Gibbon's "Decline and Fall" footnote

Hello,

I've just purchased a second hand copy of the 8 volume Folio Society edition of Gibbon's Decline and Fall, and am dissapointed to note that the famous footnotes are abridged.

Which editions of this work contain the full unabridged text and footnotes?

Does the Everyman 6-volume set contain the original unablridged text?

thanks for any help

You might get the best answer over at the Folio Society Devotees group. They have been obsessing over those footnotes.

The 3-volume David Womersley, ed. published by Allen Lane in hardcover and Penguin in paperback is considered definitive.The Wikipedia article claims that the Greek isn't as accurate as in the J.B. Bury, ed.

Abridged? I did not see a mention of this anywhere. . . . are you sure? I have the same set, I highly recommend it.
I believe it said the footnotes were 'selected', not 'abridged'.
There may be a separate complete set of footnotes, in print or online.

I checked Volume 1, and the preface actually says there are 8000 footnotes. It doesn't say anything about winnowing them out.
If anything, the footnotes increase in frequency in the latter volumes, and include the original Greek and Latin.

I have a 1946 version of the Bury edition. Three Volumes by the George Macy Companies - Heritage Press, not a Limited Edition. I'd be curious if it has the full notes as well, just to satisfy my curiosity. The inside cover has:

The text edited by J.B. Bury, with the notes by Mr. Gibbon, and the introduction and the index as prepared by Professor Bury; also with a letter to the reader from Philip Guedalla; The Heritage Press: New York

That implies full notes - neither introduction discusses this at all. Can't say as I've ever worried about it - haven't even read it through (maybe I'll get a spare 6 months someday). But I'd be embarrassed not to have Gibbon on the shelves.

The word "obsessing" is rather a strong word. Footnotes are an intregal part of the work.
(Edited for typing.)

Does the Everyman 6-volume set contain the original unablridged text?
Yes it does. If your are interested, it is the best version of Gibbon.
In my opinion, the footnotes are the best part of Gibbon!

I'm currently reading the Modern Library edition, in 3 volumes, which is based on the Everyman edition. My only complaint is the extra "footnotes" by the editor Oliphant Smeaton, who finds it necessary to correct Mr. Gibbon on every other page. And from what I've read, most times, Gibbon was right in the first place.

Depends on your definition of "right." I know a lot of people nowadays seem to take issue with many of Gibbon's Enlightenment-era musings on various things. For some things--like his distaste of Near Easterners--I think they're right; for others--namely his disdain towards religion--I'm with Gibbon.

Well said, I would agree with you on both counts.

I'll never forget the line when he's talking about Elagabalus and his "trusted eunuch advisers" whom Gibbon describes as "those pernicious vermin of the East".... HAHA

There's nothing wrong with a disdain for religion. OTOH, blaming religion for the "Fall of Rome" when the only real evidence for that is the author's disdain is a problem.

Yeah, though you could argue that the religion changed the empire so much that in a way Constantine toppled Rome (less tongue in cheek I would sooner "credit" that to the move to Constantinople though).

Moving the capital certainly had a big impact as did Diocletian's creation of a government bureaucracy controlled by wealthy landowners who (eventually) paid little tax, the Honorius/Arcadius split of the empire (or should we call that the Stilicho/Anthemius split?), as well as others.

All of those have a similar impact - the transfer of wealth to the East to the point where the West couldn't raise the funds necessary to maintain the military.

I find it amusing that modern authors - even the ones who should know better - are still trying to write about THE cause. I'm not about to write a thesis on it but even a dummy like me can see that there were multiple causes - some based on long-term trends that would have been very hard to stop and others resulting from poor judgements by individuals in positions of power.

I opted for the Wormersley 3 volume edition in the end (sent the Folios back)

This is a beautiful set and appears to be considered "definitive".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_the_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_Roman_Em...

>17 corbain:
You can send the Folio back after almost 1 year of purchase? Rather incredible but lucky if you can do so ... :)

After tracing through this thread, I share your decision and just bought the Allen Lane edition for reading. At the same time, I found a used set of Folio from 1994 at a unresistible price and bought them too.

I have to confess that I am more a collector than a reader so far :)

I think the current six-volume Everyman edition has Bury's text and Gibbon's but not Bury's notes. Is that right?

#8

What? Did I miss it? Was Jessica999 trying to sell that stupid graphic novel version of Gibbons "Decline and Fall"?

5 flags... must have been bad.

Anyway, Feicht (#13) I was trying to find an actual number to the "pernicious vermin of the East" and didn't find anything. Of course, I kept getting distracted by various side trips, one of which was the "Conservapedia". (An idea I find particularly abhorrent)

In various places they (the sites) combined Eunuchs with homosexuals, which seemed odd to me. Is this a Greek meme?

I can't add anything to that as Gregory of Tours and none of my other little barbarian sources said much, if anything about this sub-population. (We women, of course, were prevalently displayed as subjects of stories where we were partying in the nunneries and being tied to rampaging horses so we could be torn apart. Woot! At least we weren't ignored.)

Conservapedia's article on Wikipedia is particularly gut-wrenching, let me tell you.

As for Eunuchs yeah, they were viewed with suspicion that's for sure. Apparently the Roman ideas of them came from the east where the practice was more prevalent, and indeed probably endured longer (we've all heard of the harem guards, I'm sure).

EDIT: And since I can't just leave the idea of a "Conservapedia" alone, I just have to mention how pathetic I view the project. If there were ever an example of people wanting to create their own facts because the real ones just don't line up with their worldview, it would be it. What's that quote? Something like "you're entitled to your own opinion...but not your own facts". I really wish modern conservatives would ponder this one more often. You CAN have a difference of opinion without just making shit up; this is America, it's allowed.

I knew you'd enjoy the Conservapedia, Josh

I'm not sure "enjoy" is really the word, Pam ;-D

22: Oh it gets better: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

You know, there is a difference between something having a "conservative bias" and just making stuff up to make your crazy worldview make a little more sennse. That worthless website is the latter.

Anyway back to Gibbon... ;-)

> I think ponder is the operative word. If they pondered at all this wouldn't exist.

I've just been checking the UK and USA Penguin websites and I couldn't find the Allen Lane edition - it seems to have been discontinued.

Rather a shame, I think.

I have just (well, a couple of weeks ago) downloaded the Librivox edition of Gibbon - a hundred-odd hours, which should give me my reading when I'm next at sea.

John

I'd been hankering after my own 'Decline and Fall' for years - decades! And after reading this thread (umpteen times), well ... it arrived this morning: a used set of the Allen Lane edition (I'd been vaguely intending to get the paperback version). I'm ridiculously excited - happy as a kid with an unbirthday present. That's my 'books, CDs and DVDs' budget used up for a good few months ahead, though - it's you lot's fault.

Often a used book will give you a tantalising part of a story to pique the curiosity. With this one, I notice that Vols II and III are mint condition while Vol I looks a little used and has a bookmark between the pages roughly half-way through it. Obviously, the previous owner had a go at Vol I, but not II and III.

So what happened? I don't like to think someone, after paying all that money, simply gave up half-way through Vol I and sold it on; or is the answer darker - unexpected financial hardship, death?

Very sad, but I've decided to think the books are as happy as I am.

I think a lot of people begin an ambitious reading project like that and abandon it. Although I read a lot, I tend to abandon books all the time.

I have Gibbon - a very attractive 3-volume Bury hardcover edition. And I have never read it, just referred to pieces of it. I need to - big books don't generally scare me off - but I know once I start I'll likely be a month getting through it and I have too many new books to read.

Gibbon's entertaining, I'll give him that. Just not always accurate. He's certainly a source to be used only with great caution...

Read him for his language, in this I rank him with Churchill. Neither Gibbon nor Churchill are strong on historical `facts`, if they ever were. But I love reading both. I have read Decline and Fall three times through and numereous partial readings. I can not get enough of Gibbon. As Feicht notes above treat Gibbon with great caution when it comes to what is accepted as fact today.

Yeah, his bias is totally obvious too. See my post above about what he thought of eunuchs, for instance :-D

Well it is no longer fashionable to accept that Christianity was a force in the decline of Rome -- in fact, it is considered heresy by historians to suggest there was a decline & fall at all. I remain unconvinced on both points . . .

;-P

I think with Gibbon what you're really seeing is Enlightenment Era thinking, when it was okay to question the role of Christianity and whatnot, and that's where his argument sprang from. Nowadays of course scholars are allowed to do this kind of stuff, but it's not as "fashionable" to bash Christianity as one of society's great ills.

And anyway for what it's worth, I think blaming Christianity for the "Fall of Rome" is really a tangential argument at best, and as some of you know I'm no great fan of that religion myself, so that might say something ;-)

Well, I think it's more a result of our greater current engagement with Christian literature and the impact of Christianity on Roman culture and society as part of the study of Late Antiquity that has given people a better ability to take a more nuanced view of late Roman 'decline'. Personally, though, I'm with Gibbon...

It seems to me that one can be an "orthodox" Christian today and still see the deliterious effects of Christianity some 16 centuries past. In specific I see the instability of the various types of Christainity reacting against each other. (images of rampaging groups of monks) These actions caused instability in places such is Constantinople and Alexandria and as such caused in my opinion the imperial court to take the eye off the ball of external threats. They also created groups who could by manipulated by external threats such as Persia.
At the same time Christianity caused a withdrawl of "the best and the brightest" into places such as the monastic life. It also caused individuals who earlier would have engaged in a public civic life to instead egage in a private religious life. Christianity may not have caused the fall but it cannot be denied that it helped. (This is being stated as one who is involved in today's RCC and contemplating the priesthood.) The critical thought should not be tossed out if one engages in a religious life.

may not have caused the fall but it cannot be denied that it helped.

I can deny it - almost completely.

It wasn't Christianity that created a top heavy administrative structure.

It wasn't Christianity that created a system where large landholders paid ever decreasing amounts of taxes in exchange for support of various rulers resulting in insufficient finances to maintain the system.

It wasn't Christianity that made Honorius a wimp who was willing to hide in Ravenna while Alaric sacked Rome, or who murdered Stilicho.

It wasn't Christianity that caused the battle between East and West over Illyricum which caused the withdrawal of troops from the Rhine frontier enabling barabarians to invade.

If you take the alternate view to that it wasn't Christianity that drove the Huns Eastward, pressing the Germanics into crossing the Rhine and it certainly wasn't Christianity that drove Geiseric across the straits to take North Africa.

Christianity can get a lot of blame for a lot of things - Inquisition, Crusades, witchburning (though that was post-medieval as were the worst excesses of the Inquisition) and a repression of thought beginning in the 12th century or so. But there's no evidence that it had any significant impact on the problems the Empire ran into in the 5th century in the West.

Different story for the East with Iconoclasm and Patriarch vs Emperor battles that were close to open warfare in the 8th century on but that doesn't have anything more to do with the fall of the 5th century Western Empire than the monophysite/Chalcedon conflicts earlier in regions of the Empire that were completely under the control of the East.

The ONLY aspect in which I think Christianity MAY be able to be given some of the blame is if you decide that if Constantine had been a pagan he wouldn't have moved the capitol East, and therefore started a process that moved a large portion of the Empire's wealth in that direction. But that's pretty tenuous.

EDIT: Actually I don't know what made Honorius a wimp - maybe Christianity had something to do with it but there's no evidence of that

I don't deny that there were multiple causes of the fall but Christianity or at least some interpretations caused some effects which did indeed create conditions prone to "the fall". Some of the trends continued beyond the fall but history is like that...untidy.

Well, history is a matter of looking at evidence and then interpreting it. What evidence and interpretations do you have for this?

Well argued, cemanuel, and I agree with most of your arguments. But I'm not convinced overall. That's not my considered opinion, however; I've not given it much thought, as the Latin West really doesn't interest me. Still, I ought to, oughtn't I!

The East was a little different cup of tea anyway. The Chalcedon/monophysite thing was a mess. And it's difficult to believe exactly how much faith to place in the accounts but from some of them Christians pretty much handed Egypt over to the Arabs. It's hard to figure out how Christian the West even was - at the time Christianity was a religion of the cities and paganism was going strong in the countryside, which was what the west mostly was. The Church didn't send out armies of missionaries in the 6th century because Western Europe was a bastion of faith.

> 42 May I take it that you are referring to me? If so what I am saying is that history is rather messy in the details. If I able to respond with evidence that your question or questions with evidence justly deserves it would take solme time to respond it it. Even the I suspect would would and should be able to argue with the evidence as preesented. I do not disagree with what you stated in 40, if anything I would build on it. I aslo suspect that you have greater knowledge on this subject and that I am just a student learning from a master.
I submit that the role of various forms of Christianity of the fourth to seventh centuries is open to great argument. I would suggest that Christianity played a significant role of in the withdrawl of "Roman" governing elites from active civic and military leaderships. There is no way for me to answer your questions beyond the listing of authors and works which you the could properly question. At the end of the day I would not have answered your questions with the respect they deserve.

I would suggest that Christianity played a significant role of in the withdrawl of "Roman" governing elites from active civic and military leaderships.

First, I'm no master - not by a long shot.

But in reference to this, if Christianity harmed Rome in this way then classical philosophy must have committed armageddon since part of the philosophical "ethos" was to withdraw from public life to pursue private contemplation in the company of, if anyone, a few students. There are plenty of examples of this such as Themistius falling all over himself in front of the Senate trying to explain how he could still claim to be a philosopher after accepting a civic position.

It's not like Christianity pulled this concept of withdrawing from the world out of thin air - it was a direct transmission of the classical tradition, particularly Platonism which they felt the most affinity for.

Not sure how much withdrawing there was anyway - Augustine didn't withdraw. Ambrose didn't (been nice if he hadn't been so fond of mob violence though). Jerome sort of did. Christianity had just gotten a foot in the door to affect policy through the Christianization of the Empire and I don't see where they failed to take advantage of it. And in the west there were what - 2, maybe 3 monasteries in all of western Europe when the Barbarian invasions started? Martin founded a couple in the late 4th century and I couldn't name another before 410.

The evidence for this doesn't hold up from what I can tell - actually I don't see where there is any evidence. If you look at the number of wealthy landowners who stayed on their villas, the number of philosophers who withdrew from public life and the number of Christians who did likewise, I'm pretty sure the Christians would come in a distant third.

What I would say is that various Christian groups like perhaps stoics portrayed models of disengagement from their surrounding environment. In addition the sentatorial class may have motives of staying on their villas in order to avoid the real dangers of courtly life. Some of these trends can be traced back to the republican civil wars. Perhaps as well these reclusive centres provided places where some of Greco-Roman thought might survive. Once the idea of pagan ideas were allowed into the idea of what it meant to be Christian. All the thoughts could be expanded into their own topics of discussion.

Ambrose is exactly the type of Christian who should have gone to a monastery and reflect on life. Instead he did use "mob rule" for his own ends ande caused all saorts of trouble in the process. When you are facing groups wh just want to immigrate into your patch of land, what you don't need is an an Ambrose in your rear.

I get the impression from this thread that people regard the fall of the Western Empire as a bad thing. ;=)

IMHO Christianity was a symptom of social change rather than a cause. My question is: could the Empire have survived without paganism? (This begs the question that Byzantium was not the Roman Empire, but something new.) And could paganism have survived the globalized culture of the Empire? Or was it doomed after Alexander the Great? Or after the Punic Wars?

Gibbon's main benefit for me is the way he marshalled and restated the received opinion on all these topics (in an entertaining and convenient vademecum, at least for the three-handed!)

Edited to improve grammar.

History is far too complex and multifaceted for something as significant as the decline of Rome to have a single cause & I would not agree with Gibbon or anyone else that this is THE defiing factor. At the same time, I would disagree vehemently with the current thinking which suggests it played no role. I believe the rise of Christianity produced a religious doctrinal orthodoxy that never existed in the classical world heretofore and this factor was a counterproductive force.

I have heard some suggest in the past that paganism was in trouble and that the populace had a need for a new religion like Christianity, but historians find no evidence for this. Paganism -- being the traditional classical state religion of mythology -- was quite healthy and permitted a wide range of polytheistic beliefs throughout the empire. There was also a huge number of mystery cults which addressed the personal needs of individuals seeking more than the state religions had to offer.

Christianity introduced a narrow doctrinal orthodoxy that choked off dissenting religious and philosophical thought. This was indeed a negative element that even if not directly destructive was far from constructive.

I think the idea that people were somehow yearning for Xtianity is just a case of people looking backwards from the present and viewing the victory of that religion as a foregone conclusion. I don't see it that way at all, and indeed had Constantine chosen one of the other various religions which he had to choose from (all we really know is he had a thing for the sun, so he could have gone for any of the religions connected with it) that religion could very well be the dominant one in the west in our own time.

That said, I guess I do understand the argument that Xtianity (when it became acceptable) really just built off the existing corrupt infrastructure, so looking at the bureaucratic failings of its bishops and such, you have to wonder how much the religion really had to do with it, when in the 300s most of its top officials were actually converted pagans who simply continued their corrupt lifestyles. Where I think the argument gains some steam though, is when the new Xtian infrastructure began gaining powers beyond anything before, combining not only the roles of traditional pagan religion but also what I guess today we'd call the "policy making" faction of government.

51
Well exactly. Why did the Christians and especially bishops take over civic leadership functions in the towns and even in large cities? Was that an impulse inherent in Christianity or was it people committed to the local civitas stepping up to fill a vacuum? Note that we are not referring to any supposed otherworldly and solitude-seeking aspect of Christianity, but the fact that Christians became civic leaders and were very much involved in secular affairs.

Charles Freeman, in The Closing of the Western Mind, rejects Gibbon’s contention that Christianity killed the Greek intellectual tradition and weakened the empire. Freeman argues that Christianity—through the bishops, who generally were much more powerful and effective figures than the provincial governors—strengthened rather than undermined the empire. (The church survived the end of the western empire, preserving Roman law and the structure of institutional authority.) Furthermore, notes Freeman, the early church did not reject Greek philosophy but drew heavily on Platonism (to the exclusion of Aristotle). His thesis is that christianity was heavily politicized by the late Roman empire, with the linking of the church to the empire’s success at war and the enforcement of beliefs by decree.

The evidence suggests that the combination of political authority and religious authority often stifles intellectual pursuits. Christianity is not unique in this respect.

The ancient Greeks and the pagan Romans had their own problems tolerating freedom of thought and speech. Just ask Socrates and Cicero.

History shows that it is false to posit christianity in opposition to philosophy and science. The starting point for all natural philosophy in the Middle Ages was that nature had been created by god. This made it a legitimate area of study because through nature, man could learn about its creator. Medieval scholars thought that nature followed the rules that god had ordained for it. Because god was consistent and not capricious, these natural laws were constant and worth scrutinizing. The only way to find out which laws God had decided on was by the use of experience and observation. Many scientists and philosophers were believers.

That's interesting. I have the Freeman book, but haven't written it yet. I like his writing style though; I had a class use one of this books as a "textbook" and it was top-notch.

On the intellectual aspect (rather than local civic life) the key figure to study is the Emperor Julian.

i agree that Julian was a key factor. had he not died so early during his reign who's to say that Christianity might not have the foothold it has today? it certainly was too charismatic even then to simply disappear, but would the western world today be so Christo-centric?

but the fact that Julian rejected the new religion of his father and took the empire 'officially' back to its Pagan roots is more of a political move than anything church related. he wasn't disregarding Christianity as a philosphy (for others) as much as getting it out of the government (something we should consider more seriously here in the U.S!).
it is interesting to remember that there was a true Pagan revolt at the end of the forth century that was much more dynamic, but its' suppression was the last nail in the coffin for the old Pagan supremacy.

ahhh Julie baby, ya left us too soon!

Christianity never could have achieved its dominance as a state religion if it was not for the pre-existing emperor cult that proclaimed the Emperor as a god. Prior to the Julio-Claudians, such a concept would have been antithetical to classical thought. Gradually, it became an accepted norm.

I agree with Feicht that Constantine could potentially have chosen another religion, but there really wasn’t any other religion similar to Christianity that offered a monotheistic god with a built-in dogma and the promise for personal salvation, so it is dubious that something else could so easily have evolved into the narrow doctrinal orthodoxy that I find to be such an offensive element to the zeitgeist of the classical age.

I have not read Freeman, but I am familiar with his arguments. Whether or not his arguments have merit, he is indeed discussing a later period.

For the classical Greeks, whose mythology the Romans adapted to their own, dogma was conspicuous in its absence. It has often been said that the closest the Greeks had to a Bible was Homer, and that was far from what we consider to be doctrinal. In fact, like many ancient religions, Greek mythology was often contradictory without being mutually exclusive. Consider for instance the origin of Aphrodite, who was said to be both the "Foam-arisen" Aphrodite, born of the sea foam after Cronus severed Uranus' genitals and threw them behind him into the sea AND considered a daughter of Dione, of an older generation than Zeus. These seeming contradictions did not seem to disturb the Greeks at all. There was a plethora of gods and myths and many, many cults and mysteries. It was possible to be heretical, but not easy. On the other hand, from the very beginning Christianity marks itself as a battle between heretics and orthodoxy as defined by a hierarchical authority.

I don’t know much about Cicero, but to posit that Socrates was persecuted on religious grounds is ahistorical. Socrates ma y have been officially accused of “teaching new gods” but that was simply a sham to hang him on and all attendees of his trial were no doubt complicit in this. Socrates was persecuted – after Athens’ disastrous defeat in the Peloponnesian War and the brief loss of her democracy to the brutal tyranny of the pro- Spartan “the Thirty” who ruled Athens in the wake of this defeat -- simply because of his long scorn of the radical democracy and more critically his association with Critias, uncle to Plato, who was among the most sanguinary of the Thirty. There were few heretics in the classical world in the sense that this is referenced under later Christianity.

Greek religion was orthopraxic, rather than orthodoxic, and therefore the kind of dogma put forth in the bible would have been completely foreign to their religious thought, although perhaps not nearly as foreign to their politics.
Socrates was not executed for teaching new gods, or no gods. it was within the law to have such beliefs in classical Greece. what he WAS tried and convicted for was practicing impiety, which was dangerous to the polis as a whole in that it incurred the wrath of the Gods. to an orthopraxic people this was akin to blowing up the parliment.

the various Gods and the manifold origin myths would not have seemed terribly strange to the Greeks either, as so many deities came from abroad. one only has to look at Artemis/Hekate to develope a magnum headache, but it all fell into place for them.
i think we also tend to amalgamate the stories from what really was a very long stretch of time, and this puts us in danger of trying to cram everything into the structure of 'mono-myth', ala Evans, Graves, and Campbell.
too many square pegs vying for one small round hole.

edited for spelling.

The image of the freedom-loving, rational Greek and the close-minded Christian are caricatures (earlier promoted by Renaissance humanists and Reformation protestants). The profusion of mystery cults and mythological creatures among the Greeks represents wide-spread unreason and irrationality, and even eminent Athenians could not count on the freedom of speech, thought, and association.

I can hear the argument now: “Born of sea foam!” “Was not!” “Was too!”

Christianity introduced a narrow doctrinal orthodoxy that choked off dissenting religious and philosophical thought. This was indeed a negative element that even if not directly destructive was far from constructive.

This is the kind of statement, unsupported by any evidence which, when you look at what actually took place in the later Roman Empire - and really up to about the late 10th/early 11th century - is devastatingly contradicted by the evidence.

Paganism flourished for a long time through the end of the Empire and beyond. It was not a serious detriment to one's ability to rise to high office though there were times when being a Christian might help. What the Christians of the time were obsessed with was making sure that what was defined as Orthodox was THEIR version of Christianity. The violence against pagans was minimal compared to that against different Christian sects. Even after Theodosius banned pagan ritual, enforcement was minimal.

Examples of pagans in high office.

Ausonius - Consul under Theodosius

Themistius - Urban Prefect of Constantinople under Theodosius

Stilicho (if he was a Christian it was in name only) - Magister Militum and consul in the West - and he wasn't assassinated because of his religious beliefs

Claudian - Sucked as a poet but it's hard to say he was Christian based on his writings and he was a court poet and panegyrist for Honorius

Aetius - May have been a Christian but he sure never had a problem advancing pagans to high rank

Merobaudes - If he was a Christian he sure didn't write like it

Boethius - He probably was a Christian but that didn't stop him from writing an extremely impressive philosophical tract that didn't mention Christ at all AND became one of the most widely read books of the Middle Ages

Martianus Cappella's Marriage of Philology and Mercury was the most widely used schoolbook of the Early Middle Ages and recounts a courtship ritual among pagan Gods - too bad those Christians were so set against pagan teaching that this became hugely popular

Procopius - Hopefully everyone knows who he was.

And those are who I can name off the top of my head - I'm sure I can come up with a whole basketfull if I look for them.

There were some obvious cases of Christians who went hard after non-Christians. Ambrose of Milan is the most prominent, including the whole thing with the Altar of Victory. That man belonged in the 12th or 13th century - he'd have been happier hanging out with Bernard of Gui and developing an Inquisitor's Handbook of his own. And of course there was Hypatia and the mob. But for the most part pagans were free to be pagans, so long as they didn't flaunt it too much (and in places that wasn't even a problem). There were some prominent Christians who wrote about the evils of studying classical philosophy but they were the minority and nobody seems to have paid them much attention.

This idea that Christians in the late Roman period - or late Roman society at all - tried to systematically suppress pagan thought or expression is one of those ridiculous statements that should be permanently stuffed into the trashbin of history. Based on the evidence, it just wasn't so.

>Enodia Like your term monomyth!

Not only compressed across time, but across geography. Worshippers of Artemis of Ephesus, particularly in her Anatolian homeland, would have mostly been unaware of Diana the autochthonic goddess of the Latins. Differences in their stories would not have been visible. And whether they were the same is arguable, unless one could trace the mythology back to the proto-Indo-Europeans, no? Hellenistic and Late Antique syncretism, which strikes me as more literary than cultic: how many people were actually touched by that in their home towns?

Christianity came up de novo in an already globalized empire, and didn't have the time or opportunity to simmer for eons in isolated cultural communities, evolving local variations.

What I was thinking about Julian was that he was a thinker as well as a pol, and seems to have given a lot of attention to how paganism might stand up to Christianity. He was the last one who was both able to implement at least some of his religious projects and smart enough to come up with projects that might have made sense. Whether he could have done it with more time, or not, I don't know, but it seems worth paying attention to his thoughts on the issue. As well as his administrative moves.

I guess I am going to have to get Glen Bowersock's Julian the Apostate and find out more. I have only been here on LT two months and I am building up a worrisome pile of history to read.

I agree we shouldn't speak in absolutes when it comes to this kind of stuff. I will say though that I don't think it is totally correct to assert that "pagan thought/expression" wasn't suppressed (but obviously, whether it was the "norm" can be argued). I can distinctly remember reading a primary source document, for instance, where one of these 4th century church figures was bragging about how he went through Gaul burning down pagan temples and groves, aided by a cadre of "angels" who just so happened to be mysteriously dressed like Roman soldiers... what a coincidence! (I want to say it was Martin of Tours, but I don't remember.... but it was one of these guys who had a secular career--army, in this case--who miraculously "saw the light" and converted to Xtianity at some point in his life, when he realized the inherent advantages).

Rowland Smith: Julian's gods : religion and philosophy in the thought and action of Julian the Apostate. Is anyone familiar with this? It looks like it would be right on the topic.

62 - The saintly personage burning stuff down in Gaul --- why didn't someone stop him? If he had walked up to Hrothgar's Heorot (Beowulf} and tried on something like that I shudder to think . . .

ETA: Rowland Smith book: Now that I see the $110 to $200 prices on all available copies, even used, I guess I am not going to get to investigate this one too soon. Another Routledge priced-to-fail spectacular.

"The image of the freedom-loving, rational Greek and the close-minded Christian are caricatures” -- of course these are caricatures and real people in real historical times were anything but caricatures. The Greeks would never understand the way we moderns talk about "freedom of religion", nor would really any ancient civilization. At the same time "The profusion of mystery cults and mythological creatures among the Greeks" may represent "wide-spread unreason and irrationality" on the one hand, but more likely these simply represent the wide-ranging various kinds of belief that existed coterminous with one another in the classical world (and in this I am not restricting my comment to the Hellenes and their cultural offspring). The point I would make is that however it did or could have played out, the introduction of Christianity as the state religion put an end to all that, so that the theology of the empire was more akin to that of the ancient Egyptians -- with a more narrow doctrinal orthodoxy -- than it was to the religious experience of the classical and pre-classical period in the Mediterranean. Current historical thought is that this in itself was not necessarily a negative element, while Gibbon's thesis (and Freeman's, for a later period) is that it was a defining negative. My own perspective lies somewhere between these extremes.

I will say though that I don't think it is totally correct to assert that "pagan thought/expression" wasn't suppressed

If that's referring to me, I didn't say it wasn't suppressed - I said it wasn't systematically suppressed - not any more than Christianity was systematically suppressed in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. It was, occasionally, in specific places and during specific instances.

the introduction of Christianity as the state religion put an end to all that, so that the theology of the empire was more akin to that of the ancient Egyptians

It would be interesting to see the evidence upon which you have based your impressions.

The point is only that what was set in motion was a monotheistic orthodoxy that gradually came to EXCLUDE all other religious expression. I use the Egyptian metaphor loosely, for of course theirs was a polytheistic religion, but in Egypt the hierarchy from the Pharoah as living God to the pantheon of deities was unquestioned.

Once Rome introduced the emperor cult, such a thing became possible in the classical world -- this is accepted historiography, by the way, not my opinion. The Emperor Cult however, made the emperor one of the gods, a living god of such. Christianity took this to the next step, with an enforced monotheism and a doctrinal orthodoxy that never existed in the classical world. This is a factual thing, whether or not you wish to perceive it as a positive or a negative or entirely neutral element.

In any event, the current orthodox histoical scholarship supports your view that Christianity did not in itself introduce anything to weaken the empire. I'm simply saying I remain unconvinced. Which is why these discussions rarely go anywhere. I'm just sayin ...

"Christianity took this to the next step, with an enforced monotheism"

How so? If they did try to systematically enforce it they did a piss poor job since it's very possible* that the majority of the population of the Western Empire was pagan right through the end of the Empire and pagans held high government posts regularly. Of course there isn't evidence of systematic enforcement in the source material anyway.

This is a factual thing,

Not based on the evidence I've seen - not for this period. I can't see how any reasonable interpretation of the evidence can reach this conclusion.

Very different story beginning in about the 11th century (and for brief intervals before - see Charlemagne's forced conversion of the Saxons which was immediately and strongly criticized by The Church) though even then the impacts have often been overstated.

*EDIT - Changed likely to "very possible" - we don't really know but Western Europe was very rural and paganism predominated in rural areas for a long time - except for the Franks ALL of the W. Europe successor states were initially Arian which did not have any backing from the Orthodox Church - the Church couldn't have imposed its brand of Christianity in the West on pagans even if it wanted to.

Of course these things are never cut and dry, but one place I might slightly disagree with you Garp is the systematic enforcement question. This was naturally the case after the empire, but during it, to me the evidence looks more along the lines that people converted to christianity by and large because of the perceived advantages to themselves to do so within the hierarchy after it got going. The early history of the church is replete with examples like I posted above where people lived normal, secular/pagan lives and then (looking back on their own lives and writing about it later) they had an "epiphany" when they realized the one true god....i.e., they realized the growing power of bishops, the tax deferments afforded the clergy** and so forth, and converted to christianity. This was as much a problem with the early church as anything else, because you eventually got so many "important" people in the church hierarchy that may or may not have been there for the "right" reasons, and my pessimistic viewpoint would stress the "may not" category.

** This was actually a sticking point to another primary source I remember reading, where an imperial official was complaining about the sort of "brain drain" to the clergy, and also the fact that the empire was losing money from prominent (i.e. rich) families sticking their oldest sons in the clergy so they didn't have to pay taxes. And keep in mind this was around the 300/400s when all the MAJOR decisions were being made on things like church doctrine and so forth...and they were being made by people who were there for tax evasion.... ;-)

cemanuel -- yeah I think they did a piss poor job but it was the thought that counts! But seriously, I am looking at it with a wide view over an era. If you break it down to smaller periods it is very gradual, I agree.

From UNRV history web page: "Constantine also shifted to a somewhat hostile stance towards Pagans, as opposed to a simple supporter of Christianity. Pagan sacrifice was forbidden, and treasures of many temples were confiscated and given to Christian churches (excepting those temples dedicated to the Imperial cult). However, Constantine didn't direct aggression only against Pagans. 'Heretic' cults of dissension from the larger established Church cause problems as well. Among the most notable was the sect of Arianism which was deeply dividing the concept of Christian thought. "

UNRV needs to adjust its history page. It wasn't until Theodosius that pagan sacrifice was forbidden. There were some temples closed but for the most part those were buildings that had been taken from Christians by Diocletian. Far more temples closed because the state didn't support them financially any longer. Constantine didn't pursue a policy of actively closing temples or suppressing paganism.

With all due respect, the current "orthodoxy" seems as resistant to challenge as the former orthodoxy, which Freeman found out with a vengeance when his book hit the shelves. Dissent will not be brooked. It reminds me of when Johanson introduced “Lucy” and Leakey and his allies attacked it as heretical.

Dodd's "The Greeks and the Irrational" is no more a coherent treatment of what the pre-Christian classical mind was all about than the romanticism of the supposedly "rational" that was the accepted orthodoxy before it. It is far more complex and multifaceted than that. Dodd was simplistic and plain wrong in many ways, as was Gibbon and others of his ilk on the flip side. I find it disturbing, however, that the current historical interpretation of Christianity and its impact -- which to my mind was and remains a big negative in Western Civilization -- refuses to even discuss an opposing view without a kind of arrogant disdain. It is like Dr. Zaius has become dean of the history department …

From Constantine's Edict of Milan (313 CE):

"we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases ; this regulation is made that we may not seem to detract from any dignity or any religion"

ed. fix typo

That was what it said. The subsequent events do not bear it out.

From Wikipedia:

Enforcement of Church Policy
The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the position of the Christian Emperor in the Church. Emperors considered themselves responsible to God for the spiritual health of their subjects, and thus they had a duty to maintain orthodoxy.21 The emperor did not decide doctrine — that was the responsibility of the bishops —, rather his role was to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity.22 The emperor ensured that God was properly worshiped in his empire; what proper worship (orthodoxy) and doctrine (dogma) consisted of was for the Church to determine.23

In 316, Constantine acted as a judge in a North African dispute concerning the Donatist controversy. More significantly, in 325 he summoned the First Council of Nicaea, effectively the first Ecumenical Council (unless the Council of Jerusalem is so classified, Pre Ecumenical councils include the Council of Rome 155 AD, Second Council of Rome 193 AD, Council of Ephesus 193 AD, Council of Carthage 251 AD, Council of Iconium 258 AD, Councils of Antioch, 264 AD, Council of Elvira 306 AD, Council of Carthage 311 AD, Council of Ancyra 314 AD, Council of Arles 314 AD and the Council of Neo-Caesarea 315 AD). Nicaea however was to deal mostly with the Arian controversy. Constantine himself was torn between both the Arian and Trinitarian camps. As Constantine, after the Nicene council and against its conclusions, eventually recalled Arius from exile and banished Athanasius of Alexandria to Trier. Constantine himself was baptised into Christianity just before his death in May 337 by his distant relative Arianian Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. During Eusebius of Nicomedia's time in the Imperial court, the Eastern court and the major positions in the Eastern Church were held by Arians or Arian sympathizers.24 With the exception of a short period of eclipse, Eusebius enjoyed the complete confidence both of Constantine and Constantius II and was the tutor of the later Emperor Julian the Apostate.25 After Constantine's death one of his sons and Successors to the Emperial throne, Constantius II and later also Emperor Valens were Arian.

edit Paganism
See also: Serpent Column
Constantine, though he made his allegiance clear, did not outlaw paganism; in the words of an early edict, he decreed that polytheists could "celebrate the rites of an outmoded illusion," so long as they did not force Christians to join them.2627 In a letter to the King of Persia, Constantine wrote how he shunned the "abominable blood and hateful odors" of pagan sacrifices, and instead worshiped the High God "on bended knee",628 and in the new capital city he built, Constantine made sure that there were no pagan temples built.29 Sporadically, however, Constantine would prohibit public sacrifice and close pagan temples; very little pressure, however, was put on individual pagans, and there were no pagan martyrs.26

Could someone put in a nutshell for me what it is we are trying to determine?

Sidenote on Garp83's argument: Not only would the ancient Greeks not understand what we mean by "freedom of religion," they would not comprehend our concept of "religion."

Ancient "religion," both pagan and Christian, was almost exclusively a matter of cult and liturgy. When did this change to the later centrality of belief and opinion, agreement with propositions? (My guess is among the Alexandrian intellectuals of the third century, and never among some populations.)

Could someone put in a nutshell for me what it is we are trying to determine?

Whether conversations about history at this site should include a discussion of historical evidence or consist of unsupported statements.

77 -- LOL!! I think they should.

The point I think is that much of history is open to interpretation. No that does not include unsupported statements, but in this particular subject especially, there is so much that is open to interpretation. To insist that it must be one thing or another is actually antithetical to the modern scholary study of history.

Interpretation should be based on evidence, not a narrow minded approach where someone with preconceived ideas and a stated unwillingness to learn starts to claim "I'm persecuted!" as in post #72 when he's called on his unsupported statements.

In any case, I'm done - there's a lot I could say about post 72 and on various other boards I would and in pretty ungentle terms. But I don't think these boards are the place for it - and besides, I like Garp and he seems like a nice guy despite being a rigid ideologue on this particular topic.

So I'm done.

I like you too, Curt. If I have offended you I certainly apologize.

I never intended to appear defensive nor did I think I came across as a rigid ideologue -- in fact my point is that the powers that be seem to have taken a position they refuse to budge on which I see as far from settled. I can see both sides. I have said from the start that I think the jury is still out.

In any event, I do not take anything said here personally. There are brilliant people with impressive credentials posting here and I always find I learn a great deal in these discussions. I certainly have a lot more material for research now which I intend to take away with me.

Got Charles Freeman's The Closing of the Western Mind for Father's Day. It was on my list. I haven't started it yet but I plan to read it, if only because I want to see why a book written by a distinguished historians made so many other distinguished historians so angry.

I have that one too! Though I haven't gotten around to it yet... maybe I'll try to fly through it before next week (that's when my intensive HIST 480 course starts... I doubt I'll be able to read anything I want again until mid-Aug). Just from the dust cover it seems like I'd totally agree with Freeman, and you're right, he is a distinguished historian, so it can't just be a guy like me or you flying off the handle about how Yahweh is a douchebag or something... haha. I'd imagine he just stepped on a lot of peoples' toes by daring to compare religiosity with willful ignorance... again, something I don't have much of a problem with in theory :-D

@ 84 Feicht: What is the topic of HIST 480?

Unfortunately the best thing I could get at my school (which almost seems to be phasing out its history program.....) is "Slavery in World History." There are 4 required books, and apparently two of them are about how to write about history (sigh), while one is about Africans in the Atlantic slave trade, and the other appears to be about the Muslim slave trade in the Middle Ages. Allegedly these type of classes let you tailor the research paper to your own interests so I'm hoping I can reach back to history I care more about (i.e. slavery in the ancient world), but we'll see. I could probably cough up a 20pg paper about that in one setting, but if I have to write that much on the triangle trade in the 17th century, this shit is gonna be painful...

Well, no, it isn't what I would choose voluntarily, but make the best of it, you'll probably find something of interest, and beyond doubt will learn something that will come in useful later.

I nearly took the 480 this Spring semester when the topic was Stalinism, but I got cold feet when I got wind that the prof was like 300 years old and might just use it as a platform to rail against left wing views in general (which, IMO, completely misses the point of the terror that was the Stalin regime). I had hoped to play the "ruler cult" angle on a persuasive personality coopting the government for their own purposes, and compare Octavian/Augustus to Stalin; there are actually more parallels than you'd think! But in the end it is probably best that I didn't, since I do like having 8 hours of free time in which to sleep every now and again (it would have been my sixth class that semester).

I am reluctant to re-open this thread since it seems to have sparked so many passions somewhat disproportionate to the subject, but I walked away from this discussion determined to have an open mind.

The current issue of "World Archaeology" (#41) has a segment on Myra and St. Nicholas (before he became Santa!) that “in his zeal to rid the area of such paganism, St Nicolas and his cohorts apparently ordered the destruction of a number of other temples at Myra including the 'most beautiful temple of Artemis Eleuthera'.”
http://world-archaeology.com/component/zine/article/907-myra.html

Reading this article and others sparked my interest again in this controversial topic.
Many sources that I have encountered seem to take this destruction of temples and overall suppression of paganism by Rome in the latter 4th century as common knowledge, yet there are many who dispute it with some vehemence. However, in my studies I keep running again and again into evidence that fourth century Rome after Constantine did indeed devote some efforts into suppressing paganism in favor of Christianity, despite assertions by many to the contrary.
From Constans to Theodosius, this seems to be the rule rather than the exception (if we skip Julian, of course, and brief usurpers.) There is considerable (although not conclusive) evidence that Constantine banned blood sacrifice. If that is indeed true, that is equivalent to ripping the heart out (pun fully intended!) of the central tenets of paganism. In ancient Greece, at least, essential worship occurred with sacrifice at the altar rather than in the reverence of the temples. Just relying on Wiki's we find that Constans -- his son and successor -- definitely did this: "Constans was tolerant of Judaism but promulgated an edict banning pagan sacrifices in 341." Constantius II seems to have been more tolerant, but Jovian while issuing “an edict of toleration, to the effect that, while the exercise of magical rites would be punished, his subjects should enjoy full liberty of conscience . . . in 363 he issued an edict ordering the Library of Antioch to be burnt down and another on 11 September subjecting the worship of ancestral gods to the death penalty, which, on 23 December, he also applied to participation in any pagan ceremony (even private ones).” Valentinian “permitted liberal religious freedom to all his subjects, proscribing only some forms of rituals such as particular types of sacrifices, and banning the practice of magic” according to Wikipedia, but again these bans would seem to all intents and purposes as suppression of paganism. And of course Theodosis “would in time stamp out the last vestiges of paganism with great severity. His first attempt to inhibit paganism was in 381 when he reiterated Constantine's ban on sacrifice. In 384 he prohibited haruspicy reading of animal entrails on pain of death, and unlike earlier anti-pagan prohibitions, he made non-enforcement of the law, by Magistrates, into a crime itself.
This, of course, has nothing to do with the philosophical discussion of whether Christianity was a positive, negative or neutral ingredient in the decline of Rome, but it does seem to assert that a systematic suppression of paganism – to one degree or another -- was indeed the reality of the latter 4th century. And I don’t believe most sources devote nearly as much weight to the banning of blood sacrifice, which again was an ancient & central tenet of paganism.

Interesting stuff! I'd further recommend Ramsay MacMullen's books on the subject. I have a few, and they're full of fascinating goodness.

Some years ago I read an article in the Stanford Law Review which discussed the long-term effect of making a religious act illegal upon the tenets of a religion. The author's example was the outlawing of polygamy in Mormonism, which in the course of a couple of generations, changed it from a religious tenet to an abomination. Her conclusion was that claiming you are granting freedom of belief while "merely" imposing legal sanctions against religious behavior will, in fact, change belief.

@ 91: Raises the question of whether the obligation to allow freedom of belief includes the obligation to preserve or perpetuate the said belief.

Thank you Feicht for bringing up Ramsay MacMullen. I was trying to think of the name of the person who had written on this topic, it wouldn't come to me, and lo! there you were with it!

This conflict is epitomized by the almost comic travails of the Altar of Victory in the Senate House in Rome, which was shuffled out and back in again several times depending on the religious opinions of the boss in charge at the time. Right in the period of which Garp was speaking. No one seems to know where it eventually ended up. It doesn't appear that any blood was spilled in the process, but a lot of ink sure was.

Actually the Altar of Victory ended up in the Canadian Senate where in fairness it belongs. It won't be long before the Legions of Canada march down through Wall Street to the Capital Mall of Washington.

Senatus Populusque Canadanus

Haha!