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

Re: [mythsoc] Re: W. H. Lewis's diary

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.