Michael Parenti

[P.Clodius]

I have the book, have had it for sometime but have yet to read it because I'm backed up, bookwise that is :-). I remember when I got it, I glanced through it as you generally do. I got the impression that it has a VERY modern socialist slant to it. If so, that would be most unwelcome as there were absolutely no socialists/socialism in ancient Rome. I will reserve judgement.

[Ursus]

Why should academic views be regarded as the be all and end all of debate or rectitude?

 

 

They shouldn't necessarily be so, I agree. I posted something like this on the "Cleopatra" thread. Sometimes "scholarship" is nothing more than the agenda of the scholar. But whereas you enjoy radical reinterpretations, I'm a little more skeptical of them in this overly politically correct age.

[M. Porcius Cato]

While academic credentials are neither a necessary nor sufficient condition of good historical research, the credentials correlate so highly with quality scholarship that they shouldn't be treated as irrelevant.

[phil25]

As I recall, Syme was fairly young when he wrote "The Roman Revolution" - a very radical work based in part on then current events (Mussolini's march on Rome). Radical, and in an odd style, yet it's greatness was evident to all.

 

Of course, one places greater faith on someone with credentials - but in my experience, they don't have a monopoly on insight or knowledge.

 

Phil

[P.Clodius]

Of course, one places greater faith on someone with credentials - but in my experience, they don't have a monopoly on insight or knowledge.

Agreed. The advent of the internet has really opened the world up as we all know. Not sure if Meier is still around but lastyears loss of Grant has hurt, he was great. Don't see the next gen of greats yet. Goldsworth is great but tends to only write on millitary aspects.

[phil25]

There are some good "popularisers" who write readable books accessible to the general reader - Tom Holland is an example.

 

I rather expect some books to follow up on interest in the "Rome" series (HBO/BBC).

 

I think one question is whether academic writers will be widely published. In the UK I see a lot of excellent detailed stuff, but if for the academic market it is expensive (around double the price of a standard "popular" hardback).

 

I also wonder whether the "classical" world, once so dominant, is now having to vie with other subjects - Egyptology, mezo-America; China; to name but a few.

 

Schools in the Uk used to teach Greek and Roman history as a background to teaching Latin (and sometimes Greek) as languages - Latin was a mandatory requirement to study history of any kind in my day. (I failed it and read international politics instead!!) But that is no longer the case.

 

Culture too has moved away from the classical in terms of painting and archietecture.

 

So I wonder whether the demand that was there when Grant was in his heyday, is still there? Others will know (as I do not) the state of the market in the US.

 

Phil

[M. Porcius Cato]

I don't know the statistics for classical histories in particular, but my hunch is that the internet has increased book sales of both used and new books on classical civilization. I know my personal spending on Roman history skyrocketed after Amazon came along.

[Pertinax]

I used to regularly visit Senate House ,the Library of the University of London when I was an Undergrad, until amazon came along I have never been able to get hold of such an amazingly diverse range of books ( on general or seriously arcane subjects), the range of scholarly work available is excellent . Incredibly a lot of Grants books are readily available in very cheap reprints in "remaindered" bookshops in the uk.

[Ursus]

To paraphrase what Nietzsche said about music, life without Amazon.com would be a mistake.

[Virgil61]

To paraphrase what Nietzsche said about music, life without Amazon.com would be a mistake.

 

I'm sure I've made at least one house payment for Jeff Bezos...well, considering his wealth, perhaps at least a partial house payment.

[Virgil61]

I have the book, have had it for sometime but have yet to read it because I'm backed up, bookwise that is :-). I remember when I got it, I glanced through it as you generally do. I got the impression that it has a VERY modern socialist slant to it. If so, that would be most unwelcome as there were absolutely no socialists/socialism in ancient Rome. I will reserve judgement.

 

It's not a question of whether there were socialists or marxists in ancient Rome, it's a question of analysis and interpretation of the political, social and economic structure. We see things through our own biases which generally fall under a liberal framework (in the old meaning of the word) with neo-classical economic thinking. Nothing wrong with that at all, but there are other methods to analyze something. Sometimes they're wrong of course, but there's nothing bad about challenging accepted mores. It's a limited analogy, but think of it as holding an object at a different angle and viewing it from there.

 

I'm no marxist (unless we're talking Groucho), but marxist historical analysis isn't something to be disgarded outright. E.P. Thompson wrote a work called the 'The Making of the English Working Class'. It's a seminal work and while it can and is criticised, it's also very insightful. Eric Hobsbawm is another great historian who's written in the marxist vein, his "Age of..." trilogy is something anyone interested in 19th century Europe should read, whether they agree with him or not. I see no reason why the same analysis can't be tried on Rome, certainly in regards to cultural and social history, and certainly no reason not to read it as long as the approach is serious.