No comments about John Evelyn: Living for Ingenuity.

No comments about Wake of the Invercauld: Shipwrecked in the Sub-Antarctic : A Great-Granddaughter's Pilgrimage.

1 comments about The Last Letters of Thomas More.

1. Here is the man in his own words in letters to his daughter, his king and his friends. Much from A Man for All Seasons is taken from these letters. Wonderful!

2 comments about Mary, Queen of Scots: Pride, Passion and a Kingdom Lost.

1. This, at last, is a book that focuses on what MQS actually DID as a queen, and what she didn't do. It measures her against the same stick used to measure other rulers of the same age instead of the usual sturm un drang offered up. She was no marytred saint, yet she was no she demon in velvet skirts. She was charming and lovely, however she was also inadequate. Kind of Queen-Lite, if you will.
   
   I found it very interesting that her much toted tolerance concerning religion is revealed to be otherwise. She demands the right to practice her own religion, but denies that same right to other Catholics. It is hard to hold up the banner of Catholic martyr when she did nothing good for that cause in Scotland, empowering the Protestant at the expense of the Catholic.
   
   And yes, I'm glad that Wormald came down on the side of Mary being involved in the plot against Darnley. Leave MQS some shreds of intelligence. If she didn't know, that makes her and Darnley the only ones in Scotland and Europe who were unaware of the plot. Her actions definitely speak loudly when she lured Darnely out of his family stronghold and brought him back to Edinburgh and death. It was politically astute and necessary. Only her blunders afterward destroyed her reputation. Handled differently, she could very likely have weathered it.
   
   Good read, well written and neither rabid nor fawning.



2. This is a valuable book that focuses on Mary Stuart as a ruler rather than Mary Stuart as a heroine in a historical romance. It is not a mystery about who killed Lord Darnley. It is a critical analysis of what occurred when someone who was historically ordained to rule, but who possessed none of the qualities to make that rule successful in the dynamic of the sixteenth century, attempted to lead Scotland through the religious and political minefiled of its pre-modern politics. Some writers tend to think that Wormald is too tough on the historical Mary Queen of Scots, but there is good basis for her analysis. The essential question about the Scots Queen in not really whether or not she wrote all or some of the Casket Letters, and whether or not she was a player in the murder of her husband Lord Darnley, but whether she faired any better than most of the other Stuart kings who followed her in dealing with the great issues of her day. She clearly did not. While my own review of the letters insofar as they presently exist, the evidence from a variety of sources, and my own experience as a successful prosecutor leads me to believe that I probably could convict her of conspiracy to commit murder , but not as an aider and abettor of murder itself, if she had been less a French queen and more a Scot, had she seen her role more as an obligation to her own historical niche and less a license to behave as if she were answerable to no mortal, her monarchy might have ended quite differently. No one would have cared about Darnley. Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard, and even Thomas More did not put an end to Henry VIII, Essex did not end Elizabeth I, and the disposal of an unpopular sometimes Papist consort, would not have ended Mary's rule. Her prolonged absence from Scotland during her childhood, her identity with powers that were not in step with the religious and political changes in Scotland, her reliance upon her half-brother and other men to lead her country and usurp her power to make decisions are among teh flaws that are exposed and highlighted in this short but important book.

4 comments about Churchill: The Unexpected Hero (Lives and Legacies Series).

1. Though Winston Churchill has never wanted for biographers, over the past few years the publication of brief studies of his life have come into vogue. Written by some of the leading historians of the period - John Keegan, Geoffrey Best, Stuart Ball - they offer an accessible (if condensed) examination of one of the dominant figures of the twentieth century. Paul Addison's book is the latest addition to their ranks, and one that deserves to be ranked as among the best of these efforts.
   
   Addison argues that the heroic status that Churchill enjoys today belies much of his career. Considered an irresponsible genius by his contemporaries, he was a polarizing figure who was never completely trusted by any side of the political divide. Yet as prime minister during the Second World War he went on to become "the embodiment of national unity," a symbol of Britain's determination to defeat Nazi Germany. Addison provides a more nuanced view of Churchill's career, noting his ideological consistency in a politically turbulent age. When war came, the man and the moment were ideally matched; indeed, many of the traits that his opponents deplored - his enthusiasm for war, his advocacy of impossible ideas, even the fact that he was half American - became assets in the conflict and were keys to his successful leadership.
   
   Developed from his entry on Churchill for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Addison succeeds in providing an insightful introduction to the life of one of the dominant figures of the twentieth century. Though hardly a hagiographical account - he freely acknowledges such faults as Churchill's massive egotism - his portrait is a sympathetic one, depicting the prime minister as "a hero with feet of clay." The result is a good read and a great starting point for anyone seeking to learn more about this fascinating figure.



2. 
   I've waited the past two months to receive a copy of this short biography on Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill. Reading this book does not disappoint.
   
   This short work, though fair and favorable to Sir Winston, also discusses the controversies of his career. Not everyone in Britain was a fan of Churchill, with some disliking him, with others fearing he would ever have any part of the government. In spite of his monumental contributions to the World War II years, some never lost their mistrust nor dislike of the man.
   
   As an American, I see him as the beacon of hope for war-torn Britain. The best possible man to lead the country during those years, an uncrowned king giving the British people the hope and stamina needed to go on, day by day, overcoming all the suffering World War II brought them. Should he not have been the best, surely there existed no one better. When one thinks today of World War II Britain, one must think of Winston Churchill. They have become intertwined and inseparable.
   
   Even from his earliest years, Churchill always felt he was a person of destiny; so was able to equally accept and act in that role. One must wonder what England would have been without him. Prior to the war he was seen as too strident and hawkish, once the war began however his views and demeanor coincided exactly to the needs of the time. Once the war was over, most of the country turned their backs to him at the polls, feeling he was not up to running a tamer, peacetime government.
   
   Being neither British, nor ignoring his earlier government service prior to World War II (he was 65 in 1940 at time of his becoming Prime Minister with many years of government service behind him), I cannot agree with their post war thinking. And as discussed in this slim volume, I agree with the author that the mistrust and distrust of earlier Liberal versus Tory episode was ever overcome. Too many felt they just could not count on, nor place their full trust in this man.
   
   Winston Churchill is my 'cup of tea'. One of the few 20th Century men of both character and leadership. True, he had both great flaws and great abilities as well; and this book fairly shows both.
   
   Recommended reading.
   
   Semper Fi.



3. Paul Addison has written a competent introduction to a life more interesting, in the sense of history, than any other of the twentieth century. His book is enlivened by many vivid quotes from a broad assortment of people who had reason to know Winston Churchill. However, I think the author, in an excessive attempt at balance, bends too far over backward in making use of certain highly negative assessments-- such as one offered by Evelyn Waugh at the time of Churchill's death.
   
   While he may have had feet of clay, his name remains remembered in Westminister Abby--and elsewhere over the globe.



4. Addison knows that Churchill's life has received almost as many words as Churchill wrote himself, as one of the most prodigous authors of the twentieth century, known and admired by many as the greatest figure of his time, "saving the world" from Nazi Germany, the right man at the right place at the right time.
   
   But Addison is not so sure. Churchill was maddeningly erratic, not only changing political parties twice but also inflaming deep hatred during his long, varied career as a military figure, prison escapee, politician, cabinet member, and prime minister. Much of the peculiarities about Winston we can attribute to his relationship with his parents, an American debutant and a half-crazed father who died young. Lacking their affections, and wanting to make a name for himself, Churchill took on risks and positions with abandon.
   
   Addison has done a thorough study, more remarkable for its brevity when describing a man whose life has been chronicled many times before in thousands of pages. While leading England during World War II, Winston came to symbolize the twentieth century but he was in many ways a man of the nineteenth or even eighteenth century, believing in the Empire and being more of an egoist than an egotist. Yes, he was a racist in today's terms, with his contempt for what we would today call "developing countries" and their peoples, but for his time Churchill was not out of step. He was, at times, indecisive and, yes, out of step with popular feelings. His writings were often efforts to cast himself in the best possible light. This was especially true when he wrote his memoirs of World War II, right after he was thrown from office at his moment of triumph. This cathartic and somewhat self-serving post-war writing process regained him 10 Downing Street, it also left him as the primary arbiter of his reputation from the war -- the leader of the victorious nations gets to write history.
   
   He was a fickle, spoiled, epicurean of sorts who seemed to love a good fight -- even a good war -- if it helped him get ahead and helped England stay ahead or stay alive. Loved or hated, he deserves to be admired for what he got right, not for what he got wrong. Addison is critical yet quite balanced in this treatment of this great yet flawed figure. And for those who want the concise Churchill story, this is it.

3 comments about Henry V (English Monarchs).

1. Prof. Allmand's biography of Henry V is the first coherent work on the subject for our generation. It is also the best bio on Henry V in the past 60-70 years. Allmand gives a fairly bare-bones analysis of King Henry V's brilliant but short life, and then expands in later chapters on several themes such as the royal family, law + order, and the like. Allmand's work is scholarly but does not drown the reader in details. Is a good read and moves along in a coherent manner. If you are looking to learn more about the man Shakespeare called "the Mirror of all Christian Kings" Allmand's deft work is a good place to start and a valuable resource.



2. As brilliantly portrayed by Mr. Allmand, Henry V personifies not only the fearsome and powerful character of a dark ages monarch, but also that one of a business-sound and strategy-aware leader. Whereas Shakespeare stresses Henry's prowess as a soldier and a hero, Allmand throws in unbeknownst traits: goal-oriented business planner, egalitarian political strategist, tireless academician, merciless warrior and fearing christian. Even though Mr. Allmand's prose teems with passive verbs and endless sentences, sometimes puzzling and even confusing the reader, his book is one of its kind.



3. As mentioned in a previous review, Mr. Allmand's narrative is not strictly chronological. Roughly the first half of the book is the chronology of Henry V's life (yes - Henry dies half way through the book), while the remainder touches on various aspects of royal life and a description of the late 14th and 15th centuries (for example, the second half of the book discusses Henry's military establishment, his relationship with his family, court life, and the Lollard movement).
   
   Personally, I did not care for the bifurcated structure. I believe Allmand could have incorporated the themes from the second half of the book into his chronological life of Henry in a seamless manner. As written, the book is disjointed and can be difficult to follow in some places.
   
   Overall, this is a good read, but not great.

No comments about James II: The Triumph and the Tragedy (English Monarchs. Treasures from the National Archives) (English Monarchs. Treasures from the National Archives).

5 comments about John Maynard Keynes: Volume 2: The Economist as Savior, 1920-1937.

1. A great book about a great man. The development of Keynes' thought is handled well, although some more discussion around possible sources of some of his ideas would have been welcome. Several books about his Bloomsbury freinds have emerged recently, and it is interesting to compare perceptions. I'm uncomfortable with Skidelsky's analysis of Keynesian theory which strikes me as too much of a shoe-horning of Keynes into a classical framework, but I'm hardly an expert. All in all a book to be savoured, and an essential item in one's library.



2. Keynes activities, both as an active participant of the economic life of his country and continent, and as an icon to the cultural life of his epoch and to his many friends and groups of interest, is impressive. To define him is an elusive task: philosopher?, economist?, historian?, linguist?. He was all this and much more, but he was above all a man of a very practical mind and, notwhidstanding his immense philosophical background, deeply attached to the theories of his contemporary G.E.Moore and others, he had the feeling of having a mission to accomplish, given the immense superiority his intellect had over the rest of the mortals.

   What was to become of Europe after the end of the First World War was foreseen by him in many essays and primarily in his book The Economic Consequences of the Peace. The task which lays ahead for him, and only him, was to warn politicians and thinkers of the impending dangers of the years to come, specially in regard to a lack of theoretical analisys to support the transition from the old economy (classicist in his jargon), which ended with the death of the great Alfred Marshall, and a new one, which he purpoted himself to establish and then save the world. And save the world he did!!! Keynes is one of this towering figures who had the opportunity to mingle himself with daily facts and change them for the better. Amid a lot of controversy and polemic regarding the originality of his ideas, he published his major opus in 1937, which was to be used against the vagaries of rampant unemployment and inflation. His General Theory of Interest , Employment and Money is a sort of tribute he pays to his father , Malthus and G.E.Moore.
   In the personnal side of his life, if this can be said of Keynes for his personal life was eminently devoted to cultural interests i many areas, the book portrays some important changes in his personal atitudes towards homosexuality (he abandoned) and his new life marrying the russian ballerina Ludmila.




3. The second part of Prof. Skidelsky's magnificent biography of J.M. Keynes is nearly totally concentrated on economic issues. Keynes' personal life was perfectly settled after his marriage with a Russian ballerina. He continued to be in contact with the Bloomsbury group, which 'remained subversive by habit, but was anxious to retain their dividends and beauftiful houses'.
   In fact, this book centres on the question how Keynes came to write the 'General Theory' and its defense of governmental intervention (public investments) in the economic cycle in order to break the capitalistic slump. He proved that in a laisser-faire system an equilibrium could be formed at a far lesser level than 'natural' unemployment: 'There is work to do, there are men to do it. Why not bring them together!'
   We discover that Malthus was a real influential precursor with his proposition to prop up insufficient demand by public works and that Richard Kahn made a decisive contribution with his multiplyer effect.
   Prof. Skidelsky characterizes perfectly the 'General Theory' as a complex psychological drama with as main characters the life-denying rentier, the businessman and his fantasies and the victimized working class.
   Keynes' ultimate nightmare was a world were making money triumphed over making things, which is actually happening. Financial transactions are dwarfing the industrial ones and there are many more investment trusts than industrial companies in the US.
   The discussions after the publication of the 'General Theory' are fascinating. In fact, the debate is still red hot: inflation/deflation, the influence of the (inter)national banks, savings and (un)employment.
   This book is not an easy read. I recommend readers to (re)read some parts of the 'General Theory'. But this work is a fascinating tale about the (r)evolution of the ideas of the greatest economist of all times.
   I have only one minor remark: Ibsen is a Norwegian, not a Swede.



4. I highly recommend the second volume of Skidelsky's three volume study of the life of John Maynard Keynes for the general reader.The general reader will be rewarded with a 5 star performance.Skidelsky masterfully weaves an incredible amount of material about the private and public life of Keynes in a manner that will provide the nonspecialist,general reader with many hours of reading pleasure.Unfortunately,the same cannot be said for the specialist seeking a technical analysis and evaluation of Keynes's scientific contributions to philosophy,applied probability,applied statistics,decision science and economics.It is in this area that Skidelsky fumbles the ball just as it appeared that he was going to go all the way and score a touchdown.This is most likely due to the fact that he is a historian with little or no training in philosophy,mathematics,statistics,probability and economics.Let me catalog the technical problems .First,Skidelsky confuses the 12th-13th century debate between the nominalists and the realists(Platonists) with the realist versus idealist debate of the 19th-20th century between,among others,G.E.Moore and Bertrand Russell(the realists of the 20th century who would be supporting the nominalists in the 12th century),on the one hand and J.M.E.McTaggart and F.H.Bradley,on the other hand,who would be supporting,in general,the realists of the 12th century.(See Skidelsky's extremely confusing discussion on pp.74-77).Second,Skidelsky is completely confused about the nature and construction of Keynesian probabilities.Keynesian probabilities,in general,are intervals.They require the use of two numbers ,not one.The first number is called a lower bound.The second number is called an upper bound.Keynes's approximation method has absolutely nothing to do with ordinal rankings. In fact,the general case occurring among decision makers in the real world would be of overlapping intervals.Consider the following simple example.Let probability one be estimated by the interval[.4,.6].Let probability two be estimated by the interval[.5,.7].The probabilities have very specific numeric bounds,but they are ,in fact,nonrankable,noncomparable and nonadditive.It is not possible to say that one of the two probabilities is greater than,less than or equal to the other probability.Skidelsky has accepted at face value the extremely poor analysis of Keynes's TP done by F.Ramsey in two book reviews published in 1922 and 1926.Ramsey committed the fatal error of misinterpreting Keynes's chapter 3 terms in the TP,nonnumerical and nonmeasurable,as meaning that no numbers could in general be used to estimate the probability relation.Ramsey never read chapters 15 and 17 of the TP where Keynes made it clear that most probabilities could be represented as intervals.(The reader will find literally one dozen errors of omission or commission committed on pp.58-61 and 67-73 of Skidelsky with regard to the issue of the use of numbers in Keynes's logical theory of probability).Skidelsky ignores Keynes's creation of an index to measure the weight of the evidence,w,where w is defined on the unit interval[0,1]and measures the completeness of the relevant potential evidence available upon which to make an estimate of a probability.Skidelsky overlooks Keynes's conventional coefficient of risk and weight,c,that solves all of the paradoxes of subjective expected utility theory.Keynes was the first scholar in history to devise a decision rule incorporating nonlinear probabilities and weight of the evidence(later called ambiguity of the evidence by D.Ellsberg in 1961).Lastly,Skidelsky has overlooked the mathematical specification of Keynes's theory of effective demand that Keynes derived from his Y model of chapter 10 and from his D-Z model of chapters 3,20-21 of the General Theory in 1936.Let us define w to equal a constant money wage,p to equal the price level,w/p to equal the real wage,MPL to equal the marginal product of labor in the aggregate,MPC to equal the marginal propensity to spend on consumption goods, and MPI to equal the marginal propensity to spend on copital goods.Keynes then arrives at the following general result:w/p=MPL/(MPC+MPI).The classical and neoclassical(monetarism,rational expectations,real business cycle theory,etc.)theories are all special cases which require that MPC+MPI=1.Skidelsky's claim that Keynes did not provide a mathematical model of his theory of effective demand in the GT (see pp.537-542,especially p.540)is an error in magnitude equal to the errors made by Frank Ramsey about the meaning of the terms "nonnumerical" and"non measurable".The specialist will be disappointed with this volume of Skidelsky's biography of J.M.Keynes.



5. John Maynard Keynes apparently had a life full of brilliant ideas, and the evolution from one idea to another is a brilliant story. I'm not quite sure how I know this, because the second volume of Robert Skidelsky's Keynes biography doesn't really convey it. But I do know it, somehow.
   
   The main thing I've learned from this book is that I should go and read Keynes himself. Whenever Skidelsky quotes Keynes at any length, I breathe fresh air and I'm reminded that life can, indeed, be a wonderful place. For the remaining 95% of the book, I'm plodding through perfectly serviceable but unengaging prose. Skidelsky doesn't explain Keynes's economics well enough for intelligent non-specialists to really get the point. He explains Keynes's social life decently well, but one can consume only so much about country vacations and "Bloomsberries" before mentally consigning the lot of them to an eternity of bad food and cattiness.
   
   The jacket insists that Skidelsky has told an amazing love story, presumably the one between Keynes and Lydia Lopokova. I don't know quite which biography that reviewer was reading. Certainly not this one.
   
   I'm told there's a condensed version of the Keynes bio: one volume instead of three. That may be worth your time. It depends on what you want. The life of Keynes doesn't actually seem all that interesting on its own -- no more interesting than any other smart person's life, and substantially less interesting than Bertrand Russell's (with whose life Keynes's overlaps). As for the content of Keynes's ideas, those certainly are worth the time, but I just can't see that Skidelsky -- condensed or otherwise -- is the man to teach these to us.
   
   Probably the best route is to read Keynes's own Economic Consequences of the Peace, Tract on Monetary Reform, Essays in Persuasion, and General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. I'm told that Alvin Hansen's Guide To Keynes is how economists normally approach the General Theory, and my initial glance at Hansen's book suggests that it's a good start.
   
   If we believe Skidelsky, Keynes's Treatise on Money is overlong, impenetrable, and notationally confused. I trust bad writers to spot their kin, so I believe him on this score.

No comments about Who's Who in Bloomsbury.

2 comments about Clarissa Eden: A Memoir.

1. This is a brilliant memoir written by a woman of great intelligence and sophistication. She was the niece of Winston Churchill and lived at Downing Street during the Second World War. She later married Anthony Eden. Her gift for description, her humor, and her wisdom illuminate a time of great importance, and her portraits, whether of social or political figures, are deft and shrewd. One can only hope that this is the first of many books to come from Clarissa Eden.



2. Clarissa is the young wife of England's leading politician whose life had been a flaming dedication to the Empire and all humanitarian ideals that were then believed to erase national lines.
   Anthony Eden prefaced his work with dedication. What the Suez war did to the minds of his time was upsetting. Anthony remained, in theory, the ennobling Prime Minister that dedicated his life for the fulfillment of his historic mission: to preserve the Commonwealth.
   His main problem was when he saw the Empire slidding under their feet.
   Clarissa lived with the man who, if he had received more meaningful support from the superpower -USA- could have stopped and indeed eliminated the usual orgy permitted by inexperienced newcomers to the political arena in different parts of the Commonwealth World.
   Clarissa witnessed how startups have released their inhibitions and brought their ruling to the state of raw excitement which was driven to add the fateful effect on their people.
   Clarissa saw many emerging and young leaders schooled in a state in which the relation of the subject to the sovereign had no basis other than obedience; comfortable only in the presence of authority.
   Like her husband, she had combination of shrewdness, energy and intelligence with a political flexibility unseen in Europe since Talleyrand.
   
   The book is interesting to read.