Speaking of history...

I finished the Quennell's (And yes, I've come to think of them like that, as a single unit, kind of like I think about aunts-and-uncles or long-term married couples) "Life in Roman and Anglo-Saxon Britain"

It was an interesting book, both from what I learned from it about the time period it wrote about, and ALSO for what I feel like I learned about the time period in which it was written.

History was presented very differently in the 1920s and 30s (when the books were originally written - they were apparently revised in the 50s but I'm not sure how much was changed).

I didn't get much "straight" history in school - up until 8th grade or so, we had "social studies" which was kind of a watered-down concoction of history, geography, and civics. (The fact that I can't remember much, except for the unit on the Tasaday, and that only because the idea of their being a true "Stone Age Tribe" was largely debunked some years later, suggests that "social studies" is typically not well-taught). In 8th grade we had U.S. History, and I do remember a fair amount of that, I think because it was more directed - there was the timeline to follow, instead of a bunch of just disconnected "units," and also I had a good teacher for the class who was good at making history come alive. (For example, in the section where we talked about immigration, he had each of us ask our relatives for information on where our ancestors had immigrated from, and he made a chart, and compared the ethnic makeup of the class to the ethnic makeup of the U.S. overall).

At any rate - for me, the interesting part of history right now (since I am reading it for my own edification and amusement, I can choose my curriculum) is more aimed at how the ordinary people lived, what buildings were like, etc., etc. And that's what this book is mainly about - they have lots of reconstruction drawings of the old Roman or Anglo-Saxon buildings, there's not a lot of discussion of battles and rulers and such (other than in passing; I guess the assumption was you knew the order of the Caesars already).

But there's a lot of discussion of commerce, and clothing, and in the Anglo-Saxon section, what "halls" were like and what they were used for.

And one thing I have to say: it must have been a lovely career, traveling around, making nice pen and ink sketches of old buildings, writing about the past. It seems that it would have been very peaceful.

It's also interesting, I said, in terms of what the times must have been like when the books were originally written. It's interesting to look at the assumptions the authors make about their audience. As I said before, it seems to me the audience was probably 11-15 year old kids (maybe slightly older). The book seems to assume that there's a basic knowledge of the progression of the Caesars (I can never keep them straight) and the events of the fall of Rome. It also seems to assume that the kids knew at least rudimentary Latin.

There are also these little asides, like "...but a much better example than the one shown in our drawing is in the Victoria and Albert Museum" or suchlike. Very clearly a British-centric book, with the assumption that it's no effort at all for the reader to go out to see what remains of the Fosse Way, or travel to such-and-such museum to see the treasure they've just included a drawing of in the flesh.

Also...and I'm not quite sure how to say this without raising hackles on any side, but they also make the assumption that their reading audience is Christian. And that doesn't really bother me, of course, because that's where I'm coming from. But it's just kind of a surprise...when you're used to how textbooks are written in the U.S. And I realize it would be perhaps a bit uncomfortable reading for someone else - perhaps not necessarily a Jewish person, but for someone who was Hindu or agnostic or didn't believe in a God - they'd maybe be a little angered by it, I don't know. But it just struck me, how different times are, how this book, were it written today, would be written differently.

I also think another change that would happen would be the tone. As I said before in my writing about the book, it's written in a very conversational, "Here's what I know and I'm going to share it with you" tone, not unlike an older relative talking with an intelligent and interested child. I think some people might reject that tone today as...I don't know quite what the word is, paternalistic? But I rather liked it, there was something about it that I found comforting. (But then again, I like the "dear Reader" asides that people like Anthony Trollope put in their stories).

But the conclusion is, I enjoyed it. I found a couple of inexpensive used copies of their other books (one on prehistorical man, one on Homeric Greece, and one on Archaic Greece) through Powell's used-book service, and I plan to read them. (I'd love to have a full set of all the histories they wrote, but I suspect that will take more time and searching.)