Quote:
Originally Posted by ahi
Really?
I thought I read somewhere that he was the first historian to actually go back to original sources, and that as a result his work is the next best thing (to original sources--in contrast with earlier histories where people are reporting on people reporting what other people reported that yet other people said/did/saw).
Having said that, his opinionatedness does not surprise me... but is it really so bad as to negate the (supposed) value of the underlying research?
- Ahi
|
Actually, if I can remember well the whole "historians <3 sources" love story (pardon me) began during reformation era, when it was perceived as essential that official history of the Church roots as perceived by Protestants or Catholics was had sound foundation in documentaries sources (cames to mind Flacius and his Centuriators vs Cardinal Baronius; but also, a bit downstream, the Bollandists with their Acta Sanctorum).
This said, I'd be interested in a good unabridged edition of Gibbon too.