Decadence: Henry Sidgwick memorial lecture, 1908Balfour, Arthur James
Philosophy
Decadence: Henry Sidgwick memorial lecture, 1908
Balfour, Arthur James
Nationalism; Political science
However this question should be answered the cases I have cited are
sufficient to shew where the chief difficulty of the enquiry lies.
Decadence, even if it be a reality, never acts in isolation. It is
always complicated with, and often acts through, other more obvious
causes. It is always therefore possible to argue that to these causes,
and not to the more subtle and elusive influences collectively
described as ’decadence,’ the decline and fall of great communities is
really due.
Yet there are historic tragedies which (as it seems to me) do most
obstinately refuse to be thus simply explained. It is in vain that
historians enumerate the public calamities which preceded, and no doubt
contributed to, the final catastrophe. Civil dissensions, military
disasters, pestilences, famines, tyrants, tax-gatherers, growing
burdens, and waning wealth--the gloomy catalogue is unrolled before our
eyes, yet somehow it does not in all cases wholly satisfy us: we feel
that some of these diseases are of a kind which a vigorous body politic
should easily be able to survive, that others are secondary symptoms of
some obscurer malady, and that in neither case do they supply us with
the full explanations of which we are in search.
Consider for instance the long agony and final destruction of Roman
Imperialism in the West, the most momentous catastrophe of which we
have historic record. It has deeply stirred the imagination of mankind,
it has been the theme of great historians, it has been much explained
by political philosophers, yet who feels that either historians or
philosophers have laid bare the inner workings of the drama? Rome
fell, and great was the fall of it. But why it fell, by what secret
mines its defences were breached, and what made its garrison so
faint-hearted and ineffectual--this is not so clear.
In order to measure adequately the difficulty of the problem let us
abstract our minds from historical details and compare the position of
the Empire about the middle of the second century, with its position
in the middle of the third, or again at the end of the fourth, and
ask of what forces history gives us an account, sufficient in these
periods to effect so mighty a transformation. Or, still better, imagine
an observer equipped with our current stock of political wisdom,
transported to Rome in the reign of Antoninus Pius or Marcus Aurelius,
and in ignorance of the event, writing letters to the newspapers on the
future destinies of the Empire. What would his forecast be?
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account