I'm pleasantly surprised by how much I'm enjoying The Idea of Nationalism. The abstract art on its cover, and the general nature of its title make it seem like one of the theoretical classics of the twentieth century (up there with the likes of Herbert Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man, and Erich Auerbach's Mimesis). But Kohn spends so much time spinning out a focused, yet broad, narrative of history that it's easy to forget that nationalism is even his theme.
The first half of the chapter on Rome and the Middle Ages, for example, gives a fantastic overview of how the Roman Empire collapsed and split into East and West. Though Kohn doesn't stop there. He goes on to explain, with his concerns with nationalism always at the ready on his narrative's periphery, just what happened between the Church and the State in both the Western and Eastern parts of the divided Empire. All of these matters are treated quickly, and with only some depth, of course, but for someone who's never read much about Eastern European and Mediterranean history, it's downright fascinating.
Yet, at the same time, I'm well aware that Kohn's style of history writing isn't very popular any more (at least in academic circles). Dealing in nationalism on the grand scale that he has so far would be deemed too much of a stretch for modern historians. But there's definitely something to be gained by taking such a long view of things. The idea that one of the major tensions in the late Roman Empire was that of the Empire's own universalism (all peoples in the Empire were considered Romans) and the universalism of Christianity (all people were called to be children of god) is, well, epic.
Plus, Kohn's own nationalism is no doubt showing when he mentions Charlemagne's enemy, the Saxon Duke Widukind. I never even knew that Charlemagne had such an enemy.
No comments:
Post a Comment