Epitomises the phrase "worthy but dull". It gets an extra star for the research, which is clearly extensive, but the presentation of such was so unrelentingly turgid that I'm still not altogether sure what the main proofs of the author's argument were, simply because I lost the train of nearly every thought he had. (I maintain it was in self-defence; if I had to read one more sentence about handwriting samples I would have screamed.)

This strikes me as research that might have been better presented as a series of papers in professional journals. I am not a historian. When I read histories, I do so as a layperson. I do not believe that laypeople are the target audience for this book. It sacrifices clarity for endless, mind-numbing detail - one example of which is the footnotes. Though recently in reviews I've been bitching about books that used endnotes instead of footnotes, this is one case where it should be reversed. Footnotes are most useful when they clearly illuminate the main text through explanation or example. Here, they are too frequently strings of reference numbers and letters, untranslated snippets of text, and fragments of comment floating between the two. They would be better tucked away at the back of the book where the pros can go delving for source material if they're interested.