Stephen Greenblatt

This book is subtitled “How the Renaissance Began”, which is a heck of a stretch. Setting that aside, this is an absolutely fascinating history of the re-discovery in the early 1400s of a long-lost work from antiquity, and about the life and times of its discoverer. Whether this work really helped trigger the Renaissance is another matter, but it certainly contributed.

The work was Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura (“On the Nature of Things”), and it was written some time in the first century BC. Only a very few copies (literally copies which had been made and remade by scribes in monasteries over the centuries) survived until the 15th Century.

One of those copies was found by a remarkable man, Poggio Bracciolini. A great deal of The Swerve is about this man and his life, who acted as principal secretary to a series of Popes over a period of 50 years.

Lucretius was a follower of the philosopher Epicurius, who lived two centuries earlier, and his poem De Rerum Natura is perhaps the most beautiful expression of the Epicurian philosophy.

Among the many radical thoughts which Lucretius expressed were (as set out by Greenblatt in The Swerve):

• Everything is made of tiny invisible particles.

• These particles are indivisible and eternal.

• The particles are infinite in number but come in a limited number of shapes and sizes.

• All particles are in motion in an infinite void.

• The universe has no creator or designer.

• Nature ceaselessly experiments with different shapes and configurations of animals.

• The universe was not created for humans.

• Humans are not unique. We’re similar to other animals.

• Human society did not begin in a Golden Age from which it has declined, but in a battle for survival.

• There is no afterlife.

• Death is nothing to us, because experience ceases.

• All religions are delusions.

That these ideas are remarkably modern, even though set out more than 2,000 years ago by a Roman citizen, should be obvious. What is also obvious is how subversive they were to the mediaeval scholars reading them, contradicting the prevailing Judeo-Christian view of the world.

That nevertheless these ideas were able to spread in those times once Lucretius’ poem was rediscovered is perhaps even more remarkable.

There’s much, much more in The Swerve. A really excellent and fascinating book. A candidate for my best read of the year so far, competing with The Vital Question and A God in Ruins.

I’m glad I unearthed it in a second-hand bookshop in Bendigo, at least faintly mirroring the unearthing of De Rerum Natura in the library of a mediaeval monastery by Poggio Bracciolini.… (mer)

Going into this book, I suspected that I would not find the author's conclusion (that Lucretius' poetic explication of Epicurean philosophy, On the Nature of Things was a keystone of modern materialistic thought) compelling. And that suspicion was correct. But the book was enjoyable, nonetheless.
[Audiobook Note: The reader, Edoardo Ballerini, was great. He deftly handled all the Latin, Italian, German and French text. (Although I do have one quibble. Like most English-speakers, he put the emphasis on Epicurus' name on the 3rd syllable, instead of the 2nd where it belongs.)]… (mer)

This was a very interesting read. Through several plays - from Richard III to Caesar and Coriolanus - author guides us through the political views Shakespeare had on his contemporaries (people and aristocracy) and way he saw parallels with his time and historical examples of murderous villains that found their way to the top in order to rule their lands.

Is it surprising that Shakespeare hid/presented all his views in form of plays? To be honest no. Plays were form of entertainment (not unlike today's dramas and thrillers) but much more honest to their public because average citizen knew much better what is going on around him (when compared to modern equivalents). Everybody definitely knew what the story was about and what was alluded at but everybody kept quiet (including the censors) unless concrete actions were taken. They were aware that people need breathing space and be able to comment and critique the rulers (remember jesters? Their role was sort of mement-mori, to remind rulers that they are not almighty. Can you imagine jesters to be able to show bad sides of current rule anywhere? They would be lynched the moment they would say something masses do not agree with).

I enjoyed the analysis, it was very detailed, especially parts on Richard III and Lear. And of course as it usually goes nowadays, author could not resist but bring on the He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Made-From-2016.
Hahahahahahahahaha, truly funny. You see, there seems to be a complete misconception between what populist and tyrant is. If these terms were equal then every politician since 1960's could be marked as a tyrant because they are all populists. And why do I say 1960's? Because up to that point it was expected that politician = statesman. Unfortunately when you just take a look at series of politicians from last 30 years, you wont see statesmen but rather poor group of populists who just happened to be at the top - one who every so often launched missiles because of his adultery, you will see second one that started multiple wars because economy was off so he started 20-years-and-ongoing campaigns in far countries and darn the consequences (remember the reasons like small things never confirmed (WMDs....)), third one that was talking about ending wars of the previous one but just continued them, fourth that was vulgar and loud mouth (and for this people did not like him) and said what was on the mind of many and finally fifth that reverted on almost everything he said in his campaign year.

Was anyone of these people statesman? No, they are professional politicians (apart from 2016-person since he was media person, celebrity you might say, bombast and vulgar but again no better than others).

This is where author fails in my opinion when it comes to parallels to Shakespearean tyrants. Tyrants from Shakespeare's plays were strong but very flawed individuals - to be ultimate ruler of life and death it takes strong person to remain sane. And these are not strong persons in that [mental] sense. Take Lear for example, from very wise person he became a fool. Whatever we might think about Caesar he was pushed to the limits because he was too successful (and success especially in those days was a danger to Senat bureaucrats). Coriolanus story shows how just Senate is - not at all. Maybe this play is closest to our own society because it shows what populist political body is capable of.

In modern society we do not have to be scared of tyrant (single person ruling everyone) because it wont happen. We need to be scared of tyranny of bureaucrats, grey people in the background. Just look at all the petty officials that seized control over cities, counties and parts of country, none is ready to relive themselves of those powers, some say they need to stay in force for years to come. These are true tyrants that we need to be afraid of today. But unfortunately they are amorphous mass, you cannot point to no-one exactly, only persons we see are high-level politicians and these are in and out, they are not constant. People in the back are.

What author skips over is that ever present emotional factor in political arena. Richard III craves it, Jack Cade is perfect example of emotional manipulator who drives people to do horrendous things, Caesar is killed because emotional response of population towards him is seen as crime by Brutus and his group who see themselves "more catholic than Pope" because it is only them who know what is good for Rome. Coriolanus is automaton that enrages the masses due to his bluntness and insensitivity and this finally brings his doom.

As long as people cannot control their emotions and resist calls to be first-and-foremost activists and not rational persons schemers in the government will always use that.

Can one imagine Shakespeare working in modern times? I am sure he would adapt to new technologies but I also have a feeling that he would be cancelled, his books burned, called this and that if his work does not flow with the main stream. I wonder what would he think about people that have everything but are so ready to destroy others because of differences of ideas. What would he think of millions of Richard's or Corilanus' lurking in the shadows? I think he would be justly terrified. As we all should be.

Very good book. Highly recommended.… (mer)

Fascinating book. It's the kind of book that made me want to dog-ear pages and underline sentences so I could re-read particular paragraphs, but since it's a library book, I couldn't do that.

I really enjoyed this book even though some parts of it were slow reading for me. Some reviewers have said it's a polemic against the church but I didn't take it that way. If nothing else, I discovered that I'm an Epicurean. Also, it's made me want to read Lucretius' poem "On the Nature of Things." The ideas expressed in Lucretius' poem are that the "universe functions without the aid of gods, that religious fear is damaging to human life, that pleasure and virtue are not opposites but intertwined, and that matter is made up of very small material particles in eternal motion, randomly colliding and swerving in new directions." (from the book jacket)

The Swerve is the story of how the ideas in Lucretius' poem threatened the church and so was almost lost to history until a book hunter, Poggio Bracciolini, found it almost a thousand years later and translated and copied it. The Swerve is filled with wonderful and weird stories e.g. copyists in the scriptoriums had to maintain complete silence so in order to request a new volume, they developed an "elaborate gestural language" which included putting fingers in their mouths as if gagging to indicate they wanted a dangerous pagan book. There's also a section on "the Lie Factory" (the papal court) about which Poggio wrote the Facetiae where he recorded all the gossip and conversation (including the slanderous and obscene) that went on. Lots of interesting stuff here.



… (mer)