3 comments about The Alexiad (Penguin Classics).

1. The Alexiad is a fascinating view of a critical time both in Byzantine and Western history. Anna Comnena tells the story how her father Alexius I seized the helm of an Empire in complete chaos and how he steered it for almost forty years through very troubled waters. The Byzantine Empire was threatened by Norman Sicily the Patinaks, Cumans and the Turks. Alexus had limited resources to deal with these great threats and had to use his cunning and courage to defeat them. This is a fascinating book and Anna wrote in flowing and intelligent prose. I only found one flaw which made the book hard at times to read, Anna Comnena's hatred for all things and persons not Byzantine or "Roman". She hated the nomadic Turkic peoples of Asia Minor and the Balkan peninsula but her scorn is most evident in her writing about western Catholics or "Latin's". The is no crime she will not accuse them of, even eating babies! It is sad to read how much hatred this woman had for fellow Christians. However I do recommend the book as long as it read with caution and in light of information from other writers both contemporary to Anna Comnena and modern.



2. An excellent translation of Comnena's work, remains true to the original Greek while providing good equivalents for the more difficult idiomatic expressions. Also includes a couple of very helpful maps and appendices. A wonderful read for anyone interested in Byzantine history.



3. In this history the Emperor Alexius comes across as a sort of medievil Lee Iacoca or Carlos Gohsn, who through very delicate wheeling and dealing manages to bring back a floundering empire from the brink. Since Anna was the emperor's daughter, we could expect a hagliography from her, but that would discredit her intensely perceptive analysis of the political situation as well as her own personal experiences with many of the major players or others who knew them. It would also ignore the fact that this book is in many ways a treatise by Anna on what it means to be a good ruler, as exemplified through the person of Alexius.
   
   Excellent book for history buffs and people looking for examples of great leadership.

5 comments about The Lion and the Unicorn: Gladstone vs. Disraeli.

1. The overall style of writing was quite interesting and kept the pages turning. A look at the two of these very powerful men in a side by side comparison has been a long time in waiting, but the reader could benefit from more information about the period. Mr. Aldous does a commendable job of sticking with his thesis (the relationship of Disraeli and Gladstone), though it seems to be to the detriment of overall content.
   
   This book is for the veteran student of this period in history. The author assumes the reader already knows the basics of the period and of each character outside of their relationship - and rightfully so, because that is his intended audience. Early on he tells his audience of the volumes upon volumes already written on those subjects.
   
   The Lion and the Unicorn is not an absolute necessity for anyone adding this period to their knowledge base, but it is an entertaining and interesting bonus.



2. I thoroughly enjoyed this book! It read as easily as a novel. I wasn't familiar with parliamentary politics before reading this book, but that didn't get in the way of the drama of forming governments, jockeying for position, and all the other ins and outs of the Gladstone-Disraeli rivalry. Aldous takes the approach that the reader knows almost nothing about the issues and explains them from teh bottom up.
   
   If you have any interest in reading about the inner workings of the British Empire during the 1800's, this is a great read for you.



3. Aldous' accessible, colorful account of the decades-long rivalry between the two pre-eminent British politicians of the 19th century will confound those comfortable with the popular ideological stereotypes of today. Disraeli, the founder of the modern Conservative party, employed wit and mockery in a manner more reminiscent of a modern, smart-aleck liberal, while the Liberal Gladstone married his high-minded social-reformer's agenda to a dour Evangelical outlook. Both men's strengths and weaknesses are on full display, and Aldous succeeds in avoiding the temptation to pick a favorite, though I have to admit that Disraeli seems to have been a far more likable individual (provided that you weren't pierced by a strike from his rapier tongue, that is). Together, the two men helped shepherd Britain through a demanding time and left the nation and Empire stronger, no matter that they loathed one another. If this fine book proves anything, it demonstrates that severe partisanship doesn't inevitably end in wholesale cultural destruction - a good thing to remember as the 2008 Presidential race percolates.



4. This is a masterful book about two flawed but fascinating giants of British history. The story sets a fast pace through decades of political rivalry and extravagant backbiting between Gladstone and Disraeli, while also giving us well-rounded and reasonably sympathetic views of their personal lives. The author has chosen an episodic approach to telling his story, using set-piece events to move the narrative along and bring the protagonists into focus against the political world they dominated in the second half of the 19th century. In the end, it's obvious the author admires and enjoys Disraeli somewhat more than Gladstone, but then again, it's easy to see why: Disraeli is the seductive and magical unicorn to Gladstone's priggish (and yet perverse...) old lion. The writing is beautiful and tight and the storyline is perfectly paced. I sometimes finish a book, put it down and breathe a sigh of relief: I finished this book and wished for more. Well done!



5. The Lion and the Unicorn is an interesting discussion of the decades-old rivalry between Benjamin Disraeli and William Gladstone in nineteenth century Britain. What struck me most, though, was the way it seemed to limit the discussion to domestic matters. Maybe Disraeli and Gladstone never bashed each other over their respective heads about India, Africa, the rest of Europe, the American Civil War, or the Suez Canal, but I doubt that they totally omitted these arenas from their rivalry, either. According to the book, all of their activities seemed to be limited to tariffs, income taxes, and voters' rights issues, mixed in with occasional dealings with Ireland. And there is much more discussion of Gladstone's penchant for prostitutes than there is of any matters that extended beyond the borders of England.
   
   The author mentions the fact that Queen Victoria strongly preferred Disraeli over Gladstone, but never really explains why. I suspect that it had much to do with how they handled issues that involved foreign policy, but it's hard to tell from reading this book. Or maybe I just missed the explanation.
   
   It is an interesting book, but probably a lot less interesting than it could have been.

5 comments about House of Abraham: Lincoln and the Todds, A Family Divided by War.

1. Stephen Berry has written an eminently readable account of the divisions among Mary Todd Lincoln's 13 siblings through the Civil War. The Todd family, which was from Kentucky, split its allegiance, with several members going South to join or marry into the Confederacy. Substantial portions of the Civil War are retold through their individual stories. Few members of the family, including Mary Todd Lincoln, come off looking well. Several of the siblings were opportunists, while others were war criminals. The book also poignantly reveals the political and personal impact on President Lincoln.



2. I thought that I had read (and knew) just about everything about Mary Lincoln. What a pleasure to read this book and find out so much about Mary's family that I never knew before. Another plus is that the book is so well written that it reads like a novel. I couldn't put it down.



3. Why did the majority of the Todds choose the South over the North? Their's was a border state that stayed in the Union. They owned too few slaves to have fortunes staked on the system. On p. 174 Berry defines the Todds as being "shrill with hatred... collapsed in self interest and grief". What drove them to this?
   
   Are they really "a once happy family" as Berry says? The litigation over their father's estate belies this. The litigation not only left their father's second wife (mother of 6?) dependent, but also disinherited those, like Mary, who had already had gifts from the father. Did early favoritism cause the rift as much as the war?
   
   Lincoln appears to be the model brother-in-law. Risking charges of favoritism and nepotism, Lincoln helps his Union oriented brothers-in-law (who also married Todds), giving one the ability to contract for provisions (which he exploits and when challenged threatens blackmail) and another a coveted army position away from the fray in the west. He entertains a Confederate Todd in the White House, and provides a pardon for another who will not take an oath of allegiance to the country that pardons her. His tolerance and charity towards his family recalls his tolerance of McClellan and a host of cabinet officers of similarly dubious motives.
   
   Mary personalizes the Confederate allegiance in her family as a fight against her. Maybe Mary was close to being right. Some seem to bask in the status of being able to malign a relative. Others just expect too much which can breed disappointment even under normal conditions. Maybe some of their intensity was a family rebellion against the one grown up who, by chance, had married into their family.
   
   While the book is short, it is not entirely focused. For a book on the family, too many of its precious paragraphs are devoted to sketching the war such as the battles of Manassas and Shiloh and the seige of Vicksburg. I would have liked a reference table in the beginning showing the birth order of the Todds and their marriages. Most importantly it needs some discussion on why the Todds did what they did.
   
   In a lighthearted afterward the author describes his research. While a lot went into this effort, I hope it is not thorough, because I would like to know more of these Todds.



4. Their have been some good Civil War family biographies lately. The Whalen's book on the Fighting McCook's and this book on the Todd family come to mind. Family biographies can help us understand the human cost of the Civil War as no other histories can. As family members die, we understand the war's causalities in very personal terms gaining an idea of what this costs those involved.
   
   The McCook family had no conflicted loyalties, no question of who to fight for nor any hesitations in committing to a side. They were able to establish a record of service fighting for the Union that was unique. The Todd family had conflicted loyalties, questions on who to fight for and hesitated in committing to a side. A large slave owning family from Kentucky with an in-law in the White House would cause problems for everyone. Lincoln, his wife, her brothers & sisters their spouses created a series of confrontations, personal and political problems that make up this story.
   
   The author introduces the Todd family and the principle people giving us a solid foundation for the story. Lincoln tries to keep as much of the family on the Union side as possible. His efforts delay some members "going South" and produce some real political problems in 1861 for him. Each year of the war is a chapter. This allows us to follow everyone from assignment to assignment or battle to battle. Against this backdrop, Lincoln's personal life and family problems becomes worse and worse. Each newspaper story, each battle death adds to Lincoln's problems and Mary's woes. However, at Springfield as Lincoln is buried, the Todd in-laws stand as family.
   
   The author is easy to read and manages to keep all the story lines together. These are not likable people and he clearly does not like them. This come through in a number of places and may have colored the story. In addition, the author makes misstatements about the battle of Shiloh and the POW exchange. None of his mistakes are major but he is accepting of popular stories as opposed to good scholarship. A nice touch is to take each person from 1865 to his or her death. This is always something I look for in this type of book and feel is really important. The author does an excellent job on each person giving the reader a feel for who they were.
   
   Overall, this is a very readable book. The people are well drawn allowing us to see their world and have some understanding of their choices. In addition, the author shows how the divisions in Lincoln's personal family helped him reach out to the national family as reflected in many of his speeches.



5. This is an entirely new perspective of the Lincoln family, specifically that of his wife's. While there is much known about Abraham Lincoln's wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, as well as their oldest son, Robert Todd Lincoln, who was the only child to live to a ripe old age, I know very little about the Todd Family, and was especially intrigued that a book had finally been written on this little known side of the Lincoln family. Although the book was short, and, as admitted by the author, only a cursory story of several of the members of the Todd family could be done, it was admittedly an interesting book and whetted my appetite for additional information on the Todd Family. I found that the book added a few more pieces to the complex character and personality of Abraham Lincoln the man, and found further that his "melancholia" that is so much discussed was not solely due to the failures of many of his generals, the exorbitant loss of life in the battles of the conflict, the political intrigues of the Radical Republicans and the Democratic-Copperheads, but also partly due to the inner family turmoil that he and Mary experienced with their own family, specifically the Todds. Truly, Abraham Lincoln was quite prophetic when he said that a "House divided against itself cannot stand", and surely this could be said of the Todd family who themselves were divided with several family members serving in the armed forces of the Confederacy and the Union, several killed in battle, and one assassinated. I would recommend this book, and hope to see further detailed studies of the Todd Family in the future.

5 comments about George Washington (The American Presidents).

1. As the authors relate, Washington was human and open to the political menace of competing factions. He also was highly idealistic and wanted the best for his country. He may have had a ego, and thought his actions were the best for his nation. His administration as with his military command were made up of people who were more than capable. How else can you explain a administration with Adams, Pickering, Hamilton, and Jefferson competing for what they thought was best for their country.
   Washington held these people together through some difficult crisises. The authors also remind us that Washington heard a lot of discouraging comments about his character during the eight years of his administration. Constant criticism was aimed at him. After eight years, it is no wonder he decided to retire to Mt. Vernon.
   
   Washington may not have done any extraordinary things, but his actions ensured an American democracy for years to come. He guided the new republic to a standard in government and then retired when the time came.
   His actions demonstrate his greatness. This book is fair read on the accomplishments of our first president.



2. This is one more work in The American Presidents series. The stage is set by one quotation from the Introduction by the series editor, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (Page xvii): "The greatest presidents in the scholars' rankings, Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, were leaders who confronted and overcame the republic's greatest crises."
   
   One fact that sets this book apart from others is co-author James MacGregor Burns, eminent political scientist and a leading authority on leadership. He examines George Washington, in part, from the perspective of leadership. To begin, Burns and co-author Susan Dunn lay out the obvious--but profound--point (Page 3): "His presidency. . .would be his ultimate achievement, for it would undergird every future president who would seek to offer strong and determined leadership." In a sense, Washington made up the presidency as he went along, painfully aware that he was setting precedent for future occupants of that office.
   
   One of Burns' accomplishments was development of the concepts of transactional leadership versus transformational leadership. The authors apply both to Washington, noting, first, that he was an exemplar of transactional leadership--(Page 64) "managing, supervising, delegating, compromising, mastering the centrifugal forces in the government." In short, marshalling resources at his disposal and "getting things done" efficiently and effectively. In addition, it is argued, he was a transformational leader--(Page 64) "giving strong institutional shape to an enhanced philosophy of executive leadership as well as inspiring and cementing citizens' commitment to the federal government. Many examples are adduced throughout the volume to bolster the contention that Washington was effective at both aspects of leadership.
   
   The book itself provides a reasonable background to Washington's life, including his checkered military career before the Revolution. He is also described as having towering ambition, which he strove to control and channel throughout his life. Then, his key role during the Revolutionary War and serving the country in a variety of ways after the ending of the war, including his simple presence at the Constitutional Convention, bringing credibility to that event.
   
   Then, Washington's first term is described. One major strength of this was, overall, a terrific leadership team, including Alexander Hamilton at the Treasury Department, Thomas Jefferson at the State Department, Henry Knox (not so successful) at the War Department, and Edmund Randolph as Attorney General. He also, at this point, had a very good relationship with now Congressional leader James Madison. He used his cabinet to good effect, creating a form of collective leadership, in which he received advice from his Cabinet, discussed with them, and then withdrew to reflect and make his own decision. It is worth noting that John Adams, his Vice President, was NOT a part of the leadership team. Within a handful of years, differences began to emerge among political leaders (including a schism within his own Cabinet), presaging the rise of political party. This puzzled Washington who felt that through reason we could all come to agreement. It also began the challenges to Washington's authority by those who disagreed with him.
   
   The second term featured the development of even greater partisan divisiveness (in Washington's eyes, anyhow). Policy battles became fiercer, wearying Washington, Nonetheless, if one look at the accomplishments during his two terms, one can only be impressed by what he and his team did.
   
   The conclusion is a nuanced essay by the authors on Washington's moral leadership, his strengths and weaknesses on that dimensions. While there is much to admire, there are also some questions raised, such as his desire for land and wealth and his tacit support for slavery (even though he increasingly became ill disposed toward the "peculiar institution"). Nonetheless, the last line of the book says much (Page 157): "Transcending all this was the legacy for all Americans of Washington the man--the revolutionary hero, the founding president, and the First Citizen of the republic."
   
   If you wish a more detailed work on Washington, one might examine Joseph Ellis' book "His Excellency: George Washington." However, for those who wish to learn more about our first president without going into lengthier expositions on him, this slender volume will prove rewarding.



3. George Washington has a deservedly iconic, larger than life, stature among Americans; and yet his own reserve and aloofness, combined with the 18th Century world in which he lived, make him difficult for most Americans today to understand. With President's Day approaching and our country in the midst of a presidential election, I wanted to revisit Washington. This biography by James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn, part of the "American Presidents" series, tells a great deal in short compass about Washington and why he remains important. The study avoids the tendency to place Washington upon a pedestal, and it also avoids the more modern, and much more regrettable, tendency to deflate.
   
   Washington (1732 --1799) was born to the landed aristocracy of Virginia. He served in the French and Indian Wars (1754 -- 1758), as a delegate to the first Continental Congress, as the Commander in Chief during the American Revolution (1775- -- 1781) and as the president of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia (1787), among other accomplishments, before becoming the first President of the United States (1789 --1796). In the early chapters of this book, Burns and Dunn trace the character traits of Washington that fitted him for leadership, together with some of his flaws. They paint a portrait of a Washington driven by ambition and concern for his reputation, but also a person of character, intelligence, and sound judgment. More than once in his life, Washington professed himself reluctant, notwithstanding his ambition, to assume or to expand upon powers he readily could have assumed. Washington did indeed temper his ambition and drive with restraint.
   
   The central theme of this book is how Washington proceeded to set the tone of the American Presidency. The authors draw a number of valuable distinctions. The first is between the ceremonial function of the American President -- as representative of the American people and above the political fray -- and the President's political function. As a result of the respect in which he was held, Washington unified the United States under his leadership and, as the authors state, enhanced the position of the Presidency by his occupation of it rather than, as with his successors, having his own reputation enhanced by virtue of becoming the President. This was an invaluable accomplishment to perform for the new nation.
   
   The authors further distinguish between Washington as a transactional and as a transformational leader. As a transactional leader, Washington acted as an administrator in supervising the complex business of government, including the relationship of the Executive Branch with Congress and with foreign countries. As a transformational leader, Washington acted to create a strong presidency, within the limits established by the constitution, "as well as inspiring and cementing citizens' commitment to the federal government." (p. 64)
   
   The authors also two main commitments underlying Washington's presidency: a commitment to reason, compromise, and judgment, as developed in the philosophy of the Enlightement, and a commitment to happiness as the end of government. Washington did not view happiness as synonymous with pleasure but rather as involving a well-ordered republic with laws that applied fairly and equally to everyone and which allowed everyone the opportunity to improve themselves and to flourish.
   
   The book examines Washington's relationships with his brilliant colleagues, Hamilton, Jefferson, and James Madison and how, at his best, he listened to their frequently divergent views before deciding himself on a wise course of action. Washington's toleration and slowness to judgment receive deserved praise in this study. The authors also examine some of the less fortunate aspects of the Washington presidency, including its elitism, lack of understanding of those other than the rich and powerful, and its obsession with order and discipline. These factors, among others, would lead even in Washington's lifetime to the development of the party system that Washington had hoped to avoid. The authors also are critical of Washington's failure to publically address the issue of slavery and to his all to frequently demonstrated acquisitiveness and tendency to drive sharp bargains in his private life.
   
   In our complicated, difficult political world, this book will remind the reader of the origins of our system of government. It will encourage reflection on the nature of leadership, both when brilliantly executed and when it fails, as exemplified in the Presidency of George Washington.
   
   Robin Friedman



4. This book is part of the American Presidents series. As with all of these books, they are well wriiten and very informative about every stage of their lives not just the political. They also inlcude detail that I rarely see in other biographical books concerning the political machinations of their time.



5. This book is cowritten by one of my favorite authors from my college days, decades ago. James MacGregor Burns wrote a classic about presidential and congressional politics entitled "The Deadlock of Democracy." That book was about the interaction between presidential and congressional parties and how they act as checks on one another. In this book, we see the formation of our political system. Beyond what the Constitution set forth, the nature of our federal system is, in great part, defined by what Washington made of the presidency. As the first chief executive and a highly popular figure, he was in position to define the presidency for the future administrations. He could have asserted much greater power than he did and he would have been (at least initially) largely unopposed. He was in position to sieze almost monarchal power but in significant ways, he did not. For example, he set the two term custom which held until FDR was elected to a third term. Also, he often deferred to Congress.
   
   On the other hand, in both foreign affairs and financial affairs Washington utilized power when it was unclear from the Constitution, whether such power was intended. The authors point out such example as the taking of an official position of neutralitry in the conflict between Great Britain and France. The Constitution makes it clear that congress issues a declaratrion of war. However, does this also mean that a position neutrality must be declared by congress? Washington's actions made this a presidential power. Also, Washington appointed a cabinet of very able men and they, paticularly Alexander Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury, consolidated significant power in the executive branch. Indeed, there is nothing in the Constitution regarding a cabinet so, Washington's creation this institution set a significant precedent.
   
   In Washington's second term, an opposition party was taking form and this greatly disappointed him since he believed in consensus and felt that parties were harmful. The formation of parties was probably inevitable but Washington almost took it personally, as he hoped his leadership would lead to consensus and he saw the formation of parties as sort of a rejection. In fact, he was a great success since the actions that Washngton took set the precedents for future presidents. As the authors point out so well, "[w]hile future presidents would be respected because of the office they held, in Washington's case, the office would become respected because of the man." For that reason, Washington was a great president.

5 comments about Reach for the Sky: The Story of Douglas Bader, Legless Ace of the Battle of Britain (Bluejacket Books).

1. A wonderful story. Another great book is "Fly for Your LIfe", about Robert Stanford Tuck. "First Light" by Geoffrey Wellum, "Tales of a Guinea Pig", and "Samurai", are all great books. I think Samurai is a little embellished but it is still a good book.



2. I first read this book 50 years ago and thoroughly enjoyed it. My father had served in WWII so I was interested in stories from this time. I enjoyed rereading the book at 65! I admired Douglas Bader then and still do to this day. I went online and learned about his life after the war.



3. Excellent book about a truly amazing man. If you enjoyed this one, try Fly for Your Life, by Larry Forrester, which chronicles the life of RAF pilot Robert Stanford Tuck. Tuck is mentioned several times in Reach for the Sky and his book is another 5 star, Battle of Britain story.



4. I ordered this book for myself after having read a borrowed original first edition hard cover from a friend.
   The story is wonderful and inspiring, and I wanted to own this book. This soft cover reissue version is O.K.,
   but the photo reproductions in it are shamefully bad. I'll continue to search for an original copy ...



5. I read this book in middle school YEARS ago, well, ok, I wore this book out in middle school. When I saw it on Amazon I had to get it! What an amazing, inspirational story. Anyone with an interest in flying or history will find this a fantastic read!

5 comments about James Madison: A Biography.

1. This book took me forever to read. I am not a slow reader.
   
   This book is a great book to get at who was Madison, what did he accomplish, how did his mind work, etc. But, it is not very entertaining or any kind of a fast read.
   
   If you want to get to know Madison, this is a wonderful resource. I agree with other reviewers that his early life is a series of guesses by the author and seems a bit dreamlike in the retelling. Not a huge flaw, but I am sure someone can do better in the future.
   
   This is a scholar's biography. As a scholar's biography is rates as an A or A-, as a fun read it rates more like a B-. As I work through biographies of all the Presidents, this was one I needed to read - I do not think I will read it again.
   
   Joseph Valentine Dworak



2. Ralph Ketcham's JAMES MADISON: A BIOGRAPHY was originally published in 1971 and was a national book award nominee. This biography is comprehensive (671 pages), and looks like it is the result of long study of our fourth president by this professor of history emeritus at my graduate school alma mater, Syracuse University.
   
   This presidential biography took me 10 months to read (about halfway through, I quit reading it straight and took other book "breaks" between chapters), but I found it enjoyable. Ketcham really sketches a detailed portrait of Madison's life by closely examining almost all of its aspects, from what life must have been like for him growing up in Orange County, Virginia, to his work as "Father of the Constitution," his work on the Federalist Papers, his work as Secretary of State and as president, as well as a lengthy final chapter on his productive and active retirement (including his involvement with the founding of the University of Virginia).
   
   This is not a fast read, clearly, but I can't help imagine that it is the definitive work on Madison's formative years, education, political career and contribution to our country. I learned a great deal about his relationships with the other framers of our democracy, his Republicanism, his stance on separation of church and state as well as slavery.
   
   An interesting thing about Madison, to me, is that he was a slight man, who was often ill with some kind of recurring "attacks." He was only 5'4" and weighed about 100 pounds, and he did not have a charismatic presence or strong speaking style. While a man who made this wee of a physical impression would not be likely to be president today in our media age, this book demonstrates the level to which we owe Madison for the shape of our government, political system and political philosophy today. He informed the development of a free America at every step of the way through his keen intelligence, his ability to communicate his arguments and his affiliations with the other framers, who liked and respected him for his intellect and dedication to the cause of democracy.
   
   I found one of the most interesting sections to be on Madison's presidency during the War of 1812. Ketcham details the war's events along with the political temperature in the nation at the time, including the opposition to Madison and his decision to go to war with England at this time. I always find it fascinating that the men and women we venerate as the founders of our nation were subjected to similar (if not worse) public abuse for their decisions -- decisions that our knowledge of history help us understand in a way their contemporaries could not. Madison took a great deal of criticism over this war, but by the end of his presidency, he was triumphant. This chapter also illustrates some ways in which Madison's inability to act without feeling he had clearly thought through all ramifications hurt him and his administration at times. (I also noted that several Little Rock streets are named for War of 1812 military leaders, which made this book more "local" to me.)
   
   While Ketcham details the loss of an early love of Madison's when he traces the development of this relationship with some personal detail, Ketcham does not include a great deal about Dolley Madison in this book (her presence here does not compare to Abigail Adams' presence in McCullough's John Adams), which I found somewhat disappointing. Their family life is interesting, as she was a widow when he married her with a son, Payne Todd, who later became a lazy, shiftless, wanderer and gambler, who had to be bailed out of quite a few fiscal scrapes by his stepfather. Dolley and James Madison never had children together, and the portrait this book paints of her is fainter than I had expected.
   
   This book is the book I would recommend to anyone who really wanted to dig into the life, career and impact of James Madison. The writing is authoritative and objective, giving the reader a sound education in our fourth president. While this book is not my favorite of the four biographies on presidents I have read so far, I think Adams and Madison are my favorite individuals I've studied in this effort to read about each president of the United States.



3. James Madison was the man who did research and wrote for the politicians of his era. He was the brains behind the speaker (John Adams), the warrior (George Washington), and the diplomat (Thomas Jefferson). He held true to the republican principles, to a fault, literally.
   
   This book can be tedious. It is dense. But it is the very best explanation of the circumstances leading to the War of 1812 I have ever found.
   
   Plan on having another book going at the same time you are reading this one. Or, plan on some good naps along the way because it is complex reading.



4. I will start this review by saying that this book is not for the casual reader. To enjoy this book, you have to have a serious interest in the life and political thought of James Madison. The writing style, while certainly not as bad as other reviews have stated, is a straightforward academic presentation that at times can be a bit tedious. That being said, in terms of content this is as excellent a one volume biography as I believe you will find. Ketcham manages to present a full portrait of James Madison with thoughtful and excellent analysis in a surprisingly short amount of text. After reading this volume, I came away with a much better understanding of, and appreciation for, James Madison. Unlike other biographers, who sometimes waste more text than necessary on their own analyses, Ketcham interjects his analysis sparingly but brilliantly.
   
   My minor criticisms are similar to others. The beginning of the book is the most difficult part to read and reflects Ketcham's main weakness as an author - narrative biography. This is especially pronounced in one instance, where he tells the story of Madison's first trip to Princeton, admitting that the story is based on his own best construction of what probably happened since no records are available, and then proceeds with the most boring narrative imaginable. If you are going to tell a conjectural story, at least make it interesting. Ketcham also overuses to annoyance the term "bilious" and frequently uses the word "insure" incorrectly where "ensure" should be used.
   
   Ultimately, my criticisms of this volume are more for providing a two sided review than real detractions. Ketchams volume, while not lively reading, is a superb biography and undoubtedly the best one volume biography of James Madison currently available. Indeed, this biography is perfectly in line with the personality of Madison - while not exciting for its own sake, thoroughly well researched and executed, and ultimately essential.



5. I read this book working toward my goal of reading a biography of each President. I'm now nearly half way though and this was by FAR the toughest one to finish.
   
   I read Stephen Ambrose's entire three-part, 18000 page series on Nixon faster than I read this nearly 700 page book on Madison. I can't say I wasn't warned because all the reviews said it was deep and detailed but I didn't want to take the easy way out because the experts say this is by far the book to read on Madison.
   
   It was truly a very well researched and informative book. However, there were chunks of the book that were too detailed and moved too slowly. For instance, I don't care what Dolley Madison wore to balls or how the decorations looked or what political couples attended and what the other wives were wearing. I also don't care how tough the trip was for everyone to get everywhere and how Madison got sick everytime the wind blew the wrong way on the Potomac.
   
   What I do care about is how Madison worked with Jefferson and others to shape our form of government. I care about his time in congress, how he handled his duties during the revolution, the circumstances that lead to his Presidency, how he managed the war of 1812, what role he played in critical issues such as the development of the national bank and the treatment of American sailors by the British navy. I also really wanted to know about his relationship with other well known historical figures.
   
   All of that information is in there but it is buried amongst stuff that to be honest I just didn't care about.
   
   Ketcham is obviously "The Man" when it comes to James Madison and I'm quite sure in historical circles this book is highly respected because it is such a complete bio of him. But, it definitely isn't for your average reader.
   
   For those new bio readers interested in Presidents I would suggest Robert Dallek's book on JFK or Jead Edward Smith's bio of Grant. Those are detailed but they are told with the backdrop of better known periods - Civil War/Reconstruction and WWII/Cold War. Those are more interesting periods I think and those bios seemed to move faster.
   
   This book was good but you've got to be ready to get into it and pay attention because the details and stuff that you really care about can be hidden and very laborious at times to get to.

3 comments about Secret Lives of the Civil War: What Your Teachers Never Told You About the War Between the States.

1. There's nothing here I haven't heard before, and most of it seems pretty trivial if not inaccurate. Like, oh wow, Sherman was in two shipwrecks in one day. I writhe on the floor in astonished amazement, interrupted only by my own loud snoring.



2. Over the past few years, a sub-category of history books has emerged with the goal of presenting a warts-and-all retelling of the historical record. This book, for instance, wants to unveil "what your teachers never told you about the War between the States." The resulting volume is a broad, interesting and informational introduction to some famous Civil War movers and shakers.
   
   The personalities covered in O'Brien's 26 chapters are mostly "the usual suspects" such as 'Father Abraham' and his wife, Grant, McClellan, Burnside, Sherman, Jefferson and Varina Davis, Lee, Jackson, Stuart and others such as Harriet Tubman, William Quantrill, etc. The life of each is covered in 10-12 pages with O'Brien relating their triumphs, tragedies and pecadilloes in a lighthearted, evenhanded fashion.
   
   Dedicated Civil War buffs will be familiar with much of the material appearing in the hefty (300+ pages) little volume. But it only retails for $16.95 so what the heck! Likewise if you're just getting interested in the Civil War, this is a very HUMAN introduction to some people who have since assumed legendary stature.
   
   Recommended.
   
   ****
   One suggestion: Drop the illustrations and go with period photographs.



3. Nicely enhanced with occasional illustrations by Monika Suteski, "Secret Lives Of The Civil War": What Your Teachers Never Told You About The War Between The States" by Cormac O'Brien is an informed and informative compendium of odd facts, unsung heroes, obscure vignettes, and bizarre anecdotes that are a part of the American Civil War that are not presented in traditional classroom lectures, textbooks, or histories. For example, Mary Todd Lincoln's claim to receive valuable military strategies from ghosts in the spirit world; Jefferson Davis importing camels for Confederate soldiers stationed in the American southwest; Ulysses S. Grant mounted on a horse named 'Kangaroo' during the Vicksburg campaign; James Longstreet fighting in the Battle of Antietam wearing carpet slippers; William Tecumseh Sherman surviving two shipwrecks on the same day; and so many more surprising and unexpected but quite true stories of people and events. Not the least of which is the story of the infamous and feared Confederate guerrilla leader William Quantrill whose skull was to end up in the basement of a fraternity house from 1905 to 1942. "Secret Lives Of The Civil War" is the result of meticulous and painstaking research, making it an absolute 'must' for personal, academic, and community library Civil War Studies reference shelves and supplemental reading lists.

4 comments about Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: An American Slave, Written by Himself (The Bedford Series in History and Culture).

1. In the classic slave narrative genre, Frederick Douglass' narrative of his life brings to life, in all its horrors, American slave society, and one slave's life-long protest against it.
   
   When we read Frederick Douglass in his own words, he is less the radical and more the reformer than we've been led to believe. He is also more the Christian statesmen and less the Christianity critic than we might imagine. Douglass' oft quoted comments about Christianity had much more to do with a righteous critique of distorted Christian living practiced by white masters than with any critique of Christianity or of Christ. In reality, Douglass, like so many enslaved African Americans before and after him, saw in Jesus a Savior they could identify with--a suffering Savior.
   
   Reviewer: Bob Kellemen, Ph.D., is the author of Beyond the Suffering: Embracing the Legacy of African American Soul Care and Spiritual Direction , Soul Physicians, and Spiritual Friends.



2. Frederick Douglass is the complete ressurection of the saying, "Knowledge is Power." With the more information he aquired as a slave the more he lusted for freedom. He also provides an excellent example of what black people in this country could do for themselves, interms of their economical status. Looking further, Douglass loved to think and imagine the endless possiblities, while he was still in bondage physically. When he began to read and understand the "Hypocrasy" that this country was based on, using christianity as it main tool, and what every human should be allowed by right, this released his psychological enslavement. If blacks throughout this country could read and understand there were blacks that went through worse situatians and overcame them, and the current situation that destroy the black communities were created for them to fail, just like slavery, many would wake up and take on the mask of Douglass. The mask that says, "regardless of class, race, or creed, this world was created for everyone to enjoy including me."



3. I read this book as part of a summer assignment entering into the 11th grade in addition to "Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl" by Harriet Jacobs. Both are great pieces of African-American historical literature and well worth the read. I couldn't read this book all in one sitting, due to the need to fight the urge to throw up. He detailed descriptions of physical, psycological, and emotional abuse are enough to sicken any one and make you disgusted with the human race.



4. The honesty with which this is written is amazing. I was glued to it from page one. I felt disgusted by the human race, saddened by his traumas and guilty just for being white. I think this needs to be read more. Especially in schools. Why isn't it???

5 comments about John Adams: The American Presidents Series.

1. While the book does have good info on Adams' personal life & early career as lawyer, it is more of a "political biography", and is therefore weighted heavily on his career as congressman, diplomat, Vice-President, and President.
   
   The chapter titles are as follows:
   
   Introduction: Plato's Wish
   
   1. From "Senseless Turpitude" to Stately Duty
   
   2. "The Most Insignificant Office That Ever Man Contrived"
   
   3. The Prescience of the Political Mind
   
   4. The Halo of Washington, the Shadow of Jefferson
   
   5. The French: Foe or Friend?
   
   6. War Measures, Free Speech, States' Rights
   
   7. The American Landscape
   
   8. War and Peace
   
   Conclusion: The Moralist in Politics
   
   The only part that I somewhat struggled through was Chapter 3, which delved into Adams' thoughts on politics and political philosophy. The difficulty, I suspect, was more due to my own unfamiliarity with thinking & reading about such topics (and perhaps the fact that I was reading late at night) than with the author's writing.
   
   Diggins has done a fine job of explaining Adams' thinking and those things that influenced his ideas about people and, by extension, about government. He examines the issues of the times, both domestic and foreign, as well as the struggles Adams had to deal with within himself and within his administration.
   
   The author writes from a pro-Federalist POV, but this is by no means a polemic or screed against the views of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican "interests". He explains where both (or all) sides are coming from and, IF he expresses an opinion, he calls it like he sees it. He also is not averse to pointing out where he thinks Adams was "weak"/wrong or when the arch-Federalists went too far (e.g., in re the Alien & Sedition Acts and subsequent prosecutions). Similarly, Diggins mentions instances where both the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans were inconsistent when it came to "practicing what they preached," so to speak. I very much appreciated this balanced approach.
   
   I only caught one or two typos, which is not bad, and one error of miscalculation (i.e., stating that Adams was 91 at his death, when he was "only" 90). There were also a couple places where the wording seemed awkward. Overall, not a bad record.
   
   The endnotes are in a style I did not care for, consisting of one block of text per chapter. There is a single-page "Milestones" chronology of Adams' life & career, which was helpful. And, of course, an index. There is no bibliography other than those works mentioned in the endnotes.
   
   Content: 4
   Style & Structure: 4
   Average: 4



2. Excellent read. A new appreciation for John Adams' contribution to the founding. Once again, Jefferson comes out as the original "conniving politician."



3. John Adams (1735 --1826) was rescued from relative obsurity by David McCullough's popular and accessible biography. Engaging as it is, McCullough's work has little on the thought and writings of John Adams and on the impact of his thinking on American government and on Adams's own presidency. John Patrick Diggins's short biography, written as part of the American Presidents series, helps remedy this lack. It provides a deeper picture of an American political philosopher and president. Diggins is a distinguished professor of American history at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He has written widely on American intellectual history, including books on Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, pragmatism, and the American left.
   
   Adams was born to a family of modest means in Massachusetts. Following graduation from Harvard, he became a lawyer and married Abigail Smith. Adams early became involved in the Revolutionary movement and served in the Continental Congress. During the Revolutionary War, Adams was abroad where he made vital contributions to the war effort in France and Holland. He helped draft the treaty by which the United States secured its independence. Adams served restlessly as Washington's vice-president and then became the second president in a close election against Thomas Jefferson, who became vice-president. After his narrow defeat by Jefferson for reelection in 1800, Adams retired to his home in Quincy.
   
   More important than these external events, Adams was a writer and a thinker who wrote works in support of American independence in the 1770s and books expounding his political philosophy and his understanding of American constitutionalism in the late 1780s and continuing early into his tenure as vice-president. Adams continued his writings in his long retirement, particularly in a wonderful series of letters he exchanged with his former rival, Jefferson.
   
   Diggins gives a good overview of a complex body of thought. Adams was opposed to the French Revolution and to writers such as Thomas Paine whose works helped to spearhead the American Revolution. Adams developed a philosophy based upon the unreliable and depraved nature of the human heart and its ambitions for power, wealth and success. He argued that a diverse government structured to allow for the wealthy classes and the common people, headed by a strong executive, would be the best way to restrain human greed and folly and to channel these traits for the common good. He objected to the French Revolution for its levelling tendencies -- for its attempt to obliterate distinctions, which Adams thought, were ingrained in the human desire to compete and excel, and which could not be artifically supressed. Adams also objected to the French Revolution because it was not properly succeeded with a solid institutional form of government. The American Revolution, which unlike the French revolution, was not based upon classes within the United States, and the American Constitution, with its separation of powers and strong executive were, for Adams, the antithesis of the French Revolution.
   
   During his presidency, Adams was excoriated by his fellow-Federalist Alexander Hamilton, who found Adams too weak and vacillating and by Thomas Jefferson, who attacked what he claimed were aristocratic and monarchical tendencies in Adams. Yet Adams worked carefully and delicately to avoid a war with France, the most significant accomplishment of his presidency. He established a tax system and pardoned a group of protesters who had been found guilty of treason by opposing it. Adams strengthened the military and left the budget with a surplus at the conclusion of his presidency. During his presidency, Congress enacted, and Adams enforced, the Alien and Sedition Acts, which Diggins somewhat downplays in his account.
   
   In 1800, under attack from both Hamilton and Jefferson, Adams came in a close third to Jefferson and Burr in the presidential race. Jefferson prevailed in the House of Representatives when Hamilton lent his influence and support. This hotly contested and little-known election marked a watershed in American politics as it marked a peaceful transition from Adams to a leader and a party with a far different stated political agenda. The American era of party politics, based upon images, perceptions, and the pursuit of power, had begun.
   
   Diggins is not afraid to state his own positions, and he shows a marked sympathy for John Adams over his rival, Jefferson. He sees Adams as a unique example of a president who tried to govern based upon principle rather than party or power. Together with Lincoln, Jefferson, Madison, and perhaps Theodore Roosevelt and Wilson, Diggins places Adams in a small group of American presidents who demonstrated intellectual leadership and accomplishment prior to and in the Executive Office.
   
   For Diggins, Adams's strengths as a thinker, together with his curmudgeonly disposition, led to the weaknesses of his presidency. He writes (p. 174) "At times the sin of pride cursed the Adams presidency. He often preferred to work alone, rarely sharing his thoughts or seeking the input of others as we was making up his mind. ... Adams was one of America's most solitary presidents, and the isolation of the mind, while healthy for poetry or phiosophy, is fatal in the sphere of politics.... politics dwells in the present, in bargains and distortions, naneuvers and manipulations, and other strategies of exigency that had no appeal to a thinker better at analyzing power than dealing with people."
   
   Diggins has written a thoughtful introduction to a thinker and president who remains incompletely understood. This short book should inspire reflection on Adams and on the nature of the political system which he helped bequeath to us.
   
   Robin Friedman



4. This isn't much of a biography. It gives just a quick history of Mr. Adams early life. It mainly focuses on his political and philosophical career and his feuds with Jefferson and Hamilton. It does a good job of reviewing his term as second president and the policies and precedents he initiated. This book may be a stepping stone to a more comprehensive analysis of Mr. Adams's personal and political life.



5. It hasn't been hard to notice that John Adams's reputation has been undergoing a serious rehabilitation in recent years. Joseph Ellis in particular has been dedicated to revising our understandings of both Adams and his nemesis/friend Thomas Jefferson. In his PASSIONATE SAGE: THE CHARACTER AND LEGACY OF JOHN ADAMS, FOUNDING BROTHERS: THE REVOLUTIONARY GENERATION, and AMERICAN SPHINX: THE CHARACTER OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, Ellis has been challenging a long established scenario in which the arch conservative John Adams was pitted against the populist liberal Thomas Jefferson for the political destiny of America, and the hero Jefferson triumphed over the mildly villainous Adams. Ellis has been questioning whether any part of this scenario makes any sense, whether Adams is at all a villain, and whether Jefferson is nearly as heroic. He has done this not by asserting the virtues of conservativism, but whether Adams has been correctly understood at all, both by his contemporaries and by subsequent generations. This reevaluation of Adams was continued by the spectacular and unanticipated mega-bestseller by David McCullough of 2001. This process of reassessment is clearly carried forward by John Patrick Diggins. For the record, I find the rehabilitation of Adams by these and other writers to be both welcome and highly convincing.
   
   For two hundred years, our view of Adams came very much through the lenses of his critics and opponents. The truism that history is written from the standpoint of the victors is perhaps truer of Adams than any other major political figure in United States history. Adams was said to be a closet monarchist, a favorer of aristocracy. In the face of this criticism, Adams explicitly challenged Jefferson to point to a single passage in any of his writings that endorses monarchy or aristocracy. In fact, if one reads extensively in Adams works, as argued by Ellis, Diggins, and McCullough, one finds instead a powerful and subtle critique of the dangers of the development and influence of an economic elite, placing him at the opposite extreme of Alexander Hamilton, whose ideal of government came very close to the espousal of plutocracy. Adams did hope for the emergence of natural elites, but this was based on ability and character, not on wealth. Contained in the reassessment of Adams is implied a questioning of whether Adams is the arch conservative he is often portrayed as being. The case for Adams's conservativism is based largely on his belief in monarchism, his favoring aristocracy, his support for a bicameral Congress, his looking to the past for guidance, and his opposition to the French Revolution. As these authors have shown, Adams transparently did not favor monarchy or the growth of an aristocratic class and a bicameral legislature in the United States has not resulted in the Senate being a sort of House of Lords. Today many leftist historians have found grounds for critiquing the French Revolution, and a host of leftist political figures have found inspiration for their beliefs in the past (not least Karl Marx, who was a student of the Greeks and Romans). Furthermore, Adams was hardly a passionate capitalist, and was suspicious of a life devoted to the acquisition of wealth. In fact, if you compare Adams and Jefferson to that modern conservative icon Ronald Reagan, it is hard to find many issues that Adams would not differ sharply on from Reagan, while one can see a number of points of contact between Adams and Reagan. Diggins, in fact, finds numerous points of contact between Adams's political writings and many French radical writers of the late 20th century. I will say that as a leftist myself, I find much to love in Adams's thought. I share his fear of the negative effects that economic elites have on the democratic process, his belief in the need for a strong central government to protect citizens from the pernicious influence of greed (Adams would understand my fear of deregulation), and his instincts that government rather than less or no government is a better safeguard of individual liberty. Diggins rightly states that the American president who would most closely incarnate Adams's principles would be Teddy Roosevelt, who envisioned government as the means of breaking trusts and promoting economic justice.
   
   Of all the books in the Schlesinger series on the American presidents, this is probably the one that I found most provocative intellectually. It is a dense, rich book, in large part because Diggins focuses more on the thought of Adams than his life. Diggins is more intent on explaining Adams ideas than the various events in his life. In one sense this is a weakness as a biography, but because his discussion of Adams's ideas is so clear and interesting, it more than makes up for the lack of biographical detail. I do regret some of the sketchiness of the biographical narrative. For instance, he doesn't' deal in any detail on how Adams became either vice president or president. This contrasts sharply with the rather deep discussion of Adams's ideas. This is in line with Diggins's role as apologist for Adams. On the purely historical side, most of Diggins's effort is put into dispelling the myth that the election of 1800 represented the defeat of Federalism by Republicanism (that's Jeffersonian Republicanism, not what we associate today with the GOP). I personally found this section less interesting that the sections dealing with Adams's thought.
   
   I would strongly encourage anyone reading this volume to consider picking up the new volume THE PORTABLE JOHN ADAMS, edited by Diggins. I completely agree with Diggins that Adams's writings are more interesting than his presidency, and that he may be the most unjustly neglected political writer in American history. This new volume contains a wide ranging collection of his writings, not merely from his theoretical writings, but his diaries and letters as well.

5 comments about The Pearl: A True Tale of Forbidden Love in Catherine the Great's Russia.

1. She was a beautiful young serf with a near perfect operatic voice. He was Russia's richest aristocrat. Together, they shared an illicit love that defied the mores of their age and eventually led to tragedy.
   
   As a quick plot summary, this sounds a bit like cover copy for a bit of pulp fiction. But life is always more interesting than fiction. The extraordinary story of Count Nicholas Sheremetyev and Praskovia Kovalyova does read at times like a bit of pulp fiction, what with the unbridgeable chasm between their social classes, his perennial life-threatening illnesses, the intrigues at court, the depravity of the aristocracy. But Smith recounts the tale not as a novelist (though you sense him fiercely resisting the urge), but as a gifted historian, reconstructing the couple's private lives from the archives, filling in ample historical background (we do, after all, want to read about Nicholas' unwitting involvement in Paul I's assassination) about what it meant to be a noble in Catherinian Russia, about travel in Russia, about theater and the arts. It is a profound love story, well told, while at the same time a valuable contribution to Russian social and political history.
   (Reviewed in Russian Life)



2. Douglas Smith has written a thoroughly readable, immaculately researched tale detailing the life of the talented opera singer Praskovia (aka "The Pearl")--who was born as a serf, but raised to become one of the serf "intelligentsia" (whose job it was to entertain the aristocrats), rose too become an singing star, and eventually entered into a long-term forbidden relationship with her master, Nicholas Sheremetev, whom she eventually married in secret.
   
   Against the lush backdrop of Tsarist Russia, the story is not just a tale of "forbidden love" (as indicated by the quasi-salacious subtitle of the book) but also a fascinating piece of psycho-social history that details again and again the essential contradictions of a talented and passionate woman living a life trapped within a strict social system that officially relegated her to a position of slavery, with no official hope of ever getting out of that position. The tale is made all the more gripping for the sympathetic portrait it draws of Sheremetev, who bucks social and class convention and pursues his love for Praskovia, in sharp contradiction to the mores of the Russian nobility.
   
   The biggest challenge Smith faced in writing this book was probably the lack of historical data about Praskovia's life. Thus, much of what he describes about, say, her separation from her family and move to the "Big House" is extrapolated from what is generally known about serf upbringing. Luckily, Smith, an internationally known expert in the Russia of Catherine the Great, is up to the task and masterfully manages to fill in details based on his extensive research of the social lives of serfs, without falling into the trap of simply fictionalizing her life.
   
   Overall, Smith is a virtuosic writer, balancing a historian's need for well-researched detail with a novelist's flare for the telling description, the clear narrative thread, and the emblematic moment or detail that reveals a larger psychological or social truth. In particular, the "serf theater" interlude sections are masterfully written. Truly fascinating stuff. I got hooked at the beginning, and with each chapter it became harder to put the book down. Highly recommended!



3. This was a disappointing book. The author seems to have spent years in research and ended up with enough material for a short essay, which he inflated with filler to reach book length. The first major problem was that the author seemed unsuited to write about 18th century aristocrats. His views appear to be petit bourgeois and Victorian in that in every chapter he spends ink in scolding the long dead for living lives of self indulgent pleasure. Whats the point? The social system they lived in is long gone. Why complain about it. In fact, the author could have saved about 60,000 words by simply stating "The rich and powerful in Russia in the time of Catherine II behaved exactly as the rich and powerful everywhere behave in all time periods."
   
   Next, he gives little information on the Pearl. This appears to result from the fact that there is very little information to find. She MAY have met Catherine the Great, she MAY have met Alexander I, etc. The book should have focused on someone there was information on, like Count Sheremetev himself. By trying to focus on The Pearl the book reads like a biography of Napoleon's valet.
   
   The Pearl comes across as a shadow of a shade. She was apparently extremely superstious but not adverse to sleeping with her master to get on in her world. She starred in performances of obscure and justly neglected operas given by a meglomaniac grandee.
   
   The essay on "Serf Theatre" is fascinating and almost makes up for the tedium and maudlin sentimentality of the rest of the work.



4. I loved this book! As a student of Russian Literature over thirty ago, this wonderful novel offered me an opportunity to revisit the beautiful and complex history of Zsarist Russia. The story was compelling, and I found myself unable to put it down. The attention to historical detail, which was obviously very well researched, brought the beauty and grandeur of that unique time and nation vividly to life. I learned a great deal about the Russian theatre and it's importance in the evolution of theatre as we know it today. I highly recommend this book to anyone who loves history, and a good love story.



5. The title and the cover's description lead one to expect a biographical story of the love story between the Pearl, Praskovia Kovalyova (the Count's mistress and later wife) and Count Nicholas Sheremetev which occurred during an exciting time in Russian history, the time of Catherine the Great. However, the author admits there is little information about this love affair and actually spends most of the book describing the Count's theaters, operas, and dazzling homes. The author even spends a few chapters describing things that bear little relationship to the so-called love story. There is very little information, in fact, about the Pearl, after whom the book is title. Quite misleading!
   
   However, well researched the book, the love story is still to be told.
   Disappointing book.