What do you think?
Rate this book
Cromwell
In Cromwell, award-winning biographer Antonia Fraser tells of one of England's most celebrated and controversial figures, often misunderstood and demonized as a puritanical zealot. Oliver Cromwell rose from humble beginnings to spearhead the rebellion against King Charles I, who was beheaded in 1649, and led his soldiers into the last battle against the Royalists and King Charles II at Worcester, ending the civil war in 1651. Fraser shows how England's prestige and prosperity grew under Cromwell, reversing the decline it had suffered since Queen Elizabeth I's death.
576 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1973
350 people are currently reading
1899 people want to read
About the author
Antonia Fraser
183 books1,494 followersAntonia Fraser is the author of many widely acclaimed historical works, including the biographies Mary, Queen of Scots (a 40th anniversary edition was published in May 2009), Cromwell: Our Chief of Men, King Charles II and The Gunpowder Plot (CWA Non-Fiction Gold Dagger; St Louis Literary Award). She has written five highly praised books which focus on women in history, The Weaker Vessel: Women's Lot in Seventeenth Century Britain (Wolfson Award for History, 1984), The Warrior Queens: Boadecia's Chariot, The Six Wives of Henry VIII, Marie Antoinette: The Journey (Franco-British Literary Prize 2001), which was made into a film by Sofia Coppola in 2006 and most recently Love and Louis XIV: The Women in the Life of the Sun King. She was awarded the Norton Medlicott Medal by the Historical Association in 2000. Antonia Fraser was made DBE in 2011 for her services to literature. Her most recent book is Must You Go?, celebrating her life with Harold Pinter, who died on Christmas Eve 2008. She lives in London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 99 reviews
July 3, 2011
I was more than a bit disappointed by this book, I'm afraid. And it's a shame, because I'd been dying to learn more about Oliver Cromwell, and a several-hundred-page tome of lightly written history seemed like just the thing for a person like me who wants to feel like he's learned a lot without (ahem) plowing through a lot of hard-to-read academic papers.
Let's start with the positive. I really did learn a lot. Cromwell was a lot better off financially than I would have expected; it wasn't obvious early on that he'd become the Lord Protector; the English Civil War was a lot more protracted, confused, and multi-staged than I imagined; and there were a lot of different groups vying for power.
Part of the problem I had was the sneaking suspicion that Ms. Fraser fell in love with the subject of her research. Cromwell comes across as a driven yet pure-hearted man, barely able to keep himself afloat among these competing interests, and a loyal subject who would have saved the king if it was at all possible. She admits that a lot isn't known about his thoughts and motivations, but seems to paint in a lot of details where there doesn't seem to be much reason.
The main problem I had, though, was the prose style. Now this could be because I'm an American. I'll be the first to admit that there are a lot of differences between American English (and its myriad dialects) and British English (and its myriad dialects), but I actually enjoy most British writing that I've encountered, and this just seemed different.
The sentences wander all over the page. Subordinate clauses are used with wild abandon and the use of commas is almost criminal. You can reach the end of a sentence and find yourself backtracking to the beginning to try to understand what it was about in the first place. Or you may simply sit there with your eyes glazing over, struggling to care, and being unable.
I made it as far as the execution of the king, then set the book aside. I'll have to learn my history somewhere else.
Let's start with the positive. I really did learn a lot. Cromwell was a lot better off financially than I would have expected; it wasn't obvious early on that he'd become the Lord Protector; the English Civil War was a lot more protracted, confused, and multi-staged than I imagined; and there were a lot of different groups vying for power.
Part of the problem I had was the sneaking suspicion that Ms. Fraser fell in love with the subject of her research. Cromwell comes across as a driven yet pure-hearted man, barely able to keep himself afloat among these competing interests, and a loyal subject who would have saved the king if it was at all possible. She admits that a lot isn't known about his thoughts and motivations, but seems to paint in a lot of details where there doesn't seem to be much reason.
The main problem I had, though, was the prose style. Now this could be because I'm an American. I'll be the first to admit that there are a lot of differences between American English (and its myriad dialects) and British English (and its myriad dialects), but I actually enjoy most British writing that I've encountered, and this just seemed different.
The sentences wander all over the page. Subordinate clauses are used with wild abandon and the use of commas is almost criminal. You can reach the end of a sentence and find yourself backtracking to the beginning to try to understand what it was about in the first place. Or you may simply sit there with your eyes glazing over, struggling to care, and being unable.
I made it as far as the execution of the king, then set the book aside. I'll have to learn my history somewhere else.
August 22, 2008
I wanted to like this book. I really did.
I don't think the problem here is so much Fraser, her writing and scholarship are, as always, impeccable.
I think the problem is that Cromwell himself was just really boring. You'd think a man who cut off a king's head would have more personality, but in this case, you would turn out to be wrong.
I don't think the problem here is so much Fraser, her writing and scholarship are, as always, impeccable.
I think the problem is that Cromwell himself was just really boring. You'd think a man who cut off a king's head would have more personality, but in this case, you would turn out to be wrong.
August 22, 2022
Without a doubt, a phenomenal read of history. The basis of the politicians (or at that time the King) works for the betterment of the people, not for himself or themselves! If you are a history buff, and a lover of good and well written biographies...THIS IS THE BOOK FOR YOU! Well worth the time to read to aid you in a better understanding of freedom and who runs the country!
August 20, 2013
Whew, what a slog. A mountain of facts largely lacking synthesis and analysis. It needed to be cut by a third; as it was, it was difficult to see the forest for the trees. The problems were compounded by Fraser's weird fangirlish sensibility, where Old Noll was a brilliant soldier and administrator and a kindly fellow to boot, apparently. (Well, except in regard to those pesky Irish, where his attitude tended more toward the genocidal end of the spectrum. Even Fraser couldn't put much of a gloss on that.)
For all that, a lot of information and I've retained a sufficiency, so mission accomplished, I suppose. But if I had to do it again, I'd pick a different biography.
For all that, a lot of information and I've retained a sufficiency, so mission accomplished, I suppose. But if I had to do it again, I'd pick a different biography.
March 3, 2012
At 706 pages, this book is in dire need of a good editor.
Whenever the situation went in Olivar Cromwell's favor it was due to his brillance, vision and tenacity. But if it didn't, it was the fault of incompetent Army leaders, recalitant Parliament, or those who just didn't see the Glorious Vision.
I hung in with this book only because about the time I was ready to quit, an interesting tidbit would appear.
There are more balanced biographies of Oliver Cromwell available. Read those instead.
Whenever the situation went in Olivar Cromwell's favor it was due to his brillance, vision and tenacity. But if it didn't, it was the fault of incompetent Army leaders, recalitant Parliament, or those who just didn't see the Glorious Vision.
I hung in with this book only because about the time I was ready to quit, an interesting tidbit would appear.
There are more balanced biographies of Oliver Cromwell available. Read those instead.
November 7, 2009
The best biography of my hero. There's a statue of him outside Westminster. We had our chance to become a republic and we blew it. The French did much better. I mention whenever I have the opportunity that the best thing to put on the empty plinth in Trafalgar Square is a guillotine.
July 4, 2015
I took up this biography to learn about Oliver Cromwell and what I had always thought of as the Puritan revolution. The Puritans were a group with considerable influence, after all, in the settlement and formation of America. I also wanted to see the context in which persons like John Milton and Andrew Marvell dwelt and thrived. And, last, I had a sense that the Cromwellian revolution was anomolous and earth-shaking in its time.
I did, indeed, learn a great deal --- about the personality of a man who emerges as humble, loving, and devoted to service, and yet powerful, political and born with a natural military genius. It seems as if he is the first of the Western populist leaders. It further appears that his times were marked by a sense of experimentation even to the point of the absence of a specific platform for the future and an essential uncertainty of success and even a sense of doom. I am also impressed by the sincerity of Cromwell's religious conviction, his compassion, and his general good will.
I do have a couple of criticisms of the book. One is that there is almost too much fact. In this sense, I found sometimes that the author made no distinctions about what to write. This leads to my second criticism. I found that the book lacked themes or, better, explanations. In this sense, I would have profited from a discussion about theories or doctrines of kingship up until Charles I; about what precisely was so unique and experimental about the interregnum; and about how the Cromwellian revolution might have influenced later British institutions, including the monarchy and parliament.
I did, indeed, learn a great deal --- about the personality of a man who emerges as humble, loving, and devoted to service, and yet powerful, political and born with a natural military genius. It seems as if he is the first of the Western populist leaders. It further appears that his times were marked by a sense of experimentation even to the point of the absence of a specific platform for the future and an essential uncertainty of success and even a sense of doom. I am also impressed by the sincerity of Cromwell's religious conviction, his compassion, and his general good will.
I do have a couple of criticisms of the book. One is that there is almost too much fact. In this sense, I found sometimes that the author made no distinctions about what to write. This leads to my second criticism. I found that the book lacked themes or, better, explanations. In this sense, I would have profited from a discussion about theories or doctrines of kingship up until Charles I; about what precisely was so unique and experimental about the interregnum; and about how the Cromwellian revolution might have influenced later British institutions, including the monarchy and parliament.
February 12, 2013
I approached this book eagerly, having been exposed to the beauty of Antonia Fraser's writing in her later "The Wives of Henry VIII." I knew the basics of Oliver Cromwell's victories in the English civil wars and his subsequent rise to power, but hoped to gain a deeper understanding of the man and his world through Fraser's book. While it taught me a lot, the book did not meet the high expectations I had for it.
Fraser has a knack for elegant turns of phrase, but they are lost to a great degree in the sheer density of the text. At 706 pages (and 68 more of notes and index), "Cromwell" is not the book for the reader interested in an overview of the period. Fraser lets herself get carried away in details; ordinarily I find such attention to detail rewarding, but here it was overwhelming. One measure of a book's appeal and quality is how easily the reader is able to put it down, and I found myself putting this book down quite often, its density allowing only for short bursts at a time.
No doubt there are those who will find the complex political intrigue and descriptions of various government factions more interesting than I did. Fraser is a gifted author and historian whose work I have enjoyed more in other settings. "Cromwell" plunges the reader into a pool of knowledge of the Protector and his rule; that said, the water may be deeper than many readers will appreciate.
Fraser has a knack for elegant turns of phrase, but they are lost to a great degree in the sheer density of the text. At 706 pages (and 68 more of notes and index), "Cromwell" is not the book for the reader interested in an overview of the period. Fraser lets herself get carried away in details; ordinarily I find such attention to detail rewarding, but here it was overwhelming. One measure of a book's appeal and quality is how easily the reader is able to put it down, and I found myself putting this book down quite often, its density allowing only for short bursts at a time.
No doubt there are those who will find the complex political intrigue and descriptions of various government factions more interesting than I did. Fraser is a gifted author and historian whose work I have enjoyed more in other settings. "Cromwell" plunges the reader into a pool of knowledge of the Protector and his rule; that said, the water may be deeper than many readers will appreciate.
January 5, 2011
Turgid telling of what should have been an exciting story.
March 23, 2025
Review of the Book: a very detailed account of Cromwell's life full of fascinating vignettes and reasoned analysis of the thoughts and views of the man himself. Dragged a little in the final chapters concerning the protectorate (not so many exciting battles to relate) but thoroughly readable overall. 4 stars.
Review of the Man: a personal hero of mine. A caring father, firm in his faith, and remarkably tolerant of his enemies and those who would see him toppled. Not without his flashes of anger, occasionally regrettably so, but generally considered weighty decisions with good sense and humility. And anyone who breaks up a meeting of army generals by starting a pillow fight can't be all bad. 5 stars.
Review of the Man: a personal hero of mine. A caring father, firm in his faith, and remarkably tolerant of his enemies and those who would see him toppled. Not without his flashes of anger, occasionally regrettably so, but generally considered weighty decisions with good sense and humility. And anyone who breaks up a meeting of army generals by starting a pillow fight can't be all bad. 5 stars.
September 21, 2025
I HAVE DEFEATED THE BEAST.
Whether you like the guy or not, Cromwell was certainly an exceptional figure and his life was undeniably interesting. The sheer amount of detail and digressions in this book, however, sorely tested my capacity for perseverance. It’s a complicated one because I respect the massive amount of work that went into it and Fraser’s factual information seems meticulously researched and unproblematic. Her qualitative judgement, though, is dubious at best. When discussing various interpretations of how a battle went down, she shines; when characterising Cromwell or justifying his actions, an enormous partiality appears. She doesn’t positively gloss his actions in Ireland, for example, but does bend over backwards to attribute the best possible motivations for those actions. I can’t say she’s being misleading because she lays out the facts perfectly but I do think she has a massive crush on Cromwell and her suggestions about what he was thinking or feeling are clouded. Overall, I suspect there are better books out there which use fewer commas and have less convoluted syntax.
Whether you like the guy or not, Cromwell was certainly an exceptional figure and his life was undeniably interesting. The sheer amount of detail and digressions in this book, however, sorely tested my capacity for perseverance. It’s a complicated one because I respect the massive amount of work that went into it and Fraser’s factual information seems meticulously researched and unproblematic. Her qualitative judgement, though, is dubious at best. When discussing various interpretations of how a battle went down, she shines; when characterising Cromwell or justifying his actions, an enormous partiality appears. She doesn’t positively gloss his actions in Ireland, for example, but does bend over backwards to attribute the best possible motivations for those actions. I can’t say she’s being misleading because she lays out the facts perfectly but I do think she has a massive crush on Cromwell and her suggestions about what he was thinking or feeling are clouded. Overall, I suspect there are better books out there which use fewer commas and have less convoluted syntax.
January 24, 2013
Until looking Fraser up on Wikipedia, I had no idea that she was so famous, not only as an amateur historian but also as a writer of mystery stories. Having previously read her earlier biography on Mary Stuart and learning that she is not only an aristocrat but Catholic, I am impressed at how sympathetic her portrayal of that arch-protestant, Oliver Cromwell, is. (Perhaps her father's Labour connections figure in this). Further, given that, while she holds a degree from Oxford, she is no academic, it is easy to mistake her for a professional historian.
Although critical of his campaign in Ireland, overall this study presents a very human, even well-meaning, Lord-Protector. My only complaint is that she expresses too little sympathy with the truly progressive forces of his rule, that is, the Levelers and other egalitarian democratic movements primarily identified with the popular army.
Although critical of his campaign in Ireland, overall this study presents a very human, even well-meaning, Lord-Protector. My only complaint is that she expresses too little sympathy with the truly progressive forces of his rule, that is, the Levelers and other egalitarian democratic movements primarily identified with the popular army.
April 14, 2009
Cromwell has been accused of being a tyrant, a murderer, a guy with a rotten temper, and just about every other negative name I can think of. This book provide fresh (in depth) insight into the character of this man, and provides a proper historical viewpoint of the times that he lived in. Cromwell was not misguided or a monster. In a sense, he saved England from a tyrannical monarch who threatened to destroy the protestant reformation. He also provided the first, (and last) true constitution England had ever had. He stood as an impenetrable wall against the Roman Catholic power, and a symbol of hope to those who loved freedom.
This book is quite lengthy. Only those who are really interested in Cromwell, or just love reading in general will take the time.
This book is quite lengthy. Only those who are really interested in Cromwell, or just love reading in general will take the time.
September 1, 2020
I had to give up on this one. It's a huge book filled with really dense type, minute details, and convoluted sentences with lots of clauses. I was trying to chip away at this for the past three months but I didn't find it enjoyable to read. It's a real shame because Fraser clearly knows her stuff and I'm really interested in Cromwell - we're hardly taught about him at school for obvious reasons - but I couldn't solider on with it. Think I'll have to go read the Wikipedia page instead.
July 29, 2008
It's a monster of a book and took me over five months of steady reading to finish. Love Fraser--one of my favorite popular historians. Wanted to understand this complex and very controversial (for many reasons!) English political and religious figure. Came away with perception that he was as much of an enigma to his contemporaries as he is to history.
April 21, 2024
Oliver Cromwell was born in England in 1599. He was college educated, and elected to be a Member of Parliament in 1628. He also served as Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland from 1653 to 1658. He was a controversial figure, and even advocated for the execution of King Charles I.
Antonia Fraser is one of my favorite female historians. I have read almost all of her books. After this one, I think I have two unread ones left by her. She always exceeds my expectations with her research and attention to detail. I learned a lot about Cromwell, and I wish I would have gotten around to reading this before vising the museum in Anniston, Alabama that had a couple of his items on display. This was a good book, and one that I will be using for reference in my next European History class.
Antonia Fraser is one of my favorite female historians. I have read almost all of her books. After this one, I think I have two unread ones left by her. She always exceeds my expectations with her research and attention to detail. I learned a lot about Cromwell, and I wish I would have gotten around to reading this before vising the museum in Anniston, Alabama that had a couple of his items on display. This was a good book, and one that I will be using for reference in my next European History class.
September 13, 2009
Usually I like Antonia Fraser's books but I found this one tedious. I didn't know much about this period to start with, and maybe that's part of the problem. I think, though, that it's that she doesn't take a clear point of view--was he the devil, a saint, or just a man of his times? Did he believe he was the instrument of Divine Providence or was this just a smokescreen for overwhelming personal ambition?
I did find it interesting that Teddy Roosevelt wrote a bio of him--maybe sometime I'll look it up.
I did find it interesting that Teddy Roosevelt wrote a bio of him--maybe sometime I'll look it up.
June 12, 2014
There's no doubt Antonia Fraser knows her stuff when it comes to Cromwell and the Protectorate period. She explains the complex religious and political conflicts extremely well, and has plenty of source material to enhance her work. What lets the book down massively is Fraser's constant bias in Cromwell's favour and tries to exonerate him from any wrong doing, even in situations such as the slaughters at Wexford and Drogheda. It's extremely frustrating and almost ruins what is otherwise a solid book.
September 18, 2014
Cromwell offers exactly what any reader should seek; it is a biography of great Puritan written by a prominent Catholic. Antonia Fraser does not idolize Cromwell but she does clearly show what made him a great. He was a brilliant organizer and excellent battlefield commander. His judgement was sound and in the dirty business of war, he was as fair as could be expected. This is yet another excellent work by one of the great historians our age.
As Athos, Porthos, Aramis and D'Artagnan observed Cromwell was the only king of England ever to have begun life as a brewer. Bottoms up!!
As Athos, Porthos, Aramis and D'Artagnan observed Cromwell was the only king of England ever to have begun life as a brewer. Bottoms up!!
did-not-finish
March 28, 2013I quickly realised that there was far too much detail and depth in this book for a figure that just doesn't grab my imagination to that extent. I also found that Frazer did not digest, regurgitate and polish her research enough for me - not for the limited amount of effort I was prepared to put into reading the book. I need more of an overview.
September 26, 2018
Fraser is a painfully dry writer at times but she is always fair and that’s especially important with controversial figures such as Cromwell. This book is far from dull but it can be stodgy ; it’s the knack of combining depth and pace.
It’s worth the journey though. The figure who emerges may not be the one we expect; he loves music and latterly tolerates theatre a bit more. He cares deeply for the poor against the Puritan self help ethos that equates poverty with dissoluteness. He is often merciful even to Catholics, and more religiously tolerant than given credit for, except when treason is an issue. But he seems to battle depression and it’s his habit of sometimes letting rage cloud his judgement that causes things like the Irish massacres, though recent scholarship has reappraised these in terms of slaughter. He has good grasp of foreign policy and to an extent economics. Towards the end he is also a bereaved father; whatever our view of him that can only be sympathised with. He came close to accepting king ship , but backed off . As well as not really seeing it as for him he knew it would antagonise the army. And there is the return, albeit for an odd mixture of economic and eschatological reasons primarily, of the long exiled Jews, in the face of opposition from merchants who feared the competition. For those who uphold royalty he’s a king killer, and while I don’t know if I agree with Fraser that though not morally right it was politically necessary, I don’t disagree that the Stuarts partly brought it on themselves. Same mistake as Russia and France; if there ever was an age of absolute unaccountable monarchy, it had long gone. And then there’s the suppression of Christmas; i can see the thinking but it was unwise and unnecessary.
Whatever else he is , he’s not a narcissist. Fraser isn’t sure whether his famous insistence that his portrait be painted warts and all is apocryphal or not but she does see it as constant with his character. : in the end, one can see what this era was trying to do, but there is only so far, if at all, you can try and legislate a concept of Godliness; some things must be personal convictions.
On a secular level there are fascinating what-ifs. could a republic, hereditary or otherwise, have survived into a less militant age ? Could a more sensible post Charles II Stuart line have hung on or did it take the George’s to begin again ? And given that this era feeds into modern party politics in the sense that its loyalty to the Georges and Stuarts that first defines whigs and Tories What else might have defined them ?
This era also bequeaths us , of course, a Puritan body of what is still some of the richest theological writing all time, and a breathtaking working out of the psychological aftermath of the brief Republic in the works of Milton, Marvell, Bunyan and many others.
So would a republic ever work again? Would it be right? Who knows....
It’s worth the journey though. The figure who emerges may not be the one we expect; he loves music and latterly tolerates theatre a bit more. He cares deeply for the poor against the Puritan self help ethos that equates poverty with dissoluteness. He is often merciful even to Catholics, and more religiously tolerant than given credit for, except when treason is an issue. But he seems to battle depression and it’s his habit of sometimes letting rage cloud his judgement that causes things like the Irish massacres, though recent scholarship has reappraised these in terms of slaughter. He has good grasp of foreign policy and to an extent economics. Towards the end he is also a bereaved father; whatever our view of him that can only be sympathised with. He came close to accepting king ship , but backed off . As well as not really seeing it as for him he knew it would antagonise the army. And there is the return, albeit for an odd mixture of economic and eschatological reasons primarily, of the long exiled Jews, in the face of opposition from merchants who feared the competition. For those who uphold royalty he’s a king killer, and while I don’t know if I agree with Fraser that though not morally right it was politically necessary, I don’t disagree that the Stuarts partly brought it on themselves. Same mistake as Russia and France; if there ever was an age of absolute unaccountable monarchy, it had long gone. And then there’s the suppression of Christmas; i can see the thinking but it was unwise and unnecessary.
Whatever else he is , he’s not a narcissist. Fraser isn’t sure whether his famous insistence that his portrait be painted warts and all is apocryphal or not but she does see it as constant with his character. : in the end, one can see what this era was trying to do, but there is only so far, if at all, you can try and legislate a concept of Godliness; some things must be personal convictions.
On a secular level there are fascinating what-ifs. could a republic, hereditary or otherwise, have survived into a less militant age ? Could a more sensible post Charles II Stuart line have hung on or did it take the George’s to begin again ? And given that this era feeds into modern party politics in the sense that its loyalty to the Georges and Stuarts that first defines whigs and Tories What else might have defined them ?
This era also bequeaths us , of course, a Puritan body of what is still some of the richest theological writing all time, and a breathtaking working out of the psychological aftermath of the brief Republic in the works of Milton, Marvell, Bunyan and many others.
So would a republic ever work again? Would it be right? Who knows....
October 20, 2021
This is the most satisfying click of the "read" button in my Goodreads history.
I wanted to read a book about Cromwell, knowing nothing about him other than that he deposed King Charles II and became Lord Protector of England. In picking the highest-rated book about him I made the rookie mistake of not checking the page count. I almost passed out when I got my actual hands on it.
At almost 900 pages for a biography? You better have had an interesting life, my friend. I mean...deposing a king and setting yourself up as a tyrant/dictator/non-king ruler of Great Britain for life with your choice of heir...I guess we can count that as interesting. I set myself the goal of reading 10 pages a night because the first half of this book is kind of dull. It very gradually picks up steam so you better be dying to know about Cromwell if you want to read this one. My eyes were crossing with boredom at first but the last third is really good.
I wish an editor had taken a sharper knife to this book. I feel it was written for a British audience (which isn't a knock, but puts up a barrier for international readers) and it could have lost 10% of its pages easily without damaging the biography. Fraser's skill as a compelling storyteller came along later. Especially since so little is known about what Cromwell thought - most of his written work is lost and he tended to play his cards pretty close to the chest anyway.
I was left with a couple of maddening questions about WHY he did what he did, but I don't think Cromwell himself had a good answer, other than increasing the glory of God. Back then, that was enough of an answer.
I wanted to read a book about Cromwell, knowing nothing about him other than that he deposed King Charles II and became Lord Protector of England. In picking the highest-rated book about him I made the rookie mistake of not checking the page count. I almost passed out when I got my actual hands on it.
At almost 900 pages for a biography? You better have had an interesting life, my friend. I mean...deposing a king and setting yourself up as a tyrant/dictator/non-king ruler of Great Britain for life with your choice of heir...I guess we can count that as interesting. I set myself the goal of reading 10 pages a night because the first half of this book is kind of dull. It very gradually picks up steam so you better be dying to know about Cromwell if you want to read this one. My eyes were crossing with boredom at first but the last third is really good.
I wish an editor had taken a sharper knife to this book. I feel it was written for a British audience (which isn't a knock, but puts up a barrier for international readers) and it could have lost 10% of its pages easily without damaging the biography. Fraser's skill as a compelling storyteller came along later. Especially since so little is known about what Cromwell thought - most of his written work is lost and he tended to play his cards pretty close to the chest anyway.
I was left with a couple of maddening questions about WHY he did what he did, but I don't think Cromwell himself had a good answer, other than increasing the glory of God. Back then, that was enough of an answer.
June 8, 2023
Let's see, I like history, I particularily like English history and my favorite era of English history is the 17th century. So a biography of Oliver Cromwell, arguably the most important Englishman of the that era, should be my cup of tea, right? Wrong!
A poorly written book with long, convoluted sentences and paragraphs makes what should have been a riveting story simply dull as dishwater. I guess I just do not care for the author's writing style. Tossed it aside before the blade came down on King Charles neck.
A poorly written book with long, convoluted sentences and paragraphs makes what should have been a riveting story simply dull as dishwater. I guess I just do not care for the author's writing style. Tossed it aside before the blade came down on King Charles neck.
June 5, 2024
Great biography of a very complex figure, a brilliant general and astute politician. I really wanted to know what make Cromwell tick. It's hard for the modern reader to really understand the huge role Scripture played in the 17th Century. His indecisiveness was often due to waiting for guidance from God. It's easy to see Civil War and Cromwell as a temporary aberration, the Brexit of its day, and the status quo returning after his death, after which he was cast as a villain, but Cromwell shaped how the nation was governed long after the demise of the Lord Protector.
October 3, 2021
Barely made it a fifth of the way through and that was way more than this book deserved. Some simpering fan fiction right here.
July 21, 2020
I've long been fascinated with the English Civil War- I'm not sure where that started, but a possible summer vacation spent in the Cotswolds, combined with a youthful adminration for the fashions of the Cavaliers especially is probably what started it at all. But the English Civil War wasn't the neat and tidy conflict that it's American counterpart was--- quite the contrary it was messy, so when I decided I wanted to learn more about it, I picked up two biographies (again, on another UK trip)- one on Charles II and the other on Oliver Cromwell, both written by Antonia Fraser.
Having read both, I'm still not sure I know it as well as I know the American Civil War, but I do have a greater understanding of the conflict and that is thanks in large part to the immense tomes on the two men diametrically opposed to each other throughout: Charles II and Cromwell. Now, I've already read Charles II's biography, so I tucked into this one (I think this was the second or third attempt I've made to crack it- similiar to Charles II) and actually made it all the way through.
If there is one thing Fraser is excellent at, it's really giving us a sense of the character of Cromwell and most importantly, perhaps, the events that made the man growing up and forged him to be- I don't know if 'the right man for the moment of history' is the right phrase, but it feels right. Reading this, I'm not sure anyone but Cromwell could have gotten the job done- and I'm near certain that there was no one with Cromwell's authority that could have run the country as Lord Protector.
He was born in Huntingdon to while not what I would say would be a wealthy family, she decrees that he was, 'by birth, a gentlemen' and I feel like that fits. Cromwell wasn't high up in the aristocratic tree, but he wasn't common as muck either- the idea of a middle class was probably a century or two from springing to reality, but if it had been around back then, Cromwell feels either solidly or upper middle class in his background. As such, he manage to be enough of a member of the gentry to get elected to Parliament and work his way up from there while at the same time being close enough to the broad mass of the common folk to at least be sympathetic to some of their concerns.
When the conflict breaks out, you see some of this attitude emerge and Cromwell makes his way up through the Parliamentary ranks. I'm not an expert on British military history, but I do know that in many instances, soldiers get killed because commanders are chosen for their aristocractic connections rather than military skill. Cromwell challenged the form and embraced the latter which lead to the formation of his New Model Army-- and brought such innovations to cavalry as running them in three ranks and pressing forward to rely more heavily on impact rather than firepower and he liked to keep his troops together rather than having them lose cohesion in pursuits, which allowed them to react to military developments faster.
If the book overall has a fault, it's probably the immediate aftermath of King Charles I's death and the formation of the Protectorate. The Civil War parts of the book were interesting and engaging-- and the seeds of some of the ideas that popped up in Revolutions in the subsequent centuries were very much on display with the Levellers and their more radical counterparts the Diggers-- plus the delicate task of keeping soldiers paid and happy which didn't always work quite so well for either side.
After all is said and done however, the book bottoms out for a few long, interminable chapters before getting interesting again toward the end when Parliament is summoned once more and officially offers Cromwell the Crown-- there's also much debate about bringing back the House of Lords, which had been abolished in the aftermath of the Civil War- and that eventually does happen, but the great drama of the final act of Cromwell's life is the 'will he or won't he' about accepting the crown- which he ultimately doesn't. Fraser correctly points out, I think (she's convinced me by this point) that Cromwell was probably the only person in England at the time who had the authority to refuse the Crown and yet still hold power- which says a lot, I think about the man.
If he had a misstep toward the end of his life, it was probably being unclear about who he wanted his successor to be-- seems like Henry would have been a better choice than Richard (whose unfortunate nickname of Tumbledown Dick should tell you something about his tenure as Lord Protector-- it was short) but Cromwell kept everyone guessing until almost the last minute and then he was gone and England was headed toward the Restoration and the return of King Charles II.
Fraser does a complete and thorough job on Cromwell, I think. I haven't done a thorough examination of all the other scholarship on Cromwell, but this feels balanced. She's not afraid to talk about his bouts of temper. Doesn't spare us any details of his time in Ireland- including the biggest blot on his military career, the massacre at Drogheda and really seems intent on drilling down to give us as fair a potrait of the man himself as possible and I think on balance, she succeeds at her aim.
Overall: If you want to know about Cromwell, you can't go wrong with this doorstop. It does get a bit plodding and dull through the middle third or so, but picks up at the end. My Grade: ** 1/2 out of ****.
Having read both, I'm still not sure I know it as well as I know the American Civil War, but I do have a greater understanding of the conflict and that is thanks in large part to the immense tomes on the two men diametrically opposed to each other throughout: Charles II and Cromwell. Now, I've already read Charles II's biography, so I tucked into this one (I think this was the second or third attempt I've made to crack it- similiar to Charles II) and actually made it all the way through.
If there is one thing Fraser is excellent at, it's really giving us a sense of the character of Cromwell and most importantly, perhaps, the events that made the man growing up and forged him to be- I don't know if 'the right man for the moment of history' is the right phrase, but it feels right. Reading this, I'm not sure anyone but Cromwell could have gotten the job done- and I'm near certain that there was no one with Cromwell's authority that could have run the country as Lord Protector.
He was born in Huntingdon to while not what I would say would be a wealthy family, she decrees that he was, 'by birth, a gentlemen' and I feel like that fits. Cromwell wasn't high up in the aristocratic tree, but he wasn't common as muck either- the idea of a middle class was probably a century or two from springing to reality, but if it had been around back then, Cromwell feels either solidly or upper middle class in his background. As such, he manage to be enough of a member of the gentry to get elected to Parliament and work his way up from there while at the same time being close enough to the broad mass of the common folk to at least be sympathetic to some of their concerns.
When the conflict breaks out, you see some of this attitude emerge and Cromwell makes his way up through the Parliamentary ranks. I'm not an expert on British military history, but I do know that in many instances, soldiers get killed because commanders are chosen for their aristocractic connections rather than military skill. Cromwell challenged the form and embraced the latter which lead to the formation of his New Model Army-- and brought such innovations to cavalry as running them in three ranks and pressing forward to rely more heavily on impact rather than firepower and he liked to keep his troops together rather than having them lose cohesion in pursuits, which allowed them to react to military developments faster.
If the book overall has a fault, it's probably the immediate aftermath of King Charles I's death and the formation of the Protectorate. The Civil War parts of the book were interesting and engaging-- and the seeds of some of the ideas that popped up in Revolutions in the subsequent centuries were very much on display with the Levellers and their more radical counterparts the Diggers-- plus the delicate task of keeping soldiers paid and happy which didn't always work quite so well for either side.
After all is said and done however, the book bottoms out for a few long, interminable chapters before getting interesting again toward the end when Parliament is summoned once more and officially offers Cromwell the Crown-- there's also much debate about bringing back the House of Lords, which had been abolished in the aftermath of the Civil War- and that eventually does happen, but the great drama of the final act of Cromwell's life is the 'will he or won't he' about accepting the crown- which he ultimately doesn't. Fraser correctly points out, I think (she's convinced me by this point) that Cromwell was probably the only person in England at the time who had the authority to refuse the Crown and yet still hold power- which says a lot, I think about the man.
If he had a misstep toward the end of his life, it was probably being unclear about who he wanted his successor to be-- seems like Henry would have been a better choice than Richard (whose unfortunate nickname of Tumbledown Dick should tell you something about his tenure as Lord Protector-- it was short) but Cromwell kept everyone guessing until almost the last minute and then he was gone and England was headed toward the Restoration and the return of King Charles II.
Fraser does a complete and thorough job on Cromwell, I think. I haven't done a thorough examination of all the other scholarship on Cromwell, but this feels balanced. She's not afraid to talk about his bouts of temper. Doesn't spare us any details of his time in Ireland- including the biggest blot on his military career, the massacre at Drogheda and really seems intent on drilling down to give us as fair a potrait of the man himself as possible and I think on balance, she succeeds at her aim.
Overall: If you want to know about Cromwell, you can't go wrong with this doorstop. It does get a bit plodding and dull through the middle third or so, but picks up at the end. My Grade: ** 1/2 out of ****.
July 20, 2016
I gave up on this about 1/3 of the way through. It's as dry as a bone - or possibly just too detailed for my degree of interest.
November 7, 2010
My sister had a twisted crush on Cromwell when we were growing up. She slept with this book under her pillow and I even caught her learning to kiss with his photo. It was so messed up.
June 14, 2020
Summary: A biography of Oliver Cromwell, a military and parliamentary leader during the English Civil Wars, rising after the death of Charles I to Lord Protector.
Oliver Cromwell, not unlike his ancestor Thomas Cromwell is a tragic figure. Both men had great strengths, and great flaws. Antonia Fraser's classic biography of Oliver Cromwell draws a highly detailed portrait of the man in all his actions that reveals both his greatness and his flaws, and the tragedies, both in and beyond his lifetime to which these led.
Fraser traces this life from its beginning as a child of landed gentry from Huntingdon, elected to Parliament in 1628. During this time period he underwent a religious conversion to Puritanism that shaped his thought and life profoundly. After Parliament's recess for eleven years, he became the member for Cambridge in 1640, sitting in the Short and Long Parliaments, and during this period became the outstanding military leader that led the Parliamentarians to victory over the king in the first English Civil War.
Fraser characterizes the greatness of his military ability as a combination of battlefield discipline instilled through training, and the ability to "seize the moment" when enemy weakness gave the opportunity for victory. The victories at Marston Moor and Naseby hinged on his decisive actions leading to the end of the first Civil War. This was followed by inconclusive efforts to establish a constitutional monarchy.
It was only when the Second Civil War was concluded with the fall of Pembroke castle and the Royalist Scottish Army's defeat at Preston at the hands of Cromwell, that things turned decisively against Charles I. His stubbornness was met by Cromwell's beliefs in providence, justified by his military victories and justifying the death of Charles, by whom so much blood had been shed. Charles I went to his death January 30, 1649.
Fraser follows all the deliberations of how to compose a government, beginning with the Commonwealth in 1649, of which Cromwell was one of the Parliamentary leaders. This was interrupted for Cromwell by a military expedition to Ireland, where he presided angrily over the slaughters at the Catholic strongholds of Drogheda and Wexford, a taint on his career. His victories there opened the door to a Protestant land grab. In the following year, Charles II, crowned king in Scotland, threatened the Commonwealth. Again, suffering in precarious health, Cromwell meets the threat at Dunbar and Worcester (further acts of God's providence) resulting in Charles II's flight to France.
His return to what was known as the "Rump" Parliament ended with another angry speech, resulting in dissolution of the Parliament and Cromwell becoming Lord Protector--royalty in plain clothes. We see his struggle over five years to form a government shaped by religious principle, and respected among the powers. His own failing health and the government's financial struggles doomed his efforts. Dying, he loses a beloved daughter and bequeaths the Protectorate to his son Richard, who had none of his strengths. This last less than a year until Richard fled England as the King was recalled. He lived abroad and under an assumed name most of his life.
There was good reason for his flight. Although not widespread, the King did avenge his father's death, executing the lead figures, and exhuming Cromwell's corpse, first hanging it, and then beheading it, the head remaining on a stake for decades. Fraser devotes significant attention the the exhumation and eventual disposition of the body and the head.
This is a long book and I found that Fraser's accounts of the military leadership seemed to have far more energy than the political accounts, that seemed rather tedious at times, albeit exhaustively complete. What she gives us is a complex and complete account of Cromwell, from the warmth of his family relations and those with many friends, the brilliance of his military leadership, punctuated with episodes of anger and precarious health, and the religious certitude, that was both a comfort to his soul, and a contributing factor in the execution of a king, and an attempt at a radical government. One wonders if he would have been better to leave political leadership to others, nearly always a good idea for military figures. To me, Cromwell came off as one you might admire but never like, and maybe not trust, for fear of coming up on the wrong side of providence.
Oliver Cromwell, not unlike his ancestor Thomas Cromwell is a tragic figure. Both men had great strengths, and great flaws. Antonia Fraser's classic biography of Oliver Cromwell draws a highly detailed portrait of the man in all his actions that reveals both his greatness and his flaws, and the tragedies, both in and beyond his lifetime to which these led.
Fraser traces this life from its beginning as a child of landed gentry from Huntingdon, elected to Parliament in 1628. During this time period he underwent a religious conversion to Puritanism that shaped his thought and life profoundly. After Parliament's recess for eleven years, he became the member for Cambridge in 1640, sitting in the Short and Long Parliaments, and during this period became the outstanding military leader that led the Parliamentarians to victory over the king in the first English Civil War.
Fraser characterizes the greatness of his military ability as a combination of battlefield discipline instilled through training, and the ability to "seize the moment" when enemy weakness gave the opportunity for victory. The victories at Marston Moor and Naseby hinged on his decisive actions leading to the end of the first Civil War. This was followed by inconclusive efforts to establish a constitutional monarchy.
It was only when the Second Civil War was concluded with the fall of Pembroke castle and the Royalist Scottish Army's defeat at Preston at the hands of Cromwell, that things turned decisively against Charles I. His stubbornness was met by Cromwell's beliefs in providence, justified by his military victories and justifying the death of Charles, by whom so much blood had been shed. Charles I went to his death January 30, 1649.
Fraser follows all the deliberations of how to compose a government, beginning with the Commonwealth in 1649, of which Cromwell was one of the Parliamentary leaders. This was interrupted for Cromwell by a military expedition to Ireland, where he presided angrily over the slaughters at the Catholic strongholds of Drogheda and Wexford, a taint on his career. His victories there opened the door to a Protestant land grab. In the following year, Charles II, crowned king in Scotland, threatened the Commonwealth. Again, suffering in precarious health, Cromwell meets the threat at Dunbar and Worcester (further acts of God's providence) resulting in Charles II's flight to France.
His return to what was known as the "Rump" Parliament ended with another angry speech, resulting in dissolution of the Parliament and Cromwell becoming Lord Protector--royalty in plain clothes. We see his struggle over five years to form a government shaped by religious principle, and respected among the powers. His own failing health and the government's financial struggles doomed his efforts. Dying, he loses a beloved daughter and bequeaths the Protectorate to his son Richard, who had none of his strengths. This last less than a year until Richard fled England as the King was recalled. He lived abroad and under an assumed name most of his life.
There was good reason for his flight. Although not widespread, the King did avenge his father's death, executing the lead figures, and exhuming Cromwell's corpse, first hanging it, and then beheading it, the head remaining on a stake for decades. Fraser devotes significant attention the the exhumation and eventual disposition of the body and the head.
This is a long book and I found that Fraser's accounts of the military leadership seemed to have far more energy than the political accounts, that seemed rather tedious at times, albeit exhaustively complete. What she gives us is a complex and complete account of Cromwell, from the warmth of his family relations and those with many friends, the brilliance of his military leadership, punctuated with episodes of anger and precarious health, and the religious certitude, that was both a comfort to his soul, and a contributing factor in the execution of a king, and an attempt at a radical government. One wonders if he would have been better to leave political leadership to others, nearly always a good idea for military figures. To me, Cromwell came off as one you might admire but never like, and maybe not trust, for fear of coming up on the wrong side of providence.
April 14, 2013
Given its popularity on the bookstore shelves in subsets ranging from scholarly historical documents to more salacious memoirs, the biography at first glance seems an easier task than the novel: you have a ready-made structure and you get to work with known facts instead of making things up. But writing a biography is a messy task, especially when you don't know the subject, especially when the subject is long dead, and even those who did know the subject may be hindered by agendas, excessive reverence or disdain, or just a plain inability to write. (James Boswell's The Life of Samuel Johnson becomes more and more, in my eyes, the most miraculous book ever written every time I think about it: a writer very close to the subject who could write within the conventions of his time while still slipping harder truths between the lines, and writing with a magnificent, inviting, yet still complex style.)
The challenge of the biographer, I increasingly see , is to present a narrative more artful than a mere chronology, inventive enough to give new purpose to well-worn facts (and clear enough in the presentation of new facts), and do so in a way which is distinct and inimitable: Strachey had his imitators, but it is a mark of tribute to the man that even the best of them were identified as such.
Over the past six months, three renowned biographers have attracted my attention as inspirational figures. All of them write about subjects whom they never knew personally, and who in most cases died before they were mature enough to write...for two of them, all their subjects were dead before they were born. All of them have written truly excellent books. And none would be mistaken for the others. I offer this criticism as something to keep an eye upon in your own future reading of this rewarding genre.
Lytton Strachey's own life story was told in one of the more perfect books ever given to us by SIR MICHAEL HOLROYD, whose collected work in the biographical domain is all on my shelf, if that may serve as a recommendation. Holroyd has spent his career working with the great artistic figures of modernity: Strachey, George Bernard Shaw, Augustus John, etc., and the defining trait of his chosen protagonists is their eccentricity, a word which as soon as I type it seems too mild, yet a better one may not exist. The advantage for Holroyd is having a trove of rich source material dotted with trappings of the scandalous: the original publication of his book on Strachey in 1968 was sensational for being so open and, more importantly, positive about Strachey's homosexuality in a way few authors had dared to depict it. Yet in rereading Holroyd's work, I am struck by how well-constructed his texts are in a way which presents these lives in an even more interesting light. He uses judicious extended passages from letters and diaries, well selected and edited, to let his figures speak for themselves whenever possible, and his own writing is marked by an aesthetically appropriate syntax and style, using poetic (but not impenetrable) language and long, flowing sentences to connect different scenes and epochs and above all details together. This approach has actually not served him well in his recent books, A Strange Eventful History and A Book of Secrets. Both group biographies instead of single portraits, he not only runs out of space to provide all the detail of his earlier texts, but also, his subjects seem more conventional, less dynamic, less exciting. ASEH, in spite of excellent prose, almost feels like a rehash of his earlier books in its second half concerning Gordon and Edy Craig, while in the first half, Henry Irving and Ellen Terry are the most staid people he's ever written about, and the best moments in A Book of Secrets, a failed but quirky experiment concerning a villa in Italy and some incredibly minor English historical personages, are when Holroyd breaks away from his main two-stranded narrative to write about himself and his quest as a biographer. Yet his minor work still contains such fine writing as to be worthy.
Alex and Travis persuaded me to pick up the three-volume, multiple-award-winning life of Theodore Roosevelt by EDMUND MORRIS, no stranger himself to the failed but quirky experiment (the infamous Dutch). But having completed the first two volumes, The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt and Theodore Rex, I can wholeheartedly share their endorsement, especially regarding the first. Morris writes with the scope of epic cinema, presenting a panorama of action, romantic settings, and vivid characters, none more so than Teddy himself, but just as in the great movies one is rarely aware of the writer in focusing on the acting and mise-en-scene, so Morris paradoxically succeeds by being one of the most faceless great authors I could conceive of existing. Faceless is not the same as "bad" or "lacking in style," but here Morris was dealing with a subject who left behind a panoply of anecdotes and achievements and whose inner workings were very much of the heart-on-his-sleeve variety. All Morris had to do was get out of the way. His prose is sparse, well-edited, and unremarkable, like that of a top journalist who has all the facts and simply needs to present them as they happened--the reader will find them of no small fascination, and he/she knows it. A more ornamental style might have detracted from Roosevelt's own narrative arc. Morris keeps himself invisible, letting incident build on incident naturally with no probing and no elaborate examination, and the result is a gripping saga.
And finally, my most recent obsession was spearheaded by another great friend who like Alex and I braved the waters of the University of Chicago MAPH year. Ava Ferguson introduced me to the work of LADY ANTONIA FRASER, who has spent forty-plus years producing the most compelling biographies imaginable in the face of a double handicap. Many of her subjects are long dead, and many are already caricature figures in the popular imagination, making new biographies a coals-to-Newcastle task. Fraser herself is a fine writer more than capable of elegant yet easy style and commanding use of language, simile, and metaphor, although I almost screamed when she made an allusion to the Shakespearean death of Julius Caesar worded in such a way as to group Antony in with Brutus and Cassius. But her purely literary prowess is not what makes her one of the finest practitioners within the genre. Fraser has a knack for assimilating primary material and drawing conclusions from it about the inner lives and motivations of her subjects which never come across as pat or pop psychology but as the natural result from the evidence; the ease of her style in presenting the details to one by one support her main points is a major plus. The other key factor in Fraser's success is that she does not indulge in hagiography or debunking; like Tolstoy and Trollope, her characters are remarkably flawed but also great. Her life of Marie-Antoinette, for example, which formed the basis of Sofia Coppola's biopic, does not shy away from the queen's frivolous personality and lack of judgment on some matters, but does shy away from the popular imagination's depiction of a spoiled rich girl out for sex and indulgent power. In Fraser's hands, Marie-Antoinette is a woman born in circumstances beyond her control who overcame them and rose to the occasion when needed: the final chapters of her courageous, self-possessed achievements during the Revolution are masterful. Her book about Louis XIV as seen through his relationships with women suffers from being too short for so many compelling characters, but is still more than worth reading. But Cromwell: The Lord Protector, her second book following her instant fame-winner Mary, Queen of Scots, is one of the best biographies ever written: Fraser humanizes Oliver Cromwell, lambasting him rightly for the Irish debacle and the lesser qualities of his rule but praising him as a master soldier and more than effective statesman. She writes of military and political action with sophistication but in ways accessible to the layman, and her portrait of a man who so firmly believed he heard the voice of God guiding him is an extraordinary one. To make no excuses for a man and celebrate him so much is a fine line, and she walks it perfectly.
I cannot wait to read Mary, Queen of Scots, Royal Charles, Warrior Queens, Must You Go?, The Weaker Vessel...and many more...
(This can also be found on my website www.addisonrecorder.com)
The challenge of the biographer, I increasingly see , is to present a narrative more artful than a mere chronology, inventive enough to give new purpose to well-worn facts (and clear enough in the presentation of new facts), and do so in a way which is distinct and inimitable: Strachey had his imitators, but it is a mark of tribute to the man that even the best of them were identified as such.
Over the past six months, three renowned biographers have attracted my attention as inspirational figures. All of them write about subjects whom they never knew personally, and who in most cases died before they were mature enough to write...for two of them, all their subjects were dead before they were born. All of them have written truly excellent books. And none would be mistaken for the others. I offer this criticism as something to keep an eye upon in your own future reading of this rewarding genre.
Lytton Strachey's own life story was told in one of the more perfect books ever given to us by SIR MICHAEL HOLROYD, whose collected work in the biographical domain is all on my shelf, if that may serve as a recommendation. Holroyd has spent his career working with the great artistic figures of modernity: Strachey, George Bernard Shaw, Augustus John, etc., and the defining trait of his chosen protagonists is their eccentricity, a word which as soon as I type it seems too mild, yet a better one may not exist. The advantage for Holroyd is having a trove of rich source material dotted with trappings of the scandalous: the original publication of his book on Strachey in 1968 was sensational for being so open and, more importantly, positive about Strachey's homosexuality in a way few authors had dared to depict it. Yet in rereading Holroyd's work, I am struck by how well-constructed his texts are in a way which presents these lives in an even more interesting light. He uses judicious extended passages from letters and diaries, well selected and edited, to let his figures speak for themselves whenever possible, and his own writing is marked by an aesthetically appropriate syntax and style, using poetic (but not impenetrable) language and long, flowing sentences to connect different scenes and epochs and above all details together. This approach has actually not served him well in his recent books, A Strange Eventful History and A Book of Secrets. Both group biographies instead of single portraits, he not only runs out of space to provide all the detail of his earlier texts, but also, his subjects seem more conventional, less dynamic, less exciting. ASEH, in spite of excellent prose, almost feels like a rehash of his earlier books in its second half concerning Gordon and Edy Craig, while in the first half, Henry Irving and Ellen Terry are the most staid people he's ever written about, and the best moments in A Book of Secrets, a failed but quirky experiment concerning a villa in Italy and some incredibly minor English historical personages, are when Holroyd breaks away from his main two-stranded narrative to write about himself and his quest as a biographer. Yet his minor work still contains such fine writing as to be worthy.
Alex and Travis persuaded me to pick up the three-volume, multiple-award-winning life of Theodore Roosevelt by EDMUND MORRIS, no stranger himself to the failed but quirky experiment (the infamous Dutch). But having completed the first two volumes, The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt and Theodore Rex, I can wholeheartedly share their endorsement, especially regarding the first. Morris writes with the scope of epic cinema, presenting a panorama of action, romantic settings, and vivid characters, none more so than Teddy himself, but just as in the great movies one is rarely aware of the writer in focusing on the acting and mise-en-scene, so Morris paradoxically succeeds by being one of the most faceless great authors I could conceive of existing. Faceless is not the same as "bad" or "lacking in style," but here Morris was dealing with a subject who left behind a panoply of anecdotes and achievements and whose inner workings were very much of the heart-on-his-sleeve variety. All Morris had to do was get out of the way. His prose is sparse, well-edited, and unremarkable, like that of a top journalist who has all the facts and simply needs to present them as they happened--the reader will find them of no small fascination, and he/she knows it. A more ornamental style might have detracted from Roosevelt's own narrative arc. Morris keeps himself invisible, letting incident build on incident naturally with no probing and no elaborate examination, and the result is a gripping saga.
And finally, my most recent obsession was spearheaded by another great friend who like Alex and I braved the waters of the University of Chicago MAPH year. Ava Ferguson introduced me to the work of LADY ANTONIA FRASER, who has spent forty-plus years producing the most compelling biographies imaginable in the face of a double handicap. Many of her subjects are long dead, and many are already caricature figures in the popular imagination, making new biographies a coals-to-Newcastle task. Fraser herself is a fine writer more than capable of elegant yet easy style and commanding use of language, simile, and metaphor, although I almost screamed when she made an allusion to the Shakespearean death of Julius Caesar worded in such a way as to group Antony in with Brutus and Cassius. But her purely literary prowess is not what makes her one of the finest practitioners within the genre. Fraser has a knack for assimilating primary material and drawing conclusions from it about the inner lives and motivations of her subjects which never come across as pat or pop psychology but as the natural result from the evidence; the ease of her style in presenting the details to one by one support her main points is a major plus. The other key factor in Fraser's success is that she does not indulge in hagiography or debunking; like Tolstoy and Trollope, her characters are remarkably flawed but also great. Her life of Marie-Antoinette, for example, which formed the basis of Sofia Coppola's biopic, does not shy away from the queen's frivolous personality and lack of judgment on some matters, but does shy away from the popular imagination's depiction of a spoiled rich girl out for sex and indulgent power. In Fraser's hands, Marie-Antoinette is a woman born in circumstances beyond her control who overcame them and rose to the occasion when needed: the final chapters of her courageous, self-possessed achievements during the Revolution are masterful. Her book about Louis XIV as seen through his relationships with women suffers from being too short for so many compelling characters, but is still more than worth reading. But Cromwell: The Lord Protector, her second book following her instant fame-winner Mary, Queen of Scots, is one of the best biographies ever written: Fraser humanizes Oliver Cromwell, lambasting him rightly for the Irish debacle and the lesser qualities of his rule but praising him as a master soldier and more than effective statesman. She writes of military and political action with sophistication but in ways accessible to the layman, and her portrait of a man who so firmly believed he heard the voice of God guiding him is an extraordinary one. To make no excuses for a man and celebrate him so much is a fine line, and she walks it perfectly.
I cannot wait to read Mary, Queen of Scots, Royal Charles, Warrior Queens, Must You Go?, The Weaker Vessel...and many more...
(This can also be found on my website www.addisonrecorder.com)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 99 reviews