A rich mine of mistakes

Alan Watkins

THE OXFORD DICTIONARY OF POLITICAL QUOTATIONS edited by Antony Jay OUP, £15.99, pp. 515 hough Sir Antony contributes an intro- duction to this book, in which he dilates on the nature of political quotation and spells lain Macleod 'McLeod', my impression is that most of the work was done by the 'Project Team'. Like the People of old, I name the guilty men or rather, with one exception, women: Elizabeth M. Knowles, Susan Ratcliffe, Christina Mallcowska Zaba, Ralph Bates, Marie G. Diaz, Helen McCurdy, Verity Mason, Penelope New- some, Sandra Vaughan, Fabia Claris and Penny Trumble. They sound like Ameri- cans to me. Certainly the book seems intended for an American readership. Lots of them are quoted, usually for no very good reason. J. F. Kennedy is allocated 25 items. I doubt whether I should have given house room to one. It is impossible to tell whether the words were his or belonged to some Ted- or Arthur-figure in the back- ground.

You may object: well, if he said it, he said it. It does not matter that somebody else wrote it out first for him to say. The editors do not apply this principle to Harry S. Truman. 'If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen' is attributed to his familiar, Harry Vaughan (which was one of the few things I learnt from this book). Nor do they apply it to Stanley Baldwin. His 'prerogative of the harlot' quotation is given under Rudyard Kipling, who used the words first but did not publish them. Bald- win, Kipling's cousin, spoke them with his permission. There is no reference to them under Baldwin.

Altogether the choice of Baldwin quota- tions is both inadequate and odd. So it is also with Bonar Law. He is listed twice, once under Bonar, then under Law. The total number of quotations is three:

If, therefore, war should ever come between these two countries, which heaven forbid, it will not, I think, be due to irresistible natural laws, it will be due to want of human wisdom.

If I am a great man, then all great men are frauds.

And:

In war it is necessary not only to be active but to seem active.

None of these feeble sayings was worth reproducing.

This does not mean that Bonar Law never said anything memorable, arresting or interesting. He did. The editors seem unaware of what he said. Thus: I am afraid I shall have to show myself very vicious, Mr Asquith, this session. I hope you will understand (February 1912).

In this crisis, as in the earlier one, you have acted as what I know you are — a great gentleman (to Austen Chamberlain, January 1913).

I say it to you with all solemnity: you must trust to yourselves. Once again you hold the pass for the Empire. You are a besieged city (speech at Belfast, April 1912).

There are things stronger than parliamentary majorities (speech at Orange rally, July 1914).

I think I have given the King the worst five minutes that he has had for a long time (May 1912).

We cannot alone act as the policemen [often rendered, though not in this book, which

'You want a laser-scanning microscope and you still believe in Santa Claus?'

does not list it at all, as 'policeman] of the world (letter to the Times and the Daily Express, October 1922).

And:

Do let me like him [to his sister, about Max Aitken, 1910].

Not only are the editors largely ignorant of British political history, they assert the most extraordinary things too. Accordingly we are informed that 'Said' was a 'Scottish writer'. We are not told that his real name was H. H. Munro. That does not turn him into a Scottish writer; as well describe Roy Jenkins as a Welsh biographer. The scholarship is not only sloppy but at times quite bizarre. For example, the book, in the course of 21 extracts, correctly quotes Harold Wilson as saying, 'I know what is going on. I am going on.' Underneath, in the space reserved for explanatory notes which are always decidedly on the thin side, it says: 'At the Labour Party Conference, commenting on conspiracies against his leadership.' On the right, in the space reserved for sources, it says: 'Attributed, 1969.' I do not want to labour the point but I will. In a work of reference with preten- sions to scholarship such matters are important. It should have said underneath: 'On rumours of conspiracies against his leadership, 1969.' And, on the right: 'Labour Party Conference, 1969.' He actu- ally said it. I heard him say it, I was there. The curious may look it up in the confer- ence report. 'Attributed' indeed!

Evelyn Waugh is also a victim. He is awarded eight quotations, which is about right. But they do not include his observa- tion in a letter to the Times that he did not aspire to advise his sovereign on her choice of ministers, or his description of Gilbert Pinfold as someone who maintained an idiosyncratic Toryism which was regarded by his neighbours as being almost as sinis- ter as socialism. The editors slap 'Attribut- ed' on: 'The trouble with the Conservative Party is that it has not turned the clock back a single second.' There are two things wrong here. What Waugh said was: 'The Conservative Party have never put the clock back a single second.' And, far from being 'Attributed', it is there, plain as your nose, on page 15 of Frances Donaldson's Evelyn Waugh: Portrait of a Country Neigh- bour.

Flatteringly, the editors give my Brief Lives as the source of Lord Beaverbrook's advice to Tom Driberg when he was first standing for Parliament. They say it was: 'The British electors will not vote for a man who does not wear a hat.' In fact I wrote 'doesn't' for 'does not'. But I had relied on my memory. What Beaverbrook actually said, according to Driberg's own Ruling Passions, was: 'British electors will never vote for a man who doesn't wear a hat.' There you are, you see. It only goes to show. You have to look things up for your- self and not rely either on your memory or on other people.