What do you think?
Rate this book
The empire of reason: How Europe imagined and America realized the enlightenment
The foremost American historian of his generation delves into the nation's European origins, illuminating how the new country embodied the principles of the Enlightenment--ideals that Europe, trapped by tradition and privilege, could not itself realize. "...crystalline clarity of...writing [causes] explosions in the reader's mind...history to be pondered and cherished."--The New York Times. "Learning and reason are at the service of a mind whose understanding of democracy gains brilliance and power from a passion for...freedom."--Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
342 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1977
About the author
Henry Steele Commager
327 books13 followersHenry Steele Commager was an American historian who helped define Modern liberalism in the United States for two generations through his 40 books and 700 essays and reviews.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 15, 2020
This book was highly recommended... by my husband. I looked forward to reading it. Sadly, I was very dissappointed by much of it, but ploughed through anyways because of my interest in the Enlightenment on one hand and on the history of the American Revolution on the other.
If you are not well read on the Enlightenment, the first quarter of the book will be a slog as it is one long name dropping exercise with no explication. IF you have read up on the Enlightenment, the first quarter of the book may be skipped as offering little additional insight.
The rest of the book is much better... however, I do feel it is deeply flawed by the author's prejudice for Jefferson and against Hamilton. It's clear that he is a Jeffersonian apologist. This can be understood in the historic sense that he is a product of the early 20th century that failed to see through Jefferson's hypocrisy and partisan propaganda against Hamilton. He failed to see that when Jefferson wrote romantically of the agrarian farmer he was in fact extolling the "virtues" of the feudal lord of the manor with those happy serfs under his control. Only in early America, those serfs were Black slaves who he didn't even consider human, not worth granting inalienable rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of his or her own happiness. Perhaps the author didn't know that Jefferson's wealth and comfort was at the expense of slaves, that he used his anti-Enlightenment feudal rights to rape Sally Hemmings and maintain his own children in bondage. All the while, Hamilton, an active and tireless abolitionist, saw a future America where innovation and financial stability (though a proper banking system and a national treasury department) would allow the 'everyman', the lowly 'mechanic' (as skilled laborers, often living in urban settings, were called), to thrive and bring greater prosperity and liberty. The author's prejudice against Hamilton is no where more open and obvious than in the appendix where he defines those men who carried the torch of the Enlightenment as "Philosophes"... and on the same page where he declares that Hamilton could not be counted as such, extolls the greatness of the Federalist Papers as the great American exemplar of Enlightenment thought... conveniently forgetting that Hamilton wrote most of those essays!
If you are not well read on the Enlightenment, the first quarter of the book will be a slog as it is one long name dropping exercise with no explication. IF you have read up on the Enlightenment, the first quarter of the book may be skipped as offering little additional insight.
The rest of the book is much better... however, I do feel it is deeply flawed by the author's prejudice for Jefferson and against Hamilton. It's clear that he is a Jeffersonian apologist. This can be understood in the historic sense that he is a product of the early 20th century that failed to see through Jefferson's hypocrisy and partisan propaganda against Hamilton. He failed to see that when Jefferson wrote romantically of the agrarian farmer he was in fact extolling the "virtues" of the feudal lord of the manor with those happy serfs under his control. Only in early America, those serfs were Black slaves who he didn't even consider human, not worth granting inalienable rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of his or her own happiness. Perhaps the author didn't know that Jefferson's wealth and comfort was at the expense of slaves, that he used his anti-Enlightenment feudal rights to rape Sally Hemmings and maintain his own children in bondage. All the while, Hamilton, an active and tireless abolitionist, saw a future America where innovation and financial stability (though a proper banking system and a national treasury department) would allow the 'everyman', the lowly 'mechanic' (as skilled laborers, often living in urban settings, were called), to thrive and bring greater prosperity and liberty. The author's prejudice against Hamilton is no where more open and obvious than in the appendix where he defines those men who carried the torch of the Enlightenment as "Philosophes"... and on the same page where he declares that Hamilton could not be counted as such, extolls the greatness of the Federalist Papers as the great American exemplar of Enlightenment thought... conveniently forgetting that Hamilton wrote most of those essays!
Read
April 15, 2010nonfiction,history,enlightenment,political science,democracy theory,United States
January 8, 2011
The origins of enlightenment and its influence on America.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews