This week, ending in May 11 2017:
Today's thread is for open discussion of:
History in the academy
Historiographical disputes, debates and rivalries
Implications of historical theory both abstractly and in application
Philosophy of history
And so on
Regular participants in the Thursday threads should just keep doing what they've been doing; newcomers should take notice that this thread is meant for open discussion only of matters like those above, not just anything you like -- we'll have a thread on Friday for that, as usual.
Historiographical disputes, debates and rivalries
This may fall less into the realm of historiography and more into philology, but I recall a encountering a debate across several journal articles about the meaning of the word "sinistrorsum" in Horace Epode IX, and the implications it has for Cleopatra's intentions at Actium.
Something about the argumentative tone of the exchange really bugged me, and I recall it being one of the things that contributed to my frustration with the study of the classics, and eventual decision to drop out of my undergraduate program.
That said, this was over ten years ago; in that time, I've forgotten the substance of the debate, the journals involved, and most of my Latin. I believe W.W. Tarn was one of the authors involved, if that helps any.
Is there anyone here who has any idea what I'm talking about? I've actually tried to find it since then, but it's not easy without access to JSTOR and the like.
Is there a place for Marxist historiography in modern history? I know that historical materialistic approaches of the French Revolution have fallen out of favor, and the sense I get about historical materialism is that it is very Eurocentric, and that Marx didn't accurately analyze pre-industrial societies. Is this the case?