Has anyone read Edward Gibbon?

[Jona Lendering]

I think too that Gibbon is one of first "modern" historians. The book is definitely worth reading.

Yes, I agree! Of course scholarship has made a great forward in the nineteenth century (cf. Gibbon's use of the Historia Augusta), but in general, Gibbon's grand theory about the importance of freedom as a control to monarchy is still something to consider.

[john m roberts]

I am rereading it right now. for native English speakers one of the joys of the work is the elegance and precision of Gibbon's language. He was one of the greatest prose stylists of the English language. You can search through the whole, huge work and not find a word out of place or a more succinct, not to say witty, manner of expressing concepts. To his contemporaries, used to a more ornate style, his writings were as astonishing and as influential as Caesar's bare-bones writings were to his contemporaries.

[Tarbicus]

I am rereading it right now. for native English speakers one of the joys of the work is the elegance and precision of Gibbon's language. He was one of the greatest prose stylists of the English language. You can search through the whole, huge work and not find a word out of place or a more succinct, not to say witty, manner of expressing concepts. To his contemporaries, used to a more ornate style, his writings were as astonishing and as influential as Caesar's bare-bones writings were to his contemporaries.

And all done with a quill and a biological spellcheck.

[Ebusitanus]

With all due respect to Gibbon...but his works are nevertheless 200 years old. I´m sure we have advanced a bit beyond his available facts by now.

[Robert Vermaat]

With all due respect to Gibbon...but his works are nevertheless 200 years old. I´m sure we have advanced a bit beyond his available facts by now.

Well, since he used sources that are the same we have to use today.. much of what he wrote still stands. But some sources (like the Historia Augusta, mentioned above) are nowadays not taken literally. Also, modern historic scholarship has added much towards interpreting ancient sources. In that aspect, you are of course right. Mostly though, Gibbon's own views where interpretation is concerned, has come under much criticism. Rightly of course, but no doubt our modern views on those ancient matters will be criticised in the future by those who live and write then.

[Jona Lendering]

Well, since he used sources that are the same we have to use today.. much of what he wrote still stands.

I think that the main shift is that we now have an archaeological record, which has more or less confirmed the first part of the grand theory of Pirenne: that the Germanic tribes assimilated to Roman culture, which survived. (The second part of Pirenne's thesis, that the rise of Islam changed all, has not been confirmed.)

Gibbon still stands when we are discussing the plain facts (who did when what and why?) but I think his basic assumption that Rome was overthrown by the barbarians no longer is acceptable.

[rkmvca1]

Gibbon's actual view was more like, the rise of Christianity enervated to the Empire to the point that allowed its fall to the Barbarians. He also paid due note, of course, to the long period of civil wars in the 300's which did the heavy lifting of decimating the Western Army.

In his own words, "I have described the triumph of barbarism and religion", and it's particularly Christianity that the he convicts. Re-read chapters 15 and 16.

rkmvca/Rich Klein