As a reliable work of historical reportage, I mean. Even though I’m only a few hundred pages into it, I’m already convinced Gibbon’s insights into human nature and memorable epigrams will always make it worthwhile as a work of literature. But let’s face it, a cartload of new information about ancient Rome has been dug up (literally, sometimes) in the course of the two+ centuries since the “Decline” was published. And Gibbon seems to trust some pretty outrageous statements made by his antique sources, e.g., that Emperor Maximin was 8 feet tall and could crush boulders with his bare hands. Plus, he gets even so simple a fact as the length of the wall the late emperors built to protect the city of Rome from the barbarians wrong–he’s got it nearly twice as long as it should be, according to the footnotes provided by some later scholar.
So, before I commit myself to wading through the entire 2800 pages–as someone desirous of as accurate a picture of Rome’s slow collapse as possible, would I be wasting my time on Edward G? And if so, can someone recommend a better (more up-to-date, anyway) book?
It’s a classic book of history. It’s worth reading for that alone. As a serious history book it’s as useful as Avicenna’s works on healing is now, outmoded.
Well, I liked it, and read it (although I have to admit it was abridged to about 1/2 the full length). It makes for an entertaining read, much of it about historical periods not heavily covered in other popular books.
You’re right about more material being found. More important, attitudes toward the material and the quality of the evidence has changed. A modern book covering the same period, with the same general intent, would be different. I don’t know of anyone who’se written a Modern Decline and Fall, though. You’ll have to read several shorter works to get the same effect.
What it did for me and probably would continue to do for other readers was set me off on a quest for more information on items touched on throughout the book.
Also, sometimes we read histories because they are a capsule of their own time as much as they are representative of the time they speak about.
If you think a timeless masterpiece is now irrelevant because the author got the height of a king wrong and misappropriated a wall by nearly half, perhaps Gibbons is not worth your time indeed.
I don’t think thats what CalMeacham meant at all. I have a Copy ofPtolempy’s Geographica. Its an excellent book to read. It is not however, the book you go to if you want to learn about World Geography. Its the same with* Decline and Fall*. Its value is that it itself is now a classic and a part of history in its own right. Its value as a historical resource is limited (with some exceptions) as most of it is now outdated, supplanted with more recent and relevant work. Work which is more accurate.
Thats what in anycase I think that CalMeacham was trying to say.
An impressive job indeed of Missing the Point. Much as if someone were to point out that you must not be a fan because you spelled the author’s name wrong (no “s”).
Yes, Gibbon does insight into the human condition very well. And he has a way with words. And he is certainly worth reading from a historiography perspective, as someone noted…what did people of his time and place think about Rome, about history, about how to study history? But if your main goal is to find out what actually happened and why, Gibbon is not your best bet. Too many new discoveries, too much information he didn’t know and couldn’t have known.
Worth reading? Absolutely! It’s funny, insightful, infuriating, and fascinating.
Is it an accurate history? Nah. There are many better histories written by better scholars with fewer axes to grind. But few of them are as interesting as Gibbon.
I’ve had a copy of Gibbon to read for over a decade, but keep getting bogged down in the middle. At the moment I’m at Justinian’s reign (at chapter 43), but haven’t picked it up since the New Year. The Homoousios/Homoiousios schism is the point where my attempted reads tend to tail off.
I’m not so sure about Gibbon’s purported inaccuracies though - while he may have got a few details wrong, and his overall analysis may be incorrect, the basic chronology he presents seems to be pretty accepted. Gibbon studied thoroughly, and I’m not sure that many more ancient texts have been recovered since that cast doubt on his general narrative.
And yes I think it’s still worth the trouble to buy your kid a second hand set of Encyclopaedia Britannica, even though some national boundaries have changed.
Well, I’m not sure if you can blame Gibbon for that. Those pointless Byzantine debates about which nostril Christ breathed out of on the cross can put anyone to sleep. Or, alternatively, provoke fits of frustrated rage. I dare you to find a writer in the world who can make that stuff engaging. I think it’s OK to skip those parts.
Anyway…
OP, it all depends on how advanced your knowledge of the subject is already. Is Gibbon worth reading? Of course. Is Gibbon worth reading as your first primer on the history of late antiquity? Of course not. That would be insane.
Rule of thumb: When you’ve already read enough on the subject to know what is wrong with Gibbon, then go ahead and read Gibbon. If not, read more recent stuff, then come back, bring pie.
