[lit-ideas] Experiencing the Roman Empire
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Lit-Ideas " <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:38:38 -0700
Pausing from reading Peter Heather, I opened David Mattingly's Imperialism,
Power, and Identity, Experiencing the Roman Empire." Tufts University
established in 2005 the Miriam S. Balmuth lecture series, the purpose of
which is to "explore the continuing relevance of the study of antiquity to
the modern world." Mattingly was invited to give the inaugural lectures.
The Tufts University Department of Classics Chair, Bruce Hitchner, wrote the
foreword to Mattingly's book. Far from being suspicious of drawing
conclusions coinciding with the spirit of the age, he applauds them:
". . . From the late nineteenth century until the end of the Second World
War, Roman rule and the role it played in influencing the identity of the
peoples of the empire was viewed in positive terms, reflecting the mostly
favorable views of imperialism and colonialism held by classical scholars
throughout this period. But with the breakup of the European empires after
World War II, assessments of Roman imperialism began to shift, albeit rather
cautiously. Indeed, as Mattingly demonstrates in these lectures, classical
historians and archaeologists have remained surprisingly hesitant to abandon
entirely visions of the Roman Empire from the age of imperialism. His call,
for example, to replace the outdated imperial-age concept of Romanization in
favor of an approach emphasizing the insights provided by postcolonial
studies is a bold attempt to transform the terms of the debate on the
meaning of the Roman Empire in the contemporary world.
"Mattingly backs up his call for a new vocabulary for interpreting the Roman
imperial experience by applying a powerful postcolonial perspective to a
diverse array of topics in the history of the empire - the exploitation of
landscapes and resources, sexual relations, art, family values, native
societies - to create a new and challenging vision Roman power and
imperialism. . . ."
Comments: There is no hint of Collingwood's "Idea of history" in the above.
Earlier views of the Roman Empire are to be criticized for viewing it in
"positive terms." Those now "outdated" views are to be superseded by the
"insights provided by postcolonial studies." Mattingly, apparently, is
exemplifying that "up to date" approach.
Has it been implied that one can't find truth in a narrow curriculum
including just Vergil, Cicero, Sallust and Terrence? What about a modern
curriculum which in the Chairs' own words disparages "out of date" views of
history and by implication favors "up-to-date" views? Is truth a function
of the passage of time? Should we view the word "progress" as neutral,
implying that we merely move on from one thing to the next in history and
sometimes the results are good but sometimes bad; or should we invest the
word with a positive value: we move on (or perhaps "can" move on) from one
thing to the next in history and the direction is perforce a good one? And
if "perforce" what is generating the force? Here, I don't see much
difference from the Roman view. They studied Vergil, Cicero, Sallust,
Terrence and produced the best of all possible people, the Roman upper
class. At Tufts they are studying the most up-to-date views of
post-colonialism and, presumably, graduating the most up-to-date students.
Lest I be misunderstood - although I expect to be misunderstood anyway - I
am not applying my own value to the two views expressed in Hitchner's
foreword to Mattingly's book. I am objecting to having as one's goal the
rejecting of "out of date" views (as opposed to incorrect, fallacious or
invalid because of new evidence) and replacing it with views more
up-to-date, politically correct, and in keeping with the spirit of the age.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
