The 2nd chapter starts out "It is not alone by the rapidity, or extent of the conquest, that we should estimate the greatness of Rome." From this we can see that Gibbon admires conquest of others and considers that this contributes to the greatness of the conqueror. I wonder what he would have thought of the conquests made by Hitler, which were both very rapid - blitzkrieg - and extensive.
Generally we don't want to judge the past by today's standards. However, I am not always impressed by today's standards. It is interesting however, that Hitler gloried in the past, and wanted to re-establish the old Roman empire as the Third Reich. Had he succeeded, we would have been extolling Hitler the Swift along with Alexander the Great.
Gibbons notes that the Roman empire was founded on freedom of worship. "The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the Roman people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful." Basically a very pragmatic approach!
It is interesting that he depicts the Roman world as a tolerant one. In the preface to Foxe's Book of Martyrs, it is stated that "In all ages, we find that a disposition to persecute for opinion's sake, has been manifested by wicked men........ It is only when the heart has been renewed and sactified by divine grace, that men have rightly understood and practised the true principles of toleration." This is a common opinion and a very interesting one in light of Gibbon's observations. It is also interesting to note that during the period of the Reformation, whether it was Protestants persecuting Catholics, Catholics persecuting Protestants, or Protestants and Catholics teaming up to persecute Anabaptists, it was always Christians killing Christians. I don't recall any Jews or 'pagans' persecuting Christians! Anyone knowing anything to the contrary, please let me know. Please also note that the highly regarded John Calvin was responsible for the "martyrdom" of Michael Servetus.
A very interesting observation that Gibbon makes is that one of the strong points of the Roman Empire was that they invited citizens of other city states the same privileges and status as those of Rome. This encouraged them to be assimilated into the Roman family. This was not the case with the Greek city states, such as Athens and Sparta, which had a 'narrow' policy of preserving, without any foreign mixture, the pure blood of the ancient citizens. Perhaps a first attempt at a 'melting-pot' policy? Or was it a multicultural policy as Canada has? Considering the fact that they became Roman citizens, I would lean towards a melting pot. This is supported by the fact that many of the emperors did not come from Rome, but from the provinces.
Gibbon points out that Latin was the administrative language, even though Greek was still widely spoken in the east. It is a well-known fact that Greek slaves were brought to Rome as teachers. It is interesting that the common Greek was still spoken in the middle east, although it was the Romans who were in control of the empire. There was a measure of tolerance towards different cultures, languages, traditions and forms of worship. Although Aramaic was spoken in Israel, and was the language spoken by the Jews in the time of Jesus and the apostles, all of the new testament books were written in Greek, with the exception of Matthew, which was probably first written in Aramaic, and subsequently translated to the Greek. The only surviving manuscripts of Matthew's gospel are in Greek. The Old Testament was also translated into the Greek, and forms the basis of much of our understanding of the original Hebrew Old Testament.
In this chapter Gibbon actually says that 'the nations of the empire insensibly melted away into the Roman name and people.' This supports the melting pot theory. An interesting parallel to the present day U.S.A. which was also founded on religious freedom and has a melting pot policy. In subsequent years, this has led to a high level of intolerance. Another interesting parallel.... the Romans fully tolerated all forms of worship. It was the 'non-allegiance' to the Roman empire and emperor that they did not tolerate. Similarily, the U.S.A. still tolerates different thoughts, but does not tolerate 'non-allegiance' to the flag, which represents their 'empire'.
Gibbon describes the mistreatment of slaves within the Roman Empire as a 'justified necessity'. In many respects, he defends this part of the Roman society, while it is known that he was a staunch opponent of the enslavement of free men from Africa in his own day. Interesting parallel again is the role of slaves in building up the wealth and prestige of both the Roman Empire and the U.S.A.
The nature of the peace that Gibbon exalts in the Roman Empire has nothing to do with living in a peaceful relationship with neighbouring countries. It has to do with the fact that there was a certain amount of freedom and peace within the borders of the empire. He describes the 'obedience of the Roman world as uniform, voluntary and permanent', in contrast to the despotic rulers in the East. Basically the legions were considered a peace keeping force serving the interests of the citizens, much as our police force tends to be.
Gibbon expends considerable effort in describing the monuments and structures erected by private Romans as a legacy to their name, as well as the intricate web of roads and aquaducts.
A very interesting observation that Gibbon makes is that one of the strong points of the Roman Empire was that they invited citizens of other city states the same privileges and status as those of Rome. This encouraged them to be assimilated into the Roman family. This was not the case with the Greek city states, such as Athens and Sparta, which had a 'narrow' policy of preserving, without any foreign mixture, the pure blood of the ancient citizens. Perhaps a first attempt at a 'melting-pot' policy? Or was it a multicultural policy as Canada has? Considering the fact that they became Roman citizens, I would lean towards a melting pot. This is supported by the fact that many of the emperors did not come from Rome, but from the provinces.
Gibbon points out that Latin was the administrative language, even though Greek was still widely spoken in the east. It is a well-known fact that Greek slaves were brought to Rome as teachers. It is interesting that the common Greek was still spoken in the middle east, although it was the Romans who were in control of the empire. There was a measure of tolerance towards different cultures, languages, traditions and forms of worship. Although Aramaic was spoken in Israel, and was the language spoken by the Jews in the time of Jesus and the apostles, all of the new testament books were written in Greek, with the exception of Matthew, which was probably first written in Aramaic, and subsequently translated to the Greek. The only surviving manuscripts of Matthew's gospel are in Greek. The Old Testament was also translated into the Greek, and forms the basis of much of our understanding of the original Hebrew Old Testament.
In this chapter Gibbon actually says that 'the nations of the empire insensibly melted away into the Roman name and people.' This supports the melting pot theory. An interesting parallel to the present day U.S.A. which was also founded on religious freedom and has a melting pot policy. In subsequent years, this has led to a high level of intolerance. Another interesting parallel.... the Romans fully tolerated all forms of worship. It was the 'non-allegiance' to the Roman empire and emperor that they did not tolerate. Similarily, the U.S.A. still tolerates different thoughts, but does not tolerate 'non-allegiance' to the flag, which represents their 'empire'.
Gibbon describes the mistreatment of slaves within the Roman Empire as a 'justified necessity'. In many respects, he defends this part of the Roman society, while it is known that he was a staunch opponent of the enslavement of free men from Africa in his own day. Interesting parallel again is the role of slaves in building up the wealth and prestige of both the Roman Empire and the U.S.A.
The nature of the peace that Gibbon exalts in the Roman Empire has nothing to do with living in a peaceful relationship with neighbouring countries. It has to do with the fact that there was a certain amount of freedom and peace within the borders of the empire. He describes the 'obedience of the Roman world as uniform, voluntary and permanent', in contrast to the despotic rulers in the East. Basically the legions were considered a peace keeping force serving the interests of the citizens, much as our police force tends to be.
Gibbon expends considerable effort in describing the monuments and structures erected by private Romans as a legacy to their name, as well as the intricate web of roads and aquaducts.
"It is not alone by the rapidity, or extent of the conquest, that we should estimate the greatness of Rome." I see your point but I think he was really saying it's not only by the rapidity and extent... BUT ALSO BY... and then he describes all the other reasons why the Roman Empire was "great". Things like: "united by laws, and adorned by arts." And "the general principle of government was wise, simple, and beneficient." Etc.
ReplyDeleteYou are right. The whole sense of the first chapter was the magnification of the military might of Rome. The second chapter extols the cultural aspects of Rome. This is the opening line of the transition paragraph. Great observation.
ReplyDelete