Western Books

'Above Los Angeles', another in Robert Cameron's birds eye views of major cities is, to me, surprisingly superior to his similar volume on his hometown of San Francisco. Since I much prefer SF to LA, I expected LA to be far less photogenic, but it comes of rather well overall. This may be due to the fact that so many of the LA landscapes familiar to us from TV mentions, but unseen for most of us, leaves us facinated to finally see, for example, Venice Beach close-up or the Hollywood Bowl, or Century City.

This is still not quite as good as the similar volume for Chicago ore even less good than the volume on London, or even as good as a competitor's work on Boston, but it is good, nonetheless, if only because it confirms my notion that LA is a sprawl with no center. The 'downtown' pic looks like a non-descript snap of outer Queens and not similar to Manhatten's financial district or midtown, to which it is comparable in function. Even the shorelines look more interesting than the similar scenes from the SF book.

An excellent souvenoir!

This book is a must have for all those who love L.A. natural and urban landscapes, but can't be there all the time to enjoy that. As the city has gigantic proportions, of course that not everything can be covered in the book, but at least what I consider to be the most attractive spots in the area is there. The paper is high-quality and the photographs are crystal-clear and well produced. Worth the money.

I just love these books by Cameron, he is just the most amazing talent. This book really captures L.A. and this is a city that begs to be photographed from the air because of all the wonderful buildings hidden behind huge fences and lush landscape. This is without question one of his best books, it really is a joy to look through. I have the older edition, but have seen the newer book and it only adds a few new pictures of buildings built since the book was first published in the early 90's; such as the Getty. I was expecting more new pictures, since the publisher makes big deal about it being revised, I even thought I might buy it if it was that different, but there are like five new pictures out of about 160 original and like I said before they where not even taken by Cameron. These pictures are well done, but are not by Cameron himself, he is alas over 90 and retired. Either printing is a five star book I assure you. I highly recommend all of his books they are all wonderful in their own way, but this truly is one of his best works.

Los Angeles is a wonderful city so full of interesting things. This book has it all. All the areas are greatly photographed and look clear. LA's smog problem seems to be subsiding as the photos show clear days (most of them) and LA is only getting better. Every part of the city is showned. If you like photos from the air, you'll like this book. Also, the Library tower is shown (this is the first building to get blown up in the movie "Independence Day") in several photos. The older printings of this book didn't have them in it. I highly recommend this book.

Robert Cameron presents a place and its' character in this "above" book (as well as in the other ones). Some people fly over the Los Angeles area, gagging and shaking their heads. Mammoth highways, concrete, smog, track housing, and monster burbs. These qualities do exist. But Cameron's photos also allow you to see the different personalities and idiosyncrasies of the many communities that make up what we call Los Angeles, from the Southbay beaches to the hills. (Where LA begins and ends we're not always sure). The area of Los Angeles (like other places) is different from other major metropolitan American areas for a variety of reasons. For one, most of the topography is flat, and it's a coastal desert paved with transplants with ambition and liking for the sun. These pictures allow the City of Angels to be more intriguing and have more of its' personality exude itself, as the reader gets a closer look at it through these pictures.

Mental pictures.

Yes, there are those who state Los Angeles County is an area with few landmarks. First you've got have a good disposition to this place, and second you've got to get close. Cameron's shots provide plenty of pockets of beauty and character, and plenty of quintessential "LA" landmarks. One must close enough to observe and experience them. "Above Los Angeles" lets us. Photos that highlight the interesting and beautiful icons of this city's architecture and natural character.

Another book for LA-philes and those interested in its' history and growth is: "LA Lost & Found: An Architectural History of Los Angeles (California Architecture and Architects, No 21)." by Sam Hall Kaplan, and Julius Shulman (Photographer).

The experience of reading Augusta Locke was for me a luxurious one. I was immediately drawn into the story by the specificity and quirkiness of the detail and the determination and feistiness of the main character. Henderson, a master of Western imagery, draws a complicated picture, more like a series of fast-moving, high-resolution close-ups placed against an expansive backdrop of the enormous world. Tiny, fragile people move within its tempests, striking out on their own, struggling to make it their own. Gussie is a puzzle--a delightful confusion of human frailties and virtues--courage and heartache and wit and longing. And in the vastness of the Wind River Valley, against the constraints of time and coincidence, she finds Walker Avary, a priceless and beloved character from Henderson's earlier novel, The Rest of the Earth. What a great sense of satisfaction to have the two of them meet and connect and travel together through the lonesome paths they've taken in life. For me, this was a book that needed reading twice, the first time to get lost in it, and the second to savor it.

This is a fictional chronicle of six generations of a western family. The west is always one of my favorite subjects. Gussie is a rare woman, both strong and tender. She is a character you will never forget. This raw and haunting tale is my pick for best book for the first half of 2006.

Best damn book I've read all year. Tough as fence post, bites like barbed-wire. Damned if Augusta Locke ain't real.

How does Henderson do it? --the characters and setting, the images and story. There's more style and substance on one of William Heywood Henderson's pages than between all of he covers on the New Release table at Barnes and Nobel put together.

"At night, when the weather allowed, Gussie and Mr. Foster laid out a tarpaulin on the ground, their bedrolls padding their bones, the sleeping box as breakwind, Anne (Gussie's child) had outgrown the box, and now she carefully laid out her own blankets, tugging at the corners to square and smooth the fabric. Beneath the stars, they all lay side by side, Anne in the middle. The stars filled the entire basin, no forests to catch the constellations, only famished cottonwoods. Gussie looked directly up into the night. The earth turned. The stars surrendered their positions.

Get this book new, you won't find many second-hand copies. It's the kind of novel people keep to read over and over again.

Augusta "Gussie" Locke is one of the most facinating and fully drawn female literary characters in recent memory. Her defiant, independent spirit is both inspiring and deeply moving. Henderson paints vivid and palpable landscapes of the West with some of the most beautiful prose I have ever read about the region. This book is not just for Westerners - although, I suspect that Westerners will particularly appreciate it. The book's great humanity, and staggering portrayal of the natural world, make it a must-read for everyone. I could not more highly recommend Augusta Locke.

Augusta Locke is one of the most compelling characters to emerge from the American West. The unbeautiful daughter of beautiful parents, a girl with a wandering habit who walks into Wyoming, she grows into a woman who reads the mind of the country around her -- the Wind River Range, the Great Divide Basin, the Big Sandy River, land where "the season can swing from heat to snow and back in the turn of a day." In Henderson's flat-out gorgeous prose, Gussie's life feels epic, not because the events that make it up are so big, but because we follow her so closely, watching her seasons change. She's a self-made orphan, a fierce mother, a lonely lover, a rough road worker, a woman in a man's world, sometimes a woman in a man's clothing. In the vast plains, such a small female figure might go unnoticed, her life leaving a shallow track like the roads "so barely scratched into the surface that a shift in the angle of the sun would erase them altogether," but Augusta Locke will live with you long after you finish the book and try to put her back on the shelf.

As a lover of the french philosopher and his time i can only
recommand with passion his works and especially Candide together with the other stories issued by the so prestigious Oxford
world's Classics -its a genuine pleasure

A great selection of stories where Voltaire shows off his literary style and espouses his philosophy on different topics.
He is a great story teller and has a great sense of humour too.

Voltaire is a master saterist, not a comedian. As with all satire, it hslps if we understand the contemporary world in which the author writes, but Voltaire's skill raises Candide above this level of satirical writing. He is masterful in the use of comedy to poke fun at the customs, mores, and beliefs of his time and show us the silliness to shich theunenlightened mind can go in the pursuit of perfection in an imperfect world. As a commentator on human culture he is followed by Mark Twain. Not that Twain can match Voltaire in his skill, only in some of his perceptions. This is an "old" book by new world reckoning, but as a masterpiecce well worth the time and effort of exploaration it is a timeless masterpiece. I highly recommend it to both believer and non-believer.

This was a first source cited in "A Visit From Voltaire" which turned me on to the man with its lightly comic approach to a formidable subject, BUT I have to add that I only understood it bettert after knowing what role Candide played in the political mayhem of his life fighting "infame," and only after I knew more about his social/irreligious context, did I really "get" what he was doing in Candide. I'd send light readers to "Voltaire in Love," and wannabe scholars to the Portable Voltaire and whatever basic biographic texts they can find, as well as Visit from Voltaire, A which is hilarious fun.

Voltaire's Candide is a scathing satire on one of the more popular metaphysical theories of his day: that is, we live in the best of all possible worlds. In spite of the disasters and disappointments that befall mankind, Candide and an array of companions attempt to make sense of their personal tragedies while shoehorning it into the Leibniz theory.

Candide is well-written, and sprinkled with cute and clever irony. I also enjoyed the references Voltaire makes to his personal enemies in Candide. However, the optimistic theory that prompted this satire has been rejected, which leads me to believe there isn't much purpose for this book any longer. Really the only reason left to read Candide is to become 'culturally literate', I suppose. Don't get me wrong; the ultimate message of this book is a good one. However, I hope readers don't think Candide's lesson must preclude optimism all together, or love, or friends, or God. That fact is obscured to make a literary point.

The only interesting question that remains to be asked from this book is: why does such cyncism accompany 'enlightenment'? Both French and American societies are rife with it after all, so much that I doubt even Voltaire could manage much of a smirk. All he could do would be to join the choir and tend the garden he has sown.

As many have already said, this book is fantastic. Not only does it cover a WIDE variety of information and topics but it also gets into the why of magick as well as the how. The author rights in both an intelligent yet somewhat casual and even entertaining manner at times and thusly manages to keep your attention throughout the book.
The only real quibbles I had were some of the correspondences in the index, in particular with the elemental rulership of the seven traditional planets. All in all, though, this is a very refreshing, informative, and invaluable tool that will help both the "armchair" and practicing magician, as well as anyone who just wants to read up on the subject and get a good comprehensive overview of Western occultism. I DEFINITELY recommend getting this book in conjunction with Donal Kraig's Modern Magick.

I'm just here to enforce the 5 star ratings that the other reviewers gave. This book along with Dave Griffin's "Ritual Magic Manual" are the few books that actually give us "step by step" instruction in PRACTICAL Golden Dawn Ritual Magick. Dave's book is for those that have time and patience for longer rituals (but it's still great) but this book has simpler, less time consuming rituals (but just as potent). In one email correspondence I had with the author J.M. Greer, he said that this (simplicity) is what he intended, and I'm glad he did because if I'm in a hurry and want to do a working then I can turn to this one and STILL do magick that's in-line with the Golden Dawn current!

This with "Paths of Wisdom" form a 'dynamic duo' in top notch cabalistic magick!!!

I highly recommend this author to seekers of wisdom!

This is a great book, it will become a Golden Dawn classic. Highly recommended reading after Israel Regardie, Pat Zalewski and Chic & Sandra Tabatha Cicero. Much needed for todays student of the GD.

Written by a true practicing magician, Circles of Power is a marvelous modern occult text full of practical advice and formulae based on the Golden Dawn tradition, founded on Cabalistic Magick.

Greer synthesizes the Golden Dawn system concisely and clearly into an outstanding modern Magickal Manual. It compares favorably to, if not better than, Kraig's Modern Magick or Frater U.D.'s High Magick, two excellent similar books.

Like those other books on Ceremonial Magick, Greer covers the basics from theory to practice and offers exercises to learn the systems. Unlike other books, however, he doesn't stop his book and suggest that you commit a month to some exercise before turning a page. Though regular work and experimentation will reward the practitioner, it's refreshing not to be asked by an author to stop reading a book in the middle of it.

Greer's excellent writing offers the reader no-nonsense, straight forward instruction like a well written text book. Never is the reader in doubt as to the writer's genuine knowledge of the material.

Greer's commitment to excellence is shown in his choice to edit out all the Enochian elements from the Golden Dawn Rituals he's presenting. Rather than just parrot what others have said, (including the GD itself), he refrains because he feels his understanding and experience of that part off the work is inadequate. The removal of these elements, by the way, detracts nothing from the rituals and work he presents. He substitutes Cabalistic elements skillfully and effectively in their stead. (I personally like the Enochian system and hope Greer eventaully delves into it and shares his insights.)

The weakest part of the book is Llewellyn's publishing. Give them points for including an index, but, considering how excellent this book is, Llewellyn's decision to use pulp acid paper is tantamount to a crime. No one who reads this book, no practicing magician at any rate, would ever consider it disposable, but it will yellow and crumble over time. This is a sad state when one considers the publisher's short print runs and thinks how sought after this book will be in the second hand market when it falls out of print.

My advice; if you're new the art, or old to the art, or interested in the least, you should buy this book. It's excellent. Like Greer's other book in this series, Paths of Wisdom, Circles of Power is destined to be a classic. Buy it now while you can still afford it.

Probably Greer's best work to date. I have to say I'm a fan of Greer's even though I have disliked a couple of his other works but this book should be read and studied by those who're interested in working ritual magic. I say should be because every ceremonial magical text is generally suggested to be obtained and read by the novice if you take a look at the average website on this topic. Sadly though many of those sites don't mention this book and I'm not sure why.

The book is from a straightforward Golden Dawn approach to the Western Mystery Tradition & ritual magic. Oh I hear the groans now but let me say that the rites are pared down to their core and stripped of all that ballyhoo traditionally associated with the G.: D.: material! That alone is worth the time to read thru this manual. Also like Kraig's

"Modern Magick", "Circles of Power" is intended to be a manual used by the solitary practitioner though it can be adapted easily enough for group workings.

Is there anything in here that's not covered elsewhere? Not really and yet he does touch on some interesting aspects regarding the Telesmatic Imagery techniques usually only mentioned in other works. Also he does a nice job of explaining the rituals and why they're used instead of just saying "practice this three times a day for the next two years" and leave it at that.

One of the best things about this book is the simple language the author uses to express his views and understanding of the subject which in most cases one has to really struggle at first to get the gist of. Not so here. For instance, on page 109 under the heading of "Contemplation" Greer writes: "The central factor in contemplation, and the only aspect of it that can be called a 'technique' at all, is bare intention." Nicely said. Now if you read Israel Regardie's book on the Golden Dawn, it's not written as simply as that. Why? The style evoked by Regardie - and sadly other ceremonial magical authors - is one of the snooty scholar. "Either keep up with me or give it up" tends to be their way of weeding out those who aren't worthy of the "many petaled lotus". For a novice student, Greer's simple language is a God-send. Had I had this book back in 1988 when I started my inquiries into Ritual Magic and G.: D.: material, I think I'd have made a lot more progress.

One thing I wasn't happy about is the lack of detailed analysis of the Sephiroth's correspondences. For instance there's no mention of the scents listed for each sephira. So if you had only this book at your disposal, you wouldn't know that tobacco is the traditional scent used for the sephira of Geburah. I have to wonder if the author's intention was to use this book in conjunction with say Regardie's "Golden Dawn" manual.

Another oddity offered in the book is the line drawing of the magical sword. On page 206 a trident is shown but it is referred to as a sword. Why I haven't a clue. Perhaps the company made an error in line drawings, I don't know. The trident is normally used in ritual magic and is rarely mentioned outside of the Solomonic grimoires so its inclusion here leaves a mystery to be answered by the author.

In the chapter about Evocation under the heading of "Dealing With Spirits", the author provides some excellent advice on dealing with the Spirits. Pages 243-247 should be read several times before the novice runs off casting his circle of power to summon the Spirits of Riches and Wealth. Mind you Greer does not give you duck billed platitudes on ethics unlike some of the other authors on this subject, rather he gives you some good, solid, clear ideas to think about regarding dealing with the Spirits themselves.

Finally I give him five stars on this effort. This is a subject that is very difficult to digest into one simplified work as this but Greer has made some strides doing so. I highly recommend this book to all who're interested in the subjects of Ritual Magic, Evocation or the Golden Dawn.

Comstock Lode is classic Louis L'amour. This book is extremely enjoyable and fast-paced. If you are just starting out on Louis, this book will not steer you wrong, it is a perfect example of his genius.

I just finished reading Comstock last week, when I happened to be up in the California gold country myself. I'm a garden writer, author of 5 published books, and I was in Placer County, speaking to the Auburn Garden Club. The town of Auburn, which sits in the middle of the gold rush's richest territory, is a neat place, one to visit if you get the chance. I noticed too that there is still a very busy mining supply store right on one of Auburn's main streets. There's still gold and silver being found up there!
But I digress: All of us who read Louis L'Amour's Westerns have probably noticed that while all of them are fun to read, some are certainly better than others. I thought that Comstock was darn good, and certainly one of the best of his books set in California. If you enjoy a fast-paced, action packed Western, I expect you'll like Comstock. I recommend it!

"Comstock Lode" is just fantastic! This book was written by the famous Western writer, Louis L'Amour. Louis L'Amour has written over a hundred books, including the famous Sackett novels. The setting of this story is in the mid-1800's, during the gold rush in America. The story is told in Virginia City, Nevada.

The main character is Val Trevallion, a young man of twenty-four with a harsh past. Both of his parents were killed when he was young and he has taken it upon himself to have revenge on the killers. He is a quiet man but very strong because of his work in mines. Though he has not had the best education, he is very smart. Grita Redaway is Val's friend from his past. Her parents were also killed by the same people who killed Val's parents. She is a very beautiful and an intelligent actress. She is independent though with a streak of stubbornness in her. Al Hesketh is the villain of the story. He is a cruel and wicked man, only thinking of himself and how he can become rich.

The story begins in Cornwall, England in the year 1859. Val is fourteen-years-old when his father and mother decide to move to America. His father wants to work his own mine in California. He saves enough money so they go to America by boat. When they reached Gunwalloe, the Trevallions decide to travel to California with another family, the Redaways. The Redaways have only one daughter, Grita, who is eight-years-old. A few days before they leave, Val's father goes to buy supplies a few miles away. Suddenly, drunken rustlers attack the wagons in which Val and Grita's mothers are in. The drifters kill the mothers then beat up Mr. Redaway. During the whole time, Val and Grita are hidden nearby; Val protecting Grita and shielding her from the sight. After they leave, killing Mr. Redaway, Val and Grita go find Mr. Trevallion. After the dead are buried, Mr. Trevallion, though heartbroken, decides to carry on to California with Val while Grita goes to live with her aunt. But on the way to California, Val's father is killed by the same men who had killed his mother. Val swears to have revenge on the murderers. Ten years go by, during which Val shoots two of the people who were involved in the murders. Val then realizes that he has wasted his life and decides to settle down and have his own mine in Virginia City, Nevada, where the Comstock Lode is. He gets good land and finds some silver in his mines. But trouble seems to follow him everywhere. He finds out that Grita is in big trouble, in which the remaining men who murdered his parents are involved.

Love this book, and is one of my favorite L'Amour books. Louis L'Amour is the type of writer that, whatever he writes, you'll know before-hand that you'll love them. "Comstock Lode" is no exception. Some other of my favorite L'Amour books are:

*North to the Rails*
*Sackett Series*
*Matagorda*
*Crossfire Trail*

...and this list can go on and on and on!

Louis L'Amour's Comstock Lode is a brilliant, fictional novel based on real events that will suck you in as soon as you start reading. I'm not one for westerns at ALL, but I was recommended this book and told myself, Why not? It sounds alright, nothing really better to read as of right now. I'll admit, the first few chapters started off a little dull, but then, you get deeper and deeper into the story and you can't put the book down. I recommend this book to anyone who likes adventure novels or Louis L'Amour in general.
Val Trevallion was a son of Tom Trevallion and his wife Mary, who lived in England until finding a large amount of gold and, moves to the States. While in Louisiana, Val's mother and the mother of another girl named Grita Redaway are brutally murdered by a group of shadowy characters, one of which Val will never forget the eyes of. Val and his father set out for the Wild West, but on the way there, his father gets murdered as well. A name on a gun gives Val a clue as to the identity of one man from the group of men that murdered his father and possibly his mother. Val goes to the Comstock where he is known as the toughest, most feared man around. While there, he will remeet Grita, a beautiful, budding actress and the memories come rushing back. His main mission: to kill those who killed his parents. But not everyone seems to be who they are, and Val has to come face-to-face with the man whose eyes haunted him years earlier in this edge-of-your-seat thriller.

This is my all-time favorite L'Amour book. I read it for the first time several years ago and have since read it many times over. Each time I have read it, I find something new that only adds to the story.

I have read many L'Amour novels and this one stands out because of its detail of the charactures. L'Amour explains why his charactures act as they do while still containing all of the typical content of most of his novels. If you read one L'Amour novel, read this one!!

Zoé B. Oldenbourg (1916 - 2002) was both a highly esteemed specialist in mediæval French history and a critically acclaimed and prize winning historical novelist. She is best known for her novels The World Is Not Enough and The Cornerstone. The Crusades (Les Croisades) was first published in 1965.

Concentrating on the period of the first three Crusades Oldenbourg's book is a social, cultural, political and military history of the period, and covers the history of Turkey, Persia, Iran, Iraq, the Bosphorus, the Balkans, Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Arabia, Egypt, Italy, Sicily, Spain and southern Europe. She makes illuminating references to other phenomenon such as colonialism and pogroms, and is exceptional in that she is able to imaginatively suggest the attitudes, beliefs and limitations of the people she is writing about.

The subject is an immense one: the results of the Germanic invasions; the position of the Papacy; the 'Holy War' and its legacy; the economic effects of overpopulation on a poorly developed agriculture; feudalism; the differences between eastern and western Christianity; heresies and national differences in the east; the history of Constantinople; the rise of the Turks; the divisions and unity of Islam; relations between the Turks and the Arabs, Christians and Muslims; cultural effects of East on West and vice versa; literary influences in both directions; the legend of the Crusader; the subsequent history of 'crusades' such as the Albigensian, the Inquisition and the Conquistadores.

Oldenbourg on contemporary medieval attitudes: it was a time before machines were widely used. 'Man was therefore infinitely closer to physical reality than we can be now. Tools and raw materials had a value and immediacy not easy for us to understand. This direct contact with matter whose laws he knew only empirically made man simultaneously more superstitious than we are today and more skillful and enterprising.'

She is illuminating on the distinction between western and eastern religious feeling, in a way which explains much subsequent Catholic history. She says also that 'men thought of themselves first and foremost as religious beings...'

A plethora of suggestive ideas: that popular religion was (and is) largely pagan (and pagan is used in a non pejorative way); that miracles occupied the space in our lives of science; that war and religion were combined in the Latin west in a way they never could be in the Byzantine east.

'This exclusive, even excessive, exaltation of physical valour was something the Byzantines could never understand. The people of Western Europe believed implicitly that a man's worth was, first and foremost, measured by his prowess in battle. To the Greeks, courage was certainly an estimable virtue... but they did not rate it any higher than many 'civilised' virtues.'

'The fundamental difference lay in the co-existence in the Western mind of two quite separate ideas, the warrior and the Christian. Byzantium never seems to have been affected by any such ambivalence: it was too blatantly paradoxical for the logical Greek mind to accept.'

On the tangle of military and political objectives pursued by both east and west Oldenbourg sheds a clear light.

She suggests a connection between the German tribes who destroyed the western Roman Empire in the 4th century and the Crusaders. The feudal nobility, she says, were of Germanic or Nordic extraction, unlike the Latin peasantry. They preserved their ideals of love of battle and glorious death despite their conversion to Christianity. The union of these two diverse traditions led to the idea of a holy war, and such wars were waged in Syria in the 12th century. The Germanic tribes, many of whom admired Rome as a great civilising power, conquered it. Later, as admirers of Christianity, they attempted to conquer the Holy Land. In 1204 they conquered Constantinople.

The defining 'cause' of the Crusades was the rise of Turkey as a major power. This rise threatened both the Western, Greek and Arab states, although Turkey itself was Islamic. The Arabs, friendly to Christians, had been accepted politically in their position of power in Syria and the Middle East as well as elsewhere for 400 years. Now the Turks were conquering areas towards the Holy Land, and also areas in the Bosphorus - they posed a direct threat to Byzantium. The Crusades were initially launched to protect Byzantium from the Turks. But the Crusaders included Normans, who were more interested in conquering Byzantium than the Holy Land. And the Great Schism had recently separated the Churches of east and west: instead of reuniting them, the Crusades were to widen the gap between them and exploit their differences.

'Alexius saw no reason to fight the Turks simply because they were infidels (he had suffered too much from Christians to share any prejudges of this kind)...'

'the Greeks were trying to use the Latins in order to reconquer their own lost provinces, while the Latins thought the Greeks had a duty to help them in the much more important task of recovering the Holy Places.'

Oldenbourg follows this concept of the holy war through subsequent history. The union of the military culture of the barons and the culture of love and romance of southern France led to the ideal of chivalry. Later this culture in turn was conquered during the crusade against the Albigensians. Relics of these ideas can be seen in the Inquisition - the Church Militant - and in the deeds of the Conquistadores. Most recent was the attempt of Hitler to conquer the Jews.

The more one explores a subject the more there is to explore. Oldenbourg's book suggests this complexity. There are no easy answers, few generalisations. It is both honest and learned, and motivated by a clear and compassionate intelligence. It has had a far greater effect on me than the celebrated study by Stephen Runciman, still a standard work on the subject (strangely, another major study is Gibbon's, 200 years out of date and still an acute analysis despite it). Oldenbourg explores one of the great conflicts between Christianity and Islam so as to show how misleading it is to regard it as a simple conflict between two ideologies and in this way her book can be helpful and relevant to those who wish to see present day conflicts in a broader, less bigoted context.

For the amateur historian, like myself, I was pleased that the author separated out the sources contemporary to the events of the Crusades. Also, the author often cites these sources (such as Anna Comnena and William of Tyre) directly and openly evaluates their positions and prejudices. Considering the limited extent of these original viewpoints, that few people were literate in those days, this emphasis helps in establishing some validity to what is a very distant interpretation.

The Frankish barons, who are the major players in the three Crusades discussed here, led a loose mob that included a fighting force of knights and squires along with any number of illiterate fanatics. They were inspired by a central religious authority, the Pope, and certain fiery orators such as Peter the Hermit. The Franks were not much further advanced than the federated tribes they had been when they overran Western Europe. They were hardly more than barbarians, fierce fighters, glorifying War, recently converted to Christianity, who used the Pope's urging to continue their heritage of invading and plundering.

The overland journey of the First Crusade, with Jerusalem as its goal, must have been unimaginably difficult to survive. The Franks fought their way through the insufferable summer heat of the Mideast, conquering and plundering as they went. When their situation became dire, when it became exceedingly difficult to obtain supplies, they resorted to terror. Bohemond, the Count of Toulouse, who became the prince of Antioch, is reported to have actively encouraged the notion that the Crusaders were cannibals.

It was an age of illiteracy, lawlessness, fanaticism, and superstition. There were these material possessions - the Holy Lance (a piece of rusted iron claimed to have been the sword that pierced Christ's side), the True Cross, and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher - that the Franks used as rallying cries. The fanaticism combined with the brutal conditions of the journey drove them to the point of insanity, to the point of massacring as many civilians as they could once they entered Jerusalem.

The slaughter in Jerusalem marked the beginning of the Frankish occupation of the Holy Land. It is true that in some ways the Franks learned to live with their Muslim neighbors, and for their part the Muslims, although perhaps more civilized at that time, could also reach extremes of cruelty; still, it is hard not to sympathize with Saladin who kicked the Franks almost all the way out of the Holy Land less than a century after they first arrived.

I thought reading this book would be a daunting dask, at 593 pages, on a subject that I knew nothing about, and considered dry. Was I wrong! Ms. Oldenbourg makes the crusades and the participants come alive. She imbues the participants with personality, so each individual is memorable, the reading better than any novel. From the blonde, blue eyed cunning soldier Bohemond to the tragic love triangle of Melisende, Fulk and Hugh, this book has it all. Scheming clerics, ambitious men, massacres, acts of superhuman strength, love, hatred. Not boring at all! And the great part is that it is not fiction. Well worth the read!

Zoe Oldenbourg's "The Crusades" was one of the first books I ever read about the subject, and still remains an unsurpassed introduction to the topic in my experience. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and it is still one of my favourites.

Oldenbourg covers the main events of the major Crusades, and informs the reader in great detail of the situation at hand. Oldenbourg gives a very detailed introductory account of the world and lives of the Crusaders. It will certainly give you enough to decide if you want to learn more on this fascinating topic, or just leave it with Oldenbourg's book.

As an initial introduction to the Crusades, "The Crusades" stands as one of the best available, and will keep you engrossed throughout.

This volume, first published almost thirty years ago, gives an account of the first three crusades along with the history of Jerusalem up to its conquering by Saladin. The author does not view the Crusades as primarily a war of conquest or as a search for new colonies and trade routes. In addition, she wants to contrast the Crusades with the Islamic expansion of four centuries earlier, the goal of the latter in her opinion being the total conquest of the world. The goal of the Crusades was primarily to retake Jerusalem, and this viewpoint makes the author definitely at odds with many contemporary assessments of the origins and reasons for the Crusades. Readers who thirst for an in-depth knowledge of the Crusades will find a book that is well written and easy to read. Whether or not the book constitutes sound history can only be decided by a lifetime of intense study of the historical documents and sources. The general reader will thus have to remain in a state of suspended judgment on the accuracy of the book. Other books, especially those written in the last decade, should be consulted to gain further insight and alternative points of view.

The author wants to emphasize the human aspects of the Crusades, she asks readers to remove themselves from their modern context and try to understand (however difficult this might be) what life was like in medieval times. She gives a highly interesting account of the conditions of life in those times, referring to it as "simple" because of the state of technology at the time. Whether the technology of today makes life more complex is perhaps a matter for debate, but to claim life was more difficult back then is a credible proposition. The expenditure of human energy needed to obtain the basic life necessities was certainly a lot greater than what is required today. But the author reminds the reader that mental abilities were not necessarily diminished, pointing to the "better memories' that were developed in those times, due to general lack of writing skills. But she definitely wants to emphasize that society at that time was based exclusively on masculine ideals, and that the Catholic Church was "resolutely antifeminist." Her evidence for this is somewhat weak, and this position has been criticized vociferously in more contemporary accounts of the Crusades and the history of the Catholic Church.

There are many places in the book where the discussions are particularly interesting or surprising. Some of these include: 1. That "popular opinion" held that Peter the Hermit was the real instigator of the Crusades, having received a "letter" from Jesus Christ that he was commanded to deliver to Pope Urban II. The author reminds the reader that there is no evidence that Peter ever met the Pope. 2. That after the fall of Antioch, the Crusaders, with the assistance of native Christians murdered all the Turks that they could find in the city and believed that the this massacre was "pleasing to God." The author though does not offer the reader any evidence for this view. How does she know that the Crusaders against Antioch really believed this? 3. The author believes that the number of women and children that were murdered in the "Great Massacre" was exaggerated by chroniclers of the time (especially Islamic historians). But she is quick to point out that putting the real number aside, that most of the population in Jerusalem was completely exterminated, with most of these being unarmed civilians. 4. That the Muslims of Palestine did not anticipate the religious intolerance of the Christians. Interestingly, the author states that the Muslims who conquered the area centuries earlier did not attempt to force the conquered peoples to convert to Islam (Mohammed though murdered nearly all of the Jewish peasants in southern Palestine). 5. The author mentions that Baldwin, in the process of conquering the coastal cities, permitted various massacres in some of these cities in order to "terrorize" the defenders of the others. 6. The origin of "Sunnism" and "Shiism" is discussed, where Sunnism represents the "official orthodoxy" and Shiism is the "breakaway sect." At the time of the Crusades, the Sunnites (as the author refers to them) were represented by the Abbasid caliphate of Baghdad and the Shiites were represented by the Fatimid caliphate of Cairo. The extreme hatred between these two sects survives to this day. 7. That Bohemond blamed the failure of the Crusades on Alexius Comnenus, the Byzantine emperor of Constantinople, and tried to convince the Pope to launch a Crusade against Alexius. 8. The author contends that the concept of a holy war, or "jihad" was alien to Muslim leaders at the time of the Crusades, but that they acquiesced to public opinion and so were not willing to speak out against launching a jihad against the Franks. The thinking of the Muslim chroniclers gradually changed though, and by the time of the battle of Hattin, jihad became part of the consciousness of Muslims, and soldiers became "soldiers of God." Victory in war was the direct cause of God's favor to those who were faithful. 9. That religion at the time was "inseparable from politics" and consequently that any action taken by a statesman had to have a religious motive and must be justified by a religious point of view. The author describes predilection towards religion as a "universally recognized moral necessity." 10. That with the exception of Anna Comnena, the history of the first three Crusades was of minor interest to the historians of Constantinople. The author describes Anna Comnena as being only marginally interested in the events of the first three Crusades. The Fourth Crusade, which is not discussed in the book, was of course of great importance to the Greek Christians.

I really am pleased that I read this book because within its pages you can see the birth of our modern world.

Despite the fact that Rene contorted himself to try to prove that God exists; he still managed to create a great work. He began the inquiry into reality wherein we try to understand the world through experimentation. I think he failed in many ways to develop a coherent philosophical structure due to his attempts to please the Church but given the social conditions of the day this was the best that he could do. Even in this flawed analysis Rene paved the way for what would later become the Scientific Method.

I only wish that he could live today and write without fears of reprisal from religious entities.

well..descartes is kind of long winded.
he's trying to prove we can KNOW things about the natural world, which he does. fantastic.
the problem now is by decartes standard can there be agnostic or atheist scientists?

In the 17th century, the world underwent dramatic and incredible changes. The Scientific Revolution was gathering pace, Europeans had experienced the Reformation and the Renaissance, and boundaries and horizons in all areas were being expanded and changed at a breakneck pace.

Into this time of upheaval comes Descartes, one of the greatest Philosophers to ever live anywhere in the world. While 'modern' philosophy, which broke off its roots from Scholasticism, does not necessarily begin only with Descartes, it is true in Descartes the agenda of post-Scholastic philosophy is most clearly and beautifully expressed in logical terms.

Descartes's project is to take into account the implications of the scientific revolution for philosophy; for Descartes, it is no longer religious authority or pure philosophical speculation which tells us the most accurate truths about the cosmos, but science based on observation and the use of mathematical and logical methods employed by the aid of natural human reason.

Descartes sets into motion an astonishing project into motion; to basically remove Scholasticism and its corrupt and inept attempts to understand the universe and replace it with a complete and unified system of knowledge, based on certain truths clear and knowable to anyone, whatever their class or background.

Descartes, following a plan of 'meditation', withdraws from the senses and attempts to consider the universe as it is to the intellect. Descartes carefully invokes several skeptical doubts about our knowledge, the existence of the external world, and our own existence and attempts to set out what he felt was true and what is not. The famous phrase 'Cogito ergo sum' is one result, though Descartes's overall system and arguments are more complex.

Descartes argues that the cogito, along with the goodness of God who does not make a creature merely in order to decieve it, ensures there are certain and indutible truths about ourselves and the world which will ensure his project will be a successful one. But Descartes encourages the reader not merely to accept his arguments but to put them into practice themselves, hoping in doing so they will discover new truths about the universe which will be plain to anyone using the light of reason.

Descartes in his other works uses this method as a justification for his approach to science and mathematics. Descartes was in every sense a polymath; a trained lawyer, an excellent writer, a student of human anatomy (in which Descartes made many pioneering experiments and observations), a brilliant philosopher and (for his time) physicist, and a mathematician of genius. However, while much of his science is now plainly wrong and was superseded by better scientists such as Galileo and Newton, the agenda Descartes set for philosophy remains much the same even today, especially in the Analytic tradition. Philosophy owes to Descartes two great achievements, one, in applying more rigorous logical methods to philosophical problems while paying attention to the results of science, and second, the re-introduction of skepticism into philosophy which provides a valuable check against dogmatism, but which would only truely be extended to its fullest possible means by David Hume.

Whether or not one ultimately agrees with Descartes's arguments, it must be acknowledged he is a great geius who stands shoulder to shoulder with people like David Hume, Liebniz, Spinoza and Kant, who all radically changed the way philosophers look at the world and the problems it poses.

I needed this book for my doctoral studies. I needed it for research and needed it quickly. I am very pleased with the delivery service and the book

I leave it to the reader to determine the merits of Descartes' thinking; that this work is seminal is obvious and needs no exegesis (nor does explanation of the text do any good for those who have yet to read it). The Cambridge edition is in my opinion the best out there for the English speaking world. It is a clean, literal rendering that does a great job of capturing the Latinate sense of Descartes' terminology in English with minimal obfuscation.

Apologetics Concerning the Nature of Religion

Apologetics or is it antiapologetics, I have read Hodges arguments about cause and effect, primary and secondary causes in his work on systematic theology which was written a hundred years after this work. RC Sproulamong others discuss similar issues today with a contrary conclusion. David Hume's dialogue about the existence of God and the attributes of God does form some of the frame work for further philosophic and theological discussion. Some seems quite aimless like his discussion whether God is wholly other. Some theologians may make this statement and argument, but this certainly is not fundamentalist or scriptural perspective of God. What I found most interesting in this work is his discussion of causality. Mr. Hume's focus was on Natural theology or the idea that God could be perceived or not perceived through nature. But also included was knowing God through rationalization. To this he compared three notions:

{1} That there is a self existent Being who always existed, never created, and is the ultimate Cause of the whole universe. Something that never was caused, but is the cause of all else.

{2}That there is no ultimate cause. History is an infinite amount of causes and effects that has no starts or ends. Matter in some form has always existed and matter has always been in motion. Universe or galaxy may have a point of beginning, but not what it is composed of.

{3}At a point in time there was no matter, then at another point of time there was matter. The matter move in motion to develop things as we know it.

David Hume does not discuss the concept that simply nothing really exists. I would guess in an earlier work he had dismissed it in some form. It is my conclusion Mr. Hume found point one as absurd as point 2 or 3.

The other major focus of discussion in this work how an all knowing creator, who has all power, and has the capacity to perceive every thing that is going on can create a world that has the highest being of creation suffer pain and evil among each other. The argument is made in this work that the universe does not function in a rational manner, therefore such all knowing, all powerful and all powerful God does not seem to exist. Some reviewers consider it a complete debunk of intelligent design and it certainly a source of comfort for those who do desire.

With the possible exception of his incalculably influential A Treatise of Human Nature, this, I think, is Hume's finest work. The Dialogues is a paradigm of sustained philosophical argumentation on a single subject, and I can't think of a more inspiring work of philosophy. Another reason to read this book is that Hume is one of the few philosophical figures whose work is worth reading as literature. His prose is, of course, lovely and clear as can be; and the Dialogues is packed with the sort of evocative passages that readers of Hume except to find in his work. Furthermore, he's clearly mastered the dialogue format as a way of writing philosophy. He never turns his interlocutors into ciphers spouting the details of their respective positions. Each character has a forceful and distinct personality, and each of them comes to the debate with a well-defined position and adequate means of defending it. In short, I can't recommend this book highly enough.

Most of the Dialogues is devoted to discussion of a posteriori arguments for the existence of God. The main argument considered here is the classical argument from design, which Hume seems to understand as an analogical argument of the following sort: the complexity and order of the universe show that it is similar to artifacts created by human intelligences; similar causes have similar effects; therefore, the universe must have been created by a being with something like a human intelligence; therefore, the universe must have been created by God.

Hume's objections to this argument are legion, and many of the individual objections are both ingenious and forceful. He provides reasons for thinking that the universe isn't all that similar to artifacts created by human beings. He argues, for instance, that at least in some respects, the universe resembles animal or vegetable life more than it resembles artifacts created by human beings. Hume also provides for thinking that, even if we think the universe is similar to a human artifact, we ought to think the universe was created by a being quite unlike God. The relevant empirical evidence, he argues, provides us with no good reason to think that the universe wasn't created by multiple beings (large human artifacts are usually created by multiple beings), or that the being(s) who created it are still alive (human creators die), or that the being(s) who created it were infinite (it's not clear that creating the finite universe would have required infinite power), or that the being(s) who created it were morally perfect (the universe, with all its misery and despair, certainly isn't what one would expect from a perfect being). Furthermore, he proposes certain alternative naturalistic explanations of the existence and nature of the universe; and he claims that it's unclear why an appeal to divine creation is to be preferred to these speculative naturalistic stories of the universe's creation.

As I hope this all-too-brief synopsis suggests, Hume's cumulative case against the argument from design is quite impressive. It is, of course, possible to avoid some of these criticisms in various ways, and his speculative naturalistic explanations leave quite a bit to be desired. But the total case is a philosophical demolition par excellence. Indeed, I'm pretty sure that Hume has shown that the argument from design is more or less worthless as support for anything resembling traditional theism. So, if you're enamored of that argument, I suggest you pick up book and wrestle with the criticisms found here.

Now, this isn't all Hume discusses in the Dialogues. There's a section discussing a priori arguments for the existence of God; it focuses on arguments against a version of the cosmological (i.e. first cause) argument. And Hume's arguments concerning the cosmological argument also rule out any sort of ontological argument, as he claims that no sense can be made of the idea of a necessarily existing being. The book also includes a few some brief discussion of particular issues concerning religion.

Where, in the end, does Hume come down on the issue of theism? It's hard to tell, as it's not clear that any of the particular characters speaks for him. Philo, the character who often appears to be speaking for him, never denies the existence of a deity; he simply denies the ability of human reason to discover anything substantial about what such a being is like. That Hume agrees with this is, I think, the most we can glean from this text about Hume's own religious views. It seems clear that he has no sympathy for organized religion, or for any religious views that purport to describe the nature of God, His intentions, or how and why He created the universe as He did. And the only positive religious claim that is given respectful treatment here is the bare claim that we have reason to think that the cause of the universe as a whole is somewhat similar to a human intelligence.

But does acceptance of this minimal thesis amount to his being a theist? Again, it's very hard to tell. First, of course, one might wonder whether this fairly vague positive view is enough to amount to some form of theism. But let's put that issue to one side. Even if it is enough to support some form of theism, it's often difficult to tell whether Hume means to be advocating such a position here. The problem is that it often seems Hume's explicit advocation of this position amounts to little more than a description of what he thinks is an inevitable human tendency to think this way. Given how our minds actually work, he seems to think, we're bound to think something like this about the origin of the universe. Yet it's somewhat unclear that he thinks forming beliefs in this way is reliable. It may simply be that we have a brute instinct to think in a way that insures we'll see the world as resulting from some human-like intelligence, and it's at least not clear that that isn't a debunking account of the plausibility of theism. (For more support that this is a debunking explanation, see his The Natural History of Religion, where the explanations of various religious beliefs certainly seem to be one's that suggest those beliefs simply aren't plausible.)

David Hume made a reputation by writing on reason and its limits. The main thrust of the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion is to question whether theological arguments for God that assign Him positive attributes (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc.) go beyond reason's limits in assigning these attributes. We watch Cleanthes (believer in theological arguments), Demea (believer more on faith) and Philo (disbeliever in theology's efficacy) hash out whether reason and experience alone give us reason to say anything whatever about God.

Hume explores all of the major arguments for God's existence. First, the a posteriori argument is explored; the argument that just as seeing a house gives us reason to assume an architect and builder, seeing the world should give us reason to infer a designer. Hume (through the skeptical voice of Philo) sees much wrong with this argument. Why? Because the reason we infer a builder for a house is because experience has shown us that houses have builders, thus when we see a house, we assume that, like other houses we've seen, this one too has a builder. But experience does not tell us that where there is a world, there is a designer. The leap is extra-experiential. Further, even if we DID infer a designer, why infer just one? Houses have construction crews of multiple people; if we analogize between the house and the world, then why not infer that the world, too, might have infinite creators? (And why infer that the world's creator is omnipotent, if all that is needed to create something is to be more powerful than the thing created - no more, no less?)

Next, we go through the a priori argument - the argument from first cause. Hume (Philo) is quick to point out the obvious flaw with this. If everything needs a cause, then what caused God? If God is said to be eternally existing, then why couldn't the natural world - rather than God - be thought eternal instead? And further, why is a infinite chain of causes and effects so unimaginable, anyhow? (Isn't it just as sensical as an eternal God itself not caused?)

Lastly, Philo brings up the argument from evil. In a nutshell, Philo suggests that while theology sees all the perfections of the world, proclaiming them clear evidence of remarkable design, theologians dismiss or downplay the imperfections. If God is said to all-good Himself, then why did he create humans with such flaws? (one assumes that an all-powerful, all-good God could have avoided those errors).

Still, the main thrust of this book is that Philo, far from challenging whether God exists, challenges theologies capacity to assign ANY characteristics to God by reason and experience alone. Hume does a good job not only in outlaying arguments as to why reason is not capable of knowing a thing about God, but also in making believable dialogues (compared to Plato, whose characters are all made to be one-dimensional foils for "Socrates.") As in so many other areas, Hume was a pioneer in the realm of the philosophy of God. This book furnishes strong proof of that!

David Hume, a philosopher of the period often classified as British Empiricism, is the intellectual associate of philosophers John Locke and George Berkeley. Born in Edinburgh in 1711, he attended the University of Edinburgh but did not graduate. He went to France during his 20s, and spent time there working on what would become his most famous work, 'An Enquiry into Human Understanding', first published under the title 'Treatise of Human Nature'. However, Hume was a prolific writer, and dealt with many areas of philosophy, including politics and ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics. He wrote in the area of history as well, and had a politic career as British ambassador to France and a post as a minister in the government for a few years. His final work, 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion', was published posthumously in 1779, although work had begun on it as early as the 1750s.

Hume was very concerned about rationality. Hume was never publicly and explicitly an atheist, but his rational mind, concerned about sensory and intelligible evidence, led him to question and doubt most major systems of religion, including the more general philosophical sense of religion and proofs of the existence of God. The primary arguments in his 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion' deal with the Argument from Design, and the Cosmological Argument. There is an assumed distinction here between natural religion and revealed religion, an especially important distinction in the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment philosophical structure.

- Natural Religion and Revealed Religion -
Natural religion is the idea that we come to know and understand God (and, consequently, what God wants or expects of us, if anything) simply from nature and our sensory perceptions, as well as our interpretations (emotion and rational) of this kind of understanding. From very early in his writing career, Hume attacked the idea of natural religion and most of its conclusions, drawing a sharp line between what we can actually know and what ends up being fanciful extrapolations based on other-than-rational ideas and evidence. Revealed religion is primary what most religions base themselves upon - the burning bush to Moses, the resurrection and post-resurrection appearances to the Apostles, the Buddha's enlightenment under the tree - these are examples of revelation. While Hume does take on the idea of revealed religion in his other works, this particular text does not concern itself with that topic, and stays in the domain of addressing natural religion.

- The Argument from Design -
Arguments from Design have always had a strong appeal to believers within religious frameworks; they have often been used as tools of evangelism, as attempts to show that beyond the revealed doctrines, the very nature of things points to a creator. In very short order, the Argument from Design in Hume's newly-industrial time might have read like this:

- Machines are designed by beings with intelligence.
- The world and the universe it is in resembles a machine.
- Therefore, the world must have been created by means of intelligent design.

This is an argument by analogy, and is convincing to some, but often more convincing to those already inclined to believe in the existence of God.

- The Cosmological Argument -
The Cosmological Argument is at once both more subtle and more simple. The most simple way of stating it would be that God is the 'first cause' of everything. If everything has to have a cause (even the whole universe), then that first cause must be God. In the twentieth century era of thinking of a universe that began with a Big Bang, it seemed to some that the Cosmological Argument was confirmed.

Hume would have been familiar with Leibniz's more subtle form of the Cosmological Argument, which argues for a world of infinite contingent causes. However, there has to be something outside of this system of infinite causes that produced the series - thus, even in a universe with no set beginning or ending, there would still need to be an overarching cause.

- Hume's Arguments -
Hume argues on many levels. His first criticism of the Argument from Design is that this analogy (as are most arguments from analogy) is faulty and not exact; we have no idea if the universe is like a machine. Even if it was, machines are often designed and built by several designers - why argue for one God rather than several? How do we know that matter and the universe don't have their own, internal self-organising principles?

With regard to the Cosmological Argument, the argument is a little more strained. Hume argues that, in any series of causality, once one knows about each cause, it makes no sense to inquire beyond the sequence of causes to some other effect. This is a very Empirical argument, to be sure, and while perhaps not entirely satisfying, it still has merit in philosophy to this day.

- Hume's Structure -
This is a dialogue, set up in the classical way of people talking with each other about the subjects. Hume draws primarily from Cicero, whose work 'On the Nature of the Gods' uses characters of the same names. However, whereas Cicero was concerned about the nature of the Gods (their attributes, powers, etc.) and not their existence, it is the very existence of God that occupies Hume's thoughts.

Hume, despite many years of work on this text, probably never quite thought it was finished. He left the work to Adam Smith (the noted economist, and friend of Hume in Edinburgh), who also thought the arguments against the existence of God were too strong, and likely too damaging to Hume's overall reputation. The tug-of-war over the publication makes for interesting reading in and of itself.

These are important arguments, worthy of discussion and dialogue in philosophy classes, theology classes, and among others who ponder the existence of God.

This short and artfully written book was published after Hume's death. Hume did not wish to experience the controversy engendered by the arguments advanced in the book. It is likely as well that Hume was concerned also with offending some of the moderate Presbyterian clergy who were his personal friends and had been his partisans in other controversies. This book is primarily an attack on the idea that the exercise of reason and logic provides support for religion, and particularly that application of reason leads to strong evidence for the existence of a beneficient God. This line of thought had become particularly popular among liberal theologians in the first half of the 18th century and was a widely held notion among Enlightenment intellectuals across Europe and North America. This idea is still widely held today and can be seen in the writings of the so-called 'intelligent design' advocates of creationism. Hume's criticisms, then, are not only of historic interest but continue to have relevance to our contemporary lives.

The Dialogues are constructed as a 3 cornered argument between three friends. Demea, a man upholding revealed religion against the idea that reason provides support for the existence of God. Cleanthes, an advocate of natural religion. Philo, a skeptical reasoner who attacks the positions held by Demea and Cleanthes. For those who like Hume's sprightly 18th century style, this is a fun book to read. Hume artfully divides some of his strongest arguments between Cleanthes and Philo, and gives the Dialogues the real sense of a dispute among 3 intelligent friends. Philo is generally taken to represent Hume's positions but Cleanthes articulates some strong arguments and provides some of the best criticisms of Demea's fideism. Much of the book is devoted to attacking the argument from design, which Cleanthes attempts to defend against assaults from Philo and Demea. In many ways, the argument from design is the major idea of those supporting the natural religion approach to existence of God. Hume's critique is thorough and powerful. It even includes an anticipation of Darwin's idea's of selection, though the basis for Hume's critique is primarily epistemological. In the later parts of the book, Hume attacks also the comsological argument for the existence of God, though this discussion is relatively brief and a bit confusing. Hume's analysis is consistent broadly with much of his philosophical work. In many ways, his great theme was the limitations of reason, and this book is an example of his preoccupation with the relatively limited role of reason in establishing certain facts about the universe. He finishes with short criticisms of the idea that religion is needed for a stable and well ordered society and defends the usefullness of skeptical reasoning.

It is important to view the Dialogues as part of a critique of religion that Hume sustained in several works. His Natural History of Religion, the On Miracles section of the Enquiry Concerning Human Understacing, and other essays comprise a broad criticism of religion. Other pillars of religion, such as the existence of miracles and revelation, are criticized in his other work. While Hume denied being an atheist and was apparently disturbed by the dogmatic atheism of French philosophes he met in Paris, he was certainly not religous in any conventional sense.

This is a short and very readable book but the power of its arguments are totally out of proportion to its length.

I gave this book five stars because of the all the reasons mentioned by the previous reviewers. After reading Michno's accounts of the battles in my area, I am left with the impression that he's been out here walking the battlefields himself.

That shows the kind of dedication needed to make a reference book like this really valuable. If you don't already have a copy, you'd better get one. It's going to be a classic.

For anyone interested in the late 19th century, this will be an invaluable reference and a healthy counterbalance against some of the politically correct fantasies being churned out by Hollywood and the scattered remains of our once great educational system. I use mine all the time and learn something new every time I pick it up.

Excellent chronological record of the relevant actions of the frontier army from the offical govt/public record.

If you are interested in ALL the battles and skirmishes in the west, this book is for you. I was amazed to see how many fights took place in my part of the country. The author has done extensive research, but I could do without the occasional editorializing when defending the U.S. Cavalry.

Many books call themselves an encyclopedia of this or that but turn out to be simply random collections of information on their topic. However, Gregory Michno's Encyclopedia of Indian Wars: Western Battles and Skirmishes, 1850-1890 really is a miniature encyclopedia of the Indian Wars fought between the U.S. Army and various Native American tribes or groups during the period when Euro-Americans came to dominate the western United States.

The bulk of the book (345 out of 438 numbered 5x9" pages) consists of brief descriptions of 840 major and minor battles and "firefights" that occurred in twenty Midwestern and Western states/territories and adjoining parts of Mexico. The descriptions are arranged chronologically within each year, 1850-1890. Drawing largely on Army after-action reports, Mr. Michno's narratives are heavy on facts for each event: when, where, who, casualty counts and immediate results. By providing the names of many Army officers and NCOs as well as significant members of their Native American opposition it is possible to get a feel for some of the participants' careers over a number of years.

One of the most useful features is a 32-page introductory section of state/territory maps showing the locations, tied to accompanying lists and page references, for every action described in the book. This allows readers to locate all the events in a particular locale regardless of when they took place.

A conclusion and appendix section has several interesting statistical tables summarizing the intensity of the actions in terms of numbers of actions each year, the number of combatants involved and casualties incurred. Twenty-two pages of reference notes, a 16-page bibliography and a 27-page index increase this book's value as a reference for further research or reading. In my opinion the most interesting of the scattered black and white photos of those showing the battle sites in recent years, but the photos are not a strong part of the book. There are no maps showing more detail than the simple state reference maps.

Some reviewers lament the author's supposed apologetic view of the Army's involvement, but I didn't read the book that way. The dominant perspective is that of the U.S. Army and other non-Indians because it is mostly from their records, the only ones available in many instances, that the descriptions are taken. The bulk of the narratives are summaries of facts included in the reports (the weakest link, as in any such war, being the casualty count inflicted on the adversary). If anything, the facts often portray the Army poorly in that its often impossible to glean from the description any rationale for the Army initiating a particular action - and sometimes getting beaten - and there are numerous occasions mentioning non-combatants (primarily women and children) being injured, killed or taken prisoner (i.e., hostage).

I don't think the author's perspective on the infamous Wounded Knee Creek action on December 29, 1890 is apologetic of the Army, just politically incorrect. That's because Michno points out not only that the Lakota suffered 128 killed and 33 wounded (a lerge number of whom were non-combatants), but that the Lakota, in turn, were not passively massacred but inflicted 60 casualties (25 KIA, 35 WIA) on their 7th Cavalry adversaries. That was the largest number of casualties suffered by the 7th Cavalry apart from the Little Bighorn battle. Who knew?

My main complaint is that the day-by-day format sometimes makes it hard (despite references to prior or subsequent related events) to trace a particular multi-day or even multi-week or month campaign. For instance, the 1877 Nez Perce War is hard to follow because unrelated events elsewhere are intertwined in the same months. If the author revises this book I'd like to see a reference section with maps and a listing that groups significant campaigns together in some fashion.

Highly recommended as background reading and a reference to keep for anyone interested in the Indian Wars, American history or military history. Makes an excellent companion book when touring historic sites associated with the Indian Wars (I bought my copy on a visit to the Little Bighorn Battlefield last spring).

If you live in the West this book is absolutely fasinating. The familiar small city names and familiar places, together with an excellent set of maps adds depth to your understanding of your surroundings. But be prepared for an unflinching look at some very brutal episodes though, this is not a sanitized Hollywood version of the West. This is the real deal from a real deal historian.

Gittin' Western describes a life style rapidly disappearing from America's West and ties directly to our western heritage. Very entertaining and enlightening read. Writing is tight, visual & packed full with honest emotion. Couldn't help but to laugh & cry thruout. When the book ended, I wanted more.
Duane Wiltse has created a rare wonderful story you shouldn't miss.

Don't think twice about buying this book.

Like the story of Jeremiah Johnson, this real life mountain man's story will capture your imagination and heart. Duanne, his family, and his "plenty woman" live the dream that many of us can only ponder. Great read!

Gittin' Western by Duane Wiltse is the inspiring and gripping story of one man's struggle in pursuit of his life's dream to establish a big game hunting business. Having moved from Michigan to the frontier of the Wyoming and western American Rocky Mountains, Gittin' Western tells of Wiltse's experiences with runaway horses and mules, forest fires, the bureaucratic constraints of the government, bear attacks, the assistance of New Mexico Indians, the death of his wife, and so much more. An engaging autobiography. Gittin' Western is very highly recommended as an entertaining memoir for readers with a interest in the candid story of a western life.

A wonderful engrossing story about life in the west, told as if you were there, sharing the campfire with Duane and his compatriots. He gives personal as well a philosophical insights to his experiences, suggesting life as it used to be--and still is. I've recommended this to many people, several of whom have used it for their book clubs. A great read!

I wanted to finish the book the first night I started reading it but instead I strung it out over a week so I could look forward to reading more each day. Duane's spirit of adventure struck a chord in me and will inspire anyone who loves the mountains and the wild west and who has dreams and a desire to follow them. His honesty, wit and vulnerablity made for a very entertaining story. I laughed and I cried and I was sad to finish the book. Thanks Duane for sharing your life with us and good ride cowboy, good ride. Chris Nolt, Bozeman, Montana.