at such charges are grossly exaggerated will be
apparent to any one who will carefully read the Second and Third
Chapters, describing the state and tendencies of the Empire under the
Antonines; or the chapters devoted to the rise and character of the
barbarians, to the spread of Christianity, to the influence of
monasticism, to the jurisprudence of the republic and of the Empire; nor
would it be difficult to collect many acute and profound philosophical
remarks from other portions of the history. Still, it may be admitted
that the philosophical side is not its strongest part. Social and
economical changes are sometimes inadequately examined and explained,
and we often desire fuller information about the manners and life of the
masses of the people. As far as concerns the age of the Antonines, this
want has been amply supplied by the great work of Friedlaender.

History, like many other things in our generation, has fallen largely
into the hands of specialists; and it is inevitable that men who have
devoted their lives to a minute examination of short periods should be
able to detect some deficiencies and errors in a writer who traversed a
period of more than twelve hundred years. Many generations of scholars
have arisen since Gibbon; many new sources of knowledge have become
available, and archaeology especially has thrown a flood of new light on
some of the subjects he treated. Though his knowledge and his narrative
are on the whole admirably sustained, there are periods which he knew
less well and treated less fully than others. His account of the
Crusades is generally acknowledged to be one of the most conspicuous of
these, and within the last few years there has arisen a school of
historians who protest against the low opinion of the Byzantine Empire
which was held by Gibbon, and was almost universal among scholars till
the present generation. That these writers have brought into relief
certain merits of the Lower Empire which Gibbon had neglected, will not
be denied; but it is perhaps too early to decide whether the reaction
has not, like most reactions, been carried to extravagance, and whether
in its general features the estimate of Gibbon is not nearer the truth
than some of those which are now put forward to replace it.

Much must no doubt be added to the work of Gibbon in order to bring it
up to the level of our present knowledge; but there is no sign that any
single work is likely to supersede it or to render