Himmelfarb is a conservative ideologue who is extremely unsympathetic to Mill's liberalism, which she seems to view as the root of all cultural evil in modern America. Her thesis that there are "two Mills" (one a classical liberal, the other -- inconsistent with the first -- a radical feminist/socialist controlled by his wife) has been thoroughly discredited in the academic literature. It is simply a product of Himmelfarb's own confusions. The book is so misleading as to be worthless.

This book is an attempt by Ms. Himmelfarb to fit Mill into her vision of the 19th century. One only has to actually read On Liberty to realize that she hasn't suceeded. A more succinct (and less expensive) version of her thesis is her introduction to the Penguin edition of On Liberty. It is like having a creationist write an introduction to Darwin's Origin Of Species.

Yet another example of thorough and enlivened scholarship from this great historian! Professor Himmelfarb provides salient clues on the apparent dichotomy in Mill's thought, particularly in those areas of personal liberty and responsibility. Mill's abdication to his wife's opinions appears to be (unfortunately, in this case) the primary cause of the disconnect between the philosophy in most of Mill's work compared to that in his magnum opus, On Liberty. The supporting references on Mrs. Mill's impact are numerous and irrefutable, particularly Mill's own correspondence. This book is indispensible for those interested in Mill and his influence on Anglo/American thought.

I'm not qualified to comment on the above reviewer's opinions regarding the historical merit of this book, but I can say this: it is badly written. Pakenham is no prose stylist, and is often almost embarassingly clumsy. He needs an editor. However, I thought his sequencing skillful; but as I said, I'm no expert.

The photos in this abridged edition of Pakenham's book are worth seeing. They are incredibly beautiful and moving. The text of the book, however, is hard to follow and almost unreadable. This is a very abridged edition of the larger work. A great coffee table book, but look elsewhere for serious study of the Great Rebellion of 1798.

1798 REVISITED (Review of the unabridged 1969 edition)

Thomas Pakenham is a quintessential 20th century Anglo-Irishman, the son of the "Seventh Earl of Longford", an "Irish" title granted by a British monarch for past services probably best forgotten. Born and educated in England he still has Irish roots, including a family "castle" in Westmeath. Like many with his background he still has a genuine interest in Ireland and the Irish. He is an accomplished writer and journalist from a famous literary family. His father was also a gifted writer.

The subject of the book, the 1798 rebellion of the United Irishmen concerns a watershed event in Irish history with echoes down to the present. Intellectually fueled by Protestant dissenters imbued with the ideals of the French Revolution, with cannon fodder supplied by the Catholic peasantry concerned more with their day to day grievances against the English colonialists who treated them with contempt and arrogance, the rebellion's failure led to the Act of Union which fixed Ireland as part of the United Kingdom until this century. Oddly, it has been little dealt with by Irish writers and has been down-played in 1998, the 200th anniversary of the events, by a timid Irish Government fearful of stirring national sentiments at a time when they are trying to get rid of the Northern Ireland "problem" which has it's genesis in the very ghosts of 1798!

The book, first written by Pakenham when he was in his thirties, is an "academic" history, strong on military facts and figures and based mostly on the story left by the loyalist, colonialist side - not too surprising since most historians rely on the record left by the "official" (winners) sources and narrations from the side of the rebels are scarce - but non-existent. This is the problem with the book. With a little digging and a little more sympathy the book might have been able to explain the rebellion better than it does and might have had some of passion and life which it lacks.

The reader is left puzzled as to why the normally passive Irish peasants rose in fury and in their thousands to strike at their tormenters. There is no inkling of the life of the "hidden Ireland" of the Gaelic, Catholic majority as human beings. We see them only as bodies left on the battlefields, ignorant and ill-led. But this is not the full story. Their tradition of contacts with Catholic Europe, of supplying soldiers of the "Wild Geese" to European monarchs in the hundreds of thousands, the then stubbornly surviving Gaelic culture, and the reasons for their dogged adherence to the Catholic faith are all left unexplained by Pakenham. Without understanding these things a reader can hardly grasp why these virtual slaves rebelled or how their Irishness had survived the centuries of domination so that they COULD rebel. Pakenham's picture is of an emotional mob led by the odd priest here and there. People don't run at cannons on such a basis.

In 1798 they had come out of their mountains, forests and farmsteads in amazing numbers, armed mostly with primitive weapons, to confront the artillery, cavalry and guns of a modern state and its settler militia. Their courage was often remarked by the British military who opposed them and they died in their thousands. There WAS glory in their fight, but you will not find that spirit in this book.

Pakenham dispels many romantic notions about 1798 and this is acceptable because all historic writers should be revisionists. It is well to remember the atrocities on both sides. But Thomas Flanagan in his admirable historic novel, "The Year of the French" managed to keep a balance without dehumanizing the participants. Pakenham could have used some of that spirit. In his effort to dampen popular sentiment about "The Boys of Wexford", Pakenham squeezes the life out of those very real boys. They paid a heavy price, but ultimately they triumphed. There is no retrospective look in the book. There is no monument in Ireland to Pakenham's hero Cornwallis (in many ways a decent soldier) but at John Kennedy's funeral the band played..."The Boys of Wexford". This book doesn't explain why that could happen. Maybe he'll do better in the new abridged edition.

Albert Doyle, American Ireland Education Foundation

I have not read the book, but I have spent several hours reading Ms. Savard's bio on her own website and her own excerpts form her books. I fail to see the connection she makes between what Jesus said to Peter and "binding and loosing" strongholds in our lives. Prayerfully check the context and look up more verses on your own that say how God can change us. We do not need a "new" revelation, or a new formula for prayer, we need to submit to the Truth as written in the Bible. God is faithful and I would rather be led by God around the desert 3000 times than by a mere human, even if she, Ms. Savard promises me she can "fix" me faster!

Ms. Savard does not provide any "magic formula" or "miracle cure". She DOES take the inerrant Word of God and helps us to make it useful and practical in our lives. She helps us to see that God will not force us to do that which is not our will, but shows us the "keys" to align our wills with His.

By applying the principles that Ms. Savard lays out (principles based soundly on the Word of God!), I have taken responsibility for allowing/permitting God to assist me in freeing myself from the bondage of anger/bitterness/hatred/unforgiveness/etc.

While these books may not be for everyone, I personally have found them to be of great value.

This book gave the reader no information abot the cluture and History. I would not recomend this book to any one!!!

While Lukowski's work is not easy to get through, being rather dense, Liberty's Folly is the richest and most exhaustive analysis of 18th century Polish society available in English. Lukowski has drawn upon a large range of sources to produce a description of 18th century Polish society at every level- from the nobility through the townspeople to the peasantry. The second part of the book constitues a handy summary of Polish chronological history in the 18th century. The patient reader is rewarded with a social historical explanation for a (once) great nation's demise: the tragic combination of the domination of Poland by the nobility, a weak urban class, and an enserfed peasantry.

My rating of this book as one of "the worst" does not refer to its academic prowess. The footnotes are all there, and the style is passionate and intense, typical of most anti-pornographers' heady intellectual indictments of one genre of media for all our gender woes. It is the worst, to me, because it is the ultimate gathering of the forces of illogic which drive the anti-pornography forces. The most extreme example of how far these people will go to attempt to prove their points comes in Itzin's own contribution, in which she relates the story of a South-African farm worker who was murdered for the amusement of the farm owner's dinner guests. Because pictures of the gruesome undertaking were shot and passed around, Itzin compares these pictures to pornography such as centerfolds. Surely this would enrage the family of the murdered man to hear his death trivialized in this way. Itzin goes on to claim that the "free speech" defenses of pornography imply that such photos (of Kasire's death and of naked women, who supposedly could not willingly choose to pose so graphically) are not only comparable, but that the distribution of both are similar crimes. Never mind that Marcia Pally has pointed out that if photos and descriptions of a rape are destroyed, the rape remains while the evidence does not. Never mind that the horrific descriptions of graphic pornography included in this book would be illegal themselves under such laws as the Proposed Minneapolis Pornography Ordinance, written by MacKinnon, who seems to be Itzin's mentor and contributed to this collection of essays. Never mind that Nadine Strossen has pointed out that women do not experience any particular freedom from rape or domination in cultures in which the production of pornography is a punishable offense. Never mind logic when we can tell by looking at pornography that it's nasty. Why not stigmatize women even more by pointing out that they're too helpless and deluded to make their own choices about whether to read or participate in pornography--good God, do these creatures even have enough sense to VOTE? I think that at least some of these anti-pornography crusaders are more obsessed with porn than any of the porn "addicts" they describe. True feminists would be out helping sex workers to get better working conditions rather than marginalizing them in the way to an even greater extent. This anti-pornography view is not "radical;" it conforms to the traditional perception of women as requiring virtue in order to lead meaningful lives. It seems to me that they ought to be attacking the concept of female virtue (oh, fate worse than death!) rather than the existence of male sexuality!

Whether women willingly participate in pornography or not, itis still trash. This book simply show the effects of porno on malebehavior. Is a South African female being murdered for pleasure the same as Pamela Anderson Lee posing nude for playboy, no, of course not. BUT the fact that women like Lee pose nude to gratify their own greed for money, and men's selfish lusts creates an environment where women can be objectified to the point where a female servant can be murdered for pleasure. This book very nicely presents the research that suggests that pornography has a profound effect on how women are viewed and treated, and that there is a connection between women who willingly participate and those that do not. For example perverts that are steeped in the garbage of pornography use women like Pamela Anderson Lee and other porn stars as an excuse for victimizing women, they say, "well if Lee likes it then this girl must". The above reviewer in New York takes a very liberal view towards porno. The book was well written and well researched. Did some of the connections seem strained (i.e. those that are willing participants and those that aren't? Maybe to the liberal mind who is afraid of offending anyone by taking a stand on a moral issue. Should feminists marginalize those in the porn industry? No, they should speak for all women and should work for the betterment of all women. Yet, the research clearly shows that women are harmed by pornography as well as men, that is why feminists fight so hard against the porn industry. This book is a VERY zealous effort in that direction.

I originally bought this book for 2 reasons:

1. To find out what all the hoopla is about Dr. Soroush.
2. To discover what Islam has to say about Reason, Freedom , and Democracy.

After purchasing and reading this book, I have to conclude that neither of my goals have been achieved. Regarding reason number 1, I still do not understand why this person has become so center-staged in Iranian politics and contemporary issues. I have to resort to my own theory about him. Maybe because he has fallen out of favor with some of the ruling mullahs, and therefore had to leave his homeland and earn a living writing philosophical or pseudo-philosophical books. Now the answer to reason number 2 is even less clear. I can only conclude that the title has nothing to do with the subjects of the essays. He does write about reason, freedom, and democracy, but where is the Islam? Maybe the title should have been: The Ideal of Reason, Freedom, and Democracy as wished by an Iranian intellectual exile from the Islamic Republic.

Anyway, I am completely disappointed with this book. Still, I give it 1 star because the author at least had a good sense not to remain in Iran and move to Cambridge, Massachusetts!

Undoubtedly, this text constitutes an essential contribution to the discourse of ideological resistance within contemporary Iranian society. Soroush, as a phenomenally visible public intellectual, has commanded an unrivaled status among those more conservative participants in the revolutionary cause, although the extent to which his writings can potentially incite a tangible political movement remains to be seen. With respect to this particular compilation, the exercise of translation is certainly exceptional and the readability with which the inherent complexity of Soroush's fusion of Islamic theology and modern philosophy is conveyed throughout the course of the book proves admirable. Nevertheless, this text warrants one primary criticism in that it fails to provide a theoretical contextualization of Soroush's thoughts amidst the aftermath of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. More precisely, there is a definite need for further elaboration on the relationship of Soroush's intellectual contributions to the socioeconomic and cultural state of Iran as we now confront it, the nation's stace vis a vis the project of modernity, and the global marginalization which the country has been compelled to endure at the hands of an authoritarian theocratic apparatus.

Too bad there is no zero rating. The editors have killed too many trees to create this work which runs in the face of comprehension and educates on nothing.

I must agree with the reviewer from Seattle. It's very unclear what the editors had in mind, or for what purpose this book would be used.

To judge a book of quotes on a general subject one must look at the job the editors did. What did they put in? What did they leave out? Simple research in the index reveals the slant. e.g. Quotes from presidents and vice presidents since 1960: Reagan, Nixon, Bush, Ford, Agnew, Quayle with 36 year of service in national office were quoted a sum total of twice. Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Gore, Humphrey and Mondale with a total of 28 years of national service were quoted 72 times. Hillary Clinton alone was quoted twice. The editors can't even find quotes from Reagan on "American Values and Virtues?" I would not be so critical if the Title was changed to: "Some American Values and Virtues" or "American Values and Virtues we Approve"

Migliore claims to be a Barthian of sorts, but Barth would be appalled. The irony is that in Dr. Migliore's anxiety to escape any received traditions that might be man-centered and deeply intertwined with our (oppresive) human social orders, he has so gutted his theology that there is nothing transcendant left of it either. He classifies all the classic, ecumenical attributes of God (absoluteness, immutability, omnipotence, etc., see the rant on p.78, for example) as human metaphysical constructs, so in the end there is nothing left of God, at least not as he is revealed in Scripture.

Dr. Migliore knows his theology and has taught for over 30 years at (arguably) America's most prestigious mainline Protestant seminary (Princeton). You get the sense that the classic liberal/neo-orthodox models leave him wanting and empty, so he grasps for a political/social fad in hopes of finding something truly redemptive. Sort of pray he will try the timeless Gospel of grace instead, and find real, lasting 'liberation' there.

A better critique of Liberation Theology is by Ronald Nash.

Like James Dunn sytle, with careful exegsis on selected passages from epistles of Paul. However, discussing that kind of living issue, more real life observations and applications will surely enrich the content and make this book more enjoyable and useful.

Let the buyer beware! I should have recalled this adage and examined my purchase more carefully.

I am now the owner of writings by the new John Milton, a politically correct John Milton, a John Milton that rejects manhood for adulthood and rejects man for person. This new Milton embraces the humanist pronouns hu and hus and hum, non-sexist third person pronouns. He, his and him and she, her and hers are no more.

Milton's quotation of Euripides is likewise changed. Euripides now says' "And hu who can and will, deserves high praise". Euripides stands corrected.

Milton's use of archaic English has also been modernized. Milton has cast aside much of his seventeenth century English. This Bandanna Books version of John Milton is no longer John Milton, but an altered, censored revision.

Ironically, in the essay Areopagitica John Milton is arguing to the Parliament of England for freedom of the press, specifically for the liberty of unlicensed printing. Would John Milton have approved this modern, secular, nonsexist version of his essay?

Milton would have agreed that Bandanna Books had a right to publish, but I suspect that he would have argued that that Bandanna Books had a moral obligation to label the book cover to indicate that Milton's essay had been significantly altered to fit a peculiar nonsexist standard.

Bandanna Books in Santa Barbara, California offers other humanist works including Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass, Plato's Apology and Crito, and commentaries by Confucius. Unless you find comfort in hu, hus, and hum, I suggest that the traditional Whitman, Plato, and Confucius might be adequate and that you look elsewhere. Let the buyer beware!

"Hu", "hus", "hum"? Ho hum.

John Leonar

Prospective buyers of this edition should be aware that it is edited; some of Milton's words have been changed, either to modernize or to "humanize" (that is, eliminate sexist usages by the replacement of he/she, him/her, etc. with bizarre "hu", "hum," etc. This is not a worthy edition of Milton's great text!