The book claims to be an exploration of the idea of what it means to be human in the Western tradition from Greece to the Renaissance.

The book proves to be primarily a discussion of the history of the Western tradition from Greece to the Renaissance, painfully dependent on secondary sources for much of the time.

The author discusses the major historical events and many of the personalities and philosophies which developed throughout this roughly two millennia of history. Many things can be gained by it, especially if one is not as familiar with the basic story of the Western tradition, which might well be true of many who have endured modern forms of education.

And yet there are many times where the author does not seem as familiar with the primary sources, or at least is allowing secondary sources too much influence. Some of her discussions of early Christianity sound plainly Gnostic. Her understanding of Egyptian sources seemed to be entirely based on secondary sources. One reads citations from Durant, which should be a no-no to the modern historian. This seems to be less pronounced toward the end, which is understandable in light of the author's stronger knowledge base in terms of the Italian Renaissance.

Furthermore the author definitely seems to be of the "great man" tradition of historiography, and seems to be a continuation of the Clarke school of history. Much is made of art and artistic expression as a means of understanding culture, especially as it relates to the medieval and Renaissance period.

I personally expected the work to be aligned with its title, putting the primary emphasis on the trajectory of the development of the concept of the individual in the Western philosophical tradition. Perhaps this was the author's desire, but it has been lost in the general telling of the historical narrative. The book as is tells the story of the Western tradition in its history, 500 BCE to 1500 CE. That's not nothing. But if the author believes she has accomplished her purpose, it's requiring a lot more "lift" by the reader to be able to draw the relevant conclusions regarding how people conceived of themselves, one another, the state, etc. through this period. Let the reader be aware of what they're getting into.

While overall this book is excellent, on occasion Rosellini doesn't look beyond what "everyone" knows to find the actual facts. The author's purpose in commendable, to see how the notion of "self" developed from ancient times to the Early Renaissance. I was encouraged that she stopped at that point because after the Reformation notions of the nature of man and of self changed quickly and dramatically.

I liked that in addition to history and philosophy she gave great weight to art in her discussion. All too often this is neglected as a reflection of our ideas about ourselves and the world. I also liked that she is very widely read and that this informs her writing. She does a great job of curating the things she writes about, creating an excellent overview.

Even so the book has flaws. Her understanding of science is not good. The are several factual mistakes when she writes about it. She also tends to repeat schoolbook history when she does not know much about the subject, not using the fine research she shows elsewhere. The book would be stronger if she had just left out these short remarks instead.

The biggest flaw in the book is her Conclusion. I would have liked to see a summing up of the development of the notion of self. Or perhaps some reasoning about what changed significantly. Instead I got a whirlwind an not very good overview of philosophy and, sort of, science after 1550.

My advice, read the book but skip the conclusion.

3.5 Stars

Rossellini begins with "...our all-too-human tendency to favor self-interest well above communal purposes has always been the most consistent obstacle to the creation of a fully harmonic and unified society" and concludes with "...the sin that since the dawn of time has been considered the greatest of all human shortcomings is hubris, which means both lack of humility and the ambition to think that one does not need the imput of others to enrich the meager finitude of the self," thus bookending this tome about history, philosophy and one's place in it all.

Know Thyself reads like part history book and part philosophical discussion with plenty of art, culture, and religion thrown in. Rossellini has plenty of one-line zingers which scratch at the heart of the matter: who we are in the midst of society. Some of my favorites were:

"In agreement with Aristotle, Cicero in his book On Duties maintained that true humanness occurred when man developed to his utmost the social talents for which he was created. “We are not born for ourselves alone, … but our country claims for itself one part of our birth.”"

"The Stoics of these disillusioned times—to use Bertrand Russell’s words—asked not “how can men create a good State?” but rather “how can men be virtuous in a wicked world, or happy in a world of suffering?”"

"For Seneca, who, as tutor of Nero, had witnessed firsthand the atrocities of which human nature is capable, that fierce clinging to resignation might have appeared as the only possible anchor of salvation in a world full of violence and darkness."

"The prejudiced view was easily extendable to the Muslims: infidels who, by virtue of being non-Christians, were imagined by the majority of Western people (most of whom had never met a Muslim) as more akin to animals and monsters than human beings."

"Relying on prejudice to demonize and dehumanize the Other was, and still remains, the best way to incite man’s zest for hate and killing."

"We cannot expect to improve ourselves if we don’t assume the responsibility of being our brothers’ (and sisters’!) keepers. The most important lesson we can derive from history is that identity is built never on a monologue but always on the honest, respectful, and committed exchange of ideas that true dialogue represents."


There were many times when I paused to reread a passage or think over some of the truths Rossellini laid out. I would love to see a complementary volume which looked at the identity of self through an Eastern lens.