Comments on: Booklog Restored

By: Conservative Heritage Times » Russia and the West: The tragedy of 1204 all over again

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:05:25 +0000

[...] foreign affairs editor Dr. Srdja Trifkovic gave this address at the Robert Taft Club in Washington D.C. last night during the middle of their symposium: [...]

By: David Hamilton

David Hamilton — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 04:32:57 +0000

I am pleased to see Dryden being rehabilitated as he is comparatively neglected of the English poets. In many instances though, he wrote flattery and meaningless lyrics.
The exceptrions our models for aspiring poets now. I recall a poetry group at university and none were familiar with hs work. What I suggested to the grouyp was to takeDryden as a model for formif not content. He is the greatest versifier in the English literature. One example is his flattery ofthe Royal painter Sir Godfry Kneller. The run on line is masterful and the sense flows down the declining verse form like a harmonious waterfall. It repays repetative reading in that it improves the acolytes sense of form into which can run his own content.

By: Buy valium without a prescription.

Buy valium without a prescription. — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:48:21 +0000

Buy valium online without a prescription....

Buy valium online without prescription. Buy valium without a prescription. Buy valium online without a prescription. Buy valium without prescription....

By: Sir Charles Grandison

Sir Charles Grandison — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:34:16 +0000

I was particularly struck by the sheer ease and fluidity of Dryden's blank verse. The beauty and force of his style have me wondering whether it might have been the poetry of the seventeenth century (rather than its prose) that shaped, influenced and determined the splendid prose-writers of the British eighteenth century. I'm actually rather amazed at just how different classical and neo-classical tragedies are from the actual style of the three Greek tragedians. Classicism seems to arise out of Aristotle's theory rather than out of the plays he had considered and analyzed. While I know that Aristotle and the classicists emphasize the unity of time, space and subject within plays, why is it that all classicist plays all seem to focus on the *same* subject: namely, the need to decide between love for a person or loyalty to a ruler? On the other hand, when I read Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, it seems that their plays have a multiplicity of different subjects. I really appreciated having the opportunity to read both *All for Love* and *Anthony and Cleopatra*. Indeed I think the two ought always to be read together--the depth of the Dryden very nicely supplements the broad scope of the Shakespeare. But something that really stuck out at me while reading Shakespeare this time: I can't help but wonder whether the commentators in their footnotes often make his lines seem much more comprehensible and sensible than they really are. As for Dryden, it was a pleasant change of pace to read beautiful poetic language whose language was instantly and unmistakeably clear. Too often (perhaps under the influence of Shakespeare) I think critics associate "great poetry" exclusively with lines that have a "multiplicity" of meanings. This leaves too much room, I think, for nonsense to creep in and take on the appearance of "deep and brilliant" verse.

By: Lee

Lee — Wed, 30 May 2007 01:43:47 +0000

WRT Before the Dawn:, I don't know all the issues you plan to address. But I am particularly interested in the claim I have heard several times, namely that Darwin (and most subsequent moderns), having merely assumed a new and false notion of "chance" and thus having rejected, without argument, the ancient understanding of "chance", proceeded to produce nonsense. This ancient view of chance summed up by Aristotle with his statement that 'whatever happens always or for the most part cannot happen by chance". I also have heard that even Cicero had important things to say about chance that Darwin also ignored. At any rate I would be interested in TJF's understanding of ancient vs modern (Darwin and Wade) notions of chance. Thanks.

By: TJF

TJF — Wed, 23 May 2007 19:39:25 +0000

The introduction to Dryden has been expanded to include discussions of both plays. All that remains to be done is a brief conclusion.

By: TJF

TJF — Wed, 23 May 2007 14:50:49 +0000

Let us stick to Dryden this week.

By: TJF

TJF — Tue, 22 May 2007 18:27:11 +0000

I would like to discuss "Before the Dawn", though briefly, for two reasons; first, because it is a readable summary of what in general scientists in the field of human evolution are thinking these days and contains some thought-provoking theories about language, intelligence, and even race; secondly, because the logical leaps and unproved assumptions are a startling disclosure of how really irrational scientists are. It is simply not true that studying physics or biology makes one a more rational thinker. We'll do perhaps two weeks, in which we skim over a few main points. I used to study evolutionary theory in some detail, and this is an opportunity to return to the subject.

By: TJF

TJF — Tue, 22 May 2007 13:55:54 +0000

To Novalis (clever reverse for a pseudonym!): I agree on Pound. Bizarre as he often is--and nothing is more bizarre than the homage to Propertius--he helped to revive the whole concept of imitation as opposed to translation. I am happy to do a discussion of the Oresteia, on which I have lectured many times. I am currently revising my 1972 dissertation on the lyric meters of Aeschylus for publication in a monograph series. I'll try to figure out a good way of putting up a Booklog schedule. Perhaps it could be a button on the Booklog page. For now, I am going to move on (after we finish with Dryden's two plays) to Nicholas Wade's Before the Dawn, then Aeschylus' Seven Against Thebes, then Gregory the Great's Magna Moralia aka Commentary on the Book of Job--only conveniently available on the web, then Aeschylus' Oresteia, which is for my money the greatest dramatic work we know of, though a work quite alien to Anglo-American sensibilities.

By: Lee

Lee — Tue, 22 May 2007 13:55:16 +0000

I appreciate the return of the booklog. And I've just finished "All for Love". I think Molnar is a good choice; I've only read one of his books but it was interesting and thought provoking. I don't understand choosing "Before the Dawn:...". I've read half of it so far and it reads like most scientismist works including all evolutionary works. Evolution is never defined, nor prooved; it is merely assumed. It mixes a lot of trivia with a little genetics and hangs it on a scaffold of evolution. All the comments mentioning evolution seem gratuitous: that is there is no predictive aspect to it and you could make the basic statement, leave the evolution comment out and it would not make any difference. Its basic argument is evolution's seeming only one. Namely, here's our argument and since you don't have one or one that our philosophy allows, then we must be right. A better choice, it seems to me, if science is of interest, would be Feynmann's (even though an atheist, yet one of Americas great and original scientists) essay on science and his essay on cult cargo science.