Michigan Books

This book is a must-read for anyone who lives or vacations in Northern Michigan ... and for anyone who loves to read beautiful essays that share a sense of place. You can dip into this book anywhere you like and find something delightful that will rekindle fond memories of this special and magical part of Michigan. Wonderful regional literature.

I loved this book. Kathleen Stocking has captured what is so very, very special about an area which I have considered my second home for over fifty years. Her descriptions of the locals and the landscape are on target. In as much as we have similar backgrounds, I also stongly identify with her inner quest for what is truly important in life.

John Stuart Mill's "liberty principle" caused a great schism between his and James Stephen's ideas of human nature, the public role of religion, and society's duty in setting moral standards for its citizens. James Fitzjames Stephen lived from 1829 to 1894. After serving as a judge in India for three years, Stephen decided to write a critical analysis of Mill's book, while on his long voyage back to Great Britain in 1872. While Stephen was in India, he observed with great trepidation, political changes taking place back in Great Britain after the passage of the Reform Act of 1867. This legislation granted voting rights to male urban workers. "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity was the most penetrating defense of conservative values written in Victorian times--and after Burke and perhaps Coleridge, the most important work of English conservative thought." However, Stephen's book never really caught on in his lifetime. Alexander Bain recorded Mill's only known comment on Stephen's book. Stephen "does not know what he is arguing against; and is more likely to repel than to attract people." These were very prophetic words, "Stephen suffered the fate of most men out of step with their age: unable to attract any school of thought, his ideas failed to bear fruit in his lifetime." While Mill's book On Liberty has had numerous printings after its publication, Stephen's book laid virtually dormant until 1967, when it finally came back into print. Though Stephen failed while he was alive to garner a multitude of adherents to his cause, his ideas have earned a considerable amount of vindication in the latter half of the twentieth century.

Stephen distilled Mill's "liberty principle" theory down to every person pleasing himself without harming his neighbor. This means that every moral system that interferes with Mill's "liberty principle," "either to obtain benefits for society at large other than protection against injury or to do good to the persons affected, would be wrong in principle." This leads Stephen to think that Mill had made a fatal flaw politically in his "liberty principle," when he said that free discussion was primarily all that society needed to rule its citizens. Once again, Stephen thought that Mill put too much faith in education advancing humanity to a place where a shared social morality would become obsolete. Stephen made his point with a bit of wit when he wrote, "Society cannot make silk purses out of sows' ears." First, Stephen argued that a large portion of the population has been and always would be either uneducated, or of dubious character. Second, Stephen argued that most of law-abiding society did not feel particularly constrained by the moral force and law imposed by society on them. After all, most of the citizens have enacted and supported these moral standards and laws through their elected representatives in government. Stephen agreed with Mill, that people felt most restrained in their actions by public opinion and from social ostracism.

Once again to restate the issue, Mill's main reason for proposing his "liberty principle" was to free people from the constraints placed on them by the moral values, customs, and mores of society. Mill wanted people to have unfettered freedom to experiment with their lives provided it did not harm others. Stephen rightly concluded that societies used force of morality and sometimes the law, depending on the severity of the act, in order to guard against social ills that a society deemed dangerous to its existence. "Laws and moral systems are conditions of life imposed upon men either by political power or by the force of argument." Thus, Stephen took great umbrage with Mill's "liberty principle," because it disallowed three types of coercion that Mill argued society had no business imposing on its citizens, since they did not meet the standard of self-protection, or of preventing harm to others. These three types of coercions are,

1. Coercion for the purpose of establishing and maintaining religions.
2. Coercion for the purpose of establishing and practically maintaining
morality.
3. Coercion for the purpose of making alterations in the existing forms
of government and social institutions.


Stephen pointed out, that all three type of coercion's were examples of coercion used by people in their opinion for the betterment of society. Simply stated, the world of politics and the world of morality cannot exist separately. Since these coercive forces went against Mill's "liberty principle," Stephen concluded that Mill would consign every system of morality to the dustbin.
Stephen believed that the correct answer in how to build and maintain a healthy society came from his readings of the English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, and from religious morality. Hobbes lived from 1588 to 1679, and he greatly influenced Stephen's knowledge of human history and psychology. Both Stephen and Hobbes correctly perceive that humankind has been constantly in fear and conflict with one another, "Man has a fearful disease..." Stephen wrote Hobbes on Government for the Saturday Review, which illustrated the influence Hobbes ideas had on Stephen. In his essay, Stephen writes, "If no one or more men had the power of issuing to others such commands as appeared reasonable to themselves, there would be no such thing as society amongst men." Stephen understands, as Thomas Hobbes did, that force lies at the root of all government. "People are said to govern others by law, where they influence their conduct by imposing laws upon them." In politics, moral persuasion and coercion went hand-in-hand, and Stephen expanded on this duality of moral persuasion and coercion to illustrate his point. One could not be a political leader without the ability to use moral persuasion to convince others to follow their leadership, and while possessing the capability of consolidating the force and power of their numbers. Stephen correctly realized, that it was only natural for people, when they came together to form societies, to bring with them shared religious and cultural values that would serve as the foundation of the society they wished to build.

Stephen's experience, as an attorney and judge, gave him a unique insight into human psychology, which had him arguing that most of the social ills perpetrated by humankind were done out of evil or weakness of willpower, and not out of ignorance. To illustrate his point in his argument, Stephen used, as an example, the poor plight of the drunkard. No drunkard would admit to making a reasoned choice to become a drunkard. If asked to reflect on their choice, they would freely admit that they had no willpower to stop their drinking habit. Looking at human misconduct, which Stephen saw a lot of as an attorney and judge, he adamantly believed that persuasion of argument alone, an idea that Mill supported, could do little to persuade people to change their mischievous ways. Thus, Stephen refuted Mill's idea of reasoned discussion being an adequate amount of force to change a person's actions. Only people that had control of their willpower would be open to change through the force of a reasoned argument. It was Stephen's experience that coercion through punishment and force of law, more times than not, changed one's conduct when they were devoid of an adequate willpower. Moral persuasion also had the ability to point to the consequences of one's actions. One could say that Society's laws were morality and force working in conjunction. Moral persuasion caused people to act in accordance with the law, because the force of punishment instilled fear in them. Stephen understood the human psychology of how in most cases, when moral persuasion and force were applied together to elicit the same outcome, some people considered themselves persuaded, while others considered themselves forced to commit the same act. This fact becomes abundantly clear for anyone who has raised or worked with children. One can observe how children react differently to the same argument. When adults ask children to conduct themselves in a certain way, some children persuaded by the reasoning of the argument will comply, while other children would have to be threatened with some form of punishment to comply. The preceding examples help to illustrate how society winds up infringing on people's liberty every day. People will always have to make choices based on moral persuasion and force, and once they choose, they will have to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Based on their character and psychological makeup, their actions will receive either reward or punishment. As a whole, this is how society operates; it persuades morally or threatens, causing people to act accordingly. Stephen rightly articulated that laws and punishments were nothing more than outgrowths of moral precepts, which were handed down by religious institutions in order to establish and maintain moral values that citizens of a society agreed to follow.

In fact, as a society matured, it would find many of its moral values evolving; thus, becoming constantly debated. Therefore, when Stephen observed what was taking place during the current political affairs of his day, he saw that even small issues before Parliament engender endless debate with seemingly no resolution, until finally a majority forms to solve the issue on their own terms. "Parliamentary government is simply a mild and disguised form of compulsion." Stephen observed that moral force was even more influential in his time, and would be so in the future. The most that one could hope for was that one could regulate and subdue the government's use of force. However, Stephen astutely observes that, "President Lincoln attained his objects by the use of a degree of force which would have crushed Charlemagne and his paladins and peers like so many eggshells."

Stephen knew through his study of history, that no amount of economic progress, improvement in education, freedom of religion, or political equality would change the fact that any society would always embrace shared moral, religious, and cultural values. Simple human nature taught Stephen, that most of the citizens in any society would want to impose their moral values and beliefs on all the members of the society. The majority of citizens in any society will constantly be jostling for the adoption of their beliefs, and will be probing the boundaries of how far they can impose their beliefs on the rest of society. Thus, the very best that citizens of a society can hope for is that those people who are in power, and have the public trust of most of a nation's citizens will follow Stephen's examples of legislative restraint, and respect for people's privacy as he defined privacy.

I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, and history.

John Stuart Mill's "liberty principle" caused a great schism between his and James Stephen's ideas of human nature, the public role of religion, and society's duty in setting moral standards for its citizens. James Fitzjames Stephen lived from 1829 to 1894. After serving as a judge in India for three years, Stephen decided to write a critical analysis of Mill's book, while on his long voyage back to Great Britain in 1872. While Stephen was in India, he observed with great trepidation, political changes taking place back in Great Britain after the passage of the Reform Act of 1867. This legislation granted voting rights to male urban workers. "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity was the most penetrating defense of conservative values written in Victorian times--and after Burke and perhaps Coleridge, the most important work of English conservative thought." However, Stephen's book never really caught on in his lifetime. Alexander Bain recorded Mill's only known comment on Stephen's book. Stephen "does not know what he is arguing against; and is more likely to repel than to attract people." These were very prophetic words, "Stephen suffered the fate of most men out of step with their age: unable to attract any school of thought, his ideas failed to bear fruit in his lifetime." While Mill's book On Liberty has had numerous printings after its publication, Stephen's book laid virtually dormant until 1967, when it finally came back into print. Though Stephen failed while he was alive to garner a multitude of adherents to his cause, his ideas have earned a considerable amount of vindication in the latter half of the twentieth century.

Stephen distilled Mill's "liberty principle" theory down to every person pleasing himself without harming his neighbor. This means that every moral system that interferes with Mill's "liberty principle," "either to obtain benefits for society at large other than protection against injury or to do good to the persons affected, would be wrong in principle." This leads Stephen to think that Mill had made a fatal flaw politically in his "liberty principle," when he said that free discussion was primarily all that society needed to rule its citizens. Once again, Stephen thought that Mill put too much faith in education advancing humanity to a place where a shared social morality would become obsolete. Stephen made his point with a bit of wit when he wrote, "Society cannot make silk purses out of sows' ears." First, Stephen argued that a large portion of the population has been and always would be either uneducated, or of dubious character. Second, Stephen argued that most of law-abiding society did not feel particularly constrained by the moral force and law imposed by society on them. After all, most of the citizens have enacted and supported these moral standards and laws through their elected representatives in government. Stephen agreed with Mill, that people felt most restrained in their actions by public opinion and from social ostracism.

Once again to restate the issue, Mill's main reason for proposing his "liberty principle" was to free people from the constraints placed on them by the moral values, customs, and mores of society. Mill wanted people to have unfettered freedom to experiment with their lives provided it did not harm others. Stephen rightly concluded that societies used force of morality and sometimes the law, depending on the severity of the act, in order to guard against social ills that a society deemed dangerous to its existence. "Laws and moral systems are conditions of life imposed upon men either by political power or by the force of argument." Thus, Stephen took great umbrage with Mill's "liberty principle," because it disallowed three types of coercion that Mill argued society had no business imposing on its citizens, since they did not meet the standard of self-protection, or of preventing harm to others. These three types of coercions are,

1. Coercion for the purpose of establishing and maintaining religions.
2. Coercion for the purpose of establishing and practically maintaining
morality.
3. Coercion for the purpose of making alterations in the existing forms
of government and social institutions.


Stephen pointed out, that all three type of coercion's were examples of coercion used by people in their opinion for the betterment of society. Simply stated, the world of politics and the world of morality cannot exist separately. Since these coercive forces went against Mill's "liberty principle," Stephen concluded that Mill would consign every system of morality to the dustbin.
Stephen believed that the correct answer in how to build and maintain a healthy society came from his readings of the English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, and from religious morality. Hobbes lived from 1588 to 1679, and he greatly influenced Stephen's knowledge of human history and psychology. Both Stephen and Hobbes correctly perceive that humankind has been constantly in fear and conflict with one another, "Man has a fearful disease..." Stephen wrote Hobbes on Government for the Saturday Review, which illustrated the influence Hobbes ideas had on Stephen. In his essay, Stephen writes, "If no one or more men had the power of issuing to others such commands as appeared reasonable to themselves, there would be no such thing as society amongst men." Stephen understands, as Thomas Hobbes did, that force lies at the root of all government. "People are said to govern others by law, where they influence their conduct by imposing laws upon them." In politics, moral persuasion and coercion went hand-in-hand, and Stephen expanded on this duality of moral persuasion and coercion to illustrate his point. One could not be a political leader without the ability to use moral persuasion to convince others to follow their leadership, and while possessing the capability of consolidating the force and power of their numbers. Stephen correctly realized, that it was only natural for people, when they came together to form societies, to bring with them shared religious and cultural values that would serve as the foundation of the society they wished to build.

Stephen's experience, as an attorney and judge, gave him a unique insight into human psychology, which had him arguing that most of the social ills perpetrated by humankind were done out of evil or weakness of willpower, and not out of ignorance. To illustrate his point in his argument, Stephen used, as an example, the poor plight of the drunkard. No drunkard would admit to making a reasoned choice to become a drunkard. If asked to reflect on their choice, they would freely admit that they had no willpower to stop their drinking habit. Looking at human misconduct, which Stephen saw a lot of as an attorney and judge, he adamantly believed that persuasion of argument alone, an idea that Mill supported, could do little to persuade people to change their mischievous ways. Thus, Stephen refuted Mill's idea of reasoned discussion being an adequate amount of force to change a person's actions. Only people that had control of their willpower would be open to change through the force of a reasoned argument. It was Stephen's experience that coercion through punishment and force of law, more times than not, changed one's conduct when they were devoid of an adequate willpower. Moral persuasion also had the ability to point to the consequences of one's actions. One could say that Society's laws were morality and force working in conjunction. Moral persuasion caused people to act in accordance with the law, because the force of punishment instilled fear in them. Stephen understood the human psychology of how in most cases, when moral persuasion and force were applied together to elicit the same outcome, some people considered themselves persuaded, while others considered themselves forced to commit the same act. This fact becomes abundantly clear for anyone who has raised or worked with children. One can observe how children react differently to the same argument. When adults ask children to conduct themselves in a certain way, some children persuaded by the reasoning of the argument will comply, while other children would have to be threatened with some form of punishment to comply. The preceding examples help to illustrate how society winds up infringing on people's liberty every day. People will always have to make choices based on moral persuasion and force, and once they choose, they will have to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Based on their character and psychological makeup, their actions will receive either reward or punishment. As a whole, this is how society operates; it persuades morally or threatens, causing people to act accordingly. Stephen rightly articulated that laws and punishments were nothing more than outgrowths of moral precepts, which were handed down by religious institutions in order to establish and maintain moral values that citizens of a society agreed to follow.

In fact, as a society matured, it would find many of its moral values evolving; thus, becoming constantly debated. Therefore, when Stephen observed what was taking place during the current political affairs of his day, he saw that even small issues before Parliament engender endless debate with seemingly no resolution, until finally a majority forms to solve the issue on their own terms. "Parliamentary government is simply a mild and disguised form of compulsion." Stephen observed that moral force was even more influential in his time, and would be so in the future. The most that one could hope for was that one could regulate and subdue the government's use of force. However, Stephen astutely observes that, "President Lincoln attained his objects by the use of a degree of force which would have crushed Charlemagne and his paladins and peers like so many eggshells."

Stephen knew through his study of history, that no amount of economic progress, improvement in education, freedom of religion, or political equality would change the fact that any society would always embrace shared moral, religious, and cultural values. Simple human nature taught Stephen, that most of the citizens in any society would want to impose their moral values and beliefs on all the members of the society. The majority of citizens in any society will constantly be jostling for the adoption of their beliefs, and will be probing the boundaries of how far they can impose their beliefs on the rest of society. Thus, the very best that citizens of a society can hope for is that those people who are in power, and have the public trust of most of a nation's citizens will follow Stephen's examples of legislative restraint, and respect for people's privacy as he defined privacy.

I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, and history.

Written by the late Neil Shine, longtime editor and former publisher of the Detroit Free Press, Life With Mae: A Detroit Family Memoir is the true story of daily life in Detroit as well as a biography of the author's strong-willed and spirited mother Mae. Born in 1909 in a small Irish town, Mae worked as a housekeeper at fourteen, and saved enough money for a one-way ticket to the United States by age eighteen. Life With Mae recounts her quirks, enthusiasm, protection, and love, as well as her identification with and compassion for the poor and downtrodden. An inspirational memoir and tribute.

If you are looking for good writing, a good story, a happy and moving biography; if you're interested in Ireland, in the immigrant experience and a true story that screams to be made into a movie; if you're interested in the newspaper world, in short if you for once want your money's worth when you buy a book, this one is unputdownable.

It's the sort of book that when you reach the last page, you start reading all over again at the beginning and enjoy it just as much - or more - the second time around.

In sum: A classic.

This is a delightful book about a delightful person and place, and I think most kids would love it. I also think most parents (and grandparents) would love the way it imparts not just information, but understanding, without being preachy or school-bookish at all. That it is also a coloring book makes it even more fun for the little ones and even a better buy for parents (and grandparents). I don't want to give away the story, but it gives children a fresh insight into the Christmas story, as only a doting grandfather could do it. Maybe the best thing is that it "transports" kids away from the cartoons and television commercials of the season, and back to the true meaning of the holiday. I keep coming back to the word "delightful" and I guess that is my review in a single word.

The Little House on Buchanan Street is a very sweet little book that crosses the ages; small children can color the pages while being read to, older children may get a good message about what Christmas really means by reading it and adults can enjoy the book and interact with the children in their life. I loved it!

I was impressed to find this book at my public library. It is an important remembrance of some of the movements that were occurring during the 1940's through the 1990's. Lots of acronyms! Some of the history of the splits in the Party got tedious.

It was interesting to read about some of the options people had besides the Panthers, to hear the view of taking responsibilty, not only blaming the man for the situation. And to reaffirm the idea that a great shift in society needs to occur before we can have true equality.

NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!

Con Hilberry, a gifted poet and lifelong academic, attempts to get inside the minds of two sociopaths. It is an interesting experiment. Written in the first person, and interspersed with long quotes from his many recorded interviews, this is nothing like any other true crime book you will have read. Well worth reading, it is a shame that this book has not been more widely distributed. This is the book that could have rejuvinated the stagnant and gory genre of true crime. It's time to put Capote and In Cold Blood aside. This is the real deal.

In 1964, Luke Karamazov (then known as Ralph Searl) killed 5 men in cold blood. He was arrested, confessed, tried, convicted and sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole. In 1972, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed his sentence. While Ralph was awaiting retrial in Kalamazoo, 4 women were raped and murdered in the area -- and a few weeks later, Ralph's older brother, Tommy, was arrested for those crimes. Unlike Ralph, Tommy never confessed, but he too was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Ralph accepted a plea agreement to avoid retrial and was again sentenced to life; as part of the plea, he was allowed to change his name to Luke Karamazov.

Conrad Hilberry was a Professor of English at Kalamazoo College at the time of these crimes and the resulting trials, and became interested in the story of two brothers who were both convicted of serial murders. "I began to wonder who these men were and how they got that way. I wondered if I could talk with them." (25) Talk with them he did, as well as with Julie, the woman who was married first to Tommy (before his crimes) and then to Ralph (while in prison). This book is largely a record of those conversations, along with Hilberry's observations and attempts to make sense of their personalities. Hilberry gives us long extracts from his recorded conversations -- mostly with Ralph and Julie, less with Tommy -- and largely allows the events to be told by them, in retrospect. This is not an attempt to reconstruct the crimes or the circumstances of the Searls' childhood, but an effort to understand who they are now, in prison, and who they may have been when they killed. Because Hilberry allows the Searls to tell much of their story in their own words, we obtain a unique insight into their thought processes and feelings.

Hilberry is not an investigative reporter, nor is he a psychologist, criminologist or lawyer. Some people might conclude that he is not qualified to write this book. Hilberry is, however, a poet, and he brings a poet's close observation and insight to his comments on these men. I found his perspective unique and fascinating, and his efforts to understand the Searls in the larger context of the human project -- balancing the assertion of the individual ego against the desire for transcendence -- persuasive. Highly recommended.

This is the only really serious study of the Lyceum in American culture. I think Merle Curti would have been proud to mention this study in his "Growth of American Thought" where he bemoans the fact that no satis-
factory study of the Lyceum movement exists in 1951. But even today there is a surprising dearth of serious studies. So, Prof. Ray deserves all the admiration for a job well done!

The word "lyceum" is a Latin word with a Greek derivative that was a name for the god of the sun. The association with classical learning and culture and the "enlightening" the audience of lyceum events would undergo were intentional. The idea of the lyceum in America arose in the early 1800s as a means to provide common knowledge and ideas, or at least some common experiences, for the population of an America that was expanding geographically, changing demographically from large numbers of immigrants, and engaging with the early phases of industrialism and new inventions such as the steamboat. Lyceums throughout the U. S., including frontier areas, were seen by both promoters and audiences as matrixes for unity and communication for the increasingly complex democratic society. In spite of the high-mindedness and vision of their originators, it wasn't long before lyceums were holding circus-like entertainments and other events straying from their intended purposes. But lyceums drew large local audiences wherever they were held, inevitably playing a large part in forming the democratic public culture, much as the universality and eclecticism of television does today. The lyceum--the numerous ones in all parts of the country--is studied not only as representing the diversity and interests of 19th-century America, but also as a central, fundamental ground of rhetoric as "that art by which culture and community and character are constituted and transformed." Though "lyceum" is now an antique word and only traces of the idealism of its originators remain, one recognizes by Ray's historical and social study that the lyceum contributed greatly to the foundation of a unique American culture. This author is a professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Northwestern University.

If you are looking for a gift book that someone will remember, this is it. This is the kind of book that imparts information in a clever and entertaining way. Readers learn about mail delivery to the Great Lakes freighters, while enjoying the heartwarming story of a little girl sending her Dad a birthday card while he is working on the freighters. The illustrations are beautiful, and really add to the story. This book should be in every school's library.

This is a beautiful book, it is well written and extremely accurate. The book tells a story about a young girl who wants to send her father a birthday card. Her father works as a sailor aboard a Great Lakes freighter and she is happy to learn that a boat in Detroit, Michigan delivers U.S. Mail to all ships passing Detroit. She sends his card and he receives it a few days later when his ship passes Detroit. The illustrations are also wonderfully done and very accurate. What I liked best about the story is that it is educational and emphasizes a strong family bond. I rated this book five stars and have bought several copies as Christmas presents and have donated a copy to my daughters school library.

This is beautiful book. It is well researched and the information is presented thoughtfully. The quality of the printing, binding and map reproduction is excellent. This is a fascinating read for anyone interested in the Great Lakes Region and it's history. I highly recommend it.

Expertly compiled and deftly edited by David I. Macleod (Professor of History, Central Michigan University), "Mapping In Michigan & The Great Lakes Region" is a compilation of twelve studies that, taken together, illustrated the many different configurations taken by geographical, urban, and property maps of and around the Great Lakes and the state of Michigan, including changes within a single region. The sixteen learned and expert contributors reveal the history of the area's cartography and deal with such specifics as the peninsulas and freshwater seas, the history mapping this region, how the Europeans appropriated and settled these lands, social and political negotiations and conflicts, and more. Profusely illustrated throughout with reproductions of historic maps from the beginnings of regional exploration down to the present day, ""Mapping In Michigan & The Great Lakes Region" is a seminal work of meticulous and articulate scholarship which is very strongly recommended for academic library American History reference collections, as well as a personal library acquisition selection for cartography enthusiasts.

Short of a Stanley Lombardo translation -- Where are you, Stanley? -- that would do Xenophon full justice, this is a fine, taughtly crafted version of the Anabasis. Rouse is all vernacular, and all business. Still, Lombardo would put more swagger in the warriors' exploits, and sharpen their tongues. Rouse sometimes erred on the side of middle-America "mass market" folksiness, but only slightly. Here is a passage from the first page that captures his nice, streamlined sense of pacing:

"But when Dareios died and Artaxerxes succeeded, Tissaphernes slandered Cyros to his brother and said he was plotting against him. The king believed him, and siezed Cyros to put him to death, but his mother begged him off and sent him back to his province. When Cyros got clear of this danger and disgrace, he determined never again to be in his brother's power, but to make himself king instead, if he could."

Now, here's a passage from the Rex Warner translation (Penguin), which takes nearly half again as long with the same ideas:

"But, after the death of Darius, when Artaxerxes was established on the throne, Tissaphernes maligned Cyrus to his brother and accused him of plotting against him. Artaxerxes believed the story and arrested Cyrus with the intention of putting him to death: but his mother by her entreaties secured his life and his recall to his province. Still, after the danger and disgrace from which he had escaped, Cyrus took measures to ensure that he should never again be in his brother's power; instead, if he could manage it, he would become king in his brother's place."

This is one of those books you have on your list of "books-I-am-going-to-read-someday." Okay, someday arrived. I should have read it decades ago. This is a fairly good translation and the story is written, as was the custom at that time, from the third person point of view. The story begins with a bang and immediately carries us into the expedition itself. When a Greek mercenary army attempts to help Cyrus overthrow his relative, (his brother, Artaxerxes, was the Persian King), it marches all the way to Babylon to give battle...and wins! But Cyrus is killed in the battle and the Greeks find themselves stranded. After the Greek generals are killed in a treacherous parley, the army does not disintegrate, as Artaxerxes and the Persians expect. Instead, they elect new officers, Xenophon among them, and proceed to march out of the Persian Empire across 1,500 miles of hostile terrain teeming with savage adversaries. Xenophon employs a straightforward, soldierly style as he describes people, places and events. It is a wonderful narrative and the action keeps you turning pages until the end. By a happy coincidence, history has preserved this enchanting adventure story. If you prefer to hear a recorded version of it, I recorded it for Audio Connoisseur and you can find it here at Amazon.