Imshin has some thoughts on last year's post about Why I Might Not Have Been A Maccabee. She points out, quite accurately, that my use of "Palestine" to describe pre-Roman Judea is anachronistic (I've changed the article accordingly), and she also takes issue with some of my conclusions:
The idea of the Maccabees as the ultra-religious fanatics of old is not a new one for me. I've never really known what to do with it, but today it suddenly crossed my mind that it's the same as the Kipling thing. Here we are judging people, who lived thousands of years ago, by today's values. Jonathan says that if he had lived back then he probably would have been opposed to the Maccabees. But how can he know this? Things were quite different. He points out that what was happening was an attempt of cultural genocide. And this is exactly the point. In those days, you were who you worshipped. Secularism didn't exist. Nationalism didn't exist. Cultural genocide, as Jonathan calls it, was standard procedure for dealing with conquered peoples.
Worship was usually localized in this region, with a neighborhood deity being accepted by everyone in the vicinity. Remember the people of the Kingdom of Israel who were exiled and the Samaritans who came in their place? On their arrival, the Samaritans (good or otherwise) commenced worshiping the local god, didn't they? [...]
Anyway, fast forward to Greek times: Spreading their culture among the natives was their way of gaining and keeping control. Seeing as their culture was so vastly superior to what was prevalent in most of the places they reached, this wasn't a problem. Not so with those pesky Judeans (or were they Jews by then?) who must have found the Greek human-like gods, with their little stories and family squabbles a bit hard to swallow. In short, although the Hellenistic lifestyle was very tempting, the Jews must have seen themselves as greatly spiritually superior. I can imagine that those of less intellectual and more materialistic inclinations would have been those more likely to be swept away by Hellenistic influences. I doubt Jonathan (his Head Heebness), as we know him, would have been among them (Now there's a thought - the Maccabees as lefty intellectuals, teehee).
The thing is that the principle of gods being anchored to land was already breaking down by the Hellenistic era. In fact, it began to break down long before that. The Assyrian conquest of ancient Israel resulted in the ten northern tribes being lost forever, but the Babylonian destruction of the First Temple only 136 years later didn't have a similar effect on the tribes of Judah. When they returned from seventy years of Babylonian exile, they were still Jews even though some of them were part of the third Babylonian-born generation. A century further on, and the Jewish community of Elephantine enters the historical record - a community that remained unmistakably Jewish despite falling into some syncretic practices. The concept of portable religion - of Judaism as an idea rather than a tribal cult - was centuries old by Hellenistic times, and so was the concept of a Jewish diaspora.
And this was one of the reasons why the Maccabean war was so bitter - because Hellenism was also an idea. More than that, it was a secular idea, with a philosophy independent of any local gods. Had Judaism still been a mere tribal religion, it would have posed no threat to the prevailing ideas in the rest of the Mediterranean world; had Hellenism been nothing more than worship of the Greek gods, it would have posed little danger to Judaism.
By Maccabean times, however, the two ideas were in collision; Hellenistic philosophy had spread throughout the eastern Mediterranean, and there were Jews in Alexandria and even Rome. If Judaism could take hold in Alexandria, then why not in Antioch? The aim of the Seleucid persecution was to destroy an idea that had the potential to spread throughout the Mediterranean world and replace it with another. It was cultural genocide on a scale never before attempted - an attempt to stamp out the worship of a god in its homeland. The conflict between the Maccabees and the Seleucids might in fact be regarded as the first major war of ideology.
But where ideas can collide, they can also combine. At roughly the same time that the Maccabees fought Antiochus, the Alexandrine Jewish tragedian Ezekiel wrote the Exagoge, a Greek dramatization of the Exodus. The Hellenistic Jews of Alexandria would eventually produce the philosopher Philo Judaeus, who combined classical and Jewish thought to a degree that would not be duplicated until Maimonides, or possibly even Spinoza. Hellenistic philosophy and science had considerable intellectual appeal to Jews of that era; just as it is wrong to dismiss the Maccabees as fanatics, it is inaccurate to dismiss Hellenism as materialism or as a mere lifestyle.
Before the Seleucids forced the issue, this type of Hellenistic-Jewish fusion was also beginning to take root in Judea. The high priests and aristocrats of the 170s built gymnasia in Jerusalem, encouraged philosophy and theater, and sought status for Jerusalem as a Greek polis, all of which integrated Judea into the wider Hellenistic world but none of which were necessarily incompatible with Jewish worship and moral teachings. The appeal of this type of Hellenistic fusion can be measured by the fact that, within sixty years after the Maccabean revolt, the Hasmonean kings again had Greek names (as celebrated famously by the early 20th-century Alexandrine Greek poet Constantine Kavafis, who claimed Alexander Yannai and Salome Alexandra as part of the Greek heritage). This is the kind of Hellenism that would likely have attracted me had I lived in Judea at the time.
For Antiochus IV, however, this wasn't enough; he decided to stamp out the Jewish idea entirely, and presented the Jews with an all-or-nothing choice. Given that stark option, many who would otherwise have been content to partake of Hellenistic ideas became zealots. I would probably have done so as well; faced with a choice between everything and nothing, many people will reluctantly choose the former. I still think I would have opposed the Maccabees (or what would become the Maccabees) during the 170s, but by the 160s they had become the only option for anyone who wanted to remain Jewish.
When the option of moderation is eliminated, fanaticism may - even if only temporarily - be the only means of cultural survival. Those who eliminate the middle option, therefore, do so at their peril - a lesson that can be applied to situations as diverse as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the current debate over hijab in French public schools. I am glad the Maccabees were there when they were needed, but if I could change the past, I would prefer to make them unnecessary.
UPDATE: Yehudit, Richard Silverstein and Naomi Chana are similarly conflicted, and Rick Richman reminds us that there are many things to celebrate no matter what our historical point of view.
Cultural genocide, as Jonathan calls it, was standard procedure for dealing with conquered peoples.
Actually, I would think that it would be the exception; generally empire-builders would adapt and incorporate the culture and religion of the conquered, rather than the reverse. The Medes and the Persians can perhaps provide an example. Obviously a policy of passive assimilation would mean the absorption and loss of some marginalised cultures and religions but I don't think this would follow a set pattern. Cultural genocide seems to me quite rare as an occurrence; the few examples I can think of in the pre-modern period are Trajan's policy in Dacia and the usual calamitous meeting of civilisations at different stages of development in the Americas. Perhaps the Zulu expansion can indicate another such case. In a situation where the dominant elites were numerically small, especially in larger kingdoms and empires, such a policy was neither feasible nor desirable in many cases.
When they returned from seventy years of Babylonian exile, they were still Jews even though some of them were part of the third Babylonian-born generation.
A question I have is what influence the extended stay in Babylon had on religious practise and philosophy? I assume that contact with the temple-cults and sects in the Mesopotamian cities would have had some impact on religious development here. I also assume that the Jewish community that remained in Babylon played a role here, if I am not mistaken, the version of the Talmud composed here is generally taken to be a more complete and superior legal authority to the one composed in Palestine.
And this was one of the reasons why the Maccabean war was so bitter - because Hellenism was also an idea. More than that, it was a secular idea, with a philosophy independent of any local gods. Had Judaism still been a mere tribal religion, it would have posed no threat to the prevailing ideas in the rest of the Mediterranean world; had Hellenism been nothing more than worship of the Greek gods, it would have posed little danger to Judaism.
This is very interesting, it remind me a little of how the Catholic church and Catholicism was taken by the Poles to be bulwark against the pressures on dividing and absorbing the state by its more hostile neighbours in the 18th century. On the other hand, the competition between Ptlomaeic Egypt and the Seleucids for control of the region, would have had some relevance here, I suppose, as Hellenisation might have been seen as a way of shoring up political control in an important crossroads, as much as anything else. Otherwise the attitude towards Jewish communities outside Judea at the time would have been uniformly more hostile, if I am not mistaken, Egypt under the Ptloemies was also quite Hellenised as well.
Given that stark option, many who would otherwise have been content to partake of Hellenistic ideas became zealots. I would probably have done so as well; faced with a choice between everything and nothing, many people will reluctantly choose the former. I still think I would have opposed the Maccabees during the 170s, but by the 160s they had become the only option for anyone who wanted to remain Jewish.
Yes, a very pertinent point; the genius of Roman imperial policy (with some exceptions) one could say; was to institute a form of 'heanotheism' whereby formalised genuflection towards the secualarised pantheon of Emperor worship could in practise allow a large diversity of more genuine religious practise in reality. Imperial hegemony was maintained while allowing substantial freedom at the lower levels. Any power that seeks to reproduce itself across ethnic and religious lines, needs to create or permit the space for such freedoms to exist, if it wants to survive.
I would think that it would be the exception; generally empire-builders would adapt and incorporate the culture and religion of the conquered, rather than the reverse. The Medes and the Persians can perhaps provide an example.
One common practice was to find parallels between the gods of the conquering and conquered peoples; for instance, both the Ptolemies and the Romans made correspondences between the Egyptian gods and their own pantheons. Attempts at cultural genocide seem to have been reserved for particularly troublesome subject peoples, and the usual method of doing this was to move them to another part of the empire where they would melt into the local population. This is in fact what both the Assyrians and Babylonians did with the rebellious Jews, and Hadrian may have had the same idea when he barred the Jews from setting foot in Jerusalem. This model no longer worked with respect to monotheistic peoples by Hellenistic times, though - it was no longer possible to put an end to them by cutting them off from their land - hence the attempts of Antiochus and later Hadrian to stamp out Jewish religious practice as well.
A question I have is what influence the extended stay in Babylon had on religious practise and philosophy?
Well, if you read between the lines of the Book of Ezra, it seems that there was a good deal of syncretism. On the other hand, if the Babylonian exile had occurred two centuries earlier, there probably wouldn't have been a recognizably Jewish people after seventy years, much less one that was cohesive enough to petition Cyrus to reclaim its land.
I also assume that the Jewish community that remained in Babylon played a role here
As I understand it - and I could be wrong - most of the authors of the Babylonian Talmud were Roman-era exiles rather than descendants of the original Babylonian Captivity.
On the other hand, the competition between Ptlomaeic Egypt and the Seleucids for control of the region, would have had some relevance here
One of the more moderate Hellenizing high priests was deposed in part because he was felt to be loyal to the Ptolemies, so the Seleucid-Ptolemy conflict did play a part in the prelude to the Maccabean war.
It was cultural genocide on a scale never before attempted - an attempt to stamp out the worship of a god in its homeland. The conflict between the Maccabees and the Seleucids might in fact be regarded as the first major war of ideology.
Are there Greek/Seleucid sources that have the same take on the events of the time?
But where ideas can collide, they can also combine. [...] Hellenistic philosophy and science had considerable intellectual appeal to Jews of that era
Let's not forget one Joshua of Nazareth and one Saul of Tarsus.
I still think I would have opposed the Maccabees (or what would become the Maccabees) during the 170s, but by the 160s they had become the only option for anyone who wanted to remain Jewish.
In addition to (unwillingly) supporting the Maccabees, I would come up with the Laws of Gravity, the Parliamentary system, the Theory of Evolution, and the World Wide Web ;-)
Chanuka
My take on Chanuka goes something like this:
1. I approve of my existance, and of having been born a Jew.
2. The Maccabbees are part of the history of the Jews, and made me who I am.
3. I approve of the Maccabees.
I don't think one should dwell that much on this theory, since it can be taken to quite illogical extremes very easily.
Besides, Chanuka has fun rituals, and, at least in Hebrew, has the best songs of any Jewish holiday.
Happy Chanuka!
Posted by: Danny at December 23, 2003 04:13 AMAre there Greek/Seleucid sources that have the same take on the events of the time?
As far as the Seleucids were concerned, the Maccabean war was just another provincial revolt, with the real enemies in Parthia, Egypt and Rome. It's not uncommon to miss the significance of this sort of thing at the time, though.
Hellenistic philosophy and science had considerable intellectual appeal to Jews of that era
Let's not forget one Joshua of Nazareth and one Saul of Tarsus.
Well, that was the other way around - Judaism threatening Hellenism (sort of).
My take on Chanuka goes something like this:
1. I approve of my existance, and of having been born a Jew.
2. The Maccabbees are part of the history of the Jews, and made me who I am.
3. I approve of the Maccabees.
I came to more or less the same conclusion last year, so don't take my historical ruminations too seriously. The Maccabees were necessary in their time and place. There's no harm in trying to understand that place and time, though, because our understanding of it inevitably affects how we view the holiday. There are some Orthodox Jews in the United States who celebrate Chanukah precisely as a victory over the evils of modernism. Others view it as a nationalist-triumphalist holiday, and still others point to the later Hasmoneans as a caution against nationalism. And me - well, I'm a liberal modernist, which makes Chanukah a bittersweet occasion because of the conditions that made the Maccabean revolt necessary.
Maybe it's better to just spin a dreidel and enjoy the holiday - but then again, discussions like this are one way I have a good time.
The Maccabees were necessary in their time and place. There's no harm in trying to understand that place and time
Ancient history is not something I've studied to any great length, but from what I understand most images we have about it are somewhat wrong, or at least promote some sort of agenda[1] (more so than other periods of history). There's an assumption in this discussion and elsewhere which equates Western civilization with Hellenism, whereas I tend to think of Western civilization has its real inception in the Middle Ages, while Hellenism is more like its myth of origin.
Maybe it's better to just spin a dreidel and enjoy the holiday - but then again, discussions like this are one way I have a good time.
Yeah, you're right. Maybe my post was a bit more sardonic than I meant it to be.
[1] That includes the one about Evil White Greeks copying all their culture from Good 'Black' Egyptians.
Posted by: Danny at December 23, 2003 05:25 PMAw Come on Danny - be fair! Bernal never called the Hellenes "evil" or the Egyptians "good".
"Black Athena" may be a provocative title, but his arguments are moderate and well-argued, however much one may quibble at some of them.
From this part of the world all of you Mediterranean civilizations appear to be a unity which has cross-pollinated so much that claiming primacy for one over the other in philosophy, originality of thought or whatever seems silly.
Anyroad, a [carefully-non-denominational]Seasons Greetings to all
Posted by: Tim at December 23, 2003 07:30 PMWell, if you read between the lines of the Book of Ezra, it seems that there was a good deal of syncretism.
Well, these days I try to avoid reading religious texts anymore than I have to, not necessarily the best of sources for historical accuracy.
On the other hand, if the Babylonian exile had occurred two centuries earlier, there probably wouldn't have been a recognizably Jewish people after seventy years, much less one that was cohesive enough to petition Cyrus to reclaim its land.
Perhaps, I seem to recall an old argument that the Babylonian pantheon had strong elements of latent monotheism; with the deity Marduk presiding over the rest of the hierarchy and that this influenced Jewish conceptions of monotheism, so I wondered whether there was any truth to this. It seems a little far-fetched to me.
As I understand it - and I could be wrong - most of the authors of the Babylonian Talmud were Roman-era exiles rather than descendants of the original Babylonian Captivity.
The outline as I understand it (which is quite patchy, so I would appreciate the necessary corrections), was that since the Babylonian exile two autonomous Jewish communities existed after the reconstruction of the Temple; one in Mesopotamia and the other in Judea both underpinned by the power of the Persian Empire (indicated as you mention, the Book of Ezra and also the Book of Nehemiah). The so-called period of the 'dual centres' which lasted till about 500 AD as termed by some scholars. These two centres were relatively centralised but Jewish communities outside them, like the one in Elephantine you described, experienced greater freedom; one reason why the texts written by Jewish authors in Hellenistic spheres of influence were not recognised and discarded by later tradition - one reason why widespread knowledge and recollection of events like the Massada and Maccabean revolt were not widely felt until the 19th century.
The impression I had was that these two major centres of Jewish culture were roughly co-terminous and the one in Mesopotamia being a continuos one from the period of initial exile. The collapse of the Persian Empire and the deal between the Nesi'im and the Roman Imperial authorities; led to the greater standardisation of religious practise as fiscal and disciplinary authority over Jewish communities in the Roman Empire was handed over to the rabbinical courts etc.
The Maccabees were necessary in their time and place. There's no harm in trying to understand that place and time, though, because our understanding of it inevitably affects how we view the holiday.
True, historical consciousness always is backward looking and tends to legitimise the present from its vantagepoint, one way or another. So I would be surprised, if from a nationalist perspective, this episode didn't somehow justify the subsequent narrative link to the present. No doubt had things gone in the opposite direction, an alternative more Hellenised descendant group would be looking back on the period with a similar self-assuring glance.
Ancient history is not something I've studied to any great length, but from what I understand most images we have about it are somewhat wrong, or at least promote some sort of agenda[1] (more so than other periods of history).
This seems very fair to me; I used to be a big believer that one of the uses of history would be to provide at least some lessons for the present and guide for the future. This belief dimmed quite rapidly, as it became obvious that the lessons that are frequently drawn invariably tend to be the wrong ones most of the time, these days I think it is probably just to leave history where it is as far as possible when looking for any lessons to be applied to the present. History, when linked to politics in an umbilical fashion, is highly prone to a Rashomon effect by its interpreters.
There's an assumption in this discussion and elsewhere which equates Western civilization with Hellenism, whereas I tend to think of Western civilization has its real inception in the Middle Ages, while Hellenism is more like its myth of origin.
Reinforced by the fact that most aspects of Hellenistic learning and culture would have been buried or lost during the supposed 'Dark Ages' and only rediscovered through later Islamic sources towards the late Medieval period.
Is there anyone here that can recommend a book(s) on the Second Temple / Hellenistic period in Jewish history? The book should be:
1. Not a monograph; should be intended for the educated non-specialist.
2. Well-written. Witty and a 'good read' if possible.
3. Up to date: say, written in the last 30 years, unless there is a really outstanding classic out there.
4. Is not trying to make a point about the present, is relatively free of ideology.
Modern secular scholars aren't so sure the Biblical portrait of Antiochus is accurate. Indeed, the major action of the revolt may have been a civil war between the Hasmoneans and more Hellenized Jews, and the historical story rewritten afterwards. (Cf. replacement of Romans by Jews in Crucifixion legend.) It also seems possible that Antiochus wasn't so much interested in setting up a cult to himself, as plundering what he could to raise money for military purposes elsewhere in his realm.
I don't have a good reference for this, having eavesdropped on a few of my wife's lectures (and she's oon holiday off net).
Posted by: Andrew J. Lazarus at December 24, 2003 04:52 AMDanny:
There's an assumption in this discussion and elsewhere which equates Western civilization with Hellenism, whereas I tend to think of Western civilization has its real inception in the Middle Ages, while Hellenism is more like its myth of origin.
Interesting proposition. Of the "foundations of the West" that I can think of offhand, the classical period gave us philosophical inquiry, many of our literary and dramatic forms (including the novel), the republic and (at least as a by-product) Christianity. From the Late Medieval period, we get the scientific method, parliamentary government, banking and the beginnings of the modern artistic and musical tradition. Law is a mixed bag; common law is a medieval innovation, but both civil and common-law systems have substantial Roman roots, and the concept of rule of law goes back even farther.
While the medieval contribution to Western civilization is often underestimated, I think the classical period is more than a myth of origin. The classical ideals faded somewhat during the Dark Ages, but they never died away entirely, even the concept of republican government (College of Cardinals = Senate). Some modern Western ideals, such as constitutional liberalism and much of Enlightenment thought, were classically inspired rather than derived, but in other respects the Hellenistic/Roman period is more of a direct ancestor.
The way I usually look at it is that the West wasn't created all at once, but the Hellenistic period is the first that is recognizably Western.
Conrad:
The impression I had was that these two major centres of Jewish culture were roughly co-terminous and the one in Mesopotamia being a continuous one from the period of initial exile.
There was a continuous Jewish presence in Babylonia from the 6th century BC, but my understanding is that it didn't become a major center of scholarship until after the Roman-Jewish wars. The Babylonian Talmud was codified in the 3rd-6th centuries, although many of its roots are much earlier.
historical consciousness always is backward looking and tends to legitimise the present from its vantagepoint
Or to criticize the present.
I used to be a big believer that one of the uses of history would be to provide at least some lessons for the present and guide for the future. This belief dimmed quite rapidly, as it became obvious that the lessons that are frequently drawn invariably tend to be the wrong ones most of the time
That doesn't mean the lessons aren't there, though. With history, even more than with the social sciences, it's hard to filter out political bias, but this is a reason to practice more rigorous analysis rather than taking an ahistorical view of current crises.
History as political polemic can, I think, be separated from history as quasi-science. There are rules for case-specific analysis that are useful in the social sciences, and many of these can be applied to history. The problem is that most of the time they aren't.
Of the "foundations of the West" that I can think of offhand, the classical period gave us philosophical inquiry, many of our literary and dramatic forms (including the novel), the republic and (at least as a by-product) Christianity.
Chronologically, this is broadly correct; but I think Hellenism or Graeco-Roman civilisation should be distinguished from just a specific time period and is more of a civilisational construct. Many of the elements referred to here, could perhaps trace their roots to outside the Hellenistic tradition as such. I am intrigued that you would argue the novel has classical roots; I would see it as a much more modern form of literature, not really suited outside a certain urbanised court society; while it has an organic link with Classical genres; it represents I would think, too much of a rupture with what has gone on before.
I think much of the transition is complicated by the existence of Christianity; while some aspects of the Graeco-Roman period was preserved, such as the use of Latin as an ecclesiastical language, idea of a united secular political authority and the cultural trappings of cultivated existence; other notions were quite alien to the earlier period - the conflict between the Church and the earthly rulers, the concept of monasticism, and most importantly the attitude shown towards other religions and drive for proselytisation (quite often by force). This changed in a permanent fashion the relationship between religion, society and politics from what existed in the Classical period to something more akin with what we can immediately recognise.
The greatest change though, I think would be the destruction and replacement of the old slave-based economy and its replacement with variants of feudalism. The idea of the 'free village, yeoman peasantry et al have important ties with the emergence of common law and more modernist conceptions of the alienability of labour power and natural liberty; as well as the differences of a status society. This shift in consciousness I think was probably one of the single most important moves towards modernity as we can understand it today at a social level and was far removed from Classical conceptions of liberty and social order.
The classical ideals faded somewhat during the Dark Ages, but they never died away entirely, even the concept of republican government (College of Cardinals = Senate).
Or indeed the persistence of the idea of appeals to Roman imperial authority; later barbarian kings well before the establishment of Carolingian power were having coins minted modelled on establishing good governance in what they thought would be a civilised Roman fashion - I remember in one of the lectures, the prof holding up a coin stamped with the name of the Ostrogothic chieftain but which had no picture of the leader but instead a representation of a drainpipe, the implication being that urban sanitary infrastructure was taken to be a key aspect of any assertions to civilised status and being able to maintain it a sign of inheriting at least part of the old imperial legitimacy (not all that far fetched considering that under conditions of the time, any neglect of sewage disposal would have turned urban centres into plague-ridden death-traps). Certainly in the Italian peninsula, the old land-owning Romanised aristocracy lasted for a long time; adjusting themselves quite nicely to whichever latest warband leader gained ascendancy. Like old soldiers, these elites faded away rather slowly.
Some of the changes occurred also much later than thought, I think the argument of more recent historians like Peter Brown would be that much of the Western Empire; still remained a Mediterranean civilisation until the Islamic expansion cut off ties here and marked the transition from the former to an Atlantic looking culture. This also resolved the governance of Christendom, eliminating the other major centres of competition to Rome, in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria with the Eastern schism removing the rest.
The way I usually look at it is that the West wasn't created all at once, but the Hellenistic period is the first that is recognizably Western.
Partially true; though, ironically, I suppose that most of the geographic areas that lay at the heart of Hellenistic civilisation; would not be later thought of as the centre of 'the West' which occupied a more peripheral position.
There was a continuous Jewish presence in Babylonia from the 6th century BC, but my understanding is that it didn't become a major center of scholarship until after the Roman-Jewish wars.
I will defer to you here, unfortunately when we were taught Ancient history; the history of Jewish communities was seen only in a very secondary role and interpreted through a lens that was very much discoloured with a deferential attitude towards the role of Greek though and Graeco-Roman civilisation. Annoyingly the study of communities and groups outside this rather idealised construct was not seriously analysed.
historical consciousness always is backward looking and tends to legitimise the present from its vantagepoint
Or to criticize the present.
I only wish it were so, critical perspectives almost always tend to be in a minority; especially when we are talking about nationalist discourses. As a species, I don't think we have institutionalised self-criticism very well, beyond certain narrow limits. Most people understandably don't take kindly to anything that jeopardises their comfortable world-view, otherwise they would have to do something about it. Criticism, like self-doubt, is a relative rarity.
That doesn't mean the lessons aren't there, though. With history, even more than with the social sciences, it's hard to filter out political bias, but this is a reason to practice more rigorous analysis rather than taking an ahistorical view of current crises.
Well, yes, I agree with you to a point. History becomes more relevant the closer it comes towards our current position; I think there is a good case for leaving Ancient History alone if you are interested in mining for current applicable lessons; Modern History is more relevant here. I don't think a linear narrative can be constructed that sees the distant past as a way of informing us about current impasses, historical progress is as often an erratic and genealogical evolution which implies a great degree of radical discontinuity. More to the point, if the main concern is with the present, then the proper starting is within the Social Sciences, history can play an important complementary role but the grounding in theory has to come from outside. I don't necessarily think that history is more susceptible to political bias than the Social Sciences, the difference is that because much history still tends towards a putative standard of detached empiricism and is not self-reflexive enough, it is frequently harder to catch or perceive the bias at work. To think effectively historically, it is necessary to deconstruct ones current political and broader epistemological positions completely before proceeding - going on from here can yield very fruitful insights but only after the historian has undergone a process of self-alienation first. Understandably many current political observers have neither the inclination nor the patience for this; more to the point the intellectual tools for this originate in the theoretical area of the Social Sciences. One can jump directly to history, but then what is being practised is really a form of politics, rather than history per se (nothing wrong with this, but the two disciplines should not be confused with each other).
There are rules for case-specific analysis that are useful in the social sciences, and many of these can be applied to history. The problem is that most of the time they aren't.
Well, this is an inter-disciplinary problem; most historians by now are quite aware of the obstacles in retrospectively projecting inappropriate epistemic constructs in an anachronistic manner. Most of them are very professional, even as they undermine through their incremental work conventionally held national myths about origins and the past; this is true across national boundaries, which is why one of my friends remarked to me that archaeology has become a political science, with increasing demands being placed on not only interpreting the past on its own terms but increasingly on light of the demands placed by the present. Problems arise when history becomes the major, if not sole, basis for politics in the present; it is always dangerous to place this kind of burden on the past, as it can lead down directions very different from the ones intended.
I think Hellenism or Graeco-Roman civilisation should be distinguished from just a specific time period and is more of a civilisational construct. Many of the elements referred to here, could perhaps trace their roots to outside the Hellenistic tradition as such.
Some of them can, and even those that do have Hellenistic roots of the West have been combined with Judeo-Christian, Germanic and other influences. The Greek and Hellenistic era was the first time many of these were explored in depth, though; the invention of philosophy and the opening of systematic inquiry into the foundations of society was a critical development.
I am intrigued that you would argue the novel has classical roots; I would see it as a much more modern form of literature, not really suited outside a certain urbanised court society; while it has an organic link with Classical genres; it represents I would think, too much of a rupture with what has gone on before.
I'd classify the Golden Ass and Satyricon as novels, along with some of the other Roman-era popular literature. This is somewhat controversial, though, and your point may hold in any event; an urbanized court society existed during imperial Rome, and the term might even be stretched to cover the later Republic.
I think much of the transition is complicated by the existence of Christianity; while some aspects of the Graeco-Roman period was preserved, such as the use of Latin as an ecclesiastical language, idea of a united secular political authority and the cultural trappings of cultivated existence; other notions were quite alien to the earlier period - the conflict between the Church and the earthly rulers, the concept of monasticism, and most importantly the attitude shown towards other religions and drive for proselytisation (quite often by force).
Although, as the Maccabean war demonstrates, Hellenism could itself be a proselytizing idea, albeit a secular one. The Hellenistic kingdoms spread their civilization aggressively and made a conscious effort to Hellenize conquered peoples, which was relatively rare behavior among prior conquerors. I could argue that proselytism is one of the more Hellenistic aspects of Christianity; although there was some Jewish missionary activity during the Hasmonean and Roman periods, the idea of universal moral and philosophical teaching originated in the Greek philosophical schools. Even monasticism can be traced in some respects to the ascetic ideals of certain philosophical schools (e.g. the Stoics) as well as to the Essenes and early Christian fathers.
I see a great deal more continuity between the Greco-Roman and medieval worlds than many people do; Christianity is in some ways a superimposition of the Jewish prophetic and moral tradition over Hellenistic philosophy and civilizing zeal rather than a clean break with the classical period.
The greatest change though, I think would be the destruction and replacement of the old slave-based economy and its replacement with variants of feudalism. The idea of the 'free village, yeoman peasantry et al have important ties with the emergence of common law and more modernist conceptions of the alienability of labour power and natural liberty; as well as the differences of a status society.
Although feudalism was initially based on serfdom, which involved an unfree peasantry and very limited alienability of labor (at least outside the cities). The real distinction may be that serfs were viewed as people with rights, albeit circumscribed. In contrast to the classical master-slave relationship, the landlord-serf relationship was (in theory, and sometimes in fact) one of mutual obligation. I'm not sure how much of an innovation this was - I've heard it argued that Greco-Roman slavery was an aberration and that slavery in other ancient societies was closer to what we know as serfdom - but the creation of a legal system based on mutual obligation was probably a necessary precursor to the universal application of classical ideals of liberty.
The way I usually look at it is that the West wasn't created all at once, but the Hellenistic period is the first that is recognizably Western.
Partially true; though, ironically, I suppose that most of the geographic areas that lay at the heart of Hellenistic civilisation; would not be later thought of as the centre of 'the West' which occupied a more peripheral position.
Well, the geographic focus has changed but what we're really examining here is continuity of ideas - was the Greco-Roman world a direct ancestor of the modern West or was it a source of inspiration for Renaissance and Enlightenment reformers? As I said above, there are elements of both but there are significant areas of continuity.
critical [historical] perspectives almost always tend to be in a minority; especially when we are talking about nationalist discourses. As a species, I don't think we have institutionalised self-criticism very well, beyond certain narrow limits.
Criticism can also come from outside the group being criticized. There is, for instance, a good deal of historically based criticism of the United States from non-American sources, although the primary purpose of this may be to promote competing nationalisms.
History becomes more relevant the closer it comes towards our current position; I think there is a good case for leaving Ancient History alone if you are interested in mining for current applicable lessons; Modern History is more relevant here.
This is true in areas such as economics, where conditions are so different that there is no real basis for comparison. There are certain human characteristics that vary little over time, though, and ancient examples of these characteristics in action may be instructive (although it remains important to control for differences in environment). I think the problem with drawing examples from ancient history is less the alien environment than the relative lack of reliable data.
More to the point, if the main concern is with the present, then the proper starting is within the Social Sciences, history can play an important complementary role but the grounding in theory has to come from outside.
One of the most significant accomplishments of modern history has been its transition from narrative to quasi-science, and this transition is - as you say - founded on the use of social science tools. A case can be made for importing nearly all the social sciences into history, because the world at any given moment in time is as complete as the present and should be studied from as many different directions.
Problems arise when history becomes the major, if not sole, basis for politics in the present; it is always dangerous to place this kind of burden on the past, as it can lead down directions very different from the ones intended.
True, especially since the present is sui generis even if certain aspects of it can be analogized to the past. Historical precedent can be instructive as to present issues but never conclusive.
I'm sorry I haven't been able to butt into your comments before now, Jonathan, but I'm really enjoying reading this. (I did my Why The Maccabees Freak Me Out post two years ago, actually -- and it involved rather a lot of comparing them to the Taliban. You know, destruction of statues, cave-dwelling guerillas, and a few other similar points. It's somewhere in my Dec. 2001 archives.)
I'm not a Second Temple specialist, obviously -- but I am a professional history and religion geek, which means that I honestly think Josephus' Antiquities is a good read (and a spectacularly important primary-source document -- the Jewish Wars is nice too). The closest thing to a good general-audience volume I can think of is several decades old -- Bickerman's From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees. If you modified that with readings from Josephus, whatever parts of Philo appeal to you, and perhaps a few recent but readable monographs (I like Tal Ilan's Integrating Women Into Second Temple History), you could get a good basis to start from.
Posted by: Naomi Chana at December 28, 2003 07:03 PMThe Greek and Hellenistic era was the first time many of these were explored in depth, though; the invention of philosophy and the opening of systematic inquiry into the foundations of society was a critical development.
In the West perhaps, I think these questions were explored along different lines elsewhere; in anycase different elements of what could be called Hellenism, play a role in this. Much of the spirit you refer to belonged to the Classical period in Greek civilisation; at a time when it wasn't necessarily the huge cultural force it later became. The Roman contribution in this field was relatively modest; their successes and interests lay outside the arena of philosophy and abstract disciplines.
I'd classify the Golden Ass and Satyricon as novels, along with some of the other Roman-era popular literature.
Apuleius would certainly qualify; I don't think Petronius's work would, though, given its mix of verse and prose and fragmentary, episodic structure (though this was replicated by some early Victorian writers); the Satyricon is hard to classify in anycase, I wouldn't be too sure that it fits any single category easily. The main problem as I see it, is that while chronologically these come as precedents to the bourgeois 18th and 19th century novels; I don't think there is any causal relationship or even a relationship to speak of at all really. Much of the knowledge of the Classical period was lost for large parts of the Middle Ages, outside some smaller clerical islands and were only 'rediscovered' towards the end of the period.
This is somewhat controversial, though, and your point may hold in any event; an urbanized court society existed during imperial Rome, and the term might even be stretched to cover the later Republic.
Well, the problem with this schema is that there was only really one major court society in the Roman period (except for brief dual-imperial interludes) while in the late Middle Ages a number of these emerged which enabled a more dispersed centre of this kind of literary reproduction. Changes in technology also allowed bookbinding and dissemination and the spread of literacy outside just mercantile and aristocratic classes, (albeit slowly) played a role in creating a market for this kind of cultural product. The area of literary history is a very controversial one, and the origins of most art forms like the novel is hotly contested. My limited forays into this field inevitably tend to end in disaster (a phenomenon some would say, that is also re-occurs on my forays into more contemporary disciplines, but we won't go into this here..) I am less than impressed with the arguments of some like Jameson who contend that the appearance of the novel is a function of the separation of the social from the economic spheres, the move from the moral to the commercial society and economy. Here, political economy is meant to tell the general truth about 'society' while the novel is limited to the individual, personal truths, complementing each other as systems of exchange. There is also meant to be a similar movement in the switch from the tightly structured heroic couplet found in Pope's poetry to the picaresque novel, which allowed a greater direct relationship in its vocabulary between appearance and reality and the possibility of limitless exchange bestowed by the universalising expansion of unmetred prose. The move away from the restraints imposed by the old order of verse, rhyme and rhythm; was meant to mirror the movement towards an abstract system of exchange and the category of reason rather than tradition; both were formal constructs and so on which tended to erode differences between individuals. I think this simplifies a much more complicated picture, but attempts to locate the development of the novel in a more accurate light relative to the preceding periods.
Although, as the Maccabean war demonstrates, Hellenism could itself be a proselytizing idea, albeit a secular one. The Hellenistic kingdoms spread their civilization aggressively and made a conscious effort to Hellenize conquered peoples, which was relatively rare behavior among prior conquerors.
I don't know; Hellenisation was only really sucessful in some circumstances and places. Alexander's initial vision was a marriage of both Greek and Persian/Eastern civilisations rather than a simple one-way imprimatur - acculturation rather than assimilation. In the later Seleucid and Pltomaiec periods one could argue about who exactly proseltyised who, as while these empires did retain an important Hellenisitic strain, it was mixed increasingly with other influences. The Romans were far more effective in spreading their culture within their borders.
I could argue that proselytism is one of the more Hellenistic aspects of Christianity; although there was some Jewish missionary activity during the Hasmonean and Roman periods, the idea of universal moral and philosophical teaching originated in the Greek philosophical schools.
I don't think you should confuse philosophy and ideas with practise; there were other universalising traditions in existence, Zorastrianism being one that occurs at the same time. The different historical experience here is linked to political struggles and outcomes, not ideological or religious ones.
Even monasticism can be traced in some respects to the ascetic ideals of certain philosophical schools (e.g. the Stoics) as well as to the Essenes and early Christian fathers.
Well, hang-on; various schools of thought can be said to incorporate elements of monastic asceticism into their thought; I don't think this would be enough to make them precursors of monasticism. Some of the original Cynic philosophers were probably much closer to monastic ideals than most Stoics were; the latter while praising some of the same virtues had a completely different attitude to the secular world and the individual's place in it. Withdrawing physically from society for contemplation or religious practise was not really part of the Stoic philosophy as far as I know.
I see a great deal more continuity between the Greco-Roman and medieval worlds than many people do; Christianity is in some ways a superimposition of the Jewish prophetic and moral tradition over Hellenistic philosophy and civilizing zeal rather than a clean break with the classical period.
I disagree here, there are important differences, especially in the medieval period; if anything there is a greater continuity after the Renaissance period. As for Christianity I agree that Judaic traditions play an important role in them; but I wouldn't think that they are all that dominant relative to other different influences, many of which came originally from more obscure sources like the Chaldeans and small sects like the Gnostics.
Although feudalism was initially based on serfdom, which involved an unfree peasantry and very limited alienability of labor (at least outside the cities). The real distinction may be that serfs were viewed as people with rights, albeit circumscribed.
To a degree but the case shouldn't be overstated. At no time in the West did serfs constitute anything but a minority of the rural labour force; outside some regions like Old Catalonia and Swabia it had pretty much declined to a great degree. Unlike Eastern Europe where it survived as an institution and where a major part of the peasantry formed a serf body. There is also an important debate about the peasantry and the degree to which it could said to be 'unfree'; the diversity in labour arrangements didn't help here which were very varied from one locality to the next. In many cases there was substantial conflict and jacqueries over their status as peasants tended to think they were much freer than their lords did; in anycase for most peasants in the West, the most irksome nature of 'unfreedom' was the surplus appropriated through rental dues and manorial obligations to give labour - most of which however were set by tradition and so not really amenable to being easily increased without struggle.
In contrast to the classical master-slave relationship, the landlord-serf relationship was (in theory, and sometimes in fact) one of mutual obligation. I'm not sure how much of an innovation this was - I've heard it argued that Greco-Roman slavery was an aberration and that slavery in other ancient societies was closer to what we know as serfdom - but the creation of a legal system based on mutual obligation was probably a necessary precursor to the universal application of classical ideals of liberty.
Well, it may be more relevant to study other slave-holding systems like Africa and Asia here. My understanding is that while the Graeco-Roman institution of slavery can be said to be quite different, given the differences elsewhere, and the difficulty in reaching any universal model, it would be difficult to describe it as an 'aberration' as such. The issue with Medieval Europe is more complicated but the different set of factors like the decision to extract the agrarian surplus through rent rather than through labour-tying, greater commercialisation of agriculture and the large amounts of lands opened up through the Reconquista of Spain and the settlement of lands east of the Elbe in the 'Ostsiedelung' meant that this was a period where landowners were desperate to hold on to scarce labour but also to increase productivity which effectively ruled out serfdom as an effective labour institution in the agrarian economy and the mobile nature of rural labour combined with shifting political borders led to the institution of the 'Free Village'.
was the Greco-Roman world a direct ancestor of the modern West or was it a source of inspiration for Renaissance and Enlightenment reformers? As I said above, there are elements of both but there are significant areas of continuity.
I have no problem with this, as long as the period of discontinuity during the Middle Ages is acknowledged - I just don't think this period had much of a 'Hellenistic' aura about it all in any substantial sense. Like I said earlier, the Renaissance involved very much a 'Rediscovery of Antiquity' as part of its dynamic and inspiration - of course antiquity had never really been lost, it had just been banished to the margins for a longtime.
Criticism can also come from outside the group being criticized. There is, for instance, a good deal of historically based criticism of the United States from non-American sources, although the primary purpose of this may be to promote competing nationalisms.
Well, achieving real criticism is hard because it involves a high level of self-criticism; what you refer to is really a form of propaganda or subtle ideological production in another guise. Some exceptions do stand out- my model would be Tocqueville's writing on the USA, since his primary purpose was to understand the US as a way of critiquing European and primarily his own French society. In the process heavily influencing American political science perspectives as well.
There are certain human characteristics that vary little over time, though, and ancient examples of these characteristics in action may be instructive (although it remains important to control for differences in environment).
Ha, ha; the difficulty is that few people can agree just what these invariant characteristics are; not being a big believer in this thing 'human nature' I remain sceptical.
A case can be made for importing nearly all the social sciences into history, because the world at any given moment in time is as complete as the present and should be studied from as many different directions.
In a way, this has sort of happened, at least in the sub-disciplines of economic and social history but also I imagine at a more macro-level. Many social scientists also today use history and indeed refer to their work as part of the 'history of the present'.