The myth of the greco-roman culture and the ideology of expansion

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

The myth of the greco-roman culture and the ideology of expansion

Panos Eliopoulos (Панос Еліопулос)

Annotation

Although there are frequent references to the «Greco-Roman» culture, it is the partial but strong differentiations between Greece and Rome which did not allow the assimilation of Greek philosophy and science in the West under the right historical spirit. While in Ancient Greece, right reason is rendered necessary for a life of eudaimonia andfreedom, guiding teleologically to the self-realization of each individual and citizen, gradually in Rome and the western world that emerges later and which is configured cataclysmically by the roman views, it comprises the means, nothing more than a common quid pro quo. The Romans become engaged with the organization of the Polity, a polity with globalized characteristics. This ideology of expansion is against the Greek idea of the Polis, which remains hierarchically first, as the supreme form of human living according to Aristotle.

Key words: Ancient Greece, Rome, right reason, science, philosophy, individuality, eudaimonia, politics, ethics, values, justice.

Еліопулос П.

Міф греко-римської культури та ідеологія експансії

Анотація

eudaimonia freedom philosophy

Хоча часто посилаються на «греко-римську» культуру, однак існують доволі сильні відмінності між Грецією і Римом, які не дозволили засвоєння грецької філософії і науки на Заході у правильному історичному дусі. У той час як в Стародавній Греції, правильний сенс виявляється необхідним для життя в евдемоніі і свободі, що телеологічно направляє до самореалізації кожної людини і громадянина, поступово в Римі і західному світі, який з'являється пізніше і який налаштований катастрофічно з римської точки зору, римляни займалися організацією політії, державного устрою з глобалізованими характеристиками. Ця ідеологія експансії виступає проти грецької ідеї поліса, яка залишається ієрархічно первинною, як вища форма людського життя за Арістотелем.

Ключові слова: Стародавня Греція, Рим, право розум, наука, філософія, індивідуальність, евдемонія, політика, етика, цінності, справедливість.

Элиопулос П.

Миф греко-римской культуры и идеология экспансии

Аннотация

Хотя часто ссылаются на «греко-римскую» культуру, однако существуют довольно сильные отличия между Грецией и Римом, которые не позволили усвоить греческую философию и науку на Западе в правильном историческом духе. В то время как в Древней Греции, правильный смысл является необходимым для жизни в эвдемонии и свободе, которая телеологически направляет к самореализации каждого человека и гражданина, постепенно в Риме и западном мире, который появлается позже и который настроен катастрофически с римской точки зрения, римляне занимались организацией политии, государственного устройства с глобализированными характеристиками. Эта идеология экспансии выступает против греческой идеи полиса, которая остается иерархически первичной, как высшая форма человеческой жизни за Аристотелем.

Ключевые слова: Древняя Греция, Рим, право, разум, наука, философия, индивидуальность, эвдемония, политика, ценности, справедливость.

Introduction

The transition from ancient Greece to the modem western world does not take place through an unimpeded transfer of the scientific and philosophical views. Although there are frequent references to the «Greco- Roman» culture, there are partial but strong differentiations between Greece and Rome, which did not allow the assimilation of Greek Philosophy and Science in the West, under the right historical spirit, but rather transformed the Greek rationalism to a mere cause for that which, centuries later, the Spanish existentialist Ortega y Gasset would call «instrumental reason» [razon instrumental], the reason that does not take into consideration the metaphysical, ontological and psychological aspects of human beings, but the usefulness, applicability and potentiality of practical reason. While in ancient Greece right reason is rendered indispensable for a life of eudaimonia and freedom, guiding teleologically to the self-realization of each individual and citizen -therefore having to do with the objective of human life-, gradually in Rome and the Western world that emerges later and which is configured cataclysmically by the Roman views, it comprises the means, nothing more than a common quid pro quo.

For the reestablishment and restoration of the events and of that transition, the introductory quote is valuable, by Cornelius Castoriadis, who rightly discerns that when the term «reestablishment» or «restoration» is used in relation to some historical period, there should be paid attention to the fact that this depends crucially on the perspective of who is the one who restores the particular period1. Indeed, he who restores, the critic or the investigator, does not sufficiently understand his distance from the event. Quite the contrary, he considers that he recreates safely and that he penetrates the past, where some forms have remained unchanged, so as to allow this intrusion. We could discern a second type of restoration about the matter that is of concerns to us: on the one hand, we have the restoration which the modern and the older historian carry forward regarding the culture of the ancient Greeks. On the other hand, there is the restoration of Ancient Greek culture by the Romans, through the dynamic, and not negligible at all, interference of the Latin language. Apart from language, as a means that may alter or transform the meanings, there are, as we shall see later, further reasons which influenced the amalgamation of elements of the ancient Greek culture into Rome and then through Rome to the West.

The Influence of Greek Science to Western Science

According to the pertinent remark of Karl Popper, the Western Science is initiated thanks to the thoughtful originality of the pre-Socratic philosophers, not by their collecting observations, as in modern science, but through theories, even daring theories, about the world. Castoriadis Cornelius, (2007), H EUiniki Idiaiterotita. Apo ton Omiro ston Hraklito. Transl. Xenofon Giataganas, Kritiki, Athens, pp. 83 and 70. Popper Karl, (1958), «Back to the Presocratics». In the Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, N. S. 59, p. 3. The Greek Science deals firstly with generic questions, not detailed ones. It begins with problems such as how things started and what constituted them, in other words it starts from principles of Metaphysics and Ontology as attempts of rational responses to myths. Lloyd agrees to the above, adding that it would however be inaccurate to state that the whole Greek Science is prone to abstract theory. In fact it is more tolerant to empirical investigation than we often consider Lloyd G.E.R., (1996), Archaia EUiniki Epistimi. Methodoi kai Provlimata. Transl. Chloe Bala, Alexandreia, Athens, pp. 198., governed by the rules of rational criticism and dialogue between different thinkers of the era. Lloyd actually believes that the emphasis which has been given to the weakness of the ancient Greeks to perform experiments is rather excessive Lloyd G.E.R., (1996), Archaia Elliniki Epistimi. Methodoi kai Provlimata. Transl. Chloe Bala, Alexandreia, Athens, pp. 206.. Nonetheless, worthy of observation remains the fact that the Greek Natural Philosophy, the Greek Medicine and Greek Mathematics, deal firmly with the foundation and justification of a position, a common practice even in politics and law, Lloyd G.E.R., (1996), Archaia Elliniki Epistimi. Methodoi kai Provlimata. Transl. Chloe Bala, Alexandreia, Athens, pp. 219. as an outcome of the disputes in the market, courts and assemblies of the City-States. Relevance in relation to the above acquires the subsequent observation that the standard of Greek philosophical schools was not the idea of the utility of scientific research, but the ideal of a liberal higher education, According to Lloyd, the Greeks attributed usability primarily in the application of technology to improve military weapons and also medicine. an ideal which becomes abandoned gradually in the practical cosmo-system of the Romans.

Bubenik demonstrates how, in the post-Alexander era, Greek populations, despite the fact that they maintained the local language differences, migrated in significant numbers in the new Hellenistic kingdoms, especially during the movements of the army, and disseminated the Hellenistic «Koine» as a language, which was significantly popularized both in the upper and the lower classes. The Hellenistic «koine», was the language of administration, taxation and trade. Nevertheless it remains undeniable that there was no linguistic planning and expansionism that sought the turning of local populations into Hellenic populations Bubenik Vit, (1989), Hellenistic and Roman Greece as a Sociolinguistic Area, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, pp. 54-56.. Despite the massive arrival of an inevitable syncretism, and the keen interest of Greek Philosophers and Historians for foreign customs and beliefs, from the 5th and 4th century BC the Hellenistic Culture remained Greek in its language, in its customs and in its self-consciousness.

The Roman Influence

Despite maintaining a non-linguistic absolutism on the part of the Romans, Momigliano attaches great importance to the victory of the Roman imperialism, which was due, primarily, to four factors: a) the emphasis given by the Romans to the military and social forces of old Italy b) their prevalence, on the Greek and Hellenistic troops, c) the long penetration into the Celtic civilization and its lands, which allowed finally to the Romans to control the wealth-producing resources of Western Europe, from the Atlantic to the Danube areas and d) the cooperation of Greek scholars and Italian politicians and writers, which led to the creation of a bilingual culture during the Roman dominance Momigliano Arnaldo, Xeni Sophia, (1998), Ta oria tou Exellinismou stin Archaiotita. Transl. Alexandra Katsivelaki, Alexandreia, Athens, pp. 18.. Regarding economic resources and the economy of the region, Morris and Manning observe that it is indirectly connected with the possibilities of technology and its potential contribution to production Manning J.G. & Morris Ian (eds.), (2005), The Ancient Economy. Evidence and Models, Stanford University Press, Stanford, p. 4. Bruce Hitchner, (2005), «The Advantages of Wealth and Luxury». In Manning J.G. & Morris Ian (eds.), The Ancient Economy. Evidence and Models, Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 207 & 219. Humphrey John, Oleson John, Sherwood Andrew, (1998), Greek and Roman Technology. A Sourcebook, Routledge, London-New York, pp. 594. Cicero, Tusculanae Disputationes, 1. 1. 2. Seneca, De Beneficiis, I. iv. 1: «pungit, non perforat». Cicero, De Legibus, I. ii. 5. In our estimation, the trend of the Romans to quickly cover the intellectual gap that separated them from the Greeks, with the ultimate goal to glorify their homeland, still places great emphasis on the fact that they tried to fill this gap within a shorter span of historical time and possibly more due to fervent mimicry rather than due to an original intellectual need. Connor W.R., (2004), «Early Greek Land Warfare as Symbolic Expression». In Osborne Robin (ed.), Studies in Ancient Greek and Roman Society, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 36-37.. In the case of Ancient Greece and Rome, the comparison is unfavorable: Rome was far more stable, and there was more access to raw Economy materials than there was in the Greek City-States and colonies, and this is mainly reflected not only on the production itself and the technological means that could be developed for the benefit of maximizing economic growth, but also on the fact that in Rome there was an unprecedented (for the ancient Western societies) wealth accumulation, which entailed the known propensity of the Romans to unrestrained luxury and hedonism10.

In the Roman Empire, despite the ongoing achievements of the Hellenistic Era, there prevails the inclination to preserve the acquired knowledge, which is still accrued principally within the Greek populations, rather than to expand it. The main transmission of this knowledge, for those Romans who may not be able to come into direct contact with the Greek letters, is materialized through translations of Greek treatises into small and more condensed, «easy to use» euphemistically, handbooks. An example of a writer engaged in such practices is Cato the Elder, who was hostile towards Greek studies. In other cases, borrowing from the texts of the Greeks continues, even in the form of larger developments of scientific texts, as in the case of Marcus Terentius Varro, who authored a treatise on the Greek artes liberates, a treatise which is responsible, in the Middle Ages, for the trivium and quadrivium, which formed the basis for education in Europe. While thinkers, such as Cicero and Seneca, note the highest value of wisdom (sapientia) compared with subtlety and ingenuity (sagacitas) which lead to brutal arts such as the manual ones, they do so because of their Stoic beliefs, according to which only a life of leisure (otium) is worthy for free humans11. Cicero, nevertheless, does not refrain from upholding, in the Tusculanae Disputationes,12 that the Romans have always been more able for inventions than the Greeks, they have prevailed and have been distinguished at least in those areas that they themselves considered as worthy. The critical attitude of the Romans towards the Greek tendency to theory is recorded in philosophical treatises such as De Beneficiis, where Seneca maintains that the Stoic Chrysippus, although he's a great man, he is still Greek and, consequently, his insight and judiciousness do not penetrate into things, they do not go into deep, but simply touch the surface13.

The Romans are not only aware that they are inferior to the Greek spirit but they are also imbued by a passion of creativity, driven primarily by a mood of competition against the Greeks. In De Legibus14 Atticus motivates Quintus to write history, so as not «to concede anything to the Greeks» and adds that this is the duty of such a writing, not only to the delight of Romans readers but primarily to the homeland and to its glory15. The Romans, as conquerors, preserve a high sense of identity and superiority. Whether they pay the Greeks to teach them or whether they do not need to pay them, since the Greek teachers are their servants, the Romans gradually assimilate in their own way philosophical ideas and social habits (especially in the years of the first two Punic Wars) finally developing a language, the Latin, which managed to depict the Greek ideas with some precision. Or maybe not? Important, though, is the fact that between the Roman and the Greek culture there is not any political barrier for some time.

Even in the conduct of war, W.R. Connor finds ritual characteristics regarding the Greeks, documenting differences between them and the Romans. Specifically for the Greeks, the battle exists as a struggle (agon), an opportunity to demonstrate the military virtue, individual and collective excellence, as a verification of the military and political cohesion of the citizen soldiers16. In Rome, the struggle as agon falls into a prevalence policy effort on the affairs of other nations. Furthermore, apart from partial characteristics, social parameters vary considerably. As a paradigm, the more male-centered society of the Greeks is contrasted with the relatively free life of Roman women, who could be presented in the dining room of a symposium, could be going to the baths and to public entertainment shows, visit their girlfriends, even work in the family business or get some education even though not systematically Connolly Peter & Dodge Hazel, (2001), H Archaia Poli. H Zoi stin Athina kai sti Romi, Patakis, Athina, pp. 149, 153, 158.. Significant differences are found in theatrical performances (ludi scaenici) where, despite the presence of comic poets such as Plautus and Terence, there is a greater variety of theatrical entertainment, with emphasis on farce and parody, often easy and indecorous amusement for the masses that has no relation with the sophisticated Attic Tragedy and Comedy Connolly Peter & Dodge Hazel, (2001), H Archaia Poli. H Zoi stin Athina kai sti Romi, Patakis, Athina, pp. 183.. From 264 BC in the Forum Boarium, where the first pair of warriors who fought to death was presented, a major means of entertainment was murder in the arena, committed either against animals by venatores (beast fighters) or against human beings by gladiatores (gladiators), and also as damnatio ad bestias, killing like that of the first Christian martyrs by wild beasts Connolly Peter & Dodge Hazel, (2001), H Archaia Poli. H Zoi stin Athina kai sti Romi, Patakis, Athina, pp. 190, 211, 217..

The contrast of ideas

In terms of ideas, in Rome, the Socratic «nmg fimreov' (how to live) is replaced by the Senecan «quid agis?» [what do you do?]; hence is preferred the militant element which is founded on the roman idiosyncrasy of «militare vivere est». Ethics is thus deprived of an adequate metaphysical foundation' what is significant for the Romans is the direct action, the functional interference. What reinforces this assumption is the emphasis on voluntas (will), a concept developed for the first time in the De Rerum Natura of Lucretius and later, less coarsely, in Cicero and Seneca. For the Romans, the occupation with labyrinthine logical and dialectical formations is not important; as a matter of fact they often express certain irony for the Greeks and their tendency to remain in the theoretical sphere. On the contrary, the Romans become engaged with the organization of the Polity, a polity with globalized characteristics. In this context belongs the view of Cicero that the roman justice of the Res Publica incorporates indeed natural law, thus comprising a legal system which fosters virtues, discourages vices and guides citizens to a eudaimonistic living. For Cicero, who here follows the reasoning of Plato in the Laws, the law is not merely a set of rules that guides our actions, but it builds the character of the people as a kind of moral and political education, encouraging certain characteristics and discouraging others Annas Julia, (2013), «Plato's Laws and Cicero's De Legibus», in Malcolm Schofield (ed.), Aristotle, Plato and Pythagoreanism in the First Century BC: New Directions for Philosophy. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 206-224.. Furthermore, the Roman law is almost perfected, according to the Roman thinker, and the rest of the people, in other areas of the world, should implement it if they truly wish to be led securely to virtue and eudaimonia. Cicero's argument, although it partly follows the views of Plato, applies a more vivid affirmation of the need of supervision of the Laws on moral reality, considering them almost completely responsible for the performance of justice and the formation of civil character Annas Julia, (2013), «Plato's Laws and Cicero's De Legibus», in Malcolm Schofield (ed.), Aristotle, Plato and Pythagoreanism in the First Century BC: New Directions for Philosophy. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 206-224.. Additionally, just like the Athenian philosopher, Cicero gives great importance to the use of persuasion and coercion by law to ensure a fair outcome. The main difference of the Roman consul in relation to the views of Plato, which are based on the Greek city- state frame, is that the former gives a global perspective in the Roman law, highlighting the criterion of universality. Not only should the law be global but it is already realized in such supremacy and in an exemplifying manner within the Roman Empire. As it has rightly been demonstrated by Andrew Dyck, «how is it, however, possible that the law of a particular country can claim for itself universal power?» Dyck Andrew, (2004), A Commentary on Cicero, De Legibus, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp. 410-411. At this point we could demonstrate the following argument: if the law of our country is better than the laws of other countries and if we are those who have made this law, does it not mean a) that we are superior in quality to other nations, b) we have the right to impose our own «superior» views on other peoples c) being a foreigner, a wise person, a sage, should still accept our moral and legal system? The risk of moral superiority, specifically on the basis of the acceptance of recta ratio, that is Right Reason, which is the property of the wise, therefore of the Optimi Viri of the Empire that established a system as perfect as to claim universal validity, leads directly to the recognition of the principle of prevalence of superior cultures on inferior ones, although Cicero himself does not directly expose such an assumption.

Conclusion

The emphasis on individual conscience and on internality is the other issue that emerges during the Hellenistic era, as epiphenomenon of this transition of sciences, philosophical currents and values. In Greece the Polis remains first hierarchically, as the supreme form of human life, according to Aristotle, while in Rome the individual emerges to some extent as the suffering subject (a notional background that serves later the philosophies of existentialism), but also as the material for the creation of an instrument that rules and prevails over anything individual. Cicero supports forcefully that it would be catastrophic to regard seriously the possibility of the participation of each and every citizen in the management of political power. As Democracy tends to equate things which are disparate in their nature, an environment of true equality cannot be established within it because the natural distinction of the merit of each civilian is practically not performed. Thus, according to the Roman thinker, the democratic State is unjust to outstanding citizens and it cancels the natural law Papatsimpas, George, (2001), «Ipsum bonum non est opinionibus, sed natura [Leg. 1, 17, 46]: Cicero and Protagoras about the Nature of the Law», Ellinika, 51, pp. 291. Cicero, De Legibus, 1, 16, 43., which is expressed in the famous phrase «ipsum bonum non est opinionibus, sed natura» Cicero, De Legibus, 1, 17, 46.. In this way, the perception of the political is lost, in the form in which Greeks perceived it, debasing the citizen and leading him to an era devoted to the State, to representation, and ultimately to factionalism, to the era of John Locke and of John Stuart Mill. Indeed in relation to the above, John North clarifies that, although the main issues were presented for discussion and voting in the Roman Assemblies and could not be adjudicated by the Senate or the men of the nobility, issues such as legislation, elections, the declaration of war, etc., there was only an ostensibly democratic process and resolution of them. In fact, while the structural characteristics of these Assemblies resembled externally with those of the corresponding Greek ones (only adult males could participate, the Senate as the Greek Boule could forward proposals to the vote, the rulers were elected by a body of voters, etc.), there was the essential distinction that the result of the vote did not come from dialogical confrontation and counting of individual opinions but from certain groups which defended some specific position from the beginning. The voting process was influenced favorably by the interests of the wealthy and powerful voters North John, (2004), «Democratic Politics in Republican Rome». In Osborne Robin (ed.), Studies in Ancient Greek and Roman Society, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 142-143., and similarly there were favored the commitments of the ruling families and clans, each of which had certain alliances. In Roman politics, the dominant role was played by the Oligarchy which enjoyed, in a latent way, full power in democratic Rome, artfully manipulating all democratic procedures. The popular will found expression only within the coincidental framework of partial differences, among the dominant views of the oligarchy.

I firmly believe that it is a fair assessment of Castoriadis Castoriadis Cornelius, (2007), H Elliniki Idiaiterotita. Apo ton Omiro ston Hraklito. Transl. Xenofon GGiataganas, Kritiki, Athens, pp. 90-91., despite the intense ameliorative influence of Aristotle and many other Greek philosophers in the history of what we call Western Philosophy and Science: the primary imaginary conception of the world by the Greeks, the vestibule of their Philosophy and their Democracy, is constituted and founded on the understanding of the world as incomprehensible, as a creature of chaos, but also on their conception that this world is created neither for them nor against them. This allows the coexistence of cosmic law, which according to Heraclitus cannot even be escaped by the Sun, with the uncaused volition of the human being. It allows a small window of free will, of creativity, of the improvement of the interpretation of the position of man in this world, not as a productive conceptual construction but as a firm condition for a wider humanitarianism. In the ancient Greek world, Will does not have supremacy over Knowledge in a restrictive way, while in Rome and in the Western world that followed Rome's spiritual traditions, in spite of the Greek ones, the Will emerges as superior and occasionally even as a disease. As in the West, man is the center of the universe and rules the world around with an iron hand, as the Roman conquers, the Greek stands face to face with the world, aware of his mortality, not perturbed and irresolute of questions, but wondering and acting, according to virtue, in the full Aristotelian sense.

Bibliography

1. Annas Julia, «Plato's Laws and Cicero's De Legibus», in Malcolm Schofield (ed.), Aristotle, Plato and Pythagoreanism in the First Century BC: New Directions for Philosophy. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 206-224.

2. Bubenik Vit, Hellenistic and Roman Greece as a Sociolinguistic Area, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia 1989.

3. Cicero, Tusculanae Disputationes (Tusculan Disputations), translated by J. E. King, Harvard University Press, (Loeb) 1927.

4. Cicero, De Re Publica, De Legibus, translated by Clinton W. Keyes, Harvard University Press (Loeb), 1928.

5. Connolly Peter & Dodge Hazel, H Archaia Poli. H Zoi stin Athina kai sti Romi, Patakis, Athina 2001.

6. Connor W. R., «Early Greek Land Warfare as Symbolic Expression». In Osborne Robin (ed.), Studies in Ancient Greek and Roman Society, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004.

7. Dyck Andrew, A Commentary on Cicero, De Legibus, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 2004.

8. Hitchner Bruce, «The Advantages of Wealth and Luxury». In Manning J. G. & Morris Ian (eds.), The Ancient Economy. Evidence and Models, Stanford University Press, Stanford 2005.

9. Humphrey John, Oleson John, Sherwood Andrew, Greek and Roman Technology. A Sourcebook, Routledge, London- New York 1998.

10. Castoriadis Cornelius, H Elliniki Idiaiterotita. Apo ton Omiro ston Hraklito. Transl. Xenofon Giataganas, Kritiki, Athens 2007.

11. Lloyd G.E.R., Archaia Elliniki Epistimi. Methodoi kai Provlimata. Transl. Chloe Bala, Alexandreia, Athens 1996.

12. Manning J.G. & Morris Ian (eds.), The Ancient Economy. Evidence and Models, Stanford University Press, Stanford 2005.

13. Momigliano Arnaldo, Xeni Sophia. Ta oria tou Exellinismou stin Archaiotita. Transl. Alexandra Katsivelaki, Alexandreia, Athens 1998.

14. North John, «Democratic Politics in Republican Rome». In Osborne Robin (ed.), Studies in Ancient Greek and Roman Society, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004, pp. 140-158.

15. Popper Karl, «Back to the Presocratics». In the Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, N. S. 59, 1958, pp. 1-24.

16. Papatsimpas, George, «Ipsum bonum non est opinionibus, sed natura [Leg. 1, 17, 46]: Cicero and Protagoras about the Nature of the Law», Ellinika, 51, 2001, pp. 283-294.

Размещено на Allbest.ru