Will Durant was born in 1885 and died in 1981. Born of French Canadian parents, he immigrated to the US and was a winner of the Pulitzer Prize as well as the American Medal of Freedom —the highest honour that the US government can bestow upon a civilian. Among his many publications, he wrote a book called The Story of Philosophy published in 1926 that has remained in print to the present day. Over a period of forty years and with his wife Ariel, the Durants wrote a monumental eleven volume Story of Civilization . His book on philosophy was responsible for introducing many readers to the subject and evoking an interest to study it further. His works on history provided a unique approach with each volume presenting not only political events but extensive chapters and coverage of the art, architecture, literature, poetry, philosophy and scientific advances to provide a context in which to place events.
Durant was a key intellectual influence in my life. I was introduced to philosophy through his Story of Philosophy at the age of 14. Equally, his Story of Civilization stimulated a similar interest in history. For me, The Heroes of History has special meaning because in his review of important figures he omitted himself who was and remains one of my Heroes of History.
While working to complete my Ph.D. thesis on Bertrand Russell’s educational theories and experimental school, I came across some correspondence between Durant and Russell and decided to muster up the courage to write to him.
I wrote:
“ …I suspect that you must have had many people over the years tell you of their gratitude for having kindled the flame of curiosity. To this list, let me add my name. Your Story of Philosophy had a profound effect upon my life. Being the fist book on philosophy with which I had contact, it developed my interest in a subject that has occupied most of my adult life. To you also, I owe a debt of gratitude for your Story of Civilization which developed my love of history. And, indirectly it is to you that I owe a lasting interest in the ideas and philosophy of Bertrand Russell since, apart from yourself, he was the only philosopher who wrote clearly enough that I could understand what was said without ambiguity! To you I owe one final debt, namely the desire to see things within the larger perspective of their times and events. For this reason, my undergraduate papers were always deemed too historical by philosophers and too philosophical by historians —-a fact that has more than once led to despair.” I resolved this eventually by pursuing an M.A. in both subjects.
Subsequently, I received three short responses over the next two weeks.
In the first he wrote:
“Your letter of March 4th is one of the most thoughtful that I have ever received. I am too old (96) and burdened to give it the careful and extended thought that it deserves. My reaction to Catholic discipline might have ruined me had I not retained some elements of intellectual discipline given me by my Jesuit teachers. I marvel that I survived. What an intolerable egoist I’ve been thru most of this century! I marvel to find myself now still free from jail and asylums, and amiably tolerated by three generations of unpremeditated offspring. Life has always forgiven my blunders, and smiled at my supposed wisdom. My conclusion is, Be tolerant with all, for they have been merciful with you.”
In the second:
“Nice of you to send that thoughtful letter of March 4th. To have readers like you is a stimulus and a reward.
Perhaps you are right in thinking that Bertrand Russell allowed the lust for victory to obscure objectivity; but as he can no longer defend himself we may safely forget his ardor in our debates. I never took those battles seriously. Usually after our bloody battles, we went together to have a bite of food, and spare our friendship. He was always a stimulating mind. I treasure his memory. I’ll join him any minute now. “
Finally on March 26th, 1981:
“I share your fear that our civilization is heading towards a crisis that may ruin us. The U.S. has accepted Russia’s challenge, and is ill prepared for war with a nation already dedicated to war. We still trust the Atlantic to protect us, but neither the Atlantic nor the Pacific will protect us in an all-out war. The next world war will be fought in the air and on the sea; inland areas will be targets rather than battlegrounds. I would like to see the university graduates of the U.S.A. and Russia appoint representatives to meet, exchange its and views, and report their conclusions to the world. The soldiers would protest, and the professors would agree to disagree. The soldiers and politicians would never agree. I’ll be 96 in November. and dead before the warriors achieve agreement. It is easier to fight than to agree.”
Durant died on November 7th of that year.
The book Heroes of History was published posthumously from a manuscript prepared by Durant during his final years. It was intended to summarize some of the key personalities that he had come across while writing his Story of Civilization as well as to convey his philosophy or philosophy of history. Durant argued that he came to History through Philosophy and having spent years studying what people had said and thought that perhaps a better perspective could be gathered as to the nature of man based upon what he had actually done. As such, Durant maintained that History becomes a window of Philosophy necessary to gain a fuller understanding of the nature of man. History is more therefore than a mere record of events but a biography of the species showing not only the follies and disaster of the past but the triumphs and achievements upon which the fabric of civilization is maintained. As Durant succinctly put it, “History is Philosophy”.
The book opens with a chapter entitled “What Is Civilization?” where the fundamental thesis framing his presentation of personalities is expressed:
“Human history is a fragment of biology. Man is one of countless millions of species and, like all the rest, is subject to the struggle for existence and the competition of the fittest to survive. All psychology, philosophy, statesmanship, and utopias must make their peace with these biological laws. Man can be traced to about a million years before Christ. Agriculture can be traced no farther back than to 25,000 B.C. Man has lived forty times longer as a hunter than as a tiller of the soil in a settled life. In those 975,000 years his basic nature was formed and remains to challenge civilization every day.”
As opposed to history being that of merely a specific time or place, the history of man is presented within the largest possible framework. The instincts and characteristics that were honed and reinforced in terms of their survival value over hundreds of thousands of years as a hunter and food gatherer are seen to struggle to adapt within the changed circumstances brought about by agriculture and larger and larger group settlements. As such, this struggle between the instinctual legacy rooted in the predominant history of man and the new realities necessitated by social organization form a kind of ongoing dialectic. In short, civilization brings with it the necessity to control, direct or suppress instincts that threaten to undermine it. The history of civilization therefore tracks this struggle.
Sigmund Freud in a book entitled Civilization and its Discontents made a similar argument. Freud maintained that the instinctual residue of man’s past resides in the ID which is constantly in conflict with other aspects of the personality to keep it under control. That control when successful is achieved through suppression, repression and sublimation. Extremes of aggression might for example be controlled through conscious self-control; subconscious redirection or displacement (such as taking out on a family member what you may have endured from your boss); or sublimation such as going to a soccer match and yelling vigorously at the opposing team.
As opposed to viewing history through simplistic moral or political lenses, the behaviour of man is shown by Durant to be consistent in both its strengths and weakness over time as man’s nature struggles to adapt from one stage of existence to another. The story of civilization is therefore the account of this struggle and explains both the highs and lows not in terms of a steady path of progress but rather a recurrent drama in different places, times and circumstances.
Inherent in this is a kind of moral relativism. Insofar as the behaviour of animals is viewed in terms only of instinctual programming and survival value, we do not consider a lion to be good or evil as the behaviour of animals is outside of our moral judgement. The instinctual behaviour of animals is culled by survival. What works survives and what does not work dies out. The biological realities of animal life are based upon survival where survival implies not just that of the individual but also the ability to reproduce. Survival implies struggle and struggle implies the very tenuous nature of survival.
The history of civilization shows the complexity and extremes of human behaviour as constants throughout recorded time. Writings and artifacts passed down to us through the centuries show the recurring common themes of human existence and the consistency of human nature. So we learn that peaceful or prosperous tribes or communities or countries never long survived stronger more aggressive ones; that the strong have invariably preyed upon the weak; that the nature of human behaviour is often determined only by opportunity and circumstance; that human cruelty is as unspeakable as human kindness is extraordinary; the fact that human destructiveness is matched by human creativity. Saints and sinners coexist and the affirmation of the former does not deny the reality of the latter. It is far too easy to dismiss history as the record of human folly or to pronounce that history teaches us that history teaches us nothing. Whereas it may be true that events of history do not repeat themselves exactly, events do most certainly, as Mark Twain argued, at least rhyme.
The ignorance of history has serious consequences. By viewing what has been through the exclusive lens of the present and not only the present but that individual’s present and not only that individual’s present but the limited amount of it that they are able to comprehend or assimilate, reality shrinks to a form of mere solipsism. Ignorance creates its own prison and that prison creates its own intellectual hell. Arguably, few among the present generation have any real concept of history and increasingly fewer still have any interest in it. I have been frequently told by students that they have no interest in anything that happened before they did. The world will obviously end when they do just as it came into existence upon their birth. We may have traded before Christ and after Christ as datings for before me but nothing after me.
The majority of those with any concept of history have one that has been inculcated by governments vested in promoting their own interests. Still others view history through a political lens that fuels a sense of indignation originating in their own desire to identify objects of hatred derived from their present experience. This results in the viewing of history as the simple dialectic between male versus female, rich versus poor, good versus evil, Catholic versus Protestant, Christian versus Muslim, capitalist versus communist or black versus white. However, an equally common and disturbing tendency is to view history within the comfortable moral framework of the present as if we have reached a pinnacle of human development that has no equal or precursors. During times of peace and comfort, it is easy to make moral judgements about others. However, history is full of examples of circumstances changing attitudes and behaviours to an almost unrecognizable extent. It is hard to accurately asses how we would behave is confronted with hunger, insecurity or danger or even just a different upbringing. Making moral judgements is easy when removed from the real circumstances. Moreover, as we grow up to accept certain things around us as being ‘the norm’ we should understand that what is true of us is equally true of any others past or present.
It is easier to be generous when you have more than you need but even then there is no automatic assumption to be made that a person will be willing to give up their surplus. Aggression and competition are reinforced and perpetrated by success but also dictate survival responses from those who are threatened. Wars may be instigated by one side and responded to by another but the conflict is rendered unavoidable by the desire to survive. The last world war saw some 40 million people dead the vast majority of whom were civilians and had no direct role or responsibility for the decisions made by their respective governments. Previous wars have often been genocidal in nature. One may recall that in the Old Testament Saul fell out of favour with God because he refused to kill every Canaanite man woman and child. This rarely evokes a comment in Bible study classes. Conquest for land and resources in the competition to survive and to multiply has meant the killing or enslavement of the weaker or vulnerable. Invariably such actions are put forward within a moral frame of self-justification. It is often noted how many sides God ay be on at the same time during a conflict but the conclusions that should be drawn from that fact is rarely acknowledged. But it is clear that it is the victors who write history and the dead are silenced.
Almost two hundred years before Christ, the Roman author Terence stated “Homo sum, humans nihil a me alienum puto” (I am human, and think that nothing human is alien to me). History viewed through the lens of humanity rather than through the narrow lens of personal subjectivity is important for gaining a perspective on both the highs and lows of human behaviour as well as how the assumptions brought to the table can vary so much from place to place and time to time.
Durant’s intention in writing Heroes of History is to highlight individuals whose lives have had a significant and lasting impact in their contribution to civilization. They are intended to inspire through both the acknowledgement of their contribution as well as through an awareness of how extraordinary individuals can have an extraordinary impact. He starts with Confucius and ends with Francis Bacon but is able to touch down on figures figures such as Buddha, Ikhnaton, Plato, Christ, Leonardo da Vinci, Luther, and Shakespeare. Durant is careful to apologize for the many names that he would have liked to include or perhaps should have been included if the list was expanded. He is careful to stipulate that his choices were made not on the basis of personal preference but on the basis of objectively assessing their impact.
The study of extraordinary people in the context of their times gives rise to a perspective that is at once both intellectual and emotional:
“…I will not subscribe to the depressing conclusion of Voltaire and Gibbon that history is “the record of the crimes and follies of mankind.” Of course it is partly that, and contains a hundred million tragedies —- but it is also the saving sanity of the average family, the labor and love of men and women bearing the stream of life over a thousand obstacles. It is the wisdom and courage of statesmen like Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt, the latter dying exhausted but fulfilled; it is the undiscourageable effort of scientists and philosophers to understand the universe that envelopes them; it is the patience and skill of of artists and poets giving lasting form to transient beauty, or an illuminating clarity to subtle significance; it is the vision of prophets and saints challenging us to nobility.”
He continues:
On this turbulent and sullied river, hidden amid absurdity and suffering, there is a veritable City of God, in which the creative spirits of the past, by the miracle of memory and tradition, still live and work, carve and build and sing. Plato is there, playing philosophy with Socrates; Shakespeare is there , bringing new treasures everyday; Keats is still listening to his nightingale; and Shelley is borne on the west wind; Nietzsche is there, raving and revealing; Christ is there, calling us to come and share his bread. These and a thousand more, and the gifts they gave are the Incredible Legacy of the race, the golden strain in the web of history.”
He concludes:
“We need not close our eyes to the evils that challenge us —- we should work undiscourageably to lessen them —-but we take strength from the achievements of the past; the splendour of our inheritance.”
When the noted philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell set himself the task of writing a book on education, his early efforts focused on how the study of specific subjects was a necessary means to develop certain aspects of the mind. Mathematics he argued was essential to the development of logical reasoning and analysis. Geography was important for establishing our position in space while history was essential for developing our sense of position in time. There is little to doubt in the fact that knowledge and wisdom consist in the ability to see beyond ourselves and to view ourselves within a much larger context than our immediate experience.
Of all subjects taught in all schools throughout the world, no subject is more mutilated by politics and prejudice than history. The mis-teaching of history contributes to most of the world’s ills . One of its primary objectives both past and present is and was to promote not only nationalism, but a sense of the moral superiority of one’s own country or group. In so doing, some countries are more subtle than others. However, there is little doubt that all countries view themselves differently than other countries view them. In times of war or conflict such attitudes are not only useful but essential. It is difficult to accept that each war that was fought saw righteousness on the side of the victor. However, for many centuries trial by combat was regarded as a legitimate manner in which to resolve disputes. Arguably, having passed to a rule of law for individual citizens, we are far from that in establishing international order.
Education is increasingly concerned with directing conclusions of thought rather than in developing the skills and perspective necessary to form independent judgement. For when all is said and done countries and governments are concerned with compliance, stability and the maintenance of the status quo. Even within Western democratic governments, the desire to control thought is more important than developing its independence and in so doing effectively undermines it own stated values. The story of influential thinkers and personalities is part of a legacy whereby the study of history serves as an inspiration of the greatness that can be achieved and the wealth of culture that can be accessed. The study of great individuals can in the end promote individualism through the demonstration of what others have obtained. The poet Willam Blake stated that a man’s reach should exceed his grasp or what’s a heaven for. Similarly, the study of excellence is a sure remedy to the current worship pf mediocracy or sense insignificance. The appreciation of greatness is to share in it