Toryism in Ford Madox Ford’s “Some Do Not”

I would like to elaborate on Toryism as illustrated in Ford’s “Some Do Not”, and look closer at some of the key examples we discussed in class. Firstly, on page 79, Ford Madox Ford writes, “He accepted with gratitude several of Tietjens’ emendations in the actuarial schedules….And over their port they agreed on two fundamental legislative ideals: every working man to have a minimum of four hundred a year and every beastly manufacture who wanted to pay less to be hung. That, it appeared, was the High Toryism of Tietjens as it was the extreme Radicalism of the extreme Left to Left” (Ford 79). Toryism as we understand it was in favor of local agrarianism, and landed aristocracy; it ensured economic stability for the working class. By producing a legislative ideal that paid working class people a minimum of four hundred a year, though it seems quite insignificant, illustrates this idea of local agrarianism. It ensures that the working class people are benefiting from their labor.

Secondly, on page 163, Ford writes, “Our Minister for Water-closets won’t keep two and a half million men in any base in order to get the votes of their of their women at a General Election – that’s been the first evil effects of giving women the vote!” (163). Ford is illustrating the disgust he had with England’s involvement in the war which is another clear illustration of Toryism within Ford’s work. He is claiming that the Minister had ulterior motives within England’s involvement in the war. He is stating that by shipping two and a half million men off to war, the Minister was “forced” to give women the vote; this was of course self-beneficial as the women who received the vote would be easily persuaded to side with the current Minister as he was the one who had given them this right. Tories were opposed to involvement in international affairs. As a result, Ford exemplifies his opinion of giving women the vote. Unfortunately, it is quite biased as he feels that it is a result of something that he already disagrees with (i.e.: England’s involvement in international affairs). On the other hand, this quote demonstrates the effect the war had on feminism at this time. The roles of women drastically changed as a result of WWI, and one key element that proved to benefit women quite substantially was the fact that they achieved the vote.

This is only two of the many examples throughout Book one of Parade’s End, “Some Do Not”. I utilized these two examples because I felt that they provided the best understanding of Toryism as we have studied it this semester. As a result of the examples provided, it is fair to come to the conclusion that Ford was in fact a true Tory. He believed in local agrarianism and was opposed to involvement in international affairs. In consideration to this, it almost seems that his morals are quite twisted. Firstly, he believes that working class people should benefit from their labor (i.e. the upper class shouldn’t benefit from the labor of the working class). However, he also illustrates his disgust with women achieving the vote. This is clearly a result of the society Ford lived in at the time. This is another subject that I will discuss further in a later post.

Rob Shearar

The Last of the Tories

As explained in the previous blog entry, Ford discusses the issue of politics throughout the novel by presenting Tietjens as the epitome of Toryism. One aspect of Toryism is the conservation of old practices and the prevention against new technology and industrialization. Although Tietjens stands for these ideals, Parade’s End exemplifies the deterioration of Toryism in England right before the First World War. In Some Do Not, this deterioration of Tory ideals is illustrated when General Campion injures Valentine’s horse with his limousine.
"What the devil was the hissing? A small, closed car with crumpled mudguards, noiseless nearly, gleaming black…God curse it, it passed them, stopped ten yards down…the horse rearing back; mad! Clean mad…something like a scarlet and white cockatoo, fluttering out of the small car door…a general. In full tog. White feathers! Ninety medals! Scarlet coat! Black trousers with red stripe. Spurs too, by God!" (140-1)
The horse represents old practices idealized by Tietjens as a Tory and the fact that it is injured by a limousine shows how new technology, which is idealized by the military (symbolized by General Campion), is slaughtering these old values. In “The Impact of the First World War on Private Lives,” Vita Fortunati explains that “General Campion’s limousine lames a horse in an incident that symbolises the false progress of a civilization that constructs insidious weapons. Society has become the place where horrors, abuse and senseless violence reign” (61-2). Ford continues this idea of old values versus new ones in No More Parades when Tietjens explains that “…it was partly the simple, pathetic illusion of the day that great things could only be done by new inventions. You extinguished the Horse, invented something very simple and became God!” (496). Ford’s use of illustrating old values versus new values not only serves to further portray Tietjens as a Tory but also sheds light on his own ideas about the destructive power of new technology in the war and the increased fatalities that it caused.

-Darcy Broatch

Ford, Ford Madox. Parades End. Penguin: London, 2002.

Fortunati, Vita. "The Impact of the First World War on Private Lives: A Comparison of European and American Writers (Ford, Hemingway and Remarque)" History and Representation in Ford Madox Ford's Writing. Ed. Joseph Wiesenfarth. Rodopi: Amsterdam, 2004. 61-2.

Understanding Politics in Parade's End

This article discusses the politics of nostalgia in Ford Madox Ford's Parade's End. Gasiorek reviews the four sections of Parade's End, suggesting that Ford's novel questions the nature of tradition and its relevence to modern English society. Ford's text is very ambivalent in that it criticizes both pre and post war England. This confusion is seen through the character of Tietjens. Readers struggle with this character, as they are constantly trying to figure out Ford's own political views and his attitude towards Tietjens. Gasiorek sees that there are two different readings of the text: the first suggests that through Tietjen, Ford displays a critique of England (its values, feudalism ect). The other reading, Gasiorek argues, seperates Tietjens from Ford; however, maintains the same idea. In other words, Ford may be cricizing England but is calling for reform not complete absolution from such values.
Gasiorek suggests that neither of these readings are accurate, and that they fail to recognize that feudalism and Toryism are under investigation in the text. He suggests that many readers and critics place their own values on the text which is why such readings have arisen.
In the end, he suggests that Ford Madox Ford's Parade's End uses nostalgia to allow the reader to identify with Tietjens indictment. He states that "on one hand, it offers a critique of Tietjen's Toryism...and showing it to be impotent and anarchronistic in the modern world, but on the other hand, it reveals a genuine, heartfelt sympathy for Tietjen's political views.

Gasiorek, Andrzej. "The Politics of Cultural Nostalgia: History and Tradition in Ford Madox Ford's Parade's End." Literature and History. 11(2). 2002 Autumn. pp 52-77

-Heather Blondé

Divorce..where did it come from?

The topic of divorce enters Ford Madox Ford's Parade's End through Christopher and Sylvia Tjetjans. Divorce was uncommon before World War II. The only basis for divorce before this time was adultry. The Church which held much power over the state, regarded marriage as a sacrament. This made it impossible to get a divorce without recourse to the Pope, who rarely if ever granted a divorce decree. The rules behind a null marriage were very strange. For example, Roger Donnington's marrige was nullified because he had sexual intercourse with a third cousin of his future wife. During the sixteenth and seventeenth century the confusion continued. The ecclesiastical courts could not grant a divorce as it was still against their beliefs. If a couple wanted a divorce they had to petition to the parliment by means of a private bill. Couples could now divorce on certain terms:adultry, cruelty, or unnatural offences. Nullification was granted on other terms: consanguinity or affinity, mental incapacity, impotence, force error impuberty (under age) or a prior existing marriage.
Some American states enacted divorce laws during the 1780s and 1790s. However, some states were more liberal than others. For example, Conneticut was seen as the most liberal. In 1849 the courts were given the responsibility of marriage and divorce and the grounds by which one could divorce were slowly changing.
Through the nineteenth century, divorce laws became more and more liberal and the grounds for divorce grew. By 1900, there were four recognized elements for divorce: 1)fault-based grounds 2)one pary's guilt 3) the continuation of gender-based marital responsibilities after divorce 4)linkage of financial awards to finding of fault.
Divorce became more and more available to American and Canadian citizens. This is an important aspect of Ford Maddox Ford's novel in that it contextualizes Christopher and Sylvia's relationship. It was a newer development during Ford's time and readers are shown this idea throughout Some Do Not.

"you want to know why I hate my husband. I'll tell you; it's because of his simple and sheer immorality" (Ford, 39)

After stating this, Sylvia's parents suggest she go off to a convent. They do not suggest divorce as it was still a new practice that was looked down on many. I think that it is important to see recognize the establishment of divorce in order to understand why Ford's characters do not just go out and get a divorce right away.

-Heather Blondé

Ford, Ford Madox. Parade’s End. London: Penguin Books, 2002.

Simmons , Charlene. "State Grounds for Divorce" California Research Bureau. pp 2-14