Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: W. H. Lewis's diary

Expand Messages
  • Joe R. Christopher
    ... John-- W. H. Lewis s diary is at the Wade. A Xeroxed copy used to be open for reading, and I assume it still is. It does have some negative comments
    Message 1 of 15 , Jun 22, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      > So far as I'm aware, we have no evidence that Warnie didn't greet
      > Hooper's arrival with pleasure. I've seen what proport to be diary
      > entries by Warnie that are critical of Hooper, but (a) I don't know
      > if they're genuine, not having seen the original diary for myself,
      > and (b) they're from 1967-1969, after Warnie's biography of his
      > brother had been rejected by the publisher, as had the Boxen
      > material.

      John--

      W. H. Lewis's diary is at the Wade. A Xeroxed copy used to be open for
      reading, and I assume it still is. It does have some negative comments
      about Hooper with some reasons given. Your interpretation of why is
      legitimate, although the literal level doesn't support it, I think.
      But even diaries are not always the full truth; possibly you are right.

      --Joe
    • John D Rateliff
      Dear Joe I knew it was at the Wade, but not that it was available for visitors to see. I ll see if this is still the case and, if so, definitely make seeing it
      Message 2 of 15 , Jun 22, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Joe
        I knew it was at the Wade, but not that it was available for
        visitors to see. I'll see if this is still the case and, if so,
        definitely make seeing it a priority on my next visit there. There's
        just no substitute for going right to primary sources, when possible.
        Wish I'd known before; I was just in Wheaton last month, focusing
        that visit on Dr. Havard.
        I do know one interesting thing they have there is a copy of
        Warnie's unpublished biography of CSL (the basis for LETTERS OF C. S.
        LEWIS, which was re-edited by other hands, much to Warnie's
        displeasure), which is available to researchers.
        And in any case reading more of The Major's work wd be a delight.
        Many thanks for letting me know about this.
        --John R.


        On Jun 22, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Joe R. Christopher wrote:
        > John--
        >
        > W. H. Lewis's diary is at the Wade. A Xeroxed copy used to be open
        > for
        > reading, and I assume it still is. It does have some negative
        > comments
        > about Hooper with some reasons given. Your interpretation of why is
        > legitimate, although the literal level doesn't support it, I think.
        > But even diaries are not always the full truth; possibly you are
        > right.
        >
        > --Joe
      • David Bratman
        Why would WHL s diary no longer be available to visitors? I read through the whole thing from the date of his retirement onwards while doing research on
        Message 3 of 15 , Jun 22, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Why would WHL's diary no longer be available to visitors? I read through the whole thing from the date of his retirement onwards while doing research on Inklings history back in 1994, and the result has been [if you'll excuse the expression] a major source for everything I've written on the subject since. For instance, when I write in the Edwards CSL encyclopedia that WHL "makes no mention of the [Inklings as a] group in the diary that he kept regularly through 1933 and 1934," it's because I was looking for them in the full diary. And this is important because this absence calls into question George Sayer's, and a lot of other people's, accounts of the Inklings' origins. Either the group didn't exist that early, or if it did WHL wasn't a member yet [either of which would contradict Sayer], or for some reason WHL left it out of his diary, which last would be curious because he does mention the Inklings later on, and in these years he does mention meetings with people who would be Inklings: Barfield, Tolkien, Dyson, insignificant folk like that.

          My reading of the full diary was also my source for the identification of the mysterious "B." mentioned in the published _Brothers and Friends_ for 22 August 1946. The actual diary is not so reticent, and I discussed this in my biographical article on Dyson back in 1995.

          And yes, there are lots of fascinating comments concerning WHL's opinion of Hooper, and of other equally interesting people, in the later years of the diary, stuff that does not appear in _Brothers and Friends_ at all. Therefore I shall say no more about it here either.



          -----Original Message-----
          >From: John D Rateliff <sacnoth@...>
          >Sent: Jun 22, 2008 3:40 PM
          >To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
          >Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Re: W. H. Lewis's diary
          >
          >Dear Joe
          > I knew it was at the Wade, but not that it was available for
          >visitors to see. I'll see if this is still the case and, if so,
          >definitely make seeing it a priority on my next visit there. There's
          >just no substitute for going right to primary sources, when possible.
          >Wish I'd known before; I was just in Wheaton last month, focusing
          >that visit on Dr. Havard.
          > I do know one interesting thing they have there is a copy of
          >Warnie's unpublished biography of CSL (the basis for LETTERS OF C. S.
          >LEWIS, which was re-edited by other hands, much to Warnie's
          >displeasure), which is available to researchers.
          > And in any case reading more of The Major's work wd be a delight.
          > Many thanks for letting me know about this.
          >--John R.
          >
          >
          >On Jun 22, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Joe R. Christopher wrote:
          >> John--
          >>
          >> W. H. Lewis's diary is at the Wade. A Xeroxed copy used to be open
          >> for
          >> reading, and I assume it still is. It does have some negative
          >> comments
          >> about Hooper with some reasons given. Your interpretation of why is
          >> legitimate, although the literal level doesn't support it, I think.
          >> But even diaries are not always the full truth; possibly you are
          >> right.
          >>
          >> --Joe
          >
          >------------------------------------
          >
          >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.orgYahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
        • Wayne G. Hammond
          ... Warnie s diary was also an invaluable source for our _Tolkien Companion and Guide_. We occasionally quote (with the Wade s permission) material that
          Message 4 of 15 , Jun 22, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            David wrote:

            >My reading of the full diary was also my source for the identification of
            >the mysterious "B." mentioned in the published _Brothers and Friends_ for
            >22 August 1946. The actual diary is not so reticent, and I discussed this
            >in my biographical article on Dyson back in 1995.

            Warnie's diary was also an invaluable source for our _Tolkien Companion and
            Guide_. We occasionally quote (with the Wade's permission) material that
            doesn't appear in _Brothers and Friends_, e.g. under 19 July 1934 in the
            Chronology volume, as well as much that does, always cross-checked against
            the primary copy.

            Christina & Wayne


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Lynn Maudlin
            There s also the component of how a particular person generally uses his/her diary: venting stuff they wouldn t dream of saying to the person or anyone else in
            Message 5 of 15 , Jun 22, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              There's also the component of how a particular person generally uses
              his/her diary: venting stuff they wouldn't dream of saying to the
              person or anyone else in order to keep a relationship civil, or is the
              person more likely to be cool & factual, clever & factual, etc. - what
              purpose does the diary serve in the author's life?

              And then, is this entry typical? My own journals are all over the
              place! So we can wind up in a state where nothing short of sworn
              statement is going to be good enough evidence to conclude anything
              (which isn't useful-- {{eyerolling}}.

              It's a challenge and I appreciate all of you who do this kind of
              research (and then publish for our benefit! thank you thank you thank
              you!). And then, ungrateful wretches that we are, we still have
              differing opinions! {grin}

              -- Lynn --


              --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "Joe R. Christopher"
              <jchristopher@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > > So far as I'm aware, we have no evidence that Warnie didn't greet
              > > Hooper's arrival with pleasure. I've seen what proport to be diary
              > > entries by Warnie that are critical of Hooper, but (a) I don't know
              > > if they're genuine, not having seen the original diary for myself,
              > > and (b) they're from 1967-1969, after Warnie's biography of his
              > > brother had been rejected by the publisher, as had the Boxen
              > > material.
              >
              > John--
              >
              > W. H. Lewis's diary is at the Wade. A Xeroxed copy used to be open for
              > reading, and I assume it still is. It does have some negative comments
              > about Hooper with some reasons given. Your interpretation of why is
              > legitimate, although the literal level doesn't support it, I think.
              > But even diaries are not always the full truth; possibly you are right.
              >
              > --Joe
              >
            • David Bratman
              ... True enough. Many of the Inklings, especially Tolkien and Warren Lewis, use their diaries and some of their letter writing to work out their grumbles and
              Message 6 of 15 , Jun 22, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Lynn Maudlin <lynnmaudlin@...> wrote:

                >There's also the component of how a particular person generally uses
                >his/her diary: venting stuff they wouldn't dream of saying to the
                >person or anyone else in order to keep a relationship civil, or is the
                >person more likely to be cool & factual, clever & factual, etc. - what
                >purpose does the diary serve in the author's life?

                True enough.

                "Many of the Inklings, especially Tolkien and Warren Lewis, use their diaries and some of their letter writing to work out their grumbles and frustrations. Therefore, it is wise to treat these comments [context is Tolkien's dislike of some of Lewis's work] as a small (albeit significant) part of a much larger story." - Diana Pavlac Glyer, _The Company They Keep_, p. 97

                WHL's diary is at times very sour, but awareness of more about him (such as John Wain's description of him as the most naturally courteous man he'd ever met) makes it clear that the diary gives at most a very partial picture. Though WHL distrusts Hooper, he cherishes his visits at least as a break from loneliness, and however much he grumbles, he keeps allowing Hooper to talk him into things, like attending the annual Friends of CSL parties.
              • Lynn Maudlin
                Indeed. In my increasing experience (age! *sheeeesh!*), we are complex beings with frequently warring motivations, and more self-serving than we readily admit.
                Message 7 of 15 , Jun 23, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Indeed. In my increasing experience (age! *sheeeesh!*), we are complex
                  beings with frequently warring motivations, and more self-serving than
                  we readily admit.

                  I can easily see WHL conflicted over Hooper, grateful for entertaining
                  company, easily tapped into a sense of 'obligation', and needing to
                  vent safely in private. I can easily see Hooper enthusiastic, lucky,
                  feeling some need to justify his presence as having CSL's imprimatur
                  rather than opportunism or 'luck of the draw' --

                  This is humanity, in all our glorious, shoddy striations and variety.
                  Hooper is not an angel but neither is he a demon.

                  -- Lynn --


                  --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, David Bratman <dbratman@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Lynn Maudlin <lynnmaudlin@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > >There's also the component of how a particular person generally uses
                  > >his/her diary: venting stuff they wouldn't dream of saying to the
                  > >person or anyone else in order to keep a relationship civil, or is the
                  > >person more likely to be cool & factual, clever & factual, etc. - what
                  > >purpose does the diary serve in the author's life?
                  >
                  > True enough.
                  >
                  > "Many of the Inklings, especially Tolkien and Warren Lewis, use
                  their diaries and some of their letter writing to work out their
                  grumbles and frustrations. Therefore, it is wise to treat these
                  comments [context is Tolkien's dislike of some of Lewis's work] as a
                  small (albeit significant) part of a much larger story." - Diana
                  Pavlac Glyer, _The Company They Keep_, p. 97
                  >
                  > WHL's diary is at times very sour, but awareness of more about him
                  (such as John Wain's description of him as the most naturally
                  courteous man he'd ever met) makes it clear that the diary gives at
                  most a very partial picture. Though WHL distrusts Hooper, he
                  cherishes his visits at least as a break from loneliness, and however
                  much he grumbles, he keeps allowing Hooper to talk him into things,
                  like attending the annual Friends of CSL parties.
                  >
                • dbratman
                  ... Wait a minute. I do not wish to be misunderstood here. The person whose speckled humanity I m really interested in is Warren Lewis. I don t think Hooper
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jun 23, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    "Lynn Maudlin" <lynnmaudlin@...> wrote:


                    > Indeed. In my increasing experience (age! *sheeeesh!*), we are complex
                    > beings with frequently warring motivations, and more self-serving than
                    > we readily admit.
                    >
                    > I can easily see WHL conflicted over Hooper, grateful for entertaining
                    > company, easily tapped into a sense of 'obligation', and needing to
                    > vent safely in private. I can easily see Hooper enthusiastic, lucky,
                    > feeling some need to justify his presence as having CSL's imprimatur
                    > rather than opportunism or 'luck of the draw' --
                    >
                    > This is humanity, in all our glorious, shoddy striations and variety.
                    > Hooper is not an angel but neither is he a demon.

                    Wait a minute. I do not wish to be misunderstood here. The person whose
                    speckled humanity I'm really interested in is Warren Lewis. I don't think
                    Hooper is a demon, but I don't have to think that in order to declare that
                    he is, or was in his earlier years - he may have quietly repented now, like
                    George Psalmanazar - an incontestably serial exaggerator and misleader, to
                    some extent a liar as well. I do not claim to fathom his soul, but on
                    factual matters about Lewis's biography his statements about his personal
                    involvement are simply not trustworthy. I trust the "Companion and Guide",
                    though. It's like a different Hooper wrote it, and maybe one did.
                  • Carl F. Hostetter
                    ... Precisely so. And this fact, coupled with the ridiculous bonfire story, has called into question the provenance of every Lewis text Hooper has published.
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jun 24, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Jun 24, 2008, at 1:01 AM, dbratman wrote:

                      > I don't think Hooper is a demon, but I don't have to think that in
                      > order to declare that he is, or was in his earlier years - he may
                      > have quietly repented now, like George Psalmanazar - an
                      > incontestably serial exaggerator and misleader, to some extent a
                      > liar as well.
                      >

                      Precisely so. And this fact, coupled with the ridiculous bonfire
                      story, has called into question the provenance of every Lewis text
                      Hooper has published. Perhaps unjustly, but even if so, Hooper --
                      alone -- brought it on himself.

                      Carl
                    • John D Rateliff
                      ... Well, because sometimes libraries and collections move things from general access to restricted access or vice versa. I ve seen things at the Wade that
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jun 24, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Jun 22, 2008, at 1:10 PM, David Bratman wrote:
                        > Why would WHL's diary no longer be available to visitors?

                        Well, because sometimes libraries and collections move things from
                        general access to restricted access or vice versa. I've seen things
                        at the Wade that were later no longer in the general collection, and
                        I've seen things at the Bodleian move first into and then back out of
                        general access. So it seemed a reasonable question.


                        > I read through the whole thing from the date of his retirement
                        > onwards while doing research on Inklings history back in 1994, and
                        > the result has been [if you'll excuse the expression] a major
                        > source for everything I've written on the subject since. For
                        > instance, when I write in the Edwards CSL encyclopedia that WHL
                        > "makes no mention of the [Inklings as a] group in the diary that he
                        > kept regularly through 1933 and 1934," it's because I was looking
                        > for them in the full diary. And this is important because this
                        > absence calls into question George Sayer's, and a lot of other
                        > people's, accounts of the Inklings' origins. Either the group
                        > didn't exist that early, or if it did WHL wasn't a member yet
                        > [either of which would contradict Sayer], or for some reason WHL
                        > left it out of his diary, which last would be curious because he
                        > does mention the Inklings later on, and in these years he does
                        > mention meetings with people who would be Inklings: Barfield,
                        > Tolkien, Dyson, insignificant folk like that.

                        Just out of curiosity, when does he first mention an Inklings
                        meeting? In the published BROTHERS & FRIENDS, the first account he
                        gives is of their December 1945 'Victory' outing, and the first
                        mention seems to be in his entry on Charles Wms' death (May 1945).
                        Yet we know the group was meeting by 1936, when CSL told Ch.Wms about
                        them by name.

                        --John R
                      • David Bratman
                        ... That means it s possible, administratively. My question was, why would they do it? The WHL papers are central to the Wade s research value, and they ve
                        Message 11 of 15 , Jun 24, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          John D Rateliff <sacnoth@...> wrote:

                          >On Jun 22, 2008, at 1:10 PM, David Bratman wrote:
                          >> Why would WHL's diary no longer be available to visitors?
                          >
                          >Well, because sometimes libraries and collections move things from
                          >general access to restricted access or vice versa. I've seen things
                          >at the Wade that were later no longer in the general collection, and
                          >I've seen things at the Bodleian move first into and then back out of
                          >general access. So it seemed a reasonable question.

                          That means it's possible, administratively. My question was, why would they do it? The WHL papers are central to the Wade's research value, and they've been out there for a long time. It would be strange to restrict them at such a late date when they've been open for so long, which was not the case with the Bodleian papers that I know about that were moved to restricted status.


                          >Just out of curiosity, when does he first mention an Inklings
                          >meeting? In the published BROTHERS & FRIENDS, the first account he
                          >gives is of their December 1945 'Victory' outing, and the first
                          >mention seems to be in his entry on Charles Wms' death (May 1945).
                          >Yet we know the group was meeting by 1936, when CSL told Ch.Wms about
                          >them by name.

                          The March 1936 reference by CSL, which was not generally known (or published) until several years ago, is the earliest Inklings reference by nearly two years, and the earliest by name for over three years, until CSL started writing WHL letters during the latter's 1939-40 service. WHL was mostly diary-less from about 1936 until 1944/5, so that by itself explains no Inklings references during that period. The earliest Inklings reference by name I have from the diary is 15 March 1945, which is when he refers to "an Inklings in partibus" during the Liverpool trip with Havard.
                        • Lynn Maudlin
                          David, I wasn t meaning to attribute any such thoughts or opinions to you, rather waxing philosophical in general and in particular in response to an area
                          Message 12 of 15 , Jun 24, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            David, I wasn't meaning to attribute any such thoughts or opinions to
                            you, rather waxing philosophical in general and in particular in
                            response to an area which has been known to spark significant
                            differences of opinion among Mythsoc folks. I think we are ALL
                            variegated humanity, Hooper, WHL, CSL, Bratman, Maudlin, et.al.

                            Welcome to the species! {{smooches}}

                            your fan,
                            -- Lynn --

                            --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "dbratman" <dbratman@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > "Lynn Maudlin" <lynnmaudlin@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > > Indeed. In my increasing experience (age! *sheeeesh!*), we are complex
                            > > beings with frequently warring motivations, and more self-serving than
                            > > we readily admit.
                            > >
                            > > I can easily see WHL conflicted over Hooper, grateful for entertaining
                            > > company, easily tapped into a sense of 'obligation', and needing to
                            > > vent safely in private. I can easily see Hooper enthusiastic, lucky,
                            > > feeling some need to justify his presence as having CSL's imprimatur
                            > > rather than opportunism or 'luck of the draw' --
                            > >
                            > > This is humanity, in all our glorious, shoddy striations and variety.
                            > > Hooper is not an angel but neither is he a demon.
                            >
                            > Wait a minute. I do not wish to be misunderstood here. The person
                            whose
                            > speckled humanity I'm really interested in is Warren Lewis. I don't
                            think
                            > Hooper is a demon, but I don't have to think that in order to
                            declare that
                            > he is, or was in his earlier years - he may have quietly repented
                            now, like
                            > George Psalmanazar - an incontestably serial exaggerator and
                            misleader, to
                            > some extent a liar as well. I do not claim to fathom his soul, but on
                            > factual matters about Lewis's biography his statements about his
                            personal
                            > involvement are simply not trustworthy. I trust the "Companion and
                            Guide",
                            > though. It's like a different Hooper wrote it, and maybe one did.
                            >
                          • David Bratman
                            Sure, Lynn, absolutely - but the question at hand wasn t the state of Hooper s soul nor the fallibility of his humanity. It was the accuracy of his
                            Message 13 of 15 , Jun 25, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Sure, Lynn, absolutely - but the question at hand wasn't the state of Hooper's soul nor the fallibility of his humanity. It was the accuracy of his autobiographical statements and the reliability of his scholarship. On those questions, humans are not equally fallible.

                              DB

                              -----Original Message-----
                              >From: Lynn Maudlin <lynnmaudlin@...>
                              >Sent: Jun 24, 2008 11:56 PM
                              >To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                              >Subject: [mythsoc] Re: W. H. Lewis's diary
                              >
                              >David, I wasn't meaning to attribute any such thoughts or opinions to
                              >you, rather waxing philosophical in general and in particular in
                              >response to an area which has been known to spark significant
                              >differences of opinion among Mythsoc folks. I think we are ALL
                              >variegated humanity, Hooper, WHL, CSL, Bratman, Maudlin, et.al.
                              >
                              >Welcome to the species! {{smooches}}
                            • Grace Monk
                              David, I think you have (as usual) hit upon an important distinction. One doesn t have to attribute malice or anything else pernicious to another who has
                              Message 14 of 15 , Jun 25, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                David, I think you have (as usual) hit upon an important distinction.
                                One doesn't have to attribute malice or anything else pernicious to
                                another who has unreliable scholarship. When dealing with inaccuracy
                                and unreliability, the "why" doesn't really matter.

                                Grace Monk


                                On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:26 PM, David Bratman <dbratman@...> wrote:
                                > Sure, Lynn, absolutely - but the question at hand wasn't the state of
                                > Hooper's soul nor the fallibility of his humanity. It was the accuracy of
                                > his autobiographical statements and the reliability of his scholarship. On
                                > those questions, humans are not equally fallible.
                                >
                                > DB
                                >
                                > -----Original Message-----
                                >>From: Lynn Maudlin <lynnmaudlin@...>
                                >>Sent: Jun 24, 2008 11:56 PM
                                >>To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
                                >>Subject: [mythsoc] Re: W. H. Lewis's diary
                                >>
                                >>David, I wasn't meaning to attribute any such thoughts or opinions to
                                >>you, rather waxing philosophical in general and in particular in
                                >>response to an area which has been known to spark significant
                                >>differences of opinion among Mythsoc folks. I think we are ALL
                                >>variegated humanity, Hooper, WHL, CSL, Bratman, Maudlin, et.al.
                                >>
                                >>Welcome to the species! {{smooches}}
                                >
                                >
                              • Carl F. Hostetter
                                Or, as I like to say, Never attribute to malice that which is sufficiently explained by stupidity. Carl
                                Message 15 of 15 , Jun 25, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Or, as I like to say, "Never attribute to malice that which is
                                  sufficiently explained by stupidity."

                                  Carl


                                  On Jun 25, 2008, at 1:51 PM, Grace Monk wrote:

                                  > David, I think you have (as usual) hit upon an important distinction.
                                  > One doesn't have to attribute malice or anything else pernicious to
                                  > another who has unreliable scholarship. When dealing with inaccuracy
                                  > and unreliability, the "why" doesn't really matter.
                                  >
                                  > Grace Monk
                                  >
                                  > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:26 PM, David Bratman <dbratman@...
                                  > > wrote:
                                  > > Sure, Lynn, absolutely - but the question at hand wasn't the state
                                  > of
                                  > > Hooper's soul nor the fallibility of his humanity. It was the
                                  > accuracy of
                                  > > his autobiographical statements and the reliability of his
                                  > scholarship. On
                                  > > those questions, humans are not equally fallible.
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.