Firstly, this book is much less coherent than "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." (If you did not read that book, do NOT buy this one. HBHG is a wonderful book, pseudo-history at it's best. ML assumes you know the theories laid out in HBHG). The first fourth of the book is just more "proof" of the authors' claims about Jesus. It adds the claim that Timothy was Jesus's twin and that Saint Paul distorted Christianity, but it's not all that interesting.

The second fourth is devoted to vicious (and now dated) attacks against President Ronal Reagan and American fundementalists. The authors, instead of criticising Reagen on his record, choose a barage of name calling.

The second half of the book is a masterpiece. It continues the Holy Blood, Holy Grail story by adding more information. Pierre Plantard figures prominently, and the Priere of Sion is made more "round." If you loved Holy Blood, Holy Grail you will almost love this book. Once you get the first half out of the way it is hard to put down. Though nothing "definitive" is reached, the conspiracy looks even better. When you finish it you wish the book was longer... parting with this book is "such sweet sorrow."

And as always, more cryptic mottos:

Et In Arcadia Ego...

Etats Unis d'Occident 1937-1946

When it comes to writing about history from 2000 years ago through the Dark Ages, a lot of speculation is necessary. Literacy was low so there weren't many written records to begin with, and the church, etc., had a lot of control over what information could be dispensed. As a result, a lot of speculation over this period is necessary. Baigent, et al., recognizing this, for part of the book examine Biblical history using the oldest surviving records as a basis point instead of church doctrine or the latest translation of a translation, etc, of a pieced together, largely edited, and largely oral history called the Bible. Therefore, while their speculations may be as historically sound as anyone else's, some will denounce them as blasphemous. The rest of the book then seeks to at least verify that their interpretations of the Bible have existed long throughout history by trying to determine the beliefs of certain secret societies who claim to be guardians of "The Truth".

However, now instead of being impaired so much by a lack of records, the authors are forced to speculate about the secret societies' beliefs. Despite tracking down sources within a secret society, the authors' job is made difficult by the fact that such societies not only keep their secrets secret, but also fractionalize, engage in internal political struggles and have their own debates about dogma.

Like Foucault's Pendulum, which this inspired, this book is ultimately a detective novel about various writers trying to get inside the minds of secret societies and running into various obstacles. It may dissapoint readers who want all their answers handed to them (and the authors don't even pretend to have them), but life is not that simple. Sometimes knowing what the right questions are is just as important. This is a fun, interesting, thought-provoking, mind-expanding book.

I've read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and was held spellbound throughout. Yes, at times theories were expressed that caused me to scratch my head but all in all, it made more sense than what christianty has to say about it. Now, they have this follow up book called "The Messianic Legacy." Don't read it if you have a weak stomach or your not able to think for yourself other than what the priesthood tells you. It's another eye-opener!!! Doug

This is one of those rare litle gems that stir the Imagination and make you want to delve into a hypothesis, whether you believe it is true or false. Regardless of the verity of the subject matter of this thin pocket-guide to Adventure in the Languedoc region of France, it does inspire the reader to investigate various interconnecting links and historical works in search of more data to form an opinion about the theories discussed in the heavily illustrated pages. I read the book in '98 and thought it was interesting, but could not quite let myself believe it was accurate. However, after reading a pile of Masonic books and a pile of mass-market stuff--referring to this region--I am convinced there is Something Strange, indeed, about Rennes-le-Chateau and the Languedoc.

I almost reviewed this book last year, but I waited until I read a lot of other material, first. I own "Holy Blood: Holy Grail," but I have not read it, yet & I have not read Henry Lincoln's other works, so most of my interest comes from connections with other historical events and books like "Dungeon, Fire and Sword," by John J. Robinson.

I do believe this book details a very strong case for a Geometrical Conundrum, in this mountain region and the surrounding area, and there seems to be a strong desire to "reveal" the existence of a conspiracy surrounding the region, church, etc. Taken alone and with mass-market material, this book seems to be far-fetched, yet when compared with certain less-known works and the symbolism of Secret Societies....well, it appears to be quite valid--especially, when you consider important admonitions from Masonic Lore, such as: "Alter-not the Ancient Landmarks."

Perhaps, this little book is just a brain teaser, suggesting that people "dig deeper" & decide for themselves what is the Truth?

In this book Henry Lincoln proposes that there is a huge outdoor temple in the Languadoc region of France, surrounding a "Pentacle" of Mountains and prominently featuring the hamlet of Rennes-le-Chateau. This temple, according to the author, was built using the English units of mile and rod.

I bought this book because I had enjoyed Lincoln's two "conspiracy" books, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, and his follow up to this one, The Key to the Sacred Pattern. Frankly, this book is his worst. His first two (HBHG and ML) are much more sweaping. "Key" contains a better run-down of the outdoor temple geography, and includes more on his "journey" to his discovery.

If you're enthralled by the Rennes myster (whatever it is!), and have already tried and liked The Tomb of God, this book may be for you.

A warning to those expecting a book about secret societies! Lincoln begins this book saying previous "Rennes" books (his own included) are nothing but "speculation and hearsay." This book is firmly footed in geometry and cartography.

I chose this book because the intriguing title led me to believe I would learn about an ancient ruin or buildling, the civilization that created it., and the activities that took place there that made it "holy". The book went in a completely different direction, however, than what I expected.

The "holy place" is a region around the village of Rennes-le-Chateau in France, and what makes it holy is that the churches, castles and ruins of the area are all aligned in complex geometrical patterns, and the high points of land surrounding the area are situated in the shape of a pentagon. The building sites are on points that form an arrangement of pentagons, stars, circles, and grids. Most of the book describes and illustrates these geographic and geometric relationships, which, although interesting, becomes rather tedious.

I was pretty well convinced of this "sacred geometry", but I really wanted to know who created the site and why. There is a suggestion that ancient people had more knowledge and skills than we acknowledge today, and that a secret society may have been involved in the site's creation. Unfortunately, because of lack of proof, the author had no conclusion about this, therefore, we are left hanging, having to wait until further discoveries are made, perhaps by archaeologists who can some day uncover more definitive proof.

The bad points first...

Being a Linoln buff myself, but certainly not a scholar on the subject, I found this book to be a worthwhile addition to my library but one that is seriously flawed. The first chapter goes into painstaking detail about Lincoln's wrestling match with Jack Armstrong in New Salem. I think a wrestling historian would find it more useful than someone interested in our 16th president. Endless second and third-hand accounts of the match are analyzed in detail. And for what? No reliable conclusions can be drawn from these contradictory accounts. The first chapter could have been summarized in two words...who knows? And I'm not really sure who cares either. I found this chapter to be a bit bizarre.

My other criticism of the book is that it is very poorly organized, in my opinion. In fact, only the first chapter sticks to the topic of it's title. The rest of the book seems to be organized into chapters only for the purpose of giving the reader a needed break from the tedium. Sure, you will find something about Lincoln's relationship with women in the chapter entitled, "Women," but you will find just as much about this subject in just about any other chapter. And you will learn about his politics in the chapter about women, etc. It almost seems as if Mr. Wilson just pinned a title to the top of a page now and then without regard to what followed. This lack of structure also results in a great deal of repetition. The same quotes are repeated again and again and again which would not have been necessary if each chapter stuck with it's title subject. One hopes that this lack of organization is not a reflection of Mr. Wilson's research skills.

On the plus side, if you can wade through the book, which is tedious to the extreme at times, you may end up with a more textured view of Lincoln the man. The book can help one to fill in the blanks of Lincoln's life but it is almost entirely based on educated guesses and conclusions on Mr. Wilson's part. In a sense, the book is reminiscent of Gore Vidal's Lincoln. But such conjecture can be useful, of course if we are searching for that "ring of truth" to fill in the blanks.

All in all, I consider this to be a useful addition to my fairly extensive Lincoln library but I certainly would not recommend it as a first book about Lincoln by any means and I think Mr. Wilson would agree with that assessment. The author writes that the book is not intended for scholars, but I find it difficult to see why the person with a more casual interest in Lincoln would be interested in these endless details which really never reach a conclusion. The book is, however, instructive as to how incorrect information is passed on and accepted as fact by generations of historians.

This book asks more questions than it answers but, ironically, the overall result is a much better picture of Lincoln. I would recommend this book only to the serious Lincoln student.

Teachers in criminal justice classes, I am told, often stage mock crimes in their classrooms. In the middle of a lecture, for example, a bandit will barge in, threaten the students, and make off with the professor's wallet. The students, at first shocked but then relieved when told that it was a staged event, are then asked to describe the event. What did the suspect look like? How tall was he? What color hair did he have? What was he wearing? What did he say? Invariably, there are multiple answers to those questions. People saw different things. No one version of what occurred is totally accurate.

Wilson's book confronts that perennial problem of human perception. Though his 'transformation of Lincoln' plows familiar ground - how one solitary, unschooled backwoods man transformed himself into a national, albeit polarizing figure, through willpower, endurance, ambition, guts, and brains - his careful forensic method, as judge and jury of a multitude of competing facts and interpretations, makes this book a compelling tale, as much about how history is written as it is about how Lincoln evolved.

And this is why I disagree with the reviews that describe this book as long-winded, tough-sledding and over-detailed. In Honor's Voice, Wilson provides a valuable glimpse into the historian's bag of tricks. Wilson takes each of the iconic moments of Lincoln's life - his storied wresting match with Jack Armstrong, his self-education, his disastrous romance with Ann Rutledge - and peels apart the layers, examining the historical record as closely as possible, evaluating the claims of eyewitnesses and second-hand sources, and holding each up to scrutiny before making any assertions; and even then, he is admirably cautious. Wilson presents a lot of quotes, exactly as written, from contemporaries who witnessed, or claimed to have witnessed, crucial events in Lincoln's life, and asks: Is this the truth? Who could have benefit from enhancing the truth? Who was really there? What about the quote lends it authenticity, or falsity? Yes, the narrative covers the same event numerous times, but this is the price one pays of exactness. Like the criminal justice students who have competing recollections of a recent event, not one of Lincoln's contemporaries knows the whole truth. But taken together, one gets a more clear picture of what might have happened.

The risk, of course, is boredom and the frustration of dealing with multiple sources of the same event; but the reward is a new appreciation of Lincoln the man, as well as the historian's challenge of teasing out the facts in an era long since vanished.

This book is an excellent look at the formative years of Lincoln's life and a great example of how to do historical research using primary sources. Many of the events of Lincoln's early years are controversial, owing mainly to the lack of contemporary evidence. However, by looking at sources others have never used, and by applying a systematic approach to determining what account is most likely to be accurate, Wilson is able to clear up many of the mysteries surrounding Lincoln's early years.

The book deals with several main topics, Lincoln's education, his search for a job, breaking into politics, his relations with women, and his developing honor. The majority of the book deals with his first experiences with politics and his various problems with women during this time. The emphasis on his relations with women, and with Mary Todd (Lincoln) specifically, is important because this is one of the most controversial and least understood aspects of those years. After weighing all the evidence Wilson comes to the conclusion that Lincoln married Mary Todd because he felt honor bound to do so, and not because he truly loved her. In coming to this conclusion he falls under what Jean Baker has termed "the anyone but Mary" group, but one cannot argue with his evidence.
Throughout the book the main theme is how Lincoln's sense of honor develops over time, and how it was in fact a trait that needed developing, as evidenced by Lincoln's part in the Sampson's Ghost and Lost Township editorials. By the 1840s that honor has developed and become Lincoln's most defining trait.

Simon states the world has trended positive in the past and will continue to do so in the future. If you read a review which states Simon has been proven wrong since the time of publication, then that reviewer totally misunderstands Simon's position OR really hasn't read the material. It would be impossible to say anything has been proven at this point, because Simon's analysis requires long periods of time for a trend to develop. Pointing to an increase in fuel prices or a decline in a region's life expectancy (due to a disaster, natural or economic) does not show a flaw in Simon's reasoning, only a bump in the road, to which humanity must develop a response. It is the RESPONSE which has made humans what they are, and has brought us to the modern state in which we now live.

I find the reviews of this book interesting. The last few comments made on the book are on how Simon's "predictions" have been debunked. His predictions are in fact panning out quite nicley. The united states "fall" on the world life expectancy list does not mean things have gotten worse: it means more countries are improving, and some have surpassed us. This is a bad thing? Other readers point out how things just havn't panned out. Are you all on crack? In truth Simon makes no predictions in his books that aren't based of fact. Over the last 100 years things have gotten MUCH better for EVERYONE. You can argue about disparities among the races, but the TRENDS for ALL of humanity show great improvements (ie, for all races). Scoff at his claims if you will, but you are likley living proof of some miracle brought about within even the last 40 years. It matters not what race you are. If you don't like Simon, hit up the statistical abstract of the united states and verify his numbers - this is a claim simon makes. Lastly, seeing some blips in humanity, such as the adverse effects of the fall of the soviet union (again, you cannot simply say simon is wrong because the soviets dove into free market economies and are struggling, anymore than you could have said capitalism is wrong because of the recession in the 80's, or the depression before WW2; russia is an EXTREME example of how NOT to transition into democracy, hence the term use of the uncontrolled "fall" in "fall of the soviet union"). This is the essence of simons ENTIRE BOOK - that the overall TRENDS are improving. Readers who miss that miss the book. Life isn't easy every day or every year, sorry. Don't go blaming Simon for that.

I'd be an extreme environmentalist if I thought pollution in the world was getting worse. It's not. I'd be a back-to-the-plow agrarian if I thought industrial life was not good for humanity. But it is. I'd be a social liberal if I thought that crime was on the rise, poverty was growing and rampant, and life was generally getting worse. But it's not.

The state of humanity provides several discrete chapters that list statistics, trends, and quantifiable facts concerning the true state of the world today. True, you can use statistics to lie, if you're vague. Simon's book is far from vague, with shovel-fulls of information relating to several topics: acid-rain, global temperatures, infant mortality, suicide, standards of living, and on and on...

You don't have to live on the street or in the third world to do research, to find out that life is better everywhere than its ever been.

This book was VERY,VERY DISAPPOINTING!It had only 2 chapters on 30yrs.of being a SLAVE(if you can believe that!) and 13 CHAPTERS
on 4 yrs. in the White House!!
GO FIGURE!!!!! I am SO SORRY I had my daughter get this book for me for Mother's DAY!

The story/diary it self I found wasn't written very good.However I found Ms.Keckley's relationship with Mrs.Mary Todd Lincoln and her family intersting.
She gave some insightfll thoughts about Mary and Abraham that was quite a treat to read.

I got a copy of this book from a book fair not on purpose. As a non-native English learner, what strikes me is the ability of Keckley to express rich emotions in very simple words and sentences. I always like reading first person narratives, fictions or true stories, but seldom find one as captivating as this. A five-star from me and it's a pity she didn't seem
to have written other books.

In 1958, Professor Jaffa published "Crisis of the House Divided" which remains the definitive study of the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. "A New Birth of Freedom", published more that 40 years later, is the promised sequel to the book, and in it Professor Jaffa explores with depth the philosophical and governmental ideas that he believes underlie Lincoln's Presidency, his approach to the issue of slavery, and the Civil War and preservation of the Union.

This book is much broader in scope than Professor Jaffa's earlier book and is more engaged in the philosophical analysis of ideas than with the presentation simply of historical fact. Professor Jaffa asks at the outset what, if anything, differentiates the Southern Secession following the election of Lincoln to the Presidency from the actions of the Colonists in declaring independence from Britain in 1776. In answering this question, Professor Jaffa offers a discussion of the Jefferson-Adams election of 1800, showing how for the first time in history how a democratic society could resolve severe disagreement through the use of ballots in an election rather than through the use of bullets.

Jaffa's history has, I think, these two themes: 1.The Declaration of Independence's statement that "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal" did, indeed, apply for Jefferson and his contemporaries to all people, including the then African-American slaves. 2. The Declaration of Independence itself created a perpetual union of what had been 13 separate colonies of Britian and made the United States one country rather than a confederation of separate states.

Underlying these historical claims is a broader philosophical argument that is even more at the core of the book: Jaffa wants to reject arguments of cultural relativism, historicism, skepticism or other philosophical positions that argue agains the existence of objective moral principles. He finds that Jefferson correctly viewed the language of his declaration "All men are created equal" as expressing a moral truth based upon "the law of Nature and of Nature's God." Jaffa argues for a position based upon Natural Law, in the sense that moral standards are somehow truths independent of human will or of historical circumstances. His Natural Law theory, as I find it, is drawn from an uneasy confluence of the thought of Locke, Aristotle, and the Bible.

The book is less of a chronological historical account than a textual analysis and commentary on the speeches and writings of thinkers and politicians in Civil War America. Professor Jaffa offers a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of Lincoln's First Inauguaral Address and of his July 4, 1861 message to Congress following the outbreak of hostilites. His approach is less on the pragmatic conduct of the government (although that is discussed as well) than on Lincoln as a thinker expressing what Jaffa sees as a commitment to Natural Law and the the inalienable nature of the Union which Lincoln strove to preserve.

Lincoln's thought is compared and contrasted, in almost as great detail, with speeches by James Buchanan, Alexander Stephens, Jefferson Davis, Stephen Douglas and John Calhoun. These individuals are shown to reject the principles of Natural Law that Professor Jaffa finds articulated in the Declaration of Independence and by Lincoln. Their though is compared rather explicitly by Professor Jaffa to academic modernism and skepticism regarding the objective character of moral principle.

There are fascinating discussions of Shakespeare's histories, Aristotle, and, particularly the "Federalist" and the works of Thomas Jefferson. In contrast to many modern historians, Jaffa sees Lincoln in the Gettysburg address as reaffirming the position of Thomas Jefferson rather than as effecting a change in the nature of the American ideal.

This is a difficult, thoughtful,challenging book. It is more of value for its philosophical outlook and challenge than for any addition to the store of historical knowledge. For those who want to think about the philosophical bases for our institutions, this book is highly worthwhile. It is a different sort of successor, but a worthy successor, to Professor Jaffa's study of the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

This book enthralled me. It is rich in ideas and examples, as befitting a book on a subject of this magnitude. It is an extended reply that Lincoln would have given if asked "What are your principles, Mr Lincoln?"

I critised David Donald's biography for presenting Lincoln as too much the slick/ sly lawyer and politican - all fox and no hedgehog (to use Isaiah Berlin's metaphor). This is Lincoln the man of principle, and is an essential complement to any synoptic biography, of which Donald's is probably the best.

Jaffa argues convincingly that Lincoln was 'at one' with Jefferson and the Founders. Lincoln always argued that the
Founders were ashamed of slavery and hid it away as 'a wen, or cancer' in the constitution. They looked to elimination of slavery over time, but slavery became economically essential to the Old South. Jefferson's foreboding was correct and slavery contributed to the break-up of the Union. Jafa effectively re-iterates Lincoln's criticism's of Calhoun and Stephen Douglas, and the defence of the Confederacy made by Alexander Stephens and Jefferson Davis.

For me, what struck most was the emphasis on the principles of Moderation and Prudence, the 'better angels' of Lincoln's inaugaural. Or to quote Churchill "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war".

It is clear that if you accept the Declaration of Independence (as Lincoln did) then the only people with the Right of Rebellion in 1861 were the slaves. Why did Lincoln not then support John Brown? Because he knew that slavery could only be ended with the whole-hearted support of the white population under a united government, not by rebellion. Moderation and Prudence demanded that he could not issue any Emancipation Proclamation, or arm black soldiers, until the Border States were safely retained in the Union. Hence he resisted the clamour from the abolitionists until he could safely move forward.

Lincoln once said something like "For a tall fellow, I am pretty sure-footed". He was never more sure-footed than when he moved around these thorny issues, and the consequences of a slip were never more dangerous!

Let no one think that these are dusty old issues - they inform me at the moment contemplating the future of the European Union. For the EU seems to be to be based soldily on Calhounite pinciples - it is the compact of States that Calhoun always claimed the USA to be. Calhounite principles were behind Wilsonian Liberalism that every minority had the right to its own state, or at least an autonomy with in a state.

Jaffa makes me think that this is a trap for the EU and inevitably it will become a nightmare of minority vetoes, minority quotas and stagnation. What is must become is a compact of peoples - but will the large (and small states) of the EU let that happen?

This is a challenging book, but an outstanding and necessary book. The book states the argument that Lincoln was right intellectually as well as morally in regard to the questions of his day slavery and Union. Further that Lincoln was consistent with the political views of Jefferson and Madison. The Southern argument of Calhoun and Jefferson Davis perverted the Constituion. The key in their failure is set forth by Mr. Jaffa's statement " The right to alter or abolish government is unalienable, according to Jefferson's Declaration only because rights with which all men have been equally endowed by their Creator are unalienable. Davis, like South Carolina demand respect for the conclusion while ignoring the premises. (p.236) The author clearly states Lincoln's goals of preserve free elections, preserve the Union and set slavery on the ultimate course of extinction. Lincoln was a political genius and he was right. Lincoln admired the Declaration of Independence, the Constituion, the Union and the rule of law. He maintained the principles of the Founding Fathers while recognizing the compromises they had to make for the greater good. Slavery must die and he preferrred to see it die incrementally and under the Constituion, but if there was a rebellion then Lincoln at great cost would preserve the Union.

The blurbs on the back give this book away. Law teachers and lawyers think it is excellent. No historians are included in any of this praise. As an exercize in rethinking the constitution this is an enjoyable, thoughtful piece of work. But Fletcher has not read much about Abraham Lincoln's actions and ideas. He is especially off course in claiming that Lincoln ignored the constitution in the midst of war. Lincoln practiced law for a quarter of a century, gave major speeches on the meaning of the constitution, followed the constitutional requirements on suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus--at least the leading constitutional lawyer in Congress, Reverdy Johnson, the patriarch of the American Bar, Horace Binney, and the profesor of constitutional law at Harvard thought. Fifty

George Fletcher presents an interesting thesis, that we have two constitutions. One created in 1787 the other in 1865. The new constitutional order was found to represent the principles of equality, nationalism, and democracy which Fletcher argues was best expressed in the Gettysburg address.

Now Fletcher makes a number of interesting points in his analysis. For example, he provides a wonderful explanation for Lincoln's extraconstitutional use of power during the Civil War; that his commitment to nationalism lead him to reject constitutional limitations when they didn't allow him to perserve the nation. Also Fletcher provides a brief discussion of the logical inconsistencies in the 10th amendment, that states created after 1787 couldn't delegate power to a federal government that essentially created them.

But the good points are overwhelmed by Fletcher's tendency towards historical simplicity. He seems to believe that the principles of his 2nd constitution sprung forth only as a result of the Civil War. But the principles of equaltiy, nationalism, and democracy existed since the begining of the republic. While these principles didn't dominate they were present and growing during the antebellum period. Particularly the principle of democracy spread rapidly during the period, this is evidenced by the fact that all white males had the right to vote by the 1820s and they voted for practically all state officials including judges. While its true that this isn't our idea of democracy and equaltiy but it is evidence of a developing trend that probably would have continued without the war. Also he ignores the instances where postbellum democratic trends were inequalitarian in nature, such as in Wyoming were women were given the right to vote in hopes that whites would be able to overpower immigrating blacks into the state.

While this is an interesting book and provokes thought and consideration it shouldn't be taken as the last word. The best aspect being that it gets people to consider the fact that the constitution is more than what is written on paper.

Fletcher makes some interesting arguments about how America is conflicted by its drive towards equality and freedom, since the two ideals cannot coexist perfectly at the same time. His suggestion that the Gettysburg Address and the Civil War resulted in a second American Constitution focused on equality is a useful way of looking at the past (despite the flaws in the argument). BUT!!! One major flaw in this book is Fletcher's endless assertion that public schools should have equal funding and that criminals should not lose their right to vote. While there may or may not be validity to these claims, Fletcher does little to support these claims (since he never addresses the opposing arguments to these stances). Still, this books was definitely worth reading... if one can ignore the annoyingly in-your-face political agenda mixed with the historical arguments.

I have read a great deal about the Civil War, and am drawn to both fictional and non-fictional accounts of this time in our history. This was the principal attraction of Thomas Mallon's 1994 novel Henry and Clara. Henry Rathbone and Clara Harris were the son and daughter respectively of Pauline Rathbone and Ira Harris, prominent Albany residents who found themselves unmarried, with children, following their spouse's deaths. Pauline and Ira married; Henry and Clara were raised in the common household as brother and sister; Henry and Clara fell in love and married; and tragedy ultimately ensued when Henry, over time, went mad. Henry and Clara Rathbone are an interesting footnote to history, in that they were guests in the Lincoln box at Ford's Theatre on Good Friday, April 14, 1865, and Henry was himself wounded at the same time Lincoln was fatally shot. A central question in Mallon's novel is what caused Henry's madness. Was it the seeming "unnatural" marriage; was it Henry's horrifying experience as an officer in the Civil War; was it Henry's presence in the Ford Theatre box; was it simply fate or heredity? Mallon does not -- indeed cannot -- answer this question. While this book was well received critically, I found my interest wandering through the first half of this novel. Mallon redeemed himself mostly through the harrowing accounts of a marriage slipping into madness following the assassination. (I much preferred Mallon's magical novel, Dewey Defeats Truman, a very different book based on another "historical" theme).

An interesting and well-written historical novel. For most of its length it is rather unexciting, but this is made up for in the later chapters which give a vivid, harrowing picture of a doomed marriage slipping into violence and madness. The story of Henry Rathbone and Clara Harris is a sad, indeed tragic, one, and Mallon does a good job of tracing the seeds of destruction that overshadowed these two from their earliest days together. He also avoids many of the usual traps historical novelists fall into, such as long-winded explanations of vanished customs and dusty disertations on forgotten politics. Mallon moves things along smoothly, with a minimum of description, and nicely fleshes out the known facts about his primary characters with fictionalized details and motivations. If Clara is ultimately the more sympathetic of the two, it is perhaps because her predicament (a brilliant, but stubborn woman trapped in a marriage which she realizes has become a nightmare)is the more easily grasped. Henry Rathbone remains something of an enigma despite Mallon's careful work, just as his inaction (or delayed reaction) on that fatal night at Ford's theater remains an enigma to history. For a more exciting, but equally touching, non-fiction sketch of Henry and Clara, turn to Gene Smith's "American Gothic" about the theatrical Booth family, the assassination of Lincoln, and the repercussions for all those involved in that horrid event.

This is a great read for anyone interested in good literature, or history, especially for those who are civil war buffs. It is a wonderful period novel, giving the reader a good sense of the culture and society of the era. The characters are well developed and absorbing, paritcularly the intracicies and psychological complexities of Henry Rathbone and Clara Harris (guests of Abraham and Mary Todd Lincoln at Ford's Theater on that fateful night.) I found the subject highly intriguing and fascinating, the examination of the impact of Lincoln's assination on Henry and Clara as individuals and as a couple. There are many historical facts in this novel, and it is fun to sort out fact from fantasy. The novel is a complete offering, providing a great narrative, depth, social and psychological study, and suspense as well. I found it very difficult to put this book down.

Gardell's impressive research results in a far richer and more subtle account of the NOI and Farrakhan. Immersing himself in the writings of the movement and in much else related to it (such as its connections to the FBI, Mu'ammar al-Qadhdhafi, and rap musicians) he has produced an impressively thorough account. The study usefully covers other NOI branches, including the Lost Found Nation of Islam, the Five Percent Nation of Islam, and the Ansaaru Allah Community. Here's where to find out about the NOI's tentative moves toward mainstream Islam, its connections to American neo-Nazis, and its challenge to the black Christian churches. Gardell's book is highly unusual in one way: although the author has many strange and tendentious ideas (that Reagan planned 'for a war on Libya' in 1986, that Farrakhan is not an anti-Semite, that a mistress of Elijah Muhammad's was his 'Islamic wife,' that the 1992 Rodney King riots were 'the bloodiest uprising of the twentieth century'), he does not slant the evidence but scrupulously offers information that directly disproves his own arguments. Most readers of In the Name of Elijah Muhammad will want to read the study for its facts while keeping a distance from Gardell's conclusions.

Middle East Quarterly, March 1997

but you needn't be one to enjoy this book. Mattias Gardell does an excellent job of explaining the history of and contradictions within the Nation of Islam. He explains their beliefs in a very straight forward manner. As a previous reviewer mentioned, you're best off ignoring Gardell's opinions on the NOI and drawing your own conclusions. To his credit, the author allows you to do just that.

After having read and viewed a wide range of books on the Nation of Islam and also works published by the NOI, I think Gardell's presentation of the NOI is the most balanced, encompassing, systematized, readable and reflected book on the subject. This work is a must for everyone that wants some real insight into the history and theology of the Nation, whereas most other books on NOI that are still in print are providing nothing but repetions of what we already know. Read this book, acquire new insights and become wiser.

I bought this book thinking it would be an insider's view of the 1994 Senate campaign in California, when Mike Huffington, Arianna's ex-husband, committed $26 million of his own millionaire money to try to defeat incumbent Dianne Fienstein. Huffington lost and his political career has gone nowhere since. Not only that, but he has come out of the closet and declared himself openly gay. And recently he admitted to a journalist that he was not the conservative he made himself (she -- Arianna -- made himself?) out to be, but was actually a liberal. I'd like to get the view from that bedroom! But instead this book is a tepid collection of tongue-in-cheek dull satire. One of these days Arianna Huffington, who is a good writer and is capable of being quite thoughtful, will tell us what it was like to stage-manage a gay liberal's campaign for senate on the Republican ticket. Well, maybe she won't tell us. But I, for one, would love to hear that story, and I'm sorry I bought the wrong book.

Hardly an insightful satire, it is rather one continuous repetitive republican joke about how gore is stiff, janet has a firm handshake, and clinton chases women - as if that was everything that defined these people. I can take a good satire - just make it, at least, interesting.

It's like reading a Dilbert cartoon if you've never experienced corporate life - only it goes on much longer. Be aware that the entire book consists of an imaginary trip by the Republican author to a Democratic White House. Don't expect any facts or insights. Even as a Republican, I found the humor to be cloying and self-congratulatory. My impression of this book is: what a complete waste of intellect and energy. It's a really bad reflection on the Republican party.