In Evaluating Empire and Confronting Colonialism in Eighteenth-Century Britain, Jack P. Greene offers a thoroughly researched and compelling argument about the critique of empire, or, to be more accurate, the colonial subject, during the period following the end of the Seven Years' War (1730–90). His compendious study, which encompasses an impressive range of primary source material, extends scholarly analysis of empire in print culture by challenging the notion that the British public was uncritical of empire in the mid-eighteenth century. Because the amount of material is so vast, Greene limits his study to “reports of parliamentary speeches” and “contemporary metropolitan, including Irish, publications about or relating to the overseas portions of the empire” (x). His main argument rests in a discursive analysis that critique of empire occurred primarily through the “language of alterity” and “languages of justice and humanity as standards for evaluation” (xii). Using the Seven Years' War that ended with the expansion of the British Empire in the East and West as a marker, Greene contends that these languages emerged alongside writing that lauded the commercial benefits of expansion. While the metropole acknowledged the successes of commerce, many voices also pointed to the disastrous collateral damage upon which those successes were founded.

The structure of the book includes a preface, a prologue, eight chapters, and an epilogue. The preface lays out the overarching argument and chapter structure. The prologue argues for the new use of the language of humanity and justice to critique empire by examining reports of the Carib War in St. Vincent. The chapter structure is organized primarily around the analysis of the colonizing subject overseas, specifically North America, the West Indies, India, and Ireland. In the opening two chapters, Greene introduces the multiple “languages” that helped to create an imperial Britain. Chapter 1 examines economic, commercial, and political languages that depict the overseas empire as a source of great wealth supporting national security. Chapter 2 introduces “the language of alterity or otherness to depict the colonies as receptacles for those who had failed at home: the poor, the unemployed, the unwanted, the outcasts, the very dregs of English society” (51). Chapters 3–8 examine specific instances in which these counterimperial languages are deployed primarily to critique the behavior of the English abroad. Greene points to the distinct divide that establishes the metropole as holding the high moral ground against the degenerate colonies. In illustrating this divide, his study is skewed toward representing the enormous challenge that the American colonies presented to imperial self-perception. Chapters 3 and 6 discuss the challenges presented by the buildup and aftermath of the American Revolution through the problematic claims of metropolitan control over colonial outposts. Chapter 4 examines colonial excess in India through the investigation of Warren Hastings, the East India Company, and the Nabob; this critique of empire centers on the individual's ability to amass fortunes through plunder. Chapter 5 locates the critique of empire in the vilification of the Creole as degenerate slave master and the burgeoning anti–slave trade movement. Chapter 7 focuses on Ireland, an often-neglected part of the empire that was completely excluded from the commercial success of the other overseas colonies. Chapter 8 ties these various sites together by examining the discussion of empire after American independence. Each chapter uses a range of primary sources to present both the critique of the colonial subject and the push back against that critique that deployed the same language. Thus, the epilogue concludes, “While they never entirely displaced the conventional languages of imperial discourse, by the mid-1780s these languages had acquired a new salience and prominence in the discussion of empire” (342).

This study makes a compelling argument for the use of multiple languages of critique and the ways in which the colonizing subject became the primary locus of that critique. A second, underlying structure is the discourse of the American Revolution against which many of these arguments seem to have been made. The greatest value in this study is the manner in which all aspects of overseas empire are tied together. Greene's study usefully characterizes the complexity of print culture in what he calls the “short eighteenth century” and brings these seemingly disparate critiques together (front matter). The most interesting chapter focuses on the critique of Protestant control of Catholic Ireland. While the language of alterity has typically been examined in characterizations of the Creole and the Nabob, the same analysis is very applicable to the Protestant landlord. However, because the book encompasses such a broad swathe of material, some weaknesses are unavoidable. The preface sets out a methodology of discourse analysis that does not follow through clearly in each chapter. Some chapters (3 and 4) become a bit unwieldy because of the use of long quoted passages. Close reading of a few of those passages would have assisted in discursive analysis. The prologue could have been better at contextualizing the longer history of the language of justice and humanity, and provided a stronger argument for the newness of the application of this language to the Carib War. In addition, though Greene states in his preface that he will not be dealing with questions of readership, some amount of theorizing about the readership of these very different issues would have been useful in understanding the significance of the variety of discourses. However, these are weaknesses rather than criticisms that do not detract from the overall value of the work. The book would be useful to a broad audience from advanced undergraduate and graduate students to scholars in the field. Moreover, Greene opens up new fields of analysis by inviting closer examination of the individual colonial subjects. Though these critiques did not subvert Britain's imperial designs, their presence across print culture merits continued scrutiny. I predict Jack P. Greene's excellent study will provide the foundation for future analyses of the complexity of imperial discourses.