For a political biography, THE RAGE OF EDMUND BURKE/ PORTRAIT OF AN AMBIVALENT CONSERVATIVE by Isaac Kramnick goes a long way into the psychology of social breakdown. Burke is remembered mainly as a conservative, old enough at the time of the French revolution to be appalled that anyone thought an attack which left the queen's bedchambers in Versailles full of mayhem and dead bodies could advance civilization. The revolutionary freedom which America is currently attempting to bring to foreign portions of the world by demonstrating air superiority might be considered as deranged as the situations examined in this book, which was published in 1977, when hardly anyone had reason to suppose that the form of freedom offered by American military conquest was similar to the acts of Medea conjured by Edmund Burke into a description of the nature of rebellion in his REFLECTIONS ON THE REVOLUTION IN FRANCE, quoted in this book as an instance in which "Burke might well have sensed the relationship between his own radical streak and his enduring hatred towards his father. Guiltily, however, he recoiled from the bloody horror and emphasized the loving and caring son. The good subject, he insisted,

should approach to the faults of the State as to the wounds of a father, with pious awe and trembling solicitude. By this wise prejudice we are taught to look with horror on those children of their country who are prompt rashly to hack that aged parent in pieces and put him into the kettle of magicians, in hopes that by their poisonous weeds and wild incantations they may regenerate the paternal constitution and renovate their father's life." (p. 64).

Other major figures mentioned in this book include Bedford, James Boswell, Charles James Fox, Warren Hastings, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, Rockingham, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Richard Shackleton, and Mary Wollstonecraft. The beginning of the book emphasizes the role that religious dissenters in England played "in scientific and political innovation." (p. 13). Joseph Priestly, "founder of the modern Unitarian movement," (p. 13) opposed the "Poor Laws, which for the bourgeoisie were one of the most onerous of the old order's interferences with economic liberty." (p. 14). In those exciting times, a mob "burned his laboratory and home in 1791, sending him to finish his days in dissenter's paradise--America." (p. 13).

Freud is mentioned well a few times in this book, showing that it is possible to take a modern view of times that were shaking the foundation of everything that was not America. People who are used to the pampered civilized existence which Americans of today expect others to worship even as they experience extreme forms of chaos might learn a few things that provide a better perspective for understanding Freud than the middle class version of conservatism provides. This book is interesting, if you can stick with it.

This book presents an eyewitness view of the events leading directly to the creation of West Virginia as a separate state. The primary author, Granville Hall, was present at most of the events described in the book, in his capacity as a reporter for a Wheeling newspaper. The book was written from the notes that he took at the conventions called in the early 1860's, first in Richmond, then in Wheeling. The Richmond convention described is the one where the delegates voted to secede from the Union. The Wheeling conventions were first called as the 'true' government of Virginia, then went on to create West Virginia and write the state constitution. Recommended highly to anyone who is interested in this period of West Virginia's history.

You would not believe it - but this book is as captivating as some detective or adventure novel. the difference is that instead of digging for gold or looking for long-lost treasures in some Andes, these people are real people, with real lives, and families and jobs - and they are fighting for an ideal that they all believe in.
It just so happens to that this ideal is not that of love, or honor or dignity or anything of the sort, it is not even that of money being th ultimate good as in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" - it is simply that of not building an Interstate highway in a haphazard manner of not taking into considerations people's homes and ways of existing.
People fight for it just as others were fighting in the French revolution, and that didn't happen in some 17** Paris, but in the late 1960's, here in the United States - in Boston in fact.

After having read a number of Edmund Cooper's other books (namely Kronk and Prisoner of Fire), I had very high hopes for this book. I was intrigued as to what Mr Cooper could add to the fantasy genre to compare with his efforts in the field of sci-fi. The mystery present in so many of his novels is present at the beginning, but this is surpassed by the vision and stylish splendour of the, rather unexpected, ending. While I did not enjoy this book to the extent to which I had the others, this is still a wonderful read.

I had read little Cowley and Waller (but not Oldham at all) until I encountered this Penguin collection edited by Julia Griffin. I admit to even confusing Cowley with Cowper.

Without Julia Griffin's explanatory notes, I doubt that I would have appreciated these lesser known poets. In her introduction Griffin paints a disturbing portrait of seventeenth century England, a country in turmoil and civil war, and she helped me understand how the poetry of Cowley, Waller, and Oldham reflects this complex period of English history.

In looking about for traces of Cowley in anthologies and biographies of poets that I had previously read, I stumbled upon Michael Schmidt's criticism in his massive "Lives of the Poets". Apparently Cowley had the temerity to describe Chaucer as "a dry, old-fashioned wit, not worth reviving". Schmidt pointedly asks, "What is our opinion of Cowley?"

Cowley was obviously wrong about Chaucer and I believe that Schmidt was wrong about Abraham Cowley. Cowley is not a Shakespeare, nor a Milton, nor a Marvell. But Cowley warrants familiarity. His poetry makes good reading, its quality is even, and some lines are memorable. My favorites include Against Fruition, On the Death of Sir Anthony Van Dyck, Drinking and the Grasshopper (both playful translations of Greek poetry), the respectful poem To Mr. Hobbes (the English philosopher), Lot's Wife, the humorous The Country Mouse, and the more serious The Country Life.

The lives of Edmund Waller and Abraham Cowley overlapped, both became embroiled in civil war politics and were exiled to France, were aware of each other's poetry, but apparently were only acquaintances. On occasion Abraham Cowley and Edmund Waller wrote poetry on identical topics - the death of Anthony Van Dyck, poems debating pros and cons of sexual fruition in courtship, tribute to the repairing of Somerset house, and poetry on the pleasure of drinking - thus making direct comparisons easier. I usually preferred Cowley, but I liked both, and enjoyed the opportunity to compare decidedly different approaches.

The third poet, John Oldham, lived in poverty and was unable to find reliable patronage. Griffin argues that Oldham's anger fostered some of his best poetry. I found his unrelenting criticism to be vindictive, harsh, distasteful, and tiring. I never quite finished reading the section on Oldham.

Many anthologies offer useful footnotes, or other explanatory notes, but I have encountered few as complete and interesting as those compiled by Julia Griffin. I developed a habit of first reading Griffin's notes, ranging from a short paragraph to a full page, before engaging a poem by Cowley, Waller, or Oldham. I thereby gained an appreciation for the historical context as well as insight into the imagery, classical references, archaic terms, and topical references.

In summary, I thank Julia Griffin for this interesting anthology of these three English poets that I might not otherwise have encountered. Her historical introduction and excellent explanatory notes are excellent.

I was doing a report and Everest and Hillary and this book was perfect! If you wanna know about Edmund Hillary, a hero, then read this book!

This work is worth the read simply because of the stature of the author. It remains the most comprehensive treatment of the Stamp Act crisis. Morgan's writing is, as always, highly readable. This interpretation disputes the Progressive interpretation that the colonists were acting merely for economic self-interest. Morgan argues that they genuinely believed in the constitutional principles they advocated, and did not simply use them to "get ahead." The writing has an overly Patriotic slant, however, and would have benefitted from information in Lawrence Gipson's "The Coming of the Revolution," which appeared a year after this publication. Students of the era are better served by Morgan's "Birth of the Republic," which covers a broader period and better explains his anti-Progressive thesis. It contains less of the minute detail relating to the crisis, but maintains his argument. I'm a big fan of Morgan's, by the way.

If you seek to learn point of view and dialogue, Hildick is your man. Cut and polished, no fluff. I recommend this work to anyone learning the art of writing.

Edmund Wilson's "To The Finland Station" is a history of communism from Michelet to Lenin. Well that's not exactly correct-this book is many books rolled into one. First it is a history of the idea of a Marxist interpretation of history. Second it is a first-hand account of the efforts by Marx and Engels to start a communist revolution. Third it is a literary criticism of "Das Kapital", the books of Michelet and other writers.

Edmund Wilson was the book reviewer for "The New Yorker" magazine for many years. I picked up this book wanting to read something, anything from the literary critic who many consider the finest since, say, Samuel Johnson. Wilson is famous for, among other things, writing about the literature of the Civil War, "Patriotic Gore", and learning Hebrew so that he could write "The Dead Sea Scrolls". (He must have understood French and German too since he seems to have read Michelet and Marx in the original.) Wilson was also notorious for panning "The Maltese Falcon" and all mystery writing in general. Perhaps his greatest contribution was to revive from obscurity and make famous the writing of F. Scott Fitzgerald, author of "The Great Gatsby", who books had gone out of print.

"To the Finland Station" is a long book that is often difficult to read. The long discussion of Hegel and Dialectical Materialism-while no doubt important to the idea of a Marxist interpretation of history-had me rereading the same paragraphs over and over. Still I don't understand any of it. But the terse nature of this prose and the theories they contain render one of the most startling ideas in the book. Marx says that most shallow readers-I guess he had me in mind-have missed the idea of communism completely. It is not simply the progression from capitalism to a struggle between the proletarian and bourgeois.

Wilson writes that Marx says "To many simple minded persons who have just heard about Marxism, it means something extremely simple: it means that people always act from motives of economic interest and the everything that everything mankind has thought or done is susceptible of being explained in those terms". Yes, that is my precise understanding of Marxism and I learned it in high school.

Until I read this book I did not know that Marx and Engels were not just pointy headed intellectuals working away in the safety of a university. No, they were front-line politicians and revolutionaries who risked their necks and their money to foment revolution. As Wilson points out, Marx used his inherited money to buy weapons for revolutionaries in Belgium. Both were expelled from Belgium, Prussia, France, and Marx finally settled in London. He and Engels spent much of their efforts trying re-ignite the Paris Commune (a French civil war in the 1870's where the communists actually took Paris for a few days) in revolutions in Austria and elsewhere.

It is interesting to note that capitalism and the lack of money caused Marx and his family great suffering. Marx was broke during most of his life in London. He and his family were evicted from their homes even while Mrs. Engles was suckling her child. The child later died. Marx made a little money writing articles for newspapers such as Horace Greeley's New York City newspaper "The World". But he mainly lived off charity from Engles and financial bailouts from Lasalle. Lasalle was another revolutionary. Marx was jealous of any rival to his position as leader of the movement. Engels was jealous of any rival to the affections of Marx.

For me the most interesting character in the book is Jules Michelet. Wilson takes you into his study as he labors away at his great "History of the French Revolution". Michelet was lucky to have been the first historian granted access to the French version of the national archives. (I think he founded the Academie Française?) Michelet today might be best known for popularizing the feats of the young French maiden, Jean D'Arc.

Other extremely interesting sections of the book were descriptions of early efforts to build idealistic communistic communes in the young country, The United States. All of these efforts failed. The most famous were the Brook Farm and others based on the writing of Fourier. (You can read Susan Sontag's "In America" for a description of one such commune.) I did not know that early efforts at communism were launched right here in the USA. Fancy that!

To his credit Edmund Wilson went back into his book years after it's publication and wrote a new introduction. There he derides the evils of Stalinism. While it's conception might have been pure and elegant like some subtle mathematical proof-to the writer Saint Simon communism was even a new religion--it's implementation was bloody and ridiculous. Today most people would agree that it has been totally discredited. But we should all read "To the Finland Station" to understand what all the fuss was about.

This book follows an English woman and her husband's year with a Mexican Circus. She talks about the people, the places, and the tragedies with such great love and fondness. It is a great read, and although I felt it was not always well written and prone to the side of sentimentality that occasionally distracts what is of interest to a reader. I also wished she paid more attention to the minor characters in the book, because each and every one of them seemed to have a story to tell, in fact those minor stories seemed to have more changes, tragedies and secrets to reveal. Instead Hickman concentrated on the powerful, the stars, and the family behind the circus.

Criticisms aside it was a wonderful travelogue and fulfilled a lot of my childhood fantasy of running away with the circus. The characters in the book are real, with their flaws and their good sides exposed. The details of how the circus is put together, the hopes and dreams of the people, the feeling of performance are all encompassed. The book does give you a sense of the great dramas, loves, and loyalties that involve a moving, roaming group of people. I know I used a lot of grand words to describe the book, but it is because circuses are a grand endeavor.