The War

Every day brings another press extract in The Times’s ‘The First World War’ series, every week another email in their history of the war, and the stream of Tweets from the Imperial War Museum, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, historical institutions, the media, descendants of the fallen, never slackens…

The War grinds on. I try to analyse how my attitude towards it has changed since August 2014. Posting almost daily on George’s experience of the war 1914-15, particularly at Ypres and Gallipoli, was, of course, an exceptional mode of apprehension — eviscerating; exhausting; enervating on the day and hour at Hampstead when we marked his death. As I said at the time, though, such empathy, for want of a better word, or re-living, is the biographer’s job whatever is going on in his/her subject’s life. It was bound to fade away after 4 June 2015. Indeed I believe the biographer always has to come out of that experience again: ‘the limits of empathy are understanding’.

However, I still follow the war quite closely. Possibly I try to look at the cataclysm more historically now. As that superb book The Long Shadow by David Reynolds shows, we are living in a world still shaped by two German world wars. What really was the nature of our commitment to Europe in 1914, and again in 1939? What’s the connexion between those wars and Brexit? What does the past tell us as a nation about our future?

History aside, though, I only have to re-read the 1914-15 chapter of my biography (as I did yesterday to check archive permissions), or stumble on a war poem, and it ‘all’ comes back to me; by which I mean the visceral experience, George’s experience, my grandfather’s experience, Sassoon’s experience, Graves’s experience, Owen’s experience, everyone’s experience. As I have said before, if a German President could state that ‘there can be no moral closure for Germany’, we know from experience that there can be no emotional closure for the rest of us.

This is why the personal effects, the documents and the works of art of World War I affect us so deeply. I read a poem of Rosenberg’s or Trakl’s again, I glance at a souvenir brought back by my grandfather from Ypres, or I chance upon a photocopy of George’s letter to Kittie as he left on the R.M.S. Orsova for Lemnos, and all the emotions are re-ignited.

There is a superb exhibition of Paul Nash’s life’s work at Tate Britain until 5 March. Nash must be one of the very few painters who was a war artist in both world wars (George’s close friend William Rothenstein was one in 1914-18). An unforgettable war painting of Nash’s, which came out of his experience of Ypres 3, is We Are Making a New Worldwhich you can see on the Imperial War Museum website by clicking here. On 13 November 1917 Nash wrote to his wife:

It is unspeakable, godless, hopeless. I am no longer an artist interested and curious, I am a messenger who will bring back word from men fighting to those who want the war to last forever. Feeble, inarticulate will be my message, but it will have a bitter truth and may it burn their lousy souls.

It is not feeble, of course, and Nash’s anger in this letter is searing. By ‘those who want the war to last forever’ he may have had in mind Lloyd George, who still pursued a ‘knock-out blow’ in the West, or the French with their jusqu’au boutisme, but it equally applied to the Germans, who in their ‘Turnip Winter’ of 1917 launched unrestricted submarine warfare as the way of turning the war. They had forfeited the chance of peace offered them by Woodrow Wilson, by refusing to vacate Belgium. As Norman Stone has written:

Bethmann Hollweg [the German  Chancellor] could not say that he would restore Belgium, because he did not intend to do so: Germany was fighting for a German Europe, in effect the ‘Mitteleuropa’ programme partly realized at Brest-Litovsk a year later, and Belgium, with its French establishment and British leanings, did not belong. German industrialists were expecting to take over the considerable coal and iron reserves of  Belgium, and the military at the very least wanted to take the fortifications of Liège with a view to any future war.

To some extent, these two quotations epitomise the artist’s and the historian’s different apprehensions of the war.

It is uncanny, I find, how one’s mood follows the war’s emotional trajectory. The shock, the excitement, the moral fervour, the ‘gallantry’, even the fear, are gone: the flower of the nation’s manhood has been blasted, in Kitchener’s words the women are ‘doing nearly everything done by men’, the population are being bombed and starved, it has come down to cold, gritted determination that could fray into mutiny and insanity. If, after thirty months, the commemoration of the war has actually desensitised us, there is something authentic about that: so it had contemporaries, although not brutalised them, I think.

The people I do not envy at this moment are those professionally engaged in the commemoration of the war, day in day out, for another two years. I can close the book of poems, shut my grandfather’s bag of memorabilia, put the photocopied 1915 letter back in its file, and turn away from the war. The professionals of the IWM, the CWGC, historical institutions, the army, the navy, the air force, churches, museums and archives, cannot, and I wonder how on earth they manage to carry on.

Comment Image

Posted in Edwardian character, Heroism and Adventure, Modern parallels, Personal commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Checking my wiring

To reprise a motif of my last post, ‘the first pancake was a lump’, in the admirable Russian phrase (pervyi blin upal komom). That’s to say in English that my carefully prepared approach to a group of publishers went off at half-cock. There’s still some follow-up there, so it’s not hopeless. But, changing metaphors, I feel that my advance party is trapped behind the lines and it’s time to send the second wave of letters over the top.

I find myself reflecting on John Dewey’s observation in his Comment of 18 January that ‘unfortunately luck does play a large part’.

My gut instinct is that he is absolutely right. Funnily enough, I rather respect Napoleon’s habitual question when asked to promote someone to general: A-t-il de la chance?’  Yet in the final analysis I have never ever been able to believe in luck. If I did, I suppose I would wear a St Christopher, carry charms on my key ring, buy a black cat. Rifling through my encyclopaedic wallet, I discover three icons in it, and it might be assumed that these are lucky charms; but two of them (in card) were given to me by a Russian friend thirty years ago and have simply stayed there, they are not of holy folk I particularly like, and the other is just a piece of paper 60 x 85 mm that I cut out of a V&A leaflet twenty years ago:

‘Not a charm’

This icon — of St George, obviously — I do like, partly because I’m so fond of Iurii Zhivago’s poem about the myth. But it’s still not a ‘lucky charm’. It’s for looking at, admiring, and thinking about, if and when I come across it!

Below the ‘icons’, I am astounded to find these bits of card:

‘Be Prepared’

Why on earth do I have four? To be honest, I had completely forgotten that I had any of these wiring diagrams at all. Probably the first one was deposited in the Filo-wallet thirty years ago because I was genuinely uncertain about wiring new plugs, maybe I collected the others to give to my children if they ever had to wire a plug, but most likely I just kept stuffing them in my wallet because I was so anxious about wrongly wiring…

These diagrams, I think, are far more characteristic of my attitude to chance/luck than the icons. If I think back, nearly every book I’ve published could be said to have had an element of luck or coincidence about its publication. Very often the element seems to have been a chance acquaintance or a friend of a friend. It really does look as though John Dewey is right. On the other hand, although the encounters may have been ‘chance’, or ‘stuff just happened’, if I hadn’t seized and built on that ‘luck’ nothing whatsoever would have come of it. You have to look for these ‘chances’, therefore, and make them into opportunities, as John did with Brimstone Press. Where finding a publisher is concerned, you have to keep your eyes constantly open, do your homework, keep abreast of publications, and facilitate your good luck, as it were…

Until the end of June, I will continue to check my contacts and wiring, and doubtless I shall occasionally have to replace one of my fuses. Come to think of it, carrying an icon of St George in my wallet may not be so inappropriate, either.

Comment Image

Posted in Heroism and Adventure, Modern parallels, Personal commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Another wildcard!

After fifty years practice, I have no difficulty transliterating Russian into the Roman alphabet using three different Anglo-American systems; it’s so automatic I can practically switch my brain off as I do it… But I cannot hold the hundred or so Modern Humanities Research Association rules for bibliographic referencing, plus tricky sub-variations, in my head as I check my Bibliography of three hundred entries. I glaze over after two pages and it’s a waste of time continuing. I have to come back and tackle the next two pages twenty-four hours later. It’s the only way to encourage accuracy. Even so I keep spotting errors in what I’ve done already. Perhaps an ‘editor’ will insist on a different system anyway!

This anaesthetising activity has, however, brought a most unexpected benefit.

One of my bibliographic minefields is J.P. Wearing’s indispensable compendium of London theatre productions between 1890 and 1959. It comes in seven ‘volumes’ of decades, plus one of accumulated indexes, but some of these ‘volumes’ are in two or three books, they have different publishers, and some of these decade-volumes are now being brought out as a second edition in single volumes. There was nothing for it but to go back to the University (copyright) Library and examine the actual books.

Whilst I was at it, I decided, for absolute surety, to check all of Wearing’s entries for the London productions of George’s plays — data I had first extracted four years ago and relied on ever since. Oh dear…oh dear oh dear oh dear: absorbed (I suppose) in the seminal 1925 production of George’s translation of The Cherry Orchard, I had completely missed another entry for 1925. To be honest, I was not completely disbelieving that I’d done this, as my fallibility/dementia seems to have waxed as the book wore on, but I was certainly amazed at what the missed production was. One could never have guessed it.

Philip Harben stage-manages a pancake on television, c. 1960

On Sunday 13 December 1925 The Fountain was performed at the Strand Theatre, now the Novello, at the corner of Catherine Street and Aldwych. It had an incredibly impressive cast. In fact, key parts were played by the actors who had premiered it to great acclaim in London and Glasgow in 1909: Mary Jerrold as Chenda, Frederick Lloyd as James Wren, Hubert Harben as the East End vicar Tom Oliver. But it only saw one performance. Why?

An answer might be indicated by the fact that (a) the original twenty-one speaking parts seem to have been reduced to twelve, (b) the Harben family were at the core of the production.

It would certainly be possible to mount a viable production of The Fountain with twelve actors and, perhaps, some doubling. It would save a lot of money. The production might even have been more effective in this streamlined state than in its thirty-actor original, and George would undoubtedly have approved. But Mary Jerrold was actually Mrs Hubert Harben (both wife and husband were to become successful film actors), Hubert Harben not only played Tom Oliver but was the producer (today ‘director’), and the stage manager was their nineteen-year-old son Philip, who was destined to become the first TV celebrity chef.

It seems to me, then, that this 1925 cut-down production of The Fountain was probably the brainchild of the Harben family. Perhaps they wanted to show managers, agents and the professional Sunday-going audiences one of their past theatrical hits in the hope of the play being revived commercially with Jerrold, Harben and Lloyd starring? The very first production of The Fountain, after all, had been on a Sunday and Monday for the Incorporated Stage Society at the nearby Aldwych Theatre, and it had taken off from there, reaching its acme of popularity with two touring productions in 1912. However, nothing further came of the Harben venture. My guess is that in 1925 the subject of the play was perceived as too Edwardian, i.e. ‘passé’, to bring in the audiences.

There is another possibility. In 1909 the Harbens became friends with the Calderons. Mary Jerrold had even — to critical acclaim — played Arkadina in the English premiere of The Seagull at Glasgow following on from her triumph in the Glasgow Fountain. George dedicated the first publication of The Fountain (1911) to MISS MARY JERROLD, THE CHARMING CREATOR OF “CHENDA”, and even in the 1922 volume of his plays, edited by Kittie, the dedication was TO MISS MARY JERROLD. Perhaps, then, the Harbens mounted this one-off 1925 production of The Fountain as a tribute to George ten years after his death, out of affection for Kittie, and in the wake of the impact made on the British theatre six months earlier by the London Cherry Orchard? (The third and last publication of The Fountain as a one-off was also in 1925.) Nothing, in my experience, is ever done in the theatre purely for altruistic reasons, but these factors might have fed into the 1925 production as well as it being a showcase for the Harbens, Lloyd, and other actors resting between engagements. The production could have been financed not just by the Harbens but by other actors in the cast, and perhaps even Kittie.

The problem with this hypothesis is that so far there is no evidence for it. It is not mentioned in any of Kittie’s papers (mind you, she might not have been able to see the performance if she was still tied up with the aftermath of Mrs Stewart of Torquay‘s death on 24 November 1925). There seems to have been only one review, but for the theatre profession this would be a significant one: it was in The Stage of 17 December 1925. This organ is notoriously difficult to recover online, in hard copy or microform. I await my digitised image through Inter-Library Loan.

Perhaps this image will explain a thing or two. I am keen to write a new paragraph into the biography if the production is connected with George’s memorialisation, of course, and if, like the Pienne portrait, it introduces some different ‘lighting’ into the story of Kittie’s life after she left Hampstead disastrously for Petersfield in December 1922.

Comment Image

Posted in Edwardian English, Edwardian literature, Modern parallels, Personal commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

‘The errors of Democracy’

I am very pleased to have been able to incorporate in my Bibliography an article that was published only three weeks ago: Thomas Lansdall-Welfare and others, ‘Content Analysis of 150 Years of British Periodicals’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114 (2017), no. 4, E457-465. My attention was drawn to it by an excellent feature by Oliver Moody, Science Correspondent, in The Times of 10 January 2017, p. 3, entitled ‘Age of Celebrity Born as Victoria Died’.

A team at Bristol University led by Nello Cristiani, professor of artificial intelligence, and including the historian of ideas James Thompson, developed a computer tool that could crunch 35.9 million articles (28.6 billion words) from 120 regional newspapers published in the U.K. between 1800 and 1950, and plot selected words and semantic clusters in this dataset over time. Because newspapers obviously come out more in ‘real time’ than books do, this Bristol project has produced a much sharper picture than a similar one of 2011 involving millions of digitized books published over 200 years.

Thomas Lansdall-Welfare and his co-authors exercise very proper caution in interpreting their results. For example, one hardly needs to be shown high spikes for the word ‘coronation’ in 1902, 1911 and 1937, as one already knows that Edward VII, George V and George VI were crowned in those years! But the magnitude of a keyword’s frequency might well cast light on such matters as the role of the regional press over time or the ‘popularity’ of the event/person/activity etc. concerned. Thus a graph for frequency of mention over time for ‘suffragists’ and ‘suffragettes’ produces exactly the sudden spikes for the ‘suffragettes’ that one would expect, around 1910 and 1918, but it is the height of those spikes that is astonishing. What is going on here? We know that for most of the nineteenth century suffragism was perceived as a boring, almost academic movement, and it flatlines on the graph. But the term ‘suffragette’ was probably introduced by journalists in the first place (from America), the suffragettes wanted as much publicity as possible, and their activities were a godsend to popular journalism. The PNAS authors suggest, indeed, that the ‘sharp rise in coverage of the suffragettes (and suffragists) following the dramatic death [1913] of Emily Wilding Davidson, who was trampled to death by the King’s horse at Ascot’, is ‘perhaps an early 20th century example of the importance of a “media event” to a political campaign and its ability to capture the journalistic imagination’.

Over the last eight years or so, I have read an awful lot of British national newspapers from the late Victorian and Edwardian periods, and some regional ones. I was gratified, therefore, to see that my mere brain had picked up a few cultural shifts in the period 1895-1915 that are ‘scientifically’ confirmed by the Bristol project. For instance, the project indicates that trains overtook horses in popularity around 1902 and association football outstripped cricket around 1909, which was already my vague feeling. A particularly interesting finding of the project, not mentioned in the PNAS publication but described by Oliver Moody, is that the word ‘democracy’ flourished after 1900.

I can say that I had picked this up from about 1908, when George Calderon became involved in the anti-suffragism movement, but it exemplifies how careful one should be in interpreting word-frequency data of this kind.

From the fact that ‘democracy’ features increasingly in the press from 1900 onwards, it would be natural, perhaps, to conclude that this is because democracy was becoming more popular. But my own impression is that the word was used pejoratively in about fifty percent of the cases I have seen for the period 1908-1915. In other words, only half of the increase in the word’s frequency might be attributable to the ‘popularity’ of democracy; the aggregate increase might actually indicate a significant conflict over democracy’s desirability in Edwardian Britain.

For a start, it seems to me that the Edwardian upper classes did not view democracy as a concept, let alone as an ethical value. They regarded it as a possible form of government like any other, e.g. monarchy, parliamentary democracy, or oligarchy. Their classical education taught them that in Athens rule by the hoi polloi (‘rabble’) had been a bad thing. Democracy tout court might therefore be the lowest form of government. The key factor here for the Edwardian establishment was ‘education’, for which read ‘qualification to have the franchise’. From what I have seen, it is possible that the landowning classes, Tory politicians and imperial consuls like Lords Cromer and Curzon thought enfranchising more people was desirable in theory, but only if these people were ‘educated’ enough to make electoral choices ‘responsibly’; otherwise, it would be disastrous. This, of course, was their objection to extending the franchise to women and the working classes: these groups of people weren’t educated enough to make the right decisions…

This may seem a completely preposterous, class-bound view, but you would be wrong to think it is dead. A friend recently said to me, ‘It rather looks as though the Brexit vote split along lines of education.’ He didn’t expatiate, but the remark was made in the context of the cities of Oxford and Cambridge delivering the biggest Remain votes in the country. He was, in fact, implying that those who voted Leave weren’t educated enough to know what they were doing. Others believe they have a right to reverse the outcome of the 2016 referendum. This is quite clearly an oligarchic argument like the Edwardian establishment’s, and laughably wrong in principle and fact. They want us to be governed by Philosopher Kings.

In our case, the problem is the exercise of referendums as an instrument of democracy. The Edwardians, I think one could be pretty sure, would never have understood the need for referendums, as their ‘democracy’ elected M.P.’s to parliament and parliament was sovereign. In fact, there have only been three U.K.-wide referendums in the country’s history, and they have all been in the last forty-three years. Presumably they were thought to be necessary because the referendums’ issues were so important to the nation’s existence that they couldn’t be left to M.P.’s whose view was out of kilter with their own electorate. Well, that may have applied to Brexit, but no referendum was held on capital punishment (which the electorate overwhelmingly wanted, but M.P.’s didn’t). Conversely, in Edwardian Britain around 1909 a narrow majority of M.P.’s approved of votes for women, but the government could appeal to polls that showed there was no national majority desire for it.

George Calderon had all the experience of parliamentary-style debate that came with a Rugby and Oxford education (his friend Archie Ripley, Kittie’s first husband, actually became President of the Oxford Union). His experience of autocratic government in Russia informed his interest in the nature and future of western democracy. Thus we find him studying Edward Carpenter’s Towards Democracy when he returns from Russia and is living at Eastcote. He thought that Tsarist autocracy was bad for Russia, but he recognised that most Russians wanted it. On the other hand, in 1903 he was impressed by the Russian view that ‘the Emperor sits for minority as well as majority, and for the Country as well, a constituent not represented in our Parliament’. This pushed George towards espousing proportional representation.

As the male owner of Kittie’s property, George had the vote. He certainly exercised it, and at the turn of the century seems to have been close to his friend Newbolt’s Liberal Imperialism. However, the splits in the Liberal Party and Conservative-Unionist government over Home Rule, the Boer War, Free Trade and so on, seem seriously to have disillusioned him with parliamentary democracy. He felt it led to weak government, and this is the source of the bitterness that underlies his 1904 satire Dwala. It is disappointing, of course, that he could not see that contemporary political instability and rudderlessness were the products of politicians’ incompetence, not the fault of democracy as such. The final paragraph of Dwala reads:

There is no remedy for the errors of Democracy; there is no elasticity of energy to fulfill purposes conceived on a larger scale than its every-day thought. Other systems may be purged by the rising waves of national life; but Democracy is exhaustive.

I leave it to readers to decide what he meant, but he certainly did not think that Democracy’s performance could be improved by expanding the franchise from 30% of the mature population to include women or the ‘lower classes’ — or by holding referendums.

Comment Image

Posted in Edwardian character, Edwardian English, Edwardian literature, Modern parallels, Personal commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

‘Literally for this…’

 

Click the image to find this book on amazon.

This is the most original, enjoyable, moving and impressive book about the First World War that I have read since the centenary began. It is not a ‘history’ book like Max Hastings’s Catastrophe, say, Peter Hart’s Gallipoli, or David Reynolds’s The Long Shadow, but it opens up a dimension of the reality of the war that, for me at least, is fresh and deeply thought-provoking. I would go so far as to say that if you engage with the existential reality of the Great War, you must read this book.

Perhaps the shortest way to give an idea of its substance is to explain its structure. These are Lewis-Stempel’s core chapters:

II: And the Birds Are Beautiful Still: Avifauna and Men on the Western Front (46 pp.)
III: All the Lovely Horses: Equus as Beast of Burden, War Horse, Comrade (52 pp.)
IV: Of Lice and Men: Trench Pests, Vermin and Disease (46 pp.)
V: The Bloom of Life: Trench/POW Gardens, Flowers and Botanists at the Front (32 pp.)
VI: The Dogs (and Cats, Rabbits, etc.) of War: Trench Pets (27 pp.)
VII: A-Hunting and A-Shooting (and A-Fishing) We Will Go: Field Sports and Poaching
at the Front (19 pp.)

Very cleverly placed around these are the shorter ‘Interstices’. I say ‘around’ rather than ‘between’ since Chapter II is preceded by ‘Interstice 1: Birds of the Battlefield, Western Front 1914-18’ (a list), and followed by ‘Interstice 2: Poems about Birds Written by Serving Soldiers’, making the section about birds actually 59 pages long. After Chapter III you have ‘Interstice 3: Poems about Horses Written by Serving Soldiers’; after IV, ‘Interstice 4: The Statistics of Disease’; after V, ‘Interstice 5: Nature and the Ancre Battlefield, 30 July 1917’; after VI, ‘Interstice 6: A Complete List of Soldiers’ Pets and Mascots’; and after VII, ‘Interstice 7: British and Empire Naturalists Who Died on Active Service 1914-1919’. In a sense, then, the ‘Interstices’ wind round and through the ‘body’ of the book.

Stempel-Lewis’s writing in this body never knows a dull moment, shifting from narrative and explanation through prose and poetry quotation to potted biography, speculation, and a staggering range of war memoirs and personal documents. But it is fair to say that the technique and content of the thinner ‘Interstices’ enhance the variety of the book and the reader’s experience of it even more.

What can one say of the ‘body’ of the book? It is so overwhelmingly rich and challenging that I could quote, paraphrase and discuss it till Kingdom come. One is simply made to feel vividly how close the bond between the British soldier and a vast range of the animal world and Nature became — and how important it was to him.

The skylark’s refusal (‘brave’ was the adjective usually attached) to quit its habitat because of warring man caused widespread admiration. The bird even stayed put on day one of the Somme […]  The correspondent of ‘The Times’ informed readers that the skylarks could be heard singing during the battle ‘whenever there was a lull in the almost incessant fire’. […] Skylarks turned the eyes upwards from present problems. 

Rooks also became ‘icons’ of resilience, nightingales evoked wonder, swallows building their nests in observation posts and Nissen huts evoked tender solicitation and brought a strange comfort.  Some very serious ornithology was done and even published (incidentally, I think the author might have stressed that ‘bird-nesting’, whether by privates or generals, was usually for the purpose of viewing the beauty of the eggs, not stealing them). The golden oriole became ‘the holy grail of bird-watching on the Western Front’, partridges proliferated, carrier pigeons became comrades and heroes, and

In what was simultaneously charming and cruel, ambulance trains were fitted with canary cages, so the birds could sing to wounded troops in transit to hospital. As everyone Edwardian knew, birdsong was a guaranteed cheerer-upper. Caged songbirds were still a common fixture in the back street homes of Britain.

Chapter II, which is prefaced by Elgar’s words about the iniquity of horses being pressed into war (see Paul Johnson’s Comment on my post of 12 July 2016), proves me utterly wrong in assuming that Warhorse was a sentimental confection. Soldiers did live, sleep and die with their horses. They became so close to them that they felt their horse could read their thoughts. Some even wished to be killed and buried with their horse, and were. When at the end of the war scores of thousands of horses were to be sold for meat rather than be transported back to Blighty, their riders ‘disappeared’ them, or even took them away and shot them themselves. There is no sentiment in this key chapter, just remarkable stories of comradeship and love to which Lewis-Stempel brings a sober vision. It is encouraging to read that after public outrage at the treatment of horses in the Boer War, the Army Veterinary Service was improved and expanded into the Army Veterinary Corps, and ‘effectively, humane treatment of — and kindness towards, indeed — animals [became] institutionalised in the army’. The war could not have been won without the horse, the donkey and the mule.

But Lewis-Stempel’s consummate touch was to enclose the ‘body’ of his book in chapters that seek to interpret the whole phenomenon, viz. ‘Chapter I: For King and Countryside: The Natural History of the British’ and ‘Chapter VIII: And Quiet Flowed the Somme: War’s End’. He is so right to speak of the participants as ‘Edwardians’ and those who returned — indeed British society after 1918 — as something else.

‘For the generation of 1914-18’, he writes, ‘love of country meant, as often as not, love of countryside.’ He prefaces Chapter I with Edward Thomas’s words ‘Literally for this’, which were uttered when a dismayed Eleanor Farjeon asked why he was joining up and Thomas showed her a handful of English soil. ‘Edward Thomas died at Arras for Adlestrop’, Lewis-Stempel ventures, referring to Thomas’s poem encapsulating the Gloucestershire countryside on 24 June 1914. The Edwardian countryside was ‘full of birdsong’; it was ‘countryside worth fighting for’; it was ‘God’s Own Country’; ‘an Edwardian childhood was conducted outdoors as much as it was within the confines of the house’; as George Calderon’s friend Ford Madox Hueffer, 9/Welsh Regiment, wrote on an embarkation train to Southampton as he watched the countryside roll by: ‘It is for the sake of the wolds and the wealds/That we die,/And for the sake of the quiet fields…’

Conversely (Chapter VIII), ‘on return to Britain, soldiers took to nature as a cure for the wounds of the mind’, a massive smallholding movement was launched for veterans, and the cemeteries on foreign soil became English gardens:

To preserve a special British feeling snowdrops and crocuses were allowed to push up through the grass. In the cemeteries, where memory was planted, the French countryside was sequestered and remodelled to become little bits of Britain. Unambiguously, the cemeteries are corners of foreign fields ‘for ever England’. The dead are not buried in France; they lie in English scenes. They are interred at home.

A wonderful book, written in a vibrant personal language.

Comment Image

Posted in Edwardian character, Edwardian English, Edwardian literature, Heroism and Adventure, Personal commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Publishing

After nearly fifty years of contact with publishers, I could bore for England on the subject…which means that I must make sure I don’t! I will try to keep this short and focussed on the task of finding the right publisher for my biography.

In 1998 I wrote (letters, in those days) to fifteen publishers with a proposal for two biographies of about 80,000 words each: Black Pot, a documentary biography of George, and White Raven, a fictography of Kittie. Looking through the file now, I am amazed that every publisher replied and their responses were so positive. However, of course, they all said they couldn’t sell enough copies of biographies of people ‘not widely famous among general readers’ — 6000 being the minimum usually quoted. One editor whom I particularly respect wrote that ‘even the chapter breakdown suggests the Calderons were an interesting couple’ and recommended ‘combining the two subjects in one volume’.

So what has changed in the intervening nineteen years?

Well, first, so much more material surfaced about George and Kittie that when I actually started writing in 2011 I was able to do exactly what that editor had recommended. When I floated the idea of the two biographies in 1998, I hadn’t, of course, written a word of either. I now have a completed typescript of 180,000 words (about 400 printed pages), honed synopsis, alternative introductions, blog, and so forth. But the publishing world has changed enormously since 1998.

Between 2013 and 2015 I meticulously researched thirty-four possibly appropriate publishers and proposed George Calderon: Edwardian Genius to them, although only about 70% of it was written. I should think this took at least five times longer than my 1998 approaches. In some cases it meant making the proposal through a detailed template on their websites. Most communication was by email.

Less than half of these thirty-four publishers even replied. There is no doubt whatsoever that this reflects the tsunami of proposals crashing down on them these days. On the one hand, note, there are far more publishers in the field and it is cheaper for them to produce a book. On the other, we have become a nation of logo-maniacs, there is a pandemic of cacoethes scribendi, we are all blogging and writing books… We publish more books per head (3000 new titles a week) than any other country in the world.

As a result, some publishers announce ‘no unsolicited submissions’, others will ‘only consider submissions which come via a literary agent’ (my experience of agents other than theatrical ones is dire). Infuriated by this in the case of one very distinguished publishing firm, in 2015 I wrote them a three-line letter:

I know from N’s website that you are too overwhelmed to read submissions, so you will be pleased to hear that I am not approaching you about my full-length biography of a major Edwardian literary and political figure as featured in TLS Blog posts of  9/9/14 and 30/7/15. Thank you for reading this.

Astonishingly, their top commissioning editor emailed me and asked to see some chapters, even though the biography was ‘horribly unlikely for us’. I sent some, and that was the last I heard from him. I have since been warned off by other writers, who say that this old and hugely respected publisher ‘does no marketing’! It was a great pity that my research had not turned that fact up in the first place.

However, there have been some positive developments too. Biography, autobiography and memoir now outsell history. Some publishers, e.g. John Murray, have returned to biography after years away. There has even been some movement towards high-profile houses publishing the life stories of people who aren’t ‘widely famous among general readers’. This has encouraged me to research who is publishing my kind of biography now and produce a shortlist (currently seventeen and largely different from the 1998 and 2015 lists). Despite the fact that in 2015 three publishers expressed an interest in seeing the finished typescript — and I will of course give them that opportunity — each of them has a drawback from my point of view, so I will tackle the whole of the new list from the top downwards, as it were. It is important to aim for your ideal publisher, even if you know that the chances are slim.

And it is vital, in my view, to put yourself through this long campaign rather than jump straight into self-publishing. Five experienced published biographers have advised me not to bother with commercial publishers but bring it out myself, presumably because they believe George Calderon is still too obscure to catch one, but are too polite to say so. They may, of course, be right, but I think one owes it to oneself to strain every muscle to find the best commercial publisher first. One can at least say then that one has tried.

The explicit reason three of these biographers have given for self-publishing is that ‘you get exactly what you want’. Having battled with an editor who wanted to reduce my punctuation to dashes, and another who introduced clever factual errors throughout my text, I know what they mean. This is another unhappy development in modern publishing. In 1982 the oldest and probably most respected commercial publisher I have ever had dealings with, John Murray, took my and Harvey Pitcher’s typescript of Chekhov: The Early Stories 1883-88, their editor read it, and not one iota was changed for publication. Now a vast new class of young, meddling and often uneducated editors (themselves ‘writers’, they always tell you) has arisen.

But it is naive to think you can ever get ‘exactly what you want’ in publishing a book (I once self-published before computers and the printer left the title-page out!). Of course I am prepared to negotiate with a commercial publisher over length, punctuation style, illustrations, the blessed Introduction, end notes etc, up to a point, because I would prefer to be paid for my book, not have all the toil of bringing it out myself, and reap the full benefit of their marketing and distribution. The very first person I shall contact is the ‘editor I particularly respect’, whom I mentioned in my second paragraph and who has given me invaluable advice over the years. The game is afoot.

The plan, then, is to do my darnedest until 30 June to find the best commercial publisher, but not at all costs of compromise. If this has not worked by that deadline, Miles Enterprises will go into overdrive to bring the book out ourselves for Christmas 2017, using my old imprint ‘Sam&Sam’.

To what I have described as the ‘positive’ recent developments in commercial biography publishing, I would add two of my own since 2011: 1) I purposely widened the scope of my biography to appeal to the growing interest in the Edwardians as such, and 2) the blog has not only raised awareness of George Calderon, it has brought me several excellent contacts in the literary and publishing worlds. These developments contribute to firing me up with my customary inextinguishable over-optimism.

Advice and ideas will always be welcome.

Comment Image

Posted in Edwardian character, Edwardian literature, Edwardian marriage, Personal commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

‘Iconography’

Left: George Calderon as Sherlock Holmes, c. 1912, Right: Basil Rathbone as George Calderon, 1939

Lest it be thought that my previous post expressed a scepticism towards or weariness with blogging, I hasten to reassure followers: the pleasures and benefits of running Calderonia have been a fantastic bonus to writing the actual book. I never remotely expected to write a separate, day-to-day biography of the last year of George’s life, but that is what happened between 2014 and 2015, I hugely enjoyed writing it (despite the problems of ‘chronotopia’), and am proud to have been one of the first in on the genre of blography. But consider the other benefits: manuscripts discovered by followers and bought for the archive, references supplied by followers to mentions of George in obscure publications that I would never have found myself, leads suggested for fruitful further research, and above all the comments, observations, suggestions of fresh other minds.

The latter, I think, is why I would always recommend to biographers running a blog about their work in progress. Of course you do the slog of research mainly yourself, of course you have your own closely guarded image of the biography’s subject, of course (as we said of Ruth Scurr’s ‘autobiography’ of Aubrey), you actually have absolute control over the result. But the more you go it alone, the greater the dangers of tunnel vision. A biographer needs those outsider views, that different angle of vision, because it is so difficult for oneself to stand outside and look in. I daresay some biographers would say they don’t want other people’s takes on their subject; that it is their image they are presenting of their subject. I consider that naive. Biography is not a solipsistic genre, it should aim to be empathetic and objective. You don’t have to accept other people’s views, of course, but you would be wise to assay them, as they may be gold. How many times between July 1914 and July 1915, for instance, did followers write in with their interpretations of George’s and Kittie’s thinking, feelings, motivations that modified my own interpretation?

A late, but outstanding example would be the dialogue started by Clare Hopkins, Archivist of George’s alma mater Trinity College, Oxford, about the Arnold Pienne portrait commissioned by Kittie and presented to the college in 1930. I had always known this portrait, because Kittie kept a facsimile of it and this eventually joined her archive. But I had subconsciously, I think, dismissed it because it was (a) done not from life but from Hollyer’s ‘iconic’ photo-portrait, and (b) it didn’t look (to me) remotely like George…

That was to miss the point, which Clare raised in her guest blog of 9 December 2016 and followers discussed in subsequent Comments, namely WHY Kittie commissioned such an aethereal version of the Hollyer photograph? For — I accept — the Pienne silverpoint is so different from the chiaroscuro Hollyer portrait that its differences can’t be put down to ineptitude, especially as Kittie herself said she found the Pienne portrait ‘beautiful’. This is such an interesting and profound point where Kittie‘s biography is concerned, that it has prompted me to write a few new sentences about it in the relevant chapter, linking up with my treatment of the Hollyer original in an earlier one. I am hugely grateful to Clare, Jenny Hands and Celia Bockmuehl for having discussed it. The book would be poorer without their contribution, but without the blog that contribution couldn’t have happened!

Iconography can be a very important factor in writing a biography. By ‘can’ I mean if you decide to let it be. The impact of images from the past is slippery…subjective…fraught with interpretative dangers. I don’t propose saying more about the subject generally than that. In George Calderon’s case, there are only about twenty-five known images and they are so different. I well remember the impact that the published ones had on me back in the 1970s when I started translating Chekhov’s plays and came across George for the first time. As I have said before, the pallid, lean, closely shaven, immaculately groomed, tight-lipped, snowy starched collared ones put me in mind of Henry Newbolt or Lord Curzon, and that mind said to itself: ‘another Edwardian bastard’. The Hollyer portrait directly put me in mind of Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes.

This, of course, is but one of the dangers of iconography in biography: you don’t intimately know and recognise the semiotics of the period, so your brain reaches for comparison with what you do know. For me, Holmes has been and always will be Basil Rathbone, not Benedict Cumberbatch. And perhaps there is more to it after all? George admired the Sherlock Holmes stories. With his own severely rational, forensic and cryptographic mind he was something of a Sherlock himself. He too smoked like a chimney, though not a pipe… It is possible that Basil Rathbone, who was twenty-four years younger than George, had come across George in London theatre life, as Rathbone was just becoming known as an actor. Could he have observed George’s dark looks and manner? Unfortunately Guy Rathbone, whom George almost certainly knew from the Stage Society’s British premiere of Uncle Vanya in May 1914, in which this Rathbone played the lead, was no relation to Basil, who was born in South Africa. Guy was an intelligent and promising actor born in Liverpool in 1884 and killed in action in 1916.

*               *               *

Nothing much happens in publishing houses before the middle of January as they wrestle with their backlog. I am still tweaking the typescript, a totally different, alternative version of the Introduction has been written, and there is now a fuller title:

George Calderon: Edwardian Genius

The Man and his Times

I keep updating (improving) the Bibliography and Acknowledgements. None of this is an obstacle to tackling publishers, as the core text is finished. I will outline my general publishing strategy in my next post.

Comment Image

Posted in Edwardian character, Edwardian marriage, Heroism and Adventure, Modern parallels | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Calderonia: the way forward

A very happy New Year to our subscribers, followers and visitors. May 2017 be a good year for you all. I doubt whether any of us will agree with George Calderon’s ‘brutal’ assertion in a letter to Katharine Ripley of 31 December 1898 (her late husband’s birthday) that ‘the New Year […] is only a new number at the top of the newspaper’!

2017 is, of course, an important year for the whole Calderon project, as I am determined come what may to see my biography published within the next twelve months.

I had thought to carry on blogging much as in 2016, but mainly about the whole process of finding the right publisher and getting the book to press. There would have been plenty to tell about that day by day, but I have now decided otherwise. I will blog approximately once a week, but it will be about a range of topics including publication. My reasons for this reduction are as follows:

1. I think it would be wise to imitate the Prime Minister’s approach to Brexit negotiations and not show my hand to the world whilst playing… Moreover, finding a publisher is a full-time job and won’t leave so much time for blogging…

2. I’m inclined to think I don’t have anything more of interest to readers to say about George and Kittie…

3. It’s ‘all’ in the book and I owe it to potential buyers not to perpetrate ‘spoilers’…

4. But I already know that fresh themes and ideas about the Calderons constantly pop up, so I will post about them as and when. Not to mention about more-or-less-relevant topics. Guest posts are also, of course, invited.

5. We really cannot put any more photographs or documents from the Calderon Papers on the Web — we must leave some for future archival researchers!

6. After two and a half years of writing Calderonia (with, of course, others’ very gratefully acknowledged help), I fear I am tired and jaded. Not that I couldn’t be tempted to start a more general literary blog in two or three years time…

7. Calderonia is now pretty large by blog standards, I think, and I experience more and more heart-stopping moments when I lose contact with WordPress whilst writing or trying to save a draft. For someone with my blood pressure range this is a serious issue…

8. I have had enough of trollery. Interesting though this phenomenon of people ‘losing it’ on the Net is, I do not need their thousands of words of omniscience and abuse.

Vive Calderonia, then, it’s not dead yet!

Comment Image

Posted in Edwardian character, Edwardian marriage, Modern parallels, Personal commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A soft landing and season’s greetings!

After five and a half years living full time with writing this book, I am somewhat dazed by the soft landing of Bibliography, Acknowledgements and the odd tidying up. I am a bit light-headed. It feels unreal, especially compared with living Ypres and Gallipoli in the past two years. I still can’t really believe that the ‘writing’ is all over! (But is it?)

In the New Year, the campaign opens to find the right publisher. I shall be blogging less often then, but will explain all that after Twelfth Night. It only remains now for me to thank all our followers and visitors for reading us in the past year, and to wish you

caption

(Shed Man acknowledges the arrival of Christmas)

A VERY HAPPY CHRISTMAS AND PROSPEROUS 2017!

To add your own seasonal comment, click here.

Posted in Edwardian character, Edwardian marriage, Heroism and Adventure, Personal commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

‘…but Mr Jones does look a nice dog’

After enduring a long bout of illness and the first anniversary of George’s disappearance at Gallipoli, in the summer of 1916 Kittie decided she must channel her energies into a number of useful and therapeutic activities. One of these was writing to soldiers at the front and sending them whatever they needed. Thus she tracked down George’s last battalion, 1st KOSB, in France, began a correspondence with the officer commanding his old company, and sent them food and clothing. Probably at the sculptor Eric Gill’s suggestion, she also wrote to his twenty-four-year-old apprentice Joseph Cribb, who was at the Somme. She sent him a cake, sweets, and ‘lemonade tabloids’.

The longest series of soldiers’ letters in Kittie’s archive is from an ex-miner, Clement Quinn, who in 1916 was only twenty-one and stationed in Lucknow, which he found extremely trying. Kittie was asked to correspond with Quinn by Robert Holmes, a writer of popular spy-thrillers who happened also to be Sheffield’s first probation officer. Presumably Kittie had met Holmes in London literary circles. Holmes described Quinn’s deprived childhood in a letter of 1 November and asked Kittie to write Quinn ‘improving’ letters — perhaps implying that Quinn had once been in trouble with the police. Kittie said she was incapable of writing ‘improving letters’, but promptly wrote to Quinn and sent him a parcel of tobacco. Quinn replied thanking her on Christmas Day, 1916.

caption

‘Mr Jones’ and Katharine Ripley, 1899

Kittie’s letters to Quinn have not yet been found, but seventeen from him to her have survived, spanning 1914-19. They are remarkable. He writes very clearly, slowly (one imagines), and probably just as he spoke. But he is an intelligent young man. The letters discuss the course of the war, the wartime conduct of the trade unions (he disapproves of the Coal Strike of 1912), barrack and social life (he is very critical of the way the British behave in India), and his plans to train as an engineer when he comes home to Sheffield. Kittie sent him many things, including a fountain pen and John Masefield’s book about Gallipoli. The impression is inescapable that she wrote him long and chatty letters.

On 11 July 1917 Quinn wrote to Kittie requesting a photograph of her ‘if it is your wish for me to have one, as I shall always remember you, for how good you have been to me whilst I have been out here’. Kittie was rather sensitive about portraits of her, most of which she seems not to have liked. In the autumn of 1917, however, she agreed to send Quinn an ‘old’ one. It was the photograph I show above, which was taken when she was still Mrs Ripley, eighteen years earlier. Despite her white dress, she is wearing mourning accessories following Archie Ripley’s death in October 1898. On the back of Kittie’s own copy, George had written ‘equally best’, presumably meaning equal to the one of Kittie that features on this blogsite under ‘Biographies of George and Kittie Calderon’.

Quinn answered from Lucknow on 26 January 1918, after his twenty-third birthday:

Well I do think it is a good Photo, and of Mr Jones. […] You say under your hat there is Gray Hair, but you look quite young yet, but [sic] Mr Jones does look a nice dog.

‘Mr Jones’ was the Aberdeen terrier that Archie Ripley and Kittie had acquired after their marriage. They were both very fond of Jones, as was George. The dog died probably in 1909. Quinn hung this photograph above his barrack bed. On 7 November 1918 he wrote to Kittie speculating about the end of the war. Then he added:

I hope and trust that you have the Honour of seeing your hubby now the Turks are mastered. […] Do you know what I’m thinking of now is when you were skating last winter and the zepps [Zeppelin bombers] came over.

He wanted to meet Kittie at Hampstead when he returned to Britain, but since this was in April 1919 when she was distraught at the confirmation of George’s death, and suffering from pernicious anaemia, it seems very unlikely that he did.

In his last surviving letter, Quinn wrote from Sheffield that he was ‘going down the pit again, as soon as my month leave is up’.

Comment Image

Posted in Edwardian character, Edwardian English, Edwardian marriage, Heroism and Adventure, Personal commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Guest post: Clare Hopkins, ‘One Man and his College’

Anyone who has ever watched an episode of Morse or Lewis will know that Oxford Colleges are well supplied with portraits. Founders, archbishops, prime ministers, and Nobel Prize winners gaze grandly down from the panelled walls of Dining Halls. Smaller paintings of distinguished professors, college heads, tutors and benefactors grace common rooms and fellows’ sets. And then, somewhere about the place, a third tier of pictures of the great and the good is usually to be found. In George Calderon’s alma mater Trinity College a large collection of engravings and photographs hangs on the Senior Common Room back stairs: four somewhat shabby flights that link the bar, the fellows’ garden, the kitchen, the hall steward’s pantry, and a series of rooms where the fellows and others hold meetings, eat meals, host receptions, and read newspapers and journals over coffee. At the first turn, as one ascends, Arnold Pienne’s drawing of George Calderon stands out. Its label is different from the rest; it is one of only three or four original art works on the stairs; and it is the only silverpoint owned by the College. ‘Stands out’ is a little misleading, though. George’s grey mount and delicate creamy tones withdraw into almost invisibility against the deep shade of the wall.

x

Trinity College’s portrait of George Calderon, drawn in silverpoint by Arnold Pienne, 1930

Anyone who has ever had an Oxbridge graduate as a friend will know too that a College is not just for three years, it is for life. This post, then, is an attempt to deconstruct George’s relationship with Trinity, tracing his footprints in the college archives from his first visit, aged 17, to the arrival of his portrait, some fifteen years after his death.

The name George L. Calderon first appears in the Governing Body minutes of 15 December 1886, recording the award of an exhibition worth £40 p.a. for four years [for today’s retail value multiply by a hundred]. This was the lowliest of the seven scholarships and exhibitions on offer, and had been won in a gruelling examination held over several days in the first week of the Christmas vacation. Some of the papers survive: Latin and Greek translation, verse and prose, in both directions; ‘historical questions’; and an English essay entitled, ‘How far is the actual constitution of society a standing mockery of its projected Christian ideals?’.

George came into residence on 15 October 1887. Since 1664 all new members of Trinity have written their own entries in a leather-bound register. That, and shaking hands with the President (the Rev. Henry Woods), made George a ‘Trinity man’. Immediately below his entry is that of Harold Dowdall, a friend from Rugby; above is Arthur Lowry. Turning the pages reveals the names of others who were to become George’s lifelong friends: Laurence Binyon, Archibald Ripley, Michael Furse…

A member of Trinity College, Oxford: George Calderon’s autograph entry in the Admissions Register.

A member of Trinity College, Oxford: George Calderon’s autograph entry in the Admissions Register

As a freshman George occupied a ‘set’ at the top of Staircase 7 (these days, 14) in the corner of the Garden Quadrangle. The staircase servant lit his fire, brought hot water, and delivered breakfast and lunch from the kitchen. Dinner was a communal meal, eaten in Hall, where the scholars and exhibitioners shared the long table nearest the fireplace. The room rent was £5 a term. In October 1888 George moved across the Quad to a first-floor room on Staircase 10 (today’s 17), for which he paid 10 shillings more. One can learn a lot about the lifestyle of an undergraduate from mundane ledgers and buttery books. In his first term George paid a gate charge to come in after 9 pm only once or twice each week; mostly he had the basic threepenny breakfast. I took down a Stores book at random, and leafed through Michaelmas Term 1890. George did not regularly buy coffee or tea, and a single box of biscuits (2s. 4d.) lasted him the term. Then suddenly, on 27 November, he splashed out 18 shillings on claret, and 11s. 3d. on port. Perhaps he was planning a party for his 22nd birthday on 2 December. The ‘Broad Book’ was used to calculate each man’s end-of-term bill. In the summer of 1889, George’s battels (the sum of weekly buttery bills) were the fourth highest in College at just under £20; and the total cost of his term, including university dues, various compulsory subscriptions, and tuition at 7 guineas, was the sixth highest, at £58 6s. 11d.

In the late 1880s Trinity had some 140 undergraduates in residence (in college or digs), of whom up to sixty would participate in Sunday night debates in the Junior Library. Debating Society minutes can suggest a man’s character, even presage his future career. George found his voice in his third term (Archie Ripley spoke much sooner), moving an amendment (defeated). Do I sense a man who enjoyed arguing for the sake of it? Almost always, it seems, he was on the losing side. On 1 December 1889 he moved ‘That in the opinion of this House the measures adopted by Temperance Reformers are incompatible with the dictates of reason and expediency’ – to which ‘the opposition was overwhelming’ and he lost by 20 votes. He was defeated again in January 1890, when he opposed the motion that ‘Realism in Literature and Art is to be deplored’.

George was quickly elected to the debating and paper-reading Gryphon Club. Members met weekly in each other’s rooms; they dined termly; and gathered for an annual photograph. George was funny, and he liked performing. In November 1890, the Oxford Magazine reported that he entertained the Gryphon with a ‘particularly amusing paper on “women”’. The following month he starred in a Smoking Concert (think in-house music hall), giving a ‘specially notable […] lecture on the art of recitation, illustrated by the poem of Burglar Bill’, and closing the first half in an unaccompanied quartet with Mike Furse and two others, singing the comical ‘catch’ ‘My Celia’s Charms’.

The Gryphon Club, 1890.

The Gryphon Club, 1890.

George (front left) often sits cross-legged in college photographs; and this is not the only one that shows him with a “no. 2” haircut, unusual for men of his class at this date. What with the cane and the waxed moustache, he has the air of an amateur magician — no wonder Herbert Blakiston (middle far left), is giving him such a dirty look. Other friends in this photograph are Archie Ripley (front far right), Laurence Binyon (back far right), Arthur Lowry (seated next to George), and Harold Dowdall (glued into the centre of the back row).

Sport was big in late Victorian Oxford. The Trinity Archive has a charming photograph of George leaning against a wall in a photograph of the 1890-1 Rugby XV. But how fast a runner was he really? A programme survives for the Trinity College Athletics Sports held at the end of his first term. George was one of 20 men competing in the heats of the 150 yards handicap, and was given a penalty of 7 yards. He was not placed, but came second in the mile. In the two years following, he again entered the mile, and again did not win. A keen but not outstanding middle-distance runner, then, at least as a young man.

George sat his Finals in the summer of 1891, and his Second in Literae Humaniores (Latin and Greek literature, philosophy, and history) was published in the University Calendar. And so he went down, as the Oxford jargon has it. But Trinity College remained in his blood. In Trinity Term 1895 George took his MA, that curious Oxford degree by means of which graduates acquire the status of life-long membership of their college and university. Trinity invited its MAs back regularly to college feasts – known as gaudies – while a committee of alumni organised an annual dinner in London. I don’t know if George ever attended, but I see in the battered ledger that equates to today’s alumni database that he updated his address when he returned from Russia: South Hill Farm, Eastcote, near Pinner. And when his close Trinity friend Archie Ripley lay dying, Percy Lubbock’s Sketch attests that George visited him assiduously. I think we can guess one thing at least that they talked about.

In 1902, George published his satirical novel Downy V. Green. Its unkind depiction of Herbert Blakiston has been discussed elsewhere on Calderonia, but let us consider here the setting of the book, the landscape and texture of the story. The moment when Downy is told off for walking on the grass of the Front Quad… His rooms on ‘the ground floor of a third quadrangle, surrounded on three sides by grey crumbling stone buildings, and open on the fourth, but for an iron railing, on to a long and stately garden’… Every detail, every custom of the fictional St Ives College shouts ‘Trinity!’. George was deficient in neither energy nor imagination: this vivid realisation is surely a testament to his deep and lasting affection for the place. A contemporary identified the character Bill Sykes as an ‘unmistakable reproduction’ of the Trinity rowing Blue Hugh Legge, and Sykes’s room as an ‘exact’ double of Legge’s. George drew his own illustration of undergraduates eating breakfast together – and is that the author himself sitting with his back to the window?

A happy memory of Trinity College: undergraduates breakfast together in Downy V. Green, p. 77.

A happy memory of Trinity College: undergraduates breakfast together in Downy V. Green, p. 77

We don’t actually know how deeply Blakiston was offended by Downy. George was not the first person to make fun of him, and certainly not the last. Soon after his election to the Presidency in 1907, ‘Blinks’ began listing alumni publications in his annual reports, and George’s books appeared regularly: The Fountain, for example, in 1911. I have searched in vain for any evidence of Blakiston’s reaction to the famous incident in March 1912, when George was called on stage at the end of The Fountain’s first performance in the city and felt inspired to invite undergraduates to join him in a meeting in the Hall to discuss the Miners’ Strike. It is surely significant that it was to Trinity’s large gates on Broad Street that he led them. Trinity was his home in Oxford, and he acted instinctively.

And then, the War. Blakiston followed events closely in The Times. On 15 July 1915 he snipped out the announcement that George was missing – a man whom he had got to know in his first term as a tutor. For four years the President recorded the names of Trinity’s fallen on a scroll in the Chapel – a grim total of 155, each of whom he had known personally. Trinity’s War Memorial is the largest of any college memorial in Oxford, and it was very much Blakiston’s brainchild. Although not the most beautiful, it is undoubtedly the most useful, and arguably the most moving. Gifts of money and books poured in to build and stock the War Memorial Library – a place where the young men never did grow old. Laurence Binyon donated two guineas. Kittie sent a copy of Percy Lubbock’s Sketch of George. The Library was formally opened in November 1928, with the name G. L. Calderon emblazoned in gold letters almost at the top of the board above the entrance. George was the second most senior member of Trinity lost in the War, and the oldest to fall in action. The College does indeed remember them: the names are read in the Chapel every Remembrance Sunday, while for the duration of the First World War’s centenary, a new roll of honour is on display outside the Hall, alongside the earliest surviving manuscript of Binyon’s poem ‘For the Fallen’.

Trinity’s fallen on the Roll of Honour in the War Memorial Library. The names are arranged by year of admission to the College.

Trinity’s fallen on the Roll of Honour in the War Memorial Library. The names are arranged by year of admission to the College. (Click image to enlarge)

It was almost two years after the Library was opened that Kittie Calderon wrote to Herbert Blakiston, out of the blue, to offer Arnold Pienne’s silverpoint drawing. Her letter of 14 July 1930 runs to three pages.

Kittie’s letter to President Blakiston, offering the silverpoint portrait, 14 July 1930

blakiston-correspondence-1930-2-katharine-calderon-sheet-2

blakiston-correspondence-1930-2-katharine-calderon-sheet-3

Kittie’s letter to President Blakiston, offering the silverpoint portrait, 14 July 1930

Kittie’s tone seems oddly nervous; perhaps she was daunted by the President’s crusty reputation. She seems to have taken a break half way through writing, then picked up her pen to add a rush of detail; almost as if she is trying to offload responsibility for the idea onto Laurence Binyon. Or perhaps the gift was indeed Binyon’s suggestion in the first place, and Kittie is feeling awkward about the whole business. Binyon was a regular visitor to Trinity; he would have been familiar with the picture collection. The label glued on the back of the picture is in his writing.

George’s label, written by his undergraduate friend Laurence Binyon

George’s label, written by his undergraduate friend Laurence Binyon

Kittie calls the drawing ‘very delightful’ – but did she really think that? Patrick tells us she liked very few pictures of George. I very much look forward to reading his expert interpretation of this letter. Personally, I think she was spot-on when she described the drawing as beautiful. It seems so much nicer than the Frederick Hollyer photograph on which it was based (see extreme right in Calderonia’s portrait masthead). The silverpoint is softer, and warmer; George has lost that disdainful, almost audible, sniff. Yet he seems so pale, so mysterious; he looks desperately, achingly, sad. One can almost make eye contact – but then he slips away. He has come home to his College like a ghost. Or like a man who ‘just vanished in the smoke of battle…’

© Clare Hopkins, 2016

Clare Hopkins is the Archivist of Trinity College, Oxford. Throughout the project of researching and writing the first full-length biography of George Calderon, Clare has given me the full benefit of her knowledge as the college’s historian. Moreover, her suggestions, comments and ideas have shaken up my thinking in innumerable productive ways. Patrick Miles

Comment Image

Posted in Edwardian character, Edwardian English, Edwardian literature, Edwardian marriage, Heroism and Adventure, Modern parallels, Personal commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

George’s alma maters

I little thought, when I visited the archives of Trinity College, Oxford, on 4 August 2011 to research aspects of George Calderon’s undergraduate years there, that five years later I would still be in invaluable contact with the Archivist, Clare Hopkins, that Clare would become the staunchest of supporters of Calderonia, find time to write a stream of long and intensely thought-provoking Comments on Calderonia, attend George’s commemoration with the Calderonia team at Hampstead on 4 June 2015, and now present a really major piece of Calderonian research for us as a guest post this Friday, 9 December.

But I should have foreseen it, as Clare devoted the whole of her day to me back then in 2011, I bought a copy of her history of Trinity College (Trinity: 450 Years of an Oxford College Community, OUP, 2005) on the spot, and became completely engrossed in it during the four-hour bus journey back to Cambridge… It has since been described to me authoritatively as the best history of an Oxford college, and I can believe it. Of course, it is a mind-boggling documentary achievement, but it is also a slice of British history, and a very humane and at times hilarious narrative.

I am therefore hugely honoured and grateful that Clare Hopkins has undertaken all the extended work of composing her detailed and profusely illustrated guest post One Man and his College for this Friday, 9 December. It is a unique piece of research that massively enhances the biographical value of the blogsite. DON’T MISS IT!

As Clare writes, in One Man and his College she attempts to ‘deconstruct George’s relationship with Trinity, tracing his footprints in the college archives’ from 1886 until the arrival of his posthumous portrait, donated by Kittie in 1930. This means that, although of course there is some factual overlap with the pages in my biography covering George’s university career, there is no conflict or duplication of view whatsoever, as Clare tells the story from within the college archives and I tell it from the letters that George wrote home. In fact, I shall direct readers of my biography to Clare’s post for further factual treatment and a different perspective.

I suppose, strictly speaking, George had three ‘alma maters’ — Rugby School, Trinity College, and Oxford University. As it happens, this year has seen the publication of a history of the University of Oxford by another follower of this blog, Dr L.W.B. Brockliss (The University of Oxford, OUP, 2016). Of course, this is even more a ‘history of Britain’, if one thinks of the part played by the whole university and its members in public life. If Clare’s history of Trinity College reminds me of Turgenev’s Fathers and Children, Brockliss’s resembles War and Peace! It too is replete with comedy and, of course, eccentricity. For the seriously solid reader of top-quality non-fiction with inexorable plots, I recommend both as a Christmas present.

Clare’s forthcoming post One Man and his College will remain up for eleven days. But that turn of phrase is misleading, because it will, of course, ‘always be there’ and is very thoroughly keyworded for visitors.

I cannot thank Clare enough for all her interest and dedication over the last five years.

Comment Image

Posted in Edwardian character, Edwardian English, Edwardian literature, Edwardian marriage, Heroism and Adventure, Personal commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

‘He became his admirers…’

W.H. Auden’s ‘In Memory of W.B. Yeats’ describes Yeats’s death in January 1939, culminating in: ‘The current of his feeling failed: he became his admirers.’ I often think the word should be ‘readers’ rather than ‘admirers’, for as Auden himself says in the next stanza: ‘The words of a dead man/Are modified in the guts of the living.’

I walked to Cambridge station (it’s chaos up there for wheeled transport at the moment) to meet someone off a train, and discovered as I approached Station Road that I had ten minutes in hand. I stopped walking, then, and crossed the road to pay my respects at the War Memorial.

I swear I have never seen so many wreaths and crosses around it as this year. There must have been over thirty wreaths on its plinth, mainly from organisations of all kinds and ethnicities, as well as humble wooden crosses with a poppy in the middle and the name of a relative written on them.

The solemnity, and sometimes passion, of the inscriptions — these historically grieving voices — were more moving than I had expected. Two of the wreaths bore lines by Brooke and Binyon: the first sentence of ‘The Soldier’, and the mantric line from ‘For the Fallen’. The latter was written as: ‘They shall not grow old’…

Comment Image

Posted in Edwardian character, Edwardian English, Edwardian literature, Heroism and Adventure, Personal commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

‘bubbling with wit and good humour’

In a letter to the TLS  (9 July 2010) I appealed for unpublished letters or works of George Calderon, but also asked readers to contact me if they had ‘come across references to him in obscure publications’. My thinking was that I would be reading the biographies and autobiographies of George’s closest friends, for instance William Rothenstein, Henry Newbolt and Laurence Binyon, but with someone as sociable as George he might well feature in books of memoirs by people I had never heard of.

The response was magnificent. Even very recently, I received a reference from an old friend to an autobiography that I would certainly never have come across on my own, namely the journalist Michael Davidson’s The World, the Flesh and Myself (1973). Davidson, born in 1897, joined up at the age of seventeen and in the winter of 1915 was training to be an officer at Fort Brockhurst in Hampshire, where Lieutenant Calderon was stationed with the 9th Battalion Ox & Bucks:

I can recall only two of my fellow-officers at Fort Brockhurst — both three times my age and both, in intellect and outlook, delightfully unsoldierly. Neither, obviously, need have joined the Army at all, each could have found some cushy, opulent ‘war-work’. Yet, old as grandfathers, they chose to be junior combatant officers: it’s hard to think of a higher chivalry.

George Calderon, an important dramatist and member of that Hispano-English family renowned in art and letters, was nearly 50 and a subaltern in my regiment: a gay, whimsical, slightly ironical person, bubbling with wit and good humour and ever ready with kindness and the sensible solution of some tiresome military problem. His slim, Iberian good looks were made martial by a little black moustache. In less than a year’s time he was dead at Gallipoli.

This is a very interesting glimpse of George by a young person in the period between January and May 1915 covered on Calderonia in posts exactly a hundred years later; one, for instance, to add to the information conveyed in his letter to Kittie of 10 May 1915 that he had benefited from being welcomed into the family of a fellow ex-Oxford officer, Robert Peel, whose pretty, 24-year-old wife Helen he particularly liked.

The other older officer Davidson mentions was a certain Heneage, from the Grenadier Guards, of whom no more is known.

Davidson was wounded in 1916. He subsequently became a Communist, an anti-Nazi writer, and fairly eminent foreign correspondent. He died in 1976.

Comment Image

Posted in Edwardian character, Edwardian literature, Heroism and Adventure, Personal commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Some ‘announcements’

I am staggered that my Introduction has passed its latest grilling, been tweaked yet again, and finalised as version 8. Deep down, though, I know I can’t write this sort of thing. To quote another favourite tag of Chekhovians, from Three Sisters: Feci quod potui, faciant meliora potentes (I have done what I can, may those capable of better do so). In this case, ‘those capable of better’ will be editors…

The Afterword has been written, too. It will doubtless be rewritten over the next month, but my main job now is compiling the Bibliography (which will contain the first one ever of George’s publications) and the Acknowledgements, which as far as I can see must thank by name about eighty people! The plan is then to tackle publishers in the New Year. I will discuss the strategy and the problems, but I can say that the intention is by hook or by crook to get the book out in 2017.

Meanwhile, we have decided to create a new genre of guest posts. I have been hugely honoured and gratified by those who have offered to write guest posts for Calderonia, and I know that they find the word limit of 1500 congenial. Please continue to contact me if there is anything you would like to air on Calderonia, with images, that would come out at about that length. The possibility has also arisen of posting longer pieces of actual research, or memoir literature for example, that relate directly to George’s biography. I am delighted to announce that the first of these (next week) will be by Clare Hopkins, Archivist of Trinity College, Oxford, where George Calderon was an undergraduate, and will be entitled ‘One Man and his College’. As followers will know from Clare’s Comments on Calderonia, she is a vigorous writer, and you can expect what Grant Richards, advertising George’s Introduction to Chekhov in the TLS, called ‘a deuce of a piece’!

We know from the statistics that one of the search terms that leads visitors to Calderonia is ‘Chekhov’. It seems that the site is accessed by university drama courses, for instance. I was particularly pleased, therefore, to receive Harvey Pitcher’s guest post ‘Calderon on Chekhov’ of 21 October. Pitcher wrote that ‘Calderon touches on most of the subjects that critics have written about at great length subsequently, but he does so with a much lighter touch’. Pitcher himself wrote about George with a deceptively light touch, and joins luminaries like the American professors William Lyon Phelps and Laurence Senelick in praising the Introduction and encouraging people to read it.

Comment Image

Posted in Edwardian character, Edwardian literature, Modern parallels, Personal commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Holroyd on biography

Whenever I re-read my typescript, I check the sources for a few facts or assertions chosen at random. The last time I was re-reading, one of the assertions that struck me as needing checking was that Augustus John had been ‘downright anti-Semitic’ in his attitude to the painter William Rothenstein, who was one of George’s closest post-university friends. The general point I was making was that at this time (1909) Edwardian England itself was pretty anti-Semitic, but with their cosmopolitan backgrounds Rothenstein’s friends George Calderon and Joseph Conrad knew and understood Jews.

The source for the assertion about Augustus John was a letter from him to Ottoline Morrell and it was quoted in Michael Holroyd’s Augustus John: The New Biography (Chatto & Windus, 1996). So I went to my notes and photocopies from this book and checked it. It is on page 171.

However, the first thing that caught my eye when I got out my 2011 notes on Holroyd’s biography was this, which I had written out from his Preface:

For me the virtue of biography is the humanizing effect it can bring to history. To see people as being ‘worth’ a Life on account of their greatness and goodness is a nineteenth-century concept. […] Biography is no longer simply an instrument of information retrieval, though historical and cultural information that is retrieved from these expeditions is a bonus. The biographer’s prime purpose is to recreate a world into which readers may enter, and where, interpreting messages from the past, they may experience feelings and thoughts that remain with them after the book is closed.

I’d forgotten reading this. It’s very good and I agree with every word of it.

Comment Image

Posted in Edwardian character, Edwardian literature, Modern parallels, Personal commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment