Talk:Ivor Gurney

Gurney's breakdown

While the war was likely not the sole cause of Gurney's breakdown, it was also likely to have been a contributing factor. He had been gassed and had been involved in trench warfare. Both of these are dehuamanizing and create stress. Bi-polar incidents can be the result of stress.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcraven925 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 26 February 2006

Yes, Gurney was in a stressful situation during the war but for him war was actually a stabilizing influence, one that helped him find some level ground at a time when the symptoms of his bi-polar illness were hitting him more frequently. Gurney had suffered bi-polar symptoms in his teens and had already had one documented breakdown before he joined the army. He thought that army life might help him find some stability and shelter from the increasing shifts in mood that he was experiencing. Yes, war was dehumanizing but Gurney thrived on the drama he witnessed and experienced and turned it into art. He had his greatest difficulty when he was away from the battlefield, away from action as he was when he was wounded and later when he was gassed. The idle time in the hospital led to introspection, forced him to be with himself and his personal demons. He needed distractions from himself. Once he was active again, he felt better and being active meant being back in the thick of things. Despite being wounded and gassed in 1917, he was doing well at the end of 1917 and the beginning of 1918, high on his relationship with VAD Annie Nelson Drummond, seeing in her a happy future for himself. Then she left him. His world crashed around him. The failure of this relationship triggered the 1918 breakdown, not the war. Not understanding the nature of Gurney's long-standing illnes, his women friends blamed Drummond for the breakdown, one noting that she didn't think "the Drummond girl ever understood what she had done [to Ivor]". Yes, bi-polar incidents are triggered by stress but in Gurney's case the stress was the failure of a relationship coming at a time when he was most vulnerable to sinking into depression -- spring. While it is more heroic to have suffered because of war, the reality is that Gurney's collapse in this instance was triggered by personal emotional trauma i.e. the end of his relationship with Drummond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottivor (talk contribs) 14:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• I am as sympathetic to Gurney's condition as anyone (and I am also a fan of his poetry, haven't yet heard his music but hope to) but I tire of saying this: it is not up to wikipedia contributors to declare, on the basis of however much private research, what caused Gurney to be declared whatever he was declared to be. Wikipedia is not an outlet for original research, however we might like it to be. This article needs rewriting based on the verifiable public sources, not on what Scottivor thinks was the case. Sorry, but that's what gives the site credibility.

• Incidentally, I think that the article doesn't have nearly enough about Gurney's poetry and the reaction to it, and is weighted too much towards the possible causes of his breakdown. He is surely better known as a poet than as a composer - again, perhaps wrongly, but until 20th century music starts to appreciated by the general public, it will be thus. Lexo (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

ScottIvor did use "verifiable" public sources. By the way, what exactly is a "verifiable public source"? I would think that academic journals would qualify as would other publications, which ScottIvor used along with public records. The information in these sources is entirely verifiable by original documents as well as published material and is not to be written off simply as conclusions drawn by someone who "thinks" this "was the case". Gurney's Ministry of Pensions document give the cause of his disablity as "Manic Depressive Psychosis". That is a verifiable public source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.54.183 (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Questionable source

To list the Edric novel as a "resource" does a serious disservice to those seeking factual information on Ivor Gurney and misrepresents Gurney as a man and as an artist. Edric's novel In Zodiac Light is pure fiction so readers need to be aware that this book is highly misleading if they are interested in learning about Gurney's life. Edric appears not to have done any serious research and seems to be capitalizing on the growing popularity of Gurney to create his fiction. In a BBC radio interview last year, Edric claimed that Gurney's medical records had been destroyed in the Blitz -- Gurney's medical records were not destroyed and are available at the Gurney Archive and also in London. Further Edric stated that Gurney suffered from "psychopathic schizophrenia" which is as far wrong as one can get with describing Gurney's illness. The unfortunate part of this statement is that it implies that Gurney was a psychopath and thus a very dangerous man. He was not. Edric quotes a poem "In Flaxley Wood" and implies that it is by Gurney and was published in the London Mercury in 1921 -- it contains the line "in Zodiac wood", the title of the book. There is no such poem in the Gurney Archive nor was such a poem published in the London Mercury. Novels about real people should not be listed as a resource! OwenBrooke (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Poet

Gurney was a poet not just a "war poet". This reference should be corrected because it is too limiting in his overall achievement as a poet. Some of his best poetry came from his asylum years.

Also, Stanford might have found Gurney "unteachable" but it is more likely that Stanford was not the right teacher for him. Vaughan Williams came away from his Stanford experience feeling that he was unteachable.

This entry needs more information about Gurney's music and his poetry, more detail in general. OwenBrooke (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The information on the link for footnote 8 is incorrect and highly misleading in the statements it makes about Gurney. This link should probably be removed as the both content and view of Gurney are outdated. OwenBrooke (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Historical diagnosis?

As far as I can see, four main diagnostic explanations have been proposed:

1. "Deferred shell shock" (cf post traumatic stress disorder) - The 1918 diagnosis which remained the official public explanation for many years and is still accredited by some.
2. Paranoid schizophrenia - While not ruling out the possibility that stress may have been a trigger, distinguished psychiatrist, William H Trethowan (1981) was confident in a diagnosis of "paranoid schizophrenic psychosis... which ultimately became chronic." In a reappraisal of the case history, Trethowan notes that when Gurney was first admitted to the City of London Mental Hospital in 1922 the diagnosis was "systematized delusional insanity, an old-fashioned term synonymous with paranoid schizophrenia". This diagnosis also appears to receive some support from work by Gordon Claridge [summarised by George Walter] The diagnosis of 'paranoid schizophrenia' was shared by Gurney's biographer, Michael Hurd, who collaborated with Trethowan. More recently, however, this interpretation has been vigorously contested by another of Gurney's biographers, Pamela Blevins.
3. Tertiary syphilis - A diagnosis suggested by therapeutic administration to Gurney of malaria, a procedure commonly used at the time to treat syphilis. The inference would seem to be that Gurney's physicians suspected that their patient was affected by neurological manifestations of tertiary syphilis. This interpretation has again been countered by Pamela Blevins in an extensive rebuttal. Here, Blevins claims that her collaborator David Goodland "uncovered vitally important information that doctors and authorities on malaria and sexually transmitted diseases do not seem to be aware of. During the World War I era, malarial therapy was an experimental treatment used on soldiers believed to be suffering from shell shock or other mental/emotional effects of the war." However, Blevin does not provide any documentation in her article to substantiate this claim, and in the bibliography to her Gurney biography, Goodland is only anecdotally listed under "correspondence, interviews, etc". [Note: This article, which I haven't yet been able to consult, does speak of "malaria chemoprophylaxis", but maybe providing inline citations to such independent material would break WP:NOR? Or perhaps not?]
4. A bipolar disorder - This is the diagnosis to which Pamela Blevins ascribes. It is also the interpretation that has been adopted in the current version of the WP article. However, it's clear to me from perusing Blevin's articles and her biography of Gurney that she has her own definite POV.

I believe a more NPOV way of proceeding in the present WP article would be to set out the four main explanations chronologically in a separate section dedicated to the question of the diagnosis. This approach might also have the advantage of freeing up the biography section a bit. And surely there'll also be a need for separate sections for Poetry and Music?

Disclaimer: I'm no expert on Gurney's life and works (or, for that matter, on any of the diagnoses!). Before attempting any major changes to the article, I thought it better to elicit opinion, especially on structure. Regards--MistyMorn (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

POINT BY POINT REPLIES BY OWEN BROOKE:

As far as I can see, four main diagnostic explanations have been proposed:

1. "Deferred shell shock" (cf post traumatic stress disorder) - The 1918 diagnosis which remained the official public explanation for many years and is still accredited by some.

A. Doctors treating Gurney in 1918 were treating hundreds of men so it would have been very easy to mistake symptoms of bipolar illness for shell shock, "deferred" or otherwise, which is exactly what happened. Gurney never suffered shell shock as he himself admitted in a letter in which he declared that he lied about shell shock to obtain a better pension: "I had made application for full pension...but I gave reason in application of 'after shell shock', which was false...". (Letter written to the London Metropolitan Police Force from Stone House Dartford, no date -- Gurney Archive). Hospitals that specialized in treating victims of shell shock refused to admit him because they believed he was suffering from mental illness, not shell shock. Marion Scott in her attempts to find treatment for him approached the Shell Shock Commission but nothing came of it. Scott also knew that Gurney had not suffered shell shock but it was she who perpetuated the myth, starting with her press releases in the aftermath of Gurney's death and with her entry in Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians that became the main source for this claim.OwenBrooke (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Paranoid schizophrenia - While not ruling out the possibility that stress may have been a trigger, distinguished psychiatrist, William H Trethowan (1981) was confident in a diagnosis of "paranoid schizophrenic psychosis... which ultimately became chronic." In a reappraisal of the case history, Trethowan notes that when Gurney was first admitted to the City of London Mental Hospital in 1922 the diagnosis was "systematized delusional insanity, an old-fashioned term synonymous with paranoid schizophrenia". This diagnosis also appears to receive some support from work by Gordon Claridge [summarised by George Walter] The diagnosis of 'paranoid schizophrenia' was shared by Gurney's biographer, Michael Hurd, who collaborated with Trethowan. More recently, however, this interpretation has been vigorously contested by another of Gurney's biographers, Pamela Blevins.

B. Dr. Trethowan was using standards of his day and did not do a thorough analysis of Gurney's behavioural patterns. Had he done so he would have recognised that Gurney suffered dramatic mood swings. Dr. Trethowan also relied too much on the memories of Gurney's sister-in-law who described him as solitary, lonely and so forth. There are important distinctions between schizophrenia and bipolar illness, one being answered by the simple two-part question: "Did Gurney like people and did people like Gurney?" (A question posed by psychiatrists.) The answer to both is "yes". He was very outgoing and gregarious. Trethowan appears to have relied solely on memories of people like Ethel Gurney and asylum notes, which did not give a complete picture of Gurney's background. During the asylum years Gurney suffered paranoia, hallicinations and other symptoms that might be mistaken for schizophrenia but they are also symptomatic of bipolar illness, particularly when it is untreated as Gurney's certainly was. Claridge and Walter were recycling out-dated information while Hurd was relying on what was current information more than 30 years ago. The study of mental illness has come a long way since then.OwenBrooke (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

3. Tertiary syphilis - A diagnosis suggested by therapeutic administration to Gurney of malaria, a procedure commonly used at the time to treat syphilis. The inference would seem to be that Gurney's physicians suspected that their patient was affected by neurological manifestations of tertiary syphilis. This interpretation has again been countered by Pamela Blevins in an extensive rebuttal. Here, Blevins claims that her collaborator David Goodland "uncovered vitally important information that doctors and authorities on malaria and sexually transmitted diseases do not seem to be aware of. During the World War I era, malarial therapy was an experimental treatment used on soldiers believed to be suffering from shell shock or other mental/emotional effects of the war." However, Blevin does not provide any documentation in her article to substantiate this claim, and in the bibliography to her Gurney biography, Goodland is only anecdotally listed under "correspondence, interviews, etc".

C. Gurney did not have symptoms of syphilis. At the time he was given the malaria inoculations, doing so was an experimental approach to treating what was perceived as possible shell shock. See Wendy Holden: Shell Shock: The Psychological Impact of War. OwenBrooke (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

4. A bipolar disorder - This is the diagnosis to which Pamela Blevins ascribes. It is also the interpretation that has been adopted in the current version of the WP article. However, it's clear to me from perusing Blevin's articles and her biography of Gurney that she has her own definite POV.

D. Not just Blevins -- Dr. Kay Redfield Jamison, an authority on bipolar illness and victim of it as well, is among the mental health professionals who agree that Gurney was bipolar. OwenBrooke (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe a more NPOV way of proceeding in the present WP article would be to set out the four main explanations chronologically in a separate section dedicated to the question of the diagnosis. This approach might also have the advantage of freeing up the biography section a bit. And surely there'll also be a need for separate sections for Poetry and Music?

Hello Owen. The retrospective diagnosis of Gurney's affliction is understandably controversial. Above you argue your POV, largely in line with arguments put forward by Pamela Blevins. Please note that I'm not saying that the diagnosis of bipolarity is wrong (I'm sorry if I gave you that impression). Also, I don't wish to get into a discussion with you about which POV is right, because that is not strictly pertinent to the Wikipedia task in hand (nor would I feel in any way qualified to arbitrate between the expert opinions of, say, Jamison [1] and Trethowan [2]). Rather, based on the sources currently cited (and those listed above that I've so far been able to consult) the bipolarity diagnosis appears to me still to be a POV, whereas Wikipedia articles should ultimately be NPOV. Hence, my proposal simply to summarize carefully the different POVs in an NPOV manner. Perhaps something along the lines of the penultimate paragraph in this section of the Robert Schumann article. With the difference that in Gurney's article, I think it would be helpful to address the four proposed diagnoses chronologically. Seeing that there is rather a lot of material and I'd hate to see discussion on a retrospective diagnosis take precedence over Gurney's music and poetry, I'd also propose keeping the paragraph in the main article relatively short (as in the Schumann example) in summary style, perhaps leaving a more detailed exposition to a child article dedicated to the question.

Points taken -- I think that perhaps a separate section discussing the various views of Gurney's illness with explanations of each would work plus some reordering of the text as a result. It will just take some time to pull it all together and to add a section about his poetry. Actually I'm inclined to rewrite the entire entry and could use some help with posting it along with required references and notes given that Wikipedia no longer makes it as easy as it once was.OwenBrooke (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Other separate points: Do you have a reference to Jamison's expert opinion on Gurney which could be used for inline citation—that would certainly be good. Thank you for your reference to Wendy Holden's book: it does seem to provide a good secondary source on the use of malaria to treat shell shock (though I'm surprised Blevins didn't cite her sources on this rather obscure practice).

Jamison was interviewed in person (February 2002) after Blevins sent her as complete a case history as possible about Gurney's behaviour and patterns of his illness from childhood forward as well as a history of family members. Dr. Jamison had also referred to Gurney as schizophrenic in one of her books but said that she would change that reference in any future editions of it. In addition Blevins discussed Gurney with a psychiatrist, medical doctors, psychiatric nurses, psychologists, victims of the illness and their families as well as exploring numerous studies on mental illness. Blevins does cite Holden in the bibliography of her biography, p. 315. OwenBrooke (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Off topic -- I agree about Ward Marston. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OwenBrooke (talk • contribs) 11:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Owen. I am glad we agree on an overall NPOV approach to the retrospective diagnosis aspect, as well as on the need to give the page a better structure. I feel that, ultimately, both the Music and Poetry also deserve consideration in separate sections, which I would have thought shouldn't be too problematic given the minimal overlap. But I too see this as being a medium-term project (one in which I would be happy to participate in a supporting role). I will also try to bring Gurney's page to the attention of the Poetry Project.

Regarding specific sources: Thanks for your account of Jamison's views—I'm still wondering whether they can somehow be referenced, maybe in a 'child' article; however, I feel there's already abundant material for a 'diagnosis' section on the main Ivor Gurney page. You're right that Blevins does include Holden's book in her bibliography, though (unless I missed something) I didn't see any direct citation in the context of the rationale for administering malaria. [Small note: Although Wendy Holden doesn't cite her primary sources directly either, perhaps because of editorial budget considerations, I think it's reasonable to assume that the relevant documentation is to be found among the "Archival Material" listed at the end of her Bibliography.]

Best--MistyMorn (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There have been other references to the use of malaria to "treat" shell shock since Holden's book but I will need to dig around to remind myself what they are as I haven't thought about any of this for a long time! Jamison's views can be referenced easily enough. The problem with Gurney is that so much recycled material keeps appearing that is wrongly taken as fact and some of it is damaging to him. The true nature of his illness is important in understanding the trajectory of his art. Where I would need support is getting a completely revised article posted with all the proper Wiki guidelines in order for notes, sources, references.OwenBrooke (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

- I fully take your point about the pitfalls of misleading diagnoses! That's one reason why I feel that a brief, NPOV chronological summary of the diagnoses that have been proposed would provide essential information to Wikipedia users (and would also explain how poetry anthologies and CD booklet notes etc can provide one with four seemingly contradictory explanations).

- I think it would be very good to cite Jamison's expert opinion, which would reinforce the credibility of the bipolarity explanation.

- IMO, it's reasonable to assume that Wendy Holden's book provides reliable independent confirmation of that strange practice, since she and her team obviously consulted many primary sources which are listed at the end of her book (even though specific references are missing in the main text).

- I don't know whether you're familiar with your user page, which is currently empty, but I've left a message on your talk page with a template containing a link collection which I find helpful when trying to get some sort of a handle on all those "proper Wiki guidelines", as you call them. [oops, sorry, I thought I was on your talk page] Best wishes--MistyMorn (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Songs of Edward Thomas' poems

This source provides a list of nineteen songs based on the poems by Edward Thomas [3]. They are: The Penny Whistle (1918); Sowing (1918); Lights Out (1919); To-day I think [aka 'Scents'] (1919); Bright Clouds (1920); Snow (1921); The cherry trees bend over (1921); *The Bridge (1921); *The Gallows (1921); Cock-crow (1921); *Adlestrop (1921); *The Owl (1921); *The Mill-Pond (1921); *In Memoriam (1921); *Out in the Dark (1921 rev. 1925); *It Rains (c.1921-2); Will you come? (1922); *Words (1925); The Trumpet (1925) (* = unpublished). I would add this a reference im the article, but it's from blogspot.co.uk. Perhaps a WP:RS source exists? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ivor Gurney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140714173434/http://www.ivorgurney.org.uk/catalogue/Plays.pdf to http://www.ivorgurney.org.uk/catalogue/Plays.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Bipolar?

How can the lede state that Gurney suffered from "Bipolar disorder" when the term was coined in 1980? The article does not support the diagnosis and should not be stated in the lede. Maineartists (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that it matters that the term 'bi-polar' came into being much later than Gurney's life; other conditions have had name changes and if someone clearly suffered from such a condition then there is good reason to use a modern term so that readers now readily understand it.

However, I agree that nothing in the article text supports mentioning it in the lede text. The concept of a 'bi-phasic' form of mental illness had been around since the 1850s (see article on bi-polar) but nothing in the section on Gurney's illness suggests that this was present for him. Sbishop (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)