…and two back covers

By the time you read this, Sam&Sam’s new book should be available through Amazon.

No, I can’t say that…

The penny has finally dropped: having Amazon print your book is a complete, utter, irreparable and gut-wrenching break with the previous printing culture; the previous printing culture as I personally have known it for fifty years and as Britain has known it, probably, for a couple of hundred.

Previously, you the publisher decided a publication date and the printer told you precisely when that meant you had to do what, and if you both did it the book would be ready for sale on that day. Thus we decided that we wanted George Calderon: Edwardian Genius in our hands on the anniversary of George’s death, 4 June 2018, master printers Clays told us in February 2018 the dates by which we would have to submit what and pay what, and they duly delivered on 4 June and the book was duly published on the day advertised by Nielsen (who provided the ISBN) over the preceding eight months.

This time the publishers Sam&Sam worked ‘traditionally’ to an exact timetable to deliver the PDF to Amazon by 19 August, providing time for the reading of proofs and actual publication on the day advertised by Nielsen, 8 September, but as soon as the PDF went to Amazon we were in limbo, because it takes Amazon at least three days to respond to anything. A previously unmentioned and frankly formalistic detail was then raised by them (I will leave Sam2 to describe it in his post mortem post) and the process of sorting it has gone on and on past Nielsen’s publication date. Amazon uses Nielsen’s metadata and cover image, incidentally, but blithely ignores their given publication date. Embarassingly, I am therefore having to tell the people I lined up to review this book that its publication (read: printing) has been delayed…

Clearly, in this new, almost quantum/chaos world of Amazon printing (which, dare I say it, has something Trumpesque about it), anything can happen at any time. This is convenient for Amazon, but busts the head of a publisher who is used to the Newtonian universe of calendars and timepieces. Obviously, when this is all over I am going to have to evaluate whether it is worth printing anything with Amazon again. The three proofs that we received from them (printed in Poland) were excellent, we signed the last one off and in the ‘old’ printing world that would have been that. But no, Amazon then moved the goalposts. Watch this space! Fortunately, there is a Plan B (still with Amazon) and even Plan C (go to Clays, who for a paperback like this have a fifteen-day turnaround).

You will have noticed that I refer to Amazon as the ‘printers’, not ‘publishers’. That is the literal truth: Sam&Sam have created the book, typeset it, and are launching it on the world, so we are the publishers. But, of course, the reason we went with Amazon on this book is that they provide fantastic access to enormous markets, run all the sales, and offer not a bad royalty at all. So they are part publisher. They are a hybrid printer-publisher that has simply shattered the mould.

Meanwhile, here for your amusement are the alternative back covers of the book:

Right: the ‘first edition’ back cover, left: the ‘second edition’ back cover  (Click on the image to enlarge)

The story behind these is that there was great hilarity at the ‘shoot’, but when we were shown the images of us laughing I suggested to John Polkinghorne that they hardly went with the content of the book. His reponse was: ‘Well, it is a book about hope, and hope is a cheerful thing…’ Eventually we chose the more po-faced image on the right. But the fact that, for reasons I explained in my previous post, we decided to go for two editions, meant we could vary the image on the back cover, so we decided to be subversive and go for the ‘laughing’ version as well. John’s verdict was: ‘I don’t see how anyone could refuse to buy a book with two such handsome fellows on the back!’

Comment Image


George Calderon: Edwardian Genius Front Cover

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.

Click here to purchase my book.

 

Posted in Personal commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A tale of two front covers

By the time you read this, Sam&Sam’s new book should be available through Amazon. I say ‘should’ because publishing a book through Amazon has been yet another fresh learning curve for us and sometimes we just had to wait to discover what would happen next and in particular when. It is only a 91-page book, but the effort of getting it out has been…well, enough to prevent me posting regularly on Calderonia for two months!

Eventually, Sam2 will do a guest post that describes his experience of typesetting this book with a different package from my biography of George and publishing it with Amazon, as he did a year ago about typesetting that book and publishing it ourselves with UK master printers Clays of Bungay. All I will do now is explain why the new book has two covers:

Right: the ‘first edition’ cover, left: the ‘second edition’ cover

Naturally, we produced a range of designs for the cover to show to the principal author, John Polkinghorne, fully aware that he does not like ‘quantum hype’ on his book covers, i.e. artists’ impressions of electrons, gluons, bosons etc. The design on the right won, and I would be the first to agree that it suggests a serious philosophical work (too serious?).

However, I am extremely fond of the one on the left. This incorporates a work of art by Naum Gabo entitled ‘Opus 9’ and I first saw it at Kettle’s Yard when we were beginning to think of cover designs. I was struck by its beauty. Appropriately, too, for the contents of the book, it seems to suggest deep space and ‘The love that moves the Sun and the other stars’ (Dante). But John, understandably for a former Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge University, sees it as not so much a work of art as yet more ‘quantum hype’!

We have therefore compromised by producing a ‘first edition’ (publication date 8 September) using what Sam2 and I call ‘the typographical cover’, i.e. the one on the right, and a ‘second edition’ (publication date John Polkinghorne’s eighty-ninth birthday, 16 October) using what we call ‘the Gabo cover’. These two editions will run in parallel. It is, I explained to John, fashionable these days to give readers a choice of cover when they purchase books printed and bound on demand, and he accepted that.

The only textual difference is that the imprint page of the second edition carries a lengthy acknowledgement to the Gabo Trust and the Tate Gallery for permission to use Naum Gabo’s mysterious image on the second cover. I am indeed grateful to them.

Comment Image


George Calderon: Edwardian Genius Front Cover

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.

Click here to purchase my book.

 

Posted in Personal commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

And Professor Rose was not German!

Probably the biggest remaining mystery of George’s biography is: what happened to all his papers associated with researching Slavonic folklore and primitive religions? The book Demon Feasts (or whatever it would have been entitled) was, after all, to be his magnum opus. He seems to have started researching it in St Petersburg in 1896, he attended international conferences on the history of religions, published a fraction of it in 1914, and was writing it up when he left for Gallipoli. As far as one can tell, this part of his archive comprised manuscript chapters, voluminous notes, and what was referred to as ‘the Index’, which seems to have been a massive systematised database.

After George’s death was confirmed in 1919, Kittie set about finding a Slavonic scholar to whom a publisher (possibly OUP) would give a contract to ‘complete’ the book. We know from letters and a short manuscript memorandum that her choice fell on ‘Professor Rose of Leipzig’. But who he?

I am afraid that my attempt to identify Professor Rose of Leipzig is a prime example of how the biographical researcher should never take appearances for granted, never set off down a tunnel of his/her own making, never seek only to verify his/her hypothesis, but always question its veracity. The name Rose did not strike me as plausibly German, but since Kittie wrote that he was ‘of Leipzig’ and Percy had translated for her a post-war letter in German from one of George’s former colleagues, I assumed Rose was German. I set about looking for appropriate Professor Roses of the period at Leipzig University, but never found one. He remained ‘the mysterious Professor Rose of Leipzig’.

Then, for the third and perhaps not last time, Michael Pursglove brought all the light of his Russianist experience to the problem. In his review of my book he remarked in passing: ‘Could it be Professor William John Rose, director of SSEES, no less, 1945-47?’ The acronym stands for the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, London, and I must confess that almost the only director whose name I knew was the first one, Bernard Pares, with whom George worked and whose brother Basil had treated him medically at Ypres. Mike’s knowledge of Russian Studies in Britain is mind-boggling!

‘Professor Rose of Leipzig’, c.1955, holding pipe in right hand, photographer unknown

William John Rose was born in 1885 in Minnedosa, Manitoba, so he was Canadian, but after a B.A. at Manitoba and another from Oxford he went to Germany in about 1912 to pursue his studies in classics and history. According to Clio’s Lives: Biographies and Autobiographies of Historians (2017), p. 127, Rose was doing a Ph.D. at Leipzig when interned in 1914. He spent the next four years as a civilian prisoner in Silesia, where he ‘came in direct contact with one of the central problems of European history, namely the German-Slavic and specifically the German-Polish problem’ (Zbigniew Folejewski, ‘William John Rose 1885-1968: A Tribute’, Canadian Slavonic Papers, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Summer, 1968), p. 111). He learned Polish, stayed in Poland after 1918, did a Ph.D. at Cracow, returned to the American continent, and launched on an international career.

Rose was in Oxford in 1908, so George could have met him at the Congress for the History of Religions held there, kept in touch with him, and if Rose visited London he would have been invited to Heathland Lodge, where he would have met Kittie. A memoir of ‘Uncle Bill’ that follows the Tribute referenced in my previous paragraph makes it clear that although a staunch Methodist Rose was jovial, enthusiastic, and somewhat unorthodox . The latter features would have appealed to the Calderons. I conclude that Kittie referred to him as ‘Professor Rose of Leipzig’ because that is where she had last heard of him before the War.

My heartfelt thanks again to Michael Pursglove, this time for giving me a lead which was easy to follow up on the Web and which I believe has definitively demystified ‘Professor Rose of Leipzig’. Rose contemplated, so to speak, George’s research for Demon Feasts, but declined Kittie’s invitation and returned the archive to her. This doesn’t entirely surprise me now that I know he had published nothing on folklore to that date; nor is it clear to me how well he knew Russian, or other Slavonic languages than Polish. The material may all have crossed the Atlantic in 1938, to be worked on by the young Slavist Fritz Epstein at Cambridge, Massachusetts; but so far there is no confirmation of that. What happened to it is still a mystery.

P.S. Since I wrote the above, Dr Lorne Larson, a faithful Canadian follower, has sent me this invaluable link which sheds further and amazing light on Rose’s career.

Comment Image


George Calderon: Edwardian Genius Front Cover

SOME RESPONSES TO GEORGE CALDERON: EDWARDIAN GENIUS 

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

It is a masterly synthesis of your own approach with scholarship and very judicious discussion of the evidence.’ Emeritus Professor Catherine Andreyev, historian

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

‘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

‘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

‘It is bound to remain the definitive account.’ Laurence Senelick, Fletcher Professor of Drama, Tufts University

‘Presents the Edwardian age, and Calderon in particular, as new and forward-looking. Emeritus Professor Michael Alexander, in Trinity College, Oxford, Report 2017-18

LAURENCE BROCKLISS’s review in The London Magazine appears here.

A review by DAMIAN GRANT appears in the comments to Calderonia’s 7 September post.

A review by JOHN DEWEY appears on Amazon UK.

Click here to purchase my book.

 

 

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

The ‘mysterious’ Mrs Shapter no more

You have a hunch, it proves right, and your rejoicing and self-satisfaction know no bounds… Then you sit back and contemplate the chain of circumstances that led to it being ‘proven right’, and you realise the links were so fortuitous, so utterly subject to chance, that really your hunch was a guess. You can claim no credit for it!

When George Calderon went to the Head of Police’s office in St Petersburg on 22 October 1895 to obtain permission to put an advertisement in a newspaper advertising his services as an English teacher, the official who dealt with him ‘passed a neat compliment on my Russian style and accent’, as George wrote to his mother Clara that day, and asked who had taught him. He replied: ‘A Russian lady.’ The official tried to extract the name of this lady from him, but George would not tell him — or us.

As I said in my biography (p. 105), it’s quite obvious that an experienced linguist like George would have started teaching himself (after he left Oxford) from a good grammar, and he might even have pursued a correspondence course run by the eminent Russian-teacher Ivan Nestor-Schnurmann, who had a connection with Rugby, George’s old school. But equally evidently, George had to have lessons in spoken Russian, and preferably from a native speaker. So who was that person?

Very early on in my research, i.e. around 1990, I plumped for a ‘Mrs Shapta’. Well, actually hers was the only name featuring in George’s correspondence around 1895 that looked vaguely Slavonic. George had had an introduction from her to at least one person in St Petersburg, so that perhaps suggested she had lived in the city. Moreover, only a week before leaving for Russia he mentions ‘Mrs Shapta’ in a letter to his mother, in a way that might suggest a connection. I researched the name ‘Shapta’ and found no Slavonic equivalents and no plausible British candidate of that name.

Some years later, when I knew George’s handwriting better, I realised the name was really ‘Mrs Shapter’. I trawled the Net for Mrs Shapters, but found very few, and none with a stated Russian background. So in my biography she became ‘the mysterious Mrs Shapter’. I hypothesised that she was ‘a Russian married to a Briton of that name’…

Now for the first incursion of Chance. On 31 December 2018, following up his comprehensive essay on my book in East-West Review, inestimable Russianist Michael Pursglove emailed me: ‘Apropos of Shapter: the name rang a bell from my time in Exeter’. Contingently, as it were, Mike was once a Senior Lecturer in Modern Languages at Exeter University. He serendipitally remembered that Dr Thomas Shapter (1809-1902) was a famous figure in Exeter’s history, having twice been its mayor and written the classic History of the Cholera in Exeter in 1832. ‘Shapter’ is in fact a Devon name, derived from the Anglo-Saxon for a shaper of garments.

At the same time, Michael Pursglove found on the Web an advertisement offering five letters to ‘Miss Shapter’ written between 1871 and 1897 by…Philip Hermogenes Calderon, George’s father! Mike had searched on ‘Shapter’ between my doing my own regular trawls for Calderon material, and struck gold. He surmised: ‘I imagine Mrs Shapter may be, say, a sister-in-law of this Miss Shapter. Thomas Shapter, I think, had at least one son. Alas, I can find no link with Russia!’

Little did that matter, as it turned out. I went straight to the advertisement myself, and there were two distinct images: 1) a letter from ‘old P.H.’ at Burlington House clearly beginning ‘Dear Miss Shapter’, 2) an envelope clearly addressed by him ‘Mrs Shapter’ and giving her address in London. Dynamite. I immediately put my brilliant genealogical research assistant, Mike Welch, on the job, and he found that living at this address at the time of the 1881 and 1891 censuses were a Mrs Mary A.J. Shapter and her daughter Mary G. Shapter. Miss Shapter, the census forms told us, was born in Bloomsbury, but Mrs Shapter was born ‘Russia — British Subject’. You can imagine my reaction.

Mike Welch quickly ascertained that Mrs Shapter was Mary Ann Jane Shapter, born in St Petersburg on 16 August 1817 and christened at the British Chaplaincy there on 19 September 1817. Her parents were Dr Harry Leeke Gibbs and Mary Ann Angliss (which may look like a Russified form of ‘English’, but is a bona fide English surname). Mary Ann Jane Gibbs was the last of five Gibbs children born in St Petersburg since 1808. She married John Shapter QC (1807-1887) at Dawlish on 11 July 1839 and they had five children, of whom ‘Miss Shapter’ was Mary Gibbs Shapter (1842-1921).  John Shapter, it turns out, was an elder brother of the Exeter epidemiologist. But what was Mary Ann Jane’s father Dr Harry Leeke Gibbs doing in Russia and how long did she stay there?

At this point, we were truly engulfed by good luck, because we traced the great-great-grandchildren of Mrs Shapter and discovered that they not only know their own family history well, they are currently engaged in researching it most professionally and thoroughly.

They quickly informed me, to my astonishment, that Mrs Shapter’s father Harry Leeke Gibbs (1782-1858) was an English physician who first practised in London, then moved to Russia where he became Surgeon-in-Chief to the Russian Fleets and Hospitals in the Baltic and a Councillor of State! This was under Alexander I (Tsar 1801-25), who awarded him the Order of St Anne in 1820. He appears also to have had a private role as a doctor in royal circles. I cannot do better than direct you to a full illustrated history and discussion on a website recommended to me by Mrs Shapter’s descendants: http://european-miniatures.blogspot.com/2006/04/zatsepin-mikhail-portrait-of-dr-gibbs.html

The highly informative entry on Dr Gibbs in the Royal College of Surgeons’ Plarr’s Lives of the Fellows, to which I was also kindly directed by his descendants, tells us that he died ‘in retirement at his residence, 19 Southernhay Place, Exeter, on September 27th, 1858’, and he is recorded living there with his wife and middle daughter Sophia in the census of 1851. When did he leave Russia and what took him to Exeter, home of the Shapter family?

Presumably he was present at the marriage of his youngest daughter Mary Ann Jane (aged 21) to John Shapter in 1839, when Dr Gibbs would have been fifty-seven, and she must have been with her father and mother in Exeter long enough to meet John Shapter, so let us guess that the Gibbs family left Russia in at least 1837. They might have left far earlier, because Russia under Nicholas I was a nastier place than it had been under his predecessor and possibly Gibbs’s patronage was blown away. Although the census of 1851 tells us he did his M.D. at Aberdeen, he was born in Hampshire; not that far from Exeter, then. But the possibility exists that he was somehow a colleague of the Shapter, Thomas, hero of the 1832 cholera outbreak, because Plarr’s Lives also tells us:

During his residence in Russia Dr Gibbs published various papers and observations on the cholera when it made its appearance in St Petersburg during the summer of 1831.

We are able to say, then, that ‘Mrs Shapter’ grew up in Russia in a Russian-speaking environment and therefore was quite possibly bilingual. However, she probably left Russia before she was twenty, and when she started teaching George she was at least seventy-four! But she taught him, on the evidence of the St Petersburg police, very well. So how did she keep her Russian up? Did she know Russians in Britain? Did she go back to St Petersburg at some point? Did she read Russian literature? Here be mysteries still.

There are many possible reasons why the Calderon family, based at Burlington House, were acquainted with John Shapter QC and Mary Ann Jane Shapter at 7 Clarendon Place, Hyde Park Gardens. By the end of 1891 George was training to be a barrister himself, had decided he wanted to learn Russian, and had probably started. As one of Mrs Shapter’s great-great-grandchildren, himself a retired judge, has suggested to me, George may have met John Shapter whilst reading for the Bar, and then learned that his wife spoke Russian. Alternatively, Philip Hermogenes Calderon had a vast London network and he may have known the Shapters first. Then again, Miss Mary Gibbs Shapter was an accomplished artist and may have been a student of old P.H.’s at the Royal Academy. But all of the Shapters seem to have been art collectors, and one of P.H.’s three letters to Miss Shapter responds to her request for advice about restoring and cleaning paintings.

I was able to buy the five letters for the Calderon archive. The first, dated 27 December 1871, is to Mrs Shapter concerning a private view. Numbers two to four are to Miss Shapter. That of 13 July 1894 (when she was fifty-two, incidentally) is the very professional one about restoring and cleaning. The next, dated 14 August 1894, begins: ‘You consulted me, a few weeks ago, as to brightening your charming copy — may I consult you as to brightening my own delapidated self?’ His doctors ‘seem to think the bracing air of Broadstairs might do me good’, but Clara could not find suitable lodgings there so he asks Miss Shapter ‘as a constant visitor’ whether she knows of ‘a decent place wherein we may shelter for a while’. The last letter, written on 4 May 1897, reads in its entirety:

My dear Mrs Shapter
How good and kind of you to remember this poor animal’s birthday! — You and I have had a bad time, but I trust we may be spared to have many a pleasant stroll on dear Broadstairs gay parade later on in the year. — With kind regards to Miss Shapter believe me ever, Yours sincerely
Philip H. Calderon

George was in Russia. His father had cancer and less than a year to live. These letters demonstrate that he and Clara knew Mrs and Miss Shapter well. The Shapters were clearly amiable, sociable women, who appreciated his art. To have mixed with P.H., they must also have had a good sense of humour.

But the most interesting letter of the set — and the reason I decided to buy them — is the second one, which is to Miss Shapter and dated 7 December 1891. It concerns this picture:

St Elizabeth of Hungary’s Great Act of Renunciation

Image © Tate, released under Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-ND (3.0 Unported)

I have dealt with the subject at length on page 91 of my biography, so the details are there. The painting is entitled ‘St Elizabeth of Hungary’s Great Act of Renunciation’, was finished by P.H. in 1891, and caused outrage amongst British Roman Catholics because there was no evidence whatsoever that St Elizabeth literally stripped naked when she took her vows. The painting also, of course, offended Victorian propriety. A furore ensued in the Press and Parliament. Apart from a slippery letter to The Times, however, P.H. seems to have kept his counsel. I knew of no other instance of his defending this picture or responding to the public outcry. Until now. For this particular letter to Miss Shapter does respond to it, and in a significant way.

The Shapters, we gather from the letter, have American friends visiting Europe who are anxious to see the picture that all the fuss has been about, and Miss Shapter has asked P.H. where it can be seen. ‘My much-abused “Elizabeth of Hungary” is now exhibiting at the annual autumnal Show of Pictures of the Liverpool Corporation’, he replies, whence it is going ‘by special request’ to Leeds, then sometime in the Spring

it will take its place, with the other Chantrey pictures, at Kensington, provided infuriated (but badly ignorant) Roman Catholics do not succeed in their attempt to ‘burke’ [i.e. smother, suppress] the picture.

The Americans, then, may have to ‘be content with the report of the “row” about it, without seeing the cause’. Nevertheless, P.H. continues,

If […] they should in their travels chance to pass a night at Amiens (on their way to their Earthly Paradise, Paris) they can see almost the same thing, in the very heart of the glorious Cathedral there — or (to go no further than Great Russell Street, Bloomsbury) they can see the mother of Thomas Becket being baptised, on the exquisite Royal MSS in the British Museum.

I haven’t been able to identify what P.H. is referring to in Amiens Cathedral, but the reference to the figure of Thomas à Becket’s mother in the Royal MSS is totally irrelevant, as the image is clearly emblematic, she is merely topless in a font, and there is every difference between P.H.’s interpretation of St Elizabeth’s self-abasement and a normal medieval baptism. This feeble defence corroborates my belief that the picture was a deliberate attempt to create a sensation and titillate Victorian men. The fact that it was bought from P.H. for a large sum by the Chantrey Trust on the recommendation of a Council of Royal Academicians, when P.H. was himself Keeper of the Royal Academy, has always struck me as another unsavoury aspect of the so-called historical painting.

I owe everything I now know about Mrs Shapter to Michael Pursglove, Michael Welch, and Mrs Shapter’s great-great-grandchildren. I cannot thank them enough for their enthusiasm, initiative, time, and readiness to share their hard-won knowledge for the cause of George Calderon’s biography. If George really was the first modern British Russianist, it is surely important to know who taught him to speak the language. And now, I think, we know. It was Mary Ann Jane (Gibbs) Shapter.

It would be very good to have a portrait of the lady. We are working on it.

Comment Image


George Calderon: Edwardian Genius Front Cover

SOME RESPONSES TO GEORGE CALDERON: EDWARDIAN GENIUS 

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

It is a masterly synthesis of your own approach with scholarship and very judicious discussion of the evidence.’ Emeritus Professor Catherine Andreyev, historian

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

‘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

‘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

‘It is bound to remain the definitive account.’ Laurence Senelick, Fletcher Professor of Drama, Tufts University

‘Presents the Edwardian age, and Calderon in particular, as new and forward-looking. Emeritus Professor Michael Alexander, in Trinity College, Oxford, Report 2017-18

LAURENCE BROCKLISS’s review in The London Magazine appears here.

A review by DAMIAN GRANT appears in the comments to Calderonia’s 7 September post.

A review by JOHN DEWEY appears on Amazon UK.

Click here to purchase my book.

 

 

 

Posted in Personal commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Rochelle Townsend’s ‘Uncle Vanya’

In my introduction to these four posts about the ‘mystery’ Misses and Misters who feature in my biography of George Calderon and the world of Edwardian Anglo-Russian cultural relations, I said that after Michael Pursglove’s magnificent post about the ‘mysterious’ Mrs R.S. Townsend I would appraise her translation of Uncle Vanya, which was successfully staged by the Incorporated Stage Society (ISS) at the Aldwych Theatre on 10-11 May 1914. The ‘mystery’, incidentally, of why the foremost advocate of Chekhov’s plays in Britain, George Calderon, never attended this production, can probably be explained by the fact that he was busy working for Ballets Russes on its latest visit to London.

A copy of Rochelle Townsend’s translation has survived in ISS’s archive at the V&A’s Theatre Museum; which is a miracle in itself. The typescript is still fresh and clean, and it bears annotations in at least three different hands. My guess is that two of these belong to stage staff, as the annotations concern the sound track of the play (‘Guitar’, ‘Wrattle’ [sic], ‘Cricket’ [the insect] etc) and very minor changes to characters’ words significant for cues. But by far the greatest number of annotations are to the part of Astrov, played by Herbert Grimwood. These are more complete, more literal and more English versions of a large number of Astrov’s lines. They must have been facilitated by someone with a good knowledge of Russian, and are presumably what Grimwood actually spoke from the stage, i.e. not Townsend’s words at all. So here you immediately have at least one creator — Grimwood — and possibly two, extra to Townsend.

For Rochelle Townsend (real name possibly Rakhil’ Slavyanskaya) did not have native English. She was a native Russian-speaker. As Michael Pursglove has described, we do not know when or where she acquired her English. But I see no evidence in this translation that she was bi-lingual in the strict sense of the word. It would have been plain wrong for her to be translating from her native language into one that she did not have a native command of, without the help of someone with native English. I think her English was very good, partly no doubt because she had been living with her anglophone husband since 1900. Her husband was ‘into’ theatre, as he staged amateur productions, but by 1912 they were separated. Nevertheless, someone anglophone collaborated with her on parts of the text of this script, as I shall amplify later. For the time being, let us note that it means there are at least four authors of the English text.

The most important other point to make about it is that according to my reckoning 100 lines of the original have been cut in translation. Simultaneously, a concerted effort is made throughout to compress by paraphrasing and conflating. You can get an idea of this by comparing Townsend’s script below with Constance Garnett’s ‘complete’ version of the same text (probably translated in 1921 for the Komisarjevsky production):

Uncle Vanya Rochelle Townsend Translation 1914

Rochelle Townsend’s translation, 1914

Constance Garnett’s translation, published 1923

Garnett always translates everything that is there — a policy of which most translators would approve today. Thus Vanya’s opening sentence really is meant to be as flowery and sarcastic as she has it. This has disappeared in Townsend’s version, although she has conveyed some of the tone with ‘the great man’ (not in the original) later on. Similarly, Garnett’s ‘You keep buzzing and buzzing away all day’ is far more expressive and accurate than Townsend’s flat ‘You are for ever tormenting people’; on the other hand, Townsend’s division of that sentence into two shortish ones makes it easier for an actor to deliver than Garnett’s retention of the original structure.

The vital and somewhat sensitive question is, why were so many cuts made? Townsend nearly always drops any Russian cultural reference that the English audience would not understand, for example a quote from Lomonosov, another from Gogol’, a reference to the painter Aivazovskii (but not one to a book by Batiushkov, whom no English person could be expected to know, and which unaccountably becomes ‘Batushka’s Encyclopaedia’). She, or her anglophone collaborator, probably thought such cultural baggage would distract the audience and be a hindrance to the ‘action’ — and in 1914 they were probably right. On the other hand, were so many marked pauses and significant stage directions (e.g. ‘nervily’, ‘in a tearful voice’, ‘Elena Andreevna embraces Sonia’) dropped through sheer carelessness, or in the same desire to maintain dramatic pace?

Where the cuts in speeches of the main characters are concerned, perhaps the same rationale was at work. Sets of Vanya’s or Astrov’s lines that recount past events or expatiate on them may have been dropped because they were seen as digressive — but by whom, Townsend herself, or her anglophone/theatrical collaborator? Equally, they may have been cut because the phenomenon of extended reminiscence and expatiation was regarded as un-English and boring. I also discern an effort throughout to ‘tone down’ the language from its Russian robustness, for example in Vanya’s wonderfully excoriating remarks about the Professor. Yet when Townsend renders the Professor’s On menia zagovorit! as ‘He’ll begin talking…’, is it because she has just overlooked the word menia, or because ‘He’ll talk me to death!’ is regarded as coarse? Why change the leitmotif word chudak (crank, nutter) to ‘commonplace person’? Why cut the line ‘In Russia a talented man cannot be without blemish’ from the middle of a long speech otherwise complete?

Rochelle Townsend’s version of Chekhov’s play acculturates the original to British theatrical and moral norms of the day. Theatrically, that was a clever and successful decision: the streamlining of the dialogue and the rigorous emphasis on ‘keeping the action moving’ paid off in a benign reception from Edwardian audiences. As I have written elsewhere, whereas George’s translations sought to reproduce the brevity and vigour of Chekhov’s Russian — and therefore succeeded in the Edwardian theatre and subsequently on radio — Garnett’s were very wordy. Townsend achieved ‘brevity and vigour’ by actually cutting text and simplifying expression.

The Townsend version was theatrically successful, but its acculturation to British moral norms drained the play of what I would call its ‘existential power’. After Vanya’s immortal line in Act 3 ‘Had I led a normal life I could have become a Schopenhauer or Dostoevskii’ , he exclaims: ‘I’ve completely lost it!’, but the Townsend version is merely clinical: ‘My mind is beginning to wander’. The act ends with him crying in despair: ‘Oh, what am I doing? What am I doing?’, but this translation reduces it to mere desperation at having almost committed homicide: ‘What have I done?’ Similarly, the Townsend version turns Sonya’s existential ‘I believe, I believe’ into the specific and rather Anglican ‘I believe in Heaven, I have faith’ — which must have gone a long way to persuading the audience that, in the words of one reviewer, Sonya was the play’s ‘central figure’.

Was Rochelle Townsend on the evidence of this script a good translator? I find it impossible to say because it is impossible to determine the exact extent of her input. Since her native language was Russian, professionally speaking she should never have been attempting to translate into English in the first place. But, like Constance Garnett, she got herself a good consultant/collaborator. For pages this translation reads pretty routinely, and there are many mistakes. Undoubtedly Townsend knew what the Russian meant in these places, but just could not express it herself in English. Her anglophone consultant seems to have been most interested in questions of dramatic effectiveness. Thus the last six pages of the third act read almost flawlessly. Authentic English expressions like ‘turned out neck and crop’ and ‘a miserable pittance’ suggest to me at least that the anglophone consultant took over. S/he also slimmed the dialogue here, but to dramatic advantage, and the combination, derived of course from Mrs Townsend’s original, has really done justice to the climactic scene of the play.

‘The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there’…

Comment Image


George Calderon: Edwardian Genius Front Cover

SOME RESPONSES TO GEORGE CALDERON: EDWARDIAN GENIUS 

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

It is a masterly synthesis of your own approach with scholarship and very judicious discussion of the evidence.’ Emeritus Professor Catherine Andreyev, historian

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

‘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

‘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

‘It is bound to remain the definitive account.’ Laurence Senelick, Fletcher Professor of Drama, Tufts University

‘Presents the Edwardian age, and Calderon in particular, as new and forward-looking. Emeritus Professor Michael Alexander, in Trinity College, Oxford, Report 2017-18

LAURENCE BROCKLISS’s review in The London Magazine appears here.

A review by DAMIAN GRANT appears in the comments to Calderonia’s 7 September post.

A review by JOHN DEWEY appears on Amazon UK.

Click here to purchase my book.

Posted in Edwardian character, Edwardian English, Edwardian literature, Modern parallels, Personal commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Guest post: Michael Pursglove on the ‘forgotten translators’

Rochelle

Rochelle Townsend with her children, c. 1904

My interest in early translations from Russian, and especially in their translators, began when I was setting to work on my translation of Turgenev’s Virgin Soil in 2014. It became clear that this would be the first new translation of the novel for over a hundred years, since Rochelle Townsend’s translation for Everyman Books in 1911. Townsend’s translation went through fourteen printings between 1911 and 1976, and the following year she published a translation, the fourth into English, of Anna Karenina. This was reprinted fifteen times between 1912 and 1968/9. In 1914 Rochelle Townsend made the first English translation of Uncle Vanya for a production by the Stage Society. This translation still awaits publication. Her work between 1911 and 1914 would mark her out as an important translator, and her career continued until the mid-1920s, as I outlined in my articleThe Mysterious Mrs Townsend’ (East-West Review vol. 16, no. 3, issue 46, 2018). But, despite her obvious importance, she shared the fate of many translators in being almost invisible. I was able to make her slightly less invisible, but gaps remain in her biography, notably the first twenty years of her life, from her birth in Kiev in 1880, to her marriage to Charles Townsend in London in 1900.

For a start, let us take her name. Was it really Rochelle, or was this an anglicized form of Rachel/Рахиль? Was she perhaps Jewish and got caught up in the Kiev pogrom of 1881? Was the name under which she was married, Slavyanskaia (‘Slav woman’), given her to disguise her Jewish origins? In my article I suggested another possibility for the origin of her surname, but let me now mention some of the other mysteries surrounding her.

  • Who were her parents?
  • How did she learn English to such a high level?
  • How did she get to England, and when?
  • How, when and where did she meet Charles Townsend?
  • After her career as a translator and prospective Parliamentary candidate, she claimed to have worked as a ‘journalist’. What was the nature of her journalistic work? Can any journalistic pieces be ascribed to her?

I had hoped that, after the publication of my article, documents would come to light which might enable me to answer some of these questions. This has not happened, although some new scraps of information have turned up. For instance, the Slough Eton and Windsor Observer covered events before, during and after the general election of May 1929. We see, for example, the somewhat unlikely picture of Mrs Townsend distributing trophies at tennis tournaments in two successive weeks in 1928, and the less unlikely picture of her receiving a ‘good luck’ telegram from the leader of the Labour Party, shortly to be Prime Minister, Ramsay Macdonald on 17 May 1929. The same issue of the newspaper added the following snippet of biographical information:

By a curious coincidence both the Conservative and Labour candidates are versed in the Russian language. Sir Alfred Knox, by years of residence in the country, has, of course, an excellent knowledge of the language and Mrs Townsend is an authority on Russian literature and has translated Russian works into English.

Another piece of information came to me via the excellent, as yet unpublished, dissertation of Maya Birdwood-Hedger, which compares different English translations of Anna Karenina. She points out that, among the very few errors in Mrs Townsend’s translation is her rendition of the innocuous-looking phrase in Part 5, Chapter 26, describing a minor character, Vasilii Lukich, as славянингувернер (‘slavyanin-guvernyor’, Slav tutor). Tolstoi merely wished to emphasise that he was not a foreigner – a Frenchman, Englishman or German – as was so often the case in Russian aristocratic households. Mrs Townsend, however, assumes that ‘Slavyanin’ is the man’s surname. On the face of it, this is simply a minor error. However, given that Mrs Townsend’s birth name, or assumed name, was Slavyanskaia, it becomes something closer to a Freudian error.

I may have been able to rescue, at least partially, Rochelle Townsend’s name from oblivion. I began to plan to do the same for other English, American, French and German translators from about the same era, and a letter from a long-standing Russian friend enabled me to begin the process. The letter concerned an early, and, to say the least, highly abridged translation of Goncharov’s third novel, The Precipice. The American edition of this translation ascribed it to ‘M. Bryant’. No further details were given, and it soon emerged that ‘M. Bryant’ had never published any other translations.

I tentatively identified the translator as the prolific and successful novelist Marguerite Bryant, but in the process discovered that the translation had been made not from the Russian but from a German version, Der Absturz, by Wilhelm Goldschmidt. Wilhelm who? Here was another early translator to investigate, and it emerged that Goldschmidt had lived and worked in Russia, and knew the language, unlike ‘M. Bryant’ who may well not have done. There was more. There were two other early translations of The Precipice, both French, both with eccentric titles (Marc le Nihiliste and La Faute de la Grand’mère) and both drastically abridged. The translators, respectively Eugène Gothi and Mikhail Osipovich Ashkinazi, did much to popularize Russian culture in France. The latter, under his pseudonym Michel Delines, is reasonably well documented, but details of Gothi’s life are extremely sketchy. In an article for East-West Review I was able to add a little more to his story, but the date of his death still eludes me.

There is  one obvious area that I have so far only very briefly touched upon – Russia itself. In 2012 I published an article on Anna Petrovna Kern who, in addition to being the recipient of Pushkin’s most famous love lyric, and a noted memoirist, translated extensively from French literature. She may well have translated a novel by George Sand (probably André) but the manuscript has either been lost or remains undiscovered. In the course of my research I found that there were at least 200 translators into Russian (mainly from French, German and English) active in Russia in the nineteenth century . Many of them were women and most have been almost totally forgotten. So who was the anonymous first translator of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland? If I were able to establish that I would be following in the footsteps of Dr James Muckle, whose James Arthur Heard (1798-1875) and the Education of the Poor in Russia (2013) charts the career of a remarkable Englishman. James Heard arrived in Russia in 1817 and spent most of the rest of his life in Russia, becoming known as Яков Иванович Гёрд. He learned Russian so well that he was able to publish, in 1846, a translation of Oliver Goldsmith’s The Vicar of Wakefield, which was reprinted as late as 1897. He also wrote a Russia-themed novel The Life and Times of Nathalia Borissovna, Princess Dolgorookov.

My current research focuses on another Anglo-Russian translation project. Beatrix Tollemache (1840-1926) learned Russian at the age of seventy, and within three years had published translations of a series of literary texts, both poetry and prose, under the title Russian Sketches, chiefly of peasant life.

A brief introduction is provided by ‘N. Jarintzoff’. This turned out to be Mme Nadine Jarintzoff, known in Russia as Надежда Алексеевна Жаринцова. She is best known as the translator of the works of Jerome K Jerome, especially of Three Men in a Boat. Her life is reasonably well documented, although her maiden name is unrecorded, as are the place and date of her death, and at least one internet source back-transliterates her name as Яринцева. The nature of her collaboration with Beatrix Tollemache will be the subject of another article, hopefully in East-West Review.

Comment Image


George Calderon: Edwardian Genius Front Cover

SOME RESPONSES TO GEORGE CALDERON: EDWARDIAN GENIUS 

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

It is a masterly synthesis of your own approach with scholarship and very judicious discussion of the evidence.’ Emeritus Professor Catherine Andreyev, historian

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

‘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

‘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

‘It is bound to remain the definitive account.’ Laurence Senelick, Fletcher Professor of Drama, Tufts University

‘Presents the Edwardian age, and Calderon in particular, as new and forward-looking. Emeritus Professor Michael Alexander, in Trinity College, Oxford, Report 2017-18

LAURENCE BROCKLISS’s review in The London Magazine appears here.

A review by DAMIAN GRANT appears in the comments to Calderonia’s 7 September post.

A review by JOHN DEWEY appears on Amazon UK.

Click here to purchase my book.

Posted in Edwardian character, Edwardian English, Edwardian literature, Edwardian marriage, Personal commentary, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The ‘mystery’ Misses and Misters

The academics are off campus now until September/October, when Sam&Sam plan a new marketing storm in their direction, so we are concentrating on selling boxes of six copies to more bookshops. If you know any near you who might be candidates, please contact me through my website, http://www.patrickmiles.co.uk. After that, we must seriously tackle the U.S. market, which has huge potential, of course. (American followers and viewers, you can always buy the book online through http://www.samandsam.co.uk.)

Our other top priority is getting the new book, What Can We Hope For? (see my last diary post), to Amazon by 22 July, so that we can submit copies to reviewers in the last week of August and bring it out on 16 October, John Polkinghorne’s eighty-ninth birthday. Sam2 is just completing the typesetting, using a new programme, and though I say it myself we have two cracking alternative covers for buyers to choose from.

Altogether, I think now is the time to stop posting personal views or diary items for a while and present some solid research that has emerged from the publication of my biography of George Calderon on 7 September last year.

To be more precise, it is research that has emerged from Michael Pursglove’s essay on my book that appeared in the New Year issue of East-West Review (see quotation and link below) and from a subsequent email correspondence between us.

In the first post, Michael Pursglove himself will present his research on the ‘mysterious’ Mrs Rochelle Townsend, who produced wildly popular translations of Russian classics in the first quarter of the twentieth century but like all too many translators has dropped out of cultural history. I will follow this up with what I think will be the first appraisal of Mrs Townsend’s 1914 translation of Uncle Vanya, of which I’ve acquired a copy from the V&A Theatre Museum. After that, I will reveal the identity of the ‘mysterious’ Mrs Shapter (p. 105 of my book) and Professor Rose of Leipzig (p. 426). The first has even led to me to buy some fascinating letters of George’s father, the painter P.H. Calderon, that recently appeared on the market.

I hope Calderonia’s readers will find these visits to Victorian and Edwardian times interesting, and not mind if I keep them up for a few weeks each as we beaver away on the priority activities that I referred to at the beginning of this post. And, as always, do leave a Comment whenever you feel moved to!

Comment Image


George Calderon: Edwardian Genius Front Cover

SOME RESPONSES TO GEORGE CALDERON: EDWARDIAN GENIUS 

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

It is a masterly synthesis of your own approach with scholarship and very judicious discussion of the evidence.’ Emeritus Professor Catherine Andreyev, historian

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

‘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

‘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

‘It is bound to remain the definitive account.’ Laurence Senelick, Fletcher Professor of Drama, Tufts University

‘Presents the Edwardian age, and Calderon in particular, as new and forward-looking. Emeritus Professor Michael Alexander, in Trinity College, Oxford, Report 2017-18

LAURENCE BROCKLISS’s review in The London Magazine appears here.

A review by DAMIAN GRANT appears in the comments to Calderonia’s 7 September post.

A review by JOHN DEWEY appears on Amazon UK.

Click here to purchase my book.

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

‘Ages will pass…’

Where Russia is concerned, I often think of this text by Boris Pasternak, written by him in German. I have only ever seen it in Gerd Ruge’s illustrated biography of Pasternak (Hachette, 1959), where it is described as ‘une dédicace’. For whom this dedicatory inscription was written, I have never been able to discover, but since Ruge was a German correspondent in Moscow and knew Pasternak at the time of the Zhivago affair, I presume it was  presented to him and he still has the original.

This would be my translation (improvements invited):

Ages will pass. Many long ages. I shall no longer exist. There will be no return to the time of our fathers or forefathers, which is surely not necessary or desirable. But the Noble, the Creative and Great will finally, after a long absence, reappear. That will be an age of true achievement. Your life then will be the richest and most fertile imaginable. Remember me then.

Peredelkino                                                B. Pasternak

I hope for Russia, of course, but I wish I shared Pasternak’s certainty. My friend the Chekhov scholar Mikhail Gromov said to me in 1981 that where Russia was concerned ‘it is always impossible to think in terms of individuals, only generations’. But even that good old Russian prime minister Viktor Chernomyrdin (1938-2010) exclaimed in desperation: ‘Whatever we do in Russia, nothing ever changes!’

Comment Image


George Calderon: Edwardian Genius Front Cover

SOME RESPONSES TO GEORGE CALDERON: EDWARDIAN GENIUS 

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

It is a masterly synthesis of your own approach with scholarship and very judicious discussion of the evidence.’ Emeritus Professor Catherine Andreyev, historian

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

‘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

‘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

‘It is bound to remain the definitive account.’ Laurence Senelick, Fletcher Professor of Drama, Tufts University

‘Presents the Edwardian age, and Calderon in particular, as new and forward-looking. Emeritus Professor Michael Alexander, in Trinity College, Oxford, Report 2017-18

LAURENCE BROCKLISS’s review in The London Magazine appears here.

A review by DAMIAN GRANT appears in the comments to Calderonia’s 7 September post.

A review by JOHN DEWEY appears on Amazon UK.

Click here to purchase my book.

Posted in Personal commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

From the diary of a writer-publisher: 3

14 May
I gather, from a reliable source, that access to Calderonia has been blocked in Russia (I nearly said ‘the Soviet Union’). This would explain why no Russian viewers have featured in the stats for months. One can only sigh. Some of us have greatness thrust upon us, but would rather not have. I suppose ‘they’ took exception to some things I said on the occasion of the centenary of the Bolshevik coup. An old dissident comments: ‘It’s worse than in the Brezhnev period, because the technology now enables them to keep far closer tabs on what people are saying and thinking.’ Actually, I think the Putin regime is more repressive all round. Can you imagine it, last year they even banned the British Council, which had been representing our culture in Russia since 1959

18 May
We have been on Shetland for nine days. Despite email-checking, it is possible to forget everything back home, above all the need to sell books. It was still Spring on Shetland, with masses of daffodils and narcissus in bloom. The air is breathtakingly clean compared with Cambridge and in the fine hot weather it had a sweetness that I think is compounded of grasses, wild flowers and sheep dung. Above all, the rich wildlife — guillemots, puffins, red-throated divers, terns, wheatears, whimbrel, fulmars, seals, trout, orcas — goes about its existence as though humans are not even there. But one could hardly say that it’s an unspoiled paradise. Some islanders, particularly on Yell, have a disarming custom of dumping their old cars in the middle of moorland. Moreover,

The raven hackles
that flutter on barbed fences
are just black plastic.

22 May
We have come back to yet another Eiger of a learning curve: publishing our first book with Amazon as a print on demand paperback. It is just over a year since Sam2 and I submitted my Calderon biography to Clays for production (they fortuitously delivered it on 4 June 2018, the anniversary of George’s death at Gallipoli, and I still think they did a superb job). As some followers will recall, we had been working flat out on typesetting and preparing the book for submission since taking the decision to self-publish on 6 January 2018. Our feet seem hardly to have touched the ground since; it certainly does not feel like almost a year since we set about selling it. And now we have to take a very deep breath and get What Can We Hope For? out to reviewers a couple of months before its publication date of 16 October. Why on earth are we putting ourselves through this?

It’s because eighteen months of approaches to five commercial publishers produced two contracts which were offensive guff and we had to bin them. From every point of view it made more sense to publish What Can We Hope For? ourselves, and Sam2 easily persuaded the authors that an Amazon print on demand paperback was the best option.

The book’s principal author is famous scientist-theologian John Polkinghorne. He is now wheelchair-bound and cannot write anything longer than a page or two. However, his mind is as sharp as ever and his spoken English highly expressive. This book has been compiled from my recorded conversations with John, meticulously transcribed by Sam2, then edited down by me from 60,000 to 31,000 words. It is about John’s eschatological thinking — eschatology being defined at the beginning of the book as ‘the doctrine of the last or final matters, such as [the end of the universe,] death, judgement and the state after death’. Here is a sample page from the typescript:

26 May
I have had some emails about the first entry in my previous post, concerning the shortlisting for the James Tait Black biography prize. (I don’t want to push this, but it would be so much better for the exchange of views, or even an argument, if people could commit themselves to a blog Comment, as John Dewey has.) My correspondents want to know whether I agree with my friend about the mere ‘wokefulness’ of the short list.

It’s true, Akala’s Race and Class in the Ruins of Empire sounds like a Progress Publishers translation of a tract by V.I. Lenin. But what struck me most about the four titles shortlisted is that two of them are autobiographies, one is about ‘the life’ of Marie Colvin, and the fourth resembles an historical novel. Where are Jenny Uglow’s Mr Lear and other blockbuster biographies brought out in 2018 by the big commercial publishers?

Well, it would ill become me to complain, because I have banged on for nearly five years in this blog about how biography should be an experimental genre! Of course, one can dispute whether autobiography, memoir, diaries, letters and fictionalised history are biography, but for Waterstones and increasing numbers of readers they are. I rather doubt that the quality of writing of the shortlisted works is superior to, say, Uglow’s, but wokefulness aside it is difficult not to agree with Dr Simon Cooke, one of the judges of the James Tait Black biography prize, that ‘this year’s shortlist shows the reach and vitality of biographical writing in the centenary year of the prize’.

Finally, I must admit that even in its first decade the prize was not entirely focussed on biography in the strict sense. In 1922 it was won by none other than George and Kittie’s friend Percy Lubbock for his book Earlham — and whatever that is, it’s not a biography. (See George Calderon: Edwardian Genius, pp. 5-7.)

Comment Image


George Calderon: Edwardian Genius Front Cover

SOME RESPONSES TO GEORGE CALDERON: EDWARDIAN GENIUS 

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

It is a masterly synthesis of your own approach with scholarship and very judicious discussion of the evidence.’ Emeritus Professor Catherine Andreyev, historian

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

‘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

‘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

‘It is bound to remain the definitive account.’ Laurence Senelick, Fletcher Professor of Drama, Tufts University

‘Presents the Edwardian age, and Calderon in particular, as new and forward-looking. Emeritus Professor Michael Alexander, in Trinity College, Oxford, Report 2017-18

LAURENCE BROCKLISS’s review in The London Magazine appears here.

A review by DAMIAN GRANT appears in the comments to Calderonia’s 7 September post.

A review by JOHN DEWEY appears on Amazon UK.

Click here to purchase my book.

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

From the diary of a writer-publisher: 2

18 April
The shortlist for this year’s James Tait Black Memorial Prize (biography) has been announced. Strong contenders are hip-hop artist Akala’s debut Natives: Race and Class in the Ruins of Empire and Susannah Walker’s The Life of Stuff: A Memoir about the Mess We Leave Behind. A friend writes: ‘It’s a relief to see that the judges are fully woke in the prize’s centenary year. It would have been unforgivable if, in the twenty-first century, they had chosen the biography of a white male upper-class Edwardian anti-suffragist.’

23 April
An impeccable letter from the Spanish Ambassador thanking me for the copy that I sent the embassy library. George Calderon, he writes, was ‘indeed a very remarkable and generous individual who accomplished great achievements during his, sadly, short life. I hope I will have the opportunity to meet you in the future’. It may only mean Tinker, but the name Calderón still carries weight in the Spanish world…

Athenian door-wedge

3 May
To my stupefaction, Calderonia had a record 243 views today. They are focussed on the period 4 August – 12 December 1914, and between one and five people appear to have viewed each post. I am profoundly sceptical of the figure. I suspect a WordPress glitch or  some wheeze played on us by a robot. But Sam2 believes otherwise. He thinks they may all come from an institution that has discovered Calderonia is a useful resource.

Thank goodness I took Andrew Tatham’s vehement advice to continue the blog beyond 2015. I had thought of it only as a way of raising George’s profile before the book came out, but it is now a key element in marketing and in our efforts to sell the edition out. So it will continue at least until then, hopefully collecting viewer-customers along the way.

10 May
Another magisterial email, with paralegal appendices, from the Agency for the Legal Deposit Libraries, which is situated in Edinburgh. About three months after publication they wrote telling me to send them six copies of my book for the British Library, Bodleian Library, Cambridge University Library, the National Library of Scotland, the National Library of Wales, and the Library of Trinity College, Dublin. I had already, off my own bat, sent copies to the British Library, Bodleian and Cambridge, as those were the only legal deposit libraries when I last published a book. No-one told me to do that back in the 1980s; like thousands of other publishers I just did it.

I am now expected to part with £180 of income plus postage to a quango in Scotland that will redistribute the six copies, sending three back to England whence they came. The Quango’s voice is imperious. But there is no basis to the beast’s bluster. Under the Legal Deposit Libraries Act (2003) only the British Library has a statutory right to receive a copy (and they graciously acknowledged receipt). The other libraries are only ‘entitled to request a free copy within one year of publication coordinated through the Agency for the Legal Deposit Libraries’. Presumably, then, I am entitled to refuse.

If these libraries wrote to me requesting a copy, I would not refuse them — though one of them is not even in the United Kingdom! But it is the Agency that is requesting them. London, Cambridge and Oxford have always been copyright libraries and I don’t believe the other three remotely want or need copies (given the existence of Inter-Library Loan). What has happened is that the Agency, like all merely process-driven quangos and bureaucracies, is hell bent on perpetuating itself by arrogating powers. Actually, I don’t believe this Agency achieves any more virtue than the voluntary system that preceded it. It is a waste of taxpayer’s money and should be abolished.

Clearly I am just a hopeless Meldrew attempting to hold back Progress… But I see myself more as an owl trying to wedge open a door so that life can flow freely through it.

Comment Image


George Calderon: Edwardian Genius Front Cover

SOME RESPONSES TO GEORGE CALDERON: EDWARDIAN GENIUS 

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

It is a masterly synthesis of your own approach with scholarship and very judicious discussion of the evidence.’ Emeritus Professor Catherine Andreyev, historian

‘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

‘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

‘It is bound to remain the definitive account.’ Laurence Senelick, Fletcher Professor of Drama, Tufts University

‘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.

Click here to purchase my book.

Posted in Edwardian character, Edwardian literature, Personal commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

From the diary of a writer-publisher: 1

27 March
Took the train asap to Daunt Books in Hampstead. They had emailed that ‘unfortunately we haven’t sold a copy and if you don’t collect them they will be given to a charity shop’. That’s £180 worth of books! I could see no sign that the books had been taken out of their box. As for my promotion suggestion that George was a Hampstead writer, had been prominent in saving the Heath for future generations, left Well Walk in 1915 never to return… (This is an ‘independent bookshop’.)

1 April
At last an email from Stig: ‘I appreciate that Calderon was a pioneer reviewer on The Dump and a significant Edwardian literary figure, but I am afraid we cannot review your biography as its contribution to Hispanic studies is negligible.’

10 April
I wrote to Mr Ed Maggs, Modern Books specialist at Maggs Bros. Ltd, Bloomsbury, founded in 1853, regarding some Edwardian volumes. I have never had contact with him before. He emails: ‘I am a closet admirer of yours, having more than once stumbled across your blog as I skate around the netweb chasing down people on the margins, and have wondered at how well you have served Calderon and his many connections. Calderonia is a wonderful resource.’ I broke three ribs falling off my chair.

GPO string, c. 1975

13 April
A German bookshop bought a copy online but clicked ‘2nd Class UK postage £32.95 GBP’ instead of ‘Europe £38.65 GBP’. The difference can’t be retrieved, so we lost £5.70 on this copy. I sent the book grinding my teeth.

17 April
Some books are despatched in Jiffy bags, others in bubblewrap and brown paper, of which I have offcuts that I want to get rid of. Some customers get a brown paper parcel secured with the above string and sometimes even red sealing wax. Today the woman in the post office said to me appreciatively: ‘That’s real string!’ It is. Along with the sealing wax and a small wooden wall clock now ticking in our kitchen, it was rescued by my father, who worked on the Post Office when all these things were being thrown out.

The string is strong, natural, and has a kind of chaffy smell from another age. The wavy ellipse that remains of its ball intrigues me. However, whenever I contemplate this phenomenon as it lies on a pile of cardboard boxes in the front room, I can think of only one thing: ‘How long is it going to take me to sell all these books?’

Comment Image


George Calderon: Edwardian Genius Front Cover

SOME RESPONSES TO GEORGE CALDERON: EDWARDIAN GENIUS 

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

It is a masterly synthesis of your own approach with scholarship and very judicious discussion of the evidence.’ Emeritus Professor Catherine Andreyev, historian

‘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

‘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

‘It is bound to remain the definitive account.’ Laurence Senelick, Fletcher Professor of Drama, Tufts University

‘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.

Click here to purchase my book.

Posted in Edwardian character, Edwardian literature, Heroism and Adventure, Personal commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Inestimable Russianist 3: Harvey Pitcher

(This series is timed to coincide with the 2019 Annual Conference of the British Association for Slavonic and East European Studies at Robinson College, Cambridge.)

Hale and hearty in his eighty-third year, Harvey Pitcher is not only one of this country’s leading Chekhov experts, he knows Edwardian Anglo-Russian contacts and life in prerevolutionary Russia inside out. When he offered to read in typescript chapter 4 of my biography, dealing with George Calderon’s stay in Russia 1895-97, and to make suggestions, I knew what an inestimable favour he was bestowing. But that was not all. As a full-time professional writer since 1971, he gave me invaluable advice about my ill-starred (requiring seventeen drafts) Introduction.

Pitcher left Academe to set up as an independent Russianist and translator at an earlier stage than Michael Pursglove or John Dewey. Having learned Russian at the famous Joint Services School of Linguists whilst doing National Service, he read the subject at Oxford, then went off to teach it at Glasgow University. After two years there, he was asked to start up the Department of Russian at St Andrews, which he most successfully did, but after eight years he left to concentrate exclusively on his writing. I cannot help feeling that that was his desired career from the beginning. The ‘early retirement’ of which his Wikipedia entry speaks took place at the age of thirty-five!

In every way, Harvey Pitcher has been a trail-blazer. His first book was published when he was twenty-eight. This was Understanding the Russians (George Allen and Unwin, 1964), which grew out of his experiences as an exchange student in Leningrad. On the one hand it presents a depressing pathology of Soviet life. Uniquely for the time, however, it also focussed on understanding how Russians feel and express their feelings. Undoubtedly this laid the foundations for the first book Pitcher published on leaving Academe:

Click the cover to find this book on Amazon.

The Chekhov Play: A New Interpretation (Chatto & Windus, 1973) unobtrusively overthrew the prevailing British consensus about Chekhov’s full-length plays. At the time, critics, directors and actors believed that the plays were, in Pitcher’s words, ‘vast coded documents which can only be deciphered with the utmost patience’; the plays were supposedly riddled with superfine irony; their whole purpose was to illustrate the ‘tragic lack of communication’ between human beings. What we were offered, then, was an essentially cerebral theatrical experience. We were supposed to think about and evaluate the characters. This melded with the Brechtian influence that British theatre was undergoing at the time, and indeed the disjunctiveness and unpredictability of Chekhovian dialogue/action were presented as a kind of ‘alienation effect’.

In place of this rather male theatre of distancing from the characters, Pitcher offered one of empathy with them. ‘At the heart of the Chekhov play’, he proclaimed, ‘there lies not emotional isolation but emotional contact between human beings.’ Chekhov was a master at activating what Pitcher called ‘the emotional network’ between a group of individuals. In terms similar to Harold Pinter’s about his own plays, Pitcher claimed that the problem was not that Chekhov’s characters couldn’t communicate with each other, but that they communicated only too well. Yet it was ‘important to bear in mind that the social conventions governing the expression of emotion do not coincide from one culture to another’. Pitcher was a pioneer in discussing the nature, strength and expression of specifically Russian emotions in Chekhov’s plays.

Although there have been more popular books in English about Chekhov’s plays, and I think our theatre now takes emotion, interpersonal communication and audience empathy for granted in them, I still feel The Chekhov Play is the most original book written on the subject in the last fifty years. In so far as George Calderon (possibly influenced by the Russian critic Aikhenval’d) originated in English the idea of ‘lack of communication’ between Chekhov’s characters, Pitcher’s interpretation was the first major revision of George’s famous Introduction to his 1912 Two Plays by Tchekhof.

Pitcher’s next book, When Miss Emmie Was in Russia: English Governesses before, during and after the October Revolution (John Murray, 1977) was again groundbreaking. In the 1970s people broadly believed that Tsarist Russia had been as bad, closed and xenophobic a country as the Soviet Union. Only émigré families knew that there had been a whole civilisation beneath the trappings of the Tsarist system. Based on Pitcher’s interviews with elderly British ladies who had lived and taught in prerevolutionary families, When  Miss Emmie Was in Russia opened our eyes to the richness and normality of Russian life before 1917. It has gone through four editions. Pitcher’s subsequent books The Smiths of Moscow (1984) and Muir & Mirrielees: The Scottish Partnership that Became a Household Name in Russia (1994) even showed how attractive Russia had been to British businesses in the nineteenth century, how the country had welcomed them, and how at ease with Russia the British families who settled there were.  A long, ecastatic review of The Smiths of Moscow by Ferdinand Mount in The Spectator suggested that the book dispelled decades of Soviet propaganda.

Click the image to find books by Harvey Pitcher on Amazon.

An essential feature of all my Inestimable Russianists is that they never take no for an answer. What they do is not just a job, they believe in it and are always prepared to act independently and take risks. Thus when Harvey Pitcher feared he might not find commercial publishers for his work, he founded his own imprint, Swallow House Books. The first book he published was a modest selection of Chekhov’s comic stories entitled Chuckle with Chekhov (1975). But the success of this was instrumental in persuading John Murray to publish in 1982, with great style, Chekhov: The Early Stories 1883-88, a collection translated by Harvey and yours truly that stayed in print for twenty-five years. The mission of this book, and Pitcher’s subsequent Chekhov: The Comic Stories (André Deutsch, 1998 and 2004) was to establish the young Chekhov in British culture as a comic and serious force in his own right.

I think it is recognised by publishers, translators and Russianists that it was Harvey Pitcher who brought this off. The proof that he succeeded is that any shelf of Chekhov translations in a bookshop today will contain at least one volume of Chekhov’s early stories translated by younger hands. As with his new interpretation of Chekhov’s plays and his pioneering act of re-establishing historical continuity between Britain and Russia, Harvey Pitcher has lived to see his championing of the early Chekhov become generally accepted. Few things, surely, can be more gratifying than vindication of that kind. But we should not forget the singlemindedness and proactivity that the effort cost Pitcher. No British publisher at the time would touch The Smiths of Moscow, Muir & Mirrielees, or his delicate novel Lily: An Anglo-Russian Romance; he had to publish them himself.

It bewilders and saddens me that Harvey Pitcher even had to self-publish Responding to Chekhov: The Journey of a Lifetime (2010). For OF COURSE the lucid meditations of someone who has worked for over fifty years on a writer of world stature will be worth reading by anyone who loves that writer — which the British do. The book was beautifully produced by Pitcher and could hold its own with any commercial paperback:

Click the cover to find this book on Amazon.

It was not well received by today’s academic Russianists. This is hardly surprising, as the book is not entitled Analysing, or Extrapolating From, Chekhov, it is about how we Respond to his writing, which is a matter of complex feeling. Moreover, just as Bakhtin wrote that ‘an author does not invite literary specialists to his banqueting table’, so Pitcher did not really invite academics to his. He tells us that his book is addressed to ‘all students of Chekhov’ and to ‘that wholly admirable if slightly unreal figure, the general reader’. Personally, I believe that posterity will cherish Responding to Chekhov.

In this brief series I have suggested that the independent Russian scholar and translator is communicative, interactive, collaborative, always proactive, and driven by love of his/her subject. Another feature is that he/she never retires… Harvey Pitcher writes that he is ‘currently engaged on putting the finishing touches to a translation of “The Lady with the Little Dog” and finding the first paragraph the most difficult, especially the first sentence, and especially the first word’. We wish him luck with translating what has been called ‘the best short story in the world’, and at least another decade of happily productive non-retirement.

Comment Image


George Calderon: Edwardian Genius Front Cover

SOME RESPONSES TO GEORGE CALDERON: EDWARDIAN GENIUS 

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

It is a masterly synthesis of your own approach with scholarship and very judicious discussion of the evidence.’ Emeritus Professor Catherine Andreyev, historian

‘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

‘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

‘It is bound to remain the definitive account.’ Laurence Senelick, Fletcher Professor of Drama, Tufts University

‘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.

Click here to purchase my book.

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

Inestimable Russianist 2: John Dewey

(This series is timed to coincide with the 2019 Annual Conference of the British Association for Slavonic and East European Studies at Robinson College, Cambridge.)

It is no exaggeration to say that John Dewey befriended Calderonia out of the blue — back in autumn 2015, I think it was. Since then he has given me the absolutely invaluable benefit of his experience and advice as a self-publisher with the Brimstone Press, he has contributed a necklace of Comments to the blog, passed gold dust to me in the form of a list of 250 email addresses used to promote his own Mirror of the Soul: A Life of the Poet Tyutchev, and completely unexpectedly written a five-star review of my biography on Amazon. John’s contribution has been truly inestimable. I thank him from the bottom of my heart for the many, many hours that he has given the whole Calderon project.

I say what follows with no aspersiveness (for I simply don’t understand the phenomenon), but the communicativeness, proactivity and sheer altruism that all three of my Inestimable Russianists practise were never conspicuous to me in Academe. But then neither Michael Pursglove, John Dewey or Harvey Pitcher is an academic Russianist. Each at some point left Academe to pursue a deep personal, one might even say existential, commitment to an aspect of Russian culture, and this has blossomed into their real career. They are thus all Russianists in the Calderon tradition: independent scholars and translators.

John Dewey’s commitment came early. At Cambridge his academic results were higher in German than Russian. He was advised therefore to specialise in German, but ‘for reasons I still find hard to explain I opted for Russian instead, with German as subsidiary’. He trusted his intuition and it served him well. He was not headed for a Cambridge Ph.D., which was a real blessing. Instead, he embarked on a career teaching German and Russian in state schools and further education. But I sense that all through his teaching career he was incubating his second career. For at Cambridge he had ‘first encountered the lyric poetry of Fyodor Tyutchev, which cast a spell that was to last for the rest of my life’. He nursed the ambition to write a biography of Tyutchev, he researched it sporadically for years, and after taking early retirement at the age of fifty he was able to get down to it in earnest. Tyutchev is one of the greatest Russian poets. Even so Dewey could not interest a commercial publisher. This led to his involvement with Brimstone Press and the publication in 2010 of this superb 547-page paperback:

It is a dizzying achievement. What needs to be grasped is that, as Stanley Mitchell wrote in the Literary Review, ‘this book is not only the first life of Tyutchev in English, it is by far the best and the most complete anywhere, including Russia’. Whereas T.J. Binyon’s magisterial 731-page biography of Pushkin (2002) must be based largely on other people’s (published) work, Dewey’s is manifestly the work of a ‘first shoveller’ in both official and personal archives. Tyutchev’s life is astonishing for its geographical mobility, heterosexual passions, philosophical depths and political connections. Dewey has written a great human document that is an essential concordance to Tyutchev’s highly personal verse.

Mirror of the Soul is now out of print (and perhaps it is a sign of the times that the indie publisher Brimstone Press has ceased trading), but Dewey has made it available as a free download at www.tyutchev.org.uk and copies can occasionally be picked up on ABE.

His biography of Tyutchev gave him unrivalled contextual access to the poetry, but he already had long experience of translating Russian verse. In particular, his rhymed version of Pushkin’s narrative poem The Bronze Horseman was shortlisted for the John Dryden Prize and published in Translation and Literature in 1998 (it too is available at www.tyutchev.org.uk). It is excellent, but I think the versions of Tyutchev that he published with Brimstone in 2014 are in a class of their own. This is because Dewey is completely attuned to Tyutchev’s idiosyncrasies as a poet and scrupulously conveys them.

Here, for example, is his translation of the first stanza of one of Tyutchev’s most famous poems, Silentium!:

Be silent, guard your tongue, and keep
All inmost thoughts and feelings deep
Within your heart concealed. There let
Them in their courses rise and set,
Like stars in jewelled night, unheard:
Admire them, and say not a word.

I cannot remember noticing that Tyutchev ever breaks a line with a full stop as in the third line of Dewey’s translation. But this creates in English precisely the kind of departure from regularity that Tyutchev delights in producing in other ways. As a translation, then, this is working very subtly by enacting ‘equivalents’ to the original. In fact, this stanza in the original has such an extreme metrical irregularity in the fifth line that one wonders whether it is not so much a poetical acte gratuit on Tyutchev’s part as the product of an editor’s tin ear! That cannot be duplicated in English, so Dewey modulates something else, whereas most translations of Tyutchev that I have seen are more smooth in metre than the original. In this poem Tyutchev particularly modulates the metre of the last line of each stanza, for dramatic, vocal effect, and Dewey does this each time too. ‘Admire them, and say not a word’ is metrically dee-dum-dee, dum-dee-dum-dee-dum, but obviously it must be read as dee-dum-dee, dee-dum-dee-dee-dum (i.e. the penultimate foot is reversed, making the last two iambic feet into a single choriamb, dum-dee-dee-dum, which is a favourite line-ending of Dewey’s). Dewey’s tendency to produce ‘sprung’ rhythm in English on top of the regular metre admirably conveys some of Tyutchev’s own apparent waywardness. If Tyutchev imperceptibly slips a tetrameter or an Alexandrine into a poem otherwise written in pentameter, Dewey will subtly do the same.

Fyodor Tyutchev, Selected Poems: Translated with an Introduction and Notes by John Dewey (Gillingham, Brimstone Press, 2014) is now sold out, but accessible online at www.tyutchev.org.uk.

Since 1994 John Dewey has also translated many modern prose works for the pioneer Anglo-Russian publisher Glas, for example Boris Yampolsky’s classic novel The Old Arbat and writing by Irina Muravyova and Ksenia Zhukova. But I would particularly draw followers’ attention to his selection of the early twentieth century writer Yevgeny Zamyatin, entitled The Sign: And Other Stories. This attractive paperback was published by Brimstone in 2015 and copies are still available from chris@mikeoldfield.org.

I do not read many English translations of Russian works, and when I do I tend to read bits of them very closely and compare them with the original. I sat down with The Sign: And Other Stories intending to do the same, but the English simply carried me away and I read the whole book in two sittings. With translations of prose you want absolute accuracy, of course, but far more. It is not enough to say that you want the translation to ‘read like English’; you want it to read like an absolutely original writer of English and you always want that effect from it — it must be totally consistently native English, talented, fresh and finessed. It’s a lot to ask, but that’s what Dewey has produced with this breathtaking range of stories by Zamyatin, all but one of them never translated before. I did compare some passages of Russian and I am lost in admiration for how he has rendered them. The only adequate compliment I can pay these translations is to say that any reader and/or aspiring young writer in English MUST read these masterpieces of modernist fiction.

The official academic criterion of a person’s output these days is ‘impact’. In Russian Studies, at least, biography seems to be deeply out of favour, presumably because its impact is rated as low. But impact upon whom? The impact of an article entitled ‘Polysemous transgradiency of diachronic antinomial tropes in some poems of Pushkin’s Lycée period’ may be profound on other academics, but beyond? Similarly, believe it or not but in Academe translation is only just being recognised as an ‘impactful’ activity! I feel sure that the impact of Dewey’s scholarly but beautifully written biography of Tyutchev, his absorbing biographical-critical articles on Tyutchev’s poetry published in East-West Review over the last three years, and his translations of the poems themselves, will far outstrip anything of which most academics can dream.

John Dewey, independent scholar, translator and may one say populariser, has produced a body of first-class work that is a very serious contribution to Anglophone understanding of Russian literature. It will endure.

Comment Image


George Calderon: Edwardian Genius Front Cover

SOME RESPONSES TO GEORGE CALDERON: EDWARDIAN GENIUS 

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

It is a masterly synthesis of your own approach with scholarship and very judicious discussion of the evidence.’ Emeritus Professor Catherine Andreyev, historian

‘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

‘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

‘It is bound to remain the definitive account.’ Laurence Senelick, Fletcher Professor of Drama, Tufts University

‘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.

Click here to purchase my book.

Posted in Modern parallels, Personal commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Inestimable Russianist 1: Michael Pursglove

(This series is timed to coincide with the 2019 Annual Conference of the British Association for Slavonic and East European Studies held 12-14 April at Robinson College, Cambridge, where Sam&Sam will be promoting George Calderon: Edwardian Genius.)

When Michael Pursglove reviewed George Calderon: Edwardian Genius at length in the journal of the Great Britain-Russia Society, I was very gratified by the comprehensiveness of his review and the fact that he focussed on some themes that are particularly dear to me. But I was absolutely staggered when he also suggested leads to discovering the identity of two ‘mysterious’ figures in the book who had eluded me for thirty years! These were ‘Mrs Shapter’ (p. 105), who I thought might have taught George Russian, and ‘Professor Rose of Leipzig’ (p. 426), whom Kittie tried to take on to complete George’s book on folklore for OUP. Thanks to Michael Pursglove, I now know who these people were (I will post about them later).

Perhaps I should not have been surprised at all, though, as Pursglove is one of the most experienced and deeply informed Russianists alive in Britain today.

I first met him in 1985, when he was a lecturer at Reading University and I gave a talk there entitled ‘Why Chekhov?’, as a result of which I invited him to give one in Cambridge. This was ‘Andrew Assumption or Andrei Voznesensky’ — the best disquisition on translating Russian poetry into English that I have ever heard. The talk was also notable for its high student turnout and the presence of a fresh-faced future Cambridge Professor of Slavonic Studies who voiced his appreciation of Pursglove’s verse translation of a poem by Voznesensky (‘Assumption’, as the name might be rendered).

Michael Pursglove, whom I don’t think I have met since then, writes that he has ‘some reservations about my university career’. I imagine many of his contemporaries, myself included, have reservations about our own, although it seems to me that his career was highly distinguished, taking in posts in Russian language and literature at the universities of Ulster, Reading, Bath and Exeter. But since retiring in 2002 Pursglove has had a whole new career. This definitely places him in the Calderonian tradition of independent scholar and translator, and perhaps for him even occludes his earlier career.

According to my calculations, he has published over eighty articles and reviews since leaving Academe, ranging in subject from Anna Karenina, poets of Russia’s ‘Golden Age’, Turgenev, Dostoevsky and Grigorovich, to a whole series on the deaf community in Russia. He writes that what he enjoys most is translating poetry, but he agrees with the late Robert Conquest that ‘translating rhymed poetry into English rhymed poetry is the most difficult of arts’. His own published translations of Russian poetry include works by Zhukovsky, Pushkin, Lermontov, Vyazemsky, Tyutchev and Larissa Miller.

Click the cover to find this book on Amazon.

However, the most remarkable achievement of Pursglove’s new career, to my mind, is that between 2010 and the present he has translated six major works by Turgenev: Fathers and Children, Smoke, Virgin Soil, A Nest of the Gentry, On the Eve, and The Diary of a Superfluous Man. As Pushkin put it, ‘translators are the post horses of enlightenment’ — and some of the horses certainly need changing. One of the things I most admire about Pursglove is his energy and resourcefulness in getting his work out there: his Turgenev translations have all been brought out by the independent publisher Alma Books, founded by Alessandro Gallenzi and Elisabetta Minervini, and when he could not find a publisher for his and A.B. Murphy’s annotated translation of Giliarovskii’s classic Moscow and Muscovites he posted it online, where it has had nearly 3000 hits.

Meanwhile — as if the above were not enough — Pursglove has discovered a rich vein of research in the ‘unknown’ Edwardian translators of the Russian classics, many of whom were women. I 1000% approve. The subject badly needs opening up. Victorian translations were horrendous, and rightly excoriated by George Calderon. Their Edwardian successors, such as Constance Garnett, Aylmer and Louise Maude, and George himself, were real translators, and there are many more of them under the surface who deserve to be discovered. Hopefully Pursglove will be persuaded to do a post for us about them.

I wish the inestimable Michael Pursglove many more years of creative fulfilment, rewarding research, and surprises for us all in his new career.

Comment Image


George Calderon: Edwardian Genius Front Cover

SOME RESPONSES TO GEORGE CALDERON: EDWARDIAN GENIUS 

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

It is a masterly synthesis of your own approach with scholarship and very judicious discussion of the evidence.’ Emeritus Professor Catherine Andreyev, historian

‘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

‘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

‘It is bound to remain the definitive account.’ Laurence Senelick, Fletcher Professor of Drama, Tufts University

‘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.

Click here to purchase my book.

Posted in Edwardian English, Edwardian literature, Modern parallels, Personal commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Inestimable Russianists: A Coming Series of Posts

Frankly, one of the worst experiences from publishing my biography of George Calderon has been the appalling response to the 71 complimentary and review copies that I sent out. I was encouraged, for instance, by specific journalists at The TimesTLS, Daily Telegraph and Sunday Times to send them review copies, but have not had so much as a thank you from them, let alone a review. There are also half a dozen ‘friends’ who have not thanked me and in at least one case have put their inscribed copy on ABEbooks! For the benefit of other independent publishers, I’ll post about this excruciating phenomenon at a future date. Suffice it to say, I shall never make the mistake again…

But one of the best experiences has been making, or renewing, the acquaintance of three Russianists of more or less my own generation who have independently and utterly selflessly supported the project in a multiplicity of  ways. I myself had been out of the world of Russianists for over twenty-five years; so I am really moved that they spontaneously stepped forward to help me. They are Michael Pursglove, John Dewey, and Harvey Pitcher. Each of them has a fantastically fertile career behind him, and is still producing translations and articles today. Over the next month, then, I shall be featuring them and their work in three individual posts.

These senior British Russianist-translators are the true heirs of Edwardians George Calderon, Constance Garnett, and Aylmer Maude.

Comment Image


George Calderon: Edwardian Genius Front Cover

SOME RESPONSES TO GEORGE CALDERON: EDWARDIAN GENIUS 

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

It is a masterly synthesis of your own approach with scholarship and very judicious discussion of the evidence.’ Emeritus Professor Catherine Andreyev, historian

‘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

‘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

‘It is bound to remain the definitive account.’ Laurence Senelick, Fletcher Professor of Drama, Tufts University

‘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.

Click here to purchase my book.

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

Yes, it’s divorce!

It is with the deepest euphoria that I announce my permanent separation from commercial publishers. They have wasted too much of my time. They forget that serfdom was abolished in Britain in 1574. To celebrate my release, I have asked Sam2 to design the above card, as a sequel to the more fragrant one featured in an earlier post.

My decision has nothing to do with the fact that I spent the whole of 2017 approaching 47 commercial publishers about publishing George Calderon: Edwardian Genius and only two of them offered me a contract — which I had to reject. It was an interesting, if time-consuming experience, from which I learnt a lot. For example, that 50% of them never reply (even when I had had dealings with them before). For example, that big publishers cannot accept anything new. For example, that they yearn to be writers themselves and entirely rewrite your book.

No, the decision has been triggered by my recently acquiring experience of the lower end of commercial publishing, namely publishers who may have old, much respected names, but publish not many books and in specialised areas. What I am going to describe is quite possibly, nay certainly, common knowledge amongst full-time professional writers, but it has come as a revelation to me.

My co-author and I were invited to meet an interested publisher and his editor. The discussion seemed to be going well, except that (I am not exaggerating) one could never see the publisher’s actual eyes in his forever grinning face. My co-author said that he felt the proposed price for the book was too high for something so short which we hoped would reach a wider public. The publisher agreed to drop it below £10. The publisher called for certain additions to the Preface, which I persuaded my co-author to accept. We also consented to shorten the text in eight places. General agreement seemed to have been reached, and the publisher told us he would now draw up a contract. Then he said:

‘Unfortunately, we cannot offer an advance.’

Caught completely off guard, we were lost for words. The publisher, however, had delivered this line as though it were a minor detail, rattled straight on and concluded the meeting as fast as possible. We should have smelt a rat at that point.

Of course, we knew that it would never be a big advance, but an advance is symbolical; however small it is, it conveys good will and a commitment to literary etiquette. The point was not the size of the advance (it could have been as symbolical as £50) but the positive message its giving would have sent. Evidently the publisher didn’t care about that.

Then the contract arrived. It was the most Draconian, exploitative, offensive contract I have ever seen. What it added up to was that the publisher would take every penny off us that he could; indeed we would probably end up giving him money, because of two specific clauses in it. The first is too long and complex to explain here, suffice it to say that it empowered the publisher to withold royalty payments after three years ‘as a reserve’. The second was far worse. This would have obliged us to pay to the publisher the money paid to us from PLR (Public Lending Right provisions for authors). This seemed so extraordinary that I emailed for confirmation that it was what the clause meant. It was. If not actually illegal, such extortion is completely against the spirit and intention of PLR. Incidentally, in the contract the publisher had reverted to the price which he had agreed at our meeting would be dropped to under £10…

We inquired whether this contract was negotiable. It was not. We therefore refused to sign it. Significantly, I think, the publisher told us that he was used to turning down authors for contracts, but not to authors turning him down. He implied he was offended!

Well, at that point the penny dropped. These publishers (we had rejected a contract from a similar one six months earlier) are a new brand of ‘vanity publisher’. A little investigation on the Web reveals that they arrogate the names of distinguished publishing houses of the past along with what remains of them on paper, and launch their enterprises on these imprints. In the old days, authors paid ‘vanity publishers’ to publish their work; these new vanity publishers, however, don’t ask for money from their authors, they simply prevent them from making any and fleece them for extras like PLR payments. Of course, it amounts to the same thing. Despite their venerable names, the publishers we had been dealing with are vanity publishers trading on the fact that their authors want their work published. Indeed, a more detailed examination of the last publisher’s list revealed, as well as a few respectable names, several works that were dreadful (‘unpublishable’).

So I have seen the light about publishers big and small, and I will stay with Sam&Sam, thank you. Henceforth I will resort only to independent publishing of the timbre that brought out George Calderon: Edwardian Genius.

However, I admit this does raise a question; one that I would be very interested to hear readers’ views about. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VANITY PUBLISHING AND SELF-PUBLISHING? (Apart from the fact that in vanity publishing someone else takes the money and in indie publishing you do.)


Click here to purchase my book.

SOME RESPONSES TO GEORGE CALDERON: EDWARDIAN GENIUS 

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

It is a masterly synthesis of your own approach with scholarship and very judicious discussion of the evidence.’ Emeritus Professor Catherine Andreyev, historian

 

Cover with Bellyband

‘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

‘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

‘It is bound to remain the definitive account.’ Laurence Senelick, Fletcher Professor of Drama, Tufts University

‘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.

Comment Image

Posted in Personal commentary | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment