100 BERL 2

A few thoughts:
A great read if you're at all familiar with the figures discussed (18th and early 19th century philosophy types). If not, I imagine it might be hard to follow. I bet it would make an ideal teaching tool, though--as an accompaniment to a reading of the primary texts of the period. For example,
"Professor, WTF is Fichte and/or Schelling trying to say?"
"If you'd like further explanation, read Berlin's *Roots of Romanticism*, page X for next week."
--Next week--
"Oh, okay. That makes a lot more sense. But what about..."

I also love the fact that when one of these author's is obscure, he says so, rather than affect the more commonplace attitude of 'Of course, since I've spent 20 years studying this material, all the gibberish is perfectly clear.' Sort of question begging, if you think about it. As an added bonus, Berlin usually mocks the author in question when pointing this out, which must have driven specialists in the audience to distraction.

Berlin's ability to summarize extemporaneously is also quite extraordinary (the book is based on a lecture series, not a finished manuscript). I've spent years studying some of these people, but Berlin can summarize in a paragraph what might take me hours to explain. Of course, he glosses over certain details, which True Scholars Must Never Ever Do, but he knows which details to drop and keeps only the minimum necessary to make his point. This is a very effective rhetorical technique, but one I think he only gets away with due to the massive historical erudition he displayed elsewhere. If a grad student adopted this approach in class, he'd be eaten alive. Not that I have any firsthand knowledge of that or anything....

Lastly, I should point out that I have a reason that this bugs me: Berlin (and others who adopt this approach, elsewhere) are not really proving what they're saying. Instead, this rhetorical approach is an argument from authority. On the other hand, a grad student or other 'unproven' scholar would be rightly criticized for not demonstrating their claims. This contrast suggests (anecdotally, to me) a problem for academic discourse: young scholars might say something (i.e. prove something), but no one listens to them until they get older. But once they get older, and people start to listen to them, they no longer say anything.

Anyway, that last bit isn't really related to the book at all, which everybody should read all the time and stuff. Because of the oceans of books written on the period, there are precious few that are actually enjoyable to sit on a beach with and read. And this is one of them.

( )