The Promenade at Yalta, c. 1900, from a tourist brochure
(Click on image to magnify)
I
Word went round that a newcomer had turned up on the Promenade: a lady with a little
dog. Dmitrii Dmitrich Gurov had already spent a fortnight in Yalta and become used to its
ways, and he too had begun taking an interest in newcomers. From his seat in Vernet’s
Pavilion, he watched the young lady walk the length of the Promenade. She was not very
tall, she had fair hair and was wearing a beret. A white Pomeranian dog ran along behind
her.
After that he came across her several times a day, in the Gardens or in the Square. She
was strolling along alone, always wearing the same beret and with the white Pom. No one
knew who she was and they called her simply ‘the lady with the little dog’.
‘If she’s here without a husband and without friends,’ Gurov reasoned to himself, ‘it
wouldn’t be a waste of time to get to know her.’
He was still under forty, but he already had a daughter of twelve and two schoolboy
sons. He had been married off early, when he was still in his second year at university, and
now his wife seemed half as old again as he was. She was a tall woman, with dark
eyebrows, erect, imposing and forthright, and called herself ‘a thinking person’. She read a
great deal, didn’t use the hard sign in correspondence, and called her husband Demetrius
instead of Dmitrii, but privately he considered her shallow, narrow-minded and inelegant,
he was scared of her and did not like spending time at home. He had begun deceiving her
long ago and did so frequently, which was probably why he almost always referred to
women disparagingly, and if they were mentioned in his presence, he would call them:
‘The lower breed!’
He felt he’d learned enough from bitter experience to call them whatever he liked, but
nevertheless without ‘the lower breed’ he could not have survived for even a couple of
days. In men’s company he was bored and ill at ease, with them he was cold and
uncommunicative, but among women he felt relaxed and knew what to say to them and
how to behave; and he even found it easy to be silent with them. In his outward
appearance, his character and the whole of his nature, there was something attractive,
something elusive, that predisposed women towards him and enticed them. He was
conscious of this and some kind of force also attracted him towards them.
Repeated experience, indeed bitter experience, had long ago taught him that every
liaison, which to begin with offered such a pleasant diversion in life and might be seen as a
nice easy adventure, was bound to escalate with respectable people (especially Muscovites,
so ponderous and indecisive) into a whole problem, of extreme complexity, and the
situation would eventually become oppressive. But he had only to meet an interesting
woman and this experience would somehow drop out of his memory and he wanted to live,
and everything seemed so simple and amusing.
One evening, then, he was dining early in the Gardens when the lady in the beret came
in and walked over unhurriedly to the next table. Her expression, how she walked, her
dress and her coiffure, told him she was a respectable married woman on her own in Yalta
for the first time, and she was bored… The stories one heard about morals being loose here
were largely untrue, he despised them and knew that most of the stories were made up by
people who would gladly have sinned if they had known how to; but when the lady sat
down at the next table three paces from him, he was reminded of those stories of easy
conquests and trips to the mountains, and the tempting thought of a brief fleeting
attachment, an affair with an unknown woman, whose name and surname you didn’t
know, suddenly took possession of him.
He softly beckoned the Pom over to his table, and when the dog came, wagged his
finger at him. The Pom growled. Gurov wagged his finger a second time.
The lady glanced at him and immediately looked down.
‘He doesn’t bite,’ she said and blushed.
‘May I give him a bone?’, and when she nodded in agreement, he asked amiably:
‘Have you been in Yalta long, I wonder?’
‘Four or five days.’
‘And I’m already whiling away my second week.’
There was a short silence.
‘Time passes quickly, but it’s so boring here,’ she said, without looking at him.
‘That’s just the done thing, to say it’s boring in Yalta. A fellow from some distant town
in the provinces doesn’t find his life there boring, but arrive here and it’s nothing but “Oh,
it’s so boring in Yalta! It’s so dusty”. Anyone would think he’d just come from the Riviera.’
She laughed. Then they both went on eating in silence, like strangers; but after dinner
they went off together – and there began the light-hearted conversation of two people who
were at ease and happy, and didn’t mind where they went to and what they talked about.
As they strolled along, they talked about the strange light on the sea: the water was a soft
warm lilac colour, and the moon cast a golden band across it. They talked about how close
it was after the warm day. Gurov told her he was a Muscovite, an arts graduate but
worked in a bank, at one time he’d trained to become a singer in a private opera company
but had given it up, in Moscow he owned two houses… And from her he learned that she’d
grown up in St Petersburg but been married in S., where she’d been living for the past two
years, that she’d be spending another month or so in Yalta and her husband might be
coming to join her, as he also wanted a break. She was at a complete loss to explain where
her husband worked – was it in the provincial government or the provincial regional
council – and she too found this amusing. Gurov also learned that her name was Anna
Sergeyevna.
Later, in his hotel room, he thought about her and how next day she would probably
meet him. It was bound to happen. As he got ready for bed, he called to mind that only a
very short time ago she’d been at boarding school and studying, just as his own daughter
was doing now, and he recalled how timid and awkward she’d been when laughing and
talking with a stranger – it must have been the first time in her life she’d been on her own,
in a situation where she was being followed and looked at and talked to with one secret
intention that she could not fail to divine. He also called to mind her slender, fragile neck,
her beautiful grey eyes.
‘One can’t help feeling a bit sorry for her all the same,’ he thought and began to drop
off.
II
A week had gone by since their first meeting. It was a public holiday. Indoors it was airless,
but in the swirling dust outside hats were being blown off. All day you felt thirsty and
Gurov kept going in to the Pavilion and offering Anna Sergeyevna a fruit cordial or ice
cream. There was no escaping the heat.
In the evening, when it had quietened down a little, they walked along to the pier to
watch the steamer arrive. Many people were strolling around on the landing-stage: they
had gathered to meet someone and were holding bouquets. Here two features of Yalta’s
smart crowd stood out distinctly: the elderly ladies were dressed like young ones and there
were lots of generals.
On account of the choppy sea, the steamer did not arrive until after sunset, and before
mooring at the pier it spent a long time turning round. Anna Sergeyevna looked
through her lorgnette at the steamer and its passengers, as if searching for people she
knew, and when she addressed Gurov, her eyes were shining. She talked a lot, asked
abrupt questions and immediately forgot what she’d asked about; then she lost her
lorgnette in the crowd.
The smart crowd had dispersed, there was no one around, and the wind had died down
completely, but Gurov and Anna Sergeyevna went on standing there, as if waiting to see if
anyone else would disembark. Anna Sergeyevna was silent now, smelling her flowers and
not looking at Gurov.
‘The weather’s got a bit better in the evening,’ he said. ‘Where shall we go next? How
about a drive somewhere?’
She didn’t reply.
Then he looked at her intently and suddenly embraced her and kissed her on the lips,
breathing in the moist scent of the flowers, and straight away he looked round nervously:
had anyone noticed?
‘Let’s go to your place,’ he said quietly. And they both hurried off.
Her hotel room was airless and smelt of the perfume she had bought at the Japanese
Shop. Looking at her now, Gurov thought: ‘What encounters one does have in life!’ From
his past he retained the memory of carefree, good-hearted women, cheerful lovers who
were grateful to him for even a very brief happiness; and of others, like his wife for
example, who loved insincerely and with lots of needless talk, affectedly and with hysteria,
their expression seeming to say that this was not love or passion, but something more
significant; and of two or three very beautiful cold women, whose faces would suddenly be
lit with a predatory expression, a wilful desire to take, to snatch from life more than life
could offer, and these were women past their prime, capricious, unreflecting, powerful,
unintelligent women, and when Gurov grew cool towards them, their beauty aroused in
him feelings of hatred, and the lace on their underwear seemed to him then like the scales
of a lizard.
But here there was still that same timidity and awkwardness of inexperienced youth,
an uneasy feeling; and she gave an impression of distractedness, as if someone had
suddenly knocked on the door. Anna Sergeyevna, this ‘lady with a little dog’, had reacted
to what had happened in a particular kind of way, very seriously, as if she’d fallen from
grace – or so it seemed, and this was strange and inappropriate. Her features drooped and
faded, loosened hair hung down sadly on either side of her face, and she struck a pose of
thoughtful despondency, like the sinner in an old-style painting.
‘It’s wrong,’ she said. ‘You’ll be the first to despise me now.’
On the table in her room stood a water-melon. Gurov cut himself a slice and began to
eat it without hurrying. At least half an hour went by in silence.
Anna Sergeyevna was a touching sight, she had about her the purity of a naïve,
respectable woman who had seen little of life; the single candle burning on the table
scarcely lit up her face, but her distress was unmistakable.
‘Why should I cease to respect you?’ Gurov asked. ‘You don’t know what you’re saying.’
‘May God forgive me!’ she said and her eyes filled with tears. ‘This is terribly wrong.’
‘You seem to be making excuses for yourself.’
‘Excuses? I’m a bad low woman, I despise myself, excuses don’t come into it. It’s not
my husband I’ve deceived, but myself. And not only now, I’ve been deluding myself for a
long time. My husband may be a good honest man, but he’s nothing but a lackey! I don’t
know what kind of work he does there, but what I do know is – he’s a lackey. I was twenty
when I married him, I was tormented by curiosity, I wanted something better, life must be
different from this, I said to myself, it must be. I wanted to have a life! A life, a real life… I
was burning up with curiosity… You won’t understand this but I swear to God, I couldn’t
control myself, something was happening to me, I couldn’t be held back, I told my
husband I was ill and came down here… And here I’ve been walking about all the time in a
kind of daze, like a mad person… and now I’ve become a cheap bad woman and everyone
has the right to despise me.’
Gurov had become bored listening, he was irritated by the naïve tone and this
confession, so unexpected and inappropriate; and but for the tears in her eyes, one might
have thought she was joking or playing a part.
‘I don’t understand,’ he said quietly, ‘what is it you want?’
She buried her face in his chest and pressed herself against him.
‘Believe me, believe me,’ she said. ‘I implore you. I like everything in life to be pure
and honest, I find sin abhorrent, I don’t know myself why I’m acting like this. The simple
folk say, the Devil tempted me. That’s true of me now, I’ve been tempted by the Devil.’
‘That’s enough now…’ he murmured.
He looked into her unblinking, frightened eyes, kissed her, spoke soft kind words, and
little by little she calmed down and her cheerfulness returned; they both began laughing.
When they went out later, the Promenade was completely deserted and the town with
its cypresses looked completely dead, but the sea was still pounding noisily against the
shore, while on the waves a single launch was rocking to and fro, a lamp on it glimmering
drowsily.
They found a cab and set off for Oreanda.
‘ I learned your surname just now down in the lobby,’ Gurov said. ‘The board says von
Diederitz. Is your husband German?’
‘No, I think his grandfather was German, but he’s Russian Orthodox.’
At Oreanda they sat on a bench near the church and looked down in silence at the sea.
Yalta was barely visible through the morning mist and white clouds hung motionless on
the mountain peaks. Not a leaf was stirring on the trees, cicadas chirped, and the
monotonous boom of the sea from down below spoke of peace and the eternal sleep that
awaits us. It was booming like that down there before Yalta or Oreanda even existed, it is
booming now, and it will go on booming with the same muffled indifference after we have
gone. And in this permanency, this complete indifference to the life and death of each one
of us, there lies concealed, perhaps, a pledge of our eternal salvation, of the continuing
movement of life on earth, of continuing perfection. Sitting alongside a young woman who
looked so beautiful in the dawn light, soothed and spellbound by these magical
surroundings of sea and mountains, of clouds and open sky, Gurov reflected on how
beautiful everything in the world really was when you stopped to think about it, everything
except our own thoughts and actions when we lose sight of the higher aims of existence
and our human dignity.
Someone came up to them – a watchman, probably – took a look and walked off. And
this detail struck them as very mysterious, and beautiful also. They watched the steamer
arriving from Theodosia, lit by the sunrise, its lights already extinguished.
‘There’s dew on the grass,’ Anna Sergeyevna said after a silence.
‘Yes, time to be getting back.’
They returned to the town.
Every day after that they met at midday on the Promenade, lunched and dined
together, went for walks and admired the sea. She complained of sleeping badly and
palpitations, and kept asking exactly the same questions, worried now by jealousy and now
by fear that he didn’t respect her enough. And frequently in the Square or the Gardens,
when there was no one around, he would suddenly draw her to him and kiss her
passionately. The complete idleness, these kisses in broad daylight looking round
anxiously to see if anyone was watching, the heat, the smell of the sea, and the constant
flitting before his eyes of idle, smart, well-fed people, seemed to rejuvenate him; he told
Anna Sergeyevna how beautiful and alluring she was, he could not restrain his passion,
and did not leave her side for a moment, whereas she often became thoughtful and asked
him to admit that he didn’t respect her and didn’t love her in the least, but simply saw her
as a cheap woman. Almost every evening when it was getting late, they went for a drive
somewhere beyond the town, to Oreanda or the waterfall; and the outing went off well, on
each occasion without fail they came away with impressions of beauty and grandeur.
They were expecting the husband to arrive, but a letter came from him to say that his
eyes had become very painful and begging his wife to return home as soon as possible.
Anna Sergeyevna lost no time.
‘It’s a good thing I’m leaving,’ she said to Gurov. ‘It was meant to happen.’
She hired a carriage and he accompanied her. The journey lasted a whole day. After
she’d taken her seat on the express and the second bell rang, she said:
‘Let me have one more look at you… One more. That’s right.’
She wasn’t crying, but was sad, as if unwell, and her face was trembling.
‘I’ll think of you…remember you,’ she was saying. ‘The Lord bless you and keep you.
Don’t think ill of me. We’re saying goodbye forever, that’s as it should be, we ought never
to have met in the first place. God be with you, then.’
The train went off quickly, its lights soon disappeared, and a minute later it was out of
earshot, as if everything had deliberately conspired to bring this sweet oblivion, this
madness, to an end as soon as possible. Standing alone on the platform and peering into
the far darkness, Gurov could hear the sound of the crickets and the humming of the
telegraph wires, and felt as if he had just woken up. This had been another incident or
adventure in his life, he thought, and it too had come to an end, and all that was left now
was a memory… He felt moved and sad, and experienced a slight feeling of remorse; this
young woman, whom he would never see again, hadn’t after all been happy with him; he’d
been kind to her and affectionate, but all the same, in his attitude to her, his tone and his
embraces there’d been a slight touch of mockery, the rather coarse condescension of a
happy man who was also nearly twice her age. She had kept calling him good, unusual and
exalted, so clearly she had not seen him as he really was and that meant he’d involuntarily
deceived her…
Here at the station autumn was already in the air, the evening was cool.
‘Time for me too to head north,’ Gurov thought as he walked off the platform. ‘High
time!’
© Harvey Pitcher, 2024
(To be continued)
ADVERTISEMENT
SOME RESPONSES TO GEORGE CALDERON: EDWARDIAN GENIUS
‘This meticulous yet nimble book is bound to remain the definitive account of Calderon’s life’ Charlotte Jones, The Times Literary Supplement
‘The effort of detection, it must be said, was worth it. The biography is a delight to read.’ Emeritus Professor Laurence Brockliss, The London Magazine
‘It is a masterly synthesis of your own approach with scholarship and very judicious discussion of the evidence.’ Emeritus Professor Catherine Andreyev, historian
‘This comprehensive, meticulously researched and highly readable biography, which the author describes as a “story” rather than an academic biography…’ Michael Pursglove, East-West Review
‘A monumental scholarly masterpiece that gives real insight into how the Edwardians viewed the world.’Arch Tait, Translator of Natalya Rzhevskaya’s Memoirs of a Wartime Interpreter
‘The book is written with great assurance and the reader always feels in safe hands. I liked the idea of it being a story and I read it the same way I would read a novel.’ Harvey Pitcher, writer
‘Presents the Edwardian age, and Calderon in particular, as new and forward-looking.’ Emeritus Professor Michael Alexander, in Trinity College, Oxford, Report 2017-18
A review by DAMIAN GRANT appears in the comments to Calderonia’s 7 September post.
A review by JOHN DEWEY appears on Amazon UK.
From the diary of a writer-publisher: 31
20 December 2024
Yet another pair of new M&S cords on which the button hole in the fly flap is too small for the button it is meant to go over! What has gone wrong at M&S about this? Have they made the right-sized eye, then stitched it round with such stout thread that it is too small for the button — and never tested it? I have to strangle the trousers to get the button through, even though I’ve tried enlarging the eye. (But if I did that with scissors or a Stanley knife the eye would doubtless tear.) Is this the fashion now? Are these trousers made expressly for weightlifters with Herculean thumb muscles who don’t blink at the task? Or am I completely self-deluded and the problem is simply that I am seventy-six?
27 December
Following the Archbishop of York’s sophistical Christmas Day sermon (‘Empty words. I have no words more than that to describe their meaning’, the excellent Bishop of Newcastle said of it), the media are full of further condemnations of ‘the Church of England’ because of its ‘handling’ of the Smyth, Tudor and other abuse cases.
To reduce the scandals to a failure of ‘handling’, or say such things as ‘I admit the Church could have acted differently’, is very characteristically to overlook that it was a failure of moral-ethical duty at the very top of an organisation whose very raison d’être is to proclaim and enact the very highest moral-ethical values. They simply don’t get it: that it’s the failure in fundamental moral action that shocks and infuriates people.
A few days ago I attended only the second Christingle service in my life, at a parish church in bleakest North Norfolk. It was theologically, liturgically, humanly, empathically, musically, lovingly magnificent, conducted with marvellous warmth, directness and humour by the young chaplain of a local school. The children who took part in it were completely relaxed, threw themselves into its spirit, and thoroughly enjoyed it (e.g. being entrusted with lighted candles and eating the jelly babies adorning the orange and symbolising the fruits of creation). This was the real Church of England, the majority Church of England for the majority of people who either attend its services or benefit from its charitable ministry, the real, loving Church of England in action; the ‘body’ of the Church of England, and not the ‘Church of England’ which failed in its ethical duty to victims of abuse — that was its head, its hiercharchs, the top of the organisation that has been obsessed with ‘management’ (‘handling’) since Justin Welby became archbishop.
As it happens, I attended a sermon that Welby gave in Canterbury Cathedral soon after his enthronement. I was appalled: it was entirely management speak and trendy sociology. He worked in two oil companies for eleven years before becoming ordained, and I seriously think he believed God ‘revealed’ to him that the Church of England should be ‘managed’ like an oil company. I worked with oil companies for fifteen years myself, and can assure Welby it shouldn’t. The purpose of an oil company is to produce oil (they may produce it ethically: western oil companies’ environmental protection, for instance, was hugely appreciated by the local populations of Sakhalin, Central Siberia etc). The purpose of the Church of England is to proclaim and live out Christ’s utterly, purely, completely ethical, inter-human message (Christ reserved one of his strongest condemnations for those who ‘offend these little ones’). It was this supremely ethical purpose that Welby and the hierarchs forgot. An oil company regularly takes on highly paid consultants to manage specific issues that the consultants know about and are the best people to tackle. This has been Welby’s knee jerk response to issues in the CoE. But where the issues are ethical ones like abuse and safeguarding, you do not need to take on droves of ex-policemen and secular regulators if the whole point of your church is that you are supposed to know about such issues from the fount of ethical knowledge. Your duty is to apply that knowledge of right and wrong proactively yourself. Instead, CoE hierarchs have burbled wokely for ten years and given absolutely no spiritual leadership, for example during the pandemic. When the Church’s ‘managers’ have failed at their first and foremost mission — enacting Christ’s ethics — then the very sight of their rich vestments makes people feel sick. There are also far too many bishops. The CoE is bloated with such burbling ‘managers’.
During the pandemic, when Welby inimitably informed everyone that church services were ‘not an essential service’, Charles Moore wrote of the CoE that its ‘system is so obsessed with saving face that it makes everyone else lose faith’. (Welby actually admired Paula Vennells, the CEO of the Post Office equally disconnected from personal responsibility!) My own opinion — I’m afraid — is that Welby, chosen from the ‘evangelical wing’ of the CoE, is not seized by Christ-led ethical action, but some sort of ‘charismatic’ afflatus or effulgence, ‘prayer in tongues’, ’empty words’ and a form of supreme un-self-doubting righteousness. He lives in a blessed world of his own.
30 December
The days when we had to go out and catch bigger and bigger pike are past. Now we go as much to see the wildlife in the Fens as anything. Today, for instance, we crouched or stood in dense, seven-foot reeds and nettles for five hours, saw not a single human being, but beheld three marsh harriers, a kestrel hunting, a buzzard, a sparrowhawk, a water rail, two egrets, two herons, cormorants, a barn owl, and more, in bright crisp air. We have also become obsessive about not harming the pike we catch. Why catch them, then? Well… It satisfies something, to defeat such a fierce and beautiful predator who once was simply considered vermin and ‘tapped on the head’, and who puts up a cunning fight against being landed. Today, at a spot where we have landed pike in the past up to 17 lbs in weight, we caught just a 3 lb pickerel. It was not even hooked, it had ripped off the bait and clamped its jaws on the wire trace. ‘Pike, perfect Pike in all parts’, as Ted Hughes wrote.
all the pike wields now: its green-gold stick
6 January 2025
Both Harvey Pitcher and I have received emails expressing admiration for his new translation of Chekhov’s ‘Lady with a Little Dog’. Their given seems to be that the story is a masterpiece. This could be why no-one has left a Comment about it. Dozens of Russianists subscribe to Calderonia, but they are unlikely to want to raise points of translation in a Comment and they perhaps feel that the story itself ‘leaves nothing to say’.
Another possible reason occurs to me. Apparently, after the first showing of the film Shakespeare in Love (1998) many couples came away arguing whether it was realistic about love, or even moral, and London dinner parties resounded with disagreement on these matters. ‘Lady with a Little Dog’ also purports to show what a ‘true’, a ‘great’ love is like. (‘He understood clearly that she was the nearest, dearest, and most important person in the world for him now; this little woman, lost in the provincial crowd, not remarkable in any way, holding a cheap lorgnette, now filled his whole life, was his joy and sorrow and the one happiness that he longed for.’) But if you have never experienced anything like that, you are unlikely to want to stand up and say so, or that the story is ‘romantic’, ‘unrealistic’, not ‘universal’. If the story sweeps you off your feet, you aren’t going to need to Comment. If you are not convinced by it, you probably aren’t going to want to say so.
Time to take down the mistletoe
14 January
This blog was never intended as a forum for contentious national issues. I acknowledge that I may have broken my own rule about that in the entry above for 27 December by attacking the hierarchs of the Church of England, but I have had experience of this issue and have been thinking about it for a long time. I had to get it out.
When John Polkinghorne and I were working on our book What Can We Hope For? it so happened that a long-standing friend of mine, deeply active in the CoE, was arrested and charged with viewing heinous child pornography on the Web, and two ecclesiastical colleagues of John’s were also charged with serious abuse of young people. One of these was a local theologian whom we were actually quoting in our book! I asked John why he thought there were so many cases of this in the CoE, but he became very sad, looked down at the floor, made a slight gesture and would only say quietly: ‘It’s a terrible problem.’
I think the first question that has to be answered is, why does the CoE attract so many paedophiles and abusers, when, as I said above, the ethical source of its existence utterly condemns such activities? You would think that might put potential offenders off. I dare say the public believes, however, that these offenders coolly identify the opportunities for them within church life; that in abusers’ terms the church offers them ‘havens’.
But why does it? Most paedophiles, I suspect, believe they are ‘right’, that paedophilia is defensible, even ‘normal’, and that they are ‘victims’ of illiberal laws. Churches are known for their ‘tolerance’, so paedophiles must see that as a further opportunity, even encouragement. Moreover, Christians are always supposed to forgive.
The latter, in my opinion, is why sexual abusers have got away with it for so long in Christian churches. Theologians, hierarchs, and modern Christians generally, are terribly confused about forgiveness. They believe it is always incumbent on them to forgive, when it is actually incumbent first on the sinner to repent. To the outside world an over-willing forgiveness is indistinguishable from a cover-up. Forgiveness without repentance in the offender merely makes the Christian him/herself feel right and good, and our priests and hierarchs always want to feel that, of course. My instinctive feeling is that the clerics have been ‘tolerant’ to abusers because they believe forgiveness is always a virtue. I don’t believe this myself. Forgiveness of an abuser without repentance is smug self-gratification and merely forgetting, not forgiveness. I admit that John Polkinghorne and I disagreed over Christian forgiveness (see pages 59-63, 65-66), but we certainly agreed that it should be mandatory for the church to report all abuse cases to the Police and pursue them to legal conclusions — whether the abuser repented and the victim forgave, or not.
ADVERTISEMENT
SOME RESPONSES TO GEORGE CALDERON: EDWARDIAN GENIUS
‘This meticulous yet nimble book is bound to remain the definitive account of Calderon’s life’ Charlotte Jones, The Times Literary Supplement
‘The effort of detection, it must be said, was worth it. The biography is a delight to read.’ Emeritus Professor Laurence Brockliss, The London Magazine
‘It is a masterly synthesis of your own approach with scholarship and very judicious discussion of the evidence.’ Emeritus Professor Catherine Andreyev, historian
‘This comprehensive, meticulously researched and highly readable biography, which the author describes as a “story” rather than an academic biography…’ Michael Pursglove, East-West Review
‘A monumental scholarly masterpiece that gives real insight into how the Edwardians viewed the world.’Arch Tait, Translator of Natalya Rzhevskaya’s Memoirs of a Wartime Interpreter
‘The book is written with great assurance and the reader always feels in safe hands. I liked the idea of it being a story and I read it the same way I would read a novel.’ Harvey Pitcher, writer
‘Presents the Edwardian age, and Calderon in particular, as new and forward-looking.’ Emeritus Professor Michael Alexander, in Trinity College, Oxford, Report 2017-18
A review by DAMIAN GRANT appears in the comments to Calderonia’s 7 September post.
A review by JOHN DEWEY appears on Amazon UK.