In Deana Rankin's study of writing in English in Ireland from 1633 to 1689 (between the arrivals of Thomas Wentworth, first earl of Stafford, and James II in Ireland), she quotes the unknown author of the Aphorismical Discovery, who describes the Duke of Ormond's actions as military commander as “more like a comedian acting a tragedie on a stage with his borowed feathers, or self-conceited-bank-rout-courier shewing his trashes, with many unnatural and counterfeite motions, more like a civil marte of Indian wares then a martial theater of warlicke discipline” (144). The author was an Irish Catholic and had supported Owen Roe O’Neill and the Catholic Confederacy. Ormond was the leader of the Royalists in Ireland. Despite the fact that both the Catholic Confederacy and the Royalists were in opposition to Cromwell and the New Model Army, Cromwell comes off as much more admirable than Ormond in this work because of his military competence; he, at least, would have been a worthy opponent of O’Neill, had not O’Neill died before the arrival of the New Model Army in Ireland, because Cromwell had the heroic stature to play on the same martial stage. This example illustrates the conflicts Rankin examines in her thoroughly researched and insightful book. The lines of opposition in Ireland cannot be reduced to English versus Irish, Protestant versus Catholic, or Royalist versus Parliamentarian.

O’Neill, the descendant of former kings of Ireland, who had never been to Ireland until 1641, was a career European soldier and, as general of the Catholic Confederacy, represented the militant arm of the Counter-Reformation in Ireland. Ormond was Old English—his family had been in Ireland since the twelfth century—and although a Royalist, a Protestant. Among the Irish, the Old English, and the New English (those who had arrived during and after the Elizabethan settlement), alliances and enmities shifted under the pressure of both foreign and domestic events. These conflicts were fought out not only militarily but culturally in numerous texts that reflected the English, classical, and European traditions of military handbooks, histories, poetry, and plays, through which the authors sought to legitimate and defend the actions and aspirations of their own party.

Rankin analyzes the writings of a wide variety of authors, including the politically important (Ormond; Roger Boyle, first earl of Orrery; Arthur Annesley, first earl of Anglesey; and James Toucher, third earl of Castlehaven) and the literarily famous or notorious (James Shirley and Katherine Philips, on the one hand, and Richard Head, on the other). The historians attempting to impose their vision of the Irish conflict are studied in detail as well: Peter Walsh, John Lynch, and Richard Cox are just a few of the seventeenth-century historians whom Rankin considers. But what makes the book particularly valuable is the inclusion of writers with whom even most scholars of the period will not be familiar, such as the playwright Henry Burnell, the politician and diplomat Richard Bellings, and the professional soldier Gerat Barry. All of these texts are, as Rankin says, concerned with “how the terms, not only of Irish, but also of English citizenship were constructed and contested in the English language on the edge of empire and on the verge of war” (82). Many of these authors, even those who have been studied previously, have tended to be divorced from the Irish heritage or occasions for much of their output. Rankin argues compellingly that neither the Irish nor the English can be seen in isolation from the other. Both defined or contested national identity through opposition with each other and larger European movements. As such, the book is a significant contribution to British studies, in that the Irish are seen not merely as objects of English conquest (culturally or politically), but as active subjects in a dynamic relationship with an English society whose hegemonic ambitions were very much up for grabs.

As the dates of Rankin's subtitle would indicate, she is also interested in rescuing the seventeenth century from the long eighteenth century. I think this is reasonable; 1660 turned out not to have as much significance in Ireland as it had in England since most of the significant conflicts of the middle decades of the century remained unresolved, and 1688 certainly was a much greater cataclysm, particularly for Irish Catholics, than the nearly bloodless English revolution. This does, however, shape some of her readings in that she stresses continuity over the period and tends to dismiss what might appear to be contemporary perceptions of discontinuity. Thus when Colonel Richard Lawrence, whom Rankin follows through his progression from soldier to settler, clearly separates 1660 and the Restoration from the previous nineteen years of sporadic war and marks it as the beginning of a new Ireland (particularly economically), she sees this as his largely personal attempt to draw a boundary between his past as a nonroyalist officer and his new life as a loyal gentleman (73–74). In my view, Lawrence's claims are indicative of what many saw as a new orientation for British society.

In a book of such large scope, any reader will find numerous occasions for disagreement; for instance, I do not think Sir William D’Avenant (or Davenant) thought his patent for establishing one of the two London theaters was a consolation prize for not getting the Dublin theater patent (162). Moreover, Rankin does not pay much attention to the different rhetorical strategies likely to be employed in a manuscript as opposed to a printed text. But among the contributions of this valuable work are the opportunities it presents for future research. Rankin's discussion of Belling's manuscript History of the Confederation is fascinating, and I hope that someone will undertake an edition of it to make it readily available to a larger audience.