No comments about Churchill's Bodyguard: The Authorised Biography of Walter H. Thompson.

3 comments about Richard III: A Study of Service (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series).

1. An excellent study of medieval "affinities." There is much in this work that is new to the study of Richard III, and all that is here is enlightening. Highly recommended for scholars of the period.



2. This intelligent, academic work should be in the collection of anyone who wants to understand the medieval concepts of lordship and service. Richard's reign, especially as "Lord of the North," is used to exemplify many important issues surrounding medieval administration. Highly recommended.



3. Horrox writes a scholarly study of Richard, the administrator, dry, but interesting no doubt to those who like that sort of thing. Those interested in the debates surrounding Richard--was he a murder? a usurper?--will be disappointed. Horrox does not share that interest. She also finds correct reasoning difficult, as well as unconducive to making the points she wishes to make, taking four mortal pages near the beginning of the book to argue in a complete circle.

   The book's information will be of great interest and usefulness to a limited audience; those not interested in the details of Richard's administration will not become so by reading this verbose book.

5 comments about William the Conqueror: The Norman Impact Upon England (English Monarchs).

1. Well, I'm reading the other reviews and I can't agree that this is a good book. The author conducted quite a lot of research, but it's not very readable. My theory is that "history" is (or should be) everything that ever happened with the boring bits cut out. In an attempt to try something interesting, this author cut out the exciting parts (the actual victory against and death of England's king passes like an afterthought, as does the description of an attempt on William's life where his attendant was killed in Williams bedroom right before his eyes) and includes a long list of places and names as if he was trying to outdo the "begats" of the old Testament. Human elements are lost amid long discussions of land charters. There's no description of language, foods, clothing, personality, or anything that makes a story human. It simultaneously tells us too much and not enough. I don't feel like I know the people at all. I read David Howarth's 1066 at the same time and even though that book was less scholarly, I learned more from it. This author talks to hear himself speak. It's useful if you already know all about William and want to hear MORE, but it's almost useless as an introduction.



2. This book on the life of William the Conqueror (ca 1028 - 1086 AD) was a college textbook for me. (...Which I read much longer ago than I'd care to admit.) I recently read it again, with a much greater appreciation of the quality and depth of Douglas's research and writing.
   
   This work is a readable, well presented and interesting analysis of Duke William of Normandy's life from his early childhood as the bastard son of the murdered Duke Robert of Normandy, living precariously under the protection of various noblemen loyal to his father; through to the zenith of his career as the most powerful and successful ruler in all of Western Europe: noting the challenges he faced as he fought to maintain his position and power in his later years, and ending with his death and the impact he had upon England, France and most of the rest of Western Europe.
   
   You will come away from readng this book with a much greater appreciation of William, and how his intelligence, courage, military and political leadership and ruthlessness enabled him to attain the pinnacle of European society and politics of the time, and forge a legacy that endures down to the present time. You will see how his success had a huge impact upon the development of Feudal society and institutions throughout Western Europe and England. You will understand the complexities of the political, social and religious institutions and relationships of the time, and will have a solid understanding of William's influence upon the leaders and personalities who helped create and lead those same institutions.
   
   It's clear that Professor Douglas is equally comfortable with researching and explaining events and circumstances on both sides of the English Channel. He carefully avoids biasing the reader either for or against the English or French points of view on the life of this controversial man, and succeeds in providing a holistic view of William's life and the world in which he lived.
   
   I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book a second time, and was impressed with Douglas's encyclopedic knowledge and careful use of original sources from not only in England and France, but Denmark, Germany, Rome and elsewhere in Europe.
   
   My one reservation about the text is the lack of maps. Near the end of the book there is good map of Normandy and another showing Normandy and England. Yet, maps would have been helpful within the main text to give more detail about spatial relationships and movements at the scenes of battles or major events. Given that the book was written about 45 years ago, having two maps would be about average for that time, so I guess I won't put too much emphasis on this point. The charts showing the familial relationships and lines of descent of the Duke and his contemporaries in France, England and Denmark, and various other appendices, were very helpful and interesting.
   
   Any student of History looking to learn more about the life of William and other great rulers of the time, seeking to learn about development of Feudal society and culture, or interested in learning about the foundations of Anglo-Norman society and impact of the Normans upon Anglo-Saxon England (following William's victory over Harold at Hastings in 1066), will find this book to be very informative and useful. On that basis; given the quality of Douglas's writing and research; and this book's enduring reputation within this field, I have no hesitation in rating this book as 5 stars: well worth reading!



3. Sure, it's like, forty years old, but it still sets the standard in William the Conqueror scholarship. Here are answers, or at least well-phrased hedges about the most important questions surrounding William's life and conquests: Did William introduce feudalism to England or adapt existing social structures? Was his victory in the Battle of Hastings attributable more to the exhaustion of the English after fighting off the Norwegians or more to William's superior conquest? and so forth.
   
   Douglas has read the primary sources in English and French (and Latin, and Italian, etc), he has read the secondary sources, he has, in short, done his homework. I mean, how many books have you read that have quotes from reviewers on the back that say, "the author has set about to self conciously create a masterpiece on the subject... and he has succeded."
   
   The funny thing about this book is that even though it is supremely scholarly, it is also suitable for the general reader. Provided: that reader has either taken an undergraduate course in Midevial history or has done reading on his/her own on the subject. If you only read one book before this one I would recommend either Feudal Society vol. I by Bloch or the Making of the Middle Ages by Southern.



4. William the Conqueror overcame enormous odds and political challenges to succeed his father as Duke of Normandy and his cousin, Edward the Confessor, as King of England. Only by defeating the upstart Harold Godwinson in 1066 at the battle of Hastings was William able to claim his throne. From the moment he attained his majority to the time of his death, William was forced to defend his realm in both Normandy and England from multiple opponents. Despite this rather pressing distraction, William is credited with many non-military achievements, not the least of which is the eager and successful sponsorship of ecclesiastical reform and the completion of the remarkably extensive social survey, Domesday Book.
   
   David C. Douglas has presented a substantial volume detailing the life and times of the Conqueror in admirable style. Discussing social, economic, ecclesiastical, cultural and military events with equal aplomb, Douglas brings the reader an in-depth, nearly digestable account of an epic era in european history. As can be expected of any comprehensive attempt at such a biography, recitation of the names, titles, landholdings and shifting objectives of various and sundry aristocrats, both clerical and lay, can send the reader into a bit of a fog. However, this happens seldom enough to allow this book's excellent formulation and pace to shine through. 4 stars.



5. David C. Douglas does an excellent job in his attempt to portray the events of William the Conqueror's life. He performs the task of drawing the many aspects of his life together in a very precise manner. The only drawback is that in some places the book's readability suffers from dense information. The amount of research done had to be tremendous considering all the information you come across in the book. I found the descriptions of the ecclesiastical revival in Normandy and subsequently England to be very fascinating. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn more about the life behind the legend that is William the Conqueror.

4 comments about The Forbidden Experiment (Kodansha Globe).

1. ...

   "The Forbidden Experiment: The Story of the Wild Boy of Aveyron" is a fascinating exploration of what it means to be human and how our humanity is, in a sense, created by the society in which we live, defined by our communications and relationships with others. In telling this story, Roger Shattuck has thoughtfully and sympathetically interwoven the factual story of the Wild Boy with the philosophical, psychological and historical background that ultimately makes this story so interesting. Thus, Shattuck explores the historical peculiarities of the Languedoc region from which the Wild Boy came (known for the poetry and song of the troubadors, as well as the Albigensian heresy), the historical forces which made him such a topic of interest (he was a boy seemingly straight from Rousseau's state of nature at a time when the French Revolution had given way to Napoleon), and the philosophical and psychological forerunners (Locke, Condillac, Rousseau) that provided the intellectual impetus for marking this "tabula rasa" of humanity. Shattuck's book also provides interesting appendices containing other published accounts of the Wild Boy of Aveyron, other cases of isolation and deprivation (including Kaspar Hauser, Peter of Hanover, The Elephant Man, and Helen Keller), and a short essay on Francois Truffaut's 1970 film, "The Wild Child," which is based upon the story of the Wild Boy of Aveyron.

   While simple in the telling, "The Forbidden Experiment" is a book which poses the deepest and most enigmatic of questions, the question of what it means to be human. Read it, ponder it, learn from it.




2. In January, 1800, a boy of about eleven or twelve years old walked out of the woods near the village of Saint-Sernin in the Languedoc region of southern France. Except for a tattered shirt, he was naked. He had no shame or concern for his nakedness and had no ability to speak. He made only strange and apparently meaningless sounds and cries. While human in appearance, he lacked any qualities which otherwise would suggest that he was part of any human society.

   The boy was captured by a villager, transported and kept for several months in an orphanage in a nearby town, and eventually transferred to Paris in June, 1800, where "The Wild Boy of Aveyron" was claimed "for science and humanity" by the newly-formed Society of Observers of Man. In Paris, the boy was given over to the Abbe Sicard, a famous educator and the head of the Institute for Deaf-Mutes. "Miracles were expected of Sicard, for some of his deaf-mute pupils had made a reputation by their intelligence and wit in answering written questions before large audiences." Sicard, however, apparently believed that he could never train the seemingly wild creature and made no efforts to do so. Instead, he left the boy to run wild at the Institute and a commission appointed by the Society of the Observers of Man subsequently declared him to be an incurable idiot.

   It is at this point, however, sometime in the summer or fall of 1800, that the course of the Wild Boy's life took a different course. A twenty-five year old medical student, Jean-Marc Gaspard Itard began working at the Institute and became interested in the boy. More or less simultaneously with the declaration by the Society of the Observers of Man that the boy was an incurable idiot in November of that year, Itard was hired and given a room at the Institute for the sole purpose of working with the boy. Itard named the boy Victor and went on, over the course of the next six years and with the able assistance of a motherly figure by the name of Madame Guerin, to train the boy in accordance with principles Itard had derived from the writings of Locke and Condillac. These principles were intended to give the boy the ability to respond to other people, to train his senses, to extend his physical and social needs, to teach him to speak, and to teach him to think and reason logically. While Itard was never fully successful in achieving all of his objectives, his work was remarkably original and his observations and experiments have left the world with a fascinating picture of the Wild Boy of Aveyron.

   "The Forbidden Experiment: The Story of the Wild Boy of Aveyron" is a fascinating exploration of what it means to be human and how our humanity is, in a sense, created by the society in which we live, defined by our communications and relationships with others. In telling this story, Roger Shattuck has thoughtfully and sympathetically interwoven the factual story of the Wild Boy with the philosophical, psychological and historical background that ultimately makes this story so interesting. Thus, Shattuck explores the historical peculiarities of the Languedoc region from which the Wild Boy came (known for the poetry and song of the troubadors, as well as the Albigensian heresy), the historical forces which made him such a topic of interest (he was a boy seemingly straight from Rousseau's state of nature at a time when the French Revolution had given way to Napoleon), and the philosophical and psychological forerunners (Locke, Condillac, Rousseau) that provided the intellectual impetus for marking this "tabula rasa" of humanity. Shattuck's book also provides interesting appendices containing other published accounts of the Wild Boy of Aveyron, other cases of isolation and deprivation (including Kaspar Hauser, Peter of Hanover, The Elephant Man, and Helen Keller), and a short essay on Francois Truffaut's 1970 film, "The Wild Child," which is based upon the story of the Wild Boy of Aveyron.

   While simple in the telling, "The Forbidden Experiment" is a book which poses the deepest and most enigmatic of questions, the question of what it means to be human. Read it, ponder it, learn from it.




3. In January, 1800, a boy of about eleven or twelve years old walked out of the woods near the village of Saint-Sernin in the Languedoc region of southern France. Except for a tattered shirt, he was naked. He had no shame or concern for his nakedness and had no ability to speak. He made only strange and apparently meaningless sounds and cries. While human in appearance, he lacked any qualities which otherwise would suggest that he was part of any human society.

   The boy was captured by a villager, transported and kept for several months in an orphanage in a nearby town, and eventually transferred to Paris in June, 1800, where "The Wild Boy of Aveyron" was claimed "for science and humanity" by the newly-formed Society of Observers of Man. In Paris, the boy was given over to the Abbe Sicard, a famous educator and the head of the Institute for Deaf-Mutes. "Miracles were expected of Sicard, for some of his deaf-mute pupils had made a reputation by their intelligence and wit in answering written questions before large audiences." Sicard, however, apparently believed that he could never train the seemingly wild creature and made no efforts to do so. Instead, he left the boy to run wild at the Institute and a commission appointed by the Society of the Observers of Man subsequently declared him to be an incurable idiot.

   It is at this point, however, sometime in the summer or fall of 1800, that the course of the Wild Boy's life took a different course. A twenty-five year old medical student, Jean-Marc Gaspard Itard began working at the Institute and became interested in the boy. More or less simultaneously with the declaration by the Society of the Observers of Man that the boy was an incurable idiot in November of that year, Itard was hired and given a room at the Institute for the sole purpose of working with the boy. Itard named the boy Victor and went on, over the course of the next six years and with the able assistance of a motherly figure by the name of Madame Guerin, to train the boy in accordance with principles Itard had derived from the writings of Locke and Condillac. These principles were intended to give the boy the ability to respond to other people, to train his senses, to extend his physical and social needs, to teach him to speak, and to teach him to think and reason logically. While Itard was never fully successful in achieving all of his objectives, his work was remarkably original and his observations and experiments have left the world with a fascinating picture of the Wild Boy of Aveyron.

   "The Forbidden Experiment: The Story of the Wild Boy of Aveyron" is a fascinating exploration of what it means to be human and how our humanity is, in a sense, created by the society in which we live, defined by our communications and relationships with others. In telling this story, Roger Shattuck has thoughtfully and sympathetically interwoven the factual story of the Wild Boy with the philosophical, psychological and historical background that ultimately makes this story so interesting. Thus, Shattuck explores the historical peculiarities of the Languedoc region from which the Wild Boy came (known for the poetry and song of the troubadors, as well as the Albigensian heresy), the historical forces which made him such a topic of interest (he was a boy seemingly straight from Rousseau's state of nature at a time when the French Revolution had given way to Napoleon), and the philosophical and psychological forerunners (Locke, Condillac, Rousseau) that provided the intellectual impetus for marking this "tabula rasa" of humanity. Shattuck's book also provides interesting appendices containing other published accounts of the Wild Boy of Aveyron, other cases of isolation and deprivation (including Kaspar Hauser, Peter of Hanover, The Elephant Man, and Helen Keller), and a short essay on Francois Truffaut's 1970 film, "The Wild Child," which is based upon the story of the Wild Boy of Aveyron.

   While simple in the telling, "The Forbidden Experiment" is a book which poses the deepest and most enigmatic of questions, the question of what it means to be human. Read it, ponder it, learn from it.




4. Shattuck writes a beautiful, poignant account about an event that forever influenced the course of modern day psychology. Shattuck not only discusses "Victor" himself (behavior, reactions, etc.), but also discusses the recupercusions his capture, attempted treatment, and attempted enculturalization had philosophically, morally, and psychologically. This is definitely a well written, well researched, 3-dimensional book. It explores the subject on every level possible.

4 comments about Wilderness: A Journal of Quiet Adventure in Alaska--Including Extensive Hitherto Unpublished Passages from the Original Journal.

1. Unlike the true frontiersmen (ie; Dick Proenneke, One Man's WIlderness or James Huntington, On The Edge of Nowhere), this man is a typical anti-establishment artist who escaped to the outdoors in search of himself. His work reveals his own state of depression. It would be interesting to know what became of his son.



2. You can pick this book off your library shelf any time, open it to any page, start at any paragraph and begin to feel a mantle of peace settle over your jangled nerves. "Wilderness" is the record of artist Rockwell Kent and his 9-year-old son spending a winter in Alaska on Fox Island in Resurrection Bay, near Seward, with only one elderly Swede as a neighbor. This "journal of quiet adventure" nonetheless is exciting in the relationships between father and son and old Olson and between the Kents and the harsh winter weather. Beautifuly and profusely illustrated by Rockwell and Rockwell, Jr.



3. Of the many wilderness adventures that flood our view on the television or in movies, with dramatic, life-risking events, we can become weary of the slick presentations. Rockwell Kent tells of us of another type of adventure, the day to day living on remote Fox Island off Seward, in Alaska. The small pleasures, the difficult trips in an open boat to get supplies, the child's sweetness in his friendship with a magpie, all these and more stories are told in a daily journal. And illustrated as Kent always does, with insight and style. Kent as a writer is equal to Kent as an artist, intellectual and candid in his telling a story and sharing impressions. If this is your first reading of a Kent book, you have a long list of other books ahead for this was his first book done as a "first person" storyteller. His desire for remote and wild landscapes to paint took him, and then takes us, through his work, to many other places over many decades. But none are any more delightful and majestic than this trip to Alaska. To check out the validity of this remote place, I took a trip to Fox Island several years ago, and though I didn't see it in the winter as Rockwell and his son did, it was dramatic, beautiful and matched the feeling I'd gotten when I first read the book years ago. The nice touch of this edition is that the editor, Doug Capra, has a very fine introduction to the book and Capra knows his subject. He has been researching Kent for years, but more than that, he has something to say and says it well. Few Kent editors do. But the book--it makes a wonderful Christmas gift because it has a really fine description of what a meaningful Christmas celebration can be in a remote place, shared with a hermit on the island, the father and little boy. There are some delightful details in this story: the food taken for the trip; the books for father and son; the rigerous baths when the bay freezes and the ice cold waters no longer are available. Kent is no ordinary artist, writer or father. And this is no ordinary adventure. It makes you wish, even yearn, for that place, that time, those people. I knew Rockwell Kent in the final few years of his life and he still carried that energtic view of life, that love of beauty and nature that comes alive in this small work. And three cheers to Doug Capra for bringing this new edition to life for it is of the quality for which Kent was famous in his published books. (A wretched edition of this treasure of a story was published a few years before and this edition puts to rest a Kent lover's dispair about having a bad edition of a Kent work on the shelves, any shelves. I almost never throw books away but this earlier paperback with bad design from cover to cover merits polluting a garbage pail.) So, invest in some good reading, some laughs and some wistful thoughts about what a wilderness adventure could be. And for those who have courage, still can be.



4. I found this book to be very informative about the land and extream weather of Alaska but it ran a little dry quickly. This is a journal of around 9 months of Rockwell kents life while in Alaska. I have read other books that were written from journals and Kents does fair better then most. I can understand that a journal in Alsaka can run out of new and interesting things to write about and this book seemed to try to fill in the gaps with Kents thoughts and many philosophies. All in all I do recomend this book to anyone who really want a real veiw of what Alaska is actually like.

2 comments about Records of Shelley, Byron, and the Author (New York Review Books Classics).

1. The lives and deaths of Shelley and Byron ought to interest the world--not just the readers of English--for their poetry covered every topic: the rise and fall of empires, nation-building and nation-breaking, and the vanity of the men who would lead them in victory or defeat. And Edward John Trelawny shows us each poet as a human being. The production of fine writing should not be a mystery; beautiful language comes most eloquently from a troubled heart and a mind committed to seeking knowledge. Trelawny reminds us that Byron's and Shelley's lives were focused on connecting to people through their work; Tre begins each chapter with lines from the work of Byron or Shelley.
   
   The Introduction to this edition of Trelawny's book is written by Anne Barton, a professor at Trinity College, Cambridge University, from which Byron himself graduated about 200 years ago. I disagree with her that Tre's writing is "focused for the most part upon himself" as though he were self-centered, though Barton does say he had "hidden depths" (xx). Based on the form and structure and content of Records of Shelley, Byron, and the Author (and Tre's subsequent life), it seems that Trelawny was aware of the nuances of human character and was more than adequate to the task of knowing complex people. The details he provides in key places are so specific that they could not have been lies or fabrications; Byron's claim that Trelawny could not tell the truth was simply evidence of Byron's pleasure in teasing banter. "Byron's idle talk during the exhumation of [Edward Elliker] William's remains," Trelawny writes, "did not proceed from want of feeling, but from his anxiety to conceal what he felt from others" (146). Byron also concealed his feelings at the cremation of Shelley's remains. It's clear throughout the book that Tre is a sharp observer--of himself and others. And Tre was sensitive to what Mary Godwin Shelley and Williams' wife, Jane, felt about the drowning of their husbands in the Bay of Spezia. Mary Shelley wrote to Tre that she experienced a "blank moral death" (176). Tre shows that the breakup of the Pisan Circle--because of Shelley's drowning--was clearly a personal tragedy with far-reaching consequences.
   
   This is a book for all seasons--but better appreciated while strolling on a beach in some far-flung corner of a poetic universe.



2. If you're interested in the life of Edward John Trelawny, you'll have to look elsewhere. Suffice it to say that Tre' (as his friends knew him) was a privateer, a scoundrel, a lover of poetry, a freedom-fighter and a loyal friend of the most prolific literary talents of the romantic period. "Records of Shelley, Byron and the Author" is an account, not of Trelawny's extraordinary life & adventures, but of the two men that helped make that life so extraordinary. In his own words, he tells of the secret lives of Byron and the Shelley's, their romp through sunny Italy and the tragic death of Percy in the coast of Spezzia. The tale continues as Tre' follows Byron to the bloody civil war in Greece, where Byron too dies. To his credit, though, it is never "Trelawny's tale", but "Byron and Shelley's tale" as told by Trelawny. This deep, insightful book shows the poets as only a close friend could. Yet throughout, one can not help but love Trelawny himself: the man who supported the impoverished Mary Shelley to her dying day... the man who bought a slave for $10,000 only to set him free... the man who reached into the embers of Shelley's pyre, withdrawing his heart. If you love the poetry of Byron and Shelley & have even a passing interest in the men behind the legends, then Trelawny's memoirs are a must-read.

5 comments about King John (English Monarchs).

1. An excellent history book, factual as a text book but reads like a novel. Hollywood could never dream up a life or character so complex.



2. King John has the reputation as being the absolutely worse King England has ever had. Accused of lechery, murder, treason and much more, John is looked on as an absolute failure, and is warped out of all recognition as the bad Prince John of Robin Hood. The only bright spot in his reign is John's grant of the Magna Charta, which is looked on by many as the ultimate foundation stone upon which English and American freedoms rest.
   W.L. Warren, in this exhaustively researched book, paints a full picture of the life of this least successful of English kings. Dr. Warren points out that much of John's bad reputation results from writer's contrasting him with his brother, Richard the Lionheart.
   This book gives us the reality of King John. It doesn't excuse him. It does explain him.



3. This book shows the "dastardly" King John of Robin Hood fame in a more realistic light. He is seen to be an enlightened ruler who reviewed the law courts and other English institutions and who truly, of all the previous Plantagenet kings, preferred England as his inheritance. He is not the cowed king who is seen to have signed the Magna Carta, but a king who was faced with the accumulatiom of misrule by previous Plantagnet rulers including his brother Richard the Lion Heart. This book does not hide the King's less likeable attributes, avarice, lustfullness, a bad temper, a vengeful nature, but then Richard Coeur de Leon had that too. This book shows that John was no worse than his predecessors. Read also "Eleanor of Aquitaine" by Alison Weir, which corroborates this book very well..



4. I was a little hesitant about ordering this book at first for fear it would be dry and complicated. I was very happy to discover it was neither. It is well researched and well written. Warren gives you a good feel about the period and the challenges John faced. I even found myself asking "what would I have done in his place?" This book busted a few of the "Bad King John" myths as well as some of the "Good King Richard" ones. This is a very readable book provided you have an interest and a little knowledge about the period. If you are looking for a "Robin Hood" type story this isn't it. It's not a page turner but nor should it be. This is the story of a complex man during a complex time and Warren did a great job of bringing it to life without making it dull.



5. W.L. Warren begins this biography with an explanation of how and why King John ended up with the dastardly reputation we all know from Robin Hood stories and other popular fiction. John, Warren says, suffered from a confluence of factors that have rendered a slanted and warped portrait of him. Historiography methods of the past concentrated almost entirely on contemporary chronicles, practically ignoring administrative records and other types of extraneous material. John especially suffers under this kind of examination, since the chroniclers who wrote about his reign were all either poorly informed, outrageously prejudiced, or both.
   
   John is mocked with the name "Softsword" for having lost his hold on the French domains his father, Henry II, and his brother, Richard I, worked so hard to keep. Warren points out, however, that such far-flung territories could never have been maintained, and, even had Richard lived, the French outcome would probably have been the same. Far from being a military do-nothing, John is the founder of the Royal Navy. Warren marvels that a nation that came to treasure its naval superiority as England did could so completely vilify the founder of its navy.
   
   But this book is no whitewash, either. John was duplicitous and grasping and didn't trust anyone who wasn't beholden to him. He surrounded himself with baseborn hangers-on, excluding and alienating the barons of his realm. He took money for dispensing justice and then still ruled against the side that paid him. He was cunning and conniving, and was known to issue decrees that said one thing while secretly issuing instructions that ran exactly counter to what he wrote.
   
   Yet this same king instituted something that, to historians, is even more important than the Royal Navy: the systematic keeping of government and court records. Before John ascended the throne in 1199, English government recordkeeping is spotty and haphazard - a frustratingly obscure and incomplete source for the study of history. But from 1199 on, these same records emerge as a rich and authoritative resource. Hmm, almost as if John knew the chroniclers weren't going to treat him fairly...
   
   Another myth that gets busted in this book is the one about King John's being forced to sign the Magna Carta. While Warren concedes that John had backed himself into a corner by running roughshod over his barons, he explains that the Magna Carta was simply a compromise brokered between him and his opponents. Nobody was holding a gun to his head - and wouldn't have been even had guns been invented. And John had the last laugh when, days later, he made England a fief of the Pope, who reciprocated by declaring the Magna Carta null and void.
   
   When I started reading this book, I had a fairly negative attitude about King John. By the time I finished, I still didn't like him much, but I had a new appreciation for him as a brilliant, complex, and probably tortured soul who tried to do great things and occasionally succeeded.

5 comments about William Pitt the Younger.

1. William Hague has a pleasant, straightforward and limpid style in which he can convey not only complex political situations, but a warmth of feeling towards his subject and a sensitive and empathic interpretation of behaviour and background.
   
   He begins with Pitt's extremely precocious childhood. He was tutored at home, in large part by his father (whose loving nature may also be something of a revelation to readers). From earliest childhood young Pitt breathed in politics. Hague speculates that he learnt not only from his father's successes (his oratory, his foreign policy), but also from his failures (going to the Lords in 1766, or leaving the post of First Lord of the Treasury to someone else).
   
   There are exciting accounts of several key episodes in his life: his rise to becoming Prime Minister at the age of 24; the Regency Crisis of 1788/9; his resignation over his disagreement with George III over Catholic Emancipation in 1801 (beautifully analyzed), and his promise, after the King's recovery from his recurring malady, never to raise the matter again; the drifting apart between Pitt and his old friend and nominee Addington during the latter's interregnum.
   
   No minister except Walpole has for so long and so completely dominated the House of Commons. Pitt was universally acclaimed as a great orator, though only a very few passages quoted in this book - foremost among them his speech in 1792 advocating the abolition of the slave trade - make for stirring reading these days. Part of the appeal of his speeches is said to have been the cogency of their logical structure and his mastery of detail, which is not so easily conveyed in a book. He was a brilliant manager of the nation's finances - but his own were often in a ruinous state. He could not be bothered to pay much attention to them, and refused to take sinecure offices (except, at the King's insistence, the Wardenship of the Cinque Ports) or a large donation offered by the merchants of the City of London. He was hugely in debt at the time of his resignation in 1801, but he refused all offers of help, from the King, from Parliament, from his successor Addington in the form of sinecure offices, or from the City. Only through help from a handful of his closest friends was the pressure of debt slightly eased.
   
   For Pitt rightly prided himself on his personal probity. He would accept nothing that might be construed as putting him under an obligation; but, though he was personally bored with appeals for his patronage, he did not scruple to allow his lieutenants to manage patronage and bribery on a massive scale, especially at critical moments of his rule. (Hague mentions only in passing his massive inflation of the peerage.)
   
   His finances and his speeches made him a great war leader, but he was less so in the actual conduct of the wars. He underestimated France in the early days and overestimated Britain's military (as distinct from naval) resources. He made miscalculations of the kind that Chatham probably would not have made (though Chatham, of course, had faced a far less dynamic France). He twice (1796, 1797) sought for peace with France because of the immense drain on Britain's financial resources, but, encouraged by a string of French setbacks in 1798 and 1799, turned down the peace overtures Napoleon made immediately after seizing power in France in 1799. In this latter refusal he was strongly backed by his cousin, the hawkish foreign minister William Grenville.
   
   Hague brings out the importance of Grenville throughout Pitt's career. A staunch ally until Pitt's resignation, he became so impatient with Pitt's early forbearance with regard to Addington that he joined Fox in opposition - which George III could not forgive. So when Pitt returned to office in 1804, he could not give a post to Grenville, who then practically became a Foxite Whig. As a result, Pitt no longer had the mastery of the Commons or even of the Cabinet that he had had before, and it added to the strain in those years of Ulm and Austerlitz. By that time Pitt was a shadow of his former self, increasingly exhausted and in dreadful health.
   
   It is on the human side that Hague excels, and there is not always scope for that in the story. Much of Pitt's work in government - finance, trade, administrative reform, the shuffling of seats around the cabinet table - gives little scope to more than the thoroughly workmanlike treatment it receives here. Even the account of the wars with France are no more than that. For me, the best parts of the book deal with Pitt's character. He has generally been considered cold; but he had many close friends in whose company he was witty and amusing. A fine chapter discusses this contrast and shows Pitt, when Prime Minister, as relaxed and warm with family and real friends. There is a long and moving letter he wrote to Wilberforce when the latter announced his religious conversion in 1785. There is an astonishing scene a couple of years before his death when at one moment he was larking around with his intimates whom he allowed to blacken his face with burnt cork, and a moment later, quickly cleaned up, stiffly received political visitors. Between Pitt and his mother there was great warmth and affection. In his letters to her he always made light of difficulties or his poor health, not just because he was by nature optimistic, but because he wanted to spare her worries.
   
   It is astonishing that Hague should have researched and written this book of 592 pages inside two years. The masterly ten-page summing up at the end is not only balanced in its judgments, but tells us a good deal about Hague himself. It is clear that he not only admires Pitt, but feels a great affection for him; and he will make many readers feel the same.



2. I'm trying to think what I knew about the politics of late 18th century Britain before I read William Hague's well written biography of William Pitt the Younger, imaginatively named just that. Not much. I knew about Edmund Burke and his opposition to the French Revolution. I knew a few military leaders from reading about the American Revolution. I've seen the brilliant film about King George the Third's madness, and I vaguely knew that there were two William Pitts, father and son, who dominated British Political life during that era, and that Pitt the younger was amazingly young when he got elected Prime Minister.
   
   Now I know quite a bit more. For one thing, Pitt was not technically "Prime Minister". Rather, he had been "First Lord of the Treasury" which was the most senior position in His Majesty's government. He had served for some twenty years, and has been a member of the House of Commons for most of his life. He has, indeed, been chosen to lead the British government at age 24.
   
   How does so young a man become first Minister to the British crown? The answer is, one is picked by the King. George the Third's alliance with William Pitt was one of convenience - he had loathed the other potential political leaders (Primarily Pitt's arch nemesis Charles James Fox). Pitt was the only member of the House of Commons who had credibility enough to form a government, and whom the King felt he could support.
   
   That is not to say that Pitt's talents had nothing to do with with his meteoric rise - far from it. Pitt, a great orator, became a leading presence in the House of Commons. With brilliant tactics (and shameless use of patronage), he formed his own party, and later split the opposition Whig party (with the help of the French Revolution) to rule the house with a huge majority. He had also been one of the first British politicians to care about the views of the majority of Britons not represented in Parliament.
   
   It has been Pitt's very success that made him vulnerable; by 1801, the opposition more or less ceased to exist, and the King felt much less reliant on Mr. Pitt. When the First Lord of the Chancellery clashed with the Monarch on the issue of Catholic Emancipation (giving Catholics the right to vote and be elected), the King felt confident enough to flatly refuse Pitt. Pitt resigned rather then serve without full powers.
   
   In 1804, as the Napoleonic Wars got worse, Pitt returned to office. This time his coalition was shakier, and he probably wouldn't have lasted long as Prime Minister had he not died in January 1806, at the age of 46.
   
   William Hague, a one time would be Tory PM, who had been compared to Pitt the younger by none other then Margaret Thatcher, offer a very readable and compelling biography. His book is not particularly analytical, but it is very well written and researched. I wish Hague would have put Pitt more in context, both of British and International Politics (we get no mention of America after the Revolution, no word of the remaining colonies, and very little about the internal politics of any other country save France), and the industrial revolution. Nonetheless, as someone who doesn't read many biographies, I thoroughly enjoyed this one. Whatever the merits of Hague as a politician, he has a future as a historian.
   
   (By the way, my copy of the book contains a recommendation by British Tory PM John Major "If you only buy one political biography this year, make it this one". Talk about damning with faint praise. I guess it could have been worse "If you only buy one biography of an 18th century British politician named Pitt in December...")
   
   Speaking of Merits, how should we assess the statesmanship of William Pitt the younger? Ultimately, I think Pitt was a very competent, but not great, Prime Minister. In his first decade as prime minister, Britain enjoyed Peace, and Pitt managed to survive as Prime Minister, expand his coalition somewhat, rationalize the tax system, and begin to balance the government's deficit. The reduction of the deficit, with view for its ultimate extinction, was Pitt's greatest achievement, albeit one that was aided greatly by the fast growing economy in the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, and that all but disappeared when the wars of the French Revolution started.
   
   Other then economically, Pitt managed to achieve few if any of the reforms he had supported. He failed to reform the electorate, abolish the slave trade, or (later) achieve Catholic emancipation.
   
   As War leader, Pitt commanded over a mostly unsuccessful war effort, which saw the rise of three coalitions against the armies of the French Revolution, and later Napoleon. French forces defeated all in term, and Pitt died just days after receiving word of Napoleon's greatest Victory in the Battle of Austerlitz.
   
   This is not to say that Pitt was a failure. He had been a strong supporter of the navy, and British control of the Seas became an unalterable fact under his watch, and due to his effort and leadership. Pitt had secured the Unification of the British and Irish Parliament. Both achievements would last for over a century. Politically, Pitt planted the roots of the Tory party, and managed to survive various crises, including the insanity of his patron, George III. If nothing else, Pitt has led his nation through some of the most difficult transformations of its age, internal and external. And while there had still been a long road ahead, by the time Pitt passed away, Britain has surely reached, in Churchill's terms, "The End of the Beginning".



3. The younger William Pitt lived a life that is not widely known or appreciated in the USA and this well-written and entertaining biography should help to remedy that. It is so unusual for a super-genius to have the opportunity, interest and special aptitude for politics Pitt had that the example deserves much study. We are fortunate that William Hague, the author, did not become Prime Minister himself in 2001 so that he was free to stay in Yorkshire and complete this work.



4. William Pitt the Younger (or as he was described by some of his contemporaries Billy Pitt) is a book written by a politician about a politician (you may remember that William Hague was an ex-leader of the Tory party). He was indeed an extraordinary politician although a very limited man.
   
   The story is on a grand scale, prime ministers, kings, wars, revolution, disasters, and the central figure, a larger-than-life classic hero.
   
   He came from famous stock, his father, known as the Great Commoner, was an heroic figure who in his own time was the equivalent of the Prime Minister, then known as the First Lord of the Treasury although this particular position was held by the Duke of Newcastle who sat in the House Of Lords. William Pitt the Elder was the leader in the House of Commons. He took office at the age of 48 in 1756, some three years before William Pitt the Younger was born. He served as Secretary of State for the Southern Department, at that time there were two Secretaries of State, the Secretary of State for the Southern Department dealt with matters relating to southern European countries, including France and Spain, the Secretary of State for the Northern Department dealt with Northern European countries such as Russia.
   
   His father came to be regarded as the saviour of the nation and was instrumental in defeating the traditional enemy of the English, the French. He was regarded as the saviour of the nation and was a great orator.
   
   William Pitt the Younger was raised in an intensely political family and learned a great deal from his father's capacity to achieve high office without money or patronage from the King. His father was the more extraordinary because he was, by the standards of the times, incorruptible. Unfortunately this was associated with accumulation of enormous debts, a habit followed by his son. He suffered from a wide range of ailments including gout, bowel problems and similar disorders. He married at the age of 46 and proceeded to have five children of whom only his two eldest survived into their 30s. After leaving office he was eventually persuaded back into office by George III and to reduce the burden on him emotionally and physically he accepted a title and became Earl of Chatham. This eventually proved to be his downfall and damaged his reputation. William Pitt the Younger lived through all these events before he was 10 years old! Even by that age he must have been aware that he belonged to a father and a family that stood apart from and were treated differently from everyone else.
   
   He was educated at home and although uninhibited by peer pressure was required from the outset to meet adult standards. His tutor stated "William never seemed to learn but merely to recollect". His father took an active, usually daily, role in his education. As William Hague says "at no other time in British history has the head of one administration acted as a tutor of another".
   
   His father taught him to speak in a clear and melodious voice by making him recite each day passages from the best English poets, particularly Shakespeare and Milton. As William Pitt the Younger later said " Lord Chatham had bid him take up any book in some foreign language with which he was well acquainted, in Latin, Greek, or French, for example. Lord Chatham then enjoined him to read out of this work into English, stopping when he was not sure of the word to be used in English, until the right word came to mind, and then proceed. At first, he had often to stop for a while before he could recollect the proper word, but he found the difficulties gradually disappear, until what was a toll him at first became at last an easy and familiar task. " It is perhaps, not surprising that he developed early on a highly unusual ability to speak clearly, structure an argument, and think on his feet. He was aided in this by a formidable memory.
   
   He went to Cambridge University at the age of 14. He was a sickly adolescent and spent the summers in Cambridge and the winters with his family. He was intensely attached to his mother and his father and he idolised. There was intense political discussion between himself and his father. He made friends easily, despite his youth, and became part of a large social circle. He made many lifelong friendships. To insiders he was regarded as great fun but to the external world he showed a stern and aloof demeanour, even from an early age.
   
   His father was deeply opposed to the policy of the government which led to the American Revolution. There was great opposition to Roman Catholics leading to the Gordon riots in 1780. It was a dramatic and exciting time. Unfortunately, his father died in 1778 deeply in debt and the family finances were only saved by a grant from Parliament of 20,000 pounds. Pitt trained as a lawyer and indeed practised as such briefly. This was a time of rotten boroughs, large cities with no representation and some electorates with only two voters. Corruption was rampant. The largest seats cost each candidate the equivalent of 5,000,000 pounds in today's terms on electoral expenses.
   
   Over half the boroughs could be purchased in one way or another. However, hehad no money and depended on a patron. One was eventually found who fortunately was not very demanding and he entered Parliament in January 1781 at the age of 22. At that time one in six members were under the age of 30. He quickly established himself as a great orator. He entered a house containing some extraordinary characters including Fox, Sheridan, and William Wilberforce.
   
   The Whigs, including Fox, threw out Lord North because of his disastrous loss of the American colonies and took office. Unfortunately they were violently opposed by George III. The King acted in an unconstitutional way so as to indicate that he had no confidence in his government. This was, even by the standards of the day, outrageous but led to Pitt being offered the position of "Prime Minister" and taking office in December 1783 at the age of 24.
   
   He remained in office, apart from a break between December 1801 and April 1804 (having resigned office for complex reasons including the intransigent attitude of George III to the question of Catholic Emancipation) until his death at the age of 49 in January 1806.
   
   It is astonishing to recognise that throughout much of that time he was Prime Minister with virtually no staff, he was also the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House. The House of Commons was his arena of greatness. From a position of running a minority government he quickly gained the ascendancy to such a point that Fox did not attend parliament for some years.
   
   During this time he dealt with the madness of King George. He attempted and then abandoned attempts to bring about parliamentary reform. He revolutionised the running of the government including bringing in the first income-tax. He dealt with the French Revolution and all its consequences and was the first to attempt to put the finances of Great Britain in order using a sinking fund to pay off debt. It is salutary to realise that five future prime ministers served in his Cabinet.
   
   Throughout much of this time he retained his aloof demeanour, he had little contact and no obvious interest in women apart from on one occasion and, if anything, appeared to be an asexual ascetic, except that he enjoyed his booze. He routinely drank three bottles of port per night. William Hague makes the point that bottles of port in those days were about half the size of the standard bottle today. Nevertheless that is a considerable intake and is thought to have contributed to his early death.
   
   He had been made Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports which provided an income of 3000 pounds but his own finances were a terrible mess, in part because of his lack of interest, his lack of time, and because of his refusal to accept any sinecures.
   
   He was the dominating the political figure of his times but was not a popular figure in the House of Commons, he did not socialise with other members most of whom he treated with disdain. There is a telling story of him, in his 40s, playing with two old friends and his niece, who was living with him. They were attempting to blacken his face with burnt cork in a vigorous indoor wrestling match. Two grandees arrived to see Mr Pitt. One of the participants in the struggle saw him straighten himself, put on his public mask as the two grandees approached him bowing, hesitant, and concerned about his response. He treated them with some contempt, scarcely looking at them, dismissed them after answering a query and then quickly returned to the frolic.
   
   Although Sir Robert Walpole is recognised as the first Prime Minister and indeed was longer in office than Pitt nevertheless Pitt first articulated the concept of a prime minister. He also brought great efficiencies to the running of the country and for a number of years before the onslaught of the French revolutionary wars the country was running at a significant surplus. Whilst incorruptible himself he used patronage with great political sensitivity to achieve his aims.
   
   It is extraordinary that he accomplished so much and was dead by the age of 49.
   
   William Hague's biography is the best sort of biography, it is fascinating to read with telling stories about Pitt and his contemporaries and allows us to see Pitt in the context of his times. Hague repeatedly dwells on the sheer volume of work that Pitt was able to get through, his mastery of detail, especially financial detail. He was known for his extraordinary grasp of the classics and his capacity to produce the apt quote at the right time. He was known for giving speeches off-the-cuff lasting up to three hours which were models of clarity, reasoned argument leading to inexorable conclusions without any apparent preparation.
   
   Hague is also fascinated by his ability to manipulate the King, the Prince of Wales, and other influential figures. He made great enemies but had enduring and loyal friends. With the passage of time, Hague makes it clear that anyone in office for any length of time is gradually brought down by the burden of accumulated mistakes, problems, enemies, and the eventual boredom of the populace.
   
   By the way Hague quotes from a letter written by Pitt in which he uses the word " se'nnight". I leave it to you to work out what it means.
   
   This one volume biography provides a fascinating introduction both to politics but also to the history behind such events as the Battle of Trafalgar and the English view of the various phases of the French Revolution. It made me want to read more about Fox, Grenville, George III and other larger-than-life figures. I commend it to you.
   
   Michael Epstein



5. Pitt the younger led his nation through the Napoleonic wars, the first stages of the industrial revolution, and a transformation of Britian, yet all the book seems to talk about is his health, his speaches and where he traveled.
   
   I am sorry, but I selected this book while in Heathrow Airport waiting for a flight back to the US. I knew about Pitt the younger and the times in which he lived. I had hoped for a book that talked about a man in the center of his times. Instead I got an introspective work focused on the triangle between Pitt, Fox and George III. Based on Hague's work they were the only three people who mattered in the world.
   
   I guess I am not the anglophile I thought I was as I found this work admirably written, well researched and understandably proud of Britian's first modern Prime Minister and global leader.
   
   Unforuntaley it was not very interesting -- I am not sure if that is due to Hague's account (I kind of doubt) or Pitt's interior and financially centered life.
   
   It probably has more to do with me being an american and wanting to know more about the man -- the person. The US is after all pretty much a show and tell kind of culture without the reserve for status and class as the UK.
   
   Either way, if you are a strong Anglophile who knows much about the times -- then this is a well crafted detailed account. If you are a part time reader of biographies and history, then you may want to give this one a pass.
   
   No offense intended to our friends in Britian -- Pitt is surely one of the few men who have make the UK great.

5 comments about Irish on the Inside: In Search of the Soul of Irish America.

1. IRISH ON THE INSIDE is a fast-paced, entertaining and lucid look by long-time activist Tom Hayden at the history of the Irish immigrant image and the role of the Irish in American politics/business as well as an excellent survey of the seemingly unsolvable schism between Northern Ireland and the country of Ireland as a whole.
   
   Hayden is somewhat of a fanatic in his style of writing and that only adds a tasty morsel of Irish to the flavor! He is out to challenge misconceptions of the Irish image (drunken, wild living, fighting, wife beating, lower class citizens) that is a welcome addition to the literature. Though the numerous famous writers, playwrights, and poets from Ireland have tended to play up the Irish wild side, Hayden looks at history and fact and seeks to prove that though the Irish have definite life ties to their mother country no matter where they emigrate, their contribution to global welfare is a positive.
   
   Hayden spends a lot of this book giving us insight into the history of the longstanding political fighting in Northern Ireland and does so in a manner that is more illuminating than most essayists. But it is Hayden's feisty commitment to restructuring the worldview of the Irish people that is the most heartwarming and entertaining aspects to this bubbly book. A worthy read, this, no matter what your previous opinions of Tom Hayden's own political career might be!



2. I just finished reading Dan Sheehan's novel Irish American Hero. I wanted to learn more about Northern Ireland and picked up a copy of Irish On the Inside. It is a great book and I'd suggest that people pair up the two books to get a real feel for what has been going on in Northern Ireland!



3. I read Hayden's book as I travelled through the northwest of Ireland, in the Republic and in Northern Ireland, and found great insight within. Hayden takes a tremendously complex political and social quagmire and illuminates without oversimplifying. The people who hate this book are likely people who simply dislike everything about the social movements of the 1960s in which Hayden was so deeply immersed. But for those who still believe in fighting for what is right, and care about Ireland, Irish On The Inside will be a refreshing read that will have an impact.



4. I come from the same people as the author and see things quite diferently.The book impressed me as a very windy and preachy screed of self-adulation and pseudointellectual posturing.Filled with nonsequitors,gushing kudoes to his liberal friends and the Kennedys,and all based on this laboriously contrived theory that
   Irish-Americans possess cultural and personality traits that have their origin with the Potato Famine.There are a few.The dont tread on me attitude is one but then most people who have been oppressed(and that is most people)have the same trait.I admit to a certain bias.While Mr. Hayden was sleeping with Jane Fonda and getting arrested in Chicago in the 60s becoming somewhat of a political celebrity,I was starting a medical career on the southside of that city while raising 5 very young children.Nice try Tom but Robert Emmet your not.



5. This is a particularly good time to read Tom Hayden's Irish on the Inside, due to the gathering conflict between America's role in the war against terrorism and the Irish perception of that role. The book deals with the exodus of Irish people from their homeland following the Famine in the mid-19th century, and the efforts of the newly arrived immigrants to adjust to American cultural attitudes which were frequently anti-Irish. The resulting desire to become immersed in the anglo protestant population led to increasing political conservatism and greater distance from the more radical viewpoints common among the native Irish. Hayden believes that there is a suppressed liberalism among Americans of Irish descent which should emerge at this point to form a bond with oppressed and disadvantaged people throughout the world, but especially in Ulster.

   The first part of the book traces Hayden's family's journey from Ireland to Michigan, where he was raised in a parochial school surrounding prior to graduating from the University of Michigan. The author attributes his conversion to radical dissent during the `60's to that vein of revolutionary thought which characterized the Irish struggle against the British for centuries, culminating in the uprising of 1916 and the subsequent Irish Civil War. The second part describes the time of the troubles in Ulster and the fate of those who participated in the political and paramilitary efforts to free the northern counties. The history outlined here is factual and will explain much in terms of not only the violence of the Bloody Sunday era, but the sacrifice on both sides which led ultimately to the Good Friday agreement.

   Finally Hayden looks to the future and discusses the question of retention of native identities in the face of onrushing globalism. Are populations like that of Ireland, small and insular, going to be absorbed in the whole as Europe eliminates borders and moves to a common currency? He argues convincingly for renewed efforts to preserve traditions and languages while working to make the international community a place where justice and understanding prevail. Key to that aim will be the resolution of human rights issues in the world at large. Hayden suggests that a vital first step in that process would be an admission by the United States and Britain that arms are not the solution to every problem, and that it is long past time to bring peace to Northern Ireland.

2 comments about The Great O'Neill: A Biography of Hugh O'Neill Earl of Tyrone, 1550-1616.

1. This is a profound book full of fascinating historical data on one of the most complex characters of ancient Irish history. Much of what the author writes is of necessity speculation but he also has researched into the history of the O'Neills & the old gaelic Chieftain order. The result is a facinating drama from the pages of ancient Irish history presented in a most dramatic & colourful manner. Personally I believe here is a story that could transfer the world of cinema & rival & surpass Braveheart in its epic scale & mesmerising characters. There is firstly the young O'Neill born into the most eminent of all Irish families, suddenly orphaned & at risk from his own people. Forced to flee he is taken in by the English & raised to be their pawn. In time he grows to manhood, returns to his people & claims all that is his. At first he has the support of the English as they pit Irish against Irish but eventually he outgrows them & becomes instead the most dangerous foe the Elizabethan armies have ever encountered. He scores victory after vistory over the English, culminating with his destruction of their great army at The Battle of the Yellow Ford. Unfortunately for O'Neill English resources far outweigh his as he well knows & a single defeat will spell his ruin. This comes inevitably at the battle of Kinsale & then all are left to mourn not just the passing of the Ancient Gael & its great Lords but the entrenchment of the English in Ireland which resulted in such pleasures as the Penal Times, 1798, The Great Famine, the War of Independence & today's Troubles in Northern Ireland. All can be traced back to that single defeat at Kinsale. I rate this book as by far the most significant work that O'Faolain ever wrote & believe it should be compulsory for all Irish History students. One curious aside is the comparison between this period of Irish history & the Indian wars in the USA. Certain characters have an uncanny resemblance, Sitting Bull & Hugh O'Neill; Crazy Horse & Hugh O'Donnell; Mountjoy & Sherman(?). Also the desperate struggle to maintain an ancient way of life & the realisation on the part of the indigenous peoples that theirs was a hopeless battle & that eventually a single defeat would bring their end. Yet these people believed strongly enough in their culture to fight for it & as an Irishman I am proud that O'Neill & O'Donnell fought their great foes rather than going quietly into the night. A great book.



2. I read this book because I am an O'Neill and wanted to learn more about my heritage. What I came away with is a better understanding of the history of the conflict between Ireland and England, that Ireland was in fact England's first colony and that a man named Hugh O'Neill nearly ended England's world colonization before it began. Enlightening also is the view into 16th century European culture and politics. This book is a pleasure to read for it's colorful descriptions of characters and settings as well as it's glimspe into historical events that are not often described.