Rome is a magical place that has interesting affects on the many people that go there. A prime example of this is Stendhal and Goethe, who both went to Rome around the same time. Goethe was there near the end of the 18th century and Stendhal was there around the beginning of the 19th century. The two of them experienced some of the same things while there, but mainly their visits contrasted vastly. This may have been because they chose to experience different things or for unknown other reasons. Whatever the reasons may have been for causing the experiences that they had, they definitely both had experiences that changed how they looked at Rome and that affected their lives forever. Stendhal’s journey of Rome in Rome, Naples, and Florence …show more content…
Goethe went around and viewed a lot of the ancient Roman art and architecture. Seeing all of those things made him happy and caused his love for Rome to grow, making his experience in Rome a very enjoyable and life changing one causing him to say, “The past year has been the most important one in my life; it does not matter whether I die now or last awhile longer, in either case I am content”(Goethe122). On the other hand Stendhal went around and saw a lot of the contingent Rome. He went to plays, events at the church and many other things that were currently happening at the time he was in Rome. The things he saw and attended did not really ever seem to satisfy him. Like the time he saw his first play he described it like this, “As a performance, it would have been hunted off the stage in Brescia or Bologna. The orchestra is even more dismal than the singers: but the dancing has to be seen to be believed! This same ballet-company which now affords the wonder and delight of Roe, was barely tolerated on the stage some six months since, in Varesee, an insignificant little township in Lombardy”(Stendhal457). He absolutely hated it and was basically saying Rome is the only place that would put up with such a terrible performance. This even and everything else he attended all seemed to upset him and cause him to go off on rants. These different activities are likely what caused the lack of …show more content…
He went around Rome falling in love with it more every step he took seeing all of this beautiful ancient are and architecture. Maybe the foreigners got in the way of the beautiful things he was trying to see or maybe they did not seem to appreciate the ancient Rome as much as he did, like when he said, “In the few weeks that I have been here I have already seen many foreign visitors come and go, and I am amazed at how lightly most of them take these noble sights”(Goethe121). Either way, both things link back to his love for Rome, which caused him to feel as if he was being reborn. This could make him feel like he truly was Roman, so this is why he liked the Roman people and disliked the foreigners. Stendhal on the other hand seemed to hate the Romans from the second he got to Rome. From his first bad experience at the church hearing the terrible singing he loved to rant about to whatever his last rant was about, the Roman people always seemed to have the opposite view of his. This is most likely what caused him to hate the Romans, also the foreigners tended to agree with him more so that did not help. This all can be seen when he said, “At last ! I have unearthed some individuals with a scrap of sense ! Not among the Romans, of course; but among the foreign envoys”(Stendhal451). The things that Stendhal and Goethe did in Rome more than likely had an affect on their
be better for Rome while the others just did not want him to become more powerful than
...for success, he robs his audience of the right to make certain determinations about characters such as Tarquin Superbus and Romulus because of his bias toward the motivation behind their actions. Livy’s The Rise of Rome was a grand effort and an amazing undertaking. Cataloguing the years of Roman history consolidated rumor and legend into fact, creating a model for Rome to follow. Livy’s only error in this vast undertaking was in imprinting his own conception of morality and justice onto his work, an error that pulls the reader away from active thought and engaging debate. In doing so, Livy may have helped solidify a better Rome, but it would have been a Rome with less of a conception of why certain things are just, and more of a flat, basely concluded concept of justice.
America was a newly formed country at the dawn of the nineteenth century, and many social issues would be dealt with during this time period. Walt Whitman and Mark Twain were two authors during this era and both authors challenged the views and cultural upbringings that surrounded the nation at that time.
...” (Livy, Rome 5.23). However, he never gave up on his home and his people, even when they gave up on him. Camillus’s “fervent wish” was that “love for this place will so fill your hearts that you will remain where you are…wracked by longing, homesick for your native soil” (Livy, Rome 5.54). Camillus understood that Rome was more than a conglomeration of buildings and stone. Rome was an idea, to be fostered, protected and shared. He was their savior, their misunderstood leader—a hero before his due time. Henceforth, this is Livy’s intention in engraving the life and story of Marcus Furius Camillus for the world, so that one day we may look back and seek the compassionate hero of Rome: the sun in the land of darkness. Her protector and Second Founder.
Rome was experiencing a great deal of internal turmoil during the period when Virgil wrote the Aeneid. There was somewhat of an identity crisis in Rome as it had no definitive leader, or history. With the ascension of Augustus to the throne, Rome was unified again. Still, it had no great book. The Greeks had their Odyssey, giving them a sense of history and of continuity through time. A commonly held view is that the Aeneid attempts to provide the Romans with this sense of continuity or roots. There is a great deal of textual evidence to support this interpretation. Virgil makes numerous references to the greatness of Rome through "ancient" prophecies. Clearly, the entire poem is an account of the founders of Rome. In some sense, this does make the Aeneid seem as a piece of propaganda. However, upon closer examination, there is another idea that Virgil presents. War is painted as a vicious and bloody, not some glorious event. The image of war condemns the concept of Rome as the all-powerful conqueror of other nations. Not only that, but the strong emphasis on duty is frequently mocked. These underlying ideas would seem to run contrary to the theory that Virgil was simply producing a synthesized history of ancient Romans. In order to determine the true intent of the Aeneid, it is important that both ideas presented be examined.
One factor that made Rome so great was its geography; it is located in Italy which is a peninsula that is located in the middle of the Mediterranean. Rome lies on the Tiber River which aided trade. Rome has two mountain ranges the Alps and the Apennine, which helped protect the country. Once Rome declared their independents from the Etruscans they created their own constitution. This constitution created a series of checks and balances. They formed a government for the public that was divided into three branches, the magistrate, the senate and the assemblies. The magistrate’s were elected officials in ancient Rome who took over the power and ran the government from day to day. The magistrates had two limits, the first being the Principle of Collegiality, which was the idea that no 1 person was ever going to have complete control. The second limit was that a person could only have one year in console. The senates were most important. They were made up of influenced families and citizens in Rome. They passed no law but just offered their opinions to people, opinions everyone listened to. The only two things that involved the senate were money and war. Assemblies were composed of all Roman citizens. Th...
Anyone who reads The Sorrows of Young Werther by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe instantly feels the emotional intensity portrayed by Werther, the protagonist. His speculations about life are indeed unique, especially in modern times when life often goes by quickly without notice. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why his immense emotion strikes a chord with readers as coming from someone crazy or dangerous. Werther’s mental state seems incredibly alive at some times while seemingly lifeless at others. This lifeless state of mind is similar to another sorrowful character in Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five. In his story of Billy Pilgrim, a similar wonder engulfs the reader, causing us to question the cause of both his mindset and of our own. These books bring a couple of interesting questions to mind… How much emotion is too much? How little is too little? These characters struggle with powerful emotion in many ways, and are therefore judged as mad. The two protagonists engage in totally different journeys, but each of them leads the reader to discover the limits of human emotion. These limits are reached by Werther and Billy, therefore leading to both characters’ demise.
Titus Livius Patavinius was a patriot who believed in the "purer morality" of the Roman Empire and Republic that had sustained its existence for so long. He also saw, however, a gradual decline in morality and virtue over time as Roman society became richer and more prone to greed. As a result of this observation, he did not trust that any modern ruler would possess the moral integrity of the great leaders of the past, but perhaps if they read his book they could learn from the good examples and be warned by the bad ones. Machiavelli also agreed that history should be studied and applied to the present, but he believed that when people read Livy, they took “infinitely more pleasure in knowing the variety of incidents that are contained in [Livy’s writings], without ever thinking of imitating them.” In other words, Livy’s account of Rome was more of a glorified fairytale which no one could possibly use as a reference for solving current problems so he decided to write a commentary explaining what he believed to be the real reasons for the rise (and fall) of Rome. Both Livy and Machi...
Tacitus's superiority is further perceived when he describes the German settlements and shelters and portrays them as uncivilized as they do not have great cities and a hierarchical structure of authority that would ensure a level of political stability. The tone used when describing the lack of agricultural development, and the way that the Germans constantly raid other communities for their sustenance also points to the view that German society is inferior to that of the Roman Empire. Therefore, Tacitus’ analysis of Germania is one that is conducted in a way that seeks to compare it to the Roman Empire; resulting in a situation where he looks at Germania, not within its own context, but within the context of the Roman Empire. Tacitus's bias and maintenance of unfavorable views of Germania maybe a result of the massive military achievements of the Roman Empire and its pacification and establishment of its dominion over disparate societies that were considered
...istory through the use of a popular topic amongst modern readers. Strauss does often times go far too deep describing the landscape, using names of Italian cities and natural landmarks rather in depth, which loses a reader not wholly familiar with Italy’s landscape. Strauss also quite openly marvels at the figure of Spartacus himself, which could be a bias on the part of the researcher that some readers might call into question. Also, Strauss makes some definitive statements regarding why events happened, yet due to the nature of small samples of evidence, Strauss is mainly just making inductive guesswork, although usually logical guesswork. Overall though, Strauss effectively tells a lively story that enriches the reader’s knowledge on Roman history in an entertaining way.
Of Cicero it can be said he possessed a bias towards roman life and doctrine. For Cicero
When one thinks of Ancient Rome, many images may come to mind. Perhaps gladiators fighting for the glory of their emperor, or the impressive Colosseum. For many others it is simply an image of a great and powerful city. Throughout the centuries it has maintained this legacy, still thought of as one of the greatest empires to ever rule. Rome was able to go from the small Italian city to the conquering empire that it is known for today through strong leadership and consistent warfare.
The Roman sculptures have a close relation and influence of Greek sculptures. Rome was known for incorporating different aspects of other cultures; the style of clothing, architecture, military techniques, art, etc. to the Roman culture. The Bust of Cicero and Augustus of Prima Porta are examples of unbelievable statuary techniques and style that Rome achieved and improved as their own art.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, the brilliant mind behind the 17th century’s epic poem “Faust”, illustrates a combining structure of desire and self-indulgence. His idea was to capture the ideal image of good vs. evil and how easily it can be misconstrued. “Of all the great dualities of hum an experience 'good and evil' have been the most instrumental in shaping the beliefs, rituals, and laws, of Homo Sapiens.”(Argano)
Many will agree that Rome was not a very independent culture. Instead, they found it easier and preferred to depend on Greece and a few other cultures and borrow their ideas and ways of doing things and adapt it to fit their lifestyles. Art and architecture, citizenship and government, education, and mythology are only a small portion of the many ways that Romans were influenced by the Ancient Greek culture.