Day 95 – Ken here (T)
(DEF v.2, ch.17, pp.620-630)

I’m starting late in writing this, and it’s always harder writing on Monday (for Tuesday morning) after a break of a couple of days – so I’m kind of grouchy, and probably missing a lot of interesting tidbits (well, interesting to me) that will be lost in the FLOOD of 2000 pages of history to follow – ah well….

On with Gibbon and his report card on the empire during the reign of Constantine –

Gibbon continues with an overview of the new Late Roman military, and the new Late Roman (Diocletian/Constantine) government structure.

The Story

 
Military Changes – Expansion and Dilution

Gibbon Thesis: late Roman practice of differentiating Palatine (internal) from Limitanei (Borderers (Gibbon’s term)) legions destroyed the military effectiveness of the empire – in essence, the internal Palatine were paid 1-1/2 times what the Borderers were paid – increasingly Palatine used for putting down civil war, fast-moving core set of army sent to trouble spots – the Borderers were fastened by law permanently on the frontier

Old Legion strength also reduced greatly – from historical (old Roman) standard of 6000 men, down to 1,500 men – if that – so that the legions on paper looked impressive, but were much smaller – also included half-trained Borderers

Despite changes in military structure – total number of soldiers greatly increased (Gibbon’s estimate: 645,000) – based on the 583 garrisons or permanent stations he finds in the Notitia Dignitatum – an astounding number, and an incredible number of mouths to feed

Because the military was becoming a sort of farmer-serf-soldier – recruiting was getting more and more difficult, often young men would cut of the fingers of their right hand to avoid military service (compulsory 20 years – but probably life)

Great increase of barbarians as complete legions of the military – in fact, the best generals, soldiers, were acknowledged to be barbarian

Common Theme of 4th century: Increasing Barbarization of farmers, territories, military – the acceptance of undigested whole populations allowed to live within Roman state without assimilating, and allowed to keep own local government (foederates) bound by treaty, NOT CITIZENSHIP. The military was following suit by introducing foreign bands working as units in the legions

 

Government Changes – Great Expansion of Hierarchy

Office: Chamberlain – always a eunuch – in charge of bed and table – Gibbon hates eunuchs in general, and the new office in particular

Office: Quaestor – originally a kind of assistant accountant, then a comptroller, they eventually lost all Treasury duties, and became the head of the Senate , then became a kind of Imperial Ambassador to the Senate (speaking in the emperor’s voice) – not unlike the Vice-President attending Congress – but with much more real political power

Office: Public Treasurer – Headed the government utilities. Utility at this point meaning the basic industries that had failed by now and had to be taken over as a government monopoly/factory to provide imperial institutions (emperor’s household, military) with basic items – examples: linen, wool manufactures. Also in charge of public monopolies – ex. mints, mines etc)

Office: Private Treasurer – private wealth accumulated by all past emperors, and NOT given over to the state, but set aside for the personal use of whatever emperor was currently reigning. Wealth from confiscations, forfeitures, treason trials, suppression of pagan temples, etc, – included slaves, and the entire province of Cappadocia (central Turkey)

Office: Counts of the Domestics – the chosen infantry and cavalry of the emperor’s personal guard. Mostly Armenian (per Gibbon) – 3,500 men. The best were in the elite Protectors – a new kind of Praetorian Guard

The Gaul Ducar in the battle of Lake Trasimeno - Joseph-Noel Sylvestre (1882) - this is an example of incipient chauvinism as France in the late 1800's sought national heroes in their barbarian past (Ducar is presumably a part of the cavalry that accompanied Hannibal as he battled Rome during the 2nd Punic War 217 BCE)

A Reverse French Foreign Legion in Late Rome
Instead of the French allowing foreigners to enlist in their national army, this is a case of the Romans allowing the French foreigners to enlist in their legions.

This per Gibbon:

“The camps and the palace of the son of Constantine were governed by the powerful faction of the Franks, who preserved the strictest connection with each other and with their country, and who resented every personal affront as a national indignity. When the tyrant Caligula was suspected of an intention to invest a very extraordinary candidate with the consular robes, the sacrilegious profanation would have scarcely excited less astonishment if, instead of a horse, the noblest chieftain of Germany or Britain had been the object of his choice. The revolution of three centuries had produced so remarkable a change in the prejudices of the people, that, with the public approbation, Constantine showed his successors the example of bestowing the honours of the consulship on the barbarians who, by their merit and services, had deserved to be ranked among the first of the Romans.” (DEF, v.2, ch.17, p.624).

“who resented every personal affront as a national indignity” – ah, the French never change n’cest pas?

Of course, this is only one example of the increasing barbarization of the imperial military – not that barbarians were bad for the military – it’s just distressing that Roman citizens were less and less likely to enlist/be forced to enlist to defend their own civilization. And when a massive civilization ceases to believe in itself and defend it’s right to exist (especially in the volatile, hostile world of Late Antiquity), can Great Change be far behind?

French Foreign Legion - a part of the military machinery of the state of France, but not French citizens - the reverse of the Franks who served in the Roman Empire's legions

Day 94 – Ken here (M)
(DEF v.2, ch.17, pp.610-620)

Its a cloudy, rainy day, and looks to be a dark and stormy night. But it’s dry and warm inside, and the perfect weather for forcing yourself to get on with Gibbon’s overly-thorough (although inadvertently interesting) introduction to Constantine.

We will spend another 100 pages on Constantine and his sons, spend a l – o – n – g 140 pages on Christianity and Constantine, and Christianity and Heresy (where, Gibbon will get himself, once again, in hot water), and then onto the (apostate) emperor Julian (whom Gibbon idolizes – and rightly so) for the majority of the remaining part of volume 2.

For now, we have an overview of the new, bloated, efficient Roman empire – one built to WIN WIN WIN the arms/war race with the barbarians, but one which achieved its aims by LOSING the very things it sought to protect itself from in the barbarian world (losing – peace, prosperity, freedom, rule of law) – (not unlike the Vietnam-era phrase (here) “it became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it”).

In the end, the empire becomes a burnt-out shell, which, unsurprisingly, (since nature abhors a vacuum as we all know) gets filled with something completely different (something that looks like the beginnings of modern Europe – Fuedalism).

Gibbon continues with an outline of the NEW government – the Autocracy or Dominate (Dominus = Latin for Lord), started by Diocletian, and fleshed out under Constantine. We look at the Prefects, governors, law profession, and new military.

The Story
Civil Government

Offices – Praetorian Prefects, no longer military bodyguard commanders, or (later) prime ministers, now = civil “vice-presidents” in charge of vast groups of provinces – there are 4 Prefects now: of the East, of Illyricum (Danube), of Italy & Africa, of the Gauls, Spain, Britain (all the 116 provinces grouped under one of the 4)

Offices – Prefects of Constantinople, Rome not subject to 4 Preatorian Prefects – in charge or fires, sewers, police, port, aqueducts, markets, etc – kind of super-mayors – originally a kind of martial-law judge with arbitrary powers (Augustan creation), he eventually supplanted the annual elected judges (called praetors), and became the head of the Senate in Rome and chief judge. Constantinople was given a Prefect right from the start in imitation of Rome

Offices – Pro-Consuls, Augustal Prefect, Vicar (Vice-Prefect) – all of the provinces (now 116) were grouped also into 11 Dioceses (the Imperial term which gave us the ecclesiastical word)

Offices – (Governors) Pro-Consuls (3), Consulars (37), Correctors (5), Presidents (71) – each of the provinces (116) had one type of these governors

Gibbon notes 2 kinds of justice evolving (although he doesn’t recognize exactly what is transpiring) – the rich are tried by the Prefects, the poor by the governors. In effect, this makes the governors subsidiary to the the important, rich men of his territory, further alienating the local, large landowner from his local city, and tying him to the larger empire. Creates a more stable empire politically, but weakens it militarily and economically by cutting out small-scale innovation and competition intra-empire

Gibbon briefly describes the profession of Imperial Law – began in earnest (ironically) in the middle of the Crisis of the Third Century (200’s) – and rants briefly on the supposed decline of the Law profession due to the influence of non-noble, comman-man lawyers destroying the noble standards/traditions of Roman Law

Military broken up into 35 commands – with NO CIVIL authority (unlike old Roman governors, who had supreme civil and military authority in their provinces). Called Dukes, the highest rank, called Counts or companions. Legions were reduced in size

Feudalism in full flower in Medieval literature - Roland pledging fealty to Charlemagne from a manuscript of Chanson de Geste

Beginning of the 3 Orders – Nobility, Church, Peasants, the end of Antique Prosperity, and the Beginning of the 1000 year Recession
Involuntarily, unconsciously, the later empire undid the work of centuries in dismantling the city-state (and loyalty to one’s native land), and promoted the mega-state (empire). In the process, new castes or classes were created, which tied rich, powerful people first to the emperor, second to the empire, and third to their own lands. Barbarian invasions, civil wars, and the inherent drive for empire to become bigger (either externally into neighboring territory, or internally into citizen’s lives) were a part of it. But, the static 3 Orders – church, nobility, peasant, were put in place on a legal footing in Constantine’s day (early 300’s), and stayed in place until the French Revolution (1789) in Europe, and the Russian Revolution (1917) in Eastern Europe/Asia. That’s a span of 1,400-1,600 years – quite the run.

Seal of the Soviet Union - The (second) longest road from Capitalism to Capitalism (the first being Feudalism, and Constantine's Reforms in the early 300's)

There are parallels and differences with today – unlike the later Roman empire, we have vast accumulations of human effort/wealth called corporations that control significant portions of our lives. We need something just as big (example: Big Government) to provide the common man with at least a nominal place at the table.

That said, it is Big Corporations and Big Government that strive against the engines that provide new trades/opportunities for economic growth. If the present lies in the core and the large players in a society, then the future lies in the small players and the edges (the littoral) of a society. The Later Romans systematically dismantled and out-lawed individual, small enterprise, and so became strong, but ceased to grow, and eventually evaporated their initial capital over 15 decades, disappearing entirely by the late 400’s. What was left was the skeleton of an economic system – farmer, soldier, and (the new) church-member (priest, monk, bishop) – ie Feudalism. “Feudalism – the longest road between Capitalism and Capitalism“ – to paraphrase (here) a more modern experience of the same.

Feudalism - Medieval illumination - Cleric, Knight, Workman - all 3 Orders are beginning in our current time - the time of Constantine

The net effect was to destroy the economic and political engines (local fame, local political strength, glorification of one’s own city, drive for trade/money/power at the local level), that had made the Mediterranean a place worth conquering for the Romans, and substituting empire-wide, top-down, soviet-style, gulag trade and industry sites. Trade/Shipping became compulsory and a mandatory inherited (from your father) occupation – small tradesmen in the provinces and farmers became city/country serfs – bound to the land, or ( in the case of small landowners) bound to own the land (unable to sell their property, liable for the horrendous taxes of the late empire).

This process had been going on for centuries – since the beginning of the empire – but was regularized and made into law by Diocletian and his successors.

Quotable Gibbon: Once again Gibbon Warns of the Extreme Inadvisability of Letting the Common Man Do Anything of Importance
Gibbon definitely betrays his upper-class prejudice though-out the Decline and Fall. Over and over again, he apologizes for elites that act badly, and places the blame for civilization’s decline at the inappropriate, shocking, dangerous, and irrational behavior of common people, when allowed to act as professionals. This from Gibbon – on the decline of the Law due to the influx of commoners:

“The honour of a liberal profession has indeed been vindicated by ancient and modern advocates, who have filled the most important stations with pure integrity and consummate wisdom; but in the decline of Roman jurisprudence the ordinary promotion of lawyers was pregnant with mischief and disgrace. The noble art, which had once been preserved as the sacred inheritance of the patricians, was fallen into the hands of freedmen and plebeians, who, with cunning rather than with skill, exercised a sordid and pernicious trade. Some of them procured admittance into families for the purpose of fomenting differences, of encouraging suits, and of preparing a harvest of gain for themselves or their brethren. Others, recluse in their chambers, maintained the gravity of legal professors, by furnishing a rich client with subtleties to confound the plainest truth, and with arguments to colour the most unjustifiable pretensions. The splendid and popular class was composed of the advocates, who filled the Forum with the sound of their turgid and loquacious rhetoric. Careless of fame and of justice, they are described for the most part as ignorant and rapacious guides, who conducted their clients through a maze of expense, of delay, and of disappointment from whence, after a tedious series of years, they were at length dismissed, when their patience and fortune were almost exhausted.”
(DEF, v.2, ch.17, p.617).

after a tedious series of years…when their patience and fortune were almost exhausted – sounds like Gibbon has a personal axe to grind – I can’t help thinking there’s much more of 18th century England in his complaints than 4th century Rome. Kind of puts the (very plebeian) American Revolution in perspective from an upper class British elite view. What were those dangerous, childish Americans thinking – trying to make national decisions for themselves?

Gibbon Theses
Separation of Civil and Military a Mistake
It ensured the reigning monarch a civil war-less reign, but slowed or stopped the military machine that had been holding back the Germans/barbarians for centuries – net result: slower response, terrible coordination of materiel in a war effort.

This, per Gibbon:

” The emulation, and sometimes the discord, which reigned between two professions (the Civil and the Military) of opposite interests and incompatible manners, was productive of beneficial and of pernicious consequences. It was seldom to be expected that the general and the civil governor of a province should either conspire for the disturbance, or should unite for the service, of their country. While the one delayed to offer the assistance which the other disdained to solicit, the troops very frequently remained without orders or without supplies, the public safety was betrayed, and the defenceless subjects were left exposed to the fury of the barbarians. The divided administration, which had been formed by Constantine, relaxed the vigour of the state, while it secured the tranquillity of the monarch.” (DEF, v.2, ch.17, p.619).

Strange Note: On Quaint Customs of the English
For some reason (and I remember this from my Graduate History classes) the English like to substitute English-ized names for native foreign names (example: obstinate resolution to call Iran Persia ). They do it even when it doesn’t make much sense, except to give the English historian the satisfaction of being the inventor/creator of a whole new nomenclature (which does NOT have strange un-anglo-saxon words to pronounce). There are a multitude of examples in this chapter alone (in these last 10 pages alone): vicarius (a kind of Roman governor) – Gibbon renames him 1st vicar (which immediately sounds “normal”, but confuses the governor with the Anglican Church official), then calls them vice-prefects – a term found nowhere else in history. The 3 new “castes” or orders created in the later empire – Illustri, Spectabili, Clarissimi, Gibbon renames the Illustrious (OK – that’s not so bad), Respectable, Honorable. It’s hard enough trying to keep track of all these new orders, without having to memorize their new English equivalents.

I know, whine whine complain complain – I’ll get to make serious objections when I write my 1st 3000 page history.

Day 90 – Ken here (Th)
(DEF v.2, ch.17, pp.590-600)

The Story
 
Description of Constantinople (cont)
 
Location

Advantage: easily defended (triangle, 2 sides = sea, one side easy to set up walls)

Advantage: actually has 2 easily defended sea gates (Hellespont-Dardanelles, Bosporus) leading into the city

Advantage: good for trade

Advantage: effective road block to barbarian invasions by sea from the Black Sea (see French Pirates in this blog)

Founding Constantinople: Gibbon describes the (debatable) dream Constantine maintained (or didn’t maintain) he had divinely guiding him to the spot (townlet of Byzantium)

Size of city: about 13 miles in circumference, first surrounded by a wall which the city quickly outgrew – city large, but smaller than Babylon, Thebes, Rome, London, Paris

 
Construction of City

Gibbon: Constantine allocates 2.5 million pounds Sterling (60,000 lbs gold) – Probable actual buying power in Constantine’s day – more like (60,000 x 150,000 = 9,000,000,000) that’s 9 billion dollars

Constantine strips ancient buildings of their sculptures throughout the ancient world to adorn his new capital – why? because by this time, there were too few artisans capable of creating quality sculptures in the empire

 
Population of the City

The City went from small town to one of the largest cities in the empire in a century. Constantine encouraged leading men from all over the empire to relocate to Constantinople to form the basis of the new Senate of his new city, thus destroying further the ability of other cities in the empire to support local taxes/maintenance/support etc.

 

Emblem of the Instanbul Metropolitan Municipality

On the Name Istanbul
This from Wiki:
“The modern Turkish name İstanbul (Turkish pronunciation: [isˈtanbul]) is attested (in a range of variants) since the 10th century, at first in Armenian and Arabic and then in Turkish sources. It derives from the Greek phrase “εις την Πόλιν” or “στην Πόλη” [(i)stimboli(n)], both meaning “in the city” or “to the city”. It is thus based on the common Greek usage of referring to Constantinople simply as The City (see above). The incorporation of parts of articles and other particles into Greek placenames was common even before the Ottoman period, Navarino for earlier Avarino, Satines for Athines, etc. Similar examples of modern Turkish placenames derived from Greek in this fashion are İzmit, earlier İznikmit, from Greek Nicomedia, İznik from Greek Nicaea ([iz nikea]), Samsun (s’Amison = “se + Amisos”), and İstanköy for the Greek island Kos (from is tin Ko). The occurrence of the initial i- in these names may partly reflect the old Greek form with is-, or it may partly be an effect of secondary epenthesis, resulting from the phonotactic structure of Turkish.
İstanbul was the common name for the city in normal speech in Turkish even since before the conquest of 1453, but in official use by the Ottoman authorities, other names such as Kostantiniyye were preferred in certain contexts. Thus, Kostantiniyye was used on coinage up to the late 17th and then again in the 19th century. The Ottoman chancelery and courts used Kostantiniyye as part of intricate formulae in expressing the place of origin of formal documents, such as be-Makam-ı Darü’s-Saltanat-ı Kostantiniyyetü’l-Mahrusâtü’l-Mahmiyye In 19th century Turkish bookprinting it was also used in the impressum of books, in contrast to the foreign use of Constantinople. At the same time, however, İstanbul too was part of the official language, for instance in the titles of the highest Ottoman military commander (İstanbul ağası) and the highest civil magistrate (İstanbul efendisi) of the city. İstanbul and several other variant forms of the same name were also widely used in Ottoman literature and poetry.
After the creation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, the various alternative names besides İstanbul became obsolete in the Turkish language. With the Turkish Postal Service Law of March 28, 1930, the Turkish authorities officially requested foreigners to cease referring to the city with their traditional non-Turkish names (such as Constantinople, Tsarigrad, etc.) and to adopt Istanbul as the sole name also in their own languages. Letters or packages sent to “Constantinople” instead of “Istanbul” were no longer delivered by Turkey’s PTT, which contributed to the eventual worldwide adoption of the new name.
In English the name is usually written “Istanbul”. In modern Turkish the name is written “İstanbul” because in the Turkish alphabet dotted i (capital İ) is a different letter from dotless ı (capital I).”

Nicomedia - Always a bridesmaid, never a bride - modern etching recreating Diocletian's Palace at the old temporary Roman capital of Nicomedia - still used as an imperial palace after Constantinople was built - Constantine died here actually

Why Nicomedia (or poor Chalcedon) was’t Chosen
First – it was Diocletian’s old hangout – definitely NOT a place to make your mark if you want people to remember you. Second – it was at the end of a long bay – defensible, but isolated. Thirdly – Constantine couldn’t readily tear it down and replace it with a NEW TOWN (although he had little difficulty doing that with ancient Greek Byzantium when he razed it to make his own capital).

Follis, Galerius (early 300's) Bronze overlaid with a smidgeon of silver to make it seem like a real coin (Follis = trans. leather bag - ie used in transactions probably in sealed bags)

Why the Late Roman Empire is like California (or vice versa)

One way of looking at the Roman Empire is to compare it to modern populations/budgets that are similar – a state that is a similar size to the late Roman Empire is the current state of California – population approx. 33 million, 2009 Budget approx. 120 billion dollars.

Estimating population for Antiquity is guesswork at best – but many estimates put the empire between 25 and 65 million people. J.B.Bury in History of the Later Roman Empire (see Chapter 1) makes broad estimates as to total revenue inflow/outflow in an average year – maybe at somewhere around 500,000 lbs of gold (nominal, converted often to in-kind/barter for foodstuffs, textiles, etc). This would roughly compare to 75 billion dollars if we use the 150,000 multiplier (The California State Budget was close to 75 billion dollars as recently as 1998/1999).

The cost of building the new city (Constantinople) was budgeted at (per Gibbon) 60,000 lbs of gold, or approximately $9,000,000,000 (billion) in 2009 dollars.

So, how would a strapped, late-Roman economy react to a 10% increase in the budget for a year (to construct a city) – California, in its current economic straits would be hard pressed to fold that sum into its budget.
This is an INCREDIBLY huge number when you begin to multiply out the cost of building/fortifying and running the empire in Constantine’s day. The economy in Diocletian’s day and before had become so chaotic, that money had been pretty much abandoned except in large transactions, and barter and payment in kind was used. Constantine marks the beginning of a return to a money-based economy, but with a switch – it’s now at least a 2-tier economy – one in gold (for mammoth, Mediterranean-wide transactions), and one in kind/in bronze for day to day transactions. The old vibrant trade economy of the Mediterranean world of Antiquity is fading fast, and the new nobility/serf caste economy and local, feudal economic/social relationships are beginning to take their place.

WARNING WARNING WARNING – Lots of Mathematical Details to Follow WARNING WARNING WARNING
 
The Details of the Calculations of the 150,000 multiplier

How did I get that amount, and what does it mean?

I would use a multiplier of $150,000 for a pound of gold (using workers wages – comparing US now and 5th century wages)
(compare to Gibbon, who would use the 1780 exchange rate of $1,200 (416 pounds sterling per pound of gold = approx $1,200 @ 1:3 Lbs Sterling/US$) – money was much more dear in the later empire than under the beginning of the British empire (Gibbon’s day).

$150,000 / lb of gold = $9,375 / ounce of gold (gold is currently selling at just over $1,000 / ounce. Again, this is to be expected as gold was much more scarce in Late Roman Europe than today due greatly to the famous gold-drain to the East (India/China) that had been going on for a thousand years as Europe imported spices and silk and exported precious metals like gold and silver.

Per the Roman Economy page this blog )
(follis = bronze coin)
5th century = 6 folles/day = wage, approx 200 folles = solidi, approx 75 solidi per lb of gold
so… wage per day = .0004 lbs of gold
or 4/100′ths of 1% lb of gold = days wages

(an unskilled person would earn less than 1/10 lb of gold per year, or it would take 10 years to earn a lb of gold)

use 15,000 as low unskilled annual US wage average = 60/day (5 day week, 52 week year)
(NOTE: Obviously a two-tier economy of Gold/Bronze (and probably barter here), unlike the current US economy.
There is a huge disparity in ancient times between the Gold economy and the silver/bronze economy as a lb of gold today would cost 60/.0004 or $150,000 at bronze Constantine prices)

but still, shows the cost in money of ancient projects – a multiplier of approximately 150,000

Day 91 – Ken here (F)
(DEF v.2, ch.17, pp.600-610)

I’m starting a little earlier – and trying not to write for hours and hours – although once you get into the research (like looking up ancient sources, or figuring out what ancient prices mean in current dollars), it’s hard not to pursue a thought to its logical conclusion. But I digress…

We finish up today with Gibbon’s description of Constantinople, and start an overview of later (300’s, 400’s) Roman imperial government offices/structures.

The Story
 
City Description (cont)

Privileges of City of Constantinople – Egypt supplies the free wheat for the city (just as North Africa/Carthage/Sicily supplied the free wheat for Rome) – public council = Senate, = Colony of City of Rome (highest civic status) (within a few decades, Constantinople will be a twin of Rome, co-equal, and no longer a colony) – pretty good for a brand-new town

Dedication of Constantinople – (begun-330, finished-334) named NEW ROME, it became known as Constantinopolis (Constantine’s City) – each year on the dedication day the reigning emperor performed a ceremony saluting Constantine

 
Government
 

Sources for government structure: the Theodosian Code, the Notitia Dignitatum (see below)

Hierarchy of State – emperor is now divine (your Gravity, your Sincerity, your Sublime and Wonderful Magnitude (I like that one!))

4 (soon to be 5 with Fame-Inflation) Orders of People (in order of importance – from highest to lowest): The Illustir (Illustrious), The Specatabiles (Respectable), The Clarissimi (Honorable), and the People-of-no-consequence-who-are-worthless (read: you and me). With the emperors granting the Clarissimi (lowest order of fame and power) more and more, each order bumped up the next in Fame-Inflation, and finally a new order (in a hundred years or so) will be created called The Gloriosi -to be superior to the (now deflated/degraded) Illustri – NOTE: the top 4 orders = the new aristocracy, and the some-people-are-more-equal-than-others section of society (see: Animal Farm)

Officials – Consuls: no longer elected, created by emperor, purely honorific title, required only an OUTRAGEOUS party at the beginning of their term – thence they were encouraged to retire to their estates to enjoy their lofty status in peace and quiet

Officials/Nations – Patricians: NOT a “race within a race/caste” anymore, = honorable title only given for the lifetime of the recipient – in effect, the END of the cultural/social “knowledge” of the ancient world within Mediterranean culture – the Roman clan distinction survives only as a name (see also: Fustel De Coulanges)

Offices – Praetorian Prefects: from Severus to Diocletian, Praetorian Prefects (once only the head of the household guard of the emperors) become the first man in the empire, second only to the emperor. Constantine in essence abolishes this office and SEPARATES THE CIVIL from the MILITARY (key Constantine policy) by making 4 Prefects, each a CIVIL kind of governor over a collection of provinces

Animal Farm by George Orwell - 1st edition book cover - Some animals are more equal than others - the creation of the nobler orders (Illustri, Gloriosi, etc) in Roman society solidified the 2-tier system of justice and society in the later Roman empire - not everyone was a citizen, some were more citizens than others - faint beginnings of feudalism here...

Note: On How the Road to Hell gets Paved with Good Intentions
Remembering that we just got out of the most civil-war-filled century in Roman history (the 200’s, early 300’s), it’s logical that Constantine (who CERTAINLY knew himself how to civil-war it to the top) would solidify governmental changes to make sure that it was very difficult for generals/sons of emperors to make war against HIM. So… the policies of Constantine/Diocletian:

Separate Military from Civilian government(still a key policy of most Western nations – incl. the U.S.)

Make the Military/Civilian “parts” as small as possible, put a lot of hierarchy in place (bureaucracy) in between the emperor and the actual citizens or soldiers, so that it was as difficult as possible to form a rebellion (it required more and more people to be in on the coup, which made it less and less likely to succeed without being intercepted/stopped before it’s completion)

All very good policies -and ones which worked – civil war declined in empire – but the price was ruinous taxation to support the mega-bureaucracy, and an inability to act fast and coordinate attacks on barbarians when invasions occurred. The result? Barbarians eventually overwhelmed a more and more ineffectual military, and the citizen-serfs GLADLY became barbarian subjects when their taxes decreased by 90% under the new barbarian regimes.

Rome was an unloved, un-mourned mistress by the man-in-the-street after her fall. Wait till we get to the Reconquest of Italy (circa mid 500’s) under Justinian (emperor in the East) – how the populace LAMENTED the incredible arrogance, ruthlessness, and efficiency of the imperial tax collectors after nearly a century of peace under the German Ostrogoths. The new Imperials RUINED Italy.

Notitia Dignitatum - bureaucrats painted the shield decorations of each legion so they could remember them during an audit - these are the Praesentalis group

Note on Sources – the Laws and Hierarchies
Where do we get all this information on officials and government posts? Gibbon will rely upon 2 major sources:

the Theodosian Code (promulgated 438 – 100 years after our time now), which is a digest of the state of Roman Imperial Law at the time it was published – which includes duties, responsibilities, names, processes, etc relating to the internal workings of the government, but mostly a preservation of (what was considered relevant) imperial letters, laws, rescripts, opinions, regulations, etc for the last 400 years. It was written in the declining years of the West (the western section of the empire was at the point of being run by puppet emperors under German warlords circa 430’s, and will fall completely in 30 years to become a German kingdom). The complete text is online (in Latin) here.

the Notitia Dignitatum (circa 420 for the West, 400 for the East) is a list of officials (a hierarchy) of the empire drawn up for the imperial government as a reference work!. It’s amazing we have a copy of this – our current copy descends from only one copy extant around 1520 (itself a copy from the 800’s) which was lost, but before being lost was copied again multiple times – talk about luck! Because of this we have a broad overview, down to minuscule detail of the bureaucracy/military/civil officials of Constantine’s time (and hopefully for the next century or so). A Latin version (with illustrations) here – check out the useful late Roman pictures of the Great Candlestick and Wagon of the Imperial Treasurer – among many others – very interesting.

These are some of the workhorses of Late Antique Roman historians when writing about society, culture, and everyday life – as they inadvertently reveal to our eyes 1.500 years later, what may have been going through these Late Roman minds when problems like barbarians, hyper-inflation, and constant imperial civil war where the problems of the ONE state controlling the entire Mediterranean basin. A different time, and because it is so different, very important to us to understand ourselves and what humans are capable of/liable to in a world-state.

Notitia Dignitatum - bureaucrats sketches of legion's insignia - to tell them apart in an audit - these are the foot-soldiers - PEDITUM - note the first recorded instance of the YIN-YANG symbol on a shield in the center of this page of the Notitia

 
Constantinople Stolen Art Department: The Long Tale of the Serpent Column
 
This per Wiki:
“The Serpent Column (Turkish, Yılanlı Sütun) — also known as the Serpentine Column, Delphi Tripod or Plataean Tripod — is an ancient bronze column at the Hippodrome of Constantinople (known as Atmeydanı “Horse Square” in the Ottoman period) in what is now Istanbul, Turkey. It is part of an ancient Greek sacrificial tripod, originally in Delphi and relocated to Constantinople by Constantine I the Great in 324. The serpent heads of the 8-meter high column remained intact until the end of the 17th century (one is on display at the nearby Istanbul Archaeology Museums).
Provenance
The Serpentine Column has one of the longest literary histories of any object surviving from Greek and Roman antiquity — its provenance is not in doubt and it is at least 2,487 years old. Together with its original golden tripod and bowl (both long missing), it constituted a trophy, or offering, dedicated to Apollo at Delphi. This offering was made in the spring of 478 BC, several months after the defeat of the Persian army in the Battle of Plataea (August, 479 BC) by those Greek city-states in alliance against the Persian invasion of mainland Greece (see Greco-Persian Wars). Among the writers who allude to the Column in the ancient literature are Herodotus, Thucydides, Demosthenes, Diodorus Siculus, Pausanias the traveller, Cornelius Nepos and Plutarch.The removal of the column by the Emperor Constantine to his new capital, Constantinople, is described by Edward Gibbon, citing the testimony of the Byzantine historians Zosimus, Eusebius, Socrates, and Sozomenus.”

Serpent Column today (2007) - standing in Hippodrome - approximately 2,500 years old - with inscriptions (and saber cuts) still visible

Snake Column - Head of the serpent found later - with lower jaw missing - Gibbon relates (2000 pages from now) how the Turkish conqueror of Constantinople in 1453 lopped off the lower jaw of one of the 3 serpents on the day the city fell - could this be that serpent head?

Snake Column - Ottoman miniature from the Surname-i Vehbi - in a celebration at the Hippodrome in 1582 - 130 years after the falling of the City of Constantinople - Note - the heads are all still attached - and one jaw seems to be missing

Snake Column - This is the stolen column - stolen by Constantine - to adorn his new Hippodrome in Constantinople he just built -reconstruction in Hippodrome - 3D Constantinople1200 Project - Note: the obelisk in the background - its still there - see the 1st photograph of the Snake Column above

Snake Column - reconstruction as at Delphi in 470's BCE - it was an offering of thanks for the Greeks' victory at Plataea over the Persians - note: the golden tripod at the top

Day 89 – Ken here (W)
(DEF v.2, ch.17, pp.580-590)

Finally! We begin Chapter 17, begin the Second Volume, and begin reviewing the age of Constantine. Constantine began as the un-noteworthy son of one of the lesser powers in the multi-emperor world of Diocletian (285-305). By dogged determination, skillful political maneuvering, unprovoked retreats and attacks, and conversion to a new religion, Constantine became the sole Roman emperor and the consolidator of Diocletian’s reforms, creating and solidifying the new Roman Empire: the Autocracy or the Dominate.

One of his biggest projects was founding and building the new capital in the East – Constantinople (now Istanbul, capital of Turkey) (although Constantine himself named it New Rome). Gibbon loves this stuff – and spends almost 20 pages describing the city (See 3D Reconstruction of Constantinople). Many of the statues, monuments, etc that Constantine (to his shame) sacked from all the ancient cities in Asia and Greece still remain in Turkish Istanbul.

So… we begin a 2 day excursion into ancient, ancient Constantinople – a brand-new frontier city, constructed almost from scratch (on the site of the old small Greek town of Byzantium – thus the incorrect name for the eastern empire – Byzantine Empire) much in the late 19th century American style – a booster town, a Chicago of its times that attracted industry and politicians to its shores. Of course, that was all 1700 years ago, and so the Constantinople of that time is lost, buried under centuries of human occupation, and even buried under a new name (when it was conquered in 1453 – now Istanbul – a Turkish transliteration of the Greek “into the City – eis tein polin).

The Story

Gibbon gives a brief introduction to Constantinople – noting Constantine wanted a city easily defended which would be equally available to Asia and Europe for defense, and act as a bulwark against the constant attacks of barbarians through the Balkans and down through the straits of the Bosporus (from the Black Sea – read: Goths, etc – rememeber the devastating naval attacks of the late 200’s of the Goths)

Gibbon describes the physical situation/location of Constantinople – a triangle, surrounded on 2 sides by sea, on a very narrow strait of sea-water which joins the Mediterannean with the Black Sea (see map)

Description of Byzantium (very small Greek city situated where Constantinople was eventually founded)

 
The Seas of Constantinople

Description of the Bosporus (modern: Turkish Straits, or Bosphorus) – very narrow, (as little as 1500 feet) winding strait (16 miles) connecting Sea of Marmara with Black Sea – subject of countless Greek myths and heroic tales – also short description of Asiatic suburbs of Chalcedon, Chrysopolis (or Scutari)

The Famous Port of Constantinople – The Golden Horn – it is an excellent port with a very narrow opening – with it’s famous chain – to close off the harbor from the Sea

Description of the Propontis (modern: Sea of Marmara) -a small sea that opens up between the very narrow straits of Bosporus, and the very narrow straits of the Hellespont

Description of the Hellespont (modern: the Dardanelles (ie straits of)) – very narrow straits connecting the Sea of Marmara with the Mediterranean – very famous shores – on one side Gallipoli (of WWI fame – and a huge national day of remembrance for Australians and New Zealanders) and on the other Troy and the ancient cities of the heroic Greek age of Mycenae (Homer etc)

Maps and views of Constantinople and Environs

From North to South – the journey from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean

Euxine Sea (modern: Black Sea) (Euxine Sea – in Greek it means Hospitable -or good host Sea – the exact opposite of what you get when you get to the Black Sea (it’s a vicious sea) – an example of Greeks naming something to “charm”/compliment its deity into being peaceful and human-friendly)

Bosporus (modern: Turkish Strait or Bosphorus) – narrow straits connecting the Sea of Marmara with the Black Sea – Constantinople lies at the southern end – historic crossroads of Asia and Europe – the smallest distance between Asia and Europe on the sea (narrowest point = 1500 feet, 500 paces)

Propontis (modern: Sea of Marmara) – small sea between the Aegean (Mediterranean) and the Black Sea -Constantinople lies at the northern tip of the Sea

Hellespont (modern: Dardanelles) (narrow strait leading from Sea of Marmara into the Aegean Sea) – on one side lies the famous Gallipoli peninsula of WWI, Australia, and New Zealand fame (see ANZAC day)
 
 
 
Maps and Pictures
 
 
 
Constantinople

Map - Constantinople, Geography

Map - German Map of Constantinople - detailled, exceedingly accurate, and user-friendly, of course

 
 
 

Golden Horn – Port of Constantinople

Golden Horn - painting - Boats on the Golden Horn - 18th century view

Golden Horn - Port of Istanbul - modern panoramic view - from Galata, looking into Istanbul (Constantinople) - the Hagia Sophia is the great domed structure on the left

 
 
 

Black Sea (Euxine Sea)

Map of the Black Sea (Euxine) - Constantinople is the black dot nearly at the center, at the bottom of the Black Sea (but actually south 16 miles from the Black Sea, down a narrow salt water strait - the Bosporus)

 
 
 

Bosporus (tiny straits that connect the huge Black Sea with the Sea of Marmara and the Mediterranean)

Modern Panoramic view of the Bosporus - from the European Side

Map of Bosporus (Turkish Strait)

Bosporus from space (pink areas are Istanbul (Constantinople)) - look how narrow the gap is - as narrow as 1500 feet in places - Darius I invaded Europe over a pontoon bridge over this strait - Xerxes used the wider (and calmer) Hellespont to the south

 
 
 

Propontis (modern: Sea of Marmara)

Sea of Marmara from space - it is the turquoise water in the center of the picture - Constantinople (Istanbul) is at the far right of the turquoise

Map of Propontis (modern: Sea of Marmara) - Constantinople is the orange dot at the top - Black Sea (Euxine) is the water at the very top of the map - that tine line you see between the two is the tiny Bosporus

 
 
 

Hellespont (modern: Dardanelles) and Gallipoli Peninsula

Gallipoli peninsula from space - it is the long finger extending along the narrow strait of water (the strait = Hellespont or Dardanelles)

Map of Hellespont (Dardanelles) - connects Sea of Marmara with the Mediterannean (Aegean Sea) and Greece and all her islands - site of famous WWI battle that helped to form the national identity of Australia and New Zealand

 
 
 

Heroic Greece – Mycenae, Homeric Greece, and the environs of Constantinople

Homeric Greece - Constantinople is up at far upper right

 
 
 

Day 88 – Ken here
(DEF v.1, ch.16, pp.570-580)

Late at night again, but catching up on Gibbon – THANKFULLY, we have reached the end of (the very long) Chapter 16 on the Persecutions, AND the END OF THE FIRST VOLUME. The next entry will be in a different world, in a different book (published a couple of years later), by a different author (well, the same man – Gibbon, but one who had been ruthlessly praised and attacked for his first volume).

When last we visited Gibbon he was continuing with a history of Roman persecution of early Christians. The persecutions were pretty minor, and very much exploited by later generations of monk-ish writer/historians.

We are, actually, at a critical juncture in European history: European man is about to “forget” Antiquity (and the last 4000 years of Mediterranean civilization) and re-invent himself as something different. We (of the 21st century) are the direct result of that re-invention. In just a hundred or so years, men will think giants or demons built some of the great crumbling Roman monuments surrounding them and will piously/superstitiously fear them and avoid them. The fifth century (400’s) is the time of beginnings – and we are in the middle of it.

Persecution very much depended on who your emperor was – in much the same way, the empire became Christian because the one emperor (Constantine) who happened to win all the civil wars, happened also to be Christian. No Persian monarch converted to Christianity, and so the Persian empire remained Zoroastrian to the day Islam invaded and erased it.

The Story
Roman Persecution of the Church – Emperor by Emperor (cont)

Emperor Constantius – (280’s on) peace in the Church in Gaul and Britian

Emperors Maximin and Severus – (280’s on) persecution in Italy and Africa

Retired emperor Maxentius’ revolt (early 300’s) immediately ended the persecution in Italy and Africa (he used the Christians as a source of support to bolster his entry onto the imperial stage)

Emperors Galerian and Maximin Daia in Illyricum and East begin persecuting (early 300’s)

Emperor Galerius eaten by worms and dies (see previous post – search:worms), peace in the church in the East

Emperor Maximin sets up regular order of priests for pagans (60 years before Julian (called the Apostate) attempted to do the same thing long after the empire had been Christianized

Emperor Maximin begins persecution, but is stopped by his fellow (and stronger) emperor Constantine’s conversion to Christianity, his civil war with Licinius, and his death

Diocletian’s Persecution (330 on) Gibbon very much doubts the total war which is the common understanding of the Diocletian persecution. The contemporary sources are suspect (example Eusebius below), and the later sources relied more on myth/hearsay/legend/faith than fact

The Diocletian persecutions were negligible at best. Gibbon estimates no more than 1500 deaths over 10 years over the entire empire, or approximately 100 people/year in an empire of between 45 million and 65 million people (he calculates using Eusebius and the 92 people that died/were martyred in the province of Palestine during that 10 year period)

THE END OF THE FIRST VOLUME

A Renaissance Eusebius - in a portico of Saint Peters, Vatican City

Quotable Gibbon: Ancient Spin Control – Eusebius and Distorting History for the Greater Glory of God

Distortion being, of course, a cardinal sin to a man of the Enlightenment – spin is a four-letter-word to Gibbon.

This from Gibbon “But I cannot determine what I ought to transcribe, till I am satisfied how much I ought to believe. The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion. Such an acknowledgment will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other; and the suspicion will derive additional credit from the character of Eusebius, which was less tinctured with credulity, and more practised in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries.” (DEF, v.1, ch.16, p.577).

Bust of Emperor Maxentius from the Pushkin - a doomed, capable man, to bring Constantine eternal fame at the Mylvian Bridge, ironically remembered by the church as a support and bringer of peace

Quotable Gibbon: Demand for Martyr Body Parts Greatly Exceeds Supply during Maxentius – The Story of Saint Boniface
Under Maxentius (306 – 312) Christians were treated leniently, and a great peace reigned in the churches in Italy and Africa under his control. Ironically, it was Maxentius who lost his territories, rule, and life to Constantine at the famous Battle of the Mylvian Bridge (10-28-312). That same battle gave Constantine his famous vision from heaven insuring victory – Constantine inscribed Christian signs (the Chi-Rho) on the shields of all his soldiers – and thus made the empire Christian.

Medieval painting Saint Boniface - Baptising and Martyrdom from Sacramentary of Fulda - 11Century - This is Boniface, the favorite steward of the very rich lady Aglae

Such was the peace, that murdered Christians were very hard to find, together with the miraculous powers of their corpses.

The Early Saint Boniface
This per Gibbon (quoting The Acts of the Passion of Saint Boniface):

“Such was the happy condition of the Christian subjects of Maxentius, that, whenever they were desirous of procuring for their own use any bodies of martyrs, they were obliged to purchase them from the most distant provinces of the East.

A story is related of Aglae, a Roman lady, descended from a consular family, and possessed of so ample an estate that it required the management of seventy-three stewards. Among these Boniface was the favourite of his mistress and, as Aglae mixed love with devotion, it is reported that he was admitted to share her bed. Her fortune enabled her to gratify the pious desire of obtaining some sacred relics from the East. She intrusted Boniface with a considerable sum of gold and a large quantity of aromatics, and her lover, attended by twelve horsemen and three covered chariots, undertook a remote pilgrimage as far as Tarsus in Cilicia.” (DEF v.1, ch.16, pp.572-573).

Melancholy Thoughts on our Current Age
In the first decade of the 21st century, we are trying as hard as possible to forget our past, our culture, our inheritance, and launch ourselves into a brave new world. The civilization that took root in the fifth century in Europe, erasing the ancient world in a sea of new religious, social, political, and cultural values, seems to have peaked in the first half of the 20th century – and seems to be in retreat now before globalization, world-culture, and new religious and social ideas.

Which is not to say that this is all bad, it’s just sad.

Like the Romans of the fifth century, we seem to be the unfortunate generation that straddles two worlds – disillusioned by the monolithic Eurocentrism of the past, but unsure what vast, new, unforeseen structures form about us to comfort us and provide a cultural superstructure in the future on which to hang our lives and our hopes. Or at least it seems that way to me on this rainy Monday night.

goodnight – until tomorrow –

Day 87 – Ken here
(DEF v.1, ch.16, pp.560-570)

Wonder of wonders! First Volume Read! I have been reading ahead to try and catch up (I missed a couple of days this week, both reading and posting – too much holiday stuff, Xmas cards, getting-out-of-the-house-and-having-a-life, etc) and today I have finished the first volume. It’ll take a couple of days for the blogging to catch up though.

(If you noticed a change in the day number – I found 3 missing days in September and adjusted for them – so now we REALLY start at September 12, 2009)

Still… a very emotional event (eyes reddening, wiping away tears) – I’m all verklempt – excuse me a moment…

I’m back….Gibbon continues his history of the Christian persecutions, concentrating on the beginnings of the last great persecution – under Diocletian.

The Story
The Persecutions

Gibbon briefly digresses on the reaction of paganism to the extremely organized upstart (Christianity), quoting the emperor Julian he comments on the new (artificial) organized hierarchy of paganism

Persecution – emperors Maximin and Galerius punish a few Christian soldiers – stories of 2 men who refused to military service after becoming Christian and were executed

Persecution – emperor Galerius convinces Diocletian to begin a persecution, Galerius afraid of the anti-military, anti-Roman zeal of Christians

Persecution – Diocletian persecution begins with demolition of church at Nicomedia (Diocletian’s home and imperial capital) (3-23-303)

First Edict against Christians (3-24-303) – Christian property (churches, etc) seized, sold to highest bidder, holy books seized and burnt, Christians ineligible for office, cannot make legal complaint if suffered injury (withdrawal of legal protection of any sort for individual persons)

Persecution – Christian reaction – riots in Nicomedia, Diocletian’s palace burnt twice in suspicious fires – Galerius leaves Nicomedia, claiming to fear for his safety

Persecution – First edict executed spottily – took 50 days to be posted in Syria, 4 months before reached Africa (a HOTBED of zealous Christians)

In Africa, those that handed over (literally traditores – ie traitors) sacred books later want to be reconciled to the church – a BIG controversy in the 300’s

Gibbon briefly describes the Phrygian church – demolished according to the law, the church members ran into the building to save it, hoping to force the soldiers to stop, but church was destroyed (burnt) with men, women and children inside – this per Eusebius and Lactantius
Persecution – subsequent Diocletian edicts – all church officials to be apprehended, and to use any means possible to change their minds and reclaim them

Gibbon briefly notes the number of pagans who shielded and sheltered outlaw Christians (in an Anne Frank kind of way)

Photograph of Anne Frank - a jewish girl whose diaries while hiding from the Nazis during the Holocaust in World War II are justly famous - during the Persecutions it was the Christians who were being hidden by the pagans

Anne Frank of the Christians
Gibbon notes in a kind of eerie premonition (150 years early) of World War II and the German Concentration Camps that many pagans sheltered Christians sought by the authorities in the manhunts that resulted from Diocletian’s edicts on persecution of the Christians (quoting Athanasius). The whole comment is very reminiscent of Anne Frank.

Of course, the differences are huge – the number of Christians killed during the persecutions are negligible compared to the Holocaust, and the persecution itself was much more sporadic, intermittent, and less vicious and violent. But the idea of a police state actively seeking out a particular minority religion/race and of majority sheltering the persecuted at their peril is very interesting – the more so because it was the Christians being persecuted by the majority culture. Again, the 1600’s and the Wars of Religion saw more than their fair share of Protestants sheltering Catholics and Catholics sheltering Prostestants – but that’s another story.

Athanasius - Saint Athanasius of Alexandria - wrote of the Christian persecutions of his times, and of the pagans who jeopardized their lives to hide the outlawed Christian bishops and Deacons

Fact Stranger than Fiction – A Phrygian Church and Its Congregation Up in Flames
I’m sure Eusebius’ and Lactantius’ intentions were to document the enthusiasm of the Phrygian Christian church in their times, with the goal of encouraging others to act as courageously and piously, but the event plays out to Gibbon with a slightly different twist and to this author with yet another interpretation. This is an example (as I’ve mentioned before – search on Layers, and Umberto Eco in this blog) of the layering of readers interpretations over narratives over time (or even concurrent with the author’s writing of a text).

Phrygia is a province, and so we don’t have the name of the city of the church where this happened – but in one account – the church itself (Eusebius) was to be burnt/destroyed (along with the Bible), so the inhabitants barricaded themselves into the church to prevent the fire, and were burnt when the church and sacred writings were burnt by order of the magistrate (following the edict’s instructions on destroying sacred writings). In another account (Lactantius) the entire town was under siege. To the ancient Christians, it was an example of martyrdom and salvation in the face of demonic attacks.

To Gibbon, this is an example of “obstinate refusal” and “provocation” by the Christians – the Christians were given every chance to leave the church before demolition and burning and refused. It is a common Gibbon theme – that much early martyrdom was self-inflicted (actually the early church had a real problem with provoked, self-inflicted persecution, and had to write manuals on the difference between persecution and martyrdom and death-seeking). Another Gibbon theme is presented here: that of “Irritating Examples of Irrationality“. To act irrationally and with enthusiasm is a cardinal sin to a reasonable man of the Enlightenment (such as Gibbon).

To this author, at first it smacks of Masada, and voluntary sacrifice for a spiritual cause, (which I’m sure was Lactantius’ intent) Then, (upon reading the footnotes), it seemed an almost negligible incident in a century when the common people were well on the way to being serfs, and the upper class and noble magistrates of the empire were almost a caste unto themselves. Life was cheap(er) than now, and incidents like these of mini-pograms were very common. These same early Christians themselves mercilessly attacked those whose doctrines differed from their own – and depending on who had the ear of the nearest magistrate/noble in power, much damage could be done to a person’s possessions, family, and life.

We react to the unjust deaths, Gibbon reacts to the unmartyr-esqe quality of the whole incident, Lactantius reacts to the extreme exercise of faith and the holy example the incident teaches.

Whew! End of My FIRST VOLUME OF GIBBON! Thursday Dec. 3 2009 at 6:04pm - I feel like a racehorse rounding the first bend - such a long way to go yet

Day 82 – Ken here
(DEF v.1, ch.16, pp.550-560)

The Story
The 10 Persecutions- the story of Christianity and the periods of either Peace or Persecution in the first 4 centuries before the empire became Christian under Constantine (circa 320)
(10 is a suspicious number – very biblical, and smacking of later monastic historical fiddling to get it to jive with the 10 commandments, etc.)

Peace? – Gibbon notes the very spurious edicts of Tiberius (circa 0) Pontius Pilate notifying Tiberius of the unjust death of Jesus) reported by Tertullian in his Apology

Peace? – and Gibbon notes again the even more spurious edict of Marcus Antoninus (circa 180) thanking Christians for saving his army with their prayers during the Marcomanni wars

Peace – Under emperor Septimus Severus, peace in the church

Peace for 38 years – under successors to emperor Severus, church made regular “gifts” to governors to prevent persecution (protection money) (211-249)

Peace under empress Julia Mammaea, and her son emperor Alexander – they both worship Christ, as well as Orpheus, Apollonius, and Abraham (although the source for this is the comedy/history of the Augustan Histories)

Persecution on death of emperor Alexander, emperor Maximin Thrax kills favorites of Alexander in political purge – a great number are Christian, this becomes known as a Persecution of 235 (235)

Peace under emperor Philip the Arab (244) open to Christianity (it was, after all a Syrian religion)

Persecution – On Philip’s death, Decius tries to deliver the empire from a “recent and criminal superstition” – very severe persecution of Christians

Peace & Persecution – Valerian at is lenient, then follows Decius’ example and severely persecutes, Gallienus is lenient (253 – 260)

Peace – from Gallienus on, to Diocletian we have 40 years of peace (260 – 300) until the famous persecutions under Diocletian’s last days

 
Example of Paul of Samasota

Gibbon’s theme: the new Christian bishops are threats to the state – a state within a state (and actually viewing it from the outside, he was probably right)

New bishops are wealthy, powerful, corrupt

Paul of Samasota, a Syrian bishop, governed in Syria, wealthy, powerful, political

Probably would have been a martyr, had he not had a divergent opinion about the trinity that rocked Egypt and Syria

Through friendship with Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra and the East, he lived for four years in his see, in a state of seige

Emperor Aurelian caused a trial (after defeating Zenobia), and had him dispossessed of the considerable property of the bishopric

 

Church was peaceful and prosperous under emperor Diocletian, until the very end (284-303)

As the peace continued, and the church became richer, bishops became more tyrannical and secular, and politics and manners became the same as the rest of the Roman political world – worldly, violent, power/money-driven

Christian Persecutions - painting from 1883 - The Christian Martyrs Last Prayer by Jean Leon Gerome - a popular image, but not a very true one

Gibbon on Paul of Samasota (from Eusebius)

We only have the scandalous side of Paul’s story because Paul took a losing minority position on an evolving doctrinal point about the trinity (involving precisely when Jesus became God – at birth, or baptism). Because he was a heretic, Eusebius (a contemporary fellow bishop, and a historian/writer) felt free to expose and attack Paul without regard for Paul’s reputation as the bishop of one of the most important cities in the world. Antioch was a fabulously rich and populous city, and the church there was huge – so this provides a rare glimpse (albeit through Eusebius’ scorn-colored glasses) to see how far the church had evolved from primitive first century clandestine gatherings to major power player on the world stage.

Eusebius of Caesarea - foe of Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch

This per Gibbon (based in a large part on Eusebius): “The story of Paul of Samosata, who filled the metropolitan see of Antioch while the East was in the hands of Odenathus and Zenobia, may serve to illustrate the condition and character of the times. The wealth of that prelate was a sufficient evidence of his guilt, since it was neither derived from the inheritance of his fathers, nor acquired by the arts of honest industry.

But Paul considered the service of the church as a very lucrative profession. His ecclesiastical jurisdiction was venal and rapacious; he extorted frequent contributions from the most opulent of the faithful, and converted to his own use a considerable part of the public revenue. By his pride and luxury the Christian religion was rendered odious in the eyes of the Gentiles. His council chamber and his throne, the splendour with which he appeared in public, the suppliant crowd who solicited his attention, the multitude of letters and petitions to which he dictated his answers, and the perpetual hurry of business in which he was involved, were circumstances much better suited to the state of a civil magistrate than to the humility of a primitive bishop. When he harangued his people from the pulpit, Paul affected the figurative style and the theatrical gestures of an Asiatic sophist, while the cathedral resounded with the loudest and most extravagant acclamations in the praise of his divine eloquence. Against those who resisted his power, or refused to flatter his vanity, the prelate of Antioch was arrogant, rigid, and inexorable; but he relaxed the discipline, and lavished the treasures of the church on his dependent clergy, who were permitted to imitate their master in the gratification of every sensual appetite. For Paul indulged himself very freely in the pleasures of the table, and he had received into the episcopal palace two young and beautiful women, as the constant companions of his leisure moments.

He is degraded from the see of Antioch. A.D. 270. Notwithstanding these scandalous vices, if Paul of Samosata had preserved the purity of the orthodox faith, his reign over the capital of Syria would have ended only with his life; and had a reasonable persecution intervened, an effort of court might perhaps have placed him in the rank of saints and martyrs. Some nice and subtle errors, which he imprudently adopted and obstinately maintained, concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, excited the zeal and indignation of the Eastern churches. From Egypt to the Euxine Sea, the bishops were in arms and in motion.

Several councils were held, confutations were published, ex-communications were pronounced, ambiguous explanations were by turns accepted and refused, treaties were concluded and violated, and at length Paul of Samosata was degraded from his episcopal character by the sentence of seventy or eighty bishops who assembled for that purpose at Antioch, and who, without consulting the rights of the clergy or people, appointed a successor by their own authority. The manifest irregularity of this proceeding increased the numbers of the discontented faction; and as Paul, who was no stranger to the arts of courts, had insinuated himself into the favour of Zenobia, he maintained above four years the possession of the episcopal house and office.

The victory of Aurelian changed the face of the East, and the two contending parties, who applied to each other the epithets of schism and heresy, were either commanded or permitted to plead their cause before the tribunal of the conqueror. This public and very singular trial affords a convincing proof that the existence, the property, the privileges, and the internal policy of the Christians, were acknowledged, if not by the laws, at least by the magistrates of the empire. As a Pagan and as a soldier, it could scarcely be expected that Aurelian should enter into the discussion, whether the sentiments of Paul or those of his adversaries were most agreeable to the true standard of the orthodox faith. His determination, however, was founded on the general principles of equity and reason.

The sentence is executed by Aurelian. A.D. 274. He considered the bishops of Italy as the most impartial and respectable judges among the Christians, and, as soon as he was informed that they had unanimously approved the sentence of the council, he acquiesced in their opinion, and immediately gave orders that Paul should be compelled to relinquish the temporal possessions belonging to an office, of which, in the judgment of his brethren, he had been regularly deprived. But while we applaud the justice, we should not overlook the policy of Aurelian, who was desirous of restoring and cementing the dependence of the provinces of the capital, by every means which could bind the interest or prejudices of any part of his subjects.” (DEF v.1, ch.16, pp.556-557).

Day 81 – Ken here
(DEF v.1, ch.16, pp.540-550)

It is (of course) past midnight again – and I am writing (post-Thanksgiving, 5 pounds heavier) reluctantly into the night – I just can’t get my enthusiasm up for these long chapters on Christianity. Gibbon continues his account of the Christian persecutions and the Roman reaction to Christians (per Gibbon: not admiration, but astonishment).

The Story
 
Trajans famous Rescript to Pliny about treatment of Christians

Pliny writes for advice on how to handle Christians in his governorship of Pontus and Bithynia (Turkey) – Trajan responds with famous Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy – very loose and very easy-going (esp considering Christians were something of a secret association of citizens in the empire – something the empire was very paranoid about)

 
Martyrs

Cyprian, bishop of Carthage – example of a persecution of a high ranking churchman (249 CE) – he finds out he’s to be arrested, takes flight, hides, comes back when it is safe. Later (257) he is summoned, does not flee, is banished in comfort to an estate 40 miles from the city – a year later (258) he is commanded to sacrifice, refuses, is sentenced to be beheaded – the crowds spread blankets to catch his “martyr” blood as holy relics when he is decapitated

Gibbon pursues a theme close to his heart – the strange and unholy desire of early christians to beg for death and martyrdom
(ex.s Sulpicius Severus, Ignatius)

Zeal for martyrdom hit its height in the 160’s, 170’s on into the 200’s

The 3 methods of escaping martyrdom: 1. Flight, 2. Bribing, 3. Recanting and sacrificing

Emperor Trajan - author of famous Rescript (imperial rule of law) in the form of a letter back to a governor of a province (Pliny) - started the very lenient don't ask don't tell policy of prosecuting/punishing Christians (circa 100 CE)

Christians treated like gay men and women in the Roman Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy
Americans were not the first to have Don’t Ask Don’t Tell – although it was a slightly different situation in the Roman empire. In Late Antiquity it was the Christians who were hiding as a despised minority – not gay men and women.
(see Book 10, Pliny’s letters)

Cyprian, painted as an icon - Saint Cyprian - controversial bishop of Carthage

Quotable Gibbon on Wannabe Martyrs
The motives and passions of martyrs are incomprehensible to Gibbon – they are “most repugnant to the ordinary feelings of human nature”. Gibbon IS a child of the Enlightenment and so views “enthusiasm” and partisanship of any kind with a jaundiced eye, but he reserves especial contempt for those who throw away their present life in a particularly flamboyant way for their future incorporeal existence. Not only is it not rational, it’s just in bad taste.

This per Gibbon: “The sober discretion of the present age will more readily censure than admire, but can more easily admire than imitate, the fervour of the first Christians, who, according to the lively expression of Sulpicius Severus, desired martyrdom with more eagerness than his own contemporaries solicited a bishopric. The epistles which Ignatius composed as he was carried in chains through the cities of Asia breathe sentiments the most repugnant to the ordinary feelings of human nature. He earnestly beseeches the Romans that, when he should be exposed in the amphitheatre, they would not, by their kind but unseasonable intercession, deprive him of the crown of glory; and he declares his resolution to provoke and irritate the wild beasts which might be employed as the instruments of his death. Some stories are related of the courage of martyrs who actually performed what Ignatius had intended, who exasperated the fury of the lions, pressed the executioner to hasten his office, cheerfully leaped into the fires which were kindled to consume them, and discovered a sensation of joy and pleasure in the midst of the most exquisite tortures. Several examples have been preserved of a zeal impatient of those restraints which the emperors had provided for the security of the church. The Christians sometimes supplied by their voluntary declaration the want of an accuser, rudely disturbed the public service of paganism, and, rushing in crowds round the tribunal of the magistrates, called upon them to pronounce and to inflict the sentence of the law. The behaviour of the Christians was too remarkable to escape the notice of the ancient philosophers, but they seem to have considered it with much less admiration than astonishment. Incapable of conceiving the motives which sometimes transported the fortitude of believers beyond the bounds of prudence or reason, they treated such an eagerness to die as the strange result of obstinate despair, of stupid insensibility, or of superstitious frenzy. “Unhappy men !” exclaimed the proconsul Antoninus to the Christians of Asia, “unhappy men! it you are thus weary of your lives, is it so difficult for you to find ropes and precipices?” He was extremely cautious (as it is observed by a learned and pious historian) of punishing men who had found no accusers but themselves, the imperial laws not having made any provisions for so unexpected a case; condemning therefore a few as a warning to their brethren, he dismissed the multitude with indignation and contempt.” (DEF, v.1, ch.16, pp. 546-547).

Day 77 – Ken here
(DEF v.1, ch.16, pp.530-540)

We continue with Chapter 16 and the history of the persecutions of Christians by the Roman Empire.

The Story
History of the Persecutions
Gibbon notes how extremely minor, limited, and un-noteworthy the persecutions are – exaggerated and overblown by later church fathers in the 5th century
 
Domitian’s persecution (90’s CE)

1) Persecution of grandsons of St Jude (brother of Jesus Christ) – nothing – consisted of coming before the Roman magistrate, being questioned, and being dismissed as harmless

2) Clemens the consul executed, Domitilla (niece) banished (this is labelled the 2nd persecution), after Domitian’s death under Nerva, Domitilla allowed to return (this was very common with persecutions and banishments – a change in imperial rule meant clemency and a total return to a normal life)

 
People/State’s Reaction to Christians

Gibbon reminds us (again) that all of ancient civic life was permeated by references to the old gods (citizen=pious member/worshipping member of a city and its protecting gods), so Christians were by definition isolated from social/civic life (could not be contaminated by sacrifices, worship of old gods), and were therefor bad citizens (bringing bad luck to the city by their impiety) – crowds in times of crisis/disaster clamored for Christians to be herded up and punished to appease the gods

Trials of Christians – aim NOT to punish, but to reclaim them and bring them back into society

Torture not used as much as later monks writing centuries later would like to have us believe

Gibbon briefly rants about the rape of virgins and how common a motif it is in later monk’s stories about early Christian martyrs

Gibbon points out the magistrates tried to allow the Christians every opportunity to get out of punishment, and often downgraded the punishment from death to banishment

Gibbon continues his downplaying of the persecutions – noting how SMALL the number of martyrs actually was

James - one of Jesus brothers (an icon of James the Just called adelphotheos - brother of God)

Jesus’ Brothers
Gibbon notes the very interesting history of Jude – the brother of Jesus. Mary was held to be a virgin her whole life, and Joseph was held to be celibate (by the Western church) his whole life. This left a problem in the New Testament with reference to Jesus’ brothers, since neither Mary or Joseph would have been able to have more children.

The Gnostics and the Orthodox had (an un-celibate) Joseph marrying a second time, thus giving Jesus step-brothers. The West (after Jerome) had Joseph being celibate his whole life, and so made all references to brothers of Jesus in the New Testament re-understood as really meaning first cousins (ex. Jude, and later Simon, and James).

A very intricate, and interesting distinction – I had no idea that the interpretation of the Bible on this point was so involved.

For an interesting story about the descendants of Jesus’ family see Descendants in Wiki Jude. Gibbon notes that this (the account of Jude) is the supposed 1st Persecution under Domitian (see above in The Story).

Quotable Gibbon: On the Rape of Virgins as a Constant Theme in Martyr Histories
Gibbon is beside himself with the increasingly lascivious, graphic, X-rated content of the histories of the Martyrs in later centuries (ex. the 400’s, 500’s). You can almost feel the exasperation and discomfort leaping off the page.

Gibbon tells the story in a footnote (DEF v.1, ch.16, p.539, fn.65) of a young man, chained naked on a bed of flowers, and assaulted repeatedly by a beautiful woman, who saved himself by biting off his own tongue (how exactly, except for the pain, did that help?). (see Jerome – the Legend of Paul the Hermit). What an imagination these monks had! – (Sorry, I know this post is getting long, but some of this is just too good to pass up).

This per Gibbon: “The monks of succeeding ages, who, in their peaceful solitudes, entertained themselves with diversifying the deaths and sufferings of the primitive martyrs, have frequently invented torments of a much more refined and ingenious nature. In particular, it has pleased them to suppose that the zeal of the Roman magistrates, disdaining every consideration of moral virtue or public decency, endeavoured to seduce those whom they were unable to vanquish, and that by their orders the most brutal violence was offered to those whom they found it impossible to seduce. It is related that pious females, who were prepared to despise death, were sometimes condemned to a more severe trial, and called upon to determine whether they set a higher value on their religion or on their chastity. The youths to whose licentious embraces they were abandoned received a solemn exhortation from the judge to exert their most strenuous efforts to maintain the honour of Venus against the impious virgin who refused to burn incense on her altars. Their violence, however, was commonly disappointed, and the seasonable interposition of some miraculous power preserved the chaste spouses of Christ from the dishonour even of an involuntary defeat. We should not indeed neglect to remark that the more ancient as well as authentic memorials of the church are seldom polluted with these extravagant and indecent fictions” (DEF v.1, ch.16, pp.538-539)

Emperor Domitian (90's CE) - an able emperor, but remembered for his Christian persecutions - Gibbon points out that these persecutions involved only a handful of people - hardly a vicious state policy of religious murder and intolerance

Persecutions: On the Small Number of Martyrs
Gibbon notes that Origen (early 200’s) considers the total number of martyrs to be inconsiderable (very few in Origen’s words “oligoi – Origen advers.Celsum 1.iii) (DEF v.1, ch.16, p.540, fn.72).

In Gibbon’s words: “The martyrs, devoted to immediate execution by the Roman magistrates, appear to have been selected from the most opposite extremes. They were either bishops and presbyters, the persons the most distinguished among the Christians by their rank and influence, and whose example might strike terror into the whole sect; or else they were the meanest and most abject among them, particularly those of the servile condition, whose lives were esteemed of little value, and whose sufferings were viewed by the ancients with too careless an indifference. The learned Origen, who, from his experience as well as readings, was intimately acquainted with the history of the Christians, declares, in the most express terms, that the number of martyrs was very inconsiderable. His authority would alone be sufficient to annihilate that formidable army of martyrs, whose relics, drawn for the most part from the catacombs of Rome, have replenished so many churches, and whose marvellous achievements have been the subject of so many volumes of holy romance. But the general assertion of Origen may be explained and confirmed by the particular testimony of his friend Dionysius, who, in the immense city of Alexandria, and under the rigorous persecution of Decius, reckons only ten men and seven women who suffered for the profession of the Christian name”. (DEF v.1, ch.16, pp.540-541).