4 comments about My Life in the Irish Brigade: The Civil War Memoirs of Private William McCarter, 116th Pennsylvania Infantry.

1. The Civil War has always been of great interest to me. Consequently, when I find a book that tells of real-life experiences coming directly from the pen of the man who experienced the things he wrote about, I am automatically interested. Private McCarter wrote candidly of what he witnessed, felt and thought while in the Irish Brigade. His book is easy to understand and evokes vivid mental pictures of the scenes he describes. He seemed to be an educated, good-hearted man who, if he was alive today, I would love to meet.



2. William McCarter was a twenty-one year old Irish immigrant when he enlisted in the 116th Pennsylvania Infantry in August 1862. The unit soon became part of the Second Brigade, First Division, Second Corps, Army of the Potomac, better known as the fabled Irish Brigade and Carter's memoirs, "My Life in the Irish Brigade" has the distinction of being the first full-length memoir published by an enlisted man in the Irish Brigade. McCarter's account covers the brigade from the Seven Day's Battles in which it made its battlefield reputation, to its assault against the Bloody Lane at Antietam, to the charge up Marye's Heights at Fredericksburg where McCarter was gravely wounded and forced to leave the army. Because he was detailed as the personal scribe to General Thomas F. Meagher, commander of the Irish Brigade, McCarter was able to meet and judge the famous generals of the Union Army such as Ambrose Burnside and Winfield Scott Hancock. Kevin E. O'Brien, who has written widely on the Irish Brigade, edits the volume and in addition to his Endnotes he has included several interesting items in the Appendixes, such as the poem "The Irish Dead on Fredericksburg Heights" which was printed in the "Irish-American" in 1863. McCarter's recollections are quite engaging, and his description of the Brigade's actions at the fateful battle of Fredericksburg, where the vast majority of its 1,200 men were killed or wounded, is the best part of the book. If you have more than a passing familiarity with the history of the Irish Brigade, this is an excellent book to give you a unique and fascinating perspective on their glory days during the Civil War. It is also one of the better written memoirs, by enlisted man or general, you will find.



3. William McCarter's book is quite an interesting tale of his involvment as a private for the famous Irish Brigade. McCarter's vivid descriptions of soldier life, marching, camping, facing cold weather, hard living and the Battle of Fredericksburg was very well done. McCarter missed Antietam although his regiment did face the Confederates at the heights of Fredericksburg. McCarter tells such a facinating, informative, sad, happy, yet chilling story at times during his soldier career that it was hard to put this book down. His vivid story of Fredericksburg and how the brigade battled it out, how he was injured and how he escaped death while suffering upon the battlefield was certainly the best part of the book. I wish more soldier accounts were written as well as this one as this book is one of the better books I've read that tells a soldier's story. 5 STARS!



4. Doing research on the Irish Brigade for some writing, This book was just what I needed.

3 comments about Day Michael Collins Was Shot.

1. This book is a quick read that provides good detail of the last days of MIchael Collins' life and the months leading up to his assassination. If you are interested in what he did before he was shot and a theory of his death then you should read this book. The book focuses on the assassination of Collins and the politics surrounding it. It gives great detail of the final day and the attack itself so if that interests you it would be a good book.



2. After reading a number of books on Michael Collins I found this book to be one of the most interesting on the shelves. The author gives a brief background of Collins life, what influenced his views and why he signed the Treaty. As the title suggests this book concentrates mainly on the last days of Michael Collin's life. There is an in-depth look at how he was killed and who fired the fatal shot. Interviews included are with those who took part in the Beal na mBlath ambush. I would highly recommed this book, even to anyone who has a slight interest in Michael Collins.



3. Meda Ryan attempts to tackle a very difficult task: determining who shot Michael Collins on that ill-fated day in 1922. In the book's preface, Ryan shares her reasons for wanting to examine the topic and her research methods in compiling the book. In Part I of the introduction, Ryan provides a short biography of Collins's life from his birth to June 1922. In Part II, she covers the last two months of Collins's life and the marrow of the book begins. Ryan supplies several great pictures and several maps of Béal na mBláth. Her evidence consists of eye-witness accounts, letters, telephone conversations and newspaper clippings.

   Ryan takes us on a rollercoaster of facts and emotions as the story progresses. The basic theories she tackles are: Collins was hit from behind by IRA members headed to Kerry, Collins was hit by a member of his own party by a close range bullet from the armoured car, Collins was hit by a ricocheted bullet, and Collins was hit by a bullet fired by an IRA member. After dissecting the response of the medical examiners, the embalmer, the men who supposedly buried the cap Collins was wearing on the day he was killed, and the testimony of Emmet Dalton, Collins's friend and comrade who was with him that day, Ryan does give a firm conclusion as to who the shooter was. She dispels the theories that Collins was shot by a bullet from a Mauser pistol and that Collins was killed by a ricocheted bullet. So who shot Michael Collins according to Ryan's studies? Read this engrossing book to find out!

5 comments about Richard III: England's Black Legend.

1. This is an entertaining mixture of historical story-telling, scholary gumshoe work, and criticism. No aspect overpowers the book, which makes it an interestingly told history, and a well-shaped argument for Seward's perspective of Richard III's reign.

   Of course, so much of his work in the primary sources leads him to numerous conjectural qualifications. This state of affairs demonstrates why there is so much divergence of opinion on Richard III. However, if both Richard's contemporary subjects and their progeny have such a consistently malignant view of the man's rule, why go to such effort to rehabilitate (revisionize) him? It is obvious Richard's black legend is not solely a product of Tudor propaganda. The man simply did all the heavy lifting on establishing history's view of his reign.

   Seward's book is a good read. It's not a purely speculative, breathless narrative of "Maybe this happened, then that ... probably," but an argued case that approaches all of the sources in the field, primary and modern. This book has the potential to become the definitive history of Richard III and his reign; it simply lacks the appeals to cliched romanticism that surround much work in English history.




2. I got this as a result of seeing Ian McKellen's film version of the Shakespearean play. It left me wanting more History as well as more Drama. I had heard that Shakespeare was essentially writing anti-Richard propaganda, since the man who defeated him, Richmond, went on to become Henry VII grandfather of Queen Elizabeth. But while the truth is no doubt more complicated than the play suggests, Seward convincingly shows that Shakespeare got the essentials right even if he did take a few liberties. He doesn't merely elucidate the character of Richard himself, but of those around him. The Woodvilles, Ann, Catesby, Tyrell, Brackenbury, the Duke of Buckingham and Lord Stanley were all real players in Richard's rise and fall, well known at the time for their victimizations through or their contributions to his tyranny. (Catesby for example was known as the Cat in a popular rhyme of the day.) Seward gives an in depth though not necessarily complete view of the constraints and shared assumptions they were operating under which eventually leads to the characterization of the King himself. It's difficult to tell how much of Richard's tyranny stemmed from the bloodthirstiness of the times he lived in, or if good really triumphed over evil at Bosworth field, and Seward makes no assertions to that effect. But he does throw into sharp relief the flaws that earned Richard his bloody reputation, and they aren't saintly ones. He is also very clear cut about which primary sources he is drawing from, Thomas More, Dominic Mancini and the Croyland Chronicler, how they culled their information, and how he reads them. I'm sure there's a wealth of information on this subject, yet I found this book to be a very satisfying introduction.



3. While Seward makes some convincing arguments and successfully rebuts some Ricardian explanations, he does so in a horribly pretentious manner. He makes the constant claim that Richard was unpopular, which may have been so, but he does not bother to use reliable sources to prove it. He is also guilty of using the words 'obviously' and 'plainly' while not giving the reader any inication why he thinks these things are so obvious and plain. An example of this is found when Seward states, "When speaking of Richard, Commynes uses the word 'proud' more than once. Plainly he employs it in the sense of vain glory or self delusion. Had he known the word 'hubris' he would have used that too." Be that as it may, Seward does not offer any proof as to why he believes the word 'proud' is used to mean self delusion, and his assumption that the writer would have used 'hubris' hints of Seward's own pride and arrogance. This neglect to explain basic charges runs throughout the entire book, which makes it an almost unbearable read to one simply trying to find out the truth, rather than wallow in anti-Ricardian sentiment. Almost all historians of Richard III are guilty of writing from bias, but it is not usually so suffocating as this.



4. Reading this book is a good way to get to know the basic story of Richard III, and the related context of English history in the time of the "War of the Roses." To my mind, the greatest virtue of the book is Seward's recognition of Richard as a prince in the Machiavellian style: a ruthless, conniving tyrant. What is weakest in the book is the author's pronounced psychological naivete: even as he writes of Richard as an alert political strategist, willing to do anything to advance his own cause, the author interprets his attitudes and decisions as if they were being made by someone with average working-class values and education. Overall, though, the story is well-told, with a readable mix of engaging narrative and scholarly history.



5. I have been fascinated by Richard III since I saw on TV , when I was seven years old , the 1955 Laurence Olivier adaptation of the Shakespeare play.
   
   
   In this book , Desmond Seward makes a compelling case for his theory that Richard III of England was indeed a bloodthirsty tyrant who cut down all who got in the way of his Machiavellian ambition , that the traditional view of Richard III (outlined dramtically by Shakespeare) is very near the truth.
   The author believes King Richard to have been the cruellest tyrant to have ever occupied the English throne . Seward gives seemingly incontrovertible evidence that he did indeed murder his young nephews in the tower , shining a new light on the tragedy of these boys. He outlines how Richard almost undoubtedly murdered Henry VI and very possibly Henry's son too.
   His death brought to an end , a nightmare for England , not least for Richard himself , who seward believes to have been highly paranoid , and disturbed by psychotic episodes.
   
   
   Seward re-examines contemporary sources , and also Sir Thomas Mores life of the King , which contained much valubale information that Seward brought to light.
   He gives us a history of events leading up to Richard's seizure of power , after the War of the Roses , analyses of the key power players in the England of the time producing the picture of a 'peculiarly grim young English precursor of Machiavelli's Prince'
   
   Defenders of Richard III have criticized this work , but is undoubdetly a major component in shedding light on the life of Richard III and the England of the times.

4 comments about Race of Angels: The Genesis of U2.

1. This book is an accessible biographical work. It doesn't get bogged down too much in the details which is good for people who have short attention spans (like me).

   I liked it. I've read it a few times.




2. There are only specious connections to U2's music in this book. Don't be fooled by the nice cover.



3. This work aims to trace and muse on the experience of being Irish as reflected in the work of U2. As such, it is not an easy-read band bio, and is written at let's say college level. However, the long interviews, especially of Bono, cover material that is just not found anywhere else; U2's remarks here have an uncensored, just-between-Irishmen feel that is rare.

   The book, as hard as it is to find, is an absolute must-read for anyone interested in U2's Irishness, in their literary/cultural connections, or in their spiritual history -- it's full of amazing insights on all three. Generalist fans of the band should, of course, look elsewhere.




4. This book may only be good to the simple-minded, short attention span folks, as it was a waste of time for me (and I'm not in MENSA). Don't waste your money, give it to the drunk homeless guy instead.

5 comments about Henry VIII (Bibliography & Memoirs).

1. Ridley paints a picture of a King who is as ruthless a tyrant as any 20th Century dictator. Henry VIII is shown as a ruler who forced his ministers to do his bidding and then executed them to satisfy public opinion, once his policies began to loose popular support. He would stop at nothing to get what he wanted, including breaking with the Pope in Rome and reforming the Church in England with him as the head, when the Pope refused to grant him an annulment from his wife, who could not give him a male heir. Thereafter, Henry played Protestant and Catholic factions against each other, so that he could remain in complete control as an arbiter; alternatively burning influential Protestants as heretics and Catholics who refused to recognize him as Supreme head of the Church of England as traitors. Ridley's picture shows us a king who would stop at absolutely nothing to get what he wanted, including turning society and 1000 years of religion completely upside down! A fascinating look at the Stalin of the 1500s!



2. Jasper Ridley's bio of Henry VIII, if nothing else, suggests to me that executioners must have had a steady employment during early 16th-century England. In Ridley's biography, England's formative king is essentially a psychopath, and the country became Protestant, not because of any doctrinal attachment to the Reformation, but as a consequence of political machinations and goals on Henry's part. This, in fact, is one of the book's great strengths; Ridley is rare among biographers in his thorough attention to and excellent summary of the thicket of political events surrounding Tudor England, and this book does an excellent job of explaining these intricacies. Especially fascinating was the depiction of the conflict between Henry and Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. Henry would have probably gotten the papal annulment that he wanted to dissolve his marriage to Katharine of Aragon, if only Charles had not effectively controlled the pope and been such a bitter enemy of Henry's; then Henry would have found no need to break from the Catholic Church, and history would be entirely different! For a Renaissance monarch, Henry seems more to resemble one of the 20th century's bloodthirsty dictators in this book. While the depiction initially surprised me, Ridley backs up his claims with such excellent documentation and use of primary sources (which I was able to check), that he definitely has a point! A fascinating bio.



3. Ridley is brilliant as ever. In his masterly style, he portrays both historic detail and periodic insight in such manner that the reader is captivated from the first page onwards. The ongoing battle with Lady Antonia Frazer's biography is a delight (especially when historical inaccuracies in her biography are condemned to footnotes). A book one cannot put down for a single moment.



4. Yet again, J Ridley takes the reader on a remarkable journey, guiding you through the maze of factual background without ever letting your hand go. His mastery of the English language and notable training as a barrister make him the best narrator of the century.



5. Sometimes appearances can be deceiving. When I first received this book and saw how HUGE it was (and in small print, yet), I thought I was in for a long, tedious and boring read. In other words, the kind of book that you start but it becomes harder and harder to keep reading until you finally give up way before the ending.
   
   To my surprise, this book engrossed my attention from day one and became impossible to put down. Jasper Ridley has done a masterful job of giving us a very detailed biography of one of the most memorable kings in history. Unlike so many other books about Henry, Ridley refuses to monopolize the subject matter with sensationalistic details revolving around Henry's wives. Instead, he concentrates on the much more important religious, political and social aspects of his reign.
   
   I think this book captures the true essence of Henry VIII--a tyrant, selfish, arrogant, and demanding. A person who in almost every instance was able to manipulate people into doing his dirty work for him. An individual who could play tennis with a subject he considered a "friend", such as Thomas More, and then easily have this bosom companion executed without nary a shred of remorse whenever it would serve Henry's advantage to do so. One of Henry's most popular practices was to sail the Thames surrounded by women and fawning courtiers while a former close advisor, friend etc. was being executed. This king was a master of disguise, making it appear that he had little or nothing to do with distasteful events and absenting himself from the controversy at hand.
   
   The author mentions early on that, in effect, while gazing at the famous Holbein portrait of Henry VIII in all his glory, people were mesmerized by the majesty as portrayed in the painting. What they did not notice were the hard, unfeeling and pig-like eyes that were barely visible in the already bloated face. If the eyes indeed are the "windows of the soul", Henry was a very cruel individual indeed.
   
   Although his reign was extremely productive in many ways, such as his interest in solidifying England as a naval power, the most striking aspect is, of course, the religious break with Rome. Here too, Henry waffles back and forth as the winds blow. To say this was an achievement is merely subjective; it began a period of intense religious misunderstandings which resulted in the deaths of untold innocent people who refused to accept this or that form of religious belief and worship. As such, I cannot classify Henry's break with Rome as a positive issue. I am not religious, and therefore perhaps not qualified to judge this. But the results of this action are being felt well into modern times. It is a subjective issue as to whether this extreme action on his part set his country and Europe on the right course.
   
   As initially stated, do not be put off by the size of this book. It will engage your attention and provide a picture of Henry (essentially minus the much touted wife leaping) that probably comes closest to what this famous monarch was actually like.

2 comments about Kings and Queens: A History of British Monarchy.

1. Kings & Queens by Ronald Pearsall is without question one of the most informative and interesting pieces of work on history of any sort, and is so in a brief and entertaining fashion. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in learning about British monarchy. Before I picked it up, I had only a marginal knowledge about the history of the throne, but after reading through the book (and reading about the interesting monarchs again), I feel like I have a very respectable amount of knowledge on the subject. Not only does Pearsall's witty style draw the reader in, but the pictures of each monarch leave as much an imprint on the mind as the text.

   This is a must buy for students of British history.




2. In fact I accidentally stumbled on this book in one of my former university's bookstores as I was thumbing through some books on discount. When I came across this book, which was in that collection, it triggered my memories of my earlier informal learning of British History through the LadyBird history series. When I inquired about that series, a Ladybird representative referred me to a Department that sold either out-of-print books or books that were no longer published. That is when it dawned upon me that the series had probably been discontinued. Nonetheless, this reminded me of the "Ladybird days," of an era when British history was romanticized as being "better" than the history of other societies. However, when I came to read this book, it presented a more realistic picture of British history, whereby you get the impression that British history had similar parallels with other societies in aspects such as despotic rule, lack of respect for civil as well as human rights on the part of its monarchy through the ages as well as the trajectory development and evolution of contemporary Democracy in Britain.
   The main shortcomings in the book include the fact that the author mentions the date of the births of some monarchs, while ignoring others. Another more conspicuous inaccuracy is when he says that Henry V died in 1433, whereas all accounts I have read over the years suggest that he died in 1422. When discussing Edward II, he fails to mention that he was the first Prince of Wales. Aside from such little failings in the book, it is a book that is well illustrated, in addition to offering a less flattering outlook on British history.

5 comments about Eminent Victorians (Penguin Twentieth-Century Classics).

1. Lytton Strachey gives us a revealing look at four prominent Victorian personalities: Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, Florence Nightingale, Dr. Thomas Arnold, and General Charles George Gordon. Personally, I most enjoyed learning more about Florence Nightingale and General "Chinese" Gordon. Manning and Arnold are simply more steeped in their own times and have, perhaps, less to offer to modern readers.
   
   The section on Gordon is the best. It covers the end of his life at Khartoum in a much more interesting fashion than that portrayed by Charlton Heston in the movie. The modern problems in Darfur show that in many ways little has changed there in the last 120 years.
   
   Strachey's style is to get behind the events of his subjects' lives to delve into their psychological motivations, and he is often less than kind to them. He frequently punctures their balloons and exposes their foibles in a very entertaining way.



2. Some of Lytton Strachey's choices of subject for the four scathing biographical essays contained in _Eminent Victorians_ may seem rather strange. Florence Nightingale was an obvious choice for any biographer, but who cared about Matthew Arnold in the post-war era when Strachey was writing these essays? Who gave a thought to Cardinal Manning or Chinese Gordon? And why combine their biographies into one book?
   
   The answer may be that all four shared one unusual character trait, one so reminiscent of the Victorian age that even the thought of it brings the scent of lavender to mind: extreme earnestness. Each figure cared very, very deeply about something, but for each that earnestness also masked a corresponding personal craving. Like many young Britons in the post-WWI era, Strachey was deeply distrustful of earnestness, often seeing it as an excuse for personal gain or fulfillment. This was especially true when one man's deeply held beliefs sent others to their deaths, as it often had during WWI. He had no time for official incompetence, ignorance, or inaction, but often found the opposite just as dangerous.
   
   The first essay in _Eminent Victorians_ is that of Cardinal Manning. Manning was a priest in the Church of England who became involved in the Oxford Movement, a group of churchmen who disliked the increasing secularization of the C of E and who wished to bring it back to its Catholic roots. Most of those involved remained in the Anglican communion, forming the nucleus of the "High Church" movement of the late 19th century. Manning found that he could not stop at that, though; unable to reconcile his belief in a Church Universal with his membership in a church that existed basically because Henry VIII was a serial adulterer, and unable to 'take back' the text of a tract he had written that was deeply critical of the Anglican church and which eliminated any chances of his gaining higher office, Manning found himself eventually in the arms of Rome. Strachey paints Manning as a weak, vacillating, impulsive man of great ambition whose conversion to Roman Catholicism was as much a political and career move as one of the heart and soul. Had Manning remained in the Church of England, Strachey implies, he would have been an archdeacon until death; only conversion to Roman Catholicism allowed him to fulfil his ambitions towards higher office. It's a masterful biography, one that explores not just its purported subject but also the birth of Anglo-Catholicism.
   
   The third essay, of Rugby school headmaster Matthew Arnold, reveals Strachey's hatred of the English public school system (or what we in North America would call the private school system). He skewers Arnold for failing to make the educational reforms he was hired to make and for delegating the discipline of younger students to the senior class, thereby condoning and even encouraging the type of severe bullying that caused many young men to consider suicide. Arnold, whose earnestness in creating 'Christian gentlemen' did not go so far as to allow him to teach them himself, refused to update the school curriculum ostensibly because gentlemen didn't need science, maths, or English literature, but really (as Strachey contends) because Arnold had studied Latin and Greek himself and didn't want to feel his own learning was unnecessary. Strachey points out that Arnold did little at Rugby except pronounce the Sunday sermon, intimidate students, and foster a personality cult that eventually made him the father of modern education in many Britons' eyes - even though he made no changes to the educational system itself. His reforms in discipline and in religion (and his lack of reforms in curriculum) were copied by most public schools, to the great detriment of the British people.
   
   In Strachey's essay on General Gordon, Strachey shows how a brave man with a strong belief in the rightness of his cause and an overwhelming desire for adventure may have been used to precipitate a war and to advance the cause of imperialism. Gordon, a war veteran and former colonial administrator (and a rather unstable fellow), was sent to the Sudan during a revolt to report on conditions there and to evacuate civilians who were loyal to Egypt, which was then controlled by the British. Gordon did none of the above; he instead tried to wipe out the insurrection, and for his troubles was killed and his staff and allies massacred. His death was used by the imperialist factions in the ruling party as a call to arms. Strachey wonders: was this deliberate? Was Gordon given alternate instructions by the imperialists? Did they intend for him to die, so that his death could be used as a rallying point for further imperialism? He argues his point well, and the essay is definitely worth reading.
   
   Strachey's portrait of Florence Nightingale is not quite as successful as the rest. Nightingale was born into a wealthy family, and like all young women of her class and time was expected to marry young, have children, and generally be nothing more than a society lady. Florence wanted more: she wanted to work, to make a difference, to change the world, and she wanted everybody around her to work as hard as she did. After many years of waiting, she finally had her chance; her efforts to reform British military hospitals and eventually the practice of medicine in the Empire did in fact change the world. Strachey seems to have thought that she pushed her colleagues too hard, that her own drive was so abnormal that her friends and family could not keep up. Granted, she did push some of her colleagues very hard, and one may have even died from overwork, but they chose to work with her because they believed in her, and given what she was able to do I think they were right to believe in her. It also appears that Strachey may not have been comfortable with a woman refusing to hide her intelligence or personal strength when dealing with men. I had the distinct impression while reading this essay that Strachey was sneering at those men who took orders from Nightingale or who assisted her in her work. Another reviewer mentioned that Nightingale is portrayed here as a 'pushy woman' - and she certainly is; however, most of Strachey's implied criticism seems to be directed towards the men who treated her as the intelligent, hard-working, valuable human being she was. Strachey also seems to have viewed her invalid status as something of a neurotic problem, which in the light of recent research (showing that she likely had undulant fever) may not be accurate.



3. I just don't see that Strachey made Florence Nightingale and General Gordon look as foolish as he made Cardinal Manning and Thomas Arnold appear in "Eminent Victorians". I suppose that impression comes from having been brought up reading 20th century 'warts-and-all' biographies rather than the 'if-you-can't-say-something-nice-don't-say-it-at-all' biographies of the 19th century. Although Strachey made Manning and especially Arnold seem pretty icky, Nightingale and Gordon come through as pretty admirable human beings -- not perfect (i.e. human) but on the whole admirable.



4. It is difficult to imagine anyone actually reading nineteenth century biographies. If encountered today, say in dusty archives, these works commemorating the dead - typically two thick volumes of "ill-digested masses of material" - are notable for their tediousness, seeming lack of design, and "lamentable lack of selection".
   
   With this book, Eminent Victorians (1918), Lytton Strachey deliberately set out to revitalize biography. His subjects - Cardinal Manning, Florence Nightingale, Dr. Arnold, and General Gordon - were all legends in their time, archetypical Victorians. His incisive style, sense of drama, and subtle irreverence made Eminent Victorians an immediate success, and one that remains fascinating today. Florence Nightingale and perhaps General Gordon have retained some eminence, but Dr. Arnold and Cardinal Manning have faded into the background, at least from the perspective of American readers.
   
   In his introduction Strachey wrote: "That is what I have aimed at in this book - to lay bare the facts of some cases as I understand them, dispassionately, impartially, and without ulterior intentions." Be that as it may, readers will undoubtedly discern some passion, some partiality, and some unstated objectives. Regardless, Eminent Victorians is an enjoyable, entertaining, intellectual adventure that brings life to Victorian biography.
   
   Henry Edward Manning at age thirty-eight was a rising man in the Church of England. He had many powerful connections: he was the brother-in-law of Samuel Wilberforce, who had lately been made a bishop; he was close friend to Mr. Gladstone, who was a cabinet minister; and he was becoming well known in influential circles in London. Within two years Manning - later to become Cardinal Manning - resigned his position and was received into the Roman Catholic Church.
   
   The real Florence Nightingale, not the saintly, self-sacrificing, delicate maiden lady of popular legend, was, according to Strachey, more interesting, but also less agreeable too.
   
   Dr. Thomas Arnold acquired the position of headmastership of Rugby School in August, 1828, and subsequently changed the face of Public School life.
   
   General Gordon is remembered for his death at Khartoum. Strachey's controversial account is great biography. (In the 1966 movie Khartoum, Charlton Heston played the role of General 'Chinese' Gordon.)



5. In 1918, the Victorian Era was the visitable past, but World War I had wrenched the British far from their former frame of mind. According to Michael Holroyd's concise, non-spoiling introduction to the Penguin edition of EMINENT LIVES, author Lytton Strachey belonged to the camp that largely held the Victorians responsible for delivering the younger generation to the horrors of that war. So it is that Strachey, one of the Bloomsbury crowd, felt free to break with the tradition of sober, deifying biography and produce critical profiles of icons of Victorian culture. He went looking for the humans behind the legends of Cardinal Manning, Florence Nightengale, Dr. Thomas Arnold and General Gordon . . . . and found them wanting.
   
   Strachey provides more than enough evidence that his four subjects were driven by ego, ambition and the certainty of moral superiority. Cardinal Manning's story reflects the 19th century religious debate as the Evangelists and Catholics battled for England's soul. Manning followed his mentor Dr. Newman and capitulated to Roman Catholicism, after which he rose to prominence in Rome, helping to ratify church dogma (especially, the infallibility of the Pope), all the while marginalizing his original mentor. Florence Nightengale's achievements are not in doubt, it is how she pushed them through, probably bringing her friend and colleague Sidney Herbert and cousin Arthur Clough to early deaths. The Victorians called her an angel, Strachey thought her a demon. Dr. Arnold was sentimentalized as the headmaster of Rugby in TOM BROWN'S SCHOOL DAYS, but in the long view, he squandered the opportunity to make real educational reform by limiting curriculum to morally instructive classical texts in their original languages. General Gordon brings up the rear, his own ambition and ego the perfect catalyst for igniting the proclivities of Gladstone's government by doing things his imperialistic way in the Sudan, causing untold casualties and getting himself executed (not to mentioned dismembered) in the process. In a way his ending speaks for Strachey's overarching theme: General Gordon, faced with the final rebel attack at his door, did not take the moment left to escape. He used it to change out of his dressing gown and into his proper dress whites.
   
   Strachey trolled public record, personal journals and letter and eye-witness accounts to elucidate his subjects, their thinking and the effect of such. True, he shapes the facts to fit his vision, but all the same, they are facts and rather telling. Sometimes the text is dense with historical detail, but mostly it flows. I found it to be not only a valuable perspective on the Victorian era and the mood of the world in 1918 but a cautionary tale about cultures creating their icons. It is irresistible, and frightening, to draw contemporary parallels.

2 comments about Elizabeth I (Profiles in Power Series).

1. This short book is a good summary of Elizabeth during her reign. It focuses on eight different aspects of her life: the throne, church, nobility, council, court, parliament, military, and her people. It is not very detailed. If you want quick information on the queen, this is the book for you.



2. There are too many biographies of Elizabeth I out there--thankfully this isn't one of them. The author purposely avoided another one, and instead focused on the evaluation of the way the virgin queen used her power. Elizabeth was the last monarch of the Tudor dynasty, and had to rebuild the country after the disastrous reign of Bloody Mary. This book shows how she effectively maintained control of the public, the church, the nobility, the court, the council, and the military, and tells us why Elizabeth was able to hold the throne almost 45 years.

   Again, this is not meant to be a biography, so this book assumes that you already have a basic knowledge of Elizabeth's reign. If not, you'll find yourself lost, but if so, you'll learn all kinds of stuff and find yourself looking at this English queen in a whole new light. If you're a student of Tudor England, this one's for you.

3 comments about An Irish Country Childhood: Memories of a Bygone Age.

1. This is a marvelous little book recounting a childhood in Ireland. It is eminently readable and will transport you to a simpler world for a few hours.



2. Reading this book recently allowed me to discover a worthy successor to Flora Thompson's "Lark Rise to Candleford". Which to my mind stands as the classic textured literary time machine, that allows the reader to taste, touch, hear & smell a bygone era in full measure. Marrie Walsh has created a minor masterpiece with her (first?) book. Not only will those devotees of the country life memoirs find similarities with Thompson, but also touches of Miss Read as well as WB Yeats and Thomas Hardy here. The bitter as well as the sweet with a magical touch of folklife for good measure. Highly recommended. And may we see many more works from Ms Walsh's pen.



3. "Irish storyteller Marrie Walsh pens a memoir rich with the gifts of warmth, magic and wonder, revisting the scenes of her youth, where every neighbor was family, where hermits and bogey men and ghosts were all equally real and frightening, and where time seemed to have stopped for a while." (synopsis by Alibris)
   I love personal accounts of growing up in an earlier generation. This is not the gritty, struggle that was Frank McCourt's experience of a city, depression era childhood. Instead the reader gets the country view of that same period.

No comments about Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother 1900-2002.