Also nattered to Scottie about Simon Goldhill's Love, Sex and Tragedy - Why Classics Matters, which I finished last week. The Dr bought it ages ago as part of her ongoing efforts to civilise me. It's excellent, divided into sections that cover our attitudes to sex, Christianity, politics, culture and history, and detailing the debt each of these owes to the Greeks and Romans of old.
There's some fascinating top facts. It was the Victorians who invented homosexuality, for instance. At least, they came up with the term. The development of the early church is also seen as a reaction to Roman religion, which in some cases is just boggling.
The stuff on politics was also very interesting.
"The Athenian citizen was expected to attend the Assembly, to serve on the Council at some point, to act as a juror on occasion, to vote, to do the business of the deme, to take part in festivals and to fight in the state's army or navy. Modern democracies talk obsessively about rights. Ancient democracy thought of citizenship more as an issue of duties and activities."
Simon Goldhill, Love, Sex and Tragedy - Why Classics Matters, pp. 179-180.
No armchair anarchists in Anthens, then. You had to get your hands dirty.The Dr tells me that the Guardian review of the book, though generally very impressed, felt the book could have covered imperialism. It also lacks any great detail on scientific enquiry and the enlightenment's debt to classics.
Also, Goldhill's argument falls into two kinds. The first - that our attitudes to sex, religion, politics etc. cannot be understood without knowledge of their Greek and Roman origins - is strongly articulated and, in some cases, amazing. But Goldhill, when he can't give evidence of such direct inheritance, also argues that the "different-ness" of the ancient world is therefore a model by which we can scrutinise our own society.
This, I feel, is less effective an argument, because surely any "different" culture would work just as well as a mirror. A study of the Navaho, or the court of Kublai Khan, would likewise challenge our social assumptions by not taking them for granted.
5 comments:
I think I'm right in saying that the Victorians also invented the use of the word "sex" as applied to "the sexes" - male and female.
As far as gayness goes Victorian society could just about imagine male-male homosexuality, so that was applied to legislation and outlawed, but lesbianism was not illegal. The story goes that HMQ herself just could not conceive that ladies were capable of such thoughts, not to mention acts.
But surely Goldhill's argument is based upon the fact that, unlike any other culture you choose to name, classical Greece alone is responsible for many of the values and social conventions we still subscribe to today? Indeed, this is why he rarely includes anything from Roman history and, as such, I have to challenge your statement that any other "different" culture could work equally well... But then this has been my life for the past five years so I'm biased!
As I said, I'm slowly working my way through it when I have a spare moment. Unfortunately, Christ knows how many books are waiting to be read for various seminars, lectures, etc. Will let you know what I think when I've read it properly.
And kudos for working a Father Ted quote in there!
Nimbos said: "The story goes that HMQ..."
I think this might be an urban myth about HMQ. Will see if I can find some evidence either way.
Scottie said: Indeed, this is why he rarely includes anything from Roman history
Actually, there's a lot on the Romans in his religion chapters, and also on entertainment. I think there's a Greek bias, but he's still very representative of both.
as such, I have to challenge your statement that any other "different" culture could work equally well
His argument seems to be that, even where there isn't a direct inheritance and things are different, classics is still crucial because of that difference. Which feels a bit like having it both ways.
I don't deny that a "different" culture reveals things about our own assumptions, I just don't think that classics gets a monopoly.
See this post for more on this.
Actually, there's a lot on the Romans in his religion chapters, and also on entertainment. I think there's a Greek bias, but he's still very representative of both.
I realised I'd said the wrong thing as soon as I posted. "Greek bias" is a nice way of reflecting what I meant to say, and so I'll nab that!
I don't deny that a "different" culture reveals things about our own assumptions, I just don't think that classics gets a monopoly.
Indeed not. Still, since the aim of the book is intended to promote the importance of classics, I can forgive that. And if it gets more people considering the impact of both it and other cultures upon Western society, then that's no bad thing...
"I think this might be an urban myth about HMQ. Will see if I can find some evidence either way"
Oh quite, but I'm sure the reason is correct even if it wasn't HMQ who fostered it. Far more likely to be a society thing.
Post a Comment