Nation, Empire, Decline: Studies in Rhetorical Continuity from the Romans to the Modern Era by Nancy Shumate

Abstract

BOOK REVIEWS 345 Nation, Empire, Decline:StudiesinRhetorical Continuity from theRomans tothe Modern Era.ByNANCY SHUMATE. London: Duckworth,2006. Pp. 191.Paper,$23.50.ISBN 0-7156-3551-4. In her new book, Nancy Shumate (henceforth S.) argues that numerousscholars of modernEuropean nationalismand imperialism see theirsubjects as disconnectedfromthe ancientworld. To them,certain"featuresofmodernity"-capitalism,democracy,mass media,etc.-are inseparablylinkedto imperialistic and nationalistic rhetoric.S., however, aims to demonstratethatthe "discourses of nationalismand imperialism"as theyappear in the19thand 20t centuries "were forgedin theiressentialsby theearly Roman Imperial period" (p. 7). To thisend, herbook offers readingsoftheworksof Juvenal,Horace and Tacitusthathighlightsimilarities withmodern nationalistand colonialisttexts. The introduction(pp. 7-17) establishesthe parametersforthe study.Recognizingthatmanyclassicistswill findtheconnections betweentheseancientand moderndiscoursesunremarkable, S. asserts thather book presentsmorethana tallyingof similarities between Romanand modernEuropean works;italso "reads forward, shifting thefocusaway fromthesources ofthe tropesand conventionsthat feedintotheRoman versionsofthesediscoursesand directing ittoward wheretheyseem to be going" (pp. 13-14). In thisway, S. sees herworkas a complementto studiesthatapply contemporary theoreticalperspectivestoancientliterature . Further, she reasonablycautionsthereaderagainstthepotentialpitfallsofanachronism .Still,in theintroduction (and, moreexpansively,in thework as a whole), S. chiefly focuseson ancientand modernrhetorical similarities. In thefirstchapter,"Them and Us: Constructing Romannessin theSatiresofJuvenal"(pp. 19-54),S. explorestheproto-nationalistic rhetoric inSatires1,2,3 and 6. Overall,shestressesthewaysinwhich Juvenal'spoems "anticipatewithremarkablecloseness some of the modernera's moreperniciousformsofnationalistothering"(p. 21). To S.,Juvenal'sspeakers,liketheauthorsofmodernnationalisttexts, disparage foreigners by associating them with women and "male genderoutlaws" (p. 24). Juvenal, she avers,also focuseson foreigners as agentsofcontamination-anothertropein modernnationalistdiscourse .Althoughrecognizing thatJuvenalcouldhavebeen tongue-incheek about such associations,S. believes thattheseSatiresdemonstratetheancientbona fidesofmuchmodernnationalistrhetoric. Chapter 2, "Augustan Nation-Buildingand Horace's 'Roman' Odes" (pp. 55-79), also focuseson theancientunderpinningsofnationalism .S. argues thatall ofHorace's "Roman" Odes, thoughvery different fromJuvenal'sSatires, anticipatetropescommonto modern nationalistdiscourses.Focusingon threeoftheseOdes (3.2,5 and 6), 346 BOOK REVIEWS S. stressestheir"idealizationofthenationalpast and theimplication ofissues ofgenderand sexualityin thatprocess" (p. 55). To S., these poems containmanyfeaturesassociated withnationalisticrhetoric: forexample,praiseofrurallifeand conservative insistenceon strictly maintainedgender roles. In sum, she perceives sufficiently strong connectionsbetween the Horatian and modern discourses to conclude thatwe should "adjust our understandingof thehistoryand developmentofnationalist ideology" (p. 79). In Chapter3, "Tacitusand theRhetoricofEmpire"(pp. 81-127), S. moves away fromdiscussions of nationalismtoward a focus on imperialism.More specifically, she uses portionsofTacitus' Agricola, Germania, Histories and Annalstohighlight theancientprovenanceof theNoble Savage conceptand examineitsrelationto broaderimperialthemes .Overall,S. stressestheintricacies ofTacitus'ruminations on empire;his work "problematizesas much as abets the colonial process,by combiningjustifications ofRoman hegemonywithinternal contradictions and complex undercurrents" (p. 83). Tacitus,she argues,criticizes boththecolonizerand thecolonized. The finalchapter,"'Crazy Egypt' and Colonial Discourse in Juvenal 's Fifteenth Satire"(pp. 129-58),continueswiththetopicofimperialism ,discussingtheways in whichSatire15 prefigures aspects of moderncolonial discourse.Juvenal'sspeaker,S. argues,offersa blistering-and contradictory-attack onEgyptians, considering them both decadent and primitive.The chapterconcludes with a short epilogue (pp. 155-8) thatconnectsJuvenal'scolonialisttropesto the vicissitudesofdiscussionsofthemodernMiddle East. Overall,thereis much to recommendin thisbook. S. presentsa numberof striking parallels between the ancientand modern discourses on nationalism and imperialism.These parallels, furthermore ,are always clearlyexplained and allow thereaderless attuned to the literatureon modern colonialism and nationalismto follow along withease. S.'s discussionofTacitusis particularly impressive: farfromoffering a black-and-white portraitofeitheran imperialist sinneror an anti-imperialist saint,S. ablydemonstrates theambiguitiesand complexitiesin Tacitus' oeuvre. In general,one detectsgreat intellectualcarefulnessand self-awarenesson S.'s part. She is attuned , forinstance,to the complex connectionsbetween Horace's poetryand theAugustanregime. Although S. notes thather work is intended as a preliminary study of the connectionsbetween ancient and modern discourses, herbook presentsimportant unansweredquestions.S. is farfromthe firstto traceancientprecedentsto imperialismin modernWestern rhetoric. In his landmarkstudyOrientalism (1978), Edward Said argued thattheWest's perceptionsoftheEast have remainedlargely unchangedsinceas farback as Aeschylus'Persai.This leftSaid open BOOK REVIEWS 347 to the charge of-in Sadik Jalalal-'Azm's words-"Orientalism in Reverse":essentializingtheWestby makingitappear as ifOrientalism is an ineluctablecomponentof the "European mind."' In her book, S. leads the reader to believe thatJuvenal'scolonial rhetoric differs littlefromthatofthecontemporary neoconservativeintellectual Michael Ledeen. Is thisnotalso "Orientalismin Reverse"?Does itnotportray Westernintellectual history as disarmingly static? To thisone mightadd a fewpragmaticcriticisms. Forherdiscussionsofmodernnationalist and colonialistrhetoric, S.'s workis largelymediatedthroughthelens ofmodernscholars,ratherthandirectly transmitted. To someextent, thisis unsurprising: itis unfairtoexpect an expertin classical antiquityto presentequally insightful analyses ofmodernliterature. Yet throughout Nation,Empire, Decline,theengagementwithmodernnationalistand colonialistdiscourses comes almostentirely fromsecondarysources.It would have been helpful ifS. herselfoffered a close readingofa fewmoderntexts,so thatthe reader would not need to relyso heavily on theparsing of others. The...