Customer Reviews:
Brilliant, beautiful, polemical.......2007-10-13
This is a wonderful study of the astronomical works of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, opposing "science-mythography" (p. 15) and arguing instead for the thesis that there is an "indistinguishable unity of the mystic and the savant" (p. 14, cf. also p. 426), all in exuberant and beautiful language, e.g., "gravity, to Copernicus, is the nostalgia of things to become spheres" (p. 196), or, on Kepler's theory that planetary orbits have "the shape of an egg, with the pointed end at the perihelion, the broad end at the aphelion,"---"no philosopher had laid such a monstrous egg before" (p. 329-330), etc.
The hero of the story is Kepler. He has the mark of a true genius: the ability to balance beauty and truth. This is epitomised by his "idée fixe" that the regular polyhedra determine the planetary distances, which "determined the course of his life, and remained his inspiration throughout it. ... 'The delight that I took in my discovery,' he wrote later, 'I shall never be able to describe in words'" (p. 247), despite minor setbacks such as the fact that it is dead wrong, as he knew pretty much all along. The point generalises. "On the one hand, he throws away a cherished theory [of Mars], the result of years of labour, because of [a] wretched eight minutes of arc. On the other hand he makes impermissible generalizations, knows that they are impermissible, yet does not care. And he has a philosophical justification for both attitudes. We heard him sermonising about the duty to stick rigorously to observed fact. But on the other hand he says that Copernicus 'sets an example for others by his contempt for the small blemishes in expounding his wonderful discoveries. If this had not been always the usage, then Ptolemy would never have been able to publish his Almagest, Copernicus his Revolutions, and Reinhold his Prutenian Tables. ... It is not surprising that, when he dissects the universe with a lancet, various matters emerge only in a rough manner.'" (p. 334-335).
Indeed, Copernicus' theory could not be defended on empirical grounds. It made no progress in terms of accuracy. For example, "Ptolemy's orbit of Mars disagreed conspicuously with the observed data, but in the Copernican system it was equally faulty---so much so, that later on Galileo was to speak with admiration of Copernicus' courage in defending his system, although it was so evidently contradicted by the observed motions of Mars!" (p. 212). Nor did it make any progress in terms of simplicity: "contrary to popular, and even academic belief, Copernicus did not reduce the number of epicycles, but increased them (from 40 to 48)" (p. 192). In fact, Copernicus' work "did not even succeed in remedying the specific faults of Ptolemy which it had set out to remedy. True, the 'equants' had been eliminated, but rectilinear motion, which Copernicus called 'worse than a disease,' had to be imported in their stead" (p. 212). And Copernicus' point about the sun that "'Sitting on the royal throne, he rules the family of planets...'" is marred by the fact that the planetary orbits are centred not at the sun but at a point slightly off from it so that "there are thus two 'royal thrones'", as it were (p. 193-194).
Copernicus of course knew all this perfectly well, and that is why he did not publish until his last year. "It was not, as legend would have it, religious persecution that he had to fear" (p. 150). In fact, he lived in "the golden age of intellectual tolerance" (p. 151). Instead, it was his "almost hypnotic submission to authority which became [his] undoing, both as a man and a scientist. As Kepler was to remark later on, 'Copernicus tried to interpret Ptolemy rather than nature'." (p. 199). The observations of the ancients "have been handed down to us like a Testament", he said, and insisted, still "when he was past fifty", that he who does not respect them "will get what he deserved for believing that he can lend support to his own hallucinations by slandering the ancients" (p. 200). But "ten years later he was to confide to Rheticus that the ancients had cheated him, that 'they had ... arranged many observations to fit their personal theories about the movements of the planets'" (p. 200). "He must have felt that the bottom had fallen out of his system. ... Apart from his fear of ridicule, it must have been this realization of its basic unsoundness which made him so reluctant to publish the book" (p. 200), "because he was torn by doubt regarding his system, and knew that he could neither prove it to the ignorant, nor defend it against criticism by the experts" (p. 153).
So Copernicus' theory does not stand up to scrutiny by the standards by which it is usually praised. It is a great work all the same, since it fixes the planetary distances, without which Kepler's "idée fixe" would have been impossible. It is a good thing, then, that Kepler and Copernicus had the good judgement to look beyond mere facts and empiricism. It would have been quite different otherwise. "As Burtt remarks: 'Contemporary empiricists, had they lived in the sixteenth century, would have been the first to scoff out of court the new philosophy of the universe.'" (pp. 212-213). By empirical standards, astrology had a much better track record: "The belief in the effect of the constellations derives in the first place from experience, which is so convincing that it can be denied only by people who have not examined it." (Kepler, p. 244).
Enter Galileo, the white knight of empirical science. By what we just argued, we would expect Galileo to be a step backwards. Indeed, he dismissed Kepler's correct law of ellipses on the basis of his own incorrect law of circular inertia (cf. pp. 475-476), and he dismissed Kepler's correct explanation of the tides in favour of his own silly theory of tides, his purported proof of the Copernican theory, which, to be fair, was never all that empirical or scientific in the first place since "it contradicted Galileo's own researches into motion, was a relapse into crude Aristotelian physics, and postulated that there ought to be only one tide a day, precisely at noon---whereas everybody knew that there were two, and that they were shifting around the clock" (p. 453-454).
The rest of the book is a crusade on Galileo. Kepler and Galileo communicate for the first time in 1597, and Kepler writes in his letter that he hopes it will be "the beginning of a friendship" (p. 358). Unfortunately, "he waited in vain for an answer to his exuberant overtures. Galileo withdrew his feelers; for the next twelve years, Kepler did not hear from him" (p. 360), until Galileo sent him his Star Messenger, "accompanied by a request for his opinion. Galileo had never answered Kepler's fervent request for an opinion on the Mysterium, and he had remained equally silent on the New Astronomy. ... Although Kepler was not in a position to verify Galileo's disputed discoveries, for he had no telescope, he took Galileo's claims on trust. He did it enthusiastically and without hesitation, publicly offering to serve in the battle as Galileo's 'squire' or 'shield bearer'---he, the Imperial Mathematicus to the recently still unknown Italian scholar." (p. 370). "The weight of Kepler's authority played an important part in turning the tide of the battle in [Galileo's] favour, as shown by Galileo's correspondence" (p. 371), but "Galileo's reaction to the service Kepler had rendered him was ... complete silence. The Tuscan Ambassador at the Imperial Court urgently advised him to send Kepler a telescope to enable him to verify, at least post factum, Galileo's discoveries which he had accepted on trust. Galileo did nothing of the sort. The telescopes which his workshop turned out he donated to various aristocratic patrons." Still four months later "not a single astronomer of repute had publicly confirmed having seen the moons of Jupiter. Kepler's friends began to reproach him for having testified to what he himself had not seen" and he again wrote to Galileo only to learn that Galileo could not lend him a telescope since he had given it "to the Grand Duke who wished 'to exhibit it in his gallery as an eternal souvenir among his most precious treasures'" (pp. 374-375). To make matters worse, Galileo frequently refused to share his latest discoveries, instead putting out anagrams to secure priority. Kepler tried to solve the anagrams, but his poetic sense was to great. One anagram he turned into "Hail, burning twin, offspring of Mars" when the correct solution was something much dryer: "I have observed the highest planet in triplet form" (p. 377). Kepler should have known better since "some passages of the Sidereus Nunicus would almost qualify for the austere pages of a contemporary 'Journal of Physics'." (p. 365).
Another clash between Galileo's ego and Kepler's dedication to the progress of science is the discovery of sunspots. Scheiner observed the spots and his account was sent to both Kepler and Galileo for their opinions. "Kepler answered immediately. He recalled having himself observed a sunspot ... which he had mistakenly assumed to be Mercury passing in front of the sun. He laughed at his mistake, then quoted reports of similar observations dating back to the days of Charlemagne; then gave his opinion that the spots were a kind of dross, due to the cooling of the sun in patches. Galileo delayed his answer for more than three months, and then claimed the priority of the discovery for himself" (p. 429), and was later, in the Dialogue, to refer to himself as "the first discoverer of the solar spots, as also of all other celestial novelties" (p. 477).
In his late age, "carried away by sudden fame" (p. 438), Galileo staked his prestige in supporting the Copernican theory as physical truth. Since he had no physical evidence other than his ridiculous theory of tides, Galileo had to rely on various nonsense arguments, such as, for example, his explanation of the miracle of Joshua. Galileo claimed that "if the rotation of the sun were to stop, the rotations of all the planets would stop too," including their daily rotation, for which there was of course no evidence whatsoever, and then concluded that when Joshua cried: 'Sun, stand thou still,' the sun stopped rotating, and the earth in consequence stopped both its annual and daily motion. But Galileo, who came so close to discovering the law of inertia, knew better than anybody that if the earth suddenly stopped dead in its track, mountain and cities would collapse like match-boxes ... Joshua would have destroyed not only the Philistines, but the whole earth" (pp. 438-439). Still, Galileo refused to listen to reason, proclaiming instead that his opponents were "'mental pygmies', 'dumb idiots', and 'hardly deserving to be called human beings'" (p. 485), and "thought himself capable of outwitting all and making a fool of the Pope himself" (p. 489). The church were of the sensible opinion, expressed by Bellarmine, that ""if there were a real proof that the sun is in the centre of the universe ... then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary. But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me." (p. 448). Galileo may well have been left alone if he was not "'...of a fixed humour,' the Tuscan Ambassador reported, 'to tackle the friars head on, and to fight personalities who cannot be attacked without ruining oneself'" (p. 464). Realising this, Galileo backed down when brought before the Inquisition, maintaining instead that the Dialogue was not pro-Copernican at all but that in fact "I have ... rather demonstrated the opposite of the Copernican opinion". This pretence was "so patently dishonest that his case would have been lost in any court" (p. 485), and indeed Galileo suffered a humiliating defeat and came out of the court, "in Niccolini's words, 'more dead than alive'" (p. 489).
Of course, one should also read the furious review of this book by Santillana & Drake in Isis.
Cream of the Crop.......2006-07-09
I read Koestler's "Darkness at Noon" way back yonder and was impressed with it. This work far surpasses that book and is one of the most lucid I have read about the giants of astronomy. This book ought to be required reading!
A Masterwork.......2006-01-23
Koestler has written a superb summary of the early history of science. The views expressed are certainly partial but it is almost impossible not to be transported by Koestler's prose into a world inhabited by Aristotle, Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler and Galileo. It is a wonderful exploration of the progress of science and I would recommend it to anyone interested in the history and philosophy of science.
A GREAT INTELLECT, PERHAPS, BUT A HIGHLY PREJUDICED ONE!.......2005-10-04
Arthur Koestler was touted throughout his life by many for his courage, insight and style, qualities he exhibited in works such as Darkness At Noon. But in this book, he appears more interested in swiping at great scientists with a broad axe than in providing unbiased insight regarding their works and achievements.
He has a special enmity for Galileo, whom he accuses of arrogance, ego-centricity, outright falsehoods, and a wide range of various admirable qualities. The author uses Galileo as a poster boy for everything he dislikes or mistrusts about scholars, stating "... scholars have always been prone to manias and obsessions, and inclined to cheat about details; but impostures like Galileo's are rare in the annals of science." He launched into this tirade simply because Galileo was mistaken in his theory of the cause of tides, almost ignoring the fact that Galileo was correct about everything else.
Keep in mind that Koestler wrote this in 1958, 320 years after Galileo's trial and 35 years BEFORE the Catholic Church admitted that Galileo was correct about supporting Copernicus.
Several books have been written since that treat the Galileo situation in a much more enlightened manner, especially Galileo, Science & The Church and Galileo Heretic. Both are at least as readable as Koestler, fare more broad-minded and much more intellectually honest.
Finally, I found it both amusing and frustrating that much of Koestler's attacks on Galileo et al is based on their arrogance and self-confidence; I have never read a text more arrogant in its tone than this one, and Galileo, Kepler, Newton and the rest possessed far greater qualifications for their statements and opinions, in the scientific arena, than Koestler. As someone pointed out, Koestler was a great advocate of ESP, a belief that still retains far less evidence of its existence than the most imaginative conclusions and theories of Galileo and the rest.
If this is Koestler's best example of intellectual honesty and perception, the rest of his works are surely easily dismissed.
How did I miss this book?.......2005-05-09
How did I miss this masterpiece? Perhaps, because it is not referenced in all the histories of astonomy and cosmology I have read; it gets short shrift from the academics. Koestler was not an astronomer. Thank heavens! May we have more such amateurs!
This is the best history of asronomy and one of the wisest books I have ever read. . Koestler applies his knowledge, his life, his experiences, to this topic, and places the astonomy of each period beautifully within the context of the politics, religion and philosophy of the time. And shows, with crystalline clarity, how one (philosophy) could pollute the rest.
It is the best written book I have ever read on a scientific topic. On almost every page, the eloquence, intelligence and skill of Koestler illuminates a point obscured or ignored in other treatments. He brilliantly shows how astonomy suffered the same decline as the other sciences and technologies, for the same reasons, and puts this in the context of a collapsed Grecian and a collapsing Roman world seeking refuge in religious obscurantism for 1,200 years.
He laments the same point Carl Sagan makes in "Cosmos"; Plato and Aristotle cost us a thousand years of technical progress..Sagan points out that the people who built the medieval cathedrals lived in housing and health conditions worse than the Greeks. Koestler wryly observes that we were delayed the benefits of Satellites and Hydrogen bombs for the same interval.
He treats evenly with all the icons we have learned to revere. Copernicus was a coward and a lecherouos churchman, who opens his great book with a clumsy lie. Kepler was almost a raving lunatic (for good reason). Galileo is described as one of the truly offensive and annoying men of science, rarely giving credit, treated better than he deserved by the Church, and finally caught up by his defence of a book which he probably did not read. Amazingly, Galileo was no astonomer at all; just one who happened to do some early telescopic observations, and then attempted to establish a monopoly on observations for himself.
My eternal thanks to Owen Gingerich for his reference to this book. The jury is out, in my mind, on the other two volumes of his technical triptych, but this is an undoubted masterpiece.
Customer Reviews:
The Scientific Revolution Begins with the Dowfall of Aristotle's Physics.......2005-10-17
The Scientific Revolution:
As spelled out in the introduction, to the book based on his lectures in 1948 the Scientific Revolution, popularly associated with the 16th and 17th century, has started much earlier than the Renaissance. Butterfield advanced the notion of its eruption was caused by the 'destruction of Aristotaslian physics,' that was crucial to the development of science that was the basis of western civilization. This is the best praise for an Alexandrian scientist he never mentioned, the sixth century dean of the academy in Alexandria, John Philoponus.
Butterfield's Historiography:
Thomas Kuhn was a milestone in the historiography of science by studying in depth how science evolved with new established concepts and ideas and how these catalyzed displacing the old ways of thinking with brisk new methods. What one of Kuhn's obituaries noted, "We all live in a post-Kuhnian age," so more applies with Butterfield treatment, especially when it concerns origins of modern science, which was not one of his favorite subjects. In the words of a history of science reviewer, Butterfield's observations that better described the underlying reality of the fields of science he considered lacked a scientific analysis that weakened his historiographic conclusions.
The Impetus Theory:
Although he started logically with the historical importance of 'Impetus Theory,'as the point of breakthrough, on obsolesence of the body of Aristotalian physics, he failed to identify, while Kuhn did, to dig out who effectively attacked it into rubble in the sixth century. On the same year, he revised the 'Origins' in 1957 Kuhn in,'The Copernican Revolution', wrote on page 119 that, "John Philoponus, the sixth-century Christian commentator who records the earliest extant rejection of aristotle's theory, attribute his ... to Hippacrius."
Early on, in his Origins, he discusses Buridan (14th century), who elaborated on projectile dynamics, and quoted Philoponus, before Copernicus who read him, when he studied in the university of Padua, under or with Galileo who paid respect to John's pioneering thought in dynamics and astronomy. (Essays on Galileo & the History and Philosophy of Science, S. Drake)
He missed the point again when he discussed the 'Downfall of Aristotle and Ptolemy,' which in both cases the Alexandrian Genius was the major catalyst many centuries before. This being said, the volume of books that were published in the last years, in the UK after his death, made the flaw even more obvious.
Basic reading?
'The Origins of Modern Science' is basic reading, keeping in mind it was an original work on the history and philosophy of science. Butterfield's lectures described the prevailing milieu of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries but did not give enough attention to their origins in the great city of science: Alexandria, which made the book core idea not supported.
An in depth modern treatment of the subject, in the Johns Hopkins Studies in the History of Technology is; "Science and Technology in World History : An Introduction"
Herbert Butterfield:
Butterfield, a British historian and philosopher of history, mainly remembered for his work on Interpretation of History. He taught at Princeton University (1924/5) and at Cambridge from 1928 to 1979. Butterfield's main interests were diplomatic history and historiography, and was highly concerned with religious issues, but he did not believe that historians could uncover the hand of God in history.
Superb Book.......2003-09-30
Professor Butterfield's history is easy to read and refreshing. Especially interesting are his chapters on pre-Newtonian mechanics and the transfer from Ptolemaic to Copernican models of the universe.
A Good, Basic Overview.......2003-06-09
The Origins of Modern Science, besides providing a scholarly overview of some of the developments of science in the west since late medieval times, advances the notion that the Scientific Revolution stands far above such epochs as the Renaissance or Reformation in importance to the development of western civilization. This, at least, was the impression I gained from the reading, and the latter point is spelled out in the introduction. Based on lectures of Herbert Butterfield first delivered in 1948, another goal is to stimulate interest in science history from historians, and also from the scientific community.
The modern reader has many choices of science history books from which to choose. For someone a little bit familiar with the field Butterfield's work is a good overview. For someone not familiar with the field, I think it would make difficult reading if not supplemented by other books or by classroom discussion. So far as his second goal goes, I think he is right about the importance of the Scientific Revolution, but his transition from what was to what became is weak. After Newton, Butterfield points out only that the numbers and organization of scientists increased. True, he points out that Newton's mathematization and simplification of the universe was tremendously influential on other fields of thought, but on the whole I don't think he's made the connection.
However, this does not mean that I think the work is without value. Rather, I find it well thought out and well written. The scope is necessarily limited by the original lecture format, but this also keeps the writing concise and focused. Although more recent historiography frowns on calling anyone a `great mind', I'm sympathetic to the point of view that the men involved in early modern scientific thinking were in fact great and intelligent, and should be commended for their work. This does not mean that Butterfield has presented a laundry list of Dark Ages Ignorance that was overcome by the lone genius, but he has accurately described the prevailing world views of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and explained how much effort it took to change or overthrow them.
Arrogant? No way. Challenging? Yes, and revolutionary too.......2003-05-16
A previous reviewer called the thesis of this book - that the progress of science in Western society was the main historical current from the thirteenth to the twentieth century, to the point of relegating Renaissance and Reformation to the status of side issues - "arrogant". To the contrary, it seems to me not only justified (which has more influence on the lives of all men today, rich and poor: Martin Luther or electricity?) but a very welcome corrective to the ridiculous overvaluation of the sixteenth century and its heresies. The largely coincidental presence of a number of outstanding painters and architects (and a few English and Spanish playwrights) have given this period a gloss that it did not deserve; for intellectual and historical significance, the thirteenth, fourteenth and nineteenth are infinitely more important. But as for Sir Herbert Butterfield's delightful masterpiece, what one has to understand is how much it destroys, not only of much historical prejudice, but specifically of the way the history of science itself was taught. His account, in his very first chapter, of the reaction of thirteenth- and fourteenth-century to Aristotle, of the existence of an anti-Aristotelian tradition which reached Leonardo, of the significance of the willingness to challenge an ancient authority not on the basis of another authority but of one's own observation and research - all of this is a desperately needed corrective of historiographical cliches that are still, a full half-century after Buttefield, being taught. Likewise the very title of his second chapter, "the conservatism of Copernicus". And I could go on. Every chapter, almost every page, knocks down some lazy stereotype that is still today being handed down from journalist to journalist.
But what is most important in this book is its central historical thesis: that science is not a "revolution" that exploded out of nowhere with Galileo (or even worse, with that desperate catch-all of ignorant scribblers, the Renaissance), but rather a tradition, you might say almost an apostolical succession, that goes back as far as the thirteenth century; that is, it is coeval with the rise of the distinctive Western (rather than Christian or Roman) civilization, with its distinctive cultural institutions - Universities and the private commercial publication of books. Butterfield's ability to discriminate, his insight into what is genuinely scientific and what he would call "archaic", are used in the service of a historical theory that, as far as I am concerned, has not aged and is still valid.
Classic work.......2002-08-30
I discovered this book at the age of 15 in a box of one of my father's college books. I ended up reading it, and it sparked an interest in the history of science and technology, as well as the philosophy of science. I ended up reading perhaps a dozen other books in these two areas before I even got to college, becoming fairly knowledgeable about the subjects while still a fairly young teenager, and I continued these studies in college, even though I ultimately majored in something else--neurobiology. I have Butterfield's classic work to thank for this, and although I understand there are better histories on the subject now, it nevertheless fulfilled an important role in my early intellectual development.
Customer Reviews:
Essential reading for any student of history.......2007-04-03
An excellent warning of common historical fallacies. A must for developing a mature understanding of proper historiography .
Great Reading for History Grad Students.......2007-04-02
"The Whig Interpretation of History" is superb meditation on the craft of history and how it can be distorted by "whig history." This was how Herbert Butterfield described historians who project modern attitudes on to the past, pass moral judgments on historical figures, and regard history as significant only to the extent that it labored to create the modern world. Butterfield regarded "whig history" as the antithesis of real history, which glories in the sheer "differentness" of the past and attempts to understand past events and people in the context of their own time, not of ours. Butterfield's writing was eloquent, his thought profound, and his temperament humane. His book, although old, is a genuine classic, to be treasured by all historians and readers of history. Highly recommended.
Gettin' Whiggy With It.......2006-02-16
I'd always fancied myself more of a Tory until I read this book. It's changed my outlook on life. I mean, in a perfect world, I'd be a Constitutional Monarchist. But hey.
Highly enjoyable, sane, if a bit dated.......2002-05-25
I am not a historian, nor am I especially familiar with historiography. The remarks here will, therefore, be those of a well read neophyte. But since that will probably describe many readers coming to this book for the first time, perhaps that will not be too much of a disadvantage.
The greatest flaw in the book at this stage in its career is the lack of a historical introduction. It is no longer a contemporary book, the better part of a century old. If I were an editor at Norton, I would give serious consideration to reissuing this book with a new introductory essay. To be perfectly honest, I am not sure who the Whig historians were, and am not quite certain what the relations between being a Whig historian and being a Whig politically is. The only Whig historian Butterfield mentions by name, Lord Acton, was, as Butterfield points out, a Tory. I think I would have profited far more from this book if I had not had to spend all my time wondering precisely who Butterfield's targets were.
Essentially, this book is a critique of imposing moral judgments in historical research. It is a defense of taking each historical epoch on its own terms, and not imposing one's own moral and cultural standards on figures and situations that existed with, perhaps, a different set of moral and cultural concerns. To this degree, the book is commonsensical and noncontroversial, and can be read with a great deal of profit.
The structural problem of the book is that the entire discussion is framed in extremely polemical terms. Perhaps Butterfield was a Whig Catholic, but given the examples he constantly brings up, and the barely disguised passion he brings to the debate, one wonders if he were not a Tory Catholic. Perhaps not, but one cannot help but wonder why he is so polemical. The same points--none of them especially controversial today, however they may have been in 1932--could have been expressed far more effectively in a nonpolemical fashion. But, again, perhaps an introductory essay by a contemporary historian could explain just why Butterfield chose such an inflammatory mode.
Nonetheless, any nonhistorian can read this book with great profit, even if they, like me, wonder about the context in which he wrote and who the Whig historians were.
good cautionary work.......2001-09-07
At the time this book was originally published (1931) I suspect it had a lot of direct relevance for practicing historians. Today, it reads somewhat old fashioned. However, it's well written, if a bit formal, and certainly needs to be read by anyone who wants to keep his or her thinking about history on track. But see also the mention this book gets in Fischer's Historians' Fallacies. Even Sir Herbert doesn't escape that work unscathed.
Average customer rating:
|
Napoleon
Herbert Butterfield
Manufacturer: Macmillan Pub Co
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
 General
| Biographies & Memoirs
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: 0020018703 |
Books:
- The Venomous Reptiles of the Western Hemisphere, 2 Vol. Set (Comstock Books in Herpetology)
- The Wizard of Menlo Park: How Thomas Alva Edison Invented the Modern World
- The Wizard of Menlo Park: How Thomas Alva Edison Invented the Modern World
- Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold
- Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr.
- Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of the Pharaohs: Official Companion Book to the Exhibition sponsored by National Geographic
- Ultimate Spider-Man Vol. 10: Hollywood
- When Dreams Come True: A Love Story Only God Could Write
- Where People Fly and Water Runs Uphill: Using Dreams to Tap the Wisdom of the Unconscious
- Wide Open: Inspiration & Techniques for Art Journaling on the Edge (Book & Card Kit)
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- FLIP: How to Find, Fix, and Sell Houses for Profit
- The Craggy Hole in My Heart and the Cat Who Fixed It: Over the Edge and Back with My Dad, My Cat, an
- In the Philippines and Okinawa: A Memoir, 1945-1948
- International Monetary Systems in Historical Perspective
- Photo by Sammy Davis, Jr.
- The Mahabharata
- The Compleat Angler: or, The Contemplative Man's Recreation
- Handling Tough Job Interviews: Be Prepared, Perform Well, Get the Job
- New York's 75 Best Nights Out: Fabulous to Funky to Just Plain Fun
- The Acme Novelty Datebook
The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought
The Thirteenth Tribe: The Khazar Empire and Its Heritage
Kepler
The God That Failed
Harmonies Of The World (On the Shoulders of Giants)
