Cricket's Historians

172 Rowland Bowen causes Ripples no one had conducted any serious research into the broad basis of cricket history for some thirty years – since the deaths of F.S.Ashley-Cooper and of P.F.Thomas – except Buckley, whose published findings had rather gathered dust, and the narrow diggings of the Squires. In Bowen’s mind the only way to tackle the subject was not just to burrow for new material, but just as important to test to the limit all and every piece of information already in the public arena. The whole sorry muddle of cricket history had begun with the myths and half-truths published (along with much valuable material) by Nyren and Pycroft and then regurgitated by many writers who had never looked beyond those sources, save for the information given in Altham’s history. Bowen’s forthright attitude was not going to make for a happy relationship with many long established ‘historians-statisticians’ of the Webber ilk. Whilst Bowen had been working on his Championship researches he had gained some allies, especially Gutteridge (of Epworth Books), John Arlott, the now elderly G.B.Buckley and H.S.Scales. Bowen joined The Cricket Society. In 1958-59 as a result of contact with Gutteridge Bowen initially hoped The Cricket Society might aid his endeavours to untangle cricket’s history. In the event he found the Society in disarray. The causes for this disagreement are not part of this present work, but it hardly needs adding that Bowen threw himself into the fray. With some like-minded members, namely P.A.L.Barling, G.Brodribb, H.A.Cohen, E.D.R.Eagar, J.D.Lane, C.Nichols, A.A.Thomson, A.Cureton, E.Grayson, A.W.T.Langford, I.Rosenwater and B.J.Wakley, he first forced a postal ballot and then two Extraordinary General Meetings, after which the whole of The Cricket Society Committee was replaced. Bowen urged that the Society becomemore pro-active and that the rather dated Newsletter , ought to be replaced by an authoritative Journal , which would give the Society a more influential voice in the cricketing world as a whole. The new Committee appointed Bowen as Editor, but in reality he was not the person to produce a publication under the overall aegis of a committee. Cracks soon appeared in the new structure and Bowen resigned before the first issue of the Journal was even assembled. The