First, a few words to place my remarks in context. I'm not a historian (I'm an economist), but I've long enjoyed reading general histories. Indeed, I've read the entire 15-volume Oxford History of England, a series now being replaced by the New Oxford History of which, I believe, "A Polite and Commercial People" is the first volume.

Not being a specialist, I'm in no position to comment on whether or not Langford's book is representative of recent thought on the period. He'll sometimes set out a position with which he disagrees, and then explain his reasons for coming to a different conclusion. In these instances his may or may not be a minority view, but at least he has set out the opposing position with what seems like clarity and fairness. I'm not sure I'd want him to do much more in what is, after all, a book for the general reader.

The "general reader" of old was, of course, notoriously well-read, and at times Langford takes advantage of this assumption. I don't actually have the book handy just now and so can't check chapter and verse, but I think it helps if, for example, you've already heard of Maria Teresa. The author doesn't have time to explain, and a few times I found myself having to make an educated guess but, in 725 pages, this happened quite rarely (a tribute to the author's organisational skill, not to my own reading).

Traditional political history takes up only three chapters which Langford spreads throughout the book covering, respectively, from the accession of George II to the fall of Walpole, to the end of the Seven Years War, and to end of the American War of Independence. I've no idea how innovative or otherwise Langford was in choosing categories for his other chapters, but he manages to make concepts such as "politeness" interesting and coherent enough to serve as their themes. It strikes me that, when political history first began to fall out of favour, it was replaced by rather dull stuff that focussed excessively on, say, education or the poor law. Yes, these topics are dealt with thoroughly in Langford's book but, somehow, he manages to organise and interpret his material in such a way that it has all the narrative virtues we old-fashioned "general readers" used to like in those political histories. (I know that must sound naive to a historian, but these reviews are meant to be helpful to others who might share my failings. Another naive confession: I can't resist drawing a great many parallels between the period Langford describes and, on the other hand, our own times.)

Throughout, the author's style is elegant, varied and energetic without ever seeming affected in the slightest. It is direct, but capable of considerable nuance. I'm a surprisingly slow reader for a person who reads so much, but this really was [cliche alert] a page-turner [/cliche].

Now that I've finished it, I still might not be able to pass a pop quiz on the Gordon Riots, say, or the War of Jenkins Ear. Still, I've been entertained and--if I can put it like this--enlightened by this first volume in the new Oxford series. Bring on fourteen more!