This week's reviews:
Pax Romana by Adrian
Goldsworthy
History never gets done being written. No matter how
masterful a treatment by a historian (e.g. The
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon), a revisit to the
same subject is always welcome, for what concerned readers in the 18th
century is different from what concerns readers in the 21st. Pax Romana by historian and classicist Adrian
Goldsworthy was released in August of this year and is a welcome addition to
the literature on ancient Rome. It is not a general history but focusses on the
nature and evolution of Roman imperialism. Today “imperialist” is an insult,
but only a century ago it wasn’t. For all of history prior to then – not just
in the West but everywhere – imperialism with an entirely good conscience was
the default foreign policy conducted by powers around the world.
The Romans never questioned imperialism. While Julius
Caesar did not conquer Gaul from altruistic motives, he had no doubt that the
Gauls for all their casualties were better off for the conquest. There is even
something to the argument. Caesar didn’t really kill more Gauls than would have
died anyway from battle and pillage – the Gallic tribes and towns regularly
fought, sacked, and enslaved each other as a matter of course. His campaign was
devastating but fairly swift, and when he was done the province was at peace
and had been united with a larger Mediterranean civilization. Roads, baths,
libraries, and aqueducts soon followed. Goldsworthy explores what it was about
the Romans that made them such successful imperialists. Why was there only one
permanently successful revolt by a province (Germany east of the Rhine), and
even that one in a place where the Roman hold was new and tenuous? Why, in
general, did territories conquered by Rome remain Roman – and soon self-identify
as Roman?
The short answer is that the Romans employed a peculiar mix
of tolerance, brutality, and inclusiveness. They were quick to stamp out rebellion
ruthlessly but were almost as quick to hand out citizenship – and they didn’t
interfere much in local customs. Though the deeply authoritarian instincts and
casual brutality of the ancient Romans are jarring to modern sensibilities,
there is nonetheless something refreshing about their self-confidence that
their empire was good not just for themselves but for whomever they conquered. By
and large the provincials agreed.
Thumbs Up: well-researched and a good read.
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog (2008)
By 2008 writer/director/producer Joss Whedon had a hefty
passel of dedicated fans thanks to Buffy
the Vampire Slayer, Angel, and Firefly. I wasn’t one of them. The late ‘90s
and 20-naughts were eventful ones (mostly not in a good way) for me, and a lot
of popular culture passed me by – including Joss’ TV shows, films, and comic
books. I am one of them now. In recent years a few of his movies caught my
fancy and prompted me to look back to his earlier work.
One of Whedon’s most idiosyncratic productions is Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog (2008),
which I got around to viewing only last week. Buffy fans will remember that one episode in 2001 was a musical.
Joss must particularly have enjoyed writing and directing it, for he returns to
the format here. Despite some notable star power including Neil Patrick Harris and
Whedon veterans Nathan Fillion (Firefly)
and Felicia Day (Buffy the Vampire Slayer),
this was never intended as a serious commercial venture. The 42 minute microbudget
production is pure playfulness that was given away for free on the internet.
You still can find it there, but if you prefer to pay for it the DVD is
currently available as well.
Even though this is just lighthearted fun, Whedon as usual
blends genres and messes with expectations. It is a comedy and a melodrama. The
superhero Captain Hammer (Nathan Fillion) truly does fight the good fight and
is on the right side of things; yet, he personally is a self-important jackass
for whom it is impossible to root (see clip below). Dr. Horrible (Neil Patrick
Harris), on the other hand, truly is a villain in his public actions, yet he personally
is a likable and sympathetic character. Whedon is not averse to happy endings
but has no commitment to them at all in any genre, so, here as elsewhere in the
Whedon-verse, until we see it we viewers know only it could go either way or
anywhere in between.
Thumbs Up: Surreal and definitely not for everyone, but if
one simply can accept the silliness it will evoke a smile.
“Captain Hammer”:
Everyone’s a Hero