Subscribe right here: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Pocket Casts
On this episode of The David Frum Present, The Atlantic’s David Frum opens with reflections on the misuse of historical past in at the moment’s politics. He argues that fascism, as soon as thought to have been buried by the Second World Warfare, has reemerged in fashionable kinds, thriving on the limitless hunt for enemies, stoking tradition wars, and exploiting new applied sciences. And he explains why the very best antidotes stay liberty, equality, and generally humor.
Then David is joined by Mary Beard, one of many world’s foremost students of Rome and the creator of the New York Instances greatest vendor Emperor of Rome, for a dialog about what the traditional world can educate us about present politics. They focus on how Roman emperors wielded energy, why extra and corruption have been baked into the system, and the way fragile even the strongest-seeming regimes might be. Beard explains why myths about Roman grandeur persist, what each day life really regarded like beneath the empire, and what classes fashionable democracies ought to (and shouldn’t) draw from Rome’s rise and fall.
The next is a transcript of the episode:
David Frum: Good day, and welcome again to The David Frum Present. I’m David Frum, a workers author at The Atlantic. Right now’s present might be about historical past, its use, and its misuse. Now, that’s not so uncommon. There’s a variety of dialogue of historical past within the podcast world, however this present is uncommon in that my visitor will not be some self-taught crackpot, not some professor of chemistry someplace who has some ideas about Jews. Right now’s visitor might be Dame Mary Beard, who’s Nice Britain’s main classicist and knowledgeable on the historical past of Rome and the traditional world. So that you’re going to be speaking to any individual, or listening to from somebody, who is aware of what she’s speaking about, and that’s a bit of completely different from what typically occurs in discussions of historical past on the web.
Walter Lippmann, a century in the past, in his e book Public Opinion, wrote, “The actually vital factor is to try to make opinion more and more accountable to the information. There might be no liberty for a group which lacks the knowledge by which to detect lies.” Now, we reside in a really peculiar, perverse fashionable world the place nobody lacks data. Info has by no means been extra plentiful. You may have all the knowledge you need. You may have good data if you would like it. You may have the very best data if you would like it. You may haven’t solely all the pieces that’s out there to you on the web, however due to the web and because of web commerce, you may have books, the very best books, delivered to you immediately, tomorrow. And never simply at the moment’s books, however the classics. Something that’s out of print—someplace on planet Earth, it exists someplace, and it may be delivered to your very door inside 24, 48 hours, or a couple of extra days than that. You’ve got entry to all the pieces. The issue that we now have is one unanticipated by Walter Lippmann, the place there’s an abundance of data, however folks persistently select dangerous data so typically, and that’s very true within the realm of the use and abuse of historical past.
Why is it that that is taking place so quick? Why is it, particularly, that we’re listening to a lot protection of fascism and protection of [Adolf] Hitler, actually, as our introduction to historic examine in a lot of the net world. Properly, a part of it’s that, look—simply because the web has made it doable to create ever extra specialised types of pornography for folks with ever extra specialised types of kink, so rarer and rarer segments of opinion get increasingly materials delivered to them. And again within the outdated days once we had that legacy media monopoly—CBS, ABC, NBC, and the others would collectively agree, Look—despite the fact that we may make a bit of more money by serving a Nazi market, we’re simply not going to do it. We’re going to go away these {dollars} on the desk and accumulate all the opposite {dollars}. However within the segmented market, there are individuals who say, I’m going for the Nazi {dollars}; I’m going for all of the Nazi {dollars} as a result of these are the one {dollars} which can be out there to me, are the Nazi {dollars}. So there’s one thing of that occurring. However I believe there’s something deeper taking place, one thing vital.
Bear in mind the character on Seinfeld, the Soup Nazi? He wasn’t an actual Nazi; he simply was bossy. For a very long time we’ve used the phrases Nazi and fascists as form of epithets—jokey or not-so-jokey types of insult. And since we use them as insults and since the individuals who obtain them obtain them as insults, it’s very laborious for us to make use of them as analytic classes.
Evaluate the phrase fascist to the phrase socialist. Now, socialist can be utilized as an insult too. President [Donald] Trump and the folks round him use socialist as an insult, at the same time as they’re nationalizing the technique of manufacturing and taking up corporations and making the state the arbiter of what’s mentioned on tv and what types of expertise get made and whether or not or not U.S. Metal can have its headquarters in Pittsburgh or another metropolis. The federal government actually will get the proper to determine that.
However we additionally acknowledge that despite the fact that socialism is used—or socialist—as an insult, it’s an analytic class that we are able to perceive. There are socialist concepts. There are socialist individuals. There are individuals who’re extra socialist or much less socialist. Concepts which can be extra socialist. There are socialist events. There are socialist actions. And we are able to make nonpejorative, noninsulting descriptive statements about them. We will observe their concepts, observe their conduct. Generally they win political energy.
Fascism earlier than the Second World Warfare was one thing related. You might use it as an analytic class. Due to the whole and correct discrediting of fascism throughout the battle—and since it was so badly defeated throughout the battle—it has tended to drop out of use as an analytic class, even by the fascists themselves. Ernest Hemingway wrote, in one in all his novels concerning the Spanish Civil Warfare, “There are a lot of fascists in my nation; they simply don’t realize it but. However they are going to when the time comes.” Properly, the time has come, and we’re seeing the rise of fascist actions all around the developed world. They typically name themselves nationalists, however they’re not nationalists. They’re really extra worldwide than any liberal motion. They’ve fashioned a form of community, and the web is their binding kind.
And one of many points that they’re on the web to litigate is, who was proper concerning the Second World Warfare, and whether or not america and Nice Britain and different Allies made the correct determination to withstand fascism then, even on the satan’s Faustian value of constructing a brief alliance with the Soviet Union to defeat Hitler. They need to re-litigate that as half of a bigger venture to rehabilitate the factor they don’t but dare name fascism, however which is fascism.
I need to possibly pause right here to consider what fascism as an analytic class ought to appear to be. Not as an epithet, not as an insult, and never as a joke, however as a method, actually, to explain a rising group of individuals in lots of nations who’re cooperating collectively within the pursuit of affect and energy. Socialism as an analytic class exists, despite the fact that not everyone agrees on what the definition of socialism is, despite the fact that not everyone agrees on the place the traces are, and despite the fact that not everyone agrees on who matches into which field inside these traces. We will all agree the idea is there—though making use of the idea can typically, in observe, be a bit of sophisticated or unsure.
Properly, I believe the identical is true for fascism. It’s a system of thought and perception. Now, as a result of fascism did prior to now and does at the moment emphasize motion and feeling over purpose, as a result of it’s not as doctrinaire as socialism, it’s a bit of more durable to jot down down what its contents are. We will’t outline it very effectively, however we are able to describe it. You see a craving for authoritarian management—and never authoritarian management by some committee, however authoritarian management by the cult of the person chief who’s represented as extra manly, extra masculine, extra bodily match, extra virile than different males. That’s the idea of his management, is his declare to this sort of virility. Additionally, his declare to channel the unstated emotions of the folks. Fascism at all times rejects formal strategies for ascertaining what the need of the folks is, what public opinion is. It prefers an emotional and casual silent bond between this cult of the charismatic, virile nationwide chief and his followers.
Fascism is backward-looking in its targets, however fashionable in its strategies. There are a lot of types of authoritarianism that aren’t fascist, as a result of they’re backward; they’re conventional. In the event you meet, in some distant a part of the world, a tribal chief, and other people obey him as a result of they really feel the gods want them to, that may be fairly authoritarian, however it’s not fascist, as a result of it’s backward-looking. Fascism in its strategies is as fashionable as tomorrow. Within the Thirties, it used the brand new applied sciences of the radio and the airplane. And within the 2020s, it makes use of the brand new applied sciences of at the moment. Certainly, fascists are sometimes higher and sooner at adapting these new applied sciences than their extra tradition-minded adversaries.
Fascism provides statism, however with out equality. It desires to manage business; it desires to manage manufacturing—however it doesn’t achieve this with the thought of constructing everyone higher off. It does so with an concept of aggrandizing the ability of the group.
However crucial high quality of fascism, I believe the factor that’s the take a look at of whether or not it’s there or not, is what makes it go. Socialism is impressed by the best of equality. Liberalism is impressed by the best of liberty or freedom. Fascism is impressed by the seek for enemies of the group. And everytime you see folks with a powerful “friend-versus-enemy” mind-set—allies versus adversaries, insiders versus outsiders—what you’re seeing is the emotional juice on which fascism feeds.
That’s why I’m going to take critically for a second this latest absurd outburst—it’s latest on the day I recorded it; there could also be a bit of lag earlier than you see it—concerning the altering of the branding of the Cracker Barrel restaurant chain. Now, Cracker Barrel, as these of you who’ve pushed America’s highways know, is a well-liked restaurant in lots of America’s rural locations. Sadly for the shareholders and staff of Cracker Barrel, it’s decreasingly common. It’s misplaced a variety of market share over the previous decade. Cracker Barrel’s inventory and commerce is nostalgia. And the nostalgia that it has been providing is nostalgia that folks don’t keep in mind anymore. It’s not nostalgia in your childhood; it’s nostalgia in your grandfather’s childhood. And individuals who really feel nostalgia need the product that reminds them of their very own childhood. So Cracker Barrel has, in an effort to carry on to or reverse its declining market share, rebranded itself. Good determination, dangerous determination? I don’t know. Don’t have an opinion.
This has develop into a culture-war flashpoint of a form that we’ve seen so typically, and it appears of all those we now have seen, possibly probably the most loopy, probably the most absurd. Nevertheless it’s not absurd as a result of what it’s—it’s part of the method of the limitless hunt to establish enemies. And the problem over which you establish your enemies—it doesn’t should be vital as a result of the take a look at isn’t the problem. The take a look at is the seek for enemies and the in-gathering of allies to create a friend-foe distinction as Carl Schmitt, the German thinker, wrote. Chances are you’ll not have heard of Carl Schmitt, I don’t advocate him to you, however he’s the central textual content of many within the new fashionable fascist motion. He’s been learn and admired by many who’re very near the Trump White Home, and you’ll hear echoes of his language and above all his concept that the ability to manipulate is the ability to establish folks as enemies of the state. Whether or not they’re foreigners or insiders, fellow residents, the enemy might be recognized by the state, and the instruments of the state can be utilized towards them. And that’s what’s occurring with this Cracker Barrel story. It’s only a method to flush out who the enemies are and to establish who the chums are.
Now, Cracker Barrel additionally provides a glimpse of what our hope is. I imply, the best way you beat fascism, in the long term—the technique, the beliefs—are upholding the concepts of liberty and equality and human dignity. And since liberty and equality go extra naturally collectively than the fascist concepts, there’s a purpose why social democrats have typically been a useful resource for liberals within the battle towards fascism. As a result of liberals and socialists usually are not animated by the identical factor, however they will acknowledge there’s a form of extra cousinly kinship between the beliefs of equality and liberty than there’s between both of these and the limitless hunt for inside and exterior enemies to persecute and punish. However we are able to stand for these beliefs and we are able to uphold the establishments of legislation, the establishments of legality, the establishments of democracy.
However within the brief run, the very best instrument towards fascism is humor. You already know, fascism at all times teeters on the sting of the ridiculous. One of many first folks to grasp this was one of many biggest of early comedians, Charlie Chaplin, who made a movie concerning the Nazi motion referred to as The Nice Dictator, during which he relentlessly mocked the buffoonery and absurdity. He ended with an uplifting message of common brotherhood. However all alongside the best way via the film The Nice Dictator, he depends on humor.
And as you confront folks looking for group enemies and group allies by complaining concerning the rebranding of Cracker Barrel, you notice they’re teetering on the precipice of absurdity, and comedy is the push that may topple them over and discredit them, not with horror—though that’s definitely deserved—however with laughter.
All the things comes again, it appears, even the discredited concepts of 90 years in the past—they usually’re again. And the truth that they’ve modified their kind and their method and their expertise doesn’t imply they’ve modified their substance. We thought it was gone. It’s again. And finding out each the previous and the current is a part of the mental armament to face up towards it, and that’s why I’m so grateful at the moment, Mary Beard—we’re going to speak about very various things, of a really completely different historic period, however understanding the passage of time and the best way we’re related to what got here earlier than and what we’re related to, what is going to come subsequent, is our method to belong to a better human group that insists on the universality of the very best beliefs and the antagonism of common beliefs to the brutal particularism that’s what fascism is all about.
Earlier than I am going on to my dialogue with Mary Beard, nevertheless, I’m going to ask you a bit of favor. We at The Atlantic are hoping to study extra concerning the viewers for this podcast. We’re hoping to study extra about you: our listeners and our viewers. And so we need to ask you a couple of questions. How did you uncover this podcast? What do you consider the present? So we put collectively a brief survey. It will be very useful if you happen to may take a couple of minutes to reply it. You may go to the TheAtlantic.com/Survey. We’ll have a hyperlink within the present notes as effectively. And as a thank-you, the primary 100 respondents to the survey will get a $20 reward card. So please reply the survey. Please share and subscribe and get the phrase out about this podcast.
And now my dialogue with Mary Beard. However first, a fast break.
[Music]
Frum: Mary Beard is Nice Britain’s main scholar of the classical world. She took her first diploma and her Ph.D. at Cambridge, the place she teaches to at the present time. An bizarre introduction can not do justice to the breadth and depth of Mary Beard’s printed works. Her most up-to-date is Emperor of Rome: Ruling the [Ancient] Roman World. SPQR: A Historical past of [Ancient] Rome has develop into an enormous and enduring greatest vendor on either side of the Atlantic. The e book of hers that exerts particular maintain on me is The Roman Triumph, a disconcertingly unique examine of the Roman genius at inventing traditions after which insisting that these traditions had at all times been there all alongside. Mary Beard will shortly, on the finish of August, launch a podcast of her personal, Instantaneous Classics, and that might be must-listening for everybody who cares concerning the Roman world. Mary Beard, welcome to The David Frum Present.
Mary Beard: Nice to be with you, David.
Frum: So it’s the month of August as we document, a month that honors a Roman emperor lifeless greater than 2,000 years. So this appears—not well timed (that might not be the proper phrase however apposite, acceptable. However what I need to speak to you about is that this behavior we now have of constructing polemical comparisons to construct our personal up to date functions to and concerning the Roman world. I do know that is one thing you have got warned about. Can we begin by speaking about that?
Beard: I believe the temptation is irresistible to make comparisons with the Roman world. I believe that’s what Rome has carried out for the West ever because it ceased to be Rome, actually. It was there as a form of method of judging your self, evaluating your self, discovering classes. And I believe that that’s much more the case in america. I imply, I don’t see how anyone may reside inside United States politics and never consistently have half an eye fixed on Rome. I imply, my subject is I would like them to be higher comparisons, higher analogies, and I’m significantly allergic to the concept that someway historical Rome provides a form of grocery store shelf from which we are able to choose no matter comparability is handy to us on the time and someway justify our personal foolishness.
Frum: Properly, you might be proper concerning the American propensity, and the comparisons we prefer to make are sometimes very moralistic ones. So if you happen to suppose that the world is just too licentious, you say, Aha, and then you definitely scrabble via for some actual or invented classical citation that reveals that licentiousness was the issue. In the event you suppose immigrants are the issue, once more, scrabble via the traditional world for some historical actual or invented citation.
Beard: Yeah. And we shouldn’t be too self-flagellatory about this. I believe, you realize, we’re not the primary era to have carried out this. You already know, you return to the nineteenth century, and you’ll find a number of the vastest and hottest work in the entire of the Western world are each—effectively, they’re a humorous combination of decrying and secretly celebrating Roman licentiousness. So, you realize, this has been on the agenda for hundreds of years.
Frum: Sure. Properly, the decrying, that’s a favourite of tabloids and tabloid tv on either side of the Atlantic. Keep tuned for extra surprising pictures of semi-clad girls. We condemn these surprising, these semi-clad pictures, which we’re about to indicate much more of after the break.
Beard: (Laughs.) That’s proper. And I assumed that after I watched Gladiator II, really. I assumed that all of us sit there, tut-tut, and say how appalling it’s that the Romans may have taken pleasure within the slaughtering of different human beings. And we get a sure sense of ethical superiority. We then all present up on the movie show and we watch folks being decapitated. Now, you may say, Nevertheless it’s not actual. And there’s a truthful level there. However the boundary between seeing somebody actually decapitated and seeing somebody decapitated so realistically that you simply don’t realize it’s not actual is a really odd one.
Frum: Would you are taking a minute right here? As a result of I believe some folks get this combined up, between the autumn of the Roman Republic and the autumn of the Roman empire. May you simply stroll us via why these two issues are completely different?
Beard: Yeah. They’re two very, very completely different moments, two very completely different narratives, a whole bunch of years aside. After we speak concerning the fall of the republic, what we’re speaking about is the tip of the type of democratic society—and type of could be very a lot underlined there—beneath which Rome had lived and been ruled by from about 500 B.C.E. till, actually, Julius Caesar in the course of the primary century B.C.E. And Caesar in taking up the state and basically imposing—he was not really emperor, however imposing some kind, very briefly, of one-man rule is often seen as the tip of the republic when the establishments of common energy and management give method to what’s by no means referred to as a monarchy in Rome, however is basically that.
The autumn of the empire is more durable to pin down as a result of I can fairly fortunately say, Properly, look, center of the primary century B.C.E.: That’s when autocracy involves rule in Rome relatively than a power-sharing system you had earlier than. The autumn of the Roman empire is way more diffuse, way more laborious to explain, way more laborious so far, really, and it’s marked, in a way, for a lot of historians—however there are very many various methods of interested by this—when the Roman empire, by way of the territorial extent of the Roman empire, is now not, in a way, managed centrally from Rome, however is break up into completely different elements, is typically break up into two with one other capital at Constantinople in what’s now Turkey.
However there are all kinds of mini-capitals round, which is someway breaking down the unity of the Roman empire as a political construction. You now not at all times have a single emperor. Most of the conventional imperial methods of governing the place have disappeared, actually. You’ve bought the rise of various types of political and navy energy. There’s a variety of snobbishness in Roman writers concerning the nouveau riche who are actually working the present. And there’s navy battle. Rome’s boundaries, which had, for hundreds of years, in a way, been, not inviolable, however by and huge with probably the most restricted and really containable quantities of navy battle on the edges—they develop into increasingly weak. It turns into more durable, actually, to see the place the Roman empire begins and the place it stops.
However it’s a large subject, which is basically, actually laborious to explain, even, not to mention to elucidate, however has—since [the British historian Edward] Gibbon and earlier than Gibbon, with The [History of the] Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire—it has someway been a kind of historic massive issues that we form of need everyone to have the ability to say, Proper. That is when the Roman Empire stopped being the Roman Empire, and that is why.
Frum: Yeah, Edward Gibbon, The [History of the] Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which is type of the central textual content for moralizing accounts of why Rome fell. The dearth of advantage, by which he means not Christian conduct, as a result of the Christians are the enemy in his e book, however manly conduct, navy conduct. And the Romans someway develop into much less navy over time, and that’s why the empire falls.
Beard: And completely different folks, not a part of the normal elite, are inclined to develop into those who’re taking the lead militarily. However for Gibbon—and this has by no means been completely overthrown as an concept, although it’s been massively complexified—for Gibbon, the Roman empire can not maintain the revolution into Christianity.
Frum: Yeah. I need to take you thru a few of our most up to date makes use of of Rome as a result of I believe a variety of us have these habits they usually’re unexamined, they usually’ve really develop into very intense in america lately.
Traditionally, I believe it’s truthful to say, historically, Roman comparisons are one thing that conservatives do as a result of conservatives are frightened about ethical dissolution, they usually enchantment to Rome. And though I don’t know that emperors ever actually did eat grapes reclining on couches, that we now have the sense of. However in latest instances—the previous two or three years—that is an argument that’s unfold up on the left. And that is an implicit comparability of unpopular politicians, significantly Donald Trump, to Roman emperors or to the Roman strongmen of the late republic, and say, Aha! What occurred to the tip of the Roman Republic, that’s what’s taking place to us with Donald Trump. So we don’t want to speak about Donald Trump, good or dangerous. We have to speak about Donald Trump: Roman; not Roman.
Beard: Yeah. Properly, I believe you’re partly proper, and I believe that most individuals would observe you, David, in saying that if you happen to suppose now about comparisons with Rome and the thought of Roman values, you’d consider it, by and huge—not completely, however by and huge—because the rhetoric of conservative commentators. I believe we’ve bought to keep in mind that, as you counsel, that’s not completely the case now, however the historical past of Rome—not a lot the Roman empire and the interval of one-man rule—however the historical past of the Roman Republic was, from the 18th century and earlier than, fairly often a slogan for radical revolutionary politics. I believe it was Marx who mentioned that the French Revolution occurred in Roman gown.
So Rome is a kind of shifting, reinventable, and fluid symbols that the majority bits of politics, most sides of politics, someday work with. So I don’t suppose it’s ever restricted to a selected political standpoint.
Frum: All proper. So I need to stroll via a number of the ways in which we’re completely different from the Romans and why the analogy doesn’t work. I believe one of many issues that’s type of startling to appreciate is the Romans—there’s a dispute whether or not the Romans even had maps, whether or not they knew what their empire bodily regarded like. And it’s not clear. However we all know they didn’t have statistics. It’s not clear they’d a funds. It’s not clear that the emperor knew how a lot income he had or how a lot he was spending.
Beard: No. And even whether or not coverage, in our phrases, was doable. Even whether or not a form of sense of, The place do I would like this polity that I’m governing to be in 10 years’ time and the way may I get there? That concept of prediction mixed with motion is one thing that we are inclined to retroject onto the Romans, and we think about them in a massively modernizing method. We think about Nero sitting there and saying, Oh my goodness me. Is it a good suggestion to overcome the Parthians or not? However what you have got is an unlimited information deficit, a strategic-knowledge deficit, in Rome, which makes it fully completely different from us.
I imply, you talked about maps. Now, there are very good scientists within the historical world who attempt to envisage what the globe seems like. There are all types of gazetteer route maps, which say to you, Look—if you wish to go from Rome to Constantinople, how do you do it? And it’s city by city, milestone by milestone. However if you happen to say to many individuals, I believe, in any time of historical Roman historical past, who’re dwelling in, let’s say, the Apennines, in the course of Italy, Have you learnt you might be dwelling on a peninsula? And have you learnt how your landmass connects to the opposite landmasses, which you may have the ability to attain since you would observe the street, however how are you going to envisage what your geographical world is?
Frum: It’s like if you happen to had Google Maps, the textual content operate however not the visible operate.
Beard: Properly, completely.
Frum: Take I-81 to Exit 62. At Exit 62, you are taking Freeway 9. However you don’t have the image that goes with it.
Beard: You don’t have the image. And so the way you envisage the world during which you use could be very, very hazy.
Now, there are some maps—we do have one partly surviving metropolis plan of the town of Rome. So it’s not as if that sense of the way you may envisage a geographical place in two dimensions—it’s not as if that’s fully unknown, however on the big scale, it’s the “Google Maps with out the image” model that they’re coping with.
And if you happen to begin to consider that and what distinction it makes to your planning, even earlier than you add in the issue about statistics, the issue concerning the financial system—I imply, we’re so used to concepts of the financial system as an isolatable sphere of exercise. Properly, the Romans don’t also have a phrase for the financial system.
Frum: Yeah. Properly, one of many nice conservative-proof texts has been this edict of the Emperor Diocletian, who dominated on the finish of the 200s, freezing costs. Now, you’ll not discover a extra dogmatic opponent of value controls than me, however that is typically cited, and there’s a well-known conservative e book The Method the World Works, written within the late Nineteen Seventies. It cites this management, this edict of Diocletian, for example of what occurs whenever you impose costs and the way it goes incorrect. And also you surprise, Did anybody within the Roman world even know that the Emperor Diocletian had carried out this? Did Diocletian know what something price anyplace within the Roman world?
Beard: A only a few did know what Diocletian was doing. However like so most of the issues that seize our consideration about Rome, the value edict of Diocletian is a lot extra a few declare to energy, to say, I can management this, relatively than—he hasn’t bought a backroom of boffins questioning what the impact could be of placing the value of sneakers up in Lydia, proper? So it’s lots of this stuff—I imply, it’s a bit like roads, really. I imply, in a quite simple method, we form of take into consideration roads as being constructed by the Romans for communication. And that does turn into one of many makes use of. As you have been saying, you realize, on the Google Maps, you get from A to B; you observe the street.
Roads are additionally—effectively, they’re partly about getting the military round. They’re not about getting you and me on a handy journey to Brindisi. They’re about navy command. They’re additionally, significantly whenever you go empire-wide, they’re about saying, Look what I can do. I’m placing a street throughout Germany. So a variety of it’s performative, however we learn it as strategic.
Frum: Let me ask you about barbarians. Had been the barbarians barbaric? And have been they immigrants in any method that we’d acknowledge?
Beard: Not in a method that we’d acknowledge. I imply, I believe that, you realize, the idea of barbarism is a deeply problematic one. I establish others as barbarians, they usually most likely establish me because the barbarian, or no matter their phrase for it’s. It’s about views and worth judgements. And I believe all of us should watch out earlier than, as fairly a couple of folks do, we someway suppose there’s a type of pure divide between barbarians and the, quote, “civilized world.”
However I believe that in Rome, it’s much more sophisticated and fluid and fuzzy than that. To start with, Rome’s distinctive promoting level has at all times been—some folks would say for higher, some folks would say for worse—an incorporative promoting level. From going again to the republic, however significantly via the interval we all know because the empire beneath one-man rule, what is going on is that Rome is incorporating folks additional and additional away from the metropolitan heart into the polity, into the hierarchy. And a few of these most likely didn’t look—for folks like me, it is a relatively cheering factor, however others have a special view—they wouldn’t have provide you with the identical cultural baggage or regarded like a Roman that was born and bred in Italy.
However the different factor is that Romans are at all times fairly consciously utilizing barbarians. There isn’t like what we see on our maps. We take a look at a map of the Roman empire at its biggest extent beneath Trajan, and there’s a really neat line throughout it. Properly, that’s fully completely different from the fact of life on the bottom. On the very most, what you discover on the fringe of the Roman empire, and even with Hadrian’s Wall, I’d enterprise to say, it’s virtually universally form of a set of border zones, the place folks form of really feel roughly included or roughly a part of being Roman.
And Romans are repeatedly utilizing of their armies people who find themselves definitely not Roman residents. And so what’s on the margins, or what’s exterior Rome? By the point you get to the interval when fashionable historians get very frightened concerning the barbarians getting in, are a people who find themselves form of like Rome. The important thing instance right here is the Vandals in Vandal Africa—you realize, poor issues have given their title to a selected type of positively barbaric conduct within the fashionable world—however if you happen to return to Vandal Africa within the fifth century C.E., what you uncover: They’re all speaking Latin, they usually’re codifying Roman legislation and writing Latin poetry.
Frum: Properly, I need to ask you a few specific Roman trope or delusion that I believe has a variety of affect to at the present time on selections we make, which is: Roman writers have been conscious that lots of their favourite luxurious items—silks, perfumes—have been imported from exterior the empire. And so they didn’t at all times fairly know what they have been promoting in return, however they did discover that the Roman empire had mines, and infrequently, merchandise from the mines flowed out to pay for the perfumes and the silks. And there’s a literature of Romans complaining about this, blaming the ladies for it, that influences financial coverage to at the present time, that Properly, we give away our hard-earned, our hard-toiled gold and silver—that are clearly actually invaluable—for these nugatory fripperies of silk and fragrance. And that’s why the empire is impoverishing itself and dropping all of its financial energy. So inform me concerning the origins of that delusion and why the Romans believed it.
Beard: They’re sophisticated origins, and the Romans weren’t completely incorrect to suppose that some wealth—some actual, hard-earned wealth—was flowing outwards.
A numismatist, a coin knowledgeable, as soon as mentioned to me—and this does sound too good to be true, actually, however I think it’s not removed from the case—that, leaving apart the museums in Italy itself, the museums on the earth which can be full of most domestically excavated Roman cash are museums in India. So there’s tens of millions within the British Museum, however they’re acquired some place else. And there’s a sense that there’s actual money going on the market. I believe it goes again a really good distance. And it’s, as regular with these tales and worries about luxurious and so forth, it’s a form of unusual and generally unfathomable combination of utter prejudice and a component of fact.
Romans from the 4th, third century B.C.E. within the republic had been actually involved that what was going to pull Rome down—and this was largely, they noticed it, morally, however not at all times—was luxurious. And one in all their variations of understanding the Greek world within the jap Mediterranean was to see it as a spot the place folks had already been enervated by luxurious, and it’s additionally a really female luxurious. And it’s the form of joke {that a} Roman would have about, How do you see a Greek on the street within the 2nd century B.C.E.? Properly, he most likely smells of fragrance. That’s not what correct Romans do.
Frum: They stink.
Beard: Sure, correct Romans stink. And sure, each stink, however in several methods.
Frum: (Laughs.) They eat uncooked onions, they usually don’t wash—effectively, they do wash; they wash so much, however they don’t use cleaning soap, as a result of cleaning soap is a barbarian invention. They scrape themselves off with—
Beard: (Laughs.)
Frum: I need to ask you about this. One of many issues that I believe is a mistake, that continues to have penalties in the direction of our understanding of later durations in historical past, and what I at all times beseech folks to grasp is: Till the trendy period, one of many nice drivers of world financial exercise was that China by no means produced sufficient silver to satisfy the calls for of the Chinese language financial system. So China—and, to a lesser extent, India—they want silver, they usually will provide you with something.
So all you need to do is go into the bottom and get a rock of a sure shade, and the Chinese language will provide you with silks. They’ll offer you—the perfumes didn’t come from China, however the silks got here from China—and all they’re asking in return are these rocks of which they don’t produce almost sufficient. And if you may get a silk for a rock, you aren’t being abused. However the motive of that is: This isn’t Roman (or within the 1600s, European) self-indulgence. It’s China’s determined want for extra silver to create a foreign money base. That’s the motive. That China is the middle of the story, and we’re all dwelling of their world and supplying their final want for a money financial system.
Beard: And, I imply, if you concentrate on that significance of metallic in Rome, one of many issues I believe it’s very straightforward to neglect is sort of how vital Spain was in the entire financial system and geopolitics of the Roman empire as a result of Spain was absolutely the heart of the mining business. And it’s the place—from the 2nd century B.C.E. and a bit of bit earlier—Rome is getting its ore, its metallic ore. And I believe it’s someway, once we consider the Roman empire, we consider Rome itself. and I believe bits of Hadrian’s Wall, after which we’re going out east. However in some methods, we should be pondering: Spain.
And one of the vital extraordinary, environmental scientific analyses carried out just lately has been within the Arctic ice cap and taking lengthy, deep bores into the Arctic ice cap. And what they declare—I’ve to imagine what I’m advised right here—what it’s claimed you may detect is the economic air pollution within the Arctic ice cap traceable to the mines in Spain. I imply, air pollution is being created there in addition to wealth on an enormous degree.
Frum: On a planetary scale.
Beard: Yeah, not seen once more for hundreds of years.
Frum: Can I ask you about ailments and local weather adjustments? So there’s an vital e book by a historian named Kyle Harper, whom I’ll be speaking to subsequent month on a barely completely different topic, who makes a really fashionable argument that Rome suffers two horrible rounds of plagues—one within the 200s after which once more the 500s, the one within the 500s amplified by a sudden cooling of the Earth’s local weather. And that if you wish to perceive—I imply, the Romans are simply dwelling, like all premodern peoples, on their fingertips, on an often-unfriendly planet. They get an excellent burst of excellent climate from concerning the time of the Parthenon to concerning the time of the 200s. The climate begins to get bumpier after the 200s. It will get actually nasty within the 500s. And that’s our story.
Beard: That’s one story. (Laughs.) And I believe that folks like Kyle Harper have, I believe, very usefully put that again on the map in order that now, when folks take into consideration the decline and fall of the Roman empire—though this had by no means been completely out of the image earlier than, the concept that that there was, for begin, devastating plague—most historians now, I believe, even when they don’t say, Oh, effectively, that’s the reply, they suppose there’s one thing way more important about pandemic.
And I’m afraid this bought an enormous increase over COVID, the place folks began actually critically to reside via what it was prefer to reside via plague. And so I’ve little doubt that there’s vital components there. I imply, I believe the issue is that we’re nonetheless a bit form of in hock to Gibbon’s wishes of claiming, So what’s the one factor that may assist us see, clarify, and pin on the historical past of the Roman empire too? And I’m afraid it’s extra sophisticated than both lead within the water pipes—which is what we was once advised—immigration, Christianity, or local weather change.
Frum: Let me spherical up by asking you about yet another e book, which I’m certain you’ve learn. Within the Gibbon custom, in all the opposite traditions, it’s at all times understood the autumn of the Roman empire was a foul factor. And for certain, I believe it was very violent. We will see: The inhabitants collapses; folks in Britain lose the power to make, even, pottery; there’s this nice step backward—we’re not presupposed to name it “towards a extra primitive tradition.” We’re presupposed to name it a “extra easy tradition.” However I’m sorry—if you happen to had a pot earlier than, and also you don’t have a pot now, that’s an actual loss.
Beard: I believe working water. (Laughs.)
Frum: However when you’re via this traumatic occasion, there are historians who argue, a variety of what occurs later in Europe is the nice issues occur. Not like what occurs in China, in contrast to what occurs in India, when the empire is cracked, it by no means will get put again collectively once more. And so that you get a world of competing energy facilities. That has one consequence: It makes these competing energy facilities excellent at battle, in comparison with—these small European nations are capable of beat the mighty Chinese language empire once they encounter one another, as a result of they’ve been combating battles towards one another for 500 years, they usually’ve acquired an enormous edge in being good at that. The Chinese language don’t should be so good at it. Nevertheless it additionally means an excellent reward for freedom, as a result of if you happen to’re publishing one thing that your native king or ruler doesn’t like, you may simply go 20 miles throughout a border, and there’s a king who doesn’t care and possibly even welcomes you insulting the king 20 miles away.
Beard: Yeah, I imply, I believe we’re very nonetheless beneath the thrall of the Roman empire. And even when we’ve been introduced up as form of left wing, anti-imperialist, there’s nonetheless one thing concerning the Roman empire which we nonetheless half-think was a very good factor. I imply, extra folks joined collectively in a single polity than ever earlier than or since in Western Europe. And I believe the place you see that, and I spot that even with very radical college students, is within the adjectives we use about them. And I’m at all times struck by how folks say issues like Julius Caesar was the best Roman conqueror. And I say, Properly, do you suppose conquerors are nice then? And abruptly, the very feisty, lefty college students, they’ve convicted themselves from their very own mouth.
We use nice on a regular basis, as in Alexander the Nice or Pompey the Nice, no matter. So I believe you’ve at all times bought to be looking out for the best way you have got been introduced up, type of deep down, to consider that. However I believe that in some methods, I’m a really dangerous particular person to ask this to, as a result of after I was a scholar, after I was first actually finding out the, quote, “decline and fall of the Roman empire,” now, I used to be coming in on the first era the place what we have been being advised was, in a way, what you’ve simply mentioned. Look—you realize, it’s decline in some folks’s e book. However what occurs to the best way you perceive that course of if you happen to say it was transformation or a revolutionary reimagining of the world, an atomization, a devolution of energy? I imply, I don’t suppose one can ever—you’re by no means going to get a proper reply right here. However the concept that someway there was—certain there was change, certain a few of it was bloody and nasty, however it wasn’t a zero-sum recreation. And I typically suppose after I take a look at a number of the, in some methods, very trendy artistic endeavors produced in what we used to name the Darkish Ages, there was a way at all times that folks have been saying, Look—these folks can’t do the Roman stuff anymore. They will’t sculpt a lifelike human being in the best way that the Romans may. And also you virtually need to say, That could be true, however what in the event that they have been simply completely refusing to do it that method? What if this was a willed need to see the human physique otherwise, to signify the world otherwise? What if it’s a form of a cultural refusal relatively than a cultural failure?
Frum: Properly, there’s a passage in Evelyn Waugh’s novel Helena the place the Emperor Constantine calls his artists collectively to ask them to construct a triumphal arc simply the best way they did it within the olden days, 200 years earlier than. And the architects clarify, Your majesty. That’s simply not how we do issues anymore. It’s not the type. It’s old school. You need to appear to be your nice grandfather? Be our visitor, however our fashionable imaginative and prescient—and Constantine says to them, Okay, I hear all the pieces you say, however if you happen to needed to do it, may you do it? All of them stare at their sneakers and mumble No.
Beard: Yeah. And that’s the double bind during which we’re caught. And it was massively influential on me, though I now discover it very reparative—I keep in mind watching after I was a teen Kenneth Clark’s well-known sequence Civilization, which was most likely extra common within the U.S. than it was within the U.Ok. And I keep in mind watching the primary episode of it, which had been form of concerning the Darkish Ages, and I nonetheless can see Clark standing there saying, Civilization survived only by the pores and skin of its tooth. And also you abruptly thought, Phew. And we’re all ready for the Renaissance to return alongside. And it’s—fortunately, we now see it’s a bit extra sophisticated.
Frum: I had many professors in school, and after, who made a giant impression on me, however there’s one line from one professor—somebody you will have recognized, Roberto Lopez, who was an excellent medievalist.
Beard: I didn’t know him, however I do know who you imply.
Frum: And I caught him on the very, very, very finish of his profession, most likely the final seminar he ever taught. However he had a saying, which was, Historical past by no means repeats itself; it solely seems to take action to those that don’t take note of the main points. And it was a kind of issues, you realize, as a result of I had a glib sufficient understanding of historical past at that section in my tutorial profession to be making comparisons on a regular basis. And it was like a bucket of water within the face: Simply cease doing this.
Beard: I wish to come again with my favourite quote, which I heard way more just lately, and it gave the impression to be completely extemporary. I used to be doing a dialogue with the Spanish novelist Antonio Muñoz Molina, and we have been each on stage in Spain. And any individual within the viewers on the Q&A mentioned, What can we study from historical past? And I took the query first, and I used to be an absolute traditional tutorial, saying a number of the issues that I’m certain I’ve mentioned on this podcast: Properly, it’s very sophisticated. We will take into consideration issues otherwise, however we now have to watch out about drawing too many sorts of direct comparisons. And Antonio, when it got here to him, he mentioned what was completely clearly true. He mentioned, We’ve bought to have the ability to study from historical past as a result of we haven’t bought the rest to study from.
Frum: (Laughs.) That’s fairly improbable.
Beard: I assumed, That put me in my place.
Frum: And as this month of August reminds us, the Romans are information that stays information.
Beard: Precisely. I at all times surprise how many individuals are on the market who date their whatevers—both July or August—with out pondering, Ah, that’s off to Julius Caesar and Augustus. We’re nonetheless dwelling beneath the star signal of Julius Caesar and Augustus.
Frum: And January and March.
Beard: Properly, the opposite months: good outdated Roman months. Yeah. However I like to think about these emperors up there, you realize? It’s like that is Augustus’s month, so we have to know a bit about him.
Frum: Sure, we do. And we have to know that as we address our fashionable issues, it’s good to know concerning the previous. As you say, it’s all we’ve bought. However our issues are additionally new. Our world could be very completely different. And whenever you’re interested by Donald Trump, you might want to take into consideration him within the American context. And whereas historical comparisons can provide you a literary motive, a literary inspiration, they don’t actually clear up the issues, as a result of the worlds are so very completely different.
Beard: The query I’m most requested by anyone is which Roman emperor is Donald Trump most like. And to elucidate that may be enjoyable as a parlor recreation, however really, it’s not going to get you anyplace, asking that query.
Frum: Proper. He’s our downside. He wants our options.
Beard: Sure.
Frum: Mary Beard, thanks a lot for becoming a member of this system at the moment, and good luck together with your future endeavors on this realm and others. Thanks.
Beard: Thanks. Thanks, David. Good to be with you.
Frum: Bye-bye.
[Music]
Frum: Thanks a lot at the moment, Mary Beard, for becoming a member of me at the moment on The David Frum Present. Let me remind you of the little favor we’re asking: Would you please go to TheAtlantic.com/Survey and inform us a bit of bit about you, the way you’ve found the present, what you consider it? The primary 100 respondents to the survey will get a $20 reward card from The Atlantic.
Please share, subscribe, like—all these regular issues to get the phrase out about this podcast, nevertheless you view or hearken to it.
Thanks to all of you for listening and watching. Because of the staff at The David Frum Present, who convey the present collectively each week. And keep in mind, at all times: The easiest way to help this podcast, if you happen to’re minded to take action, is by subscribing to The Atlantic and supporting the work of all of us who convey the present to you, and the journal as effectively. Thanks a lot for viewing and listening. I hope to see you subsequent week right here on The David Frum Present.
[Music]
Frum: This episode of The David Frum Present was produced by Nathaniel Frum and edited by Andrea Valdez. It was engineered by Dave Grein. Our theme is by Andrew M. Edwards. Claudine Ebeid is the manager producer of Atlantic audio, and Andrea Valdez is our managing editor.
I’m David Frum. Thanks for listening.
