5 78 G I B unwise the author's preference for French: but Gibbon sided with the majority. In 1767 also he joined with .f. Dcyvcrdnn in starting a literary journal under the title of .l[énwz're's Littéraircs de la Grancle Jlretuyne. But its circulation was limited, and only the second volume had appeared (1768) when Dey- verdun went abroad. The materials already collected for a third volume were suppressed. It is interesting, however, to know that in the first volume is a review by Gibbon of Lord Lyttelton's History of Ilenry I[., and that the second volume contains a contribution by Hume on 'alpole's 1[z'storz'c Doubts. The next appearance of the historian made a deeper im- pression. It was the first distinct print of the lion’s foot. "Ex ungue leonem” might have been justly said, for he ‘ materials he had an1as:=c.l before light dawned upon it. B O N .'t , the commencement, he says, “ all was dark and doubtful "; the limits, divisions, even the title of his work were umh — termined ; the first chapter was composed three times, at d the second and third twice, before he was satisfied with his efforts. This prolonged meditation on his design and its execution was ultimately well repaid by the result : so I methodical did his ideas become, aml so readily did his attacked, and attacked successfully, the redoubtable 'ar- ' burton. Of the many paradoxes in the ])ivz'ne Lq/alien, few are more extravagant than the theory that Virgil, in the sixth book of his 4E.eci:l, intended to allegorize, in the visit of his hero and the Sibyl to the shades, the initiation of
- Eueas, as a lawgiver, into the Eleusinian mysteries. This
theory Gibbon completely exploded in his C7'z'ticul Observa- tions (l770),—no very difficult task, indeed, but achieved in a style, and with a profusion of learning, which called ' forth the warmest connnendations both at home and abroad. 'arburton never replied; and few will believe that he would not, if he had not thought silence more discreet. Gibbon, however, regrets that the style of his pamphlet was too acrimonious; and this regret, considering his antago- nist’s slight claims to forbearance, is creditable to him. “I cannot forgive myself the contemptuous treatment of a man who, with all his faults, was entitled to my esteem; and I can less forgive, in a personal attack, the cowardly ' concaalment of -my name and character.” Soon after his “release from the -fruitless task of the Swiss revolution” in 1768, he had gradually advanced from the wish to the hope, froin the hope to the design, from the 3 design to the execution of his great historical work. His preparations were indeed vast. The classics, “as low as 'fI'acitl;us, Pllipy the 3rOlt1l1gCl‘(,1{_].l1tCl guvenal,” paltll bxeen long ann tar. e now p unrre 111 ot 1e ocean o t e- urrustan history,” and “ with pen aolmost always in hand,” poreod over all the original records, Greek and Latin,between Traja11 and the last of the Vestern Caesars. “The subsidiary rays of medals and inscriptions, of geography and chronology, were thrown on their proper objects° and I applied the col- lections of Tillemont, whose inimitable accuracy almost assumes the character of genius, to fix and arrange within my reach the loose and scattered atoms of historical informa- tion." The Christian apologists and their pagan assailants; the Theodosian Code, with Gode-froy’s commentary ' the Annals and Antiqzzities of .[uratori, collated with ,"the parallel or transverse lines” of Sigonius and Maffei, Pagi and Baronius, were all critically studied. Still followinrr the wise maxim which he had adopted as a student, “ multuiii legere potius quam multa,” he reviewed again and again the immortal works of the French and English, the Latin and Italian classics. He deepened and extended his acquaint- ance with Greek, particularly with his favourite authors Homer and Xenophon ; and, to crown all, he succeeded in achieving the third perusal of Blackstone's Commentcn-ies. The course of his study was for some time seriously inter- rupted by his father’s illness and death in 1770, and by the Jna_ny distractions connected with the transference of his 1'es1de11ce from _Iiur1ton to London, It was not, indeed, until October 14 42 that he found himself at last Independ- eut, and fairly settled in his house and library, with full leisure and opportunity to set about the composition of the first volume of his history. Even then it appears fro1n his own confession that he long brouded over the Cllitnri of materials shape themselves, that, with the above excep- tions, the original BIS. of the entire six quartos was sent uncopied to the printers. He also says that not a sheet had been seen by any other eyes than those of author an .1 printer, a statement indeed which must be taken with a small deduction; or rather we nmst suppose that a few chapters had been submitted, if not to the “ eyes,” to the “ears” of others; for he elsewhere tells us that he was “soon disgusted with the modest practice of reading th- manuscript to his friends.” Such, however, were his pre- liminary diflieulties that he confesses he was often “tempted to cast away the labour of seven years”; and it was not until February 1776 that the first volume was published. The success was instant, and, for a quarto, pro-- bably unprecedented. The entire impression was exhausted in a few days; a second and a third edition were scarcely adequate to the demand. The author might almost liave said, as Lord Byron after the publication of ( 'Iu'lcln I[«.'rol«_l, that “ he awoke one morning and found himself famous.” In addition to public applause, he was grati_ficd by the more select praises of the highestliving authorities in that branch of literature: “the candour of D1‘ Robertson cmluraccd his disciple ;” Hu1nc’s letter of congr'.1tulation “overpaid the labour of ten years.” The latter, however, with his usual sagacity, anticipated the objections which he saw could be urged against the famous fifteenth and sixteenth chapter.-. “ I think you have observed a very prudent temperament 2 but it was impossible to treat the subject so as not to give grounds of suspicion against you, and you may expect that a clamour will arise.” The “clamour” thus predicted was not slow to make itself heard. Within two years the famous chapters had elicited what might almost be called a library of controversy. The only attack, however, to which Gibbon deigned to 1m1l{t' any reply was that of Davies, who had impugned his accuracy or good faith. His I'z'mlz'catz'0n appeared in I"ebruar_v, 1779; a11d, as Milmau remarks, “this single (ll.'(‘llal‘:_"" from the pondcrous artillery of learning and sarcasm laid prostrate the whole disorderly squadron ” of his rash and feeble assailants-.1 1 For a very full list of publications in answer to Gil»ln.n's attzu 1; r" Christianity reference may be made to the liililioy.-(I1:/ur's Jlunu I. pp. 885-6 (1858). Of these the earliest were Watson's Apol J‘, (1776), Salisbury’s .9'tr2'cturcs (1776), and Chclsum's (anonymou- Rcnmrks (1776). In 1778 the Few tcmarlcs by a Gentleman (Fram i< Eyre), the Reply of Loftus, the Letters of Apthorpe, and the 1:';camz'n - tion of Davies appeared. Gibbon’s V¢'u(lz'cat£on (1779) called forth .1 Reply by Davies (1779), and A .5‘/tort Appeal to the I’ul;lic by Frznn ‘ - Eyre (1779). Laughton’s polcmical treatise was publi-lied in 17°“, and those of Milner and Taylor in 1781. Chelsum returned to th- attack in 1785 (A Reply to Jllr Gil:bon’s l'ind2'cutz'on), and Sir Davil Dalrymple (An Inquiry into the Secondary ('(Iust-s, &c.) made his first appearance in the controversy in 1786. Travis's Lt.([tI'b' 1 John v. 7 are dated 1784; and Spc:lalicri';s (_'v-nfu! I:[.:)u' Ila?!‘ Esame tlel 6'7-istianismo fatlo (la Gibbon was publislncd at llnn - (2 vols. 4to) in the same year.- It is impossible not to concur in alinust every point with Gibbon’s own estimate of his nunn-rous assailants. Their crude productions, for the most part, were conspicuous rather 11 »r insoleuee and abusivcness than for logic or learning. Those of Bislop Watson and Lord Hailes were the best, but simply because they con- tented themselvcs with a dispassionate exposition of the general argu- ment in favour of Cln-istianity. The most foolish and (lis(‘.1'cditabl:- was certainly that of Davies; his unworthy attempt to depreciate th - great historian's learning, and his captions, cavilling, acrimonion charges of petty inaccuracies and discreditable falsification gave th--
ohject of his attack an easy triumph.
