Felicity's review
How the Irish Saved Civilization: the untold story of Ireland’s heroic role from the fall of Rome to the rise of Medieval Europe
by Thomas Cahill
I read Cahill's history of the New Testament sort of thing. I liked him but disagreed a lot with his treatment of Paul. As usual, I'm going to ask you to write a detailed-ish report on this book and let me know what you think. I want to get to other Cahill eventually.
Well, audiobook is hardly the best format for a serious scholarly look (nor am I the best qualified for same) but I shall do what I can.
Brilliant. This is exactly the kind of review I wanted. It also helps by reinforcing my ideas about the author, a knowledgeable and passionate guy who lets the latter trump the former in his "history" books. :-)
What a great way to describe it! I've read How the Irish Saved Civilization and felt that way, and am now reading Desire of the Everlasting Hills (the "New Testemant sort of thing" that conflates history and biblical interpretation). I'm reading the Paul section now and feel the same way. That and he always says "and we can just assume it was this way" as his justification for some of his more bizzare intepretations or "historical" claims. But its still a fun read!
Felicity's review
How the Irish Saved Civilization: the untold story of Ireland’s heroic role from the fall of Rome to the rise of Medieval Europe by Thomas Cahill
Felicity's review
rating:
bookshelves:
audiobook,
history,
library-book,
nonfiction
3.5 stars
This is an entertaining and informative book, and the audiobook is winsome and sparkling, courtesy of 'performer' (not credited merely as 'narrator') Donal Donnelly. The personality of the subjects is amply shown by the texts quoted, and the story is interesting and definitely underknown, if not unknown. What really gives me pause is the suffusion of Cahill's own biases in the text. This isn't a scholarly work, but even for a popular history, the degree to which Cahill's opinions and judgments color the narrative gives me pause and makes me trust his version of history slightly less. Oozing affection for things and people Irish is appropriate to the work, and I'm with him on his nostalgia for the Celtic Church, if only from descriptions in Ellis Peter books. But in general, the Occidocentric (saved Civilization did we, or just one?) and Christianocentric biases seemed a little strong. Plus, he totally buys ...more
This is an entertaining and informative book, and the audiobook is winsome and sparkling, courtesy of 'performer' (not credited merely as 'narrator') Donal Donnelly. The personality of the subjects is amply shown by the texts quoted, and the story is interesting and definitely underknown, if not unknown. What really gives me pause is the suffusion of Cahill's own biases in the text. This isn't a scholarly work, but even for a popular history, the degree to which Cahill's opinions and judgments color the narrative gives me pause and makes me trust his version of history slightly less. Oozing affection for things and people Irish is appropriate to the work, and I'm with him on his nostalgia for the Celtic Church, if only from descriptions in Ellis Peter books. But in general, the Occidocentric (saved Civilization did we, or just one?) and Christianocentric biases seemed a little strong. Plus, he totally buys ...more
I read Cahill's history of the New Testament sort of thing. I liked him but disagreed a lot with his treatment of Paul. As usual, I'm going to ask you to write a detailed-ish report on this book and let me know what you think. I want to get to other Cahill eventually.
Well, audiobook is hardly the best format for a serious scholarly look (nor am I the best qualified for same) but I shall do what I can.
Brilliant. This is exactly the kind of review I wanted. It also helps by reinforcing my ideas about the author, a knowledgeable and passionate guy who lets the latter trump the former in his "history" books. :-)
What a great way to describe it! I've read How the Irish Saved Civilization and felt that way, and am now reading Desire of the Everlasting Hills (the "New Testemant sort of thing" that conflates history and biblical interpretation). I'm reading the Paul section now and feel the same way. That and he always says "and we can just assume it was this way" as his justification for some of his more bizzare intepretations or "historical" claims. But its still a fun read!