As well as online and by personal communication with me, my biography of George Calderon can now be bought at the following bookshops: Blackwell’s of Oxford, Daunts of Hampstead, Foyles of Charing Cross Road, Jarrolds of Norwich, the National Archives bookshop at Kew, and…Heffers of Cambridge.
Where Heffers (owned by Blackwell’s) is concerned, thereby hangs a tale. They took delivery of ten copies only yesterday:
Since it is Cambridge’s most famous bookshop after antiquarian David’s, I wrote to Heffers well before publication date (which was 7 September). In fact, I made out a strong case to them for staging my launch there, surrounded by their stock of Russian literary classics in translation (particularly Chekhov) and linked in with the University’s Slavonic Department. No response. A fortnight later, I wrote to the manager again, pointing out that Heffers’s parent company, Blackwell’s of Oxford, had not only bought ten copies outright but were going to mount a ‘promotional around Calderon, Russian Literature and Chekhov during University term’. No response.
Well, having after a visit rejected Toppings of Ely as a venue for the launch, we settled for Cambridge’s Polish Club, Polonia, where the vodka and food were ripping (forgive the Edwardianese) and we had a pretty uproarious time.
Once Blackwell’s had got their promotional underway, I emailed the only address I could find for Heffers, implying heavily that if Blackwell’s of Oxford could do this, why couldn’t Blackwell’s of Cambridge? No response. One has to accept that there are people who, extraordinary though it sounds, don’t buy books online but go to physical bookshops to browse and buy. Around this time, it was becoming increasingly embarrassing as about ten people I know in Cambridge asked me whether they could buy it at Heffers, or told me with a tone of affront: ‘I haven’t seen it in Heffers!’ It annoyed me too, because some of my friends or acquaintances are actually embarrassed to come to me to buy my book, and when they do I feel a similar pressure of embarrassment to give them a copy free…
I seriously considered how I could outwit the CCTV cameras in Heffers and plonk half a dozen copies in the middle of their front display desk. But then I wouldn’t have made anything from them. So there I let it lie. Until the other day I found myself on the website ‘Visit Cambridge’ and there was a different email address for Heffers. I saw red and thundered out, more to get it off my chest than anything:
I have had an email from Professor X of Y College this week complaining that he went into Heffers (Blackwell’s Cambridge) to buy a copy of my book GEORGE CALDERON: EDWARDIAN GENIUS (see sam&sam.co.uk) and was told you don’t stock it. I have written and emailed you three times about this matter with no response whatsoever. If Blackwell’s Oxford, Daunts Hampstead, Foyles London, the National Archives bookshop and Jarrolds Norwich can take 6-10 copies on sale or return, why cannot my local bookshop Heffers that I have been patronising for 52 years?
Naturally I wasn’t expecting a response, but there must be something about the Visit Cambridge website that I don’t know, because I promptly received an apologetic response from the very manager of Heffers to whom I had written by Royal Mail twice in July. To cut the tale short, he agreed to take ten copies and display them as though the book had just been published — on their front display desk, I trust.
Naturally I do not recount all this out of demented Meldrewism, but simply to demonstrate that selling books as an independent publisher is not a doddle. However, there is another moral, I’m afraid: Never write emails whilst seeing red. I carelessly said ‘6-10 copies on sale or return’, when I should have said ‘outright like your Oxford shop’. The manager of Heffers has taken ten copies, but held me to sale or return.
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.
George’s thought for the day
Some time ago a reader asked me whether I thought George Calderon subscribed to Thomas Carlyle’s theory of the ‘great man’ in history. This theory was certainly popular with the Victorians and, as the reader pointed out, George’s extreme individualism could have been underpinned by belief in the ‘great man’ as the driving force of events. For instance, when George decided to travel all over the country at his own expense during the Coal Strike of 1912 addressing thousands of people, it was suggested that he wanted to thrust himself forward as leader of the strike-busting movement (an ambition he denied). Was he driven by a secret desire to be a hero or ‘great man’ himself?
I was startled by this reader’s suggestion, as I had not even mentioned Carlyle in my biography. Yet George owned nine of Carlyle’s books, including the key text Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History, and it occurred to me that when he wrote to Grant Richards on 17 September 1911 that Chekhov was ‘a great man’, but did not explain what made him great, he was simply using the phrase in the Carlylian sense and Richards would have known how he meant it.
When I catalogued George and Kittie’s library over ten years ago, I flipped through each book and recorded whether it was annotated. Except when reading a book for review, George was a sparing annotator, but when he did intervene his comments were exceedingly fine and significant. I suddenly had a worry that I might have overlooked something in his copies of Carlyle. I therefore arranged to revisit his library in store and go through every copy of his Carlyle again, page by page. There was no evidence that he had even read the copy of Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History. As I had recorded before, only his copies of two books bore a few annotations, viz. The French Revolution (3 vols, 1889) and Critical and Miscellaneous Essays (3 vols, 1903).
However… When going through George and Kittie’s library I had come across photographs, greeting cards, visiting cards, and even letters, that had been used as bookmarks. Sometimes these were biographically significant. They were all removed from the books and filed in the appropriate part of the archive. But plain pieces of paper used as bookmarks were left where they were. There was an octavo sheet of laid white paper stuck in a volume of The French Revolution, but it had nothing on the front except a deep brown stain of time across the top where it protruded from the book; so I left it where it was and kept turning the pages. But this time as I turned the bookmark I noticed that it had three lines of writing on the back in very faint pencil. They were in George’s hand, but his own ‘cipher’, as Kittie called it. Having no camera, I attempted a facsimile:
Transcript of note in George’s hand on back of bookmark
Most of this was easily decipherable using George’s key, but the remaining words have taken me eight weeks to crack! I am confident now that the note means:
The handwriting in my opinion is late, around 1912. So why did George jot this thought down at least five years after he had abandoned his fundamental examination of ‘the canonical books of the Christians, in chronological order’ (see p. 200 of the biography)? Was he still as doubtful about the ‘divinity of Jesus’ as he had told Kittie in a letter on 11 February 1899 (see p. 39) and had suddenly been struck by a piece of evidence?
It’s an argument of characteristic Calderonian ingenuity. I have had a look at the accounts of Christ’s baptism in the gospels. They certainly agree that John baptised people only after they had confessed their sins and repented, but John refuses at first to baptise Jesus because he is ‘the Lamb of God’ — presumably without sin. Jesus however insists, ‘for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness’ (Matthew 3, verse 15), and John does baptise him. Why? What does ‘to fulfill all righteousness’ mean?
I asked scientist-theologian John Polkinghorne whether Jesus could have been baptised if he had no sins to confess. Yes, was his answer, because the purpose of his baptism was to express his complete solidarity with human beings, to demonstrate that he was ‘with’ John and all those John was baptising. Thus whereas George concluded the baptism of Christ disproved Christ’s divinity, for a modern theologian it proves Christ’s humanity!
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.