+ + – Lond. Times. 5: 253. Jl. 20, ’06. 3590w. (Review of v. 1.) + + Lond. Times. 5: 407. D. 7, ’06. 930w. (Review of v. 4.)
“All deductions made, however, (v. 1.) is well written and up to the standard of the series. This habit of superficial generalization is the great drawback to Professor Adams’s work, and becomes at times quite irritating to the careful reader. Professor Tout’s volume ... is excellent in every respect. The style is direct, the scholarship sound, the judgment sane.”
+ + – Nation. 82: 306. Ap. 12, ’06. 1180w. (Review of v. 1, 2 and 3.) + + Nation. 83: 372. N. 1, ’06. 1620w. (Review of v. 11.)
“Dr. Hunt makes some errors of fact, but it is his general attitude that lays him open to criticism. He should not have attempted a task that called so conspicuously for unprejudiced treatment.” Robert Livingston Schuyler.
+ + – N. Y. Times. 10: 924. D. 30, ’05. 2670w. (Review of v. 2, 3, and 10.) + + – N. Y. Times. 11: 535. S. 1, ’06. 280w. (Review of v. 11.)
“Mr. Adams, it is satisfactory to find, has acquitted himself creditably both in narration and exposition. It is in dealing with matters of foreign policy that Mr. Tout is weak, and more particularly in discussing the Welsh and Scottish wars. Dr. Hunt’s presentation makes too great a demand not only on the caution but on the patience of the student. On the other hand, his volume, like those of Mr. Adams and Mr. Tout, contains a great mass of important, well-digested, and well-arranged information not usually found in general histories.”
+ + – Outlook. 83: 38. My. 3, ’06. 1470w. (Review of v. 2, 3 and 10) + + – Outlook. 84: 45. S. 1, ’06. 380w. (Review of v. 11.) + + Outlook. 84: 238. S. 22, ’06. 280w. (Review of v. 1.)
Reviewed by Herbert L. Osgood.
+ + – Pol. Sci. Q. 21: 350. Je. ’06. 750w. (Review of v. 10.)
“Is a discriminating, accurate and for the most part rigidly objective piece of work. With a sound sense of values, the author has weighed and marshalled the conclusions of many scholars in his field; he has shown the mature judgment of an independent worker in the consideration of his materials; and, despite hampering and artificial chronological limitations, has presented the whole in a clear and measured fashion.” Charles A. Beard.