1066 and All That

Customer Reviews

• A very Good Thing! and Memorable!  Oct 1, 1999 (36 of 36 found this helpful)

  I read this first in high school, and in many ways it taught me a philosophy of history that subsequent decades have only confirmed. History is not what you thought - it is what you can remember. What's so marvelous about this work of historical humor is its skewed accuracy, and the uncanny way in which it captures the circularity of misinformation and facts that we use as cultural narrative. While it has a distinctly England-Between-the-Wars sensibility, the tone actually works in its favor. Passages like the discussion of Gaul's division into three parts (weeny, weedy, and weaky) illustrate the ways in which we all attempt to make sense of information which we cannot truly understand because we have no accurate context for it. And when the authors state that this history is the result of "years of research in golf-clubs, gun-rooms, green-rooms, etc.", they are making a very trenchant comment on how ideological history is created, taught, and made into a dominant belief system. This would make a great foundation for a course on history. I'm only sorry that it ends when America became top nation.

• Typical "schoolboy's view" of English History and humor.  May 25, 1999 (35 of 35 found this helpful)

  Sellars and Yeatman were two English scoolmasters in the 30's who set out to write a history book for Schoolboys and adults who should know better, for entertainment and fun which has become a minor classic. A basically accurate romp through English history, it also pokes fun at some venerable "English" historical stereotypes and misconceptions as well as satirising( very gently) the English exam system of the inter-war years.

  " How big was the bosum of the Pope"- candidates may use protractors,- " England was now "top nation "-discuss", are typical extracts from the mock test questions that follow every chapter.

  Typically eclectic , charming and witty, the book actually manages to teach a lot of History whilst correcting many a misunderstanding and shedding light on a number of quite unusual topics.

  Read the bit about the Scots, Picts and finally, Irish ( once Scots but now Irish) and the Picts living in Scotland but really Irish, and the Scots, formerly Irish but now living in Scotland ( or living in brackets!). Great fun -charming book!

• It's all that and more!  May 16, 2003 (17 of 17 found this helpful)

  Most everyone on the internet (which makes most of you, as you're reading this review via the internet) has encountered, either in a website or a mass emailing, various humourous and hilarious historical satires, usually presented (alas, urban legend alert!) as inaccuracies found in actual student papers. Mistakes such as:

  Egypt is in a desert, and watered by irritation.

  Handel was half-German, half-Italian, and half-English.

  Lincoln lived at the Gettysburg Address.

  And so on.

  Well, in the days before email and websites (and photocopiers, to pass such gems around the office), these things did exist, and were, because of the difficulty in finding it by other means, published.

  Much to our pleasure, one such collection can still be found. `1066 and All That' is a humourous if fractured look at British history. As an aid for the newly historically literate, this text tells you when something that happened is a Good Thing.

  Here we find that Julius Caesar conquered Britain on the first date in British history (a very fortuitous coincidence, that) but failed to overrun the country, and left the natives, who were after all only natives, and completely lacking in the skill of making properly constructed Latin sentences such as Veni, Vidi, Vici (a quality absolutely required for gaining the appellation of 'civilised').

  `Important Note
  The Scots (originally Irish, but by now Scotch) were at this time inhabiting Ireland, having driven the Irish (Picts) out of Scotland; while the Picts (originally Scots) were now Irish (living in brackets) and vice versa. It is essential to keep these distinctions clearly in mind (and vice versa).'

  We are introduced to the conversion of the Angles (no, not Angels, but Angles, hence, Anglicans), helped of course by the Venomous Bead. Shortly thereafter, we had the Egg-Kings (Eggberd, Eggbreth, Eggfroth, etc.), `none of them, however, succeeded in becoming memorable, except in so far as it is difficult to forget such names as Eggbirth, Eggbred, Eggbeard, Eggfilth, etc. Nor is it even remembered by what kind of Eggdeath they perished.'

  Of course, you've probably never read the Magna Carta, being as it is in a foreign tongue (funny how English tends to do that). So, this book provides a summary:

  `1. That no one was to be put to death, save for some reason (except the Common People).
  2. That everyone should be free (except the Common People).
  3. That everything should be of the same weight and measure throughout the Realm (except the Common People).
  4. That the Courts should be stationary, instead of following a very tiresome medieval official known as the King's Person all over the country.
  5. That no person should be fined to his utter ruin (except the King's Person).
  6. That the Barons should not be tried except by a special jury of other Barons who would understand.

  Magna Charter was therefore the chief cause of Democracy in England, and thus a very Good Thing for everyone (except the Common People).'

  Skipping a bit (you will of course have to read the book for yourself; I can hardly be expected to do all the work for you, now, can I. What am I, a typist?) we come upon the death of good King William IV, at which time, `Queen Victoria, though asleep at the time and thus in her nightdress, showed great devotion to duty by immediately ascending the throne. In this bold act she was assisted by Lord Melbourne and the Archbishop of Canterbury, who were both properly dressed.'

  Each section ends with a term paper covering the historical period in question, with questions such as:

  + Which do you consider were more alike, Caesar or Pompey, or vice versa? (Be brief.)

  + Why do you picture John of Gaunt as a rather emaciated grandee?

  + Ruminate fearlessly on (I) Lord Cardigan, (2) Clapham.

  We discover the truth of the Magna Garter (a very great garter indeed--as distinct from that Great Charter mentioned above); that Victoria died in fact of a surfeit of Jamborees;

• The Marx Brothers meet English History  Jul 4, 1998 (14 of 15 found this helpful)

  1066 and All That may not be classic literature, but the world is a better place, nonetheless, for its existence. It is a side-splitting and ground-breaking satire of the English history every English and American school child once had to learn. This is how I imagine Bertie Wooster would recall his history lessons. The authors have had many imitators, but their slim volume still stands among the best in its class. (On a personal note, my discovery at age 17 of this book was one of the pieces that brought me back to school after dropping out in 9th grade. The authors ability to cheerfully and publicly play with language and knowledge and be secure in doing so started me on a path that led to a graduate degree at Harvard and a doctorate at UCBerkeley.)

• A GOOD THING  Feb 4, 2004 (9 of 9 found this helpful)

  In 40 years of visiting the United States and hosting return visits I have only managed to get a vague idea about what English humour appeals to Americans. I am in no doubt that this is a great book, but it is as English as the Ascot, and the humour is very Oxbridge undergraduate humour. If my memory serves me, the authors graduated from Oxford with the accolade of a third-class honours, maybe less, in modern history apiece (`modern' being defined as not ancient Greek and Roman). You do not need much knowledge of British history to enjoy it, a Walt Disney or Saxons-and-sandals overview will be enough.

  What you may get out of it is completely unpredictable, at least by me. I am still reduced to helpless laughter by the humour in the book that is downright infantile, like the exam questions - `Fill in at least two of the following: 1 (blank) 2 (blank) 3 Simon de Montfort. Do not write on more than two sides of the paper' - that sort of thing. The confusions between names are not much more adult and nearly as funny, like the story of how King Arthur burnt the cakes as told by Arthur Lord Tennyson, or Florence Nightingale gradually transmogrified into Flora McNightingown the Lady With the Deadly Lampshade. I still get a kick out of the Anglo-Saxon kings such as the Wave of Egg-kings (Eggfilth etc) and others such as Thruthelthrolth. Maybe the funniest joke in the book is about the king who perished by his own hand on learning that his sons were revolting.

  That is a little nosegay of my own favourites jotted down completely at random. If they don't appeal to you, that could just be because of the way I tell them, or it could be that this is not your own idea of funny. For me this little book is a true classic, a book that wears well down the years and decades, much as Lear's limericks do. I should maybe say that I myself am not English although I am Oxbridge. On the other hand I first read the book, and first found it hilarious, when I was only a child. Its great precept is that history is what you can remember. Listening to points of view as I hear them expressed with the modern advantage of instant communications I have to conclude that selective recollection for many people starts right away and does not have to wait for anything to become `history'.