Something To Ponder

[Urbs Aedificator]

Ave. I've put this topic in Res Publica simply because in my opinion, this is the era that I feel 'Roman' virtues were more pronounced(although yes they did change over this long period). Not to say that they were not evident during Empire, just that as Rome encountered and was influenced by the various cultures, 'virtues' may have changed.

So here's the question: which virtues in your opinion did the Romans hold most dear, and why?

Honor?

Dignity?

Virtue itself?

Others?

We may have to define what a Roman virtue is, but lets hear your thoughts.

Cheers.

Alex

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, UA!

HERE is an anterior thread,something to begin with.

[Urbs Aedificator]

Thanks Asclepiades, I wasn't sure if this topic had been done over before.

Alex

[caldrail]

Ave. I've put this topic in Res Publica simply because in my opinion, this is the era that I feel 'Roman' virtues were more pronounced(although yes they did change over this long period). Not to say that they were not evident during Empire, just that as Rome encountered and was influenced by the various cultures, 'virtues' may have changed.

So here's the question: which virtues in your opinion did the Romans hold most dear, and why?

Honor?

Dignity?

Virtue itself?

Others?

We may have to define what a Roman virtue is, but lets hear your thoughts.

Cheers.

Alex

 

Much depended on individual personality I imagine. A greedy and unscruplous senator might hold dignity very important, but pay lip service to honour. A legionary officer from a military family might instead hold honour as paramount, but virtue might be seen as an obstacle to the very practical mindset of serving soldiers.

 

Roman virtue was more important in the republic. Life was more austere, and in an odd sort of parallel with the 1950's, many people might have felt life was better, despite the more restrictive moral expectations. Once the civil wars were over peace and prosperity followed. Ok, not everyone wealthy by any means, but there was enough propserity to exploit if you had any commercial savvy, and many romans did. The empire let the roman hair down so to speak, and again, in an odd sort of parallel with the 60's, a lighter mood emerged and as usual with human societies moral codes evaporate in an atmosphere of plentiful entertainment and personal hedonism.

[Ursus]

I think dignitas, or one's social standing, was the most important virtue in all periods, not just the republic.

 

The Empire was merely different. The Romans, having won thesmelves an empire, were eager to enjoy its fruits, and thus handed over much of the legionary drudgery to the provincials (who after a tour of duty could become citizens and enjoy the fruits themselves. Surely the imperial period extended dignitas to the provincials in a way the Republic had not).

 

Elections were hollow shadows, which meant that military victory as a way of inciting mass approval was no longer the point of the political system. One now had to gain the favor of the Princeps for the top administrative posts. And, furthermore, one had to find a way of gaining the 1 million sesterces or 400,000 sesterces to qualify for entry into the distinguished Senatorial and Equestrian orders whence the administrators were drawn.

[M. Porcius Cato]

So here's the question: which virtues in your opinion did the Romans hold most dear, and why?

 

Different virtues were more or less important depending on the sphere of activity. For an ambitious politician, dignitas was necessary to gain auctoritas. For an aspiring poet (like Catullus), another man's dignitas was simply a good set-up for a devastating punch-line. For the merchant class, nothing was more important than the sanctity of an oath (indeed, Livy would have taken this to be the supreme Roman virtue). For a real legislator (and not just a show-off politician), the supreme virtue had to have been severitas--ruthless adherence to the laws, regardless of personal feeling.