Industrial Deals HPC Best Books of the Year Holiday Dress Guide nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc For a limited time. 3 months for $0.99. Amazon Music Unlimited. New subscribers only. Terms and conditions apply. Electronics Gift Guide $34.99 for a limited time only Handmade Last Minute Gifts Holiday Home Gift Guide Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon JCVJ JCVJ JCVJ  Echo Devices starting at $29.99 Save $30 on All-New Fire HD 8. Limited-time offer. $20 off Kindle Paperwhite GNO Shop Now HTL17_gno



on April 28, 2016
More great reading for a history buff
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on November 1, 2015
This was a gift
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on June 30, 2007
This is the definitive Gibbons edition; but the description DOES NOT tell you that this is VOLUME 4-6 and that VOLUME 1-3 MUST BE PURCHASED SEPARATELY. This WHOLE set that MUST be bought SEPARATELY is nonetheless very good and worthy of being a part of one's library!
0Comment| 16 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on February 16, 2012
Edward Gibbon was the greatest historian the English language ever knew. Period. His books defined the field for over 150 years and spawned countless imitators of his wit and style. But of course, almost two and a half centuries later his work seems antiquated and quaint. Certainly he has been overtaken by other historians in terms of accuracy, and the field of archaeology has opened the door to a whole realm of knowledge which Gibbon knew nothing about. While a great many of his interpretations have been proven wrong, and some of his facts are shaky, the first set of his work is still a generally accurate account of the fall of Rome. Which brings us to the second set.

The problem with Gibbon's last three books is the same thing that was the strength of his first three: his thesis. While many (including me) would argue that his view of a golden age in the second century followed by a continuous decline interspersed with brief periods of recovery is an oversimplification at best, it is still a workable thesis that can be made to fit the facts (more or less). Now for the second set of books he does not create a new thesis, he merely continues with the same one. That Rome fell in the west and continued its long, slow decline in the east. The problem with this is that while the west fell in 476 (294 years after he dates the beginning of the fall) the east didn't fall until 1453 (almost a thousand years after that). So in other words the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire was in a state of permanent decline for longer than the western empire was even around. This is despite being surrounded by angry enemies on all sides (including the newly established Muslim caliphates and various migrating tribes). Obviously it is impossible for an empire to start off in decline, whatever the precise meaning of that term is when it is applied to an entire civilization. His thesis must be wrong, yet he continues with it.

A lot of his problem comes from his Classical prejudices. Classicists then (and now) have generally viewed the first centuries BC and AD as the high point in classical Roman civilization. It created the greatest art, books, and poems of Roman civilization. It is seen as essentially perfect. Which means that everything that deviates from it is considered a decline in standards. That's the problem with having a n ideal baseline. This is even reflected in the name given to the Latin writing of the various periods. Ciceronian and Augustan literature is called Golden Age Latin. Post-Tiberian Latin is called Silver Age Latin. After the 2nd Century they don't even bother giving it a metal name, but if they call it anything it would be Vulgar Latin. They still use this classification system today. So a civilization that calls itself Roman is to be judged by the standards of the Roman Empire of the first two centuries (as seen through a 18th Century British lens) and not using more impartial or less biased parameters.

The rest of his problems come from more contemporary sources. His era was seen as the Age of Enlightenment. Europe had finally managed to crawl up from the dust of excessive superstition and barbarism. The Middle Ages were a dirty little section of human history that separated modern Europe from its more noble Classical past. Despising (justly) religious fanaticism and ignorance they were particularly unprepared to see the benefit of a society that valued such features. Gibbon looked at the superstition-ridden and fanatical Byzantines and saw nothing of value. Since their society held values directly contrary to his own he considered them worthless. That they achieved anything at all must have been a great mystery to him, but instead of analyzing their culture to see what it was he slathers it with his contempt.

So why given what I've said above do I still give this work four stars? Because even when he's fantastically wrong Edward Gibbon is a brilliant writer. His style is inimitable, filled with sarcasm and wit. Even when he's being snobbish he's charming. The scope of his research is incredible. I'd have a hard time getting this material now, and I can't even imagine how he got ahold of all this in the 18th Century before computers, accessible printings, or even detailed bibliographies were available. Apart from archaeological evidence there is very little written material available now that he didn't have then and that he doesn't use in these books. As I said before, the basic narrative is correct. It's merely his interpretation that's wrong. So if you go in knowing that then you should find it an entertaining read. Gibbon is, as ever, immensely quotable. But please do not consider these books the be-all, end-all. Take what he says with a grain of salt and if you're interested then seek out a less biased source.

There is a series of books which covers the same period in only slightly less detail. John Julius Norwich's books are very much like Gibbon's except that he uses more modern prose, is less snarky, and actually likes the Byzantines. These books are available as Byzantium: The Early Centuries,Byzantium: The Apogee, and Byzantium: The Decline and Fall. Or if you prefer they are all available in abbreviated form as A Short History of Byzantium, although that one is really too short to get a proper view of the Byzantines. These books aren't deep, but they do offer a highly readable and charming view of the Byzantine Empire across a thousand years of history.

The Everyman's Library set is the nicest set of Gibbon available. They are green with an attractive black and gold title impressed in the cover and a bookmark sewn into the spine. They come in a nice box which stores them all (although mine doesn't have a picture for some reason). I did my research for these carefully when deciding which set to buy, because you really do want a good copy of Gibbon. The only problem is that the nice black and gold lettering on the spine comes off rather easily while reading, and the green fabric shows stains rather well. The text itself is as he had written it although the footnotes are a combination of his and J.B. Bury's. J.B. Bury was the foremost scholar of the Later Roman Empire in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. When Gibbon wrote his books he basically invented his own system of footnoting. Before his time nobody really attributed where they got their information from unless it was mentioned in passing within the text. Unfortunately Gibbon's system became hopelessly outdated as the process of attributing information became standardized over the next century. So J.B. Bury made it his task to get Gibbon's footnotes to conform to a slightly more traditional system. If you get a copy of Gibbon from another publisher make sure that it's the Bury edition since his redone footnotes really makes the books easier to read.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on July 28, 2007
Your description does not indicate the only volumes 4-6 will be shipped. I would never had ordered it if I had known this. In addition, the package I received had three volumes but two of the volumes were the same, namely, volume 5. I received volumes 4, 5 and 5. I shall try to straighten this out with Horizon Books.

My next review will describe how this problem was handled.
33 comments| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on March 4, 2009
I'll spare the review of the work itself; if you don't know why you should read Gibbon, then this isn't the place to start. If you're going to put forth the effort, however, then this is the edition to get. Contains all the footnotes (lacking in some expensive leather editions), is reasonably priced, and is attractively bound. The only other edition to consider would be Wormsley's, which can be expensive in hard back, if you can even find it. If you want to have an edition to read and display, this is it.
0Comment| 8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on January 14, 2011
There are a total of 6 books in this series. Two boxed sets of 3 books each. If you want accurate information with orginial source notes then get this set. The 3-book set is sold seperately as volumes 1-3 and 4-6. Combined you have an excellent source for Roman History.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse