A Remembrance Of Past Times

[phil25]

It seems to me that historians are often guilty (in all periods) of drawing lines under an epoch or era (however brief) and then acting as though what had happened previously was gone and forgotten.

 

An obvious example in British history in 1485 when the medieval era is said to have ended and the Tudors are perceived to have begun the early modern world. 1945 and the end of World War II may be or become another example - books end on the date or begin then. Themes, even academics, sometimes won't cross the artificial barriers thus created.

 

I suppose as one gets older, one's appreciation or understanding of the passage of time changes. When i was a youngster watching war films on TV in the late fifties, the subject seemed a long way off. I was aware, of course, that my parents had lived through the war, but it didn't seem "real" to me. Now I recognise that the events I was seeing fictionalised had actually happened only a little over 10-15 years before. As I now recognise, that is a fresh memory for someone who remembers that far back.

 

Even the depression, the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936 were only 20 or so years old. My grandmother, born in 1887, saw the whole history of flight from the Wright brothers to landing on the moon in her lifetime.

 

So why raise this point on a Roman website?

 

Because it seems to me that we don't always take into account memory, influences or recollection - the overlapping of eras and events - when we analyse why and how things happened and the reactions to them.

 

A man of advanced age (say 70 old, but not unreasonably so for Rome) living in the year of Actium might easily recall Sulla, or at least have talked to those who did. Thus comparisons between his actions and Augustus' could have been easily made.

 

Not that many years before, say in the year that the first triumvirate was formed, the Gracchi could easily have been a living memory.

 

Caesar would have been a relatively fresh memory, his personality and actions clearly recalled by many Roman nobles through most of Augustu's reign, and indeed by many veterans of his legions.

 

Cicero's voice and reputation could have been in the minds of men Seneca spoke to.

 

Gaius (Caligula) could draw on the memories of his grandmother, Antonius' daughter - so knowledge of his political aims and his tradition could be alive as late as the 40s AD.

 

Add to this the fact that Roman nobles kept the imagines (wax masks) of their consular ancestors in their town-houses with details of their mannerisms and way of speech, and quite distant people could have been much more "alive" to a descendant (maybe several generations gone) than are our forebears today.

 

Is it right to make such a clear distinction as we do between republic and principiate (around say 30BC is usual) when for so many people living then, the dateand the change was invisible, the past, present and future a continuum rather than a crossing of a threshold. Would they have made the same judgements we do?

 

So my question is, do we give enough weight to this aspect of Roman life in our evaluation of causes and effects, influences and responses, attitudes and reputations? Maybe we do - but I'd be interested to guage opinion here. Does ignoring artificial divides between eras change our perception of what was happening and how it was perceived at the time?

 

Hope I have made myself clear.

 

With apologies to Marcel Proust for the adapted title!!

 

Phil

[tflex]

I think Romans living around the late republic and early principate period did not notice the change of an era right away, but I also think it didn't take them that long to become aware that change had taken place. Maybe it took them a decade or two to see political and cultural change. It's kind of like the World War 2 generation must have noticed the end of their era occur sometime in the 60's when everything went crazy in their eyes.

Edited January 22, 2006 by tflex

[Neos Dionysos]

I don't think we take that into account, or if we do, we don't think about it too much or into great detail.

 

Another example is how we always hear of Rome's fall at 476AD. There was nothing major about this date, I highly doubt the people of Italy or Rome considered it an eventful year. They may have not an emperor, but he was only in name only for the last decades and had no power, and so seeing that the Ostrogoths were still in control and seeing the administrations and institutions and social structure was still running, they noticed no change at all and continued on living.

[phil25]

Thanks for your thoughtful replies guys.

 

But ND, when you say:

 

I don't think we take that into account, or if we do, we don't think about it too much or into great detail.

 

The question arises, should we?

 

Phil

[Neos Dionysos]

Thanks for your thoughtful replies guys.

 

But ND, when you say:

 

I don't think we take that into account, or if we do, we don't think about it too much or into great detail.

 

The question arises, should we?

 

Phil

 

I think we should, because it helps us better to understand the times we are studying. What's the point of learning about the "Fall of Rome" in 476, when in reality to those who lived it, it was not a major event. Life went on as usual. When we make end dates and themes or eras etc., unless they were of great importance to those that lived through it, they should not be made into something greater than what they were. I guess what I mean to say is, we tend to make start and end points in history that suits us more than anything. It is easier to place a study date from the reign of Augustus to when Romulus Augustulus was desposed so that we can focus on that area to learn. We chop up history into sections so we can better understand them, but history was, (like present day is), also on the move always moving forward and can't be chopped up. I just think this needs to be addressed and taken into consideration, only a handful of historians and scholars have really taken this into account.