Europe: A History

Europe: A History #1-3

by Norman Davies

A History [Paperback] Davies, Norman

Genres: History, Nonfiction, European History, World History, Politics, Historical, Audiobook

1365 pages, Paperback

First published October 10, 1996

About the author

Ivor Norman Richard Davies FBA, FRHistS is a leading English historian of Welsh descent, noted for his publications on the history of Europe, Poland, and the United Kingdom. From 1971, Davies taught Polish history at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES) of the University of London, where he was professor from 1985 to 1996. Currently, he is Supernumary Fellow at Wolfson College, Oxford. Throughout his career, Davies has lectured in many countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, China, Poland, and in most of the rest of Europe as well.

The work which established Davies' reputation in the English-speaking world was God's Playground (1981), a comprehensive overview of Polish history. In Poland, the book was published officially only after the fall of communism. In 2000, Davies' Polish publishers Znak published a collection of his essays and articles under the title Smok wawelski nad Tamizą ("The Wawel Dragon on the Thames"). It is not available in English.

In 1984, Davies published Heart of Europe, a briefer history of Poland. Interestingly, the chapters are arranged in reverse chronological order. In the 1990s, Davies published Europe: A History (1996) and The Isles: A History (1999), about Europe and the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, respectively. Each book is a narrative interlarded with numerous sidepanel discussions of microtopics. In 2002, at the suggestion of the city's mayor, Bogdan Zdrojewski, Davies and his former research assistant, Roger Moorhouse, co-wrote a history of Wrocław / Breslau, a Silesian city. Titled Microcosm: Portrait of a Central European City, the book was published simultaneously in English, Polish, German and Czech. Davies also writes essays and articles for the mass media. Among others, he has worked for the BBC as well as British and American magazines and newspapers, such as The Times, The New York Review of Books and The Independent. In Poland, his articles appeared in the liberal Catholic weekly Tygodnik Powszechny. Davies' book Rising '44. The Battle for Warsaw describes the Warsaw Uprising. It was followed by Europe at War 1939-1945: No Simple Victory (2006). In 2008 Davies participated in the documentary film "The Soviet Story"

Some historians, most vocally Lucy Dawidowicz and Abraham Brumberg, object to Davies' historical treatment of the Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland. They accuse him of minimizing historic antisemitism, and of promoting a view that accounts of the Holocaust in international historiography largely overlook the suffering of non-Jewish Poles. Davies’s supporters contend that he gives due attention to the genocide and war crimes perpetrated by both Hitler and Stalin on Polish Jews and non-Jews. Davies himself argues that "Holocaust scholars need have no fears that rational comparisons might threaten that uniqueness. Quite the opposite." and that "...one needs to re-construct mentally the fuller picture in order to comprehend the true enormity of Poland’s wartime cataclysm, and then to say with absolute conviction ‘Never Again’." In 1986, Dawidowicz’s criticism of Davies’ historical treatment of the Holocaust was cited as a factor in a controversy at Stanford University in which Davies was denied a tenured faculty position for alleged "scientific flaws". Davies sued the university for breach of contract and defamation of character, but in 1989 the court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction in an academic matter.

Davies holds a number of honorary titles and memberships, including honorary doctorates from the universities of the Jagiellonian University (since 2003), Lublin, Gdańsk and Warsaw (since 2007), memberships in the Polish Academy of Learning (PAU) and the Academia Scientiarum et Artium Europaea, and fellowships of the British Academy and the Royal Historical Society. Davies received an honorary DLitt degree from his alma mater the University of Sussex. Davies is also an honorary

Reviews

[Betty Ho · Rating 5 out of 5]

It took me 2 months to struggle through the first half of the book with numerous side readings/ wiki/ movies (To make sure I've got a clear picture, I even created a timeline with 300 events from pre-history to reformation and also hundreds of dots on my Google map).

Once all the puzzles came together, I can breeze through the remaining 50% with great satisfaction.

[Chris Via]

The big book that got me flagged by TSA. I was travelling to Boston recently and, as always before a trip, I was in the throes of anxiety over what reading material to take (I’m afraid I’m of the die-hard printed-book persuasion). With two hundred pages left to go in Davies’s sprawling tome, I didn’t want to lose the momentum of weeks of reading, so, despite its significant heft, I stuffed it into my carry-on bag. And that bag got promptly flagged and taken aside at airport security. After several questions about what might be in the bag, my anxiety growing sharper, the agent pulled out the ample brick. In the agent’s words, “this book is too dense for the scanner.” Luckily, its physical density does not also apply to its content.

Read full review here: http://chrisvia.wordpress.com/2017/09...

[Rob · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this on a Kindle which in terms of sheer logistics is the best way to read a 1392 page book. A "book" book of this size is just too uncomfortable to read in any other way. The Kindle came into its own especially with its notes and highlights features.

1392 pages, too little to cover 3 or 4,000 years of complex history of a continent? 1392 pages, too many pages to not be bored or overwhelmed with information?

Davies did this by not writing a conventional history. By conventional I mean not by chronology alone. He certainly starts at the start with neolithic peoples but he also starts by questioning what is Europe? He does a fair bit of historiography throughout questioning assumptions and reviewing what the profession thinks about certain issues and controversies. For instance he looks at the basis of Classical Greek civilisation, reviewing the "Black Athena" thesis (and dismissing it).

What Davies does is write stories, some very opinionated. He writes stories about important aspects of European history. For instance when writing about the Roman class system he mentions slavery and goes off on a tangent about the history of slavery in Europe and then he comes back to Rome.

There is the problem of what sort of reader would like this book. If you're a history buff why reread all the stuff you have read before and if you aren't a history buff why pick up a nearly 1400 page history book in the first place. The simple answer is gaps and connections. Everyone has a gap in their knowledge and Davies sees connections where most don't.

Davies is an Eastern European specialist so he brings that insight into the book. He sees the interconnections between Western and Eastern Europe and how they formed. He gives space and credit to Byzantium and Orthodox Christianity. I knew nothing of Byzantium until I was about 15. I suspect most English speaking /Catholic/Protestant people are the same. Before this book I knew nothing of the history of Poland. Does the average person know why Poland had a large Jewish population? Well the reason is that when Europe was ripping itself to pieces over religion in the 16th and 17th Poland had a conscious policy of religious freedom and toleration so the Jews of Europe came and settled in a land that did not persecute them. It was only in the 19th Century with Poland split and the pressure of Czarist Orthodoxy that the idea of a real Pole being a Catholic came into play.

I would highly recommend this book both for the specialist and the lay reader. I can see one potential untapped market with the rise of China and India. It is quirky in style and opinionated but it is well written.

[Georgia Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

With entries on "Chastity" to "Flamenco," this is no ordinary history. This is a mega box of quality chocolates waiting to be dipped into. Five pounds in weight and five stars to Norman Davies for putting this one together. It sits on my shelf and winks at me. Tempting. Teasing. Willing me to open and delight in it.

[Jan Hidders · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very big read indeed, but worth every minute you spend on it. The author makes a big point of treating the history of the whole of Europe, not just the Western part, and I agree with the author that such a treatment has been long overdue. The book is great as an overview work but can also be used to fill in some of the gaps in your historical knowledge, especially about Eastern Europe, since it also goes into some detail. However, it is not an introductory work and often assumes that you already know a thing or two.



I like the writing style of the author, which really can draw you in sometimes, but he also sometimes gets a bit lost in theoretical musings, or gives too much irrelevant detail such as lists of kings, battles and dates. Here and there he also tries to keep up the pace by skipping on the basic explanations for the reader who isn't familiar with the specific period and region. Having said this, this is still simply the best work on the subject I've read, both in depth and comprehensiveness, as well as in readability.

[Sense of History]

Extraordinary overview of the history of Europe. Brilliant, especially for the attention Davies gives to eastern Europe, although written just after the opening of the Iron Curtain in 1989. The "lemma's" that accompany the chronological story are perfect complementaries that give depth to the narrative. Perhaps this isn't up-to-date anymore, given its publication date, but I guess it can still be inspirational.

[♑︎♑︎♑︎ ♑︎♑︎♑︎ · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a strange read. I was looking forward to a synthesis of European history, a quick overview that would glue my patchwork understandings into a comprehensible pattern. I had a few very specific goals, too: I wanted a better understanding of European Jewry across the centuries, and I wanted enough knowledge to put Charles V's sack of Rome in 1527 in context, and maybe someone would finally explain the Thirty Years War to me...But what is meant to be an overview and correction of European history felt agonizingly superficial. It felt like I'd been handed a box that had all the pieces of a million-piece puzzle in it but it was still up to me to put it together. There is a strong chronology but Davies can't help interrupting his own story to make ahistorical connections with other eras and by the end I was very irritable.

[Roy Lotz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Can one narrate time—time as such, in and of itself? Most certainly not, what a foolish undertaking that would be. The story would go: “Time passed, ran on, flowed in a mighty stream,” and on and on in the same vein. No one with any common sense could call that a narrative.

—Thomas Mann, The Magic Mountain

Personal Preface

Lately I have been thinking a lot about time. Well, perhaps thinking isn’t the right word; I’ve been worrying. Ever since I moved to Spain, time has been a problem. What’s the proper time to eat? When do people sleep here? How long will my job last? What about my visa? Multiple clocks beset me, counting down and counting up.

Beyond my petty troubles, I have been thinking about time as an experience: how monotony speeds up the clock’s hand, variety slows it down, and nothing can stop it. I have been thinking about the inexorability of time: every passing second is irretrievable, every yesterday is irrecoverable. I have been spending a lot of time remembering, connecting my past with my present, if only artificially, and wondering how much the act of remembering itself distorts my memories. And in a Proustian mood, I have wondered whether a tremendous act of remembrance is the only defense we have against the ceaseless tide of time.

In the midst of our mundane concerns, it is all too easy to forget to remember. But is it crucial to remember; otherwise life can go by without us noticing. This is why we celebrate birthdays. Logically, it is silly to think that you turn from one age to another all at once; of course we get older every day. We celebrate birthdays to force ourselves to reflect on the past year, on how we have spent our time and, more chillingly, on how much time we have left. This reflection can help us assess what to do next.

Birthdays are just one example. In general, I have been finding it increasingly important to focus on these cycles, when a milestone is reached, when a process is completed, moments when the past is forcefully juxtaposed with the present. Finishing Norman Davies’s Europe was one such moment for me, and an important one. I first heard of the book from an old copy of National Geographic; it was in an article discussing the recent introduction of the euro (in 1999), a historic step in European unity. Davies’s book had just been published the year before, and the reporter had interviewed Davies about his thoughts on the future of Europe.

I read this article right as my love of reading began to blossom. Thus I dutifully underlined the name of Davies’s book, hoping to buy and read it some time in the future. But it was years until I finally bought a copy; and still more years before I finally started reading. When I first heard of the book I would never have imagined that I would finally read it, many years later, in Europe. But here I am, and it feels great.


The Review

Norman Davies’s Europe is an attempt to write a survey history of Europe in one volume, from prehistoric times to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, covering both Western and Eastern Europe. It’s an ambitious project. As you can imagine, an enormous amount of selection and compression was necessary in order to fit all this material into one volume. Luckily, Davies is adept at both of these skills; unfortunately, the book is still too big to carry around. It is big, fat, and heavy: thick enough to stop a bullet, hefty enough to knock someone out cold.

In terms of content, the book is both longer and shorter than it appears. Of the nearly 1,400 pages, only about 1,140 are actual history; the rest is given over to his notes, the index, and a lengthy series of appendices, on subjects ranging from the standard canon of opera, to death tolls in the Second World War, to the life course of an Austrian peasant household. Nevertheless, the pages are dense with text, in small font and with narrow margins; and the pages themselves are quite big. Moreover, owing to the huge amount of territory Davies covers, the book is almost nauseatingly packed with information, every page a summary of whole books. It isn’t the sort of thing you can breeze through.

Davies begins with a pugnacious introduction, in which he denounces all of his forbearers. For him, attempts to write European history have all fallen into various traps, by focusing too much on the ‘Great Books’, by their excessive length, or by their neglect of Eastern Europe. Davies snubs his nose at specialization, and wags his finger at academic fads; he bashes both the traditionalists and the radicals. I personally found this introduction to be an interesting read, but it does seem out of place in a book for the general reader.

For all that talk, you’d think Davies’s treatment would be highly heterodox. But that’s not the case. After an obligatory chapter on prehistory, he goes into a chapter on Greece, then Rome, then the Middle Ages, and so on. And even though one of his major bones of contention is the erstwhile disregard for Eastern Europe, he generally spends far more time on Western Europe.

The chapters increase in length as they approach the future, becoming progressively more detailed. For example, Aristotle and Plato must share one measly paragraph between them, but Gorbachev is given a dozen pages. As a result, the book gets more interesting the further you read. The coverage is only so-so for the ancient world; quite good for the Medieval period; and becomes really gripping by the 19th century. Davies attempts to cover all the major developments, but of course his space is limited. He sketches the historical individuals when necessary, but this is certainly not a “Great Man” telling of history. For the most part Davies focuses on economic, political, social, and cultural history, while paying less attention to intellectual and art history. Among the arts, he is strong on music but weak on painting, sculpture, and architecture.

The main narrative is broken up by what Davies calls ‘capsules’. These are mini-essays, ranging from half a page to two pages, on a variety of topics that interested Davies; they are set aside in their own boxes, interrupting the flow of the main text. This was Davies’s attempt to give extra color to his narrative, by focusing on little parts of the story that would otherwise be ignored. But I had mixed feelings about the idea. Half of the capsules were fascinating, but I thought many were uninspiring. And it was annoying to constantly be having to put the main narrative on hold, read a little essay, and then return where I left off. I thought it would have been a much better idea if he had left the capsules out completely, developed them into full-length essays, and then released them in their own book. I’d read it.

Davies is a writer of high caliber. He can adapt his style to any subject. His prose, although largely devoid of flourish, is consistently strong. In short, he has achieved that allusive aim of popular history writers: to inform and entertain in one breath. Seldom does he come across as seriously biased; but he is not afraid to be opinionated at times, which adds a nice touch of spice to the book: “Chamberlain’s three rounds with Hitler must qualify as one of the most degrading capitulations in history. Under pressure from the ruthless, the clueless combined with the spineless to achieve the worthless.”

I did catch two errors worth noting. First, Davies says that Dante called Virgil “The master of those who know,” when that epithet was really applied to Aristotle. Second, in the same sentence Davies calls Picasso, who was born in Andalusia, a “Catalan exile,” but he calls Dalí, who was born in Catalonia, a “Spaniard.” There were probably many more errors that I couldn’t catch, but in general the information seemed reliable.

Although this book is a survey history, Davies does have one central concern: the European identity. What does it mean to be a European? Davies doesn’t give any simple answers to this question, but instead traces how the European identity evolved through time. The reason for his concern is obvious. The Soviet bloc had only recently been dismantled, and now the European Union was faced with the task of dealing with these newly freed states. Davies himself appears to be strongly pro-Union; and in that light, this history of both Western and Eastern Europe can be seen as an attempt to give the people’s of Europe a shared past, in the hopes that they might embrace a shared future.

It was a bit strange to be finishing this book now. I can still remember the hopeful, enthusiastic tone of that National Geographic article about the new euro. People must have felt that they were entering a new age of European unity. Now the United Kingdom is threatening to leave the European Union, and several other countries are grumbling. The future, as always, is in doubt.


Afterthought

I finished the book on April 23, which is Book Day here in Spain. Yesterday was the 400th anniversary of Cervantes’s death; and today is the same anniversary for Shakespeare. To celebrate, I went to the Circulo de Bellas Artes, where they were having a public reading of Don Quixote. Everyday people, old and young, were lined up in an auditorium to read a page from that great masterpiece; it will go on for 48 hours. After that, I walked to the Cervantes exhibition in the National Library, where they have dozens of old manuscripts of Cervantes and his contemporaries on display. From there, I walked to the Convent of the Barefoot Trinitarians, where Cervantes was buried.

I am celebrating the completion of a cycle, and so is Spain. The past is alive and well in Europe.

[Marc Lamot · Rating 5 out of 5]

What an impressive book! Even after all those years this work still stands. Davies' Eastern European speciality adds decisive information and corrects our classic view on European history. Also see my review in my Sense-of-History-account: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Buddhagem · Rating 1 out of 5]

Davies “history” of Europe is clearly tainted by the Western biases of the Cold War. At nearly every point in Europe’s history Davies spends enormous time and effort to shit on Russian civilization in all its forms. As I trudged through the book it almost became comical anytime Russia was mentioned. And, in case the careful reader missed it, Davies sums it up near the end of this massive tome, “Russia was uniquely mean and mendacious...and brought death and misery to more humans than any state in history.”

That’s an easy statement when you ignore the large majority of European slaughter, whether in India, the Congo or the Americas. But the bias is so deep that it’s hard to believe that Davies thinks he’s written an objective history here. For instance, he refers to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan but there’s no mention of the US invasion of Vietnam. In fact the invasion of South Vietnam by US forces is instead portrayed as an “increase of commitments to South Vietnam.” A commitment to round up locals in concentration camps, bomb damns, starve peasants...that’s a real commitment to war crimes that is never even hinted at by Davies.

In another section as he’s once again bemoaning the duplicitous and barbaric nature of Russia Davies falsely claims that the Security Council of the UN “was paralyzed most often by Soviet Vetos; while technically true it’s a difference of seven vetoes between the US and the Soviet Union: 68 for the USSR and 61 for the USA. Clearly it’s not a huge difference and the two superpowers were equally bad at allowing any sense of democracy within the UN structure that curtailed their imperialistic tendencies.

It’s not to say there isn’t plenty of useful information here. Davies does a good job of tackling a huge amount of history here. The movements of different groups across Europe and how they settled and where they settled is fascinating. But it’s so biased that it’s hard to rate this higher than one star.

[carl theaker · Rating 5 out of 5]

A quite fascinating entirely readable intro to European history. At over 1200 pages it's quite a tome, but it does cover a lot of ground, pre-history to 1992, nomadic-tribes to the end of the Cold War.

Along with plenty of maps, charts, and a few sections of photos, there are 1 page Capsules sprinkled throughout, which delve into a particular subject a little deeper.

Davies is a scholar on Poland, so if you find the section on that area a little long, you've never learned so much about Lithuania in your life, that's probably why.

In the later chapters he speculates on a few subjects that aren't quite 'history' yet, exposing some of this leanings.Overall a goodread and a good reference, easy to go back andread a section or two or a favorite Capsule. Certainly plenty of interest piquing areas to inspire you to investigate
a subject more.

[Tuncay Özdemir · Rating 5 out of 5]

Aylar süren okuma yolculuğum dün itibariyle sona erdi. Sanki üniversiteden mezun olmuş gibi hissediyorum. Hani okurken bitsin diye çok istersiniz, bitince üzerinizden bir yük kalkar ama zamanla biraz da özlersiniz öyle bir his.

Bu kitap, öncelikle bir insan böyle bir kitap nasıl yazabilir dedirtecek cinste bir kitap. Bunu sadece sayfa sayısından yola çıkarak söylemiyorum. Ele aldığı konuyu aktarış biçimi, kapsamı, sonsuzluğa yaklaşan kaynakçası, ilgili her başlıkta konudan sapmadan verilen anekdotları, ek bilgi kutuları derken görüyoruz ki bu eser tam bir başyapıt. Çalışa çalışa, araştıra araştıra okudum. Günde 50-60 sayfa gidebildiğim günler "hızlı ilerledim" dediğim günler oldu. Ama buna kesinlikle değdi. Sanatıyla, teknolojisiyle, tarihiyle, bilimiyle, soykırımıyla, ihtiraslarıyla işte Avrupa karşınızda.

İçeriği hakkında birkaç not:
• Yazar, Avrupa'nın sınırlarını Türkiye’yi içermeyecek şekilde itinayla çiziyor ve olayları Türkiye'yi olabildiğince dışarıda kalacak şekilde anlatıyor. Türkiye 300 yıl boyunca Viyana’ya kadar ilerledi, sonraki 300 yıl boyunca da İstanbul’a kadar geri çekildi tadında bir anlatım. And that’s all.

• Bunun aksine ise Polonya öyle bir ağırlıklandırılmış ki sanki bütün olay onun etrafında dönüyor sanırsınız. Yazarın bir dönem Polonya’da okumuş olması ya da ailesinin bir kısmının oralı olması böyle bir eğilim yaratmış olabilir tam bilemiyorum. Gerçi ben şu an profesyonel olarak Polonya ile içli dışlı olduğum, Polonya’ya sık seyahat ettiğim için bu durum benim biraz işime geldi. Polonya'nın yaşadıklarına daha yakından bir bakış atabildim.

• 19 ve 20. yüzyılda Almanya başını kaldırdıktan sonra Batılı güçlerin bir şekilde Almanya & Rusya birleşmesini / ittifakını hep engellemeye çalışması güzel bir tespit. (Bkz. Geçenlerde Nord Stream boru hattının havaya uçurulması) Alman sermayesi ve teknolojisinin, Rus insan gücü ve doğal kaynakları ile birleşmesinin Avrupa için felaket olacağı düşünülmüş hep. Sırf bu yüzden ikisinden birini yanlarına çekmek zorunda olan Batı, Sovyetlerin en az Naziler kadar yıkıcı politikalarını görmezden gelmişler. Özellikle Polonya’nın hakkının savunulması konusunda hep isteksiz davranmışlar.

• Artık her yerde gördüğümüz Birinci ve İkinci Dünya Savaşı’nın aslında aynı savaşın ilk ve son raundu olduğu tespiti var mesela. Bunu çok güzel açıklıyor.

• ABD’nin resmi dil olarak Almancaya karşı bir oy farkla İngilizceyi seçmesi gibi bir olaydan bahsediyor ancak bunun bir efsane olduğu yazılmış Wikipedia’da, bilemedim. Öyle olsaydı çok ilginç olurdu. Çünkü Alman göçmen sayısı İngiliz göçmen sayısından fazlaymış ABD’de. Neden İngilizce yaygın dil olmuş o zaman acaba?

• Zweig, Wells ve Lawrence’in da içinde olduğu aydın takımının ikinci dünya savaşı öncesi ve başında kitlelere karşı yıkıcı, aşağılayıcı ve yok sayıcı bakış açıları not ediliyor. Gaz odası fikri Lawrence’da varmış mesela. Zweig ise Nazilere ilk başta sempatiyle bakıyormuş. Sonra intihar ediyor maalesef.

• Bizimle ilgili güzel bir anekdot: 19.yy’da artan iktidar güçleriyle devletler "tek devlet, tek millet, tek din" gibi şeyler dayatırken, tebaasının çok dilli ve çok dinli eğitimine müsaade eden tek büyük devlet Osmanlı'ydı deniyor. Ancak bu özgürlük ortamı milli uyanışlara yol açıp günün sonunda Osmanlı'nın paramparça olmasına neden oluyor malumunuz.

• Yazarın komünist rejimlere en ufak bir sempatisi yok, belki de Polonya bağından ötürü: Tito ve Enver hoca gibi komünist liderleri yerel küçük Stalinler olarak niteliyor, bunları kukla olarak nitelemek bile iltifat olur diyor.

• Ve son olarak Sovyetlerin çöküşü ile ilgili güzel bir anekdot aktarıyor: “Sovyetler'in çöküş gerçeğini hiçbir şey uzaya Mayıs 1991'de fırlatılan Sovyet kozmonotu Sergei Krikalyev'in kaderinden daha iyi anlatamaz. Yılın sonu geldiğinde Krikalyev hala onu geri getirmek için alınacak kararı bekleyip, dünyanın etrafında dönmeye devam ediyordu. Ayrıldığı Sovyetler Birliği hala bir süper güçtü; döneceği dünyada ise Sovyetler Birliği yoktu. Baykonur Uzay Merkezi'nden onu denetleyenler ise kendilerini bağımsız Kazakistan cumhuriyetinde bulmuşlardı.”

Kitabın eklerindeki haritalar dahi çok öğreticiydi. Avrupa’ya az buçuk ilgisi olan herkese, okumak haftalarını alacak olsa bile tavsiye ederim.

[Абрахам Хосебр · Rating 4 out of 5]

Що я можу сказати.
Це феноменальна праця.
Правильна та правдива історія, хоча не без ньюансів.
Імпонує ставлення автора до СРСР та зіставлення Сталіна та Гітлера.
Часто згадується Україна.

Нижче наведу улюблені цитати.

Мій улюблений епізод з "Європи" Девіса - його розповідь про жреця Немі і переказ найпотужнішої книги,яку я прочитав за все своє життя - "Золотої гілки" безсмертного Джорджа Фрейзера.

АРІЦІЯ

За кільканадцять кілометрів на південь від Рима, в долині серед албанських пагорбів, лежить озеро Немі, Лісове. За імперських часів недалеке село Немі називалось Аріція, а навколишні ліси протягом усієї римської доби ховали священний Аріційський гай, притулок Diana nemorensis (Діани Немійської, або Лісової).
Про аріційський культ відомо як з творів Страбона, так і з матеріалів сучасної археології. В багатьох аспектах він нічим не вирізнявся. Культ був пов'язаний з обожненням священного дуба, чиє гілля не можна було ламати, і зі святилищем вічного вогню.
Окрім Діани, вшановувано ще двох менших божків - водяну німфу Еґерію і втікача від Зевсового гніву Вірбія. Як свідчать збережені зали��ки обіцяних пожертв, шанувальниками культу здебільшого були жінки, які сподівалися зачаття. Під час щорічного літнього свята весь гай світився міріадами смолоскипів, а жінки по всій Італії запалювали подячні вогні.
А проте в одному аспекті той культ був незвичайний. Головний жрець Аріції, що мав титул Rex Nemorensis (Лісового царя) був зобов'язаний здобувати посаду, вбиваючи свого попередника. В постаті жерця поєднувались священик, убивця і майбутня жертва вбивства. Ходячи по гайку з оголеним мечем навіть глупої ночі, він чекав миті, коли з'явиться наступний претендент, відламає гілочку зі священного дуба і викличе його на смертельний двобій.
За недавніх часів Аріційський гай уславивсь як вихідний пункт книжки Джеймса Фрейзера "Золота гілка" (1890), однієї з основоположних праць сучасної антропології. Фрейзера ставлять поряд з Марксом, Фройдом і Ейнштейном як піонера, що змінив людське мислення. Фрейзер поставив перед собою два прості запитання: "Чому жерцеві треба вбивати свого попередника?" і "Чому, перше ніж убити його, він повинен зламати Золоту гілку?"
Шукаючи можливих відповідей, Фрейзер узявся досліджувати віру в надприродне серед усіх можливих культур, як стародавніх, так і сучасних. Він досліджував викликання дощу в Китаї; постаті священиків-царів - від фараонів до далай-лами; духів дерев у Новій Ґвінеї і священний кедр в околицях Ґілґіта; духів збіжжя з острова Скай і "Адонісові сади"; травневі свята, літні свята вогню і свята урожаю. Фрейзер описує віру у внутрішню душу серед гавайців і віру в душу, що перебуває за межами тіла, серед сибірських самоїдів; віру в перенесення всього лихого та у вигнання духів. Фрейзер зобразив широкий діапазон жертовних обрядів - від канібальських пожертв серед бенгальських кхондів до "причащання тілом Бога" в Литві та обжинкового "оплакування шиї" в Девоні.
Фрейзер сформулював два твердження, які за тієї доби були революційними. З одного боку, він наполягав, що так звані "примітивні", або "дикі", звичаї спираються на глибокі ідеї, а отже, попри свою химерність, гідні поваги. Водночас учений довів, що начебто розвинені релігії цивілізованого світу, зокрема й християнство, чимало завдячують своїм поганським попередницям. "Життя давніх царів і жерців дуже повчальне, - писав він. — У ньому зосередилось усе, що правило за мудрість, коли світ бувіще молодий". Або ж:
"Ми набагато більше скидаємось на дикунів, ніж відрізняємось від них... Ми неначе спадкоємці багатства, яке так довго передавали впродовж сторіч, що пам'ять про тих, хто заробив його, нині втрачено... Хиби наших предків — аж ніяк не довільні вигадки або витвори
збуялої психіки... Слід великодушно дивитись на ті хиби як на неминучі помилки під час пошуків істини, тож будьмо поблажливі до предків, бо колись, може, й нам знадобиться
поблажливість: сит exclusione itaque veteres audiendi sunt [отже, предків треба слухати без причіпок)".

Фрейзерова всеохопна толерантність становила один з головних засобів, завдяки якому європейці спромоглися вилізти зі своєї тісної християнської гамівної сорочки і розкритися для всіх часів і для всіх народів. Надто приголомшували Фрейзерові докази, що чимало звичаїв християнських народів мають своє коріння в поганських обрядах:
"Коли наближається Великдень, сицилійські жінки сіють у тарілках із землею пшеницю, сочевицю та канаркове насіння, поливають і тримають їх у темряві... Рослини незабаром прокльовуються й виростають; стебла пов'язують червоними стрічками, і тарілки з зеленою проростю ставлять на могили, що їх разом з різьбленими постатями мертвого Христа освячують у... церквах на Велику П'ятницю... Увесь цей звичай - могили й тарілки з пророщеним зерном, - можливо, не що інше, як збереження, під іншою назвою, культу Адоніса".
Повертаючись до Аріційського гаю, Фрейзер виснував, що Лісовий цар уособлював дерево з Золотою гілкою і що обряд його смерті має паралелі в багатьох європейських народів - від Ґаллії до Норвегії. Золота гілка, заявив Фрейзер, - не що інше, як омела, бо в ґельській мові назва цієї рослини означає "дерево зі щирого золота". "Лісовий цар жив і помирав як утілення найвищого арійського бога, чия життєва сила містилась в омелі, тобто в Золотій гілці".
І як остаточний доказ Фрейзер додав останній абзац, кажучи, що сьогоднішній відвідувач Немійських лісів може почути римські церковні дзвони, "чий гук долинає з далекого міста і поволі вмирає серед неозорих кампанійських боліт... Le Roi est mort, vive le roi!'s Іншими словами, поганський Лісовий цар щез, натомість християнський "Небесний Цар" панує без перешкод. Фрейзер не вважав за потрібне додати, що й християнський Цар народився на те, щоб його вбили.
*
ТОЛУНД - це болото поблизу Оргуса в Данії, де 1950 р. знайдено напрочуд добре збережене тіло доісторичної людини, його тепер виставлено в музеї Сількеборґа.
Дубильна кислота в торфі законсервувала його так добре, що збереглися навіть тонкі риси обличчя, а також усе те, що було в шлунку. За винятком загостреної шкіряної
шапки і пояса, чоловік був голим; його задушили шкіряною мотузкою - очевидно, під час ритуального вбивства десь зо дві тисячі років тому. Його дивна доля викликає
співчуття, якого важко позбутися навіть сьогодні:

Ота його сумна свобода,
Коли везли його на страту,
Мабуть, привиділась мені,
Як проїздив я, нашіптуючи:
"Толунд, Граубаль і Небельґард..."
Він дививсь, як на нього
Тицяють пальцями,
Й не розумів тамтешньої мови.
Там, у Ютландії,
У стародавніх краях убивць,
Я почуватимусь загубленим,
Нещасним і - вдома.

А проте толундська людина - не поодинокий випадок. Через тридцять років аналогічні знахідки виявлено в Ліндоу-Мос у Чеширі (Англія); цікавий труп знайдено у вересні 1991 р. в льодовиковій кишені поблизу Симілаунського хребта Ецтальських Альп у Південному Тіролі. Тіло вочевидь належало мисливцеві добронзового віку, цілком одягненому і спорядженому. Він був 152 см на зріст і важив 54,4 кг, мав, певне, двадцять років, блакитні очі, поголене обличчя і навіть цілком сформований мозок.
На ньому була сорочка з вичиненої шкіри і вузькі штани, шапка з хутра сарни, рукавиці з березової кори і вистелені сіном чоботи на товстій підошві. На його шкірі в чотирьох місцях витатуювано сині племінні знаки, а на шиї він мав намисто з двадцяти ремінців та однієї кам'яної намистини. За плечима в нього були порожня торба з дерев'яним каркасом, зламаний майже метровий лук (97,5см), сагайдак із чотирнадцятьма стрілами з кістяними вістрями, кам'яна сокира з лезом із чистої міді, короткий кремінний ніж і пояс із кременями та трутом. Він замерз, мабуть, переходячи перевал під час заметілі. Трупне задубіння зафіксувало його випростану руку, якою він намагався прикрити очі. Вийшовши в путь 2731 р. до н. е. ±125 років, він, нарешті, дістався свого мимовільного пункту призначення в морозильнику Інсбрукського університету, запізнившись майже на п'ять тисяч років.
*
ПАПЕСА

Згідно з невмирущим середньовічним переказом, на троні св. Петра одного разу сиділа жінка. За найпоширенішою версією, наступницею папи Лева IV, що помер 855 р., була така собі Іоанна Англік. Левова наступниця справила велике враження на курію своїми вченими проповідями, бо ж училася в Афінах, але через два роки призвела до великого скандалу, померши в пологах на римській вулиці. Цю оповідку можна простежити до твору ченця-домініканця Марціна Полона з Тропау (бл. 1200-1278), що подає події як доведений факт. На його "Chronicon summorum pontificum imperatorumque" ("Загальну хроніку пап та імператорів") покликався не один автор. За іншим варіантом леґенди, папеса Іоанна була наступницею Віктора ІІІ, що помер 1087 р.
У цьому разі вона виявила свою стать, народивши дитину, коли сідала верхи на коня.
Її миттю припнули до конячого хвоста й каменували до смерті. Ця оповідка з'явилась у "Загальній хроніці Майнца", яку написав ще один винахідливий домініканець - Жан де Маї, теж у середині ХІІІ ст.
Не дивина, що середньовічні хроністи розповідали химерні оповідки, — дивує те, що впродовж сторіч їхні вигадки ніхто не піддавав сумнівам. У них вірили і Петрарка, й Боккаччо. В сієнському соборі серед постатей інших пап стоїть і статуя папеси Іоанни. Коли на Констанцькому соборі Ян Гус покликався на неї як на приклад церковних неподобств, його ніхто не виправив. Загадковий пам'ятник поблизу церкви Сан-Клементе в Римі, на місці, де папеса начебто народила дитину, кажуть, стояв непорушно аж до 1560-х років. Жоден учений, здається, не сумнівався в цій вигадці, аж поки 1554 р. вийшли друком "Annales" баварця Авентина. Остаточно спростував історичність тієї леґенди французький протестант Давид Блондель у своїх трактатах 1647 і 1657 р.
Підручники середньовічної історії якщо й згадують про папесу Іоанну, то як про
дрібний курйоз. Фактично вона була провісником такого зображення своєї статі, яке значно відрізнялося від традиційного. Щось у самій оповідці спонукало людей вірити їй, і через те вона виявилась такою живучою. Сама Іоанна - може, й не історична постать, а от оповідка про неї має безперечну історичність.
*
ТАМУ��, син Іштар (Аштар), матері Всесвіту, у Стародавньому Вавилоні був богом зерна. Наприкінці збирання врожаю стебла останніх снопів спліталися у солом'яні віяла чи клітки, де бог міг сховатися до нового сезону.
Ці зернові ідоли, чи "ляльки", робили скрізь, де вирощували пшеницю. На Балканах і досі шанують так зване "чорногорське віяло", яке не надто відрізняється за формою від своїх попередників з Нілу. В Німеччині та Скандинавії солом'яні зірки та солом'яні янголи - поширені різдвяні прикраси.
В Англії багато солом'яних ляльок урятували сільські краєзнавці, коли мистецтво виготовлення їх почало зникати в 1950-і роки. Прості фігурки — як-от шия та підкова, вузол і котяча лапка, дзвін і ліхтар - можна знайти в усіх графствах, де вирощують
пшеницю. Серед місцевих варіацій - шропширська кобила, дербіширська корона і кембриджська парасоля. Нортумберлендська Зернова Дитина і Плющова Дівчина - не що, як сучасні варіанти "Матері Землі", далекі доньки єгипетської Іштар, грецької Деметри та римської Церери.
-
У світі відомі три головні зернові культури: рис, кукурудза та пшениця. Із цих трьох "Європа обрала пшеницю". Пшениця прийшла в Європу з Месопотамії, і скрізь, куди силою приходили й оселялися європейці, вони несли з собою свою пшеницю - спершу на безлюдні землі неолітичного північного заходу, не так давно - в незаймані прерії Америки, степи Австралії і Південного Сибіру. Сам процес "вибору" пшениці становив нескінченну низку дослідів протягом кількох тисячоліть. Хоча конкурентні зернові культури — жито, ячмінь, овес, гречка й просо — і далі ростуть у Європі, змагатись із переможною ходою королеви Пшениці неможливо .
Пшениця - рід Triticum з родини злакових має понад 1000 відомих сортів.
Її зерно надзвичайно поживне. Воно містить пересічно 70 відсотків вуглеводів, 12 відсотків білка, 2 відсотки жиру, 1,8 відсотка мінеральних речовин. Вміст білка набагато вищий, ніж у рису, кілограм пшениці має поживність понад 3000 калорій. Дієта, заснована на пшениці, — один з чинників, які дали більшій частині європейців значну перевагу у фізичному розвитку супроти тих, хто харчувався рисом чи кукурудзою.
Пшениця - сезонна культура, яка потребує інтенсивної праці під час сівби навесні та жнив восени. На відміну від рисівників, яким доводилось обробляти рисові поля організованими бригадами протягом усього року, пшеничні господарства мали час і свободу для розширення, для вирощування вторинних культур, для освоєння нових земель, для будівництва, війни й політичної діяльності. Такий збіг обставин цілком може містити в собі передумови багатьох характерних особливостей соціально-політичної історії Європи - від феодалізму та індивідуалізму до войовничості та імперіалізму. Пшениця, однак, швидко виснажує землю. У стародавні часи родючість ланів можна було
зберегти, лише реґулярно залишаючи їх паром і підживлюючи гноєм свійських тварин. Звідси походить традиційна європейська модель змішаного орного та скотарського господарства, а також розмаїта дієта з круп, овочів та м'яса.
Пшеничний білок має унікальну здатність виділяти клейковину при змішуванні з водою і утворювати тісто. А клейковина утримує двоокис вуглецю, що виділяється під час ферментації дріжджів. Тому пшеничний хліб легший, м'якший і краще перетравлюється, ніж будь-який його конкурент³. "Хліб наш щоденний дай нам сьогодні", - це почуття європейські цивілізації могли б розділити зі своїми близькосхідними сусідами, але не з індійцями, китайцями, ацтеками чи інками.
*
У багатьох описах середньовічного світу відчувається якийсь дух застою.
Таке враження створюють наголос на повільному темпі технологічних змін,
замкнутості феодального суспільства, незмінному, теократичному сприйнятті
людського життя. За головні символи тієї доби правлять лицар у латах на незграбному огирі, кріпак, прикутий до землі в маєтку свого пана, ченці й черниці на молитві в монастирях. Ті символи мали репрезентувати фізичну нерухливість, соціальну несхитність, інтелектуальний застій.
Medium Aevum, середньовіччя, - цей термін уперше вжили побожні християни, гадаючи, що вони живуть у проміжку між першим і другим пришестям Христа. Набагато пізніше його почали вживати з іншим значенням. У ХѴ ст. ренесансні вчені заговорили про середньовіччя як інтервал між занепадом античності і відродженням класичної культури за їхньої доби. Для них античний
світ становив високу цивілізацію, середньовіччя спад до варварства, провінціалізму, святенництва. За Просвітництва, коли чесноти людського розуму відкрито ставили вище від релігійної віри, середньовічність стала символом обскурантизму й відсталості. Відтоді, оскільки новітня доба, що йшла за середньовіччям, і сама відходила в минувшину, виникла потреба створити новібназви для позначення проміжків історичного часу. Середньовічний період ставтчасткою чотиричленної структури, що поділила європейську історію на античний, середньовічний, новітній, а тепер уже й сучасний періоди. За традицією і саме середньовіччя часто поділяють на раннє, високе й пізнє, таким чином розчленувавши його на послідовні фази. Звісно, люди, яких історики згодом назвуть середньовічними, навіть не здогадувались про таку назву.
На жаль, немає ясної межі, яка позначала б кінець античного світу і початокьнових часів. За початок середньовіччя вважали яку завгодно подію, починаючи з навернення Константина. Кінцем середньовіччя називають по-різному то 1453, то 1493, 1517 або навіть - ті, хто послуговується власними визначеннями феодалізму як критеріями середньовічності, 1917 р. Отже, майже всі медієвісти погодяться, що ярлик, який позначає їхній предмет, незадовільний. Чимало тих,тхто спирає свої погляди лише на знання Західної Європи, наголошує на контрасті між деструктивними тенденціями ранньої середньовічної фази і конструктивними тенденціями пізнішого періоду. За цією схемою, "темним вікам" Ѵ-ХІ ст. притаманне дедалі більше розчленування римського світу; поворотний пункт настав під час так званого ренесансу ХІІ ст., а пік "високої" середньовічної цивілізації припав на ХІІІ-ХІV ст. Ці поділи дуже мало пов'язані зі Сходом, де Римська імперія проіснувала до 1453 р. і де ніколи не було ренесансу в західному розумінні.
Більшість, проте, погодиться, що за спільну рису середньовічного світу можна вважати організоване християнство. Тут дослідники будуть одностайні з людьми середньовічної Європи, що, якби їх запитали, сказали б, що вони християни, живуть за християнської доби в християнській частині земної кулі. Але й сам християнський світ - уявлення досить еластичне. Протягом сторіч він то зменшувався, то збільшувався, відображуючи війни з ісламом і кампанії проти поган. Його кордони ніколи не збігалися з межами Європейського півострова.
Християнський світ, відомий Стефанові II, коли він 753 р. перетинав Альпи, дуже відрізнявся від християнського світу 1453 р., коли турки видерлись на константинопольські мури.
Вакуум, утворений після падіння Римської імперії, заповнювався тим, що християнський світ дедалі більшою мірою усвідомлював себе не тільки як релігійну громаду, а й як єдину політичну спільноту. Хоча Римська імперія зрештою впала, її релігія тріумфувала. Духовні й світські проводирі християнського світу мало-помалу вбирались у цезарські мантії. На Заході, де імперія впала раніше, саме єпископ Римський створив уявлення про новий лад, зіпертий на спільний авторитет латинської церкви і католицького імператора. "Папство, - писав Томас Гобс, - не що інше, як привид померлої Римської імперії, що відтоді сидів у короні на її могилі. Обраним інструментом папства стали нові цезарі, або ж Kaisers, Німеччини. На Сході, де Римська імперія проіснувала набагато довше, уявлення про
подальший порядок, оснований на авторитеті грецької церкви і нового православного імператора, виникло тільки після появи цезарів, або царів, Московії.
Отже, якщо за головний зміст доби середньовіччя вважати реорганізацію
християнського світу в нові імперські системи, постає виразна хронологічна
послідовність. Перший етап можна вбачати в коронації Карла Великого на Різдво 800 р., а останній - в остаточному затвердженні титулу цар, що його 1493 р. прибрав собі Іван III, великий князь Московський.
Але від самого початку дедалі численніша громада християнського світу не мала єдності. Хоча латинська і грецька церкви поділяли основні постулати віри, вони часто дивились одна на одну як на чужинців. Дарма що неупереджені спостерігачі побачили б у них лише два варіанти однієї віри, як-от сунну і шию в мусульманському світі, церкви гостріше усвідомлювали свої розбіжності, аніж спільні риси. В першому тисячолітті церкви зберігали принаймні подобу єдності, в другому відмовилися навіть від неї. Стара тріщина стала прірвою після розколу 1054 р. А це свідчить, що навіть основи християнського світу зазнавали змін.
*
"ЛОСЕЛЬСЬКУ Венеру" датують 19000 р. до н. е. Це барельєф, вибитий на внутрішній стіні печери в департаменті Дордонь і пофарбований червоною вохрою. Він зображує сидячу жінку, риси обличчя якої не збереглися, зате видно довгі пасма волосся за плечима, великі обвислі груди і широко розставлені коліна, які відкривають статеві органи. Ліва рука жінки лежить на вагітному череві. Зігнутою правою рукою вона високо тримає серпастий ріг зубра.
Як і більшість людських зображень періоду раннього європейського мистецтва, що охоплює 90% людської історії, цей артефакт з його відверто жіночим родом водночас і разючий, і промовистий. Загалом вважають, що "лосельська Венера" - палеолітична богиня, варіант "Великої космічної матері", культ якої був панівним у ритуалах матріархального суспільства. За одним із тлумачень, цей образ мав бути головним у ритуальних танцях у масках, коли жінки, чоловіки та діти прагнули містичного єднання з духами тварин. З меншим ступенем упевненості можна вважати, що він був вершиною уявлень печерної доби, коли печера була “лоном-могилою-лабіринтом Великої земної матері", а "кров-жінка-місяць-зубровий ріг-народження-магія-життєвий цикл.

[Elentarri · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rating: 4.5 stars

This has been languishing on my shelf for over a decade, so time to dust it off and give it a go... and it took a while. The rat-squasher tome that is 'Europe: A History' is an ambitious, broad overview of European history from the Ice Age and culminating in the dissolution of the Soviet Union (around 1991). The text is wide in scope, rife with maps and appendices and other miscellanea, surprising detailed, and fairly interesting. It covers familiar events such as Ancient Greece, the rise and fall of Ancient Rome, the Renaissance, religious controversies, the French Revolution, the World Wars, and the Cold War, but also covers less familiar topics like stateless nations, minority groups, the inclusion of Eastern European history, and how major events in Western Europe connected with developments in the East. The straight-forward chronological narrative history of events is supplemented by the inclusion of social, fiscal, political, cultural themes, as well as technological developments where relevant. This is the type of book useful in placing more focused historical events (and the books that describe them) in their place so the reader can see what transpired in the past and how those events influenced the future. The writing is strong, and the narrative becomes more interesting as the book progresses.

[Lyn Elliott · Rating 3 out of 5]

Update 2024
Some years after I wrote this, I came back to Davies, promising myself that I would read it from cover to cover.

But, at 49% (Kindle) I have given up. His scope is so broad that it often feels like a scramble to include everything within geographical reach at any given time, without necessarily increasing my understanding of the broad patterns of European history, which is what I want to do, and he releis entirely on existing publications as far as I can see. I may of course be wrong but that's what my footnote checks have shown.

The narrative thread is constantly interupted by text boxes with interesting bits of information Davies obviously couldnt resist so dropped them in, more or less roughly where they fit chronologically. I found this increasingly irritating.

He was the first historian writing in english that I found to be concerned with Eastern Europe, using material from multiple language sources. Now, there's a lot more available about central and Eastern Europe, such as Goodbye, Eastern Europe: An Intimate History of a Divided Land, and works by Anne Applebaum which have helped me develop a better understanding of twentieth century events.

So, farewell Davies after maybe 15 years of intermittent engagement.
_________________________________________________

Original review

I have been reading this for over a year, and will probably go on reading it for the rest of my life. For anyone wanting to understand the patterns of Europe over a long time frame, this is the most interesting book I have come across.
Davies discusses the concept of 'Europe' as a starting point - in itself a fascinating exercise. His Europe includes the Slavic countries and the Balkans. As he speaks and reads at 9 languages, including several Slavic languages, he is able to access sources that most scholars who write in English can't access, let alone analyze and incorporate into a mighty overview.

He is opinionated, often cheerfully.
He is consciously Welsh, which means he writes from a perspective apart from the dominant English view and is frequently critical of it. This seems to me to entirely healthy.

The structure is mildly irritating. Text boxes interrupt the flow throughout, and often seem to be vignettes or asides that Davies couldn't resist but couldn't tie into the main narrative.
No doubt there are specialist texts that deal more completely with any period or region of Europe than this. But Davies is ideal for quick trips into questions like 'what were the effects of the French Revolution and Empire on Europe in ensuing decades' and 'how did the counter-reformation affect art'.
Judt is much better on C20 ideas, especially post World War II.

Davies' 'Europe' is a book I'll keep dipping into for years.

[Pete Sikora · Rating 3 out of 5]

Davies specializes in Polish history and WWII, but took on a continent-sized task. The result is a haphazardly organized mish-mash that loses its way just as its subject emerges as a concept in the 17th and 18th centuries.

We get a lot of Eastern European history, at the expense of understanding other nations. My Polish background makes that fine by me. However, by writing too many books, historians run a danger: the need to recycle material. "Europe" is proof.

At 1136 pages plus loads of appendixes, it's a massive tome. It would have been nice to see more modern history - as usual for sweeping histories, the last 50 years are covered in the last 50 pages.

"Europe", after all, is a modern phenomenon. There was no "Europe" at all in ancient times - or the middle ages either. Heck, they didn't even have the shape of the continent mapped. Not to mention that it's barely even a real continent anyway.

On some level, therefore, the book is untrue to its title. It's really a history of the geographic area we now know as Europe. That's a quibble tho - I hate those dang : titles anyway, so who am I to complain. Still, it should have been more focused on the modern world.

On the other hand, it's a good stab at a difficult (impossible?)
synthesis. If Davies were a better writer, it'd be really solid a 4. I also suspect that he doesn't really know what he's talking about vis a vis anything other than Eastern Europe. So he can't quite pull it off.

3 side points:
1. the book was written at the height of PC academia. Davies is a tad defensive, albeit understandably.
2. the short breakout segments don't work - they're not compelling enough and as a result are distracting of the narrative, not illuminating. Just like, say, these 2 points stuck into the middle of this review.
3. he makes some attempts to comment on the convergence of communist and fascist ideology. Should have stuck to the history, and avoided the philosophy, because it's a superficial attempt and serves the reader poorly. We get that they both were bad - real bad. No need to try to prove they're basically the same thing, when the governing systems were radically different.

But again, tough subject, and I kept reading. There's real merit to taking on the topic. A little grading on the curve is merited. Kudos to Davies for making the attempt. 3 stars.

[Gator · Rating 5 out of 5]

First thing that comes to mind that I’d like to share is this, if you plan on reading Europe you need to set aside a large chunk of time. Europe requires determination and commitment, it’s a huge book, small font, full pages top to bottom side to side. Second thing is how valuable a book it is, Davies gives a wonderful Macro look over the entirety of Europe as we know it, from the ice age to its publication in the late 90’s. This book was mind expanding and it was exactly what I was looking for, it quenched my thirst on the topic of history beyond satisfactorily. I won’t lie the damn book is so heavy in subject matter there were times I was ready to give up on it because the task that lie before me was so daunting, and I knew it would take me months to finish but I just kept on keeping on and almost 2 months later I completed one of the most informative books I’ve ever read. I highly recommend tackling Europe if you have time and think you’re ready, do it !

[Suanne Laqueur · Rating 4 out of 5]

SIXTY-ONE HOURS. An ambitious listen, not for the impatient or faint of heart, but for those who enjoy this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they will enjoy. I enjoyed the hell out of it.

[Liviu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent

[Julie · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 I knew this book was going to be a survey of European history and not a deep dive into any specific topic, and Davies makes it very clear in his intro that he isn’t a fan of that type of history. I still wish he had gone more into detail in some areas; he assumed a level of baseline knowledge for all time periods and locations he discusses, which is of course an argument for his “style” of history. I also felt like some topics were irrelevant. He takes a few pages to talk about cheese and how much of it Charlemagne had shipped to him but then barely mentions the division of Ireland or the Troubles. Surely, the violence in Northern Ireland is more important than the cheese! I also found his structure jarring; it seemed that he had trouble deciding if he wanted to approach history chronologically or thematically once he got to the industrial revolution. The author also seemed to have strong biases that made me uncomfortable at times and felt out of place in a survey of history. Lastly, I found that he didn’t quite deliver his promise of a look at all of Europe. While he does reference Eastern Europe and Russian frequently he rarely included Scandinavia or Ireland. I did learn a lot from this book in the end though.

[Eli · Rating 1 out of 5]

DNF.

Honestly pretty disappointing. Despite covering 2000+ years of history, Davies still manages to bring up 'stalinism' and 'totalitarianism' at every opportunity. Most of this book is essentially preface to the section on the 20th century where he repeats the tired reactionary narratives about the USSR and communism. Davies' anticommunism and liberalism ruin what would've been an interesting book.

[Olga · Rating 3 out of 5]

Надмірний акцент на історії Польщі зіпсував усе. Мало уваги тут до України, бракувало мені теж балкан. Тема голокосту представленна побіжно, тема виникнення християнства повна скепсису та місцями зачіпає релігійні почуття.

[John Lucy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Unless you know a whole lot about Europe already, this is a great book to read for the curious lay person and intellectual or for the student. It's long, clearly, but very much worth it as a book to read on the side. I'm a firm believer that histories should neither be told as stories or as simply a collection of facts, but something in between: Davies does it to near perfection. The writing is smooth and easily understandable for all. And, to his great credit, Davies tries hard at writing the history without cultural biases or scholarly biases of any sort--obviously this is nearly impossible to do and Davies admits as much in his introduction, which is a great piece of writing in its own right. For people who "don't like" or "don't care" about history, the introduction alone is worth reading. Yet Davies does not fall into the modern trip, either, of exhibiting how evil the "good" guys actually were: the good guys are shown as good and bad, and the bad guys are shown as bad and good--the facts are given the most weight and various forms of historical interpretation are offered, though Davies does always give his own conclusions as well. The end result is that a reader from any country, the U.S. included, can feel proud and embarrassed of their country's exploits with a mostly balanced reading of history.

In 1200 pages Davies does an excellent job of compacting the whole of Europe's history, with a strong emphasis on more modern history. All eras are covered but the closer to today the more attention Davies gives. For the lay person, perhaps the best trait of the history are the many capsules throughout that do not and would not fit into the historical narrative but cite interesting tidbits of historical knowledge, particularly cultural knowledge: for instance, ever wonder how vampire legends began? Like the introduction, the capsules are a good means for people who claim to not care about or like history to understand how fun history can be by learning from where certain cultural phenomenons come.

Smaller histories are likely to accrue the criticism of having left out material while longer histories are often considered unreadable, and still receive the criticism of leaving out material. While all historians are susceptible to bias by inclusion or exclusion, it would be hard for anyone but a specialist scholar to point out where Davies does not include relevant material. As someone with a fairly good knowledge of European history going into the reading of this book, it's easy to say that Davies includes all the major and minor points of history and then some. The only problem is that Davies sometimes includes pieces of information by merely referencing it, as if he expects the reader to already know what he's talking about. Similarly, Davies is, to his credit, clearly attempting to write a history of Europe for Europeans, and Americans, and not for only one language group, though he is writing in English. What this means is that he often quotes poetry and other things in the native language, which is great, but then at times does not translate, which is not great, either expecting the reader to know French, Russian, German, and Italian particularly, or not caring at all about the reader. In the same vein Davies uses the actual spelling of historical figures' names rather than any accepted Anglicized versions of the names and rarely explains. This is particularly an issue at the beginning of the history with the Romans and Greeks, but continues to be an issue all the way through to approximately the Renaissance portion of the history. Most of the time the reader will figure it out--it would be hard to mistake Julius Caesar, given how much space he receives and that his story should be fairly recognizable for anyone--sometimes a less knowledgeable reader will come across a previously unknown figure and then be taught a spelling that many others wouldn't immediately recognize.

All in all, I highly recommend this history. At the very least, read the introduction, the capsules, and the last two or three chapters.

[Elle · Rating 4 out of 5]

*4.5

Ahh! After six months (though really two intense months) of reading I've finally finished this monster of a book! I'm not saying that in quality only in the size of the book. The content itself was actually really enjoyable.

Norman Davies divides his chapters between the the ideas and events that take place in the continent during each respective era. He shows how things that happen to one state or part of Europe can have immense effect on another area. I really enjoyed getting the broader picture which showed the inter-connectivity which allowed me to grasp the fact that many different things happens simultaneously that I probably never would have considered otherwise. Sometimes it's difficult to get that from a book that has a much narrower focus.

True to his word, Davies strives to give the lesser known areas the attention they deserve especially when it comes to the Eastern side...and even more especially, the Polish side. This I don't really mind since it is an area of great interest to me, though I feel the need to call the author out on it and compare him to a student who writes an essay and feels the need to include everything he knows on his subject of interest in order to add length or to show his niche expertise. Again, something I personally don't mind as a person with an interest in the country, but I'm not sure how others without that mindset feel.

Since the book is older than I am, it was interesting to see how Davies' predictions compared to how history really unfolded. I personally would like to see an updated version which includes material up until my current present day but I doubt that will happen.

Long story short, as any historian, Norman Davies shows a certain bias however, Europe does a great job of condensing a whole continent of history into one volume (which is one of his goals if I remember the introduction alright). The book's length should not discourage one from reading it as it is a great work and I will definitely be keeping it on my shelf to refer back to should I ever feel the need.

[Brown Robin · Rating 2 out of 5]

There are a number of ways to approach a topic as daunting as the entire history of a continent of the Earth, even a continent which is a continent by courtesy only, a continent which is more aptly described as a peninsula--or, to be even more precise, an Asian fjord. Davies decides to give us an exhausting litany of names and places and dates. Lozenges of parenthetical asides are interspersed throughout the text to break the monotony of the main thrust of his narrative; these are usually the most informative parts of the book, and occasionally witty and insouciant. Some do not add much to the whole.

I cannot recommend the book to anyone who has something to do instead, even if that something is chores one might wish to avoid. If you're looking for distraction, skip this and do the chores.

I was game through 300 pages, but my mind can hold only so much extraneous detail. I suppose my problem is I wanted something specific from this book, namely a cultural mise en scene of the idea of Europe. That is included in the price of admission, but is interlarded with so much more that I kept losing the thread of the theme I wanted to experience. Davies reads like a sensible chap who might be a fun pub date on a rainy Sunday afternoon, just to chat about human nature, and his insights--though buried in the rough--are, well, insightful, but this work is simply too much. I suppose one could stretch out the reading of it across a year or so, but I feel like that would attenuate the pleasures to the point where other, more concise, books would serve the purpose better.

There is a solid 200 page cultural precis of "Europe" in this tome; alas there are also 1000 pages of tedium.

[Julianne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well, it’s settled. In the great words of Billy Joel, we didn’t start the fire.

It took 10 months, but I finally finished Europe! Will I be any use on the European history questions in pub trivia? Will I dominate in the European history Jeopardy! categories? Unlikely. But at least I have a sense of when things happened and what caused them.

Started: September in Radolfzell, Germany
Ended: June in Medveja, Croatia

[Seyyah Kudema · Rating 4 out of 5]

Antik çağlardan 1992'ye uzanan upuzun bir maratondu. Son 25 yılı düşündum. Avrupa yine değişiyordu.

[Mykyta Kuzmenko · Rating 5 out of 5]

В фейворитс. Вопрос конечно вкусовой, но это сплошное наслаждение. Факты, истории, оценки, подбор сюжетов очень понравился. Это литература высшего уровня.

[czikitajło · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ogólnie to DNF, ale oceniam i daję opinię: to nie jest książka do czytania na jeden raz. To jest coś w stylu: nie mogę spać w nocy, bo nie pamiętam, o co chodziło z Pepinem Krótkim i czemu jakiś papież coś zbanował, otwieram i czytam kilka stron, zamykam i wracam do czegoś innego za kilka tygodni. Książkę mam wypożyczoną z biblioteki, ale na tym etapie wolę niedoczytana oddać i kupić sobie własną, żeby mi stała na wszelki wypadek na półce. Historia jak historia, bywało mniej lub bardziej ciekawie, ale nigdy nie było sucho

[Googoogjoob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Norman Davies is a brilliant but often frustrating historian. He likes big, sweeping historical narratives, in a way that's very unfashionable and uncommon among writers of his generation and younger; his methods and style are more reminiscent of earlier historians like AJP Taylor (who Davies studied under, not coincidentally) or Eric Hobsbawm. He's widely read and knowledgeable, and he's disparaging of the increasing narrowness and specialization of historical research, to the detriment of grand story-telling history. But, on the flip side of this, he's often better at, or at least spends more time on, dismantling popularly-understood narratives of the past than explicitly arguing new ones; and the new narratives he argues for are rigorous and often ambiguous and undramatic. His style is forceful and sometimes polemical in a way that's more suited to controversy than storytelling. He's also embarrassingly prone to making ground-level errors when he strays from his own research specializations- things like getting dates wrong by a few years, or mis-describing the relationship between two people, or the like. These ground-level errors do little to weaken his big arguments, but they undermine his credibility on specific subjects. He likes to chase digressions to ground- which sometimes means pages and pages about a subject of marginal relevance to his main themes- which is often very interesting, because Davies is a smart guy with wide-ranging interests, but which can also be frustrating if you're impatient for the "meat" of the work. He has both great strengths and great weaknesses.

Davies's outlook and ideology seem to me to be basically liberal in practical terms, socially and economically. But he's a contrarian by nature (perhaps more of Taylor's influence); and while it's not atypical for liberals to profess a skepticism of grand ideological projects like communism or fascism, Davies's skepticism, fueled by historical knowledge, runs deeper, to the extent that he's skeptical of the project of nations, nation-states and the modern international order, and sometimes, seemingly, skeptical of the project of liberalism itself. His ire towards communism (he tends to take the least-generous possible tacks in interpreting the history of the USSR in particular, though he rarely gets specific enough to be actually falsifying details), for example, can make him come across as more of a rightist than he actually is; but then his cosmopolitan suspicion of the project of the nation-state, or his sympathy for the historical underdog, can sometimes make him seem further left than he actually is, as well.

Altogether, as I said above, he is brilliant and frustrating in equal measure. His idiosyncrasies are both his greatest strength and his greatest weakness. You don't really get "standard" or "national" versions of history from Davies, you get the Davies version of history, for better or worse. Possibly this is nowhere more evident than in this, the most ambitious and broadly-scoped of his works, which traces the history of Europe from its peopling to the closing years of the 20th century.

This is a monumental work, and it's not even the book Davies will be remembered for (that's God's Playground, his equally monumental history of Poland). 1136 pages of text, covering prehistory to the 1990s, and including sidebars on curios, cultural artifacts, or and recurring themes or ideas in Europe's history. 66 pages of footnotes on the text and capsules; then 133 pages of capacious appendices, including everything from maps and timelines and tables of statistics to samples of sheet music and lists of Popes and samples of historical writing systems. It's imposing, and clearly the result of a tremendous amount of work. It's worth reading, it's informative and even sometimes entertaining. But it's nowhere near definitive, and it's not really the final word on anything.