Where do we go from here? In practical terms with regard to the history of Roman Empire, how can we rewrite it? How do we use postcolonial thought to rewrite the narrative of Roman imperialism and to reframe Romanization? And what value does it hold? Does it matter to the contemporary audience? Can it make intellectual and moral interventions, and if so, what kinds of intervention? To make historical interventions on Romanization, to write a projective past of Roman imperialism, and to narrate repressed histories of the colonized and migrants can interrupt the present and negotiate a different future. Historical intervention on Roman imperialism, I believe, can revise the current sense of ownership of classical antiquity and can provide a better and wider structural lens on how on how to link the ancient past with the present.

Does postcolonial studies present a theoretical framework appropriate to Romanization studies? Does Romanization studies have evidence appropriate for postcolonial theories? Even though postcolonial theories did not stem from ancient Roman imperialism per se, they provide a heuristical tool to destabilize the discourse that has sustained imperial systems through history. They help Roman historians and archaeologists to reach a deeper understanding of the dynamic process of imperial discourses and to deconstruct the imperial discourses built through the complex layers of histories. This chapter does not deliver an exhaustive analysis or a landscape overview of postcolonial studies according to a certain order of significance or thematic categorization as is the common practice in the discipline, for example, along the triad of Said-Bhabha-Spivak or along the axis of theoretical and materialist approaches. Instead, here I explore postcolonial ideas which have influenced and reoriented Romanization studies.

The framework of ‘Romanization’ developed by Haverfield in 1905 - that Romans ‘civilized’ their imperial subjects, particularly those in ‘barbarian’ western provinces - remains hegemonic, notwithstanding multiple revisionist attempts. It has been reasserted, rejected, or modified, but still frames the debate. Yet, the postcolonial project to decolonize the production of historical knowledge has prompted some scholars to seek fresh approaches and to rewrite the history of Roman imperialism. This book asks: what is the value of postcolonialism in the discourse on Romanization? How has it influenced the discourse on Romanization thus far? Can postcolonialism move the discourse on Romanization forward? Borrowing Said’s concept of travelling ideas, this book undertakes a comparative study between the point of departure and the point(s) of arrival of travelling ideas of postcolonialism to understand their path and impact in the discourse on Roman imperialism and Romanization.

The Introduction turns to Terry Eagleton’s comment on reading Naipaul (“Great art, dreadful politics”) and asks how critics have addressed this quandary about a great writer. It looks at the critical essays on Naipaul by Homi Bhabha, Edward Said, and Sara Suleri in particular to examine how Naipaul’s works challenge the idea of “postcolonial arrival.” The overall thesis of the book is summed up as a reading in which an author “reads us.” To undertake this project, the work is grounded in a systematic examination of all of the author’s published and unpublished works, the secondary bibliography, and material deposited in the Naipaul Archive, McFarlin Library, University of Tulsa. To make a case for Naipaul’s place in global literary culture, there are four key impulses that govern the book. They are: history, aesthetics, textual engagement, and archival knowledge. To give meaning to that achievement, this book is written with thematic unities in mind. Although chronology is not totally dispensed with, the chapters are structured with the aim of establishing connections within Naipaul’s heterogeneous corpus. But for that interconnectedness to succeed, Naipaul followed an uncompromising commitment to writing as an aesthetic endeavour, uninhibited by fashion or ideology.

This concluding chapter describes the inevitability of ambiguity among everyone affected by the Reformation. It reviews historiographical trends of research since the 1970s in intellectual and social history. Comparing these trends to the benefits and shortcomings of the “confessionalization thesis,” it argues for reconsideration of the idea of third forces, adapting a concept suggested by the Austrian medievalist and public intellectual Friedrich Heer and the French Renaissance historian Thierry Wanegffelen. It finally explains how the power of third forces describes the specific hybridity of the Reformation.