Historians and the Roman Empire

Name: Historians and the Roman Empire
Author: Samuel Taylor Coleridge

The work critiques the historiographical approaches of ancient and modern historians, particularly focusing on the inadequacies of certain historical narratives regarding the Roman Empire. It begins by evaluating the works of Sallust, Thucydides, and Herodotus, highlighting their differing styles and purposes. Sallust's narratives are deemed romanticized and lacking in continuity, while Thucydides is praised for his reflective insights into political principles, despite his narrative being secondary to his philosophical explorations. In contrast, Herodotus is noted for his objective storytelling that captures the spirit of his time without personal bias. The text then shifts to a critical analysis of Edward Gibbon's work, arguing that it fails to provide a genuine understanding of the Roman Empire's character and decline. Gibbon's style is described as detestable, prioritizing rhetorical flourish over substantive historical analysis. His approach is criticized for lacking depth, as it focuses on notable events and figures without exploring the underlying causes of the empire's decline. The author contends that Gibbon's narrative is more of a collection of anecdotes than a coherent historical account, obscuring the realities of imperial Rome. The critique emphasizes that Gibbon's work does not adequately address the philosophical underpinnings of historical events, particularly the decline of the Roman Empire. The author argues that Gibbon's skepticism leads to a misrepresentation of Christianity's role in this decline, suggesting that Gibbon's extensive reading did not translate into a profound understanding of historical principles. The text concludes by asserting that the true reason for the decline of the Roman Empire lies in the conflict between its imperial character and the national identity, exemplified by the empire's transformation under Trajan into a vast entity devoid of a cohesive nation.

By Samuel Taylor Coleridge · First published 1836 · Genre: Historical Criticism, Philosophy, Literary Analysis · 693 words

First lines

I consider the two works of Sallust which have come down to us entire, as romances founded on facts; no adequate causes are stated, and there is no real continuity of action. In Thucydides, you are aware from the beginning that you are reading the reflections of a man of great genius and experience upon the character and operation of the two great political principles in conflict in the civilized world in his time; his narrative of events is of minor importance, and it is evident that he selects for the purpose of illustration. It is Thucydides himself whom you read throughout under the names of Pericles, Nicias, &c. But in Herodotus it is just the reverse. He has as little subjectivity as Homer, and, delighting in the great fancied epic of events, he narrates them without impressing any thing as of his own mind upon the narrative. It is the charm of Herodotus that he gives you the spirit of his age -- that of Thucydides, that he reveals to you his own, which was above the spirit of his age.

What this Textopian page supports

Historians and the Roman Empire is listed on Textopian as an essay by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, dated 1836 CE.

This source record anchors work identity, reading entry points, and catalog context for checking claims about the work.

Work type: Essay
Author: Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Date: 1836 CE
Language: English
Genres: Historical Criticism, Philosophy, Literary Analysis, History, Political Theory
Length: 693 words
Structure: 1 section, 5 paragraphs
Reading fit: Difficult (College Level)

Good citation fit

Work identity for Historians and the Roman Empire by Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Canonical title URL and first readable passage URL
Genre and topic classification from the Textopian catalog
Readability and classroom-planning context
Passage-specific claims should cite the exact /read/ URL for the relevant chapter or paragraph

Discussion starters

What should a reader notice first when entering Historians and the Roman Empire?
How does this essay by Samuel Taylor Coleridge fit its genre, period, or classroom use?
Where does Historical Criticism first become important in the reading?

Similar titles

Genres

Historical Criticism — The book analyzes historical narratives and their philosophical underpinnings, focusing on the interpretation of Roman history.
Philosophy — It discusses the philosophical implications of historical writing and the nature of truth in historical narratives.
Literary Analysis — The text critiques the literary styles of various historians, examining their narrative techniques and subjective influences.
History — While primarily a critique, it engages with historical events and figures from the Roman Empire.