Literature Review of ‘Neither beasts, nor gods, but men.’ by Jonathan Black

Literature Review of

‘Neither beasts, nor gods, but men.’

Written by Jonathon Black in January 2003, and reviewed by Brent Meheux in April 2017.

Abstract

‘Constructions of Masculinity and the Image of the Ordinary British Soldier or ‘Tommy’ in the First World War Art of: C.R.W Nevinson (1889-1946); Eric Henri Kennington (1888-1960) and Charles Sargent Jagger (1885-1934).

In his statement, Jonathon Black sets out to research, and deliver conclusions, on the art of the 3 listed artists; art that was produced in response to, or linked to, the British soldier’s (junior ranks, NCO’s and privates) experiences during the First World War. Through this research one of his objectives is to understand the private soldier who had either volunteered, or was conscripted, in to the conflict; and who was primarily from the British working-classes. Another of the objectives can be seen to be that of the notions and ideals of ‘Masculinity’ within the British middle classes, and intellectual elite, the intelligentsia. And as stated the vehicle for this research is the artistic output of 3 of the most influential artists of the period, who had all experienced, to varying degrees, the conflict at close quarters; work that was produced in response to the conflict, and was produced during, or in the immediate aftermath of the conflict.

It is the aim of this literature review to undertake a critical analysis of this work, an assessment of the work, and provide a summary and evaluation. It should be noted that this review will be confined to the theoretical and methodological contributions contained within this work solely, and so not attempt to provide analysis of published sources outside of those referred to, or contained within, this work.

Introduction

In his introduction, Black introduces us to the 3 artists whose work it is that he intends to base a great deal of his research upon, C.R.W Nevinson (1889-1946); Eric Henri Kennington (1888-1960) and Charles Sargent Jagger (1885-1934). With each he briefly outlines their work, previous to and during the conflict, personal backgrounds, and the First World War experiences, that he feels warrants their inclusion in this research. And to an author whose work greatly influenced his (Black’s) research area, Fredric Manning (1882-1935).

“Frederic Manning's novel of the First World War, Her Privates We, published in 1930” (p2). “This was initially published in 1929. An expurgated version, from which all the frequent obscenities used by soldiers in the field were removed, was published the following year as Her Privates We” (p6).

It is clear from Black’s description of the work that Manning’s work struck a chord with him; "realistic descriptions of the horrors of combat, and other negative aspects of military experience did not necessarily entail an overall antiwar stance.” (p7). And that he felt that there was a justified research link between Manning and the 3 artists Nevinson, Kennington and Jagger;

“Manning's overall interpretation of the war struck me as valid because his writing was greatly respected by the three war artists I will be discussing.” (p7).

Within his introduction, Black informs his reader that he is all too aware that a great deal of the work that deals with the period is the output of the officer class; “Barnett (Correlli Barnett) noted a tendency to view British experience of the war almost entirely through the perspective and writings of ex-public school temporary junior officers.” (p6). And in so doing so again clearly identifies the main subject of his research, the British working class ‘Tommy’.

The introduction introduces the reader to the aim of Black in seeking to build on recent work by Adrian Gregory and Alex King, concerning the function of war memorials and the processes by which they came to be commissioned. He (Black) states that it is his aim to explore whether a artist, such as Kennington, or Jagger, who possessed front-line combat experience made the imagery they produced for their war memorial designs more hard-hitting, brutal, uncompromising, unsentimental, and more `masculine' in response to their own wartime experiences.

“These memorials simultaneously acknowledged that the war had been a horrific event and that many veterans wished to look back with pride on how creditably they had acquitted themselves in battle. Many veterans also derived considerable consolation from the memory of the comradeship with other men, they had experienced at the Front, which had greatly helped to keep them going.” (p21)

Chapters

A great deal of the opening chapter is devoted to examining middle-class and the intelligentsias notions on the English working-classes; and artistic notions of the ‘masculinity’ of the working-class.

“I believe they can also be interpreted as touching on middle-class male desire to observe, record and identify with working-class masculinity.” (p23)

The observations of writers such as Henry Mayhew;

“his leisure is devoted to the beer shop, the dancing room or the theatre ... They have a marked fondness for 'sparring'... the 'sparring' is not for money but for beer and 'a lark'; bouts usually only last for a quarter of an hour until one costar has given another a bloody ... nose. The costermongers boast of their skill in pugilism as well as in skittles ... Among the men rat-killing is a favorite sport ...Nearly every coster is fond of dogs… Their dog’s fights ... are both cruel and frequent... A good pugilist is looked up to with great admiration by the coster and fighting is considered to be a necessary part of a boy's education. Among them cowardice, in any shape, is despised as being degrading.” (p25)

In this chapter, Black also gives good insight to the formative years of 2 of the artists whose work he discusses in great detail in later chapters, Nevinson and Kennington. Time is given to explore their pursuit of masculinity in their early pre-war work, it’s critical reception, and in their pursuits outside of their art, for example Nevinson’s early years pre-war at the Academie Julian in France.

“While studying in Paris, at the Academie Julian, Nevinson liked to indulge in subterfuge and role-playing. For example, he passed himself off as a Russian called

`Nevinski' and pretended, in dress and behavior, that he was an Apache, a quarrelsome and knife-wielding member of the Parisian underworld. Apaches were

known for their readiness to take offence, for carving each other up in knife fights, for

walking around Paris armed, for bank raids, gambling and for their disdain for women, and fondness for pimping.” (p28).

Or his, Nevinson’s embracement of Futurism and the writings of its founder, Filippo Tommaso. And how when he eventually read Marinetti's Founding Manifesto, early in 1913, H. W. Nevinson was impressed with many of the sentiments it proclaimed such as:

“(I) We intend to sing the love of danger, the habit of energy and fearlessness;

(iii) Up to now literature has exalted a passive immobility, ecstasy and sleep. We intend to exalt aggressive action, a feverish insomnia, the racer's stride, the mortal leap, the punch and the slap.

(vii) Except in struggle, there is no more beauty. No work without an aggressive

character can be a masterpiece.

(ix) We will glorify war - the world's only hygiene - militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom4xingers, beautiful ideas worth dying for and scorn for women.” (p39)

All of which the author (Black) is of the opinion helped to put Nevinson in an untenable position upon the outbreak of hostilities.

“Earlier in 1914 a Daly Mirror article posed the question 'How would a Futurist Die?

The answer did not allow Nevinson much of a choice. If he still wished to advertise

himself as 'England's only Futurist', once war had been declared "A Futurist would

infinitely prefer to die a violent death by fighting than on a sick bed" (p43).

Although Nevinson strives to live up to the masculine ideals of the Futurism movement, the reality, as the author states, is far removed. In his own writings Nevinson delivers many contradictions, for on the one side he bemoans the effeminate artistic male.

“Singles out the effeminate artistic male for scorn and identifies this figure with that of Aubrey Beardsley and his 'aesthete' foIlowers. A year earlier Nevinson, in his Vital English Art Manifesto of June 1914, had vehemently denounced Beardsley and the cult of The Yellow Book as exemplars of the pernicious influence of Oscar Wilde, and the deviant, homosexual English aestheticism associated with him.” (54).

And goes to great lengths to strongly deny that he had served but a brief period at the front as an ambulance driver with the Friends Ambulance Unit, before then, after a brief illness, returning to the UK to enlist as a private in the RAMC, and so work for a further few months in the Third London General Territorial Hospital, Wandsworth.

“As a matter of fact I have spent some three to four months there [in France and

Flanders] in the capacity of a mechanic, stretcher-bearer and driver of a motor

ambulance ...I am firmly convinced all artists should immediately enlist and go to the

Front, no matter how little they owe England for her contempt of modem art ... and free themselves from... effeminacy, old fogeyism and snobbery.”(p54).

The author does much to ensure that the reader is fully aware of just how far that Nevinson went to ensure that he avoided conscription, and his distaste for military life; 89 In his autobiography, Nevinson wrote bitterly.

“I shall look back with horror on my life, at the Third London General, not because of the War, or the work, its dullness and squalor but, partly, because...I was under Army nurses ... they were the most repulsive bosses, thinking of little but currying favour with the doctors and with a magnificent indifference to truth and justice.” (p55).

Nevinson’s output after this period, and in response in part to his experiences, is deconstructed, and analysed in depth, as is the critical reception that it received from public and press alike. From the authors work we can be aware of the very positive way in which the work was received by the public. A public that at this time after the realities of the Battle of the Somme (1916) and it’s 420,000 British casualties were open to a newer, franker artistic response to the true nature of modern warfare.

“Reviewers praised Nevinson for demonstrating a newfound sobriety and maturity

in design and use of colour, which they attributed to his front-line experience and his

stint as a RAMC orderly at home.” (Jonathon Black, p62).

  

Although the author in this work gives us little in detail, or substance about the artist Kennington’s early pre-war period he does again look in detail at his work produced during the conflict, again de-constructing it in detail; and going to great length to look at the artistic outputs critical reception by again both the press and public. But what is of interest is the artist, Kennington’s, service during the conflict.

At the start of World War I, Kennington enlisted with the 13th (Kensington) Battalion London Regiment on 6 August 1914. He fought on the Western Front, but was wounded in January 1915 and evacuated back to England. Kennington was injured while attempting to clear a friend's jammed rifle and he lost one toe and was fortunate not to lose a foot due to infection. And whilst the author (Black) is keen to remain unbiased he does well to illustrate the outcome of such an accident had it happened at a later date.

“Though the nature of his disabling wound, the loss of the middle toe on his left foot, would later be interpreted as the classic self-inflicted wound, he was granted an honourable discharge from further military service.”(p75)

**Please Note the following are just initial notes for the completion of these sections**

Jagger – (*NOTES) his service and his work – and the contrasts that lay in him and the other 2 artists. (Kipling?)

The ‘Tommy’ – (*NOTES) the 4 often stated versions of the British ‘Tommy’,

Firstly, the Tommy' was imagined as a 'gentleman', a ferocious but fair fighter in the field who did not shoot or maltreat German prisoners. (p67).

Secondly, the Tommy', as good-natured victim. He was the man who had things done to him, but could not run away. He mitigated unimaginable degrees of pain and indignity through black humour, inoffensively scatological marching songs, and endless mugs of stewed tea. (P67).

Thirdly, by late 1916 and after the widely-reported successes of Dominion forces,

Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and South Africans, during the latter stages of the Battle of the Somme, the Tommy' could be perceived as a compromised figure, one which inviting exasperation and even derision. (p67).

Finally, throughout the war, the Tommy was imagined as a disturbing hybrid of a man at ease with modem weaponry who had also rediscovered his 'primitive' and 'savage' instincts through army life and combat. He was both the product of a highly-industrialized civilization, and a virile brute whose aptitude for killing inspired admiration and anxiety in equal parts on the British home front. A characteristic perception of this type was articulated early in 1916 by Patrick MacGill, a pre-war working-class novelist who had served as a front-line infantryman in France between March and September 1915, “we, the villa-dwellers ... have become cave-dwellers and ... battle with dub and knobkerrie.” (p67)

Shell shock – its effects, and the establishments difficulties in initially dealing with it and its aftermath.

Post-war fears on the returning ‘Tommy’s’ ability to rejoin civilian life.

The Post-War Image of the ‘Tommy’ – looking at the output, both artistic and in writing/verse of the 3 artists.

Conclusion

(*NOTES) – Meanwhile, a wide variety of social commentators and pundits, across the political spectrum, accepted the assumption that the British male had not proved as formidable and effective in combat as his counterpart from the Dominions of Canada and Australia…(p146)

Only four years after the Armistice, the eminent Liberal writer C. E. Montague, whose opinion carried extra weight because he had served in the Army for a short period during 1915 as a sergeant, described the British soldiers he had seen in France during the last year of the war in the most negative and unflattering terms

'battalions of colourless, stunted, half-toothless lads from hot, humid Lancashire mills; battalions of slow, staring faces, gargoyles out of the tragical-comical-historical-pastoral edifice of modem English life. ' In stark contrast, battalions from the Dominions were composed of men who were:

“startlingly taller, stronger, handsomer, prouder, firmer in nerve ... more boldly interested in life, quicker to take means to an end and to parry and counter any new blow of circumstance, men who had learned already to look at our men with the half-curious, half-pitying look of a higher, happier caste at a lowers" (p146)

(*NOTES) – How do these observations sit with the survivors, and did the work of Jagger or others not go a great way to ‘celebrate’ not only their ‘resilience’, but also their skill at arms…and not forgetting the shared camaraderie?

(*NOTES) – Both Kennington and Nevinson were ‘observers’ – Jagger was a ‘participant’ – in my conclusion I feel that this is the single one point that Black misses. In his work he, quite rightly, goes to great lengths to illustrate how both of the artists strived to emulate the ‘masculinity’ of the working-class ‘Tommy’, but at the same time he leaves us in no doubt the they both failed in their own efforts to emulate this ‘masculinity’. Yes, their work is accurate and well received, but it is the work of the ‘observer’. Jagger on the other hand could, and did, deliver work that touched the soul of those few who had returned, men who, I feel, would know that the work had been created by someone who not only knew them because he had stood side by side with them and shared the same emotions of loss, but also the same emotions of pride. It is in the final paragraph of chapter 6 that the author comes the closest to grasping this when discussing the unveiling of the Royal Artillery Memorial.

“The veterans of the First World War he had encountered, at the unveiling ceremony, sought understanding, and not pity, from those who had not experienced life at the Front They also hoped the civilian public would appreciate that their sense of being men had been reinforced, and not diminished, by the horrors they had been able to endure at the Front As one former artillery officer wrote to The Times, although the imagery on the memorial was of "horrible, bloody war', it also illustrated `what human flesh did, and can, endure ... It is the memorial our fallen comrades would have wanted"(p171)