Arts, Books, Culture, History

Book Review: The Lost Gutenberg

THE GUTENBERG BIBLE

THE Gutenberg Bible, says Margaret Leslie Davis, is “a masterpiece of world culture . . . the most beautiful work of printing the world has ever known.”

Only 49 copies are known now to exist, and one edition, held by the Morgan Library & Museum in New York – when on display – is surrounded by armed guards.

The Bibles were made in 1456 by Johannes Gutenberg in Mainz, Germany, for distribution to churches, convents and monasteries. Hitherto, sacred texts were painstakingly copied by scribes, a process that took many years. Gutenberg’s innovation was to create a mechanical typeface that resembled traditional monkish calligraphy – and a Bible could be assembled in a few weeks.

The single alphabetical letters, carved from metal, were combined and recombined by hand to make “an everchanging stream of words”. The lines of words, punctuation marks and spaces were slotted and held in wooden frames, and the blocks of text were then inked and pressed on to the paper or vellum, which was first moistened, the better to hold the pigment.

The printing press was developed from an olive press, and the printer had to be able to arrange the type upside down and backwards, in columns of equal width. Those of us who had a John Bull Printing Set as children will know the basic drill.

It was an advanced technical skill, and to this day the ink of a Gutenberg Bible “shimmers as if the pages were just recently printed”, we are assured.

The leaves are “as black and glossy as the hair of a Japanese beauty”. The original binding was of calfskin stretched over wooden boards. The margins of the Royal Folio pages, 16in tall by 12in wide, were decorated with elaborate, richly coloured illuminations, coils of flowers, animals and birds.

Copies began to appear on the open market after the French Revolution upended the religious establishments, a process exacerbated by the “chaos of war” caused by Napoleon.

The first private owner of the Gutenberg Bible, whose fate is the one followed in Davis’s study, was the Earl of Gosford, who paid £45 for it in 1836. English aristocrats saw books as trophies and status symbols. There was a fashion for “fancy hand-tooled bindings, coloured leather that looks good on the shelf”.

Gosford, a moody recluse, shipped thousands of rare volumes to his castle in Northern Ireland. His Gutenberg was placed in a library so cavernous that it required two men and a 40ft ladder to reach the top shelves.

Gosford died, aged 57, from “an attack of gout in the head”, and his son and heir, who was interested in the estate only for grouse shooting, liquidated the library in 1884 to cover his gambling debts.

The Bible was sold for £500 and went to Didlington Hall, Norfolk, the palatial home of Lord William Tyssen-Amherst, who possessed “a bottomless hunger for the best the world has to offer”. The Hall, set in a 7,000-acre park, had ballrooms, 46 bedrooms, a suite for visiting royalty and a museum filled with antiquities.

The Bible was kept in a steel casket inside a fireproof vault – it was, for Amherst, “an unmatched bargain”.

Then disaster struck. The family solicitor, having embezzled Amherst’s fortune, killed himself – at least £250,000 (about £30 million today) had been lost, and in 1908, the Gutenberg, along with everything else that had been collected, had to be sold off to make good the fraud. The Bible went for £2,050.

Six weeks later, Amherst dropped dead from shock and grief.

The book was purchased by Charles William Dyson Perrins, of the Lea & Perrins Worcestershire Sauce empire, and displayed in his country house near Malvern. Perrins also owned the Royal Worcester Porcelain factory which, unlike the condiment concern, kept losing money. In the post-war period, to keep the china works going and to pay the wages of a large staff, Perrins was forced to sell his library, for a total of £147,627.

On March 11, 1947, the Gutenberg was auctioned off yet again – this time for £22,000. The new owner, Sir Philip Beaumont Frere, a private collector, sold it almost immediately, for a £3,000 profit to Estelle Doheny, a widow whose late husband had left her oil wells worth $1.8 billion in today’s figures. The Gutenberg Bible went by ship to America, disguised in a crate marked “commodes”.

 

ESTELLE, who enjoyed amassing prayer books and other early sacred texts, was overjoyed. “The moment I saw the book in its wonderfully perfect condition, I felt as if I wanted to lift it up and kiss it.”

It is a sad irony that Estelle had advanced glaucoma and could never actually read any of it.

She’d wanted her own copy of the Gutenberg Bible since 1911, was always outbid – hence Davis’s title, which refers to the way Estelle always “lost” her chance. Finally, in October 1950, the book, “probably the finest copy known”, with no pages missing or defaced, arrived in Los Angeles, having been hastily inspected by New York customs officials.

The Bible was kept in a hidden room, away from dust, dirt, smoke or soot. Estelle died in 1958 and her treasures were left to the Edward Laurence Doheny Memorial Library at the St John’s Seminary, in California.

Against what would have been her express wishes, however, and in a clear violation of “the spirit of Estelle’s request”, the library was closed down and everything dispersed in a sale in 1987.

A new corporate regime at the Seminary saw the Gutenberg and other manuscripts, and even the paintings on the walls, as “inert assets”. There was absolutely no interest in, or understanding of, the enlightened idea that art is what “lifts our gaze towards God”.

Stupidity and philistinism prevailed, as it so often does. The committee now in charge wanted only “to maximise revenue for the church”, and the funds raised were used to redecorate the archbishop’s quarters. Apparently, St John’s Seminary now resembles a motorway service station.

The Gutenberg Bible was sold to a company in Tokyo for $5.4 million. A high-resolution photographic version was made and placed online. The original has been secured in an air-conditioned vault in total darkness with all access to it denied. Scholars, “no matter how qualified,” will never see it again – unless something radical happens, which, as we have seen, has always been the pattern with the book in the past.

Were it to come on the market today, its price would be in the $100 million range.

– The Lost Gutenberg by Margaret Leslie Davis is published by Atlantic, 294pp

Standard
Books, Britain, History, Immigration

Book Reviews: The Windrush Betrayal & Homecoming

WINDRUSH

FROM a ship to a scandal, from Commonwealth immigrants full of hope to elderly people shamefully traduced by the system, the name Windrush resonates through decades of history.

Both these valuable books give great voice to the families of those who travelled to Great Britain from the West Indies in search of a better life in the chilly place they had always been told was the “mother country” and which actually needed them.

Drawing on scores of first-hand accounts, Colin Grant (born in Britain of Jamaican parents) offers historical testimony at its finest, while Amelia Gentleman’s very different book is a chronicle to the dogged energy of one of Britain’s best investigative journalists whose anger at injustice spills on to the page.

We should all be familiar with those iconic pictures of serious, well-dressed black men in trilby hats, suits and ties, disembarking from the Empire Windrush at Tilbury Dock in 1948. But Colin Grant also remind us that “the popular image . . . has also reduced the story – not least because it excludes over 200 women who were also passengers.”

Significantly, he points out that it can get in the way of “the bigger picture of the impact of mass migration”, as “some 300,000 adventurers made their way to Britain” from all the West Indian islands over the next 15 years. Grant was spurred to record people “before their stories disappeared”.

His interviews reveal natural courage and style enough to face down even the vile racism encountered on the streets of Notting Hill in the 1950s and afterwards.

Soon after he began recording, “the British government gave a new twist to the story ensuring that the name ‘Windrush’ will now also forever be associated with scandal.”

Coincidentally, at the same time, prize-winning British journalist Amelia Gentleman was revealing the scandal of how the government’s “hostile environment” policy for illegal immigrants led to thousands of Windrush descendants being wrongly classified as living here illegally.

Many lost their jobs, some were deported, all were hurt and enraged by their appalling treatment at “the mother country”. One quotation encapsulates a bewilderment that can never be assuaged. “How do you pack for a one-way journey to a country you left when you were 11 and have not visited for 50 years?”

Whose fault was it? Gentleman paints a searing picture of a Home Office not fit for purpose and politicians who exist with a self-centred Westminster bubble of partisan party politics. It’s impossible to read her account of the step-by-step betrayal without feeling ashamed that it was done in your name.

But despite real admiration for this literary work, she and some readers are likely to part company on some of the broad strokes of her postscript. For example, she seems determined to see the scandal as symptomatic of widespread endemic racism rather than shocking bureaucratic bungling and negligence.

She does assert, however, that it suits the government to present what took place as “a small predicament affecting a niche-group of retirement-age Caribbean people who had no papers.”

Gentleman quotes a fellow journalist colleague: “It has yet to fully sink in that what was wrong for the Windrush generation is wrong for all immigrants.” Is it? All? Should peoples be lumped together in this way?

There were and are very real public concerns about the true extent of immigration to these shores – the latest projections suggest the population will hit 70 million by 2031 – and its effect on infrastructure.

These cannot be dismissed as “xenophobic, anti-immigrant conviction” and “a gradual withering of empathy.” Yes, the Home office was wrong, very wrong.

But what the Windrush generation should have taught us is that they shouldn’t be shoehorned into any wider debate on immigration that would arguably chip away at their very special status.

– The Windrush Betrayal by Amelia Gentleman is published by Faber, 336pp

– Homecoming by Colin Grant is published by Cape, 320pp

Standard
China, Economic, Government, Politics, Society

Under China’s watchful eye

ORWELLIAN CHINA

Intro: The reality of modern China is no longer Orwellian science fiction. Every face and every move are being tracked. ‘Wrong’ political thoughts punished. All citizens’ lives are being controlled by the State. There are chilling implications for us all

TROUBLE in Hong Kong began earlier last month. Police ruthlessly beat protesters with batons and showered them with pepper spray in violent running battles. Rounds of rubber bullets and tear gas were fired into the crowds of angry but until then peaceful demonstrators.

The scenes in Hong Kong were as shocking as any seen there since the former British territory was handed over to China in 1997.

The handover was supposed to guarantee Hong Kong considerable autonomy and democratic rights under a “one country, two systems” agreement. But now its China-friendly parliament is debating plans to allow the extradition of Hong Kong citizens to mainland China, and a very different legal system. Which is why thousands have continued to besiege government buildings in the city, prompting the brutal crackdowns that have become more prevalent.

Hong Kong is the only spot on Chinese soil where any such protest is still imaginable. But for how much longer?

Be under no illusion, Hongkongers are protesting not in an act of hope but of desperation. With the new extradition law looming over them, they feel that this is their end game.

Beijing’s aim is clear: to turn Hong Kong into a Chinese city like any other. In the new China that means a place with harsher and vastly more efficient repression than we have seen in recent memory.

There are several reasons the Chinese Communist Party deeply distrusts Hong Kong and its way of life and is intent on destroying it.

One is the ability of Hong Kong to remember. In China remembering events the Chinese Communist Party chooses to erase from history is a subversive act and thus forbidden and punished.

Take Tiananmen Square. It was 30 years ago that a brave demonstrator carrying nothing more than a plastic grocery bag was photographed as he stood in front of a tank during protests in the Beijing square against China’s Communist government.

The starkest of images, it encapsulated in one potent frame the struggle for freedom against dictatorial oppression.

 

BUT the courage of this man, whose identity and fate has never been discovered, was to no avail. The regime of Deng Xiaoping cracked down on the revolt, beginning with a massacre of the Tiananmen protesters, followed by the widespread suppression of liberties.

The bloodshed, bullets and bayonets of Tiananmen Square in June 1989 only served to strengthen the Chinese Communist Party, cementing its grip on power and laying the foundations of the China we know today – a China which is now more determined than ever to eliminate all memories of Tiananmen.

In the two decades after the massacre, the Beijing Government pursued a twin-track policy of political authoritarianism combined with economic liberalism. Essentially, the nascent urban middle-classes were offered a deal: share in prosperity and keep your mouths shut.

But this dual approach, while fuelling record growth, gradually began to undermine the authority of the communist regime, as its guiding ideology decayed, and corruption spread. All that changed in 2012 with the arrival in power of the new Party chief and President Xi Jinping, an apparatchik who has turned out to be a ruthless autocrat.

Now effectively President for life, Xi has overseen the return of a merciless Leninist dictatorship, complete with relentless state propaganda, the eradication of dissent and the domination of civic life by the Communist Party.

What makes this development even more forceful is that his Government is using today’s high-tech tools, such as mass video surveillance powered by artificial intelligence, to enforce its rule.

The internet and the cyber revolution have been often hailed as instruments of liberation, but in the hands of Xi Jinping’s state, they have become instruments of repression, mind control and political manipulation.

Communist dictatorship has been given a digital rebirth.

This is not the story we are usually told in the West. Politicians in Europe tend to focus on the threat of Vladimir Putin’s Russia. They all but ignore the reality of the far greater challenge from the evermore ambitious China.

Many Westerners have, indeed, long clung to the delusion that a more open economy and increasing growth will automatically bring political liberalisation to China.

The argument went that if we engaged and traded with China, the country would slowly start to resemble us. But that was nothing more than wishful thinking. Domestic repression is accelerating, while the regime seeks greater global influence.

The inability of officialdom to effectively face up to this threat is perfectly illustrated by the explosive controversy over the British Government’s plan to allow the Chinese telecoms giant Huawei to play a key role in the creation of the new generation 5G network here, despite the profound reservations of allies like the United States and Australia, who remain gravely concerned about the security implications.

Trying to downplay such anxieties, Huawei’s boss Ren Zhengfei has given assurances that his company “will never cause damage to a nation or an individual”. But this ignores the fact that an intelligence service law from 2017 obliges all “Chinese organisations and citizens” to “support, aid and co-operate with the work of the national secret service”.

There is breathtaking naivety and complacency about the true nature of Xi Jinping’s China. Far from being more pluralistic, China’s structure as a one-party state has been reinforced.

“The party rules everything,” says Xi, a chilling statement of fact that embraces every institution from the universities and the media to the civil service. Indeed, the party is now an organisation with no fewer than 89 million members, more than the entire population of Germany or, indeed, Britain.

In this climate, a new cult of Xi’s personality is accompanied by the punishment of any deviation from the ruling orthodoxy. The lives of China’s 1.4 billion citizens are saturated in Communist propaganda, including patriotic songs in nursery schools, banners on urban buildings, posters of Xi and output in the state-controlled media. Some taxis carry LED screens on their roofs showing party slogans.

Chairman Mao had his little Red Book. Xi has his Little Red App, launched in January this year, whereby citizens can collect reward points while reading socialist texts.

More aggressively, through show trials and arrests, the Communist regime aims to strike terror into anyone who still dares challenge the state.

This quest for ideological control has seen bloggers, journalists, campaigners and civil rights lawyers silenced; some have disappeared all together, others are forced to appear on TV, confessing to misdeeds. According to Xi, the Chinese legal system is “the handle in the knife of the party”.

 

A KEY element of Chinese propaganda is, as stated above, the rewriting of history. “Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past,” wrote George Orwell in his dystopian novel 1984 – a stance the Beijing regime has eagerly adopted.

A permanent state-run exercise in collective amnesia is under way, as shown by the way any reference to the Tiananmen Square atrocity has been gradually eradicated.

Over the years, the “counter-revolutionary riots” became known first as “the riots”, then “the political storm” and eventually just “the incident”. In the end even the “incident” dissolved into silence, as if an old photograph had faded until only a meaningless silhouette remained. Many of those under 30 years of age have no idea that it ever took place.

Chairman Mao once said that the Chinese Communist revolution “relies on guns and pens.” Guns and pens also go together in the case of Tiananmen Square. The state’s troops murdered the protesters; the state’s writers murder the truth.

By promoting freedom of expression, modern technology was meant to be an antidote to the poison of oppression. But it has not worked out like that in China.

Under Xi’s regime, this sophisticated technology has been harnessed as a weapon for the classic Communist Party tactics of intimidation, indoctrination and censorship. What we are witnessing is the return of totalitarianism in digital guise. When he was first installed in power, Xi gave the order to “win back the commanding heights of the internet”, a task that Westerners might have thought impossible given the web’s reputation for anarchic freedom.

But the Communists did it. They intimidated dissident bloggers, deleted accounts and demanded ideological compliance and censorship from providers.

Users of one of the most lively and popular social media tools, Weibo – China’s version of Twitter – were brought to heel in 2013 by the simple device of threatening jail sentences for “spreading rumours”. Political discussions were quickly dropped by Weibo, with the site confining itself to entertainment, commerce and propaganda.

Perhaps even more stunning is the Chinese state’s exploitation of monitoring techniques and facial recognition systems powered by artificial intelligence to impose strict conformity on its citizens.

Unlike much of the West, China is unencumbered by concerns about data protection and privacy, so it is using its cyber-expertise to forge ahead in this field.

The process is fuelled by the state placing a priority on cutting edge research and the population’s enthusiasm for mobile technology – no less than 60 per cent of all the world’s cashless transactions in 2017 took place in China, while the country is the world’s biggest market for e-commerce.

A new society is being born, one dominated by the all-seeing, all-powerful eye of the Government. By next year, China plans to have 600 million CCTV cameras, strengthening the apparatus of the surveillance infrastructure.

Already, the impact on individual life is phenomenal. At railway stations in cities like Guangzhou and Wuhan, for instance, entry is only allowed to people once their faces have been scanned and checked against a police database. And this is just the beginning.

The citizens of Hong Kong understand the extent of the state’s reach. During the initial protests there were long lines at the metro ticket machines because people didn’t want to use their rechargeable Octopus cards for fear of leaving a digital trail that could connect them to the protest.

A central component of the new China is the planned “Social Credit System”, which will gather data on the behaviour of each citizen to ensure, through rewards and penalties, adherence to the state’s rules on personal responsibility.

It is being trialled in places such as Rongcheng, where residents start with 1,000 “social credit” points, then earn bonuses or reductions according to their conduct, like obedience at traffic signals or remarks about the party on social media.

Digital technology even dictates the supply of lavatory paper in some of Beijing’s public facilities, with users given a restricted number of sheets in their allotted time once their faces have been recognised by the dispenser.

In China’s bold new vision, omnipresent algorithms create economically productive, socially harmonised and politically compliant subjects, who will ultimately censor and sanction themselves at every turn. In the old days, the party demanded fanatical belief; now mute complicity will suffice.

Of course, China’s plans are not just for domestic consumption. The country is exporting its surveillance and artificial intelligence technology all over the world.

And other autocracies are eager buyers, keen to ape China’s authoritarianism. Western democracies are also supplicants – as Britain proves with its courting of Huawei, hailed by Chinese police as being a “close partner” in “technological” and “digitalised” police work.

 

THE technological export drive is part of China’s concerted effort to expand its global influence. Until the recent past, the Beijing Government was deeply reluctant to play any role on the international stage, preferring to concentrate on domestic problems. But again, all that has changed under Xi Jinping, whose outlook combines socialist ideology with nationalistic pride.

The latter impulse is demonstrated in a host of initiatives: in the massive expansion of China’s military; in the funding of Chinese institutes in Western universities and think tanks; in the control of Chinese student associations overseas; in the creation of global propaganda machines like the television’s “Voice of China” whose European headquarters was recently set up in London; in the vast Chinese investments in Africa and South America; in the support for colossal infrastructure projects like Britain’s new nuclear power plant at Hinckley Point; any in the ferocity of response to any attacks on Xi’s regime.

The brave and proud Hongkongers out in the streets are a living rebuttal for the party’s claim that the Chinese aren’t cut out for democracy. And that is exactly why our governments should stand by them.

Xi’s regime has shown that it sees itself in ideological competition with us. Through its slide back to totalitarianism, it has rejected our values and tries to undermine them. For the sake of our own future, we must be willing to defend them.

Standard