[lit-ideas] Re: Rome and the Barbarians
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:08:22 -0700 (PDT)
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 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 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".[15] While Zeno told the Senate that
Nepos was their lawful sovereign, he did not press the point, and he accepted
the imperial insignia brought to him by the senate.[10][15]
On Thursday, April 10, 2014 11:35 PM, "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
My last post today!
Heather entitled his book, provocatively:
"The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians."
When the Italians decided it would be a good thing to have this as a
reading in Italian universities, and thus aptly translated to the vernacular,
the reference to 'Barbarian' was politically correctly ommitted:
But things are not as easy. The "Storiografia" entry in Wikipedia for this,
at
_http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caduta_dell%
27Impero_romano_d%27Occidente_(storiografia_
(http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caduta_dell'Impero_romano_d'Occidente_(storiografia)
)
cites TWO translations of Heather:
Peter Heather, La caduta dell'impero romano - una nuova storia, Garzanti,
2006-2008
Peter Heather, L'Impero e i Barbari, Garzanti, 2010.
And note that curiously (?) the title that does mention the 'barbarians'
('Barbari') does NOT mention the 'fall' in the original English!
On the other hand, P. Brown is revered!
"professore di storia nelle università di Oxford ... ha collaborato con
Arnaldo Momigliano. ... nell'Aula Magna della Sapienza, l'Università di Pisa
gli ha conferito la laurea "honoris causa" in storia."
because he refuses to use the word 'fall' (as in "Humpty Dumpty had a great
fall").
In a message dated 4/10/2014 4:37:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx writes:
Odoacre had to apply to the Eastern empire in order to obtain some form of
legitimacy, and he was granted the title of patrician. One reason he could
not apply for the title of emperor was that Julius Nepos, who had been
previously named an emperor in the West by Eastern Roman Emperor Leo I (and
was married to Leo's niece) was still alive at the time.
Excellent explanation. Allow me to trace the first occurrence of what I
thought, philosophically, was a nominal (even nominalistic) point. "An
emperor by any other name would be imperalistic".
As I say, the Italian wikipedia, wisely, divides the thing into the
history proper and the historiography. This below is from the history (not the
historiography) at:
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caduta_dell'Impero_romano_d'Occidente
Regarding Odoacre and Romolo -- the last emperor --:
"Odoacre, tuttavia, essendo stato amico del padre Oreste, decise di
risparmargli la vita, relegandolo in un castello della Campania, detto
Luculliano, e concedendogli una pensione annua di 6.000 soldi d'oro."
which I thought was nice -- coming from a 'barbarian'. I mean: the idea,
if that is what it is, that there was a Roman versus a "Barbarian" code of
purity or impurity of morals seems slightly simplistic. This was quite an
honorable act by Odoacre, especially as coming from his sacred friendship
with Romolo's father.
The Wikipedia continues:
"Tutta l'Italia era in mano a Odoacre. Quest'ultimo, comunque, decise di
non autoproclamarsi Imperatore romano, per non contrariare l'Imperatore
d'Oriente Zenone, cui mandò invece le insegne Imperiali."
-- and a historian was arguing counterfactually that HAD HE CHOSEN to call
himself 'emperor' historians would find it harder to find (if I may repeat
myself) the end of the Empire.
Here, too, the Griceian term 'sign' (as in 'insegne imperiali') may be
crucial -- it's not all about military power, but SYMBOLIC power of authority.
For what makes an emperor, but his clothes or 'signs'? One Griceian
reason for the alleged "fall" of the Roman 'empire' is that few (especially
those from lands that Romolo never saw or visited) saw the 'signs' of the
emperor in, say, Romolo (a 'diminutive' name, too -- but apparently given to
him
as he was not yet an adult when he became an emperor -- his father ORESTE
holding all the power).
Odoacre, then, as the Wikipedia notes became
"il primo Re d'Italia"
At this point there is a nice bracket:
"Secondo l'anonimo Valesiano l'incoronazione avvenne il 23 agosto 476,
dopo l'occupazione di Milano e Pavia, ma il Muratori ritiene più probabile che
la sua incoronazione sia avvenuta quando depose Romolo Augusto e conquistò
Roma)."
This is usually given by Italian historians as a proof that there was no
'fall' because there was not ONE specific _date_! There were _two_!
Odoacre, however,
"non portò mai la porpora né altre insegne reali, né coniò mai monete in
onor suo. Questo perché si era dichiarato formalmente subordinato
all'Imperatore d'Oriente, per cui governava l'Italia in qualità di "patrizio"".
So he was a patrician, which I think is a lovely title -- "Patrizio
d'Italia" as it were.
In fact, I think the English wikipedia on this has a 'time-line' sort of
moving image, which does show that indeed, if only in name, the very LAST
bit of the Roman Empire was not in Italy or Rome, but precisely where Giulio
Nepote, as mentioned by Omar K., was nominal 'emperor'. Paradoxic that. It
would be as if the end of the British empire were somewhat located in ...
say ... The Falklands? :)
The Italian wikipedia goes on:
"La Dalmazia rimase, invece, in mano a Giulio Nepote, che era ancora
formalmente imperatore romano d'Occidente" -- where 'formalmente' has possibly
no formal value!
"Tuttavia Nepote non ritornò mai dalla Dalmazia."
I.e. Nepote never made it back to Rome, which I think was his plan? (But
cfr. Adriano, a good Roman emperor who preferred to live elsewhere! --
rather than Rome).
And as to 'signs' or coins, "Anche se Odoacre fece coniare monete col suo
nome"
-- the name of Nepote. What a generous barbarian soul his was, Odoacre's.
However, stuff happens, and
"il 9 maggio del 480 Nepote venne infatti ucciso presso Salona dai conti
Viatore e Ovida."
The strict last emperor gets killed.
--- Italian historians can be pedantic. Surely the alleged decline of the
British Empire (cfr. the title of empress) does not require such a specific
date -- or manner of 'falling'.
The Wikipedia concludes:
"Dopo la morte di Nepote, Zenone rivendicò la Dalmazia per l'Oriente ma
venne anticipato da Odoacre, che col pretesto di vendicare Nepote mosse guerra
a Ovida per poi conquistare la regione. John Bagnell Bury considera questa
la fine reale dell'Impero d'Occidente."
-- which is a good thing -- for Bury to be so sure about things I mean.
One good (other) thing or cause to consider is the religious one. For some
historians, the end of the Roman empire came about when Christianity was
accepted as a religion. I think Voltaire made the most fun of this. He said
that, as years passed, there were more monks than soldiers and how can you
defend an Empire thus? The issue is important in that Papacy may have a
thing or two to do with this. Didn't St. Augustine said that there were two
emperors and two cities: the city of the earth, reigned by the Roman emperor,
and the city of god (also title of his masterpiece), reigned of course, and
not necessarily otiosely, by God. (But trust Odoacre to be having in his
mind the 'creposcolo degli dei' already!).
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
