The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

::This is about the book. For the historical event see Decline of the Roman Empire

The controversial chapters in Volume I

When Volume I was first published, it was introduced in quartos. The first two were well received and widely praised. The last quarto in Volume I, especially Chapters IV and VI, were highly controversial, and Gibbon was declared "paganist".

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Gibbon debunked the myth of Christian martyrdom by deconstructing official Church history that had been perpetuated for centuries. Because the Roman Church had a virtual monopoly on its own history, its own Latin interpretations were considered sacrosanct, and as a result the Church's writings had rarely been questioned before. For Gibbon, however, they were secondary sources: The same Latin documents translated by someone else. Gibbon eschewed these, and never referred to them in his own history. This is why Gibbon is referred to as the "first modern historian", and thus, his interpretations were deemed pagan.

Related Topics:
Christian - Martyrdom - Roman Church - Pagan

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

According to Gibbon, Romans were far more tolerant of Christians than Christians were of one another, especially once Christianity gained the upper hand. Christians inflicted far greater casualties on Christians than were ever inflicted by the Roman Empire. Gibbon extrapolated that the number of Christians executed by other Christian factions far exceeded all the Christian martyrs who died during the three centuries of Christianity under Roman rule. This was in stark contrast to Orthodox Church history, which insisted that Christianity won the hearts and minds of people largely because of the inspirational example set by its martyrs. Gibbon proved that the early Church's custom of bestowing the title of martyr on all confessors of faith grossly inflated the actual numbers.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Gibbon compares how insubstantial that number was, by comparing it to more modern terms. He compared the reigns of Diocletian, one of the most unsuccessful reigns during the Roman Empire, to the reign of Charles V in the 16th century and the electorate of the Holy Roman Empire, making the argument that both were remarkably similar. Both emperors were plagued by continuous war and compelled to excessive taxation; both were forced to resign as Emperors at a relatively young age; and both had no choice but to lead a quiet life upon their demise.

Related Topics:
Diocletian - Charles V - 16th century - Holy Roman Empire

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Gibbon's critics were scathing in their attack on this particular line of argument. Numerous tracts were published criticising his work, and Gibbon was forced to defend his work in reply. He left London to finish the following volumes in Lausanne, where he could work in solitude.

Related Topics:
London - Lausanne

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~