What is the author, Finley Hooper's, interpretation of the fall of the Roman Empire?
"The year was 476. For those who demand to know the date Rome fell, that is it. Others will realize that the fall of Rome was not an event but a process. Or, to put it another way, there was no fall at all-ancient Roman civilizations simply became something else, which is called medieval. (It evolved into another civilization, the civilization of the Middle Ages."
1 Answer | Add Yours
Your question pretty much contains the answer -- it's right there at the end of the paragraph. In other words, Hooper is arguing that Rome never fell but that instead, it became something else.
Hooper's not really saying that there wasn't any such thing as the fall of Rome. But what he is saying is that it wasn't the end of all things Roman. Instead, what had been Rome just evolved into something different.
A more recent example that might help...
Russia today still exists even though the Soviet Union has fallen. It's not like the fall of the Soviet Union brought an end to Russian civilization. It just changed it.
That's what Hooper is saying happened to Rome.
Join to answer this question
Join a community of thousands of dedicated teachers and students.Join eNotes