While the Romans had some objections to theater (and perhaps visual arts)
we cannot exactly say that they were bad writers. Virgil is maybe mediocre,
but Ovid is not. Also Apuleius is pretty good. Much of the literary work of
Roman empire was 'displaced' by Christians and their fellow
barbarians.Also, the Greek art was continued.
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:14 AM, adriano paolo shaul gershom palma <
the point is interesting
one way to see what it consist pf:
compare with late Q’ing dinastic fall
was there great art in bejiing?
remind me if you can
what was the great art of the roman?
military architecture? i amnot sarcastic
but need a refresher on time frames
late roman empire= diocletian to fall of istanbul to the ozman?
On Mon, 02 Oct 2017 at 08:06, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Specifically, he suggests that the later Roman empire could not prod*ucepalma, apgs
great creative art. Which may be*
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 5:59 AM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
Exactly. Good writing style, leading to questionable conclusions. But--
aesthetics is a part of the discussion.
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 5:53 AM, adriano paolo shaul gershom palma <
gibbon had one advantage i.e. writing well
as for the substace I am unsure about the conditioning
since between say the raj in india and trump in puerto rico it is not
clear to who declines.
slightly better in terms of fall: pseudopowers like comintern
disappeared in pess than one century
and without seneca ( they did invent film though)
On Mon, 02 Oct 2017 at 05:40, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
You might know the title of which book I am referring to. Are we in--
the Western (or even Eastern) Roman empire conditioned to think that we
living through so many centuries of decline and fall ?