Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol 1 | Page 6

struck with the same errors, the same partiality on certain subjects;
but I had been far from doing adequate justice to the immensity of his researches, the
variety of his knowledge, and above all, to that truly philosophical discrimination
(justesse d'esprit) which judges the past as it would judge the present; which does not
permit itself to be blinded by the clouds which time gathers around the dead, and which
prevent us from seeing that, under the toga, as under the modern dress, in the senate as in
our councils, men were what they still are, and that events took place eighteen centuries
ago, as they take place in our days. I then felt that his book, in spite of its faults, will
always be a noble work - and that we may correct his errors and combat his prejudices,
without ceasing to admit that few men have combined, if we are not to say in so high a
degree, at least in a manner so complete, and so well regulated, the necessary
qualifications for a writer of history."
The present editor has followed the track of Gibbon through many parts of his work; he
has read his authorities with constant reference to his pages, and must pronounce his
deliberate judgment, in terms of the highest admiration as to his general accuracy. Many
of his seeming errors are almost inevitable from the close condensation of his matter.
From the immense range of his history, it was sometimes necessary to compress into a
single sentence, a whole vague and diffuse page of a Byzantine chronicler. Perhaps
something of importance may have thus escaped, and his expressions may not quite
contain the whole substance of the passage from which they are taken. His limits, at times,
compel him to sketch; where that is the case, it is not fair to expect the full details of the
finished picture. At times he can only deal with important results; and in his account of a
war, it sometimes requires great attention to discover that the events which seem to be
comprehended in a single campaign, occupy several years. But this admirable skill in
selecting and giving prominence to the points which are of real weight and importance -
this distribution of light and shade - though perhaps it may occasionally betray him into
vague and imperfect statements, is one of the highest excellencies of Gibbon's historic
manner. It is the more striking, when we pass from the works of his chief authorities,
where, after laboring through long, minute, and wearisome descriptions of the accessary
and subordinate circumstances, a single unmarked and undistinguished sentence, which
we may overlook from the inattention of fatigue, contains the great moral and political
result.
Gibbon's method of arrangement, though on the whole most favorable to the clear
comprehension of the events, leads likewise to apparent inaccuracy. That which we
expect to find in one part is reserved for another. The estimate which we are to form,
depends on the accurate balance of statements in remote parts of the work; and we have
sometimes to correct and modify opinions, formed from one chapter by those of another.
Yet, on the other hand, it is astonishing how rarely we detect contradiction; the mind of
the author has already harmonized the whole result to truth and probability; the general
impression is almost invariably the same. The quotations of Gibbon have likewise been
called in question; - I have, in general, been more inclined to admire their exactitude, than
to complain of their indistinctness, or incompleteness. Where they are imperfect, it is
commonly from the study of brevity, and rather from the desire of compressing the
substance of his notes into pointed and emphatic sentences, than from dishonesty, or

uncandid suppression of truth.
These observations apply more particularly to the accuracy and fidelity of the historian as
to his facts; his inferences, of course, are more liable to exception. It is almost impossible
to trace the line between unfairness and unfaithfulness; between intentional
misrepresentation and undesigned false coloring. The relative magnitude and importance
of events must, in some respect, depend upon the mind before which they are presented;
the estimate of character, on the habits and feelings of the reader. Christians, like M.
Guizot and ourselves, will see some things, and some persons, in a different light from
the historian of the Decline and Fall. We may deplore the bias of his mind; we may
ourselves be on our guard against the danger of being misled, and be anxious to warn less
wary readers against the same perils; but we must not confound this secret and
unconscious departure from truth, with the deliberate violation of that veracity which is
the only title of an historian to our confidence. Gibbon, it may be fearlessly asserted,