any comments as Rome grows?

Robby

Thank you, Bubble, for that devastating post on Africian slave labor. There is much food for thought there.

Why do you suppose Durant counts souls in Rome? He started counting people, free people, and then switched to souls. Does he know something I don't know?

In 189, the census counted 258,000 citizens and 1,100,000 people in total in the city-state. We don't know the birth and death rates. My guess is the birth rate was low and the death rate high which means there would be little if any net gain in population each year.

Why a low birth rate? Prostitutes kept the old man from doing his part to produce excess children. Wars kept the male population occupied. Slaves were worked to death.

Why a high death rate? Disease and war killed large segments of the population. Slaves were worked to death.

"Two main cross streets divided the city into quarters, each with its administrative officials and tutelary deities. Chapels were raised at important intersections, and statues at lesser ones, to the laes compitales, or gods of the crossings -- a pretty custom still found in Italy. Most streets were plain earth. Some were paved with small smooth stones from river beds, as in many Mediterranean cities today. About 174 the censor began to surface the major thoroughfares with lava blocks.
"In 312 Appius Claudius the Blind built the first aqueduct, bringing fresh water to a city that had until then depended upon springs and wells and the muddy Tiber. Piping water from aqueduct-fed reservoirs, the aristocracy began to bathe more than once a week. Soon after Hannibal's defeat Rome opened its first municipal baths.
"At an unknown date Roman or Etruscan engineers built the Cloaca Maxima, whose massive stone arches were so wide that a wagon loaded with hay could pass under them. Smaller sewers were added to drain the marshes that surrounded and invaded Rome. The city's refuse and rain water passed through openings in the streets into these drains and thence into the Tiber, whose pollution was a lasting problem of Roman life.
"Houses adhered to the plain Etruscan style already described, except that the exterior was more often of brick or stucco, and (as a sign of growing literacy) was often defaced with graffiti -- 'scratchings' of strictly fugitive verse or prose.
"Temples were mostly of wood, with terra-cotta revetments and decorations, and followed Etruscan plans. A temple to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva stood on the Capitoline hill, another to Diana on the Aventine, and others rose (before 201 B.C.) to Juno, Mars, Janus, Venus, Victory, Fortune, Hope etc.
"In 303 Caius Fabius addded to his leguminous clan name the cognomen of Pictor, painter, by executing frescoes in the Temple of Health on the Capitoline. Greek sculptors in Rome made statues of Roman gods and heroes in terra cotta, marble, or bronze. In 293 they erected on the Capitol a bronze Jupiter of such Olympian proportions that it could be seen from the Alban hills twenty miles away.
"About 296 the aediles set up a bronze she-wolf, to which later artists added the figures of Romulus and Remus. We do not know if this is the group described by Cicero, or if either of these is identical with the existing Wolf of the Capital. In any case, we have in this a masterpiece of the highest order, dead metal alive in every muscle and nerve."
Durant helps us to see this city clearly. Any architects or "city-planners" here with comments? I found it interesting that Greek sculptors lived there and made statues of Roman gods. It was truly a cosmopolitan city, Durant in an earlier posting having compared it to New York City.
Robby

We have looked at these previously in the discussion of acquaducts, but they are worth another look. For some reason I find them especially wonderful.

Wagons Can Pass Through

Wagons Loaded With Hay!

Perhaps only "free adult male citizens" had actual existence as bodies. The nobodies, women, children, slaves, and other assorted riff-raff lacked corporate reality. Thus, they had to be counted as "souls."

Here is a brief synoposis of the history of "city planning."

Rome has figured largely as a model of such planning. It was based on a well constructed plan, reflecting the needs of its citizens (and others?). The idea of planning the growth of cities for the benefit of its citizens is alive and well here, in Portland, Oregon. The arguments that ensue remind one of Greece's democratic babble.

I'll now be quiet, and I would enjoy hearing from those who have actually BEEN SOMEWHERE!

I remember as a young girl being very impressed with Roman roads. "All roads lead to Rome," people told me. How come I never got there? Roads to me always meant people were going somewhere, not standing still. Is this the character of Romans? Always on the go, making the journey and getting somewhere; then packing up and going somewhere else? Were they as restless as that sounds? What did that do to the culture?

Mal

I did my homework last night. I watched the history channel for four solid hours, while the Romans and Huns fought each other. The movie was "Attila the Hun" but I thought he was mis-cast. He looked slim and young like Jesus. Everybody knows Attila the Hun was a big, burly brute with hair growing out of his ears. The costumes were probably authentic because we have plenty pictures of Roman soldiers' uniforms for Hollywood to copy. I thought the catapults were interesting too, but it's probably not an engineering feat to build a catapult. They slammed boulders into phoney-looking walls. The Romans would have built better walls than that, but there were nice scenes of galloping horses silhouetted against pink skies. It always worries me when I watch these movie battles of men whacking at each other with swords. How do the actors keep from hurting each other? And how do they get those horses to fall down without getting hurt?

Now, I have another question. In Robby's post #9, he says "Caius Fabius added to his leguminous clan name..." What on earth is a leguminous clan name? I looked it up but my dictionary just says legumes are beans. They are beans in English and they were beans in Latin. It must mean something else besides beans.

I've spent most of my life on or near Washington, DC, which is considered an early example of good city planning. It was planned with what must have seemed then as proposterously wide avenues, which means it doesn't have the narrow streets that plague traffic in many older cities. The avenues, which crisscross the grid design, were designed to cross each other at traffic circles. These were meant to be points that could be easily defended against an invading army. Now, they bedevil tourists, and many natives.(For a good feel for the city during the Civil War, see "Revilee in Washington" (can't find the author).

When I worked for HUD, I heard many discussions of what constitutes good city planning, without learning much. It seems we have a lot to learn in this area.

Every time I sign onto the computer, it won't let me past the first page of discussions, until I "subscribe". I have subscribed 5 times. What am I doing wrong?

Shasta:--A legume is a cereal. "Cereal" means one thing following another as in "cereal killer." So a long-lived clan with one generation following rapidly after another is a leguminous clan. I'm surprised at you. Anyone could have figured that out. Shall we move on with Durant?

Robby

JOAN, I too have had a problem this afternoon. It seems all right right now.

MAL, "All Roads Lead to Rome" is a phrase known the world over in all kinds of languages, in Latin it is Omnes vitae Romam ducunt (wonderful grammar lesson can be found in this one sentence ...), and in Italian it is Tutte le strade portano a Roma . "portare" means to bring . That's linguistically interesting in view of the often querulous "issue" in English of when to use "bring" and/or to "take".

I believe the saying is a metaphor. It does not mean that the Romans were or are constantly on the go, but rather that Rome was a hub everybody knew and dreamed about, a true multicultural crossroad. Millions of Catholic pilgrims have streamed into Rome during Jubilee years over the centuries from all corners of the earth.

Is a cereal killer one raised on corn flakes, heavy cream, and sugar?

"While through painting and statuary the aristocracy commemorated its lineage, the people consoled themselves with music and the dance, comedies and games. Men sang at banquets, boys and girls chorused hymns in religious processions, bride and groom were escorted with hymeneal chants, and every corpse was buried with song.<P"The lyre became the favorite accompaniment of lyric verse. When great holidays came, the Romans crowded to amphitheater or stadium, and pullulated under the sun while hirelings, captives, criminals, or slaves ran and jumped or, better, fought and died. Two great amphitheaters -- the Circus Maximus (attributd to the first Tarquin) and the Circus Flaminius (221 B.C.) -- admitted without charge all free men and women who came in time to find seats.
"The expense was met at first by the state, then by the aediles out of their own purse, often, in the later Republic, by candidates for the consulate. The cost increased generation by generation, until in effect it barred the poor from seeking office."
Shasta, you aren't going to ask me the definition of "pullulated," are you?

Robby

And you see, Mal, you finally did arrive here at Rome!!

Robby

ROBBY, sono contenta.

Mal

Joan, I don't know anything about subscriptions, I like to see everything that's going on, but Jane does, I'll ask her to come in and help you, did you come to the National Book Festival this year?

We may have met you!

ginny

Hi, Joan... Are you speaking of the Main SN page that you first go to?

http://discussions.seniornet.org/cgi-bin/WebX?14@@/

or the Books Main Page?

http://discussions.seniornet.org/cgi-bin/WebX?14@@.ee6eef3

You don't have to subscribe to anything. If you do subscribe to a discussion...or a folder, you just click on Check Subscriptions when you come back to SN and you'll be taken to the first new post in every discussion to which you're subscribed. Please email me at janeiowa@iowatelecom.net and explain as much as you can, and I'll see if we can get it fixed for you.

See, Joan? We Romans jump up on our chariots and rush to your aid!

Or am I in the wrong century?

Robby

Rome is a city of four quadrants but I like to think of it as a city split in two by the Tiber. The Vatican and Castel Sante Angelo on one side of the river and the Borghese, the forum, the hills, the Capitolino,the fountains and everything else on the opposite bank.

One cannot use a car in Rome for there is no place to park. Day and night every available space is filled. I often think people buy cars just to park them in Rome, not to move about in them. I usually stay out on the Nomentana and travel by city bus.

"War was the most dramatic feature of a Roman's life, but it did not play so absorbing a role as in the pages of Rome's historians. Perhaps even more than with us his existence centered about his family and his home. News reached him when it was old, so that his passions could not be stirred every day by the gathered turmoil of the world. The great events of his career were not politics and war, but anxious births, festal marriages, and somber deaths.
"Old age was not then the abandoned desolation that so often darkens it in an individualistic age. The young never questioned their duty to care for the old. The old remained to the end the first consideration and the last authority. After their death their graves were honored as long as a male descendant survived.
"Funerals were as elaborate as weddings. The procession was led by a hired band of wailing women, whose organized hysteria was cramped by a law of the Twelve Tables forbidding them to tear out their hair. Then came the flute players, limited by a like solonic law to ten. Then some dances, one of whom impersonated the dead. Then followed in strange parade actors wearing the death masks, or waxen images, of those ancestors of the corpse who had held some magistracy.
"The deceased came next, in splendor rivaling a triumph, clothed in the full regalia of the highest office he had held, comfortable in a bier overspread with purple and gold-embroidered coverlets, and surrounded by the weapons and armor of the enemies he had slain. Behind him came the dead man's sons, dressed and veiled in black, his daughters unveiled, his relatives, clasmen, friends, clients, and freedmen. In the Forum the procession stopped, and a son or kinsman pronounced a eulogy.
"Life was worth living, if only for such a funeral."
Any comments here about the various traditions honoring the dead?
Robby

ROBBY, "...graves were honored as long as a male descendant survived ..." What does THAT show us (again)?

Funerals involved pomp and circumstance (making me think of "When the Saints come marching" in New Orleans). The funeral Durant described was that of a military man. I wonder whether the rites were similar or dissimilar in the case of a regular "guy", a member of the "plebs"? There must have been some who had not served in one of the perpetual wars.

(Allow me to say in parentheses that "plebs" is a pluralized noun and defines a whole contingent of people, i.e. all plebeians, NOT just one single person.)

Back tomorrow.

The Durants earlier mentioned death masks: "Kindly Shades," whose grim death masks hung on the household walls."

And now this, "Then followed in strange parade actors wearing the death masks, or waxen images."

There are sites discussing the techniques of death mask construction, should anyone be that interested. Meanwhile, remember Beethoven's death mask, and contemplate this.

Funerals in New Orleans differ slightly from those in other parts of the US. Some N.O. citizens are accompanied to the tomb by a jazz band as well as by mourners. The citizen is interred above ground in N.O. because the water table in that city is very high. Surviving relatives decorate the tombs over generations and as a result many tombs are attractive to tourist sites. I am not certain but tourists may pay a fee and hire guides to tour cemeteries, especially downtown cemeteries.

In contrast, I visit a cemetery when relatives decease but not after. Of course, most of my relatives are buried on the East coast and I live on the West coast. I think of the deceased from time to time, especially when I see photographs, and then we share a private moment of remembrance. My family graves are marked by simple stones and are noticed only by family members.

New Orleans funerals resemble those of ancient Rome, don't you think?

Thanks, one and all for jumping on your chariots and rescuing me. Just goes to show chivalry doesnt have to wait till we get to the next Volume.

"In the early centuries Rome's dead had been cremated. Now, usually, they were buried, thought some obstinate conservatives preferred combustion. In either case, the remains were placed in a tomb that became an altar of worship upon which pious descendants periodically placed some flowers and a little food.
"Here, as in Greece and the Far East, the stability of morals and society was secured by the worship of ancestors and by the belief that somewhere their spirits survived and watched. If they were very great and good, the dead, in Hellenized Roman mythology, passed to the Elysian Fields, or the Islands of the Blessed. Nearly all, however, descended into the earth to the shadowy realm of Orcus and Pluto.
"Pluto, the Roman form of the Greek god Hades, was armed with a mallet to stun the dead. Orcus (our ogre) was the monster who then devoured the corpse. Because Pluto was the most exalted of the underground deities, and because the earth was the ultimate source of wealth and often the repository of accumulated food and goods, he was worshiped also as the god of riches and plutocrats. His wife Proserpina -- the strayed daughter of Ceres -- became the goddess of the germinating corn. Sometimes the Roman Hell was conceived as a place of punishment. In most cases it was picturd as the abode of half-formless shades that had been men, not distinguished from one another by reward or punishment, but all equally suffering eternal darkness and final anonymity.
There at last, said Lucian, one would find democracy."
Any further comments about beliefs and traditions regarding death?

Robby

I am now leaving for a Virginia Psychological Association conference. I will be back here Friday evening.
Can you keep the topic of "death" alive?

Robby

The nicest "death place" I have ever seen was in Genoa. When we called to port there, my mom took us all to the cemetery and not to the Christopher Columbus museum. The art work on each tombs was unbelievable, as was the care of all those people coming to visit weekly with flowers and cleaning rags.

It is getting crowded now and the "new quarters" have the sepulchures placed one of top of the other, in columns of six or seven in height and five or more in a row. They have those huge ladders on wheels like in airports, so the kins can reach the particular one to put their flowers there. My husband chivalrously helped an old frail widow escalade to approach her departed husband, bright gladioli in hand.

This kind of burial would be inacceptable here because the body should touch earth. But since plots are at a premium, rabbis are now examining the possibility of doing burial in tiers, but with a column filled with earth abutting each tomb.

Have you heard of Ghana's coffins build in a shape recalling the trade of the deceased? A car, a canoe, a beehive...

I visit my husband's grave when I go to the village where he is buried about 60 miles north of Montreal. This summer I took the kids there and my grandson stayed a long time running his fingers on the carved letters of his grandfather's stone. He even asked me if I was to be buried there.

In that cemetery, where plots are at least 6 feet square, large families for generations use the same plot to bury their dead. I read as many as 30 names on a stela there dating back only about 125 years. Families were very big until after war. That village has not increased its population in the last 100 years for different reasons, the young people move to the big city for work and families now have only one or two children each. Quebec has one of the lowest birth rate on the planet.

Until the 1950's, a widow wore black for one year, but my elderly Portuguese neighbor wore black for 3 years after her husband died.

Is it fashion or tradition that dictates the color of mourning clothes?

Eloïse

When her husband passed away my Italian friend wore all black for one year and then black with white, mauve or some pale pastel to lighten it for another year. She also do not go out to celebrations, films or theatre that first year nor even to eat out. The first three months she did not go out of the house and her neighbors or friends did the shopping for her.

She said it was the tradition like that.

I don't know, ELOISE, but I'd opt for tradition. In some civilizations purple was the color of mourning. In others it was white.

What Durant has said reminds me of the Odyssey and Dante's Inferno -- this talk of shades and all. JUSTIN knows far more than I do about both of these works. Perhaps he'll come in and talk about them.

I like old cemeteries in this country dating back to Colonial and Civil War times. There is a cemetery only two or three miles from here that has a gravestone I like. It's easy to tell that it's handmade. There are the name and dates which show the man who is buried there was over 80 years old when he died. "Frisky as a Kitten" is what the inscription says. I wrote one time that I hope someone says that about me.

I've said here before that I don't believe in Heaven, and I don't believe in Hell. I certainly can imagine them, though, from what people say and what I've read. I don't know anyone who went to either place and came back to talk about it, so I felt free to write a book I'm finishing up right now, which is a spoof and kind of satire of people as they are on earth and as they are in heaven. The heaven in this book is a "Heavenly Resort" in Florida, and the whole idea came from this discussion and talk about various cultures and religions back as far as 3000 or 4000 years ago.

A few who have read what I've written thus far think it's very funny, which was my aim. Others are upset that the heaven I portray is not like their Garden of Eden idea and are troubled by the concept of a plush Florida resort.

Each of us has been conditioned about death and conditioned about a hereafter or no hereafter, just as we are conditioned about mourning clothes. To step away from what is usual in that conditioning makes some people uncomfortable. About death I'd rather say, "Okay, old buddy, you've been hanging around since the day I was born; it's your turn now" than be fearful and anxious about what has been only described in holy books and literature.

I rather like ancestor worship, I think. People live forever in memory. I know my mother has for the past 63 years.

Mal

When I was a teen-ager, I told my devout grandmother that I didn't believe in Hell. She said grimly, "You're going to get the surprise of your life, young lady."

Robby, do you mean those Romans were pullulating right out there in the amphitheater? No wonder they produced such leguminous clans.

I really liked Post #29. It makes me like the Romans a lot better. "War...did not play so absorbing a role as in the pages of the Roman historians." I always suspected something of the sort. All the history books are written by men so naturally they write about wars. This history we are reading was written by a man and a woman both. It was probably Mrs. Durant who put in all the interesting parts.

Virgil, a Roman who wrote travel stories, tells us in the Aeneid about a trip he took to hell. His father, Anchises, whom he had carried out of Troy on his back, dies, while Aeneas is visiting the charms of Dido at Carthage. Anchises goes to hell and his son, Aeneas, leaves Dido's bed, (fool that he is)to visit his father in hell.

A Roman sibyl accompanies him. They travel through the various levels of hell till they come to a green dell in which Prince Anchises, is busy with thought about the future of his coming generations and waiting to be dipped in the river Lethe so he can forget all that he was and become what he will be in his next visit to the land of the living. Aeneas finds him and learns of the role he is to play in the future of Rome. Meanwhile, Aeneas' ships ride at anchor in the Tuscan bay. Aeneas returns to his faithful crews to launch the great adventure that will be Rome.

So did you, SHASTA?

You do make me smile, JUSTIN. "A Roman who wrote travel stories." That must be true because I forgot the name! Was he anything like Paul Theroux, who writes travel stories?

Mal

Romans may pullulate in an amphitheatre but the natural result of their efforts is not a leguminous clan. Webster says it refers to peas and other veggies grown in green manure. What do you suppose Durant means by a leguminous clan.

They were so much alike they were peas in a pod?

Mal

It's interesting that the Romans revered old people and their ancesters, yet imagined such an unpleasant fate for most of them after death. Our culture definately doesn't revere old people, or place such emphasis on ancesters, but most of our beliefs have them having a much better time, after death (at least if they go to heaven, which we usually assume our ancesters will). Do you think that means anything?

I'm also interested in a comment I read somewhere that while both Dante and Milton were able to portray hell vividly, their portrayals of heaven were much less successful. It is easier for us to imagine punishment, than to imagine everlasting bliss. Justin, do you agree?

HI: can't post as often as I wish since I am wrestling with another problem and am not as clear headed at times as I should be, but I shall be back raising cain and asking unanswerable questions hehehee. I periodicly revise the past posts and enjoy them very much.

JoanK: The expression of paradise in Milton's work is a failure, I think. The poem titled "Paradise Regained" should have been called "The Temptation of Christ". The current title is too broad for the subject matter. However, if one accepts the title then one must conclude that paradise is victory. In this case, the victory of Christ over Satan who has tempted him. There is no description of a state of being that might be called heaven in Milton's poem. The poem is successful and very beautiful in spots if the reader limits expectations.

It has been some time since I have read Dante's "Paradiso" however, I have read the "Inferno" and "Purgatorio" quite recently. There are ten sphere's in the realm of paradise, and the final realm is the sight of God.

Paradise is a word the Greeks picked up from the Persians. It is used by the Persians to describe the parks and pleasure grounds of the Persian kings. The New Testament equates it with heaven, the Greek abode of the blessed dead.

I consider the "Inferno" to be Dante's greatest work because the imagery is far superior to that of Purgatorio and Paradiso. That's a personal opinion. There are critics who hold opposing opinions.

The imagery in Inferno may be better, as you say, because we know more about pain and punishment than we do about joy expressed by the presence of God. We don't know what that feels like and so we have trouble imagining and describing it characteristics. Pain and punishment we have all felt at one time or another.

Mal: I think you are onto something but leguminous Romans were more like peas in several pods. There was a Sabine pod, an Etrurian pod, and a Latin pod. The mixture was attained by violence. Mendel did something with peas, I think, something about traits in following generations. These stoic Romans are a following generation. Could the analogy of the pea be apt in that sense?

Did the Roman have a heaven? I was under the impression that "Hell" to them was not the same as we imagine today, but just the next step to life, the counterpart, the underworld... Hell was the realm of death. Of course some could converse with them and visit them too, see Orpheus.

JUSTIN, I took Botany so long ago that I don't remember, but it seems to me that you're right about Mendel and peas. I'll see if I can find out something about it.

JUSTIN, when did we first run into the concept of Hell in Our Oriental Heritage? Do you remember? One of those way back civilizations cooked up the idea, not satisfied with no-hell things as they were.

Paradise and ecstasy always seem to revolve around things physical, among them sex. Even before Christianity came along to push the Original Sin ad campaign, human beings appear to have been afflicted with the idea that anything resembling pleasure and fun was bad, bad, bad.

Killing was okay, of course, and brought about a similar high, which lasted about as long as any kind of physical ecstasy does, so let's go out and get high that way again; that's allowed.

Push women down; step on them, and don't give them any kinds of rights because, after all, they're the ones who tempt us guys into total mush and loss of our Samsonite strength in the bargain, aren't they?

I'm not the only one in the world who ever compared war with sex or religion with sex, for that matter. Let's do anything physical, like work out at the spa, except follow the natural instinct we were born with. Let's make sure we are punished to the nth degree for ever enjoying ourselves.

Before we are in that real Hell, let's make sure we feel guilty as hell with some sort of self-righteous masochism for ever harboring the idea that having fun is a whole lot better than feeling miserable.

Nothing much has changed in that respect. We transcend our physicality by attempts to put mind over matter through religion and a lifetime struggle to get into a sexless heaven after we die. We deny ourselves by saying any desire for pleasure represents "animal instincts" that, of course, human beings don't have. Wallow in pain; wear that hair shirt, that's what's good for you. To all of which I say, "It's a bunch of baloney."

Those are my intellectual thoughts for this morning, folks. Sorry to run off, but I have to go shell a mess of peas to see if I can figure out what "leguminous Romans" means.

Mal

"During the middle of Mendel's life, Mendel did groundbreaking work into the theories of heredity. Using simple pea pod plants, Mendel studied seven basic characteristics of the pea pod plants. By tracing these characteristics, Mendel discovered three basic laws which governed the passage of a trait from one member of a species to another member of the same species. The first law states that the sex cells of a plant may contain two different traits, but not both of those traits. The second law stated that characteristics are inherited independently from another (the basis for recessive and dominant gene composition). The third theory states that each inherited characteristic is determined by two hereditary factors (known more recently as genes), one from each parents, which decides whether a gene is dominant or recessive. In other words, if a seed gene is recessive, it will not show up within the plant, however, the dominant trait will. Mendel's work and theories, later became the basis for the study of modern genetics, and are still recognized and used today.

"His work led to the discovery of particulate inheritance, dominant and recessive traits, genotype and phenotype, and the concept of heterozygousity and homozygousity. Unfortunately, Gregor Mendel was not recognized for his work by his scientific peers. He found actual proof of the existence of genes, and is considered to be the father of genetics, though his work was relatively unappreciated until the early 1900's."

Source: Gregor Mendel

led me to a consideration of recent trends in obituary writing.

Obits appearing in newspapers in English speaking countries are currently being treated as news, according to recent "New Yorker" and "Smithsonian" articles. Obits are no longer about death, but about life; they are stories, not paid death notices.

Here are some quotes from the "Smithsonian," Oct. 2003.

On remembering an Australian politician: "for his keenness to enter beer-belly competitions, his habit of stirring his tea with his finger, and his regular nomination as one of Australia's worst dressed men."

On a British female wire-walker: "Her real métier, in early life at least, was what she called profitable romance."

On F. M. Esfandiary, an Australian, who said immortality could be achieve by replacing worn out organs with synthetic substitutes: "He died of cancer of the pancreas - one body part for which no substitute has been created and which he recently denounced as 'a stupid, dumb, wretched organ.'"

On a British sideshow "human blockhead": "Anyone who has ever hammered a nail into his nose owes a large debt to Melvin Burkhart."

On the death of American Doris Wishman: "She was a prolific independent director of truly tasteless movies."

On an Australian entrepreneur: "He is remembered as a scoundrel, a thief, a liar and a coward."

On a British actor: "The most famously dull character in the history of soap operas . . . with the charisma of an ashtray."

On an American woman: "She was able to order sweet and sour in eight languages."

You can tell the difference on the obituary page between the news story and the paid obit because the news story is not outlined in black. I think this is a marvelous trend amd plan on filling the rest of my life with rum and riot in hopes of having an exciting obituary.

No one can say our discussion is not far ranging.

I don't know about the origin of our ideas of hell, but here is a description of the origin of the Devil.

http://www.lehrhaus.org/online/scrolls/scrolls_6.html

On peas, an interesting fiction book that tells a lot about Mendel's life and raises interesting questions about genetics is "Mendel's Dwarf" by (as usual I can't find it in my mess of books, and don't remember the author. One day, I have to get organized). But if you don't remember your High School biology, hang on to Malryn's site to help understand the explanations.

In Greek mythology there is a god called Plutus,a son of Cronus, and brother of Zeus, who rules in the underworld. This place is where most folks go when they die. Good and evil is not a concern. It is a gloomy place but not a place where one is punished with torture as in the Christian hell. You will recall stories of Orpheus and of Persephone. Aeneas' father, Anchises went to the underworld where he resided in a green dell. Pluto, incidently, wore a helmet that made him invisible while he pushed the shades along to their final resting place. The concept appears in Homer so it is at least as old as the 13th century BCE. It seems to me there were references to an underworld in Babylonian times but I can't recall the specifics. Egypt, ofcourse, believed in an after life.

In Greek and Roman mythology there were also places called the Isles of the Blessed. These were places where the favorites of the gods are taken at death and where they dwell in infinite joy. It is similar to the new concept in Islam in which martyrs are treated to the blessings of 70 virgins.

Elaine Pagels has some interesting things to say about the introduction of evil into our ideas about death and an afterlife. She traces the idea of evil back into the Tanach.

JoanK; I just clicked on your site and found it full of Elaine Pagel's work. I have found her a reliable source for Biblical commentary, especially on the Dead Sea Scrolls. It's wonderful what one can find on the internet.

This morning after two and a half months and almost giving up in despair I went out to the mailbox and my copy of Caesar and Christ arrived from B&N used books site! I had not been having a good day and this has really cheered me up. Hooray I can at last have something to say in here!

Carolyn

Food for the Ancestors This site is a companion to a Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) program presenting a "culinary-history exploration of Days of the Dead [Dias de los Muertos]" as celebrated in Puebla, Mexico. The site includes a description of the holidays and their altars (ofrendas), the traditional art depicting skeletons (calaveras), and a few recipes including one for "Salsa de Gusanos de Maguey (Worm Sauce)" with a clip of someone eating it. Not for the squeamish. http://www.pbs.org/foodancestors/

Morning gal: Having spent almost 50 years in Mexico, much of that time with the Yaqui Indans, I can honestly say that I have never seen that one, but have heard of it. It is placed in the status of a stunt mostly. The Yaquis for example, always prepare a feast which they take to the grave. They lay out a large cloth or blanket. arrange the food in an elegant manner, then patiently wait for the spirit of the deceased to partake first. After a suitable time, the others then join the the feast.

Imcidentally, the night before they clean the site off very thoroughly, place flowers etc. on the site, have an all night virgil, then the next day have the ceramonial feast.

In many ways it is more elegant and personally emotional than we do up here. Here, most are put into the ground, a few tears shed, we then pay a professional to keep the weeds away, and in most cases never go back again - sigh.

What kind of funeral do you want to have? tropical tramp's post reminded me of what I want.

I may have said this in here before. I've told all three of my kids that I want them to go to Nubble Light ( a lighthouse in Maine ) and sit on those water-polished granite rocks and eat lobsters and clams and all the things I love while they listen to music I've played and sung with all three of them, that's played by a Dixieland band. I can't think of a finer celebration or memorial for this old dame.

Mal

The cemetery where my family has plots recently made a new rule that all coffins must be enclosed in steel boxes. This really distresses me. I want to become part of the earth. I don't want my bones to be isolated forever in a steel box. It gives me claustrophobia to think about this eternal solitary confinement.

What do I want. I want to have a mixture of Maori and Pakeha mourning. We did this for my husband. I want to come home for a time in my coffin. Family and friends can come and laugh talk and maybe cry. Exchange stories about their eccentric mum, sister, friend. At tangis (Maori wakes) people even scold the deceased! I don't mind if I get scolded! When we brought Rod home it was interesting that no Pakeha neighbours came to visit but all my extended family and all of our Maori neighbours came. It was a good time to really say goodbye to have the deceased at home for a time.

Then I want a Christian service with a private cremation. I want to have the hymn Amazing Grace sung.

I have been to a Maori tangi. I was given a seat of honor by the widow next to the coffin. We all had a good laugh and a cry as members of the whanau (family) and iwi(tribe) or friends stood up and gave eulogies or told funny stories about the deceased. After all the talking was done another neighbour who was a Samoan Pastor had a short service of blessing.

Most Tangis take place on the Marae which is the tribal seat of the deceased and there is much protocol to be observed. Marae protocol is part of our education system for all children. All NZ children during their school years will get to spend a night at a marae in the meeting house and will be taught Marae Protocol.

Many Pakeha New Zealanders now bring their loved ones home until the funeral service or for at least 36 hours. We are learning from our indigenous people that this is a very healing experience.

Carolyn

MAL, what you said is for the "after", what about the immediate "before" ? Burial ?

When I made the arrangements for my husband's burial and interment, the cemetery representative asked whether I wanted to purchase a double lot. When I said I did not, he speculated that I "wanted to be buried in the old country" and he seemed surprised (if that is indeed the word) when I told him I wanted to be cremated here and my ashes put into the ocean - together with the ashes of my dear canine companion, Zola, which I have here.

This stipulation is in my will, but the attorney said that there's no way to "enforce" compliance. Even so, I trust my children. I'd also like a memorial service at a later time.

When my dear old friend from school came to visit a few years ago, I took her to my husband's grave. She was appalled. Let me explain that European cemeteries are generally secluded and park-like. The gates are closed at a certain hour. People drive in amd park. Then they proceed on foot to even the most remote areas. People come daily to water the plants. Nurseries handle those duties on a regular basis for a fee, and I made a contract with one of them when my sister died.

I would like to assume - hope, actually - that the care of a loved one's grave is a form of ancestor worship.

Carolyn, it's nice to see you here at last. I liked your description of a funeral in your part of the world. The names of the indigenous people reminded me of the book by Michener, Hawaii.

We certainly don't have that kind of funeral here. We gather at a Funeral Home and meet people we haven't seen in years and recall the past until the next funeral. An old friend's husband passed away a few months ago. I was sad as I met him when he married my childhood girl friend in the 1950's.

Eloïse

TRAUDE, the only thing before what I mentioned earlier would be cremation. My family can plant the ashes wherever they want, in the garden, in the ocean, wherever, though I think I'd prefer the ocean if they wouldn't cause pollution, ha ha! The ocean is polluted enough as it is.

Mal

Well, two years with The Story of Civilization taught me that the participants in this vital discussion group move right on even if the Discussion Leader is gone for a couple of days. So of course I wasn't surprised that you continued with much gusto. And they weren't just mundane postings either. Your remarks were all filled with profound thoughts and opinions -- as usual indicating that we all "come from different places" in our views. For example, what to Mal is an original Sin "ad campaign" is the solid truth to others. Each to our own and we listen to others with respect.
My head is filled with lots of psychological jargon and I am glad to get back to using "simple" words -- sometimes with greater meaning.
An aside with some human interest. We had two days of workshops going all day long. Last night I finally got up to my hotel room at 10 p.m. I am not a TV watcher but to unwind I got a bottle of Sprite out of the machine in the hallway and settled down on the bed to watch some "garbage", mainly ads, while I sipped most of the Sprite. Then I shut off the TV, turned out the lights and went to sleep. About two hours later I opened my eyes and was wide awake. I expected to go right back to sleep but I didn't. Finally after trying without luck to get back to sleep, I turned the TV on again. It didn't put me to sleep. This really blew my mind as I have no trouble sleeping. After a while, I put on a movie and with no trouble at all watched the entire movie, including all the commercials. This went on and on and finally, the movie over, I turned out the lights after checking the time just out of curiosity. It was 5:30 a.m. -- the time I usually get up!! I then slept for two hours and then got up for an 8 a.m. workshop.
I shared all this with a friend, having no idea why I couldn't get to sleep. I am ordinarily an excellent sleeper. At noon time I repacked my overnight bag, threw away the empty bottle of Sprite -- and lo and behold!! The puzzle was solved. In the dark the night before the bottle I had gotten out of the machine was not Sprite - - - but MOUNTAIN DEW! I had been loading myself up with caffeine! That was the first Mountain Dew I had ever drunk as I was aware of its high caffeine content.
And it will be the last. Last night I had two hour sleep. I expect to go to bed soon and sleep late tomorrow. But not before I move us on to Durant's next section. Hopefully without too many mistakes.

Robby

The Greek Conquest

201-146 B.C.

The GREEN quotes in the Heading change --

"When Philip V of Macedon made an alliance with Hannibal against Rome (214), he hoped that all Greece would unite behind him to slay the growing young giant of the west. But rumors were about that he was planning, if Carthage, won, to conquer all Greece with Carthage's aid.

"As a result, the Aetolian Legue signed a pact to help Rome against Philip, and the clever Senate, before dispatching Scipio to Africa, used Philip's discouragement by persuading him to a separate peace (205). The victory of Zama had hardly been won when the Senate, which never forgave an injury, began to plot revenge upon Macedon. Rome, the Senate felt, could never be secure with so strong a power at her back across a narrow sea. When the Senate moved for war, the Aswembly demurred, and a tribune accused the patricians of seeking to divert attention from domestic ills.

"The opponents of war were easily silenced by charges of cowardice and lack of patriotism. In 200 B.C. T. Quinctius Flaminius sailed against Macedon."

Once again the war lords win.

Robby

Welcome back, ROBBY.

"The opponents of war were easily silenced by charges of cowardice and lack of patriotism..."

This sentence startled me. It has an almost contemporary ring to it, I believe, and shows again that there is indeed nothing new under the sun.

"...charges of cowardice and lack of patriotism," has a familiar ring to it these days. Propoments of war seem unable to understand those who would try other methods for solving problems. Opponents of war understand war mongers well enought, but it isn't returned. What is unfair, thoughtless, and cruel is the personal contempt that supporters of war hold and voice for those with peaceful views. That, at least is the case currently. I would think it was the same way back in 200 B.C.

As I said before in another discussion - facts here reinforce what I am learning- that history repeats itself ad infinitum. When will we ever learn? (in the words of that old folk song by Peter Paul and Mary)

Your recent posts have made me think about my own death and about disposal of the body. Is that something I should be concerned with? Is it rather for the living to decide whether I should be buried or cremated? If cremated, what does one do with the ashes? Do my children wish to visit my ashes at some burial site or in some crematorium or perhaps they may each take a third of the ashes and store them in a jar on the mantel. Perhaps the ashes should be scattered to the winds or dropped in the ocean, but that leaves the children with out a place they can visit to renew our relationship. Should the body be kept about for three days or be immediately covered up and disposed of?

My children are the ones affected. Do they need my corpse around to aid in grieving, to help them get used to the idea that I am gone, that they are alone? I don't want to leave them to the mercy of some undertaker and I don't want them spending money needlessly. Perhaps, I should talk to them about the subject but they don't want to think about it. I may soon force it on them, because I think it's an important and complex issue.

Justin research has shown that viewing the body is in fact closure whether it be by an adult or a child. I personally found it so when my husband died and so did my children who were aged 24-29 at the time.

My nieces and nephews aged 3-10 also saw the body and were not at all traumatised they have attended family funerals at an early age. My adopted children never saw the body of their natural mother as their legal guardians at the time would not allow it. My adopted daughter told me that for years until she was about 13 she was convinced we all lied to her and daily expected her mother to come back for her. At the hospice where my husband died my two daughters helped the nurse to wash and lay out the body. They said they felt glad to help with this last bit of caring for their father. My husband discussed his entire funeral service with our pastor and what he wanted done with his remains with me. He was cremated and his ashes are in a special container under a rose bush in our front garden. If I ever move the ashes can be retrieved and moved to another resting place.

Carolyn

"T. Quinctius Flamininus was a youth of thiry, one of that liberal Hellenizing circle which was gathering about the Scipios in Rome. After some careful maneuvering he met Philip at Cynoscephalae and overwhelmed him (197). Then he surprised all the Mediterranean nations, and perhaps Rome, by restoring the chastened Philip to a bankrupt and weakened throne, and offering freedom to all Greece.
"The imperialists in the Senate protested, but for a moment the liberals predominated. In 196 the herald of Flamininus announced to a vast assemblage at the Isthmian games that Greece was to be free from Rome, from Macedon, from tribute, even from garrisons. So great a cheer rose from the multitude, says Plutarch, that crows flying over the stadium fell dead. When a cynical world questioned the sincerity of the Roman general, he answered by withdrawing his army to Italy.
"It was a bright page in the history of war."
So a 30-year old general defeats a nation, and then restores its freedom. What's going on here? He was part of a "liberal Hellenizing circle." What does that mean?

Robby

Robby; my apologies for going off topic.

Viewing the body: Would my children and family find closure in viewing my body if they KNEW my wishes were to be immediately cremated? I would think they wouldn't be able to forget my frown, my ill humour at being so unceremoniously treated, and my subsequent haunting of them. And me an athiest too.

Occasionally we make a brief side trip in this discussion group for the benefit of those who have participated in Our Oriental Heritage or The Life of Greece. This ARTICLE from this morning's NY Times may be of interest to those who visited Egypt with us.

Robby

The geo-politics of the Mediterranean at the time the Durants are discussing, 201-146 B.C. must have been complex. All of these almost countries vieing for position, space, and status. It must have been an exciting time. Perhaps as exciting as our own times. I think technological developments in ship building, trade relations, and banking and finance paved the way for the Hellenizing of the whole Med.

The defeat of Carthage turned Rome into a player on this scene, and as a player she pushed her weight around. One account of this "Hellenizing" said that although Rome sincerely meant for Greece to be free, the affairs of Greece were so complicated that Rome was forced to take a hand. Sounds right to me.

Since this Hellenization is a complex issue, discussions of it are lengthly. However, should you be so inclined, HERE'S one.

Your link appears intriguing, Tooki. I printed it out and will read it at my leisure.

Robby

Sorry to join the discussion late as usual.

JUSTIN: Please do think about what you want done and talk about it with your family. When my mother died, it was a great help to us that she had told us what she wanted.

I hope Durant comes back to that "liberal Hellanizing circle" -- it sound interesting. We know that Rome borrowed from Greece in religeon and art: perhaps for political and social ideas as well.

Just quickly for Justin. My BIL died recently and left instructions he was to be cremated immediately and no funeral service. This left his family devestated - they needed a service for them. Think on that Justin!

CAROLYN has said it has been shown that viewing the dead body is closure. I say perhaps and perhaps not.

When my mother died very, very suddenly -- I mean alive and well one day and dead the next -- I was 12, my brother was 11, my two sisters were 8 and 5. We weren't allowed to go to the funeral; we were taken to view the body and say goodbye.

When we got there with my uncle and my father we saw our mother lying in a casket dressed in a rust color lace dress my aunt went out and bought her because she thought our poor mother didn't have clothes good enough for her funeral. A hairdresser had come in and crimped and waved her auburn hair in a way that Mama never in her life would have worn it. This is what we saw, and it is this dead body that didn't look anything like her that we remember rather than the singing, laughing woman that was our mother. If they had not taken us to see our mother this terrible way, we still would have known she was dead because she was gone and we knew from the way the adults around us behaved that she would never, ever come back.

I've been to funerals where there was a viewing of the body, and have never seen a body that looked real or like the person it was supposed to represent. And I've been far away from people I loved when they died and were buried without viewing their bodies or going to their funerals. I'll take the latter any old day. In my opinion, we are the ones who make "closure" in our minds, and no paying of respects to any dead body or ceremony will do it for us.

JUSTIN, you are right in one way. Speaking for myself only, I know I'll never know what happens after I die anyway. Talk to your kids.

I'm not exactly sure what the "Hellenizing" of Rome means, but I'll say that from the description of the people up to now, they need a little Hellenizing. They don't appear to be creative in any way except for fighting wars. Everything they do is controlled and decided by gods. They don't seem to question what's tradition and think for themselves. They don't have much of any fun. I think there should be a little Hellenizing in everybody.

Mal

HI: guys: Since unfortunatley I am actually face to face with this situation It hit home. To me, the body has merely been a vehicle used by me or that person, It is no more important than the hair from a haircut etc being that person. What it does is to give me something to visualize or physically relate to. I have developed this feeling through many many paranormal experiments. While it may sound heartless, I now firmly believe that "something " remains after the physical death, what it actualy is I have no idea other than it is an intelligence of some kind. I do not believe there is any future tie between this spirit(") and the physical remains.

As to carrying out a so called last request, I have no idea, except that perhaps I would like to end up at Tayopa in the pines on the rim of the mesa with that fantastic view, since much of my life has been tied up in its' search and finding, even if it is in conflict with my basic beliefs ehhehee.

During ww11 I always held that if the place where I died was worth being there, then why not just stay there ??

As for the politics in the other discussion I agree wholeheartedly, it never changes and I am afraid that the US is now embarked upon the same road of world domination in one way or another, sigh. At times I suppose that I feel somewhat like a peace loving German must have felt at the start of WW11

p.s. The govt' has me officialy classified as Violently Partiotic to my country, but not to the Govt sheehs

In our post-modern world terms and definitions no longer mean what they used to. Words don't seem to stand up and mean something much anymore. Here is a charming site where the issue of the meaning of these words is discussed. The quotes are, I think, useful.

Just What Is Meant By Hellenizing or Hellenization?

I think I will talk about the spread of Greek ideas, ideals, and culture and avoid these apparently charged words!

"One war always invites another."

- - - Will Durant

As an avowed "peacenik" I think I agree with Durant!

I appreciate all your comments upon my death. The first step, and perhaps the only step, is to talk it over with the children. Once I'm gone, it's in their hands.

How 'bout we talk about them alive and kickin' Romans raising Hellenistic on the battlefield?

Mal

Tooki posted a link to material about Paulus and Scipio and their actions against Carthage and Corinth on behalf of the Roman Senate. The simlarity between these actions and the actions of our current government is astonishing. It was merchant influence and trade competition that induced the ruling power to attack and destroy these sovereign entities. In place of "ruling power" you may substitute, President and Congress or Roman Senate and in place of sovereign entities you may substitute Carthage and Corinth or Afghanistan and Iraq. I am convinced and the world seems convinced that our guy is an aggressor for business interests.

"The Aetolian League resented Rome's emancipation of Greek cities formerly subject to the League, and appealed to Antiochus III, the Seleucid king, to reliberate liberated Greece. Inflated with some easy victories in the East, Antiochus thought of extending his power over all western Asia. Pergamum, fearing him, called to Rome for help.
"The Senate went Scipio Africanus and his brother Lucius with the first Roman army to touch Asiatic soil. The hostile forces met at Magnesia (189), and Rome's victory inaugurated her conquest of the Hellenistic East. The Romans marched north, drove back into Galatia (Anatolia) the Gauls who had threatened Permamum, and earned the gratitude of all Ionian Greeks.
"The Greeks of Europe were not so pleased. Roman armies had spared Greek soil, but they now encompassed Greece on east and west. Rome had freed the Greeks, but on condition that both war and class war should end. Freedom without war was a novel and irksomne life for the city-states that made up Hellas. The upper classes yearned to play power politics against neighboring cities, and the poor complained that Rome everywhere buttressed the rich against the poor.
"In 171 Perseus, son and successor of Philip V as King of Macedon, having arranged an alliance with Seleucus IV and Rhodes, called upon Greece to rise with him against Rome. Three years later Lucius Aemilius Paulus, son of the consul who had fallen at Cannae, defeated Perseus at Pydna, razed seventy Macedonia towns, and led Perseus captive to grace a magnificent triumph at Rome. Rhodes was punished by the emancipation of her tributary cities in Asia, and by the establishment of a competitive port at Delos.
"A thousand Greek leaders, including the historian Polybius, were taken hostages to Italy where, in sixteen years of exile, 700 of them died."
Let me see if I have this now. There is a "Hellenistic Greece" (the East?) and there were also the "Greeks of Europe." And "liberated" Greece (which one?) needed to be re-liberated. And so the Romans (who were European?) touched Asiatic soil for the first time, prevented the Gauls (who were European) from conquering the Ionian Greeks (who were of the East.)
The Romans did this "on condition that both war and class war should end" -- or, in other words, a war to end all wars. But the upper classes didn't like this because war was to their advantage and poorer classes didn't like it either for the same reason that the poor are always upset.
HELP!

Robby

I too need help; I am completely mystified. Must go back to my history books.

Is this latest chapter still part of "Stoic Rome" ? Are we going to get into stoicim or was that possibly covered in Volume II ? Are we done with the Punic Wars ? Sometimes I wish Durant would keep to the linear, chronological sequence of history, e.g. enumerate the Roman conquests in all directions so the reader understand WHEN they battled WHERE (in addition to Carthage,I mean), mention where the "limes" = the dividing wall, began, extended, and ended. Protective walls are truly as old as the hills (think The Great Wall of China)..

His text may (possibly intentionally) be dazzling, but in this "hellenistic" instance it is confusing, even ponderous- at least to me. I feel strongly - forgive me - that we should not HAVE to go back to the history books, which the Durants sought to make clearer, simpler !

And AHA : another revealing phrase " ... buttressed the rich against the poor ..."

To say that I am lurking here, trying to make sense of it all.Any other comment is perhaps beyond my capability, intelligent comment that is.

Anneo

Traude:--According to the Index, there will be lots and lots of "Stocism" covered by Durant. Same story with Punic Wars. He will touch upon them again.
What you call the "linear sequence of history" (date after date after date) is the very "dry" thing that turned me off History in my young days. I understand what you are saying but I like Durant's "story" approach. We do not HAVE to go elsewhere but the various links given by you and others here round it all out -- in my opinion.

Robby

Anneo:--Thanks for letting us know that you are still with us. And perhaps at times you may come forth with a question -- just as I did a couple of postings back. Not everyone (like myself) can have an answer but we ALL can have questions!

Robby

As we all watch what is going on in our own time, the following might be of interest:--

"It was on leaving for this campaign that Paulus paid his classic compliments to amateur strategists:--'In all public places, and in private parties, there are men who know where the armies should be put in Macedonia, what strategical positions ought to be occupied. They not only lay down what should be done, but when anything is decided contrary to their judgment they arraign the consul as though he were being impeached. This seriously interferes with the successful prosecution of a war. If anyone feels confident that he can give me good advice, let him go with me to Macedonia. If he thinks this is too much trouble, let him not try to act as a pilot while he is on land.'"

Robby

"The Roman Empire grew, not so much through conscious design as through the compulsions of circumstance and the ever receding frontiers of security."

It seems to me that if a civilization grows it is seldom through conscious design (for the sake of growth) because a need breeds talent for creativity and the circumstance provides that need.

When the atomic bomb was developed, there was a dire need for an immediate and powerful weapon to fight the enemy and since then nuclear energy has been used extensively for peaceful purposes and there is no doubt that growth resulted from it.

What I have problems with is "the ever receding frontiers of security" because one is never completely secure. A country, or even people always have to be on guard to preserve security.

If Romans neglected to protect their defense system, they left the door open to more needy, less coddled invaders, more able to sustain privation and hardship.

Watch out for poor countries who have surpluses of population to send to the battlefield, their leaders don't attach as much importance to the preservation of human life as rich nations because these have fewer young soldiers to send to fight a war.

Now rich nations see nothing wrong in sending women to the battlefield because of a scarcity of young men.

Yes Justin, it's the economy that rules the world.

Eloïse

Paulus's dictum to the arm chair generals of Rome is an ok position for a General to take but it is not ok for a voting citizen in a republic to acquiese. Let the big guys know what you think whether they like it or not.

I hope this is not redundant; it seemed a little chronology was in order. Mal posted one early on.

We know so far, using the Durants' methodology, that the Romans didn't start out to be imperialists, to build an empire, and rule the known world. Through a series of geo-political events in their Mediterranean world they were pretty much forced to go to war with Carthage if they were to survive. It sounds like a dog eat dog world.

The dates in the chapter headings overlap: Hannibal Against Rome, 264-202; Stoic Rome, 508-202, The Greek Conquest, 201-149. This device lets you know you're going forward and back for background as events develop.

In Rome's view, things would be cool except that silly Carthage was so greedy. After a hundred years or so of fighting the Punic Wars, Rome won, and the fate of the Mediterranean countries was sealed. As we learned in the Hannibal chapter, the Punic Wars transformed Rome from a nice Italian country into the "Hulk."

With Carthage destroyed, Rome turned eastward. Philip V of Macedon was defeated, 197. (That's in paragraph 1 of Section I, The Conquest of Greece in Chapter V, The Greek Conquest, where we are now.)

Antiochus III of Syria was conquered at Magnesia, 190. Macedonia became a Roman province when Perseus was defeated, 171-168.

Greece did not become a Roman province, but the Achaean League was disposed of, 146.

And as the Durants conclude, "Greece disappeared from political history for two thousand years."

Now on to how all this changed Rome: Chapter V. Section II, The Transformation of Rome.

Hellenic refers to all that is Greek from the home islands to Greek settlements in Asia and Italy as well as Sicily. The Hellenic period is from about 1100 BCE to about 100 BCE. Six stylistic periods are recognized in Hellenic art. They are proto- geometric, geometric, orientalizing, archaic, classical, and Hellenistic. The Hellenistic period is generally thought to range from 323 BCE to approximately 100 BCE. During the last two centuries before the Empire appeared Greek artists in Rome modified Hellenic art to create a Greco-Roman style.

The final phase of Hellenic art is called Hellenistic. It began with the death of Alexander. Alexander made it possible for Greek artisans to work far beyond the traditional Greek territories leading to a new, modified form of the classical figures we observed in the fifth century. The concept of ideal beauty gave way to realistic portraits of the aged and suffering, as well as the young and athletic. Private emotions were portrayed. Draperies were depicted with a new sensuousness. Realism is the style of the Hellenistic period.

Hellenism is all that is Greek in combination with other foreign influences. It might be called hybrid. It is sometimes called cosmopolitanized Greek. The term is used in art but it is also used to describe architectural forms, literature, and theatre and may be applied generally to describe the Greek influence on foreign lands.

Eloise, your post #97 seems so actual here..

the with receeding sense of security, the receeding frontiers, the surpluses of population sent to the battlefield by leaders who don't attach as much importance to the preservation of human life as we would.

Thank you, Tooki, for that "shorthand chronology." It was very helpful. And intriguing -- how to become an Empire without intending to be one. Does that ring a bell in the geopolitics of our day?
And a thanks to Justin for helping us to see that "Hellenism is all that is Greek in combination with other foreign influences. It might be called hybrid." I imagine that that term will be used many times as we watch the beginnings of Christianity.

Robby

"In bloody battles at Cremona (200) and Mutina (193) the legions again subdued Cisalpine Gaul and pushed the boundaries of Italy to the Alps.
Spain, rewon from Carthage, had to be kept under control lest Carthage should win it again. Besides, it was rich in iron, silver, and gold. The Senate exacted from it a heavy annual tribute in the form of bullion and coin, and the Roman governors reimbursed themselves liberally for spending a year away from home. Quintus Minucius, after a brief proconsulate in Spain, brought to Rome 34,800 pounds of silver and 35,000 silver denarii.
"Spaniards were conscripted into the Roman army. Scipio Aemilianus had 40,000 of them in the force with which he took Spanish Numantia. In 195 B.C. the tribes broke out in wild revolt, which Marcus Cato put down with a hard integrity that recalled the proud virtues of a vanishing Roman breed.
"Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (179) adjusted his rule sympathetically to the character and civilization of the native population, made friends of the tribal chieftains, and distributed land among the poor. But one of his successors, Lucius Lucullus (151) violated the treaties made by Gracchus, attacked without cause any tribe that could yield plunder, and slaughtered or enslaved thousands of Spaniards without bothering to invent a pretext.
Sulpicius Galba (150) lured 7000 natives to his camp by a treaty promising them land. When they arrived he had them surrounded and enslaved or massacred.
In 154 the tribes of Lusitania (Portugal) began a sixteen-year war against Rome. An able leader, Viriathus, appeared among them, heroic in stature, endurance, courage, and nobility. For eight yers he defeated every army sent against him, until at last the Romans purchased his assassination.
"The rebellious Celtiberians of central Spain bore a siege of fifteen months in Numantia, living on their dead. At last (133) Scipio Aemilianus starved them into surrender. In general the policy of the Roman Republic in Spain was so brutal and dishonest that it cost more than it paid.
Said Mommsen:--'Never had war been waged with so much perfidy, cruelty, and avarice.'"
Any comments here?
Robby

Comments about the Celtic-speaking people of CISALPINE GAUL.

Robby

Here is a MAP of Ancient Spain. Click on map to enlarge.

Robby

Congo being a Belgian colony, we learned mainly about Belgian history. All the history books started proudly with a chapter titled "Nos ancetres les Gaulois". We all knew the name of Vercingetorix. We all memorized the famous phrase "Courbe la tete, fier Sicambre (Bend your head, proud Sicambre) but I am ashamed to say I don't remember to whom it was said, maybe Clovis when he was baptised?

One of the best European series of comic books nowadays is about Asterix from Gaul and the adventures against the Roman invadors. They did hold their own against the Romans for a long time.

Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur. Hi omnes lingua, institutis, legibus inter se differunt. Gallos ab Aquitanis Garumna flumen, a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit. Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae, propterea quod a cultu atque humanitate provinciae longissime absunt, minimeque ad eos mercatores saepe commeant atque ea quae ad effeminandos animos pertinent important, proximique sunt Germanis, qui trans Rhenum incolunt, quibuscum continenter bellum gerunt. Qua de causa Helvetii quoque reliquos Gallos virtute praecedunt, quod fere cotidianis proeliis cum Germanis contendunt, cum aut suis finibus eos prohibent aut ipsi in eorum finibus bellum gerunt.

WOW Mal, that brings memories back! Isn't that in the beginning of Caesar's book on the Gaul's wars?

Then here are the lyrics to "I'm Popeye the Sailor Man." if we are going to speak latin!

Popoculus nautus sum
Popoculus nautus sum
Pugnabo ad finem
Quod edero spinem
Popoculus nautus sum

I'm popeye the sailor man
I'm popeye the sailor man
I'm strong to the finish
'Cuz I eat my spinach
I'm popeye the sailor man

I can just visualize a visitor to this forum, pausing to read (or trying to read) in wonder -- and quickly exiting to some discussion group where they are talking about what they had for breakfast.

Robby

This ARTICLE gives one answer to the questions in the Heading -- Where are we now? Where are we headed?

Robby

But somehow the gallic wars seem more noble, in latin. Maybe it is because when caesar talks of gaul and her three divisions, he shows some respect for those he will conquer.Actually everything seems more noble in latin.

Anneo

It's true! You gotta love a people who seriously call their chief god, Jupiter Optimus Maximus.

Hi Robby

Just to let you know I am still here and learning why my grandfather said "If you want to survive, when in Rome do as the Romans do! In relation to contempary times - Know the culture and history of the countries you are dealing and respect their way of life.

Moxi:--Is what you are learning about Ancient Rome giving you some insights as to what is happening in our time?

Robby

"The indemnities paid by Carthage, Macedon, and Syria -- the slaves that poured into Rome from every field of glory -- the precious metals captured in the conquest of Cisalpine Gaul and Spain -- the 400,000,000 sesterces ($60,000,000) taken from Antiochus and Perseus -- the 4503 pounds of gold and 220,000 pounds of silver seized by Manlius Vulso in his Asiatic campaigns -- these and other windfalls turned the propertied classes in Rome in half a century (202-146 B.C) from men of means into persons of such opulence as hitherto only monarchs had known.
"Soldiers returned from these gigantic raids with their pouches full of coins and spoils. As currency multiplied in Italy faster than building, the owners of realty in the capital tripled their fortunes without stirring a muscle or a nerve.
"Industry lagged while commerce flourished. Rome did not have to produce goods. It took the world's money and paid with that for the world's goods.
"Public works were expanded beyond precedent and enriched the 'publicans' who lived on state contracts. Any Roman who had a little money bought shares in their corporations.
"Bankers proliferated and prospered. They paid interest on deposits -- cashed checks (praescriptiones) -- met bills for their clients -- lent and borrowed money -- made or managed investments -- and fattened on such relentless usury that cutthroat (sector) and moneylender became one word.
"Rome was becoming not the industrial or commercial, but the financial and political, center of the white man's world."
A "dot com" world?
Am I getting the message correctly if you want to be "somebody"? War pays off. Steal from others and pay expenses with their own money. Buy real estate. Buy stock. Charge high interest. Sign contracts with the federal government.
And if you are a soldier, be sure to come home with lots of loot (art, gold). In other words, gold in any form except the Golden Rule.

Robby

"These windfalls turned the propertied classes in Rome from men of means into persons of such opulence as hitherto only monarchs had known."

I've been wondering how the loot brought back from the wars was distributed. Did it belong to the government? There must have been some system for dividing it up among these men of means.

Regarding loot -- on a small scale, THIS is what has been going on for centuries, if not millennia.

Robby

Unfortunately it is the same in every war.

After the Six day war, I happened to visit some people and they proudly displayed the living room furniture the husband had "bought back" from Egypt, all sculpted wood and damask shiny uphostery. Sofa, armchairs, big oval table and side tables: how on earth did they managed to put that on their trucks with all the other soldiers too? If one took this, surely the others were not empty handed...

Here too it was decreeted that all spoils of war had to be returned or the persons could be prosecuted but they meant mainly armaments and munition. The most prized articles were those special helmets for tankists that allow one to see in the dark in infra red. Plenty of those were abandonned on the Golan Heights by the Sytians and in Sinai by the Egyptians.

The phrase below was in an advice column written for 20 somethings in the paper this morning:

horndogius totalius

("Tell Me About It," by Carolyn Hax of the Washington Post.)

Any takers?

Bubble: One of the favorite, but rare, "war souvenirs" from the South Pacific, WW II, was a Sumurai sword. I usually avoided ex-GIs who packed those around.

To the Victor Belong the Spoils

- - Senator William Marcy of New York referring to the power wielded by President Andrew Jackson

Those are fine distinctions between Hellenic, Hellenistic, and Hellenism. For the purposes of this discussion, as Robby says, apparently Hellenism is primarily what we will be meaning. I will be careful what I say.

I wonder that the folks back then, in countries circling the Mediterranean, might have had misgivings about this "Hellenism."

It sounds much like the "Americanization" going on around the world today. Or would we call it, "Americanism." Folks seem to have a love/hate relationship with Americanizing. They want American stuff, but not American ideas.

Never mind breakfast ! I do so enjoy the discussion !!

Thank you, TOOKI, for the chronology - most helpful. Thank you also to ROBBY and JUSTIN. I must reread the new posts more carefully. Right now I am in a rush : The family is expected and I have been preparing various things for their lunch. As soon as I have a minute, I'll go downstairs and check my Latin books and MAL's quote.

Back in the evening.

Robby:"Steal from others and pay expenses with their own money. Buy real estate. Buy stock. Charge high interest. Sign contracts with the federal government."

Robby, there is a slogan (Traude will understand-language):"Ehrlichkeit währt am längsten, aber wer nicht stiehlt ,der kommt zu nichts." Translated about: Honesty perseveres, but who doesn't steal never amounts to anything. :>)

Can't find "horndogius" in the dictionary, TOOKI. Maybe they mean "corndogius", hmm?

Mal

The pattern was set early, BERT. Long before the Romans came along. I beat you up, you don't have any rights, so everything you have is mine. That's not dishonesty. It's just plain common sense, right? I mean, how else is a fella supposed to get along?

Mal

"Equipped with such means, the Roman patriciate and upper middle class passed with impressive speed from stoic simplicity to reckless luxury. The lifetime of Cato (234-149) saw the transformation almost completed. Houses became larger as families became smaller. Furniture grew lavish in a race for conspicuous expense. Great sums were paid for Babylonian rugs, for couches inlaid with ivory, silver, or gold. Precious stones and metals shone on tables and chairs, on the bodies of women, on the harness of horses.
"As physical exertion diminished and wealth expanded, the old simple diet gave way to long and heavy meals of meat, game, delicacies, and condiments. Exotic foods were indispensable to social position or pretense. One magnate paid a thousand sesterces for the oysters served at a meal. Another imported anchovies at 1600 sesterces a cask. Another paid 1200 for a jar of caviar. Good chefs fetched enormous prices on the slave auction block.
"Drinking increased. Goblets had to be large and preferably of gold. Wine was less diluted, sometimes not at all. Sumptuary laws were passed by the Senate limiting expenditure on banquets and clothing, but as the senators ignored these regulations, no one bothered to observe them. Cato mourned, 'The citizens no longer listen to good advice, for the belly hs no ears.'
"The individual became rebelliously conscious of himself as against the state, the son as against the father, the woman as against the man."
I have not yet looked at the next page but I expect to read about the Romans passing a Prohibition Law, followed later by the creation of a movement named Romans Anonymous, and then a warning by the Roman Surgeon General regarding obesity. There will of course be a complaint that 2% of the Romans have 98% of the wealth.

Robby

Hi Robby

In answer to your post #114(I think is it) What happened in ancient times is similar to what is happening now. The means by which it is happening has changed. People are resistant to change especially when it happens so swiftly. The world has become so diverse in one way or other that their are those who have difficulty addressing the diversity. That is why we should learn as much as we can about the complex social and religion protocol of each nation that we exchange views and ideas with. In short, we must UNDERSTAND as best we can another's point of view regarding politics, religion and economics.

Robby (Durant) :"..Houses became larger as families became smaller..."

Nothing has changed here, or should we say history reapeats itself. Here in Calgary, you people may have noticed when you were here for the bash, or even in the small city where I live, new houses going up are big and bigger, no more small one bathroom bungalows, seem to be more bathrooms than family members in each household.

Can this go on and on, I wonder.......

Moxi, you say:--"We should learn as much as we can about the complex social and religion protocol of each nation. We must UNDERSTAND as best we can another's point of view regarding politics, religion and economics."
Those of us in this discussion group are, in effect, doing this. How would you suggest that the general population -- considering the varying interests and intellectual levels -- go about doing that?

Robby

Oh, ROBBY, you did make me laugh with "Romans Anonymous"!

In the Triangle area of North Carolina where I live it isn't hard to learn about different cultures. People rub elbows with other people of every nationality, ethnicity, culture and background you could name. If you don't try to understand them and accept the differences (and likenesses), you could lose your job.

I imagine it's different in farming country where tobacco used to be grown. Rural communities haven't seen the changes which have come here. With the advent of the Research Triangle Park between Raleigh and Durham came an influx of people from all over the world with highways built so they could get there and homes to house them, plus condominiums, apartments and townhouse developments for retirees moving down from the north. Add to that two major universities and several smaller ones, which attract people worldwide, and there's a big cultural mix.

It certainly is different from when I lived in Durham for a year at the end of the 50's. Chapel Hill was a sleepy little college town. Durham had Duke University and the tobacco industry. The air was permeated with roasting tobacco, not an unpleasant aroma. The place was populated with native Tarheels, not the majority of "furriners" I see now. Raleigh was filled with politicians just as it is now, and more.

I grow depressed when I see the similarities between Rome and the United States. Like BERT, I wonder whether it can go on and on. My mind says a very strong no.

Trailers have taken the place of one bathroom homes, and the newest of those are equipped with "spa" tubs and every appliance convenience. When I see ordinary people not satisfied unless they have polished granite counter tops in their kitchens and gold-plated fixtures in their bathrooms, I get very, very discouraged.

The one-upmanship I saw in the rich county in New York where I lived in the 70's has progressed to an indulgent credit card madness.

Mal

Robby

"How would you suggest that the general population -- considering the varying interests and intellectual levels -- go about doing that?"

Isn't that the $1trillion question facing each generation from beginning of time.

I wish I knew the answer but I don't, I don't even have any ideas other than participating and lurking in here and learning but then I like history and there are many people who have no interest in it what so ever.

I don't think of this as "history" but as reading about the antics of various people who happened to live a couple of thousand years ago. If they wore the same clothes we do, I'd bet we wouldn't even see the difference.

Robby

"Prostitution flourished. Homosexualism was stimulated by contact with Greece and Asia. Many rich men paid a talent ($3600) for a male favorite. Cato complained that a pretty boy cost more than a farm.
"But women did not yield the field to these Greek and Syrian invaders. They took eagerly to all those supports of beauty that wealth now put within their reach. Cosmetics became a necessity, and caustic soap imported from Gaul tinged graying hair into auburn locks.
"The rich bourgeois took pride in adorning his wife and daughter with costly clothing or jewelry and made them the town criers of his prosperity. Even in government the role of women grew. Cato cried out that 'all other men rule over women but we Romans, who rule all men, are ruled by our women.'
"In 195 B.C. the free women of Rome swept into the Forum and demanded the repeal of the Oppian Law of 215, which had forbidden women to use gold ornaments, varicolored dresses, or chariots.
"Cato predicted the ruin of Rome if the law should be repealed."
Robby

Has the favoring of boys over girls changed from the attitude of the past? Click HERE to find the answer.

Robby

Sometimes I think, in reading Durant, that I am reading today's paper and other times I think I am reading the paper's of the 1840-70's in the US. The actions of the generals of the Republic are little different from those of our frontier army. Graccus made treaties with the natives. Lucullus cared little for treaties. He wanted only booty. Galba was worse. He lured the natives to his camp with promises of land, surrounded them and slaughtered them before taking what could be carried away. Did this happen in Spain or on the frontier in the US?

Gender selection by prospective parents could lead to an excess of Y chromasones in the population and an end to human life. We could all die out just as the Shakers died out. The X chromasones would, during the die out, have excess husbands to support them, much like a queen bee. Gender selection capability is scarey.

What an interesting article on #135. I even think the statistics for divorce would be higher here than elsewhere if a male heir was not "produced" soon enough. Males of course carry the family name from generations to generations: you would not want that name to die out. Males only are required for the quorum to prayers. Of course the sons are the ones required or entitled to say the Kaddish on the parents, not the lesser daughters.

Justin, queen bee could have some attraction, more than just concubine.

"Livy puts into Cato's mouth a speech that every generation has heard:--
"If we had, each of us, upheld the rights and authority of the husband in our own households, we should not today have this trouble with our women. As things are now, our liberty of action, which has been annulled by female despotism at home, is crushed and trampled on here in the Forum.
"Call to mind all the regulations respecting women by which our ancestors curbed their license and made them obedient to their husbands. Yet with all those restrictions you can scarcely hold them in. If now you permit them to remove these restraints and to put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to bear them?
"From the moment that they become your equals they will be your masters."

Robby

"The women laughed Cato down, and stood their ground until the law was repealed. Cato revenged himself as censor by multiplying by ten the taxes on the articles that Oppius had forbidden. But the tide was in flow, and could not be turned.
"Other laws disadvantageous to women were repealed or modified or ignored. Women won the free administration of their dowries, divorced their husbands or occasionally poisoned them, and doubted the wisdom of bearing children in an age of urban congestion and imperialistic wars."

Robby

and have, with irritating regularity, been demanding it ever since. "Is it happening yet; are we there yet?"

Some of the other things happening in 195 or thereabouts were:

Inscription engraved on Rosetta Stone, c. 200.

Judas Maccabaeus rededicates the Temple of Jerusalem after expelling the Syrians, 165.

The "Book of Daniel," 165.

Also, in 195, Hannibal is fleeing to Antiochus III of Syria, and Sparta and Athens are fighting again, 192.

Around the same time, 168, after the battle of Rydna Macedonians are sold as slaves in Rome. The prices vary between 50 and 75 dollars.

PRICES FOR FEMALE SLAVES GO UP TO 1,000 DOLLARS!

(All of this is from "The Timetables of History," which, since it's based on Werner Stein's "Kulturefahrplan," is probably reliable.)

The more I read history the more I realise that nothing changes. We may have periods of enlightenment and them inevitably we go back to the pursuit of power and wealth.

The Romans pursued precious metals. Oil has become the precious metal of our age.

Moxie I agree with your sentiments about learning about other cultures. Before the current War in Iraq I and other posters in the Political forum warned of the complex makeup of Iraqi society. We warned about fragmentation. If lil old grandmas and grandpas knew about what was coming in post war Iraq how come a bunch of Presidential advisors did not. I am beginning to think they must have known but did not care as they were hot foot in pursuit of black gold.

I don't see any difference in the armies of our time and the armies of the ancient world. The rank and file are still of the poorer classes. The US Army goes into high schools in poor areas to do recruiting on a regular basis. Kids join up in the hope of a college education which is one of the enticements of the recruiting drives. I don't think they really realise that they will also run the risk of losing their lives.They are only kids.

The same recruitment base is common in many other countries. I find history depressing reading a lot of the time!

Carolyn

Carolyn: I think you are right on the money. They know and they knew the character of the Iraqi population. The attraction was and is "black gold". Now it looks like it's too expensive, not in lives but in a Federal deficit and in votes. Shrub needs outside help to carry the burden but he is not willing to share the spoils. Greed is the root cause of this Iraqi problem just as it was the cause of Rome's attacks on Spain and Greece.

I agree that history can be depressing, but I thought Cato's remarks about women were hilarious. Sounds like the voice of experience speaking there, doesn't it. Makes you wonder what kind of problems he was having with his own wife. "Treat them like equals and they soon become your masters." I think the whole root of the male/female conflict lies in that one little sentence. Men are basically afraid of women controlling them and so they have suppressed women ever since Adam blamed Eve for stealing the apple.

Robby asked how people could come to understand one another's culture, and I think the Internet may offer some hope. People from every corner of the earth are talking to each other, listening to each other, people who would never have met personally. Carolyn tells us about the aborigines of New Zealand. Mahlia tells us about the beliefs of Islam. I have discussed Bergson's philosophy with a Dutchman. There is a Cherokee woman right now describing a Cherokee clan-gathering in the Philosophy segment. The Internet is drawing people together as nothing ever has before.

"How were the old gods faring in this age of reckless change?
Apparently a rivulet of unbelief had trickled down from the aristocracy to the crowd. It is hard to undertand how a people still faithful to the ancient pantheon could have accepted with such boisterous approval those comedies in which Plautus -- with whatever excuse of following Greek models -- made fun of Jupiter's labors with Alemena, and turned Mercury into a buffoon.
"Even Cato, so anxious to preserve old forms, marveled at the ability of two augurs to keep from laughing when they met face to face. Too long these takers of auspices had been suborned to political trickery. Prodigies and portents had been concocted to mold public opinion. The vote of the people had been annulled by pious humbuggery, and religion had consented to turn exploitation into a sacrament.
"Polybius, after living seventeen years among the highest circles in Rome, wrote about 150 B.C. as if the Roman religion was merely a tool of government."
Religion and government working together as a team?

Robby

Politicians using religion to manipulate the masses I think Robby in those days. Feeding on fear and superstitions to keep control or to justify their actions. The Head Priests were also using their power and creating fear to control the politicians.

Carolyn

What's new here. The politicians have used religion to control the masses in every society we have looked at. The practice is still useful. Consider the "moral majority" and Shrub's frequent references to some deity. It works like a charm. Every time.

Durant's rendition is quite funny. Though much has changed for women for the better, it is doubtful that they will ever attain full equality with men. Moreover, not all western men are genuinely pleased with women's progress. On the other side of the coin, there are some types of women who do not aspire to equality but are quite content with just "catering to" a man, even feigning obedience.

The Catholic Church for one, which calls itself una sancta , has effectively controlled not only the faith but the minds of its adherents with the Index Librorum Prohibitorum , which lists the books Catholics are not allowed to read. I have no idea whether the index is still extant, or whether Catholics follow the rules in this or other dogmatic matters. Given the fact that the birthrate in Italy (!) is falling, one wonders.

But religious indoctrination is not peculiar to Catholics alone.

Last night I almost fell asleep at the computer after my son and grandchildren left. I did find vol. 2 of Bellum Gallicum, V-VII =

IULI CAESARIS COMMENTARII DE BELLO GALLICO LIBRI V-VII,

and was too tired to post.

Just to let you know I am still in Baltimore and trying to catch up with your posts. I just got to Mal's "Gaul is divided into three parts" after the interesting exchange on death and its customs. Will continue to read and will rejoin in a week.

Don't let "death" slow you down, George. We are looking forward to your posts.

You are very "subtle," Justin, with your codeword Shrub.

Robby

NPR is conducting a series on "power." A comment made in today's segment was that "In the Greek model power resides in the individual and in the Roman model power resides in the institution."
Any reactions?

Robby

"Polybius wrote the following:--
"The quality in which the Roman commonwealth is most distinctly superior is, in my judgment, the nature of its religion. The very thing that among other nations is an object of reproach -- i.e. superstition -- is that which maintains the cohesion of the Roman state. These matters are clothed in such pomp, and introduced to such an extent into public and private life, as no other religion can parallel.
"I believe that the government has adopted this course for the sake of the common people. This might not have been necessary had it been possible to form a state composed of wise men. But as every multitude is fickle, full of lawless desires, unreasoned passion, and violent anger, it must be held in by invisible terrors and religious pageantry."
Invisible terrors?

Robby

Who can see the wrath of gods?

Talk about damming with faint praise. Polybius (200-118) was one of the thousand prominant Romans deported to Rome and detained without trial. Becoming intimate with the Scriptos, he witnessed the destruction of Carthage and ushered in the Roman government after the sack of Corinth. He believed it was Rome's "destiny" to rule the world.

Isn't he what we used to call a "turncoat?" Note that he begins the passage proclaiming the superiority of the Romans and then goes on to cite all the lying, deceitful, spiteful things the Roman government did to the "common people." Gimmi a break, "superstition mainains the cohension of the Roman state!"

I appreciate the Durants' irony in quoting Polybius' view of the superiority of the Roman commonwealth. And what is Scrub code for? I'll probably be sorry I asked, won't I?

Shrubs are flora that are not too tall and come in a variety of shapes, sizes and colors. They are used to beautify household landscapes and are wonderful to behold. Any comparison with a human being cannot do justice to the natural beauty of God's creation!

George, I am chuckling here...

chuckle, chuckle, shrubs can be thorny too :>)

ASINARIA: A lover wants to buy the exclusive rights for one year on a whore. Her mother (and procuress) asks 2000 drachms. The two slaves of the lover manage to diddle the money from a merchant, who brings it as a pay for some donkeys he has bought from the lover's parents. So the money should have gone to the mother, a rich woman who deals firmly with the family income. The father of the lover agrees with the steal of money, but he demands from his son the rights of the first night. The lover sees he cannot refuse this, and agrees. But a rival, who also wanted to buy the exclusive rights on the girl, is furious because of his missed opportunity. One of this man's parasites tells the lover's mother about her husband's disloyalty. Full of anger she pulls her husband away from the girl. What follows is not very clear, but the result is probably that the lover and his girl can live happily together for a year.

AULULARIA: The play about the pot with money ('aula'= pot), famous from its successors by PC Hooft and Molière. The last act has almost completely disappeared. The poor Euclio has found in his house a pot full of money. He lives in constant fear because he thinks his secret will become known and his money will be stolen. And indeed, the pot is stolen. Meanwhile and older gentleman has asked to marry Euclio's daughter. But his daughter is already pregnant from a young man who has raped her while being drunk. This young man confesses, the pot full of money is also recovered and is used as dowry for the marriage. The plot is petty, but there are many funny scenes, like the long spun out misunderstanding about the daughter's loss of virginity and Euclio's loss of his money.

Source:

Plautus

Whoever said, power resides with the individual in Greece and with institutions in Rome, understands Durant's message and has put his or her finger on a central issue. Greece represents a form of primitive democracy in which all citizens vote on an issue. Rome allows priests reading augury to usurp the power of the citizen. Rome could be construed as a theocracy in this sense. The introduction of institutional power in Rome is the beginning of a trend that gets stronger as the world grows older. When institutional Christianity is intruduced the institution that is Rome contests with the institution that is Christian and in the end Rome gives way and the Christian institution takes over.

"Incidents tended to show that superstition was still king. When the disaster of Cannae seemed to leave Rome defenseless against Hannibal, the excitable populace fell into a panic, and cried, 'To what god must we pray to save Rome?' The Senate sought to still the commotion by human sacrifice -- then by prayers to Greek gods -- then by applying the Greek ritual to all the gods, Roman and Greek alike.
"Finally the Senate decided that if it could not prevent superstition it would organize and control it. In 205 it announced that the Sibylline Books foretold that Hannibal would leave Italy if the Magna Mater -- a form of the goddess Cybele -- should be brought from Phrygian Pessinus to Rome. Attalus, King of Pergamum, consented. The black stone which was believed to be the incarnation of the Great Mother was shipped to Ostia, where it was received with impressive ceremony by Scipio Africanus and a band of virtuous matrons.
"When the vessel that bore it was grounded in the Tiber's mud, the Vestal Virgin Claudia freed it, and drew it upstream to Rome, by the magic power of her chastity. Then the matrons, each holding the stone tenderly in her turn, carried it in solemn procession to the Temple of Victory, and the pious people burned incense at their doors as the Great Mother passed.
"The Senate was shocked to find that the new divinity had to be served by self-emasculated priests. Such men were found, but no Roman was allowed to be among them. From that time onward Rome celebrated, every April, the Megalesia, or Feast of the Great Goddess, first with wild sorrow and then with wild rejoicing.
"For Cybele was a vegetation deity, and legend told how her son Attis, symbol of autumn and spring, had died and gone to Hades, and then had risen from the dead."
As I read this while writing, I remind myself that it so easy to mock the so-called superstition of another culture or another person. What if it turns out in some "future world" that there is indeed such a deity and here we are laughing at it. Whence comes this wisdom that each of us pretends to have?
Robby

Here is a posting from Joan Pearson in another discussion group.

Robbie, have not forgotten your request to share thoughts and photos with SOC...need to sort things out first. You ARE still into the Roman Empire, are you not? I'm not sure how much I can add, having been only a short time in Venice, Florence and Roma...and Roma was a madhouse with all the doings at the Vatican. But I will try!

And here was my answer:--

Joan:--Welcome back and thanks for thinking of us! The Roman Empire is a biggie. Out of the 672 pages in Caesar and Christ, we are now up to Page 95. Putting it another way, we are discussing the period from 201 to 146 B.C.

The things that you will be sharing with us will undoubtedly be out of sync with the time period we are discussing, but not to worry. We will all be most pleased to feel the touch of Italy from someone who has just returned -- not just Rome but everywhere you have been.

And feel free to make your posting in Latin.

Robby

Joan; If you are at a loss for Latin words, you may say Veni, Vidi, Vici, for I am sure you did all three on your Italian visit. Nice to have you back. Roma, Venezia, and Firenzi is a nice combination for fall travel. We are looking forward to seeing your pics.

So, it was during the frightening time following the defeat at Cannae that the Great Goddess Cybele came to Rome. I wondered when that happened. It is worth notice I think that the Senate formally decided to take advantage of the overwhelming reliance of the people upon superstition by announcing the prophet's recomendation to seek the Stone of Cybele.

This question of wisdom pretension is nonsense. We are looking backward from our armchairs and can see very clearly the fallacious efficacy of Cybele worship. Hannibal left the Peninsula in 205. The Romans assigned cause and effect and a Roman holiday was established.

Cybele's power was soon usurped by Dionysus who came to visit the Romans following its battles with Macedon. Dionysus stayed and was later transformed into the Christian myth.

It was Molly Ivins who coined the word in her book Shrub : The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush, 2000 .

Her latest book is Bushwhacked : Life in George W. Bush's America, September 2003.

We all have our political views and interests but let us comment upon them in the many political forums in Senior Net.

Durant continues:--

"In 205 Hannibal left Italy, and the Senate complimented itself on its handling of the religious crisis. But the wars with Macedon opened the gates to Greece and the East. In the wake of soldiers returning with Eastern spoils, ideas, and myths came a flood of Greek and Asiatic captives, slaves, refugees, traders, travelers, athletes, artists, actors, musicians, teachers, and lecturers.

"Men in their migrations carry along their gods. The lower classes of Rome were pleased to learn of Dionysus-Bacchus, of Orpheus and Eurydice of mystic rites that gave a divine inspiration and intoxication -- of initiations that revealed the resurrected deity and promised the worshiper eternal life.

"In 186 the Senate was disturbed to learn that a considerable minority of the people had adopted the Dionysian cult, and that the new god was being celebrated by noctural bacchanalia whose secrecy lent color to rumors of unrestrained drinking and sexual revelry. 'More uncleanliness was wrought with men than with women,' says Livy, and he adds, probably turning gossip into history, that 'whoever would not submit to defilement was sacrificed as a victim.' The Senate suppressed the cult, arrested 7000 of the devotees, and sentenced hundreds to death.

"It was a temporary victory in the long war that Rome was to wage against Oriental faiths."

Immigration was affecting the usual religious beliefs of Rome. Any comments here upon the effect on a nation by the various faiths of immigrants?

And cults -- what is the difference between a cult and a religion?

Robby

serving as categories in personality tests that analyze temperament and furnish thumbnail character analyses.

Psychologist David Keirsey's work on temperament types and the Myers-Briggs personality type indicators feature the old guys as categories.

Apollonian is introverted dreaming, restrained, and classical in spirit.

Dionysician is extroverted frenzy, expressive, and romantic in spirit.

Nietzsche also had a fling with these opposing characteristics in his work.

So, "take your powerful Dionysian energy and channel it through your Apollian intellect and produce art!" (Some flake on the net said that; I like it.)

My computer dictionary says a cult is "A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader." The Universalist-Unitarian church in which I grew up was considered a cult in my hometown because it is a liberal, creedless religion which did not believe in Hell and was not accepted into the Protestant Council of Churches. I say "creedless". It does proclaim one thing: the Brotherhood of Man, a concept which in some circles, religious and otherwise, is not acceptable.

Working in many different churches of different Protestant denominations as I have, and having listened to hundreds of sermons preached from many, many different pulpits, I have come to think that anything that isn't what you are is thought of as a cult. The preacher at the extremist Southern Baptist church in Florida where I worked preached sermons about cults. Among them were the Jewish and Catholic religions, practically all other Protestant religions, and I'm pleased to say, the only religion I ever was a member of.

Why is it that when I do searches for Cybele and Dionysius I am led to sites about vampires, alchemy and the such? One site proclaims that both Cybele and Dionysius drank blood. Is that because human and animal sacrifices were made to these gods?

ROBBY, from whence I come I think human beings have worked thousands of years to get over and work out of the myths and superstitions that have so permeated history, so they could take baby steps on the paths of a kind of reason which can see through what is magic created by ignorance and fear and what is not.

Below are two pictures of Cybele. Tell you what, I wouldn't like to meet her on a dark, rainy night on this un-streetlighted country road where I live.

Cybele

Cybele

"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."

Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855),
Danish philosopher

and neither are encouraged by cults I think or most religions...

The second picture of Cybele is interesting: full of symbolism. I notice she has both birds and lions perched on her arm. Those of us who try to attract birds had better watch out.

I've been interested in all the lions that show up in Roman art. There must have been lions in Italy then. Are they still there, does anyone know?

Have just unpacked and am looking over photos of recent trip to Italy which Robbie asked me to share with this group. This was a whirlwind trip from Venice, through Florence and then Roma ...in two short weeks. I have just begun to sort through the photos taken in Venice. I must tell you that I have not much to share of this period from Venice...as Venice did not exist during the early days of the empire - just flooded marshland.

Following the collapse of the Roman Empire, barbarians, Goths from the north overwhelmed the plains and peasants and fisherman retreated to the lagoons in the 5th century and built dwellings on boatloads of sand and over a million wooden piles... In 810, the new city was founded on Rialto Island (now known as San Marco)...the first major construction was San Marco in 828. Legend has it that an angel once appeared to St. Mark, who was living and preaching in Alexandria at the time (he was a martyr, having been dragged through the streets of Alexandria for his preaching)...and told him that he would be laid to rest in Venice. That seems to be the story used to justify the fact that Venetian merchants went to Alexandria, stole the remains of St. Mark and brought them to the Doge in Venice, who in turn, built the beautiful basilica. The art of the time represents that St. Mark's remains were brought to Venice under layers of pork!) Now there was a legitimate centerpiece for the new city, complete with the relics of the Evangelist. The Venetians appreciated the fact that St. Mark had little affiliation with Rome...(he was a Jew who preached the new Christianity in Egypt) ...The Venetians took pride in their independence as a city state...with strong connections to the East and Constantinople. The basilica reflects the Byzantine influence. Here's a photo...taken on a not-very sunny day. Did you ever see so many pigeons?

Where this fits into your discussion today...JoanK's question about lions and why they show up in Roman art...Have you ever noticed that St. Mark is always shown with a lion at his feet...a winged-lion? They are all over Venice! Here's a landmark outside of San Marco...

I found this about the lion...

"In ancient times, it was believed that lions were born dead and that then came alive after three days when life was breathed into them by their sires. The lion became a symbol of St. Mark because the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a dominant theme in his gospel. St. Mark also preached the royal descent of Jesus from the Hebrew kings, whose emblem was the Lion of Judah. This symbol, with wings to denote the evangelist's divine mission, has represented St. Mark in painting and sculpture since the earliest days of Christianity."

Hopefully, as we move further south towards Rome, I will have more to contribute to your discussion.

Apparently the Romans destroyed the lions as they did everything else. This site has some basic facts about lions and the Romans.

You will recall that Cybele was brought from Ionia by the Roman Senate to quell the fears of the Roman populace after the defeat of the Roman army at Cannae. The boat carrying her mired in the channel on the route up from Ostia. The Great Mother was pulled free by virgins and brought to Rome where she was tended by self-emasculated Ionian priests. Her presence was fruitful. The Senate found in the book of foretellings an indication that Hannibal would leave after Cannae and so he did. Hannibal was over extended and faced with mutinies.

In commemoration, Cybele and her cult celebrate every year about March 15 the beginning of spring with the blood sacrifice. A victim lies under a bull who is castrated and the blood washes over the victim. The blood is drunk by one and all. There is a ritual meal. The cult believed it achieved immortality in this way. The soul was then thought to return after death to its celestial source.

We see Cybele's immage in Mal's links. She is enthroned in one image. It may well be the model for later Medieval images of The Christian Virgin enthroned. Cybele's lions symbolize her role in wild nature. She is a goddess of fertility. The symbols she carries includes a patera which was used to hold the blood libation.

The cult of Cybele was active in Gaul and Spain as well as in the Italian peninsula and Asia.It was very popular as late as the fifth century CE.

Robby: When events in Rome parallel events in contemporary life, the real benefits of history, become evident. These parallels can occur in religion, economics, social activities, and or politics. It is ridiculous to recognize political parallels and then fail to be explicit in treating the comparison. Don't you agree?

No, I am sorry, Justin. I don't agree. My experience here on Senior Net (not only in SofC but in many other discussion groups in which I have been active in recent years) has been that when a political figure is mentioned, ever so softly, differences appear -- then disagreements -- then controversy -- then, at times, harsh attacks on certain participants. Some people can refrain. Others cannot. Sometimes people withdraw for a period of time to lick their wounds. Some do not come back.
The topic of religion has this possibility as well but so far we have talked mostly about ancient religions which none of us follow. I intend to keep myself alert when we come to talk about Christianity.
Therefore, as DL, my guidelines are that we will not light any matches as the possibility of a forest fire always exists.
Robby

Thank you, Joan, for your quick participation even before you had a chance to unpack properly! Ordinarily, we try to keep to the sub-topics here but you are, of course, an exception. You did not take our agenda to Italy with you, the existence of our discussion group was not the reason for your trip, and your occasional participation, as we move along, will be apropos in that it will give us an overall feeling of the Roman Empire whether B.C. or A.D. Thank you so much!

Robby

"The Greek conquest of Rome took the form of sending Greek religion and comedy to the Roman plebs -- Greek morals, philosophy, and art to the upper classes. These Greek gifts conspired with wealth and empire in that sapping of Roman faith and character which was one of Hellas' long revenge upon her conquerors.
"The conquest reached its climax in Roman philosophy, from the stoic Epicureanism of Lucretius to the epicurean Stoicism of Seneca. In Christian theology Greek metaphysics overcame the gods of italy. Greek culture triumphed in the rise of Constantinople as first the rival and then the successor of Rome. When Constantinople fell, Greek literature, philosophy, and art reconquered Italy and Europe in the Renaissance.
"This is the central stream in the history of European civilization. All other currents are tributaries.
"Said Cicero:--'It was no little brook that flowed from Greece into our city, but a mighty river of culture and learning.'"
And so the Greek civilization was not dead and led to the "sapping of Roman faith and character."
I notice that Durant mentions "Europe" more and more, thereby leading us away from the East.

Robby

Joan: The symbolic representation of St. Mark has its origin in Revelations, chapter 4, verses 6-8. John in his strange wisdom is describing the throne of God. He says," round about the throne were four beasts, full of eyes before and behind.And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast has a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like flying angel".

The four evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are represented zoomorphicly by a man, a lion, a calf, and an eagle. The symbols were not applied to the evangelists in western art until about the 5th Century when we find them so depicted on the mosaics at St. Vitale in Ravenna and at St. Apollinare in Classe also at Ravenna. There are some earlier examples of the symbols on doors at Santa Sabina in Rome but I have not seen these.

ROBBY,

May I assure you that I had no intention of "expressing or promoting a political view or interest". I am not in the habit of doing so, anywhere.

I meant to be helpful by clarifying the provenance and the originator of the term in question after one poster wondered (#155) whether it might be a code word.

It had not occurred to me that mention of this innocuous bit of information would be misread.

I would not want anyone to take this caution personally. It is just something that everyone (including myself) might want to keep in the back of the mind.
"Zoomorphicly?" -- Boy, am I getting an education in this discussion group!!

Robby

"A swelling stream of Graecuni -- 'Greeklings,' as the scornful Romans called them -- followed the armies returning from the East. Many of them, as slaves, became tutors in Roman families. Some, the grammatici, inaugurated secondary education in Rome by opening schools for instruction in the language and literature of Greece. Some, the rhetores, gave private instruction and public lectures on oratory, literary composition, and philosophy. Roman orators -- even the mishellenist Cato -- began to model their addresses on the speeches of Lysias, Aeschines, and Demosthenes.
"Few of these Greek teachers had any religious belief. Fewer transmitted any. A small minority of them followed Epicurus and preceded Lucretius in describing religion as the chief evil in human life.
"The patricians saw where the wind was blowing, and tried to stop it. In 173 the Senate banished two Epicureans, and in 161 it decreed that 'no philosophers or rhetors shall be permitted in Rome.' The wind would not stop.
"In 159 Crates of Mallus, Stoic head of the royal library at Pergamum, came to Rome on an official embassy, broke a leg, stayed on and, while convalescing, gave lectures on literature and philosophy. In 155 Athens sent as ambassadors to Rome the leaders of its three great philosophical schools -- Carneades the Academic or Platonist, Critolaus the Peripatetic or Aristotelian, and Diogenes the Stoic of Seleucia.
"Their coming was almost as strong a stimulus as Chrysoloras would bring to Italy in 1453. Carneades spoke on eloquence so eloquently that the younger set came daily to hear him. He was a complete skeptic, doubted the existence of the gods, and argued that as good reasons could be given for doing injustice as for being just -- a belated surrender of Plato to Thrasymachus. When old Cato heard of this he moved in the Senate that the ambassadors be sent home. They were.
"But the new generation had tasted the wine of philosophy. From this time onward the rich youth of Rome went eagerly to Athens and Rhodes to exchange their oldest faith for the newest doubts."
It appears that the atheists and agnostics were having a strong influence, especially among the younger generation. The powers that be tried to stop this influence but were unable to do so. Any comments about this or the GREEN quote with begins "The invading Greeks . . ?"

Robby

Oscan was an Italian language spoken in much of central and south Italy. It was gradually supplanted by Latin after the absorption of the area by Rome in the third century.

Greek civilization sapped the character of the Romans? This is a disturbing thing to think about. Civilization is supposed to improve character, not undermine it.

From reading I did last year the Greeks were the scholars of the time. Many Roman families employed Greek Tutors for their sons.

Carolyn

Lucretius (c.99-c.55 BCE) was a Roman poet and author of the philosophical epic, "On the Nature of the Universe." The stress and tumult of that period in Roman history partly explains Epicureanism. Epicureanism elevates intellectual pleasure and tranquility of mind. It takes a dim view of the world of social strife and political violence. (From the Internet Ency. of Philo.)

Does THIS look like a tranquil man to you?

It is the Greek ingredient in Roman life that made Romans appear civilized. Romans were a military breed who captured the civilized world and were in turn civilized by its captives. Greek slaves were employed as teachers in Roman families. Greek philosophers, who recognized the evils of religion, were preferred by Roman youth. Greek mystical religions were widely adopted by the lower classes. Greek art was copied and displayed both in public and in private homes.

The Greek political model of a republic was adopted by Rome with a variation. The Roman republic was based on a narrow definition of citizenry giving them a representational aristocracy. The Greek republic was based on a broader definition of citizenship giving them direct democracy.

It is no wonder we call this period Greco-Roman and not just Roman.

Justin yet the impression most people have today is that the Romans were the sophisticates and scholars of the age! I am not talking about classics scholars but the average man in the street.

Carolyn

Stocism means living your life in accordence with nature and controlled by virtue. It is an ascetic system, teaching indifference to everything external.

To Stoics both pain and pleasure, povertyand riches, sickness and health are equally unimportant. (Int. Ency. of Phil.)

And HERE'S THE MAN who can do all this: Seneca!

Tooki says:--"Epicureanism elevates intellectual pleasure and tranquility of mind."
Are we in this discussion group Epicureans?

Robby

"Flamininus, who had loved Greek literature before invading Macedon and freeing Greece, was deeply moved by the art and drama he saw in Hellas. We must lay it to the credit side of Rome that some of its generals could understand Polycleitus and Pheidias, Scopas and Praxiteles, even if they carried their appreciation to the point of robbery.
"Of all the spoils that Aemilius Paulus brought back from his victories over Perseus, he kept for himself only the library of the King, as a heritage for his children. He had his sons instructed in Greek literature and philosophy as well as in the Roman arts of the chase and war.
"So far as his public duties permitted he shared in these studies with his children."
I am trying to think of any examples where some of our Western Civilization nations brought back from war such spoils as enlightened our populace -- either in terms of material things or perhaps some "foreign" cultures which we now incorporate in our own.
Robby

According to the definition Tooki found,yes. I had lunch today with a friend I hadn't seen for a long time, and I think she was disturbed that I wanted to talk about the Romans or Gandhi, and had to feign interest in the neighborhood politics that she is interested in.

But I suspect that there is a lot more to it than that short definition. How does this definition square with my uninformed view of epicurians as on who concentrated on sensual pleasure? Or is this view just wrong?

Joan: The term "epicure," in the sense of self indulgent bon vivant or luxurious pleasure seeker has no connection with Lucretius' philosophy, according to sources I consulted. Although Epicureanism is hedonistic, in that pleasure is the only good and is the end of morality, it is essentially spartan in nature. To be genuine, the life of pleasure must be a life of prudence, honor and justice. Happiness is attained by elimination of desire.

Here is more than you probably care to know. Scroll down to the section on "Ethics."

And yes, Robby, we are Epicureans here, except for Justin who wishes to pursue the life of the mind without adequate prudence.

This is the dude that allowed Greece to be free, loved all things Greek, and caused Hannibal to eventually take poison.

And, here is another view. He sure looks like all the other Greeks whose portraits we've looked at.

"... spoils as enlightened our populace."

Robby: Just think of all the intellectural and emotional baggage all the service men brought back from "overseas." In your own case, you actually brought back a wife! The exposure to European and Asian cultures altered not only the service men, but exposed all those with whom they had contact to the delights of a culture older and more sophisicated than the United States at that time.

The overseas experience continues to offer the same excitement and rewards for Americans as Greece did for the Romans.

Epicureanism and stoicism are opposite ends of a philosophic pole. The epicure practices soft and sensual living. The stoic avoids soft living and sensual indulgence. The Greek founders of these schools of thought are Epicure and Zeno.

These two opposing postures were then taken as booty by the conquering Romans. Zeno's stoicism was first adopted. It fit the attitude of the common soldier. Life was hard and the soldier adapted to its demands. When he returned to Rome after the defeat of Perseus he brought with him the teachings of Zeno. It was Zeno who preached the need for submission to an all wise Providence.

Epicure, Durant tells us, on the other hand, preached a gospel of salvation by common sense. He taught that the senses are the final test of truth. Reason cannot be the final test for reason depends upon experience. He says that death is not terrible. It is only our fears of the hereafter that make it terrible. But there is no hereafter- no hell to worry about. Virtue lies not in the fear of the gods, nor in the shunning of pleasure but in the harmonious operation of the senses guided by reason.

Epicureanism came to Rome slowly but surely. The poet Lucretius made the posture an acceptable one to wealthy Romans who were wondering what to do with their new found wealth from conquered countries. The excesses of the Roman wealthy needed little justification for their indulgences but Lucretius provided it anyway.

Are we Epicureans? Some of us are. Some of us are Stoics. That's what makes us such a delightful discussion group.

Following up on Tooki's Post 196, we can then assume that although our military personnel in Iraq are going through some difficult and dangerous times, that they are simultaneously learning more about the Eastern philosophy and culture than it was their intent to learn. As time passes -- perhaps years if not decades -- their minds will begin to examine, subconsciously if not consciously, the various positive aspects of that culture. And -- following up on what we have seen in Ancient Rome -- our own culture will gradually change by absorbing that foreign Eastern philosophy and making some of it our own.

Robby

"Before Paulus died, his youngest son was adopted by his friend, P. Cornelius Scipio, son of Africanus. Following Roman custom, the lad took the name of his adoptive father and added the name of his father's clan. In this way he became the P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus whom we shall hereafter mean by Scipio.
"He was simple in habits and moderate in speech, affectionate and generous, so honest that at his death, after having all the plunder of Carthage pass through his hands, he left only thirty-three pounds of silver and two of gold. He had lived like a scholar rather than as a man of means. In his youth he met the Greek exile Polybius, who earned his gratitude and lifelong friendship by giving him good advice and good books.
"The boy won his spurs by fighting under his father at Pydna. In Spain he accepted the challenge of the enemy to single combat, and won.
"In private life he gathered about him a group of distinguished Romans interested in Greek thought. Chief among them was Gaius Laelius, a man of kindly wisdom and steadfast friendship, just in judgment and blameless in life -- second only to Aemilianus in eloquence of speech and purity of style.
"Cicero, aross a century, fell in love with Laelius, named after him his essay on friendship, and wished he might have lived not in his own turbulent epoch but in that exalted circle of Rome's intellectual youth. Its influence on literature was considerable.
"Through participation in it Terence developed the elegant precision of his language. Gaius Lucilus (180-103) perhaps learned here to give a social purpose to the satires with which he lashed the vices and luxury of the age."
"He wished he might have lived not in his own turbulent epoch but in that exalted circle of Rome's intellectual youth." Anyone here who has wished at times that he/she had lived in another era rather than in our own? If so, why?
Robby

According to Tooki's post, the lions ate the Christians, but the result was that the lions became extinct, and the Christians didn't. There is a moral here somewhere. I think Gandhi would have understood.

I used to want to live in the time of the New England transendentalists, until I read that then people only took a bath once a year.

The problem is that it is the best of every culture that is passed down to us, not the lice, dirt, hunger, and early death. Or the lack of access by the "plebes" to the intellectual things that we take for granted-- good books, music, and the company of people from all over the world. Now, we can live in the best of all ages.

Like many people my age, I often find myself thinking that things are not as good as they used to be. I find that this is a theme that runs though thinkers of all historical periods. Sometimes, its true, but the main thing that's not as good as it used to be is me! I'm remembering a time when I was young and strong, and assuming that I lived in it with such maturity as I possess now.

Now is good enough for me: never have we had such possibillity for contacts and enrichment from the whole wide world. Having tasted it I would miss it in any other period. Anyway, since history repeats itself, the background would still have the same grumbling and problems.
Bubble

With no heat except a woodstove and the fire in a fireplace in those big, drafty Concord, MA houses, JOANK, you wouldn't want to take a bath either. When I grew up in New England all those many years ago, the water heater was lit once a week on Saturday night, and we all took our bath-for-the-week. Bedrooms upstairs were never heated, and I remember sitting on the edge of my bed putting my long, brown stockings and warm clothes on while I shivered so much I could scarcely dress. I loved the era of the Transcendentalists, too. Every time I've gone to Concord I've been swept back to that time and wished I'd been there.

I loved the Roaring Twenties, too, with all that intellectual activity and those crazy, wild writers and artists who were in it. I lived through the 60's when there was another burst of artistic creativity and realized what was happening. Often we are so blinded by the busy-busyness of our lives that we don't even see it.

We've seen the cultural effects of war since we began discussing these books. It comes as no surprise. Having lived in many different places in my life I am aware of what rubbed off on me from one place to another.

Am I an Epicurean? Well, I would be, if I didn't have to be so stoical about not having any money.

Happy Hallowe'en, everybody! Have a ghoul-y day! Watch out for those Cybele-Dionysian vampires on the corner, and have fun bobbing for apples tonight! Before you do, get thee to the temple for some Lucky Charms and Spell-ing Bees to see you through.

Mal

I have looked at the synopsis for this discussion and while it is interesting, I have read this type of history from other perspectives. It is difficult to obtain this particular book. So I think I'll pass on this one. Right now I am reading about Samuel Pepys, which again is history, but in a later version... and which no doubt addresses similar concepts. Thank you again Colkot

Ha Mal - We don't have central heating here as a rule even in the snow area's! So we are stuck in the past too in that respect. Graham has put central heating in the new house so I can see myself being very attracted to a visit on a cold winters day!

I would like to live as senior in the world I lived in as a kid. Where there was strong community spirit and you did not have to lock your doors. Where a murder was an absolute sensation and I can remember even as late as 1967 murders were rare. Kids were stopped in their tracks from becoming criminals as the whole village kept an eye on us and if you got up to anything your parents would soon know about it! Another adult would visit your parents and report on your doings! We would be walloped or get a visit from our local police constable who would arrange horrible duties around the police station or police house for those kids who vandalise public property. Bullies would receive a kick in the pants from the local constable! Contrary to the beliefs today 99% of us grew up as law abiding citizens and the unthinkable treatment did not scar us for life. Life was simple then!

Life wasn't simpler for me, CAROLYN. There were polio, typhoid and scarlet fever, whooping cough, tuberculosis, diphtheria and no medicines for them, no antibiotics existent for my mother, which would have saved her life.

The only time I was ever accosted and nearly mugged was when I was a 14 year old kid riding the subway in Boston to get to my music lessons at the conservatory.

The only time a strange man ever exposed himself to me I was 15 at a movie theater waiting to hear Benny Goodman play on the stage, also in Boston, where there was not one, but a second one when I changed my seat.

I was hungry when I was living with my mother because there was no money for food or jobs to provide it. People were dying of starvation. Hungry, out-of-work people were at the door and on the street asking for handouts. Some of these were veterans who had been gassed or seriously burned in World War I.

There was an Old Age tax in Massachusetts, nothing like what Social Security provides. Old people were poor, also living on handouts or dying before they should because of lack of money for medical care.

There were war shortages, young men and women I knew were being killed in Europe and Japan. Shortages, not enough ration stamps for food items or gasoline. There's more. I wouldn't go back to that time if someone paid me a million dollars.

I still keep my door unlocked day and night.

Mal

These are the worst of times and the best of times. So it was for Sidney Carton in 1789 and so it is for JUSTIN in 2003.

We are at war and the youth of our nation is dying on foreign soil for a cause we do not clearly understand. Our streets are full of homeless people and jobs are scarce. That's the worst of it.

I am under cover and dry in the rainy season. I am fed, clothed, and bathe daily. I spend time among friends discussing topics that challenge me. That's the best of it.

We spend time with others in the past by visiting them in company with the Durants and several friendly discussants. I think that is a marvel of my times. Connections such as we have here were not possible even in the coffeehouse days of Boswell and Johnson.

...backing up a little, I was interested in the use of the term "epicure"...which I associate with indulging in good food and drink. It was the Greeks who introduced the Romans to the concept that food is something more than subsistance.

(Robby had invited me to share some of the highlights of a recent trip to Venice, Florence and Rome - as they might add to this discussion. At this point, I have only sorted through the photos of the first leg of our journey - Venice. There was not much evidence of ancient Rome in Venice, as the city was did not exist at the time. Although recent glass finds have placed habitation in Venice earlier than previously thought...predominantly Byzantine footed cups and shards of oil lamps show habitation in late antiquity, between the 4th and 7th century A.D. Have you ever heard of Murano glass from Venice? We did take a boat ride to the island of Murano and saw an amazing demonstration - a "master" formed this glass horse in two minutes! - Glassmaking on Murano - The recent finds bring Venetian history even closer to the period you are presently examining.)

Back to Epicureans...I'd like to share a photo with you. Have you ever tried "tiramisu"? This dessert is said to have originated in Venice. So we just HAD to sample it whenever the opportunity presented itself - which was frequently.
Bruce finishing up his tiramisu (center of photo)
To be honest, we ate our way, (Epicureans?) all through our journey...(and are paying for it now...) How do Italians remain so slim on a steady diet of meat and pasta? The real reason I took the photo of husband eating was an attempt to get a picture of the man over his shoulder...the gentleman with the white hair and sweater vest. It looks as if his wife caught me photographing her husband, doesn't it? Another customer moved just as I took it and I lost nerve to take it again. Robbie, he looked JUST LIKE YOU! Lean and fit and happy! I saw so many men like this in Venice ...and Florence who looked like you - you must have many relatives all over Italy!

After reading your posts here, I began to wonder where the Italian menus came from...how long has pasta been a staple in the Italian diet? Could Caesar have had a traditional multi-course Italian dinner before he met his end? Out of curiosity, I googled and found this..
Italians in ancient times learned most of what they knew about food and nutrition from the ancient Greeks - "The Greeks were partial to a diet that has recently been revived in the United States under the name of the "Mediterranean Diet." The daily meal was simple and sober, consisting mainly of fruits, vegetables, legumes, olive oil, chickpeas, lentils, lupins, olive pickles, and dried figs. The original Mediterranean meal was later enhanced with the introduction of pasta."I could use some of that Roman Legionnaire Salad right now...

Good to have you back with us, Joan. And I am pleased to know that there are so many other handsome men around. I assume that, like me, they are also humble.

Robby

Now is the the best time for me and I have no desire to live in the past. What I read or heard of how difficult life was before, it was a far cry from what we have today in terms of comfort and wonderful experiences. We benefit from discoveries that were made in the 20th century which made life easier in several ways, medicine has made giant steps to permit us to live healthy longer. Technology has permitted us to enjoy comfort as never before. We have contact with people around the world in an instant.

Joan, I was in Venice in the 1970's and visited Murano, I still have the little glass horse I bought there. Did you visit the other island on that excursion where they make the most exquisite embroidery? I remember St. Mark's Square with its millions of pigeons and sitting at a café gazing at history all around us. Some day they will have to do something about the pigeon epidemic. Italian cuisine is wonderfully simple and healthy, but they also have the best climate around the Med. Did you have a chance to see the Amalfi Coast and the island of Capri?

Eloïse

A couple of hundred years B.C. the plebs and the upper classes in Italy fought over the place of religion in the government. Now, over 2,000 years later, Italy faces the SAME CONFLICT.

Robby

Joan: Thank you for photographs and comments. It was especially fun because you elicited a most humble comment from Our Fearless Leader.

Murano glass is indeed beautiful, and very "collectibile." It takes know how to be able to determine its date, style and rarity.

And, also interesting, the Venicians made all those glass beads that Columbus got off the boat with and started trading. Those who traded along the African coast also traded Venician glass "trade beads," as they were called. So called "Italian" beads are used in contemporary beadwork, but the market is now pretty much controlled by the Czechs. American Indians loved the Venician colors.

I do beadwork; it's more than a hobby and less than a living. I could babble on about beads and their effect on world culture.

I am about to sign off because I have to get up at 4 a.m. tomorrow. I will be flying from Dulles to LaGuardia Airport where I will take a taxi to Westchester County. There I will attend the one-year birthday party of an itty-bitty girl who is a cousin of mine -- third cousin, fourth removed or something like that -- I don't know how that works. I've never seen her, Joan, but I'll bet she looks just like me or like others scattered all over Italy.
For the last two weeks I have been figuring out what to get a girl (Chloe) who is only one year old. I am not very good at this but this is what I ended up with:--
1 -- A little satchel she can carry around. She pushes the button and it may play "Pop Goes the Weasel" or "My Old Man Number One", etc.
2 - A rabbit puppet. Chloe's mother can put her fingers in the back of the rabbit and have the rabbit talk to her.
3 - "Tug-In-Time Tigger. Tigger asks Chloe to squeeze different parts of his body and he tells her if she is correct or not.
4 - A book - "Ten Little Ladybugs". It helps Chloe to count backwards from 10 to 1. Chloe's mother can help her with this as each page has one less Ladybug than the previous page.
5 - The "Sparkling Symphony Carousel." Chloe pushes the button on top of the Merry-go-Round. It turns around and each time plays a small excerpt of some famous classical piece.
6 - A "Cow" Bathtub Wash Cloth. As Chloe's mother washes her, the cow can open its mouth and talk.
All of these are in a large colorful shopping bag with pictures of CareBears. I can't wait until I go through the airport gate security. Will they play with each toy or will they freak out looking for a bomb in each toy?
I am about to put the final posting in Durant's section "The Coming of Philosophy." I will be back Monday evening. On that date we will open with Durant's next section -- "The Awakening of Literature." I would guess that with the information in this next posting plus continued thoughts about living in another age plus interaction with Joan P. -- that you will have plenty to discuss and, as usual, have no need of me. (Boo-hoo!)

Enjoy your week-end!!

"The Greek mentors of this group were Polybius and Panaetius. Polybius lived for years in Scipio's home. He was a realist and a rationalist, and had few illusions about men and states.
"Panaetius came from Rhodes and, like Polybius, belonged to the Greek aristocracy. For many years he lived with Scipio in affectionate intimacy and reciprocal influence. He stirred Scipio to all the nobility of Stoicism, and probably it was Scipio who persuaded him to modify the extreme ethical demands of that philosophy into a more practicable creed.
"In a book On Duties Panaatius laid down the central ideas of Stoicism -- that man is part of a whole and must co-operate with it -- with his family, his country, and the divine Soul of the World. He is here not to enjoy the pleasures of the senses, but to do his duty without complaint or stint.
"Panaetius did not, like the earlier Stoics, require a perfect virtue, or complete indifference to the goods and fortunes of life. Educated Romans grasped at this philosophy as a dignified and presentable substitute for a faith in which they had ceased to believe, and found in its ethic a moral code completely congenial to their traditions and ideals.
"Stocism became the inspiration of Scipio -- the ambition of Cicero -- the better self of Seneca -- the guide of Trajan -- the consolation of Aurelius -- and the conscience of Rome."
Robby

Durant some times says things in riddles. In this section dealing with the coming of Greek philosophy to Rome we find him describing a range of thought from the stoic Epicureanisn of Lucretius to the epicurean Stoicisn of Seneca. These two guys are generally considered opposite ends of Roman philosophy. Durant equates them or at least brings each closer to a middle ground where they share ideas in common. What is stoic Epicureanism and what is epicurean Stoicism? These concepts are recognizable as stand alone ideas but as modifiers they challenge me.

In the very next sentence, Durant, talking about the Greek conquest of the Romans, says " In Christian theology Greek metaphysics overcame the gods of Italy." Here is clear recognition that Christian theology is Greek metaphysics. I buy that argument but have not yet put all the parts together to make an equation. I expected that to happen later when we are treating with the life of Paul (or Saul).

One tends to think Stoicism is the art of putting up with the hardships of life but when it is seen as acceptance of one's role in society- a society of which one is a part, the message is more serious. Duty is now a part of the concept. It fits a military role but it also fits the private citizen who should recognize duties to the state. An American Stoic is one who would vote at election time after considerable study of the issues. He is one who will serve in the military in his nation's time of threat.

Robby:"..........in Italy fought over the place of religion in the government. Now, over 2,000 years later, Italy faces the SAME CONFLICT."

Not just Italy...

The nature of philosophy, especially that area called "morals," which is what the Durants discuss in this section, "The Coming of Philosophy," is its ambiguity.

Philosophical discussions require fine and close interpretations and distinctions to be more than exercises in puns, puzzles, and conundrums.

When the Durants talk about "the stoic Epicureanism of Lucretius to the epicurean Stoicism of Seneca," they are toying with us. They are using the metaphorical sense of stoic and epicure as adjectives to tell us something.

Their intent here, in my view, is to convey the ambiguous and double nature of the Romans: both stoic and epicurean. I think they succeeded well in conveying the complexity of these interesting folks. Anyway, I get it. At least I think I do.

Hi, folks. Lovely morning here in NC. I have the air conditioner on, ha ha!

TOOKI, what's happening to you? Did you eat something that didn't agree with your personality? You used to be fun, somebody to spar with and tease a little. Now I don't even know what you're talking about half the time.

ROBBY, I love the presents you bought your little cousin. Wonder where in Westchester you're going? It has to be a southern part of the county. It would cost a fortune to get to where I once lived near the Putnam County line in a taxi all the way from La Guardia. I wish I were up there. What a beautiful time of year to go to that beautiful place. Even Yonkers is pretty at this time of year.

The Romans were just like we are; so were the Babylonians, the Persians, and numerous other people and civilizations we've talked about except perhaps the Jains. I never could find much of myself and my time in them. People are a mixture. Seems as if there's a Gilbert and Sullivan song about this, isn't there?

Hey, TOOKI, I just figured out what's wrong with you, like NOTHING! You're a mixture, and you're just showing another side to us. Right?

Mal

It wouldn't bother me to call myself an Epicurean-Stoic, or a Stoic- Epicurean. Either one would do. Most people are a mixture of both. We enjoy life as much as we can, and learn to endure the rest of it.

You gals have solved the dilemma. We are not just epicureans. We are stoic epicureans. We want an easy sensuous life but we feel guilty when we have it because we think we are neglecting our duty to others.

JOAN, how good to see you here ! I so wish I could have flown to Venice with you on a magic carpet à la "Bewitched" !

ELOÏSE, yes, Murano is probably the most popular among the islands in the Venetian lagoon. But Burano too is well worth visiting for the intricate lacework made there, which has its own special characteristics that differentiate it from the equally astounding work done in Venice proper.

When my daughter was born lo these many years ago, my two Venetian landladies sent me several exquisitely embroidered bibs (really too beautiful to use) and did the same when my son was born in this country.

The island of S. Michele is known because of the cemetery; sparsely populated Torcello is much less known and not really within the tourists' orbit. Hoping for your indulgence, I take this opportunity to mention A Thousand Days in Venice by American- born Marlena De Blasi (soft cover, June 2003), and also warmly recommend any of the dozen or so wonderful mysteries by American expatriate author Donna Leon who lives in Venice, where al her mysteries take place. She is very well known and enormously popular in Europe, less so here. The first one I read, not HER first one, was Death in Venice . Irresistible, addictive - even for me = not a mystery fancier. Her latest book has been published recently in hard cover in this country, but for the life of me I can't remember the full title this very moment (something about Uniform). Will give it later, just for the sake of good order.

Once again I find myself falling behind in my reading. Also, I am wondering to what extent we are to research the numerous details of the excerpts ROBBY provides and the personalities mentioned e.g. "the affectionate intimacy" between Panaetius and Scipio.

May I say with due respect that I am often surprised that certain ideas/practices etc. are taken very personally and applied to our times and personal life experiences. Or is that a requirement ? I have never tried to determine whether I am of the Epicurean or Stoic persuasion nor, frankly, am I comfortable baring my soul to the unseen eyes of the lurking world. I avoid and dislike the world "lurking" but use it here deliberately because of its, to me, somewhat dubious (shall I say) connotation.

I tend to agree with JUSTIN : the adherents of Epicureanism and Stoicism have argued bitterly over time about their respective philosophical doctrines, to wit the followers of Epicurus holding that the external world is a series of fortuituous combinations of atoms, and that the highest good is pleasure, interpreted as freedom from disturbance and pain, versus the credo of Zeno and his followers that stoics are free from passion, unmoved by joy or grief, and submit without complaint to unavoidable necessity.

If the average Roman soldier acquired philosophy, art, etc from the their occupation of Greece, then they were a very unusual lot. Europeans, particularly the English, have been in control of Asian countries for centuries. Yet the average Englishman knows no more about Asian cultures than I do.

It is not the conquerors who learn from the conquered, it is the other way around. The Britons learned much from their Roman occupiers. I doubt that the Romans learned anything from the Britons.

JUSTIN, you were here during the second World War. Did you or any of your fellows learn much about us, or were you influenced by us in any way ?

You had a big influence upon us, but I doubt that New Zealand culture, such as it is, had any effect upon you at all. I say this, not as a criticism, but merely as an observation. == Trevor

Trevor I definately see a NZ culture developing. We are different from the Australians or the Americans. Vera could see there was a difference in cultures when she went to live permanently in Oz. I don't want us to be anything but Kiwis!

My humble apologies :

It was Thomas Mann, of course, who wrote Death in Venice .

Donna Leon's book is titled Death at La Fenice

The Venice Opera House La Fenice (Italian for phoenix) was almost totally destroyed by fire during renovations in January of 1996. Two men were put on trial for arson.

The long restoration process is not quite complete. December 14th is the scheduled opening day, and a digital clock is running to mark the passage of time.

Donna Leon's newest book Uniform Justice was published here in August 2003. Leon's popular sleuth, Commissario Guido Brunetti, is "at it" again.

Some years ago I stayed in a pensione on the little piazza that contained La Fenice. The opera house, was celebrating the 400th anniversay, of Antonio Vivaldi. I bought tickets for the birthday bash. Sat in the orchestra and marvelled at the gold and white decor. A violinist was scheduled to play the Four Seasons.(The winter passages have always done nice things to me.) At curtain time an announcer appeared to say they have had to change the program. The violinist had been forced to cancel. The music substitution was that of Charles Ives. Now Ives is a guy I can take with prior warning. But as a substitute for Vivaldi it was too much. That was a disappointment that has lasted all these years. However, La Fenice, was a beautiful little opera house and I truly hope the restoration does not make it something other than it's original form.

I've been to Venice a couple of times. Once in the year of the flood when to cross St Marks we had to walk on planks and duck boards. All art work on the ground floors was moved to upper stories and I think much of it stayed above that level. Scuola San Rocco which has many large Tintoretto's on it's walls was fighting damp and moisture with kerosene heaters. It was a sad time in Venice. The horses were back but the town was wet.

That's a good question, Trevor. I was much impressed with Wellington where I spent several pleasant afternoons and early evenings in late October and early November. The people were very open and friendly. You New Zealanders had been fighting in North Africa and were still away from home. Your families welcomed us warmly. I spent a weekend once at a sheep place with a family that was very kind to me. I know some of my buddies were a little hard on New Zealand girls and I apologize for that.

I had little time to explore cultural things. But in Wellington I remember the 19th century appearance of stores with multiple light windows and the little trams that took one about. I suppose all that is gone now.

TREVOR has brought up a most interesting, valid point, worthy IMHO of being explored further : the implication and reality of cultural "cross-fertilization".

No. 210

Joan: thank you for the pictures of Venice. I remember seeing a documentary years ago on PBS showing the glassblowers. It was FANTASTIC. I dont know if they ever rebroadcast it.

Ginny told me when I joined that I am the second Joan in the site. I don't know if you realize that we are named after the pigeons that were in your photograph. They are Rock Doves, which is "Yona" in hebrew, translated to Joan. The dove of peace is also a "Yona" (an example I've never been able to live up to)(If my Hebrew is off, Sea Bubble, please correct me).

As an avid birdwatcher, I have often wished I was named after a different bird. They can be noisy and squabbly on the ground. But they are among the world most beautiful fliers.

Yona is correct. I did not realize that Joan was Yona.

Would you prefer to be "Dror(a)"? That is a sparrow. LOL

Jane Langton also wrote a mystery set in Venice, "The Thief of Venice" with a plot that depends on a flood just like the one Justin described (possibly the same one), and her charming line drawings of all the buildings. I can't wait to try Donna Leon.

"Drora" would be a nice name, too. Maybe next time.

Cross fertilization occurs as a result of interaction between people of different cultures. Some times the interaction is caused by war sometimes by migration and other times the interaction is more subtle.

Why did the US not feel a cultural impact from the war with Japan? Soldiers who were occupiers must have brought things back but Japanese culture did not touch us, I think, because we remained angry long after the war. The Japanese however, experienced a very significant cultural impact. They picked up everything from jitterbugging to western dress. I think that is your thought ,Trevor.

A more subtle example exists. France, at the time of the Impressionists (1870 -1890) was receiving packages from Japan wrapped in printed paper showing scenes of Japan. The impressionists, Manet, Monet, Renoir, Boudin, and others incorporated these Japanese elements in their paintings.

One example, that we will examine more carefully when we reach the Middle Ages, is that of the Crusades and their effect on Europe. I don't know who won or who lost the Crusades. But Crusaders brought back enough to change Europe significanltly.On the other hand the Crusaders left little but the inhabitants of Antioch, Tyre, and Jerusalem, all hung on crucifixes. The shores of Asia adopted little or nothing of the crusaders.

Why did Rome become so Greek after the Romans wiped out Corinth and Perseus? The answer is clear. The Romans brought back large amounts of booty including many captives who were able to do things the Romans were unable to do. Here is an axample of a cultural exchange in which the vanquished influences the conqueror. This is the direct opposite of Trevor's thesis.

I think the benefits of cross fertilization go not to the conquered or to the victor but to the one who is the least culturally endowed.

Countries in the New World have been struggling to gain their own identities and I believe Australia has done this and we are well on the way ourselves. Pacific Rim cooking is a good example of cross culturalisation.

Carolyn

Are we getting a daily dose of cross fertilization here?

Some of my way of thinking has changed radically since I joined this circle.

conversation, discussion, or argument with someone, doesn't it? Of course, that's not exactly what we mean. If it's all the same, and there are no distinctions, then there's nothing to talk about.

Anyway, I don't agree with Justin's, "Why did the US not a feel a cultural impact from the war with Japan." I think the US did. A small list of Japanese influences after the war would include: flower arranging and its attendent influence on pottery making (bowls in which to arrange your arrangements), the tea ceremony, sewing with kimo, Zen Buddhism, food (I checked my old James Beard, and he agrees with me. Actually, the whole "Beat Movement" was influenced by eastern thought, i.e., Japan. All of Jack Kerouac's books, (he was in the Merchant Marine) possess a strong flavor of mysticism; Ken Kesey wrote, "Dharma Bums." And, in conclusion, I wish to point out that the rise of pot (you know, that stuff you smoke) was initially because it put you into a state of mystic oneness.

I just wondering if it's safe to say, because this country is now the 'melting pot' of the world that we are more atuned to all cultures different from that of any other one nation. I am referencing one nation that has very limited experience with influx of immigrants from other nations were beliefs and custom are different.

That's sure true of where you and I came from, MOXIE. We grew up and went to school side-by-side with many different nationalities and cultures in those north-of-Boston cities in Massachustts, didn't we? I've been thinking, too, of the Greek Revival buildings scattered through eastern United States, especially in the Southeast. What about that pyramid on the dollar bill?

Mal

Tooki: Are you sure all those eastern characteristics you mention are not the result of Moxiect's melting pot concept?

Mal; All those Greek Revival buildings in the US are part of the neoclassical interest that arose in Europe in the late 18th century as a reaction to the extremes of the Rococo and the desire of Napoleon to emulate the Roman ideal. Mozart and his work is part of that classical interest. It was Beethoven who ended the search for the classical ideal and brought the Romantic to the fore.

I love Mozart and Vivaldi.

Carolyn

I like Mozart, do not like Haydn or Handel. Also like Beethoven and Brahms, not Mahler, though. I love Debussy, some of Verdi, no Wagner, thank you, Fauré, Bizet, and am fond of Satie, Prokofief, Bartok, Stravinsky, Benjamin Britten, Samuel Barber and Philip Glass.

African music, ancient and otherwise, has very much influenced music in the United States, as well as music in Latin America.

The first thing I ever composed sounded like Gershwin. The second sounded like Debussy. The third sounded like me.

There is, and has been, a strong cultural interchange in music throughout the centuries. What was Roman music like? Was it based on the Grecian modes? Which ones? All or only some of them, I wonder?

Mal

I really enjoyed the postings you folks gave while I was gone. Lots of "cross fertilization."
It would interest me, Bubble, if you would expand a bit how your thinking has changed "radically" by being part of "our circle."
Now -- on to Literature.

Robby

"It was a basic purpose of the Scipionic circle to mold the Latin tongue into a refined and fluent literary medium, to lure the Roman muses to the nourishing springs of Greek poetry, and to provide an audience for promising writers of verse or prose.
"In 204 Scipio Africanus proved his character by welcoming to Rome a poet brought there by Cato, the strongest opponent of everything represented by the Scipios and their friends. Quintus Ennius had been born of Greek and Italian parentage near Brundisium (239). He had received his education in Tarentum, and his enthusiastic spirit had been deeply impressed by the Greek dramas presented on the Tarentine stage. His courage as a soldier in Sardinia attracted Cato, who was quaestor there. Arrived in Rome, he lived by teaching Latin and Greek, recited his verses to his friends, and found admittance to the circle of the Scipios.
"There was hardly a poetic form hat he did not try. He wrote a few comedies and at least twenty tragedies. He was in love with Euripides, flirted like him with radical ideas, and plagued the pious with such Epicurean quips as--'I grant you there are gods, but they don't care what men do. Else it would go well with the good and ill with the bad -- which rarely happens.' According to Cicero the audience applauded the lines.
"He translated or paraphrased Euhemerus' Sacred History, which argued that the gods were merely dead heroes deified by popular sentiment. He was not immune to theology of a kind, for he announced that the soul of Homer, having passed through many bodies, including Pythagorus and a peacock, now resided in Ennius.
"He wrote with verve an epic history of Rome from Aeneas to Pyrrhus, and these Annales became, until Virgil, the national poem of Italy."
"The gods don't care what men do. Else it would go well with the good and ill with the bad -- which rarely happens." That makes me think of the book "When bad things happen to good people."
Any comments on the passing of philosophy to Rome via literature?
Robby

Click HERE to see the ancient version of a Senior Net Literary Discussion Group.
Click onto "Related Items" and even links past that for some interesting and enlightening information.

Robby

This link tells us more about QUINTUS ENNIUS.

Robby

Quintus may have wanted to a a Homer and only suceeded in inventing "literary patronage," but he was as good looking as Homer

I take that back; Homer wins.

Apparently Quintus' infatuation with Euripides compelled him to write "Medeae Nutrix," which is given here in Latin. Could someone, Trudy, do the honors of a translation, a rough one will do.

Good morning.

Thanks for the links, TOOKI. May I say, please, that Traude's name is not Trudy; it's TRAUDE. I believe it is pronounced phonetically as TROWD, as in ow. I'm not sure because I've forgotten the pronunciation of some of the German diphthongs I once knew. Traude will correct me if I am wrong.

Mal

Welcome back, ROBBY !

We missed you but those assembled kept a lively discussion moving right along.

I'd like to express my gratitude to MAL. Perhaps it is time to explain my screen name. It represents the second syllable of my first name (Waltraud) with an "e" added. The vowels 'au' equal that of "ou" as in the English "out", and the added "e" is not left up in the air but pronounced as in "O solE mio" or "AndantE" - not accented, of course, just murmured as part of the word.

Since we are about history and cross-cultural exchanges here, I believe I'm not too far off the subject by explaining the origin of my first names : Waltraud and Brunhilde, both names of Valkyries from Scandinavian mythology, which was my mother's passion. Is it any wonder that she adored Wagner. Grrr, I say.

In Scandinavian mythology the Valkyries are the choosers of the slain and the attendants of Odin, the god of war. Young maidens, 9 to 12 in number, they are sometimes divine, sometimes mortal princesses who become immortal. They ride into battle and select/rescue from those who are going to be killed the heroes considered worthy of being transported up to Valhalla to dine with Odin through eternity.

There they re-enact the mortal battles they had fought, or now fight for sport, but their wounds are healed by the end of the day, when they return to Valhalla , the largest palace in Asgard, to feast with Odin on mead and boar's meat, waited upon by the Valkyries through eternity.

Tooki; So, you think Homer is better looking than Quintus Ennius. QE looks like a Roman Centurian. He appears to have broken nose, probably from a close encounter with a shield. I have noticed that poets tend to look like the rest of us. Shelley and Lord Byron excepted. Pope had an appearance that would scare the strong although it is said he was a pretty child.

Traude: The great rising chords in Wagner's Walkure as the Valkyries rise to Valhalla really turn me on but Wotan's woeful music makes me want to leave the the theatre. Wagner's music often puts me in mind of John's Revelations. They are both wild and deranged.

I LOVE Wagner's music, preferably without the singing. I have a large number of CD's alongside my computer and I play "Ride of the Valkyries" fairly often -- especially in the morning when it furnishes me with "get up and go." I assume the "W" in Waltraud is pronounced the same way as the "W" in Wagner.
Aside from that, I can't see myself eating mead and boar's meat eternally. Although being half Scandinavian, anything is possible.

Robby

Moribus antiquis stat res Romana virisque

- - - Quintus Ennius

"Ennius succeeded in everything but comedy. Perhaps he took philosophy too seriously, forgetting his counsel that 'one must philosophize, but not too much.' The people rightly preferred laughter to philosophy and made Plautus rich and Ennius poor.
"For like reasons they gave little encouragement to the tragic drama in Rome. The tragedies of Pacuvius and Accius were acclaimed by the aristocracy, ignored by the people, and forgotten by time.
"Ennius molded Latin to new forms and powers, filled his lines with the meat of thought, and prepared for Lucretius, Horace, and Virgil in method, vocabulary, theme, and ideas. To crown his career he wrote a treatise on the pleasures of the palate, and died of gout at seventy, after composing a proud epitaph:--

"Pay me no tears, nor for my passing grieve;
I linger on the lips of men, and live."

I hate and love-the why I can not tell
But by my tortures know the fact too well.

Gaius Catullus

Robby as an aside, could you tell me please how I should pronounce your surname ? My wife is Polish, and our friends often wonder how her name should be pronounced. ==== Trevor

KLEIS

I have a small daughter who is beautiful
like a gold flower. I would not trade
my darling Kleis for all Lydia or even
for lovely Lesvos.

Sappho 610-580 B.C.
translated by Willis Barnstone

Trevor:--My Italian grandparents before they emigrated to America obviously pronounced it EE-AH-DE-LOOKA. It has been anglicized to EYE-A-DE-LOOKA.

Robby

The Fall of Troy

By Quintus

Translated by A. S. Way

How Died for Troy the Queen of the Amazons, Penthesileia

When godlike Hector by Peleides slain
Passed, and the pyre had ravined up his flesh,
And earth had veiled his bones, the Trojans then
Tarried in Priam's city, sore afraid
Before the might of stout-heart Aeacus' son:
As kine they were, that midst the copses shrink
From faring forth to meet a lion grim,
But in dense thickets terror-huddled cower;
So in their fortress shivered these to see
That mighty man. Of those already dead
They thought of all whose lives he reft away
As by Scamander's outfall on he rushed,
And all that in mid-flight to that high wall
He slew, how he quelled Hector, how he haled
His corse round Troy; -- yea, and of all beside
Laid low by him since that first day whereon
O'er restless seas he brought the Trojans doom.
Ay, all these they remembered, while they stayed
Thus in their town, and o'er them anguished grief
Hovered dark-winged, as though that very day
All Troy with shrieks were crumbling down in fire.

Then from Thermodon, from broad-sweeping streams,
Came, clothed upon with beauty of Goddesses,
Penthesileia -- came athirst indeed
For groan-resounding battle, but yet more
Fleeing abhorred reproach and evil fame,
Lest they of her own folk should rail on her
Because of her own sister's death, for whom
Ever her sorrows waxed, Hippolyte,
Whom she had struck dead with her mighty spear,
Not of her will -- 'twas at a stag she hurled.
So came she to the far-famed land of Troy.
Yea, and her warrior spirit pricked her on,
Of murder's dread pollution thus to cleanse
Her soul, and with such sacrifice to appease
The Awful Ones, the Erinnyes, who in wrath
For her slain sister straightway haunted her
Unseen: for ever round the sinner's steps
They hover; none may 'scape those Goddesses.
And with her followed twelve beside, each one
A princess, hot for war and battle grim,
Far-famous each, yet handmaids unto her:
Penthesileia far outshone them all.
As when in the broad sky amidst the stars
The moon rides over all pre-eminent,
When through the thunderclouds the cleaving heavens
Open, when sleep the fury-breathing winds;
So peerless was she mid that charging host.
Clonie was there, Polemusa, Derinoe,
Evandre, and Antandre, and Bremusa,
Hippothoe, dark-eyed Harmothoe,
Alcibie, Derimacheia, Antibrote,
And Thermodosa glorying with the spear.
All these to battle fared with warrior-souled
Penthesileia: even as when descends
Dawn from Olympus' crest of adamant,
Dawn, heart-exultant in her radiant steeds
Amidst the bright-haired Hours; and o'er them all,
How flawless-fair soever these may be,
Her splendour of beauty glows pre-eminent;
So peerless amid all the Amazons Unto
Troy-town Penthesileia came.

To right, to left, from all sides hurrying thronged
The Trojans, greatly marvelling, when they saw
The tireless War-god's child, the mailed maid,
Like to the Blessed Gods; for in her face
Glowed beauty glorious and terrible.
Her smile was ravishing: beneath her brows
Her love-enkindling eyes shone like to stars,
And with the crimson rose of shamefastness
Bright were her cheeks, and mantled over them
Unearthly grace with battle-prowess clad.

"In Rome plays were presented as partial celebration of a religious festival or as the obsequies of some distinguished ciizen. The theater of Plautus and Terence consisted of a wooden scaffolding supporting a decorated background (the scaena) and, in front of this, a circular orchestra, or platform for dancing. The rear hall of this circle formed the proscaenium, or stage.
"These flimsy structures were torn down after each festival, like our reviewing stands today. The spectators stood or sat on stools they had brought or squatted on the ground under the sky. Not until 145 was a complete theater built in Rome, still of wood and roofless, but fitted with seats in the Greek semicircular style. No admission was charged. Slaves might attend but not sit. Women were admitted only in the rear.
"The audience in this period was probably the roughest and dullest in dramatic history -- a jostling, boisterous crowd of 'groundlings.' It is sad to note how often the prologues beg for quiet and better manners, and how the crude jokes and stereotyped ideas must be repeated to be understood. Some prologues ask mothers to leave their babies at home, or threaten noisy children, or admonish women not to chatter so much. Such petitions occur even in the midst of the published plays. If an exhibition of prize fighting or rope walking happened to compete, the play, as like as not, would be interrupted until the more exciting performance was over.
"At the end of a Roman comedy the words, Nunc plaudite omnes, or some variant, made plain that the play was finished and that applause was in order."
Comments, anyone?

Robby

I am home for a couple of weeks and have read Durant up to today's posts. I have not been able to read all of the posts that I missed but I am sure that you have had a lively discussion as this early phase of Roman history is quite interesting and new to me.

I have been surprised by the amount of Greek culture that was appropriated by the Romans and what seeming boors the Romans were. I am also interested in the pagan religious customs that were common, probably until Christianity is imported from the Middle East. I wonder why other religions such as Buddhism and Judaism were not brought back to Rome, or if they were, why they did not attract many followers. I think that this will prove an interesting topic as we move forward in the book.

George, I've been wondering about that too. If they had contact with other religions, why did they choose Christianity? What was it that appealed to them?

George and Shasta: I wish you would say more about what you are thinking about the Romans and religion. George seems to imply that the Romans adopted Christianity and that it came from the Middle East and that other religions were not adopted by Rome and you wonder why that is so. Shasta says she has been thinking the same thing. Have I expressed your thought as you intended or is there something else I have missed?

The Romans did not adopt Christianity. They tried to stamp it out. Paul, a Roman Jewish soldier, is responsible for bringing Christianity to Rome and for that they chopped off his head. You might like to read Paul's epistle to the Romans. The Romans preferred several Greek precursors to Christianity.

However, the discussion has a long way to go before we reach that topic. We are now engaged in a discussion of Roman literature during the Republic. Stoicism and Epicureanism are on our plates. Please feel free to take a bite.

Women were allowed to attend the theatre in Rome but they had to stand in the back behind the slaves. Men played the part of women on the stage. A woman could not even play the role of a woman.

Things have not changed. Contemporary US leadership, today, passed and signed into law a bill preventing women from deciding whether to gestate or abort a fetus. The men are still in control in the world and still think they know what is best for women. When are you gals going to kick their butts?

JUSTIN, just as was done in Roman days. Kick the bums out.

Mal

Justin, I know the Romans didn't adopt Christianity at first, but they did eventually. And I know it was the emperor who decided it would be politically practical to have one religion that would unify the empire. But, as you say, we haven't reached that point yet in our discussion.

As far as women protesting against male subjugation, I never miss a chance to carp on that very subject.

Atta girl, Shasta and Mal.

"The leading part was usually played by the manager, a freeman. The other performers were mostly Greek slaves. Any citizen who became an actor forfeited his civic rights -- a custom that lasted until Voltaire. Female parts were taken by men.
"As audiences were small, actors in this age did not wear masks, but contented themselves with paint and wigs. About 100 B.C., as audiences grew larger, the mask became necessary to distinguish the characters. It was called persona, apparently from the Etruscan word for mask, phersu. The parts were called dramatis personae -- masks of the play.
"Tragedians wore a high shoe, or 'buskin' (cothurnus), comedians a low shoe, or 'sock' (soccus). Parts of the play were sung to the obligato of a flute. Sometimes singers sang the parts while actors performed them in pantomime."
Is anyone beside myself enjoying the examples of word derivation that Durant is giving us in addition to his telling the "Story?"
And I am wondering why actors "forfeited their civic rights" for many centuries later.

Robby

Hello Everybody, here is something I believe you all will want to know!!

SBDC ANNOUNCES 2003 SMALL BUSINESS VETERAN OF THE YEAR

WARRENTON – The Lord Fairfax Small Business Development Center at Fauquier announces that Dr. Robert (Robby) Iadeluca is the recipient of the 2003 Small Business Veteran of the Year award.

Created by the Virginia Small Business Development Center network in 2000, the award recognizes our deep indebtedness to all veterans for their service to their country and to their respective communities. Each SBDC in Virginia recognizes an individual in its service area. The local award winners are then nominated for a statewide award that will be presented in 2004.

The Board of Directors and members of the Fauquier County Chamber of Commerce nominated Dr. Iadeluca for the award. Karen Hendersen, Executive Director of the Fauquier County Chamber of Commerce, cited his professional innovation and civic leadership as evidence of his commitment to local families, businesses, and community.

A native of New York, Dr. Iadeluca enlisted in the Army in 1942 and served with the 29th Infantry Division in Holland, Belgium, Germany, and France. While in France, where he met the woman he would later marry, he studied French language and civilization. After the War, he continued his education at Hofstra College on the GI Bill, receiving a BA in Psychology. His career included executive positions with the Boy Scouts of American and with the New York State Department of Education before budget cuts created, as Dr. Iadeluca says, "an opportunity." At age 52, he decided to go back to school.

Turned down twice for admission to graduate programs, he was accepted into a psychology PhD program at Syracuse University where he focused on lifespan development – how people learn and grow throughout their lives. He took this expertise to the Army where he worked as a civilian research psychologist specializing in addictions and their treatments. He retired from the Army in 1989.

Not content with retirement, Dr. Iadeluca volunteered with the addiction unit at the University of Virginia Hospital where he earned certification in substance abuse. He became a state licensed clinical psychologist in 1992 and opened his practice in Warrenton. He specializes in the treatment of general anxiety, clinical depression, chronic pain, and addictions.

Beyond the business of his practice, Dr. Iadeluca is involved with the Rappahannock-Rapidan Community Services Board as an Independent Examiner for Pinebrook Psychiatric (a division of Culpeper Memorial Hospital) and with the American Red Cross in mental health and disaster recovery. He is a member of the Fauquier Chamber of Commerce and is active in many professional associations.

The award will be presented to Dr. Iadeluca at the Fauquier County Chamber of Commerce Business Person of the Year dinner on November 6 at Airlie Conference Center.

Congratulations, Dr. Robby, we are very proud of you!

ginny

Thanks for letting us know, Ginny. We always knew Robby was an outstanding person, and we're glad to know he has won an award for his achievements!

Congratulations Robby.

Way to go, ROBBY! As I said in the Virginia Bash discussion, I'm disappointed that they didn't include your work here in SeniorNet. We're into our third year of reading and discussing The Story of Civilization. Do they know that?

Do they also know there are eight more volumes? That's almost eight years of hard work for you, the discussion leader, as you wear out your keyboard typing parts of the book for us, your brains as you think of scintillating questions and comments, and scour for pertinent articles on the web and your right hand as you smack us unruly participants into shape. Now, if these people knew about that, you'd receive two awards, not one!

We loves ya, ROBBY. Congratulations to you!

Mal

The timing of these may be a bit vague, but I don't think this stuff changed much over the centuries.

Comic Actor

Comic Figures

"Pappus," Comic Figure

This mask has an astonishing African presence.

Cheers to you, Robby.

Roman Musicians and Actors Rehearsing

Way to go, Robby. Your recognition is well deserved.

Ancient Roman Theaters and Amphitheaters

Scaena, stage and orchestra

Roman Theater at Merida, Spain

Roman Theater at Arles, France

Congratulations,Robby, what next? young fellow like you...

Very nice of all of you. Thank you!

"In 184 Publius Terentius Afer was born at Carthage of Phoenician, perhaps also of African, blood. We know nothing more of him untl he appears as the slave of Terentius Licanus in Rome. This senator recognized the shy lad's talent, gave him an education, and freed him. The youth in gratitude took his master's name.
"Terrence, 'poor and meanly clad,' came to the house of Carcillus Statius -- whose comedies, now lost, were then dominating the Roman stage -- and red him the first scene of the Andria. Terence soon won a hearing from Aemilianus and Laelius, who sought to form his style in the polished Latin so dear to their hearts.
"The Hecyra, which Terence wrote, failed because its audience slipped away to watch a bear fight. Fortune smiled in 161 when he produced his most famous play -- the Heauton Timoroumenos, or 'Self-Tormentor.' It told the story of a father who had forbidden his son to marry the girl of his choice. The son married her nevertheless. The father disowned and banished him and then, in self-punishing remorse, refused to touch his wealth, but lived in hard labor and poverty.
"A neighbor proposes to mediate. The father asks why he takes so kindly an interest in the troubles of others. The neighbor replies in a world-renowned line which all the audience applauded.
Homo sum. humani nihil a me alienum puto --
"'I am a man. I consider nothing human alien to me.'
"In 160 Terence's last play, the Adelphi, or 'Brothers,' was performed at the funeral games of Aemilius Paulus. Soon afterward the playwright sailed for Greece. On the way back he died of illness in Arcadia, in his twenty-fifth year."
Robby

of, as the Durants say, "a flimsy structure torn down after each festival." Reconstruction Of An Early Wooden Theater

This informative site covers material already covered by the Durants. Scroll down a bit to see the Getty reconstruction.

"The Greek invasion, in literature, philosophy, religion, science, and art -- this revolution in manners, morals, and blood -- filled old-fashioned Romans with disgust and dread. Out on a Sabine farm a retired senator, Valerius Flaccus, fretted over the decay of the Roman character, the corruption of politics, the replacement of the mos maiorum with Greek ideas and ways.
"He was too old to fight the tide himself. But on a near-by homestead, just outside Reate, was a young plebeian peasant who showed all the old Roman qualities -- loved the soil -- worked hard -- saved carefully -- lived with conservative simplicity -- and yet talked as brilliantly as a radical. He bore the names Marcus Porcius Cato -- Porcius because his family had for generations raised pigs -- Cato because they had been shrewd. Flaccus encouraged him to study law. Cato did and won his neighbors' cases in the local courts. Flaccus advised him to go to Rome. Cato went, and by the age of thirty obtained the quaestorship (204). By 199 he was aedile -- by 198 praetor -- by 195 consul -- in 191 tribune -- in 184 censor.
"Meanwhile he served twenty-six years in the army as a fearless soldier and an able and ruthless general. He considered discipline the mother of character and freedom. He despised a soldier 'who plied his hands in marching and his feet in fighting, and whose snore was louder than his battle cry' but he won the respect of his troops by marching beside them on foot, giving each of them a pound of silver from the spoils, and keeping nothing for himself."
Oh, for all the old-fashioned virtues. What is happening to our youth? It's back to the drawing board -- back to discipline -- back to taking care of ourselves without leaning on others. Away from softness (Greece) and back to being tough (Rome). Or are we talking about a more recent culture?

Robby

I missed two days of posts, and I missed so much.

Yeah, Robby. I've been telling all my friend about the wonderful people I am meeting through this site.I'm glad others see it too.

"Plied" means to wield, to move to and fro. Cato does not like a soldier who moves his hands to and fro while marching and his feet in battle. He likes a soldier who stands and fights. He likes a soldier whose hands are not empty while marching. He carries a spear and a shield so he is unable to move his hands to and fro.

Joan:--As you can see, there is something to absorb every single day on The Story of Civilization. Most people try to check in at least once a day.

Robby

"In the intervals of peace Cato denounced rhetors and rhetoric, and became the most powerful orator of his time. The Romans listened in reluctant fascination, for no one had ever spoken to them with such obvious honesty and stinging wit. The lash of his tongue might fall upon any man present, but it was pleasant to see it descend upon one's neighbor.
"Cato fought corruption recklessly, and seldom let the sun set without having made new enemies. Few loved him, for his scar-covered face and wild red hair disconcerted them -- his big teeth threatened them -- his asceticism shamed them -- his industry left them lagging -- his green eyes looked through their words into their selfishness.
"Forty-four times his patrician enemies tried to destroy him by public indictments. Forty-four times he was saved by the votes of farmers who, like him, resented venality and luxury. When their votes made him censor, all Rome shuddered. He carried out the threats with which he had won the campaign -- laid heavy taxes upon luxuries, fined a senator for extravagance, and excluded from the Senate six members in whose record he found malfeasance. He expelled Manilius for kissing his wife in public. As for himself, he said, he never embraced his wife except when it thundered -- though he was glad when it thundreed.
"He completed the drainage system of the city -- cut the pipes that had clandestinely tapped water from the public aqueducts or conduits -- compelled owners to demolish the illegal projections of their buildings upon or over the public right of way -- forced down the price paid by the state for public works -- and frightened the tax collectors into remitting a larger share of their receipts to the Treasury.
"After five years of heroic opposition to the nature of man, he retired from office, made successful investments, manned his now vast farm with slaves, lent money at usurious rates, bought slaves cheap and -- after training them in some skill -- sold them dear, and became so rich that he could afford to write books -- an occupation he despised."
There must have been a method to his madness. Just what kind of a man was he, anyway? I am wondering on whose side he was.

Robby

Wild red hair, big teeth." We've looked at him before, but another look at the personification of bigotry is in order, I think:

Cato

I see no redeeming social qualities in the man.

He's Even More Unhappy Looking Here

Nice Sculpture

Cato wears the scars of battle on his face. They are the marks of a man who swung a sword against an enemy and advanced behind a shield for twenty-six years.

He was showing Censorial power when he curbed Manilius- a silly thing to do. But when he pushed intruders back from the public thoroughfare he acted like county supervisors who curb commercial signs that intrude on highway drivers. When he completed the sewage system for Rome he made it possible for Rome to grow. He protected the water provision system from looters and illegal tappers thereby insuring the city an adequate water supply.

Did he grow rich from his Censorial powers? Not at all. In retirement, he recognized the higher value of a slave with skills. He bought cheap unskilled slaves. Improved the product by training and sold it at a profit. That's good business.

He cleaned out the rascals in the Senate chambers. I wish we had a way of doing that. Many of our elected officials have no more interest in protecting the electorate than prison inmates.

Many people dislike Cato. That's because he was too much stoic and too little epicurean.

Cato's bust exhibits all the qualities of Hellenism. The scars he wears are the marks of reality. We see Cato as he probably appeared in life. His face is damaged and his brow is wrinkled. Even his character shows in the bust. This is a hard-hearted guy. The break from classical idealism is very evident in sculptures such as Cato's.

The interchange between Tooki and Justin makes me ask within myself:--"Which is more important -- to be loved or to be respected?" Is being "hard-hearted" necessarily a negative trait?
Durant says:--"The Romans listened to Cato in reluctant fascination, for no one had ever spoken to them with such obvious honesty and stinging wit. The lash of his tongue might fall upon any man present." Is honesty always the best policy? Should we always "tell it like it is?" Should "public good" always come first over "private benefit?"
As Durant says:--"Cato carried out his threats." Would we all be happy if those aspiring to public office always carried out their promises (threats)?

Robby

"We have not seen great things done in our time except by those who have been considered mean; the rest have failed."

- - Machiavelli in "The Prince"

"Hatred is acquired as much by good works as by bad ones, therefore, a prince wishing to keep his state is very often forced to do evil."

- - Machiavelli in "The Prince"

"Cato was the first great writer of Latin prose. He began by publishing his own speeches. Then he issued a manual of oratory, demanded a rugged Roman style instead of the Isocratean smoothness of the rhetors, and set a theme for Quintilian by defining the orator as vir bonus dicendi peritus -- 'a good man skilled in speaking' (but was there ever union so rare?)
"He put his farming experiences to use by composing a treatise De agri cultura -- the only work of Cato, and the oldest literary Latin, that time has saved. It is written in a simple and vigorous style, pithily compact. Cato wastes no words, and seldom condescends to a conjunction. He gives detailed advice on buying and selling slaves (old ones shouuld be sold before they become a loss) -- on renting land to share-croppers -- on viticulture and aboriculture, on domestic management and industries -- on making cement and cooking dainties -- on curing constipation and diarrhea -- on healing snakebite with the dung of swine -- and offering sacrifice to the gods.
"Asking himself what is the wisest use of agricultural land, he answers, 'profitable cattle raising.' The next best? 'Moderately profitable cattle raising.' The third best? 'Very unprofitable cattle raising. The fourth? 'To plow the land.'
"This was the argument tht gave the Iatifundia to Italy."
I continue to enjoy Durant's subtle teaching of Latin as he moves along by comparing the Latin words with English words with a Latin derivation. Vir for man (virile.) Bonus for good (our word bonus is a good thing).
Robby

Apparently this man fascinates me, epicurian through I am.

The Durants mentioned earlier that Cato was, if not responsible, at least instrumental in urging that Carthage be attacked again, starting the 3rd Punic War. Was he merely a curmudgeon or a deep thinker, cursed with the Cassandra virus?

Whatever he was, I think it undeniable that he was deeply depressed all his life, and I mean this in a clinical sense. It was a deep, continual, and lasting chemical disorder. (At least all the historical bi-polars were fun once in awhile.)

If Robby could telaport back to this time and treat Cato I'm sure history would have been different. I think that if there had not been the 3rd Punic War and the total destruction of Carthage, we would not have Christianity. So there!

Them's fightin' words, Tooki. In what sources did you read that Cato was fighting depression all his life? What do these popular catchwords, "clinical depression" and "chemical disorder", mean? You are a psychologist? Well then, you know.

Without any education in psychology except Psych 101, I have stopped diagnosing and labelling figures in the history of today or the past, as well as fictional characters and my neighbors and friends.

I have been participating in The Yellow Wallpaper discussion. In this story, a woman appears to lose her sanity not too long after giving birth to a baby. Am I qualified to say she is suffering from postpartum depression? No, I'm not. Scientifically I don't know what postpartum depression is. All I know is what I hear and see on the street and what little I pick up from medical books, which are written for the lay person, that I own and what I read on the web, which might be unreliable.

How can I agree with you, TOOKI, that Cato was clinically depressed and had a chemical imbalance without the kind of proof only long years of education and observation of patients or other such proof would give to me?

To me, Cato acted as any smart, hard-nosed businessman or general in military service might act. Robby used the word "hard-hearted". Let me tell you, soft-hearted people often don't make the right decisions. The person who will give you the shirt off his back never, ever gets rich and very rarely succeeds.

Mal

Cato "only kissed his wife when it thundered". I couldn't find statistics for Rome, but in my area, it thunders 20 to 40 days a year. In California, it only thunders about 2 days a year. From Cato's face, I suspect Rome was more like California.

Mal, of course no one from the vantage point of the 21st century could diagnose what, if anything, ailed Cato, no matter what their credentials. I merely think there were other reasons besides practicality and busness acumen for him dislikimg folks in Carthage having fun, or for that matter, anyone having fun.

Besides, don't you enjoy the idea of Robby teleporting back to ancient times and counseling all those brutal Romans? I wasn't serious about that either.

I was pursuing the "if" theory of history.

As I try to play catch up, I noted our leader quoting Machiavelli twice. Does that have any hidden meaning?

I read Mal's words about the man who gives you the shirt off his back rarely succeeds. I am trying to relate that to Gandhi's life and accomplishments (another discussion). I need to get back to Durant and do some catching up there also.

In thinking about politicians and military people being hard hearted, I was reminded of Col. Jessup's lines in A Few Good Men - when yelling at the defense attorney - "you can't handle the truth!" Does the general public have to be protected from the truth by its leaders? As I read these posts and Durant's books, I end up with more questions than answers. A good place to be. (Reminder - A few Good Men is a movie about the court martial of two young marines stationed in Cuba and stars Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson.)

GeorgeHd: Nothing "hidden" in the Machiavelli quotes. Both quotes were very much on target and aimed at the personality of Cato who is the current subject of discussion.

Tooki: Any guy who kisses his wife only when it thunders is either nuts and asexual or has a mistress to bring cheer to his hearth. Can you imagine Cato coming in from the fields at night to say to his wife, "Did you hear thunder today? No? Well I did?

I always admire people who get things done. It doesn't matter to me whether Cato was likable or not. When he set out to do something, he did it. I wonder if his snakebite remedy worked? Is it true that it only thunders twice a year in California?

Yes. Some years there is no thunder. Too bad Cato, another year without a kiss.

George: It's nice to have you back. I found a Cayman Diver's Guide last week and discovered the wonderful place you call home. Which Island do you reside in?

"Cato was a natural antagonist of the Scipionic circle which thought the spread of Greek literature in Rome a necessary ferment in lifting Latin letters and the Roman mind to a fuller growth. Cato lent his aid to the prosecution of Africanus and his brother. The laws against embezzlement should be no respecters of persons.
"Toward foreign states, with one exception, he advocated a policy of justice and nonintervention. Despising Greeks, he respected Greece. When the imperalistic plunderers in the Senate were for waging war upon rich Rhodes, he made a decisive speech in favor of conciliation.
"The exception, as all the world knows, was Carthage. Sent there on an official mission in 175, he had been shocked by the rapid recovery of the city from the effects of the Hannibalic war, the fruitful orchards and vineyards, the wealth that poured in from revived commerce, the arms that mounted in the arsenals.
"On his return he held up before the Senate a bundle of fresh figs that he had plucked in Carthage three days before, as an ominous symbol of her prosperity and her nearness to Rome. He predicted that if Carthage were left unchecked, she would soon be rich and strong enough to renew the struggle for the mastery of the Mediterranean.
"From that day, with characteristic pertinacity, he ended all his speeches in the Senate, on whatever subject, with his dour conviction:--Ceterum censeo delendam esse Carthaginem -- 'Besides, I think that Carthage must be destroyed.' The imperalists in the Senate agreed with him, not so much because they coveted Carthage's trade, as because they saw in the well-irrigated fields of north Africa a new investment for their money, new latifundia to be tilled by new slaves.
"They awaited eagerly a pretext for the Third Punic War."
Robby

"Masinissa, King of Numidia, lived ninety years (238-148), begot a son at eighty-six, and by a vigorous regimen kept his health and strength almost to the end. He organized his nomad people into a settled agricultural society and a disciplined state, ruled them ably for sixty years, adorned Cirta, his capital, with lordly architecture, and left as his tomb the great pyramid that still stands near the town of Constantine, in Tunisia.
"Having won the friendship of Rome, and knowing the political weakness of Carthage, he repeatedly raided and appropriated Carthaginian terrain, took Great Leptis and other cities, and finally controlled all land approaches to the harassed metropolis. Bound by treaty to make no war without Rome's consent, Carthage sent ambassadors to the Senate to protest against Masinissa's encroachments.
"The Senate reminded them that all Phoenicians were interlopers in Africa and had no rights there which any well-armed nation was obliged to respect. When Carthage paid the last of her fifty annual indemnities of 200 talents to Rome, she felt herself released from the treaty signed after Zama. In 151 she declared war against Numidia, and a year later Rome declared war against her."
How simple and nebulous can be the reasons for declaring or waging war."

Robby

Here is a link to NUMIDIA, the nation that helped Rome start the Third Punic War.

Robby

Here is some information about the NOMADIC BERBER TRIBES which lived in that area at the time of the creation of the Roman Empire and who still live there.

Robby

Ancient Greece: The ancient Greeks prized their freedom and way of life. Their way of life stressed the importance of the individual and encouraged creative thought. If this is so then how did the Romans defeat the Greeks? You would think that if a people valued freedom, individualism and creative thought that they would fight to keep these values. But the Greeks did fight. Did a superior Roman force then best them? Perhaps Roman soldiers carried superior weapons. Could it be that the Greeks were really too soft - that they had become philosophers and thinkers instead of fighting soldiers. If they had more balance between philosophers and soldiers would they have survived the Roman attack?

The Greco-Roman Age: Drama and Poets: During the Roman rule, prose became the most prominent literary form. The essayist Plutarch wrote "Parallel Lives of Illustrious Greeks and Romans" contrasting Greek and Roman leaders. The Roman poets and dramatists adapted Greek forms to Roman audiences. I wonder what the differences were between Greek and Roman audiences?

Philosophy: Epictetus, a former slave and spokesman for the Stoic school preached acceptance and endurance. Epicureanism was based on the idea that the only good in life is pleasure. However, the only good pleasures are calm and moderate ones because extreme pleasures could lead to pain. I wonder why he thought extreme pleasures could lead to pain?

The highest pleasures are physical health and peace of mind. They emphasized that every human being should live virtuous lives and believe in a divine plan. Stoics believed that happiness was only achieved by concentrating on the things they could control. I found this an interesting philosophical ideal.

The Stoics believed that the world came about not by chance but by devine providence and their world was the best of all possible worlds despite the existence of evil. The Stoics emphasized the role fate plays in the lives of people. If we accept that evil exits in the world and that it is there because of devine providence does that mean we should do nothing to stop crime?

Scrawler (Anne of Oregon)

Where were you, SCRAWLER, when we were discussing Durant's "Life of Greece" when we needed you?

Mal

Anne, you bring up a number of questions which certainly caused me (and others I am sure) to pause and ponder. I don't know why but as I read your comments, the Serenity Prayer kept coming to mind --
God grant me
the Serenity to accept the Things I cannot change,
the Courage to change the Things I can,
and the Wisdom to know the Difference.
The Greeks were philosophers and thinkers -- perhaps coming to the conclusion that the Roman force was something they could not overcome. The Roman force was superior and perhaps they came to the conclusion that this was something they could accomplish.
If a person (or civilization) "accepts," is that soft? As Aesop tells us, the tree breaks during the storm but the grass merely bends over and then returns to its original state. Can there be, as you ask, a "balance" between being philosophers and soldiers? I seem to remember as Durant moved on the term philosopher-soldier.
You state that the Stoic school preached acceptance and endurance. Are those two traits synonymous? Could one mix both Stocism and Epicureanism? Can accepting be pleasure? And if so, could the result of endurance be extreme pleasure?
Folks, please don't ask me where I am going. I am not going anywhere. Questions don't have to have a conclusion toward which they aim.
I shot an arrow in the air
It came to earth I know not where.
I just keep pondering Anne's remarks such as the Stoics "concentrating on the things they could control" and wondering if coming across things they could not control brought them unhappiness.
As you can see, Anne, you have caused my brain to go into high gear. I'm sure others here will react in one way or another.

Robby

Scrawler's points are well made; I thought we had visited them in previous discussions, including the recent, "The Coming of Philosphy."

Robby, do you mean for us to revisit our previous discussions and go into depth? The rhetorical (I assume) questions that Scrawler addressed have been being discussed for some time now by historians (and this dicussion group) without arriving at definitive answers. Shall we return to these questions in depth or go on, in hopes that further information may bring enlightment? Perhaps Scrawler will join us.

In case you wish us to go on, Here is, I think, the best view of Masinissa's fabulous nose.

No, Tooki, it is not our intention to go into depth on topics we already discussed some time ago, especially those in the second volume, The Life of Greece. I have no objection to our commenting on Greece from time to time. In fact, as I see it, it would be impossible for us not to talk about Greece as we cover the Roman Empire because of the Grecian effect on it. But in depth? No. That would hold us up.
I would hope, however, that Anne -- with all the deep thinking and knowledge that she apparently has -- would move along with us as we cover the current sub-topic, i.e. the Third Punic War.
Do you suppose there is a connection between that fabulous nose of Masinissa and the fact he lived until ninety? As I look in the mirror I see a nose rather similar to that of his and I am now 83. As for begetting a son at 86 -- that's another story.

Robby

I think you put your finger on the heart of the issue. The Greeks were over powered. The Persians were unable to do it but the Romans had the field strength and smart generals. Corinth not only fell but was wiped out. Perseus was destroyed.And so the Med became a Roman lake where Romans could trade and bring home the goods so needed for the epicureans to enjoy their lives. The work of securing the Med was accomplished by stoics such as Cato. Who, when he found smething he could not control, he attacked. That's where all the facial scars he bears came from.

Most people, I think, are a combination of epicureanism and stoicism. We try to be responsible to family and country when the times require it but we also look forward to weekends when the world stops and we can get off for a brief time.

There's hope for us Robby. Crosby did it too. So did Chaplin and Alban Barkley.

Tooki: Thanks for the Roman nose. Art historians use the nose as an indicator of Roman figures. It's called an iconographic identifier. The nose lies in a straight line from the forehead to the tip. Look for it works we will see from time time in this book.

WOW! I'm going to use that from time to time -- my "iconographic identifier." I might even use it if I ever have to see an otolaryngologist.

Robby

Say what?

ROBBY, I put in a call to that ex-patient of yours who wants you to marry her. Just think. You can sire another scion, and with that Roman nose start a war or two. Ever think about doing that instead of messing around with Psychology and Ancient History?

Mal

"Rome's declaration of war and the news that the Roman fleet had already sailed for Africa reached Carthage at the same time. She had a small army, a smaller navy, no mercenaries, no allies. Rome controlled the sea.
"Utica therefore declared for Rome, and Masinissa blocked all egress from Carthage to the hinterland. An embassy hastened to Rome with authority to meet all demands. The Senate promised that if Carthage would turn over to the Roman consuls in Sicily 300 children of the noblest families as hostages, and would obey whatever orders the consuls would give, the freedom and territorial integrity of Carthage would be preserved.
"Secretly the Senate bade the consuls carry out the instructions that they had already received. The Carthaginians gave up their children with forebodings and laments. The relatives crowded the shores in a despondent farewell. At the last moment the mothers tried by force to prevent the ships from sailing. Some swam out to sea to catch a last glimpse of their chldren.
"The consuls sent the hostages to Rome, crossed to Utica with army and fleet, summoned the Carthaginian ambassadors, and required of Carthage the surrender of her remaining ships, a great quantity of grain, and all her engines and weapons of war. When these conditions had been fulfilled, the consuls further demanded that the population of Carthage should retire to ten miles from the city, which was then to be burned to the ground.
"The ambassadors argued in vain that the destruction of a city which had surrendered hostages and its arms without striking a blow was a treacherous atrocity unknown to history. They offered their own lives as a vicarious atonement. They flung themselves upon the ground and beat the earth with their heads.
"The consuls replied that the terms were those of the Senate and could not be changed."
"All is fair in love and war."

Robby

I have always called such noses, "non-stop noses." These kind of noses are also to be found in Mayan art, both two and three dimensional. And also in much of west coast Indian art.

George Rouault had a fondness for these kinds of noses also. Wonderful Noses

Otolaryngologist??? Robby, enough of those big words. This is a simple little discussion with plain folks.

Tooki; You are absolutly right. "Roman Nose" is probably a good example of a native American with a Roman nose. I say that although I have not seen the man or his photo. I suppose, one can find traces of the nose in contemporary settings. Matisse, as you point out, did some figures with a Roman nose. His 1916 oil of the "Italian Woman" and the portrait of his own mother fits the bill. There is an "Odalisque seated on a Blue Cushion" who also exhibits the famed proboscus.

The Italian Woman is in the museum at Santa Barbara CA. The Odalisque is in the Brody Collection in Los Angeles. I don't know where Mama is. Matisse himself has a distinct bridge. I think in reality his mom also has a bridge. He found the strait snozz so effective in his Italian Woman that he put it on others.

OK. Away from noses (Italian or otherwise) and back to the Third Punic War. Let us watch what that former quiet little crossroads hamlet is doing to Carthage.
"When the people of Carthage heard what was demanded of them, they lost their sanity. Parents mad with grief tore limb from limb the leaders who had advised surrendering the child hostages. Others killed those who had counseled the surrender of arms. Some dragged the returning ambassadors through the streets and stoned them. Some killed whatever Italians could be found in the city. Some stood on the empty arsenals and wept.
"The Carthaginian Senate declared war against Rome and called all adults -- men and women, slave or free -- to form a new army, and to forge anew the weapons of defense. Fury gave them resolution. Public buildings were demolished to provide metal and timber. The statues of cherished gods were melted down to make swords. The hair of the women was shorn to make ropes. In two months the beleaguered city produced 8,000 shields, 18,000 swords, 30,000 spears, 60,000 catapult missles, and built in its inner harbor a fleet of 120 ships."
Any comments on the power of fear as a motivation? Especially when protecting ones own home?

Robby

"The Carthaginian - In two months the beleaguered city produced 8,000 shields, 18,000 swords, 30,000 spears, 60,000 catapult missles, and built in its inner harbor a fleet of 120 ships."

Any comments on the power of fear as a motivation? Especially when protecting ones own home?

Fear as a motivator can lead to many avenues! Protecting ones own home is a much better motivator than anything else.

Did we not respond in kind to the events that lead to our envolvment in the WW1, of Dec 7, 1941 and Sept 11,2001 as the Carthaginian did, the only difference between that period in civilization and present is that the Carthaginians lost to Rome and our multinational country has forged ahead.

Will civilization let the "sleeping giant" have a period of rest or will they continue to gnaw at the bit? As the circle goes round and round we shall see, won't we.

Fear is a very powerful motivator for defense, but it must be controlled and the reaction directed to be effective. So often, people who experience fear become irrational and do things that contribute to their own destruction. One can learn to cope with fear and to function effectively even though one is badly frightened. The first time is the worst time. After that one pushes it down inside and lets anger and activity take over. One can become resigned to its presence but expect that it will rise again to plague one depending on the intensity, and imminence of the cause. When the cause is removed, the stomach muscles relax and body tension eases.

"Again and again the Roman consuls led their armies against the walls of Carthage, but always they were repulsed. Only Scipio Aemilianus, one of the military tribunes, proved resourceful and brave. Late in 147 the Roman Senate and Assembly made him consul and commander, and all men approved.
"Soon afterward Laelius succeeded in scaling the walls. The Carthaginians, though weakened and decimated by starvation, fought for their city street by street, through six days of slaughter without quarter. Harassed by snipers, Scipio ordered all captured streets to be fired and leveled to the ground. Hundreds of concealed Carthaginians perished in the conflagration.
"At last the population, reduced from 500,000 to 55,000, surrendered. Hasdrubal, their general, pleaded for his life, which Scipio granted, but his wife, denouncing his cowardice, plunged with her sons into the flames.
"The survivors were sold as slaves, and the city was turned over to the legions for pillage. Reluctant to raze it, Scipio sent to Rome for final instructions. The Senate replied that not only Carthage, but all such of her dependencies as had stood by her were to be completely destroyed, that the soil should be plowed and sown with salt, and a formal curse laid upon any man who should attempt to build upon the site.
"For seventeen days the city burned."
A proud city to the end.

Robby

"We shall go on to the end;

We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans;

We shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air;

We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be;

We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds;

We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets;

We shall fight in the hills;

We shall never surrender."
- - Winston Churchill, June 1940

The Third Punic War was a preventive war. Rome took action to neutralize and old enemy who was growing stronger on its borders. The old enemy was not engaged in any action other than defensive preparation. Carthage was, at this time, a peaceful settlement in an important trading location. Hanibal was gone.(Threats so often depend on a rallying personality to make them dangerous. If Hitler had been removed by his generals we would have had a peace offering. If Napolean had been finished at Joffa, Europe would have had a different composition. Alexander's death ended the Greek advance.)

It was unfounded fear and greed that drove the Roman senate to demolish a well placed competitor. The population was moved ten miles inland. The children were held as hostage against what? Rebuilding? Attack? The city was demolished and its rubble remains to this day. Rome became ruler of the Mediteranean world for the next 500 years.

A photo of CARTHAGE RUINS.

Robby

Here are MORE PHOTOS of ruins of Carthage. Allow time for downloading. Click onto small photo for larger version. Below the larger version are numbers. Each one gives a different photo.

Robby

Cato:

"...The Romans listened in reluctant fascination, for no one had ever spoken to them with such obvious honesty and stinging wit. The lash of his tongue might fall upon any man present, but it was pleasant to see it descend upon one's neighbor."

Isn't this an interesting example of human nature. Is telling the truth about someone always advisable? Is honesty the best policy? If everyone accepted themselves as they realy are, perhaps than honesty could be the best policy. But as long as people are emotional about themselves when someone talks honestly about their "warts" I don't think this is going to happen. I would think that telling the truth about everyone in the ancient world would be a good way to make enemies. Which of course Cato did.

"After five years of heroic opposition to the nature of man, he retired from office, made successful investments, manned his now vast farm with slaves, lent money at usurious rates, bought slaves cheap and - after training them in some skill - sold them dear, and became so rich that he could affort to write books - an occupation he despised."

It seems to me that Cato was a man of action and hated his retirement. To him the job of writing books was mundane and just wasn't exciting enough for him. He probably preferred making speeches than writing about them. I'm not sure that he was on anyone's side. Even though he hated "venality and luxury" you can't say that he was on the "farmers" side unless he wanted their votes. I think he was a man of contradictions.

"Despising Greeks, he respected Greece."

This is an interesting statement. Does it mean that Cato despised the people, but admired the country itself?" How can this be? Without the people of ancient Greece - would Greece even have existed? And where would Rome be? If we believe that history is fated by the gods, than each domino must be in place in order for our history to continue.

"Cato carried out his threats."

Would we all be happy if those aspiring to public office always carried out their promise (threats)? First, of all I think we have to know if this question applies to ancient times or the present. I don't think we can apply our values to the ancient world. If this question applies to the ancient world then I would have to answer YES. I would agree with Machiavelli:

"Hatred is acquired as much as good work as by bad ones, therefore, a prince wishing to keep his state is very often forced to do evil."

If the question applies to the present than my answer would be NO. If we have learned over the years to become a true CIVILIZED people, than we must act accordingly. But than what does CIVILIZED mean? Does it mean different things to different people? If your enemies do not act in a civilized way, does this mean that you should not do so as well?

Hi Mal. I'm here. Better late than never!

Scrawler (Anne of Oregon)

"The Carthaginian state no longer existed.
"Utica and other African cities that had helped Rome were left free under a protectorate. The remainder of Carthage's territory became the province of 'Africa.'
"Roman capitalists came in to divide the land into latifundia, and Roman merchants fell heir to Carthaginian trade. Imperialism became now the frank and conscious motive of Roman politics. Syracuse was absorbed into the province of Sicily. Southern Gaul was subdued as a necessary land route to completely subjected Spain. The Hellenistic monarchies of Egypt and Syria were guietly induced -- like Antiochus IV by Popilius -- to submit to the wishes of Rome.
"From the moral standpoint, which is always a window dressing in international politics, the destruction of Carthage and Corinth in 146 must rank among the most brutal conquests in history. From the standpoint of empire -- of security and wealth -- it laid simultaneously the two cornerstones of Rome's commercial and naval supremacy.
"From that moment the political history of the Mediterranean flowed through Rome."
Your comments, please?

Robby

Hi, SCRAWLER, ANNE of OREGON! I'm glad you are here, and where am I? Reading the posts, but with not much to say, for a change. It is a bit strange reading about this Punic War again from another perspective. Durant was clever, as was his wife, Ariel, whom I very much respect.

MOXIE mentioned fear as a motivator, and JUSTIN talked about living with it. All I can think of is BUBBLE, who never knows from one day to the next if when she goes to the library to work or Ben goes to do the marketing whether a suicide bomber might attack where they are. They live as normally as they can with this fear.

I have developed a rather awful fear of going outside alone, since I can no longer pick myself up when I fall. That's a different kind of fear, but it is fear, nevertheless, and a fear I never had before. I live with it.

Mal

Carthage was not a state in the same sense that Rome was a state. Rome included the people of the entire peninsula. Carthage was a city and its environs. Greece too was not a unified whole. It was a collection of independent cities, often at war with each other.They engaged in intestine war and the Achean League was not sufficient to hold them all together.

Carthage depended on foreign mercenaries to make war. When Hannibal attacked Rome on the Italian peninsula, foreign troops made up the bulk of his force. These troops gained plunder in attack but they gained nothing in defense and as a result were unavailable for that purpose. When Carthage required defenders it had to rely on citizen manpower which was inadequate for defense. They had no Hannibal to organize an opposition so they built walls and suffered a long seige.

Reliance upon mercenaries had another downside. They had to be paid. On one occasion,unpaid mercenaries returning from a campaign under Hamilcar camped outside the city waiting for their pay. When it became apparent Carthage did not have the money, the mercenaries attacked the city and took plunder.

Some say we should study the past, learn from our mistakes, and not repeat them. With a history such as Rome's, perhaps it would be better to forget it. I'm not sure I want or need to know anything more about ancient brutality.

And there is little but trials, tribulations, and travail ahead for the Romans. Revolts, Spartacus, killing Christians - conquering, more conquering. There is nothing the Roman Empire did that I can admire, and I'm not sure I want to know more details of its rise, decline, and fall.

Tooki: I understand your reluctance to look at the pain and suffering caused by the stoic Romans but we can not understand ourselves without examining the life styles of those who did what we do centuries before. Their manner of achieving ends differs from us but our ends are similar.

They wanted law and order and to achieve that end they punished criminals with death. We do the same. They watched exhibitions by gladiators for diversion. We watch boxing matches, football, survival television, and cops and robber plays. They attack peaceful countries preemptively. We do the same. They worshiped gods invented by men to aid in controlling the people. We do the same.

If by examining the Romans we can see our own faults, there is a chance we can do something to change us, to make life a little better for our children. We have the power of the ballot and the bully pulpit of age to achieve that end.

Thank you, Justin, for that excellent post which helps us to keep in mind one of the advantages in looking at the past. As you say:--"If by examining the Romans we can see our own faults, there is a chance we can do something to change us, to make life a little better for our children."
This is why in this discussion group we do not act as if we are just reading a history book. We bounce back and forth between the past and the present and look at ourselves -- just as Justin did in that post. Are we saying we do not want to look at the present?
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
- - George Santayana

"In the midst of the Third Punic War its chief instigators had died in the fullness of victory -- Cato in 149, Masinissa in 148. The old censor had left a deep mark upon Roman history. Men would look back to him for many centuries as the typical Roman of the Republic.
"Cicero would idealize him in De Senectute.
"His great-great-grandson would reincarnate his philosophy without his humor.
"Marcus Aurelius would mold himself upon his example.
"Fronto would call upon Latin literature to return to the simplicity and directness of his style.
"Nevertheless, the destruction of Carthage was his only success. His war against Hellenism completely failed. Every department of Roman letters, philosophy, oratory, science, art, religion, morals, manners, and dress surrendered to Greek influence.
He hated Greek philosophers. His famous descendant would surround himself with them.
"The religious faith that he had lost continued to decline despite his efforts to reanimate it.
"Above all, the political corruption that he had fought in his youth grew wider and deeper as the stakes of office rose with the Empire's spread.
"Every new conquest made Rome richer, more rotten, more merciless. She had won every war but the class war. The destruction of Carthage removed the last check to civil division and strife.
"Now through a hundred bitter years of revolution Rome would pay the penalty of gaining the world."
Robby

There is not one civilization we've read about and discussed, including the pretty Greeks, which did not kill and massacre to achieve their goals. It seems to be a historical fact of life, something I didn't want to accept in the beginning of Our Oriental Heritage. Power empowers. More breeds more. Fall from a height; it makes more splash. The next generation of civiizations does the same. Why should ours be any different?

Cold here in the Southland, kids, and the heater of this apartment is broken. If you see me on the highway with my thumb out, please pick me up. I need a ride to the airport. I've decided to conquer Puerto Rico or some other such place that's nice and warm.

Here, have some olives. Just picked off my tree. A nice glass of wine with that and some cheese and bread will make a good Romanesque breakfast for all of us.

Ciao bella,

Mal

http://www.tourism.gov.il/TourHeb/virtual%20tour/index.html

click on the Northern tour. On the menu to the left, click on Caesarea (2nd last) and then top right to more pictures, to see Roman theater and Aqueduct. Don't forget to move your mouse on the picture to have a look of 360 degrees.

I live in the town shown under Caesarea. Bubble

Bubble, what fabulous pictures and of course I looked a long time at Netanya where you live. A clean modern city by the sea. Just where we would like to be now Mal and I as winter is settling in here.

I have followed, with deep interest, all the posts but was unable to write much. Now I am living at home where it is nice and quiet, after major work done in this house, and I will have more time.

It seems that we like Romans less than Greeks who gave us such graceful living, but Romans eventually came around to better sentiments as we will most likely see later on. They are now just establishing their supremacy by force and graceful living will arrive afterwords. If Romans copied the Greeks, the Greeks did not invent anything, they expanded on Asian cultures to forge their own and passed on their legacy to Rome who will expand theirs to greater heights even if will not be exactly the same but will be just as significant to later civilizations.

Romans were different as they rose to power and they had to start from the bottom like all the others, with the plebes fighting, conquering and plundering. When that was done as far as it could go, they enjoyed their new-found wealth and basked in their accomplishments surrounded by beauty and comfort which they thought they had invented.

If we don't learn from our mistakes might it be because we humans have never changed even if we learn new tricks, we just use them differently.

Eloïse

Welcome back, Eloise! Nice to hear that your computer is back in working order and that you are esconced in your own apartment where you have quiet and can concentrate on your own interests. You always have so much to offer here and we are looking forward to your continued postings.

Robby

Welcome back, Eloise. I hope you're enjoying your new house. I like what you said:
"If we don't learn from our mistakes might it be because we humans have
never changed even if we learn new tricks, we just use them differently."
Mal

The pictures of Carthage were much appreciated.

I too am disturbed by the brutality of early Rome. Is such brutality a part of human nature, as some seem to suggest? Can we call the early Romans 'civilized'? And are we in the west doomed by our inheritance of Roman thought and methods? The World Wars, The Vietnam Was, the Korean War - were all brutal to some degree. Our invasion of Iraq would seem to suggest that we continue to regard war as the primary method of getting our way in the world. And does religion play an increasing part in the acceptance of war as a solution to the world's problems? I raise this question as religious wars become important in Europe and seem to be becoming important again in our time.

I always seem to have more questions than answers.

SEA BUBBLE: thanks for the great pictures of Israel. I see the market in Be'er Sheva hasn't changed much since I lived there 40 years ago. Except it's bigger, and obviously not in the center of town ant more. Do the bedoins still come there to sell? I didn't see any in the picture.

I had a funny experience with that. I had been a computer programmer in the States, and, since my husband had a job in Be'er Sheva, I tried to get one too. There weren't many computers in Israel in 1963; the only one in town was a small IBM office that worked with the old IBM cards. It was in the old town, and there were hitching posts at the curb outside the office. The manager explained that the bedoins hitched their camels there when they went to the market. Unfortunately, he said, there is something in IBM cards that affects camels the way catnip affects cats. Every once in a while, a camel would go mad, break his tether, and break into the office looking for IBM cards. Part of my job would be to control these crazed camels. Needless to say, I lost all interest in applying for the job. Later, I realized that he had made up this story, since it was clear he didn't want to hire a woman. (We American's will swallow anything). But after that, I could never see an IBM card without visualizing a camel munching on it.

Justin your post #337, great post;”...............If by examining the Romans we can see our own faults, there is a chance we can do something to change us,.....”

But......there is always “the other side”, and it does not matter which side you are on. Therefore we need power and control over “the other side” first. Too bad that the “other side” feels the same way. Will never change..power,greed....

Question: Why can't we respect one anothers way of life sans power, greed etc.:

That is such a great site, am spending all my time going through it, and absolutely enjoying. Seems so far removed from Australian, and so untouched somehow.I have a thousand questions.

Anneo

In a very short time we will move onto the next major section but first -- taking into consideration some of the previous postings about the pros and cons of taking part in this discussion group -- I have a few questions which I would appreciate participants here (and lurkers as well) answering. Now that you have absorbed some of the activities in ancient times --
1 - Do you look at life in general any differently from the way you did before entering into The Story of Civilization?
2 - Do you see yourself any differently from the way you used to see yourself?
3 - Do you relate to your friends and acquaintances any differently?
4 - Can you visualize yourself as having an oriental or ancient Greek heritage?
5 - Do you follow today's news the same way you used to or do you see it through different eyes?
6 - Aside from technological advances, do you see the people of today as being exactly the same as the people of ancient times -- or not?
7 - Can you see yourself as wearing the clothes of the ancients, living as they did, and believing in their deities?
8 - Do you believe that, aside from technological advances, that "civilization" has progressed in any way?
9 - After having participated in this forum for months, if not years, what are your definitions of "civilization" or "civilized?"
10 - How do you visualize homo sapiens anywhere from 1000 to 5000 years from now?
I would greatly appreciate as many people as possible answering these questions. And, to add interest, you might want to comment on the answers of others.
Robby

I have been in this discussion since the day it first began. These are some of the changes I now perceive in myself because of it.

1. Many preconceived ideas I had before the first posts in this discussion have changed a great deal. There's a lot of questioning going on in my mind about who's right and who's wrong, who's good and who's bad that weren't there before. This discussion hasn't shaken my philosophy, but it's certainly made me take a good, hard look at it.

2. It's funny to think of myself in relation to people in the far distant past. For some unknown reason I thought we in our time were superior in ways to our ancestors. I see now that we aren't, and it makes me sad to think how little human beings have evolved.

3. I have to be careful with that. I go in other book discussions, for example, where ideas we discussed nearly two years ago are only beginning to be talked about. It's hard not to go in and say, "Well, if you had been in the Story of Civilization discussion you'd know this idea is not half as new or startling as you think it is."

4. Well, sure I do. All of us came from somewhere, and the roots of all of us began thousands of years ago in ancient civilizations. The trouble with that is that I don't know exactly who I am any more. I realize now that my ancestors and my genes did not just come from England, and I know no way to trace them back to their origins. Who am I, then?

5. Of course, the news is different. When I can compare what is happening today to something that happened 4000 years ago, everything has changed. In ways it's easier because I'm not as shocked or surprised any more.

6. I think people today are very much like people in ancient times, yes.

7. My imagination is such that it's easy to put myself back in time and wear the clothes of ancients and believe in their gods. I don't know if I'd be alive, though, or if BUBBLE would either. With attitudes about human life quite different in some ancient civilizations from what they are in Western society today, people crippled by illness as a child as we were might have been put out to die or otherwise eliminated. That is a kind of advancement, isn't it? All is not lost.

8. As I see it, civilization has progressed only minimally. Without laws to enforce changes of behavior and attitudes about some who are considered inferior, much of civilization would be the same as in ancient times.

9. I guess for me "civilization" and "civilized" now mean a nation or nations where people don't go around bashing each other over the head absolutely randomly all the time. My idea of civilization has most certainly changed -- probably because I now don't think we're anywhere near it yet.

10. If the world's environment survives as long as 1000 to 5000 years from now, I do not expect many changes in homo sapiens. Progress is only a word. Human beings take millions of years to evolve. This is something I never would accept before entering this discussion because the idea depressed me. Now I accept it, and I don't feel as depressed about it as I did.

Bubble:--You gave us a fantastic link to help us see various aspects of Israel. I spent about ten minutes there but it is obvious that I will have to go back and spend an hour there. Thank you!

Robby

Permit me Robby to answer only question, No. 8. “Do you believe that, aside from technological advances that ‘civilization’ has progressed in any way?"

Yes, it has made giant steps forward in certain areas. Where it has made to most significant advances is that longevity has increased threefold in some countries. Through advances in health areas, and with the help of a proper democratic systems of government making education free and accessible to everyone in any strata of society plus the level of comfort and leisure we now have, this civilization is now in a better position to advance even more. But for this to happen, we would have to abandon the pursuit of wealth, which leads to war, otherwise it can fall back as we have often seen happening in Story of Civilization and lose all the wonderful advances that were made in the past century alone.

Longevity is a sign of a healthy society in mind and body allowing the pursuit of knowledge as a necessity rather than a luxury.

Eloïse

Eloise, I see longevity as the result of technology. I'll argue about whether education in a democracy such as the one I live in truly is free in grades K through 12. It certainly is not free beyond that. I see very few advances in the minds of human beings in the past century, frankly.

Mal

Bubble: The photos of your home area were enlightening. I did not expect to see camels tied to post lanyards but I was pleasantly surprised to see a very modern and well landscaped shore resort. Much has been done in Israel since the British pulled out. It's no wonder the Arabs want to take it away from you.

1. Do you look at life any diferently?

I think so. I realize more clearly that it has all been done before, that I am not the first on the scene and that my answers to many questions are not unique answers. Also, that while many questions are still with us the answers are improving with age. That gives me hope rather than resignation.

I used to think we were gaining on peace, that it was closer but in the VFW magazine this month I see that US servicemen were killed by enemy action during fifteen distinct military operations since WWll. These actions start with Korea and end with Irag. The Roman Emperor Augustus beginning in 37 BCE was able to achieve peace for most of his life. Within 50 years of his death the wars were on again with the destruction of Jerusalem.

Your answers are most enlightening and I am looking forward to some more of your views before we move on to the next major section.

Robby

While you are answering these questions, you may find THIS ARTICLE of related interest.

Robby

it offers hope with a dash of common sense.

I haven't answered THE QUESTIONS yet, and I may not. However, I am working on a strategy to allow me to keep my balance amidst the brutality of those dreadful Romans whom I distain and refuse to recognize as forebearers.

When I was a child I viewed scary movies with my hands over my eyes and my fingers spread wide apart. (I still do when forced by circumstance to sit through anything remotely brutal.) I was the only child in the Saturday matinee who never really saw the evil Ming in Flash Gorden. I think I can do the same thing with Roman brutality: see, but not see. Hey, I think it will work for me!

I see life very differently since I joined SSoC: up to now I had viewed Antiquity, Greek and Roman time as just Hostpry with not much in common with me. Life seemed to start with the Renaissance.

Now, because we go back and forth between past and present, I see myself belonging to that History too.

I am aware more than ever before that we are a tiny sparkle in the flow of Time and whatever happens here will not have much influence when looking at the overall story of mankind.

Because I travelled a lot, I have always been open and interested in other cultures. I continue to be so.

4_ But I am of Greek heritage with a surname Saloniki!

5- Same: always found it depressing

6- we are the same, with just a tiny coat of cleaner varnish making it seem more modern or advanced.

7- Oh yes, I could, especially if I did not have the benefit of such good schoooling that I was lucky to get.

8- we hope so, believe so, but...

9- Civilisation, as we would like, is an illusive/utopic ideal way of life where people of all cultures would coexist in peace and seek mutual intellectual and material advance.

10-Gone completely through self-made disaster or just the same old self deluding self thinking to be at the top of civilisation.
Bubble

P.S. Thanks for the appreciation about Israel's site. I too still need to look at it more in depth!

History interests me but it doesn't change me. I've always tended to take a long view of the human species, and I can't see that it has changed very much. Still, we do make a little progress; and the thing that impresses me is that we keep trying. I've always admired Greek philosophy and despised Roman warfare. I don't see any real difference between that period of history and our own. As for their deities, all gods for me are personifications of ideas, and I'm always curious to know why people believe what they believe. The thing that always surprises me about earlier civilizations is how much knowledge and skill they had. The buildings they erected amaze me. I'm sorry I missed the Oriental discussion. I'm reading a fascinating book now, "Zen and Japanese Culture" by Daisetz Suzuki. I've always understood the Greeks, but the Orientals could teach me something that is totally unknown to me.

Delanda est Carthago:

I always knew that four years of Latin would come in handy some day. Delanda est Carthago means "Carthage must be destroyed". Every time, Cato the elder made a speech regardless of its content, he ended his speech with those words.

When he was on a mission to Africa in 157 BC he became obsessed with the idea that the city must be destroyed. He suffered from xenophobia, which means the fear of strangers or foreigners. When he saw the luxury and wealth of the city of Carthage he was repelled by its wealth and was convinced that the city would some day rise up against Rome. The fear that foreigners could rule Rome probably sent him over the edge.

All is NOT fair in love and war:

Whoever said that there was fairness in love or war. Being strong in the acient world meant being successful against your enemies. It's interesting that Carthage tried to apease Rome by forfeiting the lives of their children and their weapons. I also found the parents reaction: "they tore limb from limb the leaders who had advised surrendering of arms. Some dragged the returning amassadors through the streets and stoned them" most enlightening. And I doubt very much that the Romans felt any love toward a city that had wealth and yet chose to surrender their own children and arms without striking a blow. When it comes down to it - whose atrocity was it? The parents who gave up their children, the politicians who advised them to do it, or the Romans who followed the orders of their Senate?

The Third Punic War:

I'm not sure that HATRED was more of a motivation than fear. The people of Carthrage hated their own politicians and probably even themselves. The Romans hated the wealth of Carthrage. Perhaps there was the underlying fear of being conquered, but I think that in the long run it was fury that drove the people of Carthrage. Romans certainly feared that Cathrage would rise up against them, but again it was rage that pushed them forward. And in a final gesture of contempt, the Romans made sure that the people of Carthrage would not rise up against them by spreading salt over the ruins. You can kill men, women, and children and heir descendents will remember and will retaliate, but destroy a city so that it is not livable for over 25 years and you have destroyed a way of life.

Scrawler (Anne of Oregon)

Sea Bubble, I just had a chance to visit the site of the virtual tour of Israel. What an excellent site; I have forwarded it to the rest of my family and a lot of friends. Thank you.

I just printed Robbie's questions and may post something after I have had a chance to digest them.

Do you see your self any differently?

I have in the past thought of myself in comparison with my parents and their generation and when prompted, in relation to colonials. I walk the streets of Williamsburg, wander through Monticello and Mount Vernon and think," these people were not very different from me." They overcame obstacles to get along in life. They tried to explain things they did not understand. They loved and felt pain. They rebelled when rebellion was called for. How different are they from Martin Luther King or me?

Now I look at myself in the context of world history. I am not very different from the guy who listened to Cato and felt a chill on his butt from sitting on cold marble.

Robby I copied your questions and until I can print them out and digest the contents won't be able to answer you right away!

But then, I am still learning!

Do you relate to friends and acquaintances differently?

Yes, in some ways, I think I have changed toward friends and acquaintances. Those friends who are interested in Middle Eastern problems may find me more probing than before because I have a little more of the history of the Middle East than previously. Mahlia added quite a bit to my current understanding that area.

While I was posting yesterday in early evening, my computer failed and I was off line until the problem was solved this evening. What relief!

ROBBY, I read your questions quickly in an effort to catch up- yet again. I have to copy them and think about them further.

But I will say now that for my part I do not feel optimistic about the future of the planet nor the survival of mankind. The technological advances, e.g. in the health field, are stupendous; in other fields they are splendid and a sign of progress unimaginable even in the early 20th century.

On the other hand technology also made possible the inventions, production and stockpiling of huge arsenals of sophisticated weaponry and WMD capable of annihilating whole nations on the globe.

But war is NOT inevitable! There ARE non-violent means : The collapse of the Soviet Union that ended the Cold War came from within.

BUBBLE, I could not access your pictures; plug-ins are required and I still have no idea how to get them.

TOOKI, only a few days are left before my surgery and I regret that I won't have the time to translate the Latin passage you had posted a few days ago. Sorry.

Traude: I hope your surgery results in better health for Traude. Here is something to think about. The message from the Republican camp is that Reagan, in his willingness to spend more and more on WMD, drove the Soviets to the brink of bankrupcy and therefore he, Reagan, is responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union. What do you make of that argument?

Can you visualize yourself with an Oriental or Greek Heritage?

I visit the Post Office and see Greek Revival Architecture. I see friends attending religious services with a Greek origin. I attend university classes and know that the Greek, Plato, started the university idea. I experience surgery and know that the Greeks successfully invaded the body to heal. I write postings and know that the Babylonians incribed their messages on tablets. ( I wonder if the Iraqi looters left any tablets for future generations.) I see my Greek and Oriental heritage all around me.

Tomorrow morning we begin the next major section in "Caesar and Christ." Thank you, in the meantime, for responding to my questions as to how, if at all, this discussion group has changed your thinking.

Robby

My question today is: Why don't we like the Romans? Hasn't every other civilization we've read about and discussed tried to be bigger and better than every other one through the same means of brutal war? Is it because of their treatment of Christians and Jews? Do we relate to the Romans this way because they seem to be more part of the Western civilization we know? I'm really curious.

Mal

Maybe it is because we have seen the brutal side of them pictured so much in Hollywood films, the gladiators, the colisseum with its bloody combats. Those pictures imprinted in our mind more than any texts we read about other cultures.

Today's pictures in the neewsreel on TV make more impact than any discourse or denial offered by the other side.

First a general reply to Robbie's questions. I find that this discussion has opened my eyes to the study of history and through the hard work of group members, I have learned about web sites that I would never have known about. I find the interrelatedness of history and current events fascinating.

I want to take the time to post some words by Gandhi that seem particularly appropriate to this discussion at this time. I just read them this morning. I will probably make two posts as it is an extensive quote from the book, The Essential Gandhi edited by Louis Fischer.

"I believe repression will be unavailing. At the same time, I feel that the British Rulers will not give liberally, and in time. The British people appear to be obsessed by the demon of commercial selfishness. The fault is not of men, but of the system.......the true remedy lies, in my humble opinion, in England's discarding modern civilization, which is ensouled by this spirit of selfishness and materialism, which is purposeless, vain, and... a negation of the spirit of Christianity. But this is a large order. It may then be just possible that the British Rulers in India may at least do as the Indians do, and not impose upon them ....modern civilization. The railways, machineries and the corresponding increase of indulgent habits are the true badges of slavery of the Indian people, as they are of Europeans." He goes on for a number of pages.

I have more to add from this book if there is interest on the part of the group. But I must close with one more quote.

"An infallible test of civilization is that a man claiming to be civilized should be an intelligent toiler, that he should understand the dignity of labor, and that his work should be such as to advance the interests of the community to which he belongs..."

It is very hard to imagine how man lived 1000 or 5000 years ago. It is impossible for me to fathom what things will be like that far into the future - that is if man survives that long.

Heroines of Early Rome

Brutality in the ancient world:

I'm not sure that I would agree that the destruction of Carthage and Corinth were the most brutal conquests in history. On the contrary I think our own times are more brutal. We kill thousands of our enemies without ever facing them face to face. In the ancient world it would seem that whole cities were destroyed but compared to the numbers killed in our own time they were mere pebbles in a rushing stream.

As far as the moral issue is concerned, I don't think the ancient soldiers who fought thought that much about what was moral or what was not. They did what they were told or found a dagger in their backs. They let the philosophers do the thinking for them. But when it came right down to it; I think it was just a case of kill or be killed.

Questions and answers:

1. I'm not sure that my feelings have changed, but I feel that I'm a bit more knowledgeable then when I first entered into "The Story of Civilization". I was aware of some of the information, but it has been a long time since I was able to study it at any length.

2. No, I can't say that I see myself any differently.

3. No, I can safely say that I don't relate to anyone defferently.

4. My grandparents came from Greece to the United States. My grandfather came in 1917 and my grandmother in 1921. They came from the Ionian Islands in the Agean Sea. Family legend has it that we are directly related from the ancient philosophers. I don't know about that, but I do know that my family always stressed individualism and deep thinking. When I was a little girl and I used to come home from school, my grandfather would ask me what I learned and when I told him he would ask what I thought about it. I would tell him and he would take the opposite stand, which forced me to prove my point. This was my inheritance from the Greek side of my family - being able to formulate my own ideas from what I read and heard and the fact that I never beleived something because someone said it was true. These ideals can be both a comfort and a curse.

5. I try not to follow today's news - it makes me too angry. I tend to think more of the past.

6. To a certain extent I think technology has brought us advances, but it has also brought us disadvantages. We tend to depend on technology to solve our problems, when it is OURSELVES that can only do that. When the lights went out over New York I think I realized that from personal experience. When I heard that they had a problem, I immediately sent an E-mail to a friend of mine in New York. It was a while before my "wee-brain" realized that she couldn't receive it.

7. Yes, I think i'd like to live in the ancient time wearing their clothes, living as they did, and believing in their deities. In some ways I think it would be less complicated than the life I have now. And above all - there would be so many discoveries yet to made! What a wonderful opportunity to be on the spot when all those FIRSTS actually happened - that is if I lived that long.

8. I can't say that we have become that civilized in certain areas. I think that in an earlier post I indicated that to be civilized means different things to different people.

9. This is a difficult question to answer. Being cilivized I think means to me that you accept others for who and what they are warts and all. That you allow others including your enemies to live their own lives and that you don't impose your ideals on them.

10. I think the way we are going I'm not sure there will be any Homo sapiens left - at least not left on earth. If we don't start conserving our resources, I don't think there will be enough of mother earth left to support all the Homo sapiens that will be there. I'd like to think that mother nature will take her revenge and wipe us all out and then there will be a time when the dinosaurs will return and the earth will restore itself. As for the Homo sapiens I think they will be happily traveling from planet to planet in outer space. What can I say I read a lot of Science Fiction and Fantasy books.

Scrawler (Anne Of Oregon)

Mal, thank you for the link "Heroines of Early Rome". At last we read about the role of women in history. And no wonder Historians did not give too much importance to them, their role in life was not much better than chattel.

If civilization has progressed, I should think that women today, in the West at least, have so much more freedom than before and even in this generation there is a slow progress. Personally I can say that in my lifetime, women here are more accepted as equal to men in the home and in their careers.

My own 4 daughters are very independent and self driven, their husbands accept and encourage them in that, I am pleased to see. They all combine career and motherhood successfully even if they don't cook as much as I would like them to. Oh! well.

That link was very interesting Mal.

Eloïse

I'm glad you liked it, Eloise. Following the links on the page brings up information about women in other civiizations, too.

Mal

Here are my responses to my own questions:--

1 - Since I have taken part in The Story of Civilization, I have become much more accepting about life. What will be, will be. Not to say I won't try to make some sort of improvement in myself or my environment but whatever the result, so be it. The world is so big/and I am so small/So much to be done/And I can't do it all. Life will continue with or without my input.

2 - I see myself very differently now from the way I did before entering into The Story of Civilization. I take a much broader and deeper perspective. I see myself as a much smaller speck of humanity than before. That does not mean insignificant. I like to think that in the short period in which I (whatever "I" means) am on this planet, that I am contributing something, not only to homo sapiens, but to the universe as a whole. At the same time, I have begun to realize that I am not only just one small human organism among the six billion currently on earth, but that I am even smaller and less noticeable when considering the total number of people who have ever lived from the earliest civilizations. It is very humbling.

3 - I see my friends and acquaintances differently. I observe more carefully their facial appearance and their behavior. I find myself looking at them as if they had come recently from Greece or Rome or the Mid-East. I think about their heritage.

4 - Although I do not see myself as "oriental," I have begun to be more alert about words I use and perhaps customs I have (drinking tea?) which originated in the Orient.

5 - It is impossible (and I use that word expressly) for me these days to read about Iraq without thinking of Sumeria or Babylonia, or to read about the India-Pakiston conflict without thinking of their history, or to read about Afghanistan without thinking of the Silk Road. If I read about the upcoming Olympics, Ancient Greece comes to mind.

6 - The people of today may not be "exactly" the same as those of ancient times but, in my opinion, they are 99% so. I see practically no difference between the hates. loves, jealousies, fears, hurts, angers, frustrations, and confusions that we have today from the emotions of people millennia ago. Only the clothes changed.

7 - I suppose if I had been brought up in the ancient environment, I might be doing and believing the same things they did and believed. But being the person I am now, I would rather not dress like them and would most certainly not believe in their deities.

8 - I believe that Civilization progresses but ever so slowly. The mayfly who lives for a day thinks that it is a lifetime (and of course it is). It is born, it grows, it mates, it reproduces, it lives for a bit more and it dies. For us its life is but an instant. Mount Everest laughs at us for we are but an "instant." The universe laughs at Mount Everest. I believe there is progress in humankind but we can't see it anymore than the mayfly knows abouts its progenitors. But that does not mean that mayflies are not any different from the mayflies of millions of years ago. They may have progressed. From Sumeria to the time of Voltaire is but an instant so I don't believe that we will see the people of the 18th century acting any differently from those of 3,000 B.C. -- at least through our eyes. But I do believe they will have "progressed."

9 - The core of the word Civilization is "civil." Treating you the way I would treat myself. The Golden Rule. I believe that when the concept of the Golden Rule came to the level of mankind's awareness, that a big jump forward in being civilized occurred. I also believe, however, that most progress, including that of Civilization (my answer to Voltaire's question) moves in cycles. Forward and back or, if you wish, up and down. I, as an individual, am healthy and sick in cycles. So is society. But I do believe that health (in its broadest sense) is ever so gradually present more than illness.

10 - 5000 years is a drop in the bucket. As I said earlier, I see practically no difference between the Sumerians and us. And the same goes as we move forward 5000 years. That is too soon for us to double the size of our brains, or whatever the Future has in store for us. Another million years? Now that may be a big difference. We'll talk about it when that time comes.
Robby

Here is a reprint of my original questions for anyone else who wants to give answers:--

In a very short time we will move onto the next major section but first -- taking into consideration some of the previous postings about the pros and cons of taking part in this discussion group -- I have a few questions which I would appreciate participants here (and lurkers as well) answering. Now that you have absorbed some of the activities in ancient times --

1 - Do you look at life in general any differently from the way you did before entering into The Story of Civilization?
2 - Do you see yourself any differently from the way you used to see yourself?
3 - Do you relate to your friends and acquaintances any differently?
4 - Can you visualize yourself as having an oriental or ancient Greek heritage?
5 - Do you follow today's news the same way you used to or do you see it through different eyes?
6 - Aside from technological advances, do you see the people of today as being exactly the same as the people of ancient times -- or not?
7 - Can you see yourself as wearing the clothes of the ancients, living as they did, and believing in their deities?
8 - Do you believe that, aside from technological advances, that "civilization" has progressed in any way?
9 - After having participated in this forum for months, if not years, what are your definitions of "civilization" or "civilized?"
10 - How do you visualize homo sapiens anywhere from 1000 to 5000 years from now?

Robby

I would greatly appreciate as many people as possible answering these questions. And, to add interest, you might want to comment on the answers of others.

Definition of Civilization.

"Civilization" and its definition is the locus of this discussion. We see elements of it in the human herds we have examined thus far. Durant says these elements are, "eonomic provision, political organization, moral traditions, and pursuit of knowledge and the arts.

The oldest society we examined, the Sumerians,were civilized. All the elements were present in their settlements. The people of Ur, including Abraham, were civilized. The important question here is not whether or not a group is civilized but how civilized it is. What degree of civilization have they reached. Is a society that practices human sacrifice as Ur did during Abraham's time as civilized as one that watches animals eating humans for entertainment? The answer to that question, you may be surprised to discover is that the latter group is more civilized than the earlier. Why is this the case? It is thus because the elements of civilization are five and none of the elements include prohibition of ritualized death. We think of ourselves as civilized today, yet we punish by ritualized death. So the practice is still with us and condoned and encouraged by a large segment of the population.

What are the elements of civilization? How can we tell a civilized nation when we see one? There will be economic activity sufficient to satisfy the wants of the society ie: food, clothing, housing, and leisure. Obviously, some societies are better at this than others and may be seen as more "civilized" than others in this category.

Political organization is an element of civilization. Is a democratic society more civilized than a monarchy or a dictatorship? We think so but in time another form of political organization may appear that will be more beneficial to society at large.

The presence of moral traditions is another characteristic of civilization. I think, that a society morally governed by the dictum to "do unto others as one would have done to oneself" is a more civilized society than one that is not so governed. Shall we point to the Carthaginian and to the ancient Roman societies as examples of those not so governed?

The final elements are those of the pursuit of knowledge and the development of the arts. Some societies are better than others. The Greeks were originators. The Romans were copyists.

I think we must conclude that civilization is a progressive description of society. We tend to move forward in all these elements. Sometimes, we regress but in the main we are constantly striving toward a more civilized society than the one we are experiencing.

1 – Truthfully, I must say NO the reason being I grew up in an era when DIVORCE was not socially acceptable to an adult nevermind the impact on a child. So it was that I began at an early age to respect anothers way of life ONLY when they showed respect to me.

2 – Absolutely not, I have always been curious.

3 – Only if my friends and acquaintances act differently to me. Guess I am an odd ball at that!

4 - My heritage begins in Sicily and knowing that little tiny island in the Mediterranean was invaded by all known civilizations at one time or other didn’t surprise me about Greek but stunned me about oriental.

5 - When I do follow some news items I must admit to seeing it differently as in that I compare it to the ancient civilizations.

6 - It takes more than technology to change a persons manners and mores. Only when individuals accept the change for the “better” can the values the individual alter.

7 - Only answer to this question is “When in Rome do as the Romans do, if you want to survive.”

8 - Not really!

9 - “Civilization” or “civilized” - Still think that the circle of life goes forward one step and backward two.

10 - Hopefully at some point in time Homo Sapiens will recognize that to Respect anothers Right to Choose the manner in which they LIVE without murder, war, jealousy, avarice and understand a different culture. Then we call can say the word “Civilized”.

ROBBY There is much truth, I think, in your suggestion that nations, like individuals, go through cycles of good and bad behaviour. Of sickness and health, as you expressed it.

Your words say something that I have come to understand clearly from reading Durant and other historians over the years.

Aside :- JUSTIN I don't accept that 'Republican' claim that the Soviets were driven into bankruptcy by the US. Nations possess 'real' wealth, (Population, raw materials etc ) that they cannot de deprived of by book-keeping wizardry. I will concede though that they may become 'bankrupt' of ideas, as have the present administrations in England / US. == Trevor

Justin:--Thank you for calling our attention to those four elements of civilization that Durant calls to our attention in the Heading above. Most of us probably scroll by the Heading so fast that we forget the basics which underlie his description of Civilization.

Robby

1 - Do you look at life in general any differently from the way you did before entering into The Story of Civilization?

No, I do not. That change occured over a long period of time, a lifetime. It did however make me realize that I had completely changed from the first time I studied ancient history as a young girl and somehow thought we were different then...smarter...more civilized....It did not take too long living in the real world, away from the protection of parents, to realize that people were not really so different from the ancients.

4 - Can you visualize yourself as having an oriental or ancient Greek heritage?

I would have said no to this question until I looked at Bubble's web site with the ampitheater. I could see myself twirling around on the stones in a dance of joy, but on second thought I would probably have been running from the lions.

I have no known ancestor of oriental or Greek heritage, but there is now a company that will give you a print out of your DNA. They have gone into areas all over the world and extracted DNA from the major groups and say they can match you with your ancestors, or at least the tribal group and area you came from.

5 - Do you follow today's news the same way you used to or do you see it through different eyes?

I have always followed the news, and watching today makes me realize nothing has changed for 5,000 years as far as mans inhumanity to man.

7 - Can you see yourself as wearing the clothes of the ancients, living as they did, and believing in their deities?

I could easily wear their clothes. I could never believe in their deities, at least once I reached the age of reason. There were ancients who did not believe the deities, and the leaders kept the practice alive to keep the populace under control.

8 - Do you believe that, aside from technological advances, that "civilization" has progressed in any way?

No.

9 - After having participated in this forum for months, if not years, what are your definitions of "civilization" or "civilized?"

Civilization will come when we stop killing each other, and protect and care for the earth as we would our own homes.

10 - How do you visualize homo sapiens anywhere from 1000 to 5000 years from now?

The same unless we find a better system of governing ourselves.

......

The Revolution

145-30 B.C.

Durant continues. The GREEN quotes in the Heading change periodically.

"The causes of revolution were many, the results were endless. The personalities thrown up by the crisis, from the Gracchi to Augustus, were among the most powerful in history. Never before, and never again until our own time, were such stakes fought for. Never was the world drama more intense.

"The first cause was the influx of slave-grown corn from Sicily, Sardinia, Spain, and Africa, which ruined many Italian farmers by reducing the price of domestic grains below the cost of production and marketing.

"Second, was the influx of slaves, displacing peasants in the countryside and free workers in the towns.

"Third, was the growth of large farms. A law of 220 forbade senators to take contracts or invest in commerce. Flush with the spoils of war, they bought up extensive tracts of agricultural land. Conquered soil was sometimes sold in small plots to colonists, and eased urban strife. More of it was given to capitalists in part payment of their war loans to the state. Most of it was bought or leased by senators or businessmen on terms fixed by the Senate. To compete with these latifundia, the little man had to borrow money at rates that insured his inability to pay. Slowly he sank into poverty or bankruptcy, tenancy or the slums.

"Finally, the peasant himself, after he had seen and looted the world as a soldier, had no taste or patience for the lonely labor and unadventurous chores of the farm. He preferred to join the turbulent proletariat of the city -- watch without cost the exciting games of the amphitheater -- receive cheap corn from the government -- sell his vote to the highest bidder or promiser -- and lose himself in the impoverished and indiscriminate mass."

Everyone's dream -- to own a small plot of land and do something with it -- became a nightmare. Big business won out. Those raised in rural surroundings with the love of the land moved to the big city. Anything familiar here?

Robby

Two thousand years later the AGRARIAN PROBLEM remains.

Robby

Since no one responded to my Gandhi post, I will not quote further from his book.

The Nov 9th Book Review section of the NYT had a review of "Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea by Thomas Cahill. Cahill writes about ancient Greece and is "a rich lively presentation of why the Greeks matter to those who already believe they do."

"Second, was the influx of slaves, displacing peasants in the countryside and free workers in the towns.

Can we cay that by buying goods manufactured in Third World countries who use use child, or dirt cheap labor, we are profiting from slave labor? Often I buy, unintentionally or intentionally, products labeled made in....... because it is cheaper and sometimes better than the one manufactured at home. Perhaps unions have contributed to a degree in obtaining higher wages and better working conditions and in ricochet giving large corporations an incentive to import from Third World countries to raise their profits. Remember the downsizing? It was obvious that their labor now could easily be obtained somewhere in overpopulated countries at a much much lower cost.

In the goodness of their hearts, those companies claim that any salary is better than none and they have a point there I must admit, but all that time, we are getting richer because of high income and relatively low expenses if we compare our lifestyle with other nations.

Canada has been declared having one of the highest standard of living on earth if not the highest!!! Well let me see at home. Almost everybody has a car and a television set, even those on welfare. Electricity is cheap in spite of living in one of the coldest countries on earth. Water coming out of the tap that we fill our bathtub with is drinkable and it is almost free. Our poor are fatter than our well-to-do.

We claim that it is because we are smarter. I don't know about that, or is it because we are lucky that we were born here and opportunities were given to us on a silver platter.

Yes Robby, this sounds very familiar to me.

Eloïse

I am heartened and bothered by the responses to Robbie's questions. Heartened because I think that all of us have benefited from this discussion and have gained perspective.

So why am I bothered? Have we really advanced in the last 2000 years? Yes, there have been scientific discoveries. Yes, we live longer and healthier lives. Yes, if you live in some societies you have enough wealth to take care of all of your needs. Yes, we have better art and music.

But first how many people in the world today live lives that are significantly better than those lived 2000 years ago? Are our morals any more advanced? I think not.

In fact, it occurs to me that the most significant thing to happen in the Western World 2000 years ago was the triumph of religion. And therein lies the rub for me. Having participated in the discussion of religion and evil, I wonder if the Western World could have become more civilized had it not become so religious. Has religion been a divisive force in our heritage? The words by Gandhi got me to thinking about the difference between the East and the West - about which I know very little.

I continue to be amazed at the number of questions that these discussions pose for me; they give new meaning to what I hope will be a long life of continuous insightful thought.

Is the divisive force religion or intolerance?

I had to look up the word divisive and found this quote!

It [culture] is after all a dainty and divisive quality, and can not reach to the depths of humanity. --J. C. Shairp.

George:--There is a group in Books & Literature discussing Gandhi and your thoughts regarding him would be more appropriate in that forum -- unless, of course, your quote relates to Agrarian Revolt. Regarding India, itself, we covered that in Our Oriental Heritage.

Robby

Click HERE for a definition of "latifundia."

Robby

The dream of owning a small plot of land was turned into a nightmare during the Roman Agrarian Revolution by wealthy land grabbing armchair farmers through price manipulation, government aid and slave importation.

It is happening again today in the US in almost exactly the same way. I have watched the farm subsidy program function to the detriment of the small farmer for almost fifty years. Several measures introduced by the Roosevelt administration and intended to aid the small farmer, have been abused by big agribusiness. The US small farmer is almost extinct today.

The farm subsidy takes a big chunk of our taxes and gives it as payment to farmers for over production to prop up prices. That's right folks, the US government pays farmers to either not produce or if they do produce the excess is destroyed and farmers are paid for the destruction. And.. this practice occurs in a period when people in the world are hungry.

Grassley is right on the money. This game of subsidy and capital accumulation has been with us since Roosevelt and is a duplicate of the Roman problem.

"In the city all domestic service, many handicrafts, most trade, much banking, nearly all factory labor, and labor on public works, were performed by slaves, reducing the wages of free workers to a point where it was almost as profitable to be idle as to toil.
"On the latifundia slaves were preferred because they were not subject to military service, and their number could be maintained, generation after generation, as a by-product of their only pleasure or their master's vice. All the Mediterranean region was raided to produce living machines for these industrialized farms. To the war parisoners led in after every victorious campaign were added the victims of pirates who captured slaves or freemen on or near the coasts of Asia, or of Roman officials whose organized manhunts impressed into bondage any provincial whom the local authorities did not dare protect.
"Every week slave dealers brought their human prey from Africa, Spain, Gaul, Germany, the Danube, Russia, Asia, and Greece to the ports of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. It was not unusual for 10,000 slaves to be auctioned off at Delos in a single day. In 177, 40,000 Sardinians, in 167, 150,000 Epirotes, were captured by Roman armies and sold as slaves. In the latter case at approximately a dollar a head.
"In the city the lot of the slave was mitigated by humanizing contacts with his master and by hope of emancipation. On the large farms no human relation interfered with exploitation. There the slave was no longer a member of the household, as in Greece or early Rome. He seldom saw his owner. The rewards of the overseer depended upon squeezing every possible profit from the chattels entrusted to his lash.
"The wages of the slave on the great estates were as much food and clothing as would enable him to toil from sunrise to sunset every day -- barring occasional holidays -- until senility. If he complained or disobeyed, he worked with chains about his ankles and spent the night in an ergastulum -- a subterranean dungeon that formed a part of nearly every latifundium.
"It was a wasteful as well as a brutal system, for it supported hardly a twentieth of the families that once had lived on the same acreage as freemen."
It is hard to read this without thinking of the ante-bellum period in America. And yet -- I have been wondering. Here in the States as we look back at the slavery period, we think of it as the maltreatment of blacks by whites -- a black-white situation. Was that truly it?
Let us examine the slavery situation in Ancient Rome as Durant paints it -- organized manhunts in their home lands, brought back in ships by slave dealers, auctions, mean overseers, working under the lash, sunrise to sunset every day, imprisoned and punished for disobedience, a slave until death. I see no difference between that and slavery in the American South prior to the Civil War.
Except for one thing! A significant number of the Roman slaves were white -- Germany, Gaul, Russia. Are we talking color or class?
Your thoughts, please?

Robby

Except for one thing! A significant number of the Roman slaves were white -- Germany, Gaul, Russia. Are we talking color or class?

Robby - I think this is an interesting point, since the USA has the color/racial distinction closely associated with slavery, while earlier societies (as Durant writes) dealt in the slavery of people of many different ethnicities. I just finished reading The Flame of Islam, which details the 200+ years of the Crusades, when there were indeed many white slaves of Circassian and Persian heritage (and other Aryan groups as well).

During Ramadan, when it is common to read the entire Qur'an, I've also been reading about slavery in the Middle East during the 7th century (a bit further along than this discussion right now, bust still relevant) and how slaves are commanded to "listen to and respect their Masters". Black African slaves were quite common then, but so, too, were the white slaves - particularly women. I've also been reading the Suras in the Qur'an which detail the birth of John the Baptist and Jesus and their ministries. Again, more slaves of varying backgrounds.

And as we think of the USA's heritage of Black slavery, we also must remember that we have hundreds (if not thousands) of slaves still within our country today: the primarily Asian women and children who are sold as sex slaves in the large cities in the USA and the smaller number of African women who are sold into domestic slavery in the USA, often through diplomatic or business channels.

The blight of slavery has continued throughout the generations, not only in foreign countries and among people with whom we in the West may not be aware, but often right in our own backyard.

Mahlia!! --
So good to see you here again! Your profound thoughts are always welcomed.

Robby

Did you folks know that there were WHITE SLAVES in early America?

Robby

Just how does one BECOME A SLAVE?

St. Augustine is the the oldest city in the United States. Pedro Menendez arrived in St. Augustine in 1513. St. Augustine was founded in 1565 after a battle between the Spanish and the French. The French, the Spanish, the English and finally the Americans took possession of St. Augustine and what the Spanish called La Florida. Florida did not become a state until 1845.

"In 1768 eight ships were launched off the coast of Spain. The 1,403 (white) Minorcan passengers on board were bound for an indigo plantation in New Smyrna, south of St. Augustine. Though the Minorcans believed themselves to be contracted as indentured servants to Dr. Andrew Turnbull, the plantation's owner, the reality was a situation bordering on enslavement.

"For nine long years, the Minorcans were forced to endure suffering and hardship. The settlers who managed to survive eventually escaped from the plantation, and made their way to St. Augustine, where they came under the protection of Governor Patrick Tonyn. These settlers became the core of St. Augustine's population, and many of their descendants still make their homes there."

I lived in St. Augustine just about ten years. Many times I heard of the brave Minorcans who came and settled there. They actually walked from New Smyrna, a good distance away, to St. Augustine. In the social hierarchy of St. Augustine, the descendants of these Minorcan slaves are on the top of the list even today.

Mal

Scroll down to see pictures Sharon (North Star) took of the Roman aqueduct at Segovia.

Roman aqueduct Segovia

Roman Heritage:

Malryn (Mal): You asked: "Why don't we like the Romans? I'm not so sure that we do - not necessary like - but admire the Romans. Roman heritage is all around us. It shows in our laws, our language, and our rrchitecture to name but three Roman influences. If we didn't admire this Roman heritage, why keep it around. I think that sub-consciously we might be afraid that we are similar to the Romans. Could we fear that we would be as brutal as they were? Or that our "empire" will fall from political power. Are we as a people too much like the Romans or are we too little? Perhaps as Sea bubble suggests we have depended on Hollywood films to bring us images of "gladiators and the coliseum with its bloody combats" and it is this is "image" of the Romans that we dislike so much.

Also, many thanks for the "Heroines of Early Rome".

Gandhi quotes:

gerogehd: (Sorry for the late posting.) Thanks for the very revealing quotes from Gandhi. Please tell me more about Gandhi's ideals. Do you think if Gandhi had lived during the Roman period that he would have been influential in dealing with the Romans?

Scrawler (Anne Of Oregon)

Anne of Oregon, Robbie has suggested that the discussion of Gandhi is not appropriate here. There is another discussion group devoted to his work, though I am not active in it.

ROBBY - thanks for the warm welcome. I've continued to read along in this discussion, but not post for a long time. I've admired the many different ways in which the active posters share their ideas, opinions and track the period of civilization under discussion. It has made for a broad range of shared information, enriched by the many links. Your questions encourage one to think "outside the box" of Western civilization and contemporary times. This discussion (from its inception) has offered a remarkable opportunity for a true education. Bravo!

GEORGE - thanks for your astute comments about Gandhi. I've participated occasionally in the Gandhi discussion and IMO it, too, offers an indepth look at an area of the world (and period) that may not be readily familiar to those in the West. Gandhi was a complex individual and at the same time a very simple man. I wonder if in the West it is possible to set aside the religious aspect and look at Jesus and his contemporaries as men and women of their time in the same way one wonders about Gandhi.

Another thought: was the cruelty of the Romans so very different from the cruelty inflicted on the Vietnamese by American soldiers? This aspect of our contemporary military history has been highlighted this week in several national news programs and is an issue that although may be well known (and certainly not yet forgotten)among the American military (especially the Vets who served in the Tiger Brigade in Vietnam), may not be as well known (or understood) elsewhere in the USA. Cruelty is cruelty; violence against others is violence against others, whether committed by Americans towards "foreigners" or the other way around and whether it is inflicted at home in the USA or on foreign soil. In this aspect, civilizations have not changed much over the years.

Slaves displaced free Roman workers in the crafts an on the farms. Many of these slaves were Greeks capable of skilled labor as well as manual labor. Soon no one was able to purchase the output of Roman shops and the cottage industry. Poverty spread all the while booty was coming into the city in great abundance. Farm prices fell and the booty rich folks bought up the land at bargain prices. There were only two alternatives for the displaced workers and farm owners: move on or revolt.

We in the US are facing essentially that today. We are exporting jobs to other countries where labor is cheapest and leaving the American middle class bereft of jobs. Business leaders who are doing the exporting have forgotten that the great American middle class represents the customers they court so diligently. It won't be long before prices fall, American imports contract, and we are back in recession. The seeds of a big one are planted and growing.

Mahlia, thanks for the comment. I was trying to point out to the group that while we are studying the history of Western Civilization, with which we grew up and are most familiar, there are aspects of that history that are troublesome and not accepted as particularly civilized by Eastern cultures. The reliance on war as a means to solving political problems is one aspect of Western Civilization that Gandhi rejected. The Roman's began this tradition two thousand years ago; that is a long time to keep making the same mistakes.

While we in the US (and most of the world) reject slavery as a concept we do not reject the idea of cheap labor or the substitution of machines for manual work. I am not sure that our reliance on foreign labor (at the moment) is necessarily a bad thing though ultimately it will bring down the cost of American labor. We see this in the automobile business, where foreign companies locate their manufacturing plants in the South so that they can employ non union labor.

What I do find most alarming is the wide separation between compensation for labor and compensation for management. This topic will come up in Durant's next chapter when Roman millionaires are discussed. And their lack of morals in doing business.

Apparently I missed the relevancy of George's quote of Gandhi. I'm glad the rest of you caught it.

Robby

Mahlia says: "I wonder if in the West it is possible to set aside the religious aspect and look at Jesus and his contemporaries as men and women of their time in the same way one wonders about Gandhi."

I certainly hope that this will be the case when we get to discussing the start of Christianity in this forum.

Robby

"In 133 Tiberius Gracchus passed the agrarian law that opened the Roman Revolution.
"He was the son of the Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus who had earned the gratitude of Spain by his generous administration, had served twice as consul and once as censor, and had saved the brother and married the daughter of Scipio Africanus.
"Cornelia gave him twelve children, all but three of whom died in adolescence. His own death left upon her the burden of rearing Tiberius and Caius and a daughter -- also named Cornelia -- who became the wife of Scipio Aemilianus.
"Both parents shared in the Hellenistic culture and sympathies of the Scipionic circle. Cornelia gathered about her a literary salon, and wrote letters of so pure and elegant a style that they were reckoned as a distinguished contribution to Latin literature. An Egyptian king, says Plutarch, offered her his hand and throne in her wodowhood, but she refused. She preferred to remain the daughter of one Scipio, the mother-in-law of another, and the mother of the Gracchi."
It is sometimes said that history tells us only of the kings, the generals, the warriors, the priests, and others of high rank -- and that because it never speaks of the lowly masses, that this is not true history. Could it be that those who are listed in our history books are the only ones who ever did anything? That we are not singling out the "haves" from the "have-nots?"
Do genes and childhood training come into the picture? Alexander was the son of Philip of Macedon. One famous Scipio the son of another famous Scipio. One Tiberius Gracchus the son of another. The genes of a Tiberius Gracchus passed down to Cornelia who was enlightened and used her talents. The father Gracchus was generous to the Spaniards. The son Gracchus passes the agrarian law.
Is this so in contemporary times? Any famous children of famous people? Or is this unusual?
Robby

Come on, ROBBY! How about the Prez of the U S of A?

CORNELIA GRACCHUS

Mal:--I already thought of him. And then there were the two President Adams. I was wondering how common this is. Scientists? Literary figures? Military figures?

Robby

Well, there's Sigmund Freud, psychiatrist, and his grandson, Lucian Freud, Britain's foremost figurative artist.
Andrew Wyeth and son, Jamie, artists
Charlotte, Emily and Anne Bronte, sisters and writers

Bronson Alcott
an innovative educator,

·a slavery abolitionist;

·an advocate of women's equality;

·the original leader of the American Transcendentalism movement;

·the co-founder of Fruitlands, a Transcendental community;

·an advocate of nonviolence, including animal rights;

·a vegetarian and environmentalist;

·an author of several books, articles and booklets and a poet;

·a superintendent of Concord schools; and

·founder of the School of Philosophy.

Louisa May Alcott, Bronson's daughter, writer

there are all those musicians, Strauss etc. run in the family...

"Johann Sebastian Bach's son Johann Christoph was a composer who went to Italy to study Italian opera. Johann Bach, Junior then went to England where he was know as John Bach, and for a while gave music lessons to Mozart."

Kirk and Michael Douglas, Martin and Charlie Sheen, Gwyeneth Paltrow and parents, the Barrymores, Gandhi and daughter, the Ford family (autos), .... the list goes on and on.

I am hard pressed to think of any military families. Perhaps the children of the military do not really like the life. I am also trying to think of scientists and have drawn a blank. Unless you count Isaac and Fig Newton.

"Indira Gandhi (1917-1984) was the only child of Kamla and Jawaharlal Nehru." When she was assassinated, her son, Rajiv, was named Prime Minister of India.

Some others from the East: Mohamed Reza, the late Shah of Iran, groomed from childhood by his Father, Reza Shah, who overthrew the Qahjar Dynasty of Persia;

The House of Saud, Saudi Arabia's family dynasty;

Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhuto of Pakistan;

Jordan's Hashemite Kings, the late King Hussein (and his grandfather in Iraq) and his son, the current King Abdullah;

The former President of Azerbaijan, Heydar Aliyaev, and son (recently elected President in a corrupt election. Opposition party leaders have complained to the US Congress through the office of John McCain).

The late Sukarno and his daughter, currently in office.

The late King of Morocco and his son, currently head of the country.

And closer to home in the Western world: the Kennedys (politics);

the Eisenhowers (military and politics);

the Shrivers (politics and humanitarian issues - Special Olympics);

the Schwartzkofs (father in civilian intelligence and son a decorated Army General);

Maynard Mack, Sr. and Jr. - both distinguished Shakespearean scholars;

the Windsors of Britain and their cousins throughout Europe;

And my all-time favorite, Cal Ripkin, Jr., Baltimore Orioles baseball legend; his brother (whose name I cannot recall) and their father, Cal Ripkin, Sr.

Frances Gumm/Judy Garland -- mother, actress-singer
Liza Minnelli -- daughter, actress-singer

Wynona Judd -- mother, singer
Naomi Judd -- daughter, singer

Fred and Gene Kelly -- brothers, dancers

W. H. and W. L. Bragg -- father, son, chemists, Bragg's Law, shared Nobel Prize

Colleen Dewhurst -- mother, actress
George C. Scott -- father, actor
Campbell Scott -- son, actor

Dave Brubeck -- father, musician
Darius Brubeck -- son, musician

Alexandre Dumas, Pere -- father, writer
Alexandre Dumas, Fils -- son, writer, dramatist

Pierre and Marie Curie, daughter, Irène. http://www.nobel.se/physics/articles/curie/

"In the last ten years of her life, Marie had the joy of seeing her daughter Irène and her son-in-law Frédéric Joliot do successful research in the laboratory. She lived to see their discovery of artificial radioactivity, but not to hear that they had been awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for it in 1935. Marie Curie died of leukemia on July 4, 1934."

Anna Freud daughter of Sigmund Freud.

Arthur MacArthur, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Mac Arthur Jr. General of the Army of the Pacific Douglas MacArthur, General of the Army, South West Pacific Theatre.WWll etc.

Roman Slavery:

Slavery started when farmers needed laborers for their farms. Prisoners of war were the chief sources of slaves as well as criminals or people who couldn't pay their debts. As industry and commerce increased slavery expanded. Many labored in handicraft industries, in mines, or on farms. Others worked as household servants, doctors, teachers and poets. In Rome slavery became so widespread that even the common people owned slaves.

That few writers or other influential individuals viewed slavery as evil or unjust was interesting to me. Most felt it was fate and was a part of life that could happen to anyone at any time.

Treatment of the slaves varied greatly depending on where they worked. If they worked in large gangs in mines or farms they worked long hours and suffered harsh punishment. However, if you were a household slave you were often treated as well as any member of the owner's family.

The Revolution:

"Finally, the peasant himself, after he had seen and looted the world as a soldier, had not taste or patience for the lonely labor and unadventurous chores of the farm. He preferred to join the turbulent proletariat of the city...watch without cost the exciting games of the amphitheater...and lose himself in the impoverished and indiscriminate mass."

This description could have been describing my husband when he returned home from Vietnam. An artist and farmer when he returned home he lost interest in both and chose instead to "lose himself in the impoverished and indiscriminate mass." It's interesting that when he first went to Vietnam in 1963 that he would send me sketches of the Vietnamese farmers working in their rice paddies. He also wrote poems and he said he felt closer to the farmers than he did to some of his fellow soldiers. But at some point he stopped sending me sketches and letters. I'm not sure if he ever sold his vote to the highest bidder and I made sure that when he returned that he ate more than cheap corn, but the brutal images of war were with him until the day he died.

Ante-bellum Slavery:

"Lincoln denied "that there CAN BE MORAL RIGHT in the enslaving of one man by another." But he did not want to pass judgment on southern people. When they "tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we," I acknowledge the fact...They are just what we would be in their situation...When it is said that the institution exists, and that is very difficult to get rid of it," Lincoln acknowledged that fact also. "I surely will not blame for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution." ("Battle Cry of Freedom" James M. McPherson p. 127).

Scrawler (Anne of Oregon)

All those famous people related to each other!! There must be a message there. Genes? Environment? One talks about 2% of the population having 98% of the wealth. Over the centuries are 2% of the population running the world?
Anne quotes the comment regarding slavery that "the institution exists, and that is very difficult to get rid of it," This makes me wonder. If we had to make this difficult choice:--Be a slave or be a slave owner. Which one would you be?

Robby

"Early in 133 Tiberius Gracchus, elected a tribune of the people, announced his intention to submit to the Tribal Assembly three proposals:--
1 - that no citizen should be permitted to hold more than 333 -- or, if he had two sons, 667 -- acres of land bought or rented from the state;
2 - that all other public lands that had been sold or leased to private individuals should be returned to the state for the purchase or rental price plus an allowance for improvements made; and
3 - that the returned lands should be divided into twenty-acre lots among poor citizens, on condition that they agree never to sell their allotment, and to pay an annual tax on it to the Treasury.
"It was not a utopian scheme. It was merely an attempt to implement the Licinian laws passed 367 B.C., which had never been repealed and never enforced. Said Tiberius to the poorer plebeians:--
'The beasts of the field and the birds of the air have their holes and their hiding places. The men who fight and die for Italy enjoy only the light and the air. Our generals urge their soldiers to fight for the graves and shrines of their ancestors. The appeal is idle and false. You cannot point to a paternal altar. You have no ancestral tomb. You fight and die to give wealth and luxury to others. You are called the masters of the world, but there is not a foot of ground that you can call your own.'
"The Senate denounced the proposals as confiscatory, charged Tiberius with seeking a dictatorship, and persuaded Octavius, another tribune, to prevent by his veto the submission of the bills to the Assembly. Gracchus thereupon moved that any tribune who acted contrary to the wishes of his constituents should be immediately deposed. The Assembly passed the measure, and Octavius was forcibly removed from the tribune's bench by the lictors of Tiberius.
"The original proposals were then voted into law. The Assembly, fearing for Gracchus' safety, escorted him home."
Robby

When the Greeks defeated the Medes and then the Persians, they entered a period of relative peace characterized by a brilliant cultural expansion. When the Romans defeated the Catheginians and the Macedonians they entered a period of limited aggression to collect booty and expand wealth. The wealth came not from their own industry but from the industry of neighbors whom they conquered. An influx of slaves and slave produce brought Rome to revolution and finally to civil war. Which society was the more civilized? I think the answer is obvious.

Robby,

re your question #424.
In my son's words it would be: "Do you prefer to be a winner or a loser?" That is how the world is for him. I suspect that for him stepping on other's toes (to put it mildly) would be OK to achieve the winner status, that is be very rich while being his own boss and not dirty his hands at menial tasks.
Bubble

Bubble:--This is exactly the thought I had in mind when I asked the question. There are those of us who most definitely would not want to be the type of person who hurts others -- yet, considering the alternative? Does each of us have our price? Are we that different from those Romans who became freedmen (former slaves) and then themselves, in the interest of self-protection, became the masters of slaves?

Robby

Of course it all depends of your ambitions?

I confess I have none.
I have always refused leading posts, never wanted to have high title (director of this or that) and I am just happy to do my own preference even if someone else collects the kudos.
Which means I can always refrain from doing something I consider unethical or detriemntal to another.

I do not think that any of us want to be slaves or losers. But must we be the opposite if we choose not to be slaves or losers? Slavery is not as relevent today - but winning certainly is. Winning, to come out on top, is drummed into every American youth every day, 24 hours a day. Competition is repeatedly viewed as a positive thing, building character and building wealth. But man is a social animal, and part of us wants to work with others and not compete all of the time. The extent to which competitive men and women resort to immoral and even illegal means to win, is somewhat a measure of the weakness of a society (IMO).

Schools and religious institutions, and of course the home, are faced with a constant battle of teaching social skills - that winning is not everything. The Romans had no mechanism to combat the belief that winning (and thereby defeating others) was the only way to survive.

Durant continues:--

"Gracchus' illegal overruling of the tribunician veto, which the Assembly itself had long ago made absolute, gave his opponents a handle with which to frustrate him. They declared their purpose to impeach him at the end of his one-year term, as having violated the constitution and used force against a tribune.

"To protect himself he flouted the constitution further by seeking re-election to the tribunate for 132. As Aemilianus and Laelius and other senators who had defended his proposals now withdrew their support, he turned more completely to the plebs. He promised, if re-elected, to shorten the term of military service, to abolish the exclusive right of senators to act as jurors, and to admit the Italian allies to Roman citizenship. Meanwhile the Senate refused funds to the agrarian commission that had been appointed to execute Tiberius' laws.

"When Attalus III of Pergamum bequeathed his kingdom to Rome (133), Gracchus proposed to the Assembly that the personal and movable property of Attalus should be sold and the proceeds distriuted to the recipients of state lands to finance the equipment of their farms. The proposal infuriated the Senate, which saw its authority over the provinces and the public purse being transferred to an unmanageable and unrepresentative Assembly largely of servile origin and alien stock.

"When election day came, Gracchus appeared in the forum with armed guards and in mourning costume, implying that his defeat would mean his impeachment and death. As the voting proceeded, violence broke out on both sides. Scipio Nasica, crying that Tiberius wished to make himself king, led the senators, armed with clubs, into the Forum The supporters of Gracchus, awed by patrician robes, gave way. Tiberius was killed by a blow on the head, and several hundred of his followers perished with him.

"When his younger brother Caius asked permission to bury him, he was refused. The bodies of the dead rebels were thrown into the Tiber, while Cornelia mourned."

Gracchus sided with the "common" people, trying to shorten their service in the military and giving them the right to act as jurors, in effect saying "Power to the people." For this stance those with their hands on the money killed him.

Money talks?

Robby

Money talks? should be written MONEY TALKS!

What a pleasure to finally have come to the mention of Cornelia, Mother of the Gracchi; that's what I was waiting for. An exemplary woman ! I learned about her in my Latin class, where much of Roman history was presented as well, to my everlasting gratitude.

After another supreme effort I caught up with the posts last night and feel privileged to be with you, albeit infrequently. We have touched on universal themes and issues here, and it is wonderful to see old friends again.

But why is it, I wonder, that heads of state and people in authoritative positions don't learn from the all too obvious lessons of history and actually scoff at them, believing they have the definitive answer and their stance will be successful ?

On a personal level that reminds me of the role parents play in their children's lives: they try (sometimes desperately) to shield them and warn them away from (easily avoidable) pitfalls which they themselves experienced (and often effectively negotiated) - but to no avail. The children stubbornly insist on making their own (sometimes disastrous) mistakes. I know I did in my time.

Another "given" in my family never ceased to trouble me : my mother was in an everlasting, fierce competition with her sisters spread all over the country, and I never understood the reason (or the need) for such rivalry within the family.

Now to answer ROBBY's questions:

1. No, I do not look at life differently since joining you in the current discussion of SoC.

2. and 3. I do not see myself nor friends and acquaintantes differently either.

4. Yes, I can visualize myself having an oriental or Greek heritage. Even when I came to this country as a young adult, I realized quite clearly that my (our) heritage was different becaue of upbringing etc.

5. I have always taken a keen interest in following the day's news, not only in English-speaking media sources but those in other languages as well. I do so now with heightened interest and concern.

6. Irrespective of the incredible advances man achieved over time,I believe that his nature is unchanged. Man has the same impulses, urges, base instincts, and emotions- negative and positive.

7. No, I cannot see myself wearing the clothes of ancient time or live as the ancients did, and even less believing in their deities.

8. I believe "civilization" has not progressed one bit. We have learned to speak with "forked tongue", to practice insincerity, invented "spin" and ever more sophisticated weapons to vanquish adversaries, including precipitous preemptive invasions.

9. I have less of a problem with "civilized", the meaning of which is rather clear. But I am not so sure about "civilization".

A lifetime ago it seems, when I was a teenager in Latin class- which I loved- in our all girls'high school, the teacher asked one fine day what "civilization" meant to us and about our interpretation of the term.

Only our beloved Prof. Dr. Meyer could possibly have presented that challenge to us. At first we were a bit stunned. Then one of us said softly into the silence, "Professor, are we to think bath tubs and indoor plumbing? And how 'civilization' differs from "culture", man's intellectual heritage ? " We had an inspired discussion.

10. If we keep going at this rate, I sincerely doubt that homo sapiens will exist one thousand or five thousand years from now.

BOOTH: (famous actors)

Junius Brutus Booth (father)

Edwin Thomas Booth (brother)

John Wilkes Booth (brother)

Richard Booth (1/2 brother)

KENNEDY: (government)

Joseph P. Kennedy (father)

John Fitzgerald (brother)

Robert F. Kennedy (brother)

Edward Kennedy (brother)

FREUD: (psychoanalysts)

Sigmund Freud (father)

Anna Freud (daughter)

Scrawler (Anne of Oregon)

"In the face of these calamities Cornelia sought consolation by devoting herself to her surviving son, the last of her 'jewels.' The murder of Tiberius aroused in Caius no mere spirit of vengeance, but a resolve to complete his brother's work. He had served with intelligence and courage under Aemilianus at Numantia, and he had won the admiration of all groups by the integrity of his conduct and the simplicity of his life. His passionate temperament, all the more vehement on occasion because so long controlled, made him the greatest of Roman orators before Cicero, and opened almost any office to him in a society where eloquence served only next to bravery in the advancement of men. In the fall of 124 he was elected tribune.
"More realistic than Tiberius, Caius understood that no reform can endure which is opposed by the balance of economical or political power in the state. He aimed to bring four classes to his support:--the peasantry, the army, the proletariat, and the businessmen.
"He won the first by renewing the agrarian legislation of his brother, extending its application to state-owned land in the provinces, restoring the land board, and personally attending to its operations.
"He fed the ambitions of the middle classes by establishing new colonies in Capua, Tarentum, Narbo, and Carthage, and by developing these as thriving centers of trade.
"He pleased the soldiers by passing a bill that they should be clothed at the public expense.
"He gained the gratitude of the urban masses by his lex frumentaria, or corn law, which committed the government to distribute wheat at six and one third asses per modius (thirty-nine cents a peck -- half the market price) to all who asked for it. It was a measure shocking to old Roman ideas of self-reliance, and destined to play a vital role in Roman history. Caius believed that the grain dealers were charging the public twice the cost of production, and that his measure, through the economy of unified operation, would involve no loss to the state. In any case, the law turned the poor freemen of Rome from client supporters of the aristocracy into detenders of the Gracchi, as later of Marius and Caesar.
"It was the foundation stone of that democratic movement which would reach its peak in Clodius, and die at Actium."
Interesting developments. Social welfare? Land grants? Uniforms for the enlisted men?
Durant calls Caius' emotion "a temperament vehement because it was so long controlled." Is that what is sometimes called "cold fury?" And I am wondering if it is indeed true that eloquence is second only to bravery in the advancement of men.

Robby

Here is a FASCINATING BIOGRAPHY of Cornelia.

Robby

ANNE - to your list of famous Kennedys, may I add Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, our former Lt. Governor of Maryland.

One must admire and cheer on the women who are able to make a serious contribution in spite of the opposition of an entrenched male. Gals such as Cornelia, Sister Kenny, Molly Pitcher, Gloria Steinem, Eleanor Roosevelt, Hilary Clinton, Galina Vishnevskaya, Golda Mier, Madame Gandhi, Florence Nightingale, Clara Barton, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, etc.,fit the bill. This too is a long list.

Justin:--When one looks at your long list (and there are others of course unnamed), my temptation is to say that women have not been that much in the background over the years. Keeping mind my theory that 2% of the people guide our lives, then while 98% of the women are "hidden," cream rises to top in women as well as in men. Or is my math off?

Robby

"Caius' fifth measure sought to assure the power of his party by ending the tradition whereby the richer classes in the Centurial Assembly voted first. Hereafter the centuries were on each occasion to vote in an order determined by lot.
"He appeased the business class by giving them the exclusive right to serve as jurors in trials for provincial malfeasance, i.e. they were hereafter to be in large measure their own judges. He whetted their appetites by proposing a tax of one tenth, to be collected by them, on all the produce of Asia Minor. He enriched contractors, and reduced unemployment, by a program of road building in every part of Italy.
"Altogether these laws, despite the political trickery that colored some of them, formed the most constructive body of legislation offered to Rome before Caesar."
Any comments about these progressive moves?

Robby

No comment on these specific measures but rather a comment on how a leader determines what he wants to do (no shes in Rome). I suppose that historical documents do not reveal how a man like Caius arrived at the notion of progressive laws versus regressive laws and then how he convinced others to side with him. I would guess that he was acting out of self interest and not necessarily the good of the society.

Well, George, let's see how that continues:--

"Armed with such varied suppport, Caius was able to override custom and win election to a second and successive tribunate. Probably it was now that he sought to 'pack' the Senate by adding to its 300 members 300 more to be chosen from the business class by the Assembly.

<"He proposed also to extend the full franchise to all the freemen of Latium, and a partical franchise to the remaining freemen of Italy. This, his boldest move toward a broader democracy, was his first strategic error. The voters showed no enthsiasm for sharing their privileges, even with men of whom only a small minority could have attended their assemblies in Rome. The Senate acted on its opportunity.

"Almost ignored by Caius, and reduced to apparent impotence, it saw in the brilliant tribune only a demogogic tyrant extending his personal power through the reckless distribution of state property and funds. Suddenly finding an ally in the jealous proletariat of Rome, and taking advantage of Caius' absence in establishing his colony at Carthage, the Senatorial party suggested to another tribune, Marcus Livius Drusus, that he should win over the new peasantry by a bill canceling the tax laid upon their lands in the Gracchan laws. That he should at once please and weaken the proletariat by proposing the formation of twelve new colonies in Italy, each to take 3000 men from Rome.

"The Assembly readily passed the bills, and when Caius returned he found his leadership challenged at every step by the popular Drusus. He sought a third term as tribune but was defeated. His friends charged tht he had been elected but that the ballots had been falsified.

"He counseled his followers against violence and retired to private life."

Back-room politics and "hanging and pregnant chads?"

Robby

I wish that some of our politicos would retire to private life.

The question of slavery:

Robby asked which we would rather be - slave or master? According to the encyclopedia slavery occurs when one person owns another. But what exactly is "owned" the body, the soul, or a person's skills. In theory do we not today sell our "skills" to the highest bidder and therefore are we not slaves to the masters of business and industry.

Power to the people:

I'm not sure that the people at this time in history were ready for the "power". For the most part the common people were illiterate. "Living" for the common people was quite different than those of the aristocracy. Gracchus wanted to shorten the term of military service. But was this really practical to the success of Rome? He also wanted to abolish the exclusive right of the senators to act as jurors. But if the common people were to have the right to be jurors, they would have to be educated. It is no wonder that Gracchus had opposition from the aristocracy. An educated common people how frightful to the aristocracy! The common people didn't ask for changes in their life - it was Gracchus's idea. Which brings us to an interesting question. Do politicians really know what the common people want? Is it true today as it was in ancient Rome?

Scrawler (Anne of Oregon)

Anne:--Our Constitution calls for a "jury of ones peers." Does this necessarily mean "educated?" Could "peers" literally mean uneducated?

Robby

Peers generally means "those of the same rank." However, neither wealth, nor estate, nor education are criteria in legal rank in the US. A jury of one's peers, I think, means any 12 people pulled in off the street who meet the approval of defense and prosecution attorneys.

Robby; Your 2% rule has much to commend it but in the case of women in history, I think the percentage is more like .00000000002%.

Scrawler: Do politicians know what we want, we common people? I think the answer to that question is "no". The wants of the common people are so varied that anything a politician does satisfies someone's desires. Politicians today use polls to get some idea of the range of thought in the body politic. But polls vary in response depending upon the formation of questions.

For example, some of us wish "W" never started this war. Others are glad he started the war but wish we would get out now and leave the Iraqis to kil each other instead of our boys. Still others did not want us to start a war with Iraq but now that we have committed ourselves we must stay and finish the job. There are many shades of gray , of course, in between these positions. So how is the poor politician to know what we want. The answer I think, is to elect someone we have confidence in and then to give him or her headway. (Something we did not do in California.)

Justin, 000000002%. Very funny.

"In the following year the Senate proposed the abandonment of the colony at Carthage. All sides interpreted the measure, openly or privately, as the first move in a campaign to repeal the Gracchan laws. Some of Caius' adherents attended the Assembly armed, and one of them cut down a conservative who threatened to lay hands upon Caius.
"On the morrow the senators appeared in full battle array, each with two armed slaves, and attacked the popular party entrenched on the Aventine. Caius did his best to quiet the tumult and avert further violence. Failing, he fled across the Tiber.
"Overtaken, he ordered his servant to kill him. The slave obeyed and then killed himself. A friend cut off Caius' head, filled it with molten lead, and brought it to the Senate, which had offered a reward of its weight in gold. Of Caius' supporters 210 fell in the fight, 3000 more were put to death by Senatorial decree. The city mob that he had befriended made no protest when his corpse, and those of his followers, were flung into the river. It was busy plundering his house.
"The Senate forbade Cornelia to wear mourning for her son."
And what do you folks think of that?

Robby

That's one way to get rid of a government. I can see the headlines if it happened here:

"Hand to hand combat in the U.S. Congress. Grand Army of Republicans battles with Democrat Special Forces on Senate floor.

Speaker of the House loses his head trying to negotiate and takes off clueless for the Virgin Islands in confiscated Air Force One.

Regular armed forces out of control and playing touch football and Monopoly on the lawn of the White House to determine who's on top. Score = Army 16 Navy Zero.

Marine helicopter lands in Capitol Rotunda. Irate housewives join Feminists in pelting crew with oranges and bananas.

Space Alien troops from the Barbaric North attempt DC takeover.

Atlantic Ocean tide flows backwards.

Record Blizzard at Miami Beach.

The world as we know it is undergoing a major change.
(Article continued on back page.)"

Take two aspirins and go for a nap, Mal.

Robby

Well, I never! That's the last time I'll come in here and try to brighten your day, Dr. Iadeluca. If you can't laugh in the face of the ageless human comedy of errors, what else is left?

Mal

You guys are too much. Mal jokes. Robby jokes. But the head weighted in lead probably did not convert to gold.

Why do you suppose the slave killed himself? Was he avoiding torture?

Do you suppose that that was the origin of the phrase: "Get the lead out of your head" or do I have that mixed up?
All right, it's time for me to get back to being a proper professional.

Robby

Mal, I laughed till I cried with your joke, but what can you expect from a mere man.

Now, history becomes laughable because we have seen the same thing happen over and over again. Go for the kill, never mind sending peace keeping forces, just cut their heads off, fill it with lead and collect the booty.

Women should have the power. They would know how to run the world.

Eloïse

Eloise:--Would you please help us by giving us the names of some past world women leaders of peace-loving nations?

Robby

I liked Margaret Thatcher Robby, but she was not well liked and men resented her leadership. She might have been the Iron Lady, but she had to be to get elected to the top job in the country. She certainly made mistakes but she didn't do worse than the others. She put England's economy back track IMHO. What will Hillary be like if she gets the job?

Women are not warmongers as men are, we keep our protective instincts and avoid confrontation and killing as much as possible.

Eloise: Hillary will one of the greats. One of the guys on Mt. Rushmore will have to move over so can accomodate her.

I think that women presidents should have their own mount. Mt. Rushless.

George, you made a funny.

Eloise, you said:--"We have seen the same thing happen over and over again. Go for the kill. Women should have the power. They would know how to run the world."
I repeat my question. Are you saying that there has been no nation which was using its military to attack another and which was simultaneously under the leadership of a woman?

Robby

Here's one answer to your question, ROBBY.

Former Bosnian Serb President, Bijana Plavsic, confesses to war crimes

"The revolution was now passing into civil war. When the Senate asked for help from the eastern kings allied with Rome, Nicomedes of Bithynia replied that all men of military value in his kingdom had been sold into slavery to satisfy the extortions of the Roman tax collectors.
"Preferring an army for the moment, the Senate decreed that all males enslaved for unpaid taxes should be freed. Hearing of this order, hundreds of slaves in Sicily, many of them Greeks from the Hellenistic East, left their masters and, gathering before the palace of the Roman praetor, demanded their freedom. Their owners protested and the praetor suspended the operation of the decree.
"The slaves organized themselves under a religious imposter, Salvius, and attacked the town of Morgantia. The citizens there secured the loyalty of most of their slaves by promising to liberate them if they repelled the attack. They repelled it but were not freed. Many of them joined the revolt.
"About the same time (103) some 6000 slaves in the western end of the island rose under Athenion, a man of education and resolution. This force defeated army after army sent against it by the praetor and, moving eastward, merged with the rebels under Salvius. Together they mastered an army dispatched from Italy but Salvius died in the moment of victory.
"Still other legions crossed the straits, under the consul Manius Aquilius (101). Athenion engaged him in single combat and was killed. The leaderless slaves were overwhelmed. Thousands of them died in the field, thousands were returned to their masters, hundreds were shipped to Rome to fight wild beasts in the games that celebrated Aquilius' triumph.
"Instead of fighting, the slaves plunged their knives into one another's hearts until all lay dead."
Comments, please?

Robby

I am not surprised that Rome in 118 sucumbed, temporarily, to sloth and superstition. Peasants preferred the corn dole to work on the farms and poverty grew. Wealth became concentrated in 2000 land owners. The legions could no longer depend upon landowners to fill the ranks. There were not enough landowners and they were too soft for field service. The legions, as a result, filled out the ranks with poorly disciplined provincial conscripts and when the Celts 300,000 strong came to call five Roman armies were defeated leaving 120,000 Roman dead on the field.

History seems to repeat from time to time. Sloth and superstition defeated the Egyptian armies during the reign of Akhnaten.

Robby

How about Benazir Bhutto who was woman Prime Minister of Pakistan while it was attacking India over Kashmir?

Robby

How about the killing in Argentina while it was under the Presidency of Maria "Isabel" de Peron?
How about the killing currently going on in Sri Lanka under the Presidency of Chandrika Kumaratunga?
How about the killing going on in Indonesia under the Presidency of Megawati Sukarnoptri (daughter of late president Sukarno.)

Robby

When the ladies do it they do it well.

ROBBY - in all of the instances you mention above where there is female leadership, there is/was also ENORMOUS male military pressure on the women leaders to settle issues militarily. I wonder how the military in those countries (and others) would function differently (if at all) if their senior Commanders were women.

Would there be differences in Afghanistan today if the Interim Prime Minister was a woman instead of Hamid Karzai? How would a woman deal with the war lords throughout the country, rid the rural areas of the Taliban insurgents (who have returned in record numbers), and the corruption.

In Biblical times, if Deborah had been a leader of a far broader swath of tribes, rather than a Judge, would she have brought about changes which would have benefitted the citizens more strongly? How about Esther in top leadership role, rather than the spouse of a King? I've always wondered why God didn't speak as directly to more women in the ancient period as he did to men.

If there had been more female Heads of State, would the citizens have experienced more negotiations and consensus, "bridge building" rather than civilizations torn apart by "military might?" Can you imagine a female Moses or Genghis Khan? What if Joan of Arc hadn't died so early?

People talk all the time about the differences between men and women, and I seldom see or hear anything mentioned about the likenesses. I don't have any proof for this except observation, but I believe there's a lot more that drives human beings besides testosterone and estrogen.

I think we women have been kept, and keep ourselves, under wraps, so to speak. We do not even scratch the surface of our potential and capabilities.

I am a very strong woman who has leadership qualities and ambitions to succeed and always have had them. I am absolutely positive that if I had not been limited physically from childhood that I would have been able to use these qualities I recognize in myself in a different way from what I have been able to. I see men who have the exact same qualities who are out there pushing the envelope, sometimes in the limelight and sometimes not. On the other hand, I see women who do not have the kinds of compulsions that I have and men who are like them.

Carrying this a bit further, I think there are as many women who are as capable of committing what seem like heartless and even brutal acts to get what they want as there are woman who believe the world can only be conquered by love and what we think of as feminine characteristics, the same characteristics I see in some men.

We play roles, all of us. Some of these roles are caused by attitudes of Society. Others we create ourselves for whatever ways we want to use them.

A woman like Hillary Clinton is looked down on and sneered at because she lives in a man's world and does what has long been considered a man's job. So does Martha Stewart, who has turned ordinary housewifely things into a huge business by using her brains in the same way a man would.

We are so conditioned to think that women should not do a man's job or go out and make million dollar businesses on their own that we wait anxiously to see if women like these two will make mistakes so we can laugh and say, "I told you do." Martha Stewart is in that position right now. It seemed ironic to me that she was taking so much heat when there were men involved in the Enron adventure who had not even been indicted.

If Hillary Clinton had been born a man we wouldn't think twice about what she is doing. The same is true of Martha Stewart. These are not men; they are women who have used the parts of their brains and drive that we expect only men to use. What's this? Women who think and behave in similar ways to men? Why not, and why not vice versa?

Some of the best chefs in the world are men. Isn't cooking supposed to be women's work? I can name other fields men are in which are traditionally thought of as woman's work, too. Like nursing and teaching kindergarten children, for example.

I think life would be a whole lot easier and better if we looked at the likenesses I mentioned and accepted the fact that they are there, rather than having women who think the only way they can achieve what they want is to kick half the world's population out of their lives and blame that half for everything that ever went wrong for them while at the same time acting like the very people they'd like to eliminate. I think things would be easier and better if men acknowledged that they are not always warrior Hercules strong men, and that they have many of the same sensitivities and feelings that women have, and even get scared once in a while.

Off the soapbox now. I'm sure glad I got that off my chest. It's been nagging at me for quite a while.

Mal

Give us a woman in power of an almost female parliament, like the males have had forever and a day, and then argue that women are not doing things differently.

Maybe they wouldnt be any better, but untill we have a level point of comparison, methinks that that comparison is odious.

Just recently we had an Australian female leader of an admittedly dubious political party jailed, because she had allegedly lied.Justice has since been done and she was released but if the same standard were applied to our mostly male politicians, our parliament would, I am afraid be empty.

Anneo

that the slaves chose to die rather than be enslaved once more.

Slavery is always bad, but hardly successful in any way if you allow the slave no hope of freedom.

The slaves, in the graveyard found in New York a few years ago rioted after their new english masters changed the rules. Previously the dutch, had held them as slaves for 20 years and then awarded them freedom. When the English took away this hope, having nothing to lose they, the slaves, fought back.

Anneo

Robby, Now, do you have your answer?

Mahlia says:--"In all of the instances you mention above where there is female leadership, there is/was also ENORMOUS male military pressure on the women leaders to settle issues militarily."
If I understand that correctly, where the leader is a woman, the "buck does not stop there." The rules change. Someone other than the leader can be blamed. In those cases we can blame the "power behind the throne." Who often is the power behind the throne?
And I think of women who kill their husbands, their children, their lovers. Has anyone here ever seen what in street parlance are called "cat fights?" Or women wrestlers on TV? What was the name of that Italian family (Borgia?)which had women poisoning others? Yes, these are individual cases but what if, as asked, there was a parliament or congress of solely women? Would women as a group act differently from women individually?
Yes, Eloise, I received AN answer. I don't know about THE answer. This discussion group always becomes more active and powerful when we speak of the "place of women." Does that mean, as Mal implies, that estrogen is as powerful as testosterone and can, at times, come out in strong ways?
As everyone in this forum knows, this question has been arising for thousands of years and may not arrive at an answer in this discussion group.

Robby

I am not sure that I can add anything to the female/male discussion except to say something we all know - history until recently has been a field, like most others, dominated by men. Therefore what we perceive to be historical 'truth' has in fact been recorded through the lens of male eyes. The potential for good or evil lies within us all.

Moving from the topic of the place of women back to the topic of slavery (and yes, I am aware of the irony here), let us listen to Durant.
"A few years after this Second Servile war all Italy was in arms. For almost two centuries now Rome -- a tiny nation between Cumae and Caere, between the Apennines and the sea -- had ruled the rest of Italy as subject states. Even some cities close to Rome, like Tiber and Praeneste, had no representation in the government that ruled them.
"The Senate, the assemblies, and the consuls meted out decrees and laws to the Italian communities with the same high hand as to alien and conquered provinces. The resources and man power of the "allies" were drained by wars whose chief effect was to enrich a few families in Rome.
"Those states that had remained loyal to Rome in the ordeal with Hannibal had received scant reward. Those that had helped him in any way had been punished with so servile a subjection that many of their freemen joined the slave revolts. A few rich men in the cities had been granted Roman citizenship. The power of Rome had everywhere been used to support the rich against the poor.
"In 126 the assembly forbade the inhabitants of the Italian towns to migrate to Rome. In 95 a decree of the jealous capital expelled all residents whose ciizenship was not Roman but merely Italian."
Class differences again comes to the fore. Are we now more "civilized" about that?
Robby

this little woman will in future keep her place and allow the "men" to make their comment.

The men here (including myself) may be too afraid to comment.

Robby

Speaking of women, the state of Louisiana just elected its first woman governor--Kathleen Blanco. As more and more women rise to positions in government, we will be able to determine whether women do a better job than men have done. It's true that women in the past who achieved leadership positions were just as aggressive as men, but I think that's because these aggressive women were the only ones who could compete in a male-dominated world. As women become more accepted in government, maybe they will have a more benign influence. At least, I hope that will be true.

My prediction is that there would be as many hotheads, warmongers, greed-motivated go-getters, pie-in-the-sky-unrealistic flake-heads and opinionated, closed-minded, unobjective deadheads in office with as many battles, scandals, connivings, dealings and me-me-me autocrats pushing people around as there are now. What ever gave people the idea that women would be so different and operate in a more reasonable, kinder, more intelligent, unselfish way than men? People are people, male or female, and based on history it appears that the behavior of human beings won't change until a million or more years go by. Don't bet your lifetime savings that it will then.

Mal

Social Welfare:

"The distribution of wheat to all who asked for it. It was a measure shocking to old Roman ideas of self-reliance..." I bet it was. I can just imagine how the aristocracy felt about these reforms - probably about the same the American upper class felt about the reforms of 1900s or how Medicare was received in the 1950s. Reform would not only play a role in ancient Rome, but would be applied in almost every decade from than through our own time. There will always be those that feel everyone should use "self-reliance" in order to gain what they need. While I don't believe in handouts, there must be the opportunity of self-reliance for everyone to gain what they want or even what they need. Not everyone has that opportuity. What does a government do than? Or is the government required to do anything? Who should be responsible to see that all people get the same opportunity?

Eloquence is second to bravery true or false:

I believe that eloquence could be second to bravery, but it would depend greatly on what a person is being eloquent about. Hitler was eloquent in his speeches, but what he had to say was definitely not eloquent.

Back-room politics and "hanging and pregnant chads":

There always has been "back-room politics" in any government since the being of time. I wouldn't be surprised if Adam and Eve hadn't been involved with some back-room politics of their own when they were driven from the Garden of Eden.(A government of two so to speak.) Take Cain and Able for instance - I bet there was more than a little politics between those two. As for "pregnant chads," I can safely say that this is a product of our times. It probably beats the "X" on a piece of paper. But "pregnant chads" are not really the problem - it's the voters that have to be aware of what they are doing. It's more important to vote responsibility than to worry about what utensil the voter uses to cast his vote. The Romans on a regular basis used to sell their votes. Are we doing the same today?

Scrawler (Anne of Oregon)

I'm a dedicated feminist, and have a few bumps and bruises to prove it, but I agree with MAL here. The problem is, that we have taken all of the characteristics of human beings, and labeled half of them masculine and half feminine. If we allowed people to be complete humans, maybe both men and women would do a better job. (Yes, I know about estrogen and testosterone, but we can be more than our biology).

Mal , I love it (post 481).

I think you are right, Mal. I fight for women today because they have less opportunity than men to develop their full potential. I want to level the playing field. Also, I have a wife,three daughters, and five granddaughters, all of whom deserve the chance to be all they can be. The problem of equal opportunity has not yet been settled.The gals are working on it and I do what little I can to help.

Women at parties still manage to drift into a corner to talk about babies when the men talk about politics. But that is changing, slowly, but surely.

When some sense of equality is achieved, I do not doubt that women will respond to problems in much the same way men have responded. They will "cat fight" as men have "dog fights". I think, for example, that Margaret Thatcher went into the Falklands on her own power. She knew she had the muscle and she chose to use it.

Anne of Avonlea: BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD. Unless you gals are willing to stand up and make yourself heard the feminist effort will all have been for nothing.

"After a few years of peace the strife of Italians against Italians was resumed, merely changing its name from 'Social' to 'Civil,' and its scene from the towns to Rome. Lucius Cornelius Sulla was chosen one of the consuls for 88, and took command of the army that was being prepared to match against Mithridates of Pontus.
"Sulpicius Rufus, a tribune, unwilling to put a conservative like Sulla in charge of so powerful a force, persuaded the Assembly to transfer the command to Marius who, though fat and sixty-nine, was still rumbling with military ambition. Sulla refused to let his long-awaited chance for leadership slip by through what seemed to him the whim of an assembly spellbound by a demagogue and bribed, he was sure, by the merchants who liked Marius. He fled to Nola, won the army to his support, and marched at its head against Rome.
"Sulla was unique in his origins, chracter, and fate. Born poor, he became the defender of the aristocracy, as the aristocratic Gracchi, Drusi, and Caesar became leaders of the poor. He took his revenge upon life for having made him at once patrician and penniless. When he conquered money he made it serve his appetites without qualm or restraint.
"He was unprepossessing -- glaring blue eyes in a white face mixed with rough blotches of fiery red,' like a mulberry sprinkled over with flour.' His education belied his looks. He was well versed in Greek as well as Roman literature, was a discriminate collector of art, had the works of Aristotle brought from Athens to Rome as part of his richest spoils, and found time, between war and revolution, to write his Memoirs for the misguidance of posterity.
"He was a jolly companion and a generous friend, devoted to wine, women, battle, and song. Says Sallust:-'He lived extravagantly yet pleasure never interfered with his duties, except that his conduct as a husband might have been more honorable.' He made his way rapidly, above all in the army, his happiest medium. He treated his soldiers as comrades, shared their work, their marches, and their dangers.
"He believed in no gods, but many superstitions. Otherwise he was the most realistic as well as the most ruthless of the Romans. His imagination and his feelings were always under the control of his intellect. It was said of him that he was half lion and half fox, and that the fox in him was more dangerous than the lion.
"Living half the time on battlefields, spending the last decade of his life in civil war, he nevertheless preserved his good humor to the end, graced his brutalities with epigrams, filled Rome with his laughter, made a hundred thousand enemies, achieved all his purposes, and died in bed."
Wealthy men like Gracchi and Caesar became leaders of the poor. A penniless man like Sulla, with a conservative bent, acted like a patrician. Why, I am wondering, might such a paradox exist. What leads men in apparently opposite directions from their childhood?
Robby

We are ever so gradually moving toward the era of the Caesars. It may be beneficial for us to pay attention to Sulla because, as THIS LINK explains to us, Julius Caesar grew up in the shadow of and under the influence of Sulla.

Robby

There are a number of modern examples of people, born into wealthy families, who exhibited concern for the poor. Here are a few who come to mind; Kennedys, Rockefellers,and Harriman. I am sure there are many others. I think many of these fellows tried to make up for parental ruthlessness in grabbing the buck.

"Such a man as Sulla seemed chemically compounded of the virtues and vices needed to subdue revolution at home and Mithridates abroad. His 35,000 trained men easily overcame the haphazard cohorts that Marius had improvised in Rome. Seeing his situation helpless, Marius escaped to Africa.
"Sulpicius was killed, betrayed by his servant. Sulla had the head of the tribune affixed to the rostrum that had laately rung with its eloquence. He rewarded the slave with freedom for his services, and death for his treachery.
"While his soldiers deminated the forum he decreed that henceforth no measure should be offered to the Assembly except by permission of the Senate, and tht the order of voting should be as in the 'Servian constitution' which gave priority and advantage to the upper classes.
"He had himself chosen proconsul, allowed Cnaeus Octavius and Cornelius Cinna to be elected consuls (87), and then marched off to encounter Mithridates the Great."
Already we are seeing the character of this man. I wonder if anyone could trust him -- even those of the upper classes.

Robby

This LINK leads us to an article about a contemporary event in Italy. Perhaps the traits described in this article have come down through the centuries from ancient times.

Robby

What struck me in the article you posted, ROBBY, is this:

"Italy is also a country in which regionalism often trumps national identity, but since Wednesday, the Italian flag has suddenly sprouted in the windows of many apartments."

I guarantee you if you're ever lucky enough to be in Italy during the World Soccer Championships you'll see Nationalism like you never saw it anywhere else, the entire country stops, even in Rome, and stares at the television, and if Italy manages to win or get close as they did a couple of years ago I think it was, the entire city honks horns, celebrates and carries on something incredible, lots of nationalism revealed there!

ginny

Post 488 (Robbie) is an excellent link. Thanks.

I will be away for two weeks and will rejoin the group in December. I will be able to follow the discussion from the US.

Jury of one's peers: Robby: You are right of course that our constitution does call for a jury of our peers who may not necessarily be "educated". But I would hope that if I were ever accused of a crime that the jury of my peers would at least be able to make a thoughtful decision.

Get rid of a government: Mal: What are you thinking? Besides didn't we try that in the 60s? As for combat in the U.S. Congress, we've already done that. On March 1, 1954 Puerto Rican nationalists shot five congressmen on the floor of the House of Representatives. All recovered from their wounds. Going back further there have been duels between senators and other senators and congressmen and other congressmen going at each other with swords and pistols. Shortly before the American Civil War began all the senators and congressmen would come armed into their chambers. Several skirmishes broke out on the floor. Besides, Mal, do we really want to get rid of the government - what would we do for entertainment?

To fight or not to fight that is the question: "Instead of fighting, the slaves plunged their knives into one another's hearts until all lay dead." I would be interested to know why they chose to do this. Was it a moral issue with them? Or was it the pratical thing to do at the time. Did they rationalize that the kind of life that lay ahead of them would be worst than the life they had? Or was it the only honorable thing left for them to do.

Justin: Thanks for your comments about the politicians. I guess I'm in the group that wishes we'd never gone into Iraq.

Eleanor Roosevelt: Mal: You bring up a good point it's not whether our politicians are male or female but how they do their jobs. There is one woman that I admire very much. During Eleanor Roosevelt's husband's terms as governor of New York and later as president she made several fact-finding trips for him. She also worked with young people and the underprivilegeds, and fought for equal rights for minority groups. She wasn't afraid to disagree with her husband. And in the 1930s when he vetoed a bill that would have given us national health benefits she went on the radio, talked with newspaper reporters, and went on lecture tours denouncing her husband's decision. I wish we had more people like her - both male and female.

Scrawler

That was a joke, SCRAWLER. In my book, people don't have to be serious all the time. Now, do they?

Mal

Mal

We have been here a long time you I and it is fun to watch the reaction that a joke such as "get rid of a governments" and "women should run the world". I don't know about you, but I enjoy the reaction they provoke as long as it doesn't hurt anybody's feelings.

Eloïse

SCRAWLER, I remember the shooting in 1954. My husband was in graduate school then at the University of Maryland, College Park, where we lived 9 miles north of Washington. Rumors were flying left and right. Later we were in Washington, and someone told us the President had been shot. It was just another rumor in that rife-with-rumors place.

Eleanor Roosevelt spoke at my college in the late 40's. Naturally, all of us young women students were delighted she was there. I couldn't stand her voice.

Grace Coolidge (Cal's wife) lived in the town where my college was; in fact, Calvin Coolidge died there. Mrs. Coolidge often came to my dormitory for dinner. I doubt if she and Eleanor got together, though. Maybe, who knows?

Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India at the time, also spoke at my college. I remember that I was very impressed and loved the way he was dressed.

I also met the cello maestro, Gregor Piatigorsky, when I was in college. He flirted with me, and told me I was cute. What a claim to fame!

Mal

Sulla and Marius are the two most important figures at this time in the Roman Republic. Sulla's action in attacking Rome and defeating Marius, marks the beginning of the end of the Republic. Caesar will duplicate that act at the Rubicon several years later but the big cracks in the Republican wall were made by Sulla. The second most damaging action came when Sulla refused to give up the dictatorship at the end of the six month's term.

Men like Sulla are spoilers. One must wonder how he was able to get 3500 cohorts to agree to attack their homeland. Many of Marius' defenders were probably related to members of the attacking force. They were only a home defense force. They were probably made up of old soldiers who could well have been parents of the attackers.

When Sulla's reign is complete one must ask about the state of the Republic. Was it stronger, more secure? Were ordinary citizens more secure with a strong voice in their government? I think the answer is "No". The Assembly was left with no power to act independently. The Patricians were in control in the Senate. I conclude that Sulla merely deepened the civil rivalries and made the way to civil war clearer than it was before him.

Scroll down to read about Marius and Sulla

Durant continues:--

"Sulla had hardly left Italy when the struggle of the plebeian populares and the patrician and equestrian optimates was resumed. The conservative supporters of Octavius fought in the forum with the radical followers of Cinna and in one day 10,000 men were killed. Octavius won, and Cinna fled to organize revolt in the neighboring towns.

"Marius, after a winter in hiding, sailed back to Italy, proclaimed freedom to slaves, and led a force of 6000 men against Octavius in Rome. The rebels won, slaughtered thousands, adorned the rostra with the heads of slain senators, and paraded the streets with noble heads on their pikes as a model for later revolutions.

"Octavius accepted death calmly as he sat in his robes of office on his tribune's chair. The carnage continued for five days and nights, the rebel terror for a year. A revolutionary tribunal subpoenaed patricians, condemned them if they had opposed Marius, and seized their property.

"A nod from Marius sufficed to send any man to death, usually by execution there and then. All of Sulla's friends were slain. His property was confiscated. He was deposed from his command and was declared a public enemy. The dead were refused burial and were left in the streets to be devoured by birds and dogs.

"The freed slaves plundered, raped, and killed indiscriminately, until Cinna gathered 4000 of them together, surrounded them with Gallic soldiery, and had them butchered to death."

Why does all this make me think of the French Revolution?

Robby

Did you think that HEADS ON A POLE was an ancient procedure?

Robby

Does anyone here see any similarity between the causes of the FRENCH REVOLUTION and the revolt in Ancient Rome?

Robby

There are two similarities. Mob rule is one and the competitive force of two antagonists is the other. In Rome Sulla and Marius were the opposing forces. In France The Girondists and the Jacobins were the opposing forces. Otherwise, the elements of revolution were different. France was disolving a monarchy for a republic and Rome was dissolving a republic for anarchy. One other similarity, there were three estates in France and in Rome. In Rome there were Aristocrats, the common folk, and the slaves. In France there were aristocrats, the church, and the peasants. Commercial people fitted into both societies but were not considered a separate estate.

The characteristics of mob rule are similar no matter the event. Revenge for abuses of power brought discriminate death to thousands. Robespierre nodded for the French and Marius nodded for the Romans. Civil war is very ugly. Even the American Civil War which generally is considered more organized in its death dealing also involved some mob rule. There were riots in New York City and in other cities that caused much havoc.

Thank you very much, Justin, for helping us to make those comparisons.
"Cinna was now (86) chosen consul for the second time, Marius for the seventh. In the first month of his new term Marius died, aged seventy-one, worn out with hardships and violence. Valerius Flaccus, elected in his stead, passed a bill canceling seventy-five percent of all debts, and then left for the East with an army of 12,000 men to depose Sulla from command. Enjoying undivided power at Rome, Cinna changed the Republic into a dictatorship, nominated all successful candidates for major offices, and had himself elected consul for four successive years.
"When Flaccus left Italy, Sulla was besieging Athens, which had joined Mithridates in revolt. Receiving nothing from the Senate for the pay of his troops, he had financed his campaign by pillaging the temples and treasuries of Olympia, Epidaurus, and Delphi.
"In March, 86, his soldiers broke through a gate in Athens' walls, poured in, and revenged themselves for the city's long-delayed welcome by a riot of slaughter and robbery. Plutarch tells us that 'there was no numbering the slain. Blood flowed through the streets and far out into the suburbs.'
"At last Sulla called a halt to the massacre, remarking generously that he would 'forgive the living for the dead.' He led his refreshed troops northward, deteated a great force at Chaeronea and Orchomenus, pursued its remnants across the Hellespont into Asia, and prepared to meet the main army of the Pontic king.
"Meanwhile Flaccus and his legions had also reached Asia, and Sulla was again informed that he must give up his command. He persuaded Flaccus to let him complete the campaign. Thereupon Flaccus was killd by his lieutenant, Fimbria, who now declard himself commander of all Roman armies and advanced north against Sulla.
"Faced with this folly, Sulla made a peace with Mithridates (85), by which the King was to restore all the conquests that he had made in the war, surrender eighty galleys to Rome, and pay an indemnity of 2000 talents. Then Sulla turned south and met Fimbria in Lydia. Fimbria's soldiers went over to Sulla, and Fimbria committed suicide. Master now of the Greek East, Sulla exacted 20,000 talents as indemnities and accrued taxes from the revolted cities of Ionia.
"He sailed with his army to Greece, marched to Patrae, and arrived at Brundisium in 83. Cinna tried to stop him but was killed by his troops."
I always find it amazing how thousands of men can fight and kill each other over what appears to be a hatred and power struggle between two individual men.
Robby

What I understand of civil war such as the French Revolution, it is flagrant injustice done to human beings by depriving the lower class of basic human needs such as bread: "Let them eat cake" revealed the disregard of the aristocracy for the plight of the needy as they failed to realize that if they didn't have bread to eat, they certainly didn't have cake either. In the link you provided Robby, historical findings found that Marie Antoinette was only 10 when she was deemed to have said that so it was just fabrication to discredit the aristocracy.

I guess the similarity is about the mention of heads on a pole to flaunt a victory.

The French revolution spawned many others who took example from it to start their own like the Russian revolution, even American civil war if I remember reading in Democracy in America.

Injustice is part of life, but you can only go so far until something has to give. We don't realize it at home perhaps, but our standard of living in America is unbearable injustice for the billions of needy people around the globe.

Eloïse

"Sulla was bringing to the Treasury 15,000 pounds of gold and 115,000 pounds of silver, in addition to money and works of art which he credited to his personal account. But the democratic leaders, still in power in Rome, continued to brand him as a public enemy, and denounced his treaty with Mithridates as a national humiliation.
"Reluctantly Sulla led his 40,000 troops to the gates of Rome. Many of the aristocracy went out to join him. One of them, Cnaeus Pompey, brought a legion recruited entirely from his father's clients and friends. The son of Marius led an army out to encounter Sulla, was defeated, and fled to Praeneste, after sending instructions to the populares praetor to put to death all leading patricians still left in the capital The praetor convoked the Senate, and the marked men were killed in their seats or their flight.
"The democratic forces then evacuated Rome, and Sulla entered it unhindered. Meanwhile a Samnite army of 100,000 men intent on avenging the Social War, marched up from the south and joined the democratic remnants. Sulla went out to meet them, and at the Colline Gate his 50,000 men won one of the bloodiest victories of ancient times. Sulla ordered 8000 prisoners shot down with arrows, on the ground that they could make more trouble alive then dead. The severed heads of the captured generals were displayed on pikes before the walls of Praeneste, where the last democratic army was standing siege.
"Praeneste fell, the young Marius killed himself, and his head was nailed up in the Forum -- a procedure which frequent precedents had now made constitutional."
The Senate was convened expressly to allow marked Senators to be murdered. 8000 prisoners-of-war murdered just to keep them out of the way. The heads of captured generals displayed on pikes. And all this time a constitution was in effect -- a constitution which allowed by law for a head to be nailed up in the Forum.
Events like this cause me to think. A constitution is only as strong as the will of the citizens to obey it. That constitution was either flouted or changed illegally. The great majority of American citizens obey their constituion and even revere it. I wonder why?
Robby

Sulla:

"It was said of him he was half lion and half fox, and that the fox in him was more dangerous than the lion." This point of his character was proved when: "he rewarded the slave [who betrayed Sulpicius] with freedom for his services, and death for his treachery.

Opposites attract:

I can understand the hatred that Sulla would have had for the poor and when he had the opportunity he became a champion of the aristocracy. I'm sure it reminded him of a side of himself he would have rather forgotten. Gracchi and Caesar were born into riches and probably had more time to ponder the world of others. While Sulla was scratching out a living, Caesar and Gracchi were already well off simply for being born. Does the fate of our birth really determine our lives or is what we do with our lives after our birth determine our fate?

Scrawler

Here is an ARTICLE which is very, very long (you might consider scrolling) but which, in my opinion, is a most excellent psychological profiling of the Roman nature -- why they were the way they were, why they did what they did, why they were different from the Greeks, and which helps us to understand people like Sulla who had such influence on the young Julius Caesar.
For my own edification, I have printed it out (53 printed pages) and am going over it in detail.

Robby

"It is not in our stars,but in ourselves."

William Shakespeare in Julius Caesar, Act 1. Scene II

"Incessant campaigns for a thousand years brought out military science, courage, energy, and a grasping and selfish patriotism. They gave power, skill to rule, executive talents; and these qualities, eminently adapted to worldly greatness, made the Romans universal masters, even if they do not make them interesting. They developed great strength, resource, will, and even made them wise in administration, possibly great civilizers, since centralized power is better than anarchies; yet these traits do not make us love them, or revere them." An interesting article.

"The Roman soldier was trained to march twenty miles a day, under a burden of eighty pounds; yea, to swim rivers, to climb mountains, to penetrate forests, and to encounter every kind of danger. He was taught that his destiny was to die in battle. He expected death. He was ready to die. Death was his duty, and his glory. He enlisted in the armies with little hope of revisiting his home. He crossed seas and deserts and forests with the idea of spending his life in the service of his country. His pay was only a denarius daily, equal to about sixteen cents of our money. Marriage was discouraged or forbidden." Extracted from Robby's interesting article above.

I am tempted to compare a Roman soldier's training with today's military training where they rely on airborne missiles, technology and motorized vehicles for advancing in enemy territory instead of relying on soldiers' physical strength. I wonder if a soldier today could walk 20 miles a day carrying 80 pounds of equipment the hot desert sun.

Eloïse

Well, ELOISE, I imagine they do, both in basic training and times of war.

Mal

Not necessarily, Mal. Even back in WWII when I was an infantryman and trained by taking 25-mile walks with 75-pound packs, going over obstacle courses, etc. -- when I arrived in Europe I found that except when fighting was going on, we were transported from one area to another in 2 1/2 ton trucks. These trucks were the start of personnel carriers.

Robby

What a degenerate mob were the Roman ' leaders ' especially when compared to their Greek forerunners. That the nation could survive such a seemingly endless succession of mentally unbalanced persons is something of a miracle. That is the one spark of hope that humans can take from the Roman Era.

I know of no other entity that survived for so long, whilst so badly served by its politicians. Except China, perhaps ? === Trevor

"A seemingly endless succession of mentally unbalanced persons."
What a powerful and profound phrase, Trevor! And yet, don't most people who have not read Durant or history in any form, if asked, say that the Roman Empire was a time of glory and that we gained much from them? They know it's so because Spartacus and others have told them so from the silver screen.

Robby

What was it about the Roman people, then, that made this survival possible?

Mal

Eighty pounds and twenty miles a day is good training but in actual combat distance and weight varies depending upon geography. In the Pacific theatre one landed on Atolls that were often a mile or less across and a few miles long. I suppose in Europe one often traveled by truck just as one does today in Iraq. The weight element is a varient of time. In the Pacific theatre one carried two canteens, a pistol, or a thirteen pound M1 rifle, a bandolier of ammo, a light pack, trenching tools, and a hot heavy helmet. Some guys carried a radio as well. Others carried parts of mortars or machine guns. I think we are talking about seventy to eighty pounds. The soldier's lot has not changed much.

Trevor; are you thinking of "Chancre Jack"?

"Sulla issued a proscription list condemning to death forty senators and 2600 businessmen. These last had supported Marius against him, and had bought in at bargains the property of senators slain during the radical regime. He offered rewards to informers, and prizes up to 12,000 denarii ($7200) to those who should bring him the proscribed men, alive or dead.
"The Forum was adorned festively with the heads of the slain and with periodically renewed proscription lists which the citizens had to read at frequent intervals to know if they might still live. Massacre, banishment, and confiscation spread their horrors from Rome to the provinces and fell upon Italian rebels and the followers of Marius everywhere.
"Some 4700 persons died in this aristocratic terror. Says Plutarch:-'Men were butchered in the embraces of their wives, sons in the arms of their mothers.' Many persons who had been neutral, or even conservative, were proscribed, exiled or slain. Sulla, it was said, needed their money for his troops, his pleasures, or his friends.
"Confiscated property was sold to the highest bidder or to Sulla's favorites, and became the foundation of many fortunes, like those of Crassus and Catiline."
It was not enough for the Forum to be adorned with the heads of the slain. It had to be done festively.I wonder what Voltaire (see Heading above) in later centuries thought about all that.

Robby

The article you gave us Robby, 50 pages long, drew a superstitious conclusion. The author says that war is necessary to advance the society and further that it is brought on by God just as famine is visited upon us. Fifty pages is a lot of reading so I may be misreading the author but I don't think so. What are the auspices under which he serves us this well written description of the Roman wars?

Justin:--I may have missed something but I do not see the author of the article to which I referred in Post 509 as coming to that conclusion. I am still in the process of reading it. It is written by John Lord, LL.D. and is entitled "The Old Roman World -- The Grandeur and Failure of its Civilization." I may refer to it from time to time. It does not conflict with the continuity of Durant's. It is not a "story" as Durant presents it but, as I see it, is a backdrop.
When I do quote from it, it will not be in the sense that its comments are to be taken as is, but with the thought that it might help to stimulate deeper thinking. For example -- I submit the author's following comments for your reaction: "The Romans fought when there was no apparent need of fighting...The Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Persians, and the Greeks made magnificent conquests, but their empire was partial and limited, and soon passed away. The Greeks evinced great military genius, and the enterprises of Alexander have been regarded as a wonder. But the Greeks did not fight, as the Romans did, from a fixed purpose to bring all nations under their sway."
From what we have read so far, are you folks in agreement with that?

Robby

"I have already alluded to the difference hitherto existing between regiments of men associated for purposes of violence, and for purposes of manufacture; in that the former appear capable of self-sacrifice -- the latter, not; which singular fact is the real reason of the general lowness of estimate in which the profession of commerce is held, as compared with that of arms. Philosophically, it does not, at first sight, appear reasonable (many writers have endeavoured to prove it unreasonable) that a peaceable and rational person, whose trade is buying and selling, should be held in less honour than an unpeaceable and often irrational person, whose trade is slaying. Nevertheless, the consent of mankind has always, in spite of the philosophers, given precedence to the soldier.

"And this is right.

"For the soldier's trade, verily and essentially, is not slaying, but being slain."

John Ruskin

Robby:"But the Greeks did not fight, as the Romans did, from a fixed purpose to bring all nations under their sway."

...........as Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin did, from a fixed purpose to bring all nations under their sway.

...........as the USA...?

Of course methods change, but purpose?

Or can we compare the USA...well, more to the Greeks?

Robby: Lord looks thorough. He covers a wealth of material. He writes well. But he has a fat bias. His objective is to show that nations can rise only to a certain level and no further with out the aid of Christianiy. Try chapter 11. He starts out with'" War is the instrument of punishment. It is the great instrument of God in punishing wicked nations."

In every chapter he inserts little supports for his thesis. In Literature for example, he contrasts the "Dialogues" of Lucius with Augustine and the "City of God." "Augustine demolishes all the gods of antiquity but substitutes instead knowledge of the 'true' God."

Speaking of Stoics and Epicureans He says," Those old giants groped about for they did not know the real God revealed to Abraham etc.

In other sections he describes the Romans as atheists.

Use quotes from him if you wish but be aware of his bias and his motive.

Justin:--I have read further and I see what you mean. He is undoubtedly a Believer although I do not see the bias as necessarily Christian. He could be Jewish. In any event, he appears to be a well-studied historian and I would not stay away from his comments any more than I would stay away from the remarks of a competent historian who is an atheist. Participants here know that I have always asked that the sources of any links be taken into consideration -- even the apparent biases of Durant for that matter. As to Lord's historical accuracy, I yield to your knowledge in this field.

Robby

"Using his powers as dictator, Sulla issued a series of edicts -- known from his clan name as the Cornelian Laws -- by which he hoped to establish a permanently aristocratic constitution. To replace dead citizens he enfranchised many Spaniards and Celts and some former slaves. He weakened the assemblies by adding these new members indebted to him and by again ruling that no measure should be put before the Assembly except by consent of the Senate.
"To stop the flocking of poor Italians to Rome he suspended the state distribution of corn. At the same time he eased the presssure of population in the city by distributing land to 120,000 veterans. To prevent the use of successive consulships as in effect a dictatorship, he re-emphasized the old requirment of a ten-year interval before the same office could be held a second time by the same man.
"He lowered the prestige of the tribunate by limiting the right of veto and making ex-tribunes ineligible for any higher office.
"He took from the business class, and restored to the Senate, the exclusive right to serve as jurors in the higher courts. He replaced the farming of taxes to publicans with direct payments from the provinces to the Treasury. He reorganized the courts, increased their number for quicker trials, and carefully specified their functions and fields.
"All the legislative, judicial, executive, social, and sartorial privileges enjoyed by the Senate before the Gracchan revolt were returned to it, for Sulla was certain that only a monarchy or an aristocracy could wisely administer an empire. To renew the full membership of the Senate he allowed the Tribal Assembly to promote to it 300 members of the 'equestrian' class. To show his confidence in this thoroughgoing restoration, he disbanded his legions and decreed that no army should be permitted in Italy.
"After two years of dictatorship, he resigned all his powers, re-established consular government, and retired to private life (80).
The above could be considered a "how to" manual on how to create a dictatorship or, if one wishes, a "restoration."

Robby

The Lord paper is well worth reading. Unfortunately I do not have an ink cartridge in my printer at the moment but when I get one on the weekend I will certainly print and keep the paper. I do differ from Lord in that I do not believe war is related to God in any shape or form. It is man who makes war in his unceasing quest for wealth and power. It is in my opinion the ignorant of the masses who support wars. It is this ignorance that the creators of war rely on to help them build their armies.

However in saying all of the above should my country be invaded I would have no hesitation in defending my homeland.

Having done a lot of reading on the Roman Emperors last year it astounded me how the Romans put up with such a succession of madmen. It scares me too when we see World leaders who embark on a crusade. Are we in another century of madness?

I have to agree with JUSTIN here, and disagree with ROBBY. All of us have a bias, even historians, and this bias shows up in our work without our realizing it. But responsible historians try to keep their bias to a minimem. The fact that Lord expresses his beliefs as fact so openly and obliviously makes me seriously question his professional competance. Even if I agreed with his opinions, I would not use him as a source on a subject in which I knew little. The first things you read on a subject that you don't know are very important. They tend to stick in your mind as "the truth" without you even realizing it. Later, one has the knowledge to be critical. So I try to chose what I read carefully, and why I questioned Durant's value judgement of the Romans when I first joined.

Comparison to the French Revolution:

I would only like to add that the French Revolution brought about great changes in the society and government of France. It introduced democratic ideals to France but did not make the nation a democracy. It did end supreme rule by the kings and strengthened the middle class. After the revolution no European king, noble, other privileged groups could ever again take their powers for granted or ignore the ideals of liberty and equality. Rome on the other hand was dissolving a republic for a dictatorship. I see this as the biggest difference between the two revolutions. Otherwise both revolutions have a strikingly similarity.

Robby: "I always find it amazing how thousands of men can fight and kill each other over what appears to be a hatred or power struggle between two individual men." You can also say: "that thousands of men fight and kill each because of THE DIFFERENCES in each other."

Chaos vs. Order:

I believe most citizens obey their constitution and the laws of the land because they prefer order to chaos. I on the other hand prefer to be in "perpetual chaos".

"Chaos - Where Great Dreams Begin. Before a great vision can become reality there may be difficulty. Before a person begins a great endeavor, they may encounter chaos. As a new plant breaks the ground with great difficulty, foreshadowing the huge tree, so must we push against difficulty in bringing forth our dreams." "Out of Chaos, Brilliant Stars are Born." (I-Ching Hexagram #3)

I feel that if we stand still, we are in danger of becoming stagnant and accepting anything. Therefore, I believe that we must question everything and take nothing for granted.

Scrawler

Lord is more than biased. He has an ax to grind- an objective ie; to show that societies that function without Christianity can only achieve a limited amount. That is different from Durant's bias. I don't see Durant consistently and obviously choosing historical elements to fit a pattern. This guy is not Jewish. He is very clearly Christian and he is making an argument. I don't say his facts are wrong. I say he chooses material that supports his argument. That's ok, so long as the reader is aware. One expects an historian to be as neutral as possible and still tell the story in an interesting way. The historian should not have an ax to grind.

After World War II, men came back with what we then called "battle- fatigue" or "shell-shock." Don't know what they call it now. But I am now suffering from battle-fatigue from reading about all these Roman wars. I cannot see war as strategy and statistics. All I can see is senseless waste of life. It's time for me to go AWOL.

Shasta: If you go "over the hill" you will miss the best part.Caesar will do his bit and then there is only one more war. Cleopatra and Mark Antony then battle in Egypt with Octavian, a nephew of Julius Caesar, and turn everything around. Rome then begins to protect and preserve what it has. There is no more war of aggrandisment. That battle, Actium, launches the Empire, ends the civil war, and begins the Ara Pacis- The peaceful era.

Thank you all for your opinions. Each of us here is an independent critically-thinking person -- which is exactly what makes this discussion group so stimulating.

Robby

"Sulla was safe for he had killed nearly all who could plan his assassination. He dismissed his lictors and guards, walked unharmed in the Forum, and offered to give an account of his official actions to any citizen who should ask for it. Then he went to spend his last years in his villa at Cumae.
"Tired of war, of power and glory, perhaps of men, he surrounded himself with singers, dancers, actors, and actresses -- wrote his Commentarii, hunted and fished, ate and drank. Men had long since called him Sulla Felix -- Sulla the Happy, because he had won every battle, known every pleasure, reached every power, and lived without fear or regret. He married five wives, divorced four, and eked out their inadequacy with mistresses.
"At 58 he developed an ulcer of the colon so severe that 'the corrupted flesh,' says Plutarch, 'broke out into lice. Many men were employed day and night in destroying them, but they so multiplied that not only his clothes, baths, and basins, but his very food was polluted with them.' He died of intestinal hemorrhage, after hardly a year of retirement (78).
"He had not neglected to dictate his epitaph:-'No friend ever served me, and no enemy every wronged me, whom I have not repaid in full.'"
Robby

I'm with Shasta. It's hard to read of all this killing at the same time I am reading Gandhi on non-violence. I may lurk for awhile.

We respect your desires to lurk and will welcome you back when you have some comments to share.

Robby

The Oligarchic Reaction

77-60 B.C.

I'm here, ROBBY.

Mal

"Sulla had erred twice on the side of generosity. He had spared the son and nephew of his enemies, the gay and brilliant Caius Julius Caesar, who was entering his twenties in the proscription years.
"Sulla had nominated him for death, but let him go on the importuning of their common friends. His judgment, however, was not mistaken when he remarked, 'In that young man go many Mariuses.' And perhaps he erred in resigning too soon and enjoying himself to an early end. Had his patience and insight equaled his ruthlessness and courage, he might have saved Rome a half century of chaos and given her in 80 B.C. the peace and security, order and prosperity, that Augustus would bring back from Actium.
"He restored the old when he should have created the new."
Robby

"Relaxed in the arms of victory, the patricians neglected the tasks of government to seek wealth in business ans spend it in luxury. The struggle between the optimates and the populares continued with a bitterness that passionately awaited another opportunity for violence. The optimates, or 'best people,' made nobilitas their creed. Not in the sense of noblesse oblige, but on the theory that good government required the restriction of major magistracies to men whose ancestors had held high office. Anyone who ran for office without such forebears was scorned as novus homo -- a 'new man,' or upstart.
"Such were Marius and Cicero. The populares demanded 'career open to talent,' all power to the assemblies, and free land for veterans and poor. Neither party believed in democracy. Both aspired to dictatorship, and both practiced intimidation and corruption without conscience or concealment.
"The collegia that had once been mutual-benefit societies became agencies for the sale of great blocks of plebeian votes. The business of vote buying reached a scale where it required a high specialization of labor -- there were divisores, who bought votes, interpretes, or go-betweens, and sequestres, who held the money until the votes had been delivered. Cicero describes candidates as going about purse in hand among the electors in the Field of Mars. Pompey had his mediocre friend Afranius made consul by inviting the leaders of the tribes to his gardens and there paying them for the ballots of their groups.
"So much money was borrowed to finance candidacies that the campaigns raised the interest rate to eight per cent per month."
Old money. New money. Conservatives? Liberals? And "neither party believed in democracy."

Robby

Though away, I am trying to keep up with the posts and particularly liked the discussion of bias in historical writing.

What disturbs me about the Roman penchant for war, is that the Western World seems to have adopted it as part of our culture, probably through the influence of the Church during the 1000 years after Rome fell. We still see violence as a way of achieving our ends. Though I dropped out of the Gandhi discussion, I did continue reading about him and better appreciate the differences between East and West.

I am also happy to see that the discussion of Religion and Evil will reopen as I sense that Roman patterns of behavior were taken over by the Church. This is probably a bad way of putting it, but you get my drift.

I am sorry to see some participants leave this discussion (even if only temporaily) due to their unhappiness at reading of Rome's violence. But I find George's comment relevant -- "What disturbs me about the Roman penchant for war, is that the Western World seems to have adopted it as part of our culture."
We, in our own culture, may learn from the experiences of Rome and perhaps -- just perhaps -- may avoid some of their unpleasant results.

Robby

My screen name is GrayMare, my friends call me Bette (as in Bette Davis...not Bette Middler). I know Robby Iadeluca. I am new to this group. My inital comment/question was inspired by a quote at the beginning of the discussion.. "Civilization begins where chaos and insecurity ends." "

Does that also mean that civilization ends when chaos and insecurity begin?

Welcome, Gray Mare! Or Bette, as I know you. Bette and I both belong to the local Chamber of Commerce but we find ourselves not only talking about business affairs but also more profound topics. Being confident that she would feel at home among you folks here, I suggested that she test the waters.
I see that she has started off with a bang! What are your reactions to her question?

Robby

Robby, I read your posting and if I didn't know that you were talking about history of Rome, I would think you were making comments about today. I see too many parallels. Keeping the masses occupied with sports while the politician go about their business unhampered. Greed, lack of morality. Maybe a civilization can exist only for so long before it collapses in it's own coruptness.

Welcome GRAY MARE. I have been here since the first volume of S of C. I am also appalled that what we have today is only a repeat of past history, and I wonder if studying history could influence decisions in the leadership to avoid making the same mistakes. For that we would have carry different genes. If we are the same since the beginning of time, I can only conclude that we have to accommodate ourselves with what we are born with and try and realize that everybody' thinking has a different bias. I have failed to see, during the study of Story of Civilization where in time "Civilization begins where chaos and insecurity ends." Did Voltaire ever find it, or was he still searching for it when when he wrote that?

GEORGE, ROBBY, What do you mean by "What disturbs me about the Roman penchant for war, is that the Western World seems to have adopted it as part of our culture, probably through the influence of the Church during the 1000 years after Rome fell.." Do you mean that it is only since the Romans that the West, or the world, is waging war? and was there no war before?

Does it mean that Romans are responsible for Chaos and Insecurity, or rather that men are men and they will go to war because they "love" fighting especially when there is booty to be acquired?

Eloïse

Welcome, BETTE as in Davis and not Midler. Any friend of ROBBY's is a friend of mine and especially welcome here.

I like Bette Midler. She founded the New York Restoration Project and has spent long hours helping New York City get rid of trash and restore absolute dumps into parks. I first became of this when the Ground Force team on BBC America went to New York and turned a miserable alleyway into a lovely, peaceful garden under the auspices of Bette Midler's group. There was a ripple effect each time this was done, and whole neighborhoods began cleaning themselves up and beautifying their areas. There is goodness in her, and there is goodness in Americans. I imagine if we looked hard enough we'd find some goodness in Ancient Romans, too.

BETTE, I've been around since the beginning of this discussion, too. We've seen civilization after civilization and war after war after war since cave man days here. This is why I'm wondering why the people who seem squeamish about it or feel saturated with it are jumping The Story of Civilization ship right now, especially you, JUSTIN. That's hard for me to accept, frankly, since you've been around here as long as I have, I believe. The Gandhi discussion and Gandhi himself are no excuse for us not to examine history in a way that makes us understand our own Western Civilization better.

Funny, I don't see all that many likenesses between the Romans and us Americans. I've seen just as many similarities in earlier civilizations. Name me one that didn't fight wars for what they wanted.

We are a democratic republic in the United States, and when ROBBY said "neither one believed in democracy" I started to wonder what would happen here if suddenly people decided democracy was a bad idea. The thought gave me chills. Well, I'm not going to worry about it, but I am worried about those of you who have decided to leave. That bothers me very, very much.

Would you jump your country's ship if you got tired of wars it fought, or would you try to do something about it? Would you know better how to do this if you learned from history by staying in this discussion through thick and thin?

Mal

I'd like to comment on BETTE's question: "Does that also mean that civilization ends when chaos and insecurity begin?"

How does one tell when chaos and insecurity begin? Aren't they always with us in one form or another?

I watched the two programs on the Kennedys on public television this week, and was reminded of that time in our lives. It seems to me that there were terrible indications of chaos and insecurity then. We were in the throes of McCarthy witch-hunts; we were scared to death a nuclear war would begin. Not only was the President of the United States, John F. Kennedy, assassinated, but his brother, Robert Kennedy, was killed when campaigning for the presidency five years later, and a man of peace and non-violence, Martin Luther King, was killed.

Wasn't that chaos? Wasn't that insecurity? Didn't we weather it? Won't we weather what we're going through now?

Chaos and insecurity may suggest the crumbling of a civilization, but it seems to me that it does not always indicate the end of it.

As I look at history I see not only the propensity to fight and kill for what human beings want, I see a strong identification with country, a national identification, as it were, which of necessity today must also be an identification with the world. It is my contention that you cannot fight evil with evil and win. I believe human beings are aware of this and put a stop to it at some point or other.

We grow impatient because human beings don't evolve fast enough to suit us and grow out of their tradition-bound ideas that the only way to solve problems is with an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. What do we expect? Compared to the age of the world itself, civilization is young. Is there no hope at all that someday, perhaps a million years from now different ways of thinking and different methods might evolve?

I was thinking about what Bette Midler has done with her group to turn a tough, dirty place into a beautiful one. I wonder what would happen if each of us took what we've learned from history and worked on our own little corner, our little trashy, belligerent alleyway, and turned it into a peaceful one? What would happen if we took what we've learned to our kids and our neighbors? Would there be the same ripple effect as happened when one small group started cleaning up signs of chaos and making peaceful spaces in New York City? I don't know the answer to that question, but I do think it's worth a try.

Mal

Voltaire:

Voltaire's morality was founded on his belief of freedom of thought and respect for all individuals. He rejected everything irrational, incomprehensible, and asked others to act against intolerance, tyranny, and superstition. I can't help but wonder how much "superstition" played in the action of men like Sulla. Do today's leaders believe in superstition?

Hubert Paul: I don't think that the USA is more like the Greeks. I'd have to say that we are in a class by ourselves. I'm not sure that our politicians realize that there is a place in this world for all countries including the United States - our roles keep changing that's all. The Greeks were more diplomatic than the USA and they believed in the Stoic philosophy. Every time I listen to the news now I'm reminded of John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men".

Scrawler

Mal:”Chaos and insecurity may suggest the crumbling of a civilization, but it seems to me that it does not always indicate the end of it.”

I read about 40 years ago what else could cause the crumbling of a civilization. Unfortunately I lost the article. It included some comparison with Rome.

I’ll try to put one point that I remember into a few words : When the gladiators (sports-figures and entertainers) gain more prestige (and earnings) than the educators, then there is something wrong with our way of life.

Forty years ago, a good hockey player earned about $30,000.00 a year, now it is $ 5 000,000.00., and some kids think they are ‘gods’. By comparison, a schoolteacher...Oh well..

Eloise, one of the frustrating things about this kind of discussion is that it is not in real time and face to face. As I look at the threads that lead into what we call Western Civilization, we see that we trace our origins back to Greece and Rome (and of course the Middle East). Greece seemed to have given us far more in the way of the arts, medicine, science, mathematics - i.e. culture than the Romans (though we are not through the book yet). What Rome seemed very good at was WAR! In conquering other peoples the Romans seemed to intimate that theirs was the best and most powerful society. I this as a negative influence on Western Civilization and it was unfortunately adopted to some extent by the Church of Rome during the Middle Ages. I am not sure that what I write here makes my view any clearer. Again it is a problem caused by this kind of communication and my not be able to exactly express exactly what I see in history.

Thanks Meg for the info on fonts and color - unfortunately it does not work for me for some reason.

There is so much I could say on the present thread but I think by now most people know what I think about war. Throughout history civilizations which gorge on the sensual rot from within. I think we are rotting from within. We, as a society, lack self discipline and self control and this lack of moral fibre has permeated every level of society including our leaders. Its a society of instant gratification and greed.

MAL: did JUSTIN compare the Romans to Gandhi, as well as me? I'm not ditching, just pulling back. Of course, as soon as I say that, the discussion gets really interesting.

Mal, I think you misunderstood something. It wasn't Justin who was jumping ship. It was me. He was telling me I shouldn't be such a coward. I'll consider your lecture aimed at me instead of him.

SHASTA, what I posted wasn't a lecture first of all, and it was directed to all of us as a whole.

Secondly, JOANK, I misread your name as JUSTIN. JUSTIN, I apologize.

I'm glad some of you took what I said personally, though. I'm fiercely loyal to this discussion and to the Durants, and to ROBBY, too, for facilitating this discussion and making it possible. That's my bias, JOAN. I am this way because I think if everyone read these books about Ancient History there might be one small baby step by some of us toward counteracting what seems like a natural instinct to put up our fists and our missiles and fight before we do anything else. It takes discipline not to fight and to figure out other ways of handling conflict. I believe that's what we must learn if the human race is to survive and evolve.

No, CAROLYN, we are not rotting at the core. As long as there are people like you and me and others like us around (and there are many, many) there is hope.

Mal

I am still here, Robby!

Fascinated by the discussion and learning as always!

Before you ask me again what I am learning Robby, here is my answer!

I have always thought war is stupid, by far true diplomacy is much better. But then there are times when humanity must fight to survive else we all would be thrown back to a time such as prevailed under Roman leadership!

I much prefer to live in a time and place were my way of life is respected and I have the right to choose which way I shall live. I would neither be a slave or relinquish my right of choice, nor do I consider this in any manner being a loser. I am a winner even if I have only the number of friends that I can count on ten fingers.

Shasta:--I am glad you are still on the ship while you are telling us that you "jumped ship."

Robby

Bette the Gray mare: Happy to have you with us. You start with a fine thought. When insecurity ends people then have time to devote to the elements of civilization. Those who must spend all their time hunting for food can organize neither politically nor economically. They have no time for cultural development or morality. The condition is defined to coincide with chaos. I think the reverse is also true. Civilization disappears when man can no longer tend the civil elements.

Durant continues:--

"The courts, now pre-empted by senators, rivaled the polls in corruption. Oaths had lost all value as testimony. Perjury was as common as bribery. Marcus Messala, being indicted for buying his election to the consulate (53), was unanimously acquitted, although even his friends acknowledged his guilt.

"Wrote Cicero to his son:''Trials are now managed so venally that no man will ever be condemned hereafter except for murder.' He should have said 'no man of means' for 'without money and a good lawyer,' said another advocate at this period, 'a plain simple defendant may be accused of any crime which he has not committed, and will certainly be convicted.'

"Lentuilus Sura, having been acquitted by two votes, mourned the extra expense he had gone to in bribing one more judge than he had needed. When Quintus Calidus, praetor, was convicted by a jury of senators, he calculated that 'they could not honestly require less than 300,000 sesterces to condemn a praetor.

"Protected by such courts, the Senatorial proconsuls, the tax gatherers, the money lenders, and the business agents milked the provinces at a rate that would hve angered their predecessors with envy. There were several honorable and competent provincial governors, but what could be expected of the majority? They served without pay, usually for a year's term. In that brief time they had to accumulate enough to pay their debts, buy another office, and set themselves up for life in the style befitting a great Roman.

"The sole check upon their venality was the Senate. The senators could be trusted as gentlemen not to raise a fuss, since nearly all of them had done, or hoped soon to do, the same. When Caesar went to Farther Spain as proconsul in 61 he owed $7,500,000. When he returned in 60 he cleared off these debts at one stroke.

"Cicero thought himself a painfully honest man. He made only $110,000 in his year as governor of Cilicia and filled his letters with wonder at is own moderation."

Aren't you happy folks? No more war!!

Robby

Scrawler: Of course, our leaders are guided by superstition. Some of our leaders give only lip service to superstition because they realize there is vote getting power in that posture. However, many in the highest eschelons of power unfortunately, have come to rely upon superstition for guidance and justification. Examination of animal entrails is no longer required prior to making decisions but divine support is considered essential.

George: I agree. Roman patterns of behavior were taken over by the Roman Church. Even the games in the colloseum were adopted. The Romans took great pleasure in watching helpless people die. We will see the same attitudes expressed in the Spanish and German Auto da fe ceremonies of later centuries.

MAL: I agree with you completely. But I read about so many massacres, I was starting to think "Ho, hum, another massacre. Only 1000 killed-- why did he bother to mention it?" That's time to step back and regain perspective.

But if you wanted to bring me into the discussion again, you did it.

Sometimes it's hard to remember BOTH that billions of people have lived on this planet and most of them have died, many tragically AND that every life is precious.

Was the Roman civilization corrupt from its very beginning? If it was, would someone please tell me why?

Mal

Mal: Corruption is one of those words that needs specificity to make meaningful. Did officials take or pay bribes to achieve an end in the days when Rome battled it neighbors for 50 miles around to bring unity to the nation? In the beginning Rome was a kingdom not a republic. One must have used bribery to curry favor with the kings but not to the same degree that was done during the late republic. Voters and public office were for sale on a large scale. Caesar, for example, bought the baton that gave him control of a 50,000 man army and the right to attack Gaul in the name of Rome. Pompey, on the other hand, paid his troops from his own pocket and promised them land.

Bribery is quite common today. We call it a campaign contribution.

Will history repeat itself? I read the word 'corruption' and immediately thought of politicians and business men. I find these associations very interesting - disturbing but interesting.

I look at what is going on in the Congress right now and think "What a way to run a government!"

"The generals who conquered the provinces were the first to profit from them. Lucullus, after his campaigns in the East, became a synonym for luxury. Caesar took literally untold millions from Gaul. Antiquity had never known so rich, so powerful, and so corrupt a government.
"The business classes reconciled themselves to the rule of the Senate becaause they were better prepared than the aristocracy to exploit the provinces. That 'concord of the orders,' or co-operation of the two upper classes, which Cicero was to preach as an ideal, was already a reality in his youth. They had agreed to unite and conquer. Crassus, Atticus, and Lucullus typify the three phases of Roman wealth -- acquisition, speculation, and luxury.
"A horde of specialized slaves formed the staff of these palaces -- valets, letter carriers, lamplighters, musicians, secretaries, doctors, philosophers, cooks. Eating was now the chief occupation of upper class Rome. There, as in the ethics of Metrodorus, 'everything good had reference to the belly.'
"Some of the new wealth disported itself in enlarged theaters and extended games. In 58 Aemilius Scaurus built a theater with 8,000 sseats, 360 pillars, 3000 statues, a three-storied stage, and three colonnades -- one of wood, one of marble, and one of glass. His slaves, rebelling against the hard labor he had exacted of them, burned down the theater soon afterward, netting him a loss of 100,000,000 sesterces. In 55 Pompey provided funds for the first permanent stone theater in Rome -- with 17,500 seats, and a spacious porticoed part for entr-acte promenades."
More is better?

Robby

It sounds like a classic case of one-upmanship to me. Aren't we glad the Romans built all these extravagant things for us to visit when we go to Rome? What would be left if they weren't there? The Vatican? Why was the Vatican built in Rome? I have to find out.

Mal

"MARCUS AEMILIUS SCAURUS served during the third Mithradatic War (7461 B.c.) as quaestor to Pompey, by whom he was sent to Judaea to settle the quarrel between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. Scaurus decided in favor of the latter, who was able to offer more money. On his arrival in Syria, Pompey ,reversed the decision, but, ignoring the charge of bribery brought against Scaurus, left him in command of the district. An incidental campaign against Aretas, king of the Nabataeans, was ended by the payment of 300 talents by Aretas to secure his possessions. This agreement is represented on coins of ScaurusAretas kneeling by the side of a camel, and holding out an olive branch in an attitude of supplication. As curule aedile in 58, Scaurus celebrated the public games on a scale of magthficence never seen before. Animals, hitherto unknown to the Romans, were exhibited in the circus, and an artificial lake (eunipus) was made for the reception of crocodiles and hippopotamuses. One of the greatest curiosities was a huge skeleton brought from Joppa, said to be that of the monster to which Andromeda had been exposed. A wooden theatre was erected for the occasion, capable of holding 80,000 spectators. In 56 Scaurus was praetor, and in the folldwing year governor of Sardinia. On his return to Rome (54) he was accused of extortion in his province. Cicero and five others (amongst them the famous Q. Hortensius) undertook his defence, and, although there was no doubt of his guilt, he was acquitted. During the same year, however (according to some, two years later, under Pompeys new law), Scaurus was condemned on a charge of illegal practices when a candidate for the consulship. He went into exile, and nothing further is heard of him."

Cicero in defense of M. Aemilius Scaurus

Georgehd: I have to agree with you when you say that: "We still see violence as a way of achieving our ends." I too appreciate the differences between east and west after taking a class in Buddhisim.

GrayMare: Welcome! I don't believe "chaos' is nececessarily a bad thing. Winston Churchill once said that: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." But sometimes fear is a good thing to have especially when a Saber-tooth tiger is chasing you. In an earlier post I indicated that:"I feel that if we stand still, we are in danger of becoming stagnant and accepting anything. Therefore, I believe that we must question everything and take nothing for granted." We must continue to question and this may mean "chaos" but not necessarily the end of civilization.

Eloise: "Does it mean the Romans are responsible for Chaos and Insecurity, or rather that men are men and they will go to war because they "love" fighting especially when there is booty to be acquired?" I think it depends on which "men" you are talking about. If you are talking about "modern independent thinking men" who have a choice in going to war I think you could be right about "love" of fighting. My husband fought in Vietnam and hated every minute of it. On the other hand his brother also fought in Vietnam and is a career Marine. If you are talking about the ancient soldiers, I'm not sure they had a choice. In my grandfather's time (1917), the second son in the family became a soldier - there was little choice whether you were right for the job or not.

Mal: Just, as people change I think government polices should also change to be more in tune with the people they represent. But it is the people who have to safe guard those changes. We can't solve our problems over night - what's the saying "Rome wasn't built in a day!" But we need to continue to ask why? I don't think people will think democracy is a bad idea, but what I do see is our democracy slipping away little by little, if we don't pay attention.

You said: "Wasn't that chaos? Wasn't that insecurity? Didn't we weather it? Won't we weather what we're going through now?" Did we weather it? I'm not sure if this is not one continuous siege. It was Eisenhower's foreign policies that got us where we are today in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

I can't believe it's been 40 years today since the Kennedy assassination. I can't help but wonder if any of the men you mentioned had lived, whether this would have been a different world.

Scrawler

"First of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."

Franklin D. Roosevelt, First Inaugural Address, Mar. 4, 1933

The word "Chaos" is used today to mean confusion and perhaps disorder and it may be applied to a kindergarten before the arrival of a teacher, or the state of mind of a child before it is disciplined. Things in that state may be chaotic. But that is not quite what Durant has in mind.

Durant is thinking of the world before creation or just after the "Big Bang". His use of the word is cosmic. He applies it to the "hunter-gatherer" stage of life when one must devote full time to feeding one's self.

In that chaotic period one is considered insecure if life is spent defending against other animals and if successful, one eats and lives on. But there is no time for the essential elements of civilization. It was Abe Maslow who pointed out the primary and essential nature of the need to eat and to have safe shelter before undertaking other things.

In the main we have passed that period of chaos. However, we are no longer secure in a civilized state. A couple of Hydrogen bombs opened any where in the world (even in North Korea)will drive us back to the hunter-gatherer stage of existance and bring an end to civilization.

"Despite increasing competition from women and men, prostitution contined to flourish. Brothels and the taverns that usually housed them were so popular that some politicians organized votes through the collegium Iupanariorium, or guild of brothelkeepers.
"Adultery was so common as to attract little attention unless played up for political purposes, and practically every well-to-do woman had at least one divorce. This was not the fault of women. It resulted largely from the subordination of marriage, in the upper classes, to money and politics. Men chose wives, or youths had wives chosen for them, to get a rich dowry or make advantageous connections.
"Sulla and Pompey married five times. Seeking to attach Pompey to him, Sulla persuaded him to put away his first wife and marry Aemilia, Sulla's stepdaughter who was already married and with child. Aemilia reluctantly agreed, but died in chilbirth shortly after entering Pempey's house.
"Caesar gave his daughter Julia to Pempey in marriage as an item in their triumviral alliance. The "Empire, growled Cato, had becme a matrimonial agency. Such unions were marriages de politique. As soon as their utility ended, the husband looked for another wife as a steppingstone to higher place or greater wealth. He did not need to give a reason. He merely sent the wife a letter announcing her freedom and his.
"Some men did not marry at all, alleging distaste for the forwardness and extravaaagance of the new woman. Many lived in free unions with concubines or slaves. The censor Metellus Macedonicus (131) had begged men to marry and beget children as a duty to the state, however much of a nuisance (molestia) a wife might be.
"But the number of celibates and childless couples increased more rapidly after he spoke. Children were now luxuries which only the poor could afford."
Interesting. The rich can not afford children but the poor can.

Robby

Children for the poor is not a hindrance but rather an advantage. They help greatly with the chores and day to day living.

Children for the rich can be a pain in the butt. They are under foot when one wants something else. They are a distraction at best.

One must wonder how the Roman Republic works. Senate and the people of Rome are one. People in the Assembly in the Forum elected two consuls. The Consuls, with advice and consent of the Senate proposed laws to people in Assembly. Assembly voted the laws, up or down. When they voted war they voted themselves to march. All made the laws so all obeyed. And the courts protected every citizen by open trial in the forum.

It is not a democracy. It is an aristocratic republic.There is logic in its construction but when the wheels begin to turn one finds that the Senate is strong or week depending upon the age, interest, and economic power of the old family members, the strength of the Consuls and their power to curb one another. The Assembly remains the same- the people.

Something's come up, and Robby can't come in, so I'm pinch-hitting. We are this discussion, so let's keep it rolling, folks! Now back to Durant:
Under the circumstances women could hardly be blamed for looking lightly upon their marriage vows and seeking in liaisons the romance or affection that political matrimony had failed to bring. There was, of course, a majority of good women, even among the rich, but a new freedom was breaking down the old patria potestas and the ancient family discipline. Roman women now moved about almost as freely as men. They dressed in diaphanous siks from India and China, and ransacked Asia for perfumes and jewelry. Marriage cum manu disappeared, and women divorced their husbands as readily as men their wives. A growing proportion of woman sought expression in cultural pursuits: they learned Greek, studied philosophy, wrote poetry, gave public lectures, played, sang and danced, and opened literary salons; some engaged in business; a few practiced medicine or law.

Clodia, wife of Quintus Caecilius Metellus, was the most prominent of these ladies who in this period supplemented their husbands with a succession of cavalieri serventi. She had a gay passion for the rights of women; shocked the older generation by going about unchaperoned with her male friends after her marriage; accosted people she met and knew, and sometimes publicly kissed them, instead of lowering her eyes and crouching in her carriage as proper women were supposed to do.

She invited her male friends to dine with her while her husband absented himself with the chivalry of the Marquis de Charlelet. Cicero, who cannot be trusted, describes "her loves, adulteries, and lecheries, her songs and symphonies, her suppers and carousing, at Baiae on land and sea." She was a clever woman, who could sin with irresistable grace, but she underestimated the selfishness of men. Each lover demanded her entirely until his appetite waned, and each became her shocked enemy when she found a new friend.

So Catullus (if she was his Lesbia) besmeared her with ribald epigrams; and Caelius, alluding to the price paid for the poorest prostitutes, called her in open court the quadrantaria -- the quarter-of-an-as (one and a half cent) woman. She had accused him of trying to poison her; he hired Cicero to defend him, and the great orator did not hesitate to charge her with incest and murder, protesting that he was "not the enemy of women, still less of one who was the friend of all men." Caelius was acquitted, and Clodia paid some penalty for being the sister of that Publius Clodius who was the most radical leader in Rome and Cicero's implacable enemy.

Who woulda thunk it? Women's Lib in Ancient Rome. What do you think about this, folks? Is there nothing new under the sun? Any similarities between this liberated woman and other women in history after her time? Do you see a little political finagling going on as far as Cicero was concerned?

POEM: My Sweetest Lesbia by Caius Valerius Catullus

I just heard from Robby who said it was all right if I told you what's going on.

Friday morning he went to the dentist and had a partial root canal done. When he went back to his office to see patients, he noticed a soreness in his stomach. Saturday morning he went to the emergency room at the hospital where the diagnosis of a possible diverticulitis in his abdomen was made.

Robby's been very uncomfortable since Friday, and this morning he's going to the hospital for a CAT scan. He was leaving right after he wrote to me.

Meanwhile, let's talk about Ancient Rome. I'll post from the book again if Robby doesn't feel up to doing it, so we can move right along.

I know all of us send good, stong, positive wishes to Robby and hope he'll soon be all right.

Mal

Just to tell you everything in italics in my Post #576 is quoted from Will and Ariel Durant's book, "Caesar and Christ".

Mal

Oh Poor Robby. Hope he will be sorted out and back soon.

Carolyn

Yes we're all hoping Robby will bounce back here fit as a fiddle, hopefully some reaction to the dental work and meds, we're thinking of you, our Robby!

ginny

Yes me too, please don't worry too much Robby and come back soon.

Éloïse

Hubert Paul: Thanks so much for your comments about modern gladiators gaining more prestige than our educators. You've hit the nail on the head. I can't help but wonder what our descendants will think of us as a society when they uncover this information about us.

Kiwi lady: I don't necessarily agree that all of society lacks self discipline and self control, but I think because of our media we tend to see only those folks that do lack self discipline and self control.

Mal: You are so right when you say it takes discipline not to fight and to figure out other ways of handling conflict. Unfortunately, especially here in the USA we have a tendancy to defend ourselves with our fists. (Too many John Wayne movies perhaps.) The art of diplomacy takes real courage.

Moxiect: Your right war is stupid. But the problem is that it takes two to tango. If we could somehow work out our problems without getting into fistfights the world might be a better place - lack of war would probably create other problems. Unfortuantely, though if someone is coming at you with weapons or fists, it is within our human nature to defend ourselves physically. Survival is deeply rooted in Homo sapiens.

Justin: Thanks for your comments about "superstition." Are you quite sure that "animal entrails" are no longer required prior to making decisions? Wasn't it Nancy Reagan that consulted astrology before her husband made any major decisions?

I think allowing bribery to continue is one way of allowing our democracy to slip away a little at a time. If we don't like something on our television, what do we do? We turn it off. Why can't we do this with corrupt officials? Turn them off so to speak by not voting for them. The problem I can see though is where do we find an "honest" man or woman or are we so jaded now; that if we found one could we really trust him/her.

Georgehd: "Will history repeat itself?" I'd say yes. I read somewhere, but can't remember where, that we continue to live on earth because we failed to learn a lesson in another life. If we assume this to be true of individuals, could it also be true of nations as well? Are the countries that exist today predestined to lesson and therefore history will repeat itself?

Robby: Get well soon.

Scawler

Let's try to keep this discussion on the Romans, okay? What do you think of liberated Clodia and the Roman women of her day?

Mal

There doesn't seem to be much interest in liberated Roman women (to my surprise), so I'm going on to what is called "Another Cato" in the book. I will say that I believe the biggest way we can show ROBBY we care about his health and well-being is to come in and discuss the various aspects of Ancient History as stated by Will and Ariel Durant in their books. Robby may be down for a bit, but this discussion is alive and well. Let's prove it to him.
"Amid all this corruption and laxity one man stood out as an exemplar and professor of the ancient ways. Marcus Porcius Cato the Younger had violated a precept of his great-great-grandfather by studying Greek; from it he derived that Stoic philosophy which shared with his republican convictions the inflexible devotion of his life. He inherited 120 talents ($432,000) but lived in sedulous simplicity. He lent money, but took no interest. He lacked his ancestor's rough humor, and frightened people by what seemed to them his obstinate incorruptibility and his untimely addiction to principles. HIs life was an unforgivable indictment of theirs; they wished he would sin a little, if only out of a decent respect for the habits of mankind. They seem to have rejoiced when, with almost a Cynical conception of women as a biological instrument, he "lent" his wife Marcia to his friend Hortensius -- i.e., divorced her and assisted at her marriage as orator -- and later, when Hortensius died, took her again to wife.

"He could not be popular, for he was the relentless enemy of all dishonesty, the stern defender of the patria potestas, a more merciless censor moralium than Cato Censor himself. He seldom laughed or smiled; made no effort to be affable, and sharply reprimanded any who dared to flatter him. He was defeated for the consulship, said Cicero, because he acted like a citizen in Plato's republic instead of a Roman living among 'the dregs of Romulus' posterity.' "

What's this? We have here an honest man? What does "Cynical conception of women as a biological instrument" mean?

I think all we women have met the "cynical conception of woman as a biological instrument" and know pretty well what it means.

I notice in the biography of Clodia Mal posted this phrase:

"She also illuminates the hatred of men in her time for a woman who indulged her sexual appetites".

It looks like the men were running around "indulging their sexual appetites, but the horrible example we're given is a woman. What happened to all the women who studied philosophy? Are they immortalized?

So, we have come to Cato the Younger. Here is a guy who served in a corrupt Senate, appeared to be squeeky clean, but was not above using his power to exact benefits from other Patricians, especially those who favored popularus.

Cato is the Senate leader who gave Caesar at the Rubicon concern. The law said that a Roman general imperator must give up his command when returning to Rome. Caesar returned from Gaul with great wealth but no slaves. He freed the Gauls and so brought peace to Gaul. He promised his soldiers free land just as Pompey had given his men free land. The Senate blessed Pompey's land dispersal but balked at Caesar's.

Cato and the Senate wanted wanted a piece of Gaul. Further, Caesar wanted to run for the consul and depended upon his soldiers (50,000 strong) being available in the forum to vote for him. But the law and Cato would not allow Caesar's army to enter Rome. They were camped at Ravenna. If Caesar breaks the law he may not be able to run for Consul. Further, Cato and the Senate are looking for an excuse to bring Caesar to trial and to take his life. All this is going on at the Rubicon, and at the same time Caesar is a successful general returning after nine years to a much deserved Triumphal ceremony.

We know the action of Caesar but the decision must have been a difficult one. We know what happened to Cato, and to Pompey, and to Caesar. Shakespeare tells us all about it.

Of course, Woman is a biological instrument just as man is a biological instrument. Some engage for money and others because it is fun. There is a line from a recent movie that fits this situation quite well. Sharon Stone, appearing with Mike Douglas, is asked by a cop, "Are you a Pro?" She answers," No, I am an amateur." That's what Clodia and Mesalina were. Amateurs.

I don't think the feminine movement, which may have begun in Roman times, is about sexual license. I think it is about political, economic, and social assertion. Reproductive freedom is certainly an important part of the movement but a license for indiscriminate sex while married is not included. I think the movement protects the marriage contract.

"As quaestor Cato made himself a terror to all incompetence and malfeasance, and guarded the Treasury ferociously from all political raids, nor did his watchfulness abate when his term expired. His indctments fell upon all parties and left him with a thousand admirers but hardly a friend. As Praetor he persuaded the Senate to issue an order that all candidates, soon after election, must come into court and give a detailed account of their expenses and proceedings in the campaign. The measure disturbed so many politicians, most of whom depended upon bribery, that they and their clients, when Cato next appeared in the Forum, reviled and stoned him, whereupon he climbed to the rostrum, faced the crowd resolutely, and talked them into submission.

"As tribune he led a legion into Macedonia; his attendants rode on horseback, he went on foot. He scorned the business classes and defended the aristocracy, or rule by birth, as the only alternative to plutocracy, or rule by wealth. He warred without truce upon the men who were corrupting Roman politics with money, and Roman character with luxury; and he stood out to the last against every move, by either Pompey or Caesar, toward dictatorship. When Caesar had overthrown the Republic Cato died by his own hand, with a volume of philosophy by his side."

Marcus Porcius Cato

Robby; Divertikulitis is a smelly but fixable condition. Mal will do a good job for you as she always does but we want you back. So do not delay. Get well and retake the tiller.

Mal ; Do not rush past Roman women's lib. This is the first time in history we have encountered nobilii women in rebellion . We learned during our Greek adventure of some whores called Heterai who stood on equal terms in the company of men but this time the gals are starting literary groups and other cultural activities. That is a big step forward.

I don't think we will see this kind of action again for another millennium and a half. In the middle ages women who put themselves forward were burned at the stake. Late in the Renaisance, Artemisia Gentileschi will briefly rise and some others like Catherine de Medici will appear in high office and Elizabeth and Mary will battle it out, but nothing like a women's lib movement will occur till Elizabeth Cady Stanton and her gal pals appear.

I've heard nothing from or about ROBBY since yesterday morning. You can be sure that as soon as I do I'll post here. I am also sure that if GINNY or anyone else has news of Robby, he or she will let us know. I know we're all concerned about him, but it is my absolute certainty that he wants us to continue our examination and discussion of the Durants' Caesar and Christ.

Let's hear your views and opinions, folks. There's a lot here to talk about. I'm going to post a bit more about liberated Roman women. Then there's Cato the Younger's role in this republic. He did everything he could to prevent a dictatorship; his means were not easy, and he was not well-liked. What do you think about him?

Mal

"Any reader of Livy, the Augustan historian who has best preserved the legend-fact mix of ancient Rome history, finds many women to either condemn or admire. Titus Livius (59BC - 17 AD) wrote during the Augustan age, when a half-century of civil war and a flood of imperial wealth had, in the opinion of his time, undermined the strong moral values of the early Republic. His purpose in writing down the early legends of Rome was to instruct as well as correct; they are brilliant propaganda for the moral reforms Augustus was optimistically proposing. In these fables - possibly, though not probably, with a basis in historical fact - women figure prominently in the reflected glories of Rome’s unsullied past. However political the use of these heroines in Livy’s histories, they do represent feminine values which were cherished in the early Republic and Empire, arguably by women as well as men. No writer of the classical world peopled his histories with more images of strong but compassionate Roman women than Livy.

"Thus in the early stories of Rome, we meet Cloelia, Lucretia, Veturia and Verginia, women who took the male concept of “duty, honor, country” and made it their own, as well as women like Tarpeia who betrayed Rome’s values and the Sabine women, who personified it. The courage and self-sacrifice of its heroines were considered worthy of both admiration and reverence. Their tales are instructive in portraying feminine behavior admired or condemned in the early centuries of Rome’s development."

Source: Heroines of Early Rome

More about Roman women

Mal, I am also concerned about Robby and I have not heard from him either, if I hear anything, I will pass it on, you can be sure of that.

I would like very much to be able to post more than I do, but I am still in renovations, painting, plastering, putting up curtain rods and sewing curtains. I live in a separate apartment above my daughter's family and we decided to finish the renovations ourselves as we spent enough already on the house.

Women's Liberation

I don't know if women will ever feel equal to men. We have gained a lot of ground in the past century in the Western world. 50 years ago, I could not have been as independent as I am today, or should I say happy as I am today. There is nothing that prevents me from doing what I want to do. My daughters are all independent, they have the education and the careers that go with it. Only one is single, the others are in stable relationships. Their income is comparable to their husbands now. It takes a lot of energy to juggle a job and home too and health problems got in the way for two of my daughters who are diabetic. My daughters work longer hours than I used to even when I was raising my 6 children.

It's fine to be active in women's liberation movement, but you have to have that inclination, drive, ambition, strength and money most of all. Then your thoughts and actions can be focused on an ideal and you can go for it. In any case, I think that more is asked of women then of men at work, at home, in society in general.

Éloïse

Because my background is different, I don't see the plight of women in the same way that some others do.

I was raised by a woman who always had a career working outside the home. She made as much and often more money than her husband did. She was never told by him or any other man what she could or could not do. ( This was in the 1930's, 1940's and early '50's. ) Through her I met many woman like her, some of whom owned their own businesses. All of them had great independence and freedom of choice.

How did these women achieve what they did? Perhaps it was because they simply went out and did what they wanted to do. I heard women in my youth, myself included, using their husbands as an excuse for not fulfilling themselves in the ways they thought they should. In my own case, it was never really proven that my husband would object to my working outside the home because I never tried to find a job. He put up some resistance verbally, but I never put him to a real test.

Men I knew in the past and men I know now work very hard, so I cannot unequivocally say that more is asked of women than is asked of men. Young couples I know now share the raising of their children and household chores, just as the woman and man who raised me did. There was no talk of gender differences or preferences in my life growing up, and why should there be under the circumstances I have described?

As a woman I most certainly feel equal intellectually to any man I know. My accomplishments, despite a physical handicap, are certainly equal to that of most men. If that is "equality"; then I have achieved it as a woman in my lifetime.

Mal

Until we hear more from Robby, just so you'll know in case a problem arises of some kind, I will be the temporary contact for the Books until he returns, thank you Malryn, for your splendid leadership here!! in soldiering on. I know he will appreciate it, what a super group you all are.

I was transfixed by Robby's description of the death of Sulla and an old book fell out of my bookshelves yesterday on Rome while I was looking for Christmas mysteries and it mentioned Sulla in this context: the Appian Way, in Rome: the Via Appia Antica

The Appian Way was built in 312 BC by Appius Claudius Caecus to link Rome with Capua; in 194 BC it was extended to Brindisi ( 320 miles and 13 days march away).

In 71 BC it was the spot where 6,000 of Spartacus's troops were crucified during a slaves' revolt; it bore witness to the funeral processions of Sulla (78 BC) and Augustus (AD 14); it was the road along which St. Paul was marched as prisoner in 56AD; and close to the city walls was the point at which St. Peter (fleeing Rome) encountered Christ and famously asked him "Domine, quo vadis?" ("Lord, where are you going?")

That spot is marked today.

I thought you might like to see what remains of the impossibly romantic Via Appia, (on which the catacombs lie). You can take a small Archeological Society bus down some of it, it's tremendously long

but then you have to walk from about mile 7, I think, the archaeological bus picks you back up at a later spot. No vehicles at all, even bicycles, are allowed on it. It's incredibly romantic

and to stand and look and feel the actual rocks is something you have to experience for yourself,

the tombs are mostly carried away, but the best ones occur after Mile 7.

Those photographs are all taken from my last bus trip, of course I can't find the ones where I nearly killed myself walking, but you can see by the focus how jarring the ride actually is, it's unreal. They literally STOP when the asphalt ends and EASE on up to the tremendous stones, next year I will bring you more photos as I am determined to walk the length of it.

ginny

Thank you so much, GINNY, for coming in and bolstering us up, as well as offering your support should we have any problems while ROBBY must be away. Thank you, too, for these marvelous pictures of the Appian Way. I was reading about Spartacus' troops and the slaves last night. Your pictures give me chills, so steeped in history as they are. How fortunate you are to have been there and to have walked part of it. You've made a part of Roman history come alive for us today.

Mal

I don't think Clodia was a poster-person for women's lib. I see her more as a femme fatal. There have been beautiful women throughout history who have used their feminine charms to entice men to gain what they want.

Clodia: Roman matron noted for her beauty was the sister of Publius Clodius. She was suspected of murdering her husband, Quintus Caecilius Metllus, and she accused her lover Marcus Caelius Rufus, of trying to murder her. Among her many lovers was the poet Catullus.

Cleopatra and Caesar: Julius Ceasar arrived in Alexandria, Egypt. He came in pursuit of Pompey. Ceasar and Cleopatra met and fell in love. Caesar defeated Cleopatra's opponents. Ceasar then put Cleopatra back on the throne along with her brother, Ptolemy XIV.

Cleopatra and Mark Anthony: In 41 BC, Anthony had met Cleopatra when she stayed in Rome as Ceasar's guest. Anthony wanted to rule Rome alone and hoped to obtain financial aid from Cleopatra. Anthony and Cleopatra fell in love and worked closely to achieve their ambitions.

Napoleon and Josephine: In 1796, Napoleon married Josephine de Beauharnasis, a beautiful woman of French descent from Martinque in West Indies. Her first husband had been sent to the guillotine during the Region of Terror. When Napoleon met her, she was a leader of fashionable French society.

All of these women used their beauty to achieve their own ambitions. What I found interesting was that Clodia paid some penalty for "being the sister of Publius Clodius" who was the most radical leader in Rome and Cicero's implacable enemy. What was Clodia's down fall? The fact that she "underestimated the selfishness of men" or the fact that Cicero had such a way with words. "...the great oraator did not hesitate to charge her with incest and murder, protesting that he was "not the enemy of women, still less of one who was the friend of all men."

Scrawler

Robby will be pleased, but not surprised, at how well you all have kept the discussion going. He is in my thoughts constantly.

On women's lib: my mother, I think, always wanted a career. At first, she refused to marry my father, because it would make her a housewife. She finally relented, but continued to work for eight years, until we were born. She believed strongly that mothers should not work outside the home. She was a wonderful mother, but I don't think she was ever happy at home.

I started out to study mathematics, the only woman math major at my college. I did very well as an undergraduate, but when I applied to graduate school, was told no-- because women can't do mathematics. "But I've taken three courses from you and got A's in all of them". "It doesn't matter, women can't do mathematics".

So I became a computer programmer. In the mid-fifties, a math degree was required, a requirement that was always waived for men, but not for women, keeping almost all women out. But I was paid half what my male collegues were paid. This didn't last, a big growth in the need for programmers forced the door open. Later, I went back and got a phd in social science. But I didn't work while my children were small.

Mal, you are right. When I wanted to return to school, my husband said he supported me, but actually put many obstacles in my way. I had to just close my eyes and keep on going. I also have a disability (cerebral palsy) but I feel I've met more obstacles through being a woman than through being disabled.

Now, my daughter is a doctor. She had many problems in Med school as part of the first class that admitted many women. She had her first baby while doing residency, working 30+ hour shifts. Now, like many couples nowadays, she works and her husband is home with the three children under five. I wouldn't guess which works harder; they are both on the edge of exhaustion all the time. But they seem to be happy.Her male fellow students are now established in practices, making much more money. But that is not her goal. She wants to (and does) serve a poor population. She also quit work to come and nurse me when I was sick a few years ago, as well as when her babies were born.

I'm not sure what the moral of this is. Maybe her generation is groping toward a new definition of the relationship between home and career. I hope so.

JoanK: During the Fifties and Sixties women were scarce in data processing. I took some classes at IBM during that time and found only one gal in a class of thirty people. However, the instructor was a woman. Both had Math backgrounds. I had written a master's thesis in probability theory and thought programming would be useful.

When data processing expanded so rapidly in the Seventies, women must have come into the field in great numbers but the B schools and engineering schools were still unable to supply many qualified women. I think that has changed considerably today.

JOAN, this is not the first time over these years that we've carried on this discussion while its facilitator was away. It is the first time illness for ROBBY was the reason.

When he returns I'm going to scold him a little for not arranging for someone to contact us about his condition, however. When an actively participating group in a discussion is small, such as this one and the writers group I lead here in SeniorNet, there is a bond between all of us, and we have a tendency to worry about the person who seems to have disappeared. For that reason I have asked all of the active WREX writers to send me an email address of someone who knows how and where they are.

I soothe my concern by telling myself ROBBY has always been even more healthy than a horse. He'll probably return and scold us/me for wasting even one minute of time worrying about him.

Mal

With your agreement, I'd like to move on from Roman women to something else. Do you have comments to make about Cato the Younger? If you do, please post them, or let me know if you're ready to move on to Spartacus, a most interesting man who lived at a most interesting time.

Mal

I find it puzzling that women rose to so much power in that period of Roman history, because it certainly didn't last. What were the causes of this strange phenomenon? Was it because there was so much wealth available that women were free to get an education instead of slaving away as housewives? One of the main things that has always held women down is the lack of education.

I've seen paintings of Josephine, and she was homely as a cow. I wondered what Napoleon saw in her. But maybe she was beautiful in her younger days.

Just a note in passing! Joan K - I know exactly how you felt during the 50's and 60's about Data Processing. It was a very fustrating time for us gals who wanted to advance beyond Keypunching! I, too, was told "Women don't do Programming." Really bothered me at the time.

I think that men in general have always feared strong willed women who pursue "freedom of choide" and want to succeed in "their world."

On to Spartacus!

PORTRAIT OF JOSEPHINE WITH A SHORT BIOGRAPHY

GULLAND: When she came into the room, you'd probably be really drawn to her. She had great charisma, long eyelashes and big eyes. She wasn't a beauty, but she was really striking …She had a wonderful walk, very elegant, an indolent walk that really was enchanting. And she had a beautiful voice, what we would call a really sexy voice, very low and musical. So there was something about her aura that just enchanted people.

Éloïse

Picture: Josephine

Another picture: Josephine

"Republican Rome was similar to contemporary cultures in its emphasis on the purpose of marriage being to combine estates, property, and political power and to create children to inherit them, rather than on the individual affections or happiness of the man and woman involved. The notion of a 'romantic couple' was entirely alien to an upper class Roman woman, although affection between spouses was considered a pleasant, if uncommon, fringe benefit of marriage.

"Marriages were made to transmit a family’s wealth and status and the transfer required children. Her status as a mother was the single most important and revered aspect of a woman’s life and her husband could divorce her for barrenness. The Roman state was martial from its inception, and a constant supply of new soldiers was vital for its survival.

"The Roman Republic lasted from 510 BC until the conventional date of 31 BC, after the civil wars of Julius Caesar and following Antony's defeat by Augustus.

"For the first time, women begin to appear in Republican sculpture, art and literature. Between the beginning and the end of the Roman Republic, the position and status of Roman women underwent a sea-change, from a position far closer to the closeted Greeks to the scandalous freedoms of a Clodia or Fulvia "Yet, from the time of the Punic Wars to the Battle of Actium, the Republican period is replete of male complaints against the increasing wealth and independent behavior of Rome's women."

" 'What kind of behavior is this? Running around in public, blocking streets, and speaking to other women's husbands? Could you not have asked your own husbands the same thing at home? Are you more charming in public with others' husbands than at home with your own? And yet, it is not fitting even at home…for you to concern yourselves with what laws are passed or repealed here.'
"Republican Rome was similar to contemporary cultures in its emphasis on the purpose of marriage being to combine estates, property, and political power and to create children to inherit them, rather than on the individual affections or happiness of the man and woman involved. The notion of a “romantic couple” was entirely alien to an upper class Roman woman, although affection between spouses was considered a pleasant, if uncommon, fringe benefit of marriage. Marriages were made to transmit a family’s wealth and status and the transfer required children. Her status as a mother was the single most important and revered aspect of a woman’s life and her husband could divorce her for barrenness. The Roman state was martial from its inception, and a constant supply of new soldiers was vital for its survival.

"In addition to her duties to support her family’s ambitions and breed her children as true Romans, the late-Republican woman had almost unlimited purview over the domestic household. Although with the increased use of slaves following Rome’s expansion in the third and second centuries BC, a Roman matron was no longer single-handedly required to weave her family's clothes, cook meals, or teach her children, still she maintained control over increasingly sophisticated households of children, relations, and slaves. In addition, the growing power and wealth of the great Optimate families (ancient families which at least one Consul in their recent backgrounds) required increasing efforts to present a fashionable face to the world.

"As the responsibilities of women became more significant to their husbands’ prestige and political clout, so education for women became increasingly more common. Unlike Athens, it became acceptable in Rome for girls as well as boys to receive elemental education, to have read 'improving' Roman and Greek authors and to be able to discuss political affairs. Boys then went on to higher studies, including rhetoric, the passport to political careers, while women married in their mid-teens. Throughout the Empire, however, a woman cherished her ability to read and write both as a mark of excellence and as a sign of her status.

"The separation of women enforced by the Greeks had never been the Roman way; women were permitted to go out in public, attend lectures and meetings, dine with guests, and conduct their own affairs with some initiative. At the same time, as moral guardians of the health and virtue of Rome itself, their behavior was severely scrutinized for signs of intemperance, sexual laxity, or extravagant (and dangerous) display."

Source: Rome: Republican Women

The Republic begins its death throes in January 49 BCE when Caesar crosses the Rubicon. He becomes the Law at that moment. The mob in the forum, the people, (whose source of power is God) make Caesar dictator. In 44 BCE when the conspirators assasinate Caesar, they sound the death knell again for the Republic. The objective of the killers is to save the Republic but Caesar's death leaves the country in anarchy. The Republic is dead. It will be eighteen hundred years before another attempt is made to bring self-government to free men.

"Women don't program" is rediculous, since the first programmer was a woman -Lady Lovelace, the poet Byron's daughter. She apprenticed herself to Babbage, who invented the computer, as the only way she could find to learn mathematics ("Women don't do mathematics") and wrote a program for his computer. She never got a chance to debug it, since he was never able to build a working model. I got hold of a copy once, and suspect it wouldn't have worked.

Programming is an occupation which has "changed sex" several times, as women have been drawn in, then pushed out according to the demands of the market. I don't know what has happened in the ".com" collapse-- I've lost track of the labor market since I retired.

Spartacus

"Misgovernment now reached a height and democracy a depth, rare in the history of states. In 98 B.C. the Roman general Didius repeated the exploit of Sulpicius Galba; he lured a whole tribe of troublesome natives into a Roman camp in Spain by pretending to register them for a distribution of land; when they had entered, with their wives and children, he had them all slaughtered. On his return to Rome he was awarded a public triumph.

"Shocked by the brutalities of empire, a Sabine officer in the Roman army, Quintus Sertorius, went over to the Spaniards, organized and drilled them, and led them to victory over victory over the legions sent to subdue him. For eight years ( 80-72 ) he ruled a rebel kingdom, winning the affection of the people by his just administration and by the extablishment of schools for the education of native youth. Metellus, the Roman general, offered a hundred talents ( $300,000 ) and 20,000 acres of land to any Roman who should kill him. Perpenna, a Roman refugee in Sertorius' camp, invited him to dinner, assassinated him, and made himself master of the army that Sertorius had trained. Pompey was sent against Perpenna and easily defeated him, Perpenna was executed and the exploitation of Spain was rsumed.

"The next act of the revolution came not from the free but from the slave. Lentulus Batistes kept at Capua a school of gladiators -- slaves or condemned criminals trained to fight animals, or one another, to the death in public areans or private homes. Two hundred of them tried to escape; seventy-eight succeeded, armed themselves, occupied a slope of Vesuvius, and raided the adjoining towns for food.

"As their leader they chose a Thracian, Spartacus, 'a man not only of high spirit and bravery,' says Plutarch, 'but also in undersanding and gentleness superior to his condition.' He issued a call to the slaves of Italy to rise in revolt; soon he had 70,000 men, hungering for liberty and revenge. He taught them to manufacture their own weapons, and to fight with such order and discipline that for years tjhey outmarched every force sent to subdue them. His victories filled the rich men of Italy with fear, and its slaves with hope; so many of these tried to join him that after raising his army to 120,000 he refused further recruits, finding it difficult to care for them.

"He marched his horde toward the Alps, 'intending, when he had passed them, that every man should go to his own home." But his followers did not share these refined and pacific sentiments; revolting against his leadership, they began to loot the towns of northern Italy. The Senate now sent both consuls, with heavy forces, against the rebels. One army met a detachment that had seceded from Spartacus, and slaughtered it; the other attacked the main rebel body, and was defeated. Moving again toward the Alps, Spartacus encountered a third army, led by Cassius and decimated it; but finding his way blocked by still other legions he turned south and marched toward Rome."

Moving on, everybody. Let's concentrate on Rome.

Mal

Spartacus

Map: Rebellion of Spartacus

Hollywood, in the movie, "Spartacus", thought crucifixion was a better death for the leader of the revolt because folks could then watch him die. He made a Christ-like figure on his cross. However, the Hollywood version was inaccurate. Spartacus died in battle. He was hacked to pieces.

Quoting from Durant's Caesar and Christ
"Half the slaves of Italy were on the verge of insurrection, and in the capital no man could tell when the revolution would break out in his very home. All that opulent society, which had enjoyed every luxury slavery could produce, trembled at the thought of losing everything -- mastery, property, life. Senators and millionaires cried out for a better general; few offered themselves, for all feared this strange new foe. At last Crassus came forward and was given the command, with 40,000 men; and many of the nobility, and all forgetting the traditions of their class, joined him as volunteers. Knowing that he had an empire against him, and that his men could never administer either the Empire or the capital, Spartacus passed Rome by and continued south to Thurii, marching the length of Italy in the hope of transporting his men to Sicily or Africa.

"For a third year he fought off all attacks. But again his impatient soldiers rejected his authority and began to ravage the neighboring towns. Crassus came upon a hordes of these marauders and slew them, 12,300 in number, every man fighting to the last. Meanwhile Pompey's legions, returning from Spain, were sent to swell the forces of Crassus. Despairing of victory over such a multitude, Spartacus flung himself upon the army of Crassus and welcomed death by plunging into the midst of the foe. Two centurions fell by his hand; struck down and unable to rise, he continued the fight on his knees; at last he was so cut to pieces that his body could not later be identified.

"The great majority of his followers perished with him; some fled, and became hunted men in the woods of Italy; 6000 captives were crucified along the Appian Way from Capua to Rome. There their rotting bodies were left to hang for months, so that all masters might take comfort, and all slaves take heed."

It's a bloody story, and the underdogs lose again. I think it's remarkable that such huge numbers of men were gathered to fight these battles. Was every single man required to serve the Empire? Why do you suppose the slaves chose this moment to rebel? Was it because of Spartacus, do you think? Was a leader like him what it took to create this uprising of slaves? Can you imagine 6000 men nailed to crosses in those pictures of the Appian Way that GINNY posted?

Don't jump back, everybody, but here I am!! But only temporaily to let you know that I am OK and then leaving early tomorrow morning for my cousin's house in Venice, Florida. It will be a much-needed vacation. You have all been so kind in asking about me so I'll give you just a few details.
This illustrates again why medicine is an art and not a science. I'll explain what I mean. How often I will listen to a patient and not be able to figure out the diagnosis. Is it a personality disorder? Is there some psychotic cause? Has there been a trauma? And then -- ever so casually - the patient will make an off-hand remark about how the grandfather died or comment on a childhood experience. And suddenly it all falls into place. But of course it only falls into place if the doctor has had training and knowledge in looking for these things.
Yesterday, my gastroenterologist (he tells everyone hs is the stomach doctor so they will know what he is) whom I know personally as a colleague stood by my bed and we talked about the condition of my health which was close to perfect -- my heart, my lungs, my blood pressure, my lung capacity, my temperature, my oxygen level. I had received a CAT scan and an Ultrasound test (which is friendly and fascinating). And then he asked:-"Have you had a flu shot recently?" "Well, yes, I had one about a week ago." And it all fell into place. I was having a mild case of the flu. All the pieces matched. I had never had any pain or ache but my stomach was tender. And other signs which you really don't want to hear about. So we agreed that I would stay over another night to receive antibiotic (I was on an IV for two days -- I hate that - it is so constricting!) and to be observed. Sunday I had nothing to eat, yesterday I had a fluid lunch and a more solid supper, and this morning a regular breakfast -- at least what the hospital calls regular.
So there you are. A mystery story solved. This will be the only posting I will make until I come back from vacation Saturday evening. To begin with, I have absolute faith in Mal who always does such a wonderful job when I am away and secondly because I need this day to pack up my trusty RED overnight bag with which Senior Bashers are familiar and to rest a bit more normally in my own home. Tomorrow morning I will get up at 2 a.m. to be sure to be at Dulles Airport by 4 a.m., ready for a 6 a.m. flight so it's early to bed for me.
I have read all your 39 postings from those two days and continue to be so proud of this serious group which always sticks to the purpose of the forum and which proves that it is the serious bonding of participants which make a discussion group successful and not the DL. This also helps to keep me humble and to be reminded that no one is indispensable.
Thank you all for being so concerned about me.

Robby

Whew! That's a relief, ROBBY. We're all very glad you're all right. Enjoy your vacation and recovery at your cousin's in Florida. Please give her my regards. We'll see you when you get back home to Virginia. Meanwhile, we're holding the Story of Civilization fort. You knew we wouldn't let go, didn't you?

Best wishes and Happy Thanksgiving!

Mal

The December issue of the WREX Magazine is now on the web. SeniorNet WREX authors whose work is in this issue are Ann Dora Cantor, Robert Haseltine, Virginia Bickel, Marilyn Freeman, Ira Gay Sealy, Martin Green, E T (Sea Bubble), Marie DiMauro Fredrickson, Louise Harrigan, Gladys Barry and Janice Donohue. There is an art page by WREX artist and writer, Ann Dora Cantor, as well as a novella by her in this issue. You're going to like what you find in this Holiday issue of the WREX Magazine.

Marilyn Freeman, Publisher of
The WREX Magazine
http://www.sonatapub.com/pages.htm

Sabine women:

According to the legend, no women lived in Rome when Romulus founded the city. Romulus asked nearby cities to allow Romans to choose wives from among their women. When the cities refused, Romulus invited all the surrounding people to attend a great festival. During the festival games, the Romans carried off young Sabine women by force. The Sabines went to war with the Romans, but the women persuaded the two tribes to stop fighting and unite as one nation.

Ah! So what the legend is saying is that we have the Sabine women to thank for the mighty nation of Rome. Does this legend also prophesy the extent that the Romans will go to fulfill their ambitions? Just how did the Sabine women persuade the tribes to stop fighting? Diplomacy perhaps? Or were there other factors at work here? Was all this presdestined?

Cato, Marcus Porcius, the Younger:

At last an honest man in Rome! But what kind of man was Cato? "He seldom laughed and smiled; made no effort to be affable, and sharply reprimanded any who dared to flatter him. He was defeated for the consulship, said Cicero, because he acted like a citizen in Plato's republic instead of a Roman living among 'the dregs of Romulus' posterity." Cicero does have a way with words, doesn't he? I'm not at all sure I'd like having a man like Cato around - sure he's honest but - all work and no play makes Cato a dull boy. And really if he has his back up agaisnt the wall - he commits suicide than what do we have? I'm sue it is very poetic to take one's life in this honorable fashion especially with a volume of philosophy by his side for dramatic emphasis, but where would we be if "all" honest men/women chose to meet their end like this? Would we only be left with those corrupt persons? It seems to me for all the good that Cato did; it went for naught in the end.

What does "Cynical conception of women as a biological instrument" mean?

I would say that it means that the Romans saw women as only a "biological instrument" or in other words they saw women as a means of reproduction. The Republic and later the dictarship needed women around in order to further the popultion of their mighty nation. But as we have seen many women wanted men around for the same reason.

Scrawler

Robby glad you did not have a serious ailment! I am not allowed the flu shot because of the reaction to them. (it half killed me!) See you when you get back. Have a good trip.

Carolyn

I am still away and trying to catch up on forty posts. Mal, great job in leading the group.

I am in Thanksgiving mode, expecting twenty six children, grandchildren, step children, future sons in law and others to begin arriving tonight. So we have a very full week ahead. Will now be back in Cayman on December 4th when I will become more active in the group.

A happy holiday to one and all.

It's nice to have you back where you belong...Robby.

I am surprised a Spartacus did not appear in the American South. Think what he might have done to avert the civil war we engaged in to free the slaves. They might have freed themselves. An action of that kind would have altered the composition of the country. Think of it. Black slaves killing whites in abundance in the South. What would the North have done? Could the North ignore the rebellion? Would the Congress have acted as one to put the slaves back in their cages? My,my, this is an interesting hypothesis.

JUSTIN: my history books always say that there were slave uprisings in the south, but give no details-- perhaps they were small and easily suppressed. But the slaves in this country had the alternative of escaping to the north. I don't know if the Roman slaves had anywhere to go. Maybe this was the weakness of Sparticus's campaign.

There was one white-led uprising -- by John Brown. His idea was to form a community of escaped slaves in a defensible position in the mountains. As you remember, he was captured at Harpers Ferry trying to capture guns for his crew. His followers were mostly killed or captured, including the escaped slaves who had joined him. Those captured were tried and hung. While Brown was awaiting trial, northern newspaper reporters interviewed him, and printed his stirring anti-slavery speeches. He became a martyr figure for northern anti-slavery groups (his biographer even hints that without him, the Civil War might have been avoided, although that doesn't seem plausible to me). Union soldiers would march into battle singing "John Brown's body lies a moldring in the grave but his soul goes marching on".

I am distantly related to John Brown. When I took my kids to Harpers Ferry in a kind of "know your roots" trip, their response was "Mom, you sure have some weird relatives".

Just a word to tell you I miss the discussion group and have been very busy, nevertheless so glad to see your message in time before your leaving for a "getting better" vacation...

Françoise

Yes, JoanK, I think Spartacus' objective was to get free, to Africa, I think. He traveled north to the Austrian-Italian border where the alps must have turned him back. Then he traveled South to Calabria in hopes of making way to Sicily and thence to Africa. Many of the people with him were gladiators who were well trained for fighting in single combat but not very effective in close order attacks. That is probably why Crassus anihilated 10,000 in one blow.

The end of the Republic is just ahead. The seeds of collapse must be blooming even now- after Sulla and before Caesar and Pompey. An analysis of the demise should be very useful to Americans who may unknowingly commit the same mistakes and lose the very thing we so dearly love.

I notice that during Sulla's administration emphasis shifted from patriotism to personal dominion. It was Sulla who was important not the State. The legions under Sulla swore allegiance to Sulla not to Rome. Sulla did not serve in a dual consulship. He became a dictator and introduced rule by one.

The Forum was not a citizen Assembly in and after this period. The Forum became mobs and clubs and gangs whose votes were bought and sold. The citizens no longer voted for the good of the State but for the highest bidder.

The riches of Rome were not the fruit of their industry but the result of plunder. Roman culture was not existant. They bought it from the Greeks through slavery. The Greek slaves were their authors, their teachers, their poets. Their works of art were only what they collected in plunder from every part of Greece.

Sulla governed over a dying society.

What mistakes are we making today that could bring about the end of the American Republic.

We are governed by patricians who pass the baton on within the family. They buy votes by out spending the competition. They favor greatly those who provide the funds to run a campaign. They engage the courts to over ride election results.

The Roman government cut back on the corn dole to enhance patrician wealth. We let the government cut back on Medicare by wrapping a tiny prescription drug plan around a cut in general benefits.

The Romans had a constitution that became a worthless document. We are preparing a constitutional ammendment to take away some of the rights of citizens. Never before have we done that or even considered doing it. Every other ammendment adds to our freedoms. None take any away nor do we classify citizens for that purpose.

The next generation better exercise more enlightened judgement or the Republic will go away.

Happy to see you back, Robby! Enjoy the holiday, the celebration, the turkey!

With the stay in hospital, you have gained a new experience, have you? Bubble

Justin, What an impassioned post. The writing is on the wall isn't it? I wonder how our demise will come about, do you have any idea? How long have we got do you think? It is not only the small Roman empire that will fall this time, this empire circles the globe and those who have the most will join those who have the less.

Welcome back Robby, glad that it was not so serious after all.

Hi! Bubble long time no see.

Happy Thanksgiving to all our American friends.

Éloïse

Before man climbs the highest mountain,and if he has discretion, he will search for a light to guide him forward. Whether it is inward or out, he knows he could not do it alone. Most don't even know they need it so will take the easiest route and even get lost on the way. The surrest way is indeed to face the mountain, look up towards the light, and climb, without looking back, hesitation or doupt. It is the only way of saving oneself and the whole. Which-ever light is worshipped, a single man or a whole nation, there is no difference as long as they see the light which will bring them to the top.

How do we distinguish what is light and what is darkness is an another question.

I am not as pessimist as you Justin.

I believe America is the light of the world whether the rest realize it or not, that is another question.

"...and light is not afraid of darkness is it?" Nirmala Shrivastava

Françoise

Quoted from Durant:Pompey
"When Crassus and Pompey returned from this campaign they did not, as the Senate wished and law required, disband or disarm their troops at the gates. Camping outside the walls, they asked permission to stand for the consulate without entering the city -- again a violation of precedent; in addition Pompey demanded land for his soldiers and a triumph for himself. The Senate refused, hoping to play one general against the other. But Crassus and Pompey joined hands, made a sudden alliance with the populares and the business class, and by generous bribery won election as consuls for 70 B.C. The magnates entered the partnership for two immediate ends; to recapture power in the juries that tired them, and to replace Lucullus -- who had ruled the Roman East with unprofitable integrity-- by a man of their own class and views. In Pompey they recognized their man.

"Pompey was now thirty-five, and already the veteran of many campaigns. Born of a rich equestrian family, he had won universal admiration by his courage and temperance, and his skill in every branch of sport and war. He had cleared Sicily and Africa of Sulla's enemies, and by his victories and his pride had earned from the humorous dictator the cognomen Magnus the Great. He had achieved a triumph almost before a beard. He was so handsome that the couratesan Flora declared she could never part from him without a bite. He was sensitive and shy, and blushed when he had to address a public gathering, but in battle he was in these days impetuously brave, in later life timidity and corpulence burdened his generalship, and he hesitated till lost. His mind had neither brilliance nor depth; his policies were made for him, not by him -- first by the politicians of the populare, then by the Senatorial oligarchy.

"His great wealth lifted him above the coarser temptations of politics, amid the selfishness and corruption of his time he shone by his patriotism and his integrity; he seems to have sincerely sought the public good as well as his own. His outstanding fault was vanity. His early successes led to overrate his abilities, and he wondered why Rome waited so long to make him in everything but name a king.

"The two favorites of Sulla, now consuls together, devoted themselves to overthrowing the Sullan constitution. Pompey and Crassus paid their debt to the populares by passing a bill tha trestored all the power of the tribunes. They consolidated their alliance with business by directing Lucullus to give the publicans full charge of tax collections in the East; and they supported legislation that required juries to be drawn equally from the Senate, the equestrian class, and the tribunes of the Treasury. Crassus had to wait fifteen years for his reward -- the privilege of drinking gold in Asia; Pompey received his in 67, when the Assembly voted him almost limitless authority to proceed against the pirvates of Cilicia.

"Once Rhodes had kept the Aegean free of such marauders; but Rhodes, humilitated and impoverished by Rom and Delos, could no longer maintain the fleet required for such aservice; and the landed channels of maritime commerce secure. Merchants and plebs felt the results more sharply; trade became almost impossible in the Aegean, even in the central Mediterranean; and imports of grain fell so rapidly that the price of wheat rose to twenty sesterces permodius, or three dollars a peck. The priates flaunted their success with gilded masts, purple sailes, and silver-plated oars on their thousand ships; they took and held 400 coastal towns, plundered temples in Samothrace, Samos, Epidaurus, Argos, Leucas, and Actium, kidnaped Roman officials, and assailed even the shores of Apulia and Etruria.

"To meet this situation Pompey's friend Gabinius proposed a bill giving him for three years absolute control of all Roman fleets, and all persons within fifty miles of any Mediterranean shore. Every senator but Caesar opposed this extraordinary measure, but the Assembly passed it with enthusiasm, voted Pompey an army of 125,000 men and a navy of 500 vessels, and ordered the Treasury to place 144,000,000 sesterces at his disposal. In effect the bill deposed the Seante, ended the Sullan restoration, and established a provional monarchy as a prelude and lesson to Caesar.

Okay, we have two generals who get what they want by camping outside the walls and demanding to be consuls. One of them, Pompey, is described as "shy and sensitive", impetuously brave in battle, and timid in later years. Does this fit your idea of a leader? We have here pirates and a bill giving Pompey control of all Roman fleets for three years, an army and a navy, and a huge amount of money through a bill that effectively knocks out what Sulla has done and establishes a provisional monarchy. What conclusions do you draw from all of this? What does "drinking gold in Asia" mean?

Pompey -- statue

First of all I must ask: What Empire? The United States is not an example of the British Empire's Colonialism, is it? An Economic Empire? Do the businesses we set up provide work for people in the countries where we do this? Can you delude yourself into thinking that other nations do not do what we do? The British alone have enormous holdings here in the U.S. and around the world. Why isn't there a fuss about that?

Secondly, some people seem to forget that the American people don't put up with being pushed around for very long. It takes a while for them to realize what's going on sometimes, but when their pockets are pinched, as they will be with this Medicare change goes into effect and the space between poor and rich widens enough that there is only a small middle class, Americans will rebel. Have you forgotten how often this has happened in this country?

My prediction is that something's going to happen to make people who have been sitting on their hands wake up and take action. If enough of us gray-beards had protested, the Medicare bill would not have passed, do you realize that? Our longevity has empowered us, something we also don't recognize. When people start hurting because of what's happening, they act.

To answer Eloise's question: Our "demise" is going to be a long time coming. I have great confidence in the strength of the American people, even if the current government and some of you appear not to.

Mal

Justin made a good point !....... and of course this is different now, it can not happen to us... it's called complacency.

Bah humbug you pessimists who can't find hope in anything. I'm going to have a

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!and count my blessings.

Mal

Spartacus:

Why do you suppose the slaves chose this moment to rebel? I think the opening line of post #613 says it best: "Misgovernment now reached a height and democracy a depth..." The Roman government was seen by the slaves was weak at this time. Just like Quintus Sertorius they were more than shocked by the brutalities of the empire. They found a leader in Spartacus, but the slaves weren't interested in returning to their homes. More than likely their wives and children had already been slaughtered and their property confiscated. There probably wasn't much to go home to. Instead they wanted revenge against the Romans. And for awhile at least Spartacus was their man. Marcus Lincinius Crassus defeated the rebel army and Spartacus was killed in battle.

Marcus Licinis Crassus:

In 71 BC, Crassus was sent to crush the revolt of the gladiator Sparacus. Seeking further glory, Crassus attacked Parthia, an empire in central Asia. Anyone have any idea what country Parthia was?

Scrawler

Map of the Middle-Eastern country called "Parthia"

Judging from the map it looks like Parthia included Iran, Irag, Afghanistan, some of Syria, Jordan,and Israel. I wonder if the Parsi spoken in Iran is a derivative of a Parthian language. Crassus came here because these folks, 600 years before Mohammed, were a threat to Rome. We are there because our President thinks they are a threat to us. My, my, how the parallels do appear. Don't they?

Françoise: I did not think I was pessimistic about the American Republic. If we judge based on Rome, which was the last experiment in a government of the people for 1800 years, republics are vulnerable. The American Republic, if it is to continue, must be carefully nurtured and protected against those who would bring it down (perhaps unknowingly). It too is vulnerable. Citizens must be ever watchful that some popular notion which bears, hidden, the seeds of our demise, is not made into law. It is the citizen, in a republic, who has the power to self destruct.

We are at this point in Durants history looking at a Republic that destroyed itself. How that was accomplished is worth learning so that we,at least,know how the thing is done.

I agree with you, Francoise, the American Republic is a beacon, a light, that other nations may choose to benefit from. But I think they,ie, other nations, must come to us and not the reverse. Aggressive evangelism is not our bag.

I always thought that Parthia Proper, not its Empire buts chief metropolitan center was the city of Nisa ( NIsibis ? - now just across the border from Iran into Turkmenistan ( Turkmen SSR). But I'll verify it and let you know. I have mysources open.

Ok. Here is what Hammond's Historical Atlas shows: It was, in the period 25-200 BC just across the border of Iran in the North-Central to North-East part and into Turkmenistan - along the SE shore of the Caspian Sea. From here, by 250 Ad it had spread all over the countries Justin mentions. But the Romans stopped them just across the Jordan River, so imho, Israel was NOT part of the Empire but certainly influenced by it. I know that the great French historian R. Ghirshman ( I hope I got this name correct,) has a LOT to say about this influence and the Origin Of Christianity - but that is for another time. Ghirshman's book "IRAN" is in the Penguin series - unfortunately I lost my copy.

Next: Britannica: PARTHIA - There is some confirmation that the language was a dialectical variation of Parsi.

Lot of info here, but not too relevant to Justin's post.

Thank you Isaac. It was big bite Crassus tried to swallow. I am often amazed by the size of the land masses that Rome undertook to bring under their control. When Caesar took Gaul it was defined as the area within the Alps and as the area beyond the Alps. The area beyond the Alps is Europe.

You know, I am not the facilitator of this discussion. I'm a "temp", so I don't have to act professional. Because of that I'm going to tell you about some real life stuff that's going on in a group that I do lead.

We're writers, and every two weeks we have a deadline when we exchange work which we read and critique. Of perhaps 20 writers who are members of the Writers Exchange WREX, there are probably 12 who are active, most usually 9 or 10.

Among this group are three who are seriously ill with Cancer. One has non-Hodgkins Lymphoma and is having a hard time with chemotherapy right now with only the smallest signs of recovery.

Another has Leukemia and is putting up a valiant fight. He's also having chemotherapy. I don't know how he's doing at the moment because his wife has not sent me a recent update.

Another woman had her second bout with Cancer last year and appears to be in remission right now.

The husband of one of our members also had Cancer previously and has now been diagnosed with Cancer of the Lung. He's very ill.

Another member had a tumor on her kidney. That kidney was removed a week ago. I don't know yet if the tumor was malignant or not.

These people feel free to come into WREX and write about their illnesses if they want to, and they do. It's depressing for me because I know there's nothing I can do except urge them to write and tell them I'll publish the stories, essays and books they do.

From WREX I come in here and read about the end of the world as we know it. Well, you know what? I felt that way when we first started this discussion November 1, 2001 and I've seen similarities between our civilization and every single civilization we've discussed.

Did the Roman people elect their leaders? Do we? If they didn't and we do, are there still as many similarities? Is there still as much lack of hope?

When people complain about what's going on in the U.S. today I want to ask who they voted for, and I want to say what are you doing about it if you're not satisfied? In other words, don't talk about it; put your money and clout where your mouth is.

I can't say that to these cancer victims in my writing group I know. Their money and their clout won't do a darned bit of good as far as their problem is concerned.

It reminds me of when I was 28 years younger. I helped two old men until the time they died. Both knew they might possibly have 10 more years if they were lucky, and most likely would live a shorter length of time than that. Since they were very, very aware of their mortality, each of them decided the world was going to end when they did. From them I heard the same kind of talk that I'm hearing from some of us here.

Well, civilization as we know it did not end 28 years ago, and the best chance is that it won't end now or even 25, 50, 100, or even 200 years from now. I'm not giving you some old platitude about "things aren't as bad as they seem", but I suggest that you look at some facts. The United States has never bent easily, and it hasn't broken yet.

If you can't see any hope in our own history, well, that's tough -- for you. If you can, then latch on that and find some solutions for change and act on them.

I think I'll take the day off tomorrow and take time to give some thanks.

I'm thankful I'm alive and as healthy as I am, whether I'm wheelchair-bound or not.

I'm thankful I'm not lying in the street starving to death and covered with flies with people walking over me to get to the other side.

I'm thankful I'm an American, and I'm going to do my best to keep my country well and alive with as much hope and support as I can muster by making my voice heard and voting the way I want until I see the changes I want become a reality.

Mal

Mal: Are you disagreeing with some of my previous posts relating the fall of the Roman Republic to our current Republic? Your last paragraph in the previous post tells me you understood what I had in mind.

Happy Thanksgiving to one and all. Count your blessings. After reading about Mal's pals I am happy to be alive. Turkey tomorrow at my daughters. No dishes for us. Whoopie.

Justin, Israel and Jordan and 2/3 of Syria are definitely not part of Parthia on this map Mal gave us. Parthia started from the Euphrates. Israel, etc are on the other side. The Mediterranean sea is the one further west on that map, with the Black sea atop.

Of course we will endure, Mal!

Thanks above all for SN and its abundance, for SoC that makes us richer by tickling our intellect, for WREX that gives us so much pleasure and satisfaction. Have a good celebration!
Bubble

Someone said above " Americans are the Light of the World " That would be the WASP faction I suppose, because I've had it explained to me by many patriotic Americans that the Latins and Blacks don't really amount to much.

It seems clear to me that a nation that spends more on armaments than the rest of the world put together must, like the late Soviets, be very afraid of something, I'm not sure what. I note that you are now cutting back on social services in a desperate attempt to fund your military.

But it seems clear to me that all nations that have in the past aspired to militarily rule their known world, have all had their day, and then faded from supremacy. Why do you imagine that the US's turn will be any different?

I don't know what percentage of the electorate voted in the last several elections, but I don't think one could call the current administration a democratically elected one.

In the long westward march of world power from the Near East, to Greece, Rome, Northern Europe, England, United States, I would suspect that Asia is to be the next centre of world 'culture'. == Trevor

TREVOR, let's get some facts straight. It was a Canadian who said, "Americans are the Light of the World." I don't know a single American who thinks "Latins and Blacks don't really amount to much", and I know quite a few coast to coast and in between. Any reduction in Medicare, if that's what you're referring to, is because the present administration wants to privatize that program. To some conservative Americans, anything resembling Socialism is anathema. Think what you want about my country, TREVOR. I would not be so bold or rash as to criticize yours or anyone else's unless I'd lived in that country for at least a year, met and knew people, and saw firsthand what's going on.

JUSTIN, I know what you're talking about. All I can say is that until the day I die I won't ever give up my faith in the American people.

Mal

Yes Mal, if American's light did not shine so bright, Canadians would not be where they are today. I have not always been as grateful to live in this country as I am now protected be our friendly neighbors to the south. We are very much aware of this.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO OUR AMERICAN FRIENDS, WE LOVE YOU

Éloïse

Thank you, Eloise. We love you and Canada, too.

Mal

"The outcome strengthened the precedent. The very day after Pompey's appointment the price of wheat began to fall. Within three months he accomplished his task -- captured the pirate ships, took their strongholds, executed their leaders -- and yet without abusing his unusual authority, Commerce took heart and sailed again, and river of cereals flowed into Rome.

"While Pompey was still in Cilicia, his friend Manilius offered the Assembly a bill transferring to him full command of the armies and provinces then under Lucullus, and prolonging the powers conferred upon him by the Gabinian Law. The Senate resisted, but the merchants and moneylenders gave strong support to the proposal. Pompey, they hoped, would be less lenient than Lucullus to their Asiatic debtors; he would restore the tax collections to the publicans; he would conquer not only Bithynia and Pontus, but Cappadoci, Syria and Judea; and these rich fields would be thrown open to Roman trade and finance under the protection of Roman arms. A 'new man', Marcus Tullius Cicero, who had been elected praetor for that year with the aid of the business class, spoke 'For the Manilian Law,' and attacked the Senatorial oligarchy with a rash eloquence unheard in Rome since the Gracchi, and with a candor shocking in a politician:
" 'The whole system of credit and finance which is carried on here at Rome is inextricably bound up with the revenues of the Asiatic provinces. If these revenues are destroyed, our system of credit will crash . . . . If some lose their entire fortunes they will drag many more down with them. Save the state from such a calamity . . . . Prosecute with all your energies the war against Mithridates, by which the glory of the Roman name, the safety of our allies, our most valuable revenues, and the fortunes of innumerable citizens will be effectively preserved.'
"The measure was readily passed by the Assembly. The plebs cared little for the fortunes of the financiers; but it rejoiced in having found, through the issuance of extraordinary powers to a general, a means of annulling the Sullan legislation and deposing its ancient enemy, the Senate. From that moment the days of the Republic were numbered. The Roman revolution, helped by the oratory of its greatest foe, had taken another step toward Caesar."

Statue of Cicero

Trevor: In case you have forgotten, America is the melting pot of the entire globe as a result EVERYONE here in America is contributing to the vitality of keeping this a STRONG Country no matter what the race or country!

I have a question to ask you: "Why do you believe the bigots of the world"

Thank you Eloise!

May you all be Thankful for your blessings!

"From that moment the days of the Republic were numbered. The Roman revolution, helped by the oratory of its greatest foe, had taken another step toward Caesar."

In other words, Cicero wanted to preserve the Republic from outside foes, so urged dictatorial powers that hastened the end of the Republic. (Do I understand this correctly?) The precedent here is during the Civil War when Abraham Lincoln did things that nowadays seem unbelievable. But after the war, there was a push back to more Democracy. Mal is right -- another quote:

"Eternal vigilence is the price of Liberty"

Many people look on their country as a kind of father that must be obeyed and supported. I look on my country as our child: we created it, and we nurture it. When it does wrong, we don't say "That's my child, she can't do anything wrong". We correct her. In fact, we are more critical of our children than of others because we love them.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYONE!!

I thought that DEMOCRACY was all about the people being free to criticize and to extol as they saw fit. I have often spoken highly about America, especially during your 'Marshal Plan ' years, and in such actions as the Suez crisis, and in East Timor etc. However, I do criticize your Administration and Australia and the UK, over the Iraq debacle, and am sorry if that ruffles feathers.

As for being " The light of the World, " that is spurned by Americans I know, as at best, embarrassing sycophancy. It is a phrase rightly directed to Jesus Christ, and it is extremely inappropriate, to apply it to any but Him.

So, MAL, please do let us outsiders' of the US. have YOUR criticisms of our actions, even though you have not lived among us. ( I don't believe non-residency should (or has)barred you from being critical of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, 1941 Japan, or recent day Iraq etc. )If we ignore or reject the criticism of others, we will never advance toward the goal that the Creator has set for us. I think we are all children of God, and no group should be thought of as greater, or meaner, than the rest. == Trevor

This is a discussion of The Story of Civilization by Will and Ariel Durant. We are currently on Page 140 of Volume III, "Caesar and Christ."

Cicero and Catiline
"Plutarch thought that Marcus Tullius was called Cicero because of a wart, shaped like a vetch ( cicer ) on an ancestor's nose; more probably his forebears had earned the cognomen by raising renowned crops of chick-peas. In his Laws Cicero describes with engaging tenderness the modest villa that had seen his birth near Arpinum, halfway between Rome and Naples, in the foothills of the Apennines. His father was just rich enough to give his son the best education that the age could provide. He engaged the Greek poet Archias to tutor Marcus in literature and Greek and then sent the youth to study law with Q. Mucius Scaevola, the greatest jurist of his time. Cicero listened eagerly to the trials and debates in the Forum, and rapidly learned the arts and tricks of forensic speech. 'To succeed in the law,' he said, 'a man must renounce all pleasures, avoid all amusements, say farewell to recreations, games entertainment, almost to intercourse with his friends.'

"Soon he was practicing law himself and making speeches whose brilliance and courage won him the gratitude of the middle classes and the plebs. He prosecuted a favorite of Sulla an ddenounced the proscriptioins in the midst of the Sullan terror. Shortly afterward, perhaps to avoid the dictator's revenge, he went to Greece, and continued there his studies of oratory and philosophy. After three happy years in Athens he passed over to Rhodes where he heard the lectures of Apollonius, son of Molon, on rhetoric, and those of Poseidonius on philosophy. From the first he learned the periodic sentence structure and purity of speech that were to distinguish his style; abd from the other that mld Stoicism he would later expound in his essays on religion, government, friendship and old age.

"Returning to Rome at the age of thirty, he married Terentia, whose ample dowry now enabled him to go into politics. In 75 he distinguished himself by his just administration of a quaestorship in Sicily. In 70, having resumed the practice of law, he raised a furor among the aristocracy by accepting a retainer from the cities of Sicily and bringing suit against the senator Caius Verres, on the charge that as propraetor there (73-71) Verres had sold his appointments and decisions, had lowered individual tax assessments in inverse proportion to the bribes received, had despoiled Syracuse of nearly all its statuary, had assigned the revenues of a whole city to his mistress, and all in all had carried injustice, extortion and robbery to such a pitch as to leave the island more desolate than after two Servile Wars.

"Worse yet, Verres had kept for himself some of the spoils that usually went to the publicans. The business class supported Cicero in the indictment, while Hortensius, aristocratic leader of the Roman bar, led the defense for Verres. Cicero was allowed some hundred days to gather evidence in Sicily; he took only fifty, but he presented so much damaging testimony in his opening address that Hortensius --- who had decorated his gardens with part of Verres' sculptural loot -- abandoned his client. Condemened to pay a fine of 40,000,000 seterces, Verres fled into exile. Cicero published the five addiitonal speeches that he had prepared; they constituted an unsparing attack upon Roman malfeasance in the provinces. His energy and courage won him such support that when he ran for the consulate in 63 B.C. he was elected by acclamation."

What's your opinion of this man, this Cicero? Can he pull Rome out of the hole corrupt leaders put it in?

"Born of modest equestrian rank, Cicero had naturally sided with the middle class and had resented the pride, privileges and of the aristocracy. But far more deeply he feared those radical leaders whose program, he thought, threatened all property with mob rule. He therefore made it his policy, now that he was in office, to promote a 'concord of the orders' -- i.e., a cooperation of the aristocracy and the business class -- against the returning tide of revolt.

"The causes and forces of discontent, however, were too deep and vaired to be easily dissolved. Many of the poor were listening to preachers of utopia, and some who listened were ripe for violence. A little above them were plebeians who had forefeited their property through defaulted mortgages. Some of Sulla's veterans had failed to make their land allotments pay and were ready for any disturbance that might give them loot without toil. Among the upper classes were insolvent debtors and ruined speculators who had lost all hope or wish to meet their obligations. Others had political ambitions and saw their road to advancement cluttered with conservatives who took too long to die. A few revolutionists were sincere idealists, convinced that only a complete overturn could mitigate the corruption and inequity of the Roman state.

"One man sought to united these scattered groups into a coherent political force. We know Lucius Sergius Catiline only through his enemies -- through the history of his movement by the millionaire Sallust, and through the violent vituperation of Cicero's orations Against Catiline, Sallust describes him as a 'guilt-strained soul at odds with gods and men, who found no rest either waking or sleeping, so cruelly did conscience ravage his overwrought mind. Hence his pallid complexion, his bloodshot eyes, his gait now fast now slow; in short, his face and every glance showed the madman." Such a description suggests the pictures that a people struggling for life or power paints of its enemies in war; when the battle is over the pictures are gradually revised, but in the case of Catiline we have no revision. In youth he had been charged with deflowering a Vestal Virgin, a half sister of Cicero's first wife; the court had acquitted the Virgin, but gossip had not acquitted Catiline, on the contrary, it added that he had killed his son to please his jealous mistress. In the scale against these stories we can only say that for four years after Catiline's death the common people of Rome -- 'the miserable, starveling rubble', Cicero called them -- strewed flowers upon his tomb. Sallust quotes what purports to be one of his speeches:
" ' Ever since the state fell under the sway of a few powerful men . . . . . all influence, rank, and wealth have been in their hands. To us they have left defeat, prosecutions, poverty . . . . What have we left save only the breath of life? . . . . . Is it not better to die valiantly than to lose our wretched and dishonored lives after being the sport of other men's insolence?' "
With what we've learned and what we read of Cicero and Catiline here, whose side would you be on if you had lived during that time? Cicero was not truly an aristocrat, but he was an extremely powerful leader. Catiline's tomb was strewn with flowers by "the starveling rubble". One for the nation; the other for the people? Who cause was right and which would have been better for Rome?

TREVOR, I was a child when World War II began, and the only thing I felt then was fear. I had a similar feeling of fear during the period when there seemed to be a strong threat of nuclear war. I have expressed my opinions about those times in some of the 19 discussions in the Political Issues folder here in SeniorNet. My feelings about God have been posted in some of the 11 discussions in the Religion and Spirituality folder.

For the sake of maintaining as objective a view as we can of the civilizations described by Will Durant in the 11 volumes of The Story of Civilization, the facilitator of this discussion stated early on, and has repeated often, that political views and sentiments, both common to the United States, and to international issues, be posted in any of the 19 discussions in the Political Issues folder here in SeniorNet, mentioned above. Religious and philosophical beliefs may be stated only once in this discussion. Keeping that in mind, my personal views about the war in Iraq and whether Jesus Christ is the only one or only thing which might be called "The Light of the World" are not appropriate here, nor do my personal views and criticisms of my own country or any other nation belong in this discussion.

We are here to talk about, and hopefully learn something about, Ancient Rome. That is the aim of this discussion at this time. Hopefully, some participants and lurkers will now post their conclusions about this topic, and principally Cicero and Catiline, and try to keep comparisons between Ancient Rome and the United States today, or Ancient Rome and any other country as it exists today, to a minimum.

Mal

THE FIRST ORATION OF M. T. CICERO AGAINST LUCIUS CATILINA. DELIVERED IN THE SENATE

You'll find much background information about Cicero and Catiline when you click the link to Cicero's First Oration Against Catiline in Post #661 and read the paragraphs preceding the oration. I thought you might be interested in how people dressed in Ancient Rome at that time.
Roman clothing: Women

Roman clothing: Men

Slave Rebellion:

"The Battle of Christina [Pennsylvania Sept. 11, 1851] became a national event. A Maryland slave owner accompanied by several relatives and three deputy marshalls came seeking two fugitives who had escaped two years earlier and were reported to be hiding in the house of another black man. They found the fugitives, along with two dozen armed black men vowing to resist capture. Two Quakers appeared and advised the slave hunters to retreat for their own good. The owner refused. When it was over the slave owner lay dead and his son seriously wounded (two other whites and two blacks were lightly wounded). The blacks disappeared into the coutnryside; their three leaders sped on the Underground Railroad to Canada.

"Civil War - The First Blow Struck," proclaimed a Lancaster, Pennsylvania newspaper. The "New York Tribune' pronounced the verdict of many Yankees: "But for slavery such things would not be; but the Fugitive Slave Law they would not be in the Free States." The conservative press took a different view of this "act of insurrection" that never would have taken place but for the instigation which have been applied to the ignorant and deluded blacks by the fanatics of the higher law creed. Southerners announced that "unless the Christina rioters are hung...if you fail in this simple act of justice, WE LEAVE NOW!

[President] Fillmore called out the marines. Together with federal marshals they scoured the countryside and arrested more than thirty black men and half-dozen whites. The American government sought to extradition of the three fugitives who escaped. ("Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era" p.91)

This was just one of many revolts in both north and south of the slaves. The problem was that the slaves were too scattered, there was lack of communication between those revolting and the outside world and the slave owners had at this time before the Civil War the backing of the president of the United State and the marines.

Medicare:

The problem I see with causes is just like the rebellious slaves in the ancient world and in the South, in order for a cause to succeed it must have support. The Gray-panters are only one segment of this country. When I was 18 or 20, Medicare was probably the farthest thing from my mind. If we wish in the future to deal with such bills, some how we have to convince the rest of the country that despite how we label ourselves, the one thing that we know for sure is that we will ALL get old and need medicines and hospitalization. It is not our differences that have made us great, but our SIMILARITIES.

Pompey:

When Sulla died in 78 BC, the consul Marcus Lepidus tried to repeal his conservative reforms. But Pompey opposed him and drove him out of Italy. Then the Senate sent Pompey to Spain to put down an army of Marius's supporters, who were led by Sertorius. After Sertorius was murdered by his own men, Pompey won an easy victory and returned to Rome in 71 BC.

The conservative group in Rome did not wish to see Pompey gain further glory, but he was elected consul in 70 BC BC. He broke with the conservatives and restored the powers of the tribunes that Sulla had taken away. Through popular support, Pompey was given the task, in 67 BC, of clearing the Mediterranean Sea of pirates. In 66 BC, he fought Mithrides of Pontus. Pompey defeated him and conquered eastern Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine.

The Senate refused to approve his acts in Asia and his promises of land to his troops. So Pompey, Julius Caseasar, and Marcus Crassus formed the First Triumvirate in 60 BC.

I wouldn't think that Pompey was really a great leader, but he makes a good soldier. What I see is a change of power shifing toward a rule of a few though men as opposed to ruling the Empire by the Republic. I believe "drinking gold in Asia" refers to the booty obtained both from the pirates and the tribute taken from the conqured lands of eastern Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine.

Scrawler

""The causes and forces of discontent, however, were too deep and vaired to be easily dissolved. Many of the poor were listening to preachers of utopia, and some who listened were ripe for violence. A little above them were plebeians who had forefeited their property through defaulted mortgages"

I've noticed thhroughout this discussion how often Durant has mentioned debt as a source of discontent. He never discusses it in detail, but it always seems to be there. I wwish he would tell us more about it.

" We know Lucius Sergius Catiline only through his enemies -" says Durant. While we have Cicero's own words. This makes it hard to make an informed judgement. In your post, Catiline sounds like a lunatic. But Cicero doesn't sound too great either. I suspect by this time, things had gotten so corrupt and violent,it would be almost hopeless to get any good government.

Scrawler: thank you for your interesting post on slave rebellion.

The US Republic is strong because its citizens are able to criticize its administrators. If we citizens don't like what they are doing we throw the rascals out. We also have the power to change the form of the Government if we think it is not working effectively. It is for that reason if for no other, that eternal vigilence is essential. If we ignore civil issues we risk losing what we prize- our very republics.

The discussants in this group have an opportunity to study the fall of the Roman Republic, to understand the causes of its demise and to benefit from that knowledge by examining our own Republics, (Briton, Canada, NZ, Israel,Australia, US etc.) for similar symptoms. If we pass this oportunity by because someone thinks public criticism signifys a lack of confidence in one's country, we fall into one of the failings of republican government. That failing is called complacency.

This forum is not a political forum nor is it a religious forum but it is one in which politics and religion play a part. Both are sensitive subjects but in order to treat with these issues, one must be willing to tolerate a variety of opinions within the ground rules expressed so often by Robby. Those ground rules recognize the benefits associated with contemporary comparisons.

I'm doing the best I can!

The quote below is from the linked Perseus site in Post #661.
"Lucius Catiline, a man of noble extraction, and who had already been praetor, had been a competitor of Cicero's for the consulship; the next year he again offered himself for the office, practicing such excessive and open bribery, that Cicero published a new law against it, with the additional penalty of ten years' exile; prohibiting likewise all shows of gladiators from being exhibited by a candidate within two years of the time of his suing for any magistracy, unless they were ordered by the will of a person deceased.

"Catiline, who knew this law to be aimed chiefly at him, formed a design to murder Cicero and some others of the chief men of the senate, on the day of election, which was fixed for the twentieth of October. But Cicero had information of his plans, and laid them before the senate, on which the election was deferred, that they might have time to deliberate on an affair of so much importance. The day following, when the senate met, he charged Catiline with having entertained this design, and Catiline's behaviour had been so violent, that the senate passed the decree to which they had occasionally recourse in times of imminent danger from treason or sedition, 'Let the consuls take care that the republic suffers no harm.'

"This decree invested the consuls with absolute power, and suspended all the ordinary forms of law, till the danger was over. On this Cicero doubled his guards, introduced some additional troops into the city, and when the elections came on, he wore a breastplate under his robe for his protection; by which precaution he prevented Catiline from executing his design of murdering him and his competitors for the consulship, of whom Decius Junius Silanus and Lucius Licinius Murena were elected.

"Catiline was rendered desperate by this his second defeat, and resolved without further delay to attempt the execution of all his schemes. His greatest hopes lay in Sulla's veteran soldiers, whose cause he had always espoused. They were scattered about in the different districts and colonies of Italy; but he had actually enlisted a considerable body of them in Etruria, and formed them into a little army under the command of Manlius, a centurion of considerable military experience, who was only waiting for his orders.

"He was joined in his conspiracy by several senators of profligate lives and desperate fortunes, of whom the chiefs were Publius Cornelius Lentulus, Caius Cethegus, Publius Autronius, Lucius Cassius Longinus, Marcus Porcius Lecca, Publius Sulla, Servilius Sulla, Quintus Curius, Lucius Vargunteius, Quintus Annius, and Lucius Bestia. These men resolved that a general insurrection should be raised throughout all Italy; that Catiline should put himself at the head of the troops in Etruria; that Rome should be set on fire in many places at once and that a general massacre should be made of all the senate, and of all their enemies, of whom none were to be spared but the sons of Pompey, who were to be kept as hostages, and as a check upon their father, who was in command in the east. Lentulus was to be president of their councils, Cassius was to manage the firing of the city, and Cethegus the massacre.

"But, as the vigilance of Cicero was the greatest obstacle to their success, Catiline desired to see him slain before he left Rome; and two knights, parties to the conspiracy, undertook to visit him early on pretence of business, and to kill him in his bed. The name of one of them was Caius Cornelius.

"Cicero, however, had information of all the designs of the conspirators, as by the intrigues of a woman called Fulvia, the mistress of Curius, he had gained him over, and received regularly from him an account of all their operations. He sent for some of the chief men of the city and informed them of the plot against himself; and even of the names of the knights who were to come to his house, and of the hour at which they were to come. When they did come they found the house carefully guarded, and all admission refused to them. He was enabled also to disappoint an attempt made by Catiline to seize on the town of Praeneste, which was a very strong fortress, and would have been of great use to him.

"The meeting of the conspirators had taken place on the evening of the sixth of November. On the eighth Cicero summoned the senate to meet in the temple of Jupiter in the Capitol, a place which was only used for this purpose on occasions of great danger. (There had been previously several debates on the subject of Catiline's treasons and design of murdering Cicero, and a public reward had actually been offered to the first discoverer of the plot. But Catiline had nevertheless continued to dissemble; had offered to give security for his behaviour, and to deliver himself to the custody of any one whom the senate chose to name, even to that of Cicero himself.)

"Catiline had the boldness to attend this meeting, and all the senate, even his own most particular acquaintance, were so astonished at his impudence that none of them would salute him; the consular senators quitted that part of the house in which he sat, and left the bench empty; and Cicero himself was so provoked at his audacity, that, instead of entering on any formal business, he addressed himself directly to Catiline in the first oration."

Is the Fulvia mentioned in the quote above the same Fulvia who was married to Mark Antony?

Mal

We know so little of Cataline, it is difficult to know his role. There is a tiny fragment in which he is seen as a defender of debtors and of the poor and oppressed in Roman society. On the other hand we have him as a twice defeated candidate for Consul who mounted an armed rebellion against his rivals. Cataline is not easy to grasp. His image is sketchy.

I see only one thing in the Catoline sketch that is truly worthwhile and that is the literature of Cicero's Speech.

Mal: Keep up the good work. You are doing fine.

Fulvia was indeed married to Antony. She was alos the wife of Codius and Curio. One of her daughters was married to Octavian. One of her sons was with Antony at the battle of Actium. He was executed by Octavian after the battle. Fulvia was a gal who got around. She married three times and died in Greece.

Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?

Ah what wonderful words, they almost give you a chill, don't they?

Anthony Everitt's new book Cicero is a wonderful biography of that great orator and actually does bring up things that most people don't know, I certainly didn't.

There's a huge chapter alone on Catiline called Against Catilina, and it's fascinating. (Isn't there a famous painting of the senate and Cicero and Catiline?)

I have a lovely First Oration Against Catiline, from 1902, completely parsed, one of the first Latin books I ever got, it's a wonder. It ALSO has a huge introduction to Catiline. The first oration was delivered on November 8 (we're timely anyway) hahaaha. There actually has been some dissention among scholars as to the true nature of Catiline, a Professor E.S Beesly over 100 years ago, took the opposite view, presenting Catiline as a 'true democratic leader, forced by a selfish aristocracy into armed protest in the same was as C Gracchus, Saturninus, and Mariius." That's a bizarre one I never heard. Hahaaha.

The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature takes a different view:

Dissolute but capable, ruined in reputation as in purse, he saw his only chance in revolution, for which he found supporters among other desperate men. With these he conspired to effect a general massacre in 65 but the plot failed."

I was not aware either that there were "Four Catilinanarian Orations."

the first one is so well known, fascinating history, isn't it? Fascinating, larger than life people.

And it's like eating a potato chip, just as you are putting the book away, your eye falls on a reference that Cicero's success went to his head and he "injudiciously referred to it on every occasion," and you know THAT will cause him trouble, what a fabulous bunch of players every bit as complex as any modern man, assembled on our stage.

ginny

Sea Bubble: Many thanks for setting me right on Mal's map. I see now that Parthia includes only part of present day Irag at its western end and therefore could not include Syria, Jordan and Israel. Parthia seems to extend up into the former Soviet Union and to a part of Turkey. Is that correct? I am simply amazed at the size of the bite Rome tried to swallow.

Here's one but it's not the one I was thinking of, here is Conspiracy of Catiline by Rosa:

I think you all are doing a super job here, very impressive!

Here is it, I'm afraid it's not a very good reproduction,

"Cicero Denouncing Catiline in the Roman Senate by Ceasre Maccari, 19th century.

ginny

Thank you, GINNY. Here's a detail from that very Maccari painting.

Picture: Catiline shunned by his colleagues

Oh much better, I had to scan mine from an old Wheelock, the internet is an amazing thing, isn't it! Do you have a close up of Cicero's part? I need a magnifying glass to see him in mine!

ginny

Trevo, I did not mean to offend or create a turbulence by my words. The meaning of light is very deep indeed because it permeates the whole. The sun belongs to the whole world. Who can claim to have a right over its rays?

Françoise

Click the link below to see an enlargement of Maccari's painting of Cicero denouncing Cataline.

Enlargement of Maccari painting

The program on which he proposed to unite the heterogeneous elements of revolution was simple: novae tabulae -- 'new records' -- i.e., a clean sweep and abolition of all debts. He labored for this purpose with all the energy of a Caesar; indeed, for the time he had the sympathy, if not the secret support, of Caesar. 'There was nothing, ' said Cicero, 'that he could not undergo,no pains that he would spare of cooperation, vigilance and toil. He could bear cold, hunger, and thirst.' We are assured by his enemies that he organized a band of 400 men who planned to kill the consuls and seize the government on the first day of 65. The day came, and nothing unusual transpired. At the end of 64 Catiline stood against Cicero for the consulate and waged a vigorous campaign. Capital took fright and began to leave Italy. The upper classes united in support of Cicero, for a year the concordia ordinum that he had asked for was a reality, and he was its perfect voice.

"Blocked politically, Cataline turned to war. Secretly his followers organized an army of 20,000 men in Etruria and gathered together in Rome a group of conspirators that included representatives of every class from senators to slaves, and two urban praetors -- Cethegus and Lentulus. In the following October Catiline again ran for the consulate. To make sure of his election, conservative historians tell us, he planned to have his rival murdered during the campaign, and to have Cicero assassinated at the same time.

"Claiming that he had been apprised of these plans, Cicero filled the Field of Mars with armed guards and superintended the voting. Despite the enthusiastic supported of the proletariat, Catiline was again defeated. On November 7, says Cicero, several conspirators knocked at his door, but were driven away by his guards. On the morrow, seeing Catiline in the Senate, Cicero flung at him that superb excoriation which every schoolboy mouthed.

As the ovation proceeded, the seats around Catiline were emptied one by one until he sat alone. Silently he bore the torrent of accusations, the sharp, relentless phrases falling like whips on his head. Cicero played on every emotion; he spoke of the nation as the common father, and of Catiline as in intent a parricide; he charged him -- not with evidence given, but by innuendo and implication -- with conspiracy against the state, with theft, adultery, and sexual abnormality; finally he petitioned Jove to protect Rome, and to devote Catiline to eternal punishment. When Cicero had finished, Catiline walked out unhindered and joined his forces in Etruria. His general, L. Manlius, sent a last appeal to the Senate:
" ' We call gods and men to witness that it is not against our country that we have taken up arms, nor against the safety of our fellow citizens. We, wretched paupers, who through the violence and cruelty of usurers are without a country, condemned to scorn and indigence, are actuated by only one wish, to guarantee our personal security against wrong. We demand neither power nor wealth, those great and esteemed causes of strife among mankind. We only ask for freedom, a treasure that no man will surrender except with life itself. We implore you, senators, have pity on your miserable fellow citizens!' "

Ginni: The works of Sal Rosa and Cesare Maccari are truly of Italian fame. Maccari's painting of the "Roman Senate isolating Catiline while Cicero describes his sins" is an outstanding find- a perfect fit with our topic.

"The next day, in a second session, Cicero described the rebel's following as centering around a coterie of perfumed perverts, and indulged without stint his genius for sarcasm and invective, ending again on a religious note. In the following weeks he presented evidence to the Senate purporting to show that Catiline had tried to stir up reveolution in Gaul. On December 3 he had Lentulus, Cethegus and five other adherents of Catiline arrested. In a third oration he declared their guilt, announced their imprisonment, and told the Senate and the people that the conspiracy was broken and that they might retire to their homes in in security and peace. On December 5 he convoked the Senate and asked what should be done with the prisoners. Silanus voted that they should be executed. Caesar advised more imprisonment, recalling that the execution of a Roman citizen was forbidden by the Sempronian Law.

"In a fourth oration Cicero gently advised death. Cato gave the opinion the sanctions of his philosophy, and death won the day. Some young aristocrats tried to kill Caesar as he left the senate chamber, but he escaped. Cicero, with armed men, went to the jail and had the sentence carried out with a minimum of delay. Marcus Antonius, co-consul with Cicero, and father of a famous son, was sent north with an army to destroy Catiline's force. The Senate promised pardon and 2,000,000 sesterces to every man who would leave the rebel ranks, but, says Sullast, 'not one deserted from Catiline's camp.' On the plains of Pistoia battle was joined. The 3000 insurgents, far outnumbered, fought to the end around their treasured standards, the eagles of Marius. None surrendered or took flight, every one of them died on the field, among them Catiline.

"Being essentially a man of thought rather than action, Cicero was surprised and impressed by the skill and courage he had shown in suppressing a dangerous revolt. 'The direction of so great an enterprise,' he told the Senate, 'seems scarcely possible to merely human wisdom.' He compared himself with Romulus, but considered it a greater deed to have preserved Rome than to have founded it. Senators and magnates smiled at his language, buthe knew that he had saved them. Cato and Catulus hailed him as pater patriae father of his country. When, at the end of 63 he laid down his office, all the propertied classes in the community, he tells us, gave him thanks, named him immortal, and escorted him in honor to his home.

"The proletariat did not join in these demonstrations. It could not forgive him for violating the laws of Rome by putting citizens to death without appeal; it felt that he had made no effort to rmeove the causes of Catiline's revolt, or to mitigate the poverty of the masses. It refused to let him address the Assembly on that last day, and listened in anger when he swore that he had preseved the city. The revolution was not over. With Caesar's consulate it would begin again."

"To TERENTIA, TULLIOLA, AND YOUNG CICERO (AT ROME) BRUNDISIUM, 29 APRIL

"YES, I do write to you less often than I might, because, though I am always wretched, yet when I write to you or read a letter from you, I am in such floods of tears that I cannot endure it. Oh, that I had clung less to life! I should at least never have known real sorrow, or not much of it, in my life. Yet if fortune has reserved for me any hope of recovering at any time any position again, I was not utterly wrong to do so: if these miseries are to be permanent, I only wish, my dear, to see you as soon as possible and to die in your arms, since neither gods, whom you have worshipped with such pure devotion, nor men, whom I have ever served, have made us any return.

"I have been thirteen days at Brundisium in the house of M. Laenius Flaccus, a very excellent man, who has despised the risk to his fortunes and civil existence in comparison to keeping me safe, nor has been induced by the penalty of a most iniquitous law to refuse me the rights and good offices of hospitality and friendship. May I sometime have the opportunity of repaying him! Feel gratitude I always shall. I set out from Brundisium on the 29th of April, and intend going through Macedonia to Cyzicus. What a fall! What a disaster! What can I say? Should I ask you to come--a woman of weak health and broken spirit? Should I refrain from asking you? Am I to be without you, then? I think the best course is this: if there is any hope of my restoration, stay to promote it and push the thing on: but if, as I fear, it proves hopeless, pray come to me by any means in your power. Be sure of this, that if I have you I shall not think myself wholly lost.

"But what is to become of my darling Tullia? You must see to that now: I can think of nothing. But certainly, however things turn out, we must do everything to promote that poor little girl's married happiness and reputation. Again, what is my boy Cicero to do? Let him, at any rate, be ever in my bosom and in my arms. I can't write more. A fit of weeping hinders me. I don't know how you have got on; whether you are left in possession of anything, or have been, as I fear, entirely plundered. Piso, as you say, I hope will always be our friend. As to the manumission of the slaves you need not be uneasy. To begin with, the promise made to yours was that you would treat them according as each severally deserved. So far Orpheus has behaved well, besides him no one very markedly so. With the rest of the slaves the arrangement is that, if my property is forfeited, they should become my freedmen, supposing them to be able to maintain at law that status. But if my property remained in my ownership, they were to continue slaves, with the exception of a very few.

" But these are trifles. To return to your advice, that I should keep up my courage and not give up hope of recovering my position, I only wish that there were any good grounds for entertaining such a hope. As it is, when, alas! shall I get a letter from you? Who will bring it me? I would have waited for it at Brundisium, but the sailors would not allow it, being unwilling to lose a favourable wind. For the rest, put as dignified a face on the matter as you can, my dear Terentia. Our life is over: we have had our day: it is not any fault of ours that has ruined us, but our virtue. I have made no false step, except in not losing my life when I lost my honours. But since our children preferred my living, let us bear everything else, however intolerable. And yet I, who encourage you, cannot encourage myself. I have sent that faithful fellow Clodius Philhetaerus home, because he was hampered with weakness of the eyes. Sallustius seems likely to outdo everybody in his attentions. Pescennius is exceedingly kind to me; and I have hopes that he will always be attentive to you. Sicca had said that he would accompany me; but he has left Brundisium.

" Take the greatest care of your health, and believe me that I am more affected by your distress than my own. My dear Terentia, most faithful and best of wives, and my darling little daughter, and that last hope of my race, Cicero, good-bye!"

Thank you Justin, I can't hear Catiline without thinking of it and thank you Malryn for that splendid quality close up, very dramatic, love it.

We need to read some Cicero in the original sometime, if anybody's game?

ginny

Ginny, After reading Cicero's enchanting letter to his wife, daughter and son, yes, I would very much like to read his original, it would be a nice change from Durant's also excellent but sometimes repetitive prose.

Eloïse

Parthia: Thank you one and all for the information about Parthia

Joan K: I agree with your post #655. I fell we are going from being a teenager to reaching adult status - a difficult road ahead - full of bumps and bruises.

3Kings: I also agree with your post #657 and no it does not ruffle by feathers.

Cicero:

Cicero gained fame in 70 BC, when he successfully prosecuted Gaius Verres, a crrupt former govenor of Silicly. Cicero's victory in this trial earned him the approval of the Roman aristocracy. With the support of the aristocracy, Cicero attained the position of consul; Rome's highest elected polical office, in 63 BC.

The First Triumvirate of Julius Caesar, Gnaeus Pompey, and Marcus Lincinius Crassus banished Cicero from Rome in 58 BC becuse he opposed their rule.

I think Cicero succeeded for awhile because of "money". "His father just rich enough to give his son the best education that the age could provide." [And] Cicero won't be able to pull Rome out of the hole from corrupt leaders; in fact Cicero is allowed to rturn to Rome in 57 BC only to be killed. The orders came from The Second Triumvate because they would not tolerate Cicero's opposition.

"Ever since the state fell under the sway of a few powerful men...all influence, rank, and wealth have been in their hands. To us they left defeat, prosecutions, and poverty...what have we left save the breath of life? Is it not better to die valiantly than to lose our wretched and dishonored lives after being the sport of other men's insolence?"

Noble words but I can't help feeling that it would be better to Live and be able to fight again another day. I would have to say that I would probably be part of the "the starveling rubble". I can't say that I'd be "strew[ing] flowers over Catiline's tomb nor would I have blindly believed everything that Cicero preached. I am for the people, but I am also for the nation; for the nation are the people - ALL of the people. As far as the cause being just, I really can't say what's right for another people - especially an ancient people. Perhaps they both could have succeeded. But alas we'll never know. I tend to listen to everyone and than based on the facts the way I understand them, I make up my own mind.

Scrawler

Ginny: I have been reading Cicero, not in the original, but in translation. I envy your ability to read Latin. His letters to Atticus are particularly revealing. The man wishes to be virtuous as he sees virtue and seems to see little of that article in Caesar.

I am beginning to make connections. I read for example, in Teddy White's "Caesar at the Rubicon", of the desertion of Labienus. Then in Cicero's letters to Atticus, I find questions concerning Labienus' status. Cicero asks Atticus," Did Labienus leave Caesar?" Cicero's references to Caesar's decision at the Rubicon are also revealing. On the one hand I can see Caesar squeezed at the Rubicon and his hand forced by the Senate and on the other hand I can see the position of Cicero who finds in the move the action of an irresponsible monster.

Give some thought to a Loeb Library type reading of Cicero. You can help with the Latin while we are reading both the English companion on the opposite page and the Latin. I would like to try that.

To Atticus (at Athens) Rome, July, 65 B.C.

"The state of things in regard to my candidature, in which I know that you are supremely interested, is this, as far as can be as yet conjectured. The only person actually canvassing is P. Sulpicius Galba. He meets with a good old-fashioned refusal without reserve or disguise. In the general opinion this premature canvass of his is not unfavourable to my interests; for the voters generally give as a reason for their refusal that they are under obligations to me. So I hope my prospects are to a certain degree improved by the report getting about that my friends are found to be numerous.

"My intention was to begin my own canvass just at the very time that Cincius tells me that your servant starts with this letter, namely, in the campus at the time of the tribunician elections on the 17th of July. My fellow candidates, to mention only those who seem certain, are Galba and Antonius and Q. Cornificius. At this I imagine you smiling or sighing. Well, to make you positively smite your forehead, there are people who actually think that Caesonius will stand. I don't think Aquilius will, for he openly disclaims it and has alleged as an excuse his health and his leading position at the bar.

"Catiline will certainly be a candidate, if you can imagine a jury finding that the sun does not shine at noon. As for Aufidius and Palicanus, I don't think you will expect to hear from me about them. Of the candidates for this y creditors being concerned - and that two men of the highest rank, who, without the aid of anyone specially retained by Caecilius, would have no difficulty in maintaining their common cause - it was only fair that he should have consideration both for my private friendship and my present situation. He seemed to take this somewhat less courteously than I could have wished, or than is usual among gentlemen; and from that time forth he has entirely withdrawn from the intimacy with me which was only of a few day's standing. Pray forgive me, and believe that I was prevented by nothing but natural kindness from assailing the reputation of a friend in so vital a point at a time of such very great distress, considering that he had shewn me every sort of kindness and attention. But if you incline to the harsher view of my conduct, take it that the interests of my canvass prevented me. Yet, even granting that to be so, I think you should pardon me, 'since not for sacred beast or oxhide shield.'

"You see in fact the position I am in, and how necessary I regard it, not only to retain but even to acquire all possible sources of popularity. I hope I have justified myself in your eyes; I am at any rate anxious to have done so. The Hermathena you sent I am delighted with: it has been placed with such charming effect that the whole gymnasium seems arranged specially for it. I am exceedingly obliged to you."

To Atticus (at Athens) Rome, July, 65 B.C.

"I have to inform you that on the day of the election of L. Julius Caesar and C. Marcius Figulus to the consulship, I had an addition to my family in the shape of a baby boy. Terentia doing well.

"Why such a time without a letter from you? I have already written to you fully about my circumstances. At this present time I am considering whether to undertake the defence of my fellow candidate, Catiline. We have a jury to our minds with full consent of the prosecutor. I hope that if he is acquitted he will be more closely united with me in the conduct of our canvass; but if the result be otherwise I shall bear it with resignation. Your early return is of great importance to me, for there is a very strong idea prevailing that some intimate friends of yours, persons of high rank, will be opposed to my election. To win me their favour I see that I shall want you very much. Wherefore be sure to be in Rome in January, as you have agreed to be."

It is late Saturday night, I have not yet read your postings, and I will join you folks tomorrow. I am doing well.

Robby

Trevor: After reading your 648, I want to thank you for your comments on the current US posture. We think we see criticism in our own press but none of it has the international flavor you exhibit.

The amount we spend on armaments is undoubtedly fueled by fear. Fear may have been real during the Cold War but since the demise of the Soviet Union, I too have had cause to question the size and character of our military. The incident of 9/11, I think, requires special forces to combat terror. It's one thing to stay at the technical top of the armaments pyramid and quite another to maintain forces that allow preemptive strikes.

At a distance it might seem like we are cutting social programs to fund military expenditures. The idea has the sound of a slogan I might enjoy using, but it is probably not true. Maybe I am naive.

Your comment about the current administration not being a democratically elected one is quite accurate. Never before in the history of American politics has the Supreme Court played so decisive a role in the selection of a president and the populace so small a role. One of our failings in presdiential elections is the role played by the Electoral College. We recognize the failing but there is little chance of correcting it.

I don't know what "Light of the World" means but I do think the US does try to do the "right thing" in most cases. It's just that the "right thing" must coincide with our self interest.

Sometimes Justin the rest of the world views the self interest bit as not doing the right thing in some cases!

I haven't visited here for months, so I cannot make any valid contribution except for this.

I my school years enduring five years of Latin with messrs Kennedy and Hillard and Botting, I never realised that Labienus was a real person. He kept cropping up in all the latin exercises and 60 years on I discover he was a real person. Maybe I should have concentrated more <G>

Pete

Kiwi Lady: I understand your comment and I am sure you are right. US self interest is not always that of the rest of the world.

Welcome home, ROBBY!

Mal

Welcome home our Robby, you'll really be proud of your group when you are able to read all the comments!

JUSTIN!! What a fabulous idea, the Loeb Cicero, what a marvelous thought, the English on the left and the Latin on the right, I will run right down and suggest that in Books in Other Languages and Eloise you come too, and let's see if we can get up a quorum there, boy o boy, wouldn't THAT be something! Thank you for that super idea!

Pete in Perth, welcome, after your own 5 years want to revisit Cicero again in the new year? There are lots of bits of Cicero not normally read during the course of Latin studies, new worlds to conquer, I think you all would find fascinating!

ginny

In a previous posting, Mal said:--"I'm doing the best I can!" If there were sound in this forum, we would all hear thunderous applause for a MARVELOUS job! Mal took you all through The New Woman, another Cato, Spartacus, Pompey, Cicero, and Catiline. She also paced it perfectly so that we went to the very end of "The Oligarchic Reaction" and are ready for the next section in Durant's volume. Take a well-earned rest, Mal, so you can concentrate a bit on the other things in your life.
Welcome back, Peter. We haven't seen you for a long while and hope you post regularly with us. And I don't remember seeing you before, Isaac, and am also looking forward to reading your comments.
Robby

Literature Under the Revolution

145-30 B.C.

To those newcomers and those who have returned to us. please do not scroll rapidly past the Heading to get to the postings. There is a purpose to the GREEN quotes in the Heading.
1 - For those who do not have the book, they tell us where in the volume we are located.
2 - For all those here, it gives us a synopsis of the section in which we are located.
3 - It helps to keep us together so that we stick to the sub-topic and do not wander afield.
Durant continues:--
"Literature did not quite escape the fever and stimulus of the age. Varro and Nepos found safety in antiquarian scholarship or historical research. Sallust retired from his campaigns to defend his party and disguise his morals with brilliant monographs.
"Caesar stooped from empire to grammar and continued his wars in his Commentaries. Catulus and Calvus sought refuge from politics in the pursuit and poetry of love.
"Timid and sensitive spirits like Lucretius hid themselves in the gardens of philosophy. Cicero retreated now and then from the heat of the Forum to cool his blood with books.
"But not one of them found peace. War and revolution touched them with pervasive infection."
We are all accustomed to public figures who, after retirement, write their memoirs. Interesting, however, that many of these Roman figures took time to write even while they were active in the public arena.

Robby

I am still in the US and not able to get much reading done. I echo Robbie's view that Mal has done a great job and as usual her links are superb.

I have to comment on Justin's post 690 about social expenditures. The war in Iraq is taking away money from many social programs. The public school system in Baltimore is on the brink of bankruptcy and has just laid off many administrators. The city is not in much better shape. The state of Maryland has cut back on many programs including aide to education and aide for disadvantaged youth. While some of these cuts may be due to a poor economy, the dollars going into the war effort (Iraq, terrorism, airport security, holding prisoners of war in Cuba, etc, etc.) cost money and that money has to come from someplace. Of course the Bush administration has cut taxes which makes the situation even worse. At some point in the future we will have a very large bill to pay.

Foregive me if I seem angry about our current leadership - I am.

"Life does not differ essentially from other matter. It is a product of moving atoms which are individually dead."

We participants in the Story of Civilization discussion are not "individually dead", but this discussion would have been while ROBBY was not feeling well and then away to recover and rest if only one person had come in here to post. This discussion only lives through the "oneness" of its members and their ideas and comments.

I want to thank each and every one of you who posted here during the past week. I appreciate your keeping this Story of Civilization ship afloat. I am grateful for your cooperation as I tried to maintain the level of dignity and respect in this discussion which ROBBY has so masterfully set up and maintained over a period of two years and 29 days. We do not lapse into verbal fisticuffs and name-calling here. Instead, we learn from Durant and each other, and by doing so remain alert and interested and involved.

Thanks also to GINNY, who was our anchor and fine support during the past few days. She's one of the busiest people I know, and yet took the time to come here and post messages and pictures which helped bring Ancient Rome alive.

ROBBY, in a way I'll miss doing what I've been doing. By typing out sometimes whole page quotations from Caesar and Christ, what the Durants have said is engraved in my memory. How much rest I'll get now is a question. I'm always busy, and I've started writing another novel!

Now back to discussing Ancient Rome. I feel sure our discussion will be enhanced by reading Cicero in Latin along with GINNY. What a noble idea!

Mal

The importance of words

What we say to one another, not only here but elsewhere is important. Words have the power to wound, inspire, encourage, and stimulate. So they are important. I would not be who I am if it weren't for the words I've read and had said to me. And those words have a ripple effect on those around us. What we share here and in our daily contact with others, sometimes gives someone a new viewpoint, something new to think about. And words are important, YES! Else why are we here at this site talking to one another? And why are we so affected by the beauty of Shakespeare's words when he holds up mirrors for us to see ourselves? Lady C.

Good to see you back Robby.

Ginny, I will look for the Loeb Cicero book at my local library, but they have mostly French books. If I can locate one in English I would love to try it. We read latin in church all the time when I was a child.

Now lets hear what Durant will say about The liveliest lady in the group was Clodia of the proud Claudian Gens Interesting about the word 'gens' being the prefix of so many words but 'gens' in English is not used very much nowadays.

Eloïse

What we say to one another, not only here but elsewhere is important. Words have the power to wound, inspire, encourage, and stimulate. So they are important.

I would not be who I am if it weren't for the words I've read and had said to me. And those words have a ripple effect on those around us. What we share here and in our daily contact with others, sometimes gives someone a new viewpoint, something new to think about.
And words are important, YES! Else why are we here at this site talking to one another?
And why are we so affected by the beauty of Shakespeare's words when he holds up mirrors for us to see ourselves?
Lady C.

Welcome back Robby! and Malryn thank you so much for your leadership here.

"Lucretius must have known the restlessness which he describes:--
"There is a weight on their minds, and a mountain of misery lies on their hearts. For each, not knowing what he wants, seeks always to change his place, as if he could drop his burden.
"Here is one who, bored to death at home, goes forth every now and then from his palace. But feeling no better abroad, suddenly returns. Off he courses, driving his nags to his country house in headlong haste. He has hardly crossed the threshold when he yawns, or seeks oblivion in a heavy sleep, or even hurries back to the city.
"So each man flees from himself. But, as one might expect, the self which he cannot escape cleaves to him all the more against his will. He hates himself because, a sick man, he does not know the cause of his complaint.
"Any man who could see that clearly would cast aside his business, and before all else would seek to understand the nature of things."

Robby

Thank you Malryn, and I agree with the group at large here you did a super job.

ELOISE!!! No no, Loeb in FRENCH?!? How fabulous, our first TRI LINGUAL discussion in the Books, please do bring your French/Latin Loeb to the table!

Here's a link to the Books in Other Languages discussion, the Cicero yet ANOTHER spin off of the fabulous Story of Civilization, you ought to be proud of yourselves!

Ya'll come! We already have a quorum.

ginny

It is almost impossible to discuss Roman history without falling back to our own history. We cannot truly understand how the Romans thought and lived. But by comparing our history with theirs a tiny portal of understanding opens up to us. From what I've seen of Cicero and Catiline, an "eternal vigilance is essential" as Justin said in his post #666 if our own Republic is to survive.

At any rate if we were authentic in discussing Roman history, we would have to have this conversation in Latin and only the men would be discussing it. As for me I'd probably be sitting in some prison waiting execution for poisoning my master with my cooking.

"This decree invested the consuls with absolute power, and suspended all the ordinary forms of law, till the dnger was over." Sound a bit familiar?

"Cicero, however, had informtion of all the designs of the conspirtors, as by the intrigues of a woman called Fulvia, the mistress of Curius, he had gained him over and received regularly from an account of all their operations."

Here's what Lfayette Baker of the United States Secret Service had to say about such intrigues: "A woman in every plot," is almost a proverb among those who have had much to do with successful conspiracies and treachery." (Lafayette Baker, History of the United States Secret Service, 1867).

Ginny: My Latin is a little rusty. Can you translate the following: "Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patienita nostra." Thanks in advance.

"I only wish, my dear to see you as soon as possible and to die in your arms, since neither gods, whom you have worshipped with such pure devotion, nor men, whom I have ever served, have made us any return."

I thought this a very interesting thought from Cicero. Do you think he believed that the only things worth doing were those that "made us any return"? I wonder if his wife thought the same about the "gods" she "worshipped with such pure devotion." What does this tell us about Cicero?

"With the rest of the slaves the arrangement is that, if my property is forfeited, they should become my freedmen, supposing them to be able to maintain at law that status. But if my property remained in my ownership, they were to continue slaves, with the exception of a very few. But these are trifles."

Hum! Sounds to me that the slaves of Cicero would be better off if his property had been forfeited. But would they have been better off being freedmen? I wonder how difficult it would have been to go from being slave to freedmen.

Scrawler

Scrawler, (going to have to adjust my keyboard for the long marks I see! hahaah whee)

Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? means "How far, pray, Catiline, will you abuse our patience?"

For those interested in the literal translation, it reads, "How far (literally whither up to) at length will you abuse, (as opposed to "to abuse,") Catiline, patience our?" FUN!!!!

ginny

Robby: Mal is an outstanding substitute. Her skills and insights challenged us the entire time of your absence. Thank you Mal. By the way, Robby, it's nice to have you back at the tiller.

Here is a BRIEF BIOGRAPHY of Lucretius.

GeorgeHd: I agree with you. We tend to think of things in buckets-the war bucket, the Medicare bucket, the education bucket etc. But in truth it is all one bucket.

We frequently rob Peter to pay Paul bringing one bucket down while another bucket rises. However, when the size of the big bucket is declining due to lowered taxes one result seems inevitable. The money supply must increase bringing added inflation. We are in for rocky times ahead.

The current leadership is a source of anger for me as well.

"His poem is our only biography of Titus Lucretius Carus. It is proudly reticent about its author. Outside of it, barring a few allusions, Roman literature is strangely silent about one of its greatest men. Tradition placed his birth at 99 or 95, his death at 55 or 51 B.C.
"He lived through half a century of the Roman revolution. -- through the Social War, Marian massacres, and Sullan proscriptions -- through Catiline's conspiracy and Caesar's consulate. The aristocracy to which he probably belonged was in obvious decay. The world in which he lived was falling apart into a chaos that left no life or fortune secure. His poem is longing for physical and mental peace.
"Lucretius sought refuge in nature, philosophy, and poetry. Perhaps also he had a round of love. He must have fared badly, for he writes ungallantly of women, denounces the lure of beauty, and advises itching youth to appease the flesh with calm promiscuity.
"In woods and fields, in plants and animals, in mountain, river, and sea, he found a delight only rivaled by his passion for philosophy. He was as impressionable as Wordsworth, as keen of sense as Keats, as prone as Shelley to find metaphysics in a pebble or a leaf. Nothing of nature's loveliness or terror was lost upon him. He was stirred by the forms and sounds, odors andd savors, of things -- felt the silences of sceret haunts, the quiet falling of the night, the lazy waking of the day.
"Everything natural was a marvel to him -- the patient flow of watwer, the sprouting of seeds, the endless changes of the sky, the imperturbable persistence of the stars. He observed animals with curiosity and sympathy, loved their forms of strength or grace, felt their sufferings, and wondered at their wordless philosophy.
"No poet before him had so expressed the grandeur of the world in its detailed variety and its congregated power. Here at last nature won the citadels of literature, and rewarded her poet with a force of descriptive speech that only Homer and Shakespeare have surpassed."
Echoes of Walden Pond?

Robby

In Book 111, Lucretius lauds his Grecian guides. " You, who out of black darkness were first to lift up a shining light, revealing the hidden blessings of life- you are my guide, O glory of the Grecian race. In your well marked footprints now I plant my resolute steps. It is from love alone that I long to imitate you, not from emulous ambition." The great Epicurean, clearly acknowledges his debt to the Greeks who preceded him and who now are his slaves.

In Book 11, Lucretius discusses matter. " We see that everything grows less and seems to melt away with the lapse of time and withdraw its old age from our eyes. And yet we see no diminution in the sum of things. Bodies that shed by one thing lessen it by their departure but enlarge another by their coming; here they bring decay, there full bloom. But they do not linger there. So the sum of things is perpetually renewed. Mortals live by mutual interchange."

These lines I quote from Lucretius (translation by R.E. Latham), are not the work of a madman as St. Jerome says but rather the writing of a man with great observational power. He is not discussing superstition but the empirical evidence of natural observation. It should be kept in mind that Lucretius thought and wrote in a time when superstition was the preferred method of accounting for events. St Jerome wrote several centuries later and had an ax to grind at the time. It is he who is responsible for the make up of the New and Old Testaments. He threw away all that we call Gnostic today.

Yes, Robby, echoes of Thoreau and John Muir and John Wesley Powell and all the wonderful naturalists who bring us their observations of nature today.

Justin says:--"The great Epicurean clearly acknowledges his debt to the Greeks who preceded him and who now are his slaves."
I find that statement thought provoking and wonder how often history takes us to periods where we are taught by our slaves.

Robby

Lo, see them: contending with their wits, fighting for precedence,
Struggling night and day with unending effort,
Climbing, clawing their way up the pinnacles of wealth and power.
O miserable minds of men! O blind hearts!
In what darkness, among how many perils,
You pass your short lives! Do you not see
That our nature requires only this:
A body free from pain, and a mind, released from worry and fear,
Free to enjoy feelings of delight?

Aeneadum genetrix, hominum divomque voluptas,
alma Venus, caeli subter labentia signa
quae mare navigerum, quae terras frugiferentis
concelebras, per te quoniam genus omne animantum
concipitur visitque exortum lumina solis:
te, dea, te fugiunt venti, te nubila caeli
adventumque tuum, tibi suavis daedala tellus
summittit flores, tibi rident aequora ponti
placatumque nitet diffuso lumine caelum.
nam simul ac species patefactast verna diei
et reserata viget genitabilis aura favoni,
aeriae primum volucris te, diva, tuumque
significant initum perculsae corda tua vi.
inde ferae pecudes persultant pabula laeta
et rapidos tranant amnis: ita capta lepore
te sequitur cupide quo quamque inducere pergis.
denique per maria ac montis fluviosque rapacis
frondiferasque domos avium camposque virentis
omnibus incutiens blandum per pectora amorem
efficis ut cupide generatim saecla propagent.
quae quoniam rerum naturam sola gubernas
nec sine te quicquam dias in luminis oras
exoritur neque fit laetum neque amabile quicquam,
te sociam studeo scribendis versibus esse,
quos ego de rerum natura pangere conor
Memmiadae nostro, quem tu, dea, tempore in omni
omnibus ornatum voluisti excellere rebus.
quo magis aeternum da dictis, diva, leporem.
effice ut interea fera moenera militiai
per maria ac terras omnis sopita quiescant;
nam tu sola potes tranquilla pace iuvare
mortalis, quoniam belli fera moenera Mavors
armipotens regit, in gremium qui saepe tuum se
reiicit aeterno devictus vulnere amoris,
atque ita suspiciens tereti cervice reposta
pascit amore avidos inhians in te, dea, visus
eque tuo pendet resupini spiritus ore.
hunc tu, diva, tuo recubantem corpore sancto
circum fusa super, suavis ex ore loquellas
funde petens placidam Romanis, incluta, pacem;
nam neque nos agere hoc patriai tempore iniquo
possumus aequo animo nec Memmi clara propago
talibus in rebus communi desse saluti.
omnis enim per se divum natura necessest
immortali aevo summa cum pace fruatur
semota ab nostris rebus seiunctaque longe;
nam privata dolore omni, privata periclis,
ipsa suis pollens opibus, nihil indiga nostri,
nec bene promeritis capitur nec tangitur ira.

"So responsive a spirit as that of Lucretius must have been deeply moved in youth by the mystery and pageantry of religion. But the ancient faith, which had once served family discipline and social order, had lost its hold on the educated classes of Rome. Caesar smiled indulgently as he played pontifex maximus, and the banquets of the priests were the holydays of Roman epicures. A small minority of the people were open atheists. Now and then some Roman Alcibiades nocturnally mutilated the statues of the gods.
"No longer inspired or consoled by the official ritual, many among the lower classes were flocking to the bloodstained shrines of the Phrygian Great Mother, or the Cappadocian goddess Ma, or some of the Oriental deities that had entered Italy with soldiers or captives from the East. Under the influence of Greek or Asiatic cults the old Roman idea of 'Orcus' as a colorless subterranean abode of all the indiscriminate dead had developed into belief in a literal Hell -- a 'Tartarus' or 'Acheron' of endless sufering for all but a 'reborn' initiated few.
"The sun and the moon were conceived as gods, and every eclipse sent terror into lonely villages and teeming tenements. Chaldean fortunetellers and astrologers were overrunning Italy, casting horoscopes for paupers and millionaires, revealing hidden resources and future events, interpreting omens and dreams with cautious ambiguity and profitable flattery. Every unusual occurrence in nature was examined as the warning of a god.
"It was this mass of superstition, ritualism, and hypocrisy that Lucretius knew as religion."
I find it interesting that when some people find that their god is not "doing the job," that instead of dropping the idea of religion, per se, that they move over to another god who may be more efficient. I don't know if Italy has changed very much in the past few decades but I believe the masses there continue to believe in astrology, the "evil eye," omens, and all that go with superstition.
And apparently the concept of Hell is beginning to take hold.

Robby

Italy is not the only place where superstitions abound side by side with religion. "I'm not superstitious," I say. So, why do I knock wood?

Signs of Hell? Gods have been knocking people on the head for thousands of years if they didn't toe the line. Messiahs were spoken of long, long before the Ancient Romans came along. Versions of the Adam and Eve story were told long before the Bible was written. It seems to me that little by little the bits and pieces, those individually dead, moving atoms are pulling together to form the religion that's called Christianity.

Mal

I have not found yet a person who is not superstitious in one way or another. Some say they don't believe in it but do the same gestures to ward against evil eye out of habit or in imitation to their surroundings.

A few times, when some expected catastrophy did not happen I even caught myself saying as those around me "It was Ok, thank God" without even thinking of the meaning of it. It was really funny.

Roman Literature:

Early Roman Literature:

Early Roman Literature ended with Gaius Lucillius, who created a new kind of poetry in his 30 books of "Satires" (100s BC). He wrote in an easy, converstional tone about books, food, friends, and current events.

The Golden Age:

Roman Literature was at its height from 81 BC to AD 17. This period began with Cicero and ended with the death of Ovid.

The Age of Cicero:

Cicero was a master of Roman prose. He dominated Roman literature from about 80 BC until his death in 43 BC. His letters provide detailed information about the public and private life among the Roman governing class.

Julius Caesar and Sullust were historical writers. Caesar wrote commentaries on the Gallic and civil wars in a straight-forward style to justify his actions as a general. (This may be the reason Caesar didn't wait until he retired to write.)

Sallust wrote in a pointed style in his historical works. He works descriptions of people and their motives.

Catullus wrote lyric poetry and poetry in which he attacked his enemies.

The poet Lucretius interpreted the ideas of the Greek philosopher Epicurus.

Varro wrote about a variety of subjects, from religion to poetry. Only his writings on agriculture and the Roman language survive today.

Scrawler

And don't forget Plautus and Terence!

ginny

Thank you for that summary, Scrawler. Very helpful!
Bubble, if one says without thinking "Thank God," is that superstitious or religious (or both?) How about terms like "The Hell with it" or "Go to the Devil" or "God Bless" after a sneeze?

Robby

I was talking personally - cannot say for anyone else of course. For me it is certainly not religion. Go to hell would be very irreligious too, don't you think?

If I was religious I would go so far as to call the sneeze saying as invoking God's name vainly for trivial matters. Again, it is my sole opinion.

"No wonder that Lucretius rebelled against religion, and attacked it with all the ardor of a religious reformer. We may judge from the bitterness of his resentment the depth of his youthful piety and the distress of his disillusionment.
"Seeking for some alternative faith, he passed through the skepticism of Ennius to the great poem in which Empedocles had expounded evolution and the conflict of opposites. When he discovered the writings of Epicurus, it seemed to him that he had found the answers to his question.
"That strange mixture of materialism and free will, of joyful gods and a godless world, appealed to him as a free man's answer to doubt and fear. A breath of liberation from supernatural terrors seemed to come out of Epicurus' garden, revealing the omnipresence of law, the self-ruled independence of nature, the forgivable naturalness of death.
"Lucretius resolved to take this philosophy out of the ungainly prose in which Epicurus had expressed it, fuse it into poetic form, and offer it to his generation as the way, the truth and the life. He felt in himself a rare and double power -- the objective perception of the scientist and the subjective emotion of the poet.
"He saw in the total order of nature a sublimity, and in nature's parts a beauty, that encouraged and justified this marriage of philosophy and poetry. His great purpose aroused all his powers, lifted him to a unique intellectual exuberance, and left him, before its completion, exhausted and perhaps insane.
"But his 'long and delightful toil' gave him a consuming happiness, and he poured into it all the devotion of a profoundly religious soul."
"Joyful gods and a godless world" -- "liberation from supernatural terrors" -- "forgiveable naturalness of death" -- "marriage of philosophy and poetry" --
Why, I wonder, was he considered possibly insane?
Robby

Although I am as passionate about nature as Lucretius my observations affect me as confirmation that there is a power bigger than me. I feel very close to God when I observe the waves crashing into the shore on one of our wild west coast beaches.

I also have the same ideas about materialism as Lucretius yet we are totally on the opposite side of the fence when it comes to religion. Odd huh?

Carolyn

PS I don't see him as insane at all. I see him as a very deep thinker and extremely sensitive to what is going on in the world around him.

The little of Lucretius we read in Durant is insufficient to provide the full flavor of his observations on religion and its evil effects in man. He speaks of Iphigenia at Aulis, and the uselessness of pouring animal blood on an altar. He declares the sacrifice of human life on altars as a wasteful evil. He says the Gods exist but they live apart from humans and are uninterested in the natural events of the world. The world is a law unto itself, he says. Unlike Kiwi Lady, he would stand by the shore, hear the waves crashing, and think of the atoms they contained that created the force that drove the water to the shore.

I agree, Carolyn, Lucretius was not insane. It was Jerome who was confused. He passed on so much to us that was false, (judging from what his contemporaries had to say) it is hard to accept any of his comments.

Isn't it true that when people step outside the norm and hold unpopular views they are called weird or nuts or sometimes insane? Lucretius seems to have lived centuries before his time. Rational views he held are still not widely accepted now.

"Apart from Lucretius' poem almost nothing is known about the life of Lucretius. . What little evidence there is, is quite inconclusive. Jerome, a leading Latin Church Father, in his chronicle for the year 94 BC (or possibly 96 or 93 BC), stated that Lucretius was born in that year and that years afterward a love potion drove him insane; and in lucid intervals having written some books, which Cicero afterward emended, he killed himself in his 44th year (51 or 50 BC). The love potion story is almost certainly false, perhaps suggested by the important role Venus plays in the poem, On the Nature of Things.

"The aim of Epicurean philosophy is to achieve peace of mind. This peace is achieved by thinking correctly. The human mind is unsettled by fear of death, fear of the gods, fear of nature, and unruly passions. Epicureanism has solutions for all this.

"To remove the fear of the gods, Lucretius relies on physics and a sort of primitive evolutionary biology and anthropology. Epicurus was a godlike man who fought against religion and the fears it caused in men, who abandoned superstitious explanations of the origins of the world and human society, myths of life after death and divine punishment, and probed into how the physical world really works. According to Epicurus, the universe was originally composed of a wide variety of atoms which, falling vertically, on occasion swerved, collided and began to form matter. . . . All things are ultimately systems of moving atoms, separated by greater or smaller intervals of void, which cohere more or less according to their shapes. All systems are divisible and therefore perishable and all change is explainable in terms of the addition, subtraction, or rearrangement of changeless atoms.

"From these atoms (which means in Greek that which cannot be cut) eventually our world formed, and life arose and developed by natural processes from lower to higher forms of life. Early humans too evolved in terms of society. We were wild and lonely savages at first, but the desire for sex and procreation brought people together, and when they had children, made them desire to give up some of their savage behaviors in a type of social contact, which was the beginning of society. Note how Lucretius shows how things like fire and song were not gifts from the gods, but arose from lightening strikes and from primitive men imitating birds.

"Once people settled down naturally the strong, more intelligent, more handsome took control and became the first kings, who built cities and fortresses. Now, with life more secure, wealth developed, which brought the first political crises between the haves and have-nots (think class struggle). Note how Lucretius again condemns the lust for power as something that disturbs our peace. . . . For him, law is not the produce of a participation in Universal Reason that links humans with God, but arises naturally due to physical circumstances.

"The reason that Lucretius spends time on explaining the growth of human society is in part because there were many myths that described the development of human society and its arts as a direct gift of one or more gods, like Prometheus. . . . . For a similar reason Lucretius gives explanations for thunder, rain, earthquakes, seasons and other scary or awesome natural phenomena; he is afraid that, if we did not understand their natural origins, we would naturally invoke gods as the explanations. He wants us completely free of any concern about the gods. . . . . Lucretius is a materialist, that is, one who sees all things around us as being able to be explained as a natural process of objects acting and interacting. . . . .

"Another fear we have is of death and life after death. Lucretius shows how the soul is as mortal as the body, and perishes with it. . . . once we understand the universal rhythm of life and death we can better endure it, seeing it as natural, not fearful. But he also realizes that this is hard for people to accept.

"Epicureans, although they are technically hedonists . . . .. do not believe in endless wine, sex and song. Epicureans believe that excess of any pleasure bring more pain than pleasure, and this is particularly true of sex. But Epicureans likewise condemn excessive lust for wealth, power, fame, etc. . . . Cicero complained that a belief that life led only for pleasure would not have motivated the great heroes of Roman history to do great deeds; Lucretius probably would have replied that most people who strive to do great deeds bring about war, revolution, and ruin more than good."

Source:

Some notes on Lucretius

Epicurus: Principal Doctrines

"Lucretius chose for his work a philosophical rather than a poetic title -- De Rerum Natura, 'On the Nature of Things' -- a simple translation of the Peri Physeos ('About Nature') which the pre-Socratics had used as a common name for their treatises. He offered it to the sons of Caius Memmius, praetor in 58, as a road from fear to understanding. He took as his model the Empedoclean epic of exposition, as his speech the quaint bluntness of Ennius, as his medium the mobile and versatile hexameter.
"And then, forgetting for a moment the distant carelessness of the gods, he began with a fervent apostrophe to Venus conceived, like Empedocles' Love, as a symbol of creative desire and the ways of peace:--
"'Mother of Aeneas' race, delight of men and gods, O nurturing Venus. . . Through thee every kind of life is conceived and born, and looks upon the sun. Before thee and thy coming the winds flee, and the clouds of the sky depart. To thee the miraculous earth lifts up sweet flowers. For thee the waves of the sea laugh, and the peaceful heavens shine with overspreading Light.
'For as soon as the springtime face of day appears, and the fertilizing south wind makes all things fresh and green, then first the birds of the air proclaim thee and thy advent. O divine one, piercd to the heart by the thy power. Then the wild herds leap over the glad pastures, and cross the swift streams. So, held captive by thy charm, each one follows thee wherever thou goest to lead. Then through seas and mountains and rushing rivers, and the leafy dwellings of the birds, and the verdant fields, thou strikest soft love into the breasts of all creatures, and makest them to propagate their generations after their kinds.
'Since, therefore, thou alone rulest the nature of things. Since without thee nothing rises to the shining shores of light, nothing joyful or lovely is born, I long for thee as partner in the writing of these verses. Grant to my words, O goddess, an undying beauty. Cause, meanwhile the savage works of war to sleep and be still.
'As Mars reclines upon thy sacred form, bend thou around him from above, pour sweet coaxings from thy mouth, and beg for thy Romans the gift of peace.'"
A hypocrite? Discretion is the better part of valor? An iron fist in a velvet glove? A private joke to himself?

Robby

The quote I posted last night ( Post #731 ) is an online lecture by Professor Jean Alvares who is in the Department of Classics and General Humanities, Montclair State University, Montclair, New Jersey. Professor Alvares says elsewhere that the Lucretius reference to Venus is a statement about the procreation of the human race and sex. I've read the same analysis in papers about Lucretius by other scholars.

Mal

A page of links to photographs of Rome

English translation Book One "On the Nature of Things" by Lucretius

Seeking with what of words and what of song
I may at last most gloriously uncloud
For thee the light beyond, wherewith to view
The core of being at the centre hid.
And for the rest, summon to judgments true,
Unbusied ears and singleness of mind
Withdrawn from cares; lest these my gifts, arranged
For thee with eager service, thou disdain
Before thou comprehendest: since for thee
I prove the supreme law of Gods and sky,
And the primordial germs of things unfold,
Whence Nature all creates, and multiplies
And fosters all, and whither she resolves
Each in the end when each is overthrown.
This ultimate stock we have devised to name
Procreant atoms, matter, seeds of things,
Or primal bodies, as primal to the world.

Book One, On the Nature of Things, Lucretius

Lucretius and Thoreau:

"Lucretius sought refuge in nature, philosophy, and poetry. In woods and fields, in plants and animals, in mountain, river, and sea, he found delight only rivaled by his passion for philosophy. Everything natural was a marvel to him..."

Thoreau was also a philosopher and naturalist, whose work taught how the abstract ideals of libertarianism and individualism can be instilled in a person's life.

On the surface they seem similar, but are they? They were both naturalists, but can we see any ideals like libertarianism or individualism in Lucretius's work?

Religion vs. Supersttion:

"...We have emphasized the role of religion in the life of the people. It did not always cause harmony, as exemplified by the dissention among the clergy over the slavery issue. There was much intolerance among Christians, as illustrated by the treatment of Catholics. An anti-Catholic mob in 1834 burned down the Ursaline Convent in Boston and drove out the nuns and their pupils; two lives were lost. Yet the only person convicted received a pardon from the governor...The 1856 national platform of one political party included an anti-Catholic plank." - "Uncle Tom's Cabin and Mid-Century United States" by Moira Reynolds Davidson.

Religion:

Religion is broadly defined as a way of life or belief based on a person's ultimate relation to the univese or God. It is impossible really to find a definition of religion because of the differences of function among the various beliefs.

The main feature of primitive religious beliefs is the absecnce of any boundary between the spiritual and the natural world. In primitive religions not only external things and places, like the sun, the moon, and the ocean, but also human beings are felt to be charged with a numinous [supernatural] atmosphere. An example of this can be found in modern day Japan. The Japanese term "Shinto" means "the way of the gods" or "the way of the spirit".

Ritual played a major part in primitive cultures. It was an attempt to influence or harmonize oneself with the nature. Ritual might be described as an art form expressing and celebrating humanity's participation in the affairs of the universe and the gods.

Religious liberty:

Religious liberty is the right of a person to form personal religious beliefs according to his or her own conscience and to give public expression to these beliefs in worship and teaching.

The U.S. was the first, and for some time the only, nation to include the principle of religious liberty in its basic laws. The nations of antiquity permitted tolerance to individuals of minority religions, provided they took part in the public worship of the national gods.

Superstition:

Superstition is a belief or practice regarded as irrational and resulting from ignorance from fear of the unknown. It implies a belief in unseen and unknown forces that can be influenced by objects and rituals. Examples of common superstitions include the belief that bad luck will strike the person in front of whom a black cat passes or that some tragedy will befall a person who walks under a ladder. Good luck charms, such as horseshoes, rabbits' feet, coins, lockets, and religious medals, are commonly kept or worn to ward of evil or to bring good fortune.

In general, superstitous practices and beliefs are most common in situations involving a high degree of risk, chance, and uncertainty and during times of personal or social stress or crisis, when events seem to be beyond human control.

So when we practice our rituals in times of uncertainty or during times of personal or social stress is it superstition or religion?

Scrawler

SCRAWLER, your name is Anne, isn't it?

My opinion:

It's all based on superstition. That's why I'm with Lucretius and anyone who thinks like him.

Where I came from there are a lot of people who consider Thoreau a cranky oddball. Even Emerson, whom Thoreau emulatred, got fed up with him. Down Maine farmers laughed at Thoreau's one year attempt to live off the land naturally when they did it 365 days a year, year after year after year. Gandhi was interested in Thoreau, but dismissed him because his civil disobedience occurred once, and only against the state. There are other Transcendentalists I prefer reading much more than I do Thoreau.

Mal

Scrawler:

Religion: The attempt to be in harmony with an unseen order of things.

Spirituality: The attempt to be in harmony with an unseen order does not imply a preference for any one doctrine over another, or the necessity for membership in any particular organization.

Scrawler: I suppose modern religion is more symbolic in its practice of human sacrifice but other than that it is difficult to discern real differences between the ancient and the modern. Modern religion is quite simply an amalgam of the superstitious religious beliefs that have appeared in civilizations beginning with the Sumerians. These ideas have changed very little over time. The concept of a virgin birth, an all powerful God who directs the affairs of men, life after death, punishment in hell for transgressors, and heaven for those who follow the rules given by the priests. It's all a very old game supported by politicians to keep the masses quiet and by the priesthood to provide a good living without working.

Hello everyone. The attractions of poetry without the counting of dead bodies lured me back. (Besides, I think I missed you all.)

The Durants, in describing Lucretius' work, evoke Wordsworth, Keats, and Shelley. Romantic poets all, writing lyrical, nature poetry at a time of upheaval and change. While lyric poetry was originally intended to be sung to the lyre, now it means, more or less, expressive of the poet's feelings. I think the Durants want us to think of Lucretius as a lyrical poet.

Lucretius was born and grew up during the time of "the troubles" in Rome. Do great lyric poets emerge during such times of upheaval? Or are they just around at those times to remind us of what living is about?

Lucretius "beg(s) for thy Romans the gift of peace."

And W.B. Yeats, considered by some to be the greatest poet of the 20th century, coined this immoral phrase around 1921, at the beginning of Ireland's time of "the troubles."

"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches toward Bethlehem to be born."

Then, Dylan Thomas, a Welshman, wrote this on the eve of WWII.

Do not go gentle into that good night.
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

MAL: thank you for your great links on Lucretius: I want to read them as soon as I can.

I notice that his poem seems to have inspired Durant to write inspired prose. As one who never studied Latin, is Lucretius read today? You latin students seem to know Cicero and Ceasar: do you know Lucretius as well?

Thoreau and Emerson: I must confess, I was never able to read Emerson without falling asleep, while I have read Walden many times. Thoreau was definitely an old crank, and his economy naive, but that doesn't bother me since I am an old crank too. I need to try Emerson again. MAL where do you suggest I begin?

Good to have you back, Tooki, but you do know, don't you, that there will be more dead bodies -- and more -- and more . . .
Doesn't lyric poetry continue to be sung? I can't think of examples right now. And considering the lyre, we now have the harp. I love deBussey's music. Are there any words that go along with his music?
Mal, you're the whiz with the links. Can we have some music in this discussion group?

Robby

Dear Old Crank (Joan):--Read this issue of the AARP Modern Maturity about "curmudgeons." (sp)

Robby

I would guess that the majority of all the people in the world have believed in a higher being of some sort since the beginning of time. I have always believed in God.

In this 3rd volume of S of C called Caesar and Christ how are Christian participants going to speak about their religion, or their beliefs without ruffling some feathers? Will they be allowed to or will they just stay away? It would be interesting to know the views of participants who are believers.

Eloïse

I expect some feathers to be ruffled but probably not by those of us who are already here. It has been a pleasure to be part of a group where each person has his/her own belief but respects the views or faiths of the others. As we approach the time of the beginnings of Christianity, there may be others who join us. If they are willing to listen to the thoughts of others without adverse comments or to refrain from proselytizing, they will be most welcome. I would hope this would be so as the discussion at that time could be so enlightening.
However, if they place personalities over issues, THEY ARE OUT OF HERE! We have labored too long over this two-year period to create a civil serious examination of the progress of mankind without allowing ourselves to watch it deteriorate.

Robby

ELOISE, I think all of us, whether Christian or not, religious or not, agnostics or not, atheists or not, are interested in the history of Christianity, which is what Will Durant will present for us, just as he has presented other religions of the world.

Mal

Arabesque #1 by Debussy

Menuet by Debussy

Eoise: This discussion is devoted to a study of the history of man and his progress toward civilization. The discussion is not and should not concern it self with the personal beliefs of participants. We are here to try to examine the progress of history just as though we were looking at bugs under a microscope. It is essentially a topic outside ourselves. Each of us may have a connection in that history but we can not examine it freely and objectively if we allow that connection to control our views.

"If we try to reduce to some logical form the passionate disorder of Lucretius' argument, his initial thesis lies in a famous line:-
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum--
"'to so many evils religion has persuaded men.' He tells the story of Iphigenia in Aulis, of countless human sacrifices, of hecatombs offered to gods conceived in the image of man's greed. He recalls the terror of simplicity and youth lost in a jungle of vengeful deities, the fear of lightning and thunder, of death and Hell, and the subterranean horrors pictured in Etruscan art and Oriental mysteries. He reproaches mankind for preferring sacrificial ritual to philosophical understanding:--
"'O miserable race of men, to impute to the gods such acts as these, and such bitter wrath! What sorrow did men (through such creeds) prepare for themselves, what wounds for us, what tears for our children! For piety lies not in being often seen turning a veiled head to stones, nor in approaching every altar, nor in lying prostrate before the temples of the gods, nor in sprinkling altars with the blood of beasts but rather in being able to look upon all things with a mind at peace.'
"There are gods, says Lucretius, but they dwell far in happy isolation from the thought or cares of men. There, 'beyond the flaming ramparts of the world' (extra flammantia moenia mundi), beyond the reach of our sacrifices and prayers, they live like followers of Epicurus, shunning worldly affairs, content with the contemplation of beauty and the practices of friendship and peace.
"They are not the authors of creation, nor the causes of events. Who would be so unfair as to charge them with the wastefulness, the disorder, the sufferings, and the injustices of earthly life? No, this infinite universe of many worlds is self-contained. It has no law outside itself. Nature does everything of her own accord.
"'For who is strong enough to rule the sum of things, to hold in hand the mighty bridle of the unfathomable deep? -- who to turn all the heavens around at once to shake the serene sky with thunder, to launch the lightning that often shatters temples, and cast the bolt that slays the innocent and passes the guilty by?'
"The only god is Law. And the truest worship, s well as the only peace, lies in learning that Law and loving it.
"'This terror and gloom of the mind must be dispelled not by the sun's rays but by the aspect and law of nature.'"
"The only god is Law." "Nature does everything of her own accord." "The truest worship lies in learning that Law." "Look upon all things with a mind of peace."
Buddhism? Tao?"

Robby

"It's all a very old game supported by politicians to keep the masses quiet and by the priesthood to provide a good living without working.

Is that a fact or an opinion? What do other believers think?

Here is an ARTICLE which is slightly off topic but not too much.

Robby

Very nice, Mal. Serendipitously, when I turned on Arabesque 1 it meshed with the jazz piano background that was playing on the local all jazz station. Really cool.

Debussy seems to be a favorite of jazz pianists. I think because they can do lateral arabesques so easily with his work. One of my favorites is "Girl With the Flaxen Hair," by the MJQ. (Modern Jazz Quarter)

Why are we talking about religion NOW? Surely there will be adequate time and space to discuss it when we come to it. It feels to me as though folks are anticipating antagonisms, setting up bounderies, and circling the wagons before there is cause for alarm. Am I missing something?

Justin as an atheist you continually give us your beliefs. Therefore its only fair if we are discussing Christianity to discuss our beliefs. Our belief in God is just as real to us as your disbelief. It seems to me atheists can always state their opinions but Christians can't. Is that fair?

I'm looking forward to the discussion about early Christianity from a historical and religious standpoint. This is certainly a discussion group where posters can be assured of respect for their own beliefs and practices, as well as having an opportunity to learn about and share those of others.

Beautiful music, MAL. Many thanks.

La Fille aux Cheveux de Lin by Debussy

"Seeking for some alternative faith, he [Lucretius] passed through the skepticism of Ennius to the great poem in which Empedocles had expounded evolution and the conflict of opposites. When he discovered the writings of Epicurus, it seemed to him that he had found the answers to his question.

Lucretius's only surviving work is a philosophical and scientific poem called "De rerum natura" (On the Nature of things). He wrote the poem to free humanity from religious superstition and the fear of death.

Empedocles became the first philospher to argue that what exists can be reduced to four elements - air, earth, fire, and water. He said that all other substances result from temporary combinations of these elements. Empedocles said that a force called "love" causes the elements to come together as compounds, and that a force called "strife" causes the compounds to break up. He believed that the universe undergoes a continuous cycle from complete unification of the elements under the domination of love to complete separation of the elements under strife." (This may be where Lucretius's love potion comes into play.)

Epicurus believed that the human mind was disturbed by two main anxieties: fear of deities (gods and goddesses) and fear of death. Epicurus said that death should not be feared because good and evil lie in sensation, and death ends sensation. According to Epicurus, the soul is composed of atoms and these atoms disperse at death. Freed from anxieties over death, a person can live the good life by seeking moderate pleasures and avoiding pain. Epicurus taught that not all pleasures are good. The good pleasures are calm and moderate ones because extreme pleasures could lead to pain. The highest pleasures, he said, are physical health and peace of mind, two kinds of freedom from pain.

Scrawler (Anne)

WOW Ideas, pictures, and now music. All we need now is smells and touch. Wee--ell, maybe not.

Kiwi: I don't think I have ever told you of my belief system. If I did, I did it only once because Robby will only tolerate that message once. I may question and search for truth in history, in order to help us recognize the charlatans in our midst. Religion today is big business-very big business- billions of dollars are involved and high political office turns on how one treats religion. You may believe it's only a question of belief in God but it's not.

Kiwi and Eloise: I do not want you to feel that this conversation is not open to any and all ideas you may have. I am interested in all opinions on the topics we cover. We may not discuss our religious beliefs but once. But if I,for example, think a precursor for a particular religion has occurred in an earlier society, you are free to discuss that observation with us. I don't know where the idea came from that one may not discuss Christianity or any other religious entity. It is preferable, of course, to do that when the topic is topical.

I do not have an ax to grind though sometimes I may sound like it. Your views on every topic we cover are very important to me. They help me to formulate my own system of beliefs.

Robby, Mal, Mahia, JoanK, chip in here please. I think it is important that Kiwi and Eloise recognize the freedom of expression that is theirs in this discussion.

Following is the comment which I post at the beginning of each volume and occasionally thereafter if it seems appropriate to the moment. In no way should it prevent us from examining the concepts of Christianity when we arrive at that point in Durant's volume. It will be examined, as Justin indicates, from a historical point of view.
I remember in my undergraduate studies, for example, taking a course entitled "The History of the Bible." Of course we discussed Christianity. It would have been impossible not to do so. The college professor was a Presbyterian minister (it was Hofstra, a non-denominational college) who later, at my request, performed my marriage rites. But during the course he was very careful not to stray into the direction of proselytizing and I do remember his being very objective.
I believe that some of us here have a fear which is unwarranted. As Mal says, let us "hesh up" and listen to the "music" when that time comes and I believe that our reading that part of Durant will be one of the most enlightening and enjoyable sections so far. The odds are, from my psychological perspective, that everyone of us will, when we get past that point, have the very same beliefs we have now. But we may have them from a broader point of view.
Here are the guidelines which have never changed in over two years and which have helped us to remain good friends throughout:--

"To my knowledge, no civilization of any sort has existed without some sort of ritual which one can call religious. For this reason, it will be impossible to participate in this forum without discussing "religion" from time to time.

"However, the following guidelines will be enforced by the Discussion Leader to avoid confrontations and digressions about personal religious views.

"1 - You may make one post describing your own beliefs related to religion (whether you have a religious faith or do not) in order to explain your viewpoint toward the topic at hand. Making additional posts about your religious beliefs or faith is not permitted.

2 - Do not speak of your religion or absence of religious beliefs as "the truth."

3 - Do not attempt to change another's conviction about religion.

"Comments about issues are welcomed. Negative comments about other participants are not permitted.

"Those participants who do not believe they are being treated fairly in this respect always have the right to contact Marcie, Director of Education. I will follow her guidance."
May I add that Marcie was never brought into the picture because of the inherent sincerity and civility of everyone here.

Robby

Durant continues:--"And so, 'touching with the honey of the Muses,' the rough materialism of Democritus, Lucretius proclaims as his basic theorem that 'nothing exists but atoms and the void' -- i.e. matter and space. He proceeds at once to a cardinal principle (and assumption) of modern science -- that the quantity of matter and motion in the world never varies. No thing arises out of nothing, and destruction is only a change of form.
"The atoms are indestructible, unchangeable, solid, resilient, soundless, odorless, tasteless, colorless, infinite. They interpenetrate one another to produce endless combinations and qualities. They move without cease in the seeming stillness of motionless things. Lucretious says:--
"'For often on a hill woolly sheep go creeping wherever the dew-sparkling grass tempts them, and the well-fed lambs play and butt their heads in sport. Yet in the distance all these are blurred together and seem but a whiteness resting on a green hill. Sometimes great armies cover wide fields in maneuvers mimicking war. The brilliant bronze of their shields illumines the countryside and is mirrored in the sky. The ground trembles and thunders under their marching feet and their galloping steeds. The mountains, buffeted by the sound, hurl it back to the very stars. Yet there is a place on the peaks from which these armies appear to be motionless, a little brightness resting on the plain.'
"The atoms [Lucretius never uses this word but calls his primordial particles primordia, elementa, or semina (seeds)] have parts -- minima, or 'least things' -- each minimum being solid, indivisible, ultimate. Perhaps because of the different arrangement of these parts, the atoms vary in size and shape, and so make possible the refreshing diversity of nature. The atoms do not move in straight or uniform lines. There is in their motion an incalcuable 'declination' or deviation, an elemental spontaneity that runs through all things and culminates in man's free will."
I remember in high school being taught that "energy can be neither created nor destroyed." And, if I understand Einstein correctly, energy and matter are one and the same.
Robby

Robby, about Debussy I remember hearing and "seeing" arabesque in one of the big Chateaux de la Loire in France. They choregraphed the water fountains in the garden to dance in accordance with the music played through loud speakers. The water spray raised, lowered to different different heights and tempo. It was a most enjoyable experience.

All our beliefs are important to us, Kiwi, Eloise, and it doesn't matter if they are about religion or other things. We live by them and it is very hard for anyone to make us change them. It is even hard for us to change them: they are part of us.

Here on SoC I've found that noone tries to do that but in the contrary seems genuinely interested in hearing different views expressed. SoC seems like the permanent safe haven in the microcosm of SN, just as SN is the beacon light among all the sites found on the net.

I am reading most attentively all the Lucretius part now because I don't remember him much from school, it was just a name among others apparently. I will need to read Thoreau too I suppose. My reading was around Rousseau writing Emile... but they are very different.

I return home tomorrow and am about 50 posts behind the group. Your discussion is so interesting that I want to read most if not all of the posts before adding my 2 cents. I may be able to catch up today.

By the way it is very cold.

I was born into a Protestant family. When I was a little girl it seemed as if the world was made up of Protestants, Catholics and Jews. Because many of my schoolmates were Catholic and Jewish I started then to try to find out what the difference was between what they believed and what I was learning at a Protestant church.

The aunt who raised me worked for a Jew, and she talked at the supper table about various Jewish holidays and rituals her boss celebrated. A girlfriend in elementary school told me about Hanukkah and why Jews didn't exchange Christmas presents or have a Christmas tree.

Later when I was a teenager I had a boyfriend who said as soon as he got out of the Navy he was going to be a priest. He didn't; he met a girl and got married at a fairly young age. Before that happened he showed me his missal and told me about the mass. Then I went to mass with a girlfriend and saw what that was like.

In the meantime, the rabbi of one of the temples came to my church several times and talked to us from the pulpit. My religious education had begun and was enhanced by the fact that in Sunday school we learned about many religions. I still thought the world was divided into Catholics, Protestants and Jews because that's what I saw.

In the women's college I went to I took a course in world religions taught by a professor who was also a Unitarian minister. We studied many different religions in that class, but I still thought the world consisted of Catholics, Protestants and Jews because those were the religions of the girls I met -- except for one, the daughter of a Harvard professor. She was an atheist and was supposed to be my roommate. For anyone to be an atheist was unthinkable to me then. I couldn't understand it at all. The girl's beliefs frightened me, and I made arrangements to have another roommate, not realizing at the time how biased and prejudiced I was.

I married a scientist who questioned my beliefs ( and everything else ). His father was a Quaker, and he had not been raised in any particular religion. Through him I learned a different kind of thinking, one with more of a scientific and a less emotional approach.

Because I was a singer I had sung and listened to sermons in churches of practically every Protestant denomination in my hometown. I had gone to many Catholic masses. I had been a bridesmaid in a temple at the Jewish wedding of my best college friend. I had gone to a Pentecostal church with my cleaning woman and heard people talk in tongues.

After all of this "education", it was only after September 11, 2003 that I truly realized that the world is not just made up of Christians and Jews. I began to learn everything I could about Islam. This discussion stimulated me to do research about Hinduism, Buddhism, Ancient Greek myths and gods and other religions. I started thinking not just as a Christian but in many different ways.

I fully understand what Justin is saying about the influences that led to Christianity. When we start discussing it I am certain I'll see this religion in a different way from what I ever have before.

Since the first day this discussion began on November 1, 2001 and we talked about prehistoric human beings and their beliefs and rituals, I have learned more about religions than I ever knew. My mind has opened wider than it ever was before, and I trust that my education here will continue.

Mal

Lucretius: De Rerum Natura
In Latin
Copied by Girolamo di Matteo de Tauris for Sixtus IV
Italy
1483

"This elegant manuscript of Lucretius's philosophical poem, copied by an Augustinian friar for a pope, is an example of the interest in ancient accounts of nature taken by the Renaissance curia. The work, written in the first century B.C., contains one of the principal accounts of ancient atomism. The poem was little known in the Middle Ages and its author dismissed as an atheist and lunatic, but after the discovery of an early manuscript in 1417 by the humanist and papal secretary Poggio Bracciolini, it circulated widely in Italy. This is one of numerous copies made at that time. The coat of arms of Sixtus IV appears on this page"

Picture: Manuscript

Mal and others - you may want to drop in on the Religion and Evil discussion as we are into the good stuff - war in the name of religion. There is, of course, a tie in with the origins of Christianity as the Roman state religion. I find it fascinating how these discussions relate to one another.

If we discuss him much longer, I might even learn to spell his name.

The thing that is so interesting about him is that many of his ideas predate the scientific theories that we will be studying later, and yet they are way out of step with his times (as we have come to understand them). Most of us are to a large extent prisoners of the time and place where we live in our ideas and world view. A few see a little bit outside that, and may lead the rest of us. He seems (although I haven't read his Greek predecessors) to have taken a big step. We will meet the rediscovery of these ideas several volumes later. Most of his "scientific" ideas we now take for granted, and live comfortably with both those and religeous belief. We have fogotten the big difference between believing that the sun rises because of a planetary system which can be understood and believing that it rises because a god is driving a chariot across the sky. This kind of thinking would have been a revolution.

"All was once formless. But the gradual assortment of the moving atoms by their size and shape produced -- without design -- air, fire, water, and earth, and out of these the sun and moon, the planets and stars. In the infinity of space new worlds are ever being born, and old worlds are wasting away.
"The stars are fires set in the ring of ether (a mist of thinnest atoms) that surrounds each planetary system. This cosmic wall of fire constitutes the 'flaming ramparts of the world.' A portion of the primeval mist broke off from the mass, revolved separately, and cooled to form the earth.
"Earthquakes are not the growling of deities, but the expansion of subterranean gases and streams. Thunder and lightning are not the voice and breath of a god, but natural results of condensed and clashing clouds.
"Rain is not the mercy of Jove, but the return to earth of moisture evaporated from it by the sun."
All this 2,000 years ago! Were they correct, or nearly correct, two millennia ago? Or are our current beliefs wrong? I wonder if Newton, Copernicus, and others of a later date read these ancient treatises.

Robby

I am posting this ARTICLE from today's NY Times in response to occasional comments here that the study of ancient civilizations seems to contain an overabundance of killings -- sometimes in the thousands.
And once again Voltaire's question in the Heading comes to mind.

Robby

We knew all this scientific stuff 2000 years ago and could well have expanded upon it but superstition took over and has ruled the world since. The dark ages are not over. In the 17th Century Galileo was threatened with torture for explaining the nature of the universe. Stem cell research is not allowed today by a superstition guided leader of the most important country in the world. When will this irrational constraint upon human power cease to be a threat to civilization?

To me Justin there are ethical limits. Cloning is one thing I would really draw the line at- also to designer babies. I believe its immoral to abort foetuses if for instance you live in a culture where boys are more popular and when a girl baby is conceived the foetus is aborted. That is so repugnant to me. All these things are made possible because of the misuse of scientific advances.

I say it's a pathetic shame that, as Justin has said, the world has been ruled by superstition practically since time began. The conclusions Lucretius drew from scientific study and experiments of the past were absolutely correct, and for about 1800 years the world lay in darkness because belief in superstition caused the shunning of and death of people of his brilliance to shut them up.

Today stem cell research and development are prevented by the idea that this is somehow against some god's will and not natural. By denying this advance, we are denying recovery from illnesses for which there is no real cure; we are denying normal physical capability to people who have been badly injured and damaged in accidents; we could be denying someone like BUBBLE and me a better and easier quality of life; we could be denying a cure for AIDS.

Will it never end? Will science remain a fearsome mystery to the people who most need the kind of help it can give? I see far more strenuous objection to stem cell research than I remember seeing to scientists researching and developing atom and hydrogen bombs. Which of the two is most dangerous? Which of the two is the most threat?

As long as we close our minds to the laws of nature as displayed by science, human beings will remain irrational and ignorant about ways to stop disease and pestilence and even perhaps wars. Healthy people who have enough to sustain their lives do not kill each other in order to gain something better than what they already have.

Mal

Kiwi: If "designer babies" means removing the genes that cause cancer etc. I'm afraid I favor that scientific advance. If the term means making all the gals appear as Marilyn Monroe or Clodia appeared, I oppose that. I like uniqueness in humans. If it means cleaning up a mal formed child before birth, I like that. "Designer babies" sounds like a political term somewhat similar to "partial birth abortions." These are terms designed to attract opposition to a procedure one does not agree with.

If one aborts a foetus simply because it's gender does not meet social criteria, I think that is wrong. If there are not enough women in the world, the human race will disappear. There are valid reasons for abortion but social engineering (there is another political term) is not one of them.

Cloning is here. Never mind the ethical objections. We can't stop it. The significant issues are those of application and regulation.

"Life does not differ essentially from other matter. It is a product of moving atoms which are individually dead. As the Universe took form by the inherent laws of matter, so the earth produced by a purely natural selection all the species and organs of life. Says Lucretius:--
"'Nothing arises in the body in order that we may use it, but what arises brings forth its own use. It was no design of the atoms that led them to arrange themselves in order with keen intelligence but because many atoms in infinite time have moved and met in all manner of ways, trying all combinations. Hence arose the beginnings of great things and the generations of living creatures. Many were the monsters that the earth tried to make -- some without feet, and others without hands or mouth or face, or with limbs bound to their frames. It was in vain. Nature denied them growth, nor could they find food or join in the way of love. Many kinds of animals must have perished then, unable to forge the chain of procreation, for those to which nature gave no protective qualities lay at the mercy of others, and were soon destroyed.'"
If ever I heard Darwin's Theory of Evolution, this is it.

Robby

Yes, Robby: Even the words "natural selection" coincide with those of Darwin.

Mal, your post # 775 is very good, but I can not agree with your last sentence :" Healthy people who have enough to sustain their lives do not kill each other in order to gain something better than what they already have."

Bert:--What is it about that sentence that you disagree with? And why?

Robby

"Mind (animus) is an organ precisely like feet or eyes. It is, like them, a tool or function of that soul (anima) or vital breath which is spread as a very fine matter throughout the body, and animates every part. Upon the highly sensitive atoms that form the mind fall the images or films that perpetually emanate from the surfaces of things. This is the source of sensation.
"Taste, smell, hearing, sight, and touch are caused by particles coming from objects and striking tongue or palate, nostrils, ears, eyes, or skin. All senses are forms of touch. The senses are the final test of truth. If they seem to err, it is only through misinterpretation, and only another sense can correct them. Reason cannot be the test of truth, for reason depends upon experience -- i.e. sensation.
"The soul is neither spiritual nor immoral. It could not move the body unless it too were corporeal. it grows and ages with the body. It is affected like the body by disease, medicine, or wine. Its atoms are apparently dispersed when the body dies.
"Soul without body would be senseless, meaningless. Of what use would soul be without organs of touch, taste, smell, hearing, and sight? Life is given us not in freehold but on loan, and for so long as we can make use of it.
"When we have exhausted our powers we should leave the table of life as graciously as a grateful guest rising from a feast. Death itself is not terrible. Only our fears of the hereafter make it so.
"But there is no hereafter. Hell is here in the suffering that comes from ignorance, passion, pugnacity, and greed. Heaven is here in the sapientum temple serena -- 'the serene temples of the wise.'"
I remember in Psychology 101 being taught that sensation, as described above, was one theory. But at no time did they tell me that this theory existed in Ancient Rome two millennia ago.
As for soul, to this day people disagree as to what it is or whether it exists at all. I love that definition of death as "leaving the table of life graciously." Each of us here has our own beliefs regarding a "hereafter" but as far as Lucretius is concerned, only the fear of Hell or other "futures" makes death terrible.
Robby

I wonder: Is birth terrible? Maybe it's the reason we don't have recall of it?

The unknow always looms as terrible.

As a male, I have often wondered about that "lack of recall" of birth. Is that always true? What do you mothers remember and what do you believe happened but you don't remember?

Robby

I don't know about the other mothers but for me when I learned that I was pregnant with my first child at 23, I was in awe. To think I was going to give birth to another human being made me very proud. I took great care of what I ate, what I read, how I spent my day, what kind of music I listened to, of what my thoughts were because I believe that a fetus absorbs the sensations of the mother to later consciously or not make it a part of his or her life.

The actual birth is blurred, the pain unimportant, because the baby vastly made up for it in the joy of holding a warm, soft beautiful bundle which was my own flesh and blood. This great experience is heard to describe, it is physical, emotional and spiritual.

Eloïse

I think BUBBLE meant that we don't recall being born. I certainly don't. Well, I had no language then; so how could I have described it? The birth experience has sparked the imagination of several writers and film-makers, though.

My first child was born by Caesarean section after 36 hours of labor. I woke up in a recovery room where I'd apparently been for a long time. I was exhausted. They didn't bring my baby boy in to me, and I was terribly worried. Very relieved, though, when they did let me see him. He was big, round-faced, pink and white because of the Caesarean birth, and beautiful. The labor experience gave me nightmares. I woke up screaming several times after I went home from a 9 day stay in the hospital, to the great consternation of my husband. With the other two I made an appointment; went in the hospital, and the babies were delivered right on schedule. With the second baby I woke up in the recovery room to hear a nurse scolding me. "If you don't stop thrashing around," she said, "we'll never get this blood into you." The idea that I needed a blood transfusion scared me awake. The third baby was the easiest of all. I was 31 years old by then.

My mother, on the other hand, had quick, easy deliveries. I was born at home and put in a bureau drawer for a bassinet, they told me. The story goes that when one of my sisters was born Mama did make it to the hospital. After the baby was born a nurse came in to see how my mother was and couldn't find her. She was out in the hall looking out the window because a big dirigible was supposed to pass by in the sky that day, and nothing would stop her from seeing that great event.

Mal

I don't remember reading or hearing about Lucretius before. What he concluded and knew two thousand years ago astonishes me. And why should it? The human brain had the same potential for reasoning and rational thought then as it does now. I guess it is the fact that his thinking was not corrupted by superstition is what astonishes me. Reading about him leads to all kinds of thought about what if? What if people had been more receptive to his knowledge? What would this world be like now?

Mal

I am late to this discussion and greatly regret it. I will read every post carefully. In October, I took a class with our local community college, Emeritus College, a college within the college for retired folks. The course was about Rome, the Republic, the first 500 years of Rome, with an excellent history professor. In the Spring quarter, I will take the follow-up course on the second 500 years of Rome.

It is my first experience with Roman history, and I am intrigued. I believe that our founding fathers had a very thorough knowledge of Rome, the Republic, and borrowed from it in creating our type of government.

Yes Mal, by birth I meant our own birth. It was such an event that I am always uncomprehending how we could have forgotten it, even without language. Surely there were many sensations too? The passage from darkness to light? the absence of a reassuring heartbeat?

Robby, Lack of recall in great pain is the way our mind protects itself. I went through lots of orthopedic surgeries, I only remember the satisfaction of improved balance, the thrill of progress made months after the operations. I never would have believed the hell of suffering,the nights of screaming when the morphine stopped helping and when the staff did not want to make an addict of me by adding another dose. I kept a diary all those years. The pages written in hospital read as if they were penned by an alien, not by me.

Oh, boy, BUBBLE, do I ever identify with the last paragraph of your Post #788! Once in a while memories of those terribly painful experiences come to me. I'm thankful that the mind has the ability to shut them out.

Mal

Every person needs to give and receive love.

"I strove with none, for none was worth my strife." (Walter S. Landor)

In my post #759, I wrote: "Empedocles became the first philosopher to argue that what exists can be reduced to four elements - air, earth, fire, and water. He said that all other substances result from temporary combinations of these elements. He also said that a force called "love" cause the elements to come together as compounds, and that a forced called "strife" causes the compounds to break up. He believed that the universe undergoes a continuous cycle from complete unification of the elements under the domination of love to complete separation of the elements under strife."

Going back to the first two sentences of this post I can see where "love" does cause the elements to come together while "strife" pulls them apart. Is our search for religion and belief really our serch for finding true love? Could this search also include finding ways to exclude "strife" from our lives? Do the easterns religions such as Buddhism or Tao come closest to fulfilling this search?

"Men fear death as children fear to go into the dark." (Francis Bacon)

Also in post #759, I wrote: "Epicurus beleived that the human mind was disturbed by two main anxieties: fear of deties (gods or goddesses) and fear of death. He said that death should not be feared because good and evil lie in sensation, and death ends sensation."

But perhaps it is not fear that we feel, but really dread. Fear is the general world meaning to be afraid while dread applies to a great fear. A fear that comes from knowing something unpleasant or frightening will or might happen or from expecting danger, often known or uncertain. But how can we dread something that is unknown? Perhaps this another reason to search for a belief or reigion that will comfort us.

Tooki asked: "Do poets know something we don't know?" Being a poet, myself, I'd like to answer that question. Poetry to me is like someone putting a hand into my soul and pulling it out by its roots. When I write poetry I write with a passion - I suffer and the poetry I write is a result of these sufferings. Therefore some of my strongest poems come from strife - wars, death, but also from love.

Scrawler

Scrawler, yes love is the most important sentiment I think too.

Mal and Bubble, Giving birth is nothing compared to going through what you two have and are going through with your disabilities and I feel deeply for whoever endures pain like that. It sure has given you a lot of strength.

Welcome, Connie! It's always great to see one of our early members from our America Online site on our web site. Your Emeritus course sounds wonderful. It should provide great synergy for this discussion.

Robby

About this sentence :”:" Healthy people who have enough to sustain their lives do not kill each other in order to gain something better than what they already have."

You asked me what it is about this sentence I don’t like (Don’t agree...) Greed, lust for power, Robby, the more a person has, the more he wants. Some people will go through any length to get it. We have been studying it here all along. But, you being a psychiatrist, you may not consider those people ‘Healthy people’.

JUSTIN, MAL: I am impressed by lucretius too. But he did not "know" that his theories were true. As far as I know, he did no experiments or gathered no evidence to support them. (What experiments could he have done to verify the existance of atoms with existing technologies). No, they were theories i.e. inspired guesses. The fact that we now "know" through evidence that many of them were correct does not change that. If people had believed him, it would have been through faith.

The thing that he could have contributed, if people had listened, was his basic premise that it is important to look into the nature of things, and that it is possible to understand the nature of things logically. I wasn't here when we discussed the Greeks, but it seems to me that there were many more Greeks that looked at the universe in that way. Do you agree? If so, it's interesting, since the Greeks had essentially the same religeon as the Romans. These issues are not as simple as we are making them.

Connie, welcome to our Books, I just took a course in India myself, and doesn't it whet the desire to learn more? I can see you have it, if you're remotely interested in reading some of the principals in their own words, please come to: Readings in Latin and sign in, you can do it with 0 years of Latin!

We're very glad to see you in our Books & Lit sections!

ginny

Welcome, CONNIE! I came to SeniorNet Online from SeniorNet AOL, too. With your course background I'm sure you'll have a lot to offer to this discussion. We're glad you're here!

JOAN, yes, there were Greeks whose philosophies and scientific studies resembled ideas Lucretius had, but I don't know of one whose ideas encompassed as much as those of Lucretius. Lucretius must have had the scientific and mathematical conclusions of certain Greeks like Pythagaros to draw on as proof, don't you think?

Mal

Connie:--I have just returned from the office and this is the first chance I have had to read your posting and, as your Discussion Leader, to welcome you. However, you have already been warmly welcomed by Marcie Schwarz, Senior Net Direction of Education, and Ginny, Host of the Books & Literature section. Both of these people have many other responsibilities in Senior Net, and we are honored and pleased to see their regular participation in our family group here.
Please look in the Heading above, Connie. The GREEN quotes are changed periodically and if you have Durant's third volume, Caesar and Christ, they will help you to see where in the book we are located. If you do not have the volume, keep a close eye on these quotes (which change rather often) and they will help you to see our current sub-topic which helps us all to remain together in our comments. This is a fast moving discussion group and we are looking forward to your regular comments.
Scrawler, you ask:--"How can we dread something which is unknown?"--I believe that our strong imagination plays a part. We don't, in my opinion, dread the "unknown" which is a blank, so to speak. How can we be afraid of "nothing." Instead, our minds imagine all sorts of terrible things as existing in our future and we end up dreading what we ourselves have concocted.

Robby

Durant continues:--"Virtue lies not in the fear of the gods, nor in the timid shunning of pleasure. It lies in the harmonious operation of senses and faculties guided by reason. 'Some men wear out their lives for the sake of a statue and fame' but 'the real wealth of man is to live simply with a mind at peace' (vivere parce acquo animo).
"Better than living stiffly in gilded halls is 'to lie in groups upon the soft grass beside a rivulet and under tall trees,' or to hear gentle music, or lose one's ego in the love and care of our children.
"Marriage is good, but passionate love is a madness that strips the mind of clarity and reason. 'If one is wounded by the shafts of Venus -- whether it be a boy with girlish limbs who launches the shaft, or a woman radiating love from her whole body -- he is drawn toward the source of the blow, and longs to unite.'
"No marriage and no society can find a sound basis in such erotic befuddlement."
Anyone here want to look back a few years (or even currently) and talk of "erotic befuddlement? Anyone want to speak of their love of children? Any one here "living simply with a mind at peace?"

Robby

What wise words- "erotic befuddlement". That man was clued up!

I don't want to get too much into my personal life here but suffice to say I am as much at peace as I can possibly be. How I achieved this was with a lot of hard work on myself! The most important thing in my life is my family - four kids and 6 grands. Followed closely by my two dogs. The kids might disagree as to whether they or the dogs come first LOL! People mean much more to me than material things. I have learnt to treasure family and good friends. One of my best friends is my eldest daughter. I am very content with that! Life is very good for me. I count my blessings every day.

JoanK; Some of the things Lucretius talked about- atoms for example, are worthwhile contributions to civilization. It is just the expression of the idea that is so valuable. Later contributors would have expanded on that idea. Unfortunately there were no later contributors, only folks who knew the the truth lay in mystical figures.

Other things Lucetius talked about, such as allaying one's fear of death by suggesting an absence of life after death and an end to sensation which removes pain. These observations are not necessarily demonstrative, even today. However, they are preferable postulates to hell, purgatory and heaven.

There are those who say the state of "being in love" is right next door to madness. It certainly can blind one. The lucky ones are those who marry their best friend.

There were times when my children taxed my patience and strength so much that I gladly would have seen them off in a spaceship which would have taken them into the middle of next week. That's love, baby.

My mind is most at peace when it is focused on something creative like building beautiful web pages or writing yet another book which probably won't sell. I felt the same way playing the piano for hours and hours or painting pictures when I still could. Those experiences are like the losing and gaining of my Self at the same time.

Mal

Mal:--I believe your daughter, Dorian, is going to take you to the Virginia Bash in May? That's love!!

Robby

Here are some TERMS related to "peace of mind."

Robby

Robby- euphoria is not a state I would class as being peace of mind. Peace of mind to me is more being content and your mind having tranquillity.

ROBBY, Dorian is no longer the little four year old who took change out of my purse and went to a candy store alone four busy blocks away with two little neighbor boys or the one who disappeared into the woods with a boyfriend at the age of eleven and lost her mother's antique quilts and the way home, or, or, or. When her hands-and-knees mother looked up from the floor she was washing and discovered her daughter missing, she was fraught with worry. The little girl Dorian now is grown up woman. After years of her preferring her father, I managed to convince her that I am okay, and we became good friends. What we do for each other is reciprocal. Neither one of us forgets the love between us and what we do for each other. Now I'll tell you about my sons . . . .

Mal

I'll never forget how I felt when I found an essay my second son wrote. In it he said, "Which would you choose? The stunted, twisted, live oak mother or the tall, straight, spruce tree father?"

My children seemed to think they could love their father or their mother, but not both at the same time. To say my relationship with my children was not affected by my having had polio would be a lie.

Yet whom do you think all three of them went to when they got in trouble as young adults?

Mal

Hi Robby!

Just to let you know, I am still here and learning!

Peace of mind - quiet solitude to recoup from the trails and tribulations of the day.

Moxi:--You keep coming in sporadically, telling us that you are learning. But of course we all are. Most of here admit that we are not history experts or experts in anything when you get right down to it. I know that I am not. So tell us your thoughts from time to time. Share the thoughts that bounce around in your head just as they do in our heads. Share with us, as you did, that for you peace of mind is "quiet solitude." Talk to us about motherhood and fatherhood and children and life in general.
That is what Lucretius did. We have as much right to do it as Lucretius did.

Robby

We seem to be living in an age of throw away everything. Throw away babies, throw away relationships and throw away friends. I think we have lost our ability to work things out. Its just "out with the old and in with the new". If it don't work chuck it! I think that is so sad. Relationships are not easy. They require continuous nurturing and jolly hard work. We don't seem to want to do the work these days.

Carolyn

Mal, you are a precious woman. Beautiful posts. Our daughters look after us very well in our old age because they give us the most precious thing a person can give, their time.

A sure test if someone is content is if they live a long long time.

Eloïse

"As Lucretius, exhausting his passions on philosophy, finds no room for romantic love, so he rejects the romantic anthropology of Greek Rousseauians who had glorified primitive life.
"Men were hardier than, to be sure. But they dwelt in caves without fire, they mated without marriage, killed without law, and died of starvation as frequently as people in civilization die of overeating.
"How civilization developed, Lucretius tells in a pretty summary of ancient anthropology. Social organization gave man the power to survive animals far stronger than himself. He discovered fire from the friction of leaves and boughs, developed language from gestures, and learned song from the birds. He tamed animals for his use, and himself with marriage and law. He tilled the soil, wove clothing, molded metals into tools. He observed the heavens, measured time, and learned navigation. He improved the art of killing, conquered the weak, and built cities and states.
"History is a procession of states and civilizations rising, prospering, decaying, dying. But each in turn transmits the civilizing heritage of customs, morals, and arts -- 'like runners in a race they hand on the lamps of life' (et quasi cursores vitai lampada tradunt)."
Here, apparently, is Lucretius' answer to Voltaire's question in the Heading above.

Robby

Robby:Instead, our minds imagine all sorts of terrible things as existing in our future and we end up dreading what we ourselves have concocted.

"History is a procession of states and civilizations rising, prospering, decaying, dying. But each in turn transmits the civilizing heritage of customs, morals, and arts -- 'like runners in a race they hand on the lamps of life' (et quasi cursores vitai lampada tradunt)."

It has been a revelation that I am the concoting one. So simple, and so hard to see. Thanks Robby!

That is a fantastic definition of History, but we don't seem to learn it. Why isn't Lucretius taught in schools? History was my most disliked subject but with Durant and this group it has taken a totally new flavor. We seem less patient today than long ago, always over-reacting instead of analyzing first. I always thought that was a heritage from the Romans since they were less refined than the Greeks and generally looked more impulsive.

Tou our Latin experts: how would you call a "triumvira" of 3 women? Or maybe they didn't have a name for it since the notion was unknown?

"All things that grow decay -- organs, organisms, families, states, races, planets, stars. Only the atoms never die. The forces of creation and development are balanced by the forces of destruction in a vast diastole and systole of life and death.
"In nature there is evil as well as good. Suffering, even unmerited, comes to every life, and dissolution dogs the steps of every evolution. Our earth itself is dying. Earthquakes are breaking it up.
"The land is becoming exhausted. Rains and rivers erode it, and carry even the mountains at last into the sea. Someday our whole stellar system will suffer a like mortality. 'The walls of the sky will be stormed on every side, and will collapse into a crumbling ruin.'
"But the very moment of mortality betrays the invincible vitality of the world. 'The wailing of the newborn infant is mingled with the dirge sung for the dead.'
"New systems form, new stars and planets, another earth, and fresher life. Evolution begins again."
I use the term systolic (high figure on blood pressure) and diastolic (low figure) all the time in my work but here Durant uses the terms differently from what I have ever heard.
What amazes me as I read the thoughts of Lucretius is that he was not a scientist -- he was a poet!!
Perhaps the question by Job in the Bible as to why all those events happened to him is answered by Lucretius.

Robby

You mentioned Job, ROBBY, and I immediately thought of this poem, written for me by my friend, Jim Fowler.

THE BRACE

If I were the dungeon master,

this would seem so common.

Chromed steel and leather, locked

compliance from your passive limb.

No smile on my face. For it is the will

of God that makes you call to angels

in pain and frustration, as this archaic

apparatus forces you to perform.

And perform you will, straight legged

to all that life demands. But secretly

you will know this is no torture,

but shaping of spirit, the way of Job.

Lucifer's perfect man, until he asked

"Why me?" and God said, "Because."

© James E. Fowler

Here in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains the snow was a bit more than we thought it would be (6") and the roads are icy (ice is worse than snow) and more snow is predicted for later in the day. So I cancelled out today's appointments and you may hear from me more often that you usually do on a weekday.

Robby

Robby!

Coming from the same region of the country as Mal, what she says often is what I would say to you. She says it much more tactfully than I, that I tend to hold back! Do not say NAY, Robby, I will speak when the timing for me is correct.

I'm sure you will, Moxi. No pressure!!

Robby

That's great for us, ROBBY. Make yourself some hot cocoa and enjoy the day.

"Shut in from all the world without,
We sat the clean-winged hearth about,
Content to let the north-wind roar
In baffled rage at pane and door.”

Remember that? Snowbound by Whittier.

"The forces of creation and development are balanced by the forces of destruction in a vast diastole and systole of life and death." Wow! Don't you wish you'd said that? The pressure reading of the earth and civilization. When one or the other goes up, or down too low, the world is out of balance. Is Lucretius saying that Nature itself is responsible for the rise and collapse of civilizations, or is he saying that human beings are? We humans are part of Nature, aren't we? What makes us do what we do? Ourselves or forces of Nature?

I see no reason why a poet can't have the same rational mind as a scientist. I posted Jim Fowler's poem earlier for two reasons. He is not only a poet; he's a mechnical engineer, a partner in a medical instruments business, who thinks and reasons like a scientist on the one hand, and writes poetry on the other. Wasn't Da Vinci like this? I see no reason why both the left and right hemispheres of the brain can't be developed. Lucretius obviously used both. I still think it's a shame that people didn't pay attention to what he said, and it's hard for me to understand why they don't even today in the 21st century.

Why are people so reluctant to let go of myths and superstition and the use of war as an answer instead of opening their minds to better, easier, more rational ways? Why do we persist in following old systems of thinking and methods which have been proven throughout history not to work?

Mal

As we continue to read, it is important to differentiate between what Durant is saying and the quotes of Lucretius or others. If the sentence is enclosed in single quotes, then Lucretius said that. Otherwise it is Durant paraphrasing what Lucretius said -- which might be most accurate. He just does not want to give us a whole volume of quotes by Greeks and Romans. He is telling us a "story."

Robby

I understand that it is Durant who said what I quoted in Post # 818. Isn't this an example of Durant's interpretation of what Lucretius believed?

Mal

Here are some words related to MORTALITY.

I am back in Cayman and looking at pictures on CNN of Baltimore under a six inch blanket of snow. I am glad to be home.

This morning I read about Lucretius and De Rerum Natura. I had not really know about Lucretius before and am flabergasted. He was a man ahead of his time. There are too many intertesting passages to point to - Atoms, evolution, religion, soul. I am not sure why his name never came up in the History of Science courses I took, or perhaps my memory is just bad. It is interesting that Durant says, "Like Euripedes, Lucretius is a modern; his thought and feeling are more congenial to our time than to the century before Christ". But his message went unheard. Robbie I apologize if I am a bit ahead but I want to also include this quote from Durant because I find it so important in our understanding of Western Civilization. "In the endless struggle of East and West, of 'tender-minded' and consoling faiths vs. a 'tough-minded' and materialistic science, Lucretius waged alone the most vigorous battle of his time." Perhaps we are seeing that battle being waged again today!!!

I picked up a most interesting book in the airport yesterday, Bernard Lewis's What Went Wrong, The Clash between Islam and Modernity. When we reach the end of this volume of Durant's work, it might be interesting to make a side journey into the background of the clash between Islam and Christianity. Perhaps in another discussion group. By the way Lewis has written a number of books and it is possible that there is another that would be better for discussion.

Here are some words related to CREATION.

Ever so gradually we are approaching what will be for me, as Discussion Leader, a ticklish area. Currently, we are talking about Lucretius who speaks of Evolution. Let us keep in mind that we have participants in our family here who are Jewish and Christian and who may believe in the story of creation as described in the Bible. Whether they actually believe in that story or not is irrelevant to me, as DL. The basic fact is that they are of the Jewish or Christian faith and this is to be respected.
What does that mean specifically? That means that a Christian, for example, does not consider him/herself to be partaking of a superstition. We, of the 21st century, can in our "infinite wisdom" call the worship of Zeus or Jupiter a superstitution and get away with it because there are no Ancient Greeks here to chastise us. But to take the same approach toward current beliefs is unacceptable. Faiths are tied up with emotion and looking at history "logically" is all well and good providing we are not subtly attacking the faith of another.
Not too long from now as we examine the times of the Caesars and beyond, we will often be writing the words "Christian" and "Christianity." Speaking as DL, I will not accept their being labeled "superstitions." Some folks here may consider them so, and that is their prerogative, but not to be stated in a posting. Here in this forum we are not FOR any religion or AGAINST any religion, at least not publicly.
I may be grabbing hold of a baseball bat to kill an imminent fly, but as a Scout, I believe in "being prepared."

Robby

Robbie, I appreciate your handling of your role as leader. I would hope that a number of members of this group might lurk in on (and even join in) the discussion of Religion Related Books that is on the last two chapters of the Kimball book. There is much that we can learn from one another.

I understand your concern, ROBBY, but would like to point out that under the classifications of "Christian" and "Jewish" there are many categories or types. There are Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews and Reformed Jews, all of whom are Jews with different views.

There are Catholics and Protestants under the classification of Christian. Under the category of Protestant there are many, many categories, some of which believe in Creation as it is stated in the Bible, and others that do not.

Since I've been in this discussion I've seen two practicing Jews who participate on this board. I don't know what category either of these persons is in.

I know of at least one practicing Catholic who posts here.

I see Protestants who vary from strict adherence to their religious training to at least one who has a much less strict view.

I know of one possible atheist and perhaps two agnostics.

There is one Muslim who posts in this discussion.

We have discussed religion after religion here, including Judaism and Islam, and I don't recall any great conflict because of our different beliefs and views, or any particular conflict at all.

We are of varied beliefs and backgrounds here, and yet have managed to have stimulating, peaceful and instructive discussions. Why should we expect any conflict with a discussion of yet another religion: Christianity?

We are here to discuss ancient history, I thought, in as objective way possible so we can learn. I submit that there is not one of us here who would knowingly insult the faith of any person who posts here or lurks. If it appears that such an insult has inadvertently occurred, I for one want to know of my indiscretion so I won't repeat the mistake. I'm sure this is true of everyone here.

Mal

We are here to discuss ancient history, I thought, in as objective way possible so we can learn. I submit that there is not one of us here who would knowingly insult the faith of any person who posts here or lurks.

Robby: thank you for reminding us of the difference between what Lucretius says and what Durant says. It's interesting to me that Lucretius has inspired Durant to write sentances that are almost as poetic as Lucretius's.

On the cycle of creation and destruction, I believe there is a similiar belif in Buddism: that we are now in a cycle of existance which will pass into non-existance and back, endlessly.

I once read a very interesting book on the way different peoples view time. I can't remember the name or author, but I remember what he said. In agricultural communities, time is seen as cyclical, like the rise and fall of the sun. This, he said, is the time of old civilizations, civilizations that live with the ruins of the civilization that preceded them.

Yes, Mal, I am aware of the sub-divisions of various religions. And, of course, no one here will "knowingly insult the faith of any person." My purpose is to call to the conscious awareness of everyone here that Christianity and Jewish faiths are not superstitions to some participants and not to be referred to as such. Sometimes "objectivity" can blind us temporarily to the feelings of others.
Let no one here take this personally. This is just your friendly DL looking farther down the road.

Robby

Durant continues:--

"Looking back over this 'most marvelous performance in all antique literature, we may first recognize its shortcomings -- the chaos of its contents, left unrevised by the poet's early death -- the repetition of phrases, lines, whole passages -- the conception of sun, moon, and stars as no larger than we see them -- the inability of the system to explain how dead atoms became life and consciousness -- the insensitiveness to the insights, consolations, inspirations, and moving poetry of faith -- and the moral and social functions of religion.

"But how light these faults are in the scale against the brave attempt at a rational interpretation of the universe, of history, of religion, of disease ('there are many seeds of things that support our life and on the other hand there must be many flying about that make for disease and death'), -- the picture of nature as a world of law, in which matter and motion are never diminished or increased -- the grandeur of the theme and the nobility of its treatment -- the sustained power of imagination that feels everywhere 'the majesty of things,' and lifts the visions of Empedocles -- the science of Democritus -- and the ethics of Epicurus into some of the loftiest poetry that any age has known.

"Here was a language still rough and immature, almost devoid as yet of philosophical or scientific terms. Lucretius does not merely create a new vocabulary. He forces the old speech into new channels of rhythm and grace. And while molding the hexameter into an unequaled masculinity of power, reaches now and then the mellow tenderness and fluency of Virgil.

"The sustained vitality of his poem shows Lucretius as one who amid all sufferings and disappointments enjoyed and exhaused life almost from birth to death."

Your comments, please?

Robby

All of you here are most cordially invited to join the new discussion group where I will be the Discussion Leader. It is about Activism and is built around Studs Terkel's new book, "Hope Dies Last." If you click HERE you will see the introductory paragraph which will give you an idea of the theme of the forum. The current starting date is Monday, January 19, but if it is necessary, the date can be changed to Monday, February 2, to allow time for your buying the book.
All this will in no way change what we are doing here in SofC nor my responsibility as DL. As we all believe, it will go on for years whereas the discussion about Activism will probably last a couple of months.
I just KNOW that all of you here would enjoy it. Indicate in a posting there that you are interested and your date preference. And, of course, be sure to click the "Subscribe" button so you can watch as the group increases.

Robby

Cicero's Pen:

"Neither publisher nor bookseller gave the author anything except courtesy and occasional gifts; royalties were known."

I guess some things never change - especially for poets.

"It was the age of "outlines"; summaries on every subject struggled to meet the needs of a hurried commercial age."

Are you sure he wasn't talking about the 21st century? Sounds the same to me.

"He [Cicero] tells Piso that virgins kill themselves to escape his lechery..."

Boy! This guy certainly has a way with words, but I'm not sure I'd call it eloquence. But perhaps the statement referred to the way he said it rather than what he said.

"He [Cicero] had praised the study of literature as "nourishing our adolescence, adjourning our prosperity, and delighting our old age."

I'm not sure about "adjourning our prosperity" but I certainly agree with the other two thoughts.

"Democracy is good when the people are virtuous, which Cicero thought is never..."

Could this be why we have the problems we have in our own Republic today? We just don't hve enough virtuous people left.

"The Origin of the Species":

"The publication of "The Origin of the Species" in 1859 had tremendous influence on religious thinking. Some clergymen, like Henry Ward Beecher, embraced the theory of eveolution and found it compatible with their views on the relationship between God and man. Many vehemently rejected Darwinism, and the controversy still rages." - "Uncle Tom's Cabin & Mid-nineteenth Century"

Childbirth:

"Childbirth in the nineteenth century was accomplished, as it had been for centuries, at home, with the help of a midwife. Midwives and "men midwives," had no formal training in delivery, usually learning their skill from family memembers. Though there were many who knew their craft well and carried it out with compassion, there had always been a high morality rate due to ineptitude, unsanitary conditions and overdosing with both laudanum and opium, which were used to lessen the mother's pain and to quiet the cries of child." - "Everyday Life in Regency and Victorian England" (1800s)

"Doubtless many couples wished to limit the number of these children, but effective contraceptive methods were little known or practiced. However, the widely read advice of Sylvester Graham, a Presbyterian minister and reformer might have, if followed, prevented a few births. Believing the current theory of his day that one once of seaman equaled about 40 ounces of blood; Graham advocated that husbands remain robust by having sexual intercourse no more than 12 times a year. Many women must have desired infrequent intercourse, if only for the reason that it could mean fewer babies and fewer deaths from childbirth" - "Uncle Tom's Cabin & Mid-nineteenth Century"

Ancient Origins:

Curiosity of ancient peoples concerning day and night and the sun, moon, and stars led eventually to the observation that the heavenly bodies appear to move in a regular manner that is useful in defining time and direction on the earth. Astronomy grew out of problems originating from the first civilizations, that is, the need to establish with precision the proper times for planting and harvesting crops and for religious celebrations and find bearings and latitudes on long trading journeys or voyages.

To ancient people the sky exhibited many regularities of behavior. The bright sun, which divided daytime from nighttime, rose every morning from one direction, the east, moved steadily across the sky during the day, and set in a nearly opposite direction, the west. At night more than 1000 visible stars followed a similar course, appearing to rotate in permanent groupings, called constellations, around a fixed point in sky which is known as the north celestial pole.

Scrawler

Scrawler:--We are on Page 154 in the volume and you are a bit ahead of us on Page 161 with "Cicero's Pen" but we'll get there shortly.
I found it interesting that opium was used to quiet the cries of the child. I can understand the opium use with the mother (morphine used these days is a derivative) but I wonder what that drug does to a new-born child. And why try to quiet the cries anyway?

Robby

Systole and Diastole are not just high and low descriptions of blood pressure, but as you well know they describe the beginning of the push of the heart and the very end of the push. It is in this sense that the terms may be applied to the birth and death sequence of life.

Robby: I will avoid use of the word superstition, if you insist. I can understand why believers of one kind or another might object to the term.

We are gradually coming to an era in which several religions will comingle and emerge in new forms. I hope we (all of us)will be able to examine that process in an objective way without hurting anyone and without severely limiting restrictions.

I appreciate that, Justin. For some people, that is a loaded word. I'm sure we can look at the topic of religion objectively while simultaneously taking into consideration the various faiths of our participants.

Robby

"How did he die? Saint Jerome reports that 'Lucretius was driven mad by a love philter, after he had written several books. He died by his own hand in his forty-fourth year.' The story is uncorroborated, and has been much doubted. No saint could be trusted to give an objective account of Lucretius. Some critics have found support for the story in the unnatural tensions of the poems, its poorly organized contents, and its sudden end, but one need not be a Lucretius to be excitable, disorderly, or dead.
"Like Euripides, Lucretius is a modern. His thought and feelings are more congenial to our time than to the century before Christ. Horace and Virgil were deeply influenced by him in their youth, and recall him without name in many a lordly phrase. But the attempt of Augustus to restore the old faith made it unwise for these imperial proteges to express too openly their admiration and their debt.
"The epicurean philosophy was as unsuited to the Roman mind as epicurean practices suited Roman taste in the age of Lucretius. Rome wanted a metaphysic that would exalt mystic powers rather than natural law -- an ethic that would make a virile and martial people rather than humanitarian lovers of quiet and peace -- and a political philosophy that, like those of Virgil and Horace, would justify Rome's imperial mastery.
"In the resurrection of faith after Seneca, Lucretius was almost forgotten. Not until Poggio rediscovered him in 1418 did he begin to influence European thought. A physician of Verona, Girolamo Fracastoro (1483-1553) took from the poet the theory of disease as due to noxious 'seeds' (semina) floating in the air. In 1647 Gassendi revived the atomic philosophy. Voltaire read the De Rerum Natura devotedly, and agreed with Ovid that its rebel verses would last as long as the earth."
Durant adds that "the words Epicurean and Stoic are used in these volumes as meaning a believer in the metaphysics and ethics of Epicurus, or of Zeno -- epicurean and stoic as meaning one who practices or avoids, soft living and sensual indulgence."
How often it seems that we are recognized and admired long after our death and that, during our lifetime, our views must be suppressed.
Robby

Sorry, ROBBY, but I think this is important to say.

I think it works both ways. There have been things said here from time to time which have either belittled or insulted what I believe.

If I'd wanted to I could have taken those comments; posted about them, and worked them up into a real disagreement that might have escalated in a way that the purpose of this discussion, as I see it, would have been put on a sidetrack while we worked things out.

Rather than do that, if I had any offended feelings, I took them elsewhere until I cooled down enough to consider rationally what had been said. In other words, I chose to let it roll off my back.

I think we all have to do this once in a while. It has been stated truthfully, I think, that no one here would deliberately and intentionally insult anyone else's beliefs. Let's keep that in mind and give a little leeway when it comes to feeling insulted or threatened by what someone else says.

Thanks.

Mal

Today is the first day of the rest of our lives. Let us as good friends move forward.

Robby

As we leave Lucretius, several people have note that this was their first experience with the man and his ideas and that he was not included in school history classes nor in Latin classes nor in the study of classical literature in university. Ginny may have hit upon him. I was lucky and stumbled upon a Penguin Edition of his "Nature of the Universe" some years ago. I must admit, I was influenced by his thinking. The question we should address is, Why was Lucretius not included in the study of Roman history. Emphasis has been placed upon Caesar, Pompey, Cato, Cicero,Catulus, Tacitus, Ovid, Virgil, and Horace but not Lucretius. Why?

After the death of L. Rome experienced a rebirth of religious faith. Later on we will see that Augustus, Pontifax Maximus, did not want someone of stature telling the people that worshiping the gods was a waste of time. Augustus declared himself a god and expected to be worshipped. So L. was forgotten for many centuries. He was rediscovered in the 15th century, I think, by a monk who may have been ordered to put L back in the dusty box. I'll bet L is on the Vatican's Index of proscribed books. Is there anyway we can find that out?

Probably Lucretius was not included because as it has been mentioned several times people thought and think he was insane. That is the only reason I can think of that hardly anyone including myself has ever heard of him. I really liked some of his ideas apart from his ideas on religion.

have never heard about L until now, the only thing I see is an individual whose thoughts were "DIFFERENT" than those during his lifetime. Insane, no way.

Kiwi: Only Jerome thought he was crazy and that was five centuries after L lived. Jerome quashed L around 400 CE. L. then remained buried for another millennium.

If L. was on the Index, then it sure is the reason he was never mentionned in my convent school!

Durant's final remarks about Lucretius:--

"In the endless struggle of East and West, of 'tender-minded' and consoling faiths vs. a 'tough-minded' and materialistic science, Lucretius waged alone the most vigorous battle of his time. He is, of course, the greatest of philosophical poets.

"In him, as in Catullus and Cicero, Latin literature came of age, and leadership in letters passed at last from Greece to Rome."

To end up this section, might we wax philosophical by asking if perhaps the leaders of those days were correct in their faith and that we with all our beliefs are all insane?

Robby

Looking for a list of Books on the Church Index, I came across this...

http://www.withchrist.org/archives.htm

Vatican Archives Reveal Bible Was Once Banned Book

Carolyn, I wonder how many people today in leadership who do not have some sort of mental problem.

Or in real life as well. Insanity is often used to describe people who don't follow the pack.

Bubble, when I was a child, the Bible was not allowed by the Catholic church along with other books put "À l'index", but I don't know if a rule still applies now. As far as I know it is not very well followed.

Robby, you know very well that correctness, or the final truth, is never attained and we could very well all be insane. Also, please tell me what "wax philosophical" means. I never heard that expression before but I only get the general drift.

Eloïse

"In 57 B.C. the Caius Memmius to whom Lucretius dedicated his poem left Rome to serve as propractor in Bithynia. After the growing custom of Roman governors he took with him an author -- not Lucretius, but a poet different from the other in everything but the strength of his passion. Quintus (or Caius) Valerius Catullus had come to Rome some five years before from his native Verona, where his father was of sufficient standing to be frequent host to Caesar.
"Quintus himself must have had a substantial competence, for he owned villas near Tibur and on Lake Garda and had an elegant house in Rome. He speaks of these properties as choked with mortgages, and repeatedly proclaims his poverty. But the picture we form of him from his poems is that of a polished man of the world who did not bother to earn a living, but enjoyed himself unstintingly among the wilder set in the capital.
"The keenest wits, the cleverest young orators and politicians belonged to this circle -- Marcus Caelius, the impecunious aristocrat who was to become a communist -- Licinius Calvus, brilliant in poetry and in law -- and Helvius Cinna, a poet whom Antony's mob would mistke for one of Caesar's assassins and beat to death. These men opposed Caesar with every epigram at their disposal, unaware that their literary revolt reflected the revolution in which they lived. They were tired of old forms in literature, of the crudity and bombast of Naevius and Ennius. They wished to sing the sentiments of youth in new and lyric meters, and with a refinement and delicacy of execution known once in the Alexandria of Callimachus, but never yet seen in Rome.
"And they were resentful of old morals, of the mos maiorum perpetually preached upon them by the exhausted elders. They announced the sanctity of instinct, the innocence of desire, and the grandeur of dissipation. They and Catullus were no worse than other young literary blades of their generation and the next.
"Horace, Ovid, Tibullus, Propertius, even the shy Virgil in his youth, made life and verse revolve around any woman, married or not, who fed their muses with facile casual love."
Interesting that governors leaving for foreign lands took authors with them. I wonder why they did that and why we don't.
"Their literary revolt reflected the revolution in which they lived." As I look at the rebelling of today's youth, I wonder if the "revolution" taking place now is bigger than many of us realize.
And Marcus Cailius -- a communist?! What is meant by that?

Robby

Eloise:--"Wax" is a poetical but rarely used word meaning to expand. If Lucretius can be poetical, why can't I?
Note the waxing and waning of the moon.

Robby

I also picked up Durant's use of the term communist and wondered if it existed in Roman times.

So 'waxed paper' is expanding paper.

Expanding its uses... ?

I guess I'll have to choose my words carefully. It looks as if I've started a new subtopic.

Robby

Erotic befuddlement I can dig it man!

A rejection of all philosophy is in itself philosophy:

"But light these faults are in the scale against the brave attempt at a rational interpretation of the universe, of history, of religion, of disease ('there are many seeds of things that support of life and on the other hand there must be many flying about that make for disease and death'), -- the picture of nature as a world of law, in which matter and motion are never diminished or increased - the grandeur of the theme and the nobility of its treatment -- the sustained power of imagination that feels everywhere 'the majesty of things,' and lifts the vision of Empedocles -- the science of Democritus - and the ethics of Epicurus into some of the lofiest poetry that any age has known."

Natural law is based upon nature or the natural tendency of human beings to exercise right reason in dealings with others. While it is apparent that natural law is not infallible, nevertheless some of them hold within the limits of experimental accuracy.

Philosophy is a study that seeks to understand the mysteries of existence and reality. It tries to discover the nature of truth and knowledge and to find what is of basic value and importance in life. It also examines the relationships between humanity and nature and between the individual and society. Philosophy arises out of wonder, curiosity, and the desire to know and understand. Philosophy is thus a form of inquiry - a process of analysis, criticism, interpretation, and speculation.

"How civilization developed, Lucretius tells in a pretty summary of ancient anthropology. Social oraganization gave man the power to survive animals far stronger than himself. He discovered fire from the friction of leaves and boughs, developed language from gestures, and learned song from the birds, he tamed animals for his use, and himself with marriage and law. He tilled the soil, wove clothing, molded metals into tools. He observed the heavens, measure time, and learned navigation. He improved the art of killing, conquered the weak, and built cities and states."

Every institution of society is based on philosophic ideas, whether that institution is law, government, religion, the family, marriage, industry, business, or education. Philosophic differences have let to the overthrow of governments, drastic changes in laws, and the transformation of entire economic systems. Such changes have occurred because the people involved held certain beliefs about what is important, true, real, and significant and about how life should be ordered."

Robby, during the Victorian Age everything was done with a sense of being proper, especially among the very rich. The cries of children were disturbing to some. I'm sure you've heard the saying: "Children should be seen and not heard." It came out of this time period. Queen Victoria, herself, ushered in the use of drugs during childbirth: "...Chloroform, was adopted for surgical use in 1847, but the public remained leery of accepting it until Queen Victoria was given it during childbirth in 1853." ("Everyday Life in Regency and Victorian England".)

Scrawler

"A rejection of all philosophy is, in itself, philosophy."
Very profound, Scrawler!

Robby

"The liveliest lady in this group was Clodia, of the proud old Claudian gens that even now had emperors in its loins. Apuleius assures us that it was she whom Catullus named Lesbia in memory of the Sappho whose poems he occasionally translated, often imitated, and always loved. Arriving in Rome at the age of twenty-two, he cultivated her friendship while her husband governed Cisalpine Gaul.
"He was fascinated the moment she 'set her shining foot on the well-worn threshold.' He called her his 'lustrous goddess of the delicate step.' Indeed, a woman's walk, like her voice, may be in itself a sufficient seduction. She accepted him graciously as one of her worshipers. The enraptured poet, unable to match otherwise the gifts of his rivals, laid at her feet the most beautiful lyrics in the Latin tongue.
"For her he translated perfectly Sappho's description of the lover's frenzy tht now raged in him, and to the sparrow that she pressed to her bosom he indited a jewel of jealousy:--
'Sparrow, delight of my beloved,
Who plays with you, and holds you to her breast;
Who offers her forefinger to your seeking,
And tempts your sharp bite;
I know not what dear jest it pleases my shining one
To make of my desire!'
Durant is very subtle with his words -- "well-worn threshold" - "worshipers".
If Mal has the time and inclination, she might want to give us some of the poems of Catullus.

Robby

It is not surprising to me to find the Bible on the Index. Children in parochial elementary school in the late Twenties and early Thirties were taught Christian doctrine from a catechism and history from a text called Bible History. The history book, fully illustrated, described the digestion of a whale after swallowing poor Jonah, the adventures of Noah at sea, the saving of Isaac from the hand of his knife wielding father, and the turning of Lot's wife to salt.

Bibilcal selections were made by the priest and served up at Mass in a Gospel reading. Excerpts from the four evangelists and Isaiah were most often used to launch the priest into a sermon. We were never encouraged to read on our own though most families had a Vulgate at home for recording births and deaths.

""In the endless struggle of East and West, of 'tender-minded' and consoling faiths vs. a 'tough-minded' and materialistic science, Lucretius waged alone the most vigorous battle of his time."

This is a very interesting dichotomy that Durant makes. I'm not sure it fits. I don't see the Roman religion as "tenderminded and consoling" or Lucretius as "tough minded". What do you all think?

Chloroform was rejected in childbirth in part because at that time it was believed that it was womens destiny to suffer in childbirth. But giving anesthetics is a very different issue from giving opium to babies. During much of the last few centuries, narcotics and addictive drugs were used freely in a way that would be unthinkable now, and prescribed for minor medical reasons. I don't know if the story that Coka Cola is called that because it originnally contained cocaine is true, but I have heard it from a number of sources.

Robby, If you don't know why they wanted to stop the baby's crying, it's been too long since you lived with a baby. I'll ship my grandson to you. He's not as bad as my daughter, who used to cry for 16 hours without stopping, but almost.

Robby: US officials traveling to foreign lands travel not with an author but with hundreds of authors. Many try to meet early deadlines for newspapers but a goodly number write books following the trip.

JoanK: Don't you think the reference is to reality vrs religion. There were many unexplainable events in Roman times that were attributed to the interference of the gods in the affairs of men. When L. explained these things as events caused by natural activity he was being "tough minded". A religious explanation at the time might well be seen as a "soft and tender" solution.

Joan:--I interpreted that "tender-minded" differently. Durant prefaced the sentence with "the struggle of East and West" -- then "of tender-minded and consoling faiths vs tough-minded and materialistic science.
I am seeing him comparing the Greek religions of the East (tender-minded and consoling) being compared with the Roman religions of the West (tough-minded and materialistic.)
How do you folks interpret that?

Robby

Robby I agree with your interpretation of the comparison.

Carolyn

The Caique by Catullus

More poems by Catullus

Thank you very much, Mal! Both Latin and English AND translations!

Robby

The Roman religions of the west were not "tough minded". Romans worshipped the same gods as the Greeks of the east. Both religions, those of the east and the west were "tender minded and consoling". The comparison is clearly one of religion in general vrs. L's tough minded concepts of nature and science.

JUstin, my interpretation of the book is the same as Robbie's. I called attention to this sentence some time ago (822) as I thought it one of the most important in the book. The comparison of East and West. From the beginning, Romans seemed to be a very war like people and I assume that their religious practices supported this toughness. I see this thread running on to the establishment of the Roman Church. I need to go back to the book to see how the comparison was made as I am not sure that it was about religion.

Catulus, poor fellow, had all the money he needed to woo the ladies and to write poetry. He was the first, among the Romans to write of love. His joy in wooing Clodia, whom he calls Lesbia, is expressed in his poetry.

Was never one could say, so loved was she
As Lesbia, thou by me:
Was never heart to covenant so true
As mine to love of you.

When Clodia found another dandy to warm her bed she left Catullus who took up with a pretty boy.

"Tis hard to quench at once a long nursed love ;
Tis hard- but do it however you may;
It is your only chance - your courage prove-
Easy or difficult- you must obey.

His life fades and he dies in his forties, perhaps, even earlier. Toward the end, in his last few years, he reconciles with Caesar and Clodia seeing her old lover as influential again tries to recover the old closeness with Catullus. But Catullus replies;"

Sweet, seek no more
To win back my love, by thine own fault it fell;
In the far corner of the field though hid,
Touched by the plough at last,- the flower is dead.

When we come to Horace, we will find his love poetry owes much to the lyric lines of Catullus. This man Catullus is seminal and clearly the beginning of a distinctly Roman literature. He has capitalized on and surpassed the Greeks. Horace will then push the art forms of the Romans to new highs as will Ovid.

There is so much to read and enjoy in this Roman period and the literature improves as we move on into the period of the empire. Once I read only English works but some years ago, I began to read French Medieval literature. I progressed into modern French, and then moved into Latin and Greek translations. The experience was so gratifying, I encourage everyone to read in languages other than their native tongue. We will soon have a chance to read Cicero in Latin and in English. You can find the site under Books in other Languages. Come visit.

"We know Catullus more intimately than most Roman poets because his subject is nearly always himself. These lyric cries of love and hate reveal a sensitive and kindly spirit, capable of generous feeling even for relatives, but unpleasantly self-centered, deliberately obscene, and merciless to his enemies.
"He published their most private peculiarities, their pederastic propensities, their bodily odor. One of them washes his teeth with urine, after an old Spanish custom. Another is so foul of breath that if he should open his mouth all persons near him would fall dead.
"Catullus oscillates easily between love and offal, kisses and fundaments. He rivals Martial as a guide to the street-corner urology of Rome, and suggests in his contemporaries and his class a mixture of primitive coarseness with civilized refinement, as if educated Romans, however versed in the literature of Greece, could never quite forget the stable and the camp.
"Catullus pleads, like Martial, that he must salt his lines with dirt to hold his audience."
I am trying to think of some more contemporary poets who have similar traits. Any thoughts?

Robby

From the advent of Beat Poetry and Allen Ginsberg on there have been many contemporary poets who mixed refinement with "dirt". The Elizabethans were very good at this, and old John Donne managed to write some pretty suggestive poetry in the 17th century before he put on his robe and jumped up on the pulpit. Just as porn has been around since Ancient times, so has poetry and literature that appealed to the ribald nature of human beings. You should see some of the stuff that's submitted to me for the m. e. stubbs poetry journal. (Some of which I publish.)

Mal

Catullus is considered the greatest writer of Roman lyric verse. The most famous works are the Lesbia poems, which express deep passion and devotion and hatred and scorn for a mysterious lady. The lady in question was Clodia who had been unfaithful to the poet.

Catullus went to Asia Minor. His ode with the line: "frater ave atque vale" (brother hail and farewell) was inspired to his brother's grave at the site of Troy.

He wrote his longest poem on the marriage of Peleus and Thetis. According to legend Achilles was the son of Peleus the king of Phthia in Thessaly, and Thetis, an immortal sea nymph. Soon after Achilles was born, Thetis dipped him in the River Styx, whose water would make him invulnerable, like a god. However, the immortalizing water did not touch the heel by which Thetis held him.

Toward the end of his life he wrote personal attacks on Julius Caesar and his political associates.

Catullus's influence is seen not only in the love poetry of Ovid and Horace but also in the marriage odes of English poets of the Renaissance.

He is thought to have died young, perhaps at the age of 30.

Scrawler

"The hendecasyllabics of Catullus leap with a maturalness and spontaneity that escape the artifices of Horace and occasionally rise above all the graces of Virgil. It took much art to conceal his art, and Catullus more than once refers to the painful toil and care that produced his quick intelligibility and apparent ease.
"His vocabulary helped him to this end. He molded the words of popular speech into poetry, and enriched the Latin of literature with affectionate diminutives as well as tavern slang.
"He avoided inversions and obsurities, and gave to his lines a limpid fluidity grateful to the ear. He pored over the poets of Hellenistic Alexandria and ancient Ionia:--mastered the smooth technique and varied meters of Callimachus -- the lusty directness of Archilochus -- the vinous exuberance of Anacreon -- the amorous ecstasy of Sappho. Indeed, it is largely through him that we must guess how these poets wrote. He learned their lessons so thoroughly that he became, from their pupil, their equal.
"Catullus did for Latin poetry what Cicero did for Latin prose. He took it as crude potency and lifted it to an art that only Virgil would surpass."
Anything further about Catullus before we move on to other scholars?

Robby

"How were Latin books written, illustrated, bound, published, sold?
"For school exercises, short letters, transient commercial records, the Romans through antiquity wrote with a stylus upon waxed tablets and erased with the thumb. The oldest literary Latin known to us was written with quill and ink upon paper manufactured in Egypt from the pressed and glued leaves of the papyrus tree. In the first centuries of our era parchment made from the dried skins of animals began to rival papyrus as a receptacle of literature and important documents. A folded sheet of membrane, or vellum, constituted a diploma, or two-fold. Usually a literary work was issued as a roll (volumen, 'wound up'), and was read by unrolling as the reading progressed.
"The text was customarily written two or three narrow columnae to a page, often without punctuation of clauses or even separation of words. Some manuscripts were illustrated by ink drawings. Varro's Imagines, e.g. consisted of 700 portraits of famous men, each picture accompanied by a biographical note.
"Anyone could publish a manuscript by hiring slaves to make copies, and selling the copies. Rich men had clerks who copied for them any book they wished to own. Since copyists were fed rather than paid, books were cheap. First 'printings' were usually of a thousand copies.
"Booksellers bought wholesale from publishers like Atticus, and sold at retail in arcade bookstalls. Neither publisher nor bookseller gave the author anything except courtesy and occasional gifts. Royalties were unknown. Private libraaries were now numerous. About 40 B.C. Asinius Pollio made his great collection the first public library in Rome.
"Caesar planned a still larger one, and made Varro its director. This, like so many of his ideas, waited upon Augustus for its fulfillment."
As I read this, I would say that civilization is gradually taking hold.
Robby

Imagine War and Peace on Scrolls!

Miles and miles of scrolls, Carolyn.

In those days they only had war so the amount of scrolls was only half.

Robby

Scrawler;Catullus had been banging away at Caesar for most of his life. He first met him with Clodia at the home of his daddy when he was twenty. He liked Clodia but found Caesar patronizing. Toward the end of his life Caesar and Catullus were reconciled and Clodia who was entertaining others at the time, tried to return to Catullus but Catullus would have none of her belated offer.

Catullus performed the service of "People" magazine except he added details that "People" only implies today. He explained once that love and hate were opposite sides of the same coin and that folks would not buy his stuff if he stopped writing the dirt.It is hard for us today to get the "dirt" on people because publishers are afraid of law suits and tv people think their viewers have the brains of two year olds.

LOL Robby!

I tend to disagree and believe there is more published dirt today than ever before. Even in biographies (the unauthorised ones) there are issues which never would have been brought up when I was a young adult.

Carolyn

"Stimulatd by these facilites, Roman literature and scholarship began to equal the industry of the Alexandrians. Poems, pamphlets, histories, textbooks rivaled the Tiber's floods. Every aristocrat adorned his escapades with verse -- every lady composed words and music -- every general wrote memoirs. It was an age of 'outlines.' Summaries on every subject struggled to meet the needs of a hurried commercial age.
"Marcus Terentius Varro, despite many military campaigns, found time during his eighty-nine years (116-26 B.C.) to synopsize nearly every branch of knowledge. His 620 'volumes' (some seventy-four books) constituted a one-man encyclopedia for this time.
"Fascinated by the pedigrees of words, he wrote an essay On the Latin Language, now our chief guide to early Roman speech. Perhaps in co-operaton with the aims of Augustus, he tried in his treatise On Country Life (De Re Rustica, 36 B.C.) to encourage a return to the land as the best refuge from the disorder of civil strife. 'My eightieth year warns me that I must pack up and prepare to leave this life.' He would make his last testament a guide to rural happiness and peace.
"He admired the sturdy women who were delivered of children in the fields and soon resumed work. He mourned the low native birth rate that was transforming the population of Rome. 'Formerly the blessing of children was woman's pride. Now she boasts with Ennius that she would rather face battle three times than bear one child.'
"In his Divine Antiquities he concluded that the fertility, order, and courage of a nation require moral commandments supported by religious belief. Adopting the distinction of the great jurist Q. Mucius Scaevola between two kinds of religion -- one for philosophers and one for the people -- he argued that the second must be upheld regardless of its intellectual defects. Though he himself accepted only a vague pantheism, he proposed a vigorous attempt to restore the worship of Rome's ancient deities.
"Influenced by Cato and Polybius, he in his turn decisively affected the religious policy of Augustus and the pious ruralism of Virgil."
As I continue to read, I detect a strong relationship between writing and religion.

Robby

Here in ENGLISH is De Re Rustica.

Robby

"History found in this age a brilliant practitioner -- Caius Sallustius Crispus (86-35 B.C.). He played a vigorous role as politician and warrior on Caesar's side, governed Numidia, stole with skill, and spent a fortune on women. Then he retired to a life of luxury and letters in a Roman villa that became famous for its gardens and was to be the home of emperors.
"His books, like politics, were a continuation of war by other means. His Histories, Jugurthine War, and Catiline were able defenses of the populares, powerful attacks upon the 'old guard.'
"He exposed the moral decay of Rome, charged the Senate and the courts with placing property rights above human rights, and put into the mouth of Marius a speech asserting the natural equality of all classes and demanding a career open to talent wherever born.
"He deepened his narratives with philosophical commentary and psychological analysis of character, and carved out a style of epigrmmatic compactness and vivid rapidity which became a model for Tacitus.
"That style, like almost all Roman prose of Sallust's century and the next, took its color and tone from the oratory of the Forum and the courts. The development of the legal profession, and the growth of a talkative democracy, had widened the demand for public speaking. Schools of rhetoric were multiplying despite governmental hostility. Cicero said:-'Rhetoricians are everywhere.'
"Great masters of the art appeared in the first half of the first century before Christ:-Marcus Antonius (father of Mark), Lucius Crassus, Sulpicius Rufus, Quintus Horttensius.
"We may imagine the strength of their lungs when we hear of audiences that overflowed from the Forum into neighboring temples and balconies. The flamboyant eloquence and purchasable conscience of Hortensius made him the darling of the aristocracy and one of Rome;s richest men. He left his heirs 10,000 casks of wine.
"His delivery was so animated that famous actors like Roscius and Aesopus attended the trials at which he pleaded, to perfect their acting by studying his gestures and his delivery. Following the example of old Cato, he revised and published his speeches -- an art which his rival Cicero perfected, and which furthered the influence of rhetoric upon all Roman prose.
"It was through oratory that the Latin language reached its full height of colorful eloquence, masculine power, and almost Oriental grace. Indeed, the younger orators who came after Hortensius and Cicero condemned the luxurious adornment and passionate turbulence of what they called the 'Asiatic' style. Caesar, Calvus, Brutus, and Pollin pledged themselves to a calmer, chaster, sparer 'Attic' speech.
"Here, so long ago, the battle lines formed between 'romanticsm' and 'classicism' -- between the emotional and the intellectual view of life and domination of style.
"Even in oratory, the young classicists complained, the East was conquering Rome."
Durant, in the above section, furnishes us with much information to digest and discuss. Any comments?

Robby

Lawyers, diplomats, politicians, preachers need to have oratory skills if they want to effectively influence a large number of people, provided they can convince them that they are sincere. There were great and famous orators in past history and they influenced the thinking of future generations for centuries to come, I am sure that we can think of several. The power of speech is greater than the written word and a good example of that is when a candidate wants to win an election, he delivers it orally first before it is written, everybody can listen but not everybody is willing to read.

In ancient history only the prominent people could read and the skill of an orator had great influence on how the country was governed.."The flamboyant eloquence and purchasable conscience of Hortensius made him the darling of the aristocracy and one of Rome;s richest men. He left his heirs 10,000 casks of wine". (the underlining is mine)

Eloïse

"paper manufactured in Egypt from the pressed and glued leaves of the papyrus tree."

To go back a little: my daughter in California has Egyptian papyrus growing in her yard. When I visited her, I tried to find out how the Egyptians made paper from it, thinking to experiment. I couldn't find it on the Web. Does anyone know? I did find out that papyrus spreads like kudzu, and is a major problem in parts of Africa.

War and peace in scrolls.

Here is some pictures of one of the Dead Seacrolls, some of them written in the time period we are studying. This is what they look like after 2000 years. (What will Durant's book look like, I wonder).

http://www.lehrhaus.org/online/scrolls/scrolls_5.html

Of course Jews read from scrolls every week in synagogue and Jewish students would regularly read from scrolls. The Torah is in scroll form, written in Hebrew without vowels, and written right to left. Every week one member of the congregation is honored by having him lift the Torah high and show it to the congregation while it is still open. You must be pretty strong to do this. Torahs are hand written and some are extremely old. Thought that this aside might be of interest.

The Lyric:

A lyric is a short poem that expresses private emotions and moods in a songlike style.

Thomas Campion wrote lyrics in his "Books of Airs" (1601-1617).

Robert Herrick is best known for his love lyrics to imaginary ladies and graceful poems about nature and English country life. He celebrated the joys of rural life in poems like "The Argument of His Book" and "To Daffodils". "To the Virgins, to Make Much Time" he adapts the New Testament parable of the 10 virgins to the classical theme of carpe diem ("seize the day"). The poem contains the famous line "Gather ye rosebuds why ye may." Herrick's lyric poetry reflects the influence of Roman poets and the English poet and playwright Ben Johnson. His well-known poem "Corinna's Going A-Maying" ends with an urgent reminder of human morality in the lines:

Come, let us go, while we are in our prime! And take the harmless folly of the time! We shall grow old apace and die Before we know our liberty. Our life is short, and our days run As fast away as does the sun. And as a vapour or a drop of rain, Once lost, can ne'er be found again: So when or you or I are made A fable, song, or fleeting shade, All love, all liking, all delight Lies Drowned with us in endless night. Then, while time serves, and we are but decaying, Come, my Corinna, come, let's go a-Maying.

Edmund Spenser was an Elizabethan poet. His epic poem, "The Faerie Queene" was never finished. "The Faerie Queene" is an allegory (extended metaphor) filled with personifications of abstract ideas like pride, hypocrisy, and faith. In writing "The Faerie Queene" he was influenced by the works of the English poet Geoffrey Chaucer and two Italian epics of the 1500s, Ludovico Aristo's "Orlando Furioso" and Torquato Tasso's "Jerusalem Delivered". The main character in each of the six books gradually develops a desired virtue - holiness, temperance, chastity, friendship, justice, or courtesy. Spenser included both moral and political allegory in "The Faerie Queene". His first major poem, "The Shepheardes Calender" (1579) made his reputation. "Epithalamion" (1595) is a poem about marriage. It describes the events of an Irish wedding day and is a blend of classical and Christian traditions.

Scrawler

And just think! Those English poets got the idea for lyric poetry from the Ancient Romans who got it from Ancient Greeks, who got it from . . . .

Last night I stumbled on a TV channel which was showing a program about Flamenco dancing with Joaquin Cortes, a fabulous dancer. Before he danced there was some Spanish music which I told my daughter sounded "Oriental". She said, "No, Spanish." Then I was told Flamenco dancing came from dances in India which had been performed for thousands of years.

Mal

Scrawler, how lovely is this poem by Robert Herrick. Please give us more. It is like a balm on an irritation.

Here are some comments about the ASIATIC STYLE of oratory as exemplified by Quintus Hortensius.

Robby

Here are some comments about CHURCHILL ORATORY.
Asiatic Style? Attic Style?

Robby

And then there is DANIEL WEBSTER.
Attic Style? Asiatic Style?
Any other known orators who exemplify one of the two styles?

Robby

Robbie, what wonderful sites to visit. It seems as if the art of oratory is lost in the United States. Gore probably lost the election because he was not a good speaker. Where are the voices like Churchill, Roosevelt, Martin Luther King? These men had a marvelous grasp of the language and the ability to read their audiences and adjust their speech patterns. They could think on their feet. They exuded confidence. Who has such a voice today?

Here is I HAVE A DREAM.
Asiatic style? Attic style?

Robby

"Proud of his speeches, and aware that they were making literature, Cicero felt keenly the criticism of the 'Attic' school, and defended himself in a long series of treatises on oratorical art. In lively dialogues he sketched the history of Roman eloquence and laid down the rules for composition, prose rhythm, and delivery.
"He did not admit that his own style was 'Asian.' He had modeled it, he claimed, upon that of Demosthenes.
"He reminded the Atticists that their cold and passionless speech drove audiences to sleep or flight."

Robby

Here are some quotes by Caius Sallustius Crispus.

Crispus quotes

The Asian style of public speaking is flowery and emotional in content. One can not call the style of Cicero "Asian" and be accurate. Cicero's method was to model his delivery upon the receptivity and interests of his audience. That makes Cicero more than "Asian".

The "attic" style of delivery was cold, without embellishment. It was logical. It was an unemotional method of delivery based on the assumption that audiences, especially jurors, wanted just the unadorned facts. I think Hortensius used this style.

Neither style is popular today. We prefer a conversational delivery. This method convinces the listener that the speaker is talking to him directly and on the same level as any good friend. Roosevelt in his fire side chats pioneered the conversational style. However, Roosevelt could also be "Asiatc" in formal deliveries such as inaugural addresses.

Bill Clinton is the current leading expert in the conversational method. He does not try to inspire us. He convinces us that he knows what he is talking about. His message is clear and his demeanor friendly and affirmative. He always appears to be speaking extemporaneously. He never uses words that reach above a high school education and in many cases he stays under that level to reach as many people as possible.

W. Churchill was a fine speaker in the "Asiatic" style. He used emotional phrases and delivered them in crecendo. G. Bush is not a speaker. He is a reader and not a very good one at that. Gore is not a speaker either and George may be right. It could have cost him the presidency, especially, if one ignores the bias of the Court.

Lots of good stuff there, Mal. Worthy of being printed out.

Robby

The amount of metaphors or similes that King uses in his "I have a Dream" speech is amazing. Almost every single sentence.
The decree came as a great beacon of light.
Seared in the flames of withering injustice.
A joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity.
Crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination.
Lonely island of poverty.
Vast ocean of material prosperity.
Languishing in the corners of American society.
An exile in his own land.
We have come to cash a check.
They were signing a promissory note.
America has given the Negro people a bad check.
We refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt.
The great vaults of opportunity.
And that's only the first four paragraphs. You can follow them for yourself.
Do you folks see him as following the Asiatic or Attic style?

Robby

I love some great quotes HERE

Eloïse

Robby,

I read "I Have A Dream" in its entirity! The eloquence of Martin Luther King appears to be both Emotional and Firm(Asiatic or Attic). Also remember hearing him speak! His delivery influcutations was amazing to say the least.

I just can't resist additional further use of "parts of speech" by King. His choice of words was extraordinary. We don't read or hear them. We feel them.
The riches of freedom.
The security of justice.
The fierce urgency of now.
The tranquilizing drug of gradualism.
The dark and desolate valley of segregation.
The sunlit path of racial justice.
The quicksands of racial injustice.
The solid rock of brotherhood.
The sweltering summer of legitimate discontent.
The invigorating autumn of freedom and equality.
The whirlwinds of revolt.
The bright day of justice.
Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
The high plane of dignity and discipline.
The majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.
Not satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.
Sit down together at a table of brotherhood.
Sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression.
Will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Lips are drippping with the words of interposition and nullification.
Every hill and mountain shall be made low.
The rough places will be made plain.
The crooked places will be mde straight.
Hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope.
Transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.
I feel very strongly about injustice. King spoke about racial injustice but injustice of all sorts affects me. This is why on February 1st I will be the Discussion Leader of the new forum discussing Studs Terkel's book, "Hope Dies Last" -- a book for those who have a passion for justice.

Robby

This LINK leads to a very long article but the first few paragraphs about language may be of interest to you.

Robby

"The fifty-seven orations that have come down to us from Cicero illustrate all the tricks of successful eloquence. They excel in the passionate presentation of one side of a question or a character -- the entertainment of the auditors with humor and anecdote -- the appeal to vanity, prejudice, sentiment, patriotism, and piety -- the ruthless exposure of the real or reported, public or private, faults of the opponent or his client -- the skillful turning of attention from unfavorable points -- the barrage of rhetorical questions framed to make answer difficult or damaging -- the heaping up of charges, in periodic sentences whose clauses are lashes, and whose torrent overwhelms.
"These speeches do not pretend to be fair. They are defamations rather than declamations, briefs that take every advantage of that freedom of abuse which, though forbidden to the stage, was allowed in the Forum and the courts.
"Cicero does not hesitate to apply to his fictims terms like 'swine,'pest,' 'butcher,' 'filth,'. He tells Piso that virgins kill themselves to escape his lechery, and excoriates Antony for being publicly affectionate to his wife. Audiences and juries enjoyed such vituperation, and no one took it too seriously.
"Cicero corresponded amiably with Piso a few years after the brutal attack of the In Pisonem. It is to be admitted, further, that Cicero's orations abound rather in egotism and rhetoric than in moral sincerity, philosophical wisdom, or even legal acumen or depth.
"But what eloquence! Even Demosthenes was not so vivid, vital, exuberantly witty, so full of the salt and tang of the human fray. Certainly no man before or after Cicero spoke a Latin so seductively charming and fluent, so elegantly passionate. This was the zenith of Latin prose.
"Said the generous Caesar in dedicating his book On Analogy to Cicero:-'You have discovered all the treasures of oratory and you have been the first to employ them. Thereby you have laid the Roman people under a mighty obligation, and you honor your fatherland. You have gained a triumph to be preferred to that of the greatest generals. For it is a nobler thing to enlarge the boundaries of human intelligence than those of the Roman Empire.'"
As I read this, I think of the speeches given in Congress or the various parliaments.
Robby

King was clearly "Asiatic" in style. He delivered his message with emotion in every beautiful, metaphorical, line,and the whole enhanced by voice, gesture, and tone. It was his standard Sunday pulpit delivery, and it served well on the public platform. No listener can fail to remember his habit of line repetition. "Free at last, free at last, free at last, Thank God Almighty, free at last."

The inspiring speaker is a rare animal. I can't think of a single president since Roosevelt who delivered a truly inspirational address either at inauguration or subsequently. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Bush, Clinton, and Bush are all "Atic" speakers. Bush isn't even a speaker. He is a reader. There is one possible exception- Ronald Reagan's eulogy to the bereaved families of the dead astronauts. That speech was truly "Asiatic" and inspirational.

One of the quotes in Eloise's list of quotes caught my eye. It is by our old friend Durant. "Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance." As we progress through Durant I am surprised by the many things I am seeing for the first time.

Crispus is new to me. He had wonderful qualities. He stole with skill and he spent a fortune on women. What else is there in life? One other thing, he gave Marius a speech asserting the natural equality of all classes and demanding a career open to talent wherever born. Sounds like a precursor to our Title nine.

In this discussion group we are constantly trying to define the term "civilization." This ARTICLE helps us to understand "humanity" and perhaps gives us some thoughts about being civilized.

Robby

"The speeches betray the politician. The letters of Cicero bare the man, and make even the politician forgivable. Nearly all of them were dictated to a secretary and never revised by Cicero. Most of them were written with no thought of publication. Seldom, therefore, has a man's secret soul been so completely exposed.
"Said Nepos:-'He who reads these letters will not much need a history of those times.' In them the most vital part of the revolutionary drama is seen from within, all blinds removed. Usually their style is artless and direct and dances with humor and wit. Their language is an attractive mixture of literary grade and colloquial ease. They are the most interesting of Cicero's remains. Indeed, of all extant Latin prose.
"It is natural that we should find in so large a corrspondence (864 letters, ninety of them to Cicero) occasional contradictions and insincerities. There is no sign here of the religious piety and belief that appear so frequently in Cicero's essays or in those speeches in which he plays up the gods as his last trump. His private opinion of various men, especially of Caesar, does not always conform with his public protestation.
"His incredible vanity appears more amiably here than in his orations, where he seems to be carrying his own statue with him wherever he goes. He smilingly confesses that 'my own applause has the greatest weight with me.'
"He assures us, with charming innocence that 'if ever any man was a stranger to vainglory it is myself.' We are amused to find so many letters about money and so much ado about so many homes. Besides modest villas at Arpinum, Asturae, Puteoli, and Pompeii, Cicero had an estate at Formiae valued at 250,000, another at Tusculum worth 500,000, and a palace on the Palatine that cost him 3,500,000 sesterces.
"Such comfort seems outrageous in a philosopher."
Robby

What an interesting article about the brain, ROBBY. I must be a visual kind of person because the minute Christmas tree lights were mentioned I could understand better what was being said.

"Part of the (right) insula is activated when we recall sadness or anger, anticipate pain, feel panic or become sexually aroused or have an emotional response to music."

I wonder what part is activated with someone like me who has been trained to analyze music and simply cannot help doing this when I listen to it? There would be the combination of "lights" for that and the emotional response I feel. It took me a long time to realize that I do not listen to music the way most people do.

This points out to me the complexity of people and how they think. I am writing a novel right now in which the main character has a capability toward "mind reading". I had her thinking about thinking and wrote, "It was as if fragments of glass were chattering against each other as they tried to come together as a crystallized thought." I don't know about anyone else, but I don't sit down and decide to think. Random thoughts seem to fly around until there is an idea or a solution to a problem.

We were talking about unreliable narrators in memoirs in another discussion recently, and last night I found an article about selective and false memory which points out how suggestible we humans are. In experiments people are fed false information and asked leading questions. Often they begin to remember something that did not actually happen based on the information that was given to them.

This, of course, makes me wonder about history and how much of what we are told as fact really is true. Perhaps this selective memory and suggestibility are what make rewriting history so easy to do.

Click the link below if you're interested in reading more about the article I mentioned above.

False Memory

ROBBY sent me an article about opposition to the use of the polio vaccine in northern Nigeria which threatens the eradication of this terrible disease there. Now I'll return the favor and tell you that at the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center in Durham, North Carolina there have been experiments done which prove that by using the cancer-killing properties of poliovirus together with a harmless genetic coding element from the common cold, deadly brain tumors can be cured.

"The key to Gromeier's success has been disabling the poliovirus' ability to kill normal brain cells while retaining its ability to kill cancer cells in the brain. To do so, Gromeier's team swapped a critical genetic element from the common cold 'rhinovirus' with the corresponding genetic element from the poliovirus. The genetic element, called an 'IRES' (internal ribosomal entry site), enables a virus to express its own genetic information inside the host cell it has invaded, said Gromeier."

Researchers here are using something which is deadly to do good. What a marvelous step toward civilization!

Poliovirus used to cure brain cancer

"Lawyers, diplomats, politicians, preachers need to have oratory skills if they want to effectively influence a large number of people, provided they can convince them that they are sincre." My question is this: when we listen to such persons is it the words spoken by the person that influence us or the person speaking the words that influence us?

I am reminded of the Gettysburg Address given by Abraham Lincoln. At the time of the address his own son was dying in the White House. Do you suppose that somewhere in the back of his mind he was thinking of his son when he gave this speech? Isaac Wayne MacVeah, Attorney General of the United States in 1863 had this to say about the speech: "There was a short interval of music, and then Mr. Lincoln was presented, as only to accept, in a few formal words, the cemetery in behalf of the nation. As he came forward, he seemed to me, and I was sitting near him, visibly to dominate the scene, and while over his plain and rugged countenance appeared to settle a great melancholy, it was somehow lightened as by a great hope. As he began to speak, I instinctively felt that the occasion was taking on a new grandeur, as of a great moment in history, and then there followed, in slow and very impressive and far-reaching utterance, the words with which the whole world has long been familiar. As each word was spoken, it appeared to me so clearly fraught with a message not only for us of his day, but for the untold generations of men, that before he concluded I found myelf possessed by a reverential awe of its complete justification of the great war he was conducting, as if conducted as in truth it was, in the interest of mankind." -"Civil War Journal: The Leaders"

Varro:

He was a prolific writer of his day composing 74 different works comprising about 620 books. He wrote on virtually every field of study of his time.

"In his Divine Antiquities he concluded that the fertility, order, and courage of a nation require moral commandments supported by religious belief. Adopting the distinction of the jurist Q. Maucius Scaevola between to kinds of religion - one for philosophers and one for the people - he argued tht the second must be upheld regardless of its intellectual defects. Though he himself accepted only a vague pantheism, he proposed a vigorous attempt to restore the worship of Rome's ancient deities."

I found it interesting that he felt there would be a need for "one religion for the philosophers and one for the people and that the second one must be upheld regardless of its intellectual defects."

"Though he himself accepted only a vague pantheism, he proposed a vigorous attempt to restore the worship of Rome's ancient deities."

Pantheism is the belief that the essence of God is in all things and is associated with nature religious including ancient Middle Eastern religions. In a more general sense, pantheism refers to any religious philosophy that identifies God with nature.

Scrawler

Justin, You referred to many people for their oratory skills. I think there is still too much prejudice and animosity to comment on Hitler’s and Goebbles’ oratory skills, and make an unbiased assessment. Wonder how their’s will be assessed by historians a hundred years from now.

P.S. Ask Chamberlain

)

Hubert Paul;You are probably right about Hitler. However, judging from the snatches of his speeches available, his style seems to be primarily Asiatic- very emotional. Goebbels is another matter. I have never heard him speak but I have read his stuff because he was a skilled propagandist.

A number of biographies on Hitler have appeared lately. Perhaps, we too, will wish to read about him. Here we are sixty years after the events of his life, just beginning to try to understand his motivations. We said at the time, "Never Again". But to mean that we must know Hitler and his life environment in depth.

"I have a dream" is a piece of oratory I believe we should all have framed and hung on our walls to remind us that every human being deserves justice. What a speech. Every time I read it I cry. My daughter cries too. What a man! I believe that speech can be applied to every form of injustice in the world today. There IS much injustice in the world. I have copies of quite a few King speeches.

I think Bill Clinton is so popular as a speaker because he is so knowledgable and as someone else says he makes his meaning clear by the use of simple language. As for GWB I cringe at his speeches, his pappy was a much better speaker.

What do you call a person who continually seeks to see behind the words of a speaker. I can't help it, I have always done it. My daughter does it too. SIL sees the look on our faces and says "Quit analyzing me!" We are accused by family members of thinking too deeply. I try not to do it but its a compulsion.

I am dying to read Cicero. I love words from the heart!

As for Hitler his speeches were intended to get the people into a mood of what I would call hysterical Nationalism. I shudder when I hear them as I look beyond the words.

I thought Stephen Douglas was one of the finest, if not the finest, orators in United States history. Seems to me I've read that Lincoln with his Illinois twang had trouble keeping up with Douglas's much more florid, declamatory way of speaking. Declamatory oratory was in in those days. You speak of Bill Clinton and other Americans as orators, but the only one who might possibly stand on a level with Douglas in my mind is Martin Luther King, who knew the effect on an audience of dynamics and phrasing, so much so that people cried when they heard him speak. Hitler very much was a declamatory, Asiatic kind of orator. When I was a kid the sound of his voice gave me chills of fear.

Mal

"I have a Dream": I think it was a wonderful speech. Yet I have known many people who were there when he gave it, and all of them say they didn't pay any attention to it at the time: too busy with the stuff that was going on. I was not there, although I was active in Brooklyn Core at the time, and many of my friends waalked from New York to Washington to be at the rally (not to hear King speak. Many people in the Civil Rights movement were not enthusiastic about King's approach to some issues). I did not feel up to the trip, and I have always regretted it.

I was interested in the man who heard Lincoln give the Gettysburg Address, and recognized it as a great speech. I wonder if that was true at the time, or only later.

Mal; I don't speak of Bill Clinton as an orator. I call him a conversationalist as a public speaker. He is very articulate and knowledgeable. He shares with his audience. He neither declaims nor declares. It is rare that his listeners hear emotion in his talks.He does not use notes but the listener is soon convinced that he is very familiar with the content of his topic. The object of this style is to make the listener feel comfortable and on a par with the speaker. The style is very different from that of Asiatics and Attics.

I agree with you about Steven Douglas. I have read some of the debates and his construction is clearly that of an orator. He had no trouble speaking for a couple of hours straight. Also there is Edward Everett. I think he was the principal speaker at Gettysburg. He was invited in late July to speak at the dedication scheduled for October. He replied that he could not possibly be ready to speak that soon. He needed more time to prepare. They rescheduled to November 19. He must have held the crowd spell bound for over an hour when Lincoln rose to accept the graveyard for the Federal Government. Lincoln ,I have read, was a man with a thin high voice. He delivered his address in a few short moments and the crowd was disappointed because they expected a lengthy oration. Lincoln prepared is address on an old envelope, in pencil, on the train, on his way to the event. Today, Everett and his speech is forgotten but Lincoln's short address is memorized by every school child in the nation. Who is it who does not know the words "Forescore and seven years ago..."?

But what do they know past that?

Robby

JoanK; What was the "Brooklyn Core"? I can remember sitting at home watching the rally on TV. I heard the speech at that time and thought it was very dramatic. Lots of his great metaphors went right by me.I half heard them. We tend not to listen to speeches with both ears. I regretted not being there if for no other reason than to show my children that equal rights were important for every citizen. I am still in the women's movement as a member of NOW and Planned Parenthood Advocates.

"Which of us is so virtuous that hie reputation could survive the publication of his intimate correspondence? Indeed, as we continue to read these letters, we almost come to like the man. He had no more faults, perhaps no greater vanity, than we. He made the mistake of immortalizing them with perfect prose.
"At his best he was a hard worker, a tender father, a good friend. We see him in his home, loving his books and his children, and trying to love his wife, the rheumatic and irritable Terentia, whose wealth and eloquence equaled his own. They were too rich to be happy. Their worries and quarrels were always in large figures. At last, in their old age, he divorced her over some financial dispute.
"Soon afterward he married Publilia, who attracted him by having more money than years. But when she showed dislike for his daughter Tullia, he sent Publilia away, too. Tullia he loved humanly beyond reason. He grieved almost to madness at her death and wished to build a temple to her as a deity.
"Pleasanter are the letters to and about Tiro, his chief secretary, who took his dictation in shortland and managed his finances so ably and honestly that Cicero rewarded him with freedom.
"Most numerous are the letters to Atticus, who invested Cicero's savings, extricated him from financial difficulties, published his writings, and gave him excellent unheeded advice."
"Too rich to be happy."

Robby

You all know that Ginny has scheduled a reading of Cicero in Latin and English. We are picking the material to read now. Come to the site called Latin Reading- Cicero, and help us with the selection.

JUSTIN: CORE was the Congress for Racial Equality, a national civil rights group working for justice and equality for African Americans. Brooklyn Core was the most active chapter. We picketed, staged sit ins, did housing testing etc. etc. We were not beaten, as civil rights workers in the south often were, but it was still scary work at times: there were bomb threats etc and everyone was scared of the Teamsters Union working against us. I managed to avoid arrest, as I knew it would be the end of my career, but many others were not as selfish (read chicken) as I, and put their futures, even their lives on the line. Martin Luther King was a wonderful man, but sometimes it is forgotten that the civil rights movement was not him but hundreds, maybe thousands, of nameless workers who risked themselves day in and day out.

Coincidentally, there was an article about Rosa Parks in today's Washington Post. She is 90 years old, living in Chicago. She was in the papers because she is suing a rap group that has a song called Rosa Parks to take her name off the song. 90 and still feisty --- my kind of person.

Rosa Parks was an amazing woman. My daughter recently saw her story on video and again she cried at her courage and at the way the Black Americans were treated in the South. How amazing she is still alive!

JoanK: Time does things to us. Of course, I remember Core. I think it was headed by a man named Farmer. Is that right? That was an admirable group to belong to. I know how risky it was for the members who appeared in protests. I remember well the risks involved in protecting abortion clinics. Nothing worthwhile is achieved if we sit on our butts. You may think you had some chickenitis but your response to the problem is and was commendable.

Joan:--You and other "feisty" people are EXACTLY the type of people who we want in the new discussion group beginning February 1 for which I am the Discussion Leader. We will be discussing Studs Terkel's new book, "Hope Dies Last," and it is about people who have a passion for justice. Click HERE to get to the site, read the deatils, and indicate your desire to participate. The book is very reasonable -- about $15 through Barnes & Noble. Mal, Carolyn (Kiwi), George, and Moxi have already signed up along with five others..

Robby

"It was from Plato above all that the ideas of Cicero stemmed. he did not relish the dogmatism of the Epicureans, who 'talk of divine things with such assurance that you would imagine they had come directly from an assemblage of the gods' nor yet that of the Stoics, who so labor the argument from design that 'you would suppose even the gods had been made for human use.' -- a theory that Cicero himself, in other moods, would not find incredible.
"His starting point is that of the New Academy -- a lenient skepticism which denied all certainties and found probability sufficient for human life. He writes:--'In most things my philosophy is that of doubt. May I have your leave not to know what I do not know?' He scorns sacrifices, oracles, and auguries, and devotes an entire treatise to disproving divination.
"Against the widespread cult of astrology he asks if all the men slain at Cannae had been born under the same star. He even doubts that a knowledge of the future would be a boon. The future may be as unpleasant as much else of the truth that we so recklessly chase. He vainly thinks to make short work of old beliefs by laughing them out of court.
"Nevertheless, he is skeptical of atheism as of any other dogma. He rejects the atomism of Democritus and Lucretius. It is as unlikely that unguided atoms -- even in infinite time -- could fall into the order of the existing world as that the letters of the alphabet should spontaneously form the Annales of Ennius. Our ignorance of the gods is no guarantee of their nonexistence.
"He concludes that religion is indispensable to private morals and public order and that no man of sense will attack it. Hence, while writing against divination, he continued to fulfill the functions of official augur. It was not quite hypocrisy. He would have called it statesmanship. Roman morals, society, and government were bound up with the old religion and could not safely let it die.
"But in his private coreespondence -- even in the letters that condoled with bereaved friends -- there is no mention of an afterlife."
Any comment on these profound thoughts of Cicero?

Robby

"Cicero does not hesitate to apply to his victims terms like 'swine', 'pest', 'butcher,' 'filth.' He tells Piso that virgins kill themselves to escape his lechery, and excoriates Anthony for being affectionate to his wife. Audiences and juries enjoyed such vituperation, and no one took it too seriously." What do you think has today's audience changed since Cicero's time? Would we accept "such vituperation"?

"But what eloquence! Even Demosthenes was not so vivid, vital, exuberantly witty, so full of salt and tang of the human fray. Certainly no man before or after Cicero spoke a Latin so seductively charming and fluent, so elegantly passionate. This was the zenith of Latin prose." Does today's audience also accept "the salt and tang of the human fry" as well? What attracts us to such things? Or is it easier to laugh at someone else's follies because than we know that they are not laughing at ours.

"Said the generous Caesar in dedicating his book "On Analogy to Cicero": 'You have discovered all the treasures of oratory and you have been the first to employ them. Thereby you have laid the Roman people under a mighty obligation, and you honor your fatherland. You have gained a triumph to be preferred to that of the greatest generals. For it is nobler thing to enlarge the boundaries of human intelligence than those of the Roman Empire." Do you think that Caesar was sincere when he stated: "For it is a nobler thing to enlarge the boundaries of human intelligence than those of the Roman Empire" considering what Rome does in the near future?

"This, of course, makes me wonder about history and how much of what we are told as fact really is true. Perhaps this selective memory and suggetibility are what make rewriting history so easy to do." Your statement reminds me of George Orwell's book: "1984".

Scrawler

JUSTIN: time does things to me too. When I worked for the government, I swore I would never talk in initials, and here I am doing it. Of course not everyone knows what CORE is.

ROBBY: I ordered Turkel yesterday. I've been a fan of his for years. If I had another life, I would like to do what he does.

""This, of course, makes me wonder about history and how much of what we are told as fact really is true. "

I had a wake up call for this a few months ago. My face-to-face book club read "The De Vinci Code", a fictional detective story in which the author throws around all sorts of statements about history with no or questionable proof. Because it is fiction, the usual rules about citing sources and backing up what you say don't apply. One of the members said "But he said everything he said was true". Another said "I thought it was true until I read somewhere that it wasn't". Another said "It was years before I realized that not everything I read in a book is true". These are intellegent, well educated, well read people, yet they believed everything they see in print. This scared me. Perhaps our school system does this to us. We are given a book by the teacher, and it is implied that "Here is the truth". This is one reason I am less enthusiastic about Cicero and rhetoric than some of you.

I don't blame you, JoanK, for being cautious about Cicero. After all these works, such as Lucretius, Livy, Tacitus, etc did not come to us via the Alexandrian library. They came through the monasteries of Europe. How much copying, and how much editing occurred is uncertain. It is hard to assign a probability of reality to these documents. We are not the first to rewrite history, nor are we the first to rewrite religious documents.

The imprimatur of infallible truth rides the masthead of our newspapers. "All the news that's fit to print" It doesn't say anything about the joys of "rewrite". But it seems to convince the readers that only the truth lies within. Opinion is confined to the editorial pages. Do I blame the schools? No. I blame the reader who is a lazy thinker and given to gullibility. There are folks who think the whale swallowed Jonah and spit him out whole to become a prophet. We in California elected a Disney character Governor. Did we not?

"Monarchy is the best form of government when the monarch is good, the worst when he is bad -- a truism soon to be illustrated in Rome.
"Aristocracy is good when the really best rule, but Cicero, as a member of the middle class could not quite admit that the old entrenched families were the best.
"Democracy is good when the people are virtuous, which, Cicero thought, is never. Besides, it is vitiated by the false assumption of equality.
"The best form of government is a mixed constitution, like tht of pre-Gracchan Rome:--the democratic power of the assemblies, the aristocratic power of the Senate, the almost royal power of the consuls for a year.
"Without checks and balances monarchy becomes despotism, aristocracy becomes oligarchy, democracy becomes mob rule, chaos and dictatorship."
Agree? Disagree?

Robby

Cicero is concerned that citizens in a democracy, if not virtuous, will sell their vote. That was the case in the last century of the Roman Republic. It has been the case in the first two centuries of the American Republic.

A successful American ward healer is one who can deliver 500 votes regardless of candidate. We know that people vote their self interests in blocks and that in some cases blocks cancel each other out, leaving a critical independent handfull who decide elections.

We know that money wins elections today, as it did in ancient Rome but with a difference.Bribing the electorate was illegal in Rome and it is illegal in the US but it was condoned in Rome. It is not condoned in the US. We call it working in the voter's interest. We know that block votes are bought with legislation favorable to the block. The block vote of the Christian right for example, is acquired by Gag rules on US contributions to world wide women's health.

Money enables a candidate to reach the electorate with a message. The money to pay for delivering that message comes from contributors who expect to be paid by legislation favorable to their interests.vis a vis; recent Medicare and energy bills. It would seem that Cicero had a point. Self interests appear to out weigh virtue in a democracy.

Is Cicero's assumption of false equality a necessary characteristic of democracies? I don't think so. I will tell you that "equality" in the US democracy means equality before the law-nothing else. We try to achieve equality of opportunity by providing a public education system but we all know that money and merit have played a part in higher education.

Equality before the law is the rule but the rule is ignored in some cases. Blacks have not been equal with whites before the law. Rich and poor have not been equal before the law. There is hope however, because we know equality is a constitutional right.

America might never be become a Monarchy, but it risks the danger of becoming Aristocratic by wealth. There are few immense fortunes in the higher echelons of society, considering the size of the population in America, but Multinationals are silently governing the country through political contribution. It could deprive the unsuspecting lower class of their freedom as they are lulled to apathy by creature comfort. Now that the government is pulling out funds from social programs to pay for military activity, I wonder if the people were in agreement with this when they cast their votes.

Eloïse

To Atticus (in Epirus) Rome, September, 57 B.C.

"Directly I arrived at Rome, and there was anyone to whom I could safely intrust a letter for you, I thought the very first thing I ought to do was to congratulate you in your absence on my return. For I knew, to speak candidly, that though in giving me advice you had not been more courageous or far seeing than myself, nor - considering my devotion to you in the past - too careful in protecting me from disaster, yet that you - though sharing in the first instance inlmy mistake, or rather madness, and in my groundless terror had nevertheless been deeply grieved at our separation, and had bestowed immense pains, zeal, care, and labour in securing my return. Accordingly, I can truly assure you of this, that in the midst of supreme joy and the most gratifying congratulations, the one thing wanting to fill my cup of happiness to the brim is the sight of you, or rather your embrace; and if I ever forfeit that again, when I have once got possession of it, and if, too, I do not exact the full delights of your charming society that have fallen into arrear in the past, I shall certainly consider myself unworthy of this renewal of my good fortune.

"In regard to my political position, I have resumed what I thought there would be the utmost difficulty in recovering - my brilliant standing at the bar, my influence in the senate, and a popularity with the loyalists even greater than I desired. In regard, however, to my private property - as to which you are well aware to what an extent it has been crippled, scattered, and plundered - I am in great difficulties, and stand in need, not so much of your means (which I look upon as my own), as of your advice for collecting and restoring to a sound state the fragments that remain. For the present, though I believe everything funds its way to you in the letters of your friends, or even by to that of their governors. After that our consular law seems moderate indeed: that of Messius is quite intolerable. Pompey professes to prefer the former; his friends the latter. The consulars led by Favonius murmur: I hold my tongue, the more so that the pontifices have as yet given no answer in regard to my house. If they annul the consecration I shall have a splendid site. The consuls, in accordance with a decree of the senate, will value the cost of the building that stood upon it; but if the pontifices decide otherwise, they will pull down the Clodian building, give out a contract in their own name (for a temple), and value to me the cost of a site and house. So our affairs are

" 'For happy though but ill, for ill not worst.'

"In regard to money matters I am, as you know, much embarrassed. Besides, there are certain domestic troubles, which I do not intrust to writing. My brother Quintus I love as he deserves for his eminent qualities of loyalty, virtue, and good faith. I am longing to see you, and beg you to hasten your return, resolved not to allow me to be without the benefit of your advice. I am on the threshold, as it were, of a second life. Already certain persons who defended me in my absence begin to nurse a secret grudge at me now that I am here, and to make no secret of their jealousy. I want you very much."

"All in all, Cicero's essays in philosophy are meager in result. Like his statesmanship they clung too anxiously to orthodoxy and tradition. He had all the curiosity of a scientist and all the timidity of a bourgeois.
"Even in his philosophy he remained a politician, reluctant to offend any vote. He collected the ideas of others, and balanced pros and cons so well that we come out from his sessions by the same door wherein we went.
"Only one thing redeems these little books -- the simple beauty of their style. How pleasant Cicero's Latin is, how easy to read, how smoothly and clearly the stream of language flows! When he narrates events he catches some of the vivacity that made his speeches claim attention. When he describes a character it is with such skill that he mourns that he has no time to be Rome's greatest historian. When he lets himself go he flowers into the balanced clauses and crashing periods which he had learned from Isocrates, and with which he had made the Forum resound.
"His ideas are those of the upper classes, but his style aims to reach the people. For them he labors to be clear, toils to make his truisms thrilling, and salts abstractions with anecdote and wit.
"He re-created the Latin languge. He extended its vocabulary, forged from it a flexible instrument for philosophy, fitted it to be the vehicle of learning and literature in western Europe for seventeen hundred years.
"Posterity remembered him more as an author than as a statesman. When, despite all his reminders, men had almost forgotten the glory of his consulate, they cherished his conquests in letters and eloquence. And since the world honors form as well as substance, art as well as knowledge and power, he achieved, of all Romans, a fame second only to Caesar's.
"It was an exception that he could never forgive."
Is there agreement here that "the world honors form as well as substance?"
Any thoughts here of more modern personalities, alive or deceased, who were not writers, per se, but had "beauty in their style," are "easy to read," with a "stream of language that flows smoothly and clearly," with "vivacity that claims attention," and with a "style that reaches the people?"
Any final comments regarding Cicero before we enter the long awaited period of the Caesars?
Robby

This LINK leads us to a most interesting discourse on Language and refers, in a detailed way to Form and Substance.
Be prepared! As you scroll down, suddenly there is the loud sound of a typewriter. It does not stop. You might want to turn your sound off.

Robby

I think sports writers are great. One that comes to mind is Red Smith. Adlai Stevenson had a wonderful command of the English language, and he was not known as a writer.

The typewriter types all right, but the page won't scroll!

Mal

"He had splendid conformation-broad shoulders, white hair and erect carriage-and was beautifully turned out in an ensemble of rich brown. One was inclined to hope he would, in the end, award first prize to himself."

"I like to get where the cabbage is cooking and catch the scents."

"The natural habitat of the tongue is the left cheek."

Forgive me for being absent for a while; I am up to date in the reading of the book but not the posts.

I thought that the group might be interested in this reference to Greek civilization. I am taking a DVD course on opera and am now hearing about the work of Richard Wagner. Wagner rejected opera of Italian and French design and invented his own kind of opera which was inspired by ancient Greek Drama. He felt that Greek drama was superior for five reasons:

"1.It represented a successful combination of the arts. 2.It took its subject matter from myth that illuminates human experience to the depths and in universal terms. 3. Both the content and the occasion of the performance had religious significance. 4. It was a religion of the purely human form. 5. The entire community took part."

I know that we are discussing Rome but was struck by the pervasive quality of Greek Civilization.

"Against the widespread cult of astrology he asks if all the men slain at Cannae had been born under the same star. He even doubts that knowledge of the future would be a boon. The future may be as unpleasant as much else of the truth that we so recklessly chase."

In post #913 Justin wrote: "...Here we are sixty years after the events of his [Hitler's] life, just beginning to try to understand his motivations. We said at the time, "Never Again." But to mean that we must know Hitler and his life environment in depth."

If we had known Hitler and what his motivations were to be, could we have stopped what DID happen? Even if we had "a knowledge of the future would [it] be a boon"? Could we have changed anything? Or would people have looked upon us the way they did when previous ages told the people that the earth was round and not flat.

I think knowing the futue would be more of a curse than a strength. Oh, it would be nice to know what the lucky numbers were for Saturday's lotto and it makes for great science fiction novels, but the question is do we really benefit from knowing all there is to know. If once we learn ALL knowledge and knowing the future would give us this knowledge what's left?

"He concludes that religion is indispensable to private morals and public order and that no man of sense will attack it. Hence, while writing against divination, he continued to fulfill the functions of official augur. It was not quite hypocrisy. He would have called it statesmanship. Roman morals, society, and government were bound up with the old religion and could not safely let it die."

What do you think of this statement? How can it not be hypocrisy to say, "religion is indispensable to private morals and public order" and write against "divination"? He calls it statesmanship? Is that really what it is?

Scrawler

Your question Scrawler- to me religion and divination are not the same thing. Therefore I do not see the statement as being hypocritical.

Cicero is very dramatic is he not? Yet if one knows a true Latin they are still very dramatic. His writing to me is the epitome of the emotional Italian- even today. I like Italians and I like Cicero. He feels things so deeply and he has no embaressment in writing about it.

And now for that section of the Roman Empire which is so very familiar to everyone who has studied high school or college history and/or literature. And if they are not too familiar with the details, at least everyone (I assume!) has heard the name Caesar.

Robby

Caesar

100-44 B.C.

Please help us to stay together by keeping in mind the GREEN quotes in the Heading.
"Caius Julius Caesar traced his pedigree to Iulus Ascanius, son of Aeneas, son of Venus, daughter of Jupiter. He began and ended as a god.
"The Julian gens, though impoverished, was one of the oldest and noblest in Italy, A Caius Julius had been consul in 489, another in 482, a Vopiscus Julius in 473, A Sextus Julius in 157, another in 91. From his uncle-in-law Marius he derived by a kind of avuncular heredity an inclination toward radical politics. His mother Aurelia was a matron of dignity and wisdom, frugally managing her small home in the unfashionable Subura -- a district of shops, taverns, and brothels.
"There Caesar was born 100 B.C., allegedly by the operation that bears his name."
I wonder what is the ratio of great men born into poverty and great men born into wealth.

Robby

Poverty provides incentive for great men.

Robby; You rushed through the life of the second greatest Roman to get to the life of the greatest Roman.It's too bad they are contemporary. I'm glad you dawdled with Lucretius. It took a little time to learn the man. Cicero deserves as much. Some of us will get him in depth in February but others won't have so much as a taste.

I think if we did a survey today its much easier to become great if there is money behind you. There is always the exception of course.

Justin:--I pace myself based upon the number of postings on a specific topic and how rapidly they are posted. Certainly, comments about Cicero are still welcome.

Robby

"I wonder what is the ratio of great men born into poverty and great men born into wealth.Robby"

I bet their are more from poverty. It is easier to go for something when you have nothing to lose. Those born to wealth often have a fear of losing their wealth. I think this make them cautious. I think great men are risk takers.

Durant's description of Cicero is mixed. On the surface he appears as a hypocrit. He is official augur and yet he writes against divination. The dichotomy has a simple explanation. Cicero,as with most politicians, has a private opinion and a public opinion. The private opinions can be seen in his letters to friends and to his slave Tiro, his chief secretary. His public opinion is seen in his speeches,in his oratorii, and in his public defense or prosecution of plaintifs and criminals.

In Cicero's private life probability is a guiding principal. All certainties are denied. He asks the right not to know what he does not know. "In most things," he says,"my philosophy is that of doubt." He is skeptical of dogma. He rejects atheism and religion on this basis. He based his moral and political treatises on secular grounds independent of supernatural sanctions.

In Cicero's public image he takes the position that "ignorance of the Gods is no guarantee of their nonexistance and indeed the general agreement of mankind establishes a probability in favor of Providence. He concludes that religion is indispensable to private morals and public order. (It is well to note that Durant tells us this is the very thinking of emperors who persecuted the new religion of Christianity.)

Hi, GinnyAnn:--Good to see you again! I believe you were active discussing Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" and we will look forward to seeing your comments here as we examine the "real" Julius Caesar. Perhaps you might contact your "Shakespeare" friends, here on the Senior Net and elsewhere and tell them of our discussion group.

Robby

"Caesar's tutor in Latin, Greek and rhetoric was a Gaul. With him Caesar unconsciously began to prepare himself for his greatest conquest. The youth took readily to oratory and almost lost himself in juvenile authorship. Nicomedes, ruler of Bithynia, took such a fancy to him that Cicero and other gossips later taunted him with having 'lost his virginity to a king.'
"Returning to Rome in 84, he married Cossutia to please his father. When, soon afterward, his father died, he divorced her and married Cornelia, daughter of that Cinna who had taken over the revolution from Marius. When Sulla came to power he ordered Caesar to divorce Cornelia. When Caesar refused, Sulla confiscated his patrimony and Cornelia's dowry, and listed him for death.
"Caesar fled from Italy and joined the army in Cilicia. On Sulla's death he returned to Rome (78), but finding his enemies in power he left again for Asia. Pirates captured him on the way, took him to one of their Cilician lairs, and offered to free him for twenty talents ($72,000). He reproached them for underestimating his value, and volunteered to give them fifty.
"Having sent his servants to raise the money, he amused himself by writing poems and reading them to his captors. They did not like them. He called them dull barbarians and promised to hang them at the earliest opportunity.
"When the ransom came he hurried to Miletus, engaged vessels and crews, chased and caught the pirates, recovered the ransom, and crucified them. But being a man of great clemency, he had their throats cut first."
Many, many traits. Might we say that he was precocious? Is this an example of the "child being father to the man?"

Robby

"Democracy is good when the people are virtuous, which, Cicero thought, is never. Besides, it is vitiated by the false assumption of equality."

I would have to agree with Cicero when he states "the false assumption of equality". I don't know about the rest of you but I don't want to be equal to anyone. I want to be my own man or in my case my own woman. I want to be different. Being equal reminds me of high school when everyone in your "group" wore the same clothes and took the same classes and did the same things because we wanted to belong to the "group". I disagree with Cicero however, because I also believe that everyone should have the opportunity to strive to be equal if they so wish.

"The best form of government is a mixed constitution, like that of pre-Gracchan Rome: - the democratic power of the assemblies, the aristocratic power of the Senate, the almost royal power of the consuls for a year."

I would like to see a government that changes with the needs of the people. Sometimes we do need the deomocratic power of the assemblies, sometimes we need the aristocratic power the Senate, and sometimes we need not necessarily royal power, but rather leaders that look like royal power to lead us.

"Without checks and balances monarchy becomes despotism, aristocracy becomes oligarchy, democracy becomes mob rule, chaos and dictatorship."

I would have to agree with this statement which is why we have to keep our government in check. We have to hold them accountable for their decisions, because in reality it is not their decisions, but ours that affect the world. I firmly believe that there is a place in the world for all the people, but I can not say the same thing for all the governments. Therefore, we must find some compromise that all the people can live with. And it would be nice if we could come up with it very quickly before more of our world is destroyed. I think right now if we are not careful, we could find ourselves in a world revolution.

Quotes:

"The gift is a passion for reading. It is cheap, it consoles, it distracts, it excites, and it gives you knowledge of the world and experience of a wide kind. It is a moral illumination." - Elizabeth Hardwick

Bess of Hardwik (1518-1608) was the popular name of Elizabeth Hardwick, who became one of the wealthiest women in England by outliving four husbands and inheriting most of their estates.

"A man loses contact with reality if he is not surrounded by his books." - Francois Mitterrand

Francois Maurice Mitterrand (1916-1996) served as president of France from 1981 to 1995. A member of the Socialist Party, Mitterrand was France's fist leftist president since 1958. He retired in 1995.

"I don't like to read books; they mess up my mind." - Henry Ford

Henry Ford, (1863-1947), was a leading manufacturer of American automobiles in the early 1900s.

Three very different people who had very different opinions on one particular subject - books.

Scrawler

Suetonius refers to Caesar as "The Deified Julius". He is the first of the human gods to appear in Rome. Many were to follow.

Scrawler: Henry Ford was an ignorant anti semitic bigot who was awarded The Supreme order of the German Eagle from Hitler at the beginning of his attack on the Jews. Ford was an admirer of Germany and Hitler. He refused to make airplane engines at the beginning of the war for America's defense. He may have put an engine on four bicycle wheels but he was not much as a thinking man.

I actually like the MMP system we have which is a type of proportional representation. What it does is usually end up a coalition govt and it prevents the far left from taking hold or the far right taking hold. The minor parties in the coalition will negotiate deals which are checks and balances on the majority party. I am very satisfied with this form of Govt. Its not perfect but to me its as perfect as you get under a democracy. Everyone is represented in Govt in proportion.

Carolyn, I usually can tell wuat Initials mean but this time, I cannot. Wuat does MMP system stand for. Forgive my ignorance. It seems that New Zealand has a good system of government. I think Canada has also in spite of its faults.

Eloïse

The Us two party system has evolved. It is not mandated by the constitution. Two parties may predominate but often a third party determines the outcome of an election.

Durant continues:--

"Julius Caesar divided his energies between politics and love. He was handsome, though already worried about his thinning hair. When Cornelia died (68) he married Pompeia, granddaughter of Sulla. As this was a purely political marriage, he did not scruple to carry on liaisons in the fashion of his time. But in such number and with such ambigendered diversity that Curio (father of his later general) called him omnium mulierum vir et omnium virorum mulier -- 'the husband of every woman and the wife of every man.'

"He would continue these habits in his campaigns, dallying with Cleopatra in Egypt, with Queen Eunoe in Numidia, and with so many ladies n Gaul that his soldiers in fond jest called him moechus calvus, the 'bald adulterer.'

"In his triumph after conquering Gaul they sang a couplet warning all husbands to keep their wives under lock and key as long as Caesar was in town. The aristocracy hated him doubly -- for undermining their privileges and seducing their wives. Pompey divorced his wife for her intimacy with Caesar. Cato's passionate hostility was not all philosophical. His half sister Servilia was the most devoted of Caesar's mistresses. When Cato, suspecting Caesar's complicity with Catiline, challenged him in the Senate to read aloud a note just brought to him, Caesar passed it to Cato without comment. It was a love letter from Servilia. Her passion for him continued throughout his life, and merciless gossip, in her late years, charged her with surrendering her daughter Tertia to Caesar's list.

"During the Civil war, at a public auction, Caesar 'knocked down' some confiscated estates of irreconcilable aristocrats to Servilia at a nominal price. When some expressed surprise at the low figure, Cicero remarked, in a pithy pun that might have cost him his life, Tertia deducta, which could either mean 'a third off,' or refer to the rumor that Servilia had brought her daughter to Caesar. "Tertia became the wife of Caesar's prime assassin, Cassius.

"So the amours of men mingle with the commotions of states."

I don't remember this being discussed in high school history classes.

Robby

Sex was important in those days.

Sex is still important.

Perhaps the allure of Caesar's power lead the women to his bed. How is it said?: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Caesar probably began to believe his own publicity and felt he could do anything he wanted whenever he wanted. As a leader he needed confidence in himself but he took it too far.

Picture: Julius Caesar

Thank you for letting me know that Caesar is current topic.

Julius Caesar, a biography

Julius Caesar: Timeline

Caesar grew up in a neighborhood of brothels. Early, he learned the joys of sex. The King of Bithnia had him as a teen age pretty boy. Then, at age sixteen, he returned to Rome, married,divorced, and remarried-all in the same year. At age 32 he was married again. He married often and slept with as many women and boys as it was humanly possible to accomodate. One mistress brought her daughter to Caesar-and that same daughter married Cassius who later buried the knife in Caesar's breast. They were all just one big happy family.

Hey -- Caeser's statue has plenty of hair. What's all this about him being bald?

"Probably these diversified investments helped Caesar's rise as well as his fall. Every woman he won was an influential friend, usually in the enemy's camp. Most of them remained his devotees even when his passion had cooled to courtesy.
"Crassus, though his Tertulla was reported to be Caesar's mistress, lent him vast sums to finance his candidacies with bribes and games. At one time Caesar owed him 800 talents ($1,880,000). Such loans were not acts of generosity or friendship. They were campaign contributions, to be repaid with political favors or military spoils. Crassus, like Atticus, needed protection and opportunities for his millions.
"Most Roman politicians of the time incurred similar 'debts.' Mark Antony owed 40,000,000 sesterces, Cicero 60,000,000, Milo 70,000,000 -- though these figures may be conservative slanders.
"We must think of Caesar as at first an unscrupulous politician and a reckless rake, slowly transformed by growth and responsibility into one of history's most profound and conscientious statsmen.
"We cannot equate ourselves with Caesar by proving that he seduced women, bribed ward leaders, and wrote books."
As we all know here, we refrain from mentioning the names of individuals in the current public arena but certainly they come to mind as we read about Caesar. Any differences between then and now as to the methods of political activity or are we exactly the same as they were?

Robby

Mal, thanks for the wonderful links.

On one of the sites, did you note the following link to Women and Rome?

http://dominae.fws1.com/

Has anyone else been struck by the enormous sums of money these men had and/or owed? How much is a sesterces? When translated into current dollars (I assume that Durant translated into 1950 dollars), this sums seem far greater than anything I know of in current politics. The 'fix was in' in Roman times far more than it seems to be today in terms of amounts of money, though not perhaps in the outcome of political influence on legislation. The campaign finance law just passed, though not perfect, is certainly a step in the right direction.

That is an excellent link about women, George. I took the liberty of copying the following portion of a paragraph from it -- an important item to keep in mind.

"For nearly a millennium, half of all people living and dying under the Caesars were women and their voices come to us solely through men. Their own words are mere whispers: a source here, a poem fragment there, and a reference in a politician’s biography, tomb epitaphs. Yet the women of the Roman Empire were equally its founders and mainstay and their voices are only now, after 16 centuries, beginning to be heard."

Robby

Good morning, everyone.

GEORGE, in some of my previous posts I have posted links to pages in the site you linked. It's a very good one, indeed. Let's hope the voices of women will be more than whispers when our history is written many, many years from now.

Mal

Now that we are deep into examining Julius Caesar, himself, participants here might have some Senior Net friends who would be interested in joining us. Please contact them.

Robby

Hi - Just wondering if you would happen to know where I could obtain a copy of "The History of Civilization in CD ROM format " ? I am a Teacher and we are trying to locate this for educational usage. Please consider. In any case, Thank You and have a Great Day! Sincerely,

Fred M Lassonde - 114 Fawcett Street NW - Saint John, ND 58369

Email: agri101@utma.com

I will do that Robby. I will be learning about Caesar more than what is mentioned in the Bible. By looking at statues in Mal's link, he was a very handsome man, not at all like the actor who played Caesar in the television series.

Mal, about many many years from now, I hope there will be women who will dare to write history from a woman's point of view as well as Durant writes it from a man's point of view.

Scawler, very good posts.

I am too busy to comment right now, but I follow diligently.

Eloïse

Fred:--
I don't have the answer to your question but perhaps someone else here does. Perhaps you couldn't locate it because you used the word "history" rather than "story."
HOWEVER, considering the fact that you are a teacher, and considering the fact that you are interested in "The Story of Civilization," I would urge you to become a participant in this discussion group. In my opinion, it would strengthen your rapport with your class and enrich your knowledge because in this forum you have not only the words of Durant but, in addition, the benefits of all the links which are presented here plus the views of every participant.

Robby

Thank You Robert. I am encouraged to hear from someone so soon. Your advise is well taken and I look forward to future contact with you and others here. Unfortunately, I am not much of an authority on Will and Ariel Durant and their very interesting writings. However, I intend to not only learn but transfer whatever I learn to others (Students and who-so-ever will listen). Thank You again Robert.

With great appreciation and anticipation.

Fred

Welcome to our group, Fred! Be sure to click onto the SUBSCRIBE button so you will automatically be brought back to this discussion group each time there is a new posting.
Let me emphasize at the outset that very few of us here consider themselves "experts," certainly not myself. We look at ourselves as a group of friends, sitting around in a living room, and discussing the "progress" of mankind. Our basic rule is "courtesy and consideration." Each of us respects the opinions of others.
The quotes in GREEN in the Heading above are changed periodically and indicate to everyone the section of Durant's book we are discussing. We try our best to stay together under a specific sub-topic.
We are looking forward to your thoughts!

Robby

Caesar knew controversy from his early childhood. His uncle, Gaius Marius was leader of the Populares, a party supporting agrarian reform and opposed by the reactionary Optimtes. In Marius's last year as consul he had Caesar appointed flamen dialis, one of an archaic priesthood with no power, identifying him with his uncle's extremist politics. His marriage in 84 BC to Cornelia, the daughter of Marius's associte Cinna, further marked him as a radical. When Sulla became dictator in 82 BC he ordered Caesar to divorce Cornelia. Caesar refused the order and left Rome and did not return until 78 BC after Sulla's resignation.

Most of what happened to Casesar in his early life was not his doing. He did as his father and uncle requested of him. However, when he refused to divorce Cornelia and recovered the ransom and crucified the pirates he was being his own person. I think that Caesar in his twenties was sowing the seeds of the great man he would become.

Scrawler

Durant continues - Page 169 for those of you who have the book:--

"Hardly a year after Sulla's death, Caesar prosecuted Gnaeus Dolabella, a tool of the Sullan reaction. The jury voted against Caesar, but the people applauded his democratic offensive and his brilliant speech. He could not rival Cicero's verve and wit, passionate periods, and rhetorical flagellations. Indeed, Caesar disliked this 'Asianic' style and disciplined himself to the masculine brevity and stern simplicity that were to distinguish his Commentaries on the Gallic and Civil Wars. Nevertheless, he was soon ranked as second only to Cicero in eloquence.

"In 68 he was chosen quaestor and was assigned to serve in Spain. He led military expeditions against the native tribes, sacked towns, and collected enough plunder to pay off some of his debts. At the same time he won the gratitude of Spanish cities by lowering the interest charges on the sums that had been lent them by the Roman bankers.

"Coming at Gades upon a statue of Alexander, he reproached himself for having accomplished so little at an age when the Macedonian had conquered half the Mediterranean world. He returned to Rome and plunged again into the race for office and power.

"In 65 he was elected aedile, or commissioner of public works. He spent his money -- i.e. the money of Crassus -- in adorning the Forum with new buildings and colonnades, and courted the populace with unstinted games. Sulla had removed from the Capitol, the trophies of Marius -- banners, pictures, and spoils representing the features and victories of the old radical. Caesar had these restored, to the joy of Marius' veterans. By that act alone he announced his rebel policy.

"The conservatives protested and marked him out as a man to be broken."

I am trying to decide in my mind if Caesar is truly democratic, is on his way toward being a dictator, or is somewhere inbetween.

Robby

"he won the gratitude of Spanish cities by lowering the interest charges on the sums that had been lent them by the Roman bankers".

It seems that the first thing a leader or would-be leader does to get the support of a group is to relieve their debt. This is the umpteenth time this has been mentioned. Meanwhile, the leaders themselves are all heavily in debt. As I mentioned once before, this has been a theme throughout. I always want to know how the economy of a country functions. This one doesn't seem to function very well. As best I can piece it together, Rome produced very little: her wealth came from capturing other's wealth, and then lending the money around at big interest rates. Average (male) citizens, having lost their farms for debt and moved to the city, had little to do except collect free corn or live on borrowed money, and join armies, hoping to capture enough wealth to get out of the red. Most of the productive work was done by slaves.

This is exaggerated, but it is what I see, based on our reading. Could the seeds of Rome's fall be here? This is like a giant pyramid scheme. Sooner or later, it's bound to crash when they run out of wealth to capture.

As usual, I'm scrambling to catch up.

JUSTIN: you called Cicero the second greatest Roman. Why? Was it because of what he did for the Latin language?

If so, I have some questions for all of you about Latin. I seem to be one of the few here who never studied it.

Do you think Latin is an exceptional language? If so in what way? Do you think it is more beautiful, richer, clearer, or more logical (fill in your own adjective) than English? (That is a completely unfair question. I think it is always easier to appreciate another language than one's own. We take our own for granted. But I'd still like to know what you think. Have we gone forward or backward linguistically since we inherited our Latin roots?)

JoanK, I didn't study Latin either, but only read it in church when I was a child and used to compare it to the French as both were side by side on the page. My mother tongue is French and I think that French sound more beautiful than English but English is clearer and it expresses a thought more accurately because it has more words to choose from (500,000 and only 250,000 in French, McGill University statistics). I don't know whether English is more logical than French because logic is not a matter of language but more matter of the mind.

One of our ex-Premier of Quebec used to read Marcel Proulx, a French classic, every night to expand his vocabulary. He was a good orator but did not succeed in making Quebec a separate country in spite of that.

Eloïse

Here is a most interesting COURT CASE presented to Gnaeus Dolabella, the person prosecuted by Julius Caesar.

Robby

What a wonderful solution to Dolabella's case, ROBBY. Now, how can we use this type of solution in everyday living? Off the hook and on the hook at the same time!

Mal

I call Cicero the second greatest Roman because he made significant contributions to things that have lasting value. He enlarged the language. He wrote with clarity on relevant topics in the history of his times. He expanded the literature of Rome. He courageously undertook the prosecution of powerful men at the risk of his own life. He enriched the techniques of public speaking. He provided us with fresh insight on the moral code of duty. He clarified the Greek philosophical concepts and left us his commentary.

Harry Hubbell, a modern Cicero scholar, wrote, in an introduction, that Cicero "almost alone of all the Romans, saw with the eye of his mind, comprehended with his intellect,and illumined with his eloquence. The race of man shall sooner pass from the world than the name of Cicero be forgotten."

What I admire most about Cicero is his honesty of thought in a period when dishonesty was fashionable. He lost his head to Antony in the days of the Triumvirate by maintaining a position supporting the constitution.

I don't think Caesar was democratic or cared one whit about the beauties of the system. He was primarily aristocratic, though only a member of the horsey set. Crassus was right. Caesar was ambitious. He would have used what ever system was available to advance his aims. I am not certain he wanted to be dictator, though the conspirators thought so. He wanted to be consul for a second term. That is certain.

"The Senate trembled when it heard that Pompey had landed at Brundisium (62) with an army personally devoted to him and capable at his word of making him dictator. He magnanimously relieved its fears by disbanding his troops and entering Rome with no other retinue than his personal staff.
"His triumph lasted two days, but even that time proved insufficient for all the floats that pictured his victories and displayed his garnerings. The ungrateful Senate rejected his request that state lands be given his soldiers, refused to ratify his agreements with conquered kings, and restored those arrangements that Lucullus had made in the East and which Pompey had ignored.
"The effect of these actions was to break down Cicero's concordia ordinum, or alliance with the populares. Taking full advantage of the situation, Caesar formed with Pompey and Crassus the First Triumvirate (60), by which each pledge himself to oppose legislation unsatisfactory to any one of them.
"Pompey agreed to support Caesar for the consulate, and Caesar promised, if elected, to carry through the measures in which Pompey had been rebuffed by the Senate."
Keeping in mind Caesar's liaisons when he was younger and now watching his moving in to join with Pompey, I am beginning to see him as an opportunist.

Robby