ally changed since his day. That dim epoch of nascent faith,
full of tender and subdued tints, with a high light on the brows of
the Crucified, was not one in which he could see clearly, or properly
see at all. He has as little insight into the religious condition of
the pagan world, as of the Christian. It is singular how he passes
over facts which were plain before him, which he knew quite well, as
he knew nearly everything connected with his subject, but the real
significance of which he missed. Thus he attributes to the scepticism
of the pagan world the easy introduction of Christianity. Misled by
the "eloquence of Cicero and the wit of Lucian," he supposes the
second century to have been vacant of beliefs, in which a "fashion of
incredulity" was widely diffused, and "many were almost disengaged
from artificial prejudices." He was evidently unaware of the striking
religious revival which uplifted paganism in the age of Hadrian, and
grew with the sinking empire: the first stirrings of it may even be
discerned in Tacitus, and go on increasing till we reach the theurgy
of the Neoplatonists. A growing fear of the gods, a weariness of life
and longing for death, a disposition to look for compensation for the
miseries of this world to a brighter one beyond the grave--these
traits are common in the literature of the second century, and show
the change which had come over the minds of men. Gibbon is
colour-blind to these shades of the religious spirit: he can only see
the banter of Lucian.[13] In reference to these matters he was a true
son of his age, and could hardly be expected to transcend it.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 13: On the religious revival of the second century, see
Hausrath's _Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte_, vol. iii., especially
the sections, "Hadrian's Mysticismus" and "Religioese Tendenzen in
Kunst und Literatur," where this interesting subject is handled with a
freshness and insight quite remarkable.]

He cannot be cleared of this reproach. On the other hand, we must
remember that Gibbon's hard and accurate criticism set a good example
in one respect. The fertile fancy of the middle ages had run into wild
exaggerations of the number of the primitive martyrs, and their
legends had not always been submitted to impartial scrutiny even in
the eighteenth century. We may admit that Gibbon was not without bias
of another kind, and that his tone is often very offensive when he
seeks to depreciate the evidence of