Reviews for America a Concise History To 1877

The average rating for America a Concise History To 1877 based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2014-12-19 00:00:00 Tony Blevins Having just read and loved Durant’s Life of Greece (I’d decided to skip the first volume on Asia), I jumped right into the next installment; but now, after finishing, my enthusiasm for this series has cooled a little. The quality of this volume is similarly high, so perhaps the only reason I am less excited about this one is that I’m used to Durant’s writing by now. But perhaps my gut is speaking truthfully, and this volume really is weaker. For me, Durant is at his worst when he is describing political history. He tries his hardest, but it’s obvious that he has no taste or knack for it. Wars, intrigues, scandals, conspiracies, elections—the usual fabric of history is dreary in Durant’s hands. And unluckily for him, it’s impossible to tell the story of Rome without a considerable amount of political history. After all, Rome was amazing for its political organization, its legal system, its administrative framework, and its many conquests. Meanwhile, Durant—who would rather sing the praises of Virgil’s poetry than narrate a martial campaign—does his best to compress all this into as few pages as possible, freeing him to do what he does best: to describe the arts and the philosophies of the past. You can almost hear Durant breathe a sigh of relief whenever he ends a section on political history and switches to his mini-biographies of writers, poets, sculptors, and thinkers. The tone shifts from plain and rather abstract narration to vivid character studies and rousing literary praise. He is more interested in Cicero’s prose style than the battle tactics of the Roman legions; he is more inspired by great historians like Livy and Tacitus than actual history. It’s hard to blame Durant, since these individuals left behind the most pleasant remnants—bawdy poetry, fine sculpture, sublime philosophy, scathing speeches. Nevertheless, it does seem rather disproportionate to include so many pages on Lucan’s epigrams when you are trying to cover Roman history from the beginning of the Republic all the way to Constantine’s reign. To his credit, Durant offsets his focus on the intelligentsia with long and impressive sections on the life of the common people. There is one memorable section that details the types of commodities each province was known for producing, giving the reader an astonishing portrait of the vastness of the Empire and the huge variety of lifestyles contained therein. Durant shows us the common farmers and workers, their lifestyles hardly changing from generation to generation, selling the fruit of their labor to scrape by. Then we meet the merchants who transported these products from the provinces to the urban centers—using the famous Roman roads, which were plagued by robbers and cutthroats, despite the many soldiers on guard. Finally we see these luxury items reaching the major cities, to be purchased, collected, and consumed by the opulent rich. Given that these are Durant’s strengths, it’s no surprise that this volume isn’t as great its predecessor on Greece. The Greeks had a seemingly inexhaustible supply of high culture to fuel Durant’s pen. But Rome, which was in many ways culturally dependent on the Greeks, furnishes him with fewer great thinkers and writers, and a great deal more war. Perhaps Durant simply didn’t want to think about wars anymore—since the second World War was raging when he wrote this book—but I suspect that Durant was constitutionally incapable of appreciating the Machiavellian elements in history. Although I object to this from an academic viewpoint, personally I can't help appreciating that Durant focuses so much on the positive happenings of the past—our peaceful periods and our high achievements—rather than the endless parade of violence we so often find when we look backwards. Unlike most books about history, Durant's actually makes you more hopeful. I’d only like to add that Durant has the annoying habit of commenting on the physical appearance of every woman he introduces into the narrative. When a man enters the stage, Durant portrays his personal qualities; but when a woman is described, it is only her comeliness that is significant. I think this has more to do with Durant’s time period than any personal failing on his part. To the contrary, he goes to great lengths to describe the role that women played in history, and was a vocal supporter of women’s rights. So I think the modern reader must cut him some slack in this regard. Still, it’s always a bit shocking to find how offensive cultured, intelligent, and well-meaning men of the past sound today. It’s a perverse index of progress.

Review # 2 was written on 2008-02-01 00:00:00 Nicole Burda “A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within.” Caesar and Christ is the third volume of The Story of Civilization and covers the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. Not as colorful and lively as the second volume “The Life of Greece”, but as thorough, informative and revealing.