Ecrasez L'infame

I'm always pleased to find this odd book is being discussed, tho' I think not many Infidels will have seen it - there's only 8000 copies of the UK first and only edition in the world (I am the proud owner of one). But Carcanet is planning to republish in late 2008. If they do, it'll probably weigh in at £40/ $80/ €60, and at that price I think you should all consider getting it, if only for the huge mass of interesting ideas, odd learnings, ingenious connections, eclectic insights and wall-to-wall jaw-dropping research... not to mention the sheer bloody elegance of the prose style. And what a ice-breaker when the vicar comes round for tea...

J-D

I have never heard of Pryse before, but will seek the book on that recommendation.I suspect both of those having something to do with it, as well as the fact that ...... more information has come to light since its composition, which obviously it doesn't take account of. I don't know, but think it unlikely that Graves commented on that later information. He moved around a lot between different subjects. (As for Podro, I've never been able to trace any evidence of his writing anything else.)

J-D

Wow. That really isn't many, is it? For the benefit of my compatriots, I record that copies may be found in the library of the Australian National University and in the library of the University of Sydney.

There was also a sort of 'sequel', titled Jesus in Rome, but I have not yet succeeded in locating a copy.'Odd learnings' and 'eclectic insights' are both good words for Graves. He wrote a short semi-comical piece about his own eclecticism which is included in the collection 'Catacrok'. I think this is one of the things that makes his historical novels such good fun: and in novels, of course, it doesn't matter if what he's saying isn't historically accurate, and a little bit of the supernatural can be tolerated. Many of them also have signs of a hostility to Christianity which makes them good choices for infidels.

Ecrasez L'infame

Jesus in Rome, also with Podro (1957). The idea that Jesus eventually went to Rome is based upon the Suetonius, of course, although I think RG had other evidence for it (he always does). I suppose that if you've already shown that Jesus survived the crucifixion, and if you know S is referring to a leader of the Jews named "Chrestos" in Rome a few years later, it's reasonable to assume they're the same person - after all, Jesus had to go somewhere after his vanishing act, and I imagine he would have been a little conspicuous in Palestine. In fact, I suspect RG was already working on this hypothesis at the time of NGR, given the prominence there (pp26 & 807) of his "mistranslation" of S that so riled the OP ("mistranslation" in quote marks, because RG did not make mistranslations, except wilfully. His translation of the Twelve Caesars is still, after fifty years, the standard Penguin Classic, albeit now revised).

On this subject, RG also has an interesting speculation about the Suetonius line in his earlier King Jesus (1946). There, "Chrestian" started out as an insult ("simpletons", "unworldly", "innocents", "dreamers") applied by Jews and Pagans to the new religion. (I think I read in Eisenman that "Galilean" was a similar insult in Jerusalem - "bumpkin", "peasant", "idiot"). In due course, the new religion took the insult on as a badge of pride - as beleaguered minorities sometimes do - and, eventually, it became conflated with "Christian". So, according to Graves, S meant it when he wrote "impulsore Chresto"... "with a Simpleton as instigator"...

Fascinating, as Mr Spock would say.