Introducing historiography at Miller’s Book Review

Earlier this month I was humbled to be asked to contribute to Miller’s Book Review, an outstanding and wide-ranging Substack run by Joel Miller. Joel asked that I put together an essay on the nuts and bolts aspects of historiography, one of my favorite subjects and a regular topic on this blog. After a few abortive attempts to summarize everything (“It is a great mistake to include everything,” the late John Lukacs once said, accurately) I turned in an essay organized around a few of the books I like to recommend to students who are curious about how history works as a discipline.

I’m pleased to say that the essay is now available! Read the whole thing here. Expect some Herodotus, some basic research questions, some philosophy of history, some theory, some deadball era baseball, a warning or two, one salvaged reputation, a little dunking on Ridley Scott, a whole lot of Hitler, and several books I heartily recommend.

And be sure to subscribe to Joel’s reviews. I’ve added many more titles to my to-read list thanks to him. I’m grateful to him for the invitation to write—and to learn a little about Substack at last—and hope that y’all will enjoy the finished product! Thanks for reading.

Maturity and evolution in military history

A friend with a deep interest in Celtic and specifically Welsh history recently shared this passage from a popular book on ancient Celtic warfare, in which the author tries to see through legendary material relating to Irish warbands:

If the Fianna of the Irish epics are actually celebrated in epic verse as a heroic archetype, an in-depth and disillusioned examination can recognize their historical characters as unruly elements and promoters of endemic political unrest, taking part in conflict only for the sake of conflict and, due to the absence of alternative adversaries, maintaining an obsolete, un-evolving developmental phase of warfare.

Elsewhere in the same book the author describes Celtic warfare in the British Isles as not “mature” compared to the warfare of their Continental cousins. My friend was puzzled by this passage (and wryly noted that it “sounds like it was written by a Roman colonial governor”) and its suggestion that geographic isolation left British Celtic warfare moribund and pointless.

That language of maturity and evolution and development—even the simple noun phase—is a giveaway. There is a whiggish approach to military history that views warfare as progressing linearly, from the primitive, ritualized fighting of the tribe to the pragmatic modern professional army in the employ of a nation-state pursuing rational material objectives. As Jeremy Black puts it in his introduction to The Age of Total War: 1860-1945, which I serendipitously picked up just after seeing my friend’s posts on this topic, this “teleological” approach describes history as “mov[ing] in a clear direction, with developments from one period to another, and particular characteristics in each. This approach is an aspect of modernization theory.”

I’ve written on this topic before, and with reference to another book by Black, coincidentally, but what I didn’t get into as much in that post was the dangers of this view of linear historical progress.

There are two big problems with this approach. The first is that it encourages an assessment of historical subjects as good or bad, better or worse, primitive or modern, depending on how closely they approximate what a modern person recognizes as warfare. A culture’s warfare, in this view, is “mature” insofar as it resembles us, the implicitly assumed endpoint. Judgments according to modern standards are sure to follow.* The condemnation of “endemic political unrest” gives away the author’s assumption that “rest,” so to speak, is the norm. Ancient people didn’t see it that way.

The second, related problem is that, with this viewpoint in place, you need not actually understand a given culture and why it would fight the way it did on its own terms. You can simply slot it into place in a linear scheme of technical and/or tactical evolution and ignore their own viewpoint on the subject.

The result, which has been pointed out as far back as Herbert Butterfield’s Whig Interpretation of History, is that you train yourself either to dismiss or simply not to see anything falling outside the thread of development you’ve chosen to follow and you blind yourself to what’s actually going on with that culture. The search for through lines and resemblances warps the overall view. This is, at base, a form of presentism.

There’s quite a lot of this in the older historiography of Anglo-Saxon warfare. Like the ancient Britons and Irish, the Anglo-Saxons were geographically isolated from related cultures like the Franks for centuries following the Migration Period and continued to fight in recognizably older ways than their cousins. So a common whiggish approach to the story of the Conquest was that the outdated (notice the use of obsolete in the quotation we started with) infantry levy of Harold Godwinson was quite naturally defeated by the combined arms of the Normans, who deployed infantry, cavalry, and dedicated archers at Hastings. It’s a step in evolution, you see, the end of a “phase.” It’s easy to detect a faint tone of contempt for the Anglo-Saxons in a lot of those old books.

This is, of course, to ignore the entire history of this culture, its past enemies and conflicts,** and the good reasons they had to develop and use the military institutions and methods that they did. And so a historian can blithely describe a culture’s unique response to the situations it had found itself in as simply stuck in a rut—until the inevitable triumph of something more modern. No further investigation needed.

Not only is this approach presentist, it fosters an incuriosity that is the bane of good history.

* And the modern always gets the benefit of the doubt, which is morally questionable. Tribal warriors fighting for prestige on behalf of their king is “primitive” and bad but a state nuking civilians in the name of democracy is “modern” and therefore good.

** As well as the fact that William the Conqueror’s victory was down more to luck than to battlefield performance.

Dramatic irony and plot contrivance

Bates and Anna in Downton Abbey and Abby in Blood Simple

Last night RedLetterMedia posted their review of the first season of “The Acolyte,” the latest Star Wars show. I have no interest whatsoever in watching “The Acolyte” but in the course of Mike and Jay’s discussion Jay specifically critiques it for an overused storytelling technique:

One of my least favorite plot contrivances that’s used for, like, lazy screenwriting is the misunderstanding and the not explaining to a character what is going on because the plot demands it. . . . the lazy contrivance of not knowing all the information and not being told the information because if you were then there would be no story.

I should say “misused” rather than “overused.” What Jay is describing is dramatic irony, a form of literary irony in which the audience knows more than the characters do. This can create tension and pathos as characters ignorant of the full significance of their own actions carry on, ignorant not only of what they’re doing but of the consequences they will face later. Shakespearian and especially Greek tragedy are rich in dramatic irony, as are modern horror and suspense movies—as exemplified by Hitchcock’s famous example of the bomb under the table.

But dramatic irony, as Jay suggests, becomes a plot contrivance when the ignorance of the characters is maintained unnaturally. The best example I can think of is “Downton Abbey.” Earlier seasons of the show produce dramatic irony much more organically, but as the show goes on and becomes more obviously a high-toned soap opera, characters get into increasingly melodramatic situations and increasingly refuse to talk to each other about them. Most of the show’s problems could be resolved with one conversation, a conversation the characters will not have.*

This is particularly the case with any plot involving Mr Bates, whose aloof taciturnity is taken to a ridiculous extreme when he is accused of murder—among other things. He has numerous opportunities simply to explain to someone else what is going on and why he is acting in the way that he is, and he doesn’t.** Over and over, “Downton Abbey” prolongs the drama artificially in exactly the same way.

For dramatic irony done not just well but brilliantly, watch Blood Simple, the Coen brothers’ first film. The film has four primary characters: Abby, the young wife of a shady nightclub owner; Marty, the husband; Ray, a friend with whom Abby begins an affair; and Loren Visser, a private detective. Briefly, Marty hires Visser to look into what Abby and Ray are up to and, when he finds out, pays Visser to kill them. Visser double-crosses and shoots Marty, and Ray discovers the body.

Without giving too much away, as the rest of the movie unfolds:

  • Ray thinks that Abby killed Marty (she didn’t) and decides that he has to cover for her

  • Abby thinks Marty is still alive and out to get her (he isn’t) and decides to fight back

  • Visser thinks he has gotten away with his crime (he hasn’t) until he realizes he has left evidence in Marty’s nightclub, which he thinks Ray and Abby have (they don’t), and decides to eliminate them to cover his tracks

All of the characters operate in ignorance of the whole picture—with the possible exception of Visser, who makes mistakes despite knowing more than Ray and Abby—and make their decisions based on what they think they know, which is often wrong. This ignorance continues right up until the final lines of the film, following a climactic confrontation in which the two surviving characters can’t see each other. And it is unbearably suspenseful rather than, like “Downton Abbey” or “The Acolyte,” merely frustrating.

Dramatic irony is a powerful device, and it’s a shame it isn’t better used. Writers hoping to create tension in their stories through the ignorance or misperceptions of their characters would do well to revisit a movie like Blood Simple, some of Elmore Leonard’s crime fiction, or, even better, go back to Aeschylus and Sophocles.

* This is, I think, part of what makes Maggie Smith’s Dowager Countess such a breath of fresh air whenever she appears, as she actually says what she means.

** My wife and I refer to these as “Shan’t” moments, as in “I could resolve this with a simple explanation, but—” turning one’s head away, “shan’t.

Tim Powers on chronocentrism and conformism

For the last week I’ve been reading Tim Powers’s 1987 pirate fantasy On Stranger Tides, a book that everyone seems to agree Pirates of the Caribbean couldn’t have come into existence without—even before Disney optioned the title for the fourth one—and that got me watching Powers interviews on YouTube again.

In this interview with a channel called Through a Glass Darkly, host Sean Patrick Hazlett asks, as a wrap-up, “What advice would you give to new writers?” Powers responds with a list of “the old, traditional advice, which is solid-rock true,” and that I have to add is still good advice for people who’ve been writing for years or decades. Here’s the first part of his answer in bullet-list form:

  • “Read very widely, read outside of your field, read outside of your time, don’t restrict yourself simply to stuff published since 2000 or 1980 or whatever. You don’t want to be chronocentric.

  • “Have as wide a base as you can, chronologically and [in] subject matter. Read mysteries, read plays, read poetry, non-fiction, et cetera.

  • “Write a lot. Set yourself a schedule and keep to it. Even if it’s only a thousand words a month, stick to it. Use guilt and fear as motivators. Tell yourself you’re worth nothing if you don’t get the writing done.

  • “Get it in front of editors, send it out. Don’t get trapped in a revision whirlpool. A story doesn’t exist until an editor has looked at it. It’s like Schrödinger’s cat.”

He follows this up with an elaboration on his first point of advice:

Don’t be a conformist. Don’t bend your writing to fit what you see as trends, even if they seem to be mandatory trends. They’re not.
— Tim Powers

Okay, all that’s true. Then I would say—goes back to chronocentrism—don’t be a conformist. Don’t try to clock what’s selling now, because even if you could correctly gauge that and then write a story, it’s very likely not to be what’s selling now by the time your story comes out. Don’t be a conformist. Don’t bend your writing to fit what you see as trends, even if they seem to be mandatory trends. They’re not. If you say, “Oh this is what they’re buying now. This is what you have to do now in order to get published. There’s some boxes you have to check.” No. Be different. Be a nonconformist. Because if you go along that conformist road, even if it gets published your work is just going to be one more of that generic type, and what’s the value in that? So I would say, ignore trends.

Hear hear.

Powers has said versions of this before—here’s a blog post I wrote last October based on a similar interview conversation—but it’s stated more firmly and in more detail here.

I especially like Powers’s framing of the problem in terms of “chronocentrism.” As I recently told one of my classes, the most neglected form of diversity in our diversity-obsessed age is chronological diversity. Powers is steeped in CS Lewis and loves his non-fiction, so he’s probably got Lewis’s concept of “chronological snobbery” and passages like this from “On the Reading of Old Books” at the back of his mind:

Every age has its own outlook. It is especially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. . . . None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books.

For a similar concept, see Alan Jacobs’s “temporal bandwith.”

Kreeft on Job

detail from Job Rebuked by his Friends, by William Blake

I’ve been reading Peter Kreeft’s Three Philosophies of Life, a short examination of Ecclesiastes, Job, and Song of Solomon as visions of competing worldviews, bit by bit over the last month or so. Appropriately, over the weekend I read the section on Job—theme: Life as Suffering—while getting over an illness. Here are two passages that struck me:

First, from Kreeft’s introductory remarks:

Though bottomlessly mysterious, [the Book of Job] is also simple and obvious in its main “lesson”, which lies right on the surface in the words of God to Job at the end. Unless you are Rabbi Kushner, who incredibly manages to miss the unmissable, you cannot miss the message. If Job is about the problem of evil, then Job’s answer to that problem is that we do not know the answer. We do not know what philosophers from Plato to Rabbi Kushner so helpfully but hopelessly try to teach us: why “bad things happen to good people”. Job does not understand this fact of life, and neither do we. We “identify” with Job not in his knowledge but in his ignorance.

Identifying with Job in his ignorance is an elegant way to put it. Job doesn’t know at the beginning of the book—the Accuser executes his plan to have Job curse God without any forewarning—and Job still doesn’t know at the end, and yet he is satisfied. Cf. Chesterton’s comments on Job, which I quoted here two years ago in connection with another great ancient confrontation with Not Knowing: The Epic of Gilgamesh.

In the final third of the section on Job, Kreeft leaves the Problem of Evil behind and turns his attention to what he calls “The Problem of Faith versus Experience.” Here he engages in exactly my kind of comparative history:

In previous ages, especially the Middle Ages, which were strong on reason but weak on psychological introspection, and attention to feeling and experience, the crucial problem was the relation between faith and reason. . . . In our age, which is weak on reason (and even doubts reason’s power to discover or prove objective truth) and strong on psychology and experience, the crucial problem is the relation between faith and experience. Today many more people lose their faith because they experience suffering and think God has let them down than lose their faith because of any rational argument. Job is a man for all seasons but especially for ours. His problem is precisely our problem.

I’ve seen compelling arguments that conversion is often if not always pre- or sub-rational. CS Lewis’s account of his acquiescence to God in Surprised by Joy comes to mind. Traveling in the opposite direction, compare the recent evangelical phenomenon of “deconstruction,” which seems primarily to be a process of publicly washing off political cooties (Christians have been mean to gays! Christians owned slaves! Christians voted for Trump!) rather than a Christopher Hitchens- or Bertrand Russell- or Friedrich Nietzsche-style coldly reasoned apostasy.

Kreeft published this book in 1989, yet here he foresees our not only postmodern but post-truth world and the need for an apologetics based not solely on rational argument. Alister McGrath is the theologian I’m most familiar with who has made a deliberate effort at this.

Three Philosophies of Life has been excellent so far, not least because Ecclesiastes and Job are two of my favorite books of the Bible. I look forward to the final part on Song of Solomon, “Life as Love.” While Ecclesiastes and Job have spoken to me where I am for years, Song of Solomon has always been something of a mystery to me. Having read Kreeft’s examination of Job, I’m prepared to embrace that.

Gladiator II trailer reaction

Naval combat in the Colosseum in Gladiator II

On Tuesday, the first trailer for Ridley Scott’s Gladiator II appeared on YouTube. I immediately watched it and opened up a draft post here on the blog. A few thoughts:

I’ve been skeptical of a sequel to Gladiator for as long as Scott and friends have been talking about it. Not only was Gladiator a great movie and a perfect standalone story, it was—like Star Wars or Pirates of the Caribbean—lightning in a bottle, a lucky product of the planned, the unforeseen, and the ability of imaginative craftsmen to adapt to unique circumstances. Recreating the magic of such a great movie for a sequel would not only be unnecessary, I thought, it would probably prove impossible. It hasn’t helped that some of the leaked proposals for a follow-up were insane. Add to this the aging Sir Ridley’s increasingly unconcealed indifference to history and Napoleon’s thudding arrival last year and I hope you’ll understand why I wasn’t excited to learn, in the middle of all that, that Gladiator II was finally shooting.

Well, now that a trailer has arrived I have to say I’m pleasantly surprised.

Gladiator II picks up the story of Lucius (Paul Mescal), the son of Lucilla (Connie Nielsen), Commodus’s sister and Maximus’s love interest in the original, about twenty years later. When we last see him in Gladiator he’s leaving the sand of the arena where Maximus and Commodus have just killed each other. Now he is, per the trailer and scraps of information online, living in North Africa. Apparently he is captured in an amphibious raid by a Roman army under Marcus Acacius (Pedro Pascal) and sold into slavery as a gladiator, where he follows his hero Maximus’s example by taking the fight to Rome via the Colosseum.

Lucius’s owner and trainer is Macrinus (Denzel Washington), who appears to have a similarly intimidating semi-mentor role to that of Proximo in the original. Macrinus has designs on political power, which is currently wielded by brothers and co-emperors Geta and Caracalla (Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger). Bloodsport ensues.

What most surprised me about this trailer is the extent to which it recaptures the feel of the original. Gladiator had a look you could smell. The sharp, sun-drenched palettes, the sand and grit, the backlit smoke, the lavish textiles, the metal that looks hot to the touch, and the towering classical architecture are all present in Gladiator II. The seamless fit of this with the original’s style, more than anything else, made me excited for this movie.

This is, of course, playing to Scott’s strong suit. None of it means that the story will adequately support the visuals. (See again Napoleon.) Scope is guaranteed, but depth?

Other observations:

  • I’m honestly thrilled to see more of the Colosseum, including its famous mock naval battles—complete with dolphins? sharks?—and a beast fight. When you learn about the Colosseum in school this is the stuff you really wish you could see. And this sample looks great.

  • Speaking of the beast fight, the segments with the rhino reveal the starkest visual difference between this and the original: obvious CGI. Gladiator had some but here, nearly a quarter century later, it’s more apparent. The rhino looks pretty great but Lucius’s little tumble doesn’t.

  • I like the nods to Maximus’s arms and armor. A proper Roman touch, and a nice callback to Maximus and Lucius’s scene in the original.

  • Marcus Acacius’s amphibious attack looks rather too much like the climactic fight in Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. Potential unintentional comedy.

  • Plotwise, this really looks like a rehash of Maximus’s story from the original. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I hate to see a great movie followed up twenty-four years later with the standard same-but-different sequel plot.

  • Hans Zimmer has not returned to compose the score, which is a bummer. I’m curious to see whether Harry Gregson-Williams, a fine composer, repurposes some of Zimmer’s themes or writes entirely new music.

  • “The greatest temple Rome ever built: the Colosseum.” Great line. I’m reminded of an observation my undergrad Rome professor made: you can learn a lot about a civilization by looking at the buildings it spends the most time and effort on and that dominate its skyline. In the Middle Ages it was the castle and the cathedral. Today it’s the skyscraper. In Rome it was the arena.

Okay, history stuff:

  • I expect no attempt at accuracy. Like the original, I plan to enjoy this as a good movie and nothing more—provided it’s a good movie.

  • Geta and Caracalla were real emperors who ruled together following the death of their father, Septimius Severus (r. AD 193-211). Geta was assassinated, presumably at his older brother’s bidding, after less than a year of co-rule, so that places the events of this movie in AD 211. Caracalla ruled another six years, though, and has entered history as a byword for imperial cruelty and bloodthirstiness alongside Caligula and Nero. Presumably his fratricide will play some role in the film.

  • Caracalla was eventually murdered while on campaign and succeeded by Macrinus, Denzel Washington’s character. The real Macrinus was Berber rather than black, a fact internet comment sections are already full of fulmination about, and reigned a little over a year. At least one production still of Washington sitting on what looks like a throne has been released. After being murdered in his turn, Macrinus was succeeded by Elegabalus, a notoriously perverted teenage tyrant who has been the subject of a recent move to spin him as a “transgender woman.” Gladiator II is probably already biting off more than it can chew, history-wise. Lord help us if the filmmakers go there.

  • Geta and Caracalla get a stereotypical depraved Roman emperor look, with an uncanny resemblance to John Hurt’s Caligula in I, Claudius. They creeped my wife out when I showed her the trailer.

  • Marcus Acacius has a rather presentist line about not wishing to “waste another generation of young men for their [Geta and Caracalla, presumably] vanity.” You’ll have to look hard to find someone outright defending Caracalla—who, in addition to his personal violence and cruelty, also debased the coinage and granted citizenship to nearly everyone in the Empire—but he didn’t campaign pointlessly. Scott’s modern posturing creeping in, as usual.

Verdict: cautiously optimistic.

So we’ll see. I don’t precisely have high hopes for Gladiator II but the trailer looks good and I’ll certainly be there when the film opens in November.

Hitchcock and the eggheads

Ethel Griffies in The Birds (1963) and Simon Oakland in Psycho (1960)

Speaking of experts, last week, during our Independence Day trip to the beach with my in-laws, I rewatched The Birds for the first time in several years. What most struck me the last time I watched it—how long it takes to get to the bird attacks—seemed less remarkable to me this time. Hitchcock, master craftsman, spends the first half of the film both lulling the audience and foreshadowing the terror to come, all through the whimsical romance he creates in a realistic-feeling world.

No, what struck me this time was Mrs Bundy (Ethel Griffies), the elderly ornithologist who strides into the film just before the first major attack looking for cigarettes. She knows her birds. She’s observed them for decades and knows what they do and do not do. She has facts and figures, including a strangely precise calculation of the number of birds currently living in North America. Presented with Melanie’s stories of bird attacks, Mrs Bundy pooh-poohs them. Confidently, firmly.

She reminded me of a character who appears at the end of Psycho, the film Hitchcock made immediately before The Birds. Following that film’s unbearably suspenseful climax and shocking twist, Hitchcock treats the viewer to a good five minutes of Dr Richman (Simon Oakland) talking, and talking, and talking. Dr Richman explains to the other characters—and, by extension, the audience—what they’ve just witnessed and how Norman Bates came to be what he is. He knows his Freudian psychobabble and is strangely precise in his diagnosis of Norman. He’s confident, firm. He also feels like he talks forever, a strange inclusion in what is otherwise a terrifically paced, highly visual film.

I’ve seen a few explanations for Dr Richman’s protracted, stentorian lecture:

  1. It’s intended as a genuine scientific explanation of Norman and the events of the film based on the pop Freudianism of the day

  2. It’s intended as a parody of Freudian psychology and the way it can explain away anything

  3. It’s there for structural purposes, to give the audience a few minutes to come down from the suspense and terror of the climax before wrapping up with the film’s genuinely chilling final moments

  4. It’s some combination of the above

I think #3 is indisputable as a formal consideration, and so incline toward #4. But which of #1 and #2 is it?

The huge amount of time Hitchcock gives to Dr Richman suggests #1. Hitchcock loved his jokes but constructed them economically. Also, screenwriter Joe Stefano has said in interviews that he was heavily committed to Freudian analysis at the time, so his contribution was probably intended sincerely.*

On the other hand, Dr Richman acts like a blowhard and his explanation is too pat, too easy, fitting the mystery of Norman Bates snugly within the die-cut confines of theory. His explanation—and based on a single police station interview!**—is incommensurate with what the audience has seen over the preceding hour and a half. His confidence smacks of cocksureness rather than insight. Tellingly, even after his lecture we are left uneasy by Norman in his final scene, during which we leave the safe confines of law and order and expertise and travel down the hall to Norman’s cell and whatever is contained there. One senses that the cops guarding the door have a clearer grasp on Norman than Dr Richman.

The Birds reinforced my gut feeling that the latter is the better understanding of Psycho. Here, the expert shows up nearer the middle of the film rather than at the end and—most unlike Dr Richman, whose explanation is seemingly allowed to stand—is thoroughly humiliated. We see Mrs Bundy twice: the first time as an imperious expert holding court, the second as a traumatized survivor of the thing she denied was possible minutes before. She can’t even bring herself to look at Melanie and Mitch.

Hitchcock learning lessons between films? Or simply a difference in source material and screenwriter? I don’t know, but I think Mrs Bundy’s role in The Birds is the better of the two, heightening rather than explaining away the film’s central mystery.

* I know a psychiatrist does appear in Robert Bloch’s original novel, but I haven’t read it and can’t comment on how this information is handled there.

** Mark Twain comes to mind: “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

Credential envy

I’m currently reading Histories and Fallacies: Problems Faced in the Writing of History, by Carl R Trueman, a good introduction to the historiographical traps laid in the way of students of the past.

In his first full chapter, which covers Holocaust denial (“HD” below), Trueman briefly explores a side-topic he calls “the aesthetic fallacy”—the assumption that if something looks scholarly and scientific (by some subjective image of what “scholarly” and “scientific” should look like) it must be. This, Trueman notes, is more a fallacy of the reader of history than the historian, but bad historians often tailor their work and images with this in mind.

Trueman looks specifically at the case of Fred Leuchter, who undertook a chemical study of one gas chamber at Auschwitz and claimed to have found little or no evidence of Zyklon-B residues in the bricks. After picking apart Leuchter’s study, which was methodologically unsound but provided a seemingly scientific talking point for certain audiences, Trueman makes an important side observation:

On close examination, we can easily see that his method is so flawed that it is not really scientific at all, but it has all the appearance of being scientific. He uses all the right words, even down to his claim in the title that he is an engineer. In fact, he is not; he is a designer of execution machines. Indeed, he has been barred from using the title “engineer” with reference to himself because of his lack of formal qualifications. The title gave him weight and plausibility; he presumably hoped that it would provide him with the credibility to have a seat at the table and be taken seriously in discussions. One could say that the scientific form of his writing, or perhaps better (though slightly more pretentiously), the scientific aesthetics of his work gave his arguments credibility. For this reason, I am always suspicious of books that print “PhD” on the cover after the author’s name. Why do they need to do this? The person has written a book, so surely her competence can be judged by the volume’s contents? Perhaps, after all, many books are judged at least somewhat by their covers as well as what is printed on the inside.

The phenomenon Trueman describes here is common across self-published crank literature (just look through the Goodreads giveaways sometime) but is felt apparently instinctively by a lot of people. I call it “credential envy.” It has a few iterations:

  • Insisting on a title that is irrelevant to the topic under discussion

  • Claiming a title one is not legitimately entitled to

  • A version of both the former and the latter: insisting on being called doctor for an unearned doctorate

  • Pure fraud

The fundamental quality of credential envy is a craving for legitimacy—or, per Trueman’s “aesthetic fallacy,” the appearance of legitimacy. There’s a defensive, chip-on-the-shoulder aspect to credential envy. People who insist on impressive titles want to preempt criticism through intimidation or grandeur. And this attitude only becomes more apparent when the credentials are false or irrelevant or when they’re being used to mislead, as Leuchter’s appropriation of “engineer” was.

Credentials and qualifications matter enormously. But like Trueman, the more someone insists on their credentials and titles, the more wary I become. Real expertise is effortlessly confident and worn lightly. Or should be. Perhaps the behavior of some real experts today is part of the reason the broader public increasingly finds it hard to distinguish them from the cranks.

Memory Hold-the-Door

I ended the very first John Buchan June a few years ago with Buchan’s final, posthumously published novel, the thrilling, beautiful, and poignant Sick Heart River. It only seems right, now that I’ve read it, to end this year’s event with the non-fiction book Buchan was composing at the same time as that final Sir Edward Leithen adventure. The book is his memoir, completed, like Sick Heart River, only a short time before he died in early 1940: Memory Hold-the-Door.

Memoir is the best word to describe this book, but is still not quite right. Though billed as Buchan’s autobiography by his publisher, Buchan himself described the book this way in the short, pointed preface: “This book is a journal of certain experiences, not written in the experiencing moment, but rebuilt out of memory.” He confesses that he had considered having the book privately published, but changed his mind when he “reflected that a diary of a pilgrimage, a record of the effect upon one mind of the mutations of life, might interest others who travel a like road.” It was, accordingly, published under the title Pilgrim’s Way in the United States, where it became a favorite book of the young John F Kennedy.

Memory Hold-the-Door is easily summarized. Beginning with his childhood and youth in Scotland, where he spent much formative time outdoors (“My earliest recollections,” he writes, “are not of myself but of my environment”), through his student days at Oxford, his political career in South Africa, Britain, and Canada, his government work in intelligence and propaganda during the war years, and his career in journalism, publishing, and fiction, Buchan narrates his life story in broad outline, with many episodes and memories rendered in striking and beautiful writing. His fiction’s strongest qualities are much in evidence, especially his descriptions of beloved landscapes and in his character sketches of family, friends, colleagues, and comrades, to all of whom he renders the same service as he does the natural world.

What most struck me about Memory Hold-the-Door was its tone. Even before the narrative has taken Buchan from Oxford to the veldts and kopjes of South Africa, a sharp, persistent elegiac note has entered. One realizes quickly how many of those Buchan knew and worked with as a young man were fated to die in the First World War. This book, even though it is a grateful remembrance of a good life by an uncomplaining man, is marked throughout by loss. His publisher and one of his best friends, Tommie Nelson, died on the Western Front, as did his brother Alastair. Of Nelson he writes:

I can recall many mannerisms of his, but it is only by an effort of thought, for they do not run to meet the memory. His presence warmed and lit up so big a region of life that in thinking of him one is overwhelmed by the multitude of things that he made better by simply existing among them. If you remove a fire from a hearth, you will remember the look, not so much of the blaze itself, as of the whole room in its pleasant glow.

And of his brother Alastair:

I remember that when I occasionally ran across him during the last stages of the battle of the Somme I thought him the only cheerful thing in a grey world. He managed to get the best out of everybody, and won a general affection because he himself gave out so much of it. I wonder if the future historian will realise how much of the strength of the British army was due to the boys of twenty who brought the kindly ardour of youth into the business of war and died before they could lose their freshness.

And those were only the dearest lost to him among the many war dead he knew.

His reflection on his brother’s loss points as well to Buchan’s perspective—even when eulogizing men who have been gone a quarter century by the time of his writing, he never loses sight of the big picture their lives and deaths formed a small part of. This in itself adds to the poignancy of the book, as not only the losses but the civilization-shaking repercussions of the war bothered him, filling him with forebodings that would all too often turn out to be right. Even the end of the war, superficially a cause of celebration, augured trouble: “My reason indeed warned me that there was little cause for optimism. The War, the vastest disordering since the breakdown of the Pax Romana, must be followed by decades of suffering and penury.”

But I don’t want to give too dour an impression of this book. Though tinged throughout with loss and sadness, it is still a fundamentally joyful book. Buchan writes warmly of his childhood; of his work; of the books he has enjoyed (e.g. Pilgrim’s Progress, Robert Louis Stevenson, from whom the title comes) and the historical figures he admires (e.g. Montrose, Lee, Cromwell, Sir Walter Scott); of the many places he was privileged to live, in all of which he finds something lovely; and, though this is not a deeply intimate book, of his family. It is striking what a variety of famous people he knew: members of parliament, literary men, generals, presidents, kings. If you’re looking for the link between GK Chesterton, TE Lawrence, and Alfred Hitchcock, Buchan is your man. But perhaps the finest tribute, and one I can personally relate to, goes to Susie Grosvenor, whom he married in 1907: “I have been happy in many things, but all my other good fortune has been as dust in the balance compared with the blessing of an incomparable wife.”

Memory Hold-the-Door is also, like the Greek and Roman classics Buchan best loved, highly quotable. Buchan maintains an aphoristic readability throughout. I read the book in Kindle, the only way I could find it, and eventually saved over 150 highlights (which you can peruse here if you want a generous sample of the book). A few favorites:

  • On mining oneself for the purposes of fiction: “A writer must inevitably keep the best of himself for his own secret creative world.”

  • On some writing friends, one of whom will be well known to readers of this blog: “With G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc and Maurice Baring I never differed—except in opinion.”

  • On staying current and/or “relevant”: “My taste was for things old and shabby and unpopular, and I regarded with scepticism whatever was acclaimed as the Spirit of the Age. I was born to be always out of fashion.”

  • On his favorite classical authors (see “relevance” again): “My reading was chiefly in the Latin and Greek classics, which were beyond the caprice of time. I read and re-read Thucydides, for he also had lived among crumbling institutions; Virgil, for he had known both the cruelty and the mercy of life; Plato, above all, for he was seraphically free from the pettinesses which were at the root of our sorrows.”

  • On technological progress as exemplified by the First World War: “The War had shown that our mastery over physical forces might end in a nightmare, that mankind was becoming like an overgrown child armed with deadly weapons, a child with immense limbs and a tiny head.”

  • On the bind intellectuals of the 1920s had put themselves in: “It was a difficult time for those who called themselves intellectuals. They found themselves living among the fears and uncertainties of the Middle Ages, without the support of the mediaeval faith.”

  • On theory and pure reason: “The drawback to a completely rational mind is that it is apt to assume that what is flawless in logic is therefore practicable.”

  • On writing fiction for its own sake: “I always felt a little ashamed that profit should accrue from what had given me so much amusement. I had no purpose in such writing except to please myself, and even if my books had not found a single reader I would have felt amply repaid.”

  • On the threats facing Christianity in the modern world: “I am of Blake’s view: ‘Man must and will have some religion; if he has not the religion of Jesus he will have the religion of Satan, and will erect a synagogue of Satan.’ There have been high civilisations in the past which have not been Christian, but in the world as we know it I believe that civilisation must have a Christian basis, and must ultimately rest on the Christian Church. To-day the Faith is being attacked, and the attack is succeeding.”

  • On the perseverance of Christianity despite it all: “The Faith is an anvil which has worn out many hammers.”

These are drawn pretty much at random from my Kindle highlights. I could provide dozens more.

There are also many wonderful anecdotes. Here’s one from the First World War regarding General Sir Douglas Haig, whom Buchan worked with and admired but who apparently didn’t have the common touch:

He had not Sir John French’s gift of speaking to the chance-met soldier. Once, I remember, he tried it. There was a solitary private by the roadside, whom he forced himself to address. Haig: “Well, my man, where did you start the war?” Private (pale to the teeth): “I swear to God, sir, I never started no war.”

And another in which a fan of Buchan’s thrillers is disappointed by his historical novels:

These were serious books and they must have puzzled many of the readers who were eager to follow the doings of Richard Hannay or Dickson McCunn. That is the trouble with an author who only writes to please himself; his product is not standardised, and the purchaser is often disappointed. I once had a letter from an Eton boy who, having a taste for a bustling yarn, was indignant at anything of mine which did not conform to that pattern. He earnestly begged me to “pull myself together.”

But as mentioned above, and by Buchan’s design, Memory Hold-the-Door is not an exhaustive autobiography. Buchan states at the outset that he does not intend to use his memoir for the things most memoirists do, especially today. There is no score-settling, no self-justification, no gossip. He writes only of the dead, and then only to praise them—especially those he believes have been unjustly forgotten or remembered for the wrong reasons. Reviewers since its first publication have remarked on its “curiously oblique” approach, on what it covers in detail and what it glances across in a paragraph—or less. Buchan himself, though he states with some embarrassment that he found his manuscript “brazenly egotistic,” disappears from the narrative for long stretches. He prefers always to write about others.

“That said,” remarks biographer Andrew Lownie, “it is a very revealing book, both consciously and unconsciously.” As I’ve already suggested, even where Buchan says little about himself, his character comes through clearly—friendly, pious (in the Roman sense), hardworking, well educated, charitable toward all, firmly rooted in a place loved lifelong, of disciplined and expansive mind, and above all openminded but of firm conviction. The book’s final line offers a strong unifying theme: “Dogmatism gives place to questioning, and questioning in the end to prayer.”

In early February 1940, shortly after Buchan completed both Memory Hold-the-Door and Sick Heart River and having repeatedly refused the chance at a second five-year term as Governor General of Canada when his term ended in August, he suffered a stroke while shaving, fell, and struck his head. Within a few days he was dead, and widely and affectionately mourned. These two final books, the memoir and the novel, would appear over the course of that year. Memory Hold-the-Door sold out almost immediately and was repeatedly reprinted during the war years and afterward.

Though eventually Buchan’s fiction, especially The Thirty-Nine Steps, became his most lasting legacy, his memoir offers a fine portrait of a life honorably and gratefully lived. Memory Hold-the-Door is both intensely and poignantly self-reflective but also generous. It is that strangest and rarest of literary beasts, the humble memoir.

* * * * *

Once again I’m sorry to see John Buchan June end. This concludes the third year in a row that I’ve done this, and I’ve enjoyed it more every time. What started as a bit of a lark, a relief from some of the early summer corporate activism that eats up our screens during my birth month, has turned into a tradition that I relish and look forward to. I hope these reviews—including some of Buchan’s non-fiction for the first time this year—have piqued your interest in his work, and that you’ll check at least a little bit of it out in the coming year.

Thanks as always for reading. Until next June!

Mr Bennet’s library

I’m currently reading Pride and Prejudice out loud to my wife every night before bed. Though I know the story well, this is the first time I’ve actually read it since college probably eighteen years ago. As much as you can appreciate Austen’s wit, goodness, and insight, there is nothing like actually reading her work to blow you away.

It’s also easy to forget, in a world full of imitators that feature the trappings of Austen’s world but not the wit, goodness, and insight—and are increasingly skanky, to boot—how fantastically funny Austen is. It’s hard for me to get through a chapter because I’m constantly laughing.

Last night we read some of the choicest early chapters featuring Mr Collins. After finding Mr Collins “as absurd as he had hoped,” Mr Bennet is stuck with a living, breathing, rapidly aging joke in his house. Specifically his library. This is bothersome to Mr Bennet, because, as Austen tells us:

 
In his library he had been always sure of leisure and tranquillity; and though prepared, as he told Elizabeth, to meet with folly and conceit in every other room in the house, he was used to be free from them there.
 

Sarah and I agreed to have that made into a nice sign for our own office/library door.

The House of the Four Winds

As this year’s John Buchan June draws to a close, we return to the adventures of retired Scottish grocer Dickson McCunn and friends, this time traveling abroad to help a disinherited prince claim his rightful throne. This novel, the final fictional read this year, is The House of the Four Winds.

Before we consider what kind of trouble the redoubtable Mr McCunn lands in this time, we should consider a mostly-forgotten genre: the Ruritanian Romance. Anthony Hope, a twenty-four year old London lawyer, published The Prisoner of Zenda in 1894 to great acclaim. The plot of this novel concerns an aimless English traveler being swept into a foreign country’s succession crisis and being forced—temporarily, at first—to impersonate a king. Hijinks ensue. As I’ve mentioned here before, The Prisoner of Zenda is a favorite swashbuckler of mine.

But what Hope did genre-wise In Zenda was to combine political intrigue, secret identities, well-intentioned conspirators, high-spirited derring-do, the put-upon Englishman in an exotic land, and a little old-fashioned forbidden romance and—crucially—set it in an imaginary central European kingdom. That unlikely formula proved a huge success and spawned decades of imitators, all called by the name of Hope’s kingdom: Ruritania.

Ruritanian politics informed the plot of the second Dickson McCunn tale, Castle Gay, which I reviewed earlier this month. In that novel, factions from the Republic of Evallonia slip into Scotland with the aim of interfering with British public opinion via the press. In The House of the Four Winds, a direct sequel to Castle Gay, Buchan embraces the Ruritanian genre form and sends his characters into the heart of Europe. The result is, as we will see, only partially successful.

When the novel begins, Dickson McCunn is taking a doctor-ordered cure at a spa town in southern Germany. Coincidentally, Alison Westwater, the young heroine of the previous novel, is in the same town with her elderly parents, as is frequent Buchan hero Sir Archie Roylance—taking a break from a dull League of Nations conference in Switzerland—and his wife Janet, whom we learn is a cousin of Alison’s. At various points members of the group encounter figures they recognize from their previous Evallonian adventure in Scotland: first Mastrovin, the nefarious leader of the republicans, a man with ties to the Bolsheviks; and second the heir to the throne of Evallonia, Prince John, whom Mastrovin had attempted to kidnap in Scotland in the previous novel. Something is afoot.

Meanwhile, Alison’s love and the real hero of both this novel and the previous one, Jaikie Galt, is taking a walking tour across eastern France and southern Germany. He winds up crossing the border into Evallonia—which, based on context, seems to be somewhere between Salzburg and Trieste—and almost immediately becomes embroiled in the country’s political upheaval. As established in Castle Gay, Evallonia was one of a number of half-baked republics created by the Treaty of Versailles following the end of the First World War, and like all of those enlightened creations is beset with problems.

Evallonia’s unpopular republican government is on the brink of collapse. Everyone expects this; what worries them is what will replace it once it has collapsed. The monarchists hope to restore Prince John to the throne as king. Mastrovin’s republicans have more sinister intentions, though these are never made totally clear. But what most complicates matters is the recent rise of a movement known as Juventus. A populist, nationalist movement oriented toward youth with a powerful and popular “Green Shirt” paramilitary wing, Juventus enjoys nationwide support but is functionally rudderless. Unlike similar populist movements in, say, Italy and Germany, Juventus has no singular figure who can steer it toward an attainable political goal. Until they have one, the Green Shirts are a danger to everyone.

The plot, hatched in the castle known as The House of the Four Winds by Jaikie, Count Odalchini, one of the leading monarchists, Randal Glynde, a circus owner with a long career in Evallonia (and another of Alison’s cousins), and, eventually, Dickson McCunn himself, is to manipulate the Green Shirts into support for Prince John by placing an even more objectionable heir on the throne, the prince’s elderly uncle, an archduke who has been living in exile for decades. This, they hope, will rally the Green Shirts to Prince John, restore him to his throne, and unite the anti-republican factions enough to prevent a pro-Bolshevik turn in Evallonian politics.

It should not be a surprise that the plot succeeds, but along the way the characters encounter plenty of dangers from every direction: kidnapping and torture by Mastrovin and his cronies; bullying and roughing up at the hands of Green Shirts; and dangers like scaling castle walls and leaping from prison windows. Like the other Dickson McCunn novels, The House of the Four Winds is a lark.

This book was published in 1935, between The Free Fishers and The Island of Sheep, two brisk and skillfully executed late novels. Reception for this final Dickson McCunn adventure, however, was pretty poor. Andrew Lownie, in his biography The Presbyterian Cavalier, quotes critic Cyril Connolly’s judgment that The House of the Four Winds represents “a rather low point” not only for Buchan’s fiction but for his entire career. Lownie himself notes succinctly that critics and reviewers since then “have not substantially challenged that contemporary view.” Ursula Buchan is more to the point: The House of the Four Winds “is probably [Buchan’s] worst novel.”

I enjoyed this novel more than they did, but it certainly has more evident weaknesses than much of Buchan’s other fiction. Most of them—strangely for Buchan, a master of pacing—are structural. Several chapters in the middle and end of the book begin with abrupt leaps forward in time, backtrack to fill in what has happened, and then awkwardly shuffle forward again. This technique can work; here it mostly doesn’t. (I remember being warned off of it in my undergrad Novel Writing class.) Some plot elements are introduced and abandoned quickly. At one point, Jaikie departs (between chapters) on a motorcycle with the aim of meeting an important Countess, but reappears having not found her only to be immediately diverted into another strand of the story. Finally, Mastrovin and the other villains are defeated too early, leaving an overlong denouement involving the mechanics of extracting a disguised Dickson McCunn from Evallonia.

There are also more contrivances than is usual, even for a writer famous for using the lucky coincidence. Jaikie’s love interest Alison has so many cousins one begins to wonder if everyone in the novel is related to her. Jaikie is also always bumping into people he happens to know. And Glynde and his circus, especially his trusty elephant, are always exactly where they need to be, exactly when they need to be.

But The House of the Four Winds still has its charms. For someone interested in thrillers and adventure stories, the interwar spin Buchan puts on Hope’s Ruritanian form is clever. This is a light adventure in a recognizably shaken up, post-Austria-Hungary central Europe, and reflects not only real currents of disruption, uncertainty, and political revolution, but presages the dangers that could arise from these scenarios. Dangers that, indeed, already had by 1935. Mussolini is mentioned once and Hitler not at all, but The House of the Fours Winds is shadowed by their presence. Could Evallonia in the hands of the Green Shirts, who are presented as misguided and potentially dangerous but fundamentally decent, wind up where Italy and Germany did?

More immediately enjoyable are the characters themselves. Jaikie and Alison’s genuinely sweet romance finally flowers in this novel, and it is good to see Sir Archie and Janet again. (It also makes me want to reread John Macnab, in which they meet and enjoy the best love story Buchan wrote.) And, thankfully after Castle Gay, from which he is mostly absent, we get more Dickson McCunn.

The novel’s final short farewell chapter, in which a band of horsemen hurries Mr McCunn over the mountainous Evallonian frontier by moonlight, is a charming episode devoted entirely to him and his spirit of adventure. That’s how his stories began in Huntingtower, the best of the bunch, and even if Castle Gay and The House of the Four Winds never worked as well as that first adventure did, this novel’s conclusion makes a fitting end for this unlikeliest of Buchan heroes.

The furtive fallacy

Some years ago I wrote here about “the fallacy of the universal man,” the assumption that all people everywhere are “intellectually and psychologically the same.” The term and definition come from David Hackett Fischer’s 1970 book Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought. I concluded that post by mentioning “the furtive fallacy.” Here’s Fischer on that error:

The furtive fallacy is the erroneous idea that facts of special significance are dark and dirty things and that history itself is a story of causes mostly insidious and results mostly invidious. It begins with the premise that reality is a sordid, secret thing; and that history happens on the back stairs a little after midnight, or else in a smoke-filled room, or a perfumed boudoir, or an executive penthouse or somewhere in the inner sanctum of the Vatican, or the Kremlin, or the Reich Chancellery, or the Pentagon. It is something more, and something other than merely a conspiracy theory, though that form of causal reduction is a common component. The furtive fallacy is a more profound error, which combines a naïve epistemological assumption that things are never what they seem to be, with a firm attachment to the doctrine of original sin.

There is a little of the furtive fallacy in us all . . . And when there is much of it, we are apt to summon a psychiatrist. In an extreme form, the furtive fallacy is not merely an intellectual error but a mental illness which is commonly called paranoia.

History afflicted with the furtive fallacy is warped by the endless search for the ulterior motive and the hidden hand.

This is not a new problem. Fischer names as one of the earliest practitioners Algie Simons, a socialist reporter who was possibly the first to spin the Constitution as a conspiracy of the wealthy to exploit and disenfranchise.

But furtive history’s greatest and most influential example is certainly Charles Beard, whom Fischer investigates in some detail. Beard made his name by imputing purely economic motives to the framers of the Constitution (“Beard . . . several times insisted that his thesis was misunderstood. But in fact it was misconceived.”) and ended his career with a book arguing a thesis popular among the latter-day furtive: that FDR had deliberately maneuvered the United States into participation in WWII.

Interestingly, Fischer notes that the same paranoid-leaning mindset at work in critics of Beard, namely the conservative historian Forrest McDonald, whose account of the drafting and ratification of the Constitution deliberately targets Beard’s and provides instead “a rum and strumpet history” of backroom deals and smoke-filled rooms different in degree—and political angle—but not in kind. Whether left-wing, right-wing, or politically indiscriminate, in history marked by furtiveness “[r]eality is reduced to a set of shadows, flickering behind a curtain of flimsy rhetoric.”

As Fischer notes near the beginning of this section, the furtive fallacy is not the same thing as a conspiracy theory, but conspiracy theories seldom lack this hermeneutic of paranoia. Put another way, you can be paranoid without drifting into conspiracism, but not vice versa. Understandably, since if you already believe all true motives are base but hidden, it’s not a difficult step to find spectral evidence for these assumptions everywhere.

In fact, it was Fischer’s description of furtive history, driven by “causes mostly insidious and results mostly invidious” that caught my attention and reminded me of one of my favorite short documentaries: “The Umbrella Man,” a six-minute film by Errol Morris. In this film, private investigator Tink Thompson, himself a JFK conspiracy theorist, tells the story of a mysterious man spotted in film and photographs from Dealy Plaza. He wore a suit and stood holding up an open umbrella—despite the brilliant fall weather—as JFK’s motorcade passed by.

Thompson summarizes the suspicions surrounding the Umbrella Man thus: “The only person under any umbrella in all of Dallas standing right at the location where all the shots come into the limousine. Can anyone come up with a non-sinister explanation for this? Hm? Hm?”

I don’t want to give the documentary away—seriously, take six minutes and watch the film—but Thompson does tell the satisfactory but wholly, totally unexpected story of who the Umbrella Man was and why he did what he did that day, a solution “just wacky enough it has to be true!” Thompson concludes:

What it means is, if you have any fact which you think is really sinister, that is really obvious a fact which can only point to some sinister underpinning, hey, forget it man, because you can never, on your own, think of all the non-sinister, perfectly valid explanations for that fact. A cautionary tale.

Food for thought and a useful rule of thumb, especially given that even much of the non-conspiratorial history produced today revels in and even demands the furtive perspective.