Talk:The Mint (book)

Existing army rank
Lawrence was not " working, despite his existing senior rank in the army (Colonel), as an ordinary Aircraftman, under an assumed name". He had left the army, and thus had no existing senior rank.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, changed it to "despite having held senior rank". Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

That's the wrong illustration...
Per "An Handful With Quietness" by Patrick Knowles, the neighbor who was going to help Lawrence with his hand-press version of The Mint, the Augustus John drawing to be used as frontispiece to The Mint was a different one. P 39, a paragraph: "The first book to come off of the press was to be The Mint, of which he already had the frontispiece; a drawing of him by Augustus John entitled 'An Airman 1935'. That same drawing is used as the frontispiece for Knowles' book (ISBN 0 9518953 0 3), captioned "1. Pencil Drawing intended for the frontispiece for "The Mint," the first book to be printed by Pat Knowles and Lawrence." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobi97060 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , as we discussed on the help channel, I have reviewed your concerns. There's little doubt that it is a pencil drawing of T.E. Lawrence, as it is stated as such in The Telegraph, a reliable source. However, I can't find any evidence that this specific pencil drawing was also the specific one intended to be used in the hand-pressed edition (as claimed by the caption). So, unless there is further detail in A.W. Lawrence preface to The Mint that I'm not aware of (as I don't have a copy of the book), it seems appropriate to remove the image for the time-being. Waggie (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, how many pencil sketches of Lawrence can Augustus John have made; if he made more than one, they were all by John, all of Lawrence, and all in pencil, even if otherwise dissimilar. This one is therefore highly relevant, even if it isn't the actual sketch referenced. All we need to say in the article is that this is a pencil sketch, possibly the one mentioned. I've done that now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , I can live with that characterization, but would be happier with confirmation of some sort, if possible. Thanks for your time, Chiswick Chap. Waggie (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, let's all nose around for more information. The book itself says no more. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in this. I have been nosing around. Lots of sketches were made, some in pencil, some in charcoal. At least four sittings are easily identified and (per Wilson) there are sketches that can't be attributed to any of them. In the intro to The Mint, A W says only that TEL "had already obtained enough copies for its frontispiece of a reproduction (by Messrs Emery Walker) of a portrait drawing by Augustus John, now in the Ashmolean Museum." I've contacted the Ashmolean, asking if they can help identify the proper drawing. Then I can ask that it be released appropriately into the digital universe so that it can be reproduced.

In Jeremy Wilson's "T E Lawrence" exhibition guide for the National Portrait Gallery, 1988, Illustration No. 324 is one of several drawings by John. The copy quotes letters from TEL to Charlotte Shaw and G W Dunn following a session with John in January 1935 and mentions the intended use of the drawing as the frontispiece.

In Garnett's "Letters of T E Lawrence," (which is on line, though I've got the hard copy book) No. 553, dated 26.1.35 to Bruce Rogers, TEL mentions a sitting with John; and Garnett notes that a drawing from this 1935 sitting was intended as the frontispiece.

The drawing currently used as an illustration of what might possibly have been the frontispiece was made in 1919 and is from a sitting at the Paris Peace Conference. Here's another from that series https://www.maggs.com/pencil-portrait-by-augustus-john_225876.htm So the possible frontispiece could have been either of the two charcoal drawings from 1935 (the oil painting, presumed lost, recently turned up per The TEL Society's newsletter). I suspect neither of those drawings, unlike the 1919 one that appeared in Seven Pillars, is in public domain. What is curious is that the drawing identified by Knowles as the one intended for use in TEL's hand press version of "The Mint" is different than the one identified by Wilson. https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/21764/lot/157/ seems to show the correct drawing, in that it is the one from which "collotypes" were made... I have yet to check for more information with the Society (I'm a member) or the TEL Studies website which, despite Wilson's passing, may yet be maintained.

The wrong drawing being shown led to a misunderstanding by a totally innocent third party that somehow TEL couldn't discard his youth in Arabia, that he was backing into the limelight yet again with his plan for a private press, and all sorts of suppositions that would not have been inspired by the correct drawing, regardless of which of the two it actually is.Tobi97060 (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)