Posted on 03/11/2010 8:01:00 AM PST by ConservativeDude
Need Help on Roman History Reading List....
I notice that St. John's at Santa Fe reads Books I-VI of Tacitus' Annals. On the face of it, that presents a problem, as that only takes the Roman history out to 37 AD. The rest of the Annals covers up to 66 AD, and then if you throw in his History, you can go all the way out to 70 AD. Of course, relying on Tacitus omits all the early history of Rome. But St. John's doesn't have any Livy. You can get all the Roman early history in Livy (including Hannibal and all that good stuff...), but, like Tacitus, it's pretty voluminous.
SO...the question is: how should the sweep of Roman history be covered? In an ideal world, shouldn't a serious great books student read just about all of Livy's Early History and all of Tacitus? Yes, that would be about a thousand pages. But shouldn't that be the starting point, or is that way overkill?
If that is too much, how much should be cut out? I am inclined to think that if six books of Tacitus is sufficient for St. John's (an excellent program!), then surely it is sufficient? Is that logic valid?
THANK YOU in advance for any advice on this front.....
Gibbon, or, as it was called in my experience, “The Gibbon”—
“Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.” Leads to so many ancient books and writings of all kinds.
Horrendous. Hard. Complex. And masterful.
yes, indeed...that is already part of the equation. Gibbon picks up (roughly) where Tacitus stops.
Fortunately, there are some very good abridged versions of Gibbon out there. Some excellent scholars have gone to the trouble of editing out his many deviations but left the general flow of his history intact (and of course his masterful use of the English language, as you rightly note).
So Gibbon is in the queue for post-Tacitus, up through not only the end of the Empire in the West, but continuing on through Justinian.
Which still leaves the earlier stuff...
I guess I could look for an abridged Livy and an abridged Tacitus....
Our college had a couple of planned interactions with the
St John's student body back then in an effort to build good will since we were both in the same city.
You know, it’s interesting. I “think” from what I hear is that St. John’s back in the day (ie, the 70s and 80s) was a bit of a holdout for hippies. Interestingly, now it has sort of “evolved” as the rest of academia tries to demonize and dismantle the study of Western Civ., all of a sudden, St. John’s has become (as I understand) very conservative!
My how times change! In light of the general trend of our culture in America, though, that sure makes sense!
I forwarded your question to my son who is a junior at St. John’s Annapolis. Where is your college? Can you say?
Not a student at these schools, but have a 50 year amateur interest in Roman history.
For the sweep of the history of the Monarchy and the Republic there is no substitute for Livy.
For the crisis of the Republic the best source is Appian. The relevant chapters of Plutarch draw great character studies. Caesar and his supporter Sallust explain things from the viewpoint of the populares.
For the Emperors of the 2nd century the best source is Cassius Dio.
Ammianus Marcellinus has some good material from the middle of the fourth century ending at the Battle of Adrianople.
One simply cannot cover the whole sweep of history in 4 years. What one can attempt is to stir the interest and the critical abilities of students so that those who want to get the pre-Augustus - Caesar dynasty Roman history can do their own snooping around.
In related news, a lot of us sixties Johnnies were indeed hippies, but as the program worked on us we became conservatives.
I do think that many make it through the program able to maintain their intellectual core untouched. I was recently in a most unpleasant conversation with more recent Johnnies and I was stunned to find them close-minded and uncritical worshippers of the left. It was as if they had never learned the self-questioning requisite for serious thought.
One simply cannot cover the whole sweep of history in 4 years.”
So...would you agree then that a sampling of Livy and Tacitus would be (in the way you say, to stimulate) sufficient?
I suppose, of course, that it really depends on your reasons for reading Roman history. Do you want a sweeping survey of the events of Roman history? Do you want more focus on one era than on another? Do you want them to learn what certain Romans thought about the Roman enterprise? Do you want them to learn what later men thought of Rome? Or what these men thought history itself to be? Does historical study include poetical and philosophical reflections upon historical events? Some or all of the above?
Some of this could be gotten from various textbooks, but that’s clearly not what you’re after. I can tell you what’s done at Thomas Aquinas College, much of which was taken directly from the program at St. Johns, some of which departs from it. Roman history is touched upon in various parts of the program, but much of it is concentrated near the beginning of the Sophomore Seminar. The following books are read; some are histories themselves, some provide ethical and/or political context for history, and some provide poetical and/or philosophical reflections on the men and events of history and some even on the nature of history itself:
Livy [Bk I, Bk II (in part)]
Plutarch [Marcellus, the Gracchi, Marius, Sulla, Caesar, Cato the Younger, Brutus]
Cicero [de Officiis]
Tacitus [Annals, Penguin ed., Chs 1-8 (thru AD 37)]
Lucretius [de Natura Rerum]
Virgil [Aeneid]
Machiavelli [Discourses on Livy]
Gibbon [Decline & Fall, Womersly ed., prefaces, chs 1-3, 15, 23-24, 28, General observations]
With such brief selections from some of the more robust histories (Livy, Tacitus, Gibbon), this is clearly not meant to provide a complete history of Rome. But it does provide, as much as is possible within the larger scope of the program, a context for the discussion of the nature of the Roman enterprise, of politics in general, and of the nature of history.
That is a very good point....a good way to kill two birds with one stone, as it were (looking fwd to Mach and Ren, while getting some Livy). Will look into that....
thank you...obviously nothing amateur about your knowledge!
Thank you. The Aeneid and Plutarch are already in the queue....
I think your response together with the others persuades me that opening two books of Livy, together with some of the stuff on Hannibal, together with Tacitus (probably 6 or 8 books), and Gibbon is sufficient. Probably will add some of Mach’s Discourses.
I feel like I can proceed to pare down some of this without guilt....thanks to each of you.
Do remember, all of Gaul is divided into three parts.
Noted.
By the way: Idylls of the King. Seems you’re probably able to help me with my Arthurian dilemma. Sort of similar. My own view is that the whole cycle is an important story - critically important in the west - but I am sort of underwhelmed by Mallory. Especially as compared to the volume.
But again, I think having some real familiarity with the whole Arthurian cycle is very, very important.
So I am leaning towards two assignments: one is to read all three Robert de Boron works for class. That is about 130 pages, but goes from Joseph taking the chalice to Jerusalem all the way to the death of Arthur. Very manageable. Unlike Mallory.
Then...I think I am going to just assign TH White’s Once and Future King to be read outside of class. (I’m also throwing in Quo Vadis, by the way, on the previous point, also to be read out of class, over the course of the year. Not too burdensome).
I think the combination of RDB and White is sufficient to give a good overview of Arthur.
What say you?
I blush to say I am not familiar with Livy. But I think that’s going to have to be the approach.
I am a graduate of the GPLS at Notre Dame.
Here is a link to the current reading list:
http://pls.nd.edu/courses/great-books/
My personal opinion - it stinks. A friend and I are compiling a list of our own. We’re going to give Malthus and Darwin a little “balance” and add some of what we see as serious omissions.
Once it’s complete, I’ll send you a copy, if you’re interested.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.