Reviews

The Dream of Scipio by Iain M. Pears

Only show reviews with written explanations

roshk99's review against another edition

4.0

Extremely confusing and deeply philosophical. Pears effortlessly weaves the three time periods together with profound parallels and subtle connections, making it a difficult read, and I put down the book with the certainty that I did not understand all of it.

marilynsaul's review against another edition

Go to review page

5.0

I remain in awe of Pears' ability to weave characters and, in this case, times/historical events. In The Dream of Scipio he takes three different historical collapses: Roman Empire (particularly when the Holy See was in Provence, France), France during the 1300s bubonic plague, and France during the German invasion of WWII. Each time frame has its easily recognizable characters, all drawn together by their search for truth, enlightenment, and escape from the throes of the corrupt hegemony of the Roman Catholic Church. Sometimes the reading was tedious, but then I'd be drawn back in by the philosophical debate engendered by what I had just read. It is an intriguing book that is well worth reading, though my mind hurts and I will have to follow it up with some light fluff reading.

aldozirsov's review against another edition

Go to review page

4.0

hasil hunting Minggu, 3 Mei 2009

cherub__'s review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark reflective

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.0

The title is a reference to the eponymous text by Cicero (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somnium_Scipionis) that discusses seeing Rome as but a small part of the greater whole of the universe, and hearing the “music of the spheres,” and which served as an introductory text on cosmology for philosophers and students for centuries.

The tale is told in 3 parts by an omniscient narrator:

one about Manilus Hippomanes, an aristocrat in 5th century Gaul who reluctantly becomes Bishop of Vaison in order to “save” his province from the predations of Euric the barbarian; one about the Provencal poet Olivier de Noyen, who discovers Manilus’ joint past as both brutally effective Bishop and pagan philosopher during the Avignon Papacy and the Black Death; and Julien Barneuve, an intellectual who cooperates with the Vichy government and discovers Manilus’ story through his study of the life of Olivier.

All 3 men are, in different ways, students of Neoplatonism — a philosophic tradition beginning in the 2nd century and heavily influencing the Christianity that became the central religion of the Empire. Neoplatonism, at its heart, can be summed up as theorizing that all reality can be derived from a single principle, "the One”, and that all truth/goodness/happiness (these are considered the same concepts in Neoplatonism) stems from understanding of the One. Neoplatonism’s “One” can be, in the context of the book, be seen as much the same thing as the highest circle of heaven described in Cicero’s Dream of Scipio.

All 3 men fall in love with a woman who will be sacrificed for the “greater good” by the end of the book. Manilus maintains a lifelong semi-aromantic relationship with Sofia, a philosopher who is not literally sacrificed, but whose teachings are fated to be ignored by an increasingly unlettered and extremely religious population. Though she encourages Manilus to return to public life by way of the Church, she is fated to die a philosophical death when her last, greatest student (Manilus) falls from grace and misunderstands her teachings as he becomes Bishop of Vaison and is forced to make an alliance with the Burgundian King, and is subsequently forced to defend that alliance by killing both his best friend and his adopted son, and encourages an early pogrom on the province’s Jewish population in order to promote unity among the Christian populace. Olivier de Noyen falls in love with Rebecca, a Christian heathen turned Jew in the course of his work for Cardinal Ceccani, a leading member of the Papal Court in Avignon during the Black Death. He betrays his master when, in a fit of anti-Jewish feeling stirred up by Ceccani, Rebecca and her adoptive father figure are swept into the dungeons of Pope Clement VI. By alerting Clement of Ceccani’s plans to force the Papal court back to Rome, he secures Rebecca’s release from prison and Papal bulls against harming the Jews, but also ensures his own death at the hands of a vengeful Ceccani. Julien falls in love with the Jewish painter Julia Bronsen in the middle of WW2, and attempts to protect her throughout the holocaust, but ultimately fails in his attempts.

All 3 men are given what amounts to the same choice: to “save civilization” at the expense of the few, or at the expense of their personal loves. Manilus fundamentally fails this test in the eyes of the author: the alliance with the Burgundians was right and true, but his cold-blooded murder of his friend and adopted son and his inaction against the mob that burned the Jewish quarter of Vaison rendered him just as “barbaric” as the barbarians he hoped to defend his province from, and he ultimately failed to understand the most basic elements of the responsibilities of the rulers to the ruled (and in Neoplatonism, understanding is the key to virtue). Olivier is given the choice to ignore the deaths of his beloved Rebecca, her adoptive father, and Jews in all of Christendom for the benefit of his master Ceccani and the goal of returning the papacy to Rome, but instead chooses the innocent and demands Rebecca’s release at the expense of his own life. In this way, though he did not understand the philosophy evident in Manilus’ work and doing so for ultimately personal reasons rather than any grand ideal, he follows the virtue of its argument and helps maintain “civilization” by protecting the innocent and choosing not to give in to the ease of the scapegoat option. When Julien has the choice to help “save” French civilization by joining the Vichy government during the war or standing by his principles as an academic and as Julia’s lover, he first chooses Vichy because of the rationalization that if he does not do the job, someone worse will. Eventually he is forced by his friend and boss Marcel to give up Julia’s freedom and she is taken by the authorities and dies in Auschwitz; this betrayal forces him to recognize that his role as collaborator is in direct conflict with his morals and that he has to save the members of the Resistance he gave up to try to save Julia.

The tales of Manilus, Olivier, and Julien almost parallel the thesis-antithesis-synthesis model of Hegelian dialectics, and it seems likely to me that this was Pears’s motivation for the 3-part, 3-character work. Manilus’ choice to sacrifice his philosophy and good moral character for “his community” (at the expense of part of that community) provides a thesis that most closely matches that of Cicero’s conclusion that the path of righteousness leads one to be a good citizen (or a good ruler). Olivier’s choice to sacrifice his life and his rightful master in favor of his love for Rebecca is the antithesis to Manilus’ sacrifice of his love and goodness in favor of “civilization”. Julien’s choice to first put French administration above his morals, and then his reversal due to Marcel’s betrayal of Julia appears at first to be both thesis and antithesis combined, with emphasis on the rightful conclusion of the antithesis. True synthesis, however, comes with Julien’s recognition that the holocaust was not the cause of the Germans’ barbarism, but the ultimate extension of the traditional choice to sacrifice Jews for “unity” or “civilization” stemming back 1500 years. In Julien’s conclusion, “civilization” includes barbarism just as bad as the true barbarians, except, as in the words of the philosopher Sophia, the doing of evil deeds is worst when they are done by men who understand goodness. Thus, the act of “saving” civilization is not the same choice as presented to Manilus or Olivier, but of recognizing when “civilization” is no longer worth saving or when the act of saving civilization fundamentally corrupts it.

nle2004's review against another edition

Go to review page

5.0

Очень умный и грустный роман, затрагивающий несколько важных тем, актуальных независимо от времени. Три сюжетные линии разворачиваются в переломные моменты истории: гибель Римской империи в 5 веке, эпидемия чумы 14 века и немецкая оккупация Франции во время Второй мировой войны. И, независимо от эпохи, от религии, от общественных норм и правил, проблемы героев очень похожи. Всем им не раз придется делать выбор, который будет менять и их жизнь, и жизни многих людей.
Автор задает нам вопрос о мере ответственности за компромиссы, о том, насколько масштабными могут быть эти компромиссы. Ответы у каждого, наверное, будут разные.
Кроме того, что роман дает возможность подумать и попереживать, еще одно его достоинство - то, как автор описывает события. Каждая сюжетная линия раскручивается с нарастающим ритмом, от медленного описания к напряженному эмоциональному финалу. В начале книги сложно предположить насколько ярким будет окончание и как сложно потом будет сформулировать ответ на вопрос о том, где граница между тем, что можно сделать во имя благой цели и тем, что делать нельзя ни при каких обстоятельствах.