I need to write a historiographical analysis about the roman gladiator games, that contrasts two historians views of the event. I am having trouble figuring out what question I should try and ask in the paper, and what aspect of gladiatorial games to look at in depth. Can anyone offer some suggestions?|||Here are two contrasting views, not from Roman historians but from key historical figures and writers.
Seneca, Nero's tutor took a strong view against the games, from a moral standpoint, and saw them as corrupting, see 1st link,
On the other hand, Martial, a poet who wrote in praise of Domitian, also wrote gushing poems in praise of (Domitian's) games, 2nd link.
The morality of the games is maybe something to explore. On one hand you have Seneca's disgust at the games, on the other Martial praising them to the skies.... it gets a bit tiresome when you read too many of his poems. Seneca was a philosopher, Martial was an imperial propagandist, writing poems to win favor with Domitian.
Somewhere in the middle you have the reason why the games existed: as a safety valve for the fire and passion that burned in the Roman populace, letting them vent their passion at the games and not against each other. Also, bringing slaves and wild animals from across the Roman empire served as a reminder of Rome's supremacy.|||Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.co鈥?/a>
http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu/classi鈥?/a>
http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/arena.htm鈥?/a>
http://abacus.bates.edu/~mimber/Rciv/gla鈥?/a>
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment