[lit-ideas] Re: Rome and the Barbarians
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 08:07:02 -0700
Speranza writes, "Yes -- and I think it is a good criterion to keep ROME as
centre of things
-- I mean, to emphasise the ROMAN bit rather than the EMPIRE bit in the
complex phrase, ROMAN EMPIRE."
On the other hand, Peter Heather (Fall of Roman Empire, p. 25) writes,
". . . the point is that, by the fourth century, emperors hardly visited
Rome at all. While the city remained the Empire's symbolic capital, and
still received a disproportionate percentage of imperial revenues in the
form of free food and other subsidies, it was no longer a political or
administrative centre of importance. Especially in the later third and
earlier fourth centuries, new centres of power had developed much closer to
the main imperial frontiers. Within Italy, Milan, several days' journey
north of Rome, had emerged as the main seat of active imperial government.
Elsewhere, at different times, Trier on the Moselle, Sirmium by the
confluence of the Save and the Danube, Nicomedia in Asia Minor, and Antioch
close to the Persian front, had all become important, particularly under
Diocletian's Tetrarchy when the four active emperors had had separate
geographical spheres. In the fourth century, things stabilized a little:
Milan and Trier in the west, together with Antioch and a new capital,
Constantinople, in the east, emerged as the dominant administrative and
political centres of the Empire."
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 6:52 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Rome and the Barbarians
In a message dated 4/10/2014 6:08:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx writes:
"It may be that the significance of the year 476. is not in the deposition
of Romul Augustul - who was both powerless and illegitimate himself - but
in that the title of [Roman] emperor in the West was henceforth practically
abolished. Odoacer was not in the position to claim the title, while Nepos
still formally held the title but wasn't in the position to rule. ...
"Following Odoacer's coup, the ROMAN [emphasis mine -- Speranza] Senate
sent a letter to Zeno stating that "the majesty of a sole monarch is
sufficient to pervade and protect, at the same time, both the East and the
West [parts of the Roman Empire]".[15] While Zeno told the Senate that
Nepos was their lawful sovereign, he did not press the point, and he
accepted the [Roman] imperial insignia brought to him by the senate.""
Yes -- and I think it is a good criterion to keep ROME as centre of things
-- I mean, to emphasise the ROMAN bit rather than the EMPIRE bit in the
complex phrase, ROMAN EMPIRE.
I mean, Nepos (or Nepote) may have been the rightful Western Roman emperor
but was made to flee from Italy (by Romolo Augustolo's father), and never
made it to Rome -- even after the abdication of Romolo Augustolo). -- I
mention this because according to Bury, it is the however the death of
Nepos in Dalmacia (by assassination, a few later years) which marks the
strict end of the Western Roman Empire. A few other sensible historians --
cited in the Storiografia entry -- refuse to distinguish between the
Eastern and the Western Roman Empire (which perhaps is however a good thing
-- and which gives much later dates for the eventual 'demise', and so on.
But Rome should be at the centre. I read in the history of Rome written by
C. Hibbert:
"[Visitors] to Rome in these years
[i.e. before the 'reconquest' by the Eastern part under Giustinano]
discovered a city surprisingly little changed by the passing [alleged]
troubled years.
"In 467 [a visitor] described the
jostling, affable crowds and the convivial atmosphere in the circus and in
the markets. The rich entertained visitors with traditional Roman
hospitality in their houses; orators practised their art in the Forum;
wrestling marches and wild beast shows were held in the Colosseum, whose
massive walls remained untouched; chariots careered in clouds of dust around
the Circus Maximus to the roars of the excited crowds ; statues were to be
found in all quarters of the city."
"Indeed Odoacer's successor as King
of Italy, Theodoric, maintained that the bronze and marble population of
Rome was almost equal to its natural one: ten years after the death of
Theorodic there were an estimated 3,785 statues standing in Rome. Anxious to
preserve these 'precious monuments left in the streets and the open spaces
of Rome to guard them carefully."
"Theordoric also gave orders for the repair of the Colosseum after it had
been damaged by an earthquake in 508 and for the restoration of the IMPERIAL
PALACES on the Palatine."
-- which is just the right gesture to expect from the Barbarian -- :). (I
mean, compare them to the destruction brought by the Barberinis, according
to Pasquino!)
In a previous post, D. Ritchie had written:
"I particularly liked [of Heather -- as summarised in the English Wiki entry
on the decline/fall of the Roman empire] the suggestion at the end that one
reason there are so many theories is that there is so little evidence."
I wonder what Popper would say about this -- and one may be reminded of how
Heather expresses this. One point of theoretical insight is that is not
necessarily _guided_ by evidence. That would rather fit an 'inductivist'
model, rather than a (Popperian) hypothetico-deductive , of what theory is
all about.
It should be added that, I think, the type of evidence Heather refers to is
'archaeological', where archaeology has been traditionally considered an
'auxiliary' technique to history -- and 'classical' studies. They help
theoreticians, rather than guide them?
I'm not sure what variety Heather is referring to, since I wonder if he
revises all the bibliography in most European languages, about the myriad of
interpretations -- by philosophers, historians, and cultural critics as such
-- some with pretty convoluted prose such as Hegel or Herder.
Take from the Storiografia wikipedia entry the Marxist versus "Racialist"
views of the thing.
The Marxist view (that one finds in Engels) is expressed by ROSTOVTZEV in
his "Storia economica e sociale dell'Impero romano" (1926)).
"Secondo lo storico russo la decadenza dell'Impero era stata causata da una
"rivoluzione sociale""
The 'fall' if caused by a social revolution. Current historians still
respect Rostovtzev, who, 'in spite of his ideological concerns', shows,
before the "Annales", that there is more to history than political struggle.
He offers, after all
"una ricostruzione storica estremamente ricca, che trasfigurava una massa
smisurata di materiali archeologici, numismatici e antiquari in un discorso
di "storia totale" - ben prima che la formula fortunatissima degli Annales
si affermasse - circolando organicamente dall'analisi dell'economia, della
società e delle istituzioni a quella della cultura e della mentalità, e
rifiutando ottiche unidimensionali, semplificanti, estrinseche".
I.e. it's not like Rostovtzev's theory is totally independent of its alleged
evidence: even archeological evidence figures large.
Then there's the strange (in that it must accept a 'reverse law')
"neo-Darwinian" (or race-based) complext of theories instead. These claim
that the 'fall' just means that there was a hybridity or reconsideration of
a new genetic element. This can be interpreted variously. There surely was
the addition of a Germanic element, which entered the scene as
'con-federates' to Rome, and show mastery in military issues. The
"Storiografia" entry in Wiki provides at least two authors following this
'race-based' view. The Wikipedia entry mentions irst an American by the name
of Franck, and how his theories were later eveloped by a Swedish scholar
named NILSSON.
The Wikipedia goes to note that FRANK's source is, apparently, SEECK. In
Storia della rovina del mondo antico" SEEK
"giudicava la fine dell'Impero come la necessaria conseguenza di un fenomeno
"naturale", ovvero «l'eliminazione dei migliori» per la sopravvivenza dei
più deboli.
i.e he judged the end of the Empire as the 'necessary consequence of a
natural phenomenon', the elimination of the best by the surival of the
weakest.
"Secondo Seeck gli individui superiori per doti fisiche e spirituali si
estinsero in una specie di selezione naturale al contrario, causata dalle
continue guerre, dai mutamenti politici e sociali, dal massiccio apporto di
schiavi orientali che alterarono con i loro costumi la cultura originaria
romana."
According to Seeck the superior individuals by physical and spiritual gifts
get exincted in a sort of 'natural section' in reverse, caused by continuing
wars, mutations in the political and social order, and the massive flow of
slaves from the East that altered, with their customs, the original Roman
culture. Seeck is NOT considering the incorporation of the Genetic element
too clearly.
Frank however extends the analysis first proposed by Seeck, and it is to be
noted, as the Storiografia entry has it, that these analyses shortly predate
the coming of fascism in Europe.
"Negli anni che preparano l'avvento delle dittature fasciste anche la
storiografia s'ispira alle tesi razziali sulle cause della caduta
dell'Impero.
FRANK estende l'analisi già iniziata da SEECK con la sua teoria della
eliminazione dei migliori, ad una vera e propria teoria razziale sulla fine
dell'Impero consistente in una deleteria "mescolanza di razze" che hanno
contaminato le razze superiori."
As one may paraphrase the above: Frank, an American, extends Seeck's
analysis of the elimination of the best to a 'true and proper racial theory
about the end of the Empire which consists of a melting pot of races, which
have contaminated the superior races.
Next comes NILSSON. NILSSON: "porta a conclusione le teorie su citate con la
sua concezione dell'"ibrido" «un tipo umano moralmente e psicologicamente
instabile, frutto di quel crogiuolo di razze che fu l'Impero romano, il
quale non avendo avuto il tempo di stabilizzarsi, ne provocò a lungo andare
la rovina."
Nilsson sort of sums up this type of race-based theory with the conception
of a 'hybrid', a human type which is morally and psychologically 'unstable',
and the produt of this melting pot that the Roman Empire represented.
And so on. So, to get back to Ritchie:
"I particularly liked the suggestion at the end that one reason there are so
many theories is that there is so little evidence."
According to Hanson, who I hope Popper read, observation is theory-laden.
So, Heather's claim may eventually seem simplistic in that you can trust the
scientist will find evidence or observation that fits his pre-theoretical
models. We may add Lakatos for good measure: there will also be a protective
belt in the 'reasearch programme' of some historians: so that some otherwise
valid evidence will NOT COUNT as such, if it just goes against the 'kernel'
or nucleus of the research programme his or her institution is defending!
For the record, the Storiografia ends with BRYAN, a sort of successor to
Heather -- who brings a few further pieces of evidence to his theoretical
model!
Cheers,
Speranza
Other related posts:
