Reviews for The History of Rome, Book I the Period Anterior to the Abolition of the Monarchy

The average rating for The History of Rome, Book I the Period Anterior to the Abolition of the Monarchy based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2013-02-01 00:00:00 Goroon V Munroe On a writer's e-mail loop I once mentioned something about Thomas Carlyle. Another member then wrote that he liked Carlyle, and that a copy of Hero Worship stayed on his nightstand for occasional re-reading. So when I felt a hankering to return to some Carlyle reading, this was the book I chose. The version I read was an e-book for the Nook, by B&R Samizdat Express. I'm glad I read it. I don't feel that I understood it as well as I wanted to, but I chalk that up to reading too often with distractions. It took me a while to find what Carlyle's definition of a great man was: a sincere man. He discusses that in clear language in chapter 2. Maybe it was in chapter 1 and I missed it. Yes, Carlyle's premise is that a Great Man, a hero, is a sincere man—a man who believes what he is doing is right. One who isn't a "quack", that is, a charlatan, a man who knows what he is doing is wrong but does it anyhow to cheat or abuse people, or even for his own entertainment. The hero isn't like that. Carlyle seems less concerned with what the hero actually accomplishes than if he is sincere in his pursuits. For sure all the men he picked had accomplished much, so maybe significant accomplishments is a precursor to making the sincere/quack evaluation. So he counts Mohammed, the Moslem prophet, as a hero, because although Carlyle called his religion erroneous, at least he was sincere in his belief of it and in how he spread it. He called Napoleon a hero even though he obviously disagreed with his pursuits and outcomes. In fact, Napoleon comes out worst of all the heroes in the lectures/book, while Oliver Cromwell comes out best. Both of these men are in the final chapter, the Hero as King. Carlyle had been researching Cromwell and planning to write about him for years, and would have that book to market less than five years after he prepared these lectures. So Cromwell was much on his mind. At that time Cromwell was consigned to the ash heap of English villains. Carlyle thought differently, and sought to rehabilitate him. Cromwell could do no wrong in Carlyle's eyes. It was his critics, against whom Carlyle stood pretty much alone (at that time) who were blind or biased. The book is fairly easy to read. Although 170 years old the language is modern enough. A good reader should have no problem with it. It is an obvious must for anyone wanting to study Carlyle. It is useful for anyone wanting to investigate the "great man theory" of history. And, it is a good read for anyone who wants to know more about the men discussed in the book. This isn't biography, but it has biographical elements to it. You learn something of the lives of Dante, Shakespeare, Luther, Johnson, etc. The one hero I wish he had given more biographical information on was John Knox, his fellow Scott. Alas, I will have to look elsewhere for that. Why four stars, not five? I'm not quite sure. The book disappointed me a little, perhaps because of Carlyle's fawning over Cromwell and Mohammed. Perhaps because his premises were not, to my mind, clearly stated at the beginning. Perhaps it's because I don't fully subscribe to the "great man theory" of world history. Perhaps it was a few formatting errors in the e-book. All of these have combined to cause me to take a star away. But again I say the book does not disappoint.

Review # 2 was written on 2015-02-22 00:00:00 Deborah Duphily Carlyle reads like a good scotch: divine in small sips; nauseating in large gulps.