Notes for: George Rowland Sinclair Rowland
Some Brief Notes on George Ferdinand Springmühl von Weissenfeld.
by philip kuhn
(28 September 2012/ revised 25 October 2015)
I have now completed what I hope will be the penultimate draft of a biography of G. F. Springmühl which goes under the working title "Materials for the Novelist" being The Phantasmagorical Lives of George Ferdinand Springmühl von Weissenfeld (1872 - 1902). The story is a complex and fascinating one and Springmühl’s brief time living in Trumpington is just one aspect of his varied career. So J. F. Cooper is quite right to think that there is a much larger story behind the brief (but I am afraid to say) somewhat misleading extract from which he quotes:
So far as I can tell nearly all the information we have about G. F. Springmühl, aka G. F. Springmühl von Weissenfeld, aka Dr. Sinclair Roland, aka Dr de Villiers, aka Dr Wilde (etc., etc.,) has been gleaned mainly from two books both of which were written by A. Calder-Marshall: his 1959 biography of Havelock Ellis (Rupert Hart, London) and his 1972 Lewd, Blasphemous & Obscene: being the trials and tribulations of Sundry Founding Fathers of Today's Alternative Societies, etc., (Hutchinson & Co., London). Although Grosskurth's 1985 Havelock Ellis: A Biography (New York University Press, New York) has gone some way to offering a more nuanced reading of de Villiers's relationship with Ellis it is still Calder-Marshall's account which prevails.
Although I don't like to denigrate the work of other historians I am forced to make an exception in the case of Calder-Marshall. He has lifted nearly all of his information about ‘Dr. de Villiers’ from John Sweeney's 1904 book, At Scotland Yard: Being the experiences during twenty-seven years' service of John Sweeney, edited by Francis Richards, (Grant Richards, London. Reprinted BiblioLife Network). And as if that was not bad enough Calder-Marshall never makes it clear that Sweeney was his only source or that Sweeney had no qualifications, whatsoever, to write about de Villiers not least because Sweeney quite literally let de Villiers slip through his fingers in 1898 and only realised, after de Villiers's death in 1902, that de Villiers was Springmühl von Weissenfeld the man who jumped bail a few years earlier. Nearly all of Sweeney's account of the last years of de Villiers life (1897-1902) and of de Villiers’ death is pure unadulterated fiction. What is more Sweeney’s portrait of de Villiers is clearly driven by a barely concealed malice for the 'Johnny Foreigner' who had, after all, got the better of him. Sweeney's account is therefore tainted by prejudice of the worst kind and Calder-Marshall, by slavishly following Sweeney's narrative, has produced an account full of prejudice, mis-information and (to put it bluntly) lies. I am not surprised, therefore, that J F Cooper should believe that de Villiers was a pornographer.
Around 1896 de Villiers purchased the Free Review, an important radical magazine, which had been established, a few years earlier, by John MacKinnon Robertson a protégé of the secularist Charles Bradlaugh. After purchasing the Free Review, which he subsequently re-named the University Magazine & Free Review, de Villiers set up his own publishing company, The University Press and also his own printing press in Watford. Over the next couple of years de Villiers published a number of interesting books only one of which dealt with the question of ‘sex.’ That book was Havelock Ellis's Sexual Inversion (1897) now generally considered one of the early classics of European Sexology. Unfortunately most of de Villiers's reputation has been fashioned from the negative and often absurd stories which have been attached to that book which is now generally known as Volume 2 of Ellis's important 6 Volume "Studies in the Psychology of Sex." As it turns out de Villiers was the first and only English publisher of Sexual Inversion.
At first Sexual Inversion sold quietly and there is no evidence that de Villiers ever tried to promote it as pornographic literature. He had too much respect for Ellis to have done something like that. Then in May/ June 1898 George Bedborough, who was then secretary of the Legitimation League, was ‘discovered’ by chance selling copies of Ellis's book and this was drawn to the attention of Special Branch who mounted a sting operation on Bedborough which they used as a pretext for raiding the offices of the Legitimation League in, what turned out to be, a successful attempt to close them down. A number of officials in Special Branch, like William Melville and Sweeney himself, often took it upon themselves to operate outside the law and, in this case, they took against the League because they objected to the fact that its members were openly discussing and publishing articles on matters of sex and sexuality - matters which senior officials in Special Branch, without any legal justification, considered to be a threat to public order and morality. Bedborough was arrested and charged, on 11 counts, with selling obscene literature, Sexual Inversion being just one of those counts. Of course obscenity is a relative term but I think somebody, today, would be hard pushed to argue that Sexual Inversion was / is a pornographic work even given that it was published in the wake of the trial of Oscar Wilde. To cut a long story short a few days before the trial was due to take place Bedborough pleaded guilty to 3 of the 11 counts - including Sexual Inversion - which meant that the question as to whether or not Sexual Inversion was an obscene publication was, in fact, never tested in the Courts and so the precise legal status of the book remained uncertain for at least the next 70 years! Or to put it another way certain Purity Groups and other moralists might have openly condemned the work (often without reading it) but no Judge or Jury ever tested the police accusations in court let alone pronounced upon them.
In the course of his 'discussions' with the police Bedborough, in an attempt to save himself from penal servitude, sought to throw all the blame for the publication of Sexual Inversion onto de Villiers with the result that in October 1898 the Police supposedly issued a warrant for de Villiers' arrest. I say ‘supposedly’ because it is not clear if the warrant was ever issued or if it was just a stunt pulled by the prosecution (sic) when pleading leniency for Bedborough. Not surprisingly de Villiers went to ground although, in fact, he simply moved from Wembley to Watford (which is where his press was still located). Perhaps somewhat foolishly de Villiers continued publishing Sexual Inversion and before long drew attention to himself. When his press was raided, in January 1900, de Villiers went to ground again only this time to reappear (in early 1901) in Trumpington where he bought ‘Edenfield’ in the name of Dr Roland. Although de Villiers now went under the name of Sinclair Roland the local directory listed him as S. Rowland Sinclair Rowland MA., MD. Whilst living in Trumpington de Villiers, who was generally known as Rowland, continued printing and publishing books, including Sexual Inversion. He almost certainly chose to live in Trumpington because it was near to Cambridge and therefore offered him easy access to Liverpool Street Station which was a short work to his warehouse near by. To cut another of his long stories short it came to the notice of the City of London Police that de Villiers was still printing and distributing Sexual Inversion and after having staked out his warehouse for several months they finally managed to spot and identify his 'daughter' (aka niece, aka servant) and follow her back to Edenfield in Trumpington. After putting ‘Edenfield’ under surveillance for a considerable time the police finally satisfied themselves that de Villiers was, for the time being at least, at home and to this end mounted their morning raided. It took the Police some three hours searching the house and grounds before they discovered de Villiers hiding in a secret cupboard in the loft. After a struggle de Villiers was overpowered, arrested and taken to Cambridge Police Station but died suddenly before he could be formally charged. There was a thorough post-mortem followed by a coroner's inquest with a jury. It is quite likely, therefore, that his death was, as reported, "due to apoplexy probably brought on by the intense excitement that the prisoner must have endured, that morning, whilst trying to evade capture." There was no evidence that de Villiers was carrying a weapon and no contemporaneous evidence, or even suspicion, that he might have committed suicide.
So to answer J F Cooper's questions.
Badcock and Arrow were from the City of London Police and Arrow, having obtained the warrant to arrest de Villiers, travelled with Badcock to Cambridge where, together with officers from Cambridgeshire Constabulary, they finally effected the arrests.
The women who were also arrested were Mrs Sinclair Roland (aka Mrs Singer) and Ella Sinclair Roland (aka Miss Anna Roland) although their precise relationships to de Villiers remain something of a mystery. Mrs Roland may well have been de Villiers' wife but in her previous incarnation (as Mrs Singer) she was always introduced as de Villiers' sister-in-law! Ella Sinclair Roland would sometimes refer to Mrs Roland as her mother and sometimes as her aunt: but then to add more complexity to the matter Ella gave birth to a child in 1895 when she was probably about 13 years old (she may have been somewhat older but probably not much older). At the time she fell pregnant, in 1894, she was a servant in the de Villiers' household but then disappeared, for a time, not long before she gave birth, and then returned to the de Villiers’ household with her new-born baby. From that moment on she started taking meals with 'Mr and Mrs de Villiers / Singer. What is more Ella’s child, who was also living in ‘Edenfield’ at the time of the arrests in 1902, was registered, shortly after birth, under the name of Roland Villiers Singer and although de Villiers was clearly assuming 'financial responsibility' for the child there is no clear proof (one way or the other) as to whether or not he was also the biological father.
The two women who were arrested stood trial at the Old Bailey along with some of de Villiers's other associates. Ella pleaded guilty and was "allowed out on recognisances to come up for judgement if called upon." Mrs Sinclair Roland was found guilty and given nine months - some reports suggest with hard labour. Subsequent evidence suggests she eventually did a deal with the Official Receiver - in relation to de Villiers’ other complex financial ‘schemes’ - and my guess is that she probably ended up a very wealthy woman once she had left jail.
J F Cooper also notes: "In 1897 Watford University Press published Havelock Ellis's Sexual Inversion. John Addington Symonds was given co-authorship (I don't know why). Symonds's died a few years after the publication at which point his family purchased the entire run of Sexual Inversion and destroyed it."
My researches suggest that Ellis and John Addington Symonds first discussed the possibility of collaborating on a book about Sexual Inversion in June 1892 and although Symonds died in April 1893 Ellis remained committed to their joint project and from about 1894 began publishing the medical material in a number of different Journals, including the Alienist and Neurologist, the Journal of Mental Science, The Medico-Legal Journal and Archivio della Psicopatie Sessuale. Then in 1896 Horatio Brown, Symonds' literary executor, arranged for a limited edition publication of Symonds' A Problem of Modern Ethics. That book, which was specifically addressed to "Medical Psychologists and Jurists" was, in effect, a plea for a more tolerant and compassionate understanding of homosexuality, although the book appears to have attracted little or no attention. At about the same time Ellis finally completed the book that he and Symonds had originally planned whereupon it was translated into German as Das Konträre Geschlechtsgefühl by Ellis’s good friend Hans Kurella, Das Konträre Geschlechtsgefühl was then published, around April 1896, with Ellis and Symonds listed as joint authors and appeared as volume 7 of the Bibliotek für Socialwissenschaft, which was part of a series under the general umbrella of the Centralblatt für Nervenheilkunde und Psychiatrie, a Journal edited by Kurella. Ellis told Edward Carpenter, at the time: "I am not anxious to publish it in Germany - where it is not required - but that may pave the way for English publication." The first English edition of Sexual Inversion was published by de Villiers in early 1897 with Ellis and Symonds listed as joint editors but shortly after publication Horatio Brown, probably in consultation with Symonds’ wife, realised that the book could be injurious to Symonds' reputation, damage Symonds' name and also damage the cause: it was to this end that he purchased the bulk of the run and had it pulped. The second edition of Sexual Inversion, which appears with only Ellis’s name, was then published in November 1897.
philip@itinerantpress.eu
From http://www.oldbaileyonline.org:
ELLA SINCLAIR ROWLAND, ANNA SINCLAIR, ALLAN LAIDLAW, CHARLES MAURICE COLEMAN, EDWARD HENRY COLEMAN, Breaking Peace > libel, 7th April 1902.
326. ELLA SINCLAIR ROWLAND (32), ANNA SINCLAIR (20), ALLAN LAIDLAW (47), CHARLES MAURICE COLEMAN (31), and EDWARD HENRY COLEMAN, Unlawfully conspiring with Roland De Villiers and others to publish obscene pamphlets, books, and libels.
MR. MUIR, MR. BODKIN, AND MR. LEYCESTER Prosecuted.
MR. HUTTON and MR. FULTON appeared for Rowland and Sinclair; MR. SIMMONS and MR. MORLE for Laidlaw; MR. BLACK for C. M. Colman; and MR. BIRON for E. H. Colman.
ROWLAND,LAIDLAW,and C M. COLEMAN withdrew their pleas, and stated in the hearing of the jury that they were guilty. GUILTY .
E.H. COLEMAN then PLEADED GUILTY to publishing two obscene libellous pamphlets.
ANNA SINCLAIR - GUILTY.The jury recommended her to mercy, considering that she was under the influence of the other prisoners.
The COLEMANS received good characters
ROWLAND, Nine months hard labour.
LAIDLAW and MAURICE COLEMAN, Six months' hard labour each.
E. H. COLEMAN and ANNA SINCLAIR to enter into recognizances.
Manchester Evening News 15 Jan 1902:
EXCITING STORY OF AN ARREST.
TRAGIC SEQUEL.
At Bow-street, London, today, Ella Sinclair Roland, alias Singer, 42, married; Anna Sinclair, alias Anna Van Jarchow, 20, no occupation, both living at Edenfield, Trumpington Road, Cambridge; Allan Lairlaw, 47, journalist, Spring-street, Paddington; Charles Maurice Coleman, 31, Great College-street, Camden Town; Edward Henry Coleman, 45, printer, High-street, Bognor; and Walter Douglas Munday, 25, printer, Crescent Road, Bognor, were charged on a warrant with conspiring to print, sell, and publish obscene books, pictures, pamphlets, and other obscene libels.
Detective Arrow, Scotland Yard, said he went to Cambridge on Tuesday, and in company with other officers went to the residence of the Sinclairs, a large house standing in its own grounds. Witness informed the younger Sinclair that he held a warrant for the arrest of "Dr. Roland," Mrs. Sinclair Roland, and herself. She immediately called out "Mamma, mamma!" In reply to the witness she said Mrs. Roland was in, but he could not see her. The officer afterwards went to a servants’ bedroom and there saw Mrs. Roland. She was in the act of putting on a servant’s skirt. He asked her if she was Mrs. Roland, and she answered, "No, I am Mrs. Tipton, the housekeeper." Witness said he was satisfied she was the person described in the warrant, and then asked her where Dr. Roland was. She replied, "He saw you coming, and he has gone to London on his way to Germany." The two women were then handed over to other officers, the house was surrounded, and search made for the doctor. "After searching inside and outside the house for about two and a half hours," continued the officer, "I removed a very large washing stand from against the wall of the billiard room at the top of the house. Behind it was a small door in the wall. It was locked. I forced it, and inside I found a partition of matchboarding, giving it the appearance of an empty cupboard. I broke through that and found it was on a hinge. It was barricaded inside with two large trunks kept in position by three iron rods and a number of heavy planks propped against the rods. While moving those I heard a noise as though someone was breaking through the roof. When I got through the partition I came to another room in which there was a similar door in the wall. That door was forced, and I then saw a man crouched up against the rafters on the roof. There was only room for one man to get in, and Sergeant Badcock entered. At that time we did not know who the man was. Sergeant Badcock brought the man out, and he began struggling violently. After a time he admitted that his name was Dr. Sinclair Roland. He was conveyed to Cambridge police station. In the room next to the loft where he was concealed there was a loaded revolver. About an hour after the arrest of Dr. Roland I heard that he was dead."
The officer continued that he afterwards found at the prisoner’s a number of books on the psychology of the sexes, published by the University Press, and other documents.
Evidence was given of the arrest of the other prisoners, who were all remanded.