Paul Johnson, Heroes: From Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar to Churchill and De Gaulle (aff). (Ney York: Harper Perennial, 2007). 299 pages.
Paul Johnson is the kind of historian I always wished to be: English, patristic, well-read, and well-connected. He has written extensively on a wide variety of topics, including histories of Christianity, the Jews, and the American people. This book is part of a trilogy. The other two entries focus on Intellectuals and Creators. Johnson has known many of the British elite and is well versed in culture and the arts. He brings a breadth of knowledge to his writing that is profoundly interesting, regardless of whether you always agree with him.
In this book, Johnson examines what it means to be a “hero” by looking at a wide variety of historical figures. Some, such as Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, George Washington, and Winston Churchill, are cited often. But Johnson also highlights women such as Mae West, Marilyn Monroe, and various others who were influential hostesses. Some of his choices appear arbitrary or whimsical. For instance, he dives into all the tragic details of Marilyn Monroe’s life and then concludes that she might not be a hero, but he is at a loss as to how to describe her (252). He mentions Mother Teresa only briefly, though she clearly meets the criteria for being a heroine (279).
Johnson claims Homer viewed heroes as “a name given to men of superhuman strength, courage, or ability, favored by the gods; at a later time regarded as intermediate between gods and men, and immortal” (xii). Johnson concludes, “The fact is, anyone is a hero who has been widely, persistently over long periods, and enthusiastically regarded as heroic by a reasonable person, or even an unreasonable one” (xiv).
Johnson examines a wide variety of heroes throughout history. Interestingly, when looking at the ancient Jews, he notes, “Yet history has no miracles: only causes and consequences. And the reason the Hebrews survived are that they had a god, a sole god whom they worshipped with unique intensity and exclusiveness and they had their own language, first oral then written, in which they recorded his favor and protection. They were weak in the physics of survival, strong in the metaphysics” (2). He argues that Moses “. . . created, as it were, the matrix of heroism” (2). Johnson pays special attention to the significant heroism of women, noting, “The history of the Jews is peopled with remarkable creatures, especially women” (11).
Notably, Johnson claims “Heroism is usually loveless” (17). He suggests that “David is the culminating hero of the narrative. All biblical events lead up to him” (23). Johnson acknowledges, “So David remains the superhero of the ancient world, but also the unknown one” (26).
Johnson devotes significant space to Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. He claims they “. . . became prototypes of the heroic character for the next thousand years. They carved out vast empires for themselves and hammered their names into the history of the earth. Each was brave, highly intelligent, almost horrifically self-assured, whose ambition knew no bounds. Also selfish, cruel, without scruple and fundamentally unlovable” (27). Johnson acknowledges Alexander’s exploits as well as his alcoholism and vanity. He concludes, “At all events, he died in his bed, of fever and weakness. It was not exactly a hero’s death” (38).
Caesar transformed the Roman Republic into an empire. He fought at least 50 battles and famously subdued Gaul at the cost of at least 1,192,000 enemies dead (44). Caesar wrote of his exploits and presented his efforts as “. . . guided purely by his devotion to Rome and its interests. Personal ambition did not come into it at any stage. Everything was the ineluctable logic of history, fate and geopolitics” (43). Johnson addresses the issue of ambition. Heroes often are driven by personal ambition, though their efforts can also benefit the people or nation they lead.
Johnson mentions historical figures such as Boudica of Britain and Joan of Arc as women who led in a world dominated by men. Of Joan he observes, “In this desert of talent and virtue, Joan emerges as a brief candle of courage and goodness, soon extinguished” (70).
He cites Henry V of England as perhaps the kingdom’s greatest monarch. He says, “He is a true hero in many ways, and has a strong claim to be rated the greatest of all English monarchs” (58). Henry was named King of England and France but died in his mid-thirties before he could demonstrate his greatness to the world. Johnson submits, “If I had to pick an unsullied hero from all English history, Henry would be the man” (69).
Johnson gives some attention to the Tower of London and those who met their end in that grim place. Thomas More stands out as a man of virtue who refused to compromise himself even when the terrible Henry VIII insisted. Johnson muses, “A hero needs to know how to die” (82). More died bravely and with a sense of humor. As he lay his head upon the chopping block, he moved his beard out of the way, explaining, “As it has done no treason” (83). More claimed, “I live the king’s good servant, but God’s first” (83). Johnson also looks at the life and death of Lady Jane Grey and Mary Queen of Scots. Some of the people he discusses, it might be argued, were not heroes as much as tragic figures. Johnson examines Queen Elizabeth I, a monarch who could legitimately be viewed as a hero, especially considering her upbringing. She was imprisoned on several occasions in her youth and knew the terror of the Tower of London. She was an expert in choosing wise counsellors and practiced what Johnson refers to as “masterly inactivity” (106).
Johnson points out that heroism is traditionally focused on military people and battle. He claims, “In any case . . . whether we like it or not, the heroic soldier or sailor will always attract peoples’ admiration, more perhaps than any other kind of great man” (113). The reason for this preference may be, in part, because such heroes often face enormous stakes and matters of life and death.
Johnson examines the lives of three military men: George Washington, Admiral Nelson, and the Duke of Wellington. Johnson notes that Washington, at six foot three, enjoyed a commanding presence: “He radiated calm and quiet authority” (115). Nelson liked for his men to see him in battle and therefore risked his life on numerous occasions. Wellington, on the other hand, saw no need to win his men’s affection. He disliked when his men cheered upon his arrival. Prime Minister Pitt once claimed of Wellington, “Before appointment, he tells you all the difficulties. Once appointed he says not another word about them” (135). Johnson notes, “He was never ashamed to retreat to avoid defeat, and so was never beaten” (135). Of Waterloo he later confessed, “It was a close thing. I was never so near being beat in my life. It would not have done had I not been there” (139). When offered a palatial palace as a reward for his exploits, he declined it, claiming it was “an absurd idea” (139).
Johnson includes a chapter entitled, “Tortured Heroism in a Man’s World” highlighting women who became heroes in a world dominated by men. He says, “The martyred wives of the famous stretch back through time, a ghostly procession of largely unknown ladies, patient in eternity as they were in life” (143). He examines several women who endured much being married to famous men. Women such as J.S. Bach’s wife, who managed the household while he worked incessantly and was left penniless after his death (144). Clearly, many of these famous men would never have achieved the same success had it not been for the women who supported them.
Johnson speaks highly of Abraham Lincoln. He notes, “If ever a statesman was a master of words, he was” (167). Johnson notes that Lincoln did not believe in a traditional God, though he had a sense of providence (170). Lincoln also suffered bouts of depression (170). Johnson concludes, “He invariably did the right thing, however easily it might have been avoided. Of how many great men might this be said?” (172).
Johnson contrasts Lincoln with Robert E. Lee. He notes that Lee’s father was a thief and a public disgrace who abandoned his family. As a result, Lee was obsessed with honor. When Lincoln asked Lee to assume command of the Union forces, Lee famously responded, “I prize the Union very highly and know of no personal sacrifice I would not make to preserve it, save that of honor” (175). Lee famously said, “It is well that war is so terrible. Otherwise we should grow too fond of it” (178).
Johnson also juxtaposes Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle. He observes that Churchill spent an enormous amount of time in bed (216). When asked the reason for his success, Churchill claimed, “Conservation of energy. Never stand up when you can sit down, and never sit down when you can lie down” (216). Johnson notes that there is no evidence that Churchill had a faith in God (220). Part of Churchill’s success was his prolific writing. He won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1953 (225). He declared that “Words are the only things that last forever” (227). He also claimed history would be kind to him because he intended to write it!
De Gaulle does not fare as well with Johnson. His life was driven by vanity, yet he accomplished much. Johnson notes that de Gaulle had dedicated followers but no friends (227).
Johnson devotes a chapter to Mae West and Marilyn Monroe. West certainly succeeded in becoming successful in a world dominated by men. In 1934 she was the highest-paid entertainer in America (241). She achieved success through shrewd business practices, talent, hard work, and longevity. His account of Marilyn Monroe is heartbreaking, but it is curious that he listed her as a hero. She overcame a horrific upbringing. She was forced to marry at 16 to escape her troubled life. She was abused multiple times. She was one of the most famous people of her day. She also became addicted to drugs and died of an apparent suicide.
Johnson looks at other famous people such as Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II. Johnson knew Thatcher. He offers interesting insights into all three. Reagan and Thatcher were certainly flawed individuals. They are listed as heroes, in part, for this very reason. They overcame traditionally limiting factors and accomplished much good.
Johnson concludes with a discussion about the hope for heroes today. There has been a general shift in opinion concerning heroes. In an egalitarian age, we shy away from openly admitting that some people rise above their peers to accomplish greatness. Yet students of history recognize that there are certain individuals in any age who stand out.
I found this book interesting. I knew about several of the people he highlighted, but little about others. At times Johnson delves into issues such as Paris salons that seem periphery to the topic, but then he offers keen insights into famous people. For those who enjoy reading about leadership or biographies, you may enjoy reading this book. I also highly recommend his book on Intellectuals.
Rating: 3
