Below are some
excerpts from the document, intended to summarize Gibbon’s conclusions.
“The rise of a city, which swelled into an empire, may
deserve, as a singular prodigy, the reflection of a philosophic mind. But
the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate
greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of
destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and as soon as time or
accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to
the pressure of its own weight. …The victorious legions, who, in distant
wars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed the
freedom of the republic, and afterwards violated the majesty of the purple. The
emperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reduced
to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered them alike
formidable to their sovereign and to the enemy; the vigor of the military
government was relaxed and finally dissolved by the partial institutions of
Constantine; and the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of barbarians.
The decay of Rome has been frequently ascribed to the
translation of the seat of empire but this history has already shown that the
powers of Government were divided rather
than removed. …This
dangerous novelty impaired the strength and fomented the vices of a double
reign: the instruments of an oppressive and arbitrary system were multiplied;
and a vain emulation of luxury, not of merit, was introduced and supported
between the degenerate successors of Theodosius. Extreme distress, which
unites the virtue of a free people, embitters the factions of a declining
monarchy. The hostile favorites of Arcadius and Honorius betrayed the
republic to its common enemies; and the Byzantine court beheld with
indifference, perhaps with pleasure, the disgrace of Rome, the misfortunes of
Italy, and the loss of the West.
As the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we may
hear without surprise or scandal that the introduction, or at least the abuse
of Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman
empire. The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and
pusillanimity (cowardliness); the active virtues of society were
discouraged; and the last remains of military spirit were buried in the
cloister: a large portion of public and private wealth was consecrated to
the specious demands of charity and devotion; and the soldiers' pay was
lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes who could only plead the
merits of abstinence and chastity. Faith, zeal, curiosity, and more earthly
passions of malice and ambition, kindled the flame of theological discord; the
church, and even the state, were distracted by religious factions, whose
conflicts were sometimes bloody and always implacable; the attention of the
emperors was diverted from camps to synods; the Roman world was oppressed by a
new species of tyranny; and the persecuted sects became the secret enemies
of their country.
…Religious precepts are easily obeyed which indulge
and sanctify the natural inclinations of their votaries; but the pure and
genuine influence of Christianity may be traced in its beneficial, though
imperfect, effects on the barbarian proselytes of the North. If the decline of
the Roman empire was hastened by the conversion of Constantine, his victorious
religion broke the violence of the fall, and mollified the ferocious temper of
the conquerors.”
At this point, Gibbon ponders
whether the political systems of his time could fall prey to the same problems
that doomed the empire. Answering his own question, he describes three
differences between Rome and the modern age.
“I.
The Romans were ignorant of the extent of their dangers and the number of their
enemies. The flying tribes who yielded to the Huns assumed in their turn the spirit of
conquest; the endless column of barbarians pressed on the Roman empire with
accumulated weight; and, if the foremost were destroyed, the vacant space was
instantly replenished by new assailants.
II. The
empire of Rome was firmly established by the singular and perfect coalition of
its members. The subject nations, resigning the hope and even the wish of
independence, embraced the character of Roman citizens; and the provinces of
the West were reluctantly torn by the barbarians from the bosom of their mother
country. But this union was purchased by the loss of national freedom and
military spirit; and the servile provinces, destitute of life and motion,
expected their safety from the mercenary troops and governors who were directed
by the orders of a distant court. The happiness of an hundred millions depended
on the persona merit of one or two men, perhaps children, whose minds were
corrupted by education, luxury, and despotic power. The deepest wounds were
inflicted on the empire during the minorities of the sons and grandsons of
Theodosius; and, after those incapable princes seemed to attain the age of
manhood, they abandoned the church to the bishops, the state to the eunuchs,
and the provinces to the barbarians.
III.
Cold, poverty, and a life of danger and fatigue fortify the strength and
courage of barbarians. In every age they have oppressed the polite and peaceful
nations of China, India, and Persia, who neglected, and still neglect, to
counter-balance these natural powers by the resources of military art. The
warlike states of antiquity, Greece, Macedonia, and Rome, educated a race of
soldiers; exercised their bodies, disciplined their courage, multiplied their
forces by regular evolutions, and converted the iron which they possessed into
strong and serviceable weapons. But this superiority insensibly declined with
their laws and manners: and the feeble policy of Constantine and his successors
armed and instructed, for the ruin of the empire, the rude valour of the
barbarian mercenaries.”
I have no argument with these points.
As we have discussed in recent posts, the emperors of the late empire were weak
and they employed German commanders and barbarian soldiers.
The role of Christianity is a different matter, however, requiring us to look further at Gibbon’s statements about its role in the empire. He wrote seven chapters about the Christians. Two stand out as the most controversial.
Volume 1 Chapter 15 – Progress of the Christian Religion
Volume 1 Chapter 16 -
Conduct Toward the Christians, from Nero to Constantine
In chapter 15, Gibbon gives his opinion on the reasons for
the triumph of Christianity.
“To this inquiry, an
obvious but satisfactory answer may be returned; that it was owing to the
convincing evidence of the doctrine itself, and to the ruling providence
of its great Author.”
Gibbon asserts that Christianity developed out of Judaism by
co-opting the Old Testament, defining a new covenant to replace Jewish law, and
attacking the Jews. The latter was an artifact of the competition between Gentile
Christians and Jewish Christians, before the latter were destroyed in
the ashes of Jerusalem.
Chapter 16 has been criticized for its bias and uneven
approach. In spite of the chapter’s shortcomings, Gibbon's conclusions are thought
provoking. He speculates about the reasons why the antiquarian tolerance for
religious diversity was suddenly suspended in the case of the Christians. Gibbon characterizes
the Jews and Christians as similar in behavior – both seeking social isolation
and refusing to pay homage to their sovereign - yet the Jews were not persecuted. Why? His answer follows:
“The difference
between them is simple and obvious; but, according to the sentiments of
antiquity, it was of the highest importance. The Jews were a nation; the
Christians were a sect: and if it was natural for every community to respect
the sacred institutions of their neighbors, it was incumbent on them to
persevere in those of their ancestors.
By embracing the faith
of the gospel, the Christians incurred the supposed guilt of an unnatural and
unpardonable offence. They dissolved the sacred ties of custom and
education, violated the religious institutions of their country, and presumptuously
despised whatever their fathers had believed as true, or had reverenced as
sacred.”
The development of Christianity and its effect on the empire is a topic we must pursue
further in order to place it in the correct context. Once we have
that established, we can decide for ourselves whether Gibbon was correct.
3 comments:
The problem is that Constantine and his precessors and successors rest the foundation of the empire on to give a modern spin cult of personality. Hence worship of the Emperor with no ceditable backup other than force of arms. If the Romans had done what the Chin had done create a universal written language instead they would avoided the problems of the use of religious cults be they Christian or Islamic monotheism and they would have truly united Europe in the long run.
I had to pause at end of Volume 3 of Gibbons:
"We may therefore acquiesce in the pleasing conclusion, that every age of the world has increased, and still increases, the real wealth, the happiness, the knowledge, and perhaps the virtue, of the human race."
Post a Comment