Explore the vast range of titles available.

[...]wrote Houston, the spelling of authors in the past already was variant-Milton wrote both winds and windes, for example-so spelling reform would interfere not with the \"original\" Milton but, rather, with the regularization that was a later superimposition. [...]the association may have lost its assurance of coverage in the Globe-there is some evidence that Houston's parting with the Globe was not, at least initially, a happy one, although he would retain a life-long association to the paper-but the absence of items in the World is more puzzling, given that newspaper's interest in the spelling reform cause. [...]Mr. Houston contended for greater freedom of orthography, not in the interest of diversity, but in the interest of simplicity of spelling. [...]Session of Sixth Legislature of the Province of Ontario.

When in 1883 James Bain became the first chief librarian of the Toronto Public Library he was a fervent subscriber to the growing international enthusiasm for the integration of public libraries, art galleries and museums under one roof. It was said that these institutions belonged to all citizens and not just to an elite, and that they shared cultural aims that could be accomplished if their inter-dependency were recognized. While various obstacles – not the least was funding – prevented Bain from achieving this ideal in Toronto, under his leadership the Toronto Public Library became a major player in the art life of the city as a venue for exhibitions by individual artists and artists’ societies, and by acquiring thousands of works of art through donation and purchase. In the early 1900s all over Ontario, art lovers encouraged their fellow citizens to take advantage of art exhibitions and purchase opportunities in the public libraries, and to become involved in the creation and growth of library art collections.

Plato's Republic, Hobbes's Leviathan, and Marx's Communist Manifesto are universally acknowledged classics of Western political thought. But how strong are the core arguments on which they base their visions of the good society that they want to bring into being? In this lively and provocative book, W. G. Runciman shows where and why they fail, even after due allowance has been made for the different historical contexts in which they wrote. Plato, Hobbes, and Marx were all passionately convinced that justice, peace, and order could be established if only their teachings were implemented and the right people put into power. But Runciman makes a powerful case to the effect that all three were irredeemably naive in their assumptions about how human societies function and evolve and how human behavior could be changed. Yet despite this, Runciman insists that Republic, Leviathan, and The Communist Manifesto remain great books. Born of righteous anger and frustration, they are masterfully eloquent pleas for better worlds--worlds that Plato, Hobbes, and Marx cannot bring themselves to admit to be unattainable.