Answers

1.) Why is the empire called the "Empire" instead of given a specific name?
This recalls the idea that this situation could—and does—happen anywhere. By not including specifics (including most names, specifically a place or a time period) within the novel, Coetzee emphasizes that imperialism as well as oppression or even slavery is a human concern—not a specific occurrence.  This also calls attention to the concept of the “other”. We do not know much about the barbarians or why the Empire dislikes them—only that these two groups are so different. This seems to make a larger comment on human nature—that often times we dislike a group or hate a race simply because they are not us.

2.) Is Coetzee making more of a statement about man's inner beast, or a political statement? Or both?
I definitely think that Coetzee is making a statement about both the conflicts within ourselves as well as with other groups. The very personal nature of the first person narration suggests that we should pay close attention to his inner dialogue--what he believes, what he thinks of certain occurences. However, we cannot ignore the political ramifications of this clearly polarized situation. The downfall of the magistrate suggests what may (or perhaps should) happen to people with oppressive power over others. 

3.) When the blind girl says “Yes, there were other men. I did not have a choice…”(61) do you believe she includes him in this category?

I absolutely believe that she includes him. We cannot forget that she is staying with him as—essentially—a slave. She attends to his needs such as feeding, clothing, as well as his sexual desires. Even though we see an affectionate side to his actions, she is merely involved because she has to be. this is why there is no tearful goodbye when he leaves the town of the Barbarians with her there—this was not a consensual relationship.

4.) Why does the magistrate find it necessary to risk everything in order to bring the girl back to "her people"?  What is he proving, and to who is he proving it?

I believe that he is risking all of this in order to bring her back because he felt guilty for the relationship that they had. He recognizes that keeping her there is exploitation—similar to all of the relations that the Empire has with the Barbarians. He is starting to feel remorse for it (which leads to his eventual downfall).

 5.)     Does the downfall of the narrator and the humiliation he feels ethically “make up” for the damage he did as a magistrate? 

Coetzee clearly wrote a “redemption novel”, one in which the narrator realizes the error of their ways and eventually gets punished for this. However, he wrote one that I believe is very close to reality in that the others around him do not recognize the errors and do not give him the redemption that he wants. The reader should recognize that the narrator truly feels bad for his choices, but this does not mean that he never treated others badly.