William F. Buckley, Jr., The Unmaking of a Mayor (1966).

Goodreads metadata is 341 pages, rated 4.03 by 118 litizens.  

Genre:  autobiography.

One of a kind Bill Buckley was asked during his 1965 electoral campaign for mayor of New York City what his first action would be if elected?  ‘Demand a recount!’  

He was always the smartest guy in the room, and that has been as much of a hindrance as a help. The book is convoluted, digressive, and replete with surgical insights hidden in glades within a lush prose overgrown by an elephantine vocabulary of polysyllabic words combined with his fastidious obsessions (too many to parody or name) to obscure nearly everything like a fog.     

To venture a comparison, Buckley was magnificently gifted, talented, creative, and industrious but, unlike a comparably stellar athlete, say, Michael Jordan, Buckley never learned to play with and for a team, as Jordan did.  Buckley always went one-on-one…against many teams at once, and he lost. No surprise there. But oh, some of his moves on the highlight tape were legendary.  

At the time of this election Buckley was the uncrowned king of conservatives and Conservatives who found Barry Goldwater a spent force.  Buckley reviled the press — at the time there were a dozen daily newspapers in New York City, each with several editions a day, and more weeklies — and it members reciprocated his revulsion; he seems to have spent hours each day finding his name in their pages and reacting, writing letters, sending telegrams, and dispatching texts by courier hither and thither to them to score points. He was a brilliant debater who never won an argument. See above. 

After publishing six polemical books by the age of thirty-nine, he founded the National Review to give voice to the conservatism he thought excluded from the mainstream media after he had run the John Birch Society out of the Republican Party and the Conservative moment more generally.  He also went on to host a syndicated television program – Firing Line – for 1,500 episodes. Busy he was as well as brilliant. What he lived off is left out of these pages but it is worth remembering that his father was a Texas oil millionaire. It just shows that inherited wealth can be put to use.  

The mayoralty campaign was a platform for his many views.  Aside from the trench war of words with the media, he also excoriated the voting blocs that dominated New York City politics:  unions, Catholics, Irish, Italians, Jews, Blacks, Wall Street, police, and so on.  Instead of pandering to the sweetheart deals a winning candidate had to do, he rejected all of that and himself free from the spectre of success had only to promote ideas not deliver on anything.  Fearless as he claimed to be, I noticed no reference to organised crime in either the waste or construction business.  Likewise with no danger of ever having to implement word-one, he had a license to shout from the roof tops in a way no prospective winner could, would, or should. 

In one long and detailed exposition that would have deadened a seminar he makes a brilliant point buried in a tangled tropical rainforest of detail.  He compares the reality of single working mother’s day with the statistical progress New York City has made in the last decade.  On the one hand is her lived experience through the flesh of constant worry about her children (food and safety), an unendurable commute to sweatshop labour, and eking out a living while presenting a cheerful face to her kids.  On the other hand in city hall there is  the aggregate accounting which shows more and more money is being spent to make her life better: over the decade, so much more on schools, on policing, on transportation. But the accountants offered nary a word on her concrete benefits from such expenditures.  

Her bus ride is seldom faster than walking.  The preceding subway ride is crushed with unfettered bag snatching.  The children’s playground is haunted by drug pushers.  The manager of the sweatshop employs with impunity illegal immigrants who will work for less than she can. The air is polluted. The garbage is rarely collected.  She herself walks home from the subway stop in the evening fearful of muggers. The apartment’s plumbing failures are a matter of indifference to the owners whose code violations are never settled. The school teachers have given up education and concentrate of getting through each day.  

The example is trenchant and cuts to the core, but no doubt came across like static on a radio.  He really needed a speech writer to trim the shag carpet of prose that comes from the typewriter. And perhaps a coach to affect, at least, a common touch.  He always seems to be delivering testaments from on high to the unenlightened even in these pages, read more than half-a-century later.  

In another attenuated instance he argued that free services were not free.  Someone was paying, and it was mostly likely those least able to do so who paid the largest percentage of their income for services to be enjoyed by those better off.  The example he used, just to rile the audience, was college tuition.  It worked. The students were riled. After delving into some city hall accounting statistics himself, he showed that by far the bulk of the costs of free college tuition in New York City colleges was paid for by janitors, taxi drivers, doormen, waiters, bus drivers, dustmen, cops, while the student body came from the clerical and managerial class whose taxes were a lesser portion of their income and aggregated to a lesser amount of the total than those of the blue collar, working class. Needless to say he was booed off the platform at CCNY.    

Did Peter Walsh, a one-time Finance Minister who understood that free is not free, listen at the time. 

Candidate Buckley advocated an entry tax for cars coming into Manhattan and extensive bicycle lanes for transit not just recreation. Both were regarded as fantasy at the time, and both now exist in much of the world. He also proposed the legalisation of marijuana in 1965, which has yet to come. Later he served on the board of Amnesty International and raised money for its work.

The book is not easy to read. There is no core narrative but a pastiche of this brilliant and tendentious intellectual, being, well, intellectual, about all things, including doughnuts. It is a kind of performance art. A reader need not approve, agree, or care, but no reader can deny the verbal pyrotechnics on display. There was once an Italian showman who ran head first into walls to entertain jaded Romans; am I alone is seeing parallels with Buckley? 

Pedants’ note.  Since he was never mayor, the title seems inflated, like much else about Buckley.  

Throughout his long career as a gadfly Buckley was constantly attacked by the likes of Gore Vidal, Norman Mailer, and Noam Chomsky.  With that enemies list he rose in my estimation. The Supercilious, the Vain, and the Fatuous are just the enemies I want. 

In case anyone wondered about the NR today.

In addition to the polemics he also wrote a series of spy novels, and I tried one years ago without its leaving a trace in my memory.  Perhaps I should try again, starting with Stained Glass (1980).  He was altogether a man for many seasons, if not all.  

I have been searching for biography of John V. Lindsay who won that election, and in the absence of such a book, I turned to this title in the sure and certain knowledge it would flame for good and ill.  

Buckley visited Australia once and I angled (through student who worked at the ABC) without success to get a ticket to the event, but it was ideologically closed and I failed.  

Nicholas Atkin, Pétain (1997).

Goodreads meta-data is 252 pages, rated 4.0 by 3 litizens. 

Genre: Biography.

Verdict: Great arrival but lousy trip. 

Henri Philippe Benoni Omer Pétain (1856-1951) became the head of a state after the defeat of France in June 1940.  He was eighty-four years old at that time, i.e., 84.  This very old soldier became the head of brand new state known as Vichy France. That’s his picture on the wall in the opening scene of Casablanca (1942). 

While two-thirds of France was either occupied, governed directly by Germany, or annexed to Germany, the mainly rural south became Vichy.  Circumscribed though that territory was, the Vichy administration had civilian authority over the Occupied Zone, too, but not the Pas-de-Calais which absorbed into the German administration of Belgium, and Alsace and Lorraine which were annexed to the Reich. Vichy managed schools, hospitals, police, road maintenance, rationing, and everything else for most of France. Yet its ministers could not travel out the Southern Vichy zone without German permission which was seldom given.  In addition, it exercised sovereignty over the vast French Empire, though again its officials were not permitted to travel there.  Rather there were German civilian officials in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Senegal to observe French neutrality.   

It sounds like a constitution drawn up by Rufus T. Firefly.

This book does much to explain how Pétain came to head this rump, client state.  For those who tuned in late, Hitler preferred that defeated France mostly govern itself so that he could concentrate German resources first on the invasion of England and when that was shelved, then Russia.  As long as the French complied with German demands for material, Hitler did not care how they went about it. In this way the Vichy regime had domestic autonomy.  

Pétain was born to a peasant family in the North where his world was home, farm work, and church until he went into the army.  He never read a book apart from the infantry manual, and while later many army publications bore his name they were all penned by ghost writers, including Charles de Gaulle.  In 1913 when Pétain was 57 he bought a house to which to retire and married (to secure a housekeeper).  There had been many women in his life and he only married when retirement loomed.  

He had and projected a complete self-confidence born out of his nearly complete ignorance of the wider world.  (Does that remind you of anyone?) When the Great War started he was a senior general and did his duty.  In the chaos of trench warfare he was one of the few who opposed attacks, hurling men against barbed wire, minefields, massed machine guns, and point blank artillery.  Indeed as the commander at Verdun he tried to rein in subordinates from launching offensives.  He preferred the defence.  Let the Boches attack our barbed wire, minefields, machine guns, and artillery.  

He even engaged in tactical retreats to lure Germans into difficult positions, but in so doing he surrendered some of the sacred soil of France, which infuriated his superiors.  Yet he succeeded in breaking the German offensive against Verdun – the birthplace of Jeanne d’Arc and thus often regarded as the spiritual core of France itself. Even with his defensive tactics more than 300,000 poilus died defending Verdun.  Many others were wounded or captured, among them Charles de Gaulle who was both wounded and captured. Two of Jules Romains’s twenty-seven novel sequence Men of Good Will concern the political and social repercussions of this battle: Prélude à Verdun and Verdun (both 1938).  

Promotion followed this success and he became one of five field marshals. He was the man of the hour, or one of them.  

Compared to the other marshals and most of the generals he was perceived to be a Republican and a humanitarian.  This latter adjective was granted even though he put down a mutiny with fifty executions.  The thinking was that another marshal or general would have murdered ten times that number. The Republican attribution owes more to his humble origins than any recorded conviction or activity.

He had always been personally vain about his appearance (tall, erect, blue-eyed, blond) and the fame that befell him inflated and hardened that vanity.  He began to believe he possessed all of the heroic qualities the press attributed to him. He collected the press cuttings and the grateful letters from the French as external affirmation.  At Vichy he often spoke in the royal ‘We.’ 

Success and public adulation combined with his reticence and terse speech gave him an aura of mystery. Whereas other Great War marshals could not shut up, Pétain let his actions speak for themselves. That set him apart from Joffe, Foch, and their talkative ilk.  

His experiences in the war confirmed his native born anglophobia.  Trying to coordinate with Alexander Haig let him to suppose all British (and by extension) Americans were unreliable.  That conviction was compounded, not cured, by his own realisation in 1917 that he and France needed both the British in the North and the supplies and troops the United States poured in. He resented that reliance and disliked those on whom he depended.  

He had imbibed in his childhood the commonplace anti-semitism and it only grew during the Dreyfus fiasco. Though he observed a studied silence, there is no doubt he supposed Dreyfus should be punished, if for no other reason than being a Jew who had dared to wear the uniform.  Equally from his peasant childhood he developed a resignation to expect and accept the worst. This negativism was often display during the Vichy years.  

He left religion behind though he always recognised and respected the Catholic Church for the order and acquiescence it engendered in its adherents.  He was a philanderer who married a divorcée and had no children and seldom attended mass and never went near the confessional. Nonetheless the Church nearly canonised him in the Vichy years.  

When desperate Third Republic governments played musical chairs in the 1930s – eight defence ministers in sixteen months, each intent on undoing what the predecessor had done – one transitory government recruited the Victor of Verdun in the hope of stabilising parliamentary support.  Pétain became minister of defence and set about cutting the defence budget. While he, unlike many of his rank, accepted tanks and aircraft, he thought only a few were needed, and certainly there was no need to develop them further.  His penchant for defence translated itself into the Maginot Line. Later he would complain about the budget cuts that he himself had made without acknowledging his own actions. He was always ready to blame others for what he had done.  

Pétain disliked the volatility of the Third Republic with its comic opera succession of cabinets and prime ministers.  He saw that instability to be the inevitable fruit of parliamentary democracy and despised politics and politicians.  Devoid of self-knowledge, he never realised that he himself was an inveterate and adept politician, having spent most of his army career undermining rivals in one way or another and continuing that approach in the Vichy regime.   

When the defeat loomed in May 1940 Prime Minister Paul Reynaud as a last gamble made Pétain Deputy Prime Minister to raise public morale, rallying the French for another effort but it was far too little and far too late. By the time of this appointment Pétain had accepted defeat and said so. When Reynaud could not convince the cabinet to continue the war by going into Algerian exile and he resigned, then figurehead president Albert LeBrun nominated Pétain as Prime Minister to ascertain what terms for a truce the Germans would offer. Instead Pétain went on the radio to announce that France was surrendering. The first most soldiers knew of this was when German leaflet drops announced it.

Pétain surrendered to head off another Paris Commune, he said, fearing his countrymen more than the Nazis.  Added to his other phobias was a fear of communism: Better Hitler than a red commune.  In his hermetically sealed naiveté he supposed he would secure a favourable relationship with Germany, after all he was PÉTAIN. Thereafter he spent much of his tenure in office trying to collaborate with Germany, only to be rebuffed.  Hitler did not want a partner. To woo Hitler Pétain ordered that the considerable French Fleet and the vast colonial empire to a strict neutrality.  He even offered the Germans Lebanon and Syria to threaten the Suez Canal but to no avail.  He had the tiny Vichy airforce bomb Gibraltar to show Hitler he was an enemy of Britain.  He ordered French submarines to attack British ships in the Mediterranean Sea but most naval commanders found that their boats needed repairs as they studied the neutrality provisions Pétain had earlier signed. See Colin Smith, England’s Last War against France, 1940-1942 (2010).

His domestic policy was to undo the French Revolution which had germinated the Third Republic, creating the l’État français to replace le République française. The Marseillaise was supplanted by a paean to the Marshall himself.  The motto ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’ was overwritten by ‘Work, Family, and Country.’  Even the tricolore was changed to include on the centre white field a double-headed axe, the francisque, an antique Frankish device.  It was a culture war across the board from school rooms, town halls, and the pulpit. 

Bounties were offered to families to move from cities to the country, to have ever more children, the laws requiring basic schooling were relaxed in the countryside, the few taxes the Republic had dared levy on commercial property owned by the Catholic Church were eliminated, God and the Church were put back into the classroom as science was taken out, education was curtailed (especially for girls), books were denounced for making readers weak and confused, and so and on. Without German prompting decrees against Jews were nearly the first order of business in July 1940. To Pétain they were all foreigners anyway and not to be trusted as Dreyfus had shown.  

When Pétain, absorbed by his colossal ego, ‘made France the gift of himself,’ as he put it on the day, he was eighty-four but walked without a cane, climbed stairs, and was alert in meetings, though he tired easily. Nor was he senile, though that was often said later in his defence. And in office he continued his ceaseless intrigues.  

He had asserted that his new regime would replace the ever-changing circus of the Third Republic and bring harmony and stability. Ha! In fact his cabinet ministers and his prime ministers came and went even faster than had been the case during the Republic. Much of this was due to Pétain’s own manipulations, some was a reaction to external pressure – real or imagined, and other changes were due to his rivals who wished to turn him from the fountainhead of the new regime into its figurehead.  The politicking was constant, the more so since there was little of substance for anyone to do. There were thirty cabinet changes as ministers came and went in the few years of the Vichy regime.   

The book ends with a summation and evaluation of the man, the legend, and the regime.  Pétain was, when all is said and done, a vain and imperceptive man in way over his head and did not know it. His self-confidence remained undented and unbreached to the very end. In conclusion there is a lengthy and cogent bibliographic essay that reviews a vast literature.  It is a very impressive achievement in its own right.  

While the content of this book is excellent with extensive secondary research and plenty of primary material, too, and well written with judicious summaries and conclusions, it is difficult to read because of the morass of typographical errors that dot the pages like a smear on a computer screen. I have never encountered such a welter of mistakes in any of the other five-hundred Kindle books I have read and for that reason I list below examples, most of which were repeated many times in the book published by the estimable Routledge of London. The author has a long list of other titles from this publisher.  Ah hem.  

Pans = Paris

Hider = Hitler

make = take

Begun = Belgian

refined = defined

Gamelxn = Gamelin

batde = battle 

considtute = constitute

litde – little

Raynaud = Reynaud

setdement = settlement

parlie = Paris

apparendy = apparently 

drôte = drôle

explicidy = explicitly

modon = modern

diat = day 

tnat = that

associadon = association

Frangaise = Française

fluency = influence

tnarshal = marshal

oi = of 

ir = in

providentieJ = providentiel

recendy = recently

fruidess = fruitless

oudawed = outlawed 

oudlined = outlined

thoqgh = though

lie = he 

beers = been

tiling = thing

‘threatened to resign In the country several’ = ‘threatened to resign. In the country several’

gready = greatly

french bases = French bases

shordy = shortly

blundly – bluntly

reladonship = relationship

tins = this 

and the list goes on. 

Was the text was rendered digital by OCR software and thereafter not proof read or copy edited?  What other explanation could there be?  Yet without human intervention this Kindle title sold for $64.51!  That amount if $0.07 more than the paper cover. Though that is nothing compared to hardcover price of $286.40!    

There is an excellent krimi set in 1944 Vichy by J. Robert Janes, Flykiller (2002), part of the Kohler-St-Cyr series.  Janes has a laborious, cryptic style (think of the much lauded but nonetheless incomprehensible Hilary Mantel), but the setting is superbly realised.  It helps to know Kohler and St-Cyr, too, by starting at the beginning of the series.  This title and others by Janes are discussed on my blog. 

——

Herodotus, The Histories (440 BC).

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. 

A fragment of the text

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.    

Marathon

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.       

Xeres

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 Spartan snake column in Istanbul

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.’

Herodotus

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. 

Finland’s War of Choice: The Troubled Finnish-German Coalition in World War II (2011) by Henrik Lunde.

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. 

The Continuation War was to recover the lost territories in red above.

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.  

End of the Lapland War

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.   

Henrik Lunde

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.  

Castle to Castle (1957) by Louis-Ferdinand Céline

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

Genre: Autobiography.

Verdict:  ….ellipses…, indeed!

Louis-Ferdinand Céline

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.  

A page of his text shows the ellipsis.

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.  

Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea (2000) by Charles Seife.

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. 

Charles Seife

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.    

Clovenhoof (2012) by Heidi Goody and Iain Grant.

GoodReads meta-data is 374 pages, rated 3.92 by 2710 litizens. 

Genre: krimi.

Verdict: Whoosh!

It had to happen! McKinsey management has made it to the afterlife, and there, after a 360-degree review accompanied by all the mod clichés of corporate-speak, Satan’s performance has been found unsatisfactory. St Peter has mined the data on his computer tablet and there is no denying the optics of the spreadsheets: things in Hell are bad, but no thanks to Satan. Well, things are so bad many condemned souls cannot even get into Hell so long are the poorly managed entrance lines, but must abandon even that hope. Yet that is one of Satan’s core competencies.    

His KPIs are no longer scalable, indeed, they are no longer visible. No amount of thinking outside the box, colouring outside the lines, corporate values, empowerment, leverage, over the wall(ness), bench-marking, peeling the onion, breaking down the silos, pushing the envelope, increasing the bandwidth, paradigm shifting, data-driving, closing the loop, low-hanging fruit, return on investment, SWOTing, or reaching out can take Hell down to the next level.  When asked if his management of Hell represents best practice, well, what is Satan to say?  Who’s is better?  

After the usual collegial backbiting, some of it literal, Satan appeals this decision because St Peter is sending too many souls to Hell for parking in disabled zones, DVD copying, nose picking, unreturned library books, and the like. But the review committee to hear his appeal, packed with angels unlikely to be sympathetic with the Lord of Darkness, is implacable: Satan is being out-placed.  G-o-n-e.

He is condemned to live on earth as an earthling!  This is, indeed, for him a fate worse than death. Hell is certainly other people, vide Jean-Paul Sartre’s Huis Clos. 

And where is he sent as an alternative to Hell? Birmingham England that is where. A place, it seems, where there is no respect for evil incarnate, and it is forever cold and wet.  

There he adjusts slowly to the new circumstances, and seeks out Satanists to worship himself, but finds them useless poseurs who have never pitch-forked writhing souls into the Lake of Eternal Fire. He’s got nothing to learn from them. Then by chance he finds his métier in Heavy Metal music and for a time is a sin-sation.  But even that grows boring: shouting damnation at dunderheads who pay for the privilege is  fun and profitable but the amusement wanes.  That low boredom threshold may have been his problem in managing Hell.   

In an effort to fit in with his new neighbours Satan prepares a dinner party, like nothing anyone has ever had before.  (Did I mention that he had a part-time job – more of a hobby to remind him of the old days – at a mortuary?)  Then there was the flamethrower, he does like fire, for the crème brulée.  It did not end well.  

In time he discovers his dismissal was rigged in a management coup and finds unlikely allies (including Jeanne d’Arc) to put things back to rights, er, well, wrongs.  

It is a cackle and since there is a murder (followed by a resurrection) it is classified as a krimi above. Well, two of each to be technical. 

Heide Goody and Iain Grant.

When we were planning a trip to Birmingham I found a few novels set in Britain’s second largest city, this among them.  Though that trip was cancelled, by then I had the book sample on the Kindle and when I started reading it, there was no stopping.  It is the first title in a series and I have already finished the second which has more twists and turns than a dean at a budget meeting and started the third in which eternally young and bored Jeanne goes on an away mission.  In the fourth, yes I have read that one, too, we learn where work-weary demons go for a quiet life.  And I am now up to volume seven, ah hmm, eight.  

Charles XII and the Collapse of the Swedish Empire (1899) by Robert Bain.

Genre: Biography

GoodReads meta-data is 235 pages, rated 3.70 by 57 litizens.

Verdict: [Blank]

Charles XII in a Stockholm park

Charles XII of Sweden figured in the biography of Peter the Great I read before we travelled to Russia in 2016. That was the first time I had heard of him, but he seemed to be a snow and ice version of Alexander the Great.  From that hostile, secondhand view, as Peter’s nemesis, aside from Charles’s warrior prowess, what was remarkable was that Sweden remained stable while Charles constantly campaigned.  That stimulated me to find a biography.  I tried samples of The History of Charles XII, King of Sweden (1731) by Voltarie; Charles XII, King of Sweden (2012) by Carl G. Klingspor, and A Warrior Dynasty: The Rise and Decline of Sweden as a Military Superpower (2014) by Henrik Lunde. The scholarly one by Lunde has so much indigestible front matter about sources, acknowledgements, definitions, summaries that the sample ends just as the text begins. Voltaire’s pamphlet is a vehicle to excoriate the barbarian Peter the Great.  Klingspor is hagiography. That left Bain.  

Charles XII (1682-1718) was king of Sweden from age fifteen and made endless war  with Danes, Germans (the Hanseatic League, Saxony, Prussia, Hannover), Poles, Danes, and Russians singly or in alliances.  For the Hansa Stockholm was a backwater that had no business in Baltic commerce (timber, amber, felts and furs). For the Poles, and Poland was a power in this day, Sweden was the protector of hated Protestants and it was, accordingly, god’s work to destroy Swedes.  For the Danes, Sweden had once been a colony in all but name and should stay that. For Russia Sweden blocked access to the Baltic.  

Then there were the outsiders, Catholic France wanted to undermine Protestant Netherlands by weakening its Swedish protector, and Protestant England that wanted to undermine Catholic France by encouraging continental Protestants.  

Got it so far?

Two generations earlier Sweden had intervened in continental religious wars and earned the title of Protector of Protestants.  Sweden then was little more than a geographic expression, however, Swedes, though few in number, proved to be organised, thorough, and committed and so had military success. The artillery helped. Swedish armies were among the first and most proficient at combined arms operations where cavalry, artillery, and infantry co-operated and co-ordinated in attack or defence.  By the time Charles took the field this was old news. 

Once enmeshed in the geo-politics of the region, Sweden could not extricate itself and instead waded in deeper and deeper.  By age fifteen Charles conceived of a Swedish Empire that enveloped the Baltic and drove the hated Danes onto the peninsula shorn of a navy.  Sword in hand he set out to make it so – this became the Great Northern War (1700-1721) that in time drew in the Ukraine, Ottomans, Bulgars, Tatars, Hannover, Prussia, Danes, Saxony, Poland, Cossacks, Tatars, and more. 

When Charles took the throne the Swedish Empire was at its peak, encompassing all modern Sweden, a good chunk of the middle of Norway, all of Finland, the Karelia peninsula some of which is now in Russia, the Baltic islands, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and some of the Polish Baltic coast. There were also two overseas colonies in Delaware in America and in Benin in Africa.  It was a power of its day to rival the Netherlands and England, though not golden Spain nor vast France.  That is, it was a middle power. 

What followed in the reign of Charles XII was continuous war that led to defeat and by 1721 Sweden had shrunk to the borders it now has. He left Sweden spent, depleted, exhausted, and impoverished by his appetite for war with the hordes of Russia, the masses of Poland, the might of the Germans and Prussians, and he never seemed to know when to quit. When adversaries offered favourable peace terms, he spurned them. The comparison to Alexander the Great makes itself. 

Greater Sweden

One historian estimates that one fourth of all men between 20 and 40 years old during his tenure died in war. Nearly every man served in the army at one time, stripping the land of labor in the fields, orchards, ports, markets, tanneries, smiths, and so on.  By his death vast stretches of contemporary Sweden were ghost towns. If young(er) men are away at war for twenty years there are fewer young children.     

King Charles departed Stockholm in 1700 and never returned to that capital.  He spent the remaining twenty-one years of his life mainly with the army on campaign.  Yet with his absence for more than two decades back home Sweden remained stable and willing, if not always able, to supply his financial and human requirements for the army.  Despite his long, and costly absence from Stockholm, there was no usurper, no rebellion by the nobles at the war taxes, no deterioration in the civil administration for lack of funds, no palace coup, no secret deals with the Russians, Poles, or Germans to end the war.  Or so it seems.  That is what I found fascinating when I read about Charles in the biography of Peter the Great.  Regrettably Bain offers no explanation for this remarkable stability in the permanent crisis.  

If Peter the Great had spent twenty-one years away from Moscow there would have been a palace coup and/or an uprising by the nobles in the first six months. French kings seldom travelled further than Versailles, fearing that when absent the nobility would plot even more than it did when the king was present. Elizabeth in England had a secret service actively blocking internal threats to her seat. Alexander had secured his home base with a trusted emeritus general and a small but dedicated palace guard in Macedonia, but nothing like any of that seems to have been the case, or to have been necessary, in Stockholm.

While he was away, he was, in fact, not always with the army.  Here is a quirk of history.  After defeat at what proved to be the last major battle of the Northern War in central Russia, Charles found it impossible geographically to return to Sweden and so he went south on the reasoning that my enemy’s enemy is my friend. He found his way to the Ottoman Empire which sheltered him from the Russians for many years, while he always plotted a return to the battlefield and always urged the Ottomans to strike at Russia. He was there for years, and wore out his welcome.  

When he finally returned north he continued to make war on all comers, and whenever the Senate or Chancellor in Stockholm cried for peace, he sent a stern letter reminding them who was king, and they then dutifully complied to his latest demand for yet more money and yet more men. 

While he was polite in person he had a stubborn streak that had no bounds.  With no political sense he went at everything straight ahead.  Likewise his military tactics consisted of frontal assaults. There was no Napoleonic manoeuvring or artillery preparation. He usually plunged ahead so rapidly that artillery could not keep pace and in some campaigns he dispensed with it altogether. His wars were as destructive as Napoleon’s it is true but there is nothing constructive in his reign as there was in Napoleon’s: schools, laws, reforms, science, bridges, roads, weights and measures, tolerance….  

Charles was nearly as ascetic as any stylite, wearing one uniform until it was bloody rag and then changing to a new one, eating the soldier’s gruel, sleeping on the ground in a Russian winter, and so on. He was usually at the front in combat and that is where he was killed in a meaningless skirmish with Danes.  In these ways he led by example. But he had none of Napoleon’s charm in dealing with the rank and file. He remembered no names, handed out no medals, did not promote individuals for special contributions, offered no pensions, seldom even acknowledged the men as more than tin soldiers.  

In sum, it remains a mystery to me why Swedes put up with this self-destructive man who was willing to take the whole Swedish people with him to the grave.   

The Life and Works of Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (1924) by Louis-Ferdinand Céline

GoodReads meta-data is 110 pages, rated 3.96 by 324 litizens. 

Genre: Biography (sort of).

Verdict: Wash your hands and fasten your seatbelts.  

Ignaz Semmelweis

Hands up if you know Semmelweis (1818–1865)! He is the man who explained why we should wash our hands. His assiduous research into morbidly rates in maternity hospitals in Vienna led him to the conclusion that infections were transmitted by the hands of the doctors from one patient to another. From that finding he advocated hand washing and more hand washing.  On that subject more in a minute, but first a few words about the book.

The Life and Works of Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis was an eighty-page thesis submitted to meet the requirements of the medical degree Céline earned.  But there is nothing thesis-like about it. An indication of its tone and style hits the reader in the first lines: ‘Mirabeau howled so loudly that Versailles was frightened.  Not since the Fall of the Roman Empire had such a tempest come crashing down upon men…. ‘   This opening passage goes on the characterise the French Revolution as a carnival of blood.  Only three chapters later does Semmelweis appear, well, first his mother appears.   

To return to the story, for that hand-washing advocacy Semmelweis was shunned, ridiculed, demoted, demonised, exiled, and finally driven mad; in the latter state he took his own life by the very infection he had identified.  

Members of the obstetrics profession had long been resigned to high mortality in pregnant women, and accepted it. According to this upstart Semmelweis, doctors themselves caused these deaths!  Ridiculous! Moreover, hand washing was undignified! Hmmph!

The fact that women who gave birth at home, or even on the street, had lower death rates than those who gave birth in all modern-conveniences maternity hospitals was written off as false news.    

John Stuart Mill once opined that if the laws of geometry annoyed Republicans they would immediately declare them false.  (He may not have mentioned Republicans but I got the hint.)  Semmelweis’s intrusion upset a very elaborate and complacent medical establishment and the reaction was to shoot, stab, garrotte, strangle, quarter, and bludgeon the messenger. 

In Paris, Prague, Berlin, and London as well as Vienna the medical profession united against this tiresome interloper and his pages and pages of data.  In truth he was an easy man to reject, being rude and crude; he was quite unwilling to proceed by half-measures.  It was all or nothing for him with the result that it was nothing.  On more that one occasion he barged in the office of a hospital director and berated him about hand washing.  Likewise he burst into wards when doctors were doing the rounds and berated them in front of patients and students. The Austrian emperor at one point exiled him because of these disruptive antics.  

N.B. Semmelweis worked from aggregate data and there is nary a mention of a microscope observing little critters. That came later. What he had was a mass of data that showed a correlation between no hand washing and death.  Reason and evidence are feeble assailants of the fortress of conventional wisdom and it took forty years for Semmelweis to be vindicated, and countless thousands of maternal deaths that soap and water would have prevented.   

All of the above can be gleaned from the Wikipedia entry.  And it bears little resemblance to the book at hand by one of the most remarkable figures in French literature:  Louis Ferdinand Auguste Destouches (1894-1961) who used the nom de plume Céline. He was invalided out of the Army in 1915 with a wound at Ypres.  Later he took a job with the League of Nations in Francophone Africa where he travelled extensively.  Upon returning to France he trained as medical doctor and laboured in the working class districts of Paris where he was seldom paid.  At the time he was a rabid communist only later to because an equally rabid fascist (and energetic anti-Semite) during the war years.  He could be as rude and crude as Semmelweis.  

Dr Destouches

His most famous novel was Journey to the End of Night (1932) about his observations in Africa, followed by Death on Credit (1936) about working class life and death in the slums of Paris.  He wrote in the argot of the people he chronicled and not the stylised prose of the Academy and was thus reviled by the literary establishment for generations. These establishment gatekeepers are now gone and forgotten, while Céline is still in print.   

Declaration of interest:  One of the first reading assignments I had in graduate school concerned Semmelweis and his empirical data.  That is all I can remember but the name stuck because of the association with hand washing.    

The Silver Swan: In Search Doris Duke (2020) by Sallie Bingham.

GoodReads meta-data is 336 pages, rated 2.73 by 11 litizens.

Genre: Biography.

Verdict:  Not found. 

Declaration: I read only the Kindle sample.

We have been to Doris Duke’s (1912–1993) home — Shangri-la — three times, and found it interesting, impressive, intriguing, innovative, and more.  The accounts of the guides and the handouts tell visitors a little about the reclusive DD, but not very much.

When I went looking for more information after our last visit I came across a reference to this forthcoming title, so I signed on for the Kindle sample when it was published.  In due course it popped up on the screen.  

Well, the sample includes the first two chapters which I read to the end.  I am none the wiser about DD.  The chapters I read have neither rhyme nor reason but dart back and forth with the breathlessness of a confused thriller writer.  There is no orderly or organised examination of her origins, nature, nurture, growth, and….    

Even that soft touch, GoodReads, has some stingers about the ‘shambles’ the book is and the endless ‘fluff’ and ‘distractions’ that pad it out. Two chapters was more than enough for me to press Delete. 

This title was published by a very major New York City publisher from which fact draw your own conclusions, Reader. Bingham has published many short stories and other fiction.

Here’s what I already knew:  Mr Duke make money from cigarettes, so much that he founded the eponymous university, Doris was the only child and a fabulously rich heiress who built on Oahu a spectacular all-modern-conveniences house, which has an Arabic water garden and pavilion. She filled the house with  with Islamic decorative art.  During its construction in the 1930s the film Lost Horizons (based on James Hilton’s novel) was current and the builders nicknamed the building Shangri-la; she liked that. Tall, elegant, and rich, this is one of the places where she went for solitude, hiding from the predators. 

In addition to the buildings and the art work, there are also videos of its construction and some of her activities there.  She was a very serious collector and the property also houses an archive documenting and authenticating the collection.  She willed it all to the state of Hawaii to preserve and make public with an endowment of one billion dollars.    

There are entries on Wikipedia that offer a more general account of the Dukes.