Oh Oxfam. What hast thou wrought?
I really ought to know better than to even walk into Oxfam. Admittedly, the last few times, I emerged unscathed. This time, however, there were problems. I walked out with three books.
Three Plays by John Webster (apparently nobody wants to sell me just The White Devil. I wonder why.)
Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos (in French! Yay!)
The Oxford History of England, Vol. 6: The Fifteenth Century by E.F. Jacob
Right. I've wanted a nice basic reference book on the Wars of the Roses for some time now, but the prerequisites of 'as little bias as possible' and 'cheap' made this exercise surprisingly difficult. I do have a copy of Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field, mainly because I happened to find it in Oxfam a few months ago and it seemed like it might be useful, but it only covers a few years and where there is text -- between the large excerpts from primary sources -- it is rather biased. So when I saw this one in all its shiny hardcover glory -- and in almost-new condition too! -- for £4.99, I gave in. I'm almost tempted to snatch up the Early Tudors volume as well, but I'm trying to be good.
Yes, it's old. 1961, to be precise. But I recently discovered that much of the madness I've observed in C15 scholarship stems from academics feuding over who wants to be the next K.B. McFarlane (very eminent historian who died in 1966). Somehow the split has also worked its way into Ricardians v. Anti-Ricardians, which I find amusing in a morbid sort of way, but when I expressed my frustration at Michael Hicks accusing Richard III of paedophilia, I was informed that he might have done it just to wind up certain other academics. This doesn't alleviate my annoyance -- in fact, considering the books are intended for a popular audience, it actually annoys me more -- but it does at least somewhat explain why he pulled that theory completely out of left field. There is at least a basis -- however shaky -- for accusing the man of murder. Paedophilia is just silly.
So, while the book is old, it might slip under the feuding scholars radar. Or so I hope. It is also a single volume of a giant overarching set of history texts, and the people who write those don't tend to have anything to prove, which is nice. Besides, all I really need are dates and a nice detailed family tree so I don't have to keep pulling up the DNB every time I need to double-check when someone died.
On an unrelated note, apparently this book (probably the whole set) was a gift from the Clarendon Press. Heh.
At any rate, I should probably go back to Thomas Malory. I started rereading Le Morte Darthur the other day and am once again struck by how many innocent bystanders are accidentally decapitated. Especially ladies who happen to be standing next to the man [insert knight here] was aiming for. Obviously the Knights of the Round Table have very bad aim. Though I do keep getting flashes to crazy!Lancelot from Holy Grail and that's always fun.
Three Plays by John Webster (apparently nobody wants to sell me just The White Devil. I wonder why.)
Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos (in French! Yay!)
The Oxford History of England, Vol. 6: The Fifteenth Century by E.F. Jacob
Right. I've wanted a nice basic reference book on the Wars of the Roses for some time now, but the prerequisites of 'as little bias as possible' and 'cheap' made this exercise surprisingly difficult. I do have a copy of Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field, mainly because I happened to find it in Oxfam a few months ago and it seemed like it might be useful, but it only covers a few years and where there is text -- between the large excerpts from primary sources -- it is rather biased. So when I saw this one in all its shiny hardcover glory -- and in almost-new condition too! -- for £4.99, I gave in. I'm almost tempted to snatch up the Early Tudors volume as well, but I'm trying to be good.
Yes, it's old. 1961, to be precise. But I recently discovered that much of the madness I've observed in C15 scholarship stems from academics feuding over who wants to be the next K.B. McFarlane (very eminent historian who died in 1966). Somehow the split has also worked its way into Ricardians v. Anti-Ricardians, which I find amusing in a morbid sort of way, but when I expressed my frustration at Michael Hicks accusing Richard III of paedophilia, I was informed that he might have done it just to wind up certain other academics. This doesn't alleviate my annoyance -- in fact, considering the books are intended for a popular audience, it actually annoys me more -- but it does at least somewhat explain why he pulled that theory completely out of left field. There is at least a basis -- however shaky -- for accusing the man of murder. Paedophilia is just silly.
So, while the book is old, it might slip under the feuding scholars radar. Or so I hope. It is also a single volume of a giant overarching set of history texts, and the people who write those don't tend to have anything to prove, which is nice. Besides, all I really need are dates and a nice detailed family tree so I don't have to keep pulling up the DNB every time I need to double-check when someone died.
On an unrelated note, apparently this book (probably the whole set) was a gift from the Clarendon Press. Heh.
At any rate, I should probably go back to Thomas Malory. I started rereading Le Morte Darthur the other day and am once again struck by how many innocent bystanders are accidentally decapitated. Especially ladies who happen to be standing next to the man [insert knight here] was aiming for. Obviously the Knights of the Round Table have very bad aim. Though I do keep getting flashes to crazy!Lancelot from Holy Grail and that's always fun.