Forgotten Fame III: Captain Herbert Clarke

Thanks to cousin, Jim Stockley, I have been able to read yet more "forgotten fame". Anyone who has read my blog for a decent period of time will know I am a particular fan of this stuff. This is why I enjoy reading work from historians like Heather Vallance and Cathy Barrett (who seek out hard to find primary source material in order to reconstruct periods from the past. It is also why I actively ferret out and oppose pseudohistory, alternative history and crackpot conspiracy theories (see my blog www.beelzebubsbroker.blogspot.com for more on this). There is more than enough fascinating data and lost information that can be uncovered through legitimate research.

My book "The Legend of Salt and Sauce" focuses on two elephants and their trainers that became legendary almost mythical in the circus world, a community I grew up in, but were virtually forgotten by the outside world. It made me consider other examples of even more famous events and people who also became stuck in time. This was my first post on the subject http://jamieclubb.blogspot.com/2009/03/forgotten-fame-salt-and-sauce-meet.html

Prompted by a response from cousin Jim again, I posted a piece on one of his favourite examples of forgotten fame http://jamieclubb.blogspot.com/2009/04/forgotten-fame-ii-incredible-abernathy.html

Now Jim has found an excellent blog that details a piece of history seemingly forgotten by our own community, the life and times of "Captain" Herbert Clarke. Clarke is a character not found in any of the circus encyclopaedias or anywhere else on the net, which is what prompted the author of the historical blog to write about him. What is even more amazing is that my father is an avid researcher into the history of Bostock and Wombwelle's Menagerie, the very show that booked Clarke, and this was the first time he had heard about the trainer. It just goes to show how easily the past can be forgotten even within the microcosm of the circus. Enjoy! http://www.thebloxidgetallygraph.com/patcollinsliontamer.htm

The Psychology of Conspiracism

Image via Wikipedia

I am delighted at the response I have received and the interest from various different quarters I have prompted with my recent interview/article with Dr. Heather Vallance "Can History be Objective?" http://jamieclubb.blogspot.com/2009/02/can-history-be-objective-conversation.html The discussion has been a fascinatingly varied series of posts from some really interesting people, discounting no one! I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge those who have contributed both on the thread and outside it via email. Thank you for lending such a wide scope of knowledge and experience. I salute you all!

On the subject of conspiracy theory, which I think is still the strongest and most prolific example of "bad history" in action, I was fascinated by a whole area that dealt with the psychology of what they call "Conspiracism". Wikipedia has a good entry on this subject that I think may intrigue many of my readers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories#Psychological_origins

History on History: Essential for all Historians

"In Our Time" is an excellent regular radio programme and podcast that deals with big ideas in history. On 23/01/2009 the programme centred on a topic I think should be of interest to any historian: the history of history. Historians are often our sources. Their approach and methods can shape the way we study history or look at the past. Interestingly the origins of the word history are closely linked to the word "inquiry".

Conspiracy theorists and pseudohistorians often like to cite the adage "history is written by the winners" when they have difficulty shifting the overwhelming evidence set against their extraordinary claims. Actually the excellent sceptical resource website Snopes has a forum discussion on the origins of this exact phrase: http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=101;t=000374;p=0 However, this is not good enough. History is about researching and establishing facts. The discussion looks at how the writing of history has evolved and, looking at the broader picture, how we can establish certain historical facts. Anecdotal evidence is given its place. For example Herodotus and Pliny were quick to point out when they didn't know whether a certain historical story was real, but also understood that it was important to include nevertheless to understand the thinking of the people who did believe it. This is different from some historians who followed them, sometimes competitively and contemptuously, who completley disregarded such stories and, worse still, those who reported such stories as facts (see the conspiracy theorists, pseudohistorians and pulp non-fiction writers).

When I wrote "The Legend of Salt and Sauce" I was very aware of the amount of myth surrounding these two famous historical circus elephants, hence the title. For me, it was important to not only include inaccurate reports of certain events and apocryphal stories in order to debunk them, but to show how imagines were fired up and folklore was created. We need to understand biases of certain historians - for example, "In Our Time" discusses the huge influence of post-Constantine Christian historians - in order to see what shaped the mentality of those who read their work. I found that my subject, Salt and Sauce the elephants, had been so surrounded by infamy thanks in part to the stories about their stampedes being reported on the radio decades after they had happened that the keepers at Dudley Zoo became very concerned about handling them. Subsequently they weren't worked for a year before Ivor Rosaire took them on for "Long" Tom Fossett on his circus. In his interview Ivor told me that there was a lot of fearful apprehension surrounding his training them at the time when Fossett bought them off Dudley Zoo.

Here is the link for "In Our Time" http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime.shtml Don't forget to check their useful research page.