What makes "All God's Children such an impressive read is the extent to which the author explores the people, places and events that shaped Christianity. This historic novel is exhaustively researched, and it shows. All the time Jim Snyder spent traipsing around Europe and Israel pays off. You can almost sense his familiarity with the key surroundings in countless descriptions that are penned with authority and comfort.

But what makes the book such a compelling read is the high drama that unfolds in the cradle of civilization some 2,000 years ago and the great care that is taken to sort out this confusing period in history and tell the story in chronological order.

As a Jew, I was eager to learn more about how and why the early Christians broke from their Hebrew traditions to preach a gospel that transformed this once mysterious Jewish sect into the modern world's most popular religion. Ironically, my understanding of -- and appreciation for -- the rise of Christianity is enriched by an observation by Jewish historian Flavius Josephus about Judaism's own survival: that an unwaivering commitment to God is enough to overcome the forces of evil and persecution. No one from the period's cast of colorful characters fulfills this mission better than the apostle Paul, who is relentless in his campaign to spread the gospel and absolutely fearless in the face of hostility.

With all the recent battles raging between Arabs and Jews in Israel, I'm sadly reminded after having just read "All God's Children" over the holidays that the more things change the more they stay the same. The Holy Land is still one of the most volatile spots on earth and history appears doomed to repeat itself.

Jim's book takes an era of history that played a huge role in the course of Western Civilization and shows how three very different cultures were interconnected to each other. The history of a culture never takes place in a vacuum, but is impacted by the events going on all around it. Jim is able to bring together the stories of the Roman Caesars, the Jews, and the early Christians so that the reader can understand the whole story. A book that is fascinating and well worth reading!

James D. Snyder, a Presbyterian elder, writer, editor andpublisher with over 30 years' experience, tells a chilling andfascinating tale of an ex-slave writing from Rome from the death of Jesus Christ to the expansion of the new Christian Word over the next 40 years. Snyder has thoroughly researched this site by making numerous visits to various sites and digging up an impressive body of investigative materials.

Snyder juxtaposes the rise of Christianity with the ever-growing corruption of the Roman Empire. The forty years included in this saga encompasses historical events after the crucifixion of Jesus up to the destruction of the Jewish temple at Jerusalem. He includes the powerful leaders of the time: Caesar Augustus, Herod the Great, Herod Agrippa, Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, Seneca, Peter, Paul, Mark, and John.

His descriptions make the reader feel like he is on a tour of the area, with one important distinction. He has uncovered virtually every nuance of the times, and the reader's view is almost one of an eavesdropping historian, as when he describes the treachery and death of Messalina, Claudius' young and promiscuous wife who made the critical mistake of openly marrying Gaius Silius at the castle of Claudius during his absence and carrying on what can only be called an orgy:

"Only then did Messalina truly understand her position. Without further word, the mother calmly opened a drawer and offered her daughter a dagger. Messalina looked at it as though it were a serpent. She put it to her throat, but could not strike. Then she moved it to her breast, but her hand was as if frozen. The soldiers watched her for a few silent seconds. In the next instant an officer ran her through. Claudius was still at his dinner table when news came that Messalina had died. He did not even ask whether it was by her own hand or by whose. After an eerie pause, Claudius called for more wine and the conversation went on."

All God's Children is not for the faint of heart. It is an enormous and complicated volume that provides an educational look at a period of time that is of interest to virtually all Christians.

Shelly Glodowski, Reviewer

Nichols' translation of Gorgias is indeed impressive. I have heard and read other translations of Gorgias- but the word choice of those other translation is too unadmirable(like "knack"-a word that is not fitted with Platonic dialogues). Nichols keeps consistent and easily understandable words. He doesn't go about saying "smart" words- unlike others who seem to try and exhaust their vocab. before they finish the work.

This is one of my favorite Socratic dialogues. The evidence suggests that Plato wrote it soon after the execution of Socrates, and while I would not say there is a bitter edge to this Gorgias dialogue, I can definitely say that the exchanges do get a little lively at times. At one point, I could almost hear the voices of Socrates and Polus being raised as they argued. Another positive aspect of this dialogue is the fact that it is comparatively easy to understand. Socrates does not start spouting ideas about true Forms or using geometry to prove his points; the more esoteric, more advanced Platonic ideas are to be found in Plato's later writings. In many ways, this dialogue also serves as an introduction to Plato's masterpiece The Republic. Socrates' ideas on some things seem nascent at this point, and he actually contradicts some points he would later make, but the heart of Socratic thought lies within easy grasp in the pages of this dialogue.

The dialogue begins as a discussion about the true nature of oratory. The famed orator Gorgias is in town, and Socrates is most anxious to have a discussion with him. At first, Gorgias' younger friend Polus desires to speak for Gorgias, but he proves little match for Socrates. When Gorgias enters the discussion, Socrates treats him very well, as a respectable man with whom he disagrees, and Gorgias for his part is never flustered by Socrates' description of his art as a knack and as a form of pandering. Later, Callicles bravely jumps into the mix, and things really get interesting. Socrates seemingly admires Callicles' courage to state what he means without shame, yet he winds up getting Callicles to agree with his points in the end. What is it all about? The main points that Socrates makes are that it is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong, and that it is better for a man to be punished for his wrongs than to escape punishment. Implicit in his argument is the belief that all wrongdoing is the result of ignorance; following up on this idea, he declares that dictators and politicians who hold vast powers are the most miserable men of all. He goes so far as to describe Athenian heroes such as Pericles as bad men because the state was less healthy when they left office than when they took office, the proof being that such men eventually lost power and were even ostracized.

For Socrates, happiness comes from being virtuous and self-disciplined. The orator can make a great speech and convince his peers that he is right, but he does this by inculcating belief rather than knowledge in the minds of his audience; he requires no knowledge to win such a debate, and as a result he tells the people what he knows they want to hear rather than what is truly best for them. Right and wrong are immaterial to the orator, Socrates charges. Callicles urges Socrates to give up his immature fixation on philosophy and become a public speaker; were he to be brought to court and charged with a wrong, Callicles tells him that he would be unable to defend himself. Much of the concluding pages consist of a wonderful defense by Socrates of his way of life. He agrees that a court could rather easily try and execute him, but if that were to happen, only his accusers would suffer for it. His thoughts are for the next world, and he has no fear of death because he believes a man with a clean, healthy soul such as his will be given immediate access to the isles of the blessed. The execution of Socrates was clearly on Plato's mind as he wrote this particular discourse.

I would recommend this dialogue to individuals seeking an introduction to Plato's philosophy. The entire discussion is clear throughout and easily comprehensible, and it proves interesting to see how some of Plato's thoughts changed between the years separating this dialogue and The Republic.

The single most impressive aspect of this dialogue is Socrates defense of the "good" against subjectivist arguments by Sophists; arguments which remain with us today albeit in different forms. Thus it is a truly relevant dialogue.

On the one hand, Socrates denies that an individual's supposed superiority determines right and wrong. In modern terms we'd call this the Nietzchean will to power argument. He cleverly kills the might-makes-right argument, by extreme individualists, by showing how ultimately the mob is more powerful than any individual. Thus this reasoning falls through. Yet, at the same time, Socrates denies that truth is determined by mere numbers or by popular vote. After all, Socrates wasn't condemned to death by a dictator or an aristocracy but by a democracy. Food for thought!

This is a nice translation in modern idiom and can be easily read in just a few sittings.

Researched and written by writer, journalist, and Presbyterian elder James D. Snyder, The Faith And The Power is an informed and informative history of the early Christians who struggled to survive a series of bitter and lethal persecutions in Rome during the first century A.D. Highly recommended reading for both scholars and non-specialist general readers, The Faith And The Power integrates Biblical text with historical accounts by early Jewish, Roman, and Christian writers forming the basis of a scholarly, chronological documentary that accessibly explores the fascinating era of nascent Christianity.

The reader is given a chronological time table of events (somthing I appreciated) that puts the world of the early Christians in perspective as they deal with the turbulent politics of the first century. I came away from this very readable account with a more personal understanding of, and a deeper appreciation of the men and women who survived and kept the faith. It will have a permanent place in my bookshelf.

At Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, VA, I vividly recall being taught that to more fully understand the meaning of Scripture, one would also need to investigate the "sitz-en-laben," the German phrase for "the setting or situation in life." For example, to fully understand the words of Jesus on paying taxes to the existing authorities, it was essential that one understand the background which brought about both the Jewish and Roman - often inflexible - positions on the matter. The Faith and the Power, as it chronologically traces the three-fold perspective of Christian, Jewish and Roman histories, enables the reader to have a far clearer understanding of the intertwining of the who, what, when, where and how of these turbulent forty years of history than any source known to me.

However, the book is also easy to read. Its use of taking all events in a chronological style of reporting assists the reader in maintaining a mental awareness of the sequence of events. By combining the three histories, the book offers new and enlightening information for anyone except, perhaps, for those scholars who have immersed themselves in this period of history.

Essence and existence. Aquinas develops Aristotelian metaphysics, the "transcendental" science of being (note that the term 'transcendental' as used by Thomas is quite different than the same term as used by Kant). Thomas' thought is among the densest of all philosophers', and is, for the modern student, perhaps more difficult to grasp than is the work of Kant. A reader unfamiliar with philosophy should not initiate his study with Thomas. For the student [at least] somewhat grounded in existentialist reasoning, this compilation serves as a concise introduction to Thomist metaphysics/ natural theology/ first philosophy. Translated and compiled by professor of philosophy, James F. Anderson, this volume is especially valuable in that Thomas Aquinas' work is so capacious and intimidating that one doesn't otherwise know how to approach it.
Thomas [and Averroes] reintroduced Aristotle to Western thought and Thomist scholasticism has illuminated the path from the 13th century to the 20th, he was perhaps the greatest intellect of the Middle Ages. Anderson's edition may be the best means of introducing oneself to St. Thomas Aquinas.

This book harvests Aquinas's finest, clearest and most relevant metaphysical texts--particularly those that better elucidate his original philosophical synthesis--with a focus on three problems: the subject of metaphysics, the analogicity of being, and the most universal determinations of this notion: the "transcendentals."

Do not expect a comprehensive exposition of Aquinas's metaphysical thought, for this was clearly not the intent of the late James F. Anderson. In fact, the book does not introduce us to certain basic metaphysical notions such as substance, accident, prime matter and substantial form. For this reason, some knowledge of classical metaphysics is highly desirable, while not absolutely necessary, to benefit more fully from this outstanding compilation.

The selection is of tremendous educational value, especially if we consider that some of the incorporated texts are difficult to find in translation. Excellent for teachers and students alike.

In brief (in just 116 pages), this book reveals some of Aquinas's greatest contributions to classical, perennial "first philosophy." The result is a well-organized, fluent introduction to Aquinas's own thoughts in Aquinas's own words.

First, I will simply reiterate what the previous reviewer stated: "The author introduces the reader to the metaphysics of St. Thomas by compiling sources from disparate primary texts." Apparently, no single primary source for Thomas' metaphysics exists. The author has done us a tremendous service in bringing Aquinas' metaphysical teachings together in one volume.

This book also represents a great introduction to metaphysics in general, at least for a person who is trying to teach himself philosophy, such as myself.

I have found other compilations of Thomas' writings to be difficult to understand because they assume an understanding of the transcendentals: being, one, true, good and beautiful and their relationships to each other; and other philosophical terms such as act, potency, form and matter, substance and essence, etc.

In around 100 pages the author is able to convey the central concepts of Thomas' metaphysics very clearly, thus opening the way for further study in Thomas' writings.

I am very grateful to have discovered this book. I am sure you will be too.

"The Great Gatsby" is my favorite book. This early version is absoultutely fascinating to me. I've read much about the history of the manuscript and the changes made to it, and with "Trimalchio" we get to read for ourselves one version. I was thrilled to have this unusual opportunity; I felt privileged. (Only one complaint in this review is in my last paragraph.)

Aside from the sheer thrill of witnessing at least part of the transition and revision, the book itself is a wonder--to one end--to be viewed along with "The Great Gatsby." Things I've been bothered by in "Gatsby" are different in this book, and it's interesting to read that they had indeed been altered - most notably, the mid-section in "Gatsby" when Nick tells the reader in a near omnicient narration Gatsby's true story; this happens entirely differently in "Trimalchio" and in my opinion does not break the narrative flow the way it does in the final "Great Gatsby."

Some unanswered questions, some debated items become clearer after reading this. Is Gatsby a good guy or a bad guy? Is Nick? Who is Jordan Baker really? Is Nick the agent of the action or an observant/removed narrator? "Trimalchio" presents the answers to some of these questions differently than does "The Great Gatsby," or in a more straightforward and clear fashion. In a sense, this could be a truer-to-Fitzgerald's-soul account, as many of the changes were suggested to him from the outside. Many of the characters underwent changes from this version to "The Great Gatsby," though some changes more major than others.

I'm trying, in this review, not to write what would be a book's worth of my opinion about which is a superior book. Gatsby is such a part of me I could write forever. I will mention that typos and other necessary changes were made from this to the final, as well. And although some things I've questioned and have bothered me simply because I do love the book so much are different in this early version, I don't know how I'd feel if this were the *only* version of the book, as what we have here is an early version of a book I'd always thought brilliant.

The language is beautiful; the characters amazing, sad, complex. I'm infinitely impressed by this book, whichever level of "completion."

I've got one complaint about this edition of "Trimalchio": at the back of the book, there is a list of changes made - galley version, holograph, 1st edition, etc. They are laid out in such a way that they are hard to follow and hard to study. I nearly know "The Great Gatsby" by heart. While reading "Trimalchio" I noticed tiny, tiny differences. But, after I finished, I wanted to truly study the changes at each stage of Fitzgerald's writing, and the lay-out and lack of explanation made it oppressively uninviting. It's too bad, too, because I am ceaselessly (as FSF might say) interested in this - this book, the revision process, its history, everything Gatsby.

For all the talk about the many differences with The Great Gatsby, Trimalchio is still essentially a rough draft of the classic it became rather than a separate and distinct novel. Only the final two chapters are appreciably different beyond the point of reading both novels side by side a page at a time (and as much as I admire Fitzgerald, I'll leave that task to someone else!). Nonetheless, there are enough slight changes in character development and imagery throughout the book to make it interesting.

In one sense - especially in the little-changed early chapters - this version of the story is interesting mostly in that it demonstrates the improvement brought about by the relatively few changes that were still to come. For example, Jordan Baker's climactic recollection of seeing Daisy and Gatsby together during the war is quite a bit less scandalous here than in the final version, so that the plot still advances but much of the tension of the scene is lacking. Some of the party scenes are also less detailed than they would become. None of this is to say these parts of the book aren't still enjoyable, especially if you haven't read Gatsby recently; it's just that the changes Fitzgerald made really did improve the story in small but noticeable ways.

Although the end of the story is largely the same, the last two chapters do hold several surprises for those who are already familiar with the final version. Gatsby is portrayed at least slightly more sympathetically, Nick is less of a shadow, and the past events leading up to the currently unfolding plot are both different and somewhat less vague. This takes away some of the mystique of several of the characters, but it's not necessarily better or worse; in any case, it's fascinating to see Fitzgerald's original approach and how it changed. One thing he arguably didn't change enough is Nick's bleak outlook in the closing pages; life doesn't end at 30 just because of a lousy summer! I've always considered that the weakest point of the novel, but this version at least offers a slightly different context and narration of the ending.

Imperfections and all, it's still brilliant. Recommended for all Gatsby fans.

I first encountered "The Great Gatsby" in 11th grade and its sheer lyric beauty has transfixed me to the point of at least 4 readings per year ever since. Therefore, "Trimalchio" was a joy for me to read and I believe it will bring the same amount of happiness to fellow Fitzgerald fans. The book is a brief read at only 146 pages of actual text,( as opposed to "Gatsby's" 189 in the most recent Scribner paperback edition) but the opportunity to read the rough draft of a genuis like Fitzgerald is an invigorating experience- reading passages from "Trimalchio" and then looking at their equivalent passages in "Gatsby" allows you to enter the mind of Fitzgerald through his revisionary decisions and enchances your appreciation of the sheer amount of work which Fitzgerald devoted to crafting his masterpiece. That being said, do not expect incredible differences between the two texts: the most notable changes are minor details and the chronilogical order of events and revelations. Reading "Trimalchio" is ultimately like watching deleted scenes from a movie on a DVD- they are of comparatively minor significance, but they enhance one's appreciation of the work as a whole. If you loved "The Great Gatsby," take the time to read "Trimalchio."

Francis Turretin (1623-1687) was a pastor and taught at the Academy of Geneva. This is the final volume of his magnificent and spirited defense of Reformed doctrine. This volume has indices to all 3 volumes and biographical information. It also includes the funeral message that Benedict Pictet preached at Turretin's funeral. In this volume Turretin covers: the Church, the Sacraments, and last things. To give you an idea of how thorough Turretin is, he takes 31 questions to discuss the sacraments. These books are excellent and highly recommended.

Francis Turretin (1623-1687) was a pastor, and taught at the Academy of Geneva. This is the second volume of his spirited and exhaustive defense of Reformed Theology. Samuel Alexander called Turretin "the best expounder of the doctrine of the Reformed Church" (high praise when you remember that John Calvin did a little exposition of Reformed dogmatics himself). This volume covers: the Law of God, the Covenant of Grace, The person and state of Christ, the mediatorial office of Christ, calling and faith, justification, and sanctification and good works. The section on God's law (which has a wonderful exposition of the 10 commandments) is worth the price of the book alone. This volume and its companions are a must in any serious theological library.

Francis Turretin (1623-1687) was a pastor and taught at the Academy of Geneva. An "elenctic" theology is one that trys to demonstrate the truth of a doctrine while refuting false doctrines. Volume 1 covers Theology, Scripture, God in unity and trinity, the decrees of God and predestination, creation, the providence of God, Angels, the state of man before the fall and the covenant of nature, Sin, and, finally, the free will of man in a state of sin. There is nothing else like these books in the realm of reformed dogmatics. The closest thing to them that I can think of is Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica except that Turretin upholds a sounder form of doctrine (Roman Catholics would heartily disagree with me there). Charles Hodge used Turretin in teaching Theology as did John Gerstner. Dr. James M. Boice hits the nail on the head when he says of Turretin's Institutes: "If ever a great theological work has been unjustly neglected it has been Francis Turretin's masterful volumes on the whole of Christian doctrine... I heartily commend [them] to preachers, theological students and lay persons everywhere." These are not easy reading but they are well worth your while.

Locke's _A Letter Concerning Toleration_ is key for many reasons, not least of which is its startling relevance to contemporary society. Locke sees tolerance as fundamentally a "live and let live" situation, a state which must be acheived to avoid the endless relativity of a regime fueled by religion; as each man is orthodox to himself and heretical to others, he argues, religious tolerance *must* be a basic societal tenet for the state to function. Excellently argued and written, Locke's _A Letter Concerning Toleration_ is an "inevitable read" for most students that should be welcomed with open arms and minds.

This work by Locke, in spite of its brevity, is a required piece of reading in order to put in perspective the other endeavors of the author.
The issues discussed in this Essay were at the base of the formation of political theory in the Western world, during the centuries of enlightenment. Locke's effort in the case of this Letter (of the 4 he wrote, this is the first one, published in 1689 in English, from a text published some months previously in Holland) was the rescue of religious tolerance vis a vis political powers and structures, and the recognition of the need for a sphere of private religious freedom, legally guaranteed and exempt from the interference of political power.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: When Locke wrote this Letter, there was still controversy regarding the definition of the concepts of liberty of conscience and religious freedom. In fact, the first step of the ladder is represented by the idea of religious tolerance. The starting point of analysis, at the time, came from the observation of the fact that certain degree of intolerance has always existed (religious, political, racial) in the human nature. If one analyzes the origin of religious intolerance in the western world, it stems necessarily from the fact that every Church or denomination, claims with more or less clarity to be the sole bearer of the truth. In this context, what could be the meaning of "tolerance" as a concession or pretense ? To recognize to the dissidents and minorities the possibility to coexist peacefully in a certain society, without having to renounce the external manifestations of their beliefs. But the need for religious tolerance can only make sense in a society where a dominant religious majority has the power to impose onto others its dogmas, either directly (a theocratic government) or through secular political power (the papist states).
On the other hand, the concept of religious freedom implies the recognition for the individual of the natural right to freely profess and express his beliefs, without the intervention or interference of political power or Government. Accordingly, whilst tolerance had been considered historically as a "concession" granted by the dominant religious movement or Church to other religious minorities, religious freedom appears in the Western civilization only once the political power is separated from the religious community. And here the Reform had its influence.
LOCKE'S TOLERANCE: Against this background, the problem of tolerance appears to Locke as a political problem, based on his conception of the State as a society born out of the consent of free men. In his State, it is logical to deny the political power, the possibility to interfere in private matters. Locke defends religious tolerance recurring to several arguments.
Politically, war and factionalisms are not the product of religious differences, but of human intolerance. In other words, it is not a requisite for the State, in order to function, to have a unified religion. From the religious standpoint, the Church is a free and voluntary assembly. No man can be forced by the magistrate to enter or remain in a specific Church or religious denomination. Only if we freely follow the mandates of our conscience, we follow the road to salvation. Thus, all political efforts to force us to adopt the "true faith" are vain and anti-religious.
Persecution, in itself, is not Christian and Locke concludes that in all matters related to the faith, violence is not an adequate or acceptable mean to gain followers.
Religious freedom, therefore, is a natural right of the individual and truth cannot be monopolized by any single religious denomination or person.
RESTRICTIONS: Does Locke really advocate absolute freedom for all men of every sect or religion when he writes: "Absolute liberty, just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty, is the thing that we stand in need for"?
Not really. Tolerance has to be just, but practicable, in accordance to public interest. Therefore tolerance cannot condone ideas that are contrary to society or to moral rules required for the preservation of society. Doesn't Rome require submission from a catholic prince to a foreign power? For Locke, there is no real distinction between Catholics and atheists, from the political standpoint.
CONCLUSION: For Locke the only limits to religious freedom are the need to avoid damage to other individuals and the preservation of the existence of the State. On the other hand, such a freedom is only viable as a consequence of the secularization of politic and the separation between Church and State. I TRULY RECOMMEND THIS SEMINAL WORK. Time has not taken away certain lessons that are to be learned, if we want to live in a better world, a more tolerant one. GOOD ANTIDOTE AGAINST FUNDAMENTALISM.

John Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration is one of the most under appreciated texts in the liberal tradition of political philosophy. When read in conjunction with his Second Treatise, it clarifies the relationship Locke envisions between individuals and the Lockean state. The subject of the Letter is specifically religious toleration, but his general argument for toleration is also applicable to issues of more modern concern.

In the letter, Locke argues that all religious practices should be tolerated unless they are a threat to the proper functioning of the state. Some specific practices are not tolerated - Locke perceives the Catholic allegiance to the Pope, at that time, not only a religious leader, but also an influential foreign political leader, as a threat to the state, and he believes that atheists cannot be trusted by the state, since they have no higher power to whom they can swear an oath. Locke does not tolerate these individuals, because of his (inaccurate) perceptions of them, but religion is still not the basis for their non-toleration. (In the sense that others who are inherently untrustworthy, or bowed to a foreign ruler, would also not be tolerated, regardless of their religion).

The toleration of some other practices is situational. For instance, a state that normally has no law against individuals slaughtering animals (for food, et al) cannot prevent a religious sect from sacrificing an animal, but if that same state, needing meat for its troops in a time of war, bans all private citizens from killing animals, then this ban applies likewise to the sacrifice of animals as part of religious worship. This is not a state of license, in that the civil government does not actively promote a variety of (or for that matter, any) religious practices, but it is a state of negative liberty, in which the state remains neutral to the religious content of religious worship. Specific sects or acts of worship can be banned if they are "prejudicial to other men's rights" or they "break the public peace of societies," but they cannot be banned on religious grounds.

Some critics have argued that Locke's Letter is no longer very relevant: he deals only with religious toleration, and religious toleration is widely accepted and practiced in the modern Western world. However, the historical context of the Letter suggests it retains its relevance. In Locke's day, religion was not the dormant issue it is today; rather it was the most controversial issue of public debate. Before Locke, toleration was just something the underdog wished for in order to survive until he gained power over everyone else. Locke, however, goes beyond this pettiness and creates a theoretical defense of toleration as an extension of his political theory. While Locke probably did not imagine the controversial issues of political debate today, the broad basis for his defense of religious toleration implicitly justifies other sorts of social toleration in the modern world.

If a state is created for the purposes and by the methods Locke suggests in his Second Treatise, then the men who consent to form such a state retain a significant negative liberty of belief and action. Any of these beliefs or actions must be tolerated by the state unless they fail Locke's criteria for religious toleration, namely, unless they are "prejudicial to other men's rights" or they "break the public peace of societies."

If possible, I would recommend trying to find a copy of the Routledge edition of this work (ed. Horton & Mendus), which includes critical reactions to Locke's Letter. However, Amazon currently lists it as out of print. Whatever edition you can find is worth reading: the need for toleration is as great in our own time as it was in John Locke's, and his contribution to the debate is likewise as valuable now as it was then.

This book is wonderful on so amy levels. First of all, it is a wonderful reference for fencers to see where it all began. It is also a wondeful book of you have a desire to read and want to be able to speak and understand old ELizabethan English. There are also many wonderful woodcuts showing costuming of the period. It is a great book to have in ones library.

This is not a modern re-telling or history book. It's not even re-typed - just a facsimile reprint of three fencing manuals of the Renaissance. If you want to know how it was really done, this is the place. It's real.

But don't assume you'll have an easy read. Saviolo is not writing in his native language, and it shows. He doesn't describe motions very well, and occasionally appears to leave out a foot move in a long sequence. Di Grassi never wrote in English. This manual is a sixteenth century English translation of his Italian manual. People who deride the "negative campaigning" of today will get quite a surprise when they read Silver's virulent contempt for the rapier and the foreigners who teach it.

There is also the language issue. Yes, it's written in English, but sixteenth century English doesn't always mean what you think it does. Saviolo tells you to come on guard with your right wrist against your knee, your right foot against your opponent's right foot, and your point against his face. Obviously, something has been lost in four centuries. In this case, it's the fact that "against" meant "opposite or across from", not "touching". You are now armed against one problem, but it's still not the language you think it is. (Hint: an Oxford English Dictionary is a very useful companion volume.)

Also, don't assume you can do this in modern fencing. The blades were longer and heavier, and they don't work like modern fencing weapons. Furthermore, these are very basic lessons. We know that the advanced moves were jealously guarded, and not written in books.

With all the difficulties, this book remains essential - it's a direct link to the fighting methods of the Elizabethan fencers. Di Grassi is the easiest to follow. Saviolo is particularly helpful for research, because he spends some time explaining why he does things differently form others, thereby documenting both styles and explaining the thinking process of fencing masters. Silver prefers the short sword to the rapier, and shows us that the Renaissance held many different views.

This books stands alone -- there is just no commercially available substitute.

Your stage combat will look better, your re-enactments will be more real, your understanding of the sword will be sharper.

This book is a facsimile of three fencing manuals of the XVI century covering two major traditions: the rapier techniques, mainly italian but also used in Spain and Portugal at the time; and the short-sword techniques, probably british in origin.

The time in which these manuals were published was crucial: there was a gradual transition from the medieval sword techniques to the renaissance rapier ones. At the time (and long afterwards) the french schools of fencing were not existent and the main flow was latin: two of the manuals were written by italians and the swords used in latin countries were rapidly evolving from medieval sword towards the rapier. Those were times of frequent wars and of deadly clashes involving different cultures and ways of fighting. Very different from the later "civilized" duels between long-haired make-uped "gentlemen" which originated the french schools of fencing from which our childish fencing appeared.

This work is the real thing! It shows the experience of three sword masters, in a time where expertise was gained by fighting often and staying alive doing it, and mastery was achieved by recognition from a world where everyone was a swordsman ready to challenge such a person just to get fame.

Forget for a moment modern sword-"play" and read this book about real swordsmanship!

Dr. James Still's (1812-1882) wonderful autobiography is a classic that should at least be in every home in New Jersey for the enjoyment of adults and children alike. His life is an amazing tale of the son of former slaves growing up in extreme poverty and becoming one of the states earliest medical doctors. He was a distinguished herbalist at a time when most doctors relied on often questionable, patent medicines. Called "The Black Doctor of the Pines," he had a large biracial practice. He was also a distinguished spokesman for the black community in South Jersey. It's a book to curl up with and to read aloud.

This is a book about 1 of eighteen children of slave parents. It is one of the remarkable stories involving the Still family. The books are availasble through the Still Family. James was a self taught Dr. who could cure cancer in the 1800's. Involved with the Underground Rail Road with his brother, Wm. Still. On 8/10/97 we will have our 128th family reunion started by Dr. James StillClarence H. Still Jr

Well, the only reason anyone would need this book is if they were trying to understand the concepts of literature or if they were planning to write. AH, and if they are, this book is a CRUCIAL STUDY. As an English Major, I encountered WAY TOO MANY critiques that are based on absurd marxist theories. Remember, literature reflects a SPECIFIC TIME, PLACE, AND ERA! I am a devout Anglican and I DO NOT shun Hawthorne's work because much of it is Anti Anglican. I understand that Hawthorne was reflecting an Anti Anglican Period in America. It is absurd to judge literature harshly because it does not fall into contemporary political slots whatever they may be at the moment. This book by Aristotle is a concise, focused, and appropriate look at the concept of literature. He emphasizes the need of close conflicts as opposed to hero versus enemy. He also makes it clear that writing must have recognition and/or reversal at some point. Also, he states the need for surprise events. Another thing he does is he helps us see that some events may be important, but it is better to mention them instead of displaying them. He also stresses the need for characters to play on our fear or pity. While this is more of a reference book, it belongs in the library of any student of literature.

I loved this text! It is amazing and lyrical, an incomparable read! It now lives next to my bed, so that whenever I get the need I can read an extract (even at 2am) without having to search through the library for it.

This book (or perhaps just a portion of Aristotle's lecture notes) remains the acorn of an oak of subjects, from art criticism to writing screenplays. This is a clear, accurate translation (it helped me pass a test in Ancient Greek; and people who really know assure me). The text is no-frills and the introduction is brief but informative. This is probably not for scholars who will want to quibble over the meaning of 'phusis' and 'techne' but for the general reader who will be infinitely enriched by a philospical masterwork. If you have to read this for a class you will find it infinitely less punishing than Nietzsche, for example.