dition of perpetual insecurity. Its general aspect presents a disgusting picture of imbecility; wretched, nay, insane, passions stifle the growth of all that is noble in thoughts, deeds, and persons. Rebellion on the part of the generals, depositions of the emperors by their means or through the intrigues of the courtiers, assassination or poisoning of the emperors by their own wives and sons, women surrendering themselves to lusts and abominations of all kinds-such are the scenes which history here brings before us; till at last about the middle of the fifteenth century (A.D. 1453) the rotten edifice of the Eastern Empire crumbled in pieces before the might of the vigorous Turks." Statesmen cited Byzantium as an unworthy example. Thus, Napoleon I, during the time of the Hundred Days, in his speech to the Houses in June, 1815, said, "Help me save our country. Let us not follow the example of the Byzantine Empire (n'imitons pas l'exemple du Bas-Empire), which, being pressed from all sides by the barbarians, became the laughing-stock of posterity because it was preoccupied with petty quarrels while the battering-ram was breaking through the city gates."

Toward the middle of the nineteenth century the attitude toward medievalism changes in scholarly circles. After the storms of the revolutionary period and the Napoleonic Wars, Europe regarded the Middle Ages differently. There was an awakening of interest in the study of this "Gothic, barbarian" period. Byzantine history once more became a field for serious scholarly investigation.

In this brief survey only the more general works on Byzantine history will be mentioned. The more important monographs will be given throughout this book at the end of corresponding chapters.

Montesquieu.-It was in the first half of the eighteenth century that the famous representative of the Age of Reason, Montesquieu, wrote his Reflections on the Causes of the Greatness and Fall of the Romans (Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence), published in 1734. The first part of this book gives a brief, very interesting, and brilliant account of the development of the Roman Empire beginning with the founding of Rome,

Hegel, Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte. III. Teil, III. Abschnitt, III. Kapitel. (Lectures on the Philosophy of History, translated by J. Sibree [London, 1890], p. 353).

Moniteur, 13 Juin, 1815. See Houssaye, 1815.1 (Paris, 1905), pp. 622-23.

while the last four chapters are devoted to the Byzantine period, ending with the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453 A.D. This work makes it very apparent that Montesquieu held the correct view in regard to the history of this period: he considered Byzantine history to be a continuation of Roman history. As he says, he begins calling the Roman Empire the "Greek Empire" only from the second half of the sixth century. His attitude toward the history of this Empire is very harsh. We have already quoted one of his statements. He contends that the Byzantine Empire was full of so many organic defects in its social structure, in its religious life, in its methods of warfare, that it is hard to understand how a polity so corrupt could have lasted until the middle of the fifteenth century. This question seemed of much importance to him and he devotes the last chapter (xxiii) to the explanation of the causes of the prolonged existence of the Empire. He points out the strife among the victorious Arabs, the invention of "Greek fire," the prosperous trade of Constantinople, the settlement of the barbarians in the Danube regions, who thus protected the Empire against new invasions, as the chief causes of the long life of the Eastern Empire. “It was thus," he writes "that, while the Empire was weakening because of poor government, it was being aided by unusual outside causes." The Empire under the last Palaeologi, threatened by the Turks, reminded Montesquieu of the Rhine, "which resembles a little stream when it becomes lost in the ocean."

Even though Montesquieu's chief interest lay outside of Byzantine history, and fully as he shared the disdain of his time for medievalism, yet he did leave thought-provoking pages which even today may be read with great interest and much benefit. One of the modern students of Montesquieu, the French scholar, Sorel, calls his chapters on the Byzantine Empire "a masterly account and a model interpretation."s

Gibbon. The eighteenth century produced also the English historian, Edward Gibbon (1737-94), the author of the famous History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Gibbon left one of the best autobiographies, of which the English editor, Birkbeck Hill, says, "It is so brief that it can be read by the light of A. Sorel, Montesquieu (deuxième éd., Paris, 1889), p. 64.

two candles; it is so interesting in its contents and so attractive in turn of thought and in style that it can be read a second and third time with as much enjoyment as it is read the first time."

Gibbon was born on April 27, 1737. He received his early education partly at Westminster, partly under the care of tutors, and in 1752 he was matriculated at Magdalen College, Oxford. After a short stay there he went to Switzerland-to be more exact, to Lausanne where he was placed under the guidance of a Calvinist. He remained at Lausanne for five years, spending most of his time studying the French language and reading classical literature and important historical and philosophical works. This long stay left a very strong and lasting impression on the mind of the young Gibbon. Switzerland became his second home. He wrote, "I had ceased to be an Englishman. At the flexible period of youth, from the age of sixteen to twenty-one, my opinions, habits, and sentiments were cast in a foreign mould; the faint and distant remembrance of England was almost obliterated; my native language was grown less familiar; and I should have cheerfully accepted the offer of a moderate independent fortune on the terms of perpetual exile."1o At Lausanne Gibbon "had the satisfaction of seeing the most extraordinary man of the age-a poet, a historian, a philosopher":11 Voltaire.

Upon his return to London, Gibbon published (in 1761) his first work, written in French, An Essay on the Study of Literature (Essai sur l'étude de la litérature), which was received warmly in France and Holland, but with indifference in England. The following two and a half years Gibbon spent with the Hampshire militia, organized during the Seven Years' War between France and England, and in 1763 he returned, by way of Paris, to his beloved Lausanne. During this year he traveled through Italy, visiting Florence, Rome, Naples, Venice, and other Italian cities. The stay in Rome was of special importance to Gibbon's subsequent scholarly career, for it suggested to him the idea of writing a history of the "eternal" city. Here is what he tells us about it: "It was in Rome,

The Memoirs of the Life of Edward Gibbon, with Various Observations and Excursions by Himself, edited by Birkbeck Hill (London, 1900).

10 The Autobiographies of Edward Gibbon, edited by J. Murray (London, 1896), p. 152.

11 Ibid., p. 148.

on the fifteenth of October, 1764, as I sat musing amidst the ruins of the Capitol, while the barefooted fryars were singing Vespers in the temple of Jupiter, that the idea of writing the decline and fall of the City first started to my mind."12 Gibbon's original plan was to write the history of the fall of the city of Rome, and not of the Roman Empire; it was only later that his plans widened and he gave the world a history of the Roman Empire, both Western and Eastern, bringing it down to the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

Upon his second return to London, Gibbon began a very active search for materials for this intended work. The first volume of his history, which begins at the time of Augustus, appeared in 1776. The success of this volume was unusual. The first edition was sold within a few days. According to Gibbon, his "book was on every table, and almost on every toilette." The subsequent volumes of his history, in which he made clear some of his own religious views, quite in harmony with the spirit of the eighteenth century, caused a storm of protest, especially among the Italian Catholics.

Gibbon had one sacred desire: he wanted Lausanne, the school of his youth, to shelter the declining years of his life. Finally, twenty years after his second visit to Lausanne, Gibbon, having sufficient means for an independent existence, returned to his favorite city and there completed his history. Here is how he describes the moment of finishing his work of many years:

It was on the day, or rather the night, of the twenty-seventh of June, 1787, between the hours of eleven and twelve, that I wrote the last lines of the last page in a summer-house in my garden. After laying down my pen I took several turns in a berceau, or a covered walk of acacias, which commands a prospect of the country, the lake, and the mountains. The air was temperate, the sky was serene, the silver orb of the moon was reflected from the waters, and all Nature was silent. I will not dissemble the first emotions of joy on the recovery of my freedom, and perhaps the establishment of my fame. But my pride was soon humbled, and a sober melancholy was spread over my mind by the idea that I had taken everlasting leave of an old and agreeable companion, and that, whatsoever might be the future date of my history, the life of the historian must be short and precarious."

The sweeping events of the French Revolution forced Gibbon to return to England, where he died in January, 1794.

13 Ibid., p. 302.

13 Ibid., p. 311.

14 Ibid., pp. 333-34.

Gibbon is one of the few writers to gain a prominent place in literature as well as in history. His style is excellent; a contemporary historian compares Gibbon with Thucydides and Tacitus.15

Reflecting the ideas of the age, Gibbon advances in his history a very definite idea, expressed by himself in the following words: "I have described the triumph of barbarism and religion." In other words, the historical development of human society from the second century A.D. was, in his opinion, a retrograde movement. Of course, Gibbon's chapters on Christianity are at present of little more than historical interest.

We must not overlook the fact that, since Gibbon's time, historical materials have grown in quantity, the problems of history have changed, a more critical examination of historic sources has been introduced, the problem of interrelationship of sources has become more clearly defined, and new sciences, such as numismatics, epigraphy, sigillography (the science of seals), papyrology, etc., have been admitted to full citizenship in the domain of history. All this must be borne in mind when one reads Gibbon's work. It must also be remembered that Gibbon, who did not know sufficient Greek, is indebted for his materials on the period until 518 A.D., i.e., till the year of the death of Emperor Anastasius I, to his excellent predecessor, the French scholar, Tillemont, the author of a work well known in its own time, The History of the Emperors (Histoire des Empereurs), six volumes (Brussels, 1692 ff.). Therefore Gibbon's history of this period is more detailed and accurate.

In his treatment of the history of the subsequent period, i.e., the history of the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire, which interests us at present, Gibbon was not very successful. This can be explained partly by the fact that he did not have access to some of the original sources and partly by the strong influence of the ideas of his age, so unfavorable to Byzantine history. The English historian, Freeman, writes with regard to this question:

Now, with all Gibbon's wonderful power of grouping and condensation, which is nowhere more strongly shown than in his Byzantine chapters, with all his vivid description and his still more effective art of insinuation, his is certainly not the style of writing to excite respect for the persons or period of

15 Bury, in his edition of Gibbon (London, 1896), I, Introduction, p. xxxi.