Then vs. Now: How Different Are They?

On Monday evening, I attended the lecture: “The City, and Cities, in Greek and Roman Cultures,” given by Doctor Mary Boatwright of the Classics Department at Duke University. This talk was based upon Greek, Hellenistic, and Roman cities (in that order). Dr. Boatwright described the different definitions the civilizations had for cities, in addition to their various characteristics over the years, and the Greek and Romans’ concepts of the “city.”
She started the lecture by defining a polis as both a “physical reality and citizens that inhbit it…[and] buildings and space [as the[ ‘urban nucleus’.” The Greeks were more focused on the “community” aspect of their cities, instead of the “physical” part. Athens, for example, had over 250,000 citizens – yet everyone knew each other and benefited from the Empire. Although they did care greatly about the physical layouts of their cities, they were able to recognize the “transient” nature of the physicality, and therefore to realize the importance of community.
As the Greeks began to colonize in the 8th Century B.C., they continued to emphasize community, their people from displacing, and loyalty to the homeland. They developed democracy and large political units. Their communities were so tightly knit, that in order to be considered an “Athenian,” one must have both and Athenian Mother and Father.
The Hellenistic Kings, on the other hand, were focused on constructing many building in the cities they controlled. They placed much importance on the physical components. Their main goal was to enhance the city as merely a physical attraction.
Finally, Rome also focused on the “physical” definition of cities. They were interested in having the best material ammentitie possible. Camillus’ speech was proff of that – discussing the hills, rivers, bridges and monuments. They cared about the place, more than the actual community – which greatly contrasts with the Greek definition – which was the polar opposite. As the Roman Empire expanded throughout the world, the newly conquered “Romans” allied with Rome and the motherland, and were considered Romans (also unlike the Athenians). Throughout the years, their focus remained on the physicality; this is obviously seen through items such as the monuments, coins, lamps etc. They continued with this methodology beyond their own city, and into their two thousand provinces throughout the world.
Finally, Dr. Boatwright incorporated a modern day example – New Orleans. She brought up the city’s devastation and demoralization, and raised the question of whether or not the city should be restored to the original; if so, would it have the same charm? If not, what would that say about America?
This lecture went very well with the theme of The Year of the City. Today, I feel that both definitions of the city are seen, but even more than ever – the importance of the Community aspect is clear. We, as a society must acknowledge this. Over the past few years, with disasters such as Hurricanes and the Terrorist Attacks, we have seen the transience of the physicality. Although beautiful buildings and monuments are definitely important and nice to see, they are not really the essence of the cities. As Jane Jacobs said, and Dr. Boatwright quoted in her lecture, it is “not the urban building…[but it is] all of its inhabitants, and all of them matter.” It is mind-boggling to think about how the definitions that the Ancient civilizations had for the city thousands of years ago still apply to us today. Watching their actions definitely could help us to handle our problems and hopefully learn from their mistakes. Conveniently, all of this fits in with our class theme, and many of our readings – especially the passage from Jane Jacobs.
In conclusion, this lecture reinforced how vital strong communities (especially within overwhelmingly large cities) are, and how our relationships with those around us and how we treat them is extremely important.