A Midsummer Night's Dream (William Shakespeare, 1596)

I've enjoyed reading Shakespeare, but not as much I expected.  But now I think I figured out a way!

Previously I was purchasing and reading the beautiful, comprehensive Arden Shakespeare editions - full of notes and explanatory material, which I of course checked out as I went along.  Julius Caesar and Richard III quite good but overall meh.  Kind of tedious, choppy.

Recently I broke down and bought a Kindle, and downloaded some Shakespeare items that are "free" to Prime members.  These are simple editions without any notes at all, and presumably are reasonably faithful to whatever Shakespeare originally wrote.  

I read "A Midsummer Night's Dream" this way and much enjoyed - no notes or other explanation - no doubt there's plenty I missed, but it was so much more pleasant to just forge through the story line.

I also have a lovely book by Harold Bloom - "Shakespeare - The Invention of the Human" - he provides commentaries on all the main plays.  So I read his summary but only after reading the play.  This is the approach that I'll take with Shakespeare going forward.  Yay.

Bottom is a great character (he has fun with the elves).  Puck - mischievous, to say the least.  There are two couples who go through some adventures in the woods; Oberon and his wife Titania.

Dominion - The Making of the Western Mind (Tom Holland, 2019)

(525 pages) (Gift from PJr/Nedda)

At outset:  useful survey of Christian thinkers, leaders, interaction with Jews, Muslims, what came to be called pagans, atheists.

Main thesis appears to be that Christianity deeply affects the worldview of 21st century folks in the West.  Not shocking; makes a lot of sense; not sure if widely appreciated anymore.  

As author recounts, Christianity's dominance of the West doesn't have a parallel in history.

I had always associated this development very heavily with Constantine in 312 - and no doubt this was important.  Brought Christianity into the mainstream, gave it an imperial model (centralized control, hierarchy; Council of Nicea).

But I was struck how distant that was from what happened quite a bit later in the West.  Rome a hollowed-out dump centuries after 312. The papacy a haven for, at best, well-meaning provincials.  

Then along comes Gregory the Great (pope from 590-604). Charlemagne's needs (he's crowned in 800). This kind of thing really solidified the build-out in the West.

And the scope was incredible.  Bishops, priests, monks, nuns, eventually across literally every country in Europe.  Create major feast days and also saint's days to cover every day of the calendar year.  Create prayers specific to the hours of each day; separate prayers for each day; the idea of confession, tithing.  Cradle to grave sacraments. The Curia. It grows and grows.

(I was struck by this going through my parent's house recently (part of the estate process) - all the Catholic church residuum lingering into their childhoods and beyond.)

As to the importance of Christianity's effect on Western world view - of course - but I thought some of Holland's argument rested on the contradictions that pop up in Christianity (or any religion, for that matter). St. Paul talking about only needing to follow the law as written on the heart; but then detailed regulations.  St. Paul talking about treating women equally, and then backing off.  Jesus saying the poor will always be with us, and also that the rich should give away their goods, and the parable of the savvy investor - which strand dominates?  The existence of the contradictions allows Holland to claim everything, including contradictory thrusts, flows from Christianity.  Hmm.

Unabashed praise for good things from Christianity, which were real - respect for individual, importance of monogamous marriage, concern for the poor - yes of course so many hypocrites and grand failures, but these were revolutionary concepts that took root for the first time.  Refreshing that someone is willing to say so.