skip to main content
Idioma:

MODERNE SISTEEMBOU EN DIE ROMEINSE GESKIEDENIS

Erasmus, H. J.

Acta classica, 1964-01, Vol.7 (1), p.89-107 [Periódico revisado por pares]

Cape Town: A. A. BALKEMA

Texto completo disponível

Citações Citado por
  • Título:
    MODERNE SISTEEMBOU EN DIE ROMEINSE GESKIEDENIS
  • Autor: Erasmus, H. J.
  • Assuntos: Arnold Toynbee ; Comparative studies, civilisations ; Cyclic theories ; Marxism ; Model, Greek and Roman history ; Modern system-building ; Roman history ; Rome
  • É parte de: Acta classica, 1964-01, Vol.7 (1), p.89-107
  • Descrição: In this paper, originally read before the Bloemfontein regional branch of the South African Classical Association, the approach to Greek and Roman history by Arnold Toynbee and modern Marxist historians is briefly reviewed. In both cases an attempt is made to bring the entire course of history within the ambit of an all-embracing scheme of universal application. Through the centuries many such attempts have been made, from St. Augustine, the first great universal historian, to Arnold Toynbee, the great system-builder of our own time. Many universal historians accord a position of supreme importance to Greek and Roman history. The exponents of the various cyclic theories, Danielevski, von Lasaulx, Spengler, and Toynbee, look upon Greek and Roman history as a model, a 'standard of comparison', of the normal course of development and decline of a 'cycle'—whatever name the cycle bears in the particular terminology of each. In Karl Marx's phase-theory of economic development, Greece and Rome occupy a position of central importance. In the first, general part attention is drawn to the fact that universal history tends to sacrifice the microscopic view to the macroscopic, the panoramic. Thus in medieval historiography the historian was not interested in the past acts of men; he never lost sight of what in his view constituted the ultimate aim of all history: the Last Day, the final Revelation. Hence the medieval historian was not interested in the detailed criticism of sources, in uncovering motives, in establishing causes; the past was merely part of the process of Revelation, continued in the present and ultimately to be completed in the future. The modern historian, however, cannot forget the lessons of the nineteenth century; however one-sided the nineteenth century approach may be considered today, the modern historian dare not sacrifice scientific criticism to the myth of theory. In the two succeeding parts the approach to ancient history by modern Marxist historians and by Arnold Toynbee is considered in some detail. As regards Marxist historiography, it is submitted that despite the undue stress placed upon the institution of slavery, the Marxist historians have not produced any work which can replace standard works by Western scholars in this field. The main reason for this conclusion is that the Marxist historians are not prepared to deviate one inch from the theories of Marxist orthodoxy. Too frequently conclusions are based not on a scientific examination of the available data, but on pronouncements of Marx, Engels and Stalin. Too frequently an interpretation is advanced in the face of all evidence in order not to violate the canons of Marxist orthodoxy—scientific criticism yielding to the myth of theory. The least attractive aspect of Marxist historiography is the terms employed in reference to Western historians: American imperialists, racialists and pseudo-scholars. The conclusion is inevitable: as a result of its rigid dogmatism and its propagandistic purpose, Marxist historiography has not yet succeeded in making any substantial contribution to our knowledge of and insight into Greek and Roman History. The criticism of other scholars of Arnold Toynbee's conception of an Hellenic civilization of which Roman History forms but a subsidiary part, is noted with approval. We have here an excellent example of how predetermined theory clouds an historian's judgement. Attention is further drawn to the fact that Toynbee's view of Roman history is largely influenced by his dislike of any form of militarism and nationalism. Thus his views on the nature of the Roman patria potestas are decidedly erroneous. A serious defect of Toynbee's writing of Greek and Roman history is the fact that he has clearly not read any new book on Roman history for many a year. Finally a few suggestions are made for a possible way in which a 'universal history' of Greece and Rome may be attempted. Archaeology in particular has taught us that the study of Roman history cannot be confined to the boundaries of the Roman Empire: Rome's trade and commerce was widespread, her contact with peoples outside her territory extensive. The book published by F. J. Treggart in 1939, Rome and China: a study in historical correlations, may point the way. Initially specialized studies can be made of Rome's contacts, commercial and otherwise, at various times with peoples outside her territory. Such studies can eventually give us a broader view of Roman history, and an understanding of commerical, religious and cultural interrelationships which will place Roman history in proper perspective against the background of contemporary world history.
  • Editor: Cape Town: A. A. BALKEMA
  • Idioma: Africâner
Voltar para lista de resultados
Ir para página anteriorAnterior Resultado  4 AvançarIr para próxima página

  • Realização: ABCD-USP USP   Logos de Redes Sociais: Freepik

Buscando em bases de dados remotas. Favor aguardar.