Used price: $170.00
( By the bye giving an excellent piece of advice to all artists, villainous or not. Truly the stage, as Watson keeps reminding us, lost a great actor when Holmes embarked upon the profession of consulting detective )
It would appear that Jonas, in his attempt to send the innocent John Hector Mc Farlane to the gallows, could not resist adding a final touch which brought his nefarious plans crashing down---he planted a stain of blood on the wall upon which Mc Farlane's fingerprint would be found!
Lestrade: "You are aware that no two thumb-marks are alike ? "
Holmes: "I have heard something of the kind. "
Whereupon Wiliaim S Baring-Gould, greatest of Holmseian addict/scholars treats us to a footnote on the margin regarding Galton's method of fingerprining, given to the British Association in 1899 and concludes that--
By my gold amethyst encrusted snuff-box, this is fun!
It's the best rendering of Conan Doyle's canon, complete with maps of London, illustrations from Collier's, vintage 1903; coats of arms, photographs, drawings--in brief, the world of S.H. made explicable, and vivid.
Naturally you knew that when Watson informs us that their long suffering landlady, Mrs.Hudson, lived on the first floor flat, he's using it in the English sense: what we Americans would call 'the second floor.' Or that a 'life preserver' was a short bludgeon, usually of flexible cane, whalebone, or the like loaded with lead at one end. Or that---
Hmm...now what was that about the supreme gift of the artist?
List price: $16.99 (that's 30% off!)
Used price: $11.81
Buy one from zShops for: $11.22
Used price: $2.00
Collectible price: $3.98
I will never buy Shakespeare from another publisher. While these books may be slightly more expensive than a "mass market" edition, I believe that if you are going to take the time to read and understand Shakespeare, it is well worth the extra dollar or two. The Introduction, the images, and plethora of footnotes are irreplaceable and nearly neccessary for a full understanding of the play (for those of us who are not scholars already). The photocopy of the original Quatro text in the appendix is also very interesting.
All in all, well worth it! I recommend that you buy ALL of Shakespeare's work from Arden's critical editions.
Used price: $0.01
Collectible price: $4.19
Buy one from zShops for: $3.25
List price: $24.99 (that's 30% off!)
Used price: $9.82
Collectible price: $31.76
Buy one from zShops for: $8.54
One also learns briefly of the life of Josephus, and gains an insight as to why Josephus chose to write this lengthy history of the Jewish people. What is most interesting about the reading of Josephus is his reliance on Jewish scriptures for delineating the history of the Jewish people before his time. He departs from this however when discussing the events of his own time. In addition, the reader obtains a discussion of the famous passages in Josephus on the historical authenticity of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ, these being questioned by some scholars of Josephus.
As with any account of history, this one bears its own biases and preferences. Begin with a personal study of Josephus and his background and what we know of the production of his historical accounts. From this starting point, however, nothing will prove more satisfying than reading the words of Josephus (in translation) for yourself! This volume begins with the historian's own autobiography and it only gets better as one continues to read.
First, Josephus' account of the historical events and people in Judea during the 1st century A.D. has no peer. Josephus' facts are the most reliable from any secular historian during that period.
Second, Josephus' histories corroborate the Biblical accounts. Josephus, a Jewish general captured by the Romans during Judea's struggle for independence which ended in 70 A.D., mentions John the Baptist, the Herodian rulers of Judea, Pontius Pilate, and Jesus Christ. Josephus "fills in the blanks" by supplying detail not mentioned by the New Testament authors and gives flesh, bone (and blood) to the characters the Gospels and the Book of Acts relates.
Third, the translator, William Whiston, adds insightful and invaluable footnotes throughout the text. Whiston corrects Josephus where necessary or gives the reader more detail in support of Josephus' assertions by reference to other primary sources, many of which are no longer extant. Where Josephus refers to Jewish customs, Whiston explains them for the Gentile reader.
Thus, this book is best used as a reference book, though reading through Josephus' complete works is fruitful. The book is fairly compact for one containing 1000 pages. The pages are thin, which allows for its compact size, but which causes any highlighting or margin notes to "bleed" through to the reverse side of the page. The font size is 10 point, which makes for comfortable reading on the eyes. The appendices contain very helpful charts, including one which lists those excerpts from the Bible which run parallel to Josephus' chapters.
This is a great source book for any historian or Biblical scholar.
Used price: $4.50
Buy one from zShops for: $6.99
Medea has one problem, however. Aside from the fact she is a witch, she is a barbarian, a non-Greek. The Greeks used the word "barbaros" to refer to all people who weren't Greek, because if they didn't speak Greek, it just sounded like "bar bar bar" to the Greeks.
So after Jason and Medea settle in together back in Greece, his homeland, he decides that his interests (and Medea's) are better served if he marries the daughter of King Creon of Corinth. Medea gets jealous, poisons the woman, and then kills her two children in revenge.
Medea is an absolutely riveting character, whose tragic problems are those of all woman who have left their homes and families to follow men to foreign lands, only to be scorned by them in the end. The speeches of Jason and Medea are remarkable point-counterpoint presentations which reflect the deep influence of the sophists of Euripides' day. Medea sounds, at times, like a proto-feminist. She is one of the most enduring dramatic creations of all times, revealing with each line the remarkable genius of Euripides, the most modern of the three great Greek tragedians
Another important thing to remember in reading "Medea" is that the basic elements of the story were already known to the Athenian audience that would be watching the play. Consequently, when the fact that Medea is going to kill her children is not a surprise what becomes important are the motivations the playwright presents in telling this version of the story. The audience remembers the story of the Quest for the Golden Fleece and how Medea betrayed her family and her native land to help Jason. In some versions of the story Medea goes so far as to kill her brother, chop up his body, and throw it into the sea so their father, the King of Colchis, must stop his pursuit of the Argo to retrieve the body of his son. However, as a foreigner Medea is not allowed to a true wife to Jason, and when he has the opportunity to improve his fortune by marrying the princess of Corinth, Medea and everything she had done for him are quickly forgotten.
To add insult to injury, Jason assures Medea that his sons will be well treated at the court while the King of Corinth, worried that the sorceress will seek vengeance, banishes her from the land. After securing sanctuary in Athens (certainly an ironic choice given this is where the play is being performed), Medea constructs a rather complex plan. Having coated a cloak with poison, she has her children deliver it to the princess; not only will the princess die when she puts on the cloak (and her father along with her), the complicity of the children in the crime will give her an excuse to justify killing in order to literally save them from the wrath of the Corinthians.
This raises an interest questions: Could Medea have taken the children with her to her exile in Athens? On the one hand I want to answer that obviously, yes, she can; there is certainly room in her dragon-drawn chariot. But given her status as a foreigner, if Jason goes to Athens and demands the return of his children, would he not then have a claim that Medea could not contest? More importantly, is not Medea's ultimate vengeance on Jason that she will hurt him by taking away everything he holds dear, namely his children and his princess bride?
In the final line of the play the Chorus laments: "Many things beyond expectation do the gods fulfill. That which was expected has not been accomplished; for that which was unexpected has god found the way. Such was the end of this story." This last line has also found its way into the conclusion of other dramas by Euripides ("Alcestis," "Bacchae" and "Andromache"), but I have always found it to fit the ending of "Medea" best, so I suspect that is where it originally came from and ended up being appended to those other plays sometime during the last several thousand years. However, the statement is rather disingenuous because one of the rather standard approaches in a play by Euripides is that his characters often deserve their fate. In a very real sense, Euripides provides justification for Medea's monstrous crime and his implicit argument to the Athenian audience is that the punishment fits the crime. However, Athenians would never give up their air of superiority; at least not until foreigners such as the Macedonians and the Romans conquered the self-professed cradle of democracy.
List price: $19.00 (that's 30% off!)
Used price: $12.00
Buy one from zShops for: $12.51
If you've read Graves poetry, much influenced in the early stages by horrific personal experiences on World War I battlefields, this collaboration has something poignant about it. According to Sargant, Graves convinced him to write the book and it's easy to understand Graves's enthusiasm for what Sargant had to say. The result is an important (and also very readable) book.
The book is a clear exposition of those mechanisms for growth adaptations (or changes) within all our personalities, how these changes occur naturally, and how they can be artificially induced. He also discusses techniques that can inhibit the natural mechanisms for change.
I read it again 10 years ago to regain some insight into several intelligent and capable friends that, although hating their work, appeared to have had their ability for change inhibited by their use of soft drugs.
This book has a curiously positive unanimity amongst its reviewers, could we have been brainwashed :-)
I am pleased that it is back in print and feel almost honour bound to buy a copy (I borrowed it previously from our local lending library)
List price: $15.00 (that's 30% off!)
Used price: $7.00
Buy one from zShops for: $9.85
ethical politician. Miller introduces the Lincoln as he lived and breathe and Lincoln lived and breathe politics. Lincoln's practice of politics is familiar to us because it was partisan, compromising as well as searching for consenus and individual distinction.
Lincoln the politician seems commmon, it is his ethical quality on the rub of a matter which is outstanding. For Lincoln there was more to poltics than winning elections. There were larger issues of life to be effected by law and politics. Miller points out Lincoln achieved his moral basis from no individual but from the reading of books such as the Bible, Pilgrim's Progress, biographies of Washington and Shakespeare.
Miller indicates that in Lincoln's early political career the larger issue was the rise of the common man which Lincoln believed was best achieved by Henry Clay's Whig policies. Post-1854 Lincoln's moral issue was slavery. Lincoln recognized slavery was a moral issue and to present it politcally as a moral issue and not allow it to be presented as an economic issue clouded by the prejudice of the day as Lincoln's great political rival Douglas presented the slavery issue.
Miller presents Lincoln's strength of mind and in particular its ability to study and think an issue. His clear judgment balanced by a sincere sensitivity. This was best explained by Leonard Swett in the footnotes on p490 of Miller's book.
The best part of the book was the Stanton-Lincoln relationship on pp 410-426. Stanton began with disdain of Linclon but in working with Lincoln in the Civil War Stanton grew to respect Lincoln and be astonished by Lincoln's work. Miller points out the lack of vindictiveness in Lincoln and contrasts that with 20th century American Presidents. The ethical biography of Lincoln shows the gift to the Amercian people the Presidency of Abraham Lincoln was at our most crucial time.
This excellent and fresh biography of Lincoln shows he transcended his times and was a product of his times. He was a great man whose example gives us hope that an ethical politician is not and should not be an oxymoron.
In summary, the author notates the severe disadvantages that Lincoln had with a large and poor family, little schooling and s little opportunity for higher education and without the finer things in life such as well fitted clothing that must have caused more attention to Lincolns height and ungainly lean look. In spite of any set backs caused by losing future elections, even in cases where Lincoln had the inside track such as the Senate vote of 1855, Lincoln maintains a humility along with a sincere interest in staying on the high ground ethically. As Miller points out through extensive study of Lincoln's history, writings and course of study, Miller does well to describe the development of Lincoln's virtues. Miller notes that Lincoln is not politically naïve, he starts out an as industrious politician dealing with matters of economy but also graduates as a leading member of the Whig Party in his State and eventually a leader of the Republican Party. Lincoln is astute in that he disagrees with the Know Nothings but instead of criticizing them waits for their collapse so that their better followers may enjoin the new Republican Party. Miller frames Lincoln's successfully arguments about the evils of slavery and the intent of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Miller points out that Douglas and the growing State of Illinois gave Lincoln a National platform to espouse his views. After reading the passages from the debates (Lincoln initially engineers), I see Lincoln's argument more clearly that the Nebraska Act and popular sovereignty was absolutely wrong in that the Act allowed a small population to determine a national issue about the expansion of slavery into the territories. Miller also notes that Lincoln in his time stressed that slavery was wrong in clear, logical arguments with a point that anyone at anytime could be enslaved but his best argument was simply, that it was wrong and in violation of the Declaration of Independence. I am most impressed with not only Lincoln's stand against slavery, irregardless of his occasional carefulness about equality of the races for those times, but his strident ability to defend his position and impress those that heard him speak. His Humility is incredulous that he does not make those that defeated him or snubbed him his enemies but enlists them for the betterment of his party and the installation of his national Government. My favorite passage in the book deals with Stanton's initial meeting with Lincoln, where Lincoln is virtually used as a local boy for a case in his State but never taken serious as a true partner in the case. Lincoln later has no deliberation in later making Stanton his Secretary of War. Lincoln was not condescending to those that disagreed with him, he recognized that differences in geography and environment made men think differently but not necessarily evil. I agree with Miller, that the second Inaugural was his greatest speech, only Lincoln after four years of war could say "with malice toward none".
In this wonderful new book, William Lee Miller examines, not so much the events of Lincoln's life as the evolution of the character of the man historian Paul Johnson calls "a kind of moral genius." The book covers the years from Lincoln's birth until his inauguration in 1861. In particular, Miller examines how Lincoln's politics can be squared with his morality. Using Lincoln's own words, Miller effectively refutes the revisionists of both the right and the left and restores Lincoln to his rightful place as an American giant and irrepressible foe of slavery.
Miller is an unabashed admirer of Lincoln. Through careful scholarship and relentless logic, the author dissects Lincoln's words and actions, explores his motivations and raises and disposes of revisionist arguments. He does so in an amusing and folksy style that clearly reveals his affection and fascination with this greatest of all Americans. All of the positive traits associated with Lincoln are shown to be true. In speech after speech, Lincoln is revealed to be an intractable foe of slavery. Miller's exploration of Lincoln's character show a living politician to be sure, but a politician who clearly sees the elective process as a path to his moral goals, namely the containment and end of slavery. Lincoln is revealed to be unusually conciliatory and non-vindictive. For example, he placed Edwin Stanton in his cabinet despite Stanton's support for his Southern Democratic opponent and despite the fact that Lincoln was personally humiliated by Stanton years earlier. Not many presidents would do that. It reveals much about Lincoln's character.
Miller has no patience for arguments that attack Lincoln's character because he was not a morally pure abolitionist. Miller places Lincoln's pragmatism in its proper context, given the opinions of the electorate Lincoln faced in Illinois and then nationally. He also shows how Lincoln's pragmatic approach was in fact the moral and ethical method to solving as intractable a problem as American slavery. He contrasts Lincoln's pragmatic moral approach with that of Stephen Douglas who Miller contends lacked any morality at all.
During the vital six years between 1854 and Lincoln's election as President, Lincoln is shown to have developed a comprehensive and consistent moral perspective on slavery. He thought it a terrible evil and planned for its ultimate destruction. But Lincoln recognized that immediate abolition was not possible so the platform of the Republican party, which Lincoln helped build, was limited to the demand that slavery not be permitted in the territories. Douglas had no belief that slavery was immoral and would have allowed its spread to the territories to preserve the peace and the union. As Miller shows, there is no evidence that slavery was anything but Lincoln's prime concern from 1954 on. The Civil War was fought because the Southern states could not abide the election of a president determined to halt the spread of slavery. As Lincoln put it to Alexander Stephens after his election as president, "you think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub."
A key component of Lincoln's thinking that distinguishes him from many of his allies of the day is his magnanimity, most famously reflected in his "malice towards none..." second inaugural. Miller shows how this magnanimity was a key component of Lincoln's moral thinking. Lincoln always argued that slavery was an American, not merely a Southern problem. He never personally condemned the Southerners who supported slavery but instead tried to understand them and his program always called for accommodating their fears and concerns. In this book, Abraham Lincoln is revealed as a truly great American and a most moral man who proved to be a brilliant leader. He comes across, not as a saint but as a living breathing human being with desires and passions but with a real commitment to justice. This book should really be read by all college students as an example of how an American politician can be effective and still remain committed to his core principals. The brilliant scholarship and lively style makes it a must read for anyone with an interest in American history. I expect this book will be on many university history department reading lists.
Used price: $1.95
Buy one from zShops for: $17.58
Used price: $3.49
Collectible price: $9.50
For any non-southern American whose sole exposure to what happened there was from history books, this should forever shatter the pat preconceptions and simplistic black and white (no pun intended!) formulas they were taught.
The book plunges you into a vast panorama of ambiguities and contradictions. It was clear to me from the first paragraph that Faulkner was a genius. In the whole history of literature, he surely stands among a select few at the very pinnacle of greatness.
Go Down Moses is a tremendous struggle to get through. Some parts are straightforward and easy, but there are others that you can't hope to make literal sense of. You're bombarded by its twisted grammar. Its frantic confusion. Its endlessly unresolved sentences. But through these, Faulkner ultimately conveys the pain of history -- past and present. The emotion of that pain seems more real to him than the specific incidents it sprang from. Why else would a book begun in pre-Civil War Mississippi -- entirely skip it -- picking up again a generation later?
This book is about the South. Having read it, Faulkner walked beside me every step of the way I took through his state. But this book also has a sub-theme that should not be overlooked. Faulkner was a profound environmentalist, although sharply contrasted with how we usually think of that term. Hunters don't much fit the mold of environmentalism -- and Faulkner was an avid one of that lot. So, in that sense, along with all the sociological, he can shake you up pretty good! Go Down Moses contains some of the most wrenching descriptions you could hope to find on the loss of wilderness. There is nothing ambiguous in his portrayal of that loss. Faulkner may confound everything you thought you believed of Southern sociology, but in an environmental sense, he leaves no room for confusion. Leave those trees standing!
This book will grip you; I can't imagine it having a lesser effect. Like all truly great art, it should change you forever.