Since the medieval era, European states have commonly figured themselves through comparison with the ancient Roman Empire, with for instance the English Revolution of the 17th century being justified in large part through reference to Roman concepts of liberty (Kumar, p. 77, Skinner). By the beginning of the 20
Good article, enjoyed it a lot. Just mentioning a few things that came to mind while reading:
One thing worth exploring in late Victorian thought is the reaction against comparisons to Greece and Rome. For example, the analogy of the 'Greek model' (i.e. an 'outward extension' of a race into new areas which was to become independent) favoured by Gladstone was subject to a fierce critique by Seeley, who argued that modern colonial activity by the European states were not comparable. A small diffusion of a race across narrow seas required comparatively little effort, and the Ancient conception of the equivalency of the State and the Polis was a major factor in contributing to the "natural" independence. Whether it was Columbus or The East India Company, appropriating lands on the other side of the ocean was a considerable effort, and therefore the state was always involved and considered the lands to be an extension of the state. This argument was a necessary step for late Victorian federationists in order to refute the claim that colonies naturally broke away and that attempts to maintain them were ruinous.
Likewise in the case of Rome's positive reception you mentioned, the use of Seeley as an example of is misleading. Though some analogies could be drawn between Rome and Britain regarding the latter's possession of India, Britain was not akin to Rome:
"Our colonies do not resemble the colonies which classical students meet with in Greek and Roman history, and our Empire is not an Empire at all in the ordinary sense of the word. It does not consist of a congeries of nations held together by force, but in the main of one nation, as much as if it were no Empire but an ordinary state." (Expansion of England, p60)
For Seeley, India was sui generis, and the Settler colonies bore no relation to Roman acquisitions. Furthermore, Rome's civic institutions had in his view been given up during expansion, a major factor in its decline, whereas no such process had taken place within Britain.
For the reasons above, many federalists like Seeley and Greswell intentionally dispensed with many of the classical allusions, and instead looked to the United States as a more pertinent model of holding a great territory together (though imperialists like Froude would remain fond of the Roman analogies).
I also think that, while partially true, the idea that a distinct 'Liberal imperialism' declined in favour of a 'New Imperialism' is somewhat overstated. The 20th century liberal party was home to many pro-imperial self-described liberals, who saw a continuity between mid-Victorian imperialism and their own ideals, and for whom the 'civilizing mission' was a major motivation. Members of Milner's Kindergarten played a huge role in British politics upon returning from South Africa, and Asquith's Liberal government was more or less a front for their activities. Rhodes himself was dedicated to solidifying the empire as the most powerful state in the world in order to civilize the whole of humanity and render wars between nations impossible.
Finally, this isn't entirely relevant to your article, but another avenue well worth exploring on this topic is how the 20th century internationalists like Curtis and Zimmern saw the Empire as being inherited from (supposed) Greek ideals of liberty and democracy, and how the transformation of the British Empire into a world federation would, in a Hegelian sense, fulfil the historical telos of empire and succeed where the Athenian empire had failed.
Good article, enjoyed it a lot. Just mentioning a few things that came to mind while reading:
One thing worth exploring in late Victorian thought is the reaction against comparisons to Greece and Rome. For example, the analogy of the 'Greek model' (i.e. an 'outward extension' of a race into new areas which was to become independent) favoured by Gladstone was subject to a fierce critique by Seeley, who argued that modern colonial activity by the European states were not comparable. A small diffusion of a race across narrow seas required comparatively little effort, and the Ancient conception of the equivalency of the State and the Polis was a major factor in contributing to the "natural" independence. Whether it was Columbus or The East India Company, appropriating lands on the other side of the ocean was a considerable effort, and therefore the state was always involved and considered the lands to be an extension of the state. This argument was a necessary step for late Victorian federationists in order to refute the claim that colonies naturally broke away and that attempts to maintain them were ruinous.
Likewise in the case of Rome's positive reception you mentioned, the use of Seeley as an example of is misleading. Though some analogies could be drawn between Rome and Britain regarding the latter's possession of India, Britain was not akin to Rome:
"Our colonies do not resemble the colonies which classical students meet with in Greek and Roman history, and our Empire is not an Empire at all in the ordinary sense of the word. It does not consist of a congeries of nations held together by force, but in the main of one nation, as much as if it were no Empire but an ordinary state." (Expansion of England, p60)
For Seeley, India was sui generis, and the Settler colonies bore no relation to Roman acquisitions. Furthermore, Rome's civic institutions had in his view been given up during expansion, a major factor in its decline, whereas no such process had taken place within Britain.
For the reasons above, many federalists like Seeley and Greswell intentionally dispensed with many of the classical allusions, and instead looked to the United States as a more pertinent model of holding a great territory together (though imperialists like Froude would remain fond of the Roman analogies).
I also think that, while partially true, the idea that a distinct 'Liberal imperialism' declined in favour of a 'New Imperialism' is somewhat overstated. The 20th century liberal party was home to many pro-imperial self-described liberals, who saw a continuity between mid-Victorian imperialism and their own ideals, and for whom the 'civilizing mission' was a major motivation. Members of Milner's Kindergarten played a huge role in British politics upon returning from South Africa, and Asquith's Liberal government was more or less a front for their activities. Rhodes himself was dedicated to solidifying the empire as the most powerful state in the world in order to civilize the whole of humanity and render wars between nations impossible.
Finally, this isn't entirely relevant to your article, but another avenue well worth exploring on this topic is how the 20th century internationalists like Curtis and Zimmern saw the Empire as being inherited from (supposed) Greek ideals of liberty and democracy, and how the transformation of the British Empire into a world federation would, in a Hegelian sense, fulfil the historical telos of empire and succeed where the Athenian empire had failed.
Enjoyed this immensely. Thanks for writing!