[lit-ideas] Re: Resistance to Rome and others
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 07:58:27 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 4/5/2014 1:52:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx was wondering about the implicature of my:
"Mattingly is into the conquered, not the conqueror".
I guess it is a sort of cheap expression, this usage of being 'into' --
especially as appplied to 'conquered'. But I _guess_ I had in mind a reading
of this Bryn Mawr review. So I will extract some passages where the
reviewer uses 'conquered' (or "British native conquered", actually) versus
'conqueror' (or "Roman conqueror" if you must) and comment below.
L. Helm then considers two other issues:
i. How objective can Mattingly be? ((i) below)
ii. How Mattingly compares to Gibbons ((ii) below), as they cover the same
period, but working with different presuppositions in Collingwood's sense
(and it's good Helm cites Collingwood when some reviewers of the Mattingly
book in amazon.com mention Collingwood's classic on the theme as 'still
standing to test', if that's the expression.
[(i) "Mattingly’s idea of the historian would prevent him from coloring
his history to suit his prejudices (which isn’t to say this couldn’t have
happened merely that he wouldn’t have intended it). On the other hand if an
historian, no matter how noble and true to Collingwood’s “idea of history”
discovers that his conclusions coincide with the presuppositions of his
age, he should at least suspect them. I found Mattingly rather clinical for
the most part. In challenging Tacitus’ prejudices in regard to Rome, his
father-in-law Agricola, Roman policy etc, does Mattingly err in the opposite
direction? I didn’t think so at the time. However I didn’t dredge
Tacitus up to find out if Mattingly was being completely accurate and honest.
I
assumed that he was and still so assume, but Mattingly has been accused of
being a Post-Colonialist. I don’t know if he is, but that accusation
seems unfair if one is siding with one’s ancestors 2,000 years removed and if
the colonial power that oppressed them has long since ceased to exist."
(ii): "What I wondered about while reading Mattingly was what Gibbons wrote
about these matters. I read Gibbons also eons ago and then not all the
way through. As I recall Gibbon was a great admirer of Rome. He didn’t
blame the resistors for its fall but the Church, and in the process considered
Rome’s fall a great tragedy. If I remember correctly, then I wonder to
what extent Gibbon’s having lived during the British Empire influenced in in
such a way that he was overly sympathetic toward Rome – especially if there
is anything to the idea that Mattingly’s living in the post-colonial period
has influenced his criticism of Rome and its practices.". . .
Helm adds:
"In quoting from Sykes above I intended an inference somewhat like the one
Shelley intended in Ozymandias."
-- which was good to learn, since that poem is so full of meanings!
I should add that I came across yet another review of the Mattingly book by
a French scholar -- in English translation -- (available online). The
reviewer was surprised that no bibliography other than English to cover the
"Three Galliae" was mentioned, and that he found the book a hard read in that
so little presuppositions were shared! On the other hand, I was warmed (if
that's the expression) to see that Mattingly quotes in the preface to his
book one of my favourite quotes from my favourite History of English ever,
"1066 and all that" (Mattingly calls it a spoof): the Roman occupation, in
the words of Sellars and Yeatman, was 'a good thing'! It's sad Mattingly
doesn't care to reproduce the relevant graphic cartoon illustration here: a
lovely Roman enjoying a bath in Bath! Mattingly uses the quote (that expands
to refer to Rome as being 'top nation' then on account of their 'classical
education etc' and the fact that there was little reason, as it were for
the 'natives' ("as we Brits when were", as it were) to 'resist'. Mattingly
takes the quote as merely _TELLING_ about nineteenth-century attitudes, _NOT_
those contemporary to the invasion (and he must be right there, although
there may be further implicatures he is missing! :)).
I must say I identified the passage in Gibbons dealing with the period and
append it below, but first for this reviewer in the Bryn Mawr (link
provided in my previous post):
"Most previous scholars choose the view-point of the Conqueror (The Roman)
... Mattingly, instead, ponders the effect of Roman rule on the native
population in Britain." This is clear enough. It should be added that this is a
volume in a series, "History of Britain" (Penguin history of Britain --
Mattingly makes a point as to how valuable the Roman British chapter in the
PELICAN history of England -- which had appeared in 1955 -- still remains).
Mattingly points out that the history of the provincial of BRITANNIA has
never been studied from the perspective of the defeated or conquered, since
both the colonialist and post-colonialist scholars who studied it have
always identified with the ROMAN CONQUEROR rather than the 'barbaric British'.
This relates to this quote used by Mattingly to comical effect from "1066
and all that" that the Britons were 'mere natives' then while Rome was top
nation "on account of their classical education etc" but it also touches on
Helm's point above about how unfair Mattingly can be here. Helm suggests
Mattingly ain't:
Helm: "Mattingly has been accused of being a Post-Colonialist. I don’t
know if he is, but that accusation seems unfair if one is siding with one’s
ancestors 2,000 years removed and if the colonial power that oppressed them
has long since ceased to exist."
And one wonders about NON-Roman British in the period covered. Because this
is supposed to be a part of the History of Britain, and yet only the Roman
occupied bits (most of Southern Britain -- but highly the Highlands that
never succumbed -- cfr. Gibbons below -- Caledonia --. Apparently, the
editor of the series did not feel the need to even have an appendix on that.
This SEEMS to presuppose a presupposition alla Collingwood that remains
unchallenged?).
It was interesting that L. Helm would start his original post with a
reference to France, since it's mentioned by the reviewer for Bryn Mawr and
also
the other reviewer from France I came across:
This [defeatist approach] contrast with the situation in France, where
Vercingetorix became a symbol of French resistance to the German occupation
during the Second World War, while British historians , Mattingly argues,
tend to glorify the Roman conqueror.
This French reviewer was finding the approach simplistic and in any case
perplexing for the historian -- and he suggests that Mattingly is _not_ being
objective (I should find the link! It was merely an English translation of
the review originally appeared in French).
Other points made by the Bryn Mawr reviewer are:
Mattingly notes the archaeological evidence is slightly skewed, since the
choice of excavated sites favoured the Roman CONQUERORS of Britain.
Mattingly writes that the Romans were ruthless in the slaughter and
enslavement of rebellious opponents. His focus is on 'resist' rather than
harmonising this history of Britain with a history of Rome, as it were. (Oddly,
a
reference is made to the effect that the Roman historians would take into
account the defeated in more than one way -- I am reminded of one of my
favourite statues in Rome _ever_: the defeated Gallata in the Campidoglio --,
although it is true that, as Mattingly notes, Tacitus's histories lack
specific toponymic references -- Mattingly suggests they would bore the
'aristocratic elite' in Rome for which the books were intended, as 'too
barbarian'.
YET: I should mention that one of the MOST BEAUTIFUL things one learns from
Tacitus, I found, was the name of the Anglo-Frisian: the Ingvaeones (in
one spelling variant) -- but his comes from his "Germania". The title has
been used by linguists to refer to that particular tribe which will end
occupying Britain after the Roman secession.
I continue to quote (slighly paraphrasing) the Bryn Mawr reviewer.
Mattingly points out that the Roman military treated civilians quite
harshly, although this assumption is based mainly upon records from provinces
OTHER than Britannia.
Mattingly's view may be slightly one-sided and influenced by studies on
more modern colonial systems. It is evident that there must have been a lot of
dissatisfaction with the Roman rule in Britain during the period following
the conquest, as shown by the revolts of the first century AD. However, by
the early fifth century AD it is unlikely that there would have been much
awareness of the status quo before the conquest or longing for the freedom
of their pre-Roman ancestors, especially in those areas that were not near
the frontier.
Again, as we illustrate my point about Mattingly being 'into' the
conquered:
"He offers a new point of view, analysing the province from the
perspective of the conquered rather than the conquerors."
Many of Mattingly's theories on the native British view-point on Roman
Britain differ significantly from other scholars' analyses of Roman Britain.
Because Mattingly's essay is mainly a collection of sources on the Roman
CONQUERORS rather than the conquered, not through the fault of the author
but because our main source material still comes from this part of
Romano-British society, any conclusions about the native British feelings on
the
Roman rule are largely based upon more recent examples, such as the slave
trade in western Africa, and are therefore highly hypothetical.
As for Gibbons, I find he writes cursorily (if that's the word) about
Britannia, and I do wonder if there are more specific studies in the area. He
does mention Caractacus and Boadica ('as the Victorians styled her', I think
Mattingly writes), but his focus in in Caledonia -- an obsession with Dr.
Johnson (as he explored Ossian's land). I am reminded that Gibbons's book
was sort of mandatory material for the English engaged in the Grand Tour
(leading to the Mediterranean -- as Dr. Johnson put it: 'the whole point of
the Grand Tour is to reach the shore of the Mediterranean') rather than
having a more local point for Gibbons's countrymen.
Gibbons writes:
"After a war of about forty years, undertaken by the most stupid,
maintained by the most dissolute, and terminated by the most timid of all the
emperors, the far greater part of [Britannia] submitted to the Roman yoke."
"The various tribes of Britain possessed valour without conduct."
"They possessed the love of freedom without the spirit of union."
"The British tribes took up arms with savage fierceness."
"They laid them down, or turned them against each other, with wild
inconsistency."
"And while they fought singly, they were successively subdued."
"Neither the fortitude of Caractacus, nor the despair of Boadicea, nor the
fanaticism of the Druids, could avert the slavery of [Britannia], or
resist the steady progress of the imperial generals, who maintained the
national
glory, when the throne was disgraced by the weakest, or the most vicious
of mankind."
"At the very time when Domitian, confined to his palace, felt the terrors
which he inspired, his legions, under the command of the virtuous Agricola,
defeats the collected force of the Caledonians, at the foot of the
Grampian Hills; and his fleets, venturing to explore an unknown and dangerous
navigation, displayed the Roman arms round every part of the island."
"The conquest of Britain was considered as already achieved; and it was
the design of Agricola to complete and insure his success, by the easy
reduction of Ireland, for which, in his opinion, one legion and a few
auxiliaries
were sufficient."
"The western isle might be improved into a valuable possession, and the
Britons would wear their chains with the less reluctance, if the prospect and
example of freedom were on every side removed from before their eyes."
"But the superior merit of Agricola soon occasions his removal from the
government of Britain."
"And forever disappointed this rational, though extensive scheme of
conquest."
"Before Agricola's departure, the prudent general had provided for
security as well as for dominion."
"Agricola had observed, that [Britannia] is almost divided into two
unequal parts by the opposite gulfs, or, as they are now called, the Friths of
Scotland."
"Across the narrow interval of about forty miles, Agricola draws a line of
military stations, which was afterwards fortified, in the reign of
Antoninus Pius, by a turf rampart, erected on foundations of stone."
"This wall of Antoninus, at a small distance beyond the modern cities of
Edinburgh and Glasgow, was fixed as the limit of [Britannia]."
"The native Caledonians preserved, in the northern extremity of the
island, their wild independence, for which they were not less indebted to
their
poverty than to their valour."
"The Caledonian incursions were frequently repelled and chastised."
"But Caledonia was never subdued."
"The masters of the fairest and most wealthy climates of the globe turned
with contempt from gloomy hills, assailed by the winter tempest, from lakes
concealed in a blue mist, and from cold and lonely heaths, over which the
deer of the forest were chased by a troop of naked barbarians."
which brings us back to the land of Ossian!
I think Mattingly has done an excellent thing, and I treasure the fact that
he identifies as an archeologist (rather than a historian) and that he is
based where Roman archaeology thrives: Leicester. He has written and edited
other works on the Roman Empire as such with a focus on power and
oppression, and he 'Imperial possession' text cannot be denied an important
place
in the area covered. I loved the dedication, "To the Harolds", since it was
via Harold Mattingly Sr (his grandfather) that he first learned about Roman
history (he was a numimastic scholar based in London -- British Museum? --
while Harold Jr. -- David Mattingly's son -- taught him the value of
heterodoxy, which inspired him to adopt this new and 'heretical' (I think he
calls it) account of 'Britannia', 43 A. D. -- 409 A. D.
And I thank L. Helm for bringing the material (and his insights) to this
forum.
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:
