well i thought that the book was good, and even though it was introduced to me in high school, i think that maybe it is for the more mature crowd. if you can get passed the text then you will really enjoy the book. it is best to read the book along with its footnotes. not only is it a little easier on the reader, but it is also more enjoyable when you can actually understand what it is you are reading. but over all the book was excellent. i think of it as one of marlowe's greatest works.

This book presents many new essays from several ancient scholars. The papers are well-written and on diverse topics. Although the hardcover is expensive, it is well worth the price, since quality commentaries and new scholarship seems scarce. The article on the Demiurge by Jan Opsomer is top notch and well worth the price of the book. M. R. Wright's paper is excellent as well. Look out Cornford, there's some new kids on the block. Included in the back of the book is a comprehensive list of commentaries and translations of the Timaeus, which is extremely useful.

A special mood is induced by reading Plato, the product of an elite society whose ideal was leisurely contemplation. Indeed, it is an activity that seems to clash at every point with our own unreflective society whose thought currency is minted in soundbites and advertising slogans. People are not encouraged to be philosophical nowadays, so it is mainly the resort of the antisocial and the willfully eccentric who are in this way enabled to look down on the 'crude, vulgar masses.' Who, reading a book of Plato's, hasn't felt something of this pleasure?

If there is one book by Plato that can be considered to have a more mainstream appeal then it must surely be "The Symposium." The subject of love is of interest to us all and worthy of investigation as behind this word, perhaps the most overstretched in our language, there are so many possible meanings.

With this book we are able to eavesdrop on an after dinner party conversation by some truly great minds. As always, Plato is happy to present more than one view. Of course, the shocking point for the mainstream modern reader is that most of the discussion concerns homosexual love, nevertheless much of what is said can also be applied to many heterosexual situations.

Among the participants presented with perhaps some semblance to their original characters, are the great Athenian comic playwright, Aristophanes, and, towards the end, the party is enlivened by the arrival of the controversial Alcibiades, possibly the most brilliant statesman and soldier of his generation. It is through him and his confession of attempted seduction that we learn a great many details about Plato's mentor, Socrates.

The translator, Christopher Gill, succeeds in presenting the chain of argument in a clear, lucid style, further supplemented by a fine, lengthy introduction and copious notes for those unfamiliar with late fifth century BC Greece.

Plato's "Symposium" will always be read because there will always be people who question the nature of Love. Agathon's dinner party is the scene of a conversation between a small group of men, who go around the table offering their views on Love. What does Love mean to us to-day? Reading over the responses of the dinner-guests and their host, we find the same range of answers in Ancient Greece that we are likely to find now.

Phaedrus and Pausanias are utilitarians and materialists. Phaedrus looks at love between people and a proto-Burkean love for government and state. Pausanias complicates the argument, saying that there are two different kinds of love, one which is common and one which is heavenly - yet still oriented towards the real and the tangible. Eryximachus is a proto-Swedenborg, trying to reconcile or harmonize the two kinds of love.

The jewels of Plato's "Symposium" are Aristophanes and Socrates. Aristophanes gives us the profoundly moving depiction of Love as a fundamental human need, a desire for completion. For a writer of comedy, whose aim as an art form is forgiveness and acceptance, Aristophanes's explanation is no surprise, though its depth is amazing. While women are generally discounted throughout the "Symposium," not only does Socrates, as we might expect, completely astound his audience (both inside the book and out) with his progressively logical and ascendant view of Love, but he also does it through the voice of a woman, Diotima. When we realize that Socrates is a character in this fiction, and that his words originate in a woman, the egalitarianism and wisdom of Plato the author truly shines forth, like the absolute beauty he claims as the ultimate goal of Love.

Was Plato a feminist? I don't know. I do know that the "Symposium" is a tremendous book. I picked it up and did not stop reading it until I was finished. The style of the Penguin translation is smooth, with a lighthearted tone that can make you forget that you are reading philosophy. Plato's comedic masterpiece in the "Symposium" is the character of Alcibiades, who provides the work a fitting end. Get the "Symposium" and read it now. You cannot help but Love it...in a Platonic sort of way.

This is perhaps the most enjoyable of Plato's dialogues, and one of the most enduring.

Plato imagines his mentor Socrates, the comic playwright Aristophanes, and other Athenian luminaries of the Golden Age met for a dinner party and a night of discussion on the nature of love. The various guests present their positions in manners ranging from thoughtful to hilarious, but all of this is but an appetizer for the main course: Socrates' concept of Eros as the fuel for the soul's ascent to the Divine, as revealed in Socrates' reminiscence of his own mentor, Diotima, the woman of Mantinea. At the end, a drunken Alcibiades breaks in upon the festivities to reveal Socrates as an avatar of the very divine Eros which he praises.

Robin Waterfield's Oxford translation is one of the best. He captures each speaker's individual idiom, a major translational feat in itself. That he is able to do so and also render the text into lucid modern English is a further coup. The Oxford edition also includes an extensive introduction, very helpful notes, and a complete bibliography.

The Symposium is great philosophy, great literature, an intimate peek at the social life of one of western civilization's formative eras, a work of spiritual inspiration and transformation, and, not least, a wonderful read. Most highly recommended!

A couple pseudo quotes, not from Epictetus. "Give me the strength to endure what I cannot change, the power to change what I can, and the wisdom to know the difference between the two." "Who cares? We'll all die someday anyway."

Depending on the particular chapter, and admittedly, on the mood of the reader, either of these two statements might characterize the basic philosophy of Stoicism as defined by Epictetus and described by his student, Arrian. Somewhat like the relationship between Socrates and Plato, Epictetus did not write down his teachings, but his eager student Arrian did so, recounting from memory the many conversations of Epictetus with various listeners.

Perhaps this is why there is such a fragmented style. The text has an annoying tendency to suddenly veer off into unrelated and incomprehensible topics. Many references are made in passing to people and events, presumably either contemporary figures or mythological personages. A (very) knowledgeable reader might be able to follow these allusions, but I don't know for sure. Fortunately, it is usually possible to at least figure out the point of each chapter from the text, although the chapter titles do make at least that much clear regardless. One exception to the elusive allusions is Socrates, about whom most people probably know something. But unfortunately, Epictetus so often points out how Socrates lived and what he said that it comes across as argument by authority. Other figures are treated in this way as well. Admittedly, the text is based on real conversations with real listeners, for whom such arguments may have been very persuasive. It's something worth noting here.

Regarding Stoicism itself, I was disappointed. The point of this philosophy is that one should not concern one's self about things outside one's own power to change. Fair enough, I suppose. But does he really think that many people are, or should be, willing to ignore as unimportant such things as being unjustly imprisoned, whipped, exiled, killed, and so forth? Obviously he did. But the problem I had was that he made no allowance for trying to change one's own circumstances. The defeatism was deafening at times, leading to my second pseudo quote above. Under this form of Stoicism, I cannot see how or why a practitioner would every attempt to improve his own life. Of course, Epictetus himself would probably say that this is no route to true happiness, but I think it is. There are, of course, circumstances where this mind set would be quite useful, and the much-quoted use of Stoic principles by Vice-Admiral James Stockdale to survive his long experience as a POW in Vietnam is an excellent example. I would argue that only when someone is truly powerless to change bad circumstances for the better would Stoicism really make sense as a philosophy for living. During the Hellenistic period in the Mediterranean, when Stoicism and other new philosophies emerged, many people lived very difficult and probably unhappy lives. Epictetus was himself a slave for at least part of his life. In this context it makes sense. But despite the claim on the back cover, I do not recognize what I've read here as being "virtually the unofficial religion of the Roman world." There is wisdom to be found in this work, but you'll need to read carefully and critically (actually, this is always good advice) to find it.

I've downloaded every word of the great Epictetus and mess around with my own "book" of his sayings and discourses. His voice reaches me from across 2000 years in a way that the sillier religions can't. I'm proud to call mysell and Epictetan, father than just a Stoic since the Big E had such a witty, down home approach to the Big Question --- How Can I have a contented life.
E rocks. Buy the books. Check him out on the net. Sit at the feet of one of the few gurus in history who would kick you for sitting at his feet.

If you are interested in Stoic Philosophy this is the book that you should read. Epictetus offers a concise guide on the stoic philosophy which allowed him to endure a life of slavery and hardship during the reign of Nero. Does he answer the big questions? Well i can only say that to me he did not answer the question on how to be truly happy (well actually he did I just have trouble accepting his answer), but he does answer the question the question - how do we avoid disappointed in our life, how do we avoid being sad.

"Dr. Faustus," the play by 16th century writer Christopher Marlowe, has been published as part of the Dover Thrift Edition series. The brief introduction to this version notes that the play was first published in 1604, and also discusses its relationship to a German text from 1587 known as the "Faustbuch." In his play Marlowe tells the story of the title character, a scholar who is "swollen with cunning." Faust dabbles in the dark arts of "magicians / And necromantic books," and literally makes a deal with the devil. These actions drive the tragedy forward.

This play is a curious mixture of Christian theology, tragedy, slapstick comedy, and colorful pageantry. It moves along fast, and contains some really beautiful and stately language.

"Dr. Faustus" is ultimately a cautionary tale about human pride and ambition. I must admit that in the end I find it less satisfying than some of the other great tragedies of the Elizabethan era, perhaps because this play relies less on universal human issues than on a culturally-bound theological contrivance. Still, it's a noteworthy play that, I believe, still holds relevance for contemporary audiences. ...

In the Faust legend, a man by the name of Faust or Faustus sells his soul to the devil for twenty-four years of worldly power. This legend has been told many times over by such writers as Goethe and Mann, but no doubt the most famous retelling, and probably the best, is the play, Doctor Faustus by Christopher Marlowe.

The most prominent influence on Marlowe's version of the Faust legend was the social upheaval during the time period in which it was written. Doctor Faustus was probably first performed in 1594, a time of tremendous change in Europe. The Medieval times were over and the Renaissance was beginning, however, influences of both times can be found in the play. Doctor Faustus is a transitional play where beliefs from both time periods intermingle, sometimes with disastrous results.

Doctor Faustus, himself, is a man torn between two traditions. He is a man with medieval beliefs, but renaissance aspirations. When he first attempts to conjure Mephistopheles, Faustus believe that Mephistopheles was forced to come by his (Faustus's) words. In response, Mephistopheles says, "for when we hear one rack the name of God, abjure the Scriptures and his savior Christ, we fly in hope to get his glorious soul." Mephistopheles has, of course, come of his own accord, because he feels that there is a soul to be had. He states this blatantly, yet Faustus is clouded by his old beliefs and also by his desires.

From a medieval point of view, Doctor Faustus can be looked upon as a morality play; a play about one man who aspires beyond his God-given place in the world. On the other hand, from a renaissance perspective, this play is a tragedy. The Renaissance was a time of individuality unlike the Middle Ages where a man was trapped in whatever social class into which he was born. Faustus is "an essentially good man" by Renaissance ideals who believes he has reached the end of human knowledge and is thus justified is using the black arts to further his knowledge. As in most classical tragedies, his downfall is complete and is due to his pride.

After Faustus makes his deal with Lucifer, the question must be asked: Is there any way back for him? Faustus believes he is damned at the moment that he signs his name in blood, although he has many chances to repent during the course of the play. The first chance comes after his first conjuring. He says, "O something soundeth in mine ear, 'Abjure this magic, turn to God.' Aye, and Faustus will turn to God again. To God? He loves thee not." Something is pleading for Faustus to repent, but Faustus remains firm in believing God has already condemned him. Each time the Good Angel appears is yet another chance for Faustus to repent, but the Evil Angel continues to threaten him if he even thinks about repenting. If it were not possible for Faustus to save his soul, then the Evil Angel and his demons would have simply left Faustus alone to cry out in anguish to God.

The final indicator that Faustus could have been saved at any point over his twenty-four year bargain is given by Mephistopheles, himself, as Faustus's fate is sealed beyond irrevocability.

Christopher Marlowe's brilliant retelling of the Faust legend springs not only from his own creativity, but from the times in which he lived. Marlowe's life and times allowed him to create the greatest retelling of one of Western cultures more timeless stories. When put to words, the legend seems so simple, yet its possibilities and implications, as Marlowe proves, can be nothing less than monumental.

The story of the infamous Dr. Faustus shows depth on many levels. Marlowe explores the developing morality play genre while calling upon aspects of classic tragedy. The main character, Faustus, finds himself too intelligent for the sciences of mortal man, and pursues a god-like existence in exchange for his soul. Prodded and guided by Mephostiphiles, servant to Lucifer, Faustus explores aspects of nature and society that the common man only dreams about. The conflict within Faustus is the central focus of the play, and Marlowe challenges the reader to consider whether it is more worthwhile to pursue mortal prestige or eternal salvation

This multi-faceted book is a gem. It was written in a period when Industrialism was increasingly establishing itself over Craftsmanship. Gill starts by analyzing the clash between these two worlds, then goes on to situate typography in this melee. Most of the book concerns Gill's views on correct typography, some of which seem quirky. Gill is unique: his forward style and searing insight are inspiring and refreshing, even after six decades. The last section of the book is Gill's proposal to convert written English into phonetic writing, avoiding spelling/pronunciation inconsistencies and increasing efficiency. It makes great sense - typical Gill

I noticed few reviews for this book, so it had to be said. At once a historical view of typography as well as universal ideals still applicable to modern design. Eric Gill was a genius, and his timeless typefaces were the only window I knew him through before I read this book. This is the sort of book that you finish and then go look for more books like it; my favorite kind.

Being a huge fan of Christopher Reeve since he literally flew onto the big screen in 1978, I was truely horrified after his life-altering accident in 1995. As I grew from young child to teenager to young adulthood, I found myself marveling at the man and not so much on the character he played so so magnificently in the four chapters of the Superman films. He truely exemplifies "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" and it is funny that he told Richard Donner that he was afraid that he would not be able to live up to the creedo. He did and still continues to do so. The most remarkable thing about this book is the fact that he can draw so much humor from such a tragic occurance (of course having Robin Williams at your bedside probably did not hurt). The progress Chris has made both physically and mentally is nothing short of miraculous and although he did not meet his challenge of walking by age 50, he will one day walk again. As the tag-line for Superman proclamed "You Will Believe a Man Can Fly (walk)."

I'm trying to understand some of the negative reviews of this book claiming Christopher Reeve's shared too much of his real experience as a disabled person, or conversely did not write authentically enough. After reading this book I was struck by Mr. Reeve's unpretentious cander and humor. Instead of boring me, I found his portrait of life vividly carried me into a world I have not been aware of, and also thrilled me because of the exciting possibilities in this century of unlocking not only the secrets of nervous tissue regeneration from new research with stem cells, but from the body's own regenerative abilities. This book affected me on three levels -- it was stimulating mentally, and emotionally (great story), and last but not least, spiritually moving -- it stuck with me, and changed me in ways I could not have expected when I picked it up.

This book is truly the most inspirational book I have ever read. "If you put your mind to it you can accomplish anything." I've heard this many times over in my life and before reading this book it has had no depth or meaning in my life. But after I've read this book, it gives me a whole new meaning to it. Now I truly believe that I can do anything. Of all the hard things in life you can think of, Christopher Reeve must have gone through much harder in his new life and if someone of his status could accomplish so much it makes me to think what I can do. This book is definitely going into my favorites collection and I encourage everyone to read this book.

I do not feel this matches Marlowe's "Faustus," "Massacre At Paris," "Dido Queen of Carthage," or "Edward II." But it does have some memorable features. At first, Barabas is a sympathetic character, but like many of Marlowe's characters, he goes too far and becomes detestable. Barabas' daughter Abigail is a striking figure. She initially feels sorry for her father but later sees what he has become and falls victim to her father's wickedness. Her death as a Christain in 3.6 is memorable. Ithamore is convincing as a villain who knows no honor. Ferneze is fine as the hero who eventually restores order. It's not Marlowe's best play, but it is still worth some interest.