01-24-2005, 12:03 PM
very very skewed.<br>
<br>
Basically, the article appears to be saying "The Romans were not that great because they didn't think like us, didn't have modern medicine and didn't use soap." An odd concept to say the least.<br>
<br>
Now, taking soap first: There were until very recently entire civilisations in this world who had never heard of soap, yet when they encountered the soap-using Europeans they found them, not to put too fine a point on it, smelly. Olive oil and a strigil are perfectly good tools for getting clean in a Roman bath, certainly better than what the soap-using Germans had. Adding to which we need to keep in mind that Roman baths were about a lot more than getting clean.<br>
<br>
As to medicine, I think the record needs to be set straight in more ways than one. First off, we don't actually know how well the majority of Roman medicines performed because they haven't been tried, but ethnomedical studies have shown us that dismissing them out of hand is wrongheaded. Does anyone else remember the scorn modern (1920s) authors heaped upon the medieval Hospitaller knights because they scraped *mould* on open wounds? Penicillium family moulds, to be precise. I would not be surprised if similar misunderstandings clouded our view of Roman medicine today.<br>
<br>
Incidentally, I encourage all who can to read Dioscurides' Materia Medica (there's a new German translation out, unfortunately I don't know of an English one). A very methodical and careful collection of remedies, many of which continued in use in modern herbal medicine. This may not be modern medicine, but I challenge everyone to tell me what exactly the author could, realistically, be expected to do better.<br>
<br>
Then there is an interesting conflation of two common criticisms of Roman medicine (and science in general). First, the authoritative theory. This is one of the most terrible misunderstandings in history, but you can't blame it on the Romans. Of course Galen sets himself up as the ultimate authorities in health matters and denigrates his rivals - he was making a living in the shark tank of upper crust medicine. This was par for the course. Only later generations could misread the topoi of philosophical debate (and academic self-advertisement) as reputable claims to omniscience, and I think the thinking habits of scriptural religion and hierarchical doctrine are to blame here. What is really interesting, though, is the way the author quotes some truly interesting items of evidence to counter this charge: the inscriptions on medicine that was 'tried' on a certain person or 'proven' in the great scab epidemic. This is empiricism at work. Surely, if Roman medicine had been the ossified tradition it is seen as this would be anathema.<br>
<br>
As to the disdain for curiosity: that is indeed an attitude quite prevalent in the Roman upper class. Nonetheless, this is the same social class that brought forth Pliny and Seneca. I prefer not to read Cicero's magisterial pronunciations as an accurate guide to prevailing Roman attitudes (not to mention the fact that most science and engineering went on at a level below the governing classes anyway and the prevailing middle-class ethic seems to have been rather different). Taken in proper context I think the quip about 'admiring the work, but not emulating the creator' is about on par with a modern Republican saying things like "Businessmen contribute more to society than intellectuals".<br>
<br>
The artistic 'sterility' of Rome is another concept I would challenge. I mean, anyone can come up with an arbitrary canon. Does anyone recall the nineteenth century frequently considered itself lacking in artistic achievement? We may well be falling for the Romans' self-image here, in that we adopted their canonisation of the Greek classics and their Roman emulators while neglecting their contemporaries. I would submit for consideration of Rome's literary vibrancy: Apuleius, Lukian, Martialis, Ausonius, Juvenal, St. Augustine (great writer, he, whatever you think of his theology), Tacitus and the beautiful clarity of Paulus' Sententiae. You don't have to like what they created, but it certainly wasn't devoid of creative genius.<br>
<br>
Looking at Rome with a modern eye cannot but result in condemnation. Yet the same is true for any age before our own. Washington? A slaveholder! Churchill? A misogynist! Columbus? A greedy conqueror! St Bernard of Clairvaux? A Muslim-hating bigot! Surely, this is nonsense. Taking Rome on its own terms, its achievements are formidable. So are its shortcomings, but I would dread to find out what future generations (if any) will think of us.<br>
<br>
Vale<br>
<br>
Volker <p></p><i></i>
<br>
Basically, the article appears to be saying "The Romans were not that great because they didn't think like us, didn't have modern medicine and didn't use soap." An odd concept to say the least.<br>
<br>
Now, taking soap first: There were until very recently entire civilisations in this world who had never heard of soap, yet when they encountered the soap-using Europeans they found them, not to put too fine a point on it, smelly. Olive oil and a strigil are perfectly good tools for getting clean in a Roman bath, certainly better than what the soap-using Germans had. Adding to which we need to keep in mind that Roman baths were about a lot more than getting clean.<br>
<br>
As to medicine, I think the record needs to be set straight in more ways than one. First off, we don't actually know how well the majority of Roman medicines performed because they haven't been tried, but ethnomedical studies have shown us that dismissing them out of hand is wrongheaded. Does anyone else remember the scorn modern (1920s) authors heaped upon the medieval Hospitaller knights because they scraped *mould* on open wounds? Penicillium family moulds, to be precise. I would not be surprised if similar misunderstandings clouded our view of Roman medicine today.<br>
<br>
Incidentally, I encourage all who can to read Dioscurides' Materia Medica (there's a new German translation out, unfortunately I don't know of an English one). A very methodical and careful collection of remedies, many of which continued in use in modern herbal medicine. This may not be modern medicine, but I challenge everyone to tell me what exactly the author could, realistically, be expected to do better.<br>
<br>
Then there is an interesting conflation of two common criticisms of Roman medicine (and science in general). First, the authoritative theory. This is one of the most terrible misunderstandings in history, but you can't blame it on the Romans. Of course Galen sets himself up as the ultimate authorities in health matters and denigrates his rivals - he was making a living in the shark tank of upper crust medicine. This was par for the course. Only later generations could misread the topoi of philosophical debate (and academic self-advertisement) as reputable claims to omniscience, and I think the thinking habits of scriptural religion and hierarchical doctrine are to blame here. What is really interesting, though, is the way the author quotes some truly interesting items of evidence to counter this charge: the inscriptions on medicine that was 'tried' on a certain person or 'proven' in the great scab epidemic. This is empiricism at work. Surely, if Roman medicine had been the ossified tradition it is seen as this would be anathema.<br>
<br>
As to the disdain for curiosity: that is indeed an attitude quite prevalent in the Roman upper class. Nonetheless, this is the same social class that brought forth Pliny and Seneca. I prefer not to read Cicero's magisterial pronunciations as an accurate guide to prevailing Roman attitudes (not to mention the fact that most science and engineering went on at a level below the governing classes anyway and the prevailing middle-class ethic seems to have been rather different). Taken in proper context I think the quip about 'admiring the work, but not emulating the creator' is about on par with a modern Republican saying things like "Businessmen contribute more to society than intellectuals".<br>
<br>
The artistic 'sterility' of Rome is another concept I would challenge. I mean, anyone can come up with an arbitrary canon. Does anyone recall the nineteenth century frequently considered itself lacking in artistic achievement? We may well be falling for the Romans' self-image here, in that we adopted their canonisation of the Greek classics and their Roman emulators while neglecting their contemporaries. I would submit for consideration of Rome's literary vibrancy: Apuleius, Lukian, Martialis, Ausonius, Juvenal, St. Augustine (great writer, he, whatever you think of his theology), Tacitus and the beautiful clarity of Paulus' Sententiae. You don't have to like what they created, but it certainly wasn't devoid of creative genius.<br>
<br>
Looking at Rome with a modern eye cannot but result in condemnation. Yet the same is true for any age before our own. Washington? A slaveholder! Churchill? A misogynist! Columbus? A greedy conqueror! St Bernard of Clairvaux? A Muslim-hating bigot! Surely, this is nonsense. Taking Rome on its own terms, its achievements are formidable. So are its shortcomings, but I would dread to find out what future generations (if any) will think of us.<br>
<br>
Vale<br>
<br>
Volker <p></p><i></i>
Der Kessel ist voll Bärks!
Volker Bach
Volker Bach
