Julien Freund on the Process of Decadence in Ancient Rome

Discussion

Julien Freund:

"The great historians of Rome, like Gibbon or Renan, have situated the decline of Rome in the epoch of Marcus Aurelius. It was under this emperor that Rome renounced the policy of conquest for confining itself to defending the frontiers of the Empire. There was no sudden rupture, like the example of Europe which in the space of ten years was itself cantoned into its geographic space, but this halt to the élan of Roman politics rapidly had two consequences. The first was in external politics: the abandonment of the most distant provinces, which had the effect of encouraging, sometimes despite themselves, the Barbarians, wholly surprised by the continued weakening of the Roman armies. The repercussions were rapidly felt in the legions, with the relaxing of discipline, up to the point of abandoning, on the part of the soldiers, after demanding before the emperor, their cuirass and their helmet, thus exposing themselves again, at their disadvantage, to the blows of the enemy. I only make mention of this point, amongst so many others which the historians have related to us of this epoch. The second was in internal politics: the power was placed in auction. The emperors succeeded at a mad rhythm, several of them only reigned for several months. Of ten inhabitants of Rome, there were no more than two who were still truly of Roman or Italian origin. Finally, cosmopolitanism became the rule, in such a way that Rome ended by ceasing to be the centre, this being displaced by the whim of the fantasies of the emperors, culminating in the division of the Empire. This was finally the collapse of the traditional values, religious, moral and otherwise. The occupation of Rome by the barbarians roused up no more than a few literary indignations. If I have taken the example of Rome, this is in order to better understand the problem of generations. Barely two or three generations after Marcus Aurelius, Roman grandeur had already disappeared from consciousness. Hardly any author evoked decadence, because each new generation was preoccupied by its immediate vital problems, by the religious quarrels, the succession of ephemeral emperors. One attempted to defend oneself on the frontiers, but one didn’t in any way preoccupy oneself with the menaces around the Mediterranean basin, where one contented oneself with surviving in the daily gloom, without other horizons. In all probability, the European generations to come will have as little care for that which Europe was as the Romans of the fifth century for that which Rome was, save for some spasms like that of the Emperor Julian. Constantine, Theodosius concerned themselves above all with consolidating their power, and not with the destiny of Rome. Rome had even ceased to be an idea for the generations of the decline: they didn’t even know that they lived in decadence. This didn’t interest them, which is to say that the decline wasn’t even accepted, but quite simply ignored."

(https://www.politicalanthropology.org/images/PDF_IPA/2021-1/IPA273Fre.pdf)