Review: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon

My rating: 0 of 5 stars



This is the second time in my life reading this abridged edition - the same copy. This one still has page numbers in my childish hand on the inside front cover and my nonsensical highlights throughout.

Gibbons' facility of language and subjective enthusiasm for his task means this is a work that can be revisited in life. I hope to tackle the complete work this time.

Among the many charms, Gibbons can take us into the retirement of Diocletion to here is wisdom on governing from a lofty place: “How often, was he accustomed to say, is it the interest of four or five ministers to combine together to deceive their sovereign! Secluded from mankind by his exalted dignity, the truth is concealed from his knowledge; he can see only with their eyes, he hears nothing but their misrepresentations. He confers the most important offices upon vice and weakness, and disgraces the most virtuous and deserving among his subjects. By such infamous arts, added Diocletian, the best and wisest princes are sold to the venal corruption of their courtiers”. So says Sir Edward Gibbon in History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and who am I to say Diocletian didn't say it!

...it also seems rather funny to read this a scant two days after the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, oh it we only had Gibbons around to comment on the current affairs of The Eternal City...

I can't make any sense of the noted page numbers and curious highlights I made when reading this as a teen, but I really enjoyed the focus in this abridged version on the Western Empire's demise. Gibbon places this squarely at the foot of the Christians: as lpersecuted as they were, they really led the pagans have it when in charge. However, he susses out the details of the obscure doctrinal difference of the Arian "heresy" that was embraced and supported by Roman aristocrats, to the great displeasure of out of temporal power Christian bishop leadership.

From reading Gibbon I more had the impression that as Xtians became part of the Roman beauracracy they found it a more practical policy to sublimate pagan recognized dates and locales rather than try for a wholesale conversion. It was more of a compromise approach. Actually, I think Constantine's role in Christianizing the Romam Empire is overrated and is largely fixed in the popular imagination due to the forged "Donation of Constantine". Personally, from my own reading, I think Constantine was someting in betweeen a fairweather Christian and a disengenuous manipulator of public opinion. It is quite possible he was a closent pagan and maybe even closet Christian at various times his motiviation for either may not have been wholly spiritual.

Think about this: just about 60 years after Constantine, the Romans used a pagan military command to attacked Alaric's barbarians while they were celebrating Easter Sunday to highlight that Christianity was rife inside and outside the Roman empire, there was no clear cut difference after Constantine, and Rome hardly was Christian or even concerened with respecting Christianity after Constantine. I read of this, by chance, on Easter Sunday 2013.

The final chapters of the book rush over the decline of the Eastern Empire hitting the highlights of the rise of Mohammed, the riotous blues and greens in the time of Justinian as well as his Theodora. We also get a ring-side seat to the siege by Mohammed II that finally crushed Constantinople.



View all my reviews