5 comments about Shakespeare: The World as Stage (Eminent Lives).

1. With this book, the ever succinct Bill Bryson exposes how little we know and can know about one of the world's most recognized figures. The writer left only a few bland papers, wills and court fillings. His time left some engravings, some diaries. Of course, there are the plays themselves and the sonnets, mined for biography by many. Much of what is commonly believed is conjecture or invention from a sense of "had to be" that only started long after his death with each generation adding, not examining prior imaginings. Our need to know a man of such influence and the absence of first hand accounts forced their creation and promoted their endurance.
   
   That great bald head. Every one of the three - and there are only three - portrayals of him are open to question. Was this or that lord his patron or do we just repeat the opinions of biographers writing long after his death? Ever look over the new globe theatre in London, the "reproduction" of Shakespeare's original? One, just one, image of a theatre like it survives. Not it, of one just like it and so you looked around what? And Bryson even finds space for the line of strangely named enthusiasts who believed someone else wrote Shakespeare, that a man from backwater Stratford had no business exploring humanity.
   
   This small book shows once again that the most interesting of history is the making of history itself, exposing her process, that showing how little we can know is the greatest gift of the truly inquisitive.



2. Bill Bryson is more or less superman in today's literary world. He transcends subjects in a single bound and the globe in another. He's a talented critic, writer and humourist. It's a good job, to use modern vernacular, that he's the daddy because, with this one, he's taken on the mother of all literary subjects.
   
   He's done so wisely. He's not attempted to become an original researcher and posit new theories about the man's identity or his plays and other works. He has essentially evaluated and sumamrised the existing state of Shakepearian debate and study, providing his own critique of what is compelling and credible. Thankfully, Bryson was born without a 'boredom gene' and the book reaches any audience, reading so easily. The man does not do dull.
   
   Typically, Bryson's prose is litered with diverting and revealing anecdoes, we get a potted physical history of the theatre alongside the exposition of the central figure. Bryson is expert at demonstrating the lack of hard information about Shakespeaare (I spelled that incorrectly, but then, so did the Bard...) and the vulnerability about the claims and surmises made about his life and character. That will no doubt ruffle feathers. I found it interesting to learn that Shakespeare had thieved so many of his stories from others. As also did I find the battle for written English over Latin. The fact there were lost plays is new to me too. So to non-Shakespeare scholars this offers a lot.
   
   To those who are scholars I am not sure it will be depthy enough to satisfy but they are not the prime audience I'd suppose. Bryson's great economy of expression, wit and clarity mean he is less self-indulgent in this book than perhaps any other of his that I have read (which is all but one, that being the African diaries). Although always near the surface, his trademark wit is less in evidence, reserved for a full scale assault on those who feel Shakespeare was somebody else. That business is clearly a cottage industry and I know Bryson has trodden on somebody else's cucumbers here by reason of the ridicule he heaps on the alternate theories.
   
   It is a short book. There could have been more. But how much more was truly needed? And at whatever point should he have stopped on an almost inexhaustible subject populated by many including purists and pedants? Nevertheless one gets the impression he made a judgement about the length that possibly excluded a little more hard work examining various omissions from the life of the Bard and those who knew or worked with him.
   
   Bryson's book has one central curiosity. It is really the oppositite of a biography - more a book about what we don't know than what we do - and that is refreshing in itself. I think he's done a first rate job here given how well aired the subject is.
   
   And for his next trick...?
   
   Incidentally, the title I gave to this is a quote from one of the Bard's plays and seems to convey Bryson's attitude to much of the literature he discovered!



3. This is a brief, but very enjoyable and elegant read by someone who obviously loves this subject and its environment.
   
   Bill Bryson gives this question of Shakespeare's identity a pretty good shot. There is apparently no definitive answer as to whether he was simply himself, someone else under a pseudo name, or several people under the same pseudo name. Even his portrait that we know him by is questionable. We do get interesting little glimpses of the times and the life of the person who purported to be Shakespeare. We also get glimpses of the stir that Shakespeare created with his work. How could one person, a country person at that, be so sophisticated and knowledgeable about so many important things? His work is so revered that it is studied for authentication purposes almost like biblical manuscripts. Shakespeare, in a word, seems to have created his own weather.
   
   Sometimes the things that surround something or someone are as exciting as the thing itself



4. Several reviewers have taken this book to task for what it is not. It is not a scholarly book and was not intended to be. It is part of the "Eminent Lives" series. The publishers tout the series as consisting of "succinct" essay-like books intended to be "short biographies for an age short on time." No book in the series (that I have seen) has any significant scholarly apparatus. They allow well-known writers to relate the basic facts of an "eminent" person's life and give their take on the person to the extent they think appropriate. They are like the serious essays you can find in magazines like the "New Yorker" but longer. This book fits the series's pattern.
   
   The book relates all that is actually known about Shakespeare, points out the many things that are not known and touches on the major problem areas, including the authorship controversy. Like Jack Webb on the old "Dragnet" TV show, Bryson pretty much keeps to "just the facts" but does note many of the areas of speculation in which Shakespeare students routinely indulge. He does all this in a smooth and flowing prose and with energy and wit.
   
   The book has no index, no scholarly footnotes and only a minimal bibliography of a few secondary sources. There is evidently little or no documentary research, although Bryson obviously read what books he should and interviewed a number of knowledgeable people for the book. He takes no position on any of the controversies except the question of authorship, on which he is a firm Stratfordian. The book is strictly about Shakespeare's life, however, and makes almost no effort to discuss the poems and plays as works of literature. Couldn't do that and keep it short.
   
   This is an excellent book for someone who wants to begin to learn about Shakespeare's life and (to some extent) his times. And it is a fun fast read for those who want a handy and short summary of what is known and what some of the problems are.



5. When Bill Bryson is going to tackle a subject like William Shakespeare, you know that it is going to informative and very funny, an excellent combination. In his usual wry style Bill Bryson tries to unravel fact and fiction about Shakespeare's life, time and works. Because of the scarcity of facts, people have over the ages made up whole stories based on no evidence whatsoever. Also, there was (and is) a strong movement that Shakespeare's plays were not written be Shakespeare, because they consider him too much of a country yokel to write about the sophisticated topics covered in his plays. Bill bryson describes the times in which Shakespeare was alive, including the way in which theaters and plays were run, and makes a convincing case for not over-fantasizing, but also a realistic believe that Shakespeare has actually existed. A very readible book that combines fact and humor in a very pleasant way.

No comments about Giordano Bruno: Philosopher/Heretic.

5 comments about Symposium (Oxford World's Classics).

1. The Symposium of Plato is a profoundly thought-provoking, entertaining and inspiring piece of philosophical writing. It is very short, yet infinitely more substantial than many longer works.
   
   We are in Athens, 416 B.C.E. The scene is a banquet at the house of Agathon, who had the day before celebrated the victory of his tragedy. By the end of the party, seven men - and one absent but central woman - will have presented their views on the nature and meaning of Eros, or love.
   
   There is no difficulty in keeping the characters distinct in our minds. Plato has great fun contrasting the opinions - and verbal styles - of tragic poet, comic poet, politician, physician and the rest, allowing absurdities and profundities to mingle freely. Socrates is very appealing, saint-like, yet utterly down-to-earth, playing his usual role of a 'philosopher' - one who 'knows only that he does not know' - always in passionate search of the truth, but catching only revelatory glimpses of its perfection.
   
   Phaedrus gives the first speech, praising lovers' (especially homosexual) passion and loyalty, which makes them perform mighty and heroic deeds. Pausanias differentiates between virtuous, or spiritual love, and common, or bodily love. Virtuous love between men should not be primarily about sex, but about improvement and education of the soul. Eryximachus, the doctor, makes a mostly irrelevant (and boring) speech, claiming nature's contrasting elements illustrate the need to balance the healthy and unhealthy aspects of love. Aristophanes then delivers a brilliantly memorable speech, hilarious and poignant by turns, telling of how humans were once two-in-one, back to back, with two heads, four arms and four legs, with three combinations of sexes, male/male, male/female, and female/female. Their strength and speed made them threaten the gods, so Zeus cut them in half, leaving them to search forever for their other halves, and through love attempt to regain their original oneness. Agathon then gives an over-the-top, ecstatic speech, praising love as the youngest, most graceful of the gods, saying he brought order to heaven itself, 'empties men of disaffection and fills them with affection', etc, climaxing with the suggestion we all follow in love's footsteps, 'sweetly singing in his honour'.
   
   It is then Socrates' turn. He performs for all conversations that took place between himself when much younger and Diotima, a 'wise' woman from Mantineia, to whom he had gone for instruction in the highest truths of love. In sum, the lesson is that love is the desire for the everlasting possession of the good and beautiful, which brings happiness. We crave immortality, in order to be happy eternally. We love our offspring, artistic works, laws and institutions, because they are all attempts to achieve an immortal name. These, Diotima claims, are the 'lesser' mysteries of love.
   
   The 'greater' proceed from the 'lesser' in ascending steps. From one beautiful body the lover creates 'fair notions', then he sees all bodies are similar and equally worthy of love. From bodies he proceeds to the beauty of the virtuous mind, then the beauties of institutions and laws, climbing from there to the beauty of the sciences, until, after much growth in wisdom, he reaches the vision of all creation as beautiful. The final step is to rise to the contemplation of unchanging, eternal, absolute beauty itself. To spend your life in union with perfect beauty allows you to bring forth 'real' things, not 'images' and 'be immortal, if mortal man may'.
   
   A drunken Alcibiades bursts in at this point, and gives a rambling, often funny, speech about his love for Socrates and how he - a very beautiful man - was spurned sexually by him. He describes Socrates' near-supernatural control of himself, totally above the effects of pain and pleasure. The book ends with a description of Socrates' companions all falling asleep as dawn breaks (after all-night drinking) and his going about his usual day.
   
   Throughout the Symposium, Plato makes it clear that sexual relations are not the best thing at all for 'lovers'; they who wish for the highest happiness must seek to grow in virtue and wisdom and become increasingly detached from earthly pleasures. This is the origin of the phrase 'Platonic love'. Women were not considered their intellectual and spiritual equals in Athens at the time, so men of sophistication had to look to each other for emotional sustenance.
   
   What then, we may ask, can the Symposium offer human beings today who are not interested in purely mystical/intellectual living and prefer the sexual and emotional satisfactions found in personal relationships?
   
   A great deal, I believe. In his introduction Benjamin Jowett states that Plato 'is conscious that the highest and noblest things in the world are not easily severed from the sensual desires, or may even be regarded as a spiritual form of them'. In other words, earthly pleasures and transcendent ones are inextricable. Plato used words such as 'good' and 'virtue' to describe freeing oneself from the world of the senses, by using our reason to choose correctly who - or what - to attach to as we move through life. If we choose correctly, be it friends, sexual or lifetime partners, we strengthen our sense of inner freedom, until finally we experience it at the deepest, mystical level - the profound shift in consciousness that Plato was pointing to as the highest good - which in and of itself is morally and values-neutral.
   
   The genius of Plato is that he communicates the total commitment required to attain perfect freedom, and the moral obligation of all human beings to strive for the happiness it alone can deliver.



2. .
   Plato's "Symposium" is the story of Agathon's dinner party where conversation takes place with a small group of men, who recline, eat and drink around a table offering their views on Love. This story is an amazing account of how intelligent and yet so different a culture the men from ancient Greece were compared to our society today. Each speaker has this most amazing ability to tell two stories at the very same time, an creative artistic movement of what love 'is' in each and every story. applying and , metaphorically. intertwining a cultural, mythological story of the gods, giving far deeper meaning. In addition to this, the love relationships and sexual nature of these men also permeate an entire cultural feel to the story, enveloping a radical differentiation from our de-mystified and de-enchanted world back into a once existing world of substantial meaning and profundity.

   Phaedrus, speaks first and relates how love is the greatest good, the beautiful, is shameful of ugly things and how only lovers are willing to die for one another.

   The second speaker, Pausanias, applies two types of love, one Aphrodite, a common base love working at random with men's feelings, for money, for loving physical bodies, boys, men and women. The other type of love, from a much younger goddess, being a higher type, the heavenly, who only loves other men and boy love, but this is not physical body love but from affection of the mind of virtue and wisdom..

   Aristophanes has the hiccups, so it is Eryximachus, a doctor, who speaks third, applying the idea of love as a double love; "for bodily health and disease are by common consent different things and unlike, and what is unlike desires and loves things unlike." p.82 The god of art was said to implant love as a healing art, all such love guided by this god. "It is quite illogical to say that a harmony is at variance with itself or is made up of notes still at variance." "So love as a whole has great and mighty power, or in a word, omnipotence ."

   Aristophanes, the comic writer, gives a moving account of Love as a absolute human need, a desire for completion to the point of each person once shaped differently being cut in half, taking our current shape, in need of the other to complete the whole of what we once were. "For first there were three sexes, not two as at present, male and female, but also a third having both together," and they were violent, strong and forceful and would even attack the gods. So Zeus and the other gods held a meeting and decided to cut them in halves and make them weaker. From then on, they were sexually drawn to one another, both heterosexual and homosexual, reasons all due to the way of the cutting of the halves.Lesbianism and boy to man love is freely spoken of and justified according to this story of the gods. His moving speech on the beauty and virtue of love however, is according to Socrates, true only in the sense of romanticism and fictional idolatrous admiration of what love should be. For Socrates found such a romantic explanation of love as untrue to what love really is and what love contains, as it does not contain all the beauty and good.

   The fourth speaker, Agathon gives a moving speech on the beauty and virtue of love however, it is according to Socrates, true only in the sense of romanticism and fictional idolatrous admiration of what love should be. "For all the gods are happy . . and love is the happiest of them all being the most beautiful and best . . the youngest of gods." In his speech, love is every good, virtuosos and beautiful thing.

   The last speaker, Socrates, found such a romantic explanation of love to be untrue, for what desires good, virtue and wisdom is only something that does not contain such, something lacking, and therefore lacking it desires such things. Love only desires what it lacks. Love is neither beautiful nor ugly. "To have right opinion without being able to give reason is neither to understand nor is it ignorance. Right opinion is no doubt something between knowledge and ignorance."

   It is so interesting how common and free sexuality and homosexuality were, how each man present commented on the beauty of the young men in their glory of youth. Alcibiades, jealous of Agathon, also a young beautiful male, makes a moving speech how Socrates refused his love and how other like young men, also were moved with his amazing wisdom and prose.

   While women are generally discounted, and the bonding of affection in male love was considered a higher love by Pausanias, Socrates explanation of love, by far the most profound, was one he received from a woman named Diotima. Here, as another reviewer has stated, shows Plato's the egalitarianism and wisdom, like that of the beauty and ultimate goal of Love.

   Later a group of men crash the party and the drinking really gets started. Some leave, while Socrates stays all night, never loosing integrity from his drinking and leaves with all his integrity.




3. Perhaps the most "literary" of all Plato's works, "Symposium" is the story of a dinner party gathering of great (and a few not so great) minds, whom engage in a discussion in praise of eros, or passionate love. It is considered literary because it is highly metaphorical, it's characters are drawn well and in some cases unforgettably, and it succeeds on many levels. It is not uncommon for Socrates to elevate the subject of discussion in any given dialogue to that of our earthly existence, and how we should go about it. Perhaps shocking to readers unfamiliar with the Greeks is the prevalence of homosexual love, particularly with young boys. But, if nothing else, this is an insight into ancient culture. And the absolutely magnificent speeches given by Aristophanes and Socrates remain profound and beautiful to modern readers, regardless of whether or not the other speeches are unpalatable to some. Also, Alcibiades, drunken, hilarious rant is not to be missed. Read in a single sitting, this work is almost sublime.



4. Enthralling, entertaining, educational, and thought-provoking, "The Symposium" is one of Plato's classics. A group of men gathered at a dinner party in ancient Greece discuss the topic of love. Each man offers his view or definition of love, and the results are all different, engaging, and full of symbolism. Although it is a short book, one must not read it once and put it away; it ought to be be read again and again just to compare to what is "picked up on" each time. One thing always puzzles me: I will never know why Plato included the doctor (his name escapes me at the moment) have a bout of hiccups during someone's speech. I have never come up with a satisfactory answer - nor has any one I know, either. Nevertheless, this is an excellent read that I highly recommend for anyone - student and nonstudent. Enjoy!



5. 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.

5 comments about Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal's Pensees.

1. Pascal's Pensees are indeed hidden gems without which apologetics are much impoverished. This book does a fine job of presenting the important points and expounding and illuminating them in practical ways.
   
   This is the boost your apologetic ministry has been waiting for!



2. I am giving only four stars not five because I needed it for a class, and it came later than I expected. Other than that, the book arrived in the condition that I expected. I highly recommend the book for those who want to learn to defend their faith against modern critics and skeptics of Christianity. I also highly recommend the reading for sketpics and critics. Read once quick, then re-read in a critical manner.



3. The book was upside down. If the class had not already started I would have returned it. It is usable but one does not expect to pay for a book that is incorrectly bound without prior approval. I am dissatisfied with this order.



4. It is always a relief to read a very good book of apologists because there are so many ordinary ones. Pascal reads as fresh as when he originally wrote the pensees, and Kreefts adds immeasurably to the understanding and appreciation of Pascal's words. In terms of the quality of this work, I have got as much out of it as C S Lewis or Philip Yancey albiet Pascal is more sophisticated in many ways.



5. 
   Mr. Kreeft does it again in this book about Pascal's 'Pensses'. He picks up Pascal's best or most important 'pensees' and gives us his view of them. He does not intend to explain or interpret them, since they are to be interpreted individually by each of us, but he expands them, he adds to them what a modern reader -living in a neo-pagan world- would have come to his mind.
   
   Mr. Kreeft is a masterful teacher. For those who are afraid of delving into the original authors like Pascal, Thomas Aquinas, etc. we have Mr. Kreeft to introduce us to them.
   
   And for the Christian person this book is almost mandatory, it is the fresh air that we need to keep fighting in this ever more pagan world.

2 comments about Notebooks 1951-1959.

1. College-level collections strong on Camus will find this a special acquisition presenting the notebooks withheld in France for some 29 years after his death, appearing for the first time in English. The first two volumes of his notebooks began simply but this concluding volume was written over the last nine years that he lived, and reads more intimately, like a diary. From his travels to his observations about life and politics, this concludes a fine expose of Camus' life and thoughts and is a 'must' for any college-level collection strong in Camus, particularly those who have his previous earlier notebooks.



2. Nice job fuzz, now you just need to translate Hunter S. Thompson's work into French!

5 comments about Meetings with Remarkable Men (All and Everything).

1. There is much autobiographical information here, but G.'s intentions are never straightforward.
   There is a deeper intention.
   That is to inculcate into the reader the need to search for the meaning of life.
   Along the way, he tells of many entertaining adventures in cultures and regions not familiar to the West and conveys the fascinating diversity and antiquity of this crossroads of religions, beliefs and ways of life.
   Predictably there are those who find one objection or another to this book, and have come to conclusions without much basis.
   It is a given that some will approach a book like this with skepticism and perhaps disapproval. Some of this is due to hearsay, concerning G.'s reputation as a "mystic" in the Rasputin/Crowley mold or some such nonsense.
   One of G.'s methods was in fact to APPEAR as a charlatan, in order to put off just those people who form opinions too quickly and fail to doubt the limitations of their own perspective.
   Those with a more open mind will be more receptive to more subtle intentions and sense a profound and urgent underlying teaching.
   For those people - those who sense a meaning behind the entertaining anecdotes and storyline - the next step is to read the book IN SEARCH OF THE MIRACULOUS by P.D. Ouspensky, which gives the best account of the man G. and his manner of teaching in the first half of the 20th c.
   But most of all, it is the best explication of the teachings themselves, and a book that to many people is the profoundest and most meaningful book they have ever read.



2. Gurdjieff at his most engaging. This is his autobiography, in particular the biography of his occult knowledge. He introduces you to the people who developed him into what he became and taught him what he came to teach himself later on. It is written in a special way, different from a typical 'Western' writer. This must be understood: this is the thinking of a Eastern and Ancient quality. Fantastic voyages, extraordinary people, Gurjieff does not disappoint. On the brink of exhaustion in an expedition deep in the Gobi desert Gurdjieff experiences a miracle, and then another, and another.......



3. A remarkable book about the adventures of Gurdjieff and several of his close friends. This is no ordinary adventure but a search, a search for truth and universal knowledge. Several of the men depicted are Scientists, Professors, Military men and even a Prince, their wisdom is astonishing and their conversations fascinating. Each has an inner drive to know the mysteries of reality and find deep meaning in man's existence. All the adventures are depicted with each remarkable man and the conversations that transpire between Gurdjieff and other teachers that are embarking on a similar journey. Fascinating read and exceptional descriptions of geographical locations (Asia) not seen by any western man.
   Reading such accounts struck the thought, where do we find men of this knowledge, breath and consciousness, in our time period of history? Has timed changed so much that these journeys for truth, knowledge and the secrets of the universe, are unattainable to the average man?
   Father Giovanni explains to Gurdjieff and Professor Skridlov 'Understanding is the essence obtained from the information intentionally learned and from all kinds of experiences personally experienced.'
   Through Meetings one feels that they are on the journey, one feels the breath and vastness of the surrounding environments. Through Gurdjieff's writing one can truly experience a deeper understanding of the unknown universe.
   Highly Recommended for readers just learning about Gurdjieffs work and the fourth way school of thought.



4. "Always and in everything strive to attain at the same time what is useful for others and what is pleasant for oneself" said Mullah Nassr Eddin. And Gurdjieff worked all his life to do that. In this book, he offers us his journey to knowledge with its stepping stones and its struggles, and introduces us to the people that affected his life in one way or another. It should be titled, Meetings with Remarkable People,in my opinion, since a couple of women are also included, though men are more.
   
   With Gurdjieff and the protagonists of his life, you'll get a trip back in time, through a multi ethnic, unmapped region, whose roughness and beauty provide the perfect setting for an endeavour of the soul.
   
   This is one of the books that truly touched me deeply, and the first i read from Gurdjieff, other than In Search of the Miraculous. The eloquence and wit of Gurdjieff, make reading an enjoyable experience.



5. Meetings is an eloquently written story about the travels and experiences of Gurdjieff. Their are some great stories woven within that are like teachings to those who can read between the lines. It is a swift, fun read that I would recommend even to people who are unaware of the work of Gurdjieff.

5 comments about Lost History: The Enduring Legacy of Muslim Scientists, Thinkers, and Artists.

1. I had to read this for my class in College and didn't think it would be good but it does a great job talking about the history as well as comparing it to recent times. Certainly made the class much more enjoyable having to reference a good book such as this time.



2. I was extremely disappointed in this book because of it's lack of sophistication. The author seemed to feel the need to write in a fictitious style and in the present tense. This book is intended for people with very little or no background in history or Islamic civilization. It is not at all academic and it is VERY easy to read.



3. Without a doubt one of the best books I have read in years. No only does it shed light over the civilization that brought the world great minds who enlightened us with new ideas but the book also sheds light on the largely blind mind of the Western reader about the people who are now sadly labeled terrorist by default.



4. This is amateur history, written by an amateur. Try reading several centuries of yellow pages, and you get the texture of this opus. Unorganized, with supposedly intriguing vignettes setting the pace. The best you can hope for is that the paper is biodegradable.
   Roger L. Putnam, Jr.



5. Like finding a precious gem in the middle of a pile of debris, I consider this book as much of a rare find in this age. Truly honest and well-researched, it compiles a mind-bewildering amount of detail and information about everything from Islamic history to scientific advancements of the Middle Ages through political conditions of pre-modern Europe. It is written in such a fluid, eloquent style that Morgan has become one of my favorite authors, and I hope to find more of his work.
   
   I have researched the history of development of the arts and letters and science informally and will start to pursue it academically, so I can say about this work that it is as concise and comprehensive a compilation as any I have come across. George Sarton, a Harvard professor of the 1940's, has written 5 volumes on this subject, and yet, Morgan's analysis is more insightful. For instance, Sarton notes the ethnicity behind each and every Muslim scholar or scientist of other faith in the Islamic world who accomplished a great feat. Was he an Arab or a Persian or a Christian or a Jew? Sarton asks of each, in trying to establish that in many instances Jewish or Christian or non-Arab scholars achieved success on their own, thereby downplaying the significance of the Islamic Renaissance as a whole. Morgan makes the point that multi-ethnicity was exactly the source of the Islamic civilization's success: the multiplicity of people of faiths who lived harmoniously and collaborated on projects of translation and learning was a mark of the Muslim golden age's tolerance and pluralism.
   
   So while other historians emphasize the Muslim's material accomplishments in medieval times, they miss the Islamic contribution of tolerance and peace. Morgan does not. From p. 136 of Lost History: "By the ninth and tenth centuries, the Jewish intellectual communities and economies of Muslim Spain, in cities like Cordoba, Seville, and Toledo, are at their peak. Not only have Jews risen to hold the second highest political position in the realm, under Hasdai ibn Shaprut working for Caliph Abd Al-Rahman III; they are also producing their own rich literature, music, philosophy, and scientific thought, sometimes independently, sometimes in collaboration with those of other faiths."
   
   Morgan's precision in unfolding the history of the Muslims from one era to another and from one glorious center of learning to another (Baghdad to Cordoba, or Damascus to Cairo) does not lose the reader or leave him/her bogged down in dates. His narration flows effortlessly and takes you on an awe-inspiring ride. Though one reviewer noted that Morgan over-reaches when he tries to write of scholars' past thoughts (such as Ibn Sina), I think he is using a fictive element (3rd person omniscient) for a good reason. He is trying to evoke a recognition in the Western mind of what another culture has experienced. It is just one technique he uses in making us understand another peoples by walking in their shoes. He is a literary genius, and I cannot hold him to task for employing every means to bridge these two (currently) very remote cultures.
   
   I hope there are other gems in the making, such as this one. It is a pleasure to read a work that is so humble and honest that it can give credit where ever it is due - even to other cultures or civilizations - rather than downplaying their historic importance.

5 comments about Conversations of Socrates (Penguin Classics).

1. Nearly all those who studied Greek in high school were given a much distorted image of the Athenian (and certainly of the pedophilic Spartan) society. Who told us that the wealth of Athens was based on silver mines (the university city of Ioanina is still one of the world's biggest centers of the silver industry)? And who told us why Socrates was forced to commit suicide?
   One can find the answers on many questions about Greek society in Xenophon's works, the clever writer of `Hellenika' (`All Persians are educated to become a slave, except one').
   In his works about Socrates, Xenophon brushes a lively picture of the `real' Socrates and explains clearly his political views: 'Where offices were filled by men who satisfied the legal requirements, he considered the constitution to be an aristocracy; where they were filled in accordance with a property qualification, a plutocracy; where they were filled by anybody, a democracy.'
   Socrates was an anti-democrat and defended oligarchy is his teachings.
   What oligarchy really meant for the majority of the Athenians, one can also read in `Hellenika'. Describing the reign of the Thirty (comprising two uncles of Plato), Xenophon states: `The oligarchs went on a killing spree murdering all democratic opponents, more Athenians than all the Peloponnesians did in ten years of war ... when people could vote, it was in full view.'
   Xenophon explains one of the main reasons for oligarchic rule in his rhetoric question: `if people uses its superior power to enact measures against the propertied classes, will that be violence rather than law?'
   Socrates was a moderate anti-democrat, not as his pupil Plato who fulminated relentlessly against the democratic beast (Gerard Koolschijn). He respected the law: `He disobeyed the illegal orders of the Thirty on the ground that what he was ordered to do was illegal.'
   He also was a moderate in his personal life (`to need nothing is divine').
   
   Xenophon's works are key texts for understanding the ancient Greek society (daily life, morals, social issues, drink-parties, sex, politics). They are a must read for all those interested in human history and for all lovers of classical texts.



2. Perikles pushed Athens into risky power politics, those led into the Peloponnesi war (431-404 before Chr.). The second woman of Perikles, Aspasia, participated in the philosophical discussions of Socrates and became highly estimated by him. She was accused like Sokrates of being not as religious as they should be. Of course the boring-questioner Socrates became a feedback not only ironically (e.g. by the comedy poet Aristophanes) but also others with heavy rage: started by the government clique around President Perikles. To awaken the people from their sleep of propaganda-smeared opinions, - this had to provoke counter actions. In his defense speech at court Socrates didn't own much time. The limit was set by a pot of water, having a whole. The moment, all the water had run out, that was the very moment he had to stop his speech. The jury of 500 Athenians didn't like to listen at all - and they were happy, to bring that thing quickly to an end. The three prosecutors of Socrates by the way had been lynched a few weeks later. Probably the thoughts become accepted to which Socrates had wanted to inflame: "... perhaps you might possibly be offended, like the sleeping who are awakened, striking me, you might easily kill, then the rest of your lives you might continue sleeping..." - Socrates maintained his integrity as hero until the end. His radical critique of the Athenians fundamental values is the starting point of western philosophy, of the modern debate over civil disobedience (compare Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr., Jane Fonda and so on...). Today it's still amusing to follow the way, how the master shredded the weaknesses in faulty arguments. Socrates had tried to make publicly, what later should be named as "try-and-error procedures of thinking". And he didn't allow the mighty ones to intimidate him. There are cultural fluctuations with regard to the allowance to think opposite. Jesus or Spartacus (or the American Socrates-scientist Vlastos, notified by the FBI and threatened with deportation to Canada because he didn't agree to the VietNam-war), Angela Davis, Sinead o'Connor or Michael Moore - they had their special versions of trouble. Today we don't need a death-sentence, there are smaller and more effective tricks, to produce a YES to nearly everything. So we still need such a hero of dissidence like Socrates - or should we stop thinking self-confidently? Nearly 500 years before Christ this Socrates gave an unforgettable sign of a solid character. He didn't beg the judge committee, to stop the death penalty, he didn't agree to accept exile - in the contrary he made a request for the highest honor in Athens at that time: the daily free meal-supply in the city hall. He was an ironic man and he knew, this request had been a little too much for the nervous jury ...



3. Perikles pushed Athens into risky power politics, those led into the Peloponnesi war (431-404 before Chr.). The second woman of Perikles, Aspasia, participated in the philosophical discussions of Socrates and became highly estimated by him. She was accused like Sokrates of being not as religious as they should be. Of course the boring-questioner Socrates became a feedback not only ironically (e.g. by the comedy poet Aristophanes) but also others with heavy rage: started by the government clique around President Perikles. To awaken the people from their sleep of propaganda-smeared opinions, - this had to provoke counter actions. In his defense speech at court Socrates didn't own much time. The limit was set by a pot of water, having a whole. The moment, all the water had run out, that was the very moment he had to stop his speech. The jury of 500 Athenians didn't like to listen at all - and they were happy, to bring that thing quickly to an end. The three prosecutors of Socrates by the way had been lynched a few weeks later. Probably the thoughts become accepted to which Socrates had wanted to inflame: "... perhaps you might possibly be offended, like the sleeping who are awakened, striking me, you might easily kill, then the rest of your lives you might continue sleeping..." - Socrates maintained his integrity as hero until the end. His radical critique of the Athenians fundamental values is the starting point of western philosophy, of the modern debate over civil disobedience (compare Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr., Jane Fonda and so on...). Today it's still amusing to follow the way, how the master shredded the weaknesses in faulty arguments. Socrates had tried to make publicly, what later should be named as "try-and-error procedures of thinking". And he didn't allow the mighty ones to intimidate him. There are cultural fluctuations with regard to the allowance to think opposite. Jesus or Spartacus (or the American Socrates-scientist Vlastos, notified by the FBI and threatened with deportation to Canada because he didn't agree to the VietNam-war), Angela Davis, Sinead o'Connor or Michael Moore - they had their special versions of trouble. Today we don't need a death-sentence, there are smaller and more effective tricks, to produce a YES to nearly everything. So we still need such a hero of dissidence like Socrates - or should we stop thinking self-confidently? Nearly 500 years before Christ this Socrates gave an unforgettable sign of a solid character. He didn't beg the judge committee, to stop the death penalty, he didn't agree to accept exile - in the contrary he made a request for the highest honor in Athens at that time: the daily free meal-supply in the city hall. He was an ironic man and he knew, this request had been a little too much for the nervous jury ...



4. Very few extant works remain on the life of Socrates: mainly the works of Xenophon and Plato. In "Conversations of Socrates" Xenophon writes extensively on the philosophical thought of the master in a forthright and simple manner. Xenophon has not always been praised for his writing style but he covers the Socratic principles thoroughly. The subjects aren't organized particularly well with examples of Socrates' views on certain virtues scattered throughout the text. Nevertheless, since Socrates didn't write his own thoughts we are very fortunate that we have these works.

   Xenophon divided his works into four books: Socrates' Defense; Memoirs of Socrates; the Dinner-Party; and the Estate-Manager. Xenophon writes in the second and third person so that we "hear" the Socratic Method throughout the text. We see how Socrates used questions of his followers to teach them to think. His method thoroughly flushed out the truth and often revealed the flaws in the arguments his opponents and followers made.

   I thoroughly enjoyed reading Xenophon. One could almost imagine being right there with the master as he shredded the weaknesses in faulty arguments and uncovered hidden truths. His opinions on virtues may be dated to Twentieth Century people but one must remember that it was largely his teachings that had such a great influence on Western thought and ideas.




5. While not as competent a writer as Plato, Xenophon's 'Socrates' is the historically more accurate (I refer to the chapter of Memoirs in this book.)The Dinner-Party was my favorite dialogue, there are also several brilliant vignettes throughout the memoir chapter. This is not to say that it doesn't 'drag' in parts, it does. The Estate-Manager, which is the last dialogue, terribly weighs down this volume; there Socrates is more a bystander than participant.

   But I give this 5 stars, as its an indespensible volume for the Socratic enthusiast.

5 comments about Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius.

1. I am surprised by how, it seems to me, Monk distorts or reinterprets what the memoirs and reports of others have to say about Wittgenstein. He slanders and discounts anyone who reports how introverted and self absorbed W was. I have many questions about the validity of his contributions to philosophy, but it seems to me that he was an extremely self centered and not very nice man. After dismissing practically everything Russell says about and in responce to W, I am curious how he handles this in the bio of Russell.



2. This is a very good biography of the brilliant, very influential, and rather odd Ludwig Wittgenstein. Monk sets out to provide a thorough narrative that depicts both Wittgenstein's career as a philosopher and his unusual personal life in a way that shows the unity of this life. Monk presents Wittgenstein as a man in constant search of an elusive goal of authenticity or a very demanding form of self-fulfillment. Wittgenstein seems to have been driven by a virtually religious need to pursue some form of meritorious life. This doesn't appear to be in any ordinary sense a desire to be useful to others but rather a sense that life would be misspent if not devoted to some kind of higher calling. This is the "Duty of Genius" referred to by the title of the book. Wittgenstein attempted to do this in various ways throughout his life. In addition to what was at times an obsessive preoccupation with philosophical issues, Wittgenstein sought fulfillment by serving as an enlisted man in the Austro-Hungarian Army, as an elementary school teacher, and as a hospital porter in London during the Blitz. In a particularly telling episode, he signed over all of his considerable wealth (his father had dominated the Austrian steel industry) to his equally wealthy siblings, apparently because he regarded affluence as an obstacle to self-fulfillment. Much of this search for fulfillment had an irrational or even mystical element, and its clear that he spent much of his life profoundly unhappy with himself. One gets the sense that if Wittgenstein had had conventional religious views, he might well have found satisfaction in a cloistered religious life.
   
   Wittgenstein's personal relationships reflected his rather self-involved focus. In addition to his intellectual brilliance, he must have possessed considerable charisma. Throughout his life, he was able to attract the friendship and support of intelligent, and in many cases, remarkably patient individuals who were able to tolerate his often odd and sometimes thoughtless behavior. While he clearly had strong hermetic impulses, he clearly had a strong need for friends. In later years, he actually attracted disciples, and seems to have had somewhat homoerotic relationships with at least 2 of them.
   
   How does this fit in with Wittgenstein's work in philosophy? Monk points out the strange way that Wittgenstein came to philosophy. In his early 20s, Wittgenstein had apparently embarked on a career as an engineer. He then became interested in basic questions of logic, influenced by the work of Frege and Russell. He sought out Russell, who accepted him as a disciple at a time when Russell felt that someone else needed to take up the task of continuing the work that Russell had started. Wittgenstein had little prior knowledge of philosophy. As Monk points out, while he later read some important philosophers, Wittgenstein had read little philosophy at this point in his life. Wittgenstein does seem to have been influenced by Schopenhauer but probably more importantly by figures from the Viennese milieu of his youth like the critic Karl Kraus. A particular favorite seems to have been an obscure Viennese writer named Weininger, of whom Wittgenstein remained very fond, and who originated the duty of genius notion. In later years, Wittgenstein would look to other unconventional thinkers for inspiration including Goethe's writings on biology and perhaps most surprisingly, the pseudo-historical analysis of Oswald Spengler.
   
   Wittgenstein, then, was both congenitally and by choice, an outsider to the Western philosophical tradition. This accounts partly for his apparently unique approach to philosophy.
   
   Monk emphasizes Wittgenstein's primary preoccupations with ethical self-transformation, the irrational, and methods, as opposed to conclusions in philosophy. This is one aspect of this book I found disappointing. The descriptions of Wittgenstein's philosophic work and the context in which they arise are not as good as the narrative about his personal life and psychology. To get the most out of this biography, I recommend reading Monk's concise book, How to Read Wittgenstein, which is about 100 pages and quite clear. Taking both the biography and Monk's other book together, Monk shows very well how Wittgenstein's personal life and philosophic work come together. If the point of life was a search or struggle for ethical self-fulfillment rather than attaining a given goal, its not surprising that Wittgenstein's analysis would stress methods and the limits of reason rather than scientifically oriented conclusions. If what made life valuable was aesthetic concerns and somewhat Romantic ideals of culture, then its not surprising that there would be mystical, even contradictory element in Wittgenstein's work.
   
   Monk records that Wittgenstein's last words were, "Tell them I've had a wonderful life." An odd statement for a man who was so often profoundly unhappy. Yet, if the search for self-fulfillment rather than any definite piece of knowledge is the measure of success, Wittgenstein was one of the most successful men of his time.



3. I do not have major problems with the book though the writing certainly did not capture my attention. I stopped liking and admiring Wittgenstein half way through the book. I was drawn by his ideas to his biography. However, just like what an old saying says -"If you like the egg, you don't need to know the chicken that laid it", I should have just stayed with the ideas. Wittgenstein might be an accidental genius but certainly not someone likable (by my criteria).



4. The positivist, analytical tradition in philosophy is what most people would associate Wittgenstein with in the first instance, provided they had heard of him in the first place. Because of his, and because of his philosophical attacks on the meaningfulness of the concepts of metaphysics, theology, spirituality and even most of logic, he is often depicted as some sort of cold, unfeeling Grand Master sitting on a pinnacle of Genius of Philosophy. But as Ray Monk's biography shows with much vigour, he was in reality a very troubled, confused, unhappy, spiritual, and above all very human person.
   
   Making use of all the manuscripts available as well as the many correspondences of Wittgenstein, Ray Monk, a philosopher at the U of Southampton, is able to show the Wittgenstein we know as a person that one could not only sympathize with, but even pity. Because as it appears from the biography, Wittgenstein was a deeply unhappy man. His relationships were, from early life on, troubled - not as often supposed because of their bisexual nature, but rather because of his general revulsion to what he calls "sensuality" on the whole, and his tendency to flee from the people he loved. His friendships fared no better, since Wittgenstein was both fickle and dominating, unable to deal with disagreement and very strong in his views even on very minor things of daily life - which leads to repeated diary notes and comments by everyone, from Keynes to Russell, on how talking to Wittgenstein was simply too exhausting. Add to this a constant wrestling with the fact that Wittgenstein was very religious, yet thought all religious theory meaningless babble, and you have a recipe for depression.
   
   Monk of course also pays attention to the content of his philosophical views, and makes sure that these are, in broad outlines, accessible and useful to a general public. For specialists and professional philosophers this will rather be a tantalizing overview than a sufficient working out of Wittgenstein's philosophical views, but fortunately Monk has also written several works of secondary literature on the subject, so that people can read those if they enjoy this biography (which I would certainly read first): How to Read Wittgenstein. What Monk does best is to integrate these philosophical viewpoints into the larger narrative of his life, precisely as a good biography of a philosopher requires. The only thing I found somewhat unsatisfying was why Wittgenstein changed his views so strongly after the Tractatus, more or less rejecting the entire foundation this work was based on. One would have expected something personal to reflect as radically the change in philosophy, but either it isn't there, or Monk doesn't bring it out.
   
   The style of writing Monk uses is very pleasant, and he avoids being opinionated either way (though he seems to sympathize with Wittgenstein's spiritual problematic a lot more than I would). An appendix to the book also deals with the (in)famous Bartley's commentaries on Wittgenstein (Wittgenstein (Modern)), in particular those parts dealing with his sex life. Ray Monk very sensibly here chooses the middle road - it is quite beyond any doubt that Wittgenstein had homosexual relations, but the idea of him prowling the Prater in search for rentboys belongs firmly in the domain of fantasy.
   I devoured the 600-page biography of this neurotic genius in one weekend, owing to the fascinating nature of the subject as well as Monk's effective and lively portrayal of him. Very much recommended to a wide public.



5. This is biography the way it should be written--focused on what made the subject important, and providing background context only to the degree necessary to situate people and events. Wittgenstein's temperament and personality were so inextricably bound up in his thought that any distinction evaporates. He thought like the person he was: ascetic, intuitive, and introverted. He questioned the value of his doing philosophy, as he questioned the value of his own thinking. His sense of duty was the obligation to speak the truth, no matter how awkward...or to be silent.

5 comments about William James: In the Maelstrom of American Modernism.

1. Richardson's biographies of Thoreau and Emerson are two of the best books I've encountered in my life of voracious reading and this is one is just as wondrous. I cannot read any of these books in public, because they all make me want to weep and clutch my chest and shout, "At last! Everything has been revealed!"
   
   I wish I could explain why Richardson's biographies are different from anyone else's. It's not just an artful piling up of delightful and distressing facts. Instead it's like the doorbell rings and you have a new best friend: William James. There's something magical and occult about this. It's not like he went to the research library, it's like he drew mystic diagrams on the floor.
   
   Richardson writes that one of James' gifts was "his uncanny ability to pick up redemptive ideas from his reading." And it is Richardson's gift too, to fill each page with life-giving ideas. These biographies are as purely inspirational as a strong Lao coffee with sweetened condensed milk. Reading them makes me prone to fits of euphoria.
   
   Richardson points toward the sources of James' genius-- one of the most important of which was James' own depression and heartbreak. He writes, "James had a remarkable capacity to convert misery and unhappiness into intellectual and emotional openness and growth. It is almost as though trouble was for him a precondition for insight." How hopeful that is!
   
   Richardson's compassion for his subject spills out, somehow, to the reader, and makes one feel that one's own nonsense and bleakness do not render one disqualified for a whole human life. What more can I ask for?



2. More than an interesting read, not only into the life of one of the gotfathers of psychology and pragmatism, but of the period. Well written.



3. I would suggest reading this book first before reading some of William James other books. This book gives you an overview and thought process to give the reader a context for understanding all of his work. I am 35 years old and know of no one in my age that reads William James but I just wish this book came out years ago before I read all of his work.



4. I need not repeat the summaries set forth below by other reviewers, since these explain both Richardson's method -- to tell the life story through the work -- and the essentials of James' theories. What I will say is that, even if you have no background in philosophy or psychology, you should read this brilliant, passionate biography. James wrote for a popular as well as a professional audience; he was open and curious to all experience, and wished to be inclusive rather than exclusive in disseminating his ideas. Richardson is clear and succinct in explaining James theories -- often in the man's own, crisp, evocative language and clarifying analogies. Moreover, the concepts that James developed have in many cases become part of our popular vocabulary, including through organizations such as Alcoholics Anonymous, which Richardson reports took inspiration from James' Gifford lectures, published in the U.S. as "The Varieties of Religious Experience."
   
   I had not read James for many years but, since reading this biography, have purchased a collection of his writings and am re-reading many of his works. You will come away from "In the Maelstrom of American Modernism" with a better understanding of both American values and ideals, and the history of U.S. higher education. Most importantly, however, you will come away with enormous admiration for the radiant personality that was William James, or as Richardson exclaims (using italics, not caps) at the end of this great work, for "the SPIRIT the man." When I finished reading, I not only wanted to read William James; I was sorry that I had not known him or had him as a teacher. That's how good this book is -- for every reader.



5. This book will resonate perfectly with scholars trained in philosophy and psychology. Biographer Richardson traces William James' evolving thought patterns with a thoroughness no writer could exceed. For the average reader, though, I suggest the book will have value mostly because of the interesting lives of William James and his novelist brother Henry.
   
   Certainly I had been unaware of William's lifelong health problems. Too, the book provides fascinating tidbits about his courtship with his eventual wife Alice. Note his highly formal writing style in a love letter to her: "My duty is to win your hand if I can. . .What I beg of you now is that you should let me know categorically whether any absolute irrevocable obstacle already exist to that consummation."
   
   Another highlight for me--William James' rejection of "copied religion." He has no use for the person whose "religion has been made for him by others, communicated to him by tradition, determined to fixed forms by imitation and retained by habit." James noted that "the founders of every church owed their power originally to the fact of their direct personal communion with the divine."
   
   I enjoyed the book as a life story well told.
   
   The Complete Communicator: Change Your Communication-change Your Life!