Such a peculiar book. Disjointed! It's disjointed. He cannot, or will not, tell a chronological story, is hit-or-miss assigning dates generally. He name-drops in a peculiar manner, not to impress as we do today, rather, it seems to me, to deflect or to mis-direct, like, "I did too mention AAH's friendship with Jefferson Davis, see it's right here," to deflect criticism that he wrote hagiography. However, it's disjointed, there is no section of the book "getting to the bottom of it." On sensitive subjects there will be a drive-by reference and then Poof! it vanishes; it may resurface 50 pages later in another drive-by. It seems a cut-and-paste job, disjointed, insufficient context so that the reader is constantly taken by surprise, like, "Where did that come from?"
The passage on AAH's health in Switzerland that is quoted in a previous post is immediately followed by an account of Humphreys before the King and Queen of France. Two pages are devoted solely to excerpts from an AAH letter on the King and Queen of France ("I forgot she was an Empress, and was only thinking what a sweet little woman she was,"), pure drivel, and then, next paragraph:
During Humphreys' first or second visit to Italy, he was regarded as a spy,...
...either as an English or German spy; some thought him a Russian and in the employ of that Government.
During his travels through Italy he met two spies, and had an agreeable and funny conversation with a Russian spy who would not be convinced that Humphreys was not of the same character.
That is funny, see, we're all laughing sociably at that agreeable and funny conversation.
Shortly after, Humphreys was arrested and brought before an official, who demanded in an angry tone that Humphreys should remove his hat whilst in his presence. That Humphreys declined to do so unless the official did likewise; which remark threw the official into a paroxysm of rage; the production of the passport smoothed things, and other profuse apologies on the part of that official, who put all the blame upon the officiousness of his agents, Humphreys was allowed to depart. He was carefully watched, however, during his stay in Italy.
The passage on AAH's health in Switzerland that is quoted in a previous post is immediately followed by an account of Humphreys before the King and Queen of France. Two pages are devoted solely to excerpts from an AAH letter on the King and Queen of France ("I forgot she was an Empress, and was only thinking what a sweet little woman she was,"), pure drivel, and then, next paragraph:
During Humphreys' first or second visit to Italy, he was regarded as a spy,...
...either as an English or German spy; some thought him a Russian and in the employ of that Government.
During his travels through Italy he met two spies, and had an agreeable and funny conversation with a Russian spy who would not be convinced that Humphreys was not of the same character.
Another hallmark of HHH's writing is to describe an incident in contradictory or inconsistent ways, so here, he goes from AAH "was regarded as a spy," very alarming, to "agreeable and funny," not alarming, ridiculous, funny it's so ridiculous, to "Shortly after, Humphreys was arrested," "angry" official, "paroxysm of rage," then back to things being "smoothed" over with "profuse apologies" by the Italian. So it was all one big misunderstanding! Not quite: "He was carefully watched, however
during his stay in Italy." It's all there! HHH can say, "I did too cover his arrest as a spy!" but it is done with so much artful dodging that you never understand the incident. Like: "Was Andrew Atkinson Humphreys a spy? Yes or no!" HHH clearly implies no but never directly says! It makes the reader suspect everything he writes, like this, which concludes the spy story and the chapter:
After obtaining all the information needed, he returned to England...
WHAT "information?" On frigging dams and dikes, or intelligence information?
during his stay in Italy." It's all there! HHH can say, "I did too cover his arrest as a spy!" but it is done with so much artful dodging that you never understand the incident. Like: "Was Andrew Atkinson Humphreys a spy? Yes or no!" HHH clearly implies no but never directly says! It makes the reader suspect everything he writes, like this, which concludes the spy story and the chapter:
After obtaining all the information needed, he returned to England...
WHAT "information?" On frigging dams and dikes, or intelligence information?
