I wish I had discovered this book sooner! It's well-written and packed with fascinating information and analysis. I was particularly taken by chapter 33, "Madison and the Honor of God". Mr. Wills is dead-on accurate in his assessment about Madison being the single most effective force in disestablishment - information unknown to the general public. Books of this ilk can be dry, but Mr. Wills artfully weaves the threads of cold, hard history together, compelling the reader to continue. Great insights into the personalities behind the topic. A great book to start one's exploration of church/state separation. Even if you're already well aquainted with the subject, there are jewels of little-known information here that are worth picking up.

Award winning historian Gary Wills wrote this book after coming to the conclusion that the mass media and the elite that determines its content are hopelessly out to sea when it comes to understanding the role that Christianity has played and continues to play in American history and politics. Wills, a theologically liberal Roman Catholic, effectively demolishes the popular folklore that has grown up around the Scopes trial and Inherit the Wind, the smarmy propaganda piece that promoted that folklore. While never weakening his own support for evolutionary theory, Wills scrapes the facade of noble humanism that has been applied to Clarence Darrow, whose own interest in evolution had more to due with facist ideas about race than science, and the tarnish of buffoonery that has been applied to William Jennings Bryant, whose defense of intentional creation had more to due with a respect for human dignity and progressive social welfare than with blind allegiance to superstition.

This is a well-written book, with moments of eloquence. In the end, though, it is uneven and unsatisfying--and mistitled. The centerpiece is, indeed, the Gettysburg Address, but Wills spends most of his time exploring the cultural background to the speech (e.g. the Greek revival, nineteenth-century cemeteries, Transcendentalism) and discussing Lincoln's other speeches. All this is fine, and often interesting, but the book might more appropriately have been titled, "Lincoln: The Man Whose Words Remade America."

When he treats the cultural aspects of the period and the speech, Wills it at his best. His discussion of Greek rhetoric is truly fascinating. During the early 1800s, the United States experienced a Greek revival, in which intellectual thought moved from the Roman-republic fixation of the Founders to the ancient Greek democratic tradition. Edward Everett, a gigantic figure of the time and the main speaker at Gettysburg, led this transformation, part of which injected elements of Greek rhetoric into the culture. This showed up most prominently in the form of Greek funeral orations (such as the famous one of Pericles), a style that Lincoln adopted in his address. Also interesting is Wills' chapter on the culture of death: how cemeteries became detached from churches and moved into rural areas, how they were viewed as places of reflection and education, how even children were encouraged to participate in this culture.

However, when Wills moves beyond this generally straightforward telling of history into argument, the book grows considerably weaker. Arguing against James McPherson is a dangerous thing to do, and Wills does it twice, declaring that McPherson is wrong to suggest that Lincoln came to view the South, in some manner, as a foreign power and that his position evolved to embrace unconditional surrender and total war. Not that McPherson is infallible (indeed, I'm not entirely convinced on the former point), but Wills' arguments are entirely unconvincing. Moreover, Wills apparently has some ideological axes to grind against the conservative movement he left some years ago. Twice does Wills mention the twentieth century. Both times he attacks "states' rights" or "original intent" conservatives. Criticism is heaped upon Robert Bork, Ronald Reagan, and Edwin Meese, and special animus is reserved for Willmoore Kendall. None of these individuals is beyond criticism, but doing so in this book seems out of place and disrupts the narrative flow.

Wills' thesis that Lincoln effected a revolution in American political thought is a sound though not at all original one. To my mind, this book's merit lies in the first half of the book, where Wills delves into the culture of the early 1800s and places the Gettysburg Address within that milieu. The rest of the book, however, proves valuable only as a starting point for controversy, which is not entirely bad.

The 272 of President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address are as significant today as they were six score and seventeen years ago. Garry Wills' explicates them and paints a picture that gives us the historical context of the President's speech. It was short enough for generations of people to remember, yet at the same time, long enough to have a great impact on the ways we think of America. Wills argues that through his speech Lincoln remade the American history in that Americans would interpret the Civil War, and the Constitution, through the kaleidoscope of the Declaration of Independence. It is an extraordinary argument that, with just two hundred seventy-two words, Lincoln changed the American history and forever altered the ways we interpret the American Revolution. With a rhetorical approach, Wills - like Lincoln - persuades his readers, through evidence and interpretation, to be convinced that at Gettysburg, Lincoln "revolutionized the Revolution, giving people a new past to live with that would change their future indefinitely."

Wills begins with a vivid description of the consequence of the three-day battle in early July 1863 that resulted in fifty thousand casualties. While Wills mentions that Edward Everett was the star of the ceremony in dedicating the Gettysburg, Lincoln - through a casual invitation - decided to make an appearance there. The casual invitation did not intend to offend the President, nor did he get offended. Of course, this was no accident. For Lincoln, Wills reasons, it was an opportunity. It was his chance to recuperate the political fences and elucidate the goals of the Civil War.

Wills persuasively points out that contrary to the popular myth that Lincoln wrote his speech on his way to Gettysburg on the train, Lincoln was a scholarly man and has always performed his work with shrewdness. The President did not do anything inadvertently and thus, "it is impossible to imagine him leaving his speech at Gettysburg to the last moment."

It is an intriguing matter that just when the readers think that Wills has delivered them with everything there is to know about the Gettysburg Address, the author merely begins to examine the national treasure for historical and cultural context. He argues that Lincoln's address "is made compact and compelling by its ability to draw on so many sources of verbal energy." Among these sources was classical rhetoric. The author illustrates the different ways both Everett and Lincoln used rhetoric to persuade their audience. He compares Lincoln's speech, especially, to Athenian funeral prose which often began with a praise for the dead, and closed with an advice for those who are alive. Lincoln modeled his speech on them to articulate his thoughts to his audience.

Wills entertains his readers by compelling them to be fascinated by Lincoln's use of language. In fact, he goes as far as dedicating an entire chapter to the revolution of the prose style in America that he argues is among the accomplishments of the Gettysburg Address. Lincoln was fond of experimenting with words and their usage, and he spent a great deal of his time doing so. Using the changes the President made himself to his First Inaugural speech - that was prepared for him by William Seward - as his evidence, Wills explains that Lincoln acquired a rhythmic pace that made his sentences smooth and coherent. Ultimately, Lincoln embraced the ideals of rhetoric and used them efficiently to make his speeches more powerful.

The author goes a step further and provides his readers with an analysis of the Gettysburg Address. He records that the speech is outstanding and abstract. Unlike Everett's speech, where he provides details after details of the Civil War, Lincoln avoids them in his address. The President did not mention Gettysburg- the battlefield, or the Union- the defender of the Constitution, or the South- the runaway rebel that had just been captured; nor did he mention anything about slavery, the Emancipation Proclamation, or the future of the freed slaves. This was no accident at all. President Lincoln avoided mentioning these issues in his speech because, for one thing, they were the most controversial issues of the time. He did so, according to Wills, to look "beyond the wars to 'the great task remaining before us' as a nation trying to live up to the vision in which it was conceived." Lincoln wanted to put the war behind and move on to build a nation as foreseen by the forefathers of the republic. The Gettysburg Address focused more on the pivotal ideas for the nation and found a connection to the Declaration of Independence.

Throughout his book, Wills shows his readers that there exist a relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address. According to Wills, Lincoln often referred to the Declaration of Independence when he argued that it was inconsistent to think that the American people could believe that all men had the rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness but deny the very rights to black slaves. Lincoln was determined to not let this happen; and so, the Civil War was fought. Eloquently, Wills pens that Lincoln was able to remake America in his Gettysburg Address because he had spent a great deal of time relating the most sensitive issues of the era to the Declaration of Independence.

Lincoln, as Wills writes, viewed the Declaration of Independence as the basis of the American nation. Thus, it is deeply embedded within the Gettysburg Address. The pivotal argument of Wills writing is that in the Gettysburg Address, President Lincoln turned the attention of the nation of nations, the United States of America, towards its founding document, the Declaration of Independence. The President, with only two hundred seventy-two words, remade America on the most important principle of this sacred document - that all men are created equal.

Literary prizes are handed out every year, but true worth is manifested by actual readers going out and buying their books year after year. Nearly a decade has passed since Garry Wills won the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Critics Circle Award for "Lincoln at Gettysburg," but the magnitude of his achievement is measured by the continued interest which book lovers have lavished on this thoughtful and debate-stirring work of history. Wills situates the Gettysburg Address in the Greek Revivalism exemplified by Edward Everrett (the forgotten featured speaker at the dedication of the Gettysburg cemetary), as well as in the Transcendentalist movement of Theodore Parker and Ralph Waldo Emerson. He goes on to demonstrate the inherant radicalism of Lincoln's 272 immortal words, imbued as they are with the dangerous notion that all men are created equal. Wills argues convincingly that the Gettysburg address hijacked the narrow readings of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution put forward by the southern rebels; through his words, Lincoln succeeded in placing these founding documents on the side of the angels by insisting that liberty and equality rather than sterile legalisms about states rights were the true basis of the grand experiment of the founders. In so doing, America's greatest President changed the history of the nation forever, influencing politics and policy right down to the present day. Huzzahs to Mr Wills for disinterring the radical hidden within the Great Compromiser!! And thanks to the prize committees for getting it right for a change.

The Kennedy Imprisonment is a great look at the second generation of Kennedy's by renowned historian Garry Wills. It focuses on many aspects of the family's daily lives and legacies, including:
- The affairs of Joseph Sr., JFK, and EMK and how they affected the family.
- The Irish and English natures of the Kennedy's.
- The Kennedy's relations with J. Edgar Hoover, MLK, Nixon, and other prominent figures.
- Their campaigns for the presidency. (Particularly RFK and EMK)
While not a very pro- Kennedy book, this author at least presents his evidence in a factual, historical, and contextual way. Garry Wills is a great writer, and it is always fascinating to have an intellectual and well-read author take on such a fascinating subject. People who think of the Kennedy's in term of Laurence Leamer, John Davis, or Nellie Bly should look elsewhere. This book serves as a good companion to Michael Knox Beran, Evan Thomas, Adam Clymer, or Richard Reeves.

Garry Wills is one of the most popular contemporary historians. He is the former Henry R. Luce Professor of American Culture at Northwestern University and the author of numerous books, including "Reagan's America," "Nixon Agonistes," and "Lincoln at Gettysburg," for which he won the Pulitzer Prize. "The Kennedy Imprisonment" is one of his best, a book filled with intriguing insights into the most famous of American families. It is an extremely well written, entertaining, and important book.

Wills is primarily conducting a "meditation on power." He examines the notion of power as it pertained to the three most famous Kennedy brothers: John, Robert, and Edward. It all began with their father, the person who influenced them most. Joseph Kennedy--bootlegger, Hollywood mogul, and Ambassador to the Court of Saint James--was a man of great ambition. At one time, he had presidential aspirations of his own. When those fizzled, he transferred them to his sons, first Joe Jr. and then Jack.

The elder Kennedy manipulated his son's career and, more importantly, his image with all of his considerable skill. He had John's senior paper published as a book, "Why England Slept." He exaggerated John's war record with an article in the "New Yorker." He orchestrated his campaign to win the Pulitzer Prize for "Profiles in Courage," a book John did not actually write. Image, not substance, was what really mattered, and it was an early source of John Kennedy's, and, by extension, his brothers', power.

When John Kennedy ascended to the presidency--that is, when he rose to power--he was determined to be the antithesis of Dwight Eisenhower. Ike was old, Jack was young. Ike ruled by committee, Jack by fiat. Ike was tranquil, Jack was active. Most importantly, Kennedy was a man with charisma, in the sense that Max Weber meant it. Eisenhower ruled as a traditional "father-king." His authority came from his distinguished record of accomplishments and the dignity of his office. Kennedy's authority, however, came from within himself. His power emanated from his force of will, energy, self-confidence, brash intelligence, and personal style.

The man was what was important, not the office or the institution. His decisions were swift and arbitrary; he thrived in crisis, a common characteristic of the charismatic leader. He even created crises when necessary (e.g., the US Steel confrontation) and intensified them once they occurred (e.g., the standoff with Cuba). He saw the role of government as "defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger." He treated the Soviet menace as a "twilight struggle" with the enemy of freedom (shades of the Evil Empire). In crisis, he was at his best, able to demonstrate to everyone that he was the one man, the single hero that could save them.

His charisma allowed Kennedy to recruit his illustrious circle of disciples; the "best and the brightest." They were attracted by the power and the glamour of the Kennedy presidency, eager to become knights riding in service to Camelot. They were men who would not otherwise have been willing to serve in subordinate positions, but were glad to do so when it meant working for a Kennedy.

Having such competent advisors allowed him to utilize his power in broad and aggressive ways. Unfortunately, this also worked to his disadvantage. A sense of "we're so smart, we can do anything" pervaded the White House, resulting in unwise and even foolhardy decisions being made. This was seen most prominently in their dealings with Cuba and Vietnam.

Kennedy's style as president was unlike anything seen before. He was young and handsome, married to a sophisticated, beautiful woman-such a refreshing change from the stodgy, conservative Eisenhower years. Kennedy was a swinger, a man's man, a dedicated student of the Sinatra-Hemingway-Mailer school of macho bravado. He loved Hollywood and the Rat Pack and James Bond. He courted Marilyn and had assignations with a mobster's moll.

This style helped mold the image, helped create the charisma, helped feed the power. It made Jack a legend, but it hurt Bobby, and it crippled Ted. After Dallas, Camelot was over and the memories of the good times turned to acid in the stomachs of many Americans. They were still willing to accept Bobby--after all, he'd been there in the beginning--but when it came to Teddy, they were far less forgiving. After Chappaquidick, his hopes of one day following Jack were all but gone.

The power, prestige, and success of the Kennedy brothers followed a downward curve from Jack to Ted. After Jack was assassinated, there was still Bobby, the trusted younger brother and confidant, to carry on the dream. Ultimately, he proved a less than able caretaker. Even if he could have beaten Humphrey, he likely would have lost to Nixon, the ultimate defeat for a Kennedy. When he too was killed, the responsibility fell on Ted's shoulders and he was not strong enough to carry that much weight.

The burden of living three lives, with his the least important, was too heavy for Ted to bear. That is the true meaning of the title, the Kennedy imprisonment. Ted is a prisoner of the past, both his brothers' and his own. He is a prisoner of lost hopes and abandoned dreams, of what might have been and what never was. Teddy, the youngest and nicest, but the least capable, could never meet those expectations. He never could be Jack and, failing that, he could not even be Bobby. To live up to the ideal of two martyred heroes is too much to ask of anyone, even a Kennedy.

This book is part autobiography and part essay. While Wills appears to have led a charmed life - breaking easily into conservative journalism and finding love at the same time - it is the essays that are in my opinion the best part of the book. In them, he argues with great sense about why the lack of hard and unyielding convictions in politicians is a good and useful thing (it is their job to horse trade); and why radical change can destroy more than help (society is like a complex living organism). I have thought about these simple, pragmatic ideas for years, and he articulates them better than anyone. The art of politics in democracy is careful change, when society is ready but also when it becomes necessary. He also takes cynics, like Tom Wolfe, to task for ridiculing the liberal and radical pretentions of celebrities.

This is a truly wonderful book, which too few people have ever read, from one of America's best political writers. It is ironic that, while he identifies himself as a conservative, the drift to the right of American politics in the last 25 years makes him sound more and more like a liberal.

Garry Wills "Inventing America" is a interesting and unconventional take on the thought of Thomas Jefferson and his authorship of the Declaration of Independence. Wills rejects the traditional "Lockean" view and instead puts forward a different and, I believe, valid hypothesis. Wills finds the philosophy of the Declaration in Jefferson's reading of the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, Francis Hutchenson, Thomas Reid, David Hume, and Lord Kames. These thinkers beleived, along with Jefferson, that man had an inate "moral sense" which man him human and governed the affairs of society. Wills book starts out slow when talking about the Decalrations beginnings, and the early Enlightenment influence, but picks up when he relates these thought to Jefferson.

Chapters 16 and 22 are particularly good since they deal with Jefferson's views on slavery. Wills correctly shows Jefferson always thought blacks fully human with a moral sense and integrity. Although he found their intelligence possibly below other races he never rejected their humanity nor their right "as a people" to be free. Chapter 22 show the fallacies behind modern critisism about simply "freeing" the slaves. Wills shows how unrealistic and quite impossible a wholesale emancipation in colonial Virginia would have been. Instead Jefferson wants freedom and education for the blacks, in their own nation, colinized to Africa where they could live free "as a people". Overall a great book.

Books like these have fallen largely out of favor if they were ever in favor at all, now that pricey films, slick pulp paperbacks and the Internet have turned the assassination of John F. Kennedy into a major portion of a tremendously profitable nostalgia industry. The authors of "Jack Ruby" are not so much concerned with the activities of presumably sinister entities, be they Masons, Mafiosi or renegade CIA operatives.

Rather, Wills and Demaris are more interested in Texas in general and Dallas in particular as unique cultural institutions and how they shaped the attitudes and behavior of a small-time Chicago-bred nightclub owner who eventually got the public adulation he so desperately craved his entire life, but which quickly degenerated into historical infamy. The authors explain Dallas is a highly stratified, ethnocentric, self-consciously "new money" city obsessed with gaining positive cultural acknowledgement from the rest of urban America but is also planted firmly in the brash, no-holds-barred, us-versus-them frontier assertiveness that is Texas legend.

This, they claim, is what ultimately led to that live televised shooting in the basement of the Dallas police headquarters and the initial hailing of Ruby as a hero and then his pillorying as a murderer. Put simply, Ruby's "hit" was pure Texas, while his plaintive cry of "You all know me, I'm Jack Ruby!" to the police officers who cuffed him represented the secret yearning of many Dallasites who looked enviously upon the burgeoning cities of the Northeast (or even to their better-off neighbors) for social acceptance.

The book's only flaws are the lengthy parade of supporting characters and situations which are erratically introduced and dismissed and a writing style that often lapses into near-stream of consciousness. This can cause a newcomer to the already confusing world of JFK assassination historiography some distress, but the thesis and the evidence to support it are a refreshing alternative to what has become accepted (or not accepted) about the events in Dallas during the last week of November, 1963.

Some of the language in War Music is exceptional--Her breasts so lovely that they envy one another-- And he quit being-- His soul crawled off his tongue and vanished into sunlight-- And from its silver, sea-dark wine had crossed your lips (such a nice turn on Homer's wine-dark sea)-- Dawn stepped bare-footed from her lover's bed (Homer's rosy-fingered Dawn has become rosy-toed).

However it must be said further that this work seemed exhausting and extremely difficult to follow, except in the broadest outlines. Who is doing what to whom, and when and with whom, were questions constantly in mind while reading. Obviously this work does not purport to be a translation of Homer in the usual sense, but it is indeed a powerful and arresting poem in its own right, an inspired and original adaptation, which is of course what Logue intends. The introduction of modern words and non-Homeric references (Bikini, Iwo Jima, Napoleon, binoculars, etc.) is bothersome not because they are there per se, but because they seem so unnecessary to the context and tone of the poem. The seem like jolting anachronisms. Other images and words found within the Homeric world would have done just as well. And where on earth does he get some of the proper names--Bombax, Famagusta, Opknocktophon, etc.? If these are intended to provide a background of humorously named lesser characters, as in Shakespeare, perhaps reading the classics leaves one unprepared for them in this context and precludes appreciating them as such.

Logue's insight into the major themes comes across well. We see the wrath of Achilles wreaking its consequences. We know that when Patroclus goes out to die, Achilles will follow him. And we see foreshadowed that when Hector falls at the hands of Achilles and the doom of Troy is sealed, so too is Achilles own fate assured. Through all these themes the immortals are weaving their way, full of apparent fallibilities and indecisivenness themselves, playing their favorites, and never hesitating to interfere in the affairs of men, in which they take a great interest.

Logue's inspired poem is good and perhaps will lead some to Homer himself, especially if this version is heard aloud (as the mention of the BBC suggests), where the power and rhythm of the language can be demonstrated and felt to its fullness.

This is a flat-out triumph. Logue fills his take on Homer with dazzling imagery and stunning word-music. The Iliad falls right into our laps because Logue has given it a mighty shove. Only Professor Fagles' recent translation of the poem betters it and that is because Dr. Fagles has actually rendered the WHOLE poem in crisp, biting English that for the first time actually walks Homer up to our faces. In Fagles we can smell the breath of the blind poet, Logue brings us to the sweaty armpits.

As a styling, however, "War Music" has no peer and if Dr. Fagles has a slight edge it is because he has, after all, wrestled with the Greek text and got us into Homer's world all the way. Logue brings into the world but chooses to give us a whirlwind tour while Fagles allows us to slum awhile.

Still as much as I adore Dr. Fagles now celebrated translation, I am haunted. Logue's great re-imagining has left me shaken. The worship scenes are boffo and the Pax chapter that ends this fine "War Music" contains some of the sharpest, most moving, most eloquent, most rugged, and most manly, epic English verse since Marlowe's majestic "Tamburlaine" made kings into footstools.

And finally, there is this: As a work of English poetry, leaving Homer on the rocks for just a moment, "War Music" stands as one of the great collections of modern verse in the 20th Century.

"War Music" turns staid old men like me into groupies.

Bravo!

Why must old works of literature sound like they're covered with dust? People rail against translations of the Bible, like the Message version, and translations of classics, like this book, as if they were desecrating our grandfathers. This is a re-vision of a work of genius that truly brings Homer into the modern age. As George Steiner says in Homer in English (which shows all the brilliance, as well as the boringness, of Homer translators of the past), this is one of the few translations of Homer that is a work of art in its own right. Get it!

This book perpetuates the out and out LIES surrounding the Gettysburg address.

This quote says it all...

"The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history... the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it.

Put it into the cold words of everyday.

The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination -- that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth.

It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue.

The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought *against* self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves."--

As Gary Willis tries to indicate in his introduction to this illustrated edition of Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address," the reason it is the most important speech in American History is because until Lincoln made his few choice "remarks" at the dedication of the National Cemetery at Gettysburg, Americans did not believe the principle that "all men are created equal" that is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. So while this is a sense that the Union Troops did not fight for self-determination, or to free the slaves for that matter, we now believe that they did and we do so because of what Lincoln said at Gettysburg (Willis develops this argument more comprehensively in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, "Lincoln at Gettysburg"). This is what historicans mean when they talk about how Lincoln elevated the war to a higher level.

The speech is only 272 words long and is illustrated with a dozen marvelously detailed etchings by Michael McCurdy (he calls them drawings in his afterword, but since they are white on black I think of them as "etchings"). McCurdy depicts not only Lincoln speaking at Gettysburg, but also the actual battle and Lincoln's idealized vision of America. If students do not have the opportunity to hear "The Gettysburg Address" read out loud the first time they encounter it, then this book is a reasonable substitute for the experience.

I read this book aloud to my children. The text is simply the Gettysburg address, broken into phrases with an illustration for each thought. Two-thirds of the way through the book, I found myself weeping. The combination of Lincoln's eloquence and the illustrations touched me. I would recommend using this book to introduce students of any age to Lincoln's famous speech and the history associated with it.

Based on the recent declassification of the Kennedy White House Tapes. Some of the material about Kennedy in this book is based on false information provided by those within the Kennedy circle. I recommend reading more recently published books for a more truthful account of Kennedy.

I pulled this book off the overstock pile and was immediately absorbed in it. WHile it is not a scholarly treatment with footnotes, etc. - it is from essays Wills wrote in Esquire - it is a very humane inquiry into what ambition and power cost the Kennedys.

Wills makes one of the most cogent arguments that that family, so obsessed as it is with winning at any cost, is in fact hiding sickness and brutalities from outsiders. The story is indeed sad, as Wills concentrates on the lesser known characters in teh drama, such as Ted K's ex-wife, who was temperamentally unsuited to compete with this gang. There is no doubt that this is one side of this remarkable political family. To his credit, Wills does not let his political predilections intrude too much, but instead explores them as real people.

As always, Wills' writing style is beautiful and flowing, a true natural talent. Warmly recommended.

Garry Wills is one of the most popular contemporary historians. He is the former Henry R. Luce Professor of American Culture at Northwestern University and the author of numerous books, including "Reagan's America," "Nixon Agonistes," and "Lincoln at Gettysburg," for which he won the Pulitzer Prize. "The Kennedy Imprisonment" is one of his best, a book filled with intriguing insights into the most famous of American families. It is an extremely well written, entertaining, and important book.

Wills is primarily conducting a "meditation on power." He examines the notion of power as it pertained to the three most famous Kennedy brothers: John, Robert, and Edward. It all began with their father, the person who influenced them most. Joseph Kennedy--bootlegger, Hollywood mogul, and Ambassador to the Court of Saint James--was a man of great ambition. At one time, he had presidential aspirations of his own. When those fizzled, he transferred them to his sons, first Joe Jr. and then Jack. The elder Kennedy manipulated his son's career and, more importantly, his image with all of his considerable skill. He had John's senior paper published as a book, Why England Slept. He exaggerated John's war record with an article in the New Yorker. He orchestrated his campaign to win the Pulitzer Prize for "Profiles in Courage," a book John did not actually write. Image, not substance, was what really mattered, and it was an early source of John Kennedy's, and, by extension, his brothers', power.

When John Kennedy ascended to the presidency, that is, when he rose to power, he was determined to be the antithesis of Dwight Eisenhower. Ike was old, Jack was young. Ike ruled by committee, Jack by fiat. Ike was tranquil, Jack was active. Most importantly, Kennedy was a man with charisma, in the sense that Max Weber meant it. Eisenhower ruled as a traditional "father-king." His authority came from his distinguished record of accomplishments and the dignity of his office. Kennedy's authority, however, came from within himself. His power emanated from his force of will, energy, self-confidence, brash intelligence, and personal style. The man was what was important, not the office or the institution. His decisions were swift and arbitrary; he thrived in crisis, a common characteristic of the charismatic leader. He even created crises when necessary (e.g., the US Steel confrontation) and intensified them once they occurred (e.g., the standoff with Cuba). He saw the role of government as "defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger." He treated the Soviet menace as a "twilight struggle" with the enemy of freedom (shades of the Evil Empire). In crisis, he was at his best, able to demonstrate to everyone that he was the one man, the single hero that could save them.

His charisma allowed Kennedy to recruit his illustrious circle of disciples; the "best and the brightest." They were attracted by the power and the glamour of the Kennedy presidency, eager to become knights riding in service to Camelot. They were men who would not otherwise have been willing to serve in subordinate positions, but were glad to do so when it meant working for a Kennedy. Having such competent advisors allowed him to utilize his power in broad and aggressive ways. Unfortunately, this also worked to his disadvantage. A sense of "we're so smart, we can do anything" pervaded the White House, resulting in unwise and even foolhardy decisions being made. This was seen most prominently in their dealings with Cuba and Vietnam.

Kennedy's style as president was unlike anything seen before. He was young and handsome, married to a sophisticated, beautiful woman-such a refreshing change from the stodgy, conservative Eisenhower years. Kennedy was a swinger, a man's man, a dedicated student of the Sinatra-Hemingway-Mailer school of macho bravado. He loved Hollywood and the Rat Pack and James Bond. He courted Marilyn and had assignations with a mobster's moll. This style helped mold the image, helped create the charisma, helped feed the power. It made Jack a legend, but it hurt Bobby, and it crippled Ted. After Dallas, Camelot was over and the memories of the good times turned to acid in the stomachs of many Americans. They were still willing to accept Bobby--after all, he'd been there in the beginning--but when it came to Teddy, they were far less forgiving. After Chappaquidick, his hopes of one day following Jack were all but gone.

The power, prestige, and success of the Kennedy brothers followed a downward curve from Jack to Ted. After Jack was assassinated, there was still Bobby, the trusted younger brother and confidant, to carry on the dream. Ultimately, he proved a less than able caretaker. Even if he could have beaten Humphrey, he likely would have lost to Nixon, the ultimate defeat for a Kennedy. When he too was killed, the responsibility fell on Ted's shoulders and he was not strong enough to carry that much weight. The burden of living three lives, with his the least important, was too heavy for Ted to bear. That is the true meaning of the title, the Kennedy imprisonment. Ted is a prisoner of the past, both his brothers' and his own. He is a prisoner of lost hopes and abandoned dreams, of what might have been and what never was. Teddy, the youngest and nicest, but the least capable, could never meet those expectations. He never could be Jack and, failing that, he could not even be Bobby. To live up to the ideal of two martyred heroes is too much to ask of anyone, even a Kennedy.

Having laid out the price (plus sales tax)for Garry Wills' "Witches and Jesuits", it becomes neccessary to state that I had no trouble in putting it down. First, the author expends a great deal of energy demonstrating that there was a plethora of mindless plays and books about witches, etc. after the (unfortunately unsuccessful) attempt to blow up James and the Parliament. The author never seems to realize that what makes Shakespeare great is how he is DIFFERENT from his contemporaries.

Secondly, the author appears to have an inside track on the mind of God. He states baldly that God was on Malcolm's side, and Malcolm is the most depraved brat in the Canon. Mr. Wills doesn't have a clue as to "What Happens in Macbeth". The book is an excellent exercise in the politics of the Jamesian age,but who cares? James was referred to as the 'biggest fool in Christendom". However if one is searching for Shakespere, look elsewhere.

'Macbeth' is a play with a problem, according to Wills. Most directors consider it has too many witches and sprites, so they cut a lot of song and dance. Then there's that banquet scene climax that comes too soon and dribbles off into the seemingly pointless byplay between Malcolm and Macduff in England. Most of this is faithful to Shakespeare's source (Holinshed), but did the Bard fail to wrestle the material into a coherent drama?

Wills makes a case for considering the play in its context of current events and dramatic conventions. In particular, he believes that the recently-foiled Gunpowder Plot loomed so large in the public (and particularly, the royal) mind that much of what seems mysterious or pointless to us can be seen as plain references to the Plot and the Jesuit perpetrators of it.

He is a master of the material, and his enthusiasm and high intellectual vigor make this a joy to read. His solution to the 'problem' of Macbeth is radical: Macbeth is a witch, and the supernatural element should be stressed, not played down. Even the scene with Malcolm and Macduff can be rescued if one can see Malcolm as a counter-witch, good as against Macbeth's evil, rather than as cautious wimp.

The book is full of ideas for interpreting passages that have always been puzzles, and pulling the drama together. His ultimate justification is that Shakespeare was taking advantage of the times -- and that his first audience for the play was James I himself -- and so DID know what he was doing, that much that falls flat now worked well then. I would love to see a production that -- somehow! -- retrieved this vanished topicality.

Wills places "Macbeth" firmly within the context of its times. Shakespeare's play, in addition to others written in 1606-7, contains numerous references to the Gunpowder plot, an attempt by radical Jesuits made in 1605 to overthrow the government and Church of England. Wills, also author of "John Wayne's America,: and "Lincoln at Gettysburg," sees "Macbeth," (as is true of ALL media, whether enduring works of art as this is, or daily newspapers), as a political document. Only through a realization of this fact can the play be truly appreciated.