|
|
Book 1
Nov 3, 2016 1:00:59 GMT
Post by Dominique Martin on Nov 3, 2016 1:00:59 GMT
Right off the bat Sallust addresses one of the same issues that Cicero presented. That Rome fell because of lack of virtues and morals. What I liked about Sallust's presentation is that he gave a timeline to the decline, that human vices and sins snuck in after the destruction of Carthage. He also showed where society went wrong, that after the fear of attack had left, the nobels starting acting like kings making the lower class servants. He also calls attention to the standards of good and bad during that time. It wasn't a judge of one's attitude or decorum when out in public. It was defined by whether or not you were a noble. The wealthy were considered "good" because they could financially contribute to society. P.s I'm all out of clever subject titles  |
|
|
|
Book 1
Nov 3, 2016 17:24:38 GMT
Post by Christopher Martin on Nov 3, 2016 17:24:38 GMT
It seems like you have a nice, general takeaway from the first part of the text. That's good. To extend this conversation, does Sallust suggest that Romans were more virtuous during certain times/events? And if so, what were these times/events, and what does that tell us about a possible correlation between them and Roman virtue? Let's try to understand whether Romans were ever virtuous, and if so, why?
|
|
|
|
Book 1
Nov 5, 2016 2:14:04 GMT
Post by Dominique Martin on Nov 5, 2016 2:14:04 GMT
Sallust says that the time of highways morals in Rome was between the second and third Punic wars. Yet he says that their morals sunk after the third. It sounds like the Romans were only virtuous while intimidated. As soon as they had defeated Carthage they thought they were infallible and no longer needed to be just.
|
|
|
|
Book 1
Nov 7, 2016 6:44:47 GMT
Post by Christopher Martin on Nov 7, 2016 6:44:47 GMT
You got the main point! Well done. Let's refine it a bit though: Sallust wants us to understand that the Romans were only unified behind a national purpose when they felt like their way of life, their very existence, was in jeopardy. They were virtuous because they felt that impiety weakened oneself, and therefore the state as well. Heck, it's easy to recall Cato's arguments in favor of the Oppian Law . . . he felt that laws which engendered virtue ought to be kept in place, because the strength of Roman virtue kept Rome strong.
In times of peace, however, we take our way of life for granted, and allow the foundational things to slip . . . although we only have fragments from Sallust, I surmise that he would have suggested that although Rome seemed to be in a state of perpetual war, the nature of these wars (far-off conflicts which didn't threaten the empire, but would expand it) gave Romans little cause for concern, and may have even strengthened their confidence in their way of life. If so, virtue would have slowly, but significantly given way to vice, to the detriment of Rome.
|
|
