PHANTOMS . . . COME TO LIFE . . . PLEASE

John Betts

In the October '95 issue of The Salmon Flyer there are examples of what is apparently the work of William Blacker. A few weeks after this appeared, the Flyfisher's Classic Library reprint arrived. Two fairly quick readings of Mr. Pott's article and Mr. Blacker's book did little to substantiate what seems to be the common wisdom surrounding William Blacker, his work and his book. Quite to the contrary, there may be areas, which if looked at, could readjust his position in the landscape of fly dressing.

My only evidence of Mr. Blacker's work, an assumption on my part as well as that of Mr. Potts and his guide (?), are three flies on page seven of our quarterly.

The first fly, which one may say is complete, as it has a finished head, carries a mixed wing composed of an undecipherable arrangement of fibers. This may be due to the reproduction and not the photographer or Mr. Blacker; even with all of this accounted for, it appears to be an amateurish effort. I have had the privilege of seeing Michael Rogan's flies, tied, presumably, before Mr. Blacker. His wings, though mixed, are definitely organized, and created on purpose. The hackle on this fly, as well as the one below it, are typical of the Irish style, which is as it should be. they are well mounted, particularly on the middle fly, but no more so than what could be expected from an experienced tier. the significant change in Irish style can be seen when comparing the Irish flies in Pryce-Tannatt to those of Frankie McPhillips in E.B. Malone's Irish Trout and Salmon Flies (FFCL 1993).

The second fly is winged with bronze mallard in a manner that a beginner would try just once in a beginning class. Maybe the feather was just tacked on, unprepared, to show where it should be tied in. In none of the plates or instructions in the FFCL edition is anything like this depicted or discussed.

The third fly has a tip to tag step up over the tailing that helped introduce, and make popular, the accepted custom of a butt of herl or wool. Tied with care, there is no need for a butt which would convert it from a necessity to an addition.

None of these flies display the craftsmanship that Mr. Blacker has received acclaim for, either during his life or afterward. Is it possible that these are not, or not entirely, his flies, but those of a student from his classes that filled this, the student's copy of the book, with what had been done in class? Perhaps Mr. Potts could elucidate here - for example, which edition did these appear in? Where in the text were the flies? Were there any notes in the margin, and if so, in whose hand?

Even I, ranking at the bottom of our group in terms of craftsmanship, can and have produce better flies than this without a vise, which is how Mr. Blacker tied. My sense is that Mr. Potts has complimented flies that would have not received accolade had they not been said to be the work of William Blacker.

Turing to The Art of Fly Making, there are similar problems with what has been broadcast and what is present. To come from a different direction may highlight some of the inconsistencies to set them in higher relief. Who was William Blacker? Where did he come from, and who were his associates?

Not a great deal is known about him, beyond that he was Irish; according to Mr. McKenna, Blacker liven in Scotland, ended up in the tackle business in London and died of tuberculosis at the age of 43. There is nothing that emerges clearly as a singular driving force in his life. It is doubtful that he had a first rate education, unlike some of his customers, one of whom was unusual and could have written a good deal of The Art of Fly making. This customer was a friend of English royalty and the highest peerage in the land. He was then, and is still recognized as a significant writer in the area of fly fishing. His pen name was Ephemera, in life he was Edward Fitzgibbon. Mr. Fitzgibbon was also present at Mr. Blacker's death and singed the certificate.

Although I have no doubt that Mr. Blacker authored the core of the fly tying text, and may have also done something with the travel section, I am not convinced that the volume we see now, is, in the main, his work. At the very least, there seems to be two different styles of writing. One straight forward, the other much more in keeping with what one might expect from a man of letters. They are so intertwined that pulling them apart would sunder the text. There are glimpses though, that in the reading are not that hard to find. Style is, at its strongest, a nebulous and abstract reason to look at what, in effect, is a text book. Perhaps we can find something more concrete.

Both James Ogden and P.D. Malloch wrote and probably produced what they did, in the way they did it, for reasons similar to those of William Blacker. Someone like a book publisher or a person on the staff of a periodical, like Mr. Fitzgibbon, may have said, "You ought to write a book on this. It would certainly help your business, and I'd be glad to publish it.". Exactly the same thing that goes on today. Both Mr. Ogden and Mr. malloch, men of wide angling and tying experience, had high professional profiles and tackle businesses. Neither however, were men of writing ability equal to their elevated status as fly fishermen, and consequently produced the bare bones works they left behind. Mr. Ogden was probably encouraged to "flesh" out his piece, and did just that by candidly praising both himself; what he had accomplished, and what products of his were available. Mr. Malloch's work consisted of magazine articles. both men did little more than indicate that they were anglers and proprietors first and writers some distance behind that. Mr. Blacker may not have been any different from them, or shop owners today. immediately, I can only think of two or three that write regularly. Had Mr. Blacker worked throughout the editions o on his own, what kind of book would he have produced? I suggest that it would have been more in keeping with Ogden on Fly Tying. indeed, the first copy of The Art is supposed to have been only 31 pages.

Enter Mr. Fitzgibbon to contribute as he had cone previously through his editing of William Shipley's book in 1838. This book is quite good, as Mr. Shipley apparently could write, it did not suffer from the extra hand either in content or financial return.

In his time, Mr. Blacker may well have been the best fly dresser in London. The Rogan studio was operating, but it was in Ireland, and times there were very difficult. Had Mr. Blacker lacked in skill, he may have more than made up for it by being convenient. How ever he did his work, he was successful and well known even with competition nearby in the person of Mr. Jones of Jones' Guide to Norway. Even though Messers Jones and Tolfrey were outright liars (I have driven the E 16, one of their routes in Norway, several times, in both directions. Neither could have written what they did, had they travelled it, which neither ever did, and yet they use the word "we" in their collaboration). Mr. Jones had an excellent business selling high quality tackle to wealthy Englishmen. mr. Fitzgibbon certainly knew of Mr. Jones, but did not lend him the kind of support he gave to Mr. Blacker. He might have made his choice because of a difference in the characters of Mr. Jones and Mr. Blacker, but that is pure speculation. Was Mr. Fitzgibbon, in the vernacular, a "groupie", attaching himself to whomever he thought was, or could be, important? He wasn't the least bit shy about throwing his social weight and who he knew around. At first, I thought this to be the case, now though, I'm not so sure. While wanting to be on the inside track may have played a part, he may also have genuinely wanted to contribute to the advancement of someone he felt had promise and something to offer in an area he loved - that of fly fishing. Patronage of all sorts was a common practice, something the "right sort of people" were expected to do. It is still so today, eg. Mr. kreh or Mr. Whitlock writing a forward to someone else's book.

With Mr. Blacker, he went to work on the text recently selected by the FFCL for re-issue. It was the last edition done during Mr. Blacker's lifetime; Mr. Fitzgibbon was to die a year later. Did he help or harm the basic thrust of the book? Without having seen earlier efforts, it's hard to say. My guess is that he complicated something quite simple when one considers the author's background and original manuscript. In pieces like this, the gravest error commonly committed is that of the omission of an instruction. However, there is no question that someone (Mr. Fitzgibbon?) helped dress up the first editions, making both it and Mr. Blacker more marketable. This is not a small contribution in any field, let alone that of fly fishing in the mid 1800's. If one weeds carefully through the text, the directions are easy to follow. They are sound, solid advise; it's the weeding process that can be tedious. For example, there are steps for a fly upon which the hackle and wing are set before the tail and body are applied. This may be nothing more than residual technique, unquestioned by either Mr. Blacker or Mr. Fitzgibbon. The technique is from a time when most flies were finished at the tail, as it was easier to half hitch here rather than at the other end where the hitch loop could slip off, at a critical moment, onto the snell. This practice of finishing at the tail had nearly died out, for good reason, by this time but it is included in Mr. Shipley's book, published only three years before Mr. Blacker's first edition.

Part of the weeding process should include a look at the plates. To begin, there are at least three different engravers, with the plate under "The Picker" appearing to be the oldest; then perhaps the fuzzy impressions, but better hook shapes without borders and finally plates with borders, demonstrating first-rate engraving, coloring and impression. Also, it becomes apparent that there is more than one colorist and plate designer. It is comforting to see that the hooks in the photographs in The Salmon Flyer look a good deal like those in The Art of Fly Making. For the most part, people accurately drew what they saw, as in Mr. Hofland's flies and landscapes and Mr. Ronald's insects and flies. Even the hooks in the "Picker" plate look a good bit like Irish hooks from the early 19th and late 18th centuries.

The plate of the feathers is unfinished. the large dark hackle in the center has been underpainted, but only half of it has been overglazed and this leads to an interesting speculation. How many plates were printed? How many of these were colored? Correctly? Incorrectly? How many were rejected? How many were never completed? According to Mr. McKenna, the book was still available as new (?) in the early 1890's. Thirty five years after the deaths of Mr. Blacker and Mr. Fitzgibbon. Were more "1855 editions" bound after 1855 using what was left over?

The comments about the confusing instructions in the 1855 text are simplistic. If William Blacker was only half of the tier he was reputed to be, we should know more about him. His extended body, comments on his finger nails and how to use them and reversing the fly could only have come from a person of considerable talent, whose greatest deficiency was a lack of training that would have enabled him to write it down on his own. Because of his ability, it seems doubtful that he would leave behind, pasted in a book, examples of his work like that shown in the photographs. I doubt if he sent anything like that to Prince Albert, and if he is like any other tier, he would not want a record like that for prosperity. He may have been around when these flies were tied, he may have even tied all or part of them, but I doubt that they even begin to represent what he could do. And for that reason, it seems unlikely, to me, that they are his work.

Apparently there is someone (in the U.K.) who has collected a considerable amount of The Art of Fly Making. Does anyone know who they are? They could help a lot!

Note: There was no winter issue in Vol. 8.