The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume II (Edward Gibbon, 1776)

(592 pages)

Volume 2 of 3 (Volume 1 addressed here).

I continue to very much enjoy Gibbon's writing (both substance and style).  And it's impressive to consider how well his work has held up after near 250 years.

This volume circles back to consider the conduct of the Roman government towards Christianity starting with Nero, and continues with general overview until just a few years past the final separation of the Eastern and Western empires (364 AD).

As with Volume 1 - much discussion about the various emperors and the way responsibilities were split.  Major characters included Constantine and his sons; Julian (something of a philosopher-warrior, sought to restore paganism).  Battles go on in both east and west; barbarians and adjacent empires or nations get rowdy; successful emperors seem to rise up sufficiently regularly to hold things together reasonably well.  But not always.  Toward the end of this volume - some of the large-scale wars with Persia that contributed to the mutual exhaustion of Rome and Persia prior to the emergence of Islam.

The discussions about Christianity in this context are pretty interesting.  Many elements for Gibbon resonate with this discussion - where the author was focused on the death of Jesus and the few ragtag followers in place at that time - yet Christianity grew into a powerful worldwide institution - how??  Gibbon pretty staunchly (if somewhat covertly, given that he desired to get published) anti-clerical, anti-organized church - so I try to read him with that in mind.

While Christianity clearly was making some strides, so much of it comes back to Constantine.  Like Mohammed (discussed here), Jesus didn't leave behind a comprehensive written roadmap - later generations (in many cases "very" later!) did that - perhaps they were divinely inspired, perhaps other considerations mattered.  Christianity had some maddeningly tricky concepts - main example being how to define the relationship between "three persons in one God" - not addressed in the Gospels or other early writings.  Arians - known forever as "Arian heretics" after 325 - the best-known not-orthodox (as it turned out) variant.  Various groups in various geographies had various interpretations - and they definitely annoyed one another, but some coexistence seemed to be the norm.

But now there is an emperor with minimal theological background but intense interest in getting everyone on the same page - Council of Nicea, 325 - now there's the imperial juice to define heretics, and make life miserable for them.

And with the imposition of a Roman/imperial superstructure for the church - gobs of money at stake - but not for the not-orthodox clergy.  This of course encouraged intense competition for bishoprics.  Venality arises early, it didn't wait until the Reformation - already imperial Rome found it necessary to pass laws preventing "spiritual adviser" priests from taking huge bequests from wealthy Romans (typically female it seems).

Constantine generally revered for legitimizing Christianity's position in the Roman empire, but wow, was the Roman administrative structure really a good thing for Christianity?   Folks occupying what I'll call "offices" in the 4th century church adopted the outlook and mannerisms of the imperial government.  Not to mention, look what attempted enforcement of orthodoxy has achieved.

Gibbon has an interesting discussion about the difference between the church in the east and the west - he describes the westerners as essentially too rude in the sense that they (recent or present barbarians depending on one's viewpoint) lacked a history of parsing theology minutiae, and thus tended to adopt what was put in front of them by the leadership.  In the east - endless energy to fight about nuances of the nature of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and so much else.  We end up with various sub-groups within Christianity to this day, all originating from the eastern church.

Julian was an interesting character - not a willing emperor - preferred hanging around as a philosopher in Athens - but became highly effective, including in battle.

Nexus (Ramez Naam, 2012)

(464 pages)

Book club selection (via Lon; session held 28 April 2019).

This wasn't one of my favorite books - lots of action, but rather in an "I (the author) am hoping for a movie deal" sort of way; characters not very credible (though that might be chalked up to the strange drugs they take?)

The book does cause one to think, if just a bit, about how far and how fast we might go in terms of enhancing human intelligence, permitting folks to share their thoughts, etc.

I'm no expert but I think current experiences with "driverless" cars indicates that in our lifetimes, we won't come anywhere near the technologies described in this book.

Author confuses what I consider intellectual horsepower -  compute power - with wisdom.  Folks like Kade, Samantha, the Chinese post-human - had they lived a lot?  read a lot?  learned a lot?  developed judgment and experience to go along with compute power?  Somehow they're supposed to exercise all this power wisely?

Lots of blather about the ecstasy of sharing another's thoughts - what's that about?  Why is it so great?  No real limits on sharing here - yet people have forever exposed themselves gradually to others, for good reason, and often call a halt.  Understanding is a lengthy process. Somehow these wonder drugs are supposed to short-circuit what humans have evolved in terms of communication, and this is great?

I'd say the drones were the coolest tech in the book.

Naivete of the lead characters re dangerous uses of the "nexus 5" drug was unbelievable.

Kolyma Stories (Varlam Shalamov, written between 1954 and 1973)

(734 pages)

I really, really liked this book (actually it's three books - Kolyma Stories; The Left Bank; and The Spade Artist; I decided to read all three in one shot rather than breaking into separate sessions).

Another favorite, highly recommended.  I very much took my time reading it.

Initially I was worried about redundancy with prior reading on the camps in Russia, especially Solzhenitsyn  and/or Primo Levi's wonderful book, or books on the Nazi camps.

But it wasn't redundant.  Shalamov has an entirely unique voice.  I see the Chekhov comparison but wouldn't be able to explain it.  Spare, unsentimental - yet lyrical (perhaps because of this)?  Short story format is not at all my favorite - Shalamov makes it work so beautifully, including in many stories that run just a few pages.  Heartbreaking, often - but not hopeless.

There is never any doubt that Shalamov lived through (more accurately: suffered, survived) that about which he wrote.  A sad life in so many ways, but look what he left us. 15 years in the camps.

Thoughts -

1.  I sometimes wonder "what can I really learn" from stories of humans functioning in such extreme conditions - how can this be instructive, even relevant, to me?  Don't know the answer, maybe I just found the stories here well-written and compelling?  But it feels like more.  Then I think that so much literature is set in more or less extreme settings - whether war or natural disaster or crime or whatever - not sure how to think about this.

2.  I'm not finding much new these days in the stories set in Nazi world.  Perhaps because the canvas there, while fascinating in so many ways, is relatively limited - only a few years in power, then rapid movement in a war setting; smaller geography (fewer remote places); and bad guys that almost feel a bit cartoonish.

3.  In comparison the Soviet canvas goes on for decades, and includes incredibly remote places - where war and political change back in Europe didn't disturb much; where all of those years resulted in interrogators, prison guards, informers, exiles, NKVD types, who in some sense could be considered "regular people" in that continuing society. (Even a longer history if we include the similar behaviors from tsarist times.)

4.  And the setting for Shalamov's stories is even starker because of Kolyma's specific climate - extreme cold so much of the year - and extreme geographic isolation.  And the policy of sustained near-starvation and overwork - specific calorie counts - unfavored prisoners slated for "heavy physical work" only (meaning a quick death sentence).

5.  Shalamov's focus isn't so much on the cruelties of the system (though those are not overlooked), but on the way prisoners - including literary folks like this author - functioned, and tried to survive, at least until giving up.  Entirely unromantic.  Dealing with gangsters - apparently they are organized in every prison.  Political prisoners.  In particular political prisoners with the dreaded "T" (Trotskyist) marked in their file.  Nonpoliticals (such as "ordinary" thieves, rapists, murderers) favored in this world, relatively speaking.

6.  Shalamov excellent with descriptions of the local geography - taiga, dwarf pines, plants/animals - even rivers and streams - struggling against the cold.  Kolyma!  Just look up the city of Magadan (the local metropolis, lying well south of the camps) on a map.

7.  By far the longest story - doesn't even have a plot - recounts the author getting into paramedic training classes - describes individually all the students and teachers - fascinating look, folks from around the huge USSR with unbelievably disparate backgrounds who were selected for a wide variety of more or less understandable reasons.  Initially each is desperate to stay in the program mostly for the incrementally better food.  They weren't in the First Circle, but at least were no longer near the bottom circles.  Getting the paramedic position saved Shalamov's life.

8.  Spouses hoping for the best, but destined for the worst.  Some imagined they could repeat the experience of the famous Decembrist wives, but it was not to be.  Camp bosses knew how to take advantage; visits to the spouse invariably denied.

9.  Of the three books - the first is pretty grim - mostly about life in the camps.  The second was my favorite - broader look - includes transit prisons, interrogation prisons, paramedic world, lots of hospital action.  The third overlapped thematically with the first two to a considerable extent, but then moved on to discuss Shalamov's last days in Kolyma - the releases after Stalin finally died - his lengthy return trip to Moscow - those tales are amazing in their own way.