>1000 years of existence>5 good books
>>25228824They didn't really care about them. Most of the population wasn't literate other than being able to read signs that said "deposit grain load here" or "puls for sale." The Aeneid wasn't even a widely consumed book until later in the Empire bc it was a "noble lie" Octavian commissioned bc he was a Platonic LARPer and nobody really cared during his life about it. What 5 books are you referring to
>>25228824the novel is like 400 years old at most
Still more books than some regions.
>>25228824Thats what happens when 95%~ of people can't read?
>>252289371. he said books, not novels 2. this is a fake gay distinction, satyricon is a novel, fuck off
>waaaaa Roman literature isn’t high art like the based G(r)eeks!! I like Roman literature because it is fun to read. Sure, it’s not as deep as the Greeks, but I still thoroughly enjoyed the humor of the Satiricon and the Golden Ass, the thrilling action in Livy and Arrian, and the found myself fascinated by the fables of Ovid. I had a blast. And you can’t take that away from me. OP sucks my dick and balls.
The AeneidConfessionsDe OratoreMetamorphosesDe rerum naturaMeditationsInstitutio OratoriaDe consolatione philosphiaeAnnalesThe VulgateThe Odes (Carmina)Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium
>>25228935The Aeneid (as well as Virgil's other work, or that of Ovid) was instantly popular. It wasn't immediately a foundation of education or used in divination (lol), as it later would be, but it was very popular.As to it being "propaganda," that's a gross oversimplification, and it's embarrassing that some university courses I've seen posted online that are trying to provide a "core understanding of the Western tradition," while presenting this sort of reductionist account. The irony here is that such a reading tends to be grounded in the assumptions of liberalism, of later Marxist, post-modern, and critical theory derived accounts of history and anthropology. Hence, a multifaceted work gets reduced to propaganda and power relations, or at least this becomes its primary aspect in the analysis.The unfortunate irony here then is that the student, rather than being given exposure to a tradition outside their context (and one that shaped their context, and so which will allow them to better understand it), instead experiences the Aeneid largely as a vehicle for more liberalism (progressive or conservative).Virgil's political context and patronage is no doubt important but it hardly drives the narrative. Indeed, Virgil seems deeply ambivalent about the empire. On the one hand, we see history as teleologically oriented towards empire without end, as clearly shown in how Achilles' shield showed an endless cycle of violence and striving grounded on nothing, while Aeneas' shows an ordered flow of history towards its goal. This displays a sort of logos to history above mere thymos and epithumia. But he is certainly skeptical of this ordering in a way that doesn't reduce to propaganda.When Aeneas gets his big vision of Rome's future glory in the underworld, he ascends through the Ivory Gate of *lying* dreams. When he kills Turnus at the end in a fit of thymotic rage, Turnus invoked Anchises whose last words on Aeneas mission was that he was to spare the vanquished. Plus, there is the constant imagery showing Aeneas as degenerating into a beast, a new Achilles, culminating in his human sacrifices.Dante certainly got this from Virgil. He seems him as ultimately pessimistic, even about Rome. For Virgil, man cycles endlessly through an inferno of unrestrained passions and a purgatory of grinding pursuit of the good. But this relationship is always unstable, which is why Virgil can guide Dante to the Earthly Paradise, but cannot stay there himself.
Roman poetry is much better than Greek apart from Homer. You just lack education in their myriad poets and focus on Greek mythology
>>25229096God damn that's a lot of words. Anyway, you're a snob. Most Romans, could not read, beyond signs telling them where to put harvest loads, or where to buy puls. Or where to solicit a whore. The overwhelming majority of Romans, did not care about the Aeneid, and recognized it as old Augustus trying to create a story for the Empire. If you asked them, well into the pax, theyd still say the founding of Rome began with two brothers and a she-wolf. You can say those people, aka the overwhelming majority of Romans, didnt matter. But I think they did. I suppose its a difference of perspective.
>>25228950Not true, there are graffitis in Pompeii written by gladiators even. Literacy was widespread in the Roman Empire, it's just historians making shit up based on the fact that literacy was shit in the Middle Ages so it must have been shit in the Roman Empire too
>>25228824We have a tiny fraction of the books the Romans wrote and read, many popular books that were referenced in roman texts have been lost to time
>>25228824>Greeks move from literature to science>literature is left to the Romans>science thrives, literature sucksmuch to think about here
>>25229627Untrue. There is functional, peasant literacy, then there is reading books. Most romans could not read books, and/or didn't.
>>25229627I'm sure even then people could tell the difference between reading Aeschylus and reading "I fukd Marcus' mum at dis whor houze"
>>25230040How the fuck would you know that when we have evidence even the lower urban strata of society could write (so also read obviously)? There are thousands of graffitis from Pompeii, left from commoners down to even gladiators and slaves. That's indication that literacy was widespread in the Roman Empire
>>25230053one guy wrote all of them actually
>>25230053>How the fuck would you know that when we have evidence even the lower urban strata of society could write (so also read obviously)?This guy can 'technically' read and write.
>>25228824The Roman character was famously more materialist than the spiritual Greek, which is why they valued more science and technique than literature. Sure they had a great oratory culture but it was practical, to assist the political functions of society.Don't let this fool you: Roman is not the same as Latin. The Latins, understood as continuing through Christianization up until the Middle Ages, produced profound philosophy and literature.
>>25228824a lot of their great ancient books were lost in the proverbial sands of time
>>25229096kek i remember back in college i had to write an essay about why the aeneid was "imperial propaganda"
>>25228824Christians destroyed almost all of it.>It has been estimated that less than ten per cent of all classical literature has survived into the modern era. For Latin, the figure is even worse: it is estimated that only one hundredth of all Latin literature remains.
>>25230644yeah not like the Western Empire was invaded and pillaged by barbarians or anything
>>25230666Yeah the christian 'barbarians'
>>25230644Christcucks are a scourge.
>>25230040Were you there? Then shut the fuck up
