Which is the best edition of Gibbon's "History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," and why?
There are really only two good editions in English of Gibbon's masterpiece to choose from. The English scholar, H. H. Milman, noted for his History of Latin Christianity and History of the Jews, at great labor prepared a very useful and workable edition of the Decline and Fall. He completed his Work in the year 1845, and it has proved very acceptable.
However, there are certain factors about the Milman edition which mar it somewhat. It is well known that Gibbon wrote his work to prove that Christianity was to blame for the collapse of the Roman Empire and culture in the West. Since Milman was a churchman, he resented this attitude of Gibbon, and more than once quarreled with him in his footnotes. Granted that Mr. Gibbon needed to be quarreled with because of his position, at the same time Milman lost something of fine historical balance in doing so. Again, Gibbon considered the whole remarkable range of history centering in Constantinople from the sixth century on, as of very little value, and handled it in summary fashion. Milman's notes do not help us very much in this respect, because much of the Byzantine situation had not yet been opened up in Milman's day.
The other edition of Gibbon, and undoubtedly the best, is that of John B. Bury. Dr. Bury, an Irish scholar, was, until his death in 1927, probably the most outstanding classical historian of the British Isles. He prepared an edition of Gibbon in which the student benefits by the editor's enormous knowledge of history. It was Bury's scholarly grasp of details which enabled him to check Gibbon on a number of inaccuracies which Milman missed. He had at hand new materials as well as fresh points of view and historical interpretations, not available to Gibbon, nor indeed to Milman. Excellent critical texts were at Bury's hand, which neither Gibbon nor Milman had.
In more than one place Bury has the courage to correct the Gibbon text, where early clerical or typographical slips are evidently to blame. His footnotes are brief and to the point, erudite, with clear and useful references. Bury does not agree with Gibbon's thesis that Christianity corrupted Rome, but in his footnotes bearing upon Gibbon's criticisms of the church, we recognize that we do not find here the heat of controversy as in the case of Milman, but the light of historical fact.
It is not uncommon today to find scholars restricting the use of Gibbon to the Bury edition.
FRANK H. YOST. [Professor of Church History, Theological Seminary.]
