rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic - H. Rider Haggard 'Speaking' Through Allan Quatermain ?

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:56 pm

Having just read 'Finished' by H. Rider Haggard, I do feel the comment he made about Pulleine and Durnford through Quatermain could have been his own opinion that he was afraid to express himself.

I'm sure someone on this site came to the same conclusion.

Coll

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:37 pm

I should have included the following from the book -

'He (Durnford) went down, as I believe dead, and that was the end of a very gallant officer and gentleman whose military memory has in my opinion been most unjustly attacked. The real blame for the disaster does not rest upon the shoulders of either Colonel Durnford or Colonel Pulleine'.

Now would Haggard have dared say this himself in military or civilian circles ?

The only way to know if this was his own view, would be to study Haggard himself and his personal connection to the events of the Anglo-Zulu War 1879.

I'm not sure if he left a diary/journal in which he mentions his true opinions about the men involved and the campaign itself in detail ?

Coll

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:30 pm

Coll
You could look at "CETYWAYO AND HIS WHITE NEIGHBOURS", published in 1882 and downloadable from gutenberg.org, in which Haggard gives his own opinions quite openly.
Rob

Some examples from the first chapter (sorry, can't provide page references):

"The fact of the matter was, that Sir Bartle Frere was a statesman who had the courage of his convictions; he saw that a Zulu disturbance of one kind or another was inevitable, so he boldly took the initiative. If things had gone right with him, as he supposed they would, praise would have been lavished on him by the Home authorities, and he would have been made a peer, and perhaps Governor-General of India to boot; but he reckoned without his Lord Chelmsford, and the element of success which was necessary to gild his policy in the eyes of the home public was conspicuous by its absence."

"The details of the Zulu war are matters of melancholy history, which it is useless to recapitulate here. With the exception of the affair at Rorke's Drift, there is nothing to be proud of in connection with it, and a great deal to be ashamed of, more especially its final settlement. There is, however, one point that I wish to submit to the consideration of my readers, and that is, that Cetywayo was never thoroughly in earnest about the war. If he had been in earnest, if he had been determined to put out his full strength, he would certainly have swept Natal from end to end after his victory at Isandhlwana."

And, referring to the partition of Zululand:
"Sir Garnet Wolseley has the reputation of being an extremely able man, and it is only fair to him to suppose that he was not the sole parent of this political monster, by which all the blood and treasure expended on the Zulu war were made of no account, but that it was partially dictated to him by authorities at home, who were anxious to gratify English opinion, and partly ignorant, partly careless of the consequences. At the same time, it is clear that he is responsible for the details of the scheme, since immediately after the capture of Cetywayo he writes a despatch about them which was considered so important, that a member of his staff was sent to England in charge of it."

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:18 pm

Haggard may well have been voicing his own opinion through the words of his character. It's not unknown for novelists to do so.

There is nothing about Durnford in White Neighbours unless I've missed it but then I wouldn't expect him to be mentioned, as RH espouses his current political opinions in that work more than anything else. His position on Chelmsford, highlighted by Rob above, suggests he may well have thought Durnford had been made a scapegoat. His own job had already brought him into fairly close contact with people like Frere, Bulwer, Shepstone, Wolseley and - quite possibly - Durnford himself, so he'll have had an opinion on these men which may have coloured his views. Regardless of how many well positioned people he may have discussed the war with, though, he wasn't really in a position to apportion or deflect blame. He wasn't at Isandlwana and he wasn't a soldier.

Twenty-odd years later some of his views on the Zulu question had changed. Stephen Coan is the oracle here. If Haggard ever had any personal views on Durnford, Stephen will know. If not, he didn't have any - or never published them anyway. He may well have been putting his own words into Quartermain's mouth but I'd think the evidence shows he was not reticent in putting forth strident views in his own name, even as early as 1882.

Peter

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:38 am

Didn't know I was an oracle (thanks Peter) but having been summoned I better say something.

Haggard did express a personal view on Isandlwana in his contribution to Andrew Lang's The True Story Book (1893), a collection of inspiring tales for children such as 'A Boy Among the Red Indians', 'The Story of Grace Darling', 'The Spartan Three Hundred' and 'The Conquest of Montezuma's Empire'.

Haggard had the proofs of his offering, 'The Tale of Isandhlwana and Rorke's Drift', checked by "my friend Colonel Essex, who was one of the three or four officers in camp who survived the disaster, as subsequently he did those of Laing's Nek and Ingogo." Haggard also made use of the testimonies of Essex and Lieutenant William Dundonald Francis Cochrane to the court of inquiry into the battle.

Haggard gives a factual account of the battle in the course of which he ponders why the British forces did not laager their wagons and rely on their superior fire power as "demonstrated by what happened on the same day at Rorke's Drift" with a much smaller body of men. "Why then it may be asked, did Colonel Durnford, a man of considerable colonial experience, adopt the more risky ... mode of dealing with the present danger, and this in spite of Colonel Pulleine's direct intimation to him that his orders were `to defend the camp'? As it chances, the writer of this account, who knew Colonel Durnford well, and has the greatest respect for the memory of that good officer, and honourable gentleman, is able to suggest an answer to the problem which at the time was freely offered by the Natal colonists. A few years before, it happened that Colonel Durnford was engaged upon some military operations against a rebellious native chief in Natal. Coming into contact with the followers of this chief, in the hope that matters might be arranged without bloodshed, Durnford ordered the white volunteers under his command not to fire, with the result that the rebels fired, killing several of his force and wounding him in the arm. This incident gave rise to an irrational indignation in the colony, and for a while he himself was designated by the ungenerous nickname of `Don't fire Durnford.' It is alleged, none can know with what amount of truth, that it was the memory of this undeserved insult which caused Colonel Durnford to insist upon advancing the troops under his command to engage the Zulus in the open, instead of withdrawing them to await attack in the the comparative safety of a `laager'."

Haggard concludes his account of Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift: "Now it may interest you to know that these last words are written with a pen that was found among the bones of the dead at Isandhlwana."

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:11 pm

All

Thanks very much for the detailed answers.

Rob D.

I see the book can be downloaded free on the Kindle, so I'll be able to do that. Thankyou.

Stephen

Great answer. Could this then mean he was also regaining the initiative, by disallowing the Zulus free movement on the ridge, by using aggressive tactics, which he was prevented from doing at Bushman's Pass, where he was restrained to the point of inaction, by his orders ?

Thanks again

Coll

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:40 pm

Thanks Coll. I won't get into the tactics. I think Haggard just intended to explain why Durnford may have been motivated to be more aggressive and not remain in the camp.

Re Haggard expressing himself via Quatermain - this quote from The Days of My Life refers: "I always find it easy to write of Allan Quatermain, who, after all, is only myself set in a variety of imagined situations, thinking my
thoughts and looking at life through my eyes."

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:53 pm

Stephen

Yes. I've read/heard that novelists sometimes tend to include a part of themselves in their books, either through one or several different characters, perhaps Haggard himself expressing his own adventurous spirit in the form of Allan Quatermain. Also, their various political stances, etc., in their real lives, can filter into the writing.

The former I can understand, meaning if I could write a book about Isandlwana, I'd probably try to include my own thoughts and actions I would have taken in the creating of the main character.

Additionally, that was an intriguing last line in your first post about the pen - is it known if he kept it always ?

Thanks

Coll

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:08 pm

Presumably he did - but that is the only reference to it I have come across.

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:28 pm

Thanks Stephen.

Coll

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:29 pm

Hi.
In case anyone's interested, Andrew Lang's "The True Story Book" (1893) which as Steven said includes Haggard's ''The Tale of Isandhlwana and Rorke's Drift'" is also available for download from gutenberg.org
Rob

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:07 pm

Rob

Thanks for the info.

Coll

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:26 am

Durnford ordered the white volunteers under his command not to fire

My understanding was that Durnford was under strict orders from "higher up" that he and his men were not to fire until fired upon and it was that constraint that caused the Bushman's Pass debacle. So where did I read that this was his "Rules of Engagement" and who ordered them?

Sorry, HRH, but wasn't the subsequent uproar more a result of Durnford's condemnation of the less than heroic behavior of the colonial troops?

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:56 pm

Sawubona,

He was criticised for several things - not firing (which were his orders), getting men killed, and in the aftermath, referred to the men that fled as cowards.

I've yet to get the book 'Langlabile(?) And The Natal Carbineers', which apparently covers the Bushman's Pass incident in detail.

I seem to recall he was actually praised for his actions.

Coll

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:20 am

Coll

As I told you in a previous post a few years ago, if you want to understand the Bushman's River Pass incident, then read R.O. Pearse et al., Langalibalele and the Natal Carbineers, which contains first hand accounts of what took place. Durnford, I should add, was exonerated for his behaviour there by a C of I. This did not excuse his actions at Isandlwana but I hasten to beg you not to go down that track again.

KIS