MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forgery: Modus operandi (British History)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I got the wrong Kemble.

From: Papers of William George Spencer Cavendish, 6th Duke of Devonshire (1790-1858)

There is also a series comprising papers of individuals associated with the 6th Duke of Devonshire that were found together with his own papers. These include a journal of Mrs (Robert) Arkwright (née Frances Kemble), actress

Frances -- 'Fanny' -- Kemble, niece of John Kemble and Sarah Siddons, was not only a successful actress but ' a well-known and popular writer, whose published works included plays, poetry, eleven volumes of memoirs, travel writing and works about the theatre', not to mention writing up her own memoirs and

In 1863 Kemble also published a volume of plays, including translations from Alexandre Dumas, père, and Friedrich Schiller. These were followed by additional memoirs: Records of a Girlhood (1878); Records of Later Life (1882); Far Away and Long Ago (1889); and Further Records (1891). Her various volumes of reminiscences contain much valuable material illuminating the social and theatrical history of the period. She also published Notes on Some of Shakespeare's Plays (1882), based on her long experience in acting and reading his works.


But the bulk of the Devonshire library seems to have been via the "record-breaking auction" of the library of the Duke of Roxburghe (d. 1804) in 1812, probably at the instigation of his librarian, John Collier. According to Wiki the auction lasted 46 days

The duke was well versed in the old English dramatic literature, and added largely to his books from the library of the Duke of Roxburghe. After 1835 he removed many of his pictures from Devonshire House and Chiswick to increase the interest of his gallery at Chatsworth.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Once again we are faced with tidal waves of memorabilia. Perhaps the best way of judging this is by the tried and trusted AE principle, "What is, is what was."

You have just been made Duke (or as may be, Duchess) of Strawberryshire for unspecified services to your sovereign. You have decided to become a collector of dramatic literary memorabilia and you decide you are going to specialise in "The British Theatre of the last 150 Years". From Wilde onwards. Let me know how you get on with collecting, let's say

original manuscripts by performed dramatists
original typescripts by performed dramatists
cast notes, prompt sheets, actors dialogue copies of performed plays
original correspondence in connection with any of the above
playbills, posters, first night reviews etc etc etc

Assuming money's pretty well no object, how many tidal waves do you anticipate acquiring in your lifetime?
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

That Frederick Madden, the Keeper of the Manuscripts at the British Museum, had a wonderfully quick eye. He was the person who spotted John Collier's handwriting on the Second Folio

Sir Frederick Madden, the foremost palaeographer of the era, took a look at the Folio. For Madden, the chicanery was obvious immediately

Other people had had suspicions about Collier's publications but no-one had actually accused him of forgery. How could Madden be so sure at first glance as it were?

Not only was the handwriting wrong but he could see, partly erased, the modern pencil marks that the forger had laid down to guide his pen. Chemical testing by a mineralogist confirmed that the pencil marks were beneath the ink notes, and that the ink was not ink at all but a modern watercolour formation.

Madden and his assistant Nicholas Hamilton were now sure that Collier had written both the pencil notes, which were clearly in his handwriting, and the final annotations....Hamilton published the results of his and Madden's research as the 1860 Inquiry into the Genuineness of the Manuscript Corrections in Mr J. Payne Collier's Annotated Shakespeare, Folio 1632; and of Certain Shakespearian Documents Likewise Published by Mr Collier

That's quite important to know scientific testing was used in the mid-nineteenth century. But honestly, you'd hardly need a scientist for such a laughably amateurish effort. It seems Collier, no mean literary scholar and, as noted, the Duke of Devonshire's librarian, was unaware what went on behind the scenes at the Museum.

I expect a fuller version of events is in Madden's diary. At 43 volumes it can surely provide some insights

He is one of the great nineteenth-century diarists, whose 40-volume diary, estimated at four million words and still not fully published, covers the years 1819 to 1872. It includes fascinating details of 19th-century life, scholarly references to manuscripts and an account of the British Museum at a time when the staff lived on site. Madden was a noted palaeographer whose Museum career was blighted by a longstanding feud with the librarian Antonio Panizzi (q.v.), and resentment at his failure, in the light of his long service and undoubted brilliance as a scholar, to be appointed Principal Librarian. In a fit of pique he bequeathed his diaries to the Bodleian Library, Oxford.

These museum types seem to be prone to fits of pique. Even if he was a tiresomely cantankerous Keeper, 'still not fully published' suggests British Museum staff haven't changed much. Maybe the Bodleian had published the contents of Madden's journal?

The papers were bequeathed to the Bodleian in 1873, on condition that the box containing them should remain unopened until 1 January 1920.

Presumably the condition was laid down to make sure no-one mentioned in his journal would still be alive when it was read.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
As for Grossman's books themselves I was deeply sceptical with all the talk of notebooks and archives.


My own currently-held hypothesis is that the industrial holocaust story was invented by the Russians in support of their anti-Western, Zionist agenda (and I use "Zionist" in the very-much non-pejorative sense!). The story was then embraced by the emergent Israeli state as a founding myth.

p.s. I do not dispute the mass death of Jews during and immediately following the war but I no longer accept the story of "gas chambers." The evidence I've seen just does not seem to support it.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It is true the 'gas chamber' aspect is the weakest link in technical terms of archaeology and contemporary documentation but two factors should be borne in mind

1. it is undoubtedly the case that einsatzgruppen conducted experiments using carbon monoxide from car exhausts to kill people and the efficacy of that method went up the chain of command. Zyklon B was made, was distributed and does not have many other applications. (Though there are some.)
2. it is undoubtedly the case that Hungarian Jewry -- many hundreds of thousands of individuals -- 'ceased to exist' in a very few months 1944-5. It is difficult to believe they could die other than from induced killing. (Though it is possible.)

It is ironic (if that is a strong enough word) that one of the limiting factors in industrial killing is that the killers have their problems too. Psychiatric ones or conscience ones, take your pick, but anyway they tend to have nervous breakdowns if they are too close to too many killings. It is reasonable (if that is the right word) to suppose that the camps required a means of killing that could work industrially but not personally. Apparently you're OK if you just think of yourself as an usherette.

And by the way, pace Hannah Arendt, let us not kid ourselves about how many of us would do the job given the right circumstances.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I am intrigued by your phrase "and immediately following the war". Perhaps you can expand on this enigmatic phrase. It is true the Russians killed Eastern Europeans on a (near-) industrial scale after the war but while some of these would be Jews (the criteria was anybody that might make trouble) there weren't many Jews left and the ones that were tended, if anything, to be co-opted by the Soviet regimes in the satellite states. Leading, by the by, to minor scale antisemitic pogroms in later risings against the Soviets, Hungary 1956 being the worst. Jews were harshly treated in the Soviet Union itself after the break with Israel in 1949 though none, so far as I know, were killed. At least not for being Jews. But the 'Doctors' Plot' is an episode that still hasn't been sufficiently explored. Bit of 'careful ignoral' going on there.

Ironically (again!) quite a lot of Jews died in western camps when liberated by kindly western soldiers sharing their rations. Fatal for the truly emaciated. Even the medical people had no experience of ... um ... best practice in dealing with such unprecedented situations as Dachau. Though, again, I am obliged to point out that, although Dachau was used as a byword for Nazi atrocities and publicised as such worldwide, the situation there was more because of the breakdown in prison administration during the last months of the war than of overt German action. They couldn't feed them, they wouldn't let them out. An atrocity but not the right kind of atrocity.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
I am intrigued by your phrase "and immediately following the war". Perhaps you can expand on this enigmatic phrase.

I read Elie Wiesel's Night. In retrospect, I am struck now by how little the book has to say about the Industrial scale holocaust. There is an enigmatic reference to cremations when the narrator arrives at the concentration camp (where he sees the body of a child being burned---that's an image that has stuck with me). But there's no reported observation of gas chambers that I recall. And, again in retrospect, what evidence is there that the child or any of those being cremated had been executed? None that I recall. In fact, the author doesn't tell us how the people died.

But as the war comes to its end---after the inmates left the camps--- that's when the book presents its greatest horrors. The starvation and its consequences is just nightmarish. That's how I suspect most of the Jews from the camps met their end.

Dachau was used as a byword for Nazi atrocities

So was Aushwitz. In the 80s we were told that Auschwitz was the worst of the Death Camps. Then Ernst Zundell was prosecuted in Canada for saying that it wasn't a death camp at all, and wound up proving his case. So then the story changed---for a few years anyway. Aushwitz became then a work camp and the real mass killing happened "somewhere else."

But now, Zundell is forgotten and so is his evidence and "Aushwitz" is once again used as a byword for Death Camps. The whole episode went down the memory hole and no one ever mentions it.

...the situation there was more because of the breakdown in prison administration during the last months of the war than of overt German action. They couldn't feed them, they wouldn't let them out. An atrocity but not the right kind of atrocity.

Exactly. And I think this is what really happened. There were no gas chambers anywhere. The Jews that died numbered far less than six million (though of course it was a massive number) and they died by starvation in the final months of the war and in its immediate aftermath.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Blimey, it's not often I find myself having to undeny the Holocaust but here goes.

(where he sees the body of a child being burned---that's an image that has stuck with me)

This has indeed proved an enduring image/problem. "The ovens" gets confused with the "gas chambers". The former is a health measure, the latter isn't.

Then Ernst Zundell was prosecuted in Canada for saying that it wasn't a death camp at all, and wound up proving his case. So then the story changed---for a few years anyway. Aushwitz became then a work camp and the real mass killing happened "somewhere else."

I don't know this particular case but it is true there were 'work camps' at Auschwitz as well as 'extermination camps' and they were very different things. A Briton lost a case because it was shown that he had been in a civilian POW camp rather than a 'concentration camp' of the same name (can't remember which). 'Concentration camps' are simply (!) prison camps for political dissidents and criminals, not labour camps or extermination camps. All these had high death rates but even so they have to be distinguished (!).

The Jews that died numbered far less than six million (though of course it was a massive number)

Well, yes, this is subject to the AE dictum of 'the tyranny of large numbers' but Eastern European Jewry numbered very many millions and they ain't there now.

and they died by starvation in the final months of the war and in its immediate aftermath.

Again with the aftermath already. There was no aftermath (the numbers I was alluding to would be in the hundreds). You'd have to explain how millions of people could starve in a very short time from a system that only contained ... what? ... a hundred thousand at most.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

One aspect that always gets overlooked is that another tranche of 'several million people' died at Nazi hands. This was Russian POW's -- estimates are in the low millions, but definitely millions. The whole thing is not much explored (by the Russians as much as the Germans) but the following is not disputed:

1. None of them were 'killed'. Actually, in the very early days of Barbarossa it would probably have paid the Germans militarily to kill them because they were so gumming up the logistics, but they weren't.
2. Not all of them died (maybe a half) but enough of them died (maybe a half) to exclude the normal excuses of normal armies for normal excessive deaths in captivity eg both sides in the American Civil War, the British in the Boer War i.e. logistics
3. Russian POW's were in German hands for a long period -- Barbarossa predates Wannsee.
4. Western POW's in German hands didn't die at all. The safest place to be when there's a war going on.
5. By contrast, Russian POW's best bet was to sign up for service with the German army (after the war, you got sent to the Gulag whether you did or you didn't).
6. Compulsory labour (from the west as well as the east) did die in excessive numbers -- perhaps towards the Russian POW figures, perhaps not -- again nobody's sufficiently interested to find out.

Or it may be me that hasn't bothered to find out. That's an AE problem in this entire area. You have to have the stomach for it and people with the stomach for it may not be the most objective people around. Anyway, make of all this what you will.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Only Now Can It Be Told

Nine stories by Marcel Proust that the author is believed to have kept private because of their "audacity" are due to be published this autumn ninety-seven years after his death. Touching on homosexuality, the works were written during the 1890's, when Proust was in his twenties, but only discovered in the nineteen-fifties.

Damn, I seem to have put this in the forgery section by mistake.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14

Jump to:  
Page 14 of 14

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group