How I wish more history books were like this. It's a model for what they should be: intelligent, analytical and completely cool-headed and dispassionate. Schofield engages with the reader, pausing to explain why he has reached his conclusions and why, based on the available evidence, he believes they are correct. Never does he use emotive language or melodramatic, creative ways of telling history, which sound good but leave the reader wondering how much of what they're reading is history and how much good storytelling. It's his very reticence, his need to weigh the evidence and carefully justify every important conclusion, that gives the book its authoritativeness.
Cromwell's career is also told chronologically, unlike those historical works that, for reasons best known to their authors, jump back and forth with no apparent logic, and leave the reader confused and frustrated. Unlike those works, The Rise And Fall of Thomas Cromwell has made me actually eager to read other works by the same author.
At least one of Schofield's conclusions is, however, seriously contentious: he is willing to entertain the possibility that Anne Boleyn might really have been guilty of more than just dalliance with the `lovers' with whom she was condemned, since they and others in her circle made confessions. However, he makes a pretty convincing case that Henry VIII made the decision to annul their marriage over a week before several people informed on her, and that the machinery to divorce her had already been set in motion before they did. Isn't it possible that, knowing of her impending downfall, these people sought to disassociate themselves and ensure their own survival, by providing evidence against her? Though to provide some justification for Schofield's theory, this evidence did compromise themselves. Whatever the case, this unconventional theory wasn't enough to spoil the book for me.
Five out of five. Regardless of whether I agreed with them, the reasons for Schofield's conclusions were given with exhaustive detail; never once did I have the sinking feeling that I was reading a second-rate work of history, which sought to dismiss existing beliefs about a controversial historical figure without bothering to provide a convincing reason for their dismissal.