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.)

Some thoughts from Blackstone about punishing criminals

“I proceed in the next place to consider the general nature of punishments : which are evils or inconveniences consequent upon crimes and misdemeanors ; being devised, denounced, and inflicted by human laws, in consequence of disobedience or misbehaviour in those, to regulate whose conduct such laws were respectively made.”

– Sir William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1769), Book 4, Chapter 1

Why do we punish small crimes differently from big ones? For that matter, why do we punish criminals at all? Many have asked these questions throughout history. There has been a great variety of answers from all kinds of people. Blackstone’s answers were not new even then, but they were solid answers, and they’re still relevant today.

Thus, I will examine some enlightening passages from his magnum opus, the “Commentaries on the Laws of England.” The fourth and final book of that work is entitled “Of Public Wrongs.” “Public wrongs” is just another way of saying “crimes.” Thus, this is Blackstone’s treatise on criminal law – and specifically, the criminal laws of England at this time. I should mention that all quotations in this particular blog post are from Book 4, Chapter 1. Thus, I will not note this every time. (Incidentally, this particular volume was first published in 1769.)

Coat of arms of Great Britain, 1714-1800

Wikipedia has some bad information about William Blackstone

Note: Sir William Blackstone was writing in the eighteenth century. But in the quotations given from him in this particular blog post, he discusses many events from back in the twelfth century - or, more broadly, from the Middle Ages.

Wikipedia claims that Blackstone “omitted” the Constitutions of Clarendon …

As I mentioned in a previous post, I’ve often enjoyed reading articles from Wikipedia, and have linked to a number of these articles from my own blog over the years. Some of these articles are reliable, while others are not. Many of them are somewhere in between. Possibly one of these articles to be somewhere in between is the article about William Blackstone, which contained some good information about William Blackstone, and some bad information. For example, the “Criticism” section of that page said that “English jurist Jeremy Bentham was a critic of Blackstone's theories.[132] Others saw Blackstone's theories as inaccurate statements of English law, using the Constitutions of Clarendon, the Tractatus of Glanville and the 1689 Bill of Rights as particularly obvious examples of laws Blackstone omitted.” (Source: “William Blackstone” page, “Criticism” section)

Jeremy Bentham

… and the Tractatus of Glanville (which it refers to as a “law”)

The part about how “English jurist Jeremy Bentham was a critic of Blackstone's theories” is properly sourced at the “[132]”. While I don't agree with Bentham's criticisms (indeed, I find them wildly inaccurate), I do agree that he was “a critic of Blackstone's theories” – this much is pretty well-established, and that is all that the source claims here. But the second sentence has no source, which makes me wonder who exactly is making these criticisms. The sentence in question says that “Others saw Blackstone's theories as inaccurate statements of English law, using the Constitutions of Clarendon, the Tractatus of Glanville and the 1689 Bill of Rights as particularly obvious examples of laws Blackstone omitted.” I have shown in a separate post that Blackstone did indeed mention the 1689 Bill of Rights, and thus did not “omit” it. In this post, I will show that he mentioned the Constitutions of Clarendon and the Tractatus of Glanville, the other topics that he is here erroneously accused of “omitt[ing].”

Jeremy Bentham

Actually, Rousseau did NOT influence the Founding Fathers (sorry Wikipedia)

Wikipedia argues that Rousseau influenced the Founding Fathers …

I have often heard people claim that Rousseau “influenced” the Founding Fathers. One of my high school history teachers said this, and so have some websites. Most prominently, Wikipedia is among those who claim this. But absolutely none of these sources ever offered any convincing evidence that this is actually the case. Moreover, most of the Founding Father quotes about Rousseau are negative, casting doubt upon the idea that he “influenced” them to any significant degree (or at all, for that matter).

Statue of Rousseau on the Île Rousseau, Geneva

A review of Neil Oliver’s “Vikings: The Real Warriors” (BBC)

In the year 793, the Vikings attacked a monastery on the English island of Lindisfarne. It was the beginning of the Viking invasion of England – or, at least, the first Viking invasion. Thus, many historians mark this raid as the beginning of the “Viking Age.” It was then that they first became important players on the world stage. But who were the Vikings? Where did they come from? Why did they act as they did? Were they just a kind of “medieval terrorist,” or is there more to the story than that? And why, after all that they accomplished, did they suddenly disappear from the pages of history?

A review of “Avicenna and Medieval Muslim Philosophy” (audiobook)

During the Middle Ages, the Muslim world helped to keep Greek philosophy alive. In the wake of the Roman Empire’s fall in the fifth century, the West was rapidly forgetting Greek learning. In particular, the works of Aristotle were temporarily lost in the West. But in the Middle East, they were kept alive in Arabic translation, long before the West would rediscover their original Greek during the Renaissance.

If my life were a Twilight Zone episode …

“There is a Facebook dimension, beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as cyberspace and as time-wasting as infinity. It is the middle ground between momentous and mundane, between profundity and shallowness, and it lies between the pit of man’s boredom and the summit of his humor. This is the dimension of utter nonsense. It is an area which we call … the Twilight Zone.”