Livy

[SigniferOne]

Modern historians as apart from archeological discoveries they rely on? I think it's rather clear that they have very little to contribute. All they are left to do, by definition, is regurgitate the same material that's been regurgitated before. There are some historians that, due to precisely the archeological foundation for their work, provide some useful insight, such as studies for economy in the Roman Empire, but like I said useful books such as these, ones that are within the honored old Classics tradition, are very few in between. If one or two books are useful, out of 5,000-6,000 that are published every year, that's not a very good record.

[VandalCarthage]

That's just a patently ridiculous claim. You're attacking the institution of modern historical work, while making up your own exceptions? Modern historical interpretations are absolutely necessary to the advancement of classical study. Without qualified organizations of various classical sources, it would be incredibly difficult for anyone (not to mention students or amateur historians) to put their subjects into a recognizable context.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I can pull any number of books off my shelf that provide ample evidence that this is patently not the case. But it all boils down to one's opinion. I'd rather take the opinion of ancient historians and classicists though, when trying to understand the usefullness of current scholarship in those areas. It's like Socrates asking questions of blacksmiths - sure, they may give lots of other useless information, but they did provide good knowledge of the trade they were in. Who should we trust in dealing with ancient history then? People who distrust virtually the whole (99.9997%) of modern scholarship or people who are immersed in it? Even the ones in it are often wrong, or certain individuals in it may be entirely wrong all the time, but throwing it out for some 'true knowledge' that one says almost all other people who constantly research write on the topic today are wrong is just ridiculous.

Numismatics and the historians like Frank Holt who use it have provided the first solid histories we have of the Greco-Baktrian kingdoms. Though countless books are written on Homer each year, current analysis of oral poetry still provides very insightful information on why and how "Homer" or the Homeric tradition composed what he/it did. Historians like W.K. Pritchett even into his 90's still provide incredible insight into and clarity about the mountain paths and minor sites that Pausanias walked and described. Historians who focus on cities and people that have not been as thoroughly dealt with still are able to put together coherent patterns and trends in the way those places dealt with the Greek and Roman world at large - patterns that were ignored or unknown before their work - like Scholten's history of the Aitolian League. Or they are able to summarize and clarify the history of a culture or well known city/state light years better than anyone prior to them has, as Paul Cartledge's work on Sparta easily shows, or Salmon's book on Corinth, or Hammond's work on Macedonia and Epeirus. Virtually anything of substance or merit on the Greeks in the east will have been written in the last three decades. But almost all of this will have to be thrown out according to those who think that only the ancient literature itself or that of archaeologists today is meritorious, save the one in ten-thousand modern works that he will deem 'accurate'.

Take the general public's view of the Spartans. Or even the ardent hobbyist's view of the Spartans. Or the TLC / History Channel viewer's view of the Spartans. Or almost anyone's view (except a very small number of classicists) 50 years ago. They all would have huge gaps and inaccuracies in the understanding of the development of Sparta and the history of the sixth century (which is the most pivotal to them). The gossamer veil that presented the idealized Sparta most of them would and still do see as the real one has been partially lifted thanks to modern historians and classicists and archaeologists. But hey, why not just trust Plutarch's or some 17th century aristocrat's every breath on the matter instead.

[SigniferOne]

Well good, let's take the Spartans for instance. Plutarch alone is certainly far from enough in learning about them: you'd also need to read Xenophon's Spartan Constitution, Herodotus, Thucydides of course, history of Diodorus and Hellenica of Xenophon, things like the the biography of Epaminondas from Nepos, with conjunction with Aristophanes' plays, and even the Politics of Aristotle and chapters from Polybius. By a knowledge of these works you can fairly say you have acquired as accurate an image of Spartans as can be gotten.

I think you're mischaracterizing my views as using history merely to tint my pet peeves in rosey colors, whereas I recommend all of these works for a full and true account of the Spartan people and their institutions. Some writings are partisan, some aren't, some are favorable (properly so), some aren't (properly so). By a knowledge of all of these works, you can say you know what the Spartans were like, to the best of anyone's knowledge. Now tell me, what can modern works possibly add to that, especially since they are completely lacking in that inimitable style that someone like Xenophon writes in, that make history come alive? Western history books used to be useful because they pulled all the threads together from these disparate works, and used their own impressive style and weighty judgment to teach the reader and make the job of learning about Spartans easier. Modern books (past 30-40 years), by contrast, are completely lacking both in style and in substance.

As for ignorance of Spartan institutions, I think you underestimate the knowledge during the Renaissance, and highly overestimate that knowledge today. Again, you assume that all people before the 19th century all had their rose-tinted glasses and were generally ignorant of true history, whereas the reverse is actually true -- I have found that they read all of the works I mentioned above, and going so far as frequently to read them in original. The ignorant uneducated people could tell you who an ephor was. Today, with all of our high-faluting pretensions, nobody knows anything about the Spartans, except a cloistered stuffy group of intellectual academics. By your own admission you say that the general populace is entirely ignorant of anything remotely approaching accurate knowledge of Spartan institutions and history, whereas I have read actual accounts from Renaissance men discussing Spartan ideas in full accuracy and vigor.

That, in a nutshell, would be my response to the rest of the points you raise as well. Paul Cartledge is one of those books that is actually quite decent compared with many of its contemporaries. But even it, though it's not offensive, is nowhere near as good as Plutarch's accounts which show the positive aspect to Sparta, and the accounts of Epaminondas and Pelopidas which show the bad. So although Cartledge is respectable, I would frankly much rather read Life of Pelopidas, and the Spartan Constitution. Etc. There are good books out there, but they are rare beyond imagining, and most modern books on Classics are extremely noxious in both their content and intent. The few books that are respectable, often tread on repeated ground, and their sole merit lies in merely publishing the same old stuff for the new generation, in a glossy cover. And it is the few books among these, that provide actual new and original work which extends our understanding of the ancient world and is accessible by the general reader. And for that they deserve all our commendations. But my point is that the profession of Classics has experienced a collapse beyond recokoning in the last couple of decades, and so I believe my point still stands that contemporary Classics professionals, as a group on the whole, provide mainly nothing more than further collapse of their own profession.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I can't think of any knowledgeable person who I think would claim that Plutarch's Sparta is more accurate than Cartledge's Sparta. Whether Cartledge inspires or titilates the reader as much as Plutarch does is another question, but not the most important one (though I'm not saying it's not important at all). Plutarch takes an extreme point of view on the question/problem of Spartan austerity, and it is one that must be counterbalanced by modern historians' and archaeologists' combined work on the subject. Only a view that takes into account their findings (which range from understanding that Lakonian artistic production did not decline sharply at the end of the archaic period, that foreign currency was not prohibited as some ancient authors claim, that there was less public, equal landholdings and more private ones than has traditionally been presented as the case, etc.) and is more critical than just accepting Plutarch at face value or only in conjunction with the Spartan Constitution, will yield an accurate view. I've personally presented papers on the exaggeration by later authors of events that occurred in seventh century Sparta (the "banishment" of Archilochus). Plutarch (2nd century CE) says Archilochus was turned away from the city gates because of his poetry. That sounds great to Plutarch, fits his need for morally uplifting and corrective stories, and it's terrific for Roman audiences too. But the problem is Archilochus wouldn't have been turned away in the seventh century - even Valerius Maximus in the 1st century CE says it was his books that was turned away (later), not the poet, and he is our earliest source. Not a really big deal, but just an example of Plutarch adapting stories to fit his needs and 'the big picture' better.

Plutarch would have been a big fan of 'truthiness' actually. It feels right, and fits with what we think about these people, so that's more accurate than whatever these mumbly-jumbly historians of today can add to the story or our knowledge! But the problem is that Holt's Baktria is more accurate (if not as fun for some folks) than Tarn's. Cartledge's Sparta is more accurate (if not as "truthy") than Plutarch's. Doesn't mean C. doesn't use Plutarch as evidence though, just that it takes more than that sort of extreme view to get the proper picture. Thankfully Cartledge and Holt, as examples, don't just write for stuffy ivory-towered classicists though - their work is much more accessible and has reached many more people thankfully.

The weird thing is, among most classicists I know, I'm the one that is always taking a position moderately closer to yours. I found a lot of interesting points and a lot I agreed with in Who Killed Homer?, but I also realize it really only applied to a few of the most extreme professors I've had too (Hanson's "Mandarins"). A couple of my previous professors and now one of my current colleagues have pretty radical views on many of these matters - but they're not producing things that are important either. The ones that were really good had very wide ranging knowledge, and the best compiled a definitive work on a Hellenistic Anatolian deity. The kind of thing that might bore you, but that is rock solid in the evidence and view of the god that it presented at the end - and it was one that only existed in fragments prior. I'm just saying don't throw the baby out with the bath water (like some of those professors do with Plutarch, and like you do with all modern historians or classicists).

[Geoffrey S]

Modern work can consolidate, not only using texts but archeological evidence to back things up and discover everyday aspects classical scholars may not have seen the need to mention but which can make all the difference. I certainly wouldn't advocate not using classical texts, but I often find it useful to have a more modern work at hand (or preferably, more than one!) that can shed more light on an issue through a consolidation of sources and the use of additional research. Frequently, it makes it a lot easier to put old texts into perspective. Admittedly it might not add much new information, but a modern work makes it possible for us who haven't (yet) had any formal training to create a solid foundation from which to try to understand the past without years of experience.

Besides. It has been said that only one in many modern works is useful. Was it truly different in the classical times? Even the greatest works are often fragmentary, but there must have been many, many more works now completely lost which weren't of as high a level.

[oudysseos]

As Gene Rodenberry once said, "Sure, 90 % of television is crap. 90 % of everything is crap." Not every single one of Aristotle's works or Shakespeare's plays are fantastic. Just being old doesn't make something better.

[SigniferOne]

Teleklos,

I'm a bit surprised you wrote so much against Plutarch re: Sparta, when I in my post have disregarded Plutarch on the very first line (well not disregarded, but showed how much more other than him there is, to Spartan history). I have no argument with you that Plutarch's account is somewhat idealized, although it's not wildly exaggerated (the story with Archilochus being only a stretch, not fabrication), and contains nuggets that cannot be found anywhere else (Life of Pelopidas, the sayings of Spartans, sayings of Spartan women, and sayings of Great Commanders which contains some from Spartan leaders).

But putting Plutarch completely aside, as I suggested we do, on the very first line, there's so much more we can read about the Spartans: Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Diodorus, Aristotle, even Old Oligarch (pseudo-Xenophon), Aristophanes, Demosthenes, etc. If we read these works, as accurate and truthful as possible a picture of Spartans will be acquired. Furthermore, their style, judgments, and ancient nearness to their subject matter, make these writers engrossing and their judgments weighty. At best, Cartledge can read derive his views from these, but he cannot derive his views from other than these sources. Archeology can find precious remains of Spartan coinage but cannot explain why we find so few of them, or what accounts for the physical remains of Sparta proper being so pathetic, nor can it believe that these pathetic remains once housed the conquerors of those who built the Parthenon.

So Cartledge will have to base his judgments entirely on the written literature that survived about the Spartans, and derive his answers from those works. To be better, he will have to overcome their style, their arrangement of content, and their antiquity. But I wasn't even talking about Cartledge in my "sweepingly generalizing" post. It is possible for him to produce a work of excellent style and weighty judgment in competition with the ancients, on their own subjects (as Gibbon demonstrated). The point is, that most Classicists today, don't. I'm not even considering Cartledge here, along with VDH, Green, and handful of others. I'm talking about the rest, not "all of classicists" as you characterized it, but merely Classics profession as a whole. They don't translate the Iliad in heroic English style as Alexander Pope did, but publish "Gay Achilles" instead. That's what the profession has come to.

Classicists, although from Petrach's time limited by having to reinvent and retread old ground over and over, used to provide valuable content by summarizing ancient works, providing good ways to learn it, and teaching it to all. We may disagree on our personal experiences, but the classicists I see nowadays are completely opposite of that. My Greek professor is writing a book entitled "Concordia and Discours in Aristophanes' Clouds". The title is not an accident, as the rest of the book (presented before us as a preliminary paper) is equally incomprehensible. And here's the worst part: there are good classicists who still carry themselves with old-fashioned dignity, but they are in retreat, hiding away, defeated and slowly disappearing from modern academic culture (and from Western society as a whole). So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, although I have of course nothing but utter respect for you personally.