In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

notes introdUction 1. Rutledge 2000:75. 2. Ibid. For criticism of Rutledge’s position, see Shumate 2006:83. 3. E.g., Webster 1994 and 1996a (esp. 116–119); Alston 1996; Rutledge 2000; Clarke 2001. See also O’Gorman (1993), who, though at points discussing the ways in which the Germania criticizes contemporary Rome (146–148), views Tacitus as ultimately engaging in a sort of textual possession of the Germans: “The very study of Germany represents that country as passive, subject to scrutiny by the powerful, invasive Rome” (139). Cf. Rose (1995:396), who, in elaborating on Cicero, detects a link between support for imperialism and impressions of the colonized as both inferior and destined for servitude. For a discussion of the link between Roman stereotyping of foreigners and Roman imperial expansion, see Isaac 2004:304–323. 4. E.g., Rutledge 2000; Clarke 2001:103; Fincham 2001 (esp. 31). 5. Isaac 1990:27–28. 6. E.g., Woolf 1998:24–76; Mattern 1999:70–80; Allen 2006:34: “In talking about hostages, the Romans seem to congratulate themselves on their imperial accomplishment , perpetually glancing over the hostage’s shoulder at the world that he might someday help them to control.” Yet note that Allen sees Tacitus as an unrepresentative example of a Roman author who did not use hostages as a means to glorify the Empire (224–244); Phang 2008:79–81. 7. See Mommsen 1894; Frank 1912 and 1929; Holleaux 1921; Badian 1968; Errington 1972 (esp. 3–5). Badian (1958) has been associated with the notion of “defensive imperialism,” due to the recurring argument that Rome shunned annexing foreign territories in favor of a loose-ended patron–client relationship between itself and the states it had conquered. Yet Badian’s thesis is more nuanced than the label “defensive imperialism” allows: he argues that for strategic purposes Rome preferred nebulous bonds of patronage with its defeated enemies to enable it to assess its own obligations and lack of obligations to the conquered areas in question. 8. E.g., Harris 1971 and 1979; Brunt 1978; North 1981; Hingley 1982 and 1993; Jal 1982; Miles 1990; De Souza 1996; Freeman 1996 and 1997; Mattingly 1996 and 1997b; Hanson 1997; Whittaker 1997. For important criticism of more recent approaches to Roman expansion, see Eckstein 2006. For a survey of scholarly approaches to Roman imperialism, see Frézouls 1983. 212 notes to Pages 2–6 9. For discussions of this topic, see Hingley 1993 and 2000; Freeman 1996. 10. On this topic, see Vasunia 2003:93–96. 11. E.g., Freeman 1997; Whittaker 1997; Fincham 2001; Hingley 2005:49–71. For some perceptive comments on the often broad and unspecific influence of postcolonial theory on classicists, see Vasunia 2003:88. For a general discussion of postcolonial theory in the context of Roman imperialism, see Webster 1996b. 12. Said [1978] 2003. For Said’s discussion of Orientalism as it pertains to the ancient world, see 21, 56–57. 13. See Adler 2008a and 2008b. 14. Frank 1929:7. On Frank’s life, see DeWitt 1939. 15. Frank 1929:8–10, 324–325: “Pompey seems to be the first general frankly sent out for the purposes of extending Rome’s borders” (325). On fetial law, see Frank 1912; Gelzer 1964; Brunt 1978; Wiedemann 1986; Watson 1993. 16. On Haverfield’s life, see Macdonald 2004. 17. Haverfield 1911:xviii. 18. Ibid. xviii–xix. 19. Cf. Haverfield [1910] 1915:11: “Our civilization seems firmly set in many lands; our task is rather to spread it further and develop its good qualities than to defend its life. If war destroy it in one continent, it has other homes. But the Roman Empire was the civilized world. Outside roared the wild chaos of barbarism. . . . Had Rome failed to civilize, had the civilized life found no period in which to grow firm and tenacious, civilization would have perished utterly.” 20. For criticism of Said’s work, see Kerr 1980; Young 1990:119–140; al-‘Azm 1991; Ahmad 1992; Lewis 1993:99–118; MacKenzie 1995:xii–39; Kramer 2001; Fraiman 2003:36–53; Figuera 2004; Irwin 2006; Warraq 2007. For more positive impressions of Said’s oeuvre, see Prakash 1995; Moore-Gilbert 1997:34–73; Ashcroft and Ahluwalia 1999; Huggan 2002. 21. Al-‘Azm 1991. 22. Said [1978] 2003:204. According to MacKenzie (1995:xix), “Said’s books are profoundly polemical, both because scholarship and ideology are seen to be so inseparably intertwined and because he insists upon the necessity of the scholar...

Share