selfishness’, and engenders in the character and manner
of our times a ‘vain, luxurious, and selfish
EFFEMINACY’. 57 And in a revealing passage, he politicizes the chain
of being to suggest how corruption in high places leads to the
dismantling of political order in the same way as ambition threatens the
Thus the great chain
‘neurasthenia’ denoted nervous exhaustion. B. Shephard, A War of Nerves. Soldiers and Psychiatrists, 1914–1994 (London, 2000), pp. 9–10.
86 Francis, The Flyer , p. 107.
87 For a brief overview of contemporary medical opinion see J. Bourke, ‘Effeminacy, Ethnicity and the End of Trauma: The Sufferings of “Shell-Shocked” Men in Great Britain and Ireland, 1914–39’, Journal of Contemporary History , 35:1 (2000), p. 59; J. Meyer, ‘Separating the Men from the Boys. Masculinity and Maturity in Understandings of Shell Shock in Britain’, Twentieth Century British History
be fighting hard for regulation, and objective status, and for his critical
doctrines, but he sounds as though he thinks the battle he is fighting is
It is not only his intellect that Ford believes is belittled by his cultural
and literary surroundings. It goes deeper than that. He proceeds to
decry the emasculating effects of the paltry remuneration offered to the
imaginative (impressionist) writer, as public proof of his public worth.
He then further forces his point to suggest a ‘stigma of effeminacy’
(think back to Babbitt) attached to his branch of the