DONS AND AMATEURS
SIR,—Your correspondents Denis Henry and B. Walker complain in your issue of December 30 that I am a member of the 'Classical Establishment.' This is because I criticised Peter Green's article on profes- sional classical scholars, in one chapter of his recent book, for being inaccurate, out-of-date, and con- fused. My delight at finding myself credited to any 'establishment' whatever is tempered by regret that this empty and moribund cliche should be thus per- petuated. I am also accused of being 'immovably smug.' Well, sir, many of us appear smug under the constriction of print; for instance I find the second paragraph of your correspondents' letter smug; but 'immovably' can be immediately revealed for the illogicality it is—by my moving, and accepting, if your correspondents assert that it is really so, that some classical teachers do speak of 'the triumph of science and barbarism.' It sounds unlikely, but it must indeed be irksome and ludicrous. But is the evidence really to be found in the Proceedings of the Classical Association, which I don't read very closely? One gets a far better idea, incidentally, of contemporary classical scholarship' in this country by reading the Classical Quarterly, the Journals of the Hellenic and Roman Societies, the Annuals of the British Schools at Athens and Rome, Phronesis and Greece and Rome.
'Offers of help from collateral subjects are stiffly rejected,' asserted Mr. Green. I queried this, but your correspondents think that 'for the most part they are not even noticed.' What exactly are these offers that are stiffly rejected or not even noticed? Scientific help is eagerly accepted in the archeological sphere, philology accepts help from general linguistics, the views of modern philosophers and scientists are wel- comed in the assessment of ancient science and philosophy—who are these anonymous and rejected helpers? It is true that many classical scholars suffer the experience of countless other specialists: they are too occupied by keeping up with the detailed exploration of the ancient world to be 'at home in the world of contemporary . . . social studies' (who in this country is, incidentally? Half a dozen people?). Popularisation and re-interpretation in' contemporary terms can and must continue; but their basis must always be the exacting and accurate work of historians, archwologists and linguistic critics, otherwise they become half-baked. Unfortunately the half-baked often has a meretricious appeal, in Classics as in many other subjects.—Yours faithfully.
Previous page
