Gibbon on the Rise of Christianity and the Decline of Rome

[BurtWorm]

Chapter 15 of Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire makes for very enlightening reading in the aftermath of the "Moral Values" election of 2004, even if its description as such is a bit of an exaggeration.

While I was reading this chapter the other day, I was thinking that Christianity was essentially an enemy of Rome and as deleterious to Rome's health as the barbarian invaders eventually were. In fact, Christianity was, perhaps, the most successful barbarian invasion of all. The only "perhaps" in this is whether Christianity was, in fact, barbarian--i.e., not merely "uncivilized" but anti-civilization--because there's no question it was successful. I've come to understand Christianity, with respect to Rome, as being the ultimate barbarian within, the ultimate cause of the end of Roman civilization.

Now we may question whether ending Roman civilization, as decadent and cruel as it had been for so long, was such a terrible thing. I, for one, am glad we don't still go to the Colosseum to enjoy an afternoon of murder and mayhem (though we do go to violent movies and play video games...). In fact, there was definitely some good in what the Christians brought to the table in ancient Rome, particularly in its political structure, which was essentially socialist/egalitarian at first. (It got corrupted soon enough, I think, when the real political power moved east and left a vacuum in the west.)

But the end of Rome also meant the end--or the interruption, at least--of progress in the humanities (arts and sciences) for more than 1,000 years. And that is precisely what I believe Christian fundamentalism (CF) in the US is threatening now and why I believe CF is, like early Christianity, essentially anti-civilization--anti American civilization.

It's ironic that George Bush adopts the language of Bernard Lewis when he talks about the war on terror as a struggle between "civilization and its enemies." As a CF himself, Bush really has no interest in preserving what most civilized people think of as civilization. He demonstrates this repeatedly in his attacks on the sciences and his hostility or indifference to the arts. I think we have allowed the barbarians within to grab the center of our own civilization. I, personally, fear for the consequences.




The Scope of Chapter 15 (with links to specific sections):

http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume1/cntnt15.htm


Chapter 15 unabridged:

http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume1/chap15.htm#itsd

[progressivedancer]

1. it merits further debate and research

Very perceptive.

[DireStrike]

2. I was thinking this too...

(second time I've said that today.) Tacitus wrote about this in ancient Rome. The book I used to have attributed the phrase "noxious superstition" to him, describing christianity. It seems to have been exhumed and is now being used in discussions today. He described them as irrational and unthinking.

[BurtWorm]

7. This is what Gibbon wrote about how the cultured Romans saw Christianity

Rejected by some emminent men of the first and second centuries.

We stand in need of such reflections to comfort us for the loss of some illustrious characters, which in our eyes might have seemed the most worthy of the heavenly present. The names of Seneca, of the elder and the younger Pliny, of Tacitus, of Plutarch, of Galen, of the slave Epictetus, and of the emperor Marcus Antoninus, adorn the age in which they flourished, and exalt the dignity of human nature. They filled with glory their respective stations, either in active or contemplative life; their excellent understandings were improved by study; philosophy had purified their minds from the prejudices of the popular superstition; and their days were spent in the pursuit of truth and the practice of virtue. Yet all these sages (it is no less an object of surprise than of concern) overlooked or rejected the perfection of the Christian system. Their language or their silence equally discover their contempt for the growing sect which in their time had diffused itself over the Roman empire. Those among them who condescend to mention the Christians consider them only as obstinate and perverse enthusiasts, who exacted an implicit submission to their mysterious doctrines, without being able to produce a single argument that could engage the attention of men of sense and learning.(191)

[BurtWorm]

8. The next couple of paragraphs are interesting too

Their neglect of prophecy.

It is at least doubtful whether any of these philosophers perused the apologies which the primitive Christians repeatedly published in behalf of themselves and of their religion; but it is much to be lamented that such a cause was not defended by abler advocates. They expose with superfluous wit and eloquence the extravagance of Polytheism. They interest our compassion by displaying the innocence and sufferings of their injured brethren. But when they would demonstrate the divine origin of Christianity, they insist much more strongly on the predictions which announced, than on the miracles which accompanied, the appearance of the Messiah. Their favourite argument might serve to edify a Christian or to convert a Jew, since both the one and the other acknowledge the authority of those prophecies, and both are obliged, with devout reverence, to search for their sense and their accomplishment. But this mode of persuasion loses much of its weight and influence when it is addressed to those who neither understand nor respect the Mosaic dispensation and the prophetic style.(192) In the unskilful hands of Justin and of the succeeding apologists, the sublime meaning of the Hebrew oracles evaporates in distant types, affected conceits, and cold allegories; and even their authenticity was rendered suspicious to an unenlightened Gentile, by the mixture of pious forgeries which, under the names of Orpheus, Hermes, and the Sibyls, (193) were obtruded on him as of equal value with the genuine inspirations of Heaven. The adoption of fraud and sophistry in the defence of revelation too often reminds us of the injudicious conduct of those poets who load their invulnerable heroes with a useless weight of cumbersome and brittle armour.

and of miracles.

But how shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world to those evidences which were presented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, daemons were expelled, and the laws of Nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the church.

[Doohickie]

16. Don't paint the Romans as too noble

Noxious superstition? How does Christianity compare with the array of Roman gods? To the belief that Caesar was a god? Even if one does not subscribe to Christianity, he has to admit that "noxious superstition" was not invented by the Church.

Rome was a powerful empire, but it was corrupt and so it crumbled. The Church was the only authority of any scope left, so it assumed much of the duties of the failed government and became a government of sorts itself. The early Christian Church was not nearly as corrupt as it later became, and I think the corruption bloomed out of the fact that the Church had unchallenged power. It isn't so much that the Church corrupted Rome and led to Rome's downfall; it is that the downfall of a corrupt Rome led to a corruption of the Church by giving it secular as well as spiritual power.

[sam sarrha]

3. AMEN...Brother Burtworm.....Right F'n On

[pelagius]

4. Gibbon also posits that "moral decadance"...

...and particularly homosexuality brought about Rome's fall. He was an amazing historian and writer, but he was bound by certain limits in his thinking.

Caveat lector.

[BurtWorm]

6. He certainly was limited in certain ways.

His surface-level bias against Islam, for example, when Islam is not the subject (e.g., when he compares the glory of Constantinople in Roman times to its degraded state under the Turks). I haven't gotten to his history of the rise of Islam yet.

Of course, you shouldn't read anything as though it's the last word. But it seems difficult to argue against this thesis, that Christianity was inimical to Roman civilization. Christianity is not about this life and this world. It accepts no authority above itself. This attitude is not conducive to civilization.

[JAbuchan08]

5. I had a couple interesting discussions recently

one with my mother on the subject of the de-civilizing effects of "survival of the fittest" Republicanism.

Later I was talking with my dad and he mentioned a fundamentalist christian whom he'd heard interviewed on NPR. She was a "creature creator" for the Star Wars franchise. I observed that the concept of alien civilization is at odds with biblical literalism, but of course we all know the amount of cognitive dissonance that fundamentalists are capable of. I think that's probably what you are observing with Dubya.

O

[necso]

9. "Fundamentalism",

as in intolerance of divergent viewpoints, has played a role in the decline of a number of states (or empires).

Both the western and eastern Roman empires come to mind, along with the Muslim state in Spain.

There is no inevitability about this, but understanding that "fundamentalism" is on the rise is important in coming to terms with the future.

And I hate the term "fundamentalism", since it implies that somehow this is the basic or core practise of Christianity. It is not. In fact, the emphasis on the ancient Semitic social code that is at the heart of what is called fundamentalism is not consistent with much of the teachings and life of Jesus that is found in the New Testament.

Indeed, strengthening the practise of Gospels based Christianity may be a key element in turning the tide against "fundamentalism".

Myself I am an atheist, but I would have no problem supporting the Unitarian Church, as it is consistent (in my experience) with ethical humanism, and I can just substitute a reference to "principle" for the use of "God". Generally, I am happy to lend my support to any religious group that is propagating the tolerant, respectful, civil, informed and practical practise of their religion. But lets face it, Christianity is a big part of our culture, and a religion like Unitarianism which has a Christian group within it (in my limited experience -- I generally do my own thing) is a lot more practical than trying to create some entirely new ethical (religious) practise. And hey, there is a lot of good stuff in both the Old and New Testaments. So providing more "Christ-like" Christian (or generic religious) alternatives to "fundamentalism" (especially that include social support networks) might prove helpful (and practical) in our struggle.

You might find this link interesting.

http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html

But then again, I am the sort of person who can move in and out of many circles, and will argue Biblical interpretations with a fundie -- or buckshot versus turkey shot with another gun fancier. (I do both pretty regularly.)

And I don't see this as a bad thing... But maybe you do.

[BurtWorm]

10. Here is how Gibbon describes some of the "fundamentals" of early Christian

of early Christianity. (Incidentally, the numbers refer to footnotes, which you can get to via the link in the first post in this thread.)

The primitive Christians condemn pleasure and luxury

The acquisition of knowledge, the exercise of our reason or fancy, and the cheerful flow of unguarded conversation, may employ the leisure of a liberal mind. Such amusements, however, were rejected with abhorrence, or admitted with the utmost caution, by the severity of the fathers, who despised all knowledge that was not useful to salvation, and who considered all levity of discourse as a criminal abuse of the gift of speech. In our present state of existence the body is so inseparably connected with the soul, that it seems to be our interest to taste, with innocence and moderation, the enjoyments of which that faithful companion is susceptible. Very different was the reasoning of our devout predecessors; vainly aspiring to imitate the perfection of angels, they disdained, or they affected to disdain, every earthly and corporeal delight.(88) Some of our senses indeed are necessary for our preservation, others for our subsistence, and others again for our information; and thus far it was impossible to reject the use of them. The first sensation of pleasure was marked as the first moment of their abuse. The unfeeling candidate for heaven was instructed, not only to resist the grosser allurements of the taste or smell, but even to shut his ears against the profane harmony of sounds, and to view with indifference the most finished productions of human art. Gay apparel, magnificent houses, and elegant furniture were supposed to unite the double guilt of pride and of sensuality: a simple and mortified appearance was more suitable to the Christian who was certain of his sins and doubtful of his salvation. In their censures of luxury the fathers are extremely minute and circumstantial;(89) and among the various articles which excite their pious indignation, we may enumerate false hair, garments of any colour except white, instruments of music, vases of gold or silver, downy pillows (as Jacob reposed his head on a stone), white bread, foreign wines, public salutations, the use of warm baths, and the practice of shaving the beard, which, according to the expression of Tertullian, is a lie against our own faces, and an impious attempt to improve the works of the Creator. (90) When Christianity was introduced among the rich and the polite, the observation of these singular laws was left, as it would be at present, to the few who were ambitious of superior sanctity. But it is always easy, as well as agreeable, for the inferior ranks of mankind to claim a merit from the contempt of that pomp and pleasure which fortune has placed beyond their reach. The virtue of the primitive Christians, like that of the first Romans, was very frequently guarded by poverty and ignorance.

Their sentiments concerning marriage and chastity.

The chaste severity of the fathers in whatever related to the commerce of the two sexes flowed from the same principle - their abhorrence of every enjoyment which might gratify the sensual and degrade the spiritual nature of man. It was their favourite opinion, that if Adam had preserved his obedience to the Creator, he would have lived for ever in a state of virgin purity, and that some harmless mode of vegetation might have peopled paradise with a race of innocent and immortal beings. (91) The use of marriage was permitted only to his fallen posterity, as a necessary expedient to continue the human species, and as a restraint, however imperfect, on the natural licentiousness of desire. The hesitation of the orthodox casuists on this interesting subject betrays the perplexity of men unwilling to approve an institution which they were compelled to tolerate.(92) The enumeration of the very whimsical laws which they most circumstantially imposed on the marriage-bed would force a smile from the young and a blush from the fair. It was their unanimous sentiment that a first marriage was adequate to all the purposes of nature and of society. The sensual connection was refined into a resemblance of the mystic union of Christ with his church, and was pronounced to be indissoluble either by divorce or by death. The practice of second nuptials was branded with the name of a legal adultery; and the persons who were guilty of so scandalous an offence against Christian purity were soon excluded from the honours, and even from the arms, of the church.(93) Since desire was imputed as a crime, and marriage was tolerated as a defect, it was consistent with the same principles to consider a state of celibacy as the nearest approach to the Divine perfection. It was with the utmost difficulty that ancient Rome could support the institution of six vestals ; (94) but the primitive church was filled with a great number of persons of either sex who had devoted themselves to the profession of perpetual chastity. (95) A few of these, among whom we may reckon the learned Origen, judged it the most prudent to disarm the tempter.(96) Some were insensible and some were invincible against the assaults of the flesh. Disdaining an ignominious flight, the virgins of the warm climate of Africa encountered the enemy in the closest engagement they permitted priests and deacons to share their bed and gloried amidst the flames in their unsullied purity. But insulted Nature sometimes vindicated her rights, and this new species of martyrdom served only to introduce a new scandal into the church. (97) Among the Christian ascetics, however (a name which they soon acquired from their painful exercise), many, as they were less presumptuous, were probably more successful. The loss of sensual pleasure was supplied and compensated by spiritual pride. Even the multitude of Pagans were inclined to estimate the merit of the sacrifice by its apparent difficulty; and it was in the praise of these chaste spouses of Christ that the fathers have poured forth the troubled stream of their eloquence.(98) Such are the early traces of monastic principles and institutions, which, in a subsequent age, have counterbalanced all the temporal advantages of Christianity. (99)

[necso]

11. It is important to differentiate

between the early "fathers" (those that are recognized are those who "won out") and the various early Christian sects practicing something quite different.

In practise, the "fathers" suppressed divergent practises, beliefs and texts... and so it is difficult to get good information on early practises, particularly those practises of the direct followers of Jesus.

It is, however, believed that some early sects rejected the Old Testament, used only the Gospels -- and even used some Gospels not now recognized.

Whenever a movement becomes "institutionalized", certain things are (often) to be expected -- like power struggles -- and like the suppression of heterodoxy.

I find the role of Constantine in structuring the early church interesting, and when I read some parts of the New Testament, I can't help wondering how Christianity might have developed if different "players" had had a controlling interest in its development.

...But I find Gibbon (very, very) tough going.

And yes, Christianity has at times taken the essence of the Semitic social code -- denial -- to places undreamed of by those who developed it. And this was (and generally is), to some extent anyway, counter to the practises of Judaism and particularly to the learned (and sometimes knowledge seeking) practises of rabbinical Judaism.

But there is nothing inherent in self-denial (or non-materialism or Christianity) that makes it seek ignorance, crush dissent or practise intolerance. (Indeed, denial has at times been morphed into the pursuit of suffering.) And there is much in organizations (particularly as they build control), however, that tends in these directions.

Peace... and please, no more Gibbon.

[BurtWorm]

12. Peace AND no more Gibbon?

:eyes:

[Doohickie]

17. "So providing more "Christ-like" Christian (or generic religious)...

"...alternatives to "fundamentalism" (especially that include social support networks) might prove helpful (and practical) in our struggle."

There are several mainline religions that are with you. The president's own Methodist Church is, more or less, rather tolerant and moderate. Although there are pockets of fundamentalism within it, my experience is that the Methodist Church is, overall, on the moderate side.

Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians all provide moderate faces of Christianity for the most part. Several of these denominations have denounced the Iraq War, for example, and do not see it as some sort of spirital battle of Good vs. Evil.

[bemildred]

13. Other stuff I've read on this subject does not suggest this is so.

There were structural problems having nothing to do with religion,
and Christianity did not take the medieval form we are used to
until after the fall and the rise of feudalism. I do not read that
the barbarians destroyed Rome either, so much as they filled a
vacuum that Rome left behind it.

Try:
"How The Irish Saved Civilization" -- Cahill
"The Invasion of Europe By The Barbarians" -- J. B. Bury

[BurtWorm]

15. But Christianity did become the state religion

under the reign of Constantine, before the medieval system was actually in place. By then, the once great Roman civilization--by which I mean not just the political but the cultural power that Rome was--was long in decline. Christianity seems to have finished it off.

[UTUSN]

14. That Was the Book (Long) I Used for My Ache in 2000

This time it's Don Quixote (the Edith GROSSMAN translation).

*******QUOTE*******

The inflexible, and, if we may use the expression, the intolerant zeal of the Christians ....

We have already described the religious harmony of the ancient world, and the facility with which the most different and even hostile nations embraced, or at least respected, each other's superstitions. ....

According to the maxims of universal toleration, the Romans protected a superstition which they despised.

********UNQUOTE*******