As Terry Jones stands to meet me, he apologises for being caught red-handed partaking in the 'rather naff' pastime of reading one of his own books, He claims he's simply doing this as he needs reminding of what happened in it before he can write the next one, and not, as I suggest, as a vain attempt at being recognized. He laughs, my nerves dissipate and I start breathing again.

Which of your works are you most proud of?

TJ: I don't know. I think feeling proud of something doesn't really come into it somehow, because nothing ever seems really to be finished - they always sort of seem to be in the process. I mean, I guess when we were doing the Python shows it always seemed to be a touch and go thing whether they were going to work or not, especially in the early days. We never really knew what people's reactions to the shows were - we'd do them in the studio and we'd have an audience, but you couldn't necessarily tell from the audience. Like, the "Pither Show" - "The Cycling Tour" - well that was a disaster when we recorded it. I remember my brother, who was in the audience, saying "Oh that one really didn't work" and it didn't get very good reactions. I said "Well I think it'll be alright once we edit it together" and then we sort of edited it together and - whether it was because it was different, I don't know, but we didn't get a great reaction to the show. But then, people like it now. With Python, people always liked what you'd done before. When we did Holy Grail, people said "Oh it's not as good as the series" or, "Life of Brian? It's not as good as the Holy Grail." So really, it was always usually just relief that we got away with something. I mean, The Holy Grail was a disaster before it came out. The first showing we had was in Soho Square at the theatre, we had all the people who had put money into it, which included Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin and various people. The film started, it started in a different order - with the plague village if I remember right - and people sort of started laughing for the first 5 minutes, and then it gradually petered out and the entire film played to silence. Well, it was one of the most embarrassing evenings of my life. Eventually, after the film, we were trying to think what on earth was wrong with it, and the only thing I could think of was that it was like the first so-called movie we did, which was "And Now For Something Completely Different", which was just a re-tread of old sketches from the first series basically. There was a sketch in that "The Restaurant Sketch" with the dirty fork, well I mean, we did that and it just got no laughs whatsoever when we played the film. The only thing I could see that was different from the TV show - because it was the same script and sketch, we'd done it the same - was that Ian McNaughton had laid some music over it, He'd laid a "Muzak" track, so we took the music off and that seemed to work. People laughed again. So, I thought that maybe with The Holy Grail, that's what was happening. We haven't got 'muzak' all the way through it, but the soundtrack is so full, it's got so many things - bird noises and there are all these kind of wind noises and things like this - I thought maybe that was filling in the gaps and sort of spoiling the rhythm of the comedy. I went through and redubbed it, so basically as soon as anyone starts talking we took everything out, and then as soon as anyone stops talking, I stuck all the noises back in again. So we took that off, and we changed the soundtrack, but then of course every time we showed the film we were so worried about it by this time! We'd have little showings in Soho, in little 25 seat viewing theatres, and we'd say to people "We're terribly worried about the film. Will you come and have a look at it and see what you think?" So people would come and they'd all be terribly worried about it, so it was a disaster! We went on editing for about 6 months or something, and it was only finally when Terry Gilliam and I flew to Los Angeles - the first public showing to a paying audience was at a film festival in Los Angeles - and for the first time the film started getting laughs. Of course, in retrospect, we realised that you don't really get totally spontaneous reactions until people have paid to see it, and the other thing is that it's contagious, if you say "We're worried about something", people won't laugh, they'll be worried about it! Fortunately, we hadn't had time to get the whole of the audience in Los Angeles and tell them how worried we were about the film… But your question was what am I most proud of? Well, I don't know really.

I was thinking, if I were you, it might be something like "Chaucer's Knight" as it was your first proper post-Python thing. Kind of like flying the nest?

TJ: I'm more pleased with "Who Murdered Chaucer?" which is the book that came out in October actually, because I think that really is going to change Chaucer studies a lot. And it's really interesting. And it's a good read! Film wise, I think "Wind In The Willows" is a really nicely made film, and I'm very fond of that. The Python movies? Well, I suppose "Life of Brian" is the best-constructed film, but on the other hand I think "Meaning Of Life" has the best moments in it. So, it's a bit of a fudgy answer!

How did you feel when John left? I mean, there must have been some point when he said he didn't want to make a 4th series. Was there an overall sinking feeling like "Oh well, this is it"?

TJ: John didn't want to do a third series, he was really persuaded into doing that, so nobody was really surprised that he didn't want to do a 4th series. But, I mean, when you think about it, that was '74, we were doing "Holy Grail" very shortly afterwards. So John didn't really 'leave', he just didn't want to do another TV series. In any case, it's like 'leaving' doesn't really come into it because we'd never been a group like that, going round together, we just got together to make 3 TV series', and then we made the 4th series without John. It's got some good stuff in it. "The Golden Age Of Ballooning" is quite silly stuff. My favourite one is the one we called L.E. War which is the banter sketch and "Cabbage crates coming over the briney…" That's the one with all the 'woody' words. There are a couple of dud shows, but I can't remember which - I haven't seen them since they were on. There's "The Golden Age Of Ballooning", "The L.E. War" one, then the last one, which had the awful family in it…

Series 4 seems more like 30 minute shows with storylines, rather than sketches.

TJ: I'd always thought that if Python was going to go on at all, it'd be nice to get into storylines. In fact "Ripping Yarns" could easily have been Python. I think they'd have been wonderful as Python because you've just got really good performances, and also Mike wouldn't have had to play the straightman all the time. I think Mike's terrific as the straightman but it's such a shame, for instance in "Escape From Stalag Luft 112b", because Mike's playing the straightman, he can't play the German, and the German, who Roy Kinnear plays, was just the most funny character when Mike read it out. It was a totally new character, this German [adopts comedy German accent] "Who was so irritated by people not taking the war seriously!" and he was a wonderful new character, whereas with Roy Kinnear playing it, it was Roy Kinnear - You didn't really see what a good character it was. That would've been good. The trouble is also, with the group, that you've got six people and everybody's pulling in different directions - It's very strong but it can't just shoot off in totally different directions.

It's bizarre to think of Python being restraining in some way!

TJ: Yes it is, because the six of us had to agree about something! We all had to agree it was funny. Occasionally, like in "The Meaning Of Life", there was a sequence, the Martin Luther sketch. I was always terribly fond of it, but right from the writing stage, it was our usual split: John, Graham and Eric weren't very keen on it, and Mike, Terry and I were keen in it. The cameraman I got [for "Meaning Of Life"], I lured him into it with the Luther sketch because he wanted to do the "Vermeer" interiors. So we shot it, and I found with audiences it was sort of the same reaction in a way. Half the audience got it, and half the audience didn't get it. It didn't go anywhere, that was the real trouble, so I took it out in the end. It's still a nice bit, "Whoosh! You need a new kitchen floor."

The Martin Luther sketch is available on the Region 1 DVD of Meaning Of Life. How do you feel about revisiting, and often elaborating on your old works on DVD? Is it fun to do the commentaries?

TJ: Yes, it was actually. The last one I did was with Terry, I think, it was quite fun. What was really fun was when Mike and I went round all the old locations in Scotland. We really enjoyed that. It was like places that are burned, seared, onto my psyche. It was pretty traumatic filming [The Holy Grail] but it was just great to go back, not having to tramp around in woollen chain mail. It was just weird how small everything seemed. Everything seemed tiny compared with what I was used to seeing on film. But I mean, it's not something I go out of my way to do. In fact for the DVDs, John Goldstone, who was our producer for the films, has sort of taken them under his wing. He's actually the motivator and doing the donkey work, and we're looking at it going "Yeah, that's okay" or not, as the case may be.

It sometimes seemed like you had the enthusiasm and the motivational role within Python, pulling it forwards when it needed it?

TJ: John [Cleese] might've said that. I think it's John's perception - I don't think it's true at all. Python had to be six people wanting to do it, really. Certainly when it was the 4th series, I think Eric and Mike were very keen to go on. I think we all were. It wasn't particularly me at all, I just had this concept that it could go into a different area which I thought it was a shame not to explore. That's the only thing I thought was a pity. But, I'd never been interested in television, really. It's like with the documentaries - I mean, I'm interested in the subjects and I enjoy making them, and [before "Medieval Lives"] I'd been sitting at my desk for 2 years writing "Who Murdered Chaucer?" so that was partly the attraction of doing it, but it was much harder work than it should've been because of the way the whole thing was set up. It wasn't intended to be written by me.

There are definite 'personal touches' in there, like referring to somebody as "fantastically randy".

TJ: Well, I think he was! I empathise with whatever-his-name-was.

Okay, well that has to be the next question. Are you fantastically randy?!

TJ: Well yes. Not quite as randy as I used to be, but pretty randy.

I'm sorry; I've completely forgotten the next question… So, does it bother you that your name is irreversibly linked to Python?

TJ: It doesn't really because, well, it's just a way of identifying people. In a way it makes the world smaller, it makes it like a village. It's really how I felt the world always ought to be, where you feel you know people and people are interested in you. So, it's like a retreat into childhood really, where when you're a baby everybody's interested in you and [peers over an imaginary cot and makes coo-ing noises] It's rather the same thing.

Do you feel Python sometimes overshadows your solo ventures?

TJ: I don't really think of it. A lot of the medieval stuff, Python doesn't enter into it. I mean, I think about it so little that when we were making this latest series "Medieval Lives" which is going out on BBC2 at the moment, we were about half way through shooting it before I realized the Python connection with the animations. It just hadn't occurred to me, you know? They'd said "We want to animate these medieval illuminations" and I'd said "Ooh, that's a good idea" and it was only sort of halfway through the actual filming that I realised how their minds were working and why they'd thought of it. I just hadn't made a connection.

So you're viewed as a separate entity within the history circles? Are there people who see you primarily as Terry Jones The Historian?

TJ: I don't particularly regard myself as a Historian, but in Chaucer studies, because that's where I talk most - I do a bit of other historical talking but it's mostly in Chaucer Studies and Medieval Studies - I think a lot of the Historians and scholars have a kind of love/hate relationship with me. They like the fact that I bring a bit of TV or film glamour to the studies and it means that if I popularize it, they get more students. In fact, since "Who Murdered Chaucer?" particularly, I find my stuff's being taken a lot more seriously by Historians, and in fact, Nigel Saul who wrote the last biography of Richard II was really helpful on the book. It's funny really, it's getting more and more that I've become part of that academic world in a way. They all kind of like having me around a bit, and I'm always being invited to go and talk. I quite enjoy going the talks - they're easy for me to do because I have a whizzy-ace projector and I just do some Powerpoint presentations but it looks great.

What do you think are your happiest memories?

TJ: The trouble is, I filter out most of the unhappy memories. So I kind of have a rosy memory of everything, I have to remind myself that, no, I wasn't happy at that time. When I was at Oxford, I was pretty miserable for the first 2 years, but now I can remember it as being a really good time and I have to remind myself that I was miserable there for 2 years, don't forget.

Why were you miserable?

TJ: I basically felt very insecure. I felt quite intimidated by the whole place, and anxious I suppose. Anxious trying to get things going and do things. The 3rd year was great because by the time I did the 3rd year, I'd actually been on the West End stage. We did a revue called "****" and we'd done that at the Phoenix Theatre, so in my 3rd year I was a 'star' because I'd been on the West End Stage. Me and Doug Fisher were kind of feted and everybody wanted us to be in their productions. So 3rd year was pretty good really. Happiest memories… Happiest memories… Good lord. Well, I can remember being in Colwyn Bay, I've very strong memories of my childhood. Going and picking mushrooms with my brother, early in the morning, and him telling me that there's a bear that lives in the stream, and me running home. Memories of just being very happy as a child really, and being very upset about leaving Wales and coming down to live in Claygate. [Thinks for a very long time] The whole of my life - it's such a big question, there's too many. I've had a pretty happy life. I'm having a pretty happy life. Still enjoying it…

What's in the pipeline then?

TJ: I'm just about to start writing a new book in the Squire series. "The Knight And The Squire", "The Lady And The Squire", and this one's going to be called "The Tyrant And The Squire" I hope. If it comes out. The weird thing is with these books, I just start them without having any idea what's going to happen. I was planning to write a film, well, two films actually. One was an idea a US company pitched to me at the beginning of last year and I really liked the idea. I came up with a storyline for them but couldn't get on with the script because I was doing "Medieval Lives". We just had another conversation with them last week and they've sort of gone on to a new story now! So I got all excited but now the story they pitched to me originally has transmuted into a different story which isn't the one I'd written and it doesn't' interest me as much, so I think it's not going to work out. Which is a pity really, as I was really looking forward to doing it. I think it's time I do another film because I haven't done a movie since "Wind In The Willows". So it's really writing the book and doing a movie, but I'm not quite sure what the movie's going to be. Actually, I was rather thinking about doing a film about a Monk, set in a medieval monastery.

Would it be a comedy?

TJ: I expect it would be quite funny. I hope so, yes!

You should get Tom Baker to regale you with tales of being a monk.

TJ: Oh really? He's been a monk has he? Well, I'll make a note of that. Tom Baker. I shall have to meet up with him. [Writes down] Tom Baker was once a monk.

So do you have an approach to the writing process?

TJ: No, it's sitting down and hoping for the best, I'm afraid. I know one should do that kind of thing but it's like I find if I do anything like that, it sort of knocks everything out for me. Well, I'm talking about novels. With "Who Murdered Chaucer?" there was no planning for the actual book, in fact, I was only meant to be writing a chapter. What happened with "Who Murdered Chaucer?" was that I had been asked to do a presentation at The Chaucer Congress in 1998 at The Sorbonne. Every 2 years they have a Chaucer Congress where hundreds of Chaucerians from all over the world congregate. I was asked to do the last session there and do something a bit more 'fun'. I was doing my "Chaucer's Knight" talk at University College, Dublin, with my friend Terry Dolan who's a professor of literature there, and I said "I've always had this idea about who murdered Chaucer, it's been hanging round in my head for 20 years, and I thought maybe this is a good chance to do something about it." He suggested "Instead of doing a talk, why doesn't we do a Coroner's Inquest?" and I thought that sounded like a good idea. He was the coroner and I was the 'accuser', which they didn't really have in medieval coroner's courts, and then we had expert witnesses who we called up - There were five of us doing it. So after we did the presentation, everybody wanted to buy the book of course! We discussed it, and everybody chose a chapter they wanted to do, and we divided it up like that.

So how did it become "Terry Jones's Who Murdered Chaucer?"

TJ: Well, what happened was they all came up with sort of 'academic articles' really, and they were very generous in allowing me to totally rewrite everything! I was just meant to be doing Richard II's court. I wouldn't have started doing to research and writing [the whole book] because I would've thought that I couldn't do it - there was too much research involved. But because I was just writing this chapter… I started writing it on Richard II's court but, of course, it just turned in to the book and I sort of pulled their stuff into it. There's one chapter that's basically somebody else's. Again though, I just wrote it as it came, I didn't really plan the book. But a film is a bit different. Film making's a little bit more rigorous in the writing.

Do you believe George Harrison's theory that the spirit of The Beatles passed into Monty Python?

TJ: Terry Gilliam says it was George Harrison's theory! I don't know really. It's certainly true if you go to the States. If you say England, of the UK, it's The Beatles and Monty Python. The slight difference is that Python was always 'A-B readership' if you know what I mean, whereas The Beatles are across the board. That's a much bigger market. Python was never a big market - it didn't matter what time you went on, on the BBC, we'd get about 6 million in those days. They could put us on at 8 o'clock and we'd get 6 million; put us on at 10.30 and we'd get 6 million. There was always the dream that entrepreneurs would have of us hitting a mass market but we never really did. It was always a little bit specialised.

Have you ever had to really struggle to get something produced or published? I imagine Python was like that occasionally?

TJ: Python was very hard. Like "Life Of Brian"; EMI originally put the money up and then they wouldn't do it, then it looked like we'd never get the film done until George Harrison came along. It's still difficult to get films going because the trouble with film is that it's such a big investment. It doesn't matter who you are really, a thing's got to seem like a commercial proposition otherwise nobody's going to take it on. I was really disappointed with [the treatment of] "Wind In The Willows" because it was one of those things. "Erik The Viking"; there were faults in the film, various things wrong with it - but "Wind In The Willows" I thought, really worked. I kind of relaxed and thought "Well, we've got a really nice movie there, that's great." When it came out, Disney bought it for the States but were very reluctant actually, they'd not been keen on it from the word go. There were a lot of politics going on within the company at the time. Then when it came out here, the distributors had just done "James And The Giant Peach" and they swore they were spending as much on publicity for us as they were for "James And The Giant Peach" and that was up all over the place, so we thought "Oh well, that's fine" but then we didn't see any publicity. There was absolutely none, they really cheated us. when it actually came out, nobody told me they were only putting it on [in cinemas] in the afternoons, I didn't realise. I mean, they really f*cked us actually. Then of course, Columbia who had the rest of the world, and Disney, said "Well, it didn't work in England - It'll never work anywhere!" It didn't work in England because it wasn't released properly! We knew Disney were going to go straight to video but that wasn't a surprise because we knew they'd always had trouble with the concept in the first place. I was in New York at the time, and John Goldstone, the producer, rang me up, and said "It's on in some cinemas in New York!" What had happened, evidently, was Columbia and Disney had some court case going on; They settled with Disney giving Columbia the theatrical rights to "Wind In The Willows" which Disney didn't want because they were going straight to video; Columbia needed a theatrical release in the States to trigger some of their deals around the rest of the world; so Columbia got the rights, put it on in a couple of cinemas in LA and a couple of cinemas in New York, without any publicity, for a few days just to fulfill their contracts with the rest of the world. Then to their horror, it got these fabulous reviews! The New York Times gave it a whole page review with a big picture, and Variety was totally overboard about it and ran editorials about "Why is Columbia dumping this wonderful film?" It became a 'cause celebre' rather. Of course, it didn't mean anything because they'd shot their bolt. They'd released it and there was no publicity and so nothing happened. Then it won various festivals - The Chicago Children's Film Festival and another one in Wisconsin. The people were gunning for it and wanted it to do well but it never got the chance really. The funny thing was, when John Goldsmith rang up in New York, I whizzed down to the cinema it was on in, in Times Square, and it was one of those little ones, like a porn cinema, I suppose. It just had this little canopy, and "Wind In The Willows" in that kind of lettering you stick up, so I whizzed off to get an instant camera, and by the time I came back, it was off. Really, literally, they'd taken the name down!

You've always been on record as liking the 'finer things in life'. Good food, good beer -

TJ: Good sex. Yes, I think that's right, absolutely. I think it's true. I assume everybody's interested in these things! I think it's the wonders of creation. I mean, the wonders of pro-creation in fact…

Is 'fun' the word you're looking for?

TJ: I think fun is the word, yes, thankyou. You got me out of that one, digging myself in deeper..

There are certain sections of the Internet where you're viewed as a sex symbol -

TJ: Oh really? Well I haven't come across this - you must put me in touch with it!

I was wondering how you felt about that?

TJ: Ah well, I didn't know about it!

Gut reaction?

TJ: Well, yes, wonderful! At last! If only I'd known about it 20 years ago…

And so, to a man who describes himself in one sentence as "Too much like hard work to even attempt", I'd like to give thanks again for at least trying; and also for being so interesting, open, honest and generous in granting an interview with a piddly website.