Gibbon, like all historians before the establishment of the science of archaeology, relied on literary sources. He very rarely and reservedly relied on other historians' works. Among secondary sources, he preferred contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous accounts rather than later scholarship. One important reason that Gibbon's work has stood the test of time so very well is his astute and insightful judgement as to the reliability of various sources and his diligent efforts at substantiation of the claims of other historians.
By modern standards of historical research, Gibbon's work does not compare favorably. Standards of academic rigor have become much higher in the intervening centuries. Measured against the standards of his time, however, the Decline and Fall was a leap forward.
After more than two centuries of later scholarship, Gibbon's work has only very rarely been found wrong. Much additional information has been uncovered, but almost none of it has invalidated Gibbon's exhaustive review of the information then available. In this respect, he stands alone among 18th century historians. And not only have the facts of his history seldom been contradicted, but his judgements and hypotheses have often been corroborated by later discoveries. Gibbon was not only an inexhaustible researcher, but a profoundly perceptive one as well.
Advances in historical scholarship have moved the field far beyond Gibbon, and he is seldom used today in scholarship. As a literary work available to a general readership, however, it still stands. The Decline and Fall is one of the oldest histories still read widely for pleasure. While Gibbon's style seems somewhat archaic to modern readers, he displays a remarkable command of language and a ready, if subtle, wit.
The work is considered the first "Modern" history because it seeks explanations for historical events in terms of society, culture, and government rather than a Divine plan. Previous Christian authors almost always explained events in religious terms, and did not seek "worldly" explanations. Gibbon, however, approached his work from a point of skepticism, and wrote a very different kind of history.
Upon its initial publication, it provoked no small amount of controversy. Not only did he fail to ascribe the course of history to God's divine plan, but he wrote extensively on early Christianity in terms that, while historically accurate, were not always favorable to the early Christians.
The following excerpt from Chapter XV is the last paragraph of Volume I. This excellent example displays Gibbon's style of writing, his use of irony and humor, and his skepticism about historical Christianity in one paragraph:
Despite a professed surprise that the contemporaries of Christ could have overlooked such a signal event, it is quite obvious that Gibbon's intention was to state that there was no historical evidence that the events recorded in the New Testament account of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ ever happened. In his day, such a statement was not well received, to say the least. Even Gibbon felt the need to obscure the statement in irony.
This book can be read online at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/home).
Search Encyclopedia
|
Featured Article
|