Alan Stewart's book might not be great (and, indeed, Katherine Duncan-Jones's biography of Sidney is, in my opinion, much more engrossing and insightful), but it is not as hopelessly boring as a previous reviewer would have us think. According to the opinions expressed by that reviewer, it would seem that any life that is not well documented would not be worth writing a biography about. That is obviously not so, since lack of evidence has always added to a subject's historical fascination. This is especially true of everything Elizabethan. I believe that Philip Sidney was indeed an interesting character, not least because of his tolerance and compassion in a world where neither of these virtues was terribly commonplace. I also believe he was a gifted writer. He was also a member of a politically active family in a politically driven, factious age. Any of these elements alone justifies writing a biography about him. So there's no question of a "boring life" here. I think that the problem here is that Stewart gives a lot of facts, but little insight into what Sidney was really like. In regard to aspects of his emotional life, such as his real feelings for Penelope Rich and his wife Frances, this is probably due to lack of evidence. But, in regard to his more-than-documented public life, that can hardly be the case. I would have appreciated more interpretation together with the naked facts. Also, I think that the subject of Sidney as a writer was insufficiently addressed. Katherine Duncan-Jones's biography is much better at both these issues, and it is the book I would recommend to anyone interested in this remarkable man. Let me say, however, that all is not wrong: Stewart's attempt at depicting Elizabethan politics and power struggles is good enough. This is not what I'd call a gripping book, but it's not a bad one either. What is clear, though, is that in no way can any of its flaws be attributed to its subject. Philip Sidney was certainly a fascinating person in a weird, enthralling, fascinating age.