This is basically a repeat of my earlier post, but rephrased rather more seriously in case that earlier post did not effectively convey the gist of my query about the Greco-Roman connection WRT classical mythology.
Did the Romans simply "copy" the Greek myths -- that is, did they simply "adopt" them by subsitution Roman names for the original Greek mythological principals (deities, demigods, mortals, and monsters)?
Or did the Romans already have their own extensive mythology (inherited as it may be from the apparently Greek-influenced Estruscans) which they recognized *parallels* the Greek system, more than less?
Can anyone supply "reputable" published works detailing one or the other case?
Thanks to all who help out, and to all for taking the time to read this post!
des anges
Unregistered User
(1/2/04 5:29 am) Reply
Re: Mythology:The Greco-Roman Connection
why does it have to be either-or
latins inherited their version of the indoeuropean religion
greeks inherited theirs
as romans expanded their empire they were adaptable and added new gods and equated their old gods to those of other cultures
when they reached the eastern mediterrean they borrowed from the quaint greeks and also from the egyptians in the south mediterrean
i think hebrews were the only ones they couldnt make this kind adaptation with
Re: Mythology:The Greco-Roman Connection
Okay, let me rephrase my question, then: which is MORE the case, that Roman mythology is mainly, basically, a copy or adaptation of Greek mythology, or that the similarities between the two mythologies is better explained by reference to their common Indo-European ancestry?
> latins inherited their version of the indoeuropean religion greeks inherited theirs
Inherited from whom?
> as romans expanded their empire they were adaptable and added new gods and equated their old gods to those of other cultures
This is my position too. So when you say that the Romans "equated their old gods to those of other cultures", you are then agreeing with me that Roman mythology is not a mere copy or adaptation of Greek mythology? That the Romans already had their own extenseive and well-developed system of beliefs?
Please, whatever your POV, I do need some cites, some books or articles, preferrably of "recent" vintage...I need "proof" for the prof!
> when they reached the eastern mediterrean they borrowed from the quaint greeks and also from the egyptians in the south mediterrean
And as another poster reminded us, the Greeks were already in Italy anyway, through their city-states like Cumae and others on Sicily.
Would this be a "better" or more accurate description of the Greco-Roman connection than either an Indo-European ancestry or wholesale adoption?
Cites, please!
> i think hebrews were the only ones they couldnt make this kind adaptation with
Actually, Karen Armstrong's "History of God" makes the interesting point that the God of the Hebrews was originally a tribal god much like any other, one with roots in the Semitic Middle East of that time...it was relatively later that the nature of this otherwise sullen, wrathful, jealous god changed into what we now think of as The God, All-Knowing, All-Powerful, All-Loving, and "universal" (not just for the Hebrews anymore)....
Agamemnon
Unregistered User
(1/2/04 5:38 am) Reply
Re: Mythology:The Greco-Roman Connection
> Inherited from whom?
There was NO SUCH religion to be inherited.
The Greek religion can be traced back to DAY ONE by archaeology.
> This is my position too. So when you say that the Romans "equated their old gods to those of other cultures", you are then agreeing with
The Romans didn't have any old Gods. Read Ovids Metamorphosis and compare it to Apollodorus. Everything in the Roman religion relates to GREEK history, people and places. The entire system was brought to Rome by the Greeks because Italy was ruled by Uranus and Chronos.
> me that Roman mythology is not a mere copy or adaptation of Greek mythology? That the Romans already had their own extenseive and well-developed system of beliefs?
NO !
> And as another poster reminded us, the Greeks were already in Italy anyway, through their city-states like Cumae and others on Sicily.
Correct and they were there even earlier than that. Julius Caser was descend from Arcadian colonists who came to Greece in 1460 BC (Livy).
> Would this be a "better" or more accurate description of the Greco-Roman connection than either an Indo-European ancestry or wholesale adoption?
THER WERE NO Indo-Europeans. The population of Europe consists of 10 separate DNA lineages and there is NO homogenouality between them anywhere.
All of these linage lived separately and never mixed until historical times.
> Cites, please!
> > i think hebrews were the only ones
> > they couldnt make this kind adaptation with
> Actually, Karen Armstrong's "History of God" makes the interesting point that the God of the Hebrews was originally a tribal god much like any other, one with roots in the Semitic Middle East of that
The god of the Old Testament is clearly stated by Jeremiah as being the PHARAOH OF EGYPT referred to as LORD !
> time...it was relatively later that the nature of this otherwise sullen, wrathful, jealous god changed into what we now think of as The God, All-Knowing, All-Powerful, All-Loving, and "universal" (not just for the Hebrews anymore)....
Eugene Kent
Unregistered User
(1/2/04 5:41 am) Reply
Re: Mythology:The Greco-Roman Connection
When you say Indo-European don't you mean the Barbarians?
Then you would have to say which era you are referring to.
Such as:
Villanova early Iron Age culture c 900B.C.
Etruria c 500 B.C.
Areas under Etruscan domination c 500 B.C,.
Carthaginian empire c 500 B.C.
area settled and controlled by Greeks c 500 B.C.
Iberian-Turddetanian peoples
Italic peoples
Illrian peoples
Celtic and related people
Hallstatt heartland.
One of the best is Robert Graves " The Greek Myths" Sold by The Folio Society.
Agamemnon
Unregistered User
(1/2/04 5:43 am) Reply
Re: Mythology:The Greco-Roman Connection
> latins inherited their version of the indoeuropean religion greeks inherited theirs
COMPLETE AND UTTER POPPYCOCK. There was NO indo-European religion and there were NO indo-Europeans. Every Christian and Greek writer refutes this poppycock in its entiretyas does DNA research.
The Romans worshiped the same Gods ad the Greeks because the Gods of Greece were REAL kings who lived between 1800 and 1600 BC and reigned in both Greece and Italy.
Read Eusebius, Evangelia "The Preparation of the Gospel" Books 1 and 2
> as romans expanded their empire they were adaptable and added new gods and equated their old gods to those of other cultures when they reached the eastern mediterrean they borrowed from the quaint greeks and also from the egyptians in the south mediterrean
HOGWASH.
After being formulated by Danaus from Egyptian traditions in 1488 BC and based on existing ancestor cults of Cretan kings named in Linear A inscriptions and Hieroglyphic tests, the Greek religion was brought to Italy by Arcadian colonists in 1460 BC who were then follwed by other Greeks including Trojens. When Romulus became king of Rome in 753 BC he adopted the worship of Herakels and sanitised other elements of the Greek religion such as removing the castration of Uranus (Saturn) from its history. After this the Tarquini had plenty of opportunity to introduce Greek cults into Rome including Pythagoreanism (There were actually 2 Pythagoras's).
> i think hebrews were the only ones they couldnt make this kind adaptation with
Agamemnon
Unregistered User
(1/2/04 5:45 am) Reply
Re: Mythology:The Greco-Roman Connection
You are making it up as you are going along.
According to Eusebius and ALL the Christian church fathers ALL of the so-called "pagan"/polytheistic Gods were ANCESTORS who either deified themselves or were deified by their direct descendants and whose deification was traced back though written texts.
Who are you going to believe some 19th century revisionist CARLETON who made it all up or from the horses mouth of people who were actually there.
Animism and algorism were afterthoughts according to Eusebius. Hero worship came first in all of the ancient religions including that of the Phoenicians, Egyptians and Greeks where Eusebius cites sources.
Petrushka
Unregistered User
(1/2/04 5:48 am) Reply
Re: Mythology:The Greco-Roman Connection
For a start, there's no "simply" about copying. In some cases it is pretty clear that the Romans added little that was new. In other cases, there is huge variation. It's complex, and there's no getting around that.
Similarly there's nothing simple about "inheriting" traditions from earlier traditions, peoples, cultures, etc. Saying that it's all Indo-European anyway is just another way of trying to keep things simple: it isn't. Received tradition is always adapted, re-told, and re-cast in light of contemporary circumstances, and so is always old while at the same time something new.
In the particular case of the impact of Greek culture & myth upon the Romans, you have to bear in mind that the Greco-Roman connection goes back *much* earlier than any extant Roman source. Greek colonies such as Ischia and Cumae existed in central Italy from at least the 6th century BCE (i.e. before the traditional date of the end of the monarchy in Rome), and so there was interaction with Greek culture both directly - via trade and, presumably, cultural exchange with these colonies - and also indirectly, via other mediating cultures such as the Etruscans, as you point out. With the relationship going back that far, there can be no question of simple copying: Roman mythology was evolving side-by-side with Greek mythology for hundreds of years.
The relationship is two-way: some founding myths from Latium seem to find their way into Greek sources at quite an early date (e.g. reference to Latinus as a son of Odysseus and Circe in a late addition to Hesiod's Theogony - later than Hesiod, but early by Roman standards; and Circe is firmly located in Italy by the time of Apollonius in the 3rd century BCE).
Some of the examples you cite in your first posting - Quirinus in particular - are distinctively Roman, and I would have thought these would have sufficed for your English professor. Quirinus has no parallel in Greek myth, Jupiter clearly has non-Greek Indo-European precursors (both Jupiter and Zeus can be related to the Indic Dyaus), and Minerva and Mars in Roman myth are quite different figures from Athene and Ares in Greek myth. Faunus is another example that springs to mind.
Perhaps the Roman myths that are the most different from the Greek ones are those about figures known from Greek sources who found cities in Italy. Aeneas is the most obvious one (in some sources he founds Rome itself; in Virgil's Aeneid he founds Lavinium); but there's also Telegonos (founder of Tusculum, or sometimes Praeneste), Evander (founded a town on the Palatine hill before Rome existed), Circe, the Laistrygonians, and even Hercules/Herakles.
I don't have any *general* references to hand just at the moment, I'm afraid, but if you want to follow up founding myths in particular, Wiseman's book "Remus" is a good one to use.
--
Peter Gainsford | peter_gainsford@n0sp@m.yahoo-dot-co-dot-nz
Wellington, New Zealand
Re: Mythology:The Greco-Roman Connection
> For a start, there's no "simply" about copying. In some cases it is pretty clear that the Romans added little that was new. In other cases, there is huge variation. It's complex, and there's no getting around that.
Yes, I agree, but let me rephrase my question to better get you to address the crux of the "controversy": which is more the case, that Roman mythology is mainly a copy or adaptation of Greek mythology, or that the Romans already had an extensive and well-developed system of
beliefs themselves, which parallels the Greek mainly because of their Indo-European ancestry?
> Similarly there's nothing simple about "inheriting" traditions from earlier traditions, peoples, cultures, etc. Saying that it's all Indo-European anyway is just another way of trying to keep things simple: it isn't. Received tradition is always adapted, re-told, and re-cast in light of contemporary circumstances, and so is always old while at the same time something new.
Right, but please bear in mind that the aim here is to perceive the "forest" of the Greco-Roman connection, not its individual trees. I referred to their common Indo-European ancestry to help explain the similarities -- not to suggest that that's the only reason.
And "keeping things simple" isn't something to be despised, BTW -- why, it's one of the bases for the Scientific Method. Saying that the Modern Era began with 1492 is keeping things simple while bearing in
mind that that's only a historical convention and short-hand.
> In the particular case of the impact of Greek culture & myth upon the Romans, you have to bear in mind that the Greco-Roman connection goes back *much* earlier than any extant Roman source. Greek colonies such as
Ischia and Cumae existed in central Italy from at least the 6th century BCE (i.e. before the traditional date of the end of the monarchy in Rome), and so there was interaction with Greek culture both directly - via trade and, presumably, cultural exchange with these colonies - and also indirectly, via other mediating cultures such as the Etruscans, as you point out. With the relationship going back that far, there can be
DL Farnworth
Unregistered User
(1/2/04 5:53 am) Reply
Re: Mythology:The Greco-Roman Connection
You cry for sources. Start with the articles on religion in _The Oxford Classical Dictionary_ and follow the bibliographical notes there.
Also very good (if outdated, like myself) is Samuel Dill, _Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius_. Some may say this period is later than the amalgamation of religions but others might answer that the amalgamation was an ongoing process that has perhaps continued to this day.
I would also note that the Hebrew god was amalgamated to some sort of Roman religion, I believe by Commodus. And was known to and recognized by Juvenal among many others.
A confused discussion of the Camenae appears in Janet Lembke, _Bronze and Iron_, sufficiently artsy to soothe even the most savage liberal artist.
Re: Mythology:The Greco-Roman Connection
Thank you very much.
The professor is now personally offended at my openly contradicting her in class (I assure everyone that I wasn't at all unpleasant in my manners), and she's just not interested in cites after all. What's remained with her, it seems, is that fact that she felt "disrespected" -- her word -- by being told she's "wrong" (which I did not do outright, though the effect of contradicting her was surely just that).
However, I am glad for all these references -- I shall be very busy learning a bit more for my own edification! In particular I am glad of your reminder about that "attempted adoption" of the monotheistic God of the Hebrews by Imperial Rome into their own pantheon.
Eugene Kent
Unregistered User
(1/2/04 5:57 am) Reply
Re: Mythology:The Greco-Roman Connection
Why is it that the Egyptian, Babylonian, Hittites, Mittani are skirted?
These came before either Athens or Rome. Then there is the case of the Alexandrian Greeks and the Byzantium Greeks.
With the Roman Empire in between At least get your evolution of these empires in order.
How many understand that Agamemnon of the Iliad or (Troy)epic was a Egyptian?
Re: Mythology:The Greco-Roman Connection
> And "keeping things simple" isn't something to be despised, BTW -- why, it's one of the bases for the Scientific Method.
now that's just wrong. if you learn one thing from studying history, learn that history is not a scientific discipline.
it is an assembly of highly irregular fragments. it may be supplemented with a scientific process, such as the systematic excavations of archeology, but not replaced.
the archeologists of 100 years ago were eager to spin epic tales of history based entirely upon potsherds. however, that kind of overly-ambitious use of the scientific method has declined.
it is the goal of history to gather as much data as possible. interpreting the data is secondary. notice how the interpretive portions of historical works are completely masturbatory and pointless.
often, these are the parts that get the editorial axe when the work is reprinted. frazer's the golden bough is the example par excellence of this phenomenon.
all of this boils down to why your professor has to continually stifle debate. every historical debate, without exception, is endless.
Re: Mythology:The Greco-Roman Connection
> now that's just wrong. if you learn one thing from studying history, learn that history is not a scientific discipline.
Oh yes, I know...I wasn't trying to equate history with the sciences -- I only meant to highlight the fact that trying to "simplify" for the sake of momentary convenience isn't necessarily a bad thing...the ol' forest and the trees issue...the way my question had been phrased made it seem like I did not recognize the complexity involved in the Greco-Roman connection, but I don't know any other way of distilling the controversy to its most pertinent parts.
> it is an assembly of highly irregular fragments. it may be supplemented with a scientific process, such as the systematic excavations of archeology, but not replaced.
Agreed.
> the archeologists of 100 years ago were eager to spin epic tales of history based entirely upon potsherds. however, that kind of overly-ambitious use of the scientific method has declined. it is the goal of history to gather as much data as possible. interpreting the data is secondary. notice how the interpretive portions of historical works are completely masturbatory and pointless.
LOL -- well, I don't know if "interpretation" is pointless, whatever masturbatory pleasures may be derived....
> often, these are the parts that get the editorial axe when the work is reprinted. frazer's the golden bough is the example par excellence of this phenomenon. all of this boils down to why your professor has to continually stifle debate. every historical debate, without exception, is endless.
Yes, sure, but I thought it was an interesting counterpoint, is all...and I'd thought that she'd look kindly on another POV, I didn't realize she was in love with her own voice...I should have just kept my mouth shut -- usenet is a much more informative place than a college classroom, by gum!
des anges
Unregistered User
(1/2/04 6:01 am) Reply
Re: Mythology:The Greco-Roman Connection
> (both Jupiter and Zeus can be related to the Indic Dyaus), and Minerva
linguistically these and tyr (or tiw) and deus are cognate words from dyews (bright sky) or dyew-peter (skyfather)
Re: Mythology:The Greco-Roman Connection
> Have a look at the alt.language. latin thread on "the 'ina' in Proserpina" a few days ago.
Thanks, it's interesting that no one suggested that the reason why Roman Ceres and Greek Demeter, while apparently not copies of one another, should share the same daughter, might be due to the two people's common Indo-European ancestry.
I don't think the heritage ought to be stressed too much, but it hardly seems to register at all, such that my English prof insists that, I quote from our latest e-mail correspondence, "it's common knowledge" that "the Romans adapted and adopted Greek mythology and renamed the gods and retold the tales"....
If anything, this issue is still a matter of some controversy -- it's not just simply "common knowledge".
> Try a reference work, say the Oxford Classical Dictionary, under 'Religion'. Try the index to a history: say, Scullard's History ofthe Roman World from 753 to 146 BC (and page 397).
Thank you for your helpful suggestions...I will look for my own benefit -- she's indicated she is not interested in citations after all, as I'd presumed a scholar would be...again, in her words:
"I...could give you umpteen references which dispute that position, but that would be a silly exercise in semantics, unnecessary (since it is common knowledge)...."
Forgive me, I'm still in a state of shock...I should know better, but I can't help but be disappointed at the close-mindedness demonstrated by an otherwise "demonstrably liberal" NYC college professor....
Edwin Menes
Unregistered User
(1/2/04 6:05 am) Reply
Re: Mythology:The Greco-Roman Connection
This is ultimately a no-win discussion. If your professor has read only Latin literature, then by and large she's right that the myths there are Greek myths with Latinized names. Ovid doesn't go native till Book 11 of the Metamorphoses. But at the same time there was a Roman mythology, most of which is part of Roman history. Aeneas's connection with Rome was first mentioned (as far as we know) by the Greek historian Timaeus.
If, on the other hand, you think that all these stories were already there in the Roman tradition, you're wrong. Romans for a long time did not anthropomorphize their divinities, which seems pretty important for
an extensive and varied mythology. The number of Roman gods (or 'numina', to be more exact) is mind-boggling. There are no Greek equivalents, for example, for Robigo or Consus or Mater Matuta--but also no extensive set of stories involving them.
But, as someone in this thread pointed out, cultural influence on Rome started early, both Greek and Etruscan. Myth is always in a state of development and depends on the telling of stories.
In addition to the books recommended so far, I'd sugest looking at a good myth textbook, like those by Morford & Lenardon, Barry Powell, or Harris & Platzner. I think your conception of the nature of mythology needs some refinement.
Finally, I have to say that I think both you and your prof are being pretty pig-headed about your own rectitude. Asking a question on a newsgroup does not constitute research.
Robert Stonehouse
Unregistered User
(1/2/04 6:07 am) Reply
Re: Mythology:The Greco-Roman Connection
Yes, I had second thoughts over this last night. There are about four things to take account of.
1. As a matter of the history of religion, there was a set of deities and stories in existence before Greek influence reached Rome. Some information about them can be got from Roman historians and antiquarian writers and some from archaeology. But what has happened since leaves us with very limited information.
2. As Greek influence began to arrive, Romans began to equate their gods with those of the Greeks. This gave rise to correspondence of names, even where functions remained rather different, and the invention of new Roman gods where there was a gap. This influence seems to have come through Etruria and south Italy, at least for the most part. There is no evidence (now) of direct contact between Rome and the Greek cities at an early date. So a name like Proserpina shows the influence of Etruscan.
3. Roman literature, apart from deliberately antiquarian literature, uses Greek gods and mythology under the light disguise of Roman names. Ovid's Metamorphoses, say, is basically an exercise in Greek mythology. Claudian's De Raptu Proserpinae carries on the practice.
4. Where Greek myths did not cover what the Romans needed, special extensions were provided. This was done partly by Romans and partly by Greeks - bits can be spotted but we can't draw clear lines between the two. For example, Virgil's Aeneid starts from the Trojan War (Greek) and extends the story of Aeneas (probably first used this way by a Greek) but also includes inventions that are probably Roman, most obviously Virgil's own.
So it is possible that both sides in this argument are substantially right, from slightly different points of view.
Re: Mythology:The Greco-Roman Connection
To Robert Stonehouse,
Thank you for taking the time to seriously consider the matter -- as indeed, thanks for all who have responded.
Yes, so were the Romans worshipping "Iuppiter" as "Iuppiter", etc.?
I don't disagree that Roman and Greek interacted
symbiotically...however, my understanding has been that this does not extend to the point where Mars is just a Roman rechristening of Greek Ares, etc.
Why do people feel the need to be "diplomatic" about their answers? I asked a pretty specific question which isn't, on the face of it, necessarily ignorant of the symbiosis between Greek and Roman...but it's a specific question with a specific answer (as best we know, naturally) -- is this true or false: "...it is completely wrong to suggest that the Romans DIDN'T...rename the [Greek] gods and goddesses...."
And the fact that she does not even recognize that the whole matter (not my question, per se, but the whole set of "extenuating circumstances" which you've brought to bear) is still pregnant with some controversy, but dismisses my report as contrary to "common knowledge", and then she goes on about the "role" and "function" of a student and professor and how it's disrespect to say that she's wrong and now she's trying to kick me out of her (modern) literary criticism class...as Jackie Mason says, "do you understand this?"
Re: Mythology:The Greco-Roman Connection
Right, but some are, like the one about Greek and Roman gods. When I pointed out her error, she goes on about how it's "common knowledge" that the Greeks inspired the Romans, how the Aeneid was a copy of Greek myths, etc., etc., etc. et al., mixing things up such that a fellow student was prompted to remark something along the lines of, "Yeah, just look at Greek and Roman statues, the Roman ones are clearly copies, Roman art was copied from the Greeks"....
She may not care for embarrassing herself at some swank literary reception cocktail, but she does do her students a great disservice in not even bothering to question her claims. She teaches just that stuff every semester to her students...can you see the level of ignorance rising? I mean, we all have gaps in our knowledge, so what's the big deal if she happens to be wrong, especially since she's a professor of English, not the Classics or something like that....
> The question 'What happened?' generally gets a doubtful answer, and the next question 'What did that mean, then?' can take years and never be answered incontrovertibly at all.
Yes, that much is understood.
> As expressed in your quotation, she is talking about Latin literature.
Uh, I think it's pretty clear that she made no distinction between "mythology" and "literature" in that quote...I can't quote you our e-mail correspondence in verbatim, but she doesn't make that distinction for sure. And she's not listening to me because I'm a student and it's not my "function" to "tell [the professor] that (she's) wrong."
>I don't disagree that Roman and Greek interacted symbiotically...however, my understanding has been that this does not extend to the point where Mars is just a Roman rechristening of Greek Ares, etc.
Right, Mars seems to be a Class 1 god in the above categorisation:
Etruscan Maris, Latin Marmar, Mamers, Mavors.
>Why do people feel the need to be "diplomatic" about their answers? I asked a pretty specific question which isn't, on the face of it, necessarily ignorant of the symbiosis between Greek and Roman...but it's a specific question with a specific answer (as best we know, naturally) -- is this true or false: "...it is completely wrong to suggest that the Romans DIDN'T...rename the [Greek] gods and goddesses...."
Not many historical questions are straightforward 'Yes-No' affairs. The question 'What happened?' generally gets a doubtful answer, and the next question 'What did that mean, then?' can take years and never be answered incontrovertibly at all.
>And the fact that she does not even recognize that the whole matter (not my question, per se, but the whole set of "extenuating circumstances" which you've brought to bear) is still pregnant with some controversy, but dismisses my report as contrary to "common knowledge", and ten she goes on about the "role" and "function" of a student and professor and how it's disrespect to say that she's wrong and now she's trying to kick me out of her (modern) literary criticism class...as Jackie Mason says, "do you understand this?"
As expressed in your quotation, she is talking about Latin literature. Now, Latin literature is more thoroughly Greek than almost any other aspect of Roman life. The one genre the Romans claimed for themselvs was satire (from Etruscan 'satir', speak, talk: Palmer p.48, and so it means 'sermo', the poem that is like somebody talking). Quintilian 10.93 "satura quidem tota nostra est", "but satire is purely Roman" - he is comparing Latin authors in various genres with their Greek counterparts, and finds no counterpart for the satirists. Apart from that, they accepted that their literature was simply an extension of Greek.
So in Latin literature, excluding the antiquarians (Varro etc.), what she says is right in a high degree. Only occasionally do we have to make allowances for pre-Greek survivals. That much is indeed common knowledge, because most Latin literature was known to the Middle Ages and has never been lost sight of - the antiquarians probably were least known.
----
> Not many historical questions are straightforward 'Yes-No' affairs.
Right, but some are, like the one about Greek and Roman gods. When I pointed out her error, she goes on about how it's "common knowledge" that the Greeks inspired the Romans, how the Aeneid was a copy of Greek myths, etc., etc., etc. et al., mixing things up such that a fellow student was prompted to remark something along the lines of, "Yeah, just look at Greek and Roman statues, the Roman ones are clearly copies, Roman art was copied from the Greeks"....
She may not care for embarrassing herself at some swank literary reception cocktail, but she does do her students a great disservice in not even bothering to question her claims. She teaches just that stuff every semester to her students...can you see the level of ignorance rising? I mean, we all have gaps in our knowledge, so what's the big deal if she happens to be wrong, especially since she's a professor of English, not the Classics or something like that....
> The question 'What happened?' generally gets a doubtful answer, and the next question 'What did that mean, then?' can take years and never be answered incontrovertibly at all.
Yes, that much is understood.
> As expressed in your quotation, she is talking about Latin literature.
Uh, I think it's pretty clear that she made no distinction between "mythology" and "literature" in that quote...I can't quote you our e-mail correspondence in verbatim, but she doesn't make that distinction for sure. And she's not listening to me because I'm a student and it's not my "function" to "tell [the professor] that (she's) wrong."
> Now, Latin literature is more thoroughly Greek than almost any other aspect of Roman life.
----
> Not many historical questions are straightforward 'Yes-No' affairs.
Right, but some are, like the one about Greek and Roman gods. When I pointed out her error, she goes on about how it's "common knowledge" that the Greeks inspired the Romans, how the Aeneid was a copy of Greek myths, etc., etc., etc. et al., mixing things up such that a fellow student was prompted to remark something along the lines of, "Yeah, just look at Greek and Roman statues, the Roman ones are clearly copies, Roman art was copied from the Greeks"....
She may not care for embarrassing herself at some swank literary reception cocktail, but she does do her students a great disservice in not even bothering to question her claims. She teaches just that stuff every semester to her students...can you see the level of ignorance rising? I mean, we all have gaps in our knowledge, so what's the big deal if she happens to be wrong, especially since she's a professor of English, not the Classics or something like that....
> The question 'What happened?' generally gets a doubtful answer, and the next question 'What did that mean, then?' can take years and never be answered incontrovertibly at all.
Yes, that much is understood.
> As expressed in your quotation, she is talking about Latin literature.
Uh, I think it's pretty clear that she made no distinction between "mythology" and "literature" in that quote...I can't quote you our e-mail correspondence in verbatim, but she doesn't make that distinction for sure. And she's not listening to me because I'm a student and it's not my "function" to "tell [the professor] that (she's) wrong."
> Now, Latin literature is more thoroughly Greek than almost any other aspect of Roman life.
This much I gathered from lurking these NGs.
> The one genre the Romans claimed for themselvs was satire (from Etruscan 'satir', speak, talk: Palmer p.48, and so it means 'sermo', the poem that is like somebody talking). Quintilian 10.93 "satura quidem tota nostra est", "but satire is purely Roman" - he is comparing Latin authors in various genres with their Greek counterparts, and finds no counterpart for the satirists.
Ah, a new fact for me! Well, see, here's the silver lining in all this, then -- aside from material for The Next Great American Novel, I've gained a bit more knowledge.
Thank you kindly!
> Apart from that, they accepted that their literature was simply an extension of Greek.
Yes, you know, I do believe our controversy arises in part due to semantics -- I must impress upon her the distinction between literature and mythology (however artificial and over-lapping they are, they are still moderately useful).
> So in Latin literature, excluding the antiquarians (Varro etc.), what she says is right in a high degree. Only occasionally do we have to make allowances for pre-Greek survivals. That much is indeed common knowledge, because most Latin literature was known to the Middle Ages and has never been lost sight of - the antiquarians probably were least known.
I honestly don't think she had that in mind. The quote clearly demonstrates that she believed the Roman gods were just copies of the Greek -- thus she could not have made the distinction between mythology and literature necessary to have had your thoughts here in mind then.
Re: Mythology:The Greco-Roman Connection
> If your professor has read only Latin literature, then by and large she's right that the myths there are Greek myths with Latinized names.
Look, it's really very, very simple: did the Romans "simply"
rechristen Zeus Iuppiter, Ceres Demeter, etc., upon their Greek conquest and infatuation, or had they not Iuppiter & co. already, who had been long-worshipped with just those names?
> Ovid doesn't go native till Book 11 of the Metamorphoses. But at the same time there was a Roman mythology, most of which is part of Roman history. Aeneas's connection with Rome was first mentioned (as far as we know) by the Greek historian Timaeus.
Interestingly, she doesn't even care to cite any sources, since it's "a waste of your time and mine" since it's "common knowledge" and since it's "not germane to what we're studying" anyway (which is why she devoted half a class to it? [the episode of my objection lasted but five minutes])...so I haven't the slightest clue where she may be getting her information from, other than some elementary school text which tends to gloss stuff like this (hey, that's where I learned that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves, which, of course, wasn't the objective until later -- the objective was to preserve the Union).
> If, on the other hand, you think that all these stories were already there in the Roman tradition, you're wrong.
My question was pretty clear..."Did the Romans...simply 'adopt'...by subsitution of Roman names for the original Greek mythological principals...?" I'm don't think that question necessarily indicates ignorance of the symbiotic nature of cultural interactions.
> Romans for a long time did not anthropomorphize their divinities, which seems pretty important for an extensive and varied mythology.
I'm sorry, Mr. Kilday had summarized Dumezil just that way...are you in disagreement with Dumezil's findings?
> The number of Roman gods (or 'numina', to be more exact) is mind-boggling.
-----
> If your professor has read only Latin literature, then by and large she's right that the myths there are Greek myths with Latinized names.
Look, it's really very, very simple: did the Romans "simply"
rechristen Zeus Iuppiter, Ceres Demeter, etc., upon their Greek conquest and infatuation, or had they not Iuppiter & co. already, who had been long-worshipped with just those names?
> Ovid doesn't go native till Book 11 of the Metamorphoses. But at the same time there was a Roman mythology, most of which is part of Roman history. Aeneas's connection with Rome was first mentioned (as far as we know) by the Greek historian Timaeus.
Interestingly, she doesn't even care to cite any sources, since it's "a waste of your time and mine" since it's "common knowledge" and since it's "not germane to what we're studying" anyway (which is why she devoted half a class to it? [the episode of my objection lasted but five minutes])...so I haven't the slightest clue where she may be getting her information from, other than some elementary school text which tends to gloss stuff like this (hey, that's where I learned that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves, which, of course, wasn't the objective until later -- the objective was to preserve the Union).
> If, on the other hand, you think that all these stories were already there in the Roman tradition, you're wrong.
My question was pretty clear..."Did the Romans...simply 'adopt'...by subsitution of Roman names for the original Greek mythological principals...?" I'm don't think that question necessarily indicates ignorance of the symbiotic nature of cultural interactions.
> Romans for a long time did not anthropomorphize their divinities, which seems pretty important for an extensive and varied mythology.
I'm sorry, Mr. Kilday had summarized Dumezil just that way...are you in disagreement with Dumezil's findings?
> The number of Roman gods (or 'numina', to be more exact) is mind-boggling.
Yes...I wonder if anyone's ever compared it to, say, Shintoism, or any other animistic religion....
> There are no Greek equivalents, for example, for Robigo or Consus or Mater Matuta--but also no extensive set of stories involving them.
Right, also Saturn and Quirinus and Ceres, I understand...which is most interesting, given how important Quirinus had been, one of the triumvirate who oversaw the state....
> But, as someone in this thread pointed out, cultural influence on Rome started early, both Greek and Etruscan. Myth is always in a state of development and depends on the telling of stories.
Truly, yes.
But the question remains, did the Romans rechristen Greek Zeus Iuppiter, etc., and adopted them thus, or had they not their own gods with just those names already....
> In addition to the books recommended so far, I'd sugest looking at a good myth textbook, like those by Morford & Lenardon, Barry Powell, or Harris & Platzner. I think your conception of the nature of mythology needs some refinement.
Aw, hell, it's all very good and interesting (look into Strong et al.'s religion text for a refinement of the conception of religion -- e.g., political activism is a religion, technophilia is a religion, alongside Zen Buddhism and Catholicism), and really, I'm not dismissing anything you say when I point out that the question remains: is Roman Minerva "simply" Greek Athena, is Roman Vesta "simply" Greek Hestia, etc.?
> Finally, I have to say that I think both you and your prof are being pretty pig-headed about your own rectitude.
How so? She's offended that I disrespected her by telling her she's wrong (hey, recall that she even claimed that the Holy Roman Empire is "the same" as the Roman Empire) and now wants me kicked out of the class.
I want to know for myself whether I've been mistaken, as I claim she is.
Now what's "pig-headed" about that? Considering that folks have been burned at the stake for suggesting heliocentrism in astronomy ("to fallen comrades", as we say in the Army), I don't think I'm being stubborn at all.
> Asking a question on a newsgroup does not constitute research.
I beg to differ. Clearly, I am not writing a research paper, nor sitting for my doctoral thesis, etc. I don't expect this thread to replace a college course in the material, but then again, my purpose is simply to solicit some opinions from my fellow...erm, "ethusiasts", all of whom sound more knowledgeable than myself.
And unless you take your own opinions and knowledge, as well as those of your fellow netizens, as inconsequential, I can't see why you think this method of learning isn't sufficient for my purposes. Your point could be extended to all the discussions on these NGs, particularly where controversy is involved.
Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies