[Born in Putney, England, Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) was educated at Westminster school, Oxford University, and from private tutors. He served in the army and as a member of parliament before settling into his great work as a nonfiction writer of history and autobiography. Dividing his time between England and Switzerland, Gibbon wrote and published The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (first volume, 1776; second and third volumes, 1781; fourth through six volumes, 1788), and his Memoirs were published posthumously in 1796. The three-book widely-available modern hardcover edition of Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is about 2700 pages long, about 900 pages per book (956, 923, 898 pages), while the three-book widely-available paperback edition (including a 100-page introduction, notes, and index) is 3400 pages (1114, 1008, 1353 pages). Not only is the whole work accurate history (though some of its observations have been superseded by better documents and archaeological sources than available to Gibbon) but also a thoughtful, fascinating, and entertaining tour of humanity that good history-writing can be. It has the hallmarks of good eighteenth-century nonfiction prose: clarity, balance, antithesis, parallelism, wit, irony, humor, and figurative language. (Look up "balance," "antithesis," "parallelism," "irony," and "figurative language" in both your composition handbook and collegiate dictionary.) In some respects, it is the last great epic in literature--a nonfiction epic, as opposed to fictional, poetic epics, like those of Homer and Vergil. Additionally, it has itself become a literary symbol, references to it showing up humorously or ironically from Dickens' novel Our Mutual Friend, to the film The Enemy Below (a 1957 World War II submarine movie starring Robert Mitchum), to a recent feature film about the Vietnam war. Moreover, two feature films are loosely based on Chapter 4 of Gibbon's fascinating and entertaining historical work: The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964; directed by Anthony Mann and starring Sophia Loren, Stephen Boyd, Alec Guiness, James Mason, Christopher Plummer, Anthony Quayle, John Ireland, Omar Sharif, Mel Ferrer, and Eric Porter; rated 3.5 stars in Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide), and a loose remake of this film in the much-publicized Gladiator (2000).

        The following excerpt is the first part of Chapter 2 of Gibbon's history, which is Gibbon's analysis of one of the reasons for the Roman Empire's greatness before the fall. What is that surprising reason--surprising, that is, to the way many people today think about ancient Rome? How does the world today compare or contrast with ancient Rome on the issue of religious tolerance?  How does the geographical area today, which was once covered by the Roman empire of Trajan and the Antonines, compare with ancient Rome on the issue of religious tolerance, as the latter is discussed by Gibbon?

        Many of the ideals of Gibbon's own age, the Age of Reason, are clearly implied in the passage, both in Gibbon's underlying emphasis on reason, as well as in his components of his prose style. How might those stylistic components also suggest the ideals of Gibbon's own era?

        Asterisked words in this and other reading selections indicate either an explanatory note or that a common word is being used in a different sense than some modern readers would expect. These words, like "hard words," need to be checked in a good dictionary for the relevant meaning of the possible several meanings.

        [1] It is not alone by the rapidity or extent of conquest that we should estimate the greatness of Rome. The sovereign of the Russian deserts* commands a larger portion of the globe. In the seventh summer after his passage of the Hellespont, Alexander [the Great] erected the Macedonian trophies on the banks of the Hyphasis. Within less than a century, the irresistible Zingis [Ghengis Khan] and the Mogul princes of his race spread their cruel devastations and transient empire from the sea of China to the confines of Egypt and Germany. But the firm edifice of Roman power was raised and preserved by the wisdom of ages. The obedient provinces of Trajan and the Antonines were united by laws and adorned by arts. They might occasionally suffer from the partial abuse of delegated authority; but the general principle of government was wise, simple, and beneficent. They enjoyed the religion of their ancestors, while in civil honors and advantages they were exalted by just degrees to an equality with their conquerors.

        [2]  The policy of the emperors and the senate as far as it concerned religion was happily seconded by the reflections of the enlightened, and by the habits of the superstitious, part of their subjects. The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence but even religious concord.

        [3] The superstition of the people was not embittered by any mixture of theological rancor, nor was it confined by the chains of any speculative system. The devout polytheist, though fondly attached to his national rites, admitted with implicit faith the different religions of the earth. Fear, gratitude, and curiosity, a dream of an omen, a singular disorder, or a distant journey, perpetually disposed him to multiply the articles of his belief and to enlarge the list of his protectors. The thin texture of the pagan mythology was interwoven with various but not discordant materials. As soon as it was allowed that sages and heroes who had lived or who had died for the benefit of their country were exalted to a state of power and immortality, it was universally confessed that they deserved, if not the adoration, at least the reverence of all mankind. The deities of a thousand groves and thousand streams possessed in peace their local and respective influence; nor could the Roman who deprecated the wrath of the Tiber deride the Egyptian, who presented his offering to the beneficent genius* of the Nile. The visible powers of Nature, the planets, and the elements were the same throughout the universe. The invisible governors of the moral world were inevitably cast in a similar mold of fiction and allegory. Every virtue, and even vice, acquired its divine representative; every art and profession, its patron, whose attributes in the most distant ages and countries were uniformly derived from the character of their peculiar votaries. A republic of gods of such opposite tempers and interest required in every system the moderating hand of a supreme magistrate who by the progress of knowledge and flattery was gradually invested with the sublime perfections of an Eternal Parent and an Omnipotent Monarch. Such was the mild spirit of antiquity, that the nations were less attentive to the difference than to the resemblance of their religious worship. The Greek, the Roman, and the Barbarian as they met before their respective altars easily persuaded themselves that under various names and with various ceremonies they adored the same deities. The elegant mythology of Homer gave a beautiful and almost a regular form to the polytheism of the ancient world.

        [4] The philosophers of Greece deduced their morals from the nature of man rather than from that of God. They meditated, however, on the Divine Nature as a very curious and important speculation; and in the profound inquiry, they displayed the strength and weakness of the human understanding. (The admirable work of Cicero De Natura Deorum [About the Nature of the Gods] is the best clue we have to guide us through the dark and profound abyss. He represents with candor and confutes with subtlety the opinions of the philosophers.) Of the four most celebrated schools, the Stoics and the Platonists endeavored to reconcile the jarring interests of reason and piety. They have left us the most sublime proofs of the existence and perfections of the first cause*; but as it was impossible for them to conceive the creation of matter, the workman in the Stoic philosophy was not sufficiently distinguished from the work, while on the contrary the spiritual God of Plato and his disciples resembled an idea rather than a substance. The opinions of the Academics and Epicureans were of a less religious cast; but while the modest science of the former induced them to doubt, the positive ignorance of the latter urged them to deny, the providence of a Supreme Ruler. The spirit of inquiry, prompted by emulation and supported by freedom, had divided the public teachers of philosophy into a variety of contending sects; but the ingenuous youth who from every part resorted to Athens and the other seats of learning in the Roman empire were alike instructed in every school to reject and to despise the religion of the multitude. How, indeed, was it possible that a philosopher should accept as divine truths the idle tales of the poets and the incoherent traditions of antiquity, or that he should adore as gods those imperfect beings whom he must have despised as men! Against such unworthy adversaries, Cicero condescended to employ the arms of reason and eloquence, but the satire of Lucian was a much more adequate as well as more efficacious weapon. We may be well assured that a writer conversant with the world would never have ventured to expose the gods of his country to public ridicule had they not already been the objects of secret contempt among the polished and enlightened orders of society. (I do not pretend to assert that in this irreligious age the natural terrors of superstition, dreams, omens, apparitions, etc., had lost their efficacy.)

        [5] Notwithstanding the fashionable irreligion which prevailed in the age of the Antonines, both the interests of the priests and the credulity of the people were sufficiently respected. In their writings and conversation, the philosophers of antiquity asserted the independent dignity of reason, but they resigned their actions to the commands of law and of custom. Viewing with a smile of pity and indulgence the various errors of the vulgar, they diligently practiced the ceremonies of their fathers; devoutly frequented the temples of the gods; and sometimes, condescending to act a part in the theater of superstition, they concealed the sentiments of an atheist under the sacerdotal robes. Reasoners of such a temper were scarcely inclined to wrangle about their respective modes of faith or of worship. It was indifferent to them what shape the folly of the multitude might choose to assume, and they approached with the same inward contempt and the same external reverence the altars of the Libyan, the Olympian, or the Capitoline Jupiter.

        [6] It is not easy to conceive from what motives a spirit of persecution could introduce itself into the Roman councils. The magistrates could not be actuated by a blind though honest bigotry since the magistrates were themselves philosophers, and the schools of Athens had given laws to the [Roman] senate. They could not be impelled by ambition or avarice, as the temporal and ecclesiastical powers were united in the same hands. The pontiffs were chosen among the most illustrious of the senators, and the office of Supreme Pontiff was constantly exercised by the emperors themselves. They knew and valued the advantages of religion as it is connected with civil government. They encouraged the public festivals which humanize the manners of the people. They managed the arts of divination as a convenient instrument of policy, and they respected as the firmest bond of society the useful persuasion that either in this or in a future life the crime of perjury is most assuredly punished by the avenging gods. But while they acknowledged the general advantages of religion, they were convinced that the various modes of worship contributed alike to the same salutary purposes, and that in every country the form of superstition which had received the sanction of time and experience was the best adapted to the climate and to its inhabitants. Avarice and taste very frequently despoiled the vanquished nations of the elegant statues of their gods and the rich ornaments of their temples, but in the exercise of the religion which they derived from their ancestors they uniformly experienced the indulgence and even protection of the Roman conquerors. The province of Gaul seems, and indeed only seems, an exception to this universal toleration. Under the specious pretext of abolishing human sacrifices, the emperors Tiberius and Claudius suppressed the dangerous power of the Druids; but the priests themselves, their gods, and their altars subsisted in peaceful obscurity till the final destruction of paganism.

        [7] Rome, the capital of a great monarchy, was incessantly filled with subjects and strangers from every part of the world, who all introduced and enjoyed the favorite superstitions of their native country. Every city in the empire was justified in maintaining the purity of its ancient ceremonies; and the Roman senate, using the common privilege, sometimes interposed to check this inundation of foreign rites. The Egyptian superstition, of all the most contemptible and abject, was frequently prohibited; and the temples of Serapis and Isis demolished, and their worshippers [b]anished from Rome and Italy. But the zeal of fanaticism prevailed over the cold and feeble efforts of policy. The exiles returned, the proselytes multiplied, the temples were restored with increasing splendor, and Isis and Serapis at length assumed their place among the Roman deities. Nor was this indulgence a departure from the old maxims of government. In the purest ages of the commonwealth, Cybele and Aesculapius had been invited by solemn embassies, and it was customary to tempt the protectors of besieged cities by the promise of more distinguished honors than they possessed in their native country. Rome gradually became the common temple of her subjects, and the freedom of the city was bestowed on all the gods of mankind.
 

[Notes

deserts (par. 1): wilderness areas; first cause (par. 4): the force originating and powering everything else in the universe
 

Vocabulary

transient (par. 1), edifice (par. 1), beneficent (par. 1); indulgence (par. 2), concord (par. 2); rancor (par. 2), polytheist (par. 2), rites (par. 2), singular*(par. 2), disposed*(par. 2), articles*(par. 2), discordant (par. 2), sages (par. 2), exalted (par. 2), reverence (par. 2), deprecated (par. 2), wrath (par. 2), deride (par. 2), genius*(par. 2), governors*(par. 2), peculiar*(par. 2), votaries (par. 2), tempers*(par. 2); curious* (par. 4), speculation (par. 4) , candor (par. 4), confutes (par. 4), speculation (par. 4), profound (par. 4), abyss (par. 4), Stoic (par. 4), Platonist (par. 4), sublime (par. 4), first cause*(par. 4), Epicurean (par. 4), cast*(par. 4), induced (par. 4), providence (par. 4), emulation (par. 4), contending (par. 4), sect (par. 4), ingenuous (par. 4), resorted*(par. 4), condescended (par. 4), eloquence (par. 4), Lucian (par. 4), efficacious (par. 4), conversant (par. 4), ventured (par. 4), ridicule (par. 4), apparitions (par. 4), efficacy (par. 4); credulity (par. 5), devoutly (par. 5), frequented (par. 5), sacerdotal (par. 5), temper*(par. 5), Olympian (par. 5), Capitoline (par. 5), Jupiter (par. 5); magistrates (par. 6), actuated (par. 6), impelled (par. 6), temporal*(par. 6), ecclesiastical (par. 6), pontiffs*(par. 6), divination (par. 6), policy* (par. 6; also in par. 7), salutary (par. 6), sanction (par. 6), avarice (par. 6), despoiled (par. 6), indulgence (par. 6), Gaul (par. 6), specious (par. 6), pretext (par. 6), Tiberius (par. 6), Claudius (par. 6), suppressed (par. 6), Druids (par. 6), subsisted (par. 6), obscurity (par. 6); incessantly (par. 7), interposed (par. 7), check*(par. 7), inundation (par. 7), abject (par. 7), Serapis (par. 7), Isis (par. 7), zeal (par. 7), proselytes (par. 7), splendor (par. 7), deities (par. 7), maxims (par. 7), Cybele (par. 7), A(e)sculapius (par. 7), invited*(par. 7), besieged (par. 7), bestowed (par. 7)]
 

Reading Comprehension Questions

1. (a) How does paragraph 2 predict the order or arrangement of paragraphs 3-7? (b) How do paragraphs 3, 4-5, and 6-7 represent main thought units of the essay?

2. (a) How is Gibbon's irony manifested in several places in the essay? (b) How is Gibbon's epigrammatic irony particularly manifested in his statement that "they [the philosophers - i.e., the intellectuals] concealed the sentiments of an atheist under the sacerdotal robes" (par. 5)?

3. (a) According to paragraph 1, in what two main components are other empires as impressive as, or more impressive than, the Roman empire of Trajan and the Antonines? (b) According to paragraph 1, in what way, relating to religion was the Roman empire of Trajan and the Antonines superior to these other empires? (c) Native Roman citizens are not the ones referred to in "They might occasionally suffer . . . " and "They enjoyed the religion of their ancestors" (last two sentences of par. 1); who is meant, then, and how does this point connect to the greatness of the Roman empire of Trajan and the Antonines?

4. (a) What mild ironic criticism is implied about the common people in the first sentence of par. 3? (b1) How is the adage or saying "the more, the merrier" illustrated in Gibbon's discussion in par. 3? (b2) How does this point relate to Gibbon's point about toleration of religion in the ancient Roman empire? (c1) What figure of speech does Gibbon use in referring to "the thin texture of the pagan mythology" that "was interwoven with various but not discordant materials" (par. 3)? (c2) How does the figure of speech referred to in c1 relate to Gibbon's discussion of religious tolerance or intolerance in the ancient Roman empire of Trajan and the Antonines? (d) What is meant by the "elegant mythology of Homer" in the last sentence of par. 3?

5. According to par. 4, in what various ways were different philosophical schools led in different as well as similar ways to disbelief in religion?

6. (a) According to par. 5, did the philosophers or intellectuals, who didn't believe in religion, attack religion? Why? (b1) What does Gibbon mean in his reference to "the Libyan, the Olympian, or the Capitoline Jupiter" (last sentence of par. 5)? (b2) How does b1 relate to Gibbon's discussion of religious tolerance or intolerance in the ancient Roman empire of Trajan and the Antonines?

7. (a) According to par. 6, what was the connection between politicians or governmental officials and the philosophers or intellectuals? (b) According to par. 6, what accounted for the apparent Roman defacement of temples of different religions other than a negative attitude toward those religions?

8. How is the technique of Romans' waging war alluded to in par. 7, with reference to foreign gods? When the Roman army was besieging a foreign town or city, how did the foreign god or gods worshiped by the town or city play a part in what the Romans did? And how is what the Romans did related to Gibbon's discussion of religious tolerance or intolerance in the ancient Rome of Trajan and the Antonines?