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