Classics

[downer]

It says some approaches to the classics are bad. But there is also idea that there are good approaches to the classics.

I guess one question is whether it is worth trying to save Classics departments, or should schools just get rid of them all? And they are going to save them, how?

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

I guess one question is whether it is worth trying to save Classics departments, or should schools just get rid of them all? And they are going to save them, how?

As the article pointed out, well-endowed classics departments in the Ivies are not going anywhere. So, there is no need in saving them.
Similarly, with a single digit average number of majors per department, there is little point in saving struggling ones.

[Ruralguy]

Keep in mind that many colleges  have single digit averages for almost half their majors, maybe more. In any case, there's a difference between the numbers  9, 8, 9, 7, 8 for the last 5 years and , say     1 0 3 2 1 for the last five years. The first kind can have reasonable size classes if most can have anybody past first or second year, depending on the course and structure of the major. The second probably can't officially run some classes and half to run a bunch as independent study or not run them at all (and risk not having anyone graduate in the major).  Besides Bio, our STEM majors tend to be like (1) and a number of humanities majors, including Classics, tend to be like (2). You might then guess that certain social sciences get the majority of students, and you'd be right. Anyway, yeah, it shows that some majors are probably endangered, or at least won't be offered by a separate department that represents that field.

[Caracal]

It says some approaches to the classics are bad. But there is also idea that there are good approaches to the classics.

I guess one question is whether it is worth trying to save Classics departments, or should schools just get rid of them all? And they are going to save them, how?

In lots of ways, classics is sort of similar to Gender Studies, American Studies, Africana etc. When you look at the CVs of people in classics departments, you see people doing very different sorts of things. Some classicists are really historians. They have a limited number of texts, so they have a different approach than most historians, but it isn't really much different than what medievalists do. Then you have people who seem to mostly specialize in language teaching and/or things that are more literary. You also have people doing drama and performance.

For Classics, a lot of what seems to bring this together is the idea that the Greeks and Romans should be a separate area of study and that to a certain extent majors should be learning to read things in their original language. Similar to other interdisciplinary fields, the question is really whether separating out some particular area is a good way to study it, or whether that approach ends up causing problems.

[kaysixteen]

I just got a chance to read this article, and, well, it p*ssed me off.   I jotted down various thoughts, and since I am not yet motivated to write up an actual essay on the subject, I figured I would just list off my random observations, the views of a guy who actually has serious subject expertise, and had them long before this Padilla fellow ever even knew what ancient Greek was...

1) Like it or not, this chap benefited greatly from Affirmative Action, and he probably resents this mightily (especially because, as the salutatorian of his Princeton class, he really did not need any).   But it does not alter the facts-- there are almost no black classicists, and any classics dept with an open tt job line would drool over the chance to hire one.   
2) One might point out that I am someone who never got a tt job, and thus I might be biased, but what the hell does this clown think he is doing, hating the very discipline that makes him a Princeton professor?   If he does not like it, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out... there will be a competent replacement available before the ink  on his resignation letter dries.   Compare his attitude to that of the 'independent scholar' who was berated and apparently shouted down, effectively, at the classics conference, for daring to refute his revisionist nonsense.  She does not get to return to a tt job.
3) The article claims that this guy, who appears to be about 36 now, is one of the leading scholars of ancient Rome.   This is nonsense.  Maybe in ten-twenty years, but not yet.  And
4) Here is the problem many revisionist classical historians face.... there is little new information to be had, wherewith to come up with new approaches to classical history.   Really, there just ain't.   Every once in a blue moon, someone unearths a lost play from the Egyptian desert or some European monastery, something like this, plus an occasional new inscription, somewhere, but the fact remains that what we know of the basic facts of Roman history (and other aspects of classical antiquity) is pretty much what it was in the 80s when I was in school.... or the 1930s, for instance, as well.   I may be a skeptical historian, but one can only make the evidence stretch so far.   Look, I would love to be able to have a better handle on the 'alltagsleben' history of the Joe Average Roman, let alone slave, etc, but we really do not have much literary evidence in this area, and archaeological evidence ain't all that much better (and even though more archaeological discoveries than literary ones are likely to be unearthed going forward, interpreting such data remains highly speculative).    So we really are deeply handicapped by the dearth of materials, in terms of what we can and cannot say now, and what we can and cannot hope to be able to say confidently going forward.   There just ain't gonna be the sorts of archives that keen eager beaver historians can pour over, to write new and effective tomes... .like there are for American historians, for instance.
5) But what this fellow seems to be doing is interpretative speculation, such as when he noted the apparently similar conditions that his ancestors, and indeed, his mom, adherents of Santeria-infused Catholicism, had/ have, with many of the people who were in such circumstances in the Roman Empire.   This may or may not be true, though Santeria does not really have much in common with any religious cult practices in the RE, not really.... but we cannot really know this, as the evidence just ain't there.   And ain't gonna get to be there, either.  And what we *do know* of ancient Roman religion (as well as the actually quite different ancient Greek and Near Eastern religious practices) is, well, very different, very different, and, as such, no silly and very forced attempts to equate supposed ancient Greco-Roman slaves' spirituality to Santeria-esque practices of the modern period are embarrassing.... if for no other reason other than the fact that these claims are made *without any evidence*, which ought to be enough to get an F in a freshman seminar paper. 
6) This guy may well be competent, certainly he has the educational chops to be that, but he does himself and his profession no favors by these things a) hating the profession b) making baseless and/or outdated claims regarding the supposed white supremacy-basis of the field (those admittedly white supremacist classicists of the 19th c. are long gone, along with, ahem, racist academics who dominated a whole host of fields in this era) and esp c) offering nutty, evidence-less revisionist claims.  His hokey approach to teaching that freshman Roman history seminar leaves a lot to be desired, too.
7) Now one more thing seems a propos here, namely, the question of what to do with classicists, classics depts. and especially the teaching of classics-related courses in schools that may well dispense with these depts. and often their professors as well (I am still reeling, though not surprised, that my MA alma mater, UVM, once a holder of a proud classics tradition (mandatory Latin classes for liberal arts undergrads apparently were present till the late 1960s), has decided to nuke the whole dept.).  Like it or not, the classical educational, legal, and historical tradition is one of the very few objectively acknowledged cornerstones of our civilization, and Greek and Latin also have a strong linguistic heritage to undergird our language as well (and even more so Padilla's native language, as well).   To abandon this study is to weaken the curriculum of any college or university that takes this step.   Further, what is also the case is that, to decide to offer classics-lite courses taught by scholars in other disciplines is just that, a half-baked solution.   English professors are fine as English professors, but their insights on Homer cannot compare to any trained classicists', even those who are not specific scholars of ancient Greek literature, such as myself.   Really, they are not, any more than you would want J.Q. Classicist teaching Shakespeare, in order to justify canning the Shakespeare scholar from your faculty.

[Caracal]

1. I wish we could dispense with the idea that people "benefited" from affirmative action. People benefit from lots of things in their careers, and not all of them are based on things they control. If I had grown up speaking Arabic or Farsi and decided to use those languages to be a historian of the Arab world, I would have been in a very good position on the job market. Classics is a super white field. People from different backgrounds bring different perspectives to fields. They also often bring in more students from different backgrounds.

Also, in this case, I find the idea that he "benefited" to be particularly absurd. The guy was an undocumented immigrant who grew up in poverty. Do you know what I benefitted from? Growing up in an upper middle class family and not having to worry about being deported or lacking documentation to receive services.

[downer]

I'm no expert in classics, but I don't get the impression that Padilla is a revisionist historian in the sense of providing an alternative history, or disputing what happened. It seems that he is in a tradition of changing the focus of historical research onto those who were oppressed -- much like feminist historians have done. He is also challenging the valuation of the central cultural figures. And he is challenging the role of scholars in the classics, criticizing how they have played along with the ideas of great civilizations to defend empire building.

None of that challenges the claim that ancient Greek and Roman culture were profoundly influential for western civilization. Indeed, that's part of the point -- western civilization retains many of the oppressive values from those ancient cultures.

[marshwiggle]

1. I wish we could dispense with the idea that people "benefited" from affirmative action.

Why? There's lots of documentation of hiring frenzies of people with the correct "diversity credentials" in certain industries (including higher education) so that these people get way more job offers than any candidate normally would.  When  the qualified candidate pool is small, because the work is highly specialized, then affirmative action is going to skew the results much more than in a less specialized area with a large number of candidates.

Furthermore, since "diversity" is based on external factors, and not on socioeconomic class, a "diverse" candidate from a very high socioeconomic background will be preferred over a  "non-diverse" candidate from a very low socioeconomic background. Thus affirmative action will often help people from high socioeconomic backgrounds who don't really need it but happen to fit diversity criteria rather than the intended population of people of low socioeconomic status who fit the diversity criteria.

[Caracal]

Furthermore, since "diversity" is based on external factors, and not on socioeconomic class, a "diverse" candidate from a very high socioeconomic background will be preferred over a  "non-diverse" candidate from a very low socioeconomic background. Thus affirmative action will often help people from high socioeconomic backgrounds who don't really need it but happen to fit diversity criteria rather than the intended population of people of low socioeconomic status who fit the diversity criteria.

And in this case, that isn't what's happening at all.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

...but the fact remains that what we know of the basic facts of Roman history (and other aspects of classical antiquity) is pretty much what it was in the 80s when I was in school.... or the 1930s, for instance, as well. ...

Recent Harzhorn battlefield discovery highlighted how wrong English translation of Historia Augusta persisted in many editions over multiple centuries. So, there is still room for groundbreaking discoveries of interest to certain segments of general public.

[Caracal]

1. I wish we could dispense with the idea that people "benefited" from affirmative action.

Why? There's lots of documentation of hiring frenzies of people with the correct "diversity credentials" in certain industries (including higher education) so that these people get way more job offers than any candidate normally would.  When  the qualified candidate pool is small, because the work is highly specialized, then affirmative action is going to skew the results much more than in a less specialized area with a large number of candidates.

It can't be skewing it much. A tiny percentage of grad students in the classics are minorities. (Numbers are not great, but seems like its low single digits)

[kaysixteen]

Good convo... my continuing thoughts:

1) like it or not, this man did unambiguously, unquestionably benefit from AA.   It is what it is.   AA was explicitly designed to benefit people like him.   I am personally in favor of getting rid of AA as we know it, and replacing it with specifically class-based AA (which of course would equally well have benefited this man), but too many people have vested interests in AA as it is now, and too many people, white working class types, who would benefit from class-based AA have largely ditched the idea that college is good, something to be sought after, to care.

2) This man is a revisionist.   Some of his ideas may well have merit, but he is arguing for them *without* substantive evidence.  Something we would never allow a freshman seminar student to do.   The fact that his ethnicity and deprived background offer classics a 'different perspective' does not change this.

3) who cares that many old-time classicists had been apologists for 19th c. imperialism?   Really, who cares?  And why care?

4) I am unfamiliar with the battlefield archaelogical discovery mentioned below, probably should get familiar with it.   I am however at pains to point out that (as I said before, acknowledging the once in a blue moon discovery of some new text) simply having discovered a new text that might question a traditional interpretation or translation of an existing one, does not mean that this new text is any more accurate than the traditional text and traditional interpretations.   New *archaeological discoveries* on the other hand, are very much more speculative.   I have had this running argument since grad school with a buddy of mine, he a classical archaeologist and me an ancient historian, namely that IMO archaeologists, though their discipline has become more scientific, still make enormous leap of faith claims based on almost no evidence, and/or extremely speculative interpretations of evidence.   I acknowledge fully that many of their claims *may well be true* but that they cannot argue these claims based on the evidence they adduce for them.

5) ancient societies were 'oppressive' though the Romans were probably the least oppressive in the long line of successive agrarian states that was 3000 years old by  the time of Christ.   But so were more or less all other cultures.   Slavery was ubiquitous.   We need not love everything the Romans did, but it is hard to judge an ancient people by modern standards, when in so many respects we simply know better, largely because we do study the examples of peoples like the Romans, and learn from their successes and mistakes.  This would, of course, be one of the main rationales for the continued study of the classics, given the outsized importance of these peoples in the development of our civilization.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

4) I am unfamiliar with the battlefield archaelogical discovery mentioned below, probably should get familiar with it.   I am however at pains to point out that (as I said before, acknowledging the once in a blue moon discovery of some new text) simply having discovered a new text that might question a traditional interpretation or translation of an existing one, does not mean that this new text is any more accurate than the traditional text and traditional interpretations.

The importance of Harzhorn is because its location that highlighted an arbitrary change made during English translation by some proto-classicist several centuries ago (and by some classicists who keep providing "corrected" version of the original text).

Description of Maximinius expedition from Historia Augusta at  uchicago.edu
ingressus igitur Germaniam Transrhenanam per triginta vel quadraginta milia barbarici soli vicos incendit..
He marched, then, into Germany across the Rhine, and throughout thirty or forty miles of the barbarians' country he burned villages...
But Harzhorn is 200+ km away east from Rhine (and probably much more if one is to follow ancient roads), so at first glace this description cannot refer to this event. However, renditions of the same source on the continent are given as
Ingressus igitur Germaniam transrhenanam per ccc vel cccc millia barbarici foli vicos incendit..
making Harzhorn discovery perfectly consistent with the text.

[Caracal]

G
5) ancient societies were 'oppressive' though the Romans were probably the least oppressive in the long line of successive agrarian states that was 3000 years old by  the time of Christ.   But so were more or less all other cultures.   Slavery was ubiquitous.   We need not love everything the Romans did, but it is hard to judge an ancient people by modern standards, when in so many respects we simply know better, largely because we do study the examples of peoples like the Romans, and learn from their successes and mistakes.  This would, of course, be one of the main rationales for the continued study of the classics, given the outsized importance of these peoples in the development of our civilization.

I think you're misreading the critique. Padilla isn't saying we shouldn't study the Greeks and Romans because slavery existed in their societies. Nor is he arguing that classicists should condemn them for having slaves. He's suggesting that Classics developed as a field within an ideology that assumed that the Romans and Greeks were worthy of being emulated and that was connected in to racial ideas, and not paying much attention to Roman slaves was part and parcel of that ideology.

I never really understand the term "revisionist" as a slur. What's the point of scholarship if we aren't revising previous understandings and interpretations? As far as imaginative history, most scholarship is imaginative in a sense, at least in the humanities. We take evidence and try to fill in the gaps. Some methods of doing that are legitimate and useful, others might be go too far, but I'd have to read the book to know which one this is.

[marshwiggle]

I think you're misreading the critique. Padilla isn't saying we shouldn't study the Greeks and Romans because slavery existed in their societies. Nor is he arguing that classicists should condemn them for having slaves. He's suggesting that Classics developed as a field within an ideology that assumed that the Romans and Greeks were worthy of being emulated and that was connected in to racial ideas, and not paying much attention to Roman slaves was part and parcel of that ideology.

Seems to me that modern society has done a lot of things differently than ancient Greece and Rome. "Emulation" of their society is like "emulation" of 19th century medicine; ideas that seem to still work are used,while ones that don't are discarded.

And having had no specific classics training, even I have heard that as the Roman empire was in decline, slaves outnumbered  free people, and this contributed to the downfall of the civilization. I'm guessing people who actually studied classics would have paid at least as much attention to Roman slaves as whatever popular sources I got my information from.

I never really understand the term "revisionist" as a slur. What's the point of scholarship if we aren't revising previous understandings and interpretations? As far as imaginative history, most scholarship is imaginative in a sense, at least in the humanities. We take evidence and try to fill in the gaps. Some methods of doing that are legitimate and useful, others might be go too far, but I'd have to read the book to know which one this is.

I'll let historians correct me on this, but my understanding is that it's generally rational to accept interpretations made nearest to the events, and with the broadest consensus, rather than accepting theories first expressed long after the events. It's even more problematic when the theory is presented to support a person's ideological position, rather than resulting from recent discoveries which suggest some of the accepted facts may have been incorrect.