On Gibbon, Herodotus, and Thucydides.

Remove all ads!

This thread is a continuation of a post that ran off-topic in the "Da Vinci Code" thread. The story so far: I had cited Gibbon in support of some point and Khemsa replied that Gibbon was a polemicist, not a historian. I answered that professional historians would snicker at the idea that Gibbon was a mere polemicist; that Gibbon, in fact, stood with such giants as Herodotus and Thucydides. Khemsa had an answer for this: "I have my B.A. and M.A. in history with much of my class work on my Ph.D. finished...I have read parts of Gibbon, and am familiar with his arguments...I hate to break this to you, but Herodotus and Thucydides are not exactly considered accurate historians themselves by professional historians....no professionals consider them accurate...." He then makes a point about my quoting a professor of philosophy, not a historian, about Gibbon and ends with a comment about some historians "cherry-picking" their facts to support their thesis. (Don't we all?) At this point Hackenslash pointed out that we had wandered off-topic just a bit, and that this was maybe PM material. He's maybe right on that, but since Khemsa has suggested on the boards that his credentials give him special expertise in this field (maybe he should've PM'd me) I wish to reply on the boards.

Khemsa: First, I'll note that I'm also a professional historian. I have a B.A. in History. Not as impressive as yours, of course. If credentials were horses... I have read Gibbon, unabridged, and the notes, twice. Only the first half, though; I still don't know what happens after Clovis. But that does cover the part we were talking about. I've also read Herodotus and Thucydides. And much other ancient history: Polybius, Tacitus, Livy, Suetonius, Sallust, Cassius Dio, Ammianus Marcellinus. And I do know what I'm talking about on this subject. We'll start with Gibbon.

You suggest that most professional historians consider Gibbon to be a "polemicist", by which I assume you mean a historian who either distorts or at least "cherry picks" his facts to support some favored position he holds. This opinion is true, to some degree, of everyone who writes history. No historian could possibly set down ALL of the facts; if he did, would there be enough pages? Some facts are more relevant than others, and the historian's task is to choose which ones are relevant to what he is trying to say. How well he does this, and how well he writes about what he chooses, is the measure of his stature as a historian. H.R. Trevor-Roper (I assume you consider him a professional historian--his credentials are not difficult to find) says "The Decline and Fall" is "the greatest historical work in our language."

"It is melancholy to say it, but the chief, perhaps the only English writer who has any claim to be considered an ecclesiastical historian, is the unbeliever Gibbon." --Cardinal Newman.

In general attitudes to Gibbon are often determined by their author's attitude to Christianity. The skeptical Lord Byron made a pelgrimage to visit the house where Gibbon finished his book, but the devout Coleridge wrote that, "Gibbon's style is detestable, but it is not the worst thing about him." Winston Churchill, who wrote a number of historical works that are regarded with some respect, had this to say: "I devoured Gibbon. I rode triumphantly through it from end to end and enjoyed it all." "The Decline and Fall" is also on a number of great books lists.

Gibbon was a fanatic about going to primary sources for his material; in this, he was one of the first of the modern historians. An on-line encyclopedia (Wikipedia) sums him up thus:

"...the sustained excellence of his style, his piquant epigrams, and his brilliant irony, would perhaps not secure to his work the immortality which it seems likely to enjoy, if it were not also marked by an ecumenical grasp, extraordinary accuracy, and a wily acuteness of judgment which has rarely been equalled in historical, or even English, prose."

Although many critics were (are?) disturbed by his skepticism, I was able to find no one who referred to him as a "polemicist". I suppose some have, but what is your source for this statement, given that you haven't read him in any thorough way? Frankly, on the basis of my own reading of Gibbon, and the research I've done, I can only conclude that you've been misinformed.

Herodotus:

The title Herodotus gave his work, "Histories", meant at that time, "Researches", and that is what his work was. It was something new and unprecedented. Before Herodotus, there were chronicles; after him, there was history. Herodotus thought his "research project" might yield knowledge of human behavior. His theme was a great one: the invasion and attempted suppression of the independent Greek city-states by Xerxes, "King of Kings and Lord of Lords"--his actual title--monarch of the Persian Empire, the largest, wealthiest, and most powerful political unit of the time. The triumph of the Greeks--of Liberty over Tyranny--is Herodotus's theme.

It's true that Herodotus has been called "The Father of Lies" as well as "The Father of History". He has been attacked, in both ancient and modern times, for bias, inaccuracy, and plagiarism. Recent archaelogy has tended to prove his history largely accurate.

Herodotus' usual method is to give the differing accounts of an event, then state which one he prefers, and why. When he recounts a story, he usually adds that he does or does not believe it, giving his reasons. This outlook, regardless of individual lapses, is the basis of modern historical methods, and Herodotus was the first to use it. The use of this method, by itself, is sufficient to mark Herodotus as a great historian, quite apart from his theme and his considerable literary abilities. It's routine to discriminate among sources nowadays; not so easy when no one else has ever done it.

Thucydides

Sorry, I'm just too pooped to deal with him. Maybe later. And I don't admire him as much as I do Gibbon and Herodotus. All those damned speeches that sound alike. Of course there is the Melian Dialogue, arguably the classic statement of all time of the arrogance of power.

[ May 29, 2005, 23:22: Message edited by: Cernak ]

 

Well, then you can write off my dislike for Gibbons by putting me into the anti-Gibbons camp. I do think it is quite unfair to simply call Gibbons a non-believer. Gibbons hated Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. The point of Decline and Fall was to demonstrate that the great Roman Empire fell because of the rise of Christianity. This puts Gibbon firmly in the Whig school of history, a school which has been fairly firmly debunked.

Please understand that I do not mean to criticize or denegrate the importance of Herodotus. I certainly do not claim that his work is a creation of fantasy. I understand and appreciate his importance in the great panorama of historiography. However, whatever his importance, professionals do not rely on his work as a completely accurate picture. But, then again, professionals would treat holy Scripture in the same fashion. Maybe that is why I went into law.

 

Thanks, Khemsa. We are obviously not going to agree about Gibbon. I will say that I had no sense, from my own reading, that he hated Christianity as such, though his low regard for the Church of Rome is obvious enough. His accounts of sectarian massacres, delivered with savage irony, cannot be pleasant reading for devout Catholics. But look again at Cardinal Newman's doleful comment above.

Gibbon certainly considered the rise of Christianity to be a major cause of the fall of the Roman Empire, but it's not true to say he considered this the sole cause. Throughout the whole first half of his work he lays equal, arguably greater, stress, on the corruption of the Roman government, and on the debauchery, greed and arrogance of the men who ran it. His long digression on Julian is not inspired only by Julian's apostasy. Gibbon thought Julian to be honorable, upright, wise and able; these, as much as his Paganism, made him an oasis for Gibbon in an otherwise deplorable chronicle. One of Gibbon's most powerful passages in the chapters dealing with the final collapse of the Empire has nothing at all to do with religion, being just a translation of Ammianus's description of the worthless luxury of the Roman rich in the late 4th century. But I suppose each of us sees what he wants to see in this stuff.

I appreciate your comments on Herodotus, and I hope you'll read him if you haven't already. He's a great storyteller, with a great story to tell. The controversial British historian A.J.P. Taylor once asked, "What is the most important question in History?", and answered it: "What happens next?". Herodotus never got that one wrong.

 

Cernak, I'm curious. I've been meaning to read Gibbon for a while now (hooray for procrastination), but one of the things that's made me a bit leery of plunking down the cash for the massive tome that is Decline and Fall is that I've heard repeatedly that Gibbon concludes that the most important factor in Rome's fall was, essentially, homosexuality.

Is that an inaccurate representation of his position(s)?

 

AMaster: Where in the world have you heard that? Weird. The answer to your question is an emphatic "No". Gibbon blames the fall of the Roman Empire on corruption and religion, at considerable length and with considerable detail. "Corruption", for Gibbon, includes homosexuality, but it's certainly not a major factor, so far as Gibbon is concerned.

If you do decide to buy it, try to get an edition that translates the notes, since Gibbon makes many of his points there, in Greek and Latin, as it was illegal to make them in plain English at the time when he wrote.

[ June 05, 2005, 09:43: Message edited by: Cernak ]