Interesting and hopefully accurate idea about the moral change we are going through being more analogous to the Reformation than anything in Roman history. Empires’ ability to bounce back post barbarian invasions seems more likely, the more homogeneous and thus cohesive the empire’s culture is, as in China’s case after the Mongol conquest. This does not bode well for our multicultural societies, especially since we are teaching our kids to consider us the barbarians.
There’s also a danger of using previous examples of historical change and superimposing them, or at least the terminology, on the current historical changes taking place. It’s a natural thing to do as we try to grapple with change, but supposing our current conditions are unprecedented; as the change from the earlier Roman world following its conversion to Christianity was unprecedented?
Your last point illustrates this fairly well. In many ways, the move towards deconstruction (critical theory) could be seen as a reaction to the horror that the two great global conflicts of the first half of the 20th century inflicted upon us (rather, we inflicted upon ourselves). If that was “civilisation”, it was pretty damned barbaric, and shouldn’t ever be forgotten when weighing changes coming about since then.
It (critical theory) could also be seen as an attempt by “social scientists” to emulate the changes being brought about by discoveries in our understanding of the physical world, from e=mc² to quantum theory; not altogether successfully one might add.
I take your point, Steve. Historical patterns don’t necessarily reflect those of our own time. And It’s true, as you say, that World War I and World War II did nothing to support confidence in civilization. Maybe the depravity that emerged suddenly in the mid-twentieth century, seemingly out of nowhere, was the last straw. But antipathy toward civilization had a much longer history in the West.
I’ve already commented elsewhere that the early American colonists, for example, saw themselves as the New Israelites in a New World, a wilderness, where they could start over again by erasing the decadence of European civilization and building a new Eden. Later on, Rousseau celebrated the “noble savage.” Later still, the outbreak of World War I was greeted on both sides (at least in public) by something like ecstasy. Many people hoped that a (short) war would restore the vigor of a peaceful and prosperous world but also a tired, effete and boring one. This intense yearning for the primeval or even the primitive was one a central tendency in the arts, notably in music and painting, during the final decades before 1914. Postmodernist deconstruction didn’t emerge suddenly, after all, out of nowhere. It had been growing in some circles since the mid-nineteenth century.
And by the way, not everyone was repelled by the destruction of civilization during World War II. The Nazis themselves openly celebrated the barbarism of their New Order as the reverse of civilization–that is, a return to some non-civilized, pre-Roman and pre-(Judeo)-Christian society.
I take your point, Steve. Historical patterns don’t necessarily reflect those of our own time. And It’s true, as you say, that World War I and World War II did nothing to support confidence in civilization. Maybe the depravity that emerged suddenly in the mid-twentieth century, seemingly out of nowhere, was the last straw. But antipathy toward civilization had a much longer history in the West.
I’ve already commented elsewhere that the early American colonists, for example, saw themselves as the New Israelites in a New World, a wilderness, where they could start over again by erasing the decadence of European civilization and building a new Eden. Later on, Rousseau celebrated the “noble savage.” Later still, the outbreak of World War I was greeted on both sides (at least in public) by something like ecstasy. Many people hoped that a (short) war would restore the vigor of a peaceful and prosperous world but also a tired, effete and boring one. This intense yearning for the primeval or even the primitive was one a central tendency in the arts, notably in music and painting, during the final decades before 1914. Postmodernist deconstruction didn’t emerge suddenly, after all, out of nowhere. It had been growing in some circles since the mid-nineteenth century.
And by the way, not everyone was repelled by the destruction of civilization during World War II. The Nazis themselves openly celebrated the barbarism of their New Order as the reverse of civilization–that is, a return to some non-civilized, pre-Roman and pre-(Judeo)-Christian society.
“especially since we are teaching our kids to consider us the barbarians.”
Or rather to consider the barbarians the good guys and to gain virtue for our wretched white selves by lowering the drawbridge to them. Cultural suicide is the only thing a white person can do that has any value.
There’s also a danger of using previous examples of historical change and superimposing them, or at least the terminology, on the current historical changes taking place. It’s a natural thing to do as we try to grapple with change, but supposing our current conditions are unprecedented; as the change from the earlier Roman world following its conversion to Christianity was unprecedented?
Your last point illustrates this fairly well. In many ways, the move towards deconstruction (critical theory) could be seen as a reaction to the horror that the two great global conflicts of the first half of the 20th century inflicted upon us (rather, we inflicted upon ourselves). If that was “civilisation”, it was pretty damned barbaric, and shouldn’t ever be forgotten when weighing changes coming about since then.
It (critical theory) could also be seen as an attempt by “social scientists” to emulate the changes being brought about by discoveries in our understanding of the physical world, from e=mc² to quantum theory; not altogether successfully one might add.
“especially since we are teaching our kids to consider us the barbarians.”
Or rather to consider the barbarians the good guys and to gain virtue for our wretched white selves by lowering the drawbridge to them. Cultural suicide is the only thing a white person can do that has any value.
Katalin Kish
10 months ago
Interesting and hopefully accurate idea about the moral change we are going through being more analogous to the Reformation than anything in Roman history. Empires’ ability to bounce back post barbarian invasions seems more likely, the more homogeneous and thus cohesive the empire’s culture is, as in China’s case after the Mongol conquest. This does not bode well for our multicultural societies, especially since we are teaching our kids to consider us the barbarians.
Peter Strider
10 months ago
Really worthwhile article with some intriguing insights Interesting comment comparing our current cultural disintegration with the reformation period rather than the decline and fall of Rome. I’d be interested in a whole discussion on just this topic! It was once pointed out to me that the invention of the printing press (which was probably a major contributing factor in the enduring success of the reformation) was followed by the 100 years war, and that the invention of the internet (especially social media) may be the catalyst for a similar catastrophic period of world history. Disruption of social systems and modes of common life are frequently called revolutions and seem always to occur with much shedding of blood.
The invention (or adoption) of printing in the West was “followed” by the Reformation – there was probably a close link there because of the vastly increased spread ideas could be disseminated. It is a bit of a stretch to say the “100 Year War” which preceded printing! But you mean the Thirty Years War, but although this was linked to the religious Reformation and Counter-Reformation, it was more complex than that. Also that calamitous war didn’t get going until 1620, about 150.years after the invention of printing.
The invention (or adoption) of printing in the West was “followed” by the Reformation – there was probably a close link there because of the vastly increased spread ideas could be disseminated. It is a bit of a stretch to say the “100 Year War” which preceded printing! But you mean the Thirty Years War, but although this was linked to the religious Reformation and Counter-Reformation, it was more complex than that. Also that calamitous war didn’t get going until 1620, about 150.years after the invention of printing.
Last edited 9 months ago by Andrew Fisher
Peter Strider
10 months ago
Really worthwhile article with some intriguing insights Interesting comment comparing our current cultural disintegration with the reformation period rather than the decline and fall of Rome. I’d be interested in a whole discussion on just this topic! It was once pointed out to me that the invention of the printing press (which was probably a major contributing factor in the enduring success of the reformation) was followed by the 100 years war, and that the invention of the internet (especially social media) may be the catalyst for a similar catastrophic period of world history. Disruption of social systems and modes of common life are frequently called revolutions and seem always to occur with much shedding of blood.
Simon Denis
10 months ago
One point in reply: the communists were prior to the fascists in rejecting the core of pre-1914 morality.
The ruck of reds were utterly consequentialist in their devotion to “revolution” – hence their easy recourse to acts of terror; nor did the supposed benefits of “revolution” apply to the majority, but to the chosen “class”. Priests, peasants, middle class, lower middle class, to say nothing of policemen, loyal soldiers, servants and all grades of nobility were to be “eliminated”.
Then again, as Karl Popper points out, communist theory undermines the very possibility of ethics, with all absolutes of knowledge or perception, as a mere projection of “class interest”. To such refined philosophers, morals are not even conscious hypocrisy; they are delusional.
With regard to all this, the fascists were pupils, not masters.
Last edited 10 months ago by Simon Denis
Simon Denis
10 months ago
One point in reply: the communists were prior to the fascists in rejecting the core of pre-1914 morality.
The ruck of reds were utterly consequentialist in their devotion to “revolution” – hence their easy recourse to acts of terror; nor did the supposed benefits of “revolution” apply to the majority, but to the chosen “class”. Priests, peasants, middle class, lower middle class, to say nothing of policemen, loyal soldiers, servants and all grades of nobility were to be “eliminated”.
Then again, as Karl Popper points out, communist theory undermines the very possibility of ethics, with all absolutes of knowledge or perception, as a mere projection of “class interest”. To such refined philosophers, morals are not even conscious hypocrisy; they are delusional.
With regard to all this, the fascists were pupils, not masters.
Last edited 10 months ago by Simon Denis
Andrew Horsman
10 months ago
Before this event I was a massive fan of Tom Holland. Now I am less sure. He seems totally sure about every point of detail and no doubt he has got an exceptionally good memory for facts and figures. But is it really that black and white?
How do we know, for example that “Roman men have a kind of ambivalent attitude towards women in their families”. Maybe some did, but maybe others didn’t? Substitute “British” for “Roman” in that sentence, and how does it sound? For that, matter substitute an adjective that describes a particular ethnicity – and then how does that sound? And remember he’s talking about a period of many hundreds of years.
The nub of Holland’s contention appears it me that Christianity somehow “reimagined” morality, imposing something new on human nature. Having listened to him, and despite having being swayed in his direction by his very readable books (which have influenced my thinking greatly), I have to say I now disagree. I think that Christianity articulated or revealed to people something that is innate to their very humanity – that abusing, raping and murdering fellow humans is just wrong and abhorrent. But it did not *invent* a whole new morality. Whoever you are, whenever you lived, something in you would be disgusted by the witnessing the exercise of raw power in watching someone be ravaged and brutally murdered – Judeo-Christianity or no Judeo-Christianity.
His contention is actually quite pernicious – the implication being that the Christian worldview was manufactured (he claims, at least, for the better of mankind) then it surely can be replaced by something else, even better. Like something that Yuval Noah Harari and his mates dreamed up with the help of some bot, for example.
It all boils down, in the end, to accepting than we humans are not masters of the universe, that we cannot ever know everything there is to know, and that we live in a world of strict limits. Sadly I have to conclude that Holland doesn’t really understand this, and that – however brilliant he is at regurgitating facts and ordering them into compelling, entertaining stories (and he really, really is brilliant at this; Dominion, for example, is a wonderful book) – he really doesn’t seem to have at all a very broad perspective, or the humility to accept that he (like any of us) doesn’t really actually know what goes on, or went on, in the minds and lives of others, not least those who lived many centuries ago.
A brilliant contribution – many thanks. I attempted to articulate the very same thoughts but came a cropper and deleted them. Your central insight, that Christian ethics build on instinctive human foundations, is unanswerable. If it were not so, how could people possibly have embraced them in the first place? The smallest acquaintance with ancient literature will back this up, for it abounds in instances of grief, pity and sympathy – Priam recovering Hector’s dead body, for example.
Nor is this an un-Christian view, for Christianity, although it reposes upon the supernatural in its central doctrines (the Incarnation and the Resurrection, for example), does not insist that supernatural intervention changed the whole of human nature in the first three centuries AD – which is perilously near to what Mr Holland is saying.
Indeed, he is in the grip of a new gnosis: not the religious sort, but that of the historicist, who believes nothing exists until it is theoretically defined in writing; and that therefore (as an example), Christianity “invented compassion”. In the same way, idiotic wokesters pretend that because some Europeans expressed the universal human weakness called racial prejudice in print, they must have brought it into being.
The inevitable result of such folly is, as you so perceptively observe, the demonisation of an entire people. For the wokester it is the Europeans, for Holland it’s the Romans. This then slots into a miserably “black and white” or Manichean schema with selective, slanted evidence neatly arranged on either side of the fence.
As a last word, one is bound to insist on the un-Christian quality of this Manichean view, because – as any well informed churchman will tell you – the transformation of the world is not immediately effected by the life, death and resurrection of Christ (we are, after all, still sinners); it is brought about by the Last Judgement, which completes the expression of God’s purpose for mankind.
Whilst we await that consummation, human nature and human history go on in their usual patchy way, forgiven rather than changed and remain kin to all our ancestors, AD and BC alike, as enduring humanity must. The alternative, historicist view, that horrid hotch-potch of wordy, Marxist and Hegelian hot air, has diminished Holland, which is a pity.
I think Holland is essentially right and you are unfortunately wrong! Your last sentence is particularly lame; of course there are big gaps in our understanding of the experiences of Roman subjects (and later) subjects, especially of the plebian and slave majority, but we know a lot about the cultural attitudes of the upper classes.
All the Ancient empires celebrated power, crushing, killing and humiliating the kings’s enemies, for example Assyria, and they shouted these sentiments loud enough on many inscriptions. In Rome, death by crucifixion was a shameful death reserved for what would have been thought of as the dregs of society.
By the way, small band hunter gatherer society are not notably charitable to their enemies (neighbouring bands) and they almost always do have enemies! See Jared Diamond’s “The World Until Yesterday”.
What a tissue of slanted generalisations – “all ancient empires celebrated power”, for example – a statement so broad that it resists all enquiry. Which ones? How? When? Under what circumstances?
All these questions, serious answers to which might give your statement a smidgen of authority, go by the board. And haven’t modern empires similarly celebrated power? Haven’t modern empires sought to crush their enemies? You think the Ottomans were social workers? The Japanese were nannies? Do you? Or, by some miracle of independent mindedness, are you saying that the Christian empires of Russia, Britain, France or even Germany, were fully informed by this “transformed” morality?
And – by the way – the Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic branches of that Christianity would have have distinctly different approaches. Protestant Germany murdered the Herero. Where is your “axial transformation” now?
Of course, it is true that the empires of Britain and to some extent France were more merciful than those of their rivals, but that is not the result of some Hegelian metamorphosis, but the consequence of a growing devotion to human happiness, typical of the Enlightened West.
Whence the Enlightenment? Christian doctrine? The heart and soul of it, naturally, but only after centuries of debate and wrangling, often with representatives of the official church! And, as Mr Horsman says, that doctrine could not have taken root were there not abundant nutrients in the human heart ready to receive it.
As for your reference to hunter gatherers, that is easily disposed of. You, like all irrational believers in “zeitgeist”, are positing some entrenched mentality, inimical to question and typical of all people at one, hazily defined, time. Whereas in fact all humans are so malleable that their morals will shift with their circumstances, and the stringent demands of hunting and gathering would make ruthless killers of us all.
Horsman one; Fisher nil.
What a tissue of slanted generalisations – “all ancient empires celebrated power”, for example – a statement so broad that it resists all enquiry. Which ones? How? When? Under what circumstances?
All these questions, serious answers to which might give your statement a smidgen of authority, go by the board. And haven’t modern empires similarly celebrated power? Haven’t modern empires sought to crush their enemies? You think the Ottomans were social workers? The Japanese were nannies? Do you? Or, by some miracle of independent mindedness, are you saying that the Christian empires of Russia, Britain, France or even Germany, were fully informed by this “transformed” morality?
And – by the way – the Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic branches of that Christianity would have have distinctly different approaches. Protestant Germany murdered the Herero. Where is your “axial transformation” now?
Of course, it is true that the empires of Britain and to some extent France were more merciful than those of their rivals, but that is not the result of some Hegelian metamorphosis, but the consequence of a growing devotion to human happiness, typical of the Enlightened West.
Whence the Enlightenment? Christian doctrine? The heart and soul of it, naturally, but only after centuries of debate and wrangling, often with representatives of the official church! And, as Mr Horsman says, that doctrine could not have taken root were there not abundant nutrients in the human heart ready to receive it.
As for your reference to hunter gatherers, that is easily disposed of. You, like all irrational believers in “zeitgeist”, are positing some entrenched mentality, inimical to question and typical of all people at one, hazily defined, time. Whereas in fact all humans are so malleable that their morals will shift with their circumstances, and the stringent demands of hunting and gathering would make ruthless killers of us all.
Horsman one; Fisher nil.
A brilliant contribution – many thanks. I attempted to articulate the very same thoughts but came a cropper and deleted them. Your central insight, that Christian ethics build on instinctive human foundations, is unanswerable. If it were not so, how could people possibly have embraced them in the first place? The smallest acquaintance with ancient literature will back this up, for it abounds in instances of grief, pity and sympathy – Priam recovering Hector’s dead body, for example.
Nor is this an un-Christian view, for Christianity, although it reposes upon the supernatural in its central doctrines (the Incarnation and the Resurrection, for example), does not insist that supernatural intervention changed the whole of human nature in the first three centuries AD – which is perilously near to what Mr Holland is saying.
Indeed, he is in the grip of a new gnosis: not the religious sort, but that of the historicist, who believes nothing exists until it is theoretically defined in writing; and that therefore (as an example), Christianity “invented compassion”. In the same way, idiotic wokesters pretend that because some Europeans expressed the universal human weakness called racial prejudice in print, they must have brought it into being.
The inevitable result of such folly is, as you so perceptively observe, the demonisation of an entire people. For the wokester it is the Europeans, for Holland it’s the Romans. This then slots into a miserably “black and white” or Manichean schema with selective, slanted evidence neatly arranged on either side of the fence.
As a last word, one is bound to insist on the un-Christian quality of this Manichean view, because – as any well informed churchman will tell you – the transformation of the world is not immediately effected by the life, death and resurrection of Christ (we are, after all, still sinners); it is brought about by the Last Judgement, which completes the expression of God’s purpose for mankind.
Whilst we await that consummation, human nature and human history go on in their usual patchy way, forgiven rather than changed and remain kin to all our ancestors, AD and BC alike, as enduring humanity must. The alternative, historicist view, that horrid hotch-potch of wordy, Marxist and Hegelian hot air, has diminished Holland, which is a pity.
I think Holland is essentially right and you are unfortunately wrong! Your last sentence is particularly lame; of course there are big gaps in our understanding of the experiences of Roman subjects (and later) subjects, especially of the plebian and slave majority, but we know a lot about the cultural attitudes of the upper classes.
All the Ancient empires celebrated power, crushing, killing and humiliating the kings’s enemies, for example Assyria, and they shouted these sentiments loud enough on many inscriptions. In Rome, death by crucifixion was a shameful death reserved for what would have been thought of as the dregs of society.
By the way, small band hunter gatherer society are not notably charitable to their enemies (neighbouring bands) and they almost always do have enemies! See Jared Diamond’s “The World Until Yesterday”.
Andrew Horsman
10 months ago
Before this event I was a massive fan of Tom Holland. Now I am less sure. He seems totally sure about every point of detail and no doubt he has got an exceptionally good memory for facts and figures. But is it really that black and white?
How do we know, for example that “Roman men have a kind of ambivalent attitude towards women in their families”. Maybe some did, but maybe others didn’t? Substitute “British” for “Roman” in that sentence, and how does it sound? For that, matter substitute an adjective that describes a particular ethnicity – and then how does that sound? And remember he’s talking about a period of many hundreds of years.
The nub of Holland’s contention appears it me that Christianity somehow “reimagined” morality, imposing something new on human nature. Having listened to him, and despite having being swayed in his direction by his very readable books (which have influenced my thinking greatly), I have to say I now disagree. I think that Christianity articulated or revealed to people something that is innate to their very humanity – that abusing, raping and murdering fellow humans is just wrong and abhorrent. But it did not *invent* a whole new morality. Whoever you are, whenever you lived, something in you would be disgusted by the witnessing the exercise of raw power in watching someone be ravaged and brutally murdered – Judeo-Christianity or no Judeo-Christianity.
His contention is actually quite pernicious – the implication being that the Christian worldview was manufactured (he claims, at least, for the better of mankind) then it surely can be replaced by something else, even better. Like something that Yuval Noah Harari and his mates dreamed up with the help of some bot, for example.
It all boils down, in the end, to accepting than we humans are not masters of the universe, that we cannot ever know everything there is to know, and that we live in a world of strict limits. Sadly I have to conclude that Holland doesn’t really understand this, and that – however brilliant he is at regurgitating facts and ordering them into compelling, entertaining stories (and he really, really is brilliant at this; Dominion, for example, is a wonderful book) – he really doesn’t seem to have at all a very broad perspective, or the humility to accept that he (like any of us) doesn’t really actually know what goes on, or went on, in the minds and lives of others, not least those who lived many centuries ago.
Jane Anderson
10 months ago
Holland is trying too hard to superimpose his understanding of current issues around sex and gender ( and I say ” his understanding” of them which is itself open to critique) onto ancient Rome.
Sex has always been binary, though the concept of ‘gender’ has been more fluid for the reason it is socially constructed according to time and to culture. I think he is also confusing today’s concept of ‘sexual orientation’ with the actaul nature of biological sex.
I get the general gist of his aim, and certainly think examining what has happened before, at certain junctures of what could be seen as decadence and decline, could be a useful way in to understanding contemporary issues.
Agreed. Regardless of the topic or publication, it appears as though it’s obligatory to include “sex, gender, orientation, bi or not bi…” or whatever deviancy — that must be normalized and celebrated… or else. I guess it’s now a marker of whether someone’s “with it,” tolerant, modern, or so open-minded that their ability to reason is heavily compromised.
You sound a bit like one of those Edwardian professors desperately trying to downplay, swerve around or completely ignore the ubiquity of pederasty in Ancient Greek culture, while still putting the same culture on a pedestal. The ‘ability to reason’ also seems to be compromised by those seemingly in denial about some stark cultural differences in sexual practice and gender roles!
The Greeks and Romans were far less squeamish in discussing these issues than westerners were until very recent times.(very influenced by Christian morality). They differed from each other but even more from ours. This is worth pointing out and debating.
You sound a bit like one of those Edwardian professors desperately trying to downplay, swerve around or completely ignore the ubiquity of pederasty in Ancient Greek culture, while still putting the same culture on a pedestal. The ‘ability to reason’ also seems to be compromised by those seemingly in denial about some stark cultural differences in sexual practice and gender roles!
The Greeks and Romans were far less squeamish in discussing these issues than westerners were until very recent times.(very influenced by Christian morality). They differed from each other but even more from ours. This is worth pointing out and debating.
From what I understand during the Roman period a big part of sex was dominance. Seems, the head of the household had sex with everything which moved, be it maids, or slaves of both sexes.
Yes, but women were women, not becaue of their subservience, but because of their biology. Holland is trying to suggest that anyone who was subservient ( boys, servants, women) were all socially gendered as ‘women’. That ‘woman’ effectively is a synonym for subservience, and is not a stable category of its own ( as in an adult human female).
He goes on to mention how one emperor tried to effectively ‘trans’ a young boy; castrating him and having him wear women’s clothing – in order to resemble his deceased wife.In doing that it was to make ‘conventional’ his love and devotion for a boy.
He doesn’t suggest that at all, he is talking about sexual attraction. There was no such thing as heterosexuality or homosexuality. Roman citizens (men) were supposed to have sex with everyone who was not a Roman citizen.
He doesn’t suggest that at all, he is talking about sexual attraction. There was no such thing as heterosexuality or homosexuality. Roman citizens (men) were supposed to have sex with everyone who was not a Roman citizen.
Yes, but women were women, not becaue of their subservience, but because of their biology. Holland is trying to suggest that anyone who was subservient ( boys, servants, women) were all socially gendered as ‘women’. That ‘woman’ effectively is a synonym for subservience, and is not a stable category of its own ( as in an adult human female).
He goes on to mention how one emperor tried to effectively ‘trans’ a young boy; castrating him and having him wear women’s clothing – in order to resemble his deceased wife.In doing that it was to make ‘conventional’ his love and devotion for a boy.
I don’t think sex and gender is a particular obsession of Holland – he was asked some questions around the issue by Freddie Sayers, which I understand given the current ‘debate’ if you can call it. I can’t see any confusion on Tom Holland’s part, but I am a bit confused about your views!
There is no doubt that Roman views on these issues differed markedly from modern western ones, “woke” or anti-woke.
Agreed. Regardless of the topic or publication, it appears as though it’s obligatory to include “sex, gender, orientation, bi or not bi…” or whatever deviancy — that must be normalized and celebrated… or else. I guess it’s now a marker of whether someone’s “with it,” tolerant, modern, or so open-minded that their ability to reason is heavily compromised.
From what I understand during the Roman period a big part of sex was dominance. Seems, the head of the household had sex with everything which moved, be it maids, or slaves of both sexes.
I don’t think sex and gender is a particular obsession of Holland – he was asked some questions around the issue by Freddie Sayers, which I understand given the current ‘debate’ if you can call it. I can’t see any confusion on Tom Holland’s part, but I am a bit confused about your views!
There is no doubt that Roman views on these issues differed markedly from modern western ones, “woke” or anti-woke.
Jane Anderson
10 months ago
Holland is trying too hard to superimpose his understanding of current issues around sex and gender ( and I say ” his understanding” of them which is itself open to critique) onto ancient Rome.
Sex has always been binary, though the concept of ‘gender’ has been more fluid for the reason it is socially constructed according to time and to culture. I think he is also confusing today’s concept of ‘sexual orientation’ with the actaul nature of biological sex.
I get the general gist of his aim, and certainly think examining what has happened before, at certain junctures of what could be seen as decadence and decline, could be a useful way in to understanding contemporary issues.
I have te-listened to that bit and he clearly says “mare Nostrum”.
Probably the “voice to text” software they used is not up to scratch with Latin, and neither is the editor 😀
I have te-listened to that bit and he clearly says “mare Nostrum”.
Probably the “voice to text” software they used is not up to scratch with Latin, and neither is the editor 😀
Thanks. That saves me the effort of having to say it 😉
Charles Stanhope
10 months ago
Surely MARE* NOSTRUM not Mare Nostra?
Perhaps Mr Holland was thinking of the Mafia?
(*Neuter.)
Last edited 10 months ago by Charles Stanhope
AJ Mac
10 months ago
Interesting tidbits but a lot of cheap present-day parallels like World Cup of Gang Rape or Glastonbury equated with Hadrian’s wall. Coupled with (get it?) the lewd, even quasi-pornographic emphasis, I’d say there’s a certain luridness or sensationalism in Tom Holland’s narrative approach.
*Or maybe I’m being a puritanical ‘Merican on this one.
Back then, people went to the market, bought goods, came home and made meals – same as today. The parts of the narrative that you are offended by are “lurid or sensational[…]” because they are drastically different to what we are accustomed to. Which is also what makes them interesting. Which is also what confers historical relevance. “Nothing has changed in two thousand years..” is not a very interesting read. Comparisons between historical realities (take this as you will) and today’s are what make these differences relatable (on some crude level) and compelling to the modern reader.
I understand those commonalities across time, which is part of why I’m skeptical of the widespread sexual “omnivorousness” that Holland describes, such as the purported rarity of sleeping only with one sex or the other (for a man of status) during this period of Roman antiquity. I’m not discounting the details he cites, but questioning the general conclusions he seems keen to draw.
I’m interested in notable differences and present-day parallels too, but not when they’re too cooked up or dumbed down, which is how some of this seems to me. I could be mistaken. There’s a good middle path between the elite or “censored” historical style typical of past generations of historiography, and the simplified-for-popularity or “nudge nudge” approach more often found today. There’s stuff in the middle lane already, I’d say, and I probably shouldn’t have gone after Holland in particular.
I like history to have a strong storytelling (not fabulist) art but if that gets overdone we get the entertaining but very opinionated style of Gibbon or gossipy approach of Suetonius. Which historians of the early Common Era (AD) are both readable and trustworthy enough, since Tacitus and Plutarch (more biography but not only) that is?
I understand those commonalities across time, which is part of why I’m skeptical of the widespread sexual “omnivorousness” that Holland describes, such as the purported rarity of sleeping only with one sex or the other (for a man of status) during this period of Roman antiquity. I’m not discounting the details he cites, but questioning the general conclusions he seems keen to draw.
I’m interested in notable differences and present-day parallels too, but not when they’re too cooked up or dumbed down, which is how some of this seems to me. I could be mistaken. There’s a good middle path between the elite or “censored” historical style typical of past generations of historiography, and the simplified-for-popularity or “nudge nudge” approach more often found today. There’s stuff in the middle lane already, I’d say, and I probably shouldn’t have gone after Holland in particular.
I like history to have a strong storytelling (not fabulist) art but if that gets overdone we get the entertaining but very opinionated style of Gibbon or gossipy approach of Suetonius. Which historians of the early Common Era (AD) are both readable and trustworthy enough, since Tacitus and Plutarch (more biography but not only) that is?
Back then, people went to the market, bought goods, came home and made meals – same as today. The parts of the narrative that you are offended by are “lurid or sensational[…]” because they are drastically different to what we are accustomed to. Which is also what makes them interesting. Which is also what confers historical relevance. “Nothing has changed in two thousand years..” is not a very interesting read. Comparisons between historical realities (take this as you will) and today’s are what make these differences relatable (on some crude level) and compelling to the modern reader.
Interesting tidbits but a lot of cheap present-day parallels like World Cup of Gang Rape or Glastonbury equated with Hadrian’s wall. Coupled with (get it?) the lewd, even quasi-pornographic emphasis, I’d say there’s a certain luridness or sensationalism in Tom Holland’s narrative approach.
*Or maybe I’m being a puritanical ‘Merican on this one.
Last edited 10 months ago by AJ Mac
Judy Englander
10 months ago
I’m only half way through so may have missed it, but the most intriguing question seems to be missed. Given its attitude to sex why did Rome ban the making of eunuchs?
Two ancient sources, Suetonius and Cassius Dio both claim that the Emperor Domitian (81-96 AD) brought in the prohibition.
Dio goes on to say its purpose was to insult the memory of Domitian’s (deceased) elder brother Titus.
It was now a capital offence to castrate a slave!
Judy Englander
10 months ago
I’m only half way through so may have missed it, but the most intriguing question seems to be missed. Given its attitude to sex why did Rome ban the making of eunuchs?
Last edited 10 months ago by Judy Englander
Maggi B
10 months ago
Tom’s bio needs updating with his latest publication Pax (not Dominion)
Clare Bremner
10 months ago
Does anybody know which film the image at the top of the page came from?
Does anybody know which film the image at the top of the page came from?
Arkadian X
10 months ago
The ending on the “Gini coefficient” has been cut out for some reason. I was hoping to get more insight on that.
rick stubbs
9 months ago
Interesting enough but far more focused on the dominate sexual proclivities of the Roman elite than anticipated and not made clear to me how that impacted the fall, rise or effective governance of Empire? Maybe Holland did this to flog the book to a broader audience? Freddie is certainly pliable enough to acquiesce.
Of course, we all long for some big picture historical analogy applicable to the future path of Empires among us right now. The US, China Russia? Holland didn’t provide that analysis by any measure nor should it be expected from any source. The reference to the reformation and wars of religion was not explored adequately and had no obvious resonance in my opinion.
Last edited 9 months ago by rick stubbs
rick stubbs
9 months ago
Interesting enough but far more focused on the dominate sexual proclivities of the Roman elite than anticipated and not made clear to me how that impacted the fall, rise or effective governance of Empire? Maybe Holland did this to flog the book to a broader audience? Freddie is certainly pliable enough to acquiesce.
Of course, we all long for some big picture historical analogy applicable to the future path of Empires among us right now. The US, China Russia? Holland didn’t provide that analysis by any measure nor should it be expected from any source. The reference to the reformation and wars of religion was not explored adequately and had no obvious resonance in my opinion.
Last edited 9 months ago by rick stubbs
Frank McCusker
10 months ago
Vox popping English people down the years suggests that English people are more inclined than other British to consider themselves – in however vague a manner – as descendants of Romans.
Frank McCusker
10 months ago
Vox popping English people down the years suggests that English people are more inclined than other British to consider themselves – in however vague a manner – as descendants of Romans.
Charles Stanhope
10 months ago
I think that actually Gibbon gets it the RIGHT way around.
Give me Quintus Lutatius Catulus any day to St Paul & Co.
Interesting and hopefully accurate idea about the moral change we are going through being more analogous to the Reformation than anything in Roman history. Empires’ ability to bounce back post barbarian invasions seems more likely, the more homogeneous and thus cohesive the empire’s culture is, as in China’s case after the Mongol conquest. This does not bode well for our multicultural societies, especially since we are teaching our kids to consider us the barbarians.
There’s also a danger of using previous examples of historical change and superimposing them, or at least the terminology, on the current historical changes taking place. It’s a natural thing to do as we try to grapple with change, but supposing our current conditions are unprecedented; as the change from the earlier Roman world following its conversion to Christianity was unprecedented?
Your last point illustrates this fairly well. In many ways, the move towards deconstruction (critical theory) could be seen as a reaction to the horror that the two great global conflicts of the first half of the 20th century inflicted upon us (rather, we inflicted upon ourselves). If that was “civilisation”, it was pretty damned barbaric, and shouldn’t ever be forgotten when weighing changes coming about since then.
It (critical theory) could also be seen as an attempt by “social scientists” to emulate the changes being brought about by discoveries in our understanding of the physical world, from e=mc² to quantum theory; not altogether successfully one might add.
I take your point, Steve. Historical patterns don’t necessarily reflect those of our own time. And It’s true, as you say, that World War I and World War II did nothing to support confidence in civilization. Maybe the depravity that emerged suddenly in the mid-twentieth century, seemingly out of nowhere, was the last straw. But antipathy toward civilization had a much longer history in the West.
I’ve already commented elsewhere that the early American colonists, for example, saw themselves as the New Israelites in a New World, a wilderness, where they could start over again by erasing the decadence of European civilization and building a new Eden. Later on, Rousseau celebrated the “noble savage.” Later still, the outbreak of World War I was greeted on both sides (at least in public) by something like ecstasy. Many people hoped that a (short) war would restore the vigor of a peaceful and prosperous world but also a tired, effete and boring one. This intense yearning for the primeval or even the primitive was one a central tendency in the arts, notably in music and painting, during the final decades before 1914. Postmodernist deconstruction didn’t emerge suddenly, after all, out of nowhere. It had been growing in some circles since the mid-nineteenth century.
And by the way, not everyone was repelled by the destruction of civilization during World War II. The Nazis themselves openly celebrated the barbarism of their New Order as the reverse of civilization–that is, a return to some non-civilized, pre-Roman and pre-(Judeo)-Christian society.
I take your point, Steve. Historical patterns don’t necessarily reflect those of our own time. And It’s true, as you say, that World War I and World War II did nothing to support confidence in civilization. Maybe the depravity that emerged suddenly in the mid-twentieth century, seemingly out of nowhere, was the last straw. But antipathy toward civilization had a much longer history in the West.
I’ve already commented elsewhere that the early American colonists, for example, saw themselves as the New Israelites in a New World, a wilderness, where they could start over again by erasing the decadence of European civilization and building a new Eden. Later on, Rousseau celebrated the “noble savage.” Later still, the outbreak of World War I was greeted on both sides (at least in public) by something like ecstasy. Many people hoped that a (short) war would restore the vigor of a peaceful and prosperous world but also a tired, effete and boring one. This intense yearning for the primeval or even the primitive was one a central tendency in the arts, notably in music and painting, during the final decades before 1914. Postmodernist deconstruction didn’t emerge suddenly, after all, out of nowhere. It had been growing in some circles since the mid-nineteenth century.
And by the way, not everyone was repelled by the destruction of civilization during World War II. The Nazis themselves openly celebrated the barbarism of their New Order as the reverse of civilization–that is, a return to some non-civilized, pre-Roman and pre-(Judeo)-Christian society.
“especially since we are teaching our kids to consider us the barbarians.”
Or rather to consider the barbarians the good guys and to gain virtue for our wretched white selves by lowering the drawbridge to them. Cultural suicide is the only thing a white person can do that has any value.
There’s also a danger of using previous examples of historical change and superimposing them, or at least the terminology, on the current historical changes taking place. It’s a natural thing to do as we try to grapple with change, but supposing our current conditions are unprecedented; as the change from the earlier Roman world following its conversion to Christianity was unprecedented?
Your last point illustrates this fairly well. In many ways, the move towards deconstruction (critical theory) could be seen as a reaction to the horror that the two great global conflicts of the first half of the 20th century inflicted upon us (rather, we inflicted upon ourselves). If that was “civilisation”, it was pretty damned barbaric, and shouldn’t ever be forgotten when weighing changes coming about since then.
It (critical theory) could also be seen as an attempt by “social scientists” to emulate the changes being brought about by discoveries in our understanding of the physical world, from e=mc² to quantum theory; not altogether successfully one might add.
“especially since we are teaching our kids to consider us the barbarians.”
Or rather to consider the barbarians the good guys and to gain virtue for our wretched white selves by lowering the drawbridge to them. Cultural suicide is the only thing a white person can do that has any value.
Interesting and hopefully accurate idea about the moral change we are going through being more analogous to the Reformation than anything in Roman history. Empires’ ability to bounce back post barbarian invasions seems more likely, the more homogeneous and thus cohesive the empire’s culture is, as in China’s case after the Mongol conquest. This does not bode well for our multicultural societies, especially since we are teaching our kids to consider us the barbarians.
Really worthwhile article with some intriguing insights Interesting comment comparing our current cultural disintegration with the reformation period rather than the decline and fall of Rome. I’d be interested in a whole discussion on just this topic! It was once pointed out to me that the invention of the printing press (which was probably a major contributing factor in the enduring success of the reformation) was followed by the 100 years war, and that the invention of the internet (especially social media) may be the catalyst for a similar catastrophic period of world history. Disruption of social systems and modes of common life are frequently called revolutions and seem always to occur with much shedding of blood.
Maybe the Thirty Years’ War 1618-48, not the Hundred Years’ War 1337-1453. Gutenberg invented the movable-type press in 1440.
Maybe the Thirty Years’ War 1618-48, not the Hundred Years’ War 1337-1453. Gutenberg invented the movable-type press in 1440.
Maybe the Thirty Years’ War 1618-48, not the Hundred Years’ War 1337-1453. Gutenberg invented the movable-type press in 1440.
The invention (or adoption) of printing in the West was “followed” by the Reformation – there was probably a close link there because of the vastly increased spread ideas could be disseminated. It is a bit of a stretch to say the “100 Year War” which preceded printing! But you mean the Thirty Years War, but although this was linked to the religious Reformation and Counter-Reformation, it was more complex than that. Also that calamitous war didn’t get going until 1620, about 150.years after the invention of printing.
Maybe the Thirty Years’ War 1618-48, not the Hundred Years’ War 1337-1453. Gutenberg invented the movable-type press in 1440.
Maybe the Thirty Years’ War 1618-48, not the Hundred Years’ War 1337-1453. Gutenberg invented the movable-type press in 1440.
Maybe the Thirty Years’ War 1618-48, not the Hundred Years’ War 1337-1453. Gutenberg invented the movable-type press in 1440.
The invention (or adoption) of printing in the West was “followed” by the Reformation – there was probably a close link there because of the vastly increased spread ideas could be disseminated. It is a bit of a stretch to say the “100 Year War” which preceded printing! But you mean the Thirty Years War, but although this was linked to the religious Reformation and Counter-Reformation, it was more complex than that. Also that calamitous war didn’t get going until 1620, about 150.years after the invention of printing.
Really worthwhile article with some intriguing insights Interesting comment comparing our current cultural disintegration with the reformation period rather than the decline and fall of Rome. I’d be interested in a whole discussion on just this topic! It was once pointed out to me that the invention of the printing press (which was probably a major contributing factor in the enduring success of the reformation) was followed by the 100 years war, and that the invention of the internet (especially social media) may be the catalyst for a similar catastrophic period of world history. Disruption of social systems and modes of common life are frequently called revolutions and seem always to occur with much shedding of blood.
One point in reply: the communists were prior to the fascists in rejecting the core of pre-1914 morality.
The ruck of reds were utterly consequentialist in their devotion to “revolution” – hence their easy recourse to acts of terror; nor did the supposed benefits of “revolution” apply to the majority, but to the chosen “class”. Priests, peasants, middle class, lower middle class, to say nothing of policemen, loyal soldiers, servants and all grades of nobility were to be “eliminated”.
Then again, as Karl Popper points out, communist theory undermines the very possibility of ethics, with all absolutes of knowledge or perception, as a mere projection of “class interest”. To such refined philosophers, morals are not even conscious hypocrisy; they are delusional.
With regard to all this, the fascists were pupils, not masters.
One point in reply: the communists were prior to the fascists in rejecting the core of pre-1914 morality.
The ruck of reds were utterly consequentialist in their devotion to “revolution” – hence their easy recourse to acts of terror; nor did the supposed benefits of “revolution” apply to the majority, but to the chosen “class”. Priests, peasants, middle class, lower middle class, to say nothing of policemen, loyal soldiers, servants and all grades of nobility were to be “eliminated”.
Then again, as Karl Popper points out, communist theory undermines the very possibility of ethics, with all absolutes of knowledge or perception, as a mere projection of “class interest”. To such refined philosophers, morals are not even conscious hypocrisy; they are delusional.
With regard to all this, the fascists were pupils, not masters.
Before this event I was a massive fan of Tom Holland. Now I am less sure. He seems totally sure about every point of detail and no doubt he has got an exceptionally good memory for facts and figures. But is it really that black and white?
How do we know, for example that “Roman men have a kind of ambivalent attitude towards women in their families”. Maybe some did, but maybe others didn’t? Substitute “British” for “Roman” in that sentence, and how does it sound? For that, matter substitute an adjective that describes a particular ethnicity – and then how does that sound? And remember he’s talking about a period of many hundreds of years.
The nub of Holland’s contention appears it me that Christianity somehow “reimagined” morality, imposing something new on human nature. Having listened to him, and despite having being swayed in his direction by his very readable books (which have influenced my thinking greatly), I have to say I now disagree. I think that Christianity articulated or revealed to people something that is innate to their very humanity – that abusing, raping and murdering fellow humans is just wrong and abhorrent. But it did not *invent* a whole new morality. Whoever you are, whenever you lived, something in you would be disgusted by the witnessing the exercise of raw power in watching someone be ravaged and brutally murdered – Judeo-Christianity or no Judeo-Christianity.
His contention is actually quite pernicious – the implication being that the Christian worldview was manufactured (he claims, at least, for the better of mankind) then it surely can be replaced by something else, even better. Like something that Yuval Noah Harari and his mates dreamed up with the help of some bot, for example.
It all boils down, in the end, to accepting than we humans are not masters of the universe, that we cannot ever know everything there is to know, and that we live in a world of strict limits. Sadly I have to conclude that Holland doesn’t really understand this, and that – however brilliant he is at regurgitating facts and ordering them into compelling, entertaining stories (and he really, really is brilliant at this; Dominion, for example, is a wonderful book) – he really doesn’t seem to have at all a very broad perspective, or the humility to accept that he (like any of us) doesn’t really actually know what goes on, or went on, in the minds and lives of others, not least those who lived many centuries ago.
A brilliant contribution – many thanks. I attempted to articulate the very same thoughts but came a cropper and deleted them. Your central insight, that Christian ethics build on instinctive human foundations, is unanswerable. If it were not so, how could people possibly have embraced them in the first place? The smallest acquaintance with ancient literature will back this up, for it abounds in instances of grief, pity and sympathy – Priam recovering Hector’s dead body, for example.
Nor is this an un-Christian view, for Christianity, although it reposes upon the supernatural in its central doctrines (the Incarnation and the Resurrection, for example), does not insist that supernatural intervention changed the whole of human nature in the first three centuries AD – which is perilously near to what Mr Holland is saying.
Indeed, he is in the grip of a new gnosis: not the religious sort, but that of the historicist, who believes nothing exists until it is theoretically defined in writing; and that therefore (as an example), Christianity “invented compassion”. In the same way, idiotic wokesters pretend that because some Europeans expressed the universal human weakness called racial prejudice in print, they must have brought it into being.
The inevitable result of such folly is, as you so perceptively observe, the demonisation of an entire people. For the wokester it is the Europeans, for Holland it’s the Romans. This then slots into a miserably “black and white” or Manichean schema with selective, slanted evidence neatly arranged on either side of the fence.
As a last word, one is bound to insist on the un-Christian quality of this Manichean view, because – as any well informed churchman will tell you – the transformation of the world is not immediately effected by the life, death and resurrection of Christ (we are, after all, still sinners); it is brought about by the Last Judgement, which completes the expression of God’s purpose for mankind.
Whilst we await that consummation, human nature and human history go on in their usual patchy way, forgiven rather than changed and remain kin to all our ancestors, AD and BC alike, as enduring humanity must. The alternative, historicist view, that horrid hotch-potch of wordy, Marxist and Hegelian hot air, has diminished Holland, which is a pity.
I think Holland is essentially right and you are unfortunately wrong! Your last sentence is particularly lame; of course there are big gaps in our understanding of the experiences of Roman subjects (and later) subjects, especially of the plebian and slave majority, but we know a lot about the cultural attitudes of the upper classes.
All the Ancient empires celebrated power, crushing, killing and humiliating the kings’s enemies, for example Assyria, and they shouted these sentiments loud enough on many inscriptions. In Rome, death by crucifixion was a shameful death reserved for what would have been thought of as the dregs of society.
By the way, small band hunter gatherer society are not notably charitable to their enemies (neighbouring bands) and they almost always do have enemies! See Jared Diamond’s “The World Until Yesterday”.
What a tissue of slanted generalisations – “all ancient empires celebrated power”, for example – a statement so broad that it resists all enquiry. Which ones? How? When? Under what circumstances?
All these questions, serious answers to which might give your statement a smidgen of authority, go by the board. And haven’t modern empires similarly celebrated power? Haven’t modern empires sought to crush their enemies? You think the Ottomans were social workers? The Japanese were nannies? Do you? Or, by some miracle of independent mindedness, are you saying that the Christian empires of Russia, Britain, France or even Germany, were fully informed by this “transformed” morality?
And – by the way – the Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic branches of that Christianity would have have distinctly different approaches. Protestant Germany murdered the Herero. Where is your “axial transformation” now?
Of course, it is true that the empires of Britain and to some extent France were more merciful than those of their rivals, but that is not the result of some Hegelian metamorphosis, but the consequence of a growing devotion to human happiness, typical of the Enlightened West.
Whence the Enlightenment? Christian doctrine? The heart and soul of it, naturally, but only after centuries of debate and wrangling, often with representatives of the official church! And, as Mr Horsman says, that doctrine could not have taken root were there not abundant nutrients in the human heart ready to receive it.
As for your reference to hunter gatherers, that is easily disposed of. You, like all irrational believers in “zeitgeist”, are positing some entrenched mentality, inimical to question and typical of all people at one, hazily defined, time. Whereas in fact all humans are so malleable that their morals will shift with their circumstances, and the stringent demands of hunting and gathering would make ruthless killers of us all.
Horsman one; Fisher nil.
What a tissue of slanted generalisations – “all ancient empires celebrated power”, for example – a statement so broad that it resists all enquiry. Which ones? How? When? Under what circumstances?
All these questions, serious answers to which might give your statement a smidgen of authority, go by the board. And haven’t modern empires similarly celebrated power? Haven’t modern empires sought to crush their enemies? You think the Ottomans were social workers? The Japanese were nannies? Do you? Or, by some miracle of independent mindedness, are you saying that the Christian empires of Russia, Britain, France or even Germany, were fully informed by this “transformed” morality?
And – by the way – the Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic branches of that Christianity would have have distinctly different approaches. Protestant Germany murdered the Herero. Where is your “axial transformation” now?
Of course, it is true that the empires of Britain and to some extent France were more merciful than those of their rivals, but that is not the result of some Hegelian metamorphosis, but the consequence of a growing devotion to human happiness, typical of the Enlightened West.
Whence the Enlightenment? Christian doctrine? The heart and soul of it, naturally, but only after centuries of debate and wrangling, often with representatives of the official church! And, as Mr Horsman says, that doctrine could not have taken root were there not abundant nutrients in the human heart ready to receive it.
As for your reference to hunter gatherers, that is easily disposed of. You, like all irrational believers in “zeitgeist”, are positing some entrenched mentality, inimical to question and typical of all people at one, hazily defined, time. Whereas in fact all humans are so malleable that their morals will shift with their circumstances, and the stringent demands of hunting and gathering would make ruthless killers of us all.
Horsman one; Fisher nil.
A brilliant contribution – many thanks. I attempted to articulate the very same thoughts but came a cropper and deleted them. Your central insight, that Christian ethics build on instinctive human foundations, is unanswerable. If it were not so, how could people possibly have embraced them in the first place? The smallest acquaintance with ancient literature will back this up, for it abounds in instances of grief, pity and sympathy – Priam recovering Hector’s dead body, for example.
Nor is this an un-Christian view, for Christianity, although it reposes upon the supernatural in its central doctrines (the Incarnation and the Resurrection, for example), does not insist that supernatural intervention changed the whole of human nature in the first three centuries AD – which is perilously near to what Mr Holland is saying.
Indeed, he is in the grip of a new gnosis: not the religious sort, but that of the historicist, who believes nothing exists until it is theoretically defined in writing; and that therefore (as an example), Christianity “invented compassion”. In the same way, idiotic wokesters pretend that because some Europeans expressed the universal human weakness called racial prejudice in print, they must have brought it into being.
The inevitable result of such folly is, as you so perceptively observe, the demonisation of an entire people. For the wokester it is the Europeans, for Holland it’s the Romans. This then slots into a miserably “black and white” or Manichean schema with selective, slanted evidence neatly arranged on either side of the fence.
As a last word, one is bound to insist on the un-Christian quality of this Manichean view, because – as any well informed churchman will tell you – the transformation of the world is not immediately effected by the life, death and resurrection of Christ (we are, after all, still sinners); it is brought about by the Last Judgement, which completes the expression of God’s purpose for mankind.
Whilst we await that consummation, human nature and human history go on in their usual patchy way, forgiven rather than changed and remain kin to all our ancestors, AD and BC alike, as enduring humanity must. The alternative, historicist view, that horrid hotch-potch of wordy, Marxist and Hegelian hot air, has diminished Holland, which is a pity.
I think Holland is essentially right and you are unfortunately wrong! Your last sentence is particularly lame; of course there are big gaps in our understanding of the experiences of Roman subjects (and later) subjects, especially of the plebian and slave majority, but we know a lot about the cultural attitudes of the upper classes.
All the Ancient empires celebrated power, crushing, killing and humiliating the kings’s enemies, for example Assyria, and they shouted these sentiments loud enough on many inscriptions. In Rome, death by crucifixion was a shameful death reserved for what would have been thought of as the dregs of society.
By the way, small band hunter gatherer society are not notably charitable to their enemies (neighbouring bands) and they almost always do have enemies! See Jared Diamond’s “The World Until Yesterday”.
Before this event I was a massive fan of Tom Holland. Now I am less sure. He seems totally sure about every point of detail and no doubt he has got an exceptionally good memory for facts and figures. But is it really that black and white?
How do we know, for example that “Roman men have a kind of ambivalent attitude towards women in their families”. Maybe some did, but maybe others didn’t? Substitute “British” for “Roman” in that sentence, and how does it sound? For that, matter substitute an adjective that describes a particular ethnicity – and then how does that sound? And remember he’s talking about a period of many hundreds of years.
The nub of Holland’s contention appears it me that Christianity somehow “reimagined” morality, imposing something new on human nature. Having listened to him, and despite having being swayed in his direction by his very readable books (which have influenced my thinking greatly), I have to say I now disagree. I think that Christianity articulated or revealed to people something that is innate to their very humanity – that abusing, raping and murdering fellow humans is just wrong and abhorrent. But it did not *invent* a whole new morality. Whoever you are, whenever you lived, something in you would be disgusted by the witnessing the exercise of raw power in watching someone be ravaged and brutally murdered – Judeo-Christianity or no Judeo-Christianity.
His contention is actually quite pernicious – the implication being that the Christian worldview was manufactured (he claims, at least, for the better of mankind) then it surely can be replaced by something else, even better. Like something that Yuval Noah Harari and his mates dreamed up with the help of some bot, for example.
It all boils down, in the end, to accepting than we humans are not masters of the universe, that we cannot ever know everything there is to know, and that we live in a world of strict limits. Sadly I have to conclude that Holland doesn’t really understand this, and that – however brilliant he is at regurgitating facts and ordering them into compelling, entertaining stories (and he really, really is brilliant at this; Dominion, for example, is a wonderful book) – he really doesn’t seem to have at all a very broad perspective, or the humility to accept that he (like any of us) doesn’t really actually know what goes on, or went on, in the minds and lives of others, not least those who lived many centuries ago.
Holland is trying too hard to superimpose his understanding of current issues around sex and gender ( and I say ” his understanding” of them which is itself open to critique) onto ancient Rome.
Sex has always been binary, though the concept of ‘gender’ has been more fluid for the reason it is socially constructed according to time and to culture. I think he is also confusing today’s concept of ‘sexual orientation’ with the actaul nature of biological sex.
I get the general gist of his aim, and certainly think examining what has happened before, at certain junctures of what could be seen as decadence and decline, could be a useful way in to understanding contemporary issues.
Agreed. Regardless of the topic or publication, it appears as though it’s obligatory to include “sex, gender, orientation, bi or not bi…” or whatever deviancy — that must be normalized and celebrated… or else. I guess it’s now a marker of whether someone’s “with it,” tolerant, modern, or so open-minded that their ability to reason is heavily compromised.
You sound a bit like one of those Edwardian professors desperately trying to downplay, swerve around or completely ignore the ubiquity of pederasty in Ancient Greek culture, while still putting the same culture on a pedestal. The ‘ability to reason’ also seems to be compromised by those seemingly in denial about some stark cultural differences in sexual practice and gender roles!
The Greeks and Romans were far less squeamish in discussing these issues than westerners were until very recent times.(very influenced by Christian morality). They differed from each other but even more from ours. This is worth pointing out and debating.
You sound a bit like one of those Edwardian professors desperately trying to downplay, swerve around or completely ignore the ubiquity of pederasty in Ancient Greek culture, while still putting the same culture on a pedestal. The ‘ability to reason’ also seems to be compromised by those seemingly in denial about some stark cultural differences in sexual practice and gender roles!
The Greeks and Romans were far less squeamish in discussing these issues than westerners were until very recent times.(very influenced by Christian morality). They differed from each other but even more from ours. This is worth pointing out and debating.
From what I understand during the Roman period a big part of sex was dominance. Seems, the head of the household had sex with everything which moved, be it maids, or slaves of both sexes.
Yes, but women were women, not becaue of their subservience, but because of their biology. Holland is trying to suggest that anyone who was subservient ( boys, servants, women) were all socially gendered as ‘women’. That ‘woman’ effectively is a synonym for subservience, and is not a stable category of its own ( as in an adult human female).
He goes on to mention how one emperor tried to effectively ‘trans’ a young boy; castrating him and having him wear women’s clothing – in order to resemble his deceased wife.In doing that it was to make ‘conventional’ his love and devotion for a boy.
He doesn’t suggest that at all, he is talking about sexual attraction. There was no such thing as heterosexuality or homosexuality. Roman citizens (men) were supposed to have sex with everyone who was not a Roman citizen.
He doesn’t suggest that at all, he is talking about sexual attraction. There was no such thing as heterosexuality or homosexuality. Roman citizens (men) were supposed to have sex with everyone who was not a Roman citizen.
Yes, but women were women, not becaue of their subservience, but because of their biology. Holland is trying to suggest that anyone who was subservient ( boys, servants, women) were all socially gendered as ‘women’. That ‘woman’ effectively is a synonym for subservience, and is not a stable category of its own ( as in an adult human female).
He goes on to mention how one emperor tried to effectively ‘trans’ a young boy; castrating him and having him wear women’s clothing – in order to resemble his deceased wife.In doing that it was to make ‘conventional’ his love and devotion for a boy.
I don’t think sex and gender is a particular obsession of Holland – he was asked some questions around the issue by Freddie Sayers, which I understand given the current ‘debate’ if you can call it. I can’t see any confusion on Tom Holland’s part, but I am a bit confused about your views!
There is no doubt that Roman views on these issues differed markedly from modern western ones, “woke” or anti-woke.
Agreed. Regardless of the topic or publication, it appears as though it’s obligatory to include “sex, gender, orientation, bi or not bi…” or whatever deviancy — that must be normalized and celebrated… or else. I guess it’s now a marker of whether someone’s “with it,” tolerant, modern, or so open-minded that their ability to reason is heavily compromised.
From what I understand during the Roman period a big part of sex was dominance. Seems, the head of the household had sex with everything which moved, be it maids, or slaves of both sexes.
I don’t think sex and gender is a particular obsession of Holland – he was asked some questions around the issue by Freddie Sayers, which I understand given the current ‘debate’ if you can call it. I can’t see any confusion on Tom Holland’s part, but I am a bit confused about your views!
There is no doubt that Roman views on these issues differed markedly from modern western ones, “woke” or anti-woke.
Holland is trying too hard to superimpose his understanding of current issues around sex and gender ( and I say ” his understanding” of them which is itself open to critique) onto ancient Rome.
Sex has always been binary, though the concept of ‘gender’ has been more fluid for the reason it is socially constructed according to time and to culture. I think he is also confusing today’s concept of ‘sexual orientation’ with the actaul nature of biological sex.
I get the general gist of his aim, and certainly think examining what has happened before, at certain junctures of what could be seen as decadence and decline, could be a useful way in to understanding contemporary issues.
Surely MARE* NOSTRUM not Mare Nostra?
Perhaps Mr Holland was thinking of the Mafia?
(*Neuter.)
Thanks. That saves me the effort of having to say it 😉
Yes!
Quite an extraordinary blunder, don’t they proof read these things anymore ? Or is Mr Holland* telling us that he is NOT a classicist?
It reminds me of “Romans go home” in Monty Python’s
“Life of Brian “.
(*Despite teaching himself Ancient Greek.)
I have te-listened to that bit and he clearly says “mare Nostrum”.
Probably the “voice to text” software they used is not up to scratch with Latin, and neither is the editor 😀
I have te-listened to that bit and he clearly says “mare Nostrum”.
Probably the “voice to text” software they used is not up to scratch with Latin, and neither is the editor 😀
Yes!
Quite an extraordinary blunder, don’t they proof read these things anymore ? Or is Mr Holland* telling us that he is NOT a classicist?
It reminds me of “Romans go home” in Monty Python’s
“Life of Brian “.
(*Despite teaching himself Ancient Greek.)
Thanks. That saves me the effort of having to say it 😉
Surely MARE* NOSTRUM not Mare Nostra?
Perhaps Mr Holland was thinking of the Mafia?
(*Neuter.)
Interesting tidbits but a lot of cheap present-day parallels like World Cup of Gang Rape or Glastonbury equated with Hadrian’s wall. Coupled with (get it?) the lewd, even quasi-pornographic emphasis, I’d say there’s a certain luridness or sensationalism in Tom Holland’s narrative approach.
*Or maybe I’m being a puritanical ‘Merican on this one.
Back then, people went to the market, bought goods, came home and made meals – same as today. The parts of the narrative that you are offended by are “lurid or sensational[…]” because they are drastically different to what we are accustomed to. Which is also what makes them interesting. Which is also what confers historical relevance. “Nothing has changed in two thousand years..” is not a very interesting read. Comparisons between historical realities (take this as you will) and today’s are what make these differences relatable (on some crude level) and compelling to the modern reader.
I understand those commonalities across time, which is part of why I’m skeptical of the widespread sexual “omnivorousness” that Holland describes, such as the purported rarity of sleeping only with one sex or the other (for a man of status) during this period of Roman antiquity. I’m not discounting the details he cites, but questioning the general conclusions he seems keen to draw.
I’m interested in notable differences and present-day parallels too, but not when they’re too cooked up or dumbed down, which is how some of this seems to me. I could be mistaken. There’s a good middle path between the elite or “censored” historical style typical of past generations of historiography, and the simplified-for-popularity or “nudge nudge” approach more often found today. There’s stuff in the middle lane already, I’d say, and I probably shouldn’t have gone after Holland in particular.
I like history to have a strong storytelling (not fabulist) art but if that gets overdone we get the entertaining but very opinionated style of Gibbon or gossipy approach of Suetonius. Which historians of the early Common Era (AD) are both readable and trustworthy enough, since Tacitus and Plutarch (more biography but not only) that is?
I understand those commonalities across time, which is part of why I’m skeptical of the widespread sexual “omnivorousness” that Holland describes, such as the purported rarity of sleeping only with one sex or the other (for a man of status) during this period of Roman antiquity. I’m not discounting the details he cites, but questioning the general conclusions he seems keen to draw.
I’m interested in notable differences and present-day parallels too, but not when they’re too cooked up or dumbed down, which is how some of this seems to me. I could be mistaken. There’s a good middle path between the elite or “censored” historical style typical of past generations of historiography, and the simplified-for-popularity or “nudge nudge” approach more often found today. There’s stuff in the middle lane already, I’d say, and I probably shouldn’t have gone after Holland in particular.
I like history to have a strong storytelling (not fabulist) art but if that gets overdone we get the entertaining but very opinionated style of Gibbon or gossipy approach of Suetonius. Which historians of the early Common Era (AD) are both readable and trustworthy enough, since Tacitus and Plutarch (more biography but not only) that is?
No you are not being puritanical but quite accurate.
Sadly what passes for scholarship these days is a far cry from what one used to expect.
Well said. He is a very vulgar vulgariser indeed.
Back then, people went to the market, bought goods, came home and made meals – same as today. The parts of the narrative that you are offended by are “lurid or sensational[…]” because they are drastically different to what we are accustomed to. Which is also what makes them interesting. Which is also what confers historical relevance. “Nothing has changed in two thousand years..” is not a very interesting read. Comparisons between historical realities (take this as you will) and today’s are what make these differences relatable (on some crude level) and compelling to the modern reader.
No you are not being puritanical but quite accurate.
Sadly what passes for scholarship these days is a far cry from what one used to expect.
Well said. He is a very vulgar vulgariser indeed.
Interesting tidbits but a lot of cheap present-day parallels like World Cup of Gang Rape or Glastonbury equated with Hadrian’s wall. Coupled with (get it?) the lewd, even quasi-pornographic emphasis, I’d say there’s a certain luridness or sensationalism in Tom Holland’s narrative approach.
*Or maybe I’m being a puritanical ‘Merican on this one.
I’m only half way through so may have missed it, but the most intriguing question seems to be missed. Given its attitude to sex why did Rome ban the making of eunuchs?
Two ancient sources, Suetonius and Cassius Dio both claim that the Emperor Domitian (81-96 AD) brought in the prohibition.
Dio goes on to say its purpose was to insult the memory of Domitian’s (deceased) elder brother Titus.
It was now a capital offence to castrate a slave!
Thank you.
Thank you.
Two ancient sources, Suetonius and Cassius Dio both claim that the Emperor Domitian (81-96 AD) brought in the prohibition.
Dio goes on to say its purpose was to insult the memory of Domitian’s (deceased) elder brother Titus.
It was now a capital offence to castrate a slave!
I’m only half way through so may have missed it, but the most intriguing question seems to be missed. Given its attitude to sex why did Rome ban the making of eunuchs?
Tom’s bio needs updating with his latest publication Pax (not Dominion)
Does anybody know which film the image at the top of the page came from?
“Gladiator”
Thank you!
Thank you!
“Gladiator”
Does anybody know which film the image at the top of the page came from?
The ending on the “Gini coefficient” has been cut out for some reason. I was hoping to get more insight on that.
Interesting enough but far more focused on the dominate sexual proclivities of the Roman elite than anticipated and not made clear to me how that impacted the fall, rise or effective governance of Empire? Maybe Holland did this to flog the book to a broader audience? Freddie is certainly pliable enough to acquiesce.
Of course, we all long for some big picture historical analogy applicable to the future path of Empires among us right now. The US, China Russia? Holland didn’t provide that analysis by any measure nor should it be expected from any source. The reference to the reformation and wars of religion was not explored adequately and had no obvious resonance in my opinion.
Interesting enough but far more focused on the dominate sexual proclivities of the Roman elite than anticipated and not made clear to me how that impacted the fall, rise or effective governance of Empire? Maybe Holland did this to flog the book to a broader audience? Freddie is certainly pliable enough to acquiesce.
Of course, we all long for some big picture historical analogy applicable to the future path of Empires among us right now. The US, China Russia? Holland didn’t provide that analysis by any measure nor should it be expected from any source. The reference to the reformation and wars of religion was not explored adequately and had no obvious resonance in my opinion.
Vox popping English people down the years suggests that English people are more inclined than other British to consider themselves – in however vague a manner – as descendants of Romans.
Vox popping English people down the years suggests that English people are more inclined than other British to consider themselves – in however vague a manner – as descendants of Romans.
I think that actually Gibbon gets it the RIGHT way around.
Give me Quintus Lutatius Catulus any day to St Paul & Co.
I suspect you may have lifted some of your snarky hostility toward the Church from him.
Indeed, and the late Arnold Jones (Cantab) and many others, too numerous to mention.
Indeed, and the late Arnold Jones (Cantab) and many others, too numerous to mention.
O dear!
The God Squad, yet again are excited!
I suspect you may have lifted some of your snarky hostility toward the Church from him.
O dear!
The God Squad, yet again are excited!
I think that actually Gibbon gets it the RIGHT way around.
Give me Quintus Lutatius Catulus any day to St Paul & Co.