Saturday, 15 October 2011

Spoofery: a Brush with Imagists... the Duping of the Modernists...

Amateur Literary Sleuthing Unpursued (Part 1)

Talking of Marianne Moore (who was first published by H.D., the Imagiste wife of Richard Aldington) see my post
http://catherineeisnerfrance.blogspot.com/2011/10/mr-and-mrs-anon.html
I’ve just archived a note that appeared in the Richard Aldington Newsletter, Vol. 35, No. 4, Winter 2007-08: ‘Catherine Eisner calls our attention to a novel by Christopher Sykes, Answer to Question 33, in which she believes there is a satirical reference to RA: see pages 54-60.  Sykes wrote the “Introduction” to RA’s Lawrence of Arabia, seven years after RA’s death and fourteen years after the first edition.’

Actually, on September 25 2007 I wrote to the Richard Aldington Newsletter ...

'Here is the key passage from Answer to Question 33 by Christopher Sykes, a novel published in 1948, which does, indeed, contain the satire on Imagist poetry ... whose target was probably Richard Aldington.'

(There are echoes here, too, of the 1944 Modernist Hoax of Ern Malley in Australia). 

[Extract] Pages 54 to 60 ... the duping of the Modernists ... a 20th century Chatterton ...  '... the familiar act of forgery ...'

There was a magazine called The Cherwell of which he was the editor. Because poor Summers lacked any ability to put his music into a creative channel he was attempting to transform himself into a literary man, for like most musical men his talent had a large literary overflow. In literature, however, he lacked the necessary precision of ear to discriminate between the authentic and the sham. Thus, to my surprise, to my shame now for I should have told him what I was doing, he was my first dupe. This had great results for me.

Throughout that Spring of 1928 I wrote one poem a week for The Cherwell. I had studied many of the modern masters. Without understanding a word of what I was reading I had ploughed through the works of Gertrude Stein and James Joyce and I had rummaged among the works of many lesser-known stylists. I did not then possess any power of self-criticism, for had I done so, I would have chided myself for wasting time on studies concerning things in which, by no wild stretch of the imagination, could I in any sense partake. But I was young, and so I went doggedly forward. I began to pose as an authority on modern culture, which term included all the arts as well as philosophy. I began to discuss these things loudly in my rooms, and like the muezzin uttering the call to prayer I was answered by a congregation flocking to my rooms. In the manner of the bygone aesthetes I cultivated a loud feminine voice which dropped a semitone at the end of each sentence. In the now restricted world illumined by the sacred aesthetic flame I was a pronounced success. As for my poems—but no. On second thoughts I will not reproduce one. I replace the knife. I will but briefly indicate what sort of stuff they were. I plagiarised freely. I took passages from the less well known of the modern poets and substituted all key nouns and verbs, changed meanings, and the order of ideas. And I was never once found out. My principal point of style, also not original, lay in contrasting title and subject. For example a poem abounding in brutal images was entitled "A Study in Circles;" poems about machinery were called "Lilac in Summer" or " Ocean Twilight;" a poem which so far as it meant anything at all described the flight of a king-fisher was called "The Death of St. Jerome," while one about buttercups had the title "Murder in Kiev." My main care was to defend myself from criticism by making my meaning unattainable to any reader. I used to talk about the modern discovery that absence of signification enlarged the space-value of emotion, whatever that meant. I became famous in my way. Be indulgent, please, if I say that my deceptions began ever so slightly to deceive myself, and that my head was a little turned. Success when young is a potent wine.

I sent all my poems to Caroline. She wrote thanking me. And there the matter might have ended had I not met Madame Freine.

There was one piece of knowledge which I needed then but of which I was wholly unaware: namely, that the French, being poor linguists, make more mistakes in judging foreign literature than one would guess from their high intelligence : in English letters Shakespeare is taken on trust, but after him the game is open. Great English genius, no matter how famous, can stay unacclaimed, while dubious talents some-times receive such homage as is only due to immortals. Perhaps the French repose an exaggerated confidence in the opinions of their leading intellectuals, and perhaps the intellectuals are misled by the acuteness of French criticism into believing it to be universal; or it may be that French nationalism, that most fierce passion, makes it more difficult for Frenchmen than for others to make serious literary excursions away from home. Whatever the explanation, French ignorance of foreign letters is often the amazing flaw in a brilliant mind. In what other place than Paris could a literary man believe that Boswell's Johnson was written by Dickens.

This French blindness caught me out. I had been told, particularly by Frenchmen at Oxford, that France was the centre of the world's culture. I had been told that if an Englishman liked something, well, he liked it, but if a Frenchman liked something, then, I was assured, I must be prepared to readjust my ideas. I followed this system carefully. Although I posed then as one of the great destructive cynics of the world, I believed pretty well everything I was told.

Madame Freine came to Oxford. She had an engagement to write some articles on modern English Literature for a French periodical called L'Epoque Moderne, and it was widely known that one of these would be devoted to literary tendencies among "Les Jeunes." She was a dark, medium-slzed middle-aged lady a little inclined to stoutness and perspiration, chiefly remarkable in appearance for the gloom of her clothes and the hideosity of her face, and though she was not witty or brilliant in conversation it was evident as soon as you began to talk to her that she was a person of very lively mind. I met her in Edmund Summers's rooms in a house on the High, and she told me a great deal about Marcel Proust whom she had known intimately. While she talked she examined me with piercing and critical eyes. I thought she was very nice and very interesting.

Now shift the scene to Paris and picture me two months later living in a little pension with three other English boys as the slave of Professor Jouvel who lived a few houses away in the Rue Bonaparte. Jouvel was a little grey-haired man with a high strained voice, possessed of a stupendous energy which often took you unawares because it was so effortless. It rose up irresistible like some phenomenon of nature. He worked from seven in the morning till late every night and expected other people to do the same. We saw him daily for four hours ; four hours of unremitting toil ; four hours during which we learned more than we might have done in four years elsewhere, and which, because Professor Jouvel's mental machinery had the beauty and smoothness of perfection, were extraordinarily enjoyable. But if preparatory work had been neglected then those four hours in that little hot over-furnished room might have been spent as comfortably on the rack. Our master was very severe. He never scolded or nagged, hut he had the art of causing embarrassment wrought to a high pitch. If he was displeased with you he had a way of implying that this was because you were a nonentity ; your intellectual abilities did not belong to the better classes of the mind ; it wasn't your fault. He regretted having made a mistake. Under this harsh discipline we immediately adopted the life of slavery. We never went out. We worked very well. Five minutes after meeting Professor Jouvel my silly arrogance dropped from me. And then Professor Jouvel, of all people in the world, gave it back to me.

We respected, we even revered, our master, but it was impossible to feel any warmth of affection for any one so icily cold. At the end of our daily four hours we used to relax for fifteen minutes, smoking cigarettes and talking of ordinary frivolous things. The Professor's frivolous subjects were food and botany and to these he brought an austere spirit of criticism. The idle moment of the day was the reverse of hectic, so much so that I was very much surprised one afternoon when our master turned to me with an almost human smile.
"Monsieur Kirkby," he said, "I hope very much that your studies here do not prevent you working at your poems."
"My poems?" I stuttered. I was quite at sea. Surely, I thought, he could not be laughing at me?
"Yes, your poems. Ah," he said holding up a finger (but not exactly playfully), "your reputation is known to us here, you see, and I feel responsible that you do not neglect your talents. I consider that, if you do not already do so, you should deliberately set aside an hour a day, even two, and devote them to poetic composition."
"But Professor," I gasped, "the only poems I've ever written were published in a students' magazine at Oxford. How on earth___"
"Just so. We must all start humbly, just like that ; it is the right way. Perhaps I should explain to you how I know of your poems. My esteemed friend and colleague in the Societie des Recherches Litteraires, Madame Freine, has consecrated no small part of an article, appearing in the current number of L'Epoque Moderne to a criticism of your work. I felicitate you, young man. Praise from Madame Freine is not lightly earned. Is it possible that you have not seen the article ? ''
"No, I haven't." My head was swimming.
"Then you may take my copy home and return it to-morrow. I wish you also to bear my former remarks in mind. For many years, indeed all my life, I have been an amateur of poetry. I know how rare that gift is, how precious. It seems to me, Monsieur Kirkby, that you approach the moment when you should publish a book of your productions, your collected pieces and some others. You should consider this a serious part of your duties.''
"B-b-but," I said, not knowing what to say, "are-—-are you sure?"
"My dear friend," said Professor Jouvel laying a hand on my shoulder (an unprecedented show of affection), "I dare to make no personal judgment of your poems. My knowledge of English suffices not. I repose however my confidence in the judgment of Madame Freine. You may do so too. You may he very sure of the value of your talent." He adjusted his pince-nez giving dramatic weight to what he had said." And now, gentlemen," he concluded to us all, "you have much work to do and I shall not detain you. As arranged, we discuss the period of Rudagi at two o'clock to-morrow. Bonsoir.'' We shook hands with him in turn according to our custom, and I hurried home with L'Epoque Moderne under my arm.
I read Madanie Freine's article about seventeen times. A vast and terrifying idea began to convulse my mind : that I was possessed of genius, that I belonged to the immortals, that Milton, Dryden, Coleridge were my fellows. It was written in Madame Freine's article that as in the late sixteenth century, so now the English language was under-going a period of transition and passing through a stylistic revolution. Many different tendencies were striving for the mastery, and these she enumerated at some length. Then she said that revolutionary periods are the only ones in when it is possible for youthful movements to achieve a domineering position and bearing this in mind she regarded the sincere and deeply significant movement of the young intellectuals of Oxford as a phenomenon striking but important. My name then appeared. This young poet, she said, shows already an astonishing virtuosity but one remarks with a smile of relief, for virtuosity may render us disquiet, that his talent commences to operate in a defined direction. The sombre and terrible images evoked from a formidable imagination by the sure touch of this young but masterly technician reveal unsuspected worlds to us. It is perhaps from such a side that one may previsage the blow of Brumaire such as a triumphant movement may carry against the confusion of an epoch devoted to revolutionary experiments. A lot more in the same manner.

I surrendered. I shrieked aloud with joy. My head swelled as it had never done before. I saw myself as the Napoleon of letters. No diplomatic service for me! The artist's life instead, the fame that perishes not, the sacred light that flickers on immortal brows ! Before condemning me as a complete ass I ask the reader to believe that deep down inside me another voice spoke saying, " Fool, don't be taken in," and that in spite of the babel of self-praise now loosed within me this voice was never quite stilled. That will be my defence at doomsday, but oh what exaltations of self-deceiving pride it will have to explain away!

I bought a great many copies of L'Epoque Moderne and I sent one of them to Edmund Summers asking him if he knew of a publisher. When I walked in the Boulevard St. Germain or sat in the Deux Magots sipping an aperitif I used to wonder sometimes whether any of my neighbours or the passers-by realised that I was "Le celebre Kirkby" with whose fame the capital of France, I supposed, was ringing. Unfortunately I never met any French people at all, as Professor Jouvel gave us no time to do so. If I had done so they might have set me straight again. Mistaken as the French are about English writing they are very wise about all human beings. When I heard from Edmund Summers that he had found a publisher interested in my work my conceit reached satanic proportions.

Our life in Paris came to an end. Professor Jouvel gave us a small but delicious dinner (we had never eaten with him before) accompanied by small but exquisite potations of wine. We were all feeling very tired, myself more tired than the others, for apart from my studies of Arabic and Persian I had by now written fifteen additional poems. These with my Oxford "works" were to be the contents of my first book, Moonlight Sonata and Other Verse. My memory is mercifully dim when it comes to mental and spiritual experiences in the production of poetry but I think that when I got down again to the familiar act of forgery I must sometimes, in some part of me, have realised what a fool Madame Freine really was. My last memory of Paris, however, is of looking at the towers of Sacre Coeur as the train pulled out of the station and thinking how interesting the chapter on Paris would be to my biographer. Oh dear, oh dear.
I had a year to put in before my diplomatic examination so it was arranged that although my Oxford career was finished I should go back there for one term to work with a crammer, as the London crammer for whom I was destined could not take me till January of 1929. Thus it was in an Oxford bedroom in an attic on the Broad that I awoke one morning in November to find myself famous. No, not really famous-—I was spared that ; famous in a little diminishing part of Oxford, famous among some lunatics in Mayfair, dimly heard of in Bloomsbury and Chelsea, very slightly famous in the Ritz. I was very excited. I was well reviewed, not hailed as the Emperor of literature as by Madame Freine, but told I was very clever indeed and a real poet. I made £150 out of Moonlight Sonata and Other Verse. I think that was the only sensible thing about it.


-

To the Editor of Richard Aldington Newsletter I added:
"I note that Christopher Sykes wrote the introduction to Lawrence of Arabia, a Biographical Enquiry by Richard Aldington, seven years after RA's death, and fourteen years after the first edition. I'm aware that in scholarly circles one should assume nothing but, in truth, I had assumed – since Aldington and Sykes were Middle East commentators (Sykes more than Aldington, in fact, and a Middle East specialist in WW2) - that in introducing this new edition he was paying a tribute to some past acquaintanceship in the interwar years, when they had exchanged yarns. Sykes's satire of 1948 would then link him directly to RA, the poet."

Friday, 14 October 2011

Inductive Detection

He wrote in his notebook, "How delightful on a bright, frosty day when a new sleigh with a rug comes to the door." 
    The General had sent a surprisingly grand, light Finnish sledge of gilded osier and spruce, with birch blades.  An altogether excellent turn-out - with a matching Finka - but no splash-board.
    The surly Jehu, chewing cedar nuts on the box-seat, wore a long coat bordered with matted furs of castor and zibeline.  The liver-coloured racer with nervous, pointed ears, and a mane that sparkled like spun glass, pawed the fresh sleighing snow and quivered with suppressed eagerness. 
    A small boy with a pinched grubby face - one of the town's inevitable street-waifs clambered on to the rear runners.
    The Stationmaster, whom Anton distinguished by that official's singular, venerable, black and red, pancake-shaped cap, sang out cheerily a warning note.
    "Whip behind!"
    The hackman whipt behind.
    A plaintive voice called, "Dai kopeiku!"
    Anton drew aside the lap-robe and tossed a coin to the urchin, as the cast-off child scrambled dejectedly to his feet from a sidewalk of freshly trodden slush.
    The whip cracked again.
    Before them, the pitted road was clean once more, bleached by new-fallen snow.
    Anton had long confessed a sneaking regard for the inductive method of detection popularised by Shklyarevsky* who had imitated the pirated novels of Émile Gaboriau; and, as the sledge surged over the ukhábam – the transverse ruts which furrowed the road – he studied closely the strenuous piaffing of the Orloff in the shafts and deduced, beyond dispute, that the beast in her palmier days must have been harnessed to a distinctly different rig. 
    They were running alongside verst upon verst of hurdle fences raised as snow screens to protect the mainline rails and marshalling tracks from drifts.
    Despite this containment the trotter persisted in veering heavily to the left.
    The animal furnished material for an absorbing deductive digression.
    Anton noticed the drivers's off-side flick of his whip and corrective twitch of the ribbons ; the reins glittered with sharpened metal blades embedded in the thong to strike the roadster's stifles.
    Approaching his task with all the rigour of a good diagnostician, D-r Tchékhov noted, too, that the stinging lash was fashioned from a sazhen length of stolen telegraph wire.
    Another thing. The animal’s left hindleg was sickle-hocked and, when the sled had first moved off, Anton had observed at once the raised hoof on that deformed limb was weighted with a horseshoe kidney† of impacted snow.
    This degenerating weakness of the gambrel and tendency to yaw, coupled with her one-sided gait, were all signs which pointed conclusively to the fact that, in her previous employ, the creature had spent practically all her working life in the out-rigger position of a troika, with the off fore-leg leading.  
    Detektiv Tchékhov could not refrain from imparting his suspicions, and tested his theory on the driver, who grunted his assent.
    “If I gave her her head, given half a chance, she'd chase her own tail!”
    The high-set tail rose and fell before them in rapid motion, as if the mare was cracking nuts.


Notes
*  A. A. Shklyarevsky, author of The Undiscovered Crime (1878), the latter being
    a provisional working title of Chekhov’s A Textbook Case in this segment of his
    manuscript in progress (later deleted and replaced with The Fatal Debut).
†  Motifs drawn directly from his medical studies are rare in this period of Chekhov’s
    literary development.  A horseshoe kidney is a congenital defect producing a fusion
    of two human kidneys into a horseshoe shape.


Additional Editorial Note
This draft requires much discreet amendment. Either the copyist has slipped up or Chekhov is in error! The  horse is called kon' (male) on ms page 1 and loshad' (female) on ms page 2.  Also on page 1 it is called a Finnish horse, and on page 2 an Orloff trotter!

For the origins of this text see my previous posting, D-r  Tchékhov, Detektiv.
http://catherineeisnerfrance.blogspot.com/2011/10/d-r-tchekhov-detektiv-long-lost-novel.html



Catherine Eisner believes passionately in plot-driven suspense fiction, a devotion to literary craft that draws on studies in psychoanalytical criminology and psychoactive pharmacology to explore the dark side of motivation, and ignite plot twists with unexpected outcomes. Within these disciplines Eisner’s fictions seek to explore variant literary forms derived from psychotherapy and criminology to trace the traumas of characters in extremis. Compulsive recurring sub-themes in her narratives examine sibling rivalry, rivalrous cousinhood, pathological imposture, financial chicanery, and the effects of non-familial male pheromones on pubescence, 
and Listen Close to Me (2011)

D-r Tchékhov, Detektiv. A long lost novel

A long lost crime novel by Chekhov surfacing in the 21st Century? Not possible, you say! Yet Chekhov, himself, referred to such a work in progress in a letter to Pleshcheev on 9 Feb. 1888: "Ah, if you knew what a plot I have in my noddle! What marvelous women! What funerals ...!"

So, the tale that spoke to me across a century from the packet of papers I inherited from my father, when I understood its provenance, was not so altogether surprising that I missed a heartbeat.

The packet was labelled The Fatal Debut (a provisional title, I believe) in Chekhov's own hand on the wax paper wrapper containing his papers. However, the handwriting of the enclosed manuscript was not wholly in Chekhov's own distinctive penscript, but in other hands (his brothers Aleksandr, Nicholya, Misha and others). The work was translated and annotated by my father, from whose ms (see specimen pages) I have drawn for my own restoration of the novel.

His ownership of the original manuscript (deposited in my father's bank) is accounted thus:

My father, a polyglot, born 1903, travelled widely in his schooldays, studying at Herder Realgymnasium, Berlin ; Escuela Alemana, Barcelona ; Institut Minerva, Zurich ; and Handelsschule Weiss, Vienna.

In World War II, my father, by now a naturalised Englishman serving in the British Army, was an interpreter with SHAEF at the Nürnberg Trials.

According to a diary note of March 8 1946, he interrogated a General Vadim Ignatyvich Kulikov, who, in his youth, had been a close friend of Chekhov. (Kulikov, embittered by his failure to protect his Mari family against the post-revolutionary dekulakization in the inter-war years, had, remarkably, at the age of 69, defected to the Germans to lead a Cossack Unit subordinated to a Sicherungs Division, stationed in Glogau, Poland, which was active in the Kiev area and Croatia in 1943, deployed against saboteurs. After the series of interrogations conducted by my father, and following demands from the Soviets for Kulikov's repatriation, he was returned to Russia later in 1946, where after a show trial in Moscow he was executed for treason.)

In his private confession to my father, Kulikov stated he had "... exchanged half a carton of Chesterfields, two tins of cocoa and one can of condensed milk for the 'FD ms' in possession of a fellow prisoner, Vassily Gremoukhin, a collaborator, and émigré son of the ciseleur, Anatoly Gremoukhin, a distinguished former workmaster in the St. Petersburg House of Carl Fabergé".

From extant notes and journal references uncovered by my father, it seems Chekhov visited Gremoukhin in 1901 the month before his marriage to Olga Knipper to lay preparations for the special commission of a wedding gift: "A pair of engraved rock-crystal toilet bottles with mounts of enamelled translucent pink on a guilloché ground, one surmounted by a varicoloured chalcedony dog, the other by a cat in purpurine, each with cabochon ruby eyes."

Chekhov did not warm to Gremoukhin. Evidently, the commission was of a private nature and was not passed through Fabergé's books; Chekhov was, as so often during his courtship, pressed for cash and Gremoukhin demanded security against completion of the gift. (Gremoukhin's telephone number is given as Moscow 1173, by the way.)

Chekhov writes: "The manuscript was to hand (I had only that day assembled the pages for archiving) and, reluctantly, the work was placed in Gremoukhin's safekeeping as my guarantee. The hastiness of the agreement was prompted by the arrival of the maître, Fabergé himself, who benignly greeted me with the words:  'I must tell you at once, sir, the only doctor in whom I have ever put my faith at all is the good Berncasteler Doktor!' (He was referring to his favourite dry white Moselle.)"

In the event, as Gremoukhin's son related to my father, Chekhov never redeemed his manuscript, on which I have presumed to confer the title: D-r Tchékhov, Detektiv.

A sample chapter, Inductive Detection, from 270 transcribed pages (see mss below in a copyist's hand) may be read here ... you'll note the last page is irreverently overwritten by my father with notes on ordnance and supply columns!





A number of extracts from the as-yet-unpublished crime novel, 
D-r TchékhovDetektiv, have been posted here over recent years :

A Skirmish with Wolves
or Chekhov’s talking raven,
or Dead Wife, New Hat,
or Inductive Detection,
or D-r Tchékhov, Detektiv. A long lost novel, 
https://catherineeisnerfrance.blogspot.com/2011/10/d-r-tchekhov-detektiv-long-lost-novel.html


Catherine Eisner believes passionately in plot-driven suspense fiction, a devotion to literary craft that draws on studies in psychoanalytical criminology and psychoactive pharmacology to explore the dark side of motivation, and ignite plot twists with unexpected outcomes. Within these disciplines Eisner’s fictions seek to explore variant literary forms derived from psychotherapy and criminology to trace the traumas of characters in extremis. Compulsive recurring sub-themes in her narratives examine sibling rivalry, rivalrous cousinhood, pathological imposture, financial chicanery, and the effects of non-familial male pheromones on pubescence, 
and Listen Close to Me (2011)

Thursday, 13 October 2011

Hushed Up Chekhov

In the centennial of Chekhov's death, I wrote the following essay (published in the Jewish Chronicle, December 24 2004) in which I identify the suppression of commentary on the anti-Semitic aspects of Chekhov's correspondence and writings and drama.


In this, the year's end of Anton Chekhov's centenary [2004], many devotees will be unaware that, within international Russian-speaking Jewry, their hero is often vilified.
    In the West a controversy is raging among emigrant critics who claim there's a strain of anti-Semitism editorially suppressed in Chekhov's letters, and who point to a coded Jew-baiting hidden in his writings.
    Specifically, Jewish critics assert that Chekhov's literary career was advanced by influential mentors who were ideological anti-Semites. Certainly, Chekhov's disquieting character flaw was kept well-hidden in the Soviet epoch thanks to discreet censorship.
    Airbrushed out of Soviet history books were these remarks of Chekhov, "... our critics are almost all Jews, who don't know the core of Russian life, and are alien to it, its spirit, its forms, its humour ..."    
    Recently, an American-Jewish magazine condemned Chekhov's alleged silence during the Tsarist anti-Jewish pogroms.
    This accusation prompted me to search in vain within the new centennial collection (Chekhov: A Life in Letters, Penguin) for his correspondence with a certain Jew.
    But nowhere in this selection will you find Chekhov's notorious letter suppressed equally by his principal British biographer and Soviet guardians of the Chekhov legend.
    In 1881, following the rape and carnage of anti-Semitic pogroms, Chekhov writes to his former schoolmate, Solomon Kramariov, "If you are beaten ... I'll come. I like beating up your brother-exploiters ... Let you see in your dreams, Israeli, your move into the paradise! Let the justifiable anger of Russian citizens frighten and undermine your nerves!!!"
    Gallows humour, indeed, and this particular passage has been likewise sanitised by Donald Rayfield in his exhaustive biography. (Anton Chekhov: A Life.)        
    The Penguin selection claims to be the "first uncensored edition" but its editors are careful to shield readers from any hints of Chekhov's youthful anti-Semitism.
    Young Anton was fond of the Judophobic poet, Nekrasov, whose influence on Chekhov's early drama, Platonov, is evident.
     "A Yid stands in higher esteem ... There are fatal words on his forehead: For Sale at Public Auction!" This remark, by echoing Nekrasov's poem maligning a prostitute, equates Jewry with prostitution.
    Chekhov used "Yid" habitually in correspondence.  Similarly, Chekhov's youthful first novel reveals usage of "Yid" to be the norm.
    Unrecorded in the new Penguin edition is Chekhov's letter condemning this novel's publisher: "There's a new administration (Kurepin and Yids) there, more disgusting than the previous one."
    Early in his career, Chekhov fell under the spell, too, of another Judophobic writer, Leskov.
    The charge against Chekhov by Judophile critics is that both he and Leskov were "birds of a feather" who collaborated with reactionary, anti-Semitic periodicals. The entrenched anti-Semite, Suvorin, editor of the Judophobic New Times was Chekhov's lifelong friend.
    There is a sense of intimately shared mockery; on holiday, Chekhov writes to Suvorin: "The place swarms with Jews, among the mangiest specimens ... Jews are cowardly people ..."
    Yet, paradoxically, many years' later, Chekhov became a staunch defender of a Jew, Captain Dreyfus. (In this celebrated scandal Dreyfus was falsely accused of passing French military secrets to the German embassy in Paris.)
    When Suvorin declared New Times to be virulently anti-Dreyfusard Chekhov's opinions rapidly matured, swayed by Zola's famous campaigning article, J'accuse!
    The severing of Chekhov's friendship with Suvorin can be dated from their acrimonious falling out over Dreyfus. Chekhov writes: "The attitude of New Times to the Zola affair has been simply vile."
    Yet, the previous year, Chekhov can write casually: "To defend myself from gossip is like begging a loan from a [Jew]." The Soviets censored the word "Jew".
    Chekhov also writes: "I'm not going to write for The Northern Herald because I don't get on with their Israelites."
    This periodical was published by a woman Chekhov cursed for her "Jewishness".
    One hundred years' later, another woman critic, Viktoria Levitina, writes: "Chekhov is a wonderful legend of Russian literature: humanity, tolerance, tactfulness. There existed a sacramental formula in Russian law-making - 'except Jews'. All Chekhov's virtues don't concern Jews either." Chekhov's humanity is the myth of "a writer who is just considered to be a classical one."
    Judged by this latest Penguin selection, these darker suspicions colouring Chekhov's character are not given space to intrude, a deficiency which denies us revisionist insights to reassess his reputation.
      Not least among allegations of Chekhov's Judophobia is the innuendo that his intended Jewish bride, Dunya Efros, inspired the spirited Jewess in his short story written supposedly as an act of revenge in the year of his broken engagement; its protagonist has "a prejudice against un-Russian faces in general ..." Chekhov referred to Dunya as "Efros with her nose" and a rich zhidovochka.
    Chekhov's play, Ivanov, affirms, too: "Do not marry a Jewess or a bluestocking ..."
    Chekhov's misogynistic anti-Semitic aphorism echoes in our hearts when we consider that Dunya was arrested in WW2 Vichy and gassed by the Nazis.
    With 20/20 hindsight, any critic risks glibness in being too eager to judge.       
    But four years before his death, as late as 1900, Chekhov can still grumble in exasperation with Tolstoy, "I can't think why he bothers to talk to these Jews."

[See page 39. The Full Collection of Works and Letters in Thirty Volumes. Letters in Twelve Volumes. Letters. Volume 1. 1875-1886. Moscow, 1974. The anti-Semitic passage from the diary of February, 1897 is also included in this collection. Oddly enough, the Collection of the 1960s, in 12 volumes, skipped all the letters of 1880-1882. Incidentally, Chekhov refers to Kramariov as "Kramarov" which sounds more Jewish, i.e. son of Kramer = merchant.]

Footnote: a teleological conundrum.

It’s noticeable that the publishing here of the unedited text of my centennial article from 2004 has prompted certain speculations as to my own personal standpoint in relation to the post-pogrom diaspora at the turn of the last century. You’ll perhaps have noted that I wrote in clarification:
The reality of anti-Jewish pogroms in Tsarist Russia is not unknown to my family. My grandmother very closely witnessed, in the East End of London, the impact of Russian Jewish immigrants on communities in England (a mass influx of some 120,000 in the first waves fleeing the Russian empire’s anti-Semitic persecution). Hence, Londoners of the 1880s through to the early 1900s were, like Chekhov, no strangers to Russian Jewish customs and culture and my grandmother’s understanding of them was no less profound than his. In fact, it’s quite probable that Londoners knew more about displaced Russian Jews than Chekhov's countrymen who banished them. 
In reality, my grandparents were also members of a diaspora of sorts – in their case descendants of expelled Huguenots – so their views as Londoners were not coloured by extreme reactionary anti-alienism prejudices against the immigrant condition and the ghettoization of the East End. I will merely note that a common British perception of the refugee Jew in the East End of my grandparents’ times is best summed up by the eminent British socialist, Beatrice Webb, when observing (1888-1889) Jewish immigrant life for Charles Booth’s Life and Labour of the People in London.

Beatrice Webb writes of the new arrivals, fleeing persecution, as representing a survivalist class of entrepreneur that, due to their historic experience of persecution, had ‘weeded out the inapt and incompetent’ and sharpened their instincts into ‘an instrument for grasping by mental agility the good things withheld from them by the brute force of the Christian peoples’ and who regarded the best exemplar of their own kind as ‘in a fair way to become a tiny capitalist — a maker of profit . . . [who] feels himself the equal of a Montefiore or a Rothschild.’ Beatrice Webb, needless to add, was one of the founders of the Fabian Society; she coined the term ‘collective bargaining’ and wrote The History of Trade Unionism (1894). The stark conflict witnessed by my grandparents in the East End – contemporary movements towards organised labour versus the immigrants’ sweatshop practices that drove down wages – can therefore be better appreciated as the goad behind my grandfather and his becoming a very early member of the Fabian Society, that champion of co-operative endeavour and advocate of a welfare state and a national minimum wage.  

See also a variant of this article at:
https://peoples-press.com/index.php/morning-star-online-from-2004/culture/item/8338-chekhov-s-letters


The English View on Pogroms

Today (December 8 2017), astonishingly, I was turning the pages of a little book on East Anglian Dialect (‘Lingual Localisms’), published in London in 1823, and among all the quaint rustic sayings and ‘mitigated oaths’ I found the word, ‘Pogram’

So from almost two hundred years ago, here’s the view of a sophisticated English scholar and etymologist:
POGRAM [original spelling unchanged]: A word that has not been much heard till of late years [i.e. 1821 Odessa pogroms marked the beginning of the 19th century pogroms in Tsarist Russia], though I believe it not to be of recent coinage: indeed I’m pretty sure I have seen it somewhere. It is now generally applied by vulgar churchmen to dissenters of different denominations. Not however to papists, jews, or quakers. The remark that mutual rancour of conflicting sects is inversely as their degree of difference, holds good all the world over. Christians hate each other more than they do Jews or Mahommedans. And the latter, however inveterate against Christians, are yet still more so mutually in regard to sectarian difference: though in fact such difference be unimportant, and comprising no point of faith, beyond who was the fittest man to succeed Mahommed in the Khalifat, or civil and pontifical supremacy. Even the tolerant Hindus, who admit no proselytes, and aver that all mankind are more or less Hindus, have had desolating wars among themselves on points of faith and practice; and hate each other with considerable intensity; greatly exceeding what they feel towards Christians, or Mahommedans. It has been reserved for the Hindus to carry on merciless wars of extermination on a question of physiological function. Yet such are points of history and I believe of fact. The original question was whether their Jupiter or Juno were the most potential in the infancy, or before the infancy, of society?

That last remark, I suspect, teeters very close to iconoclasm yet this writer wrote in the Regency era so it’s not altogether surprising, because this kind of robust opinion was to thrive for over a decade until Victorian stuffiness stifled bluff hearty outbursts like this in the name of good taste.


Silence of the British Press, September 2018.

It should be recorded here that, in the 2018 debates by British mainstream news media on the question of anti-Semitism persisting in the UK Labour Party (September 2018), there was silence on the matter of its enshrinement in the ideological foundations of trade unionism articulated by Fabianism from which the Labour Party sprang. 

Just a further small sample of Beatrice Webb’s writings indicate the source of traditional Labourite/Fabian prejudice.  

In short, the explicit animus levelled by Labourites/Fabians against Jews is defined in Beatrice’s own words: 
‘. . . the immigrant Jew, though possessed of many first-class virtues, is deficient in that highest and latest development of human sentiment – social morality.’ 
Another quote from Beatrice: 
‘In the Jewish inhabitants of East London we see therefore a race of brain-workers competing with a class of manual labourers. The Polish Jew regards manual work as the first rung of the social ladder, to be superseded or supplanted on the first opportunity by the estimates of the profit-maker, the transactions of the dealer, or the calculations of the money-lender . . . ’


Catherine Eisner believes passionately in plot-driven suspense fiction, a devotion to literary craft that draws on studies in psychoanalytical criminology and psychoactive pharmacology to explore the dark side of motivation, and ignite plot twists with unexpected outcomes. Within these disciplines Eisner’s fictions seek to explore variant literary forms derived from psychotherapy and criminology to trace the traumas of characters in extremisCompulsive recurring sub-themes in her narratives examine sibling rivalry, rivalrous cousinhood, pathological imposture, financial chicanery, and the effects of non-familial male pheromones on pubescence, 
see Eisner’s Sister Morphine (2008)
http://catherineeisnerfrance.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/sister-morphine.html
and Listen Close to Me (2011)
http://catherineeisnerfrance.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/published-this-autumn-listen-close-to.html  

Wilde... apostrophiser of boys but not punctuation

Can punctuation, as well as poetry, provide a critical plot twist in my fiction?

Well. Yes. Remember, Roger Casement, the Irish nationalist, was 'hanged by a comma'.

In my latest collection of fiction, Listen Close to Me (Salt 2011), a bibliophile remarks on Wilde's cavalier use of the apostrophe. '[Wilde ] had a habit of apostrophising possessive pronouns when everyone knows they're absent.'

The truth of this observation I confirm in my miniature essay, Addendum to a Forgotten ms (Ambit, Issue 203, Winter 2011).

Meanwhile, if you doubt my word, take a look at Oscar Wilde's inconsistent apostrophising evidenced by the following writing samples. They are from his manuscript ('it's marble hue ... it's vein of blue ...') for his poem, Roses and Rue, of 1885.

Are these errors pathological? A Freudian graphologist might think so!

At Grass, the Blinking Stars ... Doctored Art?

I'm certain I recall reading in Andrew Motion's biography of Larkin (Philip Larkin: A Writer's Life, Faber and Faber, 1993) that, though he much admired Larkin's well known poem about racehorses put out to grass, he was disturbed by the inaccuracy of the final line of the final stanza ...

Only the groom, and the groom's boy,
With bridles in the evening come.

Motion feels that racehorses 'At Grass', taken by grooms to their stables, by implication, would be led by 'halters'.  The line, then, should read:

Only the groom, and the groom's boy,
With halters in the evening come.

Motion is absolutely right here. The bridles suggest horses equipped for a race, which is quite the opposite of the poem's mood of 'Veterans at Rest' and 'Triumphs Past'.

This brings me to the heretical idea that works of art, conceivably, could be tweaked and doctored to engage more empathetically with latter-day sensibilities. Do I mean bowdlerisation? No! Of course not!

I mean that some modern meanings of certain words can torpedo the effects the lyricist intended.  Shall I ever forget the ripple of laughter at the Royal Festival Hall when that splendid Toulonnais, Gilbert Becaud, sang an English translation of one of his songs: 'The blinking stars are dancing ...'  He simply could not understand the Londoners' (not unkind) laughter.

My sensibilities are also disturbed by the jarring appearance of 'free lances' in Louis MacNeice's classically perfect 'The Sunlight on the Garden', even though I know very well the meaning MacNeice intended, and its pathos. It's just that so many other contemporary – and dullish - associations are now conjured up by the term. That is why I have presumed, for my own private delectation, to doctor the poem so my attention does not waver at the beginning of the second stanza.

A massive presumption, yes! (To loosely change: Our freedom as free lances/Advances towards its end;/The earth compels ...) N.B. The iron 'Siren' neither reflects the Spanish Civil War nor the London Blitz of WW2 since this prophetic poem was completed in the mid 1930s. The dictators who wreaked havoc in both those conflicts I now dub, specifically, the 'unanswerable rogues' who never answered for their actions.

The Sunlight on the Garden

The sunlight on the garden
Hardens and grows cold,
We cannot cage the minute
Within its nets of gold;
When all is told
We cannot beg for pardon.

We know the rogue who answers
Unanswerably at the end;
The earth compels, upon it
Sonnets and birds descend;
And soon, my friend,
We shall have no time for dances.

The sky was good for flying
Defying the church bells
And every evil iron
Siren and what it tells:
The earth compels,
We are dying, Egypt, dying

And not expecting pardon,
Hardened in heart anew,
But glad to have sat under
Thunder and rain with you,
And grateful, too,
For sunlight on the garden.

Tuesday, 11 October 2011

Mr and Mrs Anon.

To return to the theme of the 'mute inglorious' Mr and Mrs Miltons so despised by Kingsley Amis (see my September posting, Commoners' Rights to the Heroic Quatrain).
http://catherineeisnerfrance.blogspot.com/2011/09/commoners-rights-to-heroic-quatrain.html
The defence of Anon must be for me a recurrent fixation because I'm reminded I touched upon it in my Elegy from a Locked Drawer in Sister Morphine (2008), where my youthful protagonist's flirtation with Toby Freemartin takes this turn ...

It was clear we were hitting it off.
    'What is your favourite colour?' he asked.
    'Iridescence,' I answered quickly (paying homage to Marianne Moore).
    'And your favourite poet?'
    'Anon.'
    His smile was wary. I suspected he was more than a little stuck on me but puzzled by the immature elusiveness I often contrived to make myself more fetching.

-

So, evidently, my views haven't changed since my teens.  And certainly my notebooks record any number of memorable sayings, saws and proverbs whose authors are Anon, yet whose utterances, like folk tunes, cling fast to the mind with a grip fiercer than that of any named poet.

Look. Here. I've just this minute taken eight random folk sayings and arranged them in two 'found stanzas' ...

Thought lies in Bed and is beshatten.
Mope-eyed for living so long as a Maiden,
She cannot leap an Inch from a Slut
Yet can correct the Magnificat.

They say Old Maids lead Apes in Hell.
The Body is the Socket of the Soul
Put together with a hot Needle and burnt Thread. 
Then ask: Would you know her Secrets? Who’s to know who’s a Good Maid?

Remember, Sir Kingsley, the ballad, the proverb, the inventive oath, the cautionary tale, owe their origin to Mr and Mrs Anon.