The Provinces of the Roman Empire, from Caesar to Diocletian. v. 2Mommsen, Theodor
History
The Provinces of the Roman Empire, from Caesar to Diocletian. v. 2
Mommsen, Theodor
Roman provinces -- Administration; Rome -- History -- Empire, 30 B.C.-476 A.D.
This interpenetration of the East and Hellenism, which has nowhere
been carried out so completely as in Syria, meets us predominantly in
the form of the good and noble becoming ruined in the mixture. This,
however, is not everywhere the case; the later developments of religion
and of speculation, Christianity and Neoplatonism, have proceeded from
the same conjunction; if with the former the East penetrates into the
West, the latter is the transformation of the Occidental philosophy in
the sense and spirit of the East--a creation in the first instance of
the Egyptian Plotinus (204-270) and of his most considerable disciple
the Syrian Malchus or Porphyrius (233 till after 300), and thereafter
pre-eminently cultivated in the towns of Syria. For a discussion of
these two phenomena, so significant in the history of the world, this
is not the place; but they may not be forgotten in estimating the
position of matters in Syria.
[Sidenote: Antioch.]
The Syrian character finds its eminent expression in the capital of
the country and, before Constantinople was founded, of the Roman East
generally--inferior as respects population only to Rome and Alexandria,
and possibly also to the Babylonian Seleucia--Antioch, on which it
appears requisite to dwell for a moment. The town, one of the youngest
in Syria and now of small importance, did not become a great city by
the natural circumstances of commerce, but was a creation of monarchic
policy. The Macedonian conquerors called it into life, primarily from
military considerations, as a fitting central place for a rule which
embraced at once Asia Minor, the region of the Euphrates, and Egypt,
and sought also to be near to the Mediterranean.[128] The like aim
and the different methods of the Seleucids and the Lagids find their
true expression in the similarity and the contrast of Antioch and
Alexandria; as the latter was the centre for the naval power and the
maritime policy of the Egyptian rulers, so Antioch was the centre for
the continental Eastern monarchy of the rulers of Asia. The later
Seleucids at different times undertook large new foundations here, so
that the city, when it became Roman, consisted of four independent
and walled-in districts, all of which again were enclosed by a common
wall. Nor were immigrants from a distance wanting. When Greece proper
fell under the rule of the Romans, and Antiochus the Great had vainly
attempted to dislodge them thence, he granted at least to the emigrant
Euboeans and Aetolians an asylum in his capital. In the capital of
Syria, as in that of Egypt, a commonwealth in some measure independent
and a privileged position were conceded to the Jews, and the position
of the towns as centres of the Jewish Diaspora was not the weakest
element in their development. Once made a residency and the seat of
the supreme administration of a great empire, Antioch remained even
in Roman times the capital of the Asiatic provinces of Rome. Here
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account