A scholar of the Orient

‘His Excellency’s brother was, accompanied by some gentlemen, to visit the Baile of Venice, whom he found very badly housed at the foot of a minaret, exposed to the importunate cry of the Muezzin. He complained wrongly that the Bachas had asked him, some for soaps, others for glasses and Venetian mirrors, to which honesty wanted him to give satisfaction, without daring nevertheless civilly to take the money that was offered to him.’ This is from the diaries of Antoine Galland, a French orientalist, archaeologist and translator, who died 310 years ago today. He is best remembered for introducing One Thousand and One Nights to the European world.

Galland was born on 1646, in Rollot, a small village in the province of Picardy, France. His father, a labourer, died when Antoine was young. Despite financial hardships, Galland showed academic promise, which led to his education at the Collège de Noyon and later the Collège de Plessis in Paris. His aptitude for languages was recognised early, and he developed a strong proficiency in Latin and Greek before expanding his studies to Arabic, Persian, and Turkish. His passion for the East was further nurtured by professor Pierre-Daniel Huet, an influential orientalist who guided Galland’s studies in philology and antiquities.

Galland’s career took shape when he was appointed as an assistant to the French ambassador in Constantinople (now Istanbul) in 1670. This opportunity allowed him to travel extensively through the Ottoman Empire, Syria, and the Levant, collecting manuscripts, coins, and other artefacts. His deep engagement with Middle Eastern culture and literature distinguished him as a scholar of the Orient. Upon returning to France, he worked as an interpreter and librarian, earning a position as a royal antiquary under Jean-Baptiste Colbert. He was responsible for cataloging and studying Eastern manuscripts, particularly those housed in the Bibliothèque Royale (now the National Library of France).

In 1704, Galland published the first volume of Les Mille et Une Nuits, based on Arabic manuscripts and oral sources. The translation captivated European audiences, introducing them to famous tales such as Aladdin and the Wonderful Lamp and Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves. These stories were not present in the known Arabic manuscripts and were likely added from oral traditions Galland encountered. His translation, completed in 1717, shaped how One Thousand and One Nights was perceived in Europe, blending Eastern storytelling with French literary tastes. It remains one of the most influential works of world literature.

There is little evidence that Galland married or had children. His life was largely devoted to scholarship and translation. He died on 17 February 1715, in Paris. Further information is available from Wikipedia, University of Kent or Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Galland did keep personal diaries but all and any extracts from them have only been published in French. The most significant of the published diaries, I believe (my French being rather poor), is Journal d’Antoine Galland pendant son séjour a Constantinople (1672-1673) as edited by Charles Shefer and published by Ernest Leroux in 1881. This is readily available - in two tomes - to read at Internet Archive. There are also four volumes dating from the Parisian period in the last decade of his life, 1708-1715. Further publication details are available at the British Library website and at the Boswell Book Company.

For a flavour of these diaries, I have taken a few random extracts from the Constantinople period, and employed Google Translate to render them crudely into English, as follows.

14 April 1672

‘His Excellency’s brother was, accompanied by some gentlemen, to visit the Baile of Venice, whom he found very badly housed at the foot of a minaret, exposed to the importunate cry of the Muezzin. He complained wrongly that the Bachas had asked him, some for soaps, others for glasses and Venetian mirrors, to which honesty wanted him to give satisfaction, without daring nevertheless civilly to take the money that was offered to him.

A person said that he had been assured that the Venetians paid fifteen hundred ducats of tribute to the Grand Sgr, for the islands of Zante and Cephalonia.

I saw the ceremony of the blessing of the oil being performed, in the church of the Greeks and I heard part of the mass, of which the gospel was extremely long. It was taken from St. Matthew and began from the preparation of the Last Supper until the condemnation of Our Lady of Sorrow by Pilate. In a sermon by a Damascene Studite named for the day of Holy Saturday, I noticed at the end a little exhortation to prepare oneself to make a good and fruitful communion, for this reason that Jesus Christ is received therein entirely. It was among several others in the vulgar language by the same author for the whole year.’

19 April 1672

‘Mr. Panaioti came to see Mr. Ambassador on behalf of the Visir. Before he arrived, he sent one of his men to announce that he was coming. He came accompanied by five or six people on horseback; besides his harness, his also carried the sabre and the mace, and another of his retinue was loaded with a carpet, in the fashion of the great men of the country who use it to say their prayers when they are on the road, or to rest. It is to be believed that Mr. Panaioti did not wear it for the first reason, but for grandeur only and to rest in case he dismounted on the road. He did not wear a calpac but a Bey’s turban, by permission of the Visir, to serve as a safeguard and to protect him from all kinds of insults. He was quite a long time with His Excellency and Mr. d’Ervietix. He was treated to the usual wine and sorbet.’

21 April 1672

‘Mr. Ambassador received letters from Cairo, by which the Consul sent to His Excellency a certificate from the Patriarch of the Coptic, which was in Arabic, and another from the Patriarch of the Armenians with a report of the troops that were being sent to Mecca, both by sea and by land, to the number of three thousand men. What it contained in particular was that formerly in the country of Iemen, which is surrounded by mountains and which borders on Persia, the Grand Seigneur had a Bacha whom he sent there; but that for about twenty years one of them had revolted, having, to secure himself in his rebellion, persuaded the inhabitants that Mahomet and Hali were false prophets and having at the same time proposed to them another, for the religion of which they are ready to defend him vigorously. This report also assured His Excellency that around the month of February, there had fallen in Cairo such a heavy rain that people imagined it was the end of the world and that it should be noted as a very extraordinary accident in this country.’

22 July 1672

‘The Janissary that His Excellency had sent to the Porte arrived this day. He brought a command for the ship and four others for the four merchant ships; but the response to the letter that Mr. the Ambassador had sent was addressed to Caymacam. A Chiaoux sent from Caymacam came to testify to Mr. the Ambassador the part he took in the joy that His Excellency had for the birth of Mr. the Duke of Anjou and the victories of His Majesty. But it seems that he found fault with the noise and the brilliance with which she had appeared, saying that less could be done; but Mr. the Ambassador responded very vigorously.’

Peter the Great at war

Peter the Great, who died all of 300 years ago today, is widely regarded as a pivotal figure in Russian history, responsible for modernising and westernising the country through extensive reforms. Though not a diarist himself, Patrick Gordon, a friend and military adviser for over 10 years, did keep a diary, one that is widely accepted as providing ‘unparalleled insight’ into some aspects of Peter’s reign.

Peter grew up on the Izmaylovo Estate (near Moscow) and was educated at the Amusement Palace from an early age by several tutors (one of which was Gordon). When his father died in 1676, he left the sovereignty to Peter’s elder half-brother, the crippled Feodor III, but the government was largely run by Artamon Matveyev, the political head of the Naryshkin family and one of Peter’s greatest childhood benefactors. When Feodor died in 1682 childless, a dispute arose between the Miloslavsky and Naryshkin families over who should inherit the throne. Peter jointly ruled with his elder half-brother, Ivan V, until 1696, but because Ivan was partially incapacitated, a council of Russian nobles chose the 10-year-old Peter to become tsar, with Ivan’s 25-year-old sister Sophia as regent.

In consequence of Sophia’s overt exclusion of Peter from the government, he did not receive the usual education of a Russian tsar. Instead of being confined within the narrow bounds of a palace, he grew up in a free atmosphere, enjoying, it is said, noisy outdoor games often of a military ilk, his favourite toys being arms of one sort or another. Early in 1689 Peter’s political marriage was enacted to Yevdokiya Fyodorovna Lopukhina. That same year 1689, after a failed coup by Sophia, Peter forced her to enter a convent, where she gave up her name and her position as a member of the royal family. After assuming sole control and over time, Peter implemented sweeping changes across Russian society, government, and military - though the reforms came at a significant human cost due to forced labor and harsh implementation.

Influenced by travels in Western Europe, Peter sought to bring Russia closer to European standards and practices, and indeed laid the groundwork for Russia’s emergence as a European power. He is credited with establishing the senate, reforming government structure, and creating the ‘table of ranks’ to determine precedence based on merit rather than birth. Economically, he encouraged the development of industry, commerce, and education, establishing factories, shipyards, and schools throughout Russia. He introduced the Julian calendar, reformed the Russian alphabet, and launched the first Russian newspaper. And, in 1703, he founded St. Petersburg.

Peter created a modern standing army and built Russia’s first navy, significantly enhancing the country’s military capabilities. With the initial help and advice of Gordon (who rose to the rank of general), Peter engaged in several significant military campaigns throughout his reign: the Azov campaigns of 1695-1696 against the Ottoman Empire resulted in the capture of Azov and access to the Black Sea; the Great Northern War, lasting from 1700 to 1721, against Sweden (which ultimately led to Russia’s emergence as a major Baltic power); and the Russo-Persian War from 1722 to 1723, which temporarily expanded Russian influence in the Caucasus and Caspian Sea region.

Peter married twice and had 11 children, though many died in infancy. His eldest son from his first marriage, Alexis, was convicted of treason and executed in 1718. Before his death, Peter issued a decree changing the rules of succession, allowing him to choose his heir. However, he died on 8 February 1725 without naming a successor. Further information is widely available online - at Wikipedia, Encyclopaedia Britannica, World History and Library of Congress (which lists primary sources).

Peter the Great did not keep a diary himself. However, his close associate and military adviser, Patrick Gordon of Auchleuchries, maintained a detailed diary, one that is widely accepted as providing ‘unparalleled insight’ into some aspects of Peter’s reign. See A soldier of fortune for a biography of Gordon and much about his diaries. The Gordon diary manuscripts were held in the archives of the Imperial Russian foreign office, and a complete German translation, edited by Dr Maurice Possalt, was not published until the mid-19th century. Only parts of the diary appeared in English, in 1859, thanks to the Spalding Club which published Passages from the Diary of General Patrick Gordon of Auchleuchries (AD 1635-AD 1699), as edited by Joseph Robertson. A 1968 edition is readily available to read online at Internet Archive.

However, much more recently, the diaries (1635 to 1699) have been published in full across six volumes by Aberdeen University Press. The sixth and final volume, edited by by Dmitry Fedosov - Diary of General Patrick Gordon of Auchleuchries 1635-1699 - appeared in 2016. On its website, the publisher quotes the historian Professor Robert Frost: ‘The sixth and final volume of The Diary of General Patrick Gordon of Auchleuchries is in some ways the most significant of all. It covers the vital period in which Peter the Great launched his challenge to the traditional Russian system and set Russia on the path to great power status. Gordon played a central role in two of the great dramas of these years: the successful siege and defence of Azov, which firmly established Russian power on the Caspian Sea, and the crushing of the Revolt of the Streltsy, the most dangerous early challenge to Peter’s reforms. Gordon’s diary gives unparalleled insight into these dramatic events and adds much to our knowledge of one of the most significant and charismatic rulers in Russian history. Gordon tells the story with characteristic detachment and a wealth of detail. As a diarist he ranks with Samuel Pepys, and the publication of Volume VI marks the completion of a project for which Dmitry Fedosov and Paul Dukes deserve to be congratulated. After three centuries, the original text of a hugely important historical work, and what can also be seen to be a significant literary achievement, is fully available for the first time.’

Every one of the six volumes is freely available to read online or to download. 

Here is a brief AI overview of what can be found out about Peter from Gordon’s diary.

‘- The diary mentions many contacts between Gordon and the young Peter before and during the tsar’s seizure of power from his half-sister, Regent Sophia.

- Peter’s challenge to traditional Russian systems: Gordon’s diary covers the vital period when Peter launched his efforts to modernise Russia and set it on the path to becoming a great power.

- Peter’s military campaigns: As a general under Peter, Gordon likely recorded details of military operations and strategies employed by the tsar.

- Peter’s personality and behaviour: Gordon’s diary entry from 1690 suggests that Peter enjoyed the company of his boyars, counsellors, and officers, indicating his sociable nature.

- Peter’s early governance: The diary provides context for the political climate during the young tsar’s rise to power and his initial years of rule.

- Peter’s interactions with foreigners: As a Scottish officer in Russian service, Gordon’s diary likely includes observations on Peter’s attitudes towards and dealings with foreigners in his court.’

Here are several verbatim extracts from volume VI of Gordon’s diaries (though the older, single and much edited version is easier to digest!).

1 July 1698

’45 men of Coll. Hunder[t]marks reg-t being by lott to dy were brought out, and after some supposed intercession mercy was showne that every two should cast lotts; w-ch being done & they set apart, it was told them that if yet they would tell who were the ring-leaders of the mutiny, they should be let go tree. After some pawses they began to mumple & tell of one or two, who being brought to the torture, without much ado confessed themselves guilty & told of 3 or 4 more, who were also brought to the torture, and after some stripes they confessed also. So were set apart and ordered to prepare themselves tor death, and these on whom the lotts had fallen wer let tree.

Orders came in the afternoone that these who had twice deserted & some others should be hanged.’

2 July 1698

‘This day were 72 persons hanged to fyve and to three on gibbets. Many streltsees as on the former dayes sent away, the officers & sojours who convoyed them getting a months pay, the sojours getting provisions sent from Mosco, and the podvods who remained with us getting to a kopike a day.

Wee examined many this day and sentenced 4 to be beheaded, and ordered the sick & wounded with 4 persons more tor future further inquisition to be left in the monastery, so that but 25 persons remained here.’

3 July 1698

‘This day his Majesty letters came to dismiss the army and was read publikely, in the beginning whereof wee had all thanks for our services. The gentry departed immediately, and three of the sojours regiments aft[er] dinner. The Generalli[ssi]mus and wee his Towarises with cancellary, chancellours &c writers with the Butirsky regiment stayed all night.

This day were the last of the streltsees sent away.’

19 October 1698

‘Many executed.

Roman & Michael came from Evanofsky and brought with [them] on 4 podrodes 2 kades with honey, 2 czetferiks of hairegroates, a czetverik with a czetfericzok of oate-groates, a 3d p[ar]t of a tunne of brandy, a czetfert & 5 czetferikes ot rey meale, a bagge with wooll, 2 pillowes with feathers.

The Imperiall Envoy gave me a visitt.

My regiment ordered to releeve the guards in his M. Hoffe, castle & towne.’

20 October 1698 

‘The Great Ambassade at audience by his Majesty. Was at a great deale more ease this bygone night & today as before.

Payed of the potter Simon Osipuf for 1,431 potts to the 3 ovens in the after chambers & the one in the after hoffe in the lower roome, at 3 dengees the pott, 21 rubles 15 alt. 3 dengees.

My regiment releeved the guardes in the towne.’

21 October 1698

‘I kept my bed still.’

22 October 1698

‘A great feast by Leo Kirilovitz [Naryshkin], where his M. & others.’

It is worth noting that Peter was much moved by the death of Gordon as shown by the final two paragraphs in Joseph Robertson’s edited version of Gordon’s diaries: ‘His strength was now fast failing, and during the following summer he became so weak that he was unable to leave his bed. He died at seven o’clock in the morning of the twenty-ninth of November, 1699. The Czar, who had visited him five times in his illness, and had been twice with him during the night, stood weeping by his bed as he drew his last breath; and the eyes of him who had left Scotland a poor unfriended wanderer, were closed by the hands of an Emperor.

Peter himself ordered the funeral procession, and took his place in its long line, accompanied by all the pomp of his empire, and followed by the representatives of most of the great powers of Europe. The body was carried on the shoulders of twenty-eight colonels; two generals supported the footsteps of his widow, and twenty ladies, the wives of high Muscovite dignitaries, walked in her train. The religious obsequies were performed by the priests of the church which he loved, in the first chapel of stone which the Roman Catholics were suffered to raise in Moscow. It was built chiefly by his bounty, and his tomb was dug before its high altar, in a vault.’

An unpleasant odour of musk

‘The flesh [of Hoatzins, locally called Ciganas] has an unpleasant odour of musk combined with wet hides - a smell called by the Brazilians catinga; it is, therefore, uneatable. If it be as unpalateable to carnivorous animals as it is to man, the immunity from persecution which it would thereby enjoy would account for its existing in such great numbers throughout the country.’ This is from the much-revered natural history journals written by Henry Walter Bates - born two centuries ago today - after spending 11 years in the Amazon. His observations and research, like that of his friend Russell Wallace, supported the new theories, at the time, being put forward by Charles Darwin.

Bates was born on 8 February 1825, in Leicester, England, into a family of modest means, his father being a stocking maker. Despite limited formal education, he attended local schools and became proficient in Latin and French, which later helped him access scientific literature. At age 13, he became an apprentice to a hosier but continued pursuing a passion for entomology in his spare time. He joined the Mechanics’ Institute (which had a library), studied in his spare time and collected insects in Charnwood Forest. In 1843 he had a short paper on beetles published in the journal Zoologist. He met Wallace, a keen entomologist, who had taken a teaching post in the Leicester Collegiate School. The two men shared a passion to explore exotic lands. 

Inspired particularly by Alexander von Humboldt’s accounts of the Amazon (see Humboldt’s genius), Bates and Wallace embarked on an expedition to South America in 1848 to study the region’s biodiversity. They intended to fund their trip by collecting and selling specimens of plants and animals. Though Wallace returned to England in 1852, Bates went on to spend 11 years (1848-1859) in the Amazon, a period marked by much hardship and astonishing discoveries: during this period, he collected over 14,000 species, of which approximately 8,000 were new to science. 

On his return, Bates spent the next three years writing an account of the trip, This was published as The Naturalist on the River Amazons in 1863, and would soon become widely regarded as one of the finest accounts of natural history travels. In the work, he details his discovery of what would become named as Batesian mimicry - a phenomenon whereby harmless species evolve to imitate the warning signals of harmful species to avoid predators. The idea proved a significant contribution to the then emerging theory of natural selection.

Also in 1863, Bates married Sarah Ann Mason with whom he had several children. From 1864 onwards, he worked as assistant secretary of the Royal Geographical Society (though effectively he acted as secretary - the senior post being occupied by a noble figurehead). He sold his personal Lepidoptera collection, and began to work mostly on beetles. From 1868 to 1869 and in 1878 he was president of the Entomological Society of London. In 1871 he was elected a fellow of the Linnaean Society, and in 1881 he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society. He died in 1892. Further information is available from Wikipedia, Encyclopaedia Britannica, and The Natural History Museum (which today holds most of his collection).

Bates’ original 1863 work, in two volumes, can be freely read online at Internet Archive. However, much more recently, in 2020, The Natural History Museum published The Naturalist on the River Amazon: The Journals & Writings of Henry Walter Bates. According to the museum, the book includes pages from Bates’ illustrated notebooks and excerpts from, in the words of Charles Darwin, ‘the best book of natural history travels ever published’.

Most of The Naturalist on the River Amazons reads more like a memoir than a journal or diary, but there are a few dated extracts. Here are two.

29 August 1848 

‘The Mojú, a stream little inferior to the Thames in size, is connected about 20 miles from its mouth by means of a short artificial canal with a small stream, the Igarapé-mirim, which flows the opposite way into the water-system of the Tocantins. Small vessels like ours take this route in preference to the stormy passage by way of the main river, although the distance is considerably greater. We passed through the canal yesterday, and to-day have been threading our way through a labyrinth of narrow channels; their banks all clothed with the same magnificent forest; but agreeably varied by houses of planters and settlers. We passed many quite large establishments, besides one pretty little village, called Santa Anna. All these channels are washed through by the tides, - the ebb, contrary to what takes place in the short canal, setting towards the Tocantins. The water is almost tepid (77° Fahr.), and the rank vegetation all around seems reeking with moisture. The country however, as we were told, is perfectly healthy. Some of the houses are built on wooden piles driven into the mud of the swamp.

In the afternoon we reached the end of the last channel, called the Anapú, which runs for several miles between two unbroken lilies of fan-leaved palms, forming with their straight stems colossal palisades. On rounding a point of land we came in full view of the Tocantins. The event was announced by one of our Indians, who was on the look-out at the prow, shouting, “La esta o Paraná-uassú!” “Behold, the great river!” It was a grand sight - a broad expanse of dark waters dancing merrily to the breeze; the opposite shore, a narrow blue line, miles away. We went ashore on an island covered with palm-trees, to make a fire and boil our kettle for tea. I wandered a short way inland, and was astounded at the prospect. The land lay below the upper level of the daily tides, so that there was no underwood, and the ground was bare. The trees were almost all of one species of Palm, the gigantic fan-leaved Mauritia flexuosa; on the borders only was there a small number of a second kind, the equally remarkable Ubussú palm, Manicaria saccifera. The Ubussú has erect, uncut leaves, twenty-five feet long, and six feet wide, all arranged round the top of a four-feet high stem, so as to form a figure like that of a colossal shuttlecock. The fan-leaved palms, which clothed nearly the entire islet, had huge cylindrical smooth stems, three feet in diameter, and about a hundred feet high. The crowns were formed of enormous clusters of fan-shaped leaves, the stalks alone of which measured seven to ten feet in length. Nothing in the vegetable world could be more imposing than this grove of palms. There was no underwood to obstruct the view of the long perspective of towering columns. The crowns, which were densely packed together at an immense height overhead, shut out the rays of the sun; and the gloomy solitude beneath, through which the sound of our voices seemed to reverberate, could be compared to nothing so well as a solemn temple. The fruits of the two palms were scattered over the ground; those of the Ubussú adhere together by twos and threes, and have a rough, brown-coloured shell; the fruit of the Mauritia, on the contrary, is of a bright red hue, and the skin is impressed with deep crossing lines, which give it a resemblance to a quilted cricket-ball.

About midnight, the tide being favourable and the breeze strong, we crossed the river, taking it in a slanting direction, a distance of sixteen miles, and arrived at eight o’clock the following morning at Cametá. This is a town of some importance, pleasantly situated on the somewhat high terra firma of the left bank of the Tocantins. I will defer giving an account of the place till the end of this narrative of our Tocantins voyage. We lost here another of our men, who got drinking with some old companions ashore, and were obliged to start on the difficult journey up the river with two hands only, and they in a very dissatisfied humour with the prospect.

The river view from Cametá is magnificent. The town is situated, as already mentioned, on a high bank, which forms quite a considerable elevation for this fiat country, and the broad expanse of dark-green waters is studded with low, palm-clad islands, the prospect down river, however, being clear, or bounded only by a sealike horizon of water and sky. The shores are washed by the breeze-tossed waters into little bays and creeks, fringed with sandy beaches. The Tocantins has been likened, by Prince Adalbert of Prussia, who crossed its mouth in 1846, to the Ganges. It is upwards of ten miles in breadth at its mouth; opposite Cametá it is five miles broad. Mr. Burchell, the well- known English traveller, descended the river from the mining provinces of interior Brazil some years before our visit. Unfortunately, the utility of this fine stream is impaired by the numerous obstructions to its navigation in the shape of cataracts and rapids, which commence, in ascending, at about 120 miles above Cametá, as will be seen in the sequel.’

30 August 1848 

‘Arrived, in company with Senhor Laroque, an intelligent Portuguese merchant, at Vista Alegre, fifteen miles above Cameta. This was the residence of Senhor Antonio Ferreira Gomez, and was a fair sample of a Brazilian planter’s establishment in this part of the country. The buildings covered a wide space, the dwelling-house being separated from the place of business, and as both were built on low, flooded ground, the communication between the two was by means of a long wooden bridge. From the office and visitors’ apartments a wooden pier extended into the river. The whole was raised on piles above high-water mark. There was a rude mill for grinding sugar-cane, worked by bullocks, but cashaça, or rum, was the only article manufactured from the juice. Behind the buildings was a small piece of ground cleared from the forest, and planted with fruit-trees, orange, lemon, genipapa, goyava, and others; and beyond this, a broad path through a neglected plantation of coffee and cacao, led to several large sheds, where the farinha, or mandiocca meal, was manufactured.

The plantations of mandiocca are always scattered about in the forest, some of them being on islands in the middle of the river. Land being plentiful, and the plough, as well as, indeed, nearly all other agricultural implements, unknown, the same ground is not planted three years together; but a new piece of forest is cleared every alternate year, and the old clearing suffered to relapse into jungle.

We stayed here two days, sleeping ashore in the apartment devoted to strangers. As usual in Brazilian houses of the middle class, we were not introduced to the female members of the family, and, indeed, saw nothing of them except at a distance. In the forest and thickets about the place we were tolerably successful in collecting, finding a number of birds and insects which do not occur at Para. I saw here, for the first time, the sky-blue Chatterer (Ampelis cotinga). It was on the topmost bough of a very lofty tree, and completely out of the reach of an ordinary fowling-piece. The beautiful light-blue colour of its plumage was plainly discernible at that distance. It is a dull, quiet bird. A much commoner species was the Cigana or Gipsy (Opisthocomus cristatus), a bird belonging to the same order, Gallinacea, as our domestic fowl. It is about the size of a pheasant; the plumage is dark brown, varied with reddish, and the head is adorned with a crest of long feathers. It is a remarkable bird in many respects. The hind toe is not placed high above the level of the other toes, as it is in the fowl-order generally, but lies on the same plane with them; the shape of the foot becomes thus suited to the purely arboreal habits of the bird, enabling it to grasp firmly the branches of trees. This is a distinguishing character of all the birds in equinoctial America which represent the fowl and pheasant tribes of the old world, and affords another proof of the adaptation of the Fauna to a forest region. The Cigana lives in considerable flocks on the lower trees and bushes bordering the streams and lagoons, and feeds on various wild fruits, especially the sour Goyava (Psidium sp.). The natives say it devours the fruit of arborescent Arums (Caladium arborescens), which grow in crowded masses around the swampy banks of lagoons. Its voice is a harsh, grating hiss; it makes the noise when alarmed, all the individuals sibilating as they fly heavily away from tree to tree, when disturbed by passing canoes. It is polygamous, like other members of the same order. It is never, however, by any chance, seen on the ground, and is nowhere domesticated. The flesh has an unpleasant odour of musk combined with wet hides - a smell called by the Brazilians catinga; it is, therefore, uneatable. If it be as unpalateable to carnivorous animals as it is to man, the immunity from persecution which it would thereby enjoy would account for its existing in such great numbers throughout the country.

A great number of the insects which we found here were different from those of Para. Species characteristic of the one locality were replaced by allied species in the other, a fact which would tend to the conclusion that the Tocantins serves, to some extent, as a barrier to migration. This was especially the case with the Papilios of the group which wear a livery of black, green, and red. P. Echelus of this group, which is so common at Para, was here absent, and its place supplied by the closely related P. Æneides. Both have the same habits, and seem to fill similar spheres in the natural economy of the two districts. Another handsome butterfly taken here was a member of the Erycinidæ family, the Alesa Prema, which is of a dazzling emerald-green colour chequered with black. I caught here a young Iguana; Iguanas, however, are extremely common everywhere throughout the country. They are especially numerous in the neighbourhood of villages, where they climb about fruit-trees overrun with creepers. The eggs, which are oblong, and about an inch and a half in length, are laid in hollow trees, and are very pleasant eating taken raw and mixed with farinha. The colour of the skin in the Iguana changes like that of the chameleon; in fact, it is called chameleon by the Portuguese. It grows to a length of five feet, and becomes enormously fat. This lizard is interesting to English readers on account of its relationship to the colossal fossil reptile of the Wealden, the Iguanodon. The Iguana is one of the stupidest animals I ever met with. The one I caught dropped helplessly from a tree just ahead of me; it turned round for a moment to have an idiotic stare at the intruder, and then set off running along the pathway. I ran after it, and it then stopped as a timid dog would do, crouching down, and permitting me to seize it by the neck and carry it off.

We lost here another of our crew; and thus, at the commencement of our voyage, had before us the prospect of being forced to return, from sheer want of hands to manage the canoe. Senhor Gomez, to whom we had brought letters of introduction from Senhor Joao Augusto Correia, a Brazilian gentleman of high standing at Para, tried what he could do to induce the canoe-men of his neighbourhood to engage with us, but it was a vain endeavour. The people of these parts seemed to be above working for wages. They are naturally indolent, and besides, have all some little business or plantation of their own, which gives them a livelihood with independence. It is difficult to obtain hands under any circumstances, but it was particularly so in our case, from being foreigners, and suspected, as was natural amongst ignorant people, of being strange in our habits. At length, our host lent us two of his slaves to help us on another stage, namely, to the village of Baiaō, where we had great hopes of having this, our urgent want, supplied by the military commandant of the district.’

Laws of the world organism

‘Shouldn’t the student of modern subjects learn from geology, physics, chemistry, etc., the laws of the world organism? The perceived unity of the world is the most magnificent event in the study of nature, it is the content of all true philosophy; for even the mind and its development, which philosophy in its narrow sense has considered up until now, is itself a production of nature.’ This is from the diary of Karl August Möbius, an influential German zoologist born two centuries ago today. There are no published diaries kept by Möbius, but an American academic, Lynn K. Nyhart, quotes from the diaries in her celebrated book on the history of natural science in Germany. 

Möbius was born on 7 February 1825 in Eilenburg, Prussia, the only child of Johann Heinrich Möbius, a dancing teacher who died when Karl was just three, and his mother who was a descendant of Martin Luther. He was educated at home until the age of 12-13 when he was sent away to a private training college to prepare for a career in primary school teaching. From 1844 to 1849 he taught at Seesen in the Harz Mountains in Northern Germany. He went to the University of Berlin to study natural sciences under Johannes Muller, then took up teaching again at the Johanneum Grammar School in Hamburg. His continuing studies in the natural sciences gained him a reputation that led to a post at the Hamburg Museum of Natural History. In 1855, Möbius married Helene Meyer, and they had three children. 

In 1863, Möbius cofounded the first German sea water aquarium, in Hamburg. In 1868, shortly after passing his doctoral examination at the University of Halle, he was appointed Professor of Zoology at the University of Kiel. There he devised and opened a zoology institute which would for decades be considered a model for such establishments. Between 1868 and 1870, he was commissioned by the Ministry of Agricultural Affairs in Prussia to conduct research on the Bay of Kiel oyster beds. This led to his groundbreaking work Die Auster und die Austernwirtschaft (The Oyster and Oyster Farming) in 1877. In this, he introduced the concept of ‘biocenosis’ or ‘living community,’ describing the interdependence of species in an ecosystem.

In the mid-1870s, Möbius participated in scientific expeditions, including a journey to Mauritius and the Seychelles in 1874-1875, which resulted in a comprehensive review of the fauna in that area. In 1888, he became the director of the zoological collections of the Natural History Museum of Berlin, and Professor of Systematic and Geographical Zoology at the Kaiser Wilhelm University, also in Berlin, where he taught until he retired in 1905 at the age of 80. He died three years later. More information can be found at Wikipedia, Encyclopaedia Britannica, and Kiel University

Although there is no evidence of any published diaries, Möbius did keep a diary from 1844 to 1849 while living in the Harz mountains. This is described and quoted from in Modern Nature: The Rise of the Biological Perspective in Germany by Lynn K. Nyhart (University of Chicago Press, 2009). Some pages can be previewed at Internet Archive.

In the book, Nyhart examines various responses that coalesced into the so-called ‘biological perspective’, including: the transformation of natural history practices; changes in museum displays; developments in classroom education; and the emergence of the modern zoo. In particular, she highlights the contributions of key figures such as Karl Möbius, who articulated the concept of the ‘living community’. The work is praised for being wide-ranging, closely argued, and very readable for it goes beyond just tracing the history of a scientific concept, offering insights into the broader cultural and institutional contexts of late 19th-century Germany

Here is one extract about Möbius and his diary.

‘During his time there, from 1844 to 1849, [Möbius] kept a diary that both recorded his love of nature and afforded him a chance to practice his writing - a form of conscious self-improvement and self-cultivation - as he strove tirelessly to prove himself. In the diary’s pages he alternated rhapsodies over his hikes in the mountains with admonishments to himself to be a better man. As he voraciously read history and nature writing, and studied English and the classical languages in his spare hours, he sought to live up to a standard of virtue that would overcome his resentment of his poverty. “Cannot the privation wrought by poverty and the disdain brought on by underestimation and misjudgment lead the spirit [den Geist] to depend on itself and to drive it to be enough for itself?” he agonized in September 1847. “Thoughts, feelings of inspiration, and pure will: these are the opinions that will break through the final barriers to draw us into the inspiring center of the All, into the deity.”

His communion with nature, which offered him considerable spiritual sustenance, was deepened by reading Humboldt. “Great Humboldt!” he gushed a few months later. “With the purest, most warmhearted enthusiasm you [Du] have penetrated into the unity [Zusammenhang] of the world, and in your Kosmos you have given to your race [deinem Geschlechte] the treasure of your spirit, your great knowledge, in clear, poetic language drenched with the warmth of your heart.” The human race “gazes in amazement at your work and wants to thank you on its knees.” 

Reading Shakespeare and Goethe inspired him to similar heights; their works allowed him to imagine himself “on the throne of the world,” with a view of God’s laws of eternal human nature. From this vantage point, he forgot his individual existence and felt part of a larger, God-given order. One route to this sublimation was science: “Science [die Wissenschaft] is the most beautiful bride. He whom she has once kissed is caught in her magic.” 

These youthful yearnings for connection and unity would persist in his private writing as preoccupations with community and self-abnegation and may be viewed as the first, ill-formed inklings of what would emerge in scientific form years later as his living-community concept.’

Here is a second extract.

‘By 1848 he was reading a pedagogical text called Education toward a Public Spirit (Erziehung zum Gemeingeist), whose author argued that philosophy was to play a very minor role in his proposed reformed “Naturgymnasium.” “Here I must object,” Möbius wrote in his diary “Shouldn’t the student of modern subjects [Realschiiler] learn from geology, physics, chemistry, etc., the laws of the world organism? The perceived unity of the world is the most magnificent event in the study of nature, it is the content of all true philosophy; for even the mind and its development, which philosophy in its narrow sense has considered up until now, is itself a production of nature.” ’

And here is a direct quotation by Nyhart from another diary kept by Möbius apparently between 1861 and 1863.

27 February 1863

‘When the son of a craftsman in a small town has come so far through his own work that he is counted among the more capable teachers and research scholars in a large city, he should act content if he is not granted a wished-for highest scientific position. He may keep working on with the accustomed effort, on the side of his practical profession, so that he never forgets his heritage. It is easy for us to consider ourselves more independent of the whole than we are. But our being follows on all sides from our birth, childhood, and course of development. We only want to be taken by others as we are in the present, and yet they always see, as well, how we got here.’

My guiding darkness

‘Perversion interests me most and is really my guiding darkness . . . I love to write of cruel deeds.’ This is Patricia Highsmith, who died 30 years ago today, confiding in a youthful diary about a preoccupation that would come to dominate her writing, and, indeed, inspire her to produce some of the most popular psychological crime stories of the 20th century. She did keep diaries and notebooks throughout her life, and although these were available to biographers in the past, they were not actually published until 2021.

 
Mary Patricia Plangman was born in Fort Worth, Texas, in 1921, the child of artists who divorced before she was born. Her mother soon married Stanley Highsmith, and the family moved to New York. She studied English composition at Barnard College, and found work at a comic publishers. Turning freelance allowed her to earn more money and to write her own short stories. She lived for a while in Mexico.

Highsmith published her first novel - Strangers on a Train - in 1950, to modest success. The famous film maker, Alfred Hitchcock, adapted the story in 1951, and the movie’s success rubbed off on Highsmith. Her second novel, The Price of Salt, a lesbian romance published under a pseudonym, Claire Morgan, came out in 1952. The Talented Mr. Ripley, probably her most famous novel nowadays, emerged soon after, in 1955. Many other psychological thrillers followed, but it was not until 1970 that she returned to Ripley, eventually completing five novels (the Ripliad) about her compelling anti-hero.

Highsmith never settled down for long with a partner, male or female, though she had many affairs. Her private life was constantly troubled, she moved around a lot, living in various parts of Europe. She drank and smoked to excess, and the older she got the more she preferred the company of cats (and snails, apparently!), while colleagues found her misanthropic and even cruel. For the last 14 years of her life she lived in Switzerland. She died there on 4 February 1995. Her archives are stored at Swiss Literary Archives in Bern - see also Swiss Info.

Further biographical information is available from Wikipedia, or from two biographies, available to preview through Googlebooks: Beautiful Shadow: a Life of Patricia Highsmith by Andrew Wilson (Bloomsbury, 2003) and The Talented Miss Highsmith: The Secret Life and Serious Art of Patricia Highsmith by Joan Schenkar (St Martin’s Press, 2009). See also reviews of the former at The Guardian, The New York Times; a review of the latter by Jeannette Winterson also at The New York Times, and an article by Schenkar at The Paris Review.

One of many extraordinary things about Patricia Highsmith was an obsession with documenting her own life. Having decided not to destroy her diaries, she left behind some 8,000 handwritten pages, in 37 work notebooks or cahiers (1938-1992), and 18 personal diaries (1940-1984). These diaries were mined thoroughly by the biographers, Wilson and Schenkar, but it was not until 2021 that Liveright published Patricia Highsmith: Her Diaries and Notebooks: 1941-1995 as meticulously edited by her longtime editor Anna von Planta. 

The publisher says of the book: ‘In these pages, we see Highsmith reflecting on good and evil, loneliness and intimacy, sexuality and sacrifice, love and murder. We see her tumultuous romantic relationships play out alongside her acquaintances with other writers including Jane Bowles, Aaron Copland, John Gielgud, Truman Capote, Carson McCullers, Arthur Koestler, and W. H. Auden. And in her skewering of McCarthy-era America, her prickly disparagement of contemporary art, her fixation on love and writing, and ever-percolating prejudices, we see the famously secretive Highsmith revealing the roots of her psychological angst and acuity. Written in her inimitable and dazzling prose and offering all the pleasures of Highsmith’s novels, these are one of the most compulsively readable literary diaries to be published in generations - and yield, at last an unparalleled, unfiltered, unforgettable picture of this enigmatic, iconic, trailblazing author's true self.’ Some pages can be previewed at Amazon, and a review can be read here.

Wilson’s biography - which is generally rated more highly than Schenkar’s - refers to Highsmith’s diaries constantly, and always provides the exact source (i.e. whether from a cahier or a private journal, and with the exact date). However, he rarely provides any complete or long quotations from the diaries, choosing instead to incorporate phrases within his own text.

Here is part of Wilson’s introduction: ‘Her work explores the motif of the double or splintered self. The changeable nature of identity fascinated her both philosophically and personally. “I had a strong feeling tonight . . . that I was many faceted like a ball of glass, or like the eye of a fly.” ’ [14 February 1942] [. . .]

Her private notebooks can be seen to represent, if not an authentic self, at least an identity that is somehow more substantial than the one she chose to show to the outside world. In addition to keeping incredibly detailed diaries, she recorded her creative ideas, observations and experiences in what she called her “cahiers” or working journals. [ . . .]

Many writers’ diaries are works of self-mythology, often more fantastical than their own fiction, but after checking Highsmith’s documents with other archival sources and information gleaned from my interviews, it is clear that her private journals were written without artifice. Her voice was tormented, self-critical but, significantly, brutally honest. She kept a diary, she said, because she was interested in analysing the motivation of her behaviour. “I cannot do this without dropping dried peas behind me to help me retrace my course, to point a straight line in the darkness.” [21 September 1949] Throughout her life she toyed with the idea of burning these most personal of journals, and although she was given the opportunity to incinerate any incriminating material before her death, she only chose to destroy a few letters from one of her younger lovers.’

Here are three extracts from Highsmith’s diaries taken from Wilson’s biography.

27 August 1942
‘Perversion interests me most and is really my guiding darkness . . . I love to write of cruel deeds. Murder fascinates me . . . Physical cruelty appeals to me mostly. It is visual & dramatic. Mental cruelty is a torture, even for me, to think of. I have known too much of it myself.’

25 October 1942
‘I believe people should be allowed to go the whole hog with their perversions, abnormalities, unhappinesses, [. . .] Mad people are the only active people, they have built the world.’

18 November 1942
‘The Lesbian, the classic Lesbian, never seeks her equal in life. She is . . . the soi-disant male, who does not expect his match in his mate, who would rather use her as the base-on-the-earth which he can never be.’

And here are several extracts from the published diaries.

23 March 1941

‘I met an insufferable young woman from school on my way to Billie’s. She was going to Temple Emanu-El for a meeting of young gays. What a thing to do on Sunday! My good angel tells me that would be better - but my God! I’ll take the devil! Billie very sweet - kisses, etc. She tells me that she likes me a lot. That she wants me. I feel very attracted to her. But I told her I was in love with Helen at school. Billie was very sad - I didn’t allow her to touch me - anyways, we decided not to see each other for a month. She gave me a little gold chain for my wrist. I won’t wear it - and I - I gave her nothing but one cent.’

19 May 1941

‘Work! Work! I’m not even reading the papers. A ship sank. 190 Americans. Hitler, perhaps. Everyone is talking about Germany’s victory. We’ve just entered the war. + I read Julius Caesar, Measure for Measure - etc. It’s exciting to study like this: all day! Other men’s thoughts.’

1 June 1941

‘A ghostly day - no ordinary people on the streets because everyone’s out of the city. I wonder what Va.’s doing? + I learned a lot - Don’t want to write stories about stupid, useless people. There are so many things crying out to be described. + Graham here 10:00. We talked quietly. The situations and circumstances at the camps are unbelievable/A sentry shot two men obeying his orders! We listened to records. He was wearing my slippers. They look nice on his feet. I’m happy.’

23 July 1941

‘Spent this night with Buffie as I knew I would. Arrived about five - she gave me a gorgeous pair of cufflinks - gold with a brown stone. Rather large. Then we picked up Irving D. & Billy Somebody & went to Spivy’s anniversary party. Then home. I’m not in love. Can’t even say I wish I were. Buffie is so damned “bandbox,” as Constable so aptly put it.’

26 July 1941

‘Caught the bus at 10:50 last evening. Graham along to see me off. Hot tiresome trip. I feel blue. Thinking constantly of Rosalind & not at all of Buffie. I am an ungrateful fickle little bastard. It’s so much fun to ride along, letting one’s mind build things like an Erector Set, and being quite alone as the miles go past, enjoying cigarettes & coffee, and thinking of possible stories, and of Rosalind, and of the busy, active, amusing, and wild life before me - not only next semester, when I shall work like hell, but for all time. I have a great destiny before me - a world of pleasures and accomplishments, beauty and love.’

14 September 1941

‘Things are coming to a crisis, Stanley says. Mother is nervous, again talks of removing me from school. I shall be lost. All the jobs I want require a B.A. She is jealous of my friends. Constantly making comparisons between herself & them and jealous too of my courtesy to Jeva & Marjorie when they come over. And could I possibly be in love with my own mother? Perhaps in some incredible way I am. And it is the recalcitrance in all of us that shows in my ingratitude for my mother’s over-zealous effort to please me, and to do things for me. It is the old story of things being too simple - and of our refusal to throw our love to the easiest and most deserving and most logical object.’

5 December 1941

‘Friday: Gloomy day. Short school. Went to Lola’s at 6:00. Gillespie, [Toni] Hughes, Buffie (whom I scarcely spoke to), Jimmie Stern & many Frenchmen. Also Melcarth. Thence to Barnard. Mary S. (also there) said Helen was the cutest thing she’d seen in years. That my taste was in my mouth. I didn’t know what she meant. Helen has all the warmth - and she wore her gray suit tight because she knows I love it - and we could not keep our eyes or our hands off each other all evening and it was all very beautiful. She loves me - she said so - in the cold air outdoors. And she means it. Why should I lie? I miss her so when I’m away an hour I can’t see straight. The first time I’ve been in love - the terrific physical appeal plus my love of her - God what a perilous combination!’

This article is a revised version of one first published on 204 February 2015.

The champion of reason

‘I want to be known as the greatest champion of reason and the greatest enemy of religion.’ This is Ayn Rand, a Russian-American writer and philosopher, born 120 years ago today. Her few novels were extremely popular in their day, and she developed a philosophical system, Objectivism, which also drew many admirers. She kept notebooks for much of her life, jotting thoughts about her novels and philosophy, and these were edited and published in the 1990s as Journals of Ayn Rand.

Alisa Zinovievna Rosenbaum was born on 2 February 1905 in St Petersburg into a wealthy Jewish family. The October Revolution and Bolshevik rule led to the family’s property being confiscated, and to them fleeing as far as the Crimean Peninsula. After graduating from high school there, Alisa returned, with her family, to Petrograd, where she was one of the first women to enrol in the state university, majoring in history. Subsequently, she studied for a year at the State Technicum for Screen Arts in Leningrad. Around this time, she adopted the surname Rand, and took her first name as Ayn.

In 1926, Rand went to visit relatives in the US, staying a few months in Chicago, before heading for Hollywood. There she did odd jobs, worked as a junior scriptwriter, and met a young actor Fank O’Connor who she married just before her visa ran out. She became an American citizen in 1931; several attempts to bring her family members to the US, though, failed.

In the early 1930s, Rand sold a screenplay to Universal Studios, and had a play produced on Broadway (later turned into a film by Paramount). Her first, partly autobiographical, novel - We the Living - was published in 1936. Although not a success at the time, later, when her other novels sold so well, Rand issued a revised edition which went on to sell over three million copies.

By the 1940s, Rand had become politically active; and she volunteered for the presidential campaign of Republican Wendell Wilkie. She took on speaking appointments, and came into contact with other free market-leaning intellectuals. Her first major success as a writer came with The Fountainhead, published in 1943, a novel of romance and philosophy. Warner Bros hired her to write a screenplay for a film version (which came out in 1949). Subsequently, she was hired by Hal Wallis (who had produced Casablanca for Warner) as a screenwriter and script-doctor for his own, new production company. One of her projects was to write a screenplay about the development of the atomic bomb - although the film never got made. Meanwhile, her political activities led her to become associated with other anti-Communist writers.

In 1951, Rand moved to New York where she established a group of admirers, including Nathan Blumenthal (later Nathaniel Branden) and his wife Barbara, and Barbara’s cousin Leonard Peikoff. By 1954, she and Nathaniel were having an affair with the full knowledge of their spouses. Atlas Shrugged, considered Rand’s most important work, was published in 1957, and became an international bestseller. More than any other of her novels, Atlas Shrugged was rich in her developing ideas on philosophy, a system she called Objectivism.

Thereafter, Rand eschewed fiction in favour of promoting her philosophical ideas, by writing books, giving lectures, and often taking controversial stances on political issues (wholeheartedly rejecting religion, for example, and supporting the right to abortion). In 1958, Branden established the Nathaniel Branden Lectures (later Institute) to promote Rand’s philosophy. This expanded considerably, until it was offering courses in 80 cities; but, in 1968, Rand denounced Branden and publicly broke off with him and the Institute.

After an operation for lung cancer in 1974, Rand’s work activities declined. Her husband died in 1979, and she passed away in 1982, leaving her estate to Peikoff. Further biographical information can be found at the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Encyclopaedia Britannica, or Wikipedia. Wikipedia also has an extensive article on Rand’s Objectivism

Soon after Rand’s death, Peikoff released extracts from her notebooks for publication in two magazines The Objectivist Forum and The Intellectual Activist. Then, in 1997, Dutton released Journals of Ayn Rand, edited by David Harriman with Peikoff’s approval. The book has its own Wikipedia entry, which states: ‘Some reviewers considered it an interesting source of information for readers with an interest in Rand, but several scholars criticized Harriman’s editing as being too heavy-handed and insufficiently acknowledged in the published text.’

In a foreword, Peikoff explains: ‘Ayn Rand’s Journals - my name for her notes to herself through the decade - is the bulk of her still unpublished work, arranged chronologically. [. . .] The Journals contain most of AR’s notes for her three main novels - along with some early material, some notes made between The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and some notes from her final decades.’

He continues: ‘If the primary value of the Journals to us is the evidence it furnishes of AR’s growth, a second value is the evidence that her growth was a product of thinking - in the art of which the Journals may serve as a textbook. The subtitle of this book really ought to be: How to Answer Your Own Questions.’

In his preface, Harriman says: ‘In a note to herself at the age of twenty-three, AR wrote: “From now on - no thought whatever about yourself, only about your work. You are only a writing engine. Don’t stop, until you really and honestly know that you cannot go on.” Throughout her long career, she remained true to this pledge - she was a “writing engine”. With the publication of her journals, we can now see the “writing behind the writing” and appreciate fully the prodigious effort that went into her published work. AR’s notes, typically handwritten, were spread among numerous boxes of papers she left behind at her death in 1982. My editing of this material has consisted of selection, organization, line editing, and insertion of explanatory comments. Selection. This book presents AR’s working journals - i.e. the notes in which she developed her literary and philosophical ideas. Notes of a personal nature will be included in a forthcoming authorized biography.’

Many if not most of the entries in Journals of Ayn Rand (which can be previewed online at Googlebooks) are not dated, and those that are tend to be more associated with her philosophical musings (as opposed to those about her novels). Here are a few samples (the last concerns her work for Hal Wallis on the atomic bomb screenplay).

9 April 1934
‘The human race has only two unlimited capacities: for suffering and for lying. I want to fight religion as the root of all human lying and the only excuse for suffering.

I believe - and I want to gather all the facts to illustrate this - that the worst curse on mankind is the ability to consider ideals as something quite abstract and detached from one’s everyday life. The ability to live and think quite differently, thus eliminating thinking from your actual life. This applied not to deliberate and conscious hypocrites, but to those more dangerous and hopeless ones who, alone with themselves and to themselves, tolerate a complete break between their convictions and their lives, and still believe that they have convictions. To them, either their ideals or their lives are worthless - and usually both.

I hold religion mainly responsible for this. I want to prove that religion breaks a character before it’s formed, in childhood, by teaching a child lies before he knows what a lie is, by breaking him of the habit of thinking before he has begun to think, by making him a hypocrite before he knows any other possible attitude to life. [. . .]

Why are men so afraid of pure, logical reasoning? Why do they have a profound, ferocious hatred of it? Are instincts and emotions necessarily beyond the control of plain thinking? Or were they trained to be? Why is a complete harmony between mind and emotions impossible? Isn’t it merely a matter of strict mental honesty? And who stands at the very bottom denying such honesty? Isn’t it the church?

I want to be known as the greatest champion of reason and the greatest enemy of religion.’

6 November 1944
‘The art of writing is the art of doing what you think you’re doing. This is not as simple as it sounds. It implies a very difficult undertaking: the necessity to think. And it implies the requirement to think out three separate, very hard problems: What is it you want to say? How are you going to say it? Have you really said it?

It’s a coldly intellectual process. If your emotions do not proceed from your intellect, you will not be able to apply it, even if you know all the rules. The mental ability of a writer determines the literary level of his output. If you grasp only home problems well, you’ll only be a writer of good homey stories. (But what about Tolstoy?)’

25 January 1946
‘Interview with Mrs Oppenheimer: Test was referred to as “Trinity”. Test was on a Monday - the next Saturday Mrs. Oppenheimer gave a party - evening dress. Mood was one of relief. After Hiroshima they did not feel like celebrating. The Oppenheimers were the first family to move to Los Alamos. [The town] had about 30 people then - a big dormitory for scientists in one of the schoolrooms. The Oppenheimers lived in one of the masters’ houses of the old school. Community life was much friendlier and more harmonious than in other cities - higher mental level. Dr Oppenheimer took job only on condition that his essential workers would know the secret. A great part of their work was spent in meetings and conferences. At first, scientists were afraid of possible German atomic research, but later learned there was none. Scientists worked in order to save lives and end the war. Was it in order to beat the Germans to the discovery? “Good God, no!” ’

This article is a slightly revised version of one first published on 2 February 2015.

Catch some of my life

James Gordon Farrell, who might have reached ninety today had he not died young in a storm accident, would have become one of the really great novelists writing in the English language today - according to a claim by Salman Rushdie widely quoted on internet sites. The editor of a collection of Farrell’s letters and ‘diary fragments’, published a few years ago by Cork University Press, argues that her book reveals Farrell’s ‘lost autobiographical voice.’ In a first entry, Farrell writes of using the diary to ‘catch some of my life’, and in another he catches a moment of inspiration, one that will lead to his best book.

Farrell was born in Liverpool on 25 January 1935 into an Anglo-Irish family. Although his family moved to County Dublin after the war, he was enrolled at Rossall boarding school in Lancashire from the age of 12, spending holidays in Ireland. After Rossall, he taught in Dublin, and also worked at a radar station in the Canadian Arctic. He entered Brasenose College, Oxford, in 1956, but contracted polio which left him partially crippled. On leaving Oxford with a low class degree, he went to live and teach in France, the setting for his first novel A Man from Elsewhere.

Thereafter, Farrell led a peripatetic life, variously in Paris, Morocco, Dublin and London. In 1966, he won a Harkness Fellowship to visit the US, and although this did not lead him, as he hoped, to study at Yale Drama School, it did provide him with the stimulus to write Troubles (about Ireland’s struggle for independence), the book that would bring him literary fame. It won the Geoffrey Faber Memorial Prize, and with the proceeds he went to India, the setting for his next novel on colonial power, The Siege of Krishnapur. This won the UK’s Booker Prize in 1973. A third, thematically similar, novel followed - The Singapore Grip.

In 1979, Farrell decided to move from London (where he had been based since around 1970) to the southwest of Ireland. A few months later, he was found dead, after being swept from rocks in a storm while fishing. He never married, though he had affairs, and a wide circle of literary friends. Further information can be found at Wikipedia, which quotes Salmon Rushdie as saying, in 2008, that had Farrell not died so young,‘he would today be one of the really major novelists of the English language.’ There are various other articles online about Farrell, some reporting on how Troubles won, in 2010, the Lost Booker Prize for 1970 - at The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, and BBC. (‘Lost’ because books published in that year missed out on being considered thanks to a rule change.) A chapter on Farrell in Writing Liverpool: Essays and Interviews can be read at Googlebooks.

Farrell does not appear to have been a committed diarist, but, in 2009, Cork University Press published J. G. Farrell in his Own Words - Selected Letters and Diaries, as edited by Lavinia Greacen. Most of the book is taken up with letters, and Graecen, herself, refers to the rest as ‘diary fragments’. A review can be found online at Estudios Irlandeses.

Although the name J. G. Farrell tends to come with an austerely confident ring to it, Greacen says the ‘lost autobiographical voice’ in this book reveals him to be warm and sometimes full of self doubt. In a very short foreword, John Banville explains that he met Farrell once, a few days before he won the Booker Prize for The Siege of Krishnapur. He notes, however, that Farrell himself thought Troubles was a better book.

Here are two extracts from J. G. Farrell in his Own Words - Selected Letters and Diaries. I’ve chosen the first because it explains Farrell’s motivations for starting a diary; and the second for it records a pivotal moment in the genesis of Troubles. However, I have also chosen the second because of a link with my own life: the very same Surf Hotel on Block Island, mentioned by Farrell, was where I was taken having been expelled from my father’s island house - I never saw or spoke to him again (see my diaries).

22 December 1966
‘This is addressed to an absent third party . . . in all respects like me, but not me. Alright then, the idea of this diary is to help me to get control of my talent for writing. I hope that it will help me in the following ways:
1) That I shall bring myself face to face with things that I normally discard through sheer mental laziness.
2) That I shall be able to remember things people say that make an impression on me as well as things I read.
3) Get in the habit of discussing problems with myself.
4) Catch some of my life before I forget it. I’m appalled to think how little I can remember of my first trip to America, even though it was only ten years ago. However, avoid being garrulous or it will become a chore. Avoid self-pity and sentimentality. Avoid haranguing myself uselessly like this.

On Monday I had lunch with Mike Roemer. He was busy and somewhat harassed; I noticed for the first time how he tends to talk too loud, as if afraid that he won’t be able to assert himself if he doesn’t. He had been to see Polanski’s Cul de Sac and hadn’t liked it. I was unable to understand his reasons for not liking it. He said he thought it was badly written; that it hadn’t gone far enough if it was supposed to be black humour etc. Well, perhaps I do partly see what he means. For all that, he couldn’t convince me (he didn’t try) that it was a bad film. I still find parts of it sublime: the kitchen scene at the beginning and the visit of friends [. . .] Roemer told me had once dined with E. M. Forster and been very impressed with his modesty and simplicity. F. had only wanted to talk about films. In the course of lunch R. repeated his theory that writers use up their experience when young, then go through a middle period of hard work before they can learn to invent their own material. In return I talked to him of intuitive writers, citing Edna O’Brien as one who had gone off the rails once she had begun to think about it. [. . .] I don’t think either of us were particularly convinced by this. Nothing, anyway, will convince R. that writing is not a field in which one only succeeds by hard and ruthless work. With deep misgivings I gave him a copy of The Lung.

Reading Virginia Woolf’s diary in the train to N. Caroline to spend Christmas with Bob. Odd and curious flashes of contempt for the lower classes appear every now and then that seem sadly out of date (these are the only things that seem unusual for a person like V. W. by today’s standards).’

11 May 1967
‘Over a month since my last entry - an interval in which things went downhill at a fairly brisk pace, with the roaches multiplying in my room at the Belvedere faster than I could control them . . . In this time I took out Anita Gross a couple of times. She’s attractive, sure. But there’s something slightly wrong somewhere [. . .]

A week ago I came to Block Island to stay at the Surf Hotel under the aegis of Mr and Mrs Sears. He is a fat, genial chap and she is somewhat severe with elegantly rolled white hair that makes her look like an immigrant from Versailles. [. . .] At first I found myself eating with an English couple called Porter: she is a psychiatrist, he described himself as a ‘poet’ but I didn’t question him about this and he didn’t volunteer any further information. [. . .]

I’ve covered most of the island on foot in the past week and feel much healthier for it. The weather has been a mixture of terrible storms and sunny, windy days. Last weekend the ferry was unable to make the return trip because of a storm. Now the rain has returned I think I shall return to NY tomorrow.

While here I have made yet another ‘fresh start’ on my book - partly inspired by the charred remains of the Ocean View Hotel which stands, or stood, on a cliff overlooking the old harbour where the ferry comes in. It burned down a year or so ago. “A place with a thousand rooms,” Mr Porter (the poet) said. “200 to 300” said his wife. This morning I went up to look at the remains while the sun was still shining. Old bedsprings twisted with heat; puddles of molten glass; washbowls that had fallen through to the foundations; a flight of stone steps leading up to thin air; twisted pipes; lots of nails lying everywhere and a few charred beams. I think the way the glass had collected like candlegreas under the windows impressed me most. When you picked it up it was inclined to flake away into smaller pieces in your hand. I must remember to ask someone how many storeys it had. Anyway this gave me an idea, which seems to me a good one, for the dwelling place of the family.’ [Ocean View Hotel did, in fact, provide the catalyst for the Majestic Hotel in Troubles, and give him the structure for the novel.]

This article is a slightly revised version of one first published on 25 January 2015.

Ampère falling in love

André-Marie Ampère, dubbed the father of electrodynamics, was born 250 years ago today. A child of the enlightenment and Rousseau’s education principles, he became a great scientist without formal training. He left behind one youthful diary, a naive and charming account of his love and courtship of the woman who became his wife, but then died just four years later.

Ampère was born in Lyon, France, on 20 January 1775. His father was a prosperous businessman who admired the teachings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In line with Rousseau’s education ideas, he left his son to educate himself at the family home - with a well-stocked library - at Poleymieux-au-Mont-d’Or near Lyon. Although his father came to be called into public service by the new revolutionary government, he was guillotined in 1793 as part of the so-called Jacobin purges. Ampère, himself, found regular work as a maths teacher in 1799. This gave him enough income to marry his sweetheart, Julie Carron.

In 1802, Ampère was appointed a professor of physics and chemistry at the École Centrale in Bourg-en-Bresse, which meant leaving Julie, by then a sick woman, and his son in Lyon. In Bourg, he produced his first treatise on mathematical probability - Considerations on the Mathematical Theory of Games, which he sent to the Paris Academy of Sciences. Following the death of Julie, he moved to the capital and began teaching at the new École Polytechnique, where, in 1809, he was appointed professor of mathematics.

As well as holding positions at the École Polytechnique through to 1828, Ampère also taught philosophy and astronomy at the University of Paris for a while, and in 1824 was elected to the chair in experimental physics at the Collège de France. He engaged in all kinds of scientific enquiry, but, from 1820, when hearing of a Danish discovery which showed how a magnetic needle can be deflected by an electric current, he began developing theories to understand the relationship between electricity and magnetism.

It is for his work in understanding electromagnetism that Ampère is best remembered. He developed a physical account of electromagnetic phenomena, empirically demonstrable and mathematically predictive, and in 1827 published his major work, Memoir on the Mathematical Theory of Electrodynamic Phenomena, Uniquely Deduced from Experience. This work coined the name of a new science, electrodynamics, while Ampère also gave his name, in time, to Ampère’s Law, and the SI unit of electric current, the ampere, often shortened to amp. He died in 1836. Further biographical information is available from Wikipedia, NNBD, Encyclopaedia Britannica. James R. Hofmann’s biography - André-Marie Ampère: Enlightenment an Electrodynamics - can also be previewed at Googlebooks.

Although Ampère is not known as a diarist, he did leave behind one published diary, a record of his courtship with his future wife. This was first published, in French, in 1869, as Journal et Correspondance de André-Marie Ampère (freely available in French at Internet Archive or Gallica). An 1875 English review of the book can be found in The North American Review (Vol. 121, No. 249, Oct., 1875), viewable online at JSTOR. The reviewer, T. S. Perry, says the volume is ‘idyllic’ and ‘charming’, and though Ampère was ‘far from being a fool, he certainly shows how foolish an intelligent man can be in the privacy of his diary’. And Perry adds: ‘Although Ampère’s letters and diary lack the historical value of Pepys’s they have a far higher interest in the light they throw upon the private life and character of a great and good man.’ High praise indeed.

An English translation was published by R. Bentley & Son, a few years later, in 1873, with the title The Story of his Love: being the journal and early correspondence of of André-Marie Ampère with his family circle during the First Republic, 1793-1804. The full text of the English version can be read online at Googlebooks.

10 April 1796
‘I saw her for the first time.’

10 August 1796
‘I went to her house, and they lent me ‘Le Nouvelle Morali di Soave’.’

3 September 1796
‘M. Coupier had left the day before. I went to return ‘Le Nouvelle’ and they allowed me to select a volume from the library. I took Mme. Deshoulières. I was a few moments alone with her.’

4 September 1796
‘I accompanied the two sisters after mass. I brought away the first volume of Benardin. She told me that she should be alone, as her mother and sister were leaving on Wednesday.’

9 September 1796
‘I went there, and only Elise.’

14 September 1796
‘I returned the second volume of Bernardin, and had some conversation both her and Jenny. I promised to bring some comedies on the following day.’

17 September 1796
‘I took them, and began to open my heart.’

27 January 1797
‘At length she has arrived from Lyons; her mother did not come into the room at once. Apparently for the sake of looking at some vignettes, I knelt by her side; her mother came in and made me sit down by her.’

9 June 1797
‘I was prevented from giving a lesson on account my cough; I went away rather early, taking with Gresset, and the third volume of the Histoire de France. Julie shows me the trick of solitaire, which I had guessed the evening before; I seated myself near Julie, and remained by her till the end.

Incidentally, referring to some airs and songs, I left C’est en vain que la nature on the table. I ate a cherry she had let fall, and kissed a rose which she had smelt; in the walk I twice gave her my hand to get over a stile, her mother made room for me on the seat between herself and Julia; in returning I told her that it was long since I had passed so happy a day, but that it was the contemplation of nature which had charmed me the most; she spoke to me the whole day with much kindness.’

21 May 1803
‘Walk in the garden. Julie very ill.’

9 July 1803
‘Julie very ill in the morning. I begged M. Mollet to take my place at the Lyceum. M. Pelotin continued the same treatment, in spite of the new symptom.’

This article is a slightly revised version of one first published on 20 January 2015.

Went violetting

‘At home - went violetting in Mr. Body’s Fields & our own - got a great many - Read Mill’s History of the Crusades very good.’ This is one of the entries to be found in the daily diary kept by Mary Russell Mitford, an English writer who died 170 years ago today. The diary entries, all very brief, give no hint of the success she would find later with her sketches of village life and in the theatre.

Mitford was born in 1787 in Alresford, Hampshire, the only daughter of George Mitford and Mary a descendant of the aristocratic Russell family. She grew up near Jane Austen and the two were acquaintances when young. Mitford attended a school in Hans Place, Knightsbridge, London, the successor to Reading Abbey Girls’ School (which Austen had attended earlier). Her father engaged Frances Arabella Rowden to give his daughter extra tuition. Rowden was a published poet, and introduced her to the theatre, especially to plays featuring John Kemble.

In 1810, Mitford published Miscellaneous Poems, which was followed by five more volumes of verse, including Watlington Hill (1812) and Dramatic Scenes, Sonnets, and Other Poems (1827). Her narrative poem Christina (1811) was revised by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. She turned to the theatre, with some success, most notably in the blank-verse tragedies Julian and Rienzi.

However, Mitford’s reputation primarily rests on her prose sketches of English village life, collected in the five volumes of Our Village (1824-32). These sketches, based on her observations of life in and around Three Mile Cross, where she lived from 1820, captured the atmosphere of the English countryside and the quaintness of village characters. Despite literary success, Mitford struggled financially due to her father’s gambling debts. In 1837, she received a civil list pension, providing some financial relief. Her writing is said to have helped establish the format of the realistic domestic novel of provincial life.

Mitford maintained friendships and extensive correspondence with literary figures of the time, notably Elizabeth Barrett Browning. In 1851, she moved to Swallowfield, where she lived until her death on 10 January 1855, following injuries sustained in a carriage accident. Further information can be found at Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica and Berkshire History.

For a short while in her early 30s, Mitford maintained a journal (late December 1818 to March 1823), which she kept almost daily in a volume originally designed to hold only one year’s worth of entries. Moreover, the journal was actually Leigh Hunt’s The Literary Pocket Book: or, Companion for the Lover of Art and Nature and to make entries she had to overwrite much of the printed matter. Some of the diary has been transcribed by volunteers and is available online at Digital Mitford, a project begun in April 2013 with the formation of the Mary Russell Mitford Society. Here are some sample entries.

16 December 1819

‘Went to Reading - had a most delightful chat with Miss Brooke - bought things at Marshes - saw a number of people - came home to dinner quite well & was exceedingly ill (sick & purged) all night.’

17 December 1819

‘Rather better - Lucy a famous nurse - in bed almost all day - had a charming letter from Mr. Haydon & read Malcolm's Anecdotes of the 17th Century.’

18 December 1819

‘A great deal better. Amused myself with doing up some gowns against the end of the mourning  - read Burke's works. All day at home.’

19 December 1819

‘Quite well. Wrote a long note to Miss Brooke - read Scott’s Visit to Paris & played with my beautiful puppy Miranda born at Stratford on Avon.’

31 December 1819

‘Went with Papa & Eliza Webb to a dance at Mrs. Dickinson’s very splendid - very delightful - much laughing - Mr. Crowther not to be forgotten.

At Farley Hill - Happy day - Mrs. D's singing - Where’er you walk - Mr. D’s reading - Count Ugolino.’

1 April 1820

‘At home - went violetting in Mr. Body's Fields & our own - got a great many - Read Mill’s History of the Crusades very good.’

1 May 1820

‘Went in the Cart to Reading Fair with Drum & Lucy - called on the Brooks Newberys, Whites, Anstruthers &c. - dined at Dr. Valpy’s & met the Shuters, Mr. Harris, Mr. Monk, Harry Marsh & Mr. Dickinson - a very pleasant day - came home at night.’

2 May 1820

‘At home - went primrosing & cowslipping to Bertram House - got a great many  - wrote to Mr. Johnson. Read Hogg.’

3 May 1820

‘At home - walked with Granny & the Pets up Woodcock lane - read the Diary of an Invalid on the Continent’

4 May 1820

‘At home - called with Drum on Mr. Body who gave me some lovely flowers - wrote to Eliza Webb - read Bowdich's Mission to Ashantee - dull.’

5 May 1820

‘At home - went walking with dear Drum, Granny, & the Pets - Dr. Valpy called.’

6 May 1820

‘At home - went cowslipping in the Meadows with dear Granny & the Pets - heard from Mrs. Hayward with a beautiful basket of flower roots - planted them out & wrote Mrs. Hayward - read Bonduca.’