THE ROMAN EMPIRE ENTERS THE BREACH
“Search for the Real Parents of My Soul”
James R. Fisher, Jr., Ph.D.
© November 14, 2014
Was this the way it was for most
people? The time they lived in was an open invitation to a cocktail
of self-denial and self-glorification. And if you didn’t like the situation you
were stuck in, there was always the option of running away from yourself; running
away from your opinions; your marriage; from your country; from old values;
from trends that had otherwise meant so much yesterday. The problem
was just that out there, among all the new; you found nothing of what you were
looking for deep down inside; because tomorrow it would all be meaningless
again. It had become an eternal and fruitless hunt for your own
shadow and that was pitiful.
Jussi Adler-Olsen, Denmark novelist in
“The Hanging Girl” (2014)
Three thousand years before Christ, people worshiped Horus, who stood for light, and Seth for darkness with the good god of light winning the battle against the evil god of darkness, Seth.
The hieroglyphs recount similar stories
1500 years before Christ and almost every figure in the Old Testament. Moses
in the bulrush basket was known as Mises in Egypt, Manou in India, and Minos in
Crete.
The hieroglyphs also reproduced the story
of Noah and the flood. The Jewish faith may proclaim
exclusive rights to these stories, but many of the New and Old
Testament stories are found in the hieroglyphs.
Horus was born on December 25th by
a virgin named Merci with the stepfather named Seb accompanying
her. The birth was predicted by a Star in the East and announced by
an angel, who heralded shepherds on the hillside to attend. Horus was
born in a cave and worship by three kings who followed the Star from their
homelands in the East. Horus became a teacher at twelve, was
baptized at thirty, and then joined by twelve followers or disciples with whom
he traveled about performing miracles. He was betrayed by Typhon,
crucified, and resurrected after three days.
When you look at prominent religions
throughout history, there appear a number of generic characteristics similar to
the story of “Horus and Christ,” including the prominence of
celestial bodies to the beliefs of these religions (see J. Warner, “Is
Jesus Simply a Retelling of the Horus Mythology?” November 6,
2017, Atheism Writings).
Whatever your perspective, we now move out of the Old
Testament and Edward Gibbon’s assessment, along with others, into
the New Testament and this new religion, Christianity. For
whatever the reader may think or believe, historians agree, Jesus did in fact
live and has an authentic if sketchy history.
That said, the irony were it not for the
efficacy of the Roman Empire a popular theory holds that
Christianity might never have gained its prominence. Keep this in mind as
we move forward.
*
* *
There is a thread that goes through Western civilization that is so fine that, while it knits the past with the present and the future, it is so easy to miss how it has been weaved into a single fabric, which is today commonly called “the West.”
As we have seen thus far, the Hellenistic
tradition of Greece greatly influenced the Judaic culture, especially as it
relates to the Pharisees, and that influence continued with the Rise of
Rome, making Rome the world’s greatest empire (Everitt
2012).
The best estimates of the beginning of
the Roman Empire are with the accession of Augustus as the
first emperor in 27 B.C. Others say the date of Rome’s
foundation was sometime in the eighth century, possibly 753 B.C. (Everitt, 2012)
Rome is the discernible connection between
the Old and New Testament as we are now
introduced to the "clash of cultures" between the pagan polytheism of
Rome with the monotheism of Judaism, and the cult of Jesus, which will become
Christianity as we move into the New Testament.
*
* *
During the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius,
Judea had several Roman Prefects according to Jewish historian Josephus:
Coponius (6 A.D.), Marcus Ambibulus (7 A.D.), Annius Rufus (14-17 A.D.), “Valerius Gratus (17-27 A.D.), and Pontius Pilate (27-36 A.D.), who ultimately ruled on the crucifixion of Jesus.
Scholars have provided estimates for the
year of the crucifixion in the range 30–33 AD, with the majority of modern scholars favoring the date
April 7, 30 AD. Another popular date is Friday, April 3,
33 AD.
The march of Homo Sapiens from his theoretical origin into
the postmodern era.
The crucifixion of Jesus is recorded in
the New Testament with Christians believing Him to be
the Son of God as well as the Messiah. He
was arrested, tried, and sentenced by Pontius Pilate to be scourged, and
finally crucified.
Collectively, this is referred to as
the Passion of Jesus' suffering and death by crucifixion followed by
his resurrection, central tenets of Christian theology concerning the
doctrines of atonement and salvation.
His crucifixion is described in the four
synoptic canonical gospels, and referred to generally in the New
Testament Epistles as well as attested to by other ancient
historical sources and confirmed by non-Christian sources (Eddy & Boyd,
2007).
*
* *
This sets the stage for the appearance of
an irascible figure of no apparent consequence, a figure that will clash with
Jesus’ disciple, Peter, and Jesus’ brother, James, over the direction of the
new sect, throwing the modest movement off course to split from Judaism and
become a new religion, challenging the Roman Empire. This
nondescript man was Saul from Tarsus (Ruden 2010).
Saul, a Hellenistic Pharisee and tent
maker who some say witnessed the stoning to death of St. Stephen, as he is
alleged to have held the garments of the stoners, his associates, whose job was
to search out and persecute members of the Jesus cult. Witnessing this
stoning, which author Sarah Ruden shows is a slow miserable death, proved
shattering to this sensitive and conflicting young man (Ruden 2010).
Later, on his way to Damascus, Saul was
confronted by the full horror of his human limitations. “Saul,
Saul, why do you persecute me?” the voice asked (Acts 9:4).
Known to be epileptic, the shock of this
voice put him into an immediate swoon for he lived in humanity, and came to
realize the hurt done to the Jesus followers, like that done to Jesus in human
form, now registered as an assault on God.
Saul was instantly converted and changed
his name from Saul to Paul, and became “the greatest theological genius of all
time,” and arguably the lone architect of the new religion, Christianity, as
Christian doctrine came not from Jesus, nor from any of Jesus’ “twelve
apostles,” but from the pen of Paul of Tarsus (Ruden 2010).
*
* *
The Roman Empire fell into this breach, an empire
that rose modestly gaining momentum over time into the colossus that it became.
Although Rome began as a republic, the
period from the legendary founding of the city of Rome in 753 B.C. through the fall of what became known as the Western
Empire in A.D. 476 represents a continuous history
of a culture we call the Roman Empire.
That said, starting in 19 B.C., Augustus ushered in a conservative revolution that
focused on moral renewal of the Roman state in part by bringing back customs
from the past. He enacted reforms concerning religion and social and
sexual behavior that directly affected personal freedom as well as what it
meant to be a citizen under the empire.
Augustus interpreted the period of civil
war prior to his reign as immoral in which Romans had neglected the gods in
deference to their personal luxury and pleasure. This aside, his
achievements rested with his popularity with the army, securing the borders,
improving empire administration, and developing a well-planned method of
succession.
The defeat of Mark Antony at the “Battle
of Actium” (31 B.C.)
secured Augustus's power. Augustus then cut the size of the army, but
retained the goodwill of his disbanded troops by granting them full
citizenship, the ability to vote, immunity from tribute, opportunities to
relocate throughout the empire, and retirement bonuses for 20 years of service.
After his death in 14 A.D., his stepson Tiberius was easily accepted as emperor being
keen to rule much as his father had, continuing the Augustus tradition, while
encouraging Romans to move eastward quietly expanding the Roman influence.
This swelled the Roman presence in Judea
during the reign of Tiberius (14-37 A.D.,),
Caligula (37-41 A.D.), Claudius (41-54 A.D.), and Nero (54-68 A.D.), a period historians claim of emperor eccentric
steadiness.
Although each had strengths, none would
recreate the golden age of the first emperor’s reign. Instead, they are
remembered for their faults and oddities, from madness to stuttering, from
tyranny to Nero's suicide.
“Pax Romana” (27 B.C. to A.D. 180)
represents two centuries of peace that commenced with the reign of Augustus (27 B.C.) and the death 207 years later (180 A.D.) of Marcus Aurelius. It was a period of
internal order and indisputable dominance abroad, similar to the “American
Century.” Historian Anthony Everitt, however, finds that comparison
between Rome and the United States ludicrous if not dangerous (Everitt 2012).
Rome had its “New Age,” as well, ushered
in by Augustus in 19 B.C. in
what proved to be a conservative revolution. He focused on the moral
renewal of the Roman state in part by bringing back customs from the
past. He also enacted reforms concerning religion and social and sexual
behavior that directly affected personal freedom as well as the definition of
what constituted a Roman citizen.
At the same time, there were mounting
delusions of grandeur. This included a sense of invincibility and
destiny, as well as a preoccupation with empire showing little alarm at
increasing dysfunction of Rome at home.
Rome failed to recognize emerging socioeconomic
problems such as immigration as diverse ethnic groups which were pouring into
Rome, foreigners who resisted assimilation into the Roman culture, instead
becoming wards of the state contributing little to the majesty of Rome’s
already established greatness.
In retrospect, the seeds of the decline
were planted in the birth of the Christian Empire (National
Geographic 2014). By the fourth century A.D., Christians were integrated into all facets of Roman
society, including the military, judicial, and educational establishments,
while comprising only 8 percent of the population.
Troubled by this mounting influence, in
303 A.D., Emperor Diocletian ordered that all
Christians renounce their beliefs and sacrifice to Roman gods, starting the
final Roman persecution of the church.
A decade later, following the “Edict
of Milan,” the practice of Christianity was as accepted as that of any
other religion. Rome, however, would not become a fully Christian empire
until after the fall of the Second Tetrarchy (i.e., four
rulers), and Constantine’s reign (National Geographic 2014).
*
* *
Emperor Constantine, after a battle field
conversion, made Christianity the state religion and prohibited the worshiping
of all Roman gods in 313 A.D.
Once established, few could have foreseen
that this act, with the death of Constantine in 337 A.D., would mark the beginning of the end of the Roman
Empire (Womersley 1994).
A series of forces were at work, some
familiar, some new, which combined to make Rome’s downfall almost inevitable.
Without new territory, the empire lost
revenue, burdening an economy that was already straining under the enormous
cost of maintaining a vast army, a welfare system at home, saddled with
bureaucratic lethargy, and a series of emperors without the force of
personality to lead, who instead were likely to be entrenched within their
imperial palaces, often located outside of Rome, along with corruption in the
Senate, leaving the government marginalized in the day-to-day conduct of
business.
The tension between the East and West
segments of the Roman Empire had become increasingly destructive as emperors no
longer cooperated and instead undermined each other.
Barbarian tribes from the north
administered the coup de grace, as some traditional tribal nemeses
migrated into the empire when the Huns invaded Europe, while Visigoths and
Germanic tribes took advantage of the power vacuums and attacked Rome itself.
Rome’s empire had grown so large that its
borders became harder to defend. Meanwhile, in the east, a new empire, the
Sassanids, overran Rome’s traditional enemy the Parthians. Tribes such as the
Goths from the Baltic regions and Alamanni from the upper Rhine invaded from
the north. Rebels within and without the empire annexed territory and
broke away from Rome (National Geographic 2014). The western
empire started to unravel with the death of Constantine in 337 A.D. with Rome giving way completely to Byzantium in the east
in 476 A.D., which marked the end of the Roman
Empire.
*
* *
Edward Gibbon devoted more than a decade
to his magisterial History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-1789),
which opens with this famous sentence:
In the second century of the Christian
era, the empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the
most civilized portion of mankind.
The empire was at its peak, thanks to the
spirit of moderation with which Augustus had imbued it. Gibbon praised
Augustus’ moderation who was content to rest with the republic’s conquests,
having no inclination to subdue the entire world. Gibbon continues:
Inclined to peace by his temper and
situation, it was easy for him to discover, that Rome, in her present exalted
situation, had much less to hope than to fear from the chance of arms (Womersley 1994).
Gibbon asked the questions:
What caused the empire to fall from those
heights? The barbarian invasions? The rise of Christianity to the
status of a state religion?
Yes, he concludes, but that was only the
most important aspect of a more encompassing cause. He put his views in a
section titled, “General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the
West”:
The decline of Rome was the natural and
inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. (Gibbon 2007)
Too much ambition, too much prosperity,
too much power in the hands of the Praetorian guards, too many provincials
bearing the name of “Roman,” who knew nothing of the Roman spirit. These
were the causes, he concludes, of the Rome's destruction.
Chapter 15 and 16 of Gibbon’s work are
immoderate, as the historian makes no attempt to express himself in politically
correct terms. The early Christians, he assessed, were simple and mild
folks, but from the first they preached and practiced an intolerant
exclusivity.
Whereas the pagans stood ready to add
another god to the pantheon, the followers of Christ insisted that theirs was
the true and only God.
Gibbon, a nonbeliever, viewed religion of
any kind the sanctuary for the ignorant and superstitious masses only. At
the same time, he recognized the social usefulness of religion, but only when
it was polytheistic, tolerant, moderate in its enthusiasm and modest in its
claims.
Thanks to Paul, the Apostle,
Christianity was none of these things. Christians were immoderately
passive. They discouraged active virtues and buried the last remnants of
the military spirit in the cloister. Gibbon held a special grievance for
the sacred indolence of the monks who he claimed embraced a servile and
effeminate age (Womersley 1994).
Yet, he viewed Christians as also
immoderately pugnacious, even within their own camp, zealotry could not be held
in check. Between the bishops in Rome and the bishops in the provinces,
there was a continuing cold war.
Bishops, like almost all Christians,
Gibbon observes, were fanatics who for a variety of reasons, zeal, the promise
of another world, miraculous claims, rigid virtue, or church organization, were
able to transform themselves from a persecuted minority into an intolerant
majority.
Christians had been persecuted, Gibbon
admits, but the pagan treatment was less intolerable than many believed.
He concedes that Nero may have carried things too far. But he reminds the
reader that once Christians came to power they were “no less diligently employed
in displaying the cruelty in imitating the conduct of their pagan adversaries.”
(Womersley 1994)
Nero’s antagonism to Christian doctrine
spilled over into the Jewish faith, leading to charges of anti-Semitism:
From the reign of Nero to that of Antoninus
Pius, the Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which
repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections. Humanity
is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which they committed in the
cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous
friendship with the unsuspecting natives; and we are tempted to applaud the
severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of legions against a race of
fanatics, whose dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them the
implacable enemies not only of the Roman government, but also of humankind. (Womersley 1994)
Emperor Julian attempted in vain to
restore polytheistic paganism from the monotheism of Christianity and Judaism.
Julian was also known as Julian the Philosopher, and was emperor
from 361-363 A.D. with strong Hellenistic
leanings.
A member of the Constantinian dynasty,
Julian became Caesar over the western provinces by order of Constantius II in
355 and in this role campaigned successfully against the Alamanni and Franks.
Most notable was his crushing victory over the Alamanni in 357 at the Battle of
Argentoratum despite being outnumbered.
In 360 in Lutetia (Paris), he was
acclaimed Augustus by his soldiers, sparking a civil war between Julian and
Constantius. Before the two could face each other in battle, however,
Constantius died, after naming Julian as his rightful successor.
In 363, Julian embarked on an ambitious
campaign against the Sassanid Empire in the east. Though initially successful,
Julian was mortally wounded in battle and died shortly thereafter.
Julian was a man of unusually complex
character: he was "the military commander, the theosophist, the social
reformer, and the man of letters" He was the last non-Christian
ruler of the Roman Empire, and it was his desire to bring the Empire back to
its ancient Roman values in order to save it from dissolution.
He purged the top-heavy state bureaucracy
and attempted to revive traditional Roman religious practices at the cost of
Christianity. His rejection of Christianity in favor of Neoplatonic paganism
caused him to be called Julian the Apostate, or "a person who
has abandoned the religion and principles" of the (Christian)
church. He was the last emperor of the Constantinian dynasty.
Unlike Constantine, Julian was moderate
and tolerant, “the only hardship,” according to Gibbon, “which he inflicted on
the Christians, was to deprive them of the power of tormenting their fellow
subjects, whom they stigmatized with the odious titles of idolaters and
heretics” (General Observations 2007).
Julian was a true believer in the pagan
gods and not a philosophic skeptic concerning all religions. In Gibbon’s
view, he should have emulated those who had allowed philosophy to purify “their
minds from the prejudices of the popular superstitions” and who therefore rejected
Christianity.
Julian was speaking of Seneca, the elder,
and younger Pliny, Tacitus, Plutarch, Galen, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius,
whose death in 207 A.D. marked the end of Rome’s golden
period.
As point of reference, Gibbon is
considered to be a son of the European Enlightenment and this
is reflected in his famous verdict on the history of the Middle Ages:
"I have described the triumph of
barbarism and religion."
However, politically, he aligned himself
with the conservative Edmund Burke's rejection of the democratic movements of
the time as well as with Burke's dismissal of the "rights of man."
Gibbon's work has been praised for its
style, his piquant epigrams and its effective irony. Unusually for the 18th century, Gibbon was never content
with secondhand accounts when the primary sources were accessible. With
reference to primary sources, Gibbon is considered by many to be one of the
first modern historians.
In accuracy, thoroughness, lucidity, and a
comprehensive grasp of a vast subject, his history is considered incomparable;
an English history that may be regarded as definitive. Whatever its
shortcomings, "The Decline & Fall of the Roman
Empire" is artistically imposing as well as historically
unimpeachable as a vast panorama of a great period.
Having recounted his melancholy tale of
Rome’ decline and fall, Gibbon asked if it contained a warning to the
present. Might Europe one day suffer a similar fate? Incredibly, he
thought not:
The abuses of tyranny are restrained by
the mutual influence of fear and shame; republics have acquired order and
stability; monarchies have imbibed the principles of freedom, or, at least, of
indoctrination; and some sense of honor and justice is introduced into the most
defective constitutions by the general manner of the times. In peace, the
progress of knowledge and industry is accelerated by the emulation of so many
active rivals in war, the European forces are exercised by temperate and indecisive
contests (Gibbon, General
Observations 2007).
The crucifixion of Jesus is recorded in
the New Testament, Christians believing Him to be the Son of God as
well as the Messiah. He was arrested, tried, and sentenced by Pontius
Pilate to be scourged, and finally crucified. Collectively, this is referred to
as Jesus Passion, Suffering, Death by Crucifixion, and His Redemption as the
central tenets of Christian theology concerning the Christian doctrines of atonement
and salvation.
His crucifixion is described in the four synoptic
canonical gospels, referred to in the New Testament Epistles,
attested to by other ancient sources, and is established as a historical event
confirmed by non-Christian sources (Eddy & Boyd, 2007).
*
* *
This sets the stage for the appearance of
an irascible figure of no apparent consequence, a figure that will clash with
Jesus’ disciple, Peter, and Jesus’ brother, James, over the direction of the
new sect, throwing the modest movement off course to split from Judaism and
become a new religion, challenging the Roman Empire. This nondescript man
was Saul from Tarsus (Ruden 2010).
Saul, a Hellenistic Pharisee and tentmaker
who some say witnessed the stoning to death of St. Stephen, as he is alleged to
have held the garments of the stoners, his associates, whose job was to search
out and persecute members of the Jesus cult. Witnessing this stoning,
which author Sarah Ruden shows is a slow miserable death, proved shattering to
this sensitive and conflicting young man (Ruden 2010).
Later, on his way to Damascus, Saul was
confronted by the full horror of his human limitations. “Saul, Saul, why
do you persecute me?” the voice asked (Acts 9:4).
A man who lived in humanity, he came to
realize the hurt done to the Jesus followers, like that done to Jesus in human
form, which now registered as an assault on God. He was instantly
converted and changed his name from Saul to Paul, and became “the greatest
theological genius of all time,” and arguably the lone architect of the new
religion, Christianity, as Christian doctrine came not from Jesus, nor from any
of Jesus’ “twelve apostles,” but from the pen of Paul of Tarsus (Ruden 2010).
*
* *
The Roman Empire fell into this breach, an
empire that rose modestly gaining momentum over time into the colossus that it
became.
Some historians regard the Roman
Empire as beginning with the accession of Augustus as the first
emperor in 27 B.C. Others recognized that although
Rome began as a republic, the period from the legendary founding of the city of
Rome in 753 B.C. through the fall of what became
known as the Western Empire in A.D. 476
represents a continuous history of a culture we call the Roman Empire.
That said, starting in 19 B.C., Augustus ushered in a conservative revolution that
focused on moral renewal of the Roman state in part by bringing back customs
from the past. He enacted reforms concerning religion and social and
sexual behavior that directly affected personal freedom as well as what it
meant to be a citizen under the empire.
Augustus interpreted the civil war prior
to his reign as immoral in which Romans had neglected the gods in deference to
their personal luxury and pleasure. This aside, his achievements rested
with his popularity with the army, securing the borders, improving empire
administration, and developing a well-planned method of succession.
The defeat of Mark Antony at the “Battle
of Actium” (31 B.C.) secured his power. Augustus then
cut the size of the army, but retained the goodwill of his disbanded troops by
granting them full citizenship, the ability to vote, immunity from tribute,
opportunities to relocate throughout the empire, and retirement bonuses for 20
years of service.
After his death in 14 A.D., his stepson Tiberius was easily accepted as emperor being
keen to rule much as his father had, continuing the Augustus tradition, while
encouraging Romans to move eastward quietly expanding the Roman influence.
This swelled the Roman presence in Judea
during the reign of Tiberius (14-37 A.D.), Caligula (37-41 A.D.), Claudius (41-54 A.D.), and Nero (54-68 A.D.), a period historians claim of emperor eccentric
steadiness. Although each had strengths, none would recreate the golden
age of the first emperor’s reign. Instead, they are remembered for their
faults and oddities, from madness to stuttering, from tyranny to Nero’s suicide.
“Pax Romana” (27 B.C. to A.D. 180)
represented two centuries of peace that commenced with the reign of Augustus
(27 B.C.) and the death 207 years later (180 A.D.) of Marcus Aurelius. It was a period of
internal order and indisputable dominance abroad, similar to the “American
Century.” Historian Anthony Everitt, however, finds that comparison
between Rome and the United States ludicrous if not dangerous (Everitt 2012).
Rome had its “New Age,” as well, ushered
in by Augustus in 19 B.C. in
what proved to be a conservative revolution. He focused on the moral
renewal of the Roman state in part by bringing back customs from the
past. He also enacted reforms concerning religion and social and sexual
behavior that directly affected personal freedom as well as the definition of
what constituted a Roman citizen.
At the same time, there were mounting
delusions of grandeur. This included a sense of invincibility and
destiny, as well as a preoccupation with empire showing little alarm at
increasing dysfunction of Rome at home.
Rome failed to recognize emerging
socioeconomic problems such as immigration as diverse ethnic groups poured into
Rome, resisting assimilation into the Roman culture, instead becoming wards of
the state contributing little to the majesty of Rome’s established greatness.
In retrospect, the seeds of the decline
were planted in the birth of the Christian Empire (National
Geographic 2014). By the fourth century A.D., Christians were integrated into all facets of Roman
society, including the military, judicial, and educational establishments,
while comprising only 8 percent of the population.
Troubled by this mounting influence, in
303 A.D., Emperor Diocletian ordered that all
Christians renounce their beliefs and sacrifice to Roman gods, starting the
final Roman persecution of the church.
A decade later, following the “Edict of Milan,” the practice of Christianity was as accepted as that of any other religion. Rome, however, would not become a fully Christian empire until after the fall of the Second Tetrarchy (i.e., four rulers), and Constantine’s reign (National Geographic 2014).
*
* *
Emperor Constantine, after a battle field
conversion, made Christianity the state religion and prohibited the worshiping
of all Roman gods in 313 A.D.
A series of forces were at work, some
familiar, some new, which combined to make Rome’s downfall almost inevitable.
Without new territory, the empire lost
revenue, burdening an economy that was already straining under the enormous
cost of maintaining a vast army, a welfare system at home, saddled with
bureaucratic lethargy, and a series of emperors without the force of
personality to lead, who instead were likely to be entrenched within their
imperial palaces, often located outside of Rome, along with corruption in the
Senate, leaving the government marginalized in the day-to-day conduct of business.
The tension between the East and West
segments of the Roman Empire had become increasingly destructive as emperors no
longer cooperated and instead undermined each other.
Barbarian tribes from the north administered the coup de grace as some traditional tribal nemeses migrated into the empire when the Huns invaded Europe, while Visigoths and Germanic tribes took advantage of the power vacuums and attacked Rome itself.
Rome’s empire had grown so large that its
borders became harder to defend. Meanwhile, in the east, a new empire,
the Sassanids, overran Rome’s traditional enemy the Parthians. Tribes such as
the Goths from the Baltic regions and Alamanni from the upper Rhine invaded
from the north. Rebels within and without the empire annexed territory
and broke away from Rome (National Geographic 2014). The
western empire started to unravel with the death of Constantine in 337 A.D. with Rome giving way completely to Byzantium in the east
in 476 A.D., which marked the end of the Roman
Empire.
*
* *
Edward Gibbon devoted more than a decade
to his magisterial History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-1789),
which opens with this famous sentence:
In the second century of the Christian
era, the empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the
most civilized portion of mankind.
The empire was at its peak, thanks to the
spirit of moderation with which Augustus had imbued it. Gibbon praised
Augustus’ moderation who was content to rest with the republic’s conquests,
having no inclination to subdue the entire world. Gibbon continues:
Inclined to peace by his temper and
situation, it was easy for him to discover, that Rome, in her present exalted
situation, had much less to hope than to fear from the chance of arms (Womersley 1994).
Gibbon asked the questions:
What caused the empire to fall from those heights? The barbarian invasions? The rise of Christianity to the status of a state religion?
Yes, he concludes, but that was only the most important aspect of a more encompassing cause. He put his views in a section titled, “General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West”:
The decline of Rome was the natural and
inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. (Gibbon 2007)
Too much ambition, too much prosperity,
too much power in the hands of the Praetorian guards, too many provincials
bearing the name of “Roman,” who knew nothing of the Roman spirit. These
were the causes, he concludes, of the destruction.
Chapter 15 and 16 of Gibbon’s work are
immoderate, as the historian makes no attempt to express himself in politically
correct terms. The early Christians, he assessed, were simple and mild
folks, but from the first they preached and practiced an intolerant
exclusivity.
Whereas the pagans stood ready to add
another god to the pantheon, the followers of Christ insisted that theirs was
the true and only God.
Gibbon, a nonbeliever, viewed religion of any kind the sanctuary for the ignorant and superstitious masses only. At the same time, he recognized the social usefulness of religion, but only when it was polytheistic, tolerant, moderate in its enthusiasm and modest in its claims.
Thanks to Paul, the Apostle,
Christianity was none of these things. Christians were immoderately
passive. They discouraged active virtues and buried the last remnants of
the military spirit in the cloister. Gibbon held a special grievance for
the sacred indolence of the monks who he claimed embraced a servile and
effeminate age (Womersley 1994).
Yet, he viewed Christians as profligately pugnacious,
even within their own camp, zealotry could not be held in check. Between
the bishops in Rome and the bishops in the provinces, there was a continuing
cold war.
The bishops, like almost all Christians,
Gibbon observes, were fanatics who for a variety of reasons, including zeal,
the promise of another world, miraculous claims, rigid virtue, or the church
organization itself, were able to transform themselves from a persecuted
minority into an intolerant majority.
Christians had been persecuted, Gibbon
admits, but the pagan treatment was less intolerable than many believed.
He concedes that Nero may have carried things too far. But he reminds the
reader that once Christians came to power they were “no less diligently
employed in displaying cruelty, than their pagan adversaries.” (Womersley 1994)
Nero’s antagonism to Christian doctrine
spilled over into the Jewish faith, leading to charges of anti-Semitism:
From the reign of Nero to that of
Antoninus Pius, the Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of
Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and
insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which
they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they
dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives; and we are
tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of
legions against a race of fanatics, whose dire and credulous superstition
seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman government,
but also of humankind. (Womersley 1994)
Emperor Julian attempted in vain to
restore polytheistic paganism from the monotheism of Christianity and Judaism.
Julian was also known as Julian the Philosopher, and was emperor
from 361-363 A.D. with strong Hellenistic leanings.
A member of the Constantinian dynasty,
Julian became Caesar over the western provinces by order of Constantius II in
355 and in this role campaigned successfully against the Alamanni and Franks.
Most notable was his crushing victory over the Alamanni in 357 at the Battle of
Argentoratum despite being outnumbered.
In 360 in Lutetia (Paris), he was
acclaimed Augustus by his soldiers, sparking a civil war between Julian and
Constantius. Before the two could face each other in battle, however,
Constantius died, after naming Julian as his rightful successor.
In 363, Julian embarked on an ambitious campaign against the Sassanid Empire in the east. Though initially successful, Julian was mortally wounded in battle and died shortly thereafter.
Julian was a man of unusually complex
character: he was "the military commander, the theosophist, the social
reformer, and the man of letters" He was the last non-Christian
ruler of the Roman Empire, and it was his desire to bring the Empire back to
its ancient Roman values in order to save it from dissolution.
He purged the top-heavy state bureaucracy
and attempted to revive traditional Roman religious practices at the cost of
Christianity. His rejection of Christianity in favor of Neoplatonic paganism
caused him to be called Julian the Apostate, or "a person who
has abandoned the religion and principles" of the (Christian)
church. He was the last emperor of the Constantinian dynasty.
Unlike Constantine, Julian was moderate
and tolerant, “the only hardship,” according to Gibbon, “which he inflicted on
the Christians, was to deprive them of the power of tormenting their fellow
subjects, whom they stigmatized with the odious titles of idolaters and
heretics” (General Observations 2007).
Julian was a true believer in the pagan
gods and not a philosophic skeptic concerning all religions. In Gibbon’s
view, he should have emulated those who had allowed philosophy to purify “their
minds from the prejudices of the popular superstitions” and who therefore
rejected Christianity. He was speaking of Seneca, the elder, and younger
Pliny, Tacitus, Plutarch, Galen, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, whose death in
207 A.D. marked the end of Rome’s golden
period.
As point of reference, Gibbon is
considered to be a son of the European Enlightenment and this
is reflected in his famous verdict on the history of the Middle Ages:
"I have described the triumph of barbarism and religion."
However, politically, he aligned himself with the conservative Edmund Burke's rejection of the democratic movements of the time as well as with Burke's dismissal of the "rights of man."
Gibbon's work has been praised for its
style, his piquant epigrams and its effective irony. Unusually for the 18th century,
Gibbon was never content with secondhand accounts when the primary sources were
accessible. With reference to primary sources, Gibbon is considered by
many to be one of the first modern historians.
In accuracy, thoroughness, lucidity, and a
comprehensive grasp of a vast subject, his history is considered incomparable in
English history that may be regarded as definitive. Whatever its
shortcomings, "The Decline & Fall of the Roman
Empire" is artistically imposing as well as historically
unimpeachable as a vast panorama of a great period.
Having recounted his melancholy tale of
Rome’ decline and fall, Gibbon asked if it contained a warning to the
present. Might Europe one day suffer a similar fate? Incredibly, he
thought not:
The abuses of tyranny are restrained by
the mutual influence of fear and shame; republics have acquired order and stability;
monarchies have imbibed the principles of freedom, or, at least, of
indoctrination; and some sense of honor and justice is introduced into the most
defective constitutions by the general manner of the times. In peace, the
progress of knowledge and industry is accelerated by the emulation of so many
active rivals in war, the European forces are exercised by temperate and
indecisive contests (Gibbon, General
Observations 2007).
NOTE
This is in part an excerpt from an unpublished manuscript, “In
Search of the Real Parents of My Soul.”
No comments:
Post a Comment