This book is probably the best introduction to the Shakespeare authorship controversy available at the moment. What impressed me most about it was its tone of quiet logic, and its careful, balanced account of the facts and the arguments on both sides. The orthodox Stratfordians are given their due, and their arguments and their objections to the Oxfordian view are discussed in detail. I also liked the way that facts are put into context, rather than just baldly stated.

On the other hand there is a little repetition, and the chapters sometimes give the impression of being written as separate essays, and then tweaked a bit and put into book form. The first half of the book is devoted to the case against William of Stratford, and the second half to the case for Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford.

I'm certainly not a person who is inclined to accept conspiracy theories. As someone who has always loved Shakespeare and is interested in Elizabethan history, I dismissed the alternative authorship theory for many years as a crackpot idea. However, once I actually started reading the details of the arguments in favor of Edward de Vere (and reading other books on the subject besides this one), I soon became convinced. I think that a careful, objective consideration of the evidence shows that it is far more likely that de Vere wrote the plays than that William of Stratford did. The Stratfordian arguments seem labored and clumsy, and based largely on guesswork, while the Oxfordian view fits into place very easly and effortlessly, and has ample factual evidence to support it. For me this has added a whole new level of insight and understanding to the plays and poetry, and a much deeper appreciation and enjoyment of them.

Whalen's book is highly recommended for anyone who wants a good summary of the issues and arguments.

Many people don't know that there's a controversy over the authorship of the plays. Many of those that know of the issue ask "why bother? Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare" and that's that." I used to feel that way until I fell in love with the works of Shakespeare in college and wanted to know more about the individual who wrote the plays. Was it Shakspere, the business man from London or Shake-speare (Edward De Vere)?

For me, part of the joy of reading the works of Shakespeare was finding out the history behind them. The more I read about the man, the more I found academia didn't know about him. They had a handle on the times and the events, but not the man. This raised several questions in my mind:

1. Why is there little or no mention of William Shakspere amongst his contemporaries (Jonson, Dryden and Marlow to name a few)?
2. Why is the only written documentation referencing Shakspere concern business dealings. For a playwright and poet as prolific as Shakespeare, you'd think someone would have "something". Yet in the centuries since his passing -- little or nothing.
3. How could an outsider (Shakspere) have intimate knowledge of the aristocracy? (i.e.: Burghley/Polonius) There were definite social boundries in Elizabethan times. Oxford (De Vere) was in that inner circle.

These are just a few of the questions readers of Shakespeare have had about the man from Stratford over the years. Mr. Whalen takes several of these questions and condenses them into a neat little volume, making this a wonderful place for someone interested in the authorship controversy to start.

In this succinct summary of the authorship debate, Mr. Whalen sets for himself a very modest goal: "to persuade the general reader that the controversy is valid and genuinely fascinating, that Oxford may indeed be the true author, and that more research should be done into this most significant of literary problems." It would be a churlish reader indeed who, after reading his book, would fail to grant that the debate at least warrants further study. Anyone who looks at the case objectively cannot but concede its merit, whichever side they eventually come down on.

Before they spout off about it being merely a mad theory of cranks and crackpots, churls should remember that the same was said about Copernicus, Darwin, and Wegener (plate tectonics), and that history has long since vindicated each. They should also note that the list of cranks and crackpots includes: Justice Harry A. Blackmun; Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr.; Justice John Paul Stevens; Sir John Gielgud; Leslie Howard; Sigmund Freud; Sir Derek Jacobi; Orson Welles; Clifton Fadiman; Daphne DuMaurier; John Galsworthy; Charles DeGaulle; James Joyce; Lewis Lapham; Clare Booth Luce; Charlie Chaplin; Mark Twain; Malcolm X; Walt Whitman-you get the idea that being labeled a crank lumps you with some pretty good company. Please, then, call me a crank, too!

The author covers a lot of ground very quickly, giving the general reader a broad synopsis of the debate, without getting into the grinding detail that is better left to the specialist. From what I can gather from Mr. Whalen's fine little survey, the crank that came out with the first unequivocal, public denouncement of Will Shakespere of Stratford as the usurper of the Shakespeare canon was one Joseph C. Hart, an American lawyer who wrote in the early 19th century, "It is a fraud upon the world to thrust his surreptitious fame upon us." Hear, hear! Would it were that one day the name of Hart will be in literary circles what the names Copernicus, Darwin, and Wegener are to scientific ones and to the wider public: a voice in the wilderness calling the world to reason.

I literally could not put this book down from start to finish. Whether you like baseball, dislike the Yankees, or just enjoy rooting for the one guy who could have saved baseball from the financial and legal disasters of the past 50 years, this book will be one of the best you have ever read.

The two things you need to know before you buy "Veeck -- As In Wreck" -- and you will buy this book, you must, if you've ever bought any professional sports bio before -- are the names Veeck and Linn.

Bill Veeck you know from reputation -- the wacky promoter who invented everything from Ladies' Day to Disco Demolition Night. The man owned several baseball franchises (including the Chicago White Sox twice, for some reason), and was known as a both a promotional genius and a shrewd financier.

As for Ed Linn... well, Linn was also the ghostwriter for another fantastic, edgy, opinionated baseball book, Leo Durocher's "Nice Guys Finish Last". Not surprisingly, "Veeck" reads a lot like the Durocher tome (and it came first, too!). On every page here you'll find a funny anecdote, a scary bit of prescience, and a unique look at an otherwise-beloved icon. With Veeck's memory and Linn's acid pen, this book is quite hard to put down. Or to pick up, for that matter.

Sports bios tend to hold back these days, let's face it. They're not as long and not as insightful as the Linn books. And the gift of time has helped ripen these pages. When Veeck talks about baseball's financial need to institute interleague play -- writing from 1961 -- you know this man saw around a few decades' worth of corners. When he takes the Yankees to task for failing to capitalize on Roger Maris's pursuit of the Babe Ruth home run record, and notes that it was a once-in-a-lifetime event, he's right -- so baseball got it right in '98, when McGwire came to town, and when the record fell yet again in '01, hardly anyone noticed.

In the meantime you'll laugh at the sad fates of Bobo Holloman and Frank Saucier, the latter being the only ballplayer ever to be removed from a game for a midget. You'll be intrigued by Veeck's take on Larry Doby, and by his bitter retorts at Del Webb, then-owner of the hated behemoth Yankees. And you'll marvel at just how little has really changed in baseball since Veeck was retired. Owners plotting franchise shifts in shady back-room deals (Montreal, Florida. Florida, Boston). Owners doing everything to baseball except what really benefits the sport (It's a tie in Milwaukee!). Veeck lamenting not the high price of talent but rather the high price of mediocrity (how much is Colorado paying for Denny Neagle and Mike Hampton?)...

Just about the only highlight not covered is the sight of White Sox outfielder Chet Lemon wearing shorts. One of the few Bill Veeck innovations that did not catch on, and aren't we all better off...

I read this book when I was thirteen, and read it again twenty years later. I enjoyed it both times. Spend a few hours with a man who loved baseball and is honest about being a little less than honest.

This novel is considered to be the best Mahfouz ever written through his long career as a storyteller.

It consists of 3 parts: Palace Walk, Palace of Desire, and Sugar Street; and just to make things clear, the above three titles are supposed to be names of quarters in Egypt (with "between two castles" instead of "Palace walk").

The first part introduces Ahmad Abdul-Jawad the merchant and father of 3 boys and 2 girls, and the husband of the weak degraded wife Amina.

The story really spans over the way he treated his family firmly, as opposed to his secret way of life, as a self-indulging playboy. The two elder sons play major roles in the story, one of whom is a hard working student and the other is a big time lady's man. Najib Mahfouz made a good job in expressing the two girls feelings about marriage. ... 5 stars

The second part continues from where the first stopped, and is agian a good read. It explores what happened after the dramatic occurences in the first part, and the major hero of this part is Kamal the youngest son of Abdul-Jawad. It explores his silent Platonic love with a high-class rich girl. It also explores how he turned from a fundamentalist to a total disbeliever. ... 4 stars

The third part is the one I hated the most, it seemed to me as an account promoting communism. It explores the live of the sons and grand sons of Abdul-Jawad, who can't get out of his house. Homosexuality is added to this volume as an extra. Kamal is still studying and writing about philosophy, and is still a big time disbeliever. ... 3 stars

And over all, Mahfouz does a great job in expressing the feelings of people, but the only thing I hate about his writing style is that he makes no distinction between the narrator and the hero.

I agree with everything said by the reviewer "imperato", he beat me to the chase. That might tell you something as a reader -- Mahfouz's literature transcends the personal. Again, his writing has qualities that surpass any of the great classics I have known. A soft, yet stimulating style, rich with detail and full of emtotional involvement. You might become enamored with Mahfouz, as I did, and read every last drop he has written. It is no exxageration to say that the ease of familiarity in his writing even surpasses Hemingway. Palace Walk in particular is an intriguing, emotional read. The quality diminishes with each volume, but after Palace Walk you will need to find out what happens next, for this reason you might as well buy the full set of three novels.

Don't let the size of this book scare you off. The chapters are short and are themselves self-contained stories: they make for perfect nighttime reading installments! And the plot, characters and wisdom of the book are consistently illuminating from the first pages to the very end. It is staggering how effortlessly Mahfouz feeds us the richest possible detail without ever allowing the energy of the story to flag.

In the wake of war in Iraq, an American reader will be particularly enriched from experiencing this novel. It tells the story of three generations of an Egyptian family between the two World Wars and reveals much about daily life in a Muslim family and the manner in which Western geopolitics impacted Arab life and culture. The pull of Western values and ideas on traditional Egyptian culture is so clearly and persuasively presented that the politics, resentments and even opportunities for understanding in today's Middle East suddenly seem much more discernible.

What makes the book a real standout is the way it presents profound life lessons and experiences in such a highly entertaining fashion. Serious political and social issues are explored beside the very real, sometimes ugly and often hilarious foibles of each character. The sincere quest for holiness seems as important and genuine in the lives of characters as the unquenchable thirst for pleasure. Mahfouz never preaches about the "correct path", but rather shares the complicated lives of his characters without sentimentality, prejudice or judgment.

The Cairo Trilogy is a breathtaking, uplifting and deeply affecting achievement. The prose is luminous, the incredible evocation of the sights and smells of Egypt unforgettable, the believability of the characters complete. Readers of Mann, Tolstoy, and Henry James will find in Mahfouz a similar command of grand architechture and epic sweep but unlike those writers Mahfouz's prose is light and airy and full of a master storyteller's ease. Throughout the book you marvel not only at the author's command of his craft, but also the clarity of his vision in showing us what matters.

In the end, what may make The Cairo Trilogy the most compelling for Western readers is that the family at the center of the tale is so very different from us and yet so like us. As modernity encroaches upon the family of the forbidding Al-Sayyid Ahmad Abd al-Jawad and his dedicated wife Amina, you feel the same sense of loss and melancholy that they feel realizing that in the age of television and instant communication and mass marketed culture, the simple splendors of the family coffee hour may be forever behind us. If politicians and religious leaders around the world have shown themselves consistently unable to bridge the gaps between cultures, Mahfouz the novelist must be read if only to reconnect us with the essence of our shared humanity.

If your idea of love is limited to visions of puppies and balloons, The Thing About Love Is... probably not for you. In Polyphony Press' first effort, the heavy topic of love is tackled in gritty, gutsy pieces that cut to core of this complex emotion. Sometimes it's bliss, sometimes it's bizarre, and quite often it hurts, but regardless of its form, love is always intriguing. This anthology is in keeping with that notion. With a variety of styles and voices, the works featured here are unanimous in their ability to draw the reader in and keep him hooked. It is truly a great read that may challenge one's personal definition of love. Call it an enjoyable experiment in mind expansion!

It's difficult to find an anthology that has as much stopping power as this one. Reading it, I was impressed not only by the diversity of the authorial voices, but also by their veracity. Each story, poem and play seems to have come straight from the gut. What's more, the contributing writers help to remove our blinders; particularly when it comes to matters of the heart. Love, they argue, is nothing less than a battlefield on which each of us daily chances victory or defeat.Those seeking to enter the contest fully armed would do well to buy this book.

Anthologies are not my usual choice of reading material, but as this was recommended to me, I decided to give it a try. I was pleasantly surprised. While I could not relate to some of the pieces here, I enjoyed the underlying topic immensely. The poetry, drama, and short stories were a good blend. The Thing About Love Is... an enjoyable and fast read, but has a peculiar lingering effect that required that I return to it for further exploration. It's a perfect book to read from the relative comfort and safety of your best chair, where you know that you can dip into the joy and angst of love and for once, walk away unscathed.

Two civil servants ride into 11th-century Wales on routine business and find themselves confronted with a diabolical murder. In a country chafing under Norman domination, murder turns out to be the least of their worries.

This skillful blend of mystery and action (and romance) held my attention so thoroughly that I finished it in one sitting. Fans of Peters' Brother Cadfael should find themselves at home with Marston's Delchard and Gervase

Edward Marston pens enthralling mysteries during an exciting and intersting time of history, the Norman Conquest of England and the ensuing "Domesday Book" I am only sorry to discover him when all his books are not readily available.

He provides incites regarding the relationships of Normans, Saxsons and Welsh for the history buff. For those who love mysteries he provides an interesting group of detectives a knight - Ralph, a lawyer Gervase, Canon Hubert and Brother Simon. Marston deftly combines mystery, action and romance in a historical setting.

Best of the series so far. Ralph and Gervase are two of the most full bodied dectives since Leaphorn and Chee. Red Herrings abound as they try to find out who killed a Saxon with claims to contested land. Golde adds a much needed twist to the foursome trying to settle land claims for King William.

No one paints aviation sunsets like this man! Classic aircraft, biplanes, WW II fighters all the way to rocket planes. A great collection from the same artist who brought you the July '97 classic aircraft postage stamp collection. Bill Phillips' work is entertaining for the aviation enthusiast/perfectionist, as well as being satisfying fine art. Painting is his calling and he is faithful with his gift. The text stops short of explaining some of the most significant, and encouraging, aspects of Bill's biography.Closely examine his signature and you'll discover the driving force that sustains Bill and his work. This is a wonderful book that would have rated a 10 if the art was not split across the page gutters. As is the price is right, but I'd gladly have paid another $20 to have a larger book with the images on one page. It violates every user-friendly layout rule of coffee table art books- but this is NOT the fault of the artist! Don't get me wrong, I'm still happy to have this book. But it could have been even better. J. Campbell Martin

Edward Parks has done a masterful job of interpreting the art of Bill Phillips. Mr. Parks was a fighter pilot (P-39's) in New Guinea at the start of WWII and after the war became a nationally recognized writer for the National Geographic and later, for the Smithsonian Institute. His first hand knowledge of flying combined with an incredible gift for prose makes "The Glory of Flight" a perfect match between artist and writer. Bill Phillips is undoubtedly America's premier aviation artist. His ability to capture the experience of seeing the world from aloft is truly inspiring. "The Glory of Flight" is a must for any aviation enthusiast. The title says it all!

Bill Phillips is a superb landscape artist who captures aircraft in moments of aviation history on the richest backgrounds imaginable. I was priviledged to attend his showing of major works in the National Air & Space Museum in September, 1987; and have been an avid collector since

Kositsky plunges her heroine back into Elizabethan England for a wild, rollicking adventure with an acting company and a theater hanger-on named Will Shakspere, who seems to be taking credit for Shakespeare's plays. Young adults (and not so young) will relish her gross encounters with Elizabethan thugs and her winning ways with the acting company and Queen Elizabeth herself, who bestows an early version of the Academy Awards. Hard-core Stratfordians will object to Oxford as the playwright, but Kositsky's light, spoofing treatment, solidly grounded in the facts of the authorship controversy,easily carries the reader into her version of the world's biggest literary mystery. It's a blast from the past.

The ONLY reason the orthodox Stratfordian view of the authorship of Shakespeare's works has managed to survive is that it is taught to the young with no information about its rickety foundation, or about the persuasiveness of the Oxford alternative. Books like this one may hasten the day when the bizarre Stratford myth collapses of its own weight. An admirable corrective, and a fun read.

Here is an engaging, entertaining, and indeed positively delightful romp through the underworld of the Elizabethan theatrical scene -- as witnessed through the eyes of an intellectually precocious thirteen-something (unlucky in love!-Yikes!) named Willow who suddenly finds herself teleported from 20th century Ontario into the grimy candlelight world of London in 1593 where she finds herself rooming with the -- allegedly -- great playwrite "Shakspere."

Only the most dogmatic partisans of the by-now moribund official view of Shakespeare will be offended this linguistically precocious reconstruction of the "might have been" hypothesis of the Earl of Oxford's identity as the real Bard. Indeed Lynne Kositsky has an uncanny knack for anchoring her fictional narrative in detailed and singularly accurate memory for cultural nuance and historical incident. Kositsky also possesses a natural gift for the pulse of language. Her narrator speaks in an energetic and often captivating fusion of Canadian Valley Girl slang and Elizabethen vernacular, which is certain to capture the imagination of many young readers. Is this another J.K. Rowling in the making?

Here's a taste:

Bobby Goffe really hated me, that was for sure: he criticized and cuffed me every chance he got. Shakspere dissed me daily, perchance cos he'd been stuck with me, mayhap cos he feared I'd discovered his secret schemes. And I still needed to keep a sharp look out for that other gig, Beavis, Butthead, and Mystery Guy, at every turn. To cut a long story short, I felt threatened every step I took. At the house, at the Theatre, on the street, a mere whisper would twist my head around, a hint of a hubbub would set my heart to heaving.

(p. 70)

As the reader may detect, Ms. Kositsky's most formidable weapon, like that of her dark hero Edward Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, is a razor sharp wit, viz. her biting satirical invocation of the (historically real)duel between actor Gabriel Spencer and actor-playwright Ben Jonson, in which Willow, transporting mysterious packages between Vere and Shakspere, is revealed to be the precipitating cause of the duel:

Galloping gobstoppers, what should I do now? Stand my ground till [Spenser] strangled me, or agree to what he wanted, and then get out while the going was good. I was too scared to make up my mind. He started shaking me again like I was a pair of maracas. And maybe there were two of me at that, cos I was starting to see everything double.

"No, never," I cried at last. "I will never give you anything of Vere's. Do your worst!" I drooped over like a limp lily, and was about to throw up on the villain's boots, really making him mad, when Ben Jonson rushed into the Cathedral. He must have been behind us all the time. In a trice, he realized the mess I was in and shoved his bully-boy face into Spencer's, fixing him with his beery breath. "That's Shakspere's lad, Gabe. Put him down right now, right here, right this minute, before you do him a permanent disablement"......

(p. 102)

The book can be recommended without reserve for all readers between the ages of eight and eighty who love the derring-do world which belongs to "Shakespeare" -- the world which harbored the great voyages of exploration which have made our modern life, for better or worse, what it now is. The author deserves congratulation if not some sort of medal; but one may be sure the further books by Ms. Kositsky are not far from publication.

The "saskatoonguy" description of the book dated 24 April 01 pretty much nailed it on the head. The book is more about the personal and management styles of Presidents Roosevelt through Clinton. The reference to tape recordings is more of a come-on to attract readers. The recordings are more of a sidelight in this description of the administrative styles of the referenced presidents.

In fairness, though, recordings were used minimally by Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower and the post-Nixon administrations shied away from recordings as well (although video recordings of certain events started under President Reagan). Only Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon made extensive use tape recordings and the first two still exercised control over what was recorded -- a practice that Nixon did not adopt and later regretted. The most memorable examples used were a couple of Johnson's recordings. A somewhat humorous recording, in spite of the tragic circumstances, was President Johnson's arm twisting his mentor, Senator Richard Russell of Georgia, into serving on the Warren Commission. Senator Russell despised Earl Warren. The second was a meeting to determine whether the Administration would commit 200,000 more troops to Vietnam where President Johnson finally decided to reverse his policy and start pulling back from that unpleasant and costly adventure.

As for the descriptions of the administrations themselves, the book, in my opinion, is a testimonial to how too much emphasis is put on "qualifications" to be President. Each individual who has served in the Oval Office, including the current occupant and his successors, will have certain strengths and weaknesses that may prepare them well for the challenges that confront them, or not prepare them well at all. I always felt that in terms of "qualifications", Herbert Hoover was one of the most qualified men to serve as President. Under normal circumstances, his qualifications may have been adequate. But an economy plunging into a depression is not "normal". As much as I disliked President Carter, there is no disputing his intelligence. But he was so bogged down in learning what to do that he scarcely did anything at all (I do not agree with Mr. Doyle's revisionist attempt to portray the Carter Administration as being more than what it was, a failure). As Hoover was replaced by a visionary, so too was Carter. In terms of intellect, President Reagan does not rank very high. But he was successful in ways that his more "qualified" successor, George Bush Sr., could never understand. I also do not attribute the Clinton's Administration lack of cooperation with investigators to poor management practices that resulted in evidence being lost and unavailable until, conveniently, the investigation was over. I think deliberate obstruction of justice was a bigger factor.

Although I supported George W. Bush in 2000 and would never, ever even consider voting for his opponent, I am not one of those who now claim how fortunate we are that he was president on 11 September 2001 and not Al Gore. I doubt anybody knows how a Gore Administration would have responded -- even Al Gore himself. No knock intended as it even took some time for the Bush Administration to recover and respond. If Al Gore was president, people would find certain aspects about his background and style that would be right for that crisis -- just as they did for George W. Although his response may have been different, the public would have supported his response if it was a strong response -- something considerably stronger than lobbing a few cruise missiles at an aspirin factory in a third world country.

Bottom line: A good summary of the administrative and personal styles of Presidents Franklin Roosevelt through Clinton. However, if you are looking for more substance in terms of recordings, you will be disappointed.

After reading and listening to "Taking Charge," which was about LBJ's secret tapes, I was expecting the audio version of "Inside the Oval Office" to use many more actual recordings. Instead, the reader reads transcripts of conversations. The tapes contain a few actual recordings but very few, about one per president. Inexplicably, it presents no actual recordings of Reagan, Bush or Clinton. This was a disappointment since I knew from listening to "Taking Charge" that actual recordings contain great insights into the men who inhabited the White House. A reader cannot possibly capture the nuances of language used by our 20th century presidents. There is a great difference between hearing a president's actual words and having them read from transcripts. However, the content of the book and audiotapes provide a facinating glimpse inside the oval office.

This is a terrific book and rewards the reader with insight into the modern presidency. It talks about each President's strengths and how each of them got themselves into trouble and it illustrates its points using each President's own words. Because it is less than 400 pages long it is hard for Doyle to support all the claims he makes, but it is still worth reading. More than that, it is worth owning and re-reading. The only reason I didn't give it five stars is that I think the book could have gone a bit deeper into each presidency without adding too much length. It was just a bit too much this side of a tourist's guide to each presidency.

But there are so many wonderful and new insights that I feel guilty for not giving it five stars. So, if you want, just imagine that I did give it the full five with this little caveat.

Overall, it is good, but the second volume covering late 19th century and 20th century really lacks clarity and objectivity. Though, I rather enjoyed the first volume, which covers American history from colonial times to the Civil War. However, it too is tainted by the authors offering too much perspective on who they think the heroes and villians are. I think the founding founders should be understood on their own terms and not subjected to so much hyperbole and conjecture as to their motives and beliefs. I do, however, find this work to be quite informative and a valuable reference overall. Though, I find the second volume lacking and full of ideological conjecture regarding public policies. (These historians aren't the most astute economists in the world. They find little wrong in FDR's paying farmers to destroy their crops and his grand strategy of bringing America out of the Depression by cutting producitivity and channeling the bulk of stimulative investment capital through government channels. They extol his policies too much.) Furthermore, the second volume is far too patronizing of FDR and Wilson.

I am a high school student and i have enroled in the AP American History course for my junior year. It was quite intimidating to recieve this book and another one on my first day while being told that i had to read 7 chapters in 9 days. The burden of reading almost 190 pages of this book in such a short period of time was no little thing. However the great style and " followablility" of the book helped a lot. normaly i would have just stopped reading, but this book kept me interested. It is what i would say the history book to read, whether it's for personal knowledge or school.

We used Volumes I and II of this book in my AP US History class this year. I found these books to be more interesting and easier to enjoy than the general textbook. They go more in depth and offer a greater understanding. At times they are a little hard to follow - but that may have been a result of not really paying attention while I was reading... oops. Hey it's homework, give me a break. Anyway, they're good books - ROCK ON COMMAGER!

The meretricious devotion this author holds toward canonized scripture humors me, as does that of his far greater predecessors in the conditional immortality debate. His work is by no means revolutionary, and without having read it, I can already recommend better authors in his field. (Dr. Leroy Froom, for example, whose works are put at the forefront.) Invariably, the usual arguments catch the laity off guard, but genuine biblical scholars of orthodox theology are not led astray by the heresy of ultimate annihilation, anthropological monism, or conditionalism.

Is conditionalism an ancient doctrine? Yes, and the origins are readily available. To briefly summarize what would otherwise be several volumes of refutation, conditional immortality was originally advocated by Arnobious of Sicca- c. 327 C.E., whose personal record as a Christian apologist is amongst the most pitiful, albeit entertaining, in clerical history. Also hailed as Arnobious the Elder, he was an enemy of both Judaism (Unlike Paul) and Christianity and a proponent of Asiatic mysticysm. According to the tale told by his subsequent disciples, Arnobious met a spiritual Jesus after awakening from a bad dream, who transformed the mystic into a self proclaimed sage, endowing him with the knowledge of God apart from scriptural reading. Rather than acknowledging mainstream Christianity, Arnobious opened his own school and taught his remarkable "dream" philosophies in Sicca, Africa, where he wrote a flawed, though sincere, theological treatise titled "Against the Pagans" c. 305 C.E. In this work, conditionalism, annihilation, and anthropological-monism appear for the first time in Christian history. Amazingly, Arnobious confounded the Pharisees with the Sadducees in several references to Jewish sects, and quoted the New Testament only ONCE in the treatise. As Catholic Friar Jurgen comments, the treatise does hold water- not in the realm of theological truth, but certainly in its revealed information about the cults of the time. This is the historical basis for conditionalism.

On the purported claim that immortal soulism was derived from Greco mythology and Platonism, such an idea is true only for those without knowledge of Judaic sects of Essene or Kabbalist, both of which held to the doctrine of an immaterial, immortal spirit. Contrary to what conditionalist scholars would have you believe, Orthodox Judaism itself has always taught immortal soulism, and rabbinical interpretation of the Old Testament does not find man and beast to be equal. Let it never be said, therefore, that the Hebrew Bible does not teach immortal soulism, on the contrary, those to whom it belongs find it amusing that conditionalists unable to speak Hebrew consider themselves expert on a Hebraic eschatology. (It should come as no surprise, since conditionalists also rate themselves as the sole beneficiaries of Y-w-h's irrevocable blessings to the Jews. How strange they cannot grasp the Old Testament's clearly defined salvation of Israel, while nonetheless being able to comprehend nebulous doctrines inferred by "divine inference".) As for the human soul in Hebrew, the solitary "nephesh" is contextualized, but with blatant arrogance, conditionalists assume their fragmented knowledge is somehow supplemented by divine illumination- in combination, of course, with the authority of Arnobious the Dreamer. On this threefold foundation rests every claim of conditionalism; the dogma gains momentum by its humane appeal to modern society. Yet as a fly in the face of both mainstream Christianity AND Judaism, conditionalists maintain a long tradition of denying reality, whilst usurping the texts of two major religions. (I suppose at least it speaks for the short lived worth of Arnobious's own text.) (...) There's little doubt I know more about his own theories than the author of the book.

After several years this is still the best defence of the conditional position. Any one who holds to a high view of scripture and is curious about hell must interact with this text. This view is, of course, a held by a minority whithin the evengelical spectum and as such should be held to the hightest level of critical examination. Fudge's integrity thoughout renders this possible. Also helpfull is "Four Views on Hell" in the counterpoints seires where the conditional view is contrasted with the two versions of the traditonal view.

What does the Bible really teach about God's righteous wrath. Is God's wrath a means to an end, or is God's wrath an end in itself?

What does the Bible mean by such words and phrases as "forever," "unquenchable fire," "eternal punishment," "eternal destruction," "death," etc.

Do you really wish to submit to the authority of God's infallible Word on the subject of hell. Then, dear reader, read this book!