I took a few breaks reading this book, which I inherited from my grandmother. This is definitely a book for non-classicists who want to learn more about the use of classics in the modern world. I found parts of the book fun and useful, and other parts a little boring. I would recommend for a newcomer interested in the effect of the ancient Mediterranean world on the modern western world.

Especially like the first chapters and the description of male-dominated ancient Greek culture.

Interesting take on things. I love the ancient world for itself so linking the modern to the ancient isn't my cup of tea per se. But it was worth the read.

Although Goldhill is not a remarkable stylist, he nonetheless accomplishes the feat of showing how ancient Greek culture impacts contemporary culture in a few hundred pages.

Packed with historical facts and insightful connections, this book is widely recommendable for its presentation of high subject matter in easily readable prose.

this book reads like a high school or college persuasive essay, which is kind of ironic for a book that's trying to get you back in touch with our greek / roman roots / standards / ideals.

i like the examples the author draws upon to prove his points, but, i don't know, i wasn't intrigued or impressed by anything. don't think i'd recommend this to a friend. maybe would use it if i taught a 100 level backgrounds in lit class or something.

I read this for part of my senior thesis on sex in the ancient world.

My rating is based on the first two sections of the book, which were the only parts I was required to read for class. I intend to go back and read the rest at some point, though, as it's a lively and entertaining book, and one I could see reading outside an academic environment.

What I liked about Simon Goldhill’s Love, Sex & Tragedy was that he (mostly) avoids sounding like a curmudgeonly stick-in-the-mud who can’t handle the loss of the classical curriculum in education and the knowledge of Western civilization’s origins. He laments it not because he wants to hear people quoting Homer from memory (in the original Greek) or see glowing comparisons of politicians to Cincinnatus but because he sees little evidence that what’s replaced it is tackling the same issues in as deep a manner. He doesn’t see any counterparts today to Homer, Herodotus and Thucydides, or to Sophocles and Euripides, among others. And this dumbing down of our public discourse infects all aspects of culture – politics, entertainment, social relationships, literature, the arts, etc.

Why study the classics?

I’m going to be lazy and simply quote the author from the last pages of the book, where he concludes:

For thinking hard about the past reveals the buried life of the present, its potential for change, for being different. Looking back critically at where we come from is a revelatory education about the present.

The simplest point that emerges from looking back at how the myths of Greece and Rome have functioned in the history of European culture is this: the past matters. It matters because in psychological, social, intellectual, artistic and political terms the past is formative of the present. It is the person’s or culture’s deep grounding. It matters how the past is understood or told. Stories change lives. They make foundations, they build hopes and they can kill. A self-aware appreciation of the past requires reflecting on the myths and the histories, the story-telling and the critical analysis, which makes sense of the past – and thus the present....

Understanding the past also requires that we understand how previous generations thought of the past, were stimulated and inspired by it, rebelled against it, denied it. Classical antiquity has constantly been reinvented as the privileged model of the past, and it has been thus a force for comprehending – and changing – the present....

If we do not recognize how classical antiquity furnished the imagination, stimulated and structured thought and acted as a banner of artistic and political revolution, our view of our own cultural tradition will be necessarily distorted. (pp. 319-20)

Aside from the general conclusion above, I found several of the specifics the author focuses on interesting. One in particular stood out because of personal interests, and I’ll mention it here so you can get an idea of the issues Goldhill deals with. He spends a great deal of time (two chapters – 26 pages) discussing the Oedipus myth (as transmitted by Sophocles; there were other versions) and how it became and remains a profound analysis of the human condition, helped by Freud making it the basis for his psychology.

Oedipus is the archetypal hero figure trying to discover where he comes from: “Oedipus’ search for himself, his journey to discover where he comes from, is the paradigmatic example of how we must look back for self-knowledge, but also of how disturbing and painful that necessary process can be” (p. 298) and “Most shocking is the play’s insistent and disturbing claim that is it exactly at the moment you think you know where you come from and who you are that you are most open to a tragedy of self-deception” (p. 306). Goldhill sees Oedipus as particularly important in the 21st century when Western civilization struggles ever more desperately to know and to control but only seems to discover ever more uncertainty and ever less control.

I would recommend the book. Even if you don’t agree with the author’s conclusions in parts of the book, it’s still an interesting look at the influence Greece and Rome had and continues to have over our lives.

3.5/5 stars

Goldhill has an easy writing style which is nice to read and he covers a wide range of topics; from homosexuality in ancient society, to Christianity, to ancient plays and modern writers. He does sometimes claim certain things without really backing his argument up (I get that it's 'popular science' book so there is not a lot of citing going on, but he could still argue his case more clearly) and he is pretty picky and selective in using either Greek or Roman customs (or both) whichever suits his argument best which was pretty annoying at times.

Anyway, it is an interesting read, so I'd recommend it if you're interested in the ancient world or how western culture is influenced by antiquity!

G is for Goldhill


3.5 stars. Review to come.

De democratie hebben we van de oude Grieken, net als het theater en terwijl bij ons de mannenliefde pas sinds enige tientallen jaren (enigszins) is geacepteerd, was die bij hen al heel gewoon. In Liefde, Seks en Tragedie, hoe de oudheid ons heeft gevormd, met op de Nederlandse omslag een wat misleidende blote mannentorso, laat Simon Goldhill zien hoe kennis van de klassieke wereld ons begrip van de moderne westerse mens verbreedt en verdiept.

Vier thema’s pikt Goldhill uit om zijn betoog te illustreren. Liefde, religie, politiek en vertier zijn volgens hem de belangrijkste bouwstenen van de moderne mens. Zonder te kijken naar de klassieken zijn deze moderne pijlers niet te begrijpen.

Binnen deze centrale thema’s komt een scala aan onderwerpen voorbij. Daarbij kiest Goldhill vooral voor de aantrekkelijke, bekende onderwerpen zoals de mannenliefde, waarover hij heel gedetailleerd vertelt. Het betoog vertoont hierdoor niet altijd even veel samenhang. Toch blijft Liefde, Sekse en Tragedie boeien. Goldhill overtuigt in zijn betoog dat om het moderne leven te begrijpen we de klassieken moeten doorgronden. De veelvoud aan soms op het oog lukrake onderwerpen die hij behandelt blijken allemaal terug te voeren op één vraag: ‘waar denk je dat je vandaan komt.’ Cicero’s (106-43 v. Chr.) uitspraak: ‘‘Als je niet weet waar je vandaan komt, blijf je altijd een kind,’ wordt zo met recht tot leidraad van Goldhills boek, dat veel meer bevat dan enkel liefde, seks en tragedie.

Lees de recensie van Elsbeth Littink op http://bit.ly/11AfltG

A book by my very impressive undergraduate Classics tutor, who pushed me to think harder when I was 19 and when I, well, needed to think harder! It's a very engaging if eclectic book. I don't think it needs to push the message that 'Classics matters' quite so hard, but that's partly because I already believe that studying the past is invaluable when thinking about our identity in the present -- I don't need to be convinced. The chapters on Erasmus and Greek in the Renaissance were particularly good. Also, interesting stuff on Greek gay intercourse, which was intracrural apparently.