Will Durant

[NovaKart]

How would you rate Will Durant as an historian? I'm reading his Vol. I of the Story of Civilization - Our Oriental Heritage. This volume is really not his area of expertise and he condenses too much on Asian civilizations but it's a good, if dated, introduction. He does rely too much on Greek and Roman accounts of the Near Eastern civilizations and India such as Herodotus which are not so accurate sometimes. He also quoted Voltaire in saying that Chinese culture has changed very little over the past 2,000 years which is also a popular misconception. I mean maybe in some ways it hasn't but in many ways Imperial China changed greatly.

He does have a great style of prose writing. His expertise is really European civilization so I think the later volumes will be more accurate.

 

[Dachs]

Will Durant was an excellent ecumenical historian - well, an excellent ecumenical historian as long as the oikoumene only applies to Europe and the Middle East - fifty years ago, with all the baggage that comes with that statement. His books can be useful as starting points, for encyclopedic purposes, and for some cultural and artistic historical stuff. If you can get his books for free and if you have a metric [intercourse]ton of time on your hands, and if you are sure to take a look through more recent scholarship in areas of interest, then Durant's books are well worth the read.

 

[atticus finch]

I've never read Our Oriental Heritage, but I have the entire series past Caesar and Christ, and I really enjoy them. Granted there a bit dated, but they make for an interesting read. I just finished Caesar and Christ, and its one of the few history books I've read that manages to perfectly blend informing and entertaining. Plus I like Durant's coverage of all aspects of a civilization: religion, philosophy, politics, war, art,and so on.

 

[NovaKart]

You can read all of his books on archive.org. My mother has all of his books that she's had since at least the 70s or 80s and has read all of them but she's back in the US so doesn't help me. They're certainly a long read but interesting.

 

[Glassfan]

I understand he hit on one of his students and had to marry her.

I got his Story of Civilization for free by joining the History book club back in the late 70's. I enjoyed it very much - he wasn't afraid to offer value judgments occasionally. Today's historians tend to hide their biases behind a pretense of objectivity.

 

[NovaKart]

I actually kind of like his value judgments. These days historians often feel like they have to flatter their subject, especially if it's not a western civilization. They exaggerate how advanced they were for example.

 

[Dachs]

Yes, well, saying things like "the Romans sucked" or "the Greeks were [frigging] depressing and I can't [frigging] stand them" is all well and good for a lecture setting, but a work of history ought to be held to a higher standard. Acknowledging one's own lack of objectivity is one thing, but explicit value judgments are another entirely.

 

[NovaKart]

I don't think he ever said anything quite so explicit. He gives a pretty nuanced look at what he sees as the good and bad points of a civilization. He doesn't say the reader has to agree with him. Some points are pretty accurate, the Assyrians were an incredibly brutal savage civilization even by the standards of the day. Hammurabi's Code had some pretty barbaric punishments. The Chinese were extremely superstitious. Yes these are value judgments but there's a lot of truth to them.

 

[Dachs]

And a lot of untruth.

 

[NovaKart]

You don't have to agree with it. I personally prefer Will Duran't style to some of the modern historians who go on about how awesome their subject was while neglecting to mention anything bad. For example I've read books about the Ancient Mayans where the author goes on about how incredibly advanced they were exaggerating as if to compensate for something. Will Durant weighs what he considers the good and the bad. He doesn't just say, the Romans sucked.

 

[Dachs]

I guess you're reading the wrong modern history books, then.

 

[NovaKart]

Or just different ones.

 

[Dachs]

...says Mr. "Value Judgments Are Pro".

 

[NovaKart]

I think it shows he's being honest in his assessment of said civilization and not just going on about how great it is. They're honestly not a big part of his books anyway. If you don't like them, don't read them OK? I happen to think his occasional comment on the civilization's culture or whatever ads to the book.

 

[Kentharu]

I liked Will Durant. I read his book on The Napoleonic Age and it gave me a nice starting off point in terms of basic facts and who conquered what, when. By I didn't read him for analysis as to why things happened and how they affected other events and individuals around them. He writes very well, but, as an example, he went on about how awesome the Napoleonic Empire was and basically portrayed Napoleon as a victim of circumstance rather than just greedy in some cases. Maybe the best word to describe him is a romantic in his portrayal of history.

Also I skipped most of his stuff on the arts.

 

[Cutlass]

Check your library for them. Mine has them. Though I've only read one. I enjoyed the one on Greece.

 

[BuckyRea]

I read bits of them in the 70s as a kid. My folks had a set of them, too. Will and Arial Durant's books used to be an industry standard--something found in many educated homes a generation ago. He's good at displaying the art of the historical narrative. Yes, he's an interesting read. It seems like he was trying to be a modern Herodotus. But as noted elsewhere, he's also a product of his time: the age right before the trend toward less eurocentric texts got rolling. So call him half Herodotus and half Lawrence Welk,

 

[Smellincoffee]

I started reading the series at the end of 2010, though I lost interest in the early portion of Age of Faith in late October and have not read since. I intend on resuming the series this month, though. I tend to enjoy them, though I don't understand his repeated epicurean/stoic scale he uses to judge civilizations. The repeated misuse of Epicurean is not something I expected from a historian of his reputation, and as someone who takes Stoic philosophy seriously, I don't understand his use of it.