Day 34: 3/18/19:
New territory for me, as I had not read beyond Volume I previously, despite my great love for that book. And the first twenty pages of Volume II indicate it is at least on a par with the first volume. The past three+ weeks have been pretty hard for me, and I've really had to battle not only the new limitations of my body, but also some really serious depression. And I fear that it might sound stupid to say so, but reading Buckle's work has helped me quite a bit. For one thing, knowing that these three volumes represented the life dream of this man of genius...and that he poured everything he had into the writing of it. I've read that he spent ten hours a day working on this book...and that his dying words were an anguished cry of, "My book!" because he knew that he wouldn't be able to finish it. Although it is also frustrating to think that nobody reads Buckle anymore. And that frustration is accentuated by the fact that much of what he wrote is really quite topical...as I noted in quite a few of my comments on Volume I (https://songsofinnocenceampexperience.blogspot.com/2019/02/buckles-history-of-civilization-in.html)...and will no doubt continue to do as I move to Volume II.
Speaking of which...
In Prelude to Foundation, Hari Seldon decides to visit a sector of Trantor called Mycogen, hoping that because it is a more primitive culture with a long history that studying it will allow him to solidify the basic concepts of psychohistory. Well...check this bit out from Mr. Buckle:
Yeah? That's what I'm talking about.
In addition to seemingly prescient comments about Isaac Asimov's Foundation series and Trump's presidency, one of the things I love about Buckle style is his unabashed enthusiasm which breaks out in various ways: sometimes in caustic comments, sometimes in sarcasm, and sometimes just in footnote punctuation choices:
I don't know who Madame de Genlis was...though Wikipedia does: "Stéphanie Félicité du Crest de Saint-Aubin, Comtesse de Genlis (25 January 1746 – 31 December 1830), known as Madame de Genlis, was a French writer, harpist, educator, and Governess of the Children of France (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stéphanie_Félicité,_comtesse_de_Genlis)...nor why the gift of De la Sagesse would be inappropriate...though I would guess it would have something to do with it having some "wicked" passages and she being a model of innocence...but I love the fact that Buckle felt compelled to make this pronouncement exclamatory in nature.
Buckle also continues to bring the hammer down on religion, saying, for instance, "That same ecclesiastical power, which to an ignorant age is an unmixed benefit, is to a more enlightened age a serious evil." (🔥) And a bit later on, he notes that "Those who recognize the truth of the principles I have laboured to establish, will expect that this great step towards religious liberty was accompanied by that spirit of scepticism, in the absence of which toleration has always been unknown." Which brings us back to one of his chief fascinations, the idea that without skepticism, progress is impossible. Here, though, he links it to something other than intellectual progress, as the idea of toleration is a moral kind of thing. This statement gives me some pause, as the clear implication is that fervent belief is inevitably the enemy of the better angels of our nature. I'd like to think that someone can be a fervent believer and not be an asshole. Or, looking at it from the opposite perspective, I'd like to think that we don't have to be wishy washy in order to be accepting of others. (This is starting to sound like a discussion of how some hard line conservatives think that liberals are all mamby pamby flip flopping snowflakes...to mix a few metaphors.) This idea re-emerges in a different form when, in the midst of praising Montesquieu, Buckle says, "he was undaunted by the reproaches with which the ignorant, who love to dogmatize, always cover those whose knowledge makes them ready to doubt." Passionate belief goes hand in hand with ignorance. And of course I see that in the world. But is it really the rule? I love my kids more than words can express without blooming into hyperbole, but that doesn't prevent me from seeing their faults and chastising them when I think they're wrong. Why isn't the same true of religion...or other beliefs?
I dunno.
But here's something I do know...and it makes me sad.
Because my copy of History of Civilization in England Volume II was published in 1894...and I'm pretty sure that this means that no one before me has read these pages. And as if to reinforce that thought, a few pages later I found this:
125 years of sitting on a shelf? And this is a brilliant piece of writing, for fuck's sake. And it's written with wit and humor and energy.
Sigh.
It was hard for me to cut those pages open. I used scissors on the first set, and thought it looked too raggedy, so I used a razor blade on the second (double) set...which turned out to be a really bad decision, aesthetically-speaking. Oh well. At least I read those pages.
We're off, you know.
 |
| 20 |
Day 35: 3/19/19:
Looks like this is going to be more of a problem than I thought it would be:
Both of those uncuts involved eight pages, too, which means that 80% of the pages I read today were affected. And to make matters worse, I tried to be extra careful cutting them apart, since yesterday I'd done some inadvertent damage, but the combination of shaky hands and a sharper than I thought it was razor blade made things look pretty bad:
Defiling any book--even a bad one--is inexcusable to me, so fucking up one of my favorite books ever...and a 125 year old copy at that...is pretty disturbing. But I don't know what else to do. I can't read these pages without cutting them open, and no matter how careful I am, it causes damage. Mr. Buckle deserves better, but I don't know how to get there.
Most of today's twenty pages were about Cardinal Richelieu...primarily in defense of him as one of the greatest political leaders in the history of France. 1 At one point, Buckle notes that Richelieu's enemies were spreading many vicious lies about him. Buckle notes, however, that "Happily the time was now passing away in which the national mind could be moved by such artifices as these." Well, damn. Makes me wonder if we will ever reach that state in our time. I have to confess that I don't feel particularly hopeful about this.
 |
| 40
Oh...and speaking of bookmarks...I neglected to mention that instead of the shitty little piece of paper I was using whilst reading Volume I, I am using my newly unearthed (cleaning project) self-made Boxer At Rest bookmark. See?
 |
And while I was checking on the name of that statue (I actually thought it was The Pugilist at Rest, but that was Thom's fault; speaking of, if you haven't read any Thom Jones, then FUCKING SHIT! Damn it to hell. I just did a quick new tab to check on Thom Jones before I finished writing that sentence, and found out that he died October 14, 2016. I have done a really shitty job of keeping up with him...and I can't even tell you how much I loved that man. I first encountered him in a book of interviews with writers, and he talked about how after he graduated from college (with an MFA), he got a job as a janitor so that he could devote as much of his time as possible to reading, and I think he said he would read a book every day. And when he finally got full up, he started to write. His first book of short stories--The Pugilist at Rest--came out in 1993. Cold Snap followed in 1995, and Sonny Liston Was a Friend of Mine in 1999. And I have all of those...but haven't finished reading any of them, I'm sorry to say. Looks like there was a posthumous collection--Night Train: New and Selected Stories--published in October 2018, but this is the first I've heard of it. Jeeze...it wasn't that long ago that I was searching eBay for old issues of magazines which had published his stories which appeared after Sonny Liston Was a Friend of Mine. I remember being really frustrated at only being able to find a few which were really too expensive for my limited income self. Damn it. I remember how excited I was when I found an old (1973) issue of The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction which included a short story entitled "Brother Dodo's Revenge" by Thom Jones. It was his first published story. I picked it up because it had cover featured Harlan Ellison's "The Deathbird," but as much as I love Harlan, I was much more excited by the name Thom Jones on the table of contents.
Well, fuck.
I'm going to go read some Thom Jones now. And go buy that "new" book.
But before I head out, while I was looking for the name of that wonderful statue, I happened upon this picture of "The Bronze statue Boxer at Rest at time of discovery in 1885 on the south slope of the Quirinal Hill in Rome" which is just too beautiful for words:
Like he was waiting to be found, you know?
1 I really don't feel like following up with this footnote now, but I'll try to come back to it tomorrow. Fucking damn it. Please read some Thom Jones as soon as possible.
Day 36: 3/20/19:
Still reeling a bit from discovering that Thom Jones had died, but I'm going to leave any more commentary on that to a dedicated post.
Yesterday I was also bitching about pages in Volume II which hadn't been cut. Well...that just got a whole lot worse. Check this out:
I had to take a razor blade to every page I read today. And I was as careful as I could be, but I still massacred some of those pages, I'm sorry to say. And just to add insult to injury, I looked at Volume III and it was more of the same. I'm going to be reading with razor blade close at hand, it looks like. Of course, I could just go ahead and put the money down for that first edition I spotted on Biblio.com, right? I mean, this situation kind of deMANDS that I do that, doesn't it?
Anyway.
Much of today's material was taken up by Buckle turning the tables on the Protestants, of whom he previously seemed to be in favor. For instance, he says, "...the Protestants, who professed to take their stand on the right of private judgment, became, early in the 17th century, more intolerant than the Catholics, who based their religion on the dictates of an infallible Church.
This is one of the many instances which show how superficial is the opinion of those speculative writers, who believed that the Protestant religion is necessarily more liberal than the Catholic. If those who adopt this view had taken the pains to study the history of Europe and its original sources, they would have learned, that the liberality of every sect depends, not at all on its avowed tenets, but on the circumstances in which it is placed, and on the amount of authority possessed by its priesthood." Which isn't a full-throated endorsement of Catholicism by any means, but at least he isn't above defending them when circumstances warrant that. He also refers to the scandalous way that Protestants treated many of the Catholics during this time period in France. So there's that.
Meanwhile, in other news...
Gasp! Another typo!
in the 1904 George Routledge and Sons, Limited edition of the book.
Which, by the way, makes me wonder how many editions this book has gone through. At this point I only have verifiable evidence of three: the original 1857 (V. I and II) / 1861 (V. III) edition, my 1894 edition, and this so-called George Routledge one. But I'm sure that I've glimpsed at least a half-dozen others in my journeys. I wonder how one goes about diving such a thing? You'd think there'd be a resource somewhere out there. It'd be a lot of work to track them down individually. Of course I want to do it. But I'm going to try not to. I've got pages to read. And cut.
 |
| 60 |
Day 37: 3/21/19:
First off, some high praise for Rene Descartes:
"Rene Descartes...effected a revolution more decisive than has ever been brought about by any other single mind."
Yowza. That's a spicy meataballuh.
And in a Pretty Much The Who Shebang In A Nutshell Department, check out this bit (and its attendant footnote) on Harvey's discovery of the circulation of blood:
"The great discovery made by Harvey of the circulation of the blood, was neglected by most of his contemporaries; 210
210 Aubrey was assured by Harvey that in consequence of his book on the Circulation of the Blood he lost much of his practice, was believed to be crackbrained, and was opposed by "all the physicians" Aubrey's Letters and Lives, vol. ii. p. 383. Dr. Willis (Life of Harvey, p. xli. in Harvey's Works, edit Sydenham Society, 1847) says, "Harvey's views were at first rejected almost universally." Dr. Elliotson (Human Physiology, p. 194) says, "His immediate reward was general ridicule and abuse, and a great diminution of his practice."
(Highlights added.)
 |
| 80 |
Day 38: 3/22/19:
Another "Jeeze, people are fuckin' maroons" statement:
"...like every great truth yet laid before the world, [it] was, at its first appearance, not only disbelieved, but covered with ridicule."
Along the same lines, Buckle makes reference to the philosophy of Descartes, saying, it is"a philosophy which, in England at least, is rarely studied, and therefore, is often attacked." Heh heh. Buckle is DEFinitely much funnier than Copleston.
Buckle also talks about how if Descartes and Richelieu had lived 50 years earlier the best that they could have expected would have been to be completely ignored, and if they hadn't been they both surely would have been tortured and killed for their beliefs. Kind of puts things in perspective, doesn't it?
Another interesting line about Descartes: According to Buckle, Descartes'perspective on the discovery of truth was that, "the first step is to separate ourselves from the delusions of nature, and reject the evidence presented to our senses." Which, of course, fits in quite well with the whole thinking therefore am bit. Scrape everything away and what is left is the ability to think and thoughts. And that's all. In the beginning was The Word....
Food for some thought (pun intended), eh?
And with that, I hit page 100! Woo hoo! There were a few brief lulls in there for me, but I feel like I'm back in the middle of it all now. And I don't even think I'd blame the "lulls" on Buckle so much as on my inability to maintain focus at all times. In other words...this is a GREAT fuckin' book.
 |
| 100 |
Day 39: 3/23/19:
One of the things I love about reading this book is how Buckle not only binds together various disciplines...history and geography and politics and sociology and religion and theology and architecture and more...but how he also pushes me to think about things that I might not have brought into the fold without him. So, for instance, during my first ten pages today (and then a housekeeping break before another ten), Buckle had me thinking about Shakespeare, Trump's Tweets, the domination of college and professional sports--especially basketball and football--by black athletes, and Trump's treatment of Queen Elizabeth II when he strolled around with her on his visit the England. That's a lot of ground to cover in ten pages.
Shakespeare: Buckle was comparing England and France, and he asserted that England's men of genius were ahead of France's by a good 50 years. In the course of making this assertion, he "compared" Shakespeare to Pierre Corneille. I'd never heard of that name before, and it made me a little sad to think that a writer who had been so highly regarded during Buckle's time was unknown today. And then it made me happy to think that that didn't apply to Shakespeare, at least, because I'm pretty sure that it's impossible to get through a day without bumping into him in one way or another. Which makes me remember a project I had in mind some time ago...to write down the times during the day that I bumped into Shakespeare--not of my own accord, such as picking up Richard II, but in allusions or advertisements or commercials or other people saying things, etc. That might be a fun thing to do if I can keep my attention focused long enough to do it.
Trump's Tweets: Buckle said, "Indeed, a mere knowledge of the fact, that the most eminent men have thrown doubt on the popular opinions of an age, can never fail, in some degree, to disturb the convictions even of those by whom the doubts are ridiculed. In such cases, none are entirely safe: the firmest belief is apt to become slightly unsettled; those who outwardly preserve the appearance of Orthodoxy common often unconsciously waiver; they cannot internally resist the influence of superior minds, nor can they always avoid an unwelcome suspicion...." Now, needless to say I do not consider Trump to be an eminent man nor a superior mind. But the germ of this statement--that a powerful assertion from a powerful source can influence even those who are in opposition to that assertion--is exactly why George Lakoff keeps telling Trump opponents to STOP repeating what he Tweets, because even denying what he says amplifies his message. (Of course, no one listens to this.) It's the same reason that I am opposed to identifying the names and probing for the motivations of people who commit heinous crimes (mass murder, abuduction, rape, torture). Why the fuck do we give these bad people all this attention?
When Buckle was developing his thought on England repeatedly beating France to the punch by 50 years, he very forcefully said that this was NOT because England was superior to France, but because there was some other cause at work which was retarding France's intellectual progress. It should come as no surprise that Buckle identified this Other Cause as religious faith. But I think that the same concept applies to black athletes in college and professional sports (especially basketball and football). To suggest that this is because black people are physically superior to white people is racist and, and a commentator on CNN once said, it is demeaning--because it negates all of the hours of toil that black athletes have put into becoming great at their sports. There's another cause at work here. I don't think it's religion's fault this time out, though. I would guess it has something to do with the racist structure of American society which does not permit Black people to succeed in so many areas, whereas sports offers opportunities a point of entry into the world of "success."
And as for this Queen...well. I have no great love for aristocracy. But when I saw Trump bumbling around Queen Elizabeth, walking in front of her, treating her with absolutely zero respect, I was appalled and embarrassed. And I didn't understand why this wasn't seen as an affront against polite behavior by the American public in general. But when I read this bit
it actually made more sense to me. (Not in an I Approve way, but in an Ah, I See way.) If you look at the Queen as a representative of an aristocracy which basically represents bullies who terrorized and brutalized the poor and then found a way to keep all their ill-gotten gains in the family for generation after generation, then why should you treat Her with any respect at all? Fuck the fact that she's an old lady. It reminds me of how many times I've seen comic book movies which end up with the young hero or heroine punching out an old guy, and all I can think is, "For fuck's sake, pick on somebody your own age." But it seems to work for the masses, doesn't it Gal Godot?
Well...that was a nice little canter. Not bad for ten pages of reading, hey?
Laundry time.
Yes, I was thinking of M.C. Hammer's "U Can't Touch This."
And then I read ten more pages. But I don't feel like writing any more today.
 |
| 120 |
Day 40: 3/24/19:
"They had, indeed, its image and superscription; but they wanted the sacred fire that warms the image into life. Every thing else they possessed. They show and appliances of freedom were there."
Well, Buckle isn't talking about Louisville South End Catholic Churches here, but that's the first thing that I thought of, for sure.
And this bit--
"...when the evil days set in, when the invasions of despotism have begun, liberty will be retained, not by those who can you show the oldest deeds and the largest charters, but by those who have been most inured to habits of independence, most accustomed to think and act for themselves, and most regardless of that insidious protection which the upper classes have always been so ready to bestow, that, in many countries, they have now left nothing worth the trouble to protect."
--just seems like The Word for our time, y'know?
And there were some truly excellent footnotes in today's 20, such as this bit of disarming honesty--
Gotta go look for the other two. Wait for it.
Okay. Ahem.
--and some pretty cute commentary--
Ah, Buckle!
One bit of disappointment: Buckle makes reference to phrenology as if were True Science...to support a point he is making about how the French are more vain than the English. So I guess that's two disappointments, actually. But hey...maybe that's just 1857 for you.
 |
| Public Domain |
 |
| 140 |
Day 41: 3/25/19:
Something sad:
But the majority of today's 20 was focused on comparing the revolution in France with the revolution in England, and why England's was more successful. Part of what Buckle had to say on this made me think of the way that so many of the new congresspeople elected in 2018 were not politicians, but regular people who decided that enough was enough and that it was time to take a stand.
"What sort of sympathy could there be between the mechanic and the peasant, toiling for their daily bread, and the rich and dissolute noble, whose life was passed in those idle and frivolous pursuits which debased his mind, and made his order a byword and a reproach among the nations? To talk of sympathy existing between the two classes is a manifest absurdity, and most assuredly would have been deemed an insult by those high-born men, who treated their inferiors with habitual and insolent contempt."
 |
| 160 |
Day 42: 3/26/19:
More songs on why the French Revolution sucked in comparison to the English, with special focus on the stupidity of the French nobles who played their part (and, according to Buckle, thus doomed) the Fr Rev. One most excellent bit that made me think of Trump non-stop, though:
"...when the notion is once firmly implanted in the mind, that the source of honour is from without, rather than from within, it must invariably happen that the possession or external distinction will be preferred to the sense of internal power. In such cases, the majesty of the human intellect, and the dignity of human knowledge, are considered subordinate to those mock and spurious gradations by which weak men measure the degrees of their own littleness. Hence it is, that the real precedence of things becomes altogether reversed; that which is trifling is valued more than that which is great; and the mind is enervated by conforming to a false standard of merit, which its own prejudices have raised. On this account, they are evidently in the wrong, who reproach the nobles with their pride, as if it were a characteristic of their order. The truth is, that if pride were once established among them, their extinction would rapidly follow. To talk of the pride of hereditary rank, is a contradiction in terms. Pride depends on the consciousness of self-applause; vanity is fed by the applause of others. Pride is a reserved and lofty passion, which disdains those external distinctions that vanity eagerly grasps. The proud man sees, in his own mind, the source of his own dignity; which, as he well knows, can be neither increased nor diminished by any acts except those which proceed solely from himself. The vain man, restless, insatiable, and always craving after the admiration of his contemporaries, must naturally make great account of those external marks, those visible tokens, which, whether they be decorations or titles, strike directly on the senses, and thus captivate the vulgar, to whose understandings they are immediately obvious. This, therefore, being the great distinction, that pride looks within, while vanity looks without, it is clear that when a man values himself for a rank which he inherited by chance, without exertion, and without merit, it is a proof, not of
pride, but of vanity, and of vanity of the most despicable kind.
It is a proof that such a man has no sense of real dignity, no idea of what that is in which alone all greatness consists. What marvel if, to minds of this sort, the most insignificant trifles should swell into matters of the highest importance?"
I'm particularly fond of the phrase, "gradations by which weak men measure the degrees of their own littleness." Is that the stuff or what?
 |
| 180 |
Day 43: 3/27/19:
FOX News in a nutshell: "For unless the sovereign, in spite of the intellectual disadvantages of his position, is a man of very enlarged mind 1 , it must usually happen that he will reward, not those who are most able, but those who are most compliant; and that while he refuses his patronage to a profound and independent thinker, he will grant it to an author who cherishes ancient prejudices and defends ancient abuses. 2"
1 This offer void in the USA from 2016 to The Present.
2 Fox and Friends.
And furthermore... "Hence it is that the marks of favour have become the badge of servitude. Hence it is, that the acquisition of knowledge, by far the noblest of all occupations, an occupation which of all others raises the dignity of man, has been debased to the level of a common profession, where the chances of success are measured by the number of rewards, and where the highest honors are in the gift of whoever happens to be the minister or Sovereign of the day."
Wow. Big 🔥, 🦊📰.
Which brought me to
 |
| 200 |
...which meant that it was time to get the razor blade out again. I've taken to cutting 100 pages open per sitting now, and I'm actually getting a little better at it. Less hesitancy helps. But as you can see from the ragged condition of the tops of some of the pages above, it's not always pretty. The vast majority of the pages have to be cut open. Some are only uncut at the top, many are uncut along the side and top. It makes me really sad to think that this book has been sitting on a shelf for 125 years without being read. The fact that my reading has become a bit labor intensive actually binds me to it (no pun intended) a bit more profoundly, though.
Day 44: 3/28/19:
More Why France sucks in today's 20...which is fine by me, just didn't find anything particularly quote worthy in this set...two pages of which were just a listing of names, none of which I recognized.
 |
| 220 |
Day 45: 3/29/19:
More about how shitty the French people are. In one bit about Voltaire, Buckle talked about how poorly he'd been treated because of his writings: imprisoned, exiled, abused. In a curious crossover, a few hours after reading this in Buckle I read this in Foundation's Fear by Gregory Benford:
How do you like them 🍎🍎🍎?
 |
| 240 |
Day 46: 3/30/19:
In today's 20...which I wasn't too sure I would hit, as I had to do a hard scrabble to finish off this week's Shake-speare on time (King John, which kind of sucked ass)...but hey, it's Buckle. You've got to make time for Buckle.
More pounding on those French motherfuckers, but some quite interesting stuff. For instance...
Check out this footnote:
HTB do like to throw down!
I also found this bit interesting: "M. Ranke...ascribes this to the circumstances attending the apostasy of Henry IV.; but the cause lies much deeper, being connected with that triumph of the secular interests over the spiritual, of which the policy of Henry IV. was itself a consequence. " Because, as has happened so many times during my reading of Buckle, this made me think of Trump. The xenophobic, ignorant, misogynistic, imbecilic shit that is currently dispelling our landscape is not caused by Trump; Trump is the consequence of that compendium of awfulness. So while my heart longs to see him taken down, the truth is that that doesn't really solve the problem, does it? Yes, he did lose the popular vote, and that gives me some comfort...but he did get 62,980,160 votes. You've got to think about that, y'know?
Anyway....
Found another typo. When I first read this bit--
Which not only cleared up my problem, but also made me not feel so all alone, y'know? Thanks, other Buckle Reader. Oh...waitaminute. I just checked, and the Google Books version of the text is dated 1869, so I just lost my friend, didn't I? My copy of the book is from 1894, so this wasn't an example of an error being corrected, but of one being made.
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!
But here's a bit that really meant a lot to me...thus I shall quote at some length:
"Such was the position of the rival parties, when, almost immediately after the death of Louis XIV., there began that great struggle between authority and reason, which is still unfinished, although in the present state of knowledge its result is no longer doubtful. On the one side there was a compact and numerous priesthood, supported by the prescription of centuries and by the authority of the crown. On the other side there was a small body of men, without rank, without wealth, and as yet without reputation, but animated by a love of liberty, and by a just confidence in their own abilities. Unfortunately, they at the very outset committed a serious error. In attacking the clergy, they lost their respect for religion. In their determination to weaken ecclesiastical power, they attempted to undermine the foundations of Christianity. This is deeply to be regretted for their own sake, as well as for its ultimate effects in France; but it must not be imputed to them as a crime, since it was forced on them by the exigencies of their position. They saw the frightful evils which their country was suffering from the institution of priesthood as it then existed; and yet they were told that the preservation of that institution in its actual form was essential to the very being of Christianity. They had always been taught that the interests of the clergy were identical with the interests of religion; how then could they avoid including both clergy and religion in the same hostility? The alternative was cruel; but it was one from which, in common honesty, they had no escape. We, judging these things by another standard, possess a measure which they could not possibly have. We should not now commit such an error, because we know that there is no connexion between any one particular form of priesthood and the interests of Christianity. We know that the clergy are made for the people, and not the people for the clergy. We know that all questions of church government are matters, not of religion, but of policy, and should be settled, not according to traditional dogmas, but according to large views of general expediency. It is because these propositions are now admitted by all enlightened men, that in our country the truths of religion are rarely attacked except by superficial thinkers. If, for instance, we were to find that the existence of our bishops, with their privileges and their wealth, is unfavourable to the progress of society, we should not on that account feel enmity against Christianity; because we should remember that episcopacy is its accident, and not its essential, and that we could do away with the institution and yet retain the religion. In the same way, if we should ever find, what was formerly found in France, that the clergy were tyrannical, this would excite in us an opposition, not to Christianity, but merely to the external form which Christianity assumed. So long as our clergy confine themselves to the beneficent duties of their calling, to the alleviation of pain and distress, either bodily or mental, so long will we respect them as the ministers of peace and of charity. But if they should ever again entrench on the rights of the laity, — if they should ever again interfere with an authoritative voice in the government of the state, —it will then be for the people to inquire, whether the time has not come to effect a revision of the ecclesiastical constitution of the country. This, therefore, is the manner in which we now view these things. What we think of the clergy will depend upon themselves; but will have no connection with what we think of Christianity. We look on the clergy as a body of men who, notwithstanding their disposition to intolerance, and notwithstanding a certain narrowness incidental to their profession, do undoubtedly form part of a vast and noble institution, by which the manners of men have been softened, their sufferings assuaged, their distresses relieved. As long as this institution performs its functions, we are well content to let it stand. If, however, it should be out of repair, or if it should be found inadequate to the shifting circumstances of an advancing society, we retain both the power and the right of remedying its faults; we may, if need be, remove some of its parts; but we would not, we dare not, tamper with those great religious truths which are altogether independent of it; truths which comfort the mind of man, raise him above the instincts of the hour, and infuse into him those lofty aspirations which, revealing to him his own immortality, are the measure and the symptom of a future life."
I couldn't resist highlighting some of my favorite things, though. I mean...man! This is everything I have wanted to say to my Catholic-hating friends but didn't have the eloquence to produce from my mouth. It also seems to clear up Buckle's overall feelings about religion, doesn't it? I mean, even here he implies a Protestant bias, but there doesn't seem to be any doubt about his reverence for Christianity itself. Which brings me some comfort, I must admit. If smart people for whom I feel admiration are drawn to Christianity, it makes it a lot easier for me to consider it for myself. If there's any hope for me becoming a member of a church, I am going to need more intelligent Christians in my life. (Actual people would be nice, but virtual works for me.)
 |
| 260 |
Day 47: 3/31/19:
Some most excellent smart-assert on the part of Mr. Buckle in today's 20, including this bit on Louis XIV--
"Of the course of past events he knew literally nothing, and he took no interest in any history except the history of his own exploits."
--anybody thinking what I'm thinking here?
Also an extended excoriation of Audigier's "history," On the Origin of the French, which is really just too good to quote in part. If you'd like a good laugh, go here and then make your way to page 447, the paragraph which begins, "The celebrated work of Audigier, on the Origin of the French, was published at Paris in 1676. 43 " It's worth the trip.
 |
| 280 |
Day 48: 4/1/19:
I'm pretty sure that Buckle was thinking of Mitch McConnell when he wrote this:
"It proves, that towards the end of the 17th century, one of the most eminent men, in one of the first countries of Europe, could willingly submit to a prostration of judgment, and could display a blind credulity, of which, in our day, even the feeblest mines would be ashamed; and that this, so far from causing scandal, or bringing a rebuke on the head of the author, was received with universal and unqualified applause."
(Buckle on Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet)
My delight with Buckle's acerbicisms was brought up short, however, when he referred to the Jews as "this obstinate and ignorant race." That's not cool. Shortly after that he made reference to a time "when the Jews, stained with every variety of crime, were a plundering and vagabond tribe, wandering on the face of the earth, raising their hand against every man and every man raising his hand against them." Which is also not cool, but having read the Old Testament, I have to admit that it's pretty hard to argue with that one.
 |
| 300 |
Day 49: 4/2/19:
Well lookee there...tomorrow will be my 50th day with Henry Thomas Buckle. And I'll be past the halfway point in the three volumes of History of Civilization in England. More or less. Halfway through the second of three volumes, anyway. And there have been a few frustrations, for sure. His occasional dips into Ultra Conservative Perspectives. (For example, he railed against the government intruding into private affairs in order to inspect food for its fitness for human consumption. 😲) And his puzzling comments on Catholicism, which seem to bounce back and forth between outright contempt and grudging admiration. 😮 And the bit of Anti-Semitism which cropped up in yesterday's reading. 😞 But for the most part...like 95% or so...it has been enlightening, revivifying, and reifying. Exciting, too, which is not something I get from a lot of non-fiction books. In fact, if it weren't for my decision to parse this out in daily devotional reading style, I think I would probably consume much vaster chunks of this book at a time. Which would be cool, but I know me: at some point I would defer to another book, and then days would go by without reading Buckle, and those days would turn into weeks, and pretty soon a couple of months or even a year would pass, and I would still be anxious to read it, but I'd feel like I had lost touch with the text and would need to start over, and that wouldn't be an exciting thought, so another year or two would pass.... No, the daily approach is best for me for non-fiction.
Speaking of....
Here's a Buckle Burn (henceforth ⑄🔥):
"...our great scholars have corrupted the English language by a jargon so uncouth, that a plain man can hardly discern the real lack of ideas which their barbarous and mottled dialect strives to hide."
Here's a Buckle Burn (henceforth ⑄🔥):
"...our great scholars have corrupted the English language by a jargon so uncouth, that a plain man can hardly discern the real lack of ideas which their barbarous and mottled dialect strives to hide."
For the most part, though, we're still on that Why The French Suck sub-topic...but with a side order of Voltaire taking the main stage, and Buckle is full of love for Voltaire. Check this out:
"...he was...the first who mingled ridicule with argument, thus not only assailing the system, but also weakening the authority of those by whom the system was supported. His irony, his wit, his pungent and telling sarcasms, produced more effect than the gravest arguments could have done...."
One of the things that I find interesting about that statement is how if parallels what Trump has accomplished...whether by instinct or design I can't say, though my antipathy toward him prefers to think it's instinct, thus allowing me to continue to think of him as a dumbass. Trump uses third grade level insults to take down his opponents; and this seems to please his supporters, who cheer his childish antics at his rallies.
I thought I'd found another typo at the top of page 310:
"...all of whom were elected in the prime of life, one of whom was expelled the city, and three of whom were put to death." Expelled the city? Not "expelled from the city"? But both the Project Gutenberg and the Amazon versions of the text replicated the phrase, so maybe not.
Also, this:
"...it was believed that, in ancient times, Mars ravished a virgin, and that the offspring of the intrigue were none other than Romulus and Remus...."
The use of the word ravish as a synonym for rape wasn't new to me, of course, but for some reason it stopped me in my tracks this time. I thought, "When a woman is particularly beautiful, it is not uncommon to say that she looks ravishing. Does that mean that we are saying she looks good enough to rape?" The thought bothered me enough that I thought I would do a little etymological searching. I used the dictate function on Google and asked for the etymology of ravishing. Google misunderstood me, and instead directed me to the etymology of rabbit sheen. I had another go at it.
Google says:
Which I find pretty disturbing.
I don't know if I've ever used the word "ravishing" as a synonym for beautiful before, but I'm not going to be using it in the future, for sure. For fuck's sake...it's so disappointing to find misanthropy (and other evils, such as racism) embedded in our words, you know?
In other news...
When he is speaking of Montesquieu (another "good" French dude), Buckle says, "According to his view of history, no great alteration can be effected except by virtue of a long train of antecedents, where alone we are to seek the cause of what to a superficial eye is the work of individuals. The republic, therefore, was overthrown, not by Caesar and Pompey, but by that state of things which made the success of Caesar and Pompey possible."
I think this is a pretty apt summation of how I feel about the success of Trump in the political arena. It's a horrible thing, for sure, but it is not a thing which happened because Trump willed that it be so. Something is rotten in the states of America, and that's what caused this fiasco to become our reality.
"...he was...the first who mingled ridicule with argument, thus not only assailing the system, but also weakening the authority of those by whom the system was supported. His irony, his wit, his pungent and telling sarcasms, produced more effect than the gravest arguments could have done...."
One of the things that I find interesting about that statement is how if parallels what Trump has accomplished...whether by instinct or design I can't say, though my antipathy toward him prefers to think it's instinct, thus allowing me to continue to think of him as a dumbass. Trump uses third grade level insults to take down his opponents; and this seems to please his supporters, who cheer his childish antics at his rallies.
I thought I'd found another typo at the top of page 310:
"...all of whom were elected in the prime of life, one of whom was expelled the city, and three of whom were put to death." Expelled the city? Not "expelled from the city"? But both the Project Gutenberg and the Amazon versions of the text replicated the phrase, so maybe not.
Also, this:
"...it was believed that, in ancient times, Mars ravished a virgin, and that the offspring of the intrigue were none other than Romulus and Remus...."
The use of the word ravish as a synonym for rape wasn't new to me, of course, but for some reason it stopped me in my tracks this time. I thought, "When a woman is particularly beautiful, it is not uncommon to say that she looks ravishing. Does that mean that we are saying she looks good enough to rape?" The thought bothered me enough that I thought I would do a little etymological searching. I used the dictate function on Google and asked for the etymology of ravishing. Google misunderstood me, and instead directed me to the etymology of rabbit sheen. I had another go at it.
Google says:
Which I find pretty disturbing.
I don't know if I've ever used the word "ravishing" as a synonym for beautiful before, but I'm not going to be using it in the future, for sure. For fuck's sake...it's so disappointing to find misanthropy (and other evils, such as racism) embedded in our words, you know?
In other news...
When he is speaking of Montesquieu (another "good" French dude), Buckle says, "According to his view of history, no great alteration can be effected except by virtue of a long train of antecedents, where alone we are to seek the cause of what to a superficial eye is the work of individuals. The republic, therefore, was overthrown, not by Caesar and Pompey, but by that state of things which made the success of Caesar and Pompey possible."
I think this is a pretty apt summation of how I feel about the success of Trump in the political arena. It's a horrible thing, for sure, but it is not a thing which happened because Trump willed that it be so. Something is rotten in the states of America, and that's what caused this fiasco to become our reality.
 |
| 320 |
Day 50: 4/3/19:
I feel that Day 50 ought to be a more auspicious occasion than this, but...well, it's not.
Two things:
Thing One: no relation.
Thing Two: Buckle cracking on Catholicism again. Funny, thought, that what to him is a criticism--saying that worship in Catholicism "is addressed mainly to the senses," is one of the great appeals of Catholicism to me. The ornate churches, the cathedral organ music, the incense...this promotes spiritual focus for me. There's also an implied crack against Catholics at the bottom of this picture which was cut off: it says, "Their untutored minds are easily captivated by the array of a numerous priesthood...." Catholicism appeals to the Untutored Mind. Well...I guess I'm going to have to fire my tutor, then.
Well, he had me here:
"Whenever a tendency arises to prefer what comes from without to what comes from within, and thus to aggrandize matter at the expense of mind, there will also be a tendency to believe that an institution which hampers our opinions is less hurtful than one which controls our acts."
But then he took it there:
"Precisely in the same way, men who reject the fundamental truths of religion, will care little for the extent to which those truths are perverted. Men who deny the existence of the Deity and the immortality of the soul, will take no heed of the way in which a gross and formal worship obscures those sublime doctrines. All the idolatry, all the ceremonials, all the pomp, all the dogmas, and all the traditions by which religion is retarded, will give them no disquietude, because they consider the opinions that are checked to be equally false with those that are favoured."
Well. It's pretty hard not to take that as an atomic strike on Catholicism...and perhaps against all religions. But then there's this:
"Among the inferior class of writers, Damilaville, Deleyre, Maréchal, Naigeon, Toussaint, were active supporters of that cold and gloomy dogma, which, in order to extinguish the hope of a future life, blots out from the mind of man the glorious instincts of his own immortality.[1025] And, strange to say, several even of the higher intellects were unable to escape the contagion."
So let's just say that Buckle has a complicated relationship with religion, but does seem to favor some form of it.
Something else which I found more than a bit disturbing were Buckle's summations of some of Helvétius's beliefs, to wit:
"As to friendship, the only use of it is to increase our pleasures or mitigate our pains; and it is with this object that a man longs to hold communion with his friend. Beyond this, life has nothing to offer. To love what is good for the sake of the goodness, is as impossible as to love what is bad for the sake of the evil. The mother who weeps for the loss of her child, is solely actuated by selfishness; she mourns because a pleasure is taken from her, and because she sees a void difficult to fill up. So it is, that the loftiest virtues, as well as the meanest vices, are equally caused by the pleasure we find in the exercise of them. This is the great mover and originator of all. Every thing that we have, and every thing that we are, we owe to the external world; nor is Man himself aught else except what he is made by the objects which surround him."
Well. I don't like that at all. Doesn't mean it's not true, though, does it?
In other Buckle News: a few words about my cardi♡l♡gist HERE.
So...is this true?
"...in every great epoch there is someone idea at work, which is more powerful than any other, and which shapes the events of the time and determines their ultimate issue."
Discuss. (Not too heatedly.)
If yes, what idea is at work in our Great Epoch? I have to admit that I'm a little frightened at the prospect of hearing the answer to that question.
Meanwhile...
Is it my imagination, or is Buckle anticipating What the Bleep Do We Know? here? Check this out:
I mean, SERiously...that's some wild ass quantum physics shit...about a century and a half before quantum physics existed. But Buckle was all about how various factors interacted to produce an effect. And in his theory of knowledge, he definitely is implying that all knowledge is essentially one...that it's just a matter of being smart enough to see the schema which connects all of the pieces. Pretty fuckin' awesome.
Oh, and here's a little more Asimov's Foundation for you:
Face it, True Believers, this one has it all!
And did I forget to mention, forget to mention Fallopian Tubes? Yes. There was a reference to a Fallopius in the text, and of course I had to look that one up. Found this on Wikipedia:
"Fallopius discovered the tubes that connect the ovaries to the uterus (now known as fallopian tubes) and several major nerves of the head and face."
So there you have it.
Also...I had another Buckle conversation today...this one with a pretty young girl who works at The Great Escape. She seemed very interested in it once I made a passing reference, and asked me lots of questions, including two queries reference the author's name, and I got the distinct impression that she might actually go looking for it. I am just a Johnny Fucking Appleseed of Buckle these days, eh?
Day 53: 4/6/19:
Some good stuff...including comments on dentistry (!)...but for today, just a picture of the bookmarked spot.
P.S. Oh, there was one thing I wanted to point out:
Especially that last bit. On the next page, he uses the metaphor of traveling briskly down the wrong road. It's not just about how hard you try, y'know. And that.
I was walking through The Mall with my friendgirl Pat today, and looked up to see
It is quite possible that I've walked under this sign hundreds of times without noticing it...in fact, if it was not a new sign...and I don't think it is, as there is no new store in this area...then I have indeed walked under it at least hundreds of times previously. Pat and I usually do at least three laps of the mall (3 miles, thanks), and we have been doing that at least once a week for a long time, so....
Which is funny, isn't it? (But not ha ha funny.) We move through this world, but how much of it penetrates our minds? (AKA "What's water?")
Meanwhile....
In my current state of mind, I have nothing to say about anything, so here's a picture of me reading with Jet:
Spain again. It's been Spain for a few days.
And some words of wisdom here which apply to us now just as well as they did to the Spanish folks back then: "...poverty caused ignorance; ignorance caused credulity; and credulity, depriving men both of the power and of the desire to investigate for themselves, encouraged a reverential spirit, and confirmed those submissive habits, and that blind obedience to the Church...."
Also yet another typo:
More about how shitty Spain was after its empire collapsed. Plus this little bit of Trump-y:
"Charles II...possessed nearly every defect which can make a man ridiculous and contemptible. His mind and his person were such as, in any nation less loyal than Spain, would have exposed him to universal derision."
Yep.
"No one inquired; no one doubted; no one presumed to ask if all this was right. The minds of men succumbed and were prostrate. While every other country was advancing, Spain alone was receding."
There is also a reference to how during the persecution of the Moors and the attempt to expel them from Spain that there was a policy that was suggested by the Archbishop of Valencia, who thought that children under 7 years of age need not share in the general banishment, but might, without danger to the faith, be separated from their parents, and kept in Spain." This "humane" idea was rejected however. A little later, Buckle tells us what happened to some of the Moors who were deported via ship:
"During the passage, the crew, on many of the ships, rose upon them, butchered the men, ravished the women, and threw the children into the sea."
Everything old is new again.
Day 60: 4/13/19:
"New and beautiful truths, conveyed in the clearest and most attractive language, could produce no effect upon men whose Minds were the most hardened and enslaved."
Yep.
Oh, and this cute li'l footnote:
I don't know about you, but I trust him.
Day 61: 4/14/19:
Oh, Spain, Spain, Spain.
Also, typo:
Day 62: 4/15/19:
More typos. This is quite disappointing. I thought people gave more of a shit about this kind of thing in 1894.
And I thought there was another one...
...but it turns out that "peculation" is actually a word.
But here's something much more significant...and by significant, I mean Does This Sound Like The Trump Administration Or What?
To quote Bob Dylan: "Wowee. Kinda scary."
And furthermore...
"Within a very few years, he neutralized the most valuable reforms which his predecessors had introduced. Having discarded the able advisors of his father, he conferred the highest posts upon men as narrow and incompetent as himself; he reduced the country to the verge of bankruptcy; and, according to the remark of a Spanish historian, exhausted all the resources of the state."
But on the hopeful (I think) side of the coin, there's this:
"Calamities may be inflicted by others; but no people can be degraded except by their own acts. The foreign spoiler works mischief; he cannot cause shame. With nations, as with individuals, none are dishonoured if they are true to themselves."
Day 63...aka The Last Day For Volume II!, or 4/16/19:
My my my, that went by SO quickly. Which is a thrill in one way, of course, but in another way not so much: I only have one more volume of Buckle's Major Work left to me. There's some consolation in knowing that I also have three volumes of Other Stuff...but it's not quite the same, is it? Sigh. That's the problem with scratching things off of your Bucket List: then they're no longer on your Bucket List.
You say you want a revolution? Well...so does Buckle:
Volume II ends with a long lament for Spain. Not a condescending one, but (methinks) a wistful one. Buckle seems to key in on the idea that over-reliance upon The Church is what ended Spain's development as a nation. He certainly makes a good case for it.
And with that...I move on to Volume III tomorrow. Made pretty short work of Volume II, I'd say: 30 days, 20 pages a day. I think I'll try to keep that pace for Volume III.
Two things:
Thing One: no relation.
Thing Two: Buckle cracking on Catholicism again. Funny, thought, that what to him is a criticism--saying that worship in Catholicism "is addressed mainly to the senses," is one of the great appeals of Catholicism to me. The ornate churches, the cathedral organ music, the incense...this promotes spiritual focus for me. There's also an implied crack against Catholics at the bottom of this picture which was cut off: it says, "Their untutored minds are easily captivated by the array of a numerous priesthood...." Catholicism appeals to the Untutored Mind. Well...I guess I'm going to have to fire my tutor, then.
 |
| 340 |
Day 51: 4/4/19:
"Whenever a tendency arises to prefer what comes from without to what comes from within, and thus to aggrandize matter at the expense of mind, there will also be a tendency to believe that an institution which hampers our opinions is less hurtful than one which controls our acts."
But then he took it there:
"Precisely in the same way, men who reject the fundamental truths of religion, will care little for the extent to which those truths are perverted. Men who deny the existence of the Deity and the immortality of the soul, will take no heed of the way in which a gross and formal worship obscures those sublime doctrines. All the idolatry, all the ceremonials, all the pomp, all the dogmas, and all the traditions by which religion is retarded, will give them no disquietude, because they consider the opinions that are checked to be equally false with those that are favoured."
Well. It's pretty hard not to take that as an atomic strike on Catholicism...and perhaps against all religions. But then there's this:
"Among the inferior class of writers, Damilaville, Deleyre, Maréchal, Naigeon, Toussaint, were active supporters of that cold and gloomy dogma, which, in order to extinguish the hope of a future life, blots out from the mind of man the glorious instincts of his own immortality.[1025] And, strange to say, several even of the higher intellects were unable to escape the contagion."
So let's just say that Buckle has a complicated relationship with religion, but does seem to favor some form of it.
Something else which I found more than a bit disturbing were Buckle's summations of some of Helvétius's beliefs, to wit:
"As to friendship, the only use of it is to increase our pleasures or mitigate our pains; and it is with this object that a man longs to hold communion with his friend. Beyond this, life has nothing to offer. To love what is good for the sake of the goodness, is as impossible as to love what is bad for the sake of the evil. The mother who weeps for the loss of her child, is solely actuated by selfishness; she mourns because a pleasure is taken from her, and because she sees a void difficult to fill up. So it is, that the loftiest virtues, as well as the meanest vices, are equally caused by the pleasure we find in the exercise of them. This is the great mover and originator of all. Every thing that we have, and every thing that we are, we owe to the external world; nor is Man himself aught else except what he is made by the objects which surround him."
Well. I don't like that at all. Doesn't mean it's not true, though, does it?
In other Buckle News: a few words about my cardi♡l♡gist HERE.
 |
| 360 |
Day 52: 4/5/19:
"...in every great epoch there is someone idea at work, which is more powerful than any other, and which shapes the events of the time and determines their ultimate issue."
Discuss. (Not too heatedly.)
If yes, what idea is at work in our Great Epoch? I have to admit that I'm a little frightened at the prospect of hearing the answer to that question.
Meanwhile...
Is it my imagination, or is Buckle anticipating What the Bleep Do We Know? here? Check this out:
I mean, SERiously...that's some wild ass quantum physics shit...about a century and a half before quantum physics existed. But Buckle was all about how various factors interacted to produce an effect. And in his theory of knowledge, he definitely is implying that all knowledge is essentially one...that it's just a matter of being smart enough to see the schema which connects all of the pieces. Pretty fuckin' awesome.
Oh, and here's a little more Asimov's Foundation for you:
Face it, True Believers, this one has it all!
And did I forget to mention, forget to mention Fallopian Tubes? Yes. There was a reference to a Fallopius in the text, and of course I had to look that one up. Found this on Wikipedia:
"Fallopius discovered the tubes that connect the ovaries to the uterus (now known as fallopian tubes) and several major nerves of the head and face."
So there you have it.
 |
| public domain |
Also...I had another Buckle conversation today...this one with a pretty young girl who works at The Great Escape. She seemed very interested in it once I made a passing reference, and asked me lots of questions, including two queries reference the author's name, and I got the distinct impression that she might actually go looking for it. I am just a Johnny Fucking Appleseed of Buckle these days, eh?
 |
| 380 |
Day 53: 4/6/19:
Some good stuff...including comments on dentistry (!)...but for today, just a picture of the bookmarked spot.
 |
| 400 |
P.S. Oh, there was one thing I wanted to point out:
Especially that last bit. On the next page, he uses the metaphor of traveling briskly down the wrong road. It's not just about how hard you try, y'know. And that.
Day 54: 4/7/19:
I was walking through The Mall with my friendgirl Pat today, and looked up to see
It is quite possible that I've walked under this sign hundreds of times without noticing it...in fact, if it was not a new sign...and I don't think it is, as there is no new store in this area...then I have indeed walked under it at least hundreds of times previously. Pat and I usually do at least three laps of the mall (3 miles, thanks), and we have been doing that at least once a week for a long time, so....
Which is funny, isn't it? (But not ha ha funny.) We move through this world, but how much of it penetrates our minds? (AKA "What's water?")
Meanwhile....
 |
| 420 |
Day 55: 4/8/19:
In my current state of mind, I have nothing to say about anything, so here's a picture of me reading with Jet:
 |
| 440 |
Day 56: 4/9/19:
Spain again. It's been Spain for a few days.
And some words of wisdom here which apply to us now just as well as they did to the Spanish folks back then: "...poverty caused ignorance; ignorance caused credulity; and credulity, depriving men both of the power and of the desire to investigate for themselves, encouraged a reverential spirit, and confirmed those submissive habits, and that blind obedience to the Church...."
Also yet another typo:
And once again the puzzlement is that this error seems to have been created for my 1894 edition, as Google Books shows copy from the 1861 edition which has a period after the word "begun."
Much more significant, though, is this:
"While Philip, following the course of his predecessors, was wasting the blood and treasure of Spain in order to propagate religious opinions, the people, instead of rebelling against so monstrous a system, acquiesced in it, and cordially sanctioned it. Indeed, they not only sanctioned it, but they almost worshipped the man by whom it was enforced. There probably never lived a prince who, during so long a period, and amid so many vicissitudes of fortune, was adored by his subjects as Philip II. was. In evil report and in good report, the Spaniards clung to him with unshaken loyalty. Their affection was not lessened, either by his reverses, or by his forbidding deportment, or by his cruelty, or by his grievous exactions. In spite of all, they loved him to the last. Such was his absurd arrogance, that he allowed none, not even the most powerful nobles, to address him except on their knees, and in return he only spoke in half sentences, leaving them to guess the rest, and to fulfil his commands as best they might. And ready enough they were to obey his slightest wishes. A contemporary of Philip, struck by the universal homage which he received, says that the Spanish did 'not merely love, not merely reverence, but absolutely adore him, and deem his commands so sacred, that they could not be violated without offence to God.'"
 |
| public domain* |
Holy shit...that is so true about Trump and his followers. Even to the bit about how Philip would only half say what he wanted. I remember Michael Cohen's testimony, wherein he said that Trump never said what he wanted you to do, but he always made sure that you knew exactly what it was.
There was also some stuff about how if the king used something, like a horse, that meant that nobody else could use it afterwards. And apparently this also applied to his mistresses. After Phil was through with them, they were expected to go join a convent. Literally. And when I read this, all I could think was, "This is why nobody gets upset about Trump's cheating on his wife. They see him as the king." And I can only conclude that for an American, to be rich is the equivalent of royalty. So why does Trump get away with all of the shit he gets away with?
Because he's royalty, man.
Because he's The American King.
Fuuuuuuck.
In happier news, here's another great footnote:
Yep, not only does Buckle quote himself...but he's quoting from the same volume that this footnote is written in. I think that even out-footnotes David Foster Wallace.
So...a pretty good day.
 |
| 460 |
* "And get this...his name is TIT-eon."
Day 57: 4/10/19:
More about how shitty Spain was after its empire collapsed. Plus this little bit of Trump-y:
"Charles II...possessed nearly every defect which can make a man ridiculous and contemptible. His mind and his person were such as, in any nation less loyal than Spain, would have exposed him to universal derision."
Yep.
 |
| 480 |
Day 58: 4/11/19:
"No one inquired; no one doubted; no one presumed to ask if all this was right. The minds of men succumbed and were prostrate. While every other country was advancing, Spain alone was receding."
There is also a reference to how during the persecution of the Moors and the attempt to expel them from Spain that there was a policy that was suggested by the Archbishop of Valencia, who thought that children under 7 years of age need not share in the general banishment, but might, without danger to the faith, be separated from their parents, and kept in Spain." This "humane" idea was rejected however. A little later, Buckle tells us what happened to some of the Moors who were deported via ship:
"During the passage, the crew, on many of the ships, rose upon them, butchered the men, ravished the women, and threw the children into the sea."
Everything old is new again.
 |
| 500 |
Day 59: 4/12/19:
The pain in Spain falls mainly in these pages.
The pain in Spain falls mainly in these pages.
 |
| 520 |
Day 60: 4/13/19:
"New and beautiful truths, conveyed in the clearest and most attractive language, could produce no effect upon men whose Minds were the most hardened and enslaved."
Yep.
Oh, and this cute li'l footnote:
I don't know about you, but I trust him.
 |
| 540 |
Oh, Spain, Spain, Spain.
Also, typo:
 |
| 560 |
Day 62: 4/15/19:
More typos. This is quite disappointing. I thought people gave more of a shit about this kind of thing in 1894.
And I thought there was another one...
...but it turns out that "peculation" is actually a word.
But here's something much more significant...and by significant, I mean Does This Sound Like The Trump Administration Or What?
To quote Bob Dylan: "Wowee. Kinda scary."
And furthermore...
"Within a very few years, he neutralized the most valuable reforms which his predecessors had introduced. Having discarded the able advisors of his father, he conferred the highest posts upon men as narrow and incompetent as himself; he reduced the country to the verge of bankruptcy; and, according to the remark of a Spanish historian, exhausted all the resources of the state."
But on the hopeful (I think) side of the coin, there's this:
"Calamities may be inflicted by others; but no people can be degraded except by their own acts. The foreign spoiler works mischief; he cannot cause shame. With nations, as with individuals, none are dishonoured if they are true to themselves."
 |
| 580 |
Day 63...aka The Last Day For Volume II!, or 4/16/19:
My my my, that went by SO quickly. Which is a thrill in one way, of course, but in another way not so much: I only have one more volume of Buckle's Major Work left to me. There's some consolation in knowing that I also have three volumes of Other Stuff...but it's not quite the same, is it? Sigh. That's the problem with scratching things off of your Bucket List: then they're no longer on your Bucket List.
You say you want a revolution? Well...so does Buckle:
Volume II ends with a long lament for Spain. Not a condescending one, but (methinks) a wistful one. Buckle seems to key in on the idea that over-reliance upon The Church is what ended Spain's development as a nation. He certainly makes a good case for it.
And with that...I move on to Volume III tomorrow. Made pretty short work of Volume II, I'd say: 30 days, 20 pages a day. I think I'll try to keep that pace for Volume III.
 |
| 597 |
and
Quick recap:
No comments:
Post a Comment