To understand Roman Britain one ought to understand the Roman Empire of which it was a part: the division between East and West, the various potentates in Gaul and Britain and so on. It also helps to understand who the various emperors were, their personalities and the problems they were facing outside of Britain.

A short book like this one cannot discuss in detail the environment within which Roman Britain existed and then disappeared. So a reader is left with a general impression of a world coming to an end.

Every now and then an historical book comes along that changes the way one looks at history. Peter Salway's Roman Britain does just that. He gets past a lot of the speculation people have about historical "forces" and looks at a portion of history that is skipped over as irrelevant in terms of the choices people made and the consequences of those choices. He shows Roman Britain to be one of the many "pivotal" parts of British history and an interesting one as well.

Theseus, Hero of the maze is a very fast book. Besides with allthe battles it's impossible not to be. But I must warn parents thereare some very violent scenes. Hope you enjoyed it as much as me

One of my sons had a lot of trouble with beginning reading. How laboriously we taught him his letters, then sounds, then short words! But then we found the Myth Men series. He read these books over and over -- and they have some big words! It's a comic book format, so he could pick up cues from the pictures. This series (and Archie comics, actually) got him over the reading hump, he moved on to text without pictures, and last year he won an award for most books read at his school!

This is a very poignant and informative book for anyone in ministry (especially in the Catholic Church). Fr. Liuzzi is compassionate and creative in his approach, but clear and firm about the Catholic Church's position and limits. I don't agree with the church, but I certainly understand it better now.

This is a wonderful book for anyone who has a friend or family member struggling with the reality of a homosexual orientation within the context of a Catholic spirituality and identity. It is very readable--you don't have to speak "vaticanese" to understand the theology explained. It is practical, it is affirming, and it gives insights into the stories of real people and their experiences. Books like this give me great hope.

This book is a must for anyone who truly wants to understand what Holy Mother Church regards as proper for Liturgical Worship.

Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite cover all the basic issues regarding true Roman Catholic worship and liturgy.

This was a quick read with all the references to other supporting Church documents. It was most helpful in sorting out fact from fiction.

Many lay people who have joined the parish liturgy or worship committee find it difficult to search through the massive amount of documents issued on various aspects of Roman Catholic ritual, particularly the mass. Most liturgy guides provide interpretations that go beyond what is prescribed. Hence, the common layman who wants to serve his or her parish competently is often confused about basic details of the mass. This book provides a concise and clean reference for such committees. Unlike other liturgy books, a presentation of the basic "noble simplicity" of the mass allows the reader to make intelligent decisions based upon individual parish circumstances and needs. No pop-psychology, no obtuse theology, no axes to grind. Get it.

This book is excellent. A priest let me borrow his copy and within minutes I was online ordering it. If you serve in the Roman Catholic Church this book is the key. Coving every last detail from children to pontiffs. From low mass to high Mass, to liturgy of the hours, even adorations. Covers vestments, movements, requirements. Recomended as reference and study, and for those who would like to just know whats going on. Also a must if you are planning any type of liturgical experiance!!!!!!BUY IT!!!!

Well, if you don't mind a LOT of repetitions, some errors on the evaluation of ancient greek words (i am greek and i studied ancient greek for ages _at post-graduate level, too), a bit of harshness on Platonic philosophy and it's thereafter, some bitter remarks (''barbaric subordination of women'' in ancient Athens, p. 241; do you know what was the standard that time all around?) and some farfetching conclusions (the Athenians ''led the West think to believe it owes almost everything to them'' and ''...histories of the ancient world are still based on Athenian propaganda'', p.222), it could make a good read. The fact is that what burns Mr. Kingsley is the easiness with which he states things. But that is not a new thing to meet with some authors. I would expect more responsible statements, on a firm basis, and not so lighthearted: ''...people at Athens invented the fiction of a united Greece'' or ''Many greek centers of culture preferred to side with the Persians rather with the Athenians. They considered them more civilized.'' p. 222. Well..., not from a professor of Simon Fraser University ! If you read Isokrates' "Panegyrikos" (Thucydides, et.al., also) you will know more than that. Some Greeks really partied the Persians, but the issue was quite political and definitely not cultural (By the way, have you read Chrestos Lazos' books on ancient Greek technology?). As for the domination of the Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, cf. Marsilio Ficcino and the Scholastics' interpretation of them as responsible to that. Anyway, the book is nice to read for it presents some (well, not so) unknown aspects of the Underworld ''drwmena'' in the ancient Greek world. If the author payed more attention to the Orphics and to the soothsaying in Homerus' epics, it would be better. Read it, but beware.

I've written thousands of reviews and all for pay, so this is a measure of my appreciation of Kingsley's book. Much of my reviewing was small press stuff, mystical or psychological preferred. I have shelves and boxes of books that I enjoyed and planned to re-read for a deeper understanding, but there they sit. Meanwhile I'm on my eighth re-reading of Wisdom and finding more each time. For me it compares to the challenging, roguish perplexities of Robert Graves' White Goddess. It opens a new room in my mind. And I agree with those who have the highest praise for Kingsley's writing style. I've made my living as a writer for 40 years and so studied popular styles - Kingsley is accessible yet intriguing. A clean, well-lighted room, yes, but with shape-shifters flitting through to tease you along. I can see why academics are shocked and appalled. Just great, can't recommend it enough. I found this book after 18 months of immersion in Idries Shah's brand of sufism, reading all of Shah and lots of related stuff, a hint at my attitude toward the academic. I'm not reading it for so-called facts but as a manual for real travel, as fuel, as a work that clicks with my intuition.

This book simply floors me. Along with his scholarly tour de force Ancient Philosophy, Mystery and Magic, Kingsley is proving himself to be the Wilamowitz, Rohde or Nietzsche of the start of the new millenium. The man knows his sources intimately and has a truly sympathetic and astonishingly wide-ranging grasp of all the relevant material. As a neo-pagan who is at home with greek religious traditions I am so pleased to find a writer who combines solid scholarship with a mystical appreciation of the material he writes about. This book is a steal at twice the price. Buy it! read it and keep it always handy in your library of necessary texts.

Cymbeline was a British king in Roman times ( Augustus Caesar's time).
Devices used in the Play:
1) a woman plays a man/ boy role ( several of his plays : As You Like it,
Twelfth Night))
2) a deception by a villain to lie the virtue of a Lady ( Much Ado about
Nothing)
3) Princes kidnapped and brought up as common men ( I don't know if he
uses this in other plays)
4) poison that causes a coma ( Romeo and Juliet)
5) a Prince who is a vile fool ( used in his historical plays)
6) a Queen who is a plotter and evil ( Macbeth)
7) a Prince who kills another Prince and it redeemed by his hidden
identity
8) a Prince sentenced to hang by mistake
9) a King who condemns his daughter wrongly ( King Lear)
One wonders how much of this is historical fact and how much pure fiction.
With all this scheming in the plot , it should be a very successful
play.
It is a total flop!
What it comes out is seeming unreal and contrived.
You get that happy ending feel that is so much in his comedies
but it has a very false feeling to it.
That's probably why Cymbeline isn't performed much.
If he hadn't gone for all these at once it might have worked, but the
result is that you see the playwright as ....
If anyone wants to take the air out of a Shakespeare pedant,
this is the play to do it with! He makes Shaw and Eugene O'neil l
look good. He even make Rogers and Hammerstein and Gilbert and
Sullivan look better, ha, ha...
This play is not Shakespeare's finest hour!

"Cymbeline" is my favourite Shakespeare play. It's also probably his loopiest. It has three plots, managing to drag in a banishment, a murder, a wicked queen, a moment of almost sheer pornography, a full-on battle between the Romans and the British, a spunky heroine, her jealous but not-really-all-that-bad husband, some fantastic poetry and Jupiter himself descending out of heaven on an eagle to tell the husband to pull his finger out and get looking for his wife. Finally, just when your head is spinning with all the cross-purposes and dangling resolutions, Shakespeare pulls it all together with shameless neatness and everybody lives happily ever after. Except for the wicked queen, and her son, who had his head cut off in Act 4.

"Cymbeline" is, then, completely nuts, but it manages also to be very moving. Quentin Tarantino once described his method as "placing genre characters in real-life situations" - Shakespeare pulls off the far more rewarding trick of placing realistic characters in genre situations. Kicking off with one of the most brazen bits of expository dialogue he ever created, not even bothering to give the two lords who have to explain the back story an ounce of personality, Shakespeare quickly recovers full control and races through his long, complex and deeply implausible narrative at a headlong pace. The play is outrageously theatrical, and yet intensely observed. Imogen's reaction on reading her husband's false accusation of her infidelity is a riveting mixture of hurt and anger; she goes through as much tragedy as a Juliet, yet is less inclined to buckle and snap under the pressure. When she wakes up next to a headless body that she believes to be her husband, her aria of grief is one of the finest WS ever wrote. No less impressive is her plucky determination to get on with her life, rather than follow her hubby into the grave.

Posthumus, the hubby in question, is made of less attractive stuff, but when he comes to believe that Imogen is dead, as he ordered (this play is full of people getting things wrong and suffering for it), he rejects his earlier jealousy and starts to redeem himself a tad. There's a vicious misogyny near the heart of this play, as Shakespeare biographer Park Honan observed, kept in balance by a hatred of violence against women. The oafish prince Cloten, who lusts after Imogen, is a truly repellent piece of work, without even the intelligence of Iago or the horrified panic of Macbeth; his plan to kill Posthumus and rape Imogen before her husband's body is just about as squalid and vindictive as we expect of this louse, and when a long-lost son of the king (don't even _ask_) lops Cloten's head off, there are cheers all round.

Shakespeare sends himself up all through "Cymbeline". I wonder if the almost ludicrously informative opening exposition scene isn't a bit of a gag on his part, but when a tired and angry Posthumus breaks into rhyming couplets, then catches himself and observes "You have put me into rhyme", we know that Shakespeare is having us on a little. Likewise, the final scene, when all is resolved, goes totally over the top in its piling-on "But-what-of-such-and-such?" and "My-Lord-I-forgot-to-mention" moments.

Yet the moments of terror and pity are deep enough to make the jokiness feel truly earned. When Imogen is laid to rest and her adoptive brothers recite "Fear no more the heat o' the sun" over her body, it's as affecting as any moment in the canon. That she isn't actually dead, we don't find out until a few moments later, but it's still a great moment.

Playful, confusing, enigmatic, funny and shot through with a frightening darkness, this is another top job by the Stratford boy. Well done.

A combination of "Romeo and Juliet," "Much Ado About Nothing," "As You Like It," and "King Lear?" Well somehow, Shakespeare made it work. Like "Romeo and Juliet" we have a protagonist (Imogen) who falls under her father's rages because she will not marry who he wants her to. Like "Much Ado About Nothing," we have a villain (Iachimo) who tries to convince a man (Posthumus) that the woman he loves is full of infidelity. Like "As You Like It," we have exiled people who praise life in the wilderness and a woman who disguises herself as a man to search for her family in the wilderness. Like "King Lear," we have a king who's rages and miscaculated judgement lead to disastorous consequences. What else is there? Only beautiful language, multiple plots, an evil queen who tries to undermind the king, an action filled war, suspense, a dream with visions of Pagan gods, and a beautiful scene of reconciliation at the end. While this is certainly one of Shakespeare's longer plays, it is well worth the time.

While the book is an interesting and entertaining read, most of it is untrue and horribly researched. The one star review lower on this page got it right. The facts that Mr. Allen gave as the boy's identity, his father, and where this all happened are all dead wrong. Nothing ever happened in the town or house that he said it did. It was apparent that Mr. Allen did minimal digging into the subject and just took what he found and threw it on the page with nothing to back it up with. What's even odder about this is how easily the real information(from the "Strange" Magazine)was found by that reporter. That Mr. Allen didn't take enough time to see that what was in front of his face was horribly wrong and what was right was not hard to figure out. When Mr. Allen was even contacted by the other reporter, he seemed to not care or answer any questions as to why he didn't go further to find the real truth. Everything he has stated about the boy and the location, is all wrong. Even the possessed boy himself stated that he never lived there and didn't know why people thought that. While the book is an interesting read, it can only be categorized under 'fiction', because that is what it is.

When I first read this book in its previous edition, I, too, was impressed with its supposedly accurate and dispassionate account of a true-life exorcism. That was before I read the extensive "Strange" magazine article debunking the case, which shows up the shoddy lack of research conducted by Allen. (In fact, Allen ends up looking like the Erich von Daniken of exorcism scholarship.) "Strange" magazine's investigative research discovered a whole lot that Allen apparently did not (or did not wish to reveal), such as the fact that the case did not take place in Mount Rainier, Maryland, as press reports stated, and the fact that the boy's father did not believe his son was possessed. The "Strange" magazine researcher not only tracked down the identity of the "haunted boy," but interviewed former neighbors, friends, and classmates -- basic research that Allen failed to do. The actual facts are quite different from those claimed in Allen's highly sensationalized and fanciful account.

I have always wanted to tell this story someplace, and here seems as good a place as any. I swear that what I am about to describe really happened. It was pretty scary.

Although we now live in Pennsylvania, my husband and I used to live in St. Louis. We know where the Alexian Brothers Hospital is and some of the other landmarks in the book. When this book came out it was released in St. Louis first, before it had a nation-wide release. I purchased the book with the intention of sending it to my father in NY State as he had liked the movie The Exorcist.

The first night I read 1/2 of the book. The following day while cleaning the livingroom I heard the distinct sound of rapping and/or scratching coming from a corner of the room, up near the ceiling. My husband laughed it off as either a mouse or my over- active imagination from the book, but later that night he heard it too. We had never in over 10 years had a problem with animals or mice in the walls, etc. In the book...the possession starts with rapping sounds.

That night I read the rest of the book, although by this time I was a little frightened. The following morning my mother in NY State called to tell me of an odd occurrance. The phone had rang the day before and when she answered it the person asked for "Sadie", my mother's name. When she said, "This is Sadie" the person started talking, according to my mother, "gibberish". She couldnt understand what they were saying or even if it was a male or female or what language they were speaking. When she asked who it was the person stated "Emily" which is my name. My mother said, "This is Emily, my daughter?" to which the person said, "yes" and then started speaking gibberish again. My mother hung up.

What is odd is that the phone number at the time was listed only in my father's name and I hadnt lived at home for almost 10 years. How did this person know BOTH of our names?

Because this freaked me out even more, that day I wrapped up the book and sent it to my parents. I didnt hear anything about it until about a week later when I asked my mother if she had the book, she said she did, and that my father would thank me for it but he wasnt at home. I asked where he was and she said that he was at the hardware store buying mouse traps as "We have heard scratching in the walls for a week now, so we must have a mouse."

This incident happened about 10 years ago. Nothing else happened after that, my parents never caught a mouse, the scratching stopped, and the book appears to be lost as I havent seen it when I have been over there. But it was very odd when it happened.

So...read the book, it is a fascinating story. But if anything odd happens to you or your family, please write a review and let me know. Thanks.

Don't be fooled by the gorgeous and provocative cover. Mayor has some really intriguing hypotheses to offer and has backed them up with apparently solid scholarship but Princeton University Press has done the author no favors. The book is unbelievably poorly designed - talk about widows and orphans - the maps are unreadable and the photographs rarely appear on the same page as the the relevent text. Mayor is not an especially accomplished writer but I feel sure a competent editor could have saved her from herself. At the very least they should had nixed the frequent paranthetical references to other chapters of the book which are deeply annoying. As eager as I am/was for the information contained here I have not been able to force myself past the third chapter. Mayor's theories are indeed exciting and worthy of discussion, one wishes her publisher had worked as hard at producing a worthwhile book as the author evidently did in researching it.

This book presents the idea that ancients were well aware of fossils, and discusses their interpretations of them. It shows how different members of society tried to interpret them in different ways (most interpreted them as being signs of giants and monsters, but some took this to show divine origins, and others took it to be part of natural history). The ideas are very interesting, and the history of the importance of different fossilized bones in different cities is quite exciting. My only complaint is that the books seems to be quite repetitive. Not only are the points that the author is trying to make repetitive, but she even repeats some of the stories she tells several times. A good editor could have trimmed out 1/3 of the book. All in all, a good book. Interesting, thorough, and decently referenced. For anyone interested in classics or paleontology, this is a good buy.

Adrienne Mayor makes a very plausible case noting the significance of fossils to ancient Greeks, Romans and other early peoples of the Near East and other parts of Asia, most notably the Central Asian Gobi Desert. She may sound repetitive, but she does an excellent job organizing her facts and making her case as persuasive as it is. Students of classical archaeology will have to consider her novel hypothesis in any future work on ancient mythology. It's a pity Princeton University Press hasn't done an excellent job marketing this fine book. Let's hope it earns the wide readership it deserves soon.

This book emphasizes on the attitude of the popes towards the sex lives of their priests. Many popes were concerned with the celibacy of their priests and forbade marriage for priests. However, they used to sell them licenses for keeping mistresses. Usually, they were prepared to tolerate priests who kept incestuous relations with female relatives or raped women in the church. "When a woman fainted during confession and the priest seized the opportunity to rape her, the Inquisition found that this, technically, was not a case of soliciting." The pope's only concern was that priests would defile the sacrament when handling it afterwards.
The passages about the sex lives of the popes themselves are mainly based on hearsay. Cawthorne accuses several popes of incest with either their sisters or bastard daughters, like pope Alexander VI Borgia, who retired with his daughter to "an interior room and remained locked up together for more than an hour". In secret she gave birth to a baby that was hidden, but that doesn't prove that her father was the father. Many other popes seem to have had preferences for young boys, prostitutes or sex-and-food orgies in general.
Despite many unproven accusations, the book clearly shows that many popes were mainly concerned with their own pleasures and did not give a damn about Christian values. Anyway, the book is good reading stuff.

Perfectly easy written for the common reader. Whoever is an open minder or wonder about the teachings of the church should read this book. The Catholic church is going under a struggled to keep its believers and this book tells us why. The writer tells us about the influence Queens had over the popes and how poorly Popes were following the church's own rules (orgies,murder,money,same sex lovers...etc.) just to have the power the position of a Pope had. However, somethings have change within the church now our days. Priests are still longing for a normal sexual life while keeping their faith to God and their preaching, but since celibate is still a mayor rule for priests, they find themselves commiting crimes involving children and honest belivers. Nothing is being heard about orgies anymore or about homosexual popes or about queens ruling over popes. On the other hand, I must recognized the work the two privious Popes have done for the church and its integrity. I just hope that the next pope follows the truly believes of Jesus for the sake of us and reforms the Catholic church. I truly enjoyed this book because I was on guilt stage for being lesbian and not following the bible or attending mass. Now that I know I'm not worse than those popes, I feel more confident as to what to respond to anybody who says homosexualism is a sin. I recomend this book to everybody!

"Sex Lives of the Popes" reads fluidly and easily. Others may find that a weakness in the lack of endless "scholastic" efforts to document every work by reference to "previous scholars." Well, for the minority among us who are "academia," that may be of interest. But for the ordinary reader, there is sufficient substantiation, and the book retains its vitality instead of succumbing to mind-numbing scholarly endedavor. It's real, and revealing, and surely an anathema to all the scholars of the "Holy Mother Church," to which the work may lend a new meaning. If one isn't a hidebound statistician, or a blindly faithful Catholic Cleric, then this book will be a great source of wondrous information, with relevance to the religious events and practices of the past centuries as well as to the present day's less than presentable (reported and unreported) practices of many of the Church's selected clergical leaders. By all means, everyone should read this book, in the interests of presentation of all the facts, whether they agree with the book or not. For example, do you know why the new pope must sit on the "saddle" before he's confirmed by the Cardinals? And did you know that there was a female Pope? It's a great book. Rush out and read it.

...theologically anyway. But before dealing with that it would be beneficial to review its strengths.

For one thing, it is a comprehensive work. There is evidence throughout that the author sought to write as complete a biography as possible and clocking in at around 750 pages, the detail is not lacking. The portrait of Giovanni Battista Montini the man is well sketched and his gifts made readily apparent to the reader. The author believes that Pope Paul was "the most naturally talented man to become pope in this century" and if he is referring to all around then I can certainly concur with him. The problem though is that the papacy requires more then that to properly function. Paul from the biographies I have read of him - and Hebblethwaithe follows suit with them - sketches a portrait of a man who on paper is almost overqualified to be pope (if that was at all possible) excelling in his knowledge of Canon Law, the history of the Ecumenical Councils, and Church history in general. (Not to mention being schooled in the field of journalism.) An intellectual who could relate to average people, who was kind, compassionate, charitable, and longsuffering. (And from a pastoral standpoint a great priest.) Physically frail in health from his earliest years Paul VI was still able to accomplish much more then it would seem task-wise. An excellent listener who enjoyed philosophical discourse and dialogue with the belief that the truth would ultimately win out. A dialoguist who could weigh the pros and cons of opposing sides and do so equitably. Adding to these the element of patience and sensitivity of all viewpoints and Paul had the makings of a great diplomat.

Hebblethwaithe documents well Paul's service to - and admiration of - Pius XII and treats the latter pope reasonably well: though he seems to think Pius XI was a diplomatic blunderer. (There is a clear preference shown to John XXIII over both of them.) He details well Pope Paul's meetings with Patriarch Athengoras and other leaders both religious and secular. I am trying to think of what else can be said in under 1,000 words about a 750 page book. (In these situations space constraints are not of assistance.)

It has been said in the Conclave that after the election the consensus of him was that he was "John with Pacelli's [Pius XII] brains". But even taking into account all of the relevant factors, it is difficult to see how anyone could say that his reign could be anything better then "average" historically. Hebblethwaithe's sketch reveals the human side of Paul through his successes and also his failings. (Not to mention the tremendous sufferings physically and spiritually that he underwent in the exercise of his ministry.)

It helps now to know that the author is an "ex-Jesuit" because it fills in several question marks that cropped up when I read the book. His treatment of the subject of the minority at the Second Vatican Council is not as balanced as it could be. (The author almost makes it seem that any concessions made by Paul VI to the minority party was the result of conspiracy and certain prelates "getting to Paul" rather then Paul acting as he did out of a sense of personal principle.) The treatment of the Council could have been more thorough as well since that was the defining event and constant reference point for the rest of Pope Paul's pontificate.

There were a few points of theology where the author showed his grasp of the issues as specious. He makes two theological blunders by presuming that the Mystical Body and the Catholic Church affiliation would have to "be overcome by Vatican II" - an absurd notion and one not sanctioned by the documents of Vatican II. (The second was the assertion that the treatment of the Mystical Body in the encyclical somehow did not account for the presence of sin: another superficial commentary on the encyclical's content.) He also shows almost a disdain for the encyclical letter Mysterium Fidei: seemingly any attempt of the Pope to not endorse the "newer and therefore better" whatever it happened to be (and regardless of its relative merits) permeates this work in various spots.

Two more encyclicals that do not meet with the authors approval are Sacerdotalis Caelibatus (on priestly celibacy) and Humanae Vitae. On the latter the author pulls out the kind of kook conspiracy theories that are common to fringe extremists to try and "justify" themselves. (Particularly when it comes to Cardinal Ottaviani in this instance.) It is pretty clear that he did not like Paul's teaching in the latter two encyclicals or the judgment Paul had the CDF issue on women priests. The author for the most part is pretty fair but on the examples above there is a clear bias. The sketch he makes of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was also not flattering but frankly Lefebvre brought a lot of his problems on himself. (In that context Hebblethwaithe details Pope Paul's patience with Lefebvre very well.) Throughout the ups and downs of the book (which technically is written well and reads well) we receive a detailed sketch of Paul the pope and Montini the man.

In short, this is a good book but it is not without its problems. Two biographies not used by Hebblethwaithe are in this writers opinion superior works page for page. One is Roy MacGregor-Hastie's 1964 biography on Paul VI (approx. 210 pages). Another is Alden Hatch's biography "Pope Paul VI" which is about 400 pages. Either work is better then this one but this one is still worth a read too if you have the time and if deficiencies such as the ones noted above are taken into account.

Because I believe Paul VI was by far the greatest Poper ever and thanks to his tireless efforts there is a Church today that sounds realistic to the world, I welcome this book that I bought back in 1993. The missing star is because, in my view, the author does not follow enough in Paul's sanctity. I recommend that any interested party goes over his prayers, and they will find that his deep intellectual skills were based and sustained upon an impressive spiritual life.

Before reading this I tended to label Paul VI unfairly has a highly 'conservative' Pope who wrote 'Humane Vitae'. Having read this I realised that he wrote this encyledal partly because he thought he would be betraying the Church in the face of theological history and partly out of fear as to what it would lead to. He was also a highly complex man prone to fits of depression, and yet in some ways a warm and caring man. Like the US President Lyndon Johnson, Paul VI has suffered unfairly partly due to having a highly popular predessor. Sadly in Paul VI's case he also had a highly popular successor partly due to the shortness of his reign.