Renaissance Books

This translation was nearly 10 years in the works and eagerly anticipated by the historical fencing community. John Michael Greer's understanding of the time period, historical philosophy and language make this text an excellant resource. The plates from the original text are recreated in excellant high quality and make this work worth having all by themselves. These engraved plates were done by a small army of some of Europes best and most famous engravers. Sadly many of the original historical copies of this text have had the lavishly illustrated plates removed and sold individually at art auctions for extremely high prices.

Thibault discusses philosophy and sacred geometry and then goes on to show how proportion is the basis for the study of the sword. Covered in intimate detail is the use of the rapier alone to fence against an opponent with single rapier, rapier and dagger, rapier and shield or longsword. In addition possibly for the first time in history is written down how to use zig zag running to come up on a man using a musket to fire at the swordsman.

Many years in the making the book was published after Thibault died and before he could write the section on combat from horseback.

Thibault's text was lauded as the most elaborately and lavishly illustrated book on fencing ever created. The pictures from the original are highly sought after by collectors. This text is a must have.

There are lots of ways to look at this book, so I'll take them one at a time.

As a fencing instructional text - obscure... "Academy of the Sword" is so detailed, complete, and complex that it is very difficult to follow as a fencing instructional text. Thibault's system includes considering the blade of the sword as being divided into 12 parts rather than the more common 2 or 3 (forte, foible, and sometimes medium). Descriptions of each movement are incredibly detailed, and well illustrated, but the overall effect is overwhelming. The system itself is Spanish fencing, radically different from French and Italian styles that have evolved into modern sport fencing, but the obscurity of the system only adds to the obscurity of Thibault's text. The one of the elements differentiating Spanish fencing from others is the use of a complex geometric pattern based on a circle and its diameter and chords as a training tool, and the circle shows up dozens of times in every illustration. Another difference is the upright posture and manner of holding the sword arm straight out from the torso; very different from modern sport fencing, but there had to be something to it as Spanish fencers were well respected in the period (n.b. George Silver's observations on Spanish style fencing in "Paradoxes of Defence" circa 1599). Typical of the period, the discussion of the circle integrates mathematics, geometry, anatomy, and a hint of mysticism. There is much to be learned here, but it is not for someone with only a passing or casual interest in Spanish fencing. This is a reflection of the author and target audience, scholars and educated men of the 1600s pursuing the art of the sword, rather than ruffians or the soldiers of the period.

As a scholarly translation of a renaissance text - Brilliant! This was clearly someone's passion for a long time, and the translation in to contemporary English flows well, and from the bits of the original shown in the illustrations that I could piece together, seems faithful to the letter and spirit.

As a book of reproductions of renaissance illustrations - Brilliant! The illustrations are beautifully reproduced, and they are incredible in themselves. Line etchings, but so detailed and packed with ornementation in the corners and between the illustrations of the fencers that they engage the reader as much as the text. As technical illustrations, they are busy and crowded, but well drawn, and absolutely consistent with the text.

As an inspiration for a conspiracy theorist - Brilliant! This book could inspire conspiracy theorists for years to come ("What does the cherub looking at the mystic circle on the side of the pillar -REALLY- mean?"). It's a thing of beauty, but it would be easy to perceive hints of a complex secret in the rich subtleties of the illustrations and the fencing text.

I enjoyed it tremendously, and my hat's off to the translator whose diligence has yielded such magnificent results, as well as to the original author and illustrators.

The story was originally written in 1965 but has been reissued in 1992 accompanied by some wonderful paintings by Leonard Baskin that are, indeed, reminiscent of Barry Moser (both of whom, interestingly enough, founded their own private presses). In this day and age, children are basically taught that success is everything and the only thing. This book tells a remarkably different tale: it is alright to fail, as Alberic learns repeatedly. Alberic does not wallow in his failure, he picks up and moves on to new chapters of his life. Ultimately, he learns he is a success by being thought wise, yet he remains uncomfortable in the trappings of success. Why, because he has learned that life is lived best by continual striving, that it is a process, a journey wherein "the freedom and the joy [is felt by] not knowing where each new step would take him." An altogether wonderful lesson for children and wonderful paintings.

If one is searching for the true meaning of life, you can find it between the few pages of this "picture book." It is not the successes and the failures that we encounter daily, but what is important is how we get to them and what we do with them. THE JOURNEY.

I received this book in Perfect order. Lots of information in a small inexpensive book. The photos are excellent quality, thank you.

Taschen's artist series varies, but all are certainly carefully turned out little books, filled with nicely designed formats and excelletn printing.
This book on Durer is an example of the better ones. The author begins right at what for me is the pinnacle of Durer's art - his charcoal drawing of his mother near death, a supreme work of realism, and one of the most powerful portraits in art. A wealth of material is covered without too much difficulty, rather an accomplishment, as Durer's worl is myriad and tricky to get a handle on.
Highly recommended, though Art History majors and readers up to a challenge should step up to the far more complex studies of Durer by Panofsky and, especially, the more recent one by Joseph Koerner, The Moment of Self-Portraiture in German Renaissance Art, this latter now in paperback. Koerner's book also has a fine discussion of the misunderstood and very underappreciated art of Hans Baldung Grien.

We are homeschoolers using this book in part of a unit on Inventors. My eight year old is able to read and enjoy the history behind the different inventions. I thought it would just be a "how to" book, but we are both really enjoying the well written historical information in this book. It really makes Leonardo and the world he lived in come alive. I like to just browse through the book and look at all of Leonardo's sketches as well.

The pictures and instructions are fairly easy to follow. The inventions do use common items, but we don't always have the right "common" items at the right times. We have modified most of the directions to use what we actually have in our house. Today we wanted to make the camera obscura, but we just threw out our last empty Pringles can... guess we'll be eating lots of chips in the next week :)

Wonderful book for kids who love to learn. Great info and facts even for adults. Highly recommend.

To those who don't have a chance to go to Siena and visit the historical surroundings of Lorenzetti's world, this beautifully illustrated little book offers the most satisfying compensation any art lover could wish for.

Ambrogio Lorenzetti (or Ambruogio Laurati; c. 1290 - June 9, 1348) was an Italian painter of the Sienese school. He was active between approximately from 1317 to 1348. His brother was the painter Pietro Lorenzetti. His work shows the influence of Simone Martini, although more naturalistic. The earliest dated work of the Sienese painter is a Madonna and Child (1319, Museo Diocesano, San Cascianco). His presence was documented in Florentine up until 1321. He would return there after spending a number of years in Siena. The frescoes on the walls of the Hall of the Nine (Sala dei Nove) or Hall of the Peace (Sala della Pace) in the Palazzo Pubblico of Siena are one of the masterworks of early renaissance secular painting. The "nine" was the oligarchal assembly of guild and monetary interests that governed the republic. Three walls are painted with frescoes consisting of a large assembly of allegorical figures of virtues in the Allegory of Good Government. In the other two facing panels, Ambrogio weaves panoramic visions of Effects of Good Government on Town and Country, and Allegory of Bad Government and its Effects on Town and Country (also called "Ill-governed Town and Country"). The better preserved "well-governed town and country" is an unrivaled pictorial encyclopedia of incidents in a peaceful medieval "borgo" and coutryside. The first evidence of the existence of the hourglass can be found in one of his paintings. Like his brother, he is believed to have died of bubonic plague 1348. Giorgio Vasari includes a biography of Lorenzetti in his Lives.

When my 7-year old son is fighting with my 9-year old daughter for his turn to read AMELIA RULES!, you know these books are going to be a hit. The artwork is beautiful, the dialogue full of great humor and pathos, the stories engaging. But what appeals most to the kids, I think, is the characters themselves. Amelia is out-and-out fascinating--a perfect combination of pre-teen girl and tomboy--and her friends are as lively and entertaining as any you'll find in American literature.

In fact, this IS literature, and if you're the kind of parent who thinks comics are no better for kids than TV, AMELIA RULES! will prove you completely and utterly wrong. Get these books. Your kids won't be able to put them down--and neither will you.

Simply put, there is no kids' comic book on the market
better than "Amelia Rules!" It is intelligently written,
beautifully drawn, and totally hilarious. The stories
contained in this volume are a cartooning tour de force.

The American Renaissance 1850-1855 was the time in which American Literature truly came into greatness. Melville( Moby Dick 1851) Whitman ( Leaves of Grass 1855) Emerson, Thoreau, and Hawthorne. Matthiessen identifies the phenomenom understands that this is the real birth- note of American literature not simply as an insular provincial form but as a world- waking work. He writes with great understanding of the works themselves.
It has been many years since I read this work in graduate- school but I have no doubt it holds up , despite the waves of various critical schools that have tried to undermine its authority.
It is as literary criticism a great work which identifies and interprets great creative works.
It is an essential item in the American library , and a real help to anyone who wants to understand one of the great moments in the history of world- literature.

It is hard to find a more seminal work on American Literature than American Renaissance. Until today, any self-respecting American Studies scholar or expert for American Literature has to come to terms with this massive shedding of ink on some of the best American texts ever published.
Though I find myself at times lost in the wealth of Mr. Matthiessen's allusions and remarks, especially when he weaves all too great a narrative from the swatches he collected, I remain fascinated with this genuinely passionate account of a harmony where many believed (and still today believe) to hear only cacophony. Suspiciously quiet about his personal leanings and politics (a fact that, with all due respect, could simply not remain untouched by more recent cultural, gender, and Marxist critics), Matthiessen takes us back to an age that holds more of today than we sometimes think, and that already foreshadows in its depth what more superficial ages would later repeat ad nausea.
It is not a novel, nor a Michener book, but if you are seriously interested in 19th century American literature (and he does give Whitman the respect he deserves), this may very well be one of the most readable studies on the subject. Sadly shortcutting Dickinson, Poe, and other authors that are excavated only today, this book still points calmly and self-assuredly to those novels and poems that stand out. All these dead, white men wrote texts that we simply cannot ignore, and whether we love Cervantes, Joyce, DeLillo, whether Tan, Faulkner, Burroughs, or Lacan, we have to see that the whale's whiteness and Walden's silence are with us always.

A fantastic book. It covers all the major topics of ancient history. It is a big book but it doesn't cover any topic too deeply, giving you an introduction to the ancient world. A perfect stepping stone towards more dedicated research of the many ancient civilisations shown here.

The book is arranged chronologically and has many great pictures, making it a delight to read. Highly recommended to anyone interested in history.

If you have read and liked World History, you will like this one also. This is more illustrated and maybe the young ones will like it better.

Found this at the library and it was just what I was looking for. An easy to understand reference for terms used about antiques and collectables. Each topic has Who, When, Where and What information with 3-8 paragraphs explaining the topic - the basics. A great companion for those numerous price guides that list items with terms such as Eastlake, Mission, Regency, etc. If you are just starting to learn antiques and you don't know what these and similar terms mean, this book is for you.

This is a must have for those wishing to find out more about styles, techniques, and materials. The book is written cearly and those not familiar with art will find it easy to understand.

Anyone taking an art course of some kind will find this book very helpful. Those wishing to workin in a museum with art objects would find this book very helpful too. And finally, people who love antique hunting should use this as a reference.

I read these works for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.
The desire to understand is intrinsic in human beings, it is in our nature. Philosophy is ultimate consequence of desire. Our desires have many aspects such as, food, sex, etc. Curiosity is natural in humans, we see it especially in small kids, and it comes from within us. Philosophy caps off curiosity and wonder. Aporia = "blocking," something is blocking our wondering as a disturbance and then we struggle to break through with wonder to find the answer. Breaking through aporia can't just be forced but must come from things known. Aristotle always begins his inquiries with the familiar. Difference between Plato and Aristotle, dialogues use aporia but leave unanswered questions, Aristotle says if you try hard you can break thru aporia and get at an answer.

Pursuit of knowledge begins with wonder, breaks thru aporia and satisfies the mind getting to a position of achievement, the goal of knowledge is to eliminate wonder. Faculty of nous is that part of the mind that grasps first principles "First Principles- nous=understanding, demonstration = episteme Dialectic, arche =beginning or rule. Aristotle has a preference for discovering first principles. For Aristotle, one has to start with first principles to proceed to knowledge. These first principles are not just the beginning, but that they govern or rule the procedure for gaining knowledge. Aristotle does not believe humans have these first principles of knowledge innately as Plato believed. Plato thinks knowledge is in the "soul" and innate in humans we just need to find a way to re-learn it.

Potential-Actual Aristotle says we have potential like kids having the capacity to learn language at a young age. For Aristotle, potential for knowledge is innate prior to achieving knowledge.
The "innately" is a swipe at Plato who is similar to Descartes and Liebnitz. Aristotle denies this, nothing is known, it is learned. Even animals have memory. Memory retains perceptions. However, only humans have Logos="reason" and "language." Experience occurs after perception and memory. From our experiences, we get a principle of science. The process of experience arises into the "soul" which then becomes a principle. This all leads to what we know by "induction."

Induction=out of a particular experiences we get a universal. Example, gravity = apple "always" falls. The "always" is the universal principle like Newton's laws. However, sometimes inductions are questionable. Nous=understanding and first principles. "Necessary Knowledge" like 2+2=4. "Contingent knowledge" is of experiences, which might go through variations. Example, how many dogs are in the backyard? Answer, it actually depends on time of day you ask. It means it can change. The goal is to satisfy our desire to know.

The difference of induction for Plato and Aristotle is "this is a horse." "This" is the particular horse is the universal. Plato believed that basic principles and concepts were already in the mind, humans just have to simply access them. Aristotle disagrees he argues that the concept of horse is an organizing principle that humans can use to understand horses when they confront them; he agrees they will be abstract and different from the particular from the horses they actually encounter. What he disagrees with Plato on is how we get the concept. Aristotle says we have to build the concept of "horse" with a classification system; it is not innate in us, as Plato would argue.

Aristotle came up with up with a classification system. Classification=a name for an object. To get a name you look at composition=what makes things the same, division=how things are different (legs, scales). Aristotle says we do this from experience and observation, memory etc. Concept of "horse" is an organizing principle. This is all induction! Therefore, nous doesn't name anything, it is an arbitrary tag. Aristotle wants a universal concept of knowledge that holds this is a difference with Plato. Key concept- Aristotle says language and reality is two sides of the same coin. Logos originally meant speech. Humans access the world through language according to Aristotle. He believes we were built for speech.

A typical deductive syllogism is "If Socrates is human, and all humans are mortal, then Socrates is mortal." Thus if A=B and B=C, then A=C. Deduction begins with a general principle and move to a specific. Induction leads us to general principle then we use deduction to get to answer or deductive claims. Dialectic=finding first principles through testing them out or using dialogue or debate as in Plato. Thus, we contend with differing beliefs to arrive at first principle.

Important idea--Aristotle and distinction between the "many and the wise." This is subject matter of inquiry or dialectic. The "wise" means people with certain understanding. The "many" means we all understand or know such as, "common sense." Aristotle thinks it is important that when we inquirer we start from the many and then move to the wise in our search for answers. We must always consult both. Plato and Socrates never look to the many. Aristotle says whatever the truth is it can't be so unusual as to leave the rest of human beliefs behind. Example is he doesn't buy Zeno's paradox. In addition, the truth can't be so common as to be able to only have to survey the masses. Sometimes, what most people believe needs help. Example, we all think the best sort of life for us is pleasure; we need the wise to guide us and show it is contemplation.

We begin with questions; knowledge seeks to answer these questions. If we want to know what something is, we already have a sense of the difference of what Plato gave. In a nutshell, what Plato said was that the horse that we encounter is an image of an eternal form "horseness." This is a top down concept. Aristotle's answer is that the particular horse we experience is understood by way of organizing and classifying our perceptions and experiences into a whole. This bottom up approach is a classic distinction that finds itself in many different traditions of philosophy. Aristotle does not have Plato's dualistic two worlds. The eternal world of the forms and then the world of material experience. Whatever the universal is, it is found directly in things through experience, not by rising above to the eternal world of the forms.

Unity-every form of knowledge has some kind of unification, this is how we gather our experiences. If we couldn't gather our experiences into some kind of unity that would hold, then every time we would seek to understand something we would have to start over. We would have to continually deal with differences and variations. Therefore, when we know that, that is a horse, that idea, concept of horse has organized our experiences in a way that it gathers it together. Then the term horse names that unity and then rests in the soul and enables us to go out into the world already armed with some gathered sense of things. Therefore, the next time we confront a horse we already know what it is.

There are different levels of unity for Aristotle, such as, Numerical unity things identical to itself, i.e. two apples and two dogs are equally two. Our experiences teach us this. Therefore, "this" horse is a unity and a singular phenomena. Then, there is unity that would occupy the same genus and same species. Classic definition of humans for Aristotle is- "rational animal." Animal =genus, rational=species. Unity by analogy- a difference that brings something together, like "war on drugs." Aristotle preferred things that were unified in a very exact comprehensive way. So, to classify humans as rational animals is decisive because it captures a general feature and a specific feature in such a way that you are always going to know what humans are by way of that classification.

Aristotle recognizes analogies are looser but sometimes performs the function of unifying our experience by bringing things together in some way, however that unification is not going to be exact, decisive full or complete. He prefers demonstration like deduction; it is amore precise form of knowledge and provides so much knowledge. When he talks about logic, which he invented, and he gets into particular investigations like biology he had to confess things are not always exact in nature. Thus, few things are really universal. However, more often in the world we use unity by analogy than unity by numerical, or genus, etc. Remember the "this" is a horse, for Plato, the true object of knowledge was "horseness" not the "this." The "this is a particular limited perceived instance of the super form of horseness. Therefore, what has true being for Plato is the eternal form of horse. The particular horse the "this" does not have absolute true being because it is limited, it is particular, and it comes and goes. Aristotle turns the tables. The true meaning of "being" the question of what does it mean to be something is always a "this." It is not some transcendent form in eternal realm; it is always the particular thing you encounter.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

Burgess Laughlin's *The Aristotle Adventure* provides an interesting and enlightening account of the transmission of Aristotle's treatises on logic. From ancient Greece, to the Arabian Peninsula and the European Continent, this book details the philosophical transmission of Aristotle's Organon, which laid the foundations for western intellectual and scientific thinking. The writing style is clear and concise, provides impressive detail and is extremely well referenced for further study. This book is a gem for anyone interested in the transmission of the fundamental ideas which gave rise to western civilization.