It is often so that one’s most susceptible to external influences when one is inexperienced, right? Well, back in the Fall of 2005, I took an introductionary course in pre-Modern history here at the NTNU, and for the part about the Roman Republic and Empire, we were actually left to choose between two introductionary textbooks, Bjørn Qviller’s Romersk politisk kultur og sosiologisk historie and Jørgen Christian Meyer et al.’s Antikkens historie. Høvdingdømme, bystat, imperium. For some reason, I chose the former, which is generally built up around the thesis that the relationship between powerful patrons and their clients was the single most important structure in Roman society.
In his chapter on the Roman Republic in the age of the Gracchii (that is, the plural of Gracchus, in case I fuck up my horrendous Latin more than I use to), he uses Toynbee’s description of the age for structure, by first outlining the social developments in this period according to Toynbee, and then modifying this. For instance, he points out that Toynbee seems to be labouring under the misconception that Roman agriculture was managed according to capitalist principles, and that he didn’t have access to certain new archeological evidence pertaining to the development in Italian agriculture.
Ah, it always feels nice to unravel mental webs such as this one. It kinda gives me a feeling of clarity, which is fortunate, as I can use every favourable condition I can wring from myself if I’m going to get any grip on this Islamic philosophy-theology I’ve got to get through today…
Posts
Intruding on my fortè, are you? ^^
(There is little in world history I have a vague inkling about, but I dare say I know at least some feeble few things of the Roman Republic by now)
Incidentally, Gracchi, I believe, is written like so, with one “i”.
Why would you be discussing the Roman Republic, of all things, anyway? You’re not studying it as far as I know?
I read Meyer’s book in the similar course, though in a specialized course on the Roman Republic there were quite a few articles by Qviller, accompanied by opposing articles by Ravnå. Don’t remember much of them - they were in a damned heavy compendium - but reason and limping memory would indicate they, too, centrered around the patronage-clientella-model.
30. March 2008 @ 02:02 ( Permalink )
“Incidentally, Gracchi, I believe, is written like so, with one “i”.”
Ah, that’s kinda what I thought; I just threw on an extra i for good measure.
“Why would you be discussing the Roman Republic, of all things, anyway? You’re not studying it as far as I know?”
Well, the history course I’m taking this term revolves a lot around the transmission of Greek and Latin knowledge and literature from antiquity through the middle ages, and I realized I probably ought to brush up on my knowledge on at least the Roman Republic and Empire. Therefore, I’ve been reading a bit of Qviller, mainly in the bathroom…
“but reason and limping memory would indicate they, too, centrered around the patronage-clientella-model.”
Yeah, from what I’ve been able to surmise from my brief contact with the field, there doesn’t really seem to be a lot of controversy around that particular aspect…
31. March 2008 @ 19:50 ( Permalink )
There is and there isn’t. As far as I gather, there are basically three main views of the Republican system, though keep in mind I’m probably grossly oversimplifying and misremembering things now: that it was a party-based system of “optimates” versus “popularis” where the patronage-model mainly enters in to explain the parties respective powers, that the patronage-system was the all-explaining all-consuming all-important aspect to Republican Rome, and more typically modern, nuanced views which accept the patronage as a fact but are sceptical to the amount of importance to ascribe to it and it alone. Assuming I got this half-assedly right, then, it was my impression that Qviller leant a little towards the middle view, where the patronage is the Key to everything about Republican Rome.
31. March 2008 @ 20:15 ( Permalink )
I’m also shamefully realising I’m automatically a tiny bit prejudiced against Qviller by virtue of having only been exposed to him through said article-collection where he was opposed by Per-Bjarne Ravnå, whom I recently had as a censor on my bachelor’s thesis and was handed an A by.
Tee-hee! =D
31. March 2008 @ 20:17 ( Permalink )