1. Introduction
Historically and geographically, today’s United Kingdom and, particularly, England, exist on the land that once belonged to the Roman Empire and thus it was once known as the province of Britannia and was also known as Roman Britain. In popular media, Romans and their culture and history are often represented. For example, there are films, books, music and video games made to retell or idealise the story, ideology, society, culture, religion, achievements or even just a tiny historical part of Rome. As it is established by many authors, for example, Robert Philips argues that history is always part of the formation of the national identity (2003, 5), and Roman Britain is part of England’s past. Therefore, the question of this essay is that how are the Roman times still relevant in today’s British culture?
Regarding the geographical territory that we nowadays call England, the Roman past was always relevant. It was a relevant foundation upon which countries could be established and political or diplomatic claims could be created upon its legacy during the Middle Ages – tying the legendary origins of England to the Roman Empire (Maley 2010, 26). In the time of the Renaissance, it was a question of identity. For instance, shall the British people relate themselves to the Celts, Britons, the Anglos-Saxons or the Romans (Maley 2010, 24)? Similarly, to the various peoples and nations of Italy, who cherished the Roman times and believed themselves to be the direct heirs of the Empire (Porter and Teich 1992, 17). This and future periods have often seen the altering dominant ideals regarding the heritage and ancestry of the English people – one time it was the Romans, the other time when it benefited them, it was the Anglo-Saxons or even the Normans (Cerasi 2018, 242). Later on, when Great Britain became a colonial power, during the imperialist era, the Roman Empire was drawn as a parallel to the British, such as in the criticism of Eleanor Davies in 1644 (Maley 2010, 25). Fearing of the fall, it was a base of discussion and criticism, whether the British Empire would become the Second Rome (Maley 2010, 26). Finally, as Peter Shaffer in his post-war drama titled Equus also argues, the British person, who is a “[m]odern citizen for whom society doesn’t exist” (1993, 104), which, in my interpretation based on Attila Kiss’ theories of the creation of the subject[1] (2010, 11), points to an identity crisis within the British Society that still exists today.
This essay is structured to build its argument in four major sections. First of all, I am to present the state of representation of Rome in popular media in order to establish the foundation for the relevancy of the topic. Second, it is important to introduce the British identity crisis of the current era. Third, there is also a description of the province of Britannia and its economy that made it possible to create a heritage. Finally, I explain the cultural legacy and relevancy of Rome to the British of today.
Concerning the literary background of the essay I rely on authors from different departments, such as history, economy, religion and culture, to accurately draw the major questions that I explore. First of all, regarding History, I rely mainly on the works of Brunt (1965), Cambell (2001), Todd (2004) and Németh and Hegyi (2011), who had thoroughly described and researched the History of Rome and its provinces. Second, the foundation of the arguments about the romanization of the native population and the frontier society of (Roman) Britannia is built upon the literature by Irby-Massie (1999), Gardner (2017) and Hanscam and Buchanan (2023) through which I explain the special status of the province within the empire from a societal point of view that contributes to the same special positioning of the English in the post-modern era. Third, the societal, religious and cultural issues presented in the paper are mainly supported by the writings of Irby-Massie (1999), Cerasi (2018), Savani (2019), and Chenault (2020) who are experts in their fields regarding the various Roman religions, social interconnectedness and the cultural aspects of the Roman Empire that spread to the provinces, which are still found in the belief of being a frontier society.
2. The Roman Empire in Popular Media
As I have already mentioned above, in the last few decades a number of books were written, films were made and video games were created that all relate to, connect to or retell a story regarding Rome and the Roman Empire. For instance, a very popular example is the film titled Ben-Hur by William Wyler (1957), or a more recent example, the film Gladiator by Ridly Scott released in 2000. Moreover, it is important to mention that the tradition of narrating stories set in the Roman era was also present during the time of Shakespeare, who wrote several dramas about that period, such as the famous play Titus Andronicus (more recently, adapted to film in 1999, titled Titus), Julius Caesar and also Antony and Cleopatra. In addition, the comedies of Monty Python also used many aspects of the Roman past to create their themes, thus continuing the British tradition. Recently, video games have also delved into the Roman past of the British Isles, such as the action-adventure titled Assassin’s Creed Valhalla (that references Roman Britain on multiple occasions) released in 2020, in numerous strategy games like the series titled Caesar, Total War, Imperator: Rome, to name a few. In literature, the Roman tradition and mythology appears in many novels, such as Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, and the historical setting of ancient Rome or Britannia is base for many modern stories, for example, A Day of Fire, Boudica: The Warrior Queen, Pompeii, The Wolf Den among many others.
Therefore, it is safe to say that in popular culture, Rome, the Roman Empire and the province of Britannia are still present, and in stories and especially in fiction these times are idealised and romanticised. As it is argued by Porter and Teich (1992, 6–10) and Philips (2003, 5), national identity incorporates a glorified version of the past, often falsifying real events and historical relations in order to create a strong belief in the concept of the current nation that is the successor of the great empires of the past. Consequently, Roman Britain is still a relevant cultural factor today, as it was during Imperialism – as it is presented by Brunt (1965, 267–268), Maley (2010, 26) and Cerasi (2018, 245–249) – when it was often a basis for comparison, which often underlined conflicting images of the two empires, problematizing the issue, and which more often strengthened the parallel between them that further constructed the national myth.
However, there is also the Celtic past that often rises together with the Roman legacy. For example, this phenomenon can be witnessed in relation to the historical and literary works of art representing Boudica – such as Boudica: The Warrior Queen by M. J. Trow that released in 2022 – the Celtic queen who revolted against the invading Roman colonists (Chenault 2020, 39). As Chenault argues this warrior queen’s story has been resurfacing throughout history (2020, 39–40). From the perspective of the women of England, Boudica’s narrative can be an important identity marker that symbolises female strength and leadership in modern times as well (Chenault 2020, 49–52).
As a result, it can be argued that there were always conflicting stories connected and mixed in one national identity, which in the case of the above-mentioned examples, attempts to use both the Celtic and the Roman past, in order to form a glorious and strong heritage, as it was presented above through the arguments of Porter and Teich (1992, 6–10) and Philips (2003, 5). On the contrary, this contradiction regarding the conflicting sources and stories does not undermine the fact that the sense of being a successor of the Roman Empire is still a relevant identity marker that is strengthened through numerous media in today’s popular culture.
3. The British Question
As I have already presented above based on the arguments of Porter and Teich (1992, 6–10) and Philips (2003, 5), identity was always a question throughout history. Some of these questions still remain from the Renaissance and the contradicting period of Imperialism (Cerasi 2018, 245).
The claim of the Roman heritage underlying the hint at the comparisons between Roman and British Empire […], is worth remarking. Indeed, the ideas of Empire in early twentieth century Britain were diverse, even divergent, and it has been appropriately noticed that the complexity, diversity, and sheer size of the Empire itself, as well as the different aims that fostered the Imperial sentiment […] Nonetheless, on a cultural terrain can be traced a pattern of recurrent references to the Roman Empire, made by a wide range of authors throughout the decades of the building and consolidation of the British Empire. (Cerasi 2018, 245–246).
As Cerasi argues, the picture of Roman Imperialism conflicts on many elements with the British imperial setting, but despite this conflict, the comparison and its results were interpreted in a more positive light following the ever-growing achievements of the British Empire (2018, 245–249). Nevertheless, this past is there to draw an analogue with the colonialist era, and it is there in the identity formation of the nation.
The place of Britain in the world was fundamentally changed after the two World Wars that were devastating for Europe. As a result, the notion of Britishness was also questioned, which led to the need of a new identity for the British people. “In many ways war forged state and nation but in a way that has led to its possible break-up” (McCrone 1997, 579). Furthermore, in the post-war period, during the Cold War the nation suffered another humiliation on the global scale. The Suez Crisis and the Oil Crisis’s aftermath dismantled British imperialist goals and aims. Therefore, this imperial heritage had to be abandoned. However, both the everyday British people and the people behind the media of the time still kept the notion of being supreme to others around Great Britain, as this concept could have been read from many newspapers at the time, “[f]or some there could be no doubt. Britain’s place in the world was what it always had been” (Levin 1993, 389). On the contrary, in global politics, decolonisation ended this struggle and, ultimately, it resulted in not only an economic crisis, but also in an identity crisis as well (McCrone 1997, 591–595).
As a result, the British literature of the post-war period also reflects on this identity crisis and presents various social criticism for the audiences. For instance, the plays written by Harold Pinter and Peter Shaffer notoriously present these issues, where the main characters are in the middle of their own crisis. For example, in Pinter’s plays titled The Room, Caretaker, The Birthday Party written between 1957 and 1960; the main characters are undergoing identity transformation and suffering. Also, the same theme appears in Shaffer’s plays as well, such as The Royal Hunt of the Sun written in 1964 and Equus written in 1973.
Furthermore, Gardner argues regarding the Brexit that the identity crisis, which was borne in the post-war period, heavily influenced the events (Gardner 2017, 3).
The year 2016 will be marked as a year in which identity politics reached new levels of significance. Among numerous dramatic events, the UK referendum on membership of the European Union has brought many issues of interest to archaeologists to the fore. These range from entirely contemporary concerns, such as the future of research funding in Britain, to topics of more longitudinal significance, including the interactions between different identity groups in particular economic and political circumstances (Gardner 2017, 3).
Gardner puts heavy emphasis on the relationship between identity and imperialism regarding the British position and world view (2017, 3). As shown in the quote above, it is evident that there is still tension between the various elements that make up the identity of the ordinary people, which is either reinforced or crumbled by the national identity that is propagated by those in power.
Brexit can be seen as the culmination of the collapse of the British empire, and transformation of British identity, in the post-Second World War era and the particular dynamics of this process invite comparison with Britain’s earlier position as one of the frontier provinces of the Roman empire, especially in the 4th and 5th centuries AD. This comparison reveals two paradoxical dimensions of imperial identities, the first being that so-called ‘peripheries’ can be more important than ‘cores’ in the creation of imperial identities and the second that such identities can be simultaneously ideologically powerful yet practically fragile in the circumstances which follow imperial collapse. Such insights are important because, at a time of apparently resurgent nationalism in many countries, archaeologists need to work harder than ever to understand identity dynamics with the benefit of time depth (Gardner 2017, 3).
As a result, based on the arguments of Gardner and the nature of the issue, the past reveals itself to be ever so relevant – especially, when the roots of the society are questioned (2017, 3–4). Furthermore, English people have a special place regarding British identity, in opposition to the Scots and the Irish. Since the lands of England were under Roman control ‘they’ (as they identify as being the descendants of the Romanized people) were colonialised and civilized, in comparison with the Celts of the region, outside of the Roman borders, such as the ancestors of the Scots and the Irish – arguably placing the English into a position of a ‘frontier’ society of civilization (Gardner 2017, 7 & 13). Therefore, it is also a factor in the differences that show, for example, in the case, who voted for staying in the EU and who voted to leave (the English in majority voted to leave, while the other ethnic groups in majority voted to stay) as it is presented by the findings of Gardner (2017, 7–13).
4. The Province of Britannia
As Gardner argues, the British, and especially the English, in some context position themselves as the frontier (2017, 7 & 13). There is a historical core to this notion; however, as I established above, the continuity between the Roman times and the Anglo-Saxon rules are inherently cultural beliefs, based on culture and religion, rather than real inheritance. Nevertheless, it is an important identity aspect. Irby-Massie, summarizes the historical core in the following quote, which also leads into the notion of Romanization, where the native population is basically converted to Roman religion and culture (1999, 9).
The interaction of Roman and native in Britain is central. The Roman army, the institution responsible for imposing Roman culture on frontier societies, was itself immensely diverse in ethnicity and culture. The army, despite (or because of) its diversity, enabled locals to interact with Rome via veteran colonies, local municipal government, intermarriage, and commerce, as manifested in language, fashion, housing, and religion. Roman and native religions were an important forum for cultural exchange, providing a social organization for civilians as army cults did for soldiers of different cultural and religious backgrounds (Irby-Massie 1999, 7).
In addition, Irby-Massie also argues that before and even after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Roman Church was not as consistent and strong within the Romanized population yet and only around and after the fifth century they built real Roman Christian churches, which were not conversions of previous pagan shrines (1999, 9).
The province was kept under control with an ethnically diverse army, recruited from people all across the Empire – from Gaul to Africa and from Hispania to Judea. This, as Irby-Massie argues, contributed to the cultural and religious variety as well, which led to the establishment of many shrines originating from faraway lands in Roman Britain (1999, 2–3). However, despite the cultural conversion – Romanization – the Celtic natives could also maintain their own religion, since “there was no religious conflict of interest,” so various beliefs and religions could co-exist within the Empire (Irby-Massie 1999, 4). By the third century, Romano-British men also took part in the defence of the province and soon they became the major factor in this task; also, it must be underlined that Romano-British soldiers started to appear outside of the province as well, mainly, due to the constant moving of the legions – which then applied to the Romano-British cohorts as well (Irby-Massie 1999, 3) – thus, it can be argued that the Romanization process was a success on many fronts.
The Romans got into contact with the Island of Britain during the time of Julius Caesar, when he was fighting in Gaul. He led expeditions and campaigns into the island as well, between 55 and 54 B.C., mainly as a part of the Gallic Wars. However, at the time, it was not a full conquest and there was no lasting result (Cunliffe in Todd 2004, 6).
Therefore, the origins of the province date back to the rule of Caesar (Emperor) Claudius, who aimed to acquire more land, resources and, also, to secure the defence of Gallia. With his legions, he started conquering the lands of Britannia in 43 AD. However, the emperor returns from the isle in the same year and leaves everything to his generals. Between the years 43 and 51 AD, the lands up until the river Humber are conquered and Claudius organised this territory into a province and two client kingdoms (Németh et al. 2011, 491).
Under the rule of Caesar Nero, in 60 A.D., Boudica organised a rebellion against the Roman invaders, under whose yoke and heavy taxes the Britons were suffering. Boudica was a widow queen of one of the client states, who had enough of the brutality of the Roman soldiers. She managed to spread the rebellion through the whole province and in the process, the Roman cities of Camulodunum (Colchester) and Londinium (London) were totally destroyed and their inhabitants slaughtered (Németh et al. 2011, 493). Despite the early achievements of Boudica against the Roman legions, she was defeated eventually in the year 61 A.D., and her deeds were avenged (Németh et al. 2011, 496).
After this period, there were no more plans for more than twenty-five years to expand the Roman territories in Britain. First of all, even under the reign of Nero, there were several internal conflicts and also a civil war broke out in Gallia. Second, after his death came another civil war in the year of the “four emperors” in 69 A.D. that severely hindered any Roman goal in Britannia (Németh et al. 2011, 496 & 500). However, following this troublesome period the conquest – of what we know as Roman Britain today – was concluded under the rule of Vespasian, who emerged as the victor of the civil war (Németh et al. 2011, 500–501). He appointed Gnaeus Julius Agricola, who oversaw and led the conquest of the territories of today’s Wales and the rest of Roman Britain, and, who also prepared to go further north into Caledonia (Manning in Todd 2004, 70–71). However, the northern lands, which we today call Scotland are a matter of debate – there is not enough or correct evidence to date, whenever it was controlled or conquered for the first time; nevertheless, archaeological and some textual evidence show that some parts of Southern Scotland was under control by the Romans for a relatively vast period of time (Maxwell in Todd 2004, 76–78).
Moreover, Hadrianus, during his reign (117–138), aimed to further secure the borders of the Empire and, as a result, built the limes. This in Britannia meant the Wall of Hadrianus (also known as the Hadrian’s Wall). This meant to protect and separate the province from the barbarians (Németh et al. 2011, 511–512).
The dominant events in the history of Roman Britain from the end of Domitian’s reign until the accession of Marcus were the construction of the two barrier walls across the island: the walls of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. Both these works were major structural enterprises and although, on one hand, they declare the failure of Rome to dominate the whole island, the two walls and their garrisons represent a clear commitment to maintaining the security of the northern frontier of the province (Crow in Todd 2004, 114).
This legacy of the Empire, following the Fall, serves even still today as an important element in the English psyche, which is supported by the findings of Hanscam and Buchanan (2023, 1008).
In addition, as it is also mentioned in the quote, there was another wall, which was built on the island, north from Hadrian’s Wall, called the Antonine wall. This was built by Antoninus Pius with the aim of defending Britannia from the Caledonian tribes. Between the years 142 and 158, the territories between Hadrian’s Wall and the Antonine Wall were occupied by Rome and they intended to keep it. However, by 158, the legions had to retreat and abandoned the region due to the failure in stabilizing the power of the Empire in the region. Following the retreat, the matter was sealed afterwards. Consequently, the Wall of Hadrian became the limes of the northern frontier (Crow in Todd 2004, 132–133).
In conclusion, following the conquests, there came a continuously carried out Romanization process. Eventually, this led to the unique identity that was distinctive within the Roman Empire, which is known as Romano-British (Irby-Massie 1999, 3–4). The fifth and sixth centuries saw a continuation of the Romano-British rule over the southern part of the British Isle, with a strong identity separate from the rest of the tribes (Wood in Todd 2004, 430–432). As a result of this continuity and the physical remains scattered throughout the land, the English people kept in their possession and made the Roman period into an identity marker of their own during the modern times as well, leading up even to today (Hanscam and Buchanan 2023, 1008–1009).
5. The Legacy’s Imprint on British Culture and Identity
Based on the research conducted by Hanscam and Buchanan, the interpretation of Hadrian’s Wall differs in the different socio-cultural contexts (2023, 1009). Such, as archaeologists may interpret as a boundary that marked the northern frontier of and stood for the Empire, and within its walls Rome was a multicultural space representing everything that it has united (Hanscam and Buchanan 2023, 1009).
While Hadrian’s Wall has traditionally been considered to be a defensive structure intended to protect the Roman province of Britannia from the ‘barbarians’ to the north, more recent approaches argue that it functioned as a multi-faceted complex used to observe and manage human mobility, and/or was constructed as a symbol of Roman power and authority […]. [C]omparatively few studies focus on the ways in which preconceptions of the Wall influence the socio-political landscape of modern-day Britain […]. Recent studies of the post-Roman history of the Wall demonstrate its enduring importance in discussions surrounding the origins of British identity […] (Hanscam and Buchanan 2023, 1008–1009).
Therefore, it can be argued, similarly as Hanscam and Buchanan does, that the public understanding and interpretation of the remains of antiquity gave them a special marker for their identity formation, such as I have introduced above with the Theory of the Subject (2023, 1008–1009).
Despite such plural narratives, however, many visitors continue to experience the material remains of the Wall through the lens of barbarian (‘them’) and Roman (‘us’) […]. Here, we contend that archaeologists must acknowledge and explore how the materiality of the Wall and the narratives woven around it can serve to perpetuate inequalities in the contemporary world (Hanscam and Buchanan 2023, 1009).
As a result, it can be argued that the physical or material remains of the Roman times still heavily impact the psyche of the general public, and thus as their inheritance, it gives the English a sense of special place within the world as a frontier society, which identity affects modern day politics as well (Hanscam and Buchanan 2023, 1008–1009).
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, as it is presented by the various examples from the modern and post-modern era, the British and, especially, the English portray the characteristics of a frontier society that they originate from the Roman period of Britannia (Irby-Massie 1999, 7). This special status affects their current decisions regarding the socio-political course that they aim to take and at the same time this contributes to an ideological and identity crisis, which results in a displaced position within the world order (Hanscam and Buchanan 2023, 1008–1009). As I have been arguing through the examples of post-war dramas, contemporary examples and different studies, the authority in charge of the national discourse regarding identity makes the problematized question into a fluid concept that can be changed to whatever narrative fits the current goals (Cerasi 2018, 242). However, this practice further pushes society into a status of displacement and a feeling of an empty or lost national identity. Contrary to this process, the material legacy is still standing and its effect is still felt. Therefore, as it is presented via the research conducted by Irby-Massie (1999) and Hanscam and Buchanan (2023), research into the relevance of the legacy of Roman Britain is still needed from a socio-cultural and a political perspective.
Recommended Readings:
Allen, Martyn, Lisa Lodwick. 2017. “Chapter 4: Agricultural strategies in Roman Britain.” New visions of the countryside of Roman Britain, vol. 2 – The rural economy of Roman Britain. Britannia Monograph Ser. 30, Londres, 2017. pp. 142–177.
Campbell, B. 2001. “Diplomacy in the Roman world (c.500 BC‐AD 235).” Diplomacy & Statecraft, 12(1): 1–22. DOI:10.1080/09592290108406185
Croxford, Ben. 2003. “Iconoclasm in Roman Britain?.” Britannia, 34: 81–95. DOI:10.2307/3558540
Gardner, A. 2013. “Thinking about Roman Imperialism: Postcolonialism, Globalisation and Beyond?.” Britannia, 44: 1–25. DOI:10.1017/s0068113x13000172
Grahame, Mark. 1998. “Redefining Romanization: Material Culture and the Question of Social Continuity in Roman Britain.” Forcey, C., Hawthorne, J., and Witcher, R. (eds.) TRAC 97: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Nottingham 1997. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Greene, Elizabeth M. 2011. Women and families in the auxiliary military communities of the Roman West in the first and second centuries AD. Dissertation. University of North Carolina.
Greene, Kevin. 2005. “The Economy of Roman Britain: Representation and Historiography.” Bruhn, J., Croxford, B., and Grigoropoulos, D. (eds.) TRAC 2004: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Durham 2004. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Hingley, Richard. 1996. “The ‘legacy’ of Rome: the rise, decline, and fall of the theory of Romanization.” in Webster, J.; Cooper, N. (eds.) Roman imperialism: post-colonial perspectives. pp. 34–48.
Millar, F. 1988. “Government and Diplomacy in the Roman Empire during the First Three Centuries.” The International History Review, 10(3): 345–377.
Rippon, Stephen, Chris Smart, Ben Pears. 2015. The Fields of Britannia: Continuity and Change in the Late Roman and Early Medieval Landscape. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reference List:
Brunt, P. A. 1965. “Reflections on British and Roman Imperialism*.” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 7(03), 267. DOI:10.1017/s0010417500003686
Cerasi, Laura. 2018. “A contested legacy: conflicting images of the Roman and British Empire in the Italian imperialist discourse through the liberal and fascist era.” In Wouter Bracke, Jan Nelis & Jan De Maeyer (eds.), Renovatio, inventio, absentia imperii: from the Roman Empire to contemporary imperialism. Academia Belgica. pp. 239–260.
Chenault, Rachel L. 2020. “The Celtic Queen Boudica as a Historiographical Narrative.” The Gettysburg Historical Journal: Vol. 19: Article 6.
Gardner, A. 2017. “Brexit, boundaries and imperial identities: A comparative view.” Journal of Social Archaeology, 17(1), 3–26. DOI:10.1177/1469605316686875
Hanscam, Emily, & Buchanan, Brian. 2023. “Walled in: Borderlands, frontiers and the future of archaeology.” Antiquity, 97(394), 1004–1016. DOI:10.15184/aqy.2023.14
Irby-Massie, Georgia L. 1999. Military Religion in Roman Britain. Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill.
Kiss, Attila. 2010. “Double Anatomy in Early Modern and Postmodern Drama.” Papers in English & American Studies XX. Monograph Series 9. Szeged: JATEPress.
Levin, Bernard. 1993. “Run It Down the Flagpole (1970).” The Past Speaks. Sources and Problems in British History – Vol. II: Since 1688. Edited by Walter L. Arnstein. Toronto: D. C. Heath and Co. pp. 389–393.
Maley, W. 2010. “The English Renaissance, the British problem, and the early modern archipelago.” Critical Quarterly, 52(4), 23-36.
McCrone, D. 1997. “Unmasking Britannia: The Rise and Fall of British National Identity.” Nations and Nationalism, 3(4): 579–596. DOI:10.1111/j.1354-5078.1997.00579.x
Németh, György, György W. Hegyi. 2011. Görög-római történelem. Hungary, Budapest: Osiris kiadó.
Philips, Robert. 2003. “British Island Stories: History, Schools and Nationhood.” International Journal of Historical Teaching, Learning and Research, Volume 3(1): 3–7.
Porter, Roy, and Teich, Mikulas. 1992. The Renaissance in National Context. Cambridge University Press.
Savani, G. 2019. “An Elusive Legacy: The Rediscovery of Roman Baths in Eighteenth-Century Britain.” Britannia, 50: 13–48.
Shaffer, Peter. 1993. Equus. Edited by Adrian Burke. Longman.
Todd, M. (Ed.). 2004. A Companion to Roman Britain. DOI:10.1002/9780470998861
[1] “[The theory of the] enunciated, [studies] the mechanical relationship between signifiers and signifieds, and it considers the subject as the controller of signification. The subject in this traditional semiotics is a self-enclosed unit which is in possession of the linguistic rules, and always stands hierarchically above the elements of meaning production, as a guarantee and origin of meaning and identity. In short, this tradition is grounded in the phenomenological abstraction of an ego which is the heritage of the Cartesian ‘cogito’” (Kiss 2010, 11).
A Seminar Paper written for the East and West in the Antiquity seminar at the University of Szeged, during the Fall of 2023.