Virtue and Vice

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salvete

(repost)

I was pondering over the aspects of several civilizations as a whole, and
while of course simplified, I think there are for each civilization a few
virtues and vices that more or less determine their character throughout
history. Of course everyone is free (and welcome) to disagree with me, but here is my little list of what made Rome great, and what made it not so
great.

Virtues...

Industria: Hard work. No one can deny that Romans were not a lazy people. Whereas the modern day Italians carry the burden of the "dolce far niente" (spelling?) cliché, as do most other romanic people (save for the Rumanians, perhaps), this cliché would most certainly be unbefitting of the Romans. With an almost comical industry they were able to take over and adapt the best of their surrounding civilizations, and I think if you look at their army alone, you see their tremendous talent for work. Some hellenists who have a dislike for Romans say that they were "mere farmers", but I think that should be no insult at all. The Romans' industry may be one of the things that kept the (western) empire alive for so long.

Simplicitas: Of course, purists will remark that ludicrous personages such
as Caligula, or excessive orgiastics such as Apicius can barely be noted for
their simplicity, most Romans (especially the aristocracy) supported the
virtue of simplicitas. Romans were always very interested in the practical
use of things, and were often no real theorizers. Their laws had a
considerable transparency, and most of them did really serve a public use.
This focus on practicality and business-like character even appears in their
religion. The "do-ut-des" ("I give [to you] for you would give [to me])
principle is a famous one, and while extremely reverent (more so than the
Greeks, for example), they approached their gods in an almost legal kind of manner.

Vices...

Superbia: One cannot think of the Roman Era without thinking of perhaps the most common human fault of all (with the exception of greed, perhaps), namely pride. Romans were so attached to their "dignitas" (dignity), that at given points, they felt trodden upon their soul too quickly. Most Roman emperors, especially in the later period, went down because of this very characteristic, which may have inspired Shakespeare when he wrote his many royal and imperial tragedies. Had they not been so focused on their image, the Roman civilisation might have surivived longer as a whole...

Crudelitas: Everyone will agree that Roman bloodsports are, although
spectacular, not something that is morally accepted today, or even accepted by other people living in the same age as the Romans. Some claim that their nobles were so cruel because of the high lead-concentrations in their drinking water, but I believe that this need for bloody mass spectacle has a less innocent origin. It's one of the most sadistic characteristics of man to see another man die while he is (supposed to be!) watching it. Perhaps it had to do with the need of the lower classes to feel powerful, and to decide over the fate of another person.

Any thoughts?

Scorpio

[Marcus Pomponius Lupus]

Salve mi Scorpio,

Though I can agree with most of the vices and virtues you described, I still have some doubt about the "simplicitas". This is certainly an aspect for the early Roman History (hence your do ut des example which was a very old tradition) and an aspect for the normal plebeians during the entire Roman Empire - who of course couldn't afford anything else but simplicitas

scripsisti :

"most Romans (especially the aristocracy) supported the virtue of simplicitas"

But especially the aristocracy ? I think that the aristocracy holds extrema of both, just think about the dualism between the Scipiones and Cato. I'm rather inclined to believe that for every patrician living by simplicitas, there's at least another to be found living in much less than stoic conditions.

And let's not forget that what little we know about the daily life of aristocrats comes from those very aristocrats, who would rather be remembered living by simplicitas, than living from banquet to banquet

Vale bene!
Lupus

[Anonymous]

Greetings.

I believe the linchpin of all Roman virtues was duty. (Pietas, perhaps. I don't speak Latin. Anyway ...) A life lived of obligations to one's family, gods, and country. A willingness to defend that life with words, deeds, and blood. One could argue that bravery, industriousness, and sacrifice flow from a sense of shared responsibilities.

I would assert that corruption was their greatest vice. The gluttony of at least some of the aristocracy practicing degraded forms of Epicureanism. The willingness to distract the unruly mobs with Bread and Circuses. The cynical use of political office (especially in the provinces) to line one's own pockets. In short the greed of the ruling classess and the mindless, bloodthirsty appetites of the mob did not exactly lend themselves well to a healthy society.

Yours,
Romulus Iulius Ursus

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salvete Urse et Lupe,

Yes Urse, pietas is correct Latin .

Lupe, you make some very correct remarks. Of course the aristocracy tried to portray themselves better than they actually were. However I think this is a little beside the point as I asked for "Roman" virtues in general and not whether they applied to everyone or not. I hold no illusions about that .

And I'm afraid that opportunism and greed is of all times. Nowadays we have enough violence and cruelty on tv to satisfy our "needs"...

Scorpio