It is so amazing that in a career lasting only four years, John Keats established himself as English poet who best embodied the sense and ideas of Romantic poetry. That his short life was cut off at such a young age was a tragedy in the sense of all the unwritten works that could have flowed from his pen, but even so, he achieved his life ambition of being "one of the English poets".
Darkling I Listen is an incredibly moving account of the last days of this most tragic (and most romantic) of poets. From his passionate letters to Fanny Brawne to his last moments under the care of his truest friend Joseph Severn, this story will wring your heart.

This book really is a little jewel -beautifully researched and written and incredibly moving. Keats is vividly portrayed, and , as the previous reviewer noted, Joseph Severn is given his due as the best person Keats could have had with him in his dying days. Severn was a devout Christian, according to Walsh, and his life after Keats' death exemplified the Christian belief that if you give selflessly, you will receive... Just have a box of tissues handy while reading this book...

Love may not kill, but it can certainly give you a smart shove down that road. Walsh's vivid, neatly researched book gives us a new look at the one whose name was writ on water and his curious agonies over the girl he would have married. Keats, impassioned, gifted, doomed, is even so not gilded here; from the surviving materials he is revealed as intense, a bit obsessive, and never more so than concerning Fanny Brawne. This is one of the most famed loves in history, freshly examined with the fairest look to date at Fanny's equally complicated character. Whether they take place in British rooms or Roman, the dramas within are drawn with lively and poignant detail. Special care is taken, too, to give Joseph Severn the full credit due for his constant vigil at Keats' long dying. To me, Severn's character was by far the most appealing, and Walsh's story left me certain that a steady, loving heart is genius of its own kind.

I read this book years ago at the public library and was fascinated by it. I have been trying (unsuccessfully, I might add!) to find my very own copy ever since. It is truly wonderful reading and I recommend it highly.

This is a fascinating and well written account of one of the best known, yet little understood, archaeological mysteries of the century. The discovery of the first-century grave under the present basilica of St Peter's is a detective story which is usually given a confessional treatment, if it is noted at all. Walsh does a brilliant job of untangling the threads of the excavation, without making assumptions about the religious aspects of the find. He leaves the reader in little doubt that what was discovered was what Christinas from the second century on certainly believed to be the grave of the apostle Peter. As for the bones, he makes a reasonable case for those being revered in the time of Constantine, without claiming that they are, or are not, those of the Prince of the Apostles. Whatever one's faith, this is a book to be read in one sitting. Anyone going to Rome should definitely read this before visiting the site.

This book is truly an eye opener. It is obvious that the author became more absorbed than he intended as he did the research for the book. I read this book again and again. It is really a detective story because of the secrecy and stealth of the brother's project and I believe the author was extremely careful to bring out the true story. I took it out of the library first, and then HAD to buy it for myself.

You will find that there is much more depth to their story than you may have thought. The author is able to be technical enough to satisfy most aviation enthusiasts, but the real surprise is the brothers themselves. The author is also able to take us back into the late 19th century, in order to understand the public reaction to the brother's claims.

You will have fun with this gem of a book!

Walsh brings well-honed historical skills to this narrative of the famous Piltdown mystery. Found in a gravel pit in 1912, the skullcap and jaw turned paleoanthropology into a ferocious battleground for many years. Reputations were won and lost over interpreting the artefacts in the ensuing years. Walsh carefully outlines the personalities and the sequence of events leading to the finds. He describes how reluctantly many scholars accepted the original interpretations, until a "second Piltdown" overcame their misgivings.

Walsh's chapter "Challenging the Skull" is an excellent summation of the level of knowledge available at the time. The key issue was the "ape-like" jaw adorned with a significant canine tooth, also found at the site. Several scholars argued that such a tooth precluded the evidence of human chewing wear seen on the jaw's molars. The second "find" swept away these contentions, although the chewing mechanism was never worked out. Arthur Smith Woodward gave Piltdown the appellation Eoanthropus dawsonii honouring the finder of the skull. It became the centre of British anthropological ideas for many years.

In 1953, however, fresh doubts arose concerning Piltdown. Walsh leaps the intervening years abruptly to introduce Joseph Weiner. Weiner, disturbed by the lack of supportive data and the results of new dating technology began to delve more deeply into establishing whether the jaw and skull were truly from one individual. Close inspection revealed the tooth "wear" was the result of filing, not chewing! After four decades, Piltdown was exposed as a fraud.

Walsh examines the cases against the primary figures involved in the find and the campaign to establish its primacy in the anthropological scene. Charles Dawson, the original finder is first exonerated as being "too honest" for such an act. Weiner, who originally investigated Dawson, couldn't obtain more than circumstantial evidence. Walsh continues by recounting the several provoking assessments of other participants. He finds the most compelling Stephen J. Gould's implication that the French priest, Teilhard de Chardin was the perpetrator. Of all Gould's assaults on various scientific figures over the years, this one has always seemed the least plausible. Walsh also finds it unconvincing, criticizing the use of evidence or its lack. He critiques other accusations in the same way. Yet, when he finally settles back on Dawson, his own case is built on surmise and supposition. He is unable to actually demonstrate Dawson perpetrated the fraud. Walsh's case is built on past events and some shady dealings on Dawson's part. Of Piltdown, however, Walsh offers no solid evidence. The most significant aspect of his case is his failure to provide motivation. He builds a flimsy foundation of sibling rivalry, plausible, but unsubstantiated.

The glaring omission in this book is Walsh's failure to place Piltdown in its anthropological context. While the deception circumstances and his survey of those accused of it make compelling reading, the real mystery is why such figures as Woodward and Keith clung to Piltdown's morphology in the face of contradictory evidence. The real challenge to Piltdown came from South Africa with Raymond Dart's find of the Taung Child in 1924. Taung's discovery refuted Piltdown's large brain capacity and the belief that modern humans evolved in Asia or Europe. Woodward fought this analysis for years, vigorously defending his
"Earliest Englishman" against the African challenge. Woodward's ideal early man must be British. While Walsh's "detective story" makes compelling reading, his failure to provide in-depth motivation for anyone involved, even Dawson, still leaves too many questions unanswered. Given the number of tarnished reputations the affair produced, this is an unfortunate lapse. While Walsh has built a strong case, the jury remains unconvinced.

In his Prologue, Walsh forcibly states: "The Piltdown fraud was nothing short of despicable, an ugly trick played by a warped and unscrupulous mind on unsuspecting scholars." He spends the remainder of the book sifting through evidence, eliminating suspects and finally exposing the forger and the web of deceit he wove. It is not surprising that among scientists (who must trust one another's honesty in order to advance the standing of knowledge), someone skilled at deception would pose a serious risk to the scientific method? And sure enough, the guilty party did not start with Piltdown, but had a long strng of fraudulent discoveries and plagarisms. Is it further any surprise that the guilty party was a lawyer?

I recommend this book highly to anyone who is interested in science or historical crime.

This book is a treat. The sheer common sense and respect for the truth blaze through it. I was impressed by the depth of research and the quality of the analysis. I can't recommend it too highly. I have read other books on this subject but have found their arguments unconvincing. Very highly recommended.

The author tries to 'prove' that Ann Rutledge and Abe Lincoln were truely in love, and planned to marry before her untimely death. Does he achieve this lofty objective?. I think he does, using mostly quotes and stories, and the unfairly ignored book by Lincolns former law partner, Mr. Walsh walks the reader thru the history of New Salem, the ways of life back then, and the people that remembered Ann and Abe as they were. He writes about some historians, who for one reason or another, refuse to accept the possiabilty that part of Abe died with Ann in 1835. The writing is crisp and informative and very helpfull in understanding how it was to live in the 1830's and beyond. Most of all i believe Mr. Walsh achieved something else-thats always tricky when writing about mythical figures like Lincoln. He made him very human....highly recomended

This is a book that has been 50 years overdue. The book effectively destroys the unwarrented attack on Ann Rutledge by Mary Todd Lincoln's defenders. Walsh shows that not a single person in New Salem at the time denied the affair. It was only when the Randalls in the mid-20th century decided to become Mary Todd Lincoln's defence attorneys that there was even a question about Ann Rutledge's affair with Lincoln.

A question that has never been answered is why did it matter? Why did MTL's defenders feel it cast aspertions on MTL if Lincoln was involved with a woman four years before he even met her?

Midnight Dreary seems to be separated into two different books: the first half is a fairly well-documented reconstruction of Poe's last days, including many details that I'd never read before. Unfortunately, the second book takes this sparse information and attempts to craft it into some earth-shattering thesis as to how Poe died. It fails miserably. Walsh takes his tiny pieces of evidence and surrounds them with so much conjecture and just plain old made up stuff that the entire book is tarnished. I will give but one example, although there are many: while it may be true that Walsh shows SOME small evidence that Poe was followed by his fiancee's brothers, where exactly does he come up with the bizarre scenario in which they trap him in his room and MAKE him drink a bottle of whiskey in order to tarnish his image? He presents No, that is zero, evidence that this is the case. That is just shoddy research work. Walsh's presentation of Poe's final days is riddled with such leaps of faith and ridiculous, undocumented conclusions, lending it absolutely no validity whatsoever. It's a shame too, because Walsh had enough shreds of evidence to frame the beginnings of a portrait and to start a good, scholarly debate. Unfortunately, he tried to hang the picture before it was finished.

Edgar Allen Poe's death has not lacked for theories. Now Walsh presents a solution that has many appealing elements. The most generally accepted theory of Poe's death has been death through alcoholic intoxication something easy to assume with someone having the long history on binge drinking. The problem is that Poe was in a good place in his life, his proposal of marriage having been accepted by his childhood sweetheart, now a wealthy widow and was traveling north on a job that would earn him substantial income.

Whether or not Walsh's explanation covers all the evidence in a reasonable way is for the jury of readers to determine. The book presents the documentation in readable form. I found it easy to follow Walsh's logic as buttressed by the evidence. I recommend this book for anyone interested in the dissection of an old murder and a reconsideration of the evidence.

I just finished this compelling book here on a sultry Saturday afternoon in August; nothing could have been better. Knowing very little of literary matters or much about E.A. Poe (except The Raven and Annibel Lee in 9th grade), I found this book to be riveting. I had not known of the mystery of his death or any of the theories pertaining to it. But having worked most of my life in mental health as a professional, I found myself more and more, as I sped through the book, asking myself whether this man might have been suffering from mental illness, certainly alcoholism as we know it today. The experiences and symptoms described of Poe by Walsh appear as classic examples of Bipolar Disorder or an agitated Major Depression with psychotic (paranoid) features. People who don't take their medication and who suffer from Major Mental Illness may often be "dually diagnosed" with substance abuse perhaps to self-medicate. The absence of real, tangible evidence in history to support the hypothesis that Poe was followed by Elmira's vindictive brothers during an agitated lost 5 days along the Eastern Seaboard, contributed to my obsessing about the possibility that just maybe Poe suffered from an agitated psychotic depression and had landed in Baltimore that October, 1849 having succumbed to alcohol poisoning. What a fabulous tale, but the sad mystery remains. And what a sad event for American history. And, oh, by the way, I found Walsh's writing to flow like a bounding river.

"Moonlight" by John Walsh is an embarassment to honest Lincoln scholarship. It is a book with enormous potential to illustrate one of Abraham Lincoln's most famous legal cases, but instead it weaves a narrative feculent with specious logic; the factual assertions of unknown, unknowable and unproveable theories; and assumption after assumption after assumption. Walsh proves some important points, and makes good use of some primary and secondary sources. He offers a detailed account of the murder, the trial and the outcome that cannot be found elsewhere. However, the positive attributes of the book become overshadowed by Walsh's outrageous assertions of supposition as fact, his assertions without qualification or citation, and his complete reliance, as unassailable proof and fact, on the second-hand interview of a trial juror 50 years after the trial. More than once Walsh makes unknowable and unproveable assertions, then admits he can't prove them, then dismisses this serious circumstance as unimportant. For example: "That the charge was levelled during Lincoln's senatorial campaign of 1858 is stated in many sources but I have not been able to document it." (p 155) "Moonlight" is a lost opportunity. The frighteningly childish writing quality, the fanciful indulgences, suppositions, specious logic, appearance of questionable sources and Walsh's own obvious insularity in his investigative objective, make this book a sham, and an insult to the field of historical research.

I think this book is an interesting evocation of the ethical scruples of Lincoln as lawyer. Contrary to the conclusion drawn by the author, the sources he relies upon demonstrate that Lincoln was ethical in the zealous representation of his client, an accused murderer. Even under today's legal standards, Lincoln would have been correct to instruct a witness that he was only interested in the witness's ability to testify on a single factual aspect of the trial and to instruct the witness to tell him nothing else except the truth about that single fact. During his preparation for trial, when the witness tried to stray from his instructions and inform Lincoln of other observations, Lincoln would have been within his right to interrupt and remind him that he mustn't offer additional observations beyond the fact requested.

Even today we instruct juries that they may believe all, part, or none of a witness's testimony. Lawyers are held to no different standards in their use of witnesses at trial except lawyers may not offer a witness whose testimony the lawyer believes would commit a fraud upon the court. Lincoln never placed this witness on the stand to elicit any testimony other than what the witness stated to be the truth. Thus the claim that Lincoln "suborned perjury" is naive and insulting. For all that, I enjoyed the underlying research, and the author's exposition of it. It does strike me that consultation with an attorney would have vastly improved the history and dampened the sensationalism.

Walsh provides a great service by re-examining the best-known case in Lincoln's law career, and shows how it has often been misunderstood. But his thin book draws conclusions far beyond his ability to support them. And Walsh doesn't help his criticism of historians by misspelling every occurrence of the victim's name as Metzger (it appears as Metzker in his reproductions of the original handwritten documents).

In the almanac trial, Lincoln supposedly showed that a key witness could not have witnessed an assault by moonlight because the moon had already set. Walsh corrects the record: the bright moon was simply lower in the sky at the time of the attack. By having the witness confidently repeat, a dozen times, that the moon was directly overhead, Lincoln "floored" the witness when the almanac showed that the moon was on the horizon.

Walsh is at his best here, showing Lincoln's skill in taking a fact that actually helped the prosecution and making it appear that it helped the defense. But beyond discrediting the main witness, Walsh shows that Lincoln had two other important arguments. A doctor testified that another man's blow to the back of the head could have caused the frontal fracture, attributed to Lincoln's client. (The judge thought Lincoln won the case with this testimony.)

Lincoln's other defense involved the weapon, and this is where Walsh falls into his most specious reasoning. Walsh's claims are based on a letter from a juror some 50 years after the event. The juror had by then himself forgotten the gist of the moonlight argument and in the letter also gets it wrong (p.113-114). Walsh ignores this part of the letter, but extrapolates wildly from another sentence in the letter to claim that Lincoln suborned perjury. It is not persuasive.

Just to give you a flavor of his standard of proof: Walsh claims that he can prove that Lincoln *never* talked about the almanac case with law partner Billy Herndon. He then analyzes the few sentences about the case in Herndon's Life of Lincoln, where Herndon makes the common mistake, and from this Walsh concludes that his own assertion is "sufficiently proved" (p 79).

This would be a better book without the chip on Walsh's shoulder, criticizing historians and accusing Lincoln of nefarious wrong-doing. But just ignore the occasional shrillness. This book is well worth reading for the wealth of detail on a fascinating case that ties Lincoln, on the brink of national celebrity, with his humble Illinois beginnings with Jack Armstrong and the Clary Grove boys.

John Walsh does not like Major Andre. This is what you come away with after reading Walsh's book. Walsh sees Andre as some master manipulator. This is at odds with the fact that Andre couldn't amanipulate his way out of capture despite having a legitamate pass from Gen. Arnold. All Andre had to do was to show the pass and say nothing. Instead Andre takes a guess at his captor's allegiance and blurts out his own. Is this the work of a master manipulator?

Walsh's section on the trial is informative.

I think it speaks volumes about the author that on page 69 of his work he adds a footnote informing the reader that the lower arm of the Hudson River has regular tides as it is part of the sea. "This fact and its bearing on the Andre story has escaped almost all previous writers. None dwell on it." On one hand I am glad that Walsh mentions the point becuase it does make clearer why two men were needed to row a boat out to the Vulture. On the other hand it seems as if he stops his story to take a bow. It left me a little confused.

I suggest instead J.T. Flexnor's "The Traitor and the Spy".

This book achieved a very important objective of nonfiction writing which is that it caused me to reexamine my understanding of Andre's character and his role in the events leading up to and after the discovery of Benedict Arnold's attempt to turn over West Point to the British. In other words, it made me think pretty seriously about what I believe about Andre.

There are many conclusions and arguments in this book that I disagree with. I don't agree that Andre was so selfserving and so manipulative that everything he did was for effect. Evangelist did not make a persuasive case for me. I was not pursuaded to conclude that it was solely due to Andre's manipulation that his three captors are routinely disparaged by historical writers. I still don't know what to think about the captors.I don't think the author made his case that Washington's views did not affect the outcome of the trial.Subsequent actions of Washington lead me to believe that he had lost his usual clear thinking when it came to Benedict Arnold's treason.

However, the author made me seriously think about all of these issues, and more. This is not the best revolutionary war history of the year and it is unlikely to win any awards. I recommend it because it raises questions and provokes serious thinking. At least it did so for me.

An intene look at the capture, trial and execution of Major John Andre, Benedict Arnold's British contact. This story will have you contemplating Washington's action and the outcome of the American Revolution. Specifically, one will be surprised how three young militia men may have saved the whole Contenental Army from certain defeat. John Walsh does a great job of keeping this story alive and keeping the question of Andre's sentence at the forefront of debates. A must for revolutionary war readers.

Walsh's account of the Todd-Dickinson affair is probably the most unbalanced work in the name of scholarship I have read so far. Unabashedly biased and judgemental, this book reeks of the author's personal issues with matters of adultery, while no effort is expended in trying to understand the complicated dynamic between all the adults involved in the affair.

Among other ludicrous and reductive explanantions for the behavior of Dickinson and Todd, Walsh asserts that Dickinson's participation in an almost fifteen-year affair was driven by a desire for "revenge against the fate" that had taken his son, who died as a young child. Walsh's grip on the psychology behind this stops here as does the supporting evidence. However, a great more effort is made to "justify" Austin's role in the affair while Todd, according to Walsh, is guilty of the deliberate "wrecking" of the reputation of Austin's wife, Susan, assuming that for her, malice toward others was the driving force behind her participation in the affair.

Apparently, Walsh is joining the ranks of a long line of historians and scholars who see fit to crucify their female subjects for deviant sexual behavior, while ignoring or justifying the same behavior in men. It is also interesting to note that Todd's sexual behavior is the just about the only aspect of her life mentioned in this book; her numerous accomplishments as a musician, author, painter, seasoned travelor and lecturer are dismissed or ignored. Once again, with Walsh's help, the historical representation of an ambitious, successful female is reduced to that of a conniving, malicious "hussy" whose sexual behavior exclusively defines her.

It seems odd that Walsh or any other investigator on this topic feels the need to "justify" or blame anyone's actions, well over a century after the fact. Susan and Austin Dickinson and Mabel and David Todd were all strong, creative personalities who created their own complex dynamic which in turn created the behaviors we have evidence of today. Understanding what happened between them as a group is nearly impossible, but reducing their individual motivations to a series of quick explanations is simply foolish and unrealistic. No individual is this easily explained through biography, historical research or other speculation. Even Walsh's attempts to portray Susan as the "victim" in the affair are reductive and insulting. That she should be viewed historically as a passive martyr, who "endured" the events around her, sacrificing her own accomplishments and reputation is ridiculous. Given her intelligence and social dexterity, it seems her role must be given a more complex motivation than this.

If nothing else, Walsh's account raises some important questions about just how much social attitudes toward women have changed over the years. Do we still consider successful, ambitious women who challenge the sexual status quo to be threats to society? Mabel Todd extended the notion of "ownership" in a nineteenth-century marriage to include more than one partner, and partners of her choosing. Mr. Walsh's aggressive condemnation of her suggests that if an educated woman were to suggest such a radical definition of multiple partner marriage today, she too would be considered deviant and perhaps malicious. Have attitudes toward women evolved to the degree where women might be able to criticize the accepted social dynamic of marriage without fear of castigation? Mr. Walsh's book suggests not, but I hope his view is an anomaly and that Mrs. Todd was not ahead of our time as well as her own.

John Evangelist Walsh's books explore murky literary corridors, sweeping aside rumor, innuendo, and distortion. In 'This Brief Tragedy', he examines the last days of Emily Dickinson, with particular emphasis upon the affair between her older brother Austin and the young wife of his colleague, Mabel Todd. Walsh brings a fresh and critical eye to this relationship, using their own letters and diaries to reveal the truth of this celebrated 'love affair'. Neither Austin or Mabel are well-served by their own words.

Walsh also argues for a new study of Austin's long-suffering wife, Susan. Susan was Emily's closest friend and supporter, but she has suffered through a century of bad press largely because of Mabel Todd's peculiar place in Dickinson scholarship. Todd was asked to type copies of Emily's poem for publication because the Dickinson family did not wish to risk mailing the original manuscripts. She did so, and from that humble beginning, managed to fashion herself into the authority on all things related to Emily Dickinson. In truth, the two women never met and Emily had a low opinion of the woman who willfully toyed with the emotions of both her nephew and brother.

But all lovers of great literature were desperate for information about the reclusive poet from Amherst. As various Dickinson relatives died in rapid succession, Mabel rewrote her own place in Emily's history. She found a receptive audience and few scholars have questioned her true motives. For this reason alone, Walsh's book is a necessary companion piece to Richard Sewall's celebrated two-volume biography of Emily. Sewall accepted Mabel's version of events so thoroughly that it mars his otherwise fine work. Neither Emily or Susan Dickinson left behind journals or diaries regarding the tumultuous events of the 1880s and '90s. But Mabel did. As a result, she has been given too much influence upon Dickinson scholarship. Read Sewall, but pick up this book immediately afterwards.