Author: photog

Thoughts on the Fall of the Roman Empire – Part 1

photog photog's Corner , , , , ,

I have a copy of the first volume of H.G. Wells’ “The Outline of History.”  And in a real way the Roman Empire is the center of the book.  His descriptions of the civilizations of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia and Greece are all sort of a set up for Rome.  And in a real way Rome is the basis for discussing Medieval Europe but also as a point of comparison, China, India and the Islamic world.  And this is not to say that Wells had a romantic or idealized conception about the Roman republic or empire.  Far from it.  He goes to great lengths to explain why even at the height of the Pax Romana; the something like two hundred years from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius that the people of Rome, with the exception of the truly wealthy, were profoundly and justifiably miserable.  And I can see his point of view.  I only have to remember that renegade Roman citizen from Greece that Priscus wrote about, who willingly joined up with Atilla the Hun, to realize how the fall of Rome was probably an improvement in the fate of Europe as a whole; though maybe not for the inhabitants of the areas that descended into chaos in the fifth century.

Among the many short comings of that civilization, Wells counts a lack of scientific curiosity as one of the most damning.  He singles out the fact that a working steam engine was created in Hellenistic times but the Romans never took this knowledge and harnessed it in the way that modern Europe did in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with such inventions as the locomotive.

He further produces as evidence the Romans’ complete neglect of geography as a tool for determining the advantageous borders of their enormous empire.  For instance, if they had realized the outline of the North and Baltic seas and the distance to the Caucasus Mountains and the Caspian Sea, they might have realized that conquering Germany and the Slavic tribes would have produced a shorter and more defensible eastern border than the one that allowed the Huns to stampede the German tribes into the western empire and effectively destroy their civilization.

As for this last claim I have my doubts.  This would have required the Romans to occupy all of Eastern Europe, up to and including Poland, Ukraine along with parts of southern Russia and Iran.  In defense of my ancestors, I would remind Mr. Wells that those areas are very, very much colder than Italy.  Getting Roman colonists for these Hyperborean locales would have been a real stretch.  But let’s assume that the emperor Trajan at his height was aware of the geographical imperative to conquer these areas and that he had made it happen.  What then?

Would the Roman legions and the citizens have repelled the Huns when they came crashing into this Eastern border in the fifth century AD?  Well, that’s the question.  It has been stated that by 180 AD the empire was weakened by a series of plagues that reduced population but also because the downtrodden peasants refused to have children under the onerous conditions they lived under.  This seems to fly in the face of the archeological evidence of bustling cities and far-flung trade with India and even China that sent enormous quantities of silver and gold eastward into Asia from Roman coffers.

What is the truth?  I’ll give my opinion in the second part.  But feel free to give your ideas in the comments.

Guest Contributor – Tregonsee – 03SEP2025 – Now and Forever

photog Current Events, Guest Contributors, Tregonsee

For some reason I always come back to Rudyard Kipling’s poem The Gods of the Copybook Headings (https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_copybook.htm). It is 10 stanzas so a little long to stick in a post (if it is new to you it is well worth going and reading it), but here are the last two talking stanzas about how things end

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man

There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.

That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,

And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins

When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,

As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,

The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

It is an appalling good prediction, Kipling could see things screwing up well over 100 years ago (the poem was first published in 1919) and got them darn near spot on.

The Dresser (1983) – A Movie Review

photog Movie Reviews, Reviews , , , , ,

“The Dresser” is a very odd film.  It’s based on a stage play and since it involves the staging of a performance of King Lear, you could say theater suffuses the movie.  It takes place in England during WWII.  Albert Finney plays Sir; an aged Shakespearean actor of the old school, full of exaggerated gestures and overblown histrionic elocution.  He leads a company of actors travelling around Britain performing Shakespeare to the wartime population.  But it’s not going well.  Because of the draft, Sir declares that he must find his actors from amongst, “old men, cripples and nancy-boys.”  And he says this to his dresser Norman even though Norman is obviously one of those nancy-boys.

Tom Courtenay plays Norman as a somewhat flamboyant homosexual who assists Sir in preparing for his performances.  He bathes him, helps him apply his make-up and if necessary, reminds him of his lines from the wings.  But this assistance has of late become much more difficult because Sir seems to be having a mental and physical breakdown.  He becomes incoherent and agitated and is liable to run screaming through the streets shouting that he can’t go on.

On the day of his first performance in a new city he is hospitalized because of one of these fits coming upon him in public.  And the company and especially Madge the business manager are convinced that Sir has reached the end of his career and must retire to a rest home.  But when he shows up back at the theater Norman uses all of his knowledge of Sir’s psychology to calm him and orient him into the mental state needed to perform the part of King Lear.  Using visual and vocal cues he walks him through the ritual by which the make-up and costume of Lear bring Sir back into the mindset needed to perform.

And that is the film; Norman coaching, praising, wheedling and sometimes chastising the old man into producing a performance of Lear that the audience receives enthusiastically.  And during the performance and the breaks in the play when the Lear character is not on stage we learn about Sir’s relationship to his troupe; Madge’s basically unrequited love for Sir and his relationship with his wife; “Her Ladyship” who is playing Cordelia and how he stands with the other members of the acting troupe, who mostly fear him for his cantankerous temper.

And by the end of the play when Sir dies peacefully in his dressing room with only Norman there to witness his end we find out that Norman loved him too although it was completely unexpressed in life.  And he weeps over the body of Sir.

Now this is a very strange film.  And if it’s a pro-homosexual movie then it’s a very odd one.  Norman takes abuse by anyone outside the theater who sizes up his obviously gay speech pattern and mannerisms.  He’s told to “sod off,” “get stuffed” and “bugger off” by three different characters.  One of the actors who knows of his friendship with a homosexual actor who has been arrested, notes to Norman that, “The pansy fraternity is always upset when one of their own is caught.”  And even Sir, when discussing this actor’s arrest with Norman states that he himself “holds no brief for buggers.”  So obviously this is not one of the modern paeans to gayness.

But I found it quite entertaining.  Albert Finney’s portrayal of Sir is by turns; interesting, humorous, sad and extremely human.  The character of Norman is also well-drawn.  He’s a fussy, neurotic but loyal friend to Sir and a hard-working part of the acting company.  You can see that this acting troupe is his whole life and Sir’s death represents the end of his own small world.  He will be all by himself.

Recommending this film is difficult.  The gay identity of Norman may put off some viewers.  So, let’s put that in as a caveat.  If that doesn’t preclude someone from watching the film then I can recommend it from the point of view of entertainment.  The play within a movie keeps your attention and the characters are well-drawn and interesting.