Ancient Greek and Roman civilizations * * * constitute the classical civilization of Western Europe, and they are closely related, so people always compare them. However, there is a gap between ancient Greece and ancient Rome. For example, the olive branch and the Arc de Triomphe-I think these two typical images can reflect the characteristics of the civilization they represent, and at least express some mainstream emotions in the process of their civilization: Greece yearns for peace and Rome is keen on war; Greece is eager to blend in with the blood of nature, and Rome dreams of overcoming difficulties in various complicated human societies. Of course, it is dangerous to compare the spiritual differences between ancient Greece and Rome with the olive branch and the Arc de Triomphe, although it is simple and intuitive. Because it is easy to feel that the civilizations of ancient Greece and Rome are completely opposite. This is definitely not the case. First of all, the difference between ancient Greece and Rome lies in the difference in the tone of their civilization, which is mainly due to the different geographical locations, which led to the different absorption of eastern culture in their early civilizations. History can be traced back to the first 3000 years. If westerners had a seed of civilization at that time, but they still needed air, sunlight, soil and water to germinate, then it was Egypt and Mesopotamia, two great civilizations in the Near East, that generously donated these precious life factors to westerners. Indeed, the rise of classical civilization in Western Europe is largely the product of the outward radiation of the two great civilizations in the Near East. In distant ancient times, Greece was geographically superior to Apennines and Iberia. On the one hand, Greece has many islands and good ports, and the maritime traffic is very convenient. On the other hand, Greece is close to Egypt and Mesopotamia. In this way, Greece can communicate frequently and fully with the splendid oriental civilization, thus taking the lead in growing up under the infiltration and nourishment of the latter. Rome is located in the middle of the Mediterranean. Although this is conducive to the subsequent military expansion, at the beginning of civilization, the geographical position of the Near East, which is far from the source of civilization, made it only rely on Greece to develop itself. In this way, Greece learned oriental culture directly from Egypt and Mesopotamia, while Rome indirectly learned oriental culture from Greece. In other words, if Greece is already the "second aesthetic" of oriental culture, then Rome can only be regarded as the "second aesthetic" of this "second aesthetic" [2]. The result of this "trial" is of course very different-the oriental color of Greek civilization is stronger; The oriental color of Roman civilization is lighter. As we know, the greatest feature of oriental culture is elegance, exquisiteness, refinement, self-cultivation and taste in life, so the difference in tone between Greek and Roman civilizations is revealed by the strength of their respective oriental colors: the former, like the orientals, even pursues elegance, exquisiteness, refinement, self-cultivation and taste in life more strongly; The latter is relatively simple, rough, pragmatic and inclined to force. So if I want to draw these two civilizations, I will choose dream blue for Greece and red for Rome. It is worth noting that the intervention and adjustment of eastern culture to Greece and Rome was mainly at the beginning of the development of the latter civilization. As the classical civilization matures, its centrifugal tendency towards the oriental culture becomes more and more obvious. One evidence is that the center of classical civilization in western Europe has been shifting from Crete (Crete civilization) to the south-central part of the Greek peninsula (Mycenae civilization and city-state civilization), then to Macedonia (Hellenistic civilization) and then to Apennine (Roman civilization). This is a process of moving north and west. This moving direction generally shows that the center of western European classical civilization is far from the East. This is because after the development of western European classical civilization, its personality gradually grew, and it is more and more necessary to break away from the East and show its independence. This is a very interesting phenomenon, but it is not difficult to understand. Just like the relationship between parents and children. Parents give birth to children, which shapes the basic character of children; But children's attachment to their parents is mainly in childhood. Growth makes them show more and more different temperament and characteristics from their parents, and they have a rebellious attitude towards the latter. They will get farther and farther away from their parents and go their own way. [3] The second difference between ancient Greece and Rome is that their civilization forms are different. The former is a loose and democratic city-state, while the latter is a cohesive and centralized state and state empire. Here, there is a question before our eyes: Why can't Greece rush out of its own peninsula like Rome and go to the whole Mediterranean world, and develop into a huge empire for future generations to stop? Why even if there is a so-called "Greek Empire" in history, it is only a flash in the pan? We found that the geographical environment of the Greek peninsula is very characteristic. This is a mountainous area with few plains, most of which are cut into pieces by mountains. This terrain had two influences on ancient Greek civilization: First, it created a natural rectification unit-a city-state with small countries and few people. "According to incomplete statistics, the total number of Greek city-states has reached more than 300, all of which are tiny countries with very limited land and population. The largest city-state Sparta is only 8,400 square kilometers with a population of about 400,000. Another big state, Athens, has a land area of about 2,550 square kilometers and a population of 200,000-300,000. Most Greek city-states are even narrower. Ubeia Island covers an area of 3,770 square kilometers and has six city-states, each with a population of only tens of thousands. The area of Foces in central Greece is only 1650 square kilometers, but there are 22 city-states, and the population of each city-state is less than 1 10,000. [4] These small and few city-states are unable to resist the threats brought by various natural disasters, nor can they bear the enormous pressure brought by population growth on the land. So once they develop to a certain scale, they must vent their excess energy. So in the two hundred years from the 8th century to the 6th century, the Greek states set off a magnificent colonial movement, resulting in the birth of a large number of new countries. According to rough statistics, in ancient times, about 44 mother states established 139 sub-states, which were like frogs on a pond. [5] The second influence brought by the geographical environment of mountains and rivers is that the polis is relatively dispersed, closed and independent, and it is not easy to be unified. On the one hand, "Greek civilization is characterized by a city-state system composed of many small countries from beginning to end" [6], on the other hand, it prevents the latter from forming a unified style by hindering various exchanges between the city-States, thus keeping the Greek civilization characterized by pluralistic existence for a long time: politically, some city-states are democratic, some are aristocratic, some are oligarchs, and some are monarchies; Economically, some take the natural agricultural economic road, and some take the industrial and commercial navigation economic road; Culturally, some people love science, literature and art, while others advocate militarism, discipline and system. However, "numerous" makes the interests among Greek States complicated; "Various styles" make the states lack the same style, which makes them always difficult to integrate with each other and conflicts frequently occur. In this way, the internal structure of Greek civilization is quite chaotic and loose, full of mutual exclusion and instability. This not only easily causes its own turmoil, but also distracts its outward expansion energy. So the ancient Greek civilization was never able to go all out. Suppose it rushes desperately to the Mediterranean, and the result will only fall into a state of disintegration like medieval Germany. The difference is that in medieval Germany, there was at least the title system of princes and ministers and the title of "Holy Roman Empire". Although this kind of "maintenance" is only an illusory illusion, it makes the division of Germany limited to the political category after all. This was not the case in ancient Greece. Ancient Greece doesn't even have a nominally unified banner, so its division will inevitably mean the collapse of the whole civilization, which is obviously worse. Later, Alexander of Macedonia proved this for us. His heroic attempt to connect Greek states and expand outward obviously underestimated the mutual exclusion within Greek civilization, so his empire was torn to pieces in less than 20 years, which led to the end of the independent development history of the whole ancient Greek civilization. There have been three great fissions in Mediterranean history, and the division of Alexander's empire is the earliest one. [7] Although the Alexander Empire was not a pure "Greek" empire, it was built on a variety of economic and cultural foundations. But its division explains why Greece failed to develop into a complete empire in the end. [8] Now look at Rome. Although the Apennine Peninsula is also mountainous, Roman civilization did not rise in the fragmented mountainous areas like Greek civilization, but originated in the valley on the east bank of the Tiber River. The terrain here is relatively flat and complete, so the contact between tribes is very convenient and close from the beginning. It is also very important that Rome was called the "Seven Hills Alliance" at the beginning of its rise, which is said to be because seven tribes joined at that time; In the era of kingship, it is said that there were only three "tribes", namely blood tribes; After Seville's reform, geopolitical tribes replaced blood tribes, and the number of these new geopolitical tribes seems to be small-"there are four in Rome and 15 or 16 in suburban villages". [9] Although the number of tribes in early Rome may actually be more than the above figures, it should be certain that it is far less than hundreds of Greek city-states. Therefore, we feel that the internal structure of Rome is not as dazzling as that of Greece, and it is relatively simple. At the same time, the tribes in Rome were influenced by the same culture almost at the same time, that is, the Idalari subculture and the subsequent Greek culture, so the differences between the tribes were not great and there was no strong mutual exclusion between them. In this way, the possibility of centralized management of Roman civilization is greater than that of Greek civilization, and its internal structure is more stable. Therefore, in the history of Rome, there were many class struggles, such as the struggles between civilians and nobles, slaves and slave owners, and slave owners, but there were few scuffles between different political units like Greece. [10] In this way, Rome was able to save more strength for foreign wars, and eventually it was transformed from a small country that was not well known to a huge empire that spanned three continents: Europe, Asia and Africa. The third difference between ancient Greek and Roman civilizations is their national character and cultural concept. This is also easier to understand. For example, if we look at modern Germans and Americans, we will find that their personalities are very different. Germans are rigorous, rational and meticulous, which always gives people a deep feeling, so Germany has produced many great philosophers and scientists; Americans are casual and informal, which always reminds people of wild cowboys in the west, but their thinking is often unconstrained and creative, so many successful businessmen, politicians and actors have emerged in the United States. For another example, both the British and the French are very romantic, but the former is intellectual romance and the latter is emotional romance, so the British romance pays attention to taste, while the French romance is pure. For another example, Russians have strong willpower, and even women are strong, independent and individual. Japanese people are more gentle, and Japanese women are more obedient. This great difference between these countries and nations is caused by their different national personalities and cultural concepts. This also reminds us that there is actually a similar contrast between modern Greeks and modern Italians. My first impression of modern Greeks came from a Greek film Zoba the Greek in the 1960s. The film tells the story of a depressed English writer who came to Greece after World War II and met a Greek farmer Anthony in a remote village in Crete. Anthony is warm, kind and sincere. His simplicity, simplicity and love for life deeply infected the writer and rekindled his hope for life. This film made me deeply understand the spiritual world of the Greeks, and made me understand why this nation could create such a magnificent and wonderful civilization miracle in ancient times. What impressed me most about Italians was their famous opera Turandot. Turandot is different from Zoba the Greek, which is a calm and tender film. Its charm lies in its powerful tenor and soprano, amazing costumes and stage, subtle plot evolution and four thoughtful answers-hope, blood, Turandot and love. Therefore, we feel that Italians have a strong emotional pulse. They are passionate and willing to sing love in high notes. This is a far cry from the coolness and reserve in the Greek Zoba, which is used to depicting friendship. This difference should actually be the remains of ancient Greek civilization and ancient Roman civilization. As mentioned earlier, the centrifugal force inside the ancient Greek civilization was so strong that it was impossible to concentrate on external expansion. Even if a certain expansion has been made in a certain period of time, due to the internal centrifugal force tearing, it is impossible to maintain those hard-developed territories for a long time and will soon collapse. In other words, ancient Greek civilization could not develop and grow through military conquest. In fact, Greek civilization developed through the slow accumulation of culture. Roman civilization is not as long, thick and solid as Greece, but because its internal centripetal force is greater than centrifugal force, various elements can be assembled relatively quickly and well, which makes Rome rise rapidly through large-scale foreign conquest and expansion. These two completely different modes of civilization development are correspondingly branded with the national character and cultural ideas of Greece and Rome, thus becoming the fundamental symbol of their differences. Let me talk about the specific expression of this national character and cultural concept. First of all, we see two scenes like this: The first scene is in the famous Epidos Theatre in ancient Greece. The crowd is crowded and excited people come from afar for the name of aristophanes [1 1], and their eyes are full of expectations. For the ancient Greeks, going to the theater was an elegant way of life. For the ancient Greek government, going to the theater was also a beneficial public utility, because it could enhance the communication and cohesion of citizens. Therefore, in ancient Greece, citizens did not have to buy tickets to go to the theater, but they could get extra subsidies from the government. This is how art is encouraged; The second scene is a thrilling fight in the Colosseum in ancient Rome, and the air is filled with blood. Thousands of spectators crowded in the circular stands, and they all screamed wildly. Some people put their palms down in an attempt to push the loser to die early. The ancient Romans believed that fighting could arouse the truest and most precious courage in people's hearts. They worship this spirit and regard it as "the soul of China". So they said, "If Grossman doesn't fall, Rome will last forever. Once Grossaint falls, Rome will perish. "Now, we have two understandings of this sentence. First, because Gorosem is located in the center of Rome and symbolizes the heart of the empire, if it falls, it means that the whole empire has been destroyed; Second, Gorosome is the arena, and fighting spirit is the soul of China in Rome. The fall of Grossaint means that the Roman spirit no longer exists. An empire deprived of its soul will perish. So from these two scenes, we really feel that the ancient Greeks were very artistic, while the ancient Romans were very martial. As teacher Zhu Xiaoyuan summed it up brilliantly: "Ancient Greek civilization is the civilization of poetry, and ancient Roman civilization is the civilization of sword. "[12] The ancient Greeks loved beauty the most, and they paid attention to exquisite clothes and elegant makeup. Among their gods, there is also a special "beauty god" named "Aphrodite", which is not found in other civilizations and is the first and most primitive creation of the ancient Greeks. [13] Look at the palaces in Crete, and then look at the murals there, the priests wearing olive crowns walking comfortably among the flowers, the fashionable "Paris girl" with curly hair and red lips, the cheerful dolphins and the wonderful geometric patterns. How beautiful! So the ancient Greeks loved beauty the most. Once one or two untidy people appear occasionally, such as Socrates and Diogenes, they will immediately think that they are "crazy" and "different", and they will be unbearable. In contrast, the Romans, their folk customs are very simple. Although in the later period of its civilization development, most Romans have forgotten the fine tradition of simplicity, but their nature is really simple. At the beginning of the rise of Rome, "the life of the Romans was quite frugal and not luxurious. "Their clothes and diet are very simple. The elders hold meetings in the Chamber, sit on hard benches, and don't make a fire in winter. Luxury food, even the use of luxury tables, will be condemned by inspectors. " [14] Let's take a look at Greek sculptures. Both phidias's The Virgin Athena and alexandros's Brokeback Venus have vivid expressions and graceful postures. For such an image, we can almost only use the word "perfect" to describe it. The sculpture in ancient Rome pursued the true colors of the characters, and for this reason he even showed the ugliness of the portrayed objects. So it's true. We also found that there were few large-scale public works in ancient Greece, and most of their buildings were low and in harmony with the surrounding natural environment, including modern Greece. Rome, on the other hand, is different. Most of its buildings are tall and magnificent [15], and it never cares about the surrounding environment. Perhaps it is clearly on an open flat land, but it stands tall, which seems to make people feel a little abrupt. It should be said that the ancient Greeks had an instinctive humility to nature, while the ancient Romans were inspired by their military strength and territory, so they longed to show an imperial domineering and conquering desire everywhere. So we come to a conclusion: Roman art mainly doesn't want to show the beauty and elegance like Greece, but tries to show its strength and dignity. In this way, there are Pantheon, Arc de Triomphe, large and small squares and road networks extending in all directions all over the country. So at this point, the Romans were successful. The differences between ancient Greeks and Romans in national character and cultural concepts are also manifested in that the former is full of idealism and romanticism, while the latter is full of realism and pragmatism. As just said, the ancient Greeks were eager to get close to nature, while the ancient Romans were more willing to transform and conquer nature. This is actually the difference between romanticism and pragmatism. Therefore, the ancient Greeks often liked to sing and admire when facing nature and those high mountains and waterfalls. In the face of nature, the ancient Romans thought of formulating a set of "natural laws" to restrain it. Even a grass, a bunch of flowers, a fish and a shovel should follow this "natural law". The difference between the idealism of the ancient Greeks and the realism of the ancient Romans is also reflected in their respective social lives, especially in the concept of love. For example, homosexuality was very popular and respected in ancient Greek society. Famous same-sex couples are Socrates and Alkki Buades, Alexander the Great and Hepastine, Achilles and Patroclus in Homer's epic. Plato also had a strong homosexual tendency, and the famous poetess Sappho was even called "the ancestor of lesbians" by westerners. It should be said that in ancient Greece, same-sex love has always been regarded as a purer and more sacred "love between heaven" than "secular" heterosexual love. Because at that time, people felt that the tacit understanding between the same sex was usually stronger than that between the opposite sex, especially between men and women, and they could fight side by side on the battlefield, life and death and * * *, and this friendship was more pure and precious than heterosexual love maintained solely by lust. In ancient Greece, the government openly encouraged homosexual love. Almost every city-state has set up a same-sex couple formation. In battle, these same-sex partner soldiers are usually the most heroic. Therefore, the ancient Greeks' concept of love was strongly idealistic. In Roman society, homosexuality is still very common, but it has become a dirty plaything of nobles and celebrities. The government has stopped advocating it publicly. Augustus advocated a good family relationship, and both husband and wife were loyal to each other and lived a normal marriage life. Moreover, the Romans no longer thought that same-sex love was a higher emotion than opposite-sex love. They treat both equally, but more often, they prefer heterosexual love, because they think that love should develop into marriage and then have more children. Therefore, the ancient Romans' view of love was much more realistic, and it was difficult for them to understand the "love between heaven" that the Greeks yearned for. If these are not enough to explain the problem, then the difference between ancient Greek philosophy and ancient Roman philosophy makes the gap between ancient Greek idealism and ancient Roman realism more obvious. The ancient Greeks created philosophy, which they called "philosophy", which means "love of wisdom". However, the ancient Greek philosophy is very ethereal and profound. You see, this "father of philosophy" from Miletus [16] founded the so-called "school of natural philosophy", and he thought about the origin of the material world. His view is that the source of everything is "water". Is this hard to understand? But the following Pythagoras is even more difficult to understand. He no longer cares about the material world, but turns his attention to the mysterious world. He said that the origin of all things is "number", and this vast world is composed of ten groups of opposites: straight and curved, one and many, odd and even, square and moment, fire and qi, right and left, good and evil, static and dynamic, bright and dark, yang and yin. Can you understand? Then Heraclitus said that the past, present and future of the world are all a fire, an eternal living fire, which burns to a certain extent and goes out to a certain extent. He also discussed something similar to China's "Tao"-"logos". Then, democritus said that the origin of the world is "atom and void". "Invariant atoms collide with each other in the eternal movement in the void, forming countless worlds of life and death. The difference between everything is only the number and arrangement of its atoms." [17] His "atomism" seems to be the closest to our scientific theory today, but at that time, it was the most abstract, magical and incredible hypothesis. Therefore, we find that the ancient Greek philosophy is always thinking about heaven and earth, the universe and nature, and its distance from real life is actually very far away. But this is obviously the embodiment of the national character of ancient Greece-the pursuit of Excellence and profundity. What about the Romans? Their popular philosophy is Stoicism. This is a philosophy that rose in the Hellenistic era, but the Romans made great changes to it, mainly to make it highly ethical. "High morality" is the key word. Originally, the Stoics mainly talked about "logos", but now the Romans think it is too far away, so they emphasize the aspect that "logos" requires people to be responsible for society, and that only by overcoming the desires and weaknesses of individual bodies can we reach the realm of "logos". In this way, Roman philosophy is very useful, which directly serves human society and life. Teacher Zhu Xiaoyuan said: "Greek civilization is an enlarged individual, and Roman civilization is an enlarged country." [18] This statement is mainly based on the lofty spirit of freedom and democracy in ancient Greek civilization and the repeated emphasis on discipline and system in ancient Roman civilization. The Greek city-state practiced direct democracy, and every citizen was the real master of the country [19], so personal strength was shaped very strongly, which gave birth to their fierce pursuit of freedom and individuality. Rome, on the other hand, rose by military expansion-the army was of course maintained by discipline and system, so Roman civilization attached great importance to order and demanded obedience from beginning to end, which suppressed personal desires. Similarly, it is precisely because of the long-term cultural accumulation of ancient Greek civilization that "ruling the country by virtue" is particularly advocated. Socrates spent his whole life discussing "virtue". Plato's "utopia" was ruled by a "holy king", while the ancient Roman civilization was militaristic and had a weak cultural foundation, so it was not suitable for "ruling the country by virtue" and could only rely on strict laws to restrain all ethnic groups, economies and cultural regions within the huge empire. Of course, this approach is also wise and effective. As we know, Roman law is the epitome of Roman culture. Will Duran said: "Law is the essence of Roman history, so Roman history and law are inseparable." The ancient Greeks seemed to be born smart. They pay attention to speculation and are quite sensitive to emotions. In our words today, "IQ" and "EQ" are both high. The ancient Romans did not have this talent, and their military career made it impossible for them to cultivate this ability well, so the ancient Roman civilization as a whole did not seem as profound and exquisite as the ancient Greek civilization. But Rome has its own advantages. This nation may be aware of its shortcomings compared with Greece, so it is particularly diligent. On the one hand, they love labor, especially in the early days. Both nobles and civilians are proud of farming in the fields. On the other hand, they study Greek civilization assiduously, from literature to science to art to religion, from economy to politics to social life, we can see the shadow of Greece more or less. "Rome conquered Greece by force, but was conquered by Greek culture", the ancient Roman poet Horace really hit the nail on the head. At this moment, we can't help but think of Poe's simple and powerful famous saying: "Glory belongs to Greece! Greatness belongs to Rome! " This sentence highly summarizes the respective characteristics of these two classical civilizations: the glory of Greece lies in that it is the clearest source of western civilization, so that "the mention of the name Greece will naturally cause a feeling of home in the hearts of educated Europeans" [20]; The greatness of Rome lies in that it pushed the classical civilization to the peak and wrote an unparalleled brilliant legend!