It should be noted from the outset that for this reviewer, Curzon and British Imperialism proved to be a very difficult read. It falls within the category of pure diplomatichistory—the kind that unfolds dispatch by dispatch, direct quotation by direct quotation;that contains an overwhelming number of endnotes (1,170 for 244 pages of text); and that ispacked with sentences such as: “Neither the objection raised by Chamberlain, that thiswould contravene the Hague Convention, nor the possibility of upsetting the Russians, to whichRobert Graham alluded, deterred Curzon who, noting the concurrence of Hardinge andMcMahon, suggested that the views of the Government of India be sought on a change inCox's status” (p. 58). The inclusion of so much undigested material tends toobscure any larger theme that John Fisher may be pursuing. And although he claims to admire ElieKedourie, that scholar, whatever one may think of his views, was a master at synthesis andpointed argumentation. These qualities are mostly lacking in Fisher's work.