While I agree that Rome developed a resilient culture, I think we need to be careful about the chronology. In the time of the Battle of Cannae, Greek philosophy had not yet been assimilated at Rome; that happened later (beginning in the mid-second century BCE). But well before then, Roman culture valued virtue, which I think is the key matter: legendary heroes fromt the Republican era - Mucius Scaevola, Cincinnatus - represented ideals of bravery and wisdom. This meant that when the Greek philosophical schools - with their focus, also, on virtue - emigrated to Rome, they found a fertile field.
As for popular attitudes around death, Rome may in part have inherited these from the Etruscans, whose culture had a big focus on death and the afterlife.
Good points. I originally had a section on the Mos maiorum and how that conception of virtue complimented some of the newer philosophical conceptions, but the piece was getting a bit long so it was cut.
The Roman orator Marcus Cornelius Fronto says of a friend that his…”simplicity, continence, truthfulness, and honour (were) plainly Roman, a warmth of affection, however, (was) possibly not Roman, for there is nothing of which my whole life through I have seen less at Rome than a man unfeignedly φιλόστοργος (affectionate). The reason why there is not even a word for this virtue in our language must, I imagine, be, that in reality no one at Rome has any warm affection.”
He was probably exaggerating but spoke of a general truth — Roman virtue was a lopsided thing. In many cases philosophers were trying to build atop an already existing edifice — to flesh it out and expand it by grafting new virtues onto the old.
I think it's impossible to look at Roman cultural artifacts and say that this piece came from the Mos maiorum and this other piece came from philosophy. But it's clear that the cultural artifacts alone were able to inculcate a certain amount of Roman resilience in cultures hundreds of years after Rome had fallen.
You can see this in an 18th century poem that another commenter included below, as well as the Greco-Roman inspired resilience of the founding fathers and the people of other eras and places.
Very interesting post. It's notable that the British later exemplified the same attitude, with an acknowledged debt to the Romans and Greeks, in the Victorian era, during the height of the British Empire. The British school system was essentially a means to instill values of psychological resilience in the future leaders of the Empire, through sports(rugby, football), harsh grading and treatment by teachers and headmasters, and the challenges of boarding school life. Henley's poem Invictus, in the opening stanza exemplifies this.
I hadn't read that poem, but it is an excellent encapsulation of Stoic ideals. Thanks for sharing!
There's no question that the British empire was run by some very high-caliber people, for all their flaws, but the recent coverage of that older tradition seems to emphasize the psychological damage it did. Have any thoughts on that?
I imagine there's a fine line to be walked between "not coddling," and "abusing."
My view is that for every Churchill the system created, there undoubtedly were people, who were all young men at the time, who were damaged by the system of being separated from their families, where corporal punishment was widespread, and hazing was not uncommon, who really struggled.
Having said that, I do think it's a bit of an overcorrection to acknowledge the difficulties some people had, but to then totally disregard the benefits for other people. People have different temperaments, and it's not always easy to know what works best for each person. It's in vogue to be sympathetic towards people's feelings and their "lived experiences", which is fine to an extent, but I think there's a societal reluctance to challenge students or young people because of possible psychological harm, which leads to overprotectiveness, grade inflation, lack of independence, but then leads to a lack of confidence and feeling competent at overcoming obstacles. I'm a big baseball fan, and a Yankees fan, so I'm reminded of an answer Derek Jeter once gave. He was asked "Who was the best manager you played for??" He said "No question, Joe Torre. Everyone says you treat everyone equally or the same, but that's not true. You treat everyone fairly. That's exactly what he did. He knew so well, which guys to push(I know you can play better than this, prove me right) and which guys needed a pat on the back(you're just in a slump, it happens to everyone. You'll come out of it, you're a good player"). As Yogi Berra used to say, "Baseball is 90 percent mental, the other half is physical".
A great example of the mentality of the British at the end of the Empire is Shackleton's attempt to navigate the continent of Antarctica. It's an old book, that you can probably find at your local library, but it's very interesting.
While I agree that Rome developed a resilient culture, I think we need to be careful about the chronology. In the time of the Battle of Cannae, Greek philosophy had not yet been assimilated at Rome; that happened later (beginning in the mid-second century BCE). But well before then, Roman culture valued virtue, which I think is the key matter: legendary heroes fromt the Republican era - Mucius Scaevola, Cincinnatus - represented ideals of bravery and wisdom. This meant that when the Greek philosophical schools - with their focus, also, on virtue - emigrated to Rome, they found a fertile field.
As for popular attitudes around death, Rome may in part have inherited these from the Etruscans, whose culture had a big focus on death and the afterlife.
Good points. I originally had a section on the Mos maiorum and how that conception of virtue complimented some of the newer philosophical conceptions, but the piece was getting a bit long so it was cut.
The Roman orator Marcus Cornelius Fronto says of a friend that his…”simplicity, continence, truthfulness, and honour (were) plainly Roman, a warmth of affection, however, (was) possibly not Roman, for there is nothing of which my whole life through I have seen less at Rome than a man unfeignedly φιλόστοργος (affectionate). The reason why there is not even a word for this virtue in our language must, I imagine, be, that in reality no one at Rome has any warm affection.”
He was probably exaggerating but spoke of a general truth — Roman virtue was a lopsided thing. In many cases philosophers were trying to build atop an already existing edifice — to flesh it out and expand it by grafting new virtues onto the old.
I think it's impossible to look at Roman cultural artifacts and say that this piece came from the Mos maiorum and this other piece came from philosophy. But it's clear that the cultural artifacts alone were able to inculcate a certain amount of Roman resilience in cultures hundreds of years after Rome had fallen.
You can see this in an 18th century poem that another commenter included below, as well as the Greco-Roman inspired resilience of the founding fathers and the people of other eras and places.
Very interesting post. It's notable that the British later exemplified the same attitude, with an acknowledged debt to the Romans and Greeks, in the Victorian era, during the height of the British Empire. The British school system was essentially a means to instill values of psychological resilience in the future leaders of the Empire, through sports(rugby, football), harsh grading and treatment by teachers and headmasters, and the challenges of boarding school life. Henley's poem Invictus, in the opening stanza exemplifies this.
"Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
for my unconquerable soul"
https://poets.org/poem/invictus
I hadn't read that poem, but it is an excellent encapsulation of Stoic ideals. Thanks for sharing!
There's no question that the British empire was run by some very high-caliber people, for all their flaws, but the recent coverage of that older tradition seems to emphasize the psychological damage it did. Have any thoughts on that?
I imagine there's a fine line to be walked between "not coddling," and "abusing."
My view is that for every Churchill the system created, there undoubtedly were people, who were all young men at the time, who were damaged by the system of being separated from their families, where corporal punishment was widespread, and hazing was not uncommon, who really struggled.
Having said that, I do think it's a bit of an overcorrection to acknowledge the difficulties some people had, but to then totally disregard the benefits for other people. People have different temperaments, and it's not always easy to know what works best for each person. It's in vogue to be sympathetic towards people's feelings and their "lived experiences", which is fine to an extent, but I think there's a societal reluctance to challenge students or young people because of possible psychological harm, which leads to overprotectiveness, grade inflation, lack of independence, but then leads to a lack of confidence and feeling competent at overcoming obstacles. I'm a big baseball fan, and a Yankees fan, so I'm reminded of an answer Derek Jeter once gave. He was asked "Who was the best manager you played for??" He said "No question, Joe Torre. Everyone says you treat everyone equally or the same, but that's not true. You treat everyone fairly. That's exactly what he did. He knew so well, which guys to push(I know you can play better than this, prove me right) and which guys needed a pat on the back(you're just in a slump, it happens to everyone. You'll come out of it, you're a good player"). As Yogi Berra used to say, "Baseball is 90 percent mental, the other half is physical".
A great example of the mentality of the British at the end of the Empire is Shackleton's attempt to navigate the continent of Antarctica. It's an old book, that you can probably find at your local library, but it's very interesting.
https://www.amazon.com/Endurance-Shackletons-Incredible-Alfred-Lansing/dp/0465062881?dplnkId=58833dda-920e-4ce2-8cf0-6c351eb88f47
Well said.
- Sack of Rome,
- Fall of Constantinople,
- Western nations are next in the row
and it won't take another 1453 years,
THAT's for sure !!!...