5 comments about William Marshal: The Flower of Chivalry.

1. This is a very easy read. Fast paced, really no slow dry stretches that I so often find in history books. I had hoped Duby would include more of the actual primary source, which is the biography of Marshal commissioned by his son after the Marshal's death. Duby speaks to the biography and pulls out pieces here and there for color, but I would have liked to have read more of it. Having said that, this was one of the most entertaining and interesting books on knighthood and the Plantagenet era that I have come across. Marshal was a true player in the historical events of the time, and his rags to riches story is very engaging.



2. Georges Duby, among the most influential French scholars to bring the middle ages to life, based his "William Marshall: The Flower of Chivalry" on many sources. One of those needs special mention. "L'Histoire de Guillaume le Marechal" is a poem of more than 19,000 lines commissioned by the eldest of Marshall's five sons to celebrate the life of their father.
   
   And what a life, rising from humble squire to become a champion in many tournaments and a feared warrior who ended his years as Regent of England after a lifetime at war. As a young knight William Marshall was severely wounded while saving Eleanor of Aquitaine from an ambush. She ransomed him and he joined her service. (See Duby's "Women of the Twelfth Century, Volume 1: Eleanor of Aquitaine and Six Others.")
   
   After that, William served Eleanor's spouse, King Henry I, and their crowned heir to England, Young Henry: William's tournament winnings repaid Young Henry's debts. After that, William took his sword to Palestine, a vow made to Young Henry, who died at 15. Thereafter, William served Henry I again, then Richard I (Lionheart), his brother King John, and finally John's son, the boy-king Henry III.
   
   The age of chivalry's high point centered on the decade of the 1170s. We know of no better practitioner than William Marshall. His career and his conduct were those of the perfect knight. It is no exaggeration to say that the real life of William Marshall exceeded the on-screen career of any Hollywood action hero, with no stunt doubles or special effects.
   
   Duby puts more than William Marshall's career in brilliant context. His principal source, "L'Histoire de Guillaume le Marechal" was written, not in Latin, but in Anglo-Norman French. Duby explains its provenance. It remains the first document of such length to be written in French. And the odds are very good that the excellent poet who produced those 19,000 lines in octosyllabic couplets wrote them in England!
   
   Robert Fripp, Author,
   "Power of a Woman. Memoirs of a turbulent life: Eleanor of Aquitaine"



3. The life of William Marshal is an elusive life to study upon. There is very little written about him and what little there is reads more like propaganda. That being said, Georges Duby has done a superb job in bringing the character of William Marshal to life. We are told by Duby himself that he is not attempting to write a biography of Marshal, but rather use the lengthy poem written about Marshal to analyze his character and illustrate why he was thought of as the Flower of Chivalry.
   
   This is something that is hard to do. What is reality and what was written in order to lift Marshal high in the eyes of his peers? Using his own knowledge of the time along with other biographies written about Marshal Duby is able to depict a seemingly accurate rendition of the chivalric knight. We are treated to short, yet pleasingly full explanations of normal everyday medieval society. Where other authors pass over the trivial explanations Duby includes. Such as why a final resting place was chosen, the act of homage, why children were sent away, the importance of maternal uncles and so on... Small detail oriented research that one familiar with the period knows, and yet we as the amateur reader aren't too familiar with. This in itself makes this a book any reader of history should read.
   
   The only downside is that we may truly never know who Marshal was. What we know is based off of a poem commissioned by Marshal's son in order to lift his father, and thus the family, higher in the eyes of society. How much is propaganda? I think it safe to say almost everything is, but within this lengthy poem we can find the character of Marshal.
   
   I am eager to read something else written by Georges Duby. I would definitely recommend this book and author to all.
   
   5 stars.



4. As you may recall in the film A LION IN WINTER, there was a briefly seen character named "William" (played by Nigel Stock in the superlative 1968 version starring Peter O'Toole and Katherine Hepburn), the right-hand man of King Henry II, who fetched his master's sons, Richard and Geoffrey, and Henry's Queen Eleanor (imprisoned in England's Salisbury Tower) to the royal castle of Chinon in France for the 1183 Christmas court. This William was William Marshal, the subject of this small book (153 pages) of the same name by French medieval historian Georges Duby. The translated volume was published in 1985.
   
   Marshal was a remarkable man, whose knightly career spanned roughly five decades, over which time he went from penniless knight to acting-King of England (when he served as Regent for the young Henry III). Over that period, he was a faithful servant to four kings (Henry II, Richard I, John, Henry III) and one almost-king, the Young King Henry, the eldest son of Henry II crowned and anointed heir in 1170, but who pre-deceased Ol' Dad in June of 1183. William, by then Earl of Pembroke, died in 1219.
   
   Duby's interest lies in that facet of medieval feudalism called chivalry, and he admiringly uses Marshal's life to illustrate the subject. Indeed, the author's description of William's life seems sometimes oddly detached, as if describing a rat in a lab experiment. Georges uses as his primary source a biography of the man - twenty-seven parchment leaves containing 19,914 verses - commissioned by the family shortly after the earl's death, and which survived in its entirety to the present. The biography, "Histoire de Guillaume le Marechal", was written in French, a fact, I suspect, which was crucial in drawing Duby's attention to it.
   
   The author takes great pains to point out that feudal society was a hierarchical one comprised of superimposed layers, and with an order, ostensibly intended by God, "based on the intermingled notions of inequality, service, and loyalty." For laymen, i.e. the non-Church nobility - from bottom to top, from knight to king - it was a complex web of relations of domesticity, consanguinity, vassalage, and politics. Duby's great accomplishment in WILLIAM MARSHAL: THE FLOWER OF CHIVALRY is reducing this complexity to a human level for the reader using Marshal as the poster boy.
   
   With a knowledge of feudalism probably no greater than anyone with an average interest and instruction in Western history, I came away from this absolute gem of a book with a greater and satisfying understanding of five particular aspects of feudalism and chivalry: the loyalty expected of a vassal knight to his lord of the moment regardless of the latter's loyalty to his superior further up the ladder, the importance of tournaments to the knights' livelihoods, the role of increasing circulating specie in eroding the knights' class pretensions, the necessity of marriage to an heiress to move a bachelor knight up in societal rank (marriage = land = power), and the status of women, i.e. landed noble women, in this society run exclusively by men. Indeed, Marshal himself remained a bachelor - and, therefore, a relative non-entity - until he was almost fifty, at which time he married Isabel de Clare, a seventeen-year old orphaned heiress sequestered as a royal ward in the Tower of London for her own protection (like a gold bar in a bank vault), and who was granted to William by a dying Henry II. (At the time, Isabel, in terms of land, was the second richest woman in England.) After Henry died and his successor Richard confirmed the gift, Marshal hurried back to England from France in unseemly haste to wed, deflower, and claim his prize. Isabel, of course, had absolutely no say in the matter, a fact likely to infuriate modern-day feminists. In any case, Marshal lived long enough to father at least ten children by her, and it was via her patrimony that William became Earl of Pembroke.
   
   One last note about THE LION IN WINTER. William's role in the film was perhaps a screenwriter's embellishment. At the time (Nov-Jan 1183), Marshal was likely still trying to attach to a new lord's household after the death of his previous employer, the Young King Henry, the previous summer. The fact that Henry, Jr. had been in rebellion against his father at the time of the former's death wasn't likely to help Marshal attach to the latter's retinue, a feat ensured success only after William spent two years on crusade in the Holy Land from 1185 to 1187.
   
   I would unreservedly recommend WILLIAM MARSHAL to any casual or serious student of European feudalism during the reigns of the early Plantagenets.



5. If you like middle Ageds, this is your book. IF you like chivalry, this is your book. If you like to read a good book, this is your book. Prof. Duby was not only a great scholar, but as a writer has a great style. He is simple and elegant. Although is a short book it will give you a great pleasure. Not only if you are a professional, but to anyone who likes History and learning. iN fact any book by Duby is an open window to the middles Ages. So just get ready for a great trip.

5 comments about A Prince of Our Disorder: The Life of T. E. Lawrence.

1. While searching for literature on the man in the movie `Lawrence of Arabia', otherwise unknown to me other than knowing him as the brother of D.H. Lawrence, I stumbled across this most authoritative biography on the man who David Lean so magnificently portrayed in his film. He is one of the men who could be placed in par with other great leaders of Britain during the early part of the 20th century.
   
   While Lawrence's autobiography, `Seven Pillars of Wisdom' gives gory picture of his life in the desert and his adventurous war campaigns, Mack's book gives more insight into the man's psyche just as Judith Brown did on Gandhi in her book `Gandhi - A Prisoner of hope'. His many questionable traits (exhibitionism, homosexual tendancies, overemphasis of his achievements) are wonderfully analyzed with information gleaned from tons of historical materials. While the west looked at him as a great war commander (though some question his contributions during the great desert wars), the east, even the people who worked with him, do not consider him as a man who helped Arabs gain their freedom from Turks other than agreeing to the fact that he helped king Faisel in wars.
   
   Lawrence's genius is considered twined with his behavioral disorder, a not so common association among people who have schizophrenic symptoms except may be for rare cases of autistic geniuses like Peter Guthrie (not the Scottish mathematician but a not so well-known artist). There have been debates during his later years as whether Lawrence was in fact an autistic. At any rate, as reflected in one of his most famous quotes, he was a `dangerous' daydreamer who dreamt with open eyes and made things happen unlike night dreamers who dream in their dusty recesses of their minds only to wake up in the morning to see they are vain.
   
   T.E. Lawrence's life and his untimely death (by motorbike accident) left us with lot of questions as who was he and what was he doing in the middle east and what made him to completely depart from the politics of middle east and lead a secluded life of 23 years in the Royal Air Force (not forgetting his contributions to the invention of new types of speed boats). His appearances in Arab's traditional attire in Versailles during 1919 Paris Peace Conference with the King Faisel and with other western dignitaries draw a stark similarity with Gandhi's appearance in loin cloth and shawl during the Round Table Conference at London. Though Faisal trusted him as his benevolent, he did not entrust Lawrence completely as he always thought him as a British spy.
   
   I would suggest anyone who is inquisitive of T.E. Lawrence, also see David Lean's much acclaimed epic motion picture `Lawrence of Arabia'. If the movie `Lawrence of Arabia' captivated me, Mack's biography enthralled me with its abundance of well researched information. As with any other great men, Lawrence's life also is worth researching into. And these biographers are the ones who make legends live and help sustain the new generations' interest on these great people. A great biographical work!
   
   Mere coincidence or not, John E. Mack died of a car accident in New York in 2004.



2. I have now read several books both on T.E. Lawrence, the Middle East, World War I and English governmental history. This is by far the best biography on T.E. Lawrence and the situation in the Middle East that I have read. John Mack did an outstanding job of researching Lawrence for this book. One of the most interesting sections of the book was reading the endnotes. They provide even more information about Mack's research as well as to clarify some previous misstatements about Lawrence.
   
   Although Lawrence suffered greatly from depression and other disorders he was a truly great man. That he was able to be an outstanding friend to so many people while enduring personal suffering is amazing. John Mack portrays Lawrence in an honest light which actually makes Lawrence and his achievements all the more spectacular because of his personal struggles.
   
   John Mack's biography shows us that great people are not perfect nor does their greatness make them happy. He also shows that people who, if truth were know, live outside of societies norms can do world changing things and be loved by society. Lawrence seemed to have been very accepting of all people, other than himself.
   
   To call Lawrence's life tragic in some way diminishes his accomplishments. Was Lawrence a great man because of his problems or in spite of his problems? I think that Lawrence was capable of being a legend because of his problems. The psychological struggles he endured were who he was. Society is so quick to discount a person because of psychological problems, whether they are great people or not. If society were honest with itself, it would realize that everyone has some problem or other. Some, as Lawrence was, are open (relatively) and honest about their problems while most choose to act as if they don't exist.
   
   Winston Churchill, a contemporary of Lawrence's, also suffered greatly from depression and probably some other things as well. Churchill was also hero and a legend and was largely responsible for keeping the world free from Nazi Germany when few noticed the threat or appropriately dealt with it.
   
   It appears to me, that the greater the leader and the more astounding his or her abilities, the more "different" they are from what society believes is normal. A good thought to ponder.
   
   John Mack does an excellent job of providing a well-documented biography of T.E. Lawrence as well as an outline of his psychological makeup. Mack does not claim to understand Lawrence or to explain every behavior. I had expected to read more of a detailed psychological report and was, at first, a bit disappointed. However, the longer I read the more apparent it was that Mack was portraying Lawrence's personality through an accurate telling of his story rather than trying to lecture on "who Lawrence really was" and "why he did everything he did". John Mack also did not fall into the overly Freudian theory that Lawrence did everything because of sex. Sex obviously played a role in his psychology but did not appear to be the overriding theme.



3. Dr. John Mack's study of Lawrence is one of the most absorbing reads I've ever enjoyed in my lifetime. As Irving Howe wrote, "What finally draws one to Lawrence, making him not merely an exceptional figure, but a representative man of our century, is his courage and vulnerability in bearing the burden of consciousness." The impact that the trial by fire in Arabia appears to have had on his post-war life is shocking, and teaches us once again not to envy our great heroes. Lawrence wrote of General Allenby that great men cannot be judged by ordinary standards, anymore than the sharpness of the bow of an ocean liner can be judged by the sharpness of a razor. After reading "A Prince of Our Disorder," I recognize now that Lawrence was probably thinking of himself while writing those kind words about his former master, asking that he not be be judged by his hidden afflictions, torments, and self-doubts, all the while laying out those same imperfections for all the world to read. Lawrence warned us,"The documents are liars ... No man ever yet tried to write down the entire truth of any action in which he has been engaged." No man is truly capable of understanding his own subconscious motivations, but I doubt that anyone has ever struggled harder than Lawrence to achieve self-understanding. We will have to try to read between the lines, learn what we can, and apply that knowledge to enrich our own poor lives.
   
   So sad for all of us that our leaders are not of the same introspective type. Dr. Mack comments in his introduction that "The destructive leader, and the eagerness of a large segment of the population to identify with him, comprise one of the central threats -- if not the greatest threat -- that faces human society. There is perhaps an increasing unwillingness to entrust our well-being and our lives to individuals and characters we do not understand and whose ultimate purposes we are ignorant of." Let's hope so.
   
   Jeremy Wilson's massive biography "Lawrence of Arabia" may better satisfy military readers interested in extensive contemporary document citations, and includes much more detail on Lawrence's Cairo years. Wilson also has a better set of photographs. The 1922 Oxford full text of "Seven Pillars of Wisdom," edited by Jeremy and Nicole Wilson and available from Castle Hill Press in the UK, is most highly recommended to all who find "T.E.L." fascinating.



4. For years, I have studied the life and works of T. E. Lawrence. My research has lead me across the pages of hundreds of books including his own Seven Pillars of Wisdom, but the best biography and analysis of Lawrence I have yet encountered is A Prince of Our Disorder.

   Dr. Mack's thorough examination and explanation of the effect of Lawrence's childhood on his adult life and mentality is brilliant. Instead of merely stating his opinions, he touches on those of other biographers as well and then proceeds to state how and why he feels they are accurate or inaccurate, providing quotes from military reports, other Lawrence books, interviews with Lawrence's relatives and friends, and Seven Pillars of Wisdom.

   If you read A Prince of Our Disorder, I can almost 100% gaurantee that you will have a better understanding of Lawrence's personal role in the Hejaz Campaign and the lasting effects of his experiences in Arabia on him physically and psychologically. Thankfully, it is beautifully written, and not at all confusing.

   From the moment Mack "introduces" you to Lawrence you will have a desire to learn more about him, and as Mack walks you through his troubled life, you will feel pity and awe for this untouchable man.

   I think that A Prince of Our Disorder clarifies the line between the legend of the indestructable, hero-Lawrence and the lost, soul-searching man Lawrence really was.




5. I've been studying the life of Lawrence nearly all of my own 50 years, since I was thirteen. I've read and reread all I could find about him, especially his own Seven Pillars of Wisdom. How refreshing it was to read Professor Mack's excellent book which covers so much more than I'd ever found before and with surprisingly brilliant insight. A fresh look at this enigmatic figure with modern eyes and a richer understanding. A great read.

5 comments about The Life of Thomas More.

1. Sir Thomas More was a Londoner from birth. He was born in 1478 in the last flowering of the late Middle Ages Roman Catholic world of that distant day. More was a brilliant student who studied at Oxford and at the law courts of Lincoln Inn. More rose high and became Lord Chancellor of England under Henry VIII. All was well with Sir Thomas as he served King and Country as lawyer, judge, diplomat, Steward of Oxford and Cambridge, pious Christian layperson and author. His book "Utopia" has become a deserved classic of satire.
   More was a humanist who was friendly with great men such as Erasmus who often visited him in his estate in Sussex. More was twice married to Jane Colt who died at 22 and the widow Alice Middleton who was witty, wealth and wise. More had a quick wit, deep love of God and strong belief in the
   beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church. More had several children by his first wife. His daughter Margaret was considered to be the smartest woman in England being proficient in Latin, Greek and the classics. All of his children loved him. More indulged in scatological jokes; had countless pets and viewed life as a grand drama with him as an actor upon the stage of affairs.
   On becoming Lord Chancellor after the fall of Cardinal Wolsey he was zealous in the persecution and burning of reformers and Protestant. More opposed the English translation of the Bible by William Tyndale. He could be cruel and was a bitter enemy of anyone who opposed the Church. Like most people of the age he was superstitious believing firmly in ghosts, omens in dreams and the literal interpretation of the Bible. More called for reform in the existing church but believed everyone should obey the Pope in Rome as a father is obeyed in the well ordered home. He would not brook breaking away from Roman Catholicism.
   More was beheaded in July 1535 and his property was attained due to his refusal to subscribe to the marriage of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. More believed Henry's marriage to his first wife Catherine of Aragon was valid. He believed that by marrying Anne the King of England was not in obedience to God's law. More believed the church should be governed from Rome rather than be ruled by the King of England. He hated Martin Luther condemning him to hell. More was inimical to the Protestant Reformation. His faith was in the old church which had governed Western religion for a millenium.
   My feelings towards More are mixed. I do not like his persecution of heretics but one most concede that he was a product of the cruel times in which he lived. I do admire his courage in dying rather than sacrifice his belief in what is right to do as God gave him the light to discern that right. More has been sainted by the Roman Catholic Church.
   Peter Ackroyd is the author of this 400 pages book making it much shorter than the definite biography of Sir Thomas by Richard Marius. Ackroyd portrays More warts and all giving a balanced view of the controversial man's life and times. More and his contemporaries are often quoted using the English of the period. This may prove annoying to many readers who prefer to read about him in a standard English format. This is a fine biography by one of England's best biographers.



2. Thomas More lived an exemplary life during hard times. His faith in the Catholic Church was put to the test by his king, and though he failed his king and paid the price on the scaffold, he served his God and was rewarded with martyrdom and sainthood. Peter Ackroyd's book is a brilliant and dramatic telling of More's life.
   
   Thomas More was born in London in 1478. He was educated at Oxford where upon his father's insistence he studied law. But he was also interested in theology and thought for a while of becoming a monk. Famously he wore a hair shirt his entire life. Instead of taking vows, however, he took a wife and had four children. He made sure his daughters received as rigorous an education as his sons. (His wife died in 1511 and he married Alice Middleton and adopted her daughter.)
   
   The law was More's lifelong profession where he represented various groups in the courts and helped settle trade disputes abroad. He wrote a history of King Richard III, wherein he portrayed Richard as a cruel, even criminal, ruler. In 1516, he published his most famous book, UTOPIA, which described an ideal community governed totally by reason. When Cardinal Wolsey failed to secure an annulment of Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine of Aragon, he was replaced by More as lord chancellor. He worked diligently in this position and became a friend to the king. But troubles were already visible in the horizon.
   
   When Henry, through the Act of Supremacy, declared himself the head of the Church of England, More was in opposition to him: he refused to take an oath of allegiance to Henry that would deny papal supremacy of the church. He was tried, found guilty, and beheaded five days later.
   
   Ackroyd is especially good in relating the dramatic events during these last few years in More's life. He narrates this with the power and skill of a novelist; indeed, it's almost impossible to put the book down during the last 100 pages. Anyone in want of moral uplift need only read these last pages for complete satisfaction. More went to the scaffold bravely, even telling the executioner to stay calm and aim true. He joked after stumbling on the scaffold steps and received help: "When I come down again let me shift for myself as well as I can." Then "he died the King's good servant but God's first," which is his life in a nutshell. Ackroyd writes with authority and tremendous style, but it's the drama that he infuses in his account that truly sets this book apart. Highly recommended.



3. The moment I finished Peter Ackroyd's "Life of Thomas More," my strongest impulse was to close it, open it up to the first page again, and start -- immediately -- reading it all over again, word by word, page by page.
   
   I hung on every word of this text. I wanted to understand Thomas More.
   
   I wanted to understand a man whose misogyny was obvious in his many derogatory statements about women. For example, when asked why he liked short women, he said that it was best to choose the lesser of evils.
   
   When a mature man, More married a mere girl and got her pregnant so many times in such rapid succession that she lived only a few short years after marrying him.
   
   More married his second wife, as the saying goes, while still in mourning clothes for his first. He mocked that second wife, Dame Alice, publicly. He wrote texts that associated women exclusively with sex and disgusting bodily functions like vomiting and diarrhea.
   
   And, yet, More was exceptional for his time in educating his beloved daughter, the one great passion of his life, Margaret More Roper.
   
   More persecuted his countrymen who deviated from the Catholic faith, and published vile condemnations of Luther, and eventually, knowingly, and humbly, sacrificed his own life to his own interpretation of that faith.
   
   More rose, through obediance, flattery, and dogged labor, from relatively humble circumstances to being Henry the VIII's chancellor, and a wealthy man, and then tossed away his considerable worldly goods and power to die an ignominious death.
   
   You want to understand a man who could encompass so many passionate apparent contradictions.
   
   And, so, I hung on every word of Ackroyd's detailed and yet economical text.
   
   My attention was amply rewarded. Ackroyd marshalls the kind of authentic, telling details of the Medieval life that More lived that can make an era, and its inhabitants, come alive. Even so, Ackroyd is never wordy. When he has said enough, he simply stops.
   
   Along the way, Ackroyd brings to light the life and impact of a woman he says has been nearly forgotten: Elizabeth Barton, a seeress and nun in Kent. Barton spoke against Henry VIII's divorce of his wife, Catherine of Aragon.
   
   Her voice was considered so important that Henry himself visited her.
   
   For her trouble, Barton and her priestly followers were tortured to death.
   
   As I read, I could not help but reflect: in our own age of "celebrity," we know too many details about non-entities we don't care about at all -- the Britney Spears and Paris Hiltons enjoying their fifteen minutes of fame. We can view film footage of their most intimate moments on the internet; hear their every thought in televised interviews.
   
   Thomas More lived five hundred years ago. We can't ask him to reconcile for us his hateful diatribes against women and his love of Margaret, his ant-like accumulation of worldly goods and his sacrifice for his beliefs.
   
   The records just don't exist.
   
   And, yet ... even though the More in these pages has to remain something of a cypher, even though More, as was the norm in his time, wrote with extreme caution in ambiguous, tradition-bound, unspontaneous and sometimes flowery prose, I felt I had an encounter, through Ackroyd's book, with a remarkable human being. I was in tears throughout the final passages leading up to More's death.
   
   A final word: I am a fan of "A Man for all Seasons." Again and again, reviewers pit Ackroyd's book against the Robert Bolt play and subsequent movie.
   
   One does not necessarily cancel out the other...both the film and this book work, for me, from what I know about More, as explorations of his life and impact, and his famous final choice.
   
   I never saw Paul Scofield's More as a Thoreau-like figure, as some reviewers have said; he was not depicted as living in a house in the woods, after all, and he did base his decision on adherence to a greater principle than personal conscience, i.e., the law, just as Ackroyd's More does.
   
   So, yes, do see the movie, and do read this book.



4. Gosh, golly gee, crikey - the superlatives could go on all day. This is a superb, densely textured biography. Ackroyd revels in the complex psychology and sociology of his subject, e.g., his devotion to duty, his father fixation, etc. He also places Thomas More firmly in the London of his time and in his historical moment - the Reformation - especially through More's own writings.
   
   It has been remarked that the chapters amount to a series of vignettes. That's true, and the amount of knowledge retailed in each glimpse of More and his world is staggering.
   
   To give but a few examples:
   Chap. 3 - St. Anthony's Pigs: we follow young More through the streets of Tudor London to his school and get insight into the Renaissance education system.
   
   Ch 4 - Cough Not, Nor Spit: Thomas' early career as a page to Archbishop (of Canterbury) Morton, Henry VII's notorious "enforcer". This relationship illuminates More's later dealings with Cardinal Wolsey.
   
   Ch 8 - We Talk Of Letters: sketches of Grocyn, Linacre, Lily, Colet, More - the "London humanists", or More's intellectual circle.
   
   And so on. The book continues in the same fascinating vein. It is a hard slog to read, and I'm sorry that Peter Ackroyd did not give a glossary of A) Latin and Greek expressions, and B) even some of his more obscure English words. I also regret that there's no map to illustrate Ackroyd's loving depiction of the London where More learned, lived, worked and suffered.
   
   More's story is well known and often told. Ackroyd has given a fully-rounded portrayal of the man, his background, career, family and friends.
   
   What a pleasure to read.



5. I enjoyed this book, but I do think that as a narrative history it is perhaps slightly flawed. The main strength (and problem) I have with this book is that the character study is so dominant that is completely ignores the larger historical picture that More lived within and, at times the dominant philosophy, that may have allowed a deeper understanding of More.
   
   The gnawing problem I have with this book is the main currents that More struggled against and the ideas he fought for are little outlined. The church that he so selflessly defended is little described beyond its social context in which More was raised. The central point of More was that the sublimation of the time honoured traditions (though admittedly flawed) could not be merely circumvented by mans personal appeal to God. Direct dialougue with God allowed a virtual pandora's box of interpretation and clash of beliefs that could only lead to mass bloodshed --- and he was right! This belief is left unexplored and the historical events, such as the peasants revolt in Germany that More abhored and used in his polemical tracts against Luther (a thoroughly scatologically unsavoury character) is not described. In addition Charles V sack of Rome and its influence on the relations with Henry VII are not considered relevant.
   
   So I feel dissatified because I am not getting a wide historical narrative. Although I understand the texture of the stones that he worshipped upon and the feel of the robes he wore, I have little feeling of the times that surrounded him. For the first-time reader of More, this may appear disconcerting.
   
   I realise that my critique cuts another way: if Ackroyd did write the larger historical narrative I wanted, he may have digressed into the narrative historical self-abuse of the 1000 page biography (only acceptable in the most exceptional of circumstances).
   
   I also get no sense of a building dennoument in the encounter with Henry. There is a annoying blase telling of the story with some bright moments -- the book gets better as one goes through it -- it is dense and quite frankly, a little boring in the beginning.
   
   ALso the Olde Englysh translations do detract from the flow of the narrative. Although it is easily understood ones reading flow slows from 700 words per minute, to 50 words per minute in the old English translations. He should revise it from the 16th Century vernacular to modern spelling.
   
   In final analysis I feel that I really did not understand the man. I feel that I need to get a hold of a better biography of the man. So if Ackroyd succeeded in doing this, then it was worth the read.

5 comments about Richard the Third.

1. In 1955 this old biography of old Richard III was authored by Ohio University Ph.d Paul Murray Kendall. The book is still being published and is, arguably, the best introduction to the life and times of the last Yorkist monarch of England. Anyone interested in Richard III should add this well researched book to his or her shelf.
   Richard III was born in 1452. His father the Duke of Gloucester was executed for treason. Richard grew up amid the confusion and tumult of late fifteenth century British life. He was the brother of Edward IV. His father Edward III had been a great warrior king. When Edward IV died in 1483 Richard usurped the throne from the new 12 year old boy King Edward V. Richard hated Edward IV's greedy and power mad widow Elizabeth Woodville and her family. Edward V and his brother the Duke of York were murdered in the Tower of London. No one has proven conclusively who the murderer was. Many historians speculate that it was Richard III who ordered the murders or perhaps the foul deed was done by his henchman the Duke of Buckingham (who later led an unsuccessful revolt against Richard).
   Richard was involved in the battle of Barnet along with his brother Edward IV which led to the death of the rebellious Warwick. He also particpated in the Battle of Tewksbury in which the mad King Henry VI
   was killed.
   Richard was married to Anne Neville who was weak and died prior to his own bloody death. Richard was popular in the North of England and his Council of the North brough orderly government to this volatile region. Richard particpated in battle against the Scotch keeping the English marches relatively well governed.
   The greatest challenge to Richard's eighteen month reign as King of England came from Henry Tudor. At Bosworth Field in August, 1485 Richard died in battle against Henry. Henry became Henry VII beginning 119 years of Tudor monarchy. Kendall is critical of Henry VII and says he was a tyrant. This is disputed by many historians while others in the academic community support this contention. Richard III was the last English King to die in battle.
   Richard III was no saint. He was a violent man living in a violent age. He died at age 33 and may have become a good king despite his bloody record. Kendall says later Tudor mythology especially in the biographies of Richard III by Sir Thomas Moore and the chronicler Hall have portrayed Richard as a monster who was deformed. This was not true. Neither is the portrait painted of Richard limned by Shakespeare in his history play true to all the facts.
   Kendall writes in a dry academic style with countless names. This is confusing for a lay reader unfamiliar with the history and players of the period. He is to be commended for his research. Most helpful were the battle maps especially of Bosworth Field which the author visited in a successful attempt to paint an accurate portrait of the crucial battle.
   This book is a fine and famous history of Richard III well worth reading.



2. This is a very readable biography of Richard III. While more recent research may have overtaken some of Mr Kendall's conclusions it by no means diminishes his scholarship.
   
   Richard III's life has been the subject of many works of historical fiction. Additionally, he appears in the works of Shakespeare, is dissected by Sir Thomas More and others writing during Tudor times. Variously lionized and demonized, he is considered by many to be either the tragic hero slain in battle at Bosworth Field or the murderer of the princes in the Tower of London.
   
   To see Richard solely as either a villain or a victim is to ignore the realities of the period in which he lived and the circumstances whereby he came to the throne.
   
   I recommend this biography to those who want to know more about the life and reign of Richard III or are seeking some historical background to some of the works of historical fiction in which he features.
   
   Jennifer Cameron-Smith



3. Paul Murray Kendall writes an objective biography of Richard III from his childhood to his death on Bosworth Field in 1485. He examines contemporary accounts with an emphasis on the reports of Dominic Mancini, who wrote from his own observations. He reviews pro-Richardian or revisionist theories as well as traditionalist viewpoints in an attempt to provide an objective narrative about the king's life.
   
   The book starts with the earliest known information (at about age 10) and continues through Edward IV's reign and into Richard's, ending with his death in 1485. Separate appendices deal with the disappearance of the princes Edward and Richard and Richard's character.
   
   In a nutshell, the author characterizes Richard III as a loyal, honorable, talented (military skills) leader as well as a devoted and religious family man. These strengths, however, were offset by inflexibility - a mind that saw black and white, but nothing in between - and political naivete.
   
   Kendall's analysis of the available information concerning the disappearance of the princes is objective and sensible. His conclusion: Richard probably knew what happened to them. If he sanctioned their deaths, he did so because that's what rulers did to deposed kings in medieval times. The times were cruel and Richard was a man of his times.
   
   Equally objective is Kendall's assessment of Richard's character.
   
   The book is an excellent introduction to the life of a fascinating man as well as the times in which he lived. Highly recommended. FYI, this edition is a reprint of the original work published in 1955.



4. It seems that you can find two camps comcerning Richard III - people who think that he was truly the deforemed monster portrayed by Shakespeare or those who think that he ought to be canonized. Paul Murray Kendall did an excellent job of rendering a portrait of King Richard III that does not revolve around the typical Tudor propoganda and at the same time doesn't clamour for sainthood to be bestowed upon him. Anyone who is looking for a relatively unbiased view of this misunderstood monarch should definitely look into this excellent source!



5. This book is one of the few that succeeds in revising the historical profile of king Richard by giving him the place he deserves. For centuries Tudor historians, particularly More and Vergil (using all the heavy artillery of political propaganda on behalf of their masters the Tudor kings) had drawn a caricature of king Richard, making him a monster, the incarnation of evil, not to speak of Shakespeare's play, as brilliant as false. This book proves that king Richard was a wise ruler, an excellent warrior (he decisively contributes to the final Yorkist victory over the Lancastrians in the battles of Barnet and Tewksbury in 1471), loyal to his brother king Edward IV, tender to his wife, loved by the people (specially by Northerners, by the people of York, where he was almost adored, while Henry VII and Henry VIII, the first Tudor kings, were much hated, which explains the constant rebellions of Yorkshire under Tudor rule) The tragedy of king Richard III has nothing to do with Shakespearean plot; it is very unlikely that he ordered the death of Edward IV's sons (the book provides an interesting appendix on the matter) and, of course, he had no body deformity. His tragedy was both personal and political: a man who saw the death of his beloved wife, son and brothers, a king who tried to rule for the people against the barons and paid a terrible price, the price of being betrayed at Bosworth field in 1485; a ruler who tried to take control of the political turmoil, hopelessly, as he found himself trapped in the turmoil, overwhelmed and finally swept away. However, he set the foundations of modern Britain, creating a strong State by undermining the territorial rebellious powers of the old feudal peerage, which were the cancer that had consumed the nation since the Beauforts had made a puppet of Henry VI, the last Lancastrian king, and which degenerated into the open enmity between the dukes of Somerset and York and the subsequent civil strife. Apart from reading a fascinating period of the History of England, this book made me seriously think of how easy it is to falsify History. Richard III is somebody who definitely deserved rehabilitation. Well done, Paul!

5 comments about A Medieval Life: Cecilia Penifader of Brigstock, c. 1297-1344.

1. Admittedly I wasn't reading this book for pleasure, as I had to read it for a class, but it is very poor indeed. Okay, I'm not a PhD historian like Bennett, but that shouldn't mean my criticism is invalid. The book is an interesting concept, trying find out what a peasant's life was like, but is just FULL of "perhaps she did this..." and "maybe she did that..." Bennett, in reality, is writing a book about the medieval peasantry, trying to make it interesting and accessible to college students by making the book revolve around a character. However, the book proves condescending, and left me very frustrated as a slammed the book shut on the final page. Here are a few examples:
   
   "I felt as if Cecilia was demanding...that I write her life" p. 138
   
   And regarding the 'doodle' in the court records: "If Cecilia is the woman shown in this drawing, we can surmise that she was tall, thin, curly-headed, and perhaps the bearer of a prominent nose" p. 130
   
   As with many other textbooks for college, this was too expensive for only 138 pages, and should be the $10 it is in the Marketplace, not the $30 that my bookstore was charging.
   
   The unfortunate truth is that it will be very difficult to ever know what life was like for the average medieval peasant since they did not write anything, and Bennett's account seems to add no real value to this subject area, and the 'story' of Cecilia Penifader could have easily been summarized on a page or two.



2. This was an assigned book in my Medieval History class. It's not a thorough book, but that would be almost (if not entirely) impossible given the fact that Cecilia Penifader was a peasant and peasants' lives were irrelevant and unimportant to the rest of medieval society. Still, the book gives you a good understanding of what life would have been like for this particular woman in terms of work, religion, family, dealing with manorial courts and the harsh existence for peasants.
   
   I found the book interesting. It's an easy read and though the author has to make inferences about Penifader's life, it is a well written book that at least gives some "face" to the typically unknown peasant. Bennett (the author) uses records from the courts and other written records of the times to at least give a good outline of Penifader's life.



3. This book was written to give the reader a sense of what life was like in the Middle Ages and it did, however, the author tried to use the life of Cecilia Penifader as an example-bad choice. There is very little information about this woman (especially to write a book over)and it was a guessing game at what she did or did not do. Without Cecila and her family information this book probably would have been 10 pages shorter and still given the reader a look into life in a medeival town.



4. Its a good book, but they're nuts to think a 120 page paperback is worth 28 dollars. I was going to assign this to my class, but no way at that price.



5. I recently read this book for a history class and have to say that the book is very enjoyable. It's brevity and clarity make it a great introduction to medieval history. Cecilia Penifader was a well-to-do peasant woman living in Brigstock, England in the early 14th century. Bennett uses Cecilia to introduce the reader to all aspects of peasant life in this time period. There are in-depth studies of economics, religion, living conditions, and gender roles, as well as other interesting facets of peasant life. Bennett also makes sure to include some interesting little tidbits, such as the role of contraception during this period.

   One of the best things to be said about this book is how Bennett highlights terms that the reader is most likely to not be familiar with. These words are listed in a handy glossary in the back of the book. Most people aren't familiar with terms such as heliot, so this addition to the book is very helpful. As mentioned above, the brevity and clarity of the book go a long way to making the text more enjoyable. The book foregoes footnotes and endnotes, which would certainly help the non-scholars who can't stand wading through tons of citations. There are also some nice diagrams that help the reader visualize various aspects of peasant life.

   The lack of footnotes and endnotes is a problem for the historian and student, such as myself. I wouldn't go so far as the other reviewer here and pan the entire book, but that reviewer certainly has a point. Bennett also relies on inference more than she probably should. Although her deductions seem sound, her conclusions, backed up with more evidence and properly cited, would have been much appreciated.

   I think this is an excellent survey text that would make a nice addition to any library. After reading the book, the reader can readily picture Cecilia and feel as if they almost know her, and any book that can accomplish that is always worth a read.

5 comments about William Wallace.

1. A fine collection of pretty much everything known about the historical Sir William Wallace, organized like a biography. I would recommend this book for someone who, like me, loves to read about and research the history of their Scottish ancestors, or who is seeking to read about the real man behind 'Braveheart'.



2. The one book (through Fisher) that sifts through the myths and facts about this Scottish hero.
   
   As a student of Scottish history, I would reccomend this well written book to any serious follower of Scottish history.



3. This goes good with the other book that I have on him William Wallace: Guardiian of Scotland.
   very helpful and interesting.



4. This book was a laborious read, as most works of history are. But the information didn't come as a bombardment, it came in morsels amidst a story that the reader wants to know. It is widely believed this is the definitive depiction of Wallace, and it is clear why, it is not solely about the man himself, but about the political climate and the players and the men in power around him.
   
   One will come away with eyes opened, and will understand the enigma that is William Wallace a little better. It is a book without a life of it's own, but it does a great justice to Wallace's.



5. With someone with little background in medieval history this book was well over my head. It felt as if the author assumed the reader to have a basic background on the subject. I do not and was hoping to build one with this book. Obviously I was wrong.

5 comments about The Lion and the Unicorn: Gladstone vs. Disraeli.

1. The overall style of writing was quite interesting and kept the pages turning. A look at the two of these very powerful men in a side by side comparison has been a long time in waiting, but the reader could benefit from more information about the period. Mr. Aldous does a commendable job of sticking with his thesis (the relationship of Disraeli and Gladstone), though it seems to be to the detriment of overall content.
   
   This book is for the veteran student of this period in history. The author assumes the reader already knows the basics of the period and of each character outside of their relationship - and rightfully so, because that is his intended audience. Early on he tells his audience of the volumes upon volumes already written on those subjects.
   
   The Lion and the Unicorn is not an absolute necessity for anyone adding this period to their knowledge base, but it is an entertaining and interesting bonus.



2. I thoroughly enjoyed this book! It read as easily as a novel. I wasn't familiar with parliamentary politics before reading this book, but that didn't get in the way of the drama of forming governments, jockeying for position, and all the other ins and outs of the Gladstone-Disraeli rivalry. Aldous takes the approach that the reader knows almost nothing about the issues and explains them from teh bottom up.
   
   If you have any interest in reading about the inner workings of the British Empire during the 1800's, this is a great read for you.



3. Aldous' accessible, colorful account of the decades-long rivalry between the two pre-eminent British politicians of the 19th century will confound those comfortable with the popular ideological stereotypes of today. Disraeli, the founder of the modern Conservative party, employed wit and mockery in a manner more reminiscent of a modern, smart-aleck liberal, while the Liberal Gladstone married his high-minded social-reformer's agenda to a dour Evangelical outlook. Both men's strengths and weaknesses are on full display, and Aldous succeeds in avoiding the temptation to pick a favorite, though I have to admit that Disraeli seems to have been a far more likable individual (provided that you weren't pierced by a strike from his rapier tongue, that is). Together, the two men helped shepherd Britain through a demanding time and left the nation and Empire stronger, no matter that they loathed one another. If this fine book proves anything, it demonstrates that severe partisanship doesn't inevitably end in wholesale cultural destruction - a good thing to remember as the 2008 Presidential race percolates.



4. This is a masterful book about two flawed but fascinating giants of British history. The story sets a fast pace through decades of political rivalry and extravagant backbiting between Gladstone and Disraeli, while also giving us well-rounded and reasonably sympathetic views of their personal lives. The author has chosen an episodic approach to telling his story, using set-piece events to move the narrative along and bring the protagonists into focus against the political world they dominated in the second half of the 19th century. In the end, it's obvious the author admires and enjoys Disraeli somewhat more than Gladstone, but then again, it's easy to see why: Disraeli is the seductive and magical unicorn to Gladstone's priggish (and yet perverse...) old lion. The writing is beautiful and tight and the storyline is perfectly paced. I sometimes finish a book, put it down and breathe a sigh of relief: I finished this book and wished for more. Well done!



5. The Lion and the Unicorn is an interesting discussion of the decades-old rivalry between Benjamin Disraeli and William Gladstone in nineteenth century Britain. What struck me most, though, was the way it seemed to limit the discussion to domestic matters. Maybe Disraeli and Gladstone never bashed each other over their respective heads about India, Africa, the rest of Europe, the American Civil War, or the Suez Canal, but I doubt that they totally omitted these arenas from their rivalry, either. According to the book, all of their activities seemed to be limited to tariffs, income taxes, and voters' rights issues, mixed in with occasional dealings with Ireland. And there is much more discussion of Gladstone's penchant for prostitutes than there is of any matters that extended beyond the borders of England.
   
   The author mentions the fact that Queen Victoria strongly preferred Disraeli over Gladstone, but never really explains why. I suspect that it had much to do with how they handled issues that involved foreign policy, but it's hard to tell from reading this book. Or maybe I just missed the explanation.
   
   It is an interesting book, but probably a lot less interesting than it could have been.

2 comments about An Old Woman's Reflections (Oxford Paperbacks).

1. In spite of other reviewers making light of this wonderful woman's story, I see it in a different light altogether. I think we all have a lot to learn from Peig's life and experiences. We are spoiled on material goods and suffer from spiritual deprivation. Peig may have had the "poor mouth" but she never whined about it. We whine about a red light that doesn't turn green fast enough or the fax machine when it seems to take forever. Does anyone really think we are better for that? I think not. I am now in my third reading of Peig Sayer's autobiography and, over the years, I keep getting more out of her vision. Do I want to live like her? Not entirely. Who wants to lose their children and be separated from those we love? Do I envy her close ties to nature and her personal relationship with God? Yes, I do. It's not that I want to be Peig Sayers, its just that I think she has a lot to say to those of us who have become so far removed from the essentials of God's world. I love her story and I wish I had known her.
   Marion Brown



2. This is the story...of a lovely lady! This book was the bane of every school child in Ireland for decades. It used to be on the curriculum so that, despite the fact that you would have to grit your teeth to read it, it was a bestseller in Ireland. It tells the story of Peig Sayers, a woman who lived in the poor and rural south-west of Ireland in the early 20th century. In this book, everyone was poor, no-one had anything, people were evicted from their hovels, life was hard, people died young, children were barefoot, the livestock slept in the house, it was always raining....well, you get the idea.

   Peig was born on the mainland of Ireland, but married a fisherman who lived on the Blasket islands, a small collection of islands a few miles off the coast of Kerry. Tough as things were on the mainland, things were tougher still here! You were lashed by the Atlantic, the wind could blow you off the cliffs, and you could be drowned while you were fishing, and that was on a good day! The book tells of her struggle to be accepted by the islanders, how she brought up her large family, how she coped with the death of some of her sons fishing, and the folklore, stories, and culture all around her.

   This book, and others like it from other authors on other islands ("The Islander" being another good example) formed a literary style which became known as "the poor mouth". They all share similar characteristics as they described the oppresive hardships suffered stoically by the people. Even now in Ireland, anyone whinging about their bad situation would be dismissed as "putting on the poor mouth" and everyone would know what was meant. There is even a spoof "poor mouth" book by Flann O'Brien, which is well worth reading as an antidote to all the hardship and depression!

   Now that Peig is no longer force fed down poor school children's throats, it has been re-appraised as a valuable historical record of western Irish culture, and no longer as an instrument of torture. Now that you don't HAVE to read it, more people now seem to WANT to read it! The book was originally written in the Irish language since that was the only language Peig spoke, but this translation in English is available.

   If you want a glimpse of an Ireland now long gone (and it really is long gone, despite what anyone might tell you), you can't go wrong with Peig. Just make sure you have a good supply of prozac close to hand.

5 comments about History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1).

1. Looking through this book reminded me of the movie "A Beautiful Mind". A brilliant mathematician constructs a fantasy world complete in every detail. The only problem is that it doesn't exist, and that he's as mad as a hatter.
   
   Just two examples of the many "possibilities" suggested by our schizoid author:
   
   (1) The Biblical flood and the Trojan War were the same event because Noah was Aeneas, who fled Troy to found Rome. (Noah and Aeneas had names that sound alike. Thus it is proven.)
   
   (2) Nine kings fled the fall of the Tower of Babel and seven kings founded Rome. Therefore, Rome was founded by the kings who fled the fall of the Tower of Babel. (In the author's words, the Biblical figure of nine is "close enough" to the Roman figure of seven.)
   
   Need I go on?



2. this book is absolute garbage. the author has no concept of history and completely disregards the archaeological and historical record. If you you want to know more about ancient history, go to the experts. heck, even Livy is better than this guy!



3. The professional historians faint as prominent mathematician Doctor Fomenko et al research the known historical data and come to fairly controversial conclusions.
   
   For example, the English historians rage at the suggestion that the history of Ancient England was de facto a Byzantine import transplanted to the English soil by the fugitive Byzantine nobility. As the sign of recognition of the special role of the English historians who consider themselves the true scribes of World History, the cover of the present book portrays Tintoretto's Jesus Christ crucified on the Big Ben.
   
   The Russian historians brand it as pseudoscience because Dr Fomenko asserts that there was no such thing as the Tartar and Mongol invasion followed by over two centuries of slavery, providing a formidable body of documental evidence to prove his assertion. The so-called `Tartars and Mongols' were the actual ancestors of the modern Russians, living in a trilingual state and aspiring Global Empire with Arabic and Turkic spoken as freely as Russian.
   
   The ancient proto-Russian state was governed by a double structure of civil and military authorities and the hordes were actually professional armies with a tradition of lifelong conscription (the recruitment being the so-called `blood tax'). Their `invasions' were punitive operations against the regions that attempted tax evasion.
   
   Fomenko proves for a fact that official Russian history is a blatant forgery concocted by a host of German scholars brought to Russia by the usurper dynasty of the Romanovs. Their ascension to the throne was the result of conspiracy, so they charged these German historians-imports with the noble mission of making Romanov's reign look legitimate.
   
   Dr Fomenko et al prove Ivan the Terrible to be a collation of four rulers, no less. These rulers represented the two rival dynasties - the legitimate Godounovs and the ambitious Romanov upstarts.
   
   The European historians fume not only because Fomenko blows consensual Russian history to smithereens, successfully removing a crucial cornerstone from underneath the otherwise impeccable edifice of World History but for asserting that all medieval European Kings and Princes were but breakaway vice-regents and vassals of the Global Empire who badly needed glorious and very `ancient' past in order to legitimize their new independence from the Empire.
   
   Dr Fomenko adds insult to injury, wiping out one by one: the Ancient Rome: the foundation of Rome in Italy is dated to the 14th century A. D., the Ancient Greece and its numerous poleis, which he identifies as the mediaeval crusader settlements on the territory of Greece, the Ancient Egypt: the pyramids of Giza become dated to the 11th to 14th century A. D. and identified as the royal cemetery of the Global Empire, no less.
   
   The civilization of the `ancient'' Egypt is irrefutably dated to the 11th to 15th century A. D. following the breakthrough in decoding of the ancient Egyptian horoscopes cut in stone and painted on the temple walls.
   
   Arabic historians may find some consolation in the crucial historical role of the Ottoman Empire as a part of the Global empire in the 15th - 17th century. The trouble is that this Empire was initially a proto-Christian state, with Hagia Sophia identifiable as Temple of Solomon, but built in 1550-1557 A.D. by Sultan Suleiman according to Fomenko and Islam with all its key figures is datable to 15th 16th century A. D.!
   
   The Chinese historians are also an unhappy lot because Fomenko wipes out the Ancient History of China outright. No such history. Period. The compilation of the so-called Ancient Chinese History is reliably datable to the 17th 18th century only. It is perfectly recognizable as the Ancient European history, reworked and transcribed in hieroglyphs as yet another historical transplantation.
   
   The Divinity excommunicates Dr Fomenko because the history of religions according to Fomenko looks as follows: the pre-Christian period (before the 11th century and Jesus Christ ), Bacchic Christianity (11th to 12th century, before and after Jesus Christ), Jesus Christ Christianity (12th to 14th century) and its subsequent mutations (15th to 17th cy) into Orthodox Christianity, the Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, and so on..; and The Old Testament written after the New Testament in xiv-xvi cy A.D., if you please! Everybody served? Saint Augustine was quite prescient when he said: "be wary of mathematicians, particularly when they speak the truth."



4. Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/RAZQNMXM4M9CL Has history been tampered with? Yes, it has! Did events and eras such as the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the Roman Empire , the Dark Ages, and the Renaissance, actually occur within a very different chronology from what we've been told? Yes, they certainly did!
   
   The history of humankind is both drastically shorter and dramatically different than generally presumed.
   
   Why is it so? On one hand, it was usual custom to justify the claims to title and land by age and ancestry, and on the other the court historians knew only too well how to please their masters. The so called universal classic world history is a pack of intricate lies for all events prior to the 16th century. World history as we learn it today was entirely fabricated in the 16th-18th centuries. It's likely that nobody told you before, but
   
   there is not a single piece of firm written evidence or artefact that is reliably and independently dated prior to the 11th century.
   
   Naturally, after what you've learned in school and university, you will not easily believe that the classical history of ancient Rome, Greece, Asia, Egypt, China, Japan, India, etc., is manifestly false.
   
   You will point accusing finger to the pyramids in Egypt, to the Coliseum in Rome and Great Wall of China etc., and claim, aren't they really ancient, thousands of years ancient? Well, there is no valid scientific proof that they are older than 1000 years!
   
   The oldest original written document that can be reliably dated belongs to the 11th century!
   
   New research asserts that Homo sapiens invented writing (including hieroglyphics) only 1000 years ago. Once invented, writing skills were immediately and irreversibly put to the use of ruling powers and science.
   
   The consensual chronology we live with was essentially crafted in the 16th century by the Jesuits.
   
   The world history was compiled from contradictory mix of innumerable copies of ancient Latin and Greek manuscripts and other irrefutable proofs delivered by late mediaeval astronomers that were cemented by the authority of writings of the Church Fathers.
   
   Early in life, we learn about ancient history. Children love the magical lessons of history - they are like fairy tales. Teachers recite breathtaking stories; very soon We learn by heart the names and deeds of brave warriors, wise philosophers, fabulous pharaohs, cunning high priests and greedy scribes.
   
   We learn of gigantic pyramids and sinister castles, kings and queens, dukes and barons, powerful heroes and beautiful ladies, emaciated saints and low-life traitors.
   
   Ancient history is based documents, manuscripts, printed books, paintings, monuments and artefacts - called primary sources.
   
   The problem is that neither these ancient documents, nor events described therein can be irrefutably dated, moreover they contradict each other for the most part.
   
   When a school textbook tells us that Genghis Khan in year X or Alexander in year Y, have each conquered half of the world, it means only that it is so said in some of the written sources.
   
   There are no answers to simple questions:
   
   When were these primary sources written?
   
   Where and by whom were these sources found?
   
   It is wrongly presumed that ancient and medieval chronicles, written by Genghis Khan's or Alexander the Great contemporaries and eyewitnesses, are readily available. Actually, only sources written hundreds or even thousands of years after the events are there, compiled mostly in the 16th 18th centuries, or even later.
   
   As a rule, these sources suffered considerable multiple manipulations, falsifications and distortions by editing. At the same time,
   
   innumerable originals of ancient documents under various pretexts were destroyed in Europe under various pretexts.
   
   The names of persons and geographical sites often changed meaning and location during the course of the centuries.
   
   Geographical locations became clearly defined on maps only with the advent of printing.
   
   This made possible the circulation of identical copies of the same map for purposes of the military, navigation, education and governance tasks.
   
   Historians from Oxford say: "hey, everybody knows that Julius Caesar lived in the first century B.C.
   
   `Julius Caesar' statement is only a point of view as
   
   there is simply no irrefutable documentary proof that Julius Caesar or any other great name of antiquity ever existed.
   
   Better than that - extremely rare sources that can be reliably dated back to the 10th-14th centuries A D, do not show the polished picture of classical history.
   
   They show a picture both contradictory and confusing.
   
   All methods of dating of ancient sources and artefacts are erroneous:
   
   Radio-carbon C14 method produces dating with exactitude of plus minus 1500 years, therefore it is too crude for dating of events in historical timeframe!
   
   The Almagest tractate, which lies as corner stone contemporary chronology, compiled in the 2nd century A D by Ptolemy, the founding father of astronomy, contains astronomical data of 9th to 16th century!
   
   The Bronze Age,that has supposedly began 5000 years ago. Bronze is made of 90% copper and 10% tin, but the technology for tin extraction dates back to 14th century A D!.
   
   All eclipses contained in manuscripts, like Thucydides one, relating 'ancient' events have exclusively medieval dating. All horoscopes cut in stone or painted in Egyptian temples, like Dendera have exclusively early medieval dating solutions.
   
   Not quite what you have learned in school? Open your eyes, and, you will find sufficient proof to reach step by step the inevitable conclusion that the classical chronology is false and therefore, that the history of ancient and medieval world universally accepted today, is also false. Have a fresh outlook on everything said or printed about "ancient" and "enigmatic" Roman, Greek and Egyptian, medieval as well as all other "lost and found" civilizations.
   
   Antiquity and Dark Ages are phantoms invented in the 16th 18th and polished in 19th 20thcenturies. Human civilization is in fact barely 1000 years old!
   
   This book will change your perception of History forever!
   What if Ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt were invented during Renaissance?
   What if The Old Testament was a rendition of events of the Middle Ages?
   What if Jesus Christ was born in 1053 and crucified in 1086 AD?
   Sounds Unbelievable?
   Not after you've read "History: Fiction or Science?" by Anatoly Fomenko, the genius mathematician.
   Armed with astronomy and computers Anatoly Fomenko turns History into a rocket science.



5. Yes, we can all agree that mainstream history is nearly 100% BS due to politics, economics, ego, problems with dating techniques, and various conspiracies. Agreed. But, I've been researching the distinct possibility that human history (in terms of civilizations) are much more ancient than we've been told, so coming across this book was very interesting to me. I wondered how Fomenko could be wrong (if at all) because he is very persuasive in his presentations. Then it dawned on me. If at previous times in prehistory, due to the various catastrophies that are well documented (comets, asteroids, planetary disruptions, plasma discharge, pole reversals, etc) the Earth was in a different position in relation to the sun (ie. closer), different tilt on its axis (ie. less than 23.5 degrees), different orbit (ie. more circular), different rotation (ie. in terms of velocity and DIRECTION), and the continents were in different relative positions, then would this not cause the ancients to see the sky (constellations) differently from how we would today? In other words, is Fomenko making erronious assumptions about the physics of the Earth in pre-history, which then corrupt his data with regards to dating the relevant astrology? The last event to seriously disrupt our planet occured roughly 3500 years ago, according to other good researchers, so is it possible Fomenko has been confused by this? The vastly different physics of our planet in the not so distant past may explain this confusion, which is not to say the "mainstream" version of history or geography is correct; on the contrary. I am not an expert in these fields, but wanted to see if this idea could spark discussion.

5 comments about Last of the Donkey Pilgrims.

1. ...in preparation for my long overdue personal visit to Ireland a number of books including `Last of the Donkey Pilgrims' by Kevin O'Hara (www.kevin-ohara.com) were purchased online through Amazon.com for shipment to the parched distant locale of Doha...another Qatar `Transient', he being a native of Ireland, last 31 August had kindly written an Itinerary of Travel setting off westward from Dublin to Galway, proposing then a sweep about the coastal extremes of Eire on a circuitous route in return to Dublin a fortnight later...
   
   New Zealand born with Great Grandfather Irish ancestry (Co. Tyrone), some years since I had the privilege of living on a long established property in Hawkes Bay, New Zealand, created by it's owner `in the manner of England', and on which co-resided an elderly Donkey of much spirited antic, mannerism and personality - an endearing memory remains of that acquaintance in those bygone days, and influenced the choice that the Donkey odyssey would be my final read...my reward was to discover an absorbing chronicle of Kevin's 1979 1800 mile trek around the peripheral coast of Ireland, walking alongside his donkey Missie `Long-Ears' Mickdermott yoked to her cart, and written in 2004, 25 years after the doing...
   
   ...an inspired achievement to be applauded, and for me a delight to share the journey by way of an intimately personable published recall of such a grand meander through a land and people of a then traditional lifestyle which soon would substantially fade away into history...Ireland 2008 surpassed my any and every expectation - time and change may have advanced apace since the Nation in attaining EU membership emerged from being a `third world' Country, bringing financial advantage in some quarters and also significantly transforming the landscape and makeup of the populace, but the welcome and essence of the Irish people as acutely portrayed by the innumerable encounters and acquaintances along Kevin O'Hara's wandering way, we found to be very much the same...
   
   ...the book and infectious spirit of Missie accompanied us throughout as by car we drove, blessed I must add with only fine weather, our brief excursion along some of the highways and byways that shared partial commonality with the much earlier passage the Donkeyman and his travelling companion together had traipsed many years prior...there were particular moments which brought upon me a quiet smile with vivid memory of what I had read; hearing the call of the Cuckoo at Inishmore and Doolin - boarding the Killimer to Tarbert ferry, then later that same day driving through Abhainn an Ghleanna (running at but a shallow flow) on the road to Slea Head, Missie's obstinant reluctance to go on in chancing upon those two same `obstacles' came to mind...we sought out and had the pleasure of meeting Robert Shannon, mentioned in the book who happily recounted the long ago arrival of Missie in lovely Doolin - affection for Kevin and his roving partner lingers...
   
   ...having partaken of the ready welcome, spirit, beauty and abundant joys of Ireland, a return is inevitable - likely to be sooner rather than later I would venture...similarly I am driven to pick up and once more read `Last of the Donkey Pilgrims' - my immense pleasure and appreciation of the Tale at first take will assuredly be all the greater at a second reading, enhanced further by familiarity and insight gained from our recent visit...
   
   Lindsay McLean
   Doha, State of Qatar
   16 June, 2008



2. I bought this book on my way out the door on a trip to Ireland, as a friend had recommended it. I read it on the airplane and during quiet moments, and finished it on the way home.
   Not only is this book entertaining and well-written, I was amazed by how much I learned about Irish culture and history as I was reading.
   It is especially recommended to those traveling to Ireland, but has wide appeal for its insight into human nature, and warm humor.



3. I enjoy reading about Ireland, and thought this book would be like Bill Bryson's A Walk in the Woods. The donkey book was much more serious. I liked reading about the different people he encountered, but at times, felt that it was a glossary of names of potential buyers. I did enjoy his time with the travelers. He exemplified the attitudes of the 70's, and I think the book would have been more effective if he had written it 25 years ago. Still, it was a good story.



4. Kevin's writing draws you into his journey - a remarkable romp around Ireland with a donkey that seems human. I loved it. You could nearly smell the air and see the characters. A magical look at an island that has changed so much in the 25 years since his journey took place. I wanted to be there by his side as he runs into character after character. His book is the next best thing to being there.
   
   I didn't want his journey to end. Alas, time moves on and progress can't be stopped. If only there could be a sequel.
   
   Anyway, it is written in very short, easy to read chapters. Perfect nighttime reading. If you like adventures, humor, self reflection, and interesting characters - read this book. If you have ever been to Ireland and fallen in love with it, this book is a must read. If you live in Ireland now and want a look back at the country as it existed 25 years ago, this book is required reading.



5. This is a fun story of a Yank's trip around Ireland with a donkey cart. His trip fulfills his longing to know the land of his forebears, and he wonderfully captures the language and attitudes of the people just before modernity finally arrived full force. Highly recommended!