RESPONSE NUMBER TWENTY-THREE To Galatians Re-imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished (Fortress 2010) by Brigitte Kahl

The balance of Chapter Two (pp. 82 -1250 is devoted to an elucidation of "the Great Alter" of Pergamon.  This edifice was part of a collection of buildings and is thought to have been built in the 180's B.C.E., under the rule of Eumenes II, to celebrate the final Roman-Greek victory over the Seleucids in 188 B.C.E.  Pergamon was one of the Greek city-states along the Aegean Coast, in what is today, the western coast of Turkey. Important to Professor Kahl's larger argument is the need to emphasize the role of Galatian clans on the Seleucid side of the conflict. 


Professor Kahl goes to considerable length in explicating the details of the Great Alter, with this objective (p. 86): "our focus here is on the question of visual impact . . . a coherent semantic system of meaning making this . . . readable even for the illiterate . . . and those who come (and still come) to visit the alter."  


Calling attention to the different perspectives offered the viewer (high/up and in versus low/down and out), Kahl suggests that the visitor today would likely share the impression made on the "majority" of contemporary visitors, described (p. 90) a second time by Kahl as "illiterate."


The visual impression we are invited to share, as we observe a conflict between the high and the low sculpted figures is to side with "the good cause." 


A case in point is a portrayal in a frieze of the higher placed Athena, wrenching away the child of earth-mother Guia (pp. 92-95). But this is not the point Kahl wishes to make. 


What is appended to this straightforward description of the frieze is the equating of sculptures of giants with Galatian enemies "at various stages of Pergamon history." 


Following this identification of Galatian enemies in the frieze, Kahl asks (p. 95), "How is this stunning metamorphosis of Galatians into giants to be explained?" 


By associating the Galatians in general, with the mythological giants, Kahl appears to me to be making a leap well beyond what is suggested either by Pergamon history or by the representations found on the sides of the Great Alter.


Galatians fought on all sides (apparently as mercenaries) in the wars between Roman and Greek armies against the Seleucid rules in Greece and Anatolia. This suggests to me that there is no apparent reason for the Greek builders of the Great Alter to have wanted to require a visual association to be made between mythological giants and Galatian tribesmen. 


The Galatians in defeat, are represented by the Dying Gaul, as Kahl has observed (see my previous two posts). 


But the Galatians are not obviously represented as giants in the mythology of warfare against giants, as they were represented already by the Dying Gaul. 


Professor Kahl thinks the Galatians were associated with the defeated mythological giants and, as evidence, cites  the traveler and sight-seeing Pausanias, when, in the 2nd century C.E., he observed a victory monument set up on the Acropolis in Athens by Atalos I. 


Here is what Pausanias seems to have seen: 











Here is what Pausanias wrote (I.25.2) about what he saw: "By the south wall [of the Athenian Acropolis], Attalos dedicated a) the legendary battle of the Giants [top right]..., b) the battle of the Athenians against the Amazons [bottom right], c) the battle against the Persians at Marathon [bottom left]; d) the destruction of the Gauls in Mysian --each figure being about two cubits [=3']."



(For the above image and quotation, see: http://employees.oneonta.edu/farberas/ARTH/ARTH209/Hellenistic.html 


A further descriptive leap is made when Kahl refers to the opponents of Greek and then Roman forces as "lawless" (p. 96), whether mythological or actual. 


Kahl finds lawlessness to be "a crucial layer of meaning" both as to the Alter at Pergamon and "also of the fight between Paul and his opponents in the letter to the Galatians."


The reference to Paul's letter to the Galatians prompts this reader to feel that Professor Kahl is straining to redefine what can reasonably be concluded from ancient visual representations. Such is the desire to associate these images with the venerable Apostle. 


Isn't that what the title of this book suggests?





 

RESPONSE NUMBER NINETEEN To Galatians Re-imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished (Fortress 2010) by Brigitte Kahl

"Gauls / Galatians Marching Against Rome. Delphi, and Pergamon (387 - 189 B.C.E.)"


In this section of chapter one, Professor Kahl takes up (pp. 51 - 64) the murky history of Celtic occupations of parts of present day Italy, Greece and Turkey. The focus of this presentation is to highlight Greek and Roman descriptions of these events as a struggle by self-described civilized forces against Celtic barbarism, represented by tribes, who at first conquored and settled in these areas, but who were subsequently defeated by both Greek and Roman armies.


Kahl stresses that the centuries-long struggles against Celtic invasion - ending in Roman victory - assumed mythic proportions, with the Celtic (Galatian) tribes in the role of the archetypical enemy.


From what I can tell, the Celtic / Roman struggle was not much different from other invasions from northern Europe by clans, seeking either plunder or agricultural lands in warmer climes. Kahl certainly recognizes the similarities but calls attention to the apparently (to Kahl) unique mythic imagery assigned to the Celts by Roman  (Pliny) and Greek-speaking (Plutarch) historiagraphers.


Interestingly, though not remarked upon by Kahl, some of the ancient commentators, writing during Roman hegemony, displayed sympathy for the Celts.


Livy, a native of Padua (Patavium), who could be described as passionate about Rome, was of a Gallic family; Livy may have acquired his knowledge of Celtic epics from his own family's oral traditions. (Markale, p. 50, see below.)


Plutarch's sympathy for the Celts is found in a passage Kahl cites, in which a Celtic king ia given a speech that justifies his people's invasion and occupation of Italy on the same grounds which the Romans used to justify their own violent acquisition of lands already occupied by others.


The romantic image a thousand years later, of Celts as grand losers in shadowy, epic battles across Britain is part of English, Irish and even Scottish folklore. Here is an example - a paragraph that is fun to read - which purports to explain the impetus for ancient Celtic invasions / migrations, which are then linked to sagas of kingdoms won and then lost in the British isles:


"The Gauls in Illyria were becoming restless. As believers in an all-governing dynamism, they were anxious to be on the move again. The Celts looked upon the present as a mere function of the future, as a continual process of evolution. The legends of Brittany,Wales and Ireland all serve to illustrate this theme.The mark made by trhe Celts on the ancient historians is no more than a manifestation of their asnti-historic desire to deny the present and create the future, if only in the imagination.This singular attitude is inherent both in the capture of Rome and the expedition to Delphi; and was later responsble for the Twelfth Century Round Table Romances of Christian Europe, a cycle of magical adventures to match the aspirations of a fallen race which refused to accept that it had died." (The Celts: Uncovering the Mythic and Historic Origins of Western Culture, by Jean Markale [Rochester VT: Innte Traditions International, 1993 (1976: Les Celts et la Civilisation Celtique, p. 66.])


The epic nature of sweeping invasions and occupations, combined with ambiguous tellings and retellings - to say nothing of the final defeat and destruction of peoples who are linked with the foundation of Western Europe - all this gives momentum to romantic imagery.


T.G.E. Powell, inclined against romance, states that it must have been not their religious notions but "visions of rich plunder" which sent the Gauls into northern Italy, as well as some "special misfortune" which drove the Celts to "descend upon Macedonia in midwinter." (See The Celts [Thames and Hudson,1958, 1994], pp. 18, 19.)


Kahl has little interest in the romance but does want to call attention to that part of the Celtic myth, which was developed by ancient historian / propagandists, in the service of imperial Roman hegemony.

Kahl argues that the epic struggle for supremacy in Italy between Celts and Romans occasioned the visual representation of Celts as the archetypal Enemy.


For this argument to persuade, an explanation of the sympathetic treatment by Plutarch and Livy must be offered.


Kahl does cite Livy but as an apologist for Rome, who uses "twisted logic" (p. 52) to denigrate the Celts, when Roman emissaries break the peace "as if they were Celts". Kahl cites Livy 5:35 but the closest statement by Levy for this characterization that I can find is at 5:36, where Livy describes the Roman ambassadors, as a "peaceable enough mission, had it not contained envoys of a violent temper, more like Gauls than Romans." (See Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 5, Rev. Canon Roberts, Ed., posted at perseus.tufts.edu.)


This seems to me straightforward enough and does not warrant Kahl's conclusion (Kahl, p. 52) that Livy is asserting "that it is barbarians who are lawless and Romans who keep the law--even when they do not." Kahl's conclusion is made more dubious since Livy goes on to describe how the Roman ambassadors abused their diplomatic credentials by taking up arms on the spot and killing a Celtic chieftain, an event which the Celts justly complained of before the Roman senate, but to no avail.


The Celtic king, Brennus the Second is said to have laughed out loud when he saw the gods at Delphi represented in human form. Can Celtic history / myth / romance become grist for a re-imagined context for Paul's Galatians letter? 

We are not there yet.

RESPONSE NUMBER TWO To Galatians Re-imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished (Fortress 2010) by Brigitte Kahl

KAHL’S INTRODUCTION

Kahl mentions a “68 C.E.” rebellion in the Roman Province of Galatia, conducted by the Roman-appointed governor, Gaius Julius Vindex. Kahl states (p 1) that this episode is “directly relevant to interpretation” because the Roman-occupied areas, Gaul and Galatia “were more closely linked in the first century, C.E. mind, than we realize.”

The Apostle Paul was dead (according to well accepted tradition) by the time of the Gaius Julius Vindex rebellion.

The likelihood of Paul’s death has to mean that whatever association is to be made between the rebellion and the Apostle, is made without reference to any comment or thought Paul might have had about the rebellion, because Paul could have had none.

Similarly, there is no mention by Kahl that the rebel governor, Gaius Julius Vindex had known Paul, known of Paul or had been influenced by Paul in any way.

These discontinuities are not issues for Kahl. Why not?

Note that Kahl has stated that her purpose in mentioning the 68 C.E. rebellion is to draw the readers attention to the “mind” of the first century, C.E.  

The “mind” of an era is a large item. I am hoping that Professor Kahl will clarify what might be the specific features of this “mind” and how it can inform the reader’s understanding.

It appears that the introductory mention of the rebellion in Galatia is an occasion for Kahl to emphasize that the two Roman-governed regions (Gall and Galatia) ought to be seen as more closely linked “than we realize.”

I don’t know why Kahl thinks her readers do not already link Gaul and Galatia. Both areas were populated by clans of “Gauls” prior to their defeat in war by Roman legions, centuries before. Both retained similar if not identical languages, which Jerome noted and which many Galatians commentaries have pointed out.  Today, one area, Gaul, is France. The other, Galatia, is a portion of southern Turkey. 

Intending to link the two areas quite closely for her readers, Kahl adds, surprisingly, “From a strictly lexical perspective, the whole letter that Paul addresses to the “assemblies of Galatia” [. . .] could as well have been directed to the Roman province(s) of Gallia, contemporary France [. . .].” (pp 1-2)

From a “strictly lexical perspective” Lincoln’s Gettysburg address could have been addressed to British subjects deported to Australia, or to English-speaking Canadians or to the British Parliament. But none of these were the intended audience of the Address – and for vastly more important reasons than that dissimilar audiences spoke/speak the same language.

This hyperbole is a bit discouraging in an Introduction. You hate to see a writer, at the outset, overreach to this degree.

Patience. We are only to page two. Top of.