Nation, Empire, Decline: Studies in Rhetorical Continuity from the Romans 
to the Modern Era. By NANCY SHUMATE. London: Duckworth, 2006. Pp. 191. 
Paper, $23.50. ISBN 0–7156–3551–4.


Order this text for $23.50 from Amazon.com using this link and 
benefit CAMWS and the Classical Journal:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect-home/classjourn-20

Previously published CJ Online reviews are at 
http://classicaljournal.org/reviews.php


CJ Online: 2008.10.04 [orig. CJ 103.3 (2008): 345–7]

In her new book, Nancy Shumate (henceforth S.) argues that numerous 
scholars of modern European nationalism and imperialism see their subjects 
as disconnected from the ancient world. To them, certain “features of 
modernity”—capitalism, democracy, mass media, etc.—are inseparably 
linked to imperialistic and nationalistic rhetoric. S., however, aims to 
demonstrate that the “discourses of nationalism and imperialism” as 
they appear in the 19th and 20th centuries “were forged in their 
essentials by the early Roman Imperial period” (p. 7). To this end, her 
book offers readings of the works of Juvenal, Horace and Tacitus that 
highlight similarities with modern nationalist and colonialist texts.
The introduction (pp. 7–17) establishes the parameters for the study. 
Recognizing that many classicists will find the connections between these 
ancient and modern discourses unremarkable, S. asserts that her book 
presents more than a tallying of similarities between Roman and modern 
European works; it also “reads forward, shifting the focus away from the 
sources of the tropes and conventions that feed into the Roman versions of 
these discourses and directing it toward where they seem to be going” 
(pp. 13–14). In this way, S. sees her work as a complement to studies 
that apply contemporary theoretical perspectives to ancient literature. 
Further, she reasonably cautions the reader against the potential pitfalls 
of anachronism. Still, in the introduction (and, more expansively, in the 
work as a whole), S. chiefly focuses on ancient and modern rhetorical 
similarities.

In the first chapter, “Them and Us: Constructing Romanness in the Satires 
of Juvenal” (pp. 19–54), S. explores the proto-nationalistic rhetoric 
in Satires 1, 2, 3 and 6. Overall, she stresses the ways in which 
Juvenal’s poems “anticipate with remarkable closeness some of the 
modern era’s more pernicious forms of nationalist othering” (p. 21). To 
S., Juvenal’s speakers, like the authors of modern nationalist texts, 
disparage foreigners by associating them with women and “male gender 
outlaws” (p. 24). Juvenal, she avers, also focuses on foreigners as 
agents of contamination—another trope in modern nationalist discourse. 
Although recognizing that Juvenal could have been tongue-in-cheek about 
such associations, S. believes that these Satires demonstrate the ancient 
bona fides of much modern nationalist rhetoric.

Chapter 2, “Augustan Nation-Building and Horace’s ‘Roman’ Odes” 
(pp. 55–79), also focuses on the ancient underpinnings of nationalism. S. 
argues that all of Horace’s “Roman” Odes, though very different from 
Juvenal’s Satires, anticipate tropes common to modern nationalist 
discourses. Focusing on three of these Odes (3.2, 5 and 6), S. stresses 
their “idealization of the national past and the implication of issues of 
gender and sexuality in that process” (p. 55). To S., these poems contain 
many features associated with nationalistic rhetoric: for example, praise 
of rural life and conservative insistence on strictly maintained gender 
roles. In sum, she perceives sufficiently strong connections between the 
Horatian and modern discourses to conclude that we should “adjust our 
understanding of the history and development of nationalist ideology” (p. 
79).

In Chapter 3, “Tacitus and the Rhetoric of Empire” (pp. 81–127), S. 
moves away from discussions of nationalism toward a focus on imperialism. 
More specifically, she uses portions of Tacitus’ Agricola, Germania, 
Histories and Annals to highlight the ancient provenance of the Noble 
Savage concept and examine its relation to broader imperial themes. 
Overall, S. stresses the intricacies of Tacitus’ ruminations on empire; 
his work “problematizes as much as abets the colonial process, by 
combining justifications of Roman hegemony with internal contradictions and 
complex undercurrents” (p. 83). Tacitus, she argues, criticizes both the 
colonizer and the colonized.

The final chapter, “‘Crazy Egypt’ and Colonial Discourse in 
Juvenal’s Fifteenth Satire” (pp. 129–58), continues with the topic of 
imperialism, discussing the ways in which Satire 15 prefigures aspects of 
modern colonial discourse. Juvenal’s speaker, S. argues, offers a 
blistering—and contradictory—attack on Egyptians, considering them both 
decadent and primitive. The chapter concludes with a short epilogue (pp. 
155–8) that connects Juvenal’s colonialist tropes to the vicissitudes 
of discussions of the modern Middle East.

Overall, there is much to recommend in this book. S. presents a number of 
striking parallels between the ancient and modern discourses on nationalism 
and imperialism. These parallels, furthermore, are always clearly explained 
and allow the reader less attuned to the literature on modern colonialism 
and nationalism to follow along with ease. S.’s discussion of Tacitus is 
particularly impressive: far from offering a black-and-white portrait of 
either an imperialist sinner or an anti-imperialist saint, S. ably 
demonstrates the ambiguities and complexities in Tacitus’ oeuvre. In 
general, one detects great intellectual carefulness and self-awareness on 
S.’s part. She is attuned, for instance, to the complex connections 
between Horace’s poetry and the Augustan regime.

Although S. notes that her work is intended as a preliminary study of the 
connections between ancient and modern discourses, her book presents 
important unanswered questions. S. is far from the first to trace ancient 
precedents to imperialism in modern Western rhetoric. In his landmark study 
Orientalism (1978), Edward Said argued that the West’s perceptions of the 
East have remained largely unchanged since as far back as Aeschylus’ 
Persai. This left Said open to the charge of—in Sadik Jalal al-’Azm’s 
words—“Orientalism in Reverse”: essentializing the West by making it 
appear as if Orientalism is an ineluctable component of the “European 
mind.” In her book, S. leads the reader to believe that Juvenal’s 
colonial rhetoric differs little from that of the contemporary 
neoconservative intellectual Michael Ledeen. Is this not also 
“Orientalism in Reverse”? Does it not portray Western intellectual 
history as disarmingly static?

To this one might add a few pragmatic criticisms. For her discussions of 
modern nationalist and colonialist rhetoric, S.’s work is largely 
mediated through the lens of modern scholars, rather than directly 
transmitted. To some extent, this is unsurprising: it is unfair to expect 
an expert in classical antiquity to present equally insightful analyses of 
modern literature. Yet throughout Nation, Empire, Decline, the engagement 
with modern nationalist and colonialist discourses comes almost entirely 
from secondary sources. It would have been helpful if S. herself offered a 
close reading of a few modern texts, so that the reader would not need to 
rely so heavily on the parsing of others. The book also lacks a conclusion, 
which might have enabled S. to home in on precisely what the similarities 
in discourses among such chronologically disparate societies mean.

Despite these flaws, Nation, Empire, Decline remains a useful study of the 
intellectual connections between Roman antiquity and the modern world. It 
should compel classicists to study further the ancient precursors of modern 
thought, and will serve as a useful correction to scholars of modern 
nationalism and colonialism.

ERIC ADLER
Connecticut College    



You may remove yourself from the CJ-Online list-serv by sending an email 
to: [log in to unmask] Leave the subject line blank, and in the first 
line of the message write: UNSUBSCRIBE