Gibbon and Julian

One of the things I most enjoy about reading Gibbon is discovering authors I had forgotten, ignorantly dismissed, or (more often) never known. Today I encountered two such while reading Ch. 22, which concerns the rise of Julian the Apostate and his conflict with Constantius.

These last several chapters have sent me back to Ammianus Marcellinus, the last great ancient historian. In graduate school I remember reading or being told that 1) as a Greek, Latin was his second language, 2) he is important and 2) his Latin is difficult ("eine Qual seiner Leser" was the memorable verdict of one German scholastic). 

Reading him now I find his Latin challenging but no more so than Tacitus'; at times it is even artful. As an example I point to the passage wherein Julian's troops proclaim him Augustus (i.e. equal to the reigning emperor Constantius). Julian has artfully arranged that Constantius' arrogant letter to him be read aloud to the assembled troops:

Replicatoque volumine edicti, quod missum est, et legi ab exordio coepto, cum ventum fuisset ad locum id continentem, quod gesta omnia Constantius inprobans Caesaris potestatem sufficere Iuliano censebat, exclamabatur undique vocum terribilium sonu: "Auguste Iuliane." (20.9.6-7)

Which passages the Loeb translates:

"And after unrolling the scroll of the edict which had been sent, he began to read it from the beginning. And when he had come to the place where Constantius, rejecting all that had been done, declared that the power of Caesar (i.e. subordinate to Augustus) was enough for Julian, on all sides terrifying shouts arose: "Julianus Augustus!"

Not bad for a non-native speaker of Latin.

The second work to which Gibbon today introduced me is the Architrenius of John de Hauteville. (The title means "The Arch-Weeper" or maybe "Prince of Tears"). It is a lengthy satirical poem from the 12th century, in which, according to the blurb from Harvard UP, de Hauteville "uses his stylistic virtuosity and the many resources of Latin poetry to condemn a secular world where wealth and preferment were all-consuming." Now there's a work of timeless topicality.

But Gibbon's use of the poem deserves quotation. The proclamation of Julian as Augustus occurred at  a "palace" at Paris (ancient Lutetiae) in 360 AD, but the exact location is uncertain. Gibbon tries to shed light on the matter by opting for the palace of the baths, which in his day was where the halls of a university stood (and where, I believe, at least part of the Sorbonne still stands). Then, in an apparent attempt to summarize and juxtapose the various uses to which that space has been put in the intervening centuries, Gibbon cites some lines from the Architrenius* that he essentially summarizes in this excellent sentence, so characteristic of his prose and his famous use of footnotes:

"By the injuries of time and the Normans, this ancient palace was reduced, in the twelfth century, to a maze of ruins, whose dark recesses were the scenes of licentious love."

*Here are the lines, as quoted by Gibbon:

Explicat aula sinus montemque amplectitur alis;
Multiplici latebra scelerum tersura ruborem.
----pereuntis saepe pudoris
celatura nefas, venerisque accommoda furtis.

Sounds like a fun place. Of course, this poem is now on my "to read" list. Gratias tibi, Mr. Gibbon.

Gibbon and Constantine

"A subject which may be examined with impartiality, but cannot be viewed with indifference." Thus Gibbon on the growth of Christianity under Constantine, a topic to which he devotes much of Vol. 2 of his magnum opus. 

Constantine, from Basilica of Maxentius and Constantine; now at Capitoline Museum in Rome.

It is a fascinating subject, and one about which I am largely ignorant, although I think I now have a bit better grasp of it. So far, these four things have struck me from Gibbon's treatment:

1 Constantine's superb political cunning, in the best (or at least not in the worst) sense of that term. The official recognition of Christianity was but one of his significant achievements.

2 The appeal of the ancient sources. Gibbon's narrative never fails to send me back to the relevant ancient writers with a renewed interest in the ancient world. I know very little about this period of antiquity, so to read Eusebius's Life of Constantine (I'm using the version in the clickable pic below) or Ammianus Marcellinus' Roman History is like discovering a new world.

Fascinating.

3 The numerous sects of early Christianity that were branded as heretical and whose followers were  accordingly treated without mercy. Gibbon does his best to treat these sects seriously and with justice, although at times he seems a bit exasperated by the minuteness of the theological points upon which they refused to yield. 

4 How little things have changed since the 4th century AD. Politics is still a treacherous and deceitful game. And the narcissism of small differences still drives much human behavior. As they say, Plus ça change...


To do this story justice without overwhelming the reader with details and in language that engages and entertains is just one of Gibbon's many impressive accomplishments.

BYOT (bring your own Trinity) Party at Nicaea (325 AD) 

Gibbon and Christianity

Reading for a second time The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire has been enlightening and entertaining experience. As I tell anyone who will listen (and many who would probably rather not), Gibbon's prose style is second to none: he is a master of irony and insight and has a facility with English few authors can equal.

I have just finished volume I, which ends with two chapters on the rise of Christianity. They are perhaps his most famous chapters and provoked the most heated response immediately upon publication. Several of his first readers were so upset by Gibbon's treatment of the early church that they attacked it in print. Gibbon, in turn, responded with A Vindication of Some Passages in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Chapters of the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, a work in which he at great length and with much success defends his book and reputation and attacks his critics.

"Our curiosity is naturally prompted to inquire by what means the Christian faith obtained so remarkable a victory over the established religions of the earth."

But back to Christianity. What I have always found perplexing is how this religion grew so quickly into the dominant doctrine of the Roman Empire. According to Gibbon, Christianity owed its rapid and pervasive growth to the following factors, which are best given in his own words:

1 The inflexible and, if we may use the expression, the intolerant zeal of the Christians, derived, it is true, from the Jewish religion, but purified from the narrow and unsocial spirit which, instead of inviting, had deterred the Gentiles from embracing the law of Moses.

2 The doctrine of a future life, improved by ever additional circumstances which could give weight and efficacy to that important truth.

3 The miraculous powers ascribed to the primitive church.

4 The pure and austere morals of the Christians. 

5 The union and discipline of the Christian republic, which gradually formed an independent and increasing state in the heart of the Roman empire.

I am not familiar with the relevant scholarship in the 240 years since Gibbon penned those remarks, but I would venture that few would now subscribe to these or only these causes. Nevertheless, Gibbon remains worth reading on this important and interesting topic, for he makes the past, with all its personalities, beliefs, and forces, come alive in a way that few writers and fewer historians can match.