Product Description
`History: Fiction or Science? Chronology 2` is the second volume of the most explosive and astounding tractate on history ever written - however, every theory it contains, no matter how unorthodox, is backed by rock solid scientific data. The book is easy and pleasant to read; it is well-illustrated, contains hundreds of charts, graphs and illustrations, copies of ancient manuscripts, and countless facts attesting to the falsity of the chronology used nowadays. You will be amazed to discover: - That the chronology universally accepted today and taken for granted is simply wrong; - That ALL methods of dating of ancient sources and artefacts known today are erroneous or non-exact; - That there is not a single document that could be reliably dated earlier than the XIth century; The Author refers to the Middle Ages as the Antiquity and proves mutual superimposition of the Second and the Third Roman Empire, both of which become identified as the respective kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Furthermore, he asserts that the famous reform of the Occidental Church in the XI century by Pope Gregory Hildebrand was the reflection of the XII century reforms of Byzantine emperor Andronicus who in his turn identifies with Jesus Christ. The Trojan war counted by Homer happened only as late as of the XIII century A.D. and the great poet actually lived in XIV century A.D. No stone in history of Antiquity is left unturned. Literally. This book is the beginning of a major correction to the chronology we live with.
Customer Reviews:
Check and see.......2007-06-21
I don't care what other people say of this book. Those affirmig it's fake, they hadn't ever read it. Or have some special reasons to do so. "Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see..." This book won't make you feel comfortable. It'll make you feel free. It'll make you feel you're "not the only one" to feel you'd been lied to for centuries.
Suprise! Suprise!.......2007-03-22
Here is a serie of books which turns "the whole world" upside down. I learned a lot of it and I hope that a new book from A.T. Fomenko will follow very quick. A absolute must for everybody who is interested in history or even a little bit from it.
Prescient St Augustine?.......2006-02-05
We can so far divide the New Chronology into the following three parts:
a) The verifiable theory that proves consensual chronology wrong with the aid of astronomy, statistics and mathematics;
b) The new chronology hypothesis based on a new understanding of known historical facts and the most likely logical explanation of the most obvious inconsistencies inherent in the official version of history;
c) The history conjectures, that is experimental historical reconstructions based on assumptions that the authors believe to make sense in the light of their research and linguistic parallels - void of ironclad factual support to date.
Fomenko's theory complies with the most rigid scientific standards as a whole:
It gives a coherent explanation of what we already know.
- It is consistent: independent lines of inquiry all lead to the same conclusion.
- The predictions it makes are confirmed empirically.
Fomenko goes by the following axioms:
- Chronology is the basis of history;
- Human evolution has always been linear, gradual and irreversible;
- The "cyclic" nature of human civilization is a myth, likewise all the gaps, duplicates, "dark ages" and "renaissances" that we know from consensual history;
- The accumulation of geographical knowledge as reflected in cartography is a gradual and irreversible process;
- The chronological distance between a given manuscript and the events described therein is proportional to the amount of distortions it contains;
- There is no "useless" information in authentic ancient sources.
Why the mainstream historians do not shower mathematician Academician Dr.Prof Fomenko with thanks and laurels?
The Russians:
Because Fomenko asserts that there was no such thing as the Tartar and Mongol invasion followed by three centuries of slavery, providing a formidable body of documental evidence to prove his assertion. The so-called "Tartars and Mongols" were the actual ancestors of the modern Russians, living in a bilingual state with Arabic spoken as freely as Russian. The ancient Russian state was governed by a double structure of civil and military authorities. The hordes were actually professional armies with a tradition of lifelong conscription (the recruitment being the so-called "blood tax"). Their "invasions" were punitive operations against the regions that attempted tax evasion. Fomenko proves that Russian history as we know it today is a blatant forgery concocted by a host of German scientists brought to Russia by the usurper dynasty of the Romanovs, whose ascension to the throne was the result of coup d'état, charged with the mission of making their reign look legitimate. Fomenko proves Ivan the Terrible to be a collation of four rulers, no less. They represented the two rival dynasties - the legitimate rulers and the ambitious upstarts. The winner took it all! Over some 30 years of controversy, Russian historians have made a most remarkable transition - they were initially accusing the young mathematician Fomenko of anticommunist dissident activity and attempts to deface the historical legacy of Soviet Russia; nowadays the middle-aged mathematician is accused of adhering to "pro-communist Russian nationalism" and defacing the proud historical legacy of Great Russia.
The Westerners:
Because Fomenko blows consensual Russian history to smithereens, successfully removing a crucial cornerstone from underneath the otherwise impeccable edifice of World History. Fomenko adds insult to injury, wiping out one by one the Ancient Rome (the foundation of Rome in Italy is dated to the XIV century A. D.), the Ancient Greece and its numerous poleis, which he identifies as the mediaeval crusader settlements on the territory of Greece, and the Ancient Egypt (the pyramids of Giza become dated to the XI-XV century A. D. and identified as the royal cemetery of the Global "Mongolian" Empire, no less). The civilization of the Ancient Egypt is irrefutably dated to the XII-XV century A. D. with the aid of the ancient Egyptian horoscopes cut in stone. He was the first one to decipher and date all such horoscopes, coming up with mediaeval dates in every case. English historians rage at the suggestion that the history of Ancient England was de facto a Byzantine import transplanted to the English soil by the fugitive Byzantine nobility. To reward the English historians who consider themselves the true scribes of World History, the cover of the present book portrays Tintoretto's Jesus Christ crucified on the Big Ben.
The Chinese:
Because Fomenko wipes out the Ancient History of China outright. No such thing. Full point. The compilation of the so-called Ancient Chinese History is reliably datable to the XVII-XVIII century only. It is perfectly recognizable as the Ancient European history, reworked and transcribed in hieroglyphs as yet another historical transplantation, this time performed on the Chinese soil by the loving Jesuit hands. The Chinese are the next in line to go berserk. Chinese history is inevitably bound to get both more ancient and more eventful, proportionally to the growing involvement of China in the world affairs. Chinese historians will keep on finding valid proof of prehistoric Chinese spaceflights until the Politburo orders them to shut up.
The Arabs:
Too bad. Islam with all its key figures is datable to XV-XVI century A. D. Arabic historians may find consolation in the crucial historical role of the Ottoman Empire in the XVI-XVII century. The trouble is that this empire was initially a Christian state, with Hagia Sophia identifiable as Temple of Solomon, according to Fomenko! We can only guess if the acquisition of Alexander the Great (a Macedonian and a Christian) as the founder of the Muslim World Empire will make Fomenko's theories more acceptable to the Arabic mainstream. He certainly does not spare any holy cows at all, claiming The Stone of Qa'Aba in Mecca to contain the lost Arch of the Covenant.
The Divinity:
Despite of reiterated statement that his theory is all about chronology and not Religion, Fomenko stirs up a whole condominium of wasp nests. His collection of anathemas, fatwa, and other condemnations from all parties concerned is already considerable. Little wonder, considering that the history of religions à la Fomenko looks as follows: the pre-Christian period (before the XI century and JC), Bacchic Christianity (XI-XII century, before and after JC), JC Christianity (XII-XVI century) and its subsequent mutations into Orthodox Christianity, the Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, and so on.
According to Fomenko we know strictly NOTHING about the events that predate the X century A. D.
St Augustin was prescient when he spoke unto us: "be wary of mathematicians, particularly when they speak the truth."
Something of a disappointment.......2005-09-09
After having read the first volume of this expected series of 7 volumes I was triggered by the thesis of these authors that ancient Greek and Roman history did in fact take place in the Middle Ages. So I started studying medieval history of the Middle East - also known as Islamic history - to find out if the opponents of the ancient Greeks and Romans - the Acheamenid Persians, Sassanids, Scythians, Egyptians, etc. - also have their duplicates in medieval history. My search was disappointing: none of the many medieval Islamic dynasties seemed to correspond to the ancient middle eastern rulers.
However, I did find a close correspondence between Herodotus' Persian kings and medieval events:
- the defeat and capture of an Anatolian king - the Lydian Croesus - by the Persian conqueror Cyrus is identical to the defeat and capture of another Anatolian king - sultan Bayezid - by the Asian/Mongol conqueror Tamerlane;
- the Persian conquest of Egypt by the cruel tyrant Cambyses reds almost exactly as the Ottoman conquest of Egypt by Selim the Grim (note the nickname!);
- Darius the Lawgiver of the Persian Empire looks very much alike to Sulayman the Magnificent, the Lawgiver in Islamic history;
- Xerxes, whose main claim to fame is to be defeated by the Greeks at the naval battle of Salamis, looks like Selim II (the Sot) whose main claim to fame is to be defeated by a Spanish-Italian alliance at the naval battle of Lepanto.
I should have expected Fomenko et al. to arrive at similar conclusions, however, they claim that the Persian kings are the alter egos of the Angevin kings of Sicily whose biographies do not contain the exploits of the Persian kings.
The similiarities I indicate lead to the conclusion that Herodotus must have written his Histories at the close of the 16th century. But this is extremely late, given that Herodotus is "the Father of History", so therefore all other "ancient" histories must have been fabricated even later. Yet, the founders of modern chronology - Scaliger and Petavius - laid their foundations also at the close of the 16th century and had the full corpus of ancient histories already at their disposal.
It seems to me that Fomenko has to address these inconsistencies, maybe in the forthcoming 5 volumes?
Another critique of their book is that the correspondencies between different rulers are often based on a superficial comparison of the biographies; upon a more thorough comparison many details appear that do not correspond at all.
Finally, the authors rely heavily on the works of Gregorovius (1821-1891!!) - his medieval histories of Rome and Athens - as the source of medieval history; these works are - at least in the West - hoplessly outdated and have been superceded by more up-to-date works (for instance, Julius Norwich's trilogy on Byzantine history is not even cited).
Romulus courts Helen, Paris founds Rome, Moses goes to Troy.........2005-07-30
If you agree with Fomenko that Roman chronology is basically the foundation of the entire edifice of global chronology; you would also certainly agree that despite its numerous gaps and inconsistencies, Roman history is the best-documented field of ancient history, and thus a reference scale. But how well is the actual date of the Eternal City's foundation known?
Firstly, Rome is supposed to have been founded by the Trojans who had to flee after the fall of Troy. Some claim Rome to have been founded by Aeneas and Ulysses shortly after Troy had fallen; others are of the opinion that there was an entire dynasty that ruled for 500 years between the fall of Troy and the foundation of Rome.
Well, that's just an innocent 500 years long misunderstanding compared with what heretic Fomenko says, asserts, proves in his second volume: Second Roman Empire, Third Roman Empire, Biblical Kingdom of Israel, Biblical Kingdom of Judah, Holy Roman Empire are stories about basically same events, written from different points of view at different times. The underlying events have actually taken place during xii-xv cy. These histories have been written and perfected by multitude of highly talented humanist and clerical writers of xiii-xvi cy disguised as "ancients" with glorious names like Homer, Pluto, Thucydides etc..Chronology 2.0 beta..
Historians are kindly invited to report the bugs.
Amazon.com
"Personality, in our sense, is a Shakespearean invention, and is not only Shakespeare's greatest originality but also the authentic cause of his perpetual pervasiveness." So Harold Bloom opines in his outrageously ambitious Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. This is a titanic claim. But then this is a titanic book, wrought by a latter-day critical colossus--and before Bloom is done with us, he has made us wonder whether his vision of Shakespeare's influence on the whole of our lives might not be simply the sober truth. Shakespeare is a feast of arguments and insights, written with engaging frankness and affecting immediacy. Bloom ranges through the Bard's plays in the probable order of their composition, relating play to play and character to character, maintaining all the while a shrewd grasp of Shakespeare's own burgeoning sensibility.
It is a long and fascinating itinerary, and one littered with thousands of sharp insights. Listen to Bloom on Romeo and Juliet: "The Nurse and Mercutio, both of them audience favorites, are nevertheless bad news, in different but complementary ways." On The Merchant of Venice: "To reduce him to contemporary theatrical terms, Shylock would be an Arthur Miller protagonist displaced into a Cole Porter musical, Willy Loman wandering about in Kiss Me Kate." On As You Like It: "Rosalind is unique in Shakespeare, perhaps indeed in Western drama, because it is so difficult to achieve a perspective upon her that she herself does not anticipate and share." Bloom even offers some belated vocational counseling to Falstaff, identifying him as an Elizabethan Mr. Chips: "Falstaff is more than skeptical, but he is too much of a teacher (his true vocation, more than highwayman) to follow skepticism out to its nihilistic borders, as Hamlet does."
In the end, it doesn't matter very much whether we agree with all or any of these ideas. What does matter is that Bloom's capacious book sends us hurrying back to some of the central texts of our civilization. "The ultimate use of Shakespeare," the author asserts, "is to let him teach you to think too well, to whatever truth you can sustain without perishing." Bloom himself has made excellent use of his hero's instruction, and now he teaches us all to do the same. --Daniel Hintzsche
Book Description
The New York Times bestseller from Harold Bloom...
A National Book Award Finalist, National Book Critics Circle Award Finalist, a New York Times Notable Book of the Year, and a Publishers Weekly best book of the year.
"The indispensable critic on the indispensable writer."--Geoffrey O'Brien, New York Review of Books
A landmark achievement as expansive, erudite, and passionate as its renowned author, Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human is the culmination of a lifetime of reading, writing about, and teaching Shakespeare. Preeminent literary critic Harold Bloom leads us through a comprehensive reading of every one of the dramatist's plays, brilliantly illuminating each work with unrivaled warmth, wit and insight. At the same time, Bloom presents one of the boldest theses of Shakespearean scholarships--that Shakespeare not only invented the English language, but also created human nature as we know it today.
* A New York Times bestseller
* A National Book Award Finalist
* A National Book Critics Circle Award Finalist
* A New York Times Notable Book
* One of Publishers Weekly's Best Books of the Year
* A Main Selection of the Book-of-the-Month Club
* An ALA Booklist Editors Choice for 1998
* The culmination of Bloom's celebrated career--a long-awaited, complete assessment of his most beloved subject
* Includes in-depth readings of every Shakespeare play
* An essential reference volume for every home and school library
"A huge cloak-bag of ideas...It is a feast."--Wall Street Journal
"An enraptured, incantatory epic...dazzling...You could hardly ask for a more capacious and beneficent work than Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human."--The New Yorker
"A fiercely argued exegesis of Shakespeare's plays in the tradition of Samuel Johnson, Hazlitt, and A.C. Bradley, a study that is as passionate as it is erudite." --Michiko Kakutani, New York Times
"Bloom has given us the crowning achievement of his career...If any piece of literary criticism can have a practical effect--on our stage and imaginations--this is the one."--Salon
"Should this be the one book you read if you're going to read one book about Shakespeare? Yes."--The New York Observer
"Bloom...is a master entertainer." --Newsweek
"Very nearly perfect."--Kirkus
Customer Reviews:
Inspiring .He teaches us the love of great literature .......2007-08-08
Bloom is the great literary critic of our day, the master reader of our greatest literature. Shakespeare has always been for him the central figure of our literary tradition, the one who by far created the most. In his play by play analysis of Shakespeare Bloom argues that Shakespeare invented our present day conception of the human. He is the one who allowed our own inner minds to speak on the page. He is the one who created characters of flexibility and breadth beyond those we had known before. Bloom writes with inspiration as he exalts Rosalind, Falstaff, Hamlet, his major favorites and hosts of others. Bloom does what a great critic is supposed to do he gives us a far richer and greater sense of the work than we had before. He makes us eager to know it more.
Ah, Professor Bloom..........2007-01-29
I have to admit up front that I like reading Harold Bloom. I don't always agree with him and I often find his pronouncements on this, that and the other quite arrogant and short-sighted. On the other hand, his opinions often challenge me to consider my own and I respect his decades of grappling with the Bard and the history of Shakespearean criticism. As a fellow sufferer of Bardolatry, I feel I can sympathize with the man.
And what of this book? Well, it is quite the tome. Containing analysis of each of Shakespeare's plays, it's a test of endurance. Anyone who isn't familiar with the vast majority of Shakespeare's plays would be advised, perhaps, to read the introductory essays and dip into those chapters on the plays he knows.
As for myself, having read and seen most of the plays in the canon, I read the book through. In every chapter I found something valuable and I wouldn't have missed reading it for the world. When he feels a character is interesting or important--Iago, Cleopatra, Rosalind, Lear to name a few--he can wax practically poetic in his insight. The things that don't interest him he dismisses out of hand with a cutting remark or ignores entirely.
Still, to be frank, reading too much of this at once can be tiresome. In large doses it is like listening to the grumblings of an old man who feels his time is past and he doesn't get the respect he deserves anymore. He hasn't seen a performance of Shakespeare he's liked in thirty or more years. He rejects all modern forms of criticism and interpretation. His obsession with Hamlet and, in particular, Falstaff, finds its way into the discussion of practically every play. I love Hamlet almost as much as Bloom but even I got tired of him as he appeared time and again. As for Falstaff: there can be no doubt he is a great character; however I think it takes a man of Bloom's age to rate him so far above many of the other Shakespearean characters.
And as for Bloom's assertion that Shakespeare invented the human as we know it? Well, that may be pushing it a bit far for my taste but I take his point. The introspective nature and universality of Shakespeare's greatest characters was revolutionary. Certainly many important thinkers after him have found in Shakespeare the inspiration for ideas that have impacted our world. Our world--and most definitely our theater--would be different had Shakespeare never written. Still, would the nature of human beings be so very different? I remain unconvinced.
Ah, but Bloom makes it easy to argue with him. He invites it. And I enjoy the debate. If one can ignore the provocative prose and rake for the gems, these are pages worth mining. I, for one, am glad I did.
great, but not your only book on Shakespeare.......2006-12-16
I teach Shakespeare despite not having studied literature or English in college. I find several books very useful to me, this one among them. If you're reading Shakespeare for pleasure, you've almost got to use this as a companion to the plays. Bloom is a critic and commentator you should not miss, perhaps destined to be remembered in the same class as Samuel Johnson. His take on the plays is generally idiosyncratic and always thought-provoking and insightful.
On the other hand, this should not be your only companion to Shakespeare. If you're only going to have one--and why would you?--I think you'd have to choose Marjorie Garber's "Shakespeare After All." I always consult that one before Bloom, because she offers a more fundamental analysis, while Bloom jumps right into his opinions. It is almost true to say that Bloom's book is as much about Bloom as it is about Shakespeare, and if that sounds critical, then for the record Bloom is one who can pull that off.
If you are an undergraduate and especially if you are a high school student, you won't go wrong with Garber, though Bloom alone might lead you astray. If you can read both, great; if not, Garber. I also commend Cliffs Notes to any student who struggles with line-by-line comprehension. (I know that other teachers don't do that, and I think they're really just being snobs. Really, Shakespeare is great fun if you understand, and if not, then you've got to do something, haven't you?)
Finally, if you want a deeper discussion of various issues (history, religion, interpretation, staging etc...), the Cambridge Companions are excellent.
Incidently, the subtitle is misleading. Bloom's "invention" thesis is hardly the subject matter of the book. He spends maybe 3 pages on it, not doing the historical analysis such a thesis would require, but merely heaping hyperbole upon hyperbole in praise of Shakespeare. We don't read Shakespeare, Shakespeare reads us... and so on. It's simply an excuse, as if he needed one, to publish his thoughts on all of Shakespeare's plays.
Erudite and satisfying.......2006-12-07
For what it's worth, I love this book. It's my first choice for another point of view of the Bard. As a burgeoning Bardolator, it's wonderful to hear such an enthusiastic perspective on any and every play. The book is ambitious, erudite, and satisfying. There are, of course, occasional moments of bombast, but this is an immense book--both in scope as well as subject. The pretentious title is explained in pieces throughout every essay, though never as succinctly as "Shakespeare invented the human because..." Still, I readily and heartily recommend this book for anyone who is interested in another view of Shakespeare. It is not a simple read, but it should fit in for any well informed reader or college student. I would only recommend it to highly ambitious high school aged kids who aren't afraid of looking up words in the dictioary (e.g. propleptic).
Lit Crit for Lit Crits.......2006-10-21
Now don't get me wrong: I'm all in favor of Bloom's now-unfashionable liberal-humanist method of interpretation arising, as it must, from balancing wide experience with close reading. In fact, I'm in favor of any critical approach that illuminates, appreciates, elucidates, and speculates, as long as it's coherent and interesting to read. I agree with Bloom that contemporary criticism has become mostly an unreadable, hidebound, tendentious parody of itself written, primarily to earn tenure, written largely by embittered academics who are mad as hell that they have so little influence on the ways of the world.
Others may disagree.
Yet, for all Bloom's specialized knowledge and obvious passion for Shakespeare, his magnum opus poorly serves the purposes of good criticism. Who is he writing for? Other critics, it would seem. To appreciate Bloom's book, unlike the work of, say, Harold Goddard, whose name Bloom invokes as a model, you have to know plenty about Shakespeare already. Thhis isn't a book for beginners.
You also need to overlook Bloom's tendency toward vagueness and lack of cohesiveness. Granted, there's so much even one writer can say about Shakespeare that it's difficult to write tightly and concisely, but Bloom's commentaries do seem to ramble with insufficient emphases and rather hazy direction. I felt a less than agreeable mixture of tedium, annoyance, and uncertainty as I read Bloom's "Shakespeare." It's hard to believe he's writing about the Western world's most read, most honored, most brilliant, most resourceful author. The excitement that Bloom felt as a youngster reading the plays and the poems for the first time just doesn't come through. His initial enthusiasm has morphed into deep and abstract thought that only another literary critic will appreciate. And, of course, not all of them.
This would have been a great book if somebody else had written it. Somebody like the now-derided but wonderfully readable A.C. Bradley, whose work on Shakespearean tragedy is still in print and still great after one hundred years. (When Bradley wastes your time - an exaggeration, really - by speculating, for example, on how many children Lady Macbeth really had, he has the courtesy to do so in an appendix.) It seems symptomatic of their approaches that Bradley, also a liberal critic, was overwhelmed by how closely Shakespeare got his characters to resemble us. For Bloom, it's vice versa. If you think that's an interesting idea (and it is), don't get your hopes too high: it gets submerged, like most of Bloom's interesting ideas, in the enclosing sea of rumination.
Average customer rating:
|
Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human.(Review): An article from: New Criterion
Paul Dean
Manufacturer: Foundation for Cultural Review
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Digital
 General
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
| Classics
| Comic
| Contemporary
| Literary
General
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| e-Docs
| Formats
| Books
Political Science
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| e-Docs
| Formats
| Books
General
| Nonfiction
| HTML
| Formats
| e-Docs
| Formats
| Books
Political Science
| Nonfiction
| HTML
| Formats
| e-Docs
| Formats
| Books
ASIN: B00098RO2K
Release Date: 2005-07-28 |
Book Description
This digital document is an article from New Criterion, published by Foundation for Cultural Review on December 1, 1998. The length of the article is 1891 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
Citation Details
Title: Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human.(Review)
Author: Paul Dean
Publication:
New Criterion (Magazine/Journal)
Date: December 1, 1998
Publisher: Foundation for Cultural Review
Volume: 17
Issue: 4
Page: 77(1)
Article Type: Book Review
Distributed by Thomson Gale
Average customer rating:
|
SHAKESPEARE : THE INVENTION OF THE HUMAN
Harold Bloom
Manufacturer: Not Specified
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
General
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
| Classics
| Comic
| Contemporary
| Literary
General
| Criticism & Theory
| History & Criticism
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
Shakespeare
| British
| World Literature
| Literature & Fiction
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: 1841150487 |
Book Description
Das Reich I (Otto Weidinger). Hard cover, small format (9"x6"), 304 pages, 115 photographs 13 maps, charts and tables. The first of a 5-volume set, this volume covers the 2. SS-Panzer-Division "Das Reich" from its formation in 1934 to the conclusion of the Polish Campaign in 1939. A lot of detail on the initial formation of the Waffen-SS.
Average customer rating:
|
Er schuf das Reich: Ferdinand von Habsburg
Tibor Simanyi
Manufacturer: Amalthea
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
Asia
| History
| Subjects
| Books
| Afghanistan
| Armenia
| Bangladesh
| Belarus
| Bhutan
| Brunei
| Cambodia
| Central Asia
| China
| Far East
| General
| Georgia
| Hong Kong
| India
| Indonesia
| Japan
| Korea
| Laos
| Malaysia
| Maldives
| Mauritius
| Mongolia
| Myanmar
| Nepal
| Pakistan
| Philippines
| Russia
| Seychelles
| Singapore
| South Asia
| Southeast Asia
| Sri Lanka
| Taiwan
| Thailand
| Tibet
| Turkey
| Vietnam
Austria
| Europe
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Germany
| Europe
| History
| Subjects
| Books
German
| Foreign Language Nonfiction
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
History
| German
| Foreign Language Books
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Nonfiction
| German
| Foreign Language Books
| Specialty Stores
| Books
All German Books
| German
| Foreign Language Books
| Specialty Stores
| Books
ASIN: 3850022242 |
Product Description
This Elibron Classics book is a facsimile reprint of a 1896 edition by W. Pauli\'s Nachf. (H. Jerosch), Berlin.
Books:
- History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)
- History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)
- Hitler: A Study in Tyranny
- How We Survived Communism & Even Laughed
- I Was Right On Time
- In Pharaoh's Army: Memories of the Lost War
- In the Pit with Piper: Roddy Gets Rowdy
- Inside Hitler's Germany: A Documentary History of Life in the Third Reich (Modern History)
- John Quincy Adams: (The American Presidents Series)
- Kafka: The Decisive Years
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- How to Do Good After Prison : A Handbook for the "Committed Man"
- Eating In America
- Van Gogh's Room at Arles: Three Novellas
- A History of the Twentieth Century: Volume 2, 1933-1951
- American Cinema/American Culture
- Examkrackers: 1001 Questions in MCAT in Physics
- Dark Harbor
- Gambia Business Law Handbook
- Your Boss Is Not Your Mother: Creating Autonomy, Respect, and Success at Work
- 2004 ASTD Competency Study: Mapping the Future
History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)
History: Fiction or Science? Astronomical methods as applied to chronology. Ptolemy's Almagest. Chronology III
They Cast No Shadows: A Collection of Essays on the Illuminati, Revisionist History, and Suppressed Technologies
Discovering the Mysteries of Ancient America: Lost History And Legends, Unearthed And Explored
The Medieval Empire of the Israelites
