[lit-ideas] Re: Hope and Glory
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 20:43:46 -0400 (EDT)
http://historum.com/european-history/37164-british-empire-vs-roman-empire-5.
html
"Trouble is (as with all such comparisons) Roman historians probably don't
know enough about the British Empire, and modern historians certainly don't
know enough about the Roman Empire, to make really fruitful comparisons.
50 (ish) years ago, E. H. Carr wrote that he'd love to see a study of how
Roman imperialism served as a model for British. I'm not aware that anybody
has taken up his challenge in a major publication (correct me if I'm wrong),
but it would be interesting."
P. Enns was reminding us of the odd choice by Humpty Dumpty:
"That shows",s said Humpty Dumpty, "that there are three hundred and
sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents..."
"'Certainly," said Alice.
"And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's GLORY for you!'
'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell
you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it
means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many
different things.'
The question is that "glory" -- never mind 'a nice knock-down argument'
does mean
many 'so many different things' to different UTTERERS, to use Grice's
expression. Vide Short/Lewis:
glōrĭa, ae, feminine.
Cfr. Sanscr. cru, to hear; crav-as, fame;
Greek: κλύω, κλέος;
Lat. cluo, clueo, inclutus, from the root clŭo; lit., rumor, fame.
Hence also, like κλέος, pregn..
So apparently, a better pronunciation should be 'clory'.
To Short's and Lewis's credit, the Online Etymology states that English
'glory', from Latin 'gloria' is
"of uncertain origin" -- whereas at least Short and Lewis provide another
Latin cognate -- 'cluo' -- with a semantic connection into the bargain.
Short and Lewis decide to translate Latin 'gloria' as 'glory' which I don't
find THAT helpful.
I was referring to D. Ritchie, and he comments:
In a message dated 4/12/2014 7:34:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, _profdritc
hie@gmail.com_ (mailto:profdritchie@xxxxxxxxx) writes:
Far be it from me to get territorial about Empire.
-- which is a good pun. Anyway, this in the Wikipedia historiography
British Empire I did find of interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_British_Empire
"Armitage (2008) traces the emergence of a
British imperial IDEOLOGY
from the time of Henry VIII to that of Walpole in the 1730s."
which is quite a span for an idea to be traced.
"Using a close reading of English, Scottish and Irish authors from Smith
(1513–77) to Hume (1711–1776), Armitage argues that the British imperial
IDEOLOGY was both a critical agent in the formation of a British state from
three kingdoms and an essential bond between this British state and the
trans-atlantic colonies."
"Armitage links the concerns of the 'New British History' with that of the
Atlantic history."
"Before 1700, Armitage finds that contested English and Scottish versions
of "state" and "empire" delays the emergence of a UNITARY British imperial
ideology."
One could CONTEST that: why this need for 'unitary'? One could claim that,
say, a Scottish version of 'empire' need not delay anything! If you have a
version of 'empire' you DO have an 'imperial ideology'. Imperial
ideologies, rather than an unitary imperial ideology, granted.
"The notions of republicanism produces in these writers" examined by
Armitage, "a tension between "empire" and liberty" and "imperium" and
"dominium"".
"N. Barbon and C. Davenant in the late 17th century
emphasize the significance of commerce,
especially mercantilism or commerce that was closed to outsiders,
to the success of the British state. They argue that
"trade depends on liberty, and that liberty can therefore be the foundation
of the British empire."
I.e. imperialism and liberalism (in the British, not the American sense)
are compatible. "To overcome competing versions of 'empire' within Britain,
Parliament undertook the regulation of the Irish economy, the Act of Union
(1707) and the formation of a unitary and organic 'British' empire. -- As if
the British Empire came to existence by an act of Parliament. Seems naive.
I wonder what Sellars and Yeatman say about this ('1066 and all that', a
comical history of England -- or Beckett, in "A comical history of
England"), since there may be a serious point behind the alleged comicality.
"Walpole's opponents in the 1730s in the "country party" and in the
American colonies developed an alternative vision of empire that would be
"Protestant, commercial, maritime and free" -- Yet the American colonies, in
1776,
were wanting it to be _freER_?
"Walpole does not ensure the promised "liberty" to the American colonies
because he is intent on subordinating all colonial economic activity to the
mercantilist advantages of the metropolis." "Anti-imperial critiques emerged
from F. Hutcheson and D. Hume, presaging the republicanism that swept the
American colonies in the 1770s and led to the creation of a RIVAL empire."
"Although AMERICAN [versus British] historians have always paid attention
to the NEGATIVE causes of the revolt by which the 13 colonies broke away
from the Empire, around 1900 the "Imperial School," including Osgood, Beer,
Andrews and Gipson took a highly favorable view of the benefits achieved
by the economic integration of the British Empire."
This 'new' (well, circa 1900) 'imperial theory', or rather its proponents,
suggest that "The British empire is a cultural project" and not just a
political or economic one.
"British Empire building shapes the cultures of both colonized peoples and
Britons themselves": experiencing the British Empire, as it were.
There is a British 'imperial social formation', an uneven but integrative
set of arguments, ideas and institutions that connects Britain to its
colonies. "Many historians now focus on these 'networks' and 'webs' and A. Gam
es uses this as a model for studying the pattern of early English (rather
than British) imperialism as well."
Finally, the quote I started the post with:
http://historum.com/european-history/37164-british-empire-vs-roman-empire-5.
html
So here in memoriam E. H. Carr!
"Trouble is (as with all such comparisons) Roman historians
probably don't know enough about the British Empire,
and modern historians certainly don't know enough
about the Roman Empire, to make really fruitful
comparisons. 50 (ish) years ago, E. H. Carr wrote
that he'd love to see a study of how Roman imperialism
served as a model for British. I'm not aware that anybody has
taken up his challenge in a major publication (correct me if I'm wrong),
but it would be interesting."
Indeed.
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
