A florentine diary from 1450 to 1516 By Luca Landucci

About 

This is what it sounds like a diary written in late 15th to the early 16th century written by a regular citizen. Landucci was an apothecary in Florence. This isn't a day to day account and was clearly collected at a later point there are notes that reference details that wouldn't be known until later. 

My impression was that he was middle to upper middle class. Its a bit hard to tell since there isn't that much personal. For example there are no notes about his children being born though some of them are mentioned later but not until they are adults. Most of the notes are news the fluctuation price of grain or goods, the politics of the city, or other countries. Crimes that happened and wars between various Italian countries and with France. Along with several plots involving the Medicis.

Also way more people getting hanged from windows. Like this seems to be something that happened at least every few years. 

My thoughts

How this has been preserved is interesting when so many other books has been lost to time.  I can see this being very useful for historians. Not so much for mentioning events. But about taxes and the price of various food stuffs. The reason the events might be less useful is how little information there is about anything that happened. The book is quite short considering how much time it covers. Some years are described in as little as half a page though some some others have 30 pages. There are so many times when I wanted more information about things mentioned. A revolt against the Medicis but Landucci says that he doesn't know why. I might have to find some history book about the renaissance Italy and read that.

Landucci was a contemporary of Machiavelli and I read this looking for any mentioned of him. Alas there were none but there was plenty about the Borgias. Interesting he expressed no opinion about the pope having children. even though he had much opinions about other sins committed by the people he talked about. 

He was very religious and quite naive in a way that I found tiring. Of course the French aren't going to conquer Pisa for you there is no benefit for them to do so. Then the 11 January 1495 he writes about a preacher who refutes accusations against himself, claiming letters showing his support for the Medici was a forgery. Landucci ends this with saying he has always stood by the community's unity. Has he because this is the same person that has categorically forbidden women from being present at his sermons.

All in all it is an interesting read if you are interested in history but don't necessarily need a narrative.

If you have read it what did you think? Leave a comment. If you haven't read it you can check it out here:

Amazon

Bokus

Adlibris

The Library a fragile history by Andrew Pettigree

 Why did I choose to read this? I didn't this is one of my textbooks. But since I have to read anyway it and it's mostly interesting I might as well write a post about it also writing notes about a book while I read it might help remember it. 

About

Despite the title this is about the history of books and book collections more than libraries. Libraries as we know them (free for all and supported by taxes) is a very recent thing, and only really appeared in the last hundred years or so. 

Libraries were mostly private collections of prestigious books as a show of wealth and culture. And so people bought the expensive ones. Book collecting as a status symbol didn't change only the measure used. From the medieval manuscript with pretty illuminations and gold foil, to 1500 when the newest editions of classic works was all the rage to 1700 when like to day the first editions has the higher price. Again and again libraries and collection were made, at great expense. Made as a show of power until the next generation decided there were other status symbols they wanted more leaving them to rot forgotten in a cellar or an invading force stole the choicest titles for their own collections.

Although the collection size were modest by today's standard, hand copied and jewel encrusted manuscripts were rather more expensive than paperbacks.

My thoughts

The more things change the more they stay the same. Today, libraries are often either architectural marvels or showed into a unused room somewhere, threatened by budget cuts. An interesting recurring theme is people donating there collections to people or institutions that never wanted them in the first place. A collector handing it over to an uninterested heir, moralizing Latin sermons given for the improvement of the masses, masses that neither read Latin or wants to be moralized to. Plenty where taken as booty after conquest then left to rot in a storeroom hoping someone would take the time to catalog them. And so on again and again through history.

There is an unfortunate egocentricity to the book Italy, German the Netherlands, England is predominantly the history that is told. The middle east is mentioned but only during the ancient Mesopotamia, and the rest of Asia only as it relates to colonialism which really doesn't count since they'd had literary and scientific golden ages of their own. 

It is interesting how it wasn't until the 17th century that collections were becoming, what we today would call large. 500 books was considered a large collection for most of history (for reference I have 270) 

Reading about a time when the university library was smaller than a single professors. Of course without a budget to buy any, only getting books through donations, I can imagine that it was not the books they wanted and there is a lot of work to suddenly have a pile of a thousands of books to catalog. but you can't feel too sorry for them considering the amount of books were thrown away simply because they didn't fit the current fashion. 

In a way its odd how it didn't get boring considering how repetitive most of history were. Collections built and destroyed book-markets moving with the economies. This might have been because it was a textbook I probably wouldn't have read it otherwise and certainly not at the pace I did.

A bit of a pet peeve for me is that while there are many mentions of the cost of books. But only a few explanations. I don't know how much 1000 ducats where or how they relate to an average income. 

If you have read it what did you think? Leave a comment. If you haven't read it you can check it out here Library.

Quantum Physics and life by Ingemar Ehrnberg and others

About

This book is written for the general public so no math or too many technical terms.

As the title suggests this book is about quantum physics and explains it through how it intersects with biology. We only perceive a fraction of the world. The spectrum of visible light is only a fraction of the electromagnetic radiation that exist. The same is true for physics, the classical physics of gravitation and movement is only parts of the forces governing the world the rest is the weird mess that is quantum physics. 

But just because it's weird doesn't mean it doesn't affect us or that evolution cant use it. Like how geckos use nano-hairs under their feet to stick to walls and ceilings. How birds can see the earths magnetic field to find their way home. Or how chlorophyll catches light. 

My thoughts

It is a short book with only 150 pages. Actually less since each chapter has three pages just for the heading and a quote. A bit ridiculous especially for chapter 2 that's only 4 pages. It brings to mind the times I had to reach a specific page count but didn't have the text for it.

I've read books and watched documentaries about quantum physics before, so for me there were parts I already knew but also a lot of new information. Still I would have liked it to be slightly more advanced or maybe just have another 50 pages and try for a deeper explanation. A lot of the quantum physics parts are a bit glossed over, on the one hand I understand the decision these are difficult concepts that doesn't work the way anything else does. But I would like the opportunity to at least try to understand. 

But that's maybe just me in general it's a good first introduction for anyone who is interested. And relating it to familiar things is a nice addition rather than just using metaphors that never quite work.

If you have read it what did you think? Leave a comment. If you haven't read it you can check it out here quantum.

A review of Catilina an anthologi by Alexander Andreé

This book is a collection of all... most of the the antique sources that talk about Catilinarian conspiracy. If you don't know what this is I suggest looking it up it is quite a fascinating time. But basically Catiline was a roman living in the last decades of the roman republic. A time of turmoil and civil wars. He was from a wealthy family that had fallen on hard times and his early career was plagued by scandals. Among others things he was accused for murdering his wife and son and for corruption during his time as governor for the roman province in Africa. This might have been the reason why he twice failed to become elected as consul (the highest public office during the roman republic). Rather than try a third time he instead attempted a coup.

He gained support among the poor and as well as impoverished nobles like himself, gathered them into an army under his friend Manlius' command. He also planned arson and assassinations of various senators and the then consul Cicero. The plot was discovered, speeches was had in the senate. Catiline fled the city and joined the army while his supporters were imprisoned and executed. Catiline was killed in battle against the army Rome sent against them. 

The book starts with a description of what happened who Catiline and the writers was. Most of the texts are historical accounts, chapters of books describing the history of Rome. A large part is also the speeches Cicero made in the senate and to the people.

My thoughts

While anthologies are normal I haven't actually seen one like this before. With all the historical sources on a subject combined. I would like to read more books like this about other historical events, though this one has the advantage of having a good amount of sources about it. 

I would like to have heard from his supporter or Catiline himself. With Cicero being his enemy (understandably) and the rest being various historical texts seeking some kind of neutrality in the matter. They are still clearly on the side of the establishment and unsympathetic for the plight of the common man. Sallustius claims that Catiline surrounded himself and won the approval of people in debt. S attributes this debt to them being yo lazy to work and decadent living. I cant help drawing comparisons with the current boomer vs millenials and gen x conversation. This is not really a critique of the book, sources from so long ago are few, but it would still have been interesting. 

A thing I noticed when reading all the accounts back to back was the differences between them. The accounts are all slightly varied. There are details in one that aren't in others, especially when it comes to peoples motivation. One example the description of Fulvia and Curius, they were the ones to inform Cicero of the assassination plot.

In Appianus account Cicero found out about the plot because one of the conspirators Curius bragged about it to his lover Fulvia who then told Cicero. 

In Sallustius account they had also been lovers but the noble woman Fulvia had lost interest since he had money issues. He then brags about the money and power he will get. But also says that Curius threatened her. Here she just told people in general what she knew. Later she is described more like a go between for Cicero and Curius in a way that makes it sounds like Curious was helping Cicero. 

Plutharcos also describes her as a noble woman and says she told Cicero of the murder plot. It does not mention Curius or how she found out about it.

Diodorus has the most details but doesn't mention either Fulvia of Curius by name. In his account one of the conspirators is in love with a girl who doesn't care for him. Same a Salustius he brags about the power he will gain and also threatens her. She then pretends to be interested to get him to tell her more. She then met with Ciceros wife and told her about what she knew. This is the only version that mentions Ciceros wife having any part in this.

Cassius Dio just says Cicero found out about the plot but not how.

This is just one example most parts are like this the broad strokes are the same but the details are different. I didn't even notice this until I had read a couple or accounts and going back and looking for it I found others. 

Just a comment but what is Cicero's deal with sex. I can understand that he would have an extremely negative opinion on the person who tried to murder him, but in the second speech he spend a lot of time calling him and his supporters perverts and whores.

If you have read it what did you think? Leave a comment. If you haven't read it you can check it out here Catiline. As far as I can tell this book only exists in Swedish so far but the original texts and translations of them are easy to find. 

Cicero, Sallustius, Appianus, Plutarchos

Beter wordt het niet By Caroline de Gruyter

 This is a book that as far as I can find only exists written in Dutch, a Swedish translation and maybe German. Though I'm uncertain about the last. 

About

The author is a journalist who after living in Brussels for awhile she moved to Austria and Wienna. There she realized how strong the Habsbourg influence still is and how different the narrative her is compared to what she was taught about it. 

A theme of the book is this changing narrative. The modern day nostalgia over things they then complained about. Similar to how people today complains about the EU. Though that nostalgia might partially be because the time after was so much worse with the rise and fall of soviet. Stability is underrated until you loose it.

The book contains many interviews with different people, descendants of the former royal family, other nobles and politicians. It is the journalist influence.

More about the Habsburgs and today's Austria than it does about EU. But whole sections are about the Hungary whose position in opposition to the Habsburg definitely mirrors their complicated position in EU today.

It's mostly about the last parts of the empire and the time after. The slow decline that was in the end obvious and parallels to today where every crisis is talked about as if it will be the one to break the union. The most obvious parallel is the problems of keeping diverse people united and the need to continuously adapt to new pressures.

The Habsburgs led was a multicultural empire held together by bureaucracy and compromises. It's collapse was a messy time. People who had previously been able to move freely about the empire now found themselves living on the wrong side of a border. 

My thoughts

That it's written by a journalist and not scientist is obvious from the very start. This isn't really a problem it just means it has more of a narrative, less statistics and a lot of personal anecdotes. And it is a more pleasant read.

It's interesting but lacks something in structure. Not really clear what differentiate the theme if one chapter from the next. Mostly it's the same anecdotes, interviews with descendants of various people, histories about the family interviewed or about life in the empire. And how that relates to EU. I cant help but think Maybe simply naming the chapters would have helped.

A lot of the people interviewed were descendants of nobles. People whose family lost land and influence when the empire collapses and the area was conquered. While it is interesting to hear about the modern day Habsburgs and their thoughts. They might have a bias to the empire in a way that ordinary people might not have. 

It is positive about the EU points out that it probably wont collapse despite what headlines might say. Because at the end of the day being a part of it is better than not.

All in all its an interesting read about a place and time I know little about. 

If you have read it what did you think? Leave a comment. If you haven't read it you can check it out here Habsburg for the Dutch version and here Habsburg for the Swedish version.

Review of Nobody's fool by Daniel Simons & Christopher Chabris

 I'm a librarian and despite what many people might think this does not involve much reading. 

This summer however me and some coworkers are presenting three new books each for an audience of predominantly older women. Since I have to go through the work of finding, getting, reading and forming an opinion on these books I might as well post it here as well. With the added bonus that I can be brutally honest here. 

First up

Nobody's fool

It's a nonfiction book written by two psychology professors about the aspects of human psychology that makes us vulnerable to con artists, misinformation and other influences. With each chapter taking up different vulnerabilities.

Like how peoples first instinct when given a piece of information is to assume it is true. (I find myself doing this even when I know the person isn't trustworthy.) Doubly so when it agrees with our worldview. Or comes from a trusted source.

We tend to focus on the information we have and draw conclusions from that, most never considers questioning what information was left out. It made me think of clickbait headlines like "10 habits of successful people" without comparing them to the habits of the people who aren't successful.

We tend to focus on the information we have and draw conclusions from that, most never considers questioning what information was left out. Why? Because they save us time and energy and most of the time they work. It's the times they don't that's the problem. We all make predictions of the future. Using models allows us to act faster and we based these on our experiences. Problem arise when we stop questioning information just because it agrees with our prediction. 

It also contains how tips for how to avoid these traps. Questions to ask yourself when encountering new information.

My thoughts

The tone is quite considerate and non judgmental, pointing out that people who are deceived are not necessarily stupid. Clever people are instead much better at coming up with reasons and justifications for why they are right. Even when confronted by evidence. I didn't have time to read more than hundred pages since its for work and I have other things I need to do but I quite like it and wouldn't mind finish it in my free time.

If you have read it, What did you think? If not the it can be bought here Nobody's fool