Talk:The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
From Academic Kids
Some of the sentences in the article are taken verbatim from the Teaching Company's lecture on the early Middle Ages. Whoever put them in might want to reword a bit. --Ian 19:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
| Contents |
Don't try to make Gibbon out to be better than he is
Don't try to make Gibbon out to be better than he is - if he didn't write like an angel, he would not have been read even in the 19th century, let alone the 20th. Not much wrong with his work? YIKES! Gibbon is really quite good with literary sources, which is all anyone much worked with before 1880. Since then, however, archaeology alone has radically altered our view of the past. --MichaelTinkler
Alright, first point. A literary source from the past is not a primary source - it is a contemporary or semi-contemporary secondary source. For instance, Wikipedia's September 11th coverage, interesting though it is, is NOT a primary source. Ammianus Marcellinus, Gibbon's favorite late antique historian, is a mixed source. He is a primary source for certain campaigns in which he participated as an officer. However, he often wrote based on public knowledge and hearsay. To say that Ammianus on the Mesopotamian frontier wars is a 'primary source' and that Gibbon's reliance on him is better than, say, reading excavation reports from Dura Europos is an example of why 18th and 19th century history, for all its strengths, is not as useful as late 20th century history. --MichaelTinkler
- Thanks. This article came from an introduction in my edition, by Hugh Trevor-Roper. I never claimed to be a historian. :-) I added a bit about its use today primarily as literature. --Dmerrill
Correct title?
My copy of this book is called The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire -- without the words "The history of". That's what it says on the frontspiece. Did the name of this book change since Gibbon first published it? -- llywrch 20:54, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
My edition, Henry Frowde, World Classics, 1903, uses both titles on adjacent pages. ping 08:49, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I have a copy of vol. 1 of the first edition on my desk at this moment. The title is "The history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire". -- Wilus
A debateable point
regarding this paragraph:
- 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.
This seems strange. Humanists like Petrarch in the 14th Century rejected history on religious terms and returned to the classics of Rome. It was, by definition, the Renaissance. Gibbon was part of the Enlightenment which also rejected history on religious terms. So to call it the "first" history to see things along social advancement.. it's a debateable point. But I don't have an earlier work to point to as example so will leave it for now. Stbalbach 19:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Libronix
This work is now on prepublication for use with Libronix Digital Library System: [1] (http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/2096) The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Gibbon)]
Please discuss excerpts
SOMEONE keeps adding that EXCERPTS back into this page without any discussion. Please discuss first.
