Appearance
Excerpt
Excerpt from History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire — Volume 2, by Edward Gibbon
The Conduct Of The Roman Government Towards The Christians, From<br />
The Reign Of Nero To That Of Constantine. 1111
1111 (return) [ The sixteenth chapter I cannot help considering<br />
as a very ingenious and specious, but very disgraceful<br />
extenuation of the cruelties perpetrated by the Roman magistrates<br />
against the Christians. It is written in the most contemptibly<br />
factious spirit of prejudice against the sufferers; it is<br />
unworthy of a philosopher and of humanity. Let the narrative of<br />
Cyprian’s death be examined. He had to relate the murder of an<br />
innocent man of advanced age, and in a station deemed venerable<br />
by a considerable body of the provincials of Africa, put to death<br />
because he refused to sacrifice to Jupiter. Instead of pointing<br />
the indignation of posterity against such an atrocious act of<br />
tyranny, he dwells, with visible art, on the small circumstances<br />
of decorum and politeness which attended this murder, and which<br />
he relates with as much parade as if they were the most important<br />
particulars of the event. Dr. Robertson has been the subject of<br />
much blame for his real or supposed lenity towards the Spanish<br />
murderers and tyrants in America. That the sixteenth chapter of<br />
Mr. G. did not excite the same or greater disapprobation, is a<br />
proof of the unphilosophical and indeed fanatical animosity<br />
against Christianity, which was so prevalent during the latter<br />
part of the eighteenth century.—_Mackintosh:_ see Life, i. p.<br />
244, 245.]
If we seriously consider the purity of the Christian religion,<br />
the sanctity of its moral precepts, and the innocent as well as<br />
austere lives of the greater number of those who during the first<br />
ages embraced the faith of the gospel, we should naturally<br />
suppose, that so benevolent a doctrine would have been received<br />
with due reverence, even by the unbelieving world; that the<br />
learned and the polite, however they may deride the miracles,<br />
would have esteemed the virtues, of the new sect; and that the<br />
magistrates, instead of persecuting, would have protected an<br />
order of men who yielded the most passive obedience to the laws,<br />
though they declined the active cares of war and government. If,<br />
on the other hand, we recollect the universal toleration of<br />
Polytheism, as it was invariably maintained by the faith of the<br />
people, the incredulity of philosophers, and the policy of the<br />
Roman senate and emperors, we are at a loss to discover what new<br />
offence the Christians had committed, what new provocation could<br />
exasperate the mild indifference of antiquity, and what new<br />
motives could urge the Roman princes, who beheld without concern<br />
a thousand forms of religion subsisting in peace under their<br />
gentle sway, to inflict a severe punishment on any part of their<br />
subjects, who had chosen for themselves a singular but an<br />
inoffensive mode of faith and worship.
Explanation
This excerpt from Edward Gibbon’s The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Volume 2, Chapter 16) is a critical passage in his broader discussion of the persecution of Christians under the Roman Empire. The text is layered with historical analysis, rhetorical irony, and moral questioning, while also revealing Gibbon’s skeptical and often provocative stance toward religious history. Below is a detailed breakdown of the passage, focusing on its content, themes, literary devices, and significance, with particular attention to the footnote by Sir James Mackintosh—a later critic of Gibbon’s work.
1. Context of the Excerpt
Gibbon’s Decline and Fall (published 1776–1789) is a monumental work tracing the fall of Rome from the 2nd century CE to the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Chapter 16 is infamous for its controversial treatment of early Christianity, where Gibbon—an Enlightenment skeptic—questions the narrative of Christian martyrdom and the justification for Roman persecutions.
The footnote by Mackintosh (a 19th-century Whig historian and philosopher) criticizes Gibbon’s tone, accusing him of downplaying Roman brutality against Christians (e.g., the execution of St. Cyprian, a 3rd-century bishop martyred for refusing to sacrifice to Jupiter). Mackintosh argues that Gibbon focuses on trivial details (like the "decorum" of Cyprian’s execution) rather than condemning the moral outrage of the act itself.
2. Breakdown of the Main Text
Gibbon’s argument in this passage can be divided into two contrasting perspectives:
A. The Expected Reception of Christianity (Idealized View)
Gibbon begins with a rhetorical hypothetical:
"If we seriously consider the purity of the Christian religion, the sanctity of its moral precepts, and the innocent as well as austere lives of the greater number of those who during the first ages embraced the faith of the gospel..."
Key Points:
- Christianity is presented as morally superior—its followers are peaceful, obedient to law (though pacifist), and virtuous.
- One would expect that such a benevolent doctrine would be respected, even by non-believers.
- The learned (philosophers) might mock miracles but should admire Christian ethics.
- The magistrates should protect, not persecute, such a harmless sect.
Literary Devices:
- Irony: Gibbon sets up an idealized expectation only to contrast it with historical reality.
- Rhetorical Questions: He later asks why this expected tolerance did not occur, forcing the reader to confront the paradox of persecution.
B. The Reality of Roman Polytheism and Unexpected Persecution
Gibbon then shifts to the Roman perspective:
"If, on the other hand, we recollect the universal toleration of Polytheism, as it was invariably maintained by the faith of the people, the incredulity of philosophers, and the policy of the Roman senate and emperors..."
Key Points:
- Roman polytheism was inherently tolerant—it absorbed foreign gods (e.g., Isis, Mithras) without conflict.
- Philosophers (Stoics, Epicureans, Skeptics) were indifferent to religion.
- Roman rulers (like Augustus, Trajan) encouraged religious pluralism for political stability.
- Yet, Christians were singled out for persecution—why?
Implied Arguments:
- Gibbon questions the traditional Christian narrative that Rome persecuted Christians purely out of evil.
- He suggests that Christian exclusivity (rejecting all other gods) was politically and socially disruptive in a syncretic empire.
- The refusal to sacrifice to the emperor (a civic duty) was seen as treason, not just heresy.
Literary Devices:
- Juxtaposition: The tolerance of polytheism vs. the intolerance toward Christianity creates a historical puzzle.
- Sarcasm: Gibbon’s detached, analytical tone subtly undermines Christian claims of innocent suffering.
3. Themes in the Passage
A. The Paradox of Persecution
- Gibbon highlights the inconsistency: If Rome was tolerant of all religions, why were Christians specifically targeted?
- He challenges the Christian martyrdom narrative, suggesting that political defiance (not just faith) played a role.
B. Enlightenment Skepticism vs. Religious Dogma
- Gibbon, as an Enlightenment historian, distrusts supernatural explanations and questions hagiographic accounts of martyrdom.
- His rationalist approach seeks secular motives (e.g., Christian refusal to conform to civic religion) rather than divine providence.
C. The Role of Power and Conformity
- The passage implies that Christianity’s refusal to assimilate (unlike other cults) threatened Roman order.
- The emperor’s divinity was a political tool—rejecting it was sedition, not just heresy.
D. Moral Ambiguity in Historical Judgment
- Gibbon does not outright condemn Rome—instead, he analyzes the conflict dispassionately.
- Mackintosh’s footnote accuses Gibbon of moral detachment, arguing that he minimizes Roman cruelty by focusing on procedural details (e.g., the "politeness" of Cyprian’s execution).
4. Literary Devices & Style
| Device | Example | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Rhetorical Questions | "What new offence had the Christians committed?" | Forces the reader to re-examine assumptions about persecution. |
| Irony | Praising Christian virtue while implying it was the cause of their suffering | Undermines the noble martyr narrative. |
| Juxtaposition | Tolerant polytheism vs. persecuted monotheism | Highlights the anomaly of Christian suffering. |
| Detached, Analytical Tone | Describing executions with clinical precision | Distances the reader from emotional outrage, making the argument seem more "objective" (though Mackintosh sees this as cold indifference). |
| Sarcasm | "The mild indifference of antiquity" (when Rome was actually brutal) | Mocks the idea of Rome as a benign empire. |
5. Significance of the Passage
A. Gibbon’s Controversial Legacy
- This chapter sparked outrage among Christian readers, who saw Gibbon as hostile to their faith.
- His skeptical, secular approach was radical for the 18th century, influencing later historical criticism of religion.
B. The Debate Over Historical Objectivity
- Mackintosh’s footnote represents the counterargument: that Gibbon’s Enlightenment bias led him to downplay Christian suffering.
- Modern historians still debate whether Gibbon was fair to Rome, fair to Christians, or neither.
C. The Broader Question: Why Did Rome Fall?
- Gibbon later argues that Christianity’s pacifism and otherworldliness weakened Roman martial spirit, contributing to decline.
- This passage sets up that argument by questioning Christianity’s compatibility with Roman civic life.
6. Conclusion: Gibbon’s Provocation
Gibbon’s excerpt is not just historical analysis—it is a deliberate provocation. By contrasting Christian virtue with Roman persecution, he forces the reader to ask:
- Was Rome justified in seeing Christianity as a threat?
- Were Christian martyrs truly innocent, or were they political dissidents?
- Can history be written without moral bias?
His cool, ironic style makes the passage both infuriating and brilliant—a hallmark of Enlightenment historiography that challenges sacred narratives with secular reason.
Mackintosh’s footnote, in turn, accuses Gibbon of moral blindness, showing how historical interpretation is never neutral—it is always shaped by the prejudices of the age.