See also...
Keywords
Authorizations, license
-
Visible by: Everyone -
All rights reserved
-
43 visits
- Keyboard shortcuts:
Jump to top
RSS feed- Latest comments - Subscribe to the comment feeds of this photo
- ipernity © 2007-2024
- Help & Contact
|
Club news
|
About ipernity
|
History |
ipernity Club & Prices |
Guide of good conduct
Donate | Group guidelines | Privacy policy | Terms of use | Statutes | In memoria -
Facebook
Twitter
Twleve years later, in 1776, Gibbon published “The History of the Decline and Fall of Roman Empire,” www.gutenberg.org/files/25717/25717-h/25717-h.htm one of the monuments of English literature, a brilliant work fashioned with wit, learning, humor, and elegance.
Gibbon’s thesis is, as his title indicates, that the Roman Empire, after the first two centuries of existence, declined in strength, vitality, and prosperity, then fell into ruin. His concept of Rome’s “decline and fall,” a process he called “the awful revolution,” had dominated historical thought for two hundred years. Even those who disagree with Gibbon over details have usually accepted his concept of decline and fall. What explanations did Gibbon give for the fate of the Roman Empire, and how have others responded to this views? Is Gibbon’s concept valid, and is it the only way of looking at this problem?
Gibbon was a true son of the ‘Enlightenment’, the eighteenth century mode of thought that honored reason and despised faith. . . . . In Gibbon’s view the glory of the ancient world, with its learning, arts, manners, and philosophy, gleamed in comparison with the Dark Ages of the medieval period, when the church held Europe in the thrall of ignorance and sorcery. . . . Uncivilized and uncouth in Gibbon’s eyes, they were even incapable of using reason. Although he acknowledged their hardiness and many vigor, he scorned them as savages who are horsemeat. ~ Page 189
Sign-in to write a comment.