Romanticism Books

French philosopher Paul d'Holbach (1723-1789) was remarkable in that he eloquently and systematically attacked religion with an intellectual vehemence not seen before or during his time. Unlike earlier scholars such as Machiavelli or Hobbes, where their anti-religious prose was quite subtle (and it is still debated whether either man was an atheist), d'Holbach was very clear about his disdain for the church and its effect upon mankind.

The Christian church was powerful and barbaric during the Eighteenth century, and criticism was not taken lightly. Paul d'Holbach wrote under pseudonyms to protect his identity, for as he observed:

"It is thus, that for opinions which no man can demonstrate, we see the Brahmin despised; the Mohammedan hated; the Pagan held in contempt; and that they oppress and disdain each other with the most rancorous animosity: the Christian burns the Jew because he clings to the faith of his fathers; the Roman Catholic condemns the Protestant to the flames, and makes a conscience of massacring him in cold blood; this reacts in his turn; again the various sects of Christians have leagued together against the incredulous, and for a moment suspended their own bloody disputes, that they might chastise their enemies: then, having glutted their revenge, they returned with redoubled fury to wreak over again their infuriated vengeance on each other."

In some ways, d'Holbach's ardent belief that religion caused immeasurable harm to humanity overshadowed his other ideas. He was an evolutionist, and suggested that the largest of animals may have originally evolved from microscopic life-forms. He was a determinist, during an age when "God" was treated as the only ultimate cause. His observations on the behaviour of other creatures led him to imbue nature with the intent and mastery normally reserved for mystical deities; unfortunately, he was also an Empiricist, and so was unable to adopt a pantheistic perspective, and hence his arguments regarding nature were frequently contradictory or circular.

Paul d'Holbach's treatment of religion in his "System of Nature" is a classic in atheistic literature. Drawing upon his exceptional knowledge of early and ancient texts, and noteworthy understanding of the nuances of the Christian faith, he was able to demonstrate through logic and ethics that the traditional perception of God is completely unworkable. To this day, his arguments cannot be repudiated.

This is the first and last Atheistic work. All other Atheistic treatises are mere footnotes to D' Holbach's, Good Sense and System Of Nature. While it can be very vitriolic and redundant at times, the arguments overturn every stone in the Theist/Atheist debate.

On a theological scale of 1-5, 1 being Christian Theism and 5 being Atheism, I find myself at 4, a Pantheist/Panendeist, hence my rating.

la ignorancia creo a Dios la fantasia le atribuyó poderes..........

What impresses me the most is how firm, consistent, and bold d'Holbach was in holding certain opinions which at the time were shocking to (most of the) learned and unintelligible to (almost all the) unlearned. This guy was not just smart - he had guts, knew he was right, stuck to his guns, and never wavered.

D'Holbach did not write for fame (he wrote anonymously, for his neck's sake) or for money (he was very rich by inheritance), but for truth.

D'Holbach would have been pleased to know that Einstein was also a strict determinist like him, that Francis Crick was also a materialist like him (believing matter is all there is and rejecting "the soul", "mind-brain dualism" and similar nonsense), and that atheism is no longer a radical thing (to put it mildly), especially among the educated. Most natural scientists are now atheists. D'Holbach's utilitarianism would find wide appeal in this democratic age. If alive today, d'Holbach would be in good company among some of the greatest minds of the world.

But even in this day and age, there are scientists, of all people, who believe otherwise! (E.g., Freeman Dyson, who belives in free will, John Eccles, who believed in mind-body dualism, and John Polkinghorne, the mathematical physicist who is also a priest in the Church of England.) And so d'Holbach's book is still a pleasure to read - and much needed. But if the objective reality of nature revealed by science hasn't convinced you by now of d'Holbach's point of view, this book isn't going to convince you either. Those who come to read it are (like me) probably already converted by other means.

Incidentally, I'd add that d'Holbach showed pretty sound judgments about other matters. He speculated that the human species might have arrived by evolutionary stages, long before Charles Darwin proved this to be the case. (And it would be a few years after d'Holbach's death in 1789 that Erasmus Darwin first hinted at evolution.) Also, when discussing how small events can give rise to very big events d'Holbach made an incredibly prescient guess about Napoleon's birth. D'Holbach also showed he understood men when he warned the normally clever Hume (who was 12 years his senior) about Rousseau's character.

Baron d'Holbach was wisdom personified.

Baron d'Holbach shows us how remarkably far Enlightenment philosophy had reached in finding reasonable theories for the cause and the nature of existance. His rationalism demonstrates that the existance of a god is not necessary for the world's existance. It would be a clear example of circular reasoning is someone were to assert a god is indeed necessary for the existance of all things; a god would also need a first cause of existance. Exposing this flaw of reasoning (still in practice amongst relgious groups!) d'Holbach shows in his The System of Nature that existance, and thus the universe, is a combination of causes and consequences, of mechanics.
D'Holbach's phenomenal knowledge of nature and his analytical way of reasoning do not only demonstrate that Enlightenment thinking had reached very far; it also shows that these brave philosophers (the men who gathered at D'Holbach's salon) already declared atheism to be true, when no one knew something about the evolution theory, which was to finally expel religion from science's turf.
The western world ows a lot to D'Holbach; a man who could not publish his work under his own name, as the king of France would have him executed on charges of blasphemy.
Adducing the non-existance of a Creator by means of scientific evidence can hardly be called blasphemy; how could you blaspheme about something that does not exist? Fortunately, also, D'Holbach's freethinking, along with that of American and British rationalists, opened the way to freedom of speech and inquiry that we currently enjoy in modern states.
mrbas_26@hotmail.com

A worthy addition to the Introducing... series.

There are people who think of such a book as a glorified comic book. You know, little graphics on every page to make a point. Actually, I felt that way when I first saw this text. But, then, I found philosophy too boring a subject to take seriously when I was in college. In fact, I'm still somewhat amazed that "philosophers" have as much influence as they do.

But romanticism has interested me. It's, what, unenlightened? So I got this little gem.

There's a surprising wealth of information in this book, enough that it has induced me to buy a few other philosophy books (something I said twenty years ago that I'd never do!) Lots of names, how the romanticists of various nationalities were motivated (I found the Germans particularly interesting, maybe because I've been someone interested in Schopenhauer and Kant over the years).

Don't be put off by the graphics. They are effective at adding more substance than a paragraph or two can cover. And they're simple but well done.

The bulk of the text covered European romanticism, so I wondered where's the American breed of that animal. The final portion of the book didn't let me down. It covered the likes of Thoreau, Walt Whitman, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and others, all of them characteristic American romanticists.

Most of us are "lay persons" with respect to philosophy as a discipline. This book will at least introduce us to the roots of romanticism, even to its critics. And, among the things I learned from it is that there is not a black and white break between romanticism and its compatriots. Some European romanticists, for example, were closer to postmodernist, according to the authors, and others claimed to be "Neoclassisist," apparently pre-evolved romanticists. So where one ends and the other begins isn't as clear as, frankly, I wish it were (so I could define them all more clearly!

It's such a good read that I bought the book on Postmodernism from the same series! Expect to see names you've never seen before, but read it!

Very possibly one of the best intros to the subject of Romanticism ever written. Full of info, and insight, the book covers the high and lows of the movement that influenced Napoleon, Beethoven, Kant, etc. Sweeping thru several countries, and numerous art forms, including music, literature, and theatre. One is introduced to the high wire tension of the Romantic, forever trapped between the Unreal (primal nature) and the Real (Civilization).

I have no idea how authority will speak of this book, but me, as a curious reader with interests in all the topics about art and literature find it a really fascinating book!

To begin with, I'm a foreigner, so the elegant English is in itself a beauty and value for me. And then, with the contents covering so much in western history, culture, literature & art, there's still an running clue getting all parts together. The authers performed so graciously such a daunting task and reveal such a profound, beautiful and enlightening world to me.

In a word, it's an enjoyment to read the book ( as a whole, though some part of it seems to me too redundent with academic-like details)

The arrival of this book came sooner than expected, which was very welcome, and the shipping packaging was very strong and sturdy. The book was in perfect condition, and is a beautiful edition of Keat's poems. Thank you. I couldn't have asked for more.

Keats' message is abstruse. He points at the illusion of "I" as being an intertwining of "we". Opposites are illusions. The highest aspect of human existence is in love: the personal contact and the breaking of the illusion of "I" in connection, transcendence, created in union or fellowship with others. No other poet wrote so creamy white to the tongue, but was he cheating by not being as forward and clear, or substantive; over stepping the allowance given to poetry of form supporting meaning. Beauty is its own vindication is another message of Keats "truth is beauty, beauty is truth" and I think by his writing style he felt the slippery smooth qualities would override the illusive aspects, beauty would be its own vindication, if not add a mysterious spell-binding quality to his writing -- but is it just smoke and mirrors? Life is a dream within a dream, within a dream... (sounds like the mocked priest in "The Princess Bride" but this is Keats). This a general feeling for his longer poem, among his shorter poems he has gems like "autumn". Change is a constant, life is an enigma, so is Keats.

Oscar Wilde's openning treatis in the "Picture of Dorian Grey" seems to be in-line with Keats or is it an attack on Keats in the the end?

Keats was not on the mega superstar status as Byron, in his day. Keats is as much for our time as his own. He gained, apparently, the energy and will to take up poetry due to being youthfully influenced by Byron, wearing his shirt open and such, but any comparison stops there. Byron was a driving force for his time and could be argued to be the first modern super pop star of the young generational angst, outsider sort, as well as having a significant mark on thinking to come. He was not the athiest as Shelly but closer to the agnostic/Pagan sympathizer of Byron.

I have mixed feelings about Keats, mostly on the negative side. In the end I guess Keats was clear: beauty is its own reward, over substance, over philosophy, what are these things, to him, but illusions, all is illusion, the closest thing to truth, if there is such a thing, is beauty, and Keats did write beautiful words in beautiful ways. Maybe I will read him again someday.

If you're a true Keats fan this is a must to add to your collection. Contains all of Keat's best work. Or enrich somone's life who is not familiar with Keats. A great gift idea.

It is possible to argue that the greatest Keats is that of the annus mirabilis 1819 when he wrote the Odes. This work contains the great Keats' lyrics among the most musical , sensuous poetry in the English language. The sense that' beauty may not be truth' for everyone, but that for Keats it certainly is. This is of course one of many different editions which contain the great
lyrics of Keats. It is pleasant, light , compact a pleasure to hold and to read.

One of the annoying things about the received opinion about the Romantic poets is the statement that there were exactly six of them--Blake, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Byron, Keats, and Shelley. This pronouncement is usually delivered with equal conviction to assertions you usually hear only in the natural sciences--e.g., that there are three kinds of human muscle (cardiac, striated, and slow-flexing) and two kinds of stony drip-accreted icicles in caves (stalactites and stalagmites). Nor elsewhere in the area of literature do you quite hear that there were so many Russian realist novelists, so many French Symbolist poets, so many English medieval poets, etc. So it's something of a relief to read in the editors' introduction to the "Portable Romantic Poets" that American romantics are included as well, because poets don't just arrest their reading, as anthologizers usually arrest their selecting, at continental or national boundaries. It's also welcome to see the inclusion of poets who are sometimes left out because they might be felt to be minor or unpopular (Landor) or generically different (Burns) by anthologizers. This anthology is a welcome corrective to received wisdom about who actually qualifies as a Romantic. And the efficient introduction is a minor masterpiece of cultural exposition as well.

Far be it from me to critique these poets, but I can say something about this particular presentation. It's a handy little volume, with a several-page introduction providing historical context, and a several-page calendar of British and American poetry from 1750 to around 1850. The calendar doesn't just list poetry, it includes events like "Watt's steam engine patented" and "Lewis and Clark Expedition" as well as the publication of novels and music, so context is well established. At the back of the book is an index of poems by title and by first line, and there's a set of biographical notes on the poets.

If you want to know what romantic poetry's all about, take a look at this. I don't know how an English Lit Ph.D. would rate this book but I think it's a nice collection.

The first verse of William Blake's Auguries of Innocence appears in Bronowski, as homage to Ludwig Boltzmann: " To see a World in a Grain of Sand, And a Heaven in a Wild flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand, And Eternity in an hour...." William Blake was born in London in 1757. He attended drawing school and thereafter eked out a very modest existence as an engraver and artist. He was not able to find a publisher so in 1789 he himself engraved and published Songs of Innocence and The Book of Thel. Blake died in 1827. Blake was one of many 'romantic poets' of that epoch. Auden and Pearson point out that the romantic definition of man appears towards the end of the eighteenth century. The divine element that man possesses is not power nor free will of reason, but self-consciousness. Man can see possibilities, he can imagine states of existence other than they are.

The great defining moment of the Romantic movement in English poetry is generally considered the publication by Wordsworth and Coleridge of 'The Lyrical Ballads' in 1797. But the editors of this anthology take an earlier point of origin and begin with the great myth - master and singer of songs of innocence and experience, William Blake. They include in their anthology not simply English Romantic poets but also the Americans , Emerson and Thoreau( Transcendentalists) and Poe. They also include a number of minor, lesser known poets.
But what is most important is that they have most of the great definining poems of English Romantic Poetry, the great poems of Wordsworth, Coleridge, Shelley, Keats.
There are of course as many definitions of Romanticism as there are of other key intellectual-historical concepts such as 'Nature' and 'Classicism' But one clear element is a new found emphasis on self, and subjectivity , the expression of the individual's feeling of the world. Wordsworth went to everyday life and language, to nature and the world of the ' simple people' he met in his countryside wanderings. Coleridge went to the world of myth and mystery, but they both provided in deeper ways whole worlds of feeling which were at times ' deeper than tears'.
An outstanding anthology of one of the most important 'movements' or ' periods' in the world- history of poetry.

I have read this book in Chinese, and then I decide to get the English press to be my treature. It is very elegant and powerful, describing the history and making elegant, deep interpretation. I consider that it has better than the classic discourse "The Mirror and the Lamp" wrote by M. H. Abrams. The analysis and result from this book is a very important step forward to a splendid literary world.

There are books I try more than usual to have my own copy of. And this is one of them. A brilliant look into the world of English Romanticism. This is not just a literary sketch of the age and its spirit. As the title suggests, it's also about social interaction with the backdrop of the French Revolution. As Butler sees it, Edmund Burke's "Reflections" was "a polemic against intellectuals". And perhaps, Coleridge traveled to Germany to avoid conscription. The rise of German Romantik could have been caused by the social Angst especially among the young adults who ended up jobless in the wake of economic malaise... Butler's grip on all these details is so enticing you simply want to follow her until you see "The End." I have to make it known that this is no page-turner for everyone(despite the rolling but crisp, subtle but lucid sentences) but recommendably for those who have interest in how the period shaped the Romantic ideas and how the poets and novelists were all distinctively and creatively responsive. Still, it can also be read as a great introduction to the social and literary topography of the English Romanticism.

A fascinating book! A must read for anyone that is interested in literary research of the period, or someone interested in learning more about their favorite author. An interesting book to just read on its own as well, since it covers a wide range of ideas and authors. Marilyn Butler's book is a must for the library of any student of literature.

Marilyn Butler is at least as great a literary historian as Ann Douglas, and that means as great as it gets. This book is... well, I do not say an object lesson in writing history, for it is inimitable. Dr.Butler's mind is vast: she can be just and sympathetic both to the stern Toryism of Jane Austen and to the extreme progressivism of Blake or Godwin. Her eye for the peculiarities of a period - even a period that lasted, perhaps, only a few months - is flawless. Her learning is enormous, yet worn lightly; like her Oxford predecessor C.S.Lewis, she can be said to have "read everything, and understood what [she] read". And because her knowledge is so broad, embracing political and social history on both Britain and the continent, she is able to indulge in the wholesale slaughter of sacred cows without being in the least affected, self-indulgent, or attention-seeking. It is simply her sacrifice to the truth. Dr.Butler on the real intellectual origins and significance of Wordsworth, for instance, is a marvellous liberation from generations of nonsense; as soon as one reads her analysis of his derivation from a specific and identifiable strand of eighteenth-century writing, one becomes conscious that this is the truth. And her style is worthy of her content: plain, profound, readable, with not one sentence in the whole book that does not advance the argument or shed further light. Dr.Butler is an Oxford Don, and this is the Oxford manner at its best - clear, unpretentious, comprehensive. This is a fabulously good book, that takes its place alongside Lewis' OXFORD HISTORY OF SIXTEENTH-CENTURY LITERATURE, Auerbach's MIMESIS, Ann Douglas' TERRIBLE HONESTY and THE FEMINIZATION OF AMERICAN CULTURE as one of the finest pieces of literary history I have ever read.

This is the best single book ever written on the general subject of rock and roll. It is free of the both the sloppy hype of trashy works on popular culture, and the ludicrously inappropriate jargon of high-toned academic treatments of the subject. Pattison demonstrates very convincingly rock's roots in nineteenth-century pantheism, and shows how, to a surprising extent, all of pop music's "rebels" conform to its tenets. The author is clearly a knowledgeable fan of rock but doesn't make outrageous claims for it; he shows amazing taste and discretion. A book as enjoyable and stimulating as it is neglected; I've never seen a reference to it in the rock press or met anyone else who has read it. It's definitely worth the effort to find it.

One of the best and most eurudite studies of Rock music as a cultural phenomenon and sociology. Pattison is both a critic and fan of Rock music, but the latter function doesn't turn him into a sniveling sycophant full of pretentious drivel like the usual Rock music magazine writers. He hits the nail right on the head with his comparison to romanticism. Pattison doesn't take his study far enough, however, as he ignores his own glaring exposes of the neo-pagan/religious dimensions of Rock music. He performs an intensive study of why Rock music is such mindless, vulgar pagan "jungle music" that people react to without thinking, a powerful cultural force. But in the last few pages he tries to discount everything he has written and substantiated in his book! He cannot accept the very conclusion he has so devestatingly exposed! He realizes that he seems to have come too close to the stance of the Christian right (and most of traditional Christianity) in its attack on Rock-n- Roll as "devil's music." As a true Rock fan (no true "holy roller" Rock detractor could have as much crucial information about Rock music and its details as Pattison), Pattison doesn't want to push his argument to its logical conclusion and condemn the music he so loves, therefore he makes a pathetic jab at the Christian right at the end and chicken's out. He is docked a star for this. Nevertheless, this is the best, most intelligent and objective study of Rock music that I have read, I have read a hell of a lot on the subject--most of it is drivel.

I read this book long ago when it was first published and found it fascinating. I found myself reflecting on it today as I was thinking about the slow death of "classical" music. The author makes the case that rock music is the product of the ideas of 19th century on democracy and individualism, the celebration of things common.

While there has always been a divide between the music of the upper and lower classes, I suppose it was not until late in the 19th century and continuing on that the "lower class" music began to be celebrated by the established musicians. I'm thinking specifically of the folk tune inspired works of composers like Brahms and Dvorak.

My reflection on Pattison's book now is that his thesis has been more than adequately proven with the continued growth of bottom-up trends in fashion and music. While rock and roll, as he argues, may have a mythical relationship to African music, modern hip-hop seems to have a very real relationship to current lower class culture. Other authors since then have dealt more generally with this theme I am sure (Theodore Dalrymple comes to mind), but I thought Pattison did great work showing how the ideas of the 19th century thinkers have influenced this development.

I keep finding myself coming back again and again to this excellent study from Pattison which convincingly argues that rock's aesthetic is a vulgarized form of the ideals behind the great romantic poets. Far from the clueless, absurd academic piece that one may fear, Pattison proves to be a real fan of rock music, in fact he is in many ways more thoroughly versed in rock than many respectable big-name rock critics like Marcus or Marsh. Black Flag, the Fall and the Meat Puppets are just a few of the groups touched on. The most insightful chapters, in my opinion, are the ones dealing with the white romanticization of black Americans as "soulful" others, as well as the myth of the noble lower-class hillbilly. Pattison provides the only believable explanation (too complex to go into here) as to why the racially divided south produced the great black-white musical hybrids of our time (country, blues, jazz and rock n' roll). Pattison doesn't see the pagan roots of rock n' roll or romantic poetry as negative.

Wu's Companion should be mandatory reading for serious scholars of English Romanticism. With major sections on historical milieux, readings of major canonical (and non-canonical) texts, major genres, and critical debates, the Companion is valuable to those just approaching Romantic writing and those who have studied a long time but want a condensed (?) version of the critical conversations. In addition, Wu had the good sense (and good fortune) to gather together some of the foremost scholars of Romantic literature: among others, contributors are Nelson Hilton, Jonathan Wordsworth, David Bromwich, David Simpson, and Alan Richardson. I know more than one Ph.D. student who credits Wu's book with getting him or her through the Romantic portion of comprehensive exams, and many professors are finding it invaluable for classroom prep.

Wu's Companion should be mandatory reading for serious scholars of English Romanticism. With major sections on historical milieux, readings of major canonical (and non-canonical) texts, major genres, and critical debates, the Companion is valuable to those just approaching Romantic writing and those who have studied a long time but want a condensed (?) version of the critical conversations. In addition, Wu had the good sense (and good fortune) to gather together some of the foremost scholars of Romantic literature: among others, contributors are Nelson Hilton, Jonathan Wordsworth, David Bromwich, David Simpson, and Alan Richardson. I know more than one Ph.D. student who credits Wu's book with getting him or her through the Romantic portion of comprehensive exams, and many professors are finding it invaluable for classroom prep.

Wu's Companion should be mandatory reading for serious scholars of English Romanticism. With major sections on historical milieux, readings of major canonical (and non-canonical) texts, major genres, and critical debates, the Companion is valuable to those just approaching Romantic writing and those who have studied a long time but want a condensed (?) version of the critical conversations. In addition, Wu had the good sense (and good fortune) to gather together some of the foremost scholars of Romantic literature: among others, contributors are Nelson Hilton, Jonathan Wordsworth, David Bromwich, David Simpson, and Alan Richardson. I know more than one Ph.D. student who credits Wu's book with getting him or her through the Romantic portion of comprehensive exams, and many professors are finding it invaluable for classroom prep.

This work edited by M.H. Abrams contains many of the most important essays written on English Romantic literature in the twentieth century. It opens with three great essays on the Romantic period, Arthur O.Lovejoy 's seminal 'On the Discrimination of Romanticisms', W.K. Wimsatt's 'The Structure of Romantic Nature Imagery' 'M. H. Abrams 'The Correspondent Breeze : A Romantic Metaphor' These three essays alone would make an invaluable small volume.
But then follow three or four essays on each of the great romantic Poets: Blake, Wordsworth, Coleridge, Byron, Shelley , Keats.
Northrop Frye, Robert F. Gleckner, Harold Bloom write on Blake. Basil Willey, Carlos Baker, Charles Williams, Lionel Trilling on Wordsworth. George McLean Harper , G. W. Knight, Humphrey House on Coleridge. T.S. Eliot, Ronald Bottrall,Ernest J.Lovell Jr. on Byron. C.S. Lewis, F. B.Leavis, Frederick A. Pottle, Donald Davie on Shelley. Douglas Bush, W.Jackson Bate, Cleanth Brooks, Earl Wasserman, Richard H. Fogle on Keats.
Among the essays I took special interest in was Lionel Trilling 's on Wordsworth 's 'Immortality Ode' Trilling attempts to show that the poem is not as is often supposed about Wordsworth decline in powers as a poet.It is not about a 'natural and inevitable warfare' between the faculty of Poetry, and the faculty by which general ideas are apprehended. It is rather more about the mature vision, the new way of seeing which comes with Age and Experience. It is about a kind of double- vision in which the visionary gleam given in childhood is not fled, but rather remembered; the legacy of childhood is not lost but rather incorporated into the more sober vision given in and with age. " To have once have had the visionary gleam of the perfect union of self and the universe is essential to and definitive of our human nature, and in that sense is connected with the making of poetry.But the visionary gleam is not in itself the poetry- making power, and its diminution is right and inevitable." It is rather incorporated into the larger apprehension of reality which comes with the mature vision. There is Trilling indicates a sorrow with the shift in vision, with a motion from almost exclusive emphasis on Nature to one in which the Moral law and relations with Man become central. The Ode as Trilling understands it is as much about the celebration of new powers that come to the Poet with age as it is about the falling off of certain childhood ones. Trilling too hints the Ode as a transformation from what Keats called Wordsworth 's mode of the 'egotistical sublime' to one to a mode of 'tragedy.'
Thus he reads the great concluding lines ,' To me the meanest flower that blows can give/ Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears' as Wordsworth's acknowledgment of the inevitable sorrowful element of life.
This group of essays is a tremendously rich body of perception and reflection on what is undoubtedly one of the great bodies of poetic work in world literature.

This collection of essays represents a field of perspectives so widely diverse and, in many cases, antipathetical, that it really amounts to too much for a short review like this to give it its full due.-The apt alternative: to give a brief description of the book, and then pick a couple excerpts from essays I like or dislike in the book and explain why.-First of all, the book is not for the shallow-minded. All the essays (with a couple exceptions) are well thought-out explications and critiques of viewpoints of Romantic poems and poets which require considerable exertion of mind to comprehend. The exceptions occur in essays where the writers are too dismissive of certain poets and poems and fail to exert THEIR minds, possibly because of incapacity. Such is the case when F.R. Leavis dismisses the first lines of Shelley's towering, contemplative poem "Mount Blanc" (along with all the rest of Shelley's poetry, one might add) as "...insortably and indistinguishably confused." The lines in question: "The everlasting universe of things flows through the mind, and rolls its rapid waves, now dark-now glittering-now reflecting gloom-now lending splendour, where from secret springs the source of human thought its tribute brings of waters-with a sound but half its own..." These first few lines of the great poem are not that hard to make sense of if one but puts forth half an effort: The contemplative human mind is the passive recepient of all it perceives (i.e., the everlasting universe of things) which like a great river in different parts of its course will exhibit differing reflections and imaginings; whereas the mind, "the source of human thought" is but a tributary to this great river, "with a sound but half its own." In other words, mere human thoughts pale in comparison to the torrent of impressions (i.e., the everlasting universe of things) flowing through the mind. But Leavis had his mind made up, and it is doubtful he even gave the poem a chance, such was his animus for Shelley, as evinced in the rest of his essay-But there, C.S. Lewis in his essay in defense of Shelley offers a fine riposte, "I address myself, of course, only to those who are prepared, by toleration of the theme, to let the poem have a fair hearing. For those who are not, we can only say that they may doubtless be very worthy people, but they have no place in the European tradition."-Ouch!-And also Pottle in his fine essay, "The Case of Shelley," attributes such dismissals as that of Mr. Leavis to "...the very human but unregenerate passion for bullying other people." OK, I've said more than enough for the prospective reader to get an idea of what this book is about: the continuing battle over what the Romantics are all about and what they mean to us, if anything. I, personally, would hope the reader would come away from this book with a refreshed notion of how precious and indispensable they are to our appreciation of all poetry and, moreover, to this life itself.

This collection of essays represents a field of perspectives so widely diverse and, in many cases, antipathetical, that it really amounts to too much for a short review like this to give it its full due.-The apt alternative: to give a brief description of the book, and then pick a couple excerpts from essays I like or dislike in the book and explain why.-First of all, the book is not for the shallow-minded. All the essays (with a couple exceptions) are well thought-out explications and critiques of viewpoints of Romantic poems and poets which require considerable exertion of mind to comprehend. The exceptions occur in essays where the writers are too dismissive of certain poets and poems and fail to exert THEIR minds, possibly because of incapacity. Such is the case when F.R. Leavis dismisses the first lines of Shelley's towering, contemplative poem "Mount Blanc" (along with all the rest of Shelley's poetry, one might add) as "...insortably and indistinguishably confused." The lines in question: "The everlasting universe of things flows through the mind, and rolls its rapid waves, now dark-now glittering-now reflecting gloom-now lending splendour, where from secret springs the source of human thought its tribute brings of waters-with a sound but half its own..." These first few lines of the great poem are not that hard to make sense of if one but puts forth half an effort: The contemplative human mind is the passive recepient of all it perceives (i.e., the everlasting universe of things) which like a great river in different parts of its course will exhibit differing reflections and imaginings; whereas the mind, "the source of human thought" is but a tributary to this great river, "with a sound but half its own." In other words, mere human thoughts pale in comparison to the torrent of impressions (i.e., the everlasting universe of things) flowing through the mind. But Leavis had his mind made up, and it is doubtful he even gave the poem a chance, such was his animus for Shelley, as evinced in the rest of his essay-But there, C.S. Lewis in his essay in defense of Shelley offers a fine riposte, "I address myself, of course, only to those who are prepared, by toleration of the theme, to let the poem have a fair hearing. For those who are not, we can only say that they may doubtless be very worthy people, but they have no place in the European tradition."-Ouch!-And also Pottle in his fine essay, "The Case of Shelley," attributes such dismissals as that of Mr. Leavis to "...the very human but unregenerate passion for bullying other people." OK, I've said more than enough for the prospective reader to get an idea of what this book is about: the continuing battle over what the Romantics are all about and what they mean to us, if anything. I, personally, would hope the reader would come away from this book with a refreshed notion of how precious and indispensable they are to our appreciation of all poetry and, moreover, to this life itself.

This is book about political CORRUPTION and how Shah was modernizing Iran.
A good job and well done research.

Bravo

The nuclear ambitions of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) and its growing influence amongst certain Shi'a factions in Iraq is attracting media attention to a degree not seen since the late 1970s. Nevertheless, since 1979 the IRI has remained consistent in its determination to become the dominant political/ideological force in the Middle East and Persian Gulf. The clerics sitting in Tehran and their golden boy, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, repeatedly make clear to the world that they will not abandon the Ayatollah Khomeini's vision of an Islamic world state. Millions of Iranians have been sacrificed for this vision, and the mullahs who rule them will not hesitate to sacrifice a million more. Iran is notorious for taking hostages. Ironically, however, the largest group being held hostage there are the Iranian people themselves.

"Iran Zamin" is a pen name chosen most wisely and appropriately by the author of this book, ROMANTICISM and REVIVALISM Of PURE DIVINE MOTHERLAND Of IRAN. "Iran Zamin" is a term often used in recalling the ancient and noble glory of the pre-Islamic empires of "Greater Iran." And this book's author is undoubtedly a true Iranian patriot, who not only passionately loves his country, but is one who deeply cares for its people. Iran Zamin writes not only to preserve his Persian heritage and culture but also to shout a WAKE UP! call to his long-suffering fellow Iranians. He writes to remind them that before there was the Arab Muhammed and his religion of Islam, there was the Iran of the Sassanids, and before that, of the Achaemenids. Zoroaster, Cyrus and Darius are their true forefathers, men recognized by history as some of the greatest influences upon world civilization. Such men were not only considered builders and innovators, but more importantly were men who championed righteousness and compassion. Zamin is one of the few Iranian writers who have the honest courage to say that the Persian legacy means nothing to the mullahs ruling Iran. Indeed, he cleverly points out that the family origins of the father of the Islamic Republic, the Ayatollah Khomeini himself, are not Iranian but Indian! As Zamin notes, the IRI seeks world power not for any nationalist interests, but instead uses Iran merely as base from which it plans to spread forth a truly Shi'a world state.

The ancient and noble origins of Iran aren't the only major themes of Zamin's book. Rather it is primarily concerned with the present and looks toward the future. Thus the writer devotes much time to the disgraceful treatment done to the legacy of Shah Reza Muhammad I Pahlavi.

Portrayed as a slavish puppet of American foreign policy on the one hand, and as a selfish and cruel despot on the the other, the Shah, Zamin points out, has to be the most misunderstood and slandered figure of late 20th Century history. He shows us that this was the man who worked hardest to bring social and economic progress to Iran, turning that nation into one of the strongest and most advanced in the Middle East. It was the Shah's "White Revolution" (distinguished from the "red" of the Communists, and the "black" of the clerics) that brought land reform, religious freedom, widespread free education, and women's suffrage and social equality. All of which, by the way, were vehemently despised and vigorously opposed by the Muslim clerical establishment. In truth, Zamin isn't the only one who noticed the Shah's reluctance to brutality, nor is he alone in holding the western media and former American president Jimmy Carter directly responsible for the Shah of Iran's downfall.

Another important aspect of the Shah of Iran's reign was his vital role as a peacekeeper in the Persian Gulf. Zamin compares the relative stability of the region during Pahlavi rule with the chaotic mess it has become after the Shah was overthrown. He makes it plain that Saddam Hussein was intimidated by the efficiency and strength of Imperial Iran's military - especially its crack air force (for more on the Shah of Iran read "Ahmad Kasvravi Tabrizi's" The OTHER SIDE Of The STORY).

Iran Zamin finishes this book by discussing the Iranian theocracy's clerical elite, considering them to be the most corrupt and venal bureaucrats and politicos existing today. He concentrates mostly on the notorious former president of the IRI, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the mullah once listed by Forbes Magazine to be one of the richest men in the world. In Zamin's eyes Rafsanjani epitomizes the hypocritical and parasitical cleric growing ever fatter off Iran's wealth, while the people face skyrocketing inflation and unemployment, and have to suffer to see sons addicted and daughters forced through desperation to sell their kidneys as well as their sex.

Beyond his well-known Hezbollah connections and the embarrassing criminal charges being held against him by Argentine authorities for his involvement in the 1994 bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish community center, Zamin also exposes Rafsanjani's financial dealings in Canada, specifically his investments in Toronto's toll Highway 407. It enrages Zamin (as it should all of us) that this convicted terrorist, wanted man, and stereotypical fatcat is making profits here in North America, just over our border.

Iran Zamin's book not only informs and educates, it also emotionally involves you into the sad and desperate situation of one of the oldest and greatest nations on this earth.

Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R1EE2BMG54HFQR This book brought forward extensive legal documents that how Canada is harboring terrorism by providing Canada as an economic base for Mullah/cleric RAFSANJANI who is a key figure of Hizbollah terrorist group and this Hizbollah terrorist group is banned in Canada.

This book mentioned how former US Democrat President CARTER poor policy and executing Machaivelli doctrines in Iran gave birth to Trojan-Horse Era and has brought the world to point of destruction. In addition, the book discussed role of King in Iran's political culture point of view and how His Majesty Just and Benevolent King of Kings Mohammad Reza PAHLAVI executed Education of Cyrus in Iran which was the White Revolution. Thus, the frame work or theory of this book is incepted on Education of Cyrus.

Last point, the book mentioned the theology state in Iran is in point of collapse and Iranian people must be unify in their cause to topple the theology state in Iran.

And as a reader is reading this book, the author is romanticising about Iran and reviving Iran's true spirit as the cover pray is integrated in the content of the book.

Beauty seem so weak when describing this masterpeice. I found it in a library the other day, and I am reluctant to return something so absolutly incredible. I am devistated that such a wonderful peice of art should be out of print; I would love to own it.

This is the most beautiful book that I own.

Beauty seem so weak when describing this masterpeice. I found it in a library the other day, and I am reluctant to return something so absolutly incredible. I am devistated that such a wonderful peice of art should be out of print; I would love to own it.