5 comments about Linnaeus: Nature and Nation.

1. It has become axiomatic that historians of science know little about either. This revisionist treatment of the foibles of 18th century Swedish life paints poor Linnaeus as a whacko. However, he really wasn't too far removed from the contemporary members of the Royal Society of London in credulity, self promotion and ignorance and was certainly typical of Swedish Professors of that and more recent times.
   This is really a silly book first produced under the tuterage of Simon Schama and reissued from HUP. The author does not acknowledge the intellectual ferment of the time when the Enlightenment was being crushed under the heels of van Herder and by the Romantic curse (that we still enjoy as political correctness). The greatest contribution of the Linne's systematics was the "taxonomic key" that allows some order out of biology, not his fatuous attempts to make booze out of lichens or grow pineapples in Bothnia.
   I suppose other historians of "science" will someday mock Aristotle for his ignorance of DNA and not knowing how many teeth women have, but really, this is a silly book.



2. Linnaeus : Nature and Nation
   by Lisbet Koerner
   Reviewed by Thomas Leo Ogren, author of Allergy-Free Gardening, Ten Speed Press.
   Honestly I have mixed feelings about this book. One, I love it and really did enjoy reading it. I learned quite a bit from it too.
   But I do wish it had been written in a more reader-friendly manner. It is a good bit too scholarly for my tastes, a trifle too text-bookishly written.
   One of the important things about Linnaeus himself is that he always tried to reach the common man, tried to make his work popular and easily understood. I feel this book could have emulated some of that flavor.
   But I don't mean to be too critical by any means because I did like this book very much. There is a real wealth of research here, many things about Linnaeus here that I'd never read before. Karl Linnaeus was THE botanist--of his time, and of our own time as well. His system of binomial nomenclature, Genus species, was pretty much right on the money. He was the first to realize that plants' sexual characteristics were what largely either grouped them together or set them apart. His system is often criticized today, but to me it still makes great sense.
   Linnaeus : Nature and Nation, is not for everyone, but serious gardeners will enjoy it, as will historians, especially those with an interest in botany, horticulture, science. Well worth reading.



3. ‘Gazing at a flower by the grass-roofed cottage where he was born [...] Linnaeus was quintessentially a local man.’ (187). But as Lisbet Koerner explains, he also linked the ‘universal with the local [...] nature with nation.’ In this fascinating account, Koerner demonstrates that the father of modern taxonomy was also a political economist. Unlike Adam Smith, his interest was no so much in international trade or colonial conquest, but the substitution of imports (a cameralist program).

   Although Linnaeus had travelled in Holland, France, and Engalnd (1735-48) there were nineteen ‘first-generation’ students who undertook ‘voyages of discover’ between 1745 and 1792. Koerner asserts that their travels ‘were part of their larger strategy to create a miniature mercantile empire within a European state’ (114). Linnaeus sensed that ‘explorers fostered strategies of national improvement based on ecological diversification rather than on territoral expansion.’ (114).

   Linnaeus, it is argued was essentially a civil servant who turned his students into an efffective and efficient support staff. Chapter 3 deals with the Lapland journey. In line with economic and political priorities the area was to be colonized as a kind of Scandinavian “West Indies”. As a committed Lutheran, its is fascinating to deconstruct the theology at work in Linnaeus’s thought. Nature was a prelapsarian Paradise, but it must be exploited within each country. Accordingly, Linnaesus was concerned by the luxury and excess of products that trade supplied from the cornucopia of the New World. As this book notes, ‘He even urged Scandinavians to return to the old “Gothic foods,” such as acorns, pork, and mead.’ (95) At the same time he was keen to cultivate at home (to acclimatize) what was normally cultivated abroad. We even find him thinking, theorizing, and cultivating ‘an art to Make Mussles bring forth pearls.’ (141) He professed an an axiety that the pearl plantaions ‘could not long remain secret before our neighbours in Norway, Russia, and Siberia, who own more stores of Pearl mussels, could thus intirely triumph over us in quantity.’ (143)

   Yet as Linnaeus’s stock rose in Europe among the Romantics, at home it fell as he failed to deliver economic adavantage and superiority through import substitution. Ernst Moritz Arndt attacked Linnaeus’s cameralist projects in 1783, wondering how ‘On e was supposed to believe that Sweden suddenly had become Asia Minor and Sicily.’ (168) His enterprising schemes turned out to be ‘fantastic and chimerical’; it was left to his taxonomic system to enrich the world. Nonetheless, in light of recent global protests and persistent underdevelopment, the larger issues which the book eloquently discusses, seem to me as relevant now as then. ‘Linnaeus: Nature and Nation’ concludes by stating that it ‘memorializes a local attempt at a local modernity, a now-forgotten future of the past’ (193), but the other issue it raises is timely:

   ‘Or can native subjects, using only local means of production, build a complex and complete local economy, incorporating contemporary technologies, and functioning as a microcosm of the global economy.’ (192)




4. A fascinating account of what a strange place the 18th century was. The age of confusion more than the age of reason. Who would have thought that Linnaeus had so much in common with today's new age cranks.



5. A biography filled with wonderful detail, even though centering on Linnaeus' economic program. At times the author appears to be making fun of Linnaeus' odder ideas rather than attempting serious historical analysis, but in all a good job and an interesting argument.

1 comments about The Windsor Style.

1. The Windsors, while they were living, epitomized style, glamour, and wit. Ultimately theirs was a wasted life, empty of meaning in the end. From the heady days of their scandalous romance, life was all downhill, a private struggle to conserve their dignity in the aftermath of the abdication. To fill this emptiness and lack of purpose in life, the Duchess obsessed on perfection; of herself, of the things she collected and of the table she set. The Windsor's sous chef spent hours sorting salad leaves into leaves of exactly the same size to be set before their guests. Their relationship was a hollow recreation of the childhood the Duke never could leave behind. Moulin de la Tuilerie, their country home outside of Paris, was the York Cottage of Edward's youth reborn. Wallis herself was Queen Mary, obsessively arranging the display of small objets and cosseting the little boy who was King. A long time servant said, "They had nothing and no-one. They were just two lonely old people." Suzy Menkes takes the reader on an interesting tour through not only of the tangible objects of this relationship, but of the relationship itself.

5 comments about Cardinal Richelieu: And the Making of France.

1. This biography appears to be complete and well-researched but is buried by facts, names, dates, etc. without any sense of character or passion. The book, and the main character, have no pulse, making this an academic exercise in annotated timelines.



2. I agree with another reviewer that a lot of unnecessary wandering in the wilderness makes this book a tiring effort to enjoy, but some of the reviews seem to miss utterly the author's intense perspective which is nothing less than a fervent glance at Richelieu unscourged. Levi's historical take is often speculative, or is it? Perhaps it's more an unsolicited testament of things from the vantage point of those whom many historians have decided, in their churning quest to install an egalitarian privilege, are easily brushed aside, their subject's particular paradigm having been in their view eclipsed.
   
   Richelieu himself, master of detail, would likely find himself more readily in Levi's book than in most textbooks and any number of insufficient biographies. You'll need a comprehensive understanding of the royal houses of Europe and the intricate volleying and snuggling between them to make sense of quite a bit of this book. Nor will you find a wholesale dismissal of the Roman Church's temporal politics here, and rightly so. This, after all, is history, not a fairyland for the democracy besotted. Even an Irish Times review on the back of the book can't help referring to "an allegedly devout mystery..." I suspect there are already too many allegedly brave biographies whose principle recommendation is a tawdry bias.
   
   Levi's book gives an unindicted account of the Cardinal and his world. I'm grateful for that, despite the book's onerous flaws - sometimes incoherent writing, an at times merciless academic posture, and some unnecessary repetition. Four solid stars, but then, I'm a stickler for the real thing.



3. I found Anthony Levi's biography on Cardinal Richelieu to be quite readable and informative. The author definitely appears to know his subject well and the complex personality of Richelieu comes out with clarity and understanding. When you write a biography of man like Richelieu, background materials must be included to revealed the extraordinary period that he lived which made Richelieu, such an extraordinary historical personage. While deeply hated by his own people during his lifetime, it would be no discredit if he would be regarded as a national hero today since without Richelieu, there may not be a France as we know it.



4. I'm the person whom Amazon lists above as "people who bought this book also bought Talleyrand (Duffy)".

   Levi divides this book into two parts. The first half is history in the "in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue" style that went out years ago. It is a numbing recital of: "in 16xx ABC did this; in 16xx DEF did that; and in 16xx so did GHI". This half of the book is poorly organized. Often Levi is forced to double back 10 to 20 pages in order to pick up something he forgot. Unless you have a good grasp of 17th century France, you will find the wild cascade of unrelated names and places disorienting. Don't waste your time trying to follow the history. Much of it is factually debatable. Levi never even quite seems to figure out when the 30 Years War took place.

   In part two Levi takes up the cultural side. This half of the book abandons the "in 1492" approach for some of the worst academic English you are ever going to meet. The man simply cannot construct a pointed English sentence. I quit counting the number of consecutive 50 to 70 WORD sentences. Subjects and verbs seldom seem to meet, much less agree. Only experts at diagramming sentences need apply.

   Levi is clearly not in his home area. Bluntly, anyone who can dismiss Corneille, Pascal, and Descartes is simply not well grounded in this period and its follow up. The lengthy discussion of Jansenism puts Levi into a subject area he clearly does not understand. About all you can say he got right for certain is that Richelieu and the Jansenists were not on good terms.

   This book is a quandary. In many respects it is a hagiographic gloss of Richelieu. As a piece of popular history it is barely skin deep. Historical accuracy and much of the religious interpretation is questionable. The political analysis is simplistic and incomplete. (Hopefully, you already understand the relations of the Habsburgs, Dutch, Swedes, Germans, and the Pope. Levi spends a lot of time wandering in the wilderness here.) The quality of writing is pretentious in the second half, and questionable throughout. When finished, you will have done little more than confirmed the preconceptions about Richelieu you brought with you, picked up some notions about Louis XIII, and maybe have acquired a smattering of dates.




5. This is a good work of popular history. As he wrote it, Levi was probably thinking of people like me who know their knowledge of French history in the 17th century is inadequate but don't want to spend months in the library filling in the gaps. The book is full of important figures like Marie de Medici, Anne of Austria, and Gaston of Orleans, but Richelieu and his career are at the center of the whole story. The author is at his best when analyzing Richelieu psychologically and morally, but he seems to value those of his subject's virtues that might place him closer to the Homeric moral universe than to ours. He praises the cardinal for his bravery, tenacity, and ruthlessness rather than looking for signs of compassion, tenderness, or justice. Of course Richelieu was intensely loyal to the king, Louis XIII, but he was equally loyal to his own quest for power, prestige, and possessions, three realms in which he met with overwhelming success. One of the interesting side issues in the book is the king's inability to relate sexually to women and his dalliances with several men, most notably with Cinq-Mars, who betrayed him. Richelieu did his best to protect the king's reputation even in this area. The more important question Levi works with is how Richelieu almost single-handedly changed France from a collection of separate areas, princedoms and duchies, with their various customs, laws, traditions and loyalties, into a modern nation-state under the absolute authority of the monarch. He also did much to promote culture, art, and literature. But he achieved all this at the cost of unendurable suffering among the common people, who were over-taxed, underfed, and who lived in general misery. Naturally, he was generally despised.

5 comments about Bastard Prince: Henry VIII's Lost Son.

1. Dying at the age of 18, Henry Fitzroy is, in the end, a person of little or no historical significance. There was the potential that he could have become historically significant, but he didn't; this may make him a little interest to general history readers. On the other hand, as the king's acknowledged son, there is also considerable documentation about his life, and it did intersect with some of the flashpoints of history. For the reader interested in the period, his story fleshes out the life and upbringing of a high-ranking male. Murphy also checks upon some of the minor, disputed details of the question of the succession.
   
   What is very interesting about biographies like this is that they bring out the details of the period better than biographies of the famous. The latter are so filled with political and social events that very often the subject isn't developed as a person, even when there is copious information. In a way, that is a shame. It would be nice to have "personal" biographies of such people where the already heavily documented major historical events are a background to their daily life. I had read a great deal of information about the Tudors before I learned that Henry played cards with (and lost to!) his cellarer, or that Anne Boleyn, obviously a woman after my own heart, insisted that he move his fighting cocks so that she could sleep in in the morning.
   
   One problem that I do have with Murphy is that she struggles so hard to make him seem more important. If his neighbors were bringing him gifts when he was 12, I think it is more likely to ingratiate themselves with him and his father, not because he was personally doing a fabulous job of managing his estates. His life wasn't one that was eccentric or fascinating or wittily told that I would recommend it to everyone, but I think that people really interested in the period will find it improves their general understanding.



2. I love Henry...love any book about him, his wives, his children, I have all of them. This one caught my eye because it was written about one of his children you rarely hear anything about other than his mother's name and that he died relatively young. I was excited to start reading, but found the presentation wasn't grabbing my attention, and I found myself not being as interested in the information presented as I thought I would be. I suppose you could call the presentation as text-bookish. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy non-fiction, especially historical non-fiction, but this one just didn't keep me interested.



3. Among the more grandiose plans amongst the ministers of Henry VIII's administration was to legitimize Henry FitzRoy and marry him to his legitimate half-sister Mary (i.e. Bloody Mary). It has been rumored amongst historians that this idea was in fact direct from the King's mouth. According to 16th century standards, siblings who shared the same father (but perhaps not the same mother) were considered 'full-blood' siblings. Siblings who shared the same mother but different fathers were those considered "half". Just a little tidbit of historical nonsense.



4. Henry VIII while famous for his six wives, did not stop there: among his many extracurriculars was Elizabeth Blount, a young lady who bore him a son, Henry FitzRoy, who was later made Duke of Richmond. The Bastard Price was born well before Ann Boleyn had come on the scene, was publicly acknowledged as the "natural son" of the King and showered with titles and offices. As such, it would not have taken much - or at least it would have taken less trouble than it might have seemed, certainly less trouble than Boleyn marriage brought - to "legitimize" Richmond and thereby solve the most pressing crisis of the late 1520s and early 1530s, namely, Henry's failure to sire a male heir. Murphy does a reasonable job of walking us through the permutations and combination of this would-be scenario, and one is left pondering the possibilities: could the English Reformation have been averted through a bit of subtle intrigue and a quick marriage to Blount? Though the story is interesting, the book itself is a bit slow and assumes quite a deal of background knowledge.



5. This book is a must read for those interested in Tudor Royalty.It reveals an entirely different view of Henry VIII and the problems[real and imagined]he faced concerning his desire for a legitimate male heir to the Throne of England.The politics surrounding Henry VIII and his Court are well researched and presented in a clear way which involves the reader with the Duke of Norfolk and Anne Boleyn's backers and Family[Seymour] as they fought for power and the favor of the King.

No comments about George Russell and the New Ireland 1905-30.

2 comments about Forgotten Lunatics of the Great War.

1. Superbly researched and well presented work on the subject of the psychological cost of the Great War. The author writes with compassion and insight as well as with wonderful wit. Deeply touching and haunting, this book will leave the reader with a deeper understanding of the psychic wounds suffered by soldiers and perhaps a sense of outrage at society's ignorance of the hidden suffering of the military veteran.



2. This is a heartbreaking book, in that the plight of the mentally wounded soldiers of WWI are revealed, and in realizing that so many could probably have been helped with today's therapies and drug treatments. Barham does an excellent job in uncovering the brutality (it's not too strong a word) of the "establishment" over the soldiers' disability pensions. There was no government assistance available to the in-home caregivers, and the mentality of the physicians and medical personnel of the time was extremely limited. Basically, severely shell-shocked soliders had no chance of recovery, given the limited medical understanding of the condition.
   
   This is an important book. I could wish the writing was just a little looser; the author obviously has sympathy with the subject matter, and the detailed research can't be faulted, but there is something dry about the presentation. I still strongly recommend the book, and I think it can be useful & interesting to both the WWI "buff" and anyone interested in mental health topics.

No comments about Growing Up in England: The Experience of Childhood 1600-1914.

5 comments about The Thieves' Opera.

1. I bought this book because I have a weakness for accounts of historical crimes. Luckily I also have a weakness for social history because this book is more about the (mainly) London social conditions of the early 18th century than the crimes of the Jack Sheppard and Jonathan Wilde.

   It was interesting to be reading about the accused Jacobite who spent 30+ years in prison although he was not proved to be a traitor because he would not swear allegiance to the King of England-- Sheer stubbornness?-- at the same time that the Supreme Court has agreed to look at the case of the Guam detainees who have yet to be charged or tried by any legal body.
   
   The author makes an argument that Jack Sheppard turned to crime because he was foreclosed from lawfully practicing his trade (carpenter) while Jonathan Wilde utilized a certain genius for organization to create the best organized thieves' gang of the era because that was the only opportunity open to him. While I am unable to buy her theory wholesale, the tidbits she provides about life in the early 18th century are well worth acquiring. I would wish that the Hogarth illustrations were larger and clearer but they provide a nice addition to the text.

   However, I do have questions about the reliability of some of her sources. A couple of the things she mentioned as fact sound more like pure male fantasy or at best urban legends.

   Not badly written and not boring.




2. The lives of Johnathan Wild and Tom Sheppard could have been told with so much more color. For the most part, I steadfastly plowed through this mostly boring book just to absorb some facts. It was rarely entertaining. The author mostly writes in a formal style. But, then occasionally she will throw in a zinger using conversational English. These breaks with formality were refreshing, interesting and I appreciated it. The most interesting parts of the book were the descriptions of the times, such as the laws, customs, homes, prisons, bribery and corruption, hangings, etc. The author gave an altogether graphic picture of what happens when a person is hanged.



3. I was disappointed in this book. Even though the author succeeds in painting quite a clear canvas of eighteenth-century London's underworld, she fails to make her subject - the two famed criminals - interesting. I didn't find their personalities gripping, or their stories attractive in the least. The narrative is reiterative, the same things being mentioned again and again, and disjointed, lacking cohesiveness. Curiously, the most interesting parts were those which were accessory to the main story, such as the description of the legal system and medical practice. I wouldn't completely dismiss Lucy Moore as a historian, though - she undoubtedly has done a thorough research, and is not totally ungifted as a writer - but I still think this material would have merited a better rendering.



4. Lucy Moore, in The Thieves' Opera, has explored an interesting topic that takes the reader through the world of London from the slums to, on occasion, the mansions. Using the characters of Jonathan Wild and the folk hero/criminal Jack Sheppard, the author expands the narrative to show the entire world of crime and punishment that existed at this time. Very little seemed, at times, to separate those committing the crimes from those prosecuting the criminals and it is easy to see why Jack Sheppard, with his numerous escapes, could become such a hero in such a corrupt system. The story is told in a way that leads the reader from the beginnings of a system that would lead to crime to the execution of the criminal. The two lead criminals sometimes fall by the wayside in their own story but interest is maintained nonetheless by looking at the larger canvas. An interesting read.



5. This fabulously written historical account is put together so well, you forget you're actually getting a history lesson. As a historical romance writer who is often looking to devour books on certain subjects, I find it very difficult to find books that portray history in a vivid manner which makes it easy to swallow several years of history in one sitting without pausing to think 'what in heck is this person talking about?'. The most wonderful aspect of this book on 'criminal' subjects of the 18th century, is that Lucy Moore (the author, of course!) weaves history through the means of beautiful, but simple story telling. And what this means for anyone picking up this book is that history not only can be finally understood, but also re-lived.

No comments about Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington: Irish Feminist (Irish Studies).

4 comments about The U2 Reader: A Quarter Century of Commentary, Criticism, and Reviews.

1. Bordowitz does a great job in this reader collecting U2 "clippings" from the beginning of the band through its over 25 years of rising, dominating, declining, but above all, persisting in popular music. The articles really speak for themselves about the excitement of being on the world stage and the adulation and tribulations that come with that. The author does not do much more than really frame each time period of the band's existence in order to put the articles in accordingly. But I think that was his intention: this is not a direct analysis of U2's influence on music or pop-culture. That project is left for the reader to endeavor in, but only if they desire.

   It is interesting and well worth your time to experience the band in the newspaperist chronology set out before you. We all like to think about U2 at different points in their career and we all have an idea of what "our favorite album" is or when we thought "U2 was making it huge". And so, its pretty neat to see whether or not the mainstream, worldwide news coverage of the band concurs with your own conclusions about different time periods.

   It's a fun read if you are a U2 fan!




2. That book is a must, complete with interviews that are no longer available from different mazagines. It give a great history of the group with details for every member. It also gives you a candid insight of ech emember. But what I liked the best is that it reminds you that even if Bono is the front person for various subjects and points of view, everyone in that group has a very strong social concsience; a fact that is very rare in the cruel world we live in.



3. Hank Bordowitz follows up on The Creedence Clearwater Revivial saga, Bad Moon Rising, with an excellent account on U2(The U2 Reader: A Quarter Century if Commentary, Criticism, and Reviews). What makes this book a winner, is the many perspectives and in depth research that Bordowitz provides. The songs and performances are analyzed from religious, political, and musical perspectives. Its great that Bordowitz gets quotes from musical luminaries like Bruce Springsteen, Sinead O'Connor, and Billy Coorgan.

   Some moments are spent looking into the personal sides of each band member and how their personalities caused the band to evolve over time. The Unforgettable Fire certainly differs greatly from Pop as the band has evolved from a radical new wave band to one that seems to have their influence blend into the world today. Big time fans should pick this book up and even minor fans like myself will find that there is much merit in Bordowitz's fine research.




4. Of the many U2 books on the market, with more to come, it is refreshing to get a sense of historical perspective of the world's most popular, if not relevant, band.

   U2 was not always the most beloved band, especially after its forays into electronica. Even during the early days there were some doubts, hard to believe now, of the band's durability. The book is worth the price alone for reading Jon Pareles's early review of U2 from The New York Times. In 1981 he actually wished the band would break up!

   This book scans the thoughts and musings of a wide variety of authors from the band's earliest days to the present. One of the convenient pluses of the book is that, as a compilation, it can be read in bursts or it can be read just sitting down for an afternoon on the beach. Each article short enough to look up to see if the kids are alright and yet engaging enough to say to your wife, "yes dear."

   Few books today really put U2 into this proper context of where they stand in the eyes of the critics. It will appeal to the long time fan still able to recall those early days at the clubs and theaters and also to the newer fan wondering what it was like when they were just starting out but still able to be familiar with the band that is today.

   Overall, a timely and needed effort, especially as U2 writes their new album and takes a pause from the last phase of their career. It is also a fun read. Who said history isn't fun?