Marie Goldsmith: Her life and thought

MARIE GOLDSMITH: HER LIFE AND THOUGHT

 WHAT'S IN A NAME ?

     Maria Isidorovna Goldsmith was born on July 19, 1871 in  Russia (1). There is some confusion about both the date and location of her birth. Some assume that she was born in Switzerland, around 1873 probably in Zurich where the family later moved, but this move was years later. Her father Isidor published Znanie, a positivist (2) oriented review. He was exiled to the north for his views, according to the historian Max Nettlau first to Pinega and later to Arkhangsk (3). Nettlau was of the opinion that she was born in one of these places. Her mother, Sofia Ivanova Goldsmith, was a follower of the SR writer Labrov. Like Lavrov she was also interested in the natural sciences, studying at the Faculty of Medicine in Moscow and later receiving her doctorate at the Faculty of Science in Zurich (4). Goldsmith's father died when she was young, and her and her mother's common interests in radical politics and natural sciences was the basis for their lifelong close relationship.(5) In 1888 she and her mother left Russia and eventually settled in Zurich Switzerland.

     Before we go any further a matter of names should be cleared up. Goldsmith went by more than as many names as I have fingers. The last name is an anglicized version of an original Yiddish 'Goldsmid', 'Goldsmit' or 'Goldsmidt'. All four of these were used by various people at various times by people who either knew her or wrote about her. Her first name is also rendered either 'Maria' or 'Marie' depending on the author. To complicate things further she adopted two noms-de-plumes in her political writing. One was 'Korn' (sometimes rendered 'Corn'). The other was 'Isidine'. In both cases either Maria or Marie have been used. Her scientific publications were printed under the name of 'Marie Goldsmith', but whether this was the preferred label is hard to judge. In this essay I use this name as a matter of convenience.

COMING TO PARIS

     Goldsmith's first political commitment was in imitation of her mother. She became a member of the International Socialist Revolutionary Students (a branch of the Russian SRs in exile)(6) in June of 1892. She was active in these circles as an editor of their pamphlets. Meanwhile the Goldsmiths relocated to Paris in 1890. Once there she frequented other Russian exile circles and eventually became an anarchist. She still, however, maintained contact with the SRs, actually edited their pamphlets despite her political disagreements with them. As late as 1903 she translated and published the 'Historical Letters' of Labrov. As will be seen later in her relations with other anarchists this was a pattern she held to, never letting differences of opinion to lead to estrangement.

     Goldsmith studied biology at the University of Paris at the Sorbonne. In 1894 she was awarded her undergraduate degree (7), and later her master's.She worked at this institution for many years in association with her fellow biologist Yves Delage. In 1915 she wrote her PhD thesis 'Réactions physiologiques et psychique des poissons' as a graduate student of Delage. It was published by the Institute Géneral Psychologique in the same year. Long before this, however, she had become his indispensible research collaborator, and was the co-author with him of two important books: 'Les Theories de l'Evolution' (1909)(8) and 'Le Parthénogénèse Naturelle et Éxperimentale' (1913). The former book was particularily influential, and was translated into English, German, Spanish, Portuguese and Chinese. It also figured prominantly in the anarchist side of her life as we shall see later.

     Goldsmith had a long and distinguised scientific career, both as an associate of Delage and on her own. Her main interest was in comparative animal psychology, but she also "wrote on marine animals' response to light, psychological evolution in animals, construction of spider webs, and the role of tannins and sugars in sea urchins [and]...on mendelian evolution" (9). Some of her publications include...

-Les theories de l'evoluion 1909 (with Yves Delage)
-La parthénogénèse expérimentale 1913 (with Yves Delage)
-La parthénogénèse naturelle et expérimentale 1913 (with Yves Delage)
-Réactions physiologiques et psychique des poissons 1915
-Le tannin et le sucre dans la parthénogénèse des oursins 1915 (with Yves Delage)
-Les grands problèmes de la biologie générale 1917 (with Yves Delage)
-Le mendélisme et le mécanisme cytologique de l'hérédite 1919
-La psychologie comparée 1927
-La Dictionnaire illustrée d'histoire naturelle 1931

     Goldsmith was also an editor of  'L'année biologique' from 1902 to 1924 (10). As an interesting sidenote she and Delage wrote editorials for this journal defending Konstantin Merezhkovski's symbiotic theory of the origin of chloroplasts. The idea was developed independently by the Russian botanist Andrei Famintsyn who first advanced it in 1906 and 1907. They also wrote a lengthy review of Portier's book 'Les symbiotes' in this journal. This idea fell out of favour for many decades, but it later became famous through the work of Lynn Margulis who rediscovered it without prior knowledge of the Russian biologists who had first advanced it. Herein lies an interesting tale of the history of science.

     Despite her record of publications Goldsmith had to struggle in the last few years of her life to find scientific employment. She worked as a "laboratory preparer" at the École Practique des Hautes Études from 1927 to 1933. She also found employment as a "seminar leader" at the Faculté de Médicine from 1930 to 1933. She laboured under the dual burden of being both female and undoubtedly being known for her radical views despite her use of pseudonoms. This may explain Nettlau's description of her as "very poor".

GOLDSMITH THE ANARCHIST

     Goldsmith was not totally absorbed in her scientific work. As her commitment to the SRs declined she became more and more active amongst the anarchists, particularily the exiles in Paris. In 1897 (11) she began a correspondance with Peter Kropotkin, an exchange of letters that was to continue, at least as sources allow us to speculate, until 1917. There is a problem here in verification as only letters received by Goldsmith have been preserved. In his exile in England Kropotkin was in a perhaps justifiable state of over-precaution. He burned all correspondance. As such we have only his letters to Goldsmith to work from. To complicate matters most of these were written in Russian (12) and only a few are in French. The Russian letters await translation. Goldsmith actually became Kropotkin's major correspondant with almost 400 items having been preserved (12) in the Nicolaevsky Collection in Paris. As such she was one of the major influences on Kropotkin's later thought, no matter how she might disagree with him on certain points. She was actually the major political correspondant in Kropotkin's life in exile. The number of his letters to her is only exceeded by those of Kropotkin to his brother. As Martin A. Miller, one of the most reputable of  Kropotkin's biographers says in his notes to his biography;

     "This is the largest single collection of letters in Kropotkin's entire career with the sole exception of the large correspondance with his brother which, however, was written before Peter's conversion to anarchism". (13)

     The collection contains six volumes, and despite Miller's 'presumed' familiarity with them he makes an egregious error about Goldsmith's opinions during the First World War, as we we see later. Goldsmith became the leading figure amongst the Russian exiles in Paris (14), and their anarchist group meetings were held in her apartment (15). It was during this period that she adopted the nom-de-plume 'Maria Korn'. Goldsmith also began a prolific output for the libertarian press, writing in Russian, French, English, Italian and Yiddish for publications across Europe and North America. (16) According to Paul Avrich she also made the acquitance of another newcomer, Emma Goldman, when the latter was in Europe in 1895-1896 on a tour to campaign for the release of Alexander Berkman from prison. Goldman met with other Parisian anarchists in Goldsmith's home. The pair also became correspondents and she later defended Goldman's attack on Johann Most (17) in the pages of De Vrije Socialist on April 6, 1900.

     Goldsmith was also prominent in non-Russian anarchist circles, though her main focus was on the Russian movement. At the 1906 London conference of Russian anarchists in exile she authored no less than three of the reports, "on the matter of politics and economics, on organization and on the general strike" (18). In 1914 she was one of the speakers in Paris on the anniversary of the death of Bakunin (19). She also help organize meetings on commemorations of the Paris Commune and the Haymarket martyrs though it is unclear if she spoke at these gatherings. Her major contribution, however, was as one of the founders and one of the main writers of the Russian language journal Khleb i Volia (Bread and Freedom) published in Geneva from August 1903 to November 1905 and smuggled into Russia. Under the influence of the recently successful French CGT she promoted the ideas of anarchosyndicalism in her writings. Her writings on this subject were later produced as a pamphlet 'Revolutionary Syndicalism and Anarchism' in Moscow/Petrograd in 1920. The work has, unfortunately, never been translated from the Russian.

     Khleb i Volia was perhaps Goldsmith's most significant activity in these years. This journal was initiated in Geneva under the influence of Kropotkin. It grew out of the Russian language Anarkhicheskaia Biblioteca , a publishing house started by an Armenian Alexander Atakekian who had come to London to ask the 'anarchist sage' about how he could best contribute to his ideals. It began by publishing works of Bakunin and Kropotkin, and it later laid plans for a Russian language newspaper. It was actually Goldsmith who first suggested the idea to Kropotkin in their correspondance (20). Kropotkin in turn provided her with an introduction to two other contacts K. Gogeliia-Orgeiani and his wife Lidiia Ikonnikova (21). Along with another anarchist in Geneva, Maksim Raevskii, the Geneva group began publication with Goldsmith, under the pseudonom of Maria Korn, as an external editor in Paris.

     Kropotkin wrote many pieces for KiV even though he had many differences with the editors including Goldsmith. As Martin Miller says in his biography of Kropotkin,

     "Kropotkin's participation in the publishing of Khleb i Volia took many forms, from contributing to fundraising to advising. To be precise Kropotkin influences the paper but did not control it in any way; in fact, in all his associations with anarchist papers, he may never have had as little to say about the running of the paper as he did with this one." (22)

     Kropotkin's problems with the journal began in 1904 when he was disturbed by a lead article, probably the work of Gogeliia, that seemed to present terrorist tactics in a favourable light. He expressed his displeasure in a letter to Goldsmith, going so far as to suggest that the person he had introduced to her might in fact be a police agent. Goldsmith was definitely on Kropotkin's side in this debate, but for reasons quite different from his. They won the dispute. In the next issue of KiV an article appeared denouncing terrorism. As mentioned before Goldsmith, admiring the work of the French CGT, consistently defended an anarchosyndicalist position in her writings for Khleb i Volia. At the time the growth of syndicalism was a constructive reaction amongst anarchists, and French workers in general, reacting against the blind alley of the individualist pseudo-anarchist trend of 'illegalism' that had disgraced anarchism in fin-de-siecle Europe. What syndicalism provided was a practical outlet whereby anarchists could move beyond dramatic demonstrations to productive activity. Kropotkin, however, harboured doubts about the tactic that Goldsmith did not share. The difference was muted, basically a matter of emphasis. Goldsmith was far more optimistic about syndicalism than Kropotkin and even though all the editors of KiV shared reservations about the possible degeneration of syndicates it was Kropotkin who was most emphatic about this danger. (23) This was the first instance where Goldsmith disagreed with the person she undoubtedly considered a mentor, but it was not the last. It was typical of Goldsmith that their differences didn't lead to a break in their friendship. It was also typical of her that there was no direct confrontation.

     Smuggled into Russia, Khleb i Volia became quite influential amongst workers and young intellectuals. Copies reached as far as the factories in the Urals. Anarchosyndicalists in south Russia where the ideology was most popular appreciated the journal even if they had doubts about how much French ideas were practical in their situation.

GOLDSMITH AND KROPOTKIN

     As mentioned above Goldsmith became Kropotkin's primary correspondant in his years of exile. In the beginning the influence was pretty well one way with Kropotkin playing the role of mentor. From September 1890 to June 1896 the exiled anarchist had published a series of article in the English magazine 'The Nineteenth Century' (24) which were later collated in book form in 1902 under the title of 'Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution'. The most popular interpretation of Kropotkin's purpose in wrting the articles was to counter the opinions of Thomas Huxley ("Darwin's Bulldog") who in 1888 published his 'The Struggle for Existence in Human Society' in 'The Nineteenth Century'. Kropotkin mentions this as the motive behind his articles in his introduction to the book's first edition. (25) He also mentions Huxley's 'Ethics' and the opinions of Herbert Spencer whom he also disagreed with. Mutual Aid became an international success and is still considered a classic today. During the composition of his essays Kropotkin wasn't simply writing a political text. To a great extend he was influenced by ideas current amongst Russian naturalists of the time (26) who, unlike people such as Darwin, Wallace and Huxley, carried out their studies in relatively severe climates where intraspecific cooperation was selected for as against competition.

     Whatever its popularity, amongst both left wing circles and the general biological community, 'Mutual Aid' had an obvious deficiency. It may indeed have established the evolutionary importance of cooperation, later to become the scientific fields of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, but it lacked a 'mechanism'. That is to say that there seemed to be no obvious way that cooperative habits could give rise to innate cooperative tendencies. Kropotkin had discussed this question before (27) in The Nineteenth Century , but in a rather superficial way. In 1910 he returned to the question in a series of articles in The Nineteenth Century and After, the successor to The Nineteenth Century. In these essays he was concerned both to exorcise the ghost of Malthusism from Darwinism and to present a theory of heredity that would seem consistent with his views on cooperation. He also attempted to recruit the later Darwin to his point of view, especially the Darwin of  'The Descent of Man'. (28) The first essay in the series, 'The Theory of Evolution and Mutual Aid' (1910) (29) was basically an attempt to "recover the real Darwin" who supposedly became progressively more Lamarkian in his latter years. (30) Kropotkin thought that a form of Lamarkism was the most fertile pathway. In his view natural selection was a mere secondary factor and it was acquired characteristics prepared by the action of the environment that set up the basic raw material that evolution worked upon. It was here that Marie Goldsmith and her academic partner Yves Delage enter the picture.

     As mentioned previously Goldsmith and Delage had published their book 'Les Théories de l'évolution ` in 1909. The first English translation was published in 1910 in England. The first American edition came out in New York in 1912. It`s an open question how much influence their book had on Kropotkin when he was composing his essays. The following should be noted. First, Kropotkin`s scientific career was that of a field naturalist despite his general familiarity with other aspects of biology about which he wrote as a journalist. To a large extent he was very much an outsider to experimental biology and genetics. It was here that his major correspondant, Goldsmith, came to his aid. As Álvaro Girón in his article on Kropotkin and Lamarkism says;

     "Now, Kropotkin was not completely alone when he had to deal with this complexity. He received the critical advise and support of Marie Goldsmith, a brilliant Russian student of Biology, disciple of the French Neolamarkian Yves Delage. Her help was instrumental. Kropotkin was an amateur naturalist of the old school, a complete stranger in the field of experimental Biology." (31)

     There is little doubt that Kropotkin was aware of the problem, perhaps as far back as 1903 (32), and he was aware of the controversies about the nature of heredity as early as the 1890s. He was also a convinced Lamarkian, believing that it would be "a weapon against Malthusianism" (33). There is, however, another thing that is not in doubt ie that he had read Goldsmith and Delage's book before writing his essays. In his third essay, 'The Response of the Animals to Their Environment' their book is mentioned as item # 2 in his notes (34). Finally,there is little doubt that the subject of the mechanisms of evolution had been discussed at length in his correspondence with Goldsmith. It isn't certain that he read the book in its French edition of 1909, though it would be hard to imagine that his good friend Goldsmith wouldn't have forwarded him a copy hot off the press. In the above article Kropotkin references the English edition of 1910, but he was, after all,writing for an English speaking audience. In later essays in the series he referenced Delage and Goldsmith's book in its 1909 French edition. He also references Delage's 1903 book 'L' hérédité et les grands problèmes de la biologie générale` . In 1903 Goldsmith was already associated with Delage, and she had been corresponding with Kropotkin since 1897. It is likely that the ideas presented in Delage's 1903 work had benefitted from Goldsmith's input, and, through her, from Kropotkin's earlier work. This is not unusual in the history of science. Scientific ideas are almost invariably the result of collective effort rather than the lone genius of popular mythology.

     What I would like to present here is the possibility that Kropotkin's ideas in his essays were more or less derivative from those of Goldsmith and Delage. This is not to say that Kropotkin was a plagarist. He adduced a vast number of studies that the Paris pair hadn't dealt with, and the organization of the material was his own. Yet Kropotkin himself mentions their books, amongst others, as useful reviews, and there no other reviews that shared his views, biological and otherwise, so widely. It is also significant that there is proof that he discussed these questions in his correspondance with Goldsmith (35). What follows depends on two publications. One, 'Evolution and Environment' ,(36) is available in print. It contains both Kropotkin's earlier pamphlet 'Modern Science and Anarchism' and the essays in question under the title of 'Thoughts on Evolution'. The other source is the online English language edition of 'The Theories of Evolution' (37). The latter is interesting in its own right in presenting the controversies in turn-of-the-century evolutionary biology, and it would certainly bear inspection by historians of science (38).

     In his introduction to the essays George Woodcock mentions the genesis of the series in a letter Kropotkin wrote to W, Wray Silbeck, then editor of The Nineteenth Century and After in November 1909 ie after the publication of Godsmith and Delage's book;

     "He remarked that his researches for 'Ethics' (39) had led him to the conclusion that before proceeding further he must "discuss seriously the question of Darwinian Struggle for Life - and Mutual Aid. It is a big question as it requires a critical analysis of Natural Selection, but of the deepest interest just now, when Lamarkism is coming so prominently to the front"". (40)

     In other words Kropotkin saw Lamarkian inheritance as a counterweight to what seemed, in the writings of Huxley and others, to be a reactionary use of terms like Natural Selection to justify the socioeconomic system of class rule and statist imperialism. He saw Lamarkinism as more compatible with his own theories of mutual aid. Lamarkism was to be the means whereby sociability became part of the genetic heritage of animals and humans. He was sorely mistaken in this opinion. Nowadays there is a huge corpus of the study of cooperation/sociability within the fields of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, all of it based firmly on the premise of natural selection. In the 1910s, however, these theories and facts were decades away in the future. Mendelian genetics had barely been rediscovered. The function of nucleic acids in heredity was unknown. Even the role of the nucleus was a matter of dispute.

     Goldsmith and Delage were Lamarkians, even though in their book they treated other theories in a fair and balanced manner. The fact that an anarchist, and personal friend, such as Goldsmith could at the same time be an exponent of Lamarkism no doubt suggested to Kropotkin that his "choice of sides" in the dispute over heredity lined up with his political beliefs.There are many parallels between Kropotkin's essays and the themes discussed in 'The Theories of Evolution'. Let's examine a few.

     One of Kropotkin's first goals was to "rescue Darwin". This consisted of two lines of argument. One purpose was to show how Darwinism was separate from the ideas of Thomas Malthus whose 'Essay on Population' influenced Darwin's theory of natural selection (41). The second line of attack was to suggest that Darwin was ambivalent about natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism and that he became more 'Lamarkian' over the years. Much of Kropotkin's first article, 'The Theory of Evolution and Mutual Aid' is devoted to these propositions. This is one area where Kropotkin went beyond Goldsmith and Delage, at least in terms of evidence. Even though the Paris Pair had advanced a similar statement (42) Kropotkin presented a much more convincing case, both from Darwin's published work and from his correspondance. This was actually not so hard to do as, as previously mentioned, Darwin's idea of  'orthogenesis' comes close to assuming a Lamarkian point of view. What the anarchist Prince was trying to prove was that Darwin gradually came to accept his own opinion - that adaption to the environment provided the source of variation and that natural selection was a secondary "editing" influence on evolution. Writing, as he was, before the development of modern genetics Kropotkin felt that there had to be something other than chance that produced the variability that natural selection worked upon. As he says;

     "To be cumulative in its effects, there must be, beside the chance variations, a cause, such as hybridism, or still more so the direct action of the environment, which tends to alter the structure and the forms of the animal or plant in a certain definite direction....But once there is such a cause, there is no need of an acute struggle between the individuals of the species to preserve the effects of variation." (43)

     This was Kropotkin's argument by which he tied his two assertions together. Yes it was logically flawed as the subsequent history of genetics demonstrates, but given the state of knowledge in his time it was at least consistant.

    

    

    

    

    


    




NOTES:

1)The Biographical Dictionary of Women in Science: Marilyn Ogilviet and Ivy Harvey eds, Routledge NY 2000 ISBN 0-203-80145-8; p 1046

2)Positivism was a nineteenth century philosophy propounded by the French philosopher and utopian socialist August Comte. It was an early form of empiricism. It also, however, was linked to a proposed technocratic form of collectivism, like that espoused by Henri St.-Simon for whom Comte was once secretary. At the time this philosophy was coloured with a radical tinge. Hence its attraction for the radical intelligentsia, especially as it promised them a directing role in the society that was to replace capitalism. It was an influence on the later doctrine of technocracy. In a mendacious way it later became smuggled into the socialist movement via the Leninist theory of the Party and the role of the intellectuals in it. Today positivism has mutated almost beyond recognition in at least the English speaking world.

3)Nettlau, Max 'A Memorial Tribute to Marie Goldsmith and Her Mother' Freedom (New York) Vol. 1, No 10, March 18 1933, p2 . See also http://www.fondation-besnard.org/spip.php?article600

4)Confino, Michael and Rubinstein, Daniel 'Kropotkine savant [vingt-cinq lettres inédite de Pierre Kropotkine à Marie Goldsmith` Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique Vol 33, No 33 1992 p245. See also http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/cmr_0008-1992_num_33_2_2320

5)There is very little information available on Sophie Goldsmith, but there is little doubt that she was a remarkable woman. Her studies in Moscow were carried out under two barriers as she was both a woman and a Jew. At the time Jewish registration in institutions of higher education was still restricted under Tsarist laws. There is no information about her attitude to Marie's conversion to anarchism, but the circumstances of her life suggest that she made few objections. Considering the strength of will that she evidenced in her prior career it is doubtful that Marie could have stood out against any strenuous objections on her part. In the early years Marie adopted the SR ideology from her mother. The two women remained incredibly, almost pathologically, close through Marie's life, and Marie in fact committed suicide because of her mother's death. Before jumping to pseudo-scientific psychologizing, however, we should take note of the time and culture in which the women lived. Such family closeness was not as uncommon then and there as it is today.

6)See http://militants-anarchistes.info/spip.php?article2329

7)Ogilviet and Harvey Ibid  

8) Les théories de l`évolution B & L Routenberg, Paris 1909. For Yves Delage see Encyclopedia Britannica entry on Yves Delage at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/156289/Yves-Delage . To say the least Delage was a 'character'. His main field of research was marine biology, but he contributed greatly to general physiology. He discovered the function of the vestibular semi-circular canals and was a major influence in evolutionary biology and the growing new field of genetics. Still, even though he was a convinced and often militant atheist and an anti-clerical secularist, he spent (wasted ?) time trying to prove that the Shroud of Turin was authentic !!

9)The Biographical Dictionary of Women in Science Marilyn Ogilvie and Joy Harvey, Routledge New York 2000 p 1046

10)Ibid

11) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Korn and Michael Confino and Daniel Rubinstein Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique 1992, Vol. 33, No 33 p244 http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/cmr_0008_0160_1992_num_33_2_2320

 

 

A Devilishly Smart Pope

A DEVILISHLY SMART POPE

One of the books I'm reading now is John D. Barrow's 'The Book of Nothing'. The subject is  a look at the concept of 'nothing', the void, emptiness, zero, the vacuum and so on. There's actually quite a bit to say about nothing, and book ranges from a history of the mathematical sign for zero, through the 'philosophic concept' of nothingness, to the idea of the vacuum in physics, its explanation by the 'ether' and the eventual overthrow of that concept. Temperatures (absolute zero) and the place of the vacuum in quantum mechanics, relativity and cosmology come on stage, and the book ends with a return to the philosophic concept itself. Yes, quite complex, and I've barely gotten to chapter 2. Nice to have a roadmap to a blank space. I'll be reviewing the book when done.

But one of the matters that did come up was the story of Pope Sylvester II, one of the few admirable holders of the keys of Peter in the Middle Ages. This is a story appealing enough to shove its way to the front of the 'Molly Line'. Sylvester II was born Gerbert de Aurillac (945 - 1003). He reigned as Pope from 999 to 1003. Yes the Pope in the Chair during the turn of the millennium. The world didn't end, and Gerbert/Sylvester was definitely one of the more capable Popes of the age. A lot of his accomplishments were political and hardly bear mention here. Defending the property of the Church. Playing off one ruler against another though he was usually in alliance with the Holy Roman Emperor of the time.  The politics of Italy at the time were particularly chaotic, and once both he and the Emperor had to flee Rome during one of the revolts. He even tried to reform the Church's organization and reduce abuses such as simony, concubinage and nepotism. This was an Herculean task, and even with the assistance of St. Jude (the patron saint of the impossible) the Church remained just about as corrupt as always. He did, however, succeed in significantly increasing the Church's title holdings. Maybe this goal was in direct contradiction to the idea of making the Church into a more 'Holy' outfit. He also played a major role in the Christianization of Eastern Europe, appointing Metropolitans for both Poland and Hungary, and in the later case naming that country as a 'Kingdom'. Thus the Crown of Hungary became dependent on the Papacy.


His political accomplishments were minor compared to his intellectual contributions to European culture. He had early on spend considerable time as an envoy to the far more civilized Muslim states of southern Spain, and he turned his natural curiosity to good effect there, absorbing much of the culture of Andalucía. When he returned to France he was appointed head of education for the Archdiocese of Rheims, and from there he significantly elevated the clerical level of education throughout the French Kingdom.

 When his patron died he was considered the natural successor, but the Capetan monarchy had other ideas, and a relative of the King was appointed in his stead even though Gerbert was a supporter of Hugh Capet whose reign marked the end of the Carolingian dynasty. Barrow has this matter somewhat confused as he lists this Episcopal position without mentioning that Gerbert's appointment was overthrown. Consistent with the political level of the time the King's appointee was later removed because of suspicion of treason to his sponsor. Gerbert who initially was himself accused of treason to the House of Capet was reappointed, but this was challenged and his appointment declared invalid. When he did finally become Pope he pretty well washed his hands of the matter by declaring his competitor as the legitimate Archbishop. Barrow also confuses another appointment of his, as Archbishop of Ravenna, supposing him to be the 'Abbot' of Ravenna. All this is quite forgivable as the politics of the time, clerical and lay, were by their very nature confusing.

Gerbert was lauded for his scholarly contributions in a number of fields. He became the tutor of both Emperors Otto II and his son Otto III, and, as mentioned above, he was elevated to the Papacy with the support of the latter. Gerbert was a true polymath. He was the accepted authority in the liberal arts in his day and a major influence on theology. He was also something of an engineer, designing a hydraulic organ that didn't require air to continually be pumped in as it played. He is also credited with advances in the art of clock making due to one which he designed for the Cathedral of Magdeburg. Even this is confused. Some sources such as the 'Catholic Encyclopedia' say that he was the inventor of the pendulum clock. Others say that his clock was mechanical but weight driven rather than using a pendulum. Still others say that his clock was actually simply a sundial. It was, however, in the field of science and mathematics that he made his greatest contributions.

Gerbert was credited with a number of innovations. He introduced the abacus to Europe, and also the use of the Arabic/Indian number/decimal system. Both were necessary foundations for the later rise of commercial enterprises in the Renaissance. Hard to do proper accounting with Roman numerals. Not that they were always appreciated. In 1299 the decimal system was outlawed in Florence supposedly because it was more vulnerable to fraud. The worry about this matter delayed the adoption of decimal numbers in northern Europe until the sixteenth century. For Gerbert, however, they were a Godsend, and he was the foremost expert on mathematics, geometry and astronomy of his day. Much of this was based on what he had learned in southern Spain even though he was creative enough in his own right.

He is credited with the reintroduction of the 'armillary sphere' to western Europe. This is a 3D model of the heavens, and fitted with viewing tubes it was an early prototype of the telescope. It should be noted that such a sphere would imply that the Earth itself was a sphere. Not that the idea of a flat Earth was universal in Medieval times, but it was common enough even though the use of spheres such as this proliferated.

Barrow's book corrected a misconception of my own, one that I had held for more than a few years. I knew that Sylvester II was a remarkably educated and knowledgeable man well ahead of his time. I also knew that one of the medieval Popes had been dug up from his grave and the corpse put on trail. I'd always assumed that the uncommunicative defendant was Sylvester. During his lifetime and after his death rumours circulated that he was in league with the Devil, that he had even constructed a bronze head that would answer questions posed to it. Sort of an early robot I guess. I assumed that this was the reason for the exhumation. Wrong I was. The corpse was that of one Pope Formosus, and the charges were much more mundane. After the guilty verdict was pronounced the hapless cadaver was chopped to pieces, burnt and the ashes thrown into the Tiber. That will teach him.

The accusations of witchcraft would certainly be a likely medieval explanation for Sylvester's brilliance, but no - he stayed in the ground. Not that he rested easily though. The legends of his life followed him into the grave, and typically they are also confused. One legend says that when a Pope is due to die that Sylvester's bones rattle in the tomb. Another says that the walls of the crypt weep on the sad occasion. I guess there's no reason they can't both be right.

Molly's Kitchen Sink Writing Problem

MOTOR MOUTH OF THE PEN:

     Well it's back to blogging, and my old problem remains - motor mouth of the pen. I've always had a tendency to 'kitchen sink' anything I write. The old 'and another thing and another thing and another thing' habits refuse to die. I've begun to write reviews of books that I've been reading. Production, however, is miniscule. I've had a review of 'Pierre-Joseph Proudhon', one of George Woodcock's many biographies on the burner for some days now, but it's a dish that keeps cooking but never seems to be done. It's been decades since I first read the book, and it's fascinating to return to it with all the (cough) wisdom of age. Yet it seems that the review is developing into a book of its own. Or maybe it's just that I am more inclined to check and recheck things before putting them in final form.

It's still coming though. I promise not to bore readers too much with my writing process. This is just a little explanation. Excuse ? Still the process is interesting in itself.

MOLLY COMES BACK

It's been almost a year now that I've been away from blogging, and I'm sure it will take some 'flexibility exercises' to get back in form. Here, however, I am. Ready to ride the waves once more. The first few posts will be more like journal entries and short reviews of recently read material, but I hope to produce more interesting stuff in the near future. Til then...

Glad to be back,

Molly

Milton: A Master of Run-On Sentences

MILTON: A MASTER OF RUN-ON SENTENCES:

     I'm about halfway through the collected works of John Milton. It's a project that's taking some time. Mercifully the poetry is at the front of the volume. That's good because most of Milton's prose writings have little intrinsic interest. Aside from a few exceptions they are religious polemics against the high church prelates of his day. Reading such things tends to lower one's estimate of the author. Especially as their tone is beneath even the usual level of political polemics. I'll see if the tone improves with the more political pieces later in the book. It's hard to imagine the author of things like Paradise Lost and Sampson Agonistes using "fart jokes" as arguments, but it's there all right.

     Be that as it may there is another problem besides crudity to Milton's prose. I've discovered that he may be the ultimate master of the run-on sentence in the English language. Just to give the flavour of things here's a quote from one of his essays, 'Reason of Church Government Urged'. Take a deep breath:

     "For not to speak of that knowledge that rests in  the contemplation of natural causes and dimensions, which must need be a lower wisdom, as the object is low, certain it is, that he who hath obtained in more than the scantiest measure to know anything distinctly of God, and of his true worship, and what is infallibly good and happy in the state of man's life, though vulgarly not so esteemed; he that hath obtained to know this, the only high valuable wisdom indeed, remembering also that God, even to a strictness, requires the improvement of his intrusted gifts, cannot but sustain a sorer burden of mind, and more pressing, than any sustainable toil or weight which the body can labour under, how and in what manner he shall dispose and employ those sums of knowledge and illumination, which God has sent him into this world to trade with."

     Yes, that's all one sentence, and it is not an exception. I think it makes grammatical sense, but I'm not certain. Reading this sort of things is about as fun and as "educating" as reading post-modernist nonsense. I hereby nominate John Milton as the patron saint of post-modernism.

    

CNT-f Faces Eviction

CNT-F FACES EVICTION FROM LONG-TERM HEADQUARTERS

     The CNT-f is the larger of the two anarchosyndicalist/revolutionary syndicalist union federations in France. They have traditionally been called the 'CNT-Vignoles' after their headquarters at 33 rue Vignoles in Paris. They have survived a previous attempt to evict them in 1996, but now they are facing a fresh attack from the Mayor of Paris.

     The following is their statement on the events. The original French version can be here. You can follow events from either their website or from the site of their newspaper Combat Syndicaliste. These events seem reminiscent of the eviction of the Spanish CGT from their headquarters at 18 Via Laietana in Barcelona back in 2011. Hopefully this time around the good guys will win against the government.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

EVICTION AT 33 RUE DES VIGNOLES

     In a recent letter the City of Paris has come to unilaterally terminate the ongoing discussions about the continuation of the CNT in its historic location at 33 Rue des Vignoles. We were also "invited" to leave on the pretext of carry out 'rehabilitation' work.

     Previously in 1996 the then-Mayor Tiberi voted for the demolition of 33. She had to retreat in the face of mobilization of the local residents, associations and the CNT.

     We, paramedics, masons, primary school teachers, labourers, nurses' aides, truck drivers, teachers' aides, metal workers, architects, technicians, journalists, postal workers, etc. who form the CNT unions in region of Paris:

     We who in this XXnd arrondissement walk in the footsteps of the Paris Commune and those of the Bourses du Travail of the CGT in the beginning of the 20th century:

     We who at 33 Rue des Vignoles walk in the footsteps of our older brothers and sisters of the Confederacion Nacional de Trabahadores, anti-fascists, survivors of the Nazi camps, the Resistance and the liberation of Paris:

     We who continue the struggle for the emancipation of the working world at the beginning of the 21st century:

     We who to maintain this place in acceptable conditions while the City of Paris has done nothing for almost 20 years:

     We will resist again. Yesterday in the face of Tiberi it was the violence of bulldozers. Today with Delancé it is the violence of King Money.

     This CNT has called a public meeting for information, solidarity and support from all who want a living Paris, a revolutionary Paris.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
15 hours: Information on the status of 33

18 hours: Concert with Serge Utgé-Royo

20 hours: Convivial meal
@@@@@@@@@@@@@

JOAN PEIRÓ BELIS

JOAN PEIRÓ BELIS

     The following brief biography was originally published at the website of the CNT of Puerto Real in Spanish. The original Spanish version can be found there under their 'Biografias' section.

     Joan Peiró, glass worker, anarcho-syndicalist intellectual, and Minister of Industry during the second Spanish republic, was executed by firing squad on July 24, 1942 at Paterna (Huerta Oeste, Valencia). He was born on February 18 in the working class district of Sants in Barcelona. He began work in a Barcelona glass factory at the age of 8 an d didn't learn to read and write until he was 22. He continued to work in the glass sector and along with other compañeros founded the Glass Cooperative of Mataró, a thing he never abandoned.

     In 1907 he married Mercedes Olives, a textile worker, with whom he had three sons (Juan, José, Llibert) and four daughters (Aurora, Aurelia, Guillermina, Merced). As he explained his union militancy began in 1906, and he began to hold positions of responsibility from 1915 to 1920 as Secretary General of the Spanish Federation of Glaziers and Crystal Workers and director of La Colmena Obrero (organ of the unions of Badalona) and El Vidrio (publication of the federation of glassworkers).

     Because of his intellectual acuity he later became editor of the newspaper Solidaridad Obrero (1930) and the daily Catalonia (1937). Very influenced by French revolutionary unionism he began taking on positions of responsibility in the CNT after the Sants (1918) Catalan Regional Congress. Thanks to his capacity for work, organizing skills and prestige he held the highest offices in this organization.

     At the Congreso de La Comedia (1919) he defended industrial union federations which were rejected at the time (in favour of geographical federations...mm). During the 1920s he suffered the repression unleased by the state and the employers and was arrested and imprisoned inSoria and Vicoria. In 1922 he was elected General Secretary of the CNT. During his term the Conference of Zaragossa was held where the resignation of the CNT from the Red Internation Federation of Unions was approved and membership in the reconstituted AIT/IWA was accepted.

     At this same Congress, along with Salvador Segui, Angel Pestaña, and José Viadiu, Peiró defended the "political motion" which was widely criticized by the more orthodox sections of the organization. He settled in Mataró in in 1922, and in 1925 he guided the establishment of the glass workers' cooperative that he had previously intended to organize. Under the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera the CNT was outlawed, their offices closed and their press suspended. Many militants were arrested and Pieró was imprisoned in 1925, 1927 and 1928. In the last year he was again elected Secretary General of the CNT.

     He criticized the UGT for their advocacy of  "mixed commissions" during the dictatorship and also Pestaña with whom, however, he agreed on other matters. He also criticized the more anarchist union sector, and despite the fact that he joined the FAI he was never militant in it. On the contrary he defended a more syndicalist mass organization and opposed the action groups that a minority of militants controlled. In 1930 he signed the "Republican Intelligencia" manifesto and received much interal criticism which led him to withdraw his signature. He defended industrial federations up to the 1931 CNT Congress in Madrid where he won mass support against the FAI theses.

     At this Congress he supported the presentation of the "Position of the CNT Towards the Constituent Cortez" proposal which defended the idea that the proclamation of a republic could mean an advance for the working class. The proposal was adopted with some modifications despite the opposition of some FAI sectors who saw it as support for bourgeois political machinations. Also in 1931, along with 29 other prominant CNTistas among them Angel Pestaña, he signed the Treintista Manifesto which analyzed the social and economic situation of Spain and criticized both the republican government and the more radical sectors of the CNT.

     The reaction to this led to the expulsion of Pestaña from his position on the national committee of the norganization and the schism of the Sabadell unions. These later gathered others who formed a bloc called the "Opposition Unions". Although Peiró participated in this split he had no outstanding responsibility, and he tried to build bridges to avoid the final rupture.

     Reunification occured in 1936. After the fascist military rising Peiró served as vicepresident of the Antifascist Committee of Mataró, sending his sons to the front. He defended the entry of the CNT into the governments of Catalonia and Spain and proposed a state form of a federal social republic when the war ended. Along with Garcia Oliver, Federica Monteny and Juan Lopez he was one of the four "anarchist" (my emphasis-mm) ministers in the government of Largo Caballero where he was Minister of Industry.

     In this position he drafted the decree of expropriation and intervention in industry and designed an Industrial Credit Bank. Many of these projects were annuled or diluted by Negrin. With the fall of the Caballero government he returned to Mataró and the Glass Cooperative. He also dedicated himself to giving lectures on his steps in government and publishing hard articles against the PCE for its actions against the POUM.

     In 1938 he re-entered the government now headed by Negrin although not with the rank of Minister but rather as Comissioner of Electric Energy. He upheld an "anti-defeatist" attitude and proposed a certain revision of anarchosyndicalism in light of the development of the revolution and the war. He crossed the French border on February 5, 1939, and was briefly held in Perpignon from where he went to Narbonne to reunite withy his family. Later he moved to Paris to represent the CNT on the Coalition for Spanish Refugees with a mission to free Spanish CNTistas fromFrench concentration camps and facilitate their transfer to México.

     He tried to flee after the Nazi invasion but was arrested when he went to Narbonne. e was returned to Paris where the French authorities issued a deportation order so as to remove him from Gestapo action and thereby go to the unoccupied zone and from there to México. He was, however, arrested again by nazi troops and taken to Trier (Germany). In January of 1941 the Francoist Ministry of Foreign Affairs  requested his extradition. This happened on February 19 of the same year in Irún, violating French and international law. He was transfered to the custody of the Security General in Madrid where he was interrogated and suffered maltreatment (he lost some teeth).

     The start of the trial was exceptionally delayed, and he was transfered to Valencia in April 1941. In December of that year a summary trial opened at which Peiró had statements in his favour from institutions and people of the new regime (military, falangists, clergy, judges, prison officials, businesmen, rightists and even a future minister under Franco, Francisco Ruiz Jarabo).

     Even so his repeated refusal of the government proposal to be head of the Francoist unions determined his sentence. In May of 1942 the prosecuter presented his charges. A month later Peiró was assigned a defence lawyer by the military. On July 21 the death sentence was pronounced. On July 24, 1942 he was shot along with six other CNTistas at the firing range of Paterna. Some of his published works include The Path of the National Confederation of Labour (1925), Ideas About Syndicalism and Anarchism (1930), Danger in the Rearguard (1936) and From The Glass Factory of Mataró To The Minister Of Industry (1937) and Problemas y Cintarazos (1938).

    

    

    

Spanish Syndicalism (1) CGT Strike in Unipost

CGT DECLARES UNLIMITED STRIKE IN SPANISH 'UNIPOST' OVER HOLIDAYS


      The following is a translation from a Spanish language article at Rojo y Negro, the organ of the Spanish anarcho-syndicalist union the CGT. I have had to rather "freely translate" as the particulars of Spanish labour practices are quite different from here in the Anglosphere. Any mistakes are my own responsibility.

CGT UNIPOST CALLS INDEFINITE STRIKE FROM 13-D

     The stoppages will be for 24 hours (from 00:00 to 24:00) and Saturdays, Sundays and holidays are not included. The schedule is as follows: December 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27 and 30 and the 2 and 3 of January 2014. If the dispute is not settled we reserve the right to call further stoppages which will be conducted according to applicable legal provisions.

     There are two principle objectives of this strike. On the one hand the breaches of agreement on the part of management, salary cuts and non-payment of summer bonuses. (Such bonuses are a regular part of Spanish labour practice...mm) On the other hand an end to layoffs.

     Thus the CGT, having consulted both general assemblies and workshop assemblies, has decided to carry out the strike to show important solidarity with the workers to carry it out.

     We want to thank those who have expressed their support in favour of your decision and we want, secondarily, to encourage the rest because everyone together will have more force and power to achieve the objective marked out.

     We also inform you of the suspension of the December 2 hearing by the High Court about the pay cut that we applied for in August 2013. It was going to address three charges of non-compliance and misappliance, one of them not cited by the works council, on procedural grounds. To avoid a full trial it was decided to postpone the hearing until January 28, 2014. On that day the hearing will hear the complaint of unpaid summer bonuses. At the same time some unions have been in negotiations with the company and have reached a possible agreement to agree to the suspension (of the bonuses...mm). This is something the CGT does not agree with given the negotiating intransigence of the company.
AGAINST LAYOFFS AND INSECURITY IN UNIPOST !
FOR DIGNIFIED WORK IN UNIPOST...A SUFFICIENT CAUSE !
UNLIMITED STRIKE FROM 13D !

CHOOSE THE CGT, JOIN THE CGT - THE UNION THAT DARES !
FOLLOW US ON TWITTER @cgtunipost

TERESA MAÑE MIRAVENT

 

Teresa Mañe Miravent - Mother of Federica Montseny

     The following is a translation from Spanish. The Spanish original is available at the Biografias anarquistas section of the website of the CNT Puerto Real. Any errors of translation are entirely my responsibility.

     Born on November 29 1865 in Cubelles (Garraf, Catalonia) - until recently believed to be in Vilanova  i la Geltrú- the educator, activist and anarchist propagandist Teresa Mañe Miravent, better known under her pseudonym Soledad Gustavo. Her wealthy family ran the Garden Hotel in Vilanova i la Geltrú, known as the "Three Girls Hotel" as the three daughters of the family were busy attending to customers. Her father was a staunch supporter of federal republicanism and was proud of the relationship he maintained with Pi i Maragall. Teresa began studying teaching in 1883 in Barcelona and in 1886, with the help of the freethinker Bartomeu Gabarro of the Federalist Democratic Centre, opened the first secular school in Vilanova. She was a member of the Confederation of Lay Teachers of Catalonia. During this period she collaborated in El Vendaval with the federalist republican tendency. Through contacts with freethinkers she met José Pujals Lunas, Teresa Claramunt, Tarrida del Mármol, Pere Esteve and other leading anarchist militants. She participated in propaganda tours and public events and collaborated on the libertarian publications they edited (La Tramontana, El Productor, La Tormenta, etc.). In 1889 she won a prize at the Second Socialist Contest in Barcelona for her work 'Free Love' and became a spokeswoman for anarchist ideas along with Ricardo Mella, Anselmo Lorenzo and others. Through a poetry reading at a secular funeral she met Juan Montseny whom she later married in a civil ceremony on March 19, 1891, shortly after such marriages were legalized.

     The couple settled in Reus where Montseny came from, and they opened a coeducational secular school and both became teachers. Teresa's sister Carmen also lived with them in Reus, sharing all the difficulties of their anarchist activism until her death. Montseny wrote a pamphlet in defence of prisoner Paulino Pallas who had been arrested in connection with the September 24, 1893 bombing of the Cambios Nuevos in Barcelona. Montseny was arrested for this, and Mañe began a campaign for his release. Once released, however, he was rearrested in 1896 as part of the 'Trial of Montjuic'. From his cell in Montjuic Montseny wrote letters to the press, with various pseudonyms, proclaiming the innocence of the accused. Mañe was responsible for taking these letters from prison and mailing them to the press. She also made the necessary arrangements to achieve the release of all detainees. It was from one of his signatures to these letters that Juan Montseny became Federico Urales. Montseny was released but was exiled to London, along with Teresa Claramunt and Tarrida del Mármol. Mañe joined him in 1897 and found work as an embroiderer. In order to reopen their case they returned clandestinely on November 28, 1897. Montseny lived in Madrid and Mañe in Vilanova. In a short while she, along with her parents, Lorenzo and Antonia, and her sister Carmen they also moved to Madrid. While they lived there her parents died, and her daughter Federica Montseny was born in 1905.

     While in Madrid the couple edited La Revista Blanca (1898-1905) and later Tierra Y Libertad (1902-1905). Mañe performed the function of administrator even though this was not legally permitted to women at the time. In 1901 she spoke, along with Azorín and Urales in a series of conferences at the Madrid Ateneo on "The Future Society" in relation to anarchist ideas. In addition she actively participated in campaigns for the defendants in the Juarez Trials and the Mano Negro case. She participated in a tour of Andalucia in this defence camaign, staying at the home of Rosa Sanchez. The couple also actively assisted in the defence of Francisco Ferrer i Guardia wrongly accused of responsibility for the events of La Semana Trágica. When a legal conflict with Arturo Soria, the creator of the 'Ciudad Lineal of Madrid whom they accused of fraud and deception, broke out they left for Catalonia in 1912. Their intention was to found an academy in Barcelona's Horta district, but the boycott of local reactionaries led them to devote themselves to living on a farm in Cerdanyola. There Mañe did a lot of translations (Louise Michel, Cornelissen, Labriola, De la Hire, Mirabeau, Praycourt, Sorel, Marguey, Lichtenberg, Lavrov, Donnay, etc.) and copied texts for theatre companies.

     In Catalonia they once more edited La Revista Blanca and Tierra Y Libertad. They also set up various other publishing projects: 'La Novela Ideal'  which published two novels, eventually 600 in  total with a circulation of 50,000 copies; 'La Novela Libre' with more extensive stories and a circulation of 30,000 copies, the monthly 'El Munda al Dia' and a new journal 'El Luchador' which lasted until the civil war. Mañe was responsible for managing these journals while Montseny and her daughter wrote articles, novels, memoirs, etc.. Little by little the leadership of Federica became evident, and Mañe faded into the background. During the Civil War colon cancer began to undermine her life. In 1939 the family crossed the border into exile in France where they parted from each other. Mañe, ill, broke her leg and was taken by ambulance to the hospital of St. Louis of Perpiñán (northern Catalonia) where she died alone of cancer on February 5, 1939.

     Teresa Mañe published numerous articles in La Revista Blanca and in its supplements and extras. Her contributions may also be found in other anarchist periodicals of the late 19th and early 20th centuries: 'El Corsario', 'Los Dominical del Libre Pensamiento','El Obrero', 'Redención', 'El Cosmipolita', 'Justicia y Libertad', 'El Trabajo', 'La Tramontana', etc.. Of her works we can highlight 'The Future Society' (1889), 'Las Preocupaciones de los Despreocupados' (1891 with Urales), 'Dos Cartas' (1891), 'A Las Proletarias' (1896), 'El Amore Libre' (1904), 'Los Diosas de la Vida' (1904), and 'El Sindicalismo y la Anarquía: Politica y Sociologica' (1932) among others.

THE DARK SIDE OF CHRISTIAN HISTORY

The Dark Side of Christian History

The Dark Side of Christian History by Helen Ellerbe: Morningstar and Lark, Orlando Florida, 1999 ISBN 0-9644873-4-9

     This is the sort of book that I had to force myself through. It was not so much the purported subject matter but rather the author's not-so-well-hidden agenda. This is not an overview of the crimes of the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant churches except insofar as these can be slotted into Ellerbe's real purpose. This purpose is to argue against Christianity and for pop-religious New-Age "spirituality" with a thin veneer of corrupted feminism. The author makes her intentions abundantly plain in the Introduction for fostering "sexism, racism, the intolerance of difference and the 'desecration' of the natural environment". It would be hard to find such a crystal clear expression of trendy leftism outside of the academy. Social class is conspicuous by its absence. So is the concept of hierarchy in general, the role of government and individual freedom (beyond sacred differences deified by a subculture). There is a vague bow to "self-determination" but no indication that this might extend to the infidels outside of the politically-correct charmed circle. It almost certainly doesn't.

     The author genuflects in her introduction to the fact that there were "alternative Christianities" in the early centuries of the Church. As might be expected from the blindfolded world view of the 'New-Age' she lavishes particular praise on the Gnostics. She also mentions the Essenes. As might be expected her knowledge of these theologies is incredibly superficial, probably drawn from other neo-mystic books that bear the same resemblance to reality as Stalinist propaganda does. The Gnostics, in the majority of cases amongst their crazy-quilt writings, were far more "anti-nature" than any orthodox theologian could ever be. Despite the lies of the orthodox their beliefs were quite ascetic, and their "hidden knowledge" consisted of an over-elaborated mythology the knowledge of which was supposedly the key to escaping the inevitably corrupt world. I know...consistency and facts are part of that great evil "science" that also has to be abolished for the dreaded New Age to dawn. Ellerbe gets well into this later.

     The author goes on to belabour the misogynist nature of early orthodox Christianity. No doubt true, but the Christological content of the early disputes is simply ignored. It's of no interest to her purpose. The economic interactions of Church and state in the Roman Empire are slighted in favour of ideological argument (or assertion). This assertion continues through the first part of the book, and the author's only digression from passing over heresies other than her favourite ones is a condemnation of the Church's disapproval of Origen's idea of reincarnation. There is little doubt that this is part of the author's ideology/theology. We also get a discussion of sex, free will and compulsion/authority though, once more, innocent of what the people at the time considered important. History is supposed to be history, not an ideological "read-back".

     Ellerbe then passes on to medieval times. She states rather than proves that it was the influence of the Church that led to the decline of the West in this period. Sort of extending Gibbon way beyond his wildest ambitions. She goes so far as to say that the practice of "bleeding" in medieval times was due to "the Monks". Go figure ! She mentions many of the "sins" of the medieval Church and misses many more. No doubt Christianity was not a "creative force" in this period, but the author implies that it was responsible for the vast picture of western decline. Barbarian invasions are, of course, irrelevant. The reality was that Christianity and its influence were contradictory , as the Marxists are fond of saying. Some of its actions were beneficial and some were malevolent. Such fine distinctions, however, escape the author.

     The author cites the monumental corruption of the medieval Papacy, something that is well established. The very corruption of the Renaissance Popes, however, was progressive in its own way. The logic of the times also dictated that the Papacy become a secular power, and many of its crimes were for "reasons of state" rather than the abstract motivations that Ellerbe likes to move in. In the end the Church was pretty much a mirror of the secular powers that it alternately fought and allied with, no better nor no worse. The atrocities that happened were typical of the age and might have been worse under some other sort of ideological "guidance" such as that of a more Gnostic Church. Ideology at the time was very much subservient to power politics.

     Ellerby passes a severe judgement on the Protestant Reformation. She denounces the common Protestant theories of free will (or lack thereof) and original sin without recognition of the disputes within Protestantism about such matters. She dates, strangely enough, the concept of an unitary God as opposed to a multiplicity of saints from this era. The veneration of saints is identified with the pantheistic, many faced. view of divinity that she favours. Yes, it is a bit of a stretch. She also notes the supposed rise of a more severe asceticism  which presumably is connected to the ideas of predestination and denial of free will. Once more remember the Gnostics that she has a superficial acquaintance with for how it could have been worse.

     In Chaper 8, The Witch Hunts: The End of Magic and Miracles" the author really hits her stride. Whatever she imagines the "witch craze" was actually a reversal of early Church opinion which opined that most of what was called "witchcraft" was ignorance and superstition. Pretty true actually, though such "witchcraft" was considered orthodox when properly covered with a Christian veneer. The campaign against "witchcraft" was never so extensive as the author imagines.

     The Inquisition played a prominent role in the "witch hunt". Whatever the author says however, the main motive behind this was self-interest and bureaucratic expansion. The so-called "witches" only came into the purview of the 'Holy Office' during its decline when it was running out of real victims. The author (deliberately ?) refuses to examine the extent of the Inquisition's dealing with "witches" and how they compare with its total business. She relies only on anecdote and insinuation. Whatever Ellerbe's sympathies the mass of Inquisitorial victims were "heretics" rather than "witches" if for no other reason than that the estates of heretics were a better source of plunder. I guess, however, that this would spoil the author's narrative of a contest of ideas as opposed to one of interests.

     In Chapter 9 Ellerbe makes her purpose quite clear again with the title 'Alieniation From Nature', Uh huh ! She makes the ideological assertion that a Christian view of the world as "sinful" (once more a step down from her beloved Gnostics) led to some sort of "separation" that became a leitmotif of western society. Oh well, I guess that the vast majority of people who lived in rural areas until recent decades were "obviously" alienated because of this presumed ideology. Just to be obvious the author u8ses this opportunity to sing a little paean to pre-Christian paganism. This was supposedly "non-alienated". Yes, I'm sure !

     The author moves on to the modern age in Chapter 10, 'A World Without God'. In this chapter the author outdoes any of her Jesuit opponents by attempting (and failing in my opinion) to twist facts and logic to say that the modern science that has disproved so much of dogmatic religion is itself a mere development of said religion. Yes, it is quite a stretch, and an accusation that sticks much more to New-Age religiosity than to any secular viewpoint. But if logic and facts are "bad things" and (cough, cough) "alienating" then you can "prove" anything you so damn well please.

     Of course we come face to face with the usual chintzy mystic "proof" of such a thing via a misinterpretation of the quantum world that the author has only a child's version of. Sighhhh ! It seems to occur pretty well everywhere in such a world. The author quotes a person named E.H. Walker to this effect;

     "...the universe is 'inhabited' by an almost unlimited number of conscious, usually non-thinking (oh, non-thinking consciousnesses - mm), entities that are responsible for the detailed working of the universe"

     Once more, uh-huh. God, or gods if you like, as cosmic obsessive compulsives. Ellerby fails to see the humour is such a statement. For those who are interested you can look up this "authority" that the author quotes. For instance you can see his tax-dodge "Cancer Institute" via 'Charity Navigator' where the "fund-raising" expenses are quoted as $10,149,158, the cost of "Administration" (mostly his widow actually) as $457,040 and the tiny, little beast of "programs" at the end as $290,174. There again you can look Walker up on Wikipedia. This long time US military researcher no doubt did his research in an "ant-sexist, anti-racist respect for 'difference' and the natural environment" manner. It has to be true by the worldview of the author because he is "spiritual". I hope his victims in the Third World appreciate such a refined soul.

     I guess the reader can estimate how much I disliked this book. From the opening when she presents her opinion that controlling people through "dictating and controlling their spirituality is the most (sic) insidious and damaging slavery of all" her agenda is quite clear. In a backhand way this book presents a bare-bones account of the "dark side" of Christianity, but the historical facts are treated superficially because of the much more important (to the author) need to fit them into her ideology. It would have been better to present a more thorough history rather than spend effort in trying to hammer square pegs into round holes.

THE RNA WORLD:CHAPTER ONE

THE RNA WORLD: CHAPTER 1

The RNA World: Third Edition. Raymond F. Gesteland, Thomas R. Cech and John F. Atkins eds., Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor New York 2006. ISBN: 0-87969-739-3

     In the beginning was the nucleoside, and the nucleoside was of the tribe of base and the tribe of pentose. And it was null and void, and then "let there be phosphate" was said in the beginning.

     It is almost orthodoxy that prior to modern life whose genetic information is contained in DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) there was a world in which RNA (ribonucleic acid) was the basis of life, both in terms of information storage and in terms of the catalysis that is presently done by protein enzymes. I'm presently reading a book with various aspects of this "RNA world". The subject matter is far ranging and presented by an assembly of authors. It's indicative of the progress of this field that even a book published in 2006 may be out-of-date in many things. Yet, some things still hold true, and many speculations remain just that.

Chapter 1: Setting the Stage: The History, Chemistry and Geobiology Behind RNA by Steven A. Benner, Mathew A. Carrigan Alonso Ricardo and Fabianne Frye

     This introduction is a review of RNA chemistry. It also states the two basic hypotheses of the RNA world. One is the "RNA first" theory where early organic chemistry would lead directly to oligonucleoside chains that were genetically capable. The other hypothesis is the "genetic takeover" theory in which RNA only later became the repository of genetic information when it "took over" this function from a previous self-replicating system. There is good evidence, working backward from present biochemistry, that RNA was an earlier form of genetic control. The second theory is more speculative.

     By also working backwards from molecular phylogeny it is also pretty well established that protein synthesis via translation was present in the early eubacteria living near 2 billion years ago. This means that the RNA world was a thing of the past by then. There is strong evidence that ALL present life descended from a last universal common ancestor (LUCA) that had well established translation system. There are, however, systems of duplicate proteins/genes which could have predated this LUCA.

     "Moving forwards" from the origin of Earth gives another perspective on the beginnings of genetic control whether by RNA directly or by genetic takeover.Many alternatives to our present DNA and RNA with different bases, different systems of polymerization or different sugar backbones have been synthesized and investigated.

     The authors of this chapter go into a number of possible catalytic and autocatalytic mechanisms using the concepts of nucleophilicity and electrophilicity. They begin with the synthesis of ribose from formaldehyde (presumably already present on an early Earth) via the formose reaction in which glycolaldehyde (3 carbon) is an end product. Another carbon of formaldehyde can pair with this to form a four carbon sugar as can another glycolaldehyde to form a pentose such as ribose with the production of another formaldehyde.

     Both formaldehyde and glycolaldehyde are naturally present in the interstellar medium. While much of this reaction is autocatalytic there is a problem.The ribose formed such a reaction itself takes part automatically in further reactions to form a complex mixture of products known affectionately as "brown goo". This has led several proposals of ways in which ribose could be stabilized. It has also led to theories about pre-RNA alternatives such as peptide nucleic acids or non-sugar backgrounds for the primordial genetic system.

     One way in which ribose may be made more stable is if the original reactants are phosphate esters of glycolaldehyde. The result is a pentose 2,4-diphosphate. An alternative mechanism is via stabilization via 'minerals'. The most quoted example is borate, B(OH)3 which forms a complex with two hydroxyl groups on ribose. Or with glyceraldehyde which can then combine with glocolaldehyde to form a pentose.

     Borate salts are often soluble in water and are found in deposits from evaporate water. [Think the Borax 20 Mule Team from Death Valley Days.]. Such evaporates may be found in dry valleys such as Death Valley or in a 'playa lake' (a high pH incompletely evaporated body of water). Could Death Valley really be "Life Valley" ? Borate deposits in China from Archean time show that such systems were present in Earth's past.

     One of the difficult points of this perspective of ribose synthesis is step 1, the reaction of formaldehyde to form glycolaldehyde. Once the latter is formed the reaction then becomes autocatalytic. Even though glycolaldehyde is present in space the reaction for its formation is kinetically unlikely. This, however, may not be an insurmountable problem given enough deep time.

     The necessity of water throws further complications in the way of nucleic acid synthesis. First of all the bases adenine, cytosine and guanine are all unstable in water at pH 7 and 37 degrees. Similarly the sugar-base bond and the phosphate ester bonds are prone to hydrolysis in such conditions. The modern genome survives because of continued enzymatic repair. Water, on the other hand, is generally considered necessary for nucleic acid base pairing.

     The authors suggest that an alternating dry-wet environment such as that of alkali lakes might be a possible place where RNA chemistry could become stable. They also mention formamide as an alternative solvent other than water. This liquid is also most likely to be found in a desert environment.

     This chapter ends by stating the authors' preference for an 'RNA-first' model as most consistent with our present knowledge. This is supported both by the ribose chemistry that they review and by information of models of other possible genetic polymers.

    

CAN CHINA INNOVATE ?

CAN CHINA INNOVATE ?

     The immense weight of China dominates much economic prognostication these days. Will it overtake the USA and become the dominant power of this century ? What are its strengths and weaknesses ? In the November 18 edition of Time Magazine Michael Schuman looks at this question from the perspective of China's need to learn innovation. Not simply to produce. This is one area in which it is well behind the USA, to the great comfort of American apologists.

      China is facing a period of transition and needs to adjust.

     "China is a victim of its own success....The country can no longer rely on making lots of stuff; China has to invent things, design them, brand them and market them. Instead of following the leaders of global industry, China has to produce leaders of its own."

     China has taken steps to address the needs of its new stage of development, but it has a long way to go. Chinese labour is no longer the dollar-store market of the world. Chinese firms are beginning to outsource to other countries. The author looks at one instance, that of Speciality Medical Supplies who tried this year to shift production to India. Their Chinese workers revolted and held the American manager hostage in his office for six days. Tsk !

     Labour costs in Mumbai would have been 75% less than in Beijing. Wages in China are growing, courtesy of demographics and a shortage of skilled labour. Companies such as toymaker K'NEX are even beginning to "reshore" production back to the USA as other financial factors put pressure on the shrinking labour-cost advantage of China versus America.

     There is also the problem of China's slow adoption of cutting-edge technology. The failure of China's auto industry to make an impression in world markets is illustrative. Failure to adapt has resulted in a 49% rate of initial defects in Chinese-made cars. Ooops ! China has overtaken South Korea as the world's largest shipbuilder, but its vessels are built on older models while the Koreans have moved on to the lucrative markets of supermassive container ships and vessels for energy exploration.

     What innovation there is in China generally builds incrementally on existing technology rather than groundbreaking ideas. The Chinese educational system is good at skill-building but poor at instilling creativity. Chinese engineers tend to be conservative and every concerned about possible consequences of failure. Especially when new ideas are involved.

     China is also notably deficient in marketing. As the author says; "Chinese executives are too fixated on their production and not enough on their customers.". This may be a hangover from the Marxist mode of management, and new Chinese entrepreneurs are indeed trying better ways to sell their products to the world. Jazzed up with a veneer of the exoticism of Chinese culture.

     China lacks management skills, and those who have them can often command relatively huge salaries. Some firms have responded by making their businesses top heavy. What they lack in quality they try to make up for in quantity. Perhaps this managerial over-oversight is also a Marxist leftover.

     Yes, China has had almost miraculous economic growth, but there are many problems that still hold the country back. This article is a good overview of some of them. It's valuable even though it is replete with "evidence" that is only anecdotal.

THE SHADY SUCCESS OF THE SECRET SUSHI SYSTEM

THE SHADY SUCCESS OF THE SECRET SUSHI SYSTEM

     Good old Time Magazine. It struggles on in the internet age, devoting more and more of its pages to bite-size "factoids" that rival websites for speed of transit through the intellectual digestive system. Each and every article has to be illustrated - over-illustrated. Colour and highlighting adds to the illusion of ethernet illusion, and the layout owes much more to Facebook than to any school of journalism. I love it, and I'm a long term subscriber who has lived through Time's evolution.

     Every once in awhile it digs up some true gems, and the November 18 edition is no exception. I have to admit that the inevitable long feature articles on the personalities of US politics (Is there any US politics that is not personality-based as opposed to issue-based ?) are eminently skipable. Even for Americans who live in that soap opera. Even Canada's entrance in this contest, good old Rob (Fat) Ford gets a mention. His cameo is splayed across an insert that is 1/2 title, 1/4 photo and an incredible 50 word run on sentence that has almost as many errors of syntax and punctuation as I have fingers.

     Enough of such trivia. The true meat of the issue comes in the back pages. 'The Mysterious Provider of Sushi' is a five paragraph article that it, amazingly, too three people to write. Do the mathematics. Time looks into the murky undersea world of the dreaded "Sushi conglomerate". Who controls the uncooked fish market in the US ? Hold onto your chopsticks; it ain't the Yakuza. Far worse by several orders of magnitude.

     The "Codfather" of this piece is none other than the Unification Church - the Moonies. Nowadays they go by the name of the "Family Federation for World Peace and Unification". Obviously a play for the American market with the buzzword "family" bit. Or could there be another connotation to the word "family", most familiar in places such as Palermo ? Poor Japan. The Koreans have struck back.

     Under yet another alias the Moonies market the morsels to the masses in the USA. The moniker - 'True World Foods'. Cough, cough and triple pneumonia cough. No kidding. The Moonie managers lack a sense of humour or they'd realize the irony of this.. TW denies its connection to the Moonies, but court documents show otherwise. Time found it hard to penetrate further as TW's New Jersey headquarters' phone system didn't work, and phone calls to their New York office went unanswered.

     Time surveyed a selection of 70 restaurants across America, and True World was the supplier for 48 of them. TW counts 7,500 restaurants as customers in the USA. Their uncooked tentacles in this field make the Washington Post coup look trivial.

     Look out Time. Any more raw exposées, and you may find a fish head in your beds. As for me this revelation has spoiled my sushi mania for at least a short while.

Russia in Revolt

RUSSIA IN REVOLT: THE FIRST CRACK IN TSARIST POWER

     'Russia in Revolt: The First Crack in Tsarist Power' by David Floyd. Macdonald Library of the 20th Century, Macdonald and Co., London 1969

     Good old history light ! The Macdonald Library of the 20th Century is a series of brief books about outstanding events, personalities and trends in that century. The series ranges through the alphabet from 'The Anarchists' to 'Woodrow Wilson'. All are heavy on pictures and light on text, each one readable in one day. Despite their brevity they can be very useful introductions.

     This volume examines the events of 1905 and 1906 in Russia, the "rehearsal" for the Revolution of 1917. It begins with a backgrounder on the personality (or lack thereof) of the Tsar, Nicholas II, who came to the throne in 1894. He was supremely arrogant despite lacking anything to be arrogant about. His lack of sense and disconnection from his people was exemplified by his handling of events during his coronation in Moscow in 1896. Close to 2,000 people were trampled in a stampede due to poor crowd control. The coronation went on as if nothing had happened, and it was followed by a gay evening party at the French Embassy.

     Count Sergei Witte, later Minister of Finance and then Prime Minister, remarked acidly on the events of that day and on how Nicholas was the tool of a series of disastrous advisers;

     "His Majesty would not tolerate about his person anyone he considered more intelligent than himself or anyone with opinions different from those of his advisers"

     Witte was called upon to pull Nicholas' chestnuts out of the fire more than once and promptly dismissed when crisis had passed.

     With a coterie of flattering courtiers and his wife Alexandra (herself under the bizarre influence of Grigori Rasputin from 1905 on) as his main "advisers" Nicholas was in charge of a vast and varied country that was undoubtedly the most difficult European state to govern. The system of government rested on the Ministry of the Interior which controlled a network of Governor-Generals, Governors, and a byzantine network of numerous police forces that interfered in much of the daily life in Russia. This system exercised a rigorous censorship, and was the heart of a program of  'Russification' directed at the non-Russians who constituted a majority of the Empire's population.

     Count Witte (Minister of Finance 1892-1903 and Prime minister 1905-1906) wrote about the nobility who surrounded the Tsar;

     "The majority is politically a mass of degnerate humanity, which recognizes nothing but the gratification of its own selfish interests and lusts, and which seeks to obtain all manner of privileges and benefits at the expense of the taxpayers in general which means mainly the peasantry."

     Leave out the last phrase, and this would be a pretty apt description of most politicians.

     Witte felt that Russia's interests would be best served by rapid industrialization. His main opponent in the government was Vyacheslav Pleve who rose through the ranks of the police to become the Minister of the Interior in 1902. An assassin's bullet relieved Witte of this problem in 1904.

     Meanwhile opposition to the autocracy had begun to grow in the zemstvos, local elected municipal councils and also in the dumas in urban areas. Both were elitist groups. Illegal political activity was carried on outside of them by the Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs), strong amongst the peasantry, and the Marxist Social Democratic Party which recruited mainly amongst intellectuals and workers. Both the countryside and the developing urban areas were rife with discontent.

     The author describes the vast economic changes that Russia was experiencing. The rural areas were chronically economically stagnant which retarded progress. All segments of the Empire's population, from the landlords to the poor peasants, experienced problems. Periodically the government would pay attention and set up investigative commissions. The state, however, refused to admit the need for radical reform. Lacking any incentive or ability to improve their production peasants responded by migration to the cities or to new lands in Siberia. The number of landless peasants increased, and a rural proletariat developed.

     In contrast to the rural areas Russian industry forged ahead. Foreign capital, especially from France and Belgium, flooded in. Technique improved, but living and working conditions were "appalling". Economic crisis also came to Russia in the late 19th century. This was followed by spontaneous strike waves which culminated in a general strike in 1903. Unrest was also spreading to the peasants.

     The cauldron boiled over with defeat in the Russian-Japanese war of 1904-1905. By the beginning of the 20th century expansion of Russian influence in Europe was unlikely, and the government turned to the Far East. The defeat of China in the 1894-1895 Sino-Japanese war opened Manchuria to Russian penetration. Russia built the Chinese Eastern Railway across this province. In 1898 the Russians also obtained a 25 year lease on the Liaotung Peninsula and the right to build another railroad from Harbin to Port Arthur on said peninsula.

     Other European powers objected to this expansion, but Russia offered seemingly sincere promises to withdraw in the (indefinite) future. Russia also began to expand its interests in Korea which the Japanese considered an area of their own special interest. The Empire refused to compromise with the Japanese, and in February of 1904 Japan broke off diplomatic relations with Russia. On February 8 they attack the Russian fleet at anchor in Port Arthur with torpedo boats. They returned four days later to finish the job. The Russian fleet was severely damaged and was trapped within the heavily mined port.

     Despite the racist overconfidence of the Russian government Russia was at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the Japanese. The Russian military command was divided. The cautious Kuropatkin advised avoiding pitched battles, but it was not until October 1904 that the Tsar finally agreed to remove the reckless Alexeyev from the theatre of war. Later the Russians were defeated both on land and once more at sea. In the Fall of 1904 the Russian Baltic Fleet departed to the other side of the world. It was destroyed in May of 1905 at the battle of Tsushima. Meanwhile the Japanese had taken Port Arthur. In August 1904 the Russians were defeated at Liaoyang despite outnumbering the Japanese. The Empire's troops retreated to the north where a stalemate of exhaustion and lack of supply for both armies resulted.

     The war ended in August 1905 with the Treaty of Portsmouth. Count Witte negotiated for the Russian government. He returned home to a country in chaos. The 1905 Revolution had begun.

     While the Imperial government was entertaining fantasies of a "little victorious war" (Pleve) the workers were facing rising prices and falling employment. In a typically Russian surrealistic scenario workers in St. Petersburg were initially led by the priest Father Gapon who was actually a police agent. This "police socialism" that was meant to contain proletarian demands got a little out of hand.

     At the close of 1904 the owners of the Putilov Engineering Works in St. Petersburg some of their more radical workers. This brought the entire workforce out on strike. By default Gapon's 'Assembly of the Russian Workingmen' assumed leadership, and on January 22 he led a procession to present a petition to the Tsar at the Winter Palace. Unknown to them the Autocrat of All the Russias had already decamped. Also missing was the infamous Plave who had been assassinated the previous July. The police did nothing to prevent the various workers' contingents from assembling, but they laid a plot to intercept them and suppress them with the army's assistance. Brief orders to halt were followed by gunfire from the troops. Gapon, following the Tsar's example, promptly fled. The crowds, however, reformed and made their way to the Winter Palace. Here as elsewhere in the city they were met by volleys of gunfire.

     In the end an unknown number of people were killed. Official reports said about 130. Journalists produced a list of 4,600 dead and wounded. Illusions about the Tsar were shattered. As Witte, who witnessed some of the events, said;

     "There were hundreds of casualties in killed or wounded, among them many innocent people. Gapon fled and the revolutionaries triumphed: the workmen were completely alienated from the Tsar and his government."

     Despite his nonchalance about the events Nicholas was actually persuaded to "do something" by General Dimitri Trepov, the Governor-General of St. Petersburg. The Minister of the Interior Prince Sviatopolk Mirsky decamped (a common Russian habit) and was replaced by Alexander Bulygin. The Tsar agreed to meet with a delegation of "responsible workingmen". They were read a little sermon and sent to the kitchens for a free meal. Soon after the revolutionaries assassinated the Governor-General of Moscow, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich. Presumably he didn't decamp fast enough.

     Unrest spread throughout the towns of Russia.Strikes multiplied. The Putilov works remained on strike, and they were supported by most of the town - even the professional and business classes. Nicholas ignored his advisers when they suggested he call some sort of representative congress. Eventually the Putilov strikers returned to work, but in the countryside strikes continued. They were the most violent in non-Russian areas of the Empire. The most significant struggle was at the textile centre of Ivano-Vosnesenski, "Russia's Manchester", where the workers set up the first Soviet. Peasants had begun to seize estates. Landlords decamped.

     Army discipline began to crumble. Aeries of mutinies occurred, all the way from Warsaw to Vladivostok. The most famous of these was the mutiny on the battleship Potemkin in the Black Sea Fleet. A protest at the quality of food served in the seamen's mess escalated when the Admiral in charge ordered 30 of the protesters shot. The firing squad refused the order, and in the end most of the officers were "decamped" overboard. The sailors were at a loss about what to do. They sailed for Odessa where there was a citywide strike in progress. While there the Navy sent the rest of the Black Sea Fleet against them, but when the Potemkin sailed out to give battle the other ships turned tail and "decamped". The Potemkin's supplies were running low, and they set sail once more for Constanta in Romania where they found refuge and internment.

     The political opposition also became more organized. In both the provinces and the Zemstvos the liberals called for a Constituent Assembly. The social democrats wasted most of their time in internal squabbles, but the SRs were quite active, both alongside the liberals and independently of them.

     When Witte returned from the peace treaty negotiations in September the Tsar had no choice but to call on him to hopefully restore order. Despite his efforts the peasant rebellion grew, and the government was helpless. Non-Russian minorities agitated for their independence. Egged on by a painfully slow demobilization more and more army units mutinied.

     Over and above this the industrial workers did what no other class could do. Encouraged by the partial success of a general strike in Finland they began a general strike in Moscow in October 1905. This spread along the railway lines to St. Petersburg and Kharkov. Soon it had spread throughout the Empire.

     "The strike then quickly became general, spreading throughout the empire, so that by the last days of October the whole railway system, which then amounted to more than 40,000 miles of  railway was at a standstill, and life in most large cities, especially those with an industry of any importance, came to a halt. Even Peterhof, where the Tsar was staying at the time, could be reached only by sea from St. Petersburg, and it was from there that, as usual in time of trouble, Nicholas summoned Witte."

     Would Witte's efforts be enough ? By this time the idea of the Soviets had spread. The first St. Petersburg 'Soviet of Workers' Deputies' met on October 25, 1905. The initial count of deputies rose from 30 or 40 to 562 at the height. The first Izvestia was its bulletin. Other cities followed the example. The Soviet alternative power, especially in St. Petersburg, grew through most of November 1905.

     Witte applied all his skill. He managed to persuade Nicholas, reluctant as he was, that the only sensible course was to make concessions. On October 30, 1905, the 'October Manifesto', drawn up by Witte and his ally Alexei Obolensky, was signed by the Tsar. It promised the beginnings of representative government and civil liberties, but it was (deliberately ?) vague on detail.

     The Manifesto was denounced by the revolutionaries as an exercise in deception, hiding future brutality and repression. Events were to prove them very much correct. In the aftermath of the Manifesto, despite continued existence, the Soviets withered. Further strikes were poorly observed. In the end the Soviets abandoned calling for them.

     Witte saw his opportunity. On December 9 he had Nosar, the President of the Petersburg Soviet, arrested. The Soviet elected a Troika to carry on his work, but didn't act further. Heartened by this Witte, on December 16, had whomever he could locate of the entire membership of the Soviet (about 200) arrested also.

     The Petersburg Soviet expired, but there was one final clash. Those members of the Soviet who had escaped, along with the Social Democrats and the SRs, called for a political general strike. It met with good support especially on the railways. On December 20 a general strike was called in Moscow.

     The Moscow Soviet, still in existence, essentially controlled the city. The loyalty of local military units was doubtful. The government arrested whatever strike leaders they could. Street battles began between strikers and police. The authorities didn't dare to call in the troops.

     Petersburg replied by sending more reliable units to Moscow. The Muscovite workers, especially in the Presnya district, fought valiantly even though outnumbered. The support expected from the rest of the country was feeble. The Soviet decided to end the strike in the waning days of December. The military and police killed hundreds. Thousands were exiled to Siberia, and much of Moscow was reduced to rubble.

     The Revolution was over. The government proceeded to a mopping-up operation in the rest of the Empire. By the end of January 1906 most of the rebellions had been suppressed. The parliamentary aftermath was anticlimactic.

     The new Constitution promised by the October Manifesto was despised by the nobility, police and Church. The leftists were openly skeptical. Only the liberals in the Constitutional Democrats (Cadets) Party, under the leadership of Pavel Milyukov, tried to make it work. In the first elections in March there were severe property qualifications for the vote. The Social Democrats and the SRs boycotted the election.

     Meanwhile the government, despite Witte's objections, pushed through a number of measures designed to hamper both the elections and the new Duma. In May Witte resigned after doing the ungrateful Tsar one last service, negotiating a 2 1/2 billion franc loan from France that saved the Russian state from bankruptcy.

     Despite the Tsarist efforts the new Duma was elected with a large peasant bloc that unexpectedly sided with the left against the reactionaries. The Cadets held the largest voting bloc. The right was greatly outnumbered.

     The new Duma convened on May 10 and promptly passed an 'Address to the Throne' that was basically the full program of the Cadets. Nicholas refused this request, and the Duma voted no-confidence in his government. The deadlock lasted 73 days, and on July 21 the government dissolved the Duma. Attempts to hold an 'alternative Duma' in Finland became the occasion for the virtual suppression of the Cadets.

     A new Prime Minister, Peter Stolypin, called new elections, but the second Duma was even more left wing than the first. The Social Democrats and the SRs abandoned their boycott and with the support of another faction, the 'Labour Group', they consituted a large body to the left of the Cadets. Stolypin dissolved the second Duma and tightened the electoral laws even further. It worked. The 3rd and 4th Dumas were solidly conservative and lasted from 1907 to 1917. Autocracy had been preserved.

     The book ends here. It appends a chronology, index and a list of suggested readings. All three are welcome additions. This book is a good brief introduction to the events described and is well worth the read.