Omul din Nazaret

by Anthony Burgess, Dana Crăciun (trad.)

in8. Broché.

Genres: Historical Fiction, Fiction, Religion, Literature, Novels, Historical

384 pages, Paperback

First published April 1, 1979

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.

Seriocomic novels of noted British writer and critic Anthony Burgess, pen name of John Burgess Wilson, include the futuristic classic A Clockwork Orange (1962).

He composed also a librettos, poems, plays, screens, and essays and traveled, broadcast, translated, linguist and educationalist. He lived for long periods in southeastern Asia, the United States of America, and Europe along Mediterranean Sea as well as England. His fiction embraces the Malayan trilogy ( The Long Day Wanes ) on the dying days of empire in the east. The Enderby quartet concerns a poet and his muse. Nothing like the Sun re-creates love life of William Shakespeare. He explores the nature of evil with Earthly Powers , a panoramic saga of the 20th century. He published studies of James Joyce, Ernest Miller Hemingway, Shakespeare, and David Herbert Lawrence. He produced the treatises Language Made Plain and A Mouthful of Air . His journalism proliferated in several languages. He translated and adapted Cyrano de Bergerac , Oedipus the King , and Carmen for the stage. He scripted Jesus of Nazareth and Moses the Lawgiver for the screen. He invented the prehistoric language, spoken in Quest for Fire . He composed the Sinfoni Melayu , the Symphony (No. 3) in C , and the opera Blooms of Dublin .

Reviews

[Vit Babenco · Rating 5 out of 5]

Man of Nazareth is rather a set of curiosities than a set of new revelations on the life and deeds of Jesus.
Often Anthony Burgess endeavours some ironic rationalization of supernatural occurrences and wonders, turning New Testament miracles into somewhat ambiguous and entertaining events…
The new star is shining… The moment is glorious… And at the birth of Jesus the hosanna can be heard…

There was the sound of music, whether of the heavenly host singing Holy, holy, holy or of drunken men in the tavern, I do not know…

Romans and Jews, zealots and apostles, disciples and Pharisees, seers and mountebanks, sages and fools, believers and traitors – they all are particles of the pied world of Judea…
Jesus preaches to all but his words appear to be somewhat on the cynical side…

“Enter the house of death and you leave time behind… You may even say that the kingdom is now, that heaven and hell are now.”

It’s so wonderful to be a messiah – whatever you said you would be believed.

[MihaElla · Rating 5 out of 5]

Man from Nazareth by Anthony Burgess is obviously a book about the one who is famously acknowledged to have said, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, even though one dies, will live.’

Initially I was unsure of my liking it as I was thinking that nothing could equal, or is on equal ground, with the lively and profound impression that the movie ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ --the 1977 production signed by Franco Zeffireli, watched for at least one full decade during my first youth, every single year on Easter time-- has engraved on my mind, but I was stunned to realize that the more I was reading the more I was experiencing a growing satisfaction in my read. The fact is simple and unyielding: I really like and enjoy tremendously reading this book, which made me feel like taking a Peek in the Past. And, doubtless, it’s about a Past still more famous than the present.

This is my 3rd book on a similar topic, and I have to admit it’s first amongst the others that didn’t make me cry – such was my dramatic experience with the read of The Last Temptation of Christ by Nikos Kazantzakis, or didn’t make me smile (but rather much differently than like watching a stand-up comedy show) – as it happened when reading The Gospel according to Jesus Christ by José Saramago.

The impression I get with Man from Nazareth is, odd to say, of a much different quality, because it gave me this sensation that whatever the narrator is saying is true even if it might not be true in reality. And this reminds me that it’s said that Erasmus said that man is built in such a way that fictions make a stronger impression on him than the truth. Time and again, my problem is same like Pilate’s question: What is truth? Because once truth is defined then all the rest can be defined too. In a way, Azor – the omnipresent narrative voice – left me to contemplate the chief character of Jesus as a puzzle whose every new move was a worse perplexity.

Despite the fact that the book starts and ends with a crucifixion – definitely there were some horror, deeply dreadful scenes, this book is about love and how spreading love could heal the humans, and eventually save the world from despair and destruction. I even thought that the last 3-4 pages, outside of the novel itself, were a sort of summary of the ideas that the author shares with regard to this subject, of Jesus and the legend around his persona. Especially I liked the last paragraph. I say to all of you: do your best to play the game of love, so that you can join me and him (Jesus) in the kingdom (of heaven). Salom. Ila al-laqaa. Andi'o. Kwaheri. Ramas-bun. Good-bye.

-You died, yes, you passed into another world, yes? Do you remember something?
-It was like a deep sleep, and then I heard a voice calling me, as if it was in my ear, and I thought: Aha, it's time to get up, but why in the middle of the night, let me, I'm going to sleep a little more. Then, I heard a thunder in my ears, and I had to try to wake up.
-Don't you remember anything about heaven, or hell, or being surrounded by other dead people?
-I don't remember anything.
-God, you see, said Thomas, does not reveal anything. He keeps the secret.
-Like a dream. And then, my name was called.
-So.

[Philip Lee · Rating 2 out of 5]

“Man of Nazareth” by Anthony Burgess

I seriously wonder what point there was in writing this book; or what point there was for me to read it! I half expected Burgess to do something novel with “the old, old story”; he is mostly known for his fiction after all, but apart from certain details there isn't much here that goes beyond or runs contra what we've heard so many times before.

I was brought up within the Christian tradition, as far as it goes in a secular household. Baptised as Catholic, I was never taken to church. Later on, I was recruited into a Church of England Choir. I enjoyed the music, until my voice started to break. Finding myself with little or no faith, I quit the job before joining the altos and compulsory confirmation classes. No regrets there, but religion has always interested me, especially from the historical perspective. For the past twenty years, I have lived mainly in Muslim countries. I once attended an Anglican service held in Saudi Arabia, partly for the novelty of doing something you could figuratively be thrown to the lions for.

Anyhow, I picked up this volume in a second-hand bookstore in Istanbul, hoping Burgess would have something more interesting to say about Jesus Christ than Dan Brown's slipshod offerings in “The Da Vinci Code”. The headline of the blurb on the back of the book claimed it filled in the twelve missing years of Christ's life. Pure hard sell. Beyond the claim that Jesus married when he attained manhood, and was a thirty-something (childless) widower by the time he started his mission, Burgess tells us little of the middle years.

The narration is done as a kind of chronicle, a story written up by a jobbing scribe. It is reminiscent of Gore Vidal's “Julian” - a novel about a Christian era Roman Emperor who tries to turn the clock back to pagan times. Burgess's Azor, son of Sadok tells a plainer tale than the epistles exchanged between Vidal's pair of haughty scholars. His method is to debunk exaggerated anecdotes, employ his own knowledge of current affairs (for example, in the practice of crucifixion), play up Christ's ideas as sound where they are to do with love, and play down the question of his divinity. Telling an otherwise conventional story, he begins with the twin annunciations (of John the baptist and Jesus of Nazareth), and ends with the resurrection as it affects the disciples.

Characters such as Salomé, Judas and (to a lesser extent) Joseph (husband of Mary) and Herod Antipas are not as we heard them at shcool or in church. Azor would have us believe first century oral history distorted their true strengths and weaknesses, and that he is still close enough to events to give us the truth. Judas, for example, was a victim of his own innocence rather than avarice. One small revelation is that when he realised he had been tricked, he rejected the thirty pieces of silver. The money was from the Temple but could not be returned as it had become unclean. It was therefore used to buy the burial ground where Christ's tomb was located. The cruel dancer Salomé, according to Azor, was really the adopted daughter of Herod Antipas, and later became a follower of Christ. The High Priest Caiaphas conspired with Zerah, a Pharisee (Judas' old friend), to have Christ crucified as a scape-goat.

With the twelve disciples and two Marys, the various shepherds, Kings and sundry other well-knowns to fit in, any writer tackling the story of Jesus has a ready-made panoply to deal with. This may seem to be an advantage, but since all Christian readers will have different expectations – depending on their sect – the writer will have to decide which to leave out as much as which to include. Burgess gives near-rounded portraits of the disciples (Simon-)Peter, Thomas and Judas, but for the rest we have to be content with ensemble sketches as they come on to blow their flutes, complain about the food or lead a donkey. Whereas the down-to-earthness of the followers is poignant at times, otherwise it is bathetic. But the character of Jesus himself remains aloof, even when he consorts with the females. He is literally a giant and since no attempt is made to get under his skin, even in the desert, his mostly inhuman nature takes precedent.

The writing is not what I'd call vintage Burgess. There is little of the humour you get in the Enderby novels or the Malaysian Trilogy. He doesn't play with language, as he does in “A Clockwork Orange” - though he does show off his Greek, Latin and Aramaic. When I checked out the book's Wikipedia entry I saw it was written just after he'd collaborated on Zeffirelli's TV production “Jesus of Nazareth”. That figures. He used the research he'd done on the screenplay to dash off a novel, cashing on the publicity and controversy surrounding the broadcast. Since Wikipedia, and other sources, cite Burgess as a lapsed Catholic, it's hard not to think cynical thoughts of his motives in churning out this tome.

Still, the man was approaching the end of his life and it may be he had one eye cocked on the hereafter as he sat down each day to write his quota of words.

[Molly · Rating 3 out of 5]

Expected more from Burgess...kept waiting for his linguistic savvy and strange insights to kick in. Perhaps because it's a novelization of a script - stuck in the visual....maybe. Surprising, though, and a tad disappointing. There's nothing new, either. However, there are moments of verbal delight and the unabashed human-ness of the characters and the narrative make it pleasantly accessible, attractive, and a quick read...if oddly uneventful. Left wondering - that human nature isn't, maybe, the point...after all.

[Marita Hansen · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm being generous giving two stars. This unfortunately is very poorly written, which completely surprises me, since 1) it's by Anthony Burgess, a renowned author, and 2) the mini series of it was absolute brilliance (Jesus of Nazareth). Unlike the mini-series, the book is more like a sketch, with strange uses of words and poorly developed characters. Judas acts like nothing more than a silly, gullible teenager. I actually haven't read the last chapter, it got to the point of why bother. That was ages ago, but I thought I should finally write a review. I'm now trying Barbara Thiering's book, which isn't written like a story (as far as I know), but covers what happens after the crucifixion. It's for research, though I hope it's a lot better to read than The Man to Nazareth.

Conclusion, I recommend you watch Jesus of Nazareth, rather than reading Man of Nazareth.

[Nicholas Graham · Rating 5 out of 5]

https://thejudascase.blogspot.com/202...

What’s it going to be then, eh?

There was me, that is Jesus, and my three meshuggeners, that is Pete, James and Johnny-Boy, Pete being rock-hard, and we sat in the Capernaum fish-shop . . .

No, that’s not how Man of Nazareth begins, but I was struck by how Anthony Burgess’ Jesus and his disciples have something about them of Alex & the Droogs, as they set out on their mission to bring ultra-peace to Israel and all mankind. And I was thrilled to be told by Burgess’ biographer that an early draft of the novel had indeed included disciples speaking a sort of 1st Century AD Nadsat. More about that below. First, some context.

Burgess wrote Man Of Nazareth in the late 1970s just as archaeology was beginning to shed light on the mechanics of crucifixion (traditional iconography is almost completely physically and anatomically wrong); when deference towards organised religion was still default (the UK Christian right could prosecute Gay News for blasphemous libel over a poem); around the time of Python’s Life Of Brian (which Burgess loved); and long before a group of American biblical scholars calling themselves ‘The Jesus Seminar’ gathered to work their way through the gospels verse by verse and cast votes to determine which statements could be regarded as having historical reality (spoiler – more than you may fear, fewer than you may hope) in a sort of professorial democratic theology.

So, how do you create space and time for a compelling fictional narrative when your sources are part polemical theology, part fabulist, and your readership’s ideas about history and truth are changing with the age? Forty years and huge cultural change later, how does Man Of Nazareth strike a contemporary?

Burgess announced at the time that he would approach the subject ‘seriously and reverently’ and he invents a narrator of his fiction, one Azor a professional storyteller writing some time after the events who is careful to begin by disclaiming authority and belief – he’s simply telling stories that he’s heard. What Azor has heard, of course, is Burgess’ curation of gospel stories, with a very clear opening out of the political / historical background – much of the first half focuses on Herod, John The Baptist and Salome, and the extended family. We also get three very Burgessian tropes - musical disciples composing songs about their master’s teaching (one can only hope that the author’s own settings survive in the Burgess Archive), Roman soldiers swearing like droogs in multilingual barracks-room argot and, just as in A Clockwork Orange, Burgess’ profoundly serious grappling with free will and original sin. This last includes a brilliant passage on how the stain of original sin compels the Christian god to sacrifice himself. I know far too little about St Augustine and Catholic apologetics to hazard a guess at Burgess’ source for this, but as internal polemic it makes brilliantly elegant sense without once diverting the narrative into creaking post-hoc rationalisation.

The other marvellous thing about Burgess’ selection is how he develops Azor’s viewpoint and our understanding of its meaning. The two great top-and-tail Johannine miracles serve to illustrate. The water-into-wine at Cana is told as a straightforward magician’s confidence trick and Azor makes sure that we see through it. By the time we get to Bethany, Lazarus’ return from the dead is presented as unadorned, verified fact.

And Burgess (or rather Azor) saves the best twist to the very end, and I confess that I did not see it coming at all. If you’re going to read one other historical Jesus novel (besides, of course, The Judas Case), I urge you to make it Man Of Nazareth – and don’t fast forward to the end.

Two curious asides: has anyone ever contemplated writing either of these?

An internal monologue-based fiction of Jesus’ thoughts and awareness from scourging to death - a sort of companion to Hermann Broch’s Death Of Virgil.

The siege of Hippo, St Augustine surrounded by Vandals but hard at work on Civitas Dei and the end of classical culture in late antiquity.

Just a thought . . .

[Bryan Whitehead · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anthony Burgess achieves a reasonable amount of success novelizing the Gospels. I admit I liked Kingdom of the Wicked (his novelization of Acts) a bit better, and I didn’t care for some of the non-biblical embroidery Burgess added to this story, particularly Christ’s life prior to his baptism. I was also surprised that it turned out to be much less detailed than the screenplay he co-wrote for Zeffirelli’s Jesus of Nazareth. Further, if you have no prior contact with the story of Christ’s life you probably shouldn’t start with this version, as it clearly assumes you know the basics already. Small gripes aside, however, this is a fascinating and enjoyable adaptation of Christianity’s best-known story. As in the movie, the big draw here is that the characters seem real, less like ethereal beings or philosophical constructs and more like normal, everyday people who really existed. The book is also a quick read, with language less elaborate than in some of the author’s other work.

[Aaron Cox · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed Man of Nazareth. It was a bit more irreverent than Burgess's Moses, but the humorous, light-hearted bits served to make the more poignant moments that much more so, and both endeared this book to me.

If you're familiar with the Gospels, you'll be well acquainted with much of this story, aside from a few liberties that the author takes in order to flesh out the period between Jesus's birth and his temptation in the wilderness. Still, I think Burgess (or his narrator, or both) did an admirable job of bringing these characters known so well by name into entertaining focus, without dragging them through the mud or sneering at peoples' faith. While it's not a profession of personal belief by any means, and many of Jesus's signs and wonders are rationalized in a way that might annoy some, there is respect throughout for Jesus as a great man of history, and respect for his teachings, that I am almost always surprised to find in a book like this.

[Raimo Wirkkala · Rating 2 out of 5]

Other than having Jesus getting married as a young man (the wedding at Cana was his own!!) Burgess really doesn't bring much of interest to his telling of "The Greatest Story Ever Told". Not amongst his best work.

[Shelley Alongi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Over all not a bad read. The thing that is interesting to me in reading different books about Jesus is the order of events since we don’t really have an order in the telling of the para balls and such it’s always intriguing to me how people come up with exactly how to tell this story. The mix of theology from the future and ideas from them past make this book perhaps one of the more traditional. The thing that I find missing in this book after reading your novel is is the cultural aspects of it. There is not so much emphasis on the Jewish side of things here except for the telling of the stories. The dialogue between the disciples are quite interesting I don’t know that I can point when out specifically but I don’t see that in as there are trails of the same events. The personalities always something new for me each one has his alone. The ending is the same as others they tend to in this story at the appearance of Jesus to the disciples. And the characterization of some of the women that follow him especially Salome and Mary are different. It’s also kind of British and I think the author is definitely British but some of the dialogue shows I don’t Think they would’ve use some of the slang words that are used in this book. I know it’s a contemporary writing and no one is ever quite true to linguist dick emphasis butt sometimes it shows. I think you’ll like this book if you decide to read it. The beginning was different. I didn’t quite know why the Roman character telling this story started with crucifixion but he did. I have never seen that so far anyway and my various ratings of this subject and a fictional levels.

[Andrew Fielding · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting book that follows the life of Jesus through a narrator who is writing after his death and resurrection. Gives a human perspective to Jesus, his disciples and the politics of the time. I enjoyed it. Very different to other Burgess books I have read.

[Wayne · Rating 1 out of 5]

Nothing like the movie. More literary license than actual research. The author had a vivid imagination.

[Doina · Rating 3 out of 5]

Calitati narative deosebite si eruditie, insa parca povestii ii lipseste ceva. Prea tehnic si rece ca sa stirneasca emotie

[Roland · Rating 5 out of 5]

Una din cele mai placute lecturi,ever!

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this long ago and barely remember, except the portrayal of Jesus is naturalistic, and not revelatory; it is almost like a gnostic gospel.

[Elena · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5⭐

[Michèle · Rating 3 out of 5]

J'avais adoré un roman historique de cette période, et j'ai attaqué avec appétit cet autre bijou biblique, gracieusement offert par Lysette Brochu.

Surtout que ca vient du même Anthony Burgess qui nous avait donné Orange mécanique. Que s'est-il passé entre le retour d'Égypte et le début de la prédication de Jésus?

Anthony rafistole tout les petits coins obscurs, mais c'est parfois un peu forcé, comme un charpentier qui équarrit au boutte pour que sa pièce "fitte" dans l'ensemble.

Ainsi, Joseph, le papa adoptif de Jésus, a subi un vilain accident dans son adolescence qui l'a rendu stérile, donc époux chaste idéal pour Marie. Et on aplanit une autre grande incohénrence, soit la lignée de David dont Jésus hérite alors que Joseph n'est pas son père (par Marie! Elle la tient de sa mère Anne.) Mais Joseph est un gars vraiment sympathique, qui répond à Gabriel qu'il n'aime pas être la risée du village, etc... On s'attache, et j'aime bien la présence des animaux de compagnie de la masonnée de Marie.

Un moins: l'auteur a choisi un narrateur, un conteur ou scribe grec, qui s'avère un narrateur plus ou moins fiable. On se promène rapidement d'un palais à l'autre, mais cela permet des scènes mémorables.


Dans l'ensemble, une lecture agréable. De beaux moments pour se faire une idée des disciples. De légères variations sur les thèmes connus. Dans cette version , la petite Salomé, 12 ans, participe malgré elle à la ruse d'Hérodias (Hérodiade) en croyant à une plaisanterie innocente, et s'enfuit du palais.

Quelques bugs: à deux reprises, Jésus et ses disciples se nourrissent frugalement d'épis de maïs. Or le maïs est une plante originaire du continent des Amériques, qui fut introduite en Europe au XVIe siècle. Et Jésus doit jouir d'une dentition divine pour mordre dans un épi de blé d'Inde direct!

Autres observations:

Jésus de Nazareth est une télésuite de six heures et seize minutes réalisée par Franco Zeffirelli en 1977. Le roman a un copyright de 1976. Qui a copié qui?

Il se retrouve plusieurs scènes prises telles quelles du film, tel que :

CHAMBRE DE PROSTITUÉE:
Client - Tu sais que t'as un ami en ville?
Marie Magdalene - Un ami? J'ai pas d'amis!
Client - Jésus de Nazareth...

GOLGOTHA:
Le brave centurion dont Jésus avait guéri le serviteur, et qui est obligé, mal à l'aise, de surveiller la crucifixion.


Judas Iscariote:
Anthony Burgess a vraiment voulu réhabiliter ce malheureux, tout comme Eric-Emmanuel Scmit dans l'évangile de Pilate.

Judas est un innocent rare, un intellectuel lettré, intelligent, mais trop idéaliste. Les trente deniers ne l'intéressaient pas, il pensait sauver Jésus de la mort et s'est fait piéger par un copain au Sanhedrin. Bref, il s'est fait duper, tout comme la petite Salomé.

La version de Zeffirelli est plus "réaliste" et moins manichéenne: i.e. Judas est partisan d'une royauté de Jésus, il espérait que Jésus montre ses pouvoirs...
La scène ou Judas pris de remords et covaincu de n'etre qu'un traitre aux yeux des autres disciples est touchante. Judas se sauve, c'est une scène surréaliste, il hallucine, il ramasse un chaton blessé sur son chemin, il déplace un nid d'oiseaux sur une autre branche avant de s'y pendre...

Il y en a d'autres, mais ce sont ces trois qui me viennent à l'esprit.

Le titre anglais du livre est le jeu de l'amour. Le narrateur prend ls dernières pages pour philosopher, se demandant si, après tout, on pourrait prendre la vie comme un jeu. Jésus et ses disciples ne se prenaient pas au sérieux, ne possédant rien. Il y a une belle réflexion que je vous engage à lire.

Et à tous je dis, travaillez ferme au jeu de l'amour, afin de pouvoir me rejoindre, et le rejoindre, lui au Royaume. Shalom. (...) Bonne route.

[Peter Jansens · Rating 3 out of 5]

Call it serendipity or a carefully guided act from far above, but last week I found Anthony Burgess' Man Of Nazareth novel in my favourite second-hand bookshop. This year we celebrate Burgess' one hundredth birthday and as this is the holy week, just before Easter, I just couldn't ignore this omen.

Man Of Nazareth, obviously, is the story of Jesus as told by a contemporary storyteller named Azor. A-or-Z, get it? After a while you get to know Burgess' tricks even before he puts them on paper, which is why I stopped reading him, some twenty years ago. After a dozen of books I got a certain fatigue for his mannerism and his obvious eloquence that he liked to show by adding paragraphs
in French, German, Italian, Malayan or Russian.

But now, after one page and a half, it felt like putting on an old coat, faintly familiar but a bit smelly perhaps. Burgess knows how to start with a bang and in the first chapter his alphabetical alter ego gives us a description of the death penalty by crucifixion, which mustn’t have been a funny way to die. It ends with the observation that the newly invented cross isn’t as good as the old one, not that the convicted may have felt inclined to discuss the evolution of its design over the years. Unless you are a carpenter's son, but that is for in a few paragraphs.

Burgess approaches Jesus as a preaching man, rather than a mythical deific infused entity, although he can’t get past the virgin birth and some obvious miracles. But he tries, like at Cana, where Jesus gets married with some high school bimbo. When there is no more wine, mainly because father in law happens to be a Palestinian scrooge, he uses an ‘emperor’s new clothes’- trick. He who is without sin will taste the best wine ever, but for all others the transfigured water will taste... just like water.

Burgess does some serious cherry-picking and thus you won’t read about walking on water or multiplying fish and bread into a giant barbecue. While the author could’ve used his unlimited fantasy to write about Jesus’ youth and education (he speaks fluent Greek and Latin, BTW), he stays pretty vague on that subject, although there are some apocryphal and alternative gospels doing the rounds for a couple of thousand years.

The apostles, not really an educated lot, act and talk like cockney Londoners. Jesus and his merry men. I couldn’t help hearing their voices as performed by Monty Python, probably a case of cultural contamination.

We all know what will happen to the main hero in the end, but I didn’t expect that Jesus would be having some small talk over the carpenter’s craftsmanship when he gets to choose a cross. His conversation with the executioner who will hit the nails into his flesh is even sillier. For a moment I thought I was reading a script for Carry on, Jesus, instead of a Zeffirelli drama.

It is as if Burgess didn’t really knew where to go with the novel. Trying to be original, critical and slightly blasphemous, I guess, but not at a point that he would get a ticket straight to hell. Not his best work, but I've read worse.

[Seth · Rating 1 out of 5]

I wanted to like this book. I really did. But when Burroughs married off Jesus, I gave up on it. Somehow this strikes me, even on a literary level, as cheating. Changing the rules of the game in the middle of the game. I fail to see what is gained artistically from contradicting what the Church teaches about the historical figure of Jesus. You may (or may not) wind up with something interesting by way of story, but it's not a story about the second person of the Trinity, it's about somebody else. Too bad.

[Frederick Jackson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Burgess is a Catholic. Joseph had an sccident in his shop which left him incapable ... so he married Mary, who was already carrying.

[Nik Kane · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of my favorite books of all time along with its follow-up "The Kingdom of the Wicked."