Hegel este cel mai sistematic filozof, a c?rui oper? este coerent articulat? ?i sus?inut? de o dens? ?es?tur? conceptual? ?i o teleologie cu un pronun?at caracter axiologic. Hegel a vrut ?i ?n parte a reu?it s? construiasc? o concep?ie articulat? ?i cuprinz?toare despre om, societate, natur? ?i divinitate. Fiecare component? a sistemului s?u filozofic, structurile logice, societatea, arta, politica sau istoria nu pot fi ?n?elese f?r? ?ntregul care le cuprinde, le determin? d?ndu-le transparen?? ?i sens. G?ndirea politic? hegelian? nu e o simpl? medita?ie asupra statului ?i a institu?iilor sale determinat? de conjunctur? sau de vreo implica?ie practic? a filozofului ?n politica din timpul s?u. Medita?ia hegelian? asupra politicului este consecin?a necesar? a g?ndirii speculative cuprins? ?n masiva sa oper? filozofic?. Politicul este o component? important? a structurii ontologice a lumii, un moment esen?ial al realiz?rii ?i func?ion?rii Libert??ii. Ra?iunea ?n act, cristalizat? ?ntr-o diversitate de conduite, structuri ?i institu?ii configureaz? universul practic, concretiz?nd spiritul teoretic ?i organiz?nd a nou? regiune ontic?.

S?rmanul Nietzsche, ?bestia blond?“, a avut ?i el parte de crucificare. Multor profe?i ?i m?ntuitori li se ?nt?mpl? asta: eventual ?i ?n timpul vie?ii, ?i dup? moarte. Nietzsche, r?zvr?titul ?mpotriva legilor celor vechi, ?ntemeietorul orgolios al noii sale ?religii“, a trebuit s? suporte ?i el toate e?ecurile ?i r?st?lm?cirile posibile, ba chiar ?i punerea terifiant? ?n practic? a unora dintre ideile lui, care nici nu mai erau ale lui ?i, ?ndeob?te, nu mai erau idei…?Viclenia ra?iunii“, implicit a istoriei, o descrisese Hegel, unul dintre cei mul?i pe care Nietzsche nu-i agrea. Dincoace de istorie ?i chiar dincolo de ea, r?m?n c?r?ile. Omul n-a fost s? fie m?ntuit de Nietzsche. C?r?ile lui vor d?inui printre oameni: pentru oameni.

Lucrarea adun? eseuri filozofice ?i evoc? figuri de marc? ale culturii rom?ne.

Cartea este o culegere de eseuri pe teme de istorie literar?, istoria ideilor ?i probleme generale de estetica artelor, toate acestea fiind abordate dintr-un accentuat unghi filozofic ?i ?tiin?ific deopotriv?.

Despre guvernarea reprezentativ” este o carte plin de surprize i sugestii despre bunele practici ale guvernrii, care nu trebuie s lipseasc din bibliotecile celor preocupai de zona politicii. Volumul de fa a vzut prima dat lumina tiparului n 1861 i reunete principiile la care a lucrat filosoful britanic John Stuart Mill n cea mai mare parte a vieii sale. Aceast lucrare publicat la mijlocul secolului al XIX-lea i pstreaz prospeimea i relevana pn astzi, cnd suntem tot mai aproape de a ncheia a doua decad a secolului XXI. n primul rnd, pentru c imagineaz pn n cele mai mici detalii acel model politic pe care l numim democraia reprezentativ”. Winston Churchill spunea despre acesta c este prost, dar e cel mai bun dintre cele pe care le-a inventat omenirea”. John Stuart Mill i descrie organizarea, detaliaz rolul instituiilor, felul n care sunt alei sau numii demnitarii i explic atribuiile fiecruia. Pune n eviden atu-urile, dar i vulnerabilitile guvernrii reprezentative, comparnd-o cu alte sisteme politice din vremea sa. n final, ajunge la o concluzie foarte asemntoare cu cea a premierului britanic din secolul urmtor. Colecia IN NUCE reunete fragmente venic verzi” din cultura omenirii, mpletind discursuri din art, literatur, tiine sociale i religie. Dincolo de renumele autorilor i de valoarea titlurilor pentru fiecare domeniu n parte, acestea sunt pilde ale nelepciunii universale din toate vremurile. De acelasi autor: Utilitarismul

La acest ?nceput de secol XXI, ?n ?ntreaga lume se intensific? studierea problemelor fundamentale, eterne, ca via?a ?i moartea, rostul vie?ii, originile ?i destina?iile noastre ultime, c?t ?i ?ntrebarea cu privire la existen?a de dup? moarte. Cartea examineaz? filosofia de via?? a budismului Nichiren ?n lumina ideilor de ultim? or? despre via?? ?i moarte, de?i cuprinderea exhaustiv? ?ntr?un singur volum a unei probleme at?t de vaste este imposibil?. Budismul Nichiren ofer? oamenilor mijloacele de a??i transforma destinele prin ?nf?ptuirea propriei revolu?ii umane individuale ?i dezv?luie calea spre pace ?i fericire.

innd seama de multiplele referiri la istorie, ct i de importana i relevana perspectivei temporal-istorice pentru orice alt tem, ajungem firesc la cardinalitatea istoriei n discursul lui Emil Cioran. n noianul tuturor temelor sale obsesive, istoria este o mega-tem, aflat n puternice raporturi cu celelalte. Aderena i entuziasmul pentru studiul problemelor de filosofia istoriei le gsim mrturisite nc de la nceputul traseului, n cteva scrisori ctre Bucur incu din anii ‘30. n acele scrisori vorbete de pasiune, de gndire spontan i personal, de adaptare natural asupra domeniului, i se arat ncredinat c, alturi de problemele de filosofia culturii i antropologiei filosofice, problemele de filosofia istoriei nu pot concepe c lea prsi vreodat. Dintre multiplele justificri ulterioare – opuse ca atitudine fa de cele din perioada iniial, dar care marcheaz aceeai aderen –, s punem dou n corelaie, scrise n ani apropiai, n care preocuparea pentru istorie este descris prin stri de dependen: slbiciune, sete, patim.“ – Ioan Costea

Cum a fost ?nceputul, de unde ?i de ce a venit Universul la fiin??? Cine a creat, de fapt, via?a pe P?m?nt ?i cum va fi Sf?r?itul? Ce se ?nt?mpl? atunci c?nd murim ?i unde ajungem dup? aceea? ?i, la urma urmei, ce contur trebuie s?-i d?m vie?ii noastre dac? Dumnezeu nu exist?? Miturile ?i speran?ele noastre ofer? r?spunsuri convenabile, dar periculoase, la aceste ?ntreb?ri ?ntruc?t ?ntre?in iluzii care ne sporesc, ?n realitate, angoasa ?i la?itatea. Avem, totu?i, o alternativ?: apelul la metodele ?i descoperirile ?tiin?ei pentru a repune lucrurile ?i problemele ?n contextul din care au fost decupate din ignoran?? sau din r?utate. Despre via?? ?i moarte reabiliteaz? acest tip de demers ?ntr-un periplu scris cu umor, dar ?i cu seriozitate, cu elegan??, dar ?i cu duio?ie.

Publicat? ini?ial, ?n prima edi?ie ?n 1785, cu titlul Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, este una dintre cele mai influente crea?ii din ?ntreaga oper? filosofic? a lui Immanuel Kant ?i, totodat?, un reper ?n istoria filosofiei universale. Lucrarea filosofului german cuprinde o prefa??, trei sec?iuni – Trecerea de la cunoa?terea ra?ional? comun? a moravurilor la aceea filosofic?, Trecerea de la ?n?elepciunea moral? popular? la metafizica moravurilor, Trecerea de la metafizica moravurilor la critica ra?iunii pure practice – ?i o remarc? final?, precedate de nota traduc?torului, Valentin Mure?an. ?n prefa??, Kant pledeaz? pentru o metafizic? a moravurilor ?i discut? despre metodologia pe care a folosit-o. El porne?te de la ?mp?r?irea filosofiei grece?ti ?n fizic?, etic? ?i logic?. ?n prima sec?iune, dup? cum ?i titlul sugereaz?, se face trecerea de la forma cunoa?terii comune privind moravurile la cea filosofic?. El discut?, printre altele, despre voin?a bun? ?i datorie. ?n sec?iunea a doua se aprofundeaz? problema imperativelor. ?n ultima sec?iune, Kant discut? despre voin??, libertate. De fapt, cea de-a treia sec?iune reprezint? punctul de pornire de la care Kant a dezvoltat Critica ra?iunii practice, publicat? ?n 1788.

Avem o carte preponderent de sondare a mentalit??ii ruse, care este rezultatul unei radiografieri a societ??ii pe mai multe pali?ere, dintre care se deta?eaz? cel istoric ?i cel religios. (…) Rusia bolnav? este scris? ?n primii ani dup? evenimentele revolu?ionare din 1905?l907, ?n cursul c?rora autorul a avut o participare activ?, mai ales ?n ce prive?te punerea acestei revolu?ii sub semnul lui Hris?tos. Este o carte important? tocmai pentru c? oglinde?te deziluziile unei naturi pasiona?le, care, ?n centrul istoriei ?i al religiei, pune mereu fapta. Fire?te acum, dup? Arhipelagul lui Soljeni??n, pamfletele lui Merejkovski par simple exerci?ii de stil, ?nelibertatea” deza?vuat? ?n ele, Rusia ?arist? ca ??nchisoare a popoarelor” ap?r?nd chiar foarte apropiat? de ceea ce s?ar putea numi ?stat de drept”. ?n privin?a ?demasc?rii” ororilor contemporane?it??ii, putem spune c? – a?a cum au dovedit?o deceniile bol?evice – ?ntotdeauna este loc de mai r?u. (Emil Iordache)

Elveink nem tudnak olyan szilárdak lenni, mint naiv pillanatainkban gondolnánk, mert világunkat az érzelmek, az értelem és a hit folyton változó egyensúlya tartja ?ssze. Az ember hajlamos nagy titkokat sejteni ott, ahol egyszer?en csak nagyobb er?k m?k?dnek, mint amiket uralni tud. Azonnal a nagy titkot keresi, amikor kiemelked? tehetségekkel találkozik, amikor a hit alapvet? kérdéseit firtatja, amikor a saját érzelmeit vizsgálja, és akkor is, amikor a tudomány eszk?zeivel igyekszik mélyebben megérteni a világot. Pedig: ?A nagy titok az, hogy nincs titok”. ?j k?nyvében Mér? László az elvek, az érzelmek, a hit és a tudomány erejét valamint korlátait járja k?rül. A csattanós, “?tperces” esszék felvillantják a témák kül?nféle arcait a mindennapi életben, a hosszabbak pedig bemutatják, mit tett mindehhez a modern pszichológia.

Antropologie ?i antroposofie ? Max Dessoir despre antroposofie ? Franz BrentanoAlc?tuind cuprinsul acestei lucr?ri, Rudolf Steiner reveleaz? ?c?teva din firele ?tiin?ifice care trebuie trasate pornind de la antropozofie la filozofie, la psihologie ?i la fiziologie“. Cunoa?terea omului va trebui atunci s? fie extins? ?in?nd cont de enigmaticele aspecte ale vie?ii sale interioare, privite din perspective multiple. ?n aceast? carte, Rudolf Steiner prezint? ?n scris aspectele semnificative ale configur?rii ?ntreite a fiin?ei omene?ti: corpul fizic, organismul sufletesc ?i configura?ia spiritual?.

Egy kétségtelenül szellemes megjegyzés szerint a cím csak akkor fedheti le pontosan a k?nyv tartalmát, ha bet?r?l bet?re megegyezik vele. Valami hasonló mondható a fülsz?vegekr?l is (biztos Boegesnek is tetszene ez a gondolat), és ennek megfelel?en meg sem kísérlem néhány mondatban ?sszefoglalni, hogy mir?l lesz szó. Ehelyett inkább el?sz?r is azt emelem ki, hogy a címnek megfelel?en mir?l nem: például nem magáról Borgesr?l, a 20. század egyik legjelent?sebb argentin írójáról. Hanem inkább arról, hogy a novelláival kapcsolatban milyen, az irodalomtól olyakor látszólag meglehet?sen távol álló kérdések merülhetnek fel kezdve azon, hogy az általa leírt bábeli k?nyvtár valóban olyan teljes és mindenre kiterjed?-e, miként azt Borges sugallja; folytatva azon, hogy van-e egyáltalán értelme felvetni, hogy milyen lenne, ha valaki t?kéletes emlékezettel rendelkezne (nincs). Meg, hogy elképzelhet?-e, nem pedig, hogy létezik vagy legalább lehetséges-e egy olyan pont vagy térrész: egy olyan Alef, amelyen keresztül egyszerre láthatunk mindent. ?s így tovább egészen addig, hogy mit mondhatunk az irodalomkritikáról, az irodalmi zsánerek létrej?ttér?l meg elt?nésér?l vagy éppen az irodalmi halhatatlanságról – ismét csak mint elméleti problémáról. Azaz végs? soron persze mégiscsak egyfajta bolyongás ez a borgesi k?nyvtában, illetve bizonyos, legalább hipotetikusan lehetséges és az irodalomhoz így vagy úgy kapcsolódó kérdések fázisterében még akkor is, ha a fentebbiekben, miként a figyelmes olvasó már észre vehette, éppen azt tettem, amir?l korábban azt sejttettem, hogy nem fogom: néhány példa említésével próbáltam utalni rá, hogy mir?l szól az egész. De talán ez sincs igazi ellentmondásban azzal a megk?zelítéssel, amit ez a k?nyv sugall. Galántai Zoltán tudományt?rténész és író. Korábbi k?nyvei az eClassicnál: K?nyvkett?. A k?nyv, az írás és az irodalom j?v?jér?l (2013) http://eclassic.xyz/shop/bemutato/konyvketto-a-konyv-az-iras-es-az-irodalom-jovojerol/ Monoverzumok. Kozmosz, t?rvény, tudomány (2016) http://eclassic.xyz/shop/szabadpolc/monoverzumok/

Geli?mi?li?in ??karsamalar?nda ilk akla gelen ?l?üt, meden? olarak ilerleme kaydetti?ini iddi? eden, d??avurumcu insanlar toplulu?unun bencil yap?la?mas?ndan ge?mektedir. Ara?t?rmalar sonucunda elde edilebilen, g?rsel, i?itsel, yaz?l?, ar?iv v.b tüm veriler do?rultusunda ayd?nlat?lm?? ger?ekler düny?si mevcuttur. Asalak olarak hayata tutunmaya ?al??an, ?z bireyci katmanlar?n en alt?na indirgenmi? insan say?lan varl?klar?n, niteliksel ?zelliklerle ?a?a tutunmas? imk?nsizdir. "En ?ok ben kazanay?m." s?yleminden yola ??karak, rahatl?k ve konforun adresinde bulu?an simbiyoz ya?ant?lar?n; ?a?d??? kalm??, kendi dü?üncesi h?ricindekileri yok sayan, ?ok katmanl? yüzeysel düny?s?nda gezinmenin verdi?i ferahl?k, bir?ok insan? cezbederek, ?ekilsiz ya?ant? portrelerini bilfiil olu?turmu?tur. Dü?ünceleri ve mevc?diyeti ?imento ile kaplanan nesillerin, zenginlik saltanat?na ayak ba?? olmas?ndan korkan erkin, katmerli yapt?r?mlar? bulunmaktad?r. D??s?z kalm?? medeniyetin, ??karsamalarla dolu ??karc? düny?s?nda, kendine en ufak bir yer edinimini ba?ar? sayan birey, ya?ant? düny?sinin ger?ek yüzeyine ula?t??? i?in mutlu olmal? m?d?r? G?rülen ve g?sterilen, verilen, yapt?r?lan tüm edimlerin ve edinimlerin, do?rultusunda, bireyin ??karc? sistem adamlar? ile yapt??? yolculu?a dikkat etmesi gerekir. Ritüel h?line gelmi?, paradoksal d?ngüde her d?im ba?lad??? yerden farkl? bir sona ula?mas? gereken yolculu?u yapan bireyin de, beklentisi bu olan macer?s?nda, üzüntü ve yenilgi verici sonucun, ayn? ?ekilde ikinci, ü?üncü defa ger?ekle?mesi ve ?o?u insan?n, bunun fark?ndal???nda olmay???n?n verdi?i bocalamayla ge?en ?mrünün c?resizli?inde ??rp?nmas? ve bo?ulmas? an meselesidir. Yapt?r?mlar yapt?r?mlar?, bilgisizlik ve c?hillik yeni olu?umlar? tetikleyecektir. ?nemli olan her insan?n asl?nda bir paradoks denkleminde, paradoks yolunda oldu?unu bilmesi ve ba?lad??? noktaya geldi?inde, nas?l bir düzenin i?erisinde ritüel yapt???n?n fark?nda olmas? gerekmektedir. Naz?re davran??lar?, sistem i?erisinde en az?ndan denemek, ayn? dü?üncede bulunan insanlar? bir araya getirmek ?artt?r. Ulusal bilincin her d?im uyan?k tutulmas?, paradokslarla sava??n en mükemmel ?rneklerinden birini olu?turacakt?r. ?nsan?n kat etti?i yol da, bu s?yede dünden kopu?un de?il, yar?n?n güvence alt?na al?nmas?n? tetikleyecektir. Yar?n? güvence alt?na al?nan bireyler de; kof, mesnetsiz, yalan ve riy?karl??a dayal? sistemleri ??kertme ve kendi hastal?kl? sistemlerini dayatmaya ?al??an ?o?unlu?un, katmerli ezici üstünlü?ü alt?nda direni? g?stermenin, mutlak gayreti i?erisinde olacakt?r. ?nsan?n yahut insanl???n bu eylemi ger?ekle?tirmeye ?al??mas?n?, en az?ndan denemesini diliyorum. N??M ONUR TEZMEN, 2013 MUSTAFA VE AY?E Mustafa’ya g?re; canl?lar?n, kompleks ya?am süreci i?erisinde, kabullenebilir davran?? grafi?ini topluma uydurmak ve o uyumu devam ettirme g?revi, bireysel sorumluluk gerektirmekteydi. Toplum i?erisindeki statüsünü belirleyen birtak?m rolleri üstlenen bireyin, davran?? biliminde girece?i rollerin karma?as?na kap?lmadan, gerekli ve ?l?ülü davran??, sosyal bilim do?rulu?u vey? bu do?rulu?a en yak?n olmay? gerektiren tüm birle?imler; bireyin ?zünü, karakterini ve bili?sel zek?sini olu?turmaktayd?. En az?ndan Mustafa'n?n dü?ünceleri ?????nda, akl?n? yordu?u; bilgi, kültür, gelenek ve g?renek birikimi ile a??klamas? buydu. Varolu?unun aksine, ayn? y?nde kürek ?ekmesine ba?l? olan ya?amsal uzamda, kendi do?ruluk pay?n? olu?turmas? ve bu pay?, ?evresindeki insanlara sunmas?, ona zevkli bir hus? veriyordu. Mustafa’ya g?re bilgelik, kazan?lan tecrübelerle birlikte, birikimlerin, paralel vey? ayn? düzlem i?erisinde hareket ettirebilmenin yoluydu. Bundan ??karacak ders de, birine bir do?ruyu empoze etmeden, ikn? k?biliyetini, ki?inin benzer birle?imlerinde ivme kazanan ara?lar gibi haz?rlamak ve var??a ondan ?nce vararak, kendi do?rusunun en yak?n bile?enine, kar??s?ndaki insan? ?ekebilmekti.

有些事物，永不消逝，暴力即属此类。 暴力性表达并非现代性的标志。暴力只是变化多端而已，其表现形式随社会局势而变。如今，它回到皮下、交际之下、毛细和神经元的领域，呈现出微观物理学的形态；这种形态的存在，无需在统治或敌对关系中的那种否定或排斥性。 它从可见转为无形，从粗野蛮横转为沉思内省，从正面直转为病毒性感染。暴力起作用的方式不是公然袭，而是蔓延传染。 作者在本书中首次揭示了暴力事件的变形记，从君权和血亲等前现代社会的斩首，经由现代规训社会的畸变，*终到了今天绩效社会和倦怠社会的抑郁。 ------------- 韩炳哲作品系列（见识城邦出品）（已出齐） 《精神政治学》（2019年3月） Psychopolitik 《爱欲之死》（2019年3月） Agonie des Eros 《在群中》（2019年3月） Im Schwarm 《他者的消失》（2019年6月） Die Austreibung des Anderen 《倦怠社会》（2019年6月） Müdigkeitsgesellschaft 《娱乐何为》（2019年6月） Gute Unterhaltung 《暴力拓扑学》（2019年10月） Topologie der Gewalt 《透明社会》（2019年10月） Transparenzgesellschaft 《美的救赎》（2019年10月） Die Errettung des Sch?nen

《参同契》是早期道教重要典籍，全名《周易参同契》。书中借用乾、坤、坎、离、水、火等法象，以明炼丹修仙之术。为道教系统论述炼丹的早著作，道教奉为“丹经王”，是千古丹经之鼻祖。 本书是南怀瑾先生一九八三年在台湾讲解《参同契》的记录，分上、中、下三册。南怀瑾先生认为：《参同契》参合了三种原则相同的学问，且熔于一炉——老庄、道家的丹道，还有《易经》的学问，是一本非读不可的秘密典籍。《参同契》不止是丹经道书，它既是哲学又是科学，也是古典文学之作，其中包含了中华民族深之承天接地的文化。《参同契》素有“天书”之称。这部因深奥而埋藏已久的天书，因南师深入浅出的讲解而重新散发光芒。

   《列子》为道家重要典籍之一，与老庄并列。它高深莫测，易读而难懂，以故事、神话的形态，阐释道家的学术及观念。 《列子臆说》是南怀瑾先生关于《列子》的讲记，共分上中下三册。南怀瑾先生讲述列子，深浅出、生动自在，以《列子》的内容为研究重，带领读者广阔的视野、深难测的奇妙境界，并破了意识的种种局限。列子，这个御风而行的人，要我们从一切自设的框架中突围，成就天地间的自在逍遥。

Das Werk, das aus einer Vorrede und drei ?Abhandlungen“ besteht, geh?rt zu den einflussreichsten Schriften Nietzsches. Er legte hier keine Aphorismen vor wie in den meisten anderen seiner Werke, sondern l?ngere, systematische Texte mit durchaus wissenschaftlichem Anspruch: Er stellt darin soziologische, historische und psychologische Thesen auf. Nietzsche wollte anders als klassische Moralphilosophen keine Moral herleiten oder begründen, sondern die geschichtliche Entwicklung und die psychischen Voraussetzungen bestimmter moralischer Wertvorstellungen nachvollziehen. Er fragt also nicht, wie die Menschen handeln sollten, sondern warum Menschen (Einzelne oder Gruppen) glauben, sie sollten auf bestimmte Weise handeln, oder andere dazu bringen wollen, so oder so zu handeln.

A partir de uma sugest?o de Gilles Deleuze e Félix Guattari – a de que todos os filósofos ocidentais terminaram construindo, no interregno do seu pensamento, personagens conceituais, uma espécie de assinatura do filósofo – este livro objetiva identificar esse tra?o a partir da obra de Michel Foucault. A tese em quest?o é que este autor n?o se enquadra em uma imagem única, como a do Juiz em Kant, ou a do sedutor em Kierkegaard, mas em uma imagem híbrida e triádica, fazendo coro com muitos filósofos chamados de transversais e que se instalaram no horizonte de filosofias chamadas de pós-estruturalistas, como Deleuze.

Em Vida sem Princípio , Henry David Thoreau nos apresenta um verdadeiro manual de como viver em sociedade e em contato com a Natureza respeitando a natureza e ao próximo.? puro Transcendentalismo , um apelo para que cada um siga a sua própria luz interior.Este ensaio foi obtido a partir da palestra''What Shall It Profit? ''apresentada ao publico em 06 de dezembro de 1854, no Sal?o Railroad em Providence Rhode Island.Foi publicado pela primeira vez na edi??o de outubro de 1863 The Atlantic Monthly, onde foi dado o título moderno.Vida sem Princípio é um ensaio em que Thoreau coloca o seu programa para viver bem. Incluem-se aqui as suas ideias sobre a forma de abordagem da comunica??o interpessoal, modos de trabalho, sustento financeiro e outros códigos de conduta baseados na filosofia de de vida de Thoreau.'

Such is the system which underlies the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Some knowledge of it is necessary to the right understanding of the book, but for us the chief interest lies elsewhere. We do not come to Marcus Aurelius for a treatise on Stoicism. He is no head of a school to lay down a body of doctrine for students; he does not even contemplate that others should read what he writes. His philosophy is not an eager intellectual inquiry, but more what we should call religious feeling. The uncompromising stiffness of Zeno or Chrysippus is softened and transformed by passing through a nature reverent and tolerant, gentle and free from guile; the grim resignation which made life possible to the Stoic sage becomes in him almost a mood of aspiration. His book records the innermost thoughts of his heart, set down to ease it, with such moral maxims and reflections as may help him to bear the burden of duty and the countless annoyances of a busy life. It is instructive to compare the Meditations with another famous book, the Imitation of Christ. There is the same ideal of self-control in both. It should be a man's task, says the Imitation, 'to overcome himself, and every day to be stronger than himself.' 'In withstanding of the passions standeth very peace of heart.' 'Let us set the axe to the root, that we being purged of our passions may have a peaceable mind.' To this end there must be continual self-examination. 'If thou may not continually gather thyself together, namely sometimes do it, at least once a day, the morning or the evening. In the morning purpose, in the evening discuss the manner, what thou hast been this day, in word, work, and thought.' But while the Roman's temper is a modest self-reliance, the Christian aims at a more passive mood, humbleness and meekness, and reliance on the presence and personal friendship of God. The Roman scrutinises his faults with severity, but without the self-contempt which makes the Christian 'vile in his own sight.' The Christian, like the Roman, bids 'study to withdraw thine heart from the love of things visible'; but it is not the busy life of duty he has in mind so much as the contempt of all worldly things, and the 'cutting away of all lower delectations.' Both rate men's praise or blame at their real worthlessness; 'Let not thy peace,' says the Christian, 'be in the mouths of men.' But it is to God's censure the Christian appeals, the Roman to his own soul. The petty annoyances of injustice or unkindness are looked on by each with the same magnanimity. 'Why doth a little thing said or done against thee make thee sorry? It is no new thing; it is not the first, nor shall it be the last, if thou live long. At best suffer patiently, if thou canst not suffer joyously.' The Christian should sorrow more for other men's malice than for our own wrongs; but the Roman is inclined to wash his hands of the offender. 'Study to be patient in suffering and bearing other men's defaults and all manner infirmities,' says the Christian; but the Roman would never have thought to add, 'If all men were perfect, what had we then to suffer of other men for God?' The virtue of suffering in itself is an idea which does not meet us in the Meditations. Both alike realise that man is one of a great community. 'No man is sufficient to himself,' says the Christian; 'we must bear together, help together, comfort together.' But while he sees a chief importance in zeal, in exalted emotion that is, and avoidance of lukewarmness, the Roman thought mainly of the duty to be done as well as might be, and less of the feeling which should go with the doing of it. To the saint as to the emperor, the world is a poor thing at best. 'Verily it is a misery to live upon the earth,' says the Christian; few and evil are the days of man's life, which passeth away suddenly as a shadow. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?*** ? "MARCUS AURELIUS ANTONINUS" was born on April 26, A.D. 121. His real name was M. Annius Verus, and he was sprung of a noble family which claimed descent from Numa, second King of Rome. Thus the most religious of emperors came of the blood of the most pious of early kings. His father, Annius Verus, had held high office in Rome, and his grandfather, of the same name, had been thrice Consul. Both his parents died young, but Marcus held them in loving remembrance. On his father's death Marcus was adopted by his grandfather, the consular Annius Verus, and there was deep love between these two. On the very first page of his book Marcus gratefully declares how of his grandfather he had learned to be gentle and meek, and to refrain from all anger and passion. The Emperor Hadrian divined the fine character of the lad, whom he used to call not Verus but Verissimus, more Truthful than his own name. He advanced Marcus to equestrian rank when six years of age, and at the age of eight made him a member of the ancient Salian priesthood. The boy's aunt, A