[lit-ideas] Historical Explanation According To Parmele
- From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 08:40:46 -0400 (EDT)
Parmele and "the fall of Rome" is not a subject line I would use. I can
hardly see Rome fallen. The verb is being used 'figuratively', and wrongly
figuratively at that!
Anyway, Parmele is a good, entertaining, historian. In her preface to "A
short history of Rome and Italy" [sic -- although the thing is actually TWO
books, with chapters starting as from 'first' when it comes to Italy], she
spends some time, 'avant la lettre', in being Griceian. Notably Grice's
constraint:
Be as informative as is required
Do not be MORE informative than is required.
(Grice was only interested in these things as they triggered
'implicatures'). He sometimes referred to the constraint as one of "STRENGTH",
or,
obviously, informativeness. To say that Caesar crossed a river is one thing,
to
say that he crossed the Rubicon is another, STRONGER, thing, to say.
Parmele, in writing a 'short' history of Rome and Italy is concerned as to
how much to put and how much to leave out. She thinks this concerns
historians generally. I think she makes the right choices, on the whole, as
the
narrative is nice.
L. Helm is right that Parmele likes words. She mentions that "Italia", qua
word, is "Pelasgic", or Pelasgian. (I am amused by the quotation, "At that
time, Italy was only a geographical expression" -- not by her. What
Parmele does say is, words to the effect:
"We'll never know why this Pelasgian name was extended from PART of the
peninsula to the whole."
And I think this may be a good example of her view on historical
explanation. Let me see if I find the original passage.
She writes:
"From these facts scholars read, not that the Pelasgians and Latins were
descended from the Greeks, but, as is more probable, were offshoots of the
same parent stem (Aryan) at nearly the same point, and also that at some
remote period there was a conquest of the Pelasgians by the more powerful
native Oscans, who then became the dominant race."
And here the sort of Popperian statement:
"How and why the Pelasgian name "Italia" should have gradually extended
from the toe of the peninsula until it embraced the whole, may never be
known."
But I think that we do REASONABLY know. I think Parmele is using 'know' in
what we (but perhaps not I) would call a "Popperian" 'sense', while we use
'know' more fluently, to apply to these cases. For we have a feasible
explanation:
People felt the need to call their country by SOME name.
This happens EVERYWHERE:
"Engla-land" was decided (by King Alfred? No -- he preferred Angle Kin) at
SOME point to be the name of a country. Similarly for "Scotland" and "The
United States of Americo Vespucci" -- later abbreviated to "America". This
applies to STATES too, "Virginia", from the Virgin Queen, and Georgia from
George.
But Parmele wants to know 'how and why'. The why seems easy enough. People
need to live in country with names. And the choice is sometimes arbitrary.
"How"? Well, by using it, and the name getting widespread. It's a notable
fact that Italians, back then, would NOT use "Italia" since it was, indeed,
"too Pelasgian" to their Roman taste.
The phrasing by Parmele suggests that it is not the case that ONE day we
WILL know why and how ITALIA was widespread like that to name a whole
country. But according to other probabilistic theories of historical
explanations,
we can ALWAYS explain, if not complain.
This below, since we were also discussing it, is Parmele's view of the
so-called decline and fall of the Roman Empire.
Unsurprisingly, the weight of her argument is the role of the 'Barbarians',
and she is pretty specific about them. I append the passage below as an
example of her historical explanatory narrative.
Cheers,
Speranza
----
"A time of unprecedented overturnings was at hand," Parmele writes.
"The Huns had appeared in Europe (375 A.D.), and, like wolves, were
driving before them even the Goths, who poured down upon the Italian
frontiers."
Must say I like the simile, "A hun is like a wolf." Or is it in plural
that the simile stands: "Huns are like wolves".
"It became evident," Parmele goes on, "that the western division of the
empire, including Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, and Britain, could no longer be
afforded protection by Constantinople. In 395 a.d. the dismemberment took
place. There was an Eastern Empire and a Western Empire. The Eastern or
Byzantine Empire, with comparative internal and external tranquillity, was
going to stand in shining petrifaction for nearly a thousand years. But the
Western Empire was crumbling — decay within and foes without."
Must say I like that use of 'without'. The Roman Empire was with foes
without." As opposed to "it was without foes," which it wasn't.
Parmele continues: "The Moors were threatening Africa. The Picts and Scots
called for a strong hand in Britain, and most terrible of all, the
Visigoths under Alaric were boldly invading northern Italy; besieging Milan,
attacking Florence, then plundering, destroying, burning, as they made their
way
to the Eternal City. Never but once — 600 years before — had foreign feet
profaned the streets of Rome. Slaves within the city opened a gate to their
kinsmen encamped without; and at midnight the awful moment arrived when,
with a wild shout, the Goths were in Rome."
I guess Ruskin was delighted. His main thesis is that it's all Gothic,
essentially (vide his "The stones of Venice").
"The horrors," Parmele goes on, "of the sacking and the burning need not
be dwelt upon."
"The scattering of patrician families consequent upon this pillage and
devastation, forever dispersed the traditional elements which made Rome so
sacred. All of Italy was subject to the Visigoths, who were also in Gaul and
in Spain."
"The Angles and the Saxons were in Britain, and the Vandals in Africa."
Floridly, Parmele speaks of a deluge:
"Rome, herself almost submerged, saw the dark waters of this northern
deluge flowing over the entire empire in the West."
"The death of Alaric in 410, and the advent of Ataulf, his brother and
successor, as head of the Visigoths, temporarily stayed the course of events.
Ataulf loved and had carried away Placidia, sister of the recent Emperor
Honorius. He was an admirer of Roman civilization, and approved of preserving
it as a foundation for a Gothic structure, rather than destroying it. So
he restored the empire in name, and withdrew with his Roman bride, Placidia,
to Spain, there to found a Visigoth Empire. So for some decades longer
emperors bearing the name, but with no actual power, liit like ghosts across
the page of history, the barbarians deciding who should and who should not
wear the imperial purple. Rome was not defiled by the feet of Attila and his
Huns, although they fiercely ravaged Italy. But the Vandals visited it
with fire and with sword and ins alt. Genseric, following the lines of the old
Carthaginian Empire, was creating a huge Vandal Empire, and
was master of the Mediterranean — that prize for which ancient nations had
once so fiercely struggled. He, with his Vandals and his Moors, visited
Rome with destruction and degrading insult (455 a.b.), and after fourteen
devastating days, they carried all the portable treasure to Carthage, leaving
only what was rooted to the ground. This final humiliation extinguished the
flickering spark of life in the expiring empire, and in 495 a.d. the Roman
Senate performed its last act."
"It transferred the supreme authority to Odoacer, chief of a German tribe,
and a Goth was King of Rome and Sovereign of Italy."
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
