Stephen GreenblattBesprekingen

Would have made a good magazine article. The preface and chapters 8, 10 & 11 were the interesting parts for me; all the rest was a too academic review of 15th century Italian whatever. It was not what I expected from the title.

I was not previously aware of the content of Lucretius' poem but am always blown away by how the ancient Greeks, just by thinking about things, had everything figured out, right down to atoms & evolution.

I don't necessarily agree with all of Greenblatt's arguments, but he creates here a worthy portrait and discussion to add to the vast database of information and theories on Shakespeare's life and times.

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.

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.)]

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.

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.

I'm at a loss to tell what it was. Definitely not what I expected it to be. Yet I admit some may like it. An utter surprise.

Amazing book about Bracciolini's rediscovery of Lucretius's On the Nature of Things..

The Kindle version of the book contains photo credits, but no photos. Otherwise, an interesting, and rambling, discussion of De rerum natura, its rediscovery and supposed consequences. The author is the scholar, not me, but it is hard to believe that the renaissance, the enlightenment, Thomas Jefferson and modern science are all so dependent on this poem.

This is one I read some time ago and cannot recall enough about to review.

Greenblatt is a great scholar, and a wonderful writer, too. This book argues that De Rerum Naturam by Lucretius changes the way we think about everything and shows how that might be true. But it’s quite abstract and intellectual. If I could think of someone I’d want to recommend this to, I’d give it a third star.

In The Swerve, Stephen Greenblatt makes a pretty big claim: that a Papal secretary called Poggio Bracciolini discovered a manuscript that kicked off the Renaissance, and thereby changed the course of history.

Poggio was a scribe and secretary immersed in the internecine politics of the Curia at a time when there were rival claimants to the Papacy and lethal crackdowns on heresy. Poggio was a renowned humanist, dedicated to scouring libraries around Europe seeking long-lost classical manuscripts from Latin and Greek times. In 1417, Poggio discovered such a treasure: De rerum natura ("On the Nature of Things"), an epic poem written in 50 BCE by the Epicurean philosopher Lucretius.

Greenblatt mounts a convincing case that Lucretius's work was indeed earth-shattering for the times. The poem states, among other things, that everything is made of the same matter, which consists of infinitesimal indestructible particles in constant motion, called atoms. These atoms exist in an infinite void and, being indestructible, in infinite time. Being made of the same matter, man is no different to all the other species on earth. Matter must be converted from one form to another when someone dies, so there can be no soul, and no afterlife.

Stunning stuff, even today, and Greenblatt traces the influence of Lucretius on the likes of Galileo, Macchiavelli, Boticelli, Montaigne, More and Jefferson. (Jefferson's timeless phrase "the pursuit of happiness" is a paraphrasing of Lucretius). The author certainly makes it clear that this was a highly influential discovery, but I think he overstates his case, and Poggio seems to have contributed little to the manuscript's influence other than to have been the one who unearthed it. The politics of the time seems to have caused this bureaucrat to back away from the implications of his discovery and leave the heavy lifting to others. Given that, one wonders why Poggio commands Greenblatt's attention to such a degree, leaving the reader wanting to know more about key players such as Niccoli and Bruno.

Firmly grounded by the hallmark strengths of all Norton Anthologies--thorough and helpful introductory matter, judicious annotation, complete texts wherever possible--The Norton Anthology of English Literature has been revitalized in this Eighth Edition through the collaboration between six new editors and six seasoned ones. Under the direction of Stephen Greenblatt, General Editor, the editors have reconsidered all aspects of the anthology to make it an even better teaching tool.

Great history, ranging over 2000 years, but especially the early 15th century.

From pages 187, 238

All particles are in motion in an infinite void. Space, like time, is unbounded. There are no fixed points, no beginnings, middles, or ends, and no limits. ....
The universe consists then of matter- -the primary particles and all that those particles come together to form-and space, intangible and empty. Nothing else exists….The universe has no creator or designer
****

And Bruno managed to push the scandal of Copernicanism still further: there was no center to the universe at all, he argued, neither earth nor sun. Instead, he wrote, quoting Lucretius, there were multiple worlds, where the seeds of things, in their infinite numbers, would certainly combine to form other races of men, other creatures. Each of the fixed stars observed in the sky is a sun, scattered through limitless space. Many of these are accompanied by satellites that revolve around them as the earth revolves around our sun. The universe is not all about us, about our behavior and our destiny; we are only a tiny piece of something inconceivably larger. And that should not make us shrink in fear. Rather, we should embrace the world in wonder and gratitude and awe. These were extremely dangerous views, every one of them, and it did not improve matters when Bruno, pressed to reconcile his cosmology with Scripture, wrote that the Bible was a better guide to morality than to charting the heavens. Many people may have quietly agreed, but it was not prudent to say so in public, let alone in print.

I just finished reading The Swerve: How the World Became Modern by Stephen Greenblatt. Don't worry; The Swerve is not about avoiding animals while driving. It is an ingenious history of the demolition of the role of superstition, in particular various religious organizations, in suppressing any scientific understanding of the nature of the world, or of humans. But it is more than that. Any belief that the Pope and other religious authorities was dangerous, subversive and subject to severe punishment, and often death. The author details the early and promising history of scientific thought, in ancient Roman times. Lucretius, a writer and philosopher, built upon the views and science of Epicurus. Epicurus advocated a view that pleasure was a primary objective of people. He advocated living for the present, not the afterlife.

Unfortunately, the Dark Ages curtailed any kind of creative thinking, placing all thought under clerical control. One Poggio Bracciolini, not a monk himself but a member of the priests' body of scribes, laboriously retrieved and copies Lucretius major work, On the Nature of Things. The book lays out in excruciating (perhaps too excruciating) detail about how this work was rescued from the dustbin of history. Even though Poggio, a deeply religious man personally opposed Epicurean doctrine, he had no truck with ignorance. Basically, the genie was out of the bottle, and helped motivate Shakespeare, Galileo, Copernicus and others. The Renaissance replaced the Dark Ages.

There are a few blemishes on an otherwise excellent book. One, which may be unavoidable, is that there is so much new material and fine prose that it is a slow read. One does not skim this book unless part of a university class. Another is harder to fathom. His first mention of the colonies that became the United States, and the United States is on the last page, where he quotes Thomas Jefferson: "'I am,' Jefferson wrote to a correspondent who wanted to know his philosophy of life, 'an Epicurean.'" The book covers plenty of the 17th Century. My own view, as a history buff, is that the opening of the New World played a major role in breaking the hammerlock on thinking held by European clergy.

Perhaps I will email Mr. Greenblatt, the author.

Interesting speculations about the life of Shakespeare and how he became a gentleman despite his humble beginnings. Relationships with other poets / dramatists, etc. are intriguing too.

“[Shakespeare] seems to have grasped that he thought more clearly about the issues that preoccupied his world when he confronted them not directly but from an oblique angle. His plays suggest that he could best acknowledge the truth- to possess it fully and not perish of it- through the artifice of fiction or through historical distance.”

The author examines characters from Shakespeare’s Richard III, Julius Caesar, Coriolanus, Henry the VI, King Lear, Macbeth, and The Winter’s Tale. He is interested in how societies fall under the spell of a tyrant, and the manner in which Shakespeare’s writings influenced audiences of his time. At the same time, Greenblatt sheds light on the ways we can learn from the past, as reflected in works of art, to better understand today’s world.

This book works well for those who want to gain a deeper understanding of Shakespeare’s writings. Shakespeare had an amazing grasp of human motivations, particularly evident is his depiction of tyrants. His observations are still valid today. It inspired me to read more of Shakespeare’s tragedies.

The audio book is nicely read by Edoardo Ballerini. I am torn about the inclusion of the reading of the footnotes. I usually prefer to add them, but in this case, it is a little distracting to have frequent mentions in the format: Play, Act #, Scene #, Line #.

Azért Greenblatt ezzel a témával nagyon belenyúlt a tutiba. Poggio Bracciolini igazi reneszánsz Indiana Jones: bejárja a XV. századi Európa kolostori könyvtárait, és furmányosan hozzájut mindenféle indexre tett ókori kincshez. Az ő Elveszett Frigyládája (vagy Smaragdkoponyája, ha úgy tetszik) Lucretius elképesztő műve, A dolgok természetéről, amelynek elő- és utóéletét vázolja fel nekünk a szerző. És ezen felül is van itt minden, kérem szépen, amire egy igazi, vérbő bibliofilnak összefut a szájában a nyál: Epikurosz, latin költők, kódexmásoló szerzetesek, elhivatott humanisták szakmányban, egy kis könyvégetés, de még Shakespeare és Thomas Jefferson is cameózik. Már csak egy pandakölyök hiányzott, aki részleteket ad elő A muzsika hangjá-ból, és én tényleg elolvadok. A kötet terjedelméből fakad, hogy Greenblatt elmélyülni semmiben sem tud annyira, mint talán illene, de ettől függetlenül csodás és színes tablót vázol fel nekünk, olyat, amiben megtalálja az ember az örömét. Bátran ajánlom minden könyvkukacnak.

Fascinating journey traces the rediscovery of Lucretius' poem, On the Nature of Things -- which is both extraordinarily ahead of its time and a really interesting philosophy of hedonism. I find the articulation of his ideas both terrifying and comforting, and the story of the Humanist search through monastic libraries in the 1500s is equally interesting.

Gosh, this is good. Greenblatt, as I think has been pointed out elsewhere, wears his erudtion lightly -- you could be excused for not recognizing this as the work of a highly-respected scholar: it's written clearly, engagingly, and is -- at least for this reader -- very much "compulsively readable" if that is synonymous with "hard to put down."

Is it speculative? sure, it has to be. It's not, as the "Oxfordians" and other conspiracy theorist-types might argue, that there is NO (or suspiciously little) evidence for the Shakespeare who wrote all those plays -- it's just that the bulk of the evidence is so mundane. It's there -- it just doesn't necessarily speak the way we might want it to. That said, I find Greenblatt's army of "may have been"s quite well-grounded, and at their best they do illuminate the works that we have. My favorite chapter might be "Laughter at the Scaffold" which goes into Shakespeare's eternally-discomfiting exploration of Jewishness in "The Merchant of Venice," playing it off his probable-rival Marlowe's roughly contemporary effort "The Jew of Malta" and demonstrating how much further Shakespeare went -- and why he might have done so.

As I'd hoped it would, this book is filling me with a strong desire to return to the plays, which at one time were the center of my world and certainly deserve to be there once again.

Wonderful book!

A terrific learning experience. Comments on the credibility of the Adam and Eve narrative run from cover to cover: major voices from history include Augustine's literal interpretation, Voltaire's sarcasm, Darwin's proof of evolution and Mark Twain's hilarious Adam and Eve diary entries - they're the gems of the narrative. The misogyny inherent in the Adam and Eve origin narrative is unrelenting.

Fascinating. Wish I had read it whilst I was teaching English lit.

Will in the World didn't entirely convince me that William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon is the author of the plays attributed to him. But it did convince me that he could have been, given Elizabethan education for males and the conventions for the theatre of the time. After all, genius can be found in people from all sorts of backgrounds.

Greenblatt found links between Shakespeare's life and the sonnets and plays that strike me as plausible. I'm not a Shakespeare scholar and I'm not familiar with all his writings. But I will note that actual facts about his life are scarce.

What I liked best about this book are the details provided about life in Elizabethan England. Greenblatt shares information on the religious upheavals, the views of women, and common, thoughtless violence of the culture. But in a lot of ways, their society was surprisingly modern. I'd recommend it for anyone interested in Shakespeare's plays or the historical period.

Fairly interesting nonfiction. I had no idea how much of the writings of Ancient Greek and Roman authors has, barring new discoveries, been lost forever. I guess I just assumed it had all been preserved on stone tablets or something. I wouldn't really say it lived up to its subtitle "How the World Became Modern". It spent far more time chronicling some of the key figures involved and how people reacted to this poem of Lucretious hundreds of years ago than talking about how it pertains to modern life. The fact that it won the Pulitzer to me is a bit of a stretch, however it's a decent work of nonfiction.