Tango01 | 04 Jun 2016 10:27 p.m. PST |
…March of the British Troops under Sir John Moore; 1809. See here link Amicalement Armand |
Gazzola | 05 Jun 2016 2:33 a.m. PST |
Tango01 From what I can see it claims it was written 'By an Officer' but I can see no statement of who that officer may be? If the name is not known, I'm not really sure it is worth considering? |
King Monkey | 05 Jun 2016 6:48 a.m. PST |
It was written by Sir Robert Ker Porter. link |
Tango01 | 05 Jun 2016 11:05 a.m. PST |
Mr. King is right… Amicalement Armand |
Gazzola | 05 Jun 2016 2:39 p.m. PST |
I found it odd that his name did not appear in the manuscript unless I missed it? I also found it odd that the author was classed as an officer, which gave the impression that he was a serving officer in Moore's army in 1809. It turns out he wasn't. He was a civilian artist and traveller and the only connection to being an officer was when he was appointed as a captain in the Westminster Militia in 1803. After that he became the historical painter to the Czar of Russia and was later made a knight. Earlier though, it appears that he was persuaded by his family not to fulfil his desire to follow a military career. |
Ben Avery | 05 Jun 2016 3:10 p.m. PST |
It's fairly obvious, surely? He's writing for an audience at home, hence some of the lurid headings and non-military anecdotes. 'An Officer' is to lend some authority. |
Gazzola | 06 Jun 2016 5:04 p.m. PST |
Not really. 'Authority' would be added if the reader knew who the hell was actually writing it and if he was employed as an officer in Moore's army or not. As it turns out, and I have already mentioned, he was not in the army and the book gives no indication of who he is. We only know from 'others' telling us he wrote this book. |
Ben Avery | 07 Jun 2016 3:34 a.m. PST |
This seems a trivial matter to be getting so het up about. Tango has linked period texts in the past and I think it's a given that they tend to be subjective and for entertainment as much as a matter of historical record. Sometimes they didn't have the author's name on or used pseudonyms. I'm not sure what you don't understand by the use of 'lend' though. He had been an officer (we don't seem to know when he resigned his commission in the militia), he was with Moore in Spain and he wrote a book for people at home, adding some colour to proceedings. I suspect that some knew who the vaguely-titled officer was and most of the others who bought the book wouldn't care that he wasn't a regular or even an officer. He'd been there and that was enough for them. |
Gazzola | 07 Jun 2016 6:41 a.m. PST |
Ben Avery How would the purchaser of his book 'know' he had really been to Spain and was with Moore? Most of the general public would not have a clue if that was true or not because they do not know who he was, so it could not be confirmed. They would have to just believe his claim he had done so in his preface and that he wasn't making it all up. But I'm not 'het' up. I'm just curious that, rather than the name of the author being displayed in the book, it just states the author was an officer. And yes, a shame we do not know if the author actually was still an officer in the Militia at the time, although, considering he had left to became the Czar's artist, suggests he was no longer one. And I could see no mention by him that he was a serving officer when with Moore, although it is interesting that in his preface he claims he had 'bled' in Spain when with Moore, which suggests, if true, he may have seen or taken part in some action? Or fell over or something and cut himself? Personally, I think he (or the publisher) probably decided to record the author as 'by an Officer' because he (or they) felt the readers may not have considered it had the same clout, had it stated it was written 'by a Civilian or the Czar's artist'. And the publisher, from what I can see, tended to publish works for the general public, so they obviously wanted it to sell. Perhaps the author requested his name not to be known, possibly in case others who served with Moore may have challenged him on some points? Who knows? Yes, I think it should be read more for entertainment value than anything else and I hope Tango01 keeps linking such old titles, although preferably those bearing the author's name. LOL |
Ben Avery | 07 Jun 2016 7:36 a.m. PST |
Light certainly seems to be dawning, at least. Maybe you could read it and identify where the writing could be challenged? |
Gazzola | 08 Jun 2016 3:00 p.m. PST |
Ben Avery I'm sorry, I thought you would have understood that in terms of challenges (or approval) that would be by others who had been with Moore and who either agreed or disagreed with whatever the author had written or claimed. Is that clear for you now? In terms of my own reading, I prefer to read books bearing the authors name so that they could be quoted from if the occasion arose as part of research or debate. |
Ben Avery | 09 Jun 2016 4:18 a.m. PST |
No, it wasn't particularly clear. You asked the question, 'Perhaps the author requested his name not to be known, possibly in case others who served with Moore may have challenged him on some points? Who knows?' One way to consider if your suggestion is likely is to read it and see how the account of events in general matches up with other sources. If it's wide of the mark; your suggestion might have merit, if it's pretty close to what is generally accepted, then perhaps there's another reason. As for the author's anonymity, a search for the title on google brings up the google book on the first search page, with author's name link Isn't the internet wonderful? |
Gazzola | 10 Jun 2016 3:10 a.m. PST |
Ben Avery 'possibly in case others who served with Moore may have challenged him on some points' And that was not clear to you. Hmm, you are oddly very defensive over this author, aren't you? And please try to stop being clever. It does not work and it is very embarrassing to read. Yes, THE REPRINT does bear his name, but it was NOT put on the book by the author, as the first link with the original title displays. The publishers of the reprint have obviously decided to add the name to give it more clout, as I imagine sales would certainly be affected had it just shown 'by and Officer'. Yes, the internet is wonderful. Ho hum! |
Ben Avery | 10 Jun 2016 5:26 a.m. PST |
I'm sorry for embarrassing you Gazzola. I'll stop now. |
138SquadronRAF | 10 Jun 2016 6:30 a.m. PST |
Gazzola, quick question; did you actually read the text? I'm finding it entertaining. Next question, is it an original source? Is there any suggestion that the author wasn't with Moore's army? Yes, the author or publisher may be guilty of misrepresentation but does that completely taint the source? No suggestion that it ghost written, unlike say Thibault? |
Gazzola | 11 Jun 2016 7:28 a.m. PST |
138SquadronRAF I read a bit but it did not grab me enough to continue, although that may be because I am in the middle of reading and researching other works and campaigns. But I am not trying to put the book or the author down, I am just puzzled as to why his name did not appear on the original and why they recorded him as an officer, when he was a civilian artist at the time? He was well known for his travels and sketches and had produced an earlier work Travelling Sketches in Russia and Sweden during the years 1805-1808. Interestingly, this title, published in 1809, did bear his name, which makes it all the more puzzling as to why his name did not appear on his book covering his travels with Moore? Perhaps his travels in Russia did not go down too well? I did see it one bio that the author was described as 'showing neither remarkable literary faculty nor any special powers of observation'. A bit harsh and I am not saying I agree with that view, but that may have been one reason to support the different publisher marking the book as being written 'By an officer'. A little white lie to sell books, who knows? |