2 Reviews
|
5 star:
|
|
(0) |
|
4 star:
|
|
(2) |
|
3 star:
|
|
(0) |
|
2 star:
|
|
(0) |
|
1 star:
|
|
(0) |
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most Helpful First | Newest First
|
32 of 33 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
When Whigs and Tories really mattered, November 11, 2001
This review is from: History of England [6-Volume Set] (Paperback)
Hume's massive work of English history is available in this economical and well-bound paperback edition. While somewhat out-of-date by the standards of modern academic historians, and prolix at times, Hume's history remains entertaining for contemporary readers, by virtue of the classical elegance of his prose, the scepticism and even-handedness of his judgments, and his sharp thematic focus on the evolution and delineation of powers in the English constitution. Hume's history is clearly a product of the Enlightenment: the only thing he finds more contemptible than the arbitrary powers at times exercised by monarchy and aristocracy is political encroachment by religious zeal and fanaticism. His narrative is most compelling in Volumes 5 and 6, those documenting the convulsions of the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution. These were in fact written first. Volumes 1 and 2 were written last, probably for the sake of completeness, and with a clear sense of pain by Hume, who feels that the primitive societies of ancient and medieval England are least instructive to the civilized reader. Bertrand Russell, in his history of philosophy, jokingly accuses Hume of preferring Scots to Englishmen, and Tories to Whigs, with some injustice. The dismal, intolerant and conceited fanaticism of the lowland Scots Presbyterians is a particular target of Hume's invective and mockery, and the Scots Highlanders (with the Irish) are usually dismissed as barbarians. On the other hand, possibly the only two characters to appear in a heroic light in the entire six volumes are William Wallace ("Braveheart") and James Graham, marquise of Montrose, dashing royalist general of the English Civil War. While he certainly deplores the usurpations of Cromwell, whom he paints with bold, vivid and unflattering strokes, Hume is also clearly in favor of quite limited executive (ie, royal) power, and writes as a man of history, not of party.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
15 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
History for scholars of history and literature, September 8, 2001
This review is from: History of England [6-Volume Set] (Paperback)
First let me note that this edition of Hume's "History" by the Liberty Fund offers excellent value for your money. The six volumes are well-edited and well-printed books for book lovers. For more than a hundred years, Hume's text, first published in the 1750s, was a standard textbook on British history. His diction is elegant, superbly paced and offers delightful reading. However, Hume did not concentrate on exciting descriptions of battles and intrigues, as Macaulay did a century later. He wanted to show that English history had always striven to implement a constitutional monarchy, and so his narrative follows this lead, up to a highly partial depiction of the fates of Charles II and Oliver Cromwell. Hume's liberal ideology made him write a story that stresses the success of parliament. As a philosopher of the Enlightenment, he described the sorry state of the arts and science (elucidated in several ndependent chapters). Thus, his work will give you valuable, if biased insights into the development of the British nation up to the Glorious Revolution in the 1680s. If you read this work carefully, I'm sure you will enjoy it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
|
|
Most Helpful First | Newest First
|
|
|