How To Judge Them

[Sextus Roscius]

A much disputed thing is how we judge the past. Many people judge the past as though it happened in modern times. Tell them that Romans had slaves and had gladiatorial shows for pure entertainment and they will be stuned. With crys of how cruel, shameless, and indeed heartless, the Romans were. Cursing them for a lack of resemblance to their hyper-humanitarian (at least where I live) western beliefs that think "hate" is the strongest word you can use.

 

On the off-hand, historians and professors, as well as the educated ( on the subject) will be perfectly acceptant when you bring up the subject and will say that for the time, some things the Romans did were realitively softer punishments compared to other civilizations. They compare that civilization to the world around it, not around us.

 

But which view is the correct one, should we be shocked at the habits of people 2000 years ago, look at them as though they knew our world and aimed to appease us, or should we view it from their standards, and the standards of the world around them, to see if that view makes sense, or makes casts what they did in a different light. Which is right? At least in your opinion.

 

Personaly, I support the second point of view, that we should judge by their worlds standards.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Why not judge them by both?

 

If we were to judge Romans by modern standards, we'd find many reasons to criticize Romans but also many reasons to admire them more than their neighbors. Many of our modern criticisms, in fact, would have been shared by a fair number of Romans. The games, for example, didn't thrill everyone: one of the emperors hated the games so much he brought his paperwork along so he could at least get some work done!

 

If we were to judge Romans only by their standards, we'd also find many reasons to criticize them but also many reasons to admire them. Our adopted Roman attitudes, for example, would lead us to claim that they had gone soft from being too Hellenized, and we'd upbraid them for letting too many inferior people into the system. On the other hand, we'd also rightly praise the early Romans for their virtus and perhaps emulate their tough-mindedness a bit more than we currently do. (When I hear pampered college students whining about what victims they are, I sort of wish there were a Marcus Junius Brutus around to show them the meaning of severitas.)

 

Personally, I don't think it's really possible or desirable to judge Romans simply by the standards of the Romans. First, the Roman state lasted nearly 1000 years, and their standards changed enormously during that time. So, if we follow the advice to judge Romans by their own standards, which Roman standards should we use? Those of Cato the Elder? Lucretius? Seneca? Augustinus? Second, why limit our analyses by pretending not to know what we do know? Thanks to the enormous progress made in economics, biology, statistics, and physical anthropology, we know a lot about what does and doesn't work. Why not use that knowledge to gain insight about what the Romans were doing right and doing wrong?

[Germanicus]

All people can't help but look at and judge things through the prism of their own experience and knowledge. It seems to me that "judge" is the wrong word here, to me it kind of implies a consequence for the judged. How should we "view" the Romans ? I suppose our views, or at least mine anyway, are based primarily on my own knowledge and experience, which includes as a matter of course things that it is assumed, or conjectured that the Romans themselves thought, or reacted to, or were shaped by, but as I'm the one expressing it, I can't possibly even hope to do so without betraying my own slant, which is the way it is because of my own life, learning, experience, society and time.

[Primus Pilus]

Personally I find no reason to 'judge' the past... at least not from a moral perspective. It is what it is, or was what it was as the case may be.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Personally I find no reason to 'judge' the past... at least not from a moral perspective. It is what it is, or was what it was as the case may be.

 

Really? So, what is your reason for preferring Camillus to Caligula? Surely there must be some moral factor in your thinking.

[Lucius Calpurnius Capitolinus]

On the off-hand, historians and professors, as well as the educated ( on the subject) will be perfectly acceptant when you bring up the subject and will say that for the time, some things the Romans did were realitively softer punishments compared to other civilizations. They compare that civilization to the world around it, not around us.

 

BEN:

Oh, you'll probably get away with crucifixion.

BRIAN:

Crucifixion?!

BEN:

Yeah, first offence.

BRIAN:

Get away with crucifixion?! It's--

BEN:

Best thing the Romans ever did for us.

BRIAN:

What?!

BEN:

Oh, yeah. If we didn't have crucifixion, this country would be in a right bloody mess.

[Primus Pilus]

Personally I find no reason to 'judge' the past... at least not from a moral perspective. It is what it is, or was what it was as the case may be.

 

Really? So, what is your reason for preferring Camillus to Caligula? Surely there must be some moral factor in your thinking.

 

I knew this would be difficult to explain adequately. I enjoy the story of Camillus because I think he may be an excellent example of what it meant to be a Roman in that era of the early Republic. Do I find him more appealing from a moral perspective than Caligula? Of course, its difficult not to find some of Caligula's history a bit disturbing to modern sensibilities, but I still don't really make a judgement on Caligula as 'bad' because of my own morals. He may have been a bit of a quack (or more), but his failures in my mind were ineffective leadership (ie draining the treasury) and not because of any other 'odd' behaviors.

 

I'm not sure if that explains my thoughts or not, and perhaps my statement was hasty. I suppose it would have been more proper to say that I'd rather judge from the contemporary ancient persepective than the modern, though the inherent problem with that is even knowing what that contemporary perspective was. That perspective also depended upon class and social status, so one can make a judgement on an ancient figure and find that regardless of the judgement, you would still be in agreement with some contemporaries. Does this then get tainted by what we prefer as individuals based on our own modern morals? I suppose, but as an example I prefer Caesar to the Republicans because I think he was one of the most influential figures in human history (as both general and political leader) and not because I think he was 'more right' than his opponents. Would butchering one million Gauls/French be detestable today? Yes absolutely but it doesn't bother me in the slightest that it happened 2,000 years ago. (or perhaps I simply have no morals )

 

By the by... I actually prefer the story of Caligula to that of Camillus, because it is quite a bit more entertaining

[Germanicus]

By the by... I actually prefer the story of Caligula to that of Camillus, because it is quite a bit more entertaining

 

It's interesting. I don't really judge them either, which is why I thought "Judge" might be the wrong word to use.

 

For example, if someone said to me "Imagine the depravity - all that blood and gore in the games, and people cheering it on...how disgusting of them". I could not agree with them, as I find it simply fascinating, not disgusting.

[M. Porcius Cato]

For example, if someone said to me "Imagine the depravity - all that blood and gore in the games, and people cheering it on...how disgusting of them". I could not agree with them, as I find it simply fascinating, not disgusting.

 

And what about the Romans' virtues? If someone said, "Wow! The Romans delivered more water to Rome than did the New Yorkers to New York until the 19th century! How brilliant and innovative of them!". Would you also disagree, and simply shrug that it was fascinating but not commendable?

 

I suppose it would have been more proper to say that I'd rather judge from the contemporary ancient persepective than the modern, though the inherent problem with that is even knowing what that contemporary perspective was. That perspective also depended upon class and social status, so one can make a judgement on an ancient figure and find that regardless of the judgement, you would still be in agreement with some contemporaries.

 

And, perforce of logic, in disagreement with others.

 

I really do maintain that it's impossible to judge Romans by contemporary ancient perspectives because there as no one ancient perspective any more than there is no modern perspective. Just as there were Catones and Clodii then; there are Catones and Clodii today!

[Sextus Roscius]

In hindsight, view would be a much better word and be far more accurate. Though over all it I was trying to make a reference to how do we view their culture as moral, immoral, ethical, unethical, and right or wrong. So in a sense, with all the things they did added up, was it right or wrong. Thats the reasoning behind saying "judge" though view would work to.

 

 

 

I personaly marvel at what they did, and beleive it is comendable. Through all the things that they did, it made the world better. Which is certainly comendable. Even if certain parts of their culture was unseemly by our standards, that doesn't mean its wrong.

[Germanicus]

And what about the Romans' virtues? If someone said, "Wow! The Romans delivered more water to Rome than did the New Yorkers to New York until the 19th century! How brilliant and innovative of them!". Would you also disagree, and simply shrug that it was fascinating but not commendable?

 

I would definately think it was brilliant and innovative, but that doesn't take a moral judgement, but a technological one. I guess at the core of what you are saying lies morality:- The games by todays generally accepted standard are "bad", providing water to ones citizens to enable them to live healthy lives is "good". I have difficulty applying my modern morality to an ancient culture like the Roman one, but then I have no such difficulty with a less historic phenomenon, like Nazi Germany. Contradictory I know. This could turn into quite a discussion .

[Sextus Roscius]

You shouldn't have a problem applying your morals to Nazi germany, though I don't. I judge them in the same way I judge the Romans (which is indeed highly controversial) and I have no problems doing so. Thats due to me learning about them from too young an age.

 

Though to get off that subject. I think overall when it comes down to it, how we judge or view ancient cultures from a moral standpoint really is whether they come from a familiar world of standards as we do and what time period the people or person in question existed in. Also, the world around that peoples at the time in question would give us a level of how good were they compared to the rest of the world.

[M. Porcius Cato]

You shouldn't have a problem applying your morals to Nazi germany, though I don't. I judge them in the same way I judge the Romans (which is indeed highly controversial) and I have no problems doing so.

 

As Germanicus I think rightly implies, Nazi-apologetics is the inescapable conclusion from the premise of moral relativism.

 

And I would add, it is simply a conceit to assume that one can adopt an historical moral standpoint. Living amongst the Nazis, there were dissidents. Amongst the Imperialists, there were republicans. During the early republic, there were resisters to the oligarchy (hence, the "secession of the plebs"). In every era, there have been moral DEBATES. There is no such thing as a "1929 Berlin Attitude" or a "First Century BC Roman Attitude." There is no singular, historical moral standpoint by which we can judge Nazies, Romans, or whomever. All we have by which to judge historical agents are our own standards, which are themselves debatable.

 

And what's wrong with that? If your friends say that Romans were bad because they owned slaves, there's no point in trying to defend slavery "from the Roman perspective". I'd happily admit that the Romans were guilty of violating the individual rights of (say) the Gauls. But I'd also add that the Romans weren't alone in this, and that--unlike the Gauls--the Romans did more to define and protect individual rights than nearly any other culture for the next 1500 years or so. To put it another way, the best case for "Why I love Rome" is that the Romans were way ahead of their time, we owe a lot to them, and we should admire them for how progressive they were whatever their faults. To me, this is a much stronger case than "Judge not lest ye be judged" or the secular version "I'm OK, you're OK".

 

BTW, many Romans were clearly ambivalent about slavery. My favorite example of this ambivalence comes from Cato's suicide. The reason his suicide was so gristly was that he botched the job because his hand was injured. His hand was injured because he struck a slave so hard. The slave was hit because the slave had attempted to save Cato by stealing his sword. And Cato, in his will, freed all his slaves. It all so perfectly captures that peculiar institution in which there could be (and sometimes was) contempt, affection, mutual dependence, and a desire for the slave's autonomy all at the same time.

[Kosmo]

I don't belive in a moral law perfect and unchangeble. I say that one did something wrong refering to the accepted morals of his age. Sacking Corinth was accepted in that era by law and morality. Killing jews in the 40's was illegal and imoral for the 40's.

I can say that Nero was a criminal for killing his mother, but Trajan was a decent men despite slaughtering thousends of dacian POW's in the arena.

The romans had two legal principles that are still used today: "nulla poena, nullum crimen sine lege" no punishment, no crime without a law and "the new law makes effect only for the future".

Before judging you must have the standard and the standard must be there before the crime was comitted.

[Germanicus]

I don't belive in a moral law perfect and unchangeble

 

I think only a fundamentalist religeous nut would.

 

Killing jews in the 40's was illegal and imoral for the 40's.

 

But it wasn't illegal in Germany, and their occupied territories was it ?, and the Nazi party would have had you believe it was a moral imperative?

 

I can say that Nero was a criminal for killing his mother, but Trajan was a decent men despite slaughtering thousends of dacian POW's in the arena.

 

You seem to be indicating that your view revolves around what was legal at that point in time ? That is, legal = right, illegal = wrong, morally speaking, is that correct ?