Rome's pride can't be underestimated. But, the concept of living writers of classics - at least in the ancient world, where the term carries real weight - is downright arrogant. That there were such writers really underscores how Rome raced to catch up to the Greek culture it so secretly admired and sought to imitate. Marrou doesn't mention anything about the Romans seeking to outstrip Greek literature, but they clearly really wanted their own.
Part, if not all, of this desire stemmed from the Romans' project of developing a uniquely Roman literature. It simply would not do to have Rome's heroes quoting the Greek classics when they did momentous things, after all.
In some ways a national literature is definitely appealing. All the more is a worldwide literature. But the latter is far less possible than the first when literacy isn't a close guarded trait of society's upper echelons. Though any literature coming from just one part of society isn't likely to be that resonant with the whole.
In so far as his focus is education, and the working classes of people didn't usually get much of that, Marrou's book is free from having to react to any calls for social history. Nonetheless, I can't help but wonder what the common Romans thought of the importance of Roman literature. Did they even care?
No comments:
Post a Comment