2 comments about Yale English Monarchs - William Rufus (The English Monarchs Series).

1. I was impressed with the amount of detail on William Rufus by Frank Barlow. He pieced together a time in English history that seems to be looked over by most historians. Barlow makes a strong analytical approach to dispelling public perception of William Rufus. He makes sure you understand that the remaining documentaton on William Rufus is so fragmented. And that that does remain is from one point of view, the Church which obvouisly does not favor William Rufus. Barlow points out William II was a more capable ruler than most give him credit for and this angle is enough to make this book a must read for those interested in Norman History and the English crown.



2. William Rufus (William the Red), second son of William the Conquer,took over England while his older brother's back was turned and ruled it for little over a decade before being killed in a strange hunting "accident" in the New Forest. That's about all the space he gets in history today, except the claims that he was a homosexual, an atheist, an all-round bad person and the less said the better. While this book takes pains to look at and question these charges,it is not the only subject that the author deals with in William's regin. Despite being a "wild and crazy guy" and running a court that looks like a frat house, William seems also to have been an able adminstor, a good diplomat and a strong enough miltary leader to keep his elder brother out of England and the Saxons quiet. I enjoied this book, one of the few on the subject and a serious study of it's subject. A good source on a rare subject.

No comments about Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat: The Great Speeches (Penguin Classics).

5 comments about A Summer Bright and Terrible: Winston Churchill, Lord Dowding, Radar, and the Impossible Triumph of the Battle of Britain.

1. Anyone searching for a decent history of the Battle of Britain, a biography of Lord Dowding, insight into the development of radar OR the role of Winston Churchill in any of these will have to look elsewhere. In this poorly edited atrociously written volume the author manages to take fascinating material and reduce it to a sort of peculiar tabloid scandal sheet. It is painfully unclear what Fisher's intent is in writing this book, at one point it seems like he is trying to ressurect the reputation of an "unsung hero" but at the next he is doing his best to make fun of the very person that he has built up. The style of the book borders on the peculiar -there are no notes or citation, just a somewhat sparse "bibliography" yet we get large sections in quotation marks & whole mental dialogs that occur in the heads of the protagonists, who "chortle" and sneer at each other on every third page -don't get me wrong here, Fisher has written a very "post-modern" book, there really are no heroes, just different levels of fools, knaves and villains, all of whom steal from each other, cut each other out of the credit, thwart each other's ambitions, and generally behave like a nasty set of academics at a faculty meeting from hell. As an example of the egregious errors in this text, for some reason Fisher seems obsessed with tanks -even though he conspicuously ignores Churchill's role in their initial development. Again and again he talks about tanks "winning" the First World War & "breaking the back" of the German armies. This is odd, given that the tank arrives in the First War in September of 1916 -half-way through- and had little if any impact on the situation on the Western Front. Strangely, the role of the Royal Navy's blockade in "breaking the back" of Germany's will to fight seems to have escaped Fisher's notice... Fisher's cultural biases are also very much to the fore: at one point the English pilots spend their time between missions either throwing up or suffering from diarrhea. Their American counterparts in the meantime "chat". Fisher regularly allows his purple prose to wander into this sort of silliness & one is constantly wonderingif things really were as terrible (and silly) as he says how on earth did the Germans not win? In all seriousness, this is a very stupid and above all "little" book that simply isn't worthy of the subject. It is not just that readers will be mislead by Fisher's poor use of the material it is more that they are likely to not bother to pursue the many important themes that ctually emerged in the run-up to the Battle of Britain because they are so turned off by the shallowness of the schloarship exhibited here. One reads this book for the same reason one slows at car wrecks, out of a morbid interest in calamity.



2. Well worth buying since this area has not been properly covered to my knowledge. Disagreeably journalistic style.
   With all due respect to Dowding and none to the Air Ministry, someone should extend the book's scope and write a book on all the cock-ups and how they came into being and were tolerated. Examples: Leigh Mallory insubordination, no camouflage paint on planes, why 1932 jet wasn't developed, formation flying, no deflection shooting practice, insufficient swopping of fatigued/fresh pilots between groups, no calling back of semi-trained pilots who were jettisoned before finishing courses, etc, etc. Most of these errors were obvious before fighting started.
   A Summer Bright and Terrible: Winston Churchill, Lord Dowding, Radar, and the Impossible Triumph of the Battle of Britain



3. A Summer Bright and Terrible: Winston Churchill, Lord Dowding, Radar, and the Impossible Triumph of the Battle of Britain by David E. Fisher is the story of more of the more eccentric military geniuses, High Dowding, the Commander of RAF Fighter Command during The Battle of Britain. I mention eccentric because Dowding's bend-of-mind makes folks like Patton and Montgomery seem dead normal.
   
   In fact, if you combined Patton's belief in reincarnation and the afterlife with Montogomery's stubbornness, you get a pretty good idea of how - under normal circumstances - loopy this man was. Fisher describes a man that openly spoke of discussions with dead fighter pilots and who married a woman whose dead husband recommended to Dowding that he do so. The woman, by the way, had had dreams about a man named Hugh - vastly older than she - who had protected her as a child.
   
   So, was Hugh Dowding a nut case?
   
   It doesn't necessarily matter because this man also was responsible for some of the most innovative developments in aerial combat: multi-gunned monoplane fighters, radar and its associated ground-control infra-structure and the twin-engined radar carrying night fighter. Along the way, he also managed to stand up to Winston Churchill and maintain a cadre of the aforementioned fighters in England when the PM was bound and determined to lose them all in an effort to save France.
   
   And in return for these efforts, he was villified in person and behind his back; left in suspense as to his future for months on end, dis-obeyed by several of his immediate suboridinates and, ultimately, force out of service.
   
   The story is one of the most true examples of doing the right thing, despite and in spite of the potential repercussions. An absolutely excellent work. I only wish that Fisher had footnoted the book. By not not doing so, he hoists himself on his own petard of chastising those who mis-quote or fabricate.



4. I discovered Lord Dowding as the author did through Dowdings book "Lynchgate". The Battle of Britain, whilst not the saviour as most believe put a serious dent in Hitlers War Machine. Britain was to remain free and a "stepping stone" back into Europe.
   
   Without Lord Dowding none of this would have been achieved. Bombing had been shown to be the way of modern warfare and fighters stuck in a time warp could not catch them. Dowding's obstinacy and prescience established a data-linked system of radar, operation rooms and fighters. Without him the World may have been a much different place.
   
   Since owning and reading the book, I have lent it out to various people, some who admit to only occassionally reading! Everyone has been awe stuck by the story. Our debt of gratitude to those who fought the Second World War is aptly enhanced.



5. Air Chief Marshal Hugh Dowding has long been known to me as one of the most important men in the defeat of Hitler and Nazi Germany, yet few Americans know who he is.
   
   David E. Fisher writes is an engaging style. There are several fine books that detail Hugh Dowding's contributions to the RAF's defeat of the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, and his immediate dismissal afterwards.
   
   Fisher writes a lot about Dowding's belief in the supernatural, but it is done in a sensitive and fair manner.
   
   Fisher has done his research. This book is a great way to learn about one of the most decisive battles of WWII, and about one of its greatest heroes.

5 comments about John Maynard Keynes: Volume 1: Hopes Betrayed 1883-1920 (John Maynard Keynes).

1. This book is an excellent choice for a potential reader who is searching for a general overview of Keynes's early life.Like Moggridge's one volume study,Skidelsky's first volume(of three)has many interesting anecdotes and discussions of Keynes's interactions and involvement with a wide range of people.Unfortunately,Skidelsky drops the ball when he tries to evaluate the technical and intellectual contributions that Keynes made to applied probability,statistics and decision science in the period from 1904 to 1920. Keynes finally published his pathbreaking work in 1921 in his A Treatise on Probability(TP).A specialist can only come to the conclusion that Keynes made no breakthroughs in his TP after reading Skidelsky's bare bones treatment.This is most likely due to the fact that Skidelsky is a historian who has no training in the fields of mathematics, probability and statistics.It is true that Skidelsky limits his discussion of the TP in his first volume because he wanted to make an extended discussion of it in the second volume.Unfortunately,the treatment of the TP in volume II is badly marred by a number of mathematical errors.The interested potential book buyer is advised to read my review of volume II.Skidelsky fails to mention anywhere in Volume I that Keynes is the founder of the interval estimate approach to probability.In general,excluding the cases of symmetry and series or sequences composed of homogeneous frequency data,it takes two numbers,not one,to correctly specify an estimate of probability.A probability estimate is thus made up of a lower bound and an upper bound.Further,Keynes specified a clearcut approximation method based on the original work of George Boole in chapters 15 and 17 of the TP.The reader should note that all of this material is present in Keynes's 1907 and 1909 fellowship theses that he submitted to Cambridge University.Also present in these theses is an index created to measure the weight of the evidence,w.Keynes used different terms to describe weight,such as value,before settling for the term weight in the final published 1921 version.w measure the completeness of the relevant, potential evidence upon which a decision maker is going to base an estimate of probability.w is defined on the unit interval between 0 and 1,i.e.,0<=w<=1.Finally,Skidelsky ignores Keynes's conventional coefficient of risk and weight,c.Keynes presented this coefficient in both the 1907 thesis and the 1909 thesis ,which was accepted.This coefficient is the first time in history that a decision rule incorporated nonlinear probability preferences, as well as the weight of the evidence ,or what D.Ellsberg later called the ambiguity of the evidence in a 1961 Quarterly Journal of Economics article.



2. This profoundly researched and uncensored (sexually speaking) biography gives us a fascinating look into a highly privileged group of people in England when the British Empire was at its zenith. Half (sic) of the world's trade was financed by British credits in 1914.
   It pictures the education of young Keynes, groomed by his parents for the highest civil duties, his acceptance in the exclusive Cambridge Apostles Circle (a main discussion point was Higher Sodomy) and his membership of the, in all aspects, anarchic Bloomsbury group. It shows without restaint Keynes' (homo)sexual awakening and his conventional (based on the Gold Standard) beginnings as an economist.
   In the meantime, this book reveals the functioning of the British elitist School system (Eton, Cambridge) as well as the 'moral' environment of this period: the death of God and the birth of mass democracy.
   Prof. Skidelsky's book contains a wealth of information on e.g. the conservative reasoning behind the Gold Standard, Utilitarianism or Moore's essentialistic, but influential, ethic system.
   He shows us Keynes as a fundamental nationalist: 'it is better to have Englishmen running the world than foreigners'.
   But nothwithstanding his exhausting efforts, he saw Britain and mainland Europe sinking under the war debts and being taken over by the US as world power, which was effectively controlled by one man, J.P. Morgan.
   He attacked severely the Versailles Treaty but was devastated that politicians preferred suicidal short-time revenge and election success rather than long-time beneficial solutions.
   This book is sometimes too detailed with extensive letter excerpts. Nonetheless, it is a fascinating read.



3. John Maynard Keynes' life faithfully portrayed by Robert Skidelsky, is a life of a man grown up amidst the intelectual aristocracy of his time, which coincided with the beginning of the downfall of the Victorian age and was to culminate in the First World War. His father John Neville Keynes was a famous economist of his time and had many other intelectual atributes which he didn't want to put up to test in the academic arena, despite a lot of incentives by the famous economist Alfred Marshall, the most proeminent thinker of the neo-classics school of thought. Neville Keynes was determined instead to follow closely and have influence upon the professional careers of his most inteligent son. To anyone who whished to compare this situation to the education the philosopher James Mill gave to his son John Stuart Mill, I would warn he/she to be cautious cause the result is very much different than could be foresaw.
   What the book shows is the fascinating formative years of one of the most influential men of all times, who had a strong appetite for getting all the knowledge he could get and who didn't hide behind his geniality. Quite to the contrary, Keynes was up for everything he could grab, be it different sexual male partners, a lot of trips to Italy and a lot of academic prizes, estimulated by the spirit of competion his father tried to assert on him, at the end to no avail. Also, the pace of his intelectual output is outstanding, being Keynes almost always pushed to the limit to do a lot of different things at the same time.
   Some crude aspects of Keynes sexual life are also all there via the transcriptions of the many letters he exchanged with his male lovers and friends of the many different intelectual cycles he was part of.
   His education at the noblest institutions in England (Eton and Cambridge)where he got the opportunity to intermingle with the likes of Bertrand Russell, Virginia Wolf, Whitehead and the philosopher Moore, the latter certainly the most fundamental influence he had in these formative years, provided the social and intelectual backgrounds needed to awake the geniality of the most brilliant economist of the last century.



4. Hopes betrayed is an exceptionally well researched and insightful book. The author goes into detail, and confirms previously unspoken truths about Keynes early life. It pays particular attention to Keynes homosexuality, such as his long held affections for Duncan Grant, and also his relationships, coiteries, and philosophies. Personally I found the chapters deailing Keynes' influence in the war most interesting.

   Although the book goes into ample detail, it is a little dry, and possibly lacks a little life. One sometimes feels as if there are a few too many quotes, names and places. This somewhat detracts from the interest of the book.

   However, overall anyone who is curious as to what made father of modern economics ought to read this book.




5. Robert Skidelsky provides a punctilious account of the most influential economist of the 20th century and the intellectual and social milieu's that shaped him. Keynes is easily the most recognizable name in 20th century economics, followed somewhat closely by John Kenneth Galbraith and Milton Friedman.

   In the book's preface, Skidelsky claims he was the first biographer to attempt to go into detail about Keynes' hitherto undiscussed homosexual relationships. The most notable and emotionally involved of these affairs occured with painter and fellow Bloomsbury member Duncan Grant. Skidelsky confirms that Keynes also slept with Bloomsbury biographer Lytton Strachey. Several corresponding letters between Keynes and Strachey not only confirm this, but a subsequent sexual rivalry over the affections of Grant. G.E. Moore's 'Principia Ethica' unquestionably wrought out a strong influence on Keynes and Strachey's radical sexual attitudes after they had read it. Some unfastidious anti-Keynesians have tried to tie in Keynes' early predispositions to homosexuality (he later in life married a Russian Ballet dancer named Lydia Lopokova) with his rejection of the gold standard. This probably isn't a valid argument, given the level of abstraction Keynes' mind reached at an early age to develop and entertain such unorthadox methods.

   Keynesian economics has been repudiated by many laissez-faire proponents over the past two decades. The most well reasoned of these critiques have come from Friedman and Robert Lucas; who have each received Nobel Prizes for their work. Notwithstanding, both pale in comparison with the impact Keynesianism has had on post-WW2 macroeconomics.

   Whether or not you're an unyeilding Keynesian or a free market capitalist, you'll find it impossible not to marvel at this remarkable biography of a remarkable man. Keynes should be included at the top of anyone's list of the 20th century's most important intellectuals.

5 comments about Cromwell.

1. This was a concise and thoroughly researched book on Oliver Cromwell. I have only one complaint - Antonia Fraser eludes to illustrations that are not present in the book. Either a cost cutting decision or gross incompetence on behalf of the publisher, it is a major distraction. If deciding to purchase this softcover edition, keep that fact in mind.



2. Fraser's book is best at trying to place Cromwell in his time. It is pointless to upbraid her for writing a book about someone who could be an unpleasant, violent and designing character - Europe was full of even more violent generals and religous fanatics at the time
   
   By carefully following his career and the people around him she shows how he rose from mediocrity to high office AND was a brilliant general even though he started as at the age of 40
   
   I thought it was well written and a good introduction to a complex character in a complex time



3. Growing up an Irish Catholic American, I grew up hating Oliver Cromwell without really knowing why (an influence of my Irish grandmother). Fraser's biography of this brilliant and driven soldier is thoroughly researched and surprisingly sympathetic. She gives a great insight into what drove this man as well as giving a broad look at the political, cultural, and religious influences behind the brutal English Civil War. Cromwell was a brilliant general whose strategic and tactical genious beat the King's trained forces. His genius, unfortunately, did not extend to the political sphere. This is a great account of a flawed individual.



4. Most of my review will echo the discontents expressed by my fellow reviewers, but I hope I can provide an original analysis. If you are deliberating on whether to read this book, do not delve into the lengthy journey without prior knowledge of Cromwell. A more terse and concise biography is more suitable for the beginner. Antonia Fraser knows this time period intimately, and she would probably be incapable to produce a more superficial work on such a massive figure in English history. Although there is a small amount of side information and exposition about the historical events surrounding Cromwell (e.g., The English Civil War), the reader gets the feeling that the author assumes that we know much of the pertinent information already. This causes the novice reader on Cromwell to tend to find herself lost during some of the key events in his life. With some prior knowledge of the time period, this confusion could be avoided.
   
   Antonia Fraser is an erudite writer with stylistic flair, but is also painfully verbose. The sentences are often long and protracted, often with frequent use of the characteristic British punctuation, the semicolon. The result is a biography that is over a hundred pages too long. This is especially true when one considers that this biography is purely a narrative, and there is little writing that delves into the theoretical and political ideas that motivated Cromwell. This may be because Cromwell was motivated by fanatical and zealous devotion to his religion. When one is so enthralled by an unsubstantiated, uncouth dogma, there is little room to ponder questions when an inept but clear answer is to be found. Cromwell was not a theoretician, but a pragmatic man. This is interesting because most of his language and actions are littered with references to the metaphysical, however crude and obtuse those references and underlying thoughts are.
   
   Fraser paints Cromwell as an avuncular, charming man whose religious ethics seeped into his daily actions. While this may be true when applied to his personal life, it is impossible to reconcile this image with the man who sanctioned and even performed atrocities during his invasion of Ireland. The motivation for Fraser's subtle attempt at vindicating Cromwell can only be speculated on, but perhaps she is so enamored with English history that it became nature for her to fall in love with one of its heroes. Whatever the motivation, the bias is there, and needs to be acknowledged.
   
   For those that merely want to get a sense of who Cromwell was and the time period he lived in, a shorter biography will suffice. Try and pick one without the verbosity and slight sycophancy of Fraser.



5. Cromwell is perhaps the single most controversial figure in English history. Only John and Richard III have attracted as much venom as he has, and there are still people alive today who hate him -- see some of the other reviews here for at least one example. Naturally the truth is complicated, and Fraser lays out a good deal of detail in support of her case, which is that Cromwell was much maligned, and was on the whole a good and religious man trying hard to do what he thought was right.

   I had no prior belief about Cromwell, but I have to say Fraser convinced me rather of the opposite -- that he was a religious fanatic, brilliant but limited, who was neither a great ruler nor personally very admirable. Her apologies for some of his worst sins, such as the terrible events in Ireland, are outlandish.

   On the plus side, this is a thorough and detailed book, with enough information to allow a reader to make up their own mind. Fraser does at least keep the facts separate from her opinions. The book is excellent on Cromwell himself; it's pretty good on details of the Civil Wars, though it doesn't go to the level that an exclusively military history might. However, it's surprisingly weak on the overall political background. To truly understand Cromwell you need to know what came before and after. I would have liked to see more about the religious state of the country, and why it got that way, and also about the Revolution of only thirty years after his death. But in concentrating on Cromwell the man (at perhaps too great a length), Fraser has skimped on the surrounding politics.

   Overall, I'd recommend this only if you're deeply interested in knowing a lot about Cromwell's life, or if you already know the political and religious framework of the years 1640-1660. If you know both, this is a fine book (allowing for Fraser's open bias) but it's no place to start.

   One other note: the paperback edition (which is what I have) does not have any of the photographs or other plates that are apparently in the hardback -- Fraser makes occasional reference to "the plate opposite page 709" and so on, so I would bear that in mind in choosing between the two editions.

2 comments about The Cradle King: The Life of James VI and I, the First Monarch of a United Great Britain.

1. Often books about European royalty are so complex that the reader needs to have a finger forever on family trees as he/she wades though the chapters. This book about a critical leader in our Anglo-Saxon past is very easy to read and provides some important new information and highlights the critical bonds between England and Scotland at the end of the Tudor era. I highly recommend this very readable book



2. What machinations! The court of the Tudors and Stuarts in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century were not easy places to navigate. For a young boy left by his mother to the in-fighting of Lairds and nobles it was an even more difficult place. It would be considered tragic now, that a boy like James should be used as a pawn for others gains, but for his time it was simply a game, and a game with huge wins and losses.
   
   Alan Stewarts book is almost very very good but I felt it fell short on many points. It is a highly readable work, and it covers some excellent matieral I had never read about before - the plotting and constant scheming of the courts. It also, to my relief, treated the issues in context to the time. There was no moralising about what happened, but it was very much presentation of the facts and their consequences.
   
   James VI of Scotland had grown up literally an orphan with his mother imprisoned in England and then beheaded. While he managed to manipulate the Scottish court, the intricacies of the British Court escaped him and his ability to rule England was often compromised. Perhaps too, in comparison to Elizabeth I he paled in significance in all aspects.
   
   This is a pretty good presentation of the first of the Stuart Kings who lasted little more than a century - but in that time managed a huge amount of upheaval to the British landscape and temperament.

4 comments about Royal Panoply: Brief Lives of the English Monarchs.

1. As a lay person, I found this book a fascinating glimpse into the lives of the British Monarchy. Most of my exposure to them has been through plays or movies, touching on a short vignette or period of time. Having recently seen "Henry V," I was interested in reading what happened to him after Agincourt. And "The Lion in the Winter" was a majestic play that left me wondering which of Elinor's sons would become king. This book is easy reading and a delicious look at the royalty.



2. "Royal Panoply" is an indispensible book for anyone wanting a good, well-written overview of the British monarchy. From William the Conquerer to Elizabeth II, author Carolly Erickson covers the good, the bad and the plain incompetent. It is all of English Royal history in one volume.
   
   Carolly Erickson began her career writing about the Tudors and the Stuarts, so it is not surprising that she is at her best when writing about those reigns. Her brief analysis of those characters who limned the golden age of the English renaissance are the best in the book. She is on less sure, and more gossipy, ground in the chapters on the more modern kings and queens of Great Britain.
   
   Erickson's later writing has suffered in comparison with her first efforts at historical biography, especially "The First Elizabeth" and "Great Harry." She has even condescended to write historical fiction, a "hidden" journal of Marie Antoinette.
   
   With this valuable volume in hand, the eager student of English history will find fascinating facts and tidbits on all of England's Majesties.



3. Dr. Carolly Erickson is a prolific author of historical fictin as well as excellent nonfiction works. Her area of expertise is in medieval and Renaissance literature. Nevertheless, she does a good job of survey all the English kings and queens from William the Conqeror in 1066 to the reign of Elizabeth II.
   Along the way the reader will read of countless murders, cabals, plagues, wars, adulteries and dynastic battles for power.
   There is nothing new here for the serious British historian;
   the book is written for a popular audience in need of getting
   the basics of British history in their heads. The book would be
   an excellent resource for courses in English history and literature. It is well illustrated and is a worthy addition to the library. It can be read from cover to cover or a particular
   monarch can be studied to coincide with the reader's interest.
   No matter how many biographies and history of England I have read this book is valuable because it:
   a. Refreshed my memory on key events that have become murky.
   b. Reminded me of how the fight for constitutional liberty in
   a democratic nation was a hard, bitter and complex struggle.
   Well done and worthy of your time and money!



4. Starting with William the Conqueror and finishing with Elizabeth II and including every English monarch in between, Carolyn Erickson provides an intriguing overview of the royals and their spouses in a chronological fascinating sweep. Each ruler receives somewhere in the range of seven to twelve pages regardless of historical importance or length on the throne. By going chronological, the reference is easy to read and follow, but repetition also occurs as death marks the end of an era (chapter) and the beginning of the next reign (next chapter). The epigraph that starts each royal provides an interesting perspective on that personage and is especially fascinating with the more famous as the audience sees a somewhat differing view than the textbooks or romance novels. Still the lack of analysis of overarching trends takes somewhat away from a fine look that will elate those who prefer their look at the English monarchy based on facts not tabloids.
   
   Harriet Klausner

3 comments about Boudica: The Life and Legends of Britain's Warrior Queen.

1. The main reason for reading this book was to find out about the life and legend of Boudica. She didn't show up until after page 175. First you must wade through Roman history and not just its conquest of Britain, then the history of Britain, than a history of Druids then a brief interlude in which she finally tells us there isn't much factual information about Boudica. Then the book rambles off into trivia. The book is well written, full of information however just not on the person in the book's title: Boudica. If you want to know anything about Boudica -- look elsewhere.



2. I bought this book shortly after its release, but it's been (regrettably) sitting on my shelf until just a week ago, when I decided it was about time I got around to it. How glad I was that I did! Boudicca has long been an interest of mine, and I was pleased with Collingridge's thoroughly researched account of the queen's life and, perhaps more importantly, the context from which historians glean information about her and her people. By providing a full summary of the world in 61 AD, and a Roman as well as a Briton perspective of the events surrounding the Iceni queen's debasement, revolt and subsequent death, Collingridge places Boudicca in an environment neither exaggerated nor abstracted with sensationalism.
   
   Needless to say, I was dismayed upon trekking over to Amazon and finding the "average rating" for this book so low, based entirely on a single review from a person who appeared to have had little interest in the subject in the first place, denouncing the book as "superficial" and claiming its author makes no attempt to show why we should care about the subject. The only problems I could see with this very solid history was with editing (names of historical personages are occasionally misspelled: Cleopatra's son by Julius Caesar is referred to as "Caesarian" rather than the more accurate and commonly cited spelling Caesarion, and other errors crop up now and again), but these, placed in the context of the book, are nitpicker's complaints as Collingridge clearly knows her material regardless of editor's faults. Rest assured, the book is not superficial as claimed by the (until-now) sole reviewer, but rather exhaustively researched. Collingridge cites primary Roman sources as well as interviews with contemporary historians to create a fully fleshed-out portrait of Boudicca and her life and times, and continuing on to analyze the icon of the "warrior queen" in British culture then and now.
   
   So why SHOULD we care about the subject, to address an aforementioned complaint? While not the most widely-known portion of Roman history, Boudicca's revolt should be remembered for the same reason we should remember any history. I recommend this book for anyone interested in Roman history, British and Celtic history, Boudicca herself, and even to anyone interested in gender politics through the ages as well as the changing iconography of the warrior queen. To anyone willing to lend an ear (or an eye, in this case), Collingridge offers a fascinating, solid account of these subjects and more that is certainly worth your time... and more than two stars on Amazon.



3. The book is superficial and never really gets to the purpose of
   even why one would want to write a book about this subject much
   less read one. The author wonders all over the place in a vain attempt to keep the reader interested with references spread throughout British history from Elizabeth I to Princess Diana. Simply put the book is a waste not well researched or thought out; and finally not well written.

5 comments about Gladstone: A Biography.

1. I bought this 600+ page tome because I wanted to learn more about 19th century English history. I knew virtually nothing about Gladstone, and I was convinced by the cover that claims this to be "[an] enthralling biography ... utterly absorbing" [an exact quote] according to "The Atlantic Monthly."
   
   But as noted by other reviewers, this book dwells only on minutiae without (before I gave up at around page 60) providing any memorable insights into anything. It is possible that I can't "get it" because I'm an American without a grounding in the basics of English politics and English history -- exactly who are the Whigs, who are the Tories, Palmerston, that sort of thing -- but I think this book's problems are deeper than that.
   
   For instance, we learn on page 57 that Gladstone's sister-in-law married "George Lyttelton, of Hagley Hall, who had succeeded as the fourth Lord Lyttelton of the second creation in 1837" and that his later achievements included "honorary degrees from both Oxford and Cambridge" and becoming "the first principal of Queen's College, Birmingham." But a few pages later, where we find Gladstone giving an important speech in the Commons concerning his opposition to the Opium Wars, we are told absolutely nothing about the Opium Wars, etc.
   
   I know quite a bit about American history, but when reading a biography of Andrew Jackson, I doubt I would be very interested in learning about the comings and goings of the second cousins of members of his administration.



2. William Gladstone is probably the most recognized name in British life and politics during the period known as the Victorian era. His public life ran nearly concurrently with Queen Victoria's reign, usually not to his comfort or benefit, but his influence in government and public life was both an embodiment of the Victorian Age and at times a check upon its excesses.
   
   I spent a fair amount of time wondering if the United States had ever produced someone even remotely similar to Gladstone, and I have still come up empty. Gladstone entered Parliament in 1833 and gave his last address in 1894. Despite youthful political indiscretions, an early tendency toward controversial outspokenness in matters theological, religious eccentricities, a tendency toward micromanagement, a temperamental sovereign, and a mixed record as four-time prime minister, Gladstone navigated sixty-some years of public service in a fashion that earned him the universal title Grand Old Man. The Gladstone portrayed by Jenkins becomes a character greater than the sum of his parts, certainly at least as responsible for the Pax Victoria as Victoria herself, whose vanities of empire were stoked, unwisely as it proved, by Gladstone's lifelong rival, Disraeli.
   
   The young Gladstone fancied himself a theologian, and as a young MP produced a lengthy and polemical defense of the Anglican Church that fortuitously came to be forgotten in succeeding years. He never lost interest in theology, however, nor in the health of the established Anglican Church. The conversion of his friends Newman and Manning to Roman Catholicism troubled him, but the experience perhaps ameliorated a residual dogmatism to the point where he could converse with such as Charles Darwin in the latter's home. Religion would always be a major drive in Gladstone's life, but one of his religious practices has drawn particular interest over the years.
   
   Gladstone, during the first half of his life, believed he was called to rescue prostitutes from a life of sin. Jenkins is careful here to walk a thin line in his assessment of Gladstone's "ministry." He [Jenkins] concludes that while Gladstone probably did believe his work was religious, he did find erotic stimulation in visiting such women in their places of residence, but apparently without technical marital infidelity. Gladstone himself would admit later that he succeeded in converting perhaps one of the ninety or so women he frequented; his diary indicates that such activity caused him enough moral discomfort that he engaged in frequent self-flagellation.
   
   Fortunately for Gladstone, it was his legislative, oratorical, and administrative competence that shaped his public image. Somewhat like Churchill, he served in a number of government capacities, but clearly he was best suited as Chancellor of the Exchequer. American government does not have an equivalent officer who in effect draws up the nation's budget and establishes spending and taxing priorities for Parliament to vote up or down. Gladstone was a Conservative of a curious sort by today's standards: he eschewed deficit spending but did not shrink from raising taxes for what Henry Clay would have called "internal improvements." His policies over the years were generally good for the economy, and as Prime Minister for four separate tenures he enjoyed popularity among the laboring classes. In his later years Gladstone took to campaigning for elections and causes, attracting large and generally friendly crowds. This was an innovation in British politics, and Victoria thought it pedestrian.
   
   Four times during his career Gladstone was summoned by the Queen to form new governments. Relations between the two were never warm, particularly after the death of Prince Albert. Gladstone, unlike many in government, became more liberal in old age. He was never entirely at peace with jingoistic rhetoric of empire [which Disraeli, according to Jenkins, spoon-fed the Queen to saturation], and his major political crucible was a morally equitable settlement of the Irish dilemma, a dream which regrettably escaped him and crippled his governments. Victoria, with a near neurotic fear of anarchy, found Gladstone's popularity unsettling and his politics too radical.
   
   Gladstone, on the other hand, took advantage of the rapidly expanding railroad systems to observe first hand economic and political developments both in England and on the Continent. In some ways he shared Victoria's concern over nineteenth century upheavals and threats to legitimate and long established structures of authority, but his political instincts guided him toward moderate governance and a steady improvement in the standard of living. One may argue that Gladstone was also voted out of office four times, which is true; in his defense, his "social agenda" on such matters as Ireland and suffrage, modest as it was, ran against the tide of a reactionary monarch and the still well entrenched aristocracy of the House of Lords.
   
   Gladstone's foreign policy was generally benign, a case of his being lucky and good. He was a Confederate sympathizer during the Civil War, but he did not object to American damage claims involving the Confederate warship Alabama, outfitted in England. His one major adventure was an incursion into Egypt in 1882 to stem nationalist unrest. Gladstone, then old and distracted, was not enthused by the cause but won pundits when the uprising was quelled with minimal loss of life.
   
   Gladstone died in 1898 at the age of 89. Queen Victoria outlived him by about three years. Although a devotee of long walks, chopping trees, and frigid swimming outings, Gladstone's life was marred with illnesses and perhaps a tendency toward hypochondria. Certainly his very location in history is remarkable--a living bridge between Napoleon and Winston Churchill. Jenkins makes the most of this tenure in a very satisfying way for the reader. I would note here that an excellent sequel to this work is A.N. Wilson's "After the Victorians."



3. This book on one of Britian's greatest prime ministers, especially of the 19th century proves to be very boring. I guess that is blunt enough. This is a political biography written by a politican turned historian. The narrow focus of this biography ensure that we know everything about Gladstone's political life and almost nothing outside of it. Subject matters that does not involved Gladstone, the author did not touch. We do not know what kind of Britain Gladstone presided over, what her foreign policies or even her domestic policies if Gladstone wasn't involved. How did Britain's imperialism, her many wars and its cost affected Gladstone? In all these 640 odds pages, we hardly know what kind of man Gladstone was outside of his political arena. His personal relationship with his family, friends, allies and enemies remains vague, superificial and smokey. What we get after reading this biography is a highly detail narrative of Gladstone's political accomplishments, failures, relationships and "what if" political scenarios. I guess if a politican writes about another politican, this is the type of biography you might get, an one dimensional look.
   
   I didn't find the book very well written. It almost look like the author was overdosing on his thesaurus to impressed his English composition teacher. I found the Amazon.com review regarding that element to be very accurate.
   
   Thus, I was bit surprised to read all these nice accolodes printed in the book. I wondered if any of these people actually read the book which can put almost anyone to sleep unless of course, if you are a politican.
   
   I find it hard to recommend this book to anyone. Its definitely not for casual reading unless 19th century British parlimentary history is what you are looking for.



4. William Ewart Gladstone (1809-1898), 4 times Prime Minister of Great Britain during the height of Britain's influence and imperial power, was an extraordinary leader and individual who repays close study. His life, like that of Queen Victoria herself, spanned most of the 19th century. He was perhaps the most eminent of the British Victorians. One can compare him only to Darwin in the extent to which he influenced the culture and lives of his countrymen during that century. He was fourth son of Sir John Gladstone, a wealthy merchant in Liverpool who attained his riches at least partially via his holdings in the slave-worked Carribean cotton and sugar plantations. Like many of the sons of the rich in England during the early Victorian period, William was educated at Eton and Christ College, Oxford. It was at Oxford apparently where the future prime Minister awoke to his three greatest passions: religion, politics and Homer.
   
   Gladstone's intellectual struggles with those three passions are very ably summarized in a coupl eof recent books on the man: Babbington's book on Gladstone's intellectual development and the biography here under review by Jenkins. It speaks well of Gladstone that he took seriously the question of how religion and politics, or church and state ought to be related both culturally and institutionally/legally. Gladstone really did grapple mightily with the issue and his labors did produce fruit it seems to me. In some ways Gladstone was the ideal man to pursue the question of Church and State. He was an able politician and administrator in a country where Church and State issues had been life or death matters for centuries. He was also a deeply religious man who read voraciously in theology and spirituality and who all his life engaged in regular prayer and ministry. On the other hand, though he was a very successful politician he was not a profound political thinker. He did not have the same deep grounding in either theology or in political philosophy that many of his contemporaries had. He knew enough, however, to know that he did not know and thus he very wisely sought counsel from the experts. Although he was an almost fanatical High Anglican churchman, he eagerly sought counsel from three Roman Catholics: the German theologian Dollinger, the convert John Henry Newman and the political historian Lord Acton. Three of these men, Gladstone, Acton and Dollinger, were lifelong friends who corresponded and met regularly over several decades. Newman corresponded with the 3 but was limited in his travel and meetings during to his clerical life and duties. Gladstone, Acton and Dollinger, nevertheless, held Newman in highest regard, though Gladstone always regretted Newman's conversion to Roman Catholicism.
   Gladstone's position on Church-state relations evolved along with his political views over the many years he spent in public life. When he graduated from Oxford in 1832, his father convinced the Duke of Newcastle to sponsor his son for the Newark constituency and thus Gladstone entered politics in a fateful year for Britain and for Gladstone. In that year the great Reform Act of 1832 had been passed which substantially increased the franchise. Gladstone would be at the center of further increases in the franchise throughout the 19th century.
   
   Gladstone distinguished himself with fine oratorical skills in his maiden speeches in parliament. He was very conservative and opposed the extension of the franchise and loosening up the tight Church-state relationship. He very quickly developed the view that the strength of a polity depended on the strength and respect given to the Church. His deep religious sense also allowed him to sometimes place the interests of the state in service to the interests of the Church. This makes sense if you view the interests of the population as the same as or coterminous with the interests of religion. If the people need religion in order to flourish then the job of the State is to protect and nurture religious institutions and power. To do so would be to increase the power of the people.
   
   He parliamentary speeches got him noticed by Peel, the prime Minister, who appointed him to a post in the Treasury. He quickly evidenced unusual administrative ability and the following year he was promoted to under-secretary for the colonies. Before he could distinguish himself in this new post he lost office when Peel resigned in 1835. He reasonably quickly returned to the government, however, when the Whigs were forced out of power in 1841. He now began to display extraordinary political and administrative skills. In 1844 he put together the Railway Bill that obliged railway companies to transport third-class travelers for fares that did not exceed a penny a mile. This bill reduced the unpopularity of his party among ordinary Britons.
   
   In1847 Gladstone was elected the conservative member of parliament (MP) for Oxford University. This is a significant fact as Oxford at that time was a bastion of High Church, conservative thought which held that the State ought to support, financially, legally and in general promote an established religion, namely the High Church form of Anglicanism. Gladstone believed that Anglicanism had discovered the right form of state-church relations with the two entities roughly co-equal influence in the larger culture and each competent in its own domain. The state could not and should not undertake any actions that would undermine the influence of the Church and vice versa. Gladstone opposed Roman Catholicism insofar as it yielded where religious questions were concerned to a power outside of the local nationality. He also opposed low church and protestant manifestations of religion in England as disordered in their relations to the state: either they were hostile to the state and too subservient to state powers (e.g. the Puritans under Cromwell). All his life Gladstone was quite critical, even fanatically so, of the Roman Catholic Papacy-this despite his intense and life-long friendships with devout Roman Catholics. His own sister had converted to Roman Catholicism. Yet he saw the papacy as illiberal and operating to instill superstious subservience in the life of the faithful. When the First Vatican Council created the dogma of papal infallibility Gladstone only felt confirmed in his estimate of the backwardness of the Papacy. He never learned to see that the Papacy represented a cultural force that could be appealed to over and beyond the state. It represented a check on state power... but Gladstone never understood that. Indeed, it is now generally believed by many competent historians that democracy emerged first in the West precisely because the Papacy always constituted an extra-local, extra-national, spiritual, legal and institutional authority that could trump the local sovereign in several important cultural and economic domains that affected the lives of ordinary people nominally under the jurisdiction of the local Sovereign. Such was not the case in the Eastern Orthodox tradition where Church (in the form of the Metropolitan and Patriarchate) was subordinated to the Emperor and Czar. Thus it is not Christianity per se that yields liberty and democracy but the Latin rite which does so.
   
   When Lord Palmerston, the leader of the Whigs, became Prime Minister in1859, he made Gladstone the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer. Again Gladstone proved an extraordinarily able Administrator: He abolished the paper duty which enabled publishers to produce cheap newspapers. He, bucked the tide in his own party and supported another reform Bill which would have enfranchised large sections of the working class (but this was defeated). His support for reform cost him his seat as representative from Oxford University. He now moved away from the conservative party. Lord Russell, the new Prime Minister, asked Gladstone to become leader of the House of Commons as well as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Gladstone again introduced a reform bill and again was defeated and Russell's administration resigned.
   
   Lord Derby, leader of the conservatives now became Prime Minister with the unscrupulous Benjamin Disraeli acting as leader of the House of Commons. To steal the thunder from Gladstone and the liberals, Disraeli proposed (in 1867) a new Reform (enfranchisement) Act. Unlike Disraeli himself who had earlier blocked Gladstone's efforts on the same measure, Gladstone took a principaled stand, pointed out that he had practically written the bill himself (Disraeli being too stupid to undertake the task), supported the bill and the measure was passed.
   
   The new reform act gave the vote to every male adult householder living in a borough constituency, approximately1,500,000 new voters. Who would get the new voters? Interestingly, the new voters were not decieved by Disraeli's machinations. In the general election of December 1868, the conservatives were defeated and Gladstone, leader of the liberal party, became Prime Minister. Now Gladstone acted with astonishing energy. He wrote and passed the education act (1870) and quickly moved to consolidate his party's base by passing the Ballot Act (1872). This made voting anonymous. Until then voters had to mount a platform and announce their choice of candidate to the officer who then recorded it in the poll book. Employers and local landlords therefore knew how people voted and could punish them if they did not support their preferred candidate.
   
   In the 1874 general election, however, the conservatives squeaked out a bare majority and Disraeli now became Prime Minister. Gladstone led the opposition. At this point he began his lifelong habit of intense scholarly and religious research when out of office. Amazingly enough in less than two years he wrote and published (all while leading the opposition in Parliament!) his book An Inquiry into the Time and Place of Homer in History (1876). It is difficult to describe the work as it contained some very big ideas (Greek culture as part of the Christian revelation-not merely foreshadowing the revelation) and some extraordinary minutiae only scholars could find interesting (e.g. an enumeration of styles, descriptions and functions of doorways in Homer...such info later helped helped anthropologists excavating ruins of Mycanae and Troy).
   
   On a side note: While Disraeli gained the favor of Queen Victoria, Gladstone incurred her wrath. This it turns out was due to the fact that Gladstone was constantly trying to get her to play a role in the religious and political affairs of state (while Disraeli preferred a more tame royalty)-yet she would not budge from the Palaces after the death of Prince Albert. Disraeli's inactivity on the domestic front and bungling of foreign crises led to the dissolution of Parliament in 1880, and the general election resulted in a overwhelming Liberal victory and Gladstone's return to the Prime Minister-ship. Once again he acted energetically, introducing two new measures concerning parliamentary reform. The corrupt practices act reigned in some of the buying and selling of candidates and offices that proliferated under the Disraeli regime. The 1884 reform act gave the counties the same franchise as the boroughs and added about six million to the total number of new voters. Not surprisingly Gladstone and the liberals won the 1886 general election.
   
   He now began another unpopular crusade: Gladstone now attempted to convince Parliament to accept Irish Home Rule. At this time the master Irish politician Parnell was using brilliant parliamentary tactics to bring the issue before Parliament. When Gladstone finally introduced a home rule bill the proposal split his own party and Parliament rejected the measure. He nevertheless tried again but this time Parnell became embroiled in a personal scandal (He had a mistress whom he apparently passionately loved and later married). Without Parnell's leadership in the House of Commons the bill suffered and again went down to defeat. Gladstone was defeated in the polls in the 1886 elections but was once again returned to office for the final time in 1892. He tried once more. The following year the Irish home rule bill was defeated in the house of lords. William Gladstone resigned from office in March 1894 and died at Hawarden on 19th May, 1898.



5. Gladstone was a remarkable, complicated, even enigmatic man and Jenkins does not waste our time with the sort of pop-psychology projection and junk theories that ruin so much contemporary biography. Instead, Jenkins lets the facts speak for themselves, weighting them based on their demonstrable impact on Gladstone's own life and on British society viewed from the vantage point of 100 years or more of subsequent history. Gladstone emerges through records of his actions, the memoirs of his contemporaries, and his own diary. Jenkins resists the too-common modern conceit of pretending intimate knowledge of Gladstone as if through some astral mind-meld. Although he admits his own affection for the man, Jenkins lets readers decide for themselves what they think of this stubborn, courageous, long-winded, sanctimonious, and usually dead right -- even prophetic -- dynamo.

   Along the way there are delightful, balanced, spot-on portraits of some of Gladstone's contemporaries. The often-deified Disraeli comes out as a man of great talent, imagination, and political genius who was a self-absorbed, underhanded lightweight. (A portrayal such as that some modern critics have applied to Bill Clinton.) The slow intellectual and emotional curdling of Queen Victoria after the death of Prince Albert is as eloquent a meditation on the corruptions of isolation and power as I've read in some time. Spencer, Parnell, Hartington, Rosebery, Balfour, Joseph Chamberlain, Manning, Wilberforce, Palmerston -- all are here drawn with flavor and economy and no trace of bitterness or partisanship.

   One of the great strengths of this biography is that it never talks down to the reader. Jenkins is clearly an almost frighteningly literate individual, and his vocabulary occasionally sent me to the dictionary, but I consulted it in delight as every rare word was clearly used unselfconsciously by an author who knew it well and knew exactly what he was trying to say. (As Simon Winchester has noted, there are very few true synonyms in English.) More challenging in this regard may be the fact that the book, having been written for a British audience, assumes an elementary knowledge of the outlines of British history, which many American readers don't have. Just as a book about a prominent American nineteenth-century figure would not feel it necessary to produce extensive background on, say, the industrial revolution, the transcontinental railroad, or abolition, so Gladstone assumes the reader's familiarity with the Indian Raj, the expansion of the franchise, Britain's own industrial progress, and other subjects. My advice is to just jump right in anyway -- I myself was not well versed in these topics yet found the narrative so strong that the author's insights were easy to follow.

5 comments about The Last Man Who Knew Everything: Thomas Young, The Anonymous Polymath Who Proved Newton Wrong, Explained How We See, Cured the Sick, and Deciphered the Rosetta Stone, Among Other Feats of Genius.

1. In Robinson's biography of Thomas Young we get an excellent picture of a scientist working in the early nineteenth century as well as the issues and difficulties faced throughout history by those who study, work and contribute knowledge in a broad range of fields and interests (otherwise known as polymaths).
   
   As Robinson himself states in the book, the biography is not meant to be a comprehensive treatment of Young's work in all of the fields to which he contributed nor does it provide an in-depth treatment of Young's work in the areas where he was most influential. Rather, it is an overview of the breadth of Young's contributions and how these contributions came to be accepted within the scientific community of the time. This is most completely described with respect to Young's work in optics (which to the acceptance of a wave theory of light) and his work in languages, most notably hieroglyphics and demotic script.
   
   What I found most interesting about the book was the analysis of Young's character and the advantages and disadvantages he experienced in having such a broad array of interests. The author clearly shows Young's tendency to enter a field of study, make important and sometimes ground breaking advances and then to move onto to other areas. In doing so, we see Young's habit of not rigorously working through all the details or implications of a discovery and the controversy that sometimes leads to.
   
   The book is well written with copious quotes both from Young and his early biographers. While I found these insightful, they were often lengthy and dry and required some work to plow through. I recommend this book to all those who find themselves studying a wide array of topics, those interested in either the history of physics or linguistics and those who wish to see how a person who belongs to a rare group of individuals (polymaths) works and interacts with the learned culture around them.



2. THhomas Young is more believeable as a character in a work of fiction (comprable to a Nero Wolfe or a Sherlock Holmes) than as a real person. No one can be that smart in so many areas! But the fact that he really lived makes him all the more fantastic.
   
   This is a great biography about an amazing man!
   
   Also recommended: The Man Who Created Sherlock Holmes: The Life and Times of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle



3. Only read this book if you are secure with your own IQ. If you are not, you will leave feeling terribly inadequate as Thomas Young was amazingly portrayed in this book!!!



4. Chapters include:
   Preface
   Introduction
   Child Prodigy
   Fellow of the Royal Society
   Itinerant Medical Student
   'Phenomenon' Young
   Physician of Vision
   Royal Institution Lecturer
   Let There Be Light Waves
   'Natural Philosophy & the Mechanical Arts'
   Dr Thomas Young, M.D., F.R.C.P.
   Reading the Rosetta Stone
   Waves of Enlightenment
   Walking Encyclopedia
   In the Public Interest
   Grand Tour
   Dueling with Champollion
   A Universal Man
   Notes & References
   Bibliography
   Index
   
   ***** A fantastic biography of Thomas Young that is not only great for fans of history, but also for students to use in subject reports! *****
   
   
   Reviewed by Detra Fitch of Huntress Reviews.



5. There isn't a great deal of personal, emotional information about Thomas Young, the title polymath here. But then his life was mostly in his work. And there is a lot to be learned following Thomas' investigations of a variety of scientific and scholarly subjects.
   
   His range truly was amazing. How did people accomplish so much in previous centuries? Well, I suppose without TV to suck away time... But Thomas was exceptional even for his overachieving, turn-of-the-18th-century age. And this biography allows a reader to follow in the path of his curiosity - about how the eye works, about the nature of light, about Egyptian writing.
   
   The biographer's descriptions of Thomas' researches into the physiology of the human eye can get pretty gruesome. These pages are not for the squeamish. Thomas often used himself as subject, probing his own eye socket to get to the bottom of things.
   
   The section on his investigations into light is really enlightening and presents some of the clearest descriptions I've read of the split-screen diffraction experiment. This experiment was key in leading Thomas to his pioneering proposition that light is wave-like in nature.
   
   And then the section on his work translating the Rosetta Stone was news to me! I had always assumed that ancient Egyptian hieroglyph writing was a form of picture writing like Chinese, with each symbol representing a whole word. But Thomas' break-through lay in the realization that the Egyptian symbols were actually largely like our modern English alphabet - that each symbol represented a sound, a phoneme. And so he gave us the key to reading the inscriptions on the ancient Egyptian tombs and obelisks.
   
   The writing here is generally clear and will keep you turning page by page, tracking Thomas' investigations as he unlocks one mystery after another.