rorkesdriftvc.com Forum Index


rorkesdriftvc.com
Discussions related to the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879
Reply to topic
Haggard's Letter To His Father Regarding Col. Durnford ?
Coll
Guest

Reply with quote
On searching the internet I found a site with details about Haggard and the AZW, on reading which, I was surprised to read the following sentence about Col. Durnford in a letter Haggard had written to his father -

"...who, though a nice fellow personally, was a headstrong rash man, and irony of fate, a violent Zulu partisan "

This seems quite a harsh comment, after previous comments I've read on Haggard's apparent 'defence' of Durnford.

Is the above quote from the letter true ?

Coll
Michael Boyle


Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 595
Location: Bucks County,PA,US
Reply with quote
Hi Coll

It does seem to be from a letter Haggard wrote to his father on 31 Jan 1879 as a follow-up to a brief note he dispatched on the 28th informing him of the disaster at Isandlwana, the following link may provide some food for thought. (It is quite long but also quite informative containing some references that also seem to give weight to the BRP thinking that I had tried to argue against previously. Cogitation time again!)

http://literarytourism.ukzn.ac.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&I'd=29&Itemid=30

Best

Michael
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Coll
Guest

Reply with quote
Michael

Are you meaning the point made about the incident at Bushman's Pass having some bearing on how Durnford was thinking and the actions he took at Isandlwana ?

I do think it is true, but not in the way of affecting his judgement on a personal level, as in, somehow evening the score. More in the fact that this time he could make decisions without a 'hold your fire' order hanging over his head, and he could 'deal in lead' instead of words.

He definitely didn't like being 'contained', possibly feeling 'boxed in' with the enemy moving around the surrounding areas which the camp was blinded from. He probably felt, and rightly so, that the area was not secure, wishing to clear any areas presenting a threat. Obviously, as we all know, without the knowledge that the Zulu army itself was nearby.

Coll
Michael Boyle


Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 595
Location: Bucks County,PA,US
Reply with quote
Coll

No, I haven't changed my thinking in that regard. I was refering more to what extent the "Langalibalele Affair" still affected contemporary thinking in 1879. The article cited raised enough of a question in my mind to try and find time to go back over the "Red Book" again with more of an eye toward specifics since I still don't recall much contemporay reference in the myriad of newspaper articles presented there.

I was also surprised, given Haggard's use of central Zulu themes in many of his works, that the only time he had visited Zululand was in 1914. He was of course primarily a novelist and heavily influenced by Sir Theophilus Shepstone so there is much to weighed there as well. Even in placing Alan Quartermain in the midst of the Isandlwana battle he did seem to take remarkably little artistic license with the then standard view of how things played out though.

Best

Michael
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Coll

Haggard's remarks don't seem too unusual to me, and certainly no more harsh than other descriptions of Durnford, either at the time or since.

He described him as "headstrong & rash." As you'll know from your continued interest in Durnford, this was fairly routine stuff from anyone involved in the British military effort in Zululand in 1879 or from many connected with the civil administration of Natal in the 1870s, particularly after the Bushmans River Pass.

Haggard had been 200 miles away so cannot have been speaking of Durnford's peformance at Isandlwana from personal experience. However, he would have been already familiar with the general views of Natal's citizens and press on Durnford, of which "headstrong and rash" were not untypical, and by then (late Jan 1879) may also have been aware of the general stories/rumours/opinions coming out of the border area and PMB which were beginning to place at least part of the blame on Durnford. I'm not sure if Durnford had yet been blamed in the local press by the end of the month, but letters were certainly flying around Natal and the Transvaal, most of which of course have never seen publication. It seems to me, therefore, that Haggard was merely saying (in a private letter which he never expected to be published) what many others were saying, and perhaps in more discreet language than others.

The fact that many years later he tempered these views appears to show that he was once again speaking not from experience (he couldn't have done) but from the knowledge of much of what had been said and written by others subsequently. The matter had been chewed over publicly for many years and he would certainly have been aware of all the post-1879 counter-arguments defending Durnford, so it appears that he was merely - again - reflecting the received wisdom of the time. Here, perhaps, is an example of the reminder that when we deal with personal testimonies or written accounts generally - primary or secondary - great caution has to be exercised. A man giving his account of the affair at the time may expound upon matters on which he has no specific personal knowledge, and then 40 years later can appear to give a rounded, mature, considered opinion - but that opinon only exists because of all he has assimilated over the years and is far from a personal account. An example of this is seen in Smith-Dorrien's letters to his father in 1879 (he can only have written reliably on what he actually saw); and then his account of the affair (and his part in it) in his memoirs over 40 years later, much of which, it seems to me, looks very unreliable indeed. Both Haggard's contemporary and later versions come into this category, I believe.

With regard to Haggard's words about the irony of Durnford's fate in view of his "violent Zulu partisan[ship]", he wasn't, of course, saying anything harsh here. Quite the opposite. Haggard was noting how ironic it was that Durnford should die at the hands of the Zulu after demonstrating his support for them and other local peoples in the past. Even though Haggard came late to the scene (1875) he would have been acutely aware of Durnford's public position locally with regard to the plight of the Phutile and Hlubi people in the aftermath of the Langalibalele affair and of the deep political divisions in Natal caused by the Colenso/Durnford agitation, not least the recall of Pine. He would have been even more aware of Durnford's role at Rorke's Drift as one of the three who settled the boundary dispute largely in favour of the Zulu king. "Violent partisan" is just the sort of language one might expect a Natal colonist to use to describe him at that time (and it seems certain to me that Haggard was privy to the decision of the commission - and Durnford's role in it - long before the public at large were, just as his close friend Coghill had been).

All I can see are the words which many a colonist or British officer would have used at that time (perhaps not intended as particularly harsh) and, in his later writings (quoted in the article Michael points out) some rather more considered views which might be expected after having read and spoken widely about the affair during the intervening period.

Peter
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Mike Snook


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 130
Reply with quote
Coll

With the greatest of respect, it is not true that he didn't know the Zulu army was nearby. He went looking for it, the moment he was told 'the Zulus are retiring everywhere'. Remember that Pope's diary proves that the estimate of enemy strength (in the immediate vicinity of Isandlwana)which had been bandied about the camp was at least 7,000 men. Durnford's deployments, (amounting to a pincer movement on the general area of the Ngwebeni Valley) show that he had a pretty good idea where he might find it too.

Regards

Mike
View user's profileSend private message
Haggard's Letter To His Father Regarding Col. Durnford ?
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT  
Page 1 of 1  

  
  
 Reply to topic