Parmele and "the fall of Rome" is not a subject line I would use. I can hardly see Rome fallen. The verb is being used 'figuratively', and wrongly figuratively at that! Anyway, Parmele is a good, entertaining, historian. In her preface to "A short history of Rome and Italy" [sic -- although the thing is actually TWO books, with chapters starting as from 'first' when it comes to Italy], she spends some time, 'avant la lettre', in being Griceian. Notably Grice's constraint: Be as informative as is required Do not be MORE informative than is required. (Grice was only interested in these things as they triggered 'implicatures'). He sometimes referred to the constraint as one of "STRENGTH", or, obviously, informativeness. To say that Caesar crossed a river is one thing, to say that he crossed the Rubicon is another, STRONGER, thing, to say. Parmele, in writing a 'short' history of Rome and Italy is concerned as to how much to put and how much to leave out. She thinks this concerns historians generally. I think she makes the right choices, on the whole, as the narrative is nice. L. Helm is right that Parmele likes words. She mentions that "Italia", qua word, is "Pelasgic", or Pelasgian. (I am amused by the quotation, "At that time, Italy was only a geographical expression" -- not by her. What Parmele does say is, words to the effect: "We'll never know why this Pelasgian name was extended from PART of the peninsula to the whole." And I think this may be a good example of her view on historical explanation. Let me see if I find the original passage. She writes: "From these facts scholars read, not that the Pelasgians and Latins were descended from the Greeks, but, as is more probable, were offshoots of the same parent stem (Aryan) at nearly the same point, and also that at some remote period there was a conquest of the Pelasgians by the more powerful native Oscans, who then became the dominant race." And here the sort of Popperian statement: "How and why the Pelasgian name "Italia" should have gradually extended from the toe of the peninsula until it embraced the whole, may never be known." But I think that we do REASONABLY know. I think Parmele is using 'know' in what we (but perhaps not I) would call a "Popperian" 'sense', while we use 'know' more fluently, to apply to these cases. For we have a feasible explanation: People felt the need to call their country by SOME name. This happens EVERYWHERE: "Engla-land" was decided (by King Alfred? No -- he preferred Angle Kin) at SOME point to be the name of a country. Similarly for "Scotland" and "The United States of Americo Vespucci" -- later abbreviated to "America". This applies to STATES too, "Virginia", from the Virgin Queen, and Georgia from George. But Parmele wants to know 'how and why'. The why seems easy enough. People need to live in country with names. And the choice is sometimes arbitrary. "How"? Well, by using it, and the name getting widespread. It's a notable fact that Italians, back then, would NOT use "Italia" since it was, indeed, "too Pelasgian" to their Roman taste. The phrasing by Parmele suggests that it is not the case that ONE day we WILL know why and how ITALIA was widespread like that to name a whole country. But according to other probabilistic theories of historical explanations, we can ALWAYS explain, if not complain. This below, since we were also discussing it, is Parmele's view of the so-called decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Unsurprisingly, the weight of her argument is the role of the 'Barbarians', and she is pretty specific about them. I append the passage below as an example of her historical explanatory narrative. Cheers, Speranza ---- "A time of unprecedented overturnings was at hand," Parmele writes. "The Huns had appeared in Europe (375 A.D.), and, like wolves, were driving before them even the Goths, who poured down upon the Italian frontiers." Must say I like the simile, "A hun is like a wolf." Or is it in plural that the simile stands: "Huns are like wolves". "It became evident," Parmele goes on, "that the western division of the empire, including Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, and Britain, could no longer be afforded protection by Constantinople. In 395 a.d. the dismemberment took place. There was an Eastern Empire and a Western Empire. The Eastern or Byzantine Empire, with comparative internal and external tranquillity, was going to stand in shining petrifaction for nearly a thousand years. But the Western Empire was crumbling — decay within and foes without." Must say I like that use of 'without'. The Roman Empire was with foes without." As opposed to "it was without foes," which it wasn't. Parmele continues: "The Moors were threatening Africa. The Picts and Scots called for a strong hand in Britain, and most terrible of all, the Visigoths under Alaric were boldly invading northern Italy; besieging Milan, attacking Florence, then plundering, destroying, burning, as they made their way to the Eternal City. Never but once — 600 years before — had foreign feet profaned the streets of Rome. Slaves within the city opened a gate to their kinsmen encamped without; and at midnight the awful moment arrived when, with a wild shout, the Goths were in Rome." I guess Ruskin was delighted. His main thesis is that it's all Gothic, essentially (vide his "The stones of Venice"). "The horrors," Parmele goes on, "of the sacking and the burning need not be dwelt upon." "The scattering of patrician families consequent upon this pillage and devastation, forever dispersed the traditional elements which made Rome so sacred. All of Italy was subject to the Visigoths, who were also in Gaul and in Spain." "The Angles and the Saxons were in Britain, and the Vandals in Africa." Floridly, Parmele speaks of a deluge: "Rome, herself almost submerged, saw the dark waters of this northern deluge flowing over the entire empire in the West." "The death of Alaric in 410, and the advent of Ataulf, his brother and successor, as head of the Visigoths, temporarily stayed the course of events. Ataulf loved and had carried away Placidia, sister of the recent Emperor Honorius. He was an admirer of Roman civilization, and approved of preserving it as a foundation for a Gothic structure, rather than destroying it. So he restored the empire in name, and withdrew with his Roman bride, Placidia, to Spain, there to found a Visigoth Empire. So for some decades longer emperors bearing the name, but with no actual power, liit like ghosts across the page of history, the barbarians deciding who should and who should not wear the imperial purple. Rome was not defiled by the feet of Attila and his Huns, although they fiercely ravaged Italy. But the Vandals visited it with fire and with sword and ins alt. Genseric, following the lines of the old Carthaginian Empire, was creating a huge Vandal Empire, and was master of the Mediterranean — that prize for which ancient nations had once so fiercely struggled. He, with his Vandals and his Moors, visited Rome with destruction and degrading insult (455 a.b.), and after fourteen devastating days, they carried all the portable treasure to Carthage, leaving only what was rooted to the ground. This final humiliation extinguished the flickering spark of life in the expiring empire, and in 495 a.d. the Roman Senate performed its last act." "It transferred the supreme authority to Odoacer, chief of a German tribe, and a Goth was King of Rome and Sovereign of Italy." ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html