A rewarding and frequently brilliant book. You really have to stick with it, because the text is dense with information and the analytical insights are offered subtly. I read the revised version of 1960. ( )

4874. Europe in the Seventeenth Century, by David Ogg (read 30 Oct 2011) This was published in 1925 and so some of the commentary, even though it is about the 17th century, is not what would now be said of the events of that century. There are seven chapters (out of 13) which deal mainly with France, the nation which loomed extra-large in the century. Much of the material is of high interest, including an account of Jansenism, and of the 30 Years War. I also found the account of Charles XII of Sweden intriguing. The author concludes Charles was insane, since he did such dumb things, like leaving Sweden for years while invading Russia and holing up in Turkey. In general I found Ogg's comments insightful and worth reading. The final chapter discusses intellectual leaders of the century, such as Descartes, Leibnitz, and Spinoza, and Thomas Campanella, of whom I don't recall hearing previously. But there were stretches where I did not find the text too interesting, no doubt my fault but true. Despite the title, there is no discussion of England except as it pertains to her activity on the Continent. ( )

After monumental effort on my part to finish a book whilst being pelted with academic material I have decided to write another half-arsed review. This book was called Europe in the Seventeenth Century, 8th ed. by David Ogg. I read this in the spirit of sticking to a theme and the hope of expanding my interest. And despite many moments when I thought these would be failed sentiments, I actually came away from this book with some happy thoughts. This book has incorporated the premise that England was a waste of time, energy and thought in the 17th century, so not worth a groat of a mention. This is actually untrue, but tell that to Ogg. That's ok, though. I've got heaps of other stuff on England that quite happily rejects the fact of even Ireland's existence. There is a pattern not dissimilar to a foodchain here, in which the top dogs feed off the resources of their less mercenary neighbours.
The book has a strong focus on Louis XIV, the great bedder - another common theme of the era, but focuses on the foreign and state affairs of France and others to such a degree that I would often be compelled to put my book down and read some information literacy literature. Yes, that bad. To give an example of the effect: "In Bohemia Rudolph had found it expedient to make concessions, and in July 1609, against the advice of his ministers, Lobkowitz, Martinitz and Slavata, he signed the Letter of Majesty by which the nobility and royal towns of Bohemia, Silesia and Lusatia were accorded the right of building temples and practising the Bohemian form of Lutheranism".
The problem I found was that many chapters contained a plethora of such one-off examples, unfamiliar names, and places, that left me in a state of confusion that might be equated to Paris Hilton attempting Ulysses – or maybe not that bad; I should never compare myself to that human labrador. For this reason I figured the book must be meant for someone who already knew all this stuff. It just contained too much. It almost seemed like the notes of someone on their deathbed scribbling randomly their accumulated knowledge on 17th C Europe.
I can say that about the bulk of it, but I did meander away with some inspired thoughts and interests.
Mention of 'truly great leaders' in Poland awakened my interest. This is the kind of stuff we, as anglo-centric monkeys, miss out on in life. In 1683, the newly elected king of Poland, John Sobieski, responded to the awakening awesome Turkish threat in Europe by gathering an army of 18,000 Poles and, in unison with several other European forces, advanced on the Turkish army (mass harem and eunuchs included) as they lay siege to Vienna. The best bit is that Sobieski decided to do it the hard way. Rather than be predictable, he climbed the Kahlenberg mountain outside of Vienna before trooping down the hill and taking the Turks to task for trying to conquer the future seat of psychoanalysis and lazing on their arses for six weeks. Despite odds of three to one, Sobieski was victorious, and so ended what Ogg called “one of the few decisive battles in the history of the world”. Makes you wonder about the current state of Europe’s alternate universe. A turning point in history that we learn nothing about as kiddies.

The tragedy of the story is Europe’s response to Sobieski’s victory. It was played down or ignored and Poles were treated miserably because of the general open meanness of people and governments in the 17th century. The Polish nobility degenerated into a bunch of nasty, greedy backstabbers - an unpleasant situation that prompted Sobieski to leave court and retire. He spent his last years “in reading and gardening, occupations which earned for him the unanimous suspicion and contempt of the Polish nobility”. Poor dude.

I guess my other favourite stories were about Russia (of course). After old Ivan the Terrible died there were a succession of individuals on the throne, including a Pretender who ruled fairly and admirably; and an aristocrat Ivan, who has the misfortune to go down in history as “practically an imbecile” (proof against the justification for hereditary monarchies).

And one more story, set in France, in which religious nuttery of the early 18th C sent locals mad over the canonisation of the deacon of Paris. So mad, in fact, that some clowns danced on his grave, followed by a dessert of “blows from heavy hammers to prove their invulnerability”. Proofs which were further enhanced by being “hung up over fires holding pieces of raw meat”, and seconded via certificates “attesting [to] personal invulnerability and incombustibility”. Great stuff which helps eliminate perplexity about the idiocy of modern humanity.