Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rome's mythic founding mythic no longer!

Rate this topic


Alon

Recommended Posts

Throughout my history degree I noticed how irrationaly dismissive modern historians are of ancient sources. It actually made me sick.

6 respectable ancient historian can claim A, and just because this specific scholar doesn't think A is interesting, or nice, or likely - he completely ignores them, or he writes a thesis about how they were all wrong and finds some really stupid or meager justification for his case.

And suddenly, what has been an established historical truth for centuries is now called "controversial" just because of this one bozo with no facts or logic on his side.

This is where we are today in History departments, thanks to postmodernism.

Edited by erandror
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse my ignorance, but why do you think that ancient sources are accurate? Aside from the Greeks and Romans, the most famous ancient source is the Bible, and as far as I know, the vast majority of that is a fabrication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse my ignorance, but why do you think that ancient sources are accurate?  Aside from the Greeks and Romans, the most famous ancient source is the Bible, and as far as I know, the vast majority of that is a fabrication.

I think that parts of the Bible are treated as a serious historical record, the Old Testement in particular - bear in mind that it is the primary written work detailing the development of an entire people. It's rare that a source will be entirely true or entirely false.

Although I know nothing about historiography, I would imagine that the scepticism towards ancient sources is based on an inability to determine which parts of a text are accurate, and which are fabrications. But you need to bear in mind how difficult it can be to get an accurate picture of what happened at a given point in history. If a source contradicts established fact then it seems simple to treat it as being wrong, but when you are dealing with events that happened centuries ago, these 'facts' may well have been established solely by reference to other ancient sources, along with a bit of archaeology. When all you have is competiting and contradictory accounts of what actually happened, life becomes difficult.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EranDror:

I do not think modern historians are too dismissive. After all, even the legend of Rome's founding appears late in the literary sources (1st century BC) and it was clearly just that, a legend. Scholars have known of settlements around the area of Rome that date to the Iron Age (c. 1000 BC), but there has never been evidence of a major urban centre until the 4th or 5th centuries BC.

And although that has been the case, I found that most books I've read on Roman history have not been dismissive of its 8th century founding, but simply treated it with scholarly speculation. A similar case is the First Jerusalem Temple. Herod's reconstruction of the 2nd Temple was such a major building project it likely destroyed any foundation the 1st Temple may have had. As a result, we have no evidence for its existence - but most archaeologists dont dismiss it, they simply treat it with speculation.

GreedyCapitalist:

Genesis has little if any historical accuracy in it, but the Bible is made up of many more books than the first five (the Torah). And many of the contents of the latter books have proved accurate. The literary sources can never be dismissed just because the ancients added a little divine intervention.

Scholars can use literary sources to corroborate their findings. For example, the Bible has been used to identify archaeological findings whose place names were unknown. And in the topic of this thread, knowledge of Livy's history was undoubtedly helpful in identifying the temple of the Vestal Virgins or that the palace of the Tarquines was indeed located at the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse my ignorance, but why do you think that ancient sources are accurate?  Aside from the Greeks and Romans, the most famous ancient source is the Bible, and as far as I know, the vast majority of that is a fabrication.

David,

I'll give you an example: ALL ancient Roman historians describe the way the republic took hold in the same way: there was a revolution.

They know the date, and they all give the name of the rebel leader, the same name. From ancient lists we also see that he was indeed the first consul after the king was removed. All their versions are very similar.

Until very recently, it was accepted as fact that there was a revolution and overthrew the king and created the republic, with its two consuls.

Now this is considered "controversial", because that's not the way it happened in GREECE, and because of some VERY shaky clues that actually mean nothing. I.e. - these historians discount the story of revolution because it is TOO dramatic, and TOO heroic for their taste.

Note that these are not legends, or religious stories like the bible, or mythology. These are HISTORIANS, trying to describe the truth according to the best evidence they had.

History as a science began very early on, and there is no difficulty of distinguishing myth from history. Some writers wrote myth, some history, and some mixed it up. When I say historians, I mean people who devouted their lives to tell events as accurately as possible. There is no reason to discount them.

I've seen this in other cases too.

I really don't know if they have done so in this case. Probably not. But it is a real and worrying phenomena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EranDror:

You make two incorrect assumptions about ancient historians. First, that they had sources. Second, that objective retelling of events was their main goal.

As to the first, we know of no historians who lived either at the time of Rome's founding or of the overthrow of the Monarchy. Not only do we have no sources, but later historians make no mention of their sources by name (as later historians did, when, for example, referring to the works of Livy). So we assume where they had no sources, they recorded "common knowledge" or popular history. Also, Roman society wasn't as highly developed as the Greek at the time we are discussing, so it's doubtful it produced any major authors.

As for the second point, for the ancients, the purpose of history was to be a moral guide whose lessons are to be applied to contemporary life. Thus many ancient historians, not just Romans, embellished their accounts with values they wished to impart. Case in point is the glorification of Brutus the regicide, a noble republican value.

I don't mean to argue that the monarchy wasnt overthrown as the Roman sources describe the event, but you can't be overly reliant on the literary sources. Moreover, the reason the sources were believed until recently is for the very simple fact that both archaeology and scientific historiography are very new disciplines.

Edited by Alon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to get into a very technical discussion for which I am not even equipped, but I will say this:

Popular history is not to be discounted, as it often reflects true events. If the popular history said that Brutus, who was the first consul was also the leader of the rebellion, we have no reason to discount that.

Many stories must have remained in the popular memory regarding this Brutus, and they all coincide on this fact.

Of course we must not rely blindly on ancient sources. We must use reason, and we can compare sources, archeological findings, and the likes.

What I object to, is for modern historians, mostly postmodernists, to force their own tastes and ideologies and disregard ancient historians for no reason other than to be "modern". That tantamounts to what artists have been doing in the last few centuries.

There IS no history without these ancient sources. Anything we know is derived either from them or from archeology. Dismissing them should be very VERY well reasoned. And reason is something altogether exinct with postmodernists.

Edited by erandror
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another interesting point is that the Bible does mention sources:

(Quoted from the New Revised Standard Version)

II Samuel 1:18

(He ordered that the Song of the Bow be taught to the people of Judah; it is written in the Book of Jashar.) He said:

I Kings 14:19

Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he warred and how he reigned, are written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel.

II Kings 8:23

Now the rest of the acts of Joram, and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah?

And so on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EranDror:

What you say may be more applicable to modern History than to the Classics. I study Classics and not modern history and I have had no experiences with such scholars.

But according to your reasoning, we should not dismiss the existence of Abraham or Moses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eran, I'm with you all the way, in everything you've said here!

EranDror:

You make two incorrect assumptions about ancient historians.  First, that they had sources.  Second, that objective retelling of events was their main goal.

Whoa, wait a second there, Alon!

First off, you claim the ancients didn't have sources:

What a strange claim, coming two centuries after the Enlightenment historians have combed through the ancient sources for facts, and verified their veracity. This would sound ridiculous when addressed to you, but did you ever look into the historiography of the likes of Polybius, Livy, or Dionysius of Halicarnassus? He wrote the history of Rome starting even before Romulus, beginning with the migration of Greek tribes to Italy, which is part of his proof that Romans and their institutions were Greek in origin. He quoted more than 30 historians in the first book of his "Roman Antiquities", some Romans from the 3rd century, and some Greeks from as far back as the 6th century. He accounts any differences existing between the Romans and the Greeks to the influx of barbarian tribes that were often settled within Rome and granted citizenship; in fact he expresses amazement that the Romans had retained any of their ancient customs at all.

Moreover, in his second and other books, when he begins his account of the kings, he draws on all kinds of archaeological evidence to corroborate his claims. I don't know how familiar you are with the earliest Roman history, but, for example, in his account of the battle of the Roman warrior triplet brothers vs the Sabine triplets in the reign of Hostilius or something like that, one of the Romans is the last surviving man on the field, granting his side victory. He then says that the Romans built a statue for the man, and that it still stands (in his time) on one of the seven Roman hills, probably near Palatine.

As another example, take the story of Horatius Cocles who single-handedly saved the new Republic against Porsenna by telling his soldiers to burn the bridge behind him, while he fought off the enemy army by himself. Now a story like this the modern cynical historians are apt to discount as mythological and pseudo-historical, whereas Dionysius actually records and describes where the statue and votive description to this man can be found on one of the Roman hills.

In another section he describes the very simple style of architecture used in "The Hut of Romulus", which he says is still attended to by a special group of priests, who do not add anything to the original, but when anything gets broken they repair it to its original condition.

Examples like this abound his works, and also that of other authors. Now, Dionysius was writing for the Greeks, to explain the nobility and virtue of Rome's founding; unless he was a complete nut, he wouldn't describe an imaginary statue (when his contemporaries could easily travel and verify his claims), nor would he ascribe lunacy to the priests who repaired the Hut of Romulus (by saying they repaired a figment of their own imagination, and that Romulus never existed). Plutarch, a very respectable historian by anyone's account, was known to have expressely modeled his style of history on Dionysius.

And, aside from the existence of physical remains of the old Roman kingdom, Dionysius makes frequent reference to the pontifical records, in which the early priests have recorded the important events of each year centuries before Rome has fully developed its own historical tradition.

So: sources do exist, and will only increase, as your own link shows; I've looked into the history of the archaeologist who made the discovery, and it turns out that he found traces of walls around Rome which were carbon-dated to the 8th century BC. And everyone during the Rennaissance and Enlightenment found all the sources enough and quite adequate. Modern historians do not have some kind of an abundance of historical science that the earlier "primitive" historians of the Enlightenment were too simple-minded to adopt. That kind of belief, if accepted, would be the very height of false and haughty presumptiousness; modern historians don't hold a candle to the likes of Edward Gibbon, or Polybius for that matter. The only thing the earlier historians do lack - and that modern historians actually do have in abundance - is cynicism and bile, something I suggest you are extremely cautious about, lest you adopt it from them.

---

With all due respect Alon, the only thing more ridiculous than your claim that the ancients didn't have sources is your claim they didn't care about truth. :huh: , that is such a preposterous thing to claim, that I don't even immediately know what to say in response. Have you ever read Thucydides, or Polybius, or have you resorted yourself to reading modern commentaries? You seem to have succumbed to a false dichotomy very popular today, that history is either useful, or its true, but cannot be both at once. The ancients suffered from no such problems, and instead pursued the those true facts of history that could richly endown their readers with moral ideals and admiration for heroes.

There of course were pseudo-historians, but the critical tradition was very strong, and all of our major historians, such as Polybius, Dionysius, Plutarch, etc, regularly put time aside to berate careless historical reporting from others, and accuse ivory tower historians of weaving fanciful tales. In the very first book Dionysius says that his primary interest in earliest Roman history is the truth, and the othe primary interest is search for noble and virtuous actions and men. How can you so blithely discount such a wonderful intention, when no modern historians, with all their pretensions, can come even close to it (David Hanson gives it a good try though).

Surely you've bitten the bullet of modern cynical historical tradition if you have come to believe that our times are the only period in history when people go to great lengths to verify and criticize each other's works in matters of truth. If you believe that the Classical authors were all careless moralists, that the Enlightenment historians were all dogmatic wishful thinkers, and that only in our times has the science of history "advanced" to the stage of a reliable critical tradition, then you and I have a lot less in common than I originally thought.

---

P.S. As to your example of embellishing the regicide Brutus in order to crystallize the republican virtues that enabled him to overhrow the kings - that just proves, more than I could, that you may have accepted some of the cynical history practiced today. The historical tradition does not embellish Brutus improperly. They don't hide the fact that he pretended to be a retard while in service of the king, because he was of a parallel royal line and was afraid for his life. They don't hide the fact that he killed his sons when he discovered they were plotting to overhrow the republic. They don't hide the fact that he was no great warrior hero, being killed in the very first pitched battle with the ousted king's forces. But they do emphasize his heroism, his courage, his integrity.

It would be very sad for me to believe that you view such things with indolent skepticism, and discount them as fanciful embellishment.

But thanks for the link, I can at least be thankful to you for that.

Edited by Free Capitalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry if I was a bit hostile, but I take Classical history very personally. It's almost as if you told me that the historical tradition about the existence of America's Founding Fathers is unreliable at best. That's how personal it is to me. So please be careful with how far you take your skepticism. I hear cynical commentary on Classical (and especially Roman) history all the time, and it's not easy to disassociate from it and keep one's values intact. You, of all people, should know that.

Edited by Free Capitalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the second point, for the ancients, the purpose of history was to be a moral guide whose lessons are to be applied to contemporary life.  Thus many ancient historians, not just Romans, embellished their accounts with values they wished to impart.  Case in point is the glorification of Brutus the regicide, a noble republican value.

Say what? I thought Brutus killed Julius Caesar . . . and ended the Roman REPUBLIC, causing the civil war that led Octavian to take power and create himself the first EMPEROR. Was it the same guy 500-some years apart or two different guys that, through some miracle of coincidence, had the same name? Gahh, it's been ten years I can't remember.

Brutus was glorified, if I recall, by Shakespeare, more than 1500 years later! It would have been folly to glorify him under the Roman Empire, where the emperors shortly became revered as gods.

As to your example of embellishing the regicide Brutus in order to crystallize the republican virtues that enabled him to overhrow the kings - that just proves, more than I could, that you may have accepted some of the cynical history practiced today. The historical tradition does not embellish Brutus improperly. They don't hide the fact that he pretended to be a retard while in service of the king, because he was of a parallel royal line and was afraid for his life. They don't hide the fact that he killed his sons when he discovered they were plotting to overhrow the republic. They don't hide the fact that he was no great warrior hero, being killed in the very first pitched battle with the ousted king's forces. But they do emphasize his heroism, his courage, his integrity.

Different guy, same name?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the original Brutus who expelled the Roman kings and established the Republic.

Bridging the two men together across the span of half a millenium, Niccolo Machiavelli once said,

"He who establishes a tyranny and does not kill Brutus, and he who establishes a democratic regime and does not kill the sons of Brutus, will not last long."

Edited by Free Capitalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We certainly should not dismiss the existence of Moses merely because he deals with the supernatural in his description. There had to be some leader to bring the Jews out of Egypt, and if the tradition says his name was Moses, I don't really care one way or the other. Same for Jesus.

The historical veracity of the Bible I cannot much comment on, because I don't know how many different accounts have existed that corrobrated its general "plotline", i.e. its lineage of Abraham, etc. The Catholic Church has standardized its book, so at this point we don't have many competing versions remaining I'd assume.

And Eran, btw, while I enthusiastically support your arguments here, you should probably realize that Brutus was more than a story passed on by generations. As I said, ancient historians have recorded and described all kinds of records and physical evidence existing in their lifetime since the time of the kings, and this kind of evidence was enough for all ages of the Rennaissance and Enlightenment, even though it did not survive by their times. It is only in our cynical era that the description of this evidence has suddenly become not enough. And as I said, it's not because our modern historical method is somehow more advanced than before, merely that we've got more skepticism and bile.

Not that I'm saying Alon has it (skepticism and bile), but if he doesn't agree with my (and Eran's) assessment of modern history, then it probably means that he thinks they're not so bad, which is a first step to emulating their method. The truth is that comparing modern historians to scholars even just 100 years ago, would prove to be completely embarassing for the former. And since we've got even more physical evidence now than 100 years ago, we have even less right to be skeptical, yet we seem to express more of it. The loss is ours if we choose to.

Edited by Free Capitalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm . . . either we didn't cover that very well in Latin class or I wasn't paying attention.

Livy covers it in the end of Book I (Rome Under the Kings) and the beginning of Book II (The Beginnings of the Republic).

The story goes that Tarquin the Proud and a few of his associates were quite drunk and decided to visit each other's wives and see who had the most beautiful one. Tarquin saw Lucretia and thought her the most beautiful; he thought he must have her. So he basically went in to her home and raped her. Brutus (I believe he was a relative of Lucretia) was so upset that he led the overthrow of Tarquin.

Edited by Praxus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Eran, btw, while I enthusiastically support your arguments here, you should probably realize that Brutus was more than a story passed on by generations. As I said, ancient historians have recorded and described all kinds of records and physical evidence existing in their lifetime since the time of the kings, and this kind of evidence was enough for all ages of the Rennaissance and Enlightenment, even though it did not survive by their times. It is only in our cynical era that the description of this evidence has suddenly become not enough. And as I said, it's not because our modern historical method is somehow more advanced than before, merely that we've got more skepticism and bile.

Yes, I definitely didn't mean to suggest that Brutus was just a popular myth. I certainly DO realize that ancient historians had their sources. In fact, I generally admire their integrity so much that I would give them the benefit of the doubt even if they DON'T mention, in a particular case, their sources.

I tend to think modern historians are so doubtful of the ancients' commitment to truth, because they project their own psychology into the ancient historians. They know that they THEMSELVES don't care about truth at all, but only about their agendas, so they assume that Tacitus, Livy, Polybius, Dionysius, Plutarch, and Thucydides felt the same way.

They can't even conceive of integrity and objectivity as these men understood it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...