A review of “Mussolini: The History of Italian Fascism”

“I have never wished anyone dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.”

– Paraphrase of defense lawyer Clarence Darrow, in a quote often misattributed to Mark Twain

Mussolini’s fascism arose in Italy in 1922, whereas Nazism did not arise in Germany until 1933 …

People today are fascinated by both sides of World War II, and this is as it should be. To a large extent, this includes an interest in what happened on the Axis side. In particular, history buffs tend to talk about Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, the major players on that side of the war. By contrast, the history of Fascist Italy tends to get relegated to a series of brief historical footnotes. This is understandable, given that Fascist Italy was much smaller than either of these other two nations. Thus, it seems inevitable that its story would become far more obscure outside of the Italian Peninsula. But if history is about learning from the mistakes of others, then we can learn much from the mistakes of Fascist Italy. That is to say, we can learn what went so horribly wrong there, and why Italy went down this terrible road. Most importantly, we can protect ourselves from a similar fate, by learning about this kind of tyranny.

Benito Mussolini, circa 1930’s

A review of Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” (audiobook)

I had heard only a little about Alexis de Tocqueville before I listened to this audiobook. I knew that he was from France, and that he had written a famous book about America. I knew a few other things about him. But for all intents and purposes, I consider this audiobook to be my introduction to Tocqueville’s ideas. Since I first listened to this, I undertook to read the book itself in its original French. The book’s title is “De la démocratie en Amérique” (“Democracy in America”), and it took me over three years to finish. Specifically, I read it from March 2019 to July 2022.

My experience with political philosophy in French

This is a follow-up to a blog post from 2014. (For this earlier post, click here.)

I wrote a post some years ago about my experience with French (available here), in which I told how I had used my French up to that time. I’ve done a number of things with my French since that time which merit an update of this post. These involve reading some political philosophers in the original – mainly Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Tocqueville. I have blog posts about each of these three individuals with a discussion of their respective ideas elsewhere, so I will not attempt to duplicate that coverage here. Rather, I will describe the experience of reading these men in the original French; and what it felt like to use my French in this new way.

François-Marie Arouet, better known as “Voltaire” – more about what I read from him later

A review of William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England”

“The objects of the laws of England are so very numerous and extensive, that, in order to consider them with any tolerable ease and perspicuity, it will be necessary to distribute them methodically, under proper and distinct heads ; avoiding as much as possible divisions too large and comprehensive on the one hand, and too trifling and minute on the other ; both of which are equally productive of confusion.”

– Opening lines of William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1760’s), Book 1, Chapter 1

So I spent four and a half years reading Sir William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England.” This is a four-volume work which influenced our Founding Fathers. The first volume was originally released in 1765, and the last was originally released in 1769. This is one of the best books that I’ve ever read, as I’ve tried to show in other posts. But this is the first post in which I’ve attempted to give an overview of the entire work. Thus, I will try to summarize the work for those who’ve never read it before. In doing so, I will give my reaction to the different volumes of Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” and what parts of each volume most stood out to me personally.

Title page of the original edition of the first volume of Blackstone’s “Commentaries”

The most serious crimes that anyone can commit (according to Blackstone)

“Of crimes injurious to the persons of private subjects, the most principal and important is the offence of taking away that life, which is the immediate gift of the great creator; and which therefore no man can be entitled to deprive himself or another of, but in some manner either expressly commanded in, or evidently deducible from, those laws which the creator has given us; the divine laws, I mean, of either nature or revelation. The subject therefore of the present chapter will be, the offence of homicide or destroying the life of man, in its several stages of guilt, arising from the particular circumstances of mitigation or aggravation which attend it.”

– William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1769), Book 4, Chapter 14

So I recently finished reading William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England.” This is a four-volume work that influenced our Founding Fathers. For me, the most interesting of these volumes was the last one, which was entitled “Of Public Wrongs.” It contains a number of notable chapters, among them a chapter entitled “Of Homicide.” Like the rest of this volume, this chapter was first published in 1769.

Alexander Hamilton, a fan of Blackstone’s “Commentaries”

Yes, Blackstone was a monarchist – but not an absolute monarchist

“All regal governments must be either hereditary or elective : and, as I believe there is no instance wherein the crown of England has ever been asserted to be elective, except by the regicides [or “king-killers”] at the infamous and unparalleled trial of king Charles I, it must of consequence be hereditary.”

– William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1760’s), Book 1, Chapter 3

Blackstone’s hero was Sir Edward Coke, a nemesis of King Charles the First

Sir William Blackstone was a great fan of Sir Edward Coke (whose last name is pronounced “Cook”). But Sir Edward Coke was one of the enemies of King Charles the First. Thus, it might seem strange that Blackstone condemned those who executed his hero’s nemesis (as shown above). But it’s not as strange as you might think, if you consider some of the context. This post will show some of this sometimes-missing context. Thus, it will help to explain some parts of Blackstone’s “Commentaries” that have not aged well today. For example, it will help to explain why Blackstone was a monarchist – albeit a constitutional monarchist.

Sir William Blackstone