Besides the 128 pages of text, the volume contains over 100 pages of very nice black and white (eight in color) facsimiles of the manuscripts discussed, the photos are on glossy paper and of excellent quality.

Lowden dispalys a fine acumen here in presenting these manuscripts to the reader. The main text focuses on about seven Illuminated Greek Prophet books. Additionally he comments upon and shows images of about 20 others.

This group of MSS, "Byzantine Illuminated Prophet Books" form a small but homogeneous group. None are dated, but all are a product of the Byzantine scriptoriums and scribes.

Lowden cogently discusses the relevant iconography of each MS, and reveals many interesting features. Lowden focuses upon the visual artwork much more so than he does upon the scripts. As a palaeographer, I do wish that he had spent more time with analysis of the scripts, and perhaps more "textual criticism" of the actual written contents.

This is a fine reference work displaying scribal and illuminator talents of the (circa) 10th century in or around the Byzantine empire, with a focus upon the art (illuminations and miniatures) aspects and relationships.

The volume is well made, sturdy and is smyth sewn. The type is clear and properly leaded for ease of reading.

It has an index, and a catalogue of the MSS (with ruling charts). It has good footnotes and fine bibliographic data. Recommended for study of: Byzantine Book Illumination, 10th century scribal practices, and for general information on the Biblical texts of this group of MSS. Lowden's penetrationg analyses are very educational and he is a good writer.

IN my opinion, this book is no where near the great piece of scholarship as claimed by some on this site (why does this high school teacher named Kiley write two reviews? What is it with him and his hero worship of Elting?). It has some merits, but the scholarship is very slanted (typical Elting)and the biased conclusions by Elting rob the reader of the overall impact of what was going on (another Elting trait), especially along the Canadian border and Sir Isaac Brock's influence there.

The book, overall, is a good description of the tactics, battles and problems encountered and sometimes overcome in this wasteful and pointless war. John Elting weaves present day overview well with comtemporary accounts. The book does have an American bias, however. Canadians supporting the USA are given better press than Americans supporting Britain and Canadian/British Irregulars (particularly the Indian) are depicted as little better than rapists and murderers (American Irregulars are, of course upstanding heroes). I certainly found enough in the book to make it worth reading but would make sure a new reader had other sources to compare with. Some sweeping generalisations and two-dimensional characterisation spoil what would otherwise be a very good book.

John Elting was reknowned for his up-front, no-nonsense style of military history writing. In this book, which presents a military perpective of the war of 1812, Mr. Elting shots from the hip in describing how silly America's preperations for the war were. Elting writes with a disdain for the meddling politician in the affairs of the military. Cherished American presidential ideals like Jefferson and Madison come across as ameteurs and niave in this book. For sure America did not plan adequately for this war, and we payed a heavy price for it. There are lessons to be learned here for today. Also, Mr. Elting's views on the Indians
in the conflict do not come across as flattering either. Its time perhaps that we take a less picturesque view towards the Indians and see them in a more accurate light as Elting presents for us. One of the many lessons the US needed to learn was that militia could not win the conflcit. This assumption was a notion held over from the Revolution, which should have long dispelled that idea. In essense the country had to learn the lesson again that only a professional standing army could win battles. As a former US army colonel Elting certainly disdains how our foundinmg fathers treated the army. In his descriptions of the war itself, Elting is decidely pro-American in his outlook. This is not surprising from a former soldier of the US army. His main complaint is that poor leadership and bad politics robbed the American soldier of victory in the war. While there may be truth in this idea, he tends to dismiss what the British and Canadians accomplished in the war. Eltings glosses over the brilliance of Maj. Gen Issac Brock who saved Britsh Canada from being overrun in the first year of the conflict. In several actions he seems to inflate British losses while deflating American ones. While we can't blame Elting for this, the reader might do well to balance this book with other works on the subject. Read this book for its amusing narrative style and in memory for the passing of Mr. Elting who was a noted military historian on the Napoleanic period.

I'm mexican engineer and I design steel structurs and is important a book with the information that I have read in
the brief description.

This is the history of the Sergeants Major of the Army, as of the 9th SMA, Richard Kidd. It was written by a team at the U.S. Army Center of Military History in 1995 and has been "copied" by the current publisher. A new, updated version of this book is scheduled to be released next year, so wait for it instead.

The Mediterranean theater, to many senior American commanders, represented a sideshow, a bill of goods foist upon them by Winston Churchill and his lieutenants, or a dark hole "into which one entered at one's peril." Carlo D'Este, in this slim, concise volume covers the action from Operation TORCH and the Tunisian campaign, through the conquest of Sicily, the battles of Salerno and Anzio, down to the Axis surrender in Italy. Short specific chapters with good maps nicely explain the operational developments while short analytic thumbnails delve into the personalities and backgrounds of the senior commanders on both sides of the frontlines. D'Este combines clear prose, well thought out analysis and up to date research into this dual purpose work: if you're only interested in a general summary of the theater read this book, and stop; if you want to pursue this subject, use D'este as a starting point and, by building on his excellent bibliographic essays, expand your library. I recommend, in particular, D'Este's BITTER VICTORY (Sicily), FATAL DECISION (Anzio), and anything by Martin Blumenson.

John Walsh does not like Major Andre. This is what you come away with after reading Walsh's book. Walsh sees Andre as some master manipulator. This is at odds with the fact that Andre couldn't amanipulate his way out of capture despite having a legitamate pass from Gen. Arnold. All Andre had to do was to show the pass and say nothing. Instead Andre takes a guess at his captor's allegiance and blurts out his own. Is this the work of a master manipulator?

Walsh's section on the trial is informative.

I think it speaks volumes about the author that on page 69 of his work he adds a footnote informing the reader that the lower arm of the Hudson River has regular tides as it is part of the sea. "This fact and its bearing on the Andre story has escaped almost all previous writers. None dwell on it." On one hand I am glad that Walsh mentions the point becuase it does make clearer why two men were needed to row a boat out to the Vulture. On the other hand it seems as if he stops his story to take a bow. It left me a little confused.

I suggest instead J.T. Flexnor's "The Traitor and the Spy".

This book achieved a very important objective of nonfiction writing which is that it caused me to reexamine my understanding of Andre's character and his role in the events leading up to and after the discovery of Benedict Arnold's attempt to turn over West Point to the British. In other words, it made me think pretty seriously about what I believe about Andre.

There are many conclusions and arguments in this book that I disagree with. I don't agree that Andre was so selfserving and so manipulative that everything he did was for effect. Evangelist did not make a persuasive case for me. I was not pursuaded to conclude that it was solely due to Andre's manipulation that his three captors are routinely disparaged by historical writers. I still don't know what to think about the captors.I don't think the author made his case that Washington's views did not affect the outcome of the trial.Subsequent actions of Washington lead me to believe that he had lost his usual clear thinking when it came to Benedict Arnold's treason.

However, the author made me seriously think about all of these issues, and more. This is not the best revolutionary war history of the year and it is unlikely to win any awards. I recommend it because it raises questions and provokes serious thinking. At least it did so for me.

An intene look at the capture, trial and execution of Major John Andre, Benedict Arnold's British contact. This story will have you contemplating Washington's action and the outcome of the American Revolution. Specifically, one will be surprised how three young militia men may have saved the whole Contenental Army from certain defeat. John Walsh does a great job of keeping this story alive and keeping the question of Andre's sentence at the forefront of debates. A must for revolutionary war readers.

i had to read John Bull's other island and major barbara for a literature class. i really disliked both of them. major barbara included a preface all about poverty and how the jails should be emptied. (apparently, shaw was a socialist.) it was really pretentious and he just made me really mad. the plays themselves seemed really dry and dull. i don't think this is the fault of the class because i really liked other things we read. it just seemed like the characters were really one dimentional, the social message shaw was trying to get across was the real focus of the play. i resent that. i don't read plays to be (primarily) lectured to. they were pretty unentertaining, too.

I read this book several years ago when it was a part of the source material for the examination for promotion to Lieutenant in the Houston Police Department. To say it is poorly written is an understatement. I'm not sure who I am more frustrated at, the author for his poor skills at writing, the editor(s) who let so many horrible mistakes get past, or my own agency for allowing this text to be approved for use. If you are required to read this book for promotion or as a class assignment, you have my sincere sympathy. If you are considering buying this book for your own professional education, don't waste your money.

I would like to voice my opinion concerning the above listed book which has been made required study material for the promotional exam to the rank of captain, in the Louisiana State Police. I am not an expert in criminal justice or English grammar and I have never written a book, but I am a very heavy reader and I do not believe that this book meets the level of professionalism or scholarship that I would expect in a work of this nature. I have read this book and found it to be extremely difficult to understand, not only because it sometimes does not make much sense, but because of the tremendous number of grammar, spelling, and subject/verb relationship errors that it contains. While reading this work, I have highlighted any information that I thought might be useful to me in my career or that might appear on the promotional exam. I also found myself highlighting the errors that I found and I think that there are more errors highlighted in this work than there is useful material. It is very hard to read and retain any information provided within this work when the reader has to examine the same paragraph over and over again to determine what it would mean if the proper word had been used. It is intimidating to me to realize that my future career may be impacted based upon my knowledge of the information contained in this book. The author of this work has certainly earned our respect as a retired member of the Kansas City Police Department and is obviously knowledgeable in the area of police leadership, but he lacks the ability to impart his knowledge to the reader through his writing. The author also lacks any academic degrees, or at least none are mentioned in his credentials, and he is presently the head of security at a small shopping mall. In addition to those facts, it is pretty obvious that no editors or proof readers were employed to correct the many errors found in this work, and this is a second edition! I attempted to research this book and was unable to find that it has ever been reviewed by any other book reviewer, except at this site, or any trade journal. I would like to see this book removed from the required list for any professional police promotional examination. I do not believe that this book meets the standard to base promotional exams upon for this or any other agency. Thank you for your consideration.

I was required to read this for my police department's promotional process. Although I have read many books in my life and had to read many poorly written books in college, this book stands alone. I actually became angry at the author because he was contradictory, unclear, and wordy. I read the book, studied it and I still did not understand the author. The material was not beyond my comprehension, just poorly written and poorly edited. My department no longer uses this book.

This second book demonstrates that, while it may be possible to think of 202 uses for a John Major, it is not possible to think of 202 funny uses.

The first book in this series picked up on the very funny book, "101 uses for a dead cat" together with the British public's disenchantment with their then Prime Minister.

The second book has no novelty appeal in that way and the ideas are really laboured and, quite frankly, not funny.

While studying John Steinbeck I came across this book and was glad to find a book that treats "In Doubious Battle", "Of Mice and Men", and "The Grapes of Wrath" together in one volume. I was, however, totally disappointed. The book consists of several abstracts of essays that are available elsewhere in full. The selection of essays does not seem to make any sense and the essays are not commented. The aim of author seems to be to make money out of other people's essays. If you want to learn something about John Steinbeck, do not buy this book! Look for essays elsewhere and look for other books. There are better ones!