Parker's Two Romes
aOn 4/6/1848 Theodore Parker addressed the American Anti-Slavery society, giving a speech entitled “The Abolition of Slavery in the French Republic”. He begins by explicitly remarking on the previous speaker’s thoughts on Rome, showing how antiquity was a common reference for Americans; a bridge that connected different speakers.
“The gentleman before me has made an allusion to Rome. Let me also turn to that same city. Underneath the Rome of the emperors, there was another Rome; not seen by the sun, known only to a few men. Above, in the sunlight, stood Rome of the Caesars, with her markets and her armies, her theaters, her temples, and her palaces, glorious and of marble. A million men went through her brazen gates. The imperial city, she stood there, beautiful and admired, the queen of nations. But underneath all that, in caverns of the earth, in the tombs of dead men, in quarries whence the upper city had been slowly hewn, there was another population, another Rome, with other thoughts; yes, a devout body of men who swore not by the public altars; men whose prayers were forbidden; their worship disallowed, their ideas prohibited, their very lives illegal. Time passed on; and gradually Rome of the pagans disappeared, and Rome of the Christians sat there in her place, on the Seven Hills, and stretched out her scepter over the nations.”
(In The Slave Power, 1969: 165).
For Parker, Rome is impossible to separate from Christian theology. As a theological locus, Rome has didactic worth. Parker constructs a parallel between ancient Rome and modern France: just as in ancient Rome Christians were initially few in number and oppressed by the government, so too were true republicans in France. What Parker leaves unsaid is a further parallel between these Christians and abolitionists in the US.
What I see as important in this passage of Parker is his emphasis on progress: the Christians start off as prosecuted, but eventually they become emperors. Parker does not think that simply being oppressed makes one like the Christians, but rather that the goal is to become hegemonic.
Furthermore, in his other writings it is clear that Parker does not think that early Christians are inherently worthy of imitation. How could he, when he does not even think that the bible is in an of itself authoritative on morality?
Indeed, Parker argues that the New Testament’s silence on the evil of slavery reflects badly on the bible, rather than the bible giving imprimatur to slavery. Not only does Parker decry this method, but he also attacks Moses Stuart, a professor at Andover Newton Theological School who argued that the New Testament condones slavery.
“there is a “short and easy method” with Professor Stuart, and all other men who defend slavery out of the Bible. If the Bible defends slavery, it is not so much the better for slavery, but so much the worse for the Bible. If Mr. Stuart and Mr. Webster do not see that, there are plenty of obscurer men that do. Of all the attacks ever made on the Bible, by “deists” and “infidels”, none would do so much to bring it into disrepute, as to show that it sanctioned American slavery.”
(“The Slave Power” in the Slave Power 1969: 272)
“The gentleman before me has made an allusion to Rome. Let me also turn to that same city. Underneath the Rome of the emperors, there was another Rome; not seen by the sun, known only to a few men. Above, in the sunlight, stood Rome of the Caesars, with her markets and her armies, her theaters, her temples, and her palaces, glorious and of marble. A million men went through her brazen gates. The imperial city, she stood there, beautiful and admired, the queen of nations. But underneath all that, in caverns of the earth, in the tombs of dead men, in quarries whence the upper city had been slowly hewn, there was another population, another Rome, with other thoughts; yes, a devout body of men who swore not by the public altars; men whose prayers were forbidden; their worship disallowed, their ideas prohibited, their very lives illegal. Time passed on; and gradually Rome of the pagans disappeared, and Rome of the Christians sat there in her place, on the Seven Hills, and stretched out her scepter over the nations.”
(In The Slave Power, 1969: 165).
For Parker, Rome is impossible to separate from Christian theology. As a theological locus, Rome has didactic worth. Parker constructs a parallel between ancient Rome and modern France: just as in ancient Rome Christians were initially few in number and oppressed by the government, so too were true republicans in France. What Parker leaves unsaid is a further parallel between these Christians and abolitionists in the US.
What I see as important in this passage of Parker is his emphasis on progress: the Christians start off as prosecuted, but eventually they become emperors. Parker does not think that simply being oppressed makes one like the Christians, but rather that the goal is to become hegemonic.
Furthermore, in his other writings it is clear that Parker does not think that early Christians are inherently worthy of imitation. How could he, when he does not even think that the bible is in an of itself authoritative on morality?
Indeed, Parker argues that the New Testament’s silence on the evil of slavery reflects badly on the bible, rather than the bible giving imprimatur to slavery. Not only does Parker decry this method, but he also attacks Moses Stuart, a professor at Andover Newton Theological School who argued that the New Testament condones slavery.
“there is a “short and easy method” with Professor Stuart, and all other men who defend slavery out of the Bible. If the Bible defends slavery, it is not so much the better for slavery, but so much the worse for the Bible. If Mr. Stuart and Mr. Webster do not see that, there are plenty of obscurer men that do. Of all the attacks ever made on the Bible, by “deists” and “infidels”, none would do so much to bring it into disrepute, as to show that it sanctioned American slavery.”
(“The Slave Power” in the Slave Power 1969: 272)