Friday, July 5, 2019

Catherine Nixey, “The Darkening Age”


 – e-book


Read from May 26th to June 26th 2019

My rating: 


I don’t know whether the beautiful province of Quebec, which has been my home for about fifteen years, now, has got the most places with saints’ names in North America, but it is sure you will see them on almost any plate on the road. Yet, Québec is also one of the less religious places I know of, despite (or because of) the fact that, until just some fifty years ago, the Catholic Church was maybe the most powerful instance in the country. And if you ask the Quebecers about that period, their smile fade and they reluctantly acknowledge some of the rules they had to obey were positively medieval. 

Was it this constraint they experienced that have made them so adamant that religion have not part in their lives anymore? Probably, and I would like to believe they closed, thus, the long period of abuse and persecutions Christianity is guilty of, but I know it is only wishful thinking. At the end of the day, this is a period that few have dared to denounce, and at their own risk, from Celsus in the second century, who was the first Greek intellectual to contest the new religion and whose work was afterwards destroyed (and whom we know only because Origen, a Christian apologist, wrote Contra Celsum, in which he polemically quoted from his On the True Doctrine some 80 years later) to the eighteenth-century English historian Edward Gibbon who, in his Decline and Fall, will blame the Christians’ indolence and disregard for the public welfare for the fall of the Roman Empire, and who will see his study banned by The Catholic Church and himself becoming a pariah in the English society.


Not even the twenty-first-century Catherine Nixey will escape totally unscathed after publishing her brilliant and disturbing book, The Darkening Age. The Christian Destruction of the Classical World, being accused for example by Richard Tada in his article “The Myth That ChristiansDestroyed the Classical World Dies Hard” of uneven research, shoddy work and confusion of some religious notions, although he knows very well that she is not only a Classic teacher but also the daughter of a former monk and nun. Moreover, an otherwise very appreciatively review, like the one published by Tim Whitmarsh in The Guardian (and which considers the book an “exceptional account of murder and vandalism wrought by religious zealotry – and one that suggests modern parallels”) can’t help but reproach the author that she is biased in her perception of a benign and rational antiquity in opposition to a barbaric Christianity, when the Romans’ cruelty is well documented. 

For my part though, The Darkening Age has only reinforced my conviction that the distance between Church and God is even greater than between any atheist and God and that faith is a personal choice, never to be institutionalised, to be given the power to oppress. 

In fact, this is the theme of the book the author formulates, after emphasizing that everybody has talked about the things the Church preserved, but few about what it destroyed: to remind the modern world about an entire civilisation that had been lost, with its art and culture wiped out and its people reluctantly converted, deprived of their freedom and their past. 

No wonder the book opens and closes with the powerful image of the wisdom trampled down by the Christian feet during their triumphal march against paganism. The decapitated head of Athena in Palmyra marks its beginning and her torso used as a step in the former house of the last philosophers in Athena its completion. In between, the sorrow tale of two centuries (the 4th and the 5th) when the Christian Church “demolished, vandalized and melted down a simply staggering quantity of art”, burnt the last remnants of the library of Alexandria, hid under palimpsests precious manuscripts (Augustine wrote the Psalms over the last copy of Cicero’s De republica, an Old Testament covered a Seneca’s biographical work), eradicated the entire work of Democritus, almost the entire Latin literature, and so on. 
The bleak image the author offers is in open contradiction with the traditional narrative in which the Christians conquered a weakened and abusive empire, whose population was ready for a saviour. In fact, the slaves remained slaves (a priest who encouraged them to quit their masters was immediately excommunicated and there is even a saint, St. Theodore, whose speciality was hunting fugitive slaves), and the taxation remained as punitive as before, only the fonds were used now to support the Church (for example to pay the bishops five times as much as professors, and six times as much as doctors).

Barely did the Christians come to power when the offensive began: first against the traditional Gods that had become suddenly demonic, by smashing them down, and closing, robbing and destroying their temples; then against the “pagan” science, philosophy, literature, by burning the books and the objects of art and by forbidding their teaching; finally against the freedom of spirit, by forcing conversion and forbidding any other manifestation of faith. Isn’t this a familiar pattern to be repeated all along the following centuries: conquer, destroy, erase, convert? How many other civilisations would be made to feel like Palladas, who’d asked in a sad epigram: ‘Is it not true that we are dead and only seem to live, we Greeks... Or are we alive and is life dead?’
 
There are two stories in the study, magnificently told, that show unequivocally the material and spiritual devastation Christianity inflicted: the destruction of the temple of Serapis (considered at its time more beautiful than the Parthenon) and the murder of Hypatia of Alexandria, one of the most famous figures of the 5th century: a brilliant philosopher, astronomer, mathematician, tortured and killed in 415 by a mob of Christians: 


As soon as she stood on the street, the parabalani, under the guidance of a Church magistrate called Peter – ‘a perfect believer in all respects in Jesus Christ’ – surged round and seized ‘the pagan woman’. They then dragged Alexandria’s greatest living mathematician through the streets to a church. Once inside, they ripped the clothes from her body then, using broken pieces of pottery as blades, flayed her skin from her flesh. Some say that, while she still gasped for breath, they gouged out her eyes. Once she was dead, they tore her body into pieces and threw what was left of the ‘luminous child of reason’ onto a pyre and burned her.

Furthermore, the Christian Church was not built only on the ruins of the old world, but also on exaggerations and lies, maybe to prove that not only idols have feet of clay, but also martyrs and saints. It is arguable today that the number of martyrs was as great as we have been led to believe, since in the first three centuries there were fewer than thirteen persecutions, and in the first 250 years AD we know only about Nero’s, who “persecuted everyone”, anyway. Origen himself admitted that the number of martyrs was small, despite the proliferation of stories about them. 


It is now thought that fewer than ten martyrdom tales from the early Church can be considered reliable. The martyr stories, inspiring and entertaining though they may be, show what the scholar G. E. M. De Ste. Croix called ‘an increasing contempt for historicity’.


As for the saints (whom I’m familiar with mainly because of, as I’ve already told you, the name plates I see everywhere in Québec 😊), at a closer look most of them are fanatical, therefore cruel and abusive. St. Chrysostom encouraged Christians to denounce each other and his Discourses Against Judaizing Christians will be quoted with enthusiasm by the Nazi. The emperor Constantine, who boiled his wife in a bath because he suspected her of adultery with his son (whom he also killed), was seen by his contemporaries as a vicious, evil man. There is even a saint, Benedict of Nursia, who gained this distinction not only because he founded the Western monasticism, but also because he destroyed many antiquities. Another one, Shenoute, pretended that those ‘who had Christ’ could do anything unpunished, and he went and destroyed a private home in His name. 

The great St Augustine himself approved without reservations both the forced conversions and the destructions for they were commanded by God. When the temple of Caelestis was levelled in Carthage, he exulted: ‘No craftsman will ever again make the idols that Christ has smashed (…). ‘Consider what power this Caelestis used to enjoy here at Carthage. But where is the kingdom of this Caelestis now?’ (Expositions on the Psalms)

The final blow was Justinian’s Law 1.11.10.2, forbidding the teaching of any pagan doctrine.


It was this law that caused the Academy to close. It was this law that led the English scholar Edward Gibbon to declare that the entirety of the barbarian invasions had been less damaging to Athenian philosophy than Christianity was. This law’s consequences were described more simply by later historians. It was from this moment, they said, that a Dark Age began to descend upon Europe.


I will end my review with a story, I didn’t know before reading the book, a story at the same time amusing and sad, which shows once again the abyss between a disinhibited, gay, open-minded culture and a sombre, pedantic, over moralistic one: the story of the first line of the Catullus’s ‘Carmen 16’ poem, ‘Pedicabo et irrumabo’. True to Basil’s stern recommendations that such words endanger the safety of the soul, editor after editor (the same will happen with some explicit poems by Martial) avoided to publish or to translate it until the end of the 20th century. It was left out of the 1904 Cambridge University Press edition of his Collected Poems and in the 1966 Penguin edition was kept in Latin. Only in 1983, Richlin will translate it correctly, though “though such was the richness of Latin sexual slang that five English words were needed for that single Latin verb irrumabo”: ‘I will bugger you and I will fuck your mouths’. The censorship has been in place for almost two millennia and there is no definite sign it will completely stop rearing its ugly head anytime soon. 


P.S. I feel like emphasizing, because of the long and a little bit angry replies Tim O'Neill gave to my review (see the comments below), that Catherine Nixey's book is not, nor it pretends to be, a historical study. Read it as it truly is: a polemic essay, which says from the beginning that it wants to present not what the Church preserved from antiquity (and she admits several times it preserved a lot) but what it destroyed.

18 comments:

  1. So it seems, despite noting reviews by people who know what they are talking about cautioning about Nixey's distortions, you've decided to just accept her polemical book at face value anyway. Actual historians of the relevant period (and no, Nixey is not one - she only has an undergraduate degree) have roundly condemned this book as biased junk. Dame Averil Cameron, who is THE preeminent historian of Late Antiquity, has called it "a travesty". Another specialist in the period I know simply calls it "that stupid little book".

    But you seem to think this non-specialist with a axe to grind can be trusted to give you the whole story. Okay - so let's take the two examples you focus on above. Nixey tells you that a mob of Christians suddenly turned up at the Temple of Serapis and tore it down in a frenzy of fanaticism. What she decided not to tell you was that this was because the Temple was being used as a base by a gang of violent pagan extremists who were venturing out of it at night, kidnapping Christians and taking them back to the Temple to torture and crucify them. The Army then laid siege to this gang of terrorists and there was a stand off while both sides appealed to the emperor. He then ruled the pagans could leave the Temple unharmed but that the Temple should be torn down. So the Army began to do this and the crowd, angry that the murderers had been allowed to escape, joined in. So why didn't Nixey bother to give you any of this context? Why did she falsely depict it as an act of unprovoked destruction? It's not like she didn't know about the context - her footnotes show she used historians who talk about it in detail. But she decided to tell you half the story.

    Ditto for the murder of Hypatia. There is nothing in the contemporary sources to indicate this had anything to do with her learning or her paganism. She was a neo-Platonist of the school of Plotinus, which was highly compatible with Christianity - as shown by the fact she was admired by Christian historians, had the friendship of the Christian political leaders of the city and included several noble Christians among her students. The sources actually say it was a purely political struggle for dominance that led to her death - a faction fight between the noble old guard and new political players who had the support of the poor and the rural people. So why does Nixey make out it had something to do with religion?

    And her book is full of this kind of deliberate distortion. I give a full and detailed critique HERE.


    This is not a good history book and is definitely not one to be trusted on anything much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You quote the words of D.A. Cameron from where? You accused C. Nixey of being biased but you are too, for most of the quotes sustaining your counterarguments come from ecclesiastical sources and I do not trust the Church official history, which is much more shady that it let us believe.

      Catherine Nixey did not convince you, you did not convince me, sir. Moreover, there were so many crimes the Church did in the name of Christ that the scenario the author depicts seems perfectly plausible. And look at the very words of the Church titans, Augustine, Chrysostome and so on. They upset me and convinced me even more that the destruction was real.

      Delete
    2. "You quote the words of D.A. Cameron from where?"

      I linked to her review in my critique on my blog - her review is found in The Tablet, 21 September, 2016, entitled "Blame the Christians", where she also describes Nixey's book as "an overstated and unbalanced counterblast". Dame Averil has also recommended my longer critique to her students, as have several other academics.

      "most of the quotes sustaining your counterarguments come from ecclesiastical sources"

      Much of our source material for this period comes from what you call "ecclesiastical sources" (i.e. ones written by Christians) for the simple fact that much of the population were Christians by the end of the fourth century. But few of those sources are what you call "Church official history", as Christianity did not have that kind of unity or cohesive position on anything much in this early period. That aside, we can't just dismiss anything those sources say simply because they come from Christian writers. What historians actually do is assess what they are saying and why and then judge what they indicate as being most likely. Nixey uses Christian sources as well, though one of the (many) problems with her work is the inconsistent way she uses them. She is highly sceptical of them when it suits her argument (e.g. on persecutions of Christians) but is naively accepting of them in other places (e.g. she accepts all accounts of temple destruction, even when those accounts are stylised, formulaic and dubious).

      Catherine Nixey did not convince you, you did not convince me, sir.

      Okay. Why? I give clear and detailed reasons why Nixey did not "convince" me - largely because I know the period and the sources well enough to know she is distorting the evidence and carefully cherry picking. Please explain what is so "unconvincing" about my detailed critique. It seems you just want to believe Nixey's distorted story because it conforms to your prejudices.

      "Moreover, there were so many crimes the Church did in the name of Christ that the scenario the author depicts seems perfectly plausible."

      If you want to argue against someone who says Christianity did nothing that we would consider "crimes" in this period then I suggest you go find someone who is saying that. I'm not. I'm simply noting that the "crimes" she presents as the whole picture were only part of it and many of them either didn't actually happen or didn't happen in the way she pretends. That's distortion, not objective and rational history. I'm a rationalist, thanks.

      "They upset me and convinced me even more that the destruction was real."

      It does not follow that because some of what Nixey says is not completely distorted or made up, you can therefore accept her whole thesis. It doesn't work like that. You seem eager to accept a mythic distortion of history, which doesn't make you much better than Christians who want to accept a pious romanticisation of it. Both are distortions and both are irrational.

      Delete
    3. Sir, I am truly honoured you felt like ça vaut la peine to try and convince me you are right and I am wrong. I will try to keep it short, because if you take again every word I write and comment it, this risks to become a very long conversation 😊.

      First, I liked Nixey’s book (which I consider an essay, not a historical study) not only because it is attuned to my own prejudices, as you like to think (although show me a truly objective person and I show you an angel) but because it is well written, from a literary point of view, and well sustained by documents and quotes, from either a journalistic and historical point of view.

      Second, you call the stories of Serapis temple and Hypatia murder fairy tales. It is weird how all ancient Christians gave the same version of the destruction of the temple and only Eunapius, the “pagan”, another. As for the murder of Hypatia, I couldn’t see the point of your polemic, since the author herself stresses its political implications, by her relationship with Orestes. It seems to me that all the events have contradictory versions, so it is a question of whom you want to believe, in which case the same big MAYBE can be put in front of your reconstruction of the events as in front of Catherine Nixey’s.

      Third, there are things even the most incredulous cannot deny that offer a very somber image of the destruction of Antiquity: the Christian emperors’ laws (like the Justinian’s ‘Law 1.11.10.2’), the mutilated objets d’art, the words and actions of the Church’s saints (Augustine’ “merciful savagery” will remain forever with me), and the general satisfaction for the annihilation of an entire civilization:

      “Far from mourning the loss, Christians delighted in it. As John Chrysostom crowed, the writings ‘of the Greeks have all perished and are obliterated’. He warmed to the theme in another sermon: ‘Where is Plato? Nowhere! Where Paul? In the mouths of all!’”

      And last, as I’ve already said, the next centuries will render this image even more plausible, confirming both the not-so-merciful savagery of the Church (see the Inquisition) and the disdain for any other religion or civilization (see the forced Christianizations).

      In my humble opinion, a book like this was much needed to contradict the rose-coloured image of a tolerant, humanity-loving-despite-the-sufferings-endured religion. Maybe it has exaggerated a little the negative, but it is only right after so many centuries in which the positive has been blatantly exaggerated.

      Delete
  2. I liked Nixey’s book .... because it is well written, from a literary point of view, and well sustained by documents and quotes, from either a journalistic and historical point of view.

    A book which cherry-picks evidence, ignores counter-examples, deliberately avoids giving context to its examples and misrepresents the positions of the people it cites is not "well sustained". Any undergraduate history paper that did a fraction of what Nixey does in this book would be given a failure grade, and rightly so.

    "It is weird how all ancient Christians gave the same version of the destruction of the temple and only Eunapius, the “pagan”, another."

    Eunapius did not give any "other" account. He simply noted that the temple had been destroyed and then spent the rest of his brief mention pouring scorn on Christians as a result. The longer accounts give the context of the destruction, but if you're trying to imply that they made this up, I'm afraid that won't work. Two of the pagan extremists whose violence sparked the stand off and the destruction later boasted openly about killing Christians in these events and one even wrote a poem celebrating his killing of a prominent Christian in the temple. But Nixey never mentions any of this. Why not?

    "As for the murder of Hypatia, I couldn’t see the point of your polemic"

    The "point" is that this political faction fight had nothing to do with religion or learning. Both sides were Christian factions led by Christians. The fact that Hypatia was (probably) not a Christian is totally irrelevant. So is the fact she was learned. So why does Nixey highlight this event? So she can distort it to fit her agenda.

    "even the most incredulous cannot deny that offer a very somber image of the destruction of Antiquity"

    And only the most biased can pretend those examples are the whole picture. Pagan works and monuments were also carefully preserved, with laws passed to ensure this happened. Why doesn't Nixey devote equal pages to that? Because she is determined to distort history.

    "the next centuries will render this image even more plausible"

    Again, that there are other examples of Christians doing bad things in later centuries is irrelevant. Noone who understands history denies this just as noone denies some of the stuff Nixey presents either (though some of it is nonsense). The problem is she distorts things by ignoring nuance, balance, counter-examples and context. That's not history - that's biased propaganda.

    "a book like this was much needed to contradict the rose-coloured image of a tolerant, humanity-loving-despite-the-sufferings-endured religion"

    Virtually no-one presents Christianity that way in popular culture and what Nixey says has a pedigree going back over 250 years. To pretend it's something groundbreaking and new is ridiculous. It's just a bit of junk journalism pandering to prejudiced pseudo historical myths that historians have been patiently trying to debunk since Gibbon. But it seem some people don't care about balance and objectivity and just like their biased nonsense served piping hot. As an atheist and rationalist who loves reali history, I despair. Nixey is as bad as any Christian apologist and even more patently deceptive than most.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Excelenta cartea, multumesc mult pentru recomandare.

    ReplyDelete