2021/09/23

삼위일체 - 위키백과, 우리 모두의 백과사전

삼위일체 - 위키백과, 우리 모두의 백과사전

삼위일체

위키백과, 우리 모두의 백과사전.
둘러보기로 이동검색으로 이동

삼위일체(三位一體, 고대 그리스어Τριάδος 트리아도스[*]라틴어Trinitas 트리니타스[*])란 그리스도교에서 성경적으로 또한 신학적으로 중요한 위치를 차지하는 교리이다. 하나님은 본질에서 한 분이시며 위격(位格, 고대 그리스어ὑπόστασις 휘포스타시스[*])에서는 세 분으로 존재하신다는 것이다.[1] 삼위일체에 대해서 동방교회는 본질에 한 분이신 하나님께서 세 위격으로 되는 신비를 지지했고, 서방교회는 세 위격으로 존재하는 하나님이 동일본질로 한 분 하나님이 되는 신비를 지지하며 신학적 관점의 차이를 보였다.[2]

기원[편집]

삼위일체 방패(Scutum Fidei). 아버지(Pater)와 아들(Filius)과 성령(Spiritus Sanctus)은 동일한 인격이 아니나(non est) 한 하느님(하나님)이다.

삼위일체에 대한 성경적 근거는 이미 구약성경에서 자주 나타났고, 신약성경에서는 여러 곳에서 아버지와 아들과 성령이라는 문구가 증거되었다.[3] 그러나 신학적으로 정립이 되지는 않았다. 기독교회에서 삼위일체론의 초기 기원은 그리스도론(기독론)의 확장에서 시작되었다. 막 태동되었던 기독교에게 70년 유대 전쟁에서 다른 유파가 사라지고 유일하게 남은 바리사이파 유대교와 인성을 강조하는 에비온주의, 신성의 영적 요소만을 강조하는 영지주의의 등장으로 기독교 뿌리를 흔든 자극이 되었고, 육체를 가지신 제2 하나님이신 그리스도가 누구인지 논리적인 설명인 신학이론이 필요했다. 이 즈음에 형성된 신약성경을 바탕으로 그리스도론과 그 그리스도론의 존재 이유에 대한 설명인 삼위일체가 등장하였다. 삼위일체는 점차 발전하여 이 세상을 설명하는 세계관과 신학적 지침으로서 기독교에 중요한 교리가 되었다.[4]

기독교[편집]

  • 기독교에서 성부(聖父), 성자(聖子), 성령(聖靈)은 삼위(3 Persons, 세 위격, 세 신격, 세 분, 三位)로 존재하지만, 본질(essence)은 한 분 하느님이라는 교리이다.[5] 삼위일체라는 표현은 교회에서 구약이라고 부르고 있는 타나크는 다양한 방식으로 간접적인 삼위일체가 나타나며, 신약성경 2고린 13:13에는 "주 예수 그리스도의 은총과 하느님의 사랑과 성령께서 이루어주시는 친교를 여러분 모두가 누리시기를 빕니다."라는 표현에서 삼위일체가 분명하게 제시되고 있다. 삼위일체라는 용어는 후대 교회에서 사용하였다. 또 신구파를 막론한 대다수의 기독교는 삼위에 대한 개념이 요한 복음서 등에서 간접적으로 암시함(아버지와 아들이 하나라는 표현이 자주 나옴)을 주장하며 옹호하고 있다. 삼위일체라는 말은 성서에 나오지 않는다. 기원후 200년경 라틴 신학자인 테르툴리아누스가 신을 설명하기 위해 트리니타스(trinitas)라는 말을 만들어낸 게 그 시초다. 그리스도교 찬송가는 주로 삼위일체를 세 행으로 꾸며 성부, 성자, 성령에 각각 한 행씩 배당한다. 구약성서에는 삼위일체의 '예고편'이 있다. 아브라함 족장을 방문한 '사람 셋'은 '주'라고도 지칭되는데, 그리스도교도들은 이것을 가리켜 삼위일체가 아브라함을 방문한 것이라고 해석한다. 성자가 예수라는 세속의 형태로 태어나기 훨씬 전이다. 동방정교회의 화가들은 아브라함과 이 '구약성서의 삼위일체'를 여러 차례 그림으로 표현했다.

기독교의 삼위일체 교리는 다윗의 시편에서도 찾아볼 수 있다.

다음으로는 시편 110:1의 말씀을 번역본대로 비교한 것이다.

공동번역야훼께서 내 주께 선언하셨다. "내 오른편에 앉아 있어라. 내가 네 원수들을 네 발판으로 삼을 때
개역한글여호와께서 내 주에게 말씀하시기를 내가 네 원수로 네 발등상 되게 하기까지 너는 내 우편에 앉으라 하셨도다
개역개정여호와께서 내 주에게 말씀하시기를 내가 네 원수들로 네 발판이 되게 하기까지 너는 내 오른쪽에 앉아 있으라 하셨도다
새번역주님께서 내 주님께 말씀하시기를 "내가 너의 원수들을 너의 발판이 되게 하기까지, 너는 내 오른쪽에 앉아 있어라" 하셨습니다.

다윗은 시편에서 야훼 하느님(성부)께서 다윗의 또 다른 주(主)님과 대화하는 모습을 서술하고 있다.

에배소서 1:20 하느님께서는 그 능력을 떨치시어 그리스도를 죽은 자들 가운데서 다시 살려내시고 하늘 나라에 불러 올리셔서 당신의 오른편에 앉히시고 (공동번역)
사도행전 7:56 그래서 그는 "아, 하늘이 열려 있고 하느님 오른편에 사람의 아들이 서 계신 것이 보입니다." 하고 외쳤다. (공동번역)
마태복음 14:62 예수께서는 "그렇다. 너희는 사람의 아들이 전능하신 분의 오른편에 앉아 있는 것과 하늘의 구름을 타고 오는 것을 볼 것이다." 하고 대답하셨다. (공동번역)
마태복음 12:36 다윗이 성령의 감화를 받아 스스로, '주 하느님께서 내 주님께 이르신 말씀, 내가 네 원수를 네 발 아래 굴복시킬 때까지 너는 내 오른편에 앉아 있어라.' 하지 않았더냐? (공동번역)
로마서 8:34 누가 감히 그들을 단죄할 수 있겠습니까? 그리스도 예수께서 단죄하시겠습니까? 아닙니다. 그분은 우리를 위해서 돌아가셨을 뿐만 아니라 다시 살아나셔서 하느님 오른편에 앉아 우리를 위하여 대신 간구해 주시는 분이십니다. (공동번역)

신약과 비교해 해석해 보았을 때 주(主)님은 예수 그리스도를 나타내는 것으로 결론지을 수 있다.

또한 결정적인 삼위일체 교리의 핵심 구절은 요한의 첫째 편지 5장 1-8절 말씀이다.

"예수께서 그리스도이심을 믿는 사람은 누구나 하느님의 자녀입니다. 아버지를 사랑하는 사람은 누구나 그 자녀를 사랑합니다. 우리가 하느님을 사랑하고 또 하느님의 계명을 지키면 우리가 하느님의 자녀를 사랑하고 있다는 것을 알 수 있습니다. 하느님의 계명을 지키는 것이 곧 하느님을 사랑하는 일입니다. 그리고 하느님의 계명은 무거운 짐이 아닙니다. 하느님의 자녀는 누구나 다 세상을 이겨냅니다. 그리고 세상을 이기는 승리의 길은 곧 우리의 믿음입니다.

세상을 이기는 사람은 누구입니까? 예수께서 하느님의 아들이시라는 것을 믿는 사람이 아니겠습니까? 하느님의 아들이 인간으로 오셔서 물로 세례를 받으시고 수난의 피를 흘리셨습니다. 그분이 바로 그리스도이신 예수이십니다. 그분은 물로 세례를 받으신 것뿐만 아니라 세례로 받으시고 수난의 피도 흘리셨습니다. 증언자가 셋 있습니다. 곧 성령과 물과 피인데 이 셋은 서로 일치합니다."

요한은 요한1서에서 "하느님이 자신의 아들인 예수 그리스도를 보냈다는 것을 믿는 것"이 계명을 지키고 하느님을 사랑하는 것이라고 말하고 있고, 또한 그것을 증거하는 분이 성령이라고 시사하고 있으며, 그 셋은 하나라고 명확히 함으로 삼위일체론을 뒷받침하는 구절을 기록해 놓았다.

기독교의 경전 중에서 요한의 복음서에서도 그리스도의 선재와 성령의 오심을 설명하여 삼위의 개념을 다루고 있다. 사상적 개념으로는 기독교 초기의 환경이었던 유대교, 다신론, 영지주의 등의 배경에서 예수 그리스도가 하느님의 아들로 보내졌고, 아들이 이 땅에 존재했으며, 십자가에 못 박혀 죽고 부활한 후에도 함께하시는 주, 즉 기독교가 고백하는 주에 대한 새로운 설명이 요청되었다. 특히 영지주의의 유출설과 마르키온주의의 이원론은 그리스도론을 뒤흔드는 사건이었고, 이 문제를 해결하기 위한 신학적 개념이 필요했다.[6] 이 새로운 개념은 흔히 325년 니케아 공의회와 381년 콘스탄티노플 공의회에서 호모우시우스라는 예수와 성부가 동일 본질이라는 관념을 더욱 발전시키고 논리적으로 체계화 시켜 삼위일체로서 확정했다. 니케아 공의회 이전부터 교부들 사이에서 받아들여지던 호모우시우스의 “동질적이고 하나의 실체로 된 아들과 아버지”라는 관념에 도전하여 삼위일체를 부인한 아리우스는 제1차 니케아 공의회에 의하여 파문되었다.

공의회의 결정 이전에 1세기 사도 교부인 로마의 클레멘스의 삼위 언급 즉 "하느님의 사심, 주 예수 그리스도의 사심, 성령으로"[7]라고 고백하는 문헌과 성육신 이전 예수 그리스도의 선재를 받아들이는 기록이 있다. 사도 교부인 안티오키아의 이그나티우스도 이미 존재했던 세례의 문구와 요한복음서를 활용하여 삼위 개념을 언급했다.[8] 2세기를 맞으며 기독교 변증가들은 성부와 성자의 관계를 설명하는 틀을 신학적으로 마련하고자 애썼다. 로고스 개념을 활용하여 유스티아누스에서 타티아누스, 안디오키아의 테오필루스로 이어지며 발전하였다. 2세기의 신학자 이레니우스의 경세적 삼위일체론의 등장과 이후 초대 기독교 전승을 기록한 사도전승에서 이미 삼위일체 개념을 따라 서품되는 감독자의 기도문이 있으며[9], 그 후 3세기 신학자 히폴리투스와 테르툴리아누스의 삼위일체론을 바탕으로 4세기 공의회의 결정이 이루어졌다.

일부 종교 학자들은 4세기 즈음에 확정된 삼위일체설은 기독교의 개념에 기반을 두고 있다는 것을 부인하고 있고, 또 이는 하느님의 본성에 대한 초기 기독교에서 비롯되었다는 주장도 있으며[10]기독교 선교 이전 플라톤이 주장하던 성 삼위일체의 개념에서 가져온 것이라는 주장도 있다.[11] 다른 학자는 삼위일체라는 개념이 기독교의 삼위일체설은 고대 이집트힌두교를 비롯한 고대 신앙의 영향을 받아 혼입된 교리라고 주장하기도 한다.[12][13][14][15]

현재는 대다수의 기독교 종파들이 삼위일체를 중심적인 교리로 이해하고 있다. 요한의 복음서 14장에서 설명된 것처럼 예수 그리스도는 공생애를 통하여 자신이 곧 하느님이라는 사실과, 자신이 성부의 독생자로서 성부와 영원한 관계에 있다는 것과, 성령도 하느님으로서 하느님의 일을 한다는 것을 보여주었으며, 하느님은 '절대단독주체 (Absolute Singleness)'가 아니며 성부, 성자, 성령 삼위가 하나이며 이를 통하여 예수는 삼위일체의 그 자체였다고 주장한다. 그러나 삼위일체가 모든 기독교 종파의 주요 교리로 사용되지는 않는다. 니케아 신경과 보편교회의 세계공의회 전통을 거부하는 회복주의 계열의 일부 교파에서는 비성경적 논리에 불과하다며 삼위일체설을 부인하기도 한다.

찬성 견해[편집]

삼위일체 찬성 교파와 교단은 대부분 그리스도교의 신학적 전통을 계승하고, 구약성경, 신약성경만을 경전으로 인정하고, 보편교회 시대의 신학적 기준을 사도적 지침이라 여기고 수용하는 교단들이다. 동방정교회와 천주교회, 개신교회 교단들인 루터교회, 개혁교회, 성공회교회, 침례교회, 장로교회, 감리교회, 성결교회, 오순절교회 등이다.

삼위일체의 요소는 성부성자성령인데 마태오 복음 11장 27절과 마르코 복음 10장 22절에서 예수는 ‘아버지’로부터 모든 것을 받았다고 하는 데서 비롯된다.

아버지께서는 모든 것을 저에게 맡겨주셨습니다. 아버지밖에는 아들을 아는 이가 없고 아들과 또 그가 아버지를 계시하려고 택한 사람들밖에는 아버지를 아는 이가 없습니다."
— 마태오의 복음서 11장 27절 (공동번역)

또한 28장 19절에서는 "아버지와 아들과 성령의 이름으로 세례"를 주라고 가르쳤고, 요한 복음서 14장은 이를 더욱 구체화하여 서술하고 있다. 코린토인들에게 보낸 첫째 편지 8장 6절에는 대구법을 통해 예수 그리스도가 곧 창조주와 동일함을 시사하고 있다.

우리에게는 아버지가 되시는 하느님 한 분이 계실 뿐입니다. 그분은 만물을 창조하신 분이며 우리는 그분을 위해서 있습니다. 또 주님은 예수 그리스도 한 분이 계실 뿐이고 그분을 통해서 만물이 존재하고 우리도 그분으로 말미암아 살아갑니다.
— 고린토인들에게 보낸 첫째 편지 8장 6절 (공동번역)

반대 견해[편집]

삼위일체 반대 교단들은 대부분 19세기 이후에 등장한 교파로, 현재 주류 그리스도교의 신학적 전통을 배교라 여기고, 초대교회에서 보편교회 시기를 지나며 현재 교회가 배교로 단절되었으며, 삼위일체 역시 단절의 이론이므로 이를 거부하는 것이 단절을 잇는 방법이라고 주장한다. 니케아 신경과 보편교회의 세계공의회 교리를 거부하는 회복주의 성향들로 여호와의 증인, 예수그리스도후기성도, 유니테리언 등이다.[16]

구약성경 신명기 6장 4절에서 나오는 "너, 이스라엘아 들어라. 우리의 하느님(하나님)은 야훼시다. 야훼 한 분뿐이시다."라는 구절과 신약성경 마태오의 복음서 4장 10절에서 "사탄아, 물러가라! 성서에 '주님이신 너희 하느님(하나님)을 경배하고 그분만을 섬겨라.' 하시지 않았느냐?"라는 구절 등 성서의 여러 면을 살펴보면 삼위일체와 관계되지 않는 듯한 내용도 담겨져 있다. 여호와의 증인이나 유니테리언그리스도아델피안 등의 삼위일체를 부인하는 종파는 이 점 또한 지적하며 만약 예수 그리스도가 삼위일체의 일부분이었다면 "오직 그분에게만"이라고 하지 않고 "우리에게"라고 말할 수도 있었을 것이라고 주장한다.

또한 '신 가톨릭 백과사전'(New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967년판) 제14권 299면에 수록된 내용을 살펴보면, 로마 가톨릭교회도 삼위일체설에 대해 다음과 같이 인정하고 있는 것으로 보인다. "결국 삼위일체 교의는 4세기 후반에 가서야 고안된 것이라는 생각이 들 수 있다. 어떤 면으로 볼 때 그것은 사실이다. (중략) ‘세 위 속의 한 하느님’이란 교리는 4세기 말 이전에는 완전히 확립되지 않았으며, 온전히 그리스도인 생활과 신앙 고백의 일부가 되지 않았던 것이 분명하다."

그리고 '브리태니커 백과사전'(영문, 1970년판) 제6권 386면에는 보편교회에서 삼위일체 교리가 채택된 제1차 니케아 공의회 당시의 상황을 다음과 같이 묘사하고 있다. "니케아 공의회는 325년 5월 20일에 열렸다. 콘스탄티누스는 직접 회의를 주재하면서 토의를 적극적으로 주도하였으며, (중략) 공의회가 발의한 신경에 그리스도와 하느님의 관계를 ‘아버지와 하나의 실체’라고 표현한 결정적인 문구를 포함시킬 것을 직접 제안하였다. (중략) 주교들은 황제에게 위압감을 느껴 단지 두 명만 제외하고 신경에 서명하였는데, 그들 중 다수는 자신들의 견해와 매우 달리 행동한 것이다."

이슬람교에서는 유일신 사상을 가지며, 이 삼위일체 교리에 대하여 혐오하는 반응이 그들의 경전 코란에 나와 있다.(수라 4:171, 5:73) 이러한 유일신 사상이 전투적이며 호전적인 이슬람을 나타내기 위한 기본적인 뼈대로 보기도 한다.[17]

다양한 해석[편집]

  • 삼신론: '세 인격의 세 하느님'이라는 이론이다.
  • 양태론(modalism): 하느님이 시대에 따라 성부·성자·성령의 모습으로 나타나는 '한 인격의 한 하느님'이라는 이론이다. 간단히 말해서 구약의 시대에는 성부로, 신약의 시대에는 성자로, 신약 이후에는 성령으로 활동한다는 주장이 양태론적 이론의 일례이다.
  • 종속론 : 성부와 성자와 성령이 온전히 하나인 주체이나, 성자와 성령은 성부에게 종속되어 있다는 이론이다.
  • 양자론 : 양자론은 하느님이 예수를 양자로 삼았기 때문에, 예수가 하느님의 아들이 되었다는 주장이다.

기독교 전통[편집]

삼위일체가 포함된 신조[편집]

같이 보기[편집]

condolences - Google Search

condolences - Google Search

condolence
/kənˈdəʊl(ə)ns/
noun
plural nouncondolences
  1. an expression of sympathy, especially on the occasion of the death of a person's relative or close friend.
  2. 특히 사람의 친척이나 가까운 친구가 사망한 경우에 동정의 표현.

"삼가 고인의 명복을 빕니다."를 풀어서 해석하면은 "예를 다하여 돌아가신 분이 저승에서 복을 받기를 바란다."라는 뜻이 됩니다.
===

Rest in peace  편히 쉬세요

===
condolences

상심이 크시겠어요 · 
삼가 위로의 말씀 전해드립니다.

25 Great Book Reviews From the Past 125 Years - The New York Times

25 Great Book Reviews From the Past 125 Years - The New York Times





CHAPTERS

25 Great Writers and Thinkers Weigh In on Books That Matter

To celebrate the Book Review’s 125th anniversary, we’re dipping into the archives to revisit our most thrilling, memorable and thought-provoking coverage.


Damon Winter/The New York Times (Toni Morrison); Henry Clarke/Conde Nast, via Getty Images (Joan Didion); Ulf Andersen/Getty Images (Patricia Highsmith); Andre D. Wagner for The New York Times (Patti Smith); Oliver Morris/Getty Images (Kurt Vonnegut); Ulf Andersen/Getty Images (James Baldwin)Credit...








648



By Tina Jordan, Noor Qasim and John Williams
Published Jan. 25, 2021Updated Jan. 28, 2021
Leer en español


On Oct. 10, 1896, after years of robust literary coverage at The New York Times, the paper published the first issue of the Book Review.

In the 125 years since, that coverage has broadened and deepened. The Book Review has become a lens through which to view not just literature but the world at large, with scholars and thinkers weighing in on all of the people and issues and subjects covered in books on philosophy, art, science, economics, history and more.

In many ways, the Book Review’s history is that of American letters, and we’ll be using our 125th anniversary this year to celebrate and examine that history over the coming months. In essays, photo stories, timelines and other formats, we’ll highlight the books and authors that made it all possible.

Because, really, writers are at the heart of everything we do. Pairing a book with the right reviewer is a challenge, one that we relish. And we’ve been fortunate to feature the writing of so many illustrious figures in our pages — novelists, musicians, presidents, Nobel winners, CEOs, poets, playwrights — all offering their insights with wit and flair. Here are 25 of them.

H.G. Wells | Vladimir Nabokov | Tennessee Williams | Patricia Highsmith | Shirley Jackson | Eudora Welty | Langston Hughes | Dorothy Parker | John F. Kennedy | Nora Ephron | Toni Morrison | John Kenneth Galbraith | Nikki Giovanni | James Baldwin | Kurt Vonnegut Jr. | Joan Didion | Derek Walcott | Margaret Atwood | Ursula K. Le Guin | Stephen King | Jhumpa Lahiri | Mario Vargas Llosa | Colson Whitehead | Patti Smith | Bill Gates
Tell us: Who are the writers who have inspired you?
✧✧✧

1913
H.G. Wells




ImageCredit...Wolfgang Suschitzky/Popperfoto, via Getty Images

On Morley Roberts’s “The Private Life of Henry Maitland”

H.G. Wells, the author of science fiction classics like “The Time Machine” and “The War of the Worlds,” admitted that he had a personal interest in this work about his fellow author George Gissing (who was oddly given the pseudonym Henry Maitland in a book that was clearly about him). “In so far that I have on several occasions encouraged Mr. Roberts to write it,” Wells wrote, “I feel myself a little involved in the responsibility for it.” He must have left Roberts feeling a bit less than grateful for the encouragement when he judged: “It is no use pretending that Mr. Roberts’s book is not downright bad, careless in statement, squalid in effect, poor as criticism, weakly planned and entirely without any literary distinction.”
✧✧✧

1949
Vladimir Nabokov




Image
Credit...Carl Mydans/The LIFE Picture Collection, via Getty Images

On Jean-Paul Sartre’s “Nausea”

Nabokov was not yet a household name in the United States (that would come about a decade later, with the publication here of “Lolita”) when he reviewed Sartre’s philosophical novel about Antoine Roquentin, a French historian troubled by the very fact of existence. “Sartre’s name, I understand, is associated with a fashionable brand of cafe philosophy, and since for every so-called ‘existentialist’ one finds quite a few ‘suctorialists’ (if I may coin a polite term), this made-in-England translation of Sartre’s first novel, ‘La Nausée,’ should enjoy some success.”
✧✧✧

1949
Tennessee Williams




Image
Credit...Clifford Coffin/Conde Nast, via Getty Images

On Paul Bowles’s “The Sheltering Sky”

Williams, who had won a Pulitzer Prize in 1948 for his play “A Streetcar Named Desire,” reviewed this debut novel by Bowles, which went on to be acclaimed as one of the best of the 20th century. The story mercilessly follows a young married couple from New York adrift in the North African desert. “I suspect that a good many people will read this book,” Williams wrote, “without once suspecting that it contains a mirror of what is most terrifying and cryptic within the Sahara of moral nihilism, into which the race of man now seems to be wandering blindly.”
✧✧✧

1950
Patricia Highsmith




Image
Credit...Ulf Andersen/Getty Images

On R. Frison-Roche’s “First on the Rope”

When she wrote this brief review, Patricia Highsmith was the author of one novel, “Strangers on a Train.” She would go on to worldwide fame for that and other thrillers, including the ones that feature Tom Ripley. The author she reviewed, the French mountaineer R. Frison-Roche, is now relatively obscure. “This is exactly the kind of novel one would expect a Chamonix guide to write — blunt in style and treatment, unevenly paced, about mountain climbing, of course, and authentic down to the last piton, the last breathtaking moment before the summit.” More tantalizingly, Highsmith added: “There is a delightful and unexpected chapter about a cow battle that is fully as dramatic as the mountain scaling.”
✧✧✧

1950
Shirley Jackson




Image
Credit...Associated Press

On Red Smith’s “Out of the Red”

One of the stranger matchups of big names in our archives is this review of the sports columnist Red Smith’s work by Shirley Jackson, the author of “The Lottery” and “The Haunting of Hill House.” Jackson wrote about her enjoyment of watching sports on TV. Though she had “limited knowledge” of sportswriters at the time, Smith’s book won her over. “There are some otherwise modest, sensitive females — I am among them — who are become brazen snatchers of the sports page from the morning paper, and only a book like Red Smith’s shows me what I have been missing by not getting into this field sooner. Reading ‘Out of the Red’ has been, actually, an educational experience unlike almost anything I have known since first looking into Chapman’s Homer.”
✧✧✧

1952
Eudora Welty




Image
Credit...Ulf Andersen/Gamma-Rapho, via Getty Images

On E.B. White’s “Charlotte’s Web”

Eudora Welty’s review of this timeless tale is a sheer delight, starting from its headline (“Life in the Barn Was Very Good”) and its first sentence (“E.B. White has written his book for children, which is nice for us older ones as it calls for big type”). Unlike contemporary reviews that get future classics “wrong,” Welty — who worked briefly as an editor at the Book Review during World War II — saw this accomplishment clear in the moment. “What the book is about is friendship on earth, affection and protection, adventure and miracle, life and death, trust and treachery, pleasure and pain, and the passing of time,” she wrote. “As a piece of work it is just about perfect, and just about magical in the way it is done.”
✧✧✧

1956
Langston Hughes




Image
Credit...Robert W. Kelley/The LIFE Picture Collection, via Getty Images

On James Baldwin’s “Notes of a Native Son”

In this review, Langston Hughes, an eminent literary figure and chronicler of the Black experience in the United States, took the measure of this first collection of essays by Baldwin. He was impressed: “He uses words as the sea uses waves, to flow and beat, advance and retreat, rise and take a bow in disappearing.” He suggested that Baldwin still had room to grow, but that “America and the world might well have a major contemporary commentator.”
✧✧✧

1957
Dorothy Parker




Image
Credit...Bettmann/Getty Images

On S.J. Perelman’s “The Road to Miltown”

To no one’s surprise, Dorothy Parker, a member of the Algonquin Round Table, was funny in this review of work by her fellow humor writer. She begins it: “It is a strange force that compels a writer to be a humorist. It is a strange force, if you care to go back farther, that compels anyone to be a writer at all, but this is neither the time nor the place to bring up that matter. The writer’s way is rough and lonely, and who would choose it while there are vacancies in more gracious professions, such as, say, cleaning out ferryboats?” But while Parker was part of a “vicious circle,” and known for her piercing barbs, she happily praised Perelman, who, she wrote, “stands alone” in his field.
✧✧✧

1959
John F. Kennedy




Image
Credit...Bettmann/Getty Images

On Arthur Larson’s “What We Are For”

John F. Kennedy was the author of three books and still a Massachusetts senator when he reviewed this book, an attempt to define for the world what America believed in beyond simply opposition to the Soviet Union and Communism. Larson was a Republican who had worked with labor issues and had been a top speechwriter for President Dwight D. Eisenhower. “Though the book’s style is somewhat discursive and here and there perhaps a trifle condescending,” Kennedy wrote, “Mr. Larson does succeed very well in portraying the dangers of analyzing American society in terms of class distinctions or rigid economic interests. Though it is not a new theme, he is very successful in reminding us of the ‘kaleidoscope of apparently inexplicable mixtures of political coloration across the landscape.’”

1968
Nora Ephron




Image
Credit...William E. Sauro/The New York Times

On Rex Reed’s “Do You Sleep in the Nude?”

In this review, the filmmaker, director and writer Nora Ephron marveled at how the young Reed got his show-business subjects to say the things they said to him. Those subjects included Barbra Streisand, Warren Beatty and Lucille Ball. Ephron’s opening is a classic: “Rex Reed is a saucy, snoopy, bitchy man who sees with sharp eyes and writes with a mean pen and succeeds in making voyeurs of us all. If any of this sounds like I don’t like Rex Reed, let me correct that impression. I love Rex Reed.”
✧✧✧

1971
Toni Morrison




Image
Credit...Damon Winter/The New York Times

On Toni Cade Bambara’s “Tales and Stories for Black Folks”

Toni Morrison had just one novel under her belt when this review was published in 1971. One of the joys in our archives is to see — in retrospect — the understated descriptions of those who wrote for us. Morrison’s read: “Toni Morrison, an editor in a New York publishing house, is the author of ‘The Bluest Eye.’” “It is a most remarkable collection,” she wrote of Bambara’s work. “Joy aches and pain chuckles in these pages, and the entire book leaves you with the impression of silk — which is so nice because it was made by a living thing that had something on its mind, its survival no doubt.”
✧✧✧

1971
John Kenneth Galbraith




Image
Credit...Bettmann/Getty Images

On Chester Bowles’s “My Years in Public Life”

“Truth, not unconvincing humility, is the grandest virtue and accordingly I may observe that I am better qualified than any man alive to review a book on the public life of Chester Bowles.” The iconoclastic economist and prolific author John Kenneth Galbraith began his review this way because he and Bowles had held some of the same positions of power and had worked together on presidential campaigns. In so doing, they had become friends, which, Galbraith wrote, “is a disadvantage only if the book in question is bad. Only then do you have to consider whether the author should get the truth from you or someone else. This, fortunately, is an extremely good book.”
✧✧✧

1974
Nikki Giovanni




Image
Credit...Shaban Athuman for The New York Times

On Virginia Hamilton’s “M.C. Higgins, the Great”

The acclaimed poet Nikki Giovanni has written verse for children as well as adults, so she was the ideal reviewer for this novel, which was written for young readers but dealt with difficult, mature subjects. Hamilton’s novel, which won a Newbery Medal and a National Book Award, concerns a young boy hoping to save a local mountain from the ravages of strip mining. “‘M.C. Higgins, the Great’ is not an adorable book, not a lived‐happily‐ever‐after kind of story. It is warm, humane and hopeful and does what every book should do — creates characters with whom we can identify and for whom we care. … We’re glad Miss Hamilton is a writer. It makes the world just a little bit richer and our lives just a little bit warmer.”
✧✧✧

1975
Kurt Vonnegut Jr.




Image
Credit...Oliver Morris/Getty Images

On Tom Wicker’s “A Time to Die”

Kurt Vonnegut Jr. reviewed this account of the 1971 uprising at Attica prison written by Tom Wicker, who was a reporter, columnist and editor for The Times. The book mixed its reportage about the dramatic events at the prison with passages of autobiography. Leave it to Vonnegut to come up with a memorable comparison for what resulted: “The book is designed like a shish kebab, with novelistic scenes from ‘Wicker’s’ childhood and youth alternating with hard‐edged episodes from Attica, and with Tom Wicker himself as the skewer. The materials placed shoulder‐to‐shoulder on the skewer are as unlike as ripe peaches and hand grenades.”
✧✧✧

1976
James Baldwin




Image
Credit...Ulf Andersen/Getty Images

On Alex Haley’s “Roots”

The Book Review has always taken pride in finding the right reviewers for the right books, and that is only heightened when a book is a true event, like Alex Haley’s “Roots,” which spent months at No. 1 on The Times’s best-seller list. The great James Baldwin’s piece is something still worth reading and considering today. He wrote of “Roots”: “It suggests with great power, how each of us, however unconsciously, can’t but be the vehicle of the history which has produced us. Well, we can perish in this vehicle, children, or we can move on up the road.”
✧✧✧

1979
Joan Didion




Image
Credit...Henry Clarke/Conde Nast, via Getty Images

On Norman Mailer’s “The Executioner’s Song”

Talk about two heavyweights. On the cover of our Oct. 7, 1979, issue, Didion reviewed Mailer’s epic, genre-defying novel about the infamous Gary Gilmore, who murdered two people in Utah and later demanded that the state follow through with his execution for the crime. Much more than just the story of a crime and a very public death penalty debate, Mailer’s book captured the desperate side of life in the American West. “I think no one but Mailer could have dared this book,” Didion wrote. “The authentic Western voice, the voice heard in ‘The Executioner’s Song,’ is one heard often in life but only rarely in literature, the reason being that to truly know the West is to lack all will to write it down.”
✧✧✧

1983
Derek Walcott




Image
Credit...Horst Tappe/Hulton Archive, via Getty Images

On “The Glorious Flight: Across the Channel with Louis Blériot, July 25, 1909” by Alice and Martin Provensen

The poet Derek Walcott, who would go on to win the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1992, reviewed this book about the French aviator Louis Blériot and his flight across the English Channel, 18 years before Lindbergh flew across the Atlantic. “Gaiety and true bravery are close in legend, and this spaciously crafted and modestly presented book is very much in the spirit of its subject,” Walcott wrote. “Fact is turned into magic, very quietly. The return to innocence requires gay and brave strides; the light on the way there is direct, the flight natural and simple, and ‘The Glorious Flight’ has made it.”
✧✧✧

1987
Margaret Atwood




Image
Credit...Ian Patterson for The New York Times

On Toni Morrison’s “Beloved”

Sometimes a book that will become an undisputed classic is met at the moment of its publication with appropriate awe. Such was the case with Morrison’s “Beloved,” a remarkable ghost story set in the years after the Civil War. The book won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction, and in 2006 was named the best novel of the previous 25 years by a group of prominent writers, critics and editors polled by the Book Review. In her original review of the book in 1987, Margaret Atwood — the author of her own classics, like “The Handmaid’s Tale” — wrote: “‘Beloved’ is Toni Morrison’s fifth novel, and another triumph. Indeed, Morrison’s versatility and technical and emotional range appear to know no bounds. If there were any doubts about her stature as a pre-eminent American novelist, of her own or any other generation, ‘Beloved’ will put them to rest. In three words or less, it’s a hair-raiser.”
✧✧✧

1991
Ursula K. Le Guin




Image
Credit...Bettmann/Getty Images

On J.G. Ballard’s “War Fever”

The critic Harold Bloom once said that Ursula K. Le Guin had “raised fantasy into high literature for our time.” In this review of another iconic writer of literary science fiction, Le Guin captured the scope and relevance of Ballard’s themes. “The brilliant, obsessive fictions of J.G. Ballard circle through a round of almost canonical topics of modernist literature and film: the Conradian jungle and its white folk, consumerist America and the ugly American, popular cult figures such as astronauts and film stars, T.S. Eliot’s ‘waste land’ and ‘unreal city.’ Through these and other landscapes of alienation, stock figures move in meticulous patterns toward a predictably shocking conclusion. The voltage is high, but it’s all in the mind.”
✧✧✧

1999
Stephen King




Image
Credit...Krista Schlueter for The New York Times

On Thomas Harris’s “Hannibal”

Dark imaginations collide in this review. (If Thomas Harris hadn’t invented Hannibal Lecter, perhaps eventually Stephen King would have?) This was Lecter’s first appearance in a novel in 11 years — and the first since the film adaptation of “The Silence of the Lambs” had made him a household name. “I don’t think many of the Danielle Steel crowd will be rushing out to buy a book in which one character is eaten from the inside out by a ravenous moray eel — but for those who like what Harris can do so brilliantly, no book report is required.”
✧✧✧

2000
Jhumpa Lahiri




Image
Credit...Marco Delogu for The New York Times

On Mohsin Hamid’s “Moth Smoke”

We like to keep our eyes peeled for the newest talents here at the Book Review, and here is a vintage example. About a month after this review was published, Jhumpa Lahiri would win a Pulitzer Prize for her debut collection of stories, “Interpreter of Maladies.” And here she was reviewing the debut novel by Mohsin Hamid, who was embarking on his own award-winning career. “Like Fitzgerald, Hamid writes about the slippery ties between the extremely wealthy and those who hover, and generally stumble, in money’s glare,” Lahiri wrote. “Hamid also sets the action over a single, degenerate summer, when passions run high and moral lassitude prevails. And like Fitzgerald, Hamid probes the vulgarity and violence that lurk beneath a surface of affluence and ease.”
✧✧✧

2000
Mario Vargas Llosa




Image
Credit...Franck Smith/Sygma, via Getty Images

On Suzanne Jill Levine’s “Manuel Puig and the Spider Woman”

The Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa, winner of the 2010 Nobel Prize in Literature, delivered a sweeping review of this biography of the Argentine writer Manuel Puig. In it, Vargas Llosa considered everything from the influence of the movies on Puig to what made his work so original to whether that work has the “revolutionary transcendence attributed to it by Levine and other critics.” He praised Levine’s own work: “This fascinating book is indispensable for anyone interested in Puig’s work (which Levine, the translator of several of his novels into English, knows to perfection) and in the close connection between film and literature, a defining characteristic of cultural life in the late 20th century; both are described with intelligence and an abundance of information. I found occasional errors, but these in no way diminish the virtues of a book in which rigor and readability walk arm in arm.”
✧✧✧

2006
Colson Whitehead




Image
Credit...Sunny Shokrae for The New York Times

On Richard Powers’s “The Echo Maker”

As we celebrate 125 years of the Book Review, we’ll spend time not just in the distant past but in the vibrant present. Few writers this century are as acclaimed as Colson Whitehead, the author of several novels and the winner of both the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award for “The Underground Railroad” (2016). In 2019, Richard Powers joined the list of Pulitzer winners as well, for “The Overstory.” But back in 2006, when both were simply very acclaimed authors, Whitehead reviewed this novel about a man who suffers from a rare cognitive disorder after a near-fatal car accident. “Part of the joy of reading Powers over the years has been his capacity for revelation,” Whitehead wrote. “His scientific discourses point to how the world works, but the struggles of his characters … help us understand how we work.”
✧✧✧

2014
Patti Smith




Image
Credit...Andre D. Wagner for The New York Times

On Haruki Murakami’s “Colorless Tsukuru Tazaki and His Years of Pilgrimage”

A longtime rock star and poet, Patti Smith became an award-winning memoirist with the publication of “Just Kids” in 2010. We also think she’s a fine reviewer. She brought her deep knowledge of the work of Haruki Murakami to this assessment of his 13th novel. “This is a book for both the new and experienced reader. It has a strange casualness, as if it unfolded as Murakami wrote it; at times, it seems like a prequel to a whole other narrative. The feel is uneven, the dialogue somewhat stilted, either by design or flawed in translation. Yet there are moments of epiphany gracefully expressed, especially in regard to how people affect one another.”
✧✧✧

2018
Bill Gates




Image
Credit...Mike Cohen for The New York Times

On Yuval Noah Harari’s “21 Lessons for the 21st Century”

Yes, we love to publish work by prominent novelists, essayists, poets, journalists, historians. But sometimes it’s a thrill to have someone weigh in who is (very, very well) known for something other than books. And who better to review a look at the 21st century than Bill Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft, who did so much to shape the world we live in? “Harari is such a stimulating writer that even when I disagreed, I wanted to keep reading and thinking. All three of his books wrestle with some version of the same question: What will give our lives meaning in the decades and centuries ahead? … It’s no criticism to say that Harari hasn’t produced a satisfying answer yet. Neither has anyone else. So I hope he turns more fully to this question in the future.”


READ 648 COMMENTS









At Home and Away Newsletter

Sex in the Brain : How your brain controls your sex life by Amee Baird | Goodreads

Sex in the Brain : How your brain controls your sex life by Amee Baird | Goodreads


Sex in the Brain : How your brain controls your sex life
by Amee Baird
 4.28  ·   Rating details ·  36 ratings  ·  5 reviews
In Sex in the Brain, clinical neuropsychologist Dr Amee Baird reports on the brain pathologies of people whose sex lives have undergoing dramatic change, for better and worse.
====
Write a review
Petra X - sadly 1 step forward & 2 back
Aug 17, 2020Petra X - sadly 1 step forward & 2 back rated it it was amazing  ·  review of another edition


A 5-star read. Very heavy on the science, very fun though, as sex should be. The end chapter was about the differences in brain between major porn consumers, male, and those who only viewed it an average way (twice a week!) It is a bit of a chicken and egg situation, it isn't clear cut like the brain changes in drug or alcohol addictions. How the author decided to investigate it was quite funny. There was a businessman sitting on the train and she was sitting opposite. Where others looked at their papers or phones, he held his straight in front of his eyes but she could see the reflection in the mirror - early morning hard core porn. It amused her, but not the woman sitting next to her who went ballistic. (The man kept his composure at the tirade but got out at the next station).

The book is absolutely unique and talks about the sex changes brought about by dementia - one woman with whom it was difficult to have a coherent conversation went in for sexting. She had lined up a man to come to her house and rape her daughter! One type of epilepsy has an aura first that affects women, they have an orgasm and then a fit. But it is so pleasurable that even though they co-operate with doctors about trying to control the epilepsy, they hide the orgasmic aura and generally resist surgery if it is considered necessary. Parkinsons, Asperger's and strokes can all affect sexual desire and preference.

The most important idea I got from the book was if there is any neurological or psychological, that is brain, issue you are seeing a medical professional for, you must ask what the sexual implications of the disorder and treatment are. And if treatment whether medical or surgical, if the sexual function is negatively affected, can it be treated. The doctors, psychologists, nurses and surgeons aren't going to tell you if you don't ask.
____________________

Notes on reading Size matters, the bigger the better! In this very scientific book on sexuality and the structures, systems and pathologies in the brain that affect size, it is definitely proven that the bigger it is the better. The amigdala that is. Normally the size of a 5c piece, even one a little bigger, say 6c, increases the libido. The bigger it is the more you want sex, remove it and uh, there you go, a lifetime of 'not tonight darling' ensues. Luckily we have two so even if one is damaged or surgically removed, the sex drive would still be there.

This is a fascinating book. A lot of it is case studies in what went wrong and what the consequences were sexually speaking, (not always bad, but mostly). One huge, possibly impactful issue emerges, neurologists and neurosurgeons do not, often will not, discuss the possible effects of treatment or surgery on a patient's sex life. Should you find yourself in a position where you need any kind of treatment to your brain, then you, as the patient, or the patient's partner must raise the issue and make them discuss it.

One of the more fascinating cases is paedophilia caused by a brain tumour. It could have been a latent sexual preference, but since the thought police don't (yet) exist, doesn't matter what someone thinks, only what they express and do. But it might not have been. A man went to prison for interfering with his teenage daughter - the mother went to the police. During his sentence, he complained of a screaming headache and got diagnosed with a brain tumour that was swiftly removed. He returned to a normal sexuality and eventually went home to live with the family.

Some years later he again began to have fantasies of sex with young girls and children and collected, as the first time, a hoard of related pornography. The brain tumour was regrowing. Another operation, and again, he was cured.

It seems that the amigdalae are the seat of impulse control, sexuality and appetite and of (some) personality traits. Any damage to them will have results. One man who was a real curmudgeon became a loving husband afterwards!
____________________

Wading through Finding Freedom: Saint Meghan and her Royal Puppy Harry and the failed coup of taking over the Royal Family (view spoiler) This sex and science book was light relief from that. Even reading "Triganometry as a profitable hobby" would be more enjoyable than that syrupy confection of hypocrisy, lies, conjectures and stratospheric praise. But I shall do it. I will not fail and dnf it. I WILL NOT. I might have to employ the kitchen method. (Keep book next to microwave and kettle, read only when waiting for them to ping.

As an aside Welsh jokey slang for a microwave is popty-ping, isn't that lovely and onomatopoeic? Popty is Welsh for oven and ping is what it does. Of course). (less)
flag114 likes · Like  · see review


Lyanhua Khash-erdene
Jan 31, 2021Lyanhua Khash-erdene rated it really liked it  ·  review of another edition
Interesting facts of sexual behaviour changes caused by brain injury and disorders under sexy title.
Dr Amee Baird completed her PhD and Master of Psychology (Clinical Neuropsychology) at the University of Melbourne and wrote the book in 2019 after several years of completion of her PhD study.

The book helped me understand how sexual orientation or desire can be affected by trauma or disorders also how sex can be dangerous to seduce brain issues to get worse. Interestingly written facts about different neurological disorders and brain injury in relation to sex drive. Not recommendable to people who want to read about human general sexuality.
(less)
flagLike  · comment · see review


Phoebe Chin
Aug 04, 2021Phoebe Chin rated it it was amazing
Shelves: read-with-a-broken-brain, easy-read
A fun, quick, informative read.

I started reading this on a whim sometime last year (2020, I think) and re-borrowed it to continue from where I'd left off. Raises some interesting questions about cognitive decline and the legal consequences thereof if a crime is committed as a result of neurological changes. (less)
flagLike  · comment · see review


Essam Munir
Aug 10, 2020Essam Munir rated it liked it
Generally, the book dealt with an interesting topic in neuroscience. It is more like an attempt and I couldn't put it in a certain category "is it a narrative of cases? or delving into the neuroscience of sex?". It is like scratching the surface. I was hoping for more in-depth discussion of the accounts of patients. (less)
flagLike  · comment · see review


Elliott Dooley
Apr 20, 2021Elliott Dooley rated it it was amazing
In the style of the great Oliver Sacks, Dr Amee Baird presents her most interesting casses of patients experiencing sexual changes after a brain injury. Some of these cases bring complex legal and moral questions that will leave you puzzled. For those interested in the neurology/psychology this book is a fascinating look at how fragile the essence of "you" is in the face of a brain injury. This is Baird's first book and I certainly hope its not the last. (less)
flagLike  · 2 comments · see review