1. See the tables in Machin, I. W. J., “Gibbon's Debt to Contemporary Scholarship,” Review of English Studies, 15 (1939), 84–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Gibbon, Edward, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. Bury, J. B., 5th ed., 7 vols. (London, 1909), XXV, 50, a. 126Google Scholar. All references are to this edition, hereafter referred to as DF. The roman numeral indicates the chapter, followed by the page, and the footnote number.

3. This article will consider only Gibbon's treatment of the Western empire. When Gibbon comes to deal with Eastern Rome he, of course, does not have the assistance of a Tillemont. But the problems raised by his treatment of the later empire in the East are quite different than those discussed here. A modern Byzantinist, Deno J. Geanakoplos has studied the problem of Gibbon's treatment of Byzantine ecclesiastical history (“Edward Gibbon and Byzantine Ecclesiastical History,” Church History, 35, [06, 1966], 170–185)Google Scholar. Geanakoplos gives Gibbon high marks, and says, in part, “we may conclude by essaying the judgment that, at least as regards the portion of his Byzantine history dealing with the schism, he is in general a very competent, in certain sections even a brilliant, ecclesiastical historian.” (p. 185) Interested readers are referred to this suggestive article, and the bibliography there cited.

4. Langer (1743–1820) was librarian to Charles William Ferdinand, Duke of Brunswick, and a friend of Lessing and Goethe. He first met Gibbon when he visited Lausanne in 1784–1786. Langer is the man who sent Gibbon a copy of John Gibbon's Introductio ad Latinum Blasoniam (1682), which Gibbon mistakenly took to be the work of his great-great uncle. The book set Gibbon off tracing his geneology, based on false assumptions.

5. His dear friend, Georges Deyverdun (1734–1789) had performed a similar task for Gibbon when he was working on his Introduction d l'histoire générale de la République des Suisses (1767).

6. The long letter to Langer is printed in Gibbon's, Miscellaneous Works, ed. Sheffield, John Lord, 5 vols. (London, 1814), 3:356–57Google Scholar. Hereafter cited as Miscellaneous Works.

7. Printed in Miscellaneous Works, 3:353–558.

8. Gibbon's criticisms of Voltaire as a historian are numerous, though he had an enormous regard for him as a poet and playwright. In addition to the witty digs in the Decline and Fall, Gibbon wrote in his journal on August 28th, 1762 (Low, D. M., ed., Gibbon's Journal to January 28th 1763 [London, 1929], pp. 129–30)Google Scholar: “I finished the Siècle of Lewis XIV [sic]. I believe that Voltaire had for this work an advantage he has seldom enjoyed. When he treats of a distant period, he is not a man to turn over musty monkish writers to instruct himself. He follows some compilation, varnishes it over with the magic of his style, and produces a most agreeable, superficial, inaccurate performance.”

9. Gibbon, , Essai sur l'étude de la littérature (1761)Google Scholar, Miscellaneous Works, 4:1-93Google Scholar. See p. 59. Hereafter cited as Essai.

10. Essai, p. 68.

11. There is much biographical information on Tillemont available in printed sources. The starting point is Tronchai's, MichelVie de Lenain de Tillemont, avec des réflexions sur divers sujets de morale, et quelques lettres de piété (Cologne, 1711)Google Scholar; Hereafter cited as Tronchai. This delightful and reverent biography, by a personal friend, is the best introduction to the man. The Réflexions and Lettres de piété were collected by Tronchai from Tillemont's papers. Additional information must be collected from the memoirs of Tillemont's contemporaries and from the sources for the history of Jansenism. Among the former the Mémoires de Pierre Thomas, Sieur du Fossé, 4 vols. (Rouen, 1876)Google Scholar is especially valuable for Tillemont's middle years when the two men were living together in Paris. Fontaine, M., Mémoires pour servir al'histoire de Port-Royal, 2 vols. (Utrecht, 1736)Google Scholar, is also valuable. Bésoigne, Jérôme, Histoire de l'abbaye de Port-Royal, 6 vols. (Cologne, 1752)Google Scholar, is a mine of information, especially vol. 5 which contains biographical sketches of all the major Jansenists. Of modern works the outstanding book is Neven, Bruno, Un historien du l'école de Port-Royal: Sébastien LeNain de Tillemont, 1637–1698 (The Hague, 1966)Google Scholar. For Tillemont's religious attitudes the best study is Bremond, Henri, Histoire littéraire du sentiments religieux en France, depuis la fin des guerres de religion jusqu'ànos jours, 4 vols. (Paris, 1920). Vol. 4Google Scholar of this brilliant work (“La Conquête mystique”) deals with Bardy, Jansenism G., “Tillemont,” in Mangenot, Vacant, Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, 15, part 1 (1946), 1029–1033Google Scholar, and McGuire, Martin H. P., “Louis-Sebastien LeNain de Tillemont,” Catholic Historical Review, 52 (07 1966), 186–200Google Scholar, are brief sketches.

12. On Tillemont's family and the little that is known about his father see Neveu, , Un historien d 1'école de Port-Royal, esp. pp. 22–23Google Scholar. Hereafter cited as Neveu.

13. Neveu, p. 43, who adds that Tillemont had a fine Greek hand.

14. Tronchai, p. 4. M. de Saci told a similar story of his first interview was Pascal.

15. Tronchai, p. 4.

16. Quoted by Neveu, p. 122.

17. Mémoires de Pierre Thomas, Sieur du Fossé, 2:51Google Scholar. Hereafter cited as du Fossé.

18. Tronchai, p. 111.

19. Jêrôme Bésoigne, one of the earliest historians of Jansenism, visited Tillemont's home in 1720. The historian's rooms had been preserved just as he left them. See Bésoigne's, description in Histoire de l'abbaye de Port-Boyal, 5:96.Google Scholar

20. All these details come from Tronchai, who as Tillemont's secretary was an eyewitness to many of the things he describes.

21. Tronchai, pp. 24–25.

22. Tronchai, p. 117.

23. Tronchai, pp. 11–12.

24. Tronchai, pp. 127–28.

25. Gibbon, Edward, Memoirs of My Life, edited from the manuscripts by Bonnard, Georges A. (London, 1966), p. 1Google Scholar. Hereafter cited as Memoirs.

26. Bremond, , Histoire littéraire du sentiment religieux, 4:259.Google Scholar

27. Among the contemporary notices of Tillemont's, Histoire des empereurs are: Journal des Scavans (07 10, 1690), pp. 472–80Google Scholar. Volume seven of the Mémoires ecclésiastiques is reviewed in Mémoires pour l'histoire des sciences and des beaux arts (Trevoux, 1703), volume for July-September, pp. 1521–32Google Scholar. d'Argonne, Bonaventure, Mélanges d'histoire et de littérature, 3 vols. (Rotterdam, 1702Google Scholar) is favorable. du Fresnoy, Abbé Lenguet, Methode pour etudier 1'histoire avec un catalogue des principaux historians et sur le choir de meilleurs editions, 6 vols. (Amsterdam, 1737), 1:326Google Scholar, says there “is nothing more exact than the first two volumes of Tillemont's ecclesiastical history” and uses Tillemont as the outstanding example of accurate historical composition.

28. Goldmann, Lucien, Le dieu caché (Paris, 1959)Google Scholar distinguishes two kinds of Jansenism. “Liberal” Jansenism still saw hope in the world and believed in reform and change. Goldmann identifies this view with Arnauld and his followers. “Radical” Jansenism is a complete rejection of the world, accompanied by physical retreat from society and the company of men. St.-Cyran and Pascal are the great exponents of this view. For the argument see Le dieu caché, pp. 202–3; 188–91; 128–29; and 166ff.

29. Tillemont, who was himself a priest, believed that only those in holy orders were qualified to write ecclesiastical history. Also see Neveu, p. 138.

30. Tillemont, , Réflexions, p. 114.Google Scholar

31. On Tillemont's brother see Neveu, pp. 35–36.

32. Quoted in Tronchai, p. 53.

33. Tillemont, , Réflexions, pp. 114–15.Google Scholar

34. Tronchai, p. 33.

35. Tronchai, p. 59.

36. Quoted in Tronchai, p. 59.

37. Until Neveu carefully traced Tillemont's career after the Jansenists were expelled from Port-Royal this communal aspect of his work was unknown. See Neveu, esp. pp. 192–197.

38. Neveu, p. 24, speaks of Tillemont's dependence as that of a five-year-old child.

39. Quoted in Neveu, p. 197.

40. Tillemont, , Mémoires pour servir ` l'histoire eccelésiastiques des six premiers siècles, justifiez par les citations des auteurs originaux, 16 vols. (Paris, 1701–1714), 1:ixGoogle Scholar. Here. after cited as Mémoires ecclésiastiques.

41. Tillemont, , Réflexions, p. 115.Google Scholar

42. Mémoires ecclésitastiques, I:iv.Google Scholar

43. Mémoires ecclésiastiques, 1:xvii.Google Scholar

44. DF, XX, 323–4, n. 50.Google Scholar

45. Tillemont, , Histoire des empereurs, et des autres princes qui ont régné durant les six premiers siècles de l'eglise, de leurs guerres contra les juifs, des écrivains profanes, et des personnes lea plus illustres de leur temps. Justifiée par les citations des auteurs originaux, 6 vols., 1st rev. ed. (Venice, 1732–1739), 1:xi–xilGoogle Scholar. Hereafter cited as Histoire des empereurs.

46. Tillemont makes reference to Spon, Segius, Spanheim, and Gruter, to name only the most famous numismatists and epigraphers of his day.

47. Neveu, p. 132, argues (in another context): “Consequently, one of the keys to Tillemont's character, of his attitude toward the problems of the Christian life, and thus —a thing of the utmost importance for understanding his work—toward history, is this touch of traditionalism, archaism, which Father Ceyssens has pointed out in the thought and the sensibility of the Jansenists.” Exactly the same reservations apply to his stature as a critic.

48. Mémoires ecclésiastiques, 1: xiv–xv.Google Scholar

49. Mémories ecclésiastiques, 1:xv.Google Scholar

50. Fontaine, , Mémoires pour servir d l'histoire de Port-Royal, 2:596.Google Scholar

51. Du Fossé picked exactly these episodes from Tillemont's work to celebrate. In his Mémoires, 4:159Google Scholar, he says: “He [Tillemont] discovered the secret, in dealing with the profane history of the emperors, of intensifying their sins by applying the vivid lights of Christianity to their actions.”

52. Tillemont, , Réflexions, pp. 251–2.Google Scholar

53. DF, XV, 28, n. 72.Google Scholar

54. Even the text of the Byzantine epitomizer, Zosimus, has been lost for this crucial period.

55. Histoire des empereurs, 4:62.Google Scholar

56. Bayle, Pierre, Continuation des pensées diverses, Oeuvres Diverses, 4 vols. (Rotterdam, 1721), 3:8.Google Scholar

57. Bayle, , Continuation des pensées diverses, 3:9.Google Scholar

58. Louis Maimbourg, a Jesuit historian of Calvinism in the seventeenth century, was the target—and deservedly so—of Bayle's extended and brilliant attack on confessional historiography. Bayle's, Critique générale de l'histoire du Calvinisme de M. Maimbourg appeared in 1682Google Scholar. Remond, the sixteenth-century author of a history of heresy, is roughly handled by Bayle in his article in the Dictionnaire historique et critique.

59. DF, XLVII, 141, n. 81.Google Scholar

60. Quoted in Neveu, p. 76.

61. Gibbon, , Memoirs, p. 147.Google Scholar

62. As Geanakoplos points out (“Edward Gibbon and Byzantine Ecclesiastical History”) when Gibbon came to write the history of the Eastern Empire, and no longer had Tillemont for a guide, he plunged directly into the sources. See esp. pp. 175, 177, 181–2. But it should be noted that the second half of the Decline and Fall, largely dealing with the East, is not arranged strictly chronologically as is the first half. Gibbon tends to be more thematic in his approach, perhaps in part because he was working in an area which had not received the attention of generations of scholars, let alone a single Tillemont.

63. Gibbon, , A Vindication of Some Passages in the XVth and XVIth Chapters of the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1779), Miscellaneous Works, 4:591Google Scholar. Hereafter cited as Vindication.

64. DF, XXXVII, 161, n. 52.Google Scholar

65. DF, XXXIII, 430, n. 29.Google Scholar

66. DF, XXVII, 162, n. 57.Google Scholar

67. DF, XV, 28.Google Scholar

68. DF, XIV, 411, n. 44.Google Scholar

69. See his letter to Lord Sheffield (February 5, 1791) in which Gibbon says: “The primitive Church, which I have treated with some freedom, was itself at that time, an innovation, and I was attached to the old Pagan establishment.” The letter is Gibbon's response to his reading of Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution, which he enthusiastically praised (Letters, 3:216Google Scholar).

70. DF, XXXVII, 81.Google Scholar

71. DF, XXX, 280, n. 77.Google Scholar

72. DF, XIII, 386, n. 114.Google Scholar

73. See my article “Gibbon's ‘Age of Constantine’ and the Fall of Rome,” History and Theory, 8 (1969), 71–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

74. DF, XIII, 352, n. 7.Google Scholar

75. DF, XIII, 387, n. 116.Google Scholar

76. DF, XVII, 157, n. 65.Google Scholar

77. Gibbon's Journal to January 28th 1763, p. 163.

78. Gibbon, , Memoirs, p. 79Google Scholar. “From the provincial letters [sic] of Pascal I learned to manage the weapon of grave and temperate irony even on subjects of Ecclesiastical solemnity.”

79. For a study of the flood of pamphlets that greeted chapters XV and XVI, see McCloy, Shelby T., Gibbon's Antagonism to Christianity (London, 1933).Google Scholar

80. DF, XLVII, 132, n. 63.Google Scholar

81. DF, XXI, 370, n. 63.Google Scholar

82. DF, XXIII, 482, n. 70.Google Scholar

83. DF, LVI, 212, n. 101.Google Scholar

84. DF, XXI, 361, n. 97.Google Scholar

85. Printed in Miscellaneous Works, 4:515–648.Google Scholar

86. Gibbon, , Vindication, p. 519.Google Scholar

87. Gibbon, , Vindication, p. 520.Google Scholar

88. Gibbon, , Vindication, pp. 589–91.Google Scholar