The wisdom of the ages: The enduring legacy of books

“I cannot live without books; but fewer will suffice where amusement, and not use, is the only future object.”

– Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams (10 June 1815)

Books allow us to hear from people long dead, and speak to people yet unborn

More than 3,000 years ago, an epic poem was written in Ancient Mesopotamia. It is known as the “Epic of Gilgamesh,” and it is now available as a book. It is still being read, and still being studied – more than 30 centuries after its publication! It’s one of the oldest surviving pieces of literature in human history. The book is proof that writing allows you to “hear from people long dead, and speak to people yet unborn” – to paraphrase some words often attributed to Abraham Lincoln. None of those viewing this post were alive when this book was written. None of them ever met the authors, or even saw the grainiest photograph of them – let alone the people themselves. But we can still read a translation of their words, almost as though we could hear their voices. In a way, their voices can still speak to us, and their words still echo in the ears of the living.

The Epic of Gilgamesh, on clay tablets

A review of Cecil Jenkins’ “A Brief History of France” (book)

“The French people solemnly proclaim their attachment to the Rights of Man and the principles of national sovereignty as defined by the Declaration of 1789, confirmed and complemented by the Preamble to the Constitution of 1946, and to the rights and duties as defined in the Charter for the Environment of 2004 [then a future year] … By virtue of these principles and that of the self-determination of peoples, the Republic offers to the overseas territories which have expressed the will to adhere to them new institutions founded on the common ideal of liberty, equality and fraternity and conceived for the purpose of their democratic development.”

– Preamble to the current Constitution of France (adopted 4 October 1958)

This book is skewed towards modern history (but is still good)

I’ve been trying to learn the French language since 2002. When I started learning the language, I was still in my sophomore year of high school. Thus, I’ve been interested in France for at least that long. My interest in the French language had something to do with Canada as well, but it’s hard to understand French Canada (or any other Francophone country) without some understanding of where the language has come from. This is part of what motivated me to get a copy of this book – I wanted to understand the culture of the French language. In this, I was not disappointed, and learned much about the history and culture of France – including the political history. (Although there is much art history in this book as well, for people who are interested in this.)

A review of Robert McCrum’s “The Story of English” (book)

In 1986, there were two versions of “The Story of English” – a television series, and a book. I never got to see much of the television series, since it’s almost impossible to get on VHS, let alone DVD. I had the opportunity to check out a few episodes from my local library, before that library got rid of these VHS tapes (why, I don’t know). Specifically, I watched the first three episodes, two of which are considered to be the best of them. But I was able to read the bestselling book, the version that I’ll be reviewing here in this blog post. It is a fine book, which I recommend to others interested in either linguistics or English – or history, for that matter.

John Milton, author of “Paradise Lost”

A review of Sun Tzu's “The Art of War”

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

– Sun Tzu's “The Art of War,” Chapter 3

When I was in business school, one of my professors mentioned a 2500-year-old book from Ancient China. As you may have guessed, the book was Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War.” He said that it was sometimes assigned reading for Master’s of Business Administration programs in the West, and was even more important in the East (in places like China and Japan). Not many books from 2500 years ago are considered that practical. Sun Tzu was probably a contemporary of Confucius – not to mention Lao Tzu, the founder of Taoism (not to be confused with Sun Tzu). Sun Tzu probably wrote about five centuries before Jesus Christ – earlier than Socrates and Plato. His treatise was primarily focused on military strategy, but it also has applications to some business strategy, as I will show in this post.

Sun Tzu, which translates as “Master Sun”

This book is a fairly quick read, which I got through in about two weeks

But first, I should start by saying that I read this book in November 2010. As I wrote at the time, I “read an hour or two a day for about two weeks. It's actually not a very long read. With translator's notes and introduction included, the version I had was 172 pages with small pages and large text, and a lot of that was commentaries from people in Chinese history.” (Source: Status update of 20 November 2010) This book is divided into 13 chapters. Obviously, the version that I read was in English translation, since I don’t know any Ancient Chinese (or even Modern Chinese). Thus, I cannot rate whether Thomas Cleary’s translation was accurate, or whether it accurately communicates Master Sun’s ideas (“Sun Tzu” means “Master Sun”). But I can testify that the content of the translation was practical and useful, and that these ideas are still relevant today.

The edition of Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” that I read in 2010

A few problems with Rousseau’s “The Social Contract”

“Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer.”

– Jean-Jacques Rousseau's “The Social Contract” (1762), opening lines of Book I, Chapter I

I first read this work in English translation for a history class …

In the spring semester of 2007, my history professor of that time assigned my class to read Jean-Jacques Rousseau's “Du contrat social, ou principes du droit politique” (“The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right”). This assignment was for a Western Civilization class that I was then taking. At that time, I read it in English translation, which would contribute to my later desire to read it in the original French. But it would be several years before I ever got the opportunity to do so. Thus, by the time that I started this later project, more than a decade had passed since my first reading of the book for this history class in 2007.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

… but more than a decade later, I read it in the original French for my own amusement

When I started this project, I had just finished reading another Rousseau work in its original French. This work was Rousseau's “Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes” (“Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men”). I wanted to read this other work first, since it was written some seven or eight years before “Du contrat social, ou principes du droit politique.” The full English title of the work that I'm reviewing here is “The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right.” But for simplicity's sake, I will just refer to it here as “The Social Contract.” I started this work in July 2018, and finished it some six months later in December 2018. Thus, I have now read this entire work in its original French. I can thus certify that my criticisms of this work are not based on mistranslation.

Statue of Rousseau, on the Île Rousseau, Geneva

Actually, Machiavelli WAS pro-dictatorship (and Rousseau was wrong about him)

“I admit that, provided the subjects remained always in submission, the prince's interest would indeed be that it should be powerful, in order that its power, being his own, might make him formidable to his neighbours; but, this interest being merely secondary and subordinate, and strength being incompatible with submission, princes naturally give the preference always to the principle that is more to their immediate advantage. This is what Samuel put strongly before the Hebrews, and what Macchiavelli has clearly shown. He professed to teach kings; but it was the people he really taught. His Prince is the book of Republicans.[footnote]”

– Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” (1762), Book III, Chapter VI

Rousseau said that Machiavelli's “The Prince” is “the book of Republicans” …

More than 200 years after Niccolò Machiavelli wrote “The Prince” in 1532, Jean-Jacques Rousseau commented on this work in 1762. Rousseau argued that it was “the book of Republicans.[footnote]” (Source: “The Social Contract,” Book III, Chapter VI). In this context, “Republicans” seems to mean “those who support a republic.” Was this meant as positive praise or negative criticism? It appears that this was indeed meant as praise, as we can see by examining Rousseau's definition of a “republic” (as I shall do below).

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

… and said that “every legitimate government is republican”

Elsewhere in “The Social Contract,” Rousseau had written: “I therefore give the name 'Republic' to every State that is governed by laws, no matter what the form of its administration may be: for only in such a case does the public interest govern, and the res publica rank as a reality. Every legitimate government is republican;[footnote] what government is I will explain later on.” (Source: Book II, Chapter VI) In the footnote to this paragraph, Rousseau actually said that “I understand by this word republic, not merely an aristocracy or a democracy, but generally any government directed by the general will, which is the law. To be legitimate, the government must be, not one with the Sovereign, but its minister. In such a case even a monarchy is a Republic.” (Source: Footnote to Book II, Chapter VI) Thus, for Rousseau, “even a monarchy is a Republic,” and “every legitimate government is republican.” Thus, referring to “The Prince” as “the book of Republicans” seems to be meant as positive praise.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, later in life

A review of Rafael Lapesa's “Historia de la lengua española”

“We hope that this book, which knows how to say the important and say it well, contributes to spread linguistic knowledge that usually receives so little attention.”

– Ramón Menéndez Pidal, in the “Prólogo” (or “Foreword”) to this book, 1942 (translation mine)

The title translates in English to “History of the Spanish Language”

So I recently finished reading a book about the history of the Spanish language – written almost entirely in Spanish. I say “almost,” because there are a few exceptions to this, which I will note later in this post. (But I'm getting ahead of myself … )

General comments about the history of the language itself

The Spanish language has a long and rich history. It is a source of endless fascination to me, with written records stretching back into the time of the Roman Empire – and beyond. It's a story of political and social change – of religious and literary ideas, which have had a vast influence on Western history. It's a story of a language that would become one of the most spoken languages on Earth, with 460 million native speakers at the time that I write this (see source). This is more than 5% of the world's population, and more than any other language in the world except Mandarin Chinese. But it's also a story of human beings – of people who are always reinventing themselves (and their language) to change with the times, and filling their culture with new life and new energy every day.

First page of the Castilian epic poem “El Cantar de Mio Cid,” which is referenced often in this book

Rousseau's “Discourse on Inequality” is long on detail, but short on evidence …

“The first man, who, after enclosing a piece of ground, took it into his head to say, 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. How many crimes, how many wars, how many murders, how many misfortunes and horrors, would that man have saved the human species, who pulling up the stakes or filling up the ditches should have cried to his fellows: Be sure not to listen to this imposter; you are lost, if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong equally to us all, and the earth itself to nobody!”

– Jean-Jacques Rousseau's “Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men” (1754), first paragraph of “Second Part”

I first read this work in English translation …

In the spring of 2007, I voluntarily read Jean-Jacques Rousseau's “Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes” (“Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men”) in English translation. This would contribute to my later desire to read it in the original French. But it would be several years before I ever got the opportunity to do so. Thus, by the time I started this later project, more than a decade had passed since my first reading of the book in 2007.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

But more than a decade later, I read it in the original French, too

But I had been laboring for some three years on another French work, which was “in line” ahead of it, so to speak. This other work was Montesquieu's “De l'esprit des lois” (“The Spirit of Laws”), which I describe here. In 2018, I finally finished this work by Montesquieu, and could thus finally start on Rousseau's “Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes.” This book is known by many titles in English, including “Discourse on Inequality” and “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” (both abbreviated versions of the full title). For simplicity's sake, I will use these abbreviated versions of this English title for the most part. I started this work in January 2018, and finished it some six months later in June 2018. Thus, I have read this entire work in its original French, including Rousseau's notes at the end. I can thus certify that my criticisms of this work are not based on mistranslation.

Statue of Rousseau on the Île Rousseau, Geneva

Reading about the trial of Socrates in the original Greek

“The unexamined life is not worth living.”

– Socrates at his trial, as recorded by Plato's “Apology”

Before beginning this project, I had just finished reading C. A. E. Luschnig's “An Introduction to Ancient Greek: A Literary Approach.” (More about that here.) I had earlier determined that after getting through this book, my first use of this (admittedly limited) proficiency would be to read all of the primary sources about the trial of Socrates in the original Greek. There aren't very many of them, I should add here, so I knew that this was a manageable task. Thus, I started doing so immediately after reading the introductory textbook about Greek.

Socrates

How to prevent tyranny: Separation of powers and checks & balances

"The political liberty of the [citizen] is a tranquillity of mind, arising from the opinion each person has of his safety. In order to have this liberty, it is requisite the government be so constituted as one man need not be afraid of another."

- Baron de Montesquieu's "De l'esprit des lois" ("The Spirit of Laws") [published 1748], Book XI, Chapter 6

Montesquieu had some important ideas about how to prevent tyranny (and they're still relevant today)

The U. S. Declaration of Independence owed much to the work of John Locke, the English political philosopher. But the political scientist Donald Lutz said that "If there was one man read and reacted to by American political writers of all factions during all the stages of the founding era, it was probably not Locke but Montesquieu." (Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 1, March 1984, p. 190) This is not to deny the importance of Locke, as he was also an enormous influence on the Founding Fathers (see my blog post for evidence of this). Nonetheless, Montesquieu is definitely the author that had the greatest influence on both sides of the ratification debates, and perhaps even on the finished product of the United States Constitution itself. He's almost like a Founding Grandfather of the United States, his influence is so strong. This is why I recently finished reading his most famous work "De l'esprit des lois" ("The Spirit of Laws") in the original French. He was a Frenchman, who wrote his most famous work in 1748 - a book written over a quarter of a century before the American Revolution. This book was one of the most important influences on the Founding Fathers.

Baron de Montesquieu

How to prevent bad government: Keep any one group from getting too much power

Montesquieu is probably best known today for his important theory of a separation of powers in government. Put briefly, this theory is the idea that bad government is best prevented by keeping any one group from getting too much power over the others. James Madison referenced this danger in the Federalist Papers by saying that "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." (Source: Federalist No. 47) Hence, the need for a system of government that divides up these powers as much as possible. This is something that the United States Constitution does by dividing up this power into three branches of government - the legislative, executive, and judiciary. The legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judiciary branch judges and interprets the laws, with as little overlap between these three kinds of power as possible. (More on that in a separate post - for now, I will confine myself to talking about the specifics of the theory, at least in basic form.)

Where do I find Latin and Greek works in the original?

You might try the Loeb Classical Library, described at Wikipedia here and found at this website here. (The rest of this post is about how I searched for this prize.)

Learning the basics of Ancient Greek from a book

"The study of Ancient Greek has long been a bookish pursuit, and rightly so. For this language we have only the books (and other writings) of the Ancient Greeks to study. We have only part of a language, the part that can be written down."

- Preface to C. A. E. Luschnig's "An Introduction to Ancient Greek: A Literary Approach" (the book that I read), 2nd edition (2007), page x

It took me three and a half years to read this

For three and a half years, I have read C. A. E. Luschnig's "An Introduction to Ancient Greek: A Literary Approach," 2nd edition - some 280 pages of it. Specifically, I read it from 28 September 2013 through 13 May 2017, at which time I completely finished it. I did so completely from a book, and never had the benefit of a classroom, a professor, or a native speaker - or even a recording of one, for that matter! I've never heard so much as one hour of audio of the language, even from non-native speakers, and this made it somewhat daunting at times. It may have increased the difficulty level in at least some ways, and I don't recommend it to others unless other options are not available (as they were not for me). It was a long process that was sometimes tedious (though usually not at all so), but I'm nonetheless glad that I read it. It's given me access to the world of Ancient Greece, and may one day give me access to various parts of the Bible in the original.

A review of “A History of Japan” (by R. H. P. Mason & J. G. Caiger)

"We, the Japanese people, acting through our duly elected representatives in the National Diet, determined that we shall secure for ourselves and our posterity the fruits of peaceful cooperation with all nations and the blessings of liberty throughout this land, and resolved that never again shall we be visited with the horrors of war through the action of government, do proclaim that sovereign power resides with the people and do firmly establish this Constitution."

- Preamble to the "Constitution of Japan" (1947)

How did the Japanese become so successful?

This might seem a strange way to begin a blog post about Japan; but in the politics of Islamic terrorism, some have claimed that a Western-style democracy would not work in most Islamic countries, because their values and beliefs are so dramatically different from those found in the West. A liberal friend of mine in college made this argument to me; and I pointed out to him that people had once said the same thing about Japan - which was another culture where suicide was glorified for religious reasons, and used as a deliberate tactic in wartime. People in the West would not have predicted that Japan would modernize as well as it did; and yet it became one of the world's great economies, with its economic success deeply rooted in Western-style democracy and free-market capitalism. How did the Japanese become so successful, it might be asked; when countries in the Islamic world languish in such poverty, and even factional conflict?

Reflections on learning about history of Ancient Egypt

"Written by a team of pioneering archaeologists and acknowledged experts working at the cutting edge of Egyptology ... "

- The back cover of "The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt" (2000), edited by Ian Shaw

The Rosetta Stone: The key to Egypt

In 1799, one of Napoleon's soldiers discovered a mysterious stone in the Nile Delta, during the French campaigns into Egypt that year - a stone that would prove the key to Egyptology and its modern practice. The mysterious object was the Rosetta Stone, and it bore an inscription in three different writing systems - Egyptian hieroglyphics, a later Egyptian script called "Demotic," and an ancient variety of Greek that was well-known already to Europeans. Although this soldier didn't know it then, this bilingual inscription would allow a young scholar named Jean-François Champollion to decipher the pronunciations when he reached adulthood, since he was only nine years old at the time that his fellow Frenchman discovered this.

The Rosetta Stone

What is Egyptology?

The Napoleonic campaigns in general - and the decipherment of the Rosetta Stone in particular - ignited a wave of true "Egyptomania" back in Europe, which grew into the modern discipline of Egyptology. Many great discoveries have been made in this area by archaeological digs at various sites, and some of these have uncovered information that was not known to anyone for centuries. Perhaps because of this, the discipline of Egyptology is sometimes considered a subfield of archaeology - a field broad enough to include sites from Greece to Rome to China to Central America. This classification points out that the excavations done in Egypt are just some of the many across the world that attract the attention of archaeologists; and there is truth in this claim. Nonetheless, the study of Egyptology encompasses more than just "digging in the dirt," and embraces written records as well; with languages whose grammar must be seriously studied and understood before a proper and complete history of the Egyptian past can be written. Thus, the Europeans classify Egyptology as a philological discipline (or in other words, a "linguistic" discipline). This controversy over its classification continues today.

So what exactly are the “Federalist Papers,” anyway?

"It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."

- Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 1)

Frequently Asked Questions about the “Federalist Papers”

Reflections on learning about history of the Ancient Near East

"The term 'Near East' is not widely used today. It has survived in a scholarship rooted in the nineteenth century when it was used to identify the remains of the Ottoman empire on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea. Today we say Middle East to designate this geographical area, but the two terms do not exactly overlap, and ancient historians and archaeologists of the Middle East continue to speak of the Near East, as I will do in this book."

- Marc van de Mieroop's "A History of the Ancient Near East (ca. 3000 - 323 BC)", 2nd edition (2007), page 1

So I recently finished reading a book called "A History of the Ancient Near East, ca. 3000 - 323 BC" (2nd edition). This book is by Marc van de Mieroop, and it is one of the few books to cover this time period that is available on Amazon.

So why did I study this particular time period, you might be wondering? What exactly is the "Ancient Near East," anyway; and why would anyone read about it?

Reflections on learning about Spanish linguistics

So I recently finished reading "El español a través de la lingüística: Preguntas y respuestas" ("Spanish Through Linguistics: Questions & Answers"), edited by Jennifer D. Ewald and Anne Edstrom. You might guess from the Gringo names that this book is written by Gringos for Gringos. If so, you'd be mostly right - this book is written largely by American scholars of Spanish, for American students of Spanish linguistics, at American universities.

This book is written largely by Gringos for Gringos

This book actually has about 30 different authors, only about one-third of whom have anything resembling a Spanish name - for either their first or last names. These chapters are written almost entirely in Spanish, and are thus geared towards students of Spanish beyond the beginning levels, who are already familiar with the basics of Spanish grammar. Nonetheless, these essays are, by and large, written by Gringos for Gringos - explaining difficult Spanish words with the equivalent English words in parentheses, and answering the kinds of questions that are most likely to come from Gringos learning Spanish as a second language - rather than from native speakers of Spanish, for whom the grammatical features discussed are familiar and taken for granted, and not something that would be looked upon as strange. Why, then, did I place such value on learning it? Put differently, if the Spanish of native speakers is the most instructive for second-language learners (and it usually is), then why would I read something written largely by people who aren't that way at all?

My search for the Hebrew Bible in the original

"And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left."

- The Hebrew Bible, "The Second Book of Moses Called Exodus," Chapter 14, Verses 21 and 22 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

I am an amateur Biblical scholar (emphasis on the "amateur"). I have been trying to learn Greek so that I can read the New Testament in the original one day. (Any observations about being a shameless nerd are readily agreed with.) Many are surprised to learn that the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament were originally written in Greek (rather than Hebrew), and a number have asked me why. The reason is actually that Greek was the international language of the time. It was the language that people published in if they wanted to reach a wide audience, and that was the case with the early New Testament.

By contrast, the Old Testament really was written in Hebrew - or at least, most of it was. Scholars believe that some of it may have originally been written in Aramaic - a Semitic language closely related to Hebrew. In the words of my church's Bible Dictionary: "The original language of most of the Old Testament is Hebrew, but a few portions ... were written in what is popularly called Chaldee, but more correctly Aramaic." (Source: Entry on Bible itself)

My church's edition of the Holy Bible

I then didn't have any plans to learn either Hebrew or Aramaic; as they are difficult languages for English speakers, and my primary Biblical interest was in the New Testament. Nonetheless, I thought that as long as I had a copy of the New Testament in the original Greek, I might as well complement it with a copy of the Old Testament in the original as well. Thus, I looked into what version to get; and found that this was easier said than done.

Reflections on studying the history of languages (and how they change over time)

So I recently read a book called "Historical Linguistics" (3rd edition), by Winfred P. Lehmann, which talks about the way that languages tend to change over time, and the way that modern scholars investigate this change. There's a strong emphasis on methodology in this book, but there are enough historical examples from actual data that I felt like I learned some interesting historical content as well - particularly from the regions I'm currently interested in most, which are the various parts of Europe. (Although there is a significant amount of content from India as well.) I feel like I learned a lot from the book.

The textbook that I read

A review of “Mexico: A History” (by Robert Ryal Miller)

"[The Mexican Empire] solemnly declares by means of the Supreme Junta of the Empire that it is a Sovereign nation and independent of old Spain ... "

- Declaration of the independence of the Mexican Empire, issued by its Sovereign Junta, assembled in the Capital on September 28, 1821

Since early 2012, I have made an effort to learn the Spanish language. The reasons for this are many (and too long to detail here), but chief among them is the local usefulness of the language. I live in Arizona (in the American Southwest); so Spanish is the most important local language besides my native English. The opportunities to use Spanish here are endless, and I have long wanted to know something about the Hispanic population of the Southwest. I have interacted with them for years, at school and at church.

Mexican flag

Mexico has a strong influence on the American Southwest

In the American Southwest, most of the Hispanics are of Mexican descent - in contrast to the strong Cuban descent found in Florida, and the strong Puerto Rican descent found in New York - the other parts of the United States where Spanish-speaking populations are most often found. In the American Southwest, people of Mexican origin are the most common ones, and so I thought it might be helpful to know something about their country of origin. Mexico is one of my country's only two neighbors, incidentally (the other being Canada). It is also the one that is closest to my home state of Arizona - and thus, the nation that we Arizonans do the most trade with outside of our own. (Stuff that my American audience already knows, I'm sure; but I have an international audience here, so the geography of my situation is worth going over.)