Pius XII's Legacy Divides Catholics Too

From Forward 25 November 2012.

Adam Gregerman's comments are worth the read.  He places much of the "debate" over Pius XII within the context of current tensions within contemporary Catholicism.  And while I disagree with the naming of sides as "progressive" and "conservative" - too black and white in my opinion - I recognise that they are convenient terms.  However, I hope that readers go beyond the labels and show a willingness to explore the subtleties within different positions.

This is my response to Gregerman's article posted on the Forward website:

Adam Gregerman has written a well balanced summary of the current tensions within Catholic Christianity.  His comments about Pius XII are based on what is known from the available historical record, a record that is incomplete and in need of ongoing serious study - a process that has been underway for nearly half a century in the work of mainstream scholars, Christian, Jewish and neither. From my reading of the available material, and especially of the published Vatican records from WWII, the war objectives of the Catholic Church under the leadership of Pius XII were to preserve the Church throughout Europe, and then Asia once Japan began expanding, prevent the spread of Communism in whatever ways it could, speak and act for the victims of the war using the extensive networks of papal representatives, local bishops and Catholics of good will and work for the establishment of a new world order built on Christian principles.  Pius XII did act for the Jews of Europe, but in an emerging and reactive manner that was always tempered by diplomatic protocols.  Whereas he spoke out clearly in defence of "innocent victims" of war, for POWs, for refugees and displaced people, he spoke of Jews using a cumbersome and non-explicit language that was interpreted as support for the suffering Jews of Europe, but was not a vigorous protest in the same manner as used for other groups.  From my reading of the published data as well as documents emerging from the Vatican archives (up to 1939) the picture emerges of a very able and competent diplomat who understood Hitler, Nazism and the hatred that motivated them, but whose first priority was the safety and well being of the Church, and that is in accord with his position.  Concern for the Jews was also there, but it was never a "top" priority in the way the fear of a communist takeover of Europe was.  Pius was no antisemite or Jew-hater.  He was a devout, conservative Tridentine Catholic who believed Judaism was a superceded religion.  In the noise surrounding Pius XII, historians need a quiet space to get on with what we do best - read, research and write.  The full story of Pius XII may never be completely known, but there is a mass of evidence that is available and broad lines can be seen clearly and there are several clear statements that can be made: Was he "silent" - no.  Was he a "saviour" of the Jews - no. Was he a good man - yes.  Did he make mistakes - yes. 

Pius XII: Poliakov versus Pave The Way

One of the claims made by organisations such as Pave The Way is that criticism of Pope Pius XII did not begin until well after his death in 1958.  In this short editorial from The Jewish Week Eric Fettmann makes the pertinent and historically accurate comment that criticism of Pius XII was made during the pope's lifetime.  The isolation of historians such as Poliakov speaks more of the general lack of interest in the study of the Holocaust in the 1950s as well as a reluctance in the English-speaking world to publically criticise the most vocal anti-communist on the planet.  This "old fashioned" historical research is what is sorely needed in the study of Pius XII.  I have added Gary Krupp's after Fettmann's editorial with the contentious paragraph highlighted in red.

Early Criticism Of Pius XII



Tuesday, November 15, 2011


Eric Fettmann


It is simply not true, as Gary Krupp of Pave the Way Foundation asserts, that criticism of Pope Pius XII’s public behavior during the Holocaust was “artificially created” and unknown until Rolf Hochhuth’s play “The Deputy” (Letters, Nov. 11 - sic).

The noted Holocaust historian Leon Poliakov first raised concerns in his article, “The Vatican and the ‘Jewish Question’: The Record of the Hitler Period — and After,” which appeared in the November 1950 issue of Commentary. While dealing extensively with the “glorious record of the Catholic Church in its efforts to save [individual] Jewish lives from the Nazi murderers,” he also bemoaned the Pope’s failure to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor, the stridently anti-Nazi Pius XI.

“What led the present Pope, Pius XII, to adopt a less forthright policy than Pius XI?” Poliakov asked. “The fact is that during Hitler’s lifetime, the present Pope never clearly condemned the criminal policy of the Third Reich, and that the diplomatic relations between Berlin and the Vatican, although cold and reserved, remained correct.”

Indeed, he wrote, “Nothing similar to certain statements of Pius XI (let us recall his famous words: ‘We are all Semites spiritually ...’) was said at Rome under the pontificate of Pius XII.”

Despite “resounding protests made at the local [church] level, the Pope did not consider it wise to add to these protests the authority of his own voice; or if he did make a public statements, it was with such caution that his words had no effect, or were misunderstood.”

True, Poliakov’s was a lonely voice during this period. But his essay, besides being the first, continues to be one of the most insightful on this painful and complicated subject.


Here is Gary Krupp's letter to the editor - 8 November 2011. My own opinions and evaluation of Pave The Way's methodology are well known and I have written about the organisation on my blog and mentioned it in my book.  I see no reason to reiterate them here.

Countering Cardinal Koch


Tuesday, November 8, 2011



I believe Cardinal Koch, in his sincere attempt to quell the controversy, may have misspoken. Pave the Way Foundation does not support the canonization of anyone (“New Dialogue Leader Off To Bad Start,” Nov. 4). PTWF is a nonsectarian organization that impartially moves to identify and eliminate non-theological obstacles between religions. We never endorse specific religious processes such as canonization. Personally, speaking as a Jew, canonization is Catholic concept. Just as we would not favor Catholic intervention or commentary of our prayers and traditions, we should simply allow the Catholic Church to follow its canon law to determine who is or is not a saint.

Pave the Way is far from alone in its assessment of discovered documentation. There are literally dozens of true historians both Jews and non-Jews, who believe that our findings are quite real and legitimate. These include Hans Jansen of the Netherlands, Pierre Blet and Philippe Chenaux, Michael Feldkamp and Sister Margherita Marchione, among others. Jews who have defended the wartime pope include Albert Einstein, Rabbi David Dalin, Rabbi Chaim Herzog, Rabbi Toaf of Rome, Golda Meir, Nazi hunter Serge Klarsfeld and Sir Martin Gilbert, to mention a few.

To date we have posted on our website (www.ptwf.org) over 46,000 pages of original documents, news articles and video eyewitness testimonies, which clearly show that the current opinion of Pope Pius XII is wrong and was artificially created. We discovered that literally every Jewish leader and every Jewish organization of the day (including Rabbi Eric Greenberg’s Anti-Defamation League), showered affection, and praise upon Pius XII up until five years after his death. What happened to change this? Where are the documents that prove these new allegations? How did this happen?

The fictional play “The Deputy” was produced, translated into 20 languages, and strategically played worldwide by the Soviet disinformation department in an operation called “Seat Twelve.” This was specifically planned to isolate the Jewish people from the Catholics timed to discredit Vatican II and its new relationship with the non-Catholic world. It also was intended to discredit the Holy See and Pius XII personally.

Instantly the positive well-earned expressions of Jewish gratitude changed. The new accusations took hold, and a slew of new biased, historically incorrect books were written to feed into the controversy and to make a fortune for their authors. This effort was at the cost of legitimate Jewish gratitude. As Jews, we bought these allegations hook, line and sinker and the demonization moved forward.

Then we discovered the real “smoking gun.” Those who we have come to trust for historical accuracy have not attempted original firsthand research nor have they visited the open Vatican archives up to 1939.

Throughout our investigation and our effort to post the evidence online for public consumption, we have not been able to locate one document to support the calumnies leveled again Pius XII.

I reiterate that we do not support the canonization of Pope Pius XII, but we do emphatically support his recognition by Yad Vashem as “Righteous Among Nations.”

Founder and President Pave the Way Foundation

Keeping up to date on Pius XII news

Over the last week or so there have been more than a few news stories related to Pius XII.  Some are serious, many are apologetics masquerading as history and some are just plain irrelevant.

I've classified my email inbox collection under three headings:  Worth the read; Worth a look; Don't bother.  This is only a taste of what appears most days via google alerts.  I have not made reference to some of the material, there is simply too much.  Some posts are so offensive I would not want to give them any publicity, and that includes references to Holocaust deniers and other assorted fringe-dwellers, religious or otherwise.

Worth the read

1.  Greek Catholic Monastery Recalls Saving Jews in War  A good news story of an Eastern Rite Catholic monastery near Lviv where a significant number of Jewish boys were hidden and saved.  The Abbot of the monastery was Klement Sheptysky, (1869-1951), brother of Andrei (1865-1944) the Metropolitan (Archbishop) of Lviv. Their coworker was the priest Omelyan Kovch, (1884-1944) who was later arrested and sent to KL Majdanek were he died.  Both Klement Sheptysky and Omelyan Kovch were beatified by John Paul II in 2001.
(The link gives a redirect to the original source, the Kyiv Post.)

2.  Cardinal says Jews want Sainthood for Nazi-era Pope  This ranks as one of the most amazing "foot in mouth" articles I have seen in a long while.  Successor to the highly sensitive and diplomatic Walter Kasper, Kurt Koch appears to have not understood the debate surrounding Pius XII.  Koch's claim that many Jews are supportive of the eventual canonisation of Pius is an extraordinary claim to make.  Rabbi Eric Greenberg, director of Inter-faith relations with the ADL summed up the consensus of the gathering at Seton Hall, when he expressed his dismay that Koch seems to have learned his history from non-historical sources.

3.  New Dialogue Leader off to bad start Steve Lipman from The Jewish Week continues the Cardinal Koch story.  Eric Greenberg's comments are very apt.  The New Jersey Jewish News report on the Cardinal's comments was placed within the context of the three day Inter-Faith conference where Koch was one of the principal speakers.

4.  Challenges facing the Vatican's Jewish Point Man  Rabbi Noam Marans, one of the participants at Seton Hall gives his side of the story.  It is a well-written and thoughtful article that places Christian-Jewish relations within its bigger context.

Worth a look

1. The Fighting Nun in Rome and the Pope Pius XII Museum  Worth a look for the document quoted in its entirety.  A W Klieforth, US Consul General wrote an appraisal of the newly elected Pius XII addressed to Jay Pierrepont Moffat, Chief of the Division of European Affairs at the Department of State.  Klieforth noted Pacelli's anti-communist position as well as his strong condemnation of Nazism. 

2. It didn't take long for some groups to respond to Cardinal Koch's statements at Seton Hall.  Joseph Bottum's comments on Catholic Vote suggest that the Cardinal's words were taken out of context.

Don't bother
1.  Don't have the energy to write your own apologia on Pius XII?  Well, you can use one that has been written online!  Gregory Luther or Gelinde Cobbs, (I'm not sure which one is the author) on Essaypedia does the work for you.  True to the non-historians format, Lapide gets a front row seat in the bibliography.

2.  The claim made by Pave The Way that Pius XII went undercover to get a Jewish family out of the Rome ghetto is one thing.  The comments by readers of the California Catholic Daily are quite another.  It is part of the availability of the Internet - we can all have a voice, rational or otherwise.

Unbelievable, unsubstantiated, unacceptable - Pius XII "undercover".

This very strange article came through the Catholic News Agency last night and was forwarded to me by a colleague in New York.

Before I discuss the article, I will begin with a story from Australian literary history.  In 1995 an unknown first-time author, daughter of Ukrainian immigrants, Helen Demidenko, was awarded Australia's premier literature prize, The Miles Franklin Award.  The Hand that signed the Paper was supposedly the blended account given to Demidenko by her uncle "Uncle Vitaly" and told a shockingly frank tale of a Ukrainian family's life under Stalinist terror through to collaboration with the Nazis.  At the heart of the tale was the revelation that Vitaly and his younger brother, Evheny were intimately involved in the Holocaust.  Vitaly was a guard at Treblinka; Evheny was a member of Einzatsgruppen C and possibly active at Babi Yar.

Demidenko's book sold out in a matter of days.  I bought a copy and found it riveting.  I had been a student of Holocaust history for a number of years by 1995 and appreciated the frank writing that presented a story of collaboration that was consistent with what the historical record had told for several decades.  The Hand the Signed the Paper received considerable acclaim as a searing recount of one of the worst episodes in modern history.

Then ...

Shortly after the Miles Franklin Prize was given to Demidenko it was revealed that the author was really Helen Darville, daughter of English migrants, with no connection to Ukraine at all.  The story was, from beginning to end, the fabrication of an English literature student at the University of Queensland.  Darville initially claimed that she had sourced the material from Ukrainian migrants before finally admitting the story was just based on historical fact.

It would appear that Darville found her ethnic origins rather mundane and decided that adopting a Ukrainian persona would be more exciting.  She has not been the first to do so.  For decades there were people who hoped that Anna Anderson was really the Grand Duchess Anastasia, youngest daughter of Tsar Nicholas II and they refused to believe that she was the daughter of Polish peasants.

In 1995 the startling memoir Stoker was published.  It told the story of Donald Watt, an Australian POW in Poland who claimed he had been sent to Auschwitz where he worked as a stoker in the crematoria alongside the Sonderkommando.  The book was received  with great fanfare and acclaim. Watt was invited by Jewish groups around Australia to tell his story.  It was not long before historians began reading Stoker and asking serious questions.  The summary of the investigation was that the story not only did not happen as Watt described, it could not have happened. (I suggest reading Professor Konrad Kwiet's analysis).

My point is that the creation or invention of a story however positive and edifying, whether done for the noblest of reasons or otherwise, serves only to muddy the waters and create confusion.  When authors write fiction they do so to tell a story for the entertainment of their readers.  They are not required to justify or qualify their writing.  For historians the reading and writing process about the human story demands basic standards of verification, research and corroborative evidence.  David' Kerr's article does not meet this criteria.

If this was a first year university student's essay on an aspect of the life of Pope Pius XII it would fail simply because there are no citations to refer the reader to sources, no corroborating evidence, and selective use of material that can and has been read in a number of ways.  However, David Kerr's greatest omissions are the lack of context and the verification of his material through consultation with scholars.  In less than 24 hours the story has been picked up by conservative Catholic news services around the world.  I fear it will develop a life of its own and become yet another part of the "faction" that is so much apologia for Pius XII.

Just as Dan Brown did when he wrote the Da Vinci Code, certain pro-Pius XII fans have combined a certain amount of historical truth with fantasy to create a story that to the lay audience has all the veneer of accuracy.  Holocaust denialists do the same.

My comments appear in RED.

By David Kerr, Rome, Italy, Nov 4, 2011 / 06:00 am (CNA/EWTN News).

The Jewish New Yorker who has made it his life’s work to clear the name of Pope Pius XII of being anti-Semitic believes the wartime pontiff actually went undercover to save the lives of Jews in Rome.Gary Krupp came across the evidence in a letter from a Jewish woman whose family was rescued thanks to direct Vatican intervention.

Who is this unnamed Jewish woman?  Where did Mr Krupp come across this extraordinary find? Why, after sixty years, has this story finally emerged?

“It is an unusual letter, written by a woman who is alive today in northern Italy, who said she was with her mother, her uncle, and a few other relatives in an audience with Pius XII in 1947.”

Next to Pope Pius during the meeting was his Assistant Secretary of State, Monsignor Giovanni Montini, the future Pope Paul VI. “Her uncle immediately looks at the Pope and he says, ‘You were dressed as a Franciscan,’ and looked at Montini who was standing next to him, ‘and you as a regular priest. You took me out of the ghetto into the Vatican.’ Montini immediately said, ‘Silence, do not ever repeat that story.’”

Giovanni Battista Montini (1897-1978) served in the Secretariat of State from 1922 to 1954.  During the war Montini was one of the closest collaborators of Pius XII.  When the Allies bombed Rome in July 1943 Montini and Pius XII were driven to San Lorenzo fuori le mura.  This is well known.  There is no evidence recorded anywhere, outside of this newly revealed account, that Pius ever left the Vatican in disguise alone or with any one else.  The claim flies in the face of everything known about Pope Pius XII.   

There are questions that come out of this story.  Rome did not have a closed ghetto, unlike cities in Eastern Europe, so assertions of Pius "entering" the ghetto and taking someone "out of the ghetto" do not seem to make sense.  What is meant here?  Why did the Pope and Montini take someone "out of the ghetto" and into the Vatican when it was relatively easy for people to enter the Vatican?  Given that the Jews of Rome were not confined to a ghetto, why was there a need to take someone out?

How was it possible that the Pope and one of his closest collaborators were able to leave the Vatican, cross the Tiber and enter the ghetto and apparently take a Jewish family out and bring them to the Vatican and no one has ever recorded anything about it?

When Montini, as Pope Paul VI, ordered a team of Jesuit historians to examine the files of the Secretariat of State during the war, why was this story not revealed?  Pius had been dead for nearly ten years and Paul had publically defended Pius from accusations of silence.  Why did he not reveal this story then?

Why is there no mention of this event in any of the memoirs of those who worked with Pius on a daily basis and at close quarters: Cardinals Tardini, Tisserant and Mother Pascalina Lehnert?

This story ranks on the same level as the Papal Order to open the convents.  It is a good story, but there is no concrete evidence to support it.

Krupp believes the claim to be true because the personality of the wartime Pope was such that he “needed to see things with his own eyes.”

This seems to contradict what historians know about the pope.  He relied on reports from others and did not need to go out and "see things."  In fact between May 1940 and July 1943 the pope did not leave the Vatican at all.



"He used to take the car out into bombed areas in Rome, and he certainly wasn't afraid of that. I can see him going into the ghetto and seeing what was happening,” says Krupp.

There are two records of Pius going and seeing the damage caused by bombing: July 1943.  Both occasions were spontaneous instances to go and be with the suffering people of his diocese.  There is no record of Pius entering the ghetto - not since he was a boy.  This is the stuff of fantasy.  If there was any evidence of such an unparalleled adventure it would have been revealed well before now.  The pope was such a public figure, even in the little city state of the Vatican that his movements were known at all times by at least a dozen people.  Italian and German spies also kept track of papal movements as part of their work.  If Pius left the Vatican in disguise, someone would have known about it.

Another aspect of this report is Mr Krupp's statement: "I can see him going into the ghetto and seeing what was happening."  What was there to see?  Italy had no closed ghettos - therefore there was nothing to see. 

Krupp and his wife Meredith founded the Pave the Way Foundation in 2002 to “identify and eliminate the non-theological obstacles between religions.” In 2006 he was asked by both Jewish and Catholic leaders to investigate the “stumbling block” of Pope Pius XII’s wartime reputation. Krupp, a very optimistic 64-year-old from Long Island, N.Y., thought he had finally hit a wall.

“We are Jewish. We grew up hating the name Pius XII,” he says. “We believed that he was anti-Semitic, we believed that he was a Nazi collaborator­all of the statements that have been made about him, we believed.”But when he started looking at the documents from the time, he was shocked. And “then it went from shock to anger. I was lied to,” says Krupp.“In Judaism, one of the most important character traits one must have is gratitude, this is very important, it is part of Jewish law. Ingratitude is one of the most terrible traits, and this was ingratitude as far as I was concerned.”

Krupp now firmly agrees with the conclusions of Pinchas Lapide, the late Jewish historian and Israeli diplomat who said the direct actions of Pope Pius XII and the Vatican saved approximately 897,000 Jewish lives during the war. Pave the Way has over 46,000 pages of historical documentation supporting that proposition, which it has posted on its website along with numerous interviews with eye-witnesses and historians.“I believe that it is a moral responsibility, this has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church,” says Krupp, “it has only to do with the Jewish responsibility to come to recognize a man who actually acted to save a huge number of Jewish lives throughout the entire world while being surrounded by hostile forces, infiltrated by spies and under the threat of death.”

This is an ahistorical argument.  Pinchas Lapide's assertion is totally unfounded and has no historical foundation at all.  I have written on this before.  Pave The Way has an impressive library but has not demonstrated an ability to critically analysise much of it.  Assertions made regarding the number of Jews supposedly rescued by Pius show a serious lack of scholarship that is not accepted by historians.  Curiously, Lapide's number has risen from 860,000 to 897,000.

Krupp explained that Pope Pius used the Holy See’s global network of embassies to help smuggle Jews out of occupied Europe. In one such instance, the Vatican secretly asked for visas to the Dominican Republic– 800 at a time – to aid Jewish rescue efforts. This one initiative alone is estimated to have saved over 11,000 Jewish lives between 1939 and 1945.

How was Pius XII able to "smuggle Jews out of occupied Europe"?  This is not clear.  German policy towards Jewish emigration changed over the years prior to and during the war.  Emigration was not stopped until July 1941 when the decision to murder all the Jews in the German sphere of influence was made.  Some Jews escaped occupied Europe through one or other of the German allies such as Hungary and Slovakia, but these were very few.  The Dominican Republic issued 5000 visas for Jewish refugees from Europe between 1940 and 1945.  645 Jews made it to the Dominican Republic, but several thousand others survived because they held the visas. 

Closer to home, the convents and monasteries of Rome­ neutral territory during the war­ were used as hiding places for Jews. Krupp speculates that the wartime actions of Pope Pius XII, whose birth name was Eugenio Pacelli, can be further understood in the light of his own personal history. His great boyhood friend was Guido Mendes who hailed from a well-known Jewish family in Rome. Together they learned the Hebrew language and shared Shabbat dinners on the Jewish Sabbath.

There is no evidence that Pacelli knew Hebrew or that he participated in shabbat dinners.  This would have been unthinkable for someone raised in a religiously devout and conservative Tridentine Catholic home. 

Later, upon his election to the papacy in 1939, A.W. Klieforth, the American consul general in Cologne, sent a secret telegram to the U.S. Department of State explaining Pope Pius’s attitude towards Nazism in Germany. The new Pope “opposed unalterably every compromise with National Socialism,” Klieforth wrote, after a private chat with the pontiff in the Vatican. The two men had got to know each other during Archbishop Pacelli’s 12 years as nuncio in Germany. Pope Pius, explained Klieforth, “regarded Hitler not only as an untrustworthy scoundrel but as a fundamentally wicked person,” and “did not believe Hitler capable of moderation.” Hence he “fully supported the German bishops in their anti-Nazi stand.”

This is all well known.

Krupp describes the reputation of the wartime Pope as both glowing and intact until 1963, when German writer Rolf Hochhuth penned his play “The Deputy.” It portrayed Pope Pius as a hypocrite who remained silent about Jewish persecution.

The Pave the Way website carries evidence from a former high-ranking KGB officer, Ion Mihai Pacepa, who claims that the tarnishing of the Pope’s reputation was a Soviet plot. Krupp explains how the communists wanted to “discredit the Pope after his death, to destroy the reputation of the Catholic Church and, more significantly to us, to isolate the Jews from the Catholics. It succeeded very well in all three areas.”But he also firmly believes that a fundamental revision of Pope Pius’s wartime record is now well underway. “The dam is cracking now, without question,” he says.

Ion Mihai Pacepa's story has never been corroborated.  His story ws effectively debunked by Thomas Brechenmacher in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, "Hochhuths Quellen. War der 'Stellvertreter' vom KGB inspiriert?", (April 26, 2007)


Ironically, perhaps, Krupp says he meets more resistance when he speaks at Catholic parishes than in Jewish synagogues. “Many Jews,” he explains, “have been extremely grateful, saying, ‘I’m very happy to hear that. I never wanted to believe this about him,’ especially those of us who knew him, who were old enough to know him.

I do not dispute the noble aim of Pave The Way, but I disagree with the methodology that flies in the face of reliable and reputable scholarship.  The claim that Pius XII disguised himself as a Franciscan friar to leave the Vatican secretly to go to the Rome ghetto to rescue a Jewish family has no substance. 

My response to this article drew on my own research into Pius XII conducted over the last fifteen years and from sources I found in the public domain on the internet.

Emma Fattorini reviewed in Times Higher Education

Over the last few days I have had a very interesting and informative email exchange with Karen Shook, the Books Editor with Times Higher Education. 

What began this exchange was the review of Emma Fattorini's new book Hitler, Mussolini and the Vatican: Pope Pius XI and the speech that was never made I read via one of my google alerts.  I emailed Karen asking her permission to publish the review by Australian academic Richard Bosworth.  Karen explained something of the contemporary difficulties and challenges confronting journalism and especially academic journalism. 

Much of the profile of a media source such as Times Higher Education comes from regular visits to the site by an established clientele.  However, valuable resources need greater promotion, and I am happy to add my contribution and support to this academic enterprise.  For this reason I readily accepted Karen's request to publish the link alone and encourage readers to go and read the review on the home site.

Emma Fattorini is professor of Modern History at La Sapienza University in Rome.  La Sapienza is also alma mater to Eugenio Pacelli who studied there in the 1890s. 

I read her Germania e Santa Sede (Bologna 1992) which was one of the first major studies of German-Vatican relations in the post-war era.  At that time the documents available in the Archivio Segreto Vaticano extended only to 1922, the death of Benedict XV.  Nonetheless, she completed one of the first significant studies of the nunciature of Eugenio Pacelli in his first years in Bavaria and then in Germany.  I found Bosworth's review interesting and I look forward to the Australian summer holidays to read the book which is currently sitting on the shelf.

Bosworth's review can be found here.



Emma Fattorini