No comments about Characteristics Of The Greek Philosophers: Socrates And Plato.

No comments about Fairy Dreams: Or Wanderings in Elf-Land.

3 comments about Rousseau and Revolution (Story of Civilization).

1. ...continues the excellence of the series. Originally intended as the final book of the series, "The Story of Civilization", in ended up being the penultimate volume.

   The Durants lucidly and eloquently summarize the philosophy, life and influence that Rousseau had on the 18th century and, indeed, continues to have to this very day. Rousseau may be regarded as the creator of the Left-wing sensibility. This may seem anachronistic and, in a sense, it is. Rousseau died before the French Revolution, which created the modern political division of Right and Left. Nevertheless, it is accurate to see him as the Fountainhead for relativism, communism, and the worship of feeling as opposed to reason (debased and emptied of all intellectual content this is now called building "self-esteem" by the modern leftist).

   Rousseau created most of the modern ills of political fanaticism and airy, absurd idealism as the Durants so ably note.

   The rest of the period is not neglected and vivid portraits are made of Frederick the Great, Catherine the Great, the Elder Pitt, Diderot, D'Holbach, Samuel Johnson and many, many others help this book to shine.

   Awarded the Pulitzer Prize--which should have gone to the entire series as opposed to just this volume--this book gives the reader a complete (if necessarily synopsized) account of the End and Failure of the Enlightenment and how what Rousseau and Voltaire intended in their attacks on the social structure (Rousseau) and religion (Voltaire) lead to disastrous consequences in the French Revolution.

   The writing sparkles with vivid wit, pith and lucid beauty. It is a book to be read for a lifetime and bequeathed to children. In an age where smarmy, intellectually empty, political fanaticism is attempting to erase the past in favor of the PC fantasies of the moment, the Durants offer a vivid account of the Truth. European civilization is presented here in all its glory and with all its warts. Slavery, religious fanaticism, exploitation and the horrors of the penal system and warfare are all presented here, in their proper place and in context. The modern academic community has attempted to destroy the ideal of context and balance. As long as these books are around, REAL history and historiography are available to anyone who simply opens a copy and reads it.




2. In this, the tenth volume in the critically acclaimed series "The Story of Civilization," Dr. will & Ariel Durant have compiled a masterful dramatic exploration of the European climate and the events which paved the way for the French Revolution.
   
   The reader will be exposed to a vivid recount of the acts of: Rousseau, who confessed his most embarassing sexual and emotional episodes. England and the rise of her overseas empire. Catherine The Great of Russia. Frederick The Great of Prussia. The German Enlightenment. Marie Antoinette. France's impotent and frustrated King Louis XVI. And much, much more including plates and maps.
   
   Written to stand alone or within the series, the Durants have composed an unparalleled historical prose in smooth flowing narrative that is easy to read and understand by both professional and layperson alike. In short, this book is for everyone. I rate it as five stars. Bravo!



3. ...continues the excellence of the series. Originally intended as the final book of the series, "The Story of Civilization", in ended up being the penultimate volume.
   
   The Durants lucidly and eloquently summarize the philosophy, life and influence that Rousseau had on the 18th century and, indeed, continues to have to this very day. Rousseau may be regarded as the creator of the Left-wing sensibility. This may seem anachronistic and, in a sense, it is. Rousseau died before the French Revolution, which created the modern political division of Right and Left. Nevertheless, it is accurate to see him as the Fountainhead for relativism, communism, and the worship of feeling as opposed to reason (debased and emptied of all intellectual content this is now called building "self-esteem" by the modern leftist).
   
   Rousseau created most of the modern ills of political fanaticism and airy, absurd idealism as the Durants so ably note.
   
   The rest of the period is not neglected and vivid portraits are made of Frederick the Great, Catherine the Great, the Elder Pitt, Diderot, D'Holbach, Samuel Johnson and many, many others help this book to shine.
   
   Awarded the Pulitzer Prize--which should have gone to the entire series as opposed to just this volume--this book gives the reader a complete (if necessarily synopsized) account of the End and Failure of the Enlightenment and how what Rousseau and Voltaire intended in their attacks on the social structure (Rousseau) and religion (Voltaire) lead to disastrous consequences in the French Revolution.
   
   The writing sparkles with vivid wit, pith and lucid beauty. It is a book to be read for a lifetime and bequeathed to children. In an age where smarmy, intellectually empty, political fanaticism is attempting to erase the past in favor of the PC fantasies of the moment, the Durants offer a vivid account of the Truth. European civilization is presented here in all its glory and with all its warts. Slavery, religious fanaticism, exploitation and the horrors of the penal system and warfare are all presented here, in their proper place and in context. The modern academic community has attempted to destroy the ideal of context and balance. As long as these books are around, REAL history and historiography are available to anyone who simply opens a copy and reads it.
   
   Was this review helpful to you?

No comments about Seven Theistic Philosophers: An Historico-Critical Study (1920).

No comments about Von Der Dingfrage Zur Frage Nach Gott: Zum Eigentlichen Ursprung Von Religiositat in Kants Transzendentalphilosophie (Kantstudien-Erganzungshete).

2 comments about Kahlil Gibran: Man and Poet.

1. Well, I have to admit I have just ordered the book. I haven't read it yet... What I want to share, though, are my impressions from a presentation of Dr. Suheil Bushrui I attended last night. Dr. Bushrui is a man who has the enormous talent to love and inspire. Truly, I envy his students. If the goal of his lecture last night was to inspire more people to read the poetry of Kahlil Gibran, he surely succeeded. He succeeded in sparkling my interest in Arabic poetry and in partucular, the poetry of Kahlil Gibran. More importantly though, he succeeded in making me look at poetry as the point where the truth meets the heart, and at poetry as the path of spirituality to building a world based upon unity in diversity.



2. Dr. Bushrui is the world's top Gibran scholar. He has done justice to Gibran like no other person in history with this thorough biography. He has succeeded in grasping the historical aspects of Gibran's life, and most importantly, the spiritual essence. I have had the luck and pleasure of hearing Dr. Bushrui speak in person and can say he is a truly amazing orator, poet, and scholar. He lived in Lebanon, like Gibran, and has taught at Universities such as Oxford. This mix of eastern and western culture is the pivotal attribute of anyone who desires to truly understand Gibran.

2 comments about Bertrand Russell: A Political Life.

1. In Alan Ryan's book there is good, overdue criticism concerning Russell's view of world-government And on the subject of government in general, an interesting observation is that "Russell takes no interest in the creation of legal obstacles to government misbehaviour; he does not suggest a Bill of Rights, for instance. On the whole, Russell assumes throughout that what checks government is the power of social groups rather than the provisions of the legal system...". Russell's exact views on inheritance have always been of interest to me, but they can be confusing.As far as other biographers' reports are concerned, on one hand, one reads that "he rejects the institution of inheritance, and proudly earns his own living" and that "He had given away his inheritance because he thought it wrong to have such an unfair advantage" On the other hand, Russell himself explains that "While I was writing Principia Mathematica I felt justified in living on inherited money, though I did not feel justified in keeping an additional sum of capital that I inherited from my grandmother. I gave away this sum in its entirety...to various educational objects." There are also reports that "he...lived on the income...he had inherited at twenty-one," at that at the turn of the century, at least, "the kind of life led by Russell obviously depended on a small but sufficient independent income" I think this book provides the most concise description of the Russell and his inheritance saying that "He always treated his own money as a social fund,...not in the least alarmed at the prospect of earning his own living once it was gone." A point brought out in this book more than any other biography of Russell is that "For much of his life he plainly felt a contempt for uneducated people which is entirely at odds with the sentimental profession of solidarity with humanity's sufferings....Max Eastman recalled an alarming moment when Russell observed, after a very successful public debate in the 1920s, `Anyone who takes these debates of ours seriously must be an idiot.'...Russell was more vulnerable than most to the temptation to treat his readers like fools." Moreover, he evidently felt that the financial hardships of Beacon Hill School were such as to be "making him give pot-boiling lectures to stupid audiences and write silly little articles for American newspapers." I was interested in reading Ryan's accounts of how Russell loathed American universities as "departmental, hierarchical, uncollegiate places, dominated by the kind of professionalism which might be acceptable in a law firm but hardly in the groves of academe," and how "Russell was right to think Huxley had stolen almost every idea for his novel from him" Interesting tidbits I learned were that during his 1918 six-month prison term "He read 200 books and wrote two." He acknowledged "the social value of dancing," and that he was "something of a cinema addict." There is confirmation of his belief that "fresh air" is better for children than "towns," and that he "had always taken refuge in his passion for the sea and the mountains." Regrettably, there are reports about Russell that "Many men found him unbearable at close quarters." Also, this biography is quite clear about how Russell had "in 1892...a freedom from acrimony which would have tested...Russell himself in later life." In short, "Russell got angrier as he got older." Things don't seem to change much considering a statement like "what passed for American democracy in the 1920s and `30s was a sham where businessmen pulled the strings which made the politicians dance."



2. I recall with pride the sure comfort, during the years of struggle against the American war in Vietnam, afforded by Bertrand Russell's pungent opposition to the same war for the same reasons, all of his astonishing intellectual gifts poised like a sword against the daily lies and betrayal of ideals perpetrated by Washington. While Russell's mathematical exegeses are beyond me, the thrust of his intellectual activity has remained attractive. This concise book (indeed thin, but not incomplete), while not diminishing that attraction, comes a bit like a diatribe exposing those elements of Russell's character that were no doubt conflicted, and yet were more likely an integral part of his intellectual capacity. Ryan's writing is informative, but not terribly appreciative. One feels distanced by Ryan's doubts, rather than educated by his conclusions. Clearly Russell was a complex fellow, inconstant and, in a certain respect, embittered by a life of singularity; it seems however that Ryan does little to penetrate the conflicts down to the bone of understanding them and integrating them into the whole picture of Russell's turbulent life, rather he presents the externals as elements sufficiently interesting in and of themselves, a disservice, I think, to one with a legacy as lingering and controversial as that of Bertrand Russell. The prose is intelligent and clear, and the volume is a typically attractive Oxford Univ. Press offering, small and supple, the presentation suiting the book's tone and content perfectly. I recommend this volume, but it's not everything it could have been.

No comments about Voltaire.

No comments about Simone Weil.

4 comments about Nero: The Man Behind the Myth.

1. As the dust-jacket says, the author of this book, Richard Holland, was a journalist for 25 years - he therefore isn't a historian. The dust-jacket also notes that this is Mr. Holland's first biographical work. As you read this book, these two aspects of the author become apparent. A good historian presents the facts, without bias. This is something Mr. Holland has not done here.

   This book has a journalist's feel to it, in that it reads like the author is running a big 'scoop'. He has set himself the task of making Nero a really nice guy, who was misunderstood and totally maligned by history.

   The problem is this - was Nero the Mr. Nice-Guy that Mr. Holland would have us believe? Sure, he tells the story of Nero murdering his mother, but most of the book reads like a magazine article, making excuses for the man history has labeled a monster. Obviously, Nero wasn't as bad as we are told by history, but was he as 'nice' as Mr. Holland thinks he was? The fact that the author is so convinced of Nero's innocence, and wants us to believe his theory so much, that the book ends up being a quite annoying. The book's formular is this - an episode from Nero's life is told, then the reasons why History is wrong, and why Nero didn't do 'such-and-such-a-thing' is explained in vast detail. This is what becomes annoying. Making excuses for a historical figure instead of telling their life story soon becomes boring.

   Another curious thing I found about this book is that at the beginning of the book, Mr. Holland shoots down in flames Tacitus, Seutonius and Dio, the main Historians of the Roman period, and tells why they cannot be belived with regards to Nero's life. In the same chapter, he then demolishes the reputations of the Emperors Augustus and Claudius, explaining why History was wrong in its depiction of these 2 Emperors, who were really the monsters. But Mr. Holland uses Tacitus, Seutonius and Dio as evidence of Claudius' evil. If these Historians were correct about Augustus and Claudius, why were they wrong about Nero?

   For anyone interested in Roman history, the best books are those written by historians, or rather, history-writers, not sensationalist journalists who think they are historians. Just compare this book with Dr. Michael Grant's excellent book on Nero, and even compare these two writer's styles, and see who makes the better author - the historian or the journalist.




2. Nero: The Man Behind the Myth is certainly an entertaining book, can be easily summed up by reading the appendices.

   As previously mentioned, Holland's work contradicts works of the Roman historians (Dio, Tacitus, Suetonious) by providing an alternative spin on Nero's doings, stating that the Roman historians had reasons to defame the fifth emperor, due to patronage or birth. Despite the fact that they are the primary sources, the author feels the need to explain the potential reasons behind their hostility in Appendix One: The Chief Literary Sources.

   Perhaps the most telling part of the book is Appendix Two: Was Nero a Masochist, where Holland provides 21 points to why Nero was more likely a Masochist than a Sadist--weak willed and easily dominated by his freedmen and Mother. It cites that, towards the end of his life, he allowed himself to be steered towards his demise, appearing apathetic and not escaping abroad when he was at liberty...and that this makes him a masochist.

   To those points, (1) Nero probably knew the end was near and was depressed at his impending demise, and (2) any ruler after Nero would certainly want him dead--and since the Roman emperor ruled most of the known world, there would be few places to hide for a man with so many enemies.

   After reading the appendices, if the reader finishes reading the book, Holland goes on to explain away all of Nero's failings--he was led astray and domineered by his abusive and domineering mother (who he ultimately murdered after an ingenius and cruel "mousetrap" failed), he allowed himself to be ruled by his freedmen, why he persecuted Christians following the fire of Rome, which other historians speculate he ordered set, etc.

   Holland's work, while amusing if the Roman historians (i.e. the chief literary sources) are read, is nothing more than an apologia for Nero. It is a good spin, but should be read with a grain of salt.




3. This book certainly goes a long way to restoring the reputation of Nero. Ancient sources should always be questioned as to motive, perspective and subjectivity, and Richard Holland has done an excellent job in this respect considering his lack of formal qualifications in classical studies. He also seems to have a good grasp of Latin without any qualifications in this area. His use of statistics (persecution and proscription in peaceful reigns such as Augustus vs those of the reign of the much maligned Nero) also adds weight to his believable theory that the artistic Nero genuinely wanted to reign peacefully.

   However, sometimes Holland has used a little too much supposition in challenging the ancient sources and to conveniently fill gaps where they are lacking. I am also a little skeptical of his many psychological theories, as I would be of anyone who had no qualifications in this tricky area. Mother/child relationships and the perspective of children in this era cannot be compared to today's and really shouldn't be attempted without minute scrutiny of ancient sources - all of which are hugely silent in this area and were written from the male viewpoint in a paternalistic society anyway.

   Quite alarming is Holland's statement "sex in the head is always a mark of decadence" (p.155). It is not footnoted, and on a personal note I would like some back up on this psychological theory, as I'm sure would most of the general single population. The definition of decadence is moral and cultural decline, and from personal experience (as a single woman) keeping sex in my head stops my own moral decline into promiscuity and contributing to cultural decline by running off with my girlfriend's boyfriends/husbands. Obsessive voyeurism as a substitute for sex doesn't lay the foundation at all. Are we only supposed to think about sex when we are doing it, otherwise to be labelled decadent? I would have thought the opposite to be true.

   On top of this I am still scratching my head in the reasoning of the juxtaposition of the presentation of the life and pyschological analysis of Jesus in comparison to Nero. When one remembers Holland's background in journalism it rather smells of sensationalism.

   In spite of the aforesaid and the fact that the book wavers between a classical analytical biography and a novel on which to base a Hollywood script, Holland presents a very personal Nero who I enjoyed getting to know.




4. ...In preparation for the writing of a long article about Nero, I have read several biographies of the emperor, in particular Griffin, Grant, Weigall, Shotter, Walter and Warmington. I have also collected many articles from journals to get additional points of view - and I must note that Mr. Holland does not list a single article in his bibliography. It is clear that the author is deeply interested in ancient history but he falls short of his goal to rewrite the history of the maligned Nero. Despite some excellent insights the discussion remains stuck in relating the ancient sources without asking questions. What I took for a bold look at Nero turned out to be pretty much what others have said before, only they have done it much clearer.

   I was particularly interested in what Mr. Holland had to say about the death of Agrippina, thinking he might have read the article by H. Dawson that seeks a different interpretation. No such luck: Mr. Holland gives us the story straight out of Tacitus without wondering if these events really happened. The story of Agrippina's murder is very theatrical and some doubts have been expressed as to if it was outright murder or did Nero's mother actually conspire against him? How could all of the events: the collapse of the boat, Agrippina's rescue by an oysterman, her traveling back to her miles some miles away in a litter (borrowed?), Agrippina's arrival home, sending a message to Nero, her murder and cremation all in the hours from sometime after midnight to dawn. There is plenty here for Mr. Holland to set the record straight about. Why then attempt to introduce the unsupportable suggestion that Nero was a masochist?

   Mr. Holland often tries to rationalize events that other authors dismiss without giving good reasons. For example, he accepts Poppaea's nagging as one of the causes of Agrippina's murder where all other authors understand this as a transposition of Tacitus to better explain why Nero acted. Mr. Holland does have some good insight into Roman history, particularly in the administration of the empire. I do find that his comparison between Jesus and Nero in his introduction is misplaced. The details about Pontius Pilate and the birth of Christianity were a needlessly protracted discussion. The point was to discuss the Great Fire and how the Christians were chosen to be Nero's scapegoats. There also are some small outright errors in the text: Caligula's fourth (and final) wife was not younger but older by about 7 years, his brother Drusus was not exiled but imprisoned under the palace, there were attempts to force feed Agrippina the Elder and Aelia Patina was Claudius' second, not third wife. These may be picky little errors but they are numerous.

   In providing an historical background Mr. Holland tends to go overboard. His summary of Caligula's reign provides more detail than necessary but he also cannot give a full discussion of the facts, particularly about Caligula's assassination. There are three versions of the assassination but Mr. Holland relates only one (the only agreement between the ancient sources is that Caligula was not mortally wounded by the first blow). The information about Caligula needed to be treated with less detail befitting his minor part in Nero's life.

   I think this book is an opportunity missed. Having read the larger share of books about Nero, not one by itself answered all of my questions about Nero. Miriam Griffin's biography is the best but it is choppy and sometimes she provides no details about events. If one wants to read a serious biography about Nero, go to Griffin.