M. GUIZOT'S PREFACE

TO THE SECOND EDITION OF HIS TRANSLATION.

To reprint a good work and revise an imperfect translation, are not my only motives for publishing this new edition of Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I have also been induced to remodel my version of it and supply original notes, for the purpose of correcting omissions and errors, which are the more serious, because, being involved in the immense mass of facts, which a history so extensive comprises, they are calculated to mislead the superficial, who believe all that they read, and even the attentive, who know not how to study all that they are reading.

Numerous writers, learned men and philosophers too, have bestowed much attention and labour on this portion of history. The gradual decline of the most extraordinary dominion, that ever led captive and oppressed a world-the fall of that widest of empires, which, constructed out of the wreck of so many kingdoms, republics, and communities, both barbarian and civilized, was then itself in its turn broken up into another host of communities, republics, and kingdoms-the abolition of the religion of Greece and Rome - the origin and growth of two other religions, which have shared between them the fairest provinces of earth-the old age of the ancient world-the spectacle of its expiring glory and moral degeneracy-the infancy of the modern world-the picture of its early progress, and of a new impulse given to mind and character-these form a subject to attract and interest all who do not look with indifference on those memorable epochs, when, as Corneille so beautifully said—

"Un grand destin commence, un grand destin s'achève."

Learning, philosophy, and eloquence, have vied with each other, either to set in order or to delineate the ruins of this vast edifice, so grand before it fell, and destined to be replaced by others as grand. MM. de Tillemont, Lebeau, Ancillon, Pagi, Eckhel, and many other French and foreign writers, have investigated them throughout; they have plunged into the confused mass, seeking for dates, references, facts, details, &c.; and with more or less of extensive erudition and enlightened discrimina

on, they have in some degree collected and arranged anew, the scattered materials. I am unwilling to detract from the merit of labours, which have been unquestionably useful, but they are sometimes intombed beneath the mass into which they plunged. Either intentionally restricting the object and range of their studies, or unknown to themselves, intellectually confined within certain limits, the search after facts was allowed so to engross their minds, that the concourse of ideas was neglected. The ruins were explored and light let in, but no monument was reconstructed. Their works present not to the reader those general views which enable him to survey, at a single glance, a wide extent of country or a long series of ages; he cannot, amid the darkness of the past, distinguish clearly the progress of mankind, changing incessantly their semblance, but not their natures; their manners, but not their passions; and arriving always at the same results, though by diverging ways. Yet these are the views which constitute the philosophy of history, and without which its records are but a heap of incoherent, inconclusive, and unconnected facts. On the other hand, Montesquieu, in his "Considerations on the Causes of Roman Grandeur and its Fall," throwing over his subject the pervasive glance of genius, has called up before us a throng of ideas, always profound, and generally new; but they are sometimes not precise, nor are they in constant accordance with the true character and real connection of facts; they are often derived from those rapid and ingenious perceptions, in which a great mind too willingly indulges, because it delights in manifesting this kind of creative power. It is the just and happy privilege of genius, that its errors are pregnant with truth; it may at times lose itself on the path which it opens; but the path is open, and more cautious followers may tread it surely.

Less vigorous, less profound, less elevated than Montesquieu, Gibbon appropriated to himself the subject, of which his predecessor had pointed out the extent and rich stores. He carefully traced and untwisted slowly the whole progressive chain of those occurrences, some of which Montesquieu had used, rather as pegs whereon to hang his own ideas, than as guide-posts to show his reader the course and mutual influence of events. The English historian was eminently gifted with the penetration which ascends to causes, and the sagacity which discerns such as are true amid those which are only apparently so; he was born in an age when enlightened curiosity studied the gear of the social machine, and strove to understand the connection of its parts, their working, their use, their effects, and their importance; the pursuits and the stretch of his mind placed him on a level with the lights of his age; the materials-that is, the facts of history, he examined and criticised with a judicious erudition; its moral

aspect-that is, the relation of events between themselves and with the actors, he regarded with a skilful philosophy. He was aware that a dry detail of facts excites no other interest than the idle curiosity which desires to know the actions of other men; and that history, to be truly useful and serious, must look at the society which it depicts, in all the different points of view in which it is seen by the statesman, the warrior, the magistrate, the financier, the philosopher, and all whose position or knowledge may lay open to them the springs of action. Equally just and noble, this idea, as it appears to me, inspired the author, while composing his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. It is not a simple recital of the events which agitated the Roman world, from the elevation of Augustus to the taking of Constantinople by the Turks. With this picture we find constantly associated the state of the finances, of opinions, of manners, of the military system, and of all those internal and concealed causes either of prosperity or misery, by which the existence and welfare of society are silently established or secretly undermined. Faithful to that recognized, but neglected law, which prescribes fact as the guide of general reflections, and a step-by-step adherence to its slow but necessary course, Gibbon has produced a work remarkable for the extent of its views, although seldom dignified by exalted ideas; and abounding in positive and interesting results, in spite of its author's scepticism The merits of the work are incontestably proved by its succes, in an age which had produced Montesquieu; and which, at the time of the publication, still possessed Hume, Robertson, and Voltaire: they are confirmed by the subsequently undisturbed permanence of that success. In the most enlightened countries of Europe, in England, France, and Germany, Gibbon is always quoted as an authority. Even those who have detected his inaccuracies, or do not assent to some of his opinions, never point out his mistakes nor contest his views, but with the respect due to superior merit. My labours have required that I should consult the writings of philosophers who have discussed the financial resources of the Roman empire, of learned men who have studied its chronology, of theologians who have sounded the depths of ecclesiastical history, of lawyers who have carefully investigated the Roman jurisprudence, of oriental scholars well versed in Arab customs and the Koran, and of modern historians who have largely inquired respecting the Crusades and their influence each of these writers has remarked and indicated in the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, some instances of negligence, some false, or at least imperfect views, and sometimes even omissions, which it is difficult to consider as not designed; they have set right some facts and advantageously contradicted some assertions; but for the most part, they made

the ideas and researches of Gibbon their starting-point, o used them as proofs of whatever new opinions they themselves advanced.

I must here mention the doubts and changes which I have myself experienced while studying this work; they serve to bring its qualities and defects so much more fully out, that I will not omit to state them, even though I may incur the charge o egotism. My first rapid perusal of it, made me only sensible of the interest inspired by a narrative, always animated, notwithstanding its extent; always distinct, notwithstanding the variety of the objects which it presents. I then undertook a minute examination of its details, and the opinion which I so formed, was, I confess, singularly severe. In some chapters I met with errors so grave and so numerous, as to persuade me that they had been most carelessly written. In others I was struck by a prevailing tinge of partiality and prejudgment, which exhibited facts with that want of truth and justice, so appropriately termed by the English misrepresentation. Some quotations cut short, some passages unintentionally or designedly omitted, made me question the author's honesty; this violation of the first law of history, aggravated to me by the prolonged attention which I bestowed on every phrase, note, and reflection, impressed me with an opinion of the whole work, which was certainly too unfavourable. After this, having allowed some time to elapse, I proceeded to peruse again and with undiverted attention, the entire history, the author's notes and my own; and this satisfied me that I had exaggerated Gibbon's faults. I perceived the same mistakes, the same partial conclusions on some subjects,-but I had not done justice to his immense researches, to his various knowledge, to his extensive information, and to that truly philosophical equity of his mind, which judged the past as it would have judged the present. His eye was never darkened by the mists which time gathers round the dead. He saw that man is ever the same, whether arrayed in the toga or in the dress of to-day, whether deliberating in the senate of old, or at the modern council-board, and that the course of events, eighteen centuries ago, was the same as at present. Then I felt that, notwithstanding his foibles, Gibbon was a great historian; that his book, notwithstanding its defects, would always remain a great work; and that, while exposing his errors and combating his prejudices, it may still be maintained that, if any have possessed in an equal degree, few have combined in method so complete and well-ordered, all the qualities requisite to form a writer of history.

My notes, then, are designed only to give the true version of facts which appeared to me false or perverted, and to supply others, the omission of which was a source of error. I am far from thinking that I have done all that was wanted, nor have I

attempted this throughout the entire History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. It would have enormously enlarged an already voluminous work, and added innumerable notes to the many supplied by the author. To review with care the chapters, dedicated by Gibbon to the history of the establishment of Christianity, was my first object and principal design; most of my additions have been made there, in order to place in a true and exact light the facts of which they are made up. I thought it necessary also, to explain and correct other chapters, such as that which treats of the ancient religion of the Persians, and that in which the early state of Germany and the migrations of tribes are depicted; their importance must be my apology. I have not extended these labours generally beyond the first five volumes of this new edition; they contain almost all that regards Christianity. In them too is seen that transition from the old world to the new, from the manners and ideas of Roman Europe to those of our times, which constitutes the most interesting and important epoch for illustration in the whole work. Subsequent periods have had their own many and able historians. The notes which I have added to the remaining volumes are, therefore, few and short. What I have done may perhaps be deemed superfluous, yet have I strictly refrained from saying all but what appeared to me necessary; and I have said it as concisely as possible.

Much has been written about and against Gibbon. From its first appearance commentators treated his work as they might an ancient manuscript; they were, in fact, critics. Theologians, especially, complained of those sections which related to ecclesiastical history. They assailed his 15th and 16th chapters, sometimes justly, sometimes acrimoniously, almost always with weapons weaker than those of their adversary. If I may judge of them by what I have read of their labours, they were far surpassed by him in information, acquirements, and talents. Dr. R. Watson, afterwards bishop of Llandaff, published a Series of Letters, or an Apology for Christianity, the moderation and merit of which were acknowledged by Gibbon himself.* Dr. Priestley wrote a Letter to a Philosophical Unbeliever, containing a sketch of the evidences of revealed religion, with observations on Mr. Gibbon's first two volumes. Dr. White. in sermons, of which it is said that he only furnished the materials, and that Dr. S. Badcock was their actual author, drew a comparison between Christianity and Mahometanism (1st edition, 8vo., 1784), in which he often controverted Gibbon, who himself has spoken of him with esteem in his Memoirs (Miscellaneous Works, 8vo., vol. i. p. 233), and in his Letters (No. 82, 83, &c.).

An Apology for Christianity, in a series of Letters to Edward Gibbon, Esq., by Buchard Watson, D.D. 8vo. 1776.