Sherlock Holmes has been an obsession of mine since adolescence. When I came across this relatively expensive set of books in junior high school, I ran home and did every chore in the world in my entire neighborhood for three straight days --and added up the dimes and quarters people would give me until I had enough to buy these two volumes. They have been with me ever since. For the first time, I understood what all those words were that I couldn't find in a dictionary, with illustrations and explanations. Even more amazing, I learned that Sherlock Holmes was a real person -- or at least, the editors of these books believed so! The product of a great generation of Holmes fanatics, this collection is full of the arguments over what each story means, what has been included by Dr. Watson, and what must have been left out to protect the innocent. The one truly indispensable volume for Holmes fans, "The Annotated Sherlock Holmes" is an unadulterated joy!

If you ever wanted to read the entire Sherlock Holmes canon, this is the best book to buy. Also, if you are one of those Sherlock fans, you will certainly appreciate this book. Apart from Conan Doyle's original text, this book presents lots of interesting information about Victorian England, linking it with the text. If Holmes spends a crown on something, Baring-Gould will not only calculate its value today but will also show you a picture of the coins at that time. If Holmes and Dr. Watson have to take a transportation to go somewhere, Baring-Gould will show a picture and description of the exact transportation they used. Finally, if the two inseparable friends have to investigate something in a specific address, the book shows a map or picture of the site. However, the book most interesting quality is an extensive research the editor made in order to sort the stories chronologically, not in the order Conan Doyle wrote them but in the order they in fact happened. All those details make the book so real that after you finish this book, you will get a strange feeling that the most famous fictitious detective in the world really lived at 221b Baker Street or a strange feeling that Holmes was not simply a delusion of Dr. Watson, himself the alter ego of Conan Doyle.

the knowledge of when to stop." Thus remarks Holmes to Lestrade about the villainous Jonas Oldacre

( 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?

Required to read Henry for my AP English Language class, I came into the play with a bias. I honestly felt that it would be a boring political play. I was utterly wrong! A huge fan of Shakespeare, I found Henry V to be a formidable match for the Bard's more critically acclaimed plays, such as Hamlet and Macbeth. Henry has it all! Shakespeare's attitude toward Henry the King is certainly one of admiration. By communicating the fact that an effective monarch must have a complete understanding of the common subjects (Pistol and Bardolph and Quickly), Shakespeare sets up Henry to be the ideal Christian king. The controlled language of Henry's speeches, particularly his response to the Dauphin's idiotic insult, also glorifies Henry. I certainly recommend this play to anyone, fan of Shakespeare or not.

Written by Shakespeare for Queen Elizabeth I amidst a time of Irish rebellion, Henry V more than adequately serves its intended purpose of galvanizing nationalistic fervor. It proved itself to be an unwavering and unfaltering impetus of patriotism in Shakespeare's day, during WWII, and still today it continues to resonate and reverberate this provocatively telling tale of the most gloriously revered monarch in English history.

Henry V's stirring orations prior to the victorious battles of Harfleur("Once more unto the breach") and Agincourt("We few, we happy few, we band of brothers") astonish and inspire me every time I read them. Simply amazing. Having read Henry IV Parts I&II beforehand, I was surprised Shakespeare failed to live up to his word in the Epilogue of Part II in which he promised to "continue the story, with Sir John in it." The continuing follies of the conniving Bardolph, Nym, & Pistol and their ignominious thieving prove to be somewhat of a depricating underplot which nevertheless proves to act as a succinct metaphor for King Harry's "taking" of France.

Powerful and vibrant, the character of Henry V evokes passion and unadulterated admiration through his incredible valor & strength of conviction in a time of utter despondency. It is this conviction and passion which transcends time, and moreover, the very pages that Shakespeare's words are written upon. I find it impossible to overstate the absolute and impregnable puissance of Henry V, a play which I undoubtedly rate as the obligatory cream of the crop of Shakespeare's Histories. I recommend reading Henry IV I&II prior to Henry V as well as viewing Kenneth Branagh's masterpiece film subsequent to reading the equally moving work.

On D-Day British officers read Henry's famous words to their men as they approached the beach. When Churchill needed material for his famous "Few" speech, his thoughts turned to the pages of Henry V. From "once more into the breach" to "we happy few, we band of brothers" this play resonates with Shakespeare's paen to England's warrior king. Oh, you'll be a bit confused at the start if you haven't read Henry IV parts 1 and 2, but this is primarily the story of Henry V's victory at Agincourt. Whether the play glorifies war or just Henry you will have to decide. There is much food for thought here for the perceptive reader. But then Shakespeare is always provocative.

i read this a few months ago when i was 11, i think it's a cool book, a typical sweet valley book, but i love sv books, jessica is my favourite charactor anyway, well my friend lended it to me, and i couldn't put it down! i was reading it during dinner! it wasn't that sad, but i didn't really particulary like the ending, i wish jessica didn't dump aj :> oh well

This book is one that will never get dull. I read over and over again and each time, something new stands out. It was just like reading my diary. I could really relate to the character's reactions and problems.

This book was fun to read. It included what was going on plus what she was thinking. If you like Sweet Valley High books, you'll love this one!

'Medea' by Euripedes is a classic and powerful Greek tragedy that broke all the rules of that time period. Euripedes takes two great figures in Medea and Jason, and uses Iconoclastic techniques brilliantly to make Jason seem stupid and Medea seem like a murderer. It is especially interesting because of the story that you need to understand outside of the play. You will need to know who the gods are and how Medea and Jason got together. Medea is a powerful sorceress, which is a major point in this play. The imagery of the death scenes were VIVIDLY scripted and the gods, who are supposed to represent all that is good and rightous, are also mocked and bashed by Euripedes. Overall, Euripedes defied all and created a tragic masterpiece, I will definately recommend you to read this. Thank you.

This is one of those remarkable plays that feels like it was written just last week. Medea is the daughter of the evil King Aeetes in Colchis -- on the remote, eastern side of the Black Sea. She assists Jason in slaying the serpent that guarded the golden fleece, and fell deeply in love with him. (See Apollonius Rhodius' Argonautica for a fuller treatment of the love episode at Colchis). She even killed her brother, Absrytus, on their way back to Greece.

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

This play is regarded by many as Euripedes' masterpiece and should be required reading of all educated people. It retells the tragic story of Medea, who had helped Jason in his quest, became his wife, gave him two sons, and feels betrayed since he is marrying the daughter of the ruler of Corinth (Jason has come to the conclusion that this is necessary to protect Medea and his sons since she is a barbarian). With horrible vengence, she kills the bride and the king and then kills her two sons. Euripedes depicts how much passion and vengence can overcome not only individuals, but those who strive to be rational. Men (and governments) can't ignore the influence of emotion, and even irrationality, on their decisions and actions, even when those actions may seem rational and just. Man has to remain flexible. The play also shows how emotions, anger, and unbridled fury can cause a person to do stupid and irrational acts. Euripedes is undoubtedly warning Athens with respect to the war that is going on with Sparta.

Stedman's Medical Dictionary is a near-perfect lexicon that should serve the needs of anyone interested in medical language. With it, you are assured of simple but precise definition of terms. Although its biggest shortcoming is having fewer entries than the Dorland's, its colourful illustrative figures are far better than the black and white charts that the Dorland's boast of.

This dictionary has many helpful features such as a well-illustrated color anatomy section, a large word-finder index, appendices of DRGs,blood groups, lab values, temperature scales, elements, symbols, and more. The inside cover details the many features contained in the definitions. The layout is easy to read. This also contains many illustrations and diagrams. This is an excellent medical reference book.

Having just started my medical studies I was looking for a complete dictionary to meet my demand for a comprehensive and "easy-to-use" book to guide my among the vast and sometimes difficult medical language. I found quickly that Stedman's had everything i could ever ask for in a medical dictionary. It's up to date in current research and also has many entries for termonology of old. The book is very comprehensive and detailed and even surpassed my dictionary of organic chemistry when I studied the subject.

What I especially apriciate with this book is it's pedagogical illustrations and a passage with "building-blocks of the medical language" wich has been a great help for me in understanding and memorizing medical terms.

During my studies I have compared my dictionary with many other medical dictonaries and have found that Stedman's remains my first choise by far!

Robert Graves scholars claim that Graves "Englished" (that is, rewrote) this book for Sargant, which might help explain how such a complex subject ended up getting explained so clearly. Graves's involvement might also explain how Sargant was able to draw evidence from such an incredible range of history to explain his basic thesis. The result is an excellent book for psychologists and also for historians. What do these things have in common - Methodist sermons, ancient Greek mysteries, Jesuit training, battlefield fatigue in WWI and WWII, Voodoo ceremonies, rock and roll dancing, and the flood that almost killed Pavlov's dogs? They all show that under severe and/or prolonged stress, the mind can change radically, profoundly, and with lasting results. In all cases, Sargant concluded, it's a manifestation of a "normal" psychological process by the brain of accommodation to circumstances, which under severely abnormal circumstances can result in very surprising and strange accommodations indeed. When the mind is in such a "wiped" state, it can be reconstructed in many ways. Brainwashers, Sargant shows, use the state to get people to do things they normally wouldn't consider. A compassionate psychologist, however, can use this state to genuinely help a person recover from the trauma. Or, as in many religious conversions and "mystical" experiences as far back as ancient times, prolonged stress can actually be used therapeutically. Sargant clearly speaks from a great range of professional experience. He's not speculating.

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.

This is one of very few books that I have read twice, and like several previous reviewers it would be very high on my list of essential reads. The first time I read it was soon after it was published. I was in my late teens, and it was a friend's recommendation. It made little immediate impact on me, but as time when by its resonance gave me insights into life changing incidences that I saw in others and myself (religious conversion, career changes, etc.).

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)

_Battle for the Mind_ presents a model for the physiological processes behind dramatic religious or political conversions and brainwashing based on the experiments of the Russian neuro-physiologist, I. P. Pavlov. Pavlov conducted experiments on dogs and found "equivalent" (in which the brain gives the same response to both strong and weak stimuli), "paradoxical" (in which the brain gives a response to weak stimuli but not to strong stimuli), and "ultra-paradoxical" (in which the brain gives a positive response to weak stimuli and a negative response to strong stimuli) behavior patterns present in the dogs under different conditions. From his experiments, he concluded that all dogs have a "breaking-point". Using these results, William Sargant (who worked with patients suffering from post-traumatic stress (PTSD) symptoms during the war) examines the phenomena of religious conversion and persuasion as well as brainwashing. Sargant conjectures that similiarly, all humans have a "breaking-point". The book includes discussion of war victims, religious and political conversions (especially emphasizing the techniques of Wesley in his mass conversions of people to Christianity), possession and rhythmic dance, brainwashing in ancient and modern times, as well as the eliciting of confessions. Much food for thought is presented as the author retells the stories of various individuals who have undergone drastic conversions or who have exhibited various forms of "paradoxical" behavior under the presence of sufficient stressors. The discussion of confession is particularly interesting, in that it reveals that often the interrogator becomes just as deluded as the confessor may be. In a world in which the masses are continuously bombarded by propaganda from all angles and the government, where cults are able to seize possession of individual minds and checking accounts, in which brainwashing takes place in totalitarian states, and in which the average person at any moment may be exposed to severe stressors, it is most important to study the human brain and the physiological processes behind conversions. The book is not reductionistic, the author allows the possibility of an external force or power to be the causal agent of any conversion. William Sargant's study will remain a classic for those of us who worry about the effects of political and religious propaganda and modern day stressors.

Since I've first read this book when I was a little younger than Laura, so I was really excited to read what life was like 'back then' for kids my age.

The hard winter is finally over, and the Ingalls family finally moves out to their claim, where Laura enjoys the outside work and the sunshine. But then she is offered a job as a seamstress in town, and takes it even though she misses the outdoors. The work is hard, and the environment is unpleasant, but Laura sticks it out.

Ma=ry finally has a chance to go to the blind college in Iowa, and while Ma and Pa take her there, Laura, Carrie and Grace clean the house.

School finally begins again, and an unpleasant surprise comes along on the first day - Nellie Oleson from Plum Creek, who schemes and causes trouble. The high point of this situation is the troble between Laura and Ms. Wilder, the teacher, who only hears unpleasant things about Laura from Nellie, and Laura's short temper, especially where Carrie is concerned, does not help the situation... But Ida, the new girl, is nice enough to make up for Nellie's unpleasantness.

Laura is grown up enough to want fashionable cloths and all other fashionable things other girls her age in school have, such as name cards. She is invited to parties and attends her first evening sociable.

We start seeing the relationship between Laura and Almanzo Wilder start developing (even though I think her relationship with his sister, her unpleasant ex - school teacher, might give things an interesting twist).

This (and Happy Golden Years) is my favorite book of the Little House series. The Ingalls family is doing well; the town has recovered from the Hard Winter; and Laura is changing from a girl into a woman. The descriptions of the characters and the surroundings are vivid and real. I don't care if Rose Wilder Lane wrote most of the books or not - the Little House series is a gift to all readers, not just young readers! I'm in my 30's and I still love to read them periodically, but this is one of my very favorites.

Little Town on the Prairie is my favourite book out of all the "Little House" series by Laura Ingalls Wilder. I enjoyed this book more than the other books because it was happier, for there were not so many depressing times the Ingalls family had to endure.
The title is self-explanatory, a little town on the prairie, which is in Dakota, USA. The story is set during the 1880's. The Ingalls family, consisting of six people, was always moving from place to place. When they came to Dakota, they were very happy with it. Their little "shanty" that they stayed in during the summer was built into a new, improved house. Mary, the oldest sister, is accepted into the college of the blind, and Laura continues school and has a summer job. Things are going very well at the Ingalls household. There is enough food for everyone, and there wasn't another hard winter, like everyone expected. Most problems have solutions like when there were gophers eating their corn, they got a cat to kill them. The only problem is school, because of the new teacher, Eliza Jane Wilder. She is Almanzo Wilder's sister. She turns out to be horribly mean to Laura and her younger sister, Carrie, because Nellie Oleson (Laura's enemy mentioned before in "The Banks of Plum Creek") told the teacher negative remarks about Laura. Soon, a new teacher replaces her. All of the problems work themselves out somehow, which is what I like about this book.
In my opinion, Laura Ingalls Wilder does an exquisite job captivating all her readers with her refined choice of words, meticulous detail, and up-beat plot. This is absolutely the best piece she's written. She does an admirable job of describing the setting so it makes you feel like you're right there, witnessing the whole scene. The book also has a good balance of good times and bad times, because if it was all bad times the book would seem depressing, and if it was all good times, the book would seem hard to believe. I would recommend this book for those who enjoy realistic fiction or historical fiction. I think a possible theme for this story would be hold on, things will get better. This theme is displayed throughout all the "Little House" series. This is my all time favourite book, and I hope you enjoy it, too.

There's likely been no other American so widely dissected as Abraham Lincoln. Author after author has explored Lincoln's outer world to the point of exhaustion. It's only understandable, then, that the fashion lately seems to be an exploration of his inner one. So we have a spate of books in the last few years that explore Lincoln's psyche, his religion, his sexuality,his relation with his family--and now, with Miller's new book, his moral character.

Miller tells us that he wants to begin afresh by forgetting the Lincoln myth and tracing the moral development of Lincoln in order to see where he winds up. But of course this is an impossibly objective position to attain, and the fix is in from page one: the reader knows--and so does Miller--who's going to win the race. Lincoln predictably emerges as a complex individual who rises to historical prominence not just because he grew into an astute statesperson, but also because he was a virtuous human being. The first alone would have given him power; both together give him greatness.

Most of Miller's tracing of the inner life of Lincoln isn't particularly new, although it is pleasingly systematic. But two characteristics of his approach are worth noting. First, Miller obviously admires his main character without falling into the hagiography that bedevils so many books on Lincoln. Second, Miller's thesis that the contours of Lincoln's moral character are shaped by his earnest efforts to repudiate his backwoods heritage is both novel and persuasive. This argument alone would make the book a worthy read.

But what the book doesn't do--and perhaps no single book can do this--is explain why it is that we simply can't seem to get enough of Lincoln. Lincoln is a sort of national icon. The fascination with him is apparently endless. Miller's book will contribute to the on-going fascination.

William Lee Miller's book underscores Lincoln's general goodness and honesty. This book is less so a traditional biography and more an examination of Lincoln's moral beliefs and principles. The author traces Lincoln's ethical development from a young man in New Salem, Illinois to the mature Lincoln at the height of his intellectual powers in the 1850's and 1860's. Mr. Miller indicates that yes Lincoln was a politician and could be quite good at wheeling and dealing. However, he never engaged in back room negotiations without first taking into account all angles and ramifications, and would never attempt to promote anything totally dishonest. We would describe Lincoln today as a man who was tough but fair. He sought compromise and took into account the possible "fruits" of whatever he was proposing. He was not an absolutist. He realized that the real world was a prism with shades of gray. He was never capricious, as he researched and pondered deeply all his beliefs and subsequent actions. Like any human being he was not perfect and because of his legend it is easy to fall into thinking that he was saint like. He was a truly good-hearted man, who was keenly intelligent and insightful. When our country was at war with itself his steadfastness at the helm and magnaminity he showed towards the Confederates ("with malice toward none") serve as an example of true leadership. His being an American icon is well deserved. Thank you, Mr. President.

Perhaps no figure in American history has been the subject of more mythology, legend and revision than Abraham Lincoln. He has been elevated to the status of Christ-like martyrdom. He has been called a white supremacist and a racist. Revisionists of the right have accused him of fomenting war to promote mercantile interests. His motives and morality have been questioned. His commitment to the anti-slavery cause has been questioned. But who was the real Abraham Lincoln? What were his true thoughts on the great issue of the day? How did the prairie born son of illiterate pioneers become the most revered man in American History?

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.

I first read Go Down, Moses in grad school but am now returning to it after 3 years. Faulkner explores his usual themes--memory, history. black/white/Indian relations, the South, slavery, ownership, etc.--in a way that's just as compelling as in Absalom, Absalom or Sound and the Fury. It's a collection of short stories which I believe are meant to be read in order, unlike other collections. We get different viewpoints from different characters at different ages. When you're tempted to give up in the middle of a 5-page-long sentence, don't. Fascinating

It becomes quite clear after reading Go Down Moses why many critics call this William Falkner's most mature book dealing with race. In Go Down Moses, the black characters are not only as well represented as may be possible from a white author, they are believable and easy to relate to. The main character "Uncle Ike", the grandson of an influential plantation owner, comes to represent everyone who struggles with identity in the miserable face of racism. The style of the book itself was confusing for readers and critics when first published, as it makes use of a series of chapters, each with its own title and numbered sections. Faulkner resisted having the book called a collection of short stories and most modern readers should have little problem with its nonsequential chapters and its sometimes, seemingly, unrelated characters. If you have read some Faulkner, especially A Light in August or Absalom, Absalom or if you enjoy authors such as Toni Morrison and Richard Wright you must read this book to get an idea of just how far Faulkner came toward wrestling with race in his time.

I read Go Down Moses in 1996 before taking a trip to Mississippi. I had never read Faulkner before and had only one criterion for picking a book of his: it had to take place in the mythical Yoknapatawpha County. I picked this one off the library shelf.

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.

The value of this volume is threefold, and all are noteworthy.

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.

This is a valuable resource for anyone who is interested in Palestine as it was during the intertestimental period. Himself a Jew who was taken captive by his Roman conquerors, Flavius Josephus became an accomplished historian of his day and his writings demonstrate an intimate knowledge of the Romans and Jews of his time. His writings offer insights into Jewish history, religion and customs as well as the war which ended Jewish independence for nearly two thousand years.

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.

Flavius Josephus (about AD 37-101) lived and worked during the first century AD, a time when major events occurred that would impact Judaism forever and the religion known as Christianity was born. He provides us with firsthand information regarding the Jews and Romans, which acts as good background information to the New Testament writings. After all, he lived during the time of the early Church. He also (scholarly debates aside) mentioned Jesus, John the Baptist and James. This edition includes his complete works. They are:

The Life of Flavius Josephus: This allows the reader learn about the life of Josephus from his own pen.

Antiquities of the Jews (20 chapters): It chronicles the history of the Jewish people from the Genesis creation account until the outbreak of revolt in AD 66. This section also includes information on the Roman leaders of the Jewish province, such as the Herods.

The Jewish Wars (7 chapters): This is Josephus' account of Jewish uprisings and wars. It starts with Antiochus Epiphanes. Most of the book, however, chronicles the Jews under the Romans, including the subjugation by Vespasian, the siege and conquest of the temple by Titus and the sedition of the Jews at Cyrene.

Against Apion (2 books): This is a defense of the antiquity of the Jewish people and a refutation of the charges brought against them by the grammarian Apion of Alexandria.

An Extract from the Discourses to the Greeks Concerning Hades: This short document outlines "Josephus'" views on Hades. Many scholars do not think Josephus is the author.

The translations are fairly easy to read, but since they were completed in the middle of the eighteenth century some words may be difficult for certain readers. This edition also includes annotations that illuminate difficult passages in the text. These are very helpful. There is an index of names and themes, a very helpful feature for readers who want to find information on a certain person, place, etc. This edition also contains a table of Jewish weights and measures, a list of Old Testament parallels, and a list of the ancient sources cited by Josephus. There are eight black and white maps too. An appendix with 7 scholarly essays that examine certain issues relating to the writings of Josephus has been included (e.g. the legitimacy of the reference to Jesus). They are old and do not represent modern scholarship. Consequently, they are not too helpful. Still, this book has the complete works of Josephus in an inexpensive package and anyone interested in Christianity, Jewish history, or the ancient world should not be without it.