The ancient Greek and Roman civilizations together constitute the classical civilization of Western Europe. They are closely related, and people always compare the two. Yet there was a gulf between ancient Greece and Rome. For example, the olive branch and the triumphal arch - I think these two typical images can well reflect the characteristics of the civilizations they represent, and can at least express some of the mainstream emotions in the process of their civilization: Greece yearned for peace, Rome was keen on war; Greece longed for peace and harmony. The natural blood blends together, and the Roman dream overcomes obstacles in the human society intertwined with various complex relationships. Of course, using olive branches and triumphal arches to compare the spiritual differences between ancient Greece and Rome is simple and intuitive, but it is also dangerous. Because it is easy for people to mistakenly think that the civilizations of ancient Greece and ancient Rome were completely independent and opposed. The real situation is of course not like this. First of all, the difference between ancient Greece and ancient Rome lies in the different tone of their civilizations, which is mainly due to their different geographical locations and the different degrees of absorption of Eastern culture in the early stages of the formation of their respective civilizations. History can be traced back to the third millennium BC. If Westerners at that time already had a seed of civilization, but they still needed air, sunlight, soil and water to germinate, then those who generously gave Westerners these precious life factors These are the two major civilizations of the Near East—Egypt and Mesopotamia. Indeed, the rise of classical civilization in Western Europe was largely the product of the radiation from the two major civilizations in the Near East. In distant antiquity, the Greek region had greater geographical advantages than the Pennines and Iberia. On the one hand, Greece had many islands and good harbors, and maritime transportation was very convenient. On the other hand, Greece was very close to Egypt and Mesopotamia. In this way, Greece can frequently and fully communicate with the glorious Eastern civilization, and thus take the lead in growing under the infiltration and nourishment of the latter. Rome was located in the middle of the Mediterranean. Although this was conducive to its military expansion later, at the beginning of civilization, this geographical distance from the source of civilization in the Near East meant that it could only rely on Greece to develop itself. In this way, Greece directly learned Eastern culture from Egypt and Mesopotamia, while Rome indirectly learned Eastern culture from Greece. In other words, if Greece is already a "secondary aesthetic" of Eastern culture, then Rome can only be regarded as a "secondary aesthetic" of this "secondary aesthetic" [2]. The results of such "review" are of course very different - the oriental color of Greek civilization is stronger; the oriental color of Roman civilization is lighter. And we know that the biggest characteristics of Eastern culture are elegance, refinement, delicacy, cultivation and taste in life. So the difference in the tone of civilization between Greece and Rome is revealed by the strength of the Eastern color in each. Come out: The former pursue elegance, refinement, delicacy, cultivation and taste of life just like the Orientals, or even more strongly; the latter are more simple, rough, pragmatic and inclined to force. So if I were to color these two civilizations, I would choose a dreamy blue for Greece and a fiery red for Rome. It is worth noting that Eastern culture intervened and regulated Greece and Rome mainly at the beginning of the development of the latter's civilization. As classical civilization became more and more mature, its centrifugal tendency towards Eastern culture became more and more obvious. One piece of evidence is that the center of classical civilization in Western Europe has been undergoing such a shift: from Crete (Minoan civilization) to the central and southern parts of the Greek peninsula (Mycenaean civilization and city-state civilization) to Macedonia (Hellenistic civilization), and then to Apennines (Roman civilization). This is a process of moving north and west. This direction of movement generally indicates that the center of classical civilization in Western Europe was moving away from the east. This is because after the development of Western European classical civilization, its personality gradually grew, and it increasingly needed to break away from the East and show its independence. This is an interesting phenomenon, but not difficult to understand. Just like the relationship between parents and children. Parents give birth to children and shape their basic characters; but children's attachment to their parents is mainly in their childhood. As they grow up, they increasingly exhibit temperaments and characteristics that are different from their parents, and develop a rebellious spirit towards the latter. They will move further and further away from their parents and follow their own path. [3] The second difference between ancient Greece and ancient Rome is that they have different civilizational forms. The former is a loose and democratic city-state, while the latter is a relatively cohesive republic and centralized empire. Here is a question that lies before our eyes: Why has Greece never been able to break out of its own peninsula and move toward the entire Mediterranean world like Rome, and develop into a vast empire that would make the mountains of later generations look up to it? Why even if a so-called "Greek" empire appeared in history, it was only short-lived? We found that the geographical environment of the Greek Peninsula is very unique. It is a mountainous area with few plains, and most of them are cut into pieces by mountains. This terrain had two impacts on ancient Greek civilization: First, it created a natural unit of governance - a city-state with a small country and few people. "According to incomplete statistics, the total number of Greek city-states reaches more than 300, all of which are small countries with very limited land and population. The largest city-state, Sparta, only has an area of ??8,400 square kilometers and a population of about 400,000. Another large state is Athens. The territory is about 2,550 square kilometers and the population is 200,000-300,000. Most Greek city-states are even smaller. Euboea has an area of ??3,770 square kilometers and has 6 city-states, each with a population of only tens of thousands. The area of ??Forsis is only 1,650 square kilometers, but it contains 22 city-states, each with a population of less than 10,000 people.

"[4] These small city-states with few people are unable to withstand the threats posed by various natural disasters, nor can they withstand the huge pressure caused by population growth on the land. Therefore, once they develop to a certain scale, they must vent their excessive power to the outside world. Therefore, during the two hundred years from the 8th century BC to the 6th century BC, the Greek states launched a magnificent colonial movement, which resulted in the birth of a large number of new states. “According to rough statistics, the Archaic Age was about There are 44 mother-states that have established 139 sub-states, and these city-states are like 'frogs by the pond' responding to each other." [5] The second impact of the geographical environment separated by mountains and rivers is that the city-states are relatively scattered, Being closed, independent and difficult to unify, on the one hand, this makes "Greek civilization characterized by a city-state system of small states from beginning to end" [6]; on the other hand, it prevents the latter from functioning well by hindering various exchanges between states. The formation of a unified style allowed Greek civilization to maintain the characteristics of pluralism for a long time: politically, some city-states were democracies, some were aristocrats, some were oligarchies, and some were monarchies; economically, some city-states were Following the path of natural agricultural economy, some followed the path of industrial, commercial and maritime economy; culturally, some loved science, literature and art, while some respected militarism, discipline and system. However, the "numerous numbers" made the interests among the Greek states complicated; The "various forms" also caused the states to lack a common style of behavior, making it difficult for them to integrate with each other, and conflicts of various sizes occurred frequently. In this way, the internal structure of Greek civilization was quite chaotic and loose. It is also full of mutual repulsion and is very unstable. This not only easily causes its own turbulence, but also disperses its energy for outward expansion. Therefore, it is impossible for the ancient Greek civilization to rush to the Mediterranean at all costs. The result would be that it would fall apart just like medieval Germany. The difference is that medieval Germany at least still had the vassal system and the title of "Holy Roman Empire" to maintain it, although this "maintenance" was just an illusion. However, it limited the division of Germany within the scope of politics. This was not the case in ancient Greece, so its division must mean the entire civilization. Later, Alexander of Macedon proved this for us. His heroic move to connect the Greek states and expand outwards clearly underestimated the mutual repulsion within the Greek civilization, so his The empire was torn into pieces less than 20 years after its establishment, which led to the end of the entire independent development history of ancient Greek civilization. There were three major fissions in the history of the Mediterranean, and the division of Alexander's empire was the earliest [7]. The empire was not a purely "Greek" empire. It was built on a variety of economic and cultural foundations, but its divisions answer why Greece could not and failed to develop into a complete empire. 8] Now let’s look at Rome. Although the Apennine Peninsula is also crisscrossed with mountains, Roman civilization did not arise in the fragmented mountainous areas like Greek civilization. It originated in the valley on the east bank of the Tiber River. The terrain here is relatively flat and complete, so the connections between the tribes were very convenient and close from the beginning. Another very important point is that at the beginning of the rise of Rome, it was called the "League of Seven Hills", which is said to be because seven tribes joined at that time; by the time of the Kings, it was said that there were only three "Tribus", that is, blood tribes; After the Reformation, geographical tribes replaced blood tribes, and the number of these new geographical tribes seems to be small - "4 in Rome and 15 or 16 in the suburbs and countryside." [9] Although there may actually be more tribes in early Rome than the above figures, it should be certain that it is far less than the hundreds of Greek city-states. So from this, we feel that the internal structure of Rome is not as dazzling as Greece, it is relatively simple. At the same time, the Roman tribes developed almost simultaneously under the influence of the same culture, that is, the Etruscan culture and the subsequent Greek culture, so the differences between the tribes were not very big and there was no difference between them. Strongly mutually exclusive. In this way, Roman civilization was more likely to achieve centralized management than Greek civilization, and its internal structure was more stable. Therefore, the history of Rome was more about class struggles, such as struggles between civilians and nobles, slaves and slave owners, and slave owners, but there were few melees between different political units like Greece. [10] In this way, Rome was able to preserve more power for foreign wars, and eventually transformed from a little-known small state into a vast empire spanning three continents: Europe, Asia, and Africa. The third difference between ancient Greek and Roman civilizations is their different national characters and cultural concepts. This is also relatively easy to understand. For example, if we look at modern Germans and Americans, we will find that their personalities are very different. Germans are rigorous and rational, meticulous and always give people a sense of depth, so Germany has produced many great philosophers and scientists; Americans are casual and informal, always reminding people of the bohemian western cowboys, but this kind of People's thinking is often unfettered, unconstrained, and highly original. As a result, the United States has produced many successful businessmen, politicians, and actors. For another example, the British and the French are both romantic, but the former is an intellectual romance, while the latter is an emotional romance. Therefore, British romance pays attention to taste, while French romance is very pure. For another example, the Russians are very strong, and even the women are very strong, independent, and full of character; the Japanese are relatively gentle, and Japanese women are quite pliable.

The stark differences between these countries and nations are caused by their different national characters and cultural concepts. This also reminds us that there are actually similar contrasts between modern Greeks and modern Italians. My first impression of modern Greeks came from a Greek movie in the 1960s called "Zorba the Greek." This movie tells the story of a depressed British writer who came to Greece after World War II and met Anthony, a Greek farmer in the remote countryside of Crete. Anthony was enthusiastic, kind and sincere. His simplicity, simplicity and love for life deeply infected the writer and rekindled his hope in life. This movie gave me a deep understanding of the spiritual world of the Greeks, which enabled me to understand at some level why this nation was able to create such magnificent and wonderful miracles of civilization in ancient times. What impressed me most about the Italians was their famous opera "Turandot". Unlike "Zorba the Greek," which is a calm and gentle movie filled with tenderness, the charm of "Turandot" lies in the powerful tenors and sopranos, the stunning costumes and stage , the intricate plot evolution, and the four thought-provoking mysteries in the play - "Hope", "Blood", "Turandot" and "Love". So we feel that the emotional pulse of Italians is very strong. They are full of passion and are willing to sing the praises of love in high notes. This is very different from the Greeks shown in "Zorba the Greek" who are quiet, reserved, and accustomed to portraying friendship in peace. In fact, this difference should also be a relic of ancient Greek civilization and ancient Roman civilization. As mentioned earlier, the centrifugal force within the ancient Greek civilization was very strong and it was unable to concentrate its efforts on external expansion. Even if it achieves a certain degree of expansion within a certain period of time, due to the internal centrifugal force, it will not be able to maintain those difficult-to-open territories for a long time, and it will soon collapse. This means that ancient Greek civilization could not develop and grow through military conquest. In fact, Greek civilization developed through the slow accumulation of culture. The Roman civilization did not have the thick and solid cultural accumulation that the Greeks did over the years. However, because its internal centripetal force was greater than the centrifugal force, various factors could be gathered together faster and better. In this way, Rome could pass through large-scale It rose rapidly through foreign conquest and expansion. These two completely different civilizational development models have accordingly left a profound and distinct imprint on the national character and cultural concepts of Greece and Rome, thus becoming the fundamental symbol of their difference from each other. Let’s talk about the specific manifestations of this difference in national character and cultural concepts. First of all, we see two scenes like this: The first scene is that in the famous Epidaurus Theater in ancient Greece, there is a huge flow of people. Excited people come from afar to admire the name of Aristophanes [11]. It's full of expectations. For the ancient Greeks, theater was an elegant way of life. For the ancient Greek government, theater viewing was also a beneficial public undertaking, because it could enhance communication and cohesion among citizens. Therefore, in ancient Greece, citizens not only did not have to buy theater tickets to go to the theater, but also received an additional subsidy from the government. Art is encouraged in this way; the second scene is that in the Colosseum in ancient Rome, a thrilling gladiatorial fight is being staged, and the air is filled with blood. Thousands of spectators were crowded in the elevated circular stands. They all screamed crazily, and some people turned their palms downward in an attempt to push the loser to death early. The ancient Romans believed that gladiatorial combat could inspire the most authentic and precious courageous spirit in people's hearts. They worshiped this spirit and regarded it as the "soul of the country." So they said: "As long as Colosseum falls, Rome will last forever. Once Colosseum falls, Rome will perish." Now, we have two understandings of this sentence. One is because Colosseum Sem is located in the center of Rome, symbolizing the heart of the empire. If it falls, it means that the entire empire has suffered a devastating blow; secondly, Sem is a arena for gladiatorial combat, and the spirit of gladiatorial combat is what Rome The soul of the country. The collapse of Grosheim meant that the spirit of Rome ceased to exist. The empire, whose soul has been taken away, is about to die. So from these two scenes, we really feel that the ancient Greeks were very artistic, and the ancient Romans were very martial. As teacher Zhu Xiaoyuan put it brilliantly: "The ancient Greek civilization was the civilization of poetry, and the ancient Roman civilization was the civilization of swords." [12] The ancient Greeks loved beauty the most, and they paid attention to exquisite clothing and elegant makeup. Among their gods there is also a special "god of beauty" named "Aphrodite", which is not found in other civilizations and is the first and original creation of the ancient Greeks. [13] Go and see the palace in Crete and see the murals there, the priest with the olive branch crown walking leisurely among the flowers, the fashionable "" with curly hair and eye-catching red lips. "Paris Girl", those cheerful jumping dolphins, those wonderful geometric patterns, how beautiful! Therefore, the ancient Greeks loved beauty the most. Once one or two slovenly people appeared occasionally, such as Socrates and Diogenes, they would immediately think that they were "madmen" and "abnormals", and they would be intolerable. On the other hand, the Romans had very simple folk customs. Although in the later stages of their civilization's development, most Romans had abandoned the fine traditions of simplicity and simplicity, their nature was indeed very simple. At the beginning of the rise of Rome, "the Romans lived a very frugal life and did not indulge in luxury. Their clothing and food were very simple. The senators held meetings in the council hall, sitting on hard benches, and they did not light fires in winter."

Fine clothing and fine dining, even the use of luxurious tables, were condemned by the censor. "[14] Let's look at Greek sculptures again. Whether it's "Virgin Athena" by Phidias or "Venus with Broken Arms" by Alexandros, they both have lifelike expressions and graceful figures. For such an image, we can almost only use the word "perfect" to describe it. However, the sculptures of ancient Rome pursued the original appearance of the characters, and for this reason, they even did not hesitate to depict the ugliness of the objects. It is also displayed. So it is very real. We also found that there were few large-scale public construction projects in ancient Greece. Most of its buildings were low and in harmony with the surrounding natural environment, including modern Greece. Rome is different. Most of its buildings are tall and magnificent[15], and it never cares about the surrounding environment. Maybe it is clearly on an open flat land, but there is a majestic pillar that reaches into the clouds. This is It seems a bit strange. It should be said that the ancient Greeks had an instinctive humility towards nature, while the ancient Romans were inspired by their military power and their territory, so they aspired to embody an empire's domineering power and desire to conquer. So we come to a conclusion: the art of the ancient Romans was not mainly about showing beauty and elegance like Greece, but trying to express his power and majesty. This way, there are Pantheons, triumphal arches, large and small squares and everywhere. The road network extends in all directions across the country. Therefore, the Romans were successful in this regard. The differences in national character and cultural concepts between the ancient Greeks and the ancient Romans are also reflected in the fact that the former are rich in idealism and romantic feelings, while the latter are rich in idealism. Realism and practical concepts. As mentioned earlier, the ancient Greeks longed to get close to nature, while the ancient Romans were more willing to transform and conquer nature. This is actually a distinction between romanticism and pragmatism. Naturally, when facing those mountains and waterfalls, they often like to sing and admire them. But when facing nature, the ancient Romans actually thought of formulating a set of "natural laws" to restrain it, even a piece of grass, a bouquet of flowers, a fish, or a fish. The division between the idealism of the ancient Greeks and the realism of the ancient Romans is also reflected in their respective social lives, especially in their views on love. For example, in ancient Greek society, homosexuality was a problem. Famous same-sex couples include Socrates and Alcibiades, Alexander the Great and Hepastine, Homer's Achilles and Patroclus, and Plato. There is also a strong homosexual tendency. The famous female poet Sappho is even called the "ancestor of lesbianism" by Westerners. It should be said that in ancient Greece, same-sex love has always been considered to be purer and more sacred than "secular" heterosexual love. "Love in Heaven". Because people at that time felt that the spiritual understanding between the same sex was usually stronger than that between the opposite sex, especially between men. They could kill enemies side by side on the battlefield, life and death, and sex. Therefore, this kind of friendship is more pure and precious than heterosexual love that relies solely on physical desire. In ancient Greece, same-sex love was openly encouraged by the government, and almost every city-state had dedicated formations of same-sex couple soldiers to fight. At that time, these same-sex couple soldiers were usually one to ten, the most heroic. Therefore, the ancient Greeks' view of love was highly idealistic. In Roman society, although homosexuality was still very common, it had become a dirty plaything of nobles and celebrities. The government has stopped advocating publicly. Augustus advocated sound family relations, where both husband and wife were loyal to each other and lived a normal married life. Moreover, the Romans no longer believed that same-sex love was a higher level of emotion than heterosexual love. They regarded the two equally, and most of the time, they still preferred heterosexual love because they felt that love should develop into marriage. , and then have many children. Therefore, the ancient Romans' view of love was much more realistic. It was difficult for them to understand the "love in 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 even more obvious. The ancient Greeks created philosophy, which they called Philosophia, which means "love of wisdom." However, the philosophy of the ancient Greeks was very ethereal and profound. You see, the "Father of Philosophy"[16] from Miletus founded the so-called "Natural Philosophy School". He was thinking about the original problems of the material world. His point of view is that the source of all things is "water". Is this difficult to understand? But the next Pythagoras is even more difficult to understand. He no longer cares about the problems of the material world, but turns his attention to the mysterious world. He said that the source of all things is "number". This vast world is composed of straight and curved, one and many, odd and even, square and rectangular, fire and air, right and left, good and evil, stillness and movement, It consists of ten sets of opposites, light 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, burning in a certain measure and extinguished in a certain measure. He also discussed something similar to our Chinese "Tao" - "Logos". Then, Democritus said that the origin of the world is "atoms and void". "Unchanging atoms collide with each other in the eternal motion of the void to form countless worlds of birth and death. The only difference between all things is the number and arrangement of their atoms."

[17] It seems that his "atom theory" is closest to our scientific theory today, but at the time, it was the most abstract, magical, and unbelievable hypothesis. So we find that the philosophy of the ancient Greeks was always thinking about heaven and earth, the universe, and nature. It is actually very far away from real life. But this is clearly the embodiment of the ancient Greek national character - the pursuit of excellence and profundity. And what about the Romans? Their prevailing philosophy was Stoicism. This is a philosophy that arose in the Hellenistic era, but the Romans made great changes to it, mainly making it highly ethical. "Highly ethical", these five words are very crucial. Originally, Stoicism mainly talked about "Logos", but now the Romans feel that it is too far away, so they put more emphasis on the aspect of "Logos" that requires people to take responsibility for society, and even more emphasis on the aspect of "Logos" that requires people to take responsibility for society. Only the desires and weaknesses of the flesh can reach the realm of "Logos". In this way, the philosophy of the Romans was very practical, and it directly served 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 ancient Greek civilization's consistent promotion of the spirit of freedom and democracy, and the ancient Roman civilization's emphasis on discipline and system. repeatedly emphasized. The Greek city-states implemented a direct democracy, and every citizen was truly the master of the country [19]. Therefore, the power of individuals was shaped very strongly, which gave birth to their passionate pursuit of freedom and individuality. And Rome relied on military expansion to rise. The army of course relied on discipline and system to maintain its strength. Therefore, Roman civilization attached great importance to order and required obedience from beginning to end. It suppressed personal desires. Similarly, precisely because ancient Greek civilization has gone through a long period of cultural accumulation, it particularly respected "ruling the country by virtue." Socrates devoted his life to discussing "virtue", and Plato's "Utopia" was also governed by "Wise Kings"... while ancient Roman civilization was militaristic, and its cultural foundation If it is relatively weak, it is not suitable for "ruling the country by virtue" and can only rely on strict laws to bind together the diverse ethnic, economic and cultural regions within the huge empire. Of course, this approach is also wise and effective. We know that the culmination of Roman culture is Roman law. Will Duran said: "Since law is the essence of Roman history, Roman history and law are inseparable." The ancient Greeks seemed to be born very smart, they focused on thinking, and their emotions were quite keen. In our today's terms, it means that both "IQ" and "Emotional Quotient" are very high. The ancient Romans did not have this talent, and their military career also prevented them from cultivating this ability well. Therefore, the ancient Roman civilization as a whole seems not as profound and delicate as the ancient Greek civilization. But Rome has its own advantages. This nation may have realized their shortcomings compared with Greece, so they were particularly diligent. On the one hand, they love labor, especially in the ancient times and the early days. No matter nobles or commoners, they were proud to farm in the fields. On the other hand, they studied 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 in all aspects. "Rome conquered Greece with 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 Edgar Allan Poe's simple and powerful famous saying: "Glory belongs to Greece! Greatness belongs to Rome!" This sentence highly summarizes the characteristics of these two classical civilizations: The glory of Greece is that it is the Western civilization. The clearest source of civilization, so much so that “whenever the name Greece is mentioned, it will naturally arouse a sense of home in the hearts of educated Europeans” [20]; the greatness of Rome is that it pushed classical civilization to its peak , wrote an unparalleled glorious legend!