The winner of the Haffner essay prize for 2009 is Luke Ilott of 11H1. Luke showed superb understanding of and engagement with the material in Sebastian Haffner’s “Defying Hitler” which explores the collapse of the Weimar Republic and the rise of Hitler. Year 10 History groups will be reading Haffner’s memoir as part of their IGCSE study of Germany 1918-1945.
Aaron Taylor wins Robson Prize!
Timeline would like to congratulate Aaron on his superb achievement on winning the Robson Prize. His essay on Disraeli can be read in full below.
All style and no substance.’ How fair is this as an assessment of Disraeli?
‘Imagination in the government of nations,’ reflected Benjamin Disraeli in 1870, ‘is a quality not less important than reason.’[1] Thus Disraeli, twice Prime Minister and three times Chancellor of the Exchequer, constructed a political creed that gave weight both to imagination and reason, to rhetoric and legislative action, to style and to substance. The charge levied against Disraeli by many historians is that despite his rhetoric about social action at the London Crystal Palace and Manchester Free Trade Hall in 1872, and in Parliament when attacking Peel in 1846 and Gladstone thereafter, his implemented policies were, as Walton claims, ‘limited and piecemeal.’[2] This assessment of Disraeli stems from a historiography that sees him as predominantly opportunistic in his politics, and concerned with the acquisition of power more than its successful use. It must be noted that this interpretation, not a wholly unfounded one, was the dominant interpretation for much of the mid to late 20th Century. Others, however, argue that his defence of British institutions and action to preserve the Empire showed the practical implementation of a political ideology; ‘there is little reason to doubt,’ argues Jenkins, ‘that Disraeli was consistent in his overall political objective.’[3] One must therefore consider the various aspects of Disraeli’s career to understand his use of style and substance. His attacks on Peel during the Corn Law crisis of 1846, his treatment of Parliamentary reform in 1867 and ‘Tory Democracy’, and his domestic and foreign policies when in power must all be explored in order to understand Disraeli’s political career. One must also, however, note Disraeli’s career as a novelist and his background as the descendant of Italian Jews, which left him as an outsider to the British political elite, to comprehend fully his use of rhetorical style and political substance. One must assess Disraeli in relation to his own belief. He wrote that ‘imagination governs mankind,’[4] and thus, in a way more reminiscent of modern politicians, noted the importance of style in achieving substance in politics, and recognised, in the changing electoral landscape, that the two are inseparably bound. The question ‘all style and no substance?’ can be answered only with this in mind.
The most vociferous attacks on Disraeli are made for his treatment of Peel over the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. ‘It would be naïve,’ claims Jenkins, ‘to suppose that Disraeli… was not primarily motivated by his need for a vehicle with which to publicise himself and, with luck, to further his political career.’ As an assessment, this has much truth. Disraeli called Peel’s 1834-35 ministry ‘your brief but masterly premiership,’ and said to him ‘in your chivalry alone is our hope.’[5] Such comments were a far cry from the way, just a decade later, that he ‘positively tortured his victim… hacked and mangled Peel with the most unsparing severity,’[6] over the Corn Laws. Indeed, Disraeli proved himself not to be a protectionist over the following years. But Disraeli acted out of political necessity if not humility, and with great style if not respect; though one must note the rancorousness of Disraeli’s attacks, one cannot claim that they came from a base of no political conviction. It must be recognised that Disraeli saw the Corn Laws as crucial- not as an economic measure, about which he showed little interest, but as a symbol of the prosperity of the landed classes and their position in society. Thus he could later declare ‘search my speeches through and you will not find one word of Protection in them.’[7] He had, instead, the stylistic skill necessary to lead the assault on Peel, and assert his political authority. It is undoubtedly true that Disraeli operated with great style; his lengthy speech, which compared Peel to a treasonous Turkish Admiral, and which portrayed him as ‘a burglar of others’ intellect,’[8] both outwitted him and outshined the efforts made by Lord Derby in the Upper House. The substance of Disraeli’s assault was twofold. First, he aimed to attack Peel, the man who failed to offer him ministerial office in 1841, who was succumbing to the agitation of the Anti-Corn Law league, and whose leadership prevented Disraeli from gaining power. Secondly, Disraeli aimed to right this problem by appealing through his rhetoric and ideas to the Tory backbenches, to gain parliamentary influence through their support. Disraeli wanted power to pursue his agenda, and in order to secure it, he had to attract the protectionists. Opportunistic he was, but not insubstantial. Moreover, it must be noted that Disraeli’s stylish attack was wholly necessary. His appeal for government office in August of 1841 was met with unsurprising rejection: ‘He was a newcomer with no experience and no social or landed position. Peel’s cabinet consisted almost wholly of Lords and Knights.’[9] Disraeli struggled in his early career to overcome the burden of having been born to an urban, upper-middle-class family; he was an outsider to the Tory elite, and had indeed stood for office as a Radical in the early 1830s. Image became crucial for Disraeli, and so his unsparing attack was justified in the interests of political survival. Moreover, Disraeli described himself as ‘the blank page between the Old Testament and the New:’[10] born a Jew, and a convert at thirteen to Christianity. As a result of his birth, Disraeli needed to use style in order to distinguish himself in parliament, and thus ensure his place in the party; this he did by attacking its leader when the opportunity arose. ‘We govern men with words,’[11] he said, and so he intended to use them as best he could. Thus, once in power, he could court parliamentary minorities such as Irish Catholics, and build the extra-parliamentary party in a way such as Peel had not. It was his assault on Peel that made this possible. ‘Man is only great when he acts from the passions,’ Sidonia tells the eponymous character in Coningsby, ‘never irresistible but when he appeals to the imagination.’[12] Positive opportunism had become an asset for Disraeli, and so it was that he could levy his ultimate parliamentary criticism of Peel, that he was a man ‘without imagination or any inspiring qualities.’[13] These were, realised Disraeli, the essential tools for a politician.
Historians frequently criticise Disraeli over the concepts of ‘Tory Democracy’ and ‘One Nation Toryism,’ phrases attributed to Disraeli though not used by him. These represent the belief in the inherent conservatism of the working classes, in the notion that ‘the welfare of the people is [the government’s] supreme end,’[14] and in the need for a system of Conservatism that embraced the nation and its institutions. Most important as a study of these concepts is the 1867 Reform Act. Disraeli is accused by many of mere rhetoric in the presentation of this Bill; it is said that Disraeli opportunistically proposed a Bill from which his party could gain, and that would split the Whig/Liberal opposition, without an ideological foundation. However, Disraeli introduced the 1867 Reform Act on the basis of his consideration that the working classes had a great respect for the upper classes, and a desire to maintain the great national establishments of church, monarchy and aristocracy. He had, he claimed, ‘always looked on the interests of the labouring classes as essentially the most conservative interests in the country,’[15] true especially of his days in Young England and when standing as a Radical MP. On a party political level, one can judge Disraeli’s stylish speeches over Reform in 1867 to have been substantially successful, in ensuring the passage of a favourable Reform Bill. Many, however, see Disraeli’s rhetoric as reflecting ‘One-Nation Conservatism.’ ‘[Even] if Disraeli did not plan an urban Tory democracy,’ Smith admits, ‘he did possess a confidence in the cohesion of the British social system and in the capacity for leadership inherent in its upper classes which enabled him to envisage a large working-class electorate without great fear of the consequences.’[16] Indeed, it was this very social structure at which Disraeli aimed his defences of the Reform Bill, opposing Gladstone’s amendment for a £5 rating qualification by saying ‘I think you would have a better chance of touching the popular heart, of evoking national sentiment, by embracing the great body of those men who occupy houses and fulfil the duties of citizenship by the payment of rates, than by the more limited, and, in our opinion, more dangerous proposal.’[17] Disraeli was targeting the hearts and minds of the mid-Victorian electorate through his rhetoric both in and outside of Parliament. Thus it mattered little to him that the effects of Reform were belittled by the terms of the Bill or that it underwent significant amendment in the House of Commons. Indeed, Disraeli wrote in Tancred that a shared sense of progress, of ideology, and of ‘theocratic equality,’ was ‘the solution to the social problem that perplexes you.’[18] He therefore sought a ‘one-nation’ conservatism that embraced the lower classes, feeling that ‘society without ideology, like government without imagination, is dangerous where it is not impossible.’[19] Disraeli believed in the conservatism of the working class, and used this idea in parliament, in his speeches, and in his novels to appeal to the support of the newly enfranchised. Stylish this political tactic may have been, but this style did not, for Disraeli, contradict its substance, but made it more effective. Indeed, for Disraeli, ‘One-Nation’ was essentially a state of mind, a philosophy that reconciled classes by focusing on their shared heritage: the English people were ‘universally held to be the freest people in Europe, and to have enjoyed our degree of freedom for a longer period than any existing state.’[20] Disraeli’s rhetoric in this sense countered that of Marx, who spoke the language of class conflict and division. Disraeli’s language of unity ultimately prevailed over Marx’s, and thus again his style had substantial implications.
One must again assess the idea of ‘One Nation’ Toryism when considering Disraeli’s domestic policies. Many historians accuse Disraeli of a lack of substance on social reform as a result of his lack of interest in the details of legislation: ‘Disraeli’s popular Toryism…’ says Smith, ‘was an idea, an attitude, not a policy.’[21] It is said that he had no coherent programme of reform, and that his 1874-1880 ministry achieved little in practical terms. Disraeli certainly spoke of the need for social reform; in Sybil he highlighted the existence of England’s ‘Two nations… the rich and the poor,’[22] and in his ‘Crystal Palace’ speech of 1872, he expostulated that ‘another great object of the Tory Party… is the elevation of the condition of the people.’[23] However, Disraeli’s social reforms of 1874-1880 are frequently criticised for their minimal practical effect. The Artisans’ Dwelling Act of 1875 was permissive, and thus empowered local authorities to purchase slums without giving them an incentive so to do; the Employers and Workmen Act of the same year, though making illegal a breach of contract by an employer, led to few immediate changes in behaviour. However, to ignore the symbolic importance of these pieces of legislation is to underestimate their impact. The first Act put the rights of the poor above the rights of property owners when considering unsanitary dwellings; the second protected the rights of workers from exploitation by employers. The same can be seen with Disraeli’s agricultural reforms; the 1876 Enclosures Act, along with the Act of 1878 targeted specifically at Epping Forest, helped to preserve the remaining areas of common land. Though these reforms may have done little directly to improve the plight of the working classes, they were important in that they put the rights of the poor to common land above the property rights of landowners, a significant step for a Conservative government. The legislation is significant in the importance it gave to the conditions of the poor and the role of government in addressing it, as also seen in the 1874 Factory Act which reduced the maximum number of working hours for women and children. Disraelian Conservatism focused on the greater good of the country; his determination to ‘elevate the condition of the people’ was founded on the idea that ‘the condition of England… will ultimately depend upon the strength and health of the population.’[24] In an age of prevailing laissez-faire economics and small government (Disraeli had promised the electorate that he would end the ‘incessant and harassing legislation’[25] of the previous government,) such symbolic legislation was, in many areas, the most a government could be expected to pass. Indeed, such legislation, with the extra-parliamentary speeches that accompanied it, helped to create a better reality. Disraeli gave the impression of removing the causes of grievances amongst the poor and of increasing social harmony. Though involved with little of the detail of drafting legislation, partly from disinterest and partly from ill health, he enabled its passage and gave energy and thus credence to its message of ‘One Nation’ politics. This helps to explain his pursuit of the press; more than just having a thirst for celebrity, Disraeli sought to build an image as a great leader, a national leader, which he could use to harness the popular imagination and construct a reality in the mind of the public perhaps greater than he could through legislation alone. That Disraeli believed so strongly in style as substance is largely a result of his having spent most of his parliamentary career in opposition. As such, his role was largely stylistic, as achieving legislative substance is more difficult in opposition, and, indeed, a stylish attack on the government such as Disraeli made when Leader of Derby’s Opposition in the Commons, could be a substantive achievement. This was an attitude to politics that Disraeli carried with him into government with the legislation of 1874 and 1875. ‘Disraeli’s art and legacy,’ adds Smith, ‘lay not in the manufacture of measures but in the management of impressions.’[26] Hence in domestic policy, too, Disraeli harnessed his control of style to make great his substance.
To understand fully the effect of style on Disraeli’s political career, one must look to foreign and imperial policy, the policy area that increasingly dominated his second ministry. Disraeli is criticised for talking about the empire and its benefits whilst having no clear foreign policies or an imperial programme. This is, to a large extent, true. Disraeli laid out his imperialist hand through his Manchester and Crystal Palace speeches in 1872. He opened his speech in Manchester on April 3rd 1872 by recognising the allegation that then, as now, was made of his party: ‘The Conservative Party are accused of having no programme of policy.’ Disraeli’s intention was to correct that opinion through rhetoric. Thus he continued ‘it is not merely our fleets and armies, our powerful artillery… upon which I so depend, as upon the unbroken spirit of [the English] people, which, I believe, was never prouder of the Imperial country to which they belong.’[27] So, too, Disraeli spoke of Empire in his ‘Young England’ novels, inspired by his tours around the Mediterranean and Middle East in 1830-31, notably through the Jewish eponymous character Alroy, building a grand ‘restored’ Empire. Such talk of Empire was very much backed by action in Disraeli’s ministry of 1874-1880. He demonstrated a commitment to British interest abroad in his handling of the Eastern Question. Disraeli was reluctant to condemn the Turkish Empire, a long-term ally of the British, though Gladstone’s moralistic opposition, voiced in his pamphlet The Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East, was gaining in popularity. Here Disraeli’s imperialist rhetoric had substantial implications, steering for him a path in foreign policy. It was thus of the greatest importance to Disraeli that he gained parliamentary support through his speeches in the House of Lords in order to maintain control of the situation, and of his government. It was thus that Disraeli, with the Queen’s backing, eventually persuaded the cabinet to authorise the anchoring of a fleet off Constantinople, as a warning to Russia to avoid a further advance. It was not without justification that Disraeli could claim ‘peace with honour’[28] on his return from the Congress of Berlin in 1878, for he secured Cyprus for Britain, and the right of the Sultan to station troops in Southern Bulgaria. There can be no doubt that foreign affairs interested Disraeli, hence his devotion to them despite ill health towards the end of ministry. Much to the Queen’s pleasure, Disraeli passed the 1876 Royal Titles Act, conferring on Queen Victoria the title ‘Empress of India,’ a signal both to India and to Russia of Britain’s commitment there. This move also assured landed classes, many of whom had significant interests in India, of his support, and as such Disraeli was to a large extent the man who made upholding the empire a Conservative policy. Moreover, Disraeli spent £4 million of taxpayers’ money in 1875 on purchasing 44% of the Suez Canal from the bankrupt Egyptian Khedive. It is widely considered that this move meant little in practical terms, though it pleased both Disraeli and the British public, in ensuring that the French didn’t own the entire Canal. What emerges, though, is a programme of foreign affairs that served the dual purposes of fulfilling Disraeli’s imperial ambition and pleasing others. And indeed this resulted in substantial action, as his rhetoric encouraged Lord Lytton to invade Afghanistan in 1878 and Sir Bartle Frere to declare war against the Zulus in 1879. A comparison with Gladstone on Imperial issues reveals the extent of Disraeli’s style, and the benefit it brought to him. Gladstone, aloof, serious, and devoted largely to intricate matters of finance and administration, opposed Palmerston’s popular nationalist line in the Chinese Wars of the 1830s and 1840s and Don Pacifico in 1850, over which Palmerston made his powerful ‘Civis Romanus Sum’[29] speech. So too Gladstone showed lack of vigour in simply acquiescing in Russian’s renunciation of naval treaty obligations in 1871, and in agreeing to pay the United States of America $15 million in compensation over the ‘Alabama’ affair. His determination to use the Concert of Europe and promote colonial self-government didn’t have the nationalist energy or rhetorical popular appeal of Disraeli’s approach to foreign policy. Empire was, said Disraeli, the ‘social glue’ that pleased the Queen, the aristocracy and the lower classes alike, part of his ‘One-Nation’ politics. To encourage this, Disraeli operated ‘the politics of the imagination.’[30] Empire, and the exotic imagery that surrounded it, became an institution that could enthuse people through its associated heroism, myth and power, and through which Disraeli could paint the image of a nation united. As early as 1833 Disraeli could declare of his own future, in his pamphlet What is He?, ‘Great spirits may yet arise, spirits whose proud destiny it may still be, at the same time to maintain the glory of the Empire, and to secure the happiness of the People.’[31] By positioning the Conservative party of the 1870s as the party of Empire, Disraeli sought popular support, and claimed the popular imagination. And so on foreign policy, too, Disraelian politics used style not as an antithesis, but as the very essence, of his substance. That is why he could declare, in 1863, that ‘our colonial empire is the national estate that assures to every subject… as it were, a freehold and which gives to the energies and ambitions of Englishmen an inexhaustible theatre.’[32] It was a stage on which Disraeli could shine.
Can it be said, then, that Disraeli had all style and no substance? The answer seems clear when one considers Disraeli’s constant recognition of the need to combine imagination and reason in government. That Disraeli ‘climbed to the top of the greasy pole’[33] in 1868 and stayed there from 1874-1880 was testimony to his ability not only to pursue policies but to appeal, in so doing, to the passions of those whose support he needed, be they protectionists in 1846, working-class voters in 1874, or the Queen in 1876. Disraeli had a fundamental political ideology on many issues, and policy aims in many areas, but these were one with his grasp of rhetoric, of parliamentary presence, and of popular appeal. His political focus remained on securing the ‘machinery to public spirit and maintain popular power.’[34] Disraeli believed in the conservatism of the working classes, but appealed to Tory Democracy in 1867 to win their votes; Disraeli not only spoke the ‘Two Nations’ of rich and poor, but pursued domestic policies that aimed to unite them; Disraeli cared greatly about the British Empire, but spoke of it through the politics of imagination, appealing to monarchy, aristocracy, and working class alike in his speeches. For Benjamin Disraeli, a man who toiled more than any other to prosper amid the adverse political elite, to find himself confronted not only by the challenges of international politics but by those of winning support at home, legislative ‘substance’ and political ‘style’ were vital and inseparable. Thus Feuchtwanger could convincingly argue that ‘there was something very modern about his preoccupation with image, his belief that rhetoric and words could construct and deconstruct reality, his courting of publicity and celebrity at all costs… In giving his party the image of imperial patriotism and social concern Disraeli exercised more lasting influence than the makers of social and legislative arrangements that were soon overtaken by events and forgotten.’[35] For Benjamin Disraeli, style was substance. Therein lies his appeal.
[1] Ian St. John, Disraeli and the Art of Victorian Politics (Anthem Press, 2005), p. 114
[2] Terrence Jenkins, Disraeli and Victorian Conservatism (Macmillan, 1996), p. 53
[3] Ibid, p. 140
[4] Benjamin Disraeli, Year at Hartlebury: Or, The Election, Volume II; What is He? (London, 1833)
[5] John Vincent, Disraeli (Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 25
[6] Christopher Hibbert, Disraeli: A personal history (Harper Perennial, 2005), p. 169
[7] St. John, Disraeli, p. 28
[8] Ibid, pp. 26-27
[9] Ibid, p. 15
[10] Vincent, Disraeli, p. 38
[11] Ibid, p. 46
[12] Paul Smith and Charles Richmond, The Self-fashioning of Disraeli, 1818-1851 (Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 100
[13] St. John, Disraeli, p. 29
[14] Letters to The Times, February 6th 1907; William Monypenny and George Buckle, The Life of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield, Volume II (John Murray, 1929), p. 709
[15] Edgar Feuchtwanger, With a novelist’s appreciation of human nature, Disraeli won the support of the electorate after the 1867 reform (New Perspective, September 2008), p. 3
[16] Paul Smith, ‘Leap in the Dark,’ the 1867 Reform Act (Modern History Review, September 1990), p. 29
[17] Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 15th July 1867
[18] Benjamin Disraeli, Tancred (Hughenden Edition 1845), p. 291
[19] Vincent, Disraeli, p. 99
[20] Benjamin Disraeli, Vindication of the English Constitution, (Saunders and Otley, 1835), p. 25
[21] St. John, Disraeli, p. 151
[22] Benjamin Disraeli, Sybil, or The Two Nations (The World’s Classics, Oxford University Press, 1981), p. 65-66
[23] Sir Thomas Erskine May, The Constitutional History of England since the accession of George the Third- 1860-1911- Volume iii (Read Books, 2007), p. 80
[24] St. John, Disraeli, p. 111
[25] ‘The Times’ newspaper, Disraeli’s Election Address, 26th January 1874
[26] Paul Smith, Disraeli, A Brief Life, (Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 217
[27] Monypenny and Buckle, Disraeli, p. 532
[28] Angus Hawkins, British Party Politics, 1852-1886 (Macmillan Press, 1998), p. 205
[29] Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 25th June 1850
[30] St. John, Disraeli, p. 114
[31] Disraeli, What is He?, p. 16
[32] St. John, Disraeli, p. 114-115
[33] Ibid, p. 89
[34] Disraeli, Vindication of the English Constitution, p.182
[35] Edgar Feuchtwanger, Disraeli (Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 217
Anyone else notice the snow?
Weather! Two inches of snow and daytime temperatures just above zero! Britain grinds to a halt and Dr St John stays in bed! Historians could tell us about REAL weather problems which produced REAL crises…
Inaugration Quiz
This afternoon, Barack Obama will be inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States of America. Presidential inaugurations have witnessed a number of memorable speeches and quotations in the past. Do you know which former President said each of the following and when?
1. “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
2. “My fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
3. “The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”
4. “We have reached a higher degree of comfort and security than ever existed before in the history of the world.”
5. “Let us, then, fellow citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions.”
6. “We are provincials no longer. The tragic events of the thirty months of vital turmoil through which we have just passed have made us citizens of the world. There can be no turning back.”
7. “Our democracy must be not only the envy of the world but the engine of our own renewal. There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.”
8. ” The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we as Americans have the capacity now, as we’ve had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom. In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
9. “Employed in the service of my country abroad during the whole course of these transactions, I first saw the Constitution of the United States in a foreign country.”
10. “Much has been given us, and much will rightfully be expected from us. We have duties to others and duties to ourselves; and we can shirk neither. We have become a great nation, forced by the fact of its greatness into relations with other nations of the earth, and we must behave as beseems a people with such responsibilities.”
Beat Shipley!
Beat Shipley!
In his own estimation, the School’s greatest expert on Russian history is Andrew Sebag (Sp?) Shipley. But he does not know much. Show him up by being first to answer the following questions. Just reply (‘Comment’) giving your answers and your name and form.
The leaders of the Bolsheviks in October 1917 were Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin (yes!), Zinoviev, Kamenev and Sverdlov.
1. Which of these six leaders were Jewish?
2. Two of them were closely related, by marriage; what was the connection?
3. Lenin’s famous disguise when he fled to Finland in 1917 owed much to one of the other leaders; which one shaved Lenin’s beard off?
Sebag (Sp?) doesn’t know. Do you? Spectacular prize for the winner.
RCS
The Y7 History Trip to…Agincourt (1415)
On the 27th of June, a large part of Year Seven (62 boys) was waiting in anticipation for the upcoming trip. Dr.Sloan told the Joblings boys to go to the front of the coach; true to form, we went to the back! This apart, the behaviour of all of the boys was impeccable. When we reached Abbeville we had our dinner and went for what some people say was the least exciting part of the trip – bowling! We had lots of fun and Luke (7S), Joe (7H) and Ethan (7J) dominated.
The next day we were told to be up by 7:45 as breakfast was at 8:00.
Then we left for the Underground City of Naours. We met up with a guide who spoke (almost) flawless English. We entered a cold, dark, narrow corridor that did not warn you of the gargantuan network of rooms ahead of us. There were three chapels, two of which were HUGE. The guide told us about different types of traps which the French used against lone bands of attackers. Then the group who did not go to the city first went on ‘le petit train’ and saw a windmill. This windmill was used as a secret lookout to tell the villagers to get underground. When we got back to the coach we enjoyed some Blackadder, which was played almost constantly for the rest of the trip.
Our next visit was to the châteaux of Rambures. I would say this was my favourite parts in the trip. We were split into 2 groups. My group was to go in second. While we waited we were told in full by Mr. Clark the background history of the Hundred Years War; his Henderson’s class (obviously) knew the most. When we entered (much to the dismay of Mr. Clark) we were led across a dry moat across a drawbridge and into a relatively small open-air antechamber. We were shown a prison (converted to a kitchen). We were told why the walls were made of brick, not stone. We saw the King’s resting place in the fortress and we were informed about the history of coats of arms and how they symbolised your position or assets as a baron or knight. One of the highlights of the chateau was when Ed Nutting had to (try) to carry a knight’s chest-armour; he managed to do it for the time the guide was talking. A knight’s armour was so heavy if he fell off his horse he would not be able to stand up.
After this, we travelled to St.Valery sur Somme, the port from which William the Conqueror left for England. We went to a beach there and started throwing stones at the beach (for some unknown reason). Dion fell into the sea. When we reached our meeting point in the town we were given 10 Euros each and were told to spilt into groups of 3 to buy our dinner. After this we went back to the hotel and went to sleep; it was a long day!
The next day we woke up at the same time (more or less) and went to Crecy. My group was the first to go to a tall tower-like structure where Edward would have stood in Crecy. Dr. Sloan told us about Crecy and how the English longbow men, (I mean Welsh) won the battle. When we left the tower, Mr. Clark took various pictures of us as dead French or triumphant English. After this we set off for Agincourt where there was a good information centre and a museum. A particularly interesting thing about this museum was that there was a sack with a rope that was used to show whether you could properly pull the string of a longbow. We left the top floor of the museum and went to a room where the battle was laid out. Then we entered a dark room where there was some dodgy projection as there was a statue (meant to be Henry V) with a projection so off-centre he had 2 noses! We continued on to a room with more projections that gave a detailed explanation of the battle. We proceeded on to a room with a video about Agincourt which, annoyingly, kept on repeating the lines ‘Agincourt, 1415’. We then left the information centre and went to the battlefield (even though we didn’t get off); we were told by a French guide the position of the armies and their camps.
Then we left for Calais and the only difference between this and the way to Calais was this was much louder as every one was exited. I suggest anyone that gets to go on this trip should go as it is great fun and Dr. Sloan would be happy.
I would like to thank him and all of the teachers for running this trip and helping us to finish the year on a high.
Pranav Subhedar, 7J
The Battlefields trip to Northern France and the Somme
14th&15th June 2008
At 6’o’clock on the morning of the 14th of June a coach full of bleary-eyed, tired Habs boys in year 9 and 10 gathered in the coach park awaiting their visit to the World War I battlefields. The boys were marshalled by the enthusiastic staff team consisting of Mr. Clark, Dr Sloan, Mr. Simm, Dr St John and Dr Wigley.
We eventually made it to Dover and after a relaxing ferry trip we arrived in Calais and caught our first glimpse of France. However, we had no time to soak up the French ambiance and we were whisked straight to our first destination, Vimy Ridge. The battle field has been recreated and the trenches themselves have been rebuilt since the war so tourists like us are allowed to pretend they were in a battle. The battle itself was between the Canadian Corps and the German Army in April 1917. It was when the Canadians successfully attacked the German positions on the ridge and took the high ground after many casualties.
After we had finished looking around, Mr. Clark shoved us back onto the coach to our next site the World War I museum in Peronne where we voluntarily filled out worksheets and a learned great deal about the build up to the war and the fighting over the four years. We could only stay at the museum for a short while before we were transported to our final destination of the day, Amiens. Our hotel was also in the city and we were given time to explore the city and get some food whilst the teachers had a drink or four.
We woke early the next morning, well most of us did except for Nabil Freeman and Tom Ough whose alarm clock “didn’t work”, and it was because of this delay we arrived at our next destination half an hour late. The next port of call was the Newfoundland Memorial at Beaumont Hamel. This was the site of huge casualties suffered by the Newfoundland regiment on the first day of the Somme.
We wandered around the gravestones and the battlefield, which has been preserved, shocked by the huge loss of life. Our next site was the Ulster Tower. Dr Sloan told us about the significance of the memorial both in France and in Ireland. The Tower was built to honour the soldiers from Ulster and Northern Ireland who fought so well and so bravely in the Somme; in fact, the soldiers fought too bravely, became isolated and could not retreat, so they suffered many losses.
After our visit to the Tower we moved on to the famous Thiepval Memorial and Museum. This huge structure was dedicated to the 73,000 missing from the Battle of the Somme; of that vast number 8 were old Habs boys and Dr Wigley laid a wreath and said a few words of remembrance of the dead. We were completely taken aback by this colossal loss of life.
After a busy morning of memorials and coach trips we were quickly becoming very hungry and we headed to lunch. Our meal was at an old dressing station from WWI where we split and half went to see the station while the other half gratefully munched on their lunch. It was during this munching that Raphael Levy, a ‘big-boned’ boy, broke a bench, he achieved this by simply sitting on it and under the weight the bench collapsed. A hurried apology and exit followed as we left in fits of laughter to our next destination.
“La Grande Mine” is a huge crater where on the opening day of the Somme, a huge mine was exploded. It was heard in London apparently and decimated the German positions on the 1st of July 1916 when the mine was let off. We had to move on due to our ridiculously tight schedule and so we went to Fricourt. This is the German cemetery for the Somme; it is very bleak and is not very well looked after. We were told that the Red Baron, the fighter ace, was buried here; we eagerly set out to find his grave only ten minutes later to be told that his grave has been moved.
Our last site before the long journey home was the South African memorial which was in Delville Wood, where the South African soldiers fought bravely and suffered heavy casualties against the Germans in difficult fighting in the wood. The memorial was built during the Apartheid era when the South Africans were under a lot of pressure and lacked any popularity, so they built the museum and memorial to show that they should be treated better as they fought bravely for the British in Delville Wood. Like the Ulster Tower, it is a good example of how history is often used for political purposes.
After this final memorial we then began our never-ending home journey which ended only a couple of hours later than we were expected, thanks to the vigilance of the security men who see every traveler as a potential terrorist. The trip could not have taken place if it were not for the heroic role the teachers played in managing to look after us for two days without going mad. Thank you very much!
James Colenutt, 9M1
Happy Birthday Israel?
“Are we going to live according to the laws of Moses or to the laws of Parliament?”
(President Yitzhak Navon)
All of this talk of 60 years is nonsense, really. Not only does it demonstrate a rather juvenile obsession with, and unwarranted attachment of value to, the decimal system, but it also ignores the thousands of years of history that precede 1948; the state enters its seventh decade, while the nation is well into its fourth millennium, and the resonance is strong.
As a Jewish state – the only Jewish state – Israel is unique. But this is more profound than simply a matter of monopoly: Judaism is the only religion that has intrinsic nationality. Etymologically, the Jews are called as such because they come from the province of Judea, and throughout nearly 2000 years of exile, the religion has never lost touch with its nationalist root.
This creates an enormous problem for the secular progressive state of Israel, which from the very beginning was to be democratic, inclusive, strong and free: Judaism is none of these. An example of this would be that rather than the hereditary, theocratic and corrupt rule of the priestly class of Cohanim and Leviim, the modern state opted for proportional representation.
But the dichotomy between religion and secularism pervades Israeli society, and a balance has not yet been found. There are several allowances which are made to appease the Orthodox community: because it is a coalition system of government, the relatively small religious factions in the Knesset wield significant influence.
Matters are most serious in family law. Control of marriage and divorce rests entirely with the Orthodox rabbinate, under whose restrictions Jews may not marry non-Jews (they have to go to Cyprus if they wish to do so), there are no secular unions (Muslim and Christian weddings are recognised, but there is no registry) and I’ll let you guess their position on same-sex marriage.
Moreover, according to halacha (Jewish religious law), a woman cannot divorce her husband if he is not willing to cooperate; so it is, unbelievably enough, in the modern, democratic state of Israel. The courts are therefore empowered to use sanctions up to and including imprisonment to coerce the husband, but in the meantime the woman remains an “agunah”, “bound woman”. It really is quite astounding.
The majority of Israelis, however, are secular, and even those who are religious do not necessarily want to live in what is referred to as a “halachic state”: they look at their (somewhat unfriendly) neighbours in Saudi Arabia, Iran and elsewhere and decide that they’d really rather not, thanks. But their private religious views also tear on the fabric of Israeli society.
It is very easy to blame the Israel-Palestine conflict on the settlers in the West Bank (who, for the most part, are religious Zionists), which is why I do. Because they believe that the land was given to them by God and that it is their inheritance, they continue to appropriate and populate land that does not belong to them in any actual sense. Meanwhile, the government, which needs the backing of religious parties to maintain a majority in the Knesset, largely turns a blind eye. In the unilateral pullout from Gaza, these tensions exploded across Israeli society with a remarkably polarising effect.
On the other hand, in 2006 the Attorney-General Menahem Mazuz ordered the Jerusalem Police to provide 12000 of officers to protect both the freedom of expression and the lives of those participating in a Gay Pride march in the “holy city” of Jerusalem from religious bigotry and violence. As Yael Gelman, the mayoress of Herzliya, said at the time, “How could it even be imagined that violence could prevent an elementary right like this in the state of Israel?” How indeed?
It was Mr. Simm (quoting President Lincoln) who said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand”. He (President Lincoln) turned out to be correct. The a fortiori application to Israel is rather worrying: if two halves of a continent the size of America, actually separated by a great big line drawn across the map, cannot live together half-slave, half-free, then how can a country the size of Wales, in which those on either side of the philosophical divide may live down the street from each other, manage?
Leo Davidson
The Dark Side
No-one can resist the power of the dark side…
I have taken more good from alcohol than alcohol has taken from me.
-Winston Churchill
Do you know about the dark side of a historical figure? WRITE about it here on the history blog, click on comments below.
For example, on Friday 22nd February,
Teddy Kennedy celebrated his 75th birthday. He has a dark side…!
