Y’all is gettin’ inta politickin’. That’s almost always bad.
[deleted about thirty minutes of just-typed responses to folks on this thread]
I have nothing to say that probably wouldn’t annoy or piss off people on both sides of this argument.
Just a quick response to a few of those who responded to my comment. First of all, I did call my comments a generalisation.
Rome was a right Wing Government… the most extreme example of Right Wing government that ever existed, particularly under the Republic. The Roman Republic was controlled by a tiny majority of super-rich men who used every means necessary to repress and exploit the masses beneath them. The entire system of government was motivated by two primary factors: the acquisition of prestige and of wealth. At virtually no time in the history of the Roman Republic did the ruling classes ever contribute anything towards the betterment of its people. Even the introduction of Tribunes, ostensibly put in place to give the people a voice, was quickly co-opted into a political tool used by the Senatorial class for their own purposes. So-called ‘popularis’ politicians were just those seeking power by non-traditional means. The Roman Republic was the ultimate example of the Free Market as well. Tax collectors were free to pillage at will, provincial governors had a virtually unlimited ability to expolit their provinces, their only check being how many enemies they had back in Rome, and monetary policy in Rome was generally non-intrusive.
As for the idea that Right Wing government is inherently about small government, this is just a modern fallacy attached to the Right Wing to sop up the Libertarian elements. The Right Wing has always been about control of resources being dominated by a tiny few. This is ancient Rome.
As for my comments about classicists in general, I know there are exceptions, but I stand by my own observations. My own colleagues in my department have been very excited about the victory of David Cameron here in Britain. ‘A return to order and stability.’ That about says it all… order and stability are in my mind code words for Right Wing totalitarianism, only matched in its capacity for evil by extreme Left Wing totalitarianism.
My other favorite code word is ‘demoralise.’ It is a favorite code word of right wing classicists, who escribe any attempt in ancient Rome to alleviate the misery of its inhabitants as ‘demoralising’ to the poplulace. Cicero himself uses much the same word. A bill designed to hand out free grain would ‘demoralise’ the people. A bill designed to redistribute land and restore Roman farmers would demoralise the people. Caesar’s bill designed to force Roman land owners to employ free men in favour of slave labour would have a ‘demoralising’ effect on the people. This is simply a code word for ‘hey you oiks, keep your grubby mitts off of my money.’
Anyway, enough ranting.
You’re aware that the world is not only Britain and not all classicists are right wing, aren’t you?
For the third time now, I have stated from the beginning that my statements are a generalistion, and based upon my own experiences. All my training in Classics was done in Canada. All my professional involvelment with Classics has been in the UK. I am sure there are many examples of Classicists who do not fit this pattern (myeslf being one).
My opinions of the Romans and Greeks remain unchanged. The ancient Romans would be very at home in most societies in Europe and Asia up to the 20th century, and in some cases, in societies that still exist today. It is not hard to find examples in history of a small group of people siezing the resources of a nation and creating a rigid class structure which enforces the status quo - the classic pyramid structure. The Romans were just the best at it.
As for our inheritance from the Greeks and Roman, we all know how extensive it is, but I maintain it is entirely blown out of proportion on many occasions by Classicists and others who are bedazzled by the Greeks and Romans, and blinded to the contributions of others, Europeans et al.. Among other comments I have heard in my day, a colleague (Classicist) of mine once reacted to a story describing how difficult it is to study the history of Indonesia by commenting ‘that’s because they don’t have any history’. This has been a common attitude among Classicists in MY experience.
Smythe wrote:
Y’all is gettin’ inta politickin’. That’s almost always bad.
[deleted about thirty minutes of just-typed responses to folks on this thread]
I have nothing to say that probably wouldn’t annoy or piss off people on both sides of this argument.
Too late Smythe, you’ve already both annoyed and pissed me off… 
Your statements are not merely generalizations and that’s the problem. For the most part, they’re outright fallacies. For one, you’re casting all of Classical academics in a negative light because of your own experiences. That’s not necessarily just a generalization, but an irresponsible projection of your feelings upon an entire world of people. You’re also trying to discuss the politics of Rome using language and concepts which did not even become relevant until much later in Western Civilization. It’s a simple matter of historical relativism.
(EDIT: I took out some of my original inflammatory language. I didn’t intend for it to sound as hostile as it did.)
http://www.varsity.co.uk/comment/2176
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/17/boris-johnson-lobbies-tories-latin-curriculum
Again, I don’t know how I can make this any more clear, my observations are based upon my own experiences. They are not fallacies, for I am making no claims that they are true beyond my own observations. I am not trying to make a claim that ALL Classicists are rabid right wingers along the lines of Bill O’Reilly or Strom Thurmond. What I was trying to do was to respond to the original poster’s observation of a right wing bias in a certain classics related group. In MY OWN experience, classicists do have a tendency to be right wing in their views, and to idealise the ancient Romans and Greeks. I never said they all do that, and quite possibly beyond my limited experience of classicists most do not. Now, I have read a great deal of literature by classicists, and the writings of classicists in my mind do back up my observations.
As for the Romans and ‘historical relativism’, in my opinion ‘historical relativism’ is another code word, a cowardly one at that, designed to gloss over the worst offenses of past civilisations that we want to admire without fault. I am perfectly capable of discussing the politics and society of ancient Rome using a host of differing technical terms, but why not use more modern terms? Right wing is certainly a vague enough term that it can be used generally to apply to many different circumstances and time periods.
Adrianus: Thanks for the articles… they alter my observations and make me happy.
A note on the Charlotte Higgins article posted by Adrianus.
Having read this a bit more carefully, I find I must object to this section.
What is so bewildering about this popular notion, however, is how little it reflects the daily practice of the classics by professional scholars. You can find right-wing classicists, of course, but it is miles easier to come across classicists whose work contributes to ideas on the left. You might think of the pioneering work of feminist classicists, which has been important since the birth of the women’s movement and beyond (it was Jane Harrison who quoted Terence in support of the suffragists). Meanwhile, research on Greek homosexuality continues to make an important contribution to ideas within the gay rights movement. Numberless ideas from the ancient world - from Sparta to Athens’ radical democracy - have been reeled in by the left. Gilbert Murray, perhaps the greatest British classicist and public intellectual, was Liberal, not Conservative in his politics. Today, thoughtful work abounds by scholars, such as Joy Connolly’s on Cicero, with its underlying critique of US society under the Republicans.
What utter and complete nonsense. This smacks of the ‘historical relativism’ of cdm2003 (sorry cdm, I just really don’t like that phrase).
To imagine that we can look at Ancient Athenian democracy, or Spartan egalitarianism, or Cicero’s political career and find modern, Leftist, progressive ideas, is to shut our eyes in a most puerile manner to the harsh and closed realities of those worlds.
Athenian ‘radical’ democracy, was radical in only a handful of ways: its assembly, in which all the citizens took part in the political process; its committees in which again allc itzens took part in the administration of the city; etc. What seems to me impossbile to overlook, however, even though apparently some find a way to do so, is how limited this citizenship actually was. Athens was a predatorial Empire, which allowed no vote to its minion states. It was a slave empire, which allowed no part of the political process to its numerous slaves. Women were also kept out of politics, and in many ways were as repressed as they are in many more infamous countries today. So much for Athenian ‘Democracy.’
Sparta may be championed as an early example of the women’s rights movemnet, but the real Sparta was a harsh, vicious society, in which weakness was weeded out and destroyed. Spartan society was only made possible by the ruthless and violent submission of the Messenians, whose slave labour enabled the military specialisation of the Spartans. there is nothing progressive about these violent and dull brutes.
Cicero himself was as conservative a man as I have ever come across. To be sure he was a pragmatic man who was not above making deals and believed wholeheartedly in compromise, unlike the stubborn and destructive Cato, so greatly admired in Conservative circles. But he was at heart a true conservative, determined to maintain the status quo in Roman Society, in love with the mythical Rome of the past, resistant to change, no fan of the people (whom he called the dregs of Rome), or of giving them any rights beyond those needed simply to keep them from rioting, a friend of slaveowners everywhere, a man more interested in collecting fine art and owning expensive properties than in any real sense of justice for the millions of people in his empire who toiled to make his life pleasant and painless. Yes, he was generally an honest man, who did possess a keen sense of injustice, but only so far as that injustice threatened the Rome that he fought so hard to maintain. That Rome was not an admirable society, and Cicero was no progressive Lefty. He would have fit right in with the American Republican establishment, except that they, much like the Optimates, would probably have shunned him, as an outsider and New Man.
The rest of the article waas great.
I gave the articles to help cdm2003 understand you’re not crazy with regard to what you say about Britain, ptolemyauletes (lol). You’ll notice that what Higgins says about the worth of the classics today, by the way, could be said about just about anything.
As for historical relativism, I would say that the history of ideas has to be approached differently from the history of practice and events,—not separate from it but considered in additional terms. (My original research was in the history and philosophy of science. ) I myself am very much an historical relativist but not so extreme that I don’t listen to documented voices and be affected by their testimony. I just imagine appreciation to be always imperfect, as it is between individuals also. But we can and should strive to minimize the imperfection (my article of faith).
Commentationes, ptolemyauletes, dedi ut meliùs intellegat cdm2003 te non insanum esse quoàd de Britanniâ dicis (notionem inrideo, amice). Nota quidem, quod dicit Higgins classicis de studiis his diebus, de omne ferè studio dici potest.
De eo quod ad relativismum historicum pertinet, aliter quàm consuetudinum eventuumque historia, aggredienda est historia cogitationum, dico,—non separatim at modis additiciis. (Obiter, historiâ et philosophiâ scientiarum primitùs studui.) Meâ parte relativismum historicum inhaereo, non adeò autem voces in documentis non auscultem, nec eis non movear. Modò semper imperfectam habeo scientiam, sicut et semper item inter homines singulos. At nos oportet ut imperfectiones minuere conemini (haec mea regula fidei).
When I speak of historical relativism, I’m stating that you cannot use the sort of political classifications of today to characterize people or systems of yesterday. To use words like “Leftist” and “Right-Wing” when talking of old Rome is to infer that they had the exact same political issues with the exact same social repercussions as we do today. Using the phrase “Right-Wing” today in regards a politician ascribes an amount of political and social baggage to that politician. It describes the politician’s place in the entire “Right-Wing” movement, from inception to current status. It places said politician amongst the Left-Wing, the Centrists, the Right-Wing, and Left- and Right-Wing Extremists. These are groups of people who did not exist in the Roman Republic as they exist in today’s Britain, America, or any other pseudo-Republican state.
It’s very easy to slip. I know, for instance, that Cicero initially opposed Caesar’s land reform bill. One could argue he had no concern or compassion for the common man. I could also say that since Caligula and Nero both happily maintained the bread dole for the Roman plebs that they obviously had much more concern for the lower classes than Cicero. Therefore, Nero is the Leftist and Cicero the Republic’s Sarah Palin. There are just too many other concerns that these people were faced with to make such value judgments. Christ isn’t quoted in the Bible preaching against the outrages of Slavery. Therefore, Christ was the 1st Century equivalent of Simon Legree.
I appreciate your statement that historical relevatism is simply a way to let History off the hook. However, I disagree. Rome could be a brutal entity. Its politics were far from generous towards the poor, the soldiery, slaves, and conquered nations. Quite often, they were downright cruel. You may think my not likening Rome as a modern institution may not emphasize it’s harshness to a certain degree, but it also does less to excuse it. The issue of slavery, for instance, makes Rome an institution the likes of which we simply have no words. To what, today, can we compare Crassus’ act of crucifying the rebellious slaves under Spartacus along the roads to Rome? What do you call a state that elevates a Nero and allows him to make torches in his Domus Aurea out of Christians? One would be hard pressed to find a modern example of that which would completely encompass to amount of cruelty involved.
I don’t believe this stance relegates me to some artifact of modernism, though I understand why it would seem so. I also hope I better illustrated my point above than I did yesterday–I sounded way more contentious yesterday than I intended and hope you can pardon me.
Chris
I agree, cdm2003. // Tecum concurro, cdm2003.
Death transcends any relativist perspective. Personally I think the cruelty of the modern period is certainly comparable to that of any earlier and, through technology, is more efficiently and wide-rangingly destructive! State sanction of slavery (not talking about “wage slavery”) isn’t so long outdated (in historical terms) in some places and prisoners not untypically today (in wartime and peace-time) may be forced to work. Human rights are a modern invention but how many are denied them still throughout the world! And I suspect that there have been more wanton and obscene crimes against humanity licensed by states in the previous century than in any earlier one. Modern illegal wars in this young century aren’t very nice in terms of the large number of fatalities and suffering that result. Any war, mind you, illegal or not, is dreadful. Ask victims today if their oppressor’s leaders compare to Nero. It’s not a good question. Paradoxically, it is perhaps an encouraging thing that you might not believe that.
Mors aspectum relativismi superat. Ego equidem aemulas eis aetatum praecedendum credo crudelitates saeculi ultimi quae, per progressus technologicos, modo latiore et magìs efficienter vitam perdunt. Non diù abhinc (in gradu historiae) quaedam nationes servitudinem tolerabant (non de salarariorum servitudine tracto) et adhùc faciunt coercitatione custodias per tempora belli et pacis laborare. Jura humana modernè inventa sunt at quot nunc per totum mundum ea careant! Porrò erant saeculo ultimo plura facina foeda et petulantia contra humanitatem licentiâ civitatum quàm ullo saeculo praecedenti, nisi fallor. Non dulcia quidem hôc saeculo novo bella moderna et illicita, ob numerum magnum mortuorum quorumque patiuntur qui conseqitur. Nec minùs atrox ullum bellum etiam licitum. Roga nunc hostias uter se duces opprimentium Neroni comparare possint. Non est quaestio bona. Admirabiliter quidem quod id non credas hortari ferè debet.
Adrianus,
My god you go through a lot of effort composing everything you write into Latin! We all appreciate it. I agree with you. Even though I am a classics teacher, many of the arguments about the need for the classics in the classroom fall flat. The study of any language is equally useful, and the study of any ancient culture opens up a window on the past and the differences in human society over time, etc etc. I like the classics because it is a ready made package for doing these sorts of things. I also like it for its own merit. I also like it because my students love Cicero and Caesar et al. I also like it because it has been a part of education in the west for so long, and surely that inheritance should be preserved? I also like it because it is in fact so important to the study of European history and society. I also like it because it showcases such an extreme of human society - the cruelty and rapaciousness of the Romans can be used to cast a window on our own modern hypocrisies. And how cool to be able to read inscriptions all across the continent of Europe, ancient, medieval, and modern - it’s like being part of an exclusive club! (the only such club I would ever join). But how draining it is to have to repeat these arguments over and over again - if you want to know why I teach it, find out a bit about it for yourself!
cdm,
I certainly appreciate your comment about the appropriateness of modern Terms and their applicability to other arenas. However, one could extend that comment into the modern arena. Britain, Japan, and America have very different systems, societies, and issues from each other, yet the terms Right and Left wing can be and are applied with equal vagueness to all three country’s political goings on. The terms are suitably vague to allow them to be more widely applied. I stand by my assertion that Rome was a radical Right Wing society, a plutocracy where the Free Market ran wild. There was never even a hint of any Left Wing Ideas in ancient Rome.
To equate anything ever done by the political classes in ancient Rome with anything nearing concern for the common people is a mistake. Caesar’s land reform bills were not done out of any concern for the people. The Campanian bill was entirely to benefit Caesar, by creating a base of support amongst the people, and by connecting Pompey himself (who had been trying to pass a land reform bill to provide land for his veteran soldiers for several years) more closely to Caesar. Pompey’s own land reform bill a couple years earlier (failed to pass with Cicero speaking against it) again was little concerned with the lot of the people, nor was the Rullus bill of Cicero’s consulship, which was likely backed by Crassus as a ploy to outmanoeuvre Pompey in the land reform game. None of these men cared a whit for the people, aside form the support to be gained from them. No Roman politician cared a whit for the people. Any attempts to alleviate their lot were only done to the extent that they would prevent rioting or an uprising. Caesar’s later bills during his dictatorship may have benefited the people, but that was only done because of a combination of pragmatism and political calculation. This man was not a man of the people.
As for Jesus not condemning slavery in the Bible, this is a religious argument and I won’t start that here. I have my own ideas about that, which might likely start a whole new discussion, one which I have already and elsewhere.
As for finding examples of cruelty in the modern world to equate ancient Rome, I suggest you look a little further afield than you have. The twentieth century is crueller than even Rome ever was. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc… acts of State cruelty abound in the modern world, and the people will assent to them just as they did in Ancient Rome, as long as they are conditioned enough to hate the victims, rather than their true oppressors. Think back to Caesar’s campaigns in Gaul. think of his punishment of rebellious Gallic Tribes - cutting off their hands… does this not sound like the diamond mining in Sierra Leone?
The only thing that keeps cruelty today from being as public a spectacle as it was in ancient Rome, is that the people of the ‘civilised’ world have less of a stomach for it nowadays. Therefore states everywhere are obliged to use a little more discretion. Hitler was aware that his people did not want to see what was happening to the Jews, even if they all knew about it. Modern states maintain a tacit agreement with their people. ‘As long as you keep secret the lengths you go to and the cruelties you commit in order to keep us driving our Humvees, burning oil and allowing us to buy criminally cheap goods at Wal-Mart, we won’t hold you accountable for it, and we will never question you.’ But cruelty akin to that of ancient Rome is everywhere in the world, as is slavery, on a scale the Romans never dreamed of. We have turned entire continents into slave labour pools, with vastly differing human rights for the classes.
As for how contentious you sounded or didn’t sound, no need to apologise… as we all know communication on the internet never comes across quite as we intend it. We end up shouting at someone when we merely intend to debate. I am probably doing it now, and the apology is pretty much extended on an ongoing basis!
I hope you weren’t repeating them for my sake. You didn’t have to. If you were, you misunderstand. I was criticizing in small part the article, not the study of classics. I thought Higgin’s article was quite thin as a defence, that’s all. 
To be fair, 'though, that wasn’t its goal.
Spero non pro me te argumenta repetisse. Id fecisse non te oportuit. Si quidem eâ ratione fecisti, me malè igitur intellegis. Parvam partem commentationis de Higgins non studium litterarum classicarum incusabam. Tantùm tenuiorem ut patrocinium eam habui. Ut justus autem sim, id non erat eius finis.
ptolemyauletes wrote:
But how draining it is to have to repeat these arguments over and over again - if you want to know why I teach it, find out a bit about it for yourself!
I hope you weren’t repeating them for my sake. You didn’t have to. If you were, you misunderstand. I was criticizing in small part the article, not the study of classics. I thought Higgin’s article was quite thin as a defence, that’s all. To be fair, 'though, that wasn’t its goal.
Not at all, Adrianus. This was directed at all the students and teachers over the years who have challenged me… just a vent, really.
I recently overcame my ingrained snobbishness and read ‘The First Man in Rome’ by ‘popular’ author Colleen McCullough. She paints a stark and detailed picture of Roman politics around the time of Marius and the the ‘young’ Sulla. Though it’s ‘fiction’, it’s obviously well-researched. Her account tallies exactly with what PtolemyAuletes has to say about Rome and its politicians. Worth a read. Anybody else read it?
Cheers,
Int
I didn’t but I definitely will, now that you’ve exposed Ptolemyauletes’ nom de plume. Or is the the other way round, where ptolemyauletes is the pseudonym and that person is not really Macedonian? 
Non legi; nunc autem certò legabo, quippe cum pseudonymum Ptolemyauletis exposueris. Vel estne contrarium quod attinet ubi ptolemyauletes est pseudonymum et non verus Macedonicus ille homo?
And I suspect that there have been more wanton and obscene crimes against humanity licensed by states in the previous century than in any earlier one. Modern illegal wars in this young century aren’t very nice in terms of the large number of fatalities and suffering that result.
In my opinion, much of that can be attributed to technology and the fact that our population has grown extensively. Give guns and planes to the Romans, give nukes and tanks to the Crusaders and Muslims and I suspect that the death tolls would be in proportion to ours. Maybe even worse. There’s a limit to how many people you can slaughter in a day with a sword. :X
Avitus mentioned ‘copies in the virtual world’ of the 1966 Assimil Latin course. I guess he meant:
http://rapidlibrary.com/index.php?q=assimil+latin+sans+peine&filetype=0
WARNING: Just ignore the “Sponsored Links” box. I think that’s a scam.
Cheers,
Int
I think you should write about this on the grex itself. i strongly encourage you to do so
can you indicate if there are authors currently writing who display open racial animosity, animosity based on race or religion per se and nothing else? please bring an example.
in this country i have often heard spokespersons for “comprehensive immigration reform” make blanket denunciations of people not agreeing with them. they are often called “racist” or anti-immigrant or zenophobic. i think you might be making a similar mistake about members of the grex.
i myself am very prejudiced against that form of Islam as espoused by jijadis of various stripes. we call it the war against “terror” but isn’t that another way of saying “the war against the jihadis” or even “war against islam of a certain kind.”