Reviews for History of England From the Invasion of Julius Caesar to the Revolution in 1688 The First 2...

The average rating for History of England From the Invasion of Julius Caesar to the Revolution in 1688 The First 2... based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2020-08-05 00:00:00 Ajay Challa Without a doubt Hume’s summaries at the end of each volume are worth the price of admission to this History of England; sure, it only cost me 99 cents for the Kindle version, but even at a higher price these volumes are well worth it alone for the edifying connections that Hume makes and for his marvelous story telling in general. Nowise should one be put off by the odious Irish since they are noted for their habitual sloth and ignorance and are odious for their barbarity and their superstitious beliefs. Now, as for me, I had no problem with the occasional use of obsolete words such as nowise or for the out and out violation of all objective historical standards when the story teller is as masterful as Hume’s. Hume is telling his story differently than from the previous first four volumes in this series. He removes himself from the story except when he is speaking about the odious Irish, or the Papist, the Puritans (he also really doesn’t like the Independents either, the Scottish Presbyterian or even the Quakers), and he seems to grudgingly admire Oliver Cromwell, Charles I and James I, and expertly contextualizes the Gunpowder Plot (‘remember, remember the 5th of November’). Oh wait, he doesn’t remove himself at all from this volume since that is what this volume basically covers and Hume assumes the history as an inevitable conclusion from the time period he is writing from. I found it odd that Thomas Jefferson was so put off by this history because the way Hume is telling the story is not against the people’s liberty since Hume tells the story in such a way that in the absence of a central overriding authority that the reckless abandonment of the traditions, laws and standards can lead to a beheading of a King when faced with the factional politics motivated by religion or political zeal while providing no real defense for the people against a despot be they King, Parliament, or Lord Protector. Hume doesn’t really mince words when he is making his points though he does seem to be more charitable to Oliver Cromwell than most historians while simultaneously providing an apologia for Charles I. As one reads this history, one understands how almost all of the Bill of Rights are a reaction to what Charles I did, or Parliament tried to do, or Oliver Cromwell strived to do, and Jefferson could have easily been inspired by the odious behavior of what happened in 17th century England and did what he could to make sure that would not trample on America’s liberty except for that 3/5th thing. Hume did say something in this book from 1760 that I was not aware of. John Milton was not well regarded until much later than when he wrote Paradise Lost and by Hume’s time, he finally was becoming revered, and that Hobbes' system of conservative politics would lead to tyranny according to Hume and Hobbes was falling out of favor in Hume’s time period. Of all the books that brain-dead Trump followers should read, I would put Hobbes’ Leviathan near the top of the list since it would give them a foundation of which they sorely lack elsewise, and, since I’m talking about brain dead Trumper’s books to read, I would also recommend Will to Power purportedly by Nietzsche since that book has an elegance usually lacking within fascist screeds. There’s a whole lot to like within this series of history. I would say I find these works vastly superior to Gibbon’s Decline of the Roman Empire. The overlap between how the history of the Roman Empire follows writ large what Hume is writing about with his narrow focus within just one island (or two if we include the odious Irish) makes me say something I really hate to say, and that is Arnold Toynbee, the fascist, of who I can say with certainty was feted by the Nazis and accepted their accolades, is right to point out patterns with civilizations both between and within and that almost all of the stories that Hume tells can also be found within the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, if one connects the patterns between the two with the diligence of an historian.

Review # 2 was written on 2013-06-09 00:00:00 William Henry As the title suggests, this is volume five of Hume's six-volume The History of England. This edition is based on the 1778 edition and incorporates the author's last corrections before his death in August 1776. Best I can tell, it was originally written around 1758. I was an English major in college, not a history major. I enjoy learning about history, but I have a short attention span for nonfiction in general, so it was necessary for me to cast about a bit before I found the right strategy for reading this work of historical (and at times philosophical) nonfiction. I didn't read volumes one through four, and I'm not sure if I'll read six. I did enjoy Hume's style, especially once I figured out how to read him, but while I'm tempted to pick up the other five volumes to learn more about England from Hume's perspective, I think I need a nice long break before I do that. I started out reading this book word-by-word, underlining and taking notes on practically every page. I do not recommend this strategy to the casual reader, or even the modestly invested reader. It was educational but made for very, very slow reading. When I found myself ready to quit, I shifted gears to focus on more of an overview, having faith that, even without the copious note-taking, I would get a general idea of this era of English history. I think it pretty much worked. Taking this approach, I was able to enjoy Hume's voice more than I had, and I did gain many insights about the founding of the United States, the evolution of religious and civil liberty, and the advent and nature of civil war in general. I've posted a more detailed review on my blog at Imperfect Happiness.