Self-indulgent and pompous. The subject matter, or rather the pretext, is interesting though. I liked the list of Browne's neologisms, many of which are part of my vocabulary. ( )

Rather an odd book, but any about Sir Thomas Browne might have to be a bit odd, wouldn't it? Aldersey-Williams gives brief overviews of Browne's life and works, before attempting to connect them in ways to contemporary debates and discussions. Funny in parts, slow-going in others, and I found the imagined dialogue between the author and Browne to be decidedly unnecessary. ( )

If you've lived with a favorite author for a while, read him or her until the writer's voice in your ear became almost an alter ego, you can imagine what prompted Hugh Aldersey-Williams to write this book. As he says himself, this may not be the most innovative study on Thomas Browne, it does not bring to light any new manuscripts, lost letters, or describe newly uncovered material objects that were in Browne's possession and that might give us new insight into his everyday life. What it does, however, is, I think, much better: it brings Thomas Browne to life -- not as a historical figure of academic interest, but as an erudite person possessed of infectious curiosity who might have something to say about our own everyday life. Thomas Browne emerges as both a familiar, a progressive thinker we might relate to, and as a foreign visitor to our timeline who allows us to see 21st-century problems with a fresh pair of eyes and also show us that, well, nihil novi sub sole, our 21st-century problems aren't all that new or unique.

Browne captures the reader's interest with his surprising (yet often invisible) innovations (such as a host of neologisms that have become part of common vocabulary, like the adjectives "medical" or "deductive") and as an unacknowledged (almost-)pioneer of numerous branches of science, such as archaeology or ... marine biology. The main lesson that Aldersey-Williams draws from this Norwich "Renaissance man" is his ability to remain critical of both science and religion, his methodical approach to empirically testing even the most unlikely popular belief and superstition without removing the mystery and wonder from the world around us. The sections in which Aldersey-Williams "channels" Browne's comments on 21st-century failure of science and religion to find some common ground and dialogue are perhaps a bit drawn out, but he raises important points: for example, he keeps returning to the question of the tone of scientific discourse - why is it so antagonistic, a-priori condescending towards religion or any other form of non-scientific thinking? Might this not contribute to some [fundamentalist] religious rejection of science? And is science really so antithetical to beliefs, don't scientists believe in science? At the least, doesn't proving a hypothesis require the belief that it holds true? Isn't it also possible that some of what science views today as axioms might be modified, or even overturned by science of the future? Examples often come from Browne's professional domain, medicine: modern medicine's belief in the power of antibiotics, for instance, is being undermined by studies showing that over-prescribing antibiotics does more harm than good, and that actually traditional (e.g. herbal) remedies might be more effective with fewer side effects.

This is the first piece by Aldersey-Williams I've read, and I look forward to reading more: in some sense, I feel I've found a "kin spirit" -- a non-militant atheist who desires dialogue & tolerance among cultures (be it different religions or science and religion) in a non-abstract sense, who cares about the fate of the world (environment, social welfare...) and is able to envision how different world views (religious / scientific) might find common ground in desiring the same good. In a world where many people feel that their only option is to stake out an inflexible position, it is refreshing to hear a reconciliatory tone without a note of condescension. And Thomas Browne is indeed a great model for such an approach: a non-partisan medical professional not confined to his own discipline, willing to admit that there might be a grain of truth even behind seemingly the most absurd belief -- and openminded enough to go and look for it. ( )