So something I've noticed a lot lately is there's a fair amount of online fan culture around the Roman Empire, and it most often takes the view that the "true" Roman Empire is the pre-Christian version, and that the Christian period of Roman history, or Late Antiquity in general, is somehow not the "real" Roman Empire. I don't think this is a view that is attested in contemporary sources, of course, and I think it would also be foreign to most post-Roman cultures, especially in Catholic countries, where the (Christian) Roman Empire was historically seen as the model and basis for law and government. What is the origin of this? Is it Gibbon? Is it an Anglosphere/Protestant thing?
The Roman Empire and Christianity
- Thread starter Clemens
- Start date
ego uērō crēdō esse propter litterās, quod sī agitur dē imperiō rōmānō, statim cōgitāmus dē caesare, dē augustō, dē nērōne, dē mārcō aurēliō; nōn tālis flagrat fāma dē imperātōribus post cōnstantīnum.
etiam magistrī in ūniuersitātibus, etsī sānē dīcerent imperium rōmānum uērum esse post cōnstantīnum usque ad romulum alterum, uidentur negāre imperium orientāle post hoc uērum rōmānum imperium esse, quippe quī uocant hoc 'imperium byzantīnum'.
etiam magistrī in ūniuersitātibus, etsī sānē dīcerent imperium rōmānum uērum esse post cōnstantīnum usque ad romulum alterum, uidentur negāre imperium orientāle post hoc uērum rōmānum imperium esse, quippe quī uocant hoc 'imperium byzantīnum'.
England would have stayed Catholic if Henry VIII had had a healthy son. Hadrian's Wall is right about at the Scottish border.
Possibly? In fact, it did stay Catholic under Henry VIII, just in schism with the pope. It seems to me that there were larger forces at work that caused the Reformation, and that Henry VIII's succession issues were just the proximate cause.
Good point...You probably follow it closer than I do. Another point I heard was that the Reformation started when people started reading the Bible for themselves.
EDIT: Luther started the German translation -- didn't widely share it until after posting the 95 theses.
EDIT: Luther started the German translation -- didn't widely share it until after posting the 95 theses.
Regarding literacy, most European countries didn't achieve anything close to full literacy until the 19th century; in fact the historical record seems to show that the Protestant emphasis on reading the Bible was a motivation and a cause of literacy, not the other way around. Even so, I remember reading primary sources in university that showed that the average English working-class person of the 19th century was woefully ignorant of the Christian doctrines they supposedly believed in.
Sounds like the present day...
I had Catholic religion classes as a child, and I took my First Communion in the Catholic Church, but I basically didn't know anything about Christian doctrine until I started translating Christian Latin stuff some ten years ago. I knew the life of Jesus and the major Old Testament stories but, though I had heard the word "Trinity" a lot, I couldn't really have told you what it meant, nor could I have told you exactly what it meant that Jesus died for ours sins, though that was also something I had heard.
To get back on topic, I don't have an answer to the initial question. I was thinking I might speculate that the idea originated during the Renaissance when there was a resurgence in interest and admiration for the classical period. That would mean the late Republic even more than the Empire, but the pagan Empire might have been seen as better because closer to the late Republic and less influenced by "barbarian" culture than the late, Christian empire was.
This survey which I came across recently may be of relative interest. It doesn't answer the question either, but it shows that a sizeable portion of Americans blame the fall of the Roman Empire partly on its conversion to Christianity.
What Americans think about the Roman Empire | YouGov
This survey which I came across recently may be of relative interest. It doesn't answer the question either, but it shows that a sizeable portion of Americans blame the fall of the Roman Empire partly on its conversion to Christianity.
What Americans think about the Roman Empire | YouGov
Even though I grew up in the least religious part of the United States (the Northeast), I'm from one of the more isolated and rural parts of it, and probably more people took religion seriously there back then, especially people born before 1945, of which there were still quite a lot about. (I don't know about now.) It was historically Protestant but in the late 19th century large numbers of French-Canadians changed that somewhat, and the differences between the two, and adults making a big deal out of it, may have brought that kind of thing into focus more. Then I went to a Catholic university, where two semesters of theology was required, and I got exposed to terms like homoousion and hyperdulia. I also remember spending a lot of time on the Rule of Saint Benedict and the Gregorian Reform.
I'm in the camp that says the empire transformed rather than fell, and many of its institutions persisted. Or I should say, it fell in 1453, not 476.
Anybody here like reading Gibbon on the fall of the Empire? I'm on the next to last volume. While he is outdated (he wrote in the 1700's, I think), he covers both the late western empire and the eastern until the end, so is helpful for a broad overview. Some see him as anti-Christian in his outlook. He was, probably, a rationalist. However, it seems he attacks perceived abuses and hypocrisies of some Christians rather than Christianity itself. At any rate, I find his treatment fascinating.
I tend to agree with Clemens that it transformed rather than fell. At best, only the western part fell in 476. Though Greek speaking, the eastern empire certainly regarded itself as Roman, even after 476.
I tend to agree with Clemens that it transformed rather than fell. At best, only the western part fell in 476. Though Greek speaking, the eastern empire certainly regarded itself as Roman, even after 476.
According to Paul Freedman, the traditional pagan religions weakened during the later Roman Empire because they tended to be specific to certain places and cultures, and most importantly, were associated with and supported by local elites, whose importance steadily declined as the ruling class of the empire became more cosmopolitan and less tied to specific places. In other words, if you're an Roman military officer or civil servant who is posted at various locations around the empire over the course of your career, you're less invested in this or that local deity or festival than a member of a local elite would be.
Just on the English Reformation, Wolsey's ability to reform the church as Papal Legate enabled him to fund chantry colleges by dissolving monasteries; the latter's land being the endowment for the former. And it seems even at this early stage Cromwell was undermining his patron's intentions for this by steering funds toward Reformation.
After Wolsey's fall I think it's interesting to note that Henry bestowed on Cromwell an unprecedented title, and with no successor, of Vicegerent in Spirituals. It bestowed the same powers Wolsey was given by the Pope as Papal Legate. It seems Cromwell undermined Henry too by using it to aggressively push the Reformation (as well as line his pockets). I suppose one can never really know how much Henry was behind things as Tudor monarchs were exceedingly crafty, supposedly. Good stuff though.
After Wolsey's fall I think it's interesting to note that Henry bestowed on Cromwell an unprecedented title, and with no successor, of Vicegerent in Spirituals. It bestowed the same powers Wolsey was given by the Pope as Papal Legate. It seems Cromwell undermined Henry too by using it to aggressively push the Reformation (as well as line his pockets). I suppose one can never really know how much Henry was behind things as Tudor monarchs were exceedingly crafty, supposedly. Good stuff though.
Unfortunately it was increasingly common by the Early Modern Period that monasteries were sparsely populated and/or didn’t adhere to monastic life, or were given to lay “abbots” who had no interest in the place other than a source of revenue.
Interesting stuff. I read in Borman's Cromwell biography that by the time of the Pilgrimage of Grace, there was around a *thousand homeless and destitute clergy in their ranks.
Edit: *an error above. The clergy ranks swelled to seven thousand within the revolt. Astonishing.
Edit: *an error above. The clergy ranks swelled to seven thousand within the revolt. Astonishing.
Last edited:
Yeah I do think this is a significant part of it — there's no Tacitus and Suetonius for the later emperors.