The number of prominent people who commit suicide in the oh so democratic state of the Federal Republic of Germany is impressive. A few immediately coThe number of prominent people who commit suicide in the oh so democratic state of the Federal Republic of Germany is impressive. A few immediately come to this reviewer's mind. There was Ulrike Meinhof of course, who was apparently so depressed she hanged herself. The authorities later took off her skull for examination to prove to the world that she suffered from some version of bipolar disorder, a contributing factor presumably to her suicide. Ulrike Meinhof was followed a year later by her RAF comrades Gudrun Ensslin, Andreas Baader and Jan-Carl Raspe in the “high security” prison in Stammheim where they were held. Raspe and Baader reportedly shot themselves and Ensslin died by strangulation. They were depressed after hearing of the failure of an RAF hostage capture to work their release. This story is widely accepted by the German public. Another public figure whose depression led to suicide according to reports is the former president of the state of Schleswig Holstein Uwe Barschel. This gentleman apparently drowned himself in a hotel bath fully dressed, an eccentric way of ending one's own life, but accepted by the general public as just one of those things. Then there was Jürgen Möllermann, a member of the FDP party (free democrats) who had associated himself with the Arab cause against the official policy of his party and the government, who became “depressed” and “ostracised” to the point that he felt his life was not worth living. Möllermann intentionally failed to open his parachute while indulging his favourite sport of sky diving while depressed. The account of these sudden deaths as case of suicide are accepted by the great majority of a trusting German public. Only a few “conspiracy theorists” are sceptical of these official and state and media approved narratives. It is worth noting that the media financed by a mandatory tax on every citizen of over 200 euros a year in the German Federal Republic work in close collaboration with the political authorities. This has been increasingly evident in recent years.
One of the most implausible suicides of a prominent personality living under the jurisdiction of the West German puppet regime is Rudolf Hess. The account given here is by his son Rüdiger Hess. Rüdiger Hes sis convinced his father was murdered. Hess was interred by the Allies in 1941 for flying to Scotland in the hope of negotiating a peace settlement. He was condemned to life imprisonment with the only possibility of release in his later years if the four powers occupying Berlin (France, Britain, the USA and Russia) would unanimously agree to his release on compassionate grounds. Hess's release had been repeatedly rejected by Soviet authorities. However, President Gorbachev on behlaf of the Soviet Union consented to Hess's release. It was not to be. On Monday August 17th 1987 a “tired” 93 years old Rudolph Hess “with no strength left in his hands” (page 49) took advantage of the absence of his personal guard, who was conveniently called away by a telephone call which according to that same guard proved to have no one at the other end, in that moment the very frail old man, shocked at the prospect of being let free rushed back to his cell, got onto a chair and hanged himself with an electric cord which had been “accidentally” left behind by staff of an electric company, a company which never confirmed they had forgotten any cord.
In this sad book Rüdiger Hess explains the circumstances of his father's death and argues convincingly that Hess was murdered by British Intelligence with the connivance of course of the subservient little German state. Both Britain and Germany were frightened by the possibility that despite his advanced years Hess might act as a political magnet for opponents of the pro Western NATO state of Germany. The German Federal Republic remains then and now a vassal of the West. If this account is to be believed, the submissive little German state will look the other way if instructed to do so, when suicides take place.
This is a sad but necessary book for anyone who wishes to be familiar with the trajectory of the life of Rudolf Hess and what he sought for himself his country and the world or who seeks an insight into the hypocritical nature of “democratic” regimes which are loud in voicing outrage at the deaths of dissidents in other lands but ingenuously assure the world when their own dissidents die suddenly and unexpectedly, that it is because they have become “depressed” at their own failings, failures and shortcomings and for that reason put an end to their lives. Honit soit qui mal y pense....more
Most people will know Rider Haggard only as the writer of She. She, that unforgettable story of youth, death immortality and undying love, and She wilMost people will know Rider Haggard only as the writer of She. She, that unforgettable story of youth, death immortality and undying love, and She will I think always be the achievement for which Rider Haggard will be principally remembered. Speaking for myself, She belongs to the select group of forty or so novels which obsessed and obsess me throughout my life. But Rider Haggard, at lest according to Pocock's biography, believed that a more important aspect of his life and even a greater achievement, was to contribute to reforms and changes which would ensure the survival of the British empire. This surpised me very much; Pocock's biography offers many surprises to those who only know Haggard as the author of She.
Rider Haggard was very much a man of his time, very much a late Victorian and Edwardian champion of the British empire, a man who strongly believed in the civilizing virtues of empire but one who nevertheless did not accept truths as “given”, nor did he suffer platitudes lightly. He believed in the one Christian god yet could not accept that those of other religions were either “ignorant” or underdeveloped” or “heretical”. There is arguably a cultural relativism to Haggard's brand of imperialism which looks forward to modern revisionist critiques of colonialism. As a man of his time Haggard was also convinced of the imperative of defeating the Boers in South Africa (from this biography we learn that he admired the Zulus more than he did the Boers and he deplored the Boer quest for total separation (apartheid) of white settler and African.
Many of Haggard's prognoses of forthcoming world developments were on the nail: he warned that Germany would be set on a path of revenge after the defeat of 1918 and the demands for reparations on the grounds of sole responsibility for war as laid down in the Treaty of Versailles; he foretold China's rise to world power status and the threat that the rise of Asia posed to the dreams of some kind of British or white imperium. Although he wrote a huge number of novels, mostly adventure stories in Africa involving buried kingdoms, lost civilizations, barbaric customs, even demonic rites (one recalls HP Lovecraft: one wonders-did Lovecraft read Rider Haggard adventures?) and was in his time as now mostly known as a novelist, he wanted to be thought of as a social and economic reformer. He was irritated when journalists would show more interest in his plans for a new novel than in any practical mission to create a resettlement plan for the empty colonies or to further agricultural reform. (Haggard believed very much in agricultural self sufficiency based on supporting small family farms. One can well imagine what he would have thought of modern agricultural policies such as the CAP!)
Haggard was keen to populate the empty spaces of the dominions, notably Canada and Australia, with British settlers. He did not use the expression but his dream seemed to be the creation of a white commonwealth of British nations. It was not to be, although the Ottawa agreement on trade and tariffs of 1932, signed seven years after his death, was a modest first step in that direction, and may have owed something to Haggard's strivings and not inconsiderable influence (he had personal access to many prime ministers of the British empire and was a close friend of the American president, Theodor Roosevelt). The events of the Second World War and the subsequent rise of the United States and the creation of a European tariff union heralded the end of dreams of a rejuvenated British empire. The dominions drifted ever further from the British motherland and Britain itself joined the European economic “common market” in 1971, a step which simply confirmed on paper the factually long existent demise of empire, an act comparable in its symbolic weight to the abdication of the last Roman Emperor in 476.
Anyone either interested in the Victorian and Edwardian age, in the aspirations of empire, or in the remarkable personality of the creator of She, will not be disappointed by Pocock's biography. However, the biography lacks the passionate engagement so characteristic of Haggard himself. Pocock is balanced and fair, but singularly lacks what DH Lawrence called “the sense of wonder” a sense which permeated Haggard's life, love, commitments and all he undertook The blurb to this edition includes the statement about Haggard: “His imagination was held by the reality of the British Empire and its future rather than the lost civilizations of his literary fantasies.” That might have been written by Pocock himself (perhaps it was, the blurb it is not attributed) and herein lies the failing of this highly readable biography, it fails to connect between the nostalgia, fantasy and yearning of Rider Haggard, in his politics and in his fiction, it fails to understand the connection between the fantasy of lost civilizations in Haggard's fiction and the imperial utopia which he yearned to realise in the real practical world. That task, I mean the task of apprehending the relation between the conjuring of lost civilizations in the mind's eye and the yearning for the creation or recreation of civilizations in practical reality, the making of the connect between nostalgia and yearning, that is a task which Pocock leaves to the reader....more
The Lightning and the Sun by Sevitri Devi is a book written with passion, in religious frenzy. The frenzy strikes the reader like a suddenly illuminatThe Lightning and the Sun by Sevitri Devi is a book written with passion, in religious frenzy. The frenzy strikes the reader like a suddenly illuminating shaft of lightning. Savitri Devi was born Maximine Portaz and adopted the nom de plum in Sanskrit: Goddess of the Sun Rays. She was devoted and fanatical national socialist and Hindu. She believed strongly in the role of avatars in human history. An avatar is the incarnation of a deity in human form. The Lightning and the Sun considers a number of figures whom the authoress regards as avatars and whose lives she recounts from the perspective of what she understands to be cosmic history: Genghis Khan, Akhenaton, Adolph Hitler and finally he who is yet to come, Kalki, the avenger.
The writer passionately rejects Abrahamic religions, that is to say Islam (submission), Judaism (allegiance to the tribes of Israel) and Christianity (followers of the Nazarene cult). The Abrahamic religions all uphold the belief that there is only one god who speaks from above to his followers whose doctrine, so Savitri Devi, runs counter to the laws of nature. She rejects the doctrine of progress and equality of souls before God. Perhaps most importantly, she decries the humanism and anthropomorphism which creates what she sees as abstractions "Man" and "the human race" and "the soul of each individual". History does not run to a final end as preached in The Bible, nor are all men created in the image of God regardless of their origins as preached by the purveyors of the Mohammedan and Nazarene faiths. History in the traditional Aryan world view is cyclical and within that cycle are four yugas or stages, just as a human life is made up of four Ashramas. The four yugas are Satya Yuga, Treta Yuga, Dwapar Yuga, and Kali Yuga. For those whose understanding of the world springs from Hindoo teaching, humankind is now in the last stage, the stage of strife and disintegration, the Kali Yuga.
This is the background to the understanding of this highly unusual, even original work. Savitri Devi is convinced , empowered and inspired by the vision of a world of light to come. The book yearns for the return of the Golden Age The Satya Yuga. Nothing, according to this writer, can save mankind from catastrophe now because that is a cosmic law that man must be destroyed to be reborn. The Gods sent one man to turn back time and he foundered and was brought low. This book is written in contempt, increasing contempt of mankind. Why “increasing”? because as a die hard national socialist, the writer believes the human species is degenerating. It will become and is becoming ever les scapable of creating beautiful things. It is becoming ever less spiritual and more centred on its simplest appetites. This short excerpt exemplifies the writer's pathos: "The privileged ones-the wise-are those few who, being fully aware of the increasing worthlessness of present-day mankind and of its much-applauded "progress", know how little there is to be lost in the coming crash and look forward to it with joyous expectation as the necessary condition of a new beginning-a new "Golden Age", sunlit crest of the next long drawn downward wave upon the surface of the Endless Ocean of Life."
The Lightning and the Sun stands out above all as a spirited rejection of humanism and progress, doctrines which regards all human lives as inherently equal, all human life inherently superior to the rest of the natural world and of inherent value, regardless of such qualities the individual life may or more importantly may not have. The doctrine spread and proclaimed by Abrahamic religions insists on the equality and timelessness of individual souls, exclusively of human souls, which will be granted eternal bliss by an omniscient God. Animals and plants only exist to serve Man who is made in God's image. The semitic religions are fundamentally, so Devi unnatural, worse they are anti-natural.
For Savitri Devi a human being's value lies "not in the intellect but in the spirit".
The Lightning and the Sun is dedicated to the man hear presented as the penultimate and greatest avatar to date preceding the ultimate avatar, Kalki the destroyer. Her dedication "as a tribute of unfailing love and loyalty, for ever and ever" reads: To the god-like Individual of our time; the Man against Time; the greatest European of all times; both Sun and Lightning: Adolf Hitler
Adolf Hitler for Savitri Devi is a man against time that is to say fighting valiantly but vainly against the inexorable compulsion of cosmic destiny in which all men sink into death and destruction in the culmination of the horror which is the triumph of Jewish individualism which is in the end of days nihilism and self destruction. The ideal which she believes Hitler longed for was "the Golden Age ideal", the inner vision of a healthy, beautiful and peaceful (necessarily peaceful) world; of the real earthly paradise, faithful image of cosmic perfection, in which righteousness prevails as a matter of course."
Few books are written which such power and passion, the passion of conviction, as this book. One book which does come to mind, (I doubt either writer would thank me for making the comparison but who knows?) is Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Yes Ayn Rand née Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum, the Jewish champion of unbridled capitalism, also introduces her book with a dedication which is planned to provoke: to America's persecuted minority Big Businessmen". Ayn Rand's book is religious too in the same sense that she believes in cosmic values. John Galt makes the sign of the dollar over a flourishing landscape based on the Jewish virtues of progress, selfishness and individualism. For Ayn Rand, America's upward surge in its young days, the conquest of the West, the suppression of the savages, the development of the land were the hallmarks of triumphant individualism over what the hero of her book codnemning collectivism, calls the "slime of Europe".
The Lightning and The Sun is at the opposite pole to Atlas Shrugged but therein lies a perverse affinity of opposites. Both works exult great individuals and are contemptuous of the masses. Both acknowledge the Titanic struggles which unfold in the world.
In the world at the time of writing it indeed seems as though the Hindoo writings and Savitri Devi's work is a work of Hindoo writing, is unfolding with clarity. As the human species relentlessly increases its population and its average intelligence sinks and the natural world is exploited ever more, now in the year 2021 there a true apprehension of Armageddon underlying the fear and helplessness in the face of global disasters. The politicians of the entire world still stubbornly creep and cringe before their doleful idols "progress" and "growth" and “development” and scientists working on projects of artificial Intelligence are near to proclaiming in seems the replacement of the species with machines. The humanist dogma that each individual is of equal worth to every other individual, the doctrine which insists that people ignore the evidence of their eyes and that there are no differences from one race to another between one gender and the other, that dogma will be irrelevant when the master scientists and experts announce their cyborg. The plundering of the planet, the industrial slaughter of animals, the cult of ugliness and death: are these not indeed manifestations of an age which is increasingly dire, foreboding and dark, a Kali yuga?
The Lightning and the Sun is a religious book and therefore disregards what would strike a discordant note in this encomium to the avatars of the Aryan race. Specifically Savitri Devi passes in silence the abuse of medicine in the Third Reich and the allegations of mass extermination and mass sterilisation. The admiration for stalin struck a discordant note for me. Savitri Devi refers to a respect which Hitler is purported tohave expressed for Stalin's acumen. I do not know where she had that from. She herself expresses a certain respect for Stalin. another avatar? The dark side to this celebration of greatness is cruelty to the weak. To write enthusiastically of the greatness or mission of men like Genkhis Khan or Adolf Hitler and evince no pity whatsoever for those who suffer that the great may thrive comes uncomfortably close in my view to admiration of power as the natural expression of the law of nature that the strong rule over the weak. However, this social Darwinianism which can certainly be seen in Hitler seems at odds with the writer's insitence that the ultimate vision of the avatar in being a force against time, was to retrieve the era of peace the Kali Yuga. The national socialist regime was condemned among other things for vivisection practised on human beings, those it considered inferior human subjects. It is stretching belief in Hitler as a man of peace and goodness in his entuirety to breaking point to assume that human experiemnts were a necessary part of his mission. Experiments carried out (in)famously by Dr Mengele were continued in the USA after the war and although the CIA insists that the reprogramming experiemnts code named Monarch have ceased, rumours and consipracy theories abound that they did not cease. For many who believe that the curenet dispensation si demonic, part of that demonic rule owes methods to the regime which Savitri Devi offers as the expression of Aryan greatness and divinity. What of the alleged link between alleged experiments on mind control in national socialist Germany and the subsequent mind control projects, notably the MK Ultra project developed after the Second World War by the CIA ? These are part of the allegations which adherents of the theses of Lyndon Larouche maintain in their widespread presence on the internet. They cannot be ignored and if they can be refuted, Savitri Devi so far as I am aware, did not attempt that task. This is a significant rift. For those who regard the common doctrines of humanism as manifestations of a force of destruction, is that force Satanic in the Christian sense or Jewish? Was the persecution of witches in Europe for example a healthy reaction to the early challenge of Satanic hysteria, as the current conspiracy theorists of the strong Christian persuasion will have their followers believe, or a Christian man dominated cult persecution of women whose crime was to work more closely with nature than the Church would tolerate? The beliefs of a writer such as Savitri Devi and the beliefs of Christian followers of Larouche who link national socialism itself to Satanism are the same insofar as they believe that we are in a dark age (Kali Yuga or end times) at least agree that our times are very dark ones. This is one issue which has come to the fore in recent years and which is not dealt with here in any way.
Savitri Devi stresses that part of national socialism which is perhaps after all its fundamental premise, also, to borrow her own phrase, "above time", namely the claim of national socialism to act in harmony with, and not in opposition to, the laws of nature. "At the beginning of our Time-cycle" she writes in her penultimate chapter, Gods on earth "(as it is shown in the myth of the Garden of Eden, which the Christians borrowed from the Jews, and the latter from immemorial non-Jewish sources) man, — Golden Age man, in all his pristine health and beauty, — was a perfect part of a perfect Creation, in harmony with himself and with it; with every living being, which he at first respected. “Sin” — the cause of degeneracy — consisted not in man’s rebellion against a man-loving “God distinct from the Universe and “Maker” of it in the manner an artisan is the maker of a pot or of a watch, but in rebellion against that divine living Nature of which man was and remains a part and nothing but a part. It consisted in man’s implicit claim to dominate and even to “change” Nature for his own ends and, as time passed and as “civilisation” spread, in his increasing contempt for the silent daily example given him by less evolved (but also less corrupt) living species, still faithful to the spirit and purpose of Creation; in his deliberate transgression of the laws of Life for the sake of pleasure, temporary convenience or mere superstition. In other words, it consisted — and consists — in the sacrifice of the divine whole to the part, and of the future to the present; of the Universe to “man” and of every human race to the individual; and of the individual’s own immortality in his race and of his proper mission in the universal scheme, to a passing whim or a tiny, selfish “happy life.” It is noticeable that in this Dark Age — the only one, the historical evolution of which we can somewhat follow, religion itself has become, everywhere (in practice at least, when not also dogmatically) more and more man-centred and more and more individualistic. "
"For and more man centred" "more and more individualistic". That is indeed what religions have become, not least humanism which itself is a sort of religion putting the sanctity of individual human life at the centre of ethical striving.”
In Lansberg prison in 1925 Hitler prophesied in Mein Kampf that if his movement was defeated the planet in a hundred years would become lifeless. At the time of writing this review, four years to go..
Savitri Devi is well aware of Hitler's sense of cosmic destiny. She adds her own painful and passionate vision of the humanist dystopia:
“Adolf Hitler has rightly stressed that the definitive victory of such an Ideology would mean the end of life upon this planet — which is precisely the aim of the more-than-human Forces of disintegration that stand behind world Jewry. The tragedy, however, is that it would not mean such a rapid and dignified end as one might imagine. It would mean, first, a general and irredeemable bastardisation of the whole human species and an unbelievable increase of the number of human beings — “producers” — at the expense of the rest of life — increase, till the last beautiful wild animals are killed off and the last patch of forest cut down, to make place for more worthless two-legged mammals; — and then, when all the possibilities of nourishment which the earth can provide even with the assistance of perfected agricultural technique, are exhausted, war for food;1 bitter, savage war to the finish (also with the assistance of perfected technique) until the doomed species has blown itself to pieces. It would mean, in other words, “the reign of quantity” in all its horror, and then, — in the absence of any biological elite capable of starting a new Time-cycle — a full stop; on this planet at least, the final victory of that death-tendency which is, from the beginning, inherent in every manifestation within Time."
This is obsessive and compassionate writing indeed. Passionate in terms of destiny and religious mission, it is cooly silent on the reality of ruthless power: the one party state, the fear of falling into disfavour, the fear of the knock on the door, the pitiful misery of those subject to medical experiments. This kind of esoteric writing is inspired by poetic imagination for the high flowing and historical but lacks imagination for the humdrum for the fate of the individual. National socialism did not only place the Gemeinschaft above the individual. The individual counted ultimately for nothing weighed against the community. Again I am reminded of Ayn Rand, the high priestess of the Jewish world-view.
And where does the reader stand? How does the reader feel? That is for each to decide for herself, for himself by reading this book with the high respect which it undoubtedly deserves but not after all entirely uncritically. Respect of course need not mean agreement. All I can recommend to anyone who cares for what may lie beyond the destiny of the confined three score years and ten of the natural life span of the human individual (expended now often painfully out of the kind of humanistic impulse which Savitri Devi decrieds to face the issues which this writer poses. Is this book merely an outburst of hysterical frenzy by one more unrepentant devotee of an abhorred sect or is The Lightening and the Sun an arousing statement of faith in nature and a better future and deep respect for the avatars, who reveal to us in the trajectory of their terrible mighty lives something of the jealously guarded secrets of the universe? Or is perhaps something even of both? As the writer herself says in her preface "The endless future alone will tell us who has understood divine Wisdom the best."...more
On connait Jean Raspail surtout comme l'auteur de Camp des Saints et c'est souvent qu'on ignore que Raspail a écrit beaucoup de livres y inclus deux eOn connait Jean Raspail surtout comme l'auteur de Camp des Saints et c'est souvent qu'on ignore que Raspail a écrit beaucoup de livres y inclus deux en honneur des races conquis les derniers indigènes de Tierra del Fuego et un livre qui fait honneur aux peaux rouges humilies et vaincus par l'homme blanc.
On oublie facilement aussi ce qui a garde dirige Jean Raspail dans tous ces livres, sa foi en Dieu, sa foi et sa fidélité dans l’église romane catholique.
Jean Raspail est attire par les perdants de l'histoire. Dans tous ses contes on trouve de grande sympathie pour les gens qui sont renverse et vaincu par la marche des temps.
Pourtant il garde toujours de l'espoir. Avec sa fois il rejette le monde moderne son athéisme scepticisme et surtout son culte de la matérialisme. Comme peu d'autres écrivains catholiques il est très conscient de l'importance de la rationalité et de la laideur dans le monde moderne.
L'histoire très belle historie concerne un des papes oubliés par presque tout le monde. Il s'agit de Benoit XIII, le pape qui a refuse la rupture et dont la lignée selon Racine et la vrai lignée des papes. Si Raspail n'aurait pas eu écrivain, il aurait fait un excellent professeur d’histoire. Il s'agit ici d'un chef-d’œuvre qui mélange le passe avec le monde moderne et qui mets d'autres valeurs et histories sur la trône du sacre que ce que s'occupent nos politiciens contemporains. Un très beau livre....more
This play presents us with the court of the sociopathic omnipotent Roman Emperor, Domitian. He belongs to the tradition of the expanding emperors, thaThis play presents us with the court of the sociopathic omnipotent Roman Emperor, Domitian. He belongs to the tradition of the expanding emperors, that is to say those who still saw their task as stretching the bounds of the Imperioum romanum still further. The play illsutrates too well the need for the "balance of powers" as outlined by the American founding fathers. The Emperor believes that he makes the law because he is "like unto the Gods", and the way he states this in the play echoes the Biblical temptation, "in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God". No counter balancing power, either spiritual, sentimental or temporal exists to restrain the crazed emperor and his whims and appetites, which his subjects ignore at their dire peril. His subjects vie with one another in demeaning themselves by denigrading themselves and singing Domitian's praises. This might seem exaggerated were it not that Gibbon and other historians provide similar accounts of imperial excess, this account being taken from Suetonius. Like most Romans Domitian is superstitious and made glum (who wouldn't be?) by the prophesy which foretold that he would perish on 18th September 96 A.D. during the 5th morning hour. This is the Emperor known (best known) for having the soothsayer put to death who confirms the rpediction of his death and says that his own corpse will be eaten by dogs. domitian has the soothsayer put to death and orders that the corpse be burned to rpevent the fulfilment of prophesy, but the corpse is indeed devoured by dogs. On hearing this news, Domitian's louring foreboding understandably swells up. It has been argued that this Emperor's reputation may have been blackened by the senate, which loathed his autocratic rule and that possibly he was not as bad as he was painted (the same has often been said of Macbeth and Richard III). Be that as it may, Massinger paints him as gruesomely as it is possible to paint anyone, to the point of caricature, and in marked contrast to the commentary on Nero's crimes at the end of Racine's Britannicus, a play which Massinger's Roman Actor in certain respects resembles, there is still lingering doubt, which the playwright seems to share, about the justice of assassinating a supreme ruler. This Pagan Emperor can hardly be described the "Lord's annointed" but there is still enormous awe in the face of determined and willful authority. The for Massinger contemporary subject of royal absolutism and its dangers underpins this play and Massinger's contemporaries must have been aware of the immediacey of the subject material, disguised here as a Roman tragedy. The only person able to exercise authority over the Emperor Domitian is his wife, whom he has taken from another man, raised to the position of emperess and with whom he is, on his own admission, the comments of others and by the evidience of his behaviour, besotted. The play contains echoes of an earlier generation of Renaissance writers, Shakespeare in particular, in certains turns of phrase and in the theme of jealousy especially, and there is a play within a play, to "cath the conscience of the" not king but someone's father, and later to reenact a scene of adultery. In structure however, which is claustrophic, in chronology covering a short period of time, in its humourlessness and lack of light relief and in its occasional lyrical intensity, Philip Massinger's "The Roman Actor" more closely resembles the great tradition of French classic drama. In contrast to the great drama which preceded it in England and would succeed it in France, it verges on the grotesque and absurd and offers no significant physchological insight of any kind, other than to show how subservient most of us are forced to become in the face of supreme unharnassed tyranny. Ancient Rome, contemporary North Korea. Plus ca change.....more
“The Case for Edward de Vere” is a highly readable and enjoyable account of aspects of Edward de Vere's life and character, which according to Geoffre“The Case for Edward de Vere” is a highly readable and enjoyable account of aspects of Edward de Vere's life and character, which according to Geoffrey Eyre, makes Edward de Vere the most likely candidate for the authorship of the dramas and poems ascribed to the mysterious “William Shakespeare”. The chapters are therefore not listed according to works or a chronology of events, but to aspects of the earl's character from which stand point parallels between the earl's life and the work of Shakespeare are highlighted. The differences between the Stratford man as he comes down to us and the author called “Shakespeare” must strike anyone who takes a moment to consider the matter and I have yet to meet anyone who can in any way square the circle of Stratford trader and aristocratic elitist playwright and penner of sonnets. It is difficult to imagine any more unlikely author of the aristocratic, metaphysical, polished whimsical yet polished sonnets than the down to earth speculator and trader from Stratford, son to and father of illiterates. The plays reveal, as countless commentators have pointed out, all manner of knowledge and experience which the Stratford man cannot be expected to have obtained, especially as there is no evidence at all that he ever read a book in his life, or indeed was even able to read a book. The private as well as psychological associations of Edward de Vere with the man who was Shakespeare are well presented and provide convincing argument. This book is necessarily an addendum to Charlton Ogburn's “Mysterious William Shakespeare” and will be a welcome introduction to those wanting to read up on the de Vere case but perhaps deterred by the size of the Ogburn tome. I did flinch once or twice at the writer's minor but indisputable faults of grammar, but all in all, this is a very welcome and enjoyable introduction to the challenge to historical truthfulness of the Stratford myth. The Stratfordians are still in a state of denial, but one which is appearing less and less credible or legitimate by the year and will become contemptible if they do not soon deign to argue their case properly. Playing the Devil's Advocate, since Stratfordians seem to consider it beneath them to argue their case at all, I do wonder why Shakespeare in the sonnets chooses to pun on the name “William” if Shakespeare was the essential nom-de-plum, and “William” a mere appendage. These and similar questions apparently favouring the Stratford case, needs to be answered by Oxfordians themselves if Stratfordians are unwilling (sorry) or unable to do so. In the meantime, here is the case for Edward de Vere as Shakespeare....more
This book, "the Great Shakespeare Hoax" is a lively book mostly of speculation and provocation written in the wake of the monumental "The Mysterious WThis book, "the Great Shakespeare Hoax" is a lively book mostly of speculation and provocation written in the wake of the monumental "The Mysterious William Shakespeare" by Charlton Ogburn. The main thrust of the book is to speculate on the likelihood that the man who wrote the Shakespeare opus was not the man who was born in Stratford upon Avon and baptised William Shakespeare. As in Ogburn's work, Barron's focus is on Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford. His speculation goes further than Ogburn's however, including the postulation that the real Shakespeare may have had an affair with the Virgin Queen and that their son was the Earl of Southampton, the young man of the sonnets. This of course was the story of Shakespeare as presented in Roland Emmerich's "Anonymous".
"The Mysterious William Shakespeare" was one of the books which changed my life. It goes further than the Shakespeare story or what one things of Ogburn's thesis. It challenges the whole notion of orthodox historical narrative. Barron's book is rollicking fun and very credible and that is something which it has in common with Ogburn's book. Both men stress the dearth of evidence for Shakespeare’s authorship. What "Stratfordians" have singularly failed to explain is simply how a genius sprang out of Stratford ready made but how he drew on the life experience to make him the writer he was. Shakespeare is well attuned with hunting with hawks, with tennis, with legal terms. If Shakespeare from Stratford was the writer of the plays then he is not only the greatest writer of all times he is a wholly unique human freak, able to draw on experiences and write upon them with authority without having experienced them personally at all.
Randall Barron's style is compelling, if not always grammatical. Here is a sample of his journalistic style. Here he is writing on "Venus and Adonis": "Here for reasons of clarity, and to be concise, I would like to slip briefly into the shoes of England's greatest writer, to guess at what might have gone through his mind at his perceived dilemma between two mutually exclusive goals. Was there a way to navigate safely somewhere between Scylla and Charybdis, between anonymity and immortality..? For sure, the creative monster inside him didn't relish the prospect of an eternal anonymity. My name be buried where my body is. No. Because there was a way. A way to satisfy everyone and everything. The demands of the Queen, of government stability, of his own needs as a writer to be known. Someday."
For me personally the two most compelling arguments against the Stratford man are firstly the incompatibility of the experience of life reflected in the plays especially the life of the aristocracy with what little is known of the non too attractive character from Stratford (Barron is kinder on him than Ogburn) secondly, the dishonesty and evasiveness of orthodox opinion. The worst example of the latter is the increasing frequency with which orthodox scholars state as fact that a large number of Shakespeare had written several plays after 1604, when the Earl of Oxford died. This is what James Shapiro wrote in The Guardian in a review of "Anonymous" The claim that only a worldly aristocrat could have created such great plays might sound plausible in a blog or a book, where you can ignore nagging facts (for instance, not a shred of documentary evidence connects De Vere to the plays, and he died in 1604 before 10 or so of Shakespeare's Jacobean plays were written, several of them collaboratively).
I am very hesitant to accuse anyone of lying. Let us settle for chronic amnesia here. Shapiro must know that the truth is the opposite of what he claims. There is arguably evidence that de Vere wrote the Shakespeare plays, arguably because depending on how one defines "evidence". What is absolutely certain is that nobody can show from available evidence whether any Shakespeare play was written after 1604 or not. Shapiro surely knows this. Amnesia then. Somewhat shocking coming from a Shakespeare scholar. An antidote to such evidence is to support writers like Randall Barron. Barron concludes with this appeal, Hamlet's dying wish to Horatio, incidentally the name of Edward's brother (Oxfordians love pointing to such "coincidences" as these) Oh Good Horatio, what a wounded name, Things standing thus unknown, shall live behind me!" ...more
"Le Rapport Gabriel" par Jean D'Ormesson, ancien directeur général du Figaro, est une revue de sa vie plutôt biographique que romanesque, plein de com"Le Rapport Gabriel" par Jean D'Ormesson, ancien directeur général du Figaro, est une revue de sa vie plutôt biographique que romanesque, plein de commentaires avec comme thème centrale la thèse que l’archange Gabriel fasse un rapport pour le bon dieu au fin d’éviter que dieu annule son création/le temps parce qu’il est déçu par l'humanité. Le rapport est plein d'anecdotes, des petits histories et d'observations drôles. On veut continuer a lire afin de savoir comment le bon dieu décidera. Il a dans le livre pas mal de citations possibles. J'ai aimé spécialement l'observation suivant: "Rompre avec les choses réelles, ce n'est rien. Mais rompre avec les souvenirs!... Le cœur se brise à la séparation des songes." J'ai bien aimé4 ce livre qui est un exemple du libéralisme/conservatisme qui garde un si forte tradition en France et quelque peu en Angleterre mais ou ailleurs? C'est une traditon ou on est fiere d'etre liberal contre -éxtremiste et ou on se trouve fièrement partie du système établi. Un très beau livre qui souffre seulement d’être parfois baliverne et peut être trop anecdotière avec des racontes pas loin des fariboles mais dans l'ensemble "Le Rapport Gabriel" de Jean D'Ormesson est bien réussit, poétique, profonde une affrontement passionnée avec les défis qui sont la mort, la mutabilité, la vanité, notre humanité et, bien sur, avec le bon dieu qui nous aime.
Après que j'ai lu le livre pour la deuxième fois, je l'apprecie un peu moins. Curieusement, je ne me souviens point de ma prèmiere révue ici dans Goodreads! Voici ma deuxième critique écrit cinque ans après ma prémière:
«Le Rapport Gabriel» par Jean D'Ormesson, que était le directeur générale du Figaro de 1974 à 1977 et un homme réussi dans la vie, pas seulement comme romaniste mais aussi comme un homme politique et journaliste. Dans wikipedia on note qu'il se croyait Gaulliste de droite et Gaulliste européenne. C'est vrai qu'on des penseurs comme D'Ormesson comme peut-être dans de Gaulle aussi, on trouve une incompatibilité pas reconnu, entre la foi dans le progrès et une foie chrétienne et/ou nationaliste. De l'un coté des gens comme Endormissement voulait garder les traditions les identités et de fidélité surtout concernant les chrétiens du monde, d 'autre part ils acceptaient sans critique l'avance de la société technique et déshumanisante et dénoncèrent sans resserve, les mouvements écologistes.
Le Rapport Gabriel et vraiment trois livres que se trouvent sur la couverture d'un unique. D'une part, c'est un conte des fées: l'ange Gabriel est envoyé par Dieu de rencontrer un homme sur terre faire sa connaissance pour le laisser justifier sa vie, la vie parce que Dieu, lui, pense à terminer son ouvrage. Le deuxième roman c'est plutôt une autobiographie. D'Ormesson raconte des événement dans sa propre vie. Troisièmement voici un livre assez lyrique qui fait la chanson de la vie. On se trouve de la mélancolie qui filtre à travers de tant de romans et filmes francais : « Il arrive un moment, dans la vie des hommes, où le vertige du rien l'emporte sur le tourbillon du tout. Les tumultes s'effacent. Et le silence se fait. » Souvent il écrit avec un style très lyrique et réussie. On voit des influences divers : Ruskin The Stones of Venice, et Milton Paradise Lost bien sur. On a un sens de goût d'une fin d'une civilisation que me rappelle les phrases dans Le Camp des Saints : « Nous avions vécu les derniers jours d'une civilisation évanoui.
La fin du livre ne déçoit pas, c'est assez drôle de point de vue religieux. Portant ces trois essais, un compte des fées, un histoire biographique et un discours poétique, tout cela ne suffisent pas à démontrer au lecteur comment il faut sortir d'un certain fatalisme, mais c'est peut-être la fatalisme de tout écrivain pieux, surtout si l’écrivain est français ?...more
Un livre que J'achetai trois francs clinquantes chez un bouquiniste au borde du Seine en 1977 et que n'arrive pas à lire en 2015. Je suis enchanté! FrUn livre que J'achetai trois francs clinquantes chez un bouquiniste au borde du Seine en 1977 et que n'arrive pas à lire en 2015. Je suis enchanté! Franchement je suis plus impressionné que par les essais un peu de même genre de Maurois. L'auteur nous propose comme le titre indique des silhouettes de personnages non pas le plus connus souvent mais pas toujours, de la haute société anglaise du fin de siècle (19ième) amis des personnalités qui ont joué un rôle plutôt marginal dans l'historie, pour le plupart ces silhouettes attirent l'admiration du raconteur et c'est la sympathie, le manque du cynisme habituel qui me charme. Ces silhouettes peuvent s'appeler aussi bien je crois des anecdotes marginaux. Parce que il s'agit des personnalités moins connues, on apprend beaucoup qu'on ne savait pas à propos par exemple du Lord Clanrackrent (qui donna à la langue anglais le mot "rackrent") Orkins le Pendeur, le Duc de Rutland ..Le lecteur est un délice. L'auteur ne cache pas son enthousiasme pour l'empire le plus grande que le monde n´'ai jamais connu, qui est passé (si vite, trop trop vite!) dans les ondes de l'histoire impitoyable et dont nous reste des souvenirs ici très affectueuses et dont le lecteur ici est un délice....more
"Drieu la Rochelle, ou Le Seducteur Mystifié" par Dominique Desanti est une biographie qui me dérange beaucoup. Comme l'affirme la biographe elle-même"Drieu la Rochelle, ou Le Seducteur Mystifié" par Dominique Desanti est une biographie qui me dérange beaucoup. Comme l'affirme la biographe elle-même, l'oeuvre biographique mélange volontièrement les récits, des grands romans de Drieu avec sa vie, et bien entendu les romans sont biographiques dans un sens très fort. Drieu la Rochelle était un romancier collaborationist, un "fascist socialist", soldat deux fois blessé, surrealist, Don Juan, trois fois épousé, la première fois avec un femme Colette Jeramec, dont la mére était juive. Dans ses écris il manifeste une haine vivace même meutrier pour des juifs, pourtant il sauva son ex-femme de la déportation, comme il a sauvé par mal des gens pendant les ans de l'occupation allemande. En verité c'est un homme plein de contradictions, des amitiés tronquées (par éxample, avec le communist Louis Aragon) et finalement en 1945, a reconnue la defaite totale de ses espoirs de sa foi, de sa vie, il s'est donné la mort qui était toujours la femme la plus recherchée, mais quelle courage avait cet homme, qulle noblesse d'ésprit au fin, pendant que des milliers des gens sourtout en Allemagne même, après la defaite chercheraient de s'excuser. Les pires criminels se sont sauvés. Selon cette biographie, Drieu était decu par la faiblesse de la defence des collaborationists mis en procès. "Pas un seul au cours de procès ne semble avoir montré de fierté", mais il écrit ces mots avant le procès de Robert Brasillach. Drieu était très dur avec lui même et surtout concernant ses écrits. Il éxcrit à une femme Beloukia qui comme pas mal de femmes il a bien aimé, "Il a autre chose que le détachement de la vie et l'eloignement de toi, il y a l'orgueil." Dommage pour lui que la dernière femme qui s'est donnée, était son type "physique et moral". Comem il dit lui même "comme la vie est voluptueusement cruelle"....more
Quelle noblesse! Quel idéalisme! Je crois que La Bruyère l'a bien dit dans son "Les Caractères et Meures de ce Siècle" quand il écrit `a propos du CinQuelle noblesse! Quel idéalisme! Je crois que La Bruyère l'a bien dit dans son "Les Caractères et Meures de ce Siècle" quand il écrit `a propos du Cinna de Corneille: "Il peint les Romains; ils sont plus grands et plus Romains dans ses vers que dans dans leur historie." J'ignore les détails de l'histoire dont cette pièce est le sujet, mais je ne crois pas que l'empereur dans la réalité aurait montré la générosité, subtilité, sens de miséricorde que monte l'emperuer Auguste dans la pièce de Corneille. Il écrit cette pièce avant Thomas Hobbes avait fiat publié son "Léviathan", ce qui me surprend un peu, parce que je sens l'influence des idées de Thomas Hobbes ici. Quoi qu'il en soit, je crois en tous cas que les idées et argument concernant les droits des peuples et des rois étaient les objets de spéculation et discussion. Corneille est royaliste confirmé et convaincu et il présente son sujet on pourrait dire avec les dés pipés en faveur du thèse de Thomas Hobbes. Nous y sommes avec le commentaire de la Bruyère, que Corneille tint une idée très idéaliste des empereurs romains et donc je suppose des rois. Quelle différence avec la "Phedre" de Racine et son présentation dramatique du caractère d’empereur Néron. L'autre grand influence que je soupçonne ici et le Julius Caesar de William Shakespeare. Corneille continue le discours qu'avait entamé Shakespeare et on n'oublie pas que pour Shakespeare Brutus fut "the noblest of them all". Il ne faut pas dans les deux cas de Shakespeare et de Corneille oublier que les idées républicaines fussent bien connues et pas de tout ignorées ou rejetées d'emblée comme le prétendent pas mal de commentaires plus récents que la Bruyère. Je me demande si on est bien emballé en lisant la pièce d'en faire une production, après tout elle est très classique, très intellectuelle et les interprétations doivent être d'une nature cérébrale plutôt que dramatique ou sensuelle. Quand même un grand chef-d’œuvre....more
This is a classic of revisionism, a reexamination of a king who was undoubtedly a victim of Tudor and notoriously Shakespearian propaganda, which is nThis is a classic of revisionism, a reexamination of a king who was undoubtedly a victim of Tudor and notoriously Shakespearian propaganda, which is not to say that he did not murder the princes in the tower, for I still think the evidence against him looks bad. If I remember correctly, King Richard was put in the dock in a television trial about 30 years ago and was found not guilty by a jury. Certainly Shakespeare was unscrupulous sofar as manipulating history was concerned. Macbeth and Joan of Arc were other victims of his manipulation of historical events to serve his political and poetic turn. The account given in Josephine Tey's book is the investigation by a bed-ridden sleuth who has started to wonder about Richard III's supposed culpability. In some ways this book represents a turning point, just as the Warren Commission (or rather the widespread rejection of the findings of the Warren Commission) represent a turning point, in popular attitudes to the pronouncements of experts and representatives of sovereign might. Thinking people are now instinctively sceptical about pronouncements from the high and mighty, about historical events about contemporary events. This is a highly readable account of a reexamination of the evidence against Richard III: was he indeed the hunchbacked, cruel, resentful, vindictive and bloodthirsty tyrant presented to us by William Shakespeare? Very probably not. Shakespeare was not one to baulk at bias. One should bear in mind however, that Mrs Tey's account itself is not an objective summing up, but the case for the defence, which stresses what serves her argument and attenuates facts which do not serve the purpüose of rehabilitation. The way I read this book is that Richard III is on trial and the judge has just called on Josephine Tey, lawyer for the defendant, to state her case. She does so magnificently....more
Le spectre et le spectre bien sur de Carthage, mais est ce que c'est possible que Jacques Martin pensait à un autre spectre, le spectre du peuple élu?Le spectre et le spectre bien sur de Carthage, mais est ce que c'est possible que Jacques Martin pensait à un autre spectre, le spectre du peuple élu? en tous cas, Carthage était le grand concurrent de Rome, et Carthage était la ville capitale des phoeniciens, qui étaient des sémites. Qu'était la relation enntre les carthegenois et les juifs? Dans cette histoire, Carthage n'est pas complètement détruite après la troisième guerre comme je me souviens de lire autrement, "il n'y avait une pierre qui restait sur une autre". Dans cette historie tous ca avait lieu après des évenements étranges dans lesquels se melent Alix et son jeune camerade Enak. Alors, j'ignore jusqu'a quel point Jacques Martin joue avec les fait connus. Quoi qu'il en soit, cette une histroire captivante. Quelle domage que des histoires pareilles ne sont pas mieux connues parmi des jeunes!...more
La premier volume dans la série Alix. Je les aime tous. Je crois qu' ou on les aime ou on ne pes aime pas. Je ne crois pas que beacoup de gens en soieLa premier volume dans la série Alix. Je les aime tous. Je crois qu' ou on les aime ou on ne pes aime pas. Je ne crois pas que beacoup de gens en soient indifférents. Tout de suite on se trouve en lisant les histories dans le monde très bien et consciensuesement reconstruit des anciens romains et dans cette primière histoire parmi les parthes, qui, on l'oublie souvent posaient avec leur propre empire à l'est un défi redoubtable à l'empire romaine. L'hsitoire m'a fait penser a "Heros the Spartan" une serie anglaise que je lis quand j'étais très jeune il y a beacoup des années! Fascinant de Jacques Martin est sa sensibilité pour la beauté et son réfus, pour qulques uns perturbant, d'adoucir la reéalité. Ce que je regrette est son manque totale d'humeur. Pourtant, tout compte fait, je recommande cette serie à tous gens et bjeunes et vieux qui aiment bien les series de bandes desinées historiques. Si vous ne connaissez pas la série Alix, cette un régale que vous attend!...more
La plus grande oevre de Jacques Martin que je n'ai lus jusqu'aujourdhui. quelle horeuer mais aussi quelle beauté aussi. Et Gilles de Rais, si La PucelLa plus grande oevre de Jacques Martin que je n'ai lus jusqu'aujourdhui. quelle horeuer mais aussi quelle beauté aussi. Et Gilles de Rais, si La Pucelle n'était pas condamnée et brulée par les "goddams" aurait-été Gilles de Rais aprgnés des pêchés qui le condamnaient aux infers? Interessant à savoir c'est si l'artiste même, Jacques Martin, croyait-il dans le miracle que la statue de la vièrge qui pleure parce qu'elle voit les crimes de Gilles de Rais? Une quenstion dont la réponse me-semble-t-il, reste ouverte. Beaux images, histories triste mais emouvante, epoche cruelle justqu'a la follie mais dans cette historie au moins, ni vulgaire, ni médiocre. Et comment Jhen lui-même homme plein de bonté reste fidèle à l'homme de feu et du diable, Gilles de Rais, tourmenté par des desirs qui lui sont envoyés de l'enfer? Aussi reste ici un mis en garden contre un système sociale qui permette l'argente à acheter tous vraiment tous y inclus les crimes les plus horribles....more
Manifique, une grande histoire reconté par Jacques Martin. J'étais passioné par cette historire. J'aimerais que becoup d'enfants lissent des histoiresManifique, une grande histoire reconté par Jacques Martin. J'étais passioné par cette historire. J'aimerais que becoup d'enfants lissent des histoires pareilles plutôt que jouant avec des jeux quasi imbéciles, mais je le sais, c'est un désir qui n'a pas grande chose de se jamais réaliser. Il s'agit bien-sûr du trésor des templiers et nécessairement on apprend quelque-chose de cette secte (?) énigmatique. Dans l'histoire-ci le pape partage aved Philip le Bel, d'energie comme poersecuteur des templiers comme héretiques et satanistes. Des autres histoire loe presente comme qulqu'un qui essaya de les proteger de l'ambition et crauté du roi de la France. Comme souvent, il se trouve au cours du récit un assez joli gamin dans qui assiste Jhen à présérver le secret du trésor des templiers....more
Peut-être non pas parmi les plus divertissantes des histoires de Jhen, neamoins à recommander. On se trouve à l'époque, pleins de mystère de crauté, dPeut-être non pas parmi les plus divertissantes des histoires de Jhen, neamoins à recommander. On se trouve à l'époque, pleins de mystère de crauté, de danger de supersitiion, de l'édification de la grande cathedrale à Strasbourg. La cathédrale loge pourtant une presence pas tout à fait bienveillant: s'agit-il d' un phantôme? Du Diable même?...more
I enjoyed "The Killer Angels" but it is entirely overshadowed for me by the film, which plays on the momentous nature of the Battle of Gettysburg for I enjoyed "The Killer Angels" but it is entirely overshadowed for me by the film, which plays on the momentous nature of the Battle of Gettysburg for all that is worth. What struck me in the personalisation of the leading protagonists in this drama, (book and film) is that they are all without exception, (General George Meade arrives late on the scene to as it were, pick up fallen fruit from a tree which others have shaken, but he does not play a major role in the story as related here) in Ted Tunrer's film, without malice. They all act according to a code of honour, without exception. To say that the protagonists of a drama are all motivated not by malice but by loyalty and belief, may sound like a statement of the obvious, and over sentimental, but of how many other major films made in the last 30 years can that be said? Food for thought....more
This work is certainly very extensively researched and annotated and abounds in comments from contemporaries-quotations, extracts from diaries etc. ThThis work is certainly very extensively researched and annotated and abounds in comments from contemporaries-quotations, extracts from diaries etc. This is so much the case that it is arguable that McPherson did not so much write a historical account as piece together as produce a series of quotations from eye-witnesses and those who lived through events and has interspersed them with a linking narrative and his own biased comments. The book is rather like a printed version of popular tv histories where dramatic footage is interspersed with aging eye witnesses making their truncated and edited comments on past events. In other words this is a documentary rather than a history and it has the surreptitious bias of a modern newspaper. Interestingly, the back cover of the penguin edition gives visible support to this by producing in the popular type of the US at that time (Galliard?) for the name of the publications 6 promotional puffs. The worst thing about the kind of bias in a book like this is that it is very difficult for a layperson to argue, since it is not a question of untruths or errors but of truths not mentioned or facts ignored, and McPherson is too good at his job to leave anything out which is well known. Many are also likely to think that this is a fair account since the writer takes pains to give it the superficial appearance of being so. There is no officious sabre rattling or trumpet blowing about this book. It appears to be sweetly reasonable while relentlessly pursuing a pro-Northern line from beginning to end. Nearly every famous quotations and many obscure ones from the war can be found in the pages of this book. As a mine of quotations it is certainly second to none. The only exception that comes to mind is the remark made by one Southerner on hearing of Lincoln’s condemnation of rebellion and disloyalty-“if rebellion is always wrong, then God save the King!”. Stonewall Jackson referred to the South’s attempt at independence “the Second War of Independence”, an aspect of the struggle which McPherson does not address with any seriousness. The issue is by no means dead. In recent years the state of Vermont has begun to mutter about secession from the Union. At the Vermont Independence Convention held on October 28th 2005 in the state capital, Thomas Naylor declared that “South Carolina and the Confederate states had a perfect right to secede”.
I was not surprised after 550 pages of pro-yankee journalism to find McPherson belittling a notorious statement of Northern malice. This is the infamous invitation to the rape of women in the occupied South made by the commander of Union forces in occupied New Orleans. It is termed euphemistically by Mc Pherson as “an incident” and “Butler’s women’s order”. : The writer notes that it “intensified British upper-class alienation from the North” (Is McPherson suggesting that the British middle classes of the time more sympathetic to a bit of rough treatment of snooty belles?) Butler’s statement ran as follows: : “any woman who persisted in the practice of insulting Northern soldiers shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her trade” Even today, with two world wars and countless horrors between then and now, this order sounds appalling and is appalling. It is also historically significant since it breaks the very codex which Gibbon in Decline and Fall had so proudly noted a hundred years before as the hallmark of civilized behaviour-soldiers in the eighteenth century refraining from attacking or molesting civilians. But McPherson who is always more understanding of Northern outrages than Southern ones-finds what he calls “considerable provocation” for Butler’s declaration. What can this “considerable provocation” be? Something pretty drastic to justify an invitation to rape one would think. Nothing less than murder and terrorism surely? Not exactly. Southern provocation was “climaxed by a woman who dumped the contents of a chamber-pot from a French-Quarter balcony on Fleet Captain Farragut’s head.” This would be hilarious if the writer were not so serious in believing this largely excuses Butler’s order. McPherson does not tell us how many women were raped as a result of the green light given by their commander. I am sure that if the history had been in reverse the reader would have received a very different account.. Apart form the relentless bias of the book, it is poorly served by the publishers: the photographs are cramped and mostly anyone’s second choice, more seriously, the maps of the battlefields are so poorly printed as to be almost unuseable. Maybe that suits McPherson’s belief that battles are not half so important as they are made out to be by most historians. Like Tolstoy in War in Peace he sees them and portrays them as a lot of sound and fury and confusion-decisive battles do not take place in this account. Gettysburg is presented as just one more bloody conflict rather than the decisive battle is its traditionally presented as being. Far more important for McPherson is the calibre of generals-this seems to him to be all important, not that he is over-enthusiastic about Southern generalship. It is not brilliance on the part of Lee but timidity, incompetence and rivalry among Northern generals which is here offered as the major clue to the slow progress of the Northern war effort. As for Lincoln, needless to say he, he is the hero of the story, as infallible as the Pope. If McPherson ever criticises Lincoln, I missed it. This may be, as some claim, the best book on the subject. If that is true I am sorry to hear it. ...more
Loading...
