What do you think?
Rate this book
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is a six-volume work by the English historian Edward Gibbon. It traces Western civilization (as well as the Islamic and Mongolian conquests) from the height of the Roman Empire to the fall of Byzantium. Volume I was published in 1776 and went through six printings. Volumes II and III were published in 1781; volumes IV, V, and VI in 1788–1789.
The six volumes cover the history, from 98 to 1590, of the Roman Empire, the history of early Christianity and then of the Roman State Church, and the history of Europe, and discusses the decline of the Roman Empire among other things.
The six volumes cover the history, from 98 to 1590, of the Roman Empire, the history of early Christianity and then of the Roman State Church, and the history of Europe, and discusses the decline of the Roman Empire among other things.
592 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1781
137 people are currently reading
3448 people want to read
About the author
Edward Gibbon
1,994 books599 followersEdward Gibbon (8 May 1737 – 16 January 1794) was an English historian and Member of Parliament. His most important work, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, was published in six volumes between 1776 and 1788. The Decline and Fall is known for the quality and irony of its prose, its use of primary sources, and its open criticism of organised religion.
Gibbon returned to England in June 1765. His father died in 1770, and after tending to the estate, which was by no means in good condition, there remained quite enough for Gibbon to settle fashionably in London at 7 Bentinck Street, independent of financial concerns. By February 1773, he was writing in earnest, but not without the occasional self-imposed distraction. He took to London society quite easily, and joined the better social clubs, including Dr. Johnson's Literary Club, and looked in from time to time on his friend Holroyd in Sussex. He succeeded Oliver Goldsmith at the Royal Academy as 'professor in ancient history' (honorary but prestigious). In late 1774, he was initiated a freemason of the Premier Grand Lodge of England. And, perhaps least productively in that same year, he was returned to the House of Commons for Liskeard, Cornwall through the intervention of his relative and patron, Edward Eliot. He became the archetypal back-bencher, benignly "mute" and "indifferent," his support of the Whig ministry invariably automatic. Gibbon's indolence in that position, perhaps fully intentional, subtracted little from the progress of his writing.
After several rewrites, with Gibbon "often tempted to throw away the labours of seven years," the first volume of what would become his life's major achievement, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, was published on 17 February 1776. Through 1777, the reading public eagerly consumed three editions for which Gibbon was rewarded handsomely: two-thirds of the profits amounting to approximately £1,000. Biographer Leslie Stephen wrote that thereafter, "His fame was as rapid as it has been lasting." And as regards this first volume, "Some warm praise from David Hume overpaid the labour of ten years."
Volumes II and III appeared on 1 March 1781, eventually rising "to a level with the previous volume in general esteem." Volume IV was finished in June 1784; the final two were completed during a second Lausanne sojourn (September 1783 to August 1787) where Gibbon reunited with his friend Deyverdun in leisurely comfort. By early 1787, he was "straining for the goal" and with great relief the project was finished in June. Gibbon later wrote:
It was on the day, or rather the night, of 27 June 1787, between the hours of eleven and twelve, that I wrote the last lines of the last page in a summer-house in my garden. ... I will not dissemble the first emotions of joy on the recovery of my freedom, and perhaps the establishment of my fame. But my pride was soon humbled, and a sober melancholy was spread over my mind by the idea that I had taken my everlasting leave of an old and agreeable companion, and that, whatsoever might be the future date of my history, the life of the historian must be short and precarious.
Volumes IV, V, and VI finally reached the press in May 1788, their publication having been delayed since March so it could coincide with a dinner party celebrating Gibbon's 51st birthday (the 8th). Mounting a bandwagon of praise for the later volumes were such contemporary luminaries as Adam Smith, William Robertson, Adam Ferguson, Lord Camden, and Horace Walpole. Smith remarked that Gibbon's triumph had positioned him "at the very head of [Europe's] literary tribe."
Gibbon returned to England in June 1765. His father died in 1770, and after tending to the estate, which was by no means in good condition, there remained quite enough for Gibbon to settle fashionably in London at 7 Bentinck Street, independent of financial concerns. By February 1773, he was writing in earnest, but not without the occasional self-imposed distraction. He took to London society quite easily, and joined the better social clubs, including Dr. Johnson's Literary Club, and looked in from time to time on his friend Holroyd in Sussex. He succeeded Oliver Goldsmith at the Royal Academy as 'professor in ancient history' (honorary but prestigious). In late 1774, he was initiated a freemason of the Premier Grand Lodge of England. And, perhaps least productively in that same year, he was returned to the House of Commons for Liskeard, Cornwall through the intervention of his relative and patron, Edward Eliot. He became the archetypal back-bencher, benignly "mute" and "indifferent," his support of the Whig ministry invariably automatic. Gibbon's indolence in that position, perhaps fully intentional, subtracted little from the progress of his writing.
After several rewrites, with Gibbon "often tempted to throw away the labours of seven years," the first volume of what would become his life's major achievement, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, was published on 17 February 1776. Through 1777, the reading public eagerly consumed three editions for which Gibbon was rewarded handsomely: two-thirds of the profits amounting to approximately £1,000. Biographer Leslie Stephen wrote that thereafter, "His fame was as rapid as it has been lasting." And as regards this first volume, "Some warm praise from David Hume overpaid the labour of ten years."
Volumes II and III appeared on 1 March 1781, eventually rising "to a level with the previous volume in general esteem." Volume IV was finished in June 1784; the final two were completed during a second Lausanne sojourn (September 1783 to August 1787) where Gibbon reunited with his friend Deyverdun in leisurely comfort. By early 1787, he was "straining for the goal" and with great relief the project was finished in June. Gibbon later wrote:
It was on the day, or rather the night, of 27 June 1787, between the hours of eleven and twelve, that I wrote the last lines of the last page in a summer-house in my garden. ... I will not dissemble the first emotions of joy on the recovery of my freedom, and perhaps the establishment of my fame. But my pride was soon humbled, and a sober melancholy was spread over my mind by the idea that I had taken my everlasting leave of an old and agreeable companion, and that, whatsoever might be the future date of my history, the life of the historian must be short and precarious.
Volumes IV, V, and VI finally reached the press in May 1788, their publication having been delayed since March so it could coincide with a dinner party celebrating Gibbon's 51st birthday (the 8th). Mounting a bandwagon of praise for the later volumes were such contemporary luminaries as Adam Smith, William Robertson, Adam Ferguson, Lord Camden, and Horace Walpole. Smith remarked that Gibbon's triumph had positioned him "at the very head of [Europe's] literary tribe."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 94 reviews
August 17, 2015
As I’ve already written two panegyric reviews of Gibbon, I’ll keep this one short. In fact, I only want to say something briefly about prose style.
Anyone who peruses a few books on writing will notice some similarities. We are advised to write short sentences, to use simple words, and generally to be direct and terse. In On Writing, Stephen King urges the potential writer to entirely eschew adverbs. In On Writing Well, William Zinsser has this to say: “Among good writers it is the short sentences that predominate. If you want to write long sentences, be a genius.”
These principles are handily put together in the Hemingway App:
http://www.hemingwayapp.com/
This bit of software helpfully highlights all long sentences, all adverbs, all use of the passive voice, and all unnecessarily complex words. It also gives you a grade (low scores are good, high scores bad), based on how many of these stylistic pitfalls you avoid.
Now, I am duly impressed with this software, and have even found it helpful from time to time. But I think that all this stylistic advice can go a bit far. Surely, it is good to be clear in one’s writing; but clarity and elegance are not always achieved by strictly following the commonly repeated stylistic advice.
So, as an experiment, let us try inserting Gibbon—an acknowledged master of English prose—into the Hemingway App. Let’s start with this passage:
I don’t know about you, but reading that damn near took my breath away. Yet it scores an 18 when copied into the Hemingway App—quite bad. Now consider my paraphrase of this sentences, according to the normal stylistic advice:
This restatement scores a 4 on the Hemingway App—the height of eloquence! But I think anyone will prefer Gibbon’s passage to my hack job.
Let us repeat the experiment with a different passage from Gibbon:
This scores a 20 on the Hemingway App. It’s horrible! Let me try to improve it:
This scored a 5!—I’m a better writer than Gibbon!
I suppose the point of this exercise is to illustrate how provincial are standards of style. It might be a safe bet to write like Hemingway; but—who knows?—maybe you will feel more at home in the grandiloquence of Gibbon, or the labyrinths of Proust. And I don’t agree with Zinsser's above statement that writing long sentences requires genius; I think you just have to be smarter than William Zinsser.
Anyone who peruses a few books on writing will notice some similarities. We are advised to write short sentences, to use simple words, and generally to be direct and terse. In On Writing, Stephen King urges the potential writer to entirely eschew adverbs. In On Writing Well, William Zinsser has this to say: “Among good writers it is the short sentences that predominate. If you want to write long sentences, be a genius.”
These principles are handily put together in the Hemingway App:
http://www.hemingwayapp.com/
This bit of software helpfully highlights all long sentences, all adverbs, all use of the passive voice, and all unnecessarily complex words. It also gives you a grade (low scores are good, high scores bad), based on how many of these stylistic pitfalls you avoid.
Now, I am duly impressed with this software, and have even found it helpful from time to time. But I think that all this stylistic advice can go a bit far. Surely, it is good to be clear in one’s writing; but clarity and elegance are not always achieved by strictly following the commonly repeated stylistic advice.
So, as an experiment, let us try inserting Gibbon—an acknowledged master of English prose—into the Hemingway App. Let’s start with this passage:
A magnificent temple is a laudable monument of national taste and religion; and the enthusiast who entered the dome of St. Sophia might be tempted to suppose that it was the residence, or even the workmanship, of the Deity. Yet how dull is the artifice, how insignificant is the labor, if it be compared with the formation of the vilest insect that crawls upon the surface of the temple!
I don’t know about you, but reading that damn near took my breath away. Yet it scores an 18 when copied into the Hemingway App—quite bad. Now consider my paraphrase of this sentences, according to the normal stylistic advice:
A great temple may become a national monument. The dome of St. Sophia was so complicated you might even think God made it. Yet even an insect is more complicated!
This restatement scores a 4 on the Hemingway App—the height of eloquence! But I think anyone will prefer Gibbon’s passage to my hack job.
Let us repeat the experiment with a different passage from Gibbon:
I have now deduced from Trajan to Constantine, from Constantine to Heraclius, the regular series of the Roman emperors; and faithfully exposed the prosperous and adverse fortunes of their reigns. Five centuries of the decline and fall of the empire have already elapsed; but a period of more than eight hundred years still separates me from the term of my labors, the taking of Constantinople by the Turks. Should I persevere in the same course, should I observe the same measure, a prolix and slender thread would be spun through many a volume, nor would the patient reader find an adequate reward of instruction or amusement.
This scores a 20 on the Hemingway App. It’s horrible! Let me try to improve it:
I have now described the series of Roman emperors from Trajan all the way to Heraclius. And I have described how successful their reigns were. Five centuries of decline have gone by. But 800 years still remains until I’m done. The narrative will end when the Turks take Constantinople. If I keep going at the same rate as before, it will take too long. And I think that would be boring to read.
This scored a 5!—I’m a better writer than Gibbon!
I suppose the point of this exercise is to illustrate how provincial are standards of style. It might be a safe bet to write like Hemingway; but—who knows?—maybe you will feel more at home in the grandiloquence of Gibbon, or the labyrinths of Proust. And I don’t agree with Zinsser's above statement that writing long sentences requires genius; I think you just have to be smarter than William Zinsser.
March 9, 2021
Extraordinary like Part 1, Gibbon takes us from the period following Constantine forward about 600 years to the 11th century. It is masterful writing full of sarcasm and humor which helps one muddle through the thousands of names and dynasties. I really enjoyed his discussion of the Goths and the Huns, the Eastern Empire, and northern Africa. We see the definitive fall of Rome and the rise of the Francs. It is a long, complex story but oh so fascinating!
July 3, 2014
Ah, the paradoxes of contemporary publishing: Gibbon is generally divided into three books, with two 'volumes' per book; here we have volumes three and four. That makes perfectly good sense, on the one hand, since six books would be very expensive and two books would each be unwieldy. However, due to that publishing decision, this book is broken backed: it combines the last volume of the first series. Volume three ends with Gibbon's 'General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West,' volume four starts with a new preface.
Well, never mind. In volume three, Gibbon winds together the expansion of Christianity and the 'collapse' of the Western empire, with some glorious little moments, including the famous Byzantine mechanics and slaves who are all profound theologians (23), or the advice St Jerome gave to preachers, chilling for an optimist like Gibbon, but surely music to a modernist's ears, "Lachrymae auditorum laudes tuae sint," 31; or the advice of Ambrose to Theodosius that "private contrition was not sufficient to atone for a public fault," 59, a lesson our politicians still prefer to ignore.
His depiction of the gothic kings makes it very clear that there was little difference, if any, between the rule of a 'Roman' in the West and the rule of an Alaric, Clovis, or Theodoric, which forced me, at least, to wonder what exactly was supposed to have fallen; moreover, Gibbon's evident wish to make Christianity the cause of Roman decline, like Nietzsche avant la lettre ("all the manly virtues were oppressed by the servile and pusillanimous reign of the monks," he says, without ever asking why so many people wanted to become monks, 429) comes ever more unstuck: his evidence clearly shows that the West 'fell' due to a build up of militarized populations pushed West across the steppe (e.g., 294). But again, did it fall? Gibbon seems to believe not, since "every age of the world has increased, and still increases, the real wealth, the happiness, the knowledge, and perhaps the virtue, of the human race," (516). Though of course, that might be irony.
In volume three, he's at his best when his reason and evidence breaks through his assumptions and biases, as for instance when he points out that the horrors of trial by fire, for instance, were a reasonable reaction against the willingness of people to perjure themselves: if you can't trust human witnesses, what are you to do? (477); or when he realizes that "the foundation of Constantinople more essentially contributed to the preservation of the East, than to the ruin of the West," (510); or that Christianity made European life possible, rather than destroying its first flowering (511). In volume four, however, the material itself takes over. There are just too many great stories: the life and work of Boethius, the factions of the Byzantine circus, the life of Belarasius.
It should be noted, though, that the chapters on Justinian's jurisprudence and the formation of Orthodoxy come as a relief--which, given how dry they are, is a good indication that Belasarius gets far too many pages. Military history is fine; minute descriptions of battles, on the other hand, are unreliable and boring. But his account of the many councils that gave us what most of the world knows as Christianity is wonderful--full of social and political detail that's usually ignored; I had no idea there was quite so much violence around them.
Unfortunately, throughout these volumes, Gibbon also insists on assuming that the Western writers were correct in their understanding of the effeminacy, corruption, servility etc etc of the Eastern Romans. This realm was "in a state of premature and perpetual decay," 237, the people "equally incapable of guarding their lives and fortunes against the assault of the Barbarians, or of defending their reason from the terrors of superstition," yet, nonetheless, they managed to survive for another thousand years in the face of, among other things that he details in volume four, the Persian, Avar, and Turkish invaders. Despite his best efforts to slander them, the Byzantines have the best generals, and the most interesting women (e.g., Eudocia); their architecture and art is glorious (although Gibbon pretends to believe that Hagia Sophia is dull and insignificant when compared to "the formation of the vilest insect that crawls upon the surface of the temple," (598), the sort of idiocy you might expect from Richard Dawkins, but not Mr. Gibbon).
And then, just when you're about to roll your eyes and reach for your facebook feed, you get things like this:
"The perfect equality of men is the point in which the extremes of democracy and despotism are confounded; since the majesty of the prince of people would be offended, in any heads were exalted above the level of their fellow-slaves or fellow-citizens," (806),
or,
"A wild democracy, superior to the forms, too often disdains the essential principles, of justice: the pride of despotism is envenomed by plebeian envy, and the heroes of Athens might sometimes applaud the happiness of the Persian, whose fate depended on the caprice of a single tyrant," 840,
or,
"In the progress from primitive equity to final injustice, the steps are silent, the shades are almost imperceptible, and the absolute monopoly is guarded by positive laws and artificial reason," (820), though he neglects to mention that the steps are generally over the bodies of the poor.
And at those moments this reader thinks: bring on Islam and the fall of the East.
Well, never mind. In volume three, Gibbon winds together the expansion of Christianity and the 'collapse' of the Western empire, with some glorious little moments, including the famous Byzantine mechanics and slaves who are all profound theologians (23), or the advice St Jerome gave to preachers, chilling for an optimist like Gibbon, but surely music to a modernist's ears, "Lachrymae auditorum laudes tuae sint," 31; or the advice of Ambrose to Theodosius that "private contrition was not sufficient to atone for a public fault," 59, a lesson our politicians still prefer to ignore.
His depiction of the gothic kings makes it very clear that there was little difference, if any, between the rule of a 'Roman' in the West and the rule of an Alaric, Clovis, or Theodoric, which forced me, at least, to wonder what exactly was supposed to have fallen; moreover, Gibbon's evident wish to make Christianity the cause of Roman decline, like Nietzsche avant la lettre ("all the manly virtues were oppressed by the servile and pusillanimous reign of the monks," he says, without ever asking why so many people wanted to become monks, 429) comes ever more unstuck: his evidence clearly shows that the West 'fell' due to a build up of militarized populations pushed West across the steppe (e.g., 294). But again, did it fall? Gibbon seems to believe not, since "every age of the world has increased, and still increases, the real wealth, the happiness, the knowledge, and perhaps the virtue, of the human race," (516). Though of course, that might be irony.
In volume three, he's at his best when his reason and evidence breaks through his assumptions and biases, as for instance when he points out that the horrors of trial by fire, for instance, were a reasonable reaction against the willingness of people to perjure themselves: if you can't trust human witnesses, what are you to do? (477); or when he realizes that "the foundation of Constantinople more essentially contributed to the preservation of the East, than to the ruin of the West," (510); or that Christianity made European life possible, rather than destroying its first flowering (511). In volume four, however, the material itself takes over. There are just too many great stories: the life and work of Boethius, the factions of the Byzantine circus, the life of Belarasius.
It should be noted, though, that the chapters on Justinian's jurisprudence and the formation of Orthodoxy come as a relief--which, given how dry they are, is a good indication that Belasarius gets far too many pages. Military history is fine; minute descriptions of battles, on the other hand, are unreliable and boring. But his account of the many councils that gave us what most of the world knows as Christianity is wonderful--full of social and political detail that's usually ignored; I had no idea there was quite so much violence around them.
Unfortunately, throughout these volumes, Gibbon also insists on assuming that the Western writers were correct in their understanding of the effeminacy, corruption, servility etc etc of the Eastern Romans. This realm was "in a state of premature and perpetual decay," 237, the people "equally incapable of guarding their lives and fortunes against the assault of the Barbarians, or of defending their reason from the terrors of superstition," yet, nonetheless, they managed to survive for another thousand years in the face of, among other things that he details in volume four, the Persian, Avar, and Turkish invaders. Despite his best efforts to slander them, the Byzantines have the best generals, and the most interesting women (e.g., Eudocia); their architecture and art is glorious (although Gibbon pretends to believe that Hagia Sophia is dull and insignificant when compared to "the formation of the vilest insect that crawls upon the surface of the temple," (598), the sort of idiocy you might expect from Richard Dawkins, but not Mr. Gibbon).
And then, just when you're about to roll your eyes and reach for your facebook feed, you get things like this:
"The perfect equality of men is the point in which the extremes of democracy and despotism are confounded; since the majesty of the prince of people would be offended, in any heads were exalted above the level of their fellow-slaves or fellow-citizens," (806),
or,
"A wild democracy, superior to the forms, too often disdains the essential principles, of justice: the pride of despotism is envenomed by plebeian envy, and the heroes of Athens might sometimes applaud the happiness of the Persian, whose fate depended on the caprice of a single tyrant," 840,
or,
"In the progress from primitive equity to final injustice, the steps are silent, the shades are almost imperceptible, and the absolute monopoly is guarded by positive laws and artificial reason," (820), though he neglects to mention that the steps are generally over the bodies of the poor.
And at those moments this reader thinks: bring on Islam and the fall of the East.
June 15, 2023
Luego de la ciclópea y a la vez, mágica y estimulante labor de leer las 1.178 páginas que componen este volumen II de la "Decadencia y caída del Imperio Romano" de su señoría Edward Gibbon, es importante resaltar que la presente reseña sólo se ocupará de la formidable y soberbia edición de Atalanta, contentiva de la traducción inigualable de José Sánchez de León Menduiña. Para la edición de Turner (compuesta de 4 volúmenes), el volumen III y IV están debidamente reseñados aquí y aquí.
Como dijese Borges en su momento, "La traducción parece destinada a ilustrar la discusión estética.", de allí la enorme importancia a la hora de escoger una traducción adecuada a nuestro idioma. A partir de este postulado, Borges termina criticando las traducciones excesivamente literales de las Mil y Una noches por considerarlas "mediocres, áridas, insípidas.". Con otro clásico eterno como la "Decadencia y caída del Imperio Romano" ocurre algo similar. La primera traducción al castellano de la obra de Gibbon apareció en Barcelona en el año 1842 - más de 50 años después de la publicación original del texto en Inglaterra-, de la mano de José Mor Fuentes. A pesar del titánico esfuerzo de traducir una obra de tan amplia magnitud, se trata de una traducción literal que se ciñe fielmente al escrito de Gibbon, realizada con un castellano arcaico, barroco y castizo que tal vez pudo gustar a las generaciones de mediados del Siglo XIX, pero que hoy en día aparece supremamente anacrónico.
Hasta la aparición de la traducción hecha por José Sánchez de León Menduiña en 2012, no existía otra traducción completa y publicada en idioma español. Ediciones Turner en 1984 lanzó al mercado literario la "Historia de la Decadencia y Ruina del Imperio Romano" en 8 tomos, contentiva de la traducción de Mor Fuentes, sin embargo los errores no corregidos y la ilegibilidad del texto obligaron a Turner a reeditar la colección en 2006 en 4 tomos, haciendo algunas correcciones de estilo y convirtiendo de cierta manera más inteligible la redacción arcaica de Mor Fuentes. Sin embargo y al haber sido lector de los Tomos III y IV de dicha colección, debo decir que se trata de una traducción farragosa, arcaica y complicada, que resta toda la frescura, la genial prosa y la sátira elegantemente contenida en el texto original de Gibbon.
Como cité anteriormente, en 2012 Ediciones Atalanta decide, de la mano de José Sánchez de León Menduiña presentar una nueva traducción al castellano en 2 tomos de la la "Decadencia y caída del Imperio Romano" , realizada directamente de la edición en inglés de la versión magistral editada por J.B. Bury - quien cotejó 3 versiones de Gibbon para elaborar el que ha sido considerado, el texto definitivo en inglés.- Esta Edición de Atalanta resulta ser un deleite absoluto para el lector, respetando la sintaxis, la puntuación y el ritmo de la obra original. José Sánchez además se tomó el trabajo de separar dentro de cada capítulo, la materia descrita, encabezándola con su título correspondiente en negrita para facilitar su consulta rápida, cosa que no es posible en la traducción de Mor Fuentes. Pero el cambio más radical está contenido en el lenguaje utilizado: una redacción más actual y asequible al lector moderno, descartando toda palabra o frase arcaica y haciendo uso de un castellano elegante y a la vez rejuvenecido.
En su ensayo "Los traductores de las Mil y una noches" contenido en Historia de la eternidad, Jorge Luis Borges nos presenta el concepto de "infidelidad creadora" al momento de hacer una traducción, esto es, desdeñar del yugo de la literalidad e inclinarse por las licencias a la imaginación y al estilo como una forma de creación y aporte a la literatura, la lengua y el imaginario literario universal, como si se tratara de un espejo distorsionador. Los dos tomos de "Decadencia y caída del Imperio Romano" de la edición de Atalanta, magistralmente traducidos por José Sánchez de León Menduiña son en definitiva, una obra maestra de la infidelidad creadora que permiten a Gibbon, reencarnarse a través de su obra casi tres siglos después de haberla escrito y en un lugar e idioma distintos a los que su genio e inspiración le permitieron concebirla. Guardaré mi obra completa de Gibbon de Atalanta como un tesoro inexorable, recordando aquella primera mesada laboral con la cual pude comprar el primer volumen, y los vericuetos que tuve que sortear para conseguir el segundo volumen (cuya quinta edición hoy día está absolutamente descatalogada). Espero en el ocaso de mis días, recorrer de nuevo esta obra para "(...) internarse y venturosamente perderse en una populosa novela, cuyos protagonistas son las generaciones humanas, cuyo teatro es el mundo, y cuyo enorme tiempo se mide por dinastías, por conquistas, por descubrimientos y por la mutación de lenguas y de ídolos".
Como dijese Borges en su momento, "La traducción parece destinada a ilustrar la discusión estética.", de allí la enorme importancia a la hora de escoger una traducción adecuada a nuestro idioma. A partir de este postulado, Borges termina criticando las traducciones excesivamente literales de las Mil y Una noches por considerarlas "mediocres, áridas, insípidas.". Con otro clásico eterno como la "Decadencia y caída del Imperio Romano" ocurre algo similar. La primera traducción al castellano de la obra de Gibbon apareció en Barcelona en el año 1842 - más de 50 años después de la publicación original del texto en Inglaterra-, de la mano de José Mor Fuentes. A pesar del titánico esfuerzo de traducir una obra de tan amplia magnitud, se trata de una traducción literal que se ciñe fielmente al escrito de Gibbon, realizada con un castellano arcaico, barroco y castizo que tal vez pudo gustar a las generaciones de mediados del Siglo XIX, pero que hoy en día aparece supremamente anacrónico.
Hasta la aparición de la traducción hecha por José Sánchez de León Menduiña en 2012, no existía otra traducción completa y publicada en idioma español. Ediciones Turner en 1984 lanzó al mercado literario la "Historia de la Decadencia y Ruina del Imperio Romano" en 8 tomos, contentiva de la traducción de Mor Fuentes, sin embargo los errores no corregidos y la ilegibilidad del texto obligaron a Turner a reeditar la colección en 2006 en 4 tomos, haciendo algunas correcciones de estilo y convirtiendo de cierta manera más inteligible la redacción arcaica de Mor Fuentes. Sin embargo y al haber sido lector de los Tomos III y IV de dicha colección, debo decir que se trata de una traducción farragosa, arcaica y complicada, que resta toda la frescura, la genial prosa y la sátira elegantemente contenida en el texto original de Gibbon.
Como cité anteriormente, en 2012 Ediciones Atalanta decide, de la mano de José Sánchez de León Menduiña presentar una nueva traducción al castellano en 2 tomos de la la "Decadencia y caída del Imperio Romano" , realizada directamente de la edición en inglés de la versión magistral editada por J.B. Bury - quien cotejó 3 versiones de Gibbon para elaborar el que ha sido considerado, el texto definitivo en inglés.- Esta Edición de Atalanta resulta ser un deleite absoluto para el lector, respetando la sintaxis, la puntuación y el ritmo de la obra original. José Sánchez además se tomó el trabajo de separar dentro de cada capítulo, la materia descrita, encabezándola con su título correspondiente en negrita para facilitar su consulta rápida, cosa que no es posible en la traducción de Mor Fuentes. Pero el cambio más radical está contenido en el lenguaje utilizado: una redacción más actual y asequible al lector moderno, descartando toda palabra o frase arcaica y haciendo uso de un castellano elegante y a la vez rejuvenecido.
En su ensayo "Los traductores de las Mil y una noches" contenido en Historia de la eternidad, Jorge Luis Borges nos presenta el concepto de "infidelidad creadora" al momento de hacer una traducción, esto es, desdeñar del yugo de la literalidad e inclinarse por las licencias a la imaginación y al estilo como una forma de creación y aporte a la literatura, la lengua y el imaginario literario universal, como si se tratara de un espejo distorsionador. Los dos tomos de "Decadencia y caída del Imperio Romano" de la edición de Atalanta, magistralmente traducidos por José Sánchez de León Menduiña son en definitiva, una obra maestra de la infidelidad creadora que permiten a Gibbon, reencarnarse a través de su obra casi tres siglos después de haberla escrito y en un lugar e idioma distintos a los que su genio e inspiración le permitieron concebirla. Guardaré mi obra completa de Gibbon de Atalanta como un tesoro inexorable, recordando aquella primera mesada laboral con la cual pude comprar el primer volumen, y los vericuetos que tuve que sortear para conseguir el segundo volumen (cuya quinta edición hoy día está absolutamente descatalogada). Espero en el ocaso de mis días, recorrer de nuevo esta obra para "(...) internarse y venturosamente perderse en una populosa novela, cuyos protagonistas son las generaciones humanas, cuyo teatro es el mundo, y cuyo enorme tiempo se mide por dinastías, por conquistas, por descubrimientos y por la mutación de lenguas y de ídolos".
April 28, 2013
In this volume we find what, I assume, most people expect out of a book called "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire": waves of invasions by Goths, Huns, and Vandals, the city of Rome plundered, and the Western empire disintegrated. It's action-packed, although not always when or how you expect.
The beginning of the volume is dominated by Gibbon's favorite, the heroic Julian the Apostate, whose pointless but exciting campaign in Persia is related with uncharacteristic detail and thrills; the ending, by the mysterious and diabolical Count Ricimer, whose motives and actions in successively installing and betraying several emperors in a row are left vague and unclear. In between, we get Theodosius, possibly the last competant emperor; Stilicho, the great general trying desperately to keep the empire together between invading Goths and political intrigues; Alaric, noble king of the Goths; Attila, brutal king of the Huns; and most fascinating to me, a succession of powerful and fascinating women, including Eudoxia, St. Pulcheria, Galla Placidia, Atheneas. At one point, the Roman Empire looks almost like a matriarchy, with Empress Placidia ruling the West, Empress Pulcheria ruling the East, and Atheneas (aka Aelia Eudocia) attempting to wrest power from her, while the two nominal emperors were essentially like medieval princesses being squabbled over. All of these women had fascinating lives which deserve much more fame and attention, and I now have a great example to throw in the face of any nerd who whines there can't be a powerful woman in his fantasy world because that wouldn't be realistic.
Overall in this volume I felt Gibbon did a better job of focussing, moving in for the occasional close-up, from the 70mm Panavision wide-shot that he usually uses. In addition to Julian's Persian campaign, a notable example is the long account of an embassy to the Huns, a kind of miniature spy thriller and ethnography of the Huns' camp life. There are some fun, interesting, and scandalous anecdotes, especially (it seemed to me) once Procopius becomes a major source; I enjoyed the various fortunes of St. Athanasius, perhaps the only Church Father who comes through Gibbon without much abuse, though he does get some teasing, as when the chaste saint is forced to take refuge in the home of a beautiful young woman. "His various adventures might have furnished the subject of a very entertaining romance," Gibbon muses. I also like when Gibbon reveals his more tender feelings: his confessing that he hopes it's true that Theodosius acted out of love of his wife, or saying he doesn't want to know whether public safety can outweigh morality. It's also always interesting to hear his opinions (usually in footnotes) of celebrated figures: he disses St. Augustine, for example. And for me at least, having read such praises of Ausonius in Helen Waddell, it was a surprise to find Gibbon saying "the poetical fame of Ausonius condemns the taste of his age."
The final chapter, about the post-imperial fates of France, Spain, and Britain, was a hard slog to get through. This history is complicated, but not very interesting, partly I suppose because I don't know where it's heading. I'm distracted by my ignorance of this early medieval European history, wondering what relation, if any, these Goths and Franks and Saxons and so on have to the countries that existed later, and that exist today. Guizot has disappeared from the footnotes--I guess his work was unfinished when he died--and Gibbon has developed an annoying over-reliance on the word "pusillanimous". His summing up chapter was also annoyingly Enlightenment: his theory is that 'barbarians' are the common enemy of Europe and they can never really conquer because, in order to gain the technology to challenge Europeans, they must necessarily become civilized. Obviously, considering the barbarism of the 'civilized' nations of his day, who were busily enslaving and subjugating the peoples that they weren't committing genocide on, this is a bit hard to swallow. But Gibbon always surprises: I would never have expected him to mock the "absurd language of imperious Man" as regards the "guilt and shame" of an adulterous woman, for example. And his writing is always incredible. I'm very much looking forward to the second half of the History; the Byzantine Empire has always fascinated me.
The beginning of the volume is dominated by Gibbon's favorite, the heroic Julian the Apostate, whose pointless but exciting campaign in Persia is related with uncharacteristic detail and thrills; the ending, by the mysterious and diabolical Count Ricimer, whose motives and actions in successively installing and betraying several emperors in a row are left vague and unclear. In between, we get Theodosius, possibly the last competant emperor; Stilicho, the great general trying desperately to keep the empire together between invading Goths and political intrigues; Alaric, noble king of the Goths; Attila, brutal king of the Huns; and most fascinating to me, a succession of powerful and fascinating women, including Eudoxia, St. Pulcheria, Galla Placidia, Atheneas. At one point, the Roman Empire looks almost like a matriarchy, with Empress Placidia ruling the West, Empress Pulcheria ruling the East, and Atheneas (aka Aelia Eudocia) attempting to wrest power from her, while the two nominal emperors were essentially like medieval princesses being squabbled over. All of these women had fascinating lives which deserve much more fame and attention, and I now have a great example to throw in the face of any nerd who whines there can't be a powerful woman in his fantasy world because that wouldn't be realistic.
Overall in this volume I felt Gibbon did a better job of focussing, moving in for the occasional close-up, from the 70mm Panavision wide-shot that he usually uses. In addition to Julian's Persian campaign, a notable example is the long account of an embassy to the Huns, a kind of miniature spy thriller and ethnography of the Huns' camp life. There are some fun, interesting, and scandalous anecdotes, especially (it seemed to me) once Procopius becomes a major source; I enjoyed the various fortunes of St. Athanasius, perhaps the only Church Father who comes through Gibbon without much abuse, though he does get some teasing, as when the chaste saint is forced to take refuge in the home of a beautiful young woman. "His various adventures might have furnished the subject of a very entertaining romance," Gibbon muses. I also like when Gibbon reveals his more tender feelings: his confessing that he hopes it's true that Theodosius acted out of love of his wife, or saying he doesn't want to know whether public safety can outweigh morality. It's also always interesting to hear his opinions (usually in footnotes) of celebrated figures: he disses St. Augustine, for example. And for me at least, having read such praises of Ausonius in Helen Waddell, it was a surprise to find Gibbon saying "the poetical fame of Ausonius condemns the taste of his age."
The final chapter, about the post-imperial fates of France, Spain, and Britain, was a hard slog to get through. This history is complicated, but not very interesting, partly I suppose because I don't know where it's heading. I'm distracted by my ignorance of this early medieval European history, wondering what relation, if any, these Goths and Franks and Saxons and so on have to the countries that existed later, and that exist today. Guizot has disappeared from the footnotes--I guess his work was unfinished when he died--and Gibbon has developed an annoying over-reliance on the word "pusillanimous". His summing up chapter was also annoyingly Enlightenment: his theory is that 'barbarians' are the common enemy of Europe and they can never really conquer because, in order to gain the technology to challenge Europeans, they must necessarily become civilized. Obviously, considering the barbarism of the 'civilized' nations of his day, who were busily enslaving and subjugating the peoples that they weren't committing genocide on, this is a bit hard to swallow. But Gibbon always surprises: I would never have expected him to mock the "absurd language of imperious Man" as regards the "guilt and shame" of an adulterous woman, for example. And his writing is always incredible. I'm very much looking forward to the second half of the History; the Byzantine Empire has always fascinated me.
December 13, 2016
Having now completed Volume 2 of my 6 Volume sojourn through Gibbon's masterpiece, I still marvel at the beauty and precision of his prose, and the depth of his erudition and research. And, oh yes, he is quite opinionated and, on occasion, witty and dryly humorous.
This volume covered much of the 4th Century, approximately the period 324 - 375 AD. Though he dealt with a relatively short span of years, Gibbon went into considerable depths in a number of areas, some of which were:
1. The conduct of the Roman government toward Christians, over the 1st 3 centuries.
2. The life and rule of Constantine, his building of Constantinople, his conversion to Christianity and the legal establishment of the Christian church.
3. The Persian War and division of the empire among Constantine's three sons (Constantine II, Constantius II, and Constans ---- yes, he was quite fond of his name!)
4. A surprising amount of detail about early Church government, synods, and major doctrinal heresies (such as Donatism and Arianism, and the impact of Athanasius)
5. A very (actually, unusually) detailed account of the rule of Julian the Apostate, followed by his successors Jovian, Valentinian and Valens.
This vast work teaches much -- not only about Roman history, but also Church history and doctrine, geography, cultures, the increasing impact of Barbarian invasions, the beauty of the English language, the weaknesses and vices of humanity, and much, much more. I'm increasingly understanding how this work earned it's prized place in history. And that history, as Gibbon famously states, is "indeed, little more than the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind."
This volume covered much of the 4th Century, approximately the period 324 - 375 AD. Though he dealt with a relatively short span of years, Gibbon went into considerable depths in a number of areas, some of which were:
1. The conduct of the Roman government toward Christians, over the 1st 3 centuries.
2. The life and rule of Constantine, his building of Constantinople, his conversion to Christianity and the legal establishment of the Christian church.
3. The Persian War and division of the empire among Constantine's three sons (Constantine II, Constantius II, and Constans ---- yes, he was quite fond of his name!)
4. A surprising amount of detail about early Church government, synods, and major doctrinal heresies (such as Donatism and Arianism, and the impact of Athanasius)
5. A very (actually, unusually) detailed account of the rule of Julian the Apostate, followed by his successors Jovian, Valentinian and Valens.
This vast work teaches much -- not only about Roman history, but also Church history and doctrine, geography, cultures, the increasing impact of Barbarian invasions, the beauty of the English language, the weaknesses and vices of humanity, and much, much more. I'm increasingly understanding how this work earned it's prized place in history. And that history, as Gibbon famously states, is "indeed, little more than the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind."
July 31, 2016
Works of undisputed genius want personal reflection more than analysis. This is especially true with a work so capacious as The Decline and Fall, even limiting oneself to the third and fourth volumes. I can reflect on what aspects of the work mean to me; I can focus on which of Gibbon’s rhetorical devices I like most. But Decline is a work that beggars criticism on the whole. It is no exaggeration to compare Gibbon’s work to other monuments of literature, The Divine Comedy or Shakespeare’s corpus. One can complain about the mawkishness of Henry V or the lameness of Merry Wives of Windsor, but a man who claims to speak in broad strokes about Shakespeare as a whole is either a genius or a critical fool. So it is with Gibbon. A reader may contest individual points and chapters, but overall Gibbon’s work can only inspire awe.
Never has there been a narrator more captivating, and few intellects extend so broadly. Yet it is not infrequent that Narrator Gibbon must carry the weight of Intellectual Gibbon, whose sometimes-sloth accommodates the more florid passages of the work. This is the only great flaw of Gibbon’s work: To borrow from Cardinal Newman, Gibbon’s habit of making a merely literary point when he should make an intellectual one.
Take for example the Arian heresy, the theological details of which Gibbon told us in Volume I were not worth recounting. One thinks this was merely for literary effect, or was mistaken, for the Arian controversy taints the politics and culture of the Empire well beyond the West’s collapse. Perhaps the feud between Catholics and Arians can be simplified to the colors they later adopted, but while it may be fair to impute to the rabble of Constantinople only their green or blue tunics, Gibbon would be wise to give his heroes the benefit of the doubt—or more accurately, to give them the benefit of their belief. Even a man who thinks all religion is superstition to be derided must admit for some degree of cogency in the superstition. Perhaps Moses’ time with the angels is of no greater merit than Mohomet’s, but certainly it is more meritorious than Joseph Smith’s. Mosaic law constitutes a difference in degree and kind from the Book of Mormon. Presuming an omniscient god could inform the writing of a book, one hopes this book would better resemble the Jews’ than the Mormons’. Reject this argument if you wish; it is nonetheless an argument.
It is fine if Gibbon wants to dismiss arguments from design, but he must concede that such an argument exists. And granted such an argument exists, he must concede that a more perfect work is more suggestive of a perfect god. A Stoic may come to the conclusion that all music is frivolous bunk, and may conclude Mozart is the same as the Monkees as a moral point; but to discriminate no difference between them is to turn a moral point into a fraud. Again: It is fine, from a moral standpoint, to declare the equality of the Athanasian and Arian creeds; but to declare them theologically equal is to concede one cannot make assessments of theology. America’s closest comparison to Gibbon, Henry Adams, so lacked the virtue of Hope that Christianity was an impossibility for him. And yet Adams recognized that the philosophy of the Church was likely the soundest the mortal mind of men could possess. The heights of this Edifice are possible because of the firmness of her foundations, each one of which is mutually dependent on the others. Forget changing dogmas; a right order and proportion of thought is as essential to the Church as the existence of such thoughts. Change this right ordering by even a sliver and there goes the Church.
Thus, in Chapter XLVII, Gibbon cannot be so flippant about the incarnation if he seriously wants to make comment on the subject. If Christ was not a man, his act of redemption cannot include the flesh, which is how Adam’s sin was transmitted from generation to generation. And if Jesus was not fully God, he is only a prophet, like Mohomet. These are not abstruse points of theology; their acceptance or denial dictates the Real Presence in the Eucharist. And if Christ is not present, flesh and blood, soul and divinity, in the Eucharist, there is very little reason for the Church to exist at all. Gibbon cannot be both glib and a scholar about these points. If the people of Europe had decided in 517 as they did in 1517 that neither the Real Presence nor Church needed to exist, the world would be much different. Thus the theological slips into the material.
But overall, Gibbon is far more generous to his Lord and Creator in these volumes. Chapter XXXVII sees an addition to the Bible which tends to confound the Arians, which speaks perfectly out of the dogma out of the Church, but which admittedly did not tend from the original epistle of John the Apostle. My New American Bible (late 1980s) gives no mention of the Trinity in Heaven; with my Latin Vulgate, the modern compilers clearly referred to one of the untampered editions, for the line is not there. But my Douay-Rheims translation (1582) features the “errant” addition. If Gibbon ever has occasion to lay on a solid punch, it is here. The Papists have been misleading the flock for over a millennium! But immediately after this point, Gibbon tells us of the African Catholics who had their tongues torn out and yet, on sound testimony, retained the ability to talk. Juxtaposing one of the Church’s more embarrassing stories with this verified miracle suggests Gibbon was no longer employing his fullest scandalous power against the Church. Chapters Fifteen and Sixteen are some of the greatest works of scandal and heresy in all English literature. Why tone it down now?
Still, Gibbon the man could not despise the Church more than the average tenured historian of the present day. If Gibbon is dismissive of the Christian theology, he is at least wise enough to recognize the benefits of its morality. The sins of Sodom and Socrates are unspeakable to Gibbon, and the severity of Mosaic law is respected; his overall view of Justinian law is generally full of the rigor and mercy which any observant Christian should display. Though temporarily playing the Mohometan, Gibbon’s defense of male and female circumcision makes an interesting footnote; the Minneapolis City Council would do well to cite it when, in a year’s time, they are citing the positive goods of labia-snipping.
Regarding the depredations of the law, Gibbon’s telling of the dual legal system in Gaul is uncomfortably close to our current age. Roman law proscribed that murder found proper retribution in a capital sentence; the barbarians, bereft of the gifts of Minerva, practiced a system of revenge which could nevertheless be averted through the use of bribes, effectively placing a price on murder of three hundred units of currency. The modern travesty of the criminal justice system sees every criminal act as one that can be bargained and bribed into oblivion. Well over ninety-five percent of federal crimes result in a plea deal—as if theft, rape, and murder were not crimes deserving condemnation but commodities wanting only accurate remuneration. Though racial disparities exist, there are far fewer blacks on death row than are represented in the general prison population. This is not owing to some spurious enlightenment of capital juries, but to the nature of black crime: Black criminals tend to murder other black criminals, and prosecutors are less willing to endure the inconvenience of a capital trial for the sake of a dead gangbanger. And so where a white woman’s soul necessitates the taking of her murderer’s, a dead black man must be comforted that his life was worth twenty years of cable TV and probation. When the prosecutor envisions himself primarily as a negotiator the justice system can have only passing resemblance to one which punishes evil and resembles the reward and demerits to which Divine Justice must subject us. To put reasonable prices on our sins is to make them the subject of commerce, and make the law a whore.
As the above anecdote—one of dozens—proves, no one could ask for a better intellectual companion than Gibbon to accompany him on the history of modern Europe. We meet the great Belasarius, who is both Caesar and Job. The general betters the former in his desperate courage and cuckoldry, and perhaps better the latter was well, as Job was at some point offered a reprieve from his miseries. Caesar is known to us largely because he was ignoble, because he was willing to shed civil blood in the pursuit of glory; Belasarius is transmitted not so much by his accomplishments, but through his virtues. Cato’s virtues are writ larger only because of Caesar’s tyranny. Great men can rise only so far above the drudgery of their age.
Another man of virtue, the senator Boethius, is called the Last of the Romans. The Senate had been a moribund institution for five hundred years, yet men like Boethius kept the spirit of Roman liberty alive long after her body had died. What is amazing about Boethius is how ready he is to resort to inwardness as refuge from the political storm. That the author of Consolatio Philosophiae could be given anything to do in Roman public life at all is shocking to the modern sensibility; no modern could write a book so profound, and certainly none could be elected to office he did. In its seamless incorporation of Platonism with Christian morality, Boethius betters Augustine.
Boethius speaks to a great inner life surviving amongst the Romans. The “great” philosophers of our era either preoccupy themselves with technological change, or engage in onanistic reflections on nihilism and classical liberalism—as if either fostered anything but dull prose and meaningless constitutions. But if the spirit of Boethius is the spirit of the Romans, the Roman Spirit lasted far longer than the Empire’s collapse. The light of his philosophy was lessened by centuries of hardship, but was rekindled in a brighter flame by the Scholastics. The Christian rulers of the Middle Ages may not have been philosopher-kings, but all Christians at least have a philosophy; and if few rose to the level of an Antonine, few sunk to that of a Nero.
But if the Roman Spirit endured the emperors, endured the collapse of Rome herself, when did it pass away? I’d say it was the imprisonment of another politician and martyr, Sir Thomas More. It was with More’s punishment that we find the characteristics of brutal modernity: When conscience and inner life were made expendable for political expediency. Of course, kings had made war on the Church and God before, but these conflicts did not deny the Church or God their own natures, their own God-ness and Church-ness, if you will. But the heresies of Luther and the barren womb of Catherine gave Henry VIII license to attack the heart of the Church, the heart of the Magisterium, the heart of God. Whether or not the Church is correct about anything is immaterial. What Henry’s supremacy proved is that the temporal could trample upon the spiritual, so long as the temporal world provided hope for material improvement (and a male heir). The present day backlash against St. Thomas, embodied in the scurrilous and specious Wolf Hall, rests upon the idea that imminent spiritual death is preferable to probable material loss. This was King Henry’s wager. And this is the wager made by classical liberalism, and spread throughout the continents by Rome’s one worthy imperial successor. In Plato and Aristotle and Christ and Augustine, Greece and Rome spread across the planet the means of the soul’s apotheosis. Britain and America have fostered the barren institutions of materialism, and the subordination of the soul to material comfort. And admittedly, for many centuries, it delivered that comfort.
The gifts of modern civilization “can never be lost,” Gibbon tells us in his reflections on the Western Empire’s collapse. He didn’t know that the animal spirit of reproduction could be weaned out of the race through pornography and contraception; that literature would become emasculated of all depth and power by mass communication; that in the halls of Academe, Minerva would be left to matricides and bigots. But then again, Gibbon though himself above the desecrations of Luther and Calvin. The nihilism of the soul which Luther had fostered did not turn itself outward until the slaughter of King Louis’ palace guards; the rot and revolution propagated by the Corsican Caesar had not yet instigated two centuries’ worth of bloodshed. King Henry’s wager turned out to be a poor one, and the shiny prospects for soulless material prosperity are eclipsed by the din of Auschwitz and the Gulag.
The denizens of a crumbling Rome were devout men, many of them saints. Where are the moral heroes of today’s collapsing West? The true despair of the Westerner must be in the fact that Gibbon’s work in fact tells us so little about our current travails. We study history in order to get a grasp on the problems of our own era; by seeing how humanity has failed and succeeded in the past, we are able to better understand our present and our future. The problem of modernity is that so much of the present would be incomprehensible to our forebears, and as such is mostly incomprehensible to us. Even Marshall McLuhan, the godfather of electronic chaos, chose the antiquated notion of the village as a metaphor; this “village” has as inhabitants a drone race whose souls have been razed by comfort and conformity, and above which mechanized death is looming to strip us of our comforts at any moment. Makes you wonder what kind of “village” he was referring to! Gibbon himself probably would not have been able to comprehend the leveling of 1789; perhaps only the Marquis de Sade could make that claim. A philosophy of the bedroom, in our case, is more useful than Tacitus or Plutarch. Or Gibbon.
In Chapter XLV, Gibbon tells us that a “society in which marriage is encouraged and industry prevails soon repairs accidental losses of pestilence and war; but as far as the greater part of the Romans was condemned to hopeless indigence and celibacy, the depopulation was constant and visible, and the gloomy enthusiasts might expect the approaching failure of the human race.” Moderns have more reason to despair. Moderns lack hope, but also the ability to have hope. Centuries of depredation could only soften the valiant strength of Boethius’ soul; it was not until the age of Luther that our tyrants found a way to silence it.
How one longs for those days of decline and fall, distinct from the cruelty of our modern creations!
September 8, 2020
I admire the amount of work that went into producing this colossal work, and still kept in readable. Interesting to read the racist description of the Barbarians. The Romans were just as cruel, if not worse, but they were deemed civilised. Hang on, we still have have that distinction, nearly 250 years later. Off course the estimated time refers to the time of publication, which publication deal with events from the early centuries of the establishment of Christianity.
September 8, 2021
Gibbon ascribes Rome’s decline to Christianity, loss of civic virtue, and events, dear reader, events.
March 19, 2022
The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, Vol.II
In Volume II Edward Gibbon proceeds from the consequences of Constantine's reign as emperor in the 4th Century, and what that meant for Christians historically tormented and persecuted, through the succeeding heirs of Julian, Jovian, Valentinian, and Valens until the period of the gothic age, in 10-11th Centuries, where he discusses the determined ongoing campaigns between the Huns and Goths attacking the Western empire as the Moors and Arabs emerge by the 7th Century warring on the Eastern and African sects, all within the context of the inevitable collapse of the western Roman Empire alongside the stretched boundaries of the Byzantium period of the eastern provinces and dioceses. Assuredly, the reader will be taken in awe by this seminal work of thorough history and explanation.
Another element contained within this volume of the book is on the focus of the ever-changing administration and senatorial rules, a consequence of the ever-changing rulers of the empire - east, west, and Africa. It may join Christianity as co-conspirator of the Roman Empire's downfall. These constant changes being as examples and results of what Edward Gibbon describes in his previous volume as "effeminate" mixes of toleration or intolerance, military indulgence or discipline, opulence or austerity, and ultimately failures of the men in succession to the throne to have coherence as well as a proficiency in skills and senses for judicial, ministerial, or strategical judgements. This becomes more obvious with Diocletian’s policy of four rulers – two sovereign Augustus rulers, with two “deputy” or heir-sovereign Caesar rulers, dispersed between the Western and the Eastern capitals.
In Volume II Edward Gibbon proceeds from the consequences of Constantine's reign as emperor in the 4th Century, and what that meant for Christians historically tormented and persecuted, through the succeeding heirs of Julian, Jovian, Valentinian, and Valens until the period of the gothic age, in 10-11th Centuries, where he discusses the determined ongoing campaigns between the Huns and Goths attacking the Western empire as the Moors and Arabs emerge by the 7th Century warring on the Eastern and African sects, all within the context of the inevitable collapse of the western Roman Empire alongside the stretched boundaries of the Byzantium period of the eastern provinces and dioceses. Assuredly, the reader will be taken in awe by this seminal work of thorough history and explanation.
Another element contained within this volume of the book is on the focus of the ever-changing administration and senatorial rules, a consequence of the ever-changing rulers of the empire - east, west, and Africa. It may join Christianity as co-conspirator of the Roman Empire's downfall. These constant changes being as examples and results of what Edward Gibbon describes in his previous volume as "effeminate" mixes of toleration or intolerance, military indulgence or discipline, opulence or austerity, and ultimately failures of the men in succession to the throne to have coherence as well as a proficiency in skills and senses for judicial, ministerial, or strategical judgements. This becomes more obvious with Diocletian’s policy of four rulers – two sovereign Augustus rulers, with two “deputy” or heir-sovereign Caesar rulers, dispersed between the Western and the Eastern capitals.
Read
October 13, 2018Volume 1 down. Volume 2 down. Unabridged, baby.
November 22, 2023
Este segundo volumen (con el que se completan las 3.100 páginas) de esta edición de Atalanta nos lleva desde la caída del imperio de Occidente a la caída de Constantinopla y, por tanto, la desaparición del imperio romano.
En ese largo periodo los cristianos siguen con sus cismas absurdos, matándose por establecer si la Virgen era virgen, si la ostia consagrada se puede hacer o no con pan ácimo o por conocer la naturaleza del Espíritu Santo. Y mientras rodaban cabezas por esas mamarrachadas, nuevos imperios van cercando poco a poco Constantinopla hasta que el supuesto imperio romano queda sólo reducido a esa pequeña ciudad.
Por un lado, los nuevos reinos de Occidente la miran con desapego y por otro, musulmanes, turcos, escitas y todo tipo de nuevos protagonistas desean arrasarla para vender a sus habitantes como esclavos y para hacerse con sus riquezas.
El libro, al igual que el anterior volumen, es una maravilla de detalles que tardó veinte años en completar el autor. En algunas notas, no obstante, de ediciones posteriores, se añade que hay algunos errores en la investigación de Gibbon, aunque ninguno de esos errores es significativo como para tirar abajo su magna tarea.
Tarea que también es magna para el lector, que tiene que llevar cuidado con pasar esas finas páginas del libro sin que se destrocen, y que tiene que prestar atención constante a los miles de nombres que aparecen por ahí. Muchos de personajes ilustres, la mayoría de personajes infames y una gran cantidad de lugares de lo que ya sólo queda el recuerdo en forma de ruinas y que no se pueden rastrear ni con Google Maps.
En fin, un viaje fascinante (que ojalá pueda repetir algún día, aunque no sé si tendré vida para una relectura) por las mentes de personas que vivieron en una época en la que les parecían normales barbaridades como arrancar los ojos, violar a quien fuese y llenar las calles con cabezas clavadas en picas.
En ese largo periodo los cristianos siguen con sus cismas absurdos, matándose por establecer si la Virgen era virgen, si la ostia consagrada se puede hacer o no con pan ácimo o por conocer la naturaleza del Espíritu Santo. Y mientras rodaban cabezas por esas mamarrachadas, nuevos imperios van cercando poco a poco Constantinopla hasta que el supuesto imperio romano queda sólo reducido a esa pequeña ciudad.
Por un lado, los nuevos reinos de Occidente la miran con desapego y por otro, musulmanes, turcos, escitas y todo tipo de nuevos protagonistas desean arrasarla para vender a sus habitantes como esclavos y para hacerse con sus riquezas.
El libro, al igual que el anterior volumen, es una maravilla de detalles que tardó veinte años en completar el autor. En algunas notas, no obstante, de ediciones posteriores, se añade que hay algunos errores en la investigación de Gibbon, aunque ninguno de esos errores es significativo como para tirar abajo su magna tarea.
Tarea que también es magna para el lector, que tiene que llevar cuidado con pasar esas finas páginas del libro sin que se destrocen, y que tiene que prestar atención constante a los miles de nombres que aparecen por ahí. Muchos de personajes ilustres, la mayoría de personajes infames y una gran cantidad de lugares de lo que ya sólo queda el recuerdo en forma de ruinas y que no se pueden rastrear ni con Google Maps.
En fin, un viaje fascinante (que ojalá pueda repetir algún día, aunque no sé si tendré vida para una relectura) por las mentes de personas que vivieron en una época en la que les parecían normales barbaridades como arrancar los ojos, violar a quien fuese y llenar las calles con cabezas clavadas en picas.
December 24, 2019
It’s Gibbon, so 5 stars for cultural impact alone.
Volume II as per Penguin contains volumes III and IV as originally published. An interesting continuation. In the first half of the book we track the true demise of the Western Empire, and the latter half centres around the rule of Justinian in the East.
The in roads of the Goths and Vandals laid clear - the diminutive Emperors of the west getting cradled by the growing ecclesiastical powers of the likes of Ambrose. The sons of Theodosius, Arcadia’s and Honorius, stand out as being truly ruinous regimes. The barbarian characters of Alaric and Theodoric are treated with a surprising amount of care.
It is clear that Gibbon’s preference for religious tolerance and wider liberty turns him against much of Justinian attempts at retrieving the prestige of the Empire, particularly in the east. Ultimately, it is Justinian and his wife’s ego that curtail any lasting buffer to decline. The emperors strange relationship with Belisarius fills much of this volume, and the idea that a better restoration could have emerged with some better decisions in key moments haunts.
Volume II as per Penguin contains volumes III and IV as originally published. An interesting continuation. In the first half of the book we track the true demise of the Western Empire, and the latter half centres around the rule of Justinian in the East.
The in roads of the Goths and Vandals laid clear - the diminutive Emperors of the west getting cradled by the growing ecclesiastical powers of the likes of Ambrose. The sons of Theodosius, Arcadia’s and Honorius, stand out as being truly ruinous regimes. The barbarian characters of Alaric and Theodoric are treated with a surprising amount of care.
It is clear that Gibbon’s preference for religious tolerance and wider liberty turns him against much of Justinian attempts at retrieving the prestige of the Empire, particularly in the east. Ultimately, it is Justinian and his wife’s ego that curtail any lasting buffer to decline. The emperors strange relationship with Belisarius fills much of this volume, and the idea that a better restoration could have emerged with some better decisions in key moments haunts.
March 8, 2017
The second volume of Modern Library’s three-volume reprint of Edward Gibbon’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire covers chapters 27 through 48 of the author’s vast magnum opus. Beginning with the reign of Gratian and ending with the reconquests of Heraclius in 628 A.D., Gibbons relates in detail the political, martial, social, and theological developments that saw the ultimate split of the Roman Empire, the fall of the West, and the continuance of Roman tradition in the East centered in Constantinople before glancing at the lives of the next 60 emperors of Byzantium over the next 600 years.
The deterioration of the Rome picks up with the reign of Gratian and his eventual overthrow leading to the unification of the Empire under Theodosius the Great before its finale split with the inheritance of his sons and then their successors over the next 50+ years. Throughout the era of House of Theodosius, the various barbarian tribes made inroads into the Western Empire which included two sacks of Rome itself by the Visigoths and Vandals, as the long ineffectual reign of Honorius and his successors allowed the Empire to slip out of their fingers. In the vacuum arose the genesis of future European states such as England, France, and Spain while Italy declined in population and political cohesion as the Pope began to fill not only a religious but political role.
The Eastern Emperors in Constantinople, unlike their family and colleagues in the West, were able to keep their domain intact through military force or bribes to turn away. The bureaucratic framework established by Constantine and reformed by Theodosius was used to keep the Eastern Empire thriving against barbarian incursion and Persian invasions while creating a link to the Roman past even as the eternal city fell from its greatness. Yet as the Eastern Emperors kept alive the Roman imperial tradition while continually orienting it more towards Greek cultural heritage, the internal conflicts of Christianity became a hindrance to social and imperial stability leading to rebellions of either a local or statewide nature or allowing foreign powers to invade.
This middle volume of Gibbon’s monumental work is divided in two, the first focusing on the fall of the Western Empire and the second on how the Eastern Empire survived through various struggles and for a brief time seemed on the verge of reestablishing the whole imperium. Yet throughout, Gibbon weaves not only the history of Rome but also the events of nomadic peoples as far away at China, the theological controversies within Christianity, and the numerous other treads to create a daunting, yet compete look of how Rome fell but yet continued.
The deterioration of the Rome picks up with the reign of Gratian and his eventual overthrow leading to the unification of the Empire under Theodosius the Great before its finale split with the inheritance of his sons and then their successors over the next 50+ years. Throughout the era of House of Theodosius, the various barbarian tribes made inroads into the Western Empire which included two sacks of Rome itself by the Visigoths and Vandals, as the long ineffectual reign of Honorius and his successors allowed the Empire to slip out of their fingers. In the vacuum arose the genesis of future European states such as England, France, and Spain while Italy declined in population and political cohesion as the Pope began to fill not only a religious but political role.
The Eastern Emperors in Constantinople, unlike their family and colleagues in the West, were able to keep their domain intact through military force or bribes to turn away. The bureaucratic framework established by Constantine and reformed by Theodosius was used to keep the Eastern Empire thriving against barbarian incursion and Persian invasions while creating a link to the Roman past even as the eternal city fell from its greatness. Yet as the Eastern Emperors kept alive the Roman imperial tradition while continually orienting it more towards Greek cultural heritage, the internal conflicts of Christianity became a hindrance to social and imperial stability leading to rebellions of either a local or statewide nature or allowing foreign powers to invade.
This middle volume of Gibbon’s monumental work is divided in two, the first focusing on the fall of the Western Empire and the second on how the Eastern Empire survived through various struggles and for a brief time seemed on the verge of reestablishing the whole imperium. Yet throughout, Gibbon weaves not only the history of Rome but also the events of nomadic peoples as far away at China, the theological controversies within Christianity, and the numerous other treads to create a daunting, yet compete look of how Rome fell but yet continued.
October 20, 2019
Well, what can I say. It's difficult to review what is generally considered perhaps the greatest, most magisterial work of history ever written. This second of three volumes is comprised of volumes 3 and 4 of the original 6 volume publication. The entire work is filled with both sweeping vistas and intimate vignettes. As one of the highlights of this volume, we are shown the life and times of Justinian and Theodora as well as the growing power (both for Good and ill) of Christianity. We are given the details of the fortunes of empire as it waxes and wanes through time. It is such a treat to read an account of history as erudite and well written as this.
March 8, 2021
Several times in this experience, I was reading along, soothed and lulled, cruising through Roman history, when suddenly I’d wham into a passage like, “even a Negro or a parrot can learn to spout the Nicene creed.” Ouch - racism whiplash! I’ll forgive him, since he’s long dead, but seriously. Gibbon gives a lot of attention to succession, war, and religion, but rarely speaks much about economy or culture. He also has arranged things somewhat geographically and topically, going back and forth through time. I would have preferred chronological organization; we kill someone off in one chapter only to be talking about him again 3 chapters later, alive and well. So it’s bot perfect by any means, but it still has a lot of information and a lyrical sort of delivery.
May 21, 2020
This book was approximately:
40% detailed discussion of Christian infighting in the 4th century (Get ready to try to keep homoiousian and homoousian straight)
40% interesting history (Emperor Valentinian kept 2 bears in a cage near his bedchamber so he could employ them for summary executions at a moment's notice)
20% trying to reconcile intense racism towards steppe tribes with their fighting prowess (They don't farm because they're lazy, and Huns are basically beast-men incapable of reason)
40% detailed discussion of Christian infighting in the 4th century (Get ready to try to keep homoiousian and homoousian straight)
40% interesting history (Emperor Valentinian kept 2 bears in a cage near his bedchamber so he could employ them for summary executions at a moment's notice)
20% trying to reconcile intense racism towards steppe tribes with their fighting prowess (They don't farm because they're lazy, and Huns are basically beast-men incapable of reason)
September 14, 2020
4.5 stars.
Even tough the books where written in later parts of 1700 it's easy to comprehend and understand the information (I'm reading a swedish translation from the 60's). The book goes very deep into all the facts in every part but it's written in such a way that it's fun And interesting to follow along. Didn't feel like it was written so long ago. Almost 5 stars
Even tough the books where written in later parts of 1700 it's easy to comprehend and understand the information (I'm reading a swedish translation from the 60's). The book goes very deep into all the facts in every part but it's written in such a way that it's fun And interesting to follow along. Didn't feel like it was written so long ago. Almost 5 stars
January 30, 2025
All the praise for Gibbon's masterful comand of the English language are well deserved. It is written with such tight and engaging prose. In this volume we have a deeper dive into the war against Christianity and the personalities of a series of emperors. There is so much to take in and it is certainly a challenge to read but very interesting.
Once again I reiterate; we are so screwed.
Once again I reiterate; we are so screwed.
August 20, 2024
No review necessary.
September 17, 2025
A bit repetitive. Emperor X seizes power and is killed in a week/month/year, etc. However, liked the religious subject matter.
February 19, 2023
This is the second volume of Gibbon’s great work published in 1781. This volume deals with Constantine, the emperor who accepted Christianity and firmly rooted it as the state religion in Europe which still continues and his successors for four generations till Valentinian I. This period is notable by the reign of Julian, who was a nephew of Constantine. Julian turned back to the cultural roots of Rome and Greece and reinstated the native religion for a brief period. The era handled in this book also describes the growing antagonism with the Persian Empire on the east and the barbarians on the north who were getting more belligerent after the term of each emperor. We also read about the most fundamental schism in Christianity that separated the followers of Arrian from the mainstream. The spiritual dissensions had overflowed to the streets and both sides were locked in pitched battles in many provinces of the empire. When the volume ends, we see faint traces of the Gothic threat on the empire’s northern border as the barbarians increasingly find assimilation in the Roman military. Enervation is setting in in the Roman society which increasingly turns to mercenary troops to fight its battles.
Like what he did in the first volume, Gibbon earmarks a considerable amount of space to highlight the specific case of Christianity and how it was different from other religions including Judaism, from which it diverged. It was initially a sect of people who separated themselves from the communion of mankind claiming exclusive possession of divine knowledge and disdained every form of worship except its own as impious and idolatrous. Roman policy viewed with distrust any association of people, however harmless. Christians regularly met in secret for their religious services. The number of martyrs was very inconsiderable. The Jews, on the other hand, were a nation while the Christians were a sect. Every Christian – newly converted – rejected the beliefs of his family, his city or province with contempt. With Constantine’s ascent to the purple, the roles of persecutor and patron were interchanged between Christianity and paganism.
Christians enjoyed great tolerance and prosperity most of the time. Gibbon notes with a touch of mischief that this was far more dangerous to their virtue than the severest trials of persecution. The pagan jurisprudence was also far more enlightened than we see even today in countries which follow religious law. The charge was communicated to the accused party well in advance. This allowed him to flee and return when the coast is clear again. Bribing the judge to obtain a false certificate of compliance was also feasible. But the fanatics among Christians denounced these avenues and craved to become martyrs in order to attain the joys of heaven. They abhorred life on earth and sought ways to step into the afterlife. Sometimes they rudely disturbed the festivals and profaned the temples of paganism with the design of exciting the idolaters to take revenge on them. They compelled the judges to give orders for their immediate execution.
We read from Gibbon’s examination of the Christian clergy that their moral precepts were far laxer than the present even though believers usually dream up a glorious past when everything was just about perfect. Paul of Samosata was one such corrupt bishop of Antioch. He extorted money from the rich and diverted it for personal use. He freely indulged in the pleasures of the table and received two young and beautiful women into the episcopal palace as the constant companions of his leisure moments. But public opinion was not supportive to this gesture and they did not buy into his probable argument that he had done it to test his vows of chastity. Evidently, Gandhians were still far away in the distant future. Fellow bishops ousted him with their own authority and Aurelian confirmed it. The whole body of the clergy was exempt from all public service, all municipal offices and all personal taxes which pressed on their fellow citizens with intolerable weight. The duties of their holy profession were accepted as a full discharge of their obligations to the republic. Seeing the novel ways of corruption in the clergy, Valentinian enforced an edict that forbade the clergy from receiving any gift, legacy or inheritance from their rich spiritual daughters. It also admonished them not to frequent the houses of widows and virgins. Christianity was moving towards its first schism around this time. In the course of their internal dissensions, the Christians have inflicted far greater severities on each other than they had experienced from the zeal of infidels.
Constantine proves the dictum that a lost member is one added enemy as far as religions are concerned. He was the first Roman emperor to leave paganism, but demolition of temples was already being celebrated as one of the auspicious events of his and his sons’ reigns. The terrors of a military force silenced the faint and unsupported murmurs of the Pagans. But the emperor was also the sovereign pontiff of paganism. Thus, the Christian emperors were invested with a more absolute authority over the religion which they had deserted over that which they professed. Zealous emperors used this pole position to further weaken the native religion. At the same time, Constantine persecuted heretic sects within Christianity with as much ruthlessness as the religion had itself suffered at the hands of his predecessors. He in fact believed that he is saving those from eternal damnation in hell.
The long line of Roman emperors after Constantine is dignified by his nephew Julian, who was named ‘the apostate’ by the Church as he renounced Christianity and went back to paganism. He was not the natural leader after Constantine’s death as his sons received the purple investiture. Julian was kept at an arm’s length from the capital city of Constantinople and left to deal with fierce barbarians who were getting more cumbersome and bolder with the passage of each decade. Julian was made the governor of Gaul threatened by German barbarians under the careful scrutiny of his cousin Constantius who was the emperor. Julian defeated the Alemanni tribes at the Battle of Strasbourg, a battle in which the Germans possessed the superiority of strength and stature, the Romans that of discipline and temper and won. When Constantius suddenly died at the time when Julian had raised the banner of rebellion, he was elevated to the throne with the open support of the army of Gaul. Julian was humane and philosophic. His decrees were always founded on the principles of justice and permitted toleration of all religions. But he encouraged the native temples incurring huge expenditure from the state treasury. The scarcest and most beautiful birds were transported from distant climates to bleed on the altars of the gods. And he repaired and decorated ancient temples. Julian was killed during his Persian invasion from an injury inflicted by an enemy soldier.
This volume includes an extensive survey of the bureaucracy, taxation and jurisprudence under Constantine. Many of its features Christianity would later emulate in its ecclesiastical administration. Constantine sent missionaries to different parts of the known world to spread the gospel. Gibbon comments that ‘the rays of the Gospel illuminated the coast of India’ (p. 276).as if the coast of India was plunged in darkness without it! As this volume ends, we find the empire engaged in an uneasy and precarious peace with its Persian neighbours and forceful subjugation of the barbarians on its north which was slowly getting slackened to the eventual detriment of Rome. As it stands, Volume 2 is a good stepping stone to move on to the later volumes.
The book is highly recommended.
Rating: 4 Star
Like what he did in the first volume, Gibbon earmarks a considerable amount of space to highlight the specific case of Christianity and how it was different from other religions including Judaism, from which it diverged. It was initially a sect of people who separated themselves from the communion of mankind claiming exclusive possession of divine knowledge and disdained every form of worship except its own as impious and idolatrous. Roman policy viewed with distrust any association of people, however harmless. Christians regularly met in secret for their religious services. The number of martyrs was very inconsiderable. The Jews, on the other hand, were a nation while the Christians were a sect. Every Christian – newly converted – rejected the beliefs of his family, his city or province with contempt. With Constantine’s ascent to the purple, the roles of persecutor and patron were interchanged between Christianity and paganism.
Christians enjoyed great tolerance and prosperity most of the time. Gibbon notes with a touch of mischief that this was far more dangerous to their virtue than the severest trials of persecution. The pagan jurisprudence was also far more enlightened than we see even today in countries which follow religious law. The charge was communicated to the accused party well in advance. This allowed him to flee and return when the coast is clear again. Bribing the judge to obtain a false certificate of compliance was also feasible. But the fanatics among Christians denounced these avenues and craved to become martyrs in order to attain the joys of heaven. They abhorred life on earth and sought ways to step into the afterlife. Sometimes they rudely disturbed the festivals and profaned the temples of paganism with the design of exciting the idolaters to take revenge on them. They compelled the judges to give orders for their immediate execution.
We read from Gibbon’s examination of the Christian clergy that their moral precepts were far laxer than the present even though believers usually dream up a glorious past when everything was just about perfect. Paul of Samosata was one such corrupt bishop of Antioch. He extorted money from the rich and diverted it for personal use. He freely indulged in the pleasures of the table and received two young and beautiful women into the episcopal palace as the constant companions of his leisure moments. But public opinion was not supportive to this gesture and they did not buy into his probable argument that he had done it to test his vows of chastity. Evidently, Gandhians were still far away in the distant future. Fellow bishops ousted him with their own authority and Aurelian confirmed it. The whole body of the clergy was exempt from all public service, all municipal offices and all personal taxes which pressed on their fellow citizens with intolerable weight. The duties of their holy profession were accepted as a full discharge of their obligations to the republic. Seeing the novel ways of corruption in the clergy, Valentinian enforced an edict that forbade the clergy from receiving any gift, legacy or inheritance from their rich spiritual daughters. It also admonished them not to frequent the houses of widows and virgins. Christianity was moving towards its first schism around this time. In the course of their internal dissensions, the Christians have inflicted far greater severities on each other than they had experienced from the zeal of infidels.
Constantine proves the dictum that a lost member is one added enemy as far as religions are concerned. He was the first Roman emperor to leave paganism, but demolition of temples was already being celebrated as one of the auspicious events of his and his sons’ reigns. The terrors of a military force silenced the faint and unsupported murmurs of the Pagans. But the emperor was also the sovereign pontiff of paganism. Thus, the Christian emperors were invested with a more absolute authority over the religion which they had deserted over that which they professed. Zealous emperors used this pole position to further weaken the native religion. At the same time, Constantine persecuted heretic sects within Christianity with as much ruthlessness as the religion had itself suffered at the hands of his predecessors. He in fact believed that he is saving those from eternal damnation in hell.
The long line of Roman emperors after Constantine is dignified by his nephew Julian, who was named ‘the apostate’ by the Church as he renounced Christianity and went back to paganism. He was not the natural leader after Constantine’s death as his sons received the purple investiture. Julian was kept at an arm’s length from the capital city of Constantinople and left to deal with fierce barbarians who were getting more cumbersome and bolder with the passage of each decade. Julian was made the governor of Gaul threatened by German barbarians under the careful scrutiny of his cousin Constantius who was the emperor. Julian defeated the Alemanni tribes at the Battle of Strasbourg, a battle in which the Germans possessed the superiority of strength and stature, the Romans that of discipline and temper and won. When Constantius suddenly died at the time when Julian had raised the banner of rebellion, he was elevated to the throne with the open support of the army of Gaul. Julian was humane and philosophic. His decrees were always founded on the principles of justice and permitted toleration of all religions. But he encouraged the native temples incurring huge expenditure from the state treasury. The scarcest and most beautiful birds were transported from distant climates to bleed on the altars of the gods. And he repaired and decorated ancient temples. Julian was killed during his Persian invasion from an injury inflicted by an enemy soldier.
This volume includes an extensive survey of the bureaucracy, taxation and jurisprudence under Constantine. Many of its features Christianity would later emulate in its ecclesiastical administration. Constantine sent missionaries to different parts of the known world to spread the gospel. Gibbon comments that ‘the rays of the Gospel illuminated the coast of India’ (p. 276).as if the coast of India was plunged in darkness without it! As this volume ends, we find the empire engaged in an uneasy and precarious peace with its Persian neighbours and forceful subjugation of the barbarians on its north which was slowly getting slackened to the eventual detriment of Rome. As it stands, Volume 2 is a good stepping stone to move on to the later volumes.
The book is highly recommended.
Rating: 4 Star
November 7, 2020
A huge cast of characters one doesn’t normally read about. Heroes like Boethius and Belisarius, villains like Theodosius and Copronymus.
It’s a great era for the baddies. Alaric, Atilla, Genseric… barbarians run rampant across the whole book. Rome is sacked I think six times. Gibbon seems to love how wild things get. How’s this for a cinematic moment… the setting is Alaric and his Goths are laying siege on Rome, and meets with a small group of ambassadors to Rome, who try to end the siege while striking a defiant stance:
Between the characters and events, Gibbon theorizes of how Rome reached this sorry state. Appropriately, he doesn’t have a single theory for the Decline and Fall, but gestures towards a variety of causes.
From abstract character complaints:
To theories about the decay to the rule of law under Justinian:
To Rome’s softening in its intellectual leadership:
There’s a story missing here – Western Europe’s entry into the Dark Ages. Perhaps that’s for Part III? Between events, Gibbon occasionally hints at this decline:
Gibbon’s challenge is the back and forth of events, such as those between Rome and Persia in this history can get, well, a bit boring:
Similar to his concerns over his own distracted audience, Gibbon has a dim view of the populous under his scrutiny:
Its no wonder classical thinkers since Aristotle have remained somewhat ambivalent on Democracies. I wonder how many of the world’s leaders over time had held similar views? Gibbon also identifies these realpolitik machinations in the waxing power of the church:
So, while he credits Christianity with some improvements, Gibbon clearly recognizes the power vacuum this religion filled, from Ambrose chastising Theodosius, to Justinian’s ruinous distraction on theological dispute while his empire crumbled. Religious zeal drove thousands out of life and into monasteries, and Gibbon laments of these lotus eaters: “But the operation of these religious motives was variously determined by the temper and situation of mankind. Reason might subdue, or passion might suspend, their influence”.
Perhaps I’m being unfair to Gibbon, who perhaps sees these human foibles as universal:
And such is the case even in retrospect, as Gibbon tries to make sense of hundreds of years of history:
It’s a great era for the baddies. Alaric, Atilla, Genseric… barbarians run rampant across the whole book. Rome is sacked I think six times. Gibbon seems to love how wild things get. How’s this for a cinematic moment… the setting is Alaric and his Goths are laying siege on Rome, and meets with a small group of ambassadors to Rome, who try to end the siege while striking a defiant stance:
When they were introduced into his presence, they declared, perhaps in a more lofty style than became their abject condition, that the Romans were resolved to maintain their dignity, either in peace or war; and that, if Alaric refused them a fair and honorable capitulation, he might sound his trumpets, and prepare to give battle to an innumerable people, exercised in arms, and animated by despair. “The thicker the hay, the easier it is mowed,“ was the concise reply of the Barbarian; and this rustic metaphor was accompanied by a loud and insulting laugh, expressive of his contempt for the menaces of an unwarlike populace, enervated by luxury before they were emaciated by famine.
Between the characters and events, Gibbon theorizes of how Rome reached this sorry state. Appropriately, he doesn’t have a single theory for the Decline and Fall, but gestures towards a variety of causes.
From abstract character complaints:
But the subjects of the Byzantine empire, who assume and dishonor the names both of Greeks and Romans, present a dead uniformity of abject vices, which are neither softened by the weakness of humanity, nor animated by the vigor of memorable crimes. The freemen of antiquity might repeat with generous enthusiasm the sentence of Homer, “that on the first day of his servitude, the captive is deprived of one half of his manly virtue.” But the poet had only seen the effects of civil or domestic slavery, nor could he foretell that the second moiety of manhood must be annihilated by the spiritual despotism which shackles not only the actions, but even the thoughts, of the prostrate votary.
To theories about the decay to the rule of law under Justinian:
But although these venerable monuments were considered as the rule of right and the fountain of justice, they were overwhelmed by the weight and variety of new laws, which, at the end of five centuries, became a grievance more intolerable than the vices of the city
To Rome’s softening in its intellectual leadership:
. If it be possible to measure the interval between the philosophic writings of Cicero and the sacred legend of Theodoret, between the character of Cato and that of Simeon, we may appreciate the memorable revolution which was accomplished in the Roman empire within a period of five hundred year.
There’s a story missing here – Western Europe’s entry into the Dark Ages. Perhaps that’s for Part III? Between events, Gibbon occasionally hints at this decline:
The immortal productions of Virgil, Cicero, and Livy, which were accessible to the Christian Barbarians, maintained a silent intercourse between the reign of Augustus and the times of Clovis and Charlemagne. The emulation of mankind was encouraged by the remembrance of a more perfect state; and the flame of science was secretly kept alive, to warm and enlighten the mature age of the Western world.
Gibbon’s challenge is the back and forth of events, such as those between Rome and Persia in this history can get, well, a bit boring:
The conflict of Rome and Persia was prolonged from the death of Craesus to the reign of Heraclius. An experience of seven hundred years might convince the rival nations of the impossibility of maintaining their conquests beyond the fatal limits of the Tigris and Euphrates. Yet the emulation of Trajan and Julian was awakened by the trophies of Alexander, and the sovereigns of Persia indulged the ambitious hope of restoring the empire of Cyrus. Such extraordinary efforts of power and courage will always command the attention of posterity; but the events by which the fate of nations is not materially changed, leave a faint impression on the page of history, and the patience of the reader would be exhausted by the repetition of the same hostilities, undertaken without cause, prosecuted without glory, and terminated without effect.
Similar to his concerns over his own distracted audience, Gibbon has a dim view of the populous under his scrutiny:
The devotion or the poet, or the philosopher, may be secretly nourished by prayer, meditation, and study; but the exercise of public worship appears to be the only solid foundation of the religious sentiments of the people, which derive their force from imitation and habit. The interruption of that public exercise may consummate, in the period of a few years, the important work of a national revolution. The memory of theological opinions cannot long be preserved, without the artificial helps of priests, of temples, and of books. The ignorant vulgar, whose minds are still agitated by the blind hopes and terrors of superstition, will be soon persuaded by their superiors to direct their vows to the reigning deities of the age; and will insensibly imbibe an ardent zeal for the support and propagation of the new doctrine, which spiritual hunger at first compelled them to accept.
Its no wonder classical thinkers since Aristotle have remained somewhat ambivalent on Democracies. I wonder how many of the world’s leaders over time had held similar views? Gibbon also identifies these realpolitik machinations in the waxing power of the church:
…but it must ingenuously be confessed, that the ministers of the Catholic church imitated the profane model, which they were impatient to destroy. The most respectable bishops had persuaded themselves that the ignorant rustics would more cheerfully renounce the superstitions of Paganism, if they found some resemblance, some compensation, in the bosom of Christianity.
So, while he credits Christianity with some improvements, Gibbon clearly recognizes the power vacuum this religion filled, from Ambrose chastising Theodosius, to Justinian’s ruinous distraction on theological dispute while his empire crumbled. Religious zeal drove thousands out of life and into monasteries, and Gibbon laments of these lotus eaters: “But the operation of these religious motives was variously determined by the temper and situation of mankind. Reason might subdue, or passion might suspend, their influence”.
Perhaps I’m being unfair to Gibbon, who perhaps sees these human foibles as universal:
Even skepticism is made to supply an apology for superstition. The great and incomprehensible secret of the universe eludes the inquiry of man. Where reason cannot instruct, custom may be permitted to guide; and every nation seems to consult the dictates of prudence, by a faithful attachment to those rites and opinions, which have received the sanction of ages.
And such is the case even in retrospect, as Gibbon tries to make sense of hundreds of years of history:
Such is the empire of Fortune, (if we may still disguise our ignorance under that popular name,) that it is almost equally difficult to foresee the events of war, or to explain their various consequences. A bloody and complete victory has sometimes yielded no more than the possession of the field and the loss of ten thousand men has sometimes been sufficient to destroy, in a single day, the work of ages.
October 9, 2024
Great content, tough to read. Tremendous research especially considering the time period when it was written.
June 25, 2016
Al terminar de leer este libro surge la sensación de haber pasado por una excitante aventura, que finalmente Gibbon termina de escribir en 1787, luego de casi 20 años de trabajo como él modestamente indica en su epílogo, donde prácticamente da una extensa vista panorámica a la cultura de occidente y la de oriente, con la perspectiva de los mogoles, un Islam en sus etapas tempranas y la formación de la cultura europea a partir de los restos de la conocida ciudad de Constantino, Constantinopla. No en vano, muchos críticos la consideran una de las obras maestras de la literatura occidental.
Muchas escenas van pasando en este “hilo conductor” de historia universal: van pasando los nacimientos de las nuevas nacionalidades europeas de los restos del Imperio Romano de Occidente en Hispania, Galia, Germania, Britania, de lo que antes fueran considerados pueblos invasores. El Papado y la curia de Roma van consolidando poco a poco su poder e influencia, el dogma de la cristiandad va cobrando su forma final, ocurren las invasiones europeas a oriente o cruzadas, ocurren los desplazamientos masivos de los pueblos de las estepas asiáticas, los emperadores griegos – los últimos romanos-, se muestran en los estertores del brillo decadente de su poder, mientras algunas situaciones políticas o religiosas salvan o socavan a un sistema de gobierno que de imperio no tiene más que el nombre, de su caída final.
El marco político
El ejercicio del poder es fácil pero que se aúne con un adecuado sistema de gobierno es difícil: esto ocurre bajo unos pocos nombres, que no solamente sustentan el título de imperator o jefe de los ejércitos, sino también de adecuados legisladores y gobernantes, dando épocas doradas a la masa social, destacándose nombre como Justino, Justiniano, varios de los Constantinos.
logo-constantinopla-1453-001
Torres en Constatinopla Crédito de imagen: https://imperiobizantino.wordpress.com/
Afortunadanente las épocas de convulsiones y exacciones militares de algunos nombres de advenedizos castrenses como Focas, Nicéforos, suelen ser paliados por timoneles purpurados que manejan la maquinaria del estado y no están pendientes de su lujo y boato. Y es que los emperadores bizantinos dieron preeminencia al color púrpura como su atribución imperial; en griego pórfido es púrpura y el término porfirogeneta que tuvieron varios de ellos, significa “nacido en púrpura“. En Constantinopla hubo cosas nuevas en términos del ejercicio del poder: emperatrices que llegan al poder, emperadores que gobiernan a través de primeros ministros que son eunucos (de acá pude salir ese concepto del eunuco político), emperadores que abdican y profesan en un monasterio Y una situación que es única en Bizancio: muchos emperadores muertos en el ejercicio del poder.
Cruzadas contra cristianos
Aunque el escenario religioso con su famoso cisma de oriente, genera una división irreconciliable durante mucho tiempo, y en este carácter de facciosidad, los heréticos griegos del imperio de oriente son vistos como enemigos por los latinos occidentales y entre cristianos se producen guerras fratricidas. Hay un largo prolegómenos introductorio hasta la cruzada de 1204, donde los venecianos promovieron la rapiña de varios siglos de trabajo y cultura, para entronizar a oscuros nobles occidentales (la casa de Brienne) que no gobernaron, y hasta desdeñaron aprender el idioma de su sojuzgada nación. Y si bien hay recuperación del poder por Teodoro Láscaris que logró expulsar a los latinos invasores, el imperio bizantino continua con su mal intestino, de falta de gobernabilidad, de exacción y corrupción de funcionarios venales, de la injerencia de los miembros del clero, de un pueblo ignorante en muchos casos, de algunas catástrofes naturales y epidemias que acaban con la población, que aumentan el cataclismo social.
Entrada-Roger-Cpla_P
Roger de Flor entra en Constantinopla. Crédito de imagen: http://www.lirgua.com/indexHistoria.htm
Andrónico Paleólogo cuando llega al poder se encuentra con que tiene los levantamientos de turcos en varias regiones, que amenazan el aprovisionamiento; y por medio de Juan de Prócida, llama a los almogávares, esa invencible hueste de los mejores guerreros que ha dado el mundo en todos los tiempos, asemejadas por el historiador Moncada a tropas de élite de otros tiempos, como la falange macedónica, los tercios españoles, la legión romana, que bajo el mando de Roger de Flor, lograron victorias épicas y se hicieron con el control del ducado de Atenas, de Morea, de Negroponto.
Esta situación de cruzada contra Constantinopla, de almogávares, de luchas contra turcos y alanos, de pago a mercenarios, debilitó aún más al pueblo de Constantinopla y la dejó ad portas de su caída dos siglos y medio después, haciendo que las naciones de pastores en Asia menor y el norte de Asia, se organizaran y pudieran alcanzar mejor organización militar, que luego se tradujo en el ataque final de mayo de 1453, por Mohamed II.
Perspectivas de Gibbon
Una vez más lo que Gibbon había dicho del imperio romano de occidente en el sentido que había empezado el gérmen de su decadencia cuando Augusto nombró una guardia de corps o guardia pretoriana de guardaespaldas que luego tomaron el poder y terminaron desbancando el orden civil senatorial y tribunicio, igual le pasó al imperio de oriente, con algunos matices especiales porque ya el cristianismo era religión de estado y los padres de la iglesia tuvieron mucho que ver en el quehacer político. E igual situación ocurrió con los abasidas, que terminan siendo reemplazados por sus propios pretorianos, los jenízaros, guardia de corps compuesta de jóvenes procedentes de zonas geográficas como Yugoeslavia, Serbia, Montenegro, Georgia, Armenia, Grecia, Albania, la antigua provincia de la Iliria romana que varios emperadores militares dió al imperio occidental. Gibbon muestra el contraste político con la Roma antes de Augusto, cuando había poderes equilibrados y ejercidos por el estamento senatorial y consular.
La caída del gigante
La caída de Constantinopla, la actual Estambul, muestra temas inesperados en armas, como el uso en escala masiva de los sistemas antiguos de destrucción de murallas, como los escorpiones, las torretas recubiertas con pieles de animales recién sacrificados para aguantar las flechas incendiarias, junto con los cañones metálicos, que ya son capaces de disparar balas de 200 kg.
mapa-constantinopla
Constantinopla hacia 1453. Crédito de imagen: https://guerrayhistoria.wordpress.com...
Y así, la hasta entonces inexpugnable Constantinopla, empezó a ver derrumbar uno de sus muros, el de San Romano, poco a poco. El valor del italiano Juan de Justiniani, que apoyó a Constantino XIII Dragases es reconocido para la posteridad por Gibbon, lo mismo que el del propio Constantino, quien finalmente cayó con sus propios hombres, como uno de los últimos soldados romanos dignos de ese título, lo cual también arroja un baldón sobre la felonía y traición de los genoveses, al permitir acceso a varias barcazas de Mahomed II, que ayudaron a la caída de unas defensas que no eran fáciles de derrumbar.
¿Qué tuvo de especial el imperio Bizantino, que fue capaz de prolongar el nombre de Roma por casi otros 10 siglos, luego de la caída de su homónimo occidental? Muchas respuestas al respecto, una para considerar a todo lo que se ha dicho: la maquinaria administrativa que recogía impuestos lo hizo posible, el marco legal para convivencia de los ciudadanos y el marco religioso. Finalmente, Constantinopla cambia su nombre, los sarracenos cuando preguntaban sobre la ciudad, recibían la respuesta Es tan polis, que en griego significa es la ciudad y la versión arabizada quedó Estambul
El nacimiento del Renacimiento
Desafortunadamente, para la historia de la cultura, esta crisis social e inestabilidad política de Constantinopla, hizo que muchos de los cerebros pensantes en griego allí residentes, se mudaran a Italia. Personajes como el cardenal católico Besarión de Nicea (uno de los adalides del concilio de Basilea para la reunión de los credos latino y ortodoxo), Demetrio de Calcóndiles, Manuel de Crisoloro, Leoncio de Pilates, fueron acogidos en Florencia, en Ferrara, en Roma, y fueron los formadores de nuevos depositarios del saber griego, entre quienes figuró, el gran Petrarca.
Manuel_Chrysoloras_-_Imagines_philologorum
El sabio Manuel de Crisoloro. Crédito de imagen: http://www.wikiwand.com/it/Emanuele_C...
Las naciones occidentales sufrieron el gravamen de una contribución para la cruzada de recuperar a Constantinopla, y este dinero que llegó a Roma de toda la cristiandad, hizo posible poder construir la basílica de San Pedro, y contar con los recursos para el mecenazgo de todo el trabajo artístico de notables renacentatistas, como Donatello, Fontana, Bramante, Miguel Angel, entre muchos más. Pero también hizo posible otro escenario impensado, en el que los nuevos Papas se encontraron con fuente de financiación para milicia, que permitió de forma antitética el surgimiento de papas guerreros como Julio II o León X. Y se consolidó el poder de los papas renacentistas en la esfera secular, situación que todavía no se sabía, pero que más tarde iba a culminar en la reforma de 1517.
Conclusiones
De este enorme y monumental trabajo del gran historiador Edward Gibbon, queda un soberbio cuadro panorámico de historia de sociedad, política, religión cultura abarcando más de 1000 años. Muchos libros y obras han bebido en su fuente inspiradora y cuando se ha tenido la oportunidad de profundizar en varias de ellas, cobran mayor dinamismo y perspectiva los personajes de todas estas obras. Desfilan personajes harto conocidos, nombres como Atila, Justiniano, Triboniano, Eudoxia, Leon Isaúrico, Mahomed II, Tamerlán, Gengis Khan, Bayaceto, Enrique Dandolus…. y los nombres relacionados a estos, que son legión y que son los que dan el tono y la intensidad, los dramatis personae, responsables de acciones, omisiones y que marcan tras bambalinas el devenir del acontecer humano.
Gibbon muestra que es muy fácil ejercer el poder, no es fácil gobernar. El ejercicio del poder y el gobierno no siempre van de la mano. El devenir de Roma, como ejemplo de la aventura humana, es ejemplarizante para todos los tiempos.
Muchas escenas van pasando en este “hilo conductor” de historia universal: van pasando los nacimientos de las nuevas nacionalidades europeas de los restos del Imperio Romano de Occidente en Hispania, Galia, Germania, Britania, de lo que antes fueran considerados pueblos invasores. El Papado y la curia de Roma van consolidando poco a poco su poder e influencia, el dogma de la cristiandad va cobrando su forma final, ocurren las invasiones europeas a oriente o cruzadas, ocurren los desplazamientos masivos de los pueblos de las estepas asiáticas, los emperadores griegos – los últimos romanos-, se muestran en los estertores del brillo decadente de su poder, mientras algunas situaciones políticas o religiosas salvan o socavan a un sistema de gobierno que de imperio no tiene más que el nombre, de su caída final.
El marco político
El ejercicio del poder es fácil pero que se aúne con un adecuado sistema de gobierno es difícil: esto ocurre bajo unos pocos nombres, que no solamente sustentan el título de imperator o jefe de los ejércitos, sino también de adecuados legisladores y gobernantes, dando épocas doradas a la masa social, destacándose nombre como Justino, Justiniano, varios de los Constantinos.
logo-constantinopla-1453-001
Torres en Constatinopla Crédito de imagen: https://imperiobizantino.wordpress.com/
Afortunadanente las épocas de convulsiones y exacciones militares de algunos nombres de advenedizos castrenses como Focas, Nicéforos, suelen ser paliados por timoneles purpurados que manejan la maquinaria del estado y no están pendientes de su lujo y boato. Y es que los emperadores bizantinos dieron preeminencia al color púrpura como su atribución imperial; en griego pórfido es púrpura y el término porfirogeneta que tuvieron varios de ellos, significa “nacido en púrpura“. En Constantinopla hubo cosas nuevas en términos del ejercicio del poder: emperatrices que llegan al poder, emperadores que gobiernan a través de primeros ministros que son eunucos (de acá pude salir ese concepto del eunuco político), emperadores que abdican y profesan en un monasterio Y una situación que es única en Bizancio: muchos emperadores muertos en el ejercicio del poder.
Cruzadas contra cristianos
Aunque el escenario religioso con su famoso cisma de oriente, genera una división irreconciliable durante mucho tiempo, y en este carácter de facciosidad, los heréticos griegos del imperio de oriente son vistos como enemigos por los latinos occidentales y entre cristianos se producen guerras fratricidas. Hay un largo prolegómenos introductorio hasta la cruzada de 1204, donde los venecianos promovieron la rapiña de varios siglos de trabajo y cultura, para entronizar a oscuros nobles occidentales (la casa de Brienne) que no gobernaron, y hasta desdeñaron aprender el idioma de su sojuzgada nación. Y si bien hay recuperación del poder por Teodoro Láscaris que logró expulsar a los latinos invasores, el imperio bizantino continua con su mal intestino, de falta de gobernabilidad, de exacción y corrupción de funcionarios venales, de la injerencia de los miembros del clero, de un pueblo ignorante en muchos casos, de algunas catástrofes naturales y epidemias que acaban con la población, que aumentan el cataclismo social.
Entrada-Roger-Cpla_P
Roger de Flor entra en Constantinopla. Crédito de imagen: http://www.lirgua.com/indexHistoria.htm
Andrónico Paleólogo cuando llega al poder se encuentra con que tiene los levantamientos de turcos en varias regiones, que amenazan el aprovisionamiento; y por medio de Juan de Prócida, llama a los almogávares, esa invencible hueste de los mejores guerreros que ha dado el mundo en todos los tiempos, asemejadas por el historiador Moncada a tropas de élite de otros tiempos, como la falange macedónica, los tercios españoles, la legión romana, que bajo el mando de Roger de Flor, lograron victorias épicas y se hicieron con el control del ducado de Atenas, de Morea, de Negroponto.
Esta situación de cruzada contra Constantinopla, de almogávares, de luchas contra turcos y alanos, de pago a mercenarios, debilitó aún más al pueblo de Constantinopla y la dejó ad portas de su caída dos siglos y medio después, haciendo que las naciones de pastores en Asia menor y el norte de Asia, se organizaran y pudieran alcanzar mejor organización militar, que luego se tradujo en el ataque final de mayo de 1453, por Mohamed II.
Perspectivas de Gibbon
Una vez más lo que Gibbon había dicho del imperio romano de occidente en el sentido que había empezado el gérmen de su decadencia cuando Augusto nombró una guardia de corps o guardia pretoriana de guardaespaldas que luego tomaron el poder y terminaron desbancando el orden civil senatorial y tribunicio, igual le pasó al imperio de oriente, con algunos matices especiales porque ya el cristianismo era religión de estado y los padres de la iglesia tuvieron mucho que ver en el quehacer político. E igual situación ocurrió con los abasidas, que terminan siendo reemplazados por sus propios pretorianos, los jenízaros, guardia de corps compuesta de jóvenes procedentes de zonas geográficas como Yugoeslavia, Serbia, Montenegro, Georgia, Armenia, Grecia, Albania, la antigua provincia de la Iliria romana que varios emperadores militares dió al imperio occidental. Gibbon muestra el contraste político con la Roma antes de Augusto, cuando había poderes equilibrados y ejercidos por el estamento senatorial y consular.
La caída del gigante
La caída de Constantinopla, la actual Estambul, muestra temas inesperados en armas, como el uso en escala masiva de los sistemas antiguos de destrucción de murallas, como los escorpiones, las torretas recubiertas con pieles de animales recién sacrificados para aguantar las flechas incendiarias, junto con los cañones metálicos, que ya son capaces de disparar balas de 200 kg.
mapa-constantinopla
Constantinopla hacia 1453. Crédito de imagen: https://guerrayhistoria.wordpress.com...
Y así, la hasta entonces inexpugnable Constantinopla, empezó a ver derrumbar uno de sus muros, el de San Romano, poco a poco. El valor del italiano Juan de Justiniani, que apoyó a Constantino XIII Dragases es reconocido para la posteridad por Gibbon, lo mismo que el del propio Constantino, quien finalmente cayó con sus propios hombres, como uno de los últimos soldados romanos dignos de ese título, lo cual también arroja un baldón sobre la felonía y traición de los genoveses, al permitir acceso a varias barcazas de Mahomed II, que ayudaron a la caída de unas defensas que no eran fáciles de derrumbar.
¿Qué tuvo de especial el imperio Bizantino, que fue capaz de prolongar el nombre de Roma por casi otros 10 siglos, luego de la caída de su homónimo occidental? Muchas respuestas al respecto, una para considerar a todo lo que se ha dicho: la maquinaria administrativa que recogía impuestos lo hizo posible, el marco legal para convivencia de los ciudadanos y el marco religioso. Finalmente, Constantinopla cambia su nombre, los sarracenos cuando preguntaban sobre la ciudad, recibían la respuesta Es tan polis, que en griego significa es la ciudad y la versión arabizada quedó Estambul
El nacimiento del Renacimiento
Desafortunadamente, para la historia de la cultura, esta crisis social e inestabilidad política de Constantinopla, hizo que muchos de los cerebros pensantes en griego allí residentes, se mudaran a Italia. Personajes como el cardenal católico Besarión de Nicea (uno de los adalides del concilio de Basilea para la reunión de los credos latino y ortodoxo), Demetrio de Calcóndiles, Manuel de Crisoloro, Leoncio de Pilates, fueron acogidos en Florencia, en Ferrara, en Roma, y fueron los formadores de nuevos depositarios del saber griego, entre quienes figuró, el gran Petrarca.
Manuel_Chrysoloras_-_Imagines_philologorum
El sabio Manuel de Crisoloro. Crédito de imagen: http://www.wikiwand.com/it/Emanuele_C...
Las naciones occidentales sufrieron el gravamen de una contribución para la cruzada de recuperar a Constantinopla, y este dinero que llegó a Roma de toda la cristiandad, hizo posible poder construir la basílica de San Pedro, y contar con los recursos para el mecenazgo de todo el trabajo artístico de notables renacentatistas, como Donatello, Fontana, Bramante, Miguel Angel, entre muchos más. Pero también hizo posible otro escenario impensado, en el que los nuevos Papas se encontraron con fuente de financiación para milicia, que permitió de forma antitética el surgimiento de papas guerreros como Julio II o León X. Y se consolidó el poder de los papas renacentistas en la esfera secular, situación que todavía no se sabía, pero que más tarde iba a culminar en la reforma de 1517.
Conclusiones
De este enorme y monumental trabajo del gran historiador Edward Gibbon, queda un soberbio cuadro panorámico de historia de sociedad, política, religión cultura abarcando más de 1000 años. Muchos libros y obras han bebido en su fuente inspiradora y cuando se ha tenido la oportunidad de profundizar en varias de ellas, cobran mayor dinamismo y perspectiva los personajes de todas estas obras. Desfilan personajes harto conocidos, nombres como Atila, Justiniano, Triboniano, Eudoxia, Leon Isaúrico, Mahomed II, Tamerlán, Gengis Khan, Bayaceto, Enrique Dandolus…. y los nombres relacionados a estos, que son legión y que son los que dan el tono y la intensidad, los dramatis personae, responsables de acciones, omisiones y que marcan tras bambalinas el devenir del acontecer humano.
Gibbon muestra que es muy fácil ejercer el poder, no es fácil gobernar. El ejercicio del poder y el gobierno no siempre van de la mano. El devenir de Roma, como ejemplo de la aventura humana, es ejemplarizante para todos los tiempos.
May 19, 2020
يتناول جيبون فى الجزء الثانى فى ترجمتنا المختصرة تاريخ الامبراطورية الرومانية المنقسمة الى شرقية وغربية بدءاً من عهد اسرة جستنيان الذى اعاد وحدة الامبراطورية بشكل مؤقت فى القرن السادس وحتى نهاية القرن التاسع على وجه التقريب وهو يمهد سريعا وبايجاز فى النهاية لعدة قرون سيتناولها بالتفصيل فى الجزء الاخير القادم .
وهو يستمر فى عرضه وتركيزه على تطور اضمحلال الامبراطورية ومدى هذا الاضمحلال الذى اصبح يتسارع بمعدلات أُسّية فى هذه الفترة فى مختلف نواحى حياة الرومان السياسية والاقتصادية والدينية والأخلاقية والفنية وهى تبدو كانهيار دعائم المجتمع الذى يسير الى تمزقه فى صورة الإقطاعيات الصغيرة الواهية والمتعادية بعد ان كانت تمثل امبراطورية موحدة قوية وسائدة أما عن السبب الرئيسى فطبيعى انه كان زيادة الترف والرخاء وتضخم الملكيات الخاصة من جانب حيث يزداد الانحلال والرخاوة فى طباع قادة الامة وينتشر الفساد بينهم وتمتنع الأخلاق الا اذا استتبعت بمصلحة . أما فى الجانب الاخر فهناك من سلبوا أقواتهم وملكياتهم او انهم لم يملكوها يوما وهم يتحولون على الفور الى رعاع أحرار أو عبيد ورقيق أرض اذا تدنوا الى حالة العجز عن سد الديون . ومن الملحوظ ان زيادة هذه الطائفة هى التى ساعدت على انتشار المسيحية التى تمدح الفقر وتذم الغنى والبخل وتجلب معجزات الشفاء لهؤلاء الجهلة وتمنحهم القوت والصبر والأمل ومن جانب آخر يتعاون ذوى السلطة من الأساقفة والرهبان مع الملوك والأباطرة لنشر العقيدة التى ستهدىء من روع الشعب المعوز وتلين عريكته . الا ان الانشقاق السريع الحدوث والتطور فى الكنيسة وانقسامها لعدة مذاهب متحاربة كان هو نفسة القشة التى قسمت ظهر البعير وكان الامر الذى أدى الى انكسار الامبراطورية أمام غزوات البرابرة وسقوط الحكم فى ايديهم وسقوط عواصم العالم الرومانى بين يدى الهمج والقبائل المرتحلة الألمانية والاسكندنافية والآسيوية كقبائل القوط والهون والفرنجة والجرمان والواندال وغيرهم كما ساعد اعتناق هؤلاء البرابرة على الغزو خضوعهم للباباوات الرومان فى أوج سلطتهم مما يسر التحالف والتعاون بين العدو الخارجى والسيد الداخلى فى شخص البابا الذى كان فى روما أقوى من الامبراطور فى عاصمته القسطنطينية حيث كانت الفتن لا تنتهى هناك والتحزبات والمعارك السياسية والدينية المذهبية وهى أمور كانت تنتهى بمجازر دموية عادة ولم يقوى اكثر اباطرة هذا العهد على كبح هذا الشغب المستمر فى حين أن البابا فى روما سيد يأمر فيطاع فى ايطاليا بل وأغلب عالم اوروبا المتحضر آنذاك كفرنسا واسبانيا . حتى وصل الأمر بالبابا هدريان الى فصل الكنيسة الغربية فى روما والتى تأتمر أوروبا الغربية بأمرها عن الكنيسة الشرقية فى بيزنطة والتى تتبعها دول الامبراطورية فى آسيا . عندما انتهز هذا البابا ضعف امبراطور الشرق والفتنة التى تسبب فيها والتى عارضها البابا بشدة بخصوص تحريم عبادة صور المسيح وأمه والشهداء والقديسين وأيقوناتهم وتماثيلهم او رفاتهم ومنع اى شكل من اشكال الوثنية الهمجية القديمة وهو الامر الذى ادى الى حرب اهلية فى الشرق وتذمر شديد فى الغرب الا ان استغلال البابا الغربى هدريان لنفوذه فى الغرب وهذه الفتنة فى الشرق حتى انفصل عن جسد الامبراطورية بتسليمه تاج الامبراطورية الغربية لملك الفرنجة شارلمان حفيد شارل مارتل قاهر المسلمين اثناء توسعهم من اسبانيا لفرنسا . ومسحه البابا بالزيت المقدس كحاكم زمنى بأمر الهى واضفى عليه قداسة وتأييدا من رسول القديس بطرس ذاته اى البابا هدريان .
وبذلك تستعاد الامبراطورية الغربية بعد انهيارها وتفتتها بين المسلمين وقبائل البرابرة التى اصبحت اكثر تحضرا باختلاطها بالرومان وحضارتهم على مدى ما يربو على القرنين فأصبحوا كذلك روماناً وأصبحت تسمى دولتهم بالامبراطورية الرومانية المقدسة .
ولا يسعنى أن أغفل شغفى بتاريخ المسيحية الأول وتاريخ تنامى سيطرة الكنيسة وقوة الباباوات ومنشأ سلطتهم وممتلكاتهم الدنيوية والسماوية على حد قولهم وكذلك خلافاتهم اللاهوتية التى سببت هلاك اعداد لا تحصى وسقوط أشراف وصعود خبثاء والعكس أحياناً وهو تاريخ محاط غالبا بالغموض حتى لدى المسيحيين انفسهم وبالأخص تاريخ القديسين الأبطال منهم والمزيفون القتلة من أصحاب القداسة المكتسبة بالمكر والحيلة والتعاون على الكسب . لا على الزهد والمحبة والتضحية والألم .
وهو يستمر فى عرضه وتركيزه على تطور اضمحلال الامبراطورية ومدى هذا الاضمحلال الذى اصبح يتسارع بمعدلات أُسّية فى هذه الفترة فى مختلف نواحى حياة الرومان السياسية والاقتصادية والدينية والأخلاقية والفنية وهى تبدو كانهيار دعائم المجتمع الذى يسير الى تمزقه فى صورة الإقطاعيات الصغيرة الواهية والمتعادية بعد ان كانت تمثل امبراطورية موحدة قوية وسائدة أما عن السبب الرئيسى فطبيعى انه كان زيادة الترف والرخاء وتضخم الملكيات الخاصة من جانب حيث يزداد الانحلال والرخاوة فى طباع قادة الامة وينتشر الفساد بينهم وتمتنع الأخلاق الا اذا استتبعت بمصلحة . أما فى الجانب الاخر فهناك من سلبوا أقواتهم وملكياتهم او انهم لم يملكوها يوما وهم يتحولون على الفور الى رعاع أحرار أو عبيد ورقيق أرض اذا تدنوا الى حالة العجز عن سد الديون . ومن الملحوظ ان زيادة هذه الطائفة هى التى ساعدت على انتشار المسيحية التى تمدح الفقر وتذم الغنى والبخل وتجلب معجزات الشفاء لهؤلاء الجهلة وتمنحهم القوت والصبر والأمل ومن جانب آخر يتعاون ذوى السلطة من الأساقفة والرهبان مع الملوك والأباطرة لنشر العقيدة التى ستهدىء من روع الشعب المعوز وتلين عريكته . الا ان الانشقاق السريع الحدوث والتطور فى الكنيسة وانقسامها لعدة مذاهب متحاربة كان هو نفسة القشة التى قسمت ظهر البعير وكان الامر الذى أدى الى انكسار الامبراطورية أمام غزوات البرابرة وسقوط الحكم فى ايديهم وسقوط عواصم العالم الرومانى بين يدى الهمج والقبائل المرتحلة الألمانية والاسكندنافية والآسيوية كقبائل القوط والهون والفرنجة والجرمان والواندال وغيرهم كما ساعد اعتناق هؤلاء البرابرة على الغزو خضوعهم للباباوات الرومان فى أوج سلطتهم مما يسر التحالف والتعاون بين العدو الخارجى والسيد الداخلى فى شخص البابا الذى كان فى روما أقوى من الامبراطور فى عاصمته القسطنطينية حيث كانت الفتن لا تنتهى هناك والتحزبات والمعارك السياسية والدينية المذهبية وهى أمور كانت تنتهى بمجازر دموية عادة ولم يقوى اكثر اباطرة هذا العهد على كبح هذا الشغب المستمر فى حين أن البابا فى روما سيد يأمر فيطاع فى ايطاليا بل وأغلب عالم اوروبا المتحضر آنذاك كفرنسا واسبانيا . حتى وصل الأمر بالبابا هدريان الى فصل الكنيسة الغربية فى روما والتى تأتمر أوروبا الغربية بأمرها عن الكنيسة الشرقية فى بيزنطة والتى تتبعها دول الامبراطورية فى آسيا . عندما انتهز هذا البابا ضعف امبراطور الشرق والفتنة التى تسبب فيها والتى عارضها البابا بشدة بخصوص تحريم عبادة صور المسيح وأمه والشهداء والقديسين وأيقوناتهم وتماثيلهم او رفاتهم ومنع اى شكل من اشكال الوثنية الهمجية القديمة وهو الامر الذى ادى الى حرب اهلية فى الشرق وتذمر شديد فى الغرب الا ان استغلال البابا الغربى هدريان لنفوذه فى الغرب وهذه الفتنة فى الشرق حتى انفصل عن جسد الامبراطورية بتسليمه تاج الامبراطورية الغربية لملك الفرنجة شارلمان حفيد شارل مارتل قاهر المسلمين اثناء توسعهم من اسبانيا لفرنسا . ومسحه البابا بالزيت المقدس كحاكم زمنى بأمر الهى واضفى عليه قداسة وتأييدا من رسول القديس بطرس ذاته اى البابا هدريان .
وبذلك تستعاد الامبراطورية الغربية بعد انهيارها وتفتتها بين المسلمين وقبائل البرابرة التى اصبحت اكثر تحضرا باختلاطها بالرومان وحضارتهم على مدى ما يربو على القرنين فأصبحوا كذلك روماناً وأصبحت تسمى دولتهم بالامبراطورية الرومانية المقدسة .
ولا يسعنى أن أغفل شغفى بتاريخ المسيحية الأول وتاريخ تنامى سيطرة الكنيسة وقوة الباباوات ومنشأ سلطتهم وممتلكاتهم الدنيوية والسماوية على حد قولهم وكذلك خلافاتهم اللاهوتية التى سببت هلاك اعداد لا تحصى وسقوط أشراف وصعود خبثاء والعكس أحياناً وهو تاريخ محاط غالبا بالغموض حتى لدى المسيحيين انفسهم وبالأخص تاريخ القديسين الأبطال منهم والمزيفون القتلة من أصحاب القداسة المكتسبة بالمكر والحيلة والتعاون على الكسب . لا على الزهد والمحبة والتضحية والألم .
April 4, 2021
Je répète que The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, d'Edward Gibbon, c'est meilleur que toutes les nouvelles séries sur Netflix.
Le second tome de la série de six livres est vraiment concentré sur la période de la transition vers le christianisme, la formation du schisme des nicéens et des ariens (beaucoup plus complexe que cela et qui fût causé par une erreur de traduction grec/latin de homoousios et homoiousios - une erreur d'une syllabe, une différence de langage qui résonne sur toute la planète et encore aujourd'hui), ainsi que la lente désagrégation de l'empire romain par des assauts de barbares de tous les fronts, des querelles inter-chrétiennes ou entre les chrétiens et les derniers païens qui tentaient de perdurer devant ce regain incroyable des formes de croyances superstitieuses.
On peut toujours tirer des enseignements de ces histoires même si elles sont plus ou moins validées par les études historiques modernes (Gibbon ne peut pas avoir révélé une vérité sans tâche - évidemment qu'il y a des erreurs). On peut par exemple voir dans ce récit de christianisation, ces querelles de langage théologique, cette quête spirituelle de sens (meaning) et la formation de l'Église (les synodes, établissement des évêques, des conciles et la tentative de standardisation de la théologie de la foi) que le pouvoir et l'attrait de l'Église reposaient sur 1) l'éducation et les services de l'administration publique, 2) l'instauration des rites secrets et l'accumulation des héritages de riches croyants (et de veuves ou héritières facilement convaincue par des moines et confidents personnels), 3) l'ingérence dans les luttes de pouvoir impériales afin de manier la voix du dictateur, et 4) la puissance évangélique d'un dieu universel et prosélyte face à une vieille religion polythéiste qui avait perdu tout son lustre chez les jeunes et les femmes.
Je vois dans ce récit chrétien une analogie de ce qui se perçoit aujourd'hui dans les espaces publics occidentaux. Nous vivons une régression cognitive et sociale qui a) fait remonter les superstitions, pratiques et croyances de typologie chrétienne, b) propose l'éducation et la modification du langage comme nouvelle théologie de la foi (intersectionnelle, postmoderniste, socio-constructiviste) et c) est utilisée par des acteurs (élites) médiatiques, corporatistes, académiques, politiques, culturels, institutionnels afin de "manier" la foule, la multitude, en recherche de sens.
Comme dans toute mes discussions avec des bobos-urbains-éduqués, on voit qu'il y a impossibilité de traiter avec des gens quand il y a des problèmes de langage et de traduction. Une impossibilité du dialogue qui me rend fou quand j'ai a échanger avec des profs d'université qui ne comprennent rien aux maths, aux sciences pures, aux neurosciences et aux sciences de la santé modernes.
Le second tome de la série de six livres est vraiment concentré sur la période de la transition vers le christianisme, la formation du schisme des nicéens et des ariens (beaucoup plus complexe que cela et qui fût causé par une erreur de traduction grec/latin de homoousios et homoiousios - une erreur d'une syllabe, une différence de langage qui résonne sur toute la planète et encore aujourd'hui), ainsi que la lente désagrégation de l'empire romain par des assauts de barbares de tous les fronts, des querelles inter-chrétiennes ou entre les chrétiens et les derniers païens qui tentaient de perdurer devant ce regain incroyable des formes de croyances superstitieuses.
On peut toujours tirer des enseignements de ces histoires même si elles sont plus ou moins validées par les études historiques modernes (Gibbon ne peut pas avoir révélé une vérité sans tâche - évidemment qu'il y a des erreurs). On peut par exemple voir dans ce récit de christianisation, ces querelles de langage théologique, cette quête spirituelle de sens (meaning) et la formation de l'Église (les synodes, établissement des évêques, des conciles et la tentative de standardisation de la théologie de la foi) que le pouvoir et l'attrait de l'Église reposaient sur 1) l'éducation et les services de l'administration publique, 2) l'instauration des rites secrets et l'accumulation des héritages de riches croyants (et de veuves ou héritières facilement convaincue par des moines et confidents personnels), 3) l'ingérence dans les luttes de pouvoir impériales afin de manier la voix du dictateur, et 4) la puissance évangélique d'un dieu universel et prosélyte face à une vieille religion polythéiste qui avait perdu tout son lustre chez les jeunes et les femmes.
Je vois dans ce récit chrétien une analogie de ce qui se perçoit aujourd'hui dans les espaces publics occidentaux. Nous vivons une régression cognitive et sociale qui a) fait remonter les superstitions, pratiques et croyances de typologie chrétienne, b) propose l'éducation et la modification du langage comme nouvelle théologie de la foi (intersectionnelle, postmoderniste, socio-constructiviste) et c) est utilisée par des acteurs (élites) médiatiques, corporatistes, académiques, politiques, culturels, institutionnels afin de "manier" la foule, la multitude, en recherche de sens.
Comme dans toute mes discussions avec des bobos-urbains-éduqués, on voit qu'il y a impossibilité de traiter avec des gens quand il y a des problèmes de langage et de traduction. Une impossibilité du dialogue qui me rend fou quand j'ai a échanger avec des profs d'université qui ne comprennent rien aux maths, aux sciences pures, aux neurosciences et aux sciences de la santé modernes.
March 25, 2021
It's even longer than the first volume, and continues where it left off, covering the conquest of Rome by the barbarians, the glory days of Justinian and his general Belisarius, and his famous code of law which heavily influenced European law many centuries later, the long and tough theological debates about incarnation between the Arians, Orthodox, Nestorians, and so on. Brilliant prose, but sometimes hard to follow. It's a weird feeling, like you read 200 pages on weekend thinking that it's only a drop in the ocean.
Sometimes Gibbon tries to be too subtle, and there are bits where he omits the obvious details (probably he assumed many readers are aware of the event), for instance the bit where the Greek/Byzantine Emperor Andronicus married a 12-year old bride from France, Gibbon funnily didn't even mention her age. He just went off with some clever understated ironic descriptions. There are many parts where I have to read wikipedia to follow his discussions.
On the whole, it's a magisterial piece of history, not just because of its length, but also his sources. Imagine you have to read like 5 books for every paragraph, and he wrote about 1500 pages for this volume alone.
My favorite figures: Pope Leo (his character and authority was enough to dissuade Attila the Hun from sacking Rome), Emperor Heraclius (who led Byzantine to conquer Persia despite all the odds), and Emperor Andronicus (a cruel tyrant with such a full life. He was handsome, strong, tall, a great military commander, with many lovers. His rise and fall, treachery, wars deserve more books written about him. Suffered such a horrible death after his brutal cruelty eventually caught up with him). But for the most part, this chapter of history is ripe with the same variations of treason, murder, ambition for power, struggle for the throne between family members, and so on. It gets boring how history repeats in such a banal and brutal way.
The Christian bits are also fascinating. Gibbon knows a lot about it, and on Chapter 48 he went on exploring the many intricacies, controversies, and struggle to get the doctrine of Incarnation as an official church doctrine. It was a pretty bumpy ride, with the prevailing doctrine being whoever is in charge of the city/kingdom.
Looking forward to Volume 3 where he will cover the rise of Islam, the crusades, the cruel conquests of Tamerlane, Genghis, until the fall of Constatinople in 1453.
Sometimes Gibbon tries to be too subtle, and there are bits where he omits the obvious details (probably he assumed many readers are aware of the event), for instance the bit where the Greek/Byzantine Emperor Andronicus married a 12-year old bride from France, Gibbon funnily didn't even mention her age. He just went off with some clever understated ironic descriptions. There are many parts where I have to read wikipedia to follow his discussions.
On the whole, it's a magisterial piece of history, not just because of its length, but also his sources. Imagine you have to read like 5 books for every paragraph, and he wrote about 1500 pages for this volume alone.
My favorite figures: Pope Leo (his character and authority was enough to dissuade Attila the Hun from sacking Rome), Emperor Heraclius (who led Byzantine to conquer Persia despite all the odds), and Emperor Andronicus (a cruel tyrant with such a full life. He was handsome, strong, tall, a great military commander, with many lovers. His rise and fall, treachery, wars deserve more books written about him. Suffered such a horrible death after his brutal cruelty eventually caught up with him). But for the most part, this chapter of history is ripe with the same variations of treason, murder, ambition for power, struggle for the throne between family members, and so on. It gets boring how history repeats in such a banal and brutal way.
The Christian bits are also fascinating. Gibbon knows a lot about it, and on Chapter 48 he went on exploring the many intricacies, controversies, and struggle to get the doctrine of Incarnation as an official church doctrine. It was a pretty bumpy ride, with the prevailing doctrine being whoever is in charge of the city/kingdom.
Looking forward to Volume 3 where he will cover the rise of Islam, the crusades, the cruel conquests of Tamerlane, Genghis, until the fall of Constatinople in 1453.
May 7, 2022
This second volume of Edward Gibbon’s The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Folio Society edition) begins with the reign of Diocletian in 284 AD to the accession of Julian in 361 AD.
Immediately apparent is the profound sense of stability in the empire compared to Volume I. Diocletian, whose reign “was more illustrious than that of any of his predecessors,” rules for some twenty years and establishes an amicable Imperial partnership between himself (in the East) and Maximian (in the West). They are also the first emperors to reestablish a solid hereditary monarchy since the Julio-Claudians and peacefully abdicate the throne in tandem in 305 AD.
This is, however, still the history about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, and nothing good ever lasts. We see five civil wars in two decades following the abdications, and the influence of Rome as the capital city wane as Diocletian and Maximian establish residence elsewhere (Diocletian in Nicomedia and Maximian in Milan), paving the way for Byzantium under Constantine. The Roman senate, already a joke, becomes indelibly an antiquity of a bygone age as a consequence of Rome’s loss of prestige and the army’s ascendancy—precisely what Augustus had tried to prevent. And Maximian, who had never wanted to abdicate in the first place, comes out of retirement to join one of the civil wars in support of his son, Maxentius, only to die later by suicide.
It is a sorry spectacle.
I’ve knocked off one star because Gibbon’s rather dry history of Christianity takes up more than a third of this volume, and because the rest is mostly about the repeated attempts at invasion by the Germans and “Asiatics.” Perhaps Volume I with its rapid succession of fantastical emperors spoiled me, but Volume II was simply less interesting.
The (western) Roman Empire spirals down its inexorable course in this volume. The “timid and luxurious inhabitants of a declining empire” who would rather cut off their fingers than serve their state are “left exposed to the fury of the barbarians,” namely, the Goths, Vandals, and Alemanni.
In sum: it’s Constantine’s fault.
Immediately apparent is the profound sense of stability in the empire compared to Volume I. Diocletian, whose reign “was more illustrious than that of any of his predecessors,” rules for some twenty years and establishes an amicable Imperial partnership between himself (in the East) and Maximian (in the West). They are also the first emperors to reestablish a solid hereditary monarchy since the Julio-Claudians and peacefully abdicate the throne in tandem in 305 AD.
This is, however, still the history about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, and nothing good ever lasts. We see five civil wars in two decades following the abdications, and the influence of Rome as the capital city wane as Diocletian and Maximian establish residence elsewhere (Diocletian in Nicomedia and Maximian in Milan), paving the way for Byzantium under Constantine. The Roman senate, already a joke, becomes indelibly an antiquity of a bygone age as a consequence of Rome’s loss of prestige and the army’s ascendancy—precisely what Augustus had tried to prevent. And Maximian, who had never wanted to abdicate in the first place, comes out of retirement to join one of the civil wars in support of his son, Maxentius, only to die later by suicide.
It is a sorry spectacle.
I’ve knocked off one star because Gibbon’s rather dry history of Christianity takes up more than a third of this volume, and because the rest is mostly about the repeated attempts at invasion by the Germans and “Asiatics.” Perhaps Volume I with its rapid succession of fantastical emperors spoiled me, but Volume II was simply less interesting.
The (western) Roman Empire spirals down its inexorable course in this volume. The “timid and luxurious inhabitants of a declining empire” who would rather cut off their fingers than serve their state are “left exposed to the fury of the barbarians,” namely, the Goths, Vandals, and Alemanni.
In sum: it’s Constantine’s fault.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 94 reviews