It was Gibbon who stated that the second centurty AD was a golden age in Rome, but was it really? Gibbon's work was excellently received upon publication in 1776 and to some surprise as ‘he had given no indication of his genius’ in any prior works yet today he is widely considered to be ‘the historian of the Roman Empire’. Such a prestigious title is one not granted without merit and Gibbon’s work is undoubtedly comprehensive and insightful, yet to state that the second century AD was a time in which the human race as a whole was most happy and prosperous is a little misleading to say the least. If we consider however the century in the context of the Roman Empire specifically then this might be slightly closer to the truth. A ‘Golden Age’ for the Roman Empire would logically consist of success on Roman terms, that being perhaps a prosperous economy and a series of stable Emperors, but most Roman of all, an opportunity for military expansion and Gloria. This paper would, in consultation of the available primary sources and critiques of Gibbon, consider the military, economic and political nature of the Roman Empire in the second century AD chronologically through the Nerva-Antonine Dynasty in order to conclude to what extent it truly was a Golden Age.
In consideration of our primary sources for the second century AD, we must rely largely on the meditations of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius himself as well as the works of a capable orator and Roman citizen who nevertheless wrote in Greek, named Cassius Dio. Dio began writing in the early 3rd Century AD under Septimus Severus and as a contemporary source his depiction of the second century is far more detailed than his earlier histories of the Republic and early Empire. Though we cannot be sure, Dio’s birth date is estimated at around 155 AD and therefore much of the information he relays on the Second Century is his own first-hand account. Furthermore, he is writing under the Severan Dynasty so has no obligation to glorify the years of the Nerva-Antonine Dynasty yet does, which lends further credibility to Gibbon’s argument that it was indeed the peak of happiness and prosperity in the Roman Empire. Despite his home in Bithynia and love of the Greek language, Dio was very much a Roman citizen and his point of view is very Roman, as he is jealous of other people’s Gloria and Dignitas yet respectful of the Monarchy. The main criticisms of Cassius Dio are his neglect of personal accounts and anecdotes in place of the greater importance of events and the tendency to modify and dramatise. Fortunately these occur mainly in his earlier histories rather than that of the second century and for the period of Nerva to Commodus he is a largely useful primary source, stating indeed that with the accession of Commodus the Roman Empire passed from a ‘Golden Age’ to an Iron Age. Marcus Aurelius, in contrast wrote his Meditations as a part of his Stoic philosophical beliefs. They are a guide towards being a better person, not a history of Rome in the period, and it seems unlikely that he ever expected them to be published; even the title is not his but one commonly assigned to what are effectively his memoirs. However, in conjunction with Cassius Dio’s history of the Roman Empire Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations do provide great insight as they portray the kind of person he was and fit the image of him as the last of the five good emperors in the prospering second century for Rome.
IMAGE: http://www.wallpaperish.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Colosseum-Rome-Wallpaper.jpg
0 Comment:
Be the first one to comment on this article.