The long war with Revolutionary France had a fundamental impact on British political culture. The most dramatic example of this is the mass mobilisation of the British people in response to French invasion threats throughout the last years of the century but; most spectacularly; in the period 1803-5; after the collapse of the Peace of Amiens; and the massing of an invasion fleet by Napoleon. The preparations for the threatened invasion had many dimensions including military and naval mobilization; the development of defensive earthworks and fortifications on the British Coast; the surveillance and monitoring of radicals identified with the French cause; the incitement of loyalist sentiment through caricature; newspapers; tracts and broadsides; and loyalist songs; and the construction of Napoleon as the prime enemy of British interests. Although aspects of these issues have been studied; this book is the first time that they have been brought together systematically. By bringing together historians of Britain and France to examine the dynamics of the military conflict between the two nations in this period; this book measures its impact on their domestic political cultures; and its effect on their perceptions of each other. In so doing it will encourage scholars to further examine aspects of popular mobilisation which have hitherto been largely ignored; such as the resurgence of loyalism in 1803; and to see their contributions in the light of the dual contexts of domestic political conflict and their war with each other. By allowing scholars to focus their attention on this period of heightened tension; the book contributes both new detail to our understanding of the period and a better overall understanding of the complex place which each nation came to occupy in the consciousness of the other.
#10423221 in Books 1996-06-03Original language:FrenchPDF # 1 #File Name: 0752205137383 pages
Review
18 of 19 people found the following review helpful. Blame it on Zoroaster!By Dave SchwinghammerGerald Messadie traces the devil to Persian Zoroastrianism in the first millennium B.C. In founding the first true monotheism; Zoroaster was motivated by a hatred of the aristocracy and in particular bloody sacrifices. He seems to have borrowed his theology from Mazdaism; which originally taught that there were two spirits; Ahura Mazda; the "Wise God" and Ahriman; the spirit of evil; who would become our devil. We see the Christian devil developing when the Jews return from the Babylonian Captivity; where they were influenced by Zoroastrianism. Prior to this Judaism had no hell nor a real devil. Messadie examines the Old Testament and determines that the snake in the Garden of Eden was "just a snake" and that Job's tormenter was Yahweh's collaborator. Only with the coming of the Essenes; who revolted against Hellenism; did our conception of the devil appear. We also learn that Jesus was at one time an Essene; as was John the Baptist; since the Jews did not perform baptism. Some of this is awfully familiar. For instance; Zoroaster foretold a great war at the end of time when Heaven would send down a Savior; Mithra; who would destroy the forces of evil by fire and sword. Zoroastrianism also includes a Last Judgment; which will condemn the bad to hell; while the good will live in Paradise for all eternity.Zoroastrianism also had a great deal to do with consolidation of the power of the clergy. The religion was based on a transcendent definition of Good and Evil whose human adjudicator would be the clergy. Zoroastrianism also tried to lay down not only religious law but also civil law. Any breach in religious law would be punished by secular authorities. Thus; it was politics that gave birth to the Devil and "the Devil is indeed a political invention." We would see this again with the Devine Right of kings. Messadie works hard at proving that some cultures managed to get along fine without a devil. Native Americans; The Celts; pre-Christian and Arabic Africans; and Greeks and Romans managed without a devil. In Greece religion reflected its democratic culture; the individual had direct contact with his Gods. Greeks knew where Hercules lived. The Romans had utilitarian gods. Messadie says; "From the very beginning; the Roman gods were consuls; prefects and functionaries--in a word; state employees." In Rome "superstitio" was a crime. The Africans and the Native Americans' religions were animistic. Every one of God's creatures contained "a portion of his breath." One of the last chapters deals with Islam. According to Messadie; Islam is very much misunderstood in the West. Messadie was raised in Egypt; so he's a little easier on Islam than other scholars might be; but he doesn't mention the angel Gabriel dictating the Koran to Muhammad. Instead he emphasizes the political nature of Islam's inception. According to Messadie; Muhammad was a student of power most influenced by the Byzantiums. He studied the structure of their empire and determined that religion and the state must work hand in hand.He also studied the Bible. The Koran and the Bible are not much different; except for Muhammad's rejection of the trinity and Jesus as a corporal God. He emphasizes that the cause of Evil is individuality. "Whoever does not abdicate his individuality to Allah is `arrogant' and thus Satan's tool."I could go on indefinitely. Let it suffice to say that this is one of the most enlightening books I have read in ages. Messadie's summation is irate if nothing else. He blames the Holocaust; not on the devil; but on human stupidity. He ends by saying; "My conviction is that it is profoundly Satanic to believe in the Devil. We live under the sign of a nonexistent deity cobbled together twenty-six centuries ago by power-hungry Iranian priests."0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Five StarsBy Ricardo Jose MartinezAmazing and informative book! A must if you really want to know what is that concept called "The Devil".2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. FantasticBy Richard L. Nordstrom"A History of the Devil" deserves more than the alloted five stars. It is more than I thought it would be. I've read the Bible; cover to cover; and several other research books covering history and contents of ancient writings. I do feel that it was helpful to have read these others first. I wouldn't have anyway of knowing if it would really be necessary. I enjoy history and these pages are packed with information. Well written.
