He adverts but little, far too little, to that side of events which
does not strike the visual sense. He rarely generalises or sums up a
widely-scattered mass of facts into pregnant synthetic views. But
possibly he owes some of the permanence of his fame to this very
defect. As soon as ever a writer begins to support a thesis, to prove
a point, he runs imminent danger of one-sidedness and partiality in
his presentation of events. Gibbon's faithful transcript of the past
has neither the merit nor the drawback of generalisation, and he has
come in consequence to be regarded as a common mine of authentic facts
to which all speculators can resort.
The first volume, which was received with such warm acclamation, is
inferior to those that followed. He seems to have been partly aware of
this himself, and speaks of the "concise and superficial narrative
from Commodus to Alexander." But the whole volume lacks the grasp and
easy mastery which distinguish its successors. No doubt the
subject-matter was comparatively meagre and ungrateful. The century
between Commodus and Diocletian was one long spasm of anarchy and
violence, which was, as Niebuhr said, incapable of historical
treatment.
Pages:
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178