Chapter V, which is mostly about Septimius Severus

[nwhyte]

Read it here, here and here.

1) Good quotes

Thin pickings, though I liked the explanation of why modern European wars are worse: The civil wars of modern Europe have been distinguished, not only by the fierce animosity, but likewise by the obstinate perseverance, of the contending factions. They have generally been justified by some principle, or,

Comments

[strange_complex]

Oh dear - it seems like every time I give Gibbon a ribbing for reading his sources too uncritically, he shows that he is capable of recognising source biases after all. This time, on Clodius Albinus, he opines"It is difficult to form a just idea of his true character. Under the philosophic cloak of austerity, he stands accused of concealing most of the vices which degrade human nature. But his accusers are those venal writers who adored the fortune of Severus, and trampled on the ashes of an unsuccessful rival."
It's a pity he isn't applying this sort of thinking more consistently, but he does show himself capable of doing it from time to time, so I will try to be more moderate in my criticism from now on.

I was surprised to see in footnote 64 that he seems to think Juvenal's Sixteenth Satire is spurious, since I'm not aware that anyone does now. But obviously it suits his argument to do so, since it allows him to suggest that it is more appropriate to the Severan era, and therefore use it to support his basic contention that the army really got out of control in this period.

I also felt that his argument here was not always entirely consistent with his earlier chapters. For example, he states that "Till the reign of Severus, the virtue, and even the good sense of the emperors had been distinguished by their zeal or affected reverence for the senate, and by a tender regard to the nice frame of civil policy instituted by Augustus." But this hardly tallies with what he has already told us about Commodus. I can't really see from the material he has included here how he thinks Severus is significantly different, let alone worse.

Similarly, I can see nwhyte's point about the concluding comments concerning posterity's view of Severus. I can only assume that Gibbon is trying to suggest here that Severus himself may not have been such a bad lot, but that his assumption of the throne through armed force, his naked reliance on the army and the concessions which he made to the soldiers all enhanced the power of the military and encouraged others to follow the same kind of path later on. As we'll see, the middle part of the third century was total chaos thanks to an almost endless supply of military usurpers: I don't actually think Severus bears any particular responsibility for that, but it's the only sense I can make out of Gibbon's comment.