The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and 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 the 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 emperors was diverted from camps to synods; the Roman world was oppressed by a new species of tyranny; and the persecuted sects became the secrets enemies of the country.Gibbon is claiming that the creation of the large Christian system 1) moved money away from more useful pursuits, 2) created factionalism and 3) distracted Romans (even emperors) from more pressing affairs of state. We know a lot more about the Roman empire now in 2012 than Gibbon did in the 18th century and we can now say with confidence that he is wrong (or at least overstating) each of these problems. At the very least, he is wrong to lay these at the feet of Christianity in some unique way.
The amount of money that was given to the church was trivial as a whole. And was probably comparable to what had been given in various celebrations and sacrifices in the pre-Christian era. Some wealth was taken out of production as churches became more ornate, but again, this was little different than what was happening with wealthy estates. If anything, the Christian practices of distributing alms to the poor, probably offset any loss.
Factionalism was alive and well before the first Christian apostles appeared. In fact, well before the time of Christ. We know this was true at the very highest levels of the Senate and throughout the peoples. It's more likely that Christianity had an overall unifying effect than otherwise.
The third claim is a bit harder to judge. Over time, the Romans certainly did lose focus on the qualities that had given them an empire. Early Roman expansion was built on, among other things, a celebration of military qualities. Was that weakened by Christian thought? Well, it certainly didn't end Roman wars. Constantine was the emperor that made Christianity an official Roman religion. He fought and others fought after him. But it has to be noted that the 'map' didn't really expand much after him.
Overall, I'm sympathetic with the notion that philosophical ideas can build up and bring down empires. I'm just not very convinced by the case that Gibbon brings forth.
Gibbon attributes the decline and fall to many more causes than just Christianity. To say that he didn't see the complexity of the varied causes is not doing him enough credit. But I recognize that you only read 2 chapters of the book. You're summary of Gibbon's quote oversimplifies it. He is questioning the very tenants of Christianity, the specific types of virtues and factions that it preaches and creates. How can an empire with the manly, military Roman virtues of honor, courage, and nobility survive when the dominant values become meekness and turning the other cheek? Also, the combination of church and state he says caused the normal religious factions to become much more deadly.
ReplyDeleteStan, thanks for the additional info. I should have been more tentative in comments because you're right, I've read very little of his full work.
DeleteIf the gentle qualities of Christianity blunted the edge of the Romans, that problem was certainly worked out by later peoples. Maybe it took the time for the 'just war' doctrine to be figured out. It is almost unthinkable for a modern critic of Christianity to think it too meek.
This is a very complex issue. The particular Gibbon quote hinted at the Christian philosophy's impact, but there were other things, Christian and otherwise, that contributed. The military anarchy, for example, which Gibbon deals with early on, was not instigated by Christianity, but it contributed much to the fall.
DeleteOne thing involved here is the question of whether or not the fall of Rome was a good thing (whatever good means in a historical consideration). Rome was pagan, with pagan social institutions and manners. Early Christianity attacked paganism in every possible way, intellectual, spiritual, and physical. This was, deliberately or not, a subversive effort against the foundations of Roman civilization. Was a rising Christianity compatible with the Roman empire as it originally stood? The "fall" is hard to demarcate as a single event. The "empire" continued, in the east and in the west, at least down to the Renaissance, if not further. Christians, many of whom were "barbarians," took over, thus bringing down the old pagan order. This is a "fall" of sorts, but only one of the many falls which took place. Gibbon's summary in the section entitled "General Observations of the Fall of the Empire in the West" is only about 4 pages and includes a survey and summary of causes of that fall. One still needs to inspect the rest of the work to see how much evidence he brings to bear on the subject, but, for a man in a pinch, that is a good quick place to start.
P.S. The General Observations are where you took the quote from. The sentence just before it would have helped. :-)
Delete