5 comments about Lewis Carroll: A Biography.

1. Cohen's book was seriously challenged by the publication of Karoline Leach's 'In the Shadow of the Dreamchild'. We Carrollians have been waiting for five years now for Cohen to update his book in response. He needs to do so.

   Is he going to rebut Leach's claims that the whole in-love-with-Alice-story is a myth? What is his response to the amazing discovery of the 'cut pages in diary' document? What does he say to Leach's claims that Dodgson befriended numerous adult women and was probably sexually normal?

   I for one and many like me are very keen to know where this debate is going. Mr Cohen has promised a reply 'soon'. But when is 'soon?'

   We need an updated version of this book. Until then I have to give the book just two stars, though I'd like to give more.




2. The only real negative about this beautiful and compassionate portrait is the fact that there is some newer information that conflicts with some of what is present in this book. Another edition of the book to address these issues would be welcome, but that doesn't mean this book is obsolete! It is still a very interesting and well-written account of the life of C. L. Dodgson, the man who would become better known as Lewis Carroll, and this book shouldn't go overlooked. If you are only mildly interested (or perhaps not very much at all) in the subject, you will likely find that this book is capable of holding your attention until the end. An excellent starting point for budding Carrollians, but less an excellent *ending*.



3. This book seems dated now and we need a new edition as another reviewer has said. The commentary on Alice Liddell needs to be updated following Leach's work. Some of the claims he makes have been shown to be based on dubious data or to be mistaken, and he needs to modify his text to take account of that. But in many other ways this book is indispensible.



4. Lewis Carroll: A biography
   
   Morton Cohen's biography of Charles Dodson ("Lewis Carroll") is an insightful examination of a complex and flawed man. Dodson (1832-1898) was an English clergyman, mathematician, writer and photographer. He is better known to us as the author of "Alice and Wonderland." A prolific correspondent, Dodson wrote thousands of letters and kept extensive diaries, many of which are included in Cohen's book. But there are several gaps in the narrative: his diaries from 1858-1862 are missing, and many pages have been excised with a razor from the remaining ones.
   Dodson apparently was a man whose conscience bothered him; his diaries contain countless references to "impure thoughts" and temptations, which might be traced to his inordinate fondness for pre-pubescent girls.
   Dodson made no secret of his affection for children, spending hours in their company, buying them gifts, and photographing them "au naturel." Cohen writes: "ever in the company of children as he grew, he became accustomed not only to their presence but also to their childish ways. In time, perhaps through a combination of biological, spiritual, and psychological forces, this interest developed into a need, an essential component of his own happiness." But this affection, which in today's world would be ascribed to nascent pedophilia, was apparently chaste and innocent. Whatever its origin, it made for memorable literature. "Alice" stands as a monument to the Victorian idealization of the child and to the imagination of one man.



5. I am not going to review Morton's biography as it has been acclaimed for many years since it's publication.
   What caused me to comment here is the statements by some readers that Cohen's book should be updated due to "new evidence" by Karoline Leach that Carroll was not in love with Alice, but her governess. She further states that the Carroll was not as attracted to children as one is led to believe and the whole "little girl" thing is a myth!
   
   I will not comment in great length about this since I am not reviewing HER book, but I feel I must make a few points.
   
   Nothing in the diary page that Ms. Leach quotes from proves anything, and is greatly taken out of context. She totally ignores more obvious evidence to the contrary.
   
   While many people in Oxford thought Carroll's attentions to be for the governess, this was understandable because to think of a grown Oxford don in love with the Dean's daughter was more far fetched.
   
   However, Mrs. Liddell and Carroll himself didn't think so....
   Not only did Carroll in his later diaries admit to a long talk with Alice's' mother after her marriage, where he admits to his "foolish" ways (toward Alice) in the past, his estrangement from the Deanery. During that talk, Mrs. Liddell forgives him. (note: that with Alice's marriage, she didn't view Carroll as the "threat" he once was)
   
   Ina, Alice's sister in letters to Alice before her death , mentions that she always thought Dodgson was in love with her sister, and when Alice denies this, Ina points out the many times she had been sitting inappropriately on Dodgson's lap and alludes to other incidents.
   
   Then, there is the letter to Carroll's uncle, where he is upset at the news that his brother wants to marry 14 year old Alice Jane Donkin.
   Carroll alludes to the similar problems he himself had gone through with "AL"..now..who could THAT be??
   
   And why DID Alice's mother burn all of Carroll's letter to her daughter?
   
   Because of his love for the governess?
   
   I think not.
   
   While it is certain that Dodgson was not the shy recluse, and had many adult friends including women, and did remain loyal to his girl friends even after they grew up.... a man who spent his time, money, and most of his life devoted to his child-friends is clearly not using it as a smoke screen to meet adult women.
   
   If anyone still has doubts about Carroll's love and devotion to Alice, one just has to re-read the framing poems of the two Alice books again.
   
   In Through the Looking Glass, published a few years after his falling out with the Liddell family, he wrote:
   "Still she haunts me phantom wise, Alice moving under skys..never seen by waking eyes...
   
   Yeah, he was in love with the governess all right!!!!
   
   Read Morton Cohen's book if you seek the truth, as much as we can know, about Lewis Carroll.

No comments about The Life and Times of Sir Thomas Malory (Arthurian Studies).

No comments about Boudica Britannia.

5 comments about Bad Blood: A Memoir.

1. The story of an unexceptional childhood - mild neglect, some poverty and a very filthy home - neither sordid nor tragic nor eventful enough to be compelling reading. Especially for a person raised in India the dysfunctionality level of childhood/family seems average. The only redeeming feature is Lorna Sage's writing style. Witty and insightful. Normally this should raise a book to atleast 3 and a half stars but somehow this one does not quite make it past "interesting enough to read when there's nothing better to do". To use review cliches since they work so well in describing a book, it is readable but far short of unputdownable.



2. Holy moly! You wanna talk about a dysfunctional family? Here it is. It's during the years of WWII. The author's father is off fighting for God and country, and her mother is having a delayed adolescence, so author Lorna Sage is shipped to her grandparents house somewhere in rural England. Her grandparents are weird, weird, weird, but it is their very faults that ultimately make Sage, a well-known and powerful literary critic, into the person she becomes.
   Her grandfather is a debauched, intellectual, furious and infuriating vicar whose idiosyncrasies were seemingly limitless. Her grandmother's rage at her lot in life and the man who was responsible for it (and by extension, ALL men) never once abates - and you almost champion her for her constancy.
   Bad Blood reads as wicked fun with a strongly feminist underlying message. I loved it.



3. I grew up in the same 1950's in England and apart from her randy grandad shared many of the same experiences, feelings and general discomfort with the miserable, narrow social conditions in England. Put another way a perfect breeding ground for the english character of inhibitions, repression of feelings, violence and fear of economic success riddled with Edwardian class distinctions of no value/relevance in the 50's. Jealousy of the American post war success and hide bound by genteel poverty everywhere it was not surprising that England's social scene exploded in the 60's and 70's. I left England for the US many years ago to escape the trapped kingdom of the mind and the pathetic lack of real freedoms, nostalgia is the UK's greatest industry and the more books like this that appear will help people understand that england's "ennui" is not that attractive after all !



4. This finely written memoir of her childhood as an Anglican minister's granddaughter. Today, or recently, [she died in 2001] Sage is an English literary critic and her memoir is both appreciably granular and endowed with a coherent overview. Highly recommended. Won the Whitbread Biography Award.



5. I read through this book in a long afternoon, finding it totally engrossing. The story is about a young girl growing up under the roof of her grandfather, an intellectual vicar who led a double life of sex and booze, and her grandmother, an angry, disappointed anti-intellectual diabetic who lived for the treats of going to movies, candy, and scented soaps. The two detested each other, and their daughter wore herself out and sacrificed her personality to keep the household going in a very marginal way. The daughter had a daughter of her own, the author of this memoir, Lorna Sage. I don't think the point of this story is that her life was a nightmare, though it was hardly happy. It was about how, as humans, we all just keep making messes of our lives, generation after generation, and we all have our own family history and genetics which determine our strengths and our devastating flaws. Lorna inherited her grandfather's "bad blood", along with his use of books to escape both the place he was in (an isolated, wet, postwar depressed backwater), and the mess he was actively making of his life. In the middle of this mess, Lorna used this gift to survive, and even to struggle out of the quagmire by getting an advanced education.

No comments about Pearls of Childhood: The Poignant True Wartime Story of a Young Girl Growing Up in an Adopted Land.

No comments about Verona illustrata: Parte 2. Tomo 3. Contiene l\'istoria letteraria o sia la notizia degli scrittori veronesi.

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

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



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



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



4. This book describes the life of Boudica and times and the context in which the Iceni Warrior-Queen lived.
   It tells of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, something about pre-Roman Britain, of Julius Ceasar's invasion of Britain, the conquest of Britain a century later by Claudius, and of the Druids
   around which British life centered in pre-Roman times and were ruthlessly stamped out by the Romans.
   Interesting insight in human sacrifices by the Druids as well as their use of hallucinogenic drugs such as hallucinogenic mushrooms.
   The book gives us an insight into the sheer brutality of the Roman Empire, destroying entire nations and seizing lands at will.
   In retaliation for an assault on his men by German tribesman, Julius Casar ordered one of the biggest slaughters of his career.
   
   However the book centers around the Roman coquest of Britain and how the British tribes were subdued.
   It is important to note that prior to the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain centuries later, there never was an identity among Britons as a nation.
   They identified according to the various tribes to which they belonged, which essentially formed confederations in different regions of today's England.
   The Iceni were a client tribe of Rome, and their lands stretched across most of what is now East Anglia, covering today's Norfolk, north Suffolk, and north-east Cambridgeshire.
   Boudica's husband, Prasutagus, was the king of Iceni.
   when Prasutagus died his attempts to preserve his line were ignored and his kingdom was annexed as if it had been conquered. Lands and property were confiscated and nobles treated like slaves. According to Tacitus, Boudica was flogged and her young daughters brutally raped. Boudica launched a rebellion of the Iceni, and although ultimately defeated, she sacked the towns of what are today Colchester (Camulodunum), London (Londinium) and St Albans (Verulamium) ruthlessly destroying these towns and rooting the Roman masters of Britain.
   
   The rest of the book traces the legend of Boudica as it developed thorugh the ages in England, both as a central component of British (or more accurately English national identity) as well as the symbol or by-word of a
   strong women She was an inspiration for Queen Elizabeth I when she rallied the English people to resist the invasion by the British Empire and centuries later for the suffragette movement.
   It is also worth noting here a large moral difference between the suffragettes and most of today's radicals.
   When the First World War broke out, the Sufragettes suspended their campaign for women's suffrage and threw their energies into the war effort against Germany.
   Compare this toi the moral turpitude of most of today's radical left in the USA and Britain, who are openly siding with Islamic terrorist movements and terrorists states, int he West's battle for survival against Islamo-Nazism.
   Among the Leftist allies of the Islamists are included many radical feminists who are oblivious to the fact that in Islamist states such as Iran, and the Palestinian Entity, women have no human rights at all.
   Perhaps the strugle of these movements for social change in their own countries would have had more legitimacy has they not sided with the murderers and tyrants.
   Boudica was in the 1980s often compared to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
   The book also details Boudica's role in popular culture through the centuries, including the books, plays and movies about her.
   Sculptures of Boudica encapsulate the different roles the Iceni Queen may have played.
   A 1902 statue by Thomas Thornycroft, erected 1902 at Westminster Bridge, London, depicts Boudica armed with a lance riding a scythed chariot carried by rearing horses.
   At Cardiff city hall one can see a very maternal depiction of Boudica with her two beautiful daughters in an exquisite work by James Harvard Thomas unveiled in 1916.
   This book makes for fascinating reading and riveting history.
   It includes much social history and reveals some finds showing the houses and clothes worn by people in Roman Britain such as the leather briefs found in Queen's Street, London, of leather briefs, probably worn by a female acrobat or performer , in Roman ruled Londinium (London).

5 comments about William Pitt the Younger.

1. 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.



2. 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



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. 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".



5. 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.

No comments about Life With The Esquimaux - The Narrative Of Captain Charles Francis Hall - Volume II.

5 comments about Farther Than Any Man: The Rise and Fall of Captain James Cook.

1. If you are a history buff, amature psychologist, or professional traveler, this book is easly trashed. It's inconsistencies, geography and attempts psychoanalysis are sort of sad. That being said, it is a fine book! Read it for what it is - a nice yard about a real individual who greatly influenced our history and use it as a launch for further, mroe indepth studies of a fastinating man and time. I like the author's style. He is actually readable. There is no attempt to come across as a great historical guru who happened to take World History 101 while in college. I get quite sick of "academics" who just hate for their territory to be tromped on, and their freshman following, who after reading one or two history texts, are experts. Certain reading should be for pure pleasure, other reading for serious study - lets not mix them up. Her we have a book that is a pleasure to read, and we can even learn a bit from it - what more could you want? Buy it. Read it and enjoy. He Martin, lets have some more! Don't let the History Grunts get you down!



2. Dugard's slightly fanciful account of Cook's voyages certainly makes for an entertaining read - I read it cover-to-cover on a recent trip to Hawaii.
   
   However, despite the lively, engaging style, it is a bit scant and even sloppy in some areas - particularly the account of Cook's interaction with Australian Aborigines near present day Cooktown and the Easter Island encounter.
   
   That said, I enjoyed it.



3. i have spent my life around cook strait,i give talks on what cook did on his first visit,and mr dugard clearly has no idea of what cook did,every item is incorrect,wrong in all detail and he has clearly never visited the ships cove,queen charlotte sound nor read Beaglehole or cooks log,,the book is the worst i have seen of hundreds written and should not have been published with all the errors in it,it is also trivial even the locations are wrong,,,i have 40years experience of the area and am surprised this book sells



4. What a surprise I found myself reading this book. For years I had wanted to read a biography of Captain Cook. Then I had the great pleasure to read BLUE LATITUDES, BOLDLY GOING WHERE GAPTAIN COOK
   HAS GONE BEFORE (2002) by Tony Horwitz which is in part a biography told via a humorous travel narrative. And then I read the more detailed and dry COOK: The Extraordinary Voyages of Captain James Cook (2003) by Nicholas Thomas which is not so much a biography but a study of all three voyages told from all points of view. Then I came upon Martin Dugard's book which I found a fun, simple, and excellent straight forward biography. Yes, the book is flawed a bit by some psychological guesses about Cook's behavior on his final voyage with no source notes to back up the argument. Yet this is a marvelously entertaining read in similar fashion to my all time favorite page turner about another early discoverer, OVER THE EDGE OF THE WORLD, Magellan's terrifying circumnavigation of the globe (2003) BY Laurence Bergreen. Dugard also did a great job of explaining Cook's patrons in England and how he advanced and won the right to Captain these three voyages of discovery. Should a dare say there is a small biography of the Earl of Sandwich contained in these 287 pages too. I recommend Farther Than Any Man for those who want a short fun good read while learning more about an amazing individual who did indeed go Father than any Man.



5. A well-written, well-researched account of the life and times of Captain James Cook who was not only an outstanding explorer and all-around good man but who also found a way to prevent beri-beri during long months at sea. His detailed charting of New Zealand is still a benchmark of excellence. He left his indelible mark upon the world.