Stuart Books

This is a truly absorbing book, adding substantially to the emerging view of Jacobitism as the `elephant in the room' of British social and political life in the 18th Century. Scholars such as Eveline Cruickshanks, Paul Monod, Linda Colley have shown that English political society had an undercurrent of Jacobitism through this period, which lead to general questioning of the legitimacy of the Hanovarian regime and those who prospered under it. O'Ciardha illustrates the situation in Ireland, a more deeply denominationally fractured society, where the room for Protestant doubt (not to say Jacobitism) was very narrow, given the prevailing, embittered and increasingly disenfranchised Catholic majority. Catholic opinion, of all classes, held faith with the Stuart until at least the 1750s, and while O'Ciardha provides valuable insights into that rare flower, Irish Protestant Jacobitism - Ormonde, Swift, Orrory etc, the book's primary source material describes Irish Catholicism's ultimately futile attachment to the Stuart cause.
In illustrating his topic O'Ciardha draws on a wide variety of documentation, and one of the best features of this book is the wealth of source material. This is a truly magnificent display of scholarship of the era. He charts the evolving reaction of those in political authority in the country over the years -
The English Ministry's attempts to assuage their Continental Catholic allies (Imperial Austria, Bavaria) while at the same time being true to the Glorious Revolution, the Irish Parliaments' attempt to institutionalise the gains made during the defeat of Catholic/Jacobite forces in 1690 and to prevent the accumulation of influence and power by the majority Catholic community.
These conflicting policies and the social tensions among the Irish Protestant community are well illustrated in the text.
O'Ciardha is illuminating also on the influences on the Catholic community - traditionally a voice not heard, being characteristed as being ignorant, leaderless and apathetic. O'Ciardha shows the influence and interaction between the Irish disapora in France and Spain - where large numbers of Irish joined the military with thoughts of a return in conquest - and the society at home. Communication between the two was facilitated by merchants, smugglers and Catholic clergy - the latter being a key Jacobite influence. In describing the Catholic communities views that the key feature of the book is established, O'Ciadhra makes extensive use of Irish poetry to describe the emotional reaction of the Catholic community to the various highs and lows of the Stuart cause. He describes an oral tradition of an otherwise powerless community, in which poets would compose verse in Irish, whose use, among other things, would be to spread news and opinion which otherwise was unavailable to them in their language. O'Ciadhra shows how some poets must have used commentary and reportage on European events available in contemporary English language newspapers as a source for their verse
And this use of poetry brings me to one of my two quibbles with the book, as a product of the Irish Education system I have some mixed memories of Irish poetry. While I was pleasantly surprised to know that `Óro, sé de bheatha bhaile' was composed at the time of Bonny Prince Charlie, I was disturbed to come across Séathrun Céithinn again, once in any particular lifetime being, in my estimate, sufficient to become acquainted with him. The serious point I am trying to make is that I think the poetry is overused and, paradoxically, the social context of the poets is not sufficiently described. There are great swathes of the poetry, in Irish, with paragraphs before and after devoted to its translation. The points could have been made more succinctly. Also while, it is truly a work of great scholarship to find and relate this poetry to the events of the times, the book, in my view, does not establish what effect this had on its audience. Indeed it does not establish who the intended audience was - if Aogán O'Rathaille can be described as the Irish Dryden, who was his patron? Were there a class of Irish Catholic gentry to whom these verses were addressed? And if so what became of them over the years described? Or were these poets destitute ramblers, singing for their supper among the lower orders. It is perhaps impossible to know.
O'Ciardha lays the groundwork that shows the evolution of Irish political thought after the final disillusion with the Stuarts, in the 1750s an emergent Catholic mercantile class began to seek and accommodation with the Hanovarian regime, and there germ of a Catholic Committee which worked within the system, which culiminated in the career of Daniel O'Connell was born. Also the realignment of Catholic views away from Jacobitism, allowed its more radical elements to follow revolutionary, democratic , Jacobin views and to make common cause with radical Protestant Irishmen - which germinated in the United Irishman and the only Irish rebellion of the 18th Century. This is well laid out toward the end of O'Ciardha's work

The other issue I have with the book is its focus on the Irish aspects of the Continental Jacobite court, there is great attention paid to the Catholic piety of James II and III (less so of Bonny Prince Charlie) and the military muscle - such as it was - of the Jacobite court is described as lying within the Irish Brigades resting within the French and Spanish armies., however surely the Jacobite court reflected the attributes of the Three Crowns and was, at various times, under the influence of councillors from each kingdom and reflective of the views of the denominations. The fact that Ireland did not actually rise in rebellion during the years indicated, while explained well by O'Ciardha as not being for want of planning, must surely have been reflected in changing patterns of influence within the exiled Stuart court and community.
These are minor quibbles, and it is a mark of great scholarship that it leaves you wanting to know more about various areas described. This is a fantastic read and I highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in British or Irish politics of the 18th and 19th Centuries

A book that needs to be read by every person who wants to approach rationality.

In The 1930s, This tall Texan, had the number 1 radio program on the West Coast. He married Suzy Hamblen in 1933, she became known and loved nationally on the Stuart Hamblen's Covered Wagon Jubilee program as "My Suzy" Hamblen. During their 55 years together, Suzy helped and stood beside her husband as he continued to stay on top of the popularity charts on the West Coast with his radio programs. He held rodeos and dances in and around the Southern California area. He met and promoted Billy Graham's 1949 Revival Tent meeting in Los Angeles and ran for President of the United States in 1952. Stuart wrote over 300 songs, both Country and Gospel, has several Hall of Fame awards and has his star on Hollywood's Walk of Fame boulevard. He also raced thoroughbred horses and was the first person to put a horse on an airplane. Stuart carved out a dynamic legacy with all of his "firsts", songs, appearances, Hall of Fame awards, etc. He established and was the "CEO" of the family music publishing company, Hamblen Music Co.

"It's not so funny when it's your money" is a great read. The book is an easy read on a subject that is often presented in a dry and trite manner. The integration of personal accounts, humorous quotes, and non-pretentious writing present "real-life" situations that involve not only financial delimnas, but also the human emotions surrounding money. Through a combination of story telling, therapy, and financial advice, the author teaches in a most non-intimidating manner. The book is loaded with short stories (2-5 pages) of people dealing with seeemingly clear financial situations (retirement decisions, purchases of a luxury item); the stories clearly and insightfully portray the various outside (emotional) factors that play such a vital part in the "strictly financial" decisions. The most important lesson to me was that we must recognize the emotional factors that are often disguised in personal financial decisions. Ultimately you will relate to at least a few of the accounts and will have a fresh perspective on money and life. The book got me thinking... that we probably could all use a trusted financial advisor.

We've got all but one of the "It's OK!" books and every time I reread one (which is often - our son loves the books!) I'm more impressed. Tom and Ally seem real because of their insecurities, and seeing them go through nerve-racking situations helps our kids prepare for the real thing in life.
The art is great as well!
I wished the team that made these books would produce some more.
I just got the School book four days ago and our son (2 years, 10 months) has wanted it read to him every night since then.

Professor Yo-Yo AKA "Stuart Crump Jr" of Washington, D.C. area, self-published this book with over 300 basic yoyo tricks. Many of the tricks were sent in by readers of his long-time newsletter, "Yo-Yo Times." Learn many variations of "Around the World," "Walk the Dog," ... and see a cartoon of Paul Kyprie yo-yoing and balancing on a ball at the same time. Learn the trick, "Flying Bagel of Death." There are anecdotes and other fun tidbits like history facts in the book. A good read for any yo-yo enthuseast.

John Stuart Mill, 1806-73, worked for the East India Co. helped run Colonial India from England. Minister of Parliament 1865-68 he served one term. Maiden speech was a disaster his second was great success. He was first MP to propose that women should be given the vote on equal footing with the men who could vote. He got 1/3 support, England gives franchise to women after U.S. He was a great Feminist, his essay "Subjection of Women" is written with great passion and prose. It was a brave position for him to take he was ridiculed for it. He favored democracy, and letting more men from lower classes the right to vote, but believed that people that are more educated should have more votes then less educated because they would make better decisions about what government should do. He would have wanted to extend education to the masses, so that all may have gotten 2-3 votes and so on. He didn't think it should be extended to where a small elite could carry the day on votes. The idea was that if the working class, and middle class, where divided on an issue, the people with more intelligence would have the power to tip the balance. Mill thought that people with more education would probably not only be better able to make political decisions, especially in terms of intellectually being able to see what would be best for the government to do, but that they would also be more concerned about the common good publicly then people in general. He was intensely educated by his father James. John could read Greek, and Latin at 6 yrs.; his Dad tutored him at home. Dad thought environment was everything. He was treated like an adult, never played games with kids; he had a very cerebral upbringing. He had a period of depression in his twenties, it changed his philosophy, and he recognized the importance of developing feelings along with the intellect, this is something that he stressed in his work. He read poetry to get out of depression; he became devoted to poetry and became a romantic. He fell in love with a married woman Harriet Taylor, was a platonic relationship, after her husband's death they married 3 years later and probably never consummated the marriage maybe due to his having syphilis. His dedication to "On Liberty" is to her, very devoted to each other. Both buried together in Avignon France where they used to vacation.

Mill as a moral theorist subscribed to a theory we call Utilitarianism. It means---In some way morality is about the maximization of happiness. Whether actions are right or wrong depends on how happiness can be most effectively maximized. I say in some way, because there are allot of different kinds of Utilitarians. Allot of different ways of saying exactly how it is the maximization of happiness comes into morality. Therefore, happiness is clearly an important idea for Utilitarians. Mill has a hedonistic view of happiness, he thinks that happiness can be defined in terms of "pleasure in the absence of pain." What is distinctive about Mill in this area is that he believes that some kinds of pleasure are better than others are, and add more to a person's happiness than other kinds of pleasures. He believes in what he calls, "higher quality pleasures." These are pleasures, he says, that we get from the exercise of faculties that only human beings happen to have. So the intellect, imagination, the moral feelings, these are the sources of higher quality pleasures people use. His view seems to be that a certain quantity of intellectual pleasure just adds more to your happiness, and a given quantity of some lower pleasure like a kind we would share with the animals such as sensation, taste, sexual pleasure, etc. His "higher quality pleasures" in a way echo Aristotle's ethics. The idea of those things that make us distinctly human that are the real key to our happiness, that is in Mill also. It is not as limited to reason and intellect as Aristotle thinks. Mill recognizes the importance of the appreciation of beauty, aesthetic pleasure, and moral pleasure. He frankly owes a debt to Aristotle that he never properly acknowledges, never gives him proper credit.

"On Liberty" is Mill's is his most widely read and enduring work. It is an indispensable essay on political thought, which strenuously argues for individual liberty. He is defending what he calls the "liberty principle." It is a principle that guarantees individuals quite a bit of personal freedom. "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." These quoted sentences in John Stuart Mill's book, "On Liberty," embody the crux of his argument; that the power of the state must intrude as little as possible on the liberty of its citizenry. In essence, Mill was against using the power of the state through its lawmaking apparatus to compel citizens to conduct themselves in ways that society deems moral or appropriate. Mill thought that people had not only a right, but also a duty to develop their intellectual faculties, which is indispensable to maximize their happiness. He believed that society improved for all its citizens when they where left unfettered to the maximum extent possible, allowing them to use their imagination and intellect to improve themselves. Mill postulates a theory that societies usually institute laws based primarily on "personal preference" of its citizenry instead of established principles. This lack of clarity of opinion often leads to the government frequently interfering in the lives of its citizens unnecessarily. For Mill, there are very few times when the state can infringe on the personal liberty of others. Firstly, the state has the right to promulgate laws that prevent a person's actions from harming others. Secondly, the state must protect those citizens who are not mature enough to protect themselves, such as children. Thirdly, he exempts, "... backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage." In Mill's view, immature societies need a benevolent leader to rule them until they have developed to a point where they, "... have attained the capacity of being guided to their own improvement by conviction or persuasion ..." Mill said this third exemption did not apply to any of the countries in Europe. Mill believed that forced morality by the state on its citizen's liberties was destructive to their inward development, and could even lead to a violent reaction by them against the government.


There are different parts of his defense of this, different arguments that he gives. He has a long chapter on freedom of speech and press. He has some very specific reasons why he thinks those freedoms are important. Always in the background for Mill is the idea of development, and making it possible for more people to enjoy these higher quality pleasures. How do we help people develop their distinctly human faculties, in ways that will help them enjoy their higher quality pleasures? Because for him that is the way, we maximize the total amount of happiness that is enjoyed in the world, and that is the object of morality as far as he is concerned. Utilitarianists believe that maximizing happiness is ultimately, what morality is all about. That does not mean maximizing your own happiness that means maximizing the total amount of happiness that is enjoyed, not only by yourself but also by everybody else as well.

Roger Kimball, in his book "Experiments Against Reality" wrote, "On Liberty" was published in 1859, coincidentally the same year as "On the Origin of Species." Darwin's book has been credited--and blamed--for all manner of moral and religious mischief. But in the long run "On Liberty" may have effected an even greater revolution in sentiment.

I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, and history.

This is a stunning accomplishment. An entire age comes to life in this breathtaking biography of a rather obscure, but vital figure of the early modern period. Rabb's command of the material, and the beauty of his writing, make this essential reading for any history enthusaist.

I read this book for a graduate Mill seminar in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in education, philosophy, political science, and history.

John Stuart Mill, 1806-73, worked for the East India Co. helped run Colonial India from England. Minister of Parliament 1865-68 he served one term.

In John Stuart Mill's autobiography, he tells readers how he benefited and suffered from having one of the most unique educational experiences known to humankind. His father, James Mill, was personally involved in the education of John and his other siblings John was a brilliant student who read Greek by the age of three and Latin at eight years old. By the time he matured to adulthood, he was extremely well read. Thus, John received an academically rigorous education at home; however, it was devoid of any interaction and social contact with other children his own age. In adulthood, he developed very strong views about the advantages that universal education would have on improving people's characters, which would lead to fostering social change for the better. In addition, he held very strong beliefs on reforming university curriculum to improve Britain's intellectual class. Mill summarized many of his ideas on education in 1867 after accepting the position as Rector of the University of St. Andrews. In his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews, one of the points that he made in his speech was the responsibility that universities had in building their student's characters. In large measure, the type of curriculum the university taught to its students would in part shape one's character. More importantly, the proper university curriculum would ultimately provide student's with the tools necessary to continue to learn throughout their lives, critically analyze, and if necessary become agents for change in society. He thought that this goal was best served in two ways. First, he believed immersing students in Western civilization's classical works especially the great works of the Greeks and Romans was an important foundation of knowledge. Secondly, he also believed that reading contemporary works of literature was of paramount importance to develop the human character.

As an intellectual himself, Mill was especially interested in the development of the character of gifted people who had the ability to develop a higher intellect than most of their peers. Mill's writings are replete with advice as to what knowledge he thought was most worth attaining to develop one's character and intellect. Looking at what Mill wrote regarding the proper kind of education the intellectually gifted should receive in a university, is where one can then start to ascertain what side he would support in the canon vs. multicultural debate. Although I will use key passages from his writings to illuminate why Mill would ultimately champion the supporters of an increased multicultural curriculum for universities, I also find there is evidence in his writings that he would insist that student's posses a knowledge base in the canon. As an example, in his essay titled Civilization in 1836, which was written when he was 30 years old, one finds Mill's early and life long penchant for studying the classics of ancient Greece and Rome. "Such is the principle of all academical instruction which aims at forming great minds. Ancient literature would fill a large place in such a course of instruction; because it brings before us the thoughts and actions of many great minds."

I find the influence that the classic Greek cultural had on Mill is most illuminating. Williams found that Mill's experience with the Greeks was largely comprised of his reviews he wrote for his friend, George Grote; on his multi-volume work, Grote's History of Greece, as well as Mill's own translations of several of Plato's dialogues. To say that Mill was enamored with the classical Greeks would be a gross understatement. In a review of Grote's work Mill penned the following about the Greeks. "They were the most remarkable people ever to have existed: in historical literature, oratory, poetry, sculpture, architecture, mathematics, physics, politics, and philosophy they made the indispensable first steps, originating speculation and freedom of thought." Mill's interest in the Greeks was in primarily what they had to contribute to present society in the study of politics and philosophy. He thought the Greeks in these two areas had the most influence both on Western civilization as a whole, and was very useful in character formation in educating both the masses and the intelligentsia. In his review of Grote's works, Mill wrote that, in essence, the Athenian democratic model "afforded the mental tranquility which is also one of the conditions of high intellectual or imaginative achievement." Thus, the Athenian society based on liberty would become the historical foundation that Mill would use to defend his own political as well as philosophical views for the improvement of society.

Some 31 years after writing his essay Civilization, Mill's theories for properly educating citizens and the proper makeup of a university curriculum were brilliantly articulated in his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews in 1867. In this speech, he decried the idea of what universities had become. "Universities are not intended to teach the knowledge required to fit men for some special mode of gaining their livelihood. Their object is not to make skilful lawyers, or physicians, or engineers, but capable and cultivated human beings." He understood that only people with a well grounded education in liberal arts could become the intellectual nucleus that was ultimately necessary to lead and improve society.

Mill's book On Liberty makes his most passionate argument for fostering a pluralistic society. In essence, he articulated the argument that people needed to have more freedom than they had to develop their characters. Mill's concern was that if a majority of people in society were invested with unlimited power they could tyrannize the minority. Although On Liberty is a major treatise of political philosophy, it is also recognized more generally as a work of social philosophy--more so than any other work by Mill. It is not just about what kind of government we should have and how it should behave, but also more importantly, it is about what kind of society we should have and how we aught to live together.

Mill makes a cogent argument in chapter two of On Liberty that really gets to the essence of his arguments. In the chapter, he questions whether society should censor new doctrines simply because they do not conform to its current norms or beliefs. He says that essentially there are three things that may be true of new doctrines when they are proposed. 1) The doctrine might be true; 2) it might be false; and 3) it might be partially true. Mill provides a variety of reasons why the censorship of new doctrines is a bad idea. He believed that most doctrines contain only partial truths but not the whole truth. As an example, when he examined the history of religion he found this to be the case. Although he saw most laudable teachings in Christianity he thought that Judaism and the Koran also had laudable teachings for humankind that were not found in the New Testament. Thus, for the betterment of humankind he believed the best teachings of all three religions should be combined. I believe Mill's real genius as an intellectual was depicted by his impressive ability to find the little kernels of truth in other people's doctrines and synthesize them. Mill postulated that there were few original thinkers in history, and that most ideas that members of society adopt are really the best bits and pieces of a larger doctrine.

This is a wonderful book. And a great help to those trying to break open Joyce's Ulysses. A wonderful education almost by itself.