The History Book Club discussion
ROMAN EMPIRE -THE HISTORY...
>
4. THE HISTORY OF THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE ~ CHAPTER 4 (108 - 127) (05/31/10 - 06/06/10) ~ No spoilers, please
date
newest »
newest »
Commodus took the purple at 18 or 19. Is his horrid example why the Constitution mandates minimum ages for national offices?
Mod
http://www.roman-empire.net/highpoint...
Commodus was the first emperor "born to the purple"; i.e., born during his father's reign.
Born To/In the Purple
Traditionally, born in the purple was a term used to describe members of royal families although the term was later expanded to include all children born of prominent or high ranking parents.
The parents must be prominent at the time of the child's birth so that the child is always in the spotlight and destined for a prominent role in life.
A child born before the parents become prominent would not be "born in the purple."
In this sense, the parent's prominence predetermines the child's role in life. A royal child, for instance, is denied the opportunity to an ordinary life because of his parent's royal rank.
An example of this usage can be seen in the following discussion comparing the German Kaiser Wilhelm II with his grandfather, Wilhelm I, and his father, Friedrich III:
Compare this with his grandfather, the old Emperor, who, if he had not been born in the purple, could only have been a soldier, and not, it must be added, one who could have held very high commands.
Compare him again with his father; the Emperor Frederick, if he had not been born in the purple, though he certainly showed greater military capacity than the old Emperor, nevertheless would probably not have been happy or successful in any private station other than that of a great moral teacher.
The color purple refers to Tyrian purple, restricted by law, custom and the expense of creating it to royalty.
To be "born in the purple" is often seen as a limitation to be escaped rather than a benefit or a blessing.
Rarely it may be used to describe someone born with immense talent that shapes their career and forces them into paths they might not otherwise wish to follow. An obituary of the British composer Charles Hubert Hastings Parry complains that his immense natural talent (described as being "born in the purple") forced him to take on teaching and administrative duties that prevented him from composing in the manner that might have been allowed to someone who had to develop their talent.
The classic definition restricted use of the term specifically to the legitimate offspring born to reigning monarchs after they acceded to the throne.
It did not apply to children born prior to their parent's accession or, in an extremely strict definition, their coronation.
By this strict definition, none of the living royalty of Europe would qualify as "born to the purple." The royalty of six of Europe's surviving kingdoms would not qualify because the monarchs are no longer crowned: Spain, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands. (Neither are the monarchs of Luxembourg, Monaco, or Liechtenstein, but since these are not kingdoms their royal houses would probably not meet the strict definition to begin with).
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the only European monarchy to continue with the ancient coronation ritual but, even so, the children of Queen Elizabeth II would not qualify under the strictest definition of "born in the purple."
Prince Charles and Princess Anne were born before their mother's accession on February 6, 1952.
Prince Andrew and Prince Edward were born, in 1960 and 1964 respectively, to a crowned reigning monarch, but only their mother was crowned.
Prince Philip was not crowned as consort and was treated as Royal Duke at the 1953 coronation. Similarly, Queen Victoria's children had only one crowned parent while the offsprince of Edward VII, George V, and George VI were born before the parent's accession and coronation.
King George III and Queen Charlotte were the most recent British monarchs to have children after their coronation.
The concept derives from the Roman Imperial and Byzantine concept of Porphyrogenitos under which children born to reigning emperors held superior rights to the throne over siblings born before their father ascended the imperial throne.
This the term is sometimes associated with the rareness and great expense of purple dye in the ancient world.
In the Byzantine Empire being Porphyrogenitos very specifically meant being born in the Porphyra or purple chamber of the Imperial Palace, a room which Anna Comnena said was "set apart long ago for an Empress's confinement" and which was decorated with expensive porphyry marble.
Source: Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_in_...
Mod
Patricrk...you also may be correct that Commodus was part of the inspiration for minimum ages for national offices; especially if one were studying previous and ancient leaders and their reigns. However, I have not found anything which points to this connection. Maybe some other group members may be able to make the connection.
Mod
Part One Review Summary of Chapter Four:
Commodus - Chapter 4 Part 1 of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9misN...
Mod
Gladiator: Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Chapter 4 Part 2
Another History Book Review - I have listened to all of these and they are a fairly good summary:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4064464/Decli...
Mod
Another History Book Review:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4064464/Decli...
Mod
I only ask because I can think of some countries which had a tyrannical government which did not necessarily lead to a weak state.
And I have thought of some democracies which because of a lack of good and/or just strong leadership were even weaker and more of a failure than some of these totalitarian states.
Of course we are all for freedom and democracy; but does freedom and democracy guarantee a strong and sustainable country/government/state?
What are the successful components of a strong state; and what keeps a state and/or government strong?
I was quite amused by this section in the book in regards to Commodus fighting exotic animals in the arena:"In all these exhibitions, the securest precautions were used to protect the person of the Roman Hercules from the desperate spring of any savage; who might possibly disregard the dignity of the emperor, and the sanctity of the god."
Mod
Bentley asked in message 10, "Do you agree with the following statement: A tyrannical government leads, sooner or later, to a weak state."I think the tyranny of the emperors in this chapter was exascerbated by the peculiar state of bondage their station entailed.
While Perennis was not an emperor, he provides a good example for what I'm getting at. I wrote last chapter that Augustus was somehow premonitive of Stalin. I see the parallels continuing in this chapter as well. If Augustus made an impromptu Stalin, so did Commodus. And it seems Perennis was the Lavrentii Beria (head of the NKVD, predecessor of the KGB) to Commodus's Stalin. As captain of the Praetorian Guards, he had the same role, the same power, and had to be as ever vigilant for the proverbial black limousine rolling up on his house at midnight to take him "away."
Gibbon writes: "While Commodus was immersed in blood and luxury, he devolved the detail of the public business on Perennis; a servile and ambitious minister, who had obtained his post by the murder of his predecessor, but who possessed a considerable share of vigour and ability. By acts of extortion, and the forfeited estates of the nobles sacrificed to his avarice, he had accumulated an immense treasure. The Praetorian Guards were under his immediate command; and his son, who already discovered a military genius, was at the head of the Illyrian legions. Perennis aspired to the empire; or what, in the eyes of Commodus, amounted to the same crime, he was capable of aspiring to it, had he not been prevented, surprised, and put to death." pp. 52-53
The way power changed hands in the second century was increasingly violent. In turn, those who ascended to power had to divide their time between running an empire and protecting themselves from betrayal by the very forces that secured their position. This starts a vicious cycle.
An emperor felt he must consolidate ever greater power just to sustain the new status quo and insulate himself against usurpers. To do this effectively, the emperor eventually stole the sovereign powers of the senate and patricians (Augustus, chapter 3). The features of rule became increasingly monolithic and "top-down."
In effect, the task of ruling was placed on the shoulders of a single human unit. At the same time, it was being concentrated to the point where it exceeded a single human's capabilities. That single human unit was futher stressed by (perfectly justified) paranoia. He was committed to a destructive chain reaction that classically ended in defeat. It's no wonder that rule became indistinguishable from tyranny and that the quality of that rule began to suffer.
This is a bad formula for a strong state.
Also, isn't the account Aussie Rick referred to difficult to read? In so many ways, we are like the Romans. But our sense of morality cannot be more unalike. The Michael Vicks out there notwithstanding, Westerners have moved beyond the slaughter of animals for sport.
Mod
It is possible that all empires are like the Romans in some way. I wonder how they renew themselves or is that not possible.
Good posts - both of them
Great post there Patrick, very thought provoking indeed! Another section of this chapter I enjoyed was this bit after Pertinax became emperor after the demise of Commodus:"....Yet under these distressed circumstances, Pertinax had the generous firmness to remit all the oppressive taxes invented by Commodus, and to cancel all the unjust claims of the treasury; declaring, in a decree of the senate, 'that he was better satisfied to administer a poor republic with innocence than to acquire riches by the ways of tyranny and dishonour'."
Be nice if some modern day politicians took this to heart!
Mod
Mod
Good quote Aussie Rick. And we can only wish. But our taxes seem to go higher and higher and there is not much to show for them.
I think we have a lot of politicians who stump on Pertinax's essence: "That he was better satisfied to administer a poor republic with innocence than to acquire riches by the ways of tyranny and dishonour." I think Pertinax was trying to "reset" the republic and start fresh. This is more than standard, "Let's clean up Washington," rhetoric. This is more like the libertarian screeds of the Pauls.
Wouldn't it be surreal if modern politicians cited classic sources the way 18th century politicians like Jefferson did! In our reigning climate of anti-intellectualism, though, I hardly see it happening. (A partisan seeking a Tea Party endorsement might be able to liberally paraphrase someone like Pertinax, but one crediting something as exotic as an ancient Roman will probably be considered a liberal elite.)
That said, I personally think I'd prefer a Pertinax to a John McCain. But I'd prefer an FDR to both (talk about anachronism!). I think Pertinax's mantra is a noble, embryonic libertarian idea. But it's still fairly provincial. And above all else, it's a reaction not an innovation.
The Romans might have grasped the concept of republican integrity, but I don't think their philosophy had evolved to the point where they qualified the measure of a nation, not by how extraordinarily the richest are doing, but how well the poorest fare. The Pertinax experiment was aborted before it could be tested, but I'd be willing to wager that the poor would end up just as wretched under Pertinax as the others. I don't think politics yet had a plan to incorporate them into the works.
(To Pertinax's credit, I don't consider this his fault. He was living in the second century, after all, and we still haven't gotten it quite right.)
Mod
Mod
Mod
This begins the fourth week's reading in our new Spotlighted group discussion.
The complete table of contents is as follows:
SYLLABUS:
Table of Contents
Introduction xi - cvi
A Note on the Text – cvii – cviii
Acknowledgements – cix
Selected Further Readings – cx – cxi
Chronology – cxii –cxiii
Preface – 1 – 4
Advertisement 5
TOC – First Volume
ONE: The Extent and Military Force of the Empire, in the Age of the Antonines p. 31
TWO: Of the Union and Internal Prosperity of the Roman Empire in the Age of the Antonines p. 56
THREE: Of the Constitution of the Roman Empire in the Age of the Antonines p. 85
FOUR: The Cruelty, Follies, and Murder of Commodus – Election of Pertinax – His Attempts to reform the State. – His Assassination by the Pretorian Guards. p. 108
FIVE: Public Sale of the Empire to Didius Julianus by the Praetorian Guards. – Clodius Albinus in Britain, Pescennius Niger in Syria, and Septimius Severus in Pannonia, declare against the Murderers of Pertinax. – Civil Wars and Victory of Severus over his three Rivals. – Relaxation of Discipline, - New Maxims of Government. p. 127
SIX: The Death of Severus. – Tyranny of Caracellaa. – Usurpation of Macrinus. – Follies of Elagabulus. – Virtues of Alexander Severus. – Licentiousness of the Army. – General State of the Roman Finances. – p. 149
SEVEN: The Elevation and Tyranny of Maximin. – Rebellion in Africa and Italy, under the Authority of the Senate. – Civil Wars and Seditions. – Violent Deaths of Maximin and his Son, of Maximus and Balbinus, and of the three Gordians. – surpation and secular Games of Philip. p. 187
EIGHT: Of the State of Persia after the Restoration of the Monarchy of Artaxerxes p. 213
NINE: The State of Germany till the Invasion of the Barbarians, in the Time of the Emperor Decius. p. 230
TEN: The Emperor Decius, Gallus, Aemilianus, Valerian, and Gallienus. – The general Irruption of the Barbarians, - The thirty Tyrants. p. 253
ELEVEN: Reign of Claudius. – Defeat of the Goths. – Victories, Triumph, and Death of Aurelian. p. 295
TWELVE: Conduct of the Army and Senate after the Death of Aurelian. – Reigns of Tacitus, Probus, Carus, and his Sons. P. 327
THIRTEEN: The Reign of Diocletian and his three Associates, Maximian, Galerius, and Constantius, - General Re-establishment of Order and Tranquility. – The Persian War, Victory and Triumph. – The New Form of Administration. – Abdication and Retirement of Diocletian and Maximian. p. 358
FOURTEEN: Troubles after the Abdication of Diocletian. – Death of Constantius. – Elevation of Constantine and Maxentius. – Six Emperors at the Same Time. – Death of Maximian and Galerius. – Victories of Constantine over Maxentius and Licinius. – Re-union of the Empire under the Authority of Constantine. p. 400
FIFTEEN: The Progress of the Christian Religion, and the Sentiments, Manners, Numbers, and Condition of the primitive Christians. p. 446
SIXTEEN: The Conduct of the Roman Government towards the Christians, from the Reign of Nero to that of Constantine. p. 514
Appendix I – 1084 - 1105
Note: This is a group membership selected book.
The assignment for this fourth week includes the following segments/pages:
WEEK FOUR: The Cruelty, Follies, and Murder of Commodus – Election of Pertinax – His Attempts to reform the State. – His Assassination by the Pretorian Guards. p. 108 - 127
We look forward to your participation; but remember this is a non spoiler thread.
We will open up threads for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers.
This book was kicked off on May 10th. This will be the fourth week's assignment for this book.
We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library.
A special welcome to those who will be newcomers to this discussion and thank you to those who have actively contributed on the previous Spotlighted book selection. We are glad to have you all.
Welcome,
~Bentley
TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL