The Sample Of Dr Iwan E-Book The Vietnam during Indochine Franch :rare Cover

THIS THE SAMPLE OF Dr Iwab E-Book In Cd-Rom edition




Vietnam During French Indochine 1862-1940













Showroom :

The Driwan’s  Cybermuseum


(Museum Duniamaya Dr Iwan)

                    Please Enter


              DMC SHOWROOM

(Driwan Vietnam Cybermuseum) 

the delegation is sent to Saigon by Emperor Tu Duc to negotiate the peace treaty of 1862

the first vietnam indochine stamp

Vietnamese wooden cannon captured at the Vinh Long citadel by the French on 23 March 1862.jpg




File:Vietnamese wooden cannon captured at the Vinh Long citadel by the French on 23 March 1862.jpg



Adolphe-Eugène Disdéri, Mandarins who participated in the peace treaty

Hue (Annam) April 16, 1863,

Albumen print, 24 x 28 cm.

A photograph of Disdéri (catalog No. 104, albumen print, 24 x 28 cm, Disderi stamp on the carton, estimate € 1000/1200)  It represents a group portrait, “Mandarins who participated in the peace treaty in Hue (Annam) April 16, 1863,” the delegation is sent to Saigon by Emperor Tu Duc to negotiate the peace treaty of 1862.

By the treaty signed June 5, 1862 and ratified on 16 April 1863 Hue, Vietnam cedes to France the three eastern provinces (Gia Dinh, Bien Hoa and My Tho) and the islands of Con Dao (Pulo Condor) opens three ports (including Da Nang) to trade between France and Spain, will pay a war indemnity of four million dollars and finally tolerate the freedom of Christian worship. The two principal ambassadors were then Phan Thanh Gian Lam Duy and Tiep. We know that during their stay in Saigon, Vice-Admiral Bonard had been photographed and the photographs had been the model for the engravings published in L’Illustration of November 29, 1862 bearing the words “from the photographs provided by M. Rigault, corresponding Vice-Admiral Bonard. “

Detail. Signatures of ambassadors

Disdéri of photography.

Three inscriptions in Chinese characters found on the carton assembly, between photography and Disderi stamp, bearing the names of three ambassadors:

Center: 正 使 潘清 简 Phan Thanh Gian chanh knew, “the first ambassador, HE Phan Thanh Gian (1796-1867)”

Right: 副使 笵 富庶 Pho Phu Pham Thu knew “Vice-Ambassador Pham Phu Thu”

Left: 陪 使 魏克 袒 boi knew Nguỵ Khac Djan, “Deputy Ambassador Nguy Khac Dan.”

Thus, it is not coming from the embassy in Saigon negotiate the Treaty of 1862 (ratified in Hue in April 1863), but the embassy that was from the Emperor Tu Duc in July 1863, under the pretext of thanking the gifts sent by Napoleon III, to negotiate the purchase of the three eastern provinces.

The delegation left Saigon on July 4, 1863 a French warship to reach Suez August 17th where she embarked on the Labrador to win Toulon on September 10. She arrived in Paris on September 13 and was received by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. Feuillet de Conches on the 18th September, on behalf of the emperor who was on holiday in Biarritz.

At the request of the Emperor Napoleon III, Jacques-Philippe Potteau (1807-1876), who was the successor of Louis Rousseau at the Natural History Museum and devoted himself to scientific and ethnographic photography, was designated to capture the photographic portrait the ambassador and his entourage. At the first meeting (September 20, 1863), he made two portraits of Ambassador Phan Thanh Gian, one sitting, the other foot (currently kept at the Laboratory of Anthropology of the Museum of Natural History in Paris, No. 10,608 and No. 10,610), one of Pham Phu Thu, one of Nguy Khac Dan and a group. These portraits were presented at the meeting of December 15, 1863.

Jacques-Philippe Potteau, Portrait of HE Phan Thanh Gian.

Laboratory of Anthropology Museum of Natural History, Paris.

In the Journal of the embassy, ​​Pham Phu Thu noted:

“At ngo (noon), the sky became a little calm. Dressed in the costume of the court, one by one we went to the floor of the hotel which is covered with glass, and we shoot we did. Here is the essence of photography: first we take a glass plate covered with a combination of liquids: it is placed behind a glass tube, before which stands the person who looks inside of the opposite tube, under the action of sunlight coming through the tube, the glass plate receives the impression of an image, there is not even a hair of difference. The Europeans used to do this operation with great desire. All those with whom we just want to know talk to you a portrait of the upper and lower are all the same, saying they see is the testimony of a memory reciprocal.

In the following, under the conduct of the staff, photographers often came with their camera to the hotel and invited us to shoot us, they gave us each a copy of these portraits. After the draw, each of the small amounts to a huge portraits, price of labor, those who are slightly larger cost 4 or 5 francs “(Pham Phu Thu, (trans. Tran Xuan Toan),” The Embassy of Phan Than Gian (1863-1864) “BAVH, 1921, p. 156.)

Thus, after Jacques-Philippe Potteau, Adolphe-Eugène Disdéri (1819-1889) was one of the photographers who were invited to capture the features of the Ambassador and the delegation. The photograph will be on sale May 7, 2011 Chartres was performed on this occasion.

In 1854, Disdéri invented a new camera which lets you play six shots on the same glass plate and patented the format of the card whose paternity of the invention is to be attributed either to Marseille Dodero Aguado. The fashion for portraits-cost cards spread rapidly in France.

In the Journal of the Embassy, ​​Pham Phu Thu noted that: “The 20th Day (1 November 1863) it rained. At vi (from 1 to 3 pm), Mr. Cam-ba-xa-the GIO, French Minister of Rites [Author's note: This is the Grand Master of Ceremonies], we did bring in an official letter which stated that “At vi (from 1 to 3 pm) the 24th day, he would take us, and in the middle of the same vi hours, we came to the Royal Court of France. “Soon after, Mr. Ha-ba-ly [Author's note: this is Mr. Aubaret, Commander, Officer of Foreign Affairs, who served as interpreter during the stay of the mission in France.] Brought us three cards and said that the Minister of Rites did convey his compliments to the three of us. At nightfall, he returned and took us three cards in response to the compliments of the Minister “(Pham Phu Thu (trans. Tran Xuan Toan),” The Embassy of Phan Thanh Gian, 1863-1864, “Bulletin Friends of Old Hue, 1921, No. 1-4, pp. 266-267).

Document signed by Phan Thanh Gian

Personal collection.

In October 2007, a document dated 01st November 1863, was sold on ebay. This is a certificate signed by the hand of Phan Thanh Gian confirming the receipt of a letter from the Grand Master of Ceremonies of the Emperor.

Phan Thanh Gian signatures

Left: on the document to the head of the Cabinet of the Emperor

Right: the photograph of Disdéri.

By comparing this signature with that appearing in the photograph of Disdéri, it is undeniable that this is the manual signature of Phan Thanh Gian. This photograph had to be carried out between November and December 1863.

The reception of the ambassadors of Annam was held November 7 at a public hearing at the Palais des Tuileries, after the return of the Empress Eugenie of Spain, where she was visiting her family. The emperor was not opposed to negotiations. He relied on the payment of 85 million promised by the king of Annam to offset the deficit of 972 million francs. After the reception, the negotiations began, and November 12, Le Moniteur Universal announced that the peace treaty of June 5, 1862 would be amended. Once his mission is completed, Phan Thanh Gian left France carrying with him his photographic portraits by Jacques-Philippe Potteau (01st November 1863) and Adolphe Eugene Disdéri (November-December 1863) and by other photographers.

Details: Adolphe-Eugène Disdéri, Mandarins who participated in the treated

Peace in Hue (Annam) April 16, 1863,

Albumen print










Diplôme de Chevalier de l’Ordre du Dragon d’Annam (1875)


L’Ordre du Dragon d’Annam

The Order of the Dragon of Annam: founded by Emperor Dong Khanh on 14th March 1886. Awarded in five classes (1. Grand Cordon, 2. Grand Officer, 3. Commander, 4. Officer, and 5. Knight) with two ribbons (red with gold border stripes by the Emperor, and green with gold border stripes by the French President).


The Order of the Dragon – Grand Cordon, breast star


The Order of the Dragon – Officer, breast badge with “colonial ribbon”


Croix de chevalier de l’Ordre du Dragon d’Annam (fac

e et dos)



Croix de chevalier de l’Ordre du Dragon d’Annama

Croix de chevalier (au dos : ovale alu collé : La Gerbe d’Or, CHAPUS 86 rue de Rivoli Paris)


Restoration of the oldest communal house of Vietnam in Ha Tay
The province of Ha Tay (North) has recently begun the restoration of the oldest town hall in the country. Built in the 16th century, Thuy Communal House Phieu, in the town of Thuy An, Ba Vi district, will be renewed for one year. Cost: $ 7 billion VND. The town hall is dedicated to the worship of Tan Vien, one of the most powerful four geniuses of Vietnamese mythology. (CVN) Cathedral of Phat Diem or what acculturation?

The Cathedral of Phat Diem, Ninh Binh province (North), 121 km south of Hanoi, was at the time of French colonization a center of Catholicism in the North. But even more, this is one of the earliest architectural examples of acculturation that took place during this period.
A few weeks ago now, Alain J. Lemaitre, PhD in anthropology, history and literature, lecturer in Modern History at the University of Haute Alsace, gave the occasion of International Day of Francophonie conference on acculturation. This term was born in the field of ethnology describes “all the phenomena resulting from continuous contact between two different cultural groups causing changes in the 2 groups.”

In the colonial perspective, these phenomena were seen as unidirectional as the dominant idea was that of supremacy of European culture. Thus, only the indigenous culture change is in contact with the culture of the colonizers, merely reproduced as is the customs of the latter. However, following decolonization and independence of peoples, ethnology has adjusted this concept by incorporating the idea of ​​two-dimensionality cultural exchange, an idea that is now consensus within the scientific community. In a continuous contact between two groups, there is not only integration of a new culture but also maintaining the original culture that produces an impact on how acculturation and is its outcome.

The situation in Asia at the time of colonization was more specific. Indeed, while Europe meets the ancient civilizations who know the writing (even longer for it) and, therefore, have a written memory. This was a major difference with, for example, the civilizations of South America. Predominantly oral culture, they showed much less resistant to contact with another culture, and this especially since it was imposed by force. Thus, if some countries in South America such as Peru, part of Mexico and Guatemala, retain strong traits of their original culture, most of the other present only very few indigenous elements as is the case for example in Chile. Another difference is so special to Asia at this time lies in the way contacts between cultures were performed. Colonies in Asia were not settlements. Europeans proceeded through the establishment of trading posts that left side of the vast territories and large populations. Contact with Western culture and were indirect and allowed greater flexibility to the natives, could more freely assimilate the elements of the dominant culture.

During the French colonization in Vietnam, there was actually acculturation. However, this has not only led to the integration of European culture but also, fortunately, the maintenance of indigenous culture. The architecture of the Cathedral of Phat Diem is one of the first manifestations of this cultural phenomenon.

An architectural example of acculturation
Mecca of Catholicism in the North at the time of French colonization, the country’s division in 1954 led to the departure en masse to the south of Catholics and the closure of the sanctuary. This is called “Cathedral of Phat Diem” actually consists of many buildings whose construction was completed in 1891. The ensemble was founded by a Vietnamese priest named Six, whose tomb is on the front of the cathedral, the main building. All around stand several kinds of chapels, each dedicated to a saint. However, if visiting this place of Catholic worship, you expect to find the towers that are characteristic of these buildings, you will leave disappointed. All stone, curved roofs similar to those of a pagoda, the architecture of this place is largely based on the Buddhist temples. The mixture of two cultures is undeniable here.

The priest saw to Six represent the main elements of the Vietnamese village, including the town hall, the pond and the tree while a bell feeder, which is indispensable to any place of Catholic worship stands at the back of the cathedral. However, the first floor of this tower, there is a large size drum, an instrument used to strike the hour in the Buddhist religion. On the second floor hangs a bell, however, forged on the model oriental. It has 4 contact points to sound the hours, one per season. Each is identified by a sinogram while a song of prayer is inscribed on it in Latin. Four small towers stand at each corner of the building, each surmounted by a representation of a saint. However, while they traditionally represented standing here, they sit in the way of the Buddha.

Leaving the cathedral to enter one of the many chapels surrounding it. The traces of the influence of European culture mingling with the Sino-Vietnamese remain. At the back of the chapel stands a stone altar surmounted by a statue of the Virgin Mary. The bas-reliefs on the front of this altar are the Western symbols of purity: a garden and a well closed. The side faces in turn, are engraved with lotus flowers, representing the same idea of ​​purity in the oriental imagination.

The importance of cultural policy
The Sino-Vietnamese architecture of European inspiration of this building is one of many examples of the impact of European culture on Vietnamese culture during colonization. It shows however, that in the case of Vietnam, the indigenous culture was not destroyed but kept. This is due in large part by its tradition of written culture, which has forged a strong collective identity, that is to say a set of characters that unite men and women of the same group but the also differ from other groups.

Thus, whatever the force of acculturation on an economic and even social, that there is a written culture to forge a strong collective identity, allows an exchange between cultures (incidentally still unequal exchange) and a non-destruction thereof. However, today, perhaps more than ever, culture is intimately linked to the economic field, especially facilitating the destruction of cultural systems.

Hence the need for each country to defend it by a cultural policy that can meet the challenges of globalization. This is the objective of the Convention for the Protection and Promotion of Cultural Diversity, established by UNESCO in October 2005. The importance of the issues raised by this treaty is widely recognized internationally as since then it has been signed and ratified by 56 countries and the European Union (regional as a unit). The fact that the United States, including the cultural sector plays a major role in the U.S. economy, is opposed to its adoption in the vote to UNESCO, only confirms this idea. (Anaïs Chavanne / CVN



Restauration de la plus vieille maison communale du Vietnam à Hà Tây

La province de Hà Tây (Nord) a récemment commencé la restauration de la plus ancienne maison communale du pays. Construite au 16e siècle, la maison communale de Thuy Phiêu, dans la commune de Thuy An, district de Ba Vi, sera rénovée pendant un an. Coût des travaux: 7 milliards de dôngs. Cette maison communale est dédiée au culte de Tan Viên, un des 4 génies les plus puissants de la mythologie vietnamienne. (CVN)La cathédrale de Phat Diêm ou qu’est-ce que l’acculturation ?


“Received a letter from her? The Grand Master of Ceremonies of the Emperor” – “The first Ambassador of HM the King of Annam” – Signature of Phan Thanh Giang calligraphy.
(Grade: strong horizontal fold edges and dusty) -



“Reçu une lettre de son ? le Grand Maître de Cérémonie de l’Empereur” – “Le 1er ambassadeur de S.M. le roi d’Annam” – Signature calligraphique de Phan Thanh Giang.
(Etat: pli horizontal marqué et bords poussiéreux) -



Đúng 120 năm trước, Thái tử nước Nga viếng thăm Sài Gòn ngày 21-3-1891

Le Voyage du Tsarévitch – Fêtes données en l’honneur de Son Altesse à Saïgon, 21-3-1891 – Đúng 120 năm trước đây, vào ngày 21-3-1891, Thái tử nước Nga Oukhtomsky mà sau này là Sa hoàng Nikôlai Đệ nhị, đã ghé thăm Sài Gòn trong chuyến thăm viếng vùng Viễn Đông. (Năm đó Thái tử 23 tuổi, và 3 năm sau, vào năm 1894 ông lên ngôi Sa hoàng, kế vị Sa hoàng Alexandre III cha ông vừa mất vì bịnh).


The rare Postally used cover  posted from Bangkok, to. Saigon  It cancelled CCH (Cochinchine)!


It is also addressed to Saigon, Cochinchine, so surely that is an arrival mark? My Ceres catalogue does not identify the postmark on the French Colonies stamp, but CH would seem to be appropriate.


The cover ended, not surprisingly, at US$ 2,638.88. The highest bidder has 552 feedbacks, so it should be for real.

Covers cancelled in Vietnam in this period are fairly rare, with only some French dealers/collectors having enough materials for quality exhibits

. As far as I know, only one Vietnamese philatelist, Mr Ta Phi Long, has managed to compile an exhibit of French colonies used in Vietnam, which won him a gold medal (?) at an Asian show, which I unfortunately have no knowledge of.

The lozenge cancel reads CCH, as noted by Robert G. Stone, A Key to the Lozenge Obliterators of French Colonies 1860-1892, The France and Colonies Philatelic Society, New York 1977

Image Image Image




Saigon 1882 – Le Cercle des Officiers (47 bd Le Duan)

CLB Sĩ quan Pháp, nay là UBND Q1. Cạnh bên là công trường xây dựng nhà thờ Đức Bà, với mái ngói xuống thật thấp, che phần nền móng đang thi công

L’escadre russe dans le port de Saigon – Hạm đội Nga trong cảng SG



                                                       Indochina native vietnam army


( Compile by Dr iwan s from his own collections added from internet google exploration.)


(1) April.3rd. 1901
The Bank Of Indochina issued in saigon and Haipong four kind of note with nominalonly in Frech language (1,5,20 and 100 piastres).

The notes in Tonkin (haipong) was not allowed to excahnge for Cochinchinese (Saigon) notes and cochinchinese notes had to spent in Cochinchina(Saigon).
(The Haiphong notes very rare difficult to found, I have seen one in the auction, and I have the Saigon notes found in Hanoi – auth)


(2)august.6th 1901
Off cover of postally used stamp on two type regular definitives Indochine RF stamp type I standard navigation and commerce orange 4 cent and red 6 cent, CDS Dalat-A(nam) 6.8.01, was found in Indonesia.
(Dalat a historic city for Indonesian people because Sukarno, Hatta and Radjiman meet Field Markal Tarauci to have an authority to Indonesia Independent in August.14th 1945, read the complete story in this block and look “Indonesia Independent War” and look the vintage picture postcard-and vintahe photo/picture in 1964 Vietnam Unique collections- auth)

2) 1902

Vintage Dr Sun Yat Sen visit vietnam pictures

Tập tin:Sun Yat Sen in Vietnam 1902.png

(2) Old Vintage Saigon Picture Postcard with indochine overprint bold big 05  red on 15 cent red stamp and indochine definitive  1 cent stamps, CDS not clear.


SAIGON – Entrée de la Rue Catinat 1902

3. 1903

Art du Champa : Site de My Son


Site de My Son. Fouilles de Henri Parmentier et de Charles Carpeaux en 1903-1904, mise en place d’un palan (photothèque EFEO, PAR01584, cliché H. Parmen

old Vietnam pictures in 1903

Woman at work being fanned by her servant, Vietnam, ca. 1903
Location Depicted  
Subjects (LCTGM)  
Digital Collection  
Repository Collection  
Object Type  

Indochina postcard 1904

 1)In this year Bank of IndoChina issued 5 Piasters Paper Money


2) October.14th 1905
Off cover Indochine first regular deffinitive stamps ,brown,15 cent, postally used cds Dien Bien (phu) 14 Oct 05 ,was found in Indonesia
( The famous city Dien Bien Phu where the Vietminh win the war against Franch, very popular city-unique CDS-auth)

6. 1906
Khai Dinh ascended the throne as the emperor of Annam, during his reign were issued 1 phan cash coins thwo types , machinal struck and traditional struck.(Traditional struch more rare that the macinal struck)



Saîgon. Cochinchine. Pousse pousse.

1906. Postal used anamese tribes picture postcard with Indochina stamps cds saigon


SAIGON – Types Anamites 1906

7. 1907

(1)Than-Thai vietnam emperor throught out from vietnam to Reunion island by Franch (P)

(2) The attractive native woman design regular stamps were issued in 1907.(PH)

8) 1908


Annam. University Bachelor Students, 1908

9) 1909


Passerelle à Cholon – 1909


Saïgon vers 1909 – La Rue Catinat


Saïgon 1909 – Les réjouissances Publiques du 14 Juillet – L’invention de la Grande Roue


Saïgon 1909 – La Rue Catinat

Annam, Huê. Vue sur la Pagode des Cantonais


Annam, Huê. Vue sur la Pagode des Cantonais

 Annam, Huê. Eléphants royaux à l’entrée du Palais.


Annam, Huê. Eléphants royaux à l’entrée du Palais.

 Annam. Montagnes de marbre près Tourane – Chef ou Pape des bonzes


Annam. Montagnes de marbre près Tourane – Chef ou Pape des bonzes

Annam, Huê. Gardiennes et servantes chargées des Cérémonies rituelles au tombeau de Thiêu Tri.


Annam, Huê. Gardiennes et servantes chargées des Cérémonies rituelles au tombeau de Thiêu Tri.Annam. Mandarin rendant la justice.


Annam. Mandarin rendant la justice__KGrHqJ__lQE5YyoCm0wBOdid_wY____60_12

Annam, Huê. le Président du Conseil dela famille royale en costume de cour.


Deux nouvelles photos de l”Empereur Khai Dinh

Visite de l’Empereur Khai Dinh au Palais


Arrivée de l’Empereur Khai Dinh au Palais Kien Trung



Annam, Huê. Les musiciens du Roi jouant sous le soleil du Portique Radieux


Annam, Huê. Elephant caparaçonné contenant la foule pendant les fêtes


Huê (Annam). Porte monumentale, dite Hien Dhon(?)


Annam, Huê. Tombeau de l’empereur Dông Khanh


Annam, Huê. Chef des Makouis et ses satellites. Scène diabolique jouée au Palais


Annam, Huê. Les deux Reines par Dieulefils


Annam, Huê. Thiên Tri (Temple de la Lumière)


Annam, Huê. Porte d’entrée du Co Mât


Annam, Huê. Tibunes Cavalier du Roi, vue des jardins


Annam, Huê. Tombeau de Minh Mang (Temple de la Lumière)


Annam, Huê. Tombeau de Tu Duc (Temple de la Stèle)


Annam, Huê. Annam, Huê. Porte du Palais Co Mât par Dieulefils


Annam, Huê. Temple des Edits


Annam, Huê. Eléphants traversant une rivière.


Annam, Huê. Rotissage d’un boeuf


Annam, Huê. Allée des Portiques de droite conduisant au tombeau de Thiêu Tri par Dieulefils


Annam, Huê. Les Corbeilles de Fleurs


Annam, Huê. Groupe de femmes annamites par Dieulefils


Annam, Huê. Le tombeau de Gia Long (la triple enceinte) par Dieulefils


Annam, Huê. Ensemble des cours et pagodes du tombeau de Minh Mang par Dieulefils


Annam, Huê. Cours et pagodes au tombeau de Minh Mang


Annam, Huê. Pagode où se font les cérémonies rituelles au tombeau de Minh Mang


Annam, Huê. Porte de l’enceinte extérieure au tombeau de Minh Mang


Annam, Huê. Groupe d’ennuques par Dieulefils


Annam, Huê. Palais du Prince Tuyên Hoà, frère du Roi par Dieulefils


Annam, Huê. Cours et pagode au tombeau de Thiêu Tri par Dieulefils


Annam, Huê. Une colonne commémorative au tombeau de Thiêu Tri par Dieulefils


Annam, Huê. La Montagne du Roi et le Cercle de la Rive Droite par Dieulefils


Annam, Huê. Le Cavalier du roi, vu de la Trbune


Annam, Huê. Palais de l’Empereur. Le Trône


Annam, Huê. Tombeau de Tu Duc

11) 1911
(1) Ho leave Vietnam(D)
(2) October,4th .1911
Off piece Two Blue definitives native women Indochine 1 Piastre ,1000A2000 revenue , used with handwritten 4/10/11 .were found in Indonesia
(the unique earliest 20th century high nominal revenue, because in this time many used in low nominal,because in this year recetion and tax revenue became high, -auth)

12) 1912
(1) January,31.1912
The early off cover postally used CDS Lao Bao –Anam 31.Jan.12 on orange first type definitif Indochine Stamp 10 cent. Found in Indonesia (what the new name of the citry Lao Bao ? rare village postal stamp ?,because didn’t found in later vietnam name, please comment for information-auth)

Early twentieth century Indochine Justice Francaise Extract “Extrait du casier judiciare concernant” Tribunal Cantho. Droit de timbre a o$15 en compte avec le Tresor.
Extrait du casier judiciare concernant
Name (nomne) : Nguyen Huee Tam
Fils de Nguyen Huee Vien
Et de Ha thi-Thu
Ne le 21 Fevrier 1925 a Tan quoi (Cantho)
Domicilee au dit lien
Etat civil et de familie Celibataire
Profession ……………………………….
Nationalite Sujet francais de Cochinchine
Pour extrait conforme:

Cantho le 1er December 1913
Le Greffier
Vu au Parquet Signed Lie
De procureui de la Republique Round Stamped
“Procureur De La Republique

Tribunal De cantho”
14) 1914
Some hundred thousand Viet-namese go to French in Labor battalions during WW I.(D)


SAIGON – Place du Théâtre et la Rue Catinat 1914


16) 1916
Emperor Khai Dinh ascended the throne as the emperor of Annam, during his reign issued two kind of 1 phan cash coind “Khai Dinh Thong Bao” Traditinal and mechanical struck. (The mechanical struck more comon coins-auth)

17) 1917
Not yet info

Ho arrives in Paris during Russian revolution and remains there for the next seven years.(D)

19) 1919
(1)Ho tries to petition for self determination in Vietnam against President Woodrow Wilson , at the Versailles Peace Conference
(2) A surcharged set of 1919 reccestated by the changeover from centimes to piastres in the present years. And a reprinted set staring 1/10 cent denominated.(PH)

20) 1920

(1)Ho joins newly formed French Communist Party .(D) and the photo of Saigon in this year.(P)

Vietnam was at this time part of French Indochina, with communist and nationalist political activity targeted by the Sûreté, or French national police.

(2) In 1920 the Banknoted issues from Haipong and Saigon could circulated all over Indochinese territory In this year also issued low nominal banknote 10 ,20 and 50 cents.(Haipong issued more difficult to found-auth)

(3) September. 2nd 1920
(1)The earliest Reciept of House land tax Paid sign by Nguoi thau of Cantho, Village du thoi thanh, with red stamped. Franch Liberty Indochina with chine character.(D)( I have the best collection of this land tax reciept from Village Tan –Buoi from 1920-1922, 1930-1934, 1939, 1940-1943, 1946, 1949. This unique document were the factual information that during 1923-1929, 1935-1938, 1944-145, 1947-1948 something happen that the land tax did,t paid and the authority also change by name , may be the conflict and war situations, let we proof that fact with historic informations, let the Historian made the study of this historic collections, let ‘s study together-auth)

(4) old Charmer Hotel saigon picture postcard


SAIGON – Bd Charner et l’Hôtel de Ville 1920



(1) June.29th1921
The receipt of land house tax paid ?(so hien bien lai ) , nhan lauh cua hua i ngsat, nguoin thau signed Nguoi than and red Franch Liberty stamped Cantho- Village du tan-Buoi

34) 1922
(1)Khai Dinh(1916-1925) Annam’s emperor visit Paris (P)
(2) July.10th 1922
The reciept of Land Tax paid, signed Nguoi Than, redbrown French liberty stamped Cantho, Village du Tan Buoi.
(the last signed Ngoui Than-auth)
And anpther same document but with first signed Vien chuoc thou nhem (new title-auth)

(4) December,17th,1922
The blue paper reciept of Land tax paid, signed by Vien Chuoc thou nhem and lFrench liberty stamped Catho ,Village du Tan Buoi. (D)


(1)January 25th 1923
Republique Francaise Indochine 36 cent Revenue Sheet, used added Indochine Dimanston revenue 24 cent USED WITH stamped Annuale , This was the the Francaise Indchine revenue’s letter sheet contract “To ban Chuoc vuon ruong” adress “Nguoi ban le van thiet 45 luoi vo la Nguyen thi Khue 42 tuoi Saigon , for “Gia ban chuoc ban lon Mot Ngan Dong(1000$00)”, between ngoi ban ming and nguoi mua ming , “zoi-giao : Trong bon nam chuoc thi bac co loi nam ba phan ngoai bon nam chuoc lai thi bac nad loi con von J ngay to”( please native Vietnamese t translate this historic revenue sheet-auth)

(2)April ,5th.1923
Bo Dai was born in hue the capital of Vietnam Kingdom ( He was the last emperor of Vietnam-auth)

(3) April 13th 1923
Francaise Indochine 24 cent Revenue letter’s sheet was used to write the information in Franch & Vietnamese characters :
a) Lang cap duc nam 1866
S-o-160-50 2 Ha 20.00-Rg 2ecl VC-Thong Minh –dao ,S-Re chle , E.-Re .Nguyen Do , O.-Re.Nguyen tac-Yen.
b) 9 Jiullet 1905
212-243-88bNgai-v-Thoi -2.26a.00-Vuon .
NG .-reg Chu , S-Reach hu-Tri , E-V-Vg-Tai-Vang , O.-Re.Le-v-Thanh.
Ngua cua con Hbh-Phai la Hbh van Tbao trans NG0 2908 du 9 Juillet 1905.

c) 17 Aout 1909.
Vendu deft par les heritiers de Thuan Wbai’;t;Do ewught Ngo 2809 du 17 aout 1909. signe Eudel.
d)Emperor Khai dinh at His Palace

d1)5 September 1917
(1)Part attribuee Ngai-v-Thoi survant partage a l’anuable intervenu entre les heririers de Ngai-v-Lo enregt Ngo -2773 du 5 September 1917. Po L’ad’teur adjt Signe Huchard,
(2) Part attribuee Ngai-v-Thoi suivant partage a’ l’annuale inteerheum entre les heritiers de Ngai-v-Do euregt ngo 277e eu 5 September 1917 .P.o L’ad’teur adjt Signe Huchard.
d) Extrait de Diao du Village de3 Thanh Thien, canton de Mhinh-puc
(1)Lang cap duc nam 1866
49-24-49 Diavo actuel -2.000 Ha-Reg 2e-cl : N-Reg chu,S-V-chu,E.-Re Ngai –v-Do, O-Re.Nguyen tacc yen.
Veneu deft per Pham-v-quan ,sanh,Thien,Ngai, Duong, bay, Than,Hoa,Dieu,Thuong, Nham,Cuac, Dat, Chou et Gian, heritiers de Thuan, ai Ngai-v-Do enregt No 2809 du i7 Aout 1909 P.o.eur Sign Eudel.
Part attribuee Ngai –v-Thoi suivant partage a l’annuable intervenu entre les heritiers de Ngai-v-Lo enregt-Ngo 2773 du 5 September 1917. P.o.Ad’teur Signe Huchard.
(2) 71-34-71 Ngai-van-Thoi
2 Ha Reg 1er cl : Ng –reg-Chu, SW.- Vuon chu, E. R-Ng-tac-vang, O-r-Le-v;Thanh,
Ngua duc cua Hbuynh-v-Phai va vo la Nbg Ru Phuong cau chung no 2369ndu 17/7-1901.
Part attribute a Ngai-v-Thoi sui vanpartage l’anuable intervenu entre les heritiers de Ngai van-Do enregtno.2773 du 5 Septembre 1917 Le l’Ad’teur Signe Huchard.
(3) 72-170 -72 Ngai –v-Thoi 280.00 : Thong Minh Dao, S.- reg chu, E.- rg Ng-tac-Vang , O.- reg Le-van-Thanh.
Ngua euc cua thj Phuong la vo Phai cau chung so 2367 du 17 September 1901.
Ngeme partage que le Ngo-3H du bo. P.g.l’Ad’teur adjt Signe Huchard.

P.E. G.
Droit percu : 5 $ 00.-
Quittance No.5511
Bentre, le 13 Avril 1923
P.L’administrateur etfro
Sign by Huchard & Red Bentre Stamped. ( interesting information about ? from 1866 to 1917 and officially sign by Bentre Administrators with offcial stamped. On 12 April 1923, may be this official information about land owner ? from the Bentre Admninistration in 1923. )

24) 1924

(1)Ho leaves Paris for Moscow , becomes full-time Communist agent . Later went to Canton as assistant to Mikhail Borodin , Soviet represen-tative in China.(D)

Ho leave Paris because his communist and nationalist political activity targeted by the Sûreté, or French national police.

(2)In November 1924 Hồ arrived in Guangzhou(canton)  on a boat from Vladivostok.[4] He posed as a Chinese citizen named Lý Thụy (Li Shui) and worked as a translator for Comintern agent and Soviet arms dealer Mikhail Borodin.
(3)Saigon Catinat Road Postal Pictured postcard Used CDS Saigon

Rue Catinat 1924

(4) December.8.1924
Off cover brown definitive Indochine RF stamp , 12 cent in double circle type -2 stamp, Postally used CDS Hanoi (To)nkin 8.12.24.


37) 1925

 ANNAM. Obséques de SM KHAI DINH. Acteurs, 1925


Annam. Obséques de SM Khai Dinh. Acteurs, 1925
(a)Emperor Khai Dinh was died, he was burried at imperial ‘s tombs, near the purfurmed river. His tomb very best and artistic, like miniature city, with many artistic statue of dragon,gourd and civillian, elephant, horse .

 and interior very artistic

Theorically Bao Dai his elder son became the emperor Of Vietnam, and The young emperor came back from France to ascended the throne under france tottulage.

( I have some original vintage photo of Khai dinh Tomb fro 1930 , 1949, and 1955, the old photo, the childrens were riding the horse and elephant ‘s statues
In the modern times we hav the informations about that Tomb – auth)
Khai Dinh ‘s elder sons was the last empror of Annam 1926-1945, but he always at Paris, and under Japanese protectorate he came back to Vietnam stayed at Dalat,
( by referendum the last emperor was thrown out by Ngho Dinh Diem in 1955, read another subchapter-auth)

(b)In May 1925, Hồ participated in the founding of Thanh Niên, or Vietnamese Revolutionary Youth Association. This group was a forerunner of today’s Vietnamese Communist Party.

26.  1926

Emperor Bo dai Ascended The throne

Emperor Bao Dai

Born Prince Nguyen Vinh Thuy on Oct. 22, 1913, he was given the imperial name Bao Dai (which is pronounced bah-oh dye and means or “Protector of Grandeur” or “Keeper of Greatness” “Preserver of Greatness”) on his succession as Emperor in 1926. Boa Dai ascended the throne in 1925 at the age of 12 on the death of his father, Emperor Khai Dinh, but did not return to Viet Nam until 1932 after he had completed his education in France. He returned home to the imperial city of Hue in 1932, assuming the ceremonial duties of the 13th Emperor of the Nguyen dynasty.

 “Intronisation de S.M. Bao Dai dernier Empereur d’ANNAM – Musique traditionnelle au Palais Thai Hoà” le 08 janvier 1926


“Intronisation de S.M. Bao Dai  dernier Empereur d’ANNAM –  Musique traditionnelle au Palais Thai Hoà” le 08 janvier 1926 

Some Vietnamese attempted to advance the cause of national liberation through reforms from above. They looked to the young Emperor Boa Dai as their best hope. Bao Dai was greeted with enthusiasm by the Vietnamese, who expected that he would be able to persuade the French to install a more liberal regime. Boa Dai attempted to reign as a constitutional monarch, according to the terms oithe treaty of 1884 establishing the protectorate, and he strove to modernizethe ancient imperial administration at Hue. Among his young collaborators was Ngo Dinh Diem, governor of the Phan Thietarea in Binh Thuan Province, who was given the portfolio of minister of the interior and appointed head of the secretariat of a Vietnemese-French commission which was charged with the responsibility of implementing Bao Dai’s reform proposals. When it became obvious that the French had no intention of granting real power to the Vietnamese administration and would make noconcessions toward unification of the country, the youthful emperor appeared to lose interest, and Ngo Dinh Diem resigned his official position.

Portrait de l’Empereur Bao Dai par le Studio Harcourt


Portrait de l’Empereur Bao Dai par le Studio Harcourt

Cette photo, en tirage argentiquen de format 18 x 24 cm, a été proposée à 100 € + 5 € d’envoi et n’a pas trouvé preneur ce jour.

The Japanese coup of 09 March 1945 caught the Viet Minh by surprise. But if the Japanese thought the removal of the French would win over the Viet Minh, they were soon disabused of that notion. The Viet Minh publicly objected to the Japanese coup, seeing it as a substitution of one colonial master for another. The Japanese viewed the Viet Minh dissatisfaction as sour grapes at being left out of the action. The investiture of Bao Dai in Hue and the cabinet under Pham Quynh was greeted by opposition, public meetings, and demonstrations in Hanoi organized partly by the Viet Minh. So serious was this opposition that Bao Dai dissolved his cabinet on 19 March 1945 and installed a new one under Tran Trong Kim, an academic of modest nationalist tendencies with no stomach for thesnakepit of Indochinese politics.

Within two days of the Japanese acceptance of the Potsdam declaration, the Viet Minh began to take power in the cities of Indochina. In Hanoi, a Political Action Committee was formed to facilitate cooperationwith Bao Dai’s government.” By 23 August 1945, Hue was solidly Viet Minh, as was Saigon, where the Executive Committee of the South Vietnam Republic was established. The Viet Minh seized the government buildings in Hanoi on the 19th.

Bao Dai, apparently convinced that a united and independent nation offered the only possibility of preventing the return of French control, decided to abdicate. Recogniting only the nationalist character of the Viet Minh movement and assuming that it had Allied support, he abdicated. in its favor on August 25, 1945 ; and handed over his imperial seal and others ymbols of office to representatives of the newly proclaimed Provisional Government of the Republic of Vietnam.

Pleas by Ho Chi Minh and Emperor Bao Dai to Truman, Charles De Gaulle, Stalin, and British prime minister Atlee to forestall the French return went unanswered. French forces were permitted to land in the North. Bao Dai, who had been acting as high counselor to Ho Chi Minh, was sent on a “good will” mission to China where he remained in exile, thus eliminating the possibility that he might provide a rallying point for groups not thoroughly aligned with the Viet Minh.

Negotiations with France continued for two years, but by June 1949 France finally approved of limited independence for “the State of Vietnam” within the French Union. Bao Dai was coaxed home by the French, who saw him as a possible alterative to Ho Chi Minh, whose guerrillas were then at war with the French colonial army. In February 1950, Great Britain and the United States recognized the State of Vietnam headed by the ex-emperor Bao Dai as the legitimate government. France concluded agreements with Laos and Cambodia simiiar to that with Viet Nam, the three countries became the Associate States of Indochina and were accorded diplomatic recognition by more than 30 other nations.

Bao Dai assumed the role of chief of state, and returned to Vietnam with the titles of Premier and — again — Emperor. In its efforts to win popular support, the Bao Dai regime was unsuccesstul. Bao Dai left major decisions to his French-backed advisers, preferring to spend time with his many mistresses at his hunting lodge in the highlands of central Vietnam. His administration was marked by the institutionalization of corruption, prostitution, smuggling, racketeering, and drug trafficking through his association with the Binh Xuyen gang in Saigon.

The principal nationlists (including Ngo Dinh Diem) failed to unite behind him, since they claimed that the French did not offer real independence. Confronted with a choice between French colonialism and the Communist-led nationalist movement, many Vietnamese, attracted by its appeal for independence and unity, tended to side with the Viet Minh organization. In the meantime; Ho Chi Minh rid his coalition government of the moderates and nationalists whom he had accepted earlier and showed himself to be completely Communist. In March 1951 the Indochinese Communists Party (dissolved in 1945) was revived as the Workers Party (Dang Lao Dong).

Cessation of the Indochina War in 1954 left the Associated States of Indochina divided into four countries: Cambodia, Laos, North Viet Nam and South Viet Nam. The Chief of State, Bao Dai, called on Ngo Dinh Diem, to form a government, but although in office, he lacked control, especially over the army. After a time, Diem brought the army under control. Diem turned his attention to his own status and called for a referendum to al1ow Vietnamese to choose between Diem and Emperor Bao Dai. A referendum was ordered for October 23, 1955. Diem’s bid to replace Bao Dai was successful. Official Vietnamese government records showed that 91.8 percent of the voting population participated and that 98.2 percent of the voters chose to replace Bao Dai with Diem.

Bao Dai played almost no role in his homeland thereafter, choosing instead a life in Paris and along the Riviera that centered around golf, bridge tournaments and women. Bao Dai, the last Emperor in a line that held the throne in Vietnam for a century and a half, died on August 2, 1997 in France,

38) 1927

(1) June .13th.1927
Mytho Indentity Card,certifies exaste les reneignaments et-dessus(issue by) Mytho le 13 Juin 1927 Le Directeur, form was printed by Photo-Nadal,120 rue cayinat,saigon. (Nadal-photo have produced many vintage picture postcard-auth)
No. Maticule 372
Nom (name) : Ly Thi Nega
Ne l e(born ) : 13 Juillet(july) 1913
A’ (at) Phu Lun (Sadec)
Eleve de L’Ecole des : Sacuro
Nom,profession : Ly dai Con
Adresse des parents : Proprieclaire a Phu Lun (Sadec). (Sadec an native traibes near the border with ex annam area-auth)

(2) August 18th 1927
Republique Francaise Indochine 12 cent revenue sheet, used at Bentre,by Tong Minh-hue Lang Thanh –thoi,
Bentre Village square official stamped with chinese char. Also thumb –finger print sign.

(3) August,1st 1927
Rare Indochine 40 cent Revenue 300$ A4000$ , used on Document “To Han Mai dat” Bentre le 1er Aout 1927 , handfinger thumb signed of seven persons , legalised by the chief of Bentre Village with square stamped Bentre Village Thanthoi and Province De Bentre Administrateure stamped at 3 Aout 1927.

(4) October.24.1927
The rare and unique Carte D’Indentite (I.D.) Changenebes de Domicile (Change the domicillies) from”D’Outremer Service de Laison avec les originares aries Territoires Francais d’Outra-Mer” (The Service’s laisson of Foreign France teritory area) with the round stamped on blue Republique Francaise Timbre tax d’outra-mer ,very rare Revenue for France Colony, pity the ID card quality poor but useable for historic archived and must restored–auth)
Nom (name) : Luong hoc San
Nationalite: Citayen Union Frnacasie (Cochinchine).
Profession : Efecidiant (not clear ?)
Ne le : 24 octobre 1927
Long Binh Ranch..Cochinchine.(The rare used Franch colony revenue in cochine china, pity the revenue in bad condition,but the photo and card good condition, still interesting Cochine chine ID card during that colonial era-auth)



Rare Album artisanal d’un recueil de 20 photographies couvrant le couronnement de l’empereur Bao-Dai le 8 janvier 1928


Rare Album artisanal d’un recueil de 20 photographies couvrant le couronnement de l’empereur Bao-Dai le 8 janvier 1928

the rare album of 20 photograpies emperor Bodai January,8th.1928


This work was carried out by the school in Hue, Vinh Tang rue Paul Bert. Black and white prints in the format 11.8 x 17cm. The legends made ​​on a paper strip added below. The 20 photographs are:
1 Arrive in Hue S.A Prince Vinh Thuy-
2 Arriving at the palace of Prince
3 Reception of the Prince by the court
4 ceremony of prostration
5 s.m Bao Dai went to the palace
6 Arrival at the Palace
7 Arrival of the Governor Mr. Varenne
8 European Assistance
9 Position of the mandarins before making Thai Hoa Lays Deaver
10 Lays of the 2nd phase
11 The mandarins of lower rank to its knees
12 After the enthronement SM Bao Dai returned to the palace
13 Out of HM Bao Dai in a litter by the Golden Gate
14 Bao Dai wins walk Mieu Pagoda Tea
15 SM in position for Lays in the Pagoda Tea Mieu
SM 16 out of the pagoda, hailed the Regent vparr SE
17 Return of the pagoda





(1)Nguyen Ai –Quoc more knwon Ho Chi Minh have builded Vietnam Communist Party (D&P)

(2)Nearly Mint Picture Postcard Hanoi-Le Jardin Botonique.printed by Grands Magasines Reunie Hanoi(OP)

(3)Republique Francaise Indochina 10 Cent Revenue sheet overprinted Indochine 3 Cent used in chinese char about …. with six square stamped “ “P.Binhoh-h.Phu-Cai”in center chinese char…….(PH)

41) 1930,the economic crisis and rebellion year.

(1)in 1930 the economic crisis added the social economic conflict between the poor farmer and labourmens ,in Indochine they have made rebellion the same situation in China.

(2)The second type Banknote issued by The bank of Indochina, this notes different from the first type, the name of the issuing bank, which “Banque de I’Indochine (Indochine written jointly without dash, the first type “ Indo-Chine”), while in the transitional period of the two typical categoriethe one-piaster notes bore the bank name of “banque de I’Indo-Chine”, and there was on their back side trilinual letters of Chinese,Vietnamese,cambodian and note emblem.
For these second catagory of notes, on their back side there were lines of Chinese Characters and a legal warning (in French) which have been all writen nratly and lightly. The note values have been written clearly in three letters of chinese,Vietnamese and Cambodian.
The following five-piaster notes were called very popularly by our compatriots as “Con Cong ”(Peacock) papers. On the back side of the twenty piaster notes there was the four-faces statue found at bayon temple (Cambodia). They were called populary as “Giay Qanh”( “Vingt Papers) which come from the french number “Vingt”(twenty).
For one hundred-piaster note, there was rather special thing. The Vietnamese figures (The single vase,The Imperial Temple Gate of Hue,capital city) were shown on the front side, while on their back side was seen the bust of Joseph-Francois Dupleix, a well-kown french colonialist official. ( I have this notes in fine condition, but very difficult to find the veryfine or unc condition, this note were found in Russian market Phonphen Cambodia, in Ho Chi Minh city difficult to find the Indochine papermoney, alway verybad condition maybe because the Liberation ‘s war and many Saigon ntaive vietnamese flea away after the fall of saigon, the only place still found was Cholon area, but the chinese there very carefully to change this high nominal value after the French leave that area, please comment-auth)

The Doc Luc, Giay Qanh and Con Cong(Single vase, twenty piaster pape and peacock) have constituted a triad of big notes which have been used for a rather long time under the French rule.After this three bankonote, issued the same banknote disign but the Baque De I’Indochine and nominal value in Red Colour , the rare banknote was the highest nominal 1000 piastres, the first type in yellow colour ( That is way very rare the very fine conditions , many poor conditions have found –auth).
After this Banque De I’Indochine issued several design cammon banknote, une,cinq,cent,cinq cent with native design.

(3)January,13th .1930
Rare chinese calligraphy bring by chinese immigrant (hoa Kiao or Chinese overseas) to Cholon-Saigon, about Chinese homeland traditional ritual from Tjiang Shi (Quanshi?) , the best time to pray at 10.15 pm , position up above, also about Chinese zodiac good fortune.
(I have found several document ,revenue and postal history written in chinese char during ancient time, francaise Indochine, Bodai’s,diem ‘s and liberation war from the Vienama’s chinese overseas area at Haiphng near Hanoi and Cholon- Saigon. I will write a special book about Vietnam’s Chinese Overseas unique collections- auth)

(4) November,13th 1930
The reciept of Land House tax with Indochine Francaise liberty armour ‘s Cantho Village violet stamped , signed by Ngui Thau, before by Vien Chuc Thau Nhan. (fiscal history-auth)

42) 1931

(1)August,7th 1931.
The reciept of Land House tax paid ,signed Vien Chu thau Nham with Violet French Liberty stamped Cantho village du Tan Buoi (D)
( the change again of official govern-ment system in the village four times from 1920-1939, from Nguoi Thu(1922) – Vien Chuc Thau Nham(1923)- Nguoi Thau(1930)- Vien Chuc thau Nham(1931)-Nguoi thanh(1932)- Vien thau Nhan(1939 )-Nguoi Thau (1939,May)- Vien chuc thau nhan (1940)-Nguoi thau(1941)-Thue (1946)-Nguoi thau (1949), very best informatif set collection So Hien Bien lai , especially the year 1941-1942-1943 – 1946-1nd 1949 as the collection for showed-please comment-auth)

43) 1932

The Reciept of Land house tax paid, signed Vien Chuc thau nham, with red-brown franch liberty stamped Cantho Village du Tan Buoi (D)



Annam, Huê. La fête du Nam Giao en 1933

(1) December, 17th 1933
The Pink paper reciept of Land House tax, signed Nguoi Than, with Red French liberty stamped Canth, village du Tan Buoi (D)

34) 1934



(1)May 20th 1934
Emperor Bo Dai merried Jeannete Marie (?) at the imperial city of Hue.
And his wife became “Hong Hau Nhan Phuong” or empress of the South.
( I ever stayed at the “Nhan Phuong” Hotel at Hanoi near Hoat kiem lake in 2007-auth)

(2)October, 15.1934
The White paper reciept of Land house tax pai, signed Ngui Thou with red chinese character of the Frech liberty stamped Cantho village du Tan buoi (D)

46) 1935

(1)December.30th 1935
Off cover emperor Bo Dai official stamps send from the capital of Vienam administration office , 5 cent orange Indochine definitive stamps overprint Service, postally used CDS HUE –A(NAM) 30.12.35
(Hue was the capital of the state of Anam . The Service stamps
for official latter of the Annam kingdom adminsitration during the last emperor Bo Dai-auth)

(2) Blue Matches label withe elephant design,”Societe Indochinese des alldmetes-Benthuy-Hanoi” with chinese char.
(Very rare Matches label from Indochine Francaise in the Tonkin village Benthuy –Hanoi found in Indonesia before the World war II , because many collections burns during Vietminth war against Franc in 1952-1955, this is the first reported of that kind collections, were someone had the same collection please comment –auth)


(1)In 1936

(a) stamps issue depecting the various native emperor and king in variety of commemorative honouring notable figures.

(b) Old styled chinese char about Chinese School information (difficult to translate, my be someone will help me -auth)

(2)August.21th .1936
The Vaccination card, “ Ville De Cholon” Etat-Civil Indigne(Bo doi Bon Quoc), Bulletin De Naissance (To Bien Lai khai Sanh)
Identification :
Nome et prenom : Law Ngoc
Sexe de l’infant ; Hau um
Ne le (born) :18.8.36
Address :A Cholon Rue Thu Gia De Lam Thong Et de Hua Teich .

Ephemera of The Variolla vaccination ’s law in Vietnamnese and Chinese char:
“ Every newborn child must have variolla vaccination, ifn’t done the parent will have sactions”
Behind the card stamped :
Vaccine contre La variola 21-8-36, Succin 24-8-36, Vaccine per BCG 22-8-36.

(Rare Histroric health vacinnation record collection during Francaise Indochine at Cholon-Saigon Cochinchine in 1936 –auth)

No collection and information, why? Please comment -auth

No collections and information Why snf what happened ? please comment-auth.


(1)29th April 1939
Two vintage document used as the covers of Hand written vintage book:

(a)The Reciept of personal Tax from Village Da ban-Huyen de Yen Binh, paid (Paye) 129$81 , “import personnel and Toncier of” nguyen Quang ,hand sign by “Administrtaeur-Resident”at 29 april 1939 with official stamped
Pour L’annee 1939
Village de Da Ban
Canton de….. Huyen de Yen Binh
1.-Impo’t personnel
. …contribuables a’ 250$00
…..contribuables a’ 200.00
….. contribuables a’150.00
……contribuables a’ 125.00
……contribuqbles a’ 105.00
…..contribuables a’ 80.00
…..contribuables a’ 55.00
…..contribuables a’ 40.00
…..contribuables a’ 25.00
…..contribuables a’ 15.00
…..contribuables a’ 7.00
…..contribuables a’ 5.00
..32contribuables a’ 2.50 80,00
….6contribuables a’ 1.00 6,00—— 86.00
Centimes additionales a’impot personnel 17.20
Total de l.impot personnel et des centiemes additionnales 103.20

2.-Impot Toncter
Riziores de 1’ classe—— Mau a’1$90
- 2’ classe…… Mau a’1,50
- 3’classe……. 11 Mau a1,00…..11,00
Terrains de 1’classe…… Mau a’2$30…
— 2’classe…. Mau a’1.00
— 3’ classe…. 12 Mau a’0,50…..6.00
— 4’classe….. 30 Mau a’0.17……5,10
— 5’classe….. Mau a’0,02…..
Total de L’impot foncier 22,10
3.centiemes additionnels au principal de l’impot
Au profit du Badget provincial…………….. 4,42
4.4/1000 additionels au principal de L’impot foncier
Au profit deLa’Chambre d’Agriculture….0,09——– 26.61
Total de lo’impot a’ verser par le village———- 129.81
Arrete a La somme de Cent vingt reuf pistres ,quatre vingt et un cente.
Nguyen Quang te ………..29 april 1939
Administateur Resident
(b) Versaments Printed Document, The Rice field class no 1 & 2 and Land Tax in chinese char.
Nu du carnet d’enregistre ment ……….831
DATE de versements …………………….3739
En Toutes latters….toen trrs piatres cents
En Piastres ……………………………………….103,20
Hand sign and not clear official handstsaped :

d) Vintage Handwritten Book in Chinese charcter and many Coding pictures about the confucian prayed

(This Unique Imporst Fiscal “ Nguyen or Tunyen(?) Quan ‘s “ Import personnel and Toncier from village Da Ban ,huyen Yen Binh was the first report Fiscal revenue historic collections from Vietnam, I am very lucky to find this very rare document with another documen were used as the cover of an handwritten chinese char vintage books in antique shop near Hoat Kiem lake Hanoi in 2007. auth)

(2) October,30-1939
Off Cover brown native stamp Indochine RF 50 cent, postally used CDS Haipong 30.10.39 (Haiphong was the older capital of Tonkin, the chinese marchant harbor, the rare Haiphong’s picture and ID Card look at the next page, chronologic year 1947 and 1955. auth)

29) 1938
(1)September.4th 1938
This postally covers was sent from Hanoi Tongkin to Het Postzegelhuis (Post Office) Djogja Indes Neerlandaises (Ned.Indie, now Indonesia) WITH FIVE Rhodes STAMPS , 3 x 5 cent , 6 cent and 18 cent Indochina stamps(rate 39 cent) Par avion WITH INDOCHINA MAP, with ROUND Postmark HANOI P.O.-TONKIN WITHOUT DATE , SENT VIA BANGKOK G.PO.c 4.9.38 , VIA BATAVIA (HANDWRITTEN IN BLUE PARKER INK “HAUR BATAVIA”(NOW JAKARTA) AND ARRIVING POSTMARK DJOKJAKARTA 7.9.38 WITH HANDWRITTEN f 1.- ADDED PORTO ONE GULDEN. (UNSUAL PORTO)
(the photo of this Wessel’s cover will show in this blog. Please comment if anyone have the same collection-auth)

(2)Near mint Indochine Pictured Postcard with the Native village Tonkin Womens sold the flower and fruit “Paysannes Tonkinese revenant du Marche.
This card base on “Cliche No-Nhu_Hoan,MY-Hao Ban-Yen-Nham-Tonkin, pritted by Edition photo NADAL ,Saigon-Imp.Braun(P)

(1)March.23th 1939
The blue paper receipt of land House tax paid, signed Vien Chuc Than Nham with red French liberty stamped Cantho Village du Tan Buoi , 23 mars 1939. (D)

(1) March.29,1940
The Police D’Abonnement A L’Eau Porable , Cochine Chine polish insurance (?) With very rare overprint 36 on Indochine Francaise 25 cent Timbre fiscal revenue , le abonemen Cathedral De Saigon .RP Eugene Scullard ,Place Pigneu de Boheine.
secteur de saigon, Services Technique, control de Eaux et De Electricite, This contract sign at Saigon 29 Mars 1940 by Vue et propose L’Ingenuer Charge du Controle, L’Abonne, Vue et soumis a L’apprebation de M.L’Administrateur Le chef de services technique sign R.Lachamp, and Vu et accepted Saigon 29 Mars 1940 by Le chef de Service Administratifs with Cholon Region Station Services Technique Stamped.(Very Rare Cathedral de Saigon abbonnement certificate with very rare overprint Yellow-36 on 25 cent Indochine francaise timbre fiscal revenue, only found one pieces this emergencies revenue-auth)

(b)The Republique Francaise Indochine 15 cent Requete revenue sheet
(a) added “Tonkin -handstamped” R.F.Indochine 3 cent revenue , used with village stamped with chinese character “H.Phu-Cat V.Dai-Hac”, this revenue sheet was the house and land transaction , the house located at the highsociety area, north the village, south Phan Tiu, West Phan Yen, East Kwang chung .
( This revenue sheet found at Hanoi Hoat Kiem area” and the best showed collection to compare between the Tonkin ‘s Phu-Cai Hand-stamped 3 cent, with The Cochinchina’s Mytho- Mechanical overprint 3 cent, wonderful two historic revenue sheet from Tonkin-phut Cai (north) and Cochinchina-Mytho (south) found by Indonesian , especially if showed in USA or French , please comment-auth)

(b)added “ Cochinchina-mechanical overprint” R.F.Indochine 3 cent, used at “Tinh Mytho,Tong Phong vu ,” at Tang Hoa Log. To Ban Dut Dat Ruong”ontract betweeen “Vhu Phua and Chu Ben” date (ngay) 22 Mai 1940, (found at Ho Chi Minh city from Cholon area.-auth)

(3) July.17th.1940
Gouvernement General De L’Indochine, Residence de Thai Binh
(Family’s book, inside the book Nguyen Van Tan write in red ink the name and birth date of their family from the first generation born Hanoi,Nguyen van Tan 25.12.1893, 2nd Le thi Mau birth date 22.8.1898 at Hanoi.3rd Le thi Mau birth date 22.8.1898 at Hanoi 4th Nguyen van Kiem birth date 5.10.1922 at Thai Binh , 5th Le thiMInh,10-10-1930 at Ha Dong, 5) Nguyen van Toan 4.12.1954 at Saigon.Nguyen van Thinh 3.12.1956 at saigon and Nguyen Van Tring ,1-12-1957 at Da Nang etc another 11 persons.
(Unique Family birth date book of Governement General the Indochine, rare document from the official France colony administration, better shwed with another Gouvernur General Indchine document-auth)

(4) October,18th 1940
The best chinese overseas in Vietnam peom art calligraphy, as the remambrance for the best freands.
Including in small book more than fifteen poem and phraese about : (a)struggle for Independent
(b) you can have high vision, but must look at the true situations.
(c) Younger people don’t have the thought like a poet writers about old days situations , the Youngerman must made action to pass the threads in futures times.
(d)The Enemy were someone against us, the people were the battles.

(5)October .19th.1940
The Kuomintang flag with Sun Yat Sen photo as the head of Chinese overseas Middle school “Ijazah” , was authentication by Embassy of the republic of China .Saigon. double circle official kuomintang symbol stamped ,with big red squared official choped .
(The rare chinese overseas school document with China kuomintang –cholon ‘s embassy stamped.
I have another collection with the Kuomintang embassy stamped from Haipong and cholon- rare showed item and will list detailed in my another book title “The Unique Vietnam’s Chinese overseas document.revenue and postal history collections” –auth)

(6) December,19th 1940
The Police de’abbonent of General Immobiliere de Saigonm104.Bd Charner sretificate with very rare overprint 36 on 30 cent’s Indochine Francaise Timbre Fiscal (the other one 25 cent) on the Police D’Ambnnemen a L’eau Potable, sign by Directeur de la du Generale Immobiliere de Saigon,

( two very rare revenue onerprint 36 on indochine Francaise Timbre fiscal 25 cent and 30 cent very intersting collection for showed, the abnnement polish of the famous Saigon’s Cathedral and Saigon’s General Immobiliere building.-auth)

the end @ copyright Dr Iwan Suwandy 2012


Padang West Sumatra My Beloving Birthcity Part:Minangkabau Poem

THIS THE SAMPLE OF Dr Iwan e-bbok in CD-ROM Edition






Part Poem


Created by


Dr Iwan Suwandy,MHA

Private Limited Edition In CD_ROM

Copyright@DR Iwan Suwandy 2012




.As the opening of the writings that I collated as a sign of my love for thebirth land , his wife and entire family, hoping to be nostalgic for the old and add insight for future generations so that the root  origins can be traced.

Writing with illustrations image collections, postal history and other persembahakan I told my son Albert and Anton Jimmi, and the grandson of Sesa, Celin and Antoni, and also all my extended family and wife.
These literary works are still many shortcomings so that corrections and additional information and advice legendary from all my friends so I would expect.
Thank you kep there are many people who have helped me to  complete this paper


West Sumatra called Sphere minang or Land Minangkabau was the birthplace and the land where the author was raised until the age of 45 years (1945-1989).

Various ups and downs have been experienced on Earth Minang by name Hotel-ever besides the residence of the last author of the years 1950-1989, the author was born in Padang Small Road, behind the Land Market Kongsi from 1945 until 1950.
During their stay in Padang authors have kept memoriable  objects or memorabilia collection which is a love filling to  homeland and is able to evoke memories of the realm Minang Beautiful, peaceful and full of such intimacy.

Old Padang hospital




Information from The book also discusses information collection dzari choice and displayed in such a way that can satisfy the longing  Minang people  In Overseas wherever it is located on a remote village in the eyes of beloved pages, such as the song always sung the nomads as follows:

Rumah gadang nan sambilan ruang,Pusako bundo sajak dulunyo. Bilo den kanang hatinya ta ibo ta ibo Ta bayang-bayang diruang mato..

In the Indonesian language as follows:
A  Big House with nine-room, Heritage from nowadays .If I remember my heart recalls sedih. Memory  shadows (village) in the eyelid

Indonesia version:

Sumatera barat yang disebut Ranah minang atau Tanah minangkabau adalah tempat kelahiran dan tanah dimana penulis dibesarkan sampai berumur 45 tahun( 1945-1989). Berbagai suka duka telah dialami di Bumo Minang sesuai nama Hotel yang pernah ada disamping rumah kediaman penulis terakhir dari tahun 1950-1989,penulis dilahirkan di Jalan Kali Kecil Padang ,dibelakang Pasar Tanah Kongsi dari tahun 1945 sampai 1950.

Selama berada di Padang penulis telah menyimpan benda-benda koleksi kenagan atau memorabilia yang merupakan laupan rasa cinta terhapa tanah kelahiran dan mampu membangkitkan ingatan kepada ranah Minang yang Indah, damai dan penuh keakraban tersebut.

Informasi dari Buku juga membahas informasi dzari koleksi pilihan dan ditampilkan sedemikian rupa agar dapat memuaskan kerinduan urang Atau Orang Miang Di Rantau dimanapun dia berada terhadap kampong halaman tercinta yang jauh dimata, seperti lagu yang selalu dinyanyikan para perantau sebagai berikut:

Rumah Gadang Nan Sambilan Ruang, Pusako Bundo Sajak dulu dulunyo. Bilo den kanang hati den ta ibo .Tabayang bayang di ruang mato.


Dalam bahasa Indonesia sebagai berikut:

Rumah Besar yang sembilan ruang,Pusaka Ibu sejak dulunya.Bila saya kenang hati saya sedih.terbayang-bayang (kampung) di pelupuk mata.

Sebagai pembukaan dari tulisan yang saya susun sebagai tanda cinta kepada tanah kelaiharan saya ,isteri dan seluruh keluarga, dengan harapan dapat dijadikan nostalgia bagi yang tua dan menambah wawasan bagi generasi yang akan datang sehingga akar asal usulnya dapat diketahui.Tulisan dengan ilustrasi koleksi gambar,postal history dan lainnya ini.

Pada kunjungan terakhir 5 Maret 2012 ke Sumatra Barat saya memperoleh tambahan informasi tentang mayor Tionghoa Li Say(Li Ma Say)

Lihat foto kami di restaurant anaknya Yoek Tjoe saat inilah saya mendapatkan info Lie say DARI ANAKNYA Lie Tjoe Yang (Lie Khian Goan,center back with red T-shirt -photo send by Mariawita wijyja)



dan menemukan koin perak era The Holy Roman Empire dari German tahun 1541 dan beberapa temuan baru.

Karya tulis ini masih banyak kekurangannya sehingga koreksi dan tambahan informasi serta saran dari seluruh teman-teman sangat saya harapkan.Terima kasih kepada berbagai pihak yang telah membantu saya untuk dapat menyelesaikan karya tulis ini.

Jakarta April 2012

Dr iwan suwandy,MHA









Karya tulis ini saya persembahkan kepada Isteri tercinta Lily Widjaja,Putra and Mantu Albert –Alice,Anto-Grace

Isteri tercinta Lily Widjaja,

Putra and Mantu

Albert Suwandy –Alice,

 Anton jimmi suwandy-Grace  look below

serta para cucu cesa,celin dan Antoni


I was borned in Padang city February,9th.1948 at the old wooden house which belonging to the sister of My grandfather IpoTjoa Bun Tak and Ntiokong Lie Seng Tok (  Sinyo),this house located behind the Chinese camp Market called Tanah Kongsi(Joint Land).

I had found the pictures of this house  were taken by my father in 1948,three pictures black and white,my profile and with mother Anna Tjoa Giok Land with my brother Gho Bian Hoat(Dr Edhie Johan),Sister Elina(Gho soe Kim) and younger sister Gho soei Lian (Dr Erlita Lianny Djohan),

We lived there until 1950 and move to latest House at Gereja Street near Ambacang Market and now became Bundo Kandung Street,the old Dutch house which built into wooden house,and then we built three stair house,until sold to my nice Gho Bian An(Ir Andri Virgo) ,he built Fried Chieckinen and Ambacang Plaza ,later became Ambacang Hotel which broken during earfrthquake 2008,now re built again with new name Elena hotel in 2012. 

The famous old Padang City are Padang Beach, Muara Sungai Arau , Chinese Camp(Kampung Tionghoa),Pondok,Hilligoo –Pasar ambacang,complex Rooe catholic one church Theresia, two chapel Agnes ,basic School(Sekolah Rakyat-Dasar )Zuster  Hollanse Indisce School then Theresia and Agnes, Frater fransiscus and andreas,Middle School MULO Frater ,later SMP Zuster Maria, Frater,and Hig School (SMA) Don Bosco

My teacher in memoriam Frater Servaas (A.J.M de beer) sugest to me to collect all kind of information because in 1959 the communication system via internet will growth after the Satelite have send to the outer space.

All the informations now I put in my web blog in 2009


And after thatin 2011  I am starting made the special informations in CD_ROM,pravited limited editions special for my web blog premium member.

This Padang west Sumatra is one of the CD_ROM pravite edition.

In 20010 I have found  A best Manuscript written by  Native Minangkabau Moehammad Zakaria  title Padoeko Mantsri at Boekit Tinggi  1 -8-2603(1843) dedicated to his children consist about Minang Food Receipt, Minang Traditional medicine receipt ,archived and  Minang Poem.

In this part special I write the poem which many types, and other info will written in another part.

I Hope every Minangkabau people inclufing Tionghoa Pada can red this poem  with illustrated with Miangkabau vintage picture, and they will be always remember their homeland Mianangkabau Nan den Cinto(My Loving Mianagkabau Iand). I ALSO FOUND ANOTHER Miang Poem and put together with this Boekittinngi poem.

I hope all my family and another friend from Padang west Sumatra will help me to add the informations about their family and relative informations which made this CD_ROM more complete for the next generations.

This CD-ROM became tsverela  part,the part one contain the general informations,  part two special for Chinese oversees or Tionghoa informations and other par Padangwestsumatra Poem,Padangwestsumatra antique collections,padangwestsumatra batik etc.only.

Jakarta September 2012

Dr Iwan Suwandy,MHA



Starting The Minangkabau Poem with the very famous poem which made wea always remember Our Beloved minangkabau Homeland

Rumah gadang nan sambilan ruang,Pusako bundo sajak dulunyo. Bilo den kanang hatinya ta ibo ta ibo Ta bayang-bayang diruang mato..

A  Big House with nine-room, Heritage from nowadays .If I remember my heart recalls sedih. Memory  shadows (village) in the eyelid

Wakatu den Ketek Banamo Goan dek Pamarintah disuruh ganti jadi Iwan la gadang bagala Bagindo ,doto dan MHA

When younger named Goan due to government asking changed to Iwan and when became man had title Bagina(yourhighness) a, doctor and MHA(Master Hospital administration(

This related with Minang Poem

Ketek Banamo Gadang Bagala

Small have named bigger have title

Every minangkabau man when small have named like Soewil and when merried he got the tittle Soeten Bandaro(Bendahara)

I always remember thid Minang Poem

Pulau Pandan Jauh Ditangah

Dibalik Pulau Angsa Duo Bilo mati badan dikanduang tanah

Budi baik selau dikanang juo

Pandan island far in the middle(of the ocean)

Behind the second duck island

When passed away the body buried in the land

Favor (which have been made will) always be well remembered



(ejaan sudah disesuaikan,goerindam were Minangkabau  phillosophy )



Mengangkat diri dalam berkata

Tandanya bodoh hatipun buta

Selalu mengaku kaya dan pandai

 Tandanya  bodoh seperti kuda


Lifting themselves in the said
The sign pf  stupid  and blind heart
Always claiming rich and clever
  Sign is stupid like a horse





Pantun  Dato Siamang Gagap

ProverbDato(progenitor) Stuttering Siamang(ape)

Kalau kamu pergi kelapau(kedai)

Yu(ayo)  Beli (ikan) belanak Beli

Ikan Panjang Beli Dahulu

Kalau kamu sampai dirantau

Ibu cari, dunsanak(keluarga)  cari

Kasih saying orang cari dahulu

If you go kelapau (tavern)
Yu (let) Buy (fish) mullet Buy
Fish length Buy Once

If you get dirantau (place to wander)
Mother looking for, dunsanak (family) find
People’s Affection  looking for first




Yang kurik(belang) itu adalah kundi

Yang Merah itu adalah sago

Yang Baik itu adalah budi

Yang Indah itu adalah baso


Setali beli tali

Sekupang(sekepeng)  beli papaya

Sekali kehilangan budi

Selama hidup orang tidak percaya

A pock (striped) is Kundi
Which Red is sago (fruit)
Whether it is a moral
Beautiful it is meatball

Buy quarter strap
Sekupang (sekepeng) buy papaya
Once lost favor
Over the life of an unbeliever

Ditengah umum mengato(mengatakan) baajuo(bagaimana juga)

 Tanda tak ada budi

Marah-marah ditempat (yang) ramai

Tanda tak punya hati yang damai

Amid st the general place mengato (say) baajuo (how well)

  sign of No gratitude

Grumpy place (a) crowded

Signs do not have a peaceful heart


Bicara dengan jernih muka

Tanda punya hati yang suka

Men jauh-jauh indak(bila)  ditanya


Speak with clear face
The sign has a heart like
Men far Indak (when) asked
SHOWING PEOPLE THAT stupid (Which Shows the stupidity)


ProverbDato(progenitor) Stuttering Siamang(ape)

Kalau kamu pergi kelapau(kedai)

Yu(ayo)  Beli (ikan) belanak Beli

Ikan Panjang Beli Dahulu

Kalau kamu sampai dirantau

Ibu cari, dunsanak(keluarga)  cari

Kasih saying orang cari dahulu

If you go kelapau (tavern)
Yu (let) Buy (fish) mullet Buy
Fish length Buy Once

If you get dirantau (place to wander)
Mother looking for, dunsanak (family) find
People’s Affection  looking for first




Yang kurik(belang) itu adalah kundi

Yang Merah itu adalah sago

Yang Baik itu adalah budi

Yang Indah itu adalah baso


Setali beli tali

Sekupang(sekepeng)  beli papaya

Sekali kehilangan budi

Selama hidup orang tidak percaya

A pock (striped) is Kundi
Which Red is sago (fruit)
Whether it is a moral
Beautiful it is meatball

Buy quarter strap
Sekupang (sekepeng) buy papaya
Once lost favor
Over the life of an unbeliever


Bicara dengan jernih muka

Tanda punya hati yang suka

Men jauh-jauh indak(bila)  ditanya


Speak with clear face
The sign has a heart like
Men far Indak (when) asked
SHOWING PEOPLE THAT stupid (Which Shows the stupidity)


Pantun Minangkabau




Dulu kata bermisal adalah keniscayaan dalam pergaulan sehari-hari masyarakat Minangkabau. Dalam setiap diri orang Minangkabau dewasa, khususnya kaum prianya, tertanam prinsip ‘bakato baumpamo, barundiang bakiasan’.

 Dengan prinsip itu, emosi yang muncul dalam komunikasi lisan dipindahkan dari badan ke dalam tuturan. Marah Nada tidak tampak lewat mata yang memerah dan membelalak, tapi lewat idiom-idiom metaforis dalam kalimat setajam siraut dan sembilu. Pantun Minangkabau adalah salah satu pengejawantahan dari prinsip itu, sebagaimana dapat dikesan lagi


Do tadulang-trays (panned) Sajo,

Rice dimano ditugakan?

Do bapulang-home Sajo,

We dimano ditinggakan? (Left)


Tiku Antaro jo (dasn) Pariaman,

There ditugakan rice,

Between the door jo page,

There Adiak den tinggakan. (My sister leave it there)


Previously pandan babungo, (flowering)

Now bingkuang anyo lai,

Previously baguno agency, (useful)

Now tabuang anyo lai. (Now wasted any more)


Many pakaro awning awning,

Our awning awning tabuang, (tube)

Many trade pakaro trade,

Our trade trade tabuang. (Tube)


Trays Island Tarika Island,

Katigo island bantuak spurs, (third island shaped spurs)

Jawek regards nan tingga Tolan, (friends who live answer greeting)

We balayia bisuak morning. (Us tomorrow to batavia)


High Bukik Gunuang Sitoli, (high hill Gunungsitoli-nias)

Bukik bapaga palo fruit, (hill fence nutmeg)

Not sadikik Arok us, (we were not a little wine)

Sabanyak rambuik in kapalo. (As idkepala hair)


Ka Rimbo baolah tuduang, (how protective to Rimbo)

Katuduang in the hands of the day, (a hood / protector middle day))

How tacinto look at gunuang,

In baliak gunuang (behind the mountains) our bodies.


Panuah Marimbo Jambi rice, (rice jambi full merimba)

Sipuluik do ditugakan, (rice pulut do not scatter)

Jauah Taibo our hearts (our hearts much pleading)

Diunjuak not dibarikan. (Showing not supplied)


Do not like it tarah board, (do not like it put the board)

Jauah Marimbo rice Jambi (Jambi PADI MERIMBA FAR)

Do not like it kato Tolan, (DO NOT SAY SUCH friends)

Jauah Taibo our hearts. (FAR pleading OUR HEART)



Jangan tadulang-dulang(di dulang) sajo,

Padi dimano ditugakan?

Jangan bapulang-pulang sajo,

Kami dimano ditinggakan?(ditinggalkan)


Antaro Tiku jo (dasn)Pariaman,

Di situ padi ditugakan,

Antara pintu jo halaman,

Di situ Adiak den tinggakan.(disitu adik saya tinggalkan)


Dahulu pandan babungo,(berbunga)

Kini bingkuang anyo lai,

Dahulu badan baguno,(berguna)

Kini tabuang anyo lai.(sekarang terbuang saja lagI)


Banyak kajang pakaro kajang,

Kajang kami kajang tabuang,(tabung)

Banyak dagang pakaro dagang,

Dagang  kami dagang tabuang.(tabung)


Pulau Talam Pulau Tarika,

Katigo pulau bantuak taji,(ketiga pulau berbentuk taji)

Jawek salam tolan nan tingga,(teman yang tinggal jawab salam)

Kami balayia bisuak pagi.(kami besok ke batavia)


Tinggi bukik Gunuang Sitoli,(tinggi bukit gunungsitoli-nias)

Bukik bapaga buah palo,(bukit dipagar buah pala)

Bukan sadikik arok kami,(bukan sedikit arak kami)

Sabanyak rambuik di kapalo.(sebanyak rambut idkepala)


Ka rimbo baolah tuduang,(bagaimana  pelindung ke rimbo)

Katuduang di tangah hari,(menjadi tudung/pelindung ditengah hari))

Kok tacinto pandanglah gunuang,

Di baliak gunuang (dibalik gunung) badan kami.


Panuah marimbo padi Jambi,(padi jambi penuh merimba)

Sipuluik jangan ditugakan,(beras pulut jangan diserakkan)

Jauah taibo hati kami,(jauh hati kami menghiba)

Diunjuak tidak dibarikan.(Diperlihatkan tidak diberikan)


Jangan bak itu tarah papan,(jangan seperti itu menaruh papan)

Jauah marimbo padi Jambi,(JAUH MERIMBA PADI Jambi)

Jangan bak itu kato tolan,(JANGAN BERKATA SEPERTI ITU KAWAN)

Jauah taibo hati kami.(JAUH MENGHIBA HATI KAMI)

Pantun Minangkabau # 88 –



‘Khazanah Pantun Minangkabau’ menyambung cerita yang  lalu. Bait-bait pantun yang kami sajikan ini masih berkisah tentang keunikan kurenah masyarakat dan pemimpin nagari-nagari di daerah


Pantun-pantun tersebut berbentuk pantun berkait. Ini tentu dapat menjadi jalan bagi warga Kabupaten Solok dan sekitarnya untuk menapaktilasi aspek politik, sosial dan budaya masa lampau daerah mereka. Selamat menikmati.


Bakasua daun katari,

Takalanduang si daun anau,

Rajo Mansyur di Kinari,

Nan laduang di Koto Anau.


Takalanduang si daun anau,

Takalapak si daun birah,

Nan laduang di Kota Anau,

Nan lambuak di Tanah Sirah.


Takalapak si daun birah,

Palapah di kandang banyak,

Nak lambuak di Tanah Sirah,


Tunggang gagah di Batu Banyak.


Palapah di kandang banyak,

Pangali di Indopuro,

Tunggang gagah di Batu Banyak,

Tuan Kali di Limau Lunggo.


Pangali di Indopuro,

Daun silodang laweh-laweh,

Tuan Kali di Limau Lunggo,

Nan gadang di Koto Laweh.


Daun silodang laweh-laweh,

Daun katari mudo-mudo,

Nan gadang di Koto Laweh,

Babaua jo Tujuah Koto.


Daun katari mudo-mudo,

Daun marunggai laweh-laweh,

Kok lah babaua nan Tujuah Koto,

Padamaian di Koto Laweh.


Badia sadaga duo dantun,

Badia nak urang Banda Puruih,

Kok dipikia kato ibaraik pantun,

Bak maminun aia tak auih.

machinal translate



Bakasua (mattresses) katari leaves,

Takalanduang (lay) the leaf anau,

Rajo (King) Mansyur in Kinari,

Nan (a (laduang (lying) in Koto Anau.


Takalanduang (lay) the leaf anau,

Takalapak (falling to the ground) the leaf birah,

Nan (a) laduang (lying) in the city of Anau,

Nan (a) lambuak (softened) in the Land of Sirah.


Takalapak (falling to the ground) the leaf birah,

Palapah (midrib) at home a lot,

Nak lambuak (softened) in the Land of Sirah,

Many riding proudly in Stone.


Palapah (midrib) at home a lot,

Pangali (multiply) in Indopuro,

Many riding proudly in Stone,

Mr Kadi (indigenous teachers) in Limau Lunggo.


Pangali (multiply) in Indopuro,

Leaves silodang laweh-laweh (wide),

Mr. Kali (traditional teachers) in Limau Lunggo,

Nan gadang (growing up), Koto Laweh. (City Wide)


Leaves silodang laweh-laweh, (wide)

Katari leaf-Mudo Mudo, (very young)

Nan gadang (growing up) in Koto Laweh,

Babaua jo Tujuah Koto. (Mingled with seven cities)


Katari leaf-Mudo Mudo,

Leaves marunggai laweh-laweh,

Why is babaua nan Tujuah Koto,

Padamaian (Peace), Koto Laweh. (City wide)


Badia sadaga duo dantun, (two guns boom merchant)

Badia son urang Banda Puruih, (rifles for the banda)

How dipikia kato ibaraik poem, (When you think about

Bak maminun aia not auih(like drink water alouth not thirsty)

 In the above verses recorded traitsleaders of several villages again in Solok and surrounding areas, as well as characteristics of children nagarinya, and relations with neighboring villages-villages.Some of the villages mentioned in the seven strands stanza poem above is: Kinari, Koto Anau, Land Sirah, Stone Many, Lemons Lunggo, Koto Laweh, and Tujuah Koto.If in Kinari Rajo Mansyur tasabuik nan, then known as Koto Anau curve (laduang). Look at the context, perhaps this leads laduang said physical features people Koto Anau (could have been referring to the women). Such reflection verse 680.Physical characteristics (which is also the possibility of referring to women) Land Another Sirah: lambuak. In this context it means rather gendutan lambuak, plump (verse 681). While children Batu Many villages renowned for prowess or good looks (verse 682). Well, Stone Many people nowadays so-so little pride. Apparently their ancestors used many handsome, perhaps crazy by many women from the surrounding villages-villages.

Next two villages called, the Lemons Lunggo and Koto Laweh, also have their respective advantages. Lemons Lunggo Nagari famous because Mr. Kali comes from there (verse 683). Thus, the Lemons Lunggo famous for religious aspects. While Koto Laweh famous because apparently a lot of great people (urang sieve) derived from these villages (verse 684). Nagari is apparently having a competitive relationship (babaua) also with Tujuah Nagari Koto (verse 685). As has been noted in many anthropological studies of the Minangkabau, the relationship between villages could reach the stage of physical conflict, but more rivalry manifested in art and culture.

If we refer to the next verse (686) seems in the past that might be rivalry between the villages with Tujuah Laweh Koto Koto. If any dispute arises, it seems Laweh Koto could be a mediator or conciliator.

This number is close to the metaphorical nature of language rhymes about how Minangkabau. Explained that the essence as people who are not thirsty given water. That is, he palamak speech, a tool to strengthen relationships and to increase the wisdom in speaking. It is not something that can not make the dead. In other words, berpantun not a compulsion. He must be conducted in a happy mood, not when the stomach is not yet satisfied


Dalam bait-bait di atas terekam ciri

pemimpin beberapa nagari lagi di daerah Solok dan sekitarnya, juga karakteristik anak nagarinya, serta hubungan dengan nagari-nagari tetangganya.

Beberapa nagari yang disebut dalam tujuh untaian bait pantun di atas adalah: Kinari, Koto Anau, Tanah Sirah, Batu Banyak, Limau Lunggo, Koto Laweh, dan Tujuah Koto.

Kalau di Kinari Rajo Mansyur nan tasabuik, maka Koto Anau terkenal karena lekukannya (laduang). Melihat konteksnya, barangkali kata laduang ini mengarah pada ciri fisik orang Koto Anau (bisa saja merujuk kepada kaum wanitanya). Demikian refleksi bait 680.

Ciri fisik (yang juga kemungkinan merujuk ke kaum wanita) Tanah Sirah lain lagi: lambuak. Dalam konteks ini lambuak berarti agak gendutan, sintal (bait 681). Sedangkan anak nagari Batu Banyak terkenal karena kegagahan atau ketampanannya (bait 682). Wah, warga Batu Banyak sekarang ini bolehlah sedikit berbangga diri. Rupanya nenek moyang mereka dulu banyak yang jombang, yang mungkin digilai oleh banyak perempuan dari nagari-nagari sekitarnya.

Dua nagari berikutnya yang disebut, yaitu Limau Lunggo dan Koto Laweh, juga memiliki keunggulan masing-masing. Nagari Limau Lunggo terkenal karena Tuan Kali berasal dari sana (bait 683). Jadi, orang Limau Lunggo terkenal karena aspek keagamaannya. Sedangkan Koto Laweh terkenal karena rupanya banyak orang-orang besar (urang gadang) berasal dari nagari tersebut (bait 684). Nagari ini rupanya mempunyai hubungan yang kompetitif (babaua) juga dengan Nagari Tujuah Koto (bait 685). Seperti sudah dicatat dalam banyak kajian antropologis mengenai Minangkabau, hubungan antar nagari bisa sampai tahap konflik fisik, tapi lebih banyak diwujudkan dalam rivalitas seni-budaya.

Jika kita merujuk ke bait berikutnya (686) tampaknya di masa lalu mungkin rivalitas itu di antara nagari Koto Laweh dengan Tujuah Koto. Kalau muncul konflik, tampaknya Koto Laweh bisa menjadi penengah atau pendamai.

Nomor ini ditutup dengan kiasan mengenai bagaimana hakekat bahasa pantun Minangkabau. Dijelaskan bahwa hakekatnya seperti orang yang tidak haus diberi air. Artinya, ia palamak bicara, alat untuk mempererat pergaulan dan juga untuk menambah kearifan dalam berbicara. Ia bukan sesuatu yang kalau tidak ada bisa bikin orang mati. Dengan kata lain, berpantun bukan merupakan suatu paksaan. Ia mestinya dilakukan dalam suasana hati yang senang, bukan ketika perut belum lagi kenyang.

Pada saat saya bertugas di solok tahun 1973-1979 saya teringat beberapa pantun

Singkarak koto nan (yang) Tinggi

Simanuk Mandulang-dulung

Adaik(Adat) Solok   Budi Selayo

aapakah anda mengerti artinya

Are you know the meaning

Please read at the complet Cd-Rom

after subscribed as the premium member via comment

the end @ copyright @ 2012


Padang west sumatra CD-ROM new Informations Tionghoa lived at Padang in 1944-1955





Kampong Tionghoa (Chinese Camp)

Chine camp(kampong tionghoa) Street starting from the Kinol Aphotek corner until the Chinese temple.The left one,with staircase where my grandfather printing office(later My Ftaher and Uncle) Express.also seen Eng Djoe Bie and at the right the house Mie Yap Kie(noodle restautrant),Lena Khoe my teacher house(his father the brother of My Wife Grandmother at Padang Panjang Mrs Tjan Tjie Seng),no car this time only Bendi(delman ,horse carriage) and pedati.

In 1945 live at Kampoeng tionghoa street(now Pondok street) based to dr Iwan collections Road tax registration Book

kampoeng tionghoa,now Pondok street (  Tjan Hoei Nio ,no 21,  Tjoa eng Keng   gold marchant shop at kampoeng Tionghoa  and he had also house  at tepi Bandar Olo where dr Italian and Dr Khamardi thalut practse, Tjoa  tjong Thay, Sho Sien Hien, ) 

At theright side apotik sehat (owner Mak kim seng then sold to the new owner), some house,small gang two small shop, dentist Kwee Tjeng Tang,the father Dr Kwee Hoa Yong, then Barber sop,some house, then The Andalan Medical Faculty ,now became healh school(may be Nursing), the corner tionghoa kedai kopi(coffee sho) now closed  the kampong sebelah, some house, gho kobg liang Tempo Medical distributor(now I donn’t know), Auyong Tjoe Pong house the owner of Lam kiauw coconut oil fabric, Lay him house now took kaca mata owne Drg Lie Yaou Hoei  and the  daughter of Lay hin ,and hisher siter merried my thirs uncle hardi Firgo(gho Bian Jan), after that Ghan Keng soan , the corner Apotik kinol the owner the family of Liem Bian Djang Mother and the owner of Dexa Medica Palembang, after that Sungai bong street, at the corner Lape salero restaurant(not exist anymore)


At the leftside of kampong (village)  Tionghoa street were the house of gho fmali(father of dr Gho Tjeng hoen) the fist leader of Gho Famili(marha) Kongsi Padang, then small gang tanah Kongsi, then the house of the mother of dr Lie Po Tjoe(maria), then the house of Khoe family(mfather of Lena Khoe my teacher at SD Fransikus(low s basic school or Sekolah Dasar),her sister merried Thio Tjoe Liong, after that I donn’t know, the one gang to Kali Kecil street, the took(shop) Julia  father of dr Itje Juliani, then Toko(shop) Romeo (later became wasserij,now painting Shop Tjia Eng Wan and his his wife mu second uncucle  ,my father brother Gho Ie Keng- name Gho soei Hong, then Hidangan Kita,then the shoe shop, then Nam Yang  restaurant(father of Bo liong) the corner now became the car shop then  Kampung sebelah street then  Khoun  Chan foto studio,Hen seng hotel, Toko Murah owner Oei Soei Ho, from his first wife they did not had children and  get step children Oei Djie san and Oei Bok sioe(meeried with my thirs  brother of My Father Gho Ie Hauw(Hardi Firgo), after that the new house before burned, many years this building not finish. I remember only few oner like the father of Eng Liang and Eng Liep and Mak Kim Lian (son of Mak Pak soei) merried  aunt Tjoe she ever played lawn tennis with me their children  Mak Ying Fa,Mak yoek Fa and son Mak Wan Wie.


klenteng te Padang 

Chinese Captain Lie Say 

Chinese Major  Li say was the first padang Major,

Info from Lie swan hauw

Lie Saaij or Lie Ma Saaij must be spelled in Dutch colonial spelling, as this was his name as entered in official legal documents.
\Furthermore he was not the first chinese captain ( 1860) , but the first chinese Major ( Majoor der chinezen ), which appointment was done after he contributed more than 25.000 old dutch guilders to the Krakatau relief fund in 1883.
Before Lie Saaij there were among others Lie Piet as captain of the chinese with Lie Kee as lieutenant. ( ±1855 )

Sya akan menghubungi perhimpunan (kongsi) marga Lie untuk mendapatkan informasi dari Lie Ma sai.

the  Chinese temple beside his house,


 he did not like the HTT Kongsi which built this temple and in the front of his house there a small street to the Arau River, there were Pasar Borong Market and many small Chinese citizen, turn to right the Padang spaarbank or Bank Tabungan Negara(now closed), I just have new info that  the this Padang spaarbank was built by Gho chong ,grand grand pa of Nila Go who just send me the info .read the original info below:

Pak Iwan, beberapa hari yang lalu saya baca sekilas cerita tentang keluarga gho cong yang membangun gedung spaarebank di depan kelenteng see hin kiong…saya sangat tertarik, karena saya pernah dengar diberitahu bahwa kakek buyut saya bernama Gho Cong……..apakah pak iwan tahu mengenai keluarga gho itu? Terima kasih sebelumnya pak

Saya akan menghubungi konsi she Gho untuk mendapatkan informasi tetntang Gho Chong tersebut. 

Lie say died buried in the Padang Hill not in the Chinese tomb which belonged to HTT members.

Beside the temple there were Tjia wie hien house,who work at Semen Indarung Fabric,his son my friend Dr Tjia Boen liong merried with Sian,the sister of Ang Tjeng Liang(Wirako),and The HO TEK chinese social brotherhood organization, the house of Thio Tjoe liong-wife the sister oleh my teacher Lena Khoe(her father the brother of my wife grandma Khoe Kim lian),also my friend  house of Lim Pie Ho  with his sister Lim Giok Tjin with her husband Thio Tjoe Ban, dr Lim giok Lin Sp.P anak with her huband in memoriam dr Djohan Teddy their father Lim sim hong which falily with the wife of brother of my son anto ‘s wife Greece shanty which ever stay at Padang beside of percetakan Express kampong tionghoa ,and Siong Hwa are threre too.


Sumatra’s first Malay newspaper in Padang. Akhbar pertama

One of my father’s favorite stories was how in 1905 he was talked into buying a printing press by a representative of a printing press firm when he had one too many at his club. He forgot all about it but one day the press arrived. He had no idea as to what to do and interested a few people into starting a first malay newspaper on Sumatra in 1905. It became a succes. In 1929 a commemorative isse was printed. I have no idea whether it survived the Japanese occupation.



Oranje Hotel (Hotel Muara)



Oranye hotel,kenudian diganti tek Muara , saya pernah lihat didalam gedung ini tegel bergambar lambing seluruh keresiden(saat ini propinsi) daris eluruh hindai belanda(saying tak tahu kemana perginya)Hotel ini runtuh pada saat gempa besar tahun 2008,dan tahun 2012 sudah dibangun hotel baru dengan nama yang sama.

Kerah kiri(to the left The Goeoren street ever live there Heng (monkey), Phoa yan sam , salon Grate Djelita) and in 1045 based on dr Iwan Collections Roat tax registration book in March 31th 1945 live at the Goeroen street some tionghoa

Goeroen street no 7(Lie Oen Hok)  no 9(Lie Oen Hok) No 25(Kam hong Oei) no 19(Lie Hong Lie) no 17(Injo tek sioe),no 29( Injo Thay sao)

The Rooseboom was steaming west of Sumatra  

On 1 March 1942 at 11.35pm

the Rooseboom was steaming west of Sumatra


On 1 March 1942 at 11.35pm

when it was spotted by the Japanese submarine I-59 and torpedoed. It capsized and sank rapidly leaving one life boat (designed to hold 28) and 135 people in the water. 80 people were in the lifeboat the rest clung to flotsam or floated in the sea. Two of these survivors, one of whom was a Corporal Walter Gibson, were picked up nine days later by the Dutch freighter Palopo. Until the end of the Second World War they were assumed to be the only survivors. Sadly, Robert Kingshott did not survive and his body was never recovered. The reason that I mention Walter Gibson, is that he wrote an account of his survival which demonstrates the conditions he, and others, endured in the days following the sinking.


According to Gibson in and around the lifeboat were an estimated 135 survivors, many with injuries, including Gibson himself who was in the lifeboat due to those injuries. By the time the boat had drifted for more than 1,000 miles, to ground on a coral reef, less than 100 miles from Padang, Rooseboom’s starting point, only five of its 80 passengers remained alive, and one of those drowned in the surf while trying to land.


In Gibson’s account the ordeal that followed the sinking showed the worst of human nature under some of the most extreme conditions. On the first night many of those in the water drowned or gave up. S


ome twenty men built a raft from flotsam and towed it behind the boat. The raft slowly sank and all twenty perished three days later. In the first few days discipline collapsed men and women went mad with thirst, some drinking sea water which sent them into hallucinations. Many threw themselves overboard rather than face further suffering, and a gang of five renegade soldiers positioned themselves in the bows and at night systematically pushed the weaker survivors overboard to make the meagre rations go further.


 Gibson claims to have organized an attack on the renegades with a group of others who rushed them and pushed them en masse into the sea. Brigadier Paris died, hallucinating before he fell into his final coma. The Dutch captain was killed by one of his own engineers.


Towards the end Gibson realized that all who remained alive were himself, another white man, a Chinese girl named Doris Lin (who turned out to be a secret agent for the British) and four Javanese seamen.  That night the Javanese attacked the other white man and started to eat him alive. Later the oldest Javanese died.


The lifeboat eventually landed on Sipora,


 an island off Sumatra and only 100 miles from Padang, where the Rooseboom started its journey 30 days earlier. One of the Javanese seaman drowned in the surf whilst the other two disappeared into the jungle and have never been found.


After a period of being treated by some of the local population Doris Lin and Gibson were discovered by a Japanese patrol. Gibson was returned to Padang as a prisoner of war while Lin was shot as a spy soon afterwards. 


It is not clear at what point Robert died, but I would hope that his death was quick and as painless as possible.


Robert was my 5th cousin once removed

Source:Jan Brian Kingshot


The reaction of the Japanese took a day to set up but it is up to the challenges. It is indeed out of the question to leave the British foothold on an island of vital importance to the Japanese war economy. Early in the morning the dreaded torpedo bombers Nells appear on Padang. Private air support British ships have no chance of escape. The largest ship is the first target. The ship Dunera cash two torpedoes, then come Vals led by student pilots who did not believe to be launched in the fight so quickly. All bombs fell except water dropped by their instructor, a veteran of Pearl Harbor. The cargo Trevilley is touched.

A new raid occurs. Japanese airmen begin to collect dividends from their attacks. They run with their torpedoes and the Dunera Madras City and reach once more leTrevilley. This is a disaster for the British lose 87canons, 20 vehicles and 400 men.

Madras City torpedoed transport flows with its load

The ship HMT Dunera flows to Padang. Sinking cancels the hand British Sumatra.

(The ship had Dunera headlines. On 10 July 1940 the ship left Liverpool with 2,500 passengers, double its capacity. “Passengers” are in fact prisoners of war and German or Italian people suspected by the authorities British sympathies Nazis. actually 2,000 of them are Jews escaped from Germany. Some of them are survivors of a torpedoed ship. Travel to Sydney last two months in appalling sanitary conditions. A arrival in Sydney énorme.Churchill the scandal was arrested in the House of Commons. Passengers are sent to a camp where Australian authorities are trying to forget the abuse. Upon entry into Japan war refugees are released and join the ranks of the allied camp)



The island was conquered in two weeks by the Japanese in February 1942 has not seen any military action since. The few Japanese garrisons live in a torpor punctuated by Equatorial rain and shake the earth’s crust.

The only question which concerns the Japanese on the island are the statistics of production of oil wells and refineries, as well as ores, rubber, rice. In short, the country is being fleeced.

 At night comes a message on the office of Admiral Kondo Nobukate, commanding the IInd fleet. It comes from a marine commando unit of the 91st regiment of the Guard stationed in Padang on the west coast of Sumatra.

 It signals the arrival of a British landing force escorted by destroyers Arrow and Foxhound. The big troop transport Dunera is identified. The first elements of the 6th British brigade arrive. Apparently there is a hand operation as Canadians attempt an equivalent four days later at Dieppe.

End of the day the British landed 1600 men. This is insufficient to dislodge the 1500 Japanese elite soldiers sheltered in their fortifications and bunkers.


After the huge losses the day before the British ships depart from Padang

during the night leaving the 6th Brigade to its fate. The landing force was divided into British deux.Malheureusement for them they did not go fast enough and are still in the range bombers destroyers.

The two trains met at the morning sailing northwest toward Ceylon. Therefore the planes come wave after wave and again it is a massacre. 3 freighters escorted by HMS Decoy are cast shot torpedoes. Fritillary corvette escorting the 2nd section of the convoy was torpedoed. Then the bombers are attacking the escort destroyers first section.

Throughout the morning the destroyers HMS Decoy Arrow and manage to avoid the thirty torpedoes intended for them. DCA of these two small vessels, dense and accurate damage several bombers. However during the afternoon bombers back.

 A short ammunition anti-aircraft destroyers become easy prey. The Decoy attacked by 18 Nells can not avoid a torpedo, then Arrow impacted by Long Lance explodes and sinks. The Decoy torpedoed again tilts and capsizes. HMS Foxhound 2nd part of the convoy escaped the pack of the aircraft continues.

A British ship is in serious trouble after the passage of Bettys.
Japanese airlift continues throughout the day. A 2nd para regiment is dropped to reinforce Japanese positions.

 A 3rd Regiment, 15th Marine commando Guard is deposited on land beaten by British artillery. 3700 Japanese are now hard at work in 2500 against the British. The Japanese did not attack. They expect tanks that are long in coming, wading on the slopes soggy Sumatra.

Japanese paratroopers about to embark for Padang.(121)


The Japanese continue to strengthen their defense Padang with an airlift. Their numbers reach 4,000 men against the British in 2500. 4 units with two parachute regiments were brought reinforcements entirely by aircraft.(121)


The assault led to Padang to force the 3000 British 6th Brigade to surrender failed despite the 9200 Japanese soldiers arrived on the scene backed by hundreds of tanks. Jungle promotes the defense of British hiding under the canopy for protection from daily aerial bombardment.




Postally used registerd cover send from CDS solok 18.9.27(27.9.1943)  to  CDS Pariaman 18.9.1943 shift to padang with Sumatra west coast sai nippon cross overprint on DEI Kriesler 40 cent(provenance dr iwan 1985)

Kreisler 40 cent met opdruk DNY en kruis in zwart op R-brief Solok 18.9.27 naar Priaman 18.9.29 en doorgestuurd naar Padang 18.9.30, rechterzijde zie


Dai Nippon military homeland postcard with added  11/2 sen surcharged  postally used send from CDS Solok(west sumatra)  18.6.25(25.5.1943) to Bandoeng

With info

Oleh sebab gampo(gempa) itoe(itu)  dan lagi djalan2(jalan-jalan) habis  roesak(rusak) .Adik akan datang ke Padang kedua hari Djum’a(juma;at) tanggal 24  dengan si Oepik(upik) tertoempang(tertumpang) salam adinda dan oeni(kakak) nurhani dan lakinya(suaminya) rifai

Dari adinda

Siti marlian

Simpang Toeah Boeah Koebang solok


001-012 zonder 3 1/2 cent op R-brief Padang met 1e-dagstempel, vrijwel pracht

CDS dai nippon pa=da-n(g) 18.8.1(august,1st.1943) original first day first day cover od Dai nippon sumatra definitive stamps

Made by Mr The Tjeng Jan

Dr Iwan Ever met this in memoriam man at his home Terusan Djawa dalam now  Rohama Kudus Street and found one kon 35 cent over print cross dai Nippon from him,his son The Se Ham merried Dr Iwan wife nice in memoriam  Tjan sioe Kim.the daughter of his Mother In Law elder Brother. Tjan Tjeng Hay


Dai Nippon Interneering Camp Padang





 The postally used money order send from CDS dai Nippon padan(n) pandjan(g) 18.11.30(novemebr,30th.1943) to Ramlah Koto tanngai soengai batang Manindjau(lake) used Japanese homeland stamp and overprint bigger Dai nippon yubin od DEI def 5 cent



Road Tac regristrion Book Of Padang City(Dr Iwan collections found at Lapak ex paper from Padang city Hall Archived wgich sold out in 1980) ,inside were found the name of Tionghoa People who paid the tax with rthe name of street where there lived, this iformations very important for the fsmily who want to trace their older grandpa.(who want to have the scan of this original document please contact dr Iwan via comment in Driwancybermuseum blog’s comment)

Goeroen (Desert)street(the still exist until this day)

Handel Goan Hoat jl goeroen no 49

Lie Hong Lie jl Goeroen 19

Kampoeng(village) Tionghoa(now Pondok street)

Ong Hong Kiat, Oh Tjong Thong(no 25),

Tugu A.T. Raff  di Lapangan Imam Bonjol Sekarang 1938

.Alang Lawat no 9(Kam  Hien Oei),

belakang Poeroes( Liem Tjeng Yong),  Kampoeng Baharoe IV no  12(Oei Tjoei seng), Simpang haroe(Lim eng tjiang), Djati street no 71(Oei Goan beng),Alai street no 7(Tjoei Lan),Tepi Bandar belakang gerdja (Lie Tek boe, may be the grandpa of my friend Lie sin Nio ,she lived there in 1970)

Kampoeng Nias street(Liem Eng Tjiang)

Many native Minangkabau  will up load in part Minangkabau like Sjarif Gani Jalan Poeloaoe karam 22.



I was born this day at Kali ketjil street behind Tanah Kongsi Patang City,look the picture of the house  with me in 1948


Road Tac regristrion Book Of Padang City(Dr Iwan collections found at Lapak ex paper from Padang city Hall Archived wgich sold out in 1980) ,inside were found the name of Tionghoa People who paid the tax with rthe name of street where there lived, this iformations very important for the fsmily who want to trace their older grandpa.(who want to have the scan of this original document please contact dr Iwan via comment in Driwancybermuseum blog’s comment)

Kampoeng (villige) Nias(Oei Boe) , 

kampoeng tionghoa,now Pondok street (  Tjan Hoei Nio ,no 21,  Tjoa eng Keng later he lived at tepi Bandar Olo where dr Italian and Dr Khamardi thalut practse, Tjoa  tjong Thay, Sho Sien Hien, ) 

Pasar Moedik before  named Psaar gadang, then  changed name as Batipoeh street untik now

Batiporh street( Kongsi Yan leng tong she gho,Gho soen tong major Chinese house,still until now lived his son with wife Kiam), Injo tek Lok no  7, )

Goeroen street no 7(Lie Oen Hok)  no 9(Lie Oen Hok) No 25(Kam hong Oei) no 19(Lie Hong Lie) no 17(Injo tek sioe),no 29( Injo Thay sao)

 Jalan sawahan(  Tjan Khay  &hok sioe),  Jalan andalas (lim eng tjiang),jalan Poeroes(So Lai yang).

Jalan palingam no 9(Injo tek soan)no 8(Be siok Lian),

Jalan nipah(stiil exist now no 72(Liem Eng Tjoe). Near the house  of TIKI Lie hap kiang and Lie Hap boe

Jalan Belakang Olo Januari 1988

 Jalan  Tepi Bandar Olo

no 25( Liang eng Lim)no 8(lIm Bian Lian)

Belantung Kecil(now A Yani street

( no. 18a(Pek siauw Thay).,So tong beng, liem thiuw Bhe<Siauw hong Seng, Lim Ham Bie (the owner of took Bie? He still lived there in 1970)

Pasar Borong (lim tiauw Sioe)

Dr Iwan notes



The Story Behind The Nice Letter collections Mourning Letter from Jamnu To Srinagar

THIS Is  The Sample Of  Dr Iwan E-Book In CD-ROM

The Nice Letter Collectections, the complete Cd exist but onlty for premium member

Please syubscribed via comment









a nice mourning cover (Mourning covers were black-edged envelopes used to send bereavement notices.)

It has several points of interest:

– It was sent from


Jammu is located in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, which is in the country of India.According to the latest stats, Jammu has a population of 465,600. It is located in the Asia/Calcutta timezone.

Here are some photographs from this beautiful city:

Jammu image
Jammu Jammu and Kashmir
Compiled from a list of old routes to Srinagar given in ‘The Happy Valley: Sketches of Kashmir and the Kashmiris’ by W. Wakefield (1879).

Travellers in Kashmir.  By  Miss G. Hadenfeld  
Route 1
The Gujerat and Pir Panjal Route (or the Mugal route)
The Banihal Route from Jammu was off limits for visitors and for the longest time was only meant for personal use of the royal Dogra family based in Jammu.*
The route began at Railway terminal at Jammu Tawi. Involved crossing Banihal Pass (at 9,200 feet) and you arrived in Srinagar via Verinag. 
* From: ‘A guide for visitors to Kashmir’ (1898) by W. Newman, Updated by A. Mitra.
Route 6
via The Hindustan and Tibet Road. Given in ‘Travels in Ladâk, Tartary, and Kashmir’ (1862) by Lieut.- Colonel Torrens 
You could arrive into Srinagar (and still can) via Leh. But to reach Leh you had to take the The Hindustan and Tibet Road road (for sometime the British did think about road linking Delhi and China). Shimla to Shikpi Pass.  Crossing Chandra Bhaga (Chenab) at Koksar on dead inflated buffalo skin.   

Map of the Kashmir Valley and Jehlum Valley. From ‘The Panjab, North-West Frontier Province, and Kashmir’ (1916) by Sir James McCrone Douie.




Srinagar in Jammu & Kashmir State in India, a few years after the Jammu & Kashmir State Post Office closed.

– It was sent to the wife of

Sir Francis Younghusband, who led the 1904 British Expedition to Tibet

– The cover was sent during Winter in Kashmir, when the State administration normally moved down from Srinagar, which could be cut off by snow, to Jammu.


Why did Lady Younghusband remain in Srinagar?

– The distance between Jammu and Srinagar is about 160 km – as the crow flies.


 The runners carrying this letter took 3 days to cover the distance, having to make a wide detour to the West to reach Srinagar because the passes would have been blocked by snow.

Sad to say, the Edward VII Indian Half Anna stamp is effectively worthless.

Read More Info

Retired doctor’s family to meet Dalai Lama

Retired doctor’s family to meet

The Thirteenth Dalai Lama, Thupten Gyatso,

Dalai Lama

In 1903,

fearful that the Chinese were on the verge of granting Tibet to Russia  and endangering their Raj in India, the British sent a military expedition into Tibet to prevent the rumor from becoming a reality.

The commander of the expedition, Sir Francis Younghusband, brought along British civil servant and photographer John Claude White to document the campaign.

White took a series of seventy photographs which were collected in an album c. 1905.

Amongst the platinum prints and two folding panoramas is

 this striking image of Tibetan nuns.

Considering that Buddhist nuns are required to keep their hair cropped short it is unclear why this group allowed their hair to grow to such impious length. As recently as 2002, the Chinese were imprisoning Tibetan nuns and forcing them to let their hair grow out, the least offensive of their many humiliating punishments.

The Tibetans were none too happy with the British incursion, the Chinese even less so, and the British were none too kind to the Tibetans.



Brigadier-General James Ronald Leslie Macdonald,


leading a military force of over 3,000, including Nepalese Gurkhas, faced off against 3,000 Tibetan troops armed with muskets at

the Battle of Guru, and a very short battle it was.

 After  negotiations to head things off failed, confusion ensued and the shooting began. The British, armed with Maxim machine guns, mowed down between 600-700 Tibetan troops.

The rest were allowed to peacefully retreat. Younghusband, who now assumed command of the British army, marched into Lhasa and negotiated a treaty with the Regent, who declared, “When one has known the scorpion [China] the frog [Britain] is divine.”

The British military mission ended in 1904, unpopular at home and everywhere else.

This album was recently at Bonhams for auction. It sold for £38,400 ($61,592), inclusive of buyer’s premium.

[WHITE, JOHN CLAUDE]. An album of important images taken by John Claude White during Sir Francis Younghusband’s Tibet Mission of 1903-1904. 70 platinum prints and 2 folding panoramas, images approximately 160 x 210mm., captioned on the mounts, contemporary half green morocco, lettered ‘TIBET’ on the upper cover, sailcloth chemise, oblong folio, [c.1905]


Some works of John Claude White

Extracted between 5 works in the catalog of Arcadja

John Claude White - Tibet And Lhasa

John Claude White – Tibet And Lhasa


Back to catalogue Place Bid or Track Lot Lot No: 528 � WHITE (JOHN CLAUDE) Tibet and Lhasa, 53 photogravure plates, including a folding map, autograph letter signed (“John White”) and postmarked envelope from Lhasa pasted down to verso of upper cover, occasional light soiling, contemporary red cloth gilt, spine sunned, oblong 4to (200 x 265mm.), Johnston and Hoffman, [1908] Estimate: �7,000 – 9,000, � 7,900 – 10,000 Request Condition Report Footnote: A RARE SERIES OF IMAGES FROM YOUNGHUSBAND’S TIBET MISSION OF 1903-1904. Johnston and Hoffman’s promotional catalogue of 1905 mentions that the images were initially issued individually or in albums, as half-tone or carbon prints. They were later issued in a two volume set with letterpress descriptions by C.B. Bayley, dated 1907-08. These were almost immediately withdrawn from circulation for fear that the information contained would reveal classified details to the Chinese. Consequently, very few copies remain and are exceptionally rare. Hardly less rare is the volume offered here was published a few months later. For example, there is no copy of this edition in the British Library. When the 1903 expediton was formed White had already been in Sikkim for at least fifteen years. Together with the thrusting Younghusband, and supported by two hundred Indian troops, under the military command of General Macdonald, the expedition was to force the Tibetans to trade with British India, and to investigate concerns that Russia was gaining influence in Lhasa. Although Kurt and Pamela Meyer state in In the Shadow of the Himalayas: A Photographic Record of John Claude White 1883-1908 , that “[White's] incomparable photographs have thus turned out to be the only lasting legacy of the ill-fated adventure of the Imperial Raj into Tibet”, the expedition succeeded, and was followed by many years of Anglo-Tibetan friendship and trade. White’s fascinating letter, on Tibet Frontier Commission headed paper, is dated 6.8.04 and addressed from Lhasa to R.H. Morton at a tea estate in Jalpaiguri, West Bengal. In it White mentions a letter written by Morton which he has forwarded to “the Chief Supply and Transport Officer” regarding a “very large order”, presumed to be for White’s photographs. As he goes on to state: “You can obtain copies of my plates later. At present I have not seen proofs.” Images in this volume include: two views of Khambajong, the fort that was the first place visited by the Mission and where initial negotiations took place; the Abbot at Khambajong (illustrated); Gyantze Jong; Debung monastery; a group of lamas of Debung monastery; four views at Nejung monastery; a group portrait of the two stewards and senior lamas of Sera monastery; the entrance to Lhasa; eight views of the Potola, the palace of the Dalai Lama; a portrait of Ti Rimpochi, the Regent of Tibet with whom “the Dalai Lama left the ecclesiastical seal when he fled, and it was he who affixed the seal, and his own, to the Treaty signed in the Potola on 7th September 1904″; “The Shapes”, or the Executive Council of Four and a group portrait of Tongsa Penlop and his retinue. Contact the Specialist to discuss this lot or selling in a future sale Email: Francesca Spickernell Tel: +44 20 7468 8350 To subscribe to or order a Printed Catalogue quote ref: 18942 Tel: +44 (0) 1666 502 200
John Claude White - The Mission Post At Gyantze

John Claude White – The Mission Post At Gyantze



TIBET WHITE (JOHN CLAUDE) ‘The Mission Post at Gyantze’, carbon print on Whatman paper, with printed text leaf giving title and description, image 235 x 285mm., 1904, published 1906 John Claude White was an amateur photographer, who accompanied Younghusband on his mission to Tibet in 1903-4, having previously served in the Indian Public Works Department from 1876. While on the mission, White took a series of mainly landscape views. Some of these were issued in two photogravure volumes by Johnston and Hoffman of Calcutta in 1906. However, they were soon withdrawn due to the politically sensitive nature of the text and are now very scarce. Through extant Johnston and Hoffman adverts we know that single prints on ‘print-out paper’ were availabe at 2 ruppees each, whereas platinum prints were available at 3 ruppees each. The carbon prints offered here come from “edition de luxe”, which contained one hundred carbon prints made from the original negatives onto plate-sunk Whatman mounts, bound in two albums with soft-padded morocco covers for 300 ruppees. There are only four or five of these deluxe editions extant, and individual carbon prints are extremely rarely found. The accompanying caption reads: “The Mission Post at Gyantze. This is where the Mission sustained what may almost be called a state of siege for several months. They were under constant fire from the Jong, and on the occasion of the first fight at Karola, when many of the garrison were away with that force, a large body of the enemy attempted to rush the Mission Post, and one man actually got over the wall.”
John Claude White - Views Of Tibet

John Claude White – Views Of Tibet


platinum prints. 13,5 x 20 cm and 13,4 x 20,6 cm. Both annotated in pencil on the verso. The prints offered here are images. There are only six known copies of the complete Tibet album by White. The images were taken during the last ‘Tibet Mission’, an attempt by the British to force the Tibetans to cooperate on a mapping survey. – Fine strong prints in very good condition.
John Claude White - Tibet

John Claude White – Tibet


John Claude White ‘tibet’. an album of seventy-six photographs of tibet and lhasa, and a rare further series of studies including panoramas by an unidentified hand, circa 1900 and 1904 comprising seventy-five mounted studies, including one four-part panorama of Lhasa, Platinum Prints, one mounted three-part panorama of the Tsang Po Valley, Silver Prints, twenty-three mounted studies documenting the progress of the Younghusband Expedition and twelve loose studies including one three-part and one two-part panorama, Printing-out-Paper Prints (the majority in a panoramic format), the platinum prints approx. 133 by 203mm or the reverse, the panoramic prints approx. 63 by 185mm, the other printing-out-paper prints from 53 by 176mm to 143 by 208mm, the platinum prints and panorama of Tsang Po Valley titled in ink on album page, the majority of mounted panoramic prints numbered in pencil on album page, the majority of loose prints numbered in pencil on the reverse, full green leather, green cloth boards gilt-titled ‘Tibet’, oblong 4to In 1903 John Claude White, a political officer in Sikkim, was asked to join as Joint-Commissioner the ‘Tibet Frontier Commission’ under the command of Francis (later Sir Francis) Younghusband. They were joined by Captain Frederick O’Conner, who acted as interpreter, and an escort of two hundred Indian troops under the command of Brigadier-General J.R.L. Macdonald. The British officers’ secret and politically sensitive mission was to negotiate in favour of British interests in Asia in the face of the rumours that the Chinese were about to hand over Tibet to the Russians. White photographed extensively in the border regions of Tibet during his twenty years as political officer in Sikkim. However by far his most highly prized works are these, one of the earliest and most extensive photographic records of the interior and peoples of Tibet. In 1905 Messrs. Johnston & Hoffmann of Calcutta issued a promotional catalogue of the photographs taken by White. The photographs were available individually as platinum or printing-out-paper prints, in a single album of eighty prints printed in half-tone or a luxury edition of one hundred carbon prints. Johnston & Hoffmann later published the photographs as a two volume album, with letterpress descriptions by C.B. Baylay, dated 1907-8, and a smaller format one volume album of photogravures was issued in the following year. Copies of the 1907-8 publication are extremely rare (only a handful copies are known). Even rarer are albums such as this with ink manuscript titles. This album, which belonged to Lt. Col. James Arthur Prendergast Manson, officer in charge of supply and transport on the Younghusband expedition, is mounted with seventy-eight photographs by White, the titles of which appear in the Johnston & Hoffmann catalogue. Significantly, it also contains thirty-five additional mounted and loose photographs, the majority in panoramic format. More informal than the platinum prints, the photographs (which may be by White or another member of the expedition) provide a rare and fascinating record of the progress of the British officers and their Indian troops. Compare with the album sold at Christie’s, London, 30 April 1997, lot 127. Compare the additional silver prints with those attributed to Major MacCarthy Reagh Emmet Ray (1867-1906) in the collection of the National Army Museum, London. The 1907-8 publication: Sotheby’s, New York, 6 April 2000, lot 77 (previously sold Sotheby Parke Bernet, 2 November 1979, lot 258). Sotheby’s, London, 13 May 1994, lot 20. Sotheby’s, New York, 10 & 11 May 1983, lot 531. Provenance: Lt. Col. James Arthur Predergast Manson. Thence by descent.
John Claude White - Tibet

John Claude White – Tibet



TIBET WHITE (JOHN CLAUDE) Two views of the Chaksam Ferry, carbon prints on Whatman paper, images 185 x 310mm., 1904, published 1906 (2) The expedition under Younghusband reached the Chaksam Ferry on the 25th July, 1904. It took seven days for all the troops and equipment to cross the Tsangpo, and tragically on their first day, Major G.H. Bretherton, D.S.O., the chief supply and transport officer drowned

Colonel Bruce Turnbull of the 23rd Sikh Pioneers Regiment.

Colonel Bruce Turnbull of the 23rd Sikh Pioneers Regiment. Objects gathered by him in Tibet as “souvenirs” in the course of the Sir Francis Younghusband “expedition” to Tibet in 1903-4, are to be returned to Tibet, as represented by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, during the Dalai Lama’s visit to Edinburgh later this month. Photographer unknown


EDINBURGH, Scotland, 12 June 2012

The sound they make is said to be an eerie, haunting kind of wail, the kind of bone-chilling howl that some might suggest is enough to wake the dead.

Perhaps that is not entirely surprising, given that the bizarre whistle, or kangling, is made from the thigh bone of a long-dead Tibetan monk.

Retrieved from a battleground, bound with carefully plaited leather, adorned with human skin and silver thread, the curious instrument was brought to Edinburgh more than 100 years ago, a keepsake from a time which, with hindsight, was hardly Britain’s finest hour.

Now, as the visit to Scotland by Tibet’s spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, approaches, it is to be finally returned home.

The foot-long bone whistle was among a collection of souvenirs from the roof of the world gathered by Edinburgh-born Colonel Bruce Turnbull of the 23rd Sikh Pioneers Regiment.

He was involved when the regiment took part in the infamous Sir Francis Younghusband expedition to Tibet in 1903-4, a venture into what was then a closed and deeply private nation where outsiders rarely ventured, which would end in violence, mayhem and bloodshed.

The religious artefact — along with a collection of other Tibetan objects — was eventually brought to Edinburgh and later ended up with a family member in London.

But now Col Turnbull’s grandson, Dr Michael Turnbull, has decided the Dalai Lama’s visit to Edinburgh later this month means the time has come to return it into Tibetan possession.

“It is an act of reconciliation,” says Dr Turnbull, 71, of Longniddry. “I think my grandfather probably did not understand quite what he was doing. It was a long time ago.

“Certainly, this is an item that has no real place in my home. It is time for it to go back to its own home.”

It was late March 1904 when his grandfather, the Merchiston Castle-educated son of a Scot who had gone on to become major surgeon general in Bombay, India, found himself at the heart of what has been called “one of the most shameful acts of British history.”

A formidable army, led by Colonel Sir Francis Edward Younghusband, had been formed to march on the closed country of Tibet, on the shaky premise that the Russians planned to expand their empire into that strategic part of Asia.

Around 3000 troops from the 23rd Sikh Pioneers Regiment, armed with machine-guns and accompanied by a further 7000 camp followers, poured into the Himalayan country to be met by locals, rich in religious spirit but armed with a rusty collection of 18th century flintlock rifles.

Who shot first is one of history’s great mysteries. Regardless, the result was bloodshed and carnage.

Some 700 lightly-armed Tibetan monks were killed in the village of Guru alone.

Overall, around 3000 Tibetans — some reports suggest 5000 — were slaughtered by Younghusband’s forces in an action sanctioned during what became known as the Great Game — the desperate race for influence in central Asia, at the heart of which sat the tiny mountainous nation.

By contrast, it’s said the British casualties amounted to five.

The hope had been to force the tiny country bordering colonial India to engage in trade and diplomacy with the British Empire, keeping any aspirations of the Russian Tsar firmly in check.

While it may have brought Tibet to its knees, the strategy was effective. In the capital, Lhasa, in August 1904, a treaty was signed effectively turning Tibet into a British protectorate.

Yet the British claims that the action had simply been intended to settle disputes over the Sikkim-Tibet border were derided by others as an invasion of Tibet.

Col Turnbull was, says his grandson, a young officer at the time without, of course, the benefits of hindsight.

“He was nominated for the Victoria Cross,” he adds. “There are illustrations in a magazine which show him dragging a wounded comrade to safety. So while it wasn’t perhaps the finest moment in British history, it wasn’t completely one-way traffic.”

Dr Turnbull, who was looked after by Col Turnbull and his wife, Jessie, after his mother died in a car accident when he was a child, has only vague recollections of his grandfather. “He died in 1952, I hardly knew him. But I do remember him as a stern and distant figure. At one point, he became deputy lord provost for Edinburgh Town Council.

“He adopted me, so to speak. I remember them taking me to St Peter’s Church for mass, even though they weren’t Catholic, but they respected the promise my father had given to my mother to raise me that way. I went on to do my PhD at New College, so they couldn’t have been too bad.”

Other items from Col Turnbull’s Tibetan collection had already been given to the National Museum by the family, including a striking three-feet -high, 17th century silver goddess and dozens of photographic slides taken during the expedition.

But the whistle — which is regarded by Tibetans to have special and magical qualities — had been kept at a London-based relative’s home.

He made the offer to return the relic to Tibet through the Edinburgh Inter-Faith Association which has helped organise the Dalai Lama’s three-day tour.

He has been granted an early morning audience with the spiritual leader on June 22, during which he will return the item.

Traditionally, a kangling is made from a hollowed-out thigh bone. Holes are made in the knee area to create a kind of trumpet while a mouthpiece is created at the other end.

Beeswax is often poured in to keep it dry and free from micro-organisms.

A kangling is used in various Himalayan Buddhist rituals.

“It might sound quite gruesome to have an instrument made from bone, but it’s not really,” said Dr Turnbull.

“To play this flute would have been a sacred thing to do. It is a precious church object and I’m very pleased that it is finally going home.”

source:Johnston Publishing Ltd

A practical, though lethal, gift for the Dalai Lama


The Thirteenth Dalai Lama, Thupten Gyatso,
Excerpt from Chapter 17 of The Horse That Leaps Through Clouds published in the Ottawa Citizen.  

“The Chinese authorities seem to guard the Dalai Lama closely,” Baron Gustaf Mannerheim wrote in his diary in July 1908. The Russian colonel, who was on a secret intelligence-gathering mission in China, had just arrived at Wutai Shan, the most sacred of four Buddhist mountains in China. One of its mountaintop temples was, he wrote, “the present abode, not to say prison, of the Buddhists’ pope, the Dalai Lama.”

A Chinese army captain named Wang told Mannerheim that “a cordon of soldiers” guarded the approaches to Wutai Shan in northeast Shanxi province. In the event of an attempt to escape, Wang explained, the Dalai Lama “would be stopped, by armed force if necessary.” But in his wanderings around Wutai Shan, Mannerheim saw no such cordon. “I could not help noticing, however, that [Wang] watched my movements with the greatest interest.”

Pusading Temple was the "prison" of the Dalai Lama in 1908.

Wang urged Mannerheim to take him as his interpreter during his audience with the Thirteenth Dalai Lama. But a Tibetan prince had already secretly informed Mannerheim that Wang was not welcome. The Tibetans despised Wang, whom they considered a spy, and prohibited him and his troops from the inner precincts of the temple.

Wutai Shan was more podium than prison for the Dalai Lama. Upon arriving here in the spring of 1908, His Holiness sent messages to the Peking Legations inviting envoys to visit. William Woodville Rockhill, the American ambassador to China, was the first. He pulled on his walking boots and set out for Wutai Shan on foot, a five-day trek from Peking. Rockhill was a scholar and diplomat who had explored Inner Asia in the 1890s and spoke Tibetan. He had left Wutai Shan only a day before Mannerheim’s arrival.

“The Talé Lama seems to me a man of undoubted intelligence, open-minded… a very agreeable, kindly, thoughtful host, and a personage of great dignity,” Rockhill reported back to President Theodore Roosevelt. The Dalai Lama told Rockhill about his struggles against the Chinese and how his country’s remoteness meant Tibet had “no friends abroad.” Rockhill assured His Holiness that he was mistaken: Tibet had many foreign well-wishers who hoped to see Tibetans “prosper and happy.” Later, during the Dalai Lama’s visit to Peking, Rockhill became a confidant to the Tibetan leader, quietly pushing a rapprochement with the Chinese.

In the summer of 1908, the Dalai Lama received a parade of envoys: a German doctor from the Peking Legation; an English explorer named Christopher Irving; R.F. Johnson, a British diplomat from the Colonial Service; and Henri D’Ollone, a French army major and viscount. The Dalai Lama hoped to patch up his relations with Britain after its invasion of Lhasa in 1904 and bolster his international standing. These first audiences with the mysterious Buddhist pontiff were much anticipated.

On his second day in Wutai Shan, a messenger ran into Mannerheim’s room in the Tayuan Temple and gestured that the Dalai Lama was ready to receive him. Mannerheim duly prepared himself. While he was shaving and changing his clothes, another frantic messenger arrived to express the Dalai Lama’s impatience. “I was just as impatient,” he wrote, “but could not possibly dress any faster.” A few minutes later, an anxious Tibetan prince appeared to ask what Mannerheim meant by keeping His Holiness waiting. At a swift pace, the Baron and prince climbed the steep staircase to Pusading Temple.

Staircase to the Pusading Temple in Wutai Shan

Wang, in full dress uniform, was waiting at the top with a Chinese honour guard. The Chinese had reason to worry about Mannerheim’s visit. Chinese authorities had just arrested two Russian military officers who were inciting the Mongols to break from China and become a Russian protectorate. During his stay in Urga (now Ulan Baatar), the Dalai Lama sent messages to the Tsar through various envoys. His Holiness told one Russian military intelligence officer that both Tibet and Mongolia should “irrevocably secede from China to form an independent allied state, accomplishing this operation with Russia’s patronage and support, avoiding bloodshed.” If Russia wouldn’t help, the Dalai Lama insisted, he would even ask Britain—his former foe—for help. After his visit with the Dalai Lama, Mannerheim, in fact, trekked to Inner Mongolia to gauge the rebellious mood of the Mongols.

Wang could barely hide his wrath when Mannerheim told him that he could not attend his audience with the Tibetan pontiff. The Chinese captain argued with two of the Dalai Lama’s assistants. As the Baron slipped into a small reception hall, he caught sight of Wang “making vain efforts to force his way in behind me.”

The Dalai Lama sat on a gilded armchair placed on a dais along the back wall of the small room. Two old Tibetans, unarmed, with beards and hair speckled with grey stood behind him. The Dalai Lama was frocked in “imperial yellow with light-blue linings” and a “traditional red toga.” The thirty-three-year-old pontiff had a dark brown face, shaved head, moustache and a tuft of hair under his lower lip. His eyes were large and his teeth gleamed. Mannerheim noticed “slight hollows in the skin of his face, which are supposed to be pockmarks.” He appeared a bit nervous, “which he seems anxious to hide.” Otherwise, Mannerheim thought he was “a lively man in full possession of his mental and physical faculties.”

Mannerheim made a “profound bow,” which the Dalai Lama acknowledged with a slight nod. They exchanged silk scarves. His Holiness began with small talk, asking Mannerheim about his nationality, age and journey. The Dalai Lama then paused and, twitching nervously, asked if the Tsar had sent a secret message for him. “He awaited the translation of my reply with obvious interest,” wrote Mannerheim, who informed him that he hadn’t the opportunity to personally speak with Tsar Nicholas II before his departure. The Dalai Lama then gestured, and a beautiful piece of white silk with Tibetan letters was brought out. It was a gift that Mannerheim was to deliver personally to Nicholas II.

The Dalai Lama told Mannerheim he had been enjoying his journeys in Mongolia and China, but “his heart was in Tibet.” Many Tibetans were urging him to return. His officials claimed up to twenty thousand pilgrims visited the Dalai Lama each month, but Mannerheim thought it was “an undoubted exaggeration.” The Tibetan pontiff was in the midst of a showdown with Empress Dowager Cixi, who wanted him to come to Peking to perform the kowtow. The Dalai Lama, Mannerheim wrote, “does not look like a man resigned to play the part the Chinese Government wishes him to, but rather like one who is only waiting for an opportunity of confusing his adversary.” The wily Tibetan pontiff had postponed his journey so many times that a joke was circulating in Peking referring to him as the “Delay Lama.”

Mannerheim spoke encouragingly about Russia’s sympathies for Tibet’s struggles against the Chinese. Russia’s troubles were over, the Baron assured him, and “the Russian Army was stronger than ever.” Now, all Russians watched His Holiness’s footsteps with great interest, he added. The Dalai Lama, Mannerheim recalled, “listened to my polite speeches with unconcealed satisfaction.”

Twice the Dalai Lama ordered his bodyguards to check if Wang was eavesdropping on their conversation. It was a dangerous time for the Dalai Lama, who knew his life may be in danger if he returned to Lhasa. The Chinese were tightening their grip on Tibet. Lamas were being assassinated, monasteries plundered and Tibetans evicted from their nomadic pastures. Peking needed the Dalai Lama to be a compliant vassal who could calm his restless followers and ease Tibet’s incorporation into the Chinese Empire.

But the Dalai Lama proved defiant. He visited Peking that September and immediately fell out with the Imperial Court, which issued a decree demoting him to “a loyal and submissive Vicegerent bound by the laws of the sovereign state.” A prominent Imperial censor also openly denounced him as “a proud and ignorant man.” Rumours spread in Tibet that he had been assassinated. Outraged at various reforms, lamas threatened a “holy war” against the Chinese. By the end of 1908, a rebellion broke out, leading to the defeat of Chinese troops. The Dalai Lama eventually returned to Lhasa in 1909 and sent telegrams to Britain and all European countries attacking Peking’s claim over Tibet.

In February 1910, Chinese troops invaded Lhasa. The Dalai Lama fled to India. An Imperial decree denounced His Holiness as “an ungrateful, irreligious obstreperous profligate who is tyrannical and so unacceptable to the Tibetans, and accordingly an unsuitable leader of Lamas.” After the fall of the Qing Dynasty, His Holiness returned to Tibet in 1913, declaring the country independent. He died in 1933, leaving a prophetic last testament for the next Dalai Lama:

We must guard ourselves against the barbaric red communists… the worst of the worst. It will not be long before we find the red onslaught at our own front door… and when it happens we must be ready to defend ourselves. Otherwise our spiritual and cultural traditions will be completely eradicated… and the days and nights will pass slowly and with great suffering and terror. 

Recognizing the clear and present danger, Mannerheim offered the Dalai Lama an unusual, though practical, gift: a Browning revolver. The Baron apologized that he didn’t have a better offering, but explained that after two years’ journey he had no other items of value. The Dalai Lama laughed, “showing all his teeth,” as Mannerheim showed His Holiness how to quickly reload seven cartridges into the revolver. The Dalai Lama relished the demonstration. “The times were such,” Mannerheim wrote, “that a revolver might at times be of greater use, even to a holy man like himself, than a praying mill.”




From The Horse That Leaps Through Clouds: A Tale of Espionage, the Silk Road and the Rise of Modern China by Eric Enno Tamm. Copyright © 2010 by Eric Enno Tamm. Published by arrangement with Douglas & McIntyre.

Ladakh and Kashmir, 1908

33 photographs from ‘An eastern voyage: A journal of the travels of Count Fritz Hochberg through the British empire in the East and Japan (1910) by Hochberg, Friedrich Maximilian, Graf von, (1868-1921) ,Volume: 1. Year 1908. With that the total number of photographs uploaded to this blog comes around to about 3000. And my hard-disk is still cluttered with hundreds more!

Ladakhi Woman and Chid, showing the sheepskin headgear.
Ladakhi woman at Leh
Canal between Floating Garden, Dal Lake, Srinagar 

Uri Road
Harrowing in Ladakh
Old Hindu Monuments near Dras
Indus Valley near Leh
Kashmiri Women Pounding Rice. 
Ladakhi women Harvesting
Ladakhi women weaving
Lamayuroo Convent
main Street Leh
Nimoo Resthouse
Shah Jehan’s Summer House . (Probably Nishat Bagh. This structure was apparently pulled down in relatively recent time)
Tibetans travelling
Wooden Bridge on way to Leh

ight @ 2012

The Story Behind The nice Cover Collections:Airgraph Microfilm Letters


The Nice Letter Collectections, the complete Cd exist but onlty for premium member

Please syubscribed via comment






The Airgraph Microfilm

WW II Postal History


Created By

Dr Iwan suwandy,MHA

Copyright @ 2012

The Microfilming Of Mail During WW II  Collections Exhibition


Frame One:


1.The microfilming of Mail introduced in the France,Prussian war ,and also in another countries like British  & USA, was revived in Worl War II.



2.History of microfiolming mail

Microfilm first saw military use during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71. During the Siege of Paris, the only way for the provincial government in Tours to communicate with Paris was by pigeon post. As the pigeons could not carry paper dispatches, the Tours government turned to microfilm. Using a microphotography unit evacuated from Paris before the siege, clerks in Tours photographed paper dispatches and compressed them to microfilm, which were carried by homing pigeons into Paris and projected by magic lantern while clerks copied the dispatches onto paper.[9]

Additionally, the US Victory Mail(V-Mail)

, and the British “Airgraph” system it was based on

, were used for delivering mail between those at home and troops serving overseas during World War II. The systems worked by photographing large amounts of censored mail reduced to thumb-nail size onto reels of microfilm, which weighed much less than the originals would have. The film reels were shipped by priority air freight to and from the home fronts, sent to their prescribed destinations for enlarging at receiving stations near the recipients, and printed out on lightweight photo paper. These facsimiles of the letter-sheets were reproduced about one-quarter the original size and the miniature mails were then delivered to the addressee. Use of these microfilm systems saved significant volumes of cargo capacity needed for vital war supplies. An additional benefit was that the small, light weight reels of microfilm were almost always transported by air, and as such were much quicker than any surface mail services.

, it was sent from England during WWII, I  included the letter reflecting a note that the address must not be typewritten, odd!

No stamp required either, wonder why?

I have not seen any others like this on this or similar sites, are they uncommon, I have quite a few.





3. The Photostat made from the microfilm

and the spesific window enveloped(Airgraph) envelope in which the message was formarded to the adress ,it was sent from IBOD government or military field  headquater to the field commander,soldier or to their family.

4. Type of Microfilming Mail

Microfilm Models: Precursors of V-Mail

V-Mail microfilm technology was a product of years of discovery and experimentation. Soon after the advent of photography in the mid 1830s, John Benjamin (J.B.) Dancer pioneered the first microphotographs by mounting images on microscope slides. The process, refined through the years with the advancement of technology and microphotography, was capable of shrinking regular documents down to a smaller size which allowed for easy transportation and cataloging. Tiny microfilmed messages were lightweight, and were processed quickly. Because of these characteristics, microphotography became a good candidate for a partnership with wartime mail as early as the 1870s.

The French Pigeon Post

In July 1870 the longtime border disputes between France and its rival Prussia erupted into the Franco-Prussian War. In September of 1871 the conflict escalated and the Prussian army’s siege of the capital effectively cut off the mail between Paris and its surrounding cities. Under these strained conditions, members of the pigeon fanciers’ society L’Esperance (“Hope”) volunteered carrier pigeons to deliver the mail. Initially, government and postal officials were skeptical of the small birds. Nevertheless, as the siege dragged on, it was apparent that a way to get the mail through the blockade was through the air.

The tiny avian messengers did not fly into Paris directly but rather were carried to the city limits by hot air balloon. Balloons seen over Paris were vulnerable to Prussian gunfire and it was safer to launch the balloons with their winged passengers outside of the city boundaries.

Several stations were set up throughout the surrounding French countryside to house the birds and their handlers. These sites also served as relay stations to help the balloons maintain communication with each other. Once a balloon was within safe range of the city, the handler would release the pigeon and the balloon would fly back to safety.

The birds had the difficult task of maneuvering around the perils of the war-torn city. The winged messengers carried the microphotographed letters inside small, quill containers. The successfully delivered microfilm was enlarged for transcription and reading.

The British Airgraph Service

In January 1941 Great Britain partnered with the Eastman Kodak Company to launch the Airgraph service. The Airgraph was created to provide a faster mail service to British forces in the Middle East and Africa. Before the Airgraph was inaugurated, ordinary letters had to be transported by ship. For a letter to travel from Cairo, Egypt to the United Kingdom took an estimated time of 24 to 30 days. The Airgraph reduced that traveling time in half because the microfilmed letters could travel by air instead of by sea. Approximately 4,500 negatives of microfilmed letters weighed just one pound, which left more room for shipping ammunition, blood plasma, and clothing.


Although V-Mail was modeled after Airgraph service with U.S. adaptations to the British format. The size of the Airgraph letter sheet stationery was expanded from 8 x 11 inches to 8 1/2” x 11” and the photographic-print facsimile was also enlarged from 4” x 5” to 4 1/2” x 5 1/2”. Even though these changes were seemingly small, these few extra inches gave the writer more space and helped make the tiny letters easier to read. See the 3rd and 4th images for examples of an Airgraph and a V-mail blank, respectively.

V-Mail forms also had a different address section which made for a speedier delivery. Airgraphs provided a panel for the recipient’s address and the sender was instructed to include his contact information just above the body of his letter. V-Mail stationery had two distinct boxes that separated the sender’s information from the receiver’s. This change not only cut back on misaddressed mail but also made letters easier to trace back to the original sender

5.If the collectors had the same collections please show us to made this exhibition more complete,thanks very much for show us your unusual aeroragraph microfilm of mail collections.

5. During WWII ,in 1943 starting difficult to sent airmails, and the airmail sent by ship with postmark NO AIRMAILS and we could look some pictures of the war situation in 1943 ,many areas were under Germany Hitler occupations, all mail were sencored with Nazi censored stamped, please look some of my collections from this time ,from Germany Occupations Franch area, British Prisoner of War in Germany Camp,and also other POW camps letters. and at least only microfilming mails exist until 1944 when the Allied Armed Forces starting to liberating Euro Area from Germany Hitler Occupations,

6.J have just found new informations that airgraph microfilm letter also issued for civilian in India,New Zealand ,South Afric and other counties.


7May be some one can told us how to sent the microfiolming mails, I have heard from  senior collectors that the microfilm sent by pigeon bird(burung merpati),please comment from senior collectors .

Jakarta September 2012

the blog founder

Dr Iwan Suwandy

Frame Two:

No Airmail During WW II in 1943 (Dr Iwan Private Collections)

 Frame Three:

The Microfilming Of Mail (AIRGRAPH)During WWII In 1943(Dr Iwan Private Collections)

Frame Four: The Airgraph Microfilm from several Countries(new Info)

Back in 1999,

the Late Keith Griffiths published the “New Zealand Airgraph service 1942-1945″.

In it he lists the airgraph rates and I have taken from that the following that I have on one of my exhibit pages

New Zealand. [ Important dates]
October. New Zealand personnel Canada to New Zealand, via USA
Mid-November N.Z. service personnel in MEF To NZ via UK to USA

The above were despatched on 27 November and 12 December 1942, limited to 2 Airgraphs per service member. 1ts films arrived from Melbourne on 7 January 1943.

January NZ forces and Civilians NZ to UK and Canada – 5d
April NZ forces and Civilians Civilian – 10d; Forces 5d
May NZ forces and Civilians Civilian – 8d; Forces 5d
June NZ forces and Civilians Civilian – 10d; Forces 5d
May 1st Issue – 1½d Centennial Stamp surcharged tenpence for use on Airgraphs [see below]
August Civilian Rate reduced to 5d – all Airgraphs

It appears that a proper 8d. [civilian] rate from May 1943 would be a very rare usage, due to its short duration





Registered cover from New Zealand in 1944 to USA

The abundant 1940 1 1/2d was overprinted with 10d in 1944 to meet the rate for airgraphs

(microfilmed letters, originally to servicemen)


they were an interesting little sideline of WW2.

Clause 4 of the India rules above outline the deal.

During World War II, the Airgraph was developed to enable soldiers in the field to communicate more quickly and reliably with their family and friends at home.

The sender would write their message on the message side of the form and submit it for processing. The form would be processed and a microfilm image created. A film strip with up to 10,000 airgraphs would then be sent via air to its destination.

In the event the strip were lost, another would be copied from the original. Once received, reduced size (about half-size) prints would be made and these sent to their destination in cover envelopes.

Sometimes the service would be unavailable and the original forms would be sent to the addressee. Such mailed forms are thus a form of aerogramme or airletter.

I sometimes receive the photo airgraphs in Estates as Mum’s always kept these kind of things



3 out of 4 is not bad, but the South Africa is wrong and you missed the easy one…..

Really .. this South African one below must be unique then.

(You can see the words Greetings From South Africa on the reverse side of it if you peer long enough!)

I had a feeling NZ … and Canada also did them, along with the free troop aerograms


The 5th one I had in mind was the 3d UK ones.

As far as I know Canada did not

The other side of the pre-paid 3d South Africa is below:


There was at least another Indian KGVI overprinted one, out of interest:

there were 4 India types [to my knowledge - I need to add]
The 8 annas
The 4 on 8 annas [ glen's scan ]
The 3 annas plus 1 anna
The 3 anna alone




The Ceylon one was printed in one operation and has the value in same ink as the writing.




New Zealand airgraphs do have a story all of there own.

Because of the shortage of paper, they were concerned with the number of stamps being used on airgraphs, the civilian rate being 10d, as there was no single 10d value the PO was using either 2 x 5d or 1x 2d + 1x 8d.
They examined there stock od stamps and realised they had heeps of 1 1/2d centennial stamps, thus they overprinted them and issued 1st May 1944.




why the 10d NZ overprint stamp was issued!

The Ceylon seems to have suffered from rapid inflation too by the look of this one — FIVE stamp impressions!

Yours is 20c concession for Military .. this is 50c for civilians.




This one is pretty exotic

The KUT ones are even different again. These ones had a meter mark applied by PO prior to sale. They are known in 25c, 30c and 40c.



finish the set of 6 countries that had this postal stationery is an example of the UK one




Just a bit more info to fill in the story.

The airgraphs with postage already applied are generally harder to obtain because the form had to be purchased for sending. They were not saved as much as the free forms. Especially the UK ones.

My personnal opinion is that once airletters became available in mid 1944, the use of airgraphs declined and some of the purchased forms were not used as an airletter allowed for privacy.

As Glen has indicated the forms were photographed, the film sent by air, [Melbourne was the photograph centre in Australia] and averaged 10 -12 days to say get to London. In London it was processed. If all was ok then a message was sent back to Melbourne for the forms to be destroyed. This was much to do with re-cycling paper as any other reason.

there were 313,746,227 airgraphs photos and delivered under the Empire contract between 1941 and 1945.
That is a lot of recycled paper……………..

Melbourne printed 5,786,955 inwards airgraphs, of which 4,577,259 came from the London office. The smallest number was 23,888 from Colombo, Ceylon


The various Airgraphs look similar in function to our “V-mails” used during the war. This image shows the blank form (in red) on the right; the sides are already folded in, like an aerogramme. On the left is the photostat of a message (on photographic paper) and the small envelope it was sent in, from the US to foreign countries.

The photostat was made from whatever the sender wrote on the blank form. You could buy boxes of blank forms very cheaply, I think 25 for 50 cents.

To my knowledge, none of the various V-mails ever had imprinted postage; it was always added with stamps.







A British Air Ministry Photo which on the back reads,


Smiling happily at the news from home, this airman reads his airgraph letter, one of the first to arrive in the middle east, 3/10/1941






Ladies sorting the airgraph forms into destinations






Processing the film on paper rolls








Seeing its getting near to Xmas time, this one below I beleive was mailed rather than get processed

it might be an idea to re-name this thread World War 2 Air graphs – be handy for folks searching on the web down the track

Happy for it to be renamed.

I might add if anyone has any airgraphs, especially forms etc, drop me an email.
Since the items seem to be spelled both ways, Airgraph and Air Graph, recommend that the thread title contain both forms, for easy searching down the line

There is only one way to spell it. Airgraph.
I have yet to see one form or official printed document issued by any post office that has the word split.


Undoubtedly you are right, but entering “air graph” into SB search gives 155 hits. I didn’t look at them for context.
a further Ceylon sample. This forces one I picked up at a European Auction is ble rather than my Grey example shown earlier.


 sorry the illustrations not upload,!!!!!!!!!

please look at the complete CD-ROM.please subscribed as the premium member via comment

(Dr Iwan Note)

the KGVI embossing gives us a time line.

The quarto size means either a large form like a newspaper wrapper .. or possibly a pre-paid form for telegram transmission.

Or war time ‘air-graph’ transmission or the like?


, India was one of only 5 countries [colonies] to actually issue

 Airgraph Postal Stationery.

All the rest inclulding Australia issued forms but the sender had to apply the postage.

Can anyone name the other 4 countries [colonies] that issued the actual forms as postal stationery ?

Some others that come to mind via random guess are Palestine, Ceylon, Kenya/East Africa, and South Africa

they were an interesting little sideline of WW2.  Clause 4 of the India rules above outline the deal. During World War II, the Airgraph was developed to enable soldiers in the field to communicate more quickly and reliably with their family and friends at home.
The sender would write their message on the message side of the form and submit it for processing. The form would be processed and a microfilm image created. A film strip with up to 10,000 airgraphs would then be sent via air to its destination.
In the event the strip were lost, another would be copied from the original. Once received, reduced size (about half-size) prints would be made and these sent to their destination in cover envelopes.

Sometimes the service would be unavailable and the original forms would be sent to the addressee. Such mailed forms are thus a form of aerogramme or airletter.

I sometimes receive the photo airgraphs in Estates as Mum’s always kept these kind of things.


3 out of 4 is not bad, but the South Africa is wrong and you missed the easy one…..

Really .. this South African one below must be unique then.

(You can see the words Greetings From South Africa on the reverse side of it if you peer long enough!)

I had a feeling NZ … and Canada also did them, along with the free troop aerograms.

The 5th one I had in mind was the 3d UK ones.

As far as I know Canada did not

Frame Five:The microform (Microfilming Mail) Historic collections

Digital scanning of microfilm (see Digital conversion below).

Microforms are any form, either films or paper, containing microreproductions[1] of documents for transmission, storage, reading, and printing. Microform images are commonly reduced about 25 times from the original document size. For special purposes, greater optical reductions may be used.

All microform images may be provided as positives or negatives, more often the latter.

Three formats are common: microfilm (reels), aperture cards and microfiche (flat sheets). Microcards, a format no longer produced, were similar to microfiche, but printed on cardboard rather than photographic film.




Using the daguerreotype process, John Benjamin Dancer was one of the first to produce micro-photographs, in 1839. He achieved a reduction ratio of 160:1. Dancer perfected his reduction procedures with Frederick Scott Archer’s wet collodion process, developed in 1850–51, but he dismissed his decades-long work on micro-photographs as a personal hobby, and did not document his procedures. The idea that microphotography could be no more than a novelty was an opinion shared by the 1858 Dictionary of Photography, which called the process “somewhat trifling and childish.”[2]

Microphotography was first suggested as a document preservation method in 1851 by James Glaisher, an astronomer, and in 1853 by John Herschel. Both men attended the 1851 Great Exhibition in London, where the exhibit on photography greatly influenced Glaisher. He called it “the most remarkable discovery of modern times,” and argued in his official report for using microphotography to preserve documents.[3]

The developments in microphotography continued through the next decades, but it was not until the turn of the century that its potential for practical usage was seized by a wider audience. In 1896, Canadian engineer Reginald A. Fessenden suggested microforms were a compact solution to engineers’ unwieldy but frequently consulted materials. He proposed that up to 150,000,000 words could be made to fit in a square inch, and that a one foot cube could contain 1.5 million volumes.[4]

In 1906, Paul Otlet and Robert Goldschmidt proposed the livre microphotographique as a way to alleviate the cost and space limitations imposed by the codex format.[5] Otlet’s overarching goal was to create a World Center Library of Juridical, Social and Cultural Documentation, and he saw microfiche as way to offer a stable and durable format that was inexpensive, easy to use, easy to reproduce, and extremely compact. In 1925, the team spoke of a massive library where each volume existed as master negatives and positives, and where items were printed on demand for interested patrons.[6]

In the decade of the 1920s microfilm began to be used in a commercial setting. New York City banker George McCarthy was issued a patent in 1925 for his “Checkograph” machine, designed to make micrographic copies of cancelled checks for permanent storage by financial institutions. In 1928, the Eastman Kodak Company bought McCarthy’s invention and began marketing check microfilming devices under its “Recordak” division.[7]

Between 1927 and 1935, the Library of Congress microfilmed more than three million pages of books and manuscripts in the British Library;[8] in 1929 the Social Science Research Council and the American Council of Learned Societies joined to create a Joint Committee on Materials Research, which looked closely at microform’s potential to serve small print runs of academic or technical materials; in 1933, Charles C. Peters developed a method to microformat dissertations; in 1934 the United States National Agriculture Library implemented the first microform print-on-demand service, which was quickly followed by a similar commercial concern, Science Service.[4]

In 1935, Kodak’s Recordak division began filming and publishing The New York Times on reels of 35 millimeter microfilm, ushering in the era of newspaper preservation on film.[7] This method of information storage received the sanction of the American Library Association at it annual meeting in 1936, when it officially endorsed microforms.

Harvard University Library was the first major institution to realize the potential of microfilm to preserved broadsheets printed on high-acid newsprint and it launched its “Foreign Newspaper Project” to preserve such ephemeral publications in 1938.[7] Roll microfilm proved far more satisfactory as a storage medium than earlier methods of film information storage, such as the Photoscope, the Film-O-Graph, the Fiske-O-Scope, and filmslides.

The year 1938 also saw another major event in the history of microfilm when University Microfilms International (UMI) was established by Eugene Power.[7] For the next half century, UMI would dominate the field, filming and distributing microfilm editions of current and past publications and academic dissertations. After another short-lived name change, UMI was made a part of ProQuest Information and Learning in 2001.


Systems that mount microfilm images in punched cards have been widely used for archival storage of engineering information.

For example, when airlines demand archival engineering drawings to support purchased equipment (in case the vendor goes out of business, for example), they normally specified punch-card-mounted microfilm with an industry-standard indexing system punched into the card. This permits automated reproduction, as well as permitting mechanical card-sorting equipment to sort and select microfilm drawings.

Aperture card mounted microfilm is roughly 3% of the size and space of conventional paper or vellum engineering drawings. Some military contracts around 1980 began to specify digital storage of engineering and maintenance data because the expenses were even lower than microfilm, but these programs are now finding it difficult to purchase new readers for the old formats.

Microfilm first saw military use during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71. During the Siege of Paris, the only way for the provincial government in Tours to communicate with Paris was by pigeon post. As the pigeons could not carry paper dispatches, the Tours government turned to microfilm. Using a microphotography unit evacuated from Paris before the siege, clerks in Tours photographed paper dispatches and compressed them to microfilm, which were carried by homing pigeons into Paris and projected by magic lantern while clerks copied the dispatches onto paper.[9]

Additionally, the US Victory Mail, and the British “Airgraph” system it was based on, were used for delivering mail between those at home and troops serving overseas during World War II. The systems worked by photographing large amounts of censored mail reduced to thumb-nail size onto reels of microfilm, which weighed much less than the originals would have. The film reels were shipped by priority air freight to and from the home fronts, sent to their prescribed destinations for enlarging at receiving stations near the recipients, and printed out on lightweight photo paper. These facsimiles of the letter-sheets were reproduced about one-quarter the original size and the miniature mails were then delivered to the addressee. Use of these microfilm systems saved significant volumes of cargo capacity needed for vital war supplies. An additional benefit was that the small, light weight reels of microfilm were almost always transported by air, and as such were much quicker than any surface mail services.Please look the collections I have found uring google explorations below:

World War II – Prisoners of War – Stalag Luft I 

A collection of stories, photos, art and information on Stalag Luft I





V-MailOctober 24, 1944Dearest Son,        As no mail seems to be coming through to us from you (your last letter we received two weeks ago), I’m sure you must be having some trouble so I’m going to try V-Mail.  Martha hasn’t heard from Emory in over ten days but today a V-Mail letter to Lola came in – as slow as this type letter is, it must be better than airmail, until this condition gets better what ever the condition, I don’t know.        Daddy has written you every day for 4 straight weeks now.  I write once a week, as I told you in my last letter, I can’t think of a thing to write because he writes it all.  Every thing I hear I tell him so he can have something to say.  He is proud of his record of letters to you.  Be sure to brag on him, etc.        Lewis Mitchell is here and looks great in his uniform.  I heard some one go in the other door and whistle your whistle – boy my heart did flip-flops.  I rushed over and there stood “Brer”.  No one’s here for him to play around with so it’s going to be pretty lonesome.        Jeannie and Mr. White haven’t heard from Hugh in over a month.  I feel so sorry for them.  They have asked the Red Cross to get in touch with him and find out what’s the matter.        Sister and Ben may come home to live.  Will write more later.                                         Love,                                                MotherP.S.  Am praying for your safe return each night.Here’s Brer Mitchell:Hello Dick,Hold everything down until my gang and I get over there.  Best of luck too.   Brer
Scan of the V-mail letter 

What is V- Mail?
During the latter years of World War II,  V-Mail became a popular way to correspond with a loved one serving overseas. V-mail consisted of miniaturized messages reproduced by microphotography from 16mm film. The system of microfilming letters was based on the use of special V-mail letter-sheets, which were a combination of letter and envelope. The letter-sheets were constructed and gummed so as to fold into a uniform and distinctively marked envelope.  The user wrote the message in the limited space provided, added the name and address of the recipient, folded the form, affixed postage, if necessary, and mailed the letter. The V-mail correspondence was then reduced to thumb-nail size on microfilm.  The rolls of film were flown across the world and then developed at destinations closest to the recipient’s position.  Finally, individual facsimiles of the V-mail letter-sheets, which were about one-quarter the original size, were then mailed and delivered to the addressee.The development of the V-Mail system reduced the time it took a soldier to receive a letter by a month – from six weeks by boat to twelve days or less by air.  However, the main advantage of V-Mail was its compact nature. Reduction in the size and weight of the letters translated into more space for crucial military supplies on cargo planes.  One roll of film weighing about 7 ounces could hold over 1,500 letters.  Putting that another way, two pounds of microfilm replaced 100 pounds of letters!  Over a billion letters (556,513,795 pieces of V-mail were sent from the U.S. to military post offices and over 510 million pieces were received from military personnel abroad) were sent via V-mail between 1942 and 1945.  Think of it as the earliest form of e-mail. Americans on the home-front were encouraged by the government and private businesses to use V-Mail. Letters from home were compared to “a five minute furlough,” and advertisements that instructed how, when, and what to write in a V-Mail reached a peak in 1944. Letters were to be cheerful, short, and frequent. V-Mail made it possible for servicemen halfway across the world to hear news from home on a weekly basis.

A package of V-Mail letters
Outside of the letter

Inside of the letter
Instructions for sending V-Mail

Example of V-mail letter on sending side

Example of V-mail letter on receiving side

Libraries began using microfilm in the mid-20th century as a preservation strategy for deteriorating newspaper collections. Books and newspapers that were deemed in danger of decay could be preserved on film and thus access and use could be increased. Microfilming was also a space-saving measure. In his 1945 book, “The Scholar and the Future of the Research Library,” Fremont Rider calculated that research libraries were doubling in space every sixteen years. His suggested solution was microfilming, specifically with his invention, the microcard. Once items were put onto film, they could be removed from circulation and additional shelf space would be made available for rapidly expanding collections. The microcard was superseded by microfiche. By the 1960s, microfilming had become standard policy.

Visa and National City use microfilm to store bank statements, and produce microfilm, from digital records, that is placed into storage.


The medium has numerous advantages:

  • It enables libraries to greatly expand access to collections without putting rare, fragile, or valuable items at risk of theft or damage.
  • It is compact, with far smaller storage costs than paper documents. Normally 98 document size pages fit on one fiche, reducing to about 0.25% original material. When compared to filing paper, microforms can reduce space storage requirements by up to 95%.[10]
  • It is cheaper to distribute than paper copy. Most microfiche services get a bulk discount on reproduction rights, and have lower reproduction and carriage costs than a comparable amount of printed paper.
  • It is a stable archival form when properly processed and stored. Preservation standard microfilms use the silver halide process, creating silver images in hard gelatin emulsion on a polyester base. With appropriate storage conditions, this film has a life expectancy of 500 years.[11] Unfortunately, in tropical climates with high humidity, fungus eats the gelatin used to bind the silver halide. Thus, diazo-based systems with lower archival lives (20 years) which have polyester or epoxysurfaces are used.
  • Since it is analog (an actual image of the original data), it is easy to view. Unlike digitalmedia, the format requires no software to decode the data stored thereon. It is instantly comprehensible to persons literate in the language; the only equipment that is needed is a simple magnifying glass. This eliminates the problem of software obsolescence.
  • It is virtually impossible to mutilate. Users cannot tear pages from or deface microforms.
  • It has low intrinsic value and does not attract thieves. Few heavily-used microform collections suffer any losses due to theft.
  • Prints from microfilm are accepted in legal proceedings as substitutes for original documents.


  • The principal disadvantage of microforms is that the image is (usually) too small to read with the naked eye. Libraries must use either special readers that project full-size images on a ground-glass or frosted acrylic screen or a modern Viewer/Scanner which converts the image from analog to digital -see section below on Digital Conversion.
  • Reader machines used to view microfilm are often difficult to use, requiring users to carefully wind and rewind until they have arrived at the point where the data they are looking for is stored.
  • Photographic illustrations reproduce poorly in microform format, with loss of clarity and halftones. However the latest electronic digital viewer/scanners have the ability to scan in gray shade which greatly increases the quality of photographs, but they still can not duplicate the nuances of true gray shade photographs -due to the inherent bi-tonal nature of microfilm.
  • Reader-printers are not always available, limiting the user’s ability to make copies for their own purposes. Conventional photocopy machines cannot be used.[12]
  • Color microform is extremely expensive, thus discouraging most libraries supplying color films. Color photographic dyes also tend to degrade over the long term. This results in the loss of information, as color materials are usually photographed using black and white film.[12]
  • When stored in the highest-density drawers, it is easy to misfile a fiche, which is thereafter unavailable. As a result, some libraries store microfiche in a restricted area and retrieve it on demand. Some fiche services use lower-density drawers with labeled pockets for each card.
  • Like all analog media formats, microfiche is lacking in features enjoyed by users of digital media. Analog copies degrade with each generation, while digital copies have much higher copying fidelity. Digital data can also be indexed and searched easily.
  • Reading microfilms on a machine for some time may cause headache and/or eyestrain.

 Readers and printers

Desktop readers are boxes with a translucent screen at the front on to which is projected an image from a microform. They have suitable fittings for whatever microform is in use. They may offer a choice of magnifications. They usually have motors to advance and rewind film. When coding blips are recorded on the film a reader is used that can read the blips to find any required image.

Portable readers are plastic devices that fold for carrying; when open they project an image from microfiche on to a reflective screen. For example, with M. de Saint Rat, Atherton Seidell developed a simple, inexpensive ($2.00 in 1950), monocular microfilm viewing device, known as the “Seidell viewer,” that was sold during the 1940s and 1950s.[13]

A microfilm printer contains a xerographic copying process, like a photocopier. The image to be printed is projected with synchronised movement on to the drum. These devices offer either small image preview for the operator or full size image preview, when it is called a reader printer. Microform printers can accept positive or negative films and positive or negative images on paper. New machines allow the user to scan a microform image and save it as a digital file -see the section below on Digital conversion.


Microfilm roll

Aperture card with hollerith info

A duped jacket fiche

Flat film 
105 x 148 mm flat film is used for micro images of very large engineering drawings. These may carry a title photographed or written along one edge. Typical reduction is about 20, representing a drawing that is 2.00 x 2.80 metres, that is 79 x 110 in. These films are stored as microfiche.
16 mm or 35 mm film to motion picture standard is used, usually unperforated. Roll microfilm is stored on open reels or put into cassettes. The standard lengths for using roll film is 30.48 m (100 ft)for 35mm rolls, and 100 ft, 130 ft and 215 feet for 16mm rolls. One roll of 35 mm film may carry 600 images of large engineering drawings or 800 images of broadsheet newspaper pages. 16 mm film may carry 2,400 images of letter sized images as a single stream of micro images along the film set so that lines of text are parallel to the sides of the film or 10,000 small documents, perhaps cheques or betting slips, with both sides of the originals set side by side on the film.
Aperture cards 
Aperture cards are Hollerith cards into which a hole has been cut. A 35 mm microfilm chip is mounted in the hole inside of a clear plastic sleeve, or secured over the aperture by an adhesive tape. They are used for engineering drawings, for all engineering disciplines. There are libraries of these containing over 3 million cards. Aperture cards may be stored in drawers or in freestanding rotary units.
A microfiche is a flat film 105 x 148 mm in size, that is ISO A6. It carries a matrix of micro images. All microfiche are read with text parallel to the long side of the fiche. Frames may be landscape or portrait. Along the top of the fiche a title may be recorded for visual identification. The most commonly used format is a portrait image of about 10 x 14 mm. Office size papers or magazine pages require a reduction of 24 or 25. Microfiche are stored in open top envelopes which are put in drawers or boxes as file cards, or fitted into pockets in purpose made books.
(also ‘ultramicrofiche’) is an exceptionally compact version of a microfiche or microfilm, storing analog data at much higher densities. Ultrafiche can be created directly from computers using appropriate peripherals. They are typically used for storing data gathered from extremely data-intensive operations such as remote sensing.

 Image creation

To create microform media, a planetary camera is mounted with the vertical axis above a copy that is stationary during exposure. High volume output is possible with a rotary camera which moves the copy smoothly through the camera to expose film which moves with the reduced image. Alternatively, it may be produced by computers, i.e. COM (computer output microfilm).


Normally microfilming uses high resolution panchromatic monochrome stock. Positive color film giving good reproduction and high resolution can also be used. Roll film is provided 16, 35 and 105 mm wide in lengths of 30 metres (100 ft) and longer, and is usually unperforated. Roll film is developed, fixed and washed by continuous processors.

Sheet film is supplied in ISO A6 size. This is either processed by hand or using a dental X-ray processor. Camera film is supplied ready mounted in aperture cards. Aperture cards are developed, fixed and washed immediately after exposure by equipment fitted to the camera.

Early cut sheet microforms and microfilms (to the 1930s) were printed on nitrate film, which poses high risks to their holding institutions, as nitrate film is explosive and flammable. From the late 1930s to the 1980s, microfilms were usually printed on a cellulose acetate base, which is prone to tears, vinegar syndrome, and redox blemishes. Vinegar syndrome is the result of chemical decay and produces “buckling and shrinking, embrittlement, and bubbling”.[14] Redox blemishes are yellow, orange or red spots 15–150 micrometres in diameter created by oxidative attacks on the film, and are largely due to poor storage conditions.[15]


Flat film

The simplest microfilm camera that is still in use is a rail mounted structure at the top of which is a bellows camera for 105 x 148 mm film. A frame or copy board holds the original drawing vertical. The camera has a horizontal axis which passes through the centre of the copy. The structure may be moved horizontally on rails.

In a darkroom a single film may be inserted into a dark slide or the camera may be fitted with a roll film holder which after an exposure advances the film into a box and cuts the frame off the roll for processing as a single film.

Roll film

For engineering drawings a freestanding open steel structure is often provided. A camera may be moved vertically on a track. Drawings are placed on a large table for filming, with centres under the lens. Fixed lights illuminate the copy. These cameras are often over 3 metres (10 feet) high. These cameras accept roll film stock of 35 or 16 mm.

For office documents a similar design may be used but bench standing. This is a smaller version of the camera described above. These are provided either with the choice of 16 or 35 mm film or accepting 16 mm film only. Non adjustable versions of the office camera are provided. These have a rigid frame or an enveloping box that holds a camera at a fixed position over a copy board. If this is to work at more than one reduction ratio there are a choice of lenses.

Some cameras expose a pattern of light, referred to as blips, to digitally identify each adjacent frame. This pattern is copied whenever the film is copied for searching.

Flow roll film cameras

A camera is built into a box. In some versions this is for bench top use, other versions are portable. The operator maintains a stack of material to be filmed in a tray, the camera automatically takes one document after another for advancement through the machine. The camera lens sees the documents as they pass a slot. Film behind the lens advances exactly with the image.

Special purpose flow cameras film both sides of documents, putting both images side by side on 16 mm film. These cameras are used to record cheques and betting slips.

Microfiche camera

All microfiche cameras are planetary with a step and repeat mechanism to advance the film after each exposure. The simpler versions use a dark slide loaded by the operator in a dark room; after exposure the film is individually processed, which may be by hand or using a dental X-ray processor. Cameras for high output are loaded with a roll of 105 mm film. The exposed film is developed as a roll; this is sometimes cut to individual fiche after processing or kept in roll form for duplication.

Computer Output Microfilm
Computer Output Microfilm card

Equipment is available that accepts a data stream from a mainframe computer. This exposes film to produce images as if the stream had been sent to a line printer and the listing had been microfilmed. Because of the source one run may represent many thousands of pages.

Within the equipment character images are made by a light source; this is the negative of text on paper. COM is sometimes processed normally. Other applications require that image appears as a conventional negative; the film is then reversal processed. This outputs either 16 mm film or fiche pages on a 105 mm roll.

Because listing characters are a simple design, a reduction ratio of 50 gives good quality and puts about 300 pages on a microfiche. A microfilm plotter, sometimes called an aperture card plotter, accepts a stream that might be sent to a computer pen plotter. It produces corresponding frames of microfilm. These produce microfilm as 35 or 16 mm film or aperture cards.


All regular microfilm copying involves contact exposure under pressure. Then the film is processed to provide a permanent image. Hand copying of a single fiche or aperture card involves exposure over a light box and then individually processing the film. Roll films are contact exposed via motor, either round a glass cylinder or through a vacuum, under a controlled light source. Processing may be in the same machine or separately.

Silver halide film is a slow version of camera film with a robust top coat. It is suitable for prints or for use as an intermediate from which further prints may be produced. The result is a negative copy. Preservation standards require a master negative, a duplicate negative, and a service copy (positive). Master negatives are kept in deep storage, and duplicate negatives are used to create service copies, which are the copies available to researchers. This multi-generational structure ensures the preservation of the master negative.

Diazo-sensitised film for dye coupling in ammonia gives blue or black dye positive copies. The black image film can be used for further copying.

Vesicular film is sensitised with a diazo dye, which after exposure is developed by heat. Where light has come to the film remains clear, in the areas under the dark image the diazo compound is destroyed quickly, releasing millions of minute bubbles of nitrogen into the film. This produces an image that diffuses light. It produces a good black appearance in a reader, but it cannot be used for further copying.

Modern microfilming standards require that a master set of films be produced and set aside for safe storage, used only to make service copies. When service copies get lost or damaged, another set can be produced from the masters, thus reducing the image degradation that results from making copies of copies.

 Format conversion

These conversions may be applied to camera output or to release copies. Single microfiche are cut from rolls of 105 mm film. A bench top device is available that enables an operator to cut exposed frames of roll film and fit these into ready made aperture cards.

Transparent jackets are made A5 size each with 6 pockets into which strips of 16 mm film may be inserted (or fewer pockets for 35 mm strips), so creating microfiche jackets or jacketed microfiche. Equipment allows an operator to insert strips from a roll of film. This is particularly useful as frames may be added to a fiche at any time. The pockets are made using a thin film so that duplicates may be made from the assembled fiche.

 Digital conversion

Another type of conversion is microform to digital. This is done using an optical scanner that projects the film onto a CCD array and captures it in a raw digital format. Until recently, since the different types of microform are dissimilar in shape and size, the scanners were usually able to handle only one type of microform at a time. There are some scanners that have the possibility of swapping modules for the different microform types and the latest viewer/scanner can accept any microform (roll, fiche, opaque cards, fiche,and/or aperture cards). Software (normally on the scanner itself, but more recently in an attached PC) is then used to convert the raw capture into a standard image format for archival.

The physical condition of microfilm greatly impacts the quality of the digitized copy. Microfilm with a cellulose acetate base (popular through the 1970s) is frequently subject to vinegar syndrome, redox blemishes, and tears, and even preservation standard silver halide film on a polyester base can be subject to silvering and degradation of the emulsion—all issues which affect the quality of the scanned image.

Digitizing microfilm can be inexpensive when automated scanners are employed. The Utah Digital Newspapers Program has found that, with automated equipment, scanning can be performed at $0.15 per page.[16] Recent additions to the digital scanner field have brought the cost of scanning down substantially so that when large projects are scanned (millions of pages) the price per scan can be pennies.

Modern microform scanners utilize 8 bit gray shade scanning arrays and are thus able to provide quite high quality scans in a wealth of different digital formats (CCITT Group IV which is compressed black & white -bitonal, JPG or JPEG which is gray or color compression, bitmaps which are not compressed, or a number of other (some proprietary) formats such as PDF, LZW, GIF, etc.). These modern scanners are also able to scan at “Archival” resolution up to 600 dpi.

For the resulting files to be useful, they must be organized in some way. This can be accomplished in a variety of different ways, dependent on the source media and the desired usage. In this regard, aperture cards with Hollerith information are probably the easiest since image data can be extracted from the card itself if the scanner supports it. Some types of microfilm will contain a counter next to the images, these can be referenced to an already existing database. Other microfilm reels will have a ‘blip’ system: small marks next to the images of varying lengths used to indicate document hierarchy (longest: root, long: branch, short: leaf). If the scanner is able to capture and process these then the image files can be arranged in the same manner. Optical character recognition (OCR) is also frequently employed to provide automated full-text searchable files. Common issues that affect the accuracy of OCR applied to scanned images of microfilm include unusual fonts, faded printing, shaded backgrounds, fragmented letters, skewed text, curved lines and bleed through on the originals.[16] For film types with no distinguishing marks, or when OCR is impossible (handwriting, layout issues, degraded text), the data must be entered in manually; a very time consuming process.

the end @ copyright dr iwan suwandy 2010

Like this:

Be the first to like this.

This entry was posted in world War II Collections. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The Microfilming Of Mail During World War II Exhibition

  1. I do agree with all of the ideas you’ve presented in your post. They’re very convincing and will certainly work. Still, the posts are too short for novices. Could you please extend them a little from next time? Thanks for the post.

The Story behind the nice Postal history Cover ,British refuse southern Nigeria independence


The Nice Postal History Collections

The complete CD exist but only for premium member

Please subscribed via comment

GJ50’s Nigeria/London cover which is full of postage dues



Britain refused to grant Southern Rhodesia independence so would not recognise the Rhodesia stamp.
The recipient in London had to pay 3s6d in dues to have the letter

Read More info

Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence

 1 dollar note


This article is about the 1965 Rhodesian document. For unilateral independence declarations generally, see Unilateral declaration of independence.

This article is part of the series:
Politics and government of

Portal icon Politics portal

The Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) of Rhodesia from the United Kingdom was signed on November 11, 1965, by the administration of

Ian Smith,

whose Rhodesian Front party opposed an immediate transfer to black majority rule in the self-governing British colony.[1] Although it declared independence from the United Kingdom it maintained allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II. The British government, the Commonwealth, and the United Nations condemned the move as illegal. Rhodesia reverted to British control as “the British Dependency of Southern Rhodesia” for a brief period in 1979 to 1980, before regaining its independence as Zimbabwe in 1980.



[edit] History

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2010)

Following a referendum the previous year in which voters had overwhelmingly backed independence, in late 1965, with negotiations between the United Kingdom and Rhodesia at an impasse, Smith (according to his autobiography Bitter Harvest) had authorized a committee under Cabinet Secretary Gerald B. Clarke to look at historical independence declarations to come up with a suitable version for Rhodesia in the event of a UDI having to be declared. The committee decided to use the 1776 United States Declaration of Independence as its reference. Once the text was agreed upon, the Government Printer in Salisbury created the actual document (during the first week of November).[citation needed]

Clarke placed the document in storage in the Rhodesian Parliament building until the morning of November 11, when Smith and his cabinet colleagues — after a last-minute appeal by the British Government failed to convince them not to follow this course of action — voted unanimously to declare their independence. Clarke was then directed by Smith to prepare the signing ceremony. The document was placed in an adjoining conference room to where the cabinet had convened to take their vote. With a photographer to record the historic moment, Smith, Deputy Prime Minister Clifford Dupont, and the other cabinet members signed the declaration. Later that day, Smith read it out on national radio, along with a speech giving justification for the action.[2]

The timing of Smith’s telegram to the British Prime Minister (Harold Wilson) announcing the UDI was symbolic. The message was sent at precisely 1 pm local time (11 am in London) at the exact moment that the United Kingdom started its Remembrance Day observance (two minutes of silence to mark the end of World War I and honour its war dead). The not-so-hidden message in this timing was to recall the fact that Rhodesia had helped the UK in its time of need in both World Wars and that the British should not forget that.[citation needed]

[edit] Text of Declaration

Wikisourcehas original text related to this article:


Whereas in the course of human affairs history has shown that it may become necessary for a people to resolve the political affiliations which have connected them with another people and to assume amongst other nations the separate and equal status to which they are entitled.

And Whereas in such event a respect for the opinions of mankind requires them to declare to other nations the causes which impel them to assume full responsibility for their own affairs.

Now Therefore, We, The Government of Rhodesia, Do Hereby Declare:

That it is an indisputable and accepted historic fact that since 1923 the Government of Rhodesia have exercised the powers of self-government and have been responsible for the progress, development and welfare of their people;

That the people of Rhodesia having demonstrated their loyalty to the crown and to their kith and kin in the United Kingdom and elsewhere through two world wars, and having been prepared to shed their blood and give of their substance in what they believed to be the mutual interests of freedom-loving people, now see all that they have cherished about to be shattered on the rocks of expediency.

That the people of Rhodesia have witnessed a process which is destructive of those very precepts upon which civilization in a primitive country has been built; they have seen the principles of Western democracy, responsible government and moral standards crumble elsewhere; nevertheless they have remained steadfast;

That the people of Rhodesia fully support the requests of their Government for sovereign independence but have witnessed the consistent refusal of the Government of the United Kingdom to accede to their entreaties;

That the Government of the United Kingdom have thus demonstrated that they are not prepared to grant sovereign independence to Rhodesia on terms acceptable to the people of Rhodesia, thereby persisting in maintaining an unwarrantable jurisdiction over Rhodesia, obstructing laws and treaties with other states and the conduct of affairs with other nations and refusing assent to laws necessary for the public good; all this to the detriment to the future peace, prosperity and good government of Rhodesia;

That the Government of Rhodesia have for a long period patiently and in good faith negotiated with the Government of the United Kingdom for the removal of the remaining limitations placed upon them and for the grant of sovereign independence;

That in the belief that procrastination and delay strike at and injure the very life of the nation, the Government of Rhodesia consider it essential that Rhodesia should attain, without delay, sovereign independence, the justice of which is beyond question;

Now Therefore, We The Government of Rhodesia, in humble submission to Almighty God who controls the destinies of nations, conscious that the people of Rhodesia have always shown unswerving loyalty and devotion to Her Majesty the Queen and earnestly praying that we and the people of Rhodesia will not be hindered in our determination to continue exercising our undoubted right to demonstrate the same loyalty and devotion, and seeking to promote the common good so that the dignity and freedom of all men may be assured, Do, By This Proclamation, adopt, enact and give to the people of Rhodesia the Constitution annexed hereto;

God Save The Queen

Given under Our Hand at Salisbury, this Eleventh day of November in the Year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixty-five.

[edit] Signatories

The Unilateral Declaration of Independence

Twelve members of the Cabinet signed the Proclamation:

  1. Ian Smith (Prime Minister)
  2. Clifford Dupont (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of External Affairs)
  3. John Wrathall (Minister of Finance and Posts)
  4. Desmond Lardner-Burke (Minister of Justice and Law and Order)
  5. Jack Howman (Minister of Tourism and Information)
  6. James Graham, 7th Duke of Montrose (Minister of Agriculture)
  7. George Rudland (Minister of Trade, Industry and Development).
  8. William Harper (Minister of Internal Affairs and Public Service)
  9. A. P. Smith (Minister of Education)
  10. Ian McLean (Minister of Health, Labour, and Social Welfare)
  11. Jack Mussett (Minister of Housing and Local Government)
  12. Phillip van Heerden (Minister of Mines, Lands, and Water Development).

The following junior members of the Cabinet were present, but did not sign:

  1. Ian Dillon (Chief Government Whip)
  2. Lance Smith (Minister without portfolio)
  3. Andrew Dunlop (Minister without portfolio)
  4. P. K. van der Byl (Deputy Minister of Information)

All but one of the Cabinet members present at the signing of the Declaration were awarded the Independence Decoration in 1970 in honour of the event.

There were fourteen copies of the Proclamation document made which were signed again by original signatories who each received a copy. The two additional copies were made for Mr.Leo Ross (Director of Information) and Mr. David Williams (Deputy Director of Information) who were primarily responsible for the original drafting of the document. This was acknowledged by P.K. van der Byl during the eulogy for Leo Ross in August 1975. Notably William Harper refused to sign the copies for Ross and Williams. Ross was awarded the Independence Decoration and Williams the Independence Commemorative Decoration. The copy owned by James Graham was destroyed by a fire in 1981.

[edit] Reaction

The Rhodesia Herald, 12 November 1965: the front page announced the previous day’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence, as well as the introduction of state censorship. Note the blank sections of the page.

The day after the UDI the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 216 condemning it as a declaration of independence “made by a racist minority.” The United Kingdom moved to impose economic and diplomatic sanctions on what they now regarded as a rebel colony. In addition, the British High Commissioner in Salisbury — John Baines Johnston — was withdrawn and the Rhodesian High Commissioner — Brigadier Andrew Skeen — was declared persona non grata and ordered to leave Britain. Rhodesia House (Rhodesia’s High Commission in the UK) lost its diplomatic status and simply became an information office for Smith’s administration.

Under instructions from the British Government, the Governor of Southern Rhodesia, Sir Humphrey Gibbs, formally dismissed Smith and his cabinet for what was deemed “an act of treason against the United Kingdom”. This action, not the UDI, was the only internationally recognised action by an official in Rhodesia at the time. Smith’s government however ignored the dismissal, stating that as Rhodesia was no longer a colony and governed under a new constitution that made Gibbs’ office obsolete, the dismissal no longer had (in their view) any legality. Gibbs remained ensconced in Government House for the next four years, resigning his office only after the republic referendum passed in late 1969.

In September 1968, the Appellate Division of the Rhodesian High Court ruled that Ian Smith’s administration had become the “de jure” government of the country, not just the “de facto” one.[3] To support that decision, the Rhodesian Chief Justice, Sir Hugh Beadle, quoted the 17th Century Dutch Jurist, Hugo Grotius (who is sometimes described as the “Grandfather of International Law”). Grotius maintained that there was no way in which a State could rightly claim to be governing a particular territory – if it was waging a war against that territory. Thus, Beadle argued that because of Britain’s economic war against Rhodesia, Britain could not at the same time be described as governing Rhodesia.

Even after the United Nations followed Britain’s lead in imposing sanctions, the apartheid regime in South Africa continued to give economic support to Rhodesia, but did not extend official recognition to the new state, sending only an ‘Accredited Diplomatic Representative’ to Salisbury. Portugal, then the colonial power in neighbouring Mozambique, gave economic support, including access to Mozambique’s sea ports. Following the Carnation Revolution in 1974 and toppling of the Portuguese government in Lisbon, the communist Frelimo movement seized power in Mozambique as independence was granted. This was a severe blow to the Rhodesian government and Prime Minister Smith, militarily as well as economically, as Frelimo had a staunchly anti-colonial platform and its leader, Samora Machel was an ally of Robert Mugabe and allowed ZANU a base there to mount incursions into Rhodesia.

[edit] Declaration of a Republic

Smith had sought to make Rhodesia a Commonwealth realm, with Queen Elizabeth II as head of state, with the title of Queen of Rhodesia, but Sir Humphrey Gibbs, still internationally recognised as the only legal authority in Rhodesia, refused to recognise Smith’s authority. Smith responded by ignoring Sir Humphrey and appointing Deputy Prime Minister Dupont as the Officer Administering the Government (best described as an interim governor).

Eventually, the Smith government abandoned attempts to remain loyal to the Crown and, in 1969, a majority of whites voted in referendum to declare Rhodesia a republic, which was declared in 1970, with Dupont as president. Sir Humphrey resigned at that point and left Government House.

As a result of the change, the ‘Royal’ prefix was dropped from the title of the Rhodesian Air Force and the Crown was removed from the badges of army regiments and the British South Africa Police as well as rank insignia. It was replaced by the lion holding the elephant tusk that was the badge of the British South Africa Company.

The government hoped that severing constitutional links with the United Kingdom would end any ambiguity about Rhodesia’s status, gain diplomatic recognition, and bring an end to economic sanctions. However, the issues of white minority control remained and hindered this effort, and like UDI before it, the republic was unrecognised internationally.

[edit] Government of Rhodesia

Under the first post-UDI constitution, political power remained with the Legislative Assembly, of which the majority of members were white. Unlike South Africa, Rhodesia’s black African majority had representation in the Assembly, but the separate franchise (the ‘B’ roll) was restricted to those who owned property, and also tribal chiefs, many of whom were derided as puppets of the white regime. The Governor was effectively replaced by the Officer Administering the Government.

The 1969 republican constitution created a bicameral parliament, with a Senate and a House of Assembly, both of which had white majorities. The President was a ceremonial head of state, with executive power remaining with the Prime Minister as head of government.

[edit] Trappings of sovereignty

[edit] Currency

New banknotes were produced to replace British-made banknotes, which were no longer forthcoming after the UDI. Originally a German firm was commissioned to print the currency, but their newly printed batches of banknotes were destroyed after Britain successfully lobbied the German Government to halt the order. Rhodesia then decided to make their currency locally. Their locally made replacement Rhodesian pound compared well with the British-made predecessor (still retaining the Queen’s portrait), then in 1970, the Rhodesian dollar came into use. The banknotes proved to be very well made, and the currency performed well on the international market, being stronger than the pound sterling and the South African rand.[4] However, the Rhodesian dollar was never a fully convertible currency and its exchange rate was therefore no recognition of underlying economics.

read more

Rhodesian dollar


Rhodesian dollar
1 dollar note
1 dollar note
Central bank Reserve Bank of Rhodesia
User(s)  Rhodesia
1/100 cent
Symbol $
Coins ½, 1, 2½, 5, 10, 20, 25 cents
Banknotes 1, 2, 5, 10 dollars

The dollar (R$) was the currency of Rhodesia between 1970 and 1980. It was subdivided into 100 cents.



[edit] History

The dollar was introduced on 17 February 1970, less than a month before the declaration of a republic on 2 March 1970. It replaced the pound at a rate of 2 dollars to 1 pound. The dollar proved to be a strong currency, at parity with the pound sterling right up to the very end of Rhodesia in 1980, when it was replaced by the Zimbabwean dollar at par. However, the Rhodesian dollar was never a fully convertible currency and its exchange rate was therefore not an indication of the underlying economics.

[edit] Half pounds

In adopting the Rhodesian dollar, Rhodesia followed the pattern of South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand in that when it adopted the decimal system, it decided to use the half pound unit as opposed to the pound unit of account. The choice of the name dollar was motivated by the fact that the reduced value of the new unit corresponded more closely to the value of the US dollar than it did to the pound sterling.

[edit] Coins

On 17 February 1970 the Rhodesian dollar was introduced and was par to the Pound; the currency was factured as follows – bronze ½ and 1 cent and cupro-nickel 2½ cent coins were introduced, which circulated alongside the earlier coins of the Rhodesian pound for 5, 10, 20 and 25 cents, which were also denominated in shillings and pence. New 5 cent coins were introduced in 1973, followed by 10, 20 and 25 cents in 1975. Coins were issued until 1977.

[edit] Banknotes

On 17 February 1970, the Reserve bank of Rhodesia introduced notes in denominations of 1, 2 and 10 dollars.[1] 5 dollar notes were added in 1972.

Obverse Reverse Denomination
Rhodesia1.jpg Rhodesia1a.jpg 1 dollar
Rhodesia2.jpg Rhodesia2a.jpg 2 dollars
Rhodesia5.jpg Rhodesia5a.jpg 5 dollars
Rhodesia10.jpg Rhodesia10a.jpg 10 dollars


[edit] Foreign relations

Although South Africa (and until 1975, Portugal) gave economic and tacit military support to Rhodesia, no country ever extended full diplomatic recognition to it, and most countries closed their consulates in Salisbury following the UDI, one exception being the United States, which maintained a Consul-General, though redesignated as ‘U.S. Contacts Office’ to show the USA’s official attitude of non-recognition of the post-UDI government. South Africa and Portugal each maintained an Accredited Diplomatic Representative office in Salisbury (which were embassies in all but name), while Rhodesia did likewise in Pretoria, Lisbon, and Lourenço Marques. The argument the Rhodesian government used to exchange diplomatic missions with countries that did not recognize Rhodesia as a sovereign state was that, as a British colony, Rhodesia had been granted the right to appoint diplomatic agents as long as they kept the British government informed.[5]

After the UDI, Rhodesia House in London (the Rhodesian High Commission) simply became a representative office with no official diplomatic status. However, the most important Rhodesian representative offices were in Pretoria and Lisbon, although the latter closed in 1975, along with the office in Lourenço Marques (now Maputo) in Mozambique. The other unofficial representative offices, in Washington DC, Bonn, and Tokyo, closed in 1979.

[edit] Air Rhodesia

Central African Airways was a British colonial airline which served several territories in the region. Following independence of Zambia and Malawi, who began their own airlines, the remaining airline operation at the base in Salisbury (always the CAA centre of operations) was renamed Air Rhodesia. After UDI it continued operation, with its fleet of Vickers Viscount propeller aircraft, operating domestically and to South Africa. Spare parts and similar for the aircraft were obtained through various supply routes. The Viscounts continued operating from colonial times, throughout the UDI period, and for several years into Zimbabwe independence.

In April 1973, three Boeing 720 jet aircraft were idle at Basle airport, Switzerland, following the bankruptcy of the German airline Calair, and were being offered for sale by an aircraft dealer there. A front organisation based in Paraguay was created, which bought the aircraft from the dealer for cash in US dollars. Boeing-qualified freelance crews arrived, and flew them together to Las Palmas in the Canary Islands where they made a refuelling stop, paid for the fuel in cash, and filed flight plans for the three aircraft across the South Atlantic to Paraguay, departing in the evening. Fictitious position reports were sent by HF radio as if the aircraft were mid-ocean following the stated route. The three aircraft did not arrive in Paraguay, but arrived the next morning in Salisbury, where they formed the jet aircraft fleet of Air Rhodesia for the remaining years of UDI, and again through for several years as Air Zimbabwe.[citation needed]

Rhodesian Bush War


Rhodesian Bush War
Second Chimurenga
Zimbabwe War of Liberation
The geopolitical situation of the war after the independence of Angola and Mozambique in 1975. Rhodesia itself is shown in green, South Africa and its dependency South-West Africa (now Namibia) are coloured blue and other nations, friendly to the nationalist guerrillas, are shown in camel.
1 = Malawi, 2 = Swaziland, 3 = Lesotho
Date 4 July 1964 – 12 December 1979[n 1]
(15 years, 5 months, 1 week and 1 day)
Location Rhodesia[n 2]
Result Lancaster House Agreement, internationally-recognised independence for the Republic of Zimbabwe
(until 1 June 1979)
 Zimbabwe Rhodesia
(from 1 June 1979)
(from March 1978)
Supported by:
 South Africa
(until 1974)
Flag of ZANU-PF.svg ZANLA (ZANU)
Mozambique FRELIMO[13]
Supported by:
Zimbabwe African People's Union flag.png ZIPRA (ZAPU)[1]
African National Congress Flag.svg MK (ANC)[1]
Supported by:
 Soviet Union[2]
 East Germany[2]
Commanders and leaders
Rhodesia Ian Smith
Rhodesia P. K. van der Byl
Rhodesia Peter Walls
Zimbabwe Rhodesia Abel Muzorewa
Ndabaningi Sithole
(from March 1978)[14]
James Chikerema
(from March 1978)[14][15]
Flag of ZANU-PF.svg Robert Mugabe
Mozambique Samora Machel
Flag of ZANU-PF.svg Ndabaningi Sithole
(until 1975)
Flag of ZANU-PF.svg Herbert Chitepo
Flag of ZANU-PF.svg Josiah Tongogara
Flag of ZANU-PF.svg Edgar Tekere
Flag of ZANU-PF.svg Solomon Mujuru
Zimbabwe African People's Union flag.png Joshua Nkomo
Zimbabwe African People's Union flag.png Lookout Masuku
Zimbabwe African People's Union flag.png James Chikerema
(until October 1971)[15]
African National Congress Flag.svg Joe Slovo
Zimbabwe Rhodesia 1979:[16]
10,800 regulars
15,000 reservists
8,000 police
19,000 police reservists
Flag of ZANU-PF.svg 1979:[17]
25,500 guerrillas
Zimbabwe African People's Union flag.png 1979:[16]
20,000 guerrillas

The Rhodesian Bush War – also known as the Second Chimurenga or the Zimbabwe War of Liberation – was a civil war which took place between July 1964 and December 1979[n 1] in the unrecognised country of Rhodesia (latterly Zimbabwe Rhodesia).[n 2][18]

The conflict pitted three forces against one another: the Rhodesian government, under Ian Smith (later the Zimbabwe Rhodesian government of Abel Muzorewa); the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army, the military wing of Robert Mugabe‘s Zimbabwe African National Union; and the Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army of Joshua Nkomo‘s Zimbabwe African People’s Union.

The war and its subsequent Internal Settlement, signed in 1978 by Smith and Muzorewa, led to the implementation in June 1979 of universal suffrage and end of white minority rule in Rhodesia, which was renamed Zimbabwe Rhodesia under a black majority government. However, this new order failed to win international recognition and the war continued.

Negotiations between the government of Zimbabwe Rhodesia, the British government and Mugabe and Nkomo’s united “Patriotic Front” took place at Lancaster House, London in December 1979, and the Lancaster House Agreement was signed. The country returned temporarily to British control and new elections were held under British and Commonwealth supervision in March 1980. ZANU won the election and Mugabe became the first Prime Minister of Zimbabwe on 18 April 1980, when the country achieved internationally-recognised independence.



[edit] Background

The origins of the war in Rhodesia can be traced to the colonization of the region by white settlers in the late 19th century, and the dissent of black African nationalist leaders who opposed white minority rule.[19] Rhodesia was settled by British and South African pioneers beginning in the 1890s and while it was never accorded full dominion status, Rhodesia effectively governed itself after 1923. In his famous “Wind of Change” speech addressed to the parliament of South Africa in 1960, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan stated Britain’s intention to grant independence to British territories in Africa.[20]

As a consequence many Rhodesians, white and black, were concerned at the possibility that decolonisation and native rule would bring chaos, as had resulted when the Congo became independent.[20] Britain’s unwillingness to compromise on the policy of “No independence before majority rule” led to Rhodesia unilaterally declaring independence on 11 November 1965. Though Rhodesia had the unofficial support of neighbouring South Africa and Portugal, which governed Mozambique, it never gained formal recognition from any country.[21][22]

Most white Rhodesians viewed the war as one of survival with atrocities committed in the former Belgian Congo, the Mau Mau Uprising campaign in Kenya and elsewhere in Africa fresh in their minds. Many whites (and a sizable minority of black Rhodesians) viewed their lifestyle as being under attack, which both had considered safer and with a higher standard of living than many other African countries. Although the vote in Rhodesia was open to all, regardless of race, property ownership requirements effectively denied the franchise to most of Rhodesia’s blacks.[23] The 1969 constitution provided for “Non-Europeans” (principally blacks) to elect representatives for 8 of the seats in the 66 seat parliament. A further 8 of these seats were reserved for tribal chiefs.

Amidst this backdrop, black nationalists advocated armed struggle to bring about independence in Rhodesia. Resistance also stemmed from the wide disparities in wealth possession between blacks and whites. In Rhodesia, Europeans owned most of the fertile land whilst Africans were crowded on barren land,[24] following forced evictions or clearances by the colonial authorities.[25]

Two rival nationalist organizations soon emerged: the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) and the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), following a split in the former in August 1963, following disagreements over tactics as well as tribalism and personality clashes.[26] ZANU and its military wing ZANLA were headed initially by the Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole, and later Robert Mugabe, consisted mainly of the Shona speaking tribes. ZAPU and its military wing ZIPRA consisted mainly of Ndebele ethnic groups under Joshua Nkomo.[19]

Cold War politics played into the conflict also, with the Soviet Union supporting ZIPRA and Communist China providing support to ZANLA. Each group subsequently fought a separate war against the Rhodesian security forces, and the two groups sometimes fought against each other as well.[27] In June 1979, the governments of Cuba and Mozambique offered direct military assistance to the Patriotic Front, but Mugabe and Nkomo declined.[28] Other foreign nations also contributed to the conflict, for instance North Korean military officials taught Zimbabwean militants how to use explosives and arms in a camp near Pyongyang.[29] By April 1979 12,000 ZANLA guerrillas were training in Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Libya while 9,500 of its 13,500 extant cadres were operating in Rhodesia.[17] On the other side of the conflict South Africa clandestinely provided both material and military support to the Rhodesian government.[21]

Inevitably the Bush War occurred within the context of regional Cold War in Africa, and became embroiled with a number of conflicts in several neighbouring countries as well. Such conflicts included the Angolan War of Independence (1961–1975) and Angolan Civil War (1975–2002), the Mozambican War of Independence (1964–1974) and Mozambican Civil War (1977–1992), and the Shaba I (1977) and Shaba II (1978) conflicts.[30]

[edit] Perceptions

The conflict was seen by the nationalist groups and the British government of the time as a war of national and racial liberation. The Rhodesian government saw the conflict as a fight between one part of the country’s population (the whites) on behalf of the whole population (including the black majority) against several externally financed parties made up of predominantly black radicals and communists. The Nationalists saw their country as having been occupied and dominated by a foreign power, namely Britain, since 1890.[31]

The British government, in the person of the Governor, had indirectly ruled the country from 1923, when it took over from the British South Africa Company and granted self-governing status to a locally-elected government, made up predominantly of whites. Ian Smith’s Rhodesian Front party was elected to power in 1962 and unilaterally declared independence on 11 November 1965 to preserve what it saw as the self-government it had possessed since 1923.[31]

The minority Rhodesian government believed they were defending Western values, Christianity, the rule of law and democracy by fighting Communists; however, they were unwilling to compromise on most political, economic and social inequalities. The Smith administration held that the traditional chiefs were the legitimate voice of the black Shona and Ndebele population, not the ZANU and ZAPU nationalists, who it regarded as dangerous, violent usurpers.[32]

In 1978–1979 the Smith administration attempted to blunt the power of the nationalist cause by acceding to an “Internal Settlement” which ended minority rule, changed the name of the country to Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, and installed the country’s first black head of government, Abel Muzorewa. However, unsatisfied with this and spurred on by Britain’s refusal to recognise the new order, the nationalist forces persisted.

Ultimately the war ended when the white-dominated government of Rhodesia returned power to the British government with the 1979 Lancaster House Agreement. The Rhodesian government did so at the behest of both South Africa (its major backer) and the United States. Britain recognised this new government, headed by Robert Mugabe, and the newly independent and internationally recognised country was renamed Zimbabwe.

[edit] Belligerents

[edit] Rhodesian Security Forces

Two soldiers of the Rhodesian African Rifles aboard a patrol boat on Lake Kariba, December 1976. Black Rhodesians made up most of the government’s Security Forces, but some units were all-white.[33]

Despite the impact of economic and diplomatic sanctions, Rhodesia was able to develop and maintain a potent and professional military capability.[34] In June 1977, Time magazine reported that “man for man, the Rhodesian army ranks among the world’s finest fighting units.”[35]

The army was always a relatively small force, consisting of just 3,400 regular troops in 1970. [36] However, by 1978–79 it had grown to some 10,800 regulars nominally supported by about 40,000 reservists – though by the last year of the war, perhaps as few as 15,000 were available for active service. While the regular army consisted of a professional core drawn from the white population (and some units, such as the Rhodesian SAS and the Rhodesian Light Infantry, were all-white), by 1978–79 the majority of its complement was actually composed of black soldiers.[33]

The army reserves, in contrast, were largely white and, toward the end of the war, were increasingly being called up to deal with the growing insurgency. The regular army was supported by the para-military British South Africa Police with a strength of about 8,000 to 11,000 men (the majority of whom were black) and supported by between 19,000 to 35,000 police reservists (which, like their army counterparts, were largely white). The police reserves acted as type of home guard.[33]

The war saw the extensive operation of Rhodesian regulars as well as elite units such as the Selous Scouts and the Rhodesian SAS. The Rhodesian Army fought bitterly against the black nationalist guerrillas. The Rhodesian Army also comprised mostly black regiments such as the Rhodesian African Rifles. As the war went on, the frequent callup of reservists was increasingly utilized to supplement the professional soldiers and the many volunteers from overseas.[37][38]

By 1978 all white males up to the age of 60 were subject to periodic call-up into the army; younger men up to 35 might expect to spend alternating blocks of six weeks in the army and at home. Many of the overseas volunteers came from Britain, Ireland, South Africa, Portugal, Hong Kong, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America with the latter three being held in high regard for their recent Vietnam War experience.[37][38]

The Rhodesian Army was, considering the arms embargo, well-equipped. The standard infantry weapon was the Belgian FN FAL Rifle as produced in South Africa under license as the R1 Rifle and supplemented by the H&K G3 rifle that came from Portuguese forces. However other weapons such as the British L1A1 variant of the FAL and the older British Lee-Enfield bolt action rifle were used by reservists and the British South Africa Police. Other weapons included the Bren LMG, Sten SMG, Uzi, Browning Hi-Power pistol, Colt M16 rifle (very late in the war), FN MAG general-purpose machine-gun, 81 mm mortar, and Claymore mines. After UDI Rhodesia was heavily reliant on South African and domestically-produced weapons and equipment, as well as international smuggling operations, commonly referred to as “sanction-busting”.[22]

The Rhodesian Air Force (RhAF) operated a variety of equipment and carried out numerous roles, with air power providing the Rhodesians with a significant advantage over their enemy.[34] When the arms embargo was introduced, the RhAF was suddenly lacking spare parts from external suppliers and was forced to find alternative means of keeping their aircraft flying. The RhAF was also relatively well equipped and used a large proportion of equipment which was obsolete, such as the World War II vintage Douglas Dakota transport aircraft and the early British jet-fighter the de Havilland Vampire. It also used more modern types of aircraft like the Hawker Hunter and Canberra bombers, the Cessna Skymaster as well as Aérospatiale Alouette III helicopters until they were supplemented by the Augusta Bell 205.[34] Very late in the war, the Rhodesian forces were able to obtain and use a very few smuggled in Augusta Bell UH-1 Iroquois helicopters.[39]

At the beginning of the war much of Rhodesia’s military hardware was of British and Commonwealth origin but during the course of the conflict new equipment such as armoured cars were procured from the South Africans. Several Polish-made T-55 tanks destined for Idi Amin’s regime in Uganda were diverted to Rhodesia by the South Africans, though only in the last year of the war.[40] The Rhodesians also produced a wide range of wheeled mine-proofed armoured vehicles, often using Mercedes Unimog, Land Rover and Bedford truck components, including unlicensed copies of the Mercedes-Benz UR-416.[41]

The means with which the Rhodesians procured weaponry meant that the arms embargoes had little effect on the Rhodesian war effort. During the course of the war most white citizens carried personal weapons, and it was not unusual to see white housewives carrying submachine guns. A siege mentality set in and all civilian transport had to be escorted in convoys for safety against ambushes. Farms and villages in rural areas were frequently attacked.

The Rhodesian government divided the nation into eight geographical operational areas: North West Border (Operation Ranger), Eastern Border (Operation Thrasher), North East Border (Operation Hurricane), South East Border (Operation Repulse), Midlands (Operation Grapple), Kariba (Operation Splinter), Matabeleland (Operation Tangent), Salisbury and District (“SALOPS”).


[edit] Nationalist guerrilla forces

The two major armed groups campaigning against Ian Smith‘s government were the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA), the armed wing of the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), and the Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA), the armed wing of the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU). The fighting was largely rural, with the two rival movements attempting to secure peasant support and to recruit fighters while harassing the administration and the white civilians. To ensure local domination they ZANLA and ZIPRA sometimes fought against each other as well as against the security forces.[27] Unlike the town-dwellers, rural whites faced danger and many were killed but in 1979 there were still 6,000 white farmers. They were vulnerable every time they left the homestead.

[edit] ZANLA

ZANLA was the armed wing of ZANU.[31] The organization also had strong links with Mozambique‘s independence movement, FRELIMO. ZANLA, in the end, was present on a more or less permanent basis in over half the country, as evidenced by the location of the demobilisation bases at the end of the war, which were in every province except Matabeleland North.[42] In addition, they were fighting a civil war against ZIPRA, despite the formation of a joint front by their political parties after 1978.[27] It was ZANLA’s intention to occupy the ground, supplant the administration in rural areas, and then mount the final conventional campaign. ZANLA concentrated on the politicisation of the rural areas using force, persuasion, ties of kinship and collaboration with spirit mediums.[43]

ZANLA tried to paralyze the Rhodesian effort and economy by planting Soviet anti-tank land mines on the roads. From 1972 to 1980 there were 2,504 vehicle detonations of land mines (mainly Soviet TM46s), killing 632 people and injuring 4,410. The mining of roads increased as the war intensified; indeed the increase from 1978 (894 mines or 2.44 mines were detonated or recovered a day) to 1979 (2,089 mines or 5.72 mines a day) was 233.7%.[44]

In response, the Rhodesians co-operated with the South Africans to develop a range of mine protected vehicles. They began by replacing air in tyres with water which absorbed some of the blast and reduced the heat of the explosion. Initially, they protected the bodies with steel deflector plates, sandbags and mine conveyor belting. Later, purpose built vehicles with V shaped blast hulls dispersed the blast and deaths in such vehicles became unusual events.[n 3][45]

[edit] ZIPRA

ZIPRA was the anti-government force based around the Ndebele ethnicity, led by Joshua Nkomo, and the ZAPU political organization. In contrast to ZANLA’s Mozambique links, Nkomo’s ZIPRA was more oriented towards Zambia for local bases. However, this was not always with full Zambian government support: by 1979, the combined forces based in Zambia of ZIPRA, Umkhonto we Sizwe (the armed wing of the African National Congress of South Africa) and South-West African SWAPO fighters were a major threat to Zambia’s internal security. Because ZAPU‘s political strategy relied more heavily on negotiations than armed force, ZIPRA did not grow as quickly or elaborately as ZANLA, but by 1979 it had an estimated 20,000 combatants, almost all based in camps around Lusaka, Zambia.

ZIPRA was responsible for two attacks on civilian Air Rhodesia Viscount aeroplanes, on 3 September 1978 and 12 February 1979. Using SAM-7 surface-to-air missiles, the guerrillas shot down each plane during its ascent as it took off from Kariba Airport.[46][47] ZIPRA took advice from its Soviet instructors in formulating its version of popular revolution and its strategy for taking over the country. There were about 1,400 Soviets, 700 East German and 500 Cuban instructors deployed to the area.[2]

On the advice of the Soviets, ZIPRA built up its conventional forces, and motorised with Soviet armored vehicles and a number of small airplanes,[48] in Zambia. ZIPRA’s (i.e. ZAPU’s) intention was to allow ZANLA to bring the Rhodesian forces to the point of defeat, and then to take the victory from the much lighter forces of ZANLA and the essentially defeated Rhodesians. ZIPRA kept a light presence within Rhodesia, reconnoitering, keeping contact with the peasants and sometimes skirmishing with ZANLA.[49]

ZIPRA’s conventional threat actually distracted the Rhodesians from fighting ZANLA to an extent. By the late 1970s, ZIPRA had developed a strategy known as Storming the Heavens to launch a conventional invasion from Zambia, supported by a limited number of armoured vehicles and light aircraft. An operation by the Rhodesian armed forces to destroy a ZIPRA base near Livingstone in Zambia was never launched.[50]

The ZAPU/ZIPRA strategy for taking over Zimbabwe proved unsuccessful. In any event, the transfer of power to black nationalists took place not by the military take-over expected by ZAPU/ZIPRA, but by a peaceful and internationally supervised election. Rhodesia reverted briefly to real British rule, and a general election took place in early 1980. This election was supervised both by the UK and international forces.

Robert Mugabe (of ZANLA/ZANU) won this election, being the only major competitor for the vote of the majority ethnicity, the Shona. Once in power, Mugabe was internationally recognised as Zimbabwe’s leader and was installed as head of government, as well as having the backing of the overwhelming majority ethnic group. He was therefore able to quickly and irreversibly consolidate his power in Zimbabwe, forcing ZAPU, and therefore ZIPRA which was ZAPU’s army, to give up hope of taking over the country in the place of ZANU/ZANLA.

[edit] Pre-war events

[edit] Civil disobedience (1957–1964)

A map. See description

In 1962, Rhodesia was split about equally between black (pink) and white (white) areas. The ruling United Federal Party proposed the removal of racially-defined boundaries, except for reserved Tribal Trust Lands (blue), which made up about 45% of the country.[51]

In September 1956, bus fares in Salisbury were raised to the point at which workers were spending between 18% and 30% of their earnings on transportation.[52] The City Youth League responded by boycotting the United Transport Company’s buses and succeeded in preventing the price change. On 12 September 1957 members of the Youth League and the defunct ANC formed the Southern Rhodesia African National Congress, led by Joshua Nkomo. The Whitehead administration banned the SRANC in 1959 and arrested 307 leaders, excluding Nkomo who was out of the country, on 29 February in Operation Sunrise.[18][52][53]

Nkomo, Mugabe, Herbert Chitepo, and Ndabaningi Sithole established the National Democratic Party in January 1960. Nkomo became its leader in October. An NDP delegation headed by Nkomo attended the constitutional conference in January 1961. While Nkomo initially supported the constitution, he reversed his position after other NDP leaders disagreed. The government banned the NDP in December 1961 and arrested NDP leaders, excluding Nkomo who, again, was out of the country. Nkomo formed the Zimbabwe African People’s Union which the Whitehead administration banned in September 1962.[18][52][53]

The United Federal Party (UFP) had been in power since 1934, earning it the nickname of “the establishment”, and roughly represented Southern Rhodesian commercial and major agricultural interests.[54] The UFP contested the 1962 general election on a ticket of racial “partnership”, whereby blacks and whites would work together.[51][55] All ethnically discriminatory legislation would be immediately repealed, including the Land Apportionment Act, which defined certain areas of the land as eligible for purchase only by blacks, others as exclusively for whites, and others as open for all races.[51]

About 45% of the country was split in this way; another 45% comprised reserved Tribal Trust Lands, which housed tribesmen, and gave local chiefs and headmen a degree of self-government in a similar manner to American Indian reservations. The remainder was national land. The country had originally been split up in this way during the early days of white immigration to prevent the new arrivals from using their superior finances to buy all of the land in the country.[51]

The UFP proposed to do away with the black and white purchase areas, but to keep the Tribal Trust and national lands.[51] It also committed itself to general black advancement. These proposals proved largely repugnant to the mostly white electorate, which feared that premature black ascendancy would threaten Rhodesia’s economic prosperity and security, as well as their own personal affairs.[51][55]

Most turned away from the ruling party, causing a surprise result in the 1962 election: the UFP was routed by the more conservative Rhodesian Front (RF), a new party opposed to any immediate shift to black rule.[51] The RF duly formed a new government, with Winston Field and Ian Smith as Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister respectively.[55] Nkomo, legally barred from forming a new political party, moved ZAPU’s headquarters soon after, to Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.[53]

In July 1963, Nkomo suspended Ndabaningi Sithole, Robert Mugabe, Leopold Takawira, and Washington Malianga for their opposition to his continued leadership of ZAPU.[56] On 8 August they announced the establishment of the Zimbabwe African National Union. ZANU members formed a militant wing, the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army, and sent ZANLA members to the People’s Republic of China for training.[53]

[edit] Course of the war

The geopolitical situation at the time of UDI on 11 November 1965. Rhodesia is coloured green and countries friendly to the government (South Africa and Portugal) are shown in blue. Bechuanaland became Botswana in 1966.

[edit] First phase (1964–1972)

On 4 July 1964 ZANU insurgents ambushed and murdered a white foreman from Silverstreams Wattle Company, Pieter Johan Andries (Andrew) Oberholzer. The killing had a lasting effect on the small, close-knit white community, even though it was an isolated incident.[3][4][57] The Smith administration subsequently moved to detain the ZANU and ZAPU political leadership in August 1964. The major political leaders imprisoned were Ndabaningi Sithole, Leopold Takawira, Edgar Tekere, Enos Nkala and Maurice Nyagumbo. The remaining military leaders of ZANLA were Dare ReChimurenga, Josiah Tongogara and the barrister Herbert Chitepo. Operating from bases in Zambia and later from Mozambique, militants subsequently began launching attacks against Rhodesia.[58]

The conflict intensified after the Unilateral Declaration of Independence from Britain on 11 November 1965.[57] Sanctions were implemented by the British government after UDI, and member states of the United Nations endorsed the British embargo. The embargo meant the Rhodesians were hampered by a lack of modern equipment but used other means to receive vital war supplies such as receiving oil, munitions, and arms via the government of apartheid-era South Africa. War material was also obtained through elaborate international smuggling schemes, domestic production, and equipment captured from infiltrating enemy combatants.[22]

Five months later on 28 April 1966, the Rhodesian Security Forces engaged militants in Sinoia, during the first major engagement of the war.[18] Seven ZANLA men were killed during the fighting and in retaliation the survivors killed two civilians at their farm near Hartley three weeks later.[57]

Prior to the collapse of Portuguese rule in Mozambique in 1974–75, the Rhodesians were able to defend their frontier with Zambia with relative ease and prevent many guerrilla incursions. The Rhodesians were able to set up a strong defensive line along the Zambezi River running from Lake Kariba to the Mozambique border. Here 30-man camps were established at 8 kilometer intervals supported by mobile rapid reaction units. Between 1966 and 1970 these defences accounted for 175 insurgents killed for the loss of 14 defenders.[59] The conflict continued at a low level until 21 December 1972 when ZANLA attacked Altena Farm in north-east Rhodesia. In response the Rhodesians moved to hit their enemy in their foreign camps and staging areas before they could infiltrate into Rhodesia.[60]

Secret cross-border operations by the Special Air Service began in the mid-1960s, with Rhodesian Security Forces already engaging in hot-pursuits into Mozambique. However three weeks after the attack on Altena Farm, ZANLA killed two civilians and abducted another who was subsequently taken into Mozambique and then Tanzania. In response SAS troops were inserted into Mozambique with the approval of the Portuguese administration, in the first officially sanctioned external operation. The Rhodesian government began authorizing an increasing number of external operations.[60]

In the first phase of the conflict (up until the end of 1972), Rhodesia’s political and military position appeared to be a strong one. Nationalist guerrillas had been unable to make serious military inroads against Rhodesia. In the early 1970s the two main nationalist groups faced serious internal divisions, aid from the Organization of African Unity was temporarily suspended in 1971 and 129 nationalists were expelled from Zambia after they were alleged to have plotted against President Kenneth Kaunda.[61]

Britain’s efforts to isolate Rhodesia economically had not forced major compromises from the Smith Government. Indeed, late in 1971 the British and Rhodesian Governments had negotiated a compromise political settlement which would have bowed to the Smith Government’s agenda of postponing majority rule into the indefinite future. Nevertheless, when it was found that such a delayed approach to majority rule was unacceptable to most of Rhodesia’s African population, the deal fell apart.[62] It would take the collapse of Portuguese rule in Mozambique to create new military and political pressures on the Rhodesian Government to accept the principle of immediate majority rule.

[edit] Second phase (1972–1979)

For Rhodesian Army counter-insurgency tactics, see Fireforce.

White civilians; A woman and two young children killed at Elim Mission by terrorists during the Bush War.

The black nationalists continued to operate from secluded bases in neighbouring Zambia and from FRELIMO-controlled areas in the Portuguese colony of Mozambique, making periodic raids into Rhodesia. By 1973 guerrilla activity was increasing in the aftermath of the Altena Farm raid, particularly in the northeast part of the country where portions of the African population were evacuated from border areas, and compulsory military service for whites was extended to one year. [63]

In April 1974, a left wing coup in Portugal heralded the coming end of colonial rule in Mozambique. FRELIMO formed a transitional government within months, and officially took over the country in June 1975. Such events proved beneficial to ZANLA but disastrous for the Rhodesians, adding an additional 800 miles of hostile border.[64] Indeed with the demise of the Portuguese empire Ian Smith realised Rhodesia was surrounded on three sides by hostile nations and declared a formal state of emergency. Soon Mozambique closed its border, however Rhodesian forces continued to cross the border in “hot pursuit” raids, attacking the nationalists and their training camps.[65]

By 1975–76 it was clear that an indefinite postponment of majority rule, which had been the cornerstone of the Smith Government’s strategy since UDI, was no longer viable. Even overt South African support for Rhodesia was waning as, in March 1975, the South Africans withdrew a border police unit that had been assisting to protect Rhodesia’s border with Zambia. [66]

Late in 1976, Ian Smith accepted the basic elements of the compromise proposals made by US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to introduce majority rule within two years.[67] The Smith Government then sought to negotiate an acceptable settlement with moderate black leaders, while retaining strong white influence in key areas. The Rhodesian military, in turn, had the job of eroding the rising military strength of the ZANLA and ZIPRA to the greatest extent possible in order “buy time” for an acceptable political settlement to be reached.

[edit] Nyadzonya raid

The Rhodesian Security Forces called up part-time soldiers in preparation for a major counter-offensive on 2 May 1976.[68] On 9 August 1976, Rhodesian Selous Scouts attacked a ZANLA camp at Nyadzonya in Mozambique containing over 5,000 guerrillas and several hundred refugees. The Selous Scouts, who numbered 72, dressed in FRELIMO uniforms and disguised their vehicles, attaching FRELIMO licence plates and painting them in FRELIMO colours. White soldiers wore black ski masks. They crossed the unmanned border crossing into Mozambique at 0005 hours on 9 August and drove through the early morning to the camp, passing several FRELIMO sentries who saluted them as they went by.[69]

When they reached the ZANLA camp at 0825 hours the six ZANLA soldiers on duty allowed them to enter, and the Rhodesian vehicles moved in and took up prearranged positions around the edge of the parade ground, on which stood about 4,000 guerrillas. When all was ready a Rhodesian soldier took his vehicle loudspeaker and announced, in Shona, “Zimbabwe tatona” – translated into English, “We have taken Zimbabwe”. The cadres began cheering and ran towards the vehicles, packing around them as more ran onto the parade ground from other areas of the camp.[69]

The Rhodesians then opened fire and continued shooting until there was no movement on the parade ground, at which time they returned to Rhodesia. More than 1,000 ZANLA insurgents were reported killed by the Rhodesians, with four Selous Scouts lightly wounded. This figure is corroborated by ZANLA’s official report on the matter,[n 4] though publicly both ZANLA and ZIPRA claimed that Nyadzonya had been a refugee camp.[69]

Later, on October 7, 1976, militants bombed a railroad bridge over Matetsi River when a train carrying ore passed over.[70]

Rhodesian soldiers on patrol with FN FAL rifles during the 1970s.

As the conflict intensified, the United States and Britain attempted to negotiate a peaceful settlement. However this was rejected by the Rhodesian government insofar as it involved any potential surrender of power to the ZANLA or ZIPRA.

[edit] Escalation of the war (1977)

By 1977 the war had spread throughout Rhodesia. The ZANLA continued to operate from Mozambique and remained dominant among the Mashona peoples in eastern and central Rhodesia. Meanwhile ZIPRA remained active in the north and west, using bases in Zambia and Botswana, and were mainly supported by the Ndebele tribes.[64] With this escalation came increasing sophistication and organisation. No longer were the guerrillas the disorganised force they had been in the 1960s. Indeed now they were well-equipped with modern weapons, and although many were still untrained, an increasing number had received training in Communist bloc and other sympathetic countries.[71]

Weapons fielded included AK47 and SKS assault rifles, RPD and RPK light machine guns, as well as RPG-2 and RPG-7 rocket propelled grenade launchers. The Rhodesians only discovered how well equipped the nationalists had become when raids on guerrilla base areas towards the end of the war revealed mortars, 12.7mm and 14.5mm heavy machine guns and even heavier calibre weapons such as 122mm multiple rocket launchers.[72]

On 3 April 1977, General Peter Walls announced the government would launch a campaign to win the “hearts and minds” of Rhodesia’s black citizens.[73] In May Walls received reports of ZANLA forces massing in the city of Mapai in Gaza Province, Mozambique. Prime Minister Smith gave Walls permission to destroy the base. Walls told the media the Rhodesian forces were changing tactics from contain and hold to search and destroy, “adopting hot pursuit when necessary.”

On 30 May 1977, 500 troops passed the border and travelled 60 miles to Mapai, engaging the ZANLA forces with air cover from the Rhodesian Air Force and paratroopers in C-47 Dakotas. The Rhodesian government said the military killed 32 ZANLA fighters and lost one Rhodesian pilot. The Mozambican government disputed the number of casualties, saying it shot down three Rhodesian planes and a helicopter and took several troops prisoner, all of which Minister of Combined Operations Roger Hawkins denied.[74][75][76]

The United Nations Security Council subsequently denounced the incursion of the “illegal racist minority regime in Southern Rhodesia” into Mozambique in Resolution 411, on 30 June 1977.[77] Walls announced a day later that the Rhodesian military would occupy Mapai until they had eliminated ZANLA’s presence. Kurt Waldheim, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, condemned the incident on 1 June, and Rhodesian forces withdrew. The American, British, and Soviet governments also condemned the raid.[74]

Militants bombed Woolworth’s department store in Salisbury on 6 August 1977, killing 11 and injuring 70.[78] They killed sixteen black civilians in eastern Rhodesia on 21 August, burning their homes on a white-owned farm.[79] In November 1977, in response to the buildup of ZANLA guerrillas in Mozambique, Rhodesian forces launched Operation Dingo, a pre-emptive combined arms surprise attack on guerrilla camps at Chimoio and Tembue in Mozambique. The attack was carried out over three days, from November 23 to 25, 1977. While these operations reportedly inflicted thousands of casualties on Robert Mugabe’s ZANLA cadres, probably blunting guerrilla incursions in the months that followed, a steady intensification of the insurgency nevertheless continued through 1978.

In order to disrupt FRELIMO’s hold on Mozambique, the Rhodesian Central Intelligence Organization helped to create and support its own insurgency movement within Mozambique. This guerrilla group, known as RENAMO battled with FRELIMO even as Rhodesian forces fought the ZANLA within Mozambique.

Map showing the operational areas of the Rhodesian Security Forces during the conflict.

In May 1978, 50 civilians were killed in crossfire exchanged between Marxist militants and the Rhodesian military, the highest number of civilians to be killed in an engagement up to that point.[80] In July Patriotic Front members killed 39 black civilians and the Rhodesian government killed 106 militants.[81] On 4 November 1978 Walls said 2,000 Patriotic Front militants had been persuaded to defect and fight for the Rhodesian Security Forces. In reality only 50 militants defected.[73]

A Leopard APC, mine-protected vehicle, designed and built in Rhodesia during the late 1970s and based on a Volkswagen engine. This example is displayed in the Imperial War Museum North, Manchester, UK

In 1978 450 ZANLA militants crossed the Mozambique border and attacked the town of Umtali. At the time ZANU said the militants were women, an unusual characteristic, but in 1996 Joyce Mujuru said the vast majority involved were men and ZANU concocted the story to make Western organizations believe women were involved in the fighting.[82] In retaliation for these acts the Rhodesian Air Force bombed guerrilla camps 125 miles inside Mozambique, using ‘fatigued’ Canberra B2 aircraft and Hawker Hunters — actively, but clandestinely, supported by several of the more capable Canberra B(I)12 aircraft of the South African Air Force. A number of joint-force bomber raids on guerrilla encampments and assembly areas in Mozambique and Zambia were mounted in 1978, and extensive air reconnaissance and surveillance of guerrilla encampments and logistical build-up was carried out by the South African Air Force on behalf of the RhAF.

[edit] Airliners shot down

Rhodesian external operation extended into Zambia after Nkomo’s ZIPRA nationalists shot down two unarmed Vickers Viscount civilian airliners with Soviet supplied SAM-7 heat-seeking missiles. Encamped beneath the path of ascent towards Salisbury from Kariba Airport, the ZIPRA cadres downed Air Rhodesia Flight 825 on 3 September 1978 and Air Rhodesia Flight 827 on 12 February 1979. In the first incident, eighteen civilians on board survived, and five of these went away to find water. Half an hour later nine ZIPRA fighters arrived, promising help; three of the thirteen survivors hid when they saw them. In the words of Time magazine, the ZIPRA cadres “herded together the ten people at the wreckage, robbed them of their valuables, and finally cut them down with automatic weapons fire”. Nkomo claimed responsibility for the attack and spoke of it to the BBC in a way Rhodesians considered gloating.[46] In the second attack all 59 people on board were killed in the crash.[47]

In retaliation for the shooting down of Flight 825 in September 1978, Rhodesian Air Force Canberra bombers, Hunter fighter-bombers and helicopter gunships attacked the ZIPRA guerrilla base at Westlands farm near Lusaka in October 1978, warning Zambian forces by radio not to interfere.[83]

The increased effectiveness of the bombing and follow-up ‘air mobile’ strikes using Dakota-dropped parachutists and helicopter ‘air cav’ techniques had a significant effect on the development of the conflict. As late as September 1979, despite the increased sophistication of guerrilla forces in Mozambique, a raid by Selous Scouts, with artillery and air support, on “New Chimoio” still reportedly resulted in heavy ZANLA casualties.[n 5] However, a successful raid on the Rhodesian strategic fuel reserves in Salisbury also underscored the importance of concluding a negotiated settlement and achieving international recognition before the war expanded further.

[edit] Military pressure

The larger problem was that by 1979, combined ZIRPA and ZANLA strength inside Rhodesia totalled at least 12,500 guerrillas and it was evident that insurgents were entering the country at a faster rate than the Rhodesian forces could kill or capture them. In addition, 22,000 ZIPRA and 16,000 ZANLA fighters remained uncommitted outside the country.[84] Joshua Nkomo’s ZIPRA forces were preparing their forces in Zambia with the intent of confronting the Rhodesians through a conventional invasion. Whether such an invasion could have been successful in the short term against the well trained Rhodesian army and air force is questionable. However, what was clear was that the insurgency was growing in strength daily and the ability of the security forces to continue to control the entire country was coming under serious challenge.[69]

By putting the civilian population at risk, ZIPRA and the ZANLA had been particularly effective in creating conditions that accelerated white emigration. This not only seriously undermined the morale of the white population, it was also gradually reducing the availability of trained reserves for the army and the police. For a discussion see:

Main article: Rhodesia Regiment

The economy was also suffering badly as a result of the war with the Rhodesian GDP in consistent decline in the late 1970s.[84]

Politically, the Rhodesians were therefore pinning all their hopes on the “internal” political settlement that had been negotiated with moderate black nationalist leaders in 1978 and its ability to achieve external recognition and support. This internal settlement led to the creation of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia under a new constitution in 1979.

[edit] Resolution

Under the agreement of March 1978, the country was to be known as Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, and in the general election of 24 April 1979, Bishop Abel Muzorewa became the country’s first black prime minister. The factions led by Nkomo and Mugabe denounced the new government as a puppet of white Rhodesians and fighting continued. The hoped for recognition of the internal settlement, and of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, by the newly elected Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher did not materialize after the latter’s election in May 1979. Likewise, despite the fact that the US Senate voted to lift sanctions against Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, the Carter administration also refused to recognize the internal settlement.

While Prime Minister Thatcher clearly sympathized with the internal settlement and thought of the ZANLA and ZIPRA leaders as “terrorists”, she was prepared to support a push for further compromise if it could end the fighting.[85] Britain was also reluctant to recognize the internal settlement for fear of fracturing the unity of the Commonwealth. Thus later in 1979, the Thatcher government called a peace conference in London to which all nationalist leaders were invited.[86]

The outcome of this conference would become known as the Lancaster House Agreement. During the conference, the Zimbabwe-Rhodesian Government accepted a watering down of the 1978 internal settlement while Mugabe and Nkomo agreed to end the war in exchange for new elections in which they could participate. The economic sanctions imposed on the country were lifted in late 1979, and British rule resumed under a transitional arrangement leading to full independence. On 21 December 1979 a cease-fire was subsequently announced.[87]

The elections of 1980 resulted in a victory for Robert Mugabe, who assumed the post of prime minister after ZANU-PF received 63% of the vote. Accusations of voter intimidation by Mugabe’s guerrilla cadres, sections of which were accused of not having assembled in the designated guerrilla assembly points as required under the Lancaster House Agreement, may have led the Rhodesian military to give serious consideration to a coup d’état in March 1980.[40]

This alleged coup was to have included the assassination of Mugabe and coordinated assaults on ZANLA guerrilla assembly points within the country. However, even in the context of alleged voter intimidation by ZANLA elements, widespread support for Mugabe from large sections of the black population (in particular from his own Shona tribal group which made up the overwhelming majority of the country’s population) could not be seriously disputed. Moreover, the clear absence of any external support for such a coup, and the inevitable conflagration that would have engulfed the country thereafter, scuttled the plan.[40]

The result was that on 18 April 1980 the country gained independence and international recognition. On the second anniversary of this event the government changed the name of the country’s capital from Salisbury to Harare.

[edit] Aftermath

Main articles: Zimbabwe and Robert Mugabe

Following independence, Robert Mugabe acted incrementally to consolidate his power.

Fighting between ZANLA and ZIPRA units broke out in 1981 and led to what has become known as Gukurahundi, a Shona term which translates roughly to mean “the early rain which washes away the chaff before the spring rains”.[88] The Gukurahundi campaigns, which are also called the Matabeleland Massacres, ran from 1982 to 1985. Mugabe used his North Korean-trained Fifth Brigade to crush any resistance in Matabeleland. German journalist Shari Eppel estimates the number of Matabele murdered in these first years after the war to be about 20,000.[89]

Beyond Zimbabwe’s borders, as a result of Rhodesian aid and support for RENAMO, the Bush War also helped influence the outbreak of the Mozambique Civil War, which lasted from 1977 until 1992. That conflict claimed over a million lives, and also led to some 5 million people being made homeles


[edit] End of Rhodesia

In 1978 an Internal Settlement was signed between Smith’s government and two more moderate African nationalist parties, the United African National Council (UANC), led by Bishop Abel Muzorewa, and ZANU (Ndonga), led by Ndabaningi Sithole. However, this did not involve the two main communist parties in exile — the remainder of the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) led by Robert Mugabe and the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU), led by Joshua Nkomo — which respectively fielded both major armies in the Rhodesian Bush War. Consequently, it was rejected by the international community.

In April 1979 the first multiracial elections were held in Rhodesia, which saw Abel Muzorewa become the first black Prime Minister of what was now called Zimbabwe Rhodesia. However, under the Internal Settlement, whites retained control of the country’s judiciary, civil service, police and armed forces, and had a quarter of the seats in parliament reserved for them.

In December 1979 following multi-party talks at Lancaster House in London, Britain resumed control of Rhodesia, and with the help of observers from other Commonwealth countries, saw the first full participatory elections. During the four month period that the country was restored to the status of a British colony it was known officially as “the British Dependency of Southern Rhodesia”. The Republic of Zimbabwe came into being on April 18, 1980.

[edit] References

  1. ^ Peter N. Stearns and William Leonard Langer. The Encyclopedia of World History: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern, Chronologically Arranged, 2001. Page 1069.
  2. ^ Smith, Ian (1997). The Great Betrayal. London: Blake Publishing. pp. 104–108. 
  3. ^ Rhodesia Herald, Salisbury, 13 to 20 September 1968
  4. ^ “Rhodesian Currency”. Retrieved 2008-01-25.

The Story behind The nice Postal history in 1834

THIS THE SAMPLE OF Dr iwan E-book In CD-ROM Limited edition




urat  dikirim ke


Lord Clifford di Palazzo Odescalchi

(itu masih ada) par estafette (pengiriman ekspres oleh pelatih) pada tahun 1834.

stempel  merah menunjukkan malam Maret 10.

Ditandai Corrispa Estera

da Genova.

Organisasi Angleterre (merah)  melalui Pont Beauvoisin.

Karena BIaya Pos  33 Bajocchi sekitar 0,35 sen dolar AS

Membuat saya tidak bisa  keluarkan cukup  biaya ongkos kirim. Sepertinya 92/8 yang akan menjadi jumlah yang fenomenal.

Satu dolar AS pada waktu itu sama dengan mata uang British  4/2 shilling.

Sebaliknya menunjukkan organisasi Wetherby mengaris bawahi dengan jarak tempuh.

Cap stempel  pos Malam 1.834

Sebuah segel merah dengan apa yang tampaknya menjadi sebuah lambang keluarga dari dua hewan (griffin dan unicorn?) Kedua sisi perisai atasnya oleh sebuah mahkota.

 Cap  stempel warna hitam yang saya tidak bisa baca. Sepertinya Firenze, sesuatu (Pamanzo?), 1834

english version

Folded letter sent to Lord Clifford at Palazzo (palace)Odescalchi(rome)

The arms of the Italian Princes Odescalchi.

The keys and the ombrellino above the shield indicate that a member of the family had been Pope

(it’s still there) par estafette (express delivery by coach) in 1834.

The red tombstone indicates the evening of March 10th.

Marked Corrispa Estera da


Angleterre (in red) origination via Pont Beauvoisin.

Postage due 33 Bajocchi approximately 0.35 US cents

I can’t quite make out the cost of postage. It looks like 92/8 which would have been a phenomenal sum.

A US dollar at the time was equal to 4/2 British currency.


Reverse shows Wetherby origination underlined with mileage.

An evening 1834 stamp.

A red seal with what appears to be a family crest of two animals (a griffin and a unicorn?) either side of a shield topped by a crown.

Black stamp which I cannot read. Looks like Firenze, something (Pamanzo?), 1834


The letter discusses the then current political situation in Italy.

The Clifford family arrived in England with

William the CoWilliam "the Conqueror"nquerer.









A Clifford has several lines in Shakespeare’s

Henry VI.

Another in Wordsworth’s White Doe of Rylestone.

The Cliffords were related to a number of the leading Catholic families in England. Lucy Clifford, the daughter of the 3rd Baron, married Thomas Weld who, after her death, entered the Catholic Church and became a Cardinal in 1830.

Their daughter, Mary Weld, married Hugh Clifford (1790-1858), the 7th Baron and probably the one to whom the letter is addressed.

William Clifford (1823-1893), the brother of the 8th Baron, was the Roman Catholic Bishop of Clifton.

Sir Hugh Clifford (1866-1941), the nephew of the 8th Baron, held a number of posts in the Colonial Service, including Governor of Ceylon, Governor of Nigeria and Governor of the Straits Settlements.

Sir Bede Clifford (1890-1969),


a son of the 10th Baron, was Private Secretary to the Governor-General of Australia in 1918-20 and later held a number of vice-regal appointments.

machinal translate

Surat tersebut membahas situasi politik saat itu di Italia.

Keluarga Clifford tiba di Inggris dengan William Conquerer tersebut.

Sebuah Clifford memiliki beberapa baris di Shakespeare Henry VI.

Lain dalam Wordsworth White Doe of Rylestone.

Para Cliffords tersebut terkait dengan sejumlah keluarga Katolik terkemuka di Inggris. Lucy Clifford, putri dari Baron 3rd, menikah dengan Thomas Weld yang, setelah kematiannya, memasuki Gereja Katolik dan menjadi Kardinal pada tahun 1830.

Putri mereka, Mary Weld, menikah dengan Hugh Clifford (1790-1858), Baron VII dan mungkin orang kepada siapa surat tersebut ditujukan.

William Clifford (1823-1893), adik dari Baron VIII , adalah Uskup  Katolik Roma  Clifton.

Sir Hugh Clifford (1866-1941), keponakan dari Baron VIII, mengadakan sejumlah posting di Layanan kolonial, termasuk Gubernur Ceylon, Gubernur Nigeria dan Gubernur Straits Settlements.

Sir Clifford Bede (1890-1969), seorang putra dari Baron X, adalah Sekretaris Pribadi Gubernur-Jenderal Australia di 1918-1920 dan kemudian mengadakan sejumlah peranjanjian  dengan  agung wakil Agung

 read more about
William "the Conqueror"But how about the time of William “The Conqueror”
(lived 1027-1087, my children’s 30th GGP)? Would you believe that we each have 4,294,967,296  30th GGP’s? That is more than 4 billion of that generation only! The reason for that great number at a time when there were only 2.5 million inhabitants in England is of course that most of these ancestors come up again and again. In a family with 10 children, most of the children will be our ancestors. So their parents will come up 10 times.
CharlemagneWilliam descends in one line from Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne and his queen Matilda has seven such lines. Since we all have Charlemagne on the “average” as our 40th GGP, you have 4.398 trillion GGP’s around the time period so that each of us descends multitudinous times from Charlemagne and his queen Hildegarde. Even though there were only about 29 million inhabitants in all of Europe in 800 AD.

You must be wondering by now how many GGP’s (theoretical and actual) you had in A.D. 1 or 1 B.C., at the time of Christ’s birth. Well, you would have 590 quintillion, 295 quadrillion, 804 trillion, 989 billion, 996 million, 531 thousand, 712  67th GGP’s. However, the estimated population of the whole earth was 200 million at the time. So if you descended from each one equally, you would descend from each person 2.36 trillion times on a pedigree chart. 

However, unless you in your family can find any nobility or royalty with their proven historical lines you will never be able to show the actual pedigree to ancient people since our church books in Europe didn’t start until c.1700. It is also true – as I have noticed among the 10.400 ancestors in my children’s pedigree – that nobles and royals rarely married outside their own class. But they did have enough illegitimate offspring to make all of them our forefathers around the time of the Holy Roman or Byzantine empire and at the time of Jesus our world family thus branches out to even the furthest corners of the world, including our common ancestors in China and India. Unless, again, you are an Eskimo, American Indian or Australian Aborigine.

read more about Shaekspiere ‘s henry VI

Henry VI, Part 1


Facsimile of the first page of The first Part of Henry the Sixt from the First Folio, published in 1623

Henry VI, Part 1 or The First Part of Henry the Sixt (often written as 1 Henry VI) is a history play by William Shakespeare, and possibly Thomas Nashe, believed to have been written in 1591, and set during the lifetime of King Henry VI of England. Whereas 2 Henry VI deals with the King’s inability to quell the bickering of his nobles, and the inevitability of armed conflict, and 3 Henry VI deals with the horrors of that conflict, 1 Henry VI deals with the loss of England’s French territories and the political machinations leading up to the Wars of the Roses, as the English political system is torn apart by personal squabbles and petty jealousy.

Although the Henry VI trilogy may not have been written in chronological order, the three plays are often grouped together with Richard III to form a tetralogy covering the entire Wars of the Roses saga, from the death of Henry V in 1422 to the rise to power of Henry VII in 1485. It was the success of this sequence of plays which firmly established Shakespeare’s reputation as a playwright.

Henry VI, Part 1 is regarded by some as the weakest play in Shakespeare’s oeuvre[1] and, along with Titus Andronicus, is one of the strongest candidates for evidence of Shakespeare collaborating with other dramatists early in his career.



[edit] Characters

The English

  • Lawyer
  • Papal Legate
  • Gaoler
  • Messengers, captain, soldiers, heralds, etc.

The French

[edit] Synopsis

Frederick and Alfred Heath engraving of Scene in the Temple Garden by John Pettie (1871)

The play begins with the funeral of Henry V, who has died unexpectedly in his prime. As his brothers, the Dukes of Bedford and Gloucester, and his uncle, the Duke of Exeter, lament his passing and express doubt as to whether his son (the as yet uncrowned heir apparent Henry VI) is capable of running the country in such tumultuous times, word arrives of military setbacks in France. A rebellion, led by the Dauphin Charles, is gaining momentum, and several major towns have already been lost. Additionally, Lord Talbot, Constable of France, has been captured. Realising a critical time is at hand, Bedford immediately prepares himself to head to France and take command of the army, Gloucester remains in charge in England, and Exeter sets out to prepare young Henry for his forthcoming coronation.

Meanwhile, in Orléans, the English army are laying siege to Charles’ forces. Inside the city, the Bastard of Orléans approaches Charles and tells him of a young woman who claims to have seen visions and knows how to defeat the English. Charles summons the woman, Joan la Pucelle, (i.e. Joan of Arc). To test her resolve, he challenges her to single combat. Upon her victory, he immediately places her in command of the army. Outside the city, the newly arrived Bedford negotiates the release of Talbot, but immediately, Joan launches an attack. The French forces win, forcing the English back, but Talbot and Bedford engineer a sneak attack on the city, and gain a foothold within the walls, causing the French leaders to flee.

Back in England, a petty quarrel between Richard Plantagenet and the Duke of Somerset has expanded to involve the whole court. Richard and Somerset ask their fellow nobles to pledge allegiance to one of them, and as such the lords select either red or white roses to indicate which side they are on. Richard then goes to see his uncle, Edmund Mortimer, imprisoned in the Tower of London. Mortimer tells Richard the history of their family’s conflict with the king’s family—how they helped Henry Bolingbroke seize power from Richard II, but were then shoved into the background; and how Henry V had Richard’s father (Richard of Conisburgh) executed and his family stripped of all its lands and monies. Mortimer also tells Richard that he himself is the rightful heir to the throne, and that when he dies, Richard will be the true heir, not Henry. Amazed at these revelations, Richard determines to attain his birthright, and vows to have his family’s dukedom restored. After Mortimer dies, Richard presents his petition to the recently crowned Henry, who agrees to reinstate the Plantagenet’s title, making Richard 3rd Duke of York. Henry then leaves for France, accompanied by Gloucester, Exeter, Winchester, Richard and Somerset.

H.C. Selous‘ illustration of Joan’s fiends abandoning her in Act 5, Scene 3; from The Plays of William Shakespeare: The Historical Plays, edited by Charles Cowden Clarke and Mary Cowden Clarke (1830)

In France, within a matter of hours, the French retake and then lose the city of Rouen. After the battle, Bedford dies, and Talbot assumes direct command of the army. The Dauphin is horrified at the loss of Rouen, but Joan tells him not to worry. She then persuades the powerful Duke of Burgundy, who had been fighting for the English, to switch sides, and join the French. Meanwhile, Henry arrives in Paris and upon learning of Burgundy’s betrayal, he sends Talbot to speak with him. Henry then pleads for Richard and Somerset to put aside their conflict, and, unaware of the implications of his actions, he chooses a red rose, symbolically aligning himself with Somerset and alienating Richard. Prior to returning to England, in an effort to secure peace between Somerset and Richard, Henry places Richard in command of the infantry and Somerset in command of the cavalry. Meanwhile, Talbot approaches Bordeaux, but the French army swing around and trap him. Talbot sends word for reinforcements, but the conflict between Richard and Somerset leads them to second guess one another, and neither of them send any, both blaming the other for the mix-up. The English army are subsequently destroyed, and both Talbot and his son are killed.

After the battle, Joan’s visions desert her, and she is captured by Richard, and burned at the stake. At the same time, urged on by Pope Eugenius IV and the Holy Roman Emperor, Sigismund, Henry sues for peace. The French listen to the English terms, under which Charles is to be a viceroy to Henry, reluctantly agreeing, but only with the intention of breaking their oath at a later date and expelling the English from France. Meanwhile, the Earl of Suffolk has captured a young French princess, Margaret of Anjou, who he intends to marry to Henry and dominate the king through her. Travelling back to England, he attempts to persuade Henry to marry Margaret. Gloucester advises Henry against the marriage, as Margaret’s family are not rich, and the marriage is not advantageous to his position as king, but Henry is taken in by Suffolk’s description of Margaret’s beauty, and he agrees to the proposal. Suffolk then heads back to France to bring Margaret to England as Gloucester worryingly ponders what the future may hold.

[edit] Sources

Shakespeare’s primary source for 1 Henry VI was Edward Hall‘s The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of Lancaster and York (1548). Also, as with most of Shakespeare’s chronicle histories, Raphael Holinshed‘s Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland (1577; 2nd edition 1587) was also consulted. Holinshed based much of his Wars of the Roses information in the Chronicles on Hall’s information in Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families, even to the point of reproducing large portions of it verbatim. However, there are enough differences between Hall and Holinshed to establish that Shakespeare must have consulted both of them.

For example, Shakespeare must have used Hall for the scene where Gloucester is attempting to gain access to the Tower, and Woodville tells him that the order not to admit anyone came from Winchester. Dismayed, Gloucester refers to Winchester as “that haughty prelate,/Whom Henry, our late sovereign, ne’re could brook” (1.3.23–24). Only in Hall is there any indication that Henry V had a problem with Winchester. In Holinshed, there is nothing to suggest any disagreement or conflict between them. Another example of Shakespeare’s use of Hall is found when Sir Thomas Gargrave is injured by the artillery strike at Orléans (1.5). In the play, he dies immediately, and the rest of the scene focuses on the death of the more senior soldier Salisbury. Likewise, in Hall, Gargrave dies immediately after the attack. In Holinshed, however, Gargrave takes two days to die (as he did in reality). The semi-comic scene where the French leaders are forced to flee Orléans half-dressed (dramatised in 2.1) also seems based on an incident reported only in Hall. When discussing the English retaking of Le Mans in 1428, Hall writes, “The French, suddenly taken, were so amazed in so much that some of them, being not out of their beds, got up in their shirts.”[3] Another incident involving Gloucester and Winchester is also unique to Hall. During their debate in Act 3, Scene 1, Gloucester accuses Winchester of attempting to have him assassinated on London Bridge. Hall mentions this assassination attempt, explaining that it was supposed to have taken place at the Southwark end of the bridge in an effort to prevent Gloucester from joining Henry V in Eltham Palace.[4] In Holinshed however, there is no reference to any such incident. Another incident possibly taken from Hall is found in Act 3, Scene 2, where Joan and the French soldiers disguise themselves as peasants and sneak into Rouen. This is not an historical event, and it is not recorded in either Hall or Holinshed. However, a very similar such incident is recorded in Hall, where he reports of the capture of Cornhill Castle in Cornhill-on-Tweed by the English in 1441.

On the other hand, some aspects of the play are unique to Holinshed. For example, in the opening scene, as word arrives in England of the rebellion in France, Exeter says to his fellow peers, “Remember, Lords, your oaths to Henry sworn:/Either to quell the Dauphin utterly,/Or bring him in obedience to your yoke” (1.1.162–164). Only in Holinshed is it reported that on his deathbed, Henry V elicited vows from Bedford, Gloucester and Exeter that they would never willingly surrender France, and would never allow the Dauphin to become king. Another piece of information unique to Holinshed is seen when Charles compares Joan to the Old Testament prophetess Deborah (1.2.105). According to Judges 4 and 5, Deborah masterminded Barak‘s surprise victory against the Canaanite army led by Sisera, which had suppressed the Israelites for over twenty years. No such comparison is found in Hall. Another piece of information unique to Holinshed occurs when the Master Gunner mentions that the English have taken control of some of the suburbs of Orléans (1.4.2). Holinshed reports that the English captured several of the suburbs on the other side of the Loire, something not found in Hall.

[edit] Date and text

[edit] Date

The most important evidence for dating 1 Henry VI is the Diary of Philip Henslowe, which records a performance of a play by Lord Strange’s Men called Harey Vj (i.e. Henry VI) on 3 March 1592 at the Rose Theatre in Southwark. Henslowe refers to the play as “ne” (which most critics take to mean “new”, although it could be an abbreviation for the Newington Butts theatre, which Henslow may have owned[5]) and mentions that it had fifteen performances and earned £3.16s.8d, meaning it was extremely successful.[6] Harey Vj is usually accepted as being 1 Henry VI for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it is unlikely to have been either 2 Henry VI or 3 Henry VI, as they were published in 1594 and 1595 respectively with the titles under which they would have originally been performed, so as to ensure higher sales. As neither of them appear under the title Harey Vj, the play seen by Henslowe is unlikely to be either of them. Additionally, as Gary Taylor points out, Henslowe tended to identify sequels, but not first parts, to which he referred by the general title. As such, “Harey Vj could not be a Part Two or Part Three, but could easily be a Part One.”[7] The only other option is that Harey Vj is a now lost play.

That Harey Vj is not a lost play however seems to be confirmed by a reference in Thomas Nashe’s Piers Penniless his Supplication to the Devil (entered into the Stationers’ Register on 8 August 1592), which supports the theory that Harey Vj is 1 Henry VI. Nashe praises a play that features Lord Talbot: “How would it have joyed brave Talbot (the terror of the French), to think that after he had lain two hundred years in his tomb, he should triumph again on the stage, and have his bones new embalmed with the tears of ten thousand spectators (at least), who in the tragedian that represents his person imagine they behold him fresh bleeding.” It is thought that Nashe is here referring to Harey Vj, i.e. 1 Henry VI, as there is no other candidate for a play featuring Talbot from this time period (although again, there is the slight possibility that both Henslowe and Nashe are referring to a now lost play).

If Nashe’s comment is accepted as evidence that the play seen by Henslowe was 1 Henry VI, to have been on stage as a new play in March 1592 it must have been written in 1591.

There is a separate question concerning the date of composition however. Due to the publication in March 1594 of a quarto version of 2 Henry VI (under the title The First part of the Contention betwixt the two famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster, with the death of the good Duke Humphrey: And the banishment and death of the Duke of Suffolke, and the Tragicall end of the proud Cardinal of Winchester, with the notable Rebellion of Jack Cade: and the Duke of Yorke’s first claim unto the crowne)[8] and an octavo version of 3 Henry VI in 1595 (under the title The The True Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke, and the death of good King Henrie the Sixt, with the Whole Contention betweene the two Houses, Lancaster and Yorke),[9] neither of which make any reference to 1 Henry VI, some critics have argued that 2 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI were written prior to 1 Henry VI. This theory was first suggested by E.K. Chambers in 1923, and revised by John Dover Wilson in 1952. The theory is that The Contention and True Tragedy were originally conceived as a two-part play, but due to their success, a prequel was created. Obviously the title of The Contention, where it is referred to as The First Part is a large part of this theory, but various critics have offered further pieces of evidence to suggest 1 Henry VI was not the first play written in the trilogy. R.B. McKerrow, for example, argues that “if 2 Henry VI was originally written to continue the first part, it seems utterly incomprehensible that it should contain no allusion to the prowess of Talbot.”[10] McKerrow also comments on the lack of reference to the symbolic use of roses in 2 Henry VI, whereas in 1 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI they are mentioned numerous times. McKerrow concludes that this suggests 1 Henry VI was written closer to 3 Henry VI, and as we know 3 Henry VI was definitely a sequel, it means that 1 Henry VI must have been written last, i.e., Shakespeare only conceived of the use of the roses while writing 3 Henry VI, and then incorporated the idea into his prequel. Eliot Slater comes to the same conclusion in his statistical examination of the vocabulary of all three Henry VI plays, where he argues that 1 Henry VI was written either immediately before or immediately after 3 Henry VI, hence it must have been written last.[11] Likewise, Gary Taylor, in his analysis of the authorship of 1 Henry VI, argues that the many discrepancies between 1 Henry VI and 2 Henry VI (such as the lack of reference to Talbot) coupled with similarities in the vocabulary, phraseology and tropes of 1 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI suggest 1 Henry VI was probably written last.[12]

One argument against this theory is that 1 Henry VI is the weakest of the trilogy and therefore, logic would suggest it was written first. This argument suggests that Shakespeare could only have created such a weak play if it was his first attempt to turn his chronicle sources into drama. In essence, he was unsure of his way, and as such, 1 Henry VI was a trial-run of sorts, making way for the more accomplished 2 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI. Emrys Jones is one notable critic who supports this view.[13] The standard rebuke to this theory, and the one used by Dover Wilson in 1952, is that 1 Henry VI is significantly weaker than the other two plays not because it was written first but because it was co-authored, and may have been Shakespeare’s first attempt to collaborate with other writers. As such, all of the play’s problems can be attributed to its co-authors rather than Shakespeare himself, who may have had a relatively limited hand its composition. In this sense, the fact that 1 Henry VI is the weakest of the trilogy has nothing to do with when it may have been written, but instead concerns only how it was written.[14]

As this implies, there is no critical consensus on this issue. Samuel Johnson, writing in his 1765 edition of The Plays of William Shakespeare, pre-empted the debate and argued that the plays were written in sequence: “It is apparent that [2 Henry VI] begins where the former ends, and continues the series of transactions, of which it presupposes the first part already written. This is a sufficient proof that the second and third parts were not written without dependence on the first.”[15] Numerous more recent scholars continue to uphold Johnson’s argument. E.M.W. Tillyard, for example, writing in 1944, believes the plays were written in order, as does Andrew S. Cairncross in his editions of all three plays for the 2nd series of the Arden Shakespeare (1957, 1962 and 1964). E.A.J. Honigmann also agrees, in his ‘early start’ theory of 1982 (which argues that Shakespeare’s first play was Titus Andronicus, which Honigmann posits was written in 1586). Likewise, Michael Hattaway, in both his 1990 New Cambridge Shakespeare edition of 1 Henry VI and his 1991 edition of 2 Henry VI argues that the evidence suggests 1 Henry VI was written first. In his 2001 introduction to Henry VI: Critical Essays, Thomas A. Pendleton makes a similar argument, as does Roger Warren in his 2003 edition of 2 Henry VI for the Oxford Shakespeare.

On the other hand, Edward Burns, in his 2000 Arden Shakespeare 3rd series edition of 1 Henry VI and Ronald Knowles, in his 1999 Arden Shakespeare 3rd series edition of 2 Henry VI make the case that 2 Henry VI probably preceded 1 Henry VI. Similarly, Randall Martin, in his 2001 Oxford Shakespeare edition of 3 Henry VI argues that 1 Henry VI was almost certainly written last. In his 2003 Oxford edition of 1 Henry VI, Michael Taylor agrees with Martin. Additionally, it is worth noting that in the Oxford Shakespeare: Complete Works of 1986 and the 2nd edition of 2005, and in the Norton Shakespeare of 1997 and again in 2008, both 2 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI precede 1 Henry VI.

Ultimately, the question of the order of composition remains unanswered, and the only thing that critics can agree on is that all three plays (in whatever order) were written by early 1592 at the latest.

[edit] Text

The text of the play was not published until the 1623 First Folio, under the title The first part of Henry the Sixt.

When it came to be called Part 1 is unclear, although most critics tend to assume it was the invention of the First Folio editors, John Heminges and Henry Condell, as there are no references to the play under the title Part 1, or any derivative thereof, prior to 1623.[16]

[edit] Analysis and criticism

[edit] Critical history

Some critics argue that the Henry VI trilogy were the first plays based on recent English history, and as such, they deserve an elevated position in the canon, and a more central role in Shakespearean criticism. According to F.P. Wilson for example, “There is no certain evidence that any dramatist before the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 dared to put upon the public stage a play based upon English history [...] so far as we know, Shakespeare was the first.”[17] However, not all critics agree with Wilson here. For example, Michael Taylor argues that there were at least thirty-nine history plays prior to 1592, including the two-part Christopher Marlowe play Tamburlaine (1587), Thomas Lodge‘s The Wounds of Civil War (1588), the anonymous The Troublesome Reign of King John (1588), Edmund Ironside (1590 – also anonymous), Robert Green‘s Selimus (1591) and another anonymous play, The True Tragedy of Richard III (1591). Paola Pugliatti however argues that the case may be somewhere between Wilson and Taylor’s argument: “Shakespeare may not have been the first to bring English history before the audience of a public playhouse, but he was certainly the first to treat it in the manner of a mature historian rather than in the manner of a worshipper of historical, political and religious myth.”[18]

Another issue often discussed amongst critics is the quality of the play. Along with 3 Henry VI, 1 Henry VI has traditionally been seen as one of Shakespeare’s weakest works, with critics often citing the amount of violence as indicative of Shakespeare’s artistic immaturity and inability to handle his chronicle sources, especially when compared to the more nuanced and far less violent second historical tetralogy (Richard II, 1 Henry IV, 2 Henry IV and Henry V). For example, critics such as E.M.W. Tillyard,[19] Irving Ribner[20] and A.P. Rossiter[21] have all claimed that the play violates neoclassical precepts of drama, which dictate that violence and battle should never be shown mimetically on stage, but should always be reported digetically in dialogue. This view was based on traditional notions of the distinction between high and low art, a distinction based partly upon Philip Sidney‘s An Apology for Poetry (1579). Based on the work of Horace, Sidney criticised Thomas Norton and Thomas Sackville‘s Gorboduc (1561) for showing too many battles and being too violent when it would have been more artistic to verbally represent such scenes. The belief was that any play that showed violence was crude, appealing only to the ignorant masses, and was therefore low art. On the other hand, any play that elevated itself above such direct representation of violence and instead relied on the writer’s ability to verbalise and his skill for diegesis, was considered artistically superior and therefore, high art. Writing in 1605, Ben Jonson commented in The Masque of Blackness that showing battles on stage was only “for the vulgar, who are better delighted with that which pleaseth the eye, than contenteth the ear.”[22] Based upon these theories, 1 Henry VI, with its numerous on-stage skirmishes and multiple scenes of violence and murder, was considered a coarse play with little to recommend it to the intelligentsia.

On the other hand however, writers like Thomas Heywood and Thomas Nashe praised battle scenes in general as oftentimes being intrinsic to the play and not simply vulgar distractions for the illiterate. In Piers Penniless (1592), Nashe praised the didactic element of drama that depicted battle and martial action, arguing that such plays were a good way of teaching both history and military tactics to the masses; in such plays “our forefather’s valiant acts (that have lain long buried in rusty brass and worm-eaten books) are revived.” Nashe also argued that plays that depict glorious national causes from the past rekindle a patriotic fervour that has been lost in “the puerility of an insipid present,” and that such plays “provide a rare exercise of virtue in reproof to these degenerate effeminate days of ours.”[23] Similarly, in An Apology for Actors (1612), Heywood writes, “So bewitching a thing is lively and well-spirited action, that it hath power to new mould the hearts of the spectators, and fashion them to the shape of any noble and notable attempt.”[24] More recently, Michael Goldman has argued that battle scenes are vital to the overall movement and purpose of the play; “the sweep of athletic bodies across the stage is used not only to provide an exciting spectacle but to focus and clarify, to render dramatic, the entire unwieldy chronicle.”[25]

Questions of originality and quality, however, are not the only critical disagreement 1 Henry VI has provoked. There are numerous other issues upon which critics are divided, not the least of which concerns the authorship of the play.

[edit] Attribution Studies

A number of Shakespeare’s early plays have been examined for signs of co-authorship (The Taming of the Shrew, The Contention (i.e. 2 Henry VI), and True Tragedy (i.e. 3 Henry VI) for example), but along with Titus Andronicus, 1 Henry VI stands as the most likely to have been a collaboration between Shakespeare and at least one, but possibly more, other dramatists whose identities remain unknown, although Thomas Nashe, Robert Greene, George Peele, Christopher Marlowe and Thomas Kyd are common proposals.[26]

The theory that Shakespeare may have written very little of 1 Henry VI was first suggested by Edmond Malone in his 1790 edition of Shakespeare’s plays, which included A Dissertation on the Three Parts of King Henry VI, in which he argued that the large number of classical allusions in the play was much more characteristic of Nash, Peele, or Greene than of early Shakespeare. Malone also argued that the language itself indicated someone other than Shakespeare. This view remained the predominate one until 1929, when it was challenged by Peter Alexander.[27] From that time forward, scholars have remained divided on the issue. In 1944, for example, E.M.W Tillyard argued that Shakespeare most likely wrote the entire play, whereas in 1952, John Dover Wilson passionately argued that Shakespeare wrote hardly any of it.

In perhaps the most exhaustive analysis of the debate, the 1995 article, “Shakespeare and Others: The Authorship of Henry the Sixth, Part One”, Gary Taylor suggests that approximately 18.7% of the play (3,846 out of 20,515 words) was written by Shakespeare. Taylor argues that Nashe almost certainly wrote all of Act 1, but he attributes to Shakespeare 2.4, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4., 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 through line 32. Taylor also suggests that the Temple Garden scene (2.4), in which the rival factions identify themselves through the selection of red and white roses, may have been a later addition. Scenes 4.5 to 4.7 include a series of rhyming couplets between Talbot and his son (4.5.15-4.7.50), which, while unusual to our ears, apparently had “an electric effect upon early audiences.”[28] Traditionally, these lines have often been pinpointed as one of the most obviously non-Shakespearian sections of the play. Roger Warren, for instance, argues that these scenes are written in a language “so banal they must be non-Shakespearean.”[29]

Other than Taylor, however, several other critics also disagree with Warren’s assessment of the quality of the language, arguing that the passages are more complex and accomplished than has hitherto been allowed for. Michael Taylor, for example, argues that “the rhyming dialogue between the Talbots – often stichomythic – shapes a kind of noble flyting match, a competition as to who can out-oblige the other.”[30] Similarly, Alexander Leggatt argues that the passages are a perfect blend of form and content: “The relentless click-click of the rhymes reinforces the point that for John Talbot, all arguments are arguments for death; as every other line ending is countered by a rhyme, so every argument Talbot gives John to flee becomes an argument for staying.”[31] Taylor and Leggatt are here arguing that the passages are more accomplished than most critics tend to give them credit for, thus offering a counter-argument to the theory that they are so poorly written, they couldn’t possibly be by Shakespeare. In this sense then, his failure to use couplets elsewhere in his tragedies or histories can thus be attributed to an aesthetic choice on his part, rather than offered as evidence of co-authorship.

Other scenes in the play have also been identifying as offering possible evidence of co-authorship. For example, the opening lines of Act 1, Scene 2 have been argued to show clear evidence of Nashe’s hand. The scene begins with Charles proclaiming, “Mars his true moving – even as in the heavens/So in the earth – to this day is not known” (I.ii.1–2). Some critics believe that this statement is paraphrased in Nashe’s later pamphlet Have with You to Saffron-Walden (1596), which contains the line, “You are as ignorant as the astronomers are in the true movings of Mars, which to this day, they never could attain to.”[32] The problem with this theory however, as Michael Hattaway has pointed out, is that there is no reason as to why Nashe couldn’t simply be paraphrasing a play with which he had no involvement, a common practice in Elizabethan literature (for example, Shakespeare and Marlowe often paraphrased one another’s plays).

Nasheeb Sheehan offers more evidence, again suggestive of Nashe, when Alençon compares the English to “Samsons and Goliases” (I.ii.33). The word ‘Golias’, Sheehan argues is unusual insofar as all bibles in Shakespeare’s day spelt the name ‘Goliath’, it was only in much older editions of the bible that it was spelt ‘Golias’. Sheehan concludes that the use of the arcane spelling is more indicative of Nashe, who was prone to using older spellings of certain words, than Shakespeare, who was less likely to do so.[33]

However, evidence of Shakespeare’s authorship has also been found within the play. For example, Samuel Johnson argued that the play was more competently written than King John, Richard II, 1 Henry IV, 2 Henry IV and Henry V, and therefore, not attributing it to Shakespeare based on quality made little sense. A similar point is made by Lawrence V. Ryan, who suggests that the play fits so well into Shakespeare’s overall style, with an intricate integration of form and content, that it was most likely written by him alone.[34]

Another aspect of the debate is the actual likelihood of Shakespeare collaborating at all. Some critics, such as Hattaway and Cairncross, argue that it is unlikely that a young, up-and-coming dramatist trying to make a name for himself would have collaborated with other authors so early in his career. On the other hand, Michael Taylor suggests “it is not difficult to construct an imaginary scenario that has a harassed author calling on friends and colleagues to help him construct an unexpectedly commissioned piece in a hurry.”[35] (obviously, this suggestion is based on the theory that The Contention and True Tragedy formed a two-part sequence that was extended into a trilogy due to its popularity).

Another argument that challenges the co-authorship idea is that the basic theory of co-authorship itself was originally hypothesised in the 18th and 19th century due to a distaste for the treatment of Joan. Critics were uncomfortable attributing such a harsh depiction to Shakespeare, so they embraced the co-authorship theory to ‘clear his name’—suggesting that he couldn’t have been responsible for the merciless characterisation of Joan, and as such, someone else must have written her scenes.[36]

As with the question of the order in which the trilogy was written, twentieth century editors and scholars remain staunchly divided on the question of authorship. Edward Burns, for example, in his 2000 edition of the play for the Arden Shakespeare 3rd series, suggests that it is highly unlikely that Shakespeare wrote alone, and throughout his introduction and commentary, he refers to the writer not as Shakespeare but as ‘the dramatists’. He also suggests that the play should be more properly called Harry VI, by Shakespeare, Nashe and others.[37] Burns’ predecessor however, Andrew S. Cairncross, editor of the play for the Arden Shakespeare 2nd series in 1962, ascribes the entire play to Shakespeare, as does Lawrence V. Ryan in his 1967 Signet Classic Shakespeare edition, and Michael Hattaway in his New Cambridge Shakespeare edition of 1990. In his 1952 edition of the play, Dover Wilson on the other hand, argued that the play was almost entirely written by others, and that Shakespeare actually had little to do with its composition. Speaking during a 1952 radio presentation of The Contention and True Tragedy, which he produced, Dover Wilson argued that he had not included 1 Henry VI because it is a “patchwork in which Shakespeare collaborated with inferior dramatists.”[38]

On the other hand, Michael Taylor believes that Shakespeare almost certainly wrote the entire play, as does J.J.M Tobin, who, in his essay in Henry VI: Critical Essays (2001), argues the similarities to Nashe do not reveal the hand of Nashe at work in the composition of the play, but instead reveal Shakespeare imitating Nashe. More recently, in 2005, Paul J. Vincent has re-examined the question in light of recent research into the Elizabethan theatre, concluding that 1 Henry VI is Shakespeare’s partial revision of a play by Nashe (Act 1) and an unknown playwright (Acts 2–5) and that it was the original, non-Shakespearean, play that was first performed on 3 March 1592. Shakespeare’s work in the play, which was most likely composed in 1594, can be found in Act 2 (scene 4) and Act 4 (scenes 2–5 and the first 32 lines of scene 7).[39] In 2007, Vincent’s authorship findings, especially with regard to Nashe’s authorship of Act 1, were supported overall by Brian Vickers, who agrees with the theory of co-authorship and differs only slightly over the extent of Shakespeare’s contribution to the play.[40]

As such, similarly to the question of the order of composition, critics remain staunchly divided on the issue of authorship.

[edit] Language

The very functioning of Language itself is literally a theme in the play, with particular emphasis placed on its ability to represent by means of signs (semiosis), the power of language to sway, the aggressive potential of language, the failure of language to adequately describe reality and the manipulation of language so as to hide the truth.

The persuasive power of language is first alluded to by Charles, who tells Joan after she has assured him she can end the siege of Orléans, “Thou hast astonished me with thy high terms” (1.2.93). This sense is repeated when the Countess of Auvergne is wondering about Talbot and says to her servant, “Great is the rumour of this dreadful knight,/And his achievements of no less account./Fain would mine eyes be witness with mine ears,/To give their censure of these rare reports” (2.3.7–10). Like Charles, Auvergne has been astonished with the ‘high terms’ bestowed on Talbot, and now she wishes to see if the report and the reality conflate. Later in the play, the persuasive power of language becomes important for Joan, as she uses it as a subterfuge to sneak into Rouen, telling her men, “Be wary how you place your words;/Talk like the vulgar sort of market men/That come to gather money for their corn” ( Later, she uses language to persuade Burgundy to join with the Dauphin against the English. As Burgundy realises he is succumbing to her rhetoric, he muses to himself, “Either she hath bewitched me with her words,/Or nature makes me suddenly relent” (3.3.58–59). Here, language is shown to be so powerful as to act on Burgundy the same way Nature itself would act, to the point where he is unsure if he has been persuaded by a natural occurrence or by Joan’s words. Language is thus presented as capable of transforming ideology. As Joan finishes her speech, Burgundy again attests to the power of her language, “I am vanquish’d. These haughty words of hers/Have battered me like roaring canon-shot,/And made me almost yield upon my knees” (3.3.78–80). Later, something similar happens with Henry, who agrees to marry Margaret merely because of Suffolk’s description of her. In a line that echoes Burgundy’s, Henry queries what it is that has prompted him to agree to Suffolk’s suggestion: “Whether it be through force of your report,/My noble lord of Suffolk, or for that/My tender youth was never yet attaint/With any passion of inflaming love, I cannot tell” (5.6.79–83). Here, again, the power of language is shown to be so strong as to be confused with a natural phenomenon.

Charles William Sharpe engraving of Talbot and the Countess of Auvergne by William Quiller Orchardson (1867)

Language can also be employed aggressively. For example, after the death of Salisbury, when Talbot first hears about Joan, he contemptuously refers to her and Charles as “Puzel or pussel, dolphin or dogfish” (1.5.85). In French, ‘puzel’ means slut, and ‘pussel’ is a variation of ‘pucelle’ (meaning virgin), but with an added negative connotation. These two words, ‘puzel’ and ‘pussel’, are both puns on Joan’s name (Pucelle), thus showing Talbot’s utter contempt for her.[41] Similarly, the use of the word ‘dolphin’ to describe the Dauphin carries negative and mocking connotations, as does the use of the word ‘dogfish’, a member of the shark family considered dishonourable scavengers, preying on anything and anyone.[42] Again, Talbot is showing his contempt for Charles’ position by exposing it to mockery with some simple word play.[43] Other examples of words employed aggressively are seen when the English reclaim Orléans, and a soldier chases the half-dressed French leaders from the city, declaring “The cry of ‘Talbot’ serves me for a sword,/For I have loaden me with many spoils,/Using no other weapon but his name” (2.1.81–83). A similar notion is found when the Countess of Auvergne meets Talbot, and muses, “Is this the Talbot so much feared abroad/That with his name the mothers still their babes” (2.3.15–16). Here words (specifically Talbot’s name) literally become weapons, and are used directly to strike fear into the enemy.

However although words are occasionally shown to be powerful and deeply persuasive, they also often fail in their signifying role, exposed as incapable of adequately representing reality. This idea is introduced by Gloucester at Henry V’s funeral, where he laments that words cannot encompass the life of such a great king: “What should I say? His deeds exceed all speech” (1.1.15). Later, when Gloucester and Winchester confront one another outside the Tower of London, Gloucester champions the power of real action over the power of threatening words: “I will not answer thee with words but blows” (1.3.69). Similarly, after the French capture Rouen and refuse to meet the English army in the battlefield, Bedford asserts, “O let no words, but deeds, revenge this treason” (3.2.48). Another example of the failure of language is found when Suffolk finds himself lost for words whilst attempting to woo Margaret: “Fain would I woo her, yet I dare not speak./I’ll call for pen and ink and write my mind./Fie, de la Pole, disable not thyself!/Hast not a tongue?” (5.4.21–24). Later, Joan’s words, so successful during the play in convincing others to support her, explicitly fail to save her life, as she is told by Warwick, “Strumpet, thy words condemn thy brat and thee./Use no entreaty, for it is in vain” (5.5.84–85).

Language as a system is also shown to be open to manipulation. Words can be employed for deceptive purposes, as the representative function of language gives way to deceit. For example, shortly after Charles has accepted Joan as his new commander, Alençon calls into question her sincerity, thus suggesting a possible discrepancy between her words and her actions; “These women are shrewd tempters with their tongues” (1.2.123). Another example occurs when Henry forces Winchester and Gloucester to put aside their animosity and shake hands. Their public words here stand in diametric opposition to their private intentions;

Well, Duke of Gloucester, I will yield to thee
Love for thy love, and hand for hand I give.

He takes Gloucester’s hand

(aside) Ay, but I fear me with a hollow heart.
(to others) See here, my friends and loving countrymen,
This token serveth for a flag of truce
Betwixt ourselves and all our followers.
So help me God as I dissemble not.

So help me God. (aside) As I intend it not.


Choosing the Red and White Roses by Henry Payne (1908)

Act 2, Scene 4 is perhaps the most important scene in the play in terms of language, as it is in this scene where Richard introduces the notion of what he calls “dumb significants”, something which will carry resonance throughout the trilogy. During his debate with Somerset, Richard points out to the lords who are unwilling to openly support either of them, “Since you are tongue tied and loath to speak,/In dumb significants proclaim your thoughts” (ll.25–26). The dumb significants to which he refers are roses; a red rose to join Somerset, a white rose to join Richard. As such, the roses essentially function as symbols, replacing the very need for language. Once all the lords have selected their rose, the roses then come to symbolise the House they represent. When Henry chooses a red rose, he is totally unaware of the implications of his actions, as he doesn’t understand the power the dumb significants have. He places all his trust in a more literal type of language, and thus selects a rose in what he thinks is a meaningless gesture, but which does in fact have profound implications. Henry’s mistake results directly from his failure to grasp the importance of silent actions and symbolic decisions; “a gesture – especially such an ill-considered one – is worth and makes worthless, a thousand pretty words.”[44]

[edit] Themes

[edit] Death of chivalry

A fundamental theme in the play is the death of chivalry, “the decline of England’s empire over France and the accompanying decay of the ideas of feudalism that had sustained the order of the realm.”[45] This is specifically manifested in the character of Talbot, the symbol of a dying breed of men honourably and selflessly devoted to the good of England, whose methods and style of leadership represent the last dying remnants of a now outmoded, feudal gallantry. As such, Michael Taylor refers to him as “the representative of a chivalry that was fast decaying,”[46] whilst Michael Hattaway sees him as “a figure for the nostalgia that suffuses the play, a dream of simple chivalric virtus like that enacted every year at Elizabeth‘s Accession Day tilts, a dream of true empire. He is designed to appeal to a popular audience, and his death scene where he calls for troops who do not appear is yet another demonstration of the destructiveness of aristocratic factionalism.”[47]

One of the clearest examples of Talbot’s adherence to the codes of chivalry is seen in his response to Fastolf’s desertion from the battlefield. As far as Talbot is concerned, Fastolf’s actions reveal him as a dishonourable coward who places self-preservation above self-sacrifice, and thus he represents everything wrong with the modern knight. This is in direct contrast to the chivalry that Talbot represents, a chivalry he remembers fondly from days gone by:

I vowed, base knight, when I did meet thee next,
To tear the garter from thy craven’s leg,
Which I have done because unworthily
Thou wast install’d in that high degree. –
Pardon me, princely Henry, and the rest.
This dastard, at the Battle of Patay,
When but in all I was six thousand strong,
And that the French were almost ten to one,
Before we met, or that a stroke was given,
Like to a trusty squire did run away;
In which assault we lost twelve hundred men.
Myself and divers gentlemen beside
Were there surprised and taken prisoners.
Then judge, great lords, if I have done amiss,
Or whether that such cowards ought to wear
This ornament of knighthood: yea or no?

To say the truth, this fact was infamous
And ill beseeming any common man,
Much more a knight, a captain, and a leader.

When first this order was ordained, my lords,
Knights of the garter were of noble birth,
Valiant and virtuous, full of haughty courage,
Such as were grown to credit by the wars;
Not fearing death nor shrinking for distress,
But always resolute in most extremes.
He then that is not furnished in this sort
Doth but usurp the sacred name of knight,
Profaning this most honourable order,
And should – if I were worthy to be judge –
Be quite degraded, like a hedge-born swain
That doth presume to boast of gentle blood.


Talbot’s description of Fastolf’s actions stands in direct contrast to the image of an ideal knight, and as such, the ideal and the reality serve to highlight one another, and thus reveal the discrepancy between them.

Similarly, just as Talbot uses knights to represent an ideal past, by remembering how they used to be chivalric, so too does Gloucester in relation to Henry V, who he also sees as representing a glorious and honourable past:

England ne’re had a king until his time.
Virtue he had, deserving to command;
His brandished sword did bind men with his beams,
His arms spread wider than a dragon‘s wings,
His sparkling eyes, replete with wrathful fire,
More dazzled and drove back his enemies
Than midday sun fierce bent against their faces.


Henry V has this function throughout much of the play; “he is presented not as a man but as a rhetorical construct fashioned out of hyperbole, as a heroic image or heraldic icon.”[48] He is seen as a representative of a celebrated past which can never be recaptured; “there is in the play a dominant, nostalgic, celebratory reminiscence of Henry V who lives on in the immortality of preternatural legend.”[49]

The Maid of Orléans by Henrietta Ward (1871)

The play, however, doesn’t simply depict the fall of one order, it also depicts the rise of another; “How the nation might have remained true to itself is signified by the words and deeds of Talbot. What she is in danger of becoming is signified by the shortcomings of the French, failings that crop up increasingly amongst Englishman [...] also manifest are an English decline towards French effeminacy and the beginnings of reliance upon fraud and cunning rather than manly courage and straightforward manly virtue.”[50] If the old mode of honourable conduct is specifically represented by Talbot and Henry V, the new mode of duplicity and Machiavellianism is represented by Joan, who employs a type of warfare with which Talbot is simply unable to cope. This is seen most clearly when she sneaks into Rouen and subsequently refuses to face Talbot in a battle. Talbot finds this kind of behaviour incomprehensible and utterly dishonourable. As such, he finds himself fighting an enemy who uses tactics he is incapable of understanding; with the French using what he sees as unconventional methods, he proves unable to adapt. This represents one of the ironies in the play’s depiction of chivalry; it is the very resoluteness of Talbot’s honour and integrity, his insistence in preserving an old code abandoned by all others, which ultimately defeats him; his inability to adjust means he becomes unable to function in the newly established ‘dishonourable’ context. As such, the play is not entirely nostalgic about chivalry; “so often the tenets of chivalry are mocked by word and action. The play is full of moments of punctured aristocratic hauteur.”[51]

Talbot’s mode of chivalry is replaced by politicians concerned only with themselves and their own advancement: Winchester, Somerset, Suffolk, even Richard. Narcissistic political infighting has supplanted self-sacrificing patriotism and chivalry: “the play charts the disastrous breakdown of civility among the English nobility.”[52] Nobles concerned with personal power above all else have replaced knights concerned only with the empire. As such, by the end of the play, both Talbot and his son lay dead, as does the notion of English chivalry. In this sense then, the play “depicts the deaths of the titanic survivors of an ancien régime.”[53]

[edit] Patriotism

Hand-in-hand with the examination of chivalry with which the play engages is an examination of patriotism. Indeed, some critics argue that it was patriotism which provided the impetus for the play in the first place. Although England had defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588, leading to a short-lived period of international confidence and patriotic pride, the national mood by 1590 was one of despondency, and as such, 1 Henry VI may have been commissioned to help dispel this mood: “The patriotic emotions to which this play shamelessly appeals resonate at an especially fragile time politically speaking. Frightening memories of the 1588 Spanish Armada, or of the Babington Plot of 1586, which led to the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots; concerns over a noticeably declining and still unmarried Queen Elizabeth; worries over Catholic recusancy; fear of military involvement in Europe, and, just as disquietingly, in Ireland, combine to make a patriotic response a matter of some urgency. [The play] is a bracing attempt to stiffen the sinews of the English in a time of danger and deceit.”[54]

Evidence of this is seen throughout. For example, the English seem vastly outnumbered in every battle, yet they never give up, and oftentimes they prove victorious. Indeed, even when they do lose, the suggestion is often made that it was because of treachery, as only by duplicitous means could their hardiness be overcome. For example, during the Battle of Patay (where Talbot is captured), the messenger reports,

The tenth of August last, this dreadful lord [ie Talbot],
Retiring from the siege of Orléans,
Having full scarce six thousand in his troop,
By three-and-twenty thousand of the French
Was round encompass’d and set upon:
No leisure had he to enrank his men.
He wanted pikes to set before his archers;
Instead whereof sharp stakes plucked out of hedges
They pitch’d in the ground confusedly
To keep the horsemen off from breaking in.
More than three hours the fight continu’d,
Where valiant Talbot, above human thought,
Enacted wonders with his sword and lance.
Hundreds he sent to hell, and none durst stand him;
Here, there, and everywhere, enraged he slew.
The French exclaimed the devil was in arms:
All the whole army stood agazed on him.
His soldiers, spying his undaunted spirit,
‘À Talbot! À Talbot!’ cried out amain,
And rushed into the bowels of the battle.
Here had the conquest fully been sealed up
If Sir John Fastolf had not played the coward.
He, being in the vanguard placed behind,
With purpose to relieve and follow them,
Cowardly fled, not having struck one stroke.
Hence flew the general wrack and massacre;
Enclos’d were they with their enemies.
A base Walloon, to win the Dauphin’s grace,
Thrust Talbot with a spear into the back –
Whom all France, with their chief assembled strength,
Durst not presume to look once in the face.


Here Fastolf’s betrayal is the direct cause of the English defeat, not the fact that they were outnumbered ten-to-one, that they were hit by a surprise attack or that they were surrounded. This notion is returned to several times, with the implication each time that only treachery can account for an English defeat. For example, upon hearing of the first loss of towns in France, Exeter immediately asks, “How were they lost? What treachery was used?” (1.1.68). Upon losing Rouen, Talbot exclaims, “France, thou shalt rue this treason with thy tears/If Talbot but survive thy treachery” (3.2.35–36). Later, when thinking back on the French campaign, Richard asks Henry, “Have we not lost most part of all the towns/By treason, falsehood and by treachery” (5.5.108–109).

H.C. Selous’ illustration of Talbot engaging in battle in Act 4, Scene 6; from The Plays of William Shakespeare: The Historical Plays, edited by Charles Cowden Clarke and Mary Cowden Clarke (1830)

However if the English are of the mind that they can only be defeated by treachery and betrayal, the play also presents the French as somewhat in awe of them, bearing a begrudging respect for them, and fearing their strength in battle. As such, whilst the English attribute every defeat to treachery, the French opinion of the English seems to imply that perhaps this is indeed the only way to beat them. For example, during the siege of Orléans:

Froissart, a countryman of ours, records
England all Olivers and Rolands bred
During the time Edward the Third did reign.
More truly now may this be verified,
For none but Samsons and Goliases
It sendeth forth to skirmish. One to ten?
Lean raw-boned rascals – who would e’er suppose
They had such courage and audacity.

Let’s leave this town, for they are hare-brained slaves,
And hunger will enforce them to be more eager.
Of old I know them; rather with their teeth
The walls they’ll tear down than forsake the siege.

I think by some odd gimmers or device
Their arms are set, like clocks, still to strike on,
Else n’er could they hold out as they do.


As such, the play presents, to a certain extent, the English image of themselves as somewhat in line with the French image of them, with both stressing resoluteness and steadfastness.

Another component of the patriotic sentiment is the religious note the play oftentimes strikes. On the whole, everything Catholic is represented as bad, everything Protestant is represented as good: “The play’s popularity [in 1592] has to be seen against the backdrop of an extraordinary efflorescence of interest in political history in the last two decades of the sixteenth century fed by self-conscious patriotic Protestantism’s fascination with its own biography in history. It is not for nothing that Part One is persistently anti-Catholic in a number of ways despite the fact that in the fifteenth century the entire population of England was nominally Catholic (though not, of course, in 1592). The French are presented as decadently Catholic, the English (with the exception of the Bishop of Winchester) as attractively Protestant.”[55] Talbot himself is an element of this, insofar as his “rhetoric is correspondingly Protestant. His biblical references are all from the Old Testament (a source less fully used by Catholics) and speak of stoicism and individual faith.”[56] Henry V is also cited as an example of Protestant purity: “He was a king blest of the King of Kings./Unto the French the dreadful judgement day/So dreadful will not be as was his sight./The battles of the Lords of Hosts he fought” (1.1.28–31). “King of kings” is a phrase used in 1 Timothy, 6:15. “Lords of Hosts” is used throughout the Old Testament, and to say Henry fought for the Lord of Hosts is to compare him to the Christian warrior king, David, who also fought for the Lords of Hosts in 1 Samuel, 25:28.

However, despite the obvious celebratory patriotic tone and sense of Protestant/English religio-political identity, as with the lamentation for the death of chivalry, the play is somewhat ambiguous in its overall depiction of patriotism. Ultimately, the play depicts how the English lost France, a seemingly strange subject matter if Shakespeare was attempting to instil a sense of national pride in the people. This is rendered even more so when one considers that Shakespeare could have written about how England won France in the first place: “The popularity of “Armada rhetoric” during the time of 1 Henry VI’s composition would have seemed to ask for a play about Henry V, not one which begins with his death and proceeds to dramatise English loses.”[57] In this sense then, the depiction of patriotism, although undoubtedly strong, is not without ambiguity; the very story told by the play renders any patriotic sentiment found within to be something of a hollow victory.

[edit] Saintly vs. demonic

Joan and the Furies by William Hamilton (1790)

Demons, spirits, witches, saints and God are all mentioned on numerous occasions within the play, oftentimes relating directly to Joan, who is presented as “a fascinating mixture of saint, witch, naïve girl, clever woman, audacious warrior and sensual tart.”[58] The English continually refer to her as a witch and a whore, the French as a saint and a saviour, and the play itself seems to waver between these two poles: “Joan first appears in a state of beatitude, patient, serene, the “Divinest creature” of Charles’ adoration, the object of the Virgin Mary‘s miraculous intercession, chosen by her to rescue France, and so made beautiful, courageous and wise [...] on the other hand, and virtually at the same time, she’s clearly an early combination of the demonic, the Machiavellian, and the Marlovian.”[59]

Joan is introduced into the play by the Bastard, who, even before anyone has seen or met her, says, “A holy maid hither with me I bring” (1.2.51). Later, after Joan has helped the French lift the siege of Orléans, Charles declares, “No longer on Saint Denis will we cry, but Joan la Pucelle shall be France’s saint” (1.7.28–30). Similarly, when Joan reveals her plan to turn Burgundy against the English, Alençon declares, “We’ll set thy statute in some holy place/And have thee reverenced like a blessed saint” (3.3.14–15).

On the other hand however, the English see her as a demon. Prior to her combat with Talbot, he exclaims, “Devil or devil’s dam, I’ll conjure thee./Blood will I draw on thee – thou art a witch –/And straightway give thy soul to him thou serv’st” (1.6.5–7). Then, after the fight, he says, “My thoughts are whirl’d like a potter’s wheel./I know not where I am nor what I do./A witch, by fear, not force, like Hannibal,/Drives back our troops and conquers as she lists” (1.6.19–22). Upon arriving in France, Bedford condemns Charles for aligning himself with Joan: “How much he wrongs his fame,/Despairing of his own arms’ fortitude,/To join with witches and the help of hell” (2.1.16–18). Talbot responds to this with, “Well, let them practice and converse with spirits./God is our fortress” (2.1.25–26). Later, Talbot refers to her as “Pucelle, that witch, that damn’d sorceress” (3.2.37) and “Foul fiend of France, and hag of all despite” (3.2.51), declaring “I speak not to that railing Hecate” (3.2.64). Prior to executing her, York also calls her a “Fell banning hag” (5.2.42).

Joan herself addresses this issue as she is about to be executed:

First let me tell you whom you have condemned:
Not me begotten of a shepherd swain,
But issued from the progeny of kings;
Virtuous and holy, chosen from above
By inspiration of celestial grace
To work exceeding miracles on earth.
I never had to do with wicked spirits;
But you, that are polluted with your lusts,
Stained with the guiltless blood of innocents,
Corrupt and tainted with a thousand vices –
Because you want the grace that others have,
You judge it straight a thing impossible
To compass wonders but by help of devils.
No, misconceiv’d, Joan of Arc hath been
A virgin from her tender infancy,
Chaste and immaculate in very thought,
Whose maiden blood, thus rigorously effused,
Will cry for vengeance at the gates of heaven.


Having failed in her efforts to convince the English she is a holy virgin, and that killing her will invoke the wrath of heaven, she alters her story and claims she is pregnant, hoping they will spare her for the sake of the child. She then lists off various French nobles who could be her child’s father in an effort to find one who the English respect. In this sense then, Joan leaves the play as neither saintly nor demonic, but as a frightened woman pleading fruitlessly for her life.

An important question in any examination of Joan is the question of whether or not she is a unified, stable character who vacillates from saintly to demonic, or a poorly constructed character, now one thing, now the other. According to Edward Burns, “Joan cannot be read as a substantive realist character, a unified subject with a coherent singly identity.”[60]

Michael Hattaway offers an alternate, sympathetic view of Joan which argues that the character’s movement from saintly to demonic is justified within the text: “Joan is the play’s tragic figure, comparable with Faulconbridge in King John. She turns to witchcraft only in despair; it cannot be taken as an unequivocal manifestation of diabolic power.”[61]

Another theory is that Joan is actually a comic figure, and the huge alterations in her character are supposed to evoke laughter. Michael Taylor, for example, argues, “A fiendish provenance replaces a divine one in [Act 5, Scene 5], a scene that reduces Joan to a comic, bathetic dependency on shifty representatives of the underworld.”[62] In line with this thinking, it is worth pointing out that in the 1981 BBC Television Shakespeare adaptation,[63] Joan, and the French in general, are treated predominately as comic figures. Joan (Brenda Blethyn), Alençon (Michael Byrne), the Bastard (Brian Protheroe), Reignier (David Daker) and Charles (Ian Saynor) are treated as buffoons for the most part, and there is no indication of any malevolence (significantly, when Joan’s fiends abandon her, we never see them, we simply see her talking to empty air). Examples of the comic treatment of the characters are found during the battle of Orléans, where Joan is ludicrously depicted as defending the city from the entire English army single-handed, whilst Talbot stands by incredulously watching his soldiers flee one after another. Another example appears in Act 2, Scene 1, as the five of them blame one another for the breach in the watch at Orléans that allowed the English back into the city. Their role as comic figures is also shown in Act 3, Scene 2. After Joan has entered Rouen and the others stand outside waiting for her signal. Charles is shown sneaking through a field holding a helmet with a large plume up in front of his face in an effort to hide.

The notion of demonic agency and saintly power, however, is not confined to Joan. For example, in the opening conversation of the play, speculating as to how Talbot could have been taken prisoner, Exeter exclaims “shall we think the subtle-witted French/Conjurers and sorcerers, that, afraid of him,/By magic verse have contrived his end” (1.1.25-27). Later, discussing the French capture of Orléans, Talbot claims it was “contrived by art and baleful sorcery” (2.1.15). Indeed, the French make similar claims about the English. During the Battle of Patay for example, according to the messenger, “The French exclaimed the devil was in arms” (1.1.125). Later, as the English attack Orléans,

I think this Talbot be a fiend of hell.

If not of hell, the heavens sure favour him.


Here, much as the English had done when they were being defeated by Joan, the French attribute diabolic power to their vanquishers. Unlike the English however, the French acknowledge that Talbot must be either a demon or a saint. As far as the English are concerned, Joan is demonic, it is not open to question.

[edit] Performance

Poster from Michael Boyd’s 2000 production

After the original 1592 performances, the complete text of 1 Henry VI seems to have been rarely acted. The first definite performance after Shakespeare’s day was on 13 March 1738 at Covent Garden, in what seems to have been a stand-alone performance, as there is no record of a performance of either 2 Henry VI or 3 Henry VI.[64] The next certain performance in England didn’t occur until 1906, when F.R. Benson presented the play at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre in a production of Shakespeare’s two tetralogies, performed over eight nights. As far as can be ascertained, this was not only the first performance of the octology, but was also the first definite performance of both the tetralogy and the trilogy. Benson himself played Henry and his wife, Constance Benson, played Margaret.[65]

In 1953, Douglas Seale directed a production of 1 Henry VI at the Birmingham Repertory Theatre, following successful productions of 2 Henry VI in 1951 and 3 Henry VI in 1952. All three plays starred Paul Daneman as Henry and Rosalind Boxall as Margaret, with 1 Henry VI featuring Derek Godfrey as Talbot and Judi Dench as Joan.

A production which made much of its unedited status came in 1977, at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre, where Terry Hands presented all three Henry VI plays with Alan Howard as Henry and Helen Mirren as Margaret. Although the production was only moderately successful at the box office, it was critically lauded at the time for Alan Howard’s unique portrayal of Henry. Howard adopted historical details concerning the real Henry’s madness into his performance, presenting the character as constantly on the brink of a mental and emotional breakdown. Possibly as a reaction to a recent adaptation of the trilogy under the general title Wars of the Roses, which was strongly political, Hands attempted to ensure his own production was entirely apolitical: “Wars of the Roses was a study in power politics: its central image was the conference table, and Warwick, the scheming king-maker, was the central figure. But that’s not Shakespeare. Shakespeare goes far beyond politics. Politics is a very shallow science.”[66] Aside from Howard and Mirren, the production starred David Swift as Talbot and Charlotte Cornwell as Joan.

Under the direction of Michael Boyd the play was presented at the Swan Theatre in Stratford in 2000, with David Oyelowo as Henry and Keith Bartlett as Talbot. Both Margaret and Joan were played by Fiona Bell (as Joan is burned, Bell symbolically rose from the ashes as Margaret). The play was presented with the five other history plays to form a complete eight-part history cycle under the general title This England: The Histories (the first time the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) had ever attempted to stage the eight plays as one sequence). This England: The Histories was revived in 2006, as part of the Complete Works festival at the Courtyard Theatre, with the Henry VI plays again directed by Boyd, and starring Chuk Iwuji as Henry and Keith Bartlett reprising his role as Talbot. Katy Stephens played both Margaret and Joan. When the Complete Works wrapped in March 2007, the history plays remained on stage, under the shorter title The Histories, as part of a two-year thirty-four actor ensemble production. 1 Henry VI was performed under the title Henry VI, Part 1: The War Against France. At the end of the two-year programme, the entire octology was performed over a four-day period under the title The Glorious Moment; Richard II was staged on a Thursday evening, followed by the two Henry IV plays on Friday afternoon and evening, the three Henry VI plays on Saturday (two afternoon performances and one evening performance), and Richard III on Sunday evening.[67]

Boyd’s production garnered much attention at the time because of his interpolations and additions to the text. Most notably, Boyd introduced a new character into the trilogy. Called The Keeper, the character never speaks, but upon the death of each major character, the Keeper (played by Edward Clayton in 2000, and by Anthony Bunsee in 2006/2007), wearing all red, would walk onto stage and approach the body. The actor playing the body would then stand up and allow himself to be led off-stage by the figure. The production was also particularly noted for its realistic violence. According to Robert Gore-Langton of the Daily Express, in his review of the original 2000 production, “blood from a severed arm sprayed over my lap. A human liver slopped to the floor by my feet. An eyeball scudded past, then a tongue.”[68]

Apart from the 1738 performance at Covent Garden (about which nothing is known), there is no evidence of 1 Henry VI having ever been performed as a stand-alone play, unlike both 2 Henry VI (which was initially staged as a single play by Douglas Seale in 1951) and 3 Henry VI (which was staged as a single play by Katie Mitchell in 1994).[69]

Outside the UK, the first major American performance was in 1935 at the Pasadena Playhouse in California, directed by Gilmore Brown, as part of a production of all ten Shakespearean histories (the two tetralogies, preceded by King John and proceeded by Henry VIII).

In Europe, unedited stagings of the play took place at the Weimar Court Theatre in 1857. Directed by Franz von Dingelstedt, it was performed as the sixth part of the octology, with all eight plays staged over a ten day period. A major production was staged at the Burgtheater in Vienna in 1873, with a celebrated performance from Friedrich Mitterwurzer as Winchester. Jocza Savits directed a production of the tetralogy at the Munich Court Theatre in 1889 and again in 1906. In 1927, Saladin Schmitt presented the unedited octology at the Municipal Theatre in Bochum. Denis Llorca staged the tetralogy as one twelve-hour piece in Carcassonne in 1978 and in Créteil in 1979.

[edit] Adaptations

[edit] Theatrical

Evidence for the first adaptation of 1 Henry VI is not found until 1817, when Edmund Kean appeared in J.H. Merivale‘s Richard Duke of York; or the Contention of York and Lancaster at Drury Lane, which used material from all three Henry VI plays, but removed everything not directly related to York; the play ended with his death, which occurs in Act 1, Scene 4 of 3 Henry VI. Material used from 1 Henry VI includes the Temple Garden scene, the Mortimer scene and the introduction of Margaret.

Following Merivale’s example, Robert Atkins adapted all three plays into a single piece for a performance at The Old Vic in 1923 as part of the celebrations for the tercentenary of the First Folio. Guy Martineau played Henry, Esther Whitehouse played Margaret, Ernest Meads played Talbot and Jane Bacon played Joan.

Joan (Katy Stephens) is burned alive in Michael Boyd’s 2006 production at the Courtyard Theatre

The success of the 1951–1953 Douglas Seale stand-alone productions of each of the individual plays in Birmingham prompted him to present the three plays together at the Old Vic in 1957 under the general title The Wars of the Roses. Barry Jackson adapted the text, altering the trilogy into a two part play. 1 Henry VI and 2 Henry VI were combined (with almost all of 1 Henry VI eliminated) and 3 Henry VI was edited. Seale again directed, with Paul Daneman again appearing as Henry, alongside Barbara Jefford as Margaret. The roles of both Talbot and Joan were removed, and 1 Henry VI was reduced to three scenes – the funeral of Henry V, the Temple Garden scene and the introduction of Margaret.

The production usually credited with establishing the reputation of the play in the modern theatre is John Barton and Peter Hall’s 1963/1964 RSC production of the tetralogy, adapted into a three-part series, under the general title The Wars of the Roses, at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre. The first play (entitled simply Henry VI) featured a much shortened version of 1 Henry VI and half of 2 Henry VI (up to the death of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester). The second play (entitled Edward IV) featured the second half of 2 Henry VI and a shortened version of 3 Henry VI, which was followed by a shortened version of Richard III as the third play. In all, 1,450 lines written by Barton were added to 6,000 lines of original Shakespearean material, with a total of 12,350 lines removed.[70] The production starred David Warner as Henry, Peggy Ashcroft as Margaret, Derek Smith (later replaced by Clive Swift) as Talbot and Janet Suzman as Joan.[71][72] Barton and Hall were both especially concerned that the plays reflect the contemporary political environment, with the civil chaos and breakdown of society depicted in the plays mirrored in the contemporary milieu, by events such as the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961, the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963. Hall allowed these events to reflect themselves in the production, arguing that “we live among war, race riots, revolutions, assassinations, and the imminent threat of extinction. The theatre is, therefore, examining fundamentals in staging the Henry VI plays.”[73]

Another major adaptation was staged in 1987 by the English Shakespeare Company, under the direction of Michael Bogdanov. This touring production opened at the Old Vic, and subsequently toured for two years, performing at, amongst other places, the Panasonic Globe Theatre in Tokyo, Japan (as the inaugural play of the arena), the Festival dei Due Mondi in Spoleto, Italy and at the Adelaide Festival of Arts in Australia. Following the structure established by Barton and Hall, Bogdanov combined a heavily edited 1 Henry VI and the first half of 2 Henry VI into one play (Henry VI), and the second half of 2 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI into another (Edward IV), and followed them with an edited Richard III. Also like Barton and Hall, Bogdanov concentrated on political issues, although he made them far more overt than had his predecessors. For example, played by June Watson, Margaret was closely modelled after the British Prime Minister at the time, Margaret Thatcher, even to the point of having similar clothes and hair. Likewise, Paul Brennan‘s Henry was closely modelled after King Edward VIII, prior to his abdication.[74] Bogdanov also employed frequent anachronisms and contemporary visual registers (such as modern dress), in an effort to show the relevance of the politics to the contemporary period. The production was noted for its pessimism as regards British politics, with some critics feeling the political resonances were too heavy handed.[75] However, the series was a huge box office success. Alongside Watson and Brennan, the play starred Michael Fenner as Talbot and Mary Rutherford as Joan.

Another adaptation of the tetralogy by the Royal Shakespeare Company followed in 1988, performed at the Barbican. Adapted by Charles Wood and directed by Adrian Noble, the Barton/Hall structure was again followed, reducing the trilogy to two plays by dividing 2 Henry VI in the middle. The resulting trilogy was entitled The Plantagenets, with the individual plays entitled Henry VI, The Rise of Edward IV and Richard III, His Death. Starring Ralph Fiennes as Henry, Penny Downie as Margaret, Mark Hadfield as Talbot and Julia Ford as Joan, the production was extremely successful with both audiences and critics.

Michael Bogdanov and the English Shakespeare Company presented a different adaptation at the Grand Theatre in Swansea in 1991, using the same cast as on the touring production. All eight plays from the history cycle were presented over a seven night period, with each play receiving one performance only, and with only twenty-eight actors portraying the nearly five hundred roles. Whilst the other five plays in the cycle were unadapted, the Henry VI plays were combined into two, using the Barton/Hall structure, with the first named The House of Lancaster and the second, The House of York.

In 2000, Edward Hall presented the trilogy as a two-part series at the Watermill Theatre in Newbury. Hall followed the Jackson/Seale structure, combining 1 Henry VI and 2 Henry VI into one play that all but eliminated 1 Henry VI, and following this with an edited version of 3 Henry VI. This production was noted for how it handled the violence of the play. The set was designed to look like an abattoir, but rather than attempt to present the violence realistically (as most productions do), Hall went in the other direction, presenting the violence symbolically. Whenever a character was decapitated or killed, a red cabbage was sliced up whilst the actor mimed the death beside it.

In 2001, Tom Markus directed an adaptation of the tetralogy at the Colorado Shakespeare Festival. Condensing all fours plays into one, Markus named the play Queen Margaret, doing much the same with the character of Margaret as Merivale had done with York. Margaret was played by Gloria Biegler, Henry by Richard Haratine, York by Lars Tatom and Gloucester by Charles Wilcox. The only scene from 1 Henry VI was the meeting between Margaret and Suffolk.

Poster from the 2001 Shakespeare’s Rugby Wars

Another unusual 2001 adaptation of the tetralogy was entitled Shakespeare’s Rugby Wars. Written by Matt Toner and Chris Coculuzzi, and directed by Coculuzzi, the play was acted by the Upstart Crow Theatre Group and staged outdoors at the Robert Street Playing Field as part of the Toronto Fringe Festival. Presented as if it were a live rugby match between York and Lancaster, the ‘play’ featured commentary from Falstaff (Stephen Flett), which was broadcast live for the audience. The ‘match’ itself was refereed by ‘Bill Shakespeare’ (played by Coculuzzi), and the actors (whose characters names all appeared on their jerseys) had microphones attached and would recite dialogue from all four plays at key moments.[76]

In 2002, Leon Rubin presented the tetralogy as a trilogy at the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Ontario. Using the Barton/Hall method of combining 1 Henry VI with the first half of 2 Henry VI, and the second half of 2 Henry VI with 3 Henry VI, the plays were renamed Henry VI: Revenge in France and Henry VI: Revolt in England. Michael Thierry played Henry, Seana McKenna played Margaret, Brad Ruby played Talbot and Michelle Giroux played Joan.

Also in 2002, Edward Hall and the Propeller Company presented a one-play all-male cast modern dress adaptation of the trilogy at the Watermill Theatre. Under the title Rose Rage, Hall used a cast of only thirteen actors to portray the nearly one hundred and fifty speaking roles in the four-hour production, thus necessitating doubling and tripling of parts. Although a new adaptation, this production followed the Jackson/Seale method of eliminating almost all of 1 Henry VI (Joan was completely absent). The original cast included Jonathan McGuinness as Henry, Robert Hands as Margaret and Keith Bartlett as Talbot. After a successful run at the Watermill, the play moved to the Chicago Shakespeare Theater. The American cast included Carman Lacivita as Henry, Scott Parkinson as Margaret and Fletcher McTaggart as Talbot.[77]

Outside England, a major adaptation of the tetralogy took place in 1864 in Weimar under the direction of Franz von Dingelstedt, who, seven years previously had staged the play unedited. Dingelstedt turned the trilogy into a two-parter under the general name Die weisse rose. The first play was called Haus Lancaster, the second Haus York. This adaptation was unique insofar as both plays were created by combining material from all three Henry VI plays. Following this structure, Alfred von Walzogen also produced a two-part play in 1875, under the general title Edward IV. Another European adaptation was in 1965 at the Teatro Piccolo in Milan. Directed by Giorgio Strehler it went under the title Il gioco del potenti (The Play of the Mighty). Using Barton and Hall’s structure, Strehler also added several characters, including a Chorus, who used monologues from Richard II, both parts of Henry IV, Henry V, Macbeth and Timon of Athens, and two gravediggers called Bevis and Holland (after the names of two of Cade’s rebels in the Folio text of 2 Henry VI), who commented (with dialogue written by Strehler himself) on each of the major characters as they set about burying them.[78] A major German adaptation was Peter Palitzsch’s two-part adaptation of the tilogy as Der krieg der rosen in 1967 at the Stuttgart State Theatre. Condensing the three plays into two, Heinrich VI and Eduard IV, Palitzsch’s adaptation concluded with the opening monologue from Richard III.[79]

[edit] Television

The first television adaptation of the play was in 1960 when the BBC produced a serial entitled An Age of Kings. The show comprised fifteen one-hour episodes that adapted all eight of Shakespeare’s sequential history plays. Directed by Michael Hayes and produced by Peter Dews, with a script by Eric Crozier, the production featured Terry Scully as Henry, Mary Morris as Margaret and Eileen Atkins as Joan. The character of Talbot was removed. The ninth episode, under the title ‘The Red Rose and the White‘ presented a heavily abridged version of 1 Henry VI.

In 1965, BBC 1 broadcast all three plays from John Barton and Peter Hall’s The Wars of the Roses trilogy (Henry VI, The Rise of Edward IV and Richard III) with David Warner as Henry and Peggy Ashcroft as Margaret. The play was presented as more than simply filmed theatre however. At certain performances of the plays, cameramen with hand-held cameras were allowed on stage to shoot battle scenes, and camera platforms were created around the theatre. In all, twelve cameras were used to record the performance, allowing the final product to be edited more like a film than a piece of static filmed theatre. Filming was done following the 1964 run of the plays at Stratford-upon-Avon, and took place over an eight-week period. In 1966, the production was repeated on BBC 1 where it was re-edited into eleven episodes of fifty minutes each.[80]

Joan (Brenda Blethyn) vows to lead the French to victory in Act 1, Scene 2. Behind her stand Alençon (Michael Byrne), Charles (Ian Saynor), Reignier (David Daker) and the Bastard (Brian Protheroe)

Another television version of the play was produced by the BBC in 1981 for their BBC Television Shakespeare series, although the episode didn’t air until 1983. Directed by Jane Howell, the play was presented as the first part of the tetralogy (all four adaptations directed by Howell) with linked casting. Henry was played by Peter Benson, Margaret by Julia Foster, Talbot by Trevor Peacock and Joan by Brenda Blethyn. All four plays were set in a children’s playground area, which decayed and became more and more dilapidated as the plays went on and social order became more fractious.

For the most part, Howell’s The First Part of Henry the Sixt is taken word-for-word from the First Folio, with only some relatively minor differences. For example, the adaptation opens differently to the play, with Henry VI singing a lament for his father. Another difference is that Fastolf’s escape from Rouen is seen rather than merely mentioned. Also worth noting is that Act 5, Scene 1 and Act 5, Scene 2 are reversed so that Act 4, Scene 7 and Act 5, Scene 2 now form one continuous piece.

Additionally, numerous lines were cut from almost every scene. Some of the more notable omissions include; in Act 1, Scene 1, absent are Bedford’s references to children crying and England becoming a marsh since Henry V died: “Posterity await for wretched years/When, at their mothers’ moistened eyes, babes shall suck,/Our isle be made a marish of salt tears,/And none but women left to wail the dead.” (ll.48–51). In Act 1, Scene 2, Alençon’s praise of the resoluteness of the English army is absent: “Froissart, a countryman of ours, records/England all Olivers and Rolands bred/During the time Edward the Third did reign./More truly now may this be verified,/For none by Samsons and Goliases/It sendeth forth to skirmish.” (ll.29–34). In Act 1, Scene 3, some of the dialogue between Gloucester and Winchester outside the Tower is absent (ll.36–43), whilst in Act 1, Scene 5, so too is Talbot’s complaint about the French wanting to ransom him for a prisoner of less worth: “But with a baser man-of-arms by far,/Once in contempt they would have bartered me—/Which I, disdaining, scorned, and crav’d death/Rather than I would be so vile-esteemed” (ll.8–11). In Act 1, Scene 7, some of Charles’ praise of Joan is absent: “A statelier pyramis to her I’ll rear/Than Rhodope’s of Memphis ever was./In memory of her, when she is dead,/Her ashes, in an urn more precious/Than the rich-jewelled coffer of Darius,/Transported shall be at high festivals/Before the kings and queens of France” (ll.21–27). In Act 3, Scene 1, some of Warwick’s attack on Winchester is absent: “You see what mischief – and what murder too –/Hath been enacted through your enmity” (ll.27–28). In Act 4, Scene 6, some of the dialogue between Talbot and John has been removed (ll.6–25). The most interesting omissions come in Act 4, Scene 7. In this scene, twelve of Joan’s sixteen lines have been cut; the entire seven line speech where she says John Talbot refused to fight her because she is a woman (ll.37–43); the first three lines of her five line mockery of Lucy’s listing of Talbot’s titles, “Here’s a silly, stately style indeed./The Turk, that two-and-fifty kingdoms hath,/Writes not so tedious a style as this” (ll.72–75); and the first two lines of her four line speech where she mocks Lucy, “I think this upstart is old Talbot’s ghost,/He speaks with such a proud commanding spirit” (ll.86–88). These omissions reduce Joan’s role in this scene to a virtual spectator, and coupled with this, Brenda Blethyn portrays the character as if deeply troubled by something (presumably the loss of contact with her ‘fiends’).

Another notable stylistic technique used in the adaptation is the multiple addresses direct-to-camera. Much more so than in any of the sequels, the adaptation of 1 Henry VI has multiple characters addressing the camera continually throughout the play, oftentimes for comic effect. The most noticeable scene in this respect is Act 2, Scene 3, where Talbot meets the Countess of Auvergne. Almost all of her dialogue prior to line 32 (“If thou be he, then thou art prisoner”) is delivered direct to camera, including her incredulous description of the difference between the real Talbot, and the reports she has heard of him. At one point during this speech, Auvergne exclaims “Alas, this is a child, a silly dwarf” (l.21), at which point Talbot himself looks at the camera in disbelief. The comedy of the scene is enhanced by having the 5-foot 10 actor Trevor Peacock playing Talbot, and the 6-foot 3 actress Joanna McCallum playing Auvergne. Elsewhere, addresses to the camera are found throughout the play. For example, as Bedford, Gloucester, Exeter and Winchester leave in Act 1, Scene 1, each one reveals their intentions direct-to-camera (ll.166–177). Other examples are Joan’s confession of where she got her sword (1.2.100–101); the Mayor’s last two lines at the Tower (1.3.89–90); Talbot’s “My thoughts are whirl’d like a potter’s wheel./I know not where I am nor what I do./A witch, by fear, not force, like Hannibal,/Drives back our troops and conquers as she lists” (1.6.19–22); some of Mortimer’s monologue prior to the arrival of Richard (2.5.22–32); Richard’s “Plantagenet, I see, must hold his tongue,/Lest it be said, ‘Speak, sirrah, when you should:/Must your bold verdict enter talk with lords?’/Else would I have a fling at Winchester” (3.1.61–64); Exeter’s soliloquy at the end of Act 3, Scene 1 (ll.190–203); Exeter’s soliloquy at the end of Act 4, Scene 1 (ll.182–194); most of the dialogue between Suffolk and Margaret as they ignore one another (5.4.16–64); and Suffolk’s soliloquy, which closes the play (5.6.102–109). Also to-camera is Joan’s “Poor market folks that come to sell their corn” (3.2.14), which is delivered as if it were a translation of the preceding line for the benefit of the non-French speaking audience.

In 1964, Austrian channel ORF 2 presented an adaptation of the trilogy by Leopold Lindtberg under the title Heinrich VI. The cast list from this production has been lost. In 1969, German channel ZDF presented a filmed version of the first part of Peter Palitzsch’s 1967 two-part adaptation of the trilogy in Stuttgart. The second part was screened in 1971.

[edit] Radio

In 1923, extracts from all three Henry VI plays were broadcast on BBC Radio, performed by the Cardiff Station Repertory Company as the third episode of a series of programs showcasing Shakespeare’s plays, entitled Shakespeare Night.[81] In 1947, BBC Third Programme aired a one hundred and fifty minute adaptation of the trilogy as part of their Shakespeare’s Historical Plays series, a six-part adaptation of the eight sequential history plays, with linked casting. Adapted by Maurice Roy Ridley, King Henry VI starred John Byron as Henry and Gladys Young as Margaret. Almost the entirety of 1 Henry VI was cut, with everything related to the conflict in France being removed. In 1952, Third Programme aired an adaptation of the tetralogy by Peter Watts and John Dover Wilson under the general name The Wars of the Roses. The tetralogy was adapted into a trilogy but in an unusual way. 1 Henry VI was simply removed, so the trilogy contained only 2 Henry VI, 3 Henry VI and Richard III. The adaptation starred Valentine Dyall as Henry and Sonia Dresdel as Margaret. In 1971, BBC Radio 3 presented a two-part adaptation of the trilogy by Raymond Raikes. Part 1 contained an abridged 1 Henry VI and an abridged version of the first three acts of 2 Henry VI. Part 2 presented Acts 4 and 5 of 2 Henry VI and an abridged 3 Henry VI. Nigel Lambert played Henry, Barbara Jefford played Margaret, Francis de Wolff played Talbot and Elizabeth Morgan played Joan. In 1977, BBC Radio 4 presented a 26-part serialisation of the eight sequential history plays under the general title Vivat Rex (long live the King). Adapted by Martin Jenkins as part of the celebration of the Silver Jubilee of Elizabeth II, 1 Henry VI comprised episodes 15 (“Joan of Arc”) and 16 (“The White Rose and the Red”). James Laurenson played Henry, Peggy Ashcroft played Margaret, Clive Swift played Talbot, Hannah Gordon played Joan, and Richard Burton narrated.

In America, in 1936, a heavily edited adaptation of the trilogy was broadcast as part of NBC Blue‘s Radio Guild series. Comprising three sixty minute episodes aired a week apart, the adaptation was written by Vernon Radcliffe and starred Henry Herbert as Henry and Janet Nolan as Margaret. In 1954, CBC Radio presented an adaptation of the trilogy by Andrew Allen, who combined 1 Henry VI, 2 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI into a one hundred and sixty minute episode. There is no known cast information for this production.

In 1985, German radio channel Sender Freies Berlin broadcast a heavily edited seventy-six minute two-part adaptation of the octology adapted by Rolf Schneider, under the title Shakespeare’s Rosenkriege.

[edit] References

[edit] Notes

All references to Henry VI, Part 1, unless otherwise specified, are taken from the Oxford Shakespeare (Taylor), based on the First Folio text of 1623. Under its referencing system, 4.3.15 means act 4, scene 3, line 15.

  1. ^ Taylor (2003: 32–39)
  2. ^ See Hattaway (1990: 63) and Taylor (2003: 92)
  3. ^ Hall (1548: Mmiiv)
  4. ^ For more information on this incident, see Bullough (1960: 50)
  5. ^ See Winifred Frazer, “Henslowe’s “ne””, Notes and Queries, 38:1 (Spring, 1991), 34–35 and Brian Vickers, Shakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 149 for more information on this theory
  6. ^ According to Andrew Gurr, these earnings made it the second most profitable play of the year, after the anonymous (and now lost) The Wise Man of Westchester (Playgoing in Shakespeare’s London, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987, 136)
  7. ^ Taylor (1995: 152)
  8. ^ Referred to as The Contention from this point forward
  9. ^ Referred to as True Tragedy from this point forward
  10. ^ R.B. McKerrow, “A Note on Henry VI, Part 2 and The Contention of York and Lancaster“, Review of English Studies, 9 (1933), 161
  11. ^ The Problem of The Reign of King Edward III (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988)
  12. ^ Taylor (1995: 150)
  13. ^ Jones (1977: 135–138)
  14. ^ Taylor (2003: 12–13)
  15. ^ Samuel Johnson, The Plays of William Shakespeare (1765), 3
  16. ^ In the Stationers’ Register on 19 April 1602 an entry refers to The firste and Second parte of Henry the Vj, which has often been taken to mean 1 Henry VI and 2 Henry VI. However, this entry actually refers to 2 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI, which were entered into the Register when Thomas Millington sold his rights to the plays to Thomas Pavier. Confusingly however, when 1 Henry VI was entered into the Register in 1623 for publication in the First Folio, it was registered as The thirde parte of Henry ye Sixt (because the names of the first and second parts were already taken). For more information, see Ronald Knowles’ 1999 Arden edition of 2 Henry VI (119), and Randall Martin’s 2001 Oxford edition of 3 Henry VI (104n1).
  17. ^ Wilson (1969: 9)
  18. ^ Pugliatti (1996: 52)
  19. ^ Tillyard (1944)
  20. ^ Ribner (1957)
  21. ^ Rossiter (1961)
  22. ^ Jonson (1605: np)
  23. ^ All quotes from Nashe (1592: i212)
  24. ^ Heywood (1612: B4r)
  25. ^ Michael Goldman, The Energies of Drama (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972), 161
  26. ^ Burns (2000: 75)
  27. ^ Alexander (1929)
  28. ^ Taylor (1995: 164)
  29. ^ Roger Warren, “Comedies and Histories at Two Stratfords, 1977″, Shakespeare Survey, 31 (1978), 148
  30. ^ Taylor (2003: 66)
  31. ^ Leggatt (1996: 18)
  32. ^ Quoted in Taylor (2003: 108)
  33. ^ Sheehan (1989: 30)
  34. ^ Ryan (1967: xxiv)
  35. ^ Taylor (2003: 13)
  36. ^ Charles Boyce, Shakespeare A to Z (New York: Roundtable Press, 1990), 274
  37. ^ Burns (2000: 84)
  38. ^ “Shakespeare’s Chronicles of the War of the Roses”, Radio Times, (24 October 1952), 7
  39. ^ Vincent (2005: 377–402)
  40. ^ Vickers (2007: 311–352)
  41. ^ See Burns (2000: 25–27, 156 and 287–298) for discussions of the multiple connotations of Joan’s name, which may also include ‘pizzle’, an Elizabethan word for the penis. Burns argues that the obvious contradiction raised by Joan’s name referring to both a whore and a virgin, as well as male genitalia, coupled with the fact that her female identity is questioned several times in the play, are all part of her complex characterisation, wherein she remains protean, never one thing for very long. Another example of this is the contrast between her representation by the French as a saint and by the English as a demon.
  42. ^ Taylor (2003: 130)
  43. ^ This particular line has created a great deal of controversy amongst editors of the play. In terms of Joan, some editors refer to her as ‘Joan la Pucelle’ (such as Michael Taylor), whilst others (such as Edward Burns) use the form ‘Joan Puzel’ (although he refers to the historical Joan in his introduction as ‘Jean la Pucelle’). The First Folio referred to her as ‘Ioane de Puzel’. In his version of 1.5.85, Burns follows the First Folio, which reads “puzel or pussel”, as opposed to Taylor’s “puzzel or pucelle.” A similar problem arises with relation to the Dauphin. In the First Folio, every occurrence of the word ‘Dauphin’ is in the form ‘Dolphin’. Again, Burns follows the First Folio here, although most 20th-century editors tend to change the form to ‘Dauphin’ (with the exception of 1.5.85). Michael Taylor argues that using the form ‘dolphin’ everywhere except 1.5.85 means that the pun in Talbot’s line is rendered meaningless. Similarly, H.C. Hart, in his 1909 edition of the play for the 1st series of the Arden Shakespeare, used the form ‘Dauphin’ throughout, but at 1.5.85 he argued, “Dolphin of the Folio must be considerately allowed to stand in the text here for the sake of the quibbling.” For more information on the various forms of Joan’s name and Charles’ title, see Appendix 1 in Burns (2000: 287–297)
  44. ^ Taylor (2003: 56)
  45. ^ Hattaway (1990: 6)
  46. ^ Taylor (2003: 21)
  47. ^ Hattaway (1990: 30)
  48. ^ Hattaway (1990: 5)
  49. ^ Taylor (2003: 19)
  50. ^ Ryan (1967: xxxi)
  51. ^ Taylor (2003: 40)
  52. ^ Hattaway (1990: 6)
  53. ^ Hattaway (1990: 17)
  54. ^ Taylor (2003: 23)
  55. ^ Taylor (2003: 16)
  56. ^ Burns (2000: 47)
  57. ^ Donald G. Watson, Shakespeare’s Early History Plays: Politics at Play on the Elizabethan Stage (Georgia: 1990), 39
  58. ^ Swandler (1978: 158)
  59. ^ Taylor (2003: 47–48)
  60. ^ Burns (2000: 26)
  61. ^ Hattaway (1990: 24)
  62. ^ Taylor (2003: 45)
  63. ^ The adaptation was filmed in 1981 but it didn’t air until 1983
  64. ^ Hattaway (1990: 43)
  65. ^ Halliday (1964: 216–18)
  66. ^ Robert Shaughnessy, Representing Shakespeare: England, History and the RSC (London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1994), 61
  67. ^ “Nick Ashbury Histories Blog”. Archived from the original on 12 October 2008. Retrieved 16 January 2012. 
  68. ^ Review from the Daily Express (16 December 2000)
  69. ^ Taylor (2003: 34)
  70. ^ Taylor (2003: 33)
  71. ^ “RSC Performance Database Henry VI 17/07/1963″. Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. Retrieved 10 December 2010. 
  72. ^ “The RSC Shakespeare, The First Part of Henry the Sixth”. Retrieved 10 December 2010. 
  73. ^ Goodwin (1964: 47)
  74. ^ Ronald Knowles, King Henry VI, Part Two London: Arden, 1999, 27
  75. ^ Roger Warren, Henry VI, Part Two (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 18
  76. ^ Shakespeare in Performance: Henry VI, Part 1, Internet Shakespeare Editions
  77. ^ Kenneth Jones, “Edward Hall’s Rose Rage is Henry VI Trilogy in Full Bloody Bloom”,, 17 September 2004)
  78. ^ All information about non-UK productions is from Roger Warren, Henry VI, Part Two (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 26
  79. ^ A.J. Hoenselaars. Shakespeare’s History Plays: Performance, Translation and Adaptation in Britain and Abroad, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2004), 143
  80. ^ Alice V. Griffin, “Shakespeare Through the Camera’s Eye”, Shakespeare Quarterly, 17:4 (Winter, 1966), 385
  81. ^ Unless otherwise noted, all information in this section comes from the British Universities Film and Video Council

[edit] Editions of Henry VI, Part 1

  • Bate, Jonathan and Rasmussen, Eric (eds.) Henry VI, Parts I, II and III (The RSC Shakespeare; London: Macmillan, 2012)
  • Bevington, David. (ed.) The First Part of Henry the Sixth (The Pelican Shakespeare; London: Penguin, 1966; revised edition 1979)
  • Burns, Edward (ed.) King Henry VI, Part 1 (The Arden Shakespeare, 3rd Series; London: Arden, 2000)
  • Cairncross, Andrew S. (ed.) King Henry VI, Part 1 (The Arden Shakespeare, 2nd Series; London: Arden, 1962)
  • Dover Wilson, John (ed.) The First Part of Henry VI (The New Shakespeare; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952)
  • Evans, G. Blakemore (ed.) The Riverside Shakespeare (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974; 2nd edn., 1997)
  • Greenblatt, Stephen; Cohen, Walter; Howard, Jean E. and Maus, Katharine Eisaman (eds.) The Norton Shakespeare: Based on the Oxford Shakespeare (London: Norton, 1997; 2nd edn., 2008)
  • Hart, H.C. and Pooler, C. Knox (eds.) The First Part of Henry the Sixt (The Arden Shakespeare, 1st Series; London: Arden, 1909)
  • Hattaway, Michael (ed.) The First Part of King Henry VI (The New Cambridge Shakespeare; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990)
  • Kingsley-Smith, Jane (ed.) Henry VI, Part Three (The New Penguin Shakespeare, 2nd edition; London: Penguin, 2005)
  • Montgomery, William (ed.) Henry VI Part I (The Pelican Shakespeare, 2nd edition; London: Penguin, 2000)
  • Ryan, Lawrence V. (ed.) Henry VI, Part I (Signet Classic Shakespeare; New York: Signet, 1967; revised edition, 1989; 2nd revised edition 2005)
  • Sanders, Norman (ed.) Henry VI, Part One (The New Penguin Shakespeare; London: Penguin, 1981)
  • Taylor, Michael (ed.) Henry VI, Part One (The Oxford Shakespeare; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003)
  • Wells, Stanley; Taylor, Gary; Jowett, John and Montgomery, William (eds.) The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986; 2nd edn., 2005)
  • Werstine, Paul and Mowat, Barbara A. (eds.) Henry VI, Part 1 (Folger Shakespeare Library; Washington: Simon & Schuster, 2008)

the end @ copyright @ 2012