DUCS Talk: Prof Polly Low on “Ancient and Modern Imperialism. Or: Does the Athenian Empire need our forgiveness?”
On Thursday October 29th, Professor Polly Low spoke to us about receptions of the Athenian Empire which compared it to the British Empire and the responsibilities of the historian studying such periods of history.
Athens’ empire existed in the fifth century BCE and consisted of approximately 200 subject cities, known as the Delian League. There is evidence of economic control imposed on the subject cities by Athens, in the form of tributes, as well as some evidence for judicial control. However, unlike the Roman Empire, which was land-based and built aqueducts and roads in the places it subjugated, there is little evidence for any infrastructure built in the subject cities of the Athenian sea-based empire.
Professor Low asked of us what responsibilities we might have when studying morally spurious periods of history. English studies of the Athenian empire have often become embroiled in concerns about the British Empire, particularly concerns about how to govern a country.
In the 18th century, E.W. Montague’s Reflections on the Rise and Fall of the Antient Republicks Adapted to the Present State of Great Britain set out how to run an empire. Montague establishes the similarity between Britain and Athens as naval powers whose control over other nations could easily be lost. He claims that empire can lead to greed, decadence, and ‘effeminacy’, the corrupting influence of which can lead to the downfall of an empire. The crucial difference he sees between fifth-century Athens and contemporary Britain is that Britain has a better form of government, parliamentary sovereignty, rather than radical democracy, and asserts that giving too much power to the people would lead them to be corrupted by the empire and thus, cause its downfall.
Similarly, William Young wrote The History of Athens in 1786, after the American Revolution and during the build-up to the French Revolution, when concerns about radical democracy were very prevalent in political thought. A slave-owner and anti-abolitionist, he also described the dangers of decadence and decline when running an empire and saw radical democracy as the key factor in the loss of Athens’ empire.
In contrast, William Mitford, in his historical work, History of Greece, was critical of the Athenian Empire because it was a badly managed and exploitative system. However, he was not critical of the concept of empire but also blames radical democracy for the self-interested way in which the Athenian Empire was managed.
George Grote’s History of Greece became the dominant narrative in liberal mid-19th century thought on empire. His stance is favourable towards both Athenian democracy and empire, reasoning that empire brings benefits to its subjects, a common argument among British liberal imperialists. Grote makes considerable efforts to ignore the abundant evidence that the Athenian Empire was an oppressive system by claiming that evidence of discontent is proof of the beneficence of the imperial power, drawing parallels with examples from the British Empire and the supposed beneficence which allows its subjects to express discontent.
In the 20th century, Alfred E. Zimmern, a liberal involved in the creation of the League of Nations, wrote The Greek Commonwealth, and also claims that the Athenian empire was beneficial to its subjects. He concedes that there were some poorly managed aspects, which is inevitable. He justifies this stance by claiming that the sources indicating that the empire was an oppressive and exploitative system are from the rich who were paying tributes but that it was the poor who benefitted most from such a system.
In a lecture given to the Classical Association in 1910, the Earl of Cromer expresses a view similar to Young and Mitford, that an empire cannot be run by the democracy and cites the example of the Roman Empire to support this, claiming that this was a better example of governance of an empire, since the Romans were ‘austere and practical’, in contrast to the individuality of the Greeks, which caused the loss of their empire.
These sources are evidence of a tradition of comparison between the Athenian Empire and the British Empire, and that it was treated as an example for modern day empire. The majority of conflict seems to arise from the debate about whether or not it might lead to moral decline in the citizens of the imperial power, as well as whether or not a democratic government is able to run an empire. The idea that empire is beneficial to its subjects does not seem to be under question.
One justification of empire is the ‘absence of mind’ argument. Grote claims that Athens created their empire by mistake in a very gradual process, echoing the Thucydidean angle that it was borne from a willing alliance. Grote calls it ‘the child of necessity,’ and claims, ‘its creators did not know what they were doing.’ This point of view can also be found in J. R. Seeley’s lectures on the British Empire and its expansion. He also claims that the British Empire came into being by accident, in an ‘absence of mind’. Seeley and Grote would have inhabited similar political and intellectual circles, which explains the similarities in their beliefs about of empire.
Another influential way of arguing for empire is the ‘balance sheet’ argument, quantifying the benefit of empire to its subjects, in what presents itself as a very objective approach. A vocal proponent of this argument is the influential scholar M. I. Finley. Zimmerman also justifies the Athenian empire based on the supposed benefits of being under the influence of Athenian ‘civilisation’. This ‘balance sheet’ argument is a very entrenched way of thinking about empire and is often seen in justification of the British Empire and discussion of topics such as the ‘benefits’ it brought to India. Unfortunately, it is very prevalent today and one example of this is the Ethics and Empire Project taking place in the Theology department at the Oxford University. This project seeks to find an ethical framework for empire using the argument that because it is a bad thing it should not be studied. They seek to justify the genocide of the British Empire by using opposition to the slave trade as a ‘balancing’ argument in favour of Britain’s empire. Oxford scholars wrote an open letter to this project, expressing concern and outrage at this project.
The Ethics and Empire project demonstrates that ancient and more recent imperialism are very much ideologically entangled in each other as a result of the way in which those living in England during the existence of the British Empire sought to justify contemporary empire by studying those of the past, including Athenian history. Professor Low argues that we cannot have an objective view of empire as we are deeply entrenched in contemporary narratives and it is often those who have profited from imperial power who also feel they are entitled to decide whether or not empire is justified.
Finally, Professor Low gave us some food for thought on our own responsibilities whilst studying history with a quotation from Cannadine: ‘The past is not a place for the squeamish. You cannot hug your way through history’. Does trying to be morally detached make us complicit? Should scholars such as M.I. Finley be taken off reading lists? If so, who else should be removed from reading lists? Is denying problematic views on the ancient world the best way to study it?
