Tolkien -- Enemy of Rome

[Robert Vermaat]

Titus,<br>
<br>
As a historian I had to learn a lot about many theories, being sociological, philosophical or otherwise attempting to explain the ‘why’s’ and the ‘how’s’. Each of these disciplines looks at history and the current times in their own way, judging both. Unsurprisingly, they theories seem in conflict. While there is a common feeling that ‘the old days were so much better’, we are also taught that current society is the best we have had yet, this being the product of modern western superiority-thinking.<br>
<br>
Your view on ‘classical’ culture as anything up to the 18th century is refreshing yet unusual. If I would look at this period quickly, it includes the Iron Age, the Roman period, but also the Medieval period. This seems rather contradictory, as the latter can surely not be counted as better than the Roman period before and the Renaissance after?<br>
However, if you would qualify ‘all up to the 18th century’ as the pre-Industrial Age, I see where you are going.<br>
<br>
Of course, I don’t quite agree with your evaluation. For example, there were many non-urbanised regions in 19th-century Europe which could very well be compared to 16th-century society, or even earlier. Apparently, ‘classical’ culture continued there after the 18th century for a long time.<br>
<br>
I agree with you that ‘culture’ is elitist, though. Education is (or should be) a right, but until quite recently it was the prerogative of the elite.<br>
Otherwise, you can still say that ‘culture’ is elitist, in the sense that those who study the Arts (literature, poetry, painting, etc.) close themselves off from the ‘common’ masses.<br>
<br>
Turning to this group, this is where I disagree that culture is ‘humanistic’. Yes, in the sense that it bring the enlightenment which supports and pronounces the ‘humanistic’ values, I would also stress that ‘culture’ is the product of all the ideas of all individuals in any society.<br>
Obviously, you are disappointed by modern ‘culture’. So am I, and I could agree with looking at the modern age as less preferable, seeing the ‘modern’ age bring decreasing values, a drive to an extreme individualism (or is it nihilism), produced by a dehumanised form of international capitalism.<br>
<br>
The concept of trade as a threat to society is indeed a novel one. Or so it seems.<br>
<br>
You see, while we can agree that our own days seem less preferable to ancient times and ‘ancient culture’, what we should realise it that those days had their darker sides as well. Capitalism is not new, and ancient capitalism could ruin whole populations. For example, it was greed that drove many a Roman to conquer new lands, where the unfortunate surviving population was depossessed at best, or sold into slavery at worst. These practises continued, from ancient times right up to the end of your ‘classical’ period, by which time we called it ‘Colonialism’. The American Indian and the inhabitants of many an African region can vouch for it.<br>
<br>
And that is why I do not agree with your conclusion about ‘classical’ culture. You see, much is different and much is the same, but today there is also a realisation that we can’t do such things anymore. Unlike the individual in your ‘classical’ period, the modern individual has the novel concept of disagreeing with the ‘powers that be’, and in some cases doing something about it.<br>
<br>
That concept IS a novel one!<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert<br>
<p></p><i></i>