At times long winded and rife 5 dollar words, these volumes captures the era well. The years 1650 to 1700 were turbulent times for England. The plague and Great fire of London, Civil War the beheading of a King and the abdication of another and the ascension of King William and Queen Mary, whose influence steadies the kingdom to the present day. It wasn't all smooth sailing, humans being what they are. The more things change the more they stay the same. ( )

I picked up this book with some trepidation. I have heard this book mentioned many times always in the context of criticizing so called "Whig Historians" of which Macaulay was one of the most prominent. I also thought that the book being a large and dusty tome would be hard to read at n=est and boring at worst.
In fact nothing could be further from the truth. MaCaulay's prose is both rich and interesting. The book flows almost as a novel. Regarding the Whig bias this did not disturb me. I recognise that every history book ever written must reflect the bias of its authors. Will not our modern histories of twentieth Century events sound biased to the reader in 50-10 years.
I feel taht I ma learning as much about the 19th century, the period when Macaulay was writing as about the 17th century. ( )

1354 History of England: From the Accession of James II in four volumes Volume One, by Thomas Babington Macaulay (read 15 Aug 1975) A couple years ago I waded thru four volumes of Motley's Rise of the Dutch Republic, and hated the bias of the author every page of the way. Apparently I am going thru a similar experience with Macaulay's four volume History of England. His anti-Catholicism irritates me so profoundly I give no credence to anything he talks about involving religion. This volume covers to 1686, beginning about 1685, but does sketchily cover events prior to 1685. Chapte IV starts with the death of Charles II, and Chapters V and VI deal with the first part of the reign of James II. He is very biased against James II, so I am continually annoyed. But I believe I will read the remaining 3 volumes.

1355 History of England: From the Accession of James II in four volumes Volume Two, by Thomas Babington Macaulay (read 24 Aug 1975) Recently I read that to be intellectually alive one should read a book one feels one won't like. Maybe that is why I am reading these volumes. Volume 2 only gets to July of 1689. He is very anti-James II, anti-Catholic, and it hurts me to read him. When he is dealing with other matters he has a pleasant sweep, e.g.: "But, in the days of William III, Killiecrankie was mentioned with horror by the peaceful and industrious inhabitants of the Perthshire lowland. It was deemed the most perilous of all three dark ravines thru which the marauders of the hills were wont to sally forth. The sound, so musical to modern ears, of the river brawling round the mossy rocks and among the smooth pebbles, the dark masses of crag and verdure worthy of the pencil of Wilson, the fantastic peaks bathed, at sunrise and sunset, with light rich as that which glows on the canvass of Claude, suggested to our ancestors thought of murderous ambuscades and of bodies stripped, gashed, and abandoned to the birds of prey."

1356 History of England: From the Accession of James II in four volumes Volume Three, by Thomas Babington Macaulay (read 5 Sept 1975) This volume only took the history to 1692--it began with 1685. I said "I will be glad when I am finished."

1357 History of England: From the Accession of James II in four volumes Volume Four, by Thomas Babington Macaulay (read 11 Sept 1975) This is the last volume, and only took the history up to 1699 and 1700, with a section on the death of James II on Sept 16, 1701, and on the death of William III on March 8, 1702 (called in those days 1701, but of course after Sept 16, 1701). I was glad I read the volumes even though Macaulay is a bigot and this shows throughout the work. The four volumes totaled 2383 pages and took me over a month to read. ( )

One of the great achievements of historiography and of English prose. Macaulay had wanted to chronicle English history up to his own epoch, or at least until the reign of George III, in order to demonstrate in detail what has been called the "Whig interpretation of history," a view that human history conduces toward the achievement of greater personal freedom and progressive culture. In the event, he was able to reach the death of William III, and that only with the posthumous assistance of his sister. But what a tale it is, with a huge accumulation of incident and insight and a cast of characters that outdoes Dickens himself. Despite the intrinsic interest of the subject matter, though, the chief delight in reading Macaulay is his utter mastery of prose style. I can do no better than to quote a contemporary reviewer, Macaulay "succeeded in giving to the realities of history (which is generallly supposed to demand and require a certain grave austerity of style) the lightness, variety and attraction of a work designed only to amuse." How about just one little example, selected, I swear, completely at random? You can literally open the book anywhere and stick your finger blindfolded onto a choice formulation: "It was not only by means of the London Gazette that the government undertook to furnish political instruction to the people. That journal contained a scanty supply of news without comment. Another journal, published under the patronage of the court, consisted of comment without news." ( )

i love to read T.B.M. for his style. ( )