History From The Forest April 2015 by History from the Forest

Vol . I I I I s s u e No . 1 Apr i l 2 0 1 5

Uni v e r s i t yofS ou t hWa l e sS t u de ntHi s t or yJ ou r na l

Edi t e db y AmyCa nnon, Ce r i Ca r t e r , S e a nLoc k , Da r r e nMa c e y , Chr i s t ophe rMa t t he ws&S a ma nt haRi c k a r ds

Editorial Team Amy Cannon Ceri Carter Sean Lock Darren Macey Christopher Matthews Samantha Rickards

Contents Editorial Samantha Rickards

Preserving a Dynasty: The Creation of the Tudor Myth Hannah Fatkin

The Whitehall Conference 1655 and the readmission of the Jews Ceri Carter

‘Fitba an’a bevvy, pal!’: The shifting popularity of leisure pursuits in twentieth century Scotland. Amy Cannon

Would the real Dr Strangelove please stand up? Darren Macey

Talking Blues: A conversation with Dr Christian O’Connell Darren Macey

Editorial Croeso and welcome to the third volume of History from the Forest. Firstly, we’d like to say a huge thank you and well done to all those involved in every stage of production of this publication, this issue and the success of our others is a testament to the enormous amount of effort put in by editors and authors alike, despite an incredibly stressful couple of months. We’ve had a brilliant response for this issue, including submissions from many authors who went through the editing process for the first time. Our first article is a contribution made by undergraduate student Hannah Fatkin, who takes an in-depth and interesting look at the creation and preservation of the dynastic myth of the Tudors, exploring the complex relationships between monarch and state when securing a lasting legacy. The discussion takes an interesting angle of approach to this topic, being cantered not around the question of whether a lasting myth was created, but rather was it a myth that the monarchs would have been happy to be associated with. Remaining in early modern Britain, postgraduate student, editor and one of the founders of History from the Forest Ceri Carter discusses the issue Oliver Cromwell faced over readmitting the Jews to England in a prosopographical study of the Whitehall Conference of 1655 debating the subject. Delving into the backgrounds of each attendee of the conference, Carter provides a unique insight into seventeenth century political and religious life. Moving forward to twentieth century Scotland, undergraduate student and editor Amy Cannon provides an intriguing look at the cultural history of the north, focusing on how leisure pursuits changed and progressed due to key socioeconomic factors affecting the country. The economy, the Great War and a claimed obsession with the cinema are discussed as potential influencing characterises of the era. Straddling the globe and paraphrasing Stanley Kubrick in his title, undergraduate student and editor Darren Macey takes us to the brink of nuclear oblivion. He provides an intelligent discussion on the nature and origins of the Cold War, describing the Cold War as an ideological struggle often fought by proxy and on battlefields as diverse as popular culture and historical debate. Macey’s thesis seeks to gain an understanding of the major protagonist’s motivations and societal prejudices. He maintains that gaining an understanding of the habitual nature of their

misconceptions, which often governed their actions, offers a more rounded understanding of the development of the conflict as a whole. Remaining across the pond, undergraduate student Emma Atkins shows us the glitz and glamour of America in the 1920s…and how disillusionment led to a ‘lost generation’ when the depression eventually hit home. Addressing the key stereotypes of the era perpetrated by both the contemporary media and fictional works of today, Atkins provides an innovative deliberation on whether these were true reflections on America in an era of such discontent. Finally, we have a special piece written by Darren Macey in which he interviews Dr Christian O’Connell of the University of Gloucestershire, a senior lecturer of American history who recently visited the university to give a performance on the ‘Discovery of Blues’. In the interview, Macey takes inspiration from this talk to discuss the history of blues with Dr O’Connell, as well as asking about O’Connell’s own past and gaining some fantastic guidance for budding historians. Thank you all for your continued support, and we hope you enjoy this issue as much as we have enjoyed putting it together! Samantha Rickards Lead Editor

Preserving a Dynasty: The Creation of the Tudor Myth By Hannah Fatkin Beginning with the Wars of the Roses, through the English Reformation and ending with Elizabeth’s Golden Age, the reign of the Tudors is arguably the most famous in British history. Renowned for their very different reputations, this royal family has come to be known as a single, very dynamic dynasty. However, whether they wished to be remembered as a collective is questionable. Did the Tudor monarchs endeavour, as a united family, to create a representation of themselves that would live on for centuries to come? There are many reasons why this may not necessarily have been the case. From studying the importance of Henry VIII’s Succession Acts to Mary I’s Catholicism, it is suggestible that although each worked to secure their individual self-image, the Tudors had no interest of doing so as a dynasty. Not only could the effect of time have distorted our perceptions of the Tudor monarchs, but in an attempt to understand their reign, we may have created an entirely new Tudor myth; one which could only have materialised after their demise and one they never intended to hold. This essay shall attempt to question the assumptions made about the Tudor myth with reference primarily to Henry VIII, Mary I and Elizabeth I. Did these monarchs create their own myth? And if so, were they effective in their efforts? By studying the extent of control the monarchs had over their image, as well as considering these initial questions in a number of different ways, we should be able to discover the real myth behind the Tudors. There is an undeniable assumption that the Tudors actively created a myth that would live on after their deaths. Nevertheless, when considering the reigns of the separate monarchs, it seems just as important to first contemplate the possible influence of other people. Were the Tudors responsible for the way we remember them today, or is their legacy largely the result of their advisors and followers? If we consider, for example, Elizabeth’s entrance to London before her coronation, the different pageants of her procession were designed solely by others. One contemporary account stated that ‘after Her Grace understood the meaning [of them], she thanked the City’. 1 Indications like this throughout the entire account imply that Elizabeth Elizabeth’s Coronation Entrance, ‘The passage of our most drad soueraigne Lady Quene Elyzabeth through the citie of London to Westminster the daye before her coronacion’, Anno (B.L. R. Tothill: London, 1558) 4º. (UK) MP1.0001113984. 1

herself had little input in the proceedings, and instead she thanked the City for what they had created. If an occasion as important as this was produced by others, then perhaps other important royal events had also been the responsibility of people other than the monarch. Bishop John Aymler even suggested in 1559 that ‘if the Parliament use their privileges the King can ordain nothing without them’. 2 This emphasises that despite their efforts, the Tudors did not entirely have control over their portrayal as individuals. If this is so, then it is important to understand the potential role of others. These varying points suggest that the myth that we remember of the Tudors today was largely shaped by other people. Although this may not immediately seem an important detail to focus on when considering the creation of the Tudor myth, it reveals that what we remember of the monarchs today was not necessarily their own doing. They may never have intended to create the legacy that we now recognise; they may instead have hoped to create a representation of themselves that was rather different. It may be that by being forced to rely on other people in their attempts to create a lasting impression of themselves, the myth that they had anticipated was transformed. On the other hand, even if the monarchs did not have total control over it, a myth was created, and one which has lasted to the present day. Perhaps the most prominent way the Tudor monarchs could attempt to control their image was through portraiture, which often worked in the form of propaganda. More of a political statement than a picture, the monarchs could use commissioned portraits to develop a specific image among their subjects, thus adding to any myth that existed of them. With possibly the most famous images of the Tudors being their individual portraits, it is difficult to argue that their portrayal is anything but personal. However, what is interesting is whether or not the monarchs were effective in using portraiture to aid their chosen myth. The word myth is often thought to mean a false idea, thus implying that the images the Tudors presented were not always accurate. If we consider, for example, images such as that of Henry VIII in the Whitehall Mural, he is depicted as a powerful monarch; whilst in reality we know that he possessed lingering injuries following a serious jousting accident the year before. 3 Indeed, some of Henry VIII’s most famous portraits were created towards the end of his reign, after this incident that left him with difficulties for the remainder of his life. Therefore the image of the strong, masculine figure who appears perfectly able may not have been a true representation of the man G.R. Elton, The Tudor Constitution: Documents and Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960) p.16. 3 Artist: Hans Holbein, ‘The Whitehall Mural’ (1537) [Portrait], <http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/leemput.jpg> [accessed 9 April 2015]. 2

himself. This powerful depiction of Henry is, today, still one of the most recognisable Tudor images, and the preservation of such a myth is a testimony to the influence of portraiture. A weapon used throughout the reign of all the Tudors, portraits were just as significant in the later reigns of Mary I and Elizabeth I. Elizabeth went to the extreme of insisting on the use of a ‘pattern’ image of her face in all portraits, ensuring she would approve of all that were created of her. An example of this is the Ditchley Portrait, in which her depiction is significantly similar to portraits more than ten years earlier. 4 Such tight control over representation signifies an obvious importance in maintaining their image and, consequently, their legacy. In the case of Elizabeth, these images represent her as ‘no ordinary woman’. 5 Portraits added to perceptions of the Tudors that already existed, and Elizabeth in particular used them to her advantage, creating an authoritative myth of herself. These examples show just how effective portraits were in establishing a monarch’s reputation. Yet they also proved powerful in a more negative way, as can be established by evaluation of specific images of Mary I. It has been said of her portraits that she is merely a ‘rather plain woman, who wins our sympathy but does not command our respect’. 6 This is not an independent view of the Queen, who was thought to have been greatly undermined by Antonis Mor in what is now possibly her more famous portrait. 7 Compared with the success of both Henry and Elizabeth in creating desirable representations of themselves, Mary illustrates that portraits were powerful both in aiding and in degrading a monarch. Control over the creation of propaganda was central to the Tudors, and although it aided the myth of certain monarchs, it was not always effective in the desired way. Although the Tudor monarchs had an active role in creating desirable self-representations, they also became increasingly involved in suppressing any negative depictions. As may be expected, they developed a significant authority in their elimination of negative publicity, advancing most noticeably from the 1554 Treason Act under Mary I. Targeting those who said malicious things of the monarchy ‘by writing, painting, overt deed or act’, the act showed that there was a growing need for restriction, and an immense sense of pride in the Tudor image. 8 Book burning became increasingly popular during the Tudor dynasty, with more and more prohibited works being Artist: Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger, ‘The Ditchley Portrait’ (1592) [Portrait], <http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portraitLarge/mw02079/Queen-Elizabeth-I-The-Ditchleyportrait> [accessed 9 April 2015]. 5 Julia M. Walker, Dissing Elizabeth: Negative Representations of Gloriana (Durham: Duke University Press, 1998), p.35. 6 Penry Williams, The Later Tudors: England 1547-1603 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p.86. 7 Artist: Antonis Mor, ‘Queen Mary I (1554) [Portrait], <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonis_Mor#mediaviewer/File:Mary_I_of_England.jpg> 8 Elton, The Tudor Constitution (1960), p.71. 4

announced. 9 Yet in spite of this, such an inefficient and inconsistent action would have undoubtedly come across problems of enforcement, raising the question of its effectiveness. None of the books targeted were entirely eliminated, and that we know of them today confirms their survival. However, it may be that this wasn’t the primary aim. Perhaps book burning was intended to be more of a ‘demonstration of authority, not an annihilation of forbidden works’. 10 As this interpretation clearly indicates, although the suppression of negative works was considered important, the Tudors thought that asserting their authority was more helpful to their image. There was some sincerity in this suppression, which also extended to the theatre. A small reference to Elizabeth I is made in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, a testimonial which was allowed to remain by the Queen, yet a scene of abdication was removed from Richard II as it was deemed potentially damaging to Elizabeth’s reputation. 11 Even in a play, Elizabeth thought that a monarch abdicating would raise negative thought about her own reign as Queen. There was also a suggestion that King Lear reflected negativity towards Elizabeth, as Lear lives in a world that has been unwillingly dominated by women. 12 These are, of course, very tenuous links to the reign of Elizabeth, yet the fact that they were even considered shows the serious attitude which was taken towards negative publicity. This growing attack on undesirable depictions of the monarchy tells us there was a need for the Tudors to preserve their image, on their terms. Nonetheless, through Mary’s Treason Act and culminating in Elizabeth’s control over theatre, we can also see a development in the authority shown by the Tudors, illustrating a clear progression of control throughout the duration of the Tudor ‘dynasty’. Having studied the possible creation of a Tudor myth, it is also important to consider the influence of time. There were undoubtedly specific depictions of the monarchs at the time of their reign, and we now also have distinct opinions of them. Yet these views are not necessarily the same, and the difference is testament to the effect time can have on a myth. The name ‘Tudor’, for example, was never used by the monarchs, but is now a trademark by which we know them so well. In such subtle ways as introducing the use of their surname, the Tudor dynasty is now often suggested as united, despite the monarchs appearing to have had no intention of such unification. As C.S.L. Davies has already identified, if we forget the Tudors are of the same dynasty, there ‘seems no reason to bundle [them] into a conceptual unity’; it is David Cressy, ‘Book Burning in Tudor and Stuart England’, The Sixteenth Century Journal, 36.2 (2005), p.360. 10 Cressy, ‘Book Burning in Tudor and Stuart England’ (2005), p.374. 11 Richard II’s Treasure (In Collaboration with the Institute of Historical Research), ‘Richard II: On Stage’ (2007)<http://www.history.ac.uk/richardII/onstage.html> [accessed 23 March 2015]. 12 Patrick Collinson, ‘Elizabeth I and the Verdicts of History’, Historical Research, 76.194 (2003), p.480. 9

merely the constant reinterpretation of the media that has done so. 13 In reality they were disjointed and singular, displaying that there are more reasons to suggest very individual reigns than a united dynasty. There are several examples that argue this singularity to be the case: Henry VIII’s Succession Acts sparked hostilities by declaring his daughters illegitimate in favour of his son Edward; Edward VI’s decision to disregard his sisters and name Lady Jane Grey as Queen, despite her not being of the Tudor name, and Mary’s strict Catholicism amongst a family of Protestants, resulting in her famous name ‘Bloody Mary’. 14 There is an undeniable individuality present in all the Tudor monarchs. This is mirrored in a response by Elizabeth who, when urged to marry by Parliament simply said, ‘I happily chose this kind of life’. 15 She chose not to marry despite the expectations of Parliament, and against the usual course taken by monarchs including her own family. Elizabeth made the choice to create a myth on her own terms, rather than for anybody else. This form of individuality that is present throughout much of the Tudor rule illustrates that the monarchs never intended to create a ‘dynastic’ myth. However, the effect of time has collected them together in a dynasty, and it is perhaps the fact that they were so individual that makes the monarchs so unexpectedly similar. Although undoubtedly very separate rulers, they are all memorable amongst other monarchs in history due to their determined individuality. Noticeable in each Tudor monarch, this prominent individuality can be recognised as a similarity they all share, uniting them in the most unlikely way. Although it has been proved that the Tudors had no intention of creating a dynastic myth, the perspective that time gives has allowed us to determine that united is exactly what the Tudors are, and it is their differences to other monarchs that make them so alike. In conclusion, whether or not the Tudors intended to create a myth, a myth was nonetheless made. However, there are some indications that they did exercise control over the way they were presented. The use of portraiture combined with an increasing suppression of negative publicity implies that the Tudor monarchs were careful to create a positive myth of themselves. What is more difficult to understand is the extent to which their myth is dynastic. The differences between the monarchs, such as the growing tension of religious differences and the way this influenced decisions, very evidently show the personal side to their myth. Yet, though the very disjointed Tudor monarchs evidently had no intention to create a united myth, the effect of time has done this for them. They are remembered together for a reason, and new perspectives have C.S.L. Davies, ‘Tudor: What’s In a Name?’, History, 97.325 (2012), p.34. Elton, The Tudor Constitution (1960), p.9. 15 Paul Halsall, Queen Elizabeth I: Speeches and Letters (1998). <http://www.csulb.edu/~ssayeghc/tudorstuart/goldenspeech.htm> [accessed 14 March 2015] 13 14

proved that through their determined differences, the Tudors were very much alike. It is because they are so similarly controversial that they are now deemed a dynasty, and the result is the creation of a very effective, very personal, and very dynastic Tudor myth.

The Whitehall Conference 1655 and the readmission of the Jews By Ceri Carter In December 1655, ‘several Doctors, and other Preachers, godly men, and some Merchants and Lawyers … and others of the Councel [sic]’ met in the presence of Lord Oliver Cromwell; their purpose, to discuss the prospect of allowing the Jews to re-enter England following their expulsion by Edward I in 1290. 1 The champion of this cause was the Amsterdam based Rabbi, Menasseh ben Israel, whom had addressed his book The Hope of Israel to Oliver Cromwell in the hopes that it would convince Cromwell of the merits of allowing the readmission of the Jews to England as well as dispelling the racial and cultural misconceptions surrounding the Jews. 2 In the same year as the Whitehall conference, Menasseh visited England to petition Cromwell personally and to rally support. Menasseh was fully aware of the political and religious changes that had occurred in England since the Civil War with the seemingly increasing toleration towards diverse religions. Not only had England established a reputation for being more tolerant, there had also been a rise in interest in Judaism, otherwise known as philo-semitism, from prominent protestant figures in England. Cromwell himself was sympathetic to the plight of the Jews and convened the conference to discuss the issue. 3 A record of the conference proceedings was documented by one of the attendees, believed to be Henry Jessey, published in 1656 entitled A narrative of the late proceeds at White-Hall concerning the Jews (for full title see footnote 1). 4 This paper will discuss the Whitehall conference by looking at the biographical backgrounds of the attendees; a small prosopographical study has been undertaken using the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography or ODNB (as well as History of Parliament Online) and a blog to collate the data to map any connections and correlations Henry Jessey, A Narrative of the Late Proceeds at White-Hall Concerning the Jews Who Had Desired by R. Manasses an Agent for Them, That They Might Return into England, and Worship the God of Their Fathers Here in Their Synagogues, &c. : Published for Satisfaction to Many in Several Parts of England, That Are Desirous, and Inquisitive to Hear the Truth Thereof., Early English Books, 1641-1700 (London: Printed for L. Chapman, 1656). 2 Menasseh ben Israel, The Hope of Israel, Early English Books, 1641-1700 (London : Printed by R.I. for Livewell Chapman, 1652). 3 John C. Lassiter, ‘Philo-Semitism and Anti-Catholicism in Restoration England: The Conversion of the Jews in Protestant Polemic, 1660-1688’, The Proceedings of the South Carolina Historical Association, 2004, 27– 36 (p. 28). 4 Ernestine G. E. Van Der Wall, ‘A Philo-Semitic Millenarian on the Reconcilliation of Jews and Christians: Henry Jessey and His “The Glory and Salvation of Jehudah and Israel” (1650)’, in Sceptics, millenarians, and Jews, ed. by David S Katz, Jonathan I Israel, and Richard H Popkin (Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1990), pp. 162–84. 1

between the attendees. Henry Jessey and his role in writing the account of the conference shall also be explored as well as examining the role that philo-semitism and Millenarianism played in the question of Jewish readmission and religious tolerance. The history of the Jews is synonymous with that of persecution and expulsion; the Jewish people’s experience is seen as the archetypal diaspora, so much so that the term itself was initially used solely to describe the early history of the Jews. 5 The concept of diaspora has also become an integral part of Jewish identity, with Jews recognising themselves as a dispersed people having been exiled from their ‘homeland’, Jerusalem, after its capture and destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 CE during the Great Jewish Revolt and the Bar Kokhba Revolt in 132 CE. 6 Arguably the most famous example of Jewish persecution, other than that in Nazi Germany, is the fate suffered by the Hebrews at the hands of the Egyptians as told in the Bible; however, the persecution and expulsion of the Jews is not just confined to modern and biblical history. Jews were originally expelled from England and Wales by Edward I in 1290, with any Jew remaining to be put to death; however, some Jews did remain, albeit without the knowledge of most Christian inhabitants. 7 There had been attempts to oust the Ashkenazi Jews from Warsaw and Krakow in the 1480s, but Jews were so thoroughly ingrained within Polish social and economic foundations that it was impossible to expel them. 8 In 1492, Ferdinand and Isabella banished the Jews from the Iberian Peninsula, many of which made their way to Amsterdam, as well as some finding themselves in England and the Ottoman Empire. 9 One of those Sephardic Jews from Portugal was Menasseh ben Israel and his parents; they had been living their lives as Marranos (secret Jews) before their emigration. 10 Jessey insists upon the struggles of the Jews to beseech support for the Jewish readmission: Because many Jews are now in very great streighs in many places; multitudes in Polonia [Poland], Lithuania, and Prussia, by the late wars by the Swedish, Cossacks and others, being driven away from thence… 11

Irving M. Zeitlin, Jews: The Making of a Diaspora People (Cambridge: Polity, 2012), p. 1 <http://capitadiscovery.co.uk/southwales-ac/items/636386> [accessed 14 May 2014]. 6 ‘DIASPORA’, Jewish Encyclopedia <http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5169-diaspora> [accessed 30 May 2014]. 7 David S Katz, Philo-Semitism and the Readmission of the Jews to England, 1603-1655 (Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press ; Oxford University Press, 1982), pp. 1–2. 8 Zeitlin, Jews, pp. 83–84. 9 Lassiter, ‘Philo-Semitism and Anti-Catholicism’, p. 28. 10 David S Katz, ‘Menasseh Ben Israel’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2007) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/17916> [accessed 23 May 2014]. 11 Jessey, Narrative, p. 3. 5

Despite this seeming hatred for the Jews, the rise of religious toleration was apparent after the English Civil Wars and its foundations lay in philo-semitism; ‘love of the Jews’. 12 During the seventeenth century, it became important for Puritan reformers to be able to understand the ‘word of God’ as written in the Old Testament as well as other Jewish texts to be closer to God; this led to many theologians learning Hebrew in order to interpret texts depicting the word of God (before Christ ‘showed everyone the light’), in order to further comprehend messianic prophecies believed to be fulfilled imminently. 13 Leading millenarians, Samuel Hartlib and John Dury, even proposed in 1640 that a college for Jewish studies be established in London with the like of Menasseh ben Israel and other Christian Hebraists teaching and publishing work uncovering Jewish ‘mysteries’. 14 Philo-semitism often went hand in hand with millenarianism; the belief that the second-coming of the Messiah was looming, whether it be physically or spiritually, bringing on a new millennium. Most believed that the Messiah would be a spiritual return, and be encapsulated within a political or religious leader; such as Queen Christina of Sweden, Pope Alexander VII (in Catholic rhetoric), or Oliver Cromwell himself. 15 Others, on the other hand, believed in Christ’s physical return to Earth to reign as King for a thousand years; these were the beliefs held by the Fifth Monarchists. The Fifth Monarchists were the ‘fighting’ arm of the extreme totalitarian Anabaptists that had infiltrated many branches of political and religious power between 1649 and 1660; they had taken complete control of the Committee for the Propagation of the Gospel in Wales under Vavasour Powell. 16 The Fifth Monarchist beliefs emerge from an interpretation of prophecies from the books of Daniel and Revelation in the Bible that there have been four kingdoms or monarchies in history, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman, and these would be followed by a fifth which would signify the second-coming of Christ and his thousand year reign on earth; they expected the physical return of Jesus to reign as king and saw the Civil Wars and the execution of Charles I as an essential precursor to the new millennium. 17 The need to understand Hebrew thought reflected the necessity to learn when these events were going to take place. Millenarianism was not exclusively an English phenomenon but European wide. Not only were they keen to know when Christ’s reign was going to begin, but a prerequisite for the second-coming was the conversion of

Lassiter, ‘Philo-Semitism and Anti-Catholicism’, p. 27. Katz, Philo-Semitism, p. 9; Richard H Popkin, ‘Jewish-Christian Relations in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries: The Conception of the Messiah’, Jewish History, 6 (1992), 163–77 (p. 163). 14 Popkin, ‘Jewish-Christian Relations’, p. 163. 15 Ibid., p. 167. 16 H. R. Trevor-Roper, Religion, the Reformation and Social Change, and Other Essays, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1972), pp. 363–364. 17 David Plant, ‘Fifth Monarchists’, BCW Project: British Civil Wars, Commonwealth & Protectorate 1638-1660, 2014 <http://bcw-project.org/church-and-state/sects-and-factions/fifth-monarchists> [accessed 20 May 2014]. 12 13

the Jews. 18 The issue was how were the Jews going to convert and would they be converting to the right arm of Christianity; obviously for the puritan millenarian, converting to Catholicism was worse than remaining a Jew. Allowing Jews to resettle in England meant that they would be under the right influences as well as earn spiritual points for those who facilitate conversion in the kingdom of heaven. All that remained was to convince others of the importance of allowing Jews to return to England. On the 14 of November thirty men were selected to assemble at a conference to discuss this very issue by four members of the Council of State; Sir Gilbert Pickering, Sir Charles Wolseley, President Henry Lawrence and John Lisle. 19 The Whitehall conference convened on 4 December 1655 by Oliver Cromwell. After the reading of Menasseh ben Israel’s seven point petition presented at the rear of Jessey’s Narrative, terms of the conference were set out by Cromwell; were the Jews being reasonable in their requests, what did the law say on readmission and under what provisos would they be allowed to resettle. 20 The conference then resumed on 7 December and ‘so on 2. Or 3. Dayes weekly, to the 18’ December 1655. 21 The outcome of the conference was not definitive, no formal consensus was made in response to Menasseh ben Israel’s; however, Jews were tolerated to return and allowed to worship in private and granted a Jewish cemetery. 22 Jessey’s Narrative is the most complete commentary available of the conference; however, his motivation for writing the account seems to be due to the unfavourable, or rather non-committal ending to the proceedings. Self Evidently, Jessey was unhappy that the conference did not result in bowing completely to the petition put forward by Menasseh and formally allowing Jews to resettle in England. It is doubtful that Jessey’s account was an official transcript of proceedings evidenced by the quality of the print and the reputation of the publisher. Firstly, it was printed for Livewell Chapman, a leading Fifth Monarchist publisher and bookseller based at The Crown (bookshop) in Pope’s Head Alley. 23 Chapman was frequently in trouble with the authorities due to the radical nature of his publications; arrested for publishing some anti-Cromwellian literature Lassiter, ‘Philo-Semitism and Anti-Catholicism’, p. 28. David S Katz, The Jews in the History of England, 1485-1850 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), p. 117. David Katz claims that there were twenty-eight original delegates, however, upon further investigation, it appears that it was originally thirty with the addition of three more by Cromwell. 20 Katz, Philo-Semitism, p. 208; Henry Jessey, ‘A Narrative of the Late Proceeds at White-Hall Concerning The Jews Who Had Desir[e]d by R. Manasses an Agent for Them, That They Might Return into England, and Worship the God of Their Fathers Here in Their Synagogues, Etc.’ (L. Chapman, at the Crown in Popeshead-Alley, 1656), p. 12, Early English Books Online. 21 Jessey, Narrative, p. 2. 22 Lassiter, ‘Philo-Semitism and Anti-Catholicism’, p. 29. 23 Maureen Bell, ‘Chapman, Livewell (fl. 1643-1655)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/67700> [accessed 27 May 2014]. 18 19

in 1654 and 1655. 24 The fact that Jessey chose to publish this work through a known Fifth Monarchist ‘radical’ publisher reinforces the belief that he possessed an ulterior motive for printing the pamphlet; not just for information purposes but to rally support for the Jews from other Fifth Monarchist sympathisers. The quality of the publication is poor, clearly not what one might expect from an official government publication. This is evident from letters that appear out of line, in different fonts, and use of double Vs instead of a capital W; all of which are present on the cover page. The Narrative of the conference provides a list of twenty-three people who attended the conference; fourteen described as preachers, seven as merchants and two as lawyers. 25 However, it appears that Jessey left out seven prominent figures from his list who have been recorded as in attendance in Cromwelliana; although this document fails to mention of Sheriff of London and Alderman Tichburne from Jessey’s version. 26 Cromwelliana also reveals that Cromwell called for another three names to be added to ministers at the conference; David Katz believes that Cromwell added these people due to the negative direction the conference was heading and he wanted to pack the conference with pro-Jewish tolerance supporters. 27 The reasons why Jessey omitted the ten attendees is unknown. Judging by the number of ‘ministers’ involved in the conference, it is clear that the question of Jewish readmission was one of divine importance, particularly as Cromwell called for the assistance of a further three ‘ministers’. Of course, the social and legal aspect was not totally unimportant; Cromwell needed to heed the legal advice of his chosen lawyers as well as listen to the concerns of important London merchants. The choice of attendees is an important to the analysis of the Whitehall document and understanding the conference. Guests of the conference were chosen for their various merits and opinions; ‘…ministers and other persons who are approved by his Highness and the Council…’ 28 Katz states that four members of Cromwell’s Council of State selected twenty-eight delegates; this does not seem to account for the two mentioned by Jessey who did not feature in the Ibid.; Mary Anne Everett Green, ed., ‘Volume 76 - October 1654’, in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Interregnum, 1654, 1884, pp. 373–89 <http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=53457> [accessed 27 May 2014]; Mary Anne Everett Green, ed., ‘Volume 77 - November 1654’, in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Interregnum, 1654, 1880, pp. 389–404 <http://www.britishhistory.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=53458> [accessed 27 May 2014]. 25Jessey, Narrative, p. 9.. For full list of attendees, see appendix. 26 Machell Stace, Cromwelliana. A Chronological Detail of Events in Which Oliver Cromwell Was Engaged; from the Year 1642 to His Death 1658: With a Continuation of Other Transactions, to the Restoration (Printed for Machell Stace, 1810). The term ‘Cromwelliana’ relates to all things relating to Oliver Cromwell. 27 Katz, Philo-Semitism, p. 209. 28 Stace, Cromwelliana. A Chronological Detail of Events in Which Oliver Cromwell Was Engaged; from the Year 1642 to His Death 1658, p. 154. 24

Cromwelliana. 29 By looking at the backgrounds of those who were entrusted with the decision of letting the Jews resettle in England, we can further comprehend the religious transformations that had occurred during the Interregnum as well as comparing the religious will with the needs and views of the merchant class of London. Biographies of all of the attendees from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and the History of Parliament website were pasted into a WordPress blog and tagged for important and relevant information; such as connections with other attendees and other prominent persons, any political activity, and religious leanings. 30 The purpose of the tagging tool was to see if there were any correlations in the factors that may have caused these particular people to be chosen for the task of deciding the fate of the Jews. Whilst there are no definitive truths or answers to why these people were chosen, the tags have revealed some interesting associations that were possibly relevant in the decision making. For example, just over a third of the participants, fourteen, received their education from Cambridge (eight from Oxford), which is not surprising for the time. Of those fourteen, half went to Emmanuel College and were more often than not connected with each other significantly prior to the conference; i.e. they belonged to the same circles, were influenced by the same people or were taught by one another. Benjamin Whichcote was taught by Anthony Tuckney and in turn he was tutor to Ralph Cudworth and Peter Sterry, part of the so called Cambridge Platonists, a coin termed in the nineteenth century to describe a group of clergymen associated with Emmanuel and Christ’s colleges Cambridge. 31 Platonists were followers of Plato’s teachings, especially those concerned with nature and origin of languages; these ‘western thinkers’ assumed that Hebrew was the first language. 32 Whichcote was not the only significant player at the conference, the likes of Thomas Goodwin, Phillip Nye and John Owen featured heavily in the backgrounds of other conference colleagues. The majority of the conference delegates were important figures in the Cromwellian establishment, with many being close friends and advisors to Cromwell himself. In addition, at least eight of the ministers involved in the conference delivered ‘fast sermons’ to the House of Commons; these

Katz, Philo-Semitism, p. 1. Where possible, biographies were taken from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB), however, two were taken from the History of Parliament website as they were not found on ODNB. The biographies of four attendees, John Dethick (Lord Mayor of London, Edward Cresset (Master of the Charterhouse), Mr Faircloth (unable to identify) and Mr Bulkley of Eaton College (believed to be John Boncle, Headmaster of Eton College, known as Mr Bunkly), were not found. Katz comes to the same conclusion about Mr Bulkley. Ibid., p. 209. 31 Mark Goldie, ‘Cambridge Platonists (act. 1630s–1680s)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2014) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/theme/94274> [accessed 25 May 2014]. Sarah Hutton, ‘Whichcote, Benjamin (1609–1683)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2005) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/29202> [accessed 29 November 2013]; Katz, Philo-Semitism, p. 53. 29 30

were preached to Parliament on the last Wednesday of every month from 1640 to 1653. 33 It is not to say that all of these ministers held the same opinions or the same belief systems. Tuckney, Wilkinson and Bridge were described as Church of England in their biographies, whereas Kiffin and Dyke were Baptist. 34 Newcomen, Manton, Owen, the two Sheriffs of London and Sir Christopher Pack held Presbyterian beliefs; but Alderman Tichburne and Hugh Peters were antiPresbyterian. 35 However, although there were some staunch ‘Puritans’ with strict views, eight attendees were described as having moderate tendencies allowing us to deduce that they were more likely to be tolerant of the Jews resettling in England. The wide distribution of beliefs is unsurprising, as consensus building was part of Cromwell’s rule, albeit unsuccessfully. Unexpectedly, only Sterry, Jessey and Bridge were labelled as having millenarian views in their ODNB biographies, despite Mennasseh ben Israel’s using these viewpoints as a basis for his case for Jews to re-enter England. However, it is possible that these preachers did hold millenarian views, but those views were not discernible enough and therefore appeared obvious allies for

Trevor-Roper, Religion; Robin Jeffs, Fast Sermons to Parliament: V. 1-34. 1640/41-1650/53 (Cornmarket Press, 1971). 34 Patrick Collinson, ‘Tuckney, Anthony (1599–1670)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2008) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/27794> [accessed 29 November 2013]; Jim Spivey, ‘Wilkinson, Henry (1610–1675)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/29424> [accessed 26 February 2014]; Richard L. Greaves, ‘Bridge, William (1600/01–1671)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2008) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/3389> [accessed 26 February 2014]; Michael A. G. Haykin, ‘Kiffin, William (1616–1701)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2008) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/15521> [accessed 28 February 2014]; A. C. Bickley and rev. Beth Lynch, ‘Dyke, Daniel (1614–1688)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2008) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/8357> [accessed 26 February 2014]. 35 Tom Webster, ‘Newcomen, Matthew (d. 1669)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2006) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/19995> [accessed 29 November 2013]; E. C. Vernon, ‘Manton, Thomas (bap. 1620, D. 1677)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2008) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/18009> [accessed 28 February 2014]; Richard L. Greaves, ‘Owen, John (1616–1683)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2013) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/21016> [accessed 28 February 2014]; M. W. Helms and John P. Ferris, ‘Frederick, John (1601-85), of Old Jewry, London.’, ed. by B. D. Henning, The History of Parliament Online, 1983 <http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1660-1690/member/frederick-john-1601-85> [accessed 28 February 2014]; Eveline Cruickshanks, ‘Thompson, Sir William (1614-81), of Lime Street, London and Osterley Park, Mdx.’, ed. by B. D. Henning, The History of Parliament Online, 1983 <http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1660-1690/member/thompson-sir-william-161481> [accessed 28 February 2014]; Keith Lindley, ‘Packe, Christopher, Appointed Lord Packe under the Protectorate (c.1599–1682)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2008) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/21070> [accessed 28 February 2014]; Keith Lindley, ‘Tichborne, Robert, Appointed Lord Tichburne under the Protectorate (1610/11–1682)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2008) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/27430> [accessed 28 February 2014]; Carla Gardina Pestana, ‘Peter , Hugh (bap. 1598, D. 1660)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, 2004) <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/22024> [accessed 14 May 2014]. 33

Jewish resettlement to those writing the biographies. Jessey helpfully divides up the conference attendees into three groups: ‘the most’, who feared that the English would be ‘seduced and cheated’ by those Jews who came; ‘the major part’, who would tolerate their re-entry as long as there were certain sureties; and ‘some’ that argued that once some precautions had been met, it was their Christian duty to allow their resettlement. 36 Those in ‘the most’ category were mainly merchants who feared their business would be affected by Jewish immigration, believing that it would ’enrich foreigners at the expense of Englishmen’. 37 However, there were a number of preachers amongst them, who believed that any precautions would not be observed; one Mathew Newcomen argued that Jews might offer their children to Moloch. 38 After all, the theology of the Quakers and Ranters was ‘ridiculous’ but people were taken in by them. 39 Those in ‘the major’ category were supported by the lawyers, Lord Chief Justice Glynne and Steele (and presumably St John, whom is not mentioned by Katz but was also a Lord Chief Justice), who argued that there was no law against the Jews returning as the expulsion under Edward I was made by royal order rather than by Parliament and the Protectorate could overrule. 40 Furthermore, they could overturn their own decision if the Jews live to the conditions by which they were allowed to return. 41 Then there are those in the ‘some’ classification who expressed that the Jews had suffered too much at the hands of the English as well as in other parts of the world. It was the responsibility of the Protectorate, as Christians of the true faith, to step up for the Jews; after all, they were still God’s chosen people and they were undergoing hardship in Eastern Europe in the Swedish wars, and at the hands of papists elsewhere. 42 Henry Jessey was certainly in the ‘some’ category and held a millenarian view point. He also teamed up with the fundamental Fifth Monarchy Men as a moderate member. 43 Along with Jessey’s Fifth Monarchist sympathies, his strong millenarian principles stood by the opinion that only upon Jewish conversion to Christianity would the Christ’s second-coming commence; the conversion he predicted would occur before 1658. 44 He was often described as ‘Jessey the Jew’ due to his obsession with Hebrew and Jewish customs; observing some laws, such as keeping Narrative, p. 2.; Katz, Philo-Semitism, p. 212. Katz, Philo-Semitism, p. 212. 38 Ibid. 39 Jessey, ‘Narrative’, p. 8. 40 Ibid.; Katz, Philo-Semitism, p. 213. 41 Jessey, ‘Narrative’, pp. 8–9; Katz, Philo-Semitism, p. 213. 42 Jessey, ‘Narrative’, p. 8; Katz, Philo-Semitism, p. 214. 43 Van Der Wall, ‘A Philo-Semitic Millenarian’, p. 163. 44Stephen Wright, ‘Jessey, Henry (1601–1663)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/14804> [accessed 26 February 2014]; Katz, Philo-Semitism, p. 99. 36Jessey, 37

Sabbath on a Saturday. He specialised in Hebrew at University, took part in transcribing the Bible into Hebrew and was part of the Anglo-Dutch circle of philo-semites. 45 It is because of his strong philosemitism that it is believed it was almost certainly him that wrote the sympathetic proceedings of the Whitehall conference. This is unsurprising as he had had previous contact with Menasseh ben Israel in Amsterdam and, according to Katz, ‘stage-managed… Israel’s English production and publicised it once it was underway’. 46 Jessey’s motivation for writing this account of the Whitehall conference is perhaps one of frustration and determination as the wording in some parts of the document suggests: ‘Published for the satisfaction to many in several parts of England, that are desirous, and inquisitive to hear the Truth thereof.’ 47 And, in particular, the address to the reader: Because many good people in divers parts of this Nation, who have often prayed heartily for the jews Conversion, have heard a Rumor of a late Debate at VVhite-hall about JEWS having a liberty to return into England, and are very desirous to know the Truth of things in those Proceeds, and what is the issue of those Debates; And hence, from several parts Letters have been written up to their Friends in London, desiring more fully to be certified herein : For their satisfaction , and for help to others that would send the Narrative to their Christian Friends, this Collection thereof by one was present at all the Debates is yielded to be Published. 48 The outcome of the debates were clearly not to Jessey’s satisfaction, this can be gleaned from what is known of his religious and political background. It is evidently galling to the author that only ‘some’ of the attendees share his ideal of allowing Jews to return to England on ‘reasonable’ grounds and that ‘most’ delegates were against based on superstitions and suspicion. 49 Though the language Jessey uses is mostly non-slanted, the palpable attention paid to the arguments in favour of Jewish settlement, despite those against being the majority, renders the document inadequate as a ‘full’ account of the proceedings at Whitehall; on this basis, it can only be viewed as a propaganda tool in support of the Jewish cause. This would explain why Jessey has used a printer that appears to be disreputable and the pamphlet appears to be of poor quality. From looking at the background to the religious and political changes that occurred in England at the time, reasonable assumptions and conclusions can be drawn about the motives for allowing or preventing the Jews from returning to England. It can be asserted that the reason behind some attendees’ pro-Jewish settlement stance was because they believed that they could convert the Jews Van Der Wall, ‘A Philo-Semitic Millenarian’, pp. 164–165. David Katz, ‘Menasseh ben Israel’s Christian Connection’ cited in Ibid., p. 165. 47 Jessey, Narrative, p. Cover. 48 Ibid., p. 1 [A]. 49 Ibid., p. 2. 45 46

over to the ‘true’ faith and bring about the second-coming and Christ’s thousand year reign on Earth. Whereas others were sceptical of this and were more concerned about their business and the stereotypes they had come to believe about the Jews. Ultimately, we can assume that the reason behind the outcome of the conference, the lack of formal decision to allow the Jews back on English soil, was due to the political influence that the merchants and other sceptics had over the Government and Cromwell. Cromwell’s stance on the subject is clear as he hoped to persuade the cynics of the group by calling for the likes of the Peter Sterry, Hugh Peter and John Boncle to bolster the pro-settlement argument. It is probable, judging by the varied selection of delegates, that the four Council members who selected the attendees, if not Cromwell himself, had hoped to gain a positive response from a broad cross-section of the religious and political echelons. Gauging Cromwell’s intentions behind readmitting the Jews is more complicated: perhaps he saw himself as the being the leader of Protestantism and wished to show this by leading the crusade for converting the Jews; politically and economically speaking, the Jews re-entering England would put England on a par with Amsterdam as a trade capital. However, Cromwell could not risk losing support from the merchants within London, who are the most likely reason for no formal agreement being reached at the conference. Similarly, Jessey’s intentions in printing his Narrative are not as easily defined as the reasons for the conference; it is doubtful that the purpose was solely to provide the public with information of the conference. The combination of using a less than reputable Fifth Monarchist publisher with Jessey’s reputation as ‘Jessey the Jew’ and an orchestrator in Menasseh’s trip to England leads to the probability that the Narrative was produced for propaganda purposes; conceivably even a rallying call to other Fifth Monarchists. Jews were finally granted a ‘formal statement of toleration’ in 1664 and only in the middle of the nineteenth century did they receive full emancipation. 50

Katz, Philo-Semitism, p. 243.

‘Fitba an’a bevvy, pal!’: The shifting popularity of leisure pursuits in twentieth century Scotland. By Amy Cannon Scotland experienced a particularly difficult twentieth-century; the Great War, political unrest and secularisation were just some of the many challenges faced by the Scots. With a depressive and unstable atmosphere eclipsing Scottish livelihood throughout the century, leisure pursuits offered a temporary escape. Research identifies that these leisure activities were typically subject to the changing nature of Scottish culture and the external factors – such as economy and religion – that contributed towards their development. Cameron, for example, discusses the social benefits resulting from the expansion of some heavy industries in Scotland during the First World War; one facet of societal change that highlighted the increasing popularity of ‘rough culture’ leisure activities. 1 On the other hand, Lambert identifies technological advancement as a key element in popular activity shifts. 2 Scholars such as Brown and Foster suggest that the gradual secularisation of Scotland and the fluctuation of religiously-centred leisure activities were symbolic of change in popular leisure pursuits; Griffiths supports this thought, noting religious discontent with the expanding interest of cinema. 3 It is apparent from the literature that, with significant societal change or development follows some form of shift in popular leisure pursuits. Therefore, this essay will focus on the primary arguments for socio-economic, religious and technological change (as arguments for this debate primarily focus on these themes) in this time-frame, as to account for the shifts of popular leisure pursuits that follow. Notably, socio-economic change throughout the period 1914-1970 accounts for several shifts in 1 E. Cameron, Impaled Upon A Thistle: Scotland since 1880, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010), p. 36. 2 R. Lambert, ‘Leisure and Recreation’, in Modern Scottish History, 1707 to the Present; Volume 2: The Modernisation of Scotland 1850 to the Present, ed. by A. Cooke, I. Donaghie, A. Macsween & C. Whately, (East Linton: John Donald Short Run Press, 1998), pp. 266-271. 3 C. Brown, ‘Popular Culture and the Continuing Struggle for Rational Recreation’, in Scotland in the 20th Century, ed. by T. Devine & R. Finlay, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1996), pp. 210-227; J. Foster, ‘The Twentieth Century, 1914-1979’, in The New Penguin History of Scotland: From Earliest Times to the Present Day, ed. by R. Houston & W. Knox, (London: Penguin Books Ltd., 2001), pp. 417-493; T. Griffiths, The Cinema and Cinema-Going in Scotland; 1896-1950, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012), pp. 55-96 & 138-176.

popular leisure pursuits. The first shift appears to be the product of substantial economic change stemming from the early twentieth century; primarily attributed to the First World War. Cameron notes that ‘heavy industry expanded in such a manner during the early twentieth century’. 4 Foster elaborates, indicating that the exigencies that followed wartime circumstance appeared to strengthen Scotland’s commitment to heavy industry, and, in turn, this resulted in promising wartime employment conditions. 5 He exemplifies by stating that munitions alone saw the employment of 250,000 people. 6 The increase in employment was not the only advantage to wartime exigency; with it came reduced working hours, rising incomes and ultimately, a raised standard of living – so much so that Cameron refers to much of the working-class income as ‘disposable’. 7 Moreover, with the extensive growth of heavy industry came improvements within the transport trade, with public transport such as trams and ferries becoming widely accessible. 8 Knox implies that, with such a concoction of favourable social benefit: rising income, shorter working weeks and improved transport saw a considerable culture shift. 9 According to Brown, ‘the cinema, dance hall, music hall and football’ were the popular leisure pursuits that ‘represented the institutionalisation of rough culture’. 10 Brown notes that by 1914, there were at least twenty Electric Theatres in Glasgow alone, and the variety theatre and music halls attracted both middleclass and working-class society; evidently, the affordability and availability of this entertainment ‘helped to erode class divisions[...]culture was being socially levelled’ – clearly a socio-economic development. 11 In addition to this, football provided regular entertainment, made more readily available by growing transport links and costs being ‘well within the pocket of the working-class supporter’. 12 Indeed, whilst the opportunity arose to enjoy these now-available leisure activities, wayward behaviour came about as a consequence. Brown illustrates that this behaviour involved ‘drink, gambling, sexual promiscuity... [and] violence’. Knox notes the changing attitudes towards working-class recreation as a corollary of this social advancement; this social change obviously represented an emergence of working-class leisure experience – much to the dismay of the middleCameron, Impaled Upon A Thistle, p. 36. Foster, ‘The Twentieth Century, 1914-1979’, p. 424. 6 Ibid. 7 Brown, ‘Popular Culture and the Continuing Struggle for Rational Recreation’, p. 210; Cameron, Impaled Upon A Thistle, p. 143. 8 Ibid. 9 W. Knox, Industrial Nation: Work, Culture and Society in Scotland, 1800-Present, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999), p. 101. 10 Brown, ‘Popular Culture and the Continuing Struggle for Rational Recreation’, p. 213. 11 Ibid., pp. 210-213. 12 Cameron, Impaled Upon A Thistle, p. 143. 4 5

class and religious bodies dominating Scottish society, who now observed working-class antics as socially-damaging and immoral. 13 As such, the demise of ‘rough culture’ leisure pursuits signifies the decrease in popularity of certain leisure activities, such as the theatre, once enjoyed by workingclass society. Brown suggests this was primarily a result of municipal licensing of entertainment venues being ‘tightened-up’ into the 1920s; an assault on the working-class, by the middle-class, done so in order to avoid ‘social disorder’. 14 It is important to highlight that the period also witnessed the emergence of an economic depression in Scotland during the 1920s-1930s. With certain trades that contributed profoundly to Scotland’s heavy industry beginning to fail, substantial unemployment became an inevitable. 15 Cameron states that the agriculture sector lost 80,000 workers, while the textile industry lost 40,000 workers from 1914 to the early 1920s as a result of economic shortfall. 16 It would seem logical that a loss of income would be a fundamental reason for a shift in popular leisure pursuits. On the contrary, Knox highlights that the ‘cheapness of it all’, that is, the cost of participation of ‘rough culture’ leisure pursuits, meant that recreation remained available even for the unemployed. 17 Affordability, availability and accessibility of popular leisure pursuits remained unaffected by economic downfall and the depression years. This is supported by Devine, who indicates that ‘around four in five of the Scottish labour force remained in employment even during the worst years of recession...Even as the dole queues lengthened, Scotland experienced a leisure revolution in these years’. 18 Numerous shifts in popular leisure pursuits in this period are the results of advances in technology. Griffiths indicates that cinema and its associated technology date back to as early as the late nineteenth century, however, ‘several features [marked] out the years from the late 1920s as a distinct phase in cinema history. The period opened with the most radical technological innovation...the advent of pictures with synchronized sound’. 19 This advance in technology marks a significant shift in cinema popularity. Although already established as a leisure activity in the early twentieth century, statistics show that the popularity of cinema phenomenally increased from the 1920s to roughly the 1950s. For example, Lambert states that in the 1930s, ‘investigators found that almost 80% of their sample of young unemployed went to the cinema at least once a week’. 20 He goes on to suggest that cinema attendance began to decrease after the 1950s as the ‘newness’ Knox, Industrial Nation, p. 202. Brown, ‘Popular Culture and the Continuing Struggle for Rational Recreation’, p. 215 15 Cameron, Impaled Upon A Thistle, pp. 42-43. 16 Ibid. 17 Knox, Industrial Nation, p. 202. 18 T. Devine, The Scottish Nation; 1700-2007, (London, 2006), p. 316. 19 T. Griffiths, The Cinema and Cinema-Going in Scotland, p. 177. 20 R. Lambert, ‘Leisure and Recreation’, p. 262. 13 14

of this technology ‘began to wear off and in-home entertainment became widely available at a lower price in the shape of radio and television’. 21 The period 1951 to 1961 observed more than a 50% decrease in cinema audience. Alongside this, the number of cinemas also decreased in conjunction with a declining audience, falling from 601 established venues to 389 across Scotland. 22 Radio, as it is suggest by both Devine and Knox, holds credence to the shift in the popularity of dancing. Devine notes that revolutionized home-entertainment – the radio – towards the end of the 1930s could ‘be found in over 40 per cent of Scottish homes’. 23 Knox goes so far as to describe dancing as ‘mania’ during the inter-war period, nothing that ‘dancing daft’ Glasgow had established 159 dance halls by 1934. 24 Importantly, he notes that radio enabled not only the growth of this ‘mania’ it also improved the standard of dancing as a form of popular leisure activity. 25 Alongside the development in cinematography and radio, television also appears to have been a significant technological advancement resulting in popular leisure shifts. As previously mentioned, Lambert highlights that the increasing accessibility to new forms of home-entertainment signified the degree of change brought about by technological advance. He goes further to illustrate the rapid popularity growth of the television; in Scotland 1951, a total of 200 television licences were bought, whilst a span of seven years saw this figure increase to 600,000 and eventually reaching 1,468,000 in 1971. 26 Ostensibly, Bartie suggests that the popularity of television – ‘and particularly commercial television’ – was a crucial technological advancement in the rise, and the influence of the media from the 1960s onwards; of which, television became a fundamental facet in the mission to commercialise popular leisure pursuits, and the use of growing media interest as a form of political influence (see McDowell for further discussion). 27 Scholarly debate suggests that religious elements during this period also account for numerous shifts in popular leisure pursuits. Following on from socio-economic discussion, Foster notes that political bodies, although primarily the Church, systematically attacked ‘rough culture’ leisure pursuits; aiming to ‘channel popular activity into safe and approved forms’, although a degree of

Ibid., p. 263. Ibid. 23 Devine, The Scottish Nation, p. 317. 24 W. Knox, ‘A History of the Scottish People - Leisure in Scotland 1840-1940’, SCRAN,] <http://www.scran.ac.uk/scotland/pdf/SP2_6leisure.pdf> [accessed 10 March 2014] 25 Ibid. 26 Lambert, ‘Leisure and Recreation’, p. 271. 27 A. Bartie, ‘Culture in the Everyday: Art and Society’, in A History of Everyday Life in Twentieth-Century Scotland, ed.by L. Abrams & C. Brown, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010); B. McDowell, ‘Radio and Televison’, in The Oxford Companion to Scottish History, ed. by M. Lynch, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 498-499. 21 22

strict regulation had previously been established amongst ‘rough culture’ activities. 28 Foster also notes that ‘the general driving force [for change] was the Protestant church. Often there were overtly sectarian overtones’. 29 Notably, Cameron indicates that religion accounted for a central shift in the popularity of football, stating that football ‘clubs were important in projecting identities’. 30 He continues further by noting that ‘Glasgow Celtic were associated with the Catholic Irish community, while Glasgow Rangers increasingly sought the loyalty of the Protestant skilled working class’ 31. To emphasis this point further, Foster indicates that the early 1930s saw ‘anything up to 100,000... [attending]... matches between Celtic and Rangers’. 32 In comparison, Knox indicates that in 1912, 74,000 had attended a Celtic vs. Rangers match at Parkhead, suggesting that the shift in the popularity of football not only increased during this time, but also held a degree of religious tendency. 33 Cameron does suggest, however, that even though football promoted an element of religious support, the Church disagreed with the ‘attention devoted to it’ alongside the immoral behaviours that it encompassed; swearing, gambling and drinking. 34 Notably, Griffiths indicates that ‘attachment to the Church and its ideals appeared to be weakened by the growing availability of alternative, secular pursuits... [and that] the cinema...formed part of a broader change in cultural expectations’. 35 Whilst this statement is valid for the latter of the given period, I disagree with the credibility of this statement in regards to majority of the first half of the twentieth-century; there is evidence to suggest that, although the cinema formed ‘part of a broader change’, it functioned as one of the central factors for religious adaption to changing popular leisure pursuits during the early stages of this period. In addition, and more importantly, the popularity of cinema appears to be the catalyst for a major shift in newly available and popular religiously-centred leisure pursuits. Brown highlights that although cinema was utilized by the Church in early twentiethcentury Scotland, by the 1920’s, ‘most spurned it and advised...against cinema-going’. 36 The pinpoint of changing religious opinion of cinema can be seen in The Cinema: Its Present Position and Future Possibilities a report dating from as early as 1917, instituted by the National Council of Public Morals. This document outlines numerous issues relating to public obsession towards cinemagoing, and gradually builds into arguments for recommended alternative leisure pursuits; of course,

Foster, ‘The Twentieth Century, 1914-1979’, p. 433. Ibid., p. 434. 30 Ibid. 31 Cameron, Impaled Upon A Thistle, p. 143. 32 Foster, ‘The Twentieth Century, 1914-1979’, p. 435. 33 Knox, ‘A History of the Scottish People - Leisure in Scotland 1840-1940’. 34 Cameron, Impaled Upon A Thistle, p. 143. 35 Griffiths, The Cinema and Cinema-Going in Scotland, p. 139. 36 C. Brown, The Death of Christian Britain: Understanding Secularisation 1800-2000, (Oxon: Routledge, 2009), p. 66. 28 29

with religious agenda. Brown illustrates that the Church, accepting public fascination with cinema, then adopted a new stance towards recreation – ‘[providing] more exciting entertainment to stay in the rapidly evolving marketplace’. 37 This entertainment encompassed: devotional-based Sunday schools, teetotal hotels, teetotal literature, temperance parades and concerts of sacred song, religious activities that proved popular with Scottish society for a good length of time. 38 Overall, it can be suggested that shifts in popular leisure pursuits in the period 1914 to 1970 focus primarily on three themes; socio-economic, technological and religious. Socio-economic change in society provided availability, affordability and accessibility to social-classes that once were limited to basic forms of popular leisure pursuits. This shift represents the growing popularity of activities such as football and the theatre experienced by greater numbers. Although Scotland experienced economic blips during this period, scholars suggest that popular leisure pursuits remained unaffected. Technological developments through this period observed the rapid popularity shift of the cinema as a popular leisure pursuit. Not only this, radio contributed to a dancing ‘mania’, explicitly evident in the 1930s and television supplying both a quality form of home-entertainment, but featuring as a vital characteristic towards the shift in media interests and the growing desire for the commercialisation of popular leisure pursuits. Religion appeared to be the root of a central shift in the expansion of football as a popular activity, driven by specific areas of the Church. In addition to this, a significant shift in popular religious leisure pursuits can be seen through the changing attitudes of religious bodies, particularly towards public obsession with cinema. In sum, many shifts in popular leisure pursuits are evident throughout this period; all of which feature alongside some form of significant societal change.

37 38

Brown, ‘Popular Culture and the Continuing Struggle for Rational Recreation’, p. 216. Ibid., pp. 210-216.

Would the real Dr Strangelove please stand up?1 By Darren Macey For historians, attempting to evaluate a historical conflict as it unfolds is a little akin to a speeding motorist attempting to write a travelogue of the scenery they pass. The historiography of the Cold War is an almost perfect example of this. Conclusions formed and rebutted in the rhetoric of the Cold War conflict were often based in ideological and archival evidence from a singular perspective. This paper suggests that revaluating the origins of this conflict in a less politically charged environment twenty-five years after its conclusion offers a greater opportunity at clarity. The evolutionary nature of this conflict is, as John Lewis Gaddis maintained, not solely based in the aggression or expansionist ambitions of either power block, rather its origins are of a reactionary nature, lying in both the internal and external pressures faced by the two main protagonists. 2 As such, it is symptomatic of a ‘crossroads’ in international relations caused by the fractious breakdown of the wartime ‘Grand Alliance’ and has far lengthier historical and cultural ‘roots’. 3 The Cold War world was not solely a construction of the machinations of ‘great men’ such as Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt and Truman or predetermined by the guiding hand of historical determinism, its origins are complex and manifold. Investigating its historical roots as well as the cultural, social, and historical gulf in understanding between the two main protagonists perhaps offers the most comprehensive interpretation of its origins. In studying the gulf in understanding between these two competing societies, it would be naïve to imagine that any nation moves as one homogeneous entity. There are opportunities however, in their historical and cultural

Stanley Kubrick’s classic Cold War satire on the absurdity of nuclear brinkmanship and the political and military insanity of the Cold War posturing, Stanley Kubrick, Dr. Strangelove (Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 2002). 2 John Lewis Gaddis, The United States and the origins of the Cold War, 1941-1947 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1972), p. 361. 3 In attempting to trace the origins of this conflict, this paper adopts a methodology suggested by Greg Cashman and Arthur N. Gilbert. They suggest a separation in approach between assessing the Cold War in terms of a ‘crossroads’ in international relations or a conflict with far lengthier historic ‘roots’. Greg Cashman and Arthur N. Gilbert, Some Analytical Approaches to the Cold War Debate, The History Teacher, 10.2 (Feb., 1977), pp. 263-280. 1

misconceptions to gain some comprehension of the attitudes, policies and psyche of both the leadership and populous alike. 4 The assessment of entrench ideological misconceptions both in the Cold War world and its burgeoning historiography however poses a number of challenges. As American politician Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a member of four successive presidential administrations from Kennedy to Ford pointed out ‘everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts’. Cold War cultural prejudices, ideological necessity and political expediency however in both countries would consistently transform opinions into mythologised ‘facts’. 5 In both the conflict itself and the historiography that arose from it, differing perspectives offer conflicting interpretations of these ideologically inspired ‘facts’. This can be witnessed in the apportioning of blame by the orthodox ‘old right’ perspective which points to Soviet expansionism and the revisionist ‘new left’ describing American aggression. Often these positions allude almost as much to their own contemporary historical events as to the events they seek to explain. In an attempt to clarify these two opposing positions there will be an investigation of the Truman Doctrine from an orthodox perspective and the policy of Marshall Aid examined from the revisionist viewpoint. The central focus of this paper however falls within the pragmatic context of the second wave of post-revisionist historians. This school often using previously unobtainable soviet archival material maintains that the Cold War was not wholly the responsibility of either side, but rather, it was the result of predictable tensions between two competing powers and compounded by misperceptions on both sides. Post- revisionism is however, a broad school encompassing ideas that fall outside the strict confines of orthodoxy and revisionism, and is often based on the insights gained by later historians afforded access to much of the material that informed the policy options of the two superpowers. Gaddis, one of the luminaries of the evolutionary second wave of post-revisionism, for example suggested that the origins of the Cold War were in the mishandling of the SovietAmerican relationship during the Second World War. 6 He maintained that Soviet anger at the painfully slow pace of the British and Americans in opening a second front was compounded by the disproportionate losses suffered by the Soviets compared to their Western Allies. 7 Gaddis Robert Jervis contends that Cold War misperceptions included thinking the enemy is more ‘evil’ than it really is, not realizing one's own faults, and not understanding how one is perceived by the other side. Robert Jervis, ‘Hypotheses on Misperception’, in G. John Ikenberry, ed., American Foreign Policy: Theoretical Essays (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, and Co. 1989), pp. 461-482. 5 Daniel Patrick Moynihan as quoted by Alla Zeide, ‘The Russian Review: The Story in History’, Ab Imperio, 4 (2012), pp. 279-306 (p. 280). 6 Gaddis, The United States and the origins of the Cold War, pp. 353-361. 7 Ibid. 4

portrays the American perspective as one of trepidation, fearing that the Soviet battlefield success over the Nazis would unleash a totalitarian tiger by its tail, by removing a relatively predictable dictator from the world scene only to be replaced by the enigmatic Stalin. 8 The Cold War in effect was the fallout from the bargain struck to defeat Nazi Germany. While accepting many of the premises of Gaddis’s argument, this paper suggests that the Cold War world is the evolutionary construct of a longer-term relationship, based in a historic rivalry, between two diametrically opposed ideologies. America, which had long held imperial ambitions as displayed by the Monroe Doctrine and concepts of their manifest destiny, against a Russia ingrained with historical traditions of oligarchy, sacrifice for ‘Mother Russia’ and steeped in Marxism. Both held an almost unshakeable belief in the historic inevitability of Marxism or ‘market forces’ respectively. With such starting points, could any analysis in Moscow or Washington doubt the avowed if misunderstood aims of the other? Each side had its long formed societal preconceptions and opinions, coloured in recent history. The problems in cultural understanding often came from the static nature of these opposing conceptions, for example by the onset of the Cold War, Marxist concepts of a world revolution had given way to Nikolai Bukharin and Stalin’s ideal of ‘Socialism in One Country’. 9 Stalin did not need to export Marxist ideology; he could wait patiently for historical inevitability. Yet the American policy makers still operated under the concept of a Soviet Union striving for world revolution. To understand the Russian psyche one must understand the nature of its ‘soft’ borders. Russia had been invaded twice over the rolling plains on its western borders in the space of less than thirty years. They lacked the geographical isolation and security of their American adversaries who, in the late forties, and before the rise of Fidel Castro in Cuba, were undoubted masters of their own hemisphere. The Soviets also had cause to feel a sense of paranoia following the end of the First World War. Deemed as an international pariah, the Soviets suffered military incursions by the Western Powers in support of their ‘White’ civil war adversaries. 10 From an ideological standpoint, Stalin also fostered an ingrained systemic loathing of capitalism. This hatred would result in the repression of perceived ‘class traitors’ such as capitalistic ‘NEP’ men and the ‘bourgeoisie Kulaks’ from the late twenties onwards. 11

Martin McCauley, Origins of the cold war, 1941-1949 (London: Pearson Education, 2008), p.15. Sheila Fitzpatrick, The Russian Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) pp. 81-147 p.115 10 Ronald D. Suny, The Soviet Experiment. Russia, the USSR and the Successor States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp.74-84. 11 Fitzpatrick, The Russian Revolution, pp.135-139. 8 9

Conversely, the America that emerged following the end of the First World War had an almost pathological fear of communism. The tumultuous events and the rise of extremism across Europe would end in the first ‘Red Scare’ in 1919. The resultant denunciation of all shades of red would see socialism and unionisation devastated, and struggle to recover for decades. 12The fear of the ‘red peril’ and the subsequent paranoia that gripped America in 1919 would return following the demise of the Grand Alliance in 1945 and be a defining feature of American culture throughout the Cold War period reaching its zenith in McCarthyism. 13 The defection of Igor Gonzenko in 1946 and his revelations of Soviet spying did little to dispel a climate of paranoia and a fear of a ‘fifth column’, anti-communist liberals and even socialists jostling to appear as ‘red-baiters’.

Liberal opinion former, historian and State Department employee Arthur Schlesinger in his influential work, The Vital Center: The Politics of Freedom in 1949 displays both in his content and indeed his choice of a classic Cold War title this escalation in rhetoric. Schlesinger describes the Soviet system in disturbingly sinister terms, witnessing that ‘wise observers’ of Russia considered communism as ‘secret, sweaty, and furtive’. 15 In this climate of tension, Schlesinger’s fellow historian and American Chargé d’Affaires in Moscow George Kennan ‘fired’ what would become one of the first ‘shots’ of the Cold War. In his infamous1946 eight thousand-word ‘Long Telegram’ Kennan an offered a damming explanation of the communist mentality, a soviet ‘expert’ and Foreign Service officer Kennan maintained that the Soviet's hostility to the west is rooted in the need to legitimize their bloody dictatorship. He promoted what would become the orthodox interpretation of ongoing Soviet aggression; a view shared by other key influences on American policy makers such as Schlesinger. The Soviets, Kennan contended, would exploit every opportunity to extend their system, and rival American at every turn. Using a pseudonym of Mr X his 1947 article ‘The sources of Soviet Conduct’, describes the direction of unchecked soviet policies as one of ‘a cautious, persistent pressure towards the disruption and weakening of all rival influence and rival power’. 16 In validating their ideology, the soviets would continue to pursue the central Marxist tenant of an inevitable triumph of communism over the evils of capitalism. According to Kennan, in order to oppose the Russians

Howard Zinn, The Twentieth Century, A People’s History, Revised and Updated Edition. (New York: Harper Perennial, 1998), pp.89-96. 13 Ibid. 14 James T, Paterson, America in the Twentieth Century: A History, Fifth Edition (Belmont: Cengage Learning, 2000), p.182. 15 Arthur Schlesinger Jr, The Vital Center: The Politics of Freedom (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1998), p.151. 16 Martin McCauley, Origins of the cold war, 1941-1949, p.138. 12

deeply held ideological convictions the only possible American policy towards them should be one of confronting them with ‘superior strength at every juncture’. 17 Kennan’s, assertions were widely accepted as the default analysis of soviet aims and policies by Western governments and by the vast majority of Western observers; they would come to encapsulate the embryonic concepts of containment and of the Truman Doctrine. Announced in March 1947, the Truman Doctrine’s initial aim was to secure a grant of 400 million dollars in military and economic assistance for Greece and Turkey, whom an almost bankrupt post-war Britain could no longer afford to support. In his address to a joint session of the United States Congress, President Harry S Truman pointed to the strategic importance of both countries. 18He defined the Greek civil war in terms of the fight against the spread of international communism. In an early example of Cold War misconceptions, Truman’s administration incorrectly assumed that the Greek Communist Party (KKE) and their spearhead the Democratic Army of Greece, led by former resistance leader Markos Vafiadis were supported by Moscow rather than their actual backer Yugoslavia’s Marshall Tito. Fearing this civil war in Greece was symptomatic of Soviet expansionism Truman expressed his concerns that the fall of Greece to communism would have a ‘domino’ effect on Turkey, which occupied a key geographical position in the emerging post-war world. Turkey controlled the Dardanelles Straits, was close to the Middle East and its proximity to the Soviet Union was also not lost on Truman. 19 ‘If Greece should fall under the control of an armed minority, the effect upon its neighbor, Turkey, would be immediate and serious. Confusion and disorder might well spread throughout the entire Middle East.’ 20 Bolstered by the aggressive confrontational ideology immerging from his advisors such as Kennan and justifying his actions in terms of American concepts of ‘freedom’, Truman proclaimed that, ‘it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or outside pressures.’ 21 As well as being crucial in informing public opinion and formulating government policies, Kennan’s orthodox view of soviet aims and aggression would receive academic support by early Cold War historians such as William H. McNeill [1953] and Herbert Feis [1957]. 22 An alternate John Lewis Gaddis, George F. Kennan: An American Life, (New York: Penguin, 2011) p.201-274 (p.245). Michael Dockrill, The Cold War, 1945-1963.( London: Macmillan, 1988), p.40. 19 Ibid., p. 40. 20 Harry S. Truman: ‘Special Message to the Congress on Greece and Turkey: The Truman Doctrine’, March 12, 1947. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project, <http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=12846> [accessed 1 December 2014]. 21 Ibid. 22 McCauley, Origins of the cold war, p.10. 17 18

worldview however was advocated by former vice-presidential candidate Henry Wallace, who in a speech in 1946, compared Truman’s actions to those of a school yard bully and suggested that Russian history proves that ‘the tougher we [America] get, the tougher the Russians will get’. 23 Wallace’s motif of American aggression inspired a revisionist movement in Cold War historiography; this movement began in earnest during the late 1950s, influenced by the seminal works of William A Williams. 24 These early contentions were strengthened by a mood of growing disenchantment with the Kennan inspired policy of containment. By the late 1960s the shift in emphasis towards revisionism was gathering pace, bolstered by a resurgent ‘New Left’ that included a number of Williams’s former students, the New Left was spurred on by the glaring failure of the Truman Doctrine in the rice paddy fields of Vietnam. 25 The revisionist perspective describes a Russia in 1945 devastated by War. There were stark contrasts to be drawn between these two new ‘superpowers’, the Soviet Union had lost at least 20 million lives, America 405,399. 26 While two thirds of the soviet industrial base stood in ruins and almost all the industrialization that Stalin had promised and delivered to his people with the Five Year Plans had been lost, America had seen its gross national product double during the war years. 27The revisionist argument maintained that there is an inherent requirement in the American economy for ever expanding export markets that requires an ‘open door’ policy from trading partners, it is this requirement they contended prompted George C. Marshall speech of June 1947. At the end of the War America was exporting seven times more than it was importing, and the fear was that if it could not find markets in Europe, America would slip back into recession. In order to combat this Marshall proposed a scheme of extensive aid to all-European nations if they could agree on how to revive a working economy. Marshall’s concept was however, one of ‘free’ market economies directed not by forces in Europe but across the Atlantic. Over seventy percent of Marshall Aid would in fact remain in America. Aid dollars buying American exports, supporting the American economy, jump-starting European markets for American products and crucially from the soviet perspective achieve political control. Marshall’s objectives coupled with a growing acceptance of Kennan’s concept of containment would further reinforce America’s aggressive position toward the Soviets. The Soviet reaction was swift and damming. Foreign Minister Molotov addressing the UN in July 1947 describing Marshall’s plan as ‘a variant of the Truman Walter LaFeber, The Origins of the Cold War 1941-1947 (New York: John Wiley, 1971), pp.145-6. McCauley, Origins of the cold war, p. 12. 25 Ibid. 26 Lloyd Garner, ‘From Liberation to Containment’, in From colony to empire, ed. by William Appleman Williams, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1972), pp.337-384 (p. 340). 27 Ibid. 23 24

Doctrine’ and ‘an attempt to split Europe into two camps’. 28As Martin Macaulay describes it, the revisionist argument was one that depicts the Marshall ‘plan’ as ‘designed to implant an informal American empire in Europe’. 29 While some of the Cold War ‘facts’ remain incontrovertible, for example there was indeed as Churchill described it the descending of an ‘Iron Curtain’, however opinions on the motivations for its construction are more subjective. 30 From an orthodox perspective, the Soviet’s impetus for turning Eastern Europe into a huge prison seems indisputable, haemorrhaging people to the West in the late forties at an enormous rate it could be seen as being built in fear of the expansion of Western freedoms and materialism. However, the revisionist argument would see the Iron Curtain as a relatively reasonable response from a Soviet perspective. Its inception it could be argued came from a legitimate requirement for a buffer for the Soviets from western invasion. Indeed, following Churchill’s ‘naughty document’ proposal to apportion control in ‘small countries’ by percentage in 1944, from Stalin’s viewpoint it could be reasonable to expect perhaps a pragmatic response from the western leaders. 31 In his own words, Churchill describes the cynical way he and Stalin were ‘so fateful to millions of people, in such an offhand manner’, it would be practical for Stalin to expect the same response in this situation. 32 Which argument has merit? The answer in true post-revisionist style is probably both, the key to any assessment is to is strike a balance between these ‘two camps’ and move away from ideas of culpability to ones of cultural misunderstanding. While the Cold War’s origins are open to interpretation, any explanation must be in terms the American and Soviet internal cultural, ideological, systemic and societal motivations and not just the perhaps more obvious external forces.

Ibid., p.138-139. McCauley, Origins of the cold war, p.14. 30 Fraser J Harbutt, The iron curtain: Churchill, America and the origins of the cold war (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), pp. 183-209. 31 Copy of the ‘naughty document’ Winston Churchill, Fourth Moscow Conference in 1944, <https://images.nationalarchives.gov.uk/assetbanknationalarchives/action/viewFullSizedImage?id=30941&size=800> [accessed 2 December 2015] 32 Simon Sebag Montefiore, Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar (London: Weidenfield and Nicolson, 2003), p.421. 28 29

There ain't no party like a Gatsby party, because a Gatsby party don't stop…until two people are dead and everyone is disillusioned with the jazz age as a whole: A discussion of the state of society in 1920s America. By Emma Atkins When one thinks of the 1920s, the first thoughts that come to mind tend to be of fast living, excess, jazz music and glamorous women. These images of a rebellious America in its youth, with gangsters, flappers, writers and movie stars roaming the streets can be quite misleading when trying to portray the full picture of the 1920s. In fact, this depiction of ‘the Roaring Twenties’, the ‘Jazz Age’ or even the ’aspirin age’, the ‘era of excess’ and a time of ‘Fords, flappers and fanatics’ obscures the real complexities that lie beneath the surface, especially the considerable social tensions that permeated the culture. 1 These lasting and seemingly unbreakable images can perhaps be attributed to the likes of the decade’s most prolific writers or the rise of the cinema. Our scope of History is heavily influenced by the variety of records left behind; we tend to look back through rose-tinted glasses. It seems the real ‘Jazz Age’ was only experienced by the upper tenth of society, the rich and able, living with the ‘insouciance of grand dukes and casualness of chorus girls’. 2 There is a strong suggestion in the media and the collective mind that one experience of this era matches the next or that it was good and easy times for all. However, that was not necessarily always the case. The description of a ‘Discontented America’ is perhaps a more accurate title, especially as the decade reaches its shattering climax.

Patterson, James, America in the Twentieth Century: A History, (Boston: Wadsworth, 2000), p.143; Lynn Dumenil, The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s (New York City: Hill and Wang New York, 1995), p.8. 2 Fitzgerald, F. Scott, ‘Echoes of the Jazz Age’ in West, James L. W. (ed.) Fitzgerald: My Lost City: Personal Essays, 1920-1940 (Cambrige: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p.138. 1

The 1920s began in the wake of the First World War, and ended with the shattering stock market crash of 1929, the resulting political explosion and worldwide depression. 3 The First World War holds a special significance for many reasons, but for discontented America it is worth speculating on the effects that such an event had. Many adults of the 1920s had reached their adolescence or early adulthood during the active war years; one can only hint at the effects this may have had. Perhaps, a sense of the fragility of life was felt by the general population and as such once the war ended they threw themselves, headfirst, into life. The war, it can be argued, set the tone for a shift in consciousness. It is thought that war brought about feelings of disillusionment and reaction coupled with a ‘concomitant’ search for escape in amusements. 4 The end of the War loosened some of the anchors of American life. Nevertheless, America had won this ‘Great War’ and the decade that follows sees many enjoying the spoils. Politically, the country was quite stable. The Presidencies of the decade belonged to the Republicans; Warren G. Harding (1921-23), Calvin Coolidge (1923-29) and Herbert Hoover (1929-33). The political mood of the 1920s can be characterised by a conservatism that is both reactionary and innovative and the end of progressivism. 5 This was an age of seemingly endless prosperity during an economic boom, the buoyant and dominant economy opened up a seemingly endless list of possibilities for many American people. 6 New technological advances were perceivably boundless. The radio, the mechanical telephone switchboard, electrical grids and the motorcar, amongst other things, all came out of this decade. Henry Ford and his company became a symbol of the economic and cultural contradictions of the economic boom; his creation of the Model T automobile and its mass production and consumption transformed the industry that provided expensive, luxury vehicles for the wealthy into one that produced cheap, reliable transport for the masses. 7 By the mid1920s Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, Studebaker, Packard, and Hudson all played crucial roles in the nation’s new economic order in terms of employment, manufacturing and the sales they generated. 8 The automobile helped every day, common Americans race into the future and enjoy Miller, Nathan, New World Coming: The 1920s and the Making of Modern America (Boston: Da Capo Press, 2003) p.1. 4 Dumenil, Lynn, The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s, (New York City: Hill and New York, 1995) p.9. 5 Purchase, Ian, ‘Normalcy, Prosperity, and Depression 1919-1933’, in Iwan W. Morgan and Neil A. Wynn (eds.), America’s Century: Perspectives on U.S. History since 1900, (New York City: Holmes & Meier, 1993), pp.46-74 [here p.47]. 6 Ibid. 7 Parrish, Michael E, Anxious Decades: America in Prosperity and Depression, 1920-1941, (New York City: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992) p.38. 8 Parrish, Anxious Decades: America in Prosperity and Depression, 1920-1941, p.40. 3

the fruits of the flourishing economy after years in the wartime crunch. This economic boom brought forth a new consumer society -not previously experienced on such a scale- that was made possible by the ever increasing productivity in industry. One would see daily images and displays of affluence in magazines, on billboards, storefronts, in motion pictures, as well as hearing about them on the radio. Consumers would always want the next ‘new’ thing. In the case of the automobile, the masses wanted a car of greater luxury with a bigger price tag in which they could emulate the wealthy. It was not just images of automobiles and motion pictures featured in these adverts, so called ‘novel products’ and their accompanying ads flooded consumers, including products such as the Milky Way candy bar, Popsicles, Scotch Tape, clock radios, the wall-mounted can opener and aluminium furniture. 9 Advertising was an incredibly big business and a very powerful tool; it was not just products that were on sale. From politics to sports, the selling of individual personalities became equally as important to the maintenance of social order. Traditionalists witnessed the established social order crumbling before their eyes. Celebrities were born; men and women who both represented and transcended their culture and society, whose lives somehow seemed to have manifested the fears, hopes and anxieties of the generation struggling for recognition in a cold universe. 10 The era of assembly lines, large-scale bureaucracies, routinized labour, and standardised production gave fresh urgency to the problem of the survival of individualism in a world characterised increasingly by these impersonal organisations and social relationships. 11 When asked about the culture and society of the 1920s, most school children of a certain age will be able to ring off the main players. The 1920s in the popular imagination belongs to the gangster, prohibition, the young and beautiful new movie stars and the flapper. The formerly mentioned and many others within society during this era point us toward a discontented American people. The reality certainly does not depict a united people. There were two groups in American society that entered the decade with heightened expectations and new attitudes toward their place in society thanks to the First World War; women and African Americans. 12 Women’s lives were profoundly affected by the increasingly organised nature of society, mass media and consumerism, and the changes in work and politics. 13 The 1920s saw the emergence of the ‘new woman’ with a new sense of freedom and image, however, there was not just a ‘new woman’ but

Parrish, Anxious Decades: America in Prosperity and Depression, 1920-1941, p.40 & p.74. Ibid, p.159. 11 Ibid, p.158. 12 Miller, Nathan, New World Coming: The 1920s and the Making of Modern America, p.46. 13 Dumenil, Lynn, The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s, p.98. 9

rather ‘new women’. 14 Attitudes toward sexuality had changed, the birth of celebrity and the rise of the ‘it’ girl, such as the popular silent film actress Clara Bow, and new dance crazes which became symbolic and a badge of their rejection of the traditional, old, accepted standards of behaviour that members of society had begun to back away from.

These ‘new women’ in

respect to the media became symbols of a more modern culture, a growing youth who partook in said new dance crazes, new fashion and made the older generations shake with worry over their ‘loosening morals’. The youth of the 1920s and their breaking away from the ‘old ways’ and traditions are a good example of a discontented America. They were unhappy with where they stood so pursued a new image, new freedom and a new experience, and as such they developed their own identity. Women were now given new access to the public arena, with more options available in their personal lives, the vote, changes in the workplace all coupled to narrow the great gap between the genders. 16 Experiences, however, were not the same across the board and were usually dependant on the education, opportunities and race of the individual. During these early post-war years there was a migration, of sorts, of many black Americans northwards. Soon there were black communities set up in the hearts of the big cities and for the first time northern white people, who were often and generally hostile toward their new neighbours, found themselves in very close proximity to large African American populations within a new urban dynamic.

The Harlem Renaissance and their artistic styles, the National

Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) and the more Black Nationalistic aspects of Marcus Garvey and his Universal Negro Improvement Association came to symbolise what has become known as the ‘New Negro’. 18 Tensions were rising, this environment of empowerment proved to be a rife breeding ground for discontent that developed into race riots, discrimination and even the reformation of the Ku Klux Klan. During the early 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan rose to a prominent position of local power in many parts of the country. Appealing to anti-Catholicism Protestants, emphasising the enforcement of prohibition and capitalising on the anti-foreign mood amongst other things, the Klan became a ‘lightning rod’ for many post-war fears and resentments. 19 The Klan, one can argue, also represented a sphere of society and the growing fundamentalism, also epitomised by the socalled “Monkey Trial” (The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes) which saw a massive Ibid, p.111. Ibid, p.135. 16 Dumenil, The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s, p.111. 17 Miller, New World Coming: The 1920s and the Making of Modern America, p.50. 18 Dumenil, The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s, p.8. 19 Goldberg, David J., Discontented America: The United States in the 1920s, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999) p.115. 14 15

debate between evolutionists and creationists. Scopes was accused of violating the Butler Act, a Tennessee law that made it illegal to teach human evolution in a state-funded school. The trial attracted a large amount of media attention and publicized the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy, which held profound concerns about the role of Christianity in society and culture. Discrimination was not just exclusive to black Americans. Immigrants from Japan, Mexico and Eastern Europe -as well as Catholics to some extent- faced a similar sort of hardship after coming to America. This uneasiness and perhaps even distrust was brought on, in part, by the ‘Red Scare,’ an overbearing fear and hatred of communism, socialism, the far left and all the connotations placed with them, as well as a heightened sense of awareness toward any nonAmericans. The precarious positions of immigrants was highlighted particularly in the case of Sacco and Vanzetti, two men of Italian descent who were accused of murder during a robbery in 1920 and eventually executed in 1927 for the crime. This case symbolized the polarization between defenders of the two men and critics of immigrants during this post-war period. 20 The repression of communists, far-lefts, socialists, and syndicalist that grew out of the1919-1920 hysteria undermined radical institutions like the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and created an unwelcoming climate for radicals. 21 ‘Blue collar’ workers, as well as becoming increasingly de-skilled (especially in the mass production industries) thanks to the new technological advances, were working in a bleak time for organised labour with weak and conservative unions. 22 The workers also lost a social aspect, the right to drink, with the implementation of Prohibition. The Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting the manufacture, sale, or transportation of alcoholic beverages, was adopted by Congress in 1917 and went into effect with the passage of the Volstead Act in January 1920. 23 The amendment was a topic of heated debate and conflict until its demise in 1933. The battle for Prohibition was fought with the ‘wets’ and the ‘drys’, and in an era where the people were increasingly becoming disinterested in politics, prohibition was one of the few issues that aroused strong emotions and arguments from both sides. 24 The arguments on the dry side, largely middle-class and deeply religious, claimed that as a result of prohibition there was a decline in public drunkenness, illnesses related to drink and even that the economy was thriving because more money was being spent elsewhere. The wets argued that prohibiting alcohol in this way encouraged law-breaking Goldberg, Discontented America: The United States in the 1920s, p.150. Dumenil, The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s, p.63. 22 Ibid., p.62. 23Baritz, Loren, (ed.), Prohibition from Congressional Record (1917), in The Culture of the Twenties, (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company Inc. 1970), p.43. 24 Goldberg, Discontented America: The United States in the 1920s, p.56. 20 21

and cited the rise of organised crime as an example of this. The disorder that prohibition set to resolve, ethnic conflict and anti-immigrant, was deepened by speakeasies, bootlegging and violence. 25 There was much to unsettle the public mind. Fears arose surrounding immigration, the influx of ‘non-Americans’, the spread of communism, increasing unrest, the presence of African Americans in the North, prohibition and the franchise for women, and the actions of the future generations. 26 Evidently, there was a divide between the experiences of many Americans during this period. The era seems more exclusive and less inclusive. This exclusion, no doubt, forms discontent. What has been mentioned only scratches the surface. Our lasting records of discontent and the growing disillusionment remains in the writing of the ‘lost generation’, a group of artists and authors who came of age during the war years. Ernest Hemingway was certainly discontented with America, clearly evident in his piece ‘American Bohemians in Paris’, published in The Toronto Star Weekly on March 25, 1922. The text was written at a time when a large number of Americans had emigrated to Paris. In the opening of the piece, Hemingway states that ‘the oldest scum, the thickest scum and the scummiest scum has come across the ocean’ but that scum had already been replaced by new scum back home, although this is evidently aimed at the ‘fakes’ in Paris, we do get a glimpse into Hemingway’s view on his own people. 27 F. Scott Fitzgerald, a key spokesman of the twenties who wrote of the flapper and of the glamour of the ‘Jazz Age’ with authority and zeal, became rather disillusioned and discontented, made evident in his many letters. 28 In 1925, he wrote to Edmund Wilson ‘If I had anything to do with creating the manners of the contemporary American girl I certainly made a botch of the job…’ and in October of 1925 in a letter to Marya Mannes, he wrote ‘America is so decadent that its brilliant children are damned almost before they are born’. 29 All signs point toward a certainly disjointed and disconnected as well as deeply discontented and fractured society. By the end of the decade, one can argue that even for the ‘fast livers’ reality had set in. The foundations upon which they had built their lives in this decade were not sustainable. Despite the war being over internationally, it seems that twenties America was still at war with itself; its people divided and in conflict. The twenties was a period of an uneasy coexistence of tradition Dumenil, The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s, p.234. Miller, New World Coming: The 1920s and the Making of Modern America, p.34. 27Hemingway, Ernest, ‘American Bohemians in Paris’, The Toronto Star Weekly (March 25, 1922) in Loren Baritz (ed.), The Culture of the Twenties, p.297. 28Fitzgerald, F. Scott, The Letters of F. Scott Fitzgerald (ed.) Andrew Turnbull pp.488-489, in The Culture of the Twenties, p.397. 29 Fitzgerald, The Letters of F. Scott Fitzgerald (ed.) Andrew Turnbull pp.488-489, in The Culture of the Twenties, p.308. 25 26

and change and the relentless adjustments of social institutions, habits and lifestyles, each linked in a complex relationship with rapid economic change. 30 Wealth was being concentrated in ever fewer hands and discontent was rising as the social bond among classes disintegrated. 31 Racism and disdain against African Americans and immigrants was rife and becoming ever more violent. Wartime controls had also resulted in mounting hostility to federal intervention into the lives of the people. A search for order, for conformity and homogeneity at all levels of society was taking place against the backdrop of consumerism, excess and a lax government. 32 Everyone was trying to find their place and their footing with this new freedom and thriving activity, clashes rose on all fronts and the scent in the air was disillusionment and discontent. The twenties saw a battle between many aspects but none more powerful than the battle between old and new; highlighted in the arguments surrounding prohibition. To conclude, the euphoria and optimism felt by many Americans after the First World War gave way to stark realism as the new decade waned on. With no ‘war effort’, the economy flourished but soon floundered and a sense of depression took hold. The ordinary people suffered and jostled for a new position while the rich, the affluent and many of the youth lived on oblivious until this roaring decade came to a grinding halt. The confidence which was its essential prop received a jolt, and soon the ‘flimsy structure’ came crashing down around them. 33

Purchase, ‘Normalcy, Prosperity, and Depression 1919-1933’, America’s Century: Perspectives on U.S. History since 1900, p.47. 31 Miller, New World Coming: The 1920s and the Making of Modern America, p.35. 32 Ibid. 33 Fitzgerald, F. Scott, Echoes of the Jazz Age p.138. 30

Talking Blues1 Dr. Christian O’Connell in conversation with Darren Macey. 2 ‘The study of history requires investigation, imagination, empathy, and respect. Reverence just doesn't enter into it.’ 3 - Jill Lepore To the uninitiated, Historical research evokes images of dusty archives, silent libraries, history as the preserve of the elite. As historians understand it however, ‘living’ through a period is not a singular experience, there is of course never one history, the lives we study and how we interpret them is often dependent on our selection of sources. Social Historians such as today’s contributor Dr. Christian O’Connell have increasingly come to recognise the value of sources beyond the written word. These sources while undoubtedly challenging, can give insight into a historical experience previously disseminated in oral histories, material culture or as in Christian’s main area of research, music. They can offer us a glimpse into a history from the perspective of the disadvantaged and/or the disenfranchised. DM: Hi Christian, may we start with some brief biographical information? CO: Sure, I am a Senior Lecturer in American History at the University of Gloucestershire, and primarily a cultural historian. I am particularly interested in the role and development of African American culture in the US, although I teach a range of American history from 19th to 20th century, including slavery and Civil Rights. I got my PhD in 2012, which was based on the transatlantic reception of African American music in post-war Britain. I am also a musician, and play guitar with a band, but occasionally play solo. DM: It would be interesting to hear from you how you came into the profession, what was it that led you to become a historian?

In the 1958 album, ‘Talking Blues’ singer and folklorist John Greenway focused on labor and protest songs. With an introduction by John Greenway, liner notes by folklorist Kenneth Goldstein, he included lyrics, song descriptions, illustrations and photographs that gave further cultural dimensions to the songs. John Greenway, Talking Blues (Folkways Records, 1958). 2 Dr Christian O’Connell, following his performance of ‘The Discovery of the Blues’ at The University of South Wales on the 23 February 2015 in conversation with Darren Macey. 3 Jill Lepore, The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party’s Revolution and the Battle over American History (Princeton, New Jersey and London: Princeton University Press, 2010) p. 207 1

CO: I took a long way round, because my first degree was in Geography. But it began with my interest in music as a teenager, and the blues in particular. By getting into this music, I began to learn about the African American experience and black history, and gradually became more and more interested in the origins, development and influence of African American culture in the US. I now look at culture as a way of discovering alternative histories, enriching and complicating our current understanding of the past. DM: Fascinating and perhaps may I say not the most conventional approach in developing your methodology. Besides the influence of your direct teachers and tutors, what intellectual influences would you say that you’d had? CO: I have always read a lot of American literature, particularly from the first half of the twentieth century. Writers such as John Steinbeck, John Dos Passos, John Fante, even Hemingway. There is a way these writers connect with this period of American history that always hit a nerve with me. DM: Is this crosspollination with literature indicative of an evolution in the relationship between academic and popular history over the last two decades? CO: I don’t know if there has been an ‘evolution’, but there has been a realization that the existing gap between the ivory tower and public knowledge needs to be narrowed. How that can be achieved by maintaining rigorous standards while not alienating a lay audience is not an easy balance, but through various forms of public engagement I think it is possible. I actually consider much of my historical research to be at the centre of this divide. DM: I’d agree that perhaps one of our greatest challenges is engaging with a wider audience without ‘trivialising’ the past and having watched your presentation you certainly seem to have the balance right. Returning to your own area of expertise, why did the blues become so popular during the 1960s? CO: This is not an easy question to answer, but I will try. Young British audiences had already revelled in the rock’n’roll of Chuck Berry and Little Richard from the 1950s, but when the ‘rediscoveries’ of ageing blues singers who had recorded in the 1920-30s were made in the early 1960s, these young Brits heard the origins of an old forgotten musical culture. It was both oddly mysterious and real enough that it became idealized as an old folk culture, a repository of human values that existed despite Jim Crow segregation, and that gave young people disillusioned by the

‘modernity’ of the 60s a counter-cultural frame of reference. It was also – importantly – just great music that was very different to anything else that existed. DM: I’d have to agree on the quality of the music and you’ve gone some way to explaining why there was such a cross cultural connection, but how did the blues’ representation in this burgeoning counter-culture increase its impact? CO: The rediscovered singers – Son House, Skip James, Bukka White, and many more – became folk heroes, representative of this forgotten musical world, symbols of resistance to the homogenization of culture brought on by modernity. The Deep South and the Delta became romanticised places that gave birth to the music, so people begin to aestheticize cotton fields, sharecropper shacks, and the ‘blues life’. Bluesmen were imagined as cultural rebels, but also keepers of African American oral culture and history. DM: In reflection, how has this representation evolved and changed during the intervening years? CO: To be honest, if you look at the way people like Seasick Steve are presented today, you might think nothing much has changed. I still think the blues is imagined in this way in popular culture. What has changed, is the fact that more and more scholars are beginning to appreciate the process of ‘romanticization’ which occurred during the blues revival. Elijah Wald’s book, Escaping the Delta went a great way in demonstrating how many blues singers were pop stars in their day, or at least, aspired to be. DM: In terms of where the debate has reached now, would you say that there is any consensus over the current approach or the theoretical approaches to be taken to this period? CO: I certainly think that Wald’s approach that has focused on the ‘invention’ of the blues has had a significant impact on scholarship in this area. However, there are many who are still quite resistant to new interpretations on the nature and function of the music. It is still difficult for some to appreciate the fact that blues musicians existed within a commercial record industry. DM: On a slightly different tack, are there any institutions or organisations that have played a significant role in the development of this particular field of research? CO: There are a number of American Universities that promote research into African American music, and even some European organizations, such as the European Blues Association, that support this kind of work. However, I also think that a considerable proportion of work comes

outside of any affiliations, and Elijah Wald as an independent researcher and writer, is a perfect example of this. DM: Thanks Christian, as you are aware this publication is produced and edited by students, can you offer any advice to budding historians on heightening their academic profile and/or career advancement? CO: The only advice I can give is that your passion for the subject needs to be the driving force behind your work. That is the one thing that will carry you through. DM: I’m sure everyone would agree with those sentiments, thanks again for your time and your candour. Just one more question, (which you are free to speculate wildly on), how do you see the future of the discipline of history? CO: As a historian, I am used to focusing on the past, so you have stumped me here! History, as many other Humanities disciplines, faces increasing challenges in the current political climate where knowledge is consistently quantified and valued in terms of its relationship to the economy and the job market. In the face of government cuts of HE funding and especially in the Humanities, I think the discipline needs to find a way of justifying itself within this context, but importantly, without compromising on its integrity and intellectual rigour. Perhaps meaningful public engagement is the way forward, hence my performance of ‘The Discovery of the Blues’ (shameless self-promotion!).