The title is a little deceptive. In fact, this book is mostly about Chaucer and his era, 220 pages worth. Stevenson gets a fair shake at 106 pages. But Carlyle gets only 12 pages, and Tolstoy only four, and those a rather simplistic critique of his philosophy. So only buy the book if you're interested in the former two writers.

As in most of Chesterton's biographies, the story of the subject's life is of minor interest here, compared to a philosophical and artistic description of the subject's works in the context of his time and "modern times." Chesterton is interested in the writer as a thinker, as a creator, and as a moral agent. In defending Stevenson and Chaucer, he argues for his view of Christianity, poetry, love, and artistic humility. If you want his religious views in a purer form, go to the brilliant Orthodoxy or Everlasting Man. If you want a detailed narration of the lives of the writers in question, look elsewhere. And even for this style of biography, I think his book on Dickens was the best I've read. But I found his opinionated description and defense of Chaucer and his times also very interesting. And while he does not scatter brilliant sayings like rose petals at a wedding, as in his best books, (reading Everlasting Man, I wanted to copy every other sentence) a few blossoms do flutter down, like the following, which also explain Chesterton's method:

"The truly impartial historian is not he who is enthusiastic for neither side in a historical struggle. . .The truly impartial historian is he who is enthusiastic for both sides. He holds in his heart a hundred fanaticisms."

"The greatest poets of the world have a certain serenity, because they have not bothered to invent a small philosophy, but have rather inherited a large philosophy. It is, nine times out of ten, a philosophy which very great men share with very ordinary men. It is therefore not a theory which attracts attention as a theory."

Author, Jesus and the Religions of Man (July 2000)

d.marshall@sun.ac.jp

G.K. Chesterton, best known for his Father Brown detective stories, also stands out as a remarkable literary critic. He is most astute on Stevenson, his greatest influence, rightly seeing him as the first great writer to find beauty in a modern city. A must!

Six lectures delivered by Carlyle in 1840. He classifies six kinds of heroes: as Divinity (Wotan, paganism); Prophet (Mohamed); Poet (Dante, Shakespeare); Priest (Luther, Knox); Man of Letters (Johnson, Rousseau, Burns); and Ruler (Cromwell, Napoleon). The trait that defines a hero is: absolute sincerity and firm belief in his principles.

In his highly rhetorical lectures, Carlyle highlights and reinforces the role of the individual in the social process, as opposed to the role of the masses. And he did that precisely when the foundations were being laid for the most influential "pro-mass" movement in History: Marxism. The tragedy of Marxism, at least one of them all, is that, when translated into action, the blind masses were also led by "heroes" of the most authocratic sort. Not properly the work of an historian, these lectures are vivid, inflamed and enthusiast. Their uselfuness for our present age is precisely that they remind us of the crucial role significant individuals play in history, to accelerate or slow down (and even reverse) the process of social change, which is usually more gradual, diffused, and diverse.

Carlyle is not properly a historian or a philosopher, but a moralist, a fervent admirer of excellence, and a prose-poet of the first rank. Six meditations deal respectively of the hero as: Divinity, Prophet, Poet, Priest, Man of Letters, and King. If this book can't rightly be shelved with philosophy or history, it belongs in Literature with a capital "L," and Poetry. Carlylye loved the English Language and used it masterfully, energetically, and reverentially, without a trace of the trivial overindulgence of self-conscious and self-absorbed "poets."

This is an extraordinary work, let modern liberal critics say what they will of their 'mass movements' and 'diversity'. Long after they and their productions have bitten the dust, Carlyle will continue to speak to the enlightened few, and perhaps one day, it is to be hoped, to the enlightened many.

This work is much more than just a study of various influential men in history. Carlyle has very interesting notions of the historical process itself, the spread of religions and their demise, the importance of "true belief" in things, as opposed the unbelief that merely follows rituals and procedures. For Carlyle, true belief, is the beginning of morality, all success, all good things in this world; Unbelief, scepticism, the beginning of all corruption, quackery, falsehood.Unbelief, for instance, is at the root of all materialist philosophies, eg Utilitarianism which find human beings to be nothing more than clever, pleasure-seeking bipeds. It is also at the root of all democratic theories: faith in a democratic system means despair of finding an honest man to lead us.

Whether one agrees with Carlyle or not in his appraisal of democratic and other systems, one must admit, at least, that very little good is to be gotten from "the checking and balancing of greedy knaveries." If we have no honest men in government or in business, but only a bunch of self-interested quacks, then we cannot expect any system, however ingenious, to save us. Even the most skilled architect will not be able to construct a great building, if you give him only hollow, cracked bricks to build it with. Find your honest men, says Carlyle, and get them into the positions of influence; only then will it be well with you.

Are you already extremely knowledgeable about the French Revolution, with a detailed memory of all events and individuals involved? Are you uninterested in what has been said about the French Revolution in this century or the last? Did you find other 19th century accounts of the Revolution (e.g. those by Guizot, Michelet, Tocqueville, Mill) too easy to follow? Do you prefer a pretentious, self-important, and overly ornate literary style that calls attention to its own artfulness to one that is simple and direct? Do you like pretentious authors who assume that you're more interested in seeing them display their verbal wit than in learning anything about the subject they're purportedly writing about? Well then, Thomas Carlyle's history of the French Revolution may be the book for you!

I am, of course, being somewhat tongue-in-cheek here... Thomas Carlyle was one of Victorian Britain's great writers. He's an important historical figure and his prose style is unique, distinctive, and is in many ways, quite beautiful and poetic. Yet, the fact remains that those who are not already familiar with Carlyle should be wary-- very, very wary-- of picking this book up.

There are several reasons for this. First, the fact of the matter is that Carlyle's 'history' is not history as we might think of itThere is little/nothing in the way of exposition or explanation in the sense of laying out 'what happened' or 'who was involved'. Rather, this book is written from the premise that the readers are already familiar with all the facts and details of the Revolution and are more interested in reading an artful, witty, and clever 'retelling' of it. Individuals and events are alluded to vaguely, metaphorically, with the expectation that the reader knows all of this already like the back of his/her hand. When you read something like, "With Rumor unleashed, She flies from De Berry! That Scarlet Woman!", you're expected to already know who's being talked about and to know pretty much everything there is to know what it is that's being alluded to... Carlyle, you see, doesn't explain, or introduce, or contextualize... and you don't read Carlyle for explanation or introduction or contextualization. Rather, you're supposed to already be informed-- and then to read him for the sheer pleasure of his witty wordplay and to nod appreciatively at it. But if you're not already familiar with the persons and events of the Revolution-- you'll quickly find yourself unable to understand anything and will just be lost.

Nor can one consider Carlyle's _The French Revolution_ to be a scholarly study. The man *was* extremely learned of course-- he knew his stuff. But he's not really advancing an argument or thesis about the Revolution or why it happened... the sorts of things academic scholars dispute. He does wax abstractly on occasion, but not to make general claims about the Revolution (or even history in general), but rather to make vague interjections on obscure metaphysical matters (largely derived from German idealist philosophy... and again, these are unexplained... you're expected to already be familiar with thus stuff).

Finally, there the matter of Carlyle's style. As noted above, it's highly poetic and possesses a kind of ornate (if pretentious) beauty that can be appreciated in small doses. Yet, the fact remains that his peculiar mannerisms (including unnecessary capitalization, archaic and pompous turns of phrase, incomplete sentences followed by exclamation points, the constant use of the present tense even though he's writing about the past, apostrophic asides, etc.) become extremely annoying to read after more than a few pages. At best, it's an acquired taste... and personally, I'm not sure that there are many folks around today who will find the effort spent in acquiring the taste to be worthwhile.

In sum.... don't get this book hoping to learn anything about the French Revolution. Only get this book if you want to read Carlyle for the sake of reading Carlyle. Put otherwise, don't get this if you want to read a work of history about the French Revolution-- you'll be wholly disappointed. The only reason to get it, in fact, is for its value as an example of Carlyle's unique and self-indulgent literary style.

Thomas Carlyle's unique poetic style of prose may be tough to take early on, but after a few pages, it does grow on you. It's all overly dramatic and sensational, but what subject could be more so than the French Revolution itself? Carlyle paints a grim description of the complete and utter chaos of the times, particulary the Great Terror of mid-1794. He does, however, remain somewhat non-judgemental regarding the Revolution's key figures, and lets the readers sort out for themselves who the real culprits are. He may over-simplify the obvious at certain junctures in the book, but his style is riveting and as this shocking and dismal tale of woe continues, the reader is further drawn into a daze and trance similar to the Terror's unfortunate victims.
Some have suggested that it's better to read a "normal" history of the French Revolution before one undertakes this famous volume. I disagree. This is as good a place to start as any concerning that most volatile of times. Simply put, Carlyle's "French Revolution" is both informative and exciting, and it has held up well since it was first published in 1837.

The authors of the previous review were too harsh on the text - it isn't a mere display of literary muscle turned lightly to the French Revolution, it's an interesting take on the subject from a penetrating mind.

The other reviews saying "Don't read this if you don't know everything about the revolution" seem a little bit silly to me having read it - if you know nothing about French history and the revolution, ok, you might have some difficulties. But if you have even a rough view of the revolution (from a textbook chapter, short article, almost anything) you won't be lost. Once or twice one might be forced to read back or do a tiny bit of side-reading to get a colourful 19th century reference, but it isn't nearly as oblique as the first reviewer made out.

The style is not difficult to read, considering the date, and the narration is often captivating or amusing. The individual, literary portraiture of historical figures is unique and valuable to me in building a kind of familiarity with events, however cautiously. And the claim that it isn't "historically" written by modern standards - perhaps the reviewer was too busy composing clever jabs to note the date of writing? If you want Francois Furet, read Francois Furet, but Thomas Carlyle unfortunately didn't have the benefit of 20th century developments in historical methods.

This is it, it is very illustrous book with a lot of detais, facts, names, relations and so on. Highly recommended to anyone who likes Scandinavia, Norway, Sweden, Vikings and middle ages.

There is no more comprehensive study in English of the life of Frederick II of Prussia. Carlyle spent over 15 years researching and writing this work during the mid-19th Century, and it pays off for the reader in the form of an absolute bonanza of details about arguably the most influential European prince of the 18th Century.

The strength of the work lies in the fact that no detail is too small to be excluded. Whether it is the three pages Carlyle devotes to Frederick's initiation into the Freemasons or the volumes devoted to his conduct during the Seven Year's War, if Carlyle doesn't describe it, one is left with the feeling that it probably didn't happen. Carlyle doesn't even let you at the subject of the work for the first 250 pages or so while he sets the stage for Frederick's life.

The biggest weaknesses of the work are the labored, Dickensian prose, and its length. This is not a piece that many readers will get through in a matter of weeks-- this reader needed two years to make it through a casual reading. Frederick fans may like the favorable treatment of the subject in general, but some of the praise heaped on Frederick does seem a bit much at times. Carlyle also tends to see issues in black and white, and seems hard pressed to refrain from ridiculing some of Frederick's contemporaries.

Overall, this book is an invaluable resource to those interested in Frederick II, and practically eliminates the need for the armchair historian who wishes to know more about the man and his times to brush up on his or her French and German.

John Sterling (1806-44) led a short, but fascinating life in early 19th century Britain. John's father was a well-known editorialist for the Times, and he himself became a member of the Apostles at Cambridge during a time of great intellectual and religious ferment. He became a radical in the cause of freedom, while he later became an Anglican curate and then an author. Plagued by ill health, he traveled around the world of his era: to the Caribbean, Madeira, France, and Italy. And, along life's paths, he rubbed shoulders with the likes of Thomas Carlyle and Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Overall, he was a man of varied abilities, and varied pursuits.

This book is quite interesting. Carlyle not only paints the portrait of a man in this book, he also paints the portrait of an era. If you are interested in that era, or perhaps in Coleridge, then I highly recommend this book to you. It is relatively short, and yet quite interesting.

I would recommend this book to some students of veterinary science and veterinary pathology, but it is hard to keep pace with such a rapidly changing field - and in some sections, this book hasn't even tried. Glaring errors and out of date references are present in some sections (e.g. the section on Swine Influenza does not mention the zoonotic potential of the virus or its presence in avian species). Other sections contain information and figures which are hard to obtain elsewhere. Use this book - but with caution.

I would like to recommend this book to any vet students who wish to buy this book. This book may be a little heavy to carry around but the it's good as a back-up reference book. The explanation on the topic of inflammation and neoplasia is good and to the point. On inflammation, it's divided to the groups of inflammation and and in the topic of neoplasia differentiates benign and malignant tumours very detail. I like this this.

One of Victorian culture's greatest and most original writers was overdue a new biography. Simon Heffer gives us a readble and lively version of his life, but in the end does little to make Carlyle's work live for modern readers. I suspect that Heffer is really too sympathetic to Carlyle's late, ranting writings to re-think their significance. Instead he just wants to make excuses. It's a very great pity, because Carlyle is certainly a genius. His greatest works - like 'Sartor Resartus' - are unique, a wonderful kaleidescope of ideas and images written in his dazzlingly fractured prose. In a Victorian context he was certainly a racist, but the multiple sources of his thought, and his jumbled cross-language sentences give us a far better idea of what 'multi-ethnic' culture could be than a bag full of post-modern post-colonial theorists.

I enjoy learning about history and thought this book would be a good way to test the things I've learned and maybe learn some new stuff. However, this book is a very bad example of a history test. All the questions are multiple choice with almost no explanations for the answers. So forget about learning any new stuff with this book. Also I noticed a typo (or maybe just an incorrect answer to a question). The question was to put Henry VIII's wifes in order from the 1st one he married to the last. This book has Henry marrying Anne of Cleves before Jane Seymore, which obviously is incorrect. This error made me wonder whether there were other incorrect answers in this book. My opinion is definatly to pass on this book because its not at all what it seems.