[lit-ideas] Re: Resistance to Rome and others
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 09:21:11 -0400 (EDT)
L. Helm, in his original post, made an interesting allusion, to, as I
recall, 'the glory of Rome'.
Let us revise the context of L. Helm's use of the expression:
"We might ask, if we could resurrect one of their British governors,
“so what was the purpose?” He would have his answer:
The glory of Rome, the protection of Rome against
future incursions, the Roman need for food and
supplies, etc."
Oddly, I found the expression, 'glory of Rome' vis–à–vis a character that
Mattingly should NOT be too concerned with (as the reviewer of the Bryn
Mawr journal wrote, Mattingly is into the conquered, not the conqueror). That
character is Poenius Postumus and Mattingly refers to his 'tragic story'.
"[H]e fell on his sword", as Mattingly rather tersely puts it.
We read from Wikipedia -- at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poenius_Postumus
-- citing from Tacitus (whom David Mattingly first heard as being read by
his grandfather, the Romanist Harold Mattingly -- one of the two Harold
Mattinglys that influenced him and to whom he dedicates the book: the other is
his own father):
Poenius Postumus was praefectus castrorum of the Roman Legion II Augusta,
stationed in Britain during the rebellion of Boudica in 61 AD.
In the general area of Exeter with his troops, Poenius Postumus ignores
the call to join the governor Suetonius in putting down the rebellion.
(Mattingly expands on the reasons for this).
However, Wikipedia continues, "[h]earing of the Roman victory at the Battle
of Watling Street, having denied his troops a share in the glory, he fell
on his sword."
The reference is Tacitus, Annals 14.37 -- which I confess I have not now
checked.
But the phrase, 'fell on his sword' had a strange fascination on Grice (as
it does on me).
EXCURSUS:
As it happened, when discussing Davidson's theory of action sentences
("Mary fell on a trance") that Adriano Palma seems to find absurd (as did
Grice), Grice goes on to analyse the mis-implicature of this use of 'fall' (as
in "fall on one's sword") -- He is actually concerned with two verbs: 'fall'
(on one's sword) and 'lose' (as in 'lose a legion').
Poenius Postumus did NOT lose a legion, but he fell on his sword. But
Grice's example relates to a similar Roman legionary who did both. He notes the
implicated ambiguity in a possible report.
A Roman legionary loses his legion. He cannot face the disgrace, which, to
his mind, attends his responsibility for the deaths of so many people. As
a result he may fall on his sword."
Poenius Postumus's case is slightly more complex: it was his having denied
his troops a share in the glory [cfr. Helm, "glory of Rome"] that moved him
to fall on his sword.
But there is a more literal scenario and one wonders if Tacitus was aware
of it when he implicated as he did.
An alternative legionary may have lost his legion *precisely* because he
fell on his sword. Grice explains: he "may have tripped on his sword in the
dark."
"As a result he knocks himself out. "When he regains consciousness, the
legion has moved on, and is was unable to find it".
MORAL: mind your implicature!
L. Helm:
>On page 287 Sykes writes "true Roman genes are very rare in the Isles."
By the same token, _pace_ Caratacus, true British genes were very rare in
Rome? :)
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:
