I was not so sure whether I'd even understand this book, let alone enjoy it, but found it really added to my knowledge about not only tort law, but also about law and economics in general. I'd particularly recommend it for other law students. Also, don't be intimidated by the authors' credentials--I have virtually no background in economics and still was able to follow it.

As a Boston University Student, I am fortunate enough to have this work's editor, Richard Landes, as a professor. His overall knowledge of the subject add depth and credibility to this work. The variety of topics are both individualy examined in depth and linked together well. Good job, Professor Landes!

This book is an essential reference for anyone doing research in the field of how religious views influence behavior of all sorts, including and especially political behavior. Particularly useful in this regard is Frederick Clarkson's essay on Christian Reconstructionism and Chip Berlet's essay on "Demonization." Both are authors of recent books that flesh out these themes further.

No college or university library should be without at least one copy in the reference section, and another on the shelves for general circulation. Students of politics, religion, sociology, history, women's studies and many more will find much useful material in this comprehensive volume.

In Homer's "Iliad" the one reference to Oedipus suggests he ruled in Thebes until he was killed in battle. However, in the more famous version of the tale, told by Sophocles in his classic Greek tragedy "Oedipus the King," Oedipus blinds himself and leaves Thebes. In "Oedipus at Colonus" Sophocles tells of the final fate of the exiled figure. Colonus is a village outside Athens, where the blind, old man has become a benevolent source of defense to the land that has given him his final refuge.

"Oedipus at Colonus was produced posthumously in 401 B.C.E., and the legend is that it was used by Sophocles as his defense against the charge of senility brought by his children. In terms of its lack of dramatic structure (the scenes are connected by the character of Oedipus rather than by the loosely constructed plot) and the melancholy of its lyric odes it is the most atypical of the extant plays of Sophocles. "Oedipus at Colonus" is the most poetic of his plays while being the least dramatic as well. But it is the characterization of Oedipus as a noble figure that stands out. This is still the same proud and hot-tempered figure who vowed to solve the reason for the curse on Thebes in the earlier play. But this is also an Oedipus who has accepted his punishment, even though he insists that he is innocent. After all, the sin responsible for his exile was really that of his mother; if you read "Oedipus the King" carefully you will see that the incestuous part of the prophecy was added by the Oracle after Jocasta tried to have her infant son killed in order to save her husband's life. Consequently, when Oedipus claims to be a helpless victim of destiny, there is ample reason to agree with his interpretation of events.

The fact that this was the last play written by Sophocles offers a line of analysis for understanding "Oedipus at Colonus" as well. You can read in certain lyrics, such as the first "staismon" with its ode to Colonus and the characterization of King Theseus of Athens, the playwright's praise for the democratic institutions and proud history of Athens. On a more psychological level you can consider the play as articulating Sophocles' views on death. These other considerations tend to reduce the importance of the title character, but there is the compelling argument of the play that through his personal suffering Oedipus has been purified.

In Homer's "Iliad" the one reference to Oedipus suggests he ruled in Thebes until he was killed in battle. However, in the more famous version of the tale, told by Sophocles in his classic Greek tragedy "Oedipus the King," Oedipus blinds himself and leaves Thebes. In "Oedipus at Colonus" Sophocles tells of the final fate of the exiled figure. Colonus is a village outside Athens, where the blind, old man has become a benevolent source of defense to the land that has given him his final refuge.

"Oedipus at Colonus was produced posthumously in 401 B.C.E., and the legend is that it was used by Sophocles as his defense against the charge of senility brought by his children. In terms of its lack of dramatic structure (the scenes are connected by the character of Oedipus rather than by the loosely constructed plot) and the melancholy of its lyric odes it is the most atypical of the extant plays of Sophocles. "Oedipus at Colonus" is the most poetic of his plays while being the least dramatic as well. But it is the characterization of Oedipus as a noble figure that stands out. This is still the same proud and hot-tempered figure who vowed to solve the reason for the curse on Thebes in the earlier play. But this is also an Oedipus who has accepted his punishment, even though he insists that he is innocent. After all, the sin responsible for his exile was really that of his mother; if you read "Oedipus the King" carefully you will see that the incestuous part of the prophecy was added by the Oracle after Jocasta tried to have her infant son killed in order to save her husband's life. Consequently, when Oedipus claims to be a helpless victim of destiny, there is ample reason to agree with his interpretation of events.

The fact that this was the last play written by Sophocles offers a line of analysis for understanding "Oedipus at Colonus" as well. You can read in certain lyrics, such as the first "staismon" with its ode to Colonus and the characterization of King Theseus of Athens, the playwright's praise for the democratic institutions and proud history of Athens. On a more psychological level you can consider the play as articulating Sophocles' views on death. These other considerations tend to reduce the importance of the title character, but there is the compelling argument of the play that through his personal suffering Oedipus has been purified.

Many people make the mistake of only reading part 1 of this trilogy. In my opinion, it is a horrible mistake to ignore parts 2 and 3. The blind Oedipus is touchingly lead by his daughter. (I can not help but suspect this inspired the relationship between Edgar and Gloucester in Shakespeare's "King Lear.") It is also in this play that we see Creon is not exactly an outstanding citizen. He seemed nice enough in part 1, but once he has Oedipus' power, he is somewhat of a tyrant. It is also in part 2 that we are able to get a closer look at Oedipus. (REMEMBER, HE DID NOT KNOW HE HAD KILLED HIS FATHER, MARRIED HIS MOTHER, AND HAD CHILDREN WITH HIS MOTHER.) It is in this play that we see the human side of Oedipus. I can not overestimate the beauty of the scene where "seemingly sighted" he enters the Greek Version of heaven. Again remember, the story does not end here. You MUST read "Antigone" (Part 3).

Sheridan's phrase "school for scandal" is a grand metaphor for the gossipy London society of the late 1770's, and the longevity of the play that bears it as its title attests to its relevance in any place and time. Sheridan captures the inherent drama and humor in the truism that people are always talking about other people behind their backs and uses it as a foundation on which to devise a plot of intrigue.

The school's "principals" are Lady Sneerwell and a man named Snake, who like to collect gossip about their neighbors and others in London society; one of their cohorts is the brilliantly ironic character Mrs. Candour, who openly reprehends idle gossip but blithely participates in it anyway. One of their favorite subjects of gossip is the Surface brothers, Joseph and Charles. The popular perception is that Joseph is responsible and respectable, while Charles is a wastrel and a miscreant.

The Surface brothers' uncle, Sir Oliver Surface, returns to London after spending many years in India, hears the rumors about his nephews, and decides to verify them for the purpose of choosing an heir between the two. Since he has been gone so long that his nephews would not recognize him, he visits them incognito. Posing as a moneylender to Charles, and as a poor relative to Joseph, he discovers that his nephews are not quite of the natures he has been led to believe.

Sheridan employs some typical comedic devices like love triangles and hiding characters, but for the most part this is an inventive play that picks its targets well and hits the bullseye every time. Considering it was written at such a turbulent time in England's history, it's interesting that social satire still managed to break through greater national concerns and be successful and appreciated.

This book made it fun and delightful to follow how rumors and scandals are started. Anyone who wants a ligth hearted read in the style of a Shakespearean comedy, "School for Scandal" by Richard Sheridan is for you. It has the most entertaining characters, who anyone could recognize as being people they know and are friends with, and it pokes fun at soap-opera-like dramas that have forbidden loves and misleading coincidences. The situations that arise seem so unthinkable and impossible, and then you realize that you or someone you know has been there right down to the last detail. "School for Scandal" is a entertaining read for anyone who has ever passed on a rumor.

The aptly named Sir Oliver Surface would like to know which of his nephews is the more worthy, and, well, nothing is ever simple. This comedy of manners is one of the best ever written, and it rings true 225 years after its first performance thanks to its snide comments on English aristocrats and one-liners such as "I'm called away by particular business. But I leave my character behind me."

The Dover Thrift edition has no introduction or analysis. Intoduction and analysis are of course not necessary, but in some situations they are nice things to have.

I enjoyed this book a lot. Once I got clued in to the "inside baseball" of Ademar's world, I then began to enjoy the story of this man who was - it seems - always scrambling for an opening. His fall was spectacular but the story of how he got there - and how hard he fell - was fun to read.

I was especially interested in the discussion of Ademar's attempts to move the patron saint of his abbey - St. Martial - a couple of centuries back in time so he could lay claim to having in fact been one of the original Christian apostles! For such a spectacular if presumptive move, surely Ademar deserves some sort of award for historical chutzpah!