Roman/ancient history: Checkmate, Atenists

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Roman/ancient history: Checkmate, Atenists

20 Blunts: Jan 21, 2017

I have kind of a pointed question here. I am reading Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy. In Greek theater, he singles out Euripides as a paradigm shift from the more Dionysian Sophocles and Aeschylus. Yet before that he goes on about the supremacy of music - the union of poet with musician, lyrics with song...I understand the Dionysian festivals were full of music and dance, culminating in these famous plays. But what was 'music' in this ancient Greek context? All I know of those three figures are the blocks of text and plays that I can read. I see the differences there, but still feel like I'm missing such a large amount of history that it feels hopeless reading this text.

# ¿ Sep 13, 2017 21:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 07:34

20 Blunts: Jan 21, 2017

homullus posted:

All of the choruses in Greek tragedy were song and dance routines. Greek music had string instruments (lyre, cithara), wind instruments (such as flutes and pan flutes), and drums.

Basically, Greek poetry was sung. Homer was sung, and the role vowel quantity plays in meter is one of the reasons some say the Greek alphabet was invented specifically to write down Homer. In one of my Greek classes, one guy insisted on singing his parts when asked to read aloud, using Greek accentuation as his pitch indicators (even though most people don't do that when they read Greek aloud now).

So it was, roughly put, melodic? When I think of Greek chorus I think of the mid-century productions out of London: people in masks, reciting something in unison, but monotone. That is what is confusing me so much. Like, I want to hear the melodies! Perhaps the idea is that putting philosophy to a melody is the "bad' thing Nietzsche is eluding to?

# ¿ Sep 13, 2017 22:06

20 Blunts: Jan 21, 2017

I think the philosophy thread is too dead for this but I need help finding a quote from what I think might have been the pre-Socratics.

I believe it was one philosopher, perhaps unattributed, making fun of Heraclitus or a philosopher who saw the "logos" in everything. The quote basically goes "Don't be like that guy, who treated everything like an example of this idea he had, and rather pseudo-scientifically at that," in modern parlance.

Am I imagining that I saw this quote somewhere? Does it ring any bells?

# ¿ Oct 5, 2017 03:34

20 Blunts: Jan 21, 2017

I have question about Caesar's Civil War commentaries that always has been interesting to me. He seems to posture himself as being wronged by Pompey, and the Senate - not for the fact that they wanted to remove his army from him but because they didn't give him due process and proper day in court to discuss things with them. Basically he claims they broke a parliamentary procedure, in more contemporary terms, and did so for the variety of personal reasons of others in power. So he says:

quote:

For these reasons everything was done in haste and confusion. Caesar's relations were allowed no time to inform him, and the tribunes were given no opportunity to make a plea against the danger that threatened them, or even their fundamental rights by veto, which Lucius Sulla had left untouched.

I guess my question is how we should interpret these claims? Rome was forever changed by a procedural abuse? Huh. Seems plausible. There are just a variety of times in these commentaries where something about the narrative makes me really suspicious. Caesar recounts an army of Pompey's, I think, that surrendered early on in the conflict: he says he allowed them to disarm and go home. Can we believe that?

I'm just re-reading this after about five years and its still fun to me.

# ¿ Dec 4, 2017 19:51

20 Blunts: Jan 21, 2017

Can anybody recommend me a good companion book/book about the New Testament, or if possible, the Book of Acts itself? I guess I'm almost looking for comparative literature, something secular that brings in some more historical/philosophical viewpoints. I was recommended Yale's Anchor Series on the Book of Acts, but it's 50 bux and the Internet Archive scan of it is a little hosed up. Plus, it's a little too dense and Bible Study-ish. I don't know, a shot in the dark!

# ¿ Jul 31, 2020 18:06