The Age of Conversation by Benedetta Craveri.

Benedetta Craveri examines the world of the French salon from its genesis. Beginning in 1618 (the exact date is unknown), Mme de Rambouillet first invited a select group of fellow aristocrats to her Blue Room, where they participated in an experiment: a social event where conversation reigned and would be developed into an art. This event may seem trivial to the serious student of evolving western history; but it created a blueprint of social interaction for the following generation of the Enlightenment. The salonnieres of that later generation would use this forum to educate themselves, elevate the importance of reason and begin the process of questioning traditional institutions. This questioning would result in the French Revolution.

The usefulness of Craveri’s work is that it elucidates the origins of the salon. Most discussions of this institution begin with the Enlightenment. They overlook that the act of taking ceremonial manners out of the king’s court, into a realm where aristocrats focused gallant respect upon each other, was an innovation. This change of focus marks the beginning of the public sphere that would eventually challenge monarchical domination of opinion.

As a feminist historian, the author illuminates important darkened areas in our knowledge regarding women and their contributions during the 15^th Century. The world of the salon was created and facilitated by women. This sphere evolved during a time when women were considered, by men, to be little more than a commodity traded between noble families. Women's predominance in this arena is a testament to the intelligence, ingenuity and independence, of individual noble ladies who invented a central role for themselves.

That said, I must reiterate that the Aristocratic Salon was not the Enlightenment Salon. By the beginning of the 15^th Century, the nobility of France had lost their position as defenders of the king’s realm to professional armies. No longer contributing knights and warriors to the monarch’s battles, this class was left to justify its indolent position by professing its inherent superiority over productive classes. Such a goal cannot be pursued without a heroic attitude of self-involvement and arrogance. This was a circle which “never tired” concerning “the idealized story of their own daily lives” (Craveri, p. 47). The salon provided an extension of this show. Since nobles were now holding court for each other, the rules of courtly conduct still applied. “Flattery…was essential to society. How could courtesy—and even more so gallantry—systematically embellish everyday life without the providential aid of a lie?” (Craveri, p. 346). While some discussions concerned the arts, it was more likely that romantic love, taste, friendship or decorum itself, would be the topic. Never, in such an environment, could a Cesare Beccaria tour the most important salons, as he did in the 1760s, discussing prison reform. Topics relating to social change, education and science, would have to wait almost 150 years to enter the conversation. Approximately two-thirds of the book focuses upon the Aristocratic Salon. An intrepid reader will need the qualities of thoroughly enjoying pageantry, finding amusement in the folly of self-important puffery or exercising immense patience. For the reader without such qualities, an avenue is open to her that was not open to this reviewer: she can develop her skimming talents.

Mercifully, the salon does evolve more useful functions over the next century-and-a-half which allow it to genuinely give voice to society. Inclusion of bourgeois writers and thinkers based on their merits, along with the elevation of reason, produces a milieu worthy of the term “Enlightenment.” The environment of Mme de Tencin’s salon typifies this change: “the priority given to intelligence made [social standing] irrelevant…participants…were concerned only with following the logic of their argument to its very end, whatever the outcome might be…the intellectual adventure destined to threaten the whole established order took off” (Craveri, p. 293). It is a shame that only one-third of the book’s space is given to the Enlightenment Salon. But for those wishing to follow (or substitute) Craveri’s study on the years of development with a more thorough examination of the latter period, I recommend Dena Goodman’s The Republic of Letters.

Craveri’s journey ends with a sad, circular irony: The aristocracy created the salon, in part, to display their superior courtesy and decorum. Such behavior provided a code for their Enlightenment successors to use in creating civil conversation on more controversial issues. These following discussions resulted in a determination that the nobility was the problem; resulting in a revolution which sent aristocrats to the guillotine. Professor Craveri closes with a paragraph from Hippolyte Taine's writing: “In prison, men and women would dress with care, pay each other visits, hold a salon…they would retain their dignity and their smiles; women particularly went to the scaffold with the ease and serenity with which they attended a soiree” (Craveri, p. 375). It is with this irony that noble conversation ended and the candles which had illuminated the evenings of the Aristocratic Salon were snuffed.

Craveri, Benedetta. The Age of Conversation. New York: New York Review Books, 2005.

Neanderthal Man by Savante Paabo

Svante Paabo is a scientist who created and led a research team that uses genetic information to uncover the human past. Among their achievements to date are: 1) Isolating the first fragments of Neanderthal DNA. 2) Mapping the Neanderthal genome (the first complete genome sequenced from an extinct form of human). 3) Showing that there is Neanderthal DNA in the Homo Sapien genome. 4) Identifying that the Denisova Cave remains (discovered by archaeologist Anatoly Derevianko) were of a previously unknown species of hominid. The work of this team, under Paabo’s leadership, confirms the merit of applying genetic science to our study of the human evolutionary past.

Neanderthal Man is a memoir, a lesson in applied genetics and an exciting tale of discovery. It follows the career of one of the most influential paleogeneticists, from his college years through the aforementioned discoveries. Paabo is aware that he is writing for scientists and laypeople alike. Professional information is explained in a clear, methodical manner. The author first lays the groundwork for understanding basic genetics. Paabo then explains how the most advanced technologies for extracting DNA work. He then describes how he and his team employed these technologies to isolate DNA from Neanderthal bones. For the non-scientist, the internet provides important elucidation. Whether one’s interest is in genetics, human evolution or, more generally, to broaden personal knowledge, Neanderthal Man will provide enriching information.

As a memoir, the book is surprisingly frank. Paabo discusses his opinions of his colleagues, his bisexuality, and his political maneuvering in the scientific community. Characterizations can be amusingly blunt: “In charge of the Vindija collection was Maja Paunovic, a woman of a certain age…friendly enough but understandably dour—no doubt aware that science had passed her by” (Paabo, pp. 77-78). The author unselfconsciously discusses getting drunk with fellow geneticists, fretting about other researchers publishing first, romantic relationships with both sexes, and influencing “distinguished colleagues” by taking “advantage of their vanity” (Paabo, p. 217). It is a refreshingly honest look at work and self.

General non-fiction and science readers crave information and understanding. Svante Paabo’s Neanderthal Man is the kind of book for which we wait. It is a unique tome of new information. The reader learns a great deal while observing the paleogeneticists making discoveries about DNA and humanity’s place in nature. For those whose desire is to learn, a story where talented scientists are advancing humanity’s knowledge is an absorbing read. It makes one feel optimistic about the abilities of our species.

Paabo, Svante. Neanderthal Man. New York: Basic Books, 2014.

History of Rome by Michael Grant.

Michael Grant’s History of Rome is as standard and scholarly a depiction on this subject as you will find anywhere. It is not highly original or challenging in its conclusions. But it is an interesting and easy read by a historian who mastered his topic and was a skilled, methodical writer. Using his consummate understanding and proficient writing ability, Grant leads the reader from the Etruscan Period through the fall of the Western Empire after the split between Rome and Constantinople. He accomplishes this task in approximately 500 pages. Given that such breadth of time is often covered in twenty volume enterprises, one must admire the author’s concision.

While the insights Grant offers are hardly original, they are beautifully expressed with all of the thoughtful complexity intended by the progenitors of these ideas:

“Hannibal was…one of the world’s most noble failures, an altogether exceptional man who took on, in deadly warfare, a nation empowered with rocklike resolution—and that nation proved too much for him. It emerged hardened from the supreme test, and ironically, his most lasting achievement was to confirm and magnify its confidence and power” (Grant, p. 127).

In a couple of short sentences, the historian conveys Hannibal’s character, Rome’s tenacity, and the fascinating paradox that Hannibal produced the opposite of his intention despite heroic efforts of genius.

One surprising feature of this book is the inadequacy of its endnotes. They exist primarily as a further discussion of events and issues; not as confirmation of the statements to which they refer. Sometimes, during the process of explication, Grant will reveal the name of an individual who is a source (as he does in discussion of the claim that Jesus was born earlier than 4 BC [Grant, p. 499]). But even in that instance, he does not tell the reader where he found that source. Most often, he simply offers no information to permit one to investigate his interpretation. It is understood that history is not a science. But the more evidence a work offers, the more accuracy it will contain. Statements and conclusions that are drawn from primary sources, and from the real science of archaeology, are the evidence of history. Notes are the documentation of that evidence. Without accurate documentation, historians cannot confirm or falsify each other’s findings. Consequently, it is impossible to tell how the writer arrived at a conclusion. Statements without evidence are no better than legend.

But this is the only major flaw in an otherwise exceptional synoptic history. It is a difficult task to present a brief account of an extensive time period, about which so much has been written. Among such projects, there is a tendency to over-generalize and present a bare-bones outline, leaving the reader without rich thought or detailed picture of life. Grant performs a superior service by elegantly balancing his subject’s flow and the Empire’s evolution, with instructive, personally relatable features in which history lives. If your goal is to obtain an overview of the Roman Empire, you could hardly do better than to pick-up this volume.

Grant, Michael. History of Rome. New York: History Book Club, 1997.

Louis Blanc. His Life and His Contribution to the Rise of French Jacobin-Socialism by Leo A. Loubere.

Most people outside of French institutions of higher learning know nothing about Louis Blanc. But during the 1848 Revolution, there was no more popular Frenchman in Paris. His books had educated a generation of rebels on the Republican-Socialist alternative to monarchy. As a result, organizers of that monarchy’s opposition and workers in the streets saw him as their leader. The politicized populace was fully willing to place him as leader without parliamentary due process. Indeed, on more than one occasion during those tumultuous days, they carried him on their shoulders (as he struggled to get down), with the intention of violently installing him as autocrat of the government. There was certainly precedent for this means of choosing leadership. Only 50 years earlier, Robespierre had attained supremacy using the power of the mob. But Blanc was not a demagogue. He resisted violent efforts to attain his goals. He thought that the combination of education and representational government would lead to the realization of democratic and socialist ideas he propounded in his writing.

Leo Loubere follows Blanc’s career from journalism and history-writing, through his involvement in the 1848 Revolution, to his later career and death. Permeating the entire chronology are the revolutionary’s ideas on state, republicanism, socialism and social conditions. Be prepared for some detailed political philosophy; this is not just a portrait of a life. It is also quite critical of Blanc’s thoughts and actions. Saliently, his thoughts on violence are self-contradicting. While Blanc clearly states that “a cause…which must dip its hands in blood…can only retard the forward thrust of progress” (Loubere, p. 48), he supports war against Britain, rationalizing that for economic reasons “either France must perish, or England be erased from the map” (Loubere, p. 52). Politically progressive readers may be disappointed that Blanc repudiates the Paris Commune for its establishment through violent rebellion; but when the troops kill 20,000 communards, Blanc is silent (Loubere, p. 197).

Loubere has inimical tendency to perseverate upon sectarian political divisions within 19^th Century France. This grinding proclivity dominates chapters 17 and 18, which lead-up to a final whimper on Blanc’s death and legacy. The only consolation to this weak ending is that these chapters comprise 32 short pages, so are quickly dispatched (or skimmed based upon the reader’s preference).

By the author’s admission, “Blanc was not a particularly effective leader” (Loubere, p. 162). He possessed neither the personal opportunism nor the strategic skill to create a lasting legacy. His gifts were those of a teacher, propagandist and thinker. As the biographies of Socrates and Marx show, such people are not remembered unless there is an intrepid student or following to carry-forth their projects. So outside of French academia, Louis Blanc is a forgotten footnote in history.

Loubere, Leo A. Louis Blanc. His Life and His Contribution to the Rise of French Jacobin-Socialism. Westport: Greenwood Press, Publishers, 1980.

A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn.

According to Howard Zinn, most of what we are taught about history is “told from the point of view of governments, conquerors, diplomats and leaders” (Zinn, p. 9). He contends that selection, simplification and emphasis, are inevitable distortions; choices that must be made in order to tell a cogent story. But, “the historian’s distortion is more than technical, it is ideological” and “any chosen emphasis supports (whether the historian means to or not) some kind of interest, whether economic or political or racial or national or sexual” (Zinn, p. 8). Given this view, Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States is an attempt to add the viewpoints of those most often left out of historical narratives. He tells the landing of Columbus from the perspective of the Arawaks, the Civil War from the perspective of the slaves, the rise of industrialism from the perspective of the workers, the opeerations of government from the perspective of the women ignored by it, and the wars from the perspective of those who favored peace.

The writing in this book is plain, without being simple-minded. Because of the overwhelming task the historian has set for himself, he relies upon the linked stories of individuals and events to present broad movements and subcultures. “It was January, midwinter, when the pay envelopes distributed to weavers at one of the mills…showed that their wages, already too low to feed their families, had been reduced. They stopped their looms and walked out of the mill…soon 10,000 workers were on strike…the IWW organized mass meetings and parades…the governor ordered out the state police. A parade of strikers was attacked by police…this lead to rioting all that day…a striker, Anna LoPizzo, was shot and killed. Witnesses said a policeman did it, but the authorities arrested Joseph Ettor and another IWW organizer…Neither was at the scene of the shooting.” (Zinn, pp. 327-8). His images are clear and evocative, pitting the common people against a wealthy owner class and the government that supports their interests.

Zinn admits that “a ‘people’s history’ promises more than any one person can fulfill” and that “it is a history disrespectful of governments and respectful of people’s movements of resistance.” He explains this “makes it a biased account, one that leans in a certain direction. I am not troubled by that, because the mountain of history books under which we all stand leans so heavily in the other direction—so tremblingly respectful of states and statesmen and so disrespectful, by inattention, to people’s movements—that we need some counterforce to avoid being crushed into submission” (Zinn, p. 570).

There is an underlying political science theory that drives Zinn’s narrative: the historian straightforwardly expresses that he sees our government as created by wealthy elites to support their interests, and that it has been safeguarding those interests ever since. He puts forth the idea that most governments are interested in maintaining stability and will relinquish power and rights just enough to prevent rebellion from below. Concurring with Karl Marx, Professor Zinn describes our capitalist state as “pretending neutrality to maintain order, but serving the interests of the rich” (Zinn, p. 252).   At times, the historian’s self-proclaimed “bias” and “distortion” leads to distorted conclusions. Chapter Sixteen, “A People’s War?” is an artless and comically unconvincing attempt to challenge the notion that World War II was not popular among the US masses and undemocratically foisted upon them. Conversely, in the same chapter, he presents China’s communist government as “the closest thing, in the long history of that ancient country, to a people’s government” (Zinn, p. 418). Perhaps compared to China’s dynasties, Mao’s regime was closer to “a people’s government;” but it was still a dictatorship with re-education camps and prisons for those who disagreed. It appears doctrinaire to attack the capitalist state for being in the hands of an elite minority while extolling the virtues of a dictatorship in the following paragraph. But such juxtapositions are rare for Zinn, and his version of our history presents consistent evidence of State collusion with wealthy elites to maintain stability in a system which benefits their association.

Whether or not the reader agrees with Professor Zinn’s political paradigm, there is a great deal to learn from his topics. A People’s History of the United States provides significant puzzle pieces to our picture of the past. It is uniquely compiled and sensitively reveals the paths of the disenfranchised through our nation’s evolution. He focuses upon groups that are under-represented in our government and under-represented in the discussion of our past. Their stories are the stories of the rest of us: immigrants, activists, minorities, women and workers. People who influenced the evolution of our country and without whom neither our nation nor our history is complete.

Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1980.

Jeb Bush Outed by Stephen L. Goldstein.

Stephen L. Goldstein is a fire-breathing liberal. Between 1999 and 2014, he was the sole progressive columnist of the South Florida Sun Sentinel; a conservative newspaper in a conservative state. During those years, he was the target of every former student, from one of the worst public school systems in America, who could hold a crayon and scrawl an insult. For fifteen years, Goldstein pounded-out strident, unapologetically liberal columns, that were read by a seething, barely literate mob; until a new, faint-hearted editor asked him to write local “happy news” minus political content. At that, Goldstein took his computer to the developing contextflorida.com.

Jeb Bush took the oath of office as Florida’s Governor the same year that Goldstein started at The Sentinel. This book is a compilation of articles pertaining to Bush’s performance, seen through a liberal-progressive lens. But, partisan polemics aside, Jeb Bush Outed offers insight concerning the former governor’s true agenda. Bush has been posturing as a moderate Republican. However, people (especially politicians) are far more how they act in the world, rather than what they say about themselves. Here are some of Bush’s actions as Governor:

*In 2003, Jeb Bush had state troopers remove a brain-dead Terri Schiavo from her hospice where her body would be kept functioning on life support. Against the wishes of her husband, Terri was transferred to a rehab facility where her feeding tube was reinserted. This state interference in a legally private family decision, backed by Bush’s anti-Choice supporters, was later defeated in court and Terri was permitted to die. (Goldstein, p. 28).

*In 2003, Bush used state tax dollars to fund the nation’s first “faith-based prison,” violating the separation of church and state. (Goldstein, p. 55).

*Bush repeatedly pushed for a school voucher program that would have given tax dollars to religious schools. The Florida Supreme Court repeatedly disallowed this measure as unconstitutional. (Goldstein, p. 52).

*In 1997, before becoming Governor, Bush signed the “Statement of Principles” created by the neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC). This document encourages the US to fight wars against governments that do not conform to a conservative agenda. (Goldstein, p. 23).

*As part of his conservative foreign policy, Bush spoke as Governor in favor of strengthening the embargo against Cuba. (Goldstein, p. 24).

*In alignment with his anti-Choice beliefs, Bush opposed stem cell research (Goldstein, p. 12).

*Goldstein cites examples where Bush managed the State Treasury by refusing to cut property taxes and middle-class income taxes, while simultaneously funneling those tax dollars to large corporations. (Goldstein, pp 135-163).

However one may feel about Goldstein’s writing, the citations speak for themselves: Bush is not a moderate in his social, fiscal or foreign policy agendas.

A cautionary note: There are different intentions in reading between someone who picks-up a fourth-grade level conservative paper in Florida to scrutinize and react to the words of a liberal columnist, and someone who is so enthusiastic about learning that they peruse non-fiction book reviews to determine what they’d like to learn next. Goldstein was aware of his readers. His style is less contemplative than combative. His patter is a mix of sarcastic humor and blunt liberal agenda. Examples: “Are you up for more war—a lot of it? More invasions of sovereign nations like Iraq…More trillions spent protecting Halliburton’s profit?”  (Goldstein, p. 23). And “The Tallahassee Taliban are at it again: faith-based finagling with your tax money” (Goldstein, p. 51). There is no subtlety or compromise in Stephen Goldstein’s prose. His articles were aimed at a public that was at best apathetic and at worst reactionary, who appeared to him as incapable of making intelligent choices. After all, they elected Jeb Bush twice. Facing such an audience, Goldstein’s manner is not so much a cry in the wilderness as it is a scream.

For the balanced examiner of non-fiction book reviews, these articles offer a learning opportunity on two levels. First, they provide a record of Bush’s performance as Governor that slices through his election-year claims to moderate Republicanism. Second, the book is its own dramatic sociological study of how a liberal writer battled a marginally-educated, conservative audience.

Goldstein, Stephen L. Jeb Bush Outed. Ashland: Grid Press, 2015.

Why Marriage Equality Won.

The myth about the Supreme Court is that it impartially interprets the Constitution despite political pressure and public opinion. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The justices are a part of our society and are as influenced cultural change and political pressure as you or I.

The influence of cultural change is nowhere better illustrated than in the Supreme Court's sodomy rulings of 1986 and 2003. In Bowers vs Hardwick (1986), the Court upheld, in a 5-4 ruling, the constitutionality of Georgia’s sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults when applied to gay men and lesbians. In Lawrence vs Texas (2003), the court struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws across the nation. What happened to the court in the intervening 17 years? It certainly did not become more liberal. The 1986 Burger Court was more judicially liberal than the 2003 Rhenquist court. What changed was the culture and its values. People felt that state and federal governments had no business in their bedrooms, and had become more accepting of  the LGBT community.

In addition to cultural change, there was political pressure. The Supreme Court has a stated role: to interpret laws according to the Constitution. But it also has an unstated role: to maintain stability. To make sure that society remains ordered and calm; to ensure that the rule of law prevails and the legitimacy of the government is upheld. If the population moves towards liberty, and it is too far ahead of the courts, there is a danger of instability and disobedience on the part of the people, which would undermine that legitimacy and authority. So, in terms of Civil Rights, these authorities are consistently seeing where they can stand firm on the way things have always been and where they must accommodate the public will. For instance, in the African American civil rights struggle against Jim Crow laws, the Supreme Court largely remained on the sidelines between the mid-1800s and the mid-1900s. When they did step-in, it was to maintain the current order. In their 1886 Plessy vs Ferguson ruling, the courts upheld that separate but equal facilities were constitutional. They only began ruling against racial segregation laws when there was a movement of African Americans prominent enough to challenge that status quo. It wasn’t until 1954, in the atmosphere of a healthy Civil Rights Movement, that the courts overturned Plessy, in Brown vs Board of Education. Legal change favoring liberty does not happen unless there is a concerted effort by a large enough population advocating for their freedom.

So why did Same Sex Marriage win? It was a historic combination of cultural change and political pressure. The Justices, as people in our society, were influenced by our changing mores. No one who heard or read Kennedy’s majority opinion, could doubt that he is the product of an environment that accepts and upholds the dignity of people of the same sex seeking marriage rights. But the additional political pressure of a popular movement, backed by the 60% of the US populace who favor marriage equality, made it clear to the Supreme Court that the road to stability lay in supporting LGBT marriage rights. This ruling is a testament to a people willing to grow in liberty and a movement persistent in its goals.