Been reading Reddit threads about Edward Gibbon’s DECLINE AND FALL....
T. Greer@Scholars_Stage
18 views
Jul 22, 2025
~2 min read
Advertisement
1
Been reading Reddit threads about Edward Gibbon’s DECLINE AND FALL.
It is full of folks who read excerpts/ a few chapters in a historiography class, now lecturing on how “outdated” it is, “historically inaccurate,” and “useful only for understanding the Enlightenment.” Bah!
It is full of folks who read excerpts/ a few chapters in a historiography class, now lecturing on how “outdated” it is, “historically inaccurate,” and “useful only for understanding the Enlightenment.” Bah!
2
There is an astounding arrogance in these comments I find infuriating.
3
Gibbon’s work is encyclopedic in length. With archeology excepted he for the most used the exact same primary sources used by historians today, and for classical and late antiquity this corpus has not grown. He often provided the first sustained analysis of many of minor sources.
4
His treatment of the history is far more nuanced than these kids give him credit for—a fact they do not know because they have not read much of the work itself.
5
Whether or not you end up agreeing with Gibbon’s interpretation of a given incident your responsibility as a scholar has to be to check Gibbon’s interpretation of whatever you are writing about.
6
He was smarter than you, a better writer than you, and might have forgotten insight on the issue in question.
The dismissal these historians/students show is indefensible.
The dismissal these historians/students show is indefensible.
7
Historiography classes are a mistake.
8
One of the things I appreciate about Paul Rahe’s books on Sparta and Ancient Greece is that every time he has the option to cite Grote or some other 19th century scholar over more contemporary works, he does so (followed by a “cf. [thirteen other sources]”).
9
I think my attitude on this question is probably the same as @Evolving_Moloch ‘s on Fraser’s Golden Bough
Will@Evolving_Moloch
Re: Tylor and Frazer, in terms of theory there are definitely plenty of ideas they had that are outdated, but on the whole their works are incredibly ethnographically rich and very valuable for that reason
10
@Evolving_Moloch As with Frazer, whether you agree with Gibbon’s largest interpretations, he wrote perceptively about everything he covered… and he covered EVERYTHING. It is just criminal negligence to discount his work because the broader thesis has problems.
Will@Evolving_Moloch
Man, Edward Tylor & James Frazer wrote about fucking everything. Halfway through writing the below paper I found Tylor already covered the topic & had to make edits, & now going back over The Golden Bough I realize Frazer beat me to umbilical cord rituals x.com/Evolving_Moloc…
11
@Evolving_Moloch Good thread
Ye Olde Philologer Cokedril@PhiloCrocodile
I am not cool enough to be invited out tonight so instead I am carrying on with my Gibbon re-read (something I should do more often). But why Gibbon? A 📕 (apologies for kettlebell bookmark)
12
Larger thoughts on older history books and history as a “progressive” discipline here
T. Greer@Scholars_Stage
Several years ago I wrote an essay reviewing big synthetic histories of antebellum America published over the last few decades. One of my conclusions: “ One can follow the mood of America’s liberal intelligentsia decade by decade through these volumes. ”
