 |
 | Bibles |  |
|
Paul Bryant-Quinn
|
|
One for Peter Ewart or Martin, perhaps, but all help gratefully appreciated.
In a letter to his father, Pte 'Charles Roberts' notes that
A sentence no doubt intended to warm the cockles of his father's heart (who just happened to be a Methodist minister). To judge from the evidence of the surviving 2/4th records, however, reading his bible was not the only thing our man did in his spare time. However that may have been, can anyone advise: in 1879, were bibles made available to soldiers who wished to have one, and are there any extant examples of these? Who would have provided them? Regards, Paul |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
 |
| |
|
Peter Ewart
|
|
Paul
Almost certain that any bibles being read by soldiers were those they'd taken out with them from home. For obvious reasons, the Welsh among the invasion columns would have been more likely to have done so than the English (a generalisation, I know, but still a pretty safe "given"). Among the English, one would expect non-conformists to have been far more likely to have done so than C of Es, who - although in a majority - were often only nominally Anglicans, in or out of the army, anyway. I have read of Wesleyan efforts in the colonies at trying to create facilities for soldiers to be able to read, study or contemplate, away from the wet canteen or similar temptations (from a Wesleyan magazine I can't lay my hands on this morning). One can easily imagine the parents of any Wesleyan, Baptist or other dissenting chapelite encouraging - even expecting - their son to take a small bible overseas on service. Ditto any devout Anglican, but these latter were unlikely to have been more than a small minority in the army at a time when the urban poor in England were hardly noted for their church-going. It was not at all unknown for soldiers to prefer to keep their faith to themselves as far as possible because of derision from their mates, even at the height of the Victorian era, when one might otherwise have supposed an unquestioning acceptance of religious rectitude. The problem was that the recruiting grounds for the army tended to contain young men who had never been exposed to christianity at home, school or in church. These remarks are general and the picture changed throughout the period, as you know. The increase in literacy among the poor, especially after 1870, was one factor, as well as the increased availability of "facilities" in barracks. The improvement in army chaplains, some of whom had been truly awful earlier in the century, would also have helped. I suspect your chap was happy among his own, even if they were no more than a small coterie. I wonder what he made of the Edendale Wesleyans, who prayed and sang lustily in camp every day of the campaign. Officers, of course, were a different kettle of fish, and I suspect most had a bible among their gear, whether they had time to look at it or not. Gonville Bromhead was apparently a young man who did not attempt to hide his faith, although whether this applied on campaign, who knows? I would imagine the Sunday parades at, say, Fort Napier in Maritzburg involved bibles in the garrison church there. And there is, of course, the case of the "Rorke's Drift bibles." Peter |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Galloglas
Guest
|
|
Paul,
You may be interested in the histoiry of thew various Bible Societies that operated in support of the armed forces since the late 1700s. http://www.nmafbs.org/exec/sam/view/I'd=223/node=228/ Added to which were several purely 'civilian' equivalents, including those who might also hand a Testament to each soldier as they climbed the gangway onto their troopships at the port of embarkation. In religious families it was also quite normal to give a son or husband a small bible as they left home to join the forces or to deploy on operations for their first, and often last, time. Later in the 19th century, not sure of the date, it also became customary to present soldiers with a small bible as they attested and often the actual bible on which they swore the Attestation Oath. This custom continued in the Army until at least the late 1990s. G |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Galloglas
Guest
|
|
Nearly forgot. There was also the Army Scripture Reader (ASR) a scheme still supported by the Royal Army Chaplain's Department today.
http://www.sasra.org.uk/pages/pv.asp?p=sasra87 It would be historically interesting to discover whether there were any ASRs active with the South African Field Force in 1879. G |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
rich
|
|
Peter...
Fine overview to Paul's question. And speaking of Wesleyan, Anglican, Baptisst, etc, did the Catholic fellows say get a mass out in the field? I'd figure the Irish conscripts would look forward to that as well as having the Bibles. |
|||||||||||
|
_________________ Rich
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Haydn Jones
|
|
Paul
Slightly off topic but not totally out of context I hope, your post and Peter's thoughtful (as ever) response reminded me of an amusing anecdote from H C Lugg's A Natal Family Looks Back. He recounts an occasion (circa 1900) when, on being dismissed after a church parade, men of the Zululand Mounted Rifles were ordered by their officer as follows; "Roman Catholics and Church of England to the right, Wesleyans and other fancy religions to stables!". Trust you are well my friend and no doubt delighted that the Canaries - unlike the Bluebirds - will be flying higher come August! Best H |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Paul Bryant-Quinn
|
|
Peter
As ever, a thoughtful and thought-provoking post. Forgive me if I have mentioned this to you before, but in one of his letters the self-same 'Charles Roberts' describes the last service that the Rev'd Meyers [? Myers] - he of the Drift - held with his amaKholwa before his death. 'Roberts' (seemingly not a particularly spiritual man) was evidently moved, and described Meyers' face shining in the sunlight, and of his devotion, despite the fact that he - Meyers - was in his final weakness; and wrote of the Africans' singing hymns in their own language:
I do not know whether Meyers' amaKholwa in the Luneburg region were Zulu or Swazi, however. Galloglas: Fascinating stuff. Are there any examples of these 'attestation' bibles still extant from the 19th century? Rich: I would imagine that the RCs in some of the columns in Zululand would only occasionally have heard Mass. There was, I am fairly sure, a canonical dispensation for Catholic soldiers unable to attend Mass, and if they were practicing Catholics, they would have been advised of the devotional exercises they were expected to fulfill in lieu. Although the Douai bible - the only translation into English approved by the hierarchy at that period - was authorised for lay Catholic use by 1879, it is probably fair to say that bible reading as such was not frequent among working class Catholics at the time. Haydn: good to hear from you my friend. I won't forget in a hurry your kind assistance as I struggled down from the inHlobane! Ah, the Canaries ...  |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
| |
|
AMB
|
|
As an aside, I had an Army Scripture Reader visit my unit only last week. They are still very active in the modern British Army, albeit there are only 14 of them!
AMB |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Galloglas
Guest
|
|
Paul,
Interesting question. I'll see what I can find out from the Chaplains Department museum. But, then as now, the Oath would be administered in English. So, we would expect any surviving bibles used for that purpose to be in English also - especially in an English Regiment like the 24th, with only the 23rd being thought of as being traditrionally Welsh of long standing at the time. Raises the interesting idea of a Welsh bible perhaps being used to provide a 'bit of home' and a reminder of Welshness. It was probably also the greater solace to be able to read the Testament in Welsh where it was the first language of the parental domestic home. G |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Galloglas
Guest
|
|
An oath need only be sworn on something known to a Testament by the person swearing it and by the person administering the oath. The language of the Testament would not necessarily be at issue, but the type of Testament would be since an 'approved' Testament was required to be used.
Those attesting recruits would generally have used one commonly available and also used in the Regimental courts martial of the day. G |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Galloglas
Guest
|
|
And.... They could 'affirm' of course, but I'm not sure when that came in for the purposes of Attestation.
G |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Galloglas
Guest
|
|
This is modern 'today's stuff' but is usually found to have 19th century origins.
59.011. Attestation. Recruits are not to wear head-dress when being paraded before the attesting officer. The attesting officer and the escort are to remove head-dress during the administration of the Oathof Allegiance. Following the administration of the Oathof Allegiance, the attesting officer and escort are to replace head-dress. If a declaration is made instead of an oath, head-dress is not to be removed. Interestingly, an adherent of the Sikh religion (Keshadharis) may not be required to remove the turban worn as their head-dress for the purpose of administering the oath of Allegiance. The oath has changed slightly over the years (over and obove the titling of successive Sovereigns) and is not now exactly the same as that which would have been sworn in the 1870s. G |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Galloglas
Guest
|
|
And another thing. Until the Armed Forces Act of 2006, not all members of the Armed forces were required to swear an Oath of Allegiance on enlistment.
Swearing the oath of allegiance is thenceforward a requirement of the Services for service in Her Majesty�s forces (this is a new provision for the RN because people offering to enter RN service have historically not sworn an oath of allegiance). Swearing the oath of allegiance is viewed as a mark of the individual�s loyalty to the Crown and therefore, their willingness faithfully to serve as a member of the armed forces. The Army form of Oath under the Army Act 1955 had recently been: I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me. So help me God. This conspicuously leaves out the usual principle to be found in other oaths of allegiance (for example those sworn by MPs and Judges) of 'heirs and successors' being 'according to law'. Despite robust precedents in various Acts, the continuation of the hereditary constutional monarchy in England is ultimately vested in the elected Parliament. G |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Peter Ewart
|
|
Fascinating thread you've started here, Paul. Galloglas' suggestions are very interesting - I recall seeing the full page adverts taken by the B&FBS in Crockford during the 19th century.
I've traced a report of the Army Scripture Readers' Society's AGM for 1879/80 in The Times of 20 May 1880. It was presided over and addressed by bishops, generals and CFs, and the question posed above by G can be answered in the affirmative. Their annual report announced: ...In South Africa, on the confines of Zululand, a good work has been carried on among the troops engaged in the operations of the past year. Two readers were sent to the seat of war, and after twelve months of honourable and valuable service they returned, their presence being no longer needed. Plans were afoot to send readers to Cape Colony as soon as the troops quartered there were sufficiently centralised to justify such a proceeding. The report added, in praising the work of the readers: There was no body of men more earnest and zealous than the chaplains of the army. What was essentially necessary was for the chaplains and readers to work in harmony together. (Rev Geo Smith was certainly considered zealous by many, and he'd also been described as earnest as far back as the mid-1860s!) On the same day, the annual meeting of the Soldiers' Friend Society was held (at Exeter Hall) and, that evening, that of the Aborigines Protection Society. (Because of the high profile, especially during the AZW, of the APS, its campaigns received considerable coverage in the press (as you know) with Chesson and his acolytes slugging it out with their detractors in the correspondence columns of The Times or The Guardian on a regular basis). The report here reiterates their opposition to the war, support for the Zulu people and their advocating of the restoration of Cetshwayo, as you'd expect. Yet another organisation, the Peace Society, held its annual meeting that week, The Times giving coverage of their campaign for international disarmament and/or mutual reduction of national military forces, along with mediation and arbitration. (Nothing new under the sun!) Paul, Galloglas has highlighted a couple of very relevant bodies here, and if you can obtain access to The Times through Aber, as I'm sure you should, the date of the issue containing the report is 20 May 1880, page 10, column 1 (or A). Headed up "May Meetings." M(e)yer's kholwa? Zulu or Swazi? I just don't know. Could be a smattering of both or either? Not that many, I suspect. Presumably he had brought them into the laager with him? Peter |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Paul Bryant-Quinn
|
|
Peter
The Times should be available online (it is here, anyway). The Peace Society was headed up by Henry Richard, MP for Merthyr, who also wrote most of its journal's leading articles: I am getting together a piece for publication on Richard's activities during the AZW. As you probably know, Richard and Chesson worked very much in tandem on this issue. Colenso's famous post-Isandlwana sermon was reported and commented on in detail in their publications, and subsequently picked up by others as diverse as The Friend (Quakers) and Y Genedl Gymreig, probably the most widely read Welsh-language newspaper of the time. Interestingly, the Irish Home Rulers, such as A. M. Sullivan (1830�84), made common cause with men like Henry Richard and John Bright in their opposition to the war on moral grounds. You probably know Sullivan's intervention in the House of Commons on February 27 1879: http://www.bartleby.com/268/6/19.html After the war and her father's death, Harriette Colenso continued to correspond with MPs in Wales and Ireland in her campaign on behalf of the abantwana: she obviously felt that in some of them, at least, she had allies. As to how many of the amaKholwa Meyer had with him in the laager, 'Charles Roberts' mentions this too. He says that there were "about a dozen women and half a dozen men"; also that they dressed in European clothing. Roberts notes that this number pretty much represented the fruit of Meyer's missionary endeavours, although he may well have been mistaken about this. There is also a reference to an unspecified book (bible? hymn-book?), presumably either in isiZulu or siSwati; and to Meyer leading the hymns sung by his small congregation. Apparently he had a little wooden cabin built inside the Luneburg laager, which suggests that the fortifications themselves were more than makeshift by that stage (does anyone know when that laager was formed?). Roberts says that Meyer had been ill for some nine years prior to the war, and in a letter dated August 17th he notes that Meyer had died "a few weeks" previously. I visited his grave when I was there in 2006. |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
 | Bibles | |
|
||
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001-2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.