Lawrence and Lowell Thomas
Posting from GD, a French subscriber
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 19:16:59 GMT
I found very interesting the posting by St. John Armitage (the first posting in “Biographical Problems”), especially its passage on the Thomas/Lawrence relationship. I would actually like to know more about this particular subject and am now wondering what book(s) could give me the information I need, since the article by Crawford and Berton is not reliable according to St. John Armitage. A work is mentioned at the end of the article: Wilson’s “Thoughts”; could anyone give me the full reference for this? I’m also looking for a more general study of the relationships between Lawrence and the press, and perhaps of the handling by the press of Lawrence related subjects after his death. What I’m trying to do is to study, if possible, the evolution of the image given of Lawrence by the popular press (meaning not scholarly) over the years since the end of the war.
Reply by Professor Claire Keith, Marist College, USA
Posted: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 22:56:37 EST
Here are some references:
Wilson, J. “Some Thoughts on Lawrence and Lowell Thomas” in the Journal of The T.E. Lawrence Society Vol iv, n1, Fall 1994.
Hodson, Joel. Lawrence of Arabia and American Culture: The Making of a Transatlantic Legend. Greenwood Press, 1995.
Also, just perusing Phil O’Brien’s bibliography (T. E. Lawrence, a Bibliography) will give you a reliable sense of the number and nature of articles in the popular press. They can confidently be assumed to seek and perpetuate the “juicy” bits, as Jeremy’s latest experience made clear.
As for F. Crawford’s and J. Berton’s article:
You need not dismiss it as unreliable. St John Armitage’s points are valuable and well made, especially with regard to the attribution of material in Lowell Thomas’s field diaries which cannot be proven, except in a few instances, to be a mere transcription of facts volunteered by Lawrence himself. All other quotes chosen by the authors are, in my mind, presented without distortion of context and are faithful to the contents and overall “feel” of the Lowell Thomas papers. The tone of the article reflects the decision to give, vigorously, what must be construed as Lowell Thomas’s side. This accounts to some of the statements to which Mr. Armitage takes exception, and I think many people would still choose to share his feelings, just as others may reconsider their opinion of Thomas once his papers are better known.
You will find that Hodson’s book presents the same evidence of Lawrence’ cooperation with Thomas in London for photo sessions. For the record, Fred and Joe deserve the credit for finding those uncropped negatives. The vagaries of publishing caused their findings to be presented in Hodson’s book first.
Reply by Jeremy Wilson, UK, List Moderator
Posted: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 05:09:11 -0500
I think the important thing about the relationship between Lawrence and Lowell Thomas is that it should not be seen as ‘Lawrence versus Lowell Thomas’.
When Thomas came to London in 1919, he wanted to develop a successful travelogue, which was of course his source of income and – as he must quickly have realised when the show was so successful in London – potentially a huge money-spinner. Hence the change in title of the travelogue as soon as he began to grasp the British reaction.
Lawrence, for his part, at that time desperately needed press publicity to advocate the Arab cause. Therefore, at that particular moment, the publicity afforded by Thomas was a godsend to Lawrence, and Lawrence – who had lost the battle at the Peace Conference – was grateful and happy to exploit it. The publicity Lawrence gained through Thomas made possible Lawrence’s subsequent political press campaign, and the ultimate popular pressure on the British Government that took Lawrence into the Colonial Office and led to the 1921 Cairo settlement. Without the publicity created by Thomas, that might well not have happened. Churchill was neither the first nor the last politician to recognise the importance of enrolling famous and vociferous spokesmen on his side of the argument.
Where the ‘interpreters’ get it wrong is to suppose that Lawrence wanted the Thomas publicity for personal self-glorification. Like most other people, Lawrence found notoriety puzzling and intriguing, but he had little taste for it. He had already experienced adulation in a much stronger form during the entry into Damascus: read the end of the 1922 Seven Pillars: ‘From that cup I drank as deeply as any man should do, when we took Damascus, and was sated with it.’ Surely Lawrence’s entire life after 1922 is evidence that he did not seek self-glorification.
The problem I have with the Crawford-Berton article is that the whole approach seems to reflect Crawford’s personal background as an expert on, and personal admirer of, Richard Aldington. Given this background, it may be natural that Crawford tends to see Thomas as a man exploited and abused by Lawrence in the interests of personal vanity. As a trained research-historian (which I gather Crawford is not), I find that approach wholly inconsistent with the facts. Lawrence and Thomas used each other, and for a time both men were pleased with the results. Unfortunately, Thomas’s use for Lawrence outlived Lawrence’s use for Thomas. At that point, Thomas continued (he was making money), but Lawrence felt an increasingly desperate need to escape from the monster that he had helped to create. The rest is history.
I shall think better of Crawford if and when when he ceases to use his writings on topics such as Thomas as a vehicle for attempts to vindicate the conclusions reached by Richard Aldington. On the evidence of this article, we can expect more of the same, and I therefore deplore the fact that a book about a man as influential as Lowell Thomas is being written by someone who cannot see beyond that kind of axe-grinding.
Reply by Joe Berton, USA
0180) Date: 15/01/98 17:34:55
I would like to respond to points made recently regarding an article I co-authored with Fred Crawford, “How Well Did Lowell Thomas Know Lawrence of Arabia?” (English Literature in Transition 1880-1920 Vol 39:3 1996)
The Lowell Thomas-Lawrence relationship is a fascinating one. We should be able to agree that each man had a great effect on the other, an effect that directly or indirectly would shadow them for the rest of their lives. Thomas, creating the Lawrence Legend, would create the public demand to know more about Lawrence. Lawrence, for his own reasons, cooperated with Thomas to some degree.
Our article makes use of original diaries, notes, documents, photos and negatives found in the Lowell Thomas archive at Marist College. Some of this material was first shared by Janet Riesman with Jeremy Wilson, myself and others. Jeremy made use of this material in two articles for the T. E. Lawrence Society Journal. I pursued the archives interested primarily in Harry Chase and his wonderful photos of Arabia and Lawrence, taken while working with Lowell Thomas. Fred Crawford was doing a complete survey of the entire archive in preparation for a biography of Lowell Thomas. We found information in the archive that was extremely important and should not be overlooked by anyone interested in the Thomas-Lawrence relationship. Much of this we shared in our article.
The Marist material provides us with exact dates Lowell Thomas was in Arabia. It shows us that Lawrence and Thomas met many times during the fall and winter of 1919. And what I think most interesting, it shows that Lawrence posed for additional photographs for Harry Chase during that time as well. These photographs of Lawrence in Arab robes are some of the best known of him and would make their appearance publicly as hand colored lantern slides in the Thomas travelogue and in the Strand articles of Thomas’s starting in January 1920.
Why Lawrence would don his Arab robes and pose for additional photos is a good question to ask. We don’t speculate to the reasons in our article. I tend to think of it as another example of Lawrence being curious about what an artist would produce, in this case Harry Chase. He had already posed for McBey in Damascus, John and others in Paris and would be a willing subject for many artists and photographers he admired. What he did do by posing again for Chase, this time in post war London, not Arabia, is to give us the strongest visual images of “Lawrence of Arabia”.
I am currently working on a project about Harry Chase and his photographs. This has involved not only doing research at the Marist archive, but the photo collections at the Imperial War Museum, The University of Texas and the Bodleian Library as well. This summer I plan to visit a number of these sites again. I’ll keep the readers informed of my progress.
Reply by MDM, an American subscriber
Posted: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:29:18 -0500
During the 50s and 60s Lowell Thomas did a series of TV programs about such things as his trip to Tibet. Does one of these programs have Lawrence as a subject? if so, is that program available on video-tape? Or was his lecture ever recorded on video-tape?
Reply by MC, location unidentified
Posted: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 13:09:27 -0400
I would like to know if Lowell Thomas presented his TEL conferences in the 60’s, taking advantage of the just released movie? Maybe there is a filmed record?
Reply by Professor Claire Keith, Marist College, USA
Posted: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 23:38:59 EST
Mr Armitage is right, of course, in stating that the only way to draw a full and valid conclusion is by looking at all the complete sources. Lowell Thomas’s diaries make for wonderful reading, as does the varied correspondence preserved in his archives. Good progress is being made in making the Thomas archive public, with several studies in progress including the book of Chase photographs by Joseph Berton.
This will help address the many excellent questions that Mr. Armitage has raised, such as the one about the Dawnay/Hogarth/Lawrence photograph, which I have pondered myself and have yet to answer in a satisfactory manner.
Joe, your turn?
Reply by Joe Berton, USA
Posted: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 13:02:14 -0600
Regarding the Chase photos of Lawrence, Hogarth and Dawnay at the Arab Bureau Headquarters. In Images of Lawrence, p.114, Chris Matheson narrows down this series of shots to be taken in May, 1918.
Lawrence’s movement diary, Appendex II in Seven Pillars, states he was in Cairo on May7th. The next entry states Sinai, May 14th. In a letter printed in Home Letters, dated May 12,1918, Lawrence writes he arrived in Cairo the night before and is spending another night there. Chase and Thomas were also in Cairo at this time. They left Akaba for Suez on April 10th. Thomas then proceeded to Luxor and Khartoum and was back to Cairo by early May. In Cairo, all prints and film was processed and had to be passed by the British Army censor. This was to take a couple of weeks.
I have not yet come across any contemporary evidence to pin down this exact photo shoot but it seems most likely these are Chase’s photos. The glass plates of the negatives exist at Marist and they seem to have the flavor of other Chase photos. Also when I have found these particular prints in archives, they almost always credit Thomas or Chase. There were three photos taken during this session. Portions of all three have been reproduced before. In the Century edition of With Lawrence in Arabia, facing. page 33 is a cropped version showing Lawrence with the background brushed out. This is from a horizontal print that includes Hogarth looking directly at the camera and Alan Dawnay on the right. Opposite page 241 is another cropped version minus Dawnay. See Images of Lawrence, p.114, for a fuller view of this shot. Also reproduced there is the third shot of Lawrence alone. This has been cropped also for the full print shows more of a background.
Thomas’s letters from this time are at Marist but offer little for exact names and places. These wartime letters were subject to censorship and some show words blacked out or parts cut out.
Reply by H.St.J.B. Atmitage, UK
Posted: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 12:21:52 -0500
Thank you. The fact that the plates exist at Marist seems to remove any doubt that the photograph was by Harry Chase, especially as the coincidence of Lawrence, Chase and Thomas in Cairo during May 1918 appears confirmed by the Thomas records. Normally censorship did not affect dates of letters so it should be possible to reconstruct Thomas’s itinerary from the detail in his letters.
Reply by Jeremy Wilson, UK, List Moderator
Posted: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 14:49:47 -0500
TEL to Charlotte Shaw 19.3.24
“Lowell Thomas, author of With Lawrence in Arabia: is the American who made my vulgar reputation; a well-intentioned intensely crude and pushful fellow. He has been threatening this book about me for years. I fear it will be awful: and yet I can’t imagine it beastly enough to make me publish the truth” [i.e. Seven Pillars]
TEL to Charlotte Shaw 26.3.24
“Lowell Thomas. Not to be condemned like B[arrie] and B[ennett] and B[elloc]. He’s a born vulgarian, who does the best that is in him. If his victim was other than myself I’d praise him. But it rankles in my mind to be called proud names for qualities I’d hate to possess… or for acts of which I’m heartily ashamed.”
Reply by GH, an American subscriber
Posted 9 Feb 1998.
Lowell Thomas (in defense of)
Lawrence categorized Lowell Thomas as “intensely crude” and a “born vulgarian”.
While Thomas’s treatment of Lawrence in lecture and book was obviously designed for “the masses”, Lawrence’s categorization seems, considering Thomas’s accomplishments, both superficial and inaccurate. Thomas had a distinguished career as a traveller and explorer, writer, broadcaster, and developer of Cinerama. (See his autobiographies- Good Evening, Everybody and So Long, Until Tomorrow).
Of course, most of this was after the date of Lawrence’s quoted letters, and Lawrence was reacting, naturally, to Thomas’s unwelcome apotheosis of himself (Lawrence).
Lawrence, on the other hand, could have been (and has been) characterized as a pretentious masochistically neurotic aesthete manqué with occasional flashes of genius.
Reply by Jeremy Wilson, UK, List Moderator
Posted: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:56:41 -0500
TEL to Charlotte Shaw, 4.7.25
>>So glad you felt the vulgarity of Lowell Thomas’ book. It’s horrible: reeks of it… and no criticism I’ve seen yet refers to it.<<
- – - – - – -
All other questions apart, Lawrence’s remarks about Lowell Thomas seem to me to be the completely predictable reaction of an educated Edwardian Englishman to a popular American journalist of the 1920s.
Moreover, it is scarcely surprising that Lawrence, who was at the time sweating blood over his ‘literary’ account of the Arab Revolt, should find With Lawrence in Arabia appallingly vulgar. In the original sense of the word (still used in French) Thomas’s book is just that: a popularisation.
In the last quotes I posted, Lawrence did not condemn popularisation per se (though nothing in his letters suggests that he had any taste for it): he just bemoaned the fact that in this case he himself was the victim.
My point in posting these comments is to underline the huge differences that there were between Thomas and Lawrence. To say that Lawrence liked Thomas is not to say that they were actually friends, or indeed that there was any potential basis for a friendship. It is to say that, in their dealings, Lawrence found Thomas likeable.
In reality, there can be few professional journalists of any merit who do not, as a matter of principle, invest heavily in making themselves likeable to potential sources of information. I have plenty of experience of that, because of Lawrence’s reflected news-interest. I frequently receive telephone calls from journalists, all of whom do their best to be completely charming. The reason, as I know full well, is that they want something. In such a relationship it is the motivation and loyalty of the journalist, not the information-source, that is suspect.
I think it is completely wrong to postulate that Lawrence and Thomas were ever friends in any normal sense of the word. For a brief period of time they had reason to collaborate: Lawrence because he desperately needed publicity, and Thomas because he wanted a good story. Their relationship did not last beyond that collaboration.
The collaboration was successful in its original aims, and its consequences went on being successful for Thomas. However, these same consequences were very unfortunate for Lawrence. Naturally, he resented Thomas’s continuing exploitation of his story. To suggest that his later remarks about Thomas were in some way disloyal is absurd. Real loyalty never existed, on one side or the other. Had Thomas felt a loyalty towards Lawrence, he would have turned his attention to other topics, rather than milking the Lawrence story for every cent it was worth, year after year.
Yet Lawrence knew how important Thomas had been to him in 1919-20, and he never denied that. What he resented was the continuing attention. Was it really necessary for Thomas to publish an English edition of With Lawrence in Arabia?
Then as now, it is nonsense to talk of morality in popular journalism: no one should expect it. When Lawrence began to make use of Thomas to further his political aims in 1919-20, he was playing with fire and he should have known it. He later paid the price.
People cite A. W. Lawrence’s friendly contacts with Thomas after TEL’s death. No surprise there: A. W. Lawrence set a very high value (to my mind astonishingly high) on his brother’s popular reputation. Thomas was useful to him, too.
None of this detracts in the least from Thomas’s reputation as a popular journalist and presenter. His success in those domains speaks for itself. The point I am making is that popular journalism has its own brand of non-morality. To overlook that, when considering the Lawrence-Thomas relationship, is a mistake that exactly parallels Lawrence’s, if he ever thought that Thomas would be sufficiently loyal to abandon a money-spinning story.
Reply by RA(2) an American subscriber
Posted: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:13:16 -0600 (CST)
It must be remembered that, at the time, Americans on the whole were thought to be “crude” and “vulgarians.” This thought was still mildly evident in the early 1970’s, as was my experience in boarding school. Then, we were referred to as “uncouth philistines” into whom manners, diction, and general mildness and pleasantness required to be beaten.
It was nothing personal.
Reply by Harold Orlans, USA
Posted: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 18:29:46 -0800
Lowell Thomas, whom I heard often on the radio and in newsreels, had a mellifluous voice and the smooth, rolling delivery of a highly experienced announcer. I dislike his unctuous, cloying writing on Lawrence and imagine that his lectures had the same quality. But the fact that prominent members of the British establishment, not to mention a big chunk of the public, lapped up his lectures and writing can hardly be held against Thomas. Members of the government, high society, and the royal family paid to come and mightily enjoyed what they heard and saw. If Thomas was in bad taste, they revelled in it.
Thomas’s role in prompting Lawrence and Graves’s publications should be noted. Discussing what he should do about Seven Pillars or an abridged version in a July 1923 letter to Hogarth, Lawrence says, “…Lowell Thomas lurks still in the background, and if his book is the fulsome thing I expect, he will force the truth out of me. It might be better to get my blow in first.” (DG, p. 429) I don’t suggest that Thomas was a major factor governing the decisions to publish a limited unabridged edition and the abridgement, but insofar as he was a factor at all, he served to encourage some publication by Lawrence.
The prospective publication of Thomas’s The Boys’ Life of Colonel Lawrence (published Sept. 1927 in England) was evidently significant in Jonathan Cape’s decision to commission Graves’s biography (initially conceived as a book for boys) and, thereby, to draw some of the market from Thomas.
Reply by MDM, an American subscriber
Posted: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 05:16:42 -0500
Purists always seem to put down that which does meet their high standards. In my own field of the study of late antiquity, I, like most scholars, am the same and would argue that no one would do serious work in the field without knowing the appropriate ancient languages. I wonder if TEL would have been the legend we know him as, or as famous as he is, unless it were for Lowell Thomas. Sure Thomas had his failings; I, for one, have enjoyed him and his image of Lawrence since 1960, although he had his limitations. I would submit that Lawrence, at least in the general public’s eyes, would have been another faceless officer who served in World War I if it had not been for LT who created the legend of the “Uncrowned King of Arabia.” So, although we may carp at Thomas, we really owe him a debt of gratitude. I wonder (and I don’t know the answer to this one) whether Count von Luckner (the Sea Devil), another of Thomas’s favorite subjects, has achieved the same fame as TEL? Just a few comments.
Reply by H. St.J.B. Armitage, UK
Posted: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 07:10:18 -0500
Two points:
a. Why single out the British? Thomas’s “unctious and cloying” portrayal appears to have had a similar effect internationally not least in America where it took off and where – as elsewhere – it probably held sway with the general public until superseded by Lean’s film.
b. Given the long history of the Seven Pillars gestation, to consider With Lawrence in Arabia as an encouragement to Lawrence’s publication is surely to over-rate both it and the significance of Lawrence’s remark to Hogarth. That was made in 1923, before the Thomas biography. He did not attempt to get his blow in first, nor did he refer to it after publication, in connection with the subscribers’ SP or Revolt.
Further reply by H. St.J. B. Armitage, UK
Posted Sat, 2 May 1998 01:28:15 -0400
Those subscribers who are members of the T.E.Lawrence society should be well pleased with the current issue of the Journal with Part 1 of Claire Keith’s presentation of the Lowell Thomas papers. Although she acknowledges that “some personal perspective inevitably colours any editing process” this stricture is hardly applicable in her case and she appears well on her way to letting “Lowell Thomas speak for himself”. He does – and in more creditable fashion than some of those who have sought to put his case.
This instalment includes a short general description of the archive, a biography of Thomas’s early life, the genesis and promotion of the Lawrence lectures, Thomas’s interest in things Arabian and, after Lawrence’s death, his “Maintaining the Legend”. The clarity and balance of her presentation whet the appetite for the second instalment in the next issue of the Journal. One blemish occurs when she drags into the time-capsule of the archive some psycho-babble diagnosis which is out of place, time, subject and nature, of the two “innocuous” [her word] photographs she describes. A Mapplethorpe Harry Chase was not!
Claire Keith says that “the biography of Lowell Thomas now in progress will offer a much needed frame in which to continue the debate on the….two men.” That may be so if the author offers the story in as detached a fashion as she has done to date – a frame on which to continue the debate rather than a frame owing more to the author’s opinion than the Thomas papers.
Reply by Professor Claire Keith, Marist College, USA
Posted: Fri, 08 May 1998 22:31:34 EDT
I wish to thank very much St.John Armitage and Jeremy Wilson for kindly taking the time to comment favorably on the first part of “The Lowell Thomas papers.” This is a much appreciated encouragement at this time, as I am progressing on Part Two. I do want to take the opportunity to remind the readership of the Journal of something I too easily forget myself: that we owe the TELS Journal to the knowledge, talent and endless unpaid work of its editors: first and for some years, Jeremy, who set the standards that we all gladly strive to meet today; and since 1995, Editor in Chief Philip Kerrigan and the editorial committee. I can testify to the time Philip has spent on this particular piece, from the unspeakably tedious disk reformatting, to the tactful editing of gallicized syntax, to the minute verification of facts and references, to the weeks of “last minute final changes” from this anxious writer, to the selection of illustrations and galley proofs preparations. At market value, this could be a two-months cruise to Aqaba and Muscat and back, in luxury class…
To return to the article:
St John Armitage objected firmly to the intrusion of literary criticism jargon in one paragraph. I accept his criticism and plead my case: formal schooling in academic Lit Crit is as ruthless and irreversible a ‘Mint’ as the uniformed one of greater fame. One is stamped for life!
Jeremy expressed the hope to hear more and in more precise details of the London years. It has indeed been a calculated decision to leave this inquiry untouched until Part 2. The issue is a fudge; the truth is that, as suggestive as Mrs. Thomas’s diaries and letters may be, there is frustratingly little dated evidence to assess the extent of the visits Lawrence actually paid to the Thomas in London. Any hope to ever gain a full “chapter and verse” will have to begin with the disclosure of every bit of documentation which actually does survive — a humbling task for a researcher faced with several thousands of folders of onion-skin duplicate of correspondence, each of which could be hiding the one precious misplaced old letter which would complete the puzzle. Thomas’s filing system left a lot to be desired and it cannot be excluded that a 1919 document could have landed in a 1949 file.
It is this paucity of irrefutably dated material, both from the London years and in the Palestine diaries themselves, which made me think that readers would be in a better position to judge them with a general portrait of Lowell Thomas as a background.
In approximately three weeks, the collection will be moved into storage while Marist builds its new Library and a Special Collection Room to house the papers. Until this move, I will continue my wishful sifting in search of that elusive last bit of perfect evidence which would permit me to write the piece as I ambition it.
In parting, one of Lawrence’s inimitable self-evaluations (for Heaven’s sake, I just love it!). Writing to Edward Garnett (26.VIII.22) of the Titanic books The Karamazovs, Zarathustra and Moby Dick and of his ambition to make an English fourth, he writes suavely: “You will observe that modesty comes out more in the performance than in the aim!” 
Reply by AWM, an American subscriber
Posted: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 15:38:19 -0400
This in the NYTimes Book Review, Aug. 2, p. 9:
In the review of Becoming Laura Ingalls Wilder by John Miller, it states that Wilder’s writing career was influenced by her daughter, Rose Wilder Lane, who “was also a ghostwriter for…Lowell Thomas, among others….”
Lowell Thomas used ghostwriters? Were any of his writings about TEL ghostwritten?
________________________
Please note: It has always been a condition of access to this list that if someone wishes to quote from a posting, they first obtain the author’s permission. This is not just a matter of copyright law. It is also to encourage lively discussion. If people who post feel they are writing for publication beyond the list, many will remain silent.