An Interview With Edward Gibbon

This interview took place in November 2003,  the result of an electronic  visit with historian Edward Gibbon, author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Advanced Military technology provided the means to contact him. Unfortunately, he later hacked into his own software rendering it useless.  The reliable source for this document, Y, cannot be disclosed for reasons of national security.

Y: Mr. Gibbon, it is most kind of you to agree to this interview, particularly in view of the demands of your upcoming work, The Decline and Fall of North America.

EG: It is an incomparable pleasure to communicate with someone after all these years when I was limited to observation. One-way conversations are tiring: of course that is what historians do.  I appreciate you in particular because it seems to me that the so called West, seems to be enamored of bad music, bad behavior, noise, and what they call democracy, to the exclusion of everything else. You are a welcome exception.

Y: I understand you married recently after more than 200 years of bachelorhood. What brought on that radical decision?

EG: Suzanne was my first love. It was mutual; but my father refused his permission for us to marry. Since then I’ve had only my work. But recently Viagra appeared, and then I discovered video porn, so… the rest is what it is. The only change in my everyday life is that I bathe and change my clothes regularly. I used to be quite a slob, you know. But Maude, wouldn’t like me to speak of that any further. She prefers I use your legalistic jargon: ‘alleged’.

Y: Maude?

EG: My wife.

Y: Of course.  The modern reader sometimes  finds your exacting, eloquent, and colorful use of eighteenth century  language challenging, yet always  exceptionally  rewarding.[1] I notice that in this interview you are using Americanized English. What could be called fourth grade English in your time. That is very helpful.

EG: Well, I find American speech and journalism quite convenient, if simplistic and imprecise.     I must say it is enjoyable.  Comfortable; lazy. Language reflects the collective mind; yours is a sound bite culture, not concerned with depth, or breadth. You don’t seem to have much interest in complex writing or speech, except in technobabble, as some call it.

Y: Mr. Gibbon, in 1787 you completed what is sometimes called the world’s greatest historical work. Its scope, documentation, and eloquence are incomparable.  In my copy, for each of 1270 pages of text there is at least a half page of fine print commentary and quotation citing original sources from the original languages. Nonetheless, some critics feel you over emphasize that blood has too often been spilt for power and greed in the name of God.  In chapter 64, I think, you use the term ‘ history of blood’ referring to those 1300 or more years in Asia and Europe.  How do you respond to that criticism?

EG: Well I think the pages are indeed very bloody. And most religions, including Christianity, helped write those pages.  Unfortunately, it appears that unrestrained religious zeal, bloody and cruel  holy excess, has often has lead to earthly power.  I won’t claim that to be good; or bad; merely that it is.   I think you will be able to reconfirm that in my upcoming book; your people were pretty sanguine when they started off more than 200 years ago. Perhaps a bloody flood and ebb of zealots is the natural course of human events. Or, maybe religion is like any other great technologic invention. It cuts both ways.

Y: Do you think we invent Gods?

EG: Of course. We need them. They give us power, and we give them life.  Yes; we create them. (Niel) Gaiman’s book, American Gods , basically makes that point. Juvenile, but clever. But again, I’d better not go down that path, Maude doesn’t approve; she is a devout Christian.

Y: He writes that immigrant’s Gods get to America, and remain immortal, but become neglected and destitute, while new Gods, like Techno, and  Money, take over. In the DaVinci Code, Dan Brown restates some of your observations about the early Christians, but emphasizes the lost primacy of female gods. Weren’t you a bit demeaning of women, and of Jews also?

EG: I admit that, having written in the 18^th Century, unconscious of my own blind spots and prejudice; I know better now. I suggest that we all should be concerned about our own preconceptions or misconceptions. Today I still fail to understand my own prejudices, because  I’m trapped in the now, for now.  We all are.