106
ThE roman EmpIrE
Roman culture over more than a third of Europe and a part of
Africa, concern in many ways our own age and Empire.
10
In contrast, the British experience of trying to assimilate the natives
in India and Africa was judged to be an unmitigated failure.
11
Of
course, it could be argued that, in some respects, the Romans had
had an advantage in the nature of their conquests, since they had to
deal with tribes rather than nations and with easy-going polytheism
rather than ‘proper’ religion’, and they faced comparatively few
racial problems: ‘the Romans were not called upon to deal with
large numbers of coloured races’.
12
However, it was also seen as a
matter of attitude; the Romans saw conquered natives as barbarians,
undoubtedly, but barbarians capable of acquiring civilisation,
whereas Europeans suffered from a basic prejudice against all other
races. Roman civilisation was regarded as something that could be
exported, and, more importantly, a native who had successfully
adopted Roman ways could be accepted as a full member of Roman
society – one simply had to list the number of leading Romans under
the Principate, from a philosopher and imperial advisor like Seneca
to a poet like Martial and a whole line of emperors, who came from
provincial backgrounds:
In the third century A.D. a Gaul, a Spaniard, a Pannonian, a
Bithynian, a Syrian called himself a Roman, and for all practical
purposes was a Roman. The interests of the Empire were his
interests, its glory his glory, almost as much as if he had been born
in the shadow of the Capitol. There was, therefore, no reason
why his
loyalty should not be trusted,
no reason why he should
not be chosen to lead in war, or govern in peace, men of Italian
birth. So, too, the qualities which make a man capable of leading
in war or administering in peace were just as likely to be found
in a Gaul, or a Spaniard, or a German from the Rhine frontier
as in an Italian… It is far otherwise in India, though there was
among the races of India no nation. The Englishmen does not
become an Indian, nor the Indian an Englishman. The Indian
does not as a rule, though of course there have been not a few
remarkable exceptions to the rule, possess the qualities which the
English deem to be needed for leadership in war or the higher
posts of administration in peace. For several reasons…he can
seldom be expected to feel like an Englishman, and to have that
full comprehension of the principles of British policy which may
be counted on in an Englishman.
13
Morley 01 text 106
29/04/2010 14:29
108
ThE roman EmpIrE
represented a significant shift in understanding.
18
Mommsen’s
writings, especially his book on
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: