The Journal of a Disappointed Man
First published by Chatto and Windus on 31 March 1919. Introduction by H. G. Wells. Entries cover the period 3 January 1903 to 21 October 1917 and are followed by a “Synopsis” (drawn up with meticulous care by Barbellion himself) and an “Index of Names” (a shoddy piece of work compiled apparently by a professional indexer). Most of the people and places mentioned in the volume are referred to by initials. Among the names used is a liberal sprinkling of fabrications, for example Martha for Mary Yeo (the family servant) and Downstable for Barnstaple. Several passages, two of them about “prostitutes and other stuff”, were cut by the publishers and are now untraceable. The St Martin’s Library edition of 1923 incorporated a number of minor corrections made by Barbellion himself. These have appeared in two other British editions, the Phoenix Library edition of 1931 and the Hogarth Press edition of 1984. When Penguin Books published the Journal in 1948 they incorporated a number of minor alterations made for them by the diarist’s brother Henry R. Cummings (“Hal”), who may have been unaware of those already made. These have appeared in one other British edition, the Alan Sutton edition of 1984, reprinted in 1991.
Enjoying Life and Other Literary Remains
First published by Chatto and Windus on 20 November 1919. Introduction by Hal signed “H.R.C.” Essays and short stories. Among the former are four so-called “Journal Essays” comprising 69 pages of further extracts from the journal for a period from an unspecified date in the summer of 1913 to 20 February 1917. Barbellion had originally intended to include these extracts in the Journal – whether as entries in the main body of that work or as separate essays is unclear – but was advised by Chatto and Windus to omit them for reasons of space. Since they contain no references to his family or friends and consist for the most part of musings on life and human nature, their omission from the earlier volume does not affect the story told in its pages.
A Last Diary
First published by Chatto and Windus on 25 November 1920. Introduction by the diarist’s brother Arthur J. Cummings entitled “The Life and Character of Barbellion”, a piece long on eulogy and character analysis and frustratingly short on fact. Entries cover the period 21 March 1918 to 3 June 1919. Most of the people mentioned are referred to by initials. Among the names used are several fabrications. Barbellion’s own choice of title was The Diary of a Dying Man. After his death Arthur and Hal preferred Barbellion’s Last Diary but Chatto and Windus urged that it be simply A Last Diary. In accordance with a “detailed tabular scheme” drawn up by Barbellion, certain passages were re-arranged to supplement entries appearing under other dates. Several passages referring “too openly and too intimately to persons still alive” were cut by Arthur and Hal and are now untraceable. Slightly over half the diary was serialised in the May and June 1920 issues of the London Mercury. This abridgement was hastily prepared, however, with the result that Barbellion’s scheme was misinterpreted here and there. Consequently several passages appear under different dates from those they appear under in the book. This serialisation also includes the final sentence of the last entry – “E. [Eleanor] came down and decided the place here was impossible.” – which Arthur and Hal lopped off. It has never been restored.
Translations
Translations of the Journal (and sometimes of A Last Diary) have been published in the following languages: Dutch, French, Italian, Japanese, Romanian, Spanish and Swedish.
The Unpublished Omnibus Barbellion
On 3 January 1946 Chatto and Windus wrote to Arthur about the possibility of reprinting the Journal with “a selection of the best of the other two books plus any valuable material, hitherto unpublished in book form, and with a fairly long biographical preface, and any such marginal notes as might be considered necessary throughout the text”. “Such a volume”, they said, “would in effect be a sort of definitive omnibus Barbellion.” Later they decided to include the whole of A Last Diary and issue the work in two volumes. But the idea of including a new preface and marginal notes was abandoned. For reasons that are unclear the project came to nothing. And to this day no omnibus Barbellion has appeared.
My own attempts to interest a publisher in the possibility of an edition with a long biographical preface (based on my many years of research), a detailed bibliography (like this) and a reconstruction of the text of the original diary (with the entries composing the “Journal Essays” reincorporated, suppressed passages restored wherever possible, initials replaced by names, invented names replaced by real ones, notes explanatory, biographical and variorum and the false announcement of the diarist’s death – idiotically retained in modern editions – relegated to a footnote) have met with nothing but indifference and failure. Yet I am confident that the day will come when Barbellion will be widely recognised for what he is: one of the greatest writers of the English language. And by then the original manuscript, the Holy Grail of Barbellion research, may have come to light.
Biographical and Critical Studies
Of the numerous articles about Barbellion, most are simply rehashes, usually inaccurate, of what can be found in his three books.
An important exception is Edward Shanks’s “W. N. P. Barbellion”, London Mercury, March 1920, reprinted in a revised version in his First Essays on Literature, 1923. Shanks, a conscientious writer, took care to acquaint himself with the facts, interviewed Hal and was given access to letters of Barbellion’s. The result was “an essay of singular understanding” (Arthur) and “a discriminating and perceptive analysis of his character and literary qualities” (Hal).
Another exception was provided by A. F. Pollard in the April 1921 issue of History. Entitled “An Essay in Historical Method: The Barbellion Diaries”, it purports to be an impartial investigation into the authenticity of the diaries yet appears to have been written in detestation of the unfortunate man and everything he ever thought, said or did. As an exercise in innuendo it would be hard to surpass. As an example of how a distinguished historian may resort to half-truths, lies and dirty tricks to bolster up his case while omitting to consult those who know the facts it is probably unsurpassable. Nonetheless Pollard makes a few valid points. For example a handful of entries are misdated – in a diary covering a period of 16 years and five months. (But who has not misdated a letter?) Furthermore the fall of Gorizia and the first zeppelin to be brought down in flames over London are both adverted to toward the end of a long entry supposedly written on 31 July 1916 – a critique of newspaper jingoism and exposition of the diarist’s own feelings about the war. Gorizia, however, did not fall till 9 August and the zeppelin in question was not shot down till 2 September. (But might not the entry have been augmented at a later date, as some entries are clearly indicated as having been?) Only in his final paragraph does Pollard reveal that Barbellion was a real man, that his name was Bruce Frederick Cummings and that his career was a matter of public record. “There is obviously a substratum of fact in Barbellion’s journal and diary”, he concedes grudgingly. And having hinted throughout that Wells was the real author of the Journal, he proceeds to voice his suspicion that there were “at least three hands in the final composition” (apparently Wells with the addition of Shanks and one of the brothers). Shades of Shakespeare being the work of a committee! Several indignant responses followed, the most detailed of which, Hal’s “Barbellion’s Diaries: A Reply”, History, October 1921, is also the most confused and poorly argued.
The only other exception worth mentioning is Hal’s “New Light on Barbellion”, Contemporary Review, January and February 1966. In this affectionate two-part tribute to his brother Hal explains that “Barbellion’s self-portrayal in the published extracts from his diaries tends to obscure some aspects of his personality known to and valued by his relatives and friends. … [L]etters in my possession illustrate elements of Barbellion’s nature that are less discernible in the ‘Journal of a Disappointed Man’, though they are rather more obvious in the serener pages of ‘A Last Diary’. … They contribute much to a just understanding of him, and strikingly supplement his own courageous and tragic story.” However, in comparing the originals with the printed versions offered in the article, I have been struck time and again by Hal’s bowdlerisations and by what appears to have been a constitutional inability on his part to quote accurately.
The only book about him is Richmond H. Hellyar’s W. N. P. Barbellion, 1926, a sympathetic but unenlightening study of his work.
At least four separate attempts at a biography had been made by the time I began my own research in 1982. None came to anything thanks to certain members of Barbellion’s family proving obstructive, a problem I too have faced. And more than 80 years after his death most devotees of his work are still asking: What became of his widow and child? Who was his friend R– and what became of him? Where did he live in Barnstaple, London and Gerrards Cross? Where is he buried? Even tracing a photograph of him can prove difficult.
All this will change with the publication of my W. N. P. Barbellion and His Critics, a little volume that will correct many of the misinterpretations and misrepresentations made by other writers. Once I have finished work on it I will resume editing The Barbellion Log, a chronicle of his life based on newspaper and magazine items, contemporary documents, reminiscences and letters by, to or about him. Currently some 200,000 words long, it also includes a bibliography and appendices on his relatives and friends, his residences, Hellyar (who died tragically young) and Pollard’s essay. I might add that publishers have been less than enthusiastic about it.