Irish Books

Simply put, I agree with the other reviewers, in that this is a readable, good introduction to the history of England. The author did seem to have made certain assumptions about the reader's familiarity with the geography of England, i.e. place names, etc. There were a few maps that shed quite a bit of light on the location of places and peoples, but I had to search them out. A few more maps, and descriptive maps that illustrated the movement of troops, tribes or progression of battles would have added so much to this book. A good companion, from the Roman history point of view, is the Penguin Illustrated Atlas of Ancient Rome, which covers Caesar's and later Rome's experiences in England.

Blair is an expert in his field and covers the material of Roman Britian and Anglo-Saxon England very well. For an area of history that relatively little is known about, Blair creates a clear and full picture of life and politics of this time. Writing this book after Blair was already established in his field, "Roman Britian and Anglo-Saxon England, 55 BC to 871 AD", is easy to follow. However, a general understanding or rudementary backround of the subject is helpful. Blair is quick to state the ambiquity of the sources and evidence surviving from the time period which only increases his repute as an accomplished historian. This book is highly recommended for anyone wishing to take a serious look at Roman Britian and Anglo-Saxon England with the security of knowing it is from a trusted source.

In the first chapter of this excellent history, Blair spends 30 pages discussing the sources for this 900 year span of time. This alone would make "Roman Britain and Early England" one of the best books on this period. The discussion is lucid and illuminating, and goes some way to dispelling the "Dark Ages" label which implies that Saxon Britain was home to little more than shaggy barbarians. Blair points out, for example, that the fifth and sixth centuries have more written sources than the second and third, under Roman Britain. But the main value of this chapter is that it clarifies just what the limitations on our understanding of this history are -- the sources are, for example, overwhelmingly Christian.

The rest of the book falls fairly neatly into two halves. The first half covers Roman Britain. There are three chapters giving the chronological events from Julius Caesar to the outbreak of war in 367, when the Picts, Scots and Saxons launched a major attack on Roman Britain. The next three chapters step back to take a look at life in the Roman towns and countryside, and at what we know of Roman religious practices. The second half picks up the chronological story from the restoration of the borders of Roman Britain by Theodosius in 370, through the abandonment of Britain by Rome in 410, to the convulsions with the Saxons. Four of these chapters take us to the succession of Alfred in 871, and then two final chapters review the religious conversion of the Anglo-Saxons and the nature of life in Saxon times.

Blair is a thoughtful and interesting writer. He takes the time to review points of controversy or debate, giving his own opinion but citing arguments on both sides. For example, in chapter 7 he gives an interesting discussion of the question of how widespread Christianity was in Roman Britain. He points out that Christianity did not demand the manufacture of cult objects that could be conclusively associated with Christian worship, as did many other cults, and that this has distorted the archaeological record.

There are adequate maps, but the period depends so strongly on local geography that it would be wise to read this with an atlas to hand. I had heard of the Weald, for example, but didn't know exactly where it was located or how it might be a barrier to the expansion of a kingdom. Constant references to England's major (and minor) towns of the period will also slow you down if you don't know English geography fairly well -- the map shows places important in the past, but less so now, such as Silchester, but it can't show every river -- I had to look up several, such as the Nene.

Overall, this is definitely the best summary history of this period I've read. Strongly recommended.

Peter Blair provides an understandable account of early England during the Roman occupation and subsequent Anglo-Saxon era. Early in the book Blair makes it clear historical written information about this period is quite limited, particularly after the Roman occupation. However, with sources such as Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and poems such as Beowulf, Blair paints a fairly detailed picture of England from 55 BC to AD 871. I found the book to be quite readable even for someone with limited prior knowledge of the period.

I have read this book in Chinese, and then I decide to get the English press to be my treature. It is very elegant and powerful, describing the history and making elegant, deep interpretation. I consider that it has better than the classic discourse "The Mirror and the Lamp" wrote by M. H. Abrams. The analysis and result from this book is a very important step forward to a splendid literary world.

There are books I try more than usual to have my own copy of. And this is one of them. A brilliant look into the world of English Romanticism. This is not just a literary sketch of the age and its spirit. As the title suggests, it's also about social interaction with the backdrop of the French Revolution. As Butler sees it, Edmund Burke's "Reflections" was "a polemic against intellectuals". And perhaps, Coleridge traveled to Germany to avoid conscription. The rise of German Romantik could have been caused by the social Angst especially among the young adults who ended up jobless in the wake of economic malaise... Butler's grip on all these details is so enticing you simply want to follow her until you see "The End." I have to make it known that this is no page-turner for everyone(despite the rolling but crisp, subtle but lucid sentences) but recommendably for those who have interest in how the period shaped the Romantic ideas and how the poets and novelists were all distinctively and creatively responsive. Still, it can also be read as a great introduction to the social and literary topography of the English Romanticism.

A fascinating book! A must read for anyone that is interested in literary research of the period, or someone interested in learning more about their favorite author. An interesting book to just read on its own as well, since it covers a wide range of ideas and authors. Marilyn Butler's book is a must for the library of any student of literature.

Marilyn Butler is at least as great a literary historian as Ann Douglas, and that means as great as it gets. This book is... well, I do not say an object lesson in writing history, for it is inimitable. Dr.Butler's mind is vast: she can be just and sympathetic both to the stern Toryism of Jane Austen and to the extreme progressivism of Blake or Godwin. Her eye for the peculiarities of a period - even a period that lasted, perhaps, only a few months - is flawless. Her learning is enormous, yet worn lightly; like her Oxford predecessor C.S.Lewis, she can be said to have "read everything, and understood what [she] read". And because her knowledge is so broad, embracing political and social history on both Britain and the continent, she is able to indulge in the wholesale slaughter of sacred cows without being in the least affected, self-indulgent, or attention-seeking. It is simply her sacrifice to the truth. Dr.Butler on the real intellectual origins and significance of Wordsworth, for instance, is a marvellous liberation from generations of nonsense; as soon as one reads her analysis of his derivation from a specific and identifiable strand of eighteenth-century writing, one becomes conscious that this is the truth. And her style is worthy of her content: plain, profound, readable, with not one sentence in the whole book that does not advance the argument or shed further light. Dr.Butler is an Oxford Don, and this is the Oxford manner at its best - clear, unpretentious, comprehensive. This is a fabulously good book, that takes its place alongside Lewis' OXFORD HISTORY OF SIXTEENTH-CENTURY LITERATURE, Auerbach's MIMESIS, Ann Douglas' TERRIBLE HONESTY and THE FEMINIZATION OF AMERICAN CULTURE as one of the finest pieces of literary history I have ever read.

The Scottish-Irish Pub and Hearth Cookbook is probably the easiest cookbook I've ever tested and reviewed. My family has gotten used to my cooking experiments. They always know when I have a new cookbook. Everyday for a week or two, I'll spend hours cooking up a storm. Then, they'll tentatively try the dishes and give me their verdict on whether I should make it again sometime.

With The Scottish-Irish Pub and Hearth Cookbook, I completely confused my family. I cooked and they tried the dishes but the majority of the meals, snacks, and desserts were already familiar to them. They were my old standbys many of which I learned by watching my mother and grandmother cook. I even found a few dishes that I remember enjoying as a kid but couldn't find a way to replicate. Now I have the recipes and I can pass them onto my children and grandchildren.

`The Scottish-Irish Pub and Hearth Cookbook' by Scottish / American culinary writer, Kay Shaw Nelson is another cookbook offering by the relatively low-priced, low profile publisher, Hippocrene Books, Inc. which has a large selection of cookbooks about many of the lesser world cuisines in `The Hippocrene Cookbook Library' as well as several books on Scottish and Irish subjects.

I have reviewed a few of these Hippocrene Books and compared to those offerings, this volume is superior to most, although it may not be the very best source for traditional Irish or Scottish recipes. On the other hand, I especially like this book for the fact that it seems to have very good versions of many recipes that may be so common that many flashier cookbooks may not even deign to cover them. My favorite here is the recipe for Scotch eggs, which recently came to fame as a dish prepared on `Iron Chef America' by the `Too Hot Tamales' (Mary Sue Milliken and Susan Feniger) in a battle against Bobby Flay. The recipe made such an impression that while I remember it, I don't remember the secret ingredient or who won the battle.

I also like the fact that there is a much greater similarity between the two Celtic culinary cultures of Scotland and Ireland than there is between, for example the modern cuisines of Spain and Portugal, which some have lumped together. The biggest difference between the two may be the time at which each was influenced by contact with the French. For the Scottish, during the era of Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots, when Scotland and France were active allies against Protestant England. For the Irish, it seems to be much later, beginning in the early 20th century, when Ireland first became independent, and preferred to trade with France than their former colonial masters, England.

While every culinary tradition on earth seems to make a case that they are more congenial entertainers and friends of travelers than anyone else, the Irish can document the fact that not only do they really enjoy a good gathering over beer or spirits, there were actually LAWS passed, the Brehon laws of the Gaelic Celts of the 5th century AD, enforcing hospitality toward strangers and travelers.

The chapters in this book are a great reflection of what is important to these Celtic cuisines:

Starters, including meatballs, lots of oysters and prawns, and the famous Scotch eggs. I'm surprised to find a perfect recipe of the shrimp cocktail, which may have come to these shores from Scotland or Ireland instead of the more easily suspected French.
Soups, especially featuring leeks, which seem to be a native and not a French import. The most famous, of course, is Scotch broth, which is heavy with lamb and barley.
Egg and Cheese Dishes, featuring many dishes from the famous Scottish and Irish breakfasts, including that mysteriously named cheese dish, Scotch Rabbit.
Barley, Oats, and Cornmeal with lots of porridges and cold cereals, such as Muesli.
Seafood, including lots of finny animals from freshwater lakes and streams such as salmon and trout. The most famous recipe here may be kedgeree, a rice, fish, and egg casserole. I just wonder exactly how old this recipe actually is, as two important flavorings are Worcestershire sauce and curry powder, two very British ingredients which may be not much more than 150 years in the British Isles.
Poultry and Game recipes look suspiciously like recipes from southwest France (See Paula Wolfert's great study of recipes from this region). This may either be primordial Celtic influence from Europe or later emigration from Protestant France to the British Isles.
Meats includes a lot of beef as in corned beef and cabbage, corned beef hash, and beef tartare, plus lots of lamb dishes and, oddly enough, several hamburger recipes. Makes me think our favorite meaty fast food came from Ireland rather than northern Germany, as its name suggests.
Vegetables is lots of mashed potatoes and what to do with mashed potatoes the day after. It also shows that the Gaelic cuisine is one of the very few outside Japan that features seaweed.
Bread, especially quickbread based scones and soda bread, which don't use yeast, plus boxty, that famous refuge of day-old mashed potatoes.
Cakes and Cookies, oddly, is separated from desserts, possibly because these are recipes for things served at tea and not after a late supper. The highlight is oatmeal cookies and Scottish shortbread.
Desserts features lots of apples, pears, and berries, especially the classic blackberry fool
Drinks, of course.

As a source of both culinary lore and classic recipes, this may be the best available book I have seen on Scotch / Irish comfort food. It may not be quite as good as `Irish Traditional Cooking' by leading Irish cooking school owner, Darina Allen, which the author recognizes as one of the leading authorities on Irish culinary practice, but for a nice little inexpensive package, this book is very, very good. For more information on the intertwining of culinary lore and ancient Celtic celebrations, see `Celtic Folklore Cooking' by culinary writer and folklorist, JoAnne Asala.

This book is easy, warm, and satisfying. Reminds me of home with family, freinds, good food and good conversations. If you like good "pub" feel, buy the book.

The recipes are great! I've done extensive research on Celtic dining and spoken to many a Scottish friends that grew up with the old Celtic Traditions and they agreed this cookbook is great! So far, the recipes i have tried have been outstanding! If you're looking for authentic recipes and enjoy great food... try this cookbook out!

For years I have been watching Seamus Heaney in interviews and wondered to myself, where does all this come from? Not a poet myself, I just intuitively felt there was much more to learn from him than I was grasping. Reading this book opened entirely new avenues of understanding for me, and Ms. Moloney obviously cares deeply for the man's work. Highly recommended!!

I have never read a book of literary criticism cover to cover before, but I found Moloney's book very readable and compelling, even. I had an interest in Ireland's history and in its relationship with England before I began, and I have always enjoyed Arthurian legend. This book correlated with much of what I knew already, filled in gaps I didn't know were there, opened up new ideas, and has sparked my desire to go further in my studies in this area. I am also a new fan of Seamus Heaney's work. I look forward to other publications by Moloney. I loved the discussion on Patricia Coughlan's ideas and wonder if there will be any response from the feminist camp.

Significant works of scholarship have a value that goes beyond research. This is such a book. Professor Moloney's thorough study of Heaney's place among Irish poets and within the Irish mythic tradition actually casts a wider net that includes all of us, embedded as we are in our conflicted sexes and societies, Irish or not. As Ms. Moloney, meticulously shows, Heaney and most other significant Irish poets have been struggling for centuries to come resolve or come to terms with a deep disconnect in the Irish past, as symbolized by the "Feis of Tara," a myth in various forms in which a hag-like mother-fertility figure must be accepted and embraced (sexually) in order to be transformed into a beautiful emblem of hope and fertility that renews a wasted land (country, Ireland). Professor Moloney's work suggests--by extention--that all of us, not just the Irish poets and people--suffer from some kind of similar disconnect and contradition, particularly in our sexual identities, and--by a further extention--in our respective political and historical contexts, regardless of what country we reside in. In short, we too are cut off--from our past, from ourselves, and from members of the opposite sex especially. We all need a reconciliation that will only come if we "effectively conquer" our "fear of the feminine," and achieve "the humility vitally required in our interaction with each other." Heaney's work, and the work of other Irish poets, is central to this imperative, healing objective--which must be achieved if the whole world is not to degenerate into something like the Irish "troubles" (i.e. Civil War) that forms the context within which Heaney is working, particularly. The solution is embodied in Heaney's quest to understand, accept, and then transcend the cultural mythology he inherited as an Ulster poet, conflicted from birth by Ireland's particular and violent disconnect. According to Moloney, Heaney "is linked utterly to his Irish past even as he argues memorably for a world beyond the post-colonial" (and post-patriarchal, if truth be told). Simply put, "it is kindness, after all" that "transforms" us, that frees us from the curses inherent in our cultural inheritances. As another Irish poet, John Montague, puts it, we need to move "beyond male condescension" and "feminist reaction," to "love's equal realm." This is why Moloney's book should be read--in addition to the fact that it also provides and introduction and insight into the work of several other significant Irish poets in addition to Heaney. It is a "hopeful" book in more ways than one.

This is the fourth book of literary criticism on Seamus Heaney I've read so far. Moloney manages to say something new about Heaney's mythologem and places it within its context of Irish literature. I would recommend Moloney's work over the others I've read so far.

Reading any of Fr. Andrew Greeley's mini-sagas are always enjoyable if not downright addictive. I always buy at least one of the single ones and try to get the others so I can read them in order, but the wonderful part - each of the single books can stand on it's own, without having to have the entire series, but I recommend having the entire series for the 'feel' of how the saga plays out. Fr. Greeley's non-fiction books are excellent also. I've checked out mentioned 'true' statements and they are right on the money. The only one of Fr. Greeley's books I just couldn't seem to like was his autobiography - "Confessions of a Parish Priest". No reason I can think of, tho, perhaps getting so up close & personal with him isn't my cup 'o tea. Mountain Mama

It is a lovely book. I enjoy all the references to characters from other novels, it's like visiting friends. I also like it when Fr. Greeley uses his experiences as part of the story.

I enjoyed the historical aspects and insights, both secular and those about the Catholic Church.

But I especially enjoy Rosemary and Chucky's love story. It is fun and touching.

patricia

Revisiting the crazy O'Malley clan he recently created, Father Greeley tells us the story of Chuck and his beloved Rosemaire and the events that they were part of in the last years of the seventies.

Chuck has been sent to Vatican city to witness and photograph the election of the new pope. He watches as politics shape the church, then is called to the White House where he meets President Carter and is witness to national crises. However, the national and worldwide events pale compared to the desolation that is in Chuck's heart. A thriving career and beautiful wife just are not enough to satisfy him. Divine intervention alone will restore his joy.

**** Lovingly told, this story will enchant readers familiar with the series, but new readers will most likely be a bit lost. However, new or old, you can not miss or fail to be charmed by Father Greeley's warm writing style that plays out events casually, but still has a profound message. Particularly engaging is the way he has divine figures show up in such a friendly manner.

Happily married to his beloved Rosemarie and father to five adult children and three grandchildren that he adores and loves Charles "Chucky" Cronin still worries about the future. He remains a faithful Catholic, but wonders if perhaps the church abandoned its flock. He contemplates whether he is just suffering from a biological occurrence for someone turning fifty or a reaction to continual racial inequality, assassinations, priestly wrongdoing, Viet Nam and Watergate? Rosemary worries about much of the same agenda, but also is concerned with Chucky, who seems to have lost his step.

Chucky, a professional photographer and former ambassador, soon regains much of his sixties and early seventies fervor that put him at odds with presidents. He and Rosemary try to dislodge a church protected pediophile priest. That fails because Cardinal Archbishop Thomas John O'Neill is psychotic and paranoid especially when it comes to protecting one of his own. Chuck and Rosemary have a cause to remove both abominations even as a personal miracle that has not happened to this couple in two decades occurs.

The sixth O'Malley chronicle is an insightful look at the Carter Administration through the eyes of Chucky and Rosemary, alternating chapters. The story line provides a vivid scrutiny while insuring the lead couple feels complete. Chucky suffers from a mid life crisis as he begins to question all he once believed in while Rosemary encourages him to gracefully continue the fight for what both know is right. Andrew Greeley furnishes a delightful charmer that displays how the late 1970s, only twenty-five years ago, feel today like ancient history even to one who lived through it.

Harriet Klausner

Seamus Heaney won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1995, in large part because of this book. The poetry isn't archaic or highbrow or needing 80 pages of notes to understand. It's written comfortably and easily, about simple things from his childhood and life.

I bought this to take on a trip to Ireland, and it was fantastic reading it while walking the green meadows and rocky coastline. It breathes Irish air. If you have a love for the misty grasses, or simply enjoy rural, quiet life, read through these poems.

The poems talk of birth, and love, and death, of heather bells and boats in docks. Give them a try, and be swept away in their gentle language.

i thought i'd read a irish writer. i couldn't think of a better choice than heaney. the poems here are subtle, but infinitely brilliant. i love the way he uses mythology in some of the pieces, taking references from dante and homer. he draws from his family life, childhood, and his lifelong experiences to create poems that are wondrous in form and content.

Mr. Heaney's titled poem "Seeing Things" takes us to a fishing trip between father and son. It is a calming journey about childhood, youth and the bond between father and son, and poet and audience. I wish that learning to read poetry is as mystical and unassumingly peaceful as learning to fish with one's parent. My wish may be true.

Perhaps this book represents Heaney's finest poetry since 'Field Work.' It contains the magnificent sequence 'Squarings,' and a continuation of his Glanmore sonnets. The craftsmanship impeccable, the voice down-to-earth.

We remember especially his sonnet on Lent in which the poet deals with 'A fasted will marauding through the body,' and the poem "Wheels within Wheels," where a child spins the pedals of an inverted bicycle and notes "The way the space between the hub and rim / Hummed with transparency." Note the unobtrusive assonances, & the exact right words.

In one of the twelve-line poems of 'Squarings', Heaney counsels himself and other poets: 'Do not waver / Into language. Do not waver in it.' In this sequence, it is Heaney's happy accomplishment to have heeded that counsel in an exemplary fashion. Driving through an avenue or tunnel of trees, arching over a quarter-mile stretch of country road, Heaney sees the trees as 'Calligraphic shocks / Bushed and tufted in prevailing winds.' Could Thomas Hardy or Wallace Stevens have done as well?

Talking about it isn't good enough,

But quoting from it at least demonstrates

The virtue of an art that knows its mind.

Yeats lives in the minds of most lovers of great modern poetry through lines of incredible beauty.

"And we will wander hand in hand
Through hollow lands and hilly lands,
And pluck till time and times are done,
The golden apples of the moon,
The silver apples of the sun.

"We must lie down where all the ladders start
In the foul rag- and- bone shop of the heart"

"But one man loved the pilgrim soul in you,
and loved the sorrows of your changing face"

"An aged man is but a paltry thing
a tattered soul upon a stick
unless soul claps its hand and sing..

Yeats believed in much nonsense in his life, and apparently was not the kindest of human beings but he wrote some very great poetry.

I picked up this book of poems as an introduction to Yeats and found it to be wonderful. It contains major works from all of his periods and four plays as well. Highly recommended, for poetry lovers and those with only a passing interest.

In 250 years the mass of pablum we currently pass as literature will be blown away like chaff in the wind.

One of the hard and nourishing kernals left on the threshingroom floor will certainly be Yeats.

These are poems not to be read, but learned by heart.

Among my favorites from this collection (with years of composition) are: "The Stolen Child", "To an Isle in the Water" and "Down by the Salley Gardens" (1889); "The Lake Isle of Innisfree" and "When You Are Old" (1893); "He Wishes for the Cloths of Heaven" (1899); "The Folly of Being Comforted" and "Adam's Curse" (1904); "All Things Can Tempt Me", "Brown Penny" and "To a Child Dancing in the Wind" (1910); and "The Cat and the Moon" and "Two Songs of a Fool" (1919).

During a recent fright when we were escaping our apartment down a ladder, I took two books with me, thinking that perhaps I would need something strong. Happily Yeats's SELECTED POEMS AND FOUR PLAYS was at hand, together with, well, something private. This book, edited by the late M.L. Rosenthal, is an expanded edition of a previous book by Rosenthal that had the same title except it was called, SELECTED POEMS AND TWO PLAYS. This present edition doubles the number of plays it prints in one stroke, adding the very late THE DEATH OF CUCHULAIN as well as the strange, feverish THE WORDS UPON THE WINDOW-PANE. Previously we had only the two plays PURGATORY and CALGARY. Did I say CALGARY? I meant, CALVARY, and neither of them are worth the paper they're printed on. In college my professor used to tell us that Yeats, together with his patron Lady Gregory, invented the Abbey Theater and kept it going by writing plays annually and encouraging their society friends not only to attend but to pledge money in exchange for participation in a community-based theater. However, according to Rosenthal, some of Yeats' plays were distinctly unpopular even with this sudsidized theater and neither the actors nor the audience loved them to death.

As a boy, my dad used to quote Yeats on every occasion and he (Yeats) was a patron saint to many Irishfolk. Today not so much, but as I made my way down the ladder I was glad I had the Yeats book tucked into my pants. He is the epitome of the artist who keeps changing through circumstance, open to new influence, even partial to drugs, for many credit his late flowering to the monkey glands he took in Switzerland to rejuvenate his sex life, the precursor to today's Viagra. In his youth he became a member of a secret band called the Order of the Golden Dawn, and spiritualist interests fueled his poetry and politics both. On his honeymoon he discovered that his wife, Georgie, had mediumistic leanings, and they spent many night holding seances and conversing with the spirits of the dead, all of whom, or so Yeats claimed, had arrived to dispense new metaphors for his poetry. He later wrote up these events in his book A VISION.

Rosenthal was a superb editor who went back and checked all of the original manuscripts and who could distinguish Yeats' handwriting in all its different avatars, and this helped him date the poems to within an inch of their lives. His task was made no easier by Yeats' habit of revision and by his need to provide an income for his sisters, who wound up producing elaborate private, limited printings of much of his work to sell to collectors only at absurdly inflated prices. These books are beautiful but useless, like so many of the romantic Irish flourishes the poet's late work commemorates only to condemn. It is a poetry of questions, which always appeals to young people, those who know the answers. "What's water but the generated soul?" (That one always threw me.) "How can we tell the dancer from the dance?" "Is every modern nation like the tower,/ Half dead at the top?" (Makes you think about our nation, caught up in a senseless war against Iraq.) "Those masterful images because complete/ Grew in pure mind, but out of what began?" "What voice more sweet than hers/ When, young and beautiful,/ She rode to harriers?" Riding to harriers doesn't sound so fabulous now, but we've all got something we look back on and say, everything's been changed, changed utterly.

Greeley, in his typical story-telling fashion, traces an overview of American Society in the 1960s. For those who lived those years, it will bring back memories. For those who are too young, September Song will help understand those who lived it.
As Sociologist and observer of USA and Vatican politics, Greeley reveals his attitudes on the events of the 60s through the eyes of the story's narrator, Mrs. Rosemary O'Malley, a witty upper-middle class, liberal democrat matron. Of course, the story has it melodrama. It is fast moving, and drags in everybody who was anybody during that decade. Through Rosemary and the story of her family, Greeley is able to opine on a variety of events that marked American Society: politics post-JFK, Selma and Dr. King, the Vietnam disaster, the hippies and Woodstock, Vatican II, Humanae Vitae, the Chicago Democratic Convention, the feminist movement... I agree with his evaluation of the US government and Papal authority at that time...
I enjoyed the book. I enjoyed the memories. They clarify one's own story. Worth reading if you are a Greeley fan, and if you are interested in seeing the 1960s in retrospect.

Author/Father Andrew Greeley and the "Crazy O'Malleys" are back, this time getting through the turbulence of the 1960s at home in Chicago and abroad. The fictional family feels real and gives Father Greeley the opportunity to homilize the era. You gotta love a Priest with the moxie (albeit in Rosemarie's voice) to call the Papal Birth Control Encyclical "the damn thing!" p.214

Here is Chucky's memo to LBJ:
"During my recent trip to Vietnam, an American familiar with the situation characterized it as the greatest foul-up [actually that is not what the real quote says, the original is stronger, but I'm going to save this reviewer and the Amazon.com censors some rounds] in American history. I concur with that evaluation. Nothing I have heard in the briefings or in our discussions has caused me to change my mind. We are trapped in a quagmire that we have created for ourselves. At some point when the public realizes how it has been deceived there will be a demand that someone be blamed. I don't believe there will be any point in a search for blame. Every administration since 1945 made decisions which led with a high degree of probability to the present situation. We could have blocked the French when they tried to return to Indochina after the war. We could have refused to support them in their war against the Vietminh. We could have declined to assume responsibility for that part of the world when they left. We might have refused to send more military assistance in the first year of the Kennedy administration. Yet we did none of these things, indeed we barely considered them. Our decisions about Vietnam were as natural and as logical as our decisions about Greece and Turkey immediately after the war and about Korea in 1950. What is done is done." p.192

And the response?
"However, let it be recorded that on the Ides of March in 1968, the Senior Advisers told [LBJ] that the war could not be won. Any continuation of it over a substantial period of time for whatever reason is absolute folly." "As we all know now the war went on for seven more years. More men died in those years than had already died. They died for a cause that the leadership knew was lost. Terrible harm was done to the whole country." p.197

And what did we learn?
"The talking heads on the screen debated whether the "system" had worked.
"We survived `Nam and Watergate," I said. "Of course it worked."
"We would not have had to survive either," Chuck replied, "if it had not been for two assassins."

Well, maybe two conspiracies of assassins.
Amen, Father.

The latest installment in the saga of the Crazy O'Malley's of Chicago is a time capsule from the 1960's and early 1970's. The book begins with Rosemarie and Chucky just after they met with Lyndon Johnson. Chuck had been Ambassador in Germany during JFK's administration, and both he and Rosemarie still mourn the loss of their President and the end of Camelot. The novel explores their liberal democratic politics as well as their connection with the Catholic Church.

They marched at Selma and met with Martin Luther King. They were at the hotel when Bobby Kennedy was shot. They watched with horrid fascination the Kent State riots. They saw the Vietnam War unfolding on the nightly news. They stood by helplessly unable to protect their oldest daughter as she participated in anti-war riots. Chuck went to Vietnam to take photographs. They were beaten by police during a Chicago convention. Chuck continued to chronicle the times through his photographs and was the official portrait photographer of each President. Somehow, the O'Malley's seemed to have a front row seat for the turmoil of the 60's and 70's. No trend or event of the time is left unmentioned, including Vatican II, the feminist movement, hippies, drugs, and Woodstock.

The O'Malley's are known for their ebullience and love of life, with large, joyous family gatherings featuring much singing and dancing, and that side of the clan is seen frequently throughout the novel. Rosemarie and Chucky, who have known each other since childhood, are still deeply in love and are raising a happy family of 5 children. However, the book is at times somber and grave, as befitted the turbulence and civil disobedience of the civil rights movement and the most unpopular war in American history.

The O'Malley's suffer tremendously when their oldest daughter, April, decides to drop out of Harvard and abandon her capitalistic family and find her own way. They also endure the agony of worry when their oldest son goes to Vietnam. Just when it seems that nothing else can go wrong for the O'Malley's, Greeley brings it all together for a satisfying conclusion and sets us up for the next installment which will be eagerly awaited by those of us who are following the trials and tribulations of the O'Malley's.

Greeley creates the Irish-American Forrest Gump in his delectable SEPTEMBER SONG. Chucky Ducky (a squatty, red headed Forrest) and the beautiful Rosemary are raising their five beautiful children as the events of the 1960s unfold and envelope them. Faithful readers will know more of the O'Malley story from A MIDWINTERS TALE, YOUNGER THAN SPRINGTIME and A CHRISTMAS WEDDING - as well as a character from one of my personal favorites, IN SEARCH OF MAGGIE WARD. Greeley delivers on his love of humanity, his deep seated faith (if not always an endorsement of the church) as well as a healthy dose of politics and some absolutely awesome music. This is one of those books that I wish had a CD inside! Before the book is over, the reader has either had a trip down memory lane or a history lesson, and feels a part of the Crazy O'Malley family of amazing women and good hearted men.

Shapiro's book is extremely well-documented and follows the recent trend of scholarship on nationalism and its effects on the "Other." It is a fascinating read that never gets weighed down by its own research. I suspect this may have something to do with Shapiro's buoyant narrative, which exudes a sense of wonder of what's being conveyed. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in English history, Jewish history, or simply history in general. It's truly a great study.

Professor Shapiro has since become known as a more popular Shakespearean critic. This book shows his depth as a historical scholar. The book's title understates the breadth of its scholarship. Its subject is important not only to the Shakespearean scholar but to anyone interested in religious history and the history of Jews in the Christian world up to the Renaissance.
Gregory T. Lombardo MD, PhD

The information in this book will astonish one regarding how deeply the English were obsessed with Jews. Because Jews were absent from England for three centuries the English had only the bible and their imagination to inform them about Jews. The Christian bible promoted negative attitudes and the belief that the messiah would come when all Jews became Christians brought up interesting complications that to this day disturb the Vatican! Christianity, the religion of love certainly produced plenty of hate. The analysis of Shylock is extremely interesting and contrary to what we learned in school. The author supplies verses from the original which are usually excluded from present day performances. I now have new insights into Shakespeare and English history.

I learned a great deal from this book. It is well written, serious cultural history. I would recommend it strongly to anyone interested in the period, the Merchant of Venice,and English attitudes toward Jews.

The review posted below by David Kathman succinctly summarizes the content of this scholarly polemic against the absurdities of the literary "Oxford Movement". I just wish to note that the 1999 paperback edition is a straight reprint of the 1994 hardbound. Therefore, while it addresses the orthodox Looney-Ogburn-Whalen school of anti-Stratfordianism, there is nothing about more recent mutations. Readers who want to keep up to date on the controversy should take a look at Professor Kathman's Shakespeare Authorship Web site, which discusses virtually all of the Oxfordian arguments and links to such interesting material as a complete edition of the Earl of Oxford's extant letters, which may prove disillusioning to those who cherish an image of the earl as a polymathic genius.

Even though it does not swat the very latest fantasies of Authorship Cultism, "Shakespeare, In Fact" is both entertaining and useful. Reading it will leave one better informed about not only the narrow question of who wrote Shakespeare but also the broader context of the Elizabethan stage and Renaissance literature.

Irvin Matus's Shakespeare, IN FACT

Reviewed by Thomas A. Pendleton

The Shakespeare Newsletter, Summer 1994

The authorship controversy -- which nowadays is tantamount to saying the Oxfordian hypothesis -- is not often seriously investigated by Shakespeare scholars. There are a number of reasons why, with sheer cowardice and fear of being found out and losing tenure relatively low on the list. Almost all Shakespeareans, I expect, are aware that claims for any rival author are based on assertions and inferences about Shakespeare's biography, his inadequate education, the absence of his manuscripts, the plays' erudition, aristocratic bias, knowledge of Italian geography, and so on; assertions and inferences that are untenable and have been shown to be untenable. Most libraries can supply the Shakespearean with some older, but very useful, treatments of the subject, notably Frank W. Wadsworth's graceful and cogent survey, The Poacher from Stratford, and Milward Martin's energetically argued Was Shakespeare Shakespeare?. And probably nearer to hand is Shakespeare's Lives, which reviews the controversy in a longish section called "Deviations." For most Shakespeareans most of the time, Schoenbaum sufficeth.

A number of other considerations militate against the Shakespearean's engaging the topic. Public debates and moot courts, favorite venues for proponents of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, are far more compatible to categorical pronouncements than to the laborious establishment of detail, context, and interpretation required to counter them, not to mention doing so with enough panache to win the approval of a non-specialist audience. Shakespeareans sometimes take the position that even to engage the Oxfordian hypothesis is to give it countenance it does not warrant. And, of course, any Shakespearean who reads a hundred pages on the authorship question inevitably realizes that nothing he can say or write will prevail with those persuaded to be persuaded otherwise.

Perhaps the mos! t daunting consideration for the scholar who intends to seriously examine this claim is the volume and nature of the research that will be demanded. To begin with, he must become completely familiar with the nearly 900 pages of Charlton Ogburn's The Mysterious William Shakespeare, the authorized version of Oxfordianism, and then proceed to test at least a wide sampling of random claims of other adherents. He will continually be faced with the prospect of dealing with gratuitous assertions as if they were serious scholarly conclusions, and the necessity of demonstrating such assertions to be incoherent in the appropriate context, or based on incomplete or selective evidence, or logically faulty, or some combination thereof. The research required will be extremely demanding, much of it in quite recondite areas where very few have boldly gone before. He probably ought also to curb his natural temptation to say snide things when refuting especially preposterous claims.

As remarkable as it sounds, Irvin Leigh Matus, in his Shakespeare, IN FACT (New York: Continuum, 1994), has managed to perform all of these tasks, even the last. (Well, he's pretty restrained, anyhow.) Matus notes with some sympathy "The great frustration of the Oxfordians... that academic Shakespeareans do not pay attention to their scholarship nor address their questions." He adds, "It is also their great fortune," which he then proceeds to demonstrate.

To the best of my knowledge, no previous Shakespeare scholar has engaged so much of what Oxfordians have presented as evidence for their positions, or has done so as thoroughly. Matus gives not just fair, but even patient, hearing; and in many instances where a less forbearing respondent might give a short answer, he explores and explains in further detail.

Among such instances is the claim that Ben Jonson's "Sweet swan of Avon" actually refers to the Earl, whose manor at Bilton was on the Avon river and presumably frequented by swans. It might be thought ! sufficient to observe that the phrase is a direct address in a poem directly addressed "To My Beloved Mr. William Shakespeare," and that the epithet's reference to Shakespeare is, quite superfluously, confirmed in the dedication of the Beaumont and Fletcher folio (of which, more later). Matus, however, performs the supererogatory work of tracking down the history of the Bilton estate. It eventuates that Oxford leased it out in 1574, sold it in 1581, and never regained possession. This particular sweet swan had flown off 42 years before Jonson's poem.

The orthodox claim that The Tempest relies on the Bermuda pamphlets of 1610 cannot be allowed by de Vere's proponents, whose man died in 1604. Other and earlier accounts have been proposed, notably the 1592 shipwreck, off Bermuda, of the Edward Bonaventure, a ship supposed to be connected with Oxford, perhaps even to be the vessel he commanded against the Armada. Matus gives the short answer -- consult Bullough's standard work on the sources for the parallels to William Strachey's 1610 letter on behalf of the Virginia Company -- but he also resurrects the history of the ship. He demonstrates that Oxford's only connection was to consider buying it in 1581, it fought in the Armada campaign under other command, and neither of the two supposed eye-witnesses described its wreck for the very good reason that neither was on board.

The engraving of the Stratford Monument in William Dugdale's 1656 Antiquities of Warwickshire is a favorite artifact for Oxfordians. The picture differs in a number of respects from the monument we know; notably, it lacks the quill and paper which the figure of Shakespeare now holds. Proceeding from this, it is supposed that these items were added when the monument was restored in 1748, probably to enhance its literary aura for the tourist trade; the cushion on which the figure now seems to write is accordingly assumed to originally have been a bag of grain, appropriate to Shakespeare's local reputation as a malt jobber. Pre! vious commentators have been content to cite the letter of Joseph Greene, the local schoolmaster and curate in 1748, to the effect that the restoration was committed only to preserving the original design; that a number of Dugdale's plates are similarly in error is also frequently stated. Matus cites Greene, and more importantly, he too denies Dugdale's reliability -- but not just at the level of assertion. He provides a couple of comparable examples of Dugdale's inaccuracy -- the Clopton and Carew tombs in Holy Trinity Church -- and clinches his argument with the instance of the effigy on the Beauchamp tomb in Warwick. As with the Stratford Monument, here we have existing statuary inaccurately portrayed in the Antiquities, we have the record of an intervening restoration begun in 1674, and, in greater detail, we have records of the restoration that seem to insist that no alterations were introduced. We also know who planned and supervised the restoration: none other than William Dugdale.

Shakespeare, IN FACT is continually generous in treating such claims with a respect appropriate to far more firmly based conclusions by providing abundant materials to refute them. It also strikes me as remarkable restraint, perhaps even mansuetude, that the book never mentions any of the most hirsute of Oxfordian suppositions: that the Earl of Southampton was the illegitimate son of Vere and Queen Elizabeth, for instance; or that Ben Jonson murdered Shakespeare.

No one in Shakespeare's lifetime, or the first two hundred years after his death, expressed the slightest doubt about his authorship.

Irvin Leigh Matus should be commended for his industry. It must be hard work wading through the anti-Stratfordian swamp.

I am writing in regarding to the following "review" of SHAKESPEARE, IN FACT by Irvin Leigh Matus posted on Amazon.com:

----------------------------------

0 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
Nice try, Irv, April 23, 2003

Reviewer: A reader

You know, the Stratfordians change punctuation of 400-year-old documents in order to further their cause. This author can't be trusted. It's a book for those who want their myths propped up, not demolished. Nice going, Mr. Matus.

----------------------------------

I happen to be Irvin Leigh Matus - that Irvin Leigh Matus (just to make sure I am not confused with the untold other Irvin Leigh Matuses). I will here note this letter is not intended for publication on the Amazon website, or anywhere else.

I feel some temptation to let this review remain online. I share Samuel Johnson's faith in the "common sense" of "common readers," which is justified by their unanimous rejection of this posting. I imagine with pleasure that its author may visit it from time to time to learn it has captured little interest and been judged to have no value. The results, however, do not negate the intentions of this "reviewer" or the substance of the review. Further, the small number who took the trouble to enter their negative opinion of the review undoubtedly do not reflect the far larger number who saw it and did not give their opinion, some of whom may have come away with a negative disposition toward the reliability of the book and its author.

The only thing in my book that might be the candidate for his/her review is a lawsuit written in Latin, which is discussed on pages 39-40 of my book, in which I give a full account of its interpretation. It so happens, aware that the Latin used in legal documents was different from the classical Latin as it was then taught, I spent ten months seeking someone with expertise in these documents. The punctuation was not, as charged, changed - the document is in fact unpunctuated - and the punctuation added was supplied to me in written form by the scholar mentioned (who is not a Shakespearean but an expert in wills, deeds, lawsuits and similar documents; he requested anonymity after giving the information to me because he didn't wish to be hounded by the controversialists - which the review in question justifies).

If this is indeed the item in question, perhaps Anonymous doubts the honesty of my claim that I consulted an experienced, respected archival scholar (page 40). I was in fact directed to him by the then rare books librarian of the Library of Congress' Law Library, and I still have the scholar's handwritten notes with his signature, which include his request that I "not cite this as a communication from me."

Two things need to be noted about the content of Anonymous' charge. First, by not identifying the specific item at issue, it could be anything in my book. It is the rule of controversialist scholarship, the error rate of which hovers around 100 percent, that a single flaw in a work of orthodox scholarship, whether perceived or actual - or fabricated - is sufficient in their eyes to cast doubt upon the accuracy and authenticity of the entire work. Second, Anonymous' primary purpose is clearly to impugn both my standards of scholarship and my integrity as a scholar.

It should be noted that in the ten years since the publication of my book, it has been reviewed and commented upon by scores of Shakespeareans and Oxfordians (many more of the latter) and this review is the only instance I know of in which my integrity has been attacked or I have been accused of falsifying facts. This is also the first time I have openly responded to a criticism of my book.

To the point, even without the foregoing, I am surprised that Amazon.com would publish an unspecific charge of falsified data by someone unwilling to give either his/her name or email address. Whereas I understand that it may not be feasible to research the accuracy and authenticity of what reviewers say, the form and content of this review should have raised caution flags. Circulating such blind remarks invites all kinds and all degrees of false charges.

This is especially significant because I suspect that more people may get opinion about a book from Amazon.com reviews than any other source. As you must be aware of Amazon.com's influence on the perception of a book, it should be especially wary of posting a review that contains statements that attack an author and his work anonymously. Nor should an allegation of scholarly malfeasance be put online that does not mention the specific item in which it is alleged to occur. There is, however, a compelling reason for not publishing such things on a website, which is that the publisher can be held accountable. Laws against libel do not stop at the portals of the Internet. Perhaps a still more compelling reason from Amazon's point of view is that it discourages sales of books, which authors don't much like either.

I therefore request that this review be removed from the Amazon.com website.

With my thanks for your attention,

Irvin Leigh Matus