Author: Michael W Jackson

GoodReads meta-data is 716 pages, rated 3.99 by 1152 litizens. 

Genre:  Fact and fiction.

Verdict: First in best dressed.

Herodotus (484–425 BC) wrote a history of the wars between the Persians and Greeks, with many, many digressions. Many. The book was a best seller in its time and because it was widely distributed it has come down to us nearly complete. Cicero called him the Father of History because Herodotus systematically pursued his research. True, he was a persistent compiler, but Thucydides hard earlier noted, as have subsequent readers over two and half millennia, that Herodotus made up some things and was credulous about others.  Plutarch termed him the Father of Lies. What both Cicero and Plutarch agree on is that Herodotus was a superb story teller.  

It starts with this statement:  ‘Here are presented the results of the enquiry carried out by Herodotus of Halicarnassus. The purpose is to prevent the traces of human events from being erased by time, and to preserve the fame of the important and remarkable achievements produced by both Greeks and Persians; among the matters covered is, in particular, the cause of the hostilities between Greeks and Persians.’ 

While the Persian wars are the declared subject about two-thirds of the book is labyrinthine wanderings through Persia, Medea, Thrace, Egypt, Syria, Phoenicia, Scythia, and more. For those who open the book to read of these wars, there are 450 pages of digressions, tangents, sidetracks, and more. We might add to his sobriquets ‘Father of Digressions.’ Some of them are rattling good stories in themselves, but they add nothing to the description of the war when it finally comes.  

As a determined swat in college, I first read an abridgement but gave up somewhere in the maze of digressions that remained in even that truncated edition. Since then I have dipped into it now and again for a specific point, usually following a footnote in something else I had read. A few years ago I also tried listening to an Audible edition, but lost interest as it sounded like the Old Testament: begetting, slaying, strangling, sacrificing, attacking, raping, the son of the son of, siring, murdering, banqueting, crucifying, dismembering, and cruelty in a variety of places I find on no map. He spends pages and pages on some minor kinglet just as he does on the River Nile’s ebbs, flows, and floods. The latter is much more important than an ephemeral king in some corner of the map, but not to Herodotus.  And anyway, what does the Nile’s perturbations have to do the Persian invasion of Greece?  Good question, Mortimer. 

When Herodotus is not reporting on the gods but on facts, a lot of what he wrote is pretty solid, if not relevant to his declared purpose.  In this he is like some thesis writers who crowd in everything they know. The surplus information conceals rather than reveals the point. This profusion of irrelevant details has led contemporary editors to abridge the book into a focus on the wars, and it is sometimes published as The History of Persian Wars, or Greek-Persian Wars, cutting hundreds of pages of stories, legends, myths, and so on. That’s the version I had in college but even so it was maze.  This war only figures in the last three chapters (out of nine) of the complete work.  

Among the good stories are the efforts by one people to ascertain which race of men was first by isolating from speech two children, carefully reared and nurtured by mutes so that the children never hear speech.  When the children finally speak, this will be mankind’s fundamental language. The children do speak and none of those who hear them know what the language is, but decide – what a surprise – that it is an infantile form of the own language.  Remember John Hersey’s novel The Child Buyer (1960)? Tsk, tsk.  

Then there were the Persian notables who decided the best way to choose one from among themselves to be the new king was by whose horse first neighed at the next day’s dawn. Crazy, of course, but then look what elections produce in the way of leaders.  

Then there is a wild ride on a porpoise, a tuna fish that returns a  discarded ring, the gold digging ants of India, the winged snakes of far Araby, and more. 

Oracles, there were a few.  O’Henry may written some of them.  An emperor asks if he should attack a rival empire, and is told that if he does, a great empire will fall.  Aha! That means he will win!  Off he goes to war.  He loses.  A great empire – his own – falls.  

It is often downbeat as when after a long conversation near the beginning of the tome the wise Solon concludes that the only happy man is one who is dead.  ‘Lighten up, Solly,’ cried the fraternity brothers!  ‘Do we have to read all 700 pages of this by Beer Time?’ They had stumbled into the library by mistake and quickly scooted to the beer refrigerator.  

There is no doubt from the text and other sources that Herodotus travelled far and wide in the Mediterranean world on his research grant, interviewing anyone and everyone he could, and scrupulously noting down what was said.  Mostly he reports these interviews, even where they are inconsistent or contradicted by other interviews, but sometimes he does rule against something as absurd.  At other times, when, say, writing about cloven-footed men he passes it on without comment.  He also spends a lot of time measuring distances, buildings, roads, coast lines, and just about everything.  Hmm, these exercises are made all the more confusing because of the variety of units of measure used. It is tedious to read and has no bearing on any theme but it does demonstrate his commitment to facts.  

As to facts, when he does finally get to the Persian invasion there are many catalogues of allies, weapons, ships, crews, horses, wagons, hot dinners, spears, bunions, slings, woes, clothing, and so on and on and on.  The result is that he enumerated the Persian army to be 1,700,000.  With at least that many others following it as porters, teamsters, sutlers, prostitutes, astrologers (and other consultants), priests, and families.  Quite impossible but that is what he has.  Makes one think about hot meals, hygiene, and sanitation.    

The Persian army was counted in this way. The first 10,000 men with their gear were herded together and as they squeezed in a rope fence was drawn around them.  By the way, ‘myriad’ meant 10,000.  So that was myriad one.  Thereafter the rest of the army was put through this pen, and it had to be done 170 times to get them all.  Then there was the navy, and allies who joined the throng later.  

Two things emerge for this reader.  A myriad is 10,000.  And that is equivalent to a division in a contemporary army.    

The other is this: One of the most trusted allies was ruled by Artemisia, a woman, who is styled a king in the pages.  She went on the campaign with her troops, and attended the meetings, and in at least one she contradicted Xerxes.  He heard her out and then politely demurred. She also led her ships into battle at Salamis with some tactical success, thus ensuring her esteem in Xerxes’s eyes. Herodotus is from the same town and might have had firsthand knowledge of this woman.   

The historical Xerxes in these pages bears no resemblance to the infantile cartoon character in the egregious film 300 (2006).  (Not to be confused with the superior The 300 [1962], but that is not saying much.) Although Xerxes was often cruel, pitiless, and vindictive enough to be a manager, but not always, and usually only when provoked.       

Though the telling seems prolix (because it is) the major themes are power, greed, and stupidity.  Eternal and contemporary these are; just watch the news.  

Many speeches are presented word-for-word.  Many. How Herodotus came to learn of them and the credibility he attached to them is unclear.  Sometimes he presented two contradictory accounts, leaving the reader to judge. At other times he indicates which he finds the more credible.  But how in the world did his sources hear, retrain, remember, retrieve, and recite so many long speeches. We’ll never know.  

Despite the wealth of details two things are absent.  One is the seasons and the constraints of the weather. Storms at sea are mentioned regarding the navies but little or nothing about the effects of seasons, climate, and weather on the armies.  Second and likely more important are the language barriers.  While Herodotus catalogues the array of peoples and nations among the Persian host and often recounts discussions between Greeks and Persians, and the speeches as above, he says nary a word about the languages used and how all these people understood each other. That is a puzzler.  

Above I have emphasised the speeches because Thucydides often takes a beating for the thirty of so speeches he has in his narrative of the Peloponnesian War, though we know he heard some of them himself.  The critics are sure he fabricated some of them.  Yet we know that Thucydides also travelled far and wide researching his book.  

The edition of Herodotus I read on Kindle numbers the paragraphs in the customary way and divides the paragraphs into nine books titled with the names of nine muses although Herodotus specifically said he was not inspired by a muse but by the desire to record facts for posterity.  See above. Lacking any first hand philological knowledge I do not know if the Greek text was set-out like that or whether this method of presenting the text came later like Stephanus numbers on Platonic and Aristotelian texts.  Some paragraphs begin with a word in lower case or a comma and that indicates some missing text (I think).  I would have preferred that to have indicated in the usual way. e.g., ’59 …. and then so on.’

We know nothing about Herodotus’s life save for his own few references. Only in the 11th Century AD did a Byzantine writer produce a biography (perhaps based on sources now lost) more than 1500 years after his death: A rather late obituary.  

Gary Corby’s diverting krimi The Singer from Memphis (2016) features an amusing if obsessive Herodotus in the background. Extraordinary Polish journalist  Ryszard Kapuściński’s reportageTravels with Herodotus (2007) is a handsome tribute to the inspiration of Herodotus. Is reportage really a word?  The spell checker accepted it, but that is not a final ruling. 

Goodreads meta-data is 432 pages, rated 3.55 by 38 litizens. 

Genre: History

Verdict: All trees, no forest.

In 1940 Finland fought and lost the four-month Winter War with the Soviet Union, and to preserve its independence made extensive territorial concessions to the victor. The concessions involved about 15% of Finland’s population. These people were expelled from the territory taken over by the Soviets and had to be resettled in the remainder of the country in some productive way. It was major trauma.  Virtually everyone in the country was affected by it. Yet it seemed better than the fate of the other Baltic states. 

Through this period Finland was a parliamentary democracy with free political parties and a free press. This is a point to stress: Finland was an electoral democracy.  As important as Carl Gustaf Mannerheim was and as powerful as he became as field marshal, commander in chief, and then head of government, he worked with elected parliamentarians, rather than dictated to them.  

When the Winter War ended, Finns thought that it was merely an armistice and that the Soviets would be back for more in their own time.  During the Winter War, Finland had appealed for help to its fraternal democracies in Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, France, USA, and England. None was forthcoming, though vague promises were made and some individuals — several thousand Swedes — went to Finland. The Comintern did not organise an internal brigade this time, nor did anyone else.

However, badly the Winter War initially went for the Soviet Union, and it went very badly, the result was a foregone conclusion.  Thus, if and when, the Soviet Union wanted to re-open the conflict everyone in Helsinki assumed the remaining Western democracies (Sweden, USA, and GB) would again leave small, isolated, and democratic Finland to fend for itself.  The precedent in 1938 had been the abandonment of democratic Czechoslovakia.  

England faced Germany by November 1940 more or less alone and was unlikely to have the will or way to make a major commitment in Finland, and it would take a major commitment to check Soviet might.  Sweden was locked into neutrality while it supplied Germany with vast amounts of raw materials and ball bearings for war, and as long as it shipped the goods its neutrality was accepted by the Nazis. France, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway were now off the board. The USA clung to fig leaf neutrality.  

Finland was thus effectively surrounded, and alone.  In that situation the enemy’s enemy is a friend. This axiom applied both to Finland and to Germany.  The latter wanted to keep Finland independent both as a threat on the Soviet flank and as a source of nickel and other metals and minerals for its war machine. Finland was desperate to re-arm itself after the near complete depletion of its forces and resources in the Winter War, because the War had stripped men and women from the production of wherewithal of daily life it needed food and clothing to exist.  

Moreover, Germany’s string of early victories made it seem to be the side of history.  That and the Soviets miserable performance against minuscule Finland in the Winter War led both Germans and Finns to suppose that a war with the Soviet Union would be a short war in which a knock-out blow would destroy Red armies once and for all. That assumption explains the poor preparation and planning that went into the German-Finnish alliance. Six weeks was the estimate the Germans suggested to the Finns. 

Accordingly, Nazi Germany and democratic Finland began negotiations for mutual assistance. There was precedent for this rapprochement when in 1917-1918 German troops had helped Finns gain independence by driving out Russians and had then supplied the White Finns in a civil war against Red Finns, even as Germany itself was collapsing.  Out of that bloody and merciless civil war Finland became an electoral democracy with a free press, scheduled elections, competing political parties, and changes of government. 

Back to 1940-1941, German aid to Finland was essential to the latter. It had to have help and Germany was the only available source.  While for the Germans at the start aid to Finland was small and convenient but not essential, but when the preparations for the invasion of the Soviet Union developed, using Finland as a staging area to attack the northern seaports of Murmansk and Archangel, and to surround Leningrad became central in the German plans.  

That the Germans would turn Finland into a battleground whether Finns liked it or not, was another assumption made in Helsinki. That is, in a war between Germany and Russia, neither of these combatants would allow a neutral Finland.  Germany became the lesser evil because it was further away and there was no historic enmity with it as there was with Russia on the border. The conclusion was to try to negotiate with Germany an arrangement that preserved some Finnish degrees of freedom.  

It would become a German ally – a co-belligerent – against the Soviet Union, rather than be occupied and ruled by Germans as a puppet state, an example being Croatia, and could, then perhaps set their own ground rules for co-operating with the Nazis. In the event Finland allied with Germany but only declared war on the Soviet Union and stated its war aim was the restoration of the territory lost in the 1940 Winter War. When the German attacks on the Soviet Union began Finns advanced to Finland’s 1939 borders as they were before the Winter War and stopped, dug in, and waited, while the Germans pressed on toward the sea ports in the far north and Leningrad. 

In particular, the Finns took no aggressive action against Leningrad.  Mannerheim was adamant that the Russians would neither forgive nor forget an assault on Leningrad, and that Russia would always be there after the war. He also flatly refused Finnish participation in the attack on the Murmansk railway. The post-War futures of Finland and Russia were fixed by geography. See the two volume biography of Mannerheim by J. O. Screen discussed elsewhere on this blog.  

Officially, the Finnish government referred to this conflict as the Continuation War, a continuation of the Winter War. However, it is true that Finland troops did on occasion advance beyond the 1939 border and even approached Leningrad to create a buffer against a Soviet counter-offensive which came in 1944.  During the Continuation War about 20% of the Finnish population (old and young, male and female) was in uniform. The loss of labor from industry and agriculture made Finland completely reliant on German imports of food and clothing as well as war materials.

As time went on to please its Soviet ally Great Britain did declare war on Finland, but the United States did not.  N.B. Finland did not reciprocate with a declaration of war on England until Nazi pressure made supplies of food contingent on it. As things got difficult for the Germans, efforts were made to draw Finland closer to Germany – including an unwelcome personal visit by Hitler on Mannerheim’s birthday.  To keep the profile of this visit as low as possible Mannerheim claimed he had to stay at the front with the army and the meeting was held in a forest well away from journalists, photographers, and passers-by. No parades.  No speeches.  No flags. No public pledges of unity. No crowds.  No banners. No cheers.  

Finnish diplomacy made semantic distinctions to create a space between Finland and Germany, and when the prophesied short war became a long one, Finland began to enlarge that space in word and deed.  In word diplomatic flirtations in nearby Stockholm (with the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and the United States) increased and military cooperation became estranged (every German request was misunderstood, parsed, and squeezed and the responses were so slow that events often overtook the situation.)   

During its alliance with Nazi Germany parliamentary democracy continued in Finland.  It also did NOT take action against resident Jews, and on one remarkable occasion Mannerheim did leave the army to attend a ceremony in Helsinki honouring Finns killed in the war explicitly including Jews who had served the Finnish army.  This occasion was reported to Hitler who flew into a rage that burned itself out.  

The Continuation War lasted until 29 August 1944 when Finland sued for a separate peace with the Soviet Union.  War did not end there, though, because one of the peace terms imposed by the Soviet Union was that Finland drive the German Army of Lapland in the far north out of its country.  The Soviets did not offer any support, say by replacing the food and armaments the Germans had been supplying, but insisted that the Finns do it themselves. Now! 

This German Lapland army numbered as many as 200,000 troops and this, so-called Lapland War went on from 15 September 1944 to April 1945 when the Germans evacuated nearly all these troops and their equipment from the Arctic north in a remarkable exploit comparable to Dunkirk, but seldom noted in Western Europe. By the way, more than half this German army consisted of Austrians.    

To prevent pursuit by either the Soviets or the Finns, the retreating Germans scorched the earth in the far north.  After the war Soviet pressure prevented Finland from accepting the Marshall Plan and it was years before the far north was rebuilt.  

Finland is not the only country that tried to limit its inevitable association with Nazi Germany.  Bulgaria confined its military operations to Greece, and so its army did not cross into Soviet territory, but that did not save it from Soviet imperialism later. That paper-state Yugoslavia had toyed with some kind of limited association but those deliberations were pre-empted by a German invasion to assist Italian adventures in the Balkans.  When Hungary in 1944 tried to switch sides, the Nazis retaliated and this example caused Finns to walk softly.  

In the end, Mannerheim repudiated the association with Germany and made a separate peace with the Soviet Union. The terms were hard but not as impossible as had been feared.  He had acted to defend Finland from destruction rather than continue to be bound to Germany.  It had been a balancing act. In 1944 Finland needed German food imports to continue to resist the Russians so as to achieve a stable front from which negotiations with the Russians could occur to abandon the Germans.  Of course, both the Germans and Russians were aware of what was going on and applied pressure and threats.  

Likewise to keep the German food coming the Finns had to earn it by working with the Germans, but … at a distance rather than alienate the good will of the Western allies.  The line they walked was to prevent the United States from declaring war on the Finland, and in that they succeeded.   

For reasons lost in the mists of time, Finland’s four-month Winter War with the Soviet Union stuck in my mind long ago and prompted me to add a stay in Helsinki when we visited Russia 2016.  In preparation for the visit I read Screen’s biography of Mannerheim from which I learned a lot, and in Helsinki  we went to museums and locales related to this period and more recently I have feasted on Indy Neidell’s superb Time Ghost You Tube channel.  Even so I still had an appetite for more and read this book, but 80% of it concerns orders of battle and the movement of army units which is of zero (0) interest to me.  

GoodReads meta-data is 362 pages, rated 3.81 by 997 litizens.

Genre: Autobiography.

Verdict:  ….ellipses…, indeed!

In a southeast corner of Bavaria is the small town (population 17,000 in 2018) of Sigmaringen, which had been the seat of the principality of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen until 1850, there is a castle befitting that status. The town has since remained the personal property of the Hohenzollern family. Fascinating, uh?  

In September 1944 the castle became home to the remnant of the Vichy government in exile, one of the more bizarre twists of fate in World War II.  More than a thousand people, including Maréchal Phillip Pétain, President of the council of the Vichy government and his prime minister, Fernand de Brinon were trucked out of Vichy and ensconced in and around that Hohenzollern Castle at Sigmaringen.  The others were Vichy loyalists, officials, army officers, clerks, ministers, telephonists, typists, janitors, archivists, aides, butlers, factotums, secretaries, churchmen, sycophants, diplomats, hangers-on, however, initially there were few of the French fascist zealots from Paris who were left to fend for themselves.  Along with the loyalists went their families and retainers. This castle would qualify as an Old Dark House with dungeons, hidden doors, spy holes, caves, secret passages, bricked up passage ways, concealed rooms, and the ghosts of Hohenzollerns past.  In residence was the last Hohenzollern princess who occasionally appeared from her private apartment.  

This crew was officially known as – get this – first as la Commission gouvernementale de Sigmaringen, which was changed a few days later to la Délégation gouvernementale française pour la défense des intérêts français en Allemagne, and then la Commission gouvernementale française pour la défense des intérêts nationaux. Even in 1944, even in extremis managers reorganise and rename to justify their existence, it would seem.  Whatever the nomenclature, it was the government in exile of Vichy France until April 1945.  By a personal order from Hitler, the Castle and its environs were designated a French enclave ruled by the aforementioned government in exile.  

Now why Hitler would bother with this lot is another question, perhaps for Indy Neidell one day.  Hitler had rescued Mussolini and set him up with a rump government at Salo, yes, true, but that made some sense in that the Salo government kept order in northern Italy behind German lines. The Sigmaringen government had nothing to order but itself for the seven months of its tenuous existence. One speculation is that the Vichy Government, house of cards though it was, was kept intact so that should the the tide of war change it could be quickly re-installed. Chalk that up to optimism.  

Neither Pétain nor Pierre Laval, for though deposed as prime minister the latter remained a power behind the throne, or so he thought, wanted to leave France, though what their fate would be if they remained requires no imagination, yet possibly both these men were so deluded they alone would have been surprised by the lynch mob.  The solution was to make the enclave French territory on the model of an embassy.  This German legal fiction was grudgingly accepted by the Vichy loyalists. Hence both Laval and Pétain could say they had not left French territory while in that castle in Germany.  Look up legal fiction for details. 

Meanwhile, some of those zealots who had fled from Paris joined the group.  This was not a homogeneous lot.  The zealots from Paris had long criticised the Vichy government for its sloth, incompetence, semitism, fashion sense, defeatism, and lack of commitment to the cause of fascism, failure to retain the French Empire, and poor grammar.  Parisien leaders of factions, cults, and publicists put themselves forward at this eleventh and dark hour as alternative governments to the Germans in this city-state of one thousand damned souls. These rivalries are partly reflected in the name changes noted above, as the splinter groups of a few dozen jockeyed for position. The Germans had no interest in rocking the already sinking boat and stuck with the Vichy comedy.

Among the number in the castle were the medical doctor and novelist Céline, Lucette, his wife, and Bébert, their cat, and later in 1957 desperate to make a living, he penned this screed about those dying days.  It consists of his well known ellipses in stream of consciousness. It seems to this reader it was published only because it had Céline’s name on it. After the war he had been judged a traitor and suffered national denigration for his collaboration. That denigration meant he was excluded from social services and even could not ride public transport.  To see a doctor, to buy a metro ticket in those days one had to show the carte d’identité, and his card was marked.  But he had been a celebrated novelist and his postwar notoriety, perhaps, added to the caché of the book, or so the publisher may have estimated.  

The Vichy French flag flew over the Castle, a newspaper of sorts was produced, a radio station was set up but seldom had enough electricity to broadcast, and some other accoutrements of a state, like – believe it or not – postage stamps were designed. The file clerks filed; the typists typed; the factotums factoted. There were also three foreign ambassadors in attendance, Italian, Japanese, and German. And it had its own army, a gang of the dreaded Milice. However, the aged Maréchal, who was well over eighty years old by this time, went into a sulk and refused to participate in this last charade.  

Food was scarce, aerial bombardment an ever-present threat, drinking water often contaminated, the German-uniformed (mostly Croat) guards were warders who made sure none of their charges left, and they, too, were anxious. The more desperate the circumstances the more the exiles turned on each other. Leading the way, Céline shrilly denouncing them all as Jews. 

News of the Christmas Nazi Ardennes offensive, rumours of Nazi secret weapons all gave hope to these desperate and despicable people, but the reality of no food, no paper, no wine, no soap, no fuel for heat, no hot water, no drugs, no clean bandages, no socks, no thread to mend ripped clothing, no nothing was crushing.   

As Free French forces approached, Pétain and Laval and few others in their retinue fled into Switzerland.  (Some sources say the French Free army was slowed to allow the inmates to escape as the Free French had no desire to deal with them.)  Once in Switzerland Pétain demanded that he be returned to France and he was, while Laval demanded asylum in Switzerland which was denied and he, too, was returned to France. Meanwhile back at the castle the German-Croat guards disappeared as the Free French rolled in and bagged the remainder, though in the confusion a few individuals escaped to Italy. 

The book is sprinkled with hindsight and it was all written well after the fact. Céline did not keep a diary, though he did practice medicine among the exiles and kept notes for that.  

It is a story reminiscent of that other, smaller castle crew at Château Itter (Austria) where from 1940 the Germans held as hostages to fortune French officials of the Third Republic. Among them were former prime ministers Éduoard Daladier, who had sat in a numb silence at Munich, and Paul Reynaud, who in 1940 had wanted to continue the fight from Algeria, former Vichy cabinet minister Jean Borotera who resisted Vichy’s anti-semitism, and Generals Maurice Gamelin and Maxime Weygand, along with politicians Andre François-Poncet, Michel Clemenceau, and Albert Lebrun, as well as one of Charles de Gaulle’s sisters, and a few others totalling perhaps thirty. LeBrun had been the President of the Senate who had authorised Pétain to sound out the Germans about terms and was then surprised when Pétain used the commission to surrender without attempting negotiation.    

There would have been no love lost among these people.  Gamelin and Weygand were each at work on memoirs blaming the other for the Defeat, as were Daladier and Reynaud. Léon Blum, another one-time prime minister was not here, because Vichy officials had in mind a show trial to blame him for anything and everything, and kept him apart.  The Itter was liberated in late 1944.  

But let’s not forget that the most significant hostages to fortune that the Nazis had, namely, a million plus French prisoners of war, working as slave labor in German war industries and on farms.  In addition to these unfortunates, there were also as many as another million French citizens sent to Germany as forced labor by the Service du Travail Obligatoire (STO). The Vichy Regime made little effort to secure the release of the POWs or to stymie the STO.  Indeed, as to the latter, sometimes it sent more conscripts than ordered by the Nazis to show how enthusiastic it was. In addition the production of millions of others in France was harvested and sent to Germany. 

N.B. In 1941 the Vichy Regime did try to negotiate a return of prisoners by offering German unlimited access to Syria and Lebanon. This was attractive to Germany as a threat both to the Suez Canal and the Iraq oil fields.  It took the Allied conquest of the Levant (in which Australians participated) to block that move. NSW Governor Roden Cutler had his leg shot off there.  

GoodReads meta-data is 248 pages, rated 3.96 by 8432 litizens.   

Verdict: Nada, nil, zilch, zip, nada, goose egg,…. 

This is a book about nothing and how important it is.  Get that, and get it straight!  Lear was right about nothing. Something times nothing is nothing.  See?  Yet nothing is always with us.  

Babylonians with their sixty-based number system counted with abaci and started to use a space holder(s) to distinguish 1 on the first line from 10 on the second from 100 on the third, etc. They used slashes (/) to indicate the next line so 1 is 1, 1/ is 10, 1// is 100/,etc.  Thus, like the numbers, zero came from the East to the West, and some of that passage was vexed.  

Arabic numbers, derived from India, combined with zero (0) are much more efficient and effective than Roman numerals.  Ever tried multiplying Roman numerals? Long division? Even writing them down shows that: Arabic 678 is Roman DCLXXVIII.  And because there are fewer characters the margin of error in transcription is reduced.  Plus the Arabic numbers are more distinctive one from another than the numerals with fewer inscription errors.  

But nothing, zero, has metaphysical and mystical connotations that disturbed many.  The Pythagoreans regarded it as a sign of the beast or hit-and-run and tried to keep it locked up.  To some zero represented both nothing and everything.  Both ends of that continuum were threatening.  If there was nothing, where was it? Could nothing be anywhere?  

On the other hand, it represent infinity, everything, say in Zeno’s paradox about going half-way to a goal ad infinitum and never getting there.  Once infinity is considered, well, there is a lot of that to think about and our place in it must be pretty small.  

When we are born are we one-year old?  No when were are born we are zero-years old and twelve months later we are one year old.  Everyone, even Republicans, well, maybe, knows that.  But…., what about the calendar?  There was no year zero there: 1 BC and 1 AD are adjacent with no intervening zero, which is one of the many reasons why the calendars of different civilisations vary as they do.  

Zero became a number in India.  When 2, a number, is subtracted from 2, a number, the result is 0 which, being the product of two numbers zero must itself be a number.  Indian mathematicians accepted this logical result sooner and more easily than those to the West who resisted this obvious conclusion with some Olympian mathletics for nearly two millennia.   

When zero (0) was a placeholder as in the Babylonian system it was put to the right of the numbers 1, 2, 3, ….9, and 0.  But when it was promoted to a number it becomes the base 0, 1, 2, 3, …9.  Ah, but that is counterintuitive.  We do not count apples starting with 0 and then 1, and 2.  We have three apples but only count up to 2 if we do, and we don’t (do that). So it went back to the right side of the sequence where it is on keyboards today.  Although in England and Australia the ground floor of a building is in effect zero (0) and the second level is the first floor.  Go figure.  I still stumble over this fact. 

The Indians were so phlegmatic that they also accepted negative numbers. When 3 is subtracted from 2 the result is -1.  This conclusion was resisted to the last ditch in the West even to René Descartes’s day and age.  In his determination to resist the negative, Descartes denigrated such numbers, e.g., the square root of negative number, as imaginary.  See the Wikipedia entry for more mist and fog on the topic. 

What a change since then.  Nowadays everyone brags about Zero Tolerance. 

The vanishing point in art also gets a look in.  (Get it?)  Leonardo was just one artist who saw mathematics in painting perspective.  So does the elliptical orbit of planets from Johannas Kepler.  Wide ranging indeed.  

Then along came set theory, thermodynamics, string theory, a Cepheid variable, the Kelvin scale, the Casimir effect, cosmic Doppler shift, Mack the Knife, the Golden Ratio, and even rational numbers.  For nothing zero has stirred up a lot somethings. Even the Black Hole comes into the equation. Is nothing sacred?  Zero is everywhere and everything!

The book considers everyday examples like the Year Zero above, but also  abstruse mathematics (e.g., projective geometry) , and even more abstruse metaphysics (infinity, as above) that I found it tough going, but, being tough, I kept going. 

All in all, the book is Much Ado about Nothing.  (Yuk, yuk.)  But surely Jean-Paul gets the last words with his Being and Nothingness.  For the the fraternity brothers, let me explain:  zero is something, so it has being; zero is nothing, so it has nothingness. Sartre could have called his book Zero and been done with it. (Maybe he feared a shelver would get it mixed up with Zorro.)

But wait there is more, the book ends with an appendix in which it is proven that Winston Churchill was a carrot. See for yourself…., if you dare. 

In the Temple of the Muses (1992) of John Robert Maddox’s diverting SPQR series the protagonist Decius encountered an Egyptian mathematician, a woman, who is onto zero and spends all of her time, according to the jaded Decius, talking about nothing when there is much else they could do together that would be something.