Customer Reviews

The Daughter of Time

5 star:		(110)
4 star:		(41)
3 star:		(19)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

Scotland Yard Inspector Alan Grant is bored out of his mind. Due to an unfortunate fall and multiple injuries he is bed ridden in the hospital and the long healing process and subsequent inaction are driving him crazy. A friend, knowing of the Inspector's passion for faces, brings him a portfolio of historical portraits thinking to distract him. She hopes he will involve himself in solving a "classic" historical mystery, since he seems to know all the facts of the Scotland Yard cases by heart. Grant homes in on the portrait of King Richard III, the supposedly wicked uncle who murdered his nephews, the boy princes, in the London's Tower. He remembers how Richard was portrayed in elementary school history and certainly recalls Shakespeare's vivid portrait of the evil hunchbacked king. However, try as he may, Grant cannot reconcile the face in the painting with that of a tyrannical childrens' murderer and usurper of England's throne. He sees conscience and integrity in the face of the painting's subject. And his curiousity is aroused for the first time since his accident.

Grant asks for historical books and reads everything he can get his hands on. He finally comes into contact with a young research student from America who also becomes caught-up in the hypothesis that Richard III was framed. Author Josephine Tey, with the skill of the best in Scotland Yard, conducts an objective investigation of a centuries-old crime. She evenly portrays both side of the story, Richard III's and King Henry VII's (the other suspect), with all its twists and turns, reveals compelling evidence and comes to an amazing conclusion.

The reader is literally taken back in time to examine the accusations, testimonies and material relating to the death of Richard's brother, King Edward IV in 1483, the known history of his sons, Princes Edward and Richard after their father's death and their mysterious disappearance, the behavior of Edward's widow and children, including his eldest daughter Elizabeth, who becomes Henry's bride, Queen and mother to Henry VIII. Tey provides an extraordinarily well researched profile of Richard III, pieced together directly from historical documents, and another profile of Henry Tudor. The author also examines the 1934 exhumation of the two children who were first dug up in 1674. Motives are examined and finally, conclusions are drawn, proving, once again, that history is written by winners.

This is a riveting piece of detective history. Usually historians are detectives. In this case we are introduced to a detective who becomes a historian. Step-by-step, Grant plays out his theories according to evidence and comes up with logical deductions. One may already know what the conclusions are, but that is not the point of this mystery novel. The book provides the opportunity to go back in history and view a more three-dimensional side to well known characters, examine documents, and understand the rationale of those who lied or who closed their eyes to the truth. In this case, a mistrust of the official version of "the truth" brings the truth to light.

Alan Grant and the supporting cast of characters are wonderful, as is the witty dialogue. The young American, Brent Carradine, is hardworking and touching in his zeal to do something meaningful. This excellent mystery by Josephine Tey is a delight and a remarkably riveting read.
JANA

What thoughtful reader hasn't experienced Shakespeare's Richard III and wondered about the accuracy of the Bard's portrayal? Thus did Josephine Tey, near the close of her authorial career, delve into some of the lost nooks and crannies of English history in an effort to recover "the real Richard."

The well-known hurdle for all would-be Ricardians is, of course, the utter absence of source material contemporary to Richard's reign, and most of all anything that discusses the fate of the "princes in the Tower." All that is generally counted as "authoritative," it turns out, is the product of Tudor dynasty information factories. Tey, however, very likely had in her possession the writings of Sir Clements Markham, a late Victorian-era civil servant, whose careful revisionist argument is here unfolded in a lively, compelling narrative of incremental discovery.

Prompted by a reproduction of a famous portrait of Richard, Tey's laid-up sleuth, with the help of an American researcher, marshalls from his bed an archival assault on the estimable Sir Thomas More, Henry (the VII) Tudor, and the entire phalanx of worthies who have reported, for the last half a millennium, that Richard was the demonic crookback murderer of Shakespeare's characterization. Happily for us, there's more (sic) to the story than the traditional record, and those not already sucked into the revisionist Ricardian argument may very well be converted. Tey's engaging "fiction" is not only a great boon to all Ricardians--who, with Richard III Societies on both sides of the pond, must surely win hundreds if not thousands of new converts yearly as a result of this 50-year-old work--but the perfect place to begin your own exploration of this great historical proto-conspiracy.

Since the winner writes the history books, it's not surprising most people believe that Richard III was evil. According to Sir Thomas More and Shakespeare, he had various members of his family killed, including his poor little nephews, so that he could be king. It's important to remember that much of what we think we know about Richard was written during the reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I -- who were on the throne as the direct result of the defeat of Richard. To justify the Tudors (Henry's father, I believe) seizing power, Richard had to be cast as the bad guy. We may never know what actually happened, but Josephine Tey presents a different look into history using actual letters and documents from that time. It all starts with a modern-day homicide detective who prides himself on being able to read faces. When he sees Richard's portrait (without knowing who it is), he doesn't pick it as the face of an evil murderer. I've seen Richard's portrait in the National Portrait Gallery in London -- and I think Tey's character, although fictional, may be on to something.

This is an engaging detective-story that simultaneously illustrates with blinding clarity the difference between <i>objective "fact"</i> and <i>subjective "interpretation."</i> Something we all need to be more aware of, more often. This novel's publication led to the creation of worldwide "Ricardian" groups now seeking to clear the name of the 13th-century ruler of England, Richard III, villainized through Thomas More then Holinshed then Shakespeare as a hunchback murderer of his two young nephews in order to become king.

For anyone interested in appearance/reality questions, or keen to uncover "truths" about anything at all, this novel is a MUST READ. But in fact, it's good reading also simply for people who enjoy this genre of detective/mystery.

Let this testament be my review's closing: since this book's recommendation to me nearly 20 years ago, I've read it again and again at least 10 times. Moreover, I've given it as a gift to at least seven or so friends. And I've recommended its reading in every college course I've taught during the last 10 years. For this is one of those extraordinary books that help shape our thinking while entertaining us all the while.

Well, Richard III can certainly be considered as an unique British monarch: five-hundred years after his early demise (he was 32 when he was killed) he sparks so much controversy you could fill the whole Encyclopaedia Brittanica with it. I must admit that yes, I *do* belong to a branch of the Richard III Society, but I became supportive of him through research that sprung from my own curitosity. But onwards with the review.

To start with, this novel has everything I demand from a good mystery novel: good characterisation, a faultless story-line, brilliant dialogue. It is not a book, however, for those who prefer their mysteries with lots of car chases, steamy blondes whenever (un)necessary, gun-toting bad guys, etc. Rather it is a literate mystery, acessible but packing more history and historical analysis in its little-over-one-hundred pages than you can shake a stick at. As such, I would recommend it only for those who like their books with brains. What is more, it is one of those rare books that does a serious contribution to History: you really get to understand how myths are made and how every ruler who usurps his/her position (in this case, Henry VII) does his/her best to totally blacken his/her predecessor's name (in this case, Richard III). Want confirmations, both in History and in literature? Try the Trotsky/Stalin case, or George Orwell's "1984", and let's have you muttering "Tonypandy".

And as for the historical content, it is top-notch, despite the fact that Tey ignores one of the most probable murder suspect (Buckingham) and the fact that the Princes may not have been murdered at all. Despite the fact that Thomas More was a saint, that does not mean that everything he wrote was inspired by God (what he wrote about Richard was probably inspired by Morton). Whether his work was a satyr of history or whether he intended it as a serious work, the point is that it is riddled with innacuracies, misconceptions and palpable absurdities. Also, he had been 8 when Richard was killed in Bosworth Field. I admire Thomas More and this is not an aspersion on him, but the fact is that his book about Richard cannot be taken seriously.

Many other palpable hits are scored, and I must tell to some readers whose comments I read that they are missing the whole point. For starters, not only this book is superior to many "histories" due to its critical treatment of sources, it also succeds in proving that Richard is one of the most unlikely murder suspects simply because a secret murder would obviously defeat its own end. Why would a man renowned by his capacities as a strategist suddenly commit an idiotic murder in the most idiotic manner possible? If it was imperative that the Princes should die, it was also imperative that everybody knew they were dead. What he couldn't possibly afford was a mystery - only an idiot would commit such a crime, and Richard never showed any signs of idiocy. And, as for the comment of the English lady from New York, despite the obvious fact that the fifteenth century was an age of violence and rulers did their best to eliminate all rivals (as a matter of fact, they still do), the point is that Richard died *precisely* because of his lack of ruthlessness - he showed great (and misplaced) leniency towards traitors like Morton and Stanley. If he had really been so ruthless as the Tudor myth paints him, he would have managed to keep his crown. In fact, the Tudor myth has been so successful that although everybody knows the story of the Princes in the Tower, very few people remember the fact that Henry Tudor beheaded 24-year-old Warwick, John of Gloucester (Richard's 17-year-old illigitimate son) and many other members of the House of York. Now *that's* what I call being ruthless!

Personally, I think that Richard showed signs of being one of the most enlightened and most humane British monarchs. But whether you agree or otherwise, do read this book for two reasons: the fact that will teach you not to swallow something just because it comes from some "authority"; and the tight dialogue between Grant and Carradine is the best interplay I've ever seen since Bogart and Bacall...

For those of us who crave a good mystery but are put off by the rather bland and often downright bad writing, Josephine Tey is a great find. Plot, character development, and creative ingenuity are her hallmarks, and her books are an absorbing read -- and more.

And more -- because I've read many of her books over and over, I've begun to notice a characteristic of her writing that I find very disturbing and disconcerting, but intriguing. While all authors decide who is good and bad and create a plot around that, she does something a little different in pursing her course: she manipulates the reader by a using a subtle emotional context for information that we then, because she causes us to like or dislike the character so much, accept as a likelihood if not actual fact. By the end of most of her novels, you've learned to dislike the "bad" people (who are unnecessarily bad, when you think about it) very very much and you are absolutely rooting for the main characters -- primarily because they have been challenged by these nasty bad people. This is most evident in this novel and in "The Franchise Affair," which includes a truly brilliant form of character assassination that I found almost frightening on subsequent readings. She would have been a fantastic political propagandist -- she wins you over to her point of view and gets you emotionally riled up about a cause. In "The Daughter of Time," we become very absorbed in Alan Grant's search for the real Richard (and are won over to the cause of clearing his name) but overlook the real truth that most of Alan's deductions are merely "the Richard I know wouldn't have done this or that," which has a foundation on his emotional reading of the portrait and his own assessment of what good younger brothers and uncles are like. He discounts the idea that most portraits flatter their subject to some extent, and that medieval nobility didn't live the kinds of emotional lives that we do. Josephine Tey is unsurpassed, I think, in anticipating the reader's objections and neutralizing them in advance. Doing so creates a sense of objectivity in the narrative and distracts from the emotional manipulation of her choices. Brilliant.

What I appreciate greatly about this novel is her ingenuity in setting up the frame and approach to this story, as well as the warm, three-dimensional portrait of Richard and his family and his milieu. I think there is more to Richard and his circumstances and it is great to be introduced to him as a complex individual in dangerous times -- rather than the cardboard evil king we know. However, I suspect that, in fact, he was responsible for his nephew's deaths -- bottom line: he was responsible for their welfare, and they probably died while in his care. One does not dispose of two boys who are in the care of the most powerful man in the land without his knowing. But, I suppose we will never know the answer for sure, and it is fun and rewarding to investigate all the intriguing options. Josephine Tey is not alone in advocating for Richard's innocence, but she has done a lot to popularize the conflict.

I would love to use this text in a history course and evaluate with the class this historical argument for innocence, based on this book, and then go back through take another look at argument along with an analysis of the author/proponents's use of propagandistic tools to manipulate the audience to believe in a cause. It would be interesting to take a "guilty/not guilty" vote after each review. The students (readers) could learn a great deal about how to "consider the source" which is a key element of critical thinking. How many people do we all know who believe every story they hear and go gung-ho in pursuit of their biases? I challenge you to read this book and be objective about her arguments. It's as fascinating as the story itself.

This is a wonderful genre bending book...part history, part mystery. Written by Scotswoman Elizabeth MacIntosh, who wrote under the pen name Josephine Tey, it was first published in 1951. It is tragic that the author died in 1952 and was never to know the pleasure that this book would bring to generations of readers and that the Mystery Writers of America would ultimately rank it fourth among the one hundred best mysteries ever written.

The title of the book is derived from a historical source, as it is attributable to Sir Francis Bacon, "For truth is rightly named after the daughter of time, and not of authority." The book itself is not a traditional mystery but rather an application of deductive reasoning to an actual historical event. The event in question is the murder of the princes in the tower, sons of King Edward IV, allegedly by their uncle, Richard III, who eventually usurped the English throne after the death of his brother. It has been widely held that Richard III did, indeed, murder the two young princes, his nephews, in order to secure his claim to the throne.

The reader is introduced to Scotland Yard Inspector Alan Grant, who is hospitalized and recovering from injuries sustained in the line of duty. While convalescing, he becomes intrigued by a picture of a portrait of Richard III, a likeness with which he is unfamiliar. Grant is puzzled that someone with such a sensitive face could have been such a monster as to murder his two nephews in cold blood. So, our intrepid Inspector decides that he will reconsider the evidence upon which such a dastardly assumption has been based. With the help of an American researcher doing the necessary legwork, Grant compiles enough archival historical fact that incrementally helps him formulate a new theory as to who actually may have murdered the princes in the tower.

This analysis and reformulation is done as though it were being argued to a jury. Indeed, so persuasive is Inspector Grant through the application of some insightful deductive reasoning and clever dialogue that the reader comes away thinking that Grant has solved one of the most intriguing historical mysteries of all time. This is certainly an unusual book conceptually but one that succeeds brilliantly. It should appeal to those readers who enjoy having a mystery unraveled, as well as to those who harbor a love of English history. Bravo!

I'm happy to see this book printed once again, and happier still to see so many comments posted on it. My own pleasure in the book was that like only a handful of others -- including In the Beginning by Chaim Potok & Contact by Carl Sagan -- this book manages to dramatize the love of truth and the thrill of the quest for knowledge. It doesn't work for everyone. Some people need more physical chase scenes. But Tey imparts the thrill of the chase to historical research, and has succeeded in getting a number of readers interested in exloring more. That's an accomplishment. If you do want to find out more about the subject, the Richard III Society (mentioned in the book) has a website, including an extensive online library. One thing I keep hoping for in books like this is that they will teach readers about evaluating information and filtering propaganda from fact. Whatever you decide about the guilt or innocence of Richard III, examining what happened to history in the hands of More and Shakespeare and all who read them uncritically points out that now and always -- don't just question authority, question *everything*. Francis Bacon said "Truth is the daughter of time -- not of authority." (The source of the title.) But time itself doesn't uncover the truth -- human minds do. The Daughter of Time is a "research procedural", demonstrating the methods of checking source documents and evaluating written records much like a police procedural demonstrates search patterns and physical evidence collection. The detective novel has always had a core theme of celebrating human reason and advocating that "the truth will set you free." I hope the high popularity of the detective novel these days means that theme is catching on.

SWINDON. I can't believe it! What will history say? BURGOYNE. History, sir, will tell lies, as usual.

That telling little exchange comes from a G.B. Shaw play and the thought it expresses is the basis of one of the finest mystery novels ever concocted: Josephine Tey's <The Daughter of Time.> Inspector Grant is injured from a previous case and is lying in a hospital bed memorizing the cracks in the ceiling. An actress friend of his brings him some pictures of people from history and one is particularly striking: sad, wise, a person you would like to know. But the reverse side identifies the face as that of Richard III, the greatest villain in English history.

This is the character that all the old history books and especially Shakespeare tell us murdered King Henry VI, had his brother Gerorge drowned in a barrel of wine, drove his older brother, King Edward, into an early grave, put all his in-laws to death, killed his wife, and finally murdered his own nephews once he had stolen the crown from them. Add to this a hunchback, a shriveled arm, and a very sarcastic way of speaking, and you have one of the greatest No Goods ever. But not with that face!

Grant, whose professional success depends on knowing a person by his face, cannot believe he could have been so mistaken and recruits his nurses, friends, fellow policemen, and even a young American researcher to bring him all they can about the Great Mystery of "who murdered the princes in the tower." Little by little, the case against Richard falls to pieces; while the evidence begins to point in the most surprising direction.

The wonderful thing about this novel is how it shows that so much of what we consider "history" is merely a pack of lies devised by the winning teams to blacken the opposition and whitewash themselves. The incident at "Tonypandy," for example, is made much of in this novel. That was a town in Wales in which unarmed police were sent in to calm down striking miners and a bloody nose or two was the result. Yet word got out that armed troops fired into the crowd; and that version was accepted, simply because not a single person actually there felt like contradicting it.

Another parallel is our own "Boston Massacre" in which a few thoughtless citizens began to stone a British sentry, thereby forcing a reluctant senior officer to fire into the crowd. Four casualties resulted. Paul Revere's engraving shows dozens being mowed down. But who would dare to say "Liar" to the official version?

For a thorough enjoyment of this novel, you really need to be fairly familiar with Shakespeare's "Richard III." Now bear in mind that the playwright got his information from "Holinshed's Chronicles," which got its information from authors paid by the king who had defeated Richard III in battle, who got most of their information from one of Richard's deadliest enemies. One might as well accept "Mein Kampf" as an objective look at Germany during the years between World Wars.

Reading this book, in fact, will change your entire attitude toward anything you read in any book or periodical that claims to present "the facts." I will not ruin your enjoyment of this book by pointing out how Grant weighs the evidence that been accepted for so long as "true" and comes to the conclusions he does.

Now the really Good News is that we have a wonderful recording of this complete text on a set of four Audio Partners tapes. Better yet, let me tell you it is read by Derek Jacobi--or better still, acted out by Derek Jacobi, because he finds a new voice for each character, the American being the best of the lot.

In fact, having read the novel twice before and having heard this recording, I am compelled to try both formats again. Richard III might be a great villain on stage, but I firmly believe that the historical Richard deserves to have his case for the defense heard as often as possible. If for no other reason than to remind us of how many collections of "historical facts" might be little more than an imaginative treatment to bolster one's cause or downgrade another's. History, which is the Daughter of Time by the way, is written by the winners. It takes a good author like Tey to plead the case for the loser.

Yes, a good deal of this book is the presentation to the reader of plenty of English history; but it is all made very palatable by the good dialogue and the many little peripheral details that give you rest stops along the way.

And while waiting for delivery, watch the Olivier film again to brush up your Shakespeare.

Author Elizabeth MacKintosh, wrote under the pseudonym of Josephine Tey. She died in 1952 but her unique talent continues to entertain and enlighten her readers with her unusual mystery scenarios. With Daughter of Time she invites us to join the team of a 20th century Scotland Yard inspector Alan Grant and an American researcher currently on assignment at the British Museum as they utilized their powers of deductive reasoning (ala Sherlock Holmes) to ascertain the truth about with Richard III. Having been previously characterized by everyone from Shakespeare to Sir Thomas More as an evil hunchbacked usurper who murdered his two young nephews in the Tower of London in order to claim the throne; the Richard Plantagenet of this investigation is portrayed as an unusually trusting, loving and gentle man with no physical deformity.

As creatively and intellectually plotted as this novel is, its' true beauty lies in the fact that it encourages the reader to THINK. It obliquely tells us that one should never accept any recorded history without question since most history is written from the perspective of those in power at the time and is not necessarily factual. In addition it enhances knowledge and vocabulary and sent this reader scurrying to the computer to look up definitions of items such as Bill of Attainder, Titulus Regius, and Star Chamber (lo and behold....it is more than a movie with Michael Douglas).

Admittedly, this is a novel and the "Richard argument" presented by Tey's characters, although compelling, should not be viewed as incontrovertible fact. Her writing, however, deserves to be treasured and enjoyed like a fine wine that is rolled around on the tongue and savored before it is swallowed.